City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. A quorum being present, I call tonight's December 8th meeting to order. The first order of business is to call the roll of the members present. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Councilor Azeem. Present. Vice Mayor McGovern.

Present.

Nolan, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toner, Wilson, Present. Present. Councilor Zusy? Present. Present. Mayor Simmons? Present. Present. You have nine members recorded as present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Please join me. If you're able, you can stand. If not, remain seated. to have the Pledge of Allegiance and pause for a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025 adopted by the Massachusetts General Court and approved by the governor, the city is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge City Council. In addition to having members participate remotely, we have set up Zoom teleconference for public comment. You can also view the meeting via the city meetings open portal on city cable channel 22.

To speak during public comment, you must sign up at www.cambridgema.gov backslash public comment. You can also email written comments for the record to the city clerk. You can go to cityclerk at cambridgema.gov. We welcome your participation and you can sign up Till 6 o'clock. Please note that the City of Cambridge audio and video records their meetings to make them available to the public for future viewing. In addition, third parties may also be audio and video recording the meeting. We now move to the public comment. Public comment may be made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws 30A, Section 20G, and City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once you have finished speaking, the next speaker will be called. Individuals are not allowed to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers.

When speaking, please state your name and address for the record and the item that you're speaking to. Given that there are 41 speakers who have signed up, each speaker will be given two minutes. With that, I will now turn it over to Naomi Stefan, who will conduct public comment. Ms. Stefan, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Our first speaker is Matt Kelly followed by Young Kim. Matt, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. You'll need to press the button on the microphone base to turn it on when you see the green light. Go ahead.

All right. Members of the Council, thank you for letting me address you this evening. My name is Matt Kelly, K-E-L-L-Y, I am at 13 Oakland Street in Inman Square, and like many others here tonight, I want to talk about the upzoning proposal that would allow high-rise residential buildings on Cambridge Street We ask that you let this current proposal, which would allow for buildings anywhere from 10 to 15 stories high, let that expire. Then the city should start over with a new public process that better addresses the concerns of the residents who have to live with the consequences of this zoning change. Nobody is saying we are opposed to more housing. We aren't. The city needs more housing. Everybody knows that. But when the city launched this Envision Cambridge meeting and process with residents a year or two ago,

the discussion had always been development up to about six stories with planning board review that was fine and everybody understood that was the consensus and what we were expecting then the city council this summer were the ones who directed community development staff to add more height. That is news to the residents. That is not at all what we were expecting. And honestly, most of us in Inman Square at least feel like this has been a bait and switch. There are way too many questions and fears that we have right now about what this will mean, whether that is parking, whether that is traffic. My personal pet peeve is the solar panels on my house, which will then be useless if there is a 10-story building in front of me. But more than that, this is just not what we were expecting at all. We have been blindsided and we need more time to understand what all these concerns are and how they would be addressed.

This is not a good idea, not right now, so we're just asking that this expire and then we have another process later on next year that can involve everybody and get us in our comfort zone. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Young Kim, followed by David Halperin, then Helen Walker. Young has not joined us. We will go to David Halperin. David, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor. Two minutes.

Good evening, David Halfrin, 14 Valentine Street, Unit 3. I'd like to speak in strong support of moving the upzonings to a second reading. At the last ordinance meeting, many speakers talked about how this proposal would change the city forever. But the fact is the city is going to change no matter what. As the city has under built housing, for the past decades. Rent has gone up and increasingly become a city for the rich and for the poor who are lucky enough to get This is the result of policy choices and we can make different policy choices about how the city will change in the future. As generations of people Make the city their home over time they are going to have different needs than the people who came before them and the city will need to change and adapt to those. The idea that the current heights allowed in those areas is good and normal and like taller heights limit would be some radical change is a substantial amount of status quo bias.

What justifies the current height limit in a housing shortage? in some of the most transit connected areas in the region where mode shift will be an essential part of addressing our climate crisis. While we have many businesses that need to compete with online shopping today, where pedestrian foot traffic nearby will be an essential part of keeping our squares vibrant, the current proposal, I think, is quite modest. Looking at transit order and development in Canadian cities, we would be talking about 40 storey buildings. I'm concerned that the proposed heights are in an economically difficult zone in the building code and wish we could have gone a little bit farther. Nonetheless, these have gone through a very long process, and I think that they deserve to be passed. Instead of throwing away all the hard work CDD has done to get to this point, please move these proposals to a second reading. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker will be Helen Walker, followed by Anne Riesenfield, then Patrick Britton. Helen, if you can unmute yourself, please go ahead.

Can you hear me? We can. Helen Walker, 43 Linnean Street. Thank you for the chance to speak about the Mass Ave and Cambridge Street zoning petitions. Given the lawsuit by Columbia Street LLC, which seems more threatening than the city admits, we should not ordain these increased heights until we're sure of getting a significant number of inclusionary units in return. The present petitions are on uniquely shaky footing because they don't offer developers any benefit in return for developing inclusionary units. Please let the present petitions expire, do the required studies, ensure a sound legal footing for requiring inclusionary units, and refile next year. To many in the community, the promise of inclusionary units is the sole recommendation for this upzoning. And please amend the petitions to require green open space for 100% housing projects up to eight stories along Mass Avenue and six stories along Cambridge Street.

The community didn't attend all those MAPS meetings and listen to the refrain of more plants and vegetation only to find zero open space required at these buildings. Regarding institutional use regulations, many counselors don't remember how before these regulations, institutions aggressively gobbled up properties and evicted residents. We don't want to go back. Institutions will recover from the federal depredations. When that happens, we don't want institutions evicting residents in order to build towers in residential districts. Today, please commit to a new home rule petition on some basis other than lot area per dwelling unit in order to protect residents from institutional expansion. Do it in honor and memory of Sandra Graham's big win. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Anne Riesenfield or Riesenfield, excuse me, followed by Patrick Britton, then Candace Driver. Anne, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Anne Riesenfeld. I'm the executive director of the New School of Music. I last spoke with you on September 9th about the future of the Lowell Schoolhouse, and I'm grateful to be here again. Let me begin by affirming what we all know. Cambridge urgently needs affordable housing, and we support that goal wholeheartedly. We also believe, and in fact it is our mission, that every resident, including the families who will live in that housing, deserves access to the life-changing power of music. Our hope is that meeting one essential need will not require losing another. The Lowell Schoolhouse is uniquely suited to our work. We have concerts and group classes in our large rooms, But the heart of what we do takes place in the six small rooms where one-on-one lessons happen, where students learn to express themselves, to listen deeply, and sometimes over years with the same teacher, discover their individual voices.

This is not a model that can be replaced by larger classes. This is how you learn an instrument. And for nearly 50 years, we've kept that promise to Cambridge. We are the only community music school in Cambridge, serving more than 400 students from across the city. We offer free programs, affordable lessons, need-based scholarships, automatic reductions for EBT, WIC, and ConnectorCare cardholders, Summer and School Vacation Camps, and daytime programs for older adults, including free sing-alongs for people with memory loss. We ask for your support in allowing the New School of Music to remain in its longtime home so Cambridge can continue to be a place where music and opportunity are shared by all. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Patrick Britton, followed by Candice Driver, then James Monteverde. Patrick? Patrick is not here. We will go to Candice Driver. Candace, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Candice Stryver, and I am the Executive Director of the Cambridge Art Association, located at 25 Lowell Street. Thank you for having us, and thank you to Anne from the New School of Music as well. For over 80 years, CAA has built community through the visual arts, serving as a creative home for artists, especially here in Cambridge. Today, we are home to 700 members, 93% of whom live in Massachusetts. Each year we present more than 50 programs and over 20 exhibitions across three galleries and all of our exhibits are free and open to the public. In a city where approximately 40% of residents identify as BIPOC, I'm proud that 27% of artists in our exhibits last year identified as BIPOC, AAPI, Latinx, and or LGBTQIA+. Reflecting Cambridge's diversity is central to CAA's mission. We also work to remove financial barriers.

Last year, 10% of exhibiting artists received no ask fee waivers. 17% of portfolio reviews were fully sponsored for unrepresented artists and we awarded eight emergency grants with preference given to Cambridge residents. These are meaningful investments that keep Cambridge arts equitable and thriving. With the New School of Music, we serve thousands of Cambridge residents and artists each year, forming a community-based cultural home, all under one roof. And while tonight's agenda item is informational, its implications matter. Removing us from 25 Lowell Street would jeopardize a cultural ecosystem built over eight decades. Instead, we hope the city will invest in us and establish a long-term lease that allows us to continue to serve Cambridge. Thank you for your time and your continued support of the arts.

Thank you. Our next speaker is James Monteverde, followed by Susan Markowitz, then Joseph Adeletta. James, two minutes.

Good evening. I'm Jim Monteverdi, a resident of Inman Square, living at 12 Oak Street, and I object to the proposed Cambridge Street zoning amendment and ask that you not approve this amendment. My primary objection regards the lack of public process. While the Envision Plan and Cambridge Street Study considered additional heights along the street, This amendment's heights of 8 to 15 stories were never presented and discussed in public meetings, meaning meetings where neighborhood residents and businesses were invited to and notified of meetings held at convenient times for residents in contrast to the technically public hearings of the ordinance committee and this council. My secondary objection regards the proposed heights that will destroy the scale, texture, and character of the street's neighborhoods.

while creating unsustainable density, increased traffic congestion, increased demand for parking, and cast significant shadows on abutting residences, making rooftop solar infeasible. Cambridge Street is not wide enough to endure the building heights proposed. Finally, the recently revised zoning allowing four to six stories for residential projects citywide is a much more reasonable height increase along Cambridge Street than the eight to 15 stories proposed, making the amendment before you unnecessary. Please do not pass the proposed Cambridge Street zoning petition. This amendment should not be voted on by the City Council without an open and public process. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Susan Markowitz, followed by Joseph Adeletta, then Carolyn Majid. Susan, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor. Two minutes.

Hello? Can you hear me?

We can. Please go ahead.

Good. Hi, my name is Susan Markowitz. I live at 20 Oak Street. I'm here tonight to speak against and strongly urge you to let the Cambridge Street upzoning petition expire. There was no real public process to notify residents about the heights that you're now considering. In the last two weeks, I've attended three community meetings with residents who live along Cambridge Street from Inman Square to the old Lechmere Station. Everyone has expressed their anger and disbelief that they're just hearing now about these new proposed heights. Heights that are way in excess of the six stories proposed in the Cambridge Street Study, which was really a result of a very strong public process. We need time to discuss all of the issues that these heights introduce. Lighting, traffic, the impact on AHO,

Loss of design review, open space, loss of unique shops to be replaced potentially by large retail, etc., etc. Another important reason to delay is that there is a pending lawsuit that has uncertain impact on inclusionary housing. We'd like to trust you that you are making decisions on our behalf. If that's true, then we would really like you to listen to our feelings and concerns after we've had time to review this, to discuss it, and to make comments on the petition. Please let the petition expire. Give us the time that we deserve and please refile it after a legitimate community process. Thank you.

Thank you. We will go next to speaker number 10, Joseph Adeletta, followed by Carolyn Majid, then Alan Speight. Joseph, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Joe Adeletta. I'm 68 Walker Street. I want to talk specifically about the upzoning and North Mass Ave. The newly proposed zoning language that merely encourages ground floor retail in Porter Square is insufficient at best and potentially catastrophic to our neighborhood. Far from protecting existing businesses, this vague terminology opens the door to a devastating possibility of the transformation of Porter Square from a vital center for necessary destination retail into nothing more than high rise luxury residential units. For more than two decades, my family's relied on this retail center. We're here daily, sometimes multiple times a day as a family of six to shop for groceries, buy gifts, visit the gym, pick up medications, and enjoy local cafes. Businesses here are not just amenities, they're essential infrastructure that supports thousands of local lives.

This context makes the City Council's reliance on mere encouragement of ground floor retail anathema to everything our neighborhood wants, needs, and stands for. It reflects a profound misunderstanding of the area's critical function. The destruction of a vital retail center in the pursuit of build at all costs is going to have dramatic and detrimental effects Despite overwhelming feedback from residents, many of which you'll hear from tonight, officials are relentlessly pursuing the Kendall squaring of Porter Worryingly, during a recent meeting, the CDD even signaled a desire to eliminate much of the parking in Porter, which would make an already chaotic area increasingly inaccessible as a retail destination. The abandonment of core urban development principles in favor of prioritizing developer economics should not be the burden current residents are forced to bear. And to be clear, the cost in this case is high, the destruction of a critical retail hub serving thousands.

I implore you to reach out, table the current zoning proposals until the council can commit to concrete protections that ensure the future of the vibrant essential retail destination that is Porter Square. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Carolyn Majid, followed by Alan Speight, then Shelly Ryman. Carolyn, if you can try to unmute yourself.

Hi, can you hear me? We can. Please go ahead. Hi, my name is Carolyn Majid, 71 Reed Street. I'm speaking for Our Revolution Cambridge about CMA 8 and 9. Our Revolution Cambridge has the same position on both the Mass Avenue and Cambridge Street zoning. Let it expire and come back with a better version in the new council term. We have three major concerns. First, these zoning changes will make 100% affordable housing and social housing uncompetitive. The zoning takes away the height advantage 100% affordable housing is supposed to have according to the AHO and will likely drive up the cost of land. The zoning needs specific interventions to keep 100% affordable housing and social housing competitive. 2. The new lawsuit challenging inclusionary housing if successful would mean that new housing built as a result of this zoning would only be for upper income people.

We believe that the zoning was intended to and should also benefit low and moderate income people as would happen with inclusionary. While the outcome of that lawsuit is in question, the city needs either to pause the process on new market rate zoning or have a plan to remediate the affordable housing lost if it succeeds. Three, zoning proposals discussed in community meetings, as has been mentioned, were not the same as the ones in the zoning, so the community process was seriously flawed. Community discussions centered on lower heights than the zoning proposals and did not consider whether taller buildings would be as of right. As the zoning proposal says, the community deserves the discussion of what's actually being proposed. Although we realize a great deal of work has gone into getting the zoning petitions this far, we hope council will want to do better to support affordable housing and have a good community process. We urge you to let the zoning expire and return with the revised petition that addresses our concerns next term.

We should not be in so much rush that we don't get this right. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Alan Speight, followed by Shelly Ryman, then Hallie Speight. Alan, you have two minutes.

Thank you, and thank you for all being here on this really, really cold night. I'm here as a resident, my address is 33 Antrim Street, by the way, and I want to speak to keeping the Cambridge Street rezoning off the final passage list until next year. The concerns I have, a couple of people have addressed this so far, and I understand, everybody in this town, I have not met anyone in Cambridge who's not for affordable housing, no one. We are also very much for affordable housing. I think the concern is with the community process, first of all, that's gone on. And we hear it said, oh, you know, we've taken community... for months and months and months, and let's just get this over the goal line, okay? We've just been waiting. Well, I tell you what, you did take a lot, this is the Our Cambridge Streets report, I think a beautiful example of how democratic input is given in this city. That report recommended six stories, and the first any of us in Inman Square heard about

Eight stories or higher was a notification given, Councilor Nolan pointed this out at the Ordinance Committee, thank you very much, the day before Thanksgiving, and now this is supposed to come to vote finally on the Monday before Christmas. I would urge you to take a little bit more time. Three things about Inman that are really, really special. First of all, it's a place where there are second and third floor residences. Those people will be displaced if you go to higher height. Second, it is a magnet for people from all around Cambridge and Somerville and Boston because of the unique mix of businesses on the first floor of these buildings. They will be displaced. They will find a hard time getting back into the buildings that are built with height and which will attract instead the kind of chain businesses that we have everywhere. There's not a Dunkin' Inman. That's a distinctive thing. and we'd like to keep that unique quality of MN. Cambridge Street is also a much narrower street than Mass Ave. I think it needs different heights.

I appreciate the policy orders concerning notification and reduced height. We'd like it to move to six if that's possible. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Shelly Raymond, followed by Hallie Speight, then George Metzger. Shelly, you have two minutes.

Hi, good evening. I can't express more that I'm in agreement with Alan who just spoke. The little retail stores in Inman Square are really special. They can't be duplicated. and if they're replaced by a Target and a CVS like I have in my neighborhood of Central Square, it will just be an enormous loss. Also, ABC is always... saying we have to have big buildings near mass transit. Inman Square is not mass transit. It has some buses. I'm opposed to the upzoning petition for both the Porter Square, north of Porter Square, and for Cambridge Street. I'm very troubled by the possible imminent Manhattanization of Cambridge. That was the title of the letter I sent in earlier.

We can do without tall buildings, especially in neighborhoods that already have a good mix of retail and residences and are enjoying the local community as well as the rest of the city. Allowing buildings to go up by right is insane and it's actually wrong in my opinion. These heights are just extreme and it's unhealthy for people to live stories and stories above their neighbors. Anyway, we have a planning board. It should be able to review all new construction so that the character of the city is not destroyed. Please let these petitions... And for now, have a real community process that did not happen and then start again in 2026. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Hallie Speight, followed by George Metzger, then Michael Buck. For those waiting, we're at speaker number 14.

Good evening. Hallie Spate, 33 Antrim Street. I've been a Cambridge resident for the better part of 40 years, most of it in the Harvard Inman Corridor. I love Cambridge. I love my neighborhood. Inman is unique, it is diverse, it is vibrant, it is funky, and it is, as people have been saying, entirely local. There are no national chain businesses in Inman Square. What do you think is going to happen if you start tearing down buildings, putting up 10-story buildings? The 1369 will not survive. The SNS will not survive. All of the little businesses will be gone, and we'll have Target, and we'll have CVS, and we'll have Dunkin'. All of that is at risk. The proposal to allow 10 stories as of Wright and Inman Square without design review and with no requirement to provide parking was frankly a betrayal.

Community meetings of the Our Cambridge Street project had resulted in a plan to allow six stories. Then, in what can only be described as a bait and switch, that height was increased and nearly doubled, in fact, from six to 10 stories with no community input. It's almost as though they thought no one would notice. Well, we have noticed. I commend the council or those members on the council who have put forth the proposal that recognizes that what it was proposing was not what it had presented to the stakeholders. But the answer is not to plow ahead with a slightly modified variant of what had been forward in the initial bait and switch. The answer is to let this proposal expire and start over in the new year. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is George Metzger, followed by Michael Buck, then Marilee Meyer. George, you have two minutes.

Thank you, I'm George Metzger at 90 Antrim Street, Inman Square. I was an early participant in the revisioning of Cambridge Street several years ago, and at some point that visioning process ended without conclusion or presentation to some of the neighborhood groups. The next thing I was aware of is this rezoning proposal that includes questionable building density and height increases in Inman, Webster, and Lechmere that were not discussed in the visioning process. I recognize that Cambridge Street will continue to develop. I'm not opposed to adding density. I support the city's declaration of a housing crisis. But I am opposed to this proposal. It does not include data to justify its proposed increases in height and density. I ask the Council to take no action tonight to send the proposal back for reconsideration of more appropriate and creative zoning changes that meet the unique challenges and character of the Cambridge Street corridor and its neighborhoods, and to see this not as a policy failure, but as the opportunity to finally get it right.

Thank you.

I think our next speaker is Michael Buck, followed by Marilee Meyer, then Lee Ferris. Michael, two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Michael Buck. I'm at 24 Rear Antrim Street, and I'm here to support my neighbors in objecting to the new heights for the Cambridge Street rezoning. I think will be catastrophic for the existing community. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Marilee Meyer, followed by Lee Farris, then Richard Krushnick. Marilee, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street. Following the flawed multifamily zoning now wreaking havoc with citywide teardowns, more extreme upzoning is the year-end prize. Again, extreme heights rejected by residents of public meetings are overwritten by certain counselors. As of right is excessive and lack of oversight continues. We still need design reform and planning board. Overlapping details need better integration instead of incongruous juxtaposition. Luxury towers may compete with AHO and AHO2. Please postpone the Mass Ave and Cambridge Street petitions so conflicts can be resolved. In the new lawsuit challenging inclusionary, what is seen as the affordable housing carrot, instead jeopardizes it. If the lawsuit wins, the embedded inclusionary disappears.

