City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Councilor Wilson is online.

Good evening, everyone. A quorum of the City Council being present, I call tonight's meeting of December 22nd, 2025 to order. The first order of business is a roll call of members present. Madam Clerk.

Azeem, present. Councilor Nolan, present. Councilor Siddiqui, present. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, present. Councilor Toner, absent. Wilson. Present and audible. Councilor Zusy.

Present.

Mayor Simmons. Mayor Simmons. Absent. Vice Mayor McGovern.

Present.

You have a quorum with seven present and two absent.

Thank you. Mayor Simmons is out of town. She will be joining us via Zoom on approximately 6.30 or so. If willing and able, please join me in standing for Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Lang, United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, adopted by the Massachusetts General Court and approved by the Governor, the City is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge City Council.

In addition to having members 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 6pm. Please note that the City of Cambridge audio and video records this meeting and makes it available to the public for future viewing. In addition, third parties may also be audio and video recording this meeting. We now go on to public comments.

Public comment may be made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 20G, and 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. We ask that you please state your name and address for the record as well as the item that you're speaking on. Please note you can only speak to items that are on tonight's agenda. with the exception of communications and awaiting reports. Those are not subject to public comment, but anything else on the agenda is. We have 62 speakers signed up. So according to our rules, each speaker will have two minutes. With that, I will turn it over to Ms. Steffen to call the roll.

Our first speaker is Joseph Adeletta, followed by Andrew Lunn, then Young Kim. Joe, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Joe Arletta, 68 Walker Street. You've heard from me on a number of different occasions describing numerous reasons why you should let the upzoning resolutions lapse and come back with a more realistic and timely plan. Thank you for joining us. We pulled in by the Duncan, the main entrance, and he says, holy smokes. Well, it was something a touch more crass than smokes, but you get the point. I can't even imagine what the parking is like here on the weekends, he says. How do you do it? said you're not going to believe it, but they actually want to cut the parking back substantially and drop a bunch of buildings in here. No way, he says. That can't be true. Pop, I'm telling you, it's true. Man, he says, I thought it was bad back home with all the construction by folks rented to everyone. That's Florida, incidentally. But this is unbelievable. So there's that.

And it's not the first time. He's not the only one. Every time I bring someone from outside of Cambridge, the remarks are eerily similar. Why would you do that? You will, I'm quite sure, hear from others that will tell you unequivocally that we need more housing. We must, it's a crisis, they'll say. I'm telling you that building more market rate housing in Cambridge will do nothing to ameliorate cost of living pressures. It won't. But it certainly will add to the stressors of families like mine, creating physical and mental clutter while destroying the character of the town and failing to create an affordable life. What we can, and we absolutely should do, is leverage the city budget to acquire land and buildings for affordable low-income housing. and we should build those with warmth and character and charm rent them for as little as would warrant it's an investment in people and the future The idea that you have to turn my neighborhoods into Kendall Square is a failure not only of policy but of imagination.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrew Lund, followed by Yong Kim, then David Halperin. Andrew, two minutes. Andrew has not joined us. We will go to Young Kim. Young, you have two minutes.

Young Kim, 17 Norris Street, speaking against the Mass Avenue and Cambridge Street corridor zoning petition and related items. On this final city council session of the term, I want to thank the mayor, vice mayor, and councillors for your service and for the many ways you've worked to make Cambridge better. Upzone proponents argue that a critical housing shortage requires urgent action. I agree we need more housing. Cambridge must grow to remain vibrant, but urgency should not replace sound policy. When known gaps are left unresolved, rushing ahead creates problems that are far harder and more costly to fix later. These gaps are clear. Accessibility risks affecting people with disability and older residents. Weakening complete solar protections.

Lack of readiness for mass timber construction and policies that weaken non-profit affordable housing developers' ability to compete against market rate developers. This impact began in 2022 when accessory parking requirements were removed. Each zoning change since has added momentum Thank you. Thank you. or take no action so the incoming council can review these issues. Better still, let the petition expire and refile them only after the gaps are addressed. Thank you, and I wish you a safe holiday season.

Thank you. Our next speaker is David Halperin, followed by Neil Miller, then Anas El-Turabi. David, you have two minutes.

Good evening, David Halperin, 14 Ballantyne Street, Unit 3. I'm speaking in strong support of the Northern Mass Ave and Cambridge Upstartings. There is an article in the Boston Globe today for many New Englanders. Working in Boston means an exhausting commute. The first person this talks about is commuting 60 miles each way by car. And this is the very natural consequence of the status quo of our housing policy in the urban core of Boston. When you don't let people build up near mass transit and near jobs, then People are going to move out and they're going to have very long commutes and that's obviously awful for them. It's also terrible for our climate. These are, you know, people who lived closer in could also be contributing to our Thank you.

Building taller on top of our major transit nodes is such a clear, obvious idea that whenever we're talking about, you know, any other housing policy, you know, people are saying, well, we should do this instead. I agree. What we need to do is build tall buildings near mass transit and walkable neighborhoods near jobs. This is a clear good step in that direction. I wish it had gone further in various ways. I think we should, you know, pass these as they currently are tonight and not delay any further. I also hope we can keep Northern Mass Ave at 12 stories rather than 11 where we know right now the economics at 12 works a lot better or maybe that'll be different in the future but Please ordain these tonight without further delay. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Neil Miller, followed by Anas Altarabi, then Michael Siegel. Neil.

Hi. Good evening. Happy holidays. I hope you are having a good holiday season. ISD report from a few weeks ago said that in the last two years, this year, 2024, there were just 10 new inclusionary zoning units in all of Cambridge that were finished. I'm sure each of you during your last term on the council probably each individually helped at least 10 people apply for inclusionary zoning units. and you have an opportunity today to make two major down payments on that program and to make sure that it's not a false promise for the people, our neighbors who take their time to fill out the form and apply for inclusionary zoning. First on North Mass Ave, please vote against the amendment for 11 stories. The stated rationale for some residents' preferences in the study is to prevent, quote, another Kendall Square on North Mass Ave.

If anyone can explain why 11 stories versus 12 stories will make it another Kendall Square, I haven't really heard that explanation. I'd be really curious. That same page in the report also says that 11 stories is sort of a dead zone for building new multifamily housing. It will lead to fewer homes created. And it's not about the height of buildings. I'm interested because I want to envision a future where families like mine and my neighbors can stay in Cambridge. I also urge you to pass The Cambridge Street Plan tonight. The biggest changes in this plan are on Windsor and Webster Street, where there's all the auto tow lots, and near Lechmere. What we have right now is a chance to incentivize the replacement of auto tow lots that are across the street from the Willow Street CHA buildings with mixed income housing. Let's not

come back here in a year and say, oh, we have all these plans and we never do anything. We never take any action. I hope you can pass these plans tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Anas El-Turabi, followed by Michael Siegel, then Pamela Winters. Anas, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, chair and city councillors. My name is Anas El-Tarabi. I live at 131 Sherman Street, and I'd like to speak regarding managers agenda item number five. I, along with a number of my neighbors who attended the recent community hearing on the city's CSO plans and the specific plans for the site at 135 Sherman Street, have reviewed the DPW commissioner's memo and the technical data regarding the hybrid two CSO control plan. and we'd like to make a recommendation for the council tonight that you accept the report but what we're looking for is an explicit recommendation that the new CSO Advisory Committee includes better representation of directly affected communities. Specifically, we would like to ask for at least one designated seat representing abutters and individuals who are resident in the immediate vicinity of the facility. Look, the document that the DPW Commission has laid out for you today clarifies that the proposed tank at 135 Sherman Street is not a standalone solution.

It's part of a complex 5.3 million gallon integrated system. This is a strategic and major infrastructure initiative. We understand actually from the data that has been presented that the typical year compliance still means that we could face significant overflow challenges during large storm events. What this confirms for all of us is that we're not just going to be temporary neighbors to a construction site, but long-term permanent hosts of this critical facility. Up till now, the engagement has been a little bit patchy and reactive. And the recent December 11th meeting was an example of this, where it lacked remote access, there weren't translation services. And I think that the opportunity to make sure that diverse voices of the community Properly represented wasn't really fulfilled. So we need to do better than that. We would like to take advantage of the commission's memo tonight, which we think offers a reset. It requests a 120-day extension to the draft plan. and it announces the creation of the CSO Advisory Committee in 2026.

And so the specific task that we have, just to repeat that again, is that there is at least one seat made available for directly impacted individuals and abutters so that we can participate in this important process going forwards. Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker is Michael Siegel, followed by Pamela Winters, then Ethan Frank. Michael, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, everybody. Is the volume on here? We can hear you. All right. Thank you very much. So I live at 33 Bellis Circle. mere steps from the proposed tank construction project off of Sherman and Miller Circle. I've lived here for 46.5 years and I've seen lots of activity around that site. And as you can imagine, neighbors are extremely focused and keen on what has happened and what seems to be in the future in terms of this project. I have three quick points I want to make.

The first one is I also attended the meeting, I think it was December 9th, and there were aspects of the presentation that were extremely disturbing that I want to be on record. There's a history of engagement of our community with what will be happening to that parcel to the parking lot. When it was Jose's parking lot and then the Montessori school, and then when the speed took over, there have been numerous outreach attempts to find out what are the plans. over the last few years since the city has owned it. What has come back to us Consistently is there are no specific plans. There are a few ideas floating around, but we will engage with the community to figure out best uses. Well, at the meeting a few weeks ago, We were told that this project that

That is on the city manager's agenda number five. This project was always inevitable. This was always going to be happening.

Michael, Michael, that's your two minutes. You can send the rest of your comments to the city council at citycouncil at cambridgema.gov or to the city clerk at cambridgema.gov.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Pamela Winters, followed by Ethan Frank, then Sarah Block. Pamela is not on the Zoom. We will go to Ethan Frank, followed by Sarah Block.

Hello, my name is Ethan. I live at 632 Mass Ave. While I would rather have even taller buildings in our corridors, sometimes we have to compromise and these zoning petitions still represent A great step forward. Regarding concerns over parking, Cambridge residents have one of the lowest car ownership rates in the nation, especially around transit corridors. And a lot of traffic comes from commuters who can't afford to live here, something that more housing would definitely help. In addition, the most recent East Cambridge economic survey showed that only 20% of people arrive to businesses by car. Most people walk. or Bike. So I feel that our small businesses would be thrilled to have more people living within walking distance.

On tonight's agenda, policy order two asks the city to look into methods of restricting residential parking permits in areas surrounding new development in transit quarters, with exceptions for low-income individuals and people with disabilities. And this would precisely counteract concerns that these new developments would This policy has been working successfully in Somerville for the past five years, so I hope that everyone supports it tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Sarah Block, followed by Itamar Turner-Troring, then Cooper Smithson. Sarah? Sarah has not joined. We will go to Itamar Turner-Troring. We are at speaker number 11. Itamar, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Itamar Turner-Trowing. I live at 139 Oxford Street. This is about a block away from where some of the Porter Square extra-height buildings would be going in if the upzoning passes tonight. I would ask you to pass both the Mass Ave and Cambridge sheet upzoning of as much height as possible. Again, I don't see that there's much use in heights on limit except occasionally for to allow for the affordable housing developers to get more access. If you have more taller buildings, you get more units. Just more people living here is good. Get more affordable units. From inclusionary zoning, once you hit 20, you start getting accessible units for people with disabilities. and if you have more people living in the area you get more customers for small businesses which is good for everyone.

Given the cost of land, if you have taller buildings, within the cutoff rates, the change points for construction technologies, it makes building these projects more financially feasible. So more height is better. And, you know, that is a thing we could allow with these upzonings. But if you look, walking on these streets right now, there are many stretches where it's just like a single-story building. And this is just a... Really, really terrible waste of space in a city where land is so expensive. Seeing single-story buildings on our major thoroughfares is just... Really, really terrible urban planning. We should not have single-story buildings on these major streets. So please, please don't delay. Please pass both these upzonings with no more rejection in height. Thank you.

The next speaker is Cooper Smithson. Cooper-Smithson has not logged on. We'll go to Julia Schultzman.

