City Council - Regular Meeting

Check one, two. Mic check. Caption check. One, two. Check one, two, mic check.

We have a quorum? Yes, we do. Okay. A quorum being present, I will call tonight's May 12th, 2025 regular meeting of the Cambridge City Council to order. The first order of business is a roll of members present. Clerk LeBlanc, would you please call the roll?

Councillor Azeem. Present, Vice Mayor McGovern. Present. Present, Councilor Nolan. Present. Present, Councilor Siddiqui.

Present.

Present, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Present. Present, Councilor Toner. Present. Present, Council Wilson. Present. Present. Councilor Zusy. Present. Present. Mayor Simmons.

Present.

Present. Madam Mayor, nine members are present.

Thank you. Please stand if you can and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance and then pause for a moment of silence. Remembering Esther Scantleberry. 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 two 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 meetings, members of the council participate remotely, we have also set up Zoom teleconference for public comment. You may also view the meeting via the city's open meeting portal or on the city's cable channel, which is 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 at cityclerk at cambridgema.gov. We welcome your participation, and you can sign up for public comment until 6 p.m. Please note that the City of Cambridge audio and video records our meetings and makes it available to the public for future viewing. In addition, please be advised third parties may be audio and video recording our meetings. We'll now move to public comment. Public comment may be made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A and Section 20G and the City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once you have finished speaking, the next speaker will be called. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers. When speaking, please state your name, your address, and the item that you're speaking to. Given that there are how many people, 42? 42 people are signed up to speak, so I believe that means we will have two minutes per speaker. With that, I will turn public comment over to Ms. Stephan. Ms. Stephan, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Our first speaker will be Michael Demella, followed by Daniel Seaborg, then Josh Zakim. Michael, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Mike Demella. I'm the CEO of Charles Gate, a development advisory firm and housing advocate across Greater Boston. I am also a former chairman of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board and a current member of the City of Boston Zoning Commission. I am here to strongly support policy order number 68. We are in a housing emergency, and well-intentioned inclusionary policies as currently structured are worsening that problem. Over 20,000 multifamily units across greater Boston are entitled but stalled, mostly due to economic infeasibility. This has made even worse with current inclusionary policy. In 2023, Boston's inclusionary requirement was increased from 13% to 20% after a vote of the Zoning Commission. Studies showed minimal development impact. However, instead, development froze. This vote was a mistake. Cambridge has a chance to learn from that policy order number 68 charts a path forward to improve inclusionary policy without stopping development altogether. Let's achieve equity through pragmatism and abundance and make sure new housing that is very much needed actually gets built. And I've included some written testimony, so I'll give back to the remainder of my time, but I appreciate and thank you for your consideration.

Our next speaker is Daniel Seabor, followed by Josh Sacom, then Timothy Rowe. Daniel, two minutes.

Good evening again, mayor and counselors. Good to see you. Dan Seabor, managing partner of North Cambridge Partners, 2400 Mass Ave. I think many of us here have noticed that in our national politics we've gotten into a peculiar situation where quite often we no longer agree on basic facts and information, such that to even have an informed policy debate has become almost impossible. I worry that through no real fault of anyone's we've lost sight of the facts on housing in Cambridge. In turn, this is endangering all of our ability to have a real policy debate about how to move forward. So let me share with you some facts about the current situation using CDD's development log as a measuring stick. The development log claims 41 so-called current residential projects comprising roughly 5,300 units and 4 million square feet. In fact, only seven of those 41 projects are actually under construction, and just one of them is a true 20% inclusionary project. Of those 5,300 units, roughly 3,700 don't even have a building permit. That's about 3.4 million of the 4 million square feet included in the log as current. More than half of the square footage in the development log is actually comprised of just two mega projects. PUD contemplated housing at Cambridge Crossing and the Volpe Center that exists only in the imagination. That is to say years if not a decade away from even hypothetically existing. And in the case of Cambridge Crossing, that's not even subject to the 20% rule. The log contains projects labeled as housing that are in fact dorms or hotels. It contains projects that have been vacant lots for years. It contains projects that were completed more than four quarters ago. I could go on. But the most important facts remain. In 2024, Cambridge had one new multifamily inclusionary delivery, yielding three affordable units total. We've had zero deliveries and zero starts in 2025. Those are the facts. I'd be happy to walk through the data with any of you anytime. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Josh Zakim, followed by Timothy Rowe. Josh, two minutes.

Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor, counselors. My name is Josh Zakim. I'm the Executive Director of Housing Forward Massachusetts with an address of 10 Tremont Street in downtown Boston. Housing Forward is a 501 nonprofit focused on data-backed policy solutions for housing crisis here in Massachusetts. I've submitted written testimony, which I hope you'll find helpful, and I'm going to summarize some of it here in support of policy order number 68. As a former Boston City Councilor myself, I know how tough these debates can be and the decisions that are in front of you to support your communities and your neighbors. Affordable housing, workforce housing, reasonably priced housing, whatever we want to call it, is in far too short supply in Cambridge and throughout Massachusetts. Inclusionary zoning is an important tool that can help ensure that we maintain communities that have different folks from different socioeconomic backgrounds and statuses. But we also need to be cognizant of outside factors like the macroeconomic conditions we're all facing right now. of tariffs that go up one day and away the next day, make it impossible for folks to adequately predict how much it will cost to build housing, raising costs overwhelmingly, higher interest rates on construction loans, et cetera, et cetera. It goes on and on. One tool that you have that municipalities around the Commonwealth have is around land use regulation. Looking to review and adjust and reduce the requirement for inclusionary housing is something that could have an immediate impact and create more new housing, affordable housing and market rate housing in our communities today. I urge you to look at this deeply, to talk to the experts, to review the facts and the data when it's very clear that this is something that is in front of us today that can make a true difference. for now and in the future of your community. And quite frankly, it's of interest to all of Greater Boston because we need to do everything we can to reduce the cost of housing. And this is one tool during these times that can make a real difference. Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate your time.

Our next speaker is Tim Rowe, followed by Rita Guastella. Tim, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, folks. This is Tim Rowe. I'm sorry I was not able to be there in person today. First of all, I just want to thank the members of the Council for your work on this. I know how much work you've all put into this. You're all looking hard at this issue, are weighing the different aspects of it, and there are many. You know, former Councilor Ken Reeves is a friend and spoke at the last meeting about how hard fought the 20% was. And so this should not be lightly considered. I will say that I think the arguments are out there. I also submitted written testimony that goes through the facts and echoes what you've heard thus far from the other speakers. I would just say that I think the temptation will be to study this and to take some time. And I do know that that's important. I think you're all aware that many of us have followed Cambridge's policies and rules, have met with the neighbors, have gone through all of the hoops. And it will be really sad if some of those projects, which have done everything that Cambridge asked us to do, now can't move forward because of this issue. So thank you for looking very closely at this, looking for all the levers that you could pull. You've got hundreds of housing units across Cambridge that could come into reality. It's what we need. And it's going to take some, some fortitude, I think, from the council to figure out how to, how to adjust the policies so this all becomes possible. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Rita Guastella, followed by Stan Rivkin. Rita, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Rita Guastella. I own a small two family at 127 Reed Street in Cambridge. I'm speaking about policy order 68 and specifically about the request to reduce the percentage of inclusionary housing required of the developers at 2400 Mass Ave. I represented the neighborhood along with my neighbors at the over 10 meetings we had at the bio lab for over a year. I watched what I can only call the gold standard of community involvement in the development of this project. We began with opposing views, we were like this, and during the process of listening to one another, we ended up a united front, and I'm not kidding about that. I do believe in the goal of inclusionary housing, but I also want to protect what they and we have created. I want to humbly ask you to consider more than one goal. that you consider the quality of the work that will be done in our neighborhood, the respect we feel for one another, and our dedication to something special in North Cambridge. I ask you to permit the reduction from 20% to 8%. I thank you, and I cede my time to the chair.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Stan Rifkin, followed by David Halperin, then Jana Odette. Stan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Yeah, Stan Rifkin, 17 Channing Street. I applaud the council for their commitment to create a municipal voucher program. that could potentially cover formerly unhoused and mixed status immigrant households who are at risk of losing their housing. This is an important piece of Cambridge's response to the federal assault on the poor. Still, it's extremely disappointing that the city is committed to closing the Transitional Wellness Center and lacks any plan that it's been willing to share with the public, at least, to guarantee suitable housing for the 22 remaining residents. It's incomprehensible to me how we can be complicit in closing a homeless shelter without so much as providing the residents any place to go. Finding a solution to this is not rocket science. Look, are we really expected to believe that the council simply lacks the collective creativity, ingenuity, kindness, determination to find a solution to this? Just to house the folks that we're displacing? I really don't know, but I guess we're all about to find out here in the coming hours. I certainly hope not. I hope the city finds suitable permanent housing for these folks and prioritizes them for vouchers rather than throws them out to the street, out of sight, out of mind, all while focusing on more handouts for developers who you have been hearing from so far in today's meeting. Speaking of which, regarding charter order one, you can't overcome macroeconomic conditions by lowering the threshold. That's simply not going to work. Secondly, Cambridge just passed one of the most ambitious of zoning ordinances. We won't know for years whether this is going to encourage a building and or potentially even have adverse consequences. I'm studying this now when the only data we have is the testimony of these developers would heavily bias the results to the position of developers and speculators and wouldn't take into account any of the serious consequences of lowering the inclusionary threshold, including gentrification. And finally, we shouldn't believe developers' claims. It's in their financial interest to create a perception of inaffordability with regard to inclusionary. Thank you.

Our next speaker is David Halperin, followed by Jana Odette, then Carolyn Majid. David, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening. David Halperin, 14 Valentine Street. Firstly, on inclusionary zoning. I do hope we can think hard about how we can be nimble here. Even after we get the next report on IZ, we're going to be skating to where the puck was. And over those next few years where that's our IZ report, who knows what else is going to happen in the economy. And we need to think hard about, in the long term, how can we maximize the number of affordable units we've created over time? And just having a high percentage, I think we can look... At you know current conditions and how, after our very ambitious upsetting which you know, like I am a huge proponent of let nothing is getting built. You know, like, how can we be creative, how can we, you know how can we overcome and actually you know get some affordable units. On first floor retail I really strongly support this moving forward. I think, you know, people have raised concerns about different uses, and I think it makes a lot of sense to be restrictive about which uses. Yes, corner stores and cafes, no labs and dance clubs. within what we can agree is good. I hope we can be expansive about allowing encouragement, you know, mixed use and walkability are what draw a lot of people such as myself to Cambridge. And I personally love a restaurant to open next door. And, you know, in neighborhoods where we're hoping that are currently low scale, but we're hoping maybe a lot more apartments might exist in the future, you know, that would support, you know, that would be well supported by having more welcome amenities there, which I think is important in the long term. So yeah, I hope there are details to flesh out, but I hope we can pass this and keep this conversation going. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jana Odette, followed by Caroline Magid, then Henry Wardus. Jana, two minutes.

Can you hear me? No. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you, honorable mayor, city manager, assistant city manager, neither of whom are here, and counselors who I know you've been working long and hard on all this stuff. So thank you for your attention tonight, and thank you for your work before now. My name is Jen Odette. I live on Larch Road, and I wanted to speak to two points tonight. One is in pretty much direct contrast to the gentleman who just spoke, no to retail on every street. I think that this goes against bypassing proper zoning channels. It goes against all the zoning that we've had. And I guess my understanding of the rule is that it would be very hard to be selective as to what kind of retail you allow. And I think that, to the gentleman's point who just spoke, the fact that you might want a restaurant but you wouldn't want a bar or a dance club, I mean, I don't know that you can have that finesse. The other thing is on this affordable housing requirements. And I do believe we have heard from a lot of developers this evening. And I guess the question is, is this time to just take the profit model for how housing gets done, or is this time to be a little creative? And sorry, I didn't fully prepare. Shoot. Anyway, the point is that I think that this might be a time to look at other ways of answering the call, especially with the fact that it is possible that a lot of businesses will be shutting down and so forth. So now is the time to be creative about What can you do that is not just changing the percentage from 20% to 10% or whatever it is? I just think that is a little crazy when you just got through this upzoning proposal. Anyway, I'm sorry that I was not better organized. Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker is Carolyn Magid, followed by Henry Wardus, then Gertrude Goodman. Carolyn, you have two minutes. Can you hear me?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead.

Marlin Majid, 71 Reed Street. I work with Our Revolution Cambridge and the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition. Council should not support Charter Right 1. I strongly oppose both the proposed study and any reduction in percentage of inclusionary units. I find it absolutely incredible and totally unacceptable that the city just passed multifamily zoning based on projections of inclusionary housing being built at 20%. and before any buildings could move forward is considering lowering the percentage. Something's wrong here. CDD gave us estimates in good faith. How are they immediately afterwards discredited? Zoning decisions relied very heavily on those facts. You owe it to the voters to see if what the city estimated in consultation with developers happens before considering changing the rules of the game. If private developers build less in the interim, I hope there will be more opening for the Cambridge Community Land Trust and social housing. I strongly support all the programs in Charter Right 2. If, as other people have said, the Transitional Wellness Center is closed, and I'd be very sorry to see that, please assure that all the remaining people get housing vouchers. I understand there's some potential compromise underway to provide more money for unhoused people. And I think this population should have priority in getting that money moving forwards. Thanks.

Our next speaker is Henry Wardus followed by Gertrude Goodman. Henry, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

Henry Wirtis, 106 Berkshire Street. The national housing shortage impacts the people of Cambridge with unusual force because the demand for housing is so enormous that costs are typically high and inflexible. Trump's policies have only made things worse. The people of Cambridge and its government believed that profit-driven development was the path out of this crisis. Every year the public demanded more housing and less restrictive zoning. This has now been shown to be a false promise. Developers in demanding a reduction in inclusionary housing have revealed that their profit-driven plans don't work. They are bullying us with the threat, no profits for us, no housing for you. We need to change our thinking and explore new solutions such as community land trusts and social housing. To begin, the council, through its housing committee, should hold hearings to learn from the experiences of cities like Vienna and Paris and countries like Mexico and Brazil. We need to learn what the residents of Cambridge want in our social housing so we don't impose housing programs that do not work. The council should be bold and not rely on strategies tied to traditional models and the constraints of a market-driven housing economy. Please show Cambridge's creativity and produce models of community land trusts and social housing that put revenue from housing into more housing projects and not into the pockets of developers. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Gertrude Goodman. Gertrude, two minutes. Okay.

My name is Gertrude Goodman. I live at 1221 Cambridge Street in Cambridge, which is an HRI building, which is supposedly affordable housing for the low income people in this city. Two things I want to speak to. One is I really don't think the inclusionary standard should be changed. It is hard enough right now for low-income people who are sitting on the inclusionary list to even be able to look at anything that is within their AMI. That's number one. Number two, why I came here beside that, and there are people in this room right now, and you need to face these people who are living at Spalding. Twenty-two vouchers is not a whole lot to ask, and that's all that's needed right now. Otherwise, these people are out on the street. People are well aware of the fact that I work in a homeless shelter at the Lindeman Health Center in Boston. This is unimaginable that you would just throw people out on the street and ask them to do what? There has been no plan put in place for these people at all and the Albany shelter is not appropriate for many of the residents of the Spaulding shelter and people do actually know that. And I hate to put it in the realm of you people, but quite honestly, take a look around. There are people in this room here who currently live at the Spalding. You have to answer to them as to what they need. 22 vouchers is not a whole lot. And quite honestly, I've lived in this city for 45 years. These people deserve a heck of a lot better than they're getting right now out of the city council. I hate to be like this, but I will be, because the reality is I don't want to see them down at the Lindemann Mental Health Center trying to deal with what's going on down there. And you cannot just put this on Trump. This is an old problem here in Cambridge, and it needs to be resolved humanely. Thank you.

Our next speaker, speaker number 12, is Rabbi Yoni, followed by Mohib Ahmed, then Avinash Rahman. Rabbi Yoni, you have two minutes.

Hi, I'm coming to speak in strong opposition to a number 68, both in terms of the study, but particularly what is not written there. But the process is wrong that it's not writing in there that it's the reduction in inclusionary units or more people would be commenting on it. It's We just passed the inclusionary being 20%. By putting it in question, that's going to put developers on notice to basically wait it out, and that's going to cause nothing to be developed in the near term. We need to distinguish between the economic and the sociological issues. 20% is a reasonable mix of lower income people with the market rate apartments. And if we need to make handouts for developers, we should do it in ways that are not lowering the 20%. The other thing is why in this time of poverty are we giving handouts for developers at all? We should be focusing on putting money in the hands of the poor people and then enabling them to buy things that trickle up rather than trickling down. The macroeconomic conditions of Trump's tariffs and trade war with Canada and other countries isn't going to be made really any different by changing the percentage. It's not going to make things built. Perhaps the tariffs will go away. Perhaps they won't. We don't know. But these things... We need to wait it out and be steady and keep the 20%. If you need to give money to developers, which I don't really support, but better not to lower the 20%. We want to maximize the affordable units. That's our most important priority. And in terms of the case study, we should look at discrimination against inclusionary tenants as you did on 12-13-22. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mohib Ahmed, followed by Avinash Rahman, then Tahara Siddique. Mohib, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Mohib Ahmed. My address is at 900 Yard, Cambridge, Mass. I want to begin by sincerely thanking the council for committing to support Rise Up and preserve housing vouchers for migrant and formerly unhoused families. That is the right decision and it reflects the values we like to believe define Cambridge. But there is still one urgent piece missing, the Spalding Transitional Wellness Center. There are 22 people still living at Spalding. These people are in recovery, people with complex medical needs, people who cannot thrive in congregate settings. If we close this shelter without a real plan for where they will go, we're not just eliminating a program, we're choosing to displace people who have already endured the worst this world has to offer. I've watched my classmates and administrators take real risks to stand up to federal attacks on immigrants, trans people, and the poor. The city council has rightfully celebrated that courage, saying, we've got your back. But if our city government can't find a way to keep 22 medically vulnerable people housed during a national housing and overdose crisis, those words truly start to ring hollow. Cambridge cannot preach resistance to Trumpism while practicing abandonment. We cannot oppose cruelty at the national level while replicating it at the local level just because it's quieter, just because it affects people who don't have a voice in this room. And let's be clear, this isn't about affordability. The total cost of maintaining Spalding and other critical services comes to about $3 a month for the average homeowner. It's not a budgetary crisis. It's immoral discipline. Council have shown real leadership by protecting programs like Rise Up. Now it must finish the war. Keep Spalding open, house the residents, show that we don't leave people behind, not when it's inconvenient, not when they're sick, and not when they need us the most. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Avinash Rahman, followed by Tahara Sadiq, then Youssef Jilal. Avinash, two minutes.

Hello. Good evening. I've spoken before several times. I just want to thank you guys for all of you elders for putting all this together and thinking it all through. And I listened to Madam Mayor last week and saying that what's coming with Trump and we can't fund a lot of these things right now. And I've spoken with Ms. Nolan and I think you guys are putting your intellect with your heart. And Ms. Nolan said, it's $50,000 a bed. It's too much. But all this money that has been spent, the four years of the federal money, and then last year with the city money, I've seen. So you're going to hear from other people, people with a brain aneurysm. and people with cancer. I had a brain tumor. And then getting back to life, and all this effort has been put in. So I just, analogy, if a parent is paying for three years of college, it would be silly not to pay for the fourth year. You guys got us this far. So many people, there's no, whatever these wet shelters are and 240 and all these things, It's fine, and it counts as a bet, but all the progress that I've seen in people, it's just crazy. There was a person who, his wife died, he was a 40-year janitor at MIT, and then over a year processing his wife, and he's now housed. You're gonna hear stories of people that, lived in Cambridge for 18 years and were attacked in a cab. Another person, Mr. David, he's gotten connected with his son again and all of his life, and now he can look forward. All of us have gotten so much. I've seen so much progress. All this money has been spent. Too much money, as no one would say. But too much money has been spent, but now... It's insane to then put people back in congregate shelter. We're ready to go. We're ready. We graduated. We are asking for priority for the housing vouchers, but I think it's a great way to... value the investment of all these years. It's really gotten so many people on the path forward, and it would be so silly to put people back. So I really appreciate all the intelligence and heart you put in, but this will finish it properly. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Tahara Sadiq, followed by Yousef Jalal, then Michael Rogov. Tahara, you have two minutes.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity of addressing you. My name is Tahar Sadiq. I'm a lifelong resident of Cambridge. And I have become homeless. And June 7th will be three years. And I came to the Spalding house three years ago at the time of the girlfriend because I discovered that they were having couples. When I got there and I inquired about residence there, they told me that I hadn't been homeless long enough. I think it was about seven, eight months at the time. And so from that point on, me and my girlfriend were living in the street. staying at residence here and there whenever we could, friends, but that never lasts for long. So the majority of the time has been on the street. Well, I think maybe a little over two years ago, I had came back to the Spalding because I was told by some friends that I guess it was a little different there and I was single at that point. So I asked for some shelter for myself and they took my name and fortunately enough two weeks later I was called and told that they had a spot for me. I was there, I have been there for four months now and i don't know it's i i just i'm under the impression that it's all going to come to an end very soon i have nowhere to go i have no no nothing um i i feel like it's just i'm just going to be in the same situation i was in when i came there However, I have to say that Spalding House has been a refuge for me. They provided a roof over my head for this time that I've had it. They provided some good counselors with great efforts to help me find places. But to this point, it's to no avail.

