City Council - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good evening, everyone. This is a special meeting of the city council. It is Monday, May 11. My name is Lance Davis presiding. I use he, him pronouns. This special meeting of the city council has been called by the mayor solely for the purpose of convening an executive session pursuant to Massachusetts general law chapter 30 a section section 21 a six. Let me get my glasses in here. Yep. To determine final proposals for the 90 Walk 90 Washington Street project.

Note note that pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2,025, this meeting of the city council may be conducted or is being conducted via remote participation. We will post an audio recording, audio video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City Of Somerville website and local cable access government channels. Matter of fact, would you please call the roll?

This is roll call. Councilor Ewencamping?

Here.

Councilor Link?

Here.

Councilor Scott?

Present.

Councilor Klingen?

Present.

Councilor Strezzo? Present. Councilor Saeed? Councilor Wheeler?

Here.

Councilor Hart? Here. Councilor McLaughlin?

Here.

Councilor Mbaugh? Councilor Davis?

Here.

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

Alright. Very good. Thank you. And let the record reflect that pursuant to the rules of the city council, this council salutes the flag of The United States Of America and remembers our oath to uphold the constitution of the Commonwealth and The United States. First item, madam clerk.

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

Alright. The do we have members of the public here? We have one attendee. So for anyone anyone watching now, or, tuning in, to the recording later, what we're gonna here's how this is gonna work. We're gonna go into executive session. Or, actually, are we gonna are we gonna talk about, are we gonna hear about the presentations, in open session in terms in terms of the going through the details first? Director of Nikki Williams, do you have that queued up, or is the intent to go directly in the executive session?

Good evening. Amanda Naja Williams, director of intergovernmental affairs. My understanding is we've seen a plan that demurrage that there will be a presentation, in the general session, before going into executive session. Is that correct? Through you, mister chair, to senior planner.

Through the chair, yes. That's correct. Okay. Then, madam Quick, could we take up item seven dot two first then?

Of course, mister president. We'll lay item 7.1 on the table, and the next item is item 7.2, a request of the mayor, requesting approval to endorse Wood Partners and North River Leerink Manager LLC as the two finalists in the 90 request for proposals process.

Okay. Brilliant. Thank you for that clarification. Sorry for being a a half step behind the logistics there on my end. So here's how it's gonna how it's gonna work. We're gonna hear a presentation at so just to to take a step back for folks who are watching this now or later, as as if you've been following along the the ongoing saga of a a patch of land that is desperate to be developed and despite its brilliant uses of snow farm for years on end, we have two proposals that that were submitted in response to an RFP that was put out by the city for development at nine at 90 Washington Street.

The

if we had had more proposals, the city council would be would would have received the recommendation from the the from the CAC, and we would be considering which of the two are the ones we want to forward to the SRA. The SRA owns the land, and ultimately, it will be their decision. This is some of our redevelopment authority. But because we only got two, we're gonna hear about those two, and then we will have the opportunity we will then go into executive session where the the council will have the opportunity to to have detailed conversations. Much of the conversations will impact the financing of that, so that's why we're having that in executive session, and we'll hear a more articulate a better articulation of that in a in a a little bit from our city attorney.

After that executive session, we will come back to public session, and that public session will be in this same Zoom link. So if you're if you're watching if if you're if you're watching live, keep this Zoom link op link open and keep the volume up. And when we come back, you'll hear you'll hear our voices. And and it it it we we may take votes after the executive session regarding this this property. So that's it. That will be an option that's available to the council. What am I missing? I think that I think that about sums it up. So first, any any questions from members on on the process on what I just laid out? Any anything I missed?

I just forgot about. No? Okay. Alright. So with that, I I I understand from the office of intergovernmental affairs that we're going to, hand over the the the presentation here to our our senior planner, Ben Demers, to to walk us through, give us sort of some details on these two conversations.

And to be clear, this was if if folks have been following closely, we heard from mister Demurs a few weeks ago, when these both of these presentations were submitted to the council. They've been available to the public, both through that submission and on the the web page. It's, you know, if you go to 90 Washington, it's on the city's the city's web page slash I think it's I think it's slash it might be slash 90. In any event, it's it's easy to find. I know because I found it, just earlier earlier today when I was looking for some details, that I had forgotten.

So and and the the community advisory committee has been having open public meetings and discussions on these as well. So there's been lots of transparent public discussion on this. It it it all relates to the same two proposals. So if you've been following that's all those along, we're talking about the same things here, but we're gonna get a we're gonna get a, you know, introduction to the two just in case anyone, you know, hasn't hasn't had the opportunity to to follow those pros those procedures in detail, and so all of our members can be clear on exactly what we have before us. So with that, seeing no objection, I will recognize mister Demers. Ben, if I I I think I got your title and everything right, but if if you would just officially, for the record, introduce yourself and take it away.

Through the president of the council, my name is Ben Demers. I'm a senior planner with the economic development division of the office of strategic planning and community development of the city. And I use he, him pronouns. Awesome. Okay. I'll jump into things. Let me first note really quickly the web page. So if anybody is interested, I'm going have this on the slide later, but it's summerbill.gov/90washington-redevelopment. So I do just want to off with a thank you to everyone for joining us this evening for this special session focused on the 90 Washington Street proposals. And I take a moment to share my screen.

And then I'm gonna take a moment to make everyone's face visible again. Okay. Can everyone see this? Great.

Yes.

I want to also take a moment just to introduce some other staff that are on the call this evening. So, in addition to the intergovernmental affairs staff, we also have Thomas Galligani, the executive director of OSBCD, as well as Rachel McCartney, the director of economic development. And I believe I also have seen Ted Fields, who is also a senior planner within the economic development division. So prior to this evening, we shared a memo that is summarizing where we are in the process for the 90 request for proposals. So the presentation this evening, it's gonna be about fifteen to twenty minutes.

I'm gonna review the material from that memo. I'll answer any general questions, and then I'll also share feedback that we've received up to this point from a few different bodies about these proposals. And then we'll take any additional feedback from the city council regarding the technical proposals. And when I say technical proposal this evening, I'm referring to qualitative portion of these proposals. So, the site program, the initiatives around diversity, equity and inclusion within development.

So, anything other than the financial components of the proposal that's been separated into the technical proposal. And then we also have the financial proposal. So this is, any financial offer for the land and the timing of those offers. And then after we have that presentation, there's the item related to executive session. So the intention is to have an executive session to discuss those financial proposals. Are there any questions up top before I get into the presentation?

Before we get to that, let me just matter of if you could reflect that councilor Boaz joined the meeting. Any questions for mister Demares before we go into the presentation?

And Yeah.

Oh. President Davis just they also That

is a councilor Saeed as well. Yes. Thank you. Alright. Very good. Any questions? No. Seeing no hands. Alright. Go ahead, mister Morris.

Okay. Sounds good. So as I mentioned, the redevelopment authority received two responses to the 90 Washington Street request for proposals or the RFP as we'll refer to it this evening. This RFP was put out in January and it closed April 10. So, about a month ago, the two proposals that we received are from wood partners and then North River manager LLC.

As I mentioned, each is split into the technical and financial component. And I want to also take a second to review some of the objectives that we articulated in the RFP. So a portion of this is to recoup a significant portion of funds paid for the taking of 90 Washington Street. We got more into more detail on this in the fall, but obviously, there was a significant amount paid for the eminent domain taking for the site. So there's a goal of recouping a portion of those funds.