Good evening. My name is Julia Schlossman, and I live at 41 Walker Street. Just yesterday, the Boston Globe published an editorial aptly and pointedly titled, Fewer Meetings, More Housing. In the spirit of that piece, I hope that tonight is the last meeting that we have on the rezoning of North Mass Ave and Cambridge Street, and that the council will ordain a strong, bold zoning policy that allows for lots and lots of Housing in these two areas, namely up to the 12 stories under discussion, and doesn't force us all to go back to square one meetings, process and all. I myself live just off North Mass Ave. As you've surely heard in the many meetings up to this point, it's a wonderful area rich with amenities and transit. I would be thrilled for more people to be able to live in that fantastic area, even if it does mean more shadows and tall buildings. Adding housing is worth it.

So let's get this rezoning over the line and legalize lots of housing in two key areas of this amazing city. Thank you.

The next speaker is Alexander Yablokov.

I am Alexander Yablokov. I live at 16 Castle Park. I've lived in North Cambridge, and I'm speaking about the Cambridge Street and North Mass Ave upzonings. I've lived in North Cambridge for almost four decades now. I bike up and down the street. almost every day. Much as I love my neighborhood, I've always found it a little Unexciting. It's been underused and undervalued for years and I've always wondered why nothing is going on and why no building is going on there when there's a lot of opportunity for it. Now I'm seeing why that is. I think this rezoning will bring me new neighbors, new businesses, and allow people with families to be able to stay in the city that they love as much as I do. So we should support these zoning changes, stop talking about it, and start providing more places for people to live.

Thank you, our next speaker is James Zoll, followed by Noah Stapp, then Paul Recuglia. James, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

Thank you. This is James Aul, 203 Pemberton Street. I'd like to thank the Council for continuing their plan, your plan, to replace exclusionary restrictions on home building with by-right standards with design guidelines. This approach has already built affordable housing at a higher rate than before, and the recent multifamily zoning amendments are starting to bring forward proposals that will change lots that now provide Homes to only 5 to 10 households to sites of homes for 30 and even 70. This is the level of housing construction we need to offset decades of zoning caps and this will be needed whether The additional housing is built as affordable or inclusionary market rate, whether it's built by the private market or built under

Any kind of proposed social housing regime. Even that is going to need to put more homes per lot than we've have all been allowed to do until very recently. Lots of speakers say that they certainly recognize the need for housing, but at the same time, they want to have less housing and particularly Small buildings are preferred without explaining how that's going to help the two thirds of residents who rent their homes. and have been getting the short end of zoning for many decades now.

The city of Cambridge has treated the situation at the Riverview condos appropriately, going to great lengths to address an emergency. Well, I'm running out of time. I'd just like to ask you to pass this with no further reductions.

Thank you, Mr. Zoll. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zoll. You can email the remainder. Our next speaker is Noah Stapp, followed by Paul Recuglia, then Jim Monteverde. Noah, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. You have the floor.

Hello, I am strongly in support of upzoning to allow taller buildings on Mass Ave and Cambridge Street. Practically all of Cambridge lacks significant numbers of high-rises and dense housing developments. I live in Harvard Square, one of the busiest areas of the city, and the vast majority of housing is single family homes with only a handful of larger developments. Most of Cambridge is even less dense than that with just block after block of single-family, singular, double-story homes. Cambridge is a city, not a suburb. Yet we have encouraged low-density single-family development for decades instead of the dense urban housing we so desperately need to be a real city and not a fake pretending city. Building large amounts of taller, denser housing is the only way to alleviate the extreme cost of living crisis in Cambridge. Artificial suppression of housing supply for decades has caused demand to far outstrip available housing stock.

Cambridge should be and has the potential to be a vibrant, lively city, full of opportunity, but only if we build enough housing to actually allow people besides the wealthy or lucky to actually make a home for themselves here. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Paul Recuglia.

Thank you.

Paul, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Paul Riculia. I live at 9-5 Bella Circle in Cambridge. I'm speaking in support of the Cambridge Street and Mass Avenue zoning ordinances. I'd like to thank the Council for their hard work these last two years. Fighting for more housing has been very hard work. I'm delighted that we're choosing to make sure more people have homes. This is profoundly humanitarian work. Thank you. I hope you enjoy some much deserved rest over the holidays.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jim Monteverde, followed by Mark Keebler, then Alan Speight. Jim, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good evening. I'm Jim Monteverde, 12 Oak Street in Inman Square. I ask that you let the Cambridge Street zoning proposal expire. While I applaud the Council's action to reduce building heights in Inman Square from 10 to 8 stories, I believe the correct height limit is as stated in the Cambridge Street Study Namely, six stories in Inman Square and along Cambridge Street, not eight as proposed. This change should be vetted in a public review process like the Cambridge Street study underwent and based on professional recommendation. Public review should also examine the proposed lax design review thresholds and process and should require a project review special permit of all new building on Cambridge Street to maintain and enhance the unique character of the street. Likewise, the zoning proposal needs improvement to allow existing retail uses

to continue in any new construction to maintain the retail vibrancy of the street. Please let this zoning proposal expire so that it can be improved through public review and comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Mark Keebler, followed by Alan Speight.

Mark has not joined. We will go to Alan Speight. Alan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Alan Speight, you have the floor if you can unmute yourself. Alan, you're unmuted if you can go ahead.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you very much. First of all, thank you all for being here tonight, middle of the holiday season. I guess because it's the holidays, I've been thinking a lot about what a community is. One of the reasons I've lived in Cambridge for 25 years is because I do feel it's very much a community. And one thing I think communities ought to do is to know how to have a number of goals that are important in a community Thank you so much for joining us. But it's possible to prioritize one goal over others in such a way that you run roughshod over citizens and you run roughshod over the important process of working things out. 60 years ago, 63 years ago, 1962, there was another local government that wanted to do something that it thought was very important. It had to happen. We can't have any more meetings on this. We have to get right to this.

And what they wanted to do, of course, was to build an eight-lane highway through the middle of Cambridge, the so-called inner belt. What happened was a bunch of grandmas in triple-deckers came out and sat down in the middle of this intended project and said, no, you're running roughshod over us. You haven't heard us. And I'm sorry, but that's really where we are. We appreciate the reduction in hype at Inman. But I think that this has to be done right now. It is not a spirit that a lot of us are with. I don't see this. I know a lot of people who don't see this as a petition that's ready for prime time yet. We appreciate the reduction in height, but we are losing processes that matter to the community such as design review. I can't think of any reason why we should prioritize anything that doesn't allow a real process to make sure that housing is built in accordance with Thank you so much for joining us. Let's get on with it.

We've only been talking about this since the day after Thanksgiving, so please, let this lapse, please. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Marilee Meyer, followed by David Hattis, then Matthew Kelly. Marilee, you have two minutes. For those waiting, we are at speaker number 21. Marilee, you have the floor.

Hi, Merilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street. Giving small successes helps create buy-in from the public. Eight stories to 10 stories in Inman Square is a step in the right direction, but council dictated 12 stories on Mass Ave when CDD and the public lobbied for less on different blocks. Your rigidity of goals ignored concerns, and as of right was not mentioned in the original Cambridge Reader Mass Ave. petitions, profitable market rate has advantage over AHO height. Going from 12 to the 11 stories was charter-righted, requested by the Cambridge Housing Czar, making me wonder how a negligible Single Floor will help him manipulate his next hurdle, perhaps in anticipation of Central Square. The average height of Mass Ave should be six to eight stories, like the Sheraton Commander.

While management look like allies of affordable housing, counselors are actually helping to reshape Cambridge into the lifeless playground of the super rich on the backs of traditional minority neighborhoods. Not one mention of affordability. Passing these petitions on the fly ignore unresolved issues including solar panels, setback, transitions, evictions with small businesses, parking, no mention of wind tunnels. Unbridled real estate transactions are without the experience and input of planning board review meant to bolster city planning and should include smaller buildings, not just large. But no, Council has put to work the work and egotistical credit of owning this before a comprehensive plan and crucial solutions which could be resolved in the next term. Your coalition was re-elected.

You are still getting housing regardless. But dogged tunnel vision doesn't help. Please let the petition expire. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is David Hattis, followed by Matthew Kelly, then Gertrude Goodman. David, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

David Hattis, 393 Broadway. I am in favor of allowing more housing on Cambridge Street and Mass Ave. I think we need more market rate housing and more affordable housing. We're far behind On our envisioned goals, we permitted only 62 net new homes in 2025, which is the lowest since 2009. Regarding affordable housing, this These petitions would increase the number of affordable homes in Cambridge. CDD estimates that these petitions would add 680 additional affordable homes in Cambridge by 2040. Given the high cost of building affordable housing, that's a really big deal. And I think we should be designing our zoning to enable more inclusionary units to pencil.

I worry about reducing the allowable height on Mass Ave from 12 to 11 stories. To go above the eight stories, we're requiring a lot of conditions publicly available are publicly accessible open space and the setback on above the eighth floor and above a certain square footage. you have to have a special permit which the taller buildings are likely to need and so I worry that developers will instead decide to build only six-story buildings and that would that might end up losing a lot of market rate homes and a lot of affordable homes. So I hope that you keep the allowable height at 12 stories on Mass Ave. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Matthew Kelly, followed by Gertrude Goodman, then Shelly Ryman. Matthew, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Matt Kelly. I live at 13 Oakland Street. I was here two weeks ago to urge the City Council to let the upzoning specifically for Cambridge Street expire, and I am back here to ask the same thing again. The plain truth is that for the Cambridge Street part in particular, we still have way too many questions about what this upzoning proposal will mean. Nobody was opposed to the original Cambridge Street Study, which said up to six stories. That was all fine, and that's the more housing that we all know that we need. However, it was the Cambridge City Council here that said, nope, we want more, and that more part is what has caught people in Cambridge Street unprepared and blindsided. Most of the residents do not know these new changes are happening. Most of the business owners do not know that this is happening. We still have plenty of questions about the traffic on Cambridge Street, which is not the same as Mass Ave. We have Cambridge questions about parking. We have questions about open space.

We have questions about all the solar panels we have put in that will be made worthless and who makes us whole for that. The plain truth is that right now this change for the people from Inman Square down to Lechmere leaves us feeling blindsided and yanked way outside of our comfort zone and we will remember How this council makes us feel the next time we can vote. Now, it is telling that the biggest complaint we had originally two weeks ago was the height requirement. Nobody liked it. You cut it from 10 down to 8. That's a step in the right direction. But that just shows we need more of a public process to get down to what we think will work for Cambridge Street from Inman down to Lechmere. Right now what we have is not what we were sold, it's not what we want, and we cannot have it. We have a ton of questions. This still leaves us very afraid of what is happening. And that's that. And everybody in Cambridge Street knows it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is... Ms. Goodman, before you go, Councilor Toner. Present. Thank you.

Gertrude Goodman. Two minutes.

My name is Gertrude Goodman, Trudy Goodman. I live at 1221 Cambridge Street in Cambridge, which is right in Inman Square. It's called the Inman Square Apartments. I've been in that building for 34 years. I have lived in that area including in East Cambridge for 45 years. So I'm going to ask a question that I'd really like people to consider because everybody can talk statistics all they want. Affordable for whom? You understand what I'm saying to you? Building higher will not make more inclusionary for people who desperately need it. Inclusionary is not the total answer for people who desperately need decent housing in this area. Most of you know I live in the building there that's 15 stories high in Inman Square. What I've seen over all the years that I've done advocacy helping people to get housing and helping people who are living in subpar housing

is developers do not take responsibility for maintaining their buildings. What makes you think that they're going to maintain a 12-story building or an 18-story building? There are other considerations as well. People in the Inman Square area and further on down Cambridge Street. Six stories was what was talked about. Anything else was not ever discussed. This needs to be, at this point, put on hold, the brakes put on hold, and this to be discussed within the next term because this is unreasonable and unfair to the people who live in that neighborhood and to the small businesses that have been there. SNS has been there for over 120 years. They deserve to still be there. So doesn't the post office. So doesn't Alvaro, who has the hardware store there for the last 50 years.