Mr. Siddique, your time's expired, but thank you very much. If you want to provide it in writing, we will graciously accept. Thank you for speaking. Thank you. Mr. Fon?

Our next speaker is Yusef Jalal, followed by Michael Rogo, then Dan Totten. Yusef, two minutes.

Hello. Hi, my name is Yousef Jilal. I'm 18 years resident of Cambridge. In 2001, while driving a cab for the city of Cambridge, I was attacked, end up with a brain injury. After 28 days in the hospital, I left the hospital after a surgery, but I started having seizures. And I still until today taking medication for sleep disorder. I've never been homeless until I lost my job and I got separated from my wife after 18 years of marriage. All I'm asking for is a better place than TWC. Today, the director of TWC Spalding told me that I'm leaving to 240 Albany tomorrow, which is inferior level compared to Spalding TWC. The vouchers are to be kept for the most in need. And I think I deserve a voucher. We deserve a voucher. I deserve a voucher specifically for my health condition, but we all need apartments. We all need permanent housing. Thank you.

Next speaker.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Rogo, followed by Dan Totten, then Hanan Rhodes. We are at speaker number 16. Michael.

Hi, Michael Rogo, 65 Sparks. Lots of really important stuff up today, so I'll keep it brief. Harping on what I said last time, we do need more apartments. Regarding policy order number 68, we remain in crisis, and as Councillor Nolan said, 20% of zero is still zero. I trust the experts in CDD to continue to apply and search for answers, but please continue to keep up the press. More innocuously, for policy order number 70 regarding first floor retail, I think there's actually a very conservative change that could be made to add some vitality to our neighborhoods. My great-grandparents ran what would today be called a neighborhood bodega, but in their city of origin, as here, zoning today makes that illegal, just like it makes Patty's, Planet Records, Oleana, Black Sheep Market, etc., where they, should they need to change materially their buildings. So I think we can finesse the rules here in some minor way, and we actually can be pretty restrictive with, for example, restricting liquor licenses, I think, but I trust the experts. Anyway, and then on a similar note regarding policy order 69, having seen some numbers related to property taxes and the numbers involved to extend support, either for Spaulding or for the individuals there in the budget, I encourage you to use the finesse you have there too. Thank you, and please stay hydrated.

Thank you. We will hear next from Dan Totten, followed by Hanan Rhodes, then Bonte Gannetti. Dan, please go ahead.

yes hi dan totten 54 bishop allen drive and i just want to say it's come to my attention that there's a compromise that will affirm the closure of the transition wellness center while including a newfound one million dollars in housing vouchers for unhoused people this new funding is expected to serve approximately 25 people meaning that the city will now fund a total of six million dollars in municipal housing housing vouchers in this year's budget setting an important precedent that builds on years of collective advocacy. This is significant, but nonetheless, it is completely unacceptable that the Wellness Center will close without a transition plan beyond the streets or maybe the wet shelter for those who remain. The number of new vouchers and the number of Spaulding residents appear to be very close and yet the city is not necessarily planning to prioritize them with this new voucher money. I argue that this is a policy choice and I will make the case that we should do it. uh this is a choice that we're making to close this shelter we absolutely have the money to fund the shelter and y'all are choosing not to fund it it is an embarrassing precedent to set the city should never take the extraordinary step of closing a homeless shelter whether permanently or for renovations without meeting the needs of the people affected. This principle should apply system-wide, including when 240 Albany Street is renovated as is rumored. It is reasonable to veer from the usual prioritization system under these unique emergency circumstances. These people are about to lose their shelter and they have nowhere to go. This is not about special treatment. It's about finishing what was started with the commitment that was made at the Transition Wellness Center. It literally has the word transition in its name. How could we not transition them to housing if we really must close the shelter? I sent the longer email, but I do want to take the last few seconds just to congratulate Clerk LeBlanc, first as a colleague and also as now as a member of the public. I found her to be an incredibly dedicated public servant, and I have tremendous respect for the work that she's done, and I wish her the best of luck with her next step. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hanan Rhodes, followed by Bansi Ganeti, then Shilpa S. Hanan, you have two minutes. Hanan Rhodes, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

Great.

Hello, everyone. I'm here to support PO 70 for the first floor retail and residential neighborhoods. I want to speak about these shops and services that have been grandfathered in as non-conforming uses, such as the Blatcheet Market and Asaro Bakery are cornerstones of our community. They offer everyday conveniences and fosters local entrepreneurship. Yet with every redevelopment proposal, they face the real threat of displacement. I believe first floor retail isn't just nice to have. It meaningfully enhances walkability, reduces car dependency, and keeps vital amenities within easy reach of residents, as well as perfect pairing for the most recent multifamily zoning change. Despite overwhelming public support, these uses remain prohibited by right in our residential zoning districts, leaving our neighborhoods pretty barren I respectfully ask the council to amend our zoning code to allow first floor retail by right in residential areas, ensuring a balanced community, and in doing so will sustain the character, convenience, and economical vitality that makes Cambridge such a special place to live, work, and walk in, and hopefully improve that for future generations. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Bonti Gannetti, followed by Shilpa S, then Saira Prasad. Bonti? Bonte has not joined us, we will go to Shilpa S. Shilpa, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Shilpi and I've lived in Cambridge for a long time. I'm speaking in support of Rise Up. I was able to benefit from Rise Up two years ago, a year ago. I'd just given birth that year and I was a PhD student. So according to the words of one of the Cambridge Housing Authority people that I met, because I also needed housing at the time, I was an unprotected member of the society at the time. I mean, I know policy members, you know, you're looking on high and you're looking at populations and you're, you know, calling certain people homeless, certain people poor, but you know, that's, you know, that's not all our identity. I am a published author and I, teach at UMass Boston at Emerson adjunct. So again, the income doesn't really add up for me to afford housing in Cambridge and Boston. But Rise Up really helps me to bridge that gap, especially when I had very low income during that time. And you know, I teach very rich kids and I teach at risk kids. So I'm very productive member of society and we all need a little help certain times to live to our fullest potential. And for women, especially income, that kind of income, $9,000 in pocket can help us to move away from abusive situations and abusive partners So income is directly related to emotional health, you know, physical health. And, you know, a healthy mother, you know, leads to healthy children and healthy communities. So please consider redoing Rise Up for women like me. Thank you.

Our next speakers, we are at speaker number 22, Saira Prasant, followed by Aya Al-Zubi, then David Haith. Saira? Saira, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Saira Prasant. I'm a PhD student in Population Health Sciences at Harvard University, and I help organize with Cambridge DSA. I'm speaking in support of prioritizing new vouchers for residents of the Transitional Wellness Center at Spaulding, who are now being displaced by the compromise amendment on Charter Right Number 2, which now affirms the closure of the TWC. You've already heard from residents of Spalding and I really implore you to listen to them. I and many others are horrified that the city has chosen to continue down this inhumane path of closing the shelter despite widespread support for the TWC from community members who spoke last week and in weeks prior. And I'm extremely concerned that there is no transition plan for Spalding residents who are being suddenly displaced. The city cannot neglect the very residents it has chosen to displace by cutting funding for the TWC. Putting residents in this kind of emergency situation with no assurance of housing would constitute reckless endangerment of people's lives and of public health. The clear right thing to do is to ensure access to newly created housing vouchers for Spalding residents who the city has chosen to displace. To neglect this very basic obligation would be a violation of Cambridge's stated promise to be a sanctuary city. So again, I implore you to please listen to testimonies that you've already heard from residents of Spalding and prioritize vouchers for these residents.

Thank you. We're going to go back to skipped speaker, Bonte Gannetti, followed by Aya Al-Zubi, then David Haith. Bonte, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Bonte Gannetti. I'm active with the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition and I want to speak on number two. As I said last week, I think it's critical that the city implement vouchers for formerly in-house people as well as mixed status families who are losing funding in CHA housing due to the federal HUD cuts. At the same time, I want to speak and support again of the residents at the Transition Wellness Shelter. I think ideally the shelter would stay open because it has served a very important purpose of providing supportive housing to these people as well as giving them a stable place they can be providing resources they need. At the same time, if the shelter were to close, I think it's important to prioritize vouchers for the residents who are currently there and who have not been placed somewhere else. I think it's really important that they be prioritized and be given housing and the support they need via voucher rather than being placed on the street and which would be extremely traumatic and difficult for those people. At the same time, I want to speak in support of Rise Up. I think it'd be great to continue funding that as well. I want to use the last bit of my time to speak against Your number one, I frankly think it's extremely premature to be exploring reductions in inclusionary zoning requirements, especially since the council recently adopted massive changes to zoning. And I think it requires more time to see what the impact of those changes will be before.

Thank you for your response.

Next speaker, please.

Your time has expired, please email the remainder. Our next speaker is Aya Al-Zubi, followed by David Haith, then Rishi Mohan. Aya, you have two minutes.

Hi, Aya Al-Zubi on 156 Magazine Street. Wanted to share thoughts on Charter Rights 1 and 2. First, thank you for moving forward on municipal vouchers, but it's incredibly disappointing that the city is closing TWC, and the more disappointing part of this is that there's no clear plan to transition the residents. It's not just not okay, it treats the residents inhumanely. So please use your voices and positions to care for the residents of TWC. We're simply asking for you to not completely turn your back to a closure the city's leadership is choosing to make. And please also support Rise Up too. Second, please do not push for a study on inclusionary zoning with what seems to be the intention to lower the threshold to 10% or less because we just decided to upzone with the 20% threshold. Like, what, y'all? Like, real estate developers develop for profit. In a New York City Furman study on New York City affordable housing... on the units that opted out of affordability restrictions saw that on average, the neighborhoods that lost affordable units commanded asking residents about $400 more per month than residents in neighborhoods where affordable housing was preserved. So I sit with the nature of capitalism and banks that impose quote unquote difficulty on developers. But to me, that should be another clear indicator that leaning essentially only on capitalism as hope for solutions is like putting a pretty Band-Aid on top of a fire hydrant called the housing crisis. There's going to be a flood, and the people who get wiped out are people experiencing homelessness and low-income people who will be gentrified out of this community. If you want to fight Trump, you do it with love. You don't do it with cutting back on the communities that make this city what it is.

Our next speaker is David Haith, followed by Rishi Mohan, then Lee Ferris. David, you have two minutes.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and fellow counselors. Thank you very much for your time. My name is David Haith. I'm at the Transition Wellness Center. I've been there for about 10 months. And, you know, being able to shower and have a good night's sleep has enabled me to reconnect with my 15-year-old son. And what I'm really afraid about is, I mean, I'm really afraid is that soon, in a month's time, it's quite possible I'm going to be on the street. And I've been on the street before. I was on the street in 2015. And I ended up bouncing around ERs, emergency rooms. So if I'm bouncing around emergency rooms again because I'm on the street, then what will happen is my son's mother will take access away and then I'll be a broken man again. Thank you for your time. Please support the vouchers.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Rishi Mohan, followed by Lee Ferris, then Brooke Monkern. Rishi, you have two minutes. Rishi has left the Zoom. We will go to Lee Ferris, followed by Brooke Monkern. Lee, if you can unmute yourself, you have two minutes.

Good evening, counselors. Lee Farris, Norfolk Street and the Port. I'm speaking tonight for the Cambridge Residents Alliance in opposition to Charter Right number one about doing a study on reducing the percent of required inclusionary housing. Our organization fought long and hard to increase the inclusionary rate to 20%. I think Cambridge should wait and see what the results of the new upzoning will be. Councilors who supported the new upzoning did so based on believing CDD that the upzoning would result in a certain proportion of inclusionary housing. If we launch a study now, developers will simply wait until the study is complete to see whether the council decides to lower the required inclusionary percentage. We all know that the slowdown in housing starts is due more to high interest rates and increased construction costs than to inclusionary housing requirements. So if the council wants to consider lowering the amount of inclusionary housing, then I ask that you also consider putting the new upzoning on hold until the council decides what to do. That way, the council would have the opportunity to change their vote on the upzoning if need be. MEANWHILE, WE WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH COUNSELORS AND THE MANAGER ON STARTING A SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM THAT COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NEW STATE SOCIAL HOUSING FUNDS. THAT WAY CAMBRIDGE COULD HAVE A NEW WAY TO BUILD MIXED INCOME HOUSING THAT RESULTS IN A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE RESIDENCE ALLIANCE ALSO SUPPORTS PASSAGE OF CHARTER RIGHT NUMBER TWO, AS I SAID LAST WEEK, AND FUNDING OF THE FOUR ITEMS IN THE BUDGET. Given that, as I understand, the council and manager have reached an agreement for an additional $1 million, we ask that all the remaining people at Spaulding be assured of a good place to sleep, meaning not a wet shelter, including the chance to get a city voucher. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brooke Munkern, followed by Brandon Dorms, then Dahir Garan. Brooke, you have two minutes.

Hello, my name is Brook Moncarna, and I reside at 13 Cedar Street. I'm speaking today regarding agenda item 68. However, my remarks are not focused on the broader merits of the inclusionary zoning policy, but rather the pragmatic challenges facing the specific project at 24 Mass Ave, 2400 Mass Ave, I apologize, which I live directly across from. I'm here to ask for flexibility and creative solutions to get this mature project back underway. As you know, the 2400 Mass Ave project proposal progressed through all the usual planning stages, not only gain approval, but also was ultimately lauded by this council as a case study worthy instance of collaboration between the development team, city planning, and the abutting community. We all appreciated the outcome and loved the kudos as well. It's fun to participate in those kind of experiences. But unfortunately, the delays at this junction are proving hugely unsettling to us in the community, as we had considered the project well underway, but now we seem to be in limbo. As such, I'm asking for nothing more than to ask for the continued good faith collaboration among all parties to find a way to move this particular project forward. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Brandon Dorms, followed by Tahir Garan and Joe Quest Newbert. Brandon, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Excuse me. Brandon Dorms, you need to unmute, and then you have the floor. Yep, please go ahead. You just re-muted yourself. Try one more time. There you go. Please go ahead.

Okay. Hi, my name is Brandon. I'm at 568 Green Street. The thing that brings me here today is CR number two, and specifically to advocate for the current residents of the Transitional Wellness Center to get priority for those upcoming 25 vouchers. And in particular, this week, I've been thinking a lot about the crisis of trust that I think has really been, A, terrifying to me, and B, I think really paralyzing a lot of the institutions that we invest in. And I understand that these are not responsibilities that typically fall on the city of Cambridge. But the core to all of this is government is not a thing that just happens. It's something that is practiced. And it's a relationship to each of our neighbors of every resident that lives here. And again, I understand this is not usually a city responsibility, but to extend those, that sort of help, that sort of trust to people, and then to withdraw it, not even because of insolvency, but a fear of future instability, right?

It,

also imperils trust in that same way. Like, truthfully speaking, there is not much separating myself and houselessness. And if I were in that same position, which would be so extraordinarily terrifying and uncertain, I would want the city to have my back. And if it didn't, I would feel an amount of betrayal. I would feel that sort of trust slip away from me. So These, I understand it's a very difficult decision, but please, I know these, it's not revelatory to say that these are real people, but for some reason it feels like a necessary thing to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Dahir Garan, followed by Joe Quest-Newbert, then Melissa Quest-Mercadante. We are at speaker number 29. Dahir, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Tahir Abdi and I've lived in Cambridge for 17 years. I urge the City Council to consider funding some form of cash like Rise Up for families this year. It's very difficult to live in Cambridge if you're low income. city support has been critical to so many of us it has helped us stabilize and plan for the future we really appreciate that uh your support for us right now it's very important especially my family we need to help us for the rise up that we have been getting But if you can reconsider this year, that would be, I mean, we'll have a lot of families, especially families with little children and overall low income people. That's it. And I just want to encourage you guys reconsider again for the rise up. Thank you.

Thank you. We are at speaker number 30, Joe Quest Newbert, followed by Melissa Quest Mercadante. Then we will hear from Rin Homa. Joe, you have two minutes.

Joe Quest-Newbert, 1222 Cambridge Street, Apartment 1. I'm speaking in favor of Charter Item 2, Policy Order 69. Last week, I sat in this chamber and heard dozens of my neighbors speaking in favor of extending funding for the Transitional Wellness Center, Rise Up program, and municipal vouchers for 170 formerly unhoused or mixed status immigrant households. After hearing such a strong outpouring of support from the community, I was aghast. hearing the majority of the council make the hard choice to support only funding the vouchers and refusing to push for immediate continued funding for Rise Up and the Transitional Wellness Center. Many of you cited that these programs were not initially established as permanent programs as justification to cut them. In a city that does, in fact, have the money to continue funding them, that is a cop out. These are survival programs meeting critical needs and supported by the community. Cutting programs for vulnerable community members before alternatives are established, even with the intent to create or revive programs in the future, is abandoning those communities. It's like taking the donut off of a car that had a flat tire before a new tire is available. Sure, the donut was supposed to be temporary, but without any tire, the car isn't safe to drive. It's unconscionable in a city that has the level of wealth that we have. And it sends a message to everyone in Cambridge, particularly marginalized, targeted, and vulnerable residents, that our city will protect and support us only if we are deemed worthy, and that the support does not require too much effort. Tonight, I implore you to vote to support fully funding all of these programs as your constituents have asked. Thank you.

Next speaker is Melissa Quest Mercadante, followed by Rin Homa, then Ruhi Wadhwanya. Melissa, you have two minutes.

