Newton City Council - March 2, 2026

It would be helpful just for planning purposes, so I assume they would come through our committee rather than Committee of the Whole, that they would be so designated as plenary documents. That's it.

I would agree with that. I also saw that mistake on page 23. But well read, sir. Well read. Thanks. Appreciate it. All right, so just as a matter of order, then, for this item, we have an option. We can hold this open. We get NA in it. Again, we don't vote. We don't vote on this particular item, but I'd entertain a motion to NAN or to hold the item.

And if we're going to hold it, I'd like to hold it. If we, as a group, have further questions that you'd like to answer in a forum like this, otherwise, as members of the public, please submit them to the Gurdon Commission.

It seems like there's still a lot of questions, so I think hold might be the better option.

Fantastic. I have a motion to hold. Do I have a second? All in favor, please say aye. All opposed? Abstentions? Fantastic. This item is held. Thank you very much. We'll be in a... I'm dying to know what's going on over there. We are adjourned for the next 3.5 minutes. Thank you so much everyone. And thank you again, Darius.

Recording in progress Recording stopped.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

and so on.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

So everybody, if we could grab our seats or space suits as appropriate tonight.

I am. Recording in progress.

Thanks, everybody. We're here for a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. President Oliver. We are being audio and video recorded before we jump into the Pledge of Allegiance. I think all of the counselors that were online are now here in the room. Yes, that is the case. So, Councilor Silber, if you could lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Great, and before we get going on first call items, just a quick reminder, we do have three items on second call this evening, so we'll take those up in due course. But in terms of first call, I'll start with land use. Councilor Kelley.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Land Use Committee report starts on page 43. The committee met on February 24th. We took up item number 92-26, which was a request to vertically extend nonconforming front setbacks at 55 Auburndale Ave. That was approved eight to nothing. We also took up item number 93-26, which was a request to further increase nonconforming FAR at 1445 Com Av., that was approved seven in favor with one abstention and our third items were Oh, third item is held, and we have other things on second call. But I would like to request some public hearings.

Please proceed.

Thank you. Beginning on page 48 of the docket, I'd like to request a public hearings for March 10th for items 104-26, 103-26, and 102-26. And that concludes my report.

Fantastic, thank you. For zoning and planning, Councilor Baker.

Thank you, Mr. President. The report begins on page 44. There are two items to report, 91-26. This is discussion and possible amendment to change effective date of 60% for the facade build-out. That was no action necessary. Five to three. And then 95-26, reappointment of Councilor Albright to the Newton Affordable Housing Trust Fund. and also there's an item 9926 on the new docket where there's a verb missing and that's Mr. Willison has it to correct and also the location has been corrected but the substance is the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Baker. Do we need to...

Mr. Willison has it, but if he needs to read it, I can. It's just the docket, just because we're going to vote to approve the docket. I can read it if he wants.

I'm just wondering, just for clarity's sake, just so we all have it.

This is on page 49, and it just says item 9926, and the item would read as follows. Presentation on town. A town of Brookland proposed rezoning at Route 9 and Hammond Street and Hammond Pond Parkway because it's not actual yet. And then after the names of the councilors docketing it. requesting presentation and discussion about the proposed rezoning and traffic related traffic modifications. So it's just to clean up the language to make it clear.

Fantastic. We'll make sure that that's adjusted in the record that we're voting on this evening. But thank you for that, sir. Is that the end of your report, I believe?

That's the end of the report. I gave no report. All right, just making sure. Yes, thank you. Great.

For programs and services, Councilor Krintzman.

Thank you, Mr. President. There is no report this evening.

Public Safety and Transportation, Councilor Lucas.

Like programs and services, there is no report tonight.

What can this go for public facilities?

Thank you, Mr. President. Public facilities begins on page 45. Item 7426, request for a pre-budget planning discussion. That was voted no action necessary. 7926, reappointment of Jonathan Kantar to the Design Review Committee, approved 7-0. 8026, reappointment of Signing Quo to the Design Review Committee. That was approved 7-0. . Item 81.26, reappointment of Amy MacKrell to the Design Review Committee. That was also approved 7-0. 86.26, reappointment of Stacey Roman to the Designer. Selection Committee, public, that was approved 7-0. 8726, reappointment of Kenneth White to the Design Selection Committee, also approved 7-0. , 8826, reappointment of John Sinnott to the Design Selection Committee. That was approved 7-0. And then 9726, transfer of $1.5 million for snow removal. was also approved 7-0, and that concludes the report.

Thank you. For finance, Councilor Grossman.

Thank you, Mr. President. The report begins on page 46. First, we had item 82-26, the appointment, sorry, I don't know what's going on with this. The appointment of Ruth Ann Fuller to the Horace Cousins Industrial Fund was approved eight to zero. 89-26, the transfer of $150,000 for Cooper Center project closeout costs was approved 8-0. and 97-26, the transfer of $1.5 million for snow removal was approved 7-0. With that, I move the report. Thank you.

For real proper reuse, Councilor Malakie.

There is no report.

So can we take a roll call, please, on first call items?

Councilor Albright. Bixby, Block, Charm, Dahmubed Farrell. Aye. Councilor Getz.

Aye.

Councilor Golden.

Aye.

Councilor Gordon.

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg.

Aye.

Grossman. Aye. Councilor Irish.

Aye.

Councilor Kalis. Aye. Councilor Kelley.

Aye.

Councilor Krintzman.

Aye with the exception of 91-26 on which I vote no.

Councilor Leary.

Aye.

Lucas.

Aye.

Councilor Malakie. Aye. Councilor Micley.

Aye.

Councilor Roach.

Aye, with the exception of item 9326 on which I vote no.

Councilor Silver.

Aye.

Councilor Wright.

Aye.

President Oliver. Aye. But before we tally, Quick question, just wanna make sure. Item 9326, that's a land use item, correct? All right, could we, just for the record, have anyone who just voted no on 9326 please state why. Just for the record, please.

I think I'm covered. I explained my reasoning in the Land Use Committee, but I will repeat. There wasn't a compelling reason for the already non-conforming property to exceed its non-conformance with relation to FAR. it's a very large home and the reason for there are two pieces to the request one was to build a mudroom , which I have no issue with. The other part was to create a studio apartment above the garage. And the home was large enough There were probably alternative ways to find an additional room within the home and within the footprint. And so for those reasons, I'm voting no. There's no compelling reason for The increase in the non-conformance with the FAR.

Thank you, Councillor. And again, just if you've made comments in land use, you can summarize, you can let us know, and similar to Councilor Roach, just state for the record.

I did not make comments in land use, and I would just associate myself with the comments of Councilor Roach. Thank you, I appreciate that.

Mr. President, may I change my vote on 9126 since we're still talking about, I would like to vote no on 9126.

Fair enough.

Got that? Fantastic. On this vote, on approval of first call, the yeas are... 24, the nays are zero with the exceptions of items 91-26 where there are two no votes and item 93-26 where there are also two no votes. Two and two.

Right? All good? I think we had two nos on 91 and 93. That's what I heard. That's what I'm seeing and that's what I heard you say.

And our no votes were recorded even though we were in violation of council rules by sitting, so I apologize.

You're forgiven. All right, moving along to second call. All right, again, we have Excuse me, we have three items on second call this evening. The first two items are 71-26 and 72-26. We will be taking these up together and I'm going to start with Councilor Kelley from Land Use.

Thank you. Yes, there were. These two items are related at the property at 148 Watertown Street. And Vice Chair Leary is going to lead this report because she chaired the meeting when I was absent so she's better prepared to do this. Go ahead, Councilor Leary.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. President. So I did chair the Land Use Committee that evening. We met on February 10th. and this was regarding a petition at 148 California Street which is the Stop and Shop Plaza for people that are not familiar with it. There were three items that we We discussed together, but we voted each one separately. And the first one was to rezone that parcel from the current manufacturing to BU2. The second one, and that was 7126. The second one was 7226, which is A petition seeking release from the restrictive covenant at 148 California Street. That was put in place by special permit in 1988.

And at this point, it's just an additional part piece of red tape that makes it difficult for the business owner to make changes without having to go through a special permit process The third item was 70-26, and this was a request for special permit to allow shared parking on California Street. Let me give the separate votes on them so that will be helpful. The first one, the request to rezone. from 148, at 148 California Street to business use two. Land use approved at five, five in favor and there was one abstention. The second item regarding the restrictive covenant The land use approved it unanimously 6-0. And then the third unit, the request for special permit to allow shared parking, that was held 6-0 because

because of the other two votes it was no longer really pertinent.

It was kind of a conditional item that really wasn't taken up if I remember.

Right, so it doesn't, the fact that we passed the other two items in committee meant that the other one wasn't pertinent anymore. So we went through, We were joined by Sondra Berman, our senior planner, who did the presentation and discussed the location of the site, the specifics. If you're familiar with this area, you'll know that the site has ample parking, over 600 parking spaces. and not only is the building the Stop and Shop Plaza with a number of retail uses including CVS, restaurants, fitness. On the California street side, there's also a business side. I'm sorry, that's the Watertown Street side. California Street side also has a brick building. It's a business building that also has a hair salon as well as other businesses. So that's the entirety of the project.

So the current owners who we met on site with wanted to just simply make it easier for them to make changes to the retail spaces, which do change somewhat frequently. because with the current manufacturing use, they have to go get a special permit for every single change of use, which is a barrier, inconvenient, makes it a little more difficult for them to attract tenants. So there's no project here and there's no plans for a project. It's simply for convenience, for ease to be able to attract more tenants and get them in quickly. So that's really just about flexibility to make improvements. And parking really isn't an issue there at all. If anything, they have a great excess of parking.

