 to open up the meeting of the Arlington Redevelopment Board of May 19, 2014, really we have one agenda item and then approval of minutes. Though one agenda item is to review and consider the matrix that staff has put together with respect to the LDA and the SPA for the SINS project, or I should say actually Arlington 360. And to go over that and to the extent that the board is accepting of this completion chart to consider providing a substantial completion vote to the Arlington 360 project. So Carol, do you want to kind of go through the process? Anything helpful on that? To describe how we address this. Yes, last week, Jake Upton prepared an updated spreadsheet on both the land is position agreement and the special permit conditions with the current state for most of the items being complete or actually some of them were in process as we were meeting. And Friday and today, we confirmed that some of the escrow and bonds and payments were made. We were confident they were, but we wanted to go back and double check that they had been. Because there were lots of different parties involved in this. So when I say we, I mean Laura, Wiener, and myself, with Jake, and we have a memo from. Right, and I think just to clarify, this is the matrix that Foley has put together for us. Jonathan Buck and Foley, I believe, was the author of this particular matrix when we started. And I think that's one we've been working on for a while. So we initialed, the staff initialed or identified the party who confirmed the completion for each item. So the last column on the right town of Arlington Review, you can see who is confirming the status. So why don't we just take a few minutes and just kind of go through. And then actually, I usually start with Bruce, but if someone gets through it quicker and wants to start to bring any questions. I've gone through this and appreciate Carol how, especially specifically about putting down the confirming person and everything else, I think that's great. I think, yeah, no, it's great. And I think the good news is we have been through, I'd say, 85% of these before. And really, there was just a few items that were left. So having gone through this, I have a preview of this. So I really didn't have anything. I will point out to the board that there's still a bit of work left to do down at the traffic signals. The study has been done. And I think the loop, whatever it is, the detector has been replaced. But there's still the adjustments that need to be made. So the town engineer has requested a holdback of $3,500 on the, for that. There's also a bit of warranty work on the grease and what have you. But that is all under warranty. And obviously, the condos need to be marked as regional alignment. That is ongoing. And I actually hope that this tonight's activities actually move that along very quickly. Can I point out one thing that sugar relates to the marketing? Just to be clear, it's where it says next step. So we all have an agreement that all 12 units are the pre-sale requirement. We have an agreement with our lender to get nine pre-sales with nine P&S's they'll review and approve that. And then the partnership will decide. And we've gotten consensus among the partnership that as long as it looks like everything's going to move forward and close and button up, that that would be something that would go through the approval process. So right now, just to give a quick update, I think we're at three P&S's. I think one came in today that had been signed. And there are a couple that are waiting until the P&S has been actually issued so that they know it's uncertainty about the closing date. And that type of thing. Yeah, I just want to be clear that there's still some internal sign-offs from the lender and from the equity partners on the P&S's at nine. Bruce, anything? On that subject, Jake, so in the event that there are less than nine under agreement, has the two to one, where do we go? Everybody wants to see where we are. There's a circular thing that's happening with getting the P&S's. There's seven that were out for P&S. Like I said, we have two back that have been fully executed and have been approved by the lender. So the language and the form contract is becoming more standardized. Each P&S is slightly different, but the most part we understand the parameters of that. There are a couple that are dependent on the COs. And so they're saying they're going to sign. But once the final COs are issued, and there are a couple that are pending right now, just better out there than an interested party. So it's hard to say with these interrelationships what happens. I think everybody wants to see that there are a substantial number of P&S's that are actually executed that are not contingent that are going to close. And I think everybody's looking for certainty that the market's absorbing these. And this is not going to be an impediment. The less that we have off of the nine, the more difficult the approval process probably will be internally. But everybody is communicated, you know, William, that's to move forward just with at least trying to have nine. And if we have less than that, there'll be judgment calls. But everybody seems to be. So if you're, I mean, obviously, as of June 11, I mean, if you have nine under agreement, then you contract the obligatory to close. So you, at that point. We have, with our lender, we have a pre-sale requirement of nine P&S's to be approved by our lender. Assuming that we get that approval, there's an internal partnership approval to close on the nine. And