It is irresponsible to move two zoning petitions forward without understanding This case has legal ramifications. Because the exemption of the Dover Amendment was ignored, we have religious organizations being able to build what zoning allows, and educational institutions being able to purchase residential properties, taking both units and addresses off the tax roll. If Inman Square goes 10 stories instead of the six to eight, will the religious group who purchased the landmark brick building in the plaza go to 10 stories as well. In addition to revising heights and this lawsuit threatening any Affordable Housing, please understand the irreversible consequences. Let these petitions expire so they can be tackled in a more responsible way in the new term. And this is not wasted time.

It is the preview for doing the project right. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Lee Ferris, followed by Richard Krushnick. Lee, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor.

Good evening. Lee Ferris, Norfolk Street in the Port, speaking for the Cambridge Residents Alliance. The Cambridge Residence Alliance would like to ask the council to allow these petitions expire because the problems with them are so substantial. and we would like to see amended versions that are introduced next year. Therefore we're asking that the council not move the zoning to a second reading. I'll go over some of the problems with the petition. The proposed zoning disadvantage is building 100% affordable housing along the corridors, which undermines equity in our city. with the new lawsuit against the city's inclusionary housing if the council passes increased residential heights now without any amendments

that add an incentive for inclusionary units the city could face either adding even more height later to provide the incentive or else having no affordable units in the new market buildings that would further undermine equity. We have deep concerns about the undemocratic process. The proposed heights were never presented for discussion. and there was no discussion of buildings with these heights being allowed as of right without any approval needed from the planning board. Therefore, there needs to be a true community process. We're also concerned that this zoning will result in substantial displacement of residents and local ground floor businesses. Cambridge needs an anti-displacement action plan like Boston has. were concerned that making some amendments now and then filing more amendments next year will result in a patchwork that does too little to address the concerns.

and we instead ask that the council let this zoning expire and create new zoning proposals that contain all the desired amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Richard Kresnik, followed by Mary Jane Rupert, then Sarah Parker.

Richard Kresnik, 20 Oak Street. This is just me not speaking on behalf of any organizations that I belong to in the city. I will echo Lee's comments and comments of others. I understand that There's something to be said for avoiding another community process where the same suspects arrive and want none at all or even more and nobody's mind gets changed. In this climate of assault on our democracy from many quarters, it rubs me the wrong way that you guys decided to do this without any community process and even though you've heard it a thousand times, I mean, come on. Six stories, Bith Design Review, not as of right.

I think what Lee said is very important about the Lawsuit. I don't know about this, but it seems to me it makes a lot more sense to build an incentive in now before you pass it. I think that would satisfy Mr. Barrett and others and maybe avoid a bigger blow-up. That seems to me to be the best way to deal with that. I think you need to have some guarantees for small shops along Cambridge Street. I don't know how you get there. certain areas or something. You gotta have a certain percentage of storefronts where the retail's on the street. It's only 35 feet deep.

Maybe a smaller number are 50 feet deep. because otherwise there won't be any small shops in this new retail. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Jane Rupert, followed by Sarah Parker, then Rabbi Yoni. Mary Jane, who is speaker number 20.

Hi, my name is Mary Jane Rupert. I'm a resident of 36 Antrim Street, and I would just like to thank you for letting me be here. and say that I agree with all of the previous speakers who've been asking that this upzoning proposal expire. because I think Cambridge is a wonderful city and it needs its different diverse sections and one of the nicest sections is Inman Square which has many family-owned businesses and Thank you. This upzoning petition should be postponed. The high rises would decrease the sunlight, increase traffic problems, increase parking problems.

and all of the other things that the previous speakers have mentioned. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Sarah Parker, followed by Rabbi Yoni, then Louise Venden. Sarah, you have two minutes.

Hi, thank you so much. My name is Sarah Parker. I live at 6 Oak Street, and I strongly object to the proposal regarding the upzoning of Cambridge Street, and I urge the council to not pass this. I want to remind the council that once you destroy the character of this neighborhood, you won't get it back. and I'm reminded of the children's book, The Little House by Virginia Lee Burton from 1942. I don't know if you guys remember this, but it's about a little house and the city that rises up around her and completely destroys Her Neighborhood. So I wanted to read you one page from this. One day the little house was surprised to see a horseless carriage coming down the winding country road. Pretty soon there were more of them on the road and fewer carriages pulled by horses. Pretty soon along came surveyors and surveyed a line in front of the little house. Pretty soon along came a steam shovel and dug a road through the hill that was covered with daisies.

Then some trucks came and dumped big stones on the road. then some trucks with little stones then some trucks with tar and sand and finally a steamroller came and rolled it all smooth and the road was done. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Rabbi Yoni, followed by Louise Venden, then Beryl Lipton. Rabbi Yoni, if you can unmute yourself.

Yes. Hi. I'm speaking about the various CDD amendments and the new lawsuit and how it impacts the zoning. I just read through the complaint. It's only, I guess, nine, ten pages, so not so bad in the land court in terms of length, but What bothers me about it is that developers are I'm a very strong proponent of building a lot of housing and building and making it accessible to people and having the inclusionary housing in it. and this made me feel torn between a better Cambridge which says let's support the larger buildings and have more

Inclusionary Housing, as opposed to Lee Ferris' view, which is also legitimate, which says, hey, let's build 100% affordable housing. But I'm particularly concerned about The bait and switch by developers, which is epitomized in this lawsuit, of their accepting the heights, the increased heights, but are not giving the city and the residents the bargain of the inclusionary housing. Similarly, management companies feel that once they already have built their building, they can do whatever they want with their residents and the city has not been enforcing to the benefit of the residents the inclusionary housing

protections, and I think the city should consider how to better protect residents living in inclusionary housing and to make sure the inclusionary housing stays inclusionary. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Louise Venden, followed by Beryl Lipton, then Trudy Goodman. Louise has not joined us. We will go to Beryl Lipton. Beryl, you have the floor, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Beryl Lipton, Oak Street. I'm a resident of Inman Square. I get that the city has housing problems. I've spent my whole adult life moving around Cambridge. Moving sucks and I've had to do it every few years for the last two decades because like many my living situation is more or less conditional on my landlord and regularly selling makes more money than renting. I am also very concerned about the new proposed zoning changes and disappointed at the way that these have been moved forward. There have been claims of extensive community input. I've been speaking with my Inman Square neighbors and the friends who live and run small businesses here. And I've spoken to people on Springfield, Oak, Inman, Antrim, Prospect, Cambridge Street, I don't know who in this neighborhood you have talked to about this because it's obvious to me that the vast majority of people in this neighborhood have not been invited into this process, have not been made aware of these conversations, and are opposed to these drastic changes that they're just now learning about.

No one believes that you will address the need for affordable housing by facilitating the development of more luxury apartments. Nobody believes that these changes will do anything but benefit the same people cashing in on three, four, $5,000 a month apartments. And most believe that this will do very little to help the thousands of people on our affordable housing wait list. I'm hearing an incredible lack of confidence in the direction you're setting us in. I love this city. I love my neighborhood. I am so proud of Inman Square. and I'm sorely disappointed to learn that the vast majority of the wonderful small businesses, neighbors and others that have helped make Inman Square magical were not aware of what you're trying to do. If the City Council genuinely believes that we aren't being hoodwinked into enabling the creation of even more expensive housing inadequate to address the City's true housing and community needs, then it would make sense for you to work earnestly, transparently and thoughtfully with community members on nurturing and protecting the values that make Cambridge great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Trudy Goodman, followed by Patty Hyman, then John Pitkin.

My name is Trudy Goodman. I live at 1221 Cambridge Street in Cambridge. And as a woman suggested just a little while ago, One high rise in Inman Square is quite enough. I want to tell you something that you may not really get, but I live in a 15-story building. And I want to tell you what it's like to live in a 15-story building and why it doesn't belong in Inman Square, even though I've been living in it for 33 years. The developers have not taken any responsibility for taking care of the building. I've had to come to the city council and to people on the council over and over again to get help and assistance. I've been a volunteer housing advocate in Boston and Cambridge for over 45 years, so I know how to do it. I have lived in Minimum Square for 33 years. Before that, I lived in East Cambridge for 11 years.

These are communities that have longstanding presence, that have small businesses that are sustained, You bring in high rises and what is going to happen is those businesses will be eliminated. The other thing that's incredibly important here that needs to be discussed is about the very low income people who live in the building that I live in who cannot find other accommodations anywhere in the city that would improve their lives because certainly the people who own my building are not improving their lives. Understand what a high rise is like for low-income people, please. What people need in the neighborhoods in Cambridge who both have money and don't have money. People who do not have large incomes have a right to live in this city. I have lived here a very, very long time.

The other thing that's most important is that there was no forward information given to the people in our area about these changes, and that is just wrong.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Patty Heyman, followed by John Pitkin, then Buchanan Ewing. We're at speaker number 26.

Okay. Hi, everybody. Can you hear me? Is this okay? It's good to be before so many people. I've known here for many years. I've lived in the area 55 years, not always in Cambridge, but a long time. I think for me there's a lot of questions. You know, I'm thinking about what's driving this upzoning plan? And it seems to me, oh, thank you. It seems to me there's a lot of money to be had by developers. When I think about there's a particular building on Mass Avenue that's going to Displace, Simons. I know that's not our discussion, but the issue is the same. And it's seven stories. Only bikes will be there. I mean, there's no parking for cars. The business that has become really the heart of that area of Cambridge will be, I don't know where they'll be moved to.

They have a place for them in two years, but where do they go? Do the developers help supplement? The rent that they might have to pay at a larger place. And I feel like that, what I'm talking about applies to every business in Inman Square. There has to be thought about the businesses that will have to vacate. The other issue is how do we preserve the best of Cambridge? I think the the plan has to expire and be revisited with the new council with an absolute concerted effort to involve so many different communities in Cambridge so that we We can really together look at what's the best of Cambridge? What can we preserve? How can we accommodate the needs of people who need affordable housing and deserve affordable housing? And so I think that makes me optimistic that that will happen.

and yeah, I think we just have to think about what's the money issue here? Who's gaining the money? Cambridge will get more tax money from all the revenue of all these buildings, but we really have to be open and transparent.

Your time has expired, thank you. Our next speaker is John Pitkin, followed by Buchanan Ewing. John has not joined us. We will go to Buchanan Ewing, followed by Alex Van Praagh, then Kathy Hoffman. Buchanan, you have two minutes. Buchanan, you need to unmute yourself on your end. We will come back to Buchanan. Our next speaker is going to be Alex van Praag followed by Kathy Hoffman. Alex, you have two minutes.

Hey there, can you hear me?

We can. Please go ahead.

Excellent. Well, you can count me as another voice to let the, oh, Alex Van Praagh, 66 Antrim Street. And yeah, I'm in other voice that would ask that you let this petition expire and refile it after more study and including the community. it's kind of amazing to me that this is even up for discussion it feels as though the inclusionary housing aspect is in question with the pending lawsuit. It feels as though ground level businesses are in danger given the specifics of the proposal. It just makes me wonder, and I would ask the city councilors to ask themselves, who are they representing?

The city's residents or the developers? This is time to get a reality check and please do things right. I've studied urban planning. I've studied architecture. This isn't it. This isn't the way forward. Thank you.

Thank you. We are going to go back to Buchanan Ewing. Buchanan, if you can try again.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can. Please go ahead.

Okay, good. My name is Buck Ewing. I live at 119 Antrim Street. I have three questions, a comment, and a final question regarding the impact of the apartment buildings on on-street parking for Antrim Street residents on Antrim Street. Three questions. How many Antrim Street residents park on Antrim Street? Two. How easy was it for Antrim Street residents to park before and after the Inman Square construction? And three, how will the new construction impact parking for Antrim Street residents on Antrim Street? My comment. perhaps a quarter to a third of Antrim Street residents park on Antrim Street. From 18 years ago, that's when we moved to Antrim Street, until the Inman Square construction I could usually immediately park within 25 yards typically no more than 50 yards from home.

Since the construction, I must often now park on Fayette, Inman, or Amory Streets and very occasionally as far away as Norfolk Street. So my parking and my way of living in a way has significantly changed. Instead of it taking five minutes, it can take me up to 20 to 25 minutes to find a place to park and then walk home. At this rate, I will be unable to find reasonable parking. So my final question is, what is the city's responsibility to provide on street parking for Antrim Street residents on Antrim Street? Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kathy Hoffman, followed by Ingrid Shore, then Charles Franklin. Kathy has not joined us. We will go to Ingrid. Sure. Ingrid, you have two minutes. We are at speaker number 31.

Hi, everybody. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Ingrid Shore. I live at 35 Lee Street in Cambridge. and I'm a member of the board of directors of the Cambridge Art Association whose Katherine Schultz Gallery is at 25 Lowell Street in Cambridge. I've worked all my life to increase access to the arts and equity in the arts, which I believe are not only a valuable Aesthetic asset in our lives, but also a way of creating knowledge. Sharing the arts, looking at art together, is a way of building knowledge about ourselves and about our community and Cambridge Art Association's home at 25 Lowell Street is A unique ecosystem situated in a historic building in close proximity to a music school, to a beautiful neighborhood,

that is irreplaceable even though we have a strong presence in the rest of Cambridge with very accessible Gallery spaces in East Cambridge, Kendall Square, and Harvard Square. I ask the city to invest in 25 Lowell Street as a home for the arts. Thank you.

Thank you. We are going to go back to Kathy Hoffman, then we will hear from Charles Franklin, followed by Phyllis Bretholz. Kathy, if you can unmute yourself, you have two minutes. Can you hear me? We can. Please go ahead.

The day after some of you voted to send the two zoning positions to the full council for consideration, a lawsuit was filed to stop mandatory inclusionary units in market rate buildings. If the suit succeeds, which seems likely, it would apply to the proposed upzoning. This is one of the many reasons to proceed carefully and avoid dramatic unintended consequences by letting both petitions expire and design ones which actually achieve the goals. Thoughtful zoning, which artificially caps heights, is the only way to ensure affordability for housing or access to local realty as enabling community input. For example, To get inclusionary affordability, one could increase heights through density bonuses. The as of right heights are a problem in general.

Here they are so high they compete with incentives built into the AHO. requirements for active ground floor spaces on cambridge street and porter square need to be added which would require a new zoning petition finally this is a scary proposition with no provisions for elderly environmentally friendly or equitable neighborhood input, eroding democratic processes in a time when they are not already so compromised. The one-time community import was at a meeting which did not include the current extreme heights nor the as-of-right recommendations which could have preserved community review. To pass this now would be reckless. Fortunately it is not necessary. New information which has come to the council regarding the lawsuit, the lack of informed community input, the disregard for street-level local businesses, present a great opportunity for a new council to ask for a new petition.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Charles Franklin, followed by Phyllis Bretholz, then James Zoll. Charles, two minutes.

Good evening, Council. I am Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street. I'll try not to spend too much time repeating what other people have said. When I first heard that the squares and corridors was going to go through, I was very excited for this petition. At least I was at first. But when the details of it came out, it became clear that, as others have said, that it did not follow the recommendations of what had otherwise been a quite robust public process through Envision Cambridge, through Our Cambridge Street. and that that is concerning to me for a number of reasons many that have already been expressed I'm not going to repeat them I was Thank you very much.

As I said in the prior public process, but with the new lawsuit, I don't know if the petition as is can be remedied without having to be refiled. I mean, I'm not the city solicitor, I can't tell you, but... It's important that we keep our inclusionary housing, so if we need to modify the petition to only give these bonuses if inclusionary housing is part of the project, then that has to happen. and that may need to be a hard requirement before moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Phyllis Brethels followed by James Zoll. Phyllis, you have two minutes.

Good evening.

Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Phyllis, we can hear you, but you have your... There you go. Go ahead.

I don't know how to shut something off so that it's not... I don't know how to shut off the background noise.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Phyllis, if you can mute whatever your device is, then go ahead. I don't know if you have a second device that's playing the meeting as well, but we're getting an echo. So I'm going to give you a second to do that, and then I'll unmute you again. All right, you're unmuted.

Let me try once more. Can you hear me now? We're getting an echo.

We can hear you, but you have... You must have another device that's playing the meeting. If you want to try to sort that out, we're going to go to the next couple of people, and then I'll come back to you. Our next speaker is going to be James Azal. James, you have two minutes.

Thank you. This is James Zoll, 203 Pemberton Street. I'd like to thank the council for the work they've done both in this term and for two, three terms before that to tackle the housing shortage. that has accumulated over decades of city maintained barriers to housing construction. At a time when too many of our neighbors are being targeted by a federal government determined to deprive them of food and shelter, It's been reassuring to many of us that our local government is mobilizing, joining lawsuits against the federal efforts and trying to devise programs to keep our residents fed, sheltered, safe and healthy. Just last month, Cambridge voters said no thanks to a few candidates who campaigned to undo some of the progress we'd made towards zoning reform.

The voters rejected the notion that allowing more housing, more room for more people somehow will lead to displacement of residents. So it's kind of surprising and discouraging to hear tonight that so many people have I've been somehow convinced that less housing leads to more for our neighbors. Some of the same arguments that we heard years ago that have been shown not to work, we are hearing again that that allowing more space in a couple of extra floors on a building is going to somehow destroy our city when in fact that is not happening under the zoning path that our city has taken.

I hope that the council will stand strong and continue to make Cambridge a better place to live and for more people. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker will be Mark Keebler, followed by William Boag, and then we'll go back to Phyllis Bretholtz. Mark, two minutes.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and giving me the chance to speak. So I'm here. It's a little different, but I'm here to also express my strong support for proposed rezonings North Mass Ave. Cambridge Street, and increased number of floors over even in Inman Square as well. So like many in Cambridge, I'm deeply concerned about the exceptionally high cost of living. that we have in the city, which is among the highest in the country. We set out in 2018 through the Envision Cambridge initiative to build 12,500 total units of housing 31, 3175 affordable housing units by 2030. We are five years away at this point, and we are under 40% of our goal. We know that there is a very hard battle to

to get new housing. And this measure would allow us to move closer to reaching our goals. So I've heard discussion from many residents here who are concerned about displacement, effects on the environment. and I share these concerns as well. I am deeply concerned about each of these issues, but we know that increasing the supply of housing or decreasing the amount of vacancies that are increasing amount of vacancy that is present in our stock of housing is associated with lower rents. We're seeing this now in Austin, Texas, Minneapolis. We saw this here in Cambridge too during the pandemic. I mean, though denser living is associated with lower CO2 emissions and that more foot traffic is good for smaller businesses. So I will say right now I live a few blocks off of Cambridge Street over at 52 Porter Street.

I personally am looking forward to more neighbors, more community activity, and more sustainable living. So thank you very much for your consideration and your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is William Boag, followed by Stan Rufkind and Jackie Fahey-Sandal.

Hi, my name is Willie Bogue. I live at 202 Otis Street, Apartment 2. I'd like to thank the City Council, and today I urge you to zone our major corridors to help address Cambridge's severe housing shortage.

Sorry, William, can you just pull that mic down?

Is this better?

Thank you.

Okay. So as a voter, I support zoning Mass Ave and Cambridge Street to allow more housing units. I oppose lowering height limits in Inman Square that would restrict new housing and I oppose solar setbacks that would restrict new housing. I do strongly disagree that Some people, they say they aren't opposed to new housing and they just simply want to do things that will reduce the number of new houses. We're in a housing crisis and we need to act like it. Rents are high because there aren't enough homes. Since I arrived in Cambridge in 2016, I've had to move repeatedly across the city. I've had five permanent addresses in Cambridge plus one month stay at a sixth location and then also a year in Somerville right next to Inman Square. So I know firsthand how hard it is to find reasonably priced housing here. I love the city deeply, but if prices keep rising, I fear I'll eventually be priced out. On the topic of democracy, I think these public input meetings are not particularly democratic themselves. There's a high barrier to entry.