There's then also a goal to create a combination of several new uses. So new housing, new commercial space, particularly ground floor retail space along Washington Street, especially thinking about replacing, some of the retail uses in the Cobble Hill Plaza, new community space, and then also, green space and that's both new green space, but also preservation of green space on the existing parcel. And then the final piece, which is a bit condensed here, but you can see in more detail in the RFP itself is to abide by various development principles. So this includes things like including mixed use building formats. Thinking about residential over ground floor retail, there really was a strong desire to see dense development given the proximity to the MBTA station nearby, as well as the creation of a robust urban tree canopy and natural landscape.

So those were the different objectives that we were thinking about and that we articulated in the RFP. So this is really what we're seeing. How do the proposals that we received in match up with these articulated goals? So, now that we have proposals, I want to lay out a bit of kind of the process that we are partway through. So the review process includes review by several different groups.

So, after we receive proposals on the tenth, that's when the window closed. We then had about a week for the city's real estate consultant for the project to review proposals and they, at the time, prepared an initial summary memo of the technical proposals. And they did a scoring of each based on a rubric within the RFP. They've then updated those proposals based on interviews. And so we have a final version of that memo that was attached to the material that was shared with council this evening. The ninety Washington street, civic advisory committee. This is a group

that, is made

up of various stakeholders within the neighborhood. You have residents, you have local business owners, local nonprofit leaders as well as several city councilors. So this group has also met throughout the life of this project and will continue to meet. And they've met several times over the past few weeks to review each of the technical proposals and to interview the two candidates. And they've then summarized this feedback in a memo that was also shared with the council for this evening.

And all this material is up as well on the project's webpage. And then I should note as well, it's not shown in this process, but staff have also been doing a review of these two proposals to understand high level. How do these proposals match up with any city standards that are maybe not articulated explicitly in the RFP, but which remain standards and goals of the city. So some of the summarized version of that feedback was also included for this evening. So now that the Civic Advisory Committee has given their feedback, we are currently at this May 11 meeting, of the city council.

And so the way that the process is designed is that the intention is with the two proposals that we currently have. If the council moves them forward, then we enter what is called the best and final offer period. So this is essentially a final negotiating period where with each of the these two teams. The way that the process was designed, if there were more proposals, they would be whittled down to two at this point. But because we only have two, these are the two that we intend to enter the best and final offer period with.

So we'll look for them to strengthen their proposals. And then once they have updated proposals, we will come back together in the July. The Civic Advisory Committee has requested kind of one more meeting where they're able to see the results of those updated proposals. So this is not yet scheduled. We were just discussing that with them in the past week, but you'll see an additional date added in early July for the CAC to review. And then the goal is that the redevelopment authority makes a selection between the two development teams or decides technically they can decide not to go with any of the teams prior to July 13. So this July 1 date will probably be pushed back slightly, but early July is really when the CAC and the SRA are gonna be looking at the updated proposals.

And, mister Timares, can I just jump in for a a quick kind of not clarification, but just to sort of put a finer point on on part of that? So as you noted, and I sort of alluded to earlier, you know, if we'd had more we'd had more proposals, then this process would have been the council refining the two that we that we recommend. My understanding from meeting and sitting down with the city attorney on this is that the the memorandum of understanding between the council and SRA is that we will that the council will submit two proposals. Given there's only two, there will be a vote later tonight. That is basically a formality.

We don't have any choice but to vote yes to to forward these two. So if and when you see that later, understand that sort of where it is. In the executive session, we'll have an opportunity to really dig into the finances and etcetera, and they're they're and the council may take another vote tonight to authorize our representative to, you know, to to share the details of that discussion with SRA for their consideration or not, but that's that's sort of the option. So because there's only two proposals, the the the council's role is is a little bit limited, but we we structured this with the intent to sort of at least give us an opportunity to provide some some feedback and some context if if the if the SRA carries to to hear it. Well, you know, we're happy to provide.

So that that's what we're intending to to provide here tonight with you know? And as I said, most of that conversation, because of the nature of of where we are with the finances, is is will happen in executive session, but I want folks to understand. Wanna be as transparent as I can given the nature that we we will we are effectively obligated to vote to push these to to move these two forward because it's the only two we've got. So thank you, mister Demers, for for indulging me there for a moment. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Thank you, mister president. One thing I do wanna note is so this is the calendar up until the selection is made between the development teams by the redevelopment authority. This is obviously not the end of the process. The way that this is structured is that after a selection is made, we intend to enter, let's say, four to five month negotiation period, which is also the period in which the selected development team would be allowed to more time for their due diligence period.

So things like additional environmental testing, etcetera. And the goal is for that period to end with execution of what we call a land development agreement. So essentially the more detailed agreement between the redevelopment authority and the selected development team about the details of the proposal and that needs to be approved by the city council. So I just want to make clear this is not the last touch point within the process for the council. There will be that future touch point.

That's just the only one on the slide. Okay, so I'm going to jump into walking through the two proposals. So, the first proposal that we received is from wood partners with PCA as their listed architect. This the program for this project consists of one building, which is seven stories. So you have ground floor retail uses and then five to six stories of residential above.

The total unit count for this project is three twenty four. It would be intended to follow the city's inclusionary zoning policy or the IZ policy, so 20% of those units would be set aside as income restricted, so that's about 65 units. This proposal also lists 15,000 square feet or just under 15,000 square feet of retail space. And you can see, and I'm gonna show this larger in a second, you can see some of the retail space in purple in their site plan. And then also a little bit under 15,000 square feet of amenity space.

And so you can see the amenity space here in red as well as 6,000 square feet of community space. And so exactly what that community space would be at this point is not detailed, but some sort of community facing. Proposal also includes a parking structure in the center around which the residential units are wrapped and this parking structure includes three ninety eight structured parking spaces. A few other things to note here, so this proposal adds an access drive. That kind of cuts through the block along the eastern edge of 90 Washington Street.

So you can see where my cursor is moving this cuts through from Washington Street to New Washington Street. And the intention here is that it allows for access to the parking structure as well as access to the Western portion of a Cobble Hill building called Building 84. And one of the notes that came up in the RFP process is we want to make sure we maintain fire and trash access to the western portion of that building. So that is part of the intention of the access drive here. So you can see those proposals in a little bit more detail.

This is a vantage on the left from the intersection of Washington And New Washington Streets. You can see also in the foreground here a 7,000 square foot civic space as well as a few spaces that are sort of raised plazas. And on the right, you can see from the site plan view, they also have kind of a raised plaza space as an amenity space with a pool and a deck. So that is the Wood Partners proposal. And then the second proposal that we received is from North River Leerink.

The full name in the proposal is North River Leerink Manager LLC. I'll shorten that to NRL or North River Leerink this evening. So they are on as the project lead with Handel as their architect and Escape as their landscape architect. To get into the site program, so they proposed three buildings, which range from six to 16 stories. The program of this site, the uses are similar to the other proposal, so it's residential with ground floor retail and art spaces.

The total unit count that they've listed is 426 with again, 20% of those set aside as income restricted. So around 85 units in their original proposal, they proposed up to 600 units. So, if you look at their original proposal, you'll see that language. Then in the interview they did with the Civic Advisory Committee, they added a little bit more detail and they refined the site program, and they came down from 600 to four twenty six. They also note 17,000 square feet of retail space, as well as an 8,000 square foot community space.

And several of these spaces in addition to fronting Washington Street or New Washington Street would also front this central green space, which is also a key element of their site plan. They proposed doing 200 parking spaces, which would be below ground, primarily located, it seems, although there's not a lot of detail on this particular piece, but, below this building along New Washington Street as well as potentially below the tower building at the corner. And again, you can see these proposals in a little bit more detail. It's if if you're really interested, they have several graphics, each of them that are not included here, which if you go into the proposals online, you can dig into. So you can see here a tower building and then a nine to 10 story building along Washington Street and then a building here along Washington.

