 meeting of Monday, September 9, 2013, of the Arlington Redevelopment Board. Got a few agenda items tonight. We should get to most of them because of time. We have a couple challenges. One is Carol might be called over to the selectmen at any point in time. They're having their meeting at the same time. But I'm hoping that we can steal it for most, if not of what we need to do here. With respect to the minutes of July 29, those didn't make it into the package because they were in the previous package. I know that not everyone looked at it. So I think we'll probably put that off until the next one and we'll get them into the package along with whatever other minutes we have at that point. So I think we'll probably table that. So starting right off, we've got several things to do on the Sims project tonight. There's been a lot of progress on a lot of different fronts up there on the Hill. And I'll let Jake kind of describe the current state of affairs. But then we need to do several different things tonight in order to keep the ball rolling here. One is, as you've got in your package, there's been condo documents, and we can go over those. And I'll give you the take of Edie, the outside attorney who's taking a look at them. There are the regulatory agreements for the affordable housing. And then there's the marketing plan for the affordable housing. And then finally, we just want to go over a couple, or I just want to go over a couple of technical things that come up that we've been dealing with our outside counsel on Jonathan Buck. And so I'll kind of go through those things. But that's kind of the notion is quite a few things to get through. They should flow pretty hopefully easily here. But to start the meeting, why don't we have Jake just kind of give us an update of what's going on up there. Sure. Thanks. Are we going to touch on the first date? We can. We can. I just grabbed this as I mentioned before, just to have as a visual reference. And I'll sort of show the quarter over that. So we are continuing to make progress in a lot of fronts. The big news is we were able to get the sewer connection, sewer storm drain connection over off of Grove Street. And that was our final utility connection. So that enables our site worker contractor to focus on doing the turning lanes and the crosswalks and some of the islands that are in Summer Street, that will be happening over the next week to 10 days to finish up. We also now have, as I mentioned last time, the utility lines are now down for everything on the site except for the insular lines that go to the temporary cell tower, which is slated to be removed this week. It is? Yeah. We have a team that will confirm that on Saturday. So we are feeling good about that. This is the last area of sort of grading, re-grading that we're going to be doing and then finishing off the corner here. We have begun the process of putting in the final fencing that's coming around this side and getting done. We've started this section today. We've been coordinating with some of these neighbors on the exact layout of what was on the plan and field conditions. So we think we resolved all those things to satisfactory manner. And the fences, we're going to try to have another contractor meet in the middle to get that done over the next three weeks. The buildings are progressing. But before we get to the buildings, the park has been rough graded. The hardscape is going in now. So the plant and animal follow. So this is moving along quite nicely. We've done some fencing off and coordinating off the site where there's a gate that's been added here and then fencing around this building. So this is the D1 and the D2. We are the fencing here to contain access into building four. We've got a detailed plan, safety plan that we've reviewed with the building inspector and going through the normal building check list for occupancy of that building. And we're pushing for a TCO to protect out of occupancy so that we can begin occupying this building and operating it in the garage level. There's a partition that's going up so people can't go back through the garages that allows us to phase in, but we've been working with the building inspector on that safety plan. And allowing egresses for fire safety, but also coordinating off the construction zone in a phase way. So we continue to make progress with the fine, the hardscape, and the landscaping. This has actually been sauded over the weekend. So that's really starting to take a finished approach, a finished look. The entry plaza is essentially done now. The pavers are in, the planters are in. They're actually being planted right now. There are seven plants. The decking on the pool, the fencing has now been installed with the gates. The decking is 95% in right now. So there's some extra railings that will be going in. And then the finishing off of the interior of the pool. But that'll be sectioned off and will probably turn over closer with building three. So we've had some challenges. There was a leak in a pipe that created some reworking of some units by this typical construction. We've been dealing with that and dealing with the building department on re-inspecting a couple of units, a few units. That has created a little bit of a delay from where we wanted to be, but it is what it is. And we feel that within a week or so we should be ready for TCO, the first building. And that will bring access into the site. The brokers were on the site just taking a peek at where these buildings are. And not bringing any outside clients or anything to say, but just to get a refreshed digital photo and just to see where they are. They're getting very excited. They're chomping at the bit. We will be applying for TCOs as soon as we can without occupancy prohibited, but allowing people into these buildings to show them for the buyers. And that's another public access that we need that will be following on the TCO with the opening of the site. We are getting ready for final paving. We expect to come all the way up the road around this circle. And hopefully around the back, as well as the connector to Woodside Lane. And that, again, will be even more of a high level of finish to the overall site. So the building interiors are done. Landscaping is just beginning to go in over here around this building. We were very excited to once we get moving our temporary fence over to this side and having this whole section of both sides of the road sort of be finished. So we're working in that direction. We're still projecting end of October. Trying to turn this building. It's really tight and it's a real, real push for us. But the contractor's holding to that schedule. And it's going well. On the shelter site, the shelter's getting close to having enclosing the building. The roof is very close to being finished. The final framing is going in now on one of the wings of the building. But they've already started shingling the roof. Tar paper, not tar paper, but weather shapers going up on the sides of the building. Those are going in as we speak. So we're very excited for them to start their siding and their window installation. And I think their building, the exterior, will increasingly become finished. We talked about our signage is now in, the hardscape. The plan thing is still to go, but the irrigation lines and all the power lines have been coordinated there. So shelter's operation here, the marketing center, is going through a sort of an upgrade, refinishing now that the utility work is done in that area. We're trying to bring the sidewalks down past their site for them. They're going to be doing their temporary black top and a little bit of landscaping and they're kind of popping out up there, their stale center there. So in nutshell, that's what's happening on the site. Do we have their plan for what all they're doing down there? For landscaping? Or? The marketing trailer. The temporary? Yes, it's per, well it's per, it's per their plan. I know the orientation of the, we never had a plan with shrubs and things like that on it. We'll have to check, we'll have to check because I thought that was part of their special permit. But I, can you, you sure it was? The plan we saw. I mean, it's all going to get ripped up at the end. It is. I guess it seemed to recall maybe a couple little shrubs in front of the trailer, but I mean, that's just, I thought it was part of the special permit. Which part of it? On file, whatever it is. Because we have a plan on file that never got turned around. And now if that plan is also supposed to have landscaping. Just to make sure that it's contained within their layout and truiting it on the conservation restricted areas. Yeah, I think that it was only between all these parking, the parking area, the road, and the front of the building. I don't think it was really like, it's a recall, but, but what's your? Yeah, let's just get it on file. Yeah, but we're not, we, just whatever it is. Just to avoid any questions that, we'll prove that or whatever, yeah. Yeah. See what it is. Bruce, I have no questions. Christine, anything else? Thanks, Jake. Stick around in case any questions come up on the other stuff, that might be great, but I think we'll start moving on to a couple of the things that we need to, hopefully, entertain motions to approve tonight. The first is, why don't we first grab the condo documents, which are the, there's two master's deeds and two declarations of trust. Can we ask Laura Wiener to come? Yeah, and that's a great idea. Laura's gonna help us out if she's been immersed. That's a very good word. I was gonna say involved, but certainly immersed is better in both the, I don't mind if I open the window, so I don't need to open the window. Sure, that's fine. That's fine. You want me to stay or? Yeah, if you stay back there, we've got a lot of good ones. Yeah, if you need to. Okay. So on the condo documents, Laura, why don't you, you wanna give us a little bit of background to some of the back and forth that's gone on? So, Edie Natter reviewed the condo docs mostly for looking for the affordable housing issues and making sure it conforms with all of our requirements. And there were just a couple of small issues and they got resolved. I mean, the long and the short of it. The version