Uh, our Um, best wishes go out uh to [music] the families that unfortunately uh were um unhoused as a result of the fire at on Davis Avenue um within [music] the past week. Um our uh great
gratitude um uh goes out to the fire department for uh those who took part in uh suppressing the fire and kept it from being an even worse fire. Uh, I also want to I I I I know there's some
business on the agenda this week having to do with uh Black History Month. I want to draw particular attention to um two people who uh have been extraordinary in their um increase of our understanding of Brooklyn's uh
history and Brooklyn's um connection to African-American history um through unfortunately slavery. Um, and that would be Barbara Brown, uh, who is an educator, uh, and also the the, uh, key person behind something known as the
Hidden Brookline project, which she has been building on for years and years, and Malcolm Cawthorne, um, who, um, has been a terrific leader of Brooklyn's METCO program, and the two of them collaborated on a remarkable, um,
10-minute um, uh, sum summation of the impact of in Brooklyn of our hidden history of slavery. And I that was done through the um Brooklyn BIG um uh at the you know the cable connect
access group and I commend everyone to sort of just do a Google search um hidden Brooklyn check out the video featuring uh Barbara and Malcolm. Um it's terrific. Um and um I'll just I'll I'll leave it at that for now.
>> Thank you. Um Michael, >> uh thank you. Um I just wanted to point out uh every month the office of diversity, equity, inclusion, and community relations puts out a community highlights newsletter um with a number of goings on in town. So um first of
all, I want to highly recommend the newsletter. Um, and you can find all of this information on the DEI the ODICR's engage with Brookline web page. Um, and I will note in addition to Black History
Month, there are um events around uh the Chinese Lunar New Year uh as well as conversations from the Indigenous People's Celebration Committee uh on tribal sovereign sovereignty and current affairs.
Great. Thank you, Paul. >> Uh, thanks, Bernard. Um, we are entering a very important step phase in the comprehensive planning process. Um, looking for uh important community input. So, now is a great opportunity
for you to have a say in Brookline's uh future. Um, Monday, we're having an interactive workshop. So, that's a town hall Monday, February 9th. That's from 7 to 900 pm. Uh you can drop in, spend as little as much time as you want. Um the
our staff members will be there, members of the steering committee will be there, our consultant, and this is an opportunity for you to get very specific and uh provide input into uh where housing should be developed, commercial um issues around green space and
transportation and things of of that nature. If uh in addition to that there's an opportunity to fill out our online survey uh which was launched today. The online survey survey is very similar to the interactive workshop. So if you don't make it to the interactive
workshop you can also provide uh similar input um and experience with the online survey. Um and that survey is going to run through March 2nd. So you do have some time but don't wait till the last minute. And then uh the third thing which is unique we're trying we're calling it a meeting in a box. Um
there's uh this is a set of tools um and questionnaires that uh any person can use to meet with their neighbors or colleagues or town meeting members um and provide specific feedback based on
their experience within their hyperlocal area or townwide. Um so again it's similar to the type of feedback that we'd get at the workshop or the survey but this is a little bit more intimate um and would be I think enjoyable. So three opportunities the workshop on
Monday the online survey through March 2nd and a meeting in a box where you can host your neighbors and friends. Um, this information is on the town uh homepage as a news item and if you are fortunate or unfortunate to be on my
email list, um, I sent it out twice tonight. [laughter] One with a confusing subject line and one without. >> That was the one that got my attention. >> Yes, I I I assume everybody said, "Oh, what's he doing?" Um, so I also did post it on the teammate list and we'll be
sharing it on the townwide Facebook page. And you know, one of the areas that um would be really helpful is to make sure that we get it out to the school population. Um and of course, we don't h have direct access to that list, but if we could share it with our
neighbors and colleagues that have children in the public school system, that would be really helpful. So, thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Uh seeing no others, uh let's move on to public comment. Melanie, let's introduce our audience to the rules.
>> Sure. Thank you for joining us for public comment. This is an opportunity for us to hear your perspective on the issues in Brookline that matter to you. Each person speaking tonight is limited to three minutes. You don't need to use the entire time, but you may if you like. One once 15 minutes has been met,
there is an opportunity at the conclusion of the select board's business for additional comments. Members of the public sometimes raise questions during public comment. We may be able to provide a quick answer to a question, but are more likely to work with staff to get a more thorough answer and respond over email. The onscreen
timer will flash orange when you have one minute remaining and red when your time is nearly up. Please conclude your remarks at that time. If you have more to say, you are welcome to send an email to board members expressing your thoughts in greater detail. Any person wishing to speak must begin their
comment by identifying themselves with their full name, either their Brooklyn precinct number or street address, and the specific topic on which they wish to speak. The board encourages but not does not require that remote users turn their video on when commenting. So, the first person signed up for
public comment tonight is Bruce Levven. And Bruce is here with us online. >> Bruce, >> good evening. start. >> Uh first, uh my name is Bruce Leven and I am a town meeting member for from
precinct 17. I live uh about as close to the center of Coolage corner as you can get. Earlier today, I sent out a few points uh that I hope will uh assist the uh select board in discussing article 7
further out. So, I uh unless that I would be glad to answer any questions, I don't really intend to add to that. I will say though that as Paul has reminded us by email twice, they went
out. We have a comprehensive plan. Let's plan comprehensively. Whatever we do in this area of Coolage Corner should be part of the bigger plan. Other final thought is we're not building in Skyline
Park. We're building in a very busy area. It's a kind of a dingy parking lot begging for something to be done. But whatever is done is going to have just tremendous consequences commercially, residentially, traffic, etc. Thank you
very much. And that it unless there any questions uh I just refer you to my written comments. >> Uh we'll read the read the written comments. We did not respond with questions. >> Okay. We have
bear with me while I pull up our attendees. Well, while you're looking, I just wanted to mention that the business wire just hit that Banko Santander is buying Webster Bank for $12 billion. So, one of
them is going to be abandoning their office space in Coolage Corner. >> Okay. Second speaker signed up for public comment is Linda Pel. Linda, if you want to share your camera. >> It should be on.
>> Yep, she's there. >> Okay. Um, good evening. I'm Linda Olsen Pelky, a town meeting member from precinct 17. I'm on the advisory committee land use subcommittee and vice chair of the comprehensive plan steering committee. and I'm here tonight to ask
you to not advance the RFI process as proposed by the consultants and members of the Center Street Lock Committee. I suggest we hold off for the following reasons. As you've heard already several times, the comprehensive plan, we are in the midst of our second big public
engagement effort to get feedback on where, how much, and what type of new development is desirable. Results from this feedback will identify areas for further engagement and refining leading to zoning changes. The lots committee stated that one of their guiding
principles is to be in harmony with the town's broader planning efforts. Surely such an impactful project should be evaluated in the broader context of townwide planning. It feels disingenuous to ask the public to share their thoughts and then signal an ascent to
one specific proposal. The committee's charge and engagement. The charge for the committee did not include housing. The survey done did not ask about development options. The event at the theater was as much about folks going to see a lecture by a well-known
planning expert on walkability as it was about picking a preferred development proposal, one that would fundamentally alter the look, feel, and function of our most commercial our most important commercial area. My constituents have told me they worry about access to Koolage Corner if the parking lot is
unavailable or fundamentally changed. Public land. Center Street lots are incredibly valuable town assets. Some concerns have been raised about having less control over our public resources and the financial implications of maintaining the structure and keeping
parking rates favorable for our businesses with this proposal. Coolage Corner works. such a major disruption really the way to assure its continued success. Owning the land gives us many advantages. I don't see this scheme making best use of that. Many more
voices should be heard and further investigations needed before we could confidently move forward. And lastly, there's a drastic difference between surface parking and structured parking. Using the center street lot is a familiar and comfortable experience for
local and regionally generated car trips. The change to structured parking as the sole parking available to our local business center other than on street parking needs to be evaluated long and hard by many stakeholders. People are more willing to park in
structures for long-term parking or infrequently. The surface lot is functional for both long and short-term parking and is used that way. No one wants to pop into CVS to grab something and and park in a parking structure.
Also, I would hate to see the parking rates rise to pay for maintaining the structure. Please recommmit to an on plan process interest consideration as part of that plan.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Daryl Donatelli. Daryl, you're on mute. >> Mr. J, you can unmute yourself now. >> It seems unable to move. >> That's work on that. >> Yep. >> Sorry. We're working on it. There we go. >> There it is.
>> There we go. Very good. Yes, I kept getting an error. All right. Thank you very much. Good evening, everyone. Hi, Daryl Donatelli here. Uh I live at 80 Craftsland. Uh but in fact, I am representing uh the Chesnut Hill Village Associates, which is the area uh that is
Craftsland Road, Arlington Road, Lion Road, and a portion of Heath Street. Uh and I appreciate the opportunity to make this comment. So, um, uh, there was a mention at the advisory committee meeting that has to do with the transfer
station and the approval of a project to create a, uh, temporary prefab and closed structure for trash processing. Uh, we wholeheartedly support that project. We think it's an excellent idea. Uh, and, uh, the challenge that we have with it is the timeline for
completion. So, the project itself is slated for an 8 to 10 month window. which means that this project wouldn't be completed and toward until toward the end of 2026, which takes us through all of the very hot summer months. Uh we had
issues last year with the wafting odors of trash coming off the transfer station hill. Uh and that impacts Skyline Park. It impacts our neighborhood. And uh we would like to call to attention of the select board and others the need to find an accelerated timeline associated with
this project. Uh again, making it through that summer period uh when trash smell is at its peak is just not acceptable to our neighbors. Uh and even on these winter days when the wind blows just right, we could smell it just as it is. So, I appreciate Select Board's consideration of the topic. There was a
letter that was emailed last night. Uh hopefully everyone had a chance to read the letter. It's just a one-page letter uh associated uh from our neighborhood association uh and again representing um the issues that we had and our ask for an accelerated timeline. So, thank you
very much. I was learned be brief, be bright, be gone. And so, I'm all done with my comment. Thank you. >> Bernard, can I ask a quick question? >> Not of not of the speaker. >> Uh sure. >> Town administrator Chaz is um is this something that that we could ask I don't
know if it's even feasible ask DPW if there's any way to accelerate the timeline on this >> and we we received Mr. John Kelly and the whole team's letter and we're we're obviously we're equally concerned about this issue and the timing uh you know the temporary permit that we have there currently
>> we are doing everything in our power to accelerate this but there are two big considerations that we have to deal with here. One is winter um it's just very difficult for us to get anything going right now given that the transfer station is also where we're storing a lot of snow um and you know winter gear
and so forth. So we've got to take that into consideration. So that was going to delay our start. And then there are processes that we have to follow in terms of zoning in order to get this going. Even a temporary structure is going to require us to deal with some of the zoning complexities. And then the
last sort of issue here is the budget. Um you know we are meeting later this week to try and figure out how to get this going. Um but the budget is extremely tight. Um we are going to prioritize this as best we can in order to get this moving forward. Um but
realistically when you factor in we can't get anything started at the site in the winter the zoning processes that we're going to have to go through other you know apart from you know the biggest issue being right now the requirement that we install permanent restrooms up there um even on even with a temporary
structure we're going to need some kind of variance for that um and then this issue of the funding but we're trying to solve that last issue we're trying to solve the second issue and then when the winter ends we want to be ready to move as quickly as possible. So when you say zoning, we don't need approval of town meeting for zoning. This is this is to
be compliant with code. >> Yes. Or we could seek a reprieve from the CDA. So one of the other ways, one way or the other, we will be doing that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh David [clears throat] Mel Melanie, um do we have any other speakers? >> We have nobody signed up. Um and there
are approximately 25 people online and nobody is raising their hand. >> Okay, we we'll close the public um comment section. Maybe >> are there any temporary measures? I know this is a temporary measure as well, but are there any uh additional temporary within the temporary measures for
addressing the wafting aromas? >> We're talking about that as well. We're trying to figure out, again, we we don't like it. We know the neighbors don't like it. We're trying to figure out how to make this as quick and painless as possible. But that is just it's a real this this is one of those things that's just, you know, the the deeper you go,
the more complex it gets. And so we're trying our our goal right now is to get that temporary structure up as quickly as possible. Um, but knowing that that even, you know, I don't want to go into the details. I will bore you with the details of like it's comp where does the grease go, where does the, you know,
like it's there's there's a lot of stuff that needs to be built into this beyond just building a prefab structure up there. If we were if it were that simple, we would do it. Um, so we're trying to figure out how to both mitigate what's currently there and speed up the process of getting temporary building up.
>> All right. But there are some measures that could be taken short of completion of the temporary structure to try to address the odor. >> We're trying we're trying to figure that out now. You know what's and what especially this is a right now what we have is temporary forbearance from the state to let us do this which we're very
grateful for and so we're trying to figure out with the state what's feasible in terms of mitigation and what isn't. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. [clears throat] Moving along to our miscellaneous calendar. Uh question of approving the
meeting minutes from January 27, 2026. I see that uh I think John had some edits to the minutes. >> Well, I think that may have been taken care of depending on whether Michael's request or or suggestion that the paragraph be removed. Right.
>> It wasn't the paragraph. There was one sentence that referred to the goals of the committee and I didn't see that referenced in the conversation. So, I was going to strike that sentence which included your >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um, unless anyone has objections, I'd
like to move that the minutes for uh January 27th be approved as amended. All in favor? John Vancoy. >> Hi. >> Paul Warren. >> Hi. >> David Pearlman. >> Hi. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> Hi. >> And chair both side. [clears throat] Excuse me.
So, I'd like to take uh items 3B to 3E in omnibus fashion, except that item 3D will only include the fire department pieces. That's the second and third item there. The police department piece involving the uh Blue Voice, Inc.
software will be voted next week, but in the meantime, Chief Pastor uh is here, as I understand, to explain what what the software is. I assume it's software and its capabilities and limitations. >> Well, the the chief is going to come next week was to talk a little bit more
about this. We wanted to make sure that you know se select board members had the opportunity to ask questions in advance and for her to be able to come prepared with any responses there. But yes, so we're postponing a week. >> Um I had actually also had questions for both the uh chief of police and the uh
fire chief on this. Okay. So, would it be possible to actually defer the entire item? >> Um, yes, we can do that. Um, I'm happy happy to we can defer the whole I'll I'll ask the fire chief to be present as well. what what what I what I thought we
were going to do is to discuss the capabilities of this software so that um over the week people can look into that explanation in terms of whether it has the ability to do more than you just
search through documents. I could talk a little bit about that that but I want I also want to be sure that the the chief gets the opportunity to speak through that and and and give folks reassurance. You know this program this this software that's being proposed this app really is
not generative AI. It doesn't create new material. What it does is it synthesizes policy material that's uploaded into it. It doesn't synthesize other material. It's not able to, for example, access databases of crime or anything like that. It's not able to do any of that
sort of analysis, nor would we, you know, nor if we we were cap, if it were capable of it, would we would be asking it to. Um, we do have a townwide generative AI policy, which is available on the website. Um, if you go to the information technology section and look at policies uh that the select board
recently approved, it talks about how personally identifying information is not to be fed into these um uh these AI systems. um and how about the importance of you know security and use on that front. But this is not what this is. You
know the goal of this software is to basically provide a a a reference source to police officers who need it um in terms of on the job uh questions that they may have. It's a more effective search engine. So as opposed to
searching for terms in a PDF um you know while they're looking to see you know what is what does the policy say about this? They can ask a natural language question and get a natural language answer with citations saying, "Yep, this is what this is. This document says that X is the policy. Here's why." And you
know, that's that's it. That's what this is intended to do. Um, but I want to make sure that the chief is here to answer those questions from you. But I do want to reassure folks that, you know, based on our conversations, this is not a generative AI thing. This is not not being used in terms of um
detective work or anything along those lines. It is just a more effective way of being able to consolidate all of our various policies and procedures, which if you have read the police handbook, it's 700 plus pages, um, >> in a way that allows for natural language searches and responses.
>> Could we add that software for our zoning code? >> I would. [laughter] >> That's we'll ask. Uh, >> well, we have a separate type of software for that. >> Yes, but we we don't yet have that the the AI integration. Yeah. Chair sorry uh um just on the question
of scheduling uh just the police portion of the vote that we're deferring tonight um the police commissioner's advisory committee meeting uh if I understand correctly um let us advised us during the day today that they want to have their own meeting um and and look into
this and um since they are you know our advisory committee um uh it would seem you you know, appropriate to me that we wait until they've had their their chance at a meeting and and some examination of this. >> Let me let me talk to the the chief and
the PCAC chair about that. I got that email as well, and I want to make sure. But again, I I I want to for one thing, yes, you want to use your it is a police commissioner's advisory committee. You want to use that appropriately, but I also think that this is I I worry that we're making this into something more
than it should be potentially. Um, so but if that's but if after talking through it that's what they want to do, then that's what we'll do. But I just want to be I I also want us to not, you know, I I think I think justifiably people see the term AI in something or
we're using AI for X and they say, "Oh man, that that jumps immediately to this sort of, you know, Tom Cruz minority report situation when it comes to the police." And I I but I get that. I get that's a very natural reflex response is that I don't want generative AI or, you
know, one of these big, you know, LM models that claims to be able to do everything, you know, suddenly running run running the police department. But that's not what this is. It's it's a very simple piece of technology. >> Is there is there a time constraint here?