And I'll note these buildings in the foreground are existing buildings at Cobble Hill. And then you can see the central green space here. So you can compare here the two programs. So Wood Partners, one building about seven stories, North River, three buildings, six to 16 stories. In terms of the number of residential units, you have three twenty four units in the Wood Partners proposal versus four twenty six with the North River Learing.

And so that's 65 income restricted units versus 86. You then have just under 15,000 square feet of retail space compared to about 17,000 square feet of retail, and then around just under 400 parking spaces for the Wood Partners proposal compared to 200 with the North River Laring. And one other piece that I should note here is that the Wood Partners proposal, it's difficult to see here, they discuss essentially giving what we call the tail portion, and I apologize to not have a better graphic of it on the slide. This is a portion of the parcel that continues along New Washington Street, and it's a fairly thin, somewhat difficult to develop parcel. So they essentially propose giving it back to the city at the end of the development period.

Okay, so I want to take some time to also dive into what we've been hearing in the review of these technical components of the proposals from the groups that we mentioned earlier. So, the city advisory committee and then city staff and. I'm going to start with the wood partners proposal going each going through each of those groups. So. In general highlights from the CAC review in terms of positives from the project.

So several members appreciated the access drive that the team proposes along the eastern edge of the site. They also appreciated the experience of the development team in Somerville. So, what partners is the team that built also revolution in assembly If anyone's familiar with that project, so they have an existing residential project in Somerville that is around this number of units. In terms of areas for improvement, and I'll also note in general, we have tried to structure this feedback as areas for improvement, because of the fact that we're looking to enter this negotiation period, and we really want to know kind of what should we be pushing on in the discussions with these teams. So I will note that most members express concerns with how large the single building feels on the parcel.

The word monolithic was repeated several times by members and they wanted to see more density on the site. So, even with one large building, they didn't feel like the number of units was achieving the density that they were hoping to see. Most members and several members of the public also expressed concern with the proposals high parking ratio. So, three ninety eight parking spaces for three twenty four residential units, and then about 15,000 square feet of retail and about 6,000 square feet of community space, especially given the site's adjacency to the MBTA station. Most members also noted that the proposal doesn't include significant new green space and that the 7,000 square foot space that they do propose at the intersection of Washington And Washington Streets isn't sufficient for gathering.

They were also concerned by the amount of space given to private amenities. And then several members also noted a lack of detail in the development teams retail strategy, and they wanted to better understand how the development team would prioritize smaller local businesses. So this was asked in the interview, but still a desire from members to hear more from the team about how they were going to be prioritizing those local and small businesses within the tenanting strategy. In terms of staff review of this proposal, so staff review largely mirrors what we heard from the civic advisory committee. So proposals, the proposal includes a very high number of parking spaces for the site's proximity to the station and the proposal would benefit from reducing the number of parking spaces.

So, this is definitely feedback that we would plan to give this team and it's already something that they started to hear and talk about at the, the interview with the Civic Advisory Committee. We also note that the proposal doesn't create significant new open space that is easily accessible to the public, and the development team might consider adding some additional public open space accessible from Washington or New Washington Streets, such as at the southwest edge of the site. So this is kind of the area here that currently shows a private amenity deck. And that the team might also consider consolidating some of the private amenity spaces top of the parking garage. If this is possible from a design standpoint, that would maybe create more room for public spaces.

So, currently, there's nothing shown on top of the parking garage beyond parking. And then the last phase here is that the development team in the interview, they referenced the desire to break up the facade of the building using these recesses from Washington Street. So you can see here how it kind of dips back. It's unclear if the goal of those recesses are also to fit more residential units. It might be, the most efficient design from a residential standpoint.

So looking for a little bit more detail on that, and definitely curious the feedback of the urban design commission, and thinking about how materiality might be a better way to kind of break up the facade of the building. So those are just a few things that came up in the staff review. From HRNA's review, I'll note that they note that the proposal is a strong executable proposal grounded in regional precedent and direct local execution capacity. So again, they're really looking at can the team deliver this based on what they have done previously and based on examples like alter evolution and other projects that they've done in the region. They believe they can.

However, they do similarly expect further iteration on the parking program, the ground floor activation and tenanting strategy. The massing transition along the Cobble Hill edge and the proximity of that edge to the Cobble Hill buildings. The overall site density, especially compared to the full capacity of a high rise district designation. And then also the public realm strategy. How are they going to create more, setting space and what exactly is the treatment of the tail parcel in the Southeast?

Okay, so moving on to North River Leerink. The CSC expressed a lot of appreciation for the greater density in this proposal. So, again, the start did 600. It came down to four twenty six, but still greater density in this proposal overall. And this was delivered across multiple buildings, which also helped kind of break up that density while allowing for a central green space, which a lot of people appreciated.

And in general, note that the CAC members strongly preferred this proposal. They are excited to see kind of what would come out of the best and final offer period, but there was based on the existing technical proposals, CAC members really appreciated this proposal. In terms of areas for improvement, so, like, mentioned, CAC members were disappointed that the number of units dropped and so they would hope to see how they can still allow for greater density on the site. Several members also had concerns that the central green space would feel privatized. So they hope to see improvements to either invite in pedestrians along Washington or new Washington streets.

And several members also wanted to better understand the development teams ground floor activation strategy. So there was some initial mention of potential large brochure units tenants like Trader Joe's, and so they were interested to hear how they might prioritize some local options for those spaces. In terms of the staff review for North River Lyric proposal. So, similar to the feedback, definitely concerned that that central green space. Would although it provides a large green space for the residents, it doesn't necessarily read as accessible to the public.

So, especially thinking about lines of vision and access points from Washington and New Washington Street. So things like widening the entrance to the space between the buildings and then also other design elements that would invite in the public might help counter this concern. One other point that came up for this proposal, so the development team, the North River team proposes using low income housing tax credits or LITEC to build the income restricted units for this project. Generally for large multifamily projects, they are required by Summerville's inclusionary zoning policy to set aside 20% of the units as income restricted. And so this proposal instead looks to and.

Sorry, and I'll note that those units are required to be spread throughout the project. In this case, they propose using funding in one building of the project. So this is the lowest rise building along near Washington Street, and concentrating the income restricted units there for financing purposes. So there's some concern here from staff a, because the units are generally meant to be spread throughout the project. These programs so lie tech requirements, and then the requirements of the city's inclusionary zoning policy, they have different requirements around how income levels are set for the units.

So there's some concern here just around implementation and kind of how this would be done from a zoning perspective because generally that set aside or that set aside is captured within zoning requirements. And then there's also some concern here. You know, the program is designed to cross subsidize these income restricted units with the market rate units at the project. And so if it's instead using an outside subsidy source, which is itself a finite source, is that the best way to be, creating these new units? So those are some of the concerns that were expressed by staff.

And this last point here is just around those units being consolidated in one building. So the proposal will be strengthened by spreading those units throughout the project as is the intention with the IZ policy. And then the last thing I'll note here is from. So they note the proposal reflects a thoughtful design vision and a clear public realm anchor in the central green. And they also note the sustainability was a central theme throughout the interview.

This came through very clearly in the presentation that the team gave. They did, however, note that the proposal is ambitious and several elements still require significant due diligence that raised some feasibility concerns. The chief among these concerns was the inclusion of subterranean parking, so underground parking at the site. There is a little precedent of underground parking for residential project of this size in Somerville. And so they are concerned That this may not be achievable and this will have implications for the site design if, later in the process, it's determined that this is not that underground parking is not achievable.