Good evening, Melissa Quest Mercadante, 1222 Cambridge Street, Apartment 1. I'm here to speak on continued funding for the Transition Wellness Center and the Rise Up program. Making hard decisions is when we most need to think about and act on our values. Do we truly value the well-being of our most vulnerable residents? I hear that a succession program to Rise Up is to be explored at a later date. Why would we abandon those in need during that time? Why not commit to funding it for one year while we figure out the long-term plan? These funds are a lifeline, not a bonus. If the cost of the Transition Wellness Center is too high, let's make a commitment to fixing that problem instead of closing a successful program. Whether it's finding a new space or working with Spalding on a mutually beneficial solution, we are a community filled with smart and compassionate people. This is a solvable problem. There are community members afraid to leave their homes right now. These include people who are legally allowed to be in the US. They are afraid to ask for help. They are afraid to access services. Taking away supports only validates their fears that we, in Cambridge, are not a safe place for them. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Rin Homa, followed by Ruhi Wadhwanya, then Claudia See. Rin, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

My name is Rin Homa, and my address is 5 Calperthway Street. I speak with the Cambridge Housing Affordability Organizers and would like to express my support for starting with Charter Order 2, a stronger support for most vulnerable populations. Firstly, we are incredibly grateful for the members of the Council who have allied to support those who need it most. Unfortunately, we can't say that the recent decisions compromising houses individuals in the spa and shelter have aligned with these interests. in no way morally or logically should our interests be aligned with putting our most vulnerable populations in the most precarious situations especially during this time we cannot say that all individuals in cambridge have a right to basic medical financial and social support and in the same breath say that we should not afford housing vouchers for the displaced residents that line of support for those in the transitional shelter Now, and the hundreds that the shelter could have assisted in the future have already been taken away with the decisions to shut down Spalding. This decision is showing the red citizens of Cambridge who is left unprotected by the city. This is a complete misalignment of priorities, and the city cannot grow used to reducing support for the vulnerable. We are at the beginning of a presidential term that could lead to potentially a much worse financial situation. And personally, if this is who the city supports now, I personally do not want to know who the city will choose to protect in a year. We are very grateful for the support expressed for keeping Swahili culture open. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ruhi Watwanya, followed by Claudia See, then Virginia Fisher. Ruhi, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Ruhi Udwania. I'm a member of the Cambridge Housing Affordability Organizers and a student at Harvard. I'm speaking in support today of a stronger version of Charter Right 2, advocating for its passage and asking that the city council and city manager fill in gaps. On April 10th and 17th, the public hearings convened by the Human Services and Veterans Committee supported allocating sufficient funds in the fiscal year 26 operating budget to sustain the emergency housing vouchers for permanent supportive housing, housing vouchers for mixed status households, the Transitional Wellness Center, and Rise of Cambridge. So I applaud the council for their commitment to provide vouchers for over 170 households at risk of losing housing due to the Trump administration's cuts, but the watered-down policy they have before them today, while it should be passed, does not provide support for all of these groups. As the Charter Right language itself says, preserving housing stability for these people is not only a humanitarian imperative, but also a fiscally responsible strategy that prevents the greater downstream costs associated with displacement and homelessness for these households. Additionally, the Transitional Wellness Center was created because of the COVID-19 pandemic and because the city's existing homeless shelters were not sufficient. From a public health perspective, COVID-19 is still affecting people today, with the most weekly deaths from COVID in Cambridge in the past year occurring just this February. So the shelter is mandatory to continue keeping open. It also included critical wraparound services, so closing of the shelter without a transition plan is unacceptable. It means people not only lose the shelter, but lose other services that were supporting their well-being. While I am one person speaking right now, there have been many other testimonies thus far touching on these issues, and the Cambridge Housing Affordability Organizer sent a communication earlier today with signatures from over 150 Harvard students and affiliates and Cambridge residents supporting all the policies that I've discussed. Therefore, while passing Charter Right 2 is the bare minimum I ask this council to do right now to protect Cambridge citizens, I ask that you also pass Charter Right 1 and fill in the gaps that I've mentioned. Lastly, my colleague Rishi Mohan was on the Zoom for public comment and was passed over, so he should be available if the

clerk is able to call on him thank you thank you our next speaker is claudia c followed by virginia fisher then patrick barrett claudia claudia has not joined us we will go to virginia fisher then patrick barrett virginia you have two minutes please go ahead

Thank you.

Can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead.

Thanks. My name is Virginia Fisher. I live on Clinton Street. I'm calling to speak on Charter Right Number 2 and to express my disappointment at the Council's decision to close the Transitional Wellness Center at Spaulding without a plan in place for where the residents can go. Turning these people out of the shelter won't make them disappear and won't solve their problems. It will only push them towards crisis. What happens to people in this country when they're in crisis and have nowhere to go? They are criminalized, harassed, arrested, prosecuted, and often imprisoned. Since we're so concerned about the budget here, I'll just remind the council that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts spends over $300,000 a year on every person we incarcerate. To be clear, it would be unacceptable to lock people up simply if it was cheaper than helping them, but that isn't even the case. By my calculations, the Transitional Wellness Center, if it keeps even 20% of the people it serves out of jail, then it is actually saving money. In addition to the incalculable benefits of allowing people to live with freedom and dignity. And yes, I understand prisons are funded as part of the state budget outside the remit of this council, and it's not on the city's balance sheets. But if that's the best reason that you have for why closing the shelter is a fiscally prudent and therefore necessary thing to do, that's not good enough. Please prioritize the displaced residents from Spalding for the new housing vouchers. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patrick Barrett, followed by Glenna Wyman, then Suzanne Blier. Patrick, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor. Two minutes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you now. Please go ahead.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, for some reason it's not working. I'm having technical difficulties. Can I pass for a second?

Yes, we'll come back to Patrick Barrett. We're going to go to Glenna Wyman followed by Suzanne Blié. Glenna, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Glenna Wyman, if you can unmute yourself, you have two minutes.

Hi. I'M SORRY, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.

I'M CALLING FROM 25 8th STREET IN EAST CAMBRIDGE, AND I WANT TO URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER THE ORIGINAL POLICY ORDER 69 THAT WAS CHATTER-WRITED TODAY. IF THERE AREN'T ENOUGH I WOULD URGE GOOD PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT IT AS IT IS. I WOULD, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ADDITIONAL MILLION DOLLARS PROPOSED IN MUNICIPAL RENTAL VOUCHERS AS A COMPROMISE POSITION. I WOULD URGE THAT THE CITY BE TOLD TO PRIORITIZE RESIDENTS GET THOSE AS WELL AS GET THE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO HELP THEM SUCCESSFULLY FIND AN APARTMENT WITH A VOUCHER AND THAT THE CITY PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES IN THE HOMES THAT THEY FIND OR IN BUILDINGS THAT PROVIDE THOSE KINDS OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES ALSO, I WANT TO URGE THE COUNCIL TO INCLUDE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER TO FIND THE MONEY NEEDED TO REFUND THE RISE UP CAMBRIDGE PROGRAM. LASTLY, IN MY LAST LITTLE BIT OF TIME, I'M VERY OPPOSED TO CHARTER RIGHT NUMBER TWO or otherwise known as policy order 69. I think we should not reduce inclusionary from 20 to 10%. The developers don't need it.

We are going to go to Suzanne Blea, speaker number 38, then back to Patrick Barrett, followed by Jacob Brown. Suzanne, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Suzanne Blier, Five Fuller Place. I want to begin with the financial crisis that we're having locally and nationally. And we as a city need to simply cut back. I can speak for the universities here. We're thinking 20% cuts. That's massive. Staffing, et cetera. Same thing probably with MIT and elsewhere. Ditto the hospitals. Biotech is in deep distress. We have a real financial crisis and the city needs to step up and consider cutbacks roughly along those lines of budget and staff if we're going to make it through this in some way. 20%, that's the element that matters tonight. You can't simply raise property values because that impacts housing costs for everyone, apartments and those on lower and fixed incomes. On housing needs now, a large number of our Cambridge and area employees likely will be decreasing in the months ahead as universities, hospitals, and biotechs do major cutbacks. The impacts of this will not be known until the summer or fall, and new housing requirements, requirements for new housing likely will shift downwards significantly, maybe even 15 or 20%. The council had a chance to include affordable housing inclusionary in the February 10th luxury housing proposal. Dropping that now is kind of like bait and switch because the petition proponents had advocated this as advancing housing affordability. I kind of agree with Lee Ferris, put the upzoning on hold if that's what you need to do. On the commercial in every neighborhood, that's a proper place of zoning. There are costs, water, electric, sewage, parking, congestion, noise. And that needs to be done in neighborhood planning. Note, it's really hard to keep a business going two years if it has gone away because a building was closed. Grandfathering works. Keep it. Charter right number two. I'm really impressed with the Spalding people and others. This is a key group, and we need to support them. Thanks to Clerk LeBlanc. Thanks for honoring Pebble Gifford. She is still with us, and I know she would oppose the developer interests.

Thank you. We are going to go back to Patrick Barrett, followed by Jacob Brown, then Brandon Hickey. Patrick, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Patrick, you're unmuted now. If you can speak, please go ahead.

This is awful. We can hear you. Oh, great. My name is Patrick Barrett, 907 Maine. I'm calling about inclusionary and the retail policy order. And first off, I just want to talk about the retail policy order saying that mixed use is going to save the city. And I think we ought to at least keep an open mind. There are time, place and use restrictions and all kinds of uses in the city. And we ought to take a look at that. Central Square has been a great incubator for small businesses, and we ought to be able to have that flourish throughout. I do find it interesting that our revolution doesn't want you guys to look at a study. I think unfortunately for us right now, we're in a time where extremists kind of run the country. And they also run the dialogue. Developers aren't your enemy. You've been tricked into feeling that way. You've been tricked into thinking that way because of an ideology, not reality. If you look at the 20% inclusionary bump in 2017 and look at the parcels that have been built after that, you haven't had hardly any under 20% built. And in fact, you exempted all the large developers when you did the jump because they told you it couldn't work. You know, the emperor has a little bit of no clothes when it comes to inclusionary zoning in Cambridge, and I kind of wonder if this program ever worked as advertised. Units that are counted as inclusionary, Mass of Maine, for instance, that's not an inclusionary project. Shame on you. You also listed, you know, I sent a copy of the development log. Um, you know, of the, you know, Dan said, Boris spoke earlier and of that development, you can get about 15% of it. That's actually materialized. So if we can't even agree as to what the data is, we need to take a stop, a breather, uh, go through it and come back and take a hard look at it. We're at odds with each other. We're here to build housing for the city. We're here to work with the city. But we want to work based on the facts, not some fiction that you're being sold by an ideology that's just absolutely broken. Take a look at the data, look at what's been built. You tell me if those are actually inclusionary buildings, both under 20% or 80%. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jacob Brown, followed by Brendan Hickey, then Heather Hoffman. Jacob, two minutes.

Hey, my name is Jacob, and I live on Magazine Street here in Cambridge. I'm here to support the people in the Spaulding Center. I have never really done any public comment before I learned about the Transition Wellness Center at Spaulding, but when I was hearing from the impacted residents of the shelter, it made it clear just how important it was to support them. The people here are neighbors in Cambridge. They had trusted the city to help them transition to a more stable situation, and for a moment, Cambridge responded with, Really an exemplary model of what a shelter could look like. Something that gave residents the stability they needed to find jobs and reconnect with their families, as they've told us. That's why I'm heartbroken and upset that not only will the Spalding Center close, but it will close without an adequate transition plan for the residents there. It's critical that the million dollars in vouchers that were outlined in the most recent policy order prioritize these residents. When Cambridge had opened the Transition Wellness Center, it made a commitment and investment to help the people there find a better place. And the word transition is in its name. if the city goes through with closing the shelter without any kind of plan for its residents it's going back on what it promised our fellow cantabrigians it is heartbreaking to me that the city would even consider closing a homeless shelter without ensuring that its residents would be fully supported throughout and it's fully possible for the vouchers to be allocated to spalling residents just based on how other vouchers of the program are being directed to specific to specific families and individuals It is so within reach to do what we can to honor the commitment that we made as a city. And I call on you one more time to do right by them and ensure that they are prioritized with these vouchers. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Brendan Hickey, followed by Heather Hoffman. Madam Clerk, are you able to change the names on the screen?

She didn't hear you.

This screen, the names are not coming up. Yep. All right, thank you. Brendan Hickey, followed by Heather Hoffman, then James Williamson. Brendan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, Brendan Hickey, 54 Concord Ave. I'm speaking in support of CR2 and CR3. As a father, I found Mr. Hickey's testimony moving. We are his lifeline. It is inexcusable to displace people and leave them with no good options. When the fire headquarters budget went from $25 million to $77 million, the money was there. We found $50 million for extravagant historic renovations, including putting a slate roof on the building, but we can't find a way to put a roof over the head of 25 vulnerable people. Where are our priorities? On a lighter note, please support first floor retail. It moves amenities closer to where people live. This makes neighborhoods more vibrant. It reduces traffic. It also helped diversify our tax base. These properties are taxed at twice the residential rate and they don't have a homestead exemption. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker. Our next speaker is Heather Hoffman, followed by James Williamson. Heather, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. I'd like to start by thanking the clerk. As it says in the resolution, she has done a wonderful job and I will miss her tremendously. She is leaving big shoes to fill. With respect to using city-owned parking, I keep being tremendously amused by the completely erratic nature of this city's attitude towards parking. So come up with something, people do need it. And with respect to inclusionary zoning and our budget, I commend to all of you the really well done memo from Claire Spinner about our tax levy limit, the budget and how all of this works with prop two and a half. As far as inclusionary zoning is concerned, I would love to see a study done by the city of Cambridge that I would actually believe because too many studies and too many numbers that are given to us just vary based on the conclusion that's desired instead of reality. And all of the people who say, oh, I believe everything that comes out of the city are people who haven't had to deal with the consequences of it. So when we were told that inclusionary zoning would flourish, and everything was going to be wonderful. We didn't think about real numbers. We didn't think about the MBTA Communities Act. We didn't think about data. We didn't think about reality. So why don't we try a little of that just for a change? Thank you.

Our next speaker is James Williamson, followed by Amy Waltz, then Alex Steinberg. James, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

Thank you. Appreciate it. James Williamson, North Cambridge. I, first of all, would like to second what Heather said about the clerk. She was very nice to me. She said something nice to me, which is kind of rare in the city. She appreciated the fact that I asked if I could be heard during public comment. So anyway, thank you for your kindness. On the closing of the shelter, there is a friend of mine who moved into the Burns apartment buildings where I live, who had lived there for a while and told me about it. And it seems like it's a really nicer place to be than, say, Bay Cove. There's some privacy. There were fans. some meals provided. There was a curfew, but it was more relaxed, less draconian. I think there were many things about it that seemed like this is something that actually works. So when we have something that works, why are we shutting it down? Especially if there's, you know, there are apparently over 20 people for whom there still can't be found alternative housing which of course i suppose is preferable but in the meantime we've got something that works and for people who complain about the money i mean they're doing something with linear park that's seven million dollars and it'll probably be ten by the time they're done which almost nobody who lives in the area want i mean why don't we cut into some of the bike you know bs budget to help people who are homeless with a project that works um until we find more permanent housing. And as for the inclusionary zoning, it really should be more than 20%. The last study said it could be 25%. Everybody touts how much, how great it is, how it works, how it's a model. I prefer other social housing approaches, but I mean, come on, 20% is a minimum. Thank you, James. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Amy Waltz, followed by Alex Steinberg, then Justin Safe. Amy.

Hi, I'm Amy Waltz from 12 Blakeslee Street. It's far too soon to assess the effectiveness of the major citywide upzoning. There is especially no justification to lower the number of inclusionary units. There are many approaches to housing that we could explore. The deference to construction and real estate interest over community needs is unacceptable. Next topic. While I believe additional flexibility regarding allowing some additional business use in residential neighborhoods will be welcome and actually is kind of an exciting idea, it is not possible that there has been a sufficient community outreach or consideration of this issue. Please get community buy-in and have a mechanism for review to address any issues that may come up if this is instituted. THIRD TOPIC, I WANT TO ENCOURAGE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN EVERY MATTER. AND FOURTH, SHELTER SERVICES ARE ESSENTIAL.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS ALEX STEINBERG FOLLOWED BY JUSTIN SAFE. ALEX, TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.

ALEX STEINBERG, 3 CLINTON STREET. HAVEN'T BEEN HERE IN A WHILE. We did, I'm actually what they call a real estate developer. But anyway, in 1989, we did a 27% voluntary affordable housing project at Cambridge Port Commons. Built 100 units, 27 affordable units. We lost some money on it. So we guessed that 27% was probably too high. How much affordable housing we should have, I think, should be part of the city housing plan and population growth. Do we want to be 250,000 people in 10 years or do we want to be 150,000 people? And what percentage do we want to be affordable? I think if we stick our necks out on that, then some of the rest of the plan will be a little easier. and what income levels we want that should be part of it the plan because varying the income levels is very important in getting it to the housing amounts um so you know the the most of the affordable housing oops i'm i'm going way too slow so i'll skip most of it most of the affordable housing is done by the Nonprofits and the Affordable Housing Trust, they're on track. Inclusionary is sort of a secondary thing. It's really a tax. It's like a local tax. It works that way. So the higher the increase in the tax rate, the less production you get. What I think you should do instead of a study is just do an experiment. Drop the rate. 20% is just too high. Everybody knows it. Drop the rate to maybe 15 or 10% for a two-year period. See if that works. Thank you.

Mr. Steinberg, your time has expired. Thank you. Our next speaker is Justin Safe. Justin, you have two minutes.

Justin Safe, 259 Hurley Street. I continue to support increasing funding for the housing budget in the form of the city manager's proposed federal stability fund. The current amount of the proposed fund is too small to address all of the current vulnerabilities that have already been identified, including spotting on the rise in housing vouchers and much too small in light of the federal administration's further budget cuts that we know will come in this fiscal year, including likely to section 8 vouchers. Cambridge can afford to and must protect the most vulnerable among us who face the greatest threat. We have around $200 million in Prop 2.5 cap space, the envy of every other municipality. We are also increasing our budget by more than expected inflation in other areas. On another note, on IZ, I strongly support the overdue and already mandated study, and it seems clear that we face a challenge here. My understanding is that not counting the Blue Garage Ebersource project, only one or two IZ projects have been permitted or opened in 2023 or 2024. The CDD report on recent IZ projects includes ones that were tied to large lab developments like 50 Rogers Street that can't really fairly be compared to purely residential home building. Last June, in reviewing our current IZ regime, MIT urban economist Carl Seidman found that no scenario is financially feasible under existing market conditions. The expectations for market conditions do not appear to be improving any time in the near future or the distant future. And my understanding is that unless the city takes action, we'll lose hundreds of homes. The city will not be able to make up for the dozens of lost inclusionary homes any other way, certainly not given them any other challenges we face. Look how challenging the stability fund has been. In fact, 2400 Mass Ave is already using public funding. Does that count as social housing? We need to figure out how to make these home building proposals work and to maximize the number of inclusionary homes while ensuring projects move forward, whatever it takes. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. That was the last person. We have one person who is trying to sign on via the telephone. If you can give them 30 seconds to get in. Sure. Madam Mayor, the person has not joined, so I think it is okay to proceed.

Thank you, Ms. Stephan. That concludes public comment. What is the pleasure of the City Council? Motion to close public comment. A motion by Councillor Toner to close public comment. 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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

Public comment is now closed on the affirmative vote of nine members. We'll now move to the city manager's agenda. There's just one item. I'm sorry, please. Oh, that's right. I'll come back. We have one set of minutes from the City Council ad hoc executive session meeting on June 29th. What is the pleasure of the City Council? Accept and place on file.

I move to accept and place on file the minutes of the City Council from June 29th.

On the motion by Council Siddiqui to place the minutes from the June 29th ad hoc executive session committee meeting discussion. Hearing none. Roll call, please. Council resume.

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.

Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes. In the June 29, 2020, two minutes have been placed on file by the affirmative vote. of nine members. We move now to the city manager's agenda. There's just one item and the city manager's. Yes, Council Tono.

You sound so identical. Poll number one, please. I have several procedural motions.

Thank you. So I will turn it over to our vice mayor to take up city manager agenda item 2025, number 118, relative to technical corrections that should be made to the floodplain zoning text.

Madam Mayor, I'd like to move to suspend the rules to bring forward committee report number one.

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. Yes. Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

And the rules are suspended on the affirmative vote of nine members. Now on bringing forward committee report number one, 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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

Committee report number one is now before us. Vice Mayor, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to amend the petition that was amended and voted favorably in committee on April 30th, 2025 by substitution with the text provided by CDD and the law department staff.

There's a motion by the Vice Mayor to amend the petition. Is there 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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

And the matter, it passes on the affirmative vote of nine members. Vice Mayor?

Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to pass the petition as amended to a second reading.

Any discussion? Councilor Nolan?

Yeah, I just want you to note we're doing this to improve our floodplain so the public knows. We're just passing all these along, but we've had several discussions about it. It's critically important that we update our floodplain regulations across the city to ensure that folks in those areas which are quite vulnerable to flooding will get the proper regulations in place for the future.

Would anyone else like to speak on the motion before the adoption? Councilor Zusy?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say that I think it's great that we passed this, but I do remain concerned that buyers of property should be alerted about areas that regularly flood in advance of purchase. So many of us have received many calls, texts, and emails from a resident on Lakeview Avenue where the water table is very, very high. But they're not in the 100-year flood area, so construction is allowed there. But my concern is that the developer is selling off lots pre-construction in an area that is known to flood. A neighbor has sent us a video. a very very the very very wet area and i just hate to be the buyer of a two million dollar home there that floods when even though it's not in the hundred year flood zone that that we know it's going to happen it's been documented it happens all the time you know so i just think that is concerning um And I don't know quite what to do about it, but I hope we'll think about how, you know, maybe I understand that if you are in the 100-year flood area, that's in the deed and you're notified and it's part of the building permit. But this property isn't in the 100-year flood area, but the water table is very high and everybody's basement floods and we're allowing building there.