>> So, there's no immediate time constraint here. This is uh federally funded money. It's money and it's money that was left over from a previous year. So if ultimately if we don't pick it up um by spring then the then the other communities will reallocate it to
someone else. Um and when that happens that tends to mean that we are less likely to get that money in the future because they this is not the first time Brooklyn has turned back money. Um not for anything you've done. That was actually partially my fault. Um but we don't want to be in a situation where
we're saying to them we would like yeah we'd love this extra money and then we have to turn it back. John. Oh, well, Paul actually had been >> I I do you want I just wanted to follow up what John said just so that so that we can check the boxes. >> Yeah. >> Right. And not have additional questions
that then we have to go back. It might make sense to let the police commission advisory committee speak with the chief. >> Okay. >> And just and just go through this and see if if uh if if there's anything that they're concerned about that they'd like to communicate to us. Like John, I think it's a good idea to use our adviserss
that we appoint uh to give us feedback if there's questions and if if anything that helps settle the public that this is not some scary surveillance technology. Um I think that would be worth worth the step. So okay, I'll take that back to the chief. Thank you, John. >> And and just, you know, uh by way of
further explanation, um you know, to those in the public who might wonder why should there be, you know, sensitivity about this? Um there there are some people in the community who are far more knowledgeable than I am um about these issues and we are at a very delicate
moment um in terms of the relationship of um local entities to federal entities especially um the Department of Homeland Security um under which um this particular agency which is known as YASI
uh operates and um I think we'd be, you know, in at risk of seeming to turn a deaf ear to people's concerns about relationships um and you know what is tied what what
what kind of um uh possibilities uh are arise when we enter into relationships even something as innocent seeming as you know a relatively small grant for a a piece of software. Um but that's really the level at which we have to to
examine these things right now. We have to kind of examine them in the UASI context and the Department of Homeland Security context um in order to have a consistent policy. I think that's really why I was concerned. >> Yeah. Add one more thing. Uh so I just
so that this doesn't turn into a neverending rat uh hole of inquiry. Um could we ask the PCAC to do this in one sitting? Um you know this should not take multiple meetings a continuence. Um
if they want to have the chief come explain it might be good to have our uh chief information officer there to add answer any technical questions if that's helpful but um this thing should not go on and on um and delay the chief's adoption of the grant. I wouldn't want
it to hold us up too much. But but just so people are realistic, the the PCAC probably won't meet until the end of this month. So it's it is going to be a period of weeks before they they have their meeting. >> Well, we can ask. Yeah, sure. >> Yeah. I mean, this is a type of thing
that >> Yeah, sure. >> adjust their schedules. But I I would urge people to go to the um Blue Voice, Inc. website just to get a sense of what what we're talking about. U it's not as um elaborate and
>> scary >> scary >> uh as you it may seem at first blush but you think you know what John noted as to the um sort of difficult relationship we're having in this country between the
federal and local officials is something that we can't just ignore. Um and you know especially in light of the fact that u some of the technologies similar to this um may be being used to just monitor people who are out of line
with the party line. So >> and and Bernard I think it's important too that we that we affirm that we have great confidence in our police chief and this isn't second guessing her judgment um at all. uh this is really about making sure that the public understands
and has an opportunity to understand what's happening and and we can be advised from the PCAC. So I I I think it's beneficial for Okay. Uh so we have items uh 3
this it has changed uh 3 uh B through 3D uh I'm sorry 3B through 3E but not 3D. So items 3B 3 C um 3E and uh
we don't have an F. Okay. So, all in favor of of those items in the miscellaneous calendar, please indicate by saying I >> we do it. Well, F says proclamation of Black History Month on my uh Yeah. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um >> and F
>> my notes. >> Yeah. >> And F. >> Yeah. >> Um Okay. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. John Vancoyak. >> I. >> Paul Warren. >> I. >> David Fearman. >> I. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> I. >> And chair votes I. And with respect to
the proclamation, you know, we've been reading proclamations uh in in total that these meetings, I think that's important because our vast BB audience would like to know what we're voting on and and you how we're thinking on various things. So, I'd like to read
proclamation. Um it's not as long as some proclamations that I've read, but bear with me. And whereas the Brooklyn Select Board believes that there is no accurate American history that does not include the history of all Americans, including black Americans, and that
teaches the reality of the intertwined history and destiny of all Americans. And whereas the teaching of American history has often failed to include or has erased the history, culture, and contributions of black Americans. And whereas such eraser can pose a grave
danger to the physical and psychological health and well-being of black Americans when they are told that they have no history and have made no positive contributions to American or world history and when the wider society believes such untruths. And whereas today under the current administration
in Washington, the danger is being exacerbated by a systemic systematic effort to erase references to the history and achievements of black Americans from public places. And whereas such erasure includes removing historical items from the Smithsonian
museums in Washington DC, including the National Museum of African-American History, erasing references to slavery and other historical facts from National Park Service sites, and petty insults of black Americans such as eliminating Martin Luther King Day and Junth from
the days that access to national parks are free. And whereas such eraser includes attacking efforts to remedy past discrimination by attempting to ban references and initiatives for diversity, equity, and inclusion in American cultural, educational,
governmental, and business institutions, including purging National Park Service gift shops of supposedly DEI related merchandise and even banning words that positively describe black Americans and other Americans that are supportive of
America's diversity. university whereas such eraser has the history has has in the history of America been the prec precursor to waves of white supremist violence, antilack riots and massacres resulting in death and widespread
destruction of black communities in many parts of the country. And whereas one of the many tools available to resist such attacks against black Americans is National Black History Month, which recognizes and play and pays tribute to the contributions that black Americans
have made to history to American history by their struggles for freedom and equality and provides morale boosting lessons of past struggles for equality and the successes that they achieved. And whereas the history of Black History Month began when historian
Dr. Carter G. Woodson in 1926 organized historians and others through the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, which he founded in 1915 to encourage the teaching of black history in the public schools and to desate a
time initially called Negro History Week to educate people about black history and culture as a critical component of the advancement of blacks in America. And whereas this year is the centennial
anniversary of the founding of what is now Black History Month, which for 100 years has celebrated black history and has provided examples and guides on how to resist and prevail against governmental and non-governmental sponsored eraser and rewriting of
history and hostile actions that follow an eraser of a people's history. And whereas this is also the tw 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a document that includes the historically powerful and currently
relevant words. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, which should be seen as one of the many reasons to celebrate an accurate history of black Americans as an indispensable part of an accurate and useful American history. And whereas
each February, the Association for the Study of African-American Life and History designates a new theme for Black History Month in keeping with the practice of Carter G. Woodson. And the theme for 1926, I'm sorry, 2026 is a c a
century of Black history commemorations highlighting a century of intentional efforts to study, preserve, and celebrate the history, culture, and contributions of people of African descent in America and around the globe. Now therefore, the select board of the
town of Brooklyn, Massachusetts, hereby proclaims that Black History Month shall be celebrated during the month of February in Brooklyn. And in further, excuse me, and in furtherance of this proclamation, Brookline Select Board hereby urges
towns and other local governmental and non-governmental bodies to develop programs, ceremonies, and activities to recognize and celebrate Black History Month as appropriate to their missions. urges residents, visitors, and people passing through Brooklyn to use the month of February to start a year-round
process to study, learn about, and reflect on the history, culture, and contributions of black people in America, for the American-born, foreignb born citizens or immigrants to America. urges residents, visitors, and people passing through Brooklyn to take advantage of the many programs being
produced for National Black History Month in Brooklyn and in the surrounding metropolitan area, including those programs listed or linked on the web pages of the Brooklyn Public Library, Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Community Relations, Public Schools of Brooklyn, the Martin Luther King Jr.
Celebration Committee, and the Brooklyn Select Board. urges residents, visitors, and people passing through Brookline to use National Black History Month as an opportunity to visit the exhibits, performances, and lectures related to African-American history, literature, and art at local museums, universities,
and concert halls. urges residents, visitors, and people passing through Brooklyn to study the works of the many creative and intellectual African-Americans with connections to Brooklyn, including Florida Ruffen Ridley, a pioneering civil rights leader, suffragist, and Harlem
Renaissance writer who, with her husband, Ulyses Ridley, one of the early black homeowners in Brooklyn at 131 Kent Street and the namesake of the Ridley Elementary School in Brooklyn. Roland Hayes, an American tener who was hailed as having one of the greatest voices of
his time and the name stakes names sake of the Hayes Elementary School in Brooklyn. Artist John Wilson, a renowned sculpture and artist who lived and worked in Brooklyn for over 50 years and whose mckette bust of Martin Luther King Jr. is displayed on the first floor of
this Brooklyn town hall. and Marita Bonner, who wrote for the Brooklyn High School newspaper, The Sagamore, and became an an influential African-American short story writer, essaist, and playwright of the Harlem Renaissance. Thank you for bearing with
me on that uh recitation recitation of the proclamation. Um, and it's of course in our uh select board packet for those who want to keep it as a keepsake. >> Okay. Um [clears throat]
let's move on to our main calendar. And the first item is um an interview of uh an applicant for the board of zoning appeals. Lark Polarmo. I see she's in the audience and is
coming to the podium. Please introduce yourself and tell us why you're interested in the um Board of Zoning Appeals. >> Um my name is Lark Polarmo and I live at 828 Hammond Street. Um and I have
previously served on the zoning board of appeals here in Brooklyn. Um my husband and I moved to a high-rise condo in Cambridge um just about a year ago and I resigned from the zoning board
of appeals because I assumed I was not going to be a resident but discovered soon after moving that um we didn't like high-rise living in Cambridge [laughter] and we were fortunate that our house hadn't sold. So, we moved back to 828
Hammond Street and um I'm once again a resident of the town of Brooklyn and uh as a result, having run into a few of my colleagues recently at a professional lunchon um was urged to consider
reapplying to become an associate member of the ZBA and that is why I am here. I would be um honored honestly to serve the town again. And I I got a lot of reward from feeling that I was doing something for the residents and the town
of Brooklyn. And I'd like to have that same feeling of reward again. >> Great. Thank you. You know, I usually make a statement before we interview people about what we're looking for in members of the uh uh board that is is being interviewed for. Um I forgot to do
that. I apologize. Let let me just emphasize what I think is really the most important piece. Um, and I'm not suggesting it applies to you, but I just want to make sure that the public knows that in general we're looking for people who uh can work effectively and
respectfully with other members of the public body and the town staff that will be working with the public body. So, I have no reason to believe that that doesn't apply to you, but it's just very important that we u understand that uh
on boards and commissions um members have to work with town staff and that working relationship should be as smooth as possible. Um >> well, I wholeheartedly agree and um one of the reasons serving on the board of
appeals was so um pleasant and helpful for me in my professional career is because of the level of professionalism that we have here at the department of planning and development and I I worked closely with the people and the
department and would intend to do so again [clears throat] if reappointed. So, let me ask you a question to start off. Uh, how would you use your background in affordable housing in particular uh on the ZBA in a way that's different from the uh way that other
members would use their backgrounds? >> Well, I think >> you have a broad background and experience in affordable housing. >> I do. I do. And um it it um was beneficial for me to have that background because with the community
builders, the projects that we undertook when I was working there were primarily rental and then um subsidized rental housing, mixed income, and then moving to um Habitat for Humanity. The model is
home ownership. So, what I got was sort of broad experience in both subsidized rental and affordable home ownership projects. Also, Habitat for Humanity, they're both nonprofit organizations, but Habitat was
one that raised money um from donations, whereas um the community builders was funded differently um through subsidized funding and federal grants. Um, so I learned a lot about financing affordable
housing from both positions. >> Well, >> first, welcome home. >> Thank you. [laughter] It's good to be here. >> You weren't gone too long. >> No. >> Has anything changed? >> No. >> Okay. So um it this you coming before us
actually is offers us a very unique opportunity because I don't think we have ZBA sitting ZBA members or past ZBA members coming um in reining that I I can think of. Um what are your thoughts about things we
should be doing different? Um so you you were on before you left a little time. I mean, is there some things that we should be doing either in the ZBA or townwide or zoning wise or planning wise? >> Um, >> how can we help you? Well, I I
appreciate the question and um I'm probably not the best one to be speaking on behalf of the entire ZBA, but I can say from my perspective um one of the things that was that really working here
is the support that the ZBA gets from the staff at the town planning and zoning and I mean planning and um um development department um and keeping that staff and keeping it
well staffed is a really important part of the town function is would be my advice. Um, we also got a lot of good support from the town council's office um because there are occasions where we need to interact with them. And um
lastly, I would say I understand we we went back and forth with um whether we were above the 10% or below the 10% and that 40B projects we got when I was sitting on the ZBA for a period of time. There were an
exceptionally large number of 40B proposals which was very challenging and I don't think there's anything the select board can do about that. But um I think that that pushed everyone as far as it possibly could in terms of expectations on what we could accomplish
in a time frame that was limited. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Great. >> Uh I think yeah, David, >> I I have a related question. So in your application, you state that your goal would be to improve the zoning process by working more closely with the
planning uh department and uh planning board rather and also with development. So could you elaborate on that? What specifically would you look to improve? Um well I think what I wrote at least what I intended to write in the
application was that it was to the extent necessary working with and I meant working with the staff of the planning and development office to improve if necessary um the process for appeals. And
you know, part of that part of that means if if we as a board can interact with them more more clearly and openly the it's incumbent upon us to tell them what they can do to help us serve better in our roles. And as I said, the
relationship's really good. So I I don't have anything I'd add at this point. >> Uh I think Michael or or Yeah, let's go with Mike one. >> Okay. >> Um, sort of following on this these
questions about uh improving uh the system overall. I'm just wondering how you think about the various plans such as the housing production plan or the comprehensive plan um and studies that we're doing in Brookline and how that
might inform either the work of the ZBA or your thinking about uh improving processes. Um, the plans are extremely well done based on my background in dealing with the consultants that we rely on to
produce plans and studies for the town. And really in my role as um general counsel at the community builders and CEO of Habitat, we would employ um consultants and um you know Judy Barrett
immediately comes to mind as someone who was an enormously helpful consultant when I was sitting on the ZBA. Um and so um I can't think of any improvement I would suggest at this point because I think it's working pretty well.
Thank you, >> Lark. I just wanted to say that when I saw this item on the agenda, uh, I glanced at it. Maybe I wasn't paying sufficient attention and I just thought, she's coming up for reappoint and this is a, you know, this is easy. This is
automatic. Um, and I do hope your tale is a cautionary one for people in Brooklyn who, you know, have the mistaken notion that life will be better in a Cambridge high-rise because >> Well, there you go. Yes. I I would say
that's that's certainly true. And I will say now I've been through that experience, I have actually run into a couple of other people that have had similar experiences, not necessarily who lived in Brooklyn, but people who lived in other towns who >> Yes. returned >> sadder but wiser, you know. Yes. And
then they returned to >> Yes. Yes. Yes. It's it's an expensive lesson to learn. I don't advise people do it. >> Uh for for any who, you know, might be unaware. Um to serve on the board zoning board of appeals uh requires a lot of
specialized knowledge. Um and and it helps to have some experience. And you know, we have a candidate in front of us who has both. And uh if this had been a reappoint, I have a feeling it would have been kind of automatic. Um now that
you've gone through reapplication and interview, um we'll decide what next week, right, chair? I mean, we we don't do it next week. I >> on the spot, you know, to Melanie regarding who else is in the hopper, but >> yeah.
>> Yeah. Do we have other applicants? Do we uh Melanie? >> Um I'd have to check with Keith. >> Okay. We we'll find out. Yeah. >> Yeah. I didn't mean to make it sound as though any other applicant, you know, we would skip over that. By by no means did I intend that, >> but uh I do know that um these these
positions are kind of hard to fill and uh it's it's it's our good fortune that you've decided to apply to return. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time.
>> Well, and and also welcome back. You know, >> thank you. It feels really good to be I feel at home here. >> I don't say anything bad about Cambridge, though, because we have people in our in our um >> It's a great who live there. [laughter]
>> Cambridge is a great neighbor. Okay. >> Oh, I forgot that part. [laughter] >> Okay. Uh next item on the agenda is the Chestnut Hill commercial area study. And um I see Meredith Mooney has already approached the podium and I'd like to
hear from her. And then uh before we go into general questions from the select, I want um Michael Rubenstein to sort of follow up with uh you know some comments also. >> Thank you. >> Which I assume you know about, right? >> Yes. And I think um um former select
board member Mike Samman who's been chairing the community advisory group is also here and would like to follow up on my presentation with some remarks if that's okay. Okay, let me go you Michael and then that Michael. >> Let's let's do it the other way. Let's through. >> Okay, whatever.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, good evening. I'm going to share screen. >> Oh, it's not going full screen. Can I ask a question while she's prepared? Sure. Actually, of us, not of of the committee. So, um, it came up
last night at EDAB about when they could hold a public hearing and vote on the zoning articles. And, um, I believe the right answer is they need to wait till the the warrant is published. >> Correct. >> Right. They can't they can't get they
can't get ahead of it. >> Well, they they can get ahead of the process. I mean again if they want to we could talk to them about what what makes sense you know in terms of input scheduling and so forth. Yes they can we can do other things right but in terms of holding the holding the hearing it's after the warrant is exe. >> Yeah. The public needs access to the
warrant to be able to read it correct before they >> correct once you execute the warrant send it out into the world. Then >> I would suggest a few more than a few hours between the publishing and holding the public hearing. >> Thank you Paul. So, Meredith Mooney, economic
development director. I'm very excited to be here this evening to present our recommendations from the Chesnut Hill commercial area study. So, um the study has its origins in the 2005 comprehensive plan. Um it was identified as Gateway West. Um I think
over the past few decades there's been a lot of emphasis and focus on the gateway east proposal in the 2005 comprehensive plan focused on Brookline Village and there was a separate set of recommendations focused on the Chestnut Hill commercial area as sort of the western gateway along Boilston Street to
Brooklyn. Um and those recommendations um proposed comprehensive district planning for the commercial area and uh zoning changes to promote mixeduse development with a particular emphasis on the area's potential for um supporting additional commercial
development. And you know, in reading portions of the comprehensive plan about Chestnut Hill, there was this acknowledgement that the commercial area really was not living up to its potential as a vibrant commercial area on par with Koolage Corner, Brookline Village, and um Brooklyn's other distinctive, very vibrant commercial
areas. So today, the Chestnut Hill commercial area study um is focused on uh two main objectives which were included in the scope of work and project objectives that the select board approved back in November of 2023 as we were preparing to
launch the study process. And so we've been focused on examining opportunities and creating strategies to advance uh the objectives of incentivizing significant net new commercial tax growth and enhancing the livability and identity of the Chesnut Hill commercial area.
