City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. A quorum of the City Council being present, I call tonight's October 6, 2025, regular meeting of the Cambridge City Council to order. The first order of business is a roll call of members present. Adam Clark.

Counselor Azeem. Present. Present. Vice Mayor McGovern. Present. Present. Councillor Nolan. Present. Present. Councillor Siddiqui. Present. Present. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Present. Present. Councillor Toner. Present. Present. Councillor Wilson. Absent. Councillor Zusy. Present. Present. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have two members recorded as absent and seven recorded as present.

Thank you. If willing and able, please join me in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance and pause for a moment of silence.

of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,

Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, adopted by the Massachusetts General Court and approved by the governor, the city is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge City Council. In addition to having members of the council participate remotely, we have also set up Zoom teleconference for public comment. You can also view the meeting via the city's open meeting portal or on the city's cable channel 22. To speak during public comment, you must sign up at cambridgema.gov slash public comment. You can also email written comments for the record to the city clerk at cityclerkatcambridgema.gov. We welcome your participation and you can sign up until 6 p.m. Please note that the City of Cambridge audio and video records this meeting and makes it available for the public for future viewing. In addition, third parties may also be audio and video recording this meeting. Just sort of a note, at 6.30, we have to break from the regular meeting to go to the tax rate public hearing. And we have a separate, the people we'll be calling now will be people who signed up to speak on the regular agenda. And then there's another public sign-up list that we'll do when we get to the tax rate. But just for folks who are in the audience, depending on how long things go, we might have to interrupt the regular meeting and then go to the other tax rate meeting and then come back. So I just want to make sure people understand that. Um, so the first order of business is go to public comment. Public comment may be made in accordance with Massachusetts general laws, chapter 30, a section 20 G and city council rules 23 D and 37. Once you have finished speaking, the next speaker will be called in. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers. Please state your name and address for the record and the item that you're speaking on. And just to clarify, you are allowed to speak on any item on the City Council agenda with the exception of awaiting reports and communications. There are 16 people signed up to speak, which means you will have three minutes each. And with that, we will go to public comment. Ms. Steffen.