There was some discussion about related to whether it would be BU2, which was recommended by our department, the planning department. and BU1, which was also brought up for discussion. And there's very little difference between the two, actually. but it would be a little easier if we could stick with BU2 for this petition. I would note that the Planning and Development Board also voted to approve the rezone to BU2 unanimously. noting that it was important to support local businesses and the city's economic goals. So that's the main points of this. Thank you.

Thank you. And I believe this was put on second call by Councilor Block, or both items were actually.

Thank you, Mr. President. The petitioner's request for a zoning change and the repeal of a restricted covenant regarding 148 California Street is a highly unusual proposal in that the special permit petition is not dependent on the zoning change. Rather, the petitioner has presented the city council with two requests. One, change the zoning from manufacturing to BU2. and repeal a restrictive covenant or, if that isn't acceptable, to approve the special permit that reduces the required parking from 779 to 519 spaces. I understand why the petitioner would want to change the zoning from manufacturing to BU2. There is much more flexibility in what is allowed under the BU2 zone, including residential uses.

As public comments from Mr. Anthony Donato and questions from Councilor Lucas made clear at our meeting, a zoning changed to a business use from manufacturing opens up the possibility, even the likelihood, of residential development instead of commercial development. It seems to me that this is the critical question before us. In short, what is in the city's best interest? To answer this question, I suggest we take a look at the California Street Manufacturing District Zoning Study done by UTIL in 2023. On page 14 of this study, Util states, and I quote, given the city's critical need to keep part of the district for commercial and industrial purposes, They recommend designating an area east of Los Angeles Street as a zone for commercial uses only.

The map on page 15 clearly includes 148 California Street in this recommendation. The UTIL study goes on to recommend a more flexible mix of uses for the area west of Los Angeles Street. Given that we have such a recent study on this part of Newton, and given our concern to protect our commercial tax base, I suggest that a zoning change to business use needs a much more thorough analysis by the planning department. Further, there is no urgency to consider this zoning change since the petitioner has offered a second option, a special permit amendment that would reduce the parking requirement by one-third. Therefore, I will be voting against this zoning change. I urge the rest of the City Council to do the same, and I am confident that the Land Use Committee will take up the special permit petition expeditiously. Thank you.

Great, thank you, Councilor Block. Any comments? Councilor Malakie, followed by Councilor Leary and Councilor Baker.

I agree with the comments of Councillor Block. I'll be voting against as well. We can't keep... giving up guaranteed commercial space and losing that financial benefit. I think a much better option would be immediately we can approve the alternative request to liberalize the parking requirement, but it would also, I think, be an opportune time to look at the What kind of uses we allow in a manufacturing zone. And since there don't appear to be any problems with, for example, restaurants in what is now a manufacturing zone, They go through the special permit process. I think the planning department should also study what uses we would like to allow by right in manufacturing that would also be commercial.

Thank you.

Leary.

Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to make sure that it's understood we are not giving up any commercial spaces here. We're simply making it easier for our local businesses to thrive and to attract new tenants. and that's really the gist of the matter here. Half the parking lot is also in Watertown. If anything has to happen, it will have to go through a very large process. Though it may be unusual that we're making a change of zoning here with no project, there's a good reason to do it. And that's why we have this special permit process to make these changes. So, I mean, it's really, it's really pretty straightforward and between what's, The zoning is there and the current use. We all say we want to support our local businesses. We want to make it a little easier. We want them to thrive here. We can't just say that. We actually have to do something about it. And this seems Very straightforward. And it's in my ward.

It's a very large area, as you probably know, with a lot of commercial uses in it. The rest around there, a lot of it is residential. so it's a little bit unique but it's on two busy streets and I think this is really important that we send a message that we care about our businesses and we're willing to be flexible in some areas without without doing anything that we reduce our power and our ability to have some control over this. So I urge you to vote for this. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Baker.

Thank you. I'd like a little clarification. My understanding is that the petitioner sought relief in the alternative, a rezoning and a change in the covenant or a special permit. If there were a recommittal to land use, by the council on the theory that they prefer the special permit. Is that still not open to the land use committee to consider and to approve? I just want to understand procedurally where this matter is.

So my understanding, if I could replay your question is because the special permit wasn't taken up in land use, is a zoning item appropriate for the Land Use Committee?

Well, it's a site-specific rezoning, and I think it appropriately is in land use, but the historical pattern has always been site-specific rezoning has been accompanied by a special permit. that lies on top of it. This is a rezoning without a special permit. That's something that's unusual. and normally anything that is a rezoning without a special permit would come to us, but in this case I think it's appropriate because it was associated with a specific site and a specific use, it goes to the land use committee. But what I'm curious about is whether, in fact, a special permit would not give the petitioner the relief it needs without setting a precedent of a zone change without an associated special permit. I'm uneasy about voting for that as a matter of principle so if it's going to stay here I can't vote for it but if it goes back to committee I think the committee could consider the special permit and perhaps give the relief that's needed without making a change in our zone. But that's what I'd like clarified.

So I can say that I did inquire with the legal department a very similar question. I phrased it slightly differently. because I did ask the question if we have a zoning change without a special permit that's being reviewed because that's effectively how this item was heard in land use and correct me if I go astray here It was deemed appropriate because they were both achieving, I'm going to paraphrase here, but I believe the answer in effect basically was because the two options achieved the same goal, it was... acceptable to hear the item in land use? But that is a slightly different question than that.

That's somewhat different. I'm not quarreling with the fact that it went to land use. I'm just indicating that land use made a choice. between two relief applications the petitioner gave us. Gave us a rezoning without a special permit plus a change in the covenant. It could have given us a special permit. I'm perfectly comfortable voting on a suitable record for a special permit. I'm not comfortable voting for just a zone change without a special permit associated with it. That's a precedent I don't think we should carry forward. So I just wanted to indicate that if there is a motion to recommit the item to land use so they can submit it as a special permit, I would certainly support that motion. I have to yield to my colleagues who are more knowledgeable about this site than I.

Well, the one element I will add, because I was there that evening, and correct me if I go astray, Councilor Leary, you were running this meeting, if I recall. It's my understanding that the... Of the two options, 70-26 or the combination of 71 and 72-26, the petitioner preferred 71 and 72 together, I believe is why we heard it that way. are in that order. Is that fair? That's my recollection.

Mr. President, there are three items. that were referred to the Land Use Committee, the first two, and then the special permit. So the question is that the items that are reported out, I guess by implication, the Land Use Committee did not take up or held The item that was referred to at 7026. Is that correct?

That is correct.

I mean, there was no public hearing on that item.

That is also correct.

On the special permit? because we have three items that went to land use and I am seeing only two reported out. So that's my problem about procedurally how we go forward. So maybe the chair of land use and the vice chair can clarify.

Councilor Leary.

So there were three items, and we took them up together. And I want to say that also petition 7226, which is the covenant, was done by special permit back in 1988. So that was part of a special permit. And then the request for a special permit to allow for shared parking was was sort of a fail-safe if the petitioner if the first two items did not pass the petitioner was using that third item to get out from under the special permit process. That's my understanding. But the reason it did come to land use was because of 7026. which was the special permit component of it. But the other restrictive covenant is also related to a special permit as well. So if that helps at all.

Baker, please.

The tricky problem is our rules say that a zone change, a site-specific zone change in conjunction with a special permit Generally, we've interpreted that to mean that there is a special permit that comes on top of the zone change. This is not a special permit that comes on top of the zone change. We've got really a zone change plus a release of the covenant. That's what's anomalous about this situation. So that's why I was hoping that the committee would have the ability to take up Roach, on this topic.

I think there's one other element. The 7026 addresses one of the two components. There are two different aspects of the zone change. One is the removal of the parking requirements but the other is the extension of uses which is greater in the BU than in the manufacturing. So there are two reasons that the petitioner came to to request these three items. If we did 7026, which is in the alternative, that would be a partial resolution of their issues, not a whole resolution of their issues because they would still need special permits for any use changes that are not allowed by right in the manufacturing district. So on the issue of whether 7026 is a wholly satisfactory alternative,

to 72 and 73, it is not, and I'm not speaking, Councilor Baker, to the issue of the precedent, simply about whether the alternative is wholly sufficient.

And for those of you who are caught off guard, the first time a new counselor speaks on an item, it is tradition that they receive a standing O.

I'm assuming that's when they speak and stand.

Correct. Had you stood earlier... Thank you. Are we all set on that particular item, Councilor Baker? I understand you're... I don't think we have allayed your concern, but we're set for now. Thank you. Councillor Greenberg?

Thank you, Mr. President. So in a recent Charles River Chamber newsletter, you may have seen a report on the life science industry in Watertown. The report stated that there has been unprecedented growth from the life science sector, adding $45.9 million in new growth to the city's tax levy. which has allowed for the funding of two elementary schools, a new high school, new parks, and other municipal improvements. Because of this new growth, Watertown has maintained the second lowest residential property tax burden in the metro area. While it may be too late for Newton to fully compete for the life sciences sector, given how saturated that market has become, We should be asking ourselves, what's the next opportunity?

How can we position Newton to attract other growing industries and commercial enterprises and thus increase our own growth? Allowing the approval of these items sends the message that we are a city that supports our business sector and says yes to new growth. I'm afraid that right now we have the appearance as a city of no. Consequently, every budget season we struggle to adequately fund our school budget and overdue projects like police headquarters. So please, I urge you to vote in favor of the petitioner's request to change the zoning to BU2 and release the restrictive covenant. This would be a quick and easy way to show support for this business owner and in a small way demonstrate that Newton supports responsible business growth and is open to economic opportunity. Thank you.

Albright.