there's definitely a willingness to do that. Everybody wants to see that there's nine that are there demonstrating that the market's there and that there's likely absorption of those final three. So I guess my question is, part of my question is if you're at that point where you have nine that are under purchase and sale agreement, do you continue to market the other three for sale? Yeah, there would be a vote to close on the nine. Yeah. And that is, like I said, the form contract from the lender perspective. It looks like that's not being a problem because they've already approved two contracts. Technically, the agreement was all 12 for the pre-sale. So there will be a formal vote that would be required within the partnership and the partners individually to express a willingness to do that. They just want to see evidence that the rest of the units are going to, that the market's been demonstrated and that they're going to absorb in a relatively short period of time. OK. I had a question on the environmental remediation fund agreement. Under the requirements has no credit to do. So, yeah. So Doug Heim looked into that. Yeah. I don't know whether we took, did we not talk about that? Oh, thanks. OK. Sorry about that. He looked into that about probably two or three months ago. And what it is, is there is money there, but it will have to wait another three years. Because I think it's sort of. The testing after your show, but it's a claim for you. I think that's it. And I think that I think there was an outside date on it. I need to take a look at it. But it was a three year out date that we get to go back to Chicago title and say, hey, no one has claimed this money. We'd like it back. I don't think that's released to the town. It should get released to the town at that point. That sounds right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But there's nothing to do now. And there's nothing that we can really hold up. And that's going to survive. It has independent significance outside of this. Completion. Yeah, exactly. That will persist after this. Yeah, now it's on Adam's radar. So he's got, I'm sure, a ticklet for whatever the date is on that. OK. And I have no issue with the $3,500 holdback for the optimization of signals that that's what the town engineer says we need. And I commend everybody who's working on this. This is a very good document. Considering I missed 98% of the process. Yeah. This has been helpful. You're still part of it now. I'm part of it now. My name's Anna now. It's been being able to look at this tonight and some of the things that have been produced ahead of time have been great as far as getting up to speed. I don't really have any follow-up on what Bruce has said based on that. I'm guessing that the dead trees across from the garage drawer of the apartment building are going to be replaced at some point. Yeah, there's no warranty. And any issues about lighting and things along those lines have to do with right view and not with A360? Is that correct? Well, there's some interrelationship on the lighting between, because there's the access road. It's not called the same road. The lighting that's been installed was per the photometrics plan and per the original permits. Now, there was some questions from an NPP perspective about the light shades. And because it's on a slope and the angles that the light's actually on with the slopes. And there was additional shielding that was put on those lights. And then a bright view as a separate special permit, we felt that those issues were resolved. And then when bright view came on with their lights, I know that there's been discourse back and forth to with the neighbors and some issues. I guess just to be clear, that isn't anything that we need to look at tonight. No, so the lighting issues that have kind of come up are actually extraneous of the L&A. I know that they've been contentious. I just want to share that with you. Because if they're in line with the photometric plan, then they're within what's been approved already. Exactly. You gave shields to bright view there, correct? We installed a number of shields to work with the neighbors and thought we'd resolve that. Then when bright views lights kind of compounded, I guess, the issue right in that particular area, we gave permission and gave the actual specifications for buying the permanent fixed shades that they go in. And so they're in the process of ensuring those. I don't think that for some reason it takes forever to get those. We went through the process when we got them. We overordered and we had some extra ones, which we also put up in different places to sort of try to make the whole plan work as best we could without compinging the safety issues. And so we've given permission to bright view. I think they have a requirement from the building inspector to install a few of the shields. And I know that they're waiting for those now as part of their closeout of their project. I don't know where exactly that order is with them. We're going to go through the same type of matrix with bright view, right? We'll go through a similar one. I don't think it'll be quite as, it just isn't as much as, you know, I think frankly, I think it's going to be more with bright view for them to come back and make sure that they've done everything that, you know, the last meeting we need to make sure that they're more satisfied. I actually took a drive there this weekend. You know, they've done work on the circle, they've done, yeah. So I think it looks actually good. The straight print went