Our first speaker is Catherine Ahern, followed by Suzanne Blier, then Patrick Barrett. Catherine, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, thank you. My name is Catherine Ahern. I live at 13 Seventh Street in East Cambridge. I'm here regarding the Gold Star Park closure, item 138 on today's agenda. I want to first thank the city for its transparent and swift action with respect to the Gold Star Mother's Park soil testing. My family was both saddened and scared to learn of the toxic results, but the city's quick closure of the Gold Star spaces and open publication of its findings and plans have been a small consolation. I am one who takes comfort in information and in action. My focus tonight is on the playground and by extension the safety of the area's families. For those here or listening and for the record, the results published on September 11th regarding the Gold Star Playground specifically reported multiple levels of toxins at rates beyond even some of the charts and graphs that I referred to in order to interpret the results. For example, a Kansas State University chart of recommended soil lead levels limits tops out at 1,000 parts per million. The highest level measured at the Gold Star Playground is 8,200. North Carolina State University has published charts regarding levels of cadmium and arsenic in soil, which max out at 25, noting high risk at 16 parts per million. The highest cadmium measured at the playground is 210. For arsenic, it's 100. For PBCs, the state's own RCS one limit is one. The highest measured at the playground is 68. And these are just a few examples. Since 2018, my husband and I have owned our home on Seventh, where we now live with our baby, toddler, and dog. Gold Star Mother's Park was our backyard, and until recently, we began each day at the field's off-leash hours and picked up our kids at the playground before dinnertime. Their daycare, along with many others in East Cambridge, went to this park twice a day. It's here my toddler played under the water feature on hot summer days and embarked on her first snowy sled ride down the Gold Star small but notable hill. I note this hill because it's part of why we thought the playground toxin levels would be safe. As a playground design not even 20 years ago, it was purposely elevated and constructed, as far as I understand it after talking to a city employee, in order to insulate the play space from, quote, historical uses of the land. So tonight I ask simply and in good faith, what went wrong? And if officials thought the playground test would come back okay, and then they most certainly did not, what other playgrounds may not be safe for our families, despite our current assumptions that they are? Our daycare now brings its kids to Silver Park, not far from Gold Star. Other daycares and schools in the area go to the Kennedy Longfellow Playgrounds along with others. Can we please, please test these parks? Given the unexpected and dangerously toxic results at Gold Star, I feel that we must and that it is a moral obligation of the city to tell us its residents with certainty where our kids can play safely. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Suzanne Blier, followed by Patrick Barrett, then Sharmell Modi. Suzanne, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Suzanne Blier, Five Fuller Place. And I'll wait to speak to manager's agenda number one. On policy order number four, zoning code related to the institutional use regulation compliance with state law. One of the serious problems with the ill-conceived February 10th up-zoning was a mess it made of Cambridge vis-a-vis the Dover Amendment. Please do not allow non... profit institutions, universities and others to take over more of our precious city land. We already are seeing a toehold of a foreign university campus in the residential neighborhood where I live. Please draft a resolution that we can take to the State House to preserve the residential and commercial land we now have in our very tiny footprint of a city. Please also read and follow the letter of Helen Walker. On charter right number two, it addresses another problem with the February 10th upzoning, the impact on solar panels. Solar is one of the only ways that Cambridge and many other parts of New England will be able to get viable energy because so much comes from Canada, which has been thwarted thanks in part to the Trump tariffs. Converting gas to electric itself uses dirty fuel, and increasingly electric costs are escalating because of needs for AI and labs. Please return to residents the ability to add solar panels with the expectation that they will not be thwarted by taller buildings that are not consistent with neighborhoods. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patrick Barrett followed by Sharmell Modi, then Lisa Burke. Patrick, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. Patrick Barrett, 907 Main Street. I'm here to speak on the policy order that was chartered in dealing with solar panels and their effect or the petition to block them in order to regulate heights of buildings, five and six stories. I've written to the council already. I represent multiple projects in the city. And while I can tell you about the deleterious effects it'll have on those projects right now, C1 Zone is the largest zoning district in the city now by the creation of the council. It's almost 65, 70% of the city. The effect of a change like this will probably not affect the small projects that don't include inclusionary units. In fact, projects on 5,000 square feet or less will probably proceed as they are currently proceeding. Anything above that threshold that looks to actually make use of the so-called bonus that we get through inclusionary zoning will absolutely not go forward. The amount of cost and time it takes to get a project of that size off to the races is about nine months. I already have several, currently one tonight that's going to go before the mid-Cambridge conservation charity, although I was told they don't have a call room, so we're delayed for another two weeks. The life of development in this city. We will go through that process like we're gonna go through the same thing on Story Street on the 9th. And nine months from that point forward, we may have a permit set that we can actually build on. And in that time, they're gonna change zoning again on us. And that's going to have an effect. And as you go up with setbacks to a building, you lose square footage, you lose size. And for what? I've been in the city for 20 years and I've seen CDD reports. Never have I seen a CDD report that on so many pages told you not to do something. And that CDD report does that. Although I think if this council had asked CDD to tell us about the effects of maybe sailing on the Titanic, that they would come back with a report that says, or at least gives you the pros and cons of navigating icebergs. They're never quite specific. But in this one, they kind of are. The effect is maybe an increase of 18% efficiency on houses. Also the unknown, because we don't know how far and wide this will go. If you want to take a look at the multifamily housing zoning, you ought to take a look at it, but you ought to do it comprehensively. If you want to take a look at just protecting solar panels, you ought to weigh it against housing, because that's what you're doing. When you decide to do something like this in the C1 zone, what you're effectively saying is that there should be no five or six story buildings in the C1 zone, and that means that no one will be pushing forward on inclusionary units in those buildings. because if we can't get to five and six, which we won't be able to do, then where is any bonus at all for inclusionary zoning? The question that you should be answering tonight, if you vote this in the affirmative tonight, you're effectively saying no to every project I represent. That is contrary to what I've heard so far. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sharmel Modi, followed by Lisa Burke, then Anne McDonald. Sharmel, you have the floor, three minutes.