This is going to change the site plan fairly significantly. So some concerns around those implications. And then there's also some concern with the inclusion of light tech and breaking up the project into multiple buildings that. The phase building approach will kind of greater complicate the timeline of this project. And then I'll just note here kind of the scoring from HRNA.

So they have the score here for Wood Partners at 37 out of 45, and for North River Lariat at 29 out of 45. And a lot of this, again, is based around kind of the ease and feasibility of the entitlement strategy, as well as the experience of the development team in delivering very similar projects of this scale. I'm gonna pause there. Thank you all for listening to the presentation. I wanna see if there are any questions on the feedback that I summarized as well as any additional pieces of feedback or just questions about the proposals.

So, colleagues, for questions at this stage in open session, these should be limited to the as Mr. Muth has here, the technical elements. There is I can see how we very, very quickly are going to get into conversations that that that impact the the financial elements of all of these proposals. And so I I would really encourage you to hold the bulk of your discussion for the executive session because I think that that it's going to be very difficult to have conversations without without veering into into you know, over there across the line into things that absolutely relate to the the the numbers, the dollars, and and and and the value. And based on my conversation with the city attorney, that is something that we absolutely want to have in an executive session.

So I see four hands here. I trust you you're you're hearing me, and and we will keep these conversations specific to the technical elements. But let let's do that and and and keep them very narrow, and then we will have ample opportunity to have a more fully fleshed out discussion in executive session. So, counselor Strasso, you're first.

Thank you. This is a tactical element and policy comment about the last proposal of North River Leerink. I will go on record now, and I will go on record any step forward that to segregate the the lower income units is just that. It would be a segregation of some units over others. And that is very much a nefarious policy suggestion that I will denounce now and going forward. So for me, that's a nonstarter. That's all I'm saying.

Gaucios O'Kevin.

Thank you, mister president. I I may have just missed this. Forgive me. You you mentioned that there was a concern, the central green proposed for the North River. There was a concern that that would be a private amenity. Is that proposed as a private amenity, or is it unclear and there's just concern that it could be inaccessible?

You're the president to councilor Newenkampin. It's unclear on whether this would actually end up being kind of the the privately owned public space or even a publicly owned public space ultimately, or if it would be essentially a courtyard for the green. The intention definitely that it is publicly accessible. The concern is more, just from a design standpoint with the way that it is included in this site plan that it's not easily visible from Washington or New Washington Street and our public space center and forestry team really looks for those. How is the public going to be invited in? And so the the concern here is less from they haven't gotten into as much description around the ultimate ownership, but it's more from a design standpoint, not feeling like the public would be invited into this space. Okay. I'll

hold my further comment.

Councilor Link.

Thank you, mister president. Through you, just a couple quick comments that I that I I'm gonna keep very specific. So one is just in general, I'll obviously, as I'm sure many of my colleagues would agree, there's I I like seeing less parking. I have to agree with my good colleague for at large, councilor Schozzo, that having the the buildings separated is is not a good idea. I don't and beyond the the equity issues, there's just we've we've seen time and time again.

What happens is that it's it's the last building to get built, and maybe it doesn't even get built like we've seen so far in USQ. So, you know, I've got a lot of reservations there. And then, obviously, personally, I would love to, you know, see the more height and more burn just in general for the the 80 Capitol Hill residents not to lose all their their beautiful trees and for us to maybe shift some of that over.

Okay. Councilor Hart?

Thank you. I have a a question about just because I'm not familiar with how these things happen, what the big risk of or uncertainty of not knowing if the underground parking would be feasible at this site. What is the timeline of them being able to figure that out if it would be feasible?

As a president to councilor Hart, the intention is that they would be able to work out some of these feasibility concerns during the due diligence period. So, again, the way that it's structured is that the redevelopment authority mid July is selecting a development team based on the proposals. And then in the four to five months following that selection, there is going to be a negotiation around more details of the site. And then, also, they will be doing their due diligence work in that time period. So especially getting them to things like soil samples, etcetera, that will have financial implications for whether they could do underground parking.

So it would be, if I may, president Davis, just to clarify, so it would be after the potential selection of them, not before?

Through the president to councilor Hart. Yes. It would be prior to the execution of what we call a land development agreement. And when that land development agreement is executed between the development team and the redevelopment authority, that's really what kind of locks in the the proposal. In this case, we are selecting the development team in July to really go into that more concentrated negotiation. But, yes, it is after a development team is selected from these two.

Thank you.

Councilor Wheeler?

Thank you, mister president, and, and thank you, senior planner Demersome. I am a counselor, and I'm serving on the SRA board and on the ninety Washington CAC board. So I'm gonna try to keep the hat straight that I'm that I'm wearing here. And, first of all, appreciate, senior planner DeMers. I I think through this whole process, you've done a really wonderful job of trying to capture everyone's voices and articulate a synthesis while not excluding even, you know, sort of minority opinions.

And I think you presented the the thoughts of these bodies very well. And, really, I just wanted to say some things to underline some of the things you said, and some of the things my colleagues have said, about the Wood Partners Building, just to give a tiny bit more context on the parking. When the, the CAC asked about the, the parking setup, one of the things the team said was that their, their engineering design approach is to use a precast concrete, parking structure, which really is is pretty set in its dimensions, at least in its footprint. And they said they they could add or subtract levels of parking there, but it would be it would be hard to make the footprint smaller with that sort of general approach. Also, I'll just note something that came up in, these discussions was that the the Wood Partners, team, which has extensive experience as senior plaintiff jurors mentioned, with building tons of buildings of sort of about this scale around the country, including in Somerville, It doesn't seem that they have experience with, high rise structures, you know, that goes sort of beyond that primarily wood based, you know, cap out at kind of seven or eight stories level.

And so, the CAC was, really asking about possibilities for more housing with, change in the Wood Partners, approach. I'm still hopeful that we might see that, but I I just want to highlight that in a lot of ways, height wise, they may be sort of reaching a a cap with their approach. It does bring up the question of what if there were a no parking or a radically reduced parking approach? That's something that I'll say has some financial implications. Maybe that will be discussed in executive session.

To just move on quickly, I promise to the North North River Leerink proposal like the CAC and the SRA. That is my preferred one of these two. And, again, there are some points that have been raised that are it's not without its problems. I'll just repeat what others have said in appreciation to my colleagues' focus on really the the segregation of affordable housing into one building being something really out of step with the vision that we wanna see with development in Somerville. The questions around the feasibility of underground parking, and I appreciate, councilor Hart sort of asking, you know, will we already be committed to this and then learn that the parking will have to be above ground anyway?

And that, again, brings up this question of, is there an approach here that could work with no parking or radically reduced parking? And, you know, I I'm not somebody who is deeply anti car. Know, I I understand that many people need cars, in in different places. If there's ever anywhere where feasibly speaking, it makes sense to have people, come and and wanna live who are gonna move in and not need cars and be expecting not to have a car, it's here. It's right next to the green line.

It's a ten minute walk to the orange line. It's on bus routes. You know, if that direction for the city means anything, I really feel like we we need to push as much as we can here for as little parking as possible. And I'll just finally note, I would love to see many people would love to see, more stories in that tower in the North River Leerink proposal. I know taller engineering is not just a linear thing. You have to start building with more strong steel, and and the engineering gets more expensive. But I think it might be worth it for the housing. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for those questions. I see, councilor Syed.

Through you, mister president. Yeah. I also wanna say for the record that in the, in the North River Leerink LLC, proposal, I am, yeah, very much not in support of having all the affordable units in one building. And, yes, I agree with my colleagues. And, also, I'm looking forward to our conversation executive session about, like, parking because it is next to the MBTA, and how can we build as little parking as possible.