What makes you think those people are going to be able to have that? Quite honestly, this needs to be considered further. It definitely needs to be considered in the next term. Absolutely.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Shelly Ryman, followed by Mary Jane Kornacki, then Kathleen Higgins. Shelly, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you, Shelly Rehman, 201 Franklin Street. Holiday best wishes to everyone. Well, there are more than a dozen good reasons to oppose the Inman Square and the North Mass Ave upzoning. And I'll go into some of them, but first I want to read parts of an alarming A quote I received today from Tom Cahill, the head of the Cambridge Fire Department. He said, the total length of the ladder on our trucks is 105 feet, which can safely get us up six or seven stories. This is an industry standard across the country is no ladder trucks go much further than the length we have. It is dangerous. I'm sorry, I'm losing the quote. Anyway, it's not safe for the firefighters who... have to go to a dual pump system to get over six or seven stories.

And the ladders across the country have this same standard. Many of you remember Dennis Carlone, who was a city councilor and an urban planner who told us many years ago that six stories is the perfect tall height for buildings. Look at the city of Paris for beauty and also for housing and practicality that over six stories becomes much more cost intensive, labor intensive, and the profit for the developers goes down because of the extra work and cost it does to put that building up. I'm real upset about the lack of process and communication with the people most affected in Inman Square and in North Cambridge. Okay, quickly, this Inman Square is a beautiful, sweet area with small shops like Gather Here,

The hardware store are places that will never be replaced if they have to leave. And I really value the retail there and the beauty of the place. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Jane Kornacki, followed by Kathleen Higgins, then Jacob Silverson. Mary Jane?

Good evening. Mary Jane Kornacki, 103 Avon Hill Street. I'm here to urge you to let the Mass Ave. upzoning expire and take it up next year. Again, like other speakers before me, my comments have to do with process. Yes to more housing on Mass Ave. We need it. No to this particular proposal. I'll tell you why I feel strongly about this. At the June 17th meeting of the Housing and Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts, and Celebration Committee, you undid the work of the MAPS process, Mass Ave Planning Study, making a mockery of any commitment this council has to public engagement. Bluntly put, in dismissing MAP's recommendations, you wasted taxpayer money on the consultants who led this study, as well as staff time. because you didn't like their conclusions.

More importantly, you wasted time, energy, commitment, and goodwill of those involved in the core group and those like myself who participated as often as we could. MAPS recommended eight stories by right, up to 11 for public benefit, ground level retail, open, not green, but open space, and 12 stories if 100% affordable, not 12 or even 11. Your distortion of maps is nothing less than inexcusable and extremely upsetting. I really do feel slimy, I feel duped, and I certainly feel angry. By participating for a minute in what was a sham, what was a fig leaf, for you to cover yourselves to say that you had a brilliant public process. take a different stand about what public process is and what good process is.

So more housing on Mass Ave, yes. This proposal, absolutely and resoundingly, no.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kathleen Higgins, followed by Jacob Silverson, then Ariella Katzmiller. Kathleen has not joined. We will go to Jacob Silverson.

Mr. Vice Mayor and Councilors, Jack Silverson, 103 Avon Hill Street, Cambridge. The credibility of those who plan on voting yes to the current Mass Avenue zoning proposal is at risk. How can you expect Cambridge voters to trust or respect you after the city invested taxpayer dollars and residents invested time and effort to create recommendations to shape up zoning on both Cambridge Street and North Mass Avenue that you have changed without further community consultation. I cannot understand why you would risk your reputation and pass the current zoning proposal, I mind you, three days before Christmas, who knows how many other people would be or could they be, when countless numbers of people have implored you to slow down and consider the full impact of going with the current proposal. I know Cambridge needs more market rates and income restricted housing. I believe many residents not eligible for income restricted housing will be angry and disappointed

when they learned that the current upzoning proposal will not make housing more affordable to them. This council repeatedly used the term affordable housing in a very willy-nilly way, not distinguishing between What we would call market restricted housing and market rate housing. There's a lot of confusion out there and I think it was contributed to by the loose use of language in this council. If you approve the current proposal, I believe you will increase traffic and pollution and do little to address the need to develop housing that will be affordable to those who earn too much to qualify for income restricted and too little to afford market rate. If you vote to approve the current proposal tonight, I might suggest in all due respect you invest in hearing aids. Clearly, you are not hearing the mass number of people who share your commitment to more housing but have expressed deep concerns and skepticism about the current proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to skip Ariella for now. She's on her way in. We're going to go to Paula Cortez, followed by Nahit Trivedi, then Marlene Lundberg. Paula, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Paula Cortez, you need to unmute yourself. You have the floor. Paula's not able to unmute. We'll go back in a bit to Paula. We're going to go to Nahit Trivedi, followed by Marlene Lundberg. Nahid is not in the Zoom. We will try Marlene Lundberg.

Marlene, if you can unmute yourself. Marlene, I see you signed in to the Zoom maybe on multiple devices. I have unmuted them. If you can try to unmute yourself on your end.

I just succeeded.

Thank you.

My computer's not working right. Okay. Marlene Lundberg, Fort Connell Park, Cambridge. Are you getting feedback?

A little bit Marlene. If you can mute whatever other device you have the call signed in on.

Well if you can hear me I'll just keep going. I'm speaking regarding the upgrading of Cambridge Street. I urge the councilors to please vote no on the Cambridge Street upzoning for six reasons. First, it doesn't provide for the following community needs. More affordable housing, more parking spaces, preservation of trees and open spaces. We need more of all those. It doesn't preserve design review to offset commercial tendencies to rank financial profits over quality materials and more considerate humane design. A lot of the new housing could be built in Somerville.

Cambridge doesn't have to shoulder all of the burden and other suburbs besides Somerville. The permitted height is too tall. It should be limited to six stories and that way stairs could be used in case of an emergency when elevators are not running. The character of our city needs to be determined by people who live here, not by those who ignore the spirit of the law and redefine open spaces as including balconies. And number six, the proposed upzoning is a step toward Cambridge becoming just another city with tall stone buildings. We want to preserve its humane scale and charm.

We want trees.

Marlene, your time has expired. Please email the remainder of your comments to citycouncil at cambridgema.gov. We're going to go back to a couple of people that were skipped. We're going to first hear from Ariella Katz-Miller. Then we will go to... Paula Cortez. Ariella, two minutes.

Thank you very much for the chance to speak. My name is Ariella Katz-Miller, and I live at 425 Mass Ave. I urge you to support more homes at North Mass Ave and Cambridge Street. Like many younger folks, I moved to Cambridge after college to be near and take care of my parents and grandma. This is my sixth year in the city. I have watched many of my friends and neighbors get pushed out because of the sky-high rent. My friend Francis, an artist and Northeastern University administrator, who went to elementary school and lived in Cambridge for over a decade, was recently forced by high rents to relocate to Providence from where she faces a nearly two-hour commute to her job in Boston.

My husband and I hope to plant our roots in Cambridge and start growing our family here, but the exorbitant rents and home prices make this seem like a dream we may never be able to attain. Cambridge is a great place to live because it brings together people from all backgrounds, languages, income levels and parts of the world. Ensuring that we have enough homes for our neighbors is key to maintaining the vibrant community that makes Cambridge special. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to go back to Paula Cortes.

Ms. Cortez, before you go, Madam Clerk. Councilor, Vice Mayor, Mayor Simmons?

Simmons, present.

Present.

And audible.

Thank you.

Paula, you have the floor, two minutes.

Can you hear me now?

We can. Go ahead.

Thank you for this opportunity. I live at 25 Newell Street. I've been in Cambridge for 50 years. Regarding the Upzoning and Porter Square, which I urge you to let it expire. Have you ever stopped at the base of an 18-story building in the middle of a residential area? of mostly two and three stories, or any area really, and absorbed its massiveness, inappropriate size and height. Have you been where such a building casts dense shadows such that nothing will grow? Or been there in a wail, cold, windy, rainy day and your umbrella's useless? or looked up and viewed the sky. Well, where is the sky when the sun is blocked? Have you wished for trees or other plantings to shade your homes? Cool a hot summer day, soften city streets, and found none because there is no open space left to adequately provide space for them to grow.

Have you been where these buildings contribute to many vehicles coming and going, where neighborhood streets already are backed up most of the day? Have you tried to find parking and cannot, and have an urgent need to get efficiently to your destination? Have you had your own street so full of cars that you can't find a place to park reasonably near your home or it takes 20 extra minutes to get there? None of this proposed construction will alleviate the lack of affordable housing in Cambridge. Yet this is what you will be allowing with the yes vote. for the upzoning in other parts of the city as well as Porter Square. It really does nothing to enhance the livability of Cambridge. You can do better. There are other ways to provide housing in the city with a little more study and care on your part. And now is the time to let it expire and go into next year and look at other options.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is going to be Hallie Speight, followed by Richard Krushnick. Hallie, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Hallie Spate, 33 Antrim Street. Can you hear me? We can. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm standing up yet again to urge the council to let the Cambridge Street upzoning expire. I commend those councilors who have come down on the maximum, the completely unacceptable maximum heights, especially in Inman Square. But backing off when you realize that people are angry because you dealt with them in bad faith is not a substitute for dealing with the community in good faith in the first place. I'm in favor of affordable housing. I don't know anybody that's against affordable housing. But communities are important too. Small local businesses are important too. and I'm very concerned not just about the heights but about the utter lack of design review in the proposal particularly

The neighborhood conservation district commissions have been stripped of the ability to register any kind of objection to a project based on its height and bulk We should not give developers carte blanche to do just whatever they please. I just want to remind everyone there was a lot of affordable housing in East Berlin too. That doesn't make it a place where you would have wanted to live. Let this petition expire. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker, Richard Krushnick, has not joined. We're going to go back one to Mark Keebler, who we skipped earlier. Mark, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, councillors. My name is Mark Keebler. I'm at 52 Porter Street, and I would like to thank you very much for all of your time that you put into these zoning proposals. I am here to strongly support the rezoning of North Mass Ave and Cambridge Street. Cambridge is an extraordinary city, one which I've lived for 15 years now, but right now housing costs are pushing that opportunity out of reach for too many people. Despite the goals we set in 2018 in Envision, Cambridge, we're only about a quarter of the way there, now currently set for 2030, and the gap has real consequences. Younger residents, families, people who work in our schools, restaurants, small businesses are being priced out of the neighborhoods they love. My friends, many of them who have gone to Somerville or further out, I've spent plenty of time in Cambridge.

I've enjoyed the time together, and I hope that we can go and make this town More accessible and more affordable for all. And these zoning changes are a practical, thoughtful way to closing this gap. They focus growth where it makes the most sense, on major corridors like North Mass Ave, Cambridge Street, near transit. Near jobs, near small businesses. That means more homes without sprawling outward, fewer car trips, lower CO2 emissions. It also means more affordable housing since its development can support inclusionary zoning. Zoning, and expands our affordable housing stocks. So I will have to say that I live a few blocks off of Cambridge Street. I'm not afraid of more neighbors. I'm excited about it. More people means more community. It means a more sustainable way to live in the city we all care about.

So Cambridge has long said that it values inclusion, sustainability, opportunity, and supporting these reforms is a chance to give a chance to align our actions with our values. I urge you to vote yes and move these proposals forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mark. We are going to go to Suzanne Blier, followed by Beryl Lipton, then John Pitkin. Suzanne, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Suzanne Blais, Five Fuller Place. Happy holidays and please rethink the two upzonings and allow them to expire. How many residents want tiny $3,000 studios or $3,500 tiny bedrooms? Very few. This will massively raise housing costs for everyone. Most purchases will be by investors. We've seen this happening in Vancouver and Ottawa and New York City. This also, if it passes, does not mean more neighbors. It simply means more empty units, more space that should be occupied in other ways. What kind of housing do residents really want? Minneapolis, Houston, elsewhere got two- and three-story buildings. With the housing now situation with Harvard and MIT losses and Kendall offices empty, We need to actually analyze what the housing needs are right now.

There will be no affordable units in this, thanks in part to the Barrett petition, which wouldn't have happened if we'd done the 3 plus 3. What we need now are low low-income housing, or build on city property to the limit by way of teachers or other defined groups. I was impressed and shocked by the Fire situation vis-a-vis units above six or seven stories. What we're going to see and what we are seeing are super rich purchasing sites on formerly minority neighborhoods. Limit business on the first floor to 1,500 square feet so we can get local businesses. We need design oversight. We need real viable upzoning. The Mass State Petition for Rent Control is likely to pass. That will certainly lower costs. What we need is a way for people to buy modestly. Shockingly, this holiday season issue, we know that there are going to be people and businesses whose leases will be terminated.