Thank you, Charmille Modi, 271 Cambridge Street. Dear members of City Council, I'm writing to strongly urge you to reject the proposed additional fifth and sixth story solar setbacks for new residential buildings. While the desire to protect existing and future solar may be well-intended, the proposed setbacks, which I'll point out, are being entertained before a single new building permit has even been pulled under our nationally acclaimed new residential zoning Those setbacks are tantamount to capping residential construction at four stories, especially on mid-sized lots, those in the 5,000 to 10,000 square foot range. Simply put, these setbacks are divorced from economic and construction reality. A typical apartment unit depth is 25 to 30 feet. That's from the front door to the exterior window wall. As deeper units and deeper unit depth can lead to awkward layouts and lack of natural light. As we all know, multifamily residential projects in Cambridge are extremely difficult to pencil as is, and developers need to take advantage of every efficiency possible, including utilizing regular rectangular unit layouts, stacking like unit floor plans directly above one another, and locating plumbing walls and adjacent units back to back. As such, a setback of even 10 feet from the front or rear bulk plane of the lower floors has the unintended effect of either A, rendering the units on those floors to be extremely shallow, For example, only 15 to 20 feet in depth or be requiring an entirely different unit layout on those floors consisting of fewer more irregular and more costly units. In other words, five and six story buildings are significantly less likely to get built and more developers will be encouraged to pursue nine unit townhome projects versus four story multifamily sound familiar. If this council truly wishes to see more residential units built in the city of Cambridge, this proposal unquestionably runs exactly counter to that goal. While the concern for future solar is understandable, council would be better served to incentivize six-story buildings to incorporate rooftop solar and or to compensate neighboring existing installations commensurately with the impact to their solar capture. I strongly encourage you to defeat this proposed measure and to redirect the CDD towards finding more ways to lower the barriers to housing production as opposed to expanding city resources on yet another requirement to increase them. Thank you.

Before, Stephan, before you call the next speaker.

Councillor Wilson. Present. Present. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lisa Burke, followed by Anne McDonald and Joel Nodrick. Lisa, you have the floor, three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you so much. My name is Lisa Burke. I'm from the Alewife Study Group. I live at 20 Castle Park. I want to thank specifically counselors Nolan, Wilson, and Toner for policy order 2025-142, number five on the agenda. I want to thank you both for this policy order and for walking the paths on the IQHQ, the old grace site with Alewife Study Group and to city staff for walking these paths. This site, as you know, hosts the kids' playing fields, Russell and Como, the MDC pool area, two playgrounds, the Alewife Tea, IQHQ's biotech development, and it is crisscrossed with the Minuteman and other heavily used paths. Now, for weeks, probably a year, year and a half, Elway Study Group, in collaboration with IQ HQ, sends a newsletter to neighbors about construction issues because we're heavily affected by them. That's closed roads and noise, etc. This summer, the content of the newsletter changed radically from construction only to safety on the paths. People wrote in to say a child was pricked by a used needle at nearby Gibbons Park, that they had witnessed someone shooting up. That happens a fair amount, and that they worried about a kid seeing that. They wrote in to say to be alert for human feces, encampments, and campfires. You know from C-Click Fix how much this is happening. Many of us are worried for the safety of the unhoused and the housed. You have made a difference with the Wednesday collection of used needles on this site. It's an innovative program and I'm thrilled about it. We understand 3,500 used needles were recovered in four weeks. Now we need this policy order and your ability to coordinate across many different property owners. There are five by my count. We believe this information gathering and report is an important first step to increasing safety for all. It's going to take more than one step, I'm sure of it. Please vote in favor of policy order 2025, number 142, agenda item number five. And thank you for taking this step.