I've never even heard of them until recently, despite living here for Close to a decade. And this is my very first one. This doesn't represent the whole city. I think the best way to honor democracy is to focus on how we just had an election that showed a majority of voters believe we need to address the housing crisis. So please take action to make Cambridge a place where all residents can stay and can thrive. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Stanislav Rivkin, followed by, we're going to go back to John Pitkin, then Jackie Fahey-Sandel. Stan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, Councilors. I hope you're well. I'm speaking tonight regarding CMA number eight and nine. I'm going to echo concerns raised by many of the speakers before me. I do hope you'll let both petitions expire. I feel it's reckless to move forward on the zoning petition at this time until the density bonuses are established, the ill-advised lawsuit targeting the city's inclusionary housing requirements. Still very much being a factor. I'm really concerned about displacing residents from the naturally occurring more affordable housing without any real guarantee of affordable units being built. and you know as many folks have said by allowing the market rate developers to build up to 15 or 18 stories as of right we are really dismantling that competitive advantage that's so important for the non-profit developers and The Affordable Housing Overlay, but also in this past campaign cycle, we had so much wonderful excitement and conversation about social housing.

It really felt that there was a near consensus about really investing in this model, which is wonderful. It's a great model. But without this competitive advantage of It's also going to be difficult to build social housing and it's hard to establish that advantage when the market rate developers can build 15 to 18 as of right. Also, as others have mentioned, I am concerned about the process itself. I think that there's definitely been a little bit of a lack of transparency and Residents were told six floors not 15 or 18 but more importantly rushing this decision through at the end of a term really ignores the need for A brief but meaningful additional consultation with the neighborhoods. And we just had an election. We're about a month away from the next council being

Inaugurated, it seems much more democratic to honor the will of the voters and let the next council decide how to move forward here. Thanks so much.

Thank you. We are going to go back to John Pitkin, then we will hear from Jackie Fahey-Sandow. John, you have two minutes.

Thank you. City Councilors. My name is John Pitkin. I live at 18 Payette Street. I'm speaking on the Cambridge Street upselling proposal. I want to speak about the importance of community process in Cambridge because All of you are elected at large. There is nobody on the council who can speak for East Cambridge and Inman Square the way that Tim Toomey could, or before him, Al Valucci. So it's really the neighbors and the community processes are much more important, are extremely important. And the increase in allowed heights from six to eight stories is not a small matter. It was never presented at any of the public meetings that the city held about Cambridge Street over the past two years and more. It's not a small matter. This one change impacts everything from light, open space requirements, streetscape to parking needs and the need for design review.

To make this change without the opportunity for informed review, discussion, and comment by the affected neighborhoods would make a mockery of the city's own process and staff and its obligation to represent the residents, all its residents equally. The residents of this neighborhood, like those of every neighborhood, deserve the right to be consulted and heard When decisions are made that directly and uniquely affect their streets and their lives, Further process to allow for input on the current proposal for Cambridge Street is not yielding to nimbyism. It is basic good civics and common decency. I urge you to allow the current petition to expire and be taken up by the new council next year. And I would add that the arguments that somehow this high-density development on Cambridge Street is going to revive the businesses

does not stand up to the fact, look at what happened to Mass Avenue when that happened 50 years ago. Mass Avenue, right out here between here and Harvard Square.

Thank you, John. Your time has expired. No businesses in tall buildings. Please email the remainder of your comments. Our next speaker is Jackie Fahey-Sandel followed by Dan Totten, then Zion Sharon. Jackie?

Hello, my name is Jackie Fahey-Sandel and I live at 8 Clinton Street. I urge the Council to let these two proposals expire. and to do the studies and revisit these proposals for up-zoning next year with more certainty on these developer lawsuits because to do so I think someone used the word would be reckless in the light of what is happening right now. I do have grave concerns about the neighborhoods not being heard or not having the full agenda of The level of height be shared with them in the Envision Cambridge project and the Cambridge Street project. Six stories with Design Review is a very different proposition than 10 to 14 stories which is on the table now with no design review, no review whatsoever and as a matter of right. I have severe concerns about parking.

We cannot assume that all of these folks going in these high rises won't have cars. Those cars have to go somewhere. And at the barest of minimums, the city should still require a per unit parking requirement. If it's a high rise, and they can put a garage under it. These changes are forever. We need green spaces in our city and we need more urban planning. I am very concerned about Inman Square in particular because it could destroy the scale and character of that square now and forever. So I do urge you to let these proposals expire. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to go back to try Phyllis Bretholtz. Phyllis, if you have any secondary device, such as a TV or a phone, mute it. I'm going to unmute you now, and then we'll see. Phyllis, you have the floor.

Okay, can you hear me now? I can.

Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. I have spoken previously about my major concerns. So I just want to add, I agree with everything that has been said that starts with letting this petition expire and allowing an opportunity for more community input. I want to speak specifically to Alex Van Praagh's question, who are the counselors representing? I think that's very significant. I also want to comment on the reading by Sarah Parker. I was very moved. It has taken the city 200 years to develop to what it is. The plan that is now in front of the city makes me feel like almost overnight. The whole character of the city is going to be

I'm concerned about design review. There has not been enough. There is a huge digital divide in the city Young people in general are not being represented by these meetings and in part it's because either they're totally invested in their work or their school life which is appropriate but also there is no easy access for residents who have not been a part of this process to access information. I don't know what People are thinking in terms of how residents are getting their information about these meetings, these public meetings, but it's pretty obvious that the demographic that's speaking is pretty narrow. I beg you to allow the petition to expire. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Dan Totten, followed by Zion Sheeran, then Ted McClone. Dan, two minutes.

Hi, my name is Dan Totten. I live at 54 Bishop Allen Drive. As I've been sitting here, I've been looking at our Cambridge Street proposal. And the website, as you click on it, it says, The city worked with the community to craft a shared vision for Cambridge Street based on an inclusive and transparent engagement process. see below for the final plan and associated materials. So I clicked into the plan, and on page 68, it does very clearly call for six stories along most of Cambridge Street. Now, it's worth pointing out that in between that plan and the present day, the council passed a citywide upzoning which legalized six stories citywide for buildings that contain inclusionary units, including on Cambridge Street. So in that sense, I can understand why the proposal before us offers taller heights, because what was envisioned by our Cambridge Street proposal was already accomplished through the citywide zoning. But I can also understand why so many people who I admire and love have come here tonight to call this debate and switch.

It does not sit well with me at all. I can understand why people are frustrated if they participated in a process attended meetings where they were told one thing would happen only to find an entirely different proposal pop up in the lame duck session of the council term. What would have been the harm once you realized that you wanted to propose something more ambitious and having another meeting or two which presented an accurate proposal to the community? I get that it's impossible to please everybody, but you didn't even check the box. This includes people, by the way, who supported the multifamily zoning proposal earlier this year. When I showed up and offered my support for that proposal, I pointed to the upside of additional inclusionary units through every neighborhood of the city. I have seen personally how much of a difference they make. But that brings me to my primary concern, which is the new lawsuit from Patrick Barrett. I'm concerned that if you increase what is allowed as of right and then a court comes in and says you can't require inclusionary for any as of right development will be left with nothing.

So I think it makes sense to proceed with caution given this lawsuit and to only offer additional zoning relief in the form of a density bonus in exchange for offering inclusionary units, not as of right, That is my request. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Zion Sharon, followed by Ted McClone, then Jason Alves. Zion, you have two minutes.

Is this coming through?

We can hear you now. Please go ahead.

Perfect. Hi, Zion Sharon, 401 Washington Street. I'd like to start off, I'm sorry, I'm coming off of a weekend of a cold. That's why I'm not there in person. I wanted to support policy order one. I think it would be great when it comes to helping with accessibility for these meetings. And one of the things that I'd like to add as well for those speakers, especially attending on Zoom. If it could show the number of the speaker while they're speaking, that would be incredibly helpful. But now I'd like to focus on the new zoning changes. As someone who was concerned about the prior upzoning that happened in our city, one of my major concerns was the fact that doing by right while having inclusionary zoning may have legal issues. However, we were not the ones who wanted to bring this up. Residents wanted inclusionary zoning. Unfortunately today, I recently have

I read an article stating that there is a lawyer or a developer who's suing the city because of the inclusionary units. One of the developers, might I add, who had donated to many candidates campaigns, donating thousands of dollars. Now we're here where we're worried about these upzoning causing gentrification instead of more affordable housing. I think that is very important that we rewrite this so that we ensure that everything is either a special permit or you have hype bonuses to ensure that we actually will get inclusionary housing. And I don't think it's smart for us to proceed until we figure out the lawsuit whenever that might happen. I think it's imperative that we make sure that we know all of the facts before moving forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ted McLoan, followed by Jason Alves, then Heather Hoffman. Ted, you have the floor. Two minutes.

Can you hear me?

We can. Please go ahead.

Thank you. So, I'm Tan McGlone. I'm a 25-year Cambridge resident at Ellsworth Avenue. And are the councilors listening to their constituents? That's what I want to know. You know, upzoning is not only a disaster waiting to happen, but it's simply not what Cambridge residents want. It might be a slight majority that do, but a very, very large minority do not. So please listen to us. The proposition, if passed, will eventually fail because of a lack of infrastructure and planning. The exacerbations of overstressed building density, population density, parking will lead to irreversible consequences that have been brought up by other people. Where is the urban planning? What do you expect is going to happen with the Manhattanization of Cambridge? That is not the answer. Without a doubt, the only people supporting such a proposal are individual owners of houses or whatever, even if they're not living in Cambridge, who want to capitalize on the councilor's short-sighted decisions. It's called greed, not the betterment of Cambridge.

Thanks for watching!

A similar proposition at 406 Broadway. Not one person I know in my immediate community supports replacing a 3,000 square foot two-story house with a 28,000 six-story 34-unit apartment building with no housing. proposed by non-Cambridge owners. They don't live in Cambridge, but they're doing it because they want to make a profit. And who's allowing that? The zoning proposition not only needs to be postponed, but the councilors, more importantly, also need to regroup after seeing the uniformly negative reactions to their decisions. Listen to your constituents and stop representing developers whose greed is beyond believable. Isn't that what we elected you to do?

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jason Alves followed by Heather Hoffman. Jason, you have the floor, two minutes.

Hi, this is Jason Alves, Executive Director, East Cambridge Business Association, 544 Cambridge Street. I am speaking in favor of the policy order requesting to bring down the heights in Inman Square. I think that you've heard from a lot more neighbors tonight than we have in the past. I think we've expressed some of these same concerns about the process and the differences between where Cambridge Street The type of process that chemistry had versus the type of process that say Mass Ave had. I think that at least the reduction of heights and Inman to be in line with the rest of Cambridge Street, at least get this to a better place that's closer to being in line with what the R. Cambridge Street study was. Also in favor of starting this Thank you for joining us.

Thank you so much for joining us. to help advance this in a way that's a little bit more palatable for everybody. Thank you.

Thank you. For those wondering, we have about five more speakers. Our next speaker will be Heather Hoffman, followed by Ned Melanson, then Justin Safe. Heather, you have the floor. Two minutes.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. I want to start out with a huzzah. The city clerk rocks. She should stay as long as she can. is willing to and you need her. With respect to the policy order on public participation, I am not the least bit convinced that Cambridge actually values public participation. Nonetheless, all of these things are good. You should pass it. With respect to the real estate transfer fee, I repeat the thing I say every time you bring it up The logistics need to be thought about. I find that the Cambridge City Council really doesn't like to deal with consequences, logistics, or anything that requires planning. and the lack of communication between CDD and ISD.

Who could ever have noticed that except for everybody? Yes, do something about that. and now let's talk about the foolishness of all the upzoning. There were lots of people who spoke before me and I took note of how many of them have supported every single thinking upzoning you have proposed enthusiastically. And this one, this pair, they're not so sure about. maybe you should listen to that maybe you should think about the fact that possibly the bubble is bursting and people are noticing that affordability has absolutely nothing to do with the actual things you do it's just how you sell it

And if we lose inclusionary zoning, along with all of the other questions that I put in that you have in the minutes of the ordinance committee meeting, you need the answers. before you vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ned Melanson, followed by Justin Saif, then Jessica Sheehan. Ned, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

and Ned Melanson at 163 Alston Street. I just want to speak strongly in favor of these policy orders and hope they get passed. We are still in a deep housing crisis, a very intense housing shortage that leads to ever-rising rents, and we really need to build a lot more housing. I remember on previous meetings, a lot of opponents to... specific projects or something like that would often say you know this it's not right to build a tall building in a neighborhood we need to build on squares and corridors Well, now we're proposing to build on squares and corridors and the same opponents are coming out. So to me, it's a bit dishonest. And we really need to take the opportunity to build near transit to build mid-rise buildings in dense places where there's a lot of opportunity for jobs and education and amenities. and these policy orders do that. Using scary words like Manhattanization, I don't think it's very honest as well. Cambridge is not gonna,

turned into Manhattan and if you've ever been to Manhattan you actually know that most places are just about five or six stories instead of the massive skyscrapers. And also, you know, I think if we are going to wait around for a lawsuit to wrap up, we're probably going to have another election. before that's over. So I don't think we should base our legislation on the timing of a lawsuit. We should go forward with smart policy like these and let our city solicitor and the legal department handle the lawsuit angle of things. Thank you very much.

Thank you, our next speaker is Justin Saif followed by Jessica Sheehan. Justin, you have the floor, two minutes.

Good evening, Justin Saif, 259 Hurley. I want to say first, the inclusionary housing lawsuit is not going to be successful. If Cambridge can say you can only build a single family home, it can say you can build four stories or less than 10,000 square feet without inclusionary or above that with inclusionary. California Supreme Court upheld inclusionary zoning and the same thing is going to happen in Massachusetts. I really don't understand what the fuss is about. Certainly agree that we can't pause on housing production for who knows how many years while we wait for a frivolous lawsuit to be resolved. I love Inman Square. I love Cambridge Street. It's gotten very expensive. Somerville added a T-stop and thousands of new jobs a short distance away. I attended a ton of our Cambridge Street meetings. I and many others said at every opportunity that Cambridge Street needed more housing, meaning more height.

We have a housing shortage in Cambridge and market rate housing affordability is the number one concern of Cambridge residents. We need to make it possible to build multifamily housing in Cambridge. Our rate of housing production has fallen to an absolutely abysmal level. There are 64% of Cambridge residents supporting more market rate housing affordability. Calculates out to about 60,000 people. So you have 60,000 people against the 45 or 55 who attend public comment. The concern I have with these zoning petitions is that we continue to adjust zoning on one hand while imposing conditions on the other hand that decrease viability. We've been told repeatedly that we need to go up to 12 stories to make buildings above six pencil, and yet we propose to go down. We add setbacks and open space requirements and mandate uses, and that all adds to our lengthy permitting processes. No wonder we're 500 out of 500 in permitting.

Many have said that mandating first floor uses requires a subsidy. While I support active first floor uses,

Justin, we lost you. However, your time has also expired. Please email the remainder of your comments. Our next speaker is Jessica Sheehan, followed by James Williamson. Jessica, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Jessica Sheehan, 86 Plymouth Street, short walk from Cambridge Street. I do support the upzoning. I know there's always some anxiety about any upzoning, but I'd encourage everyone to think about what the status quo heights have already cost us. People who grow up right here often have to move away because as a city we haven't allowed the housing growth necessary for them to stay. There's actually a children's book about that too, though I'll spare you the dramatic reading. It's called Rina the House Gets New Friends by Alfred Tu and it's about a girl who grows up in a California city and wants to move back to it once she has a child of her own. to be closer to her own parents and a familiar place that she loves. But she can't because there's no room for her. There's no housing for her to live in. I also want to address the claims that duly elected councilors making decisions consistent with openly stated city goals and the recommendations of professional city staff is somehow a subversion of democracy. It's not. We are all doing democracy right now, both those of us who support and those who oppose.

And whatever the council decides, even if it's not what I want, will be the result of a fair democratic process. That said, we have data, very clear data going back years now that most residents do want more housing and allowing certain heights and densities to be vetoed based on feedback from neighborhood public comment, which all due respect to every one of us. I'm commenting too, but we know it's not representative of residents of a whole. That's not how we get there. I am pretty optimistic that the city will win. I think that's important. And if it does, this will bring much needed affordable housing. I think that's a really good thing. And I respect that this is how the process plays out. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our final speaker will be James Williamson. James, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Thank you. James Williamson, Churchill Ave in North Cambridge. I have a couple of observations about this. These proposals, the two of them, I think the other one's on the agenda, isn't it? Isn't the Mass Ave on the agenda too? that these are deeply flawed and quite offensive to, I think, a majority of the people who live in this city. And the people like to say, oh, it's like they're channeling Richard Nixon. Oh, the silent majority. I think the silent majority. Find these proposals abhorrent, but they've given up because we don't really live in a democratic city at all. and people don't get listened to and we've heard eloquently tonight examples of how that has played out for the Cambridge Street proposal.

It's interesting that so many people have shown up tonight about Cambridge Street and almost nobody has shown up about Mass Ave. And I think that reflects the fact that there's still a semblance of community around Inman Square. And why is that? It's because there's a human scale in the built environment there. It's because there are the small retail stores that people cherish. And also, by the way, along the lower end of Mass Ave. I'm reminded of the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. 2002, when Rumsfeld was talking about New Europe being allies and the distinguished conservative diplomat of France at the UN, some of you may remember, talked about, we are old Europe. Well, we are old Cambridge. We're people who, but we're not dead yet.

and we do have some knowledge and some care about what's important about this city. Not worried about the inclusionary zoning lawsuit. I think it's settled law. But what I am worried about is being used as leverage to get you all to reduce the percentage required.

Thank you. Your time has expired, James. Please email the remainder. Madam Mayor, that concludes all who are signed up to speak.

Thank you, Ms. Stephan. Ms. Stephan yields the floor. We will now entertain a motion. A motion by the Vice Mayor to close public comment. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. Public comment is now closed. Next item of business is submission of the record. There are two sets of minutes. They're the minutes of the City Council regular meeting of November 3rd and there's the City Council minutes. of the City Council Roundtable Working Meeting of November 10th, 2025. Pleasure for the City Council.

Move the place on file.

on a motion by the Vice Mayor to accept the report and place on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Reconsiderations, we do not have any. So what I'd like to do before we go to the city manager's agenda, although he can come to the table if he wishes, I'd like to suspend the rules for a special presentation. So on a motion.

So moved.

by the Vice Mayor to suspend the rules. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it and the rules are suspended. I would like to, on a motion by the Vice Mayor, to bring Resolution No. 12 forward for reading and discussion. On a motion by the Vice Mayor, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it and resolution is now before us. We are at that time of the year where we acknowledge the service of our colleagues. And I stand with great pleasure to acknowledge A young woman that I believe in with all my heart has served with distinction. The job of being a city councilor, being an elected official, is not at all easy. If it was, everyone would do it. Sometimes we wish everyone would, or they certainly try, but they don't. And so I don't think it criminal, and I think my colleagues would agree, that we stop and pause to say thank you. Thank you to someone who has been brave, who is bold, who is resilient, who takes no prisoners, which is a good thing.

But has never stood down and has offered herself in service, which is not an easy thing. In her honor, I would like to just read the following. It's a poem called The Leader. It reads as follows. It's not about power, wealth, or fame. Integral leadership is not a game. It's about serving those most in need. Respect and gratitude reign supreme. Honor, born of strength within, It's a courage that stands and rarely gives in. They aren't, I'll make it more personal, she's not afraid to speak up and stand out for the rights of the vulnerable and the meek.