that you see, Edie, had made one more comment today. And so there was one more small change, which I can give you in a red line just the page that changed. That would be great. In my reading of the special permit in the LDA, you have to approve the condo docs, but there's no place for you to sign them. Okay. It's just an approval that we will record in a minute or so. You were saying anything to Ed? I reviewed the condominium documents as well and not for any of the subject matter that Edie Natter was looking at, but just generally in terms of compliance with chapter 183A, which is the condominium statute, and making sure that the structure of the two condominiums all makes sense. And in general, I would say, yes, they're fine. In fact, kudos to the drafters, they're very well done. I did find a few things of a clerical nature. I don't think that they would necessarily prevent me from voting to approve them, but it might make sense for me to send a letter. So does, if it's the board's pleasure, to the drafter and just say, here are a couple of clerical things that you might want to fix before it goes to record, actually. And Jake, I can go tell you offline what they are. I mean, they're minutia, you know? Yeah. I could give you examples, but I don't want to slow down the process here. Christine? I just have some quick questions, like clarifications. And it's just for my own knowledge, that the open spaces and parks are part of the common space throughout these documents. And I'm just curious, and I know they have to abide by the maintenance and the conservation restriction that we have. There was one section in here that was talking about pets. I think you know what I was gonna talk about. Tets that they have to be approved by the condo guys, or by the trustees, as far as which pets can be allowed and how many and all this. And they also said they have to be approved for being permitted in the open spaces. So I'm wondering how that works with the general public. Is the general public permitted to have pets to walk through there, or is it gonna be restricted? That is a good question. We believe that the philosophy was to have the same rules and regulations as a public park. I don't know if all parks in Arlington have pets. It's up to the Parks and Recreation Commission? Yep, yep. And it could just be the way I'm reading it too. I could tell you where it is. It's section 9.1.3. Oh, you're there already? Oh, you're fast. So they're talking about it, that the trustees approve whether they're permitted within the primary common elements of which the open spaces would be one. That was one of my major questions. It's how those common open spaces work, as it relates to the public versus how it relates to the condo documents. And are there other restrictions maybe that, or is that a restriction of the general public and will there be other ones maybe that need to be brought forward? Well, to be honest with you, I knew that we were going to be having control and restrictions for inside the buildings and then the residential portions of the project is typical with residential. I did not see that part as in regards to how they're being treated for the parks themselves. I would say that as proposed, it says it is and we can look at that. Well, it doesn't talk about the people that don't own anything. Exactly, sorry. Which is the general public. And this document really wouldn't. So I think it would still be an open question, a good one. And how they control that if the general public can bring dogs and then the residents have to be approved for their dogs, how that works, but on the outdoor areas, indoor, I understand that. Right, or it may be that we're making sure that the pets that are a part of living in the residential portion of the community aren't disrupting the public space. And we would be able to say, your dog is a problem, you know, it can't be. Oh, that could be it. Cause they do talk about breeds of dogs and all of that. I don't, I think they'd be hard pressed if the general public was allowed to have the dogs or whatever pets in the parks. I think it would be, they'd be a member of the public as well at that point. So I don't think, I don't think the condo, exactly, but you know, I think the open question once again is, what's the policy on pets gonna be? And it's the town's decision, right? On that, how does that work? Sure, I seem to recall, is it? Well, if the condo guys are responsible for maintaining it and they're getting assessed fees for it, and the trustees are in charge of monitoring it and making rules for it, what is the town in charge of? No. Would be my question. I think the town is in charge of any of it. Other than to having its representatives and within the governance of the management portion of it with the condom and the land trust. Having you say, in the land trust. The condom and the land trust. And that's more as managers. So if the condo trustees decide to say no dogs, that's the way it would probably be then. Well, I'm not so sure. Not that they're saying that, but if they change their rules one day and decided to say that. There's already a provision in here that talks about what kind of pets are permitted in the primary unit or in the primary common element. So that would be dogs who do not exceed 75 pounds. Right, yeah, I saw that. Or not one of the offending breeds. But that's only for the people that live there. That lived there, right. And so. Would that, I'm thinking maybe it would carry over and apply to the general public. I don't think there's any restriction now. I would say actually probably not because it doesn't risk it to silence. But I think it's an enforcement issue too. I mean, by the time you get a trustee out there saying, oh, there's a dog that's over 100 pounds, can't stay, the person who takes their dog and leaves. I mean, it's sort of a, I can understand the potential for an issue if you have a vicious dog out there. Or like if there's a general public person there and their dog is causing a problem and they don't live there. Who do people call, do they call the dog? Yeah, I thought there was delineation though within the common area elements. And some of it is, I don't know, definitionally. Yeah, I don't think you have a map that goes, there's a map that goes with it. So there's the rules of the management of the open space are what the CR documents have been approved as to form. So I think there's a pet policy, we'd have to go back and get off the top of my head. Oh, was there one? Oh, maybe. Okay. And so I think it should be in those documents and if it's not, that should be clarified when we finalize and record the final CRs. And this could carry over to other things. Pets was just the one example, but maybe drinking in the park or whatever. Yeah, but I think there's a delineation between types of common area elements where there's around the buildings, there's a common area for the buildings, there's different common areas for each of the condominium units, the fore sale portion versus the others. So I understand we're really trying to get this approved as to form and then attach the exhibit, which has the delineations to it, that would be that attachment. So, but I would suggest that we double check the CR documents and then. It's not just talking from approving anything, but it was just a general question how that all works. I've never lived in a condo development but I don't know how it works. But just reading through that, that question came up. And then the only other question I had, and this is probably normal also, is it normal for the owners to be allowed to subdivide their units usually, their condominium units? Because that's in here also that they can, they can subdivide or they can define. And maybe that's normal language. It's frequently seen with what I call flats, so if you own two units side by side or one above the other, you can combine the two if you get the approval of the condominium trusts. And because technically there's a little bit of common area between each unit, between the ceiling of your downstairs unit and the floor of your upstairs one. So you're penetrating through a little bit of common area to merge those into one unit. I'm a little hard-pressed to see that there would be great demand to do that in a town-home situation because there's a duplication of rooms. You're gonna wind up with two kitchens and two bathrooms. Bathrooms might be desirable, but it's not quite the same as if you've got a flat side by side and a tower or something like that. But yeah, I mean it's sometimes seen as a marking advantage or there's demand from the unit owners. And if you don't have that provision, you have to go through a more formal amendment of the condominium documents to create it. And that can be difficult because you have to get a certain percentage of unit owners approving it. So this paragraph that is inserted to make that process a little easier. But it's a good question because part of the economic understanding of the scheme is based upon there being 12 forced sale units. That's what I'm talking about. And if they are merged into one and we wind up with 11, that merged unit may be taxed at a lesser value than the two units as if they were standing alone. And also the affordable units, does that change the percentage of different things that need to happen? If one of those are subdivided or combined? Well I think that you would have a sale though because of those two units would be purchased so your tax basis would be assessed off of those sale prices. So maybe initially that wouldn't be an issue. I guess you could argue that down the road, it would be diminishing the value. That would have to be part of the approval process I think within the kind of minimum associate because their pro-radiate share of cost probably wouldn't change, it would be added together. Correct. In fact you probably could add the small common area and have it be larger. So there's a lot of interrelationships. I agree though it would be unusual I think to have townhomes because be combined because the circulation for each don't match up so the stairs aren't next to the stairs and so the hallways in the back are also duplicated so it's just not very efficient. That's why it's the price to see it in