So we have three requests uh from the select board this evening. Um we are requesting endorsement of the study recommendations and next steps for implementation. And then we're also seeking authorization to move forward with filing a warrant article package related to the zoning recommendation in
the study. And that zoning uh package, the warrant article package would include three warrant articles. There would be a zoning bylaw amendment that would incorporate the overlay zoning into the zoning bylaw, make any additional uh required changes to the zoning bylaw and then two separate
warrant articles authorizing the select board to enter into a memorandum of agreement as well as a tax certainty agreement with city realy which is the property owner of the Chestnut Hill office park. >> Can I interrupt a second and maybe I misheard you. Are you looking for a vote tonight? Oh, I think we were we're
presenting and that at some point over the next few weeks, you'd feel comfortable items. >> That's right. >> Um, and then finally, we're just hoping to establish who the petitioner for the warrant articles would be. Would it be the select board or the planning department? And so, those are just
things to think about as I work through the presentation and over the next few weeks. Um, and there is a lot to get through. I'm going to try to move forward as quickly as possible. If it's possible, I think it would be helpful for me to go through the entire presentation and then circle back to questions. I did include page numbers on all the slides to make it easy to
reference back um places where you had questions or um we could do a deeper dive. That being said, if there are real clarity concerns um please let me know before I move on from the slide and we'll clear that up. So, I wanted to first and foremost thank
the members of the staffled community advisory group um who we have been um working with. They've helped inform staff's work as we've been uh developing our study recommendations um and they provided really tremendous feedback and input um that has helped shaped our
recommendations. Uh also uh Melanie wanted me to underscore that there are a few additional slides included in the presentation tonight and I will just flag those as we go through them. I think they're three or four at most. Um, so this was not included in the original slide in your packet, but I did also
want to acknowledge members of the economic development advisory board's um, ad hoc subcommittee that they had assembled to help support staff um, in developing the policy proposals. And this subcommittee, which was uh, George Cole, Mark Barrer, and Ken Lewis, and
Sandy Silk, assisted with doing some additional financial feasibility analysis around potential development scenarios. They helped us evaluate um the proposed uses and the level of density um and the zoning recommendations to make sure that those aligned with the economic development potential in the Chesnut Hill commercial
area. And then they were also very helpful in in thinking through where we can build in strategies to the zoning and elsewhere to make sure that we're appropriately mitigating potential risk to the town in terms of moving forward with resoning and redevelopment proposals.
So this is an overview of the project timeline and um sort of a underscoring opportunities for public meetings and public comment. The process kicked off in spring summer of 2024 with our outreach and community engagement. And since that time uh the community advisory group has convened almost 20
times. Um all of those meetings typically at least a quarter of those were devoted to the opportunity for public comment. The EDAB subcommittee has convened 10 times. Um there was also opportunity for public comment during those meetings.
I could spend a lot of time on the next two slides, but I'm going to restrain myself um in the interest of um being concise and leaving time for discussion and questions. But these are a few slides of photos of the Chesnut Hill commercial area to sort of demonstrate existing conditions um and you know to
uh provide some helpful reference for people who might not be as familiar with the study area or have had the opportunity to walk around there. Um so the study area is about 27 acres. It includes approximately 60 properties and 30 storefront businesses. It's a mix of
one or twotory commercial buildings and two family or multif family housing. Th this is a an area of town that has seen a lot of 40b development in recent years. So in the upper leftand corner, these photos were taken over the sum
summer summer and fall of 2025. And in the upper leftand corner, you can see the 1180 Boilston Street 40B development at the corner of Boilston and Hammond Street under construction. Uh, and then if you go three boxes over, there's also a um 40B proposed, the Heath and Shei
40B development that would be um at this dry cleaners property um on Hammond Street between Heath and uh uh Sheath and Heath Street as well. So these photos I'm moving from Boilston Street towards the Heath Street side of the study area.
And so the upper land leftand corner you have some photos of she street which is sort of interior to the study area. Um there are a couple photos the third photo you can see the contrast and sort of the new height precedent that the 40B at 1180 has established in contrast to
the existing two family and one-story commercial buildings. And then to the the all the way to the right here in the top box you see uh Holy you're approaching Holyhood Cemetery [clears throat] moving from Boilston to Heath Street throughout the study area. It's a very different experience. Um, Boilston, I think everyone's pretty
familiar with it having uh driven through the area. Um, and Heath Street by comparison is very narrow, quiet, leafy, lot of tree canopy coverage and a large stretch of Heath Street includes runs parallel to the Holy Hood Cemetery.
Uh, sorry, just before moving on. So, I I did just want to um point out that a couple of these slides show several surface uh parking lots and there are several of those throughout the study area. So, opportunities that we've identified
um in the the Chesna Hill commercial area study is there's a real opportunity to establish a vision and uh organizing framework for the commercial area so that can um you know come up to par with the other successful commercial areas in Brooklyn like Koolage Corner and Brooklyn Village.
Um, there's also the opportunity to address the town's long-term structural budget deficits by incentivizing high impact economic development that will help bolster the tax base. And finally, there's an opportunity to add additional housing um, and additional residential density that will be really important
and critical in providing 24-hour activation of the area and making sure that the ground floor retail there is um, vibrant and um, successful. Another important opportunity to underscore is the redevelopment of the Chesn Hill Office Park. So, the Chesn Hill Office
Park is one of uh a very limited set of remaining opportunities of large sites located in commercial areas that would lend themselves to a significant amount of commercial development. So, the Chesn Hill Office Park is all the way to the right here at 1280 to 13:30 Boilston Street. The other two opportunities are
um along Harvard Street at the Stop and Shop and TJ Maxx um properties. Uh it I did just want to note the acreage for each of these properties is on the bottom here and the Chestnut Hill Office Park is more than double the size of the other two opportunities.
This is another slide that I could spend a lot of time on and I'm happy to come back to um but I will try to be brief. Uh so this is an overview of sort of the dominant themes that we've heard throughout the community engagement process when we were doing our initial outreach and engagement as well as uh public comment throughout all of the
meetings that we've held throughout the study process. And I would say uh this is not comprehensive, but these are just certainly the the highlights. So a real desire particularly from the neighborhood is to have successful groundf flooror retail spaces that align
with the neighborhood's needs. There's a lot of discussion in contrast to you know the offerings at the street which is a very vibrant successful development on the Newton side um uh across from the study area but you know their higherend offerings. Um you would have to cross Route 9. There's definitely a sense that
um it doesn't seem that the area can currently retain, you know, restaurants, coffee shops, bookshops, um the types of ground flooror retail that lend themselves more to um community building. And um that's certainly a an important need that we came through loud
and clear through community engagement, preserving the character of Heath Street for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. Um height and density required for economic viability. I did want to acknowledge and underscore for the select board that among the community advisory group members there's a
diversity of opinions regarding the proposed heights um and density in the 4.0 subd district required for economic viability and to meet the study objectives and those opinions range from supportive to staunch opposition uh improving the quality of the
pedestrian experience and multimotal safety leading priority and then traffic impacts. uh the area is considered um already you know very congested, difficult to move through um and there's concern that adding additional density um will exacerbate the existing
problems. This is a diagram summarizing the key components of the study area. I'm going to be walking through um each of these recommendation each of these components and the related recommendations. So, the vision for the Chestnut Hill
commercial area is to create a vibrant, dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhood with high tax generating commercial uses. And I did want to um it's I think it's important to note and just in terms of setting proper expectations is that we anticipate that it will take uh
decades for um to fulfill this vision. Um so, that's just an important consideration that this will not happen overnight. This is sort of a longer term goal. So, the zoning, we're proposing the adoption of special district overlay
zoning to help realize the vision that um we discussed on the previous slide. uh the most recent draft of the zoning, which we're really in fine-tuning mode at this point, was included in your packets this evening for um you know, I we're not going to go
into sort of the a deep dive nitty-gritty of the zoning proposal, but I did think it was important to provide an overview of the key strategies that we're employing to advance that goal of incentivizing significant and that new commercial tax growth. So, the minimum commercial requirement and ground flooror commercial requirement have
their own slides that I'll get to shortly. So in this slide I did just want to emphasize that um you know we we've been focused on providing adequate dimensional requirements um to ensure so examples would be height f setbacks um to make sure that within the context of
mixed use development which is what we're looking to incentivize and expect in this area that developers are able to maximize the commercial piece um of that mixeduse proposal. And then we're also proposing the expansion of allowed uses which I think is most significant particularly regarding the office 2.0 no
subdist which is the Chestnut Hill office park right now has very restrictive zoning pretty much restricted to one commercial use which is office that particularly after CO just does not um have a lot of viability. So this is a diagram of the the study
and the proposed zoning overlay. It has four subdists. We're going to do a a quick tour of the subdists a little bit later on. Um but I did just want to um point out the at least name the subdists and then make a couple of points. So in the northern part of the study area,
this is the transit oriented mixeduse subdist. The purple is the neighborhood mixeduse subdist. And then there are two very commercial oriented subdists and they're in the red, orange, yellow here. So in the red, this is the uh commercial
uh three or commercial 3.0, which is a reference to the maximum F on that block. Um so the minimum commercial requirement, which we'll get to in a moment, would apply to any projects in this subdist. The minimum commercial requirement also would apply to the 4.0
subdist which we are sort of distinguishing between the two blocks which do have some distinctive characteristics. So there's the western block and the eastern block. This is a diagram providing an overview of the proposed heights um maximums and
and bonus heights. So starting on the eastern portion of the study area, we're proposing that the standard height be uh 50 feet which is about four stories um with the potential maximum height at 75 ft which is about six stories. So we're really sort of working within um the
existing or sorry the the new height precedence that had been established by the 40B development. And then the um commercial three the maximum height is 88 feet which is about seven stories and that maximum height is also mirrored in the transit oriented
mixeduse district across Boilston Street with a step down to a maximum of six stories as you move northward up Hammond Street. The 4.0 O district. These two blocks, the maximum height uh proposed is 150 ft, which is about 12 stories with the potential for um up to 175 ft
or 14 stories if um they meet certain uh commercial use requirements. And the 4.0, they're sort of buffered with these 88 foot maximum heights to help with the transition down to the neighboring areas. So again, 88T is about seven
stories. So that exists along Holly Lane and on um the western border there's a pretty substantial uh setback of maximum seven stories and that's sort of in line with the existing height precedent in that part of the study area which is uh six stories of the citizens bank
building. This is an overview of all of the components in the zoning. Um [clears throat] it's there's a lot of similarity in terms of sort of the outline and the key components here in comparison to other special district overlays that the town has done like Waldo Durian or the Emerald Island
special district. But I did want to point out sort of a a few newer tools that we've added to our zoning toolkit. Minimum commercial use requirement. We will talk that about that in upcoming slide requirement. So this is a requirement that we first utilized the town first
utilized in the Brookline Housing Authority resoning and we are carrying that policy through to this proposed zoning overlay uh based on best practices outlined in the town's urban forestry. Another thing to note so in the infrastructure um and public safety
improvement section. So we did undertake a uh transportation study to do an analysis of existing conditions and come up with a set of conceptual improvements um to improve the capacity and the multimmoal safety in the area. And so based on our understanding of the extent of the infrastructure improvements
needed to improve multimmoal safety in the Chesn Hill commercial area. We have increased the standard minimum mitigation requirement from 1% of the hard construction costs which has been sort of the the standard identified in previous zoning overlays and double that
to 2% of the um hard construction costs. We've also expanded the mitigation to include um eligible mitigation to include public safety improvements in addition to the infrastructure upgrades. So the minimum commercial requirements um I will briefly talk about this. We
can come back to this and then the effective commercial um formula that we've developed as well. So the minimum commercial requirement is applicable to the commercial oriented subdists that I pointed out on the previous slide. And the requirement is that in order to utilize the overlay zoning in those
subdists, you have to include at a minimum 51% um of the gross uh floor area in your project proposal has to be for commercial uses. So, this applies for the three as well as the four. In the four subd district, um you're eligible
to take advantage of the hype bonus and go up to 14 stories if your proposal includes 60% or more commercial uses. So in calculating the you know whether someone succeeded in meeting the minimum commercial threshold requirement we have
created um a special formula that weights particular commercial uses that are more advantageous either in terms of tax generation potential or aligning with the community needs and community preference. Um so uh we can talk more about that formula if you're interested
but um that summary of how those weighted um the weight is applied and then a little bit more information about you know why those uses are uh preferred in terms of tax generation potential is summarized on this slide. the minimum.
So the ground that exists in our general business zoning that a minimum of 60% of the ground floor commercial needs to be activated minimum of the ground floor needs to be activated with commercial space um a retail space. So this diagram
indicates where that requirement applies. Um and so we the red indicates where the commercial is required. We're really looking to maximize um the ground floor presence on Boilston Street and sort of wrapping the corners of
intersecting streets with Boil Boilston with ground flooror commercial as well as Hammond Street. The yellow indicates areas where the ground flooror commercial requirement applies, but there's the opportunity to seek a waiver if developers feel that they really aren't able to um build out successful ground flooror commercial space in those
areas. And the blue indicates uh the portions of the study area that are exempt from the ground floor commercial activation requirements. So that's the length of Heath Street as well as Dunster Road. So just a quick tour of the subd districts. Um so we have the
neighborhood mixeduse subdist. This is all the way on the eastern portion of the study area. >> The standard maximum height is that four stories. uh the renderings here which were developed by our consultant Sasaki who we've been working with to develop the design guidelines and um help
fine-tune some of the zoning. Uh so these are representations of the neighborhood mixeduse area both at the fourstory and as well as the sixtory level. So the um eligibility for the six-story hype bonus uh would require that a minimum of 50% of the units in a
proposal are affordable. And this recommendation um or this incentive is sort of inspired by one of the conclusions from the housing advisory board's affordable housing overlay district subcommittee which had you know uh suggested that this um should be an
incentive that the town should look to incorporate or experiment with going forward. So in the northern portion of the study area, this is the transit oriented mixeduse subdistrict. This uh portion of the study area is within a thousand feet of the Green Line Chestnut
Hill T-top. So we're really looking to leverage that proximity to public transit. Um and uh we are anticipating so the commercial uses are allowed, commercial uses are allowed broadly throughout the study area. I think we are also anticipating this area to be more ground floor retail activation with
residential. The commercial 3.0 0. So one of the commercial oriented blocks, it provides sort of a transition in the level of density and height between the commercial 4.0 and the neighborhood mixeduse district, the 4.0 subd district. So this is the
high impact high impact economic development area. It includes the Chestnut Hill office park and we're looking to allow larger denser campus style development. Um you know with the trade-offs of being we want higher uh percentage of commercial included in development proposals and there are um
significant open space tree canopy requirements and as we have talked about the bonus going up to 14 stories is contingent upon having 60% greater 60% or greater commercial uses in your proposal. So this is the 4.0 no subd district with the perspective from Heat
Street. And this is just a a slide summarizing the commercial and bonus requirements and how they're applied across the subdists. Design guidelines. Another recommendation is the adoption of design guidelines that will help promote sort
of a cohesive aesthetic um and district-wide character. So, this is a document that would be adopted by the planning board and would be used as sort of their um main reference point and piece of review criteria as they receive
applications for projects under this proposed zoning overlay. We had a presentation uh of the draft design guides draft design guidelines to the planning board last week. We're going to have another follow-up workshop with the planning board tomorrow morning. So, we're also recommending the town's
pursuit of town protections in the form of memorandum of agreement and tax certainty agreement with city realy. So, as you know, as we were preparing to launch the study back in 2024, the Ches Hill office park was in the process of changing hands and the newest owner uh City Realy has near-term redevelopment
interests and uh is has presented several iterations over the past um 20 uh well year and a half. Um, and their most recent proposal is summarized in um, uh, this graphic on the right of the screen, which I'm happy to go and talk
about in a bit more detail, but just for the broad strokes and related to the anticipated economic development of this proposal, which does um, conform to the zoning requirements that the town has laid out, it would include 420,000 square ft of commercial space, which
would include a 200 room hotel, medical office, and retail space. Um there's approximately 250 residential units proposed and the estimated net new commercial tax growth is 1 point or sorry excuse me 5.6 million. And so what
we mean by net new commercial tax growth that would be the anticipated estimated commercial tax or tax generation of this proposal minus what the property is currently contributing in terms of taxes um annual taxes which is about $1.1 million a year. And then the estimated
mitigation and public benefits, the total package comes to about 24 million dollars. So as you're aware, we're still in the process of finalizing a memorandum of agreement with city realy. Um, but I I think there's largely agreement in on most of
be able to share the full extent of the MOA more broadly, but I did want to include a slide just highlighting some of the the [clears throat] the key components of the MOA. So, in terms of the infrastructure and public safety improvements, we are anticipating approximately $12 million. And these uh
this fun these funds could be used for um expenditures such as multimmoal safety improvements, blue bike station or um a ladder truck and equipment for the fire department. City realy and the housing advisory board came to an agreement on a um
affordable housing trust contribution of $10.93 million as a cash and loo payment for the condos that they are proposing. Um, and then examples of other benefits, uh, would be publicly accessible level three EV charging stations, $150,000 for
a signature public art installation in the Chesnut Hill commercial area, a $20,000 contribution to the town's public art maintenance fund. And as the the hotel launches and they have shuttle service, it would provide um it would be free to the public and providing access
between the hotel and the TA station. and they've agreed to partner with the sustainability division of the town on a couple of sustainability um initiatives and pilot programs, one of which is a lowcarbon concrete installation pilot. Uh and there will also be the
opportunity for the town and for community groups to have access to the hotel conference space twice a year um free or at a a nominal fee. Included in the MOA is also a tax certainty agreement. So the tax certainty agreement is significant to the town because you know we're undertaking this
resoning effort in order to expand the commercial tax base. And so the tax certainty agreement sort of provides um the ability to preserve the tax space once we've added this additional um commercial space and assures the town that you know if the Chesn Hill office park changes hands um subsequent owners
would still be required to um even if they're a nonprofit and taxexempt institution they'd still be required to pay uh the full amount of tax that the town is expecting to receive from that property in perpetuity. Not in perpetuity. Sorry, it's a 95year
agreement. Um and uh transportation improvements. I mentioned earlier we did undertake a transportation study, did an analysis of the existing conditions and um developed a set of sort of conceptual plans and improvements for the study area. I'm going to move through this
section very quickly as well. Um but the uh we did present the conceptual improvements to the transportation board back in December and they adopted that as a planning document meaning that these are projects that the town staff um can continue to work through and develop. Um but you know g give each of
those project proposals appropriate amount of um public input engagement and additional coordination with key stakeholders being mass dot which has jurisdiction over route 9 DCR which in uh controls hon parkway and then the city of Newton. So, as we've been
working through the study process and um you know, particularly with the transportation study, we have had several meetings with Mass DOT and the city of Newton. And so, we're very excited about sort of building off of that momentum and having the benefit of some conceptual plans and proposals um to uh make those conversations a little
bit more concrete with those important stakeholders. So, we've proposed uh intersection improvements at several key intersections and then uh a series of bike and pedestrian safety improvements as well. And so in terms of implementing the plan, uh there's still a lot of
coordination required with uh key stakeholders that we just discussed. Um and you know, as projects are, uh move further along in development and we have the mitigation funding, um you know, we want to be able to put that funding to
use to continue to develop and implement the conceptual improvements that we've identified. And then I I did also want to emphasize that um so uh it's our understanding that city realy uh will be required by Mass DOT to go through a
MEPA process due to the trip generation and sort of the traffic impacts associated with their project. Um so that's just a process that we'll certainly keep tabs on and is expected to include infrastructure mitigation. um which is reassuring for the town that we'll have that additional um level of accountability um and assurance about
mitigation going forward. Commercial area vibrancy enhancements. Um the this is an area like many of our other commercial areas that would benefit from um you know better branding, wayfinding system, streetscape, public realm improvements
like additional public art and then also in order to realize these improvements and um more importantly make these improvements more sustainable in the long run. uh there should be sort of exploration of creating a public private partnership through a business improvement district with uh the
commercial property owners in the study area. And so these are some uh recommended next steps for implementation and uh economic development would be responsible as sort of the project management lead in uh the implementation of these recommendations
and key internal partners DPW the Brooklyn Commission for the Arts and then external partners. Um we've already discussed several of those and when it comes to exploration of district management capacity continuing to partner and keep the line of communication open with the commercial property owners will be critical.