A noble pursuit that we must trust. Her virtue is selfless, humble, and just. She knows that leadership is not about power, but service to the community we can all share. So let's honor her and cherish her, the leader she is that we have found in her, whose strength and wisdom are always top of mind. And with every move that she makes, The greatness lies in her. So I want us to stand and acknowledge my colleague, Aisha M. Wilson.

You know, I don't know, many of you might remember my daughter, but she would always say, you have those resolutions, you... You give them to everybody. But we don't just give them to everybody. We give them to special bodies. So I would like a motion from my colleagues, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, to bring that. motion the resolution number 12 forward and oh I already did that you know I love it when I'm efficient uh would you like to come up here do you want to sit there come forward yeah First, we'll have the adoption of the order so that I can read it officially. On a motion by Councilor Sabrina Wheel to read this, would you say yes? Well, thank you. All those in favor? Opposed? Leave the room if you are. Okay, the ayes have it. And the resolution reads as follows.

whereas Aisha Wilson grew up in Jefferson Park public housing raised by a single Jamaican immigrant mother in a city of extraordinary wealth and persistent inequality. an experience that gave her not just empathy for Cambridge working families, but an unwavering determination to change the systems that create such disparities. And whereas long before she sought elected office, Aisha dedicated more than 20 years, now she's only 25, so I know that's hard, Demanding work of youth development as a clinician, an educator, the CHA workforce program teacher, counselor, Team Program Director, meeting with young people in their struggles, believing in their potential and equipping them with the skills and support to transform their own lives.

and whereas elected to the school committee in 2019, Ayesha cheered special education and student supports and drove the district toward meaningful racial equity policy, expanded mental health services when students need them most, and helped build universal preschool from aspiration to reality. Understanding that a city's commitment to children must not be measured, but given out in actual resources offered. And whereas as a city councilor, Elected in 2024, Ayesha has fought to expand universal preschools citywide, challenging exclusionary zoning, that priced families out of our city, championed affordable housing in every neighborhood, and defended Cambridge's sanctuary status, always, always asking whose voices were missing from the room and whose needs were being overlooked in the policy.

and whereas Aisha has led beyond the City Hall, the walls of City Hall, but works as the Executive Director of Emerge Massachusetts, as a member of the YWCA Board of Directors, as a mentor in the YWCA GO program, and as secretary of the Cambridge branch of the NAACP, building pathways for the next generation of leaders while holding Cambridge accountable to its stated values. And whereas Aisha Wilson never stopped being the girl from Jefferson Park, who believed Cambridge could live up to its promise. She has spent decades proving it could. One person, one policy fight, one hard truth at a time. And she leaves public office having left the city more just and more accountable. to the families who need her most, or us most. And whereas she is just the best gracious mother to Prime,

who's adorable, there be it resolved that the City Council extends its deepest gratitude to Councilor Aisha Wilson for her years of public service and wish her well as she enters the next fruitful chapter of her life. Therefore, it further be resolved that the city clerk, that's Paula, is hereby requested for a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Council Wilson on behalf of the entire, very grateful. and honored Cambridge City Council. Thank you. For you, my dear. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to open the floor to my colleagues who might want to give a few words.

He's older than you. Vice Mayor. Oh my goodness, we're having digs.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Yes, Vice Mayor.

Well, Councillor, from one social worker to another, thank you. Not just for your service this term on the council, but on the school committee and all the things that were listed in that resolution, you have always fought and been a voice for the young people of this city, for the people who we don't often see in this chamber, who are often not part of the conversation. And just seeing your reaction. It just shows how important and personal this work is. There's a lot of sometimes disagreement that happens, but I hope... You know how important the work that you have done this term really, really was, whether we landed on the same page or we didn't. I'm gonna miss sharing little whispers with you during meetings and candy.

But you had a huge impact. and you've had a bigger impact on this city and you're going to continue to do that because you are just a kid from Cambridge. and you're gonna continue fighting for the city and fighting for the people that you have fought for all of your life. And maybe this is a little hiatus, and you'll do it in one way or another. And I just, I've really enjoyed sitting next to you and serving with you. And I know that the city is never gonna leave your heart. So thank you for all you've done.

Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilor Zinn.

I was going to say, This is a really hard job. There's like 120,000 people who are always judging us. And no matter how much you care about the city and how hard you work, people are harsh. I know we both feel it often. especially if you're ever saying anything about housing or bike lanes, you will hear it. And you know, it really affects it. You know, one year someone's your strongest supporter and then you take one vote that they don't agree with and it's like over, they're done with you no matter how many years of a relationship And even city council is a hard place. I think we all try to get along and do what's best for the city, but we're also always competing against each other and it becomes so hard to become fully close. But I'll just say for me, I really appreciated having you on the council. I think that there was a lot of tough votes and some stuff we didn't agree on and lots of stuff we did.

and I'll say, you know, one thing in particular that really mattered to me this term was the multifamily housing stuff. And I know how tough it was and how hard it was for everyone on council and like the really tough conversations we get. But I also think that, you know, All of us move on one way or another. We won't be doing this job forever. And so much of the work that we leave is a policy we pass. you know I hope you know whatever housing goal we meet there'll be thousands of people who will get to live in the city in both market but also low-income units that just would not have had a chance without you and I really do think that it was you in particular that played such an important role and I know at least I forever will be very grateful for that and never will forget. And it just reminds me of one of my favorite quotes that Our legacy is the seeds of the plants we will never see. And so we may not see the full fruition of all the work that we did while we're in office, but it does matter and it will stay long after we're gone.

Thank you, Councilor Azeem. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. So Ayesha, I remember, you may not remember meeting you on the campaign trail, I think for your first school committee run. Several of my kids' friends were Really excited about you and working with you and for you, and it was really a joy to meet you and to see what you brought to the school committee role, which was really, really important. And then to be able to work with you this term, the regret is that after that time in Salt Lake when we had time together and now you're leaving, that's unfortunate, but I think... It's that kind of ability to really get to know each other a little bit more that I really value and treasure. And like the Vice Mayor said, I know you're going to be involved. You're a kid from Cambridge who has a depth not only of experience but commitment and love of the city and of the residents of the 120,000 that Councilor Azeem referenced

and I will certainly miss you in this role and know for sure that I hope our paths cross in many, many ways in the future as it comes along, not to mention as the mayor did your Your joyful little bundle that sometimes occasionally is around and clearly you're just raising him with such love and devotion. He's really lucky and we were very lucky to have you serve this term and to have you in the city. I can't wait to see what the next phase brings.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. I'm just going to go around the room.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I just want to say, Councilor Wilson, I really appreciated the perspective you brought to all the really important issues we deal with on the council because you have lived so many of them. Cambridge has always been a city of immigrants, that how important affordable housing is, how important childcare and education are, and I appreciate that fierceness you have brought to advocacy on those issues. and that personal perspective. Also, having been in a similar position in 2021, I know how hard these months of November and December are. I feel like I have no energy and you've just brought such Grace, and continued to bring all the fire to it, even in this piece. Life is crazy, politics are crazy, and thought after 2021, we'd never have a have a chance to sit in these, you know, really uncomfortable seats again. But here I am back in it and, you know, never know what is going to happen. And so I appreciate to see whatever the next steps bring for you. I yield back.

Councilor Sperini, we'll yield the floor. Councilor Toner.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Council Wilson, I've really enjoyed getting to know you over the past couple of years on the council. I've appreciated your friendship and support. your willingness to be open-minded and think about the issues and not come with a predisposed position and I hope and Look forward to us remaining friends and being able to collaborate and work together in other ways off of the council in the future. And best of luck to you.

Councilor Toner yields. Councilor Zusy.

Ayesha, again, I appreciate your passion for engaging the whole community and lifting and everyone in Cambridge. And I've always admired not only your extraordinary sense of style with the mayor, and I learned you're a great dancer when we went to the National League of Cities, but also Your sense of, you're so centered. You've got a very beautiful sense of self that radiates and guides you. You know who you are, which many... Many don't have that sense of center. So I really appreciate that and I've enjoyed working with you and I look forward to seeing what's next and I see great things ahead.

Council Siddiqui.

I'm the resident crier. We have Kleenex. Yeah, you know, we've been together for six years, and it's been really fun to... Get to know you, dance with you, all the rides you've given me, especially this year. All of you, but especially her. You bring so much love and heart into everything you do. And I've learned so much from you and from our school committee days. where things were so scary. You know, we'd be on those Zooms together. We'd confided in each other. We'd talk. We'd laugh. We'd cry. We did so much together. Cambridge Promise, Early College, UPK, you know, There's just been so much, and I'm going to miss you.

I know we'll continue our friendship, and I know you'll continue to do great things. for our city, but you're a really amazing human. I love you, and I'm going to really miss having you next to me. You know I'll be texting you. I'll be live texting you. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Siddiqui. Councilor Siddiqui yields the floor. Mr. City Manager.

Wilson, just thank you so much for everything that you've brought. I feel like you didn't leave anything behind and you've been such a powerful voice in this chamber. I think we We all have seen how hard it can be in the limelight, and I think you handled all of that with such grace, and yet I feel like we heard your voice every night. and we really got to see who you are, how you're representing people in the city in such an important way. And that's part of the beauty of what Cambridge is and what we have here. and I know we're not going to lose that. You're going to still be here and I expect you'll still be texting me and emailing and I want that. I think we want you to be engaged because you have something really unique that you see in our community and that's so important.

And just as one thing that you have really pushed us on, the work coming out of the disparity study where we found just how little the city was purchasing from minority women, veteran-owned businesses, That was something that you have been in the center of from the beginning of the term all the way until the end of the term. And we have made really significant progress, investment changes. to the way that we do procurement, the way that we advertise, the way that we are reaching out to local business owners. And that is part of the legacy that you're leaving. and the work that will continue. And I know that you'll continue to be connected with. And so you've made such a difference and you'll continue to do that and really grateful for all that you have brought.

Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Madam Deputy?

Councilor Wilson, it has been a pleasure. I sort of feel like the new kid at the table on the weekly basis. Much like your neighbors, I always appreciate the friendly face and smile. So on a personal level, I always really appreciate that. And just to echo what several folks have talked about, I think one of the things that staff always takes from your questions and the things you advocate for are really thinking about who's not in the room and really thinking about How are we representing and supporting those folks? And so I think that is one of the really common themes from all of the questions and all of the discussions that really come through and I think It's really incumbent on all of us to continue that work. And so again, I think that is also a big part of your legacy is that constant reminder about who's not in the room and how are we representing and supporting them. While your voice will be missed in this room, it will continue on as we think about those folks. Please, I hope you know how important you've been to everyone here.

Thank you, Deputy City Manager. Assistant City Manager for Human Services, Ms. Semenov.

We go back a long way. Worked with your mom, who did great service for the department, watched you in all of your work, through the workforce. And when you were on the school committee, you held our feet to the fire in a wonderful way. You were so deeply committed to ensuring that we were paying attention to families with children with special needs. You were a critical part of the planning for universal pre-kindergarten. and then you came over here and you carried your deep commitment to what do we do for universal pre-K, what do we do for families with children in our after-school programs, and you always pushed us, but it was so very clear how deeply committed you are and you were.

to the needs of the Cambridge residents who so often don't get the first crack at things. And so we'll have really appreciated your work all along and I wish you the best and I suspect we will continue to see each other in the future.

Aisha, you and I go back way longer than I want to say, but I just wanted to tell you.

Tell us, tell us.

We want to know, we want to know. Start telling the stories from our CRLS days. I'll save that for after. I just wanted to tell you how proud I am of you and how proud I'm going to name all the places. Rinjab is proud of you. Jefferson Park is proud of you. CRLS is proud of you. CHA is proud of you. your mom, your dad, Jamaica, Prime, and too many other friends, mutual friends to name, but This is just another page in your book. This is not the first chapter, and it's definitely not the last. We can't wait to see what you have in store for us next. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Stefan. Solicitor Beyer?

I just want to briefly echo so many of these statements, comments we've heard today and how nice it is always to have the friendly face Right here to my right when I'm sitting up here in the hot seat. And just recognize all the really great work you've done and how much we'll miss you.

Thank you, Solicitor. Ms. Crane? Clerk Crane?

So on behalf of the city clerk's office and its staff, I want to thank you for always being a dear friend to our office and appreciating the work that we do. and especially Nicole Irwin, the city, the clerk of committees and myself always being a really good friend and supportive. And we look forward to the amazing things that you so deserve.

Thank you. Thank you. So it's interesting, Councilor Zien talked about the 120 people, did you say? 120 people and how badly they kind of, 120,000, sorry. Okay, we're going to not be exact. People and how they sometimes don't talk very well about us or individuals. My mother had this quote and she always said, it's not what they call you, it's what you answer to. and I hope that you answer to being a phenomenal woman. So on behalf of the city council, we want to give you, they say give you your flowers. I picked these myself. On behalf of the city council, we want to give you just this small token of our appreciation. And as you kind of visit with them and Keep them watered as long as you can. Just remember all of us and how much we think of you. And then lastly,

Something for you to take to Jamaica. And when you utilize this, think of us. I'm going to turn it down over to you.

No, I don't have any more tissue. Thank you. Thank you all. It has definitely been an honor to serve my city. I never saw myself in politics. And I'm grateful to have been able to serve in the way that I have, been able to add more Social Workers to our Canberra Public Schools, be intentional in making sure that kids with special learning needs are being seen and getting their needs met. to also thinking about how we look at universal preschool to the housing, the multifamily zoning that we just passed and how difficult of a decision that was. But I definitely try to lead with integrity and lead with my heart and lead with thinking about all of the people

for generations to come who will benefit from decisions that get made from this council seat. It has been a tough term, but definitely one that I have no regrets. I leave behind, you know, just a lot of deep admiration to the work, but also recognizing that it is difficult work, and oftentimes when we are doing this work, there are many people who we are leaving behind. and decisions that get made. And so I just really ask all of you and those who will be joining the council to remember those whose voices are often left behind often left out of conversations, decisions that are getting made, please be sure to Think harder and think more intentionally on how we being more inclusive to those voices. But I also would say, as a kid from Cambridge,

That shouldn't be shamed upon, that I am a kid from Cambridge and that I've been here for many, many decades, right, my life. That's something I'm very prideful in and something that many across our communities are really prideful in. I don't know, I'm sad to leave this chamber, but I'm really, I'm grateful to whatever may come next. And, you know, I think my child, little primetime, who I almost brought him here. And I'm kind of happy I did it because he would have took in the floor. You all know how he is. But, you know, I think it's important at a critical stage in his life at the age of three that he needs his mom to be more with him.

and sometimes these late meetings and different things are pulling me a little bit from him and so when he says mama don't go, no mama don't go, it pulls on me in a way that really says I'm a mom first and I need to be It's okay that I need to be home and really thinking about what life and everything means for him. So again, I'm grateful. Thank you all so much, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Thank you to each of you and I look forward to what comes next. I can't cry anymore. I got my lashes.

So I'm just going to keep it real. I can't cry anymore.

But I am really deeply grateful to all of my colleagues for all of the things that we have learned together, how we have grown together. Again, decisions don't often get made in a very fabulous kind of way. We get to places the way we get there and I'm always appreciative to some of the challenges and the back and forths. that we engage in, but it's always done with love and admiration and maybe a cocktail at the end of the night. So again, I appreciate you all and thank you. I yield.

Now try to write the agenda.

Can I do that?

Yes, you can.

I am going to Jamaica and, you know. Girl, please.

I ain't going to stop you. I won't stand in your way. Okay?

Not all of us.

So on a motion by Councilor Siddiqui to adopt the order, resolution number 12, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. And the resolution number 12 is, I have a card, I forgot. It's the biggest card in the world. There's two trees that are missing now because they've cut it down so that, you know, it was the city manager says, yeah, cut a tree down, take two. And so here it is. This is, you know, the tree on that street. There you go. When you see that hole in the ground, there you go. I appreciate the tree. You are very welcome. And thank you for all that are here present, those that are tuning in. Thank you so much for your patience. But this is important work. Because it's such hard work, it's good to sometimes just take a moment and say thank you.

Sometimes it's a thankless job, so it's good to recognize those that labor hard. We are moving now to the city manager's agenda. What is the pleasure of the city council? Madam Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor. Eight and nine, please. Eight and nine. Pleasure of the City Council.

Mayor Simmons. Councilor Nolan. Number one, two, and six.

I said y'all to write, no one was listening to me. One, two, and six, Councilor?

Yes.

Pleasure to see you, Councilor.

Number, Mayor Simmons, number seven, please.

Number seven. Pleasure of the City Council. Excuse me. Let me just go over what was pulled. We have number one, number two, Number seven, who pulls number six? Oh, Councilor Nolan, yeah. Six, seven, eight, and nine. Do I have that correct? So on the balance, I will entertain a motion, a roll call vote on three, four, and five.

So moved.

On a motion by Councilor Nolan, roll call please.

That was me.

I'm sorry, I'm looking down. Azeem.

Roll call please. Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And on number three, the appropriation has been adopted and four, three, four, and five have been placed on file. Affirmative vote of nine members. We now go back to City Manager, agenda item number one. This is pulled by Councilor Nolan. Beads as follows. Communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a federal update including relevant court cases. Mr. City Manager, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much. Through you, Mayor Simmons. I wanted to provide a follow up on the November 17th federal update where we were discussing the major changes that HUD is making to the continuum of care program. As a reminder, this is a $4 billion federal program for addressing homelessness and for the past decades has funded permanent supportive housing programs that have successfully brought people off the streets and into stable housing. Nationally, COCs support 170,000 people in Massachusetts. That number is 3,800 people who are being housed. In Boston, the program is about $48 million of federal funding and houses more than 2,000 individuals. In Cambridge, we manage a continuum of care with $6.4 million of federal funding that houses over 200 individuals.

The announcement that HUD made in mid-November shifted the carryover of annual funding from 90% year to year, which was meant to ensure support for continuing to house individuals in this program, that amount was reduced from 90% to only 30%, representing an enormous risk of putting individuals back on the street. The other 70% of that total funding was meant to be shifted to a number of new programs that were still being defined. Over the last three weeks and through the Thanksgiving holiday, our housing and homelessness teams and the law department have been working really around the clock to respond and I'll walk through both our short-term and long-term planning. Short-term, we've challenged the new HUD program in court along with Boston, San Francisco, Nashville, Tucson, King County in Washington, and Santa Clara County in California.

In a separate case, the Attorney General, Andrea Campbell, has also sued on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, along with 20 other states. And so there are two major court case challenges to HUD's program changes. The brief summary of the lawsuit that we filed is that we're challenging the program changes on the basis of the devastating impact this will have on hundreds of thousands of children, youth, adults, and families. who will become homeless and these drastic changes which have been implemented without appropriate legal process or any reasonable time for planning and transition which affect every step of The grant process from the types of projects that are eligible, criteria for selecting awardees, and grant conditions to receive funding. Just this afternoon, and so news is coming really quickly, there was a combined hearing on the two legal challenges, so they brought these both together. in the Federal District Court of Rhode Island.