I wish you a happy holiday, and as the current city centers, please leave the city better off, better gifts, All I can say is bah humbug. This is a scandal.

Our next speaker is Beryl Lipton, followed by John Pitkin, then Louise Venden. We're at speaker number 36. Beryl?

Thank you. Good evening. I am here again to ask that you all consider the proposed zoning on Cambridge Street and Wait at least until the next term, but ideally let it lapse and come back with a more fulsome, more thought-out plan that sort of gets us Thank you. Spirit, and professionally and personally I'm an advocate for transparency, for government accountability, and in my day-to-day life, regularly, work with people who are trying to secure housing in this community, and I am celebrating every time one of my friends and colleagues gets a place in SRO housing, finds a spot in affordable housing. And I would really like to see a plan with details that gets us there on Cambridge Street.

Personally, I think that there are parts of Cambridge Street where I could have supported more housing, but I think that we've all heard problems with this plan and also problems with the community engagement portion, which is actually what I'd like to focus on more, because public hearing notices are published in the Cambridge Chronicle. which doesn't regularly publish places. The only places I've been able to find that in the city of Cambridge is at City Hall and at the library. I had to go look for that. City of Somerville, Executive Office for Housing and Livable Communities didn't get or can't provide some of the materials that your team was supposed to send out in order to notify them according to the laws that you seem to go over and over again. and I just want to point out that if you can't tell us about the details now, there are public records laws and I am excited to read the records and all of the notes that go along with this proposal to show why it is worthwhile.

I just am reminded of The saying, slow is smooth, and smooth is fast, and I would like affordable housing fast, and I would like it to go smoothly, and I would like you to be thoughtful about it.

Our next speaker is John Pitkin, followed by Louise Venden, then Hanan Rhodes. John?

Good evening. My name is John Pitkin. I live at 18 Fayette Street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm speaking about the Cambridge Street upzoning. I urge you to table it for further consideration. There are so many things you've heard about that need further work. Livability. Affordability is important, but we do want all of our housing in our neighborhoods to be livable. You need to listen to the neighbors to understand what that means. So I think there's some serious questions about that. The need for design review, that's key to getting the neighbors to be happy with the housing. Why don't we have that? The nexus question and making sure that it's all inclusionary. This hasn't been worked out. Provisions for small businesses to retain them need to be improved and really worked out with some of the businesses. and the parking and transportation issues just have not been dealt with.

The parking questions, oh, maybe it's out of the corridor, maybe we can say that people who live in these buildings don't get resident parking permits. Well, those buses don't run on Cambridge Street often enough. That's not really adequate. Public transportation isn't adequate for that. All these issues are being kicked down the road. In sum, I would say it just feels too much like what we see going on in Washington, making policies and then figuring out how it's going to work or not work later. It's just very disappointing to see, it would be very disappointing if our city government takes the same attitude towards something that's this complicated and this important. This great big beautiful up-zoning on Cambridge Street should be put off and made something that more people can support and will actually work. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Louise Venden, followed by Hanan Rhodes, then Aaron Fryman. Louise, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Louise, if you can try unmuting yourself. Yes. There you go. Can you hear me now? We can, thank you. Please go ahead.

Okay, right. All right, Louise Vanden Ten, Rogers Street, number 820. Please allow the Cambridge Street and North Massachusetts Avenue upzoning petitions expire. Cambridge has opened doors for housing development by enacting the least restrictive zoning laws in Massachusetts, and yet continues to fall far behind in permitting and adding housing residents need. Inclusionary zoning was passed in 1998 and so far, according to ISD data, has resulted in only 95 units in 2025 and a total of 1,300 total housing units since It was enacted 27 years ago. Housing projects based on the Enlightenment 2020 AHO zoning change have struggled to reach the finish line as well.

with recent AHO reports showing 62 units completed, 459 under construction, and undetermined hundreds still in the planning and approval process. Laws do not build housing, and Cambridge must partner with developers of affordable and middle-income housing in order to make projects financially feasible. Arguments supporting the height, density, and infrastructure impacts of these zoning petitions are based on the same logic that has failed us before. Creating housing for residents with a broad range of incomes in neighborhoods offering distinct amenities, access, and infrastructure is not a simple matter of supply and demand. Arguments against these petitions rely upon both claims by residents that their voices have not been heard and also on exaggerated claims about evil housing developers and environmental destruction.

I urge you to look past these stale arguments and develop broad community support for zoning changes that produce results.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Hanan Rhodes, followed by Aaron Fryman, then Helen Kobach. Hanan, you have the floor. Two minutes.

Hi, my name's Anand. I live on 29 Ellsworth Avenue, where I'm a renter and also a soon-to-be homeowner of Cambridge, so I hope to plant my roots here for... For the foreseeable future, I want to state that I am a strong supporter of the new zoning petition to upzone the squares and corridors. This makes the most sense for increasing housing within Cambridge. The community-led study of our Cambridge Street and Mass Ave. done over three years ago support and show that housing will become more affordable if this petition is implemented. This petition also allows demand to be centered within key parts of Cambridge, which then allow developers to take advantage of economic scale, which then lowers pricing and also, I would argue, keeps Cambridge more as it is now by centering development into these certain corridors and squares allows for the rest of Cambridge and neighborhoods such as Cambridge Port and West Cambridge to stay as they are. So that's my petition. Thank you so much. Have a good one.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Erin Freiman, followed by Helen Kobach, then Susan Markowitz. Erin, you have the floor. Two minutes.

Hello. My name is Aaron Fryman, and I live at 113 Hamilton Street here in Cambridge. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised Cambridge street zoning petition. For the past 12 years, I've been trying my hardest to be your neighbor. I first came here in 2009 for school and fell in love with the Boston area as a whole, but especially Cambridge. In 2013, I graduated MIT and moved off campus. For the subsequent five years, I rented various apartments until I could no longer afford to live in Cambridge. Despite having a six-figure salary, housing was roughly half of my take-home pay. So my wife and I moved out to Quincy. Quincy was lovely, but after five years and many people moving the same way we did, we started to get price out of there as well. Luckily, thanks to the generosity of my parents-in-laws, we were able to move into the house they own here on Hamilton Street.

We can only live here thanks to them as they let us pay roughly half market value for rent. I simply wouldn't be here if not for the fact that I married someone whose parents bought a house here in the early 2000s. You all are a wonderful people who have created and nurtured a fantastic home. I love all of our parks, and I also love living next door to the 12-story housing authority. I am proud that we take care of the poor, sick, and elderly in this city. I empathize with those today who have spoken about public input and process, but looking at the rate of housing production in the last decade, I'm not convinced this has been working for us. Many other people want to be your neighbor just as much as I do, but there is literally not enough housing built. We have the room, but not the housing. Cambridge Street and Mass Ave are ideal high transit areas to build higher, allowing denser buildings would reduce car dependence and increase business activity in these corridors.

Passing this upzoning is a choice, a choice to make space for more neighbors to share our amazing city with. It makes the most sense to focus our efforts building high-quality, dense construction It's needed most. Thank you, Mr. Frank.

Our time has expired. Please email the remainder. Before we go to Helen Kobach, we're going to go back to Nahit Trivedi. Nahit, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi there. Can you hear me? We can. Okay. Thank you. Sorry for missing my slot. My name is Nihit Trivedi. I'm on 41 Magoon Street up in North Cambridge just off of Mass Ave. I was on the math planning study community group who was invited to participate. I participated in many calls with community members and with the city. and I think that the proposal that ultimately came out of all of these sessions for Mass Ave and and equivalently for Cambridge Street is great and it's really reasonable. The height of 11 stories or actually 12 stories I think is what we need in the city for

to get the amount of housing that we need to meet our goals and to make it as the previous speaker just spoke about to make the city affordable. We have people leaving the state because of the housing crisis here and the cost and we can do everything we can to make Cambridge an attractive place for people to, attractive and affordable place for people to live. and I think having the density on the corridors is a very smart zoning and policy perspective on this. So once again, I think that the recommendations that came out of the study Very reasonable. The plans for Cambridge Street are very reasonable. And I think the city should, the city council should support them at the 12 stories that was recommended. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Helen Kobach followed by Susan Markowitz, then Emily Norton. Helen, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

Can folks hear me?

We can, please go ahead.

Okay, thank you. My name is Helen Kobach. I live at 69 R Gore Street in East Cambridge. I've lived here for 30 years. I support all the speakers who have spoken in opposition to the upzoning in both areas, both corridors. So they've all spoken my mind. I just want to, so I won't repeat a lot of what they all said so eloquently and with emotional and intellectual attention and wisdom. I do want to emphasize that the growth in height would make it all but impossible for snow and ice to melt. on the sidewalks and in the nearby streets. The city has enough difficulty getting people including property owners to remove snow and create passable safe Sidewalks, thus increasing substantially the risk of people with and without disabilities, elderly or not

increase the risk of their falling, slipping, breaking bones, having concussions, and fatal injuries and breaks of bones for the elderly. I also want to note that folks who need to have access to folks coming and visiting home care, hospice, all of those visitors, that those would be much more seriously constricted if you eliminate more I urge you to let this proposal expire and please vote no. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Susan Markowitz, followed by Emily Norton, then Thomas Garo. Susan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Can you hear me? We can. Please go ahead.

Great. Thank you. Good evening. I'm speaking again to request that you let this petition expire. I do appreciate your decision to lower the heights from 10 stories to 8 in Inman Square, and I hope it was to preserve the unique characteristics of the square. But Cambridge Street is so narrow, unlike Mass Ave, it cannot support the scale. I think this must be considered. I also acknowledge that upzoning on Mass Ave and Cambridge Street will increase the supply of market rate housing and of inclusionary housing as long as inclusionary remains substantial. But that does not mean that you have to jump to heights of 12 stories and 18 stories in certain nodes, nor that design review and open space get thrown under the bus and doing it all without a legitimate community process.

Furthermore, the upzoning continues the decades-long increases in land values, which ends up driving out potentially even more middle and lower income, perhaps as many people as inclusionary units protect. Residents and businesses still need time to discuss and iron out the multitude of outstanding issues that there are. One, transparency. The city never implemented a true community process. We've mentioned this many times and we feel betrayed. Two, businesses were unaware of the petition. I walked up and down the street from Inman Square to Lechmere asking businesses what they thought, and almost without exception, no one even knew about it. Three, the small businesses will be replaced by large retail on the first floor. A protections should be written in for them in a new petition. Finally, I don't know how many of you went to the Inman Square Fair yesterday. It was fabulous. The streets were jam-packed.

People came from all over the city. This square is probably the last square in the city to have small shops without a single chain store. It's unique and I hope that this neighborhood feel with remarkable character will remain.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Emily Norton followed by Thomas Garoth and Phyllis Bretholtz. Emily, two minutes.

Thank you so much and good evening everyone. I'm going to change up the topic a little bit. Talk about poop. My name is Emily Norton. I'm the Executive Director of the Charles River Watershed Association. My comments tonight are about Order 309, the December 17th memo from the DPW Commissioner to the City Manager. in response to your vote on September 29th calling for a more ambitious and collaborative approach to addressing sewage discharges into the Charles. We were very grateful for that vote. In the space of two minutes, five quick points. One, the memo seems to be saying that a 25-year storm in 2050 will cause a lot of flooding so that it doesn't make sense to reduce sewage too. We don't really see the logic there and also I bet your residents would be interested in a more aggressive approach to protecting them from the storms that we know are coming. Number two. The memo defends the city's stormwater regulations being very forward thinking. Respectfully, they are better than some in our watershed, but they are not as good as others. We urge you to look at Waltham or Watertown as a model. Number three.