there. Or to subdivide it more than it is. It even seems more uncommon. I think that there's a balance with these types of documents where you're trying to do what is according to statute and customary and they usually end up being reused over and over again the main form of them so I'm not sure if there's any more meaning behind it than that. Okay, that's all. That's a lot. And then all the square footages are going to be filled in right eventually and the sheet numbers and stuff. When it gets converted, right? Well it's not condos now, I might say, right? Yeah, yeah, based on the architect's phone plans. Thanks, Christine. Andy? I'm all set. You're all set. Carol? I don't either. If everyone is okay with the debate and the questions, I'd entertain a motion to approve the condo documents subject to Bruce getting over his clerical and administrative changes over to the redeveloper with respect to the documents themselves. So, but I think if you're comfortable that those are such that we can approve the documents we've got tonight with those small changes, then I'll entertain that motion. Submit. Second, okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Great, okay. First piece of business, a few documents, that's kind of nice. The next thing, there's actually a couple different things that we want to approve on the next ones. The first is, well, the first is let's do the, we'll do the affordable housing marketing plan as well as, and then the regulatory agreements as well. So I think we're going to approve two things here. We'll approve the marketing plan or entertain a motion to approve the marketing plan. And then the other two documents are the regulatory documents, the amended regulatory documents that have made their way through GHCD, MR, maybe you can update us on all of these great documents. So the marketing of the units is being done by a subcontractor to the developer called SEB, which stands for Stockard, Engler, and Bingham. They also did the marketing for Brigham, so they're familiar with Arlington. And the marketing plan has gone through, I've reviewed it and made changes and made a number of additions to the list of people that they marketed to. But it's also been approved by GHCD, which they look for standard things they're very interested in that it be affirmatively marketed. So we did get permission to have 70% of the units for Arlington residents, residents meaning anyone who lives, works, or goes to school in Arlington, but the other 30% are open to anyone anywhere. And the intention is to, because Arlington is more white in general than the Boston area to allow people of color to move to Arlington as well, to be open to that. So it's pretty standard, the methods, the lottery, the way those things are done have been pretty standardized by GHCD over time, which I find very helpful because it means it sort of passes the test of fairness and that we're doing the same thing that some of us doing and Lexington's doing and these guidelines apply to 40 fee projects as well as visionary zoning. So the marketing plan has been approved by GHCD and we actually have started marketing the project. There was an ad in the ad this week and a couple of other newspapers and we've started to send out the marketing materials. Bruce, anything on the marketing plan? No, I thought it was pretty comprehensive and it was quite a list of people that organizations that will be notified of this and it'd be hard for us to find somebody who was left out. So. But if you do send a name to me and I'll send you some. So, and just the fact that we are sort of traveling a path that we followed in the past I think is helpful. So I don't have any questions or anything we're going to add to that. I have just one question. When we say the anticipated delivery of the first affordable and middle income apartments, the date for that, does that just mean, what does that mean, delivery? Oh, well, available for occupancy. So the date in here was August 2013. Do we have some of that? We're sad to see right now. That sounds like a delivery. That sounds like an oversight. I thought maybe I didn't understand what delivery meant. Which we haven't, yeah, we didn't change this. This was approved like in May. Yeah, I don't know if it's significant to have to change it, but I was more curious what delivery meant. The document that we're putting out to a lot of people, so it is, no, not that particular thing. That's internal for the consultant to use. So what is the anticipated date now, do we know? For delivery of that. A lot of these November, so it couldn't be before December. Right, right. And we were expecting all units to be available. At the same time. By December. So when do you think the market rate units are going to start getting rented? When we get our, I don't think it's on the agenda. But hopefully, I think we're hoping that the building four, we can be occupying in a week or two. The building inspector signs off on it. They may start occupying the market rate units before the four rolls slightly. Okay, yeah, just curious on that, on the timing. Otherwise, it looks great. Okay, comprehensive. Thanks, Christine. Andy? I'm also. Michael, how are you? Yeah, you've been living it. Oh, wait, one more question. What does CHAPA stand for? Citizens Housing and Planning Agency. That's not spelled out in material, but need to be. It might be somewhere. I didn't see it before I saw the abbreviation, so it might be somewhere deeper. Maybe you want to spell that out. Actually, it's right on the first page. Okay. Yeah, the first time it appears, it should be spelled out. It should be. Yeah, and that also would be the same for S-E-B. S-E-B-N-L, so yeah, S-E-B, too. Even D-H-C-D. Any acronyms, I think the best practice is to spell them out the first time with them. Yeah. It's just courteous to the... Yeah, what does S-E-B stand for? Stockard, Englobe, Englobe. Oh, right, right. And this particular document board simply acknowledges R-E-C-D. Okay, acknowledges R-E-C-D. Thank you. The only other thing I have is another one is on page three, which is actually about 15 pages in after the list of different periodicals, et cetera. One, two, three. You just got a line in here with respect to, if Jag is going to retain S-E-B for some research, Gage, it's just kind of a note. It looks like there's a note in there for yourself. It's in brackets. They may just want to pull out of there as well. Okay, so I don't think we even need about, we think we can buy our minutes, acknowledge receipt of the front of the market, right? But I think it looks good. Thanks a lot. Okay, thanks, you're welcome. Okay, the next two documents are the regulatory agreements for the affordable housing. So these have been amended, I'll let Laura go through it. I would like to entertain a motion to approve these and Bruce's got his stamp here and we'll actually even sign them up tonight and notarize them if the board does approve these documents and we'll get them back, so. I was writing, excuse me, is this the regulatory agreement? Yes, the regulatory agreement, it's exactly, Karen. So back in 2007, we signed agreements with, who did we sign them with? Sims Redevelopment Associates, which was the then entity. And so we have worked out most of the details of everything. And these also are pretty much boilerplate from DHCD. They try to make them uniform throughout the state. So it's not like we've invented anything here but much of the substance is not even in these documents, much of the substance is in the documents that you signed and approved many years ago at this point, six years ago. But, so this document, the first part of this document just sort of restates the facts and brings the agreement up to date in terms of what they call the new sponsor, which is now Wellington 360 LLC instead of Sims Redevelopment Associates. It references the old agreement. It notes that the agreement doesn't cover units in the A and B townhomes, which are the condos that there's no affordable units in there so the deep writer doesn't cover those buildings. It revises the number of units from what had been 200 units, 276 units, and therefore the number of affordable units from 30 to 26. It explains the two-tiered condo, which everybody knows what that is. Okay, so I want to explain that. It talks about the current rents revised from 2007. The original agreement talks about condo conversion and how that will take place and that the tenants will be protected. They're given, I think it's 90 days to decide if they want to buy or not, or they decide not to buy. They can stay for two years without being evicted and they're entitled to some relocation benefits. And if they are living in an affordable unit, they're entitled to buy that unit. Is that all an exhibit, Dee? That just says basically that the same provisions will apply. It doesn't explain all the provisions, the provisions are in the original agreement. But we did negotiate that with the developer that the tenants are protected and have the first right to purchase before the unit. So that's all in the original, that's right, for both. Yep, sets in both sets. Okay, okay. It says that they can convert to condominium by building, not by floor or by cherry picking units. They can't say, okay, well the penthouses we're gonna convert and leave everything else rental. It says it has to be building by building, which is good because the affordable units are not completely distributed throughout the whole building. So that way the affordable will get converted along with the market rate. And then there's exhibit D, which is the last page, which is something we've seen. An oddly long amount of time discussing and coming to Brexwick, which had to do with how do you treat income if tenants when they go over income. In a condominium situation, they buy the unit and you never check their income again. They can stay as long as they want, as long as it serves their purposes. But with rentals that it doesn't work that way. They have to continue to be in a sort of range of eligibility. So this last, the final page of the document talks about what happens if they go a little bit over income, what happens if they go a lot over income. So the demonstrating a little in a lot is 140% of 80%, which comes to