Thank you, Mr. President. So first I want to support my colleagues from Ward 1. I'm in total agreement that we should support this particular docket item. This petitioner came to us and said that it's impossible for him to fill vacant spaces. in his complex because every time a space becomes available and someone wants to rent it, he has to come to the city council for a special permit because it's a manufacturing district and it's a retail in a manufacturing district. So it takes, what, two months, three months, four months to get, at best two months, let's say it's two months, to get a special permit. Nobody, no business is gonna wait two months to see whether the city council is gonna grant a special permit or not.

They're gonna go look for another space. So it makes it impossible for this landowner to get his spaces rental, his spaces rented in a timely fashion. So I really think that it's time to support this. You know, we worry about what could happen in the future if we move this to BU2. I think we need to think about the present as Councillor Greenberg just said. We need to think about the present. We need to make sure that our tax base right now is working. and when we have vacant spaces in our businesses, it doesn't help our tax base. Also, there was a worry stated earlier. I hope that worry is perhaps gone. Maybe it's not. that we're gonna have all kinds of residential uses in this complex.

So the only thing that this developer, this owner, this building owner could do by right is a single family house or a two family house. That's all you can do by right in a business district. Anything else that's residential has to come to us for a special permit. You can do it, but you need a special permit. I looked in the use table and that's what it says. You need a special permit. You can do up to four stories with a special permit, but you have to have a special permit in a BU2 zone. So we have the ability to control what happens here. If they come with a special permit, we have the ability to say we don't like it, we do like it. I really hope that we will stand by our words that we want to help business. I mean, I keep saying this over and over again. We keep saying that we want more business in Newton, but we don't do the things we need to do to support it. I hope we can indicate that we do support business and we can support this project.

Thank you.

Councilor Lucas followed by Councilors Kelley.

Thank you, President Oliver. First of all, I just want to say, I look around this side of the railing, we have 24 counselors here. I love this. Really, I do. I love when all 24 counselors are here in person discussing the items here in the chamber. I love that. I just want to say that, okay? But yes, I voted for this item in committee. I'll vote for it again, or I guess both items in committee, and I'll vote for both of them again tonight. Yes, it's just a zone change from manufacturing to business use too. It gives the petitioner more flexibility to lease out the space. That's all it is. and I know Councilor Block mentioned the aspect of residential use on this site. And then Councilor Albright spoke to it. That's probably gonna require a special permit.

And at that point we will decide as a council, if that is the best way to use this particular site. But I agree with Councilor Leary and Albright, we need to do everything we can within our power, within our purview, to support local businesses, okay? And I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Councilor Kelley, followed by Councilor Farrell.

Thank you. I was absent for this meeting, so I do want to go on the record by speaking to it a little bit. And Vice Chair Leary did a great job chairing that meeting. As Councilor Lucas just said, this is almost as simple as a switch as I think we can all agree. Manufacturing mainly throughout the city but on this particular site is no longer a current use. It makes it so hard for this Thank you. Thank you. and that does deter people. So in terms of economic development and supporting local business, it's not just for this particular owner, but I think we should vote for this. I think it is that simple.

To Councilor Baker's point, which I was not aware of, that a zone change needs to be attached to a special permit, this project actually did come in attached to the special permit, which was number 70-26, which Perhaps the petitioner's representative could address if I'm wrong on this, but it's my understanding that they withdrew the part that was the special permit request based on recommendation from the law department that it wasn't necessary. So if it needs to be, that was the part about the reduction in the parking. If it needs to be attached to a special permit, perhaps we can make that happen or we could hear from Councilor Stearns on that. There were three parts of this. We ended up voting on two of them. Two of them were supported quite strongly in the Land Use Committee and I will be voting for them tonight. Thank you. Farrell.

I have a point of information. Go right ahead. I'm a little confused about the special petition request. Was that withdrawn? That wasn't withdrawn. So that's still being held in committee. Okay. I'm sorry.

Farrell.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm thrilled that we can make Councillor Lucas as happy as he is. I get a little concerned, however, with some of the conversation in that By supporting the manufacturing notion doesn't mean that I'm opposed to business in any sense of the word. I'm not as smart as most of you on these issues of land use and special permits even though I sit on the committee but I went through the differences between business use and manufacturing today, and they are pretty similar, except for the notion of being able to build housing under BU. and I don't think one and two family homes are the only things that could be built on this site. Right next door there is another 40B being built, I believe.

But that is also a possibility. So there is a housing opportunity here if we change this. I think we have lots of opportunity and lots of housing underway in Newton and lots of it isn't even being used. The whole business that we went through with the village overlay districts is nowhere near being used as much as it should be. Secondly, for small businesses like there are in the old slums, there are lots of opportunities throughout the villages to take on space that is not being used right now, if they want to do that. I don't think it's bad to reserve this as a manufacturing space. And we can see what happens. And I will be voting against it tonight, thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Baker.

Thank you. I appreciate the explanation of my colleagues and the one thing that I don't think was considered by the petitioner is a practice we did in the Union Street area a number of years ago. Some of you may remember there was a question that came up about the ability to relocate existing spaces or excuse me to have new tenants come into existing spaces and the problem of coming in for a special permit every time the use was changed, and we granted a comprehensive special permit in that way, and I thought that was a solution that made sense. And I think it's still available in this context. The petitioner has just not sought it. as much as I appreciate The fact that this looks like a remedy that the petitioner prefers, I still can't support it, but I would encourage the petitioner to consider what we did in the Union Street Puddle, which gives us a special permit that can take care of the parking and the use at the same time. Wright, and I hear it's not time sensitive so maybe that could be done.

Great. All set? Anyone else? Any further comment? Councilor Wright. followed by Councilor Block.

Thank you, President. The two use, I'm looking it up right now, the uses for manufacturing to be you too. There's some big differences like personal instruction of over 5,000 square feet. In manufacturing, that's a special permit. Retail... is not even, doesn't even say that it's allowed in manufacturing. So there are quite a bit, I think, differences between the two. It does allow by right two stories. and in limited uses you could have housing on the second floor. Nobody's gonna build two stories with housing on the second floor in this market. So anything bigger than that, it's gonna come in as a special permit.

This is just really helping the business owner when he brings in new tenants that he doesn't have to come for a special permit. and maybe somewhere down the road, which would be wonderful. We could switch it back to manufacturing if something like that came up. I don't think there's anything holding us back to switching it back. So I am in support of this. Thank you.

Block, followed by Councilor Kalis.

Well, I think we've heard enough commentary that for those who think this is simple, It really is a lot more complex than it at first seems. And I just ask you to reflect on that given there's no time sensitivity, The petitioner doesn't have a plan to do something. In fact, they said over and over again in their testimony, they don't have any plans. They just want this to make it easier for them to function. I understand that. I wish there were some other business use zoning category that could give them what they wanted and have us protect our

I think our commitment to trying to entertain and attract commercial activity in this part of Newton so that's why I think it's really worth saying no to this, asking land use to consider the special permit petition and that may be only a partial easement that the petitioner wants. Maybe that's what should happen. Thank you.

Councilor Kalis.

Thank you, Mr. President. So, yeah, it's a lot more complex than I ever thought. On the surface, I'd want to support this because I do want to make things easier for businesses. As my colleagues have reminded me, we might not get another bite at the apple on this, especially if the petitioner decides to go for a 40B. and which makes it very complex because I believe in housing as well. But where we have commercial, it's critical that we take advantage of that. I prefer the special permit option as well.

Great. I believe we have Councilor Farrell next, followed by Councilor Albright and then Leary.

I'm sorry, I apologize. Thank you, Mr. President, very quickly. We are often here, and we often speak ourselves about the complexity of the special permit process. And we need to fix it. That's something we can do. If the process is something that holds everybody up, let's bring in people who think it holds them up and sit with them and make this process less cumbersome. I don't think it needs to be this way. And I don't think it needs to be the excuse of doing something because the process is so cumbersome. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Farrell. Councillor Albright.

So many of you were not on the council maybe three years ago, or I'm not exactly sure, sometime in the recent past. where Councilor Lyapoff was supporting a similar change for a building on Union Street in Newton Center where every time a vacancy came up they had to come to the city council for a special permit, which happens frequently in an area where you have shops Shops going in, shops going out. And we granted a blanket special permit for the whole building saying that they didn't have to come back anymore for individual shops within that building. So I just want to remind everybody that we have done this very recently in the recent past. With respect to the 40 issue, it doesn't matter if it's manufacturing, BU, you know, booty booty zoning.

40B takes care of whatever it is in local zoning. So it doesn't matter if it's manufacturing or BU2 or MU4 or whatever it might be. 40B always takes precedence, so you're not helping that problem. And finally, I just wanted to say, I mean, Councilor Wright referenced this, but here are the things that you can't do Actually, Councilor Wright is right. It doesn't even say you can do them by special permit in manufacturing. Restaurant, retail under 5,000 square feet. Retail over 5,000 square feet. Service Establishment. These are things you can do in BU, but not in manufacturing. Vehicle Repair Shop. I mean, it goes on and on down here of things that you can do in BU2 that you can't do in manufacturing. It says you can't do them at all, but we must have adjusted that to have them by special permit.

So this would be a huge win for our business community, not just for the owner of the building, but for people who are trying to put a project, a service, a business in Newton. I mean, they could just as easily go to Watertown. It's right down the street. We should make this happen.

Great. Councilor Leary.

Thank you very much Mr. President. I just wanted to add one more additional piece of information that is pertinent to any regards about what can be built on the site. So the Stop and Shop has had a 65-year lease on that property. They have another 30 plus years to go. They really rule the roost. So that really additionally limits what can get done on this property. I also just wanted to again reiterate that how important I think is for our city to send a message that we want to attract new businesses, that we want to make it easier for businesses to thrive here. so far we haven't been sending that message and that's why we see Watertown, Waltham, other communities have much larger commercial tax bases while we struggle to pay the bills every single

Great, thank you.