in today. Straight print? Oh, where's the straight print? Oh, for bright view, right, right, right. I'm thinking you're a crosswalk. No, they did an infrared. Yep. Yeah. That's good. For the company, probably not the friendly animals up there or from Disney. Great. Christina. So I saw that the dead trees are on here. There are a lot of dead plants. So I'm just wanting to know what your schedule is on, especially on the lower Vista Park, the more public areas. I know that the installer has been on site, sorry, it was on site. They did a lot of extra hydro seating. The new erosion control pieces have been put in place. The bark barriers are supposed to be here. I didn't see that, yeah. And so I know that there are, there's some material that's on order that's all under warranty and the ministries are just starting to release over the last couple of weeks to release new plant material. So I just don't know where exactly they are. There are sections that were done by a different landscape company. And those were the ones that were done as part of the forest restoration plan and the enhancement in the buffer zone. And that company is now the management contract. So we're also waiting for those plant and jails and the ones that are crossed from the garage are the ones that were planted by that company. We have retainage on both. So they're all under warranty as well. So we're confident and we have like $8,000 of retainage on that. So we're comfortable replacing. What did make it through the winter? It was a tough winter. Yeah, you might need the 80,000. We might. A lot of graver grains, unfortunately, got zapped. Yeah, planting lathes and cold winter. It was a hard, hard winter in a lot of different ways. Yeah, it was. Okay. Just so they don't hang out too long if you've got it in your radar, that's good. Yeah. Speaking of retainage, do we have any retainage? Yeah, so that was something I was gonna go over after we just got everybody's comments. We had a hundred or something. Right, we've got a hundred. And I can go over what's left and talk about what makes sense. But before I do, Carol, did you have anything in order to go over? Yes, I, you know, it's well known that the butters have issues with the lights. And I don't think any of us at this table, maybe Bruce saw the photometrics for the residential component. I know the board, that's true, Andy would have seen them. I know the board saw the photometrics for Brightview. I don't think that the board ever saw or understood or considered whether the Sims road lights that were shown on a Brightview photometrics were supposed to be just with Brightviews, the effective Brightviews lighting. So I'm about to conclude to hit the punchline. If, when the, we can find the photometrics sheet for the residential. If there is a concern, if by looking at the paper and looking at measurements, if the board has a concern, I believe the board could always reopen the special permit. It, you know, there's no reason to necessarily think that this is the last that can be ever said about the lighting if there is a real variance. I'm saying this for the benefit of Beth Ann Freeman who's here. I know it has been a concern. Isn't it not true that in a few weeks or months or a year, if that were shown to be quite different, the board could reopen the special permit, could it not? Yeah, I think anything that gets out of line with the special permit could of course come back up. I'm saying, I'm asking this because I'm sure that at this point that the butters are feeling a little anxiety about perhaps what if we don't get this addressed now. And I believe that it's not as urgent to get it addressed at this very moment. Though I don't mean that with any disrespect for your concerns, but there are two photometric plans and I don't think we even considered whether they were cumulative or whether the Sims Road effect on each was representing both the MOB parcel lighting, which is now bright view and residential. So I wanted to put that out and if the board or, well, I can address some of those issues is that the photometric plan was engineered and it was the same engineer that bright view had, same to the land engineer, Bills and Thomas. So I do believe that the lighting was coordinated. I do know that there are affidavits that have been submitted as part of the building permit process, that what was designed inspect those specifications were consistent with the plan and that the plan was built. Now, I know that there's issues about whether the light is flowing in the direction as it was intended and that made, you know, that's a question that is out there. There have been some questions about whether the lights that were actually specified have been installed and are operating in the way that they were intended to. I think both bright view and Arlington 360 have had representations from their consultants and from their general contractors and installers that yes, they are consistent. So I think that there may be an issue where people, you know, what was designed and approved was built. It's whether the impact of that is maybe needs to be reconsidered and that's where, you know, it's difficult for us to make that judgment, but there are affidavits that have been collected. I know that bright view and I don't want to speak for them because they have their own process and their own management that's doing that, but I do, we have talked to them and they've represented that their consultants have certified that it's consistent with the town bylaw and they meet the bright skies or whatever