The City Council order calls for a true accounting of costs and benefits related to sewage reduction, and we are happy to work with the City, with our friends at Mystic, Save the Ill Wife Brook, to draft a scope of work based on what other cities have done related to CSO mitigation that looks at the benefits of public health, recreation, flood mitigation, et cetera. Number four, green infrastructure. The memo defends the city's widespread use of green infrastructure. But no one was criticizing general application. Our critique was related to the treatment of green infrastructure in the long-term control plan for CSO mitigation in which it was nonexistent. Number five, the memo defends the public outreach that was undertaken. There were indeed a lot of meetings, we went to them all. Recommendations were not taken up and that's why we saw The recommendation from the MWA, the City of Cambridge, and the City of Somerville that we see more sewage going into the river.

So it seems like there were meetings for the sake of meetings, which we wouldn't have gone to if we'd known that. We look forward to being a part of the new CSO Commission, and that is all. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Thomas Garreau, followed by Phyllis Bretholz, then Lee Ferris. Thomas, two minutes.

Yes, hello. My name's Tom Goro, 37 Pleasant Street. I've lived in this neighborhood for nearly 60 years. I used to teach hydrologists so I can recognize the signs of rising groundwater tables all over Cambridge with increased street flooding in the last 60 years. Backups, rising groundwater tables into basements and sewage backups. Now, a lot of this is caused by the fact that global warming is increasing the rainfall at the same time that global sea level rises, rising causing the groundwater table to rise four millimeters a year. And here we are overbuilding, forcing more and more water into less and less permeable space. Now, the point is there is space in Cambridge for more tall buildings that don't steal the sunlight from the neighbors and don't flood the neighbors. It just takes intelligent planning, not just a giveaway to developers. And what Cambridge needs is a climate-smart, sustainable environmental management plan focused on managing groundwater,

Runoff, Infiltration, and all of that which we simply don't have at this point. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Phyllis Brethold, followed by Lee Ferris, then Liz Werbe. We are at speaker number 45. Phyllis, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. Phyllis Brethal, 65 Antrim Street. I would like to add my voice to those who are requesting that the upzoning petition be allowed to expire. I know we need more housing. I know we need more affordable housing. But in quoting a few friends whose comments are based on research, I would like to add and this is a quote, Cambridge's attempt to solve this regional and global problem by adding additional units does not and cannot work. Between 1980 and 2020, Cambridge added approximately 12,600 homes. During that same period, average home prices rose by 2,500 to 3,000%. That is not affordability. It is proof that CDD and the City Council have not created a successful strategy for maintaining or creating Housing affordability in our city.

The real impact of upzoting and increased density are plain. Traffic has increased. Residents of low-cost apartments have been displaced. Trees have been destroyed. Solar panels have been blocked. Developer wealth has soared. The new upzoning proposals I really hope that we also find creative ways to communicate with the broader Community because right now without CCTV playing regularly in the homes of many residents and without a regular daily newspaper The ways in which people communicate is very limited and there's a real digital and generational divide and I request that we put all of our creative thinking into ways to communicate more effectively.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Lee Ferris, followed by Liz Worby, then Daniel Vlock. Lee, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening. Lee Farris, Norfolk Street in the Port, speaking tonight for the Cambridge Residence Alliance with our serious concerns about this proposed upzoning on Mass Ave and Cambridge Street. I also want to wish the Council happy holidays. However, the problems with this zoning are so substantial that we ask that these petitions be allowed to expire so that amended versions following a community process can be introduced next year. We do agree that there should be increased residential heights on the quarters, but these heights were not discussed with the community. We ask that if you do pass any zoning, it protects inclusionary housing by making clear that the zoning provides a density bonus for the increased height starting at four floors. Not what was already passed.

I sent a banker and tradesman article called, Upzoning Starts to Deliver Windfalls in Cambridge, which outlines a doubling in land prices resulting from passage of the multifamily housing petition. And we're concerned that the same kind of price increases will result from passage of these zoning petitions. This will result in displacement of residents, especially along Cambridge Street where there is housing, yet CDD has never given any estimate of the amount of displacement. It obviously will also displace small businesses who are not yet even aware of the petition. This increase in land value means there will be little chance for affordable housing or future social housing along the corridors, However, if allowed heights were lower, the greater height differential would give more opportunity for 100% affordable housing. Lastly, neither the Mass Ave nor the Cambridge Street Community Process discussed as of right tall buildings.

We ask that no buildings over six floors are approved as of right in these petitions and that the Planning Board should be able to hold a development review hearing for buildings over 70 feet tall. Thank you.

Thank you, Lee. Our next speaker is Liz Worby, followed by Daniel Block, then Samuel Polzin. Liz? Liz Warby has not joined us. We will go to Daniel Wach. Daniel, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Daniel Glock. I'm 50 Buckingham Street in Cambridge. I'm a member of the West Cambridge Neighborhood Coalition. I wish to speak about the proposed upzoning. I have found that these public comment sessions by virtue of their structure and number of participants give the city and this council an excuse not to respond. So rather than make a statement, I have a question. In regards to proposed upzoning, has the city fully evaluated the impact of each of the specific planned high-rises on the surrounding neighborhood in regards to parking, green space, sunlight, and disability access? I yield back the rest of my time to the City Council for an answer. If we do not hear a response, I would assume the answer is no and no consideration has been made regarding the impact these projects may have on the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Samuel Polzin followed by Thomas Burke, then Rabbi Yoni. Samuel, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Samuel Polzin. I'm a renter at 31 Garfield Street. I'm speaking today in strong support of the two zoning petitions before the City Council. I'd just like to point out that I live in market rate housing. Almost everyone I know lives in market rate housing. And most people who ever live in Cambridge live in market rate housing. That being said, I have and I will support every affordable housing project set before the city and I'm excited to see the city pursue social housing. But at the same time, if we're not going to pass these petitions because we're worried about too much market rate housing or Two big apartment buildings encroaching on the city. And I ask, really what are we doing today with these zoning petitions?

if not build more housing or incentivize more housing at least. And with that, I'd again like to urge the council to pass these zoning petitions today. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Thomas Burke, followed by Rabbi Yoni, then Dan Totten. Tom, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor, two minutes.

Thanks. My name is Tom Berkey. I live at 11 Buena Vista Park. I must say I have sympathy for the council members. They have to hear the same testimony about housing over and over again. especially this endless process talk. The process I think that is most important in the city is democracy. And we've had election after election that has returned a pro-housing majority to the council, and that's why we're here today. I'll just remind everyone that the people most affected by this decision are the least likely to be part of this meeting. Some of them, despite working in the city or having extensive ties to the city, are already locked out of Cambridge because of the outrageous cost of living here. Many others are struggling to stay in the city. They don't have time to follow all this zoning politics or show up for a meeting like this.

I got involved in Cambridge housing politics when I tried to rally my neighbors to support affordable housing a few years ago at 2072 Massachusetts Avenue. Some of the same people testifying today helped block that outrageous proposal to build an eight-story affordable housing project there. The sad thing is that when I sent an email recently to the people who were alongside me in supporting that project a few years ago, a bunch wrote back and said they were glad that the tide is finally turning on housing in Cambridge but it was already too late for them they had to move their families to where they could afford to live they're gone It's well past time to move forward on housing in Cambridge. Don't delay any further and don't water down these petitions. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Rabbi Yoni, followed by Dan Totten, then Daniel Maskup. Rabbi Yoni, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi. I want to thank and congratulate the Council for the pro-housing Agenda and working tirelessly as there's a lot of comments that is important to working through the democratic process I don't have a very specific opinion on the on the details of this corridor proposal. But I do think that it's really great that the council is working through the details as they best can and trying to count something that meets all the different needs of our community. I think that the goals need to take into account both increasing particularly inclusionary housing

And with that, Councilor Nolan had mentioned, I guess it was a few weeks ago, how to make the a benefit to the developer or to the managers more ongoing and more specific regarding the opt-in for inclusionary housing. I really liked that idea. I also liked the idea of mandating it for buildings that might be a little bit smaller than what it currently is maybe three stories in height or larger, maybe five units or larger, particularly for new construction, and also to give thought to governance and to not having one ownership of a 18 story building. Maybe it can be split into different ownerships in a way that we have a little more variety of choice because sometimes a tenant may want to live with one owner or live with a different owner.

and have better enforcement by the city of Cambridge, particularly of the inclusionary housing covenants to protect tenants against just tenancies of landlords. Thank you.

Thank you. We already heard from Marlene Lundberg. We're going to go to Dan Totten, followed by Joel Nogic, then Mr. Zion Shearing.

Okay, hi, my name is Dan Totten, I live at 54 Bishop Allen Drive. I just wanna say, I'm someone who doesn't believe that the benefits of market rate units are going to trickle down to people like me, people who make below the area median income. It's very clear to me that market rate housing drives up land values, displaces existing residents, and provides homes only for the wealthiest people who want to move here, and there are a lot of people who are very wealthy who want to move here. But, I also do recognize the importance of the inclusionary units and just this morning I got an email from somebody who we all know who their partner had a stroke and can't navigate the stairs and they need They need to move and their income is right in the band of the inclusionary program and it's their best shot at being able to stay in this community. By the way, it does happen to be East Cambridge.

And so, you know, it's really hard because both things are true in my mind. I'm also, I am very appreciative of the amendment to safeguard the inclusionary program, which was something that I had asked for a few weeks ago. I would prefer to see it be a clean 20% inclusionary for the extra height, not just tied to whatever the ordinance says, but that's something you guys have to figure out. I also appreciate that this proposal does not advantage biotech or hotels, and I appreciate that there's a recognition that ground floor retail needs to be required on Cambridge Street. So I am coming to a place where I can live with these proposals, but I really do not want this to be how things are done next term. I do not want we go closer to the Payne in Central Square. I don't want this to be steamrolled through. I don't want us to destroy our cultural district.

We need to have a much more thoughtful conversation about how that goes next term. And this hasn't boded well for that. So that's where I stand. Thanks.

Thanks, Dan. Our next speaker will be Daniel Maskoop, followed by Joel Nodrick. Daniel, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Daniel, you're unmuted on our side and your side, but we cannot hear you.

Can you hear me now?

We can. Please go ahead.

Okay. Daniel Mascoop, 57th Spirit Office Terrace. You know that I support these zoning proposals because they help us pursue our goals for housing affordable and market rate and for transportation and sustainability. You also know all the arguments against it too. We've heard them all for this, for many other things. One new argument I actually did hear was about snow, and I do want to say that during the few times that we do get snow and ice still, I think about it frequently, even though I am Spry enough to be comfortable walking on icy sidewalks. And I think larger buildings and apartment buildings actually do a better job maintaining the sidewalks free of snow and ice. That is one thing that actually would improve and many other larger buildings.

But again, we all know the arguments and I think that it is city council's responsibility and part of the democratic process to act at various points and this is a time when you have the information and M2 Acton. These are very reasonable proposals on the corridors that will benefit the city. So please pass them. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker We're going to skip Jeff Singer. He needed to leave. We're going to go to Joel Nodjic, followed by Zion Shearing. Joel, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Joel Nodjic. I live at 94 Clifton Street, right next to Russell Field. And I'm speaking as a member of the LA Study Group and a resident of North Cambridge. I'm speaking about city manager agenda item number four which is the response to policy order passed on October 6th asking the city manager to address and then report back on response to public health and safety issues in the Russell Field, Elwhaiftee Station, North Cambridge area. Just to review this, the Y study group heard from many residents and saw for ourselves a Very, very large increase in the number of unhoused people and some with substance abuse challenges or other issues in our neighborhood. We definitely understand this is a regional and national problem.

But anyway, it's had a big impact this past summer in terms of many, many, many more needles on the ground, different issues in terms of vandalism. and Theft and so on and so forth. Really appreciate the city council and the city staff's response. The main thing I want to ask for on behalf of the AOI study group and the community is that that this item not be considered resolved. Basically, there were improvements because of actions by the city and the MBTA and IQHQ and DCR. But the main change in the last couple of months is that the weather got a lot colder and so the number of encampments, the number of people in the area in these kinds of situations dramatically increased.

We definitely expect the numbers to increase again next year when the weather is warm, so we just ask the City Council take the appropriate measures to make sure that this remains an issue that gets worked on again next year. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Zion Sheeran, followed by Justin Saif, then Charles Hines.