Less than 90 minutes before the hearing, HUD withdrew the 2025 program guidelines that we are suing over. When asked by the judge whether HUD was intending to revert to the prior program guidelines, the 2024 guidelines that preserved 90% of funding year to year, Lawyers for the federal government emphasized that they intend to make revisions and to make changes to account for new priorities in a new and reissued program guideline, which is called the NOFO, a Notice of Funding Opportunity. in advance of the deadline for obligation of FY25 funds, which would be September 30th of next year. The federal government is therefore trying to leave open the potential to reissue these program guideline conditions at any time in the future placing the future of the city and other affected communities funding in jeopardy. This sudden withdrawal of the program guidelines while keeping the threat of new funding conditions open

Doubles down on the chaos and disruption the Trump administration has caused to this critical and proven program that has helped people out of homelessness. Cambridge, our city will continue to stand with our fellow local, regional, and national partners and fellow plaintiffs in this litigation to ensure that the compassionate evidence and common sense based practices continue to guide our housing policies. At this point, it's pretty hard to predict how this case is going to unfold, but the judge has set an expedited timeline over the coming two weeks to come to a decision. And so we should hear before the end of the year whether, for instance, a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction will be put in place. So I think if there are questions, we do have our city solicitor and folks from our law department that can explain more. An additional short-term resolution to the new program changes would be for congressional action. There was some discussion about

adding language into a final federal budget bill that would extend the continuum of care programs at existing levels for an additional year. Again, the goal would be to keep the 2024 prior program guidelines in place. This would at least provide a runway for any program changes to be better understood or planned for. It's hard to say how likely this will be, though my sense at this point is that the major actions will be in the courts. Finally, our short-term focus has been navigating as best we can the chaotic timeline that HUD has laid out. I will say a lot of time has actually gone into this because when the new program guidelines were released, they've required applications from all of our nonprofit partners who we've been funding to give us new bids based on these new program guidelines by next Monday. And so there was an extraordinarily short period of time We have been in really close communication with everyone that we fund. We've held meetings together with the whole group.

We've also had individual meetings with each nonprofit so that they understand as much as possible the new program requirements and that collectively Our plan has always been to position ourselves to maximize whatever federal funding we can get, assuming that the current plan would be upheld. I think at this point with the program guidelines withdrawn, we haven't yet determined what the path forward would be on that It seems a little bit unclear what it would mean to receive bids for a program where the guidelines have been withdrawn. And so we can keep in touch, but I think decisions will be forthcoming in the coming days. This has been an incredibly stressful time for our housing and homelessness team, our nonprofit partners, for community members that are being housed. I can't say enough about how dedicated and hardworking our teams have been to both

coordinate through all of this uncertainty to read all the guidelines and to manage to find a path for us to navigate through over these last three weeks. I wanted to also talk a bit longer term since I know that there have been questions what would happen if funding was cut off. We are obviously very concerned with the worst case scenario of if federal funding would be diverted from permanent supportive housing. I think at this point the reality is there's too much uncertainty to make major decisions and in addition we are actively engaged in a lawsuit that is built on the harms of these changes being implemented and so I think it's too soon to really be considering actions that we would take, and we need to let some of this litigation take its course over the coming weeks. More broadly, I would say there are additional federal grants that we're tracking and we'll provide a more comprehensive federal grant update at next week's city council meeting. And so we'll lay out all the different federal grants we have, the status for

the current FY fiscal year, FY26, and where we think things are, what risk level we're assessing for those grants. And then we'll also try and start projecting what we think is going to happen in FY27. So as we get into early 2026, as we have greater clarity about where the federal budget will land, I think that will help us have the important conversations we need to as it affects the city budget. And so I expect most of those conversations will happen in February and March as we prepare for the FY27 budget. Please know that we're very actively engaged and Cambridge is leading the charge to fight these changes in court. They threaten not only the stability of housing for our most vulnerable residents, but also just the integrity of This proven and data-driven intervention that's bringing people off the streets, helping them succeed long-term, stay in housing. And we really remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting these resources and protecting these programs. So we'll continue to just keep this council informed.

We are communicating with our nonprofit partners as so many things are changing in real time. and happy to take any questions about the program, the lawsuit and also federal grants more broadly.

Thank you, Mr. City Manager yields the floor. Why don't we have Solicitor Behr and Attorney LaPianca just come to the table so that if there are any questions, they'll be on the ready. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, through you, although I almost didn't want to pull it because I did not want to hear the bad news because cruelty is the point of so much of what we are hearing and what we are experiencing. So what I'm hearing is that we will get soon, exactly what I was going to ask about is do we have a, while we can't, know for sure what will happen, just a list of the impact on the city. And a number of these cases are also not directly financial, but it goes to our sanctuary city status, it goes to a lot of the programs that we as a city have pride in. Is there any other of these lawsuits here that we should be apprised of to understand better? And again, I appreciate the thoroughness. I also know that the staff has been working overtime Sometimes I think the point is cruelty and also the sector that seems to be having enormous success would be any law department anywhere in the country because they have had to fight

you know whether it's Harvard who has spent bazillion dollars you know fighting things and I know they're one of these lawsuits here but I'm just curious of these range of lawsuits on either sanctuary city or some of our other programs on housing is there anything that we should be aware of or any Thank you. And then after that, I yield to Mayor Simmons.

Thank you. Solicitor Beer or Attorney LaPianca, do either of you want to speak to that?

Thank you through you, Madam Mayor. And just on that topic of people working overtime, the judge in Rhode Island at the hearing The case today was very displeased with this last minute change from the federal government. and specifically commented on how she worked all weekend to prepare for this hearing and knows that plaintiff's attorneys worked many hours and she does not appreciate these shenanigans from the federal government. I'll just point out at least one other update. In the San Francisco versus Trump case, which is another case where we're part of a consortium of plaintiffs challenging the executive order, The executive orders directed at sanctuary jurisdictions that there was a

We had a hearing before the Ninth Circuit on Friday, so we don't have a decision yet. It's under advisement by the Ninth Circuit, but that was because there was a preliminary injunction issued ordering that the federal government cannot enforce those executive orders against the plaintiff sanctuary jurisdictions and cannot, for example, You know, take away funding on the basis of the communities being sanctuary jurisdictions. And so that the federal government appealed to the Ninth Circuit and that hearing was this past Friday. So we'll have a decision coming from that sometime soon. And then I think since our last update there have been a couple more cases where we've joined amicus briefs. And so I'll turn it over to Attorney LaBianca if he has anything else in particular that he wants to draw the council's attention to.

Attorney LaBianca, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. I don't have anything to add other than what's been added to the litigation tracker. I will say that these things change moment to moment, and we come in here with red lines. at the last minute. So if anyone ever has questions, feel free to reach out to me or the solicitor to ask if there have been any updates prior to a meeting. I yield the floor.

LaPianca yields the floor. Councilor Nolan, I believe yields the floor. Did you want to say something else?

I think just to emphasize, I know that a lot of community members are asking, Us are asking all of you, what can we do? What can the city do? And I do think the updates that we're providing in terms of Legal actions that the city is taking on behalf of our community is an enormous part of how we can actually have an impact. These lawsuits don't happen unless you can show standing. And a lot of that standing requires both People within our law department and then city staff to really gather a lot of the documentation to show the harm that is being done by these changes. and to produce so much of the documentation that's actually used in court. And so, we're now plaintiffs in three lawsuits. I think we filed amicus briefs in,

four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and counting, 10, a lot more than that. And so I think our sort of, participation on the legal front continues to grow and that really reflects I think this council's priorities the stand that you have all taken and I think it's something we should be really proud of So we'll continue to try and keep you informed. Please let us know if you have questions or you see other areas you think we could get involved in. but I think I've seen how much this has really been part of how we're participating and really appreciate the work that's been happening behind the scenes in the law department within our teams. A lot of times, I've really been inspired because we've got folks who are, as Solicitor Baer was saying, working

Thank you for joining us. and city staff have always been really excited to actually be on the front lines and to do this work. And so just wanted to say how much I've appreciated the work that people have put into this. And I think it's really having an impact.

Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Pleasure, City Council. Hearing none, a motion by Councilor Nolan to place on file. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The matter is placed on file. Before we go to the second item that was pulled by Councilor Nolan, I want to acknowledge Councilor-elect that's joined us, Aya Al-Zubi. Thank you. Can you rise so we can see you? Someone had to tell me you were here. Thank you for being here. We look forward to serving with you. We move now to number two. This is a poll by Councilor Nolan Reeds as follows. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a request for approval to seek authorization from the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General, the IG, for the city to use construction manager at risk procurement and construction method in connection with the DPW salt shed replacement projects. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. Yes, I like the idea of using the construction manager risk. It's something that we've used before. I did have a couple questions about the project. One is, given our new standing financially that we, I know, have a goal and a commitment to review every single project with an eye towards where we are today and while there might be some projects that are nice to have and we've seen this in other projects I know in some of our projects including Raymond Park and others we actually scaled the budget back So the question is whether this project has been reviewed with that in mind very closely to ensure that only necessary safety issues are included in the scope. I know, I'm convinced you just look at the pictures and an assessment was done that the building itself needs to be replaced. It just seems like $8 million for that. It seems like a fair amount of money because it doesn't appear there's other infrastructure involved.

I'm just curious as to whether that lens has been used on this project or we can anticipate that it might be that it will not require the full $8 million which would use up all of the MFIP money allocated for DPW for this year.

Would you like to, Mr. Nardone?

Through you, Mayor Simmons, I can start and then with me here we have Brendan Roy who is in charge of the capital building projects and then John Nardone from DPW. So we had identified this as a need and it was back in 24, so it was in the budget at that point. and it's been something we've been sort of going back and forth with a little bit and I would say one of the reasons it did not move forward last year is for exactly the reason that you're raising, Councilor Nolan, which is that we have started sort of a conceptual design, really looking at what are all the things we'd like to have at this facility. And so we sort of had a plan that really incorporated all of those things. and then we got a preliminary budget that was, you know, at least 50% higher than what you're seeing here today. So we spent the last number of months really going back and re-looking at the salt shed project and saying, what is it that we actually need to have?

And so we have absolutely scaled back this project from that initial sort of what are all the things we'd like to have? and they've really gone back into the like, okay, this is what we really need to have. The salt shed is a critical part of our winter operations, both in terms of the salt as well as the brine. that are all housed at that location. And so folks have really gone back through the project and really cut it down to what is the sort of minimum project that we need to function. and I think if you look at the photos you will see the existing condition of the facility. It is not repairable because we also went through that process in terms of you know could we keep the existing building and repair it and I think when you look at the photos you will see that that's really not feasible and so we absolutely have gone through that process and is an important thing that we wanted to talk about tonight. And so the vote for tonight really is the construction manager at risk.

But we certainly have gone back through this project and really tightened up the scope as close as we can.

Mr. Roy or Commissioner Nardone, did you want to add anything to that answer before I go back to the Councilor Noem?

Yes, I'd like to, through you, Madam Mayor.

Mr. DeVroy, the floor is yours.

Yes, just as we go through with the construction manager at risk, we will still be evaluating all of our estimates and things like that. There'll be some value engineering, possibly, Different things they bring to the table as well. That's why it's important for us to bring them in early on. So I would just echo that, what Kathy had also said.

Nolan. Thank you. And thank you for that. I'm glad to hear it. It's really important that we have that mindset. Obviously, we want to address safety issues and this needs to be replaced. The other question I had is it does seem as much as I... I understand that it can take some time to do this. This seems like time is money, and the longer a project goes, the more money it costs. And it seems that since this design is extremely similar to what's there already, I mean, the brine tanks are being moved, and Glad to have the brine tanks because they reduce the environmental damage done across the city. But it does seem like we could have a much quicker process which would then also allow the neighbors to get to It just seems like this is an incredibly long process when we're really recreating exactly what's there now with some being moved around.

I don't know if there's an answer to that, but I really encourage us to look at that and to do everything we possibly can to ensure that it's as timely and effective as possible because that also usually saves money as well. So again, it just seems like it is Not something that we would need to spend that much time on so that the quicker the neighbors know what's coming, it's better for them to have the construction over. So I don't know if there's an answer to that, but that was something I wanted to raise, and then I yield. Thank you.

Mr. Foy or Mr. Nardone are the city manager to either?

I would just say that we are always looking through you, Madam Mayor, to do these projects quicker. I think there are complexities here with the environmental situation and others, and so I can't commit that we can do it faster than what they've laid out here, but certainly Absolutely, time is money in terms of the quicker we can get the projects done, better off we all are.

Thank you, Deputy City Manager. Councilor Nolan yields the floor. Councilor Susie, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And through you, I also was concerned about the cost, because Google Gemini said you could build a 6,300-square-foot salt shed for between $250,000 and $1 million. Though in New York, one was built for $21 million. So I realize this is a little cheaper than the one in New York. But it does seem like a lot of money and to be spending $135,000 to do a feasibility study. That just seems like a lot for a salt shed, which is a very basic structure. So yes, I think we do need to Pay attention to how much we're spending and so we've got to trust you on that because we need to make our dollars go further. But I had a question. So we approved, or the city council approved spending... Money on this in fiscal year 27. So was money borrowed for the project in fiscal year 24?

And so was money borrowed then and it's still available to spend now? How does that work?

And you're asking that of Mr. Roy? Deputy City Manager?

Through you, Madam Mayor. So in the FY24 budget, we appropriated the money. So that means we are authorized to spend it. And then there is a separate process of selling bonds. So it is bond funded. We time the selling of the bonds to the project. even though the project was appropriated and the funds were sort of available back in FY24, we go through this process of understanding what the actual scope is, What the construction is and get a better sense of the timing of it before we sell the bond. So it's a two-step process. Councilor Zusy.

Yeah, so we will be pursuing bonds for this. Okay, so will it be then added to our list of things that we're thinking about funding with the bonds that we request at our next round of...

Madam Deputy?

Yes. So again, there's two separate processes. So there is the appropriation, and that's really what we're looking for in terms of the overall And then there's the detail when we actually sell the bonds. So that doesn't necessarily, they're tied together. The appropriation is where the city council vote is and sort of the priorities. And then we phase in the bond sales to really tie back to the timing of the projects. and that does affect the overall budget because that debt service is then paid and so the exact timing of the bond sales does affect our operating costs because we have to pay back that debt but the overall big picture of it is through the appropriation. Councilor Susi.

Okay. So do we not spend the money until we have the bonds? Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And I yield.

Councilor Zusy yields the floor. Further discussion on this matter by anyone? Hearing none, a motion by Councilor Nolan to adopt the order. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. and City Manager's agenda number two has been adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to number six. This was pulled by Councilor Nolan, reads as follows. A communication transmitted from Yanhuang City Manager relative to a waiting report item number 2559 regarding 25 Lowell Street. This is pulled by Councilor Nolan. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons, and thank you to the directors who appeared before us tonight because this is obviously something that has raised some concern in the community. I just wanted to understand, I appreciate the report on this, and I just want to understand I read it in my understanding based on that is that whatever a recommendation is it will review a range of recommendations including Existing tenants staying there, other tenants or a use for another use. But no matter what happens, we need to go through a disposition process both by our own local ordinance and state law. that we cannot continue kind of the status quo now and that whatever the disposition is whether it ends up with a lease or a sale that it would be a report with a community meeting and Outreach and a fair analysis of what's called the greatest public benefit. So I just want to make sure that we all understood that and that the community understands it as well.

Madam Deputy? I would clarify a few things because I think there's a couple different things sort of combined into that statement. So just to separate it out so folks know, you know, we entered the lease with the New School of Music back in 1980. and that has continued sort of since then. So that lease has been in place and has continued with that existing tenant. In 1990, The City Council passed a disposition ordinance that outlined if the city is going to dispose of city property and that can be for selling or leasing. So it would cover either a sale or a lease. It outlines a very prescriptive process that the city needs to follow in terms of, again, either selling a property or leasing a property. And again, we sort of list in here, these are Thank you. Thank you.

that there is fair market value as received for the private use of public property and that property is disposed of without favoritism. So if the city is going to enter into a lease moving forward, Oregon selling the property would need to follow that disposition process. as well as state law, right? So it has to follow both of those. The exclusion from the disposition ordinance is if it is for affordable housing, it does not have to go through that process. when we talk about on page two sort of that full report and process that is not required if the decision is made to use it for affordable housing and it goes to the trust for redevelopment as affordable housing so I just wanted to clarify that that The sort of path forward depends on the sort of anticipated future use and that if the determination was made to continue leasing it,

We would again need to go out through a process to identify who would be the recipient of that lease. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. I wanted to clarify that for whatever reason, both state law and local means that for any new lease, regardless, it has to go through this process. Okay. Thank you. That was my question. I yield.

Nolan-Jones. The floor is a further discussion. Councilor Zusy.

Mayor Simms, I just had a few more questions. So I wondered, so did the lease expire? So if you don't change the use of the properties, would you have to go through the process? So that's my first question through you, Madam Mayor.

Madam Deputy? I may look to a city solicitor to see if she wants to answer that question more. Crispley, then I might, but it has continued in sort of a rollover fashion for the existing lease.

Madam, Madam Solicitor, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. So my understanding and Deputy City Manager Watkins can jump in if I'm not. Correct on the facts here, but that at some point with the New School of Music, the lease did expire. It was in place for a certain number of years. It was, I think, amended and extended some number of times. and it has now expired and so when a lease expires a tenant becomes a month-to-month tenant without a long-term tenancy but still with tenant rights And so they've been using the property pursuant to the same terms that were in the original lease, but without an actual written lease for a number of years. When it sort of all came to be realized that that was the arrangement and the

We did identify that we will have to go through some type of process even if there isn't a change in use. When they originally became a tenant, we didn't have the disposition ordinance in place. 30B didn't have the same requirements. But now that they are in place, Even if the new school ends up being who remains in that property using that property, it will have been through the result of a disposition and public procurement process.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much for that clarification. So again, just again, 12 to 15 million sounds like so much for plumbing and HVAC. would there be a community meeting to inform What the best use of the building would be, how it would best serve public benefit, what would that process look like? Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor.

We would look to come back to the council and sort of outline a proposed process so I think we want to do that before we have a community meeting just to really and many more. would this be a great site for affordable housing and really take a little bit more time to understand what that could look like, the number of units you could expect there so that people can have a more informed discussion about it. and so I think we would bring that to council and have a little that sort of entry-level conversation before we go to the public.

Thank you very much. Well, that makes sense. I guess I just want to say again, I feel as though, it seems as though the Music School and the Art Association are a fabulous use for that location. And I've shared this before, but I really, I think there should be sort of art center satellites in every neighborhood. I think it encourages... Thank you. Thank you. and I also look forward to discussions about Riverview down the road. I know we're still working on demolishing Riverview and I thank you for all of your work on that. But it seems like that may be a great site for social housing or a private development with inclusionary units.

So there may be another way to bring affordable units to West Cambridge outside of this site. So I'll look forward to hearing more, and thank you when I yield.

Zuzi yields the floor for the discussion on this item. Hearing none, Madam Clerk, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have and the matter is placed on file. We move now to number seven, I think it's pulled by Councilor Susie, reads as follows. A communication transmitted from Yanwang City Manager relative to the updates to institutional use regulations. Councilor Zusy, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to thank the law department so much for providing the update to the zoning ordinance for this. And my question is, so why is there a time lag? If the zoning has been drafted, why would it not move forward until February? That's my question. Through you, Madam Mayor, and I don't know who, if that's for, I don't know who that's for.

Madam Solicitor, do you feel better prepared to answer this?

Thank you. I'm happy to answer it. And Melissa Peters or Jeff Roberts can chime in as well. But through you, Madam Mayor, so what the recommendation here is to adopt this as a city council zoning petition. But because there is notice requirements before the public hearing, before the planning board would hold their hearing, and then the new ordinance committee, when the new ordinance committee is constituted with a new chair, before they hold their public hearing. I think it's just the estimate that that won't happen until the committees are assigned and the notice has gone out, and so that's likely February.

I believe through you, Mayor Simmons, I think early February is the latest deadline. So there could be an ordinance committee earlier. It's more the timing requirements of saying, The City Council would have furthered this to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee, and the Ordinance Committee could meet earlier, but if it doesn't meet before early February, I think there's an expiration.

Yes, I'll just jump in. I agree with the city manager. Right. because we have 60 days, 65 days to open the public hearing. So that would be when the expiration is, but there's still enough time to wait until the ordinance committee is constituted and open the public hearing.

Okay, because everyone's on the ordinance committee, right? So that should be pretty easy to constitute that committee. So do we know when it will go before the planning board? Is it on a schedule to go before the planning board?