And then the only thing I wondered about always about these projects and because here we have two proposals, two big, you know, projects. Yeah. Maybe this is dumb question, but I will ask it. Why do we not have in these big projects? They have some in my ward. Playgrounds. Are playgrounds only on city property?

Yeah. To

to Teresa, could could talk to the whether that was considered as a factor in the RFP. I mean, that that is the kind of thing that we I'm thinking of the markup project up in. Think we've we have done that sort of thing before, but that was, like, a different different process.

Yeah. To the to the pres to the president to the councilor. So I I guess I do wanna know, councilor Wheeler, I know you raised your hand. Was it to respond to that comment, or it's a separate comment?

Yes. I just wanted to mention, a few blocks away, there is the Florence Playground, a small playground. Not to say that that's enough, but I thought that's just worth mention.

Thank you. I'm gonna give some answer, then I may ask, senior planner Fields if there's any context in terms of the conversations around civic space that occurred throughout the CAC process. But in general, we have positioned the entire parcel for redevelopment and the. We know based on the conversations at the Civic Advisory Committee, the types of civic space that people have been hoping to see to some extent, in this neighborhood. Part of the thought is also that the development teams that are responding would kind of do additional research on what are the types of civic spaces that are needed in the neighborhood, and then would include that type of detail in their proposal.

I'm not aware of playgrounds specifically coming up, within the conversations with the Civic Advisory Committee, but I'm curious, Ted, if that came up at all in conversations.

Thanks, Ben. Through you, mister president, to councilor Syed. The Citizens Advisory Committee for 90 Washington Street was convened in 2023. We've had substantial discussions about all aspects of redevelopment of 90 Washington Street since that time. We've talked about open space, public space in general.

We have not, specifically, mentioned playgrounds very much. I think there was one or two passing, comments about including playgrounds as part of other elements in, public open space on the site.

And I, councilor Seyed, I will just note in general, the RFP doesn't get into detail really about any type of civic space, so it kind of allows the development teams to propose particular kinds of of space. And I will say there's the specific type of civic space that would end up on the parcel is definitely something that we would imagine through the negotiation kind of the ongoing negotiation process. It was determined that a playground was the best kind of civic space to have there. That's really what feels like it's lacking in the neighborhood. That's something we would still have the chance in the negotiation to make sure it is included.

Through through you, mister president. Thank you. Thank you for that response. So it sounds like it is an option. It's always an option in big projects like this to have proposed a playground and have a playground. It's not just on city property. Like, that, for me, was important to know that piece of information. And yeah. So, yeah, again, I'm only mentioning this because that are here constructions like that in World five where having a playground on-site when we have, like, so many units, like, in the center. You know, it's not just, like, about the kids playing.

It's a place where people gather. Big, basically, community. And I'm also I grew up in a place, where, you know, projects like that are very common, and they're all 100% affordable. And, usually, there's always a park, a playground, a dog park. It's just yeah. These are things that folks use a lot in a Cree's community. So, again, I understand if this is not, you know, priority for this specific project, but I encourage, you know, the city to always think about including it where where it's needed.

Thank you, councilor. If the council would indulge, I'll I'll speak from the chair of the moment since it's harder to step down from the chair when we're remote here. Whether or not a playground ends up in in the final project, I'll I'll throw out there for something to think about that might be one way to solve that. Get people make it clear to people that this is a public space. It could be an opportunity to engage people in that public space so it's not seen as sort of a a a privatized space and I think there's a little gateway element.

Just a thought the, the the secret planner brain that's latent in my, existence somewhere creeping through. And I apologize for every time that happens. You guys all know best, but just a thought. Thank you for phrasing that council site. Councilor Bob.

Thank you, president Davis. I guess, first, I agree with what all my colleagues have said, especially that which came from the test of John Link. But I guess, what is the land value? Like, what are they each offering? Like

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

Oh, okay.

Okay. So let's let's hold those questions for that. Anything on the on the technical elements? Or you if

Yeah. I mean, the beside the fact that I've spoken to a few different people from that CAC and and they, you know, they are very much, you know, in support of North the North I've forgotten the name. Like, not the not the woods project, but the other one. Mhmm.

The North River Leerink.

Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, mister president.

Okay. Councilor McAfee?

Thank you, mister president. I have a lot of thoughts to share and then a couple questions. One, it seems like there's a lot of consensus around option two over option one. I haven't heard anybody speak in favor of option one. I'm also prefer option two not only because it gives us a lot of benefits for the community, but it's less intrusive on the Cobble Hill seniors.

I see that the berm is all but gone in option one, whereas option two, it's at least partially preserved, and there's a green space option. So that's just something to put out right away as it seems like there's one proposal that looks better than the other. And I would prefer as well. I know some people's talk about this high rise. I think the buildings could go even taller than they are to save space.

I wanna preserve as much of the berm as possible. Underground parking, I'm gonna use my crystal ball and guess that the land is contaminated and that the underground parking is gonna be very difficult, and it's already expensive. Underground parking is always expensive. If there's land contamination, it's expensive slash impossible. So that kind of puts a damper on some of the conversations we're having.

And it's just a concern I wanna say upfront because I think that we're gonna go down the road and find out that we knew exactly what we thought to begin with. Playground, I think that's a great idea as well. I do wanna also make sure there's a lot of benches for seniors, because the 90 Washington Street is majority seniors, and we've been talking about giving them more open space. I let's see. Oh, affordable housing.

I I've always preferred having it mixed residential. I do wanna flag to people. I could imagine the issue with this is cost. So not only if we have it mixed income and didn't have it, segregated, which is a term someone used, that would probably drive up the cost and reduce the amount of affordable units. So possibly, reduce it to the bare minimum affordable units possible.

And it would also inter potentially interrupt, the the, tax programming, the the LICRA that would, LITEC, funding that would potentially make this affordable housing. So that's just something to put out there that there is a trade off for these things, and I would like to see if we're building affordable housing, the most affordable housing as possible. That will also impact the cost of return that we get, which we're not talking about now, but that's obvious to people that if we're building affordable housing, it's less money for the city, which we can discuss at a later time. I just wanna put all these thoughts out there to say that I do prefer option two. I do have a lot of questions about its feasibility.

Real quickly, did we discuss any storefronts in option two? I I missed that part.

Mister Demers?

Through the president, council McLaughlin. Just give me one second to get their site plan up. But, yes, they have about 17,000 square feet in the North River Learing proposal of, Ground Floor result.

Okay. Thank you. And there's an issue with the 90 with the Cobble Hill Plaza around, the parking spaces and the trash. Could just for the audience, could you explain how, that problem is being resolved with either project? The issue is that, this trash collection behind the building that might be interrupted if we, use the land to the fullest possibility.

To the president's council McLaughlin, just give me one second to share my screen again. Okay, so quickly here showing the site plan, which you can see the retail spaces primarily along Washington Street here, well as the corner of Washington And New Washington. And then to get into the detail around the access drive to Building 84, did it is did I understand correctly you were looking for more of a description on

that? Yes.

I did.

Okay. So it's difficult because I don't have an existing condition slide here, but, currently, the this building here, which you can see in the North River Lering proposal, this building is what is called Building 84. Sorry, there's a bit of an echo. It's called Building 84 Of Cobble Hill Residences and the trash collection for this building occurs on the western side of the building based on the location of the shoots within the building. And then also, we've discussed throughout, there's a strong preference of the fire department to maintain access to the western portion of this building for fire trucks.

So currently they would be able to access from the central green. I'm actually going to take a second to show what the existing site conditions look like on Google Maps.

Vince, are you unmuted?