So, uh, again, just to provide a reminder of the direction and feedback that we're looking from the select board this evening, I just wanted to recap on this slide and invite Mike Sammon up if it's okay with the select board to provide some additional comments.
>> Can I ask a quick question before Mike's walking up? Um, is this a public hearing tonight? >> Um, >> and the [clears throat] reason the reason why I asked Oh, wait. It's not a public hearing.
>> Um, thanks Meredith. Hi, I'm Mike Sandman, um, uh, chair of the, uh, community advisory group. And I I think I'd like to say at the beginning that what you just saw gives you a sense of the thought and expertise that has gone
into this. uh and uh we had just superb support and help from the staff on the community advisory group and we had a very good community advisory group as well. Very active and thoughtful group of people. Um one of the challenges we've heard to the zoning proposal in front of you is
that it will change the character of all of Brooklyn. It's true that resoning along Route 9 will enable increased density and taller buildings, but there are only three sites in Brooklyn that are suitable for this sort of substantially dense commercial
development. The Chesn Hill Office Park, Stop and Shop, and TJ Maxx. And both of those are locked up for years, decades perhaps. Development of those three sites won't change the overall character of the town. And if we don't enable commercial development in those few
places where it's economically feasible, Brookline will change in a different way, it will become even more unaffordable. Most people who've been homeowners for more than a few years will tell you that if they were buying today, they couldn't afford Brookline. They add that their
children won't be able to live here. And many of them are right. Brookline housing prices rose by 98% between 2005 and 2025. Median income rose by 14%. The middle class has been priced out and
now we're pricing out the upper middle class. One reason is our reliance on residential real estate taxes and another is the failure to add new moderate cost housing. Through reszoning Chestnut Hill along Route 9, we can enable increased
commercial tax revenue and have mixeduse development with additional housing. Just the Chestnut Hill office park site alone can yield a net annual increase in taxes approximately equal to the town town's share of the override that you're
considering. [clears throat] Additional development in the study area would bring additional net revenue reducing a reliance on residential real estate taxes and residential taxpayers. Moreover, zoning can enable the creation of an enhanced commercial area, a new retail business
district that will benefit the neighborhood and the entire town. Or we can continue to rely on residential real estate taxes, hope voters will pass increasingly large overrides and continue to make Brookline less affordable. One way or another, Brooklyn
will change. This zoning proposal gives us the opportunity to alter the direction of that change. Thank you. Hey, Michael, you want to take the floor? >> Sure. Um, and take a deep breath to start [clears throat] out because that was >> that was a wonderful presentation and
thank you. >> So, first I do want to thank Meredith um and the entire planning team. Um, since the select board approved the Chestnut Hill commercial area study on November 14th, 2023, this team has worked hard to
realize the vision and achieve the goals established by the select board. I would also like to thank Mike Sanman and the community advisory group for their collaboration, the economic development advisory board, the planning board, and
especially the many community members who engaged throughout this process. Everyone contributed meaningfully to the result we are seeing today. The study report and the recommended warrant articles presented this evening
lay out a clear vision for the Chestnut Hill commercial area. That vision grows directly out of the select board's original charge to incentivize new commercial tax growth while enhancing the livability and identity of the
Chestnut Hill commercial area. The detailed requirements in the zoning overlay district will allow a vibrant mixeduse destination, one that can be thoughtfully developed over many years for the neighbors of Chestnut Hill,
residents across Brookline, and visitors to our town. Implementing this vision also supports our ongoing conversations with the Mass DOT, the Massachusetts DCR, and the city of Newton.
The recommended warrant articles also advance a significant component of that vision redevelopment of Chestnut Hill Office Park. In addition to the positive fiscal impacts and public benefits described in the presentation, we can
look forward to new businesses, homes, community spaces, and transportation infrastructure by developing this underutilized land. I want to highlight something distinctive about these recommendations. In the past, Brookline has articulated
visions, sometimes without an economically viable project to demonstrate their feasibility. At other times, we have considered specific projects without a broader vision for the surrounding area. It is rare to have the opportunity to combine
a clear vision with a concrete project. We are fortunate to be able to do so here. This vision and this project reinforce and strengthen each other. One point of broad consensus that emerged through this study is the
significant opportunity for Brookline to enhance this area through redevelopment. Today's recommendations reflect this opportunity by carefully balancing the town's goals, community interests, and the requirements for economically viable
development. This balance wasn't easy. Everyone involved can point to elements that they would change, and for good reason. In some cases, people made strong arguments for completely opposite suggestions.
I want to appreciate the complexity of the trade-offs that have been weighed as well as the facts on the ground that define a baseline for what is feasible together. This vision and these recommendations represent a rare opportunity and I'm excited to see the
community and town meeting engage deeply with their details in the months ahead. >> Thank you, Michael. Any other select board members? Yeah, go ahead. >> So, I I do have a question if um maybe we can go back to that slide about the
60% uh first floor commercial as a requirement for 14 stories. So, if there if we don't get to that 60% commercial, how tall can the building be? >> 12 stories. >> 12 stories. Okay.
>> Are we doing Q&A at this point or what's the what process are we going through for >> asking questions or making comments regarding pres? So I do I first I have a process question for for you and Chaz. So um >> Meredith had said at some point we would take a vote >> to approve. I assume that's the approval
to put it on the warrant >> and not necessarily making a recommendation about the article. >> Correct. >> Okay. So we have to go through a gate of deciding whether this is the proposal we'd like to put on the warrant. >> Correct. That the select board needs to do that. Okay. Um so first thanks Meredith. I know that you guys have been working um
>> incredibly hard on this. I do have I've got a a couple of questions. Um I guess the first thing I'd like to ask is how did the the committee that helped you with this proposal vote? Is it was it a
unanimous vote to bring this proposal forward or was it divided? >> So the committee so as a staffled community advisory group there was no vote. >> They didn't they didn't take a formal vote. I did they take a did you take a straw vote? >> No. So we don't do we have a sense of
the committee as to where they stand on this. >> I think it's it's divided sort of I referred to the diversity of opinions and um I wouldn't say that there's broad consensus and I I would say that the proposed maximum heights in the 4.0 with
the 12 and 14 stories are the driving force behind the um opposition anxiety >> is the height of the 14 stories. Okay. Um, I guess I, you know, one of the, one of the concerns I have is how to get this thing through town meeting. You need a two-thirds vote. Um, and you
know, the reason why I asked that question is I think I'm I'm concerned that the number of town meeting members that may be on that committee that may not be supporting it. >> Uh, [clears throat] could be concerning given that they this is what we have to get through town meeting, but I guess
that's for another day. Um the uh I think it's the OM I forget the name. Could you put the map up that shows the zoning districts districts? >> I think there's a couple that um
that border Newton. Right. So the the one that Oh, there you go. No, that one right there. Yeah. So the gray one that's on top or the tan >> um is that included in the zoning the zoning package that we'll get? Yes. So, have we and I assume the other one, the
yellow all the way down the end. Um, those two are bordering Newton, correct? >> Yes. >> Have we worked with Newton? Have we reached out with their planning? Do they know what we're planning on uh doing there? >> We have been in communications with uh Newton's planning department throughout
the study process. There's been a a significant turnover in the planning staff with the new mayoral administration. Okay. >> Um and so we have not reached out to the the new planning staff uh with the status update about the project. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to ask the town administrator who often does the relationships with our surrounding
communities wisdom of upzoning at least the top portion there that I think is next to star market without you know some collaboration agreement from Newton right on the border. >> We I will say the fact that we haven't talked to the new mayor doesn't mean we haven't been in regular communication with Newton over this. They know that
this is happening. They know the contours of what we have been thinking about in terms of this process and we have been working in partnership with them on this. I've spoken to the new mayor. It's on our list. This is this is high on our list of things that we're talking about. Not just this, but the overall development of that area and
Route 9 more generally um is a priority for >> you know we we I've related that it's a priority for the select board and he has agreed that it's a priority. I guess >> if so if if if we find that we're too far ahead of Newton um is it can we carve out that top piece
um and do it at a later date? I would defer to Meredith and the team on that in terms of how this how this works in practice, but I I I think I think if we were too far ahead of Newton on this, we would hear from you. Yeah. Because they know that this is happening. But I we I'm happy to double check, but
>> we it would be great to reach out proactively um with Newton spec. I know it sounds like they've had turnover in their planning um uh department, but it I would be worried about getting too far ahead of Newton if they have if they don't understand what we're doing. And
unless it's absolutely necessary to do that piece, especially that piece up top. Um certainly the the yellow needs the yellow needs to be done. Correct. Because that's part of what's being city's proposing, right? City realy is city realy is the yellow and the orange
piece, right? >> Uh so city realy. So this is the 4.0 subdist. Yeah. East east east block, west block and then city realy in the Chesn Hill office park is this portion of the west block. >> Right. Okay. Um, yeah. Again, I just I
think it's really important that we have some support, acknowledgement from Newton that they know what we're doing and that they're not going to go cause grief for it. I I get a Can I ask one more question? Um, and then for the traffic mitigation, um, I know I I did
have a brief conversation with uh with with Chaz and I think we both agree that we're a little concerned about traffic. Um the the recommendation for traffic mitigation, has that been vetted with uh our transportation board?
>> So, we are in we're wrapping up the final stage of the transportation study where we're pressure testing the existing infrastructure and some potential um alternative intersection configurations that we identified in the conceptual plans. >> Okay. Um and so we're sort of waiting
for the results of that and that will be pressure tested under a uh sort of optimistic development um scenario. >> What does Can you tell me what pressure tested means and what that would mean to me when you come back with the results? >> So we understand we're adding a lot of additional density. It's going to result
in additional trip generation. What impact will that have on your ability to move through and around the area? >> Yeah. Um, is it are we going to be in total gridlock or will the area still be able to function and observe? >> And you do know right now it is hellish to go through that area without the development. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, and then my last uh my last question is related to uh maybe it's the memorandum of agreement. I know there was some some outlines up there. What are the exits for city realy? How can they So we're our our side of the
bargain is zoning. We grant zoning. Hopefully at town meeting the zoning would happen. Um and we fulfill other obligations that we may have. Um what what are the triggers that allow city realy to say you know we're we're out. We don't want to do this. Do we do
we have a clear understanding of what those are? >> This is I did I think Jonathan Simpson um I would defer to town council. >> Is this an appropriate question to ask in public? I guess it's the first question I'd So what are the outs? I mean, if someone
proposes a change at town meeting um and that passes as an amendment, the city have the option to say, "Oh, that we don't we don't want that." And they're out. >> I did see Jonathan Simpson recently. >> Okay. >> And I will stop. >> Oh, I can't read his typ.
>> Sorry. Yes. So, Jonathan Simpson, first assistant town council. Um, fundamentally, city realy has the ultimate option to not build the project. We can't mandate that they build this build this project. All we can say is if you want to take advantage
of this zoning, you have to build this project and sign this agreement with the town. So the that's the fundamentally, you know, if if they went belly up the day after town meeting, I don't know what would happen necessarily. Hopefully it would get transferred to an entity
that would build the project, but that's first and foremost [clears throat] is we can't make them build it. Second, um, in terms of you mentioned amending the zoning, we're in the process of working out exactly what that's going to look like. Both
sides to this uh to this this arrangement, both the town and city realy um need a need a certain amount need certainty. uh but we kind of needed it and the way we achieve it we have to be very specific on because uh we don't
want to we I am negotiating and and it's a you know a red line for me that we can't we can't tell town meetings so that they've agreed to be bound by this deal and then have that not be true but at the same time city realy can't agree
to be bound by the deal and then get zoning that they didn't calc that they didn't plan on. Yeah. >> So, there's there's a few very specific circumstances that we're trying to deal with. One of them is what happens if there's an amendment to the proposed zoning. >> Um, we're going to I we're still working
out the details there. >> The other one that that has come up in the course of negotiations u is what happens if because we're since we're mun a town, we have to run all of our bylaw amendments including our zoning amendments by through the attorney general's office. and that's a third
party that through statute just has the ability to strike sections of our zoning. Um there is there will be a a a provision in the agreement that if the attorney general does into the zoning after it passes um that city realy will
be able to to walk away if it makes the project no longer work for them. But I I think the chances of that are extremely low. Um simply because it's not something there's nothing in this zoning that um that would would run a foul of the normal issues that the attorney
general takes with things that we amend our bylaw to do. And then above and beyond that, I've already approached the op the municipal law unit with with some questions about what we're doing just to make absolutely sure that there's not going to be any surprises. >> Thank you, Jonathan. And just one quick
uh follow-up question. If is there a performance time frame in this? So let if let's say that uh the the zoning is passed by town meeting as put forward uh without any changes. If something happens, if there's a group that sues,
if there's other hurdles that are put in front of this um does does the agreement expire? What's the time is there a time frame that this has to be done by? >> There is. uh but that the exact the exact length of it uh is is uh under
negotiation. But the the concept is that if this is held up for a significant amount of time, we're talking we're talking many year multiple years that um that there will come a point where where where City realy would
be able to uh essentially walk away because at that point we'd kind of be in a new it all both parties recognize that you know in 2030 2036 rather than 2026 it would just be a very different situation. the numbers wouldn't work out
the same. The the value of the various uses wouldn't um wouldn't be the same. So, we're not sure when exactly that that date will be. Um we're still negotiating that, but there will be a there will be a point. But the hope is that it will be a date that if
everything goes according to plan um they we'd never get even close to that they would they would have everything they needed because critically that date only comes about if there's like you said Paul if there's a there's an appeal though they're still waiting on something if all that is if if the only
person thing we're waiting on is city realy to get off its you know what and and start building that's not that's not grounds to get out of the >> Right. Right. Right. But we I mean as you said we can't control things we can't control. Thank you Jonathan. >> Yes. So a question about the east block. So the east block is owned by growth
companies. Correct. >> They own a majority of the properties in the east block. >> A majority of it. Uh so some concern I've heard is that if this zoning passes which covers the entirety of this Route 9 stretch down to Hammond essentially
>> uh what happens if the other owners are not really on board with a project of this scope. So if we just have the city realy portion that's built that would create quite a bit of contrast with the adjacent parcels. Mhm.
>> So to what extent uh is there outreach being made to some of these other owners so that there's some kind of uh coherence to how the developments looks at a macro level >> certainly. So we have been in
communication with growth companies as well throughout this process. um they participated in um almost all of the EDUB subcommittee meetings where there was a lot of back and forth between subcommittee members and uh city realy as well as growth companies and members of the public who attended.