Who would you like to hear that from? Madam Solicitor? Mr. Roberts, do you want to take the floor?

I would love to, Madam Mayor, this is Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development at CDD. We don't have a date in mind yet, but if the City Council refers it, We'll schedule a planning board whenever we can. So there's probably some time in January. Imagine we'd have a hearing then.

Yeah, I think that sounds great. Anyway, I'm eager for this to move forward and I'm also very eager to reinstitute some other institutional use regulations. But I realize that we need to do this before we do the other. So I look forward to updates, and I thank you for all your work to advance this. Thank you. I yield.

Councilor Zusy, use the floor.

Councilor Nolan. Thank you. Quickly, yes, I'm happy to pass this because we kind of have to do it as the memo makes clear. I do just have a suggestion, don't need an answer, but there's under 4.56 table of institutional use regulations under use categories, under A, religious purposes, there's five listed. Every single one is exactly the same across the board. Why don't we just say religious purposes and take out words that we don't need. I don't know if we need them in there, but since it's just religious purposes and every single one is exactly the same, I'm a believer that our zoning and our code should have the fewest words possible because they already have way, way, way more words than they... if you know what I mean.

So we're just going to do the nodded, is that the response, just the nodding of the head, or do we want something a little bit more full-throated? Solicitor? Madam Solicitor?

Yes, thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I think we could think about What that would mean and if there are potentially other religious uses that we haven't addressed in one through five that we would treat differently and whether we can Nolan's suggestion and just wrap this all up into A, religious purposes, yes, across the board without the subcategories which are a holdover from prior versions. But I think if we made that that wouldn't be a change to the fundamental character, so it could be made during the process after this is accepted as a council petition.

Councillor Nolan.

I yield, thank you.

Councillor Nolan yields the floor. Is there any further discussion on this one? Hearing none, on a motion by Councilor Zusy to adopt and refer the petition to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee, we'll have a roll call. Madam Clerk?

Councilor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern?

Yes.

Simmons, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Agenda item number seven has been adopted, referred to the petition and the planning board and the has referred the petition to the planning board and the ordinance committee on the affirmative vote of nine members. Move now to number eight and nine. I want to turn this over to the vice mayor. Vice mayor, floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to move suspension of the rules to bring forward City Manager Agenda Item 8 and 9 and Committee Report Number 1, A and B.

on suspension of the rules.

Roll call.

Councilor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Vice-Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Wilson. Yes. Councilor Wilson. Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Rules are suspended by the affirmative vote of nine members on bringing forward agenda item 8 and 9 as well as committee report number 1A and B. Roll call.

Excuse me, Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes.

We're bringing, just go ahead. I was just confused what the difference was. It's okay, it's okay. Yes.

Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you. So now we have City Manager's Agenda Item 8 and 9, as well as the Committee Reports Number 1, A and B. Vice Mayor, the floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Through you, although we have all these in front of us at the same time, they're going to require their own votes, so we should probably start with eight. and then move on to nine. The first order of business is to amend the petition by substitution with the zoning language that was adopted out of the ordinance committee so that we have the most current Vice is the discussion?

Vice Mayor is moving that we amend the petition by substitution.

Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice-Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you. Now I have the amended petition in front of us. Vice Mayor Flores, yours.

And that is, again, for agenda item number eight, which is the Mass Ave. Before we get into discussion or any other amendments, I just want to go through again the timeline because it's A little confusing, I suggest you write it down on your scorecard. So what we are doing tonight, both eight and nine are in front of us for a first vote to pass to a second reading, okay? So if we pass to a second reading tonight, there will be no vote. on these petitions at the December 15th meeting. They can still be discussed in public comment. The council can still amend them. They can still be discussed. But we will not take a vote at the 12-15 meeting.

They could come up for a possible vote and passage at the 12-22, December 22nd. If we pass them to a second reading tonight. If they are not passed to a second reading tonight, they could be passed to a second reading at the Next meeting at December 15th. If they are passed to a second reading then, there will be no vote at the 1222 council meeting My guess is that we are going to cancel the 1229 council meeting as we typically do. That was my hope. The January 5th council meeting is the inauguration. So there could be a possible vote to ratify on January 12th.

The petitions do not expire until January 28th. and we must also remember that there is going to be no meeting on January 19th because of MLK holiday. So there's... You know, there's some moving parts to this. It's a little confusing, but just wanted to make sure people understood the timeline, okay? So with that, I will yield to the floor and other councilors for discussion on agenda item number eight.

Vice Mayor's yield on the floor for the discussion.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Through you, I want to clarify the motion before us for both of these tonight. Yeah, as the Vice Mayor said, is to send these to a second reading. Not ordaining tonight. They're a procedural step. The Cambridge Street petition in particular has some issues the council has asked CDD to address and doesn't even expire until next term, so I do think we should address those issues before ordaining. On the North Mass Ave petition, this is a place I have heard from so many people in Cambridge who recognize that there can and should be more housing on this corridor, and not just from people who are housing policy wonks or advocates, but lots of people who aren't that engaged on zoning issues, but just thinks it's common sense that there should be more housing on North Mass Ave, especially on the stretch of Mass Ave from Porter Square to Arlington. There are multiple T-stops, a short walk from North Mass Ave. There are buses and dedicated bus lanes. There are wide sidewalks. There are bike lanes.

And the city is even spending millions of dollars in support of parking, specifically on North Mass Ave. There are also already a number of tall buildings on North Mass Ave throughout the corridor, so new tall buildings would not be out of place. It's actually currently the opposite. It's the tall buildings that are currently on North Mass Ave that have been there for decades currently look out of place. 2353 Mass Ave, 2130 Mass Ave, 2067 Mass Ave, 2050 Mass Ave. More tall buildings would actually help these blend in because there are also a lot of single story restaurants and retail buildings. do not have any housing above them at all. And that's in a city that has a housing crisis. No housing above them whatsoever. On the largest corridor in that city, in one of the largest cities in the state. To give just one example that I think is illustrative, we have a single story 7-Eleven on North Mass Ave with a big parking lot in front of it. that would not look out of place in a rural area with zero public transit.

You know where it does look out of place to have a 7-Eleven that's a single story with a big parking lot? North Mass Ave, just a little bit ways from Davis Square. There are lots of places where you have a 7-Eleven on the ground floor with affordable housing above it. I think Cambridge should be one of those places. The North Mass Ave petition also hasn't had changes made to it since the public process like the Cambridge Street petition has. And I wish folks who have concerns about the Cambridge Street petition which I hear advocating, I wish those folks were also advocating clearly in support of the North Mass Ave petition because I think it would actually make the case for it a bit stronger on the Cambridge Street petition. Under the current zoning, there are a lot of buildings built on North Mass Ave that have zero affordable housing. And the status quo, if we do nothing on North Mass Ave, would continue that.

It would allow more 100 luxury buildings with zero affordable housing to be built on Mass Ave. And I cannot support maintaining that status quo. I am down to move forward with both of these to a second reading tonight, which is a procedural strap. But the Cambridge Street petition, I do think it will be the next council that will have to vote on that. which it's also what most of the critiques have been about. I have not heard those same critiques about the North Mass as one. I also want to speak briefly about the inclusionary zoning lawsuit, which has come up a bit in this conversation. I do not think it has been successful, but it's become a part of this conversation, so I wanted to talk about it. The lawsuit is by a right-wing think tank and a real estate developer, and I think it is the biggest rhetorical giveaway to Not In My Backyard advocates in Cambridge that we have seen in years. This is a great example of developers and NIMBYs actually having the same goals, which they do plenty of times.

And those goals are to build as little new affordable housing in Cambridge as possible and make sure that it's only a few well-connected developers who are able to get anything done in the city. If this lawsuit were to pass and eliminate inclusionary zoning, it would diminish the appetite for any zoning changes in Cambridge that would allow a greater variety of players to build in Cambridge. folks with real concerns. There are folks with real concerns about this lawsuit, and I'm not trying to cast aspersions about anyone in public comment tonight, to be clear. But this lawsuit is exactly what housing affordability opponents and zoning change opponents want. They want to be able to say, don't approve any new zoning reforms because it'll lead to no new affordable housing. They want this lawsuit to succeed so they can make that argument. It's also exactly what the small handful of well-connected real estate developers want. They want to be the only game in town. They want to make sure the rules continue to be rigged so that only they can succeed.

I don't want to guess at anyone in particular's intentions, but if I was a developer who wanted to kill these zoning petitions, the Cambridge Street zoning petition, the North Mass Ave zoning petition, this is exactly what I would do. I would file this lawsuit. so that I as a developer could be one of the only ones with the inside connections to get the planning board approvals, to get the BZA approvals, to keep developing projects in Cambridge like my current projects when all the other developments are blocked by RAID. I have no interest in playing into the tactics of folks who put forward this lawsuit if those tactics are try to keep our current rigged zoning that allows only developers who have inside connections and who can hire the right lawyers to go through all the Byzantine discretionary processes to get their approvals. I am not interested in being a defender of the current status quo, especially on North Mass Ave, and so excited to move forward with this petition to a second reading tonight. I yield back.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler yields the floor. Councilor Toner, then we'll hear from Councilor Azeem. Councilor Toner.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was going to say I agree with a lot of what Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler said until that whole last half. Being the councilor that lives on North Mass Ave., and actually I forget who my co-sponsors were a few years ago but was the one that brought in the policy order asking for us to have a process where we had a citizens committee review and make proposals and I want to thank the staff for the year or so that they worked on that North Mass Ave. And I wish we had done North Mass Ave before we did anything else, quite honestly, but it's now before us, so I look forward to voting for it. I'll just tell you a perfect example. At the top of my street, because I'm right on the Arlington line, me and my family and neighbors have been looking at an abandoned gas station for 35 years. And the person who owns that is the son of the man that owned the gas station, and he's just been sitting on it. Very nice man, but he's looking forward to possibly redeveloping it.

And just to caution people in Abe, what he's not talking about 10, 11, 12 stories. He's talking maybe six or seven stories of residential with commercial on the first floor. I agree with Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, there's a lot of property on North Mass Ave that is just one story, restaurants, small retail, et cetera. And just to calm people's fears, there's a lot of, Things that have to happen. First of all, the owners of those properties have to decide to sell them or get the financing to develop them. And as Assistant City Manager Peters, I think, said at the last meeting, this is going to be a... 20 year process of slow changes, but this is giving people the breathing room to think about the possibilities of what they could do with those properties between now and then. So I am very supportive of the North Mass Ave proposal. I also just want to reiterate again what Assistant City Manager Peters or maybe it was Vice Mayor McGovern

said with regard to Porter Square, I know a lot of people are concerned about the idea of 18 stories in Porter Square, you know, That's not just as of right, as was pointed out, they will have to file for a PUD with the city and negotiate and work with the city, but it will give people the ability to at least think about those concepts and what they could possibly do there. I look forward to a day when some of these properties get redeveloped and have the residential opportunities that we all believe they could have. and have active first floor use and make it a vibrant neighborhood. I've lived in my house for 50 years and I know some people are sick of hearing this story but My families lived in that house for 125 years. I remember when North Mass Ave was nothing but gas stations and liquor stores and small bars.

and there has been some change and there have been some improvements there are still a lot of gas stations only one liquor store and a few bars but there's still a lot of possibility for North Mass Ave and it is the gateway to our city from so many other places so I hope we can support North Mass Ave and on Cambridge Street We'll talk about it later, but myself and Councilor Wilson and Nolan have proposed reducing the height on the Inman Street proposal to eight stories as the tallest tight. I hope you'll support that to relieve some of the angst from folks in the Inman Square neighborhood to make it the same as the rest of Cambridge Street. But again, on Cambridge Street, I think there's a lot of opportunities. It's not going to happen overnight. It's going to be a slow process, and I hope we can pass it before the end of the term. Thank you, Madam Mayor Yield.

Councilor Nolan, Councilor Toner yields the floor. Councilor Azeem, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I wanted to bring up a few comments that we got during our last learning process that there was not design review or special permit for projects. Almost everything under this new zoning will be subject to design review and special permits. If neighbors don't like a particular building, they will have the opportunity to speak at a planning board and try to get the planning board to not approve a building. I've heard a lot of things tonight that these projects are by right. They are not by right. A lot of these projects are going to be big enough, almost all of them are going to be big enough to trigger special permits. And there has been no change to make special permits easier to get. There was concerns during the multifamily housing ordinance that some buildings would be smaller, that they would be built without inclusionary. All of these buildings will be built with inclusionary. and I heard a feedback that we should be doing our corridors this is a corridor focused rezoning so in some ways you know I think that there's other sorts of feedback we aren't doing this thing right this time and we will get to that in a second but also I want to say like

a lot of the feedback that we heard during the last zoning process we tried to incorporate into this and did not make changes to special permits or made everything have inclusionary and so it's always like a little bit of like a moving target that's kind of hard to figure out. I also want to say that there is a difference between Northern Mass Ave and Cambridge Street. I think that Northern Mass Ave had a working group that had to work through constraints. And so the zoning there is really good, and I think that will actually result in better outcomes. but it's always because you know when you just ask people what they want they will say you know I want a small building with first floor retail and also inclusionary units and also units in general and I don't want to have an impact and I would love it to have all these community benefits and a giant garden and the working group really was able to make trade-offs and say like if we want this we need these things and it really resulted in what I think is a really great zoning

I think that because of the Cambridge Street being a different process, we got zoning that is kind of in the middle of where everyone does, but it's really hard because I'm not sure it lands at any of those outcomes. And to get into Cambridge Street, we did get some initial zoning recommendations from the study. But in my opinion, they didn't really kind of fit together really well. But we did have multiple housing committee hearings. They did go to the full city council. We had multiple ordinance committee hearings including the last one which was mainly just public comment and we wanted to have another one so that people could give public comment again after the election even though there was one before it where they could have also given public comment. and now it's before us. And I think that there was a lot of changes we made to Cambridge Street that also made it more restrictive, right? We're talking now about adding a first floor retail requirement, which would be more restrictive than the current zoning on Cambridge Street. We're talking about, or we already made a change to make hotels not buy right, but still have special permit requirements.

And I didn't hear anyone say that, hey, you need to go and go back to the neighborhood and get all this community input to make changes to the hotel use because that was different than what the initial zoning was. And so I know that the height changes are different, but we can't say that any time that a city council has an input, we have to do a year and a half study again, otherwise it's not legitimate. You know, I think that in general we have a sense of like whenever we like something, we're like it has enough process and whenever you don't, it's like, you know, we need more process. But I think the merits matter. In general, on the petitions, I had an amendment with Councilors Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, and Siddiqui on both of them. I think that since we're taking petition by petition, I would love to move forward the one for the Mass Ave petition first. There was concern about inclusionary. If something happened to inclusionary, would these extra heights still be granted and we'd get taller buildings but without the inclusionary units?

These amendments just ensure that they are tied to an inclusionary density bonus so that if anything happened to inclusionary, you would not get the additional heights. And I think that they were sent to the clerk, so I would love to bring them forth.

Councilor Azeem is proposing an amendment. Ms. Stephan, do you have that so that can go up on the screen? And I think everyone should have a copy on their desk. Does everyone have a copy? Because I can't see what's behind me. So there's a motion by Councilor Azeem to amend 17.804.2.2. The amending language is before us. Discussion. Do you want to speak more to the amendment, Councilor Azeem, before I go to someone else?

I would just like staff to be able to speak to it if they want to describe how these amendments work.

Very good. Who's on first? Ms. Peters.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. So under this proposed amendment.

The 17804.2.2.

So this is for Mass Ave. Mm-hmm. Any building above eight stories or 85 feet would be required to have inclusionary zoning. This is regardless of the size threshold that exists regardless of this The height limit. So the inclusionary zoning currently says any project over 10,000 square feet or 10 units must have inclusionary zoning. This is to also say that any building over seven stories or 85 feet needs to have inclusionary zoning.

Is there any more to be added to that? Ms. Peters.

Through the mayor, in response to that question, I would just say that this is... This is wording that's similar to what was incorporated into the multifamily zoning, if the council recalls discussion around tying the building heights more explicitly to inclusionary housing. As Councillor Azeem was saying, it's a bit of an overlapping provision because most development at that scale would likely exceed the 10 unit and 10,000 square foot size threshold for inclusionary housing anyway. But this is just an additional bit of assurance that above a certain height, and this is basically would be above any height that is currently allowable under zoning, It would be more explicitly subject to inclusionary housing.

Any more discussion? Solicitor-Mayor?

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I'll just add that I think this is permissible change at this stage in the process because it's within the... The scope of the petition is not a change to the fundamental character because where the petition is allowing extra height beyond what is currently allowed, this is just adding a condition to that extra height. It's not exceeding Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

So what's before us now is this amendment. Is there any further discussion on this amendment? Councilor Zusy.

Through you, Madam Mayor. But what isn't defined is, of course, we don't know what the inclusionary rate will be. It's 20% now, but it could be 13% or 10%. So that X is not defined. So again, I think this is a good amendment. My concern is that we won't know how this lawsuit plays out probably for two years, so we won't know what inclusionary rate we're committing to. and also we won't even we won't be hearing from the consultant who will be advising us about the inclusionary rate until June of next year right so So we'll know we'll get something in exchange for the height with these amendments, right? Councilor Azeem, explain. Don't give me that look.

So we'll get something, but we don't know what it is that we'll be getting, right? Because the rate is 20% today. It could be 10% in June. It could change dramatically, right?

I think that Solicitor Behr, now that you want to hear from Councilor Azeem, Solicitor Behr would like to edify us on that. So, Solicitor Behr, if you'd like to weigh in on this, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you, just to jump in. So because the language here says you'll comply with all the inclusionary requirements and That means that as of today, you would comply with 20% because that's the inclusionary requirement in section 11.203. After the council has received the results of the next inclusionary housing nexus study and determined whether that will result in a change to what the percentage is, You wouldn't have to make any amendments to this section because it would just incorporate whatever the changes were in section 11.203. And then also just to clarify, There is pending litigation, as the council is well aware, but that litigation isn't seeking to change the percentage.

That is sort of more broadly challenging the inclusionary housing provisions on a whole. The top variable that could change the percentage is the NEXUS study that Community Development Department is undertaking right now and will come back to the Council on. and also just to say for the record that we are vigorously defending that lawsuit, that the inclusionary housing ordinance is A valid constitutional act of the City Council, and we don't know how long it will take to see that lawsuit through, but we are vigorously defending it.

Thank you. That's good to hear. I was talking to a lawyer today who was saying that there are very good lawyers that are at the pioneer level. Law Fund. So anyway, I'm glad we've got great lawyers on our team.

Thank you.

Thank you. Just on the amendment to clarify, if, as we know, it stays at 20%, then nothing changes. But whatever is in the section 11.203, that's what we'll... Why wouldn't we want to instead, would it be possible to do incentive zoning so that it requires to say, if you go above, It's incentive zoning. It's not tied to inclusionary, but it has to have 20% affordable as an incentive zoning. in exchange for being able to go that extra height. Is that a feasible alternative to this through you to our city solicitor?

Madam Solicitor, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, and maybe Assistant City Manager Peters can jump in because I'm not sure I fully understand. This is saying if you want this additional height, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. the development is in terms of square feet, whether it meets the 10,000 square foot threshold or not.

May I clarify?

Let me hear from her and then I'll come back to you. If you understood the question, my question is why not just have 20% and not refer to inclusionary and just say it's 20% if you go above?

Because that's what we currently have and what we would like. Yeah, I think it's important to have the NEXUS study to really understand The nexus and the rough proportionality. And then we can think through the policy discussion of what that percentage should be. And that could be different tiers based on heights. So that's something that is to come. Mr. City Manager.