So, I... So, Councillor, this particular vote is about the floodplain. So, please restrict your conference. Yeah.

Anyway, so I support this, but I think we have more work to do. Thank you. Further discussion?

Roll call, please.

Councillor 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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

And the matter passes on the affirmative vote of nine members.

Vice-Mayor. Madam Mayor, two more. I'd like to make a motion to accept the committee report and place it on file.

On the motion, is there 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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

And the matter is adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Lastly, a motion to place City Manager Agenda Item 2025, number 118 on file.

Discussion? Hearing none, roll call please.

Councillor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes, Vice-Member Govern. Yes. Yes, Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes, Councillor Wilson. Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

The matter is placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. You don't have to leave, you can stay, we'll have popcorn later. We move now to policy orders. What is the pleasure of the City Council?

Mayor Simmons? Yes. Sorry, number two.

Pleasure at the City Council. Number one. Okay. Council Zusy pulls number one and reads as follows. It's policy order 2025, number 71, that the city managers requested to meet with the leadership of the Harvard Square Business Association to discuss the proposal and to take the necessary steps to facilitate the release of $72,000 to fund the RFE development for the tunnel engineering study. This was, again, pulled by Council Zusy. Council Zusy, the floor is yours.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a very exciting idea, but I wonder about the timing of this proposal. I wish it had happened five years ago when we were so flush. I understand that the Harvard Square Business Association has been working on this for many years. and they have done a study and perhaps you know, maybe somebody in the room can answer this question. I just wonder how much they've invested in the property to date and whether the Harvard Square merchants and Harvard should be also investing in this engineering study.

Do either you, Mr. City Manager or Deputy City Manager want to speak to this?

I could probably provide some clarification to you, Mayor Simmons. Thank you. I think, Councilor Zusy, your question was regarding ownership of the tunnel, or would it be helpful to just provide- Did we talk to the owners of businesses in Harvard Square around it?

She wished it would have happened four years or so ago before she was a member, and we were flush with cash. So just do your best.

Sure. So I would say my understanding of the context is yes, this has been an exciting idea that has been percolating in the Harvard Square business community for many years. This is regarding the, as the policy order notes, long abandoned MBA tunnel under Harvard Square. I believe the entrance is through a back door in the basement of the Harvard Kennedy School. Many people in our community, including, I believe, probably a majority of the folks in this room, have gone on a visit to see the actual space. Some folks have been down there. This is owned by the... This is owned... Okay, okay.

Sorry, well, I think that there would be... I haven't been down there since I was in high school doing graffiti in the empty tunnel.

There would be willingness.

Is that all you were doing in the tunnel? But go ahead. Um...

I believe there would be willingness to host folks to see the tunnel. We've had a couple of conversations with the Harvard Square Business Association. There is excitement. I think the concept is very interesting. Certainly, when we think about revitalizing our squares, having these in-person venues, entertainment venues is a big part of what draws people in. And that's really the lifeblood of a lot of the businesses. This has been a challenge to get the yes on. I believe that's why we're seeing this here. I've expressed concern that the $72,000 is not a huge amount, but it's really about a long-term picture of what the funding of such a project would look like. So I would say that Getting to an RFP for $72,000 seems reasonable. The challenge is that actually conducting an engineering study of the tunnel would probably run closer to, I believe, $500,000 to a million dollars pretty conservatively. And the question of who would fund that is unanswered at this point in time. I've also had really, I will say I've appreciated the engagement from the business association to actually try to sketch out what the economics would be of a theater space or a performance venue in the tunnel. I have concerns regarding whether the overall capital cost would justify that the economics would work out. I have concerns that the significant capital cost and risk would mean that it would be very difficult to bring private capital into a project like this and ultimately it would have to be publicly funded or there would have to be a pretty significant donation. So I am skeptical that the economics would stand alone and that we would be able to bring private capital in. There would be some request to the MBTA in order to allow access to the tunnel to do any sort of engineering study. That's something else that we would have to bridge. And obviously, I have in my mind the work that we've done on the kiosk, which is how many square feet? small, it was small and that was just a really difficult project and that was above ground and so that's kind of where we are in terms of this proposal. I'm happy if we ultimately want to have continued conversations. I feel like we are certainly in a position where we would love to place bets and think about exciting new projects, but we're also in a time where, as we've been discussing, we don't have unlimited funding to place bets, and this one I would be concerned about from an economic perspective.

Councilor Zusy. Through you, Mayor Simmons. So you're thinking there wouldn't be private funding to do the engineering study or to proceed with activating the space? You mean because of our economic climate or because the MBTA wouldn't allow it? Because it is an MBTA-owned space, right? Mr. City Manager?

Through you, Mayor Simmons, I think there would likely be, we haven't had conversation with the MBTA. I could imagine they might have certain safety concerns. I would imagine that activating the space, if there were a proven economic model, maybe the MBTA would be interested in a revenue stream. So there's kind of competing interests here. But I would say the MBTA certainly has its hands full. I don't know, that's ultimately a request that we would have to prioritize relative to the many other things we're working on the MBTA with. Maybe Deputy City Manager O'Riordan wants to comment a bit on that.

Deputy City Manager? Through you, Madam Mayor. I mean, I think the other thing to bear in mind is that, and you'll have this before you before the end of this week, when we talk about public investment and Harvard Square is that there's a proposal to look at a traffic study associated with perhaps pedestrianizing a portion of Harvard Square. And so that's something I think that perhaps may be very helpful to the business community in terms of enlightening the square as well and something that we've been talking about to the business association as well. And so there are a number of things that are ongoing here in the square. And so again, I think I think we have a somewhat skeptical attitude in terms of the tunnel. It's a long-term, really significant investment project. And while I recognize that there is excitement in the business association about something this different, this is just literally the start of a more significant investment in terms of sort of proving this out in terms of it being vote viable from an engineering perspective, from an access perspective, from a code perspective, and indeed as an entertainment value in the long term.

Council Zusy. Through you, Madam Mayor. So would it, if this is something that, I don't understand the timing of this. So if it's not something that's likely to happen for a decade, would it make sense to pay for an RFP, to draft an RFP at this time? And I will say, I bet many of you, I went to a nightclub in New York many years ago that was in a subway tunnel and it was so exciting, right? So I think this is a very exciting idea. I just think the timing of this proposal is very strange.

Councilor Zusy yields the floor. Vice Chair, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. I know this has been talked about for a while. If you haven't been down in the tunnel, that's one thing, but if you certainly get the chance, I'm sure that Ms. Gilson from the Harvest Group Business Association would show you the... you know the it's not powerpoint but it's the the the mock-up and and sort of the ideas that they have for this and it would be incredibly cool um you know i i think i i i think the concerns um that you raise mr manager are reasonable concerns i don't think this would be a cheap uh a cheap project um but we're not you know the order is not asking for the city nor i think would anyone ask for the city to fund all of the infrastructure and everything else to you know to do this but we don't know what the possibilities might be and who might be willing to step up whether it's a live nation or you know some some company like that until we do the initial step and and get an rfp out and have somebody go in and take a look at it and see if it's even feasible I mean, they might come back and say, no, and then we can put this whole thing to bed and think of maybe something else to do with the space. But until we do that, this is just going to keep going round and round and round and round and round. I hope we pass this. I think this is a first step, and I know that we have, as Deputy City Manager, you mentioned we have about $300,000 or so set aside to do a pedestrian study in Harvard Square. Maybe this money comes out of that, and it's already budgeted, or maybe a piece of it comes out of that. I don't know. But in any case, I think it's worth doing, and I think it's worth seeing what the potential for that space would be. Thank you.

Vice Mayor yields the floor. Councilor Tona? Councilor Tona, and then we'll come back to Mr. City Manager.

I can yield to the City Manager to answer.

Council Toney will yield to the city manager. City manager, the floor is yours.

Through you, Mayor Simmons. I think, Vice Mayor, I would probably say that if we are to commit to $72,000 toward drafting an RFP, I would request that the council think and that the HSBA... help us understand where the funding for an engineering study might come from. My concern would be if that in our conversations thus far that hasn't been clear, in which case it may just be a request really for $72,000 to then come back to this body with essentially no more information except for the fact that we now need to do a $500,000 or $1 million engineering study. um i would note you know when i think about fiscal responsibility some of it is also just understanding you know as we spend small amounts of money that lead to medium or large amounts of money we should just be thinking about what that long-term outcome we are shooting for is how likely it is to actually turn into what we desire and i would say even with the mbta some of these are not financial asks but ultimately they are There's a number of things that we really do need out of the MBTA. If we want to make this one of them, then that's a conversation that we can have. But I would think also about how we're prioritizing where we want their attention focused and how this fits into the broader priorities that we have as a community.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm very much in agreement with what the city manager is saying. The reason I supported this is for asking the city leadership to sit with the Harvard Square Business Association and discuss this. I know you've had some discussions. Maybe we want to add and the MBTA because I agree that if the MBTA has absolutely no interest in ever allowing the city or Harvard Square Business Association or any private developer to go down there and do anything, then I wouldn't want to invest the money. So this is really about having a meeting with them, considering, I will say that almost as soon as the draft budget was released, a call came in from the Harvard Square Business Association saying, why are we spending $300,000? on a pedestrian study. So they seem to think that it'd be more worthwhile to invest here. So I'm not asking that you definitely do this. I'm asking that you meet with them. And if you as city manager and the staff feel it's worth looking into. One thing I will say in my meeting with folks from the Harvard School of Business Association, they also pointed out, and correct me if I'm wrong, yes, the property's owned by the MBTA, but there's a lot that we as the city probably need to know about this property and our access to it and various other things for us as a city to make decisions about it, whether it becomes a shopping mall nightclub or something else so there's a little bit of you know we probably need to do some more digging and asking about what the you know the various things are involved with this property so i won't do it now but i'm perfectly open to a possible amendment definitely including the mbta as part of this discussion and instead of it being facilitate the release, consider investing $72,000, et cetera, but I won't make that motion at this time.

Council Tony yields the floor, Councilor Nolan, and then Councilor Zing.

Thank you. I do agree this is a really exciting project. There have been conversations about it. This is not instead of pedestrianization. We have talked about that. The council has passed about six orders asking for greater opening up of Harvard Square. The Harvard Square Business Association has endorsed that. We have worked strongly over five years maybe as long as this tunnel but that's much further along it's also in some ways complicated but it's also much easier because it is about finding a way to pedestrianize parts of harvard square we have worked also to identify specific roads in a way that will be less disruptive so i i also agree that maybe we don't need the full 300 000 for that that we can do a traffic study Hopefully that will save some money there and we're still also many of us are still hoping that and I know I've talked with the executive director of Gilson that we're still going to be able to do some kind of pilot this summer in anticipation to do proof of concept for For that so I I don't think these are at odds with each other But I do think obviously since we don't own this land in the Harvard Square Business Association doesn't own the land that it would be prudent to ensure that THE ACTUAL DECISION MAKERS ARE AT THE TABLE AS THE RFP IS DISCUSSED, SO I WOULD CERTAINLY SUPPORT COUNSELOR TONER'S AMENDMENT TO SAY MEET WITH THE LEADERSHIP AND THE MBTA JUST SO THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AS THIS POSSIBLY MOVES FORWARD WITH THIS EXCITING CONCEPT. SO THAT'S WHAT I, AGAIN, I LOOK FORWARD TO IT. I KNOW HARVARD SQUARE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT US MOVING FORWARD FINALLY WITH the study of and seeking to pedestrianize. I know there's a couple blocks already that are underway of being discussed, smaller blocks off the main drag. But this particular one in the heart of Harvard Square, we'll talk about it perhaps at the budget meeting on this Wednesday, not even Thursday. But this is something that, as I understand it, is saying let's move forward and see if the feasibility study can happen.

Councilor Nolan yields the floor. Councilor Azeem.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think this is a really cool idea. I hear some of the concerns that my colleagues do. I'm generally supportive. I think that Councillor Tonor's amendment makes sense. I would just like some time to meet with him and the city manager and Councillor Zusy and the other co-sponsors and just talk about this in general. So I would like to exercise my charter right. Thank you.

Councilor Zane exercises his charter right. This closes off discussion. We'll move on to the next item, which is policy order number two. It reads as follows that city managers requested to work with the school department, the Department of Public Works, and other relevant departments to ensure that all city-owned parking lots with a focus on school complexes, including... The still under construction parking at Tobin Darby Vassal School Complex could be made available for after hours use by residents. This was pulled by Councilor Nolan. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. This was since last week when we had had a similar policy order and a response about, is there any way that we could use the Cambridge Street facility? And Councilor Wilson had indicated, laid it on the table to make sure that we get more of a communication. There was a recognition by a couple of us at the time that in a way a lapse in the policy order it only identified one school as asking for a specific response and yet we know with particularly the Broadway parking and some other projects going around the city and we have a school building under construction that the community I think the council's often thought and maybe assumed that the city would be providing for some kind of after-hours use for not just the school buildings but maybe other city parking lots as well So this kind of corrects for that lapse and says let's look at all of our buildings to see if there's a way that we can work on this. And I also neglected in the middle of our budget hearing last week, Councilor Siddiqui had said that she would support this and so I'd like her to be added to the council order. So I just want to explain why it was that we were bringing this forward at this time to add to the one that was already on the table.

So there's a motion on the floor to add Councilor Siddiqui to the policy order. Discussion?

Madam Chair.

I'd like to be added too.

Okay. So let's work on the amendment first. So the amendment to add Councilors Nolan, Siddiqui, and Wilson to the policy order. Is there any discussion on adding Councillor Zusy, Councillor Wilson. Who else wants to be added? And Councillor Siddiqui. No discussion? Roll call. Councillor 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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

The policy order is amended by the affirmative vote of nine members. We'll go back to our earlier order. Councilor Nolan yielding the floor. We'll go to Councilor Toner.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to make it clear to the city manager and deputy city manager that this is a request, a hope. I'm a big boy. If you come back and say this is completely impractical and there's no way it can happen, I understand that, but I just want us to remember that you know before the king open open it was the harrington school with an open parking lot and people were able to park there in the tobin i used to park back there for my son's baseball game so now that's not going to be available to folks when the fields open up again someday so If it's possible, great, but I also understand security and other reasons why there might be some challenges. So I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Councilor Toney yields the floor. I did bring in a modest amendment. I don't know, do you have it, Ms. Stephan? Stephan, sorry. I'm sorry? We're sending it to you now. Well, Mr. Alpert is sending it over to Ms. Stephan. A couple of things. As you know, there was an earlier order that asked about using the Cambridge Street parking facility, which is under the Cambridge Street Schools, and that request has gone to the Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee of the School Committee for them to take it up as a part of their discussion, because although And this particular policy order says confer with the school department. The school department doesn't necessarily mean the school committee. And so the amendment that I'm asking is that we add school committee. I will be sending them a copy of this policy order so they'll know what we're asking of them. And I believe there's a meeting... set but I'm not sure but they haven't had it yet and so we can add this to the discussion hopefully after the school committee has discussed it we may want to even consider having a round table to talk about between both bodies and so is that ready to go up it's just adding the school committee I can't see it so I'm just going to have to go by what someone's telling me so if there's no is there any discussion about amending Okay, no discussion, no problem with it then. Let's vote this amendment.

Roll call, please. Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice-Member Govan.

Yes.

Right here. Councilor Newland? 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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes. Thank you. So if there's no further discussion, we will vote on the policy order as amended. Councilor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. 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, Madam Mayor. Nine members have voted yes.

And the policy order is adopted as amended by the affirmative vote of nine members. Thank you, Mr. City Manager, Deputy City Manager. Now, if you want to stay and we wouldn't chase you away, you can. We will move now to the calendar. I don't think there's anything else on the policy order resolution list, so we will move to the calendar. First item is a Charter Right, it says 105. The City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to develop a timeline for the next Inclusionary Housing Study, explore revenues to address the lack of housing starts, and provide for consideration draft amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and explore other incentives to encourage developers to include affordable units beyond the requirements voluntarily. The Charter Right was exercised by Councilor Azeem, Councilor Azeem, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I had an amendment by substitution with my colleagues. I would love that to be brought up.

Amendment by Councilor Azeem. So a motion to... Okay, so on the communication by Chris Carter, let's first vote to suspend the rules. So on suspension.

Any discussion?

Hearing none.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Newland. Yes. Council Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Council Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Council Toner? Yes. Yes. Council Wilson? Yes. Yes. Council Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

And the rules are suspended on bringing the communication from Housing Director Chris Carter related to this matter forward. Roll call.

Council Azeem? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Council Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Council Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes. Council Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Council Toner. Yes. Yes. Council Wilson. Yes. Yes. Council Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

So the letter is before us. Does everyone have a copy of it, the communication? Council Sussi, you do not have a copy. Can you put it up on the screen? And Mr. Carter, do you want to come forward? It's on your desk, Councilor Zusy. The letter from Chris Carter. It looks like this. They say they don't have it, Madam Clerk.

It was emailed.

It was email, so look in your email. The clerk said she put one on everyone's desk. And it's posted online. And it's posted online, so it should be on your desk and online.

We have extra copies.

We have extra copies that will be about to be delivered to each of you. In the meantime, Mr. Carter, if you want to start going through it. And I think it's ready to be posted on the screen.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. Through you, so we shared some information on recent new development in the inclusionary housing program in response to some questions that had come in last week after last week's discussion of the policy order. just provide information on how new units have been brought into the inclusionary housing program over the last few years and then more generally as we look at the inclusionary housing program we have a number of ways in which new affordable units are brought into that including the inclusionary zoning ordinance which is section 11 200 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SIMILAR ZONING PROVISIONS THAT ARE MORE PROJECT SPECIFIC. AS YOU KNOW, THE IZO WAS AMENDED IN 2017, SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT NEW UNITS THAT WE'VE SEEN SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS THAT WERE IN PLACE PRIOR TO 2017 AND THOSE PROVISIONS THAT WERE CHANGED IN 2017. Started just with some information about how the program has grown over the last 25 years. The inclusionary ordinance was first adopted in 1998. It required 15% of units subject to a density bonus that ended up reducing that 15% to roughly 11 to 13%. And you can see on this slide how the program has grown over that time as units have been added in new market buildings. Over that time, the next slide gives you a sense as to the activity and how units have been added. Again, over that 25-year period, looking at development cycles, some years you can see that there are a lot of units that were added, some years as few as zero. We've also included on this slide information about the number of developments that were approved these units are counted at the time the building permits issued or in the earliest years at the time that the inclusionary plan was approved and you can see we'll zero in on this a little bit later but the more recent years we've seen more volatility in the last couple years that the numbers are down So the next slide is information on the type of inclusionary requirement or the type of zoning based requirement that has resulted in the production of affordable units that are part of our inclusionary housing program. You can see we've grouped them into a number of different categories starting with A few units, 38 units, 35 units that were in place subject to permitting requirements that were adopted prior to the passing of the inclusionary ordinance in 1998. The largest majority is, of course, the units that are subject to the inclusionary ordinance that was in place prior to 2017, given the amount of time, number of years that that those provisions were in place and the fact that those provisions continue to apply to developments that have received permits prior to that change. So we are still seeing developments, new developments subject to the provisions that were in place prior to 2017 produce new units while those multi-year projects are built out. We have on here indicated the number of developments or the number of units that have been produced through the inclusionary ordinance subject to the 2017 changes along with those that we would call project specific changes which there are four or five large PUD projects which have project specific affordable housing requirements that again are in a separate part of the zoning ordinance and in some cases are modeled after the inclusionary ordinance or in some cases preempted the 20% change a couple of those where the 20% requirement was put in place for certain projects prior to the adoption of the 20% in the ICO itself And so next slide just shows these are the three ways in which we're seeing most units come into the inclusionary housing program now. We have one unit that came under a BZA permit over the last couple years, but the majority of the units that we're seeing now are coming through these three mechanisms in the zoning ordinance. And looking forward, next slide. WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT THE ACTIVITY SINCE FY18. THE INCLUSION ORDINANCE WAS CHANGED IN 2017 AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PRODUCTION HAS BEEN VOLATILE SINCE THAT TIME AND OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS HAS BEEN DOWN AND WE'VE INCLUDED IN HERE BOTH THE INFORMATION ON UNITS THAT WE HAVE SEEN GET TO THE PERMIT STAGE YEAR BY YEAR AS WELL AS THE UNITS BY TYPE OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT ON THE RIGHT. IN ALL WE HAVE SEEN 576 UNITS COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION THROUGH A RANGE OF DIFFERENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS THERE. THE NEXT SLIDE IS A LIST OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THAT PRIOR SLIDE. THIS IS THE LIST OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE HAVE SEEN ACHIEVE THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE AND ENTER CONSTRUCTION. MOST OF THESE UNITS AS NOTED ARE COMPLETE. SOME ARE STILL UNDERWAY. And then the last slide we have was just some information about where we are with preparation for the next inclusionary housing study where we do have funding in the FY26 budget for a new inclusionary housing study. We are underway preparations to commission that study. Key pieces of that study will be updating our socioeconomic diversity analysis to look at changes in the community. that underpin the inclusionary ordinance. The economic feasibility analysis, which you're hearing a lot about, the study that we did in 2016 looked at seven different development prototypes and tested those against a range of varying inclusionary housing requirements to look at the impact and the feasibility of those across that range. We will also update The legal analysis that underpins the inclusionary ordinance working with the law department and ask the consultant team that we select to look at recommending policy options, looking at best practices and inclusionary from other jurisdictions around the country. So we're preparing for that now want to talk with you all about that and are happy to put together more information But wanted to just provide that high-level overview of where we are and then just for reference we've included some information about the 2016 study in the 2017 amendments just From a timeline perspective to give an indication of what that process looked like when we did this at that point So happy to answer any questions

Mr. Carter yields the floor. Are there any questions on his communication? Councilor Tona.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. If we could put that back up, the slide. Ms.