>> Um you know we've tried to accommodate growth companies um you know based on our understanding of sort of what their constraints and pain points are in terms of being able to move forward with redevelopment. Um and I you know to the fullest extent we're able to we we've tried to make those accommodations in
the zoning. Um and then in terms of uh you know outreach to other property owners um there was a uh package I'm just gonna stop there but yeah so >> John
uh I just want to warn everyone that uh I Barbara and I own the first house we owned in Brooklyn was on Heath Street right right at the edge of these parcels. um uh as you go a little bit further west from what was visible on the map that was shown during this presentation, this excellent
presentation. Um that that's where our house was. You know, extremely modest um and uh there is a neighborhood uh that we were part of that uh I think would surprise a lot of people. it's as uh modest uh but
at the same time changing a little bit in the direction of because of all the changes in um uh local real estate over the years. Um what was a modest neighborhood is now a mod a neighborhood where houses sometimes you know can sell for a
million dollars or more. Um but it's a workingclass neighborhood. Um, it's a neighbor and maybe to a certain extent still today had people like firefighters, police, a custodian who lived next door to us. So, there's a lot to learn about
Brooklyn from the history of this particular section of our town, which is the furthest west section of our town, and a lot of people in Brooklyn don't really know that much about it, but it's an amazing se section uh of Brooklyn. And the people who who to this day um
live [clears throat] on that section of Heath Street, that's the the primary sort of residential part of all of this. [clears throat] They they um have been watching all of this very very closely and they have quite a stake in all of this. Um and what what we face uh in
terms of taking something to town meeting is this this balance between uh respecting the the the history of that neighborhood and the reality of the neighborhood in the present day um and the people who live there. Um and at the
same time respecting Brooklyn's need for commercial revenues, commercial development revenues. Um, and so we have an owner um who uh uh happens to have seen an opportunity um in purchasing the uh portion of the the map that is in the
bright yellow um and furthest to the west. Uh and uh I think I recollect correctly they they paid about $40 million for it. Um and and they need to make a return on their investment. um the people who are the the long-term
residential neighborhood uh uh residents of this area. Um uh they want to sort of have a return on on their investment in terms of uh they don't want their neighborhood to suddenly become less desirable to them. They don't want it to
become less desirable to people in the future. And um they love their neighborhood. Um so you know they kind of want to uh protect it as much as they can protect it from too much generation of traffic too much you know in in a couple instances maybe you know
overwhelming shadows or you know building heights that suddenly you know make everybody else feel kind of small. Um, so there's a lot a lot at stake. And then it, as Meredith has very carefully pointed out, it isn't just the portion
that is u, you know, at the at the heart of the Chesnut Hill West study group's um, uh, work. Um it's this entire portion for which we don't presently have you know people who have clear interest and a clear plan as to what
they would like to do with their property ownership going all the way in the direction of Hammond Street. Um and then we have that peculiar parcel on the other side of Boilston Street which I will explain to people right now in case they don't already know this. Um there's
a Chestnut Hill golf I mean excuse me there's a golf station there. We all call it the Ches Hill Golf Station. Um there's a CVS there and there there's parking for the u uh people accessing the uh the golf station. Um and and also for people going to the CVS and then
right next to that is this, you know, huge expansive parking for the Star Market. That's the thing that's the next to that. Um in my experience having worked as chair of the uh lower Boilson Street um study committee that would looked at the
zoning of lower loss street and the potential on lower boil street for there to be some dramatic change in development. Um when there are owners like CVS and Gulf Oil they have long-term leases. So, are we looking at
a parcel and trying to figure out how to reszone it when there's actually people who own it who probably have no interest in in abandoning the properties to some other alternative development? >> So, we we did speak with CVS and WS Development, which owns a couple of the
the Star Market parking lot and they own a couple of the properties um the two three family houses in the northernmost point of the study area. Uh yes. So, our our understanding is that, you know, there's no near-term redevelopment
interest. Um, but I, you know, I think this study is a combination of sort of how the town has approached resoning opportunities in response to development interests as well as, you know, moving forward with establishing a vision and a planning framework for the commercial
area surrounding that development opportunity as well. >> So, you are correct. I don't think that there's the potential for near-term redevelopment of the CVS site. Um, but I still think it is an important opportunity for the town to clearly establish a set of expectations around what we would like to see there um, in
alignment with our vision for the Chesn Hill commercial area. >> Well, you know, if that were to become sort of a hangup of of trying to get this through town meeting, I just wonder how much, you know, uh, result we could get from the resoning uh, given the long-term lease situations there. But,
you know, that that's not my main point. Um, it's just an example of, you know, the the many sort of complex pieces that we're looking at. Um, if I may, I'm just going to start at at Hammond Street and sort of work my way west to also try to
paint a picture for people of how really interesting this neighborhood is and how really complicated it might be to plan, you know, what it is today versus what we would like it to be in the future. So, you know, you've got you've got shallow commercial lots facing let's
start with the the section that is immediately adjacent to Hammond Street. Shallow commercial lots. [clears throat] Um uh a a bank uh former bank building that has been empty, you know, for quite some time. I think a second former bank building that has been empty quite some time, which is maybe going to become
what a veterary office or something like that. I forget what it was. Um you've got um a daycare center. Um [clears throat] you've got um uh a whole series of basically
singlestory commercial spaces kind of shallow and behind them you have uh people in traditional triple deckers and you know maybe double-decker but you also have an auto body shop that a lot of people use. So it's it's peculiar. It's a weird mix. um is the
vision that um uh that if you take for example the development that's going up just to the east um which is a sixstory um uh I think it's a age restricted uh
housing complex with commercial on the ground floor. Um, is is is that kind of what we want to see move down, you know, to the west progressively through this resoning? I'm just trying to get people to envision what this might mean.
>> So, we are looking to incentivize site assembly. Um, and I think not exactly in the form of 1180 Boilston, but it has established a new high precedent and level of density on a prominent location in the area. So, I think the answer is yes. >> Yes. Okay. Yeah. And I don't think that
I'm not saying that that would be a bad thing. I think people just need something they can picture, you know, and um then you also have a uh 40B project which is well underway um or at least it was well underway in terms of you know the presentation of the plans
and and uh so on and that would be at the corner of of of Ham Hammond and Heath and what they call Heath and Chief. Um where does that stand right now? because that's a lot like the one that is the six-story. Um, you know, it wouldn't necessarily be age restricted,
I'm quite sure, but it would be sort of the same height, mostly residential, u, maybe a little bit of commercial on the street facing first floor. >> Um, I might look over my shoulder to their, um, legal representation, but my understanding is that they received
their comprehensive permit. It is now under litigation. Um and the intention is that they would like to obtain their comprehensive permit for that 40B. However, that property owner has also been watching the development of the Chesna Hill commercial area study and the zoning recommendations closely and is very interested to see what
opportunities might exist for them as an alternative. >> Interesting. Um but uh under the envision zoning to the other side of Sheff Street. >> So now you're looking at the block between Sheep and Hammond which is a block away from the block facing Boilson
Street. Um would that ne you know potentially become just like the proposed development at the corner of Hebrew and you know basically five to six stories you know development above commercial maybe office development but I doubt it um probably residential
development. Just a a confirmation question. Are you talking about the block on between Boilston and Sheie Street and >> No, I'm talking about the the the the block between Sheff Street and Heath >> leading up leading up to Holly >> leading up to Holly.
>> Okay. Yeah. Um so that would be part of the neighborhood mixeduse and that would be standard fourstory height unless they meet the affordable >> Okay. um unless they meet the affordable more than 50% affordable units then they would be eligible to go to six stories or if it's a proposed hotel use that
would also be eligible for the high. >> Okay. And so then we get to the whole portion from Holly to Tully. >> Mhm. Um and if um what is envisioned for Ches Hill West um ends up being approved, ends up
eventually being developed, could we eventually see the whole area between Holly and Tully become what that what that is? Is is is that the long-term vision for all of this zoning? >> So the the
Holly to Tully block is part of the 4.0. It's the eastern block of the 4.0. Yeah. um where there would be eligible for the 12story maximum height potentially 14 story if they could get to 60% commercial. I will say it would be very very challenging for developers to get to 60% commercial. I think city realy is
in a position to do it because of the hotel component but um otherwise I think it's going to be a tall order >> but but when we do these resonings we do want people to capitalize on them right so I I mean it's kind of a contradiction
in that statement I think. So, um, my understanding is, well, point taken. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I mean, and we're not quite there yet. Or maybe we are there yet. I mean, we're talking about uh resoning for the entire area.
>> Yeah. I I mean, I guess the question is, you know, is there disagreement about the requirement for the 4.0 east block to also have the minimum 51% commercial requirement? I think conversations with the EDAB subcommittee identified that as an appropriate requirement for that um
property uh given interest in site assembly. So we could be talking about some potentially deeper parcels. Um and you know the the 3.0 was also something that the EDAB subcommittee identified as uh inappropriate for a more commercial forward development because of its
frontage on Boilston Street. >> Okay. Um I promise I I will kind of wrap up my part of this tonight. Um but I do have uh kind of the bottom line question um here. Um I I think what is behind um uh discussions like this one tonight and
and all of the discussions that took place with the chess uh study group >> um and every time we face you know one of these development uh uh u proposals is this this kind of a dance you know
between yeah we need development um but maybe not so much residential as commercial or maybe not so much commercial as residential. you know, that goes back and forth all the time. Um, we need the tax, we need to take properties that have like a certain amount of tax generation right now and
we want to maybe double that, you know, or triple that or quadruple that. So, so we're, you know, we're open to developers who want to, you know, go big, you know, and if they say, "Hey, given what I spent for this this land,
um, I would need you to go to 12 stories or 14 stories and I would need this and I would need that." And we kind of want to sort of keep that conversation going. But h if they say, "If you don't give me 14 stories, it's not feasible." They
love to say it doesn't pencil out. Um, how are we to know that that's really true? And how how are we to know that we could have actually gotten a very acceptable level of development at less than 14 stories in terms of its tax generation and in terms of its payback
to the developer? But how do we know if they're bluffing when they say they need 14 stories or it's game over? a rhetorical >> oh I think no I think we need to answer questions like is there a straight straightforward answer
>> um so so one of the reasons why we had the economic development advisory board involved in so many meetings um is that these people are development um and understand sort of economic viability whether it's housing or commercial
development people who are in the in the business now who've been in business over many years. >> Did you move your microphone a little closer? >> Sorry. >> That's okay. >> Um and um in addition to the minimum commercial percentage um that they have
talked about and you know has has uh been part of the negotiations over and the consideration of trade-offs um as we developed as as the planning department has developed the zoning. Um there's also this question of F right and one of
the reasons why we have an F of four um and in that area um is is [clears throat] to allow for sufficient commercial development um when EDAB meant met in April I believe um they
actually recommended an F of five for this area um and uh through the process of of the negotiation and the other um benefits that we have incorporated in the zoning. The open space requirements,
the community gathering space requirements, the uh internal circulation agreement, um uh the setbacks, the significant setbacks from the western border, which was which was a uh a significant uh
concession to the neighborhood. Um all of those issues um combined with EDAB's uh understanding of what was a legitimate amount of density um led to the design that ultimately led to the to
the height established within the zoning. >> So all of these things um in terms of your question of like is it really true that 14 stories is necessary um we're relying we're relying on our experts in EDA. >> Yeah. Um and we are also uh relying a
little bit on the analysis that was done by RKG Associates when they were doing net fiscal impact because they were also looking at questions of like what would actually be built, how would it generate revenue um and um so the planning staff
had the opportunity to look at that information as well. >> Okay. Um but I I I need to make the question a little bit harder. Um uh well I I think that's why we're here. Yeah. Um, >> there's a story story in the globe. What is being interrupted?
>> I hate to interrupt you, but I wonder if I could help as a tag on to Michael's. >> Well, why don't you let me finish the follow-up question. Okay, if that's all right. Uh the follow-up question is uh and I'm going to cite that there was a story in the Globe just last couple of days about a developer who hugely
overpaid for a property in Cambridge and now is left holding the bag um to the tune of like they're going to have to put it on the market in a sort of fire sale at about a third or a quarter of what they paid for it just a couple of
years ago. H how are we to know given the vicissitudes of the office market uh and the real estate market in general in this area uh and interest rates and all those other factors m you know maybe this is a case of of somebody overpaid.
So do we have to make the zoning enough to generate a profit for someone who overpaid for the property given the the circumstances of the market these days? >> Yeah, Michael. So, um, well, let me answer that. That's an that's a little different question that I was going to
answer, but >> you're glad you let me finish. >> Well, uh, I Yes, I suppose. So, um, so, uh, we the assessor's office in in Brooklyn, we talked with the assessor and the amount that's that was paid for that property appeared to be an
appropriate amount based on the what was the then current market. We don't know what the future uh will hold. I believe that the property that you were talking about however was designate was going to be built for out for lab space and there's no question that the lab space market has collapsed basically because
there's a huge there was a substantial amount of overbuilding. >> I think it was office but go ahead. >> If it was commercial office the same I think the same thing apply but that's not what we're looking for uh out of and that's not what city realy is looking for. Let me come back to the question that you asked about um whether they
need 14 stories or not. And the answer is really no. Nobody needs 14 stories. What they need is a certain number of square feet that will produce for them a certain number of dollars per square foot of income.
And you could take that 14story building this high, squeeze it down, but in order to get the square footage that you need, it's going to bulge out. If it bulges out, it basically takes up the space that we've been asked by the
neighborhood and we feel ourselves uh that is a staff staff and I think the community advisory group who feels themselves uh is appropriate for making attractive public space. One of the things that city realy has done is
agreed to take to um not put any traffic at all. No no no exit from their site onto Heath Street. That means that all of the circulation within that site has to be on roadways in the site. That takes up space. We have a large public
plaza between two of the buildings that's that have been proposed. Um, if you squeeze that building down and it bulges out, you squeeze down the ability of their ability to put that traffic on a roadway and you squeeze out the public
uh that that large public space. So, do we need the do you need 14 stories? No. what you need is 14 stories if you also want all of the other attributes that are built into that plan uh and therefore
that we have tried to zone for. >> May I just end with one last question and that is um since we've crunched all the numbers and that's the conclusion we've come to within that number crunching what level of profit are we allowing the developer?
>> We don't we don't have that answer. I think the okay so the question about why 12 stories and then the 14 story for the bonus I think one consideration in um is
sort of the acknowledgement that once you go beyond seven stories there's a change in building code requirements in construction you have to go to steel frame construction it gets much more expensive so in order to acknowledge sort of the economies of scale um if you're going to go beyond seven stories developers are really going to want to
go to 12 so that's sort of like a a standard considered um rule of thumb and definitely was often cited in our discussions with the EDAB subcommittee. So, you know, the task was to create compelling incentives for net new commercial tax growth. So, we could have
landed on 10 stories, but in terms of what we were charged with, I don't think that would have been a compelling incentive. And also another consideration is that if we're reducing the total amount of square footage and the size of this development in, you know, the 4.0 I know area that would lend itself to larger scale development.
We're also depriving the town of additional commercial tax revenue within that. Um so you know there's a lot of complexities. It's not quite as simple as you know you can push the building down it goes out because there are standard floor plate sizes. There's a point at which it just all falls apart. It's like you can't take off one or two stories. The whole the project no longer
pencils out. So I do feel that I am inc I am encouraged that within the zoning parameters that we've landed on city realy was able to include uh the hotel which is very important for the tax generation potential um but then also the medical office piece. I think we shouldn't just you know settle for um
the hotel use. We should really try to maximize the um potential that this site and the 4.0 subdist contribute to the expansion and diversification of the commercial tax base. >> Thank you for the answer. >> Okay, Paul, thank you. Um, I was hoping
I could uh invite the city realy representative up and ask a question. >> Paul, >> I have a question for him. >> He's here. >> Yeah. Why would we not? >> Well, no. I [laughter] I guess I'm I'm a little concerned that you're saying you're going to invite him up.
>> Well, I'm saying I'd like Well, I'd like to ask him a question. >> Okay. >> Would you like to invite him up? >> Well, he has through the chair. >> Through the chair. Bernard, could you please invite the city realy representative? I have a question for him. I'm so sorry just before I lose the thought and then in response to John's
question about sort of are we um making the developer whole through this zoning. This has definitely been a question and a theme that's come out through the community engagement process. EDAB subcommittee did do a level of analysis that kind of debunks that um proposal. I can follow up with sort of their
analysis um to the select board just to resolve that question. >> I'm sorry. Debunks what? the the notion that um you know the based on our understanding of the other bids and what city realy ended up paying based on the next highest bid it does not make a substantial amount of difference in
terms of the level of development a devel a developer would want out of this site if that makes sense. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh city realy come on up. >> Thank you chair B. Hey everyone,
>> please. >> Cliff Kensington representing city realy owner of the chest office park site >> and Jennifer Depazo Gilbert Council. >> We know you. [laughter] >> So, first uh I appreciate you coming up uh in and the that you're indulging me.