Hi, Zion Sharon, 401 Washington. Honestly, I'm feeling a little bit disappointed. And the reason is not just because of this proposal. Is this coming in good? It's not just because of this proposal, but because of what I've seen over the course of the last year. I've been going to a whole lot of historical commission meetings talking about different proposals, and I would have one particular lawyer keep saying, The reason that we needed to do it was because of inclusionary units. Turns out this person does not support inclusionary units. We currently have a lawsuit against the city for those inclusionary units. So then I start to think, if that is the benefit that we're being promised, and it's not guaranteed, then what are the benefits of doing this? Yes, I share some of the concerns with gentrification, solar protections, whether it comes to protecting people with disabilities with ice on sidewalks,

But there's one specific concern that I'd like to share not just about this zoning proposal but in general. I recently lost my mom this year to cancer. She was terminally ill and over the last two and a half years, she was slowly declining. I saw her go from a walker to a wheelchair and at some point of her life it became a question not of oh do I want to go there because it's fun but is it accessible to me and something One thing that I'm seeing the city really overlook is those accessible either loading spots or parking spaces. I think for bigger developments, and I don't have set definitions for these, but bigger developments should have handicap parking spots. and for smaller developments, they should have loading docks and this idea that you can load on the street. Towards the end of my mom's life, it took us 15 minutes to get her into a car. She was fortunate enough to have our family have private vehicle. She had a husband and two sons that were very able-bodied and were able to load her. and still it would take forever to be able to get her in and out of a car.

And I think that's really overlooked and to pass any sort of zoning change that doesn't address that first is really overlooking a really important population that already has enough issues that they're facing. and more on top of that. Thank you.

Thank you. We are going to go to our next speaker, Justin Safe, followed by Charles Hines, then Frederico Muchnik. Justin, you have the floor.

Good evening, just in safe 259 Hurley Street. Someone proposed that Cambridge put a wall up to keep new people out of Cambridge. Everyone would react with horror. That's what we had in Cambridge until February, a wall of zoning restrictions that blocked new housing and cut people out. But while that change has allowed some new proposals to come forward, we still have such slow process that says that we've not seen any of those new projects begin construction. We desperately need new housing. Allow Cambridge kids to find apartments after college or school. To allow new households to form. to allow residents to move within Cambridge and from other places to Cambridge without driving up housing costs and causing displacement.

Our envisioned Cambridge goal set in 2018 was to build 12,500 new housing units by 2030, an annual amount that would increase the vacancy rate and lower rents. Sadly, we have fallen so far short, we've thrown in the towel and given up on achieving our 2030 goal. Fight building less than 10% of our annual goal over the last two years. That is not good enough. Housing affordability is the most important issue to Cambridge residents, and we are failing those residents. Cambridge Street and North Mass Ave are great places to encourage more housing. They already have taller buildings, nearby T-stops, frequent bus service. And yet some are who fought to keep the wall up around Cambridge still oppose modest increases in height to enable housing along these corridors spreading misinformation to scare people. We should not let fear-mongering voices of negativity carry the day.

Tonight, members of council, you can tear down more exclusionary walls blocking new housing and driving up rents in Cambridge. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Charles Hines, followed by Federico Muchnik, then Marina Garo-Atlas. Charles, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Charles. Hi, my name is Charles Hines. I live at 207 Charles Street in East Cambridge. I'm here on my own behalf representing myself. I've been a commercial real estate broker for over 15 years. I want to preference my comments with one fact. According to a CDD development log in Cambridge, There are currently 5,034 residential units in various stages of development, with a total of 3,588,000 square feet. Zoning is not the only impediment to housing generation. On the Cambridge Street zoning, because of the high cost of land and development, only luxury housing will be constructed. The affordable housing requirement of setting aside units for new construction is in jeopardy with the impending lawsuit by Pioneer Institute. The suit claims affordability requirements is unconstitutional.

Will benefits from this existing property owners whose land values will most likely double? Developers will have a windfall of new potential projects. Wealthy people who desire and can afford to purchase and rent luxury housing on Cambridge Street will have their supply. National retailers and formula businesses like Subway who can afford high retail rents will also benefit. Who loses the tenants of the existing naturally affordable housing on Cambridge Street will be displaced with the new developments. Small businesses will also be displaced, like barbershops and independent restaurants. In Kendall Square, I used to get my hair cut for $8. Now I have to pay $30 on Cambridge Street and I have no hair left. My belief is this petition will effectively create an exclusionary zone on Cambridge Street where only the wealthy can afford to live. We've seen this in East Cambridge.

Construction has resulted in luxury buildings, one recently rented for $17,000 per month. I ask the council to let this petition expire and retake this issue up in the next council. Thank you.

Thank you. We have about eight speakers left. Our next speaker will be Federico Muchnik, followed by Marina Garo-Atlas. Federico is not here. We're going to go to Marina. Marina, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor.

Hi, everyone. Thank you so much to the Council and for members to take time to have a public hearing and accept public comments. I care about Cambridge and our vibrant community and that's actually why I'm not giving comments in person because I have a cold and I don't want to share that with you all. But I do want to share that I really hope that you will use this position to make sure that Cambridge remains healthy, accessible, and affordable for all, including current residents and really prioritizing current residents, long-term residents, and a long-term vision for Cambridge. which includes institutions and the fact that a lot of people need to come and go from the city. Specifically, I hope that you will consider this meeting my request as I'm stating it here that Such proposals should have full environmental review before proceeding. And if this is precedent setting, I think that the impacts for people who live there, including renters, really need to be considered.

Specifically for the Mass Ave proposal, such large developments could have major impacts for people who live near the area of impact, including people who work there. Shift workers, and people who cannot leave the area because they need to be in that area, as well as the people who are working there and exposed to noise, fumes, pollution, and vibrations 24-7. Mitigation for these is really within our technology framework. completely available, but it takes smart planning. And for example, from blowers to like sound barriers and dust barriers, smart planning ensures that we can protect people and meet our goals. However, without that information available, I think that there are major concerns and I really hope that that information is available because I did not see it in the 111-page document I saw from CDD and others submitted. I want to also comment on development for ecology.

Near Alewife, that is a lot of changes and environmental justice is really important and preserving the environment that supports people is critical. as well as making sure that fire issues are addressed in very dense corridors because developments in historical streets...

Thanks Marina. Please email the remainder of your comment. Our next speaker is Amy Walls followed by Deb Gordon, then James Williamson. Amy, two minutes. Amy has not joined. We will go to Deb Gordon. Deb is also not here. We will go to James Williamson. James, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Can you hear me?

We can.

Thank you. James Williamson Churchill Ave along this so-called corridor. I think most of the people who live along the so-called corridor of North Mass Ave would probably prefer that it had more of a neighborhood feel than it does now rather than have people working supposedly for us focusing on 12-story buildings. Nobody has mentioned the text for the Mass Ave portion of tonight's agenda. It was not printed. in tonight's agenda, but instead we had multiple copies of the Cambridge Street text. I guess it doesn't matter. We don't need to see the text of what you're gonna vote on. What I've noticed about this meeting is where are the so-called providers, housing providers, where are the developers at this meeting? How come they're not here? How come they're not here advocating for what they want for all of us? I guess because they don't have to be here. They know they don't have to be here because they have other ways of getting what they want.

A phone call, a private meeting. And we all have to struggle to try to stop something that is egregious. Cicero, I'm paraphrasing Cicero, who said, a child who doesn't know history never grows up. We have people who don't care about the history of Cambridge, don't care about what preceded them, don't care about If you look at Paris, if you look at Barcelona, if you look at Washington, D.C., you find height limits of anywhere from In Washington, DC, it's 90 feet, it's 20 feet over the width of a street. There is restraint in the cities we all love and you all love to visit. and we're a much smaller city and extremely dense city and we really ought to learn a lesson from these other cities.

Finally, the MA, anyway,

James, your time has expired. Please email us the remainder of your thoughts. Our next speaker will be Dr. Melanie Goss. They have not joined the Zoom. We're going to go to Jonas G. Jonas, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Okay. Hello. I'm just, this is Jonas Gonzalez. I live off Cambridge Street. I've been here since 2013. Like many others, I'm just phoning in in support of the ordinances today and the parking policy order. I mean, TLDR, I'd ask that we follow the unanimous recommendations of the planning board, the established best practices for cities and urban development, and listen to the experts, as it were. This is the swift action that helps actually tackle affordability in Cambridge, and the swift action we voted for in November, you know, the one... Note I might add is that some folks have mentioned concerns about the preservation of local business. And, you know, as someone that would prefer a local business and not just another bowl place in Kendall, that would be great.

So some incentives for affected businesses to return or for new local businesses in those new mixed-use storefronts, that would be great. But in general, please pass the ordinances. If you can keep it at 12, even better. And similarly, do consider the parking policy orders. A denser and more accessible Cambridge is, I think, the way forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Heather Hoffman, and then we're going to go back to Richard Krushnick. Heather, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. With respect to the parking passes, how many times do we have to ask the same question and get the same answer that the law department, with which I agree on this, says it's illegal to treat some residents differently from others? With respect to ale whites and public health, I would have hoped that we'd see something about all the asbestos that's going to be dug up soon. But no, perhaps you should send that back and ask about that. With respect to the increasingly lengthy list of court cases, I remain baffled as to why it is totally cool for Cambridge to

Sue the federal government over and over and over, and yet it is taken as an affront to God and all things that are good in the entire universe for anyone to sue Cambridge. to vindicate their own rights. And you should pay attention to the inclusionary zoning lawsuit because nothing that you have done with zoning has involved any analysis. It's just people picking numbers out of the air. And that's why you can just say, well, sure, it'll go up, it'll go down. It's kind of like a para. Same amount of... of thought and analysis. And then the thing to think about with the lie that people are being sold that this is going to bring down prices in Cambridge. I asked the question one time,

I was told, yeah, it'll bring down prices like Chelsea, Medford, places like that. It's not going to bring down the prices in Cambridge. And you should stop lying to people about that. because it's vile.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, we're going to go back to Richard Krushnick, followed by Amy Waltz. Richard, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I wanted to appreciate the Council's lowering of the Inman 10 stories to 8 stories. Hopefully that was at least in part because of people's efforts and many more. I also want to acknowledge that, yeah, With the upzoning of these two corridors, we're going to get more market rate housing, which we desperately need. We're going to get, hopefully, More inclusionary housing, if inclusionary still holds, it would certainly be nice to know.

And I want to reiterate my support for everyone who talked about the importance of starting over with a real community process. I think democratic process is extremely important, especially in the current climate. And so I'm advocating for that. And I wanted to second all of the points that Lee Ferris made. I agree completely with all of that. I wanted to highlight again not just the retail in Inman Square but Other places along Cambridge Street as well. I think it's very important. It'd be nice if it was in one package next time instead of trying to amend this or add to this one with a new package. New petition later, but you need to protect small retail by requiring a certain percentage of small retail in the new taller buildings.

and mandating certain size spaces be created in certain number so that that makes it possible. And you may even need to subsidize rents.

Thank you, Richard. That's your time. Please email us the remainder. Our final speaker will be Amy Waltz. Amy, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi. There are many shortfalls of buy-right zoning approach to affordable housing. Yet there is one impact that is irreversible and threatens our very existence. The unlimited demolition and construction that will result from this broad zoning approach that permits nearly any construction by right is an incredibly carbon-intensive and wasteful approach. It should not be at the forefront of our affordable housing agenda at this precarious moment if we also want to have a livable climate. The reason this is so important is we are on the verge of multiple climate tipping points that will cause feedback loops, placing Earth on a course to becoming uninhabitable. 2025 scientific data shows accelerating climate impacts, placing the timeframe to act within years, not decades.

I am not saying that construction in tall buildings are not part of the climate solutions, but they require site-specific planning. and review site-specific environmental climate and climate impact regulations must include all environmental considerations and embodied carbon impacts to avoid accelerating Escalating Devastation. Cambridge's deregulated construction-centric approach sets a misguided and reckless example for other cities, Corresponding necessary regulation of embodied carbon emissions is necessary. Embodied carbon is all climate impacts emissions related to demolition and construction. None of which are currently regulated in Cambridge. Crucial missing components of this zoning approach are site-specific review and approval.

and some method to ensure balance in fulfilling community needs and addressing environmental climate necessities. Please, please, please take the time to have a more thorough consideration of extensive zoning change impacts.