Stephon, can you put it back on the screen, please?

And just going to the slide that had the columns, I think the, yes. So developments produced, thank you very much, through you Madam Mayor and Mr. Cotter, where it says IHP ratio, so that, in that column, that's telling us how many inclusionary housing units were developed as part of that project, correct? Am I reading that right?

Through you, Mayor Simmons. Yes, that's a ratio of the units of the IHP units to the total units. I should note though that the 2017 changes to the ordinance changed the methodology for the inclusionary component from a unit based requirement to a GFA. So in some cases, the nominal percentage of units may vary from the floor area. We are under the 2017 changes, there's more flexibility so that we are able to identify larger units in some cases. So there will be fewer units but the same amount of floor area. So if it's a 15% requirement, it may be 14% of units. If it's a 20% requirement, it might be 18% of units.

Through you, Madam Mayor. So the percentage, as a novice on this stuff, I apologize for my ignorance. So you might actually get 20% of GFA, but it's a lower percentage of the units. Is that how it works?

Mr. Carter.

Thank you. Through you, Mayor Simmons, yes, that's accurate. So the 2017 changes initially increased the set-aside ratio to 15% of floor area for a period of time, and then after that it stepped up to 20% of floor area. So when you see those that are noted as being subject to the 2017 revisions, those would either be a 15% of floor area requirement or a 20% of floor area, depending on when the permits were issued.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I guess part of the reason for this discussion is that under the ordinance, this was supposed to get started three years ago under the original timeline. And nobody's fault, but it didn't happen. And now we're in a situation where we need to get things going. Based on the last slide, are you suggesting that you can't do a study until 2026?

Mr. Carter?

Through you, Mayor Simmons. If we are to do the study in the same way and to include the components that we looked at last time, yes, I think that the study would take some time to do. We'd have to procure a study team. That would take a bit of time. The study itself would probably take at least six to eight months, depending on the team. And one of the things that we'd be looking for when we did procurement was a schedule from the consultant last time you can see it to take over a year i think it can be done more quickly than that certainly if we model what we had done and learned from the process last time and have a discussion in advance about what we're studying and what we're looking at particularly in regard to the development prototypes that we want them to look at feasibility for i think it can be done more quickly but we won't be able to say with full clarity until we have a study team on board and are really talking with the folks that would do it

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. So just to get it straight, you don't think we could even start it for six to eight months? And then even if it's done, let's say it's done in a more rapid fashion than last time, what's the shortest length of time you think you get it done once you have a team hired?

Through you, Mayor Simmons, I'll clarify. So we have funding in the budget, and if that funding is approved and we're able to move forward, we would start procurement. We would continue with what we're doing now to prepare procurement and have that procurement out as early in FY26 as we can with the hope of having a team identified, say, toward the end of the quarter one in FY26, and then probably looking at six to eight months after that for the study to be completed. Thank you.

Council Senator? This isn't to the charts. I just want to say that this is why myself and Council Nolan originally put in having some sort of emergency lifting of the 20% inclusionary, because if it's going to take another year plus just to get a study done, then at least two projects that we've heard about are just going down the toilet. and everybody else is just gonna sit on their hands, but now I'm editorializing, so I will stop and yield back to you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Councilor Toner. Councilor Toner yields the floor. Just a follow-up to Councilor Toner's question. If it takes us six months to a year, did you say? to commission, to just commission the study and then additional time? Can you just say that again?

Sure. Just to clarify, so the commissioning would be the procuring of the study team and that would be something that we would do. When we did it in 2016, it took, I think, 60 days to go from an RFP to a signed contract with a consultant. That study itself, Again, we won't know with clarity what the time frame will be until the team is identified and they indicate to us what that would be, but we would expect it would be six to eight months from that point to completion of the study. That would be our hope.

So at the risk of sounding a bit redundant, six months to procure the team, and the team is who?

It would be a team, housing policy team that could do both the review of the socioeconomic changes over time as well as the economic feasibility analysis. When we procured the study in 2016, we ended up with a group from California that had done inclusionary housing studies in various cities around the country. So as we prepare for that, we would expect those types of consultants would be looking to respond.

So the procurement team is out of house, it wouldn't be internal?

The procurement would be internal, but we would be finding a team to do the analysis for us and to make the recommendations and complete the study.

So the procurement team that's in house would take six months to find a consultant to do the study that would take six months.

No, sorry, let me clarify. The procurement itself I think would take about two months if we look at what the model was last time. And so if we started that early in FY26 within two months, we would expect to have a study team identified and then be into the study period when the team would be completing the study.

And that'd take about six months.

That would be our hope.

So just one quick question, then I'm gonna get the floor back to Councilor Azeem, then to you, Councilor Nolan. So I guess I'm curious, why didn't we hear, isn't there a trigger that says, hey, it's been X number of years, we're supposed to do this by this time? There's no internal trigger? It's not something that the counselors, let me speak to myself, I didn't program my calendar for three years in advance to say time to do an inclusionary study. So that we don't come in this place again, is there no lever, any trigger that says it's time to do it again?

There is a trigger. It's in the zoning. However, when the time came, we have been focused on a lot of other things in our planning capacity, and the housing area has been focused on the AHO changes, the multifamily zoning, and other things that have come up that have taken the capacity away from what we would have otherwise worked into our work plan to do the inclusionary study.

I see. Not to be unkind, but it's unfortunate that I know that we were in the throes of AHO 1, 2, or 2.0, and to the second power and all that other business. But it's just unfortunate that because we were swept up in that, that this got sort of pushed away. So I'm not going to say any more about that. I will yield the floor to council. Thank you for that information. Councilor Azeem?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, so I wanted to take a step back for a moment. You know, the initial proposal called for, you know, something done in 30 days, that would be temporary relief. I think that my feelings was that was a little bit too quick, given you know, all the options out there and how important inclusionary is. So me and my co-sponsors put forward a proposal to start the work in January or to hear back by January. I think that we have a compromise proposal that's brought forth with you with an October timeline. I think that, you know, A, in some extent, we don't need to do the full study like for 2400 Mass Ave, it's done with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, which we work very deeply and closely with. And there's a lot of trust there so that we can get raw numbers. And I will say in general that there's a lot of opportunities and places to look around for options in that I myself, my first option would not be to lower inclusionary from 20% to 10%. There's many other cities that have dealt with this and have found other interesting solutions. Baltimore is my favorite example where they just fully fund their inclusionary through tax abatements. And so they get all the affordable units and they get the buildings built. And tax abatements typically don't have that much of an economic cost because like the buildings otherwise would not be built so i think that there's a lot of creative solutions i would just like to suggest our amendment by substitution i think um counselor nolan and counselor toner might also have further amendments which in general i think are fine i think it doesn't hurt to try to do a study in like four or five months see what initial data we get back with and see if there's something that we can reach consensus to um by the end of the year um and try on that more ambitious timeline thank you

Councilor Azeem is yielding the floor, but are you putting an amendment before us?

Yes. I thought I had brought the amendment by substitute before us before.

Very good. Any discussion on that? I know, but any further discussion on that? I'll go to Councilor Nolan.

Yeah, I just want to understand we are in the process because Councillor Turner and I had put forth some amendments to the substitute amendment. While personally I would have preferred the one that we put on the table, I'm happy to support the substitute amendment with these additional amendments. I don't know if I do them now or if we're still talking about Mr. Cotter's communication.

So I'm just trying to figure this out. So the clerk is trying to make some suggestions. So let me let her have the floor so she can say that.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The charter right was executed, so Councilor Azeem's substitute amendment was put forward. There was discussion. The mayor recognized the vice mayor who put forth an amendment to the body. The amendment was to change the date. And I believe the last ordered from January 2026 to I believe October 2025. I believe Ms. Stefan can call up. The substitute order that was brought forward is on the screen. The Vice Mayor's amendment is also on the screen. Council Resume exercised its charter right. That is where the debate ended. That's the motion that's before the body. That motion needs to be disposed of in some form before the additional amendments can be taken up.

So, Councilor Nolan, as the clerk has said, I think you have the copy of the motion before you, so we have to act on that. Does everyone have it before them? Do we know what we're talking about?

Just a point of clarification, Madam Mayor.

State your point of clarification.

The amendments that Councilor Nolan and I have, one of them impacts this last order just slightly. So do we vote this first and then come back and vote additions?

If I'm correct, you have to vote what's in front of us right now before we can amend that without making it too crazy. Thank you. So am I correct, Madam Clerk? So the clerk says, would you please take up this amendment that's in front of us and then we can take up something else. Is it on the amendment that's before us? If it's not, what's your point of information? Don't ask it as a question.

So if the director of housing is already proceeding with doing an analysis, the analysis that we're asking for, why do we have to ask for it?

Then vote it down. Vote against it because that's what's in front of us. We have an amendment in front of us. I know what you're saying, but we have this amendment which says to change the date. So I hear what you're saying. So procedurally speaking, now, if the clerk corrects me, that's what we would have to do.

Am I correct?

So even though the city's ahead of us, we still have to put our request in, even though they've already- Well, from a procedural perspective, I believe, Councilor, it's because the amendment's in front of us, which was in front of us before Mr. Carter brought in his recommendation. I know it's tedious, but we're doing our best here. If I'm following the right order, what we want to do is take up the amendment that was offered by Councilor Azeem. So is there any more discussion on that? Any more discussion on the Vice Mayor's amendment, which, sorry. Just the date. Just the date. Is it on the changing of the date, Councilor? It's on this amendment?

Okay. I'm wondering if we should change it back to January 26th, because it sounds as though that is when we might have- But the amendment in front of us is, I've lost it at this point. So if we vote against this amendment, then we're sticking with January 26th.

There you go.

Thank you.

I quit. No, very seriously. Yes.

Through you, Ms. Simmons. If I could offer maybe a clarification, I would say where some of our conversations have been is there's the update to the 2016 Inclusionary Housing Study, which we are proceeding with, and as Director Cotter noted, has a longer timeline. but then parts of the body are expressing they would like to see recommendations or potential actions before we're able to bring back a more comprehensive inclusionary housing study. I would note I think the inclusionary housing study is primarily there as a legal requirement because raising the inclusionary requirement is seen as potentially too burdensome for housing production. And so the inclusionary housing study is required mainly and was used back in 2016 mainly as justification for saying that a higher inclusionary requirement was still economically feasible for the production of housing. So in this case, given the context of this conversation where counselors are saying that there is potentially interest in either lowering the inclusionary requirement or finding other ways to fund it, I think the inclusionary housing study may not be a legal necessity. So lowering it doesn't require a study. Raising the inclusionary requirement requires a study. The challenge may be then, well, what do we lower it to? What are the policy options? I think if this amendment passes, I think we would ultimately probably want to confer a little internally, but we could think about what level of policy recommendation we could bring back by October 2025. This wouldn't incorporate a full economic analysis of the development environment, but we could at least have some kinds of both legal analysis on the different policy options that could provide different kinds of funding mechanisms for inclusionary, and we could also think about where we would potentially land in terms of other ways of structuring the inclusionary requirement compared to what we have today.

Let me just say this. What's in front of us is changing the date from January 2026 to October 2025. There's two things. The Vice Mayor could withdraw it, and then we back to 2026. I just want to put that out there. I'm just putting it out there. Don't shoot the messenger. I think, Councilor Tone, you already had the floor, and I think, Councilor Nolan, have you spoken yet? That's a yes or no.

Have you spoken? I had just wanted to know when the amendments that Councillor Toner and I were proposing to this. According to what clerk? It might not happen until after this vote, so.

Right. We discharge this one, then we go to yours. I refer from you, Councillor Zusy. I want to see if anyone else wants to speak before we come back to you. Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor.

I mean, I could withdraw this. I know that there are other things coming forward that will have other dates in them that may get voted and make this irrelevant. But I do hope, just listening to what the manager just said, I mean, I would like to get that kind of information back as soon as possible. I don't, you know, the entire study with the legal analysis and all of that may take, you know, several months to a year to get back. But I would like, as soon as possible, to get back some information about what are some other things, what are some ways in which we can spur development from happening with inclusion. I sort of wished at the beginning that we didn't talk about 10%, because again, that's what everybody is now focused on. and it may be that that's the answer. It may be that that's not the answer and that there are other things that we can do. That I want to find out ASAP. So I don't want to wait till January to get that piece of information back. So I'm inclined to keep it.

Okay. So I have not heard from Council Sabina Wheeler, Siddiqui, or Wilson. Do either of you want to speak on this? Otherwise, okay, then the amendment before us is to change the date to October 2025. There's no further discussion, so we'll call the roll.

Councillor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes.

Yes, Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes. So just, I'm correct, Madam Clerk. So we wanna vote now on the order as amended and then go to the next vote or just take the next amendment? Now we take the next. Okay, so we can now take the next amendment, which is being offered by?

By Councilors Nolan and Toner.

Councilor Nolan and Toner, whoever wants to take the floor first. Ladies first. Go ahead.

I'm happy to. Again, I would have preferred to stay with the original proposal, the policy order. However, I'm happy to be moving forward and to support this with just some additional clarification to remind us.

Let's hold that for a minute, Counselor. Ms. Steffen, do you have these changes?

Yes, I'm bringing it up.

Does everyone have a paper copy as well? Just give me a moment to put it before. So those that might be viewing and can see it as well. I don't know why my screen's not changing, so is it on the screen? Okay, then Councilor Nolan, please go ahead.

Thank you. There's two whereases, again, taking from the background for this. It no longer mentions the 10% on the Communities Act. Understanding as Vice Mayor McGovern said, that may be an answer, but it may not be. It may be there's other things we can do even than changing the percent. But this does remind us we had thought or hoped there might have been a five-year review. It wasn't done. And also to remind us that the City Council itself in September of 2024 recognized and requested an analysis of whether maybe a step function for inclusionary programs would make sense. So again, it puts us on record that that is part of why we think that this is an opportune time to do this. And then under the ordered-

So Councilor Nolan, if you just take a moment. So you're talking to the red line version, which reads the inclusionary zoning ordinance passed in 2017 required a review after five years, which was not done. And whereas the City Council recognizes that the inclusionary zoning requirements for affordable housing is one factor that influences housing development and in September 2024 unanimously requested an analysis of whether adjusting inclusionary percents for projects of different sizes would enable housing production and is open to considering changes if necessary to spur housing creation. And then you want us to take the last two on the second page? Yes. So the other, then it says then we are adding, Councilor Nolan is adding an ordered

And the word policy.

One, two, a third order if changes would be required to the inclusionary percentage in order to meet the city's housing goals that the report resulting from the study includes specific recommendations with rationale. And be it furthered and then there's an order and you amended the last order to read as follows that the city managers requested to report back to the city council with The timeline by June 15th, which is different from what we just voted, 2010-25, and a policy recommendation no later than October 1st, 2025, such that any zoning changes would be ordained before the year end, and you scratch January 2026. So you bring all that forward for the council.

And on the order, it doesn't assume that changes would be required to the inclusionary percent. It says, but if changes would be required in order to meet our goals, that that report should include some recommendations for those changes with the rationale for why those are being proposed. So again, the wording is specific to say, It's not assuming things, but it is saying, look, if there's a recommendation to change it, let's, one, bring forth the rationale and see what those would be with the idea that, as the city manager said and Director Cotter said, noted this may not be the full comprehensive year-long inclusionary study that would be required if we were contemplating raising it the idea is to do as quickly as possible within a few months a study to understand is there something we can do so that was the intent of this i don't know if it should just leave it october 1st but we're we wanted to counselor tone and i want to be specific and intentional about The idea would be if we're going to do something to have these projects move forward, it really should be something where the zoning changes could be enacted by year end, which would be eight months from now. So that was it, Mayor Simmons. I appreciate the opportunity to present these amendments.

Thank you, Councilor Nolan. Your floor, Councilor Turner.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you, I agree with everything Councilor Nolan just said. I also agree with what the Vice Mayor said earlier, that the intent is to, I was a little frightened when our earlier conversation, if we were going to have to wait a year and a half to get anything. But as the City Manager said, that was my understanding too, is if we're trying to go above 20 we definitely need the legal justification and financial justification for that but if we wanted to make uh changes so we made it easier to build that that's something we can we can do going forward so i'm very interested in hearing uh what suggestions and recommendations we might be able to get by the fall if it includes zoning recommendations you know great but if it doesn't but it helps us you know, meet the goals that we say we have, and to also keep a couple of what look like really great projects alive and moving forward, then that's my hope with moving forward on this process. And again, the specificity was to, you know, just make sure we get things rolling. Thank you, Madam Mayor Yield.

Councilor Toney yields the floor, discussion on the amendments. Councilor Zusy.

I have questions about timing. So I was talking to someone who was saying the economic impact of all the Trump administration policies won't actually hit us until this fall. So I'm wondering, timing-wise, do we want, I mean, can we make good decisions about how to proceed going forward if the impacts don't hit us. We won't know if the impacts are going to, you know, we never know what's going to happen every day, right? But the thought is that, you know, if Harvard is cutting back 20%, if MIT is reducing $100 million of its budget, if all these grants are going away it seems like we'll start feeling the pain in the fall so the question is um can a study project the pain we won't actually know we're going to be in pain until we're there and then the other question is just with the time line what i don't understand is so if you it would take 60 days So it would have to be July 1st before you could submit a procurement requisition, right? But you could draft the RFP and then send it out. Then it would take 60 days. So it could be out in September. And then we would have a report by like February, March. Is that right? Do I understand that correctly? Is that the timeframe? And do you think that would allow for the economic impact that we're anticipating to occur so that this study can actually reflect reality. That's my concern.

Mr. Carter, would you like to take a stab at that?

Thank you. Through you, Mayor Simmons. So to your first point, Councilor Zizzi, on the time frame. So yes, we would expect to begin the procurement early in FY26 as soon as practical. It would require some work with other departments, so I don't want to speak on behalf of other departments that would be involved in the procurement but certainly i think we would say it would be a priority to get that out and to get a study team identified again the length of the study would be determined by the team that's making the proposal we would expect it to be in the say six to eight month range but i think we won't know with certainty until we identify teams and have proposals in front of us and that could be something that we make a consideration as we look at this but we do want to make sure that we get the right study so that we're set up with the appropriate information going forward and as the manager noted we can look at some of the other policy options in the intervening time while we're working on that study to your other question I don't know that the any study team is going to be able to reasonably predict the future and certainly given the uncertainty that we're looking at now however what we would expect is that part of the study would be having the team interview developers and interview folks that are involved in development lenders funders to both understand the current landscape what things are looking at comps a development that has happened in cambridge or in comparable areas in the region and then getting the best information they can from folks that are involved with development to project forward and to use that and when we did the 2016 study it was admittedly a very different time economically but Given that it was a very good part of the cycle, the development of the study team did temper the expectations a bit by changing some of the assumptions to try to account for that. And so that might be something that they would do to give a little bit more conservative projections looking forward, recognizing some of the uncertainty to build some of that in. But again, that would be something we'd look at specifically with the team once they're identified.