the terminology is and that they built what was approved in their plan and they have certified that and with affidavits. So I'm not trying to say that there's not an impact. The cumulative impact may be bigger than what was intended and that may need to be addressed. I think we've all tried to address it in our own way to minimize the impact. No one has an interest of, you know, taking off the neighbors. So there are some life safety components to this which makes it difficult, but I think that the dialogue has been open and there's been a lot of discussion amongst the parties to try to resolve it and I think that people would like to resolve it. I mean, just from an MPP perspective, I've had an incredible amount of time spent on life and initially it was very clear where the MPP, it said that the light couldn't basically go beyond the property line. So in that initial phase, we identified the neighbors that had the issues with the light coming over the line and there was a long discourse about that and that's when Allington 360 came in and put shields up and we tested and then we went a little further and tweaked them a couple of different times. As I said, there's been a huge amount of discussion about this. Once that was done and Allington 360 was in compliant with the MPP, everything seemed to be going along a lot better and then Brightview put on all their lights and it's like going right back to square one. Allington 360 already had their temporary CO when the Brightview stuff came up. So in order for Brightview to get their temporary CO and the building commissioner came up and did an inspection and said, you've gotta address these lights and they ended up putting temporary shields in a bunch of their courtyard lights but they also put temporary shields on several of the lights at Allington 360 because their lights made enough brightness to go into the neighbors areas that they then were not in compliance. So on the day that they were issued the CO they put up all the temporary lighting, I mean the temporary shielding and once that was in place, I actually met them and hand-delivered the CO from the building about it with the understanding that they were gonna come back and do the permanent shield. So at this point Brightview hasn't found any of their permanent shielding but they do have the temporary yet. And we asked them getting calls and complaints from the neighbors. Most recently was about 10 o'clock this morning. Right, so I guess I just wanna talk about process for a second. I mean, what we're talking about here is the SPA and the LDA, and certainly we have further, et cetera. But in order, the exercise that we're trying to do is within each of those documents, it says that it needs to be substantially complete for the final CO to be provided. And so therefore, or we have to say it's substantially complete. And so my own view of that is that means was that, was each thing that is specific to the redevelopment board been completed, which is the LDA and the special permit chart that we have in front of us. The lighting is kind of a separate issue in my mind in that it does affect the NPP at first, but then the shields go up. Once we say it's complete, then it moves into bylaw and whatever it is that the building inspector knows. In other words, if there's a bylaw issue, then the building inspector will need to address that. If the building inspector has some other issues with safety or health or what have you, then he can on his own do whatever. But what he's looking for us to do is talk about has it conformed to the LDA and the special permit. And those things are here. It's really him relying on the affidavits from the consultants that have to do with the lighting more than it does us saying that the lighting's okay, because we're not the experts on lighting, right? We can't, at least I know I am, I'm no expert on lighting. So from that perspective, that's kind of the exercise that we're trying to accomplish tonight in my view. So, you know, just, I've gone around the table, Carol, anything else? Nope. Before I just get- Just very briefly, the NPP- Should I get your name and- Oh, Beth Ann's Free Plan. And I'm both a neighbor and a member of SNAP. NPP is part of those documents. Absolutely. And so the NPP's saying that there should be no lights billage onto a neighbor's property with boundaries. If that's not being conformed to, then, I mean, that's not a separate issue. I mean, the NPP is still part of these documents. So, thanks for that comment. So that's, you know, how I'm viewing it. And that's why my concern is that you're saying, oh, that has nothing to do with it. You know, what's our recourse then? So then- It's a pressing study. Alasa, does any time represent- Do you have any other issues under the- So long as these shields are all in place and they don't go over the property line, then they, in my view, of the NPP, they're in compliance. The question that's been raised more recently, and I'm not an expert, I'm not a lighting engineer. No, I'm not an expert. One of the neighbors went around with a lighting meter. And the readings that she did were what she said, they were inconsistent with what was shown on the plan. And again, I'm not an engineer. I didn't participate, so I can't really comment on that. So she has the plan? She had some plan. She had a photometrics plan that was done before Brightview was planned to be there. So when it was going to be all residential. Okay, well, that's different then, than the final plan. Well, I don't know if there's another one after that