Anyone else? Here we go. Councilor Silber.

So thank you. So actually, I do want to clarify one point, which is that a restrictive covenant does prevent a 40B, and that actually happened in 2017 on Wells Avenue. So the ZBA can maintain its ability to reject a comprehensive permit based on a restrictive covenant for manufacturing, which is actually what Wells Avenue was. So while I would love to find a way to make it much easier, I'm a big supporter of business. For that reason alone, I don't think we want more 40Bs. We're already going to be open season in 40B for many, many, many years. So for that reason, I will be voting against this.

All right, anyone else? Anyone else? Anyone right down here in the front? More standing ovation area here? No? Okay. Councilor Wright.

One thing I want to add about the 40B, this property abuts Watertown. And I think half of it, two-thirds of it, is in Watertown. So even though we may restrict it on this property, the rest of the parking lot and a lot of that area can be a 40B.

Anybody else? Okay, great. So before we take a vote on this, just as a reminder, because 71-26 is a zoning item, it does require 16 votes to pass. All right. Item 72-26 is just straight majority. Simple majority, I should say. Right? Councilor Roach.

Because the rezoning issue adds the ability to build housing, are we sure that it requires a two-thirds majority?

I think that may be covered under... Well, let's put it this way. Straight from the legal department, right? 7126 requires 16 votes, but... Depending on the vote, certainly we will double check once we have the vote.

Thank you.

Right? But it's a fair point. All right, with that said, I'm going to take separate roll call votes, right? 71-26 and 72-26. We're going to start with 71-26. Is that a question or? Please read. Deal. 71-26 is the request to rezone 148 California Street to business use 2. You want me to read the entire item, or is that sufficient? Okay, so can we do a roll call vote on 71-26, please? And by the way, I think this one is very straightforward. A yes vote changes the zoning to be U2.

Albright, Baker, Bixby, Block, Charm, Dahmubed, Farrell, Getz, Golden, Gordon, Greenberg, Grossman. Aye. Councilor Irish. Aye. Councilor Kalis. No. Councilor Kelley. Aye. Councilor Krintzman. Aye. Councilor Leary?

Aye.

Councilor Lucas? Aye. Councilor Malakie? No. Councilor Micley?

Aye.

Councilor Roche?

Aye.

Silber.

I vote aye 71-26 and nay 72-26. We'll just count to 71. OK.

Aye on 71.

Thank you. Councilor Wright.

Aye.

President Oliver. Aye. On this vote, the ayes are 19, the nays are five. Motion carries.

Thank you. As to item 7226, the petition seeking release from the restricted covenant at 148 California Street, can we please get a roll call vote?

Albright, Baker, Bixby, Block, Charm, Dahmubed, Farrell, Getz, Golden, Gordon, Greenberg, Grossman. Aye. Councilor Irish. Aye. Councilor Kalis.

No.

Councilor Kelley. Aye. Councilor Krintzman.

Aye.

Councilor Leary. Aye. Councilor Lucas?

Aye.

Councilor Malakie? No. Councilor Micley?

Aye.

Councilor Roche?

Aye.

Councilor Silber? No. Councilor Wright.

Aye.

President Oliver.

No.

On this vote the ayes are 17, the nays are 7. Motion carries.

Fantastic. Thank you all. And per your note, I think we're okay either way, but we'll double check with legal, but I think they got that one right. All right. Our final item this evening is 10-25, the Appeal of Traffic Council Decision TC 59-25. I believe we're starting with Councilor Block on this one. Is that correct? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I chaired this portion of the PS&T and I would like to offer an addendum to my report for our meeting on Wednesday, January 21st, 2026, which considered the appeal of Traffic Council Decision 59-25 extending the trial in the Langley Road Municipal Parking Lot in Newton Center to October 31, 2026. Due to the extraordinary interest in this matter, it is worth bringing some parking data to the council's attention. The planning department's presentation provided a chart titled, quote, parking always available within public lots, unquote. This chart showed that the average utilization was well below the functionally full level of 85%. However, the parking data was not provided for peak times.

Fortunately, we have more detailed utilization data from a Newton Center parking strategy report, which collected parking utilization data on Wednesday, June 3, 2015. This chart shows the utilization in three of the four municipal lots in Newton Center exceeded 90% at times of peak utilization. Only the Pleasant Street lot stayed below 90% throughout the day, but even in this lot, utilization reached 86% at 2 p.m. Thus, it is possible that two statements that seem to contradict each other can both be true. The average utilization of Newton Center parking lots is below 85% and that the peak utilization in three of the four Newton Center lots exceeds 90% at peak times. As I reported previously, the committee voted six to two

in favor of Councilor Lucas's motion to end the trial on May 31st with Councilors Greenberg and Roche opposed. Thank you.

Great, thank you. I believe Councilor Albright, you put this on second.

I don't know why these are making these noises. Thank you, Mr. President. I may need another minute, so stop me if I go beyond my three minutes.

Shall we ask for that extra minute now?

Okay, can I have an extra minute?

Councilor Albright is asking for an extra minute. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Fantastic. Please proceed.

Thank you. So I put this on second call, I think it's about a month ago, something like that, to give the ward six counselors more time to work on this. I've read all the emails that were sent to us about the pilot. I've learned from those that wanted us to support the appeal. that they have fears that this wouldn't be enough parking in Newton Center. And then even worse, we'd have businesses failing because of it. They value parking, turnover, and feel the central parking lot supports walkability better than parking on the streets a bit further. Alternatively, the folks who wrote to keep the pilot value a gathering spot A place to take out food from village restaurants and eat with family and friends. A friendly place for people with disabilities, whether adults or children, to gather with others and take part in all that the center has to offer.

So and both the people and the people for and against the pilot all valued a vibrant village center. The whole purpose of the pilot was to learn the effect of the loss of some spaces and the replacement of these with the accessible plaza and to assess the usage of the plaza. One thing I've learned from my time on the council is that change is scary and many people would rather keep the status quo than make a change and take a chance on a future that's different. The businesses have this fear. They're worried that bad things are going to happen. But we really don't know yet how the plaza will affect these businesses. This is a change that may make a difference in Newton Center. The way the plaza is has in Newtonville made a difference. When a much bigger change came to Newtonville, the businesses also wanted us to vote no. They thought their businesses were going to close and that would be the end of that.

We took the leap of faith and we have a wonderful outcome. People may use the plaza as a destination which will bring more feet on the street to support local businesses. We don't know yet what will happen and that is why we should leave the pilot until October so that we can learn the impact on parking and usage through the summer months and into the fall. Coming back to the values expressed by all in those letters, everyone values a thriving Newton Center. Everyone values a walkable village. What we are not sure of is the best way to get there, by moving the plaza out of the parking lot or by keeping the plaza as a gathering spot. while we keep the village green for rallies and special events. Please know that simply moving the plaza requires a new plan and a loss of green space. That's what would happen if we move it to the green space.

I think the plaza provides an accessible place for everyone to play. It doesn't matter if you walk there, arrive in a wheelchair, everyone has equal access. This is a hard amenity to replicate anywhere else. None of us really know the impact that the plaza has and that we'll have over the summer and into the fall. We just may create more people in the center to purchase food and goods and therefore a boom in the center. Or it may be a problem. We just don't know. Let's find out which way it goes. I urge you all to vote no on this motion and let the plaza stay Let the people who want this as a gathering spot for all, whether you're disabled or not, let it thrive. Let's see what it does to Newton Center. Thank you.

Dare I ask Any comments? Hey, look at that. Councilor Kalis.

Um, Councilor Albright, you said it well. I wholeheartedly agree with her. I think there's just two other things to add. The Fuller administration, when they installed this, they added parking. around Newton Center. I don't know if it was the same amount of parking that was taken away, but I want to make sure everybody knows that they added parking. The other thing is that What we've learned, and what I've learned, especially over the last 15 years being here, and Councilor Krintzman has beat it into my brain, is that when you add parking, you add traffic. So to move this now, when we don't know what the results could be, to a potentially other area, are you gonna take that parking away that was added?

because I don't want to add two sets of parking spots because it just adds more people going around and around looking for parking. The other thing that's really important is that this administration that we have now has dedicated two people to economic development. To take this opportunity away from them I think is a huge mistake. They can work with the businesses. They can make this something that it wasn't last year. And we all can't really envision what that could be. With two people working on it, I think there's a huge opportunity there. To take this away now would really be a shame. I work in business and we do a lot of test and learn scenarios. We don't look at it and take one week or one month or even one year of data.

We look at it over time to understand how people adapt to things, people change. So I think this absolutely deserves another season.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to both my colleagues who just made many of the points that I was hoping to as well. I guess I want to start by recognizing that the installation of this plaza last year was done really badly. I think the businesses, the neighbors, the counselors were not brought into the process and concerns and ideas were not heard. And we've ended up in a place where there's a lot of frustration and division. I'll skip to my punchline, which is let's not repeat those mistakes now. We've heard from a lot of people which has been really wonderful how much they value Newton Center and how much they want to see it thrive and be a vibrant wonderful place to visit, to shop, to eat, to

We've heard from many of our Newton Center businesses who have written to us with real concerns and I want to reassure all of them that I think we've heard this and we've heard the need for for visible parking, for sufficient parking. The Ward 6 Councilors have really heard that and are working on a lot of ideas and ways to make that work as well as possible. We've also heard from many members of our community who really value this free, accessible public gathering space. and I count myself as one of those people especially as a mom of younger kids who are just starting to explore the world independently and I know how valuable this is for are younger people. Am I gonna need more time? Thanks, okay. As well as many of our other residents. What we need to do is figure out what's next for this space but we need to do it right.