Our next speaker is Anne MacDonald, followed by Joel Nodrick, then James Zaw. Anne, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Anne MacDonald. I live on Columbus Ave in the Whittemore area of North Cambridge, and I'm speaking on policy order number 142. I walk the linear park path around Russell Field and IQHQ to access the AOFT head house. and along Whittemore Avenue and the Alewife Station access road to the Alewife Reservation stormwater wetlands, typically once or twice a day. So as darkness closes in, this area is inconsistently maintained and lit and can feel unsafe. I could have reported hundreds of incidents of the need for needle pickups or the frequent stink from the Alewife Brooks raw sewage over the years. I didn't, but I want to thank my neighbors for reporting the frequent needles overflowing public trash receptacles and fires in the tent encampments on these paths. The Russell Field Textile Recycling Bin is a ready source for scavenging for those in need, and I've seen just a pair of legs sticking out of the bin in the process of retrieval, and multiple people draped over the shopping carts in the Parkway Pond Path, aka Drug Alley or Scary Path. as I walk on Alewife Station Access Road through the curved tunnel under Alewife Parkway. So I really want to thank the care team for completing frequent needle sweeps before we had the boxes in this area. The Casper Outreach Program van that daily brings food and water and other necessities to the unhoused residents of the area. and even DCR for alerting encampment residents before their sub NEDT cleans out the encampments repeatedly that border our area paths. I was quite upset that the linear park renovation plans only showed detour routes for bicyclists and none for area pedestrians who use the linear path daily to get to the Red Line and Russell Field and beyond. And I want to thank the ALF study group, IQHQ, and the city councilors who have put time and attention to the paths in this alewife area and are working together to offer safer, better lit detour options when Linear Park is under construction. Anyone who lives and walks in this area knows the responsibilities are complex and often fall between jurisdictions and institutions, Cambridge, the NPTA, DCR, and Arlington. with no owner even listed on the state database for the Parkway Pond area. So, quoting from Click and Fix, ownership of sidewalks and paths in this area is varied and confusing. I just want to give a shout out to the unknown Cambridge employee who last winter took time to map out visually the ownership of many of the paths in the area to help bicyclists address spotty snow removal and resulting icy buildup. and dangerous conditions. Pedestrians benefited. But all too often, the responses and issues in this area are as follows. Thank you for reporting this issue to the city of Cambridge. Unfortunately, the city is not able to address this. It's on MBTA property or it's on DCR property. Ask them to investigate. We'll contact them, but contact their community relations. So I want to support the policy order's intent asking Cambridge to take a leadership role in coordinating with these institutions to ensure the area is safe for our kids and all residents, and report back and commit to managing these issues in an ongoing way.

I also hope we- And that's your time. You can send the remainder of your comments to the city clerk and the city council. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Joel Nogic, followed by James Saul, then Ned Melanson. Joel, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you, everybody. My name is Joel Nodrick. I live at 94 Clifton Street, just next to Russell Field. And I have lived there with my wife and my daughter grew up there for 33 years. and 11 years in other parts of Cambridge. And I was a founding member, along with Lisa Burke, of the L.Y. Study Group in 1995 to address big issues in the neighborhood, and we've been working on issues ever since, along with many, many other neighbors. I want to thank Councilors Wilson, Nolan, and Toner for the policy order number five about the L.Y. Paths. And I want to thank Deputy Manager Kathy Watkins, who I understand has done three walks on the paths with other city staff and also the police department. And so I'm not going to repeat all the things that Lisa and Ann have said and also that Eppa Rixey said in his letter to the city council because he wasn't able to be here. But I'll just add a few things. In my 33 years of walking those and biking those paths, over and over again and average a few times a day. The amount of needles on there and the dispersal of needles in many different locations, the amount of open drug use, the amount of the numbers of unhoused people, the number of encampments, and other things has been many fold increased since any other time that I've seen. And I do understand this is a regional problem that when sometimes when encampments are cleared out, like on Mass and Cass or in other parts of Cambridge or whatever, they end up at places like here. So I do appreciate that. And so I hope that the city council will back this ordinance, which is very reasonable, just asking the city manager to collect information about what has been done and to report it to the city council. And I want to encourage the city government and the council to play a coordinating role, given what Lisa and others have said about the you know, multiple ownership and so that things don't fall through the crack because this is not on our watch. Somebody needs to play a coordinating role. I say humbly that L.Y. Study Group has played that role among citizens and that has been very good. And I would like the city to not just report back, but also play a coordinating role within the community with groups like Elway Study Group and other property owners like the T, DCR, IQHQ, and so forth to try to make long-term solutions to these problems. I think that's all I want to say, and thank you very much for your attention to this.