First, I want to thank you uh for um the amount of time and effort that you've put into this. U as your attorney will attest, we are not the easiest [laughter] municipality to do business with. Um it is hard. Um I think that that hardness
uh comes over uh protecting something that many residents and and town meeting members and public officials believe is a very special place. So just know that that's I think that's where it's coming from. Um but in the conversations that I've had with people calling me um and
again know that that there's a lot of suspicion with change. It's just it's just the nature of it. Um I I what and I probably I know the answer to this question but I do want to give you an opportunity to to state it. Um the how committed are you
city realy to building this project to completion versus the zoning coming and then it gets sold to someone else and and we're dealing with somebody else. I mean we are we're we're certainly very
committed to to being a part of it. I I can't tell you that we are going to be the only partners in it. It is a it would require a very large capital capital infusion that is just is not you know not within our balance sheet to just build it. We will certainly need
lenders and and potentially equity partners if not development partners but it's it is absolutely our goal to be a part of it and shepherd this through uh the whole the whole process certainly. >> Okay. I mean that is helpful to hear because I you know the the the fear that
I've heard from some folks is that this is just going to get flipped and we're going to be completely dealing with somebody else. I realize who knows what you can predict and your attorney may say you can't commit, but I think it is I think it's important that we know who we're going to be doing business with
and partnering with uh primarily to see this thing through. Um I think it's important um and I'm and what I'm hearing is you're committed to seeing this project through. You may take on others to help, sounds like, but you're committed to being >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I mean,
we're we're long-term people, you know, we're local. We don't that this is as far west as we get on any project. Everything we do is Boston. We're, you know, this is where we want to boy, where do we want to be? We don't we don't do anywhere else in the country. >> Okay. >> Okay, David. >> Thank you. >> So, a question I have I' I've heard a
lot from members of the public who talk about your broader portfolio and city realies experience with mixeduse development. Can you talk a little bit more about your mixeduse developments and some of your other properties? I know for example you've a property in Quinsey and you've got various ones in
Boston. Can you talk about some of those? >> Yeah, I I would say that um over the lifespan of our company, we've we've certainly tried to track the market. I usually tell people that, you know, because we are so geographically focused in this area, we're more geography
focused than we are asset class focused. So that has led to us to kind of go through different phases depending on opportunities in the market. We've we've done we've kind of always done a lot of residential which is both kind of apartment and condominium projects of
various scales. You know we've we've done from all the way down to single families up to you know multi- uh you know uh large scale apartment buildings. We've done we've in more recent years as kind of market forces have shifted we've uh we've done a lot of restaurant and
hospitality including restaurant space in this this study area particularly as as that market kind of dipped um we also have been picking up a lot of existing office building and retail spaces uh in recent years like so you know and those have been a lot more larger scale
existing office building both in the city and in the suburbs. Um and then we've been you know over the last five to six years really focusing on the hotel side of the business. So we uh and kind of permitting and and designing a number of hotels uh you know some of
which are in process now none of which have opened yet. So I would say part of the reason why you know on a project like this we would certainly look toward potential ex like ex partner expertise partners depending on the certain you know where appropriate and it's things
that we have done a lot ourselves we would certainly look to own it and manage it ourselves but where necessary there's a lot of opportunities to bring in dedicated partners you know luxury hotels is a is a very unique business that we you know where if we can we
would absolutely love to to have someone who's done dozens all over the world be a part of the team or for medical office that often especially at the large scale or at an institutional tenant level requires different expertise that we would certainly look to bring on to be part of the process. So I think that's
part of why you know we thought the phasing was important. We thought having different buildings as opposed to having you know one gigantic building that included a bunch of different uses, we wanted the opportunity to kind of keep uh you know execute these things to the best of their abilities and I think that's reflected in the version of the
project we have now. >> Just I just want to add that the two principles of city realy one lives in Brooklyn and one lives in Newton and they do an extensive um philanthropic work throughout Brooklyn as well. So I just wanted to add that
Okay. Uh David, >> in terms of the commercial mix that you are visualizing, so part of this presentation indicated that one of the goals would be to create another commercial district essentially. Uh I think that people in the neighborhood and also townwide or metro Boston would
be curious to know how far along are you in discussions with potential commercial partners for the hotel, for retail, for restaurants? I there's been a lot of of discussions both you know kind of cold outreach to
us as well as you know us in discussions with with a lot of people who've done work in the area there I will say that you know there is certainly a number of which who are hesitant to provide any more detail you know given where things are in the zoning there's definitely a
level of okay talk to me when the zoning actually allows what you're saying you can do you know no one really wants to dedicate a lot of time and resources to fleshing out a proposal on something that's not even currently allowed to be built. So, there's been a lot of preliminary discussions, but uh we're
we're hoping that, you know, as soon as we kind of progress things forward and we have some tangible approvals that we can transition all these preliminary conversations into a more detailed, you know, LOI process, you know, more detailed bring them on as part of the
design, more detailed design process and special permit process. So absolutely a lot of interest but you know what form that takes I think we will need a little more a little more progress. >> Well let me just answer that a in a little bit of a shorter answer. There's
a lot of interest but nobody really wants to talk about it until they see the zoning that's passed. >> And I can understand the reticence to get into specifics. I'm not asking specific names. But could we maybe have categories or uh some [clears throat]
kind of assurance that the zoning as it's being proposed will be compatible with some of the interest that you are drawing? >> Abs. Absolutely. Certainly hotel interest and certainly medical office interest and the residential cells itself. >> Want to add to that?
>> Yeah. And I would just say that a lot of um a lot of the design decisions uh and the exact shape of the project uh has driven you know wanting to target some of the desired outcomes and particularly on the retail side you know there's a
there's a very delicate balance that must be struck to kind of have successful retail. So, you know, as Mike Sand was talking, you know, minimum widths of that plaza to actually allow for retail activation of that plaza is something we've been trying to guard because if you squeeze it too much, suddenly it becomes a not a nice place
to be and no retail tenants want to be there. things like the parking circ like the vehic ve vehicular circulation, frontage, signage, all of these we kind of show that we want to make sure that it becomes the vibrant retail environment. And even just having a
certain amount of retail, having kind of oneoff 3 or 4 thousand square foot spaces on their own in isolation are not going to be successful retail areas. You need a density. You need a district [clears throat] almost of retail in order for any one retailer to want to get involved. So we've certainly heard
interest but also we have been designing a lot of these kind of feedback we've been giving and kind of lines we've been holding on certain dimensional aspects of the design has been to maximize the success of these commercial elements which as many pointed out is the more challenging part is the thing that has
to be done right in order to be successful >> and if I might just ask about the outdoor component. So we [clears throat] we've heard that there's interest in an outdoor component. I'm a little curious about that because I mean this is right on a highway. I'm not sure how many people really want to be outside right
on a highway. Uh so what is really the driving force behind having outdoor space as opposed to what Mike Sammon was talking about of sort of having a shorter building that bulges out a bit more. Well, I think the um that's kind of been through the different variations
of our um has been to have an outdoor component but to provide some level of protection from the highway. Uh originally we had a more of a horizontal scheme of the buildings that were kind of ran parallel to the street with an internal um with an retail corridor. And
through the advisory and the process and feedback there was expressed a desire to reorient because that would they wanted more vertical connections between Heath Street and Boilson Street. So we changed that but to compensate for some of the things you're talking about we have set the buildings further back from Boilson
Street. We've introduced some landscape screening in our in our plans and and certainly, you know, it's visible and it is connected to both roadways, but I think but the experience within it will be much more muted even than something like the street which has a large
portion of outdoor components on Boilson Street I think will be farther away and even better screened than they are. But it obviously it's been very successful for them as well. >> But doesn't that also create the problem of visibility of the retail that's there? Yeah. if you're screened off, how do people know it's there?
>> So, that's that's on the flip side. Um, is one, you know, we certainly know that some internal spaces I think will command lower rents, but I think that's they can be smaller spaces that can attract a different tenant pool, but it's also why one of our early things has been the importance of signage and
and having some level of flexibility in the in a in a kind of shared signage on Route 9. So the retailers who don't have visibility for their space still have visibility uh signage visibility on Route 9, which is a really going to be a a major demand of anyone looking to move
into the space. >> And sorry, last question. I know I'm asking a lot, but these are important. Uh medical offices, I'm not sure really get people excited. I I understand that the market's vibrant for that. That's fine. Uh but my understanding is that there's nothing in this zoning that
would preclude uses that are different for medical office space. So, in theory, if there were some kind of retail uh potential tenant that came to you and said, "We really want to have X space," that would still potentially be viable.
Correct. >> Meaning in the >> meaning under the zoning, it would be allowable, I should say. >> Yeah, certainly. The But I mean, retail retail above the first couple of floors is is very rare and it would be very tip difficult to pull off. So, you know, we
were certainly hoping for in one of the buildings to have at least two levels of retail and then medical office on the upper floors. I don't I think any kind of use of once you get above the the third or fourth floor, it's it's going to be medical office or traditional office versus retail. >> Well, just as an example, so right
across the street there's Legal Seafood on a second floor, the Container Store on a second floor. So, it doesn't seem impossible. >> No. So, we do have a second floor retail in our current plan on one of the buildings. Um, so we are hope we are certainly hoping for that and trying to maximize the amount of retail space we
can where it is possible but above the second floor we we just do not think it's possible. So we've we've shifted our plans accordingly. >> I had one more >> I think this is an important question. Um
how uh I think it's a question for Jonathan Simpson uh but others may weigh in of course. Um while all of this is going on and you know it could stretch on for you know another year, two years, three years, four years, 5 years before we actually see you know development much less completion of all the
development there. How do we protect ourselves from any any piece of this being sold off to a um a nonprofit? So the um the in terms of the the biggest but the protection that we most are most concerned about when it comes to being sold to a nonprofit is the fact
that nonprofits have utilized other special districts like this one is that the uh there is a tax certainty agreement. It was mentioned in the in Meredith's presentation. uh one of the warrant articles will authorize you to execute that as well as the memorandum of
agreement and the with it the the uh city realy and their successors and assigns are agreeing to if they ever transfer the property to a taxexempt entity that entity is agreeing to pay
the difference in in taxes. So the town's uh the town's stat revenue will stay will stay the same because this also contains a hotel use. It has an additional clause specific to this agreement the taxes that the town uh gets from the
hotel use the excise taxes. So if that use is ever changed or if it is somehow a nonprofit hotel um that those tax that tax revenue will also remain level. uh they'll simply be agreeing to to pay it um to to pay it in in lie of taxes
effectively and that is binding on not just city but anyone city sells the property to it actually >> for how long or how long Jonathan >> it's for the maximum time allowed which would be 95 years. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Although although under the law we
are responsible for renewing that agreement um periodically uh 30 and then 25 25. So, um, so it there is a, uh, excuse me, I I forget how it adds up, but it it it's it it's in the statute, but yes, so we we track those and we we
we haven't had to yet, but we will we track those and we we fully intend to renew them as necessary. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. I just one point that uh John raised earlier, I'm not sure it was answered. You questioned um whether city had overpaid for the site at 40 million
and it's actually assessed at 65 million. >> Oh, I know. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But that's why I mentioned things have changed so much. I mean a lot of properties that were assessed at 65 million are no longer assessed at 65 million and you know some of them are assessed at half. So
>> yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you Meredith. You want to conclude or send us on our way? So just to come back to the bookend slides in terms of next
steps and the feedback that we were seeking. There it is. >> And can we talk a little bit about deadlines? So the warrant closes the end of the month. Uh >> February 25th.
>> February 25th. Um so you are meeting throughout this month. Um and I think the question on our end is one there's there are still additional process to go through before these articles are finalized. There are things that are still being negotiated, finalized, etc.
hammered down. Um, as that process progresses, would you like to, for example, hold a public hearing? Would you like to um would is there specific information you would like um what what what can we do um to get you the information you need
to feel comfortable making a decision on these three items? >> Well, Paul, you have he asked the question. I was going to offer some thoughts. Um so yeah, three things. Uh one, it would be helpful to have the traffic mitigation
plan somehow vetted. Um maybe put that in front of the transportation board and let them do their thing. Um it would just be helpful to have another set of eyes on it versus just the people that did the work >> um to to check it. Um there's a lot of
questions about commercial viability and how the mechanics of this uh zoning affect height and profitability and all that. I know there was a subcommittee that from EDAB that worked on it. It'd be great to have them here, some of them or one of them or a couple of them just
to ask questions. Um, John had raised a lot of questions I think that were that were valid that maybe and I know the committee has answers, but it'd be great to hear directly from uh uh from them. And then the the third thing I I I do think it would be a good idea to have a
public hearing uh as part of the process of putting it on the warrant. So, um I I it would be really great to hear from folks um before we actually vote to put it on the warrant. Uh, no, David. >> So, I I agree with Paul's suggestions. I
would add, uh, there's a question John asked that I thought was quite salient that I'd like some more clarity around. >> Well, all of your questions, but this one in particular stuck out of my mind, which was when we talk about this, pencils out, this doesn't pencil out. I I think you're right that we could use a
better understanding of pencils out for whom? for sort of your average project or pencils out specifically for a particular developer, pencils out for a particular parcel. And I appreciate um
Meredith's explanation around how if you need to go over seven stories, you really need 12 because of the change in the building code, but I think that there's some other elements that go into that. specifically how much profit are we
targeting here when we say that we need x amount of square footage or y number of stories and I think that's important to know not so much because I don't want city realy to be successful I want I want city realy to do well and I want
the town to do well of course but these are very important policy considerations that we are making and if we are working off an assumption that the developers profit margin needs to be Z level and maybe it doesn't really have to be in
terms of from a town interest perspective. We need to know what those trade-offs are so that uh any proposed refinements can be uh dealt with accordingly. And then with regard to potential refinement, I think it would be helpful to know uh perhaps from city
realy whether uh sort of lastm minute adjustments to building height uh could be uh executed prior to this May. Now, uh, I know that a lot of work goes into these designs, and I greatly
appreciate how much time you've spent on all this, but I think that ultimately success at town meeting is going to come down to the building heights and uh, the neighborhood is really uncomfortable with um, 12 to 14 stories. I think
they're fine with the seven. Even the seven was a bit of a stretch because there's really nothing around there. That's I mean 1180 is going to be six, but for the most part that stretch is mostly one and two stories. So this would be a dramatic change. I do think the neighborhood understands that change
is inevitable and that it's important for revenue growth and for trying to ease the residential uh tax burden to some extent, but 14 is a dramatic shift. And I think if there could be even a slight modification downward a bit, we
would get more people on board. So to the extent that there uh is the possibility of a slight bulge out somewhere without derailing the entire process, I think that would also be worth noting. >> May I wait? Just I I agree with Paul. I
think we should have a hearing and and as one element of the hearing um I do think we should um you know offer offer an opportunity uh to the advisory group to um to give us a sense of of their consensus um on this um and um uh
because it's a peculiar feature of this advisory group um that um they they they were not formed for the purpose of taking a vote um and so they I haven't taken a vote, but it can't hurt to hear from them and
to get a sense of what their consensus is on this. >> Okay. Well, >> can I can I just ask for a little clarification on that? Um because it's because this was a staffled
project and the the community advisory group certainly has multiple voices. Um are you are you looking for a sort of representation from every community advisory group member because
you know different community group members had diver have different >> No but how many people are on the advisory group >> uh who 10 >> 10 or 11 I think >> so if 10 show up and each one wants to speak for a brief period of time I don't see what the harm
>> well they can well any I'm sorry >> go ahead >> so I think if we all the public hearing. Any one of them can come and speak if they want to. I But here's, you know, um with Michael's help and and others, you know, we did do something that was very hard at town meeting with the MBTA community.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> And this is going to this is similar. This might be harder. >> Yeah. >> And I I I it potentially could be harder than the MBTA community. Um and I think you know, David, and by the way, I'm not representing anybody. No one has said
this to me, so I'm just I'm going to speak up speak out loud for a moment. Um, which is sometimes scary, but I'm going to um twothirds is a very high bar. It's a hurdle at town meeting. Um, and it it it
is very difficult to overcome without strong broad consensus. And I think and I the reason why I asked earlier and John just reiterated like where where does the committee stand? Um, it is important to have the the the support of the committee and a divided committee is
not great for trying to get something passed for twothirds vote at town meeting. Um, and I think we need to I think we need to be sensitive to that. Um, my understanding is that it potentially has been a divided committee
although there wasn't a formal vote or a straw vote. Um and unfortunately those I think the folks that have not been very supportive um for a whole bunch of reasons um have influence at town meeting. Um and I
worry about getting a two-thirds vote. Um you know David alluded to the fact is what if there is a change? I would suspect that there's going to be an amendment offered at town meeting. We're not doing it. I'm not doing it. But I wouldn't surprise me if there was an amendment to height. Um, I don't know
what that is. I don't think it's seven. I think um, but I think there's some I think there's something that that could help get it past the finish line that could work for everybody. Um, I don't know exactly what that number is, but I think we knowing town meeting and what
it takes to get to a twothirds vote, it's an unpredictable animal as Mr. Sandman knows because he's was in it for a long time. Um, and I think we need to be open to that. Um there is there's a solution here that's beneficial to city
realy to the the the folks the the abutters the neighborhood north Brooklyn line south Brooklyn line into the town. Um and I think it just may need to take a little bit of work uh to to figure out what that is. Um we could roll the dice
and see if it's 14 stories. Um I think that's risky to tell you the truth. Um, I think something a little lower might might get you there. Maybe it means bulging something out or making something a little bit higher somewhere else. But anyway, that's my two cents. I would like to see a solution.
>> I I just wanted to clarify. I wasn't suggesting seven as the maximum height for all three. I was just referencing the residential building, which is uh already planned to be seven. And I think that's been accepted. And I think there's an understanding the other two
need to be taller, but 14 is a bit too tall. >> Yeah. And I think that's going to be the main barrier. And as Paul just mentioned, I really feel it's in the best interest of all involved to try to find a way to reduce those heights even just a little bit so that we can get a
more broader buy in. And the the quicker the better because May is approaching and I'm sure that uh city realy doesn't want to see this get delayed by a year. So hopefully there will be some flexibility there >> or not. Yeah. >> Yeah. Right.