Through you, Mayor Simmons. I mean, I think Councilor Nolan, it does probably, there's probably flexibility and it's the will of the council in terms of what to put in, whether to tie it to the current inclusionary housing requirement or to put a specific number in. My guess would be in terms of flexibility, given where the current Nexus study is, it would be difficult to go above 20%. but you could say 20%, you could say less than that. I think tying it to the inclusionary housing requirement may just create more consistency across the zoning since, That's essentially where we've pegged the bonus and it probably makes it easier for the broader zoning to stay consistent in terms of there being one inclusionary requirement across the code. I'm seeing some nodding. Johnson-Dolan.

I understand that. I'm just worried that if inclusionary goes down, then everything has to go down. And if instead it's incentive zoning, we can say it's not inclusionary, it's not related to a nexus study. If you want to have this extra height, you have to have 20%. So, I mean, I can support this because it seems, but I would much rather have a specific number if we could do that with incentive zoning completely untied to inclusionary for two reasons. One, we have a nexus study. It may well come in below, which would be hard to justify, and we have a lawsuit pending. In my mind, I was just wondering whether that would just obviate the need for even worrying about the lawsuit.

Solicitor Behr, did you want to talk to this or Mr. Roberts?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think between the law department and CDD, we can Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council tied it to the inclusionary requirements in 11.203, and we wanted to explore doing something different in the future. That could be a possibility.

Councilor Nolan, excuse me. You'll look. Further discussion? Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Again, just building on Councilor Nolan's idea. So if after we receive the Nexus, if we set a number, and after we receive the Nexus study, we think the number should be lower, we could always... amend the ordinance, right? We could change it on the basis of the Nexus study in June if we wanted to, right? That's a question for the city solicitor.

Madam Solicitor?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, you can change the inclusionary requirements based on the new Nexus study or potentially make other changes after we see what that study says. Councilor Zusy.

Yeah, so I think it's a good idea.

Are you yielding the floor? Councilor Zusy yields the floor. Anyone that has not spoken on this item that'd like to speak to it? Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks, I just wanted to clarify, and I should have asked this before because I'm a co-sponsor on it, but the seven stories and 85 feet is... That's everything above the current zoning. The current zoning is up to 85. Okay, great, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. The multifamily housing goes up to six, but these quarters were already seven stories. Okay, great, thank you. I go back.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler yields the floor for the discussion. Councilor Wilson.

Madam Mayor, thank you. And through you, I just wanted to say that this conversation has been really tough, right? And I think as we continue to have it, we'll continue to talk about just where we need to be. With it, I think it's important that we're looking at the inclusionary, and obviously I've never been a fan of us dropping what that number is, but I recognize where we are in litigations over and how long that may take, but I think respectfully, We need to be able to do what is right and move forward respectfully to what we also have in the pipeline of projects as well. So I would support this amendment here, but I'm also going to excuse myself because I'm coughing up a lot and I just, you know, I don't know. What's going on? But I don't want anybody else to catch it. No, not that bad.

So Councilor Wilson would like to vote this before she has to leave the floor and give us her call.

and I'm going to join online. So thank you and have a good night.

Thank you, Councilor Wilson. Councilor Wilson yields the floor. So further discussion on the amendment being offered by Councilor Azeem. Hearing none, I'll ask for the roll.

Azeem, Vice-Mayor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Siddiqui, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Toner, Councilor Wilson, Councilor Zusy, Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the amendment passes on the affirmative vote of nine members. So the vice mayor, we now have at least number eight amended. By Councilor Azeem, which preceded your amendment. And so we had the amendment and the amendment. Are you ready to call? I think so.

So I think we're still at the point where now we can, if people still have things they want to say about the amended petition. When we're done with that discussion, Madam Mayor, then I can move. So this is the second reading as amended.

This is the petition that has been brought before us by substitution that has now been amended twice, amended by Councilor Azeem and then by the Vice Mayor. Is there further discussion on the petition, the substitute petition as amended. Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So again, I feel as though I appreciate all the work done on this petition and I appreciate the All of the amendments, new and old, because I think that they've made it a better petition. But I still... question, especially when the percentage of inclusionary We could be lowering it in June. And because of the lawsuit, I feel as though we should wait to find out What the consultant recommends before proceeding with this upzoning, because I feel like what I'm worried about is giving away the farm. I feel as though the whole reason that the motivation for doing the upzoning is to build more affordable units, right?

Isn't that why we're hoping to get some inclusionary units? But we may not in the end get very many inclusionary units at all. And because while Councilor Azeem says that, Most projects will have some sort of review. You only have special permit review if it's 75,000 square feet, so that's a really big project. So most projects or many... will not have special permit review and will be as of right. And so, again, I feel like the... Height should be along the corridors. I want it out of the neighborhoods. But I feel as though the number... as of right number should be lower so that we can negotiate community benefits because we're gonna want open space. We're gonna want, I want parking. We're going to want cultural space.

We're going to want infrastructure improvements. We're going to need other community benefits. So I worry about if by... approving North Mass Ave being 10, 12, 15, and 18 stories, and I realize the PUD is 18 stories, so just let's talk about 10, 12, and 15 stories. We're not necessarily, we don't even know how many, What percentage of inclusionary we're going to get out of that? And by setting the numbers so high, we don't have as much negotiating room. I want us to have more room to negotiate. I would like to give away less. You know, say, I realize that we've just upzoned, so we're up to six stories. We don't know what the impact is. We also know that when we change the zoning all the time, Developers hope we're going to change it some more and they're not going to do anything until they know they can get the biggest bang for their buck

I think it's premature. I think we're pushing this forward too fast. And I also think we should fix the petitions with some of the... Thank you. We should figure out active first floor retail use. I think... I think the community, I think we should have more community engagement. I think the people that were speaking about Inman Square tonight, still aren't happy, even at eight stories, they're not happy with the zoning proposed for Inman Square. So I just think it makes sense to slow down.

Why don't we have the newly elected council decide on this and let's, Let's wait to hear what the consultant says relating to the NEXUS study and inclusionary before upzoning so much and having so little wiggle room to negotiate community benefits. That's what I think. Thank you.

I yield. Councilor Susi yields the floor for the discussion. Councilor, before I go, is there anyone that has not been heard? Councilor Siddiqui, do you want to be? Heard on this? You had not spoken on it. I just want to make sure, if you want to be heard, I would go to you before I go to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Actually, I can move for suspension to bring forward the two policy orders we have. So that we can have them before us.

I think that makes a lot of sense and we don't have to go back and forth. If you would demur for a moment, Councilor. So Councilor Siddiqui is moving to suspend the rules. That's our first order.

And to bring forward a policy order. Can I get it? Three and four.

Okay, so on suspension.

Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Siddiqui, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Toner, Councilor Wilson.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We are now in suspension, and I think your recommendation was to bring Policy Orders 3 and 4? I'm bringing policy orders three and four before us. Roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

So Policy Order 3 and 4 are now before us. I'm just going to read them briefly for people that may be tuning in. Number three is that the city manager is requesting to direct the community development department and law department. to prepare a draft of a separate zoning petition to strengthen active use requirements on Cambridge Street in Porter Square PUD sub-districts for sites that redevelop as single parcels. That's three. And four is that the city, and that was being offered by Councilor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councilor Azeem, and Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. The fourth item, policy order, is that the city managers requested to instruct the Community Development Department to reduce the recommendations for the Inman Square Zoning Subdistrict, CAM-10, From a maximum of 10 stories to 8 stories with the ground floor active use retail as consistent with the majority of the Cambridge Street corridor that's being offered by Councilor Toner, Councilor Nolan, and Councilor Wilson, though both before us. Floor is now open.

Do you want to speak to these at all, Councilor, before I go to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler?

I'll yield to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler because it was related to the previous point.

Councilor Siddiqui yields to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, the floor is yours.

Thanks. Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on Councilor Zusy's points and ask a couple clarifying questions to just try to understand this because there's sort of critiques here and trying to actually understand the critiques are and I don't mean these as gotcha questions I would really like to understand I think just trying to understand So like one of your objections here was around the potential change in inclusionary housing. So I guess interested if 20% gets uphold in the lawsuit, if the study comes back and could say, you know, keep doing 20% affordable housing. I guess the next time there's a proposal that comes up that allows 20% affordable housing that would be in upzoning, would you support that? And then the second question I had was, Again, just thinking back to the multifamily housing ordinance, that was about the neighborhoods. I think at that time you're saying, let's focus on the corridors. Now we're talking about the corridors.

and I hear you saying, we shouldn't do this by right, these are the corridors in the Cambridge, we should keep it discretionary, shouldn't do this by right either. So just trying to understand, are there any other than Alewife and Cambridge Crossing, are there any? Are there any parts of the city that you would support more housing by right? And if so, what does that look like? Just trying to understand. Would you support the next one if we can keep 20% and where would you support more as of right housing?

So Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, through the chair, asks of Councilor Zusy, do you understand the question? Yeah, I do. Then the floor is yours.

What's interesting is that I actually would support lowering inclusionary if we weren't giving so much upzoning along the corridors. And I wouldn't lower inclusionary for multifamily housing projects because I feel like we already gave developers, we gave them three more floors, we gave them FAR to the Mac, We gave them no setbacks. We reduced open space requirements. I feel like we already gave multifamily housing developers a lot of bonuses. So I don't have sympathy for lowering inclusionary for multifamily housing projects. But along the corridor, actually, I would have some sympathy. I've been hearing from developers, too, and I... Understand that the numbers aren't penciling out and I could understand

I think it could make sense to lower inclusionary, but I wouldn't lower inclusionary and give them all these heights. To me, that's giving away too much. Because I don't believe that just producing luxury housing is going to reduce the cost of housing in Cambridge when it costs $800,000 or a million dollars to produce a unit. I don't think housing is going to become less expensive. I don't think Cambridge is going to become more affordable if we have buildings that are 15 stories on... North Mass Ave. I mean, in Vancouver, they did build taller buildings. They did upzone, and the cities only become more expensive. So I feel like we shouldn't be... Lowering inclusionary and giving developers huge bonuses in height.

So if we do keep the 20% affordable, you would support the next upzoning?

Not always as of right. I've always said that I feel like after Six stories, seven stories, like 50,000 square feet, there should be project review. I'm really concerned about there not being project review. And I've been told by a very experienced urban planner that you almost always get a better building from project review. It can be annoying, but then you can work to make a building work for the site. So without project review, and I know we have guidelines, but they're different. They're design guidelines and they're voluntary. You don't have the same control over making sure that a building works for the community. So that's my concern. I feel like we're... I understand...

The council's or many people on the council's desire to build more housing with the belief that abundant housing will lower the cost of housing, but I believe that's false. I feel like that's a false narrative. but I am committed to figuring out, I mean, I do, I'm very committed to figuring out how we can build housing, social housing and more affordable housing that I think is likely to be, either on the corridors or on the transition lot setting envision Cambridge identified underutilized lots where you could build a really big project. where you wouldn't have such a negative impact. You could have, if you have a larger lot, you could have more setbacks It would be less disruptive. It could be more in keeping with neighborhoods if you focus your energy there. So does that explain? No, that's super helpful. Thank you. I disagree with a lot of it.

Council, council, hold on. Are you yielding the floor, Councilor? I yield. Okay, so Councilor Zusy threw the chair back to you, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, and now the floor is yours.

Thank you, Nova. That's super helpful. I disagree with a lot of it, but it's sort of helpful to understand the framing. We'll just say this does have project review after 50,000 square feet. We have that here, but we'll yield back. Thanks.

Okay, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Wheeler yields the floor. Who have we not heard from? I know you have your hand up, Councilor. Before I go, I just want to see if Councilor Azeem, Toner, the Vice Mayor, or Councilor Siddiqui want to speak on this.

Oh, excuse me, Madam Mayor, I'll go last because I have to call the vote.

Okay, very good. I'm ready to move forward, Madam Mayor. I obviously support the motion I made about eight stories in Inman. We heard last week when it came to Cambridge Street, people were concerned about losing retail space or active use space, so I can support that as well. Thank you.

Very good. Councilor Toney, Councilor Siddiqui, do you want anything?

I'll just say that on the policy room number three, this was pending from a conversation, conversations from last week, and I think... We wanted to go ahead and prepare that separate zoning petition to strengthen active use requirements and worked with CDD and my colleagues on that. So it's, I think, pretty straightforward. I think this is separate from potential future policy orders around kind of What we do when there are redevelopments and businesses are being displaced because I want to acknowledge we heard Simons, and I think the developers have said we want you to come back. But it's a little bit of a separate issue and I think we've talked about that as well. I think there needs to be some further analysis and research on what we can even do there and require

But we wanted to bring this in because it's pending from an issue we heard. So I'll yield on that. And on the positive form, I've been on the record saying I'm supportive of, I was supportive of the Cambridge Street Study, I'm supportive of the going to eight stories, so.

Ayoel, thank you. Councilor Siddiqui yields the floor now. Councilor Nolan, do you still like to speak on this?

Yeah, so are we only talking about... Northern Mass Ave, I'm just trying to understand what I may and may not speak to.

We're talking about everything and nothing. So there's a number of things. Yes, we have eight and nine in front of us. We have two amendments, one from Councilor Azeem, one from the Vice Mayor. We now have Policy Order 3 and 4 in front of us, and we are talking about all of it.

Okay, so I can talk about both Mass Ave and Cambridge Street. I just wanted to, because I wasn't sure. Okay, so I'm excited about these petitions. They, you know, quarters and squares are something we've talked about. I do still have some concerns about them. I agree with Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler that I definitely think Cambridge Street we need a little more time on. There's some really good changes under consideration. I support both of these policy orders that the changes should happen, the active use for Porter Square as well as Cambridge Street. The reference to the lack of community process that is authentic and robust and transparent gives me some pause. But I also agree Mass Ave is different from Cambridge Street. It actually had a community process. It did end up in 11 stories, not 12 stories, so I'm more comfortable with that. I don't think they agreed on 18 stories in Porter Square. The lawsuit is definitely something that concerns me. It may not work, but it seems like it may.

And so I want us to consider other changes to ensure that if inclusionary goes away or even goes down that we can still require affordable with some kind of incentive zoning. I am confident that if we just take a little more time, greater height will be approved. Nobody is saying no height. It's only a matter of Gee, should it be 8 stories or 12 stories or 6 stories or 10 stories? Nobody's saying keep it at 4 or keep it at 6 on Mass Ave., and we've really heard that quite consistently from everyone. So neither petition expires until the end of January and I do feel strongly we owe it to the two new members of the council to allow them to have an actual say on how we move forward. and given that we heard from the Housing Justice Coalition and a number of neighbors who aren't asking to stop the upzoning but are asking to take more time to do it right.

So between that and wanting the two new members of a seat at the table, I'm happy to support going forward, but I would want us to make sure that we do this the right way, which for me would be making sure that we do it in January. We have the final ordination in January, not in the next two weeks.

Are you yielding the floor? Councilman Nolan yields the floor. Just a couple of things. One of the things that has come up repeatedly seems to be people not having enough opportunity to weigh in. and one thing that I think we may have to get is a report from our Office of Community Engagement because if it's about people not hearing and being able to weigh in appropriately We're talking about zoning petitions, so I'll stick to the zoning petitions. Then maybe it's a time that we have Full conversation about what does community engagement look like and how do we make sure that we see more of it because it's a repeated theme. People saying they don't hear enough. We're saying they don't hear enough. So I think we need to be a little bit more intentional about what our community engagement looks like. So I'm going to yield the floor on that, and I'm going to turn it back to the Vice Mayor. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilor Azeem, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I'll just take 30 seconds and say that It takes five votes to pass something to a second reading. I would love to pass these to a second reading today. That doesn't affect when the final vote is, whether it's this term or next term. It seems like there might be a majority to just vote for Northern Mass out this term. I would support that. On Cambridge Street, I would be fine with voting it this term. I would say that I'd also be fine with voting it next term if that's the will, and we can do that after we get through Northern Mass Ave. But I would say that what I would have a struggle, hard time with is policy order four is a compromise on Cambridge Street. It's a compromise I would support, but I don't want it to be, I vote for a compromise, and then we don't vote on it this term, and then there's a new council, and then they want to compromise again. So I would say that either we're going to compromise this term and then vote for it, or we're not going to compromise right now. Instead, the next term will compromise. And so I think that either of those would be fine for Cambridge Street.

I would love to just vote on Northern Mass Ave and then we can have the discussion about Cambridge Street.

I yielding. Councilor Azeem yields the floor.

Now. Vice Mayor. Now. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you. Just a couple quick comments before I read my script here. As far as what we heard and the concerns raised about the lawsuit and that we should wait until the lawsuit is resolved, Zusy said she expects two years. I hope it's just two years. We just went through Vail Court, which was a much more straightforward lawsuit on a very small lot that took eight years. So I'm not interested in necessarily waiting until the lawsuit gets resolved if we're looking at potentially, because I think you could be looking at appeals and appeals and, you know, so. It could take a lot longer, and that worries me. As far as the point of... The community process piece. I think you're right, Madam Mayor.

I think we have to have some discussion as a community about what are the expectations around a community process. because we do go through this a lot, and people say they want this, this, and this, and they don't want this, this, and this, and other people say something different, and then recommendations come forward, and I think sometimes people feel that that if the outcome isn't what they advocated for in the community process, then the community process didn't happen or fail. A community process does not mean that we're going to land in the place that you as a specific individual wants. And I think, you know, if this were a People said during public comment, you need to listen to who are you working for, and you need to listen to the constituents. This is not, you know, when we're talking about Thank you.

Thank you. Half the people that don't like it, and there's half the people that do like it. Many people in the community are saying this is a good thing and actually want us to go further. So they don't count? They're not community members that we should listen to? Because we may be listening to them, we're not listening to the community? This is the problem when it's a hard decision. So I don't want anyone to think that we're not listening. Listening and agreeing are different things. I mean, if you even look at these two policy orders, They're here because we listened to people during the ordinance committee meeting who said ten stories in Inman Square is too tall.

Now, it's already six stories. So if they're not going to accept anything other than six stories, then what's the point of having a compromise because that's what it is already? A compromise is some people wanted 10 or more, some people wanted four or six, or some people wanted six, we're settling at eight. So we do listen. We listen during multi-family housing. The AHO had, what was it, 47 or something amendments to it the first time we passed it. So I really don't want people to walk away and think that we're not listening. Every ordinance comes out different than how it goes in because we listen. And I really hope people appreciate that and realize that. I do have a question, real quick question for CDD. Because again, we heard during public, and this may just seem like semantics, but I think it's important.

We heard during public comment people saying that if we pass the Cambridge Street petition that we will be allowing 8 to 18 story buildings along Cambridge Street. Now, when I hear that, I picture in my head you could have 25 18-story buildings all along Cambridge Street. That's not what we're talking about. The 15 stories and the 18 stories are on specific parcels, and there's only a couple of them. So I just want to make sure that we're clear on that, because if I don't think I would want 18 stories all along Cambridge Street either necessarily, but that's not what we're talking about. So can you just clarify? the heights that we're talking about and where we're talking about them. And Vice Chair, you're asking that of Ms. Peters or? Assistant Manager Peters. Okay, sure.

Assistant City Manager Peters. The majority of Cambridge Street, I'd say, 90% is currently at eight stories. Inman Square goes up to 10 unless this policy order gets adopted. That would bring that to eight. There's a small... Webster-Windsor triangle parcel that can go up to 12, which was consistent with the Our Cambridge Street Planning Study, so that did not change after council committee hearings. And then There's another parcel near Lechmere that could go up to 15 stories, which is on O'Brien Highway. and so it's very compatible to additional height there. But I would say 90% of the corridor is at eight stories.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. And it's at six now and we would be going to eight.

Just to clarify, you mentioned people were saying 18 stories. 18 stories is not contemplated anywhere on Cambridge Street.