Council Zizi? Yes, through you, Madam Mayor. So it sounds to me as if the study would probably start in October, if we're lucky, and it might conclude in March. So do you think that gives enough time for economic impact to impact us? Mr. Carter?

mayor simmons i'm not sure how to answer that uh i don't know how much time would be enough time and you know particularly given the challenges that we expect to come and just what we've seen over the last few months it's hard to even predict but i think that again what we would want the study team to do is independently talk with folks to get a range of perspectives and then to put that information together as best they can to inform the feasibility analysis that they would do on these various development prototypes to give us our best sense.

Yeah, because some people are thinking that we may not even need a lot of housing because there'll be so many people leaving. There'll be people leaving from Harvard and MIT. There'll be people moving out of the area. BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT. SO THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING MAY NOT BE AS GREAT ONCE OUR PRESIDENT IS DONE WITH US. THANK YOU. I YIELD.

Thank you. And through you, Madam Mayor, I want to respect the amendments that have been shared from my colleagues and really get a sense based on some of what I've heard in public comment that there's a few challenges before us right now is that a few of the projects that are at least two of the projects that are pretty promising for our communities are having difficulties and being able to kind of move forward um under this current uh um zoning and so the question is because we want to see these projects through right they're in they're in the process and i know mr sullivan is in the chamber and I don't think it's possible to ask them to come forward, but I think it's, I guess my question is that I want to make sure that these projects, while we are in the process of studying something, that they're able to move forward. So I guess I'm just asking the direct question. We could do a study and get the information that we need, but what is it that these projects actually need so that they can be breaking ground and doing what they got to do?

Mr. Carter, do you want to take a stab at that?

Through you, Mayor Simmons, I think the amended timeline here where the city would come back with policy options for the council in the fall would provide the quickest path toward having a sense of what actions could be taken before a more comprehensive study comes out. I do think that at the end of the day, we do know directionally that economically it's a lot harder to get these projects to pencil out. We wouldn't be able to answer more precisely how much the movement these policy options are recommend, you know, we wouldn't be able to answer how much movement these policy options would get toward making projects viable without the more comprehensive study, but we could certainly know that we're moving in a direction. And I think we could also consider how we may incorporate some higher level understanding of how much impact we're going to have on these kinds of projects. And so I think this is probably the bifurcated option where we're both doing the comprehensive study, but providing some high level options to the council addresses both the need to ultimately get the study done, but also a need for quicker action and recommendations. Sorry, it took me a while to get there.

No, I appreciate it. I think we're taking a while in trying to get through this, so I just wanted some directness on, bless you, on just really kind of where we go with this process and, again, recognizing that there are projects that are currently stalled, and while these two may be two out of a bunch or others, I know that these are two significant ones that we're hearing about and that I think, again, just would offer some some real beauty to the communities in which they would be entering in and especially because many of the at least for the 2400 Mass Ave one the community is on board and that's really one of those places where That all by itself is a beautiful thing that we got the community to be on board. So we really want to see that through. And I know that the other project is in that place of gathering community conversation, is going through community conversation. So I just needed to ask the question because it was important for me to understand kind of where we are. I don't want to see that we're doing this and that's being stalled unless we can kind of speed this up in a certain way. But, you know, maybe the fall is worthy. I hope we don't lose these projects. And I don't know. Mr. Sullivan, would we be losing a project if we waited until the fall?

Up.

That's not appropriate. Do you, Madam Mayor? I guess I just really wanted to have a sense with a head nod or something if this would be challenging or would this be okay?

I understand, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Aya. We got to go to Councilor Azeem and then we'll come to you, Vice Mayor. Councilor Azeem?

I was going to call the question.

That takes a vote and a six-vote majority, correct? So the question has been called. This will take a roll call. It takes six votes. I'm sorry? On the amendments that are in front of you, Councilor Azeem has called the question. And she said point of order, but okay. So we have to vote.

On ending debate, 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.

Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes. So the question has been called on the amendment as offered.

On the amendments put forth by Councilors Nolan and Toner. Councilor Azeem. Yes. 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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes. Now we have to vote on it as amended. So the next is, just want to get.

the right marching order. So Madam Clerk, now that the amendment has been voted, do we need to vote the amendment as amended? So call it.

Madam Mayor, can I speak briefly on the underlying?

I'm sorry, please.

Speak briefly on the underlying policy order now that we're on that. Yes. I just wanted to say happy to study this. Just wanted to be on the record that I'm not committed to voting for final changes. I think it depends what the changes are and looking forward to seeing those. I think there's a way to do this that increases the amount of affordable housing being built. There's also a way that leads to a decrease in the amount of affordable housing built, but it really depends what the details are, and so looking forward to seeing this studied and seeing what the recommendations are and seeing what ends up getting proposed. I'll also just say that I hope this includes a study of doing step function for inclusionary zoning, where it could be 1% for smaller projects, another percent for larger projects. I think we could even do more than 20% for large projects. We could do 22%. We could do 25% for large projects, because you get that economy of scale. So this includes that. I also hope it includes the thing we talked about in the multifamily zoning conversation, which is using funding from the Affordable Housing Trust to fund inclusionary units, especially in smaller projects that aren't currently covered by the inclusionary zoning ordinance. We have all these developments that end up being less than 10 units that don't have any inclusionary housing in them right now. If we are using funding from the Affordable Housing Trust and we find that's a good use of funds, we could get affordable units in those buildings. So I hope this includes that in this study as well. With that, I yield.

Council, Sabrina will yield the floor. So the next three items we have to do, we have to take a motion to amend policy order 2025, number 68 by substitution. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Council Nolan. Yes. Council Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Council Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Council Toner. Yes. Yes. Council Wilson. Yes. Yes. Council Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

And on recommendation by the clerk, the next motion to be taken up is a motion to adopt policy order 2024 number 68 as amended. CALL THE ROLL. COUNCIL REZEEM. YES.

YES. VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN. YES. COUNCIL NOLAN. YES. YES. COUNCIL SADIKI. YES. YES. COUNCIL Sobrinho-Wheeler. YES. YES. COUNCIL TONER. YES. YES. COUNCIL WILSON. YES. YES. COUNCIL ZUZI. YES. YES. MAYOR SIMMONS. YES. YES. MADAM MAYOR, NINE MEMBERS HAVE VOTED YES.

AND THE ITEM NUMBER 81 IS PLACED ON FILE. So we've discharged that item. We are going to now go to the second charter, right?

On motion to place COF 81 on file, Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. 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, Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes. Thank you.

We move now to Charter Right Number 2, Policy Order 2025, Number 69. I think I got that right. City managers requested to include in the fiscal 26 operating budget a continued commitment to emergency housing vouchers for permanent supportive housing and mixed status families and the transition wellness center as well as allocate the necessary resources to establish a municipal successor to Rise Up Cambridge that builds on its mission of direct dignified economic support to families. The amendment that I made by substitution was voted and passed. Council Wilson exercised her charter right prior to the vote on the policy order as amended being voted. So we are now at the motion to either adopt or to amend, to vote as amended. Am I correct in that? That's I'm reading your directions.

So the next motion would be to adopt the policy order as amended. That's what I said.

Madam Mayor?

Discussion? Yes.

Thank you. I would like to suspend the rules to bring in the... Okay.

So according to the clerk, why don't you say it to the council, the next order.

Apologies. I think we have to vote yours first. Right.

She's saying we have to... And then you can amend it. Correct? Correct. All right. If there's no discussion, then you will vote the policy letter as amended.

Councilor?

Yes.

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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

Now, Council Wilson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to suspend the rules to bring forward the late order from myself, Vice Mayor McGovern, Council Siddiqui, Council Sabrina Whaler.

On suspension of the rules, discussion? Hearing none, please call the roll.

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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

Okay, that's on suspension. On bringing the policy order, which is... I'm bringing policy order by substitution from Council Wilson to the table.

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

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Council Turner. Yes. Yes. Council Wilson. Yes. Yes. Council Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

And the policy order is now before us and reads as follows. Order that the city manager be and is hereby is requested to allocate at least 25... additional housing vouchers or one million whichever is greater that would be to open be open to the 20 remaining residents at the transition wellness center who do not have a permanent housing placement and process into other shelter residents in cambridge and be further ordered that the city manager be in is hereby requested to allocate funding for a successor program to rise up Cambridge as soon as possible and provide an update on preparations to the City Council no later than August 2025.

Madam Mayor, thank you. Thank you for this, and I want to thank my co-sponsors. I really also want to thank the community and the conversations that we've had throughout this whole time. We understand that we are in really dying times. We're in some serious times right now. I don't really know what to call it other than this is really unprecedented times, and we know that we have members of our community that are... really struggling in a lot of areas. We have tried through committee meetings to have deeper conversations, whether on the Transition Wellness Center, on a Rise Up Successor program. We recognize that these programs were both supported by opera dollars and that those dollars have now run out. We recognize that these dollars also created a tremendous amount of just hope and and quality of life for members of our community which is really priceless when we're really thinking about the dollars that was invested so here we have this policy order while we just voted the mayor's substitution that supported the vouchers THIS HERE IS TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL VOUCHERS FOR THOSE REMAINING INDIVIDUALS IN THE TRANSITIONAL WELLNESS CENTER AS WELL AS A RISE-UP SUCCESSOR PROGRAM. AND SO I'M HOPEFUL AND I KNOW THE CITY MANAGER HAS SOME AGREEMENT HE COULD SPEAK TO HIS FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS ABOUT KIND OF WHERE WE ARE NOW. why this was brought forward but we believe that this is important for us to continue to you know protect and support our neighbors and provide opportunities for them to have a really robust quality of life as we move forward especially through these uncertain days so I Madam Mayor, I'll yield for now and allow maybe some of my co-sponsors to speak before maybe turning it over to the city manager. Thank you.

Madam Mayor. City Council.

Madam Mayor.

Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Through you, I too want to first and foremost thank all the folks who spoke in support of both the Transition Wellness Center and Rise Up. I especially want to thank the residents of the Wellness Center who came forward to share their stories. That's not an easy thing, I think, to do to a bunch of strangers and on camera. I think it demonstrates their dedication and how important this issue is to them, so I appreciate them. We have had a lot of conversations about this. There's been a lot of conversation over the last week since after the substitute was passed and the charter right. As much, and I told the manager this, as much as I would prefer that the Transition Wellness Center remain open, That's not in the cards. And the manager and I and my colleagues talked a lot this week about what else could we do or what is possible if keeping the Wellness Center open was not. And that's where we landed on this additional million dollars to support. It's hard to say how many vouchers exactly because the different prices, different costs on different vouchers and whatnot, but roughly 25 or so vouchers that will go specifically to the unhoused community. So Mr. Manager, I appreciate your flexibility in finding that money to do that. But we're still talking about 58 fewer shelter beds than we've had for the past few years. But I do appreciate we're getting something. We heard calls in public comment about prioritizing the folks who are at the Wellness Center now. I've had a few preliminary conversations with the city about this. It's unclear if that's even possible to do. There are some other issues around. There's a whole process in determining who gets vouchers. You have folks in other shelters that have been unhoused for, might be in greater need, and do you shift the list to benefit some people and not others? Those are all sort of conversations that have to be had. What is clear is that, at the very least, the folks who are in the Wellness Center now would be eligible to apply for these vouchers, at the very least. So that's a good thing. But I think there's some discussion about we should get some clarification as to the prioritization. In terms of... And I do want to make it clear, and I don't know if Ms. Seminoff wants to come up here just to make sure that I'm right. Are you asking her to come up?

Because you're asking if she might want to. She might want to go home.

Maybe you don't want to. Would you, please? and and i know that you know we heard this in public comment too i know that there is some um you know there's obviously differences between 240 albany street and and the wellness center the size the one's a wet shelter one's not necessarily a wet shelter you know those kinds of things but i do want to make sure because we also heard people saying that that there's no plan for the folks who are there now and that the folks are gonna be turned out on the street. And my understanding is that everyone has been offered or will be offered a bed somewhere. It may not be... ideal and it may not be their choice but I do want to make and again that that doesn't mean that that's a great thing but I do want to make sure that I'm correct and that no one is going to be forced to sleep outside unless they choose to we can't make anybody do anything but is everyone going to be offered at least some shelter

So to Ms. Seminoff, Assistant City Manager Seminoff, you understand the questions being posed?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you, Madam Mayor, I have confirmed with Bay Cove that who operates both the Wellness Center and 240 Albany Street, where there are some beds that are reserved for people who are in recovery. So while it absolutely is a wet shelter, there are spaces there for people who are in recovery. Unlike some of the other shelters which we all understand closed in the middle of April where people did not necessarily have a place to go, anyone from the Wellness Center who, right now the staff are working with them to try to find the best solution for each of them If they don't find a different solution that they want or can access, there will be beds for them at 240 Albany Street.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying that that's ideal for folks. But I was unsure, because I've heard different things. I've heard there were going to be beds, and I heard maybe there wasn't. So I just want to make sure that we were clear on that. So anyway, I hope we pass this. Again, my preference would be that the Wellness Center remained open. I think you all know that by now. But this is better than what the alternative was a week ago, which was nothing. And I certainly hope that we will continue to work with the folks that are there. I think when we do the evaluations and the assessments and determine the list and where folks fit on the list, I do think it's important to take into account the place where they're staying now is closing. And like the warming center did, like Harvard did, making them maybe in a more vulnerable situation than folks who are in places that aren't facing closing. So I hope all of that gets taken into account. I want to have a continued conversation just to clarify what we can and cannot do for them. But I'm glad that an additional million dollars is not insignificant. And then, you know, obviously for RISE, I appreciate that we're going to continue to look at a successor program. I do think it makes a significant difference for people. And I hope that the order says fund as soon as possible, and I hope it's sooner rather than later. So I'll yield for now, Madam Mayor. Thank you.

Vice Mayor yields the floor. Councilor Nolan, then Councilor Zusy.

Thank you. I appreciate all of the community testimony on this CONCERNS EXPRESSED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY OF US HELPING OUR VULNERABLE PEOPLE LIKE THE MEMBERS HERE. I THINK ALL OF US HAVE APPROACHED THE CITY MANAGER TO SAY CAN YOU FIND JUST SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR WHEN I ASKED THAT THE IDEA OF THE 5 MILLION WHICH WAS PROMISED, COULD WE MAKE IT SIX OR SEVEN, IT WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT EVEN TO COME UP WITH THAT FIVE. The city manager did indicate as these folks here have worked really hard to say, is there any way we can find some kind of voucher money? And I really appreciate that moving forward that we can't do everything and we're doing so much already, but this will be doing more. And similar to Rise Up, I really look forward to understanding what a successor program would be. I did send a possible amendment just to clarify that with the Rise Up that we would get an update which would include scope and cost, because I'm not sure what the scope would be. So we've talked about this huge range of possibilities, and I'd love to just make sure that when it comes back that that's included in the report as well. So that was just something I proposed, but I'm happy to support both of these with that.

Councilor, are you yielding the floor?

Yes, and again, I just appreciate all the work everyone has done to get us to this. And I recognize it's still going to be a challenge to find all this. And I'm also committed as we work through the budget for the rest of this week to find savings further in the budget that will allow us to move forward with perhaps some additional understanding. We have to stay within the current budget, but there may be some efficiencies for next year's budget that we can find.

Councilor Nolan-Yosa, Floor Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I wanted to ask through you, Madam Mayor, so will there be, you know, we had like 96 enhanced SROs that opened this last year. Are there more in the pipeline for this year? And yeah, and when will they open? And you're asking that of the city manager?

Yes, please. Mr. City Manager?

Through you, Mayor Simmons. Those were the major projects that we had in the pipeline that took many years to develop. I think we are continuing to look at opportunities for acquiring new properties through the trust. We don't have any at this point that we can announce, but the work in terms of the range of affordable housing that we are seeking to create continues to be both paths out of homelessness, we have projects that are focused on senior housing, we have projects focused on those who are disabled, and we have projects focused on deeply affordable housing, and then family housing. And those have generally been the main priorities of the Affordable Housing Trust as we think about which projects we are seeking to fund. I would imagine that there would be projects that hit on each of those as we move forward.

My concern is, again, I feel as though the residents at the Transition Wellness Center have been very lucky. It sounds like a wonderful, wonderful place. In committing the vouchers, we're not just committing $1 million this year, we're committing $1 million that could be forever after. That's $40,000 per person to provide them with these municipal vouchers. It's a big commitment. I feel like it does seem as though the people are getting weller at the Transition Wellness Center, so it would be sad to put them out on the street. But I do feel as though, ultimately, we have had, I think, 500 homeless for, what, 30, 40 years, no matter what we do, no matter how many SROs we create. I think now we're up to 700 unhoused individuals. But there is a limitless supply of people that will be coming to Cambridge for our services because we are so generous and kind. So I'm just aware, I think we all have to be aware that we already were committing $16 million to unhoused services, and then we learned that CARE is mostly providing services for the unhoused, so that's another $3 million. And then this is another million, so we're up to 20 million for the unhoused, which again is a group that will continue to grow as long as we support it. So again, I do feel like these are difficult times and I want everybody to have a bed to sleep on. But I'm a little concerned about whether this is the right use of resources. And even though it still seems like we have a lot of money, if you're trying to provide I just feel like I wish we could be, and I'd love to be part of the conversations about Bay Cove at 240 Albany Street. It just seems like we should really be investing there and figuring out how to make that a better place rather than committing to vouchers forever. And maybe we're not committing to vouchers forever. Maybe we're just committing to these 25 vouchers for one year. But I think we really need to come up with a long-term solution for how we're going to provide for our unhoused community. So that's one response to this policy order. The other part is, again, I feel like Rise Up Cambridge is a wonderful program, but And I realize that those recipients of that extra cash have benefited from it and that times will be worse and it'll be nice to have that cash. But I just feel like we're going to have so much less cash. And the people in Rise Up Cambridge have housing vouchers. They have housing. They have services. They have so much already. This is like one more add-on. So I don't feel as, though I think it's a wonderful program in flush times, I don't feel as compelled to continue this conversation. We've had this conversation five times about Rise Up Cambridge. I do think we have to evaluate programs going forward, and I hope we'll be doing more of that. And if we can find more cash, I think we've got to really look very critically and constructively at the array of programs that we offer, but if we can eliminate some other spending, and if we feel like Rise Up Cambridge goes to the top, then I think that's a good decision, but I can't imagine that we'll be there in August of 2025. Again, things are just about to get worse, so why are we having this conversation yet one more time? For those reasons, I have some, though again, I commend, I love the big hearts of my colleagues. I question whether this is thinking with our heads as well as our hearts, and whether These are really amendments that in the long run will improve the life overall of our citizens. That's my concern. Thank you. I yield.

Council Zusy yields the floor. Council Toner?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to direct my questions to the city manager and Ms. Simonoff. So there's two orders here. One, I'm hearing there was discussion with the vice mayor and others about the possibility of the extra million dollars in vouchers. I just want to confirm, is this something that you feel that we can move forward with? Is this financially possible and are you recommending it?

Mr. City Manager?

THROUGH MAYOR SIMMONS, I THINK THIS CAME OUT OF A DESIRE ULTIMATELY TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE CONCERN FROM THE COUNCIL THAT WE NEED TO MAKE GREATER INVESTMENT IN HOMELESS SERVICES. I THINK THIS CAME AS A DESIRE TO BE MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE CONCERN FROM THE COUNCIL THAT WITHIN THE BUDGET AND AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT FUNDING NEW PROGRAMS THAT DESPITE ALL THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE PUT IN, INCLUDING THE CONTINUATION OF A NUMBER OF ARPA PROGRAMS FOR HOMELESS SERVICES, THAT THERE IS A DESIRE TO SEE MORE SUPPORT FOR THOSE WHO ARE HOMELESS. AND SO THIS WOULD PROVIDE a path to permanent housing and transition out of homelessness for a number of people. I think we did feel very strongly that there should be criteria and that there should be a fair process for determining who would be eligible and who would receive these vouchers, recognizing that certainly those who are at the Transition Wellness Center You know are in a spot where they're going to have to make a decision transition to a different shelter but actually we have a whole community of people who are unhoused within the city and that Our staff have actually developed a very fair and comprehensive process for allocating those resources I think in terms of the conversations we've been having about Federal vouchers that may be disappearing. I think this ends up also being a bit of a precursor to say that there are federal emergency housing vouchers that have already provided many people with a path out of homelessness. The city has funded supportive services that the federal government doesn't provide dollars for to ensure that people who want to receive those services stay housed and that there's just support for them and their needs. Those are supportive services that I think we would also desire to be providing as part of this program. And ultimately within the existing city budget, we felt like we could make a little bit more space for this. I would note, this has been a conversation with the council where I have said, we spend all year in discussions. We try to work in the different priorities that the council has into the budget. um to the extent that we are finding more funding for uh homelessness that does represent if the council desires it some level of prioritization and it would make it harder you know there are a lot of things that we want to fund and so i just want to recognize that it is still one budget that we are ultimately funding everything out of So I hope that's helpful as kind of context, and I think this would be proposed to fit into the existing FY26 operating budget outside of the $5 million that we've been discussing as a federal stabilization fund.