Thank you, Rachel. You can see here 90 Washington Street. It's you can't see the divide here with Cobble Hill, but you can see, the way that you get to the western portion of this building here. So this is Building 84, and the lot line is around here. The way you get to the western portion of this building now, you come to the entrance of Cobble Hill.

We kinda come through their central roundabout and then you're able to come over to the western portion of the building. And so that is beneficial for trash and fire access. The site line here, the dividing line between the parcels, it runs kind of east of the parking lot. And then it actually runs east of the access drive, it's west of the building. But 90 Washington Street includes this access drive.

And so one of the priorities that is articulated within the RFP is making sure that we maintain access to the western portion of the building. This access drive is not kind of used like, you're not developing right up to the edge of the green space here because that would take away access to the western edge of the building.

Okay. And that's option two. Correct?

I'm gonna pull the proposals back up, but both proposals currently are showing Both proposals appear to currently be showing the. Sorry, one second. Access drives along the eastern edge, It's more explicitly called out within the Wood Partners proposal, and it appears to be a bit wider. But the updated site plans from North River Lering do also appear to include an access drive along the eastern edge.

And you and I, mister Mers, you you said that was a requirement of the RFP. Right?

Correct. We we don't require how exactly they will maintain access. So both of these proposals are showing access drives that essentially cut from Washington to New Washington Street. It essentially creates, a new alley or road down the eastern edge of 90 Washington Street between the two parcels. We didn't specify in detail what that needed to look like, but both have proposed something that looks fairly similar. It's just a little bit difficult to tell the width in the North River there in proposal, or exactly kind of the intention, but it appears to have a similar intention.

Alright. Casa, back to you.

Thank you. Just final question. So we we have one project or one proposal that I haven't really heard any, positive vibes towards, and then one that does general positive vibes with some serious concerns. So my question would be, what is the advantage of moving both of these to the redevelopment authority, when there are still so many questions remaining?

Well, Scott McGoughlin, I can speak to that as I mentioned earlier, and and we have a city attorney Amara on on the call here. So attorney Amara, please please correct me if I've if I've gotten any of this wrong from our our sit down conversation this week, but and and just sort of reviewing the the memorandum of understanding. Effectively, the the council is effectively obligated under the terms of that MOU to to advance two proposals. We only have two, so we we kinda don't have a choice. So that's a bit of a formality.

The idea here was to enable a conversation like this and then, you know, perhaps a more detailed conversation specific to financial elements in executive session, which we could then if we if the if the council chooses, we could then authorize our representative on the SRA, council Wheeler, to to share with the SRA in in that discussion. So to specifically to your question, it it it's because we agreed we would we would send two along when we when we when we agreed to the MOU a while back.

And I do understand that, but we well, we have two proposals before us. Why can't we, as the council, send those two back for redesign before we sent it to the redevelopment authority? And then we can submit two that two that we actually want. Like, we're gonna send one forward that There's really no consensus on at all. And then a second that, this concerns about.

Yeah. So so, again, my my understanding, of the the contractual obligation, and I'll I'll defer to the city attorney to to to back me up or or correct me here, is that we said we would send two. There are only two, so we have to send those two. That will be a that will be a sort of a a, you know, pro form a vote because we don't have any choice there. I would imagine the SRA probably won't put a lot of weight in that because there's clearly was no thought or or value added to that because we didn't have a choice.

Where there will be more more value is in council Wheeler being able to convey well, first of this conversation and the council Wheeler being able to convey if if we vote to authorize it to do so to convey discussion that happened and is that happens at executive session once we get to that point. Attorney Amar, I I know you're here. If I if I evade that accurately, am I a step out a software?

Mister chair, before that, I guess, would it just make sense to discuss an executive session if it is a legal issue?

Well, I I guess I'll defer to attorney Amar on that one too. Attorney Amar, you have the floor.

No. I I think we can have this conversation right here. The language as drafted requires that two proposals be put forward. And because we only have two proposals, two proposals have to be put forward. I believe that originally, when the memo was drafted, there was an expectancy that there would be more than two, so you would be able to pick the top two in your mind to put forward.

However, I I will also say you've only heard the technical sides of the proposals at this point. In executive session, we'll talk about the financials and then how they work together. And you will still have an opportunity even though you have to put these two proposals forward to either recommend that they go with them or not or whatever your beliefs are on the two proposals. But I believe Rachel wants to speak substantively to this.

Well and attorney Mara, if I if I may, on that recommendation, because this is something that you and I went back. It it took a little bit for for for me to understand the the concept here. So so let let me let me make sure that that I've still got it and and for the for the benefit of my colleagues. To the extent that there is any any recommendation and and, obviously, you know, this discussion as it's appropriate in in in a mean you know, the SRA can can review this and take from it what they will. To the extent that there are any additional thoughts or or or or, you know, preferences expressed in executive session, my understanding from you is that that one option that the council has will be to when we come back to to to open session, to authorize our representative on the SRA, council Wheeler, to share the details of that executive session.

Because because the nature of the executive session is that it's, you know, it's it's it's confidential information that that impacts the city's negotiations, and we and therefore, in that case, the city council can choose to effectively waive that in a narrow scenario, which would be council Wheeler sharing it with the SRA so that they have that context if they want it. Right? Do I have that correct? So when you when you say we we have an opportunity to make a recommendation to share information, it would be through that through that mechanism. Right? Council us authorizing council Wheeler to share all of the discussions both in public and public open session and executive session. Do I have that correct?

Correct. And and my understanding is it would also be in an executive session to preserve the executive nature of what you're conveying.

That that conversation in the SRA In the SRA. The executive session at the SRA. Yes. Say, thank you for that. Yes. Exactly that. I I left out that detail. Okay. Councilor McLaughlin, does that address your question?

For now. Yes. For now. Okay.

Very well. Thank you. Director, there anything else that you wanted to add to that? I know you had it's in your hand up.

To me, mister chair, the comment I was gonna make is just that thinking back to our predecessors who designed this the the way we are approaching this, having to move forward to this final negotiating period is is by design so that you have to weigh against each other and to be able to push those two. And that's, I think, why the design going back several years now was advanced to play them off, see what comes of it, push them to the best place that they can on the financials and on the technical, and then proceed with them.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. All set, councilor McLaughlin? Take silence as a yes going once, going twice.

There was a thumbs up.

Thumbs up. So I see a thumbs up.

Thumbs up because I didn't Very

good. No worries. Alright. So councilor Scott, and then we'll go to councilor Quinn.

Thank you, mister chair. I I just wanna follow-up. Maybe this is an adjacent question to what was just asked there, but we have a straightforward vote, I understand, to forward two proposals. Was there also did I hear you say also that there is a a potential for the city council to vote to endorse, or to support one particular proposal?

So no. And that's the exact question I asked to the to the city attorney on whatever day that was. Sydney? K. Wednesday. Maybe Tuesday, was it? What's today? Monday? So it's probably Friday, maybe. I don't know when it was.

Anyway, at some point last week, I was sitting up in city hall, and we had this conversation. I asked that exact question. So because of the nature of sort of of of where we are, the the the the idea would be that, you know, obviously, this open this conversation open and meeting the SRI can can can watch it and review it. But, you know, council Wheeler certainly can can pass along the the the the thoughts that were expressed. And the council, when after executive session, this body may also choose, if if if we choose to do so, to authorize council Wheeler to share the conversation from executive session with the SRA in executive session.

Right? So so it's not a vote that we we there wouldn't be a vote on one or the other proposals. That that we don't have that authority. That's not baked into the MOU. We're we're we're the formal vote in that context is to send them both along and let the SRI choose. We can, however, if we if we choose to do so, authorize council Wheeler to share our opinions, such as they are. So the SRA has that context when weighing the the the relative merits of of the two, the two proposals. Does that does that make sense?