Okay, so I just wanted to clarify that because, again, I think these things are confusing. you know under the best of circumstances so we just want to make sure we get the facts out there and then lastly madam mayor in terms of waiting the question about waiting until next term you know I have sort of mixed feelings about that I can certainly understand that Hey, you know, we're so close to the end of the term and let's let the two new members have a say in this. The flip side to that is We should own this as a council. I mean, we put this forward with the city. We've been doing the work on it. It's going to be a controversial vote. And I would be concerned of setting up the new members. If we're going to delay it, and it's going to extend, we're going to let it expire. That's a different conversation. But if we're going to vote for it before it expires,

I don't want to set the new members up to have a controversial vote hanging around their neck for the rest of their political life for something that they haven't been involved in. That's not really fair to them either. I think there is also a case to be made that this council owns it, good or bad. We should vote on it. We've been doing the work. If we let it expire, that's another ballgame. So to advance the conversation and the vote. Yep, so now, make sure I get this right, Madam Clerk, jump in and correct me if I'm wrong. First thing we should do is to We have to refer the committee report 1A by substitution as amended.

So you're going to refer the substitution as amended to committee report number 1A and place that on file.

Yes. And this is, again, this is not sending it to a second reading yet. No. It's a separate vote. It is not.

Okay, so we have the language. There's a motion by the vice mayor. Roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the matter is adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to the next item. Vice Mayor Flores-Jones.

Madam Mayor. Sorry, could I jump in with a piece? Point of information? It is a motion. I could yield the floor just for a moment. Vice Mayor? Yeah, go ahead. Vice Mayor Yields. So policy order four around reducing the height before us, and it's a new item. I just want to charter right that to delay it until the next meeting.

So Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler exercises his charter right. and number four, it's now off the table. Cannot be discussed nor voted on. Back to the Vice Mayor.

Madam Mayor, question through you to the City Clerk. Madam Clerk. Policy order number four has been chartered. Number three... Which is both for Cambridge Street and Porter Square. Should we vote that now so that when I pass to a second reading as amended, it includes that policy order?

I can defer to the clerk. I think that you should do that, but you want to ask Megan? Madam Solicitor, we have some sausage for you to pull apart and put back together again.

So I think that since policy order number three is asking for some amendments to the... It's to streamline the permitting process. Separate, okay, separate. Okay, so we don't have to do that now. All right.

So did you answer your question? I think so. Do you want to respond to that, Councilor Azeem? You had your hand up.

Okay, I got it. I just wanted to make sure we were doing this the right way.

Vice Mayor, we have another hand if I think that's relative to number three.

This is a point of... Point of information? Yeah.

Order?

Point of order on the Inman Square, eight stories, number four. It was already on the floor.

You can't talk about number four. The Charter Right's been exercised.

Well, I'm asking whether he can properly Charter Right that.

It's new. I think, well, let's ask the solicitor. It looks like it's, I took it as a new item. If it's a new item, you can exercise your charter right. If it's not, the solicitor deems that's not a new item, then the charter right would not hold. So I'm going to go to the solicitor.

but we were actively discussing it and he jumped into the middle of it and then chartered it.

Because our colleague was gracious enough to yield the floor and he exercised his charter right. Madam Solicitor, am I batting, am I rolling in the right direction?

To you, Madam Mayor, you can exercise your charter right at any time during discussion up until there's a vote called on motion.

So I was correct. He has the ability to exercise his job right. Any further discussion, council?

Back to you. So on city manager agenda item number eight, as amended to pass to a second reading. Discussion? No.

Roll call. Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toner, Wilson, Wilson.

No.

No. Councilor Zusy.

No.

No. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have six members recorded in the affirmative and three recorded in the negative.

And the item passes on the affirmative vote of, I think it was six members? Six members. One voting, one absent and two in the negative? No, three in the negative. Three in the negative.

Six in the affirmative and three in the negative. Wilson. Councilor Wilson didn't answer the first one.

Oh, okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. So now city manager agenda item number nine. Mm-hmm. The question, we've already sort of discussed it, so if there's no further discussion, we would move to amend the petition by substitution and refer to the committee report 1B.

So you want to amend the petition? Yes. The first being he's amending the petition by substitution, so we'll take that up first. On amending the petition by substitution, is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call. Oh, sorry, looking down. On the amendment.

Point of information, Madam Mayor. So with Cambridge Street, isn't it 8 and 10 stories and then 12 at Webster and... Windsor. Isn't it 8, 10? Wasn't it originally 10 if you had first floor retail, but now is it 8 has... Did I... Is there a 10 or not a 10? Assistant City Manager Peters?

Yeah, thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, 10 stories... with active ground floor retail in Inman Square. That's the only location. The rest of the corridor, was eight, except for Webster-Windsor was 12, and then the Lechmere area was 15.

Got it.

Thank you for that.

I yield.

Councilor Sussi yields the floor for the discussion. Hearing none, Vice Mayor, back to you. Are you going to? We need a vote on amending the petition by substitution. We're going to amend the petition by substitution?

Yes.

Roll call.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, Councilor Toner, yes, yes, Councilor Wilson, yes, Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. And the petition is amended by substitution, Vice Mayor.

Madam Mayor, next motion is to refer the amended petition to Committee Report 1B and place on file.

on roll call.

Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? No. No. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded in the negative.

And the petition as amended is being referred to report 1B and placed on file? Yes. And placed on file by the affirmative vote of eight members, one voting in the negative. Yes.

And finally, Madam Mayor, motion to pass city manager agenda item number nine as amended to a second reading. Discussion? Hearing none.

Discussion? Councilor Nolan.

I just want to reiterate, I'm really excited about moving these forward, and yet I really want the new council to be voting on it. So that's the only reason I'm saying let's not move it to a second reading, let's hold that off. But I really look forward to and hopefully discussing and maybe being able to support these soon.

Any further discussion? I mean, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Nolan yields the floor for further discussion.

Just to remind folks that even if we pass these to a second reading, does not mean, tonight, does not mean that they're gonna be voted on this term. So you can pass them to a second reading. It keeps that option alive, but it does not mean it's gonna be voted on this calendar year.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, I'm passing to a second reading.

As amended.

As amended, thank you. Azeem, Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, No, Councilor Siddiqui, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Councilor Toner, Yes, Councilor Wilson, No. No. Councilor Zusy?

No.

No. Mayor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. And you have six members recorded in the affirmative and three recorded in the negative.

And the matter as amended is passed to a second meeting on the affirmative vote of six. Six. Six members. Three in the negative. Vice Mayor, now the committee reports. Excuse me. Committee reports. Wasn't that part of- The last page. The last page, yeah. on placing committee report number one, accepting the report and placing it on file. You brought it forward with... as a part of the discussion. So that's the last thing that is left to do. It's committee report number one on the committee list. The vice mayor moves to accept the report and place on the files. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. On accepting the report and placing on file, roll call please. Councilor Azeem.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Committee report is placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. This concludes the City Manager's agenda. We will now move to the policy order and resolution list. What is the pleasure of the City Council?

Wait a minute. There's something else that we have to make sure. You still have policy number three. We didn't act on that one.

On policy order number three. I thought we did. On policy order number three, Vice Mayor moves the adoption. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll do a roll call.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, Councilor Toner, yes, Councilor Wilson,

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Number three is adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. Now we can go to... The rest of the policy order and resolution list. What is the pleasure of the City Council? Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. Number one and two.

Madam Mayor, number six.

Number seven.

Anything else? On the balance, there's on a motion by the Vice Mayor to adopt number five and number eight. Roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the policy order is adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. We now go back to the... Non-consent agenda. First item was number one, pulled by Councilor Nolan, reads as follows. That the City Mayor is requested to work with all relevant departments, boards, and commissions to strive to publish wherever practicable. Meeting agendas and all supporting documents, presentations, and related materials sufficiently in advance of public meetings to allow residents time to review and prepare. This is pulled by Councilor Nolan. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I really appreciate this policy order and I pulled it partly to say how important it was to do and also just ask to be added.

Any further discussion? Okay, right now there's an amendment which is being offered by the Councilor Nolan which is to be added. Are you talking to the amendment?

Yeah, I'd like to be added too.

Okay, so there's an amendment by Councilor Nolan and then another one by Councilor Zusy to be added. Any other questions, amendments, additions, or deletions? Hearing none on the amendment, I'm going to take them jointly now since it's a crime to add Councilor Nolan and Councilor Zusy. Roll call, please.

Councilor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the policy order is amended. On the policy order as amended, Madam Clerk, roll call. Councilor Azeem.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes, Councilor Toner. Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

False. The order is adopted as amended by the affirmative vote of nine members. We'll go to number two. This is pulled by Councilor Nolan. Read as follows. that the city managers requested to work with the Community Development Department and the Inspectional Services Department staff to re-streamline the permitting process, included but not limited to creating a central role dedicated to the permitting process the creation of a unified online permitting portal and standardized timelines. This is pulled by Councilor Nolan. Councilor Nolan, you have the floor.

Thank you. Once again, this is something I have worked on for a while in various means, and as I mentioned, it was a big topic at the National League of Cities for a range of I'd love to be added. I appreciate Councilor Azeem and Zusy and Toner and McGovern for sponsoring it and want to note that while this is about permitting, I think there's also work in some other areas of the city as well to us to speed up and make it easier both for our staff and for the community like in licensing and other places. I know this is limited to permitting, but I look forward to having a robust discussion and having the council and the community be involved in doing everything we can to make our processes more efficient, which I think will help a lot in a range across the city. So did you say you wouldn't be added?

On the amendment, any discussion?

Hearing none, roll call. Councilor Azeem? Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The policy order is amended by the affirmative vote. of nine members on the policy order as amended. Roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The policy order is adopted as amended by the affirmative vote of nine members. Number three has been discharged. Sobrinho-Wheeler exercised his charter right. We'll move now to number six. This is pulled by Councilor Toner. It reads as follows. Home rule petition for a real estate transfer fee.

Councilor Toner, the floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just pulled it so that I could be recorded as a no when we vote on it.

Any further discussion? Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor. I would like to be added. The Vice Mayor is wanting to amend to be added as a co-sponsor. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, on the amendment, roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner. No. No.

Yes for the amendment, sorry.

Yes, yes for this. Councilor Toner is recorded as yes. Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Policy order number six has been amended by the affirmative vote of nine members. Now on the policy order as amended. Well, a discussion, yes.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. So it seems like a good idea. I actually would be curious to hear from Councilor Toner as to why he objects to this. I wonder, do we need to specify that this would be for all properties, commercial and residential, or would it automatically be that? And do we have a sense for what sort of number we'd be seeking? So I was looking, I guess, Middlesex County. Excuse me. Mass already takes $2.28 per $500 of property value. So would we be taking like 0.5%, 0.2%? So I'm eager to hear. more about what this might be and why someone might object to this. Thank you, I yield.

So, Councilor Zusy, through the chair, has a question to Councilor Toner as to why you're not voting for this Councilor Toner.

I'm just opposed to an additional property tax when you sell your property. And none of those questions she just asked are being answered at this time.

Councilor Toner, are you yielding the floor? Go ahead and go back to Councilor Susie who still has the floor. Councilor Susie, do you have the floor?

I do. I'm hoping someone here, perhaps the sponsor. There's nobody here. I guess I'm eager for the sponsor, one of the sponsors, to talk a little bit more specifically about what this entails.

The lead sponsor is Councilor Nolan, Councilor Nolan, so... Zuzi through the chair, ask Councilor Nolan to give the rationale for this item. So the floor is yours, Councilor Nolan.

Through you, Mayor Simmons, to Councilor Zuzi and to and others who may be interested. The reason this was put forward and the reason there's not specificity in it partly is that the council in the past actually had approved a real estate transfer fee home rule petition. and the intent of the policy order is to use that framework that was in that home rule petition that had passed by this council. It just expired in the legislative session. Zuzi's question about someone might buy in favor of it or opposed to it, it is an additional fee that would be charged. And the reason this is being brought forward is that it's a fee that's charged When you sell the house, it's not, for instance, raising real estate taxes for people living in the city. This was when it was first proposed. It certainly would apply to residential and to commercial, and it was-

Viewed as anywhere from 30 to 70 million dollars given the real estate Transfers that happen in Cambridge it could raise and that would be only on properties above we would set it it would be up to the council to set it and often it's 1%, perhaps, or 2%, but maybe 1%, and only on properties that sell for more than $2 million, so that protects certainly anyone in the city who has a condo or anything else. So it is in that, through you again, Mayor Simmons, to Councilor Zusy. That is the expectation, is that the city, since we included the link to the home rule petition from 2020, I hope the law office, if they're listening or as they read the notes from the meeting, will understand that the expectation is that it will be based on that home rule petition, which had already been passed and was before the legislature and then has now... become moot because the legislature failed to act on it during a prior session. I don't know if any of the other co-sponsors want to add too. I think Councilor Siddiqui might want to.

To any of the other co-sponsors, either Councilor Siddiqui or Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler want to speak to this? Councilor Siddiqui, floor is yours.

Sure, through you, Madam Mayor, and to my colleague, I'll say, and I'm happy to forward this to you, Councilor Zusy, there's a group, there's a whole coalition that's been working on this for many years from folks in Boston, Somerville, Concord, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, Amherst, Chatham, Western Mass and Brookline and I may have left others out but there's Which one? Of course, us. But we're a part of this kind of coalition doing this work. I think really this has been a multi-year effort and this is like the closest it's Ben, and I think to Councilor Nolan's point around each community will be able to decide for themselves kind of

What is best and there's a lot of there's more details but right now it's just we needed to do this at this time because of how the legislature works, but we're happy to forward you a lot of the body of work that this coalition has been a part of.

Yeah, thank you so much. That's really helpful. And it seems like a good idea because a lot of properties will be changing hands in the next 10, 15 years. So this would be a great source of funding for affordable housing or social housing, any sort of housing. Thank you, I yield.

Does the floor have any further discussion on this item? Then they'll make a motion to adopt the order. As amended. As amended. Because it's to add whatever we were adding. So on the policy order as amended, Rocco.

Councilor Azeem. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yep. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. The matter is amended and on the policy order.

We just did that. We did? Yes. Councilor Toner is requesting unanimous consent to be recorded in the negative. So on unanimous consent, roll call. Sorry, I just have to write it. Yeah, take your time. We have to midnight.

Councilor Azeem? Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yes, Councilor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Unanimous consent is approved by the affirmative vote of nine members. Councilor Toner, how do you want to be recorded? Let the record show that Councilor Toner is voting no on number six on the home rule petition for real estate transfer. That is done. Does that conclude everything on number six, Madam Clerk? Then we are going to move to number seven. This was pulled by Councilor Zusy. It reads as follows. That the city council go on record in support of Lesley University faculty in their fight for a fair contract and urging President Steinmeier and Lesley University administration to support a just contract for its workers. This is pulled by Council Susie. Council Susie, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Madam Mayor. I will be voting present on this. I am sympathetic to the workers at Lesley College, but It may be that the university has to make these changes to survive. I mean, Lesley University is having significant financial challenges. They've got deep budget deficits. They've laid off a bunch of faculty, cut programs. There's been senior leadership turnover. They're restructuring. They're having a really horrible... So I'll be voting present. Again, usually I would be sympathetic to workers, but I think this is a very difficult time for Lesley University. They may need to lay off additional employees just to make their numbers work. Anyway, I wish them well. I wish them success.

Thank you. Zuzi is the floor. Any further discussion on this item? Councilor Nolan.

I just want to say I appreciate through you Mayor Siddiqui, Mayor Simmons what Councilor Zuzi said and yet This is not saying layoffs can't happen. This is saying we really support and want to support a just contract for workers regardless of what happens. So that's why I want to explain. I will be voting yes. I think it's a really important... Thank you. Thank you. We can take a stance to say the contract should be fair and just and it should not be disproportionately affecting other members of the university. And that would be true for me for any of the universities in Cambridge. So thank you, I yield.

Further discussion? Hearing none, on the order, on a motion to adopt by Councilor Azeem, roll call.

Azeem, Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Siddiqui, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Councilor Toner, Yes, Councilor Wilson,

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

and policy order passes on the affirmative vote of nine members. This concludes the policy order list. Our next item is the calendar. Madam Mayor? I'm sorry, yes.

Before we move on to the calendar, please, I'd like to move suspension.

Yep, on suspension of the rules. Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative. The rules are suspended. Vice Mayor, to bring forward...

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you, in the... I haste of getting that last conversation on the zoning passed. We did pass the Councilor Azeem's amendment as it pertained to Mass Ave. I neglected to call the vote to as it pertained to Cambridge Street. So we have to go back and to Councilor Azeem's amendment as it pertains to Cambridge Street.

So on the amendment as it pertains to Cambridge Street, we're in suspension of the rules.

Roll call, please.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The matter is adopted on the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to the calendar. I respectfully ask that we pass over and go to communications. There are, I believe, 11 or 14. There are 14 communications. What is the pleasure?

Place on file.

On a motion by the Vice Mayor to place the 14 communications on file.

Roll call. Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

In the affirmative. is affirmed by the affirmative vote of nine members. We will now move to resolutions. What is the pleasure?

Mayor Simmons. Mayor Simmons.

Well, he's already moved adoption. So you want to rescind this? I will rescind.

Number 13.

Anything else? So on the balance, the Vice Mayor moves the balance, making it unanimous upon adoption. Roll call.

One through 11 and 14. Councilor Azeem. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

I'd like to ask unanimous consent to go back to 14.

Okay.

So on unanimous consent, can I get a roll call? Can I get a roll call? Please. Take your time.

Azeem, yes, Vice Mayor McGovern, yes, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Siddiqui, yes, yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, yes, Councilor Toner, yes, Councilor Wilson,

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you. I thank you to my colleagues for allowing me to come back to talk about something that we adopted previously. It is my esteemed pleasure. to announce and congratulate Neil Alper and his fiancee, Jen Turtelot, on their engagement. Can I tell you the story? Yep, yep. Do you want to tell the story? I'll tell the story. So I was very pleased to hear that Mr. Alpert and his fiancee got engaged on the top of Mount, on the Adirondack mountains that they got to. and a single engine plane. Would never done it myself. And a single engine plane. So it was very romantic on the top of the Adirondack Mountains. I'm just very pleased. Neil has worked with me for 18 years, and I swore that I had ruined every relationship he ever had, and now I'm just so very, very pleased.

to know that that is not true and I could not be more pleased and happy for him because he certainly deserves to have a life. Beyond this, you know, some work-life balance. So to Neil and to Jen, our profound congratulations. We can't wait to hear more about you, how your life... continues to grow and develop. So congratulations. Would you please join me in a round of applause for Neil and Jen? And if you're fully now embarrassed, we'll now go back to policy order, I mean, the resolution number 13. This is pulled by Councilor Nolan reads as follows. Resolution on the death of Charles Cope. Councilor, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. It's not a usual day when there's members of our community that are so beloved and astonishingly versatile, and Charles Coe, is one of those Cantabrigians who touched thousands of lives, I will say. He was a neighbor. I counted him as a friend. His poem is one that our family uses. One of his poems is something our family has incorporated into our family Seder because it's just so poignant. and upon hearing of his death, as the word rippled out, there were just hundreds of people across the city and the region who were stunned, who were saddened and for him to have touched so many lives, his grace and his spirit were incredibly important to so many people and

He was able to talk about poetry and finding your voice and standing up for justice and living as a black man in this area to help others understand how important it was to to live one's own truth. I just feel he's one of those treasures and I was happy to bring forward this resolution and for those There was already one community event for him at the Arlington Street Church. There will be another event on April 11th at the Boston Public Library sponsored by a range of people. I certainly intend to be there and wanted to make sure that his large community, his family of choice. He doesn't really have living family relatives now with his parents and his only sibling having pre-deceased him. and passed on and yet he is legions of family of choice who love him and treasure him across the city. So I hope this resolution will go forward and it will be

will be sent to his family, but his family now may not be his blood family, but there's a few very close members of his community who I've reached out to and will be sure to, if this passes, get this resolution to them.

Hearing none, roll call on the adoption. Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui?

Yes.