Thank you. I appreciate your response, and I personally have always wanted to help the remaining 20 people that haven't been ASSIGNED OR FOUND NEW HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS YET. SO THAT'S BEEN MY FOCUS. I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO SEE US GO DOWN THE PATH OF REOPENING AND FILLING THE TRANSITION WELLNESS CENTER AGAIN. SO I REALLY WANT TO HELP THE PEOPLE THAT NEED HELP RIGHT NOW. I'm actually sorry that we can't specifically target this aid to those 20 people, but if this helps, I can support it. My second question is on the second order, and I appreciate Council Siddiqui's strong advocacy and her support for this program. I'm just a little concerned about the way it's worded, and I just wanted to get a sense of what your understanding of the wording is, because it says, is requested to allocate funding for a successor program and originally i don't remember the exact verbiage of the policy order that we unanimously passed a while ago was for you to come back with a proposal for a future for the rise up program and what funding would look like and where it would come from and at least and maybe council sadiki wants to speak to what what is meant by the the phraseology here but the way it's written now it sounds like you're just going to allocate money to it without any of that background information, but I just wanted some clarification on that before we vote.

Councillor Siddiqui, would you like to respond?

I'm going to yield to Councillor Wilson and Vice Mayor McGovern because I think As Chairs of Human Services, you've also equally worked on this with me.

So to the Vice Mayor or to Councilor Wilson, would either of you like to respond? Or I can give it back to the City Manager. So the floor's open.

Yeah, I'll take a crack at it. I think when we had the human services meeting, CEOC and the presenters put out a number of different possibilities for a successor program. changing who qualifies, changing how much money they would receive, et cetera. And there were probably a dozen, I think, different scenarios. And each one would have a different cost to it. And so I think my co-sponsors, correct me if I'm wrong, I think in this, what we're asking for between now and August that those meetings take place to decide which one of those options makes the most sense to proceed. And then it goes from there as to what the cost of that would be. Is that a cost that can be done this year? Is it a cost that has to wait until 2027? That's why we say as soon as possible. We're not saying to do it. you know, in September, but, you know, sooner rather than later, I think we would want. But I think we're definitely ready between now and August, given that all that groundwork has already been done, to meet and discuss about which one of those options would make the most sense. Am I missing anything?

Yeah, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Through you to my colleague, I would like to just add, Vice Mayor said quite a bit to it. With those options that were shared with us, they also presented in terms of what would be like a benefit cliff. So what might trigger, say, MassHealth to go forward? where members of the public would then, members of this community would then lose their benefits to some degree. So how might we want to adjust that so that they don't? So maybe it's people, individuals who are at 100 AMI up to maybe like 125 or 150, although the 150 may actually trigger MassHealth benefits. So I think there's going to be a little bit of a some some massaging that we have to do in terms of identifying who exactly qualifies based on the dollar and that will kind of determine what the dollar amount will be recognizing that it takes time to implement this whole um this whole successor program especially if it's going under through the city that that's going to take months to then implement. So ideally having the city manager come back to us by August allows for the movement to go into play. So hopefully everything could be up and running by January 1. That's in my perfect world vision. That's my perfect world. Doesn't mean that's the way things may go. But then if that is the case, then it will be January through June in terms of that fiscal year, fiscal year 26. It will be a half a year, and then it will be the full year for the following FY27. So I don't know. Councilor Siddiqui, do you have anything to add before we go to the city manager?

Yeah, I'll just add that I think, you know, I don't think the push right now, given the conversations, is to get this in this year's budget. I think there certainly was a desire to. And I think there are members of the public who wanted that. And I think going back to prioritization, it doesn't seem like we were able to find the funds to do that in this year's budget. And I think there was also feeling that this was meant for two years from now which you know I think when I think about cash assistance and doing this type of work you know to someone's point earlier saying that people have too much you know I don't agree with that I think it's about housing other needs plus cash and So, you know, I just wanted to share my point of view on that piece of it. But I do think if there's... I think I don't want... I want the message to the community to be, if there is majority support to this, to say we aren't going to forget about it and we can continue to work on it and figuring out the who and how much. And... making that clear because I do think there was a lot of good work including from the city manager's office and the strategy team helping around thinking through some of this and I think we've been able to get closer on the scoping issue and different scenarios that have been you know, discussed. And so there are more decisions to be made. And so I think that's kind of the spirit of, I'd say this ordered.

Back to you, council donor.

Thank you, madam mayor. I appreciate that. I'm glad we have it all on film. So when we have to go back and think about it, because my, my major concern is just the, How's the program going to run? How much? But the major issue is, where's the money coming from? So if this is really about continuing the conversation, that's fine. I can support it. But I just didn't want to be voting for something not knowing where the money's coming from ultimately. So if the city manager has anything to add, and then after that, I yield.

Mr. City Manager?

Through you, Mayor Simmons. I think that's right. I would say that certainly in the April 17th Human Services Committee, we felt like there was a path. I think ultimately there's still scoping work to be done. There's options to be discussed. The scale of the program could be smaller or larger depending on where we set eligibility. There's work to do just in terms of and figuring out benefit cliffs and how we want to manage that. I think those are all, and I said this during the committee meeting, those are all things that we can, none of those are deal breakers. Those are all things that we can solve. The challenge really is resourcing in terms of finding the budget for a program of that scale, recognizing that scale is also a decision that needs to be made. I think ultimately we had the prior day on April the 16th, the finance committee meeting where we discussed both the longer term projections for the city's operating budget and the capital budget and proposed that we would have collectively with the city council a prioritization conversation where we could look at what are the major projects that we want to allocate resourcing to. And so I think I think we're still committed to doing that I would say that it is challenging where when we approach individual ideas or projects there's always going to be a strong level of support for those projects and one of the One of the areas that I think we can strengthen our decision-making is to be discussing major projects in the context of our long-term projections and to understand that we are making choices. And so if collectively what we are saying is the next sort of major program we want to fund is Rise Up, and that's what we want to free up budget for and that's what we want to plan for then let's have that conversation we can scope out the work and the city can get to work figuring out how this fits into future budgets but that does mean that other things will have to take a back seat as we figure out those budgeting priorities And it does take some runway for us to incorporate, depending on the size, those programs. So I think it really is, and this was the original policy order, thinking about the feasibility of Rise Up in the context of the next budget cycle, so FY27, which would start in July of 2026, so next July. And I think having that prioritization conversation with the council, figuring out the scoping, and then knowing this is the target that we're working for, and these are the things that we're not going to be able to do is really important for us to work through as a process. And I think the challenge will just be what the economic environment looks like. I think we'll know more by the end of this year in terms of the local impact and in terms of how much uncertainty we're facing from the federal government. I do have really significant concerns with whether there's a worst case scenario where we would really be stretched as we're trying to consider which major program cuts we're trying to rescue and fund. But there's certainly also a better case scenario where the courts have blocked many of the actions that are being taken and where we have more flexibility. And so I do think having this conversation as we move forward, being able to discuss it as we get into the fall and plan for that next budget process feels to me like the right next step.

Councilor Son, are you yielding the floor?

I yield.

Councilor Sabine, we will close yours.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. There were just a couple points I wanted to raise. Similar to the Vice Mayor, I'm saddened the Transitional Wellness Center will be closing. That was the intent of the original policy order. Looking forward to continuing to improve our process of communication around priorities. I think the one point I wanted to make was there was outreach around this being funded with ARPA funding running out. Would you say if you compare the outreach around this versus around when a shelter opens from the state opens a shelter? I think there's more communication around that. You know, when the state opened the court, the Middlesex Court shelter, we did a big zoom around it. I live around the corner from the current state shelter in There were flyers on every door there. I don't think anyone would argue we didn't do quite that level of communication around closing this shelter. And I would just say, Cambridge is the kind of community where we've seen closing a shelter is actually more controversial than opening a shelter. And I think that's something to celebrate. And in a lot of places, even in Massachusetts, you open a shelter and there's a lot of pushback. We don't see that level of pushback in Cambridge when you open a shelter. I'm proud of that. We do see pushback when we close a shelter, and so we should think about how do we do the level of outreach around something like that in the future, because that's the kind of citizens and residents we have, and that's a good thing, in my opinion. But then just to the other point that the Vice Mayor raised, I think, around prioritization around this, any conversation around prioritization is also implicitly a conversation about who you're not prioritizing. I would be uncomfortable not prioritizing residents of other shelters with this. I think there are residents in other shelters in Cambridge who are in really tough situations, folks with domestic violence, folks who have been unhoused for a long time and that they should be considered in this for a while. I think in a perfect world with unlimited funding, we'd be providing vouchers for all residents in shelters, but we're not in that perfect world. And I think that, you know, gets to the other work we're doing around housing and how we, you know, places that have more affordable housing have less homelessness. And we have to keep that in mind because, you know, homelessness is a housing problem ultimately. And then just lastly, I would say, you know, rise is critical. It's, you know, for me, it's a high priority. I think to the point about increasing the budget, Funding rise doesn't mean we're necessarily increasing the budget. There are plenty of things in the budget we can be reallocating to, and that ultimately it's not us as a city council who decides that. It's the city manager. Our job as a council is to say what we prioritize. I'm comfortable moving forward with this language tonight, but we also have this prioritization meeting coming up, and we can have in those conversations where rise stands in relation to other priorities. So with that, I yield back.

Council Sobrinho-Wheeler yields the floor for the discussion. Hearing none, I believe Council Nolan had an amendment she wanted to offer. If Ms. Stephan could put it before the council. Nice. Council Nolan.

Yeah, I think it just clarifies what we're expecting anyway and just making sure that the city manager will come back with. just scope and costs, so that we're all aware. I think it's kind of implicit, but I just thought it would be good to.

So Council Wilson's policy order's before us, and Council Nolan is gonna offer an amendment, and if we can have that brought up on the screen so that everyone can see it, those watching as well, it'd be great. I can't see it, so it doesn't populate here, so just wave your hand. All right, so discussion, Council Zusy.

I just wanted to say again. I think both of these are great programs and this is a good amendment but I'll be voting no and not because I'm heartless but because I really I think we're going to be making 10% cuts to our budget. And I think adding things to our budget when we really should be cutting from our budget makes no sense. So I want the folks at the Transitional Wellness Center to find housing to have a bed at night. And I, again, I think this is a great program and that's a great amendment, but I want you to understand why I won't be supporting it. Thank you. I yield.

Councilor Zusy yields the floor for the discussion. Councilor Zusy, do you have anything to say on the amendment?

I was just going to say motion to adopt.

That's not a motion. Of course. So on a motion by Councilor Azeem to adopt the amendment, having had the discussion, roll call, please. 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 the amendment passes on the affirmative vote of nine members. On the policy order as amended, discussion? Having 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. Council Wilson. Yes. Yes. Council Zusy. No. No. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, eight members have voted yes, one member has voted no.

And the policy order as amended passes on the affirmative vote of eight members, one voting in the negative. We'll turn now to, we have one more, we have another item on the charter right, and this is Let's see, Councilor Tona makes a motion to amend policy order 2025 number 70 by adding an additional order to read, order that the draft language be sent to a joint meeting of the Economic Development University Relations and Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee for hearing discussion before being forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for deliberation. I think that's what's made by you, Councilor Tona.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. If I could just speak to it. I just wanted to make people aware that we're not trying to rush something through and that the intent of the original sponsors of this policy order was where there is retail already in place, but because of current zoning, if properties ever get redeveloped, those places would not be allowed to exist. So all we're asking is for CDD to draft some language that would allow them to reopen and that's only obviously if the future property owner and developer wants retail in their space but also there may be other places in the city where retail would be welcome and beneficial to the neighborhood but we need cdd's help in understanding what we can and can't do in terms of how we write that language so That's what we've asked them to do. The new order is to have the language go to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee and the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee before it even goes to the Ordinance Committee to give people some assurance that there'll be full and robust conversation about whatever that draft language is before it gets into the ordinance pipeline. And that's the intent. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Yes, I support these amendments, and I think it's very important that there is a conversation with the Economic Committee and the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee, because we want to consider a lot of variables like locations, uses, the ownership of the retail space. I was talking to a friend today who was saying that in Paris, they actually require neighborhood retail. They require a pharmacy and a bakery and a food store to be within walking distance. So I do think neighborhood retail does make communities vital. There was also an article in the Globe just a couple days ago which talked about how neighborhood retail can also discourage gun violence because neighbors are watching neighbors. They're connecting with neighbors, which deescalates tensions. So I'm all for neighborhood retail. I just want to make sure that we proceed with this conversation in a thoughtful way. Thank you, and I yield.

Councilor Zizzi yields the floor for the discussion. Councilor Nolan, then Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thank you. Yes, I just want to say this, the idea of the ordered is to ensure that we will now have a chance and the chairs of these committees can then make sure that neighborhood associations and small business associations know about it so that if there is any input on the draft language before then it goes to ordinance. much more efficient and effective process for us to do that we have often talked about how important that was and i had at the last meeting talked about how is it that we're going to get the word out and i think this addresses this that quite well as long as we do then communicate it i'm in favor of as counselor susie said retail in many many more places across the city and yet we also have to make sure that when we're doing it are we actually saying every single block on every single street or is it just that and scdd comes back with something where all the existing ones and maybe if you have anyone on your street, then the entire street is available. But I'm happy to entertain any motion to get this board. Thank you. I yield.

Councilor Nolan yields the floor. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, the floor is yours.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Point of information in that what's up on the screen doesn't match the amendments that were on the table. So I was trying to figure out if the sponsors of the amendment were withdrawing the changes to the first order or just...

I'll let Council Turner speak to that. I can't see the amendment, unfortunately.

What you got on paper is what I sent, but I was informed by the clerk that the first order had already been adopted last week, so all I'm really adding is the last order.

Okay, gotcha, thank you. Are you yielding the floor, Council?

I am, yep.

Further discussion? Councilor Azeem, do you want to speak to this? Other than to say, call the question?

Yes, I did. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I wanted to say, I think that this is something that feels, I'm glad that we're having this discussion. It will feel more urgent when a development actually happens, like Pearl Street Market did, where the development is happening. People might want to preserve that retail location. But zoning doesn't move at the space of development. And at that moment, we will not be able to save that location, right? So that's why we have these conversations proactively. And we have three options, right? We can leave the zoning as is, in which case that retail will be lost. we can change the zoning to just allow those uses, which is really easy because we have one residential district. And so it's literally just changing two nos to a yes in our table of uses for like neighborhood grocery and maybe restaurant use or coffee shop. And then there's a third option, which is we could do something much more detailed and try to map out exactly where we want spaces. But I will also say that, you know, I think that's fine if that's what the will of the council is. But right now, the only places that are legalized for, you know, all these retail uses are, you know, outside of more industrial areas as like the... squares and Mass Ave and a little bit of and maybe half of Cambridge Street and just one or two other stops. And so we don't have a definition of like corridors and quarters in our neighborhood. And so to add that would be a lengthy process. And I think that's fine if that's where the council wants to go. But just did want to say that that that is a more complicated answer than just changing the table of uses. And I'm open to all the different options out there. So with that, I would support the amendments and I'm excited for the conversation to continue.

Councilor Ziem yields the floor as a further discussion. Hearing none on the amendment, roll call.

Councilor Ziem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson. Yes. Council Wilson is absent. Council Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, eight members have voted yes, one member is absent.

And the amendment is adopted on the affirmative vote of eight members, one being recorded as absent. On the policy order as amended, Madam Clerk.

Councilor Azeem.

Madam Mayor. Nevermind.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. 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? No. Absent. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, eight members have voted yes. One member is recorded as absent.

And the policy order passes as amended on the affirmative vote of eight members, one recorded as absent. Move now to the last item on the Charter Right list. This was... The charter right was exercised by Councilor Nolan. It's application 2025, number 19, curb cut 49, Alpine Street. Councilor Nolan, you moved your charter right on this. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. Yes, I moved my charter right since we're all looking forward, I'm sure, to that meeting. I believe it's next week when we'll be discussing in committee how to ensure that we develop protocols or practices or policies for curb cuts to be yeah basically define it but we don't have that yet so these are before us and a prior curb cut that we approved a few weeks ago it turns out that there were about six neighbors who actually had expressed disapproval and we never got notice of that and they were overwhelming more in disapproval than in approval so i'm just very concerned that we're not getting the proper information i charter wrote it partly so that i could we could just give more time to the neighbors and let them know that we hadn't heard very many. So people know. I will be voting no on this because my policy would be that unless at least half of the direct neighbors within a block are in favor, I don't think it's fair for us to take public space, which is the Street in order to give it to an individual what we have got on the record is Of the people who live on that block and I believe there are a couple that the city just got the City Council just got forwarded today the neighborhood association is not in favor of Four residents of that block on Alpine Street have two of them were already included in the packet and Robart Liz Marin to were also subsequently joy hackling we met Simmers were all disapproving and I think part of it is that this is a curb cut where the actual driver will be on the front yard not on the side of the house and I think there was some concern that many of the neighbors felt like that was not something they could support and And they had raised that issue even in the development and it was ignored by the, but we did get several in favor. We got two on the block in favor, two people live on the block in favor. And then the council got three others, but none of those people actually live on the block. One of them lives five blocks away, one of them lives three blocks away, and one of them lives one block away. Again, it's up to the council, but for me, I will discount people who don't live on that block since they are most directly affected. I think it's very important that since we do have this authority, and the reason we do is because no other approvals along the way take into account what the neighbors feel or what the street is like. It is 100% just as it meet our requirements. guidelines? Does it have the right dimensions? Is it historical? So there's the only step in the process right now that takes into account the community is us. So I just wanted to make sure that my colleagues understood that and knew what we have. Now this isn't everyone on the street, but there was also a reference in the packet of a I think from the developer saying they had reached out to some abutters and they chose not to send anything, but they were not going to sign the approval. So that says to me there's probably a couple of others who actually are also opposed. So I wanted to make sure that the full council knew that, and I will certainly be voting no. I hope the rest of my colleagues do too, because otherwise we're not really honoring the people who live on that street and will be most directly impacted. Oh, and one other thing that was raised was a concern about children playing on the street and creating another driveway access for a couple cars to go across the sidewalk. Thank you, Mayor Simmons.

Councilor Nolan yields the floor. Councilor Turner and then the Vice Mayor. Councilor Turner, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm going to be voting for it for very different reasons. I really think and I hope whatever future policy comes out of ordinance doesn't make it a popularity contest. We should have objective criteria. In this case, the Historic Commission, ISD, DPW all signed off on it. We do have some of the neighbors saying they're in support of it and some who aren't. I'm very concerned that if we make curb cuts, something where it's just like who can get the most neighbors to write into us, it won't actually be about what's the best use of the property. We keep talking about concerns about parking. This will take someone off the street and have them in their driveway. There was also testimony about some ADA related issues. but I truly hope that whatever comes back to us in ordinance is a fair, clear, objective criteria for whether it should have a curb cut or not. There could be some factor in there about, you know, that the staff looks into how will this impact the neighbors, I hope, but I really hope it doesn't become, you know, who can get the most emails for or against the curb cut. So I will be supporting it, thank you.

Councilor Toney yields the floor. Vice Mayor?