when Brightview came in, you know, Brightview. Well, Brightview did it. Yeah, but she's so the, but an important point here is, is that the building inspector will rely on affidavits from the different consultants and everyone else who are doing these things. Really what the building inspector was looking for from us, I just wanna, I still, once again, see if I can't, maybe I'm not explaining this well enough, but he's more on all of the things that are not in your typical builder inspector purview, health, safety, done according to plan, okay? Built according to plan is, really the building inspector's job is to figure that piece out. What he was asking the arm to do was to be able to say that outside of those things that are in my purview, okay? The built according to plan, built according to plan health and safety of any occupants redevelopment board. Have we covered everything? Okay, so that's kind of the distinction I'm trying to make here and I don't know whether I'm doing a good job or not, so. And I think you are right, and I think the, you know, what's different about this project, I guess a lot of things are different about this project, but we've got an extensive list of negotiated items with the developer that the building inspector isn't really in a position to verify it. So he's saying, okay, redevelopment board, you were the ones who said, well, for example, you know, payment of minimum taxes to the town or record conservation restriction, monitoring well. All the stuff that's on the matrix is stuff that the building inspector isn't usually looking at when he's evaluating a building permit to completion or a special permit process. So he's asking us to report to the building inspector and spectral services that these things are done, which is why the items that are on the list are here and it doesn't go back and incorporate all the other building stuff. And so for example, we are not in a position, you know, not only to evaluate the lighting, but the foundation mix and all the construction stuff. And one last thing on that too, though, Bruce, is the other part, so is the affidavit that he gets? So that's the other piece that goes into his thinking and those are things that we don't have to address either. So he's either, and the things that we have to address, he can't get affidavits for. So what is he getting affidavits for exactly? Do we know? It would be things like from the engineers with respect to lighting. So lighting, something from the landscape, understructs, yeah, design, safety code, training. So do we have all the affidavits in already or do we care? We don't care. Is that part of the closing? It's part of the final CO process. It is part of the final CO. But not all. But we care that there was that. Yeah, I'm just curious where we are. The building adventure has to be part of it. So he's still working on it. When we say it's complete, it's only in respect to the arms. He's received them in order to, he's received most of them as part of the TCO. There's probably some more that he's getting as part of the final closeout. Okay. So through the final CO. I know last time we talked he didn't have the landscape ones, for instance. I'm wondering if he has those now. Right, he will by the time he issues. If he doesn't already. Yeah, yeah. For those in order to have the TCO, he wanted all the safety requirements for the lighting, the directional signs, and everything else to be done. And now those are completed. So those affidavits are already in. Those relate to the lights on since road. What are not in, not necessarily, I don't know where shelter and bright views affidavits are exactly. Because that's their project and their special permit. Yeah, we'll ask them when they come in. So as far as recourse for the lights, we've already said that they could reopen the special permit, we could reopen the special permit if we need to address the lights. The building inspector. The recourse is really with the building inspector. He's the first recourse. If there's not satisfaction there. I think you'll have to do that before. It's not ours. That's what I'm saying. We're not an enforcement body here. You know, we tell the inspector what to expect. We tell the inspector what to expect. And then he has to see whether it conforms to that or not. And if it does, then he can, you know, provide the CO or whatever document he's being requested to provide. If it doesn't, then, you know, he can deny it. So, but in the end, you know, in the way that he judges that oftentimes is with an affidavit from somebody. You know, an expert that says, you know, under penalties of perjury, I say that it meets the plan or something like that. So, and it meets the bylaw or what have you. So, really that's what he's getting. But in the end, that's not this part. Our part is more of, okay, the LDA and the Special Permit had a bunch of stuff that the building inspector does not usually deal with. Okay, redevelopment board. Are we good? So. Okay, just because we have a resident here, I wanted to just know what the process for the residents will be once we do this. It's really like anybody else. I know it's not up to us necessarily. It's really the same process as anybody else who has a problem with the light. It's a bylaw, I have to do that. So, can I just ask a question? Does the bylaw take precedent over the MPP or does the MPP take precedent over the bylaw? So, if the MPP says there's no light spillage onto naked property and a bylaw doesn't necessarily address spillage over the bylaw. The MPP affects construction. And