about 110% of median. As long as they're at or below that, they can stay, they pay a little more rent. After that they pay market rent and they have a year to find a new unit because we want to keep that unit for an eligible family. So that's a short version of a long document that I don't know if you've been trying to read it. It's pretty dense. If I could just interject for a moment to underscore what Laura just said, the units, and to be sure I'm understanding in the mixture of the board is crystal clear, the unit, the formal unit location will not move around, if you see the person goes over income, as Laura said, they have a year to find a market rate unit so that that unit can stay where it is in the building and become available for someone else who is incommodable. Is that right? That's right. I think that's important. But they're allowed to stay in that unit at market rent for that year while they're looking, right? Yes. So temporarily it goes on sabbatical front, affordability to market rate and that comes back. Right, but for our, what's good for us is that DHCG will continue to count as an important unit for that year. But at the end of that year, no. So that's what we wanna kind of move along. That tells us, I think, that monitoring these units becomes a very important, ongoing job for the town and Laura's role as housing director. It means that, especially with these units coming online at Sims and with the units that came online at Alta and all the other units we have, there's a lot more monitoring that has to be done. So it's something I wanna make the board aware of so that you every once in a while will inquire how's the monitoring going and remind us to provide you with a report on the status of those socialized units. So Laura will be the one for the minutes, Palady. Yes, ma'am, okay. Bruce? In the event that someone no longer qualifies that their income has increased and they've stayed there for that year grace period and they don't leave. Who has the ability to bring some of the process to the victim? Well, their lease isn't renewed. So I have the honor to pick up the report. Does that fall on the landlord or on the? Yeah. Okay. There's also a relocation stipend that's been negotiated. Okay. $1,000 right for a thing of that sort, $500. But yeah, it's, we don't want to evict people. Nobody wants to but it's like, we want that unit for someone who needs it. There's a reason for the unit, yep. If they're that much over income, they have other options. Shame to be penalized when you make more money. Bruce? No. Christine? I'm wondering, and I'm sure there's an answer, why exhibit D is not attached also to the middle income for the water policy? It's only with the low and moderate lease. But if I remember correctly that with the middle income, well, first of all, the middle income agreement doesn't get signed by DHCD. That's just between us and the developer. So, that's one reason why it's not a part of it because what we negotiated was DHCD who really pushed us to nail down what we will do in all situations. I think that what happens if you go above 140% of your income is, I don't know if you get the grace period. We never really talked about that actually. We could just follow the guidelines. We will be following the same guidelines. We'll follow the same guidelines. The developer and the town agree that we will follow the same guidelines. Should you just attach exhibit D to it also? So that you have, I'm changing. Right, absence of the statement. So you have that in writing? Yes. It seems like it would apply, so it was just crazy. I assume absence of the statement though. Right, that's something you get for being minimum. Yeah, you may want to modify it a little bit. Yeah. Yes, okay. If you want to wait and see that, that one doesn't need to be signed as immediately as the other one. If you feel more comfortable, we can give you something next time. Or a fine. Tell us what you want and we'll do it. Given that's a town only document, I think also, you can negotiate it as a letter. Sometimes it's after a short amendment afterwards. Okay. Okay. Yeah, if you think it applies or whatever parts of it applies. Cal. I just have a question about whether the regulatory agreement gets recorded with the deed in any way? Yes, it does. So this will be on the title for future owners? Yes. Well, right. Yeah, they used to call it a deed rider. Now they call it a regulatory agreement, but it does go on the deed. Yeah, it's usually a deed rider if you're buying a prop unit for the ownership. Oh. Yeah, but I actually have a rider attached to the unit deed. But this is only on the rental units? Right now it's only on the rental units, so. There's no deed being recorded. Right. But the regulatory agreement gets recorded at the registry as a standalone document with the rest of the condominium documents, and then it's a matter of public record at that point. Sure. But I guess I wouldn't expect a renter to necessarily do a title to him. Exactly, because they're not gonna take a long time. But the renters are going to know because they've gone through the selection and the lottery process. Absolutely. They know who they are. Yeah. And what's expected of them. Yeah. I think which is the key point there too. When does it get recorded? As soon as, well, we know DHHD has proved it. The board will potentially, we hope, prove it, and then who records it and what? The developer records it, as soon as it's signed. Okay. And then we'll get proof of it's being recorded now. So we should ask every now and then. For monitoring. Has it been recorded now? For monitoring. For monitoring. For monitoring. For recording or both, I don't know. Do you want to ask about recording too? No. No. I can ask about that. Okay. Welcome, Andrew. Thank you. I explained to everyone your conflict earlier. We're going over the regulatory documents right now. Didn't know whether you had any questions on them. No, not right now. Okay. Andy, I won't set with these. Carol, anything else? I think I'm satisfied. Thank you. Yeah, sure. It has been thinking through this last change on the middle income units. I think that it probably has prudent to either vote of how it is drafted now or hold on that one until we can kind of vet that. There was a lot of internal sign-offs that happened as we went through our internal process with lenders and things. And I'm just not sure I can just say it. That change is fine. So I would suggest that if the as-written is OK, let's vote that way. And if it's not, then let's hold on the middle income document in the regulatory room. I think we can get that done next time. Is that going to hold you up? The middle income should. It may seem to do both at the same time, but the one that's going to take a little longer is the one that's going to be seen as part of it. So we could have another two weeks. That change happened in one document and the other was that there's been a sort of the newer edge of the latest DHCD. And everyone should also realize that these regulatory agreements are signed by all parties now. And there's a financial consideration that went into that as being an extra cost to the project that was the reason why it was so debated back and forth. And we're happy with the solution for the low income units, for the middle income units. I think the pro quo was, well, I shouldn't say we have a signed agreement for the middle income units because we didn't sign that one. We didn't? So but the economics respects that everybody had assumed that the costs were based on the baseline from before. So there's been migration of costs and a redo of signed agreements that were executed by both parties that has been a burden that wasn't anticipated. And so because of that, I would plead that the pro quo would be if we can just do and approve the documents as they are now, it would be simplest for all of us. That's fine. You mean with an exhibit date added to the middle income? Or without that? Because that's not what's in the document that I have my internal approvals for. And we can entertain. If we can all have a consensus, we will add that to the pump, so goodwill afterwards. So you'll still negotiate it and come up with something that you both are. Yeah, I just don't think I have clearance to be paying transfer fees that weren't in that document to add those fees later. And I also think that there is a difference between a middle income unit and a low income unit with going over income. Because if you're over income as a middle income unit, it's just a different dynamic, I think. What transfer fees? Do you mean the relocation fees? Well, that wouldn't be just a keep-out. Let's not do that tonight. But I think the point is, let me just summarize, either we need to approve this as is without any changes. And assume that the developer and the town will negotiate in good faith on a process when someone goes over income in a middle income unit. I think it makes sense for the developer as well, because they're going to have some questions with respect to what they're supposed to do. They're going to want some clarity on that as well. So I think there is some protection there. However. They make sure there's monitoring, just like there is. Well, but there will be. I mean, that monitoring will happen. The question is, is what happens when it's monitored and someone does go over? That's what exhibit D is about. It's not. So they're monitoring somewhere else in here. It says that they're being law-abased. It's just the mere fact that law will do it, because that's what law does. We don't want to lose a middle-income unit either. Oh, it's not as valuable to us as an affordable, but we don't want to hold on to those. So you plan to monitor that also. I will also say there's a spirit that the two work to be the same, but just different. So we understand that I just can't get it approved without my internal protection. Right. My own view of it is that the developer is going to want to know what they're supposed to do as well. So they're going to want clarity on this situation as well. So I think it, I think, personally, I'm comfortable in signing it as is on this assumption that is only an assumption and no guarantee that they'll come to an agreement on that. But so I think that's