We've had some conversations as this has been raised again to see how that can be done and I just don't think we can do this on a rush timeline. We've heard from the administration. We have heard from the Commission on Disability. We've heard from members of the Traffic Council. We have heard from residents who help maintain the green space in Newton Center with concerns about rushing this timeline. So I'd urge all of us to think about that this evening, to vote to continue the pilot while we figure this out properly for Newton Center and for all of our residents. Thank you.

Councillor Lucas.

Thank you. Let's see. There's so much to say about this particular appeal. I just wanna just say what we are actually are voting on right now. We are not voting on getting rid of the plaza. That's not on the table. We are voting on changing the end date of the plaza. The plaza doesn't go away if this item passes. It just changes the date from October 31 to May 31. That's all. That's all that it does. I want to state another fact which the traffic council people who have written into us the emails asking us to deny this particular appeal is that There is a grocery store coming into the former Walgreens building. It's happening.

As we know, at least in Newtonville, grocery store parking lots aren't always used for grocery store customers. Just going to put that out there. and the overflow parking from the grocery store is going to be in the Langley Road parking lot. That's gonna happen. We've received many emails in support of the appeal and opposed to this particular appeal. But what I have noticed is that all of the businesses The brick and mortar businesses in Newton Center are unified. They want the plaza. They just don't want it in the parking lot. That is hugely important. I want the plaza, just not in the parking lot.

And I said that in my appeal in PS&T over a month ago. I want to read an email that we got from Mayor Fuller, January 16, 2025. So that's over a year ago. Just some things in here. This is a trial experiment. And she also writes, We want to support Newton Center businesses. We have and will continue to reach out to work with them to make this the best pilot it can be. The businesses have spoken. I want to read an email that we got from a Newton Center business. And this is a medical doctor. Dr. Andrew Popper. He wrote us an email on January 25th of this year and I've communicated with him over the past year with respect to the plaza.

On behalf of my patients, I wrote to many of you last year about the risk of the Newton Center Pilot Plaza. I'm writing now to update you on the negative impact the plaza already has had and to advocate for the plan by counselors Lucas and Lobovitz to abridge the plaza trial. To provide background, I live in Newton and practice psychiatry at 93 Union Street. Many of my patients are Newton residents who are elderly and or have mobility difficulties. For clinical reasons, many need in-person appointments, which are critical to their health and functioning. Public transportation is not a viable option for them. and many lack the technology fluency necessary for telehealth and or rideshare. Given the limited parking available around Union, most of my patients park in the Langley lot. Even prior to the Plaza trial, my patients struggled to find parking and walked a long way to reach my office.

Because mobilizing for an appointment is effortful, They typically pair visits to me with excursions to Newton Center shops for social exposure, meals, and errands. The parking situation dissentivizes them to come for appointments. In the seven months since the arrival of the plaza, the ratio of in-person telehealth visits shifted significantly towards telehealth. Many were just landline calls. The reasons are multifactorial for this change, but a major factor is that these patients are having a harder time getting to my office. so they ration their efforts and come less often impacting their mental health. Do I need to ask for more time?

Yes, sir.

Two minutes, please.

Councilor Lucas is asking for an additional two minutes. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?

Please proceed. Thank you. So that's from an actual business owner in Newton Center. The irony of this plaza, and this is where it gets really interesting, the irony of the plaza is that it was funded with ARPA dollars. ARPA dollars were meant, or ARPA dollars were created during COVID to help those businesses and people who were most affected by the pandemic. particularly restaurants, especially here in Newton. They were severely impacted and how ironic that the funds that are meant to be used to help out the businesses, those businesses are now saying and have said consistently, we don't want this. Think about that.

And it is, I'll leave my comments at that for now, I probably will have more to say, but I want everyone to think about the businesses who are impacted by this plaza in the parking lot. Again, they support the plaza, just not in the parking lot. And they're asking for our help. So please support the appeal. Thank you for the extra time. I appreciate it.

Councilor Leary. followed by Councilor Block.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I will align my comments with the very thoughtful comments by Councilor Albright, Kalis, and Bixby. and I understand there's strong feelings on both sides and you can make an argument on either side but I really think it's important to also realize that That plaza has been really valuable to many of our residents who support these businesses. and we heard many of them. I'm not gonna read them, but I think we all did. So there's a real pro to that. There's an old saying that if everyone brings a car to the village, they destroy the village. We want it to be walkable. We want it to be accessible. There's a lot of other reasons. And one of the reasons why I support keep extending The pilot is to collect more data so we have better idea.

It's been a very difficult winter. Give us a little more time. There was a letter that came rather late from Josh Morse, our COO, and John Rice, who is here, our community services officer, asking us to actually, you know, make that extension so that they have time to make plans. So between all the folks that have been requesting this, the benefits of it, I understand we need to think about the businesses as well. But there's a real upside to having people be able to go there with their children, their families. People who have mobility issues actually can't always drive. So it's a very important balance. and I don't think we're ready to make that decision right now. So I'm asking us, let's extend it through the summer so that we can get better data. Thank you.

Councilor Block followed by Councilor Baker.

Thank you, Mr. President. There's a lot one could say on this topic. It's very interesting. Well, one thing I need to say is about parking. Kalis's comment that New parking was created. I actually don't think that's correct. I don't think there were any new parking stalls created anywhere in Newton Center. Parking stalls got relabeled and Zipcars and employee parking spaces they got reallocated but I don't think there were any new stalls actually created anywhere. So there was a net reduction in parking and

For those members of this council who have said publicly that parking's a bad thing, that we want to discourage car use, and therefore we want to have less parking, I have yet to see any evidence that a reduction in parking modifies traffic. That's because people take ride shares if they don't have a car or if they think they can't find a parking space. Or if they try and drive and there isn't sufficient parking and they drive around and around, that's traffic too. It's my understanding that the traffic engineering field is still studying this and they have yet to draw a conclusion. It could be it creates more traffic. It could create less traffic. We don't know. So it's time to put that aside for a while.

When Councilor Bixby mentioned very eloquently the start of this project, a terrible start, is that your phrase? That a reasonable paraphrasing? Well, there's another proverb I'll cite here. You end up where you start. and a very wise teacher of mine once had an addition to that proverb. You end up where you start, so when you start something, get it right. We did not get this right. That's why we're here today. One of the interesting things that Zach Lemel said in his presentation was that we don't know if businesses were helped or hurt by this. It's too complicated a question. That actually makes sense to me.

One variable is going to be way too hard to sort out and say yes it helped these businesses or it didn't help these businesses. So a few more months is not going to shed any light on that question. So we have to make the best call we can, given the limited information that we have. and I just can't get over the start, the bad start that this project had. Sometimes you have to start over to start something and that's how I'm gonna vote on this. I think we need to end this as expeditiously as possible and let the new administration figure out what it wants to do.

Thank you.

It would be helpful to me if the chair of public safety committee might clarify the impact of the timing because the trial is... originally recommended goes through the end of October and the termination would be in the summer. There's the consideration of alternatives It seems to me it's difficult to make a change late in the season. in terms of new infrastructure in the green, if that's the case. And I think the case has been made that this has been an amenity for the community, but I've heard also that members of the business community, especially brick and mortar restaurants and other facilities who depend on parking and compete with the regional shopping areas that we have nearby. want more space to satisfy their patrons. So it'd be helpful to me in trying to make a decision to understand

The impact of the timing, because that's really what I understand is before us, not whether we have this trial, but when it ends and then what happens next as a consequence and when it happens. If someone who knows more than I could clarify that, I would be grateful. Thank you.

Councilor Lucas, Councilor Block, who wants to take that one? You tell me.

I'll try my best to answer Councilor Baker's question. We have a letter from Josh Morris and John Rice. It was on our desk. I don't know if you had a chance to read that. I mean I think what they say it here at the second to last paragraph first sentence the question has been asked and we are and we have confirmed that the that should the plaza need to be removed from the parking lot before the end trial, Parks-Rex Commissioner can permit the placement of the tables and chairs on the green while we continue to work with the residents, businesses, City Council, Parks-Rex Commission on the final solution. Does that satisfy your question?

I guess not entirely, if I can, just to clarify. If there is a sense that there is a durable solution that involves the green, is it better to do it in the summer sooner rather than defer it and say, Do something with tables and chairs and then have to try and do something in the winter. I'm just trying to understand the implication. This is a trial in order to make a permanent choice about doing something. So I just want to understand when you get done with the trial, what happens next?

I'll take my best Stab at answering that and I'm going to be looking at the administration when I do it because I believe that a big part of the answer to that question has to do with the process that the city has to undertake with the Parks and Rec Commission to ensure approval for whatever and wherever we decide perhaps to move said plaza. I'm getting gentle nods, so I think that's relatively accurate. So it's more about the length of time, lead time to get it done as opposed to time of year at this point? Might be a simpler way for me to say that. Sorry. On the same point, please.

Just to elaborate on that a little bit, it's my understanding that the Parks and Recreation Commission has had at least one discussion on this and they're receptive to the relocation of this.

That is also my understanding, yes. On this point or, because I've got you down to speak here in a couple. All right, so sorry. We'll come back, but I think we're all set here, right? So I've got Councilor Grossman followed by Wright next. Thank you, Mr. President.