>> Yeah. Um I I just want to un uh understand in terms of process um since like you've all obviously been through this before. Um [clears throat] so we're we there's a step here to
determine whether the select board wants to put these articles on the warrant. And what I'm hearing from the group and please correct me if I'm wrong is that that there is an o that the consensus here is that there is an opportunity and it is worth bringing to town meeting in
some form and we are trying to figure out that form. I'm seeing Paul you're nodding yes and I'm seeing David you're nodding yes and I'm seeing John you're nodding yes. >> Uh thank you. Um, and so, so, so given that, what I hear you saying is that it would be helpful to have a
public hearing for this group and the public and the planning department to hear the broad range of opinions um, on this before we file in the warrant and then to file in the warrant and then to hear those opinions again after we file
because we will be doing a public hearing. Is that is that what I'm hearing from the rest of >> public hearings? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yes. And also I think to be able to have a timely contingency plan in the event that there is indeed a an amendment
brought to town meeting for lower density, which I think is extremely likely. It's not difficult to bring an amendment. And as Paul mentioned, it's not something the select boards necessarily going to do, but we don't control all 255 town meeting members. It could happen. it would probably be
deemed within scope and so having a ready plan for that I think would increase the likelihood of mutual success rather than waiting for an 11th hour amendment and then it really is too late. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> In answer to Michael's question um very good question you know I I think the goal for all of us is ultimately is success. want to have success at town meeting. Um given given what we're hearing, you know, from the developer, given what
we're hearing from the very good chair of this study group, Mike Sanman, uh given what we're hearing from Michael, my colleague, um but also given what we're hearing from some of the the members of the study group and also from the neighborhood at large, um uh the end
result is very likely going of what we regard as the most likely to succeed. The end result is going to be something less than the absolute uh max that is in in the interest of the developer and something more than you know the people
who are concerned about this and who might be prone to to opposing it at town meeting something more than they are comfortable with but something that they would accept. So I think giving them a chance to be heard is the first step
towards you know hopefully moving some of them to um a feasible plan that has broad support um from members of the study group from this select board perhaps and I'm I'm assuming you know if we do it right we'll have unanimous
support from the select board um but um has viability when it gets to town meeting just just like you know the effort on MBTACA which Paul so Aly led >> and which I played the role of you know person who is annoying at every single
meeting you know by saying you know by saying you're you're still not there yet you're still not there yet and they kept going back and they and they came up with something and and then it ended up kind of breezing through town meeting so >> okay
we have our marching orders >> yes we're clear >> okay We have a sense of the date when we will come to final >> figure out what you know. >> We'll we'll we'll we'll backs all from there. Yeah. Um I think realistically we'll we'll we'll talk about whether the
10th or the 17th. Uh the 17th is very full. The 17th is >> is >> midnight hour. >> Yeah. Is is the budget. Um I don't I don't think you want to do a one two leave town. Um, so I think you really want the may we'll talk about we'll try
and figure out what what works in terms of a public hearing whether that's the 10th. I don't know if you want to have it on the 24th because then you're going to have to vote after that one way or the other and I don't think that's necessarily conducive. >> Well, school vacation is the week of the 16th. Uh, >> you are meeting that day because that's
the budget. Sorry, I have we >> cancel those. >> Uh I know, but there's there's the [clears throat] schedule is so tight. There's no snow, right? As much as we like to try and give you the third Thursday off, we we we also don't want
to then overload you and have you go to 1 a.m. every night. >> Okay. >> Can I say one thing in closing, Brenn? >> Quick thing, >> Meredith. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> No, thank you. Seriously, I you know, you have done an amazing job, an amazing
job in persistence. So, just I just wanted to say thank you for all that you >> a great presentation. >> It's a hard you have a hard job and we recognize it's just want to say thank you. >> Thank you so much for your time. Looking forward to coming back and continuing the conversation. >> Thank you. Thank you, Meredith.
>> [clears throat] >> Okay, next we have a relatively short uh discussion of the uh center street lot update. Um, and I'd like to Are you gonna be here for that or >> I'll stay?
>> I'm not. >> Okay. Um, I'm not sure we need you to say anything. I just thought you would >> just like to enjoy the show. [laughter] Okay. >> You also have Jessica and China on online.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Um Okay. So, what I'd like to start I mean this is a presentation uh from the project consultant and center street lot committee. Reading from the agenda uh a discussion and possible vote on next steps for the center street lot
exploratory study. I'd like to have Chaz tell us what those next steps are. Uh I mean that yeah I think there's a lot a lot of people have attended meetings on this issue that I guess I missed because they think things are going to happen
next that I'm not aware of. So I want you know Chaz to just you know make it very clear what you know what the next steps are uh in this process and and when uh something comes back to us that's going to make a difference in terms of whether we go forward or not.
>> Sure. Um, and I >> and and by the way, could you also address the issue of the comprehensive plan? >> Sure. Maybe Meredith raised her hand. I wonder if she might be better to kind of talk through. >> So, just as a a reminder about the recommended next step. So, last week you received a presentation from the Center
Street Lots Committee um about sort of how they [clears throat] came to their uh preferred option in the sidelot. And then there was the request to the select board about sort of an endorsement of the sidelot or um you know approval of recommended next steps would be moving
forward with the request for information that we would put out to the private development community for feedback about the proposal and to what extent it might lend itself to a successful public private partnership in redeveloping the lots. Um so there's I think we're in a position in the economic development
division because we have been um down two staff members since October. We do have some additional salary funds that have been uh transitioned to technical consulting services. We would be able to advance a request for information process this fiscal year because of this unusual situation. So I think we were
just um sort of looking for select boards confirmation in continuing to invest staff time in the pursuit of um exploring the sidelot and you know uh modifying it. So, so just make clear the vote you're asking for tonight is to
just go out there, visit EDAB and others and come up uh for our next meeting on this with a proposed RFI which if we voted and it's issued doesn't commit us to anything. >> This is uh this is a a great question.
Um so if we move forward with the RFI, it will take many months to port to prepare it. Um, so it would require sort of a tour of various uh boards and committees throughout town for input so we could get clarity on making sure we're asking the development community the right questions so that we can go
back make some modifications to the proposal um and then maybe develop some zoning that would help support that redevelopment. Um, if there was consensus around an idea and assuming that we didn't uncover any deal breakers like you know if we would need to take the Center Street East lot offline for two three years that would obviously be
a no-go in that situation. So, I think the RFI process, you're right, it wouldn't commit us to anything. It is really just an information gathering opportunity so that we can continue to refine the sidelock concept, which I think everyone fully expects is going to need to be modified based on other
considerations. and and if we we gave you a bunch of uh criteria last week that you know that we expect to be included in an RFI and if that come if if that creates an RFI that means that
uh the uh sidel lot is just not feasible at all. >> We're still uh able to say well let's just clean up the parking lot as is. >> Yes, absolutely. I I just want to make clear that you we're not committing to anything either today or our next
meeting um on on this. >> I think just for the nuance of this, I think if we move forward with an RFI, it is prudent for us to move forward with one of the preferred options um with maybe some alternative options that developers could respond to. But so I do
think it is important that we move forward with an RFI and we're recommending it's based on the sidelot which was the recommended scheme from the committee. Right. Okay. But that's [clears throat] a side lot which also addresses some of the concerns that we that we and other members of the
community have raised with respect to uh you know not something that's all >> that addresses certain accessibility issues >> and [clears throat] you know all the other things we we talked about last time. >> Yes, absolutely. And it's just just to
kind of reiterate, right, the process of drafting any RFI necessarily involves that tour of committees, that community consultation. No one is saying the thing that you saw in the presentation last week is going out to the development community site on scene and we're asking
them to to to bid on that. Basically say, will you do this? Yes or no. It's going to go through changes and revisions. It's just to Merida's point, you don't want to start from nothing. You don't want to start from a situation where you say what would you do with this because that's the kind of process that was just completed. Um what you're
saying is this process yielded this result. Do you think it's you know go out to the committees get feedback on that process tinker with it see whether or not progresses to a stage where you want to go out to the public and then put that out there.
>> Mike. >> Um so I would like to beg to differ a little bit. Um, one of one of my concerns and I've heard it expressed from others um is that um
the sidelot proposal um is itself not economically viable for various reasons or it might have some other contingencies that that um that don't allow it to be built or or uh or require
significant modifications. And I am it sounds like from the pro from the presentation that was made previously that to date there really hasn't been any uh feedback from the developer community
on what would be economically viable and that's the purpose of this RFI. Great. Um, and I think I think getting that information is critically important. But but aside from indicating within the with the RFI
that the sidelot was a preferred solution coming from the committee, I wouldn't want the RFI process to either shut down or eclipse or prevent developers who have other ideas from
bringing those ideas. however, uh outside the bounds of the sidelot um concept um forward in order for us to consider them if those developers believe that they're economically viable >> because I just think that information uh
is also really important. >> Okay. >> And and just to to that point in the in the list of par topics and parameters um >> uh it says here the the concept is a place to start not a plan. Expressions of interest based on either the sidel
lot or alternatives that conform to the committee's objective and principles are welcome. And I think that's, you know, again, it's a place to start. It's a process. You know, you don't want to go, you don't want to go out with nothing. Um, you have this thing that came out of this community oriented process and now
you're going to have the opportunity to kind of fine-tune what that looks like before it goes out to the public. But you still ultimately have this bedrock of what are the objectives? what are the what are your what are your base principles? Um and you know can you come up with something that conforms to that?
>> Well >> yeah um so this may take a little bit and I I'm I have some thoughts that will just take a little bit for me to work through them. Bernard um so last night I I attended the EDAB meeting. I'm a representative of the
board. Um, and it was incredibly informative for me to sit through that meeting. Um, I heard from three developers that sit on that committee, uh, wellrespected, experienced developers
raise a whole host of questions and concerns about this. um questions that were raised about whether we should even do it this concept. Um and uh they had an extensive discussion.
John, I think you might have been in the audience. You probably heard some of it. >> Um and the the thing that that surprised me was that they've never discussed it. They weren't presented with the recommendation from the committee. They
did receive updates throughout the process, but it was we're here, we're there, this is where in the next step, but they were never presented with the concept uh and asked and provided with the opportunity to give feedback um and
recommendations or vote for that matter. Um, we also received a letter and and so last night by a unanimous vote, EDAB voted and we should have received a letter from the chair um asking that we delay uh issuing an voting on an RFI
until such time that they can be presented with the recommendations of the committee, their logic for their recommendations, and let them go through the process similar to what they did with Chestnut Hill West. Um, and I would argue that this is more critical than
Chestnut Hill West. This is our center of our economic uh, you know, area of town. Um, Koolage Corner. Um, and they asked that we delay uh, the vote and let them get briefed and they will come back. I'm I'm almost done. Bernard,
>> delay the delay what vote the RFI. >> Yes. They >> That's already delayed. >> Oh, >> I mean that. >> Are you angry? >> Well, no. I'm irritated me. >> Well, don't be Well, I'm sorry. you're irritated. I, you know, I sat through the meeting last night. This is what they said. Uh, and they're asking to
wait. Um, and again, and we have the same thing from Brian Kaine. He sent us a note. Um, asking that we hold off, uh, slow it down so that so that the transportation board can do the same thing. The transportation board has not had the benefit of this recommendation.
And this is primarily a transportation board issue right now because it is parking. Um, I I think we're getting out over our skis on this thing and I and I would um I would encourage that this board
um ask the bodies that it appoints to advise it on critical decisions of of this type to give us their candid unvetted opinions um of of what this the feasibility and
wisdom of going forward with this idea. Um, going with an RFI is actually signaling to the market that and and you heard it from Meredith and again I I appreciate the work that they did that this is our preferred option. I don't think this board is in consensus
that this is a a good idea to do. Um, and I for one am not prepared to say that we should do the sidelot as a a matter of policy to signal to the market that we're willing to do this. Um, there were two developers last night. I think
George Cole said it best. He said, "I'm a developer. I have to pick and choose what I spend time on. You're not going to get valuable information from an RFI because it's too early. They don't know the the developers don't know the
commitment. It's not an RFP. They don't know our commitment to this idea. And frankly, I don't know our commitment to this idea. It hasn't been vetted. I think we're going too fast. Um I keep hearing about momentum and we got to keep up the momentum. Why? Why do we
have to keep up the momentum? this issue, this idea that kind of sprung up, you know, over the summer, um, and presented as what the town wants. I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced it's a good idea. I'd like to hear from our
adviserss that we appoint before we take any steps. I think it's a significant mistake to signal out to developers, to the market, to the town for a an idea that is just germinated. it's not developed, it doesn't have a foundation.
Um, and say we're going to we're going to plow forward with an RFI. I think it's a huge mistake. So, I would um I would like to strongly encourage my colleagues to tap the brakes, let the I would suggest that EDAB have an
opportunity to hear, hold a public hearing, deliberate [clears throat] on it, and make recommendations to this board. I'd like to have um uh EDAB uh EDAB do it. the planning board. Um I'd like to have the HAB because we're it's housing. They haven't had an opportunity
to comment. Um and also the transportation board which is a specific request by Brian Kaine in his uh email to us uh this morning. >> Okay. So let me understand Meredith maybe you can help. Um what you're asking us to do is to let you loose to
go and talk to EDAB, talk to the other, you know, uh public bodies and based on that the information you get there to come back with a proposed RFI. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, so I mean I guess I'm maybe I'm missing something.
>> Well, they Well, they want to spend >> But we're not we're not voting to commit to anything tonight. We're we're committing. What they're asking to do is spend $40,000 to go craft an RFI. Okay. I for one am not willing to blow 40 grand on a bad
idea. I don't know if this is a good idea. I haven't heard back from our specialists. >> It's to help craft an RFI. It's to help >> by by planning department. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Uh John. >> Yeah. But but let's not leave out the RFI would be
uh oh by the way people out there who are in the field of development there has been a consensus that Brooklyn wants a parking garage in place of surface parking in their coolage corner parking lot and housing in place of surface
parking in their coolage corner center street parking lot. What do you think? I don't think there's a consensus in Brooklyn. So why would we bother going out to developers and misrepresenting that there's a consensus in Brooklyn?
The only consensus that there is is that u after a process that started I went back and viewed the tape of the meeting where this whole this all began. It was a year ago uh January early January um and there was a specific point made and
credit to Paul for for making this point. Um, there's no mention of housing uh in in this thing we're voting on tonight to launch a so-called Center Street Lots Committee. Shouldn't we be mentioning housing if that's going to be part of their mandate? And the chair of
that committee pushed back and said, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no." And uh Paul had to ask the question three times and still couldn't get any kind of agreement that if we're going to have this committee look at housing, there should be housing in the chart. So if
you go to the charge for this committee today, you'll see there was never housing in the charge for the committee. Somehow along the way, that became the preferred element of the center street lots plan um of the committee working
for that plan. Um and and then it became this the basis for a multiplechoice test for a random audience that showed up for a talk on walkability um at the Koolage Corner Theater. And in that random in
that you know random assortment of uh multiple choice test uh given four pictures of developments they said the one that we think is the the keen the neat neatest one is that one number two or number three or whatever it was. But
there there there never was a preceding establishment of a clear consensus based on clear um outreach. Outreach to the merchant community, outreach to the people who most frequently use the the
center street parking lot. outreach to um others who uh are not necessarily from the area but who use their cars from other locations, other parts of Brooklyn, other outside of Brooklyn and would not return as shoppers if they
couldn't have their surface parking. Uh and um and there was not a consensus on the transportation board. our own transportation board chair said he he didn't think we should have a parking garage and somehow that and housing
became the basis for what we said was the consensus that Brookline wants and now should become an element of an RFI to see if if developers are interested in it. We're way way ahead of ourselves. Michael. >> Um,
so first first of all, uh, I want to at least acknowledge the fact that there was a committee that we established under charge that worked for a year to come up with where they are at this point. Um, I will agree with you um,
provisionally that there is there's there is not may not be a consensus and so I will I will grant you that. What I'm trying to figure out is is what the process should be in order to establish
that consensus and what the role of an RFI is as part of that process because because we could go to EDAB and we could go to the transportation board and we could present and they could hold public hearings and then they could they could
sort of provide feedback, you know, they could write reports or whatever. Um, but if there's not an organizing structure for aggregating all of that feedback into into forward progress, then we're it feels to me like we're spinning our
wheels. My understanding of the RFI process that is being proposed is that it includes going to the T-board, going to EDAB, holding public hearings, and all those things that we need to do in order to build consensus. And I guess I
don't believe that prior to issuing the RFI, given that we don't have consensus, that any developer would presume that we did have consensus. In the last discussion,
there was comments about how people didn't want to get engaged until there was until like we had established the zoning um for Chestnut Hill commercial area. So, so when I am thinking about
this RFI, I am not thinking about it as a reflection of our current consensus as of today. I'm just thinking about it as a vehicle that we can use to gather and absorb consensus. >> Yeah, David. So, first I want to thank
Mike and the other members of the Center Street Parking Committee who put in a lot of work and effort into the proposal that was presented. And uh what we learned from that is that there are some exciting redevelopment opportunities.
That being said, I do agree with Paul about the order in which we proceed from here. Uh I'm not necessarily looking for a long delay. I'm not trying to be the proverbial stick in the mud, but it does seem a little backwards to me that we
would seek an RFI before we really know what it is that we're asking for. So, the RFI is to try to get relevant information to learn about the viability of the project. But if we don't know what the project will be, then what
utility will the RFI provide? So I think at a minimum by going to EDAB first and to the transportation board first and addressing some of these other major policy questions that uh have arisen as
a result of this study uh namely whether as a town we're comfortable with the idea of market rate housing on public property. So, that's sort of a major policy question that I think needs to be addressed probably first before we're
presenting proposals that include market rate housing on public property. Uh, another uh concern I have is the Babcock Street lot was sort of thrown into this but was never really discussed uh in depth by the committee and yet we're getting an RFI on something that's
totally amorphous at this point. Uh so I don't see any harm in going to EDAB the HAB uh first transportation board and then getting their feedback also considering the broader policy
implications around what this uh what the center street committee's leading proposal is. Uh, I sent around some studies this morning and the question of surface parking verse garage parking is actually really complex and I think we
would benefit a lot from the expertise from the transportation board and figuring out whether that's really the right approach or whether it should be a mix of garage and surface parking and the various variations of play. Can can I ask you how what is being what are you
proposing in terms of us going to the to EDAB and translation board? We mean hold hearings with them or >> not so much us. What I would propose is that the center street law committee present to Tabo get T-board feedback. Same presentation they gave to us
basically replay it for T-board the HAB EDAB get their feedback see if it changes their minds at all or our minds. more information from the content experts that we appoint is generally very useful. That's the process we undertake when we're considering uh
recommendations for warrant articles. For example, >> chair, >> um I'll just I think it's important to kind of think about the order of operations and use of staff time here. We're going to do that. Are we going to have them go back again
and do and and and do the same thing after? So assume for a second that we do that. We send planning staff to go do four different public hearings with four different bodies and then they come back and say, "All right, here's a revised
presentation. We'd like to go out for an RFI now. We'd like to hire a consultant call for an RFI." Are we then going to have to go back with the consultant for the RFI and make the same presentation or a revised presentation to those four committees
again? What what would the presentation be the second time? >> Well, I would assume it would be the result of the process, whatever whatever whatever changes were made in the process. >> So, let me So, let me >> let him finish. I >> I mean, I guess this right, this is this is kind of my my question here is I
don't I don't understand what the extra step achieves beyond delay, right? I don't understand if we're if we're trying to get input from these folks to ultimately develop
something that does not that we know doesn't represent consensus but is at least trying to go out to the market and determine what's feasible based on the parameters that we're trying to operate under. Why why do it twice, right? like why why
why go through that and >> our credibility so so >> Paul please >> it's okay it's okay I >> you know Bernard can can I tell off one second you realize that >> do you realize that John speaks interrupts speaks for a half hour you
never say a word >> and when I speak because you don't agree with me on this issue you're going to that's what you're going to be >> so please stop >> um no I'm not going to stop >> uh John did you have your hand up >> yeah I did uh uh because I'm I'm listening to Jazz. I I get that we don't
want to send this committee back to redo their work. I don't think they would come to any different conclusion because um and this I don't say this in any way to be critical. They're enamored of the pictures they were shown of uh you know
a parking garage and a parklet. I'm going to call it a parklet. They can call it a park maybe. Um and housing. Okay. But unfortunately, that was never [clears throat] clearly their assigned mission to come up with schemes for housing to
obliterate all the surface parking. Housing and a park lit to obliterate all the surface parking in the um corner parking area, the center street parking area. Excuse me. Okay. >> Um well, let me finish what I was going to say if you don't mind. So, I don't think they they should be the ones I don't think we should redo it. I think
we should really test out what do the people who currently keep Koolage Corner alive by visiting there all the time every time of year, you know, day after day, fill that parking lot with
shoppers. That parking lot is almost always filled with people who are spending money at Koolage Corner. This process never even surveyed them to say, would you still come here if you had to park in a parking garage? And yet their
presence and their choice of shopping [snorts] at Koolage Corner is is the most essential element of whether businesses at Koolage Corner survive. Okay, >> we we didn't do that with them. We didn't do the same thing with the neighborhood. You know, this is your
neighborhood shopping area. Um, but maybe you're three blocks away and maybe you're elderly and you use a car. Would you still use a car if you had to park on the third floor of a garage? We never did that. We never surveyed the merchants. Can you survive if we take
away all of that parking and subject you to a two-year building period? Um, could you survive if if you didn't have the people who park in the in the existing parking and decide they're not going to come here anymore because of the construction and and a garage? We never
did that. We could come to a completely different conclusion. And that's why we should, you know, start over. I hate to say it, but you know, start start fresh with trying to figure out what the consensus in Brooklyn really is as to the future of that that parking area.