Our next speaker is James Zoll, followed by Ned Melanson, then Edward Stewart. James, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. This is James Zoll, 203 Pemberton Street, and I'm speaking about the policy order on zoning changes for solar panels. Rooftop solar panels are far from the best way to generate electricity in terms of efficiency and the environment. If the council is concerned about energy efficiency and climate change, there are better ways to address energy issues than this. There's the, well, I'm not going to list them because I'm sure you know them, the city electricity production option for residents and other things. Also, I hope you consider the negative environmental effects that this proposal would have on the environment. Housing near jobs would more housing gear jobs would mean less traffic, less greenhouse gas emissions, and bring a host of benefits to the city. And this proposal, as CDD has pointed out, would result in slices being taken out of housing units to maintain solar panels when there are far better ways to do this. I hope you seriously consider hopefully rejecting or at best finding an alternate way to preserve the environment while still removing the barriers to badly needed housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ned Melanson, followed by Edward Stewart, then Rafi Friedman. Ned, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, Ned Melanson, 163 Alston Street. I'm speaking out against policy order 137, the zoning changes related to the solar panels. I think a lot of speakers have already talked about this in detail, but this really seems to me like a down zoning in green clothing. If you reduce the available square footage on the top floors, what you're really doing is taking those square floors, sorry, taking those floors out entirely. And if we want to discuss the down zoning that should be brought forward as its own policy order, but doing it this way, I think it's really unfair from a democratic and notice perspective. As other speakers have noted, there's a lot better ways to increase environmental resiliency in Cambridge. And I don't think that we should be sacrificing the much needed housing supply for rooftop solar on residential buildings when things like community solar are actually much more efficient and generate a lot more renewable energy. Of course, I'm for rooftop solar, but everything needs to be taken from a holistic approach. And we need to balance the needs of homeowners and people who have rooftop solar installations with the needs for people to actually live in these buildings that we so desperately need. And, you know, there's also for people that currently have solar, you know, installations, and those could be potentially threatened by taller buildings, reducing the efficiency of those panels. There's plenty of ways that already exist that we can make those homeowners and solar owners all, whether that's through buyouts, whether, you know, like I said, that's through investments in community solar. that are much cheaper and much better for the entire city rather than when it's effectively a down zoning and essentially reversing the multifamily housing up zoning that was done in February. So that's my thoughts there. And I would also just like to comment on the policy order related to ice incidents in Cambridge. So I think the city is really a leader in the country on its response to ice and we need to keep the foot on the pedal there. I'm very concerned about information that's being shared and how there's, I believe there was close to zero detainer requests sent to CPD. And that seems to be wildly off given anecdotal evidence and chatter in the community about ICE sightings. So again, I applaud the city for what it's done so far and just encourage discussion and really, really strong responses, including what can be done about clearly unconstitutional sweeps. and federal agents utilizing masks and not identifying themselves on the street of Cambridge. Thank you.

Our next speaker is speaker number 10, Edward Stewart, followed by Rafi Freeman, then Lance Green. Edward, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Stewart, 146 Huron Avenue. We've lived in Cambridge for over 40 years. 30 years ago, I opened up my retail shop in this location. And 15 years ago, we were able to purchase the building along with the land. We're retiring. We put the property up for sale. And aside from the building, we have a vacant lot in the back, over 5,000 square feet, completely buildable lot, nice, clean lot. We have an interested buyer. He actually wants to put an apartment building in there, 20% affordable units. And with this proposal to do the setbacks on the fifth and sixth floors, we'll be losing, the developer will be losing so much square footage. It's not going to be viable. They will walk away. And what will be left is marketing that lot to a developer who will build four townhouses just slightly less than 2,500 square feet. So they stay under the 10,000 square foot limit and we'll have four luxury townhouses in the back and absolutely zero affordable housing housing. I don't think the trade off for solar panels is worth that. Um, I think we need to vote no on this. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Rafi Freeman followed by Lance Green, then James Williamson. Rafi, if you can unmute yourself, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Rafi Freeman, Prospect Street. I want to open up with the context that in my professional life, a large part of how I spend my time is developing large scale solar projects in Africa. And also I have solar panels on my house here in Cambridge and also a separate solar system on a rental property here in Cambridge. I did the rough math on how much actual production solar energy provides from residential rooftops in the city. If you do the math, there's probably something like five megawatts of residential solar in the city in a city that consumes hundreds of megawatts or potentially over a gigawatt. That's only 1% of peak power. When you multiply that by a typical 13% capacity factor on solar in Massachusetts, that amounts to something like 0.1 to 0.2% of our power production in the city. Unfortunately, it's just not that impactful. I wish it was more impactful, but it's not. I think it's super important to be grounded in the facts when we're making decisions like this. Installing solar on our residential rooftops is a nice thing to do and helpful, but unfortunately just not that helpful and more of a rounding error when it comes to the city's climate change impact in a dense urban environment. I want to say it again, residential solar is not a meaningful path to climate change mitigation in Cambridge. The roofs are just too small and the capacity factors are too low. Restricting structures that are near solar panels will probably cut back around 10 to 30% of the developments made possible under the multifamily housing zoning. Those of you on the council who were sponsors of this legislation, you're unfortunately perhaps unintentionally undermining the pioneering and exciting work that you did. Our lots are simply not big enough and projects not profitable enough to survive setbacks and restrict development in this type of material way. Again, I'm someone who has solar panels on my house. I hope someone puts a large building next to me, shades my house, and builds 100 or more new units next to me. You cannot live in a dense city and expect the shade dynamics around you will not change in the future. Nobody has that right or should have that right. When you put solar on your house in a dense city, you take some risk that in the future there will be more shade. The social impact of building more housing and indeed the environmental benefits of building more housing are far more important than losing a few hundred or thousand kilowatt hours in a property of solar production. Like other speakers have said, there are more efficient ways to decarbonize, including electricity, like building community solar in places where land is more abundant and cheaper. I appreciate that this is a patchy time before the election and this measure is inviting bad optics. No one wants to be seen as voting against solar energy. I vote for solar energy every single day with my professional time and money, but I would vote against this specific measure. I hope we can make decisions here based on the real impact and trade off.