one choice. The other choice is to put the middle income on hold until that negotiation is done. I guess I'm just not necessarily seeing it. That's required for this. That's my own opinion. Well, I have a question, then. And that is, are we do expect that there's going to be some form of exhibit D on the middle-income units with maybe just percentages and dollar amounts changing or no exhibit D? Or now I'm, I think if we approve it without an exhibit D, then we are creating that confusion. And the developer will say, there's no obligation to do anything if people exceed that. And if we have something with exhibit D, but tweaking the numbers and the percentages, then at least we are able to kind of hang onto this idea of having these nine middle-income units. I think if we have no control over it, we lose it. Because people will. I kind of am thinking maybe we should have something in writing. Because if we come to another agreement, then where does that agreement go? Where does it put it? All right, so the other way to do it would be to approve it with an exhibit D to be added that's consistent. And if we have any issues with that, we will come back to the board and ask to amend or consider a point in the other direction. And what we have, we do want to get these things done. You want to get it done. Matt, there's no exhibit D in there. I'm so sorry I brought it up. Right. No, it's the time. No, it is the time. It's the right time. Yeah, so, yeah, why don't we wait? I'll come back in for your next meeting with the group. Oh, I'll reply to you for the date. If I can offer it all of Lee to Jake and his team though on this, I mean, I, just speaking for myself, would perfectly understand if the relocation and the transfer fees are different in this context than they are for the low and moderate income units. And I hear what you're saying about how that is an economic, you know. How about this? If we can agree to the exhibit D with no transfer fee and then we will discuss that internally and come back in good faith with Laura. So you want it to be signed tonight? I mean, I'd like to get these things signed. These things are holding up a lot of other considerations and I don't want to be short-sighted. I don't want that. Yeah, I mean, I think the other thing that would need to come out of the middle income is the rightnesses to the HDP as well. Yeah, definitely. You know, to them certified banks. Yeah, yeah. But they can work all that out. But they can work all that out. Project funds are showing up. Right now? I mean, each middle income unit remains as eligible in an eligible time. I mean, it actually does require a fair number of changes. It does. Because every place that says low and moderate, you have to change to middle. Every place that says certified, you have to delete it. Certified by DHCG, but no, I say it on that place. Vote to approve the exhibit D. I don't think it's that many. Exit of D to be included. Validated by the planning department, Laura Wiener. Mm-hmm. That would be fine. Oh, OK. Yeah. And then we'll just attach it. But why don't we just leave it with Laura still to revise? We don't have to revise all the time. I don't know that. But do you want to approve it tonight? Yeah, we can approve it with exhibit D as negotiated between the developer and Laura Wiener. And the only substantive change would be that we would delete the relocation assistance. There would be no relocation assistance. She can go through it a bit finer and make sure she's capturing everything. And the rest is just language changes and percentages. The percentages will be the same. It'll be 140% of us doing it in a run instead. And Laura, I can work with you on it. I will have you approve it before we attach it. OK, we can both. There we go. So it will have the same percentages. They will delete the references to certified by DHCD, delete any reference to relocation assistance from the middle income tenants. And was there anything else? Substitute middle income for low and moderate income wherever it appears in the exhibit D. And take out certified to DHCD, did you say that? I did. She said that, OK. And then run it by Mike before we sign it, right? Right. That's the only other thing is, depending upon developer, would people be willing to have Laura, and I can work with her as well, agree to a different time period if that ends up being something. I'm sure. In other words, instead of giving them a year's grace period, maybe they only want six months or something. I don't know. But I mean, I think that I'm just trying to think of the different things that might be wanted to people might want to discuss and talk about. Full leads to change whatever you feel is appropriate with the same spirit of annual monitoring. I'm so sorry. We could do that. I think my recommendation would be that we treat these as two separate votes. Definitely. Yes, let's make. Well, I think given the DHCD component to the middle income, I mean to the low and moderate, I think that makes sense regardless. So just have two different votes. OK, so why don't we do that? Andy, did you have something to do with that? Carol, are you OK? I'm all set. OK. OK, so let's take the low and moderate income document first. I'll move to approve. I'll move that the board approve the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Rental Project. Do I hear second? Second. Thanks, Christine. All in favor? Aye. See no. Thank you. OK, now we're taking up the middle income. So do I have that one? Yeah, I'll try it. I move that the board approve the First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Rental Project. That is the agreement pertaining to the middle income of Affordable U.S. has drafted, but with an exhibit D to be added there, based on the exhibit D to the low and moderate income document, but with the following changes to strike the last sentence. You got all this? Carol, by the way, can I stop for a second? Are we going to stall the changes? Are we going to list them? Or maybe you can say. No, that's going to keep on going. OK, to strike the relocation benefits in the last sentence, to strike references to DHCD, to change all references from any low and moderate income to middle income, and to make such further changes as negotiated by Laura Wiener and approved by the chairman. Should we also mention that it was noted in here under item six in reference to it within the document? On page four on the low income one is where you referenced exhibit D. So you would want to add in that paragraph also. Item six, it's still on page four. Bruce, would you mind reviewing that last clause and to make such changes as considered appropriate by senior planning director? Senior planning and housing director, that's what you should do by title, has she deemed appropriate and has approved by the chairman of the AOV? Yeah, I guess I can sign it. You don't get to say that I can sign it. That's it. OK, how about a second on that? Second. OK, great. All in favor? Aye. Aye. OK, great. Well done, Bruce. OK, thank you, Bruce. OK, now we're on to the next item of the, we're still staying on Sims now. OK, it's been a busy week. The past week. And among the things, obviously, are everything we've just gone through, thank you very much. But then there's been a little bit of doing and throwing because there's been a bit of, we need a bit of clarity on the use of a temporary certificate of occupancy in this project. When the LDA and special permit were drafted, they were drafted on the notion of a certificate of occupancy and the word temporary never showed up. So what has happened is I've worked with counsel, outside counsel, dropped them a book at a Foley-Hoeck and went through the different documents as well as what's been going on now. The building inspector would like to understand that the board is OK with proceeding with the temporary certificate of occupancy with the different requirements that have been provided to date. And it's a fair notion. One of the issues is that, obviously, we've still got things that need doing up there, including the VISTA parks, some traffic mitigation, et cetera. And all those things still need to be done. But if you look at the documents, it's really in respect of the final certificate of occupancy. So to bring some clarity and some comfort to the building inspector on what it is he should be looking at for the temporary certificate of occupancy, what we've done is we've put together this resolution to, we can certainly discuss, but the notion is, in working with outside counsel, we came up with this as well as Carol, Laura was involved and we've worked it through, is that what we'd like to do for the resolution for the consideration of the board is trying to put out there the expectations of the board with respect to the certificates of occupancy and when we expect different elements of the project to be delivered. Obviously, we've gone through the revised plan. I think everyone knows that we'd like to get people up there to take a look at the different condominiums, at the flats, start the whole leasing process. The problem is, is we just need to clarify four folks along the way what that means and what the documents require with respect to a lot of the different provisions that were made. So I'm going to read out the resolution. Well, first off, let me read out the resolution and then let's discuss what's been going on as well as the resolution itself and any questions that you might have. So the resolution is as follows. Whereas the Arlington Redevelopment Board, the board are parties to a certain third amended and restated land disposition agreement dated as of June 7, 2007, has amended the LDA with Arlington 360 LLC, the redeveloper, concerning the redevelopment of the Sims Arlington Conservation and Improvement Project, the project. Whereas the board granted the redeveloper special permit number 3272, dated March 31, 2006, the special permit for the residential portion of the project, the residential component. Whereas the LDA, the special permit and other documents in connection with the residential component contain certain obligations on the part of the redeveloper to be satisfied as a precondition to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the residential