Certainly, sir. Certainly. So, I guess, let me just say I really appreciate the thoughts of my colleagues, and I wanted to, just express how grateful I am.

Actually, sorry. Counselor Scott, before you go, I just I I see, attorney Amara has her hand raised, and I wanna make sure if I screwed up anything there that I give her the quick opportunity to correct me.

No. You've done a great job. I just wanted to clarify that you you do have to pass two on because there are only two. But in the course of executive session, if you come to a consensus that you feel a particular way, either about a a specific part of a proposal or about a proposal, you can authorize that that opinion be conveyed. I just want to clarify in case there was some

By by councilor Wheeler in that future executive session of the SRA. Yep. Okay. Thank you, Kathy attorney Amar. Councilor Scott, appreciate that. Back to you.

Sure. I I guess I just wanna appreciate my my colleague's questions and priorities here and also express some gratitude that we live in a place where there is a seemingly unanimous understanding that transit oriented development, transit adjacent development needs to make the most of the hype, and doesn't seem to be any concern or fear around that. So I think that's a a positive thing. I I guess I just wanna speak to this in the, context of, you know, the proposals have already been put out there, and I think there's, room for improvement, obviously, in both of them. I do want to speak to North River as a developer who has done work in Ward 2, that I've had to do a lot of neighborhood meetings around, a lot of,

a

lot of, let's say, coordination. And, you know, I found them to be generally very creative and collaborative parks down here. So I know the city has worked closely with them throughout the course of their 28 Chesnutt project, and and has worked with them before. I think when we're looking at these proposals and look at the ways in which we hope they can be improved, whether they're both in the program side or the or the financial side. I think one problem that any proposal is going to have is that they're coming at it from, a perspective of what they can deliver, independent.

And quite frankly, I feel like we have, the opportunity as a city, to deliver stronger projects and stronger benefits, from a more collaborative approach. So when it comes to what the final scope of this thing is, I could certainly say I'm, you know, disappointed in the, the my you know, the above ground parking is, to me, a total full stop. And I understand the concern about underground parking. But I also know that, you know, of the of the folks that are eligible for street parking permits in the in The US Two tower, there's 90 of those units that are eligible for street parking permits, and only nine people went out to get them. So the actual utilization of parking in this kind of transit oriented development is extremely low.

I think there's room to, to meet to meet that higher standard of development goals that I think a lot of us share through creative partnership. And I'm sure there'll be more discussion of that when we get into executive session. But I would just say in terms of people capping the whether it's the height or the extent or feeling constrained in their initial proposals, I actually have a lot of hope that this can be a process with the city and whoever the final final bidder is on this to to deliver, I'd say, a substantially improved version from what's been in initially either one of these proposals. So I I share the same concerns and priorities expressed earlier tonight. I think my colleagues have said it quite well, so I don't need to say it again.

But I I appreciate it, miss miss president. All set.

Alright. Thank you, councilor Cohen.

Mister president, if I may, interrupt, I have to step out. Yes. This is councilor Schozzo. I have to step out. So I may I but I will come right back into this.

Okay. If if when you come back, we're not here, you have the other length of the executive session. If we're in executive session, you can join that, and we'll recognize you in that when you come in. So just, you know, note that we might be at that other link when you come back. We want we wanna have your your voice

then too.

Okay. Very well. Thank you. Councilor Clayton.

Thank you, mister president. Through you. So just a quick question around the parking, the outside parking, the, you know, the non underground. Did any questions come up to the development team, though? And and it sounds like I think the answer was it sounds like because it's precast, that's why they have, like, a higher number because in order to get to their one per unit, they probably it's like a whole another floor. So is that why they have the more, or did they plan on, like, renting out spots to, you know or or something for people to back up at all?

Through the president to councilor. Again, I'm seeing councilor Willis Hands, probably has more detail to add on this. They did not get into any detail on whether they would intend to rent out some of those parking spaces. It does seem that the way that it was structured is they used this precast parking structure, and then they built that parking structure up to the height of the building. So counselor Wheeler talked a bit about this, you know, when some initial concerns were brought up in the interview from the civic advisory committee about how high the number of parking spaces was. That's why they went to the idea of kind of taking floors off of the top essentially to keep that same structure. So that was I think the idea is truly that they took a precast parking structure, brought it up to the height of the building. Councilor Wheeler, is there anything you wanna add in terms of detail?

Thank you,

councilor Wheeler. On that. So we're gonna we're gonna we're we're gonna keep going to the president here, but Oh, sorry.

I apologize. No.

That's okay. That's okay. Just for the formality.

Through the chair.

Through the chair. Thank you. Through the chair. And, and with thanks to senior planner Demers. Will you help remind me, senior planner. Am I remembering correctly that the Wood Partners folks mentioned that if there were to be retail or, you know, a smaller supermarket on-site, that they also envisioned a possible use of some of the parking for people who are coming in and, you know, buying things or going to the shops.

Through the president to councilor Wheeler, yes. I can't remember the detail to which they spoke about this, but in general, the it's anticipated that if there are commercial or retail or community uses, there are certain number of parking spaces within the parking garage, within the overall count of view of parking spaces allowed that they would anticipate using for those other nonresidential uses.

Thanks.

Okay. Alright. That's just so, I mean, like many of you, I I you know, just out of the gate, I I share a a preference for the North River project. But I also agree and understand that it's smart to kinda play them off each other. There's still a period of time.

You know, I I hear the potential desire to make, like, a whatever, unofficial recommendation. But I I do think we should, you know, go on executive session here. We have to hear and, you know, kinda just play the process out. Alright. So I won't keep us from that any any longer except to say since we're all making sort of statements about our, you know, values, I heard, you know, whether it be the the the the breakdown of the affordable versus not affordable.

I just wanna say that, you know, fully understanding the cost constraints and the serious how how, tight these margins are gonna be, I wanna say that I wanna go on record and say that I would like to see this be built as much union as possible. That may not be a case where it's a 100%. At the very least, similar to February, I would say that I would at least like to see contractors that share our community values and don't have bad track records of any type of wage theft or an unfair labor practices. So, again, that's just because we we're just for we're just discussing these two things today and see and, you know, looking them over. I just wanna go back and say in that.

Definitely wanna make sure that whoever we choose is in line with our our values, and

that

means safe, fair labor practices. That's all. Thank you. You're muted, mister president.

Sorry. Just testing if you all could read my lips. Thank you, captain Klingen. So seeing no further discussion item on this no further discussion on this item at the moment, we'll lay it on the table, and we will take up off the table item seven dot one. And, attorney Amara, can you speak to, can you just confirm that this item is appropriate for executive session?

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

I think that that that is that that is our view. As we've made clear in our discussion, we we wanna have discussion of the end discussion about the the financial elements in executive session pursuant to the to the executive session, the statute that authorizes executive session. So with that, madam clerk, would you please call the roll to go into executive session?

On the motion. Counselor, you in Kempen?

Yes.

Councilor Link?

Yes.

Councilor Scott?

Yes.

Councilor Klingon?

Yes.

Councilor Strezo? Councilor Saeed? Yes. Councilor Wheeler? Yes. Councilor Hart? Yes. Councilor McLaughlin? Yes. Councilor Mbaugh?

Councilor Mbaugh?

Present.

Shall I call that a yes?

Yes.

Great. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

With 10 councillors in favor, none opposed, and one absent,

the motion is approved, and

this council will enter executive session.