Thank you, Amy.

Mr. Chair, that is all that we're signed up to speak.

All right, thank you everyone who spoke and everyone was so good at sticking to the two minutes, much appreciated. I will entertain a motion from Councilor Nolan to close public comment, roll call.

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

Mr. Chair, the mayor said that she is going to need to step away momentarily.

Thank you. Mayor Simmons is absent. So you have seven members recorded in the affirmative. Chair. Mayor Simmons. Councilor Wilson. Councilor Wilson, would you like to change your vote? Yes. Thank you. and Mayor Simmons is absent at present. So we have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Thank you very much. We move on to submission of the record. There is none. Reconsideration? There is none. We move to the city manager's agenda. I'm gonna pull six and seven because there's some housekeeping we have to do before we get into that. Pleasure of the council. Councilor Nolan.

at number four and number five.

Pleasure to counsel. Councilor Zuzi.

Number two, please.

Thanks, Mayor.

Siddiqui.

Number one.

Anything else? So we have pulled one Two, four, five, six, and seven. So on number three.

Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sieniewicz, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Tan, Toner, Wilson,

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Absent. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Thank you. We now go back to city manager agenda item number one, communication transmitted from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to a federal update, including any update on relevant court cases. It's pulled by Councilor Siddiqui. Councilor Siddiqui.

Thank you through you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to yield to the manager for the federal update. Thanks.

Mr. Manager. Thank you so much through you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Councilor Siddiqui. This is the 18th and last federal update of 2025 and thank you again to the City Council for your partnership throughout this year in charting a path for Cambridge during this unprecedented time of federal challenges. and Constitutional Conflict. I wanted to briefly note that we are continuing to track progress on the federal budget, which requires a number of major funding bills to be passed by January 30th or risk another potential partial government shutdown. It's unclear what the negotiations may be in January, but there are short weeks once we all get back from the new year, and we'll provide an update as we better understand the potential impact and where those negotiations stand. I also wanted to provide an update on the HUD Continuum of Care grants and the court cases that we are part of. We are part of a lawsuit that is challenging the major changes that HUD is seeking to implement for the Continuum of Care in this upcoming year.

These changes would have reduced the guaranteed funding for permanent supportive housing from 90% year to year to only 30%, resulting in a massive gap in support for existing households who have successfully transitioned out of homelessness and are now being stably housed. Two weeks ago, HUD, with less than 90 minutes before their initial December 8th hearing, withdrew the 2025 NOFO notice of funding opportunity. Last Friday was the hearing where a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that stopped the changes from being implemented, which is very good news for us. A complicating factor is that HUD, around the same time, re-released the 2025 NOFA, which we are still analyzing. It's about 100 and something pages long. and while there are some small changes, the core components as we understand them that we have challenged appear to remain in the reissued document.

Our current assessment, and I do have the city solicitor and the law department available, but our current assessment is that the prior and the new 2025 NOFO are in essence the same and both are likely to fall under the same enjoyment issued by the court last Friday. Our hope is that this will be formalized in a written order to be issued in the coming days. Our best case is that there is a reversion to the 2024 NOFO and funding levels are continued and this would provide at least another year of runway for the program and ensure that FY27 funding for the Continuum of Care program remains the same. We will continue to track this in January, given that the preliminary injunction will only last through the end of this case, and there could be additional changes if the federal government appeals, particularly if the preliminary injunction is appealed.

and there's also odd dependencies on whether the 2025 NOFO guidance is tweaked or altered or reissued. I'd say in summary, short term, this is good news. Medium term, there continues to be a lot of uncertainty, particularly if an appeal goes all the way to the Supreme Court. and sadly the long-term risk continues to be very significant. In the ruling that the federal court issued, it was noted multiple times that the injunction was not over a policy change, but that the process had not been appropriately followed, which means that in the case of either the 2025 NOFO If it were to be reissued in a more organized way or a future 2026 NOFO process, which could begin next June and affect funding for us in 2027, all of these future shifts in policy could still result in significant cuts in funding with a much lower possibility of legal challenge. So I think that's sort of where we are with this court case.

I think we're waiting for the formal written order from the court. And as always, I think we'll keep the council updated as we follow this through the appeals process. Siddiqui.

Thank you. Thank you for the update. I hope, I think there's, it's good on the short term, but you're right, there's a lot of unknowns. So that's the... That's the risk here. I want to just appreciate the solicitor and her team on all the work around... These cases and probably future cases. And I wanted to also kind of reinforce that I think this council has been pretty clear on the litigation strategy piece of this and pushing you all to Make sure we join whichever cases and and so forth. So I wanted to appreciate the attention to that. And so with that, I'll yield. Thank you.

Thank you. Pleasure of the council. Nolan.

Through you, Chair, I'll ask just one quick question. Given that we don't have a meeting next week, do you anticipate anything over the next couple weeks that might require any communication or I'm just curious as to whether there's anything we should anticipate.

Does solicitor come to the table? Madam Solicitor.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Vice Mayor. So the court has indicated that there should be a written decision tomorrow. It's possible it could be delayed. And if there... The verbal decision that was given on Friday was that a preliminary injunction is issuing, as you heard the manager say, and that it's enjoining this NOFO, this Notice of Funding Opportunity, that has conditions that we've challenged in this lawsuit. So we expect the court to make it somewhat more clear than it is right now to say that this new 2025 NOFO that was released late in the day on Friday is enjoined, so it is not in effect. And so it's possible that there could be appeal of that injunction

In the coming days, or in... Right after the holidays by the federal government. So if there are any developments along those lines, we will reach out and let the council know even while were on break for the holiday, but just to keep everyone updated. Also, as there have been developments, Our communications department here in the city has been working closely with the other plaintiffs and Public Rights Project, who's representing us in this case, both updating the city's website and putting out Nolan.

Thank you. It just, you know, we're seeing cruelty as the point. And also just want to appreciate through you, we recognize that some people are probably changing their vacations because the legal court filings require a pretty quick response. So through you, Chair, I just appreciate it. Given this litany of cases, I understand it's quite a challenge. Thank you. I yield.

Anything? Seeing none, the question comes on placing the item on file. Roll call.

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

Yes.

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

Thank you. We now move on to city manager agenda item number two, transmitting communication from Yi-An Huang, city manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,172,577 to the Grant Fund Fire Extraordinary Expenditures Account. Funds will be used to purchase detection and metering equipment, which will help identify The newest biological and chemical hazards as well as detect radiation. Funds will also support the acquisition of new firefighting gear which will allow the department to outfit frontline firefighters with updated safety gear. This was pulled by Councilor Zusy. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair McGovern. This sounds like important expenditures. My question is, So was this budgeted? Again, I'm always confused. Is this like a big ticket item or a number of big ticket items? So is this something we were anticipating or is this a new expense? Thank you. I'd love clarification about that through you, Chair McGovern.

Mr. Manager? Through you, Vice Mayor, I believe we have the Fire Chief available, but as a quick summary, this is a state grant that we received, and so we We were going for this. I don't think we thought that we may have received this much funding, but we are very excited. I see Chief Cahill is up on the Zoom, so I will pass it to him through you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Chief Cahill.

Thank you. Mr. Manager, through you, Vice Mayor, the manager is correct. We did not expect this amount of money. We are very excited to have received it, and we have an opportunity to finally outfit our entire Thank you for joining us. We're very fortunate to have received the amount of money that we did and the vast majority of it is going to go towards outfitting our Staff with this PFAS-free gear. And then the metering devices are a smaller number in the grand scheme of things, but it's just updating some of the metering devices that we do have.

Yeah, thank you. Through you, Chair McGovern, this is great news. I'm glad you applied for that grant, and I'm thrilled that we received it. Thanks for reporting back. I wish the description of this item had noted that it was a grant. So that was more clear, and I'm thrilled that we received it, and I'm happy for the fire department. Thank you so much, and thanks for your service.

Thank you.

Pleasure of the council. On a motion by Councilor Zusy on the appropriation and to place the matter on file.

Yes, hold on.

You still want potatoes? Wait, wait. Did the mayor have her hand up? No. Madam Mayor?

No, I did not have my hand up.

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

We now move on to City Manager Agenda Item Number 4, a communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-61 regarding cleanliness and safety in the area of in the area on Elway Paths near Russell Field. This was pulled by Councilor Nolan. You have the floor.

Thank you through you, Chair McGovern. Thanks for the report. As we heard in public comment, the neighbors, I think, are grateful as well. Very nice to see the extra coordination and commitment of all parties to do the weekly maintenance. I'm glad that there's been specific improvements. I think I did want to highlight one of the questions we heard in public comment, which is some of the Improvement is likely due literally to the weather. So the question is whether there's a plan for additional follow-up and meetings with all the state partners in particular because we realize that this area is Part city, part state, it's very complicated ownership structures, and it may seem obvious, but it's much harder to live outdoors in the winter, so we know that there's going to be some additional in the future. Talk to us some about what those plans are to ensure that this is an ongoing, and as we also heard in public comment, that this isn't just, all right, we've got the report, now we're done. How is it that we expect to continue to see improvements in this area? And I do want to note that...

Several of us, I know I went with Councilor Wilson, I think all of us had gone in the area and it was clearly an incredibly important issue to address. So I appreciate the efforts and just curious about how we're going to move forward.

Commissioner Ardone. Through you, Vice Mayor, thank you for that question, Councilor Nolan. So we have been communicating. Most of it's been online. I think it was impressive actually to see DCS step up to the plate and say that they put this on an ongoing maintenance schedule. which is a big thing. I think we all still have a lot of work to do out there. City forces, as I mentioned, continue to do their regular cleanup. We've added, I know the first time we were here, we talked about the number of needles, so the needle exchange piece is still going well. We have installed a needle box at the turnaround off of Rinjav. We have another one on order and it should be going in close to the MBTA station out by Steel Place. But there's still a lot of work to do. We can continue to reach out when there are problems.

will likely in the spring get another walk together and make sure that everyone's doing their part. Unfortunately, a lot of that property isn't city controlled, so it is really making sure that we are keeping up good relations We've gotten positive feedback from both DCR and MBTA who own really the majority of the public property that's out there. and I think they've been doing a good job of doing that. IQHQ is still coming online. Not a lot of their property is really for public use but they have been doing sweeps on a weekly basis so that's a good thing and we continue to talk with our police department pretty much weekly to make sure that they're doing what they have to do. So I'd say that we probably all meet together again in the spring to see what the conditions look like. So we go into the spring and the summer with us all keeping an eye on that area.

Nolan.

That's great. I think reconvening all those groups in the spring will be really important and also to remember this is not just about picking up the needles but coordinating our city services so that Whether it's the care team or other teams to help folks get into the supportive services they may need so they are not doing the drugs which lead them to drop the needles on the ground. So thank you, Chairman McGovern and Yield.

Thank you. Pleasure. The council. Councilor Zusy.

Through you, Chairman Govern, this is for DPW Commissioner Nardone, or through you, Commissioner Nardone. Any update on that? Help see Ben? I know, again, I think the problem is less now, but I... I really think that Halpsey Bend is in the wrong place. I know why it's there, because there are a lot of parents going there, but it's also when there is a lot of activity in the area, I think it's an attractive place. Nuisance, and I think you could find a better place for it. I know it's a problem, but that's what I'm hoping for. Thank you.

Commissioner Ardone, do you want a response or is that just a comment?

No, I'm hoping there's some sort of update that I haven't heard about. Thank you.

Commissioner Nardone? Through you, Vice Mayor. It's fine if it's just a comment, Councilor Susy. We can take that, too. I would say that there is not a significant update other than we are continuing to monitor those bins. I think as I mentioned in my correspondence back to the council a while back, Thank you. Thank you. Ways for people to recycle that material. And I can tell you, and I mentioned that before, that bin is generating a ton and a half of textiles per month. So it is extremely popular. I know there's been some discussions about it's not in the right spot because it's not well lit. It is actually in a very well lit location. You have a lot of commuters that are going in and out of those locations. So it does get a lot of action, I'd say.