component, the conditions. Whereas the redeveloper has requested that the Arlington Building Inspector, the building inspector, issue temporary certificates of occupancy for completed portions of the residential component, notwithstanding the conditions have not been fully satisfied. Result, that the board informed the building inspector that the board has no objection to the issuance of temporary certificates of occupancy for completed portions of the residential component, notwithstanding that the conditions have not been fully satisfied, provided that the building inspector is satisfied that such completed portions comply with applicable building and safety codes. The building inspector shall not issue a final certificate of occupancy for the residential component until the board is confirmed that the conditions have been satisfied in full. So really, in speaking with outside counsel, that's the resolution in full. And then so trying to give you some of the background, but in speaking with Jonathan on this, his view is that, you know, the temporary were not contemplated. And so therefore, this statement is one having been involved in the different documents, et cetera, that makes sense. So anyway, so that's the resolution that we're trying to do. What that will do is it will give clarity to the building inspector who can then, you know, take a more traditional approach to the certificate of occupancy, not worry about some of the things in the LDA that aren't building in safety related and can keep on moving on with the different PCO components. So, Bruce, any questions or comments? No, I think it's, and I agree with what Mike is relaying to us as Jonathan's book's observation on this, that as extensive as all the land disposition agreements and their progeny, their amendments and the special permit are, it really doesn't talk about temporary certificates of occupancy. So none of the conditions are really hinged or on a timeline that coincides with the issuance of a temporary CFO. But it makes some sense from the developer's point of view, so they can market these units and both the units that are complete and get them occupied to have a temporary CFO for those portions of the project that are done as long as there's the understanding that the final CFO depends on completing all the rest of the conditions, so I'm fine with it. Christine? My only question would be access to the buildings that would be occupied and the safety of that. Well, and that's what the building inspector needs to do. So we're not, so he will do that. Oh, yeah. Not just concerned with the building itself, but with whatever his usual process is, and this is. I don't know his usual process. Well, nor do I, but if we didn't have these extra things in here, this is really speaking to the extra. This doesn't relieve him any kind of safety measures or appropriate codes or anything. It just allows them to be done sequentially rather than all at once. OK. So all that will be taken care of also? Yeah. One thing that I may add at the board is that I think there's a difference between a temporary certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy, and a final certificate of occupancy. The final certificate of occupancy clarifies that everything's done for the whole project. The certificate of occupancy for each unit is one step past the temporary. It's saying everything's ready for this building for this unit. This is done, but it's not saying all of the macro conditions have been satisfied until the final condition of approval is done. Will the building inspector have enough guidance to know what portions of the site need to be done? Will that be obvious? He's been very much involved with the whole phasing, how access is phased, where the gates are, how fire egress works, all the building-related codes, fire safety sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, electrical sign-offs on all of the building technical parts. A TCO process is a normal process for a larger project to ease into an occupancy. And then when segments are done, or the whole buildings are done, then the final certificate of occupancy is going to be done, not TCOs. And then the final is when everything else is done in all conditions that are down the road. Like the CR and all that. Yeah, CR recording, the things that are outside. Yeah, all the recordings and everything, right. But if you're going to re-study those things, it's obviously going to be well beyond any kind of marketing period. So it's something our building inspectors very familiar with doing? Oh, with respect to the TCOs and the building and the safety, absolutely. I have no concern on that. And in fact, I think as far as which things which, the developer will apply for the TCO. So they'll actually point out, OK, we want it for this. And then he'll go up and inspect it, et cetera. So I think that's how it goes with respect to, well, what's going to be opened up. And the building inspector, typically, in that process is also getting certificates from the architect and the engineers that have affidavits that say these things are done and done appropriately. And that's part of his packaging for each one of these permits. Sounds good to me. Andrew? Sounds good to me. Andy? OK. Carol? One thing I didn't notice earlier in the first, whereas the reference to the third amended and restated land disposition agreement. Yeah, that's true. Is it supposed to be a 2011 date, or does it matter? The first LBA? Yeah, yeah, it's funny. It should just be the land disposition agreement dated as of June 7, 2007, probably, as amended and restated from time to time or something like that. If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. But the attorneys in the room would know better than I. You know, I think maybe the 2011 date is better than not. Is that the November 30th? Yeah, because that's what better. November 30th, 2011 date. Yeah. November 30th, 2011 date. Is it November 30th? That's a weird reference here. Well, we're taking title to the original site. No, no, no, no. I was going to say December. Maybe it's not in the summer. It's December 2011. We're sure of that. But the exact date. December 15th, but let me do a second. Oh, that does sound right. I like that. I saw it in some documents. It's probably picked up in the definitions. Yeah. On the master deed of the condominium, it defines it as the third amended and restated LDA dated as of June 7, 2007, as amended by that certain first amendment to restrictions contained in the deed as of December 13, 2011. Actually, I don't know. That may or may not be right. Well, that's fun. I still would like the December date on there. So I think we can correct it. I mean, we got the December to the. So you just said add the correct December 2011 date. The third amended restated land disposition agreement is the title of the document from 2011. Correct. And I like that. And I think that's a good title to use for this. So we should just sub the correct date. I think that's right. I think we can say, from December 2011, within our vote, we'll just say, Scrivener's correction. Let me get the right date. Who would have quickly run downstairs? I don't mind. You know, I think we're OK. We're OK. We know what we're talking about. And we can put a bracket in there. We can put a bracket and we'll fill it in correctly. So I'm not concerned with that. So if everyone's OK with the resolution. I have a question. Yeah, I'll probably move to adopt this. And that is, do we want to name or give the resolution itself a little more of a date resolution of ARB on September 9, 2013? So I'll entertain a motion to accept or approve the resolution of the Arlington Redevelopment Board dated September 9, 2013. So vote. Second? All in favor? Aye. OK, great. On a similar topic, I would like the minutes to show one other thing if I could. And that is that because there isn't a mention of the TCO, I'd like to make sure that everyone's in agreement. I don't think it doesn't need to be a vote that the certificate of occupancy is talking about this final certificate of occupancy. So for example, I'll give you one example within the condominium. And just for staff to be able to do different things and certify as to different things as they come up, I'd like to make sure that, for example, the marketing plan for the 12 condos goes nine months. The period has to be not less than 12 months. So it's got to go for at least three months after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the condominium unit, or for such condominium unit. So it's important that that data as well be the final certificate. Final certificate of occupancy. Certified TCO. So I definitely want the minutes to reflect that it's the board's opinion after council that that reference among any others within there is talking about the final certificate of occupancy. Should that be part of our resolution? I was thinking of that, and I kind of I want it to be a little bit careful and give the inspector something that he can have on its own. Actually, so if we want to approve them, I'd certainly entertain a motion that it's the belief of the, or the entertainment motion that the term certificate of occupancy as used in the documents refers to a final certificate of occupancy. And that actually so that these folks can actually do their job too, and to allow for staff to certify different factual events if they come up. I think that would be good to give them that ability as well. Things did come up like, was this bond paid? Could someone sign that this bond was paid? I'd hate that for someone to have to wait two weeks if for a vote of this board, for some kind of factual determination that's in the purview of staff with respect to that. So I guess I'd love for us to do two things in the same motion. Maybe it's two parts or whatever else. But I'd certainly like for the notion of certificate of occupancy to be the final and for that to be on record. I'm actually OK if that's just in the minutes so that they can actually use it as a dozen minutes. So if everyone's OK with that, then I'd like to ask Carol to make that part of the minutes. So the understanding is that the certificate of occupancy referred to in the different documents. I'm sorry, no, in the different documents. In the