Thank you, Rafi. Your time has expired. Please email the remainder. Our next speaker is Lance Green, followed by James Williamson, then Nicola Williams. Lance, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, thank you, Honorable Vice Mayor McGovern and the Cambridge City Councilors. I just want to note I was born in this great city. About 56 years ago, Cambridge City Hospital resided for many years at 29 Fairfield Street in North Cambridge. My father grew up here with the great mayor, Walter Sullivan. So I grew up here and went to an Emmy Fitzgerald school, Madden on high school. And in my early twenties, I left for New York city to pursue an acting career. I returned as a realtor and try to raise my family, family in the city, but unfortunately unable to afford it. And I landed in next door in Arlington about 18 years ago. As a Cambridge realtor, I am currently working on numerous projects that I am selling or advising builders on that will potentially add hundreds of inclusionary units desperately needed. I'm here to express my concern regarding the proposed policy order 137. While I understand the intention behind the measure, I know its passage would inadvertently hinder the progress of inclusionary housing development in our community. Though solar energy important, there's enough technology in the solar arena to allow for solar optimizers to be added to a solar array that is inadvertently affected by any shade. The solar technology is there and unfortunately inclusionary housing will not be should this item pass. I want to note that the numerous builders I work with are currently interested in contributing to affordable housing projects and may find themselves forced to shift their focus towards constructing luxury townhomes instead. This pivot would ineffectively reduce the availability of much-needed inclusionary housing options, thereby affecting the socio-economic diversity of the Cambridge values. I urge you to consider the broader implications of this agenda item and the potential impact on our City's housing landscape. Please vote against item this item and I support the continued development of inclusionary and diverse housing options in Cambridge with a non-change to the new zoning for at least two years. I want to further note that tabling this item for a future vote signals fear to my builders and the delay will have them pivot to luxury townhomes instead. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Thank you. Our next speaker is James Williamson followed by Nicola Williams, then Justin Safe. James, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Thank you. I want to speak about the proposed appointments to the Cambridge Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. The city manager has violated the law in how he went about this. And it's not as if he didn't know because this process specifically choosing the tenant representative on the CHA board of commissioners we went through that and and um last year and the manager should be well aware of what the law requires the law is very clear within 10 days of a vacancy the tenant vacancy is what i'm speaking to uh the manager is required to notify author legitimate tenant organizations, the citywide organization, which is the Alliance of Cambridge tenants and any local tenant council of the fact of there being a tenant vacancy. Then after 60 days, after 60 days, those organizations, if they so choose, and if they can get it together are, uh, empowered, to submit lists of the proposed, of the tenant representative. No less than two and no more than five. Here's what happened. The manager tried to pull a fast one at the end, just before the summer break, and moved a person who had applied to a non-tenant seat over to, when the tenant seat became vacant, the manager put in the city agenda, the council agenda, an appointment of a tenant who had applied to a non-tenant open seat and with another appointment to that open seat. So reshuffling the deck, ignoring this process entirely. Apparently a member of the council, a prominent member who I will not mention, complained that This would result in a not very diverse or all white board of the Cambridge Housing Authority, commit board of commissioners. So those proposals, those items on the agenda were withdrawn. Then the manager advertised that applicants would submit their applications to the manager, not to the recognized tenant organizations, and that they would respond within 30 days. No. So do the tenants in CHA housing have a right to choose their own representative, or don't we? By the way, there's no evidence that the act have endorsed any of the names that were submitted, and it's not going to be a five-year term.