I very much understand why the businesses who have expressed concerns to us about parking have done so. That said, Ending this on May 31st to me is exactly the wrong time to end it. Councilor Leary pointed out we've had a really brutal winter. One disappointment that I've had with this trial is that when we were first shown the concepts for it, we were shown really cool heated igloos and other really interesting winter activation that could occur absolutely zero of which have occurred. In fact, because I'm there almost every day, it hasn't been shoveled. It hasn't been plowed. Despite that fact, I have still seen groups of young people congregate at those tables in the middle of the winter. Councilor Lucas reminded us that this was funded by ARPA dollars.

And another purpose of ARPA dollars was to bring the community back together after a long period of isolation, separation, and loneliness? as well as a recognition that outdoor gathering spaces were something people really enjoyed and needed. And even though perhaps the intensity of things like COVID-19 and our worry about You know, spreading germs have abated a bit. It is actually still a comfort to me that if one of my kids has the sniffles, I can gather with another family and not worry that they're infecting another entire family. you know, getting together and having takeout sitting at those picnic tables. So to me, we would be turning this off just as the weather is getting nice and people can enjoy it again and we've had a season of learning to see what we can do with it. and the first time that this new administration who I think has been off to a really fantastic start could really dig in and do some things.

Ideas that I've heard that we haven't seen. We haven't seen a sign of a whole bunch of QR codes to Let people see what all the menus of the surrounding restaurants are or perhaps have a easy way to order from your phone and have your order delivered to your spot at the picnic table. Lucas pointed out that he pointed out things like the telehealth visits and people have been having a harder time coming in. That's going to get easier. on May, you know, in May and June and July and when it's nice out and easier to walk a little bit of a further distance and it's not so brutally cold and icy and difficult to do so. To me the extra, we're literally talking about five months, to me the extra five months is worth it and to end it now just when we can actually see what this thing can do is the wrong call.

Wright, followed by Councilor Roche.

Thank you. This was the first time I heard the data that Councilor Block brought up that three of the four parking lots were considered full at two o'clock in the afternoon. In West Newton, when they were doing the renovations in West Newton and parking was limited, One business moved to Watertown because they didn't have enough parking, and another business, it was one of the contributing factors that they went out of business because they didn't have parking close by. We just voted to support one business just before here. and now we're gonna vote against 10 or 20 businesses and they have written to us saying, Thank you very much.

I'm looking out for them and I think this will help. And it's not saying that this will completely go away. It's just give them back the parking. Thank you.

Councilor Roach.

Thank you. The thing that's remarkable about the letters that we've gotten from the residents is that this plaza has changed people's behaviors. and changed them in two dimensions, right? One is, Councilor Grossman put so nicely, it's creating these spaces for reengaging with community, which was the point of ARPA. I was just reading today about, you know, how we continue to be burdened by loneliness and disconnection and here we are, you know, wanting to foreshorten this place that people are using to gather and it is changing their behaviors, is bringing them to the Newton Center. It is bringing them to commerce. So we know it's doing what it's meant to do.

The other point, I got a lot of points, but I generally associate myself with the comments of those who have spoken in favor of the plaza. the great irony of the plaza it is both a blight nobody looks at Newton Center and says anything other than the center triangle parking lot is what makes it visually and kind of emotionally a less desirable place. And yet, quite realistically, the businesses feel that they rely on it for parking. And so this is a small step to kind of bring people in, reduce the blight, and bring people in who will be ordering from restaurants, visiting shops, visiting services. The last point I'll make is,

Any change deserves to have good process, the process that was missing, and it's going to take a while. If for some reason the administration can figure out a way to substantially move this and do it in a way that is good process, has good involvement of stakeholders, and and can be done before October 31st, they can always come back and ask us to end the trial earlier. So we are not stuck with this outcome until October 31st. It's just not artificially foreshortening it. So urge my colleagues to vote no for the appeal. Thank you.

Councilor Malakie followed by Councilor Micley.

Okay, let's see. First of all, just a comment on the Triangle parking lot. It seems to Not got a lot of respect from people who don't like parking and don't like cars, but I would love to have a parking lot that size, that's centrally located and visible in West Newton. The good thing about it is that it is central. You can see where the parking spaces are. If you're diverted to other parts of Newton Center, Back streets, side streets, the other lots, that's going to cause driving around. But I guess my main point is that I too want to support the businesses. but I also want to support the new administration and I had a question specifically about are we tied to

and October 31st expiration if we don't end it May 31st. basically my question was is the administration required or do you feel obligated to run the trial for the full approved length of the trial whether it's May 31 or October or if an alternative plan to use the green is approved and ready to go before expiration of the trial. Will the trial be stopped early? And the answer I got from COO Morris was if the plaza on the green is ready before the end of the trial. We are not obligated to keep the plaza on the parking lot in place. Our intent is to create a meaningful purpose-built plaza on the green so that residents, visitors, and patrons can enjoy the softer side of Newton Center. So given that and the The letter we got, somewhat belatedly, it stated February 15.

I mean I trust that this administration is committed to doing what they say they want to do and that is the result I would like to see. I've watched both the January and February Parks and Recreation Commission meetings where this was discussed a little bit in January, more in February I think they're I don't know that it's a guarantee what the Parks and Recreation Commission will approve, but they were unanimously receptive to discussing it. Note, parenthetically, if you look at this parcel on the assessor's database, One of the pictures is of that short-lived skating rink that existed on a big part of the grass. So there's precedent, unfortunately, for putting stuff on grass. I certainly would not want to see

platforms or things like that, but if we can make grass more accessible with, I forget what they're called, those funny pavers that grass grows through, or if we can do it on the utilizing the sidewalks or maybe around the flagpole on the adjacent parcel. I want to give the administration time to do this right and get the feedback they need from users and the businesses. I trust them what they're telling us they want to do and the timing that they will do it with if it were, you know, the same administration that plunked this thing down with ARPA money without reaching out to the businesses, I would not be so trusting. So I would, I've been on the fence about this. If it is an order, because

Because it seems like the May 31st timeline could be a little tight for the administration to go through the process of outreach and with Parks and Rec, if it's in order, I would ask if we could amend this item to make the expiration June 30th, which would allow the plaza to be moved just when it's getting hot on pavement. Thank you.

So I'm hearing an amendment in there. And I believe this is your item to accept the amendment or not, Councilor Lucas. Do I hear a second for that? I have a second. Up to you if you want to ponder that.

I believe it is up to the will of the council.

Well, it's an amendment. Do you want to accept the amendment? Do you, I mean... and then we would vote on Saturday.

It's a process issue. I think it's the will of the council, right? Process, right? Yeah. Yeah, it's up to the will of the council.

So are you saying that the entire council should vote on whether or not to accept Councilor Malakie's amendment? Yes, we have to. I believe you have to accept it before we vote on it.

No, no, I, no. No. Can I defer to Councilor Baker?

I'm honored, but I think this is a motion that's in order. I think they can move to amend because the report of the Public Safety Committee was for a date certain to terminate the trial. If there's an alternate date, that could be altered on the floor of the council. by amendment. But the council has to agree with it.

Okay. All right. So I have an amendment on the floor to change the date from May 31st to end of June. Is that what I'm hearing? All right, fantastic. So why don't we hear the rest of the comments, if I may, pun intended, to the original. proposal, right, to the original item, which is changing the date to May 31st, correct?

Mr. President, I think you have to vote on the amendment right away.

Yeah, I think the amendment takes precedence. That's what's on the floor. It's on the floor now. We get to discuss that if we want to.

All right. So we are now going to be discussing an amendment to change the date from May 31st to the end of June. I believe the last day in June is the 30th, if I'm correct. Got one right, look at that, okay.

Yes, Councilor Grossman. I have a clarification question, because now I'm confused. I understand we're now debating The change, the motion to go from May 31st to June, I guess that would be 30th, right? Correct. There are 31 days in June. If that were to pass, we then are comparing June 30th to October 31st, right? So if that is the case, then for those of us who are interested in extending it, it seems to me to be a no-brainer to vote in favor of June as opposed to May. Why? Well because at least then you get another month. Okay, well, that's what I'm trying to understand.

I want to make sure that if I support voting it to June and that passes, I then get another chance to vote to keep it in October, right? Okay, thank you.

Is that correct?

Yes. If you change the date from the May date to a June date, then that is one of the items before the council, and then the council can agree with that or turn down the appeal as amended. That's what it is. So if the amendment passes, then you'll be comparing the June date to the October date.

Councilor Albright.

So I'm going to vote against the change to change it to June instead of May. It almost makes no difference. We need the summer. But I wanted to be sure that people understand what we're fighting about here. So because someone brought up the idea of some of those streets were or were not available before, So I looked online. At least nine of them are new. I don't know, maybe more. But I just want to say that 16 of the parking spaces of the 24 that were taken were not publicly available. 12 of them were employee parking spaces which have been moved to a new location. Two of them were zip car parking only and two of them were blue bike stations. So we are fighting over the lack or not of eight parking spaces. That's what we're fighting for. Not 24, but eight. And to move this to June makes no sense.

Well, there's the part that's relevant to the amendment. Thank you. So as far as I'm understanding then, Do we have any further comment on the proposed amendment from Councilor Malakie to change the date from May 31st to June 30th? Seeing none. Can I do this part via voice? Can we try that anyway? No, no. That's a ridiculous idea. Don't ever offer that again. Okay, can we have a roll call vote on the amendment to change the effective date of the pilot, the end date of the pilot from May 31st to June 30th?

Councilor Albright.

I'm still a no.

Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block.

Aye.

Councilor Charm. Aye. Councilor Dahmubed. Aye. Councilor Farrell. No. Councilor Getz. I'm sorry, Councilor. Is that a no? Councilor Golden. Aye. Councilor Gordon.

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg.

No.

Councilor Grossman.

Aye.

Irish, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Leary, Lucas.