the construction is over. Well, that sounds like an issue. But I'm not sure. Yeah, it's not, though. I mean, that's the process. That's not your issue. It may not be our issue, but if there is light spillage and the MPP said no light spillage, they're gonna get an affidavit that says there's no. If the lights aren't functioning as they were designed to do and it's determined that they need to be fixed. And light spillage is part of that. Right. If that's what they're concerned is. The other name of this question is on intensity. And I don't, if you say that, I don't care. That's what the spillage is, intensity. Well, no. That's a different issue. Intensity and ability. I really don't want to go down a raffle here. Well, just because we're talking about it, I want to understand it also. I understand, but it's really about process at this point. I understand that. Yeah. Yeah, I understand that. Where one stop, this has to stop at one point and something else has to pick up right after. And I think at this point, in my opinion, I'll put it like that. And obviously the board can weigh in however it wants. But from my perspective, we're at a jumping off point. And it has to come at some point. And I think personally, my view is, is we are there. And I agree with you. But I just want to make sure that there's going to be resolution to the lights at some point. I'm hearing that we don't want the neighbors to be upset. We're going to make sure there's no spillage, the intensities of the issue versus spillage. We're going to make sure that the lights are functioning for the plan and not differently than that. But we've built the plan. And according to the pilot. I don't know exactly what the pilot says about lights. Well, the other thing that's complicating is that the original lights were a lot. I mean, during the permanent process, the lights that were in the road before were the town lights. And there was much greater casting of light. So at that time, this was consolidating the lights in their throw of light, or that was the original. You mean with the hospital, the original hospital? It is difficult because a number of people are new to the process and have moved in since those plans were done and are used to a certain condition in the transition of the project. There's been different expectations. And it's just taken a long time to process. So there's also a new bylaw, I think, about lights. There's a lot of variables. That's why I can't say I like that. And it's what makes it difficult for it. It's very difficult. It's not so cut and dry. It's just not clear. So the other thing I was going to say is with respect to, Carol, I think this chart's great. Thank you very much to you, Laura, and everybody else for getting into it and checking everything off. I think it looks great. Exactly, I really appreciate it. With respect to the holdback, there's been a couple of things that we've talked about. And the traffic engineer specifically wants a $3,500 holdback. There's potentially a little bit of a regrade. There's other things that could happen over the course of the next month. We have the marketing of the condos still going on. So my recommendation to the board would be that we actually hold back $10,000 and release $90,000 of the completion for potentially the next month until the condos are sold. Is this from the retainage? Yeah. From the $100,000? From the $100,000. So $90,000 would be released. Does it even have completion on? Completion posted. You're using the word retainage, but it's no retainage. OK, this is a. Yeah, it's a payment that was made at the beginning of construction through the construction loan process to the town. The original intention was that if the project got stopped along the way and the town had to step right and secure a site, get erosion control in place, or do whatever they needed to do, there was some resources there. Yeah, actually, it was probably right before you got here, Christine. This was a big deal because the last time it happened, there wasn't enough money to even do erosion control and everything else. So they wanted to make sure we wanted to make sure that there was enough that if the government, the project went sideways yet again, that we would have enough to at least secure the site. Because back then, too, there was a security issue with the site, too, and the thought was with the $100, we could at least take care to secure the, well, I'm not sure we could have, but we could have tried. We could have tried a little bit harder. Put it in softballs until the economy turned around. So that's what it was for. So it was, I'm sorry, you were using the word retain inject. I'm not in your industry. I forget what that is. That is something to hold on to. 10% of the construction cost usually. And probably to you, that would have been a lot bigger. I'd put a land savings, 10% maybe. We should have done 10%. That would have been a lot better. But you're warming Jake's heart. Exactly. Let's go back. So anyway, so my thought is, obviously the 35, I just want a little bit more head room than that in case of unforeseen things come up. So my thought, but I do believe that we're down to the smaller things. So I think 10 makes sense on that. So that's all I had. Let me ask just one other question to the designated town representative since you were kind enough to come tonight. So outside lighting and that type of thing, as far as the MPP is concerned, as we kind of go through this list and everything else, are you good? I like the 360 is good. Brightview still has some