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. We definitely did get a number of folks on the street who have concerns, and I think part of it is, as Councilor Nolan pointed out, is that Unlike a typical curb cut where you put a driveway and a car is at the side of the house, these will be in the front. I think where I'm struggling, and maybe Councilor Nolan can, because she's looked into this a little bit more, maybe there's an opportunity to place it on the table and do more work. I am concerned about when I heard the applicants that they're asking for this curb cut, not necessarily because they don't want to walk from the from the street to their house, but there's a medical condition. And we're hearing so much about the loss of parking, and how can you take parking away if someone is disabled? I mean, this is someone who doesn't seem like they're asking for it to make it easier to carry in their groceries. The person has a degenerative arthritis condition that's going to make it very difficult for that person to walk. you know, you're weighing the aesthetics of having cars parked in front of a house as opposed to the side of the house versus someone who may not be able to walk to their car. So I guess I'm a little, I mean, it's, you know, I'm a little torn on it. I want to be respectful of the folks on the street who have concerns, but I also want to be understanding and compassionate to you know, the person who has a medical condition. So I don't know, I mean, I guess, Councilor Nolan, do you and you're talking to people, is there an opportunity to maybe try and resolve this in another way or is this, you know, up or down and that's it?

Councilor Nolan. Thank you, through you too, Vice Member Govan. I did reach out to several neighbors who said they didn't like it. And one of them did mention, if it is a medical condition, we have an established procedure to having a handicapped spot in front of your house. That is something open to anybody in the city there, if you have a documented condition. And that was one of the responses to someone saying, if that is what they need, then they should certainly apply for that. But if we wanna see if there's another way to resolve it, Maybe the neighborhood would be open to that. We could lay it on the table to discuss it yet again. To your point that the question is how do we, it should be set rules and for me it would be if more than half or half the people on the street don't want it, it seems to me, then I wouldn't support it because who am I to say that that shouldn't happen. But that's through you. I hope that is responsive to Vice Mayor McGovern's question.

Vice Mayor?

Yeah, thank you. I mean, I would just point out Handicap spots are not owned by anybody. So you can have a handicap spot in front of your house. It doesn't mean that that means that's where you're going to park. So I'm not sure that that's a... necessarily a perfect solution.

I'll yield. Vice Mayor yields the floor. Councillor Siddiqui and then Councillor Susie. Councillor Siddiqui, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I'll just say I hear my colleague on this, Councillor Nolan, and I'm going to agree with Councillor Toner particularly because I think I think we'd all hope there were clearer guidelines. I hope we can get to a place. I do think the petitioners have mentioned some of the reasons. Vice Mayor mentioned the medical and the multi-generational household and so forth. So I'd like to support it and I think kicking the can down the road. I think there's better use of our council time, and so I'd just say we see where the votes are, and I would move to adopt the curb cut.

Councilor Siddiqui, you have the floor, Councilor Susie.

Susie, excuse me. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I was, I thought that maybe they could have a one-car driveway to the side because, so there, I don't know if everyone saw it, but there was a letter from Doug Brown, who's an officer of the Fresh Pond Residence, And what he said is, I must confess that I find it difficult to support this application given the neighborhood's continuing opposition to this curb cut. I cannot support the proposal as is, partly because very few other homes have dedicated curb cuts. on Alpine Street, approximately three out of 20 homes. But more significantly, because the relief sought, front yard parking is generally not allowed under current zoning and would set an undesirable precedent for the neighborhood. To me, that's where I get stuck. I do think that once we allow one neighbor to park their cars on their front lawn, and now with the multifamily housing proposal, we'll have 10-foot front lawns for trees. Once we allow them to be able to park on their frontage, then anybody can do it. I would be open to, they're having a one-car driveway. um and most of their front yard would be yard that would be following zone our zoning rules and that would allow their handicapped driver to have a place to park so i don't know if we can specify that we would support a one car driveway to the side of the house but not they're driving they're parking all over the front lawn can we and council i can't help you i don't know and i have no one from the staff

I don't believe any of the staff that says if you ask to have it in front of your house, can we tell you you can have it on your side of your house? That I don't know. So right now, the only recommendation I could make for you is to vote it up or down. Or I believe Councilor Nolan has a motion.

We could put it on the table. Excuse me. Put it, yeah.

I moved to adopt. So I guess that's. Do you want Burhan to speak or do you want your motion to be voted? Hold on. now you can pretend anyways um you said you wanted to he can speak to the motion that i made okay so adopting or not so council sudiki has made a motion so we have to follow up on our motion so i shouldn't be actually giving you the floor because she moved to vote it so we're going to go on her motions which is there's a motion to approve the curb cut so so motion Can we have Councilor Azeem? She's made a motion. So when you call the question, she's kind of called the question, don't you think?

I'm happy to vote.

He's willing to yield. So on Councilor Siddiqui's motion to adopt the curb cut.

Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Council Nolan? No. No. Council Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. Council Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Council Toner? Yes. Yes. Council Wilson? Present. Present. Council Zusy? No. No. Mayor Simmons? Present. Present. Madam Mayor, five members have voted yes, two members have voted no, and two members have voted present.

And the curb cut is approved by the affirmative vote of five members, two voting present, two voting no. That takes us to, that was, I enjoyed that immensely. We now move to, there's nothing on the calendar, there's no action to be taken on the calendar, there's no unfinished business, there's no applications and petitions, we'll go to communications, there's 67. on motion by the Vice Mayor to place the 67 communications on file. 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, Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We move now to consent resolutions. There are seven. What is the pleasure of the City Council? Move adoption making unanimous upon adoption. I'd like to pull number seven. So on the balance, on one through six, the Vice Mayor moves adoption making them unanimous upon adoption. Roll call. Councilor Azeem.

Yes. Vice-member 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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes. And the resolutions one through seven are adopted and made unanimous upon adoption and affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to number seven. which I pulled and it reads as follows. Resolution congratulating Diane LeBlanc on her retirement. So if I may, I'd like to take a moment to speak to this resolution as we enter our final weeks with our city clerk. Do you mind if I call you by your first name? Diane, as we know, you've brought a steady hand, although we had a couple of rows up here, but that aside, and a principled approach to this work, serving not only as a guardian of our records and the keeper of our legislative process, but as a trusted and respected colleague. In a role that demands precision, discretion, and deep understanding of municipal law, which I think you have a hold on very good, Diane has consistently demonstrated professionalism and grace. She has modernized and strengthened the clerk's office, made it more transparent and accessible to the public, and helped ensure that the council work has been conducted with integrity and care, and that is no small feat. As Diane concludes her service at the end of the month, I hope she will leave knowing how much she has meant to this body, to this building, and to this city. I personally, and I think I can speak on behalf of the council, we thank you. We honor you, and we wish you nothing but the best in your next chapter. Discussion. Vice Mayor? Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Diane. Madam Clerk, Diane. You've certainly saved my butt a few times in the chair, so I appreciate that. And I know it was not... you know, not an easy role to fill and you made a lot of changes that, you know, sometimes it's hard to do that, you know, but I think there were necessary changes to kind of bring us into compliance with some things and, you know, so I really do appreciate that. You know, you brought a, you bring a unique perspective to the role as being a former counselor which I think in Waltham, which I think helped you to see both sides of the coin sometimes when things that we were trying to do that you could help us navigate through. So I always appreciate that. You always took my calls even when I drove you crazy today. Maybe that was my present to you on your way out. But I do thank you and I do wish you the best.

The Vice Mayor yields the floor, Councillor Turner.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to say, Ms. LeBlanc, I really meant it when your announcement came out and I said I was surprised and I'm sorry to hear the announcement because I've really enjoyed working with you. But at the same time, now that you have announced you're retiring, I hope you really will retire at least for like six to 12 months and travel and enjoy relaxation because so many people say they're going to retire and then go right back to something else.

Yeah, they end up in the credit union.

Well, I have appreciated working with you and I appreciate all the hard work you did to help us get caught up on past minutes and records. And as the mayor said, modernizing our records here at City Hall. And I know you were appreciated by many members of the community. FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THEIR REQUESTS AND ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS. SO I TRULY HOPE YOU HAVE A LONG AND HEALTHY AND PLEASANT RETIREMENT, AND I HOPE YOU WON'T BE A STRANGER. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR YIELD.

COUNCILOR TONEY YIELDS THE FLOOR. COUNCILOR SIDDIKI, AND THEN COUNCILOR ZAYN. COUNCILOR SIDDIKI, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

Yeah, I echo my colleagues. We've, I think, worked very closely together as soon as you started. And I could see your dedication, your commitment. I appreciated the conversations around kind of all the different things you've done. which is really, really impressive. And I think you really cared about kind of changing the office for the better and making changes, helping staff and really being committed to that. And so very much appreciate all of your commitment and really wish you the best in your future. And thank you so much.

Councillor Siddiqui yields the floor.

Councillor Azeem.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I also wanted to thank the clerk, and hopefully I'll get a chance to say this to you in person as well. But, you know, when I was first elected, you know, committee reports, like after a committee hearing, if there was a vote, it would take months to get out. There were some that had a backlog of years. It was such an incredibly difficult place. And you came into the office, and you not only cleaned it up and went through such an entire backlog, But to the point where there was times in the multifamily housing conversation with you, we had days to turn something around because the vote was that close and you excelled. You took us from, you know, months of backlogs to days turnaround. It was an incredible, incredible performance. And like personally, you know, it was really meaningful to me as well. Like your hiring process was the first one I took a part of as a city councilor. And I couldn't be more happier to also the more personal facts of of, you know, you officiated the wedding for my legislative aide, Lynn, and that was a deeply personal moment as well. So just thank you for all of these things and more, and only wishing you the best of luck.

Thank you, Councilor Zin. It was the floor of Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. Just like all my colleagues, it's been great to work with you. And I also appreciate that sometimes I'm like, why is she being so detailed? Oh, right, that's her job. She has to keep us very attuned to every single detail and very specific notices. So as much as I was probably a little cranky sometimes when you were responding with that specific detail, I really also fundamentally appreciate it because you kept us on track and me on track in making sure that things were done in a way that... were appropriate and were in line with the duties of both the council as well as your job. And I really appreciate showing the way for other departments in the city to modernize, to bring us up to speed, to bring forth in a timely manner the basic responsibilities of the office and get them done. So thank you so much and really appreciate the work you've done for us and set us up well for the future.

Councilor Nolan yields the floor, Councilor Zusy.

I thank you through you, Madam Mayor. I just want to thank you, Clerk LeBlanc, for managing us so well in our meetings along with the mayor, but also as a historian for all the work you've done in organizing our records and making them, one day they'll be available to students, graduate students. I just feel like it's going to be a gold mine for researchers that want to really understand what this extraordinary city has done over time. Thanks to you, our records are in order and people will soon have access to them. I thank you for your current work and for your work for the future, helping future historians look back in time and evaluate what was going on here in the city of Cambridge. I thank you.

Thank you, Council Susie. Council Susie, you have the floor. Council Wilson.

Thank you so much, Ms. LeBlanc. You have been just such a blessing. I think when I was coming on and there was just so many different things that you were teaching me and making sure that I knew and understood, especially coming from school committee, it's like a different way of doing. And then you come here and we're just like, I thought I know, but didn't know what I didn't know until you prepared me and showed me. And even sometimes today you still have to Correct some of the moves and actions. But I appreciate you. I appreciate your style and your grace and just how kind and warm you are. I do appreciate your attention to detail. And, you know, I think coming, you know, being a former city councilor, you come here with a, like you've been in our shoes before. So you understand the various complexities. And I often just appreciate that you have the answer of like, this is how we do it. And then even today, our difficulty around how to submit this order. I do appreciate the conversations that you have with the vice mayor to help make sure that I knew how to do it. But I do wish you the very best in your next chapter. And as Councilor Toner said, please retire. Please find a beach or somewhere to lay on. But enjoy, just enjoy. And we will be in envy watching from afar. So stay in touch, but please do enjoy the next chapter. Thank you for all that you do. Thank you, Councilor Wilson.

Councilor Wilson, you have the floor. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Madam Clerk, I just wanted to appreciate the joy you've brought to this role. I think it personally would drive me crazy to have to understand all the Roberts rules of order and explain that to not only other counselors, but also members of the public, why a thing happened a certain way. But every time you stop by our offices and are explaining a piece, just the smile and the the engagement with the process. And as others have said, I can, you're always able to tell you're a, have been a former city councilor yourself, because as the role of a referee, you bring the joy of a former player yourself and that love of the game. So just wanted to say thank you for all the work and the time you spent and hope you get to enjoy the next step. Go back.

Thank you, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Ms. Steffen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Diane, I just wanted to also say thank you to you. When you came here, we have gone through quite a few things together. Inaugurations with protests and losing a member of this body. And you have been so graceful throughout all of that. And if this council is a tree, it was leaning maybe in some ways. And I think you've come in and put a lot of supports and straightened us out. in many ways that we maybe didn't want to get straightened out but now we're good um and so i hope going forward to echo what everyone else said i hope you like run through a field of wildflowers barefoot on a monday night and laugh that you're not here thank you and good luck

Okay, run through the field. You wrote that down. You're taking notes. Thank you to my colleagues. As you can certainly understand that you were sorely missed. One thing I just want to add to my remarks. Your predecessor was big on archiving, but you've taken it to a whole other level, and I am truly, truly grateful about that. You went ahead and hired an archivist. The archivist had brought on five young students to help get all this wonderful history that we have in this building and make it in a way that someone might be able to find something. So I certainly wanted just to add that to my testimony and I would ask my colleagues, will you please join me in a standing ovation for our colleague? Congratulations. Now I get to say, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Thank you all for the kind words. I wasn't expecting that. Coming here to Cambridge sort of Rounding out my many careers in this way has truly been a blessing. Getting to know all of you has been a blessing. I've learned so much with regard to your suggestions that I should go lay on a beach and vacation. I'm not sure how that's going to go. I've never done that. I'll give it some thought. Yeah, I can't say that I won't be taking on some additional duties, but I will take a few months off. Yeah, I'm kind of speechless at the moment, but I will miss all of you. I wish all of you well. I have such admiration for what each and every one of you has done and the work that you do. It's a very, very hard job. It's always been a hard job. And I don't know that everybody really appreciates all of the work that you put in, and especially in the environment that you're working in. in this political environment. It's only continuing to get harder each and every day, and you just come here with such passion and commitment, and you all do your best for the people of Cambridge, and again, that's truly admirable, and it's been a privilege to work with each of you. Again, I will miss you, and mostly I will miss the staff in the city clerk's office. Nicole, Paula, who's not here, but the entire staff who really have lifted me up over the last three years and have allowed me to do my job. So I thank you and I wish you all the best.

Thank you. Thank you. So I'm gonna go back to my notes that the clerk has provided for me. And the next item of business is committee reports. We have two of them, minutes of the April 30th, 2025. Ordinance Committee met to review a proposal to change the zoning rules so that the floodplain development would follow a simpler state approved process using the latest FEMA maps and fixed related parts of the zoning code to keep everything consistent. We did not take this up earlier, correct? We did not take this up early when we voted the floodplain.

We took care of that already. Those aren't my notes. Those are his notes.

Oh, that's his notes. Okay. We did do that. And then the second set of minutes is the Government Operations Rules and Claims Committee.

Madam Mayor, pull that. I'd like to make a motion that the City Council reappoint Joseph McCann to the position of City Auditor for a term of three years.

Discussion? Discussion. Hearing none, roll call. Oh, I see what I did.

Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

Madam Mayor, I'd like to move to accept the report and place on file.

on accepting the report and placing on file 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. Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

Thank you. And the report is accepted and placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move to communication reports from other city officers. Let's see if there are any. There's a motion. We need a motion to place COF number 79 on file. A motion by Councilor Nolan to place Communication number 79 on file. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilor Azeem. 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. Council Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes. Thank you.

We move now to late resolutions. I believe there's just one. On adopting the resolution on the clerk 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. Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Resolutions, I know one. Are there any other late resolutions? That's all, Madam Mayor. So on suspension of the rules, roll call.

Councilor Zane. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. 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, Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes.

We're in suspension, and I'm bringing up the one late resolution. Roll call, please.

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

Madam Mayor, nine members have voted yes. Thank you. The late resolution is now before us. I offered this late resolution, became aware to me just the other day that Mrs., Esther Scantleberry, long, long, long time resident of Cambridge, recently passed just before, I believe just before Mother's Day, longstanding member of St. Peter's Episcopal Church, and just a devout, not only a devout member of the church, but a long-standing, very active member in the Cambridgeport community. And so I thought it'd be fitting to mark her life, not her passing, but her life. And so I offer this resolution in the hope that it will be adopted unanimously. Discussion?

Yes. I knew Ms. Canterbury for a very long time. I used to coach her grandson, Rashad, when he was just a little kid on the baseball field. Yeah, I mean, as my grandmother would say, what a hot ticket. She was just so full of energy and... you know, would give me a pretty hard time, you know, call me her boyfriend and, you know, embarrass me in front of people all the time. She's really just spectacular. I didn't know that she passed until I saw this tonight. So I'd love to be added. She really, that woman was just spectacular. So thank you, Madam Mayor.

Vice Mayor Yields, the floor, Councilor Zusy.

I also knew Esther Scantleberry because I used to worship at St. Peter's. And she was the best dressed woman at St. Peter's.

All day long.

And so incredibly feisty and fun. So I'm sad to hear that she's gone, but her spirit will remain vibrant. And yes, she was a very hot ticket. She was, yeah, she was hot. And absolutely lovely. So I would also like to be a co-sponsor of this resolution. Thank you. Thank you. Further discussion?

So on the amendment to add the Vice Mayor and Councilor Zusy as co-sponsors. Roll call.

Councilor Zane. Councilor Azeem? Councilor Azeem? Absent. 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. Madam Mayor, eight members have voted yes, one member is absent.

on the resolution as amended, making it unanimous on adoption.

Councilor Azeem, absent. 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. Madam Mayor, eight members have voted yes. One member is recorded as absent.

And the resolution passes on the affirmative vote of eight. Members, one being recorded as absent. I see, I believe you've taken care of this late policy order? Yes. So, Council Wilson, are there any announcements? Going, going. Talking to you, Mike, Councilor. I'm sorry, I was going to hear Mike. Baby you.

10.30 on Saturday. On Saturday.

10.30 FMA on Saturday. So that's always a beautiful celebration. I'm just so proud of the folks who have gone through the process. And I think that's all that I have. Excellent. For the moment.

Well, we'll be quick before you take us up now. Council Zusy and then Council Nolan. Excuse me.

There are a lot of great things coming up. So the East End House is having their spring open house Thursday night, 6.30 to 8.30. And at the library, the film... Which one? Oh, I'm sorry, at the Foundry, Where Do Black Men Live? will premiere at the Foundry 6 to 8, also Thursday night, the 15th. On Saturday, the 17th, the Cambridge Plant and Garden Club, working with the Sierra Lest Sustainability Club, will be distributing plant plugs that have been pre-ordered. There's an annual spring bike ride that morning at 9.30 or 10. And then the Cambridge Community Center is having their cookout on Saturday, 1 to 4.

Which Saturday? Is that this Saturday?

Yeah, it's this Saturday. Okay.

Any other announcements? Yes. Council Nuland, the floor is yours.

And before all those exciting community events, tomorrow night we have the school department finance committee meeting on the school department budget, which is one-third. It's about $290 million of our budget.

Mm-hmm.

If you haven't had a chance to send in questions yet, while it's always better earlier than later, it's better later than never. So any questions, please feel free to forward them tomorrow morning. And we have our continuation of our Finance Committee meetings all day Wednesday. It'll be another meeting from 9 to 5. We do expect, given the number of departments that we still have to discuss, that we will be going into Thursday. possibly Thursday morning. So again, we've gotten some questions, but if you have additional questions for those department heads, please get them in to me and the clerk and the finance team so that they can let the department heads know to prepare. And if we will either go all day on Thursday or if we finish in time, we expect it'll probably, hopefully it'll just be half a day. But thanks. That's it for the Finance Committee. Exciting before the exciting weekend with community events.

Any other?

Council Wilson.

Thank you. I just want to announce that the first street market is going to be hosting its newest indoor farmers market that's going to be starting this weekend. So on on Friday, the 16th, they'll be having like a ribbon cutting at 1030. And then also want to just say congratulations to the CRLS scholars who will be receiving scholarships on Thursday evening at CRLS. Thank you. That's all. Any other announcements?

Hearing none, pleasure of the city council. On a motion by Councilor Zusy to adjourn. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilor Azeem. Absent. Vice Member Govan. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. Madam Mayor, eight members have voted yes, one member is recorded as absent.

And this meeting is adjourned. Ms. Irwin, pour vous.