Is that what this means?

No. Councilor Malakie. Aye. Councilor Micley?

Aye.

Councilor Roach?

No.

Councilor Silber? Aye. Councilor Wright?

Aye.

President Oliver? Aye. On this motion, the ayes are 16, the nays are eight. The motion passes.

So our item is now, are we changing the effective end date of the pilot from October 31 to June 30th? Well correct, but I still have a whole group of folks who wanted to comment. including people who I think want to change their comments based on the fact that no, not at all. Okay, so we're going to add your name again to the list. Fantastic. Councilor Micley, I believe we left off with you, sir.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. An amendment to extend it to July 31st. I'm joking. I'm joking.

Let the record show that I rescind calling on Councilor Micley.

You can't take me seriously in this suit, right? It's Purim, by the way. That's why I'm wearing this, in case you're wondering. Yeah. Happy Purim. A few thoughts on this. First of all, and the start. There's been a lot of talk about the start, the fall start. But I also want to give Mayor Fuller some credit. She had an idea to make it a lot bigger. She heard the feedback and pretty quickly adjusted it and made it a lot smaller. So the current version we have is somewhat of a compromise relative to the first idea that was put forward to us. You know, just maybe some recognition there. My personal experience with this plaza, I didn't get it at all at first. I was confused. I did not understand why it needed to be on concrete, why not on grass. Then something strange happened. My kids started running towards it every time we got to Newton Center. They'd just gravitate towards it.

and I don't know if it was because of the games or the tables or maybe they just love concrete but they just want to go there and I see other kids also want to go there. It's a space that we hang out every time we can when the weather is good. So that's just my personal perspective. I honestly don't understand why they enjoy it, but places they enjoy, I will take them. So I end up there a lot. The second thing. Kalis mentioned this, the current administration doubling down on economic development. They're also doubling down on arts and culture, and this is kind of an ideal platform to have an arts and culture space. I just think that if we want to give this administration a chance, which why not, this might be a good spot to do it. And then the third thing is I have a, and a bunch of friends, residents, neighbors that don't really know what we do, don't really care about what we do.

Just like city government is something that they just think of us as a bunch of people that take ourselves too seriously. maybe except for me because I'm wearing a spacesuit tonight, but I have other problems. So for this particular project though, they said, wow, this is cool. Newton is doing something cool. You're making this place more lively. You're making this place more fun. Finally, all that time you're spending at City Hall, nice job, keep it up. And that's kind of interesting when we do something that strikes a chord with a demographic that doesn't usually pay attention or care about what we do. I just think it's worth paying And the parking is a challenge. I go to Newton Center in the middle of the day and I circle around 60 seconds, 90 seconds, 120 seconds. I can find parking. I'm an aggressive parker. I know how to find my spots. But it takes me some time. and I don't know if it's because of the plaza or because of something else, but it is a pain point, but on net, for all the other reasons I said before, I think we should give this another chance.

Give it a full summer and let's see what we can do with it. So I'm gonna support it, thank you.

Kalis, followed by Councillor Gordon.

Thank you, Mr. President. So, you know, reading letters and quoting businesses can be very misleading. unless you have data and unless you studied what's going on in the economy and with small businesses in general. I work with small businesses at ADP. and the two things that they complain most about is inflation and tariffs. Well, to say that parking is the number one issue for our businesses in Newton Center might be right, it might not be right. We might get the same letters that we got this year pre-plaza because of the inflation and tariffs if we didn't have that plaza. So we don't know scientifically. That's why we need this extra time.

Block, and then Councilor Block, I just have to respond. You know, when I said that we added spots, we did add spots. We added 60 incremental spots. That's definitely more than are in that plaza. That's 60 spots. So are you saying that you want to remove those 60 spots if we remove this plaza right now? Because I'm sure those spots are being used. So I just want to make sure we're clear on spots and data that we're using. Thanks.

Councillor Gordon, followed by Councillor Farrell, followed by Councillor Getz.

I'm new to this. I'm definitely going to go over, but I'm going to try not to, so I'm not sure where I ask for more time.

And then we're going to applaud, so get ready for it.

I would like to say to, thank you President Oliver, to Councilor Kalis, some of the discrepancy is that they added in residential parking streets. They removed the restrictions. from Pelham, Pleasant Street, Dalton. That's where you're seeing a big difference for the most part. It's actually 19 spaces that we're discussing. And so I think we just need to be clear on that. Okay, I think it is, but... For the greater part of my time since returning to Newton in the early noughts, I have spent my time working with the businesses and advocating for gathering spaces in Newton Center. We don't have a gathering space. We were in danger of losing the former public library there. We had to fight to keep that. We're still fighting to make that a community resource.

So when Mayor Fuller came and she had this great proposal, I was like, finally, Newton Center's gonna get some love. because in my experience over the last 25 years, it's been resident groups that have been keeping it clean, have been advocating for putting trees around the ugly parking lot, but also advocating for the businesses. There have been three important parking studies in the last 20 years. 2013, 2015, actually there was one in 2013, 2015, and 2017. All of those talk about the importance to our businesses of having curbside parking. Newton Center may not have a parking problem. and anyone who knows me knows that I have had lots of debates with Councilor Danberg because my position was that Newton Center has a parking perception problem. We have largely been at 85%.

If you read all those studies, the last study, which was 2017, cites the 2013 and 2015 results. and they all say we're right around where we should be, but it's a perception problem. People will go to malls if they think they can get a parking space before they're going to come to our village centers. That is a fact. That is a data point. and it is an important one. Union Street is always filled up to capacity. And so for them, knowing that the triangle parking even though we could do better pathways and much better directions which the other counselors and I are definitely working on appropriate signage and wayfinding but it's important and the businesses who are asking us to please make sure that there's parking there, they're not just lightly saying that because people if they think they cannot park, they will not come in. Sorry, I have to keep looking at my notes.

So when this came up, and I will be honest, I was perfectly happy with in October.

If I may. Yes. Not only in your maiden comment which we're going to applaud you for shortly. But you've exceeded your time already. How would you figure? A couple more minutes? Three more minutes?

Yeah, I'll try and wind up quickly. Two?

Gordon is looking for an additional two minutes. All those in favor, please say aye. Please proceed.

OK, thank you. I will go much faster. I love the pilot. I love the lights. I love the gathering space. I love that if you want to go to SALT, you can go across the street. but I feel for the businesses and I've been in touch with a lot of them. So the first thing I did when I heard that this was looking at being ended at May and I'm glad that we've now moved it to June, was to reach out to the new administration. My first question was, can we move all the movable furniture over to a part of the green or to the memorial so that we can preserve The seating areas, the games, the things that make it most attractive. And there are hardscape pathways in all of those areas. So while it is not ideal, and I would not be voting, to get rid of the pilot if there wasn't this other option. John Rice, Josh Morse, I've talked to Mark, have all talked about that this is a priority for the administration.

They have all said publicly, well at least Mayor Laredo said publicly, this isn't going on past October. We need to collect data. but it is not going on. They have already committed to moving it to a different location that it should have been to begin with. This is a project that should bring joy and unity to our community. and instead it has been divisive and needlessly so. So this memo which I harassed both Josh and John to write that says that the furniture and the movable pieces can be moved while they plan appropriately. And for those who don't know, the reason it's in the parking lot is because Mayor Fuller could put it there without permission from anybody. In order to go on green space, you have to plan accordingly. This is our opportunity to plan it correctly, make sure that we have hardscape that also has grass to do it right.

And I am suggesting that people vote for a compromise, which is to end it in June, move all the movable pieces, and then have the rest to follow. Thank you.

Farrell, followed by Councilor Getz.

Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I can't tell you how excited I am that Bill Lee is back in Boston, and he's sitting here as a city councilor. Those of you who don't know who Billy is. Okay. I'm all with Councilor Gordon. Let's go for a compromise. This is not business versus the rest of the community wanting this delightful space. Both of these things are good and right and we should do them. We should take the administration up on its offer to get this done as fast as possible and when it's appropriate and done, move. If it can be done before October 31st, that's great, move. But it cannot be done, Councilor Gordian, until People with disabilities can access this as well as everybody else. I'm just saying. So it's not simple to just move the tables and chairs. It's not that simple.

Let's leave it up to these guys to figure it out, but I think that's what we should do. I would like to say, keep it going. Tell the administration we would like it done as fast as possible so that both the business community and the general public can get on with, as well as ourselves, get on with our lives.

Thank you.

Councilor Getz, followed by Councilor Albright.

I will be supporting the Traffic Council's decision to extend the date of the Newton Center Plaza trial to be reevaluated by October 31st. I appreciate the new Laredo administration's commitment to work with the Parks and Rec Commission, Newton residents, the Newton Center business community, and all stakeholders in the creation of a permanent plaza within the footprint of the Newton Center Green. We have been told once it is established, the parking spaces where the trial plaza is currently situated will be restored to the Langley Street or the Langley Road parking lot. This request is reasonable after listening to the Park and Rec Commission's discussion of the matter at their February 23rd meeting. and I'm only bringing this up because I think it's important for us to understand that this is early days in their process. It's at the conceptual stage.

they need to make an assessment of the current site usage within the green as well as understand the desired programming for the site as well as reimagining the reimagination of the space of the how and what it could be The definition of hardscape, driven by materials and accessibility for all users, all while keeping the green space green. And finally, a desire for robust public engagement through a series of public hearings. I'm not supportive of the idea of moving the furniture because I think there really needs to be an assessment of both spaces. And I think of it as being the kind of thing where We need to really have a good data collecting of both what is occurring in terms of use within the green as well as what's going on within the plaza trial. and to end this, I do think that the false start of the Fuller administration, we have to understand the timeline of the plaza pilot.