different documents is the final certificate of occupancy. Right, and that's certainly outside counsel's view of everything within the documents that a temporary certificate of occupancy was not contemplated. The second one is that you're asking the planning of the board to have the right to the ability to do the authorization. Right, from the board. To execute documents relative to verifying certificate of occupancy. No, factual, sorry, Carol, go ahead. Well, I don't know if I can say it any better than you would try. Yeah, go for it. Paul talks about it. No, no, no, no, please. Things will come up where we'll be asked possibly to vouch that a performance bond has been posted by the developer that was described as a term or condition of the LDA, especially permit, for example, or that the sidewalk's been completed on Summer Street or any of these other things that you're now very familiar with. At some point there will be a need on the building department to assert, to certify that those are done. So as far as factual things are asked for, I'd like staff to have the ability to kind of make a factual determination of things that are purviewed, that are within their purviewed, that a bond was received or that a payment was made, and those types of things. Certainly not with respect to building and safety. That's not anywhere near what we're trying to do, but with respect to the other things. I think it would be helpful. Now, as a side like to that, I'd also like to point out that one of the general conditions of the special permit for Sims is that prior to the final certificate of occupancy being given, the board will, I think the word is certify. I don't have it in front of me. I don't think certify that all conditions have been met. And so what we've now got Jonathan Book doing because of this kind of mad scramble we had on this TCO is what we learned from that was, let's get ready for the final. And so the task I've given Jonathan is to take the different documents on the LDA and the different special permits. I'm sorry, and the special permit. And to come up with a master list of all the different conditions so that we can get comfortable. Obviously, he's not gonna say that they've been done. We're gonna have to make our way through. So as we approach the completion of the project, we'll have one meeting where we'll be sitting down with pink checklist, with staff here. You know, maybe we'll have Jake in the background shouting stuff from the seats or whatever else as to what, you know, making sure that all the different provisions of it. That's not for tonight. I just kind of want to give you a heads up. But until we do that, there will be some things that kind of roll in that make sense to give staff the ability to say that was done, just a factual certification. It was done. You know, it doesn't mean that it medics its condition or what it rolls about. There may be some items, some of these items that staff feels like it's not within our technical privy to be able to say that's been done to full degree or in the proper manner that was anticipated. So I don't think that this would mean that. No, you're not gonna overreach. Right, we would not be able to, you know, we're not civil engineers, for example, or we couldn't tell you that a road was laid out properly or something like that. But if it's something simple like, yep, they provided the check for that performance pond, yep, that's, we've received that and it's been deposited. So there's no reason to take that to the board. If that's what we'll have, we have to receive it back. As long as you think the minutes are strong enough. No, well, I think the minutes are strong enough on the first part. On the second part, I think I would like I would entertain a motion to approve staff having the authority to make different certifications with respect to factual matters that might come up. Why don't we put them both together? Just, I'm afraid one might be lost just in the minutes. No, I'm good, I'm good. If we're gonna make one anyways. That sounds good to me. It's great. You're gonna give it a shot. So with respect to the first matter, I would move that the, that all references to certificates of occupancy in the special permit and the LDA be construed to mean. Permanent, I think is the right. Be construed to mean the final or permanent certificate of occupancy as opposed to a partial certificate of occupancy or a temporary certificate of occupancy. A second element? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, thank you. Are those the only two documents we have to worry about? What? The certificate that you mentioned. The LDA and the special permit. Yeah. Oh, just to say all documents. Because the other part are part of either. Yeah, because like that's where the LDA is the plan. It is the part of the rest, right? And the others are all, they gotta be associated with one of those too. Okay. And then the second motion would be that the board authorized members of the planning department staff to acknowledge factual matters such as receipt of funds or posting of bonds as may be required under the special permit LDA or other documents pertaining to the Sims project. I didn't capture all of that. Let's see if I can remember it. To certify that factual matters. Is it better? Move to authorize a planning department staff to issue letters confirming receipt of funds and or posting of bonds and or other factual matters relative to the Sims redevelopment project. This will have to do. I don't think I said the same thing twice anyway. Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll have the minutes to go over a little bit closely, so that's fine. All those in favor? Aye. Andy seconded that, by the way. Yeah, I see. Okay. I think, do you want to give an update on the force band? So I think that's what I had. That's mainly what I had for these different documents. Did everybody get the force band on their side? Or they didn't? No. No, it's here. I just didn't create so many documents. Oh, you just printed it. Okay. For everybody. With the code on. With the code on. So this is basically the document you've... Have you seen it before? The force band? No. Ever? So they haven't had a chance to look at it? No. I don't think we'd be in a position to do anything with it tonight. Are we having it? You might have seen it from the summer. You just re-acknowledged that it was delivered to... Are we just accepting it? This is an extra one. I can accept it. Is that all we need to do is accept it? I'm good at accepting things. Yeah. I mean, you don't have to prove a review or... You just want to acknowledge it's... Existence? Yeah. And basically what it is is what George Ackerson, who was their consulting arborist since 2005, maybe. Or whenever the first thought of an inventory started. He wrote the first part of this. And I think Clarissa and Kathy Arnett both looked at it and maybe made some suggestions for revisions. But it's essentially George's document as the arborist. And then the appendix is part of that also. So what he has here is what's existing is the first part of the forest management plan. What was existing, what the makeup of the different species of trees were. And what he thought would be the best way to approach maintenance of this area and restoration of this area. And the restoration is basically pertaining to the Norway maples. Calling out the Norway maples and planting more native species. I think in here it says there's 60% of the forest makeup was Norway maples. So I read that. So it's basically taking those Norway maples out, putting other native species in. Then the CODA that the Arlington Land Trust and the Conservation Commission through Clarissa, Brian, and Kathy I think. Talks a little bit more detail. What does CODA mean? CODA, what is that term? It's something about it, I think. It's a difficult term. Difficult music. I don't know if it's a legal term. Okay, I was wondering what that actually means. Oh, and also Karen Johnson's from SNAC. Oh, Landscape Architects, I believe. I think Karen's also Landscape Architects. All wrote this together, which expounds a bit more on what George wrote because they thought maybe there were a few things that were missed and could be rewarded a little bit differently. So that's what the CODA basically is, but it's referring to the same thing on how they want to approach starting the management maintenance restoration of the area and in what sequence they're gonna go in. And at the end, there's a map showing that phase one will be continuing what the developers are gonna be restoring at the trailer site. So they'll be picking up at that same site, which is one of the more visible sites that needs restoration. They'll be starting to replant more trees in there. The developers required to do certain parts of that. And that might be something we need to revisit in the near future is the whole restoration of that area. Some things may have shifted a little bit and we may have to revisit what that restoration plan is. So we might be bringing that up for the future meeting. Phase two is the bottom of the assisted living slope. And then phase three is below the lower park. Phase four is farther up. Phase five, phase six is all the way down at Summer Street again. So this is the sequence that they wanna start to go in and restore it. That's basically. Yeah, and I think there's been enough input. I think what the holdup was, was just getting some of the legalese stuff down as far as how much involvement different parties would have. So we like normal way of spruces, but we don't like normal way of needles. Correct. Yeah, it's good enough. Yeah, it's good enough. The normal way of needles. Yeah, no, you're no weeders. Since the time that they were used heavily, they've been discovered to be very invasive and they restrict what can grow. Yeah, the normal way of needles. Not the spruces. Right, the spruces are good. It shouldn't matter if they were. The spruces are good. What's the verb again they have to look to us? They're liliopathic. They're not extremely liliopathic, but they restrict what can grow underneath them. Quite a bit. Like beach trees, have you ever seen a beach tree? They look like elephant trunks, elephant leg trunks. Like if you picture an