of that going on. But I like the 360 is all set. And I did send a letter to that effect to Jake. And I think it was included in the package. It was. I just wanted to, since you were kind enough to come, I appreciate it. So great. By the way, we also received, actually, we should say this too, and maybe even include them in the record, is the letters from the concom and the land trust. I think we got one from Brian Revrig, as well as from the court of that administrator of the Conservation Commission. And I don't have them here. Carol, maybe we can, after the fact, put them in. Because I think that would be a good document. I have a copy of the one from Corey. Great. And I would like to point out that in that, Christine was absolutely, that they were most appreciative, as are we, with Christine Sapinski's help in all of the CR type of stuff. Thank you very much. Because I know I couldn't have done any of that. So thank you very much for your help. I can't do your stuff either. So thanks. Nor do I want to. Yeah, exactly. Soon enough. You're welcome. You're welcome. Thank you. OK, so any other discussion? Board members? OK, then I would like to entertain. The other thing that you've got in front of you is a memo that was drafted up for my initialing. That would essentially say exactly what we've talked about tonight. Just have a couple of small nits down below, Carol. Maybe I'll initial this one, or you can initial the next one I'm on behalf of. Sure. That's clean enough for you. Thank you. And the long and the short of it is the punch line is, the ARB therefore affirms that all of its conditions have been met, meaning the Land Disposition Act agreement and the special permit have been met. $90,000 can be released from the escrow account to cover the above, meaning the $3,500. And any other unforeseen items over the next month. So I guess I would like to entertain a motion to do so much of what we've talked about here with the completion, as well as to authorize me to initial this. So I think, oh, I'm sorry, yes. Why over the next month? Just to give a sense for when we would expect to release the remainder of the 10. Another way to say that is when you expect it to be done. Even better. Yeah. OK, I've got a motion. I've got maybe two motions. So OK, even better. The first motion is, with respect to the Land Disposition Agreement, special permit, the Conservation Agreement, and the Side Letter Agreement pertaining to Arlington 360's redevelopment at the former Sims Hospital site, I move that the ARB issue a certificate of substantial completion as to the requirements of such documents, what the following provises. A, the marketing of the condominium unit shall continue through June 11 of 2014. And B, the sum of $10,000 shall continue to be withheld from the completion escrow to cover the cost of completing item, special permit condition 5B, and other unforeseen items that may arise over the next month. It's motion one. Motion two is to move that the chair be authorized to initial the memorandum of May 19, 2014 with respect to the retaining of $10,000 out of the completion escrow for item 5B of the special permit and other unforeseen items, the remaining $90,000 to be released to the developer. Great. And also, it's to the director of inspection. The memorandum to the director of inspectional services. You mentioned the conservation commission. Should you mention the ALT at the same time? I mentioned the conservation agreement. Well, the conservation agreement. Yeah, which is sort of taking my cue from what's written here. In general, I can write that all out for you tomorrow. Horrible. You better write it out tonight. But I don't think anybody else would be able to. No, no, we'd be going around in circles and arrows and so on. Do you have a second? Can we do a two for? I'll second. Did you want to second? That's fine. You can do one and one. Yeah, exactly. I'll second the first one. I'll second the second. OK, great. All in favor of the first motion? Aye. All in favor of the second motion? Aye. Great. OK. So that's done. I'm going to initialize. The first and quake, just so you know. Do not. Thank you. Well, thank you so much for your hard work. Thank you. And yours. Yes, all of yours. Thank you very much. It's been a long haul. It has, thank you. We'll wait till we're done with the next one. Yeah, thank you very much. We appreciate it. And champagne. You guys did a lot more than you did. Thank you. I don't know. It's been a lot better. I think the neighborhood pride had more meetings than we were. Sure. I was here an awful lot on the last day of the year. There was a lot out there where we were, yeah. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, Rick. Thanks, Rick. Take care. Thanks, Jake. Oh yeah, and what else would I do? Thank you. Go on to Jamaica. No, I'm not sure. He's Ben. OK, so we close out that one. Andy, could Andy miss that? Oh, yeah. OK, next item, Approval of Minutes. So these are the May 12, 2014 minutes. So timely. Yeah, go ahead and start. OK, let's start first with a question on the documents used. We set the signed proposal. Do we need, I mean, the nine photographs that Mr. Koholy, if I'm saying his name correctly, brought with him. Do we need to also to mention the materials that were in our packet with the before and after sort of the photo shop? Is that the signed proposal? Oh, is that the signed proposal? I don't know what else is signed proposal. Yeah, OK, I'm happy with that then. If it's dated, as long as it's dated and identified, we should state who prepared