It was halved by the Fuller administration due to the local business concerns. The parking usage was altered. Zip cars, and I'm repeating myself because many of these points have been made this evening. But the... All actions were to offset the parking loss within the Langley lot. Yes, we need better wayfinding. We need to improve in terms of notification of parking availability within Newton Center. so that people that are looking for parking can actually know which lots to go to and we also have to be healthy about thinking about people that are able-bodied to park in a satellite location and walk into Newton Center. Maybe it needs to happen through pricing so that you feed a meter at a higher rate within the curbside versus A satellite site. You know, that kind of fluctuation of the pricing. But we need to be incredibly creative.

We can make a public use betterment with a well formulated plan and we can create a gathering space that we all appreciate.

Fantastic. Thank you. Councilors Albright then Grossman then Charm.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to first start by saying, Councilor Getz, thank you so much. I agree with everything you had to say. Well thought through. I really appreciated all of it. and I do want to point out that one of the commissioners of the Parks and Rec Commission wrote us saying that she did not like the idea of just wholesale moving this into the green. That needs careful consideration. So while the chair might have told the mayor that he's happy with it, it's gonna require discussion in the commission. I just want to remind people one more time that the businesses feared the Austin Street Plaza and we actually had less parking spaces in the plaza than were originally called for to make the plaza. and so it came out well for the businesses in the end and nobody's missing the three or four parking spaces that were taken away. And one final thing I can't resist saying is that

You know, the central feature of Newton Center is a parking lot. Really? Is that what we want? The parking lot should be reimagined Like we reimagined the Austin Street parking lot. Not exactly the same things going on in there and maybe more green space, but we shouldn't have a central feature as a parking lot of Newton Center. That's got to happen in our future.

Thank you.

Councilor Grossman followed by Councilor Charm. Thank you. Well, I have to start where Councilor Albright ended because I certainly agree. I mean... to think of all of the ways we could reimagine Newton Center and find alternate ways of providing adequate parking and having something beautiful in the middle perhaps a entire green with we've talked about ideas of parking underneath parking garages none of that is on the table or realistic in the short term but I always think about that song, They Paved Paradise, and put up a parking lot. I think about it all the time. I added my name to the list to comment again. Mr. Clerk, would you mind putting up the slide I emailed you? just because Councilor Albright had made the point about eight, the net loss of eight spaces, Councilor Kalis, commented about the addition of spaces and then we had disagreement from others about what the right numbers were and I had a presentation in my email that had been emailed to me by Barney Heath

in February of last year after they met with businesses. So there's just three quick, I just wanted to clear up the data.

I think we're looking at paradise before it was paved over here. I'm going to do a before-after thing here.

Yeah, there you go. No, not coming? I can describe it if it doesn't work. Anybody who wants can come look at it on my screen. All right, it's not. Well, here's what the slides are. So the original proposal, before it was changed, had a net reduction of 52 spaces in and around the triangle. Those who were around at the council in this time will remember there was a big yellow bar across that whole back section. of the parking lot near the green that was going to be gone. And then in this presentation, there's a nice big red line through it.

and they scrapped that after feedback and the revised project site was a net reduction of eight spaces in the triangle and a net increase of 60 spaces within the village center. Albright already described. They took away 24 spaces where the plaza is. They added 12 spaces that had been employed. Oh, here we go. All right, so this is the one with the big red thing through it. That was the original proposal. Scroll down a little bit. That got scrapped. Go to the next slide. This is what they changed it to. So everybody look at that for a second. So that's net eight lost in the triangle itself. And then you can see up top the description of the 60 spaces within the village center, but go down one more slide, Mr. Clerk, and that lists where they are. Okay, that's all.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. President. I ran for City Council because I wanted to help to bring in the voices of families with younger kids. I also wanted to help to make Newton be as inclusive as possible. And one of the things that I think is a very physical manifestation of that are public shared spaces. that are the third spaces that we have heard a little bit about tonight but are often celebrated for their ability to encourage civic Engagement, Discussion, Arts and Culture,

Increasing foot traffic in local businesses and also cultivating appreciation for the place where we all live and pride in living in Newton. I believe that the Newton Center pilot is a exciting experiment. that we should be leaning into for the full two warm seasons that have been recommended to us unanimously by the Traffic Council, recommended to us by the Mayor's Office, Recommended to us unanimously also by the Commission on Disability, unanimously by the Economic Development Commission, the Charles River Regional Chamber, and countless residents who have written in to share their support for the Plaza.

including many, many, many families with kids whose kids run to the space just like David's, sorry, Councilor Micley's, Councilor Bixby's and my own. I believe that this plaza really, the pilot is really about three things. The first is about testing a community gathering space. I think that we have heard unanimous support for this. I actually would say I emailed almost all of the businesses that have written in. I heard one. tell me that they actually didn't really like the community gathering space, but everyone else said, we like the community gathering space, just move it. But we've heard from many others who support this. I'm not gonna debate whether or not having a plaza is good. I think we are all moving to the direction, I think we can say this has been shown that we should have a permanent community gathering space in Newton Center to enrich this space.

The second thing that the plaza pilot has been good for is gathering data. We talk a lot about the need for data. We've had debates here about the number of parking spaces. That's something that has been well documented. But there's a core question here about the data of the impact on parking. I think we owe more time to be answering that question. Also, if we know that we wanna be doing a permanent gathering space, we owe more time to be getting data on what people think of the different features. What kind of programming can we be doing with the arts and culture department? Can we be doing with our new economic development team? How can we be helping to solve this parking perception problem? Which I agree that we have.

We have the opportunity here to have another six months of warm weather to gather that data and have that inform this permanent community gathering space. And finally, the third thing that it was testing was location. I actually, you know, agree. I like being on grass. I like being under trees. Turns out, there's a lot of good reasons. for actually having it be on asphalt. And I have been really pleasantly surprised by the really surprising and often like very important reasons that have come forward for both sides of this argument whether it should be on the green or should be in the plaza or on the asphalt. I would urge us to have that discussion in a way that the citizens can contribute to, that the businesses can contribute to. Let's not have that discussion here. The mayor's office has said that they want to have that.

They have committed to doing that. I think that we should hold them to that, let them do that, and give them the summer to be able to have that engagement while the families and the arts and culture and all of the other departments see how we can make the most of this. So with that, I would just urge everyone to vote for the October 30th, 31st, excuse me. I look forward to all of us enjoying permanent community gathering space in Newton Center this year and in the future.

Leary.

As much as I've enjoyed this conversation, and those were tremendous remarks from our new counselor, I'm calling the question because I do want to go home tonight.

Thank you, Councilor Leary. And before we jump to the vote here, I'd just like to point out we're down to three of the new class of councillors who haven't commented yet. No pressure. But you don't want to be last, because you're buying a round. All right. So just before we get to this vote. I'm going to be looking at our able-minded clerk to confirm a yes vote changes the date from October 31st to June 30th for the end of the trial. All right. Everybody got that? A yes vote changes the end date of the trial to June 30th.

Point of order. Are we voting on the calling the question or are we voting on the main item? Yeah, but we have to take a vote to whether or not we call the question.

Call the question. It's called the question. Done. Mr. Clerk. There's no vote.

Don't we need to take a vote whether or not we called the question? I see Councilor Krintzman is standing, but I... Again.

Yeah, as sort of a point of order, my understanding is that when someone calls the question, it's a privileged motion which requires a majority vote. If a majority approves, you move right to a vote on the major item but if there were no one else looking to speak we may not have to take a vote on that we may be able to just vote on the item.

You can see I need to brush up on Robert's rules. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item?

I don't want to speak, I just want to clarify the vote. The committee report was for May 31st, and it's been amended to June 30th.

And so if you vote yes, you're voting to uphold the committee report, which was an appeal of the Traffic Council decision. So I just want to understand, you said yes, I just want to clarify what I understand you're doing by a yes vote.

So I think that's a fancy way of saying what I said. I think. I think I said exactly the same thing, but the point is that the committee report... Again, I think you're saying exactly what I just said, just fancy it. All right, so if no one else, perhaps we can rescind the vote. or the call to question and just take our vote because I don't sense any further commentary.

I'll rescind it because I don't want to complicate things anymore.

Amen. You're my favorite human. All right. So just to clarify, a yes vote upholds the decision that came out of the PS&T committee, which repeals TCT. 52-25, 62-25, the decision from the Traffic Council. So a yes vote effectively changes the end date of the trial from October 31st to June 30th.

Mr. President, just as a point of order, so a no vote leaves it at October 31st.

That is correct. Thank you.

The no votes October, then you're voting for October 31st.

That is correct.

Thank you.

I didn't realize I had to go both ways on that one. Okay, yeah, exactly. Okay, so here we go. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Councilor Albright?

No. Councilor Baker? Aye. Councilor Bixby? No. Councilor Block?

Aye.

Charm. No. Councilor Dahmubed.

No.

Councilor Farrell. No. Councilor Getz. No. Councilor Golden. No. Councilor Gordon. Aye Councilor Greenberg No Councilor Grossman No Councilor Irish Aye Councilor Kalis No Councilor Kelley No Krintzman.

No.

Councilor Leary. No. Councilor Lucas. Aye. Councilor Malakie. Aye. Councilor Micley.

No.

Councilor Roche.

No.

Councillor Silber.

Aye.

Councillor Wright.

Aye.

President Oliver.

Aye.

On this motion, the ayes are nine, the nays are 15. The motion fails.

So we change the date to May 31st. May 31st wasn't even on the table. I got you all. All right. Councilor Silber, do I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Great. Thank you. We are adjourned.

Thank you all, folks.

Yeah, very cute.