elephant leg, that's what the trunks look like and they get very wide and the branches come down to the ground. There's never anything growing under those because they're extremely liliopathic. Nothing can grow, not even grass. Okay, so norway maples are similar, but not to that extreme. So they want to get rid of them so they can get more of a diversity in other trees. Stop the reseeding of the norway maples. Sounds good. That's it. Thank you. I'll stop. So the motion to accept the, I guess, the forest management plan, although it's called the woody vegetation management plan for summer street woods and buffering areas. I will make a motion to accept the woody vegetation management plan for summer street woods and buffering areas. I could have a second. I'll second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Yay. This took a long time to come. Exactly. I haven't really had much input into this. I've reviewed it, and I met with the forester and things like that, but yeah. You should play the lottery. Yeah. You've got so much done. I know. You've been monitoring. Thank you all for it. Monitoring, it's slow progress. It's a busy weekend. You've got to appreciate the stamp. I think we just have a couple more things, but I think you're going to take the document. So you want to stick around for a couple more minutes or I can stick around or if you want to complete, and I can pick them up tomorrow, whatever's easy for you. I don't think we're going to talk for a long time. I think Carol, you wanted to talk a little bit about the master plan, and Carol's going to have to leave in a couple minutes. I've got a feeling that phone's going to ring very soon. They did say, well, if they haven't called at this point, I may have a few more minutes than had they called before 8.30. OK. That'd be great. Well, I think they know what they're stuck on, if I had to guess. So you want me to roll it to the other side? OK. So the next agenda item is master plan goals. OK. At this point in the master plan process, it's important for key boards to consider whether you have an official objective or agenda for the master plan. We thank you for all of you who gave your time for an interview with a lot of members of different boards did, as well as citizens and meeting members and others. But at this point, if there is, the board would like to consider whether this board holds an official agenda or objective that you want the master plan to realize. This is the time to consider it and articulate it. You know, I obligated to, but it's more like we wouldn't want to find that out a year from now. That may sound very obvious, but you'd be surprised this does happen, where in a master plan process you might find out that the planning board, moments before it goes to term meeting, someone might say, you know, I never really felt right about X, Y, and Z. Or I've always thought the master plan was going to take care of X. And I don't see anything in there. Then it really should come out now, because this is the point where the master plan advisory committee has worked with the consultants and taken a lot of the public input that came out of the workshops in June. The forum last October, the survey, the stakeholder interviews to try to distill a vision statement that will be the overriding vision statement for the whole plan, as well as goals in each of the planned elements, transportation, housing, and so on. So this is the right time to try to discern different board's agendas and to then distill that into the vision statement of the goals. So it may be that the board really wants to just see what comes out of the public process, what comes out of the master plan process. But it is a good point in the process for the board to consider whether this, read it on the board, which is the planning board, holds an agenda for the master plan that you think may not otherwise come out in the planning process. So if you would give that some thought, we can put that, again, on the next meeting agenda on September 23rd, and I'll take any questions if this isn't clear. And I think the other thing that I'd say to that last point, as far as putting on the agenda, do we really have too much right now on them? Stuff certainly comes up a lot. But on the 23rd's agenda right yet, I mean, we don't have a hearing. That's right. You don't have a special permit hearing, and it's too late to advertise one. So if one walked in the door as an application, it wouldn't be for the 23rd. And if I could also. So I think what would be helpful is maybe we'll put it aside a good amount of time at the next meeting to discuss this. And it might make sense if you've got a viewpoint with respect to this, get it to Carol. She can collect them all and even present them at that meeting. So maybe a little bit of homework in that if you've got a viewpoint, or if you think that the ARB shouldn't have a viewpoint, because we've got the master plan committee working on it, then that obviously is a viewpoint as well. So I think that's what I would add to those comments as well. That's helpful. Yeah, please. I was thinking the same thing, Mike. I think in fact, we should ask that our comments get to Carol in advance a couple of days that you have to put them in a type list that could serve as a kind of agenda or something. I think that's right. Yeah. If that could be the Wednesday before, which would be? First. No, no, I'm sorry, what am I saying? 18th? If Wednesday? Yeah, that could be by September 18th. Is that enough time for folks? Would it be helpful for everyone to have the goals that have been stated so far so they can see what I have them, but the rest of these guys don't? Sure. They can see what's been, it's not decided, they're drafts. Absolutely. And the vision statement is a very much of a draft too. Yeah, I think that would be great. That would let you see what's coming and what might be missing in your life. Right, and the categories you mentioned, if you're commenting on open space. I understand that they mean more. Oh yeah, whatever the categories are would be helpful. So I do want to make a comment about parking or about open space or something you'll remember to. When you say categories, do you mean the plan elements? Yeah. You said that people made comments about various different aspects that you have categories or aspects or whatever they are. Those would be helpful to know. It would be especially helpful for Andrew who's stepping into this. I personally think that a big part of that night should be what should we be saying with respect to that? What should our role be? Exactly. I think that's key. And I don't. To see the progress might be helpful for us to see Are we comfortable with our role? Exactly. And I think it's both points is what I'm saying. I think there's actually kind of like a pullback of, OK, well what is our role? OK, if we determine that this is our role, here's some of the things we want to say, if that's what we want to do. So I think we'll put a good amount of time, probably north of an hour, dependent, because I think we haven't done anything master plan wise for a while. I think we're due. And I think it makes sense. So I'll work with Carol on the agenda. But I would definitely hope to. The only other item related to master plan for this item is town day. I hope you give some thought to doing an hour or so or a couple hours at the town day booth. Staff will be there. A staff person at a minimum will be there. That's our intention. We're probably going to be working on that tomorrow morning to try to be sure we have the A staff person at all times to back up the master plan advisory committee and any new development board member who would like to make it. I think it'll be fun. I also think it'll be very positive for the master plan advisory committee members and the ARB to be talking about the public together. That will be very informative and that'll be a good dynamic. So if you can, if you're free, for those of you who did it last year, I thought it was fun. Yeah, we're done. You seemed to enjoy yourselves. It was fun. So I hope you'll give it some thought. We'll send around a doodle or something. So we already sent one around, I think. I'm not sure everyone got it, though. We'll resend it. Yeah, if you could. We'll make sure it goes out again or I'll send you a reminder to get to the link. OK. Aren't your shirts OK? I got it. I actually cleaned out my drawers and saw it the other day and I said, oh, I won't put this in the bin. These are simply shirts. They're golf shirts in the Arlington color with the trousers. Daddy's got to give it back. It doesn't go in the bin. Staff now. Exactly. But it needs a new shirt. Oh, yeah, it probably does. Did they say it's worn? They do. They say redevelopment board. I think there's one extra shirt floating around from Adam. Just because I saw it the other day. I have an extra, I believe, in my office. I got really wet the last time. So whatever hours it doesn't rain are the ones I've got this year. So I always do. You got the sunny hours coming to you. It's really hot there. OK, maybe I'll take the rain or maybe I'll take the rain. OK, so I think that covers that. With respect to the July 29th minutes, I think there was a little bit of confusion there because those were included in the last package. So I think we'll hold off on those for tonight. And we will add those to the 23rd agenda as well, as well as any other minutes that we have at that point. We'll recirculate and get those around. I think that's probably wisest with respect to that. So any other items, is there anyone that would like to talk to us before? I did want to mention one thing. I mentioned that we might have to revisit the restoration of the marketing trailer site on Sims. We may also have to revisit the slope behind the assisted living, how that's being planted. We're kind of working on it behind the scenes, and we may be able to resolve it, but we may not. We may need to call in the applicant to explain some more things. OK, so just a heads up on that. Yeah, we may not need to. And I may be able to just update you if something changes. OK. Which I'm sure is preferred. Yeah, absolutely. OK, I think that's all the business for tonight. So we move to a chair. All in favor? Aye. Aye.