it. Yeah, you could use some more information around it, I think, if you take a look. Do you need a copy? You could add a date to that. I don't have the minutes. Well, I think we can share. We can share. We can write on this if you want. So add date, is that all we want to add? And who prepared the signed company? That's what we usually do. OK, and I had another, I'm not really sure of myself here, but the proponent, Mr. L. Cahouli, my sense is his name may be E-L in space or hyphen in Cahouli. And I'm not sure if anybody else caught that, but I think that might be the correct spelling. And then second of the last paragraph on page one, it does summarize what I said, but it doesn't state that I actually made the motion and I did move at the board. So I would just, more it says removed, turn that into a comma and then add the following. And moved that the board grant the special permit for signage as requested, subject to the foregoing conditions. Sorry, I'm lost. Oh, OK, so the second and the last paragraph on page one. Which is Mr. Fitsum is summarized? You wanted to say moved. Well, what I was going to do is, it's OK to say summarize, because I think I did summarize it, but then at the very end where it says removed period, turn the period into a comma and then add the following. And moved that the board grant the special permit for signage as requested, subject to the foregoing conditions. Subject to the foregoing conditions? Conditions. Which were that the lights can't be LED, the decals and the fence signs that had been removed, stay removed. And then lastly, on the Arlington 360 spot, just not quite sure if Grandscapes, was that the correct name? No, it's Groundscapes. Groundscapes. I have that on this copy too. She got it right later on. OK. That's all I had. OK, I have just a few more. So on the first page, the paragraph that starts with Chris Loretty, at the last sentence, we mentioned with a specific memo justifying their decision. Do we need to explain that anymore? A specific memo? Is that a memo from? I don't know what that is. It was his point. From the chair. I mean, from the director planning. He was saying that the director planning was supposed to give us a. From the director of planning. Memorandum. Justifying their decision. Actually, I don't know. I don't know. But I think what Mr. Loretty was saying was that in order to exceed the number of signs, the planning director is supposed to give the ARB a heads up. OK. A memorandum. Which she did. We have a memorandum. So then on the back, the 360 list, one, two, three, fourth bullet on the steep slopes for clarity of invasive weeds. I'd like to scratch on the second sentence there. It should just say Japanese knotweed is present. It can be treated by ground scapes. They are proposing a multi-year program for knotweed, honeysuckle, and bittersweet invasives as well. So that's the way I'd like that to read. I think that would make more sense. And then the next bullet, update to force management plan is due. Jake had mentioned that he was scheduling the arborist for May 30th. So if you put that in there. And the arborist is scheduled. Scheduling the arborist, Jake Upton stated is scheduling the arborist for May 30th. Because it did throw out that date. OK. On the next bullet, after thermoplastic markings will be installed on the road. I just wanted to add installed. Then checks have been delivered to the land trust totaling 40,000. We should add totaling 40,000, I think. So if I've got two checks, it's going to be nice to leave the. OK. On the second to the last bullet, groundscapes advised to leave the brush below the lower Vista Park in place to stabilize the slopes. So I want to insert below the lower Vista Park so we know where that is. There's brush in other areas, I think, too. So then two other things he did mention, too. I wanted to add a bullet. The marketing trailer site is being seeded and trees are being planted this week. He had told us that. And he had also mentioned the condo sale. There were two purchase and sales and seven out. So I wanted to add those, too. Mr. Upton said shelter confirmed that their lights meet the plan. So this is two sentences down from the bullets. I thought he had said Brightview is installing shields that were provided, but he didn't say that tonight. He said Brightview had installed temporary shields. He doesn't want to speak for Brightview, I think. But they did install temporary shields. I think he had told us that. We talked about it that night. Well, that's what Rick Gallagher confirmed. Yeah, so Brightview has installed temporary shields. That were provided. That's it. The only comment I've got on this is the third from the final paragraph. Mr. Care asked the availability of board members for a meeting on May 19, 2014. He asked that staff meet with Mr. Upton to review. I think what I asked is for you to review the completion matrix. And that staff advised the ARB. I just want to make sure that it's not. Mr. Upton is advising us. Yeah, we're all done. Yeah, exactly. Surprise, surprise. I think we're fine. And that staff advised the ARB in their vote that the project is substantially complete. I just want to separate those two notions a little bit. And that's what I have. So motion to accept doesn't move. So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. I think that's all we have on the old agenda for this evening. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. That's all. Very nice motion. Now we'll entertain that motion. Second? Second. Second. Mr. Boonell. All in favor? Aye. Aye.