It's going to be more like a three-year term. James, that's your time. Please email us the rest of your comments. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nicola Williams, followed by Justin Safe, then Charles Franklin. Nicola, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.

good evening everyone nicola williams 8 brewer street um first i'd like to touch on the um i'm saddened to learn that mr red t mitchell of his passing on september 18th and i sincerely um feel for his family my deep condolences i work with mr mitchell on the prince hall monument which was a very important project for him and the city of Cambridge. And this will have an important legacy on the Cambridge Common, you know, to perpetuity. I will also plant a tree in Mrs. Mitchell's memory. I wanted to touch on the PO for the solar roofs from Health and Environment. As an environmentalist, I generally support efforts for the city to limit our impact on the environment, decarbonize, including the promotion of solar panels. I FEEL LIKE GIVEN THE COMPLEXITIES OF OUR CITY'S ZONING, I THINK THIS PROPOSAL WARRANTS FURTHER DISCUSSION AND HOPE THAT IT WILL MOVE TO THE APPROPRIATE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE. I LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER ENGAGEMENT ON THIS MATTER AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JUSTIN SAFE FOLLOWED BY CHARLES FRANKLIN. JUSTIN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. PLEASE GO AHEAD.

Good evening, Justin Safe, 259 Hurley. The solar protection policy order before you this evening has brought in what seems like bad faith and out of nimbyism rather than concerns for reducing carbon pollution. In fact, it's most likely that this would increase carbon pollution because it leads to suburban deforestation as well as suburban development of large single-family homes and communities where there's lacking public transit and residents are forced to rely entirely on their vehicles for travel. In addition, this encourages very large, very expensive homes in Cambridge, as you heard, instead of building inclusionary multifamily buildings. And inclusionary multifamily buildings in Cambridge are incredibly green buildings. They're built to the passive house standard. They're all electric with no gas hookups. And it's rather ironic that we would block some of the greenest possible residential construction, probably in America, for the possibility, not the actuality, merely the possibility that there could be partial shade on a solar system somewhere for some portion of the year or none. There may not be any solar around and it's still blocked. I've spoken with builders. You've heard builders tonight say that it's very clear that these step backs are both structurally and economically infeasible. They make the social housing that was on last week's agenda that everyone was excited about impossible to build um step backs blocked housing under the somerville affordable housing overlay until just to start successfully petitioned the somerville city council to have them removed i hope we can explore workable solutions but unfortunately the step backs presented here are not On the institutional use policy order, I think you should require the solicitor to opine on the vulnerability of the previous version of Cambridge's exemption that relied on exclusionary housing and drove up the cost of housing in Cambridge. It appears from the outcome of the lawsuit was likely vulnerable from the outset, regardless of any of the recent zoning changes. And finally, I do hope you test all of the parks in East Cambridge to see if any of the other ones for my kids and their soccer teams clay of heavy metal contamination like we now know Gold Star Park does. Thank you.

Thank you. Our final speaker is Charles Franklin. Charles, you have the floor, three minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, Council. Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street. I'm here to speak in favor of setbacks, maybe not necessarily this specific proposal, but in general. While there have been and still are many tools that mostly serve to stop development, setback requirements do not have to be among them. Protecting solar installations is important. Maintaining sky visibility for the increased number of people who will live here with our new zoning is important. The new zoning, even with setbacks, will result in so much more housing than compared to before. I think it's okay to shave a little bit off the top in exchange for some other concerns. In addition, some of the world's most stunning architecture is part of the result of setbacks and man suit requirements. Paris, New York, Chicago, they all have both low and high rise neighborhoods with setbacks and plenty of density. Maybe the numbers on this proposal need to be adjusted, but let's at least take this next step and keep the conversation going. Another similar addendum, there are lots of non-luxury row houses in D.C. in neighborhoods that are just as dense or more dense than ours currently. And before anybody tries to call me anti-housing, don't forget I supported the original six-story as-of-right multifamily petition. So definitely still pro-housing. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, it looks like we have one more speaker. Heather Hoffman. Heather, you have the floor, three minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. I did sign up for the correct meeting, but it decided that I actually signed up for the ordinance committee meeting tomorrow. Go figure. I would like, to discuss bad faith and solar panels for a moment. I'm so glad to see that anything anyone ever does that could ever interfere with building bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger is in bad faith. And that green nets can be in just as much bad faith as anything else. What I would say is that this was brought up You could have looked at it when you were so bent on passing the massive upzoning. You could also have looked at the institutional use regulations, which were also brought up. But it was way too important to plow ahead with something and then think about the consequences later. Perhaps it will occur to you to do something differently in the future, but I doubt it. With respect to the linkage nexus study, sure, have a nexus study. I have heard from people who spoke earlier tonight and didn't mention this, that they've called for an inclusionary zoning nexus study because 20% is too big. Who knows? With respect to the zero emissions transportation plan, I would like to know how you're working to improve public transit how you're working to improve things for pedestrians, especially pedestrians who are not young, fit, without any mobility or vision disabilities. And where do we think that delivery drivers and the Uber and Lyft drivers live? Are we thinking about any of that stuff? With respect to Gold Star Mother's Park and Russell Fields, As is well known to the Alewife Study Group, because this is why they exist, there is a huge amount of asbestos right by Russell Field, which is going to be dug up. Tons and tons. According to the answer to the question I asked at a meeting, we're talking about 500 truckloads of dirt being taken out of that field for the MBTA Highline tunnel. Plus the digging that the city is in fact going to be doing on linear park. And so, yeah, let us actually do the drilling and check these things because the city of Cambridge should have absolutely zero, zero grace on that.