All right. Very good. Thank you. We will go into executive session. We will return to open session following executive session. So that will be in this same Zoom link. So if you're if you're here in the public, stay here. That's probably about the best I can do if you've joined. Madam Doug, I guess, can we can we in in the note that goes on the screen, can we indicate that that the the council will return to public session or something like that just in case folks tune in and wonder what the heck is going on?

Mister president, we always do. Thank you.

Brilliant. I I always I always worry about that that stuff. So and if any if any of the members don't have the link to executive set to the executive session, it should have been sent out today. Look in your your clutter folder because that's where I found the one that that that was sent to me or perhaps spam or etcetera. And if if you can't find it, perhaps text madam clerk and and and and we'll get it to you somehow.

Alright, folks. So we will be back. I promise. Stay tuned. Alright, madam clerk.

Looks like we've got everyone.

Well,

we can find out with a roll call.

Let's let's do exactly that.

This is roll call to establish quorum. Counselor Ewing Kampen?

Here.

Counselor Link?

Here.

Counselor Scott?

Present.

Counselor Klingen?

Present.

Counselor Strazo? Present. Counselor Saeed? Here. Counselor Wheeler?

Here.

Councilor Hart? Here. Councilor McLaughlin? Councilor McLaughlin? Here. Councilor Mbaugh?

Aye.

Councilor Davis.

Here.

With all councilors present, we have quorum.

Brilliant. Alright. No votes were taken in executive session other than the vote to exit executive session. Will item seven dot one, we will place on file. Did I get that right, madam Kirk?

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

I correct. I was testing you on that, and you passed brilliantly. Thank you. That was what your little going away present.

Thank you so much.

Yes. I tried to do this for a few people. Very good. Alright. Let's pick up item seven dot two off the table and and have have a little bit more discussion.

So I I wanna actually add a little, something to consider. So council McLaughlin, I believe you would like to move to, authorize the city council's representative on the SRA, council Wheeler, as well as senior planner Demers to share the details of the discussion that happened in executive session in executive session with the SRA. To put that another way for folks watching at home, we just had a whole conversation about some stuff that's appropriate for executive session. And as it relates to this property, it is the SRA's ultimate decision, which, if any, proposal they go forward. So we would like to convey the city council's thoughts, including those that were expressed in executive session because of financing considerations and and all the things that make it appropriate for executive session.

We would like the SRA to have that information. So the the intent of this motion is is to so councilor Wheeler, councilor at large Wheeler, is a member of the SRA. It's the city council's designee appointed to the SRA. So we'd like to to authorize councilor Wheeler as well as senior planner Demers. So the two folks that were part of that whole conversation to check each other to make sure that they get everything accurate to be able to share that context with the SRA to the extent the SRA wants to hear it.

That's that's their discretion, of course. So that that's the nature of of this of this motion. And I wanna I wanna throw out a a a a madam clerk, if if we wanted to authorize council Wheeler to be able to reference the minutes of that exact exact concession, is that something that we could do, or is that something that we would be wise to not do and just to to rely on the two folks who are, who are authorized in that meeting?

Mister president, thank you for the question. That is something that the council could do. I would recommend that it perhaps be limited in duration so that the councilor be authorized to view the minutes with the city clerk or the city attorney until such time as the SRA meets so that it isn't any time in the future that that counselor wants to have those minutes, for example.

Okay. So so the idea would be if the council chose to go this route, the idea would be that after after the the council president and and the senate clerk got together and and I confirmed the minutes, then council Wheeler would have the opportunity to to reference those minutes prior to the SRA meeting just to make sure that his recollection was consistent with or or yeah. The the minutes are consistent with the recollection vice versa. Is that do I understand that correctly?

That sounds right. Yes.

Alright.

Procedurally, I'm trying to think of. So we we have a motion on the table. Counter Bah would like Counter Baugh, I believe you would like to to to move to amend the motion on the table to to add that council Wheeler May acts do we have to matter of fact, do we have to do we have to put this in a motion, or is that something that we can just do because it's good policy?

Mister president, thank you for the question. Since we are you are already in the midst of a motion, I do think best practice would be to include it. But the motion is not, in fact, before the council just yet. So an amendment to the motion does not need to be formally made. That would be more of a friendly amendment to change

the language of motion. Thought councilor McLaughlin had already made the motion.

Alright. Didn't agree to any of this, by the way.

Council alright. So that so we have a motion before us to, to authorize, the city council's representative on the SRA, council Wheeler, as well as senior planner Demers to share the context, the content, the substance of the discussion and executive session in executive session with the SRA, and further for councilor Wheeler to be able to reference the to review the the minutes of the executive session after they are approved prior to that SRA meeting for purposes of refreshing his recollection. I thought I saw the city attorney's hand come up, which always makes me make always makes me wanna stop talking and find out how I screwed up somehow. No. Solicitor Amara.

Sorry. No. Sorry. Please. Present. You did exactly what I would have done, which was I didn't like the use of the word reference, but review was fine. And you you that's why the hand went up, and then it went down.

Alright. Brilliant. Thank you. Well, we'll credit the clerk for reminding me that, councilor Wheeler would be reviewing the minutes for the purposes of refreshing his recollection prior to the SRA meeting. So, madam clerk, do you have that motion that I have articulated at length and without any brevity or clarity whatsoever?

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

I'm so glad I put it so succinctly. Fantastic. Thank you, councilor McLaughlin, for making such a perfect motion. Discussion on the motion. Going once, going twice, seeing no hands. I I don't think we need a roll call. We do need a roll call because we're virtual. Right? Matter of fact, we should call the roll.

That is correct, mister president. On the motion, councilor Ewing Kempen?

Yes.

Councilor Link?

Yes.

Councilor Scott?

Yes.

Councilor Klingen?

Yes.

Councilor Strezo? Yes. Councilor Saeed? Yes. Councilor Wheeler?

Yes.

Councilor Hart? Yes. Councilor McLaughlin?

Yes.

Councilor Mbaugh? Councilor Mbaugh?

Aye.

Councilor Davis?

Yes.

With all councilors in favor,

that motion is approved.

All right. Very well. And we have a an additional motion. I believe councilor Wheeler moves to madam clerk. What was the motion that councilor Wheeler was gonna make to move forward the two proposals to the SRA or something along those lines?

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

I am indeed making that motion.

Thank you, councilor Wheeler.

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

Yes.

Councilor Link?

Yep.

Counselor Scott? Yes. Counselor Klingen?

Yes.

Counselor Strazo? Yes. Counselor Syed? Yes. Counselor Wheeler?

Yep.

Counselor Hart? Yes. Counselor McLaughlin?

Yes.

Counselor Mbaugh? Councilor Davis?

Yes.

With all councilors in favor, that item is approved.

Alright. Thank you, kids. This was a really complicated conversation, and I appreciate everyone's diligence. And to everyone in the administration, thank you very much. Folks, these these things are complicated, and I'm glad we had this conversation tonight. So, madam Clark, is there any further are there any further items on the agenda?

There are no further items before this council.

Are there

any late items?

There are no late items.

There'll be no late items. Councilor Ewenkampen moves to adjourn. Madam Clark, would you please call roll and adjournment?

And on adjournment, councilor Ewenkampen?

Yes.

Counselor Link?

Yes.

Counselor Scott? Yes. Counselor Klingen?

Yes.

Counselor Strazo?

Yes. Counselor Sait?

Yes.

Counselor Wheeler?

Yes.

Counselor Hart? Yes. Councilor McLaughlin? Yes. Councilor Mbaugh?

From the death of William Baugh? Yes.

Councilor Davis?

Yes.

With all counselors in favor, this counsel is adjourned.

Alright. Thanks, everyone. Good work.

Thank you.