>> Um, wait, Mike. And I I see Mike that that Mike, >> right? I I I would like an apology. I' I'd like an apology uh for the remark that well we would just come back the chair the the committee would just come back because we've looked at a bunch of pretty pictures that really denigrates
the work of a lot of very serious people including member of the business community who was there uh the support by the way of David Lechinsky who chairs the Kulage Corner Merchants Association. There were so many things wrong with
what you said. I really would like an apology for the committee. >> Thank you. That's an important point. Um Mike, this mic not at the mic. >> So when I raised my hand before Chaz had spoken, um I actually had the exact same
question that Chaz had in terms of in terms of the process. Do we would we need to go back to those committees between the time that that we developed a solution having gone through them once and the issuing of an RFI because if we
don't need to do that then it this is just an order of operations question. >> Let me let me hear what David has to say and then maybe we can wrap this up. >> So I certainly don't want to be wasting staff's time to your point. I'm not sure why staff would necessarily even need to
be present at these presentations. The goal would be more to hear from EDAB, hear from the transportation board. That information could be synthesized even by uh members of that board in a memo that goes to staff. staff reads the memo
about what their points are and then we might want to adjust the proposal that we're building the RFI around because right now where uh we're clearly hearing there's no consensus. We have one member who wants to start all over again. I don't want to start all over again. I
think that this is fine as a starting point, but I don't think it should be the end point. And I understand it's not quite the end point, but essentially if we go with the RFI first, it's being built around that proposal. And that proposal might fundamentally change
after we get feedback from uh T-board which feels very strongly or at least its chair feels very strongly that there shouldn't be a garage at all. Well, that changes the project entirely and I think that we would have more clarity around the RFI if we did build some more
consensus around the proposal. So again, I'm not asking for there to be a lengthy delay. I'm not asking to start all over again. I'm not trying to discard the excellent work that Mike and the committee did. I just want more feedback from our appointed boards first. >> So So you you would not vote for
allowing this process to go forward as originally conceived >> at this moment? No. In a couple weeks? >> Why don't we vote and and resolve this right now? I'm sorry. >> Because it looks like we have three votes, >> right? Can I can I ask can I ask sort of a slightly different motion? Right.
Okay. >> But I guess before the motion, right, because I have had my hand raised for no 10 minutes. I kept getting cut off by the chair to just speak. And by the way, I haven't disparaged anybody. I haven't disparaged the process or the committee. I haven't said to start over. >> No, no, Bernard. I'm not going to just I
I'm the one that started this. Okay. And all I asked was instead of voting on the RFI tonight that we go to the boards and commissions that that advise us on issues like this to give us their opinion. I'm not looking for some big long process or some long delay. What's
their opinion about this idea? I'm not convinced that this idea is a good one. >> Okay. >> And until we convince that it's a good idea, I want to wait. >> Okay. >> So, u for the record, can I offer Mike the apology that he's Okay, quickly.
>> I I I Mike, I apologize. You were absolutely right. I went overboard with that statement. Um uh and I uh really had in mind that in fact the committee was was pretty much given that as being the consensus of the group that gathered
at the movie house and they just took that as their assignment now is we've got to now basically tweak this and make that our consensus. But it didn't it did not reflect the work that had preceded in terms of the surveys. There was no
overwhelming consensus in those surveys for getting rid of the um uh the surve or or adding housing. >> Wait, Paul wants to make a motion. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Yeah, I'm going to try to be a weatherman to know which way the wind's bling which way here. So, let's
>> don't assume this. >> I also wanted to make a motion and >> Okay, so motions and you may want to amend my motion. And remember, last week I was I asked for a vote to go forward with the RFI. So, that'll tell you how much I changed. Um, I'd like to move
that we ask four boards, the transportation board, the economic development advisory board, the HAB, and the planning board to receive a presentation on this
recommendation from the center street lots. Um, and let I would suggest it be a public hearing. um and let that those committees write us a memo on their issues, concerns and recommendations
around the idea of the sidelot to us. I don't want it filtered and and then we can decide do we tweak it, do we accept it or we just kill it. >> Okay. So So with respect to HAB, we're meeting tomorrow. Um and I'm not sure we can it's not on the agenda.
>> No, it's too late. Notice that. Um so our next meeting is the first week of uh March. >> Okay. >> Um so we're talking about at least with respect to HAB and I assume similarly with other uh bodies um pushing this off into March.
>> Yeah. It could be a couple of months already. >> Yeah. Even >> yeah. >> So okay that that's one motion. >> Okay. So, as a as an amendment or an addition to that to that motion, um um what I would
propose also is that we direct staff to coordinate with those committees to make those presentations um and to gather their feedback and organize their feedback into a report
for this body. By the way, Chad said that you're raising an issue of staff time >> in in resources, which >> I I understand that. And and to the extent that we ha that we have to spend some of that $40,000
in order to accomplish this, I would propose that we >> I So, let me take a pause there, not as a practical matter. We're gonna we're gonna hire someone. You're you're what you're basically proposing is that we hire someone to
rather than officially draft an RFI, draft a consolidation of the of the views of those four boards and committees. Do I understand that correctly? >> Um, yes. In order to help inform whether or not we should do an RF
>> that's not my proposal. Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I have a motion on the table. He's he's offered to amend it. >> Right. Michael has offered to amend my motion which was to have staff consolidated. >> Giving >> I'd like to offer perhaps another slight amendment that's more towards you.
>> So given the issues about staff time which I'm very sensitive to perhaps this could be a joint meeting of these boards so that staff perhaps attends that one meeting and they don't have to do it repeat everything. >> Really it was just a good nightmare
>> or maybe you do it in two meetings. Maybe maybe we shouldn't be directing those boards how they >> let the boards figure it out >> however they want to do it, but I'm just sensitive to staff time. >> I would suggest I would suggest given the sensitivities of on staff time and so forth. I understand what you're trying to do, which is you're trying to
I think I understand what I think you're trying to do, which is you're trying to you're trying you're trying to help the process along by having us have having someone when brought in to help do this work so that if you decided
to then move forward with an RFI, that work would be done, the groundwork would be laid for it. The issue there is, well, we have to sign a contract for that. We have to we have to procure that. It's going to take, you know, the whole point of us getting time to to the
point of us asking you for the permission to proceed with drafting the RFI is in part so that we could come back with that procurement. I think it would be complex for us to try and do that in kind of two stages. It adds a lot more to the time and effort. I think if we're going to do this, and Meredith
can tell me if I'm speaking at a turn here, I think we would rather just have the boards and commissions meet and We'll we'll take that as is. I mean, I think I I I think what you're going to get back
I I I can't speak to the boards and commissions about what you're going to get back. Um but I don't I don't think it's I think adding that layer to it is is going to make it even more complicated and slow it down even further. But I I I appreciate what you're trying to do. >> I I'll withdraw.
>> Okay. I just I want to two two quick points. One, I I wouldn't hire a consultant to have the boards and commissions take this as a normal course of their business and give us feedback. It would slow things down, Bernard. I understand that. Uh, in the words of um of Sandy Silk, uh, George Cole and Ken
Lewis, I believe, I'm not sure if Ken said it last night. Uh, there's nothing happening in the market. Time is our friend on this. There's no reason to rush. So, you know, I um I would just let I would direct the boards and commissions to find a way to give us
feedback on whether this is a good idea or not. And if it isn't a good idea, would they amend it or would they say bag it? That's what I'd like to know. >> Okay. So, you have a motion on the floor. Do you withdraw your motion? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Um I guess you know one other factor that
is I think critically important is that the current parking lot is a mess, >> right? >> And and you know we're we're the delay is delaying addressing really serious issues at that parking lot with respect
to accessibility and with respect to just the chaos that sometimes exists there. So, if that's the way if that's what we're going to do, that's what we're going to do. >> Well, we weren't presented >> we weren't presented with an option of fixing the parking lot. We were presented with building a garage and
housing. >> One was was that option? >> I'll vote on that one tonight. >> Kind of. >> I have two I have two other >> one I have two other comments. Um, one is that, um, I would like, you know, to the extent that this is going to take
staff time, and I do believe it will take staff time, and to your to your point, um, um, I would like to make sure that the Chestnut Hill commercial area work that we need in order to get that move forward is prioritized over this
um, so that we can get that project move forward. I um number two is that the committee also gave us a recommendation to move forward with the wayfinding work. Um and uh
independently of the RFI, that recommendation is still could still be pursued independently and maybe we should take that up separately and not tonight, but it would be worthwhile also to uh take that up.
>> I will say wayfinding remains in the draft FY27 budget, which you should be seeing on the 17th. Wayfinding is proceeding independently. >> Okay. Is is there anything we can do to maybe fix the curbs and otherwise address the accessibility issues without going through a
>> we can we can talk I mean we can we'll talk especially when DPW presents part of the budget we'll talk about the pavement management plan the sidewalks plan the stuff that we're doing and how we're how we're prioritizing that work but I think it's important to realize that there's a long list of of things
out there that need fixing and so >> we want to be and and there's And there's now a process that Paul and Mike helped put in place that does really good work about figuring out how to prioritize them. >> So I think we got to be mindful when we talk about these issues that it's when
it's tempting. It is often tempting when we see these things come up to be like, "Oh, we got to have that jump the line." You don't want to make line jumping the reality or else the process. >> Okay. So um I think that the consensus is that we're not going to vote tonight. >> Um is that correct? Well, there's a
motion on the floor. Yeah, I think >> direct these boards to give us feedback on the >> sidewalk proposal. >> Okay. All in favor, John. >> Wait, I'm sorry. On the sidewalk. >> On the side. It's called the side lot proposal from this from this
>> um uh uh uh Yeah. Um fine. Yeah. >> Paul, >> yes. >> Um David, >> yes. >> Michael, >> yes. Um, I don't agree with that. So, no, but it's passes. So, yes. Now, now we have to figure out what that means.
>> Well, that's what I wanted to speak to. Yeah. Uh, if you don't mind. Um, there's a lot to be learned just from uh listening in on the discussions of those boards. I mean, in one respect, you know, what we're asking for tonight, EDAB just did. And if they were to
actually have taken a vote, which there there wasn't enough support there for them to actually take a vote to recommend this to us. Uh and that's why we got the letter we got. Um, it's not so much how they would have voted a as what was said, you know, what was said
by by Ken Lewis, you know, what was said by George Cole, what what was uh said by some of the other members of EDP may all making extremely good points as to whether this would be economically
advantageous or actually economically disastrous for our Kage Corner shopping area. So even if there somehow emerged a 3 to2 vote from EDAB, it might be that the select board who are the final you
know adjudicators of all of this having listened to the conversation that was uh you know t took place um sort of said well the 3 to2 vote but frankly based on what I heard from X Y Z I a select board
member don't think this is a good idea. what and and there's so many other examples I could cite of what we as a select as select board members could be listening to that maybe don't get heard you know voices of people who who
answered a survey when they did the popup parklet during this whole process and person after person after person said don't touch the parking but that didn't get somehow reflected in the end result of that process but if we heard
it. Maybe we would decide there's just too many people here who shop there every day who are telling us don't get rid of that parking, that surface parking. So, we still have to we can't abandon our judgment for uh well, two boards said yes and one board said no.
So, therefore, we go ahead with it. We've got to sort of dig into what was said by those board members during their discussions and what we think is the right thing to do. >> Okay. Uh, okay. We had our vote. Chaz, you want to? >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Just one one one quick
thing, which is um I think as you continue to work through your 2030 roadmap and we go back to that as part of your um your um working session um in March. One thing that I would like to propose
and I think might be helpful is that we talk seriously about a goal or objective about processes about public processes and about public analysis because I think candidly I think we're struggling
I think we're struggling we we have been trying to adjust to the feedback that we receive about and and mindful of the fact that ultimately as Paul has pointed and others have pointed out right that you know for some people no process is ever enough and process
becomes the the the means of expressing just simple disapproval I don't like it uh >> decision making >> right I don't I don't like it and so but I don't want to say that I don't like it so I can say that the process is flawed and that's not let's be clear it's that's that's the outlier right that's
the that that's the kind of last vestage there um but a good way to avoid that is to be able to say to the public credibly as you pointed out. No, no, we conducted a process, a process that worked, a process that everyone can agree on and
live with. Um, and when we struggled with Boilston Street, the lesson we took from that, well, may was maybe there needs to be a process that is more forwardly iterative and staff driven so that committees don't deadlock and present nothing when an opportunity
presents itself. And that led to Chestnut Hill West. And then we heard, well, the committee doesn't had, you know, didn't take a vote. the committee feels it was unheard. Okay. Um we can we can tune we can take that feedback and fine-tune it. Um with this committee that worked for a year, you know, we're
hearing which and I appreciate that the answer is not no. The answer is we want to hear more. We want to hear we want to hear this. It would be it would be helpful to know at the outset of these processes what you what you what you think the
community is going to need in order to accept that the process was comp was was complete and well done. Um, so the feedback we're hearing is helpful, but I think more generally we need to think about what that looks like and where we can come up with a pro a process or set
of processes depending on the project that will will not not just satisfy the community but satisfy the board such that the board can say and feel confident and sleep at night turning to community members who say I disagree with this and say you're allowed to
disagree but we had a process and the process was sufficient. So I hope as you as we turn to that in the coming months with so much else on your plate say no it's there's a lot to think about but that we can think about what that looks like so that we don't
run into situations where we go through a year and then we we get this feedback and it feels like man we did the we did the wrong thing again. Um like we didn't do enough. Um what is enough and how do we get there? Dave.
>> So, I I appreciate what you're saying, Chaz, but I'm not sure why the takeaway from this is we're rejecting a process of a full year. That's at least not where I'm coming from. I just want four boards to meet once and give us their opinion. That's it. I don't see I don't
see that as throwing away a year's work. The year of work was very important. It put together an intriguing proposal. I like many elements of the proposal. There are other elements that are open questions for me. I just want to hear what our boards have to say, that's all. And I don't see that as throwing anything away. And that's actually our
typical process in other areas. Like with warrant articles, we often hear what the advisory committee thinks and what the what they had if it's a housing related warrant article. Uh we have public hearings and then we decide our position. Uh so that's sort of the model
that I'm thinking of in this context, but obviously we'll discuss that further at a workshop. >> And I would I would like to just add on to that. So, first I want to thank the planning department because they, you know, they I think they have the hardest jobs in town. Um, you have a harder job
than our police department, a fire department. Although you don't run into the burning buildings or have to wrestle with with the folks that are trying to harm you. Um, you get grief from all sides because you're the tip of the spear for change. Um, there is no
standard process, right? You can do best practices, but ultimately every situation is different. And what does it take for this board to support a recommendation? If we learn from the Harvard Street, right, that thing had a
ton of engagement. I mean, Marie Morelli worked around the clock, right? And still it took a little bit of extra to get the thing past the finish line. Um the amount of work that the Chestnut Hill West committee's been doing. Mike knows how much work they've been doing.
Um you know, lots of boards and commissions engagement, tons of public meetings. Um it still now it came to the board and you're hearing, well, we might have to tweak it, right? The the process is always never enough because we're
imperfect. We're not going to do things perfect every time, but we have to be willing to ask questions, to ask for additional information, and it's not it's not a message to staff that they're somehow failing, right? We're dealing with human beings here. And the bigger
the project, the more constituents that are involved. It's complicated as heck. And you know, this one in particular is very complicated for all the reasons that John mentioned. I don't want us to start over. I think David's right. We're asking for more information. Let's see what Let's see what the boards and
commissions say. And I think, and this will be the last thing I'll say, Bernard, a strong foundation of an idea helps us go the distance with it. An idea like this is going to take twothirds of town meeting. It's going to
take probably some boards to approve it, right? It's going to take this board to give away air rights and such. Um, we need a strong foundation to start. And I think if you get too far too early, you that foundation isn't strong enough to
carry you all the way. >> Okay. So, um with that, uh we'll move on to our next item, which is whether there are any public comments u uh left over from our earlier public comment section.
Okay. No, then the meeting's over. >> Thank you.