Thank you. Thank you, Heather.

Okay, so that's... Mr. Chair, that concludes all that were signed up to speak.

Okay, so on a motion by Councilor Zusy to close public comment. Roll call.

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 is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Okay. So we have nine minutes before we have to switch over to the tax rate. and we need a few minutes for IT to switch over to the other public speakers. So I'm actually gonna ask that we take a recess for nine minutes. Oh, Councilor Siddiqui?

Vice Mayor, I was just gonna say, I guess, just so that we're on the same page, should we just choose what we're picking from the city manager's agenda so folks can go home? We could do that.

Councillor Nolan?

Yeah, I support that. And then we could pass the ones that have no discussion.

That sounds good. Well, the only, I mean, the only thing. No, that's right. No, we're good. That's right. Councillor Siddiqui? Do you want to pull? No? Pleasure of the committee.

Number seven.

Vice Mayor.

Councilor Nolan.

Number eight. Four and six, please.

Four and six.

Anything else? Mr. Vice Mayor.

Councilor Wilson.

Thank you. One and two, please.

Nobody's going home.

Okay, so we have pulled one and two, Councilor Wilson, four and five by Councilor Zusy,

No, she said four and six.

Four and six, I'm sorry, it's my fault. Four and six. Seven by Councilor Toner and eight by Councilor Nolan. So on the balance, roll call.

Councilor Zinn. 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 is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative. And one recorded is absent.

We now have six minutes.

Do we want to approve communications and resolutions?

We have to move suspension and bounce around. I mean, I guess we could. All right. Just trying to keep it organized, but all right. Councilor Toner moves suspension of the rules to bring forward communications. I guess we don't need a roll call, right?

Because we're going out of order, so yes. Okay, 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 is absent. You have made eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent. Okay. Motion to place all on file.

On a motion by Councilor Toner to place communications on file. Roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Okay. On to resolutions. I motion to suspend the rules to bring those forward. I'm suspending the motion by Councilor Toner to suspend the rules to bring forward resolutions. 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 is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Okay. Resolutions are now... Before us, I'd like to pull one of them. Is anyone else pulling any others? All right, so I'm going to pull number seven on one through six, making unanimous upon adoption. Roll call.

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. And Mayor Simmons is absent. Eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Number seven is condolences on the death of Kate Frank. I just would like to be added. Kate was a known Kate a long time. It was a long time friend. So I'm adding my name to the resolution. 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 is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

On the resolution as amended, making unanimous upon adoption.

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 is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Okay.

Okay.

The other thing we could do while we're waiting is communications and reports from other city officers. There are two. I'm assuming we're going to want to talk about the second one because that has to do with the ICE report. But the first one we can dispense with. So on suspending the rules to bring forward communications and reports from other city officers, 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 is absent. Eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

On placing on file communication report from other city officers, 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 is absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent. All right. 629.

We could do committee reports. We could do committee reports into the ordinance.

No, we're right up on us. Okay, so we are now going to recess the regular city council meeting and move over into the tax rate classification meeting. We have 30 seconds. Anybody have a good joke? Welcome, everyone. Hope you're having a good time. A lot of new faces out there. Not sure what brings you all out tonight, but welcome. All right.