Is there bad behavior that goes on there? Yes, there is. There's bad behavior that goes on in all those bins, including the ones that we have at schools. and other very public locations. So we'll continue to keep an eye on it. I think Helpsy has actually been a really good partner. When we call them or we notice anything, they're typically out there most every single day, but when we notice something kind of Out of the ordinary, they will react really quickly and get things cleaned up.

McGovern, thank you for the update. I'm glad help sees checking on a daily basis. I think that is the most critical piece, and I thank you. Thank you.

Councilor Siddiqui.

Thank you to you. I think I wanted to just ask one question around the patrols. I know most of the update tells us about the increased monitoring and maintenance and how often it is. And here it says Cambridge Police continue targeted patrols. Is that weekly or what, do you know how often that is?

Nardone. Through you, Vice Mayor. Councilor Siddiqui, I don't have an exact number. I did speak with Commissioner Elo last week just to make sure that this was still an ongoing thing. I know that they were doing at least weekly Patrolls there. And again, if there's an indication that there's increased activity, they'll send folks out there to do additional patrols. But I don't have an exact number for you. We could certainly get it. Councillor Siddiqui.

Thank you. No worries. I think it would be helpful to know how many individuals are being connected with appropriate services. That's something I can definitely follow up with. Public Safety about, but I was curious about that. I think obviously as summer gets closer with the pool, everything, you know, I've In my first term there were so many policy orders around trash cans and I think there has been, things have changed with respect to how you know how we've paid attention to the litter sweeps and the general cleanup and so I appreciate that and I think being cognizant of when it's really high use, it's important. So thank you. I will yield.

Thank you. Pleasure of the council. All right.

Nice chair.

Councilor Wilson.

Can you all hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. And through you, Vice Chair, I just wanted to add my voice to the fire, basically. First off, I want to thank the work that DPW is doing in partnership with CPD and other partners to make sure that we keep in this area as safe as possible, cleanups. and just extra patrolling is critically important. I do wanna emphasize and while Commissioner Nardone is not, you know, Commissioner Elo of the Police Department, but if Commissioner Elo is listening, I do want to make sure that we're not in a position of... perhaps arresting or really over-policing So I want us to really think about what that balance is, but it is important that we are maintaining safe streets and especially because we have so many commuters coming through that area especially with the the clothes.

I think to Councilor Siddiqui's point around just as the weather gets warmer just making sure that we don't fall off of like maintaining our I really do hope and Commissioner You probably can speak to this a little bit more, but like, what is the goal kind of going into the winter months, I mean, into the summer, into the spring and summer as the weather gets warmer? You know, heightened activities can be happening. So is there already a plan in place? Are you all going to start having those conversations about what those needs will be?

Mr. Manager. Thank you. Through you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, I think we are working on this across a number of departments. And so, you know, I think I think this is The response is mostly centered on public works, but I think as we've noted, we have We have regular meetings with the public works team, police department, community safety, public health team. We've noted we really are pulling resources from each of those departments in close to the LWIF area. and I think we're going to continue to be looking at ways that we can

both address some of the safety concerns and some of the behavior that we don't want to see, but ultimately also engaging and finding different ways to engage with people who are there to connect them to services and to ensure that we know the people who are in our community, in our city. I think one of the things that we have seen is that It's something we need to address across a lot of the different areas within our city. And so the Alewife area is one spot that we're paying a lot of attention to, especially I think as the weather gets better. But Porter Square, Central Square are always areas that we're also monitoring and trying to ensure that we can both keep the streets clean, but we're also making those connections with people and ensuring that people have a safe place to sleep and also a place to connect to clinical services if they're needed.

Thank you, and I appreciate you naming that, Mr. City Manager, and I know that this is a lot of work and a lot of teams and a lot of hands on deck, and I look forward to... you know hearing that progress as we move into the next term and while I may not be in this space I will be definitely closely listening in and tuning in because this is one that impacts, of course, my neighborhood of North Cambridge, the neighborhood I grew up in, the neighborhood too many of my friends and family live in. and I also, and as you also mentioned, Porter Square and Central Square, just making sure that we are on top of the patrolling and the controlling and the needs meeting, trying to meet the needs, especially around social services that individuals in our community may need. All right, with that, I'll yield. Thank you.

Anything further? On a motion by Councilor Nolan to place the matter on file, roll call.

Councilor Azeem? Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern?

Yes.

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

Thank you. We now move on to city manager agenda item number five, a communication transmitted from Eon Wong, city manager, relative to combined sewer overflows. This was pulled by Councilor Nolan. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. I really appreciate this report. It outlines all the statutory work over the last year. It summarizes much of what we've heard over the last few months. So the first question is really quick regarding the 120-day extension that the state kind of asked us to apply for. Did I miss it in the memo or has that been formally granted?

Commissioner Nardo.

Through you, Vice Mayor. I don't think we mentioned it in the memo, and since we put the memo out, we have gotten approval from the state to extend that. And that's extended to us. MWRA and Somerville, we all had to apply for that separately, and it was granted to all three bodies. Councilor Nolan.

Thanks. And as I understand it, while that extension was granted, the plan is still going to be due at the same time. So the plan itself, finalization was not extended, right? That that's still due at the end of next year, December 31st of 2026. It just gives extra time for the draft plan. So I have a couple questions. I have to remind us all, I brought my little... Poop emoji to remind us all part of what we heard in this chamber of what it is that we are trying to do, which is to not have that stuff in real life, you know, go throughout the city, which many of our residents have lived with. So on the 2050 projections, there's the background of the 2050 calculations, all the work with the MWRA in Somerville. So can you expand on the concerns about building to a 25-year storm in 2050? And I know, just very briefly, if you can't do it briefly, then maybe we'll have to wait for the report. But the conclusion that you reached was because of the widespread flooding, even building CSO control infrastructure to the level of 2050, 25-year storm.

may provide limited public health and water quality benefits. That's the summary that makes it your sense from the report is that it doesn't make sense to build to that. And I'm curious as to whether you can give us any sense of why that was. And also you mentioned significant space constraints for a 25-year storm. and indicate you would include the 2050-25 year controls in your draft plan. So if you can give us a sense of any of the projections now as to what that would entail in terms of dollar figures or in terms of volume of storage tanks.

Commissioner Nardone.

Through you, Vice Mayor, Councilor, I could try to kick through this as best as I could, but I will hand it over to our City Engineer, Jim Wilcox.

Mr. Wilcox.

Thank you. Through you, Vice Mayor McGovern, I just want to talk about the Cambridge experience with CSO control projects in the past. and what our strategy has been. So as part of the sewer separation work that we've been doing since 2000, we have always taken a look at flooding as part of our sewer separation work. Since then, we've constructed 13 stormwater holding tanks in addition to sewer separation projects. because we don't want to have a process where we do CSO control and still have significant flooding. Of those 13 tanks, when we've sized those, when we've designed them, we have not been able to size any of them to the 25 year storm. due to space constraints. Most of those tanks are in the public way. We've had to move utilities out of the way to put them in.

So it will be a challenge to do CSO control and flood control to the 25-year level. That's just the Cambridge experience. I know MWRI and Somerville have other constraints to do that work to the 25-year level of control, but that's some of the concerns that Cambridge has in doing CSO control to a 25-year storm.

Compton-Nolan.

Thanks. And it sounds like in the drop CSO plan, you would have some kind of projection on the cost, right? Because part of what we asked for was costs and benefits that we do the costs, not only what it would cost, but also what the benefits would be. So that will be part of this. I wanted to make a quick note that it sounds like one of the public comments, I don't know if you got a chance to hear it from Anas Altarabi requesting the advisory group include at least one seat for neighbors and abutters who are affected by this. I think that is a really good suggestion. I hope that happens. and on the advisory committee we had asked and you will be doing the stormwater management advisory committee it'll be a welcome change to this process because there's been kind of limited public engagement It'll ensure we're taking into account the community needs and concerns. Two questions. When can we expect that recruitment process to begin? And while we understand that the advisory committee will have a wider purview, not just CSO,

Will this body spend a significant amount of time next year on the CSO since that is the pressing issue? So the recruitment and making sure that the CSO will be the focus for this advisory committee at the start.

Commissioner Nardo. through you, Vice Mayor. Councilor Nolan, our Our plan is to hopefully get the advisory committee together as soon as we can in January. I think, and we've discussed this a little bit, I mean, I think where it first started is this was gonna be this CSO commission. I think Jim even started saying it earlier is that our work goes way beyond CSO controls and while our ultimate goal is to get rid of those CSOs, I think it's important for people to understand how we get there and all the other work That is really important to sewer separation and stormwater management. So we anticipate that that first year or the first six months would really be talking about CSOs because Obviously, that's right in front of us. But then to continue with that group so we do keep them up to date on all the other things we're doing to try to prevent these things from happening. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. And one final area, the stormwater management regulations. I know this memo outlines that you'll be promulgating new regulations for stormwater management. When would we expect to see those regulation updates and do any of the underlying ordinances need to be updated or is it just regulations? And if it's the case that the ordinances don't need to be updated, I would expect and ask that Those regulations be brought back and communicated to the council so that we are aware of them since they're based on the ordinances whenever they are promulgated.

through you, Vice Mayor McGovern. So we've already been doing some work on revising the regulations. This is particularly related to the recent zoning changes. We want to ensure that even with the zoning changes with more density of buildings that stormwater management is still done to our standards. We really have two subsets of projects where stormwater management is required. The larger projects that trigger the city's land disturbance ordinance. So we are taking a look at the triggers for that and adjusting those to make sure we're capturing the projects that we need. And those are typically larger projects. One of the triggers that frequently had projects come to Public Works for a stormwater control permit for large projects was 10 parking spaces where parking requirements have sort of gone away at this point. We're needing to take a fresh look at what those triggers are.

The second set of projects that we look at for stormwater management are smaller projects as they go through the building permit process. So Public Works reviews about 300 building permit applications per year for stormwater management. That's a small subset of The total applications the city sees but we are also taking a look at what are the triggers for those smaller projects as well. So we've made a lot of progress on this already. I would expect in the first couple of months of next year that we will have some draft regulations that we'll put out for public comment.

Councillor Nolan.

Thank you for that. It's important even on some of those smaller projects that we have stormwater because there are certain parts of the city that you can build a relatively small project and it affects the neighbor's flooding and the water table or the neighbor's houses. So I'm glad that's being looked at and I I hope we can either if you want a committee meeting or something else and as you develop those so that we are all informed. Thank you, Chairman McGovern, I yield.

Thank you. I have Councilor Toner and then Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Forgive me, I keep looking through it, and if it's on the website and I didn't do my homework, I apologize. One thing that I'm just curious about is how much is the total cost for this future project? Just so everybody in the audience knows, I probably live closest to Alwyck Brook Parkway than anybody in this room. It's 100 yards from my house. I used to walk along there all the time. So I spend a lot of time in the area, and I've been very lucky not to have my house flooded, although I know other people have had that problem. But the reason I ask is I just know that when we did the sewer separation on West Cambridge here on Ave. That was like a five or six year process. It was quite tumultuous for people. And I'm not suggesting it won't be tumultuous for us in my neighborhood, but this is one area where, whether it's a committee meeting where we spell out very in detail

Because in observing this campaign season, there was an awful lot of people who were railing and saying, no new taxes, keep the tax increases low, et cetera. And this is an example of something that we can't avoid. So a major municipal project that's going to have an impact on taxes. So if I need to just go do my homework, like funding source, how much total?

I'll try to give you my best guess here but I mean these are Obviously there's three entities involved in this process so we are working with MWRA and Somerville and there's a cost share that we need to still work out and we're trying to work those numbers out. But I guess in general what I would say, these are like for the Cambridge piece, we're in the hundreds of millions of dollars. and it's all going to depend on what we finally land on for a typical year you know whether that's the typical year that's a five-year storm or anything bigger than that then those prices continue to go up And it's only because it's not that we just want to get people for money. It's because as we try to control bigger and bigger storms,

There's more and more infrastructure that's needed and some of that infrastructure or most of that infrastructure would actually be on properties that we don't own. So there's a process that goes through that. We'd have to go through that. But these are, again, I think it's just so people understand this is not the $10 million project. These are hundreds of millions of dollars that we'd be spending.

Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, I would just advise the city manager, I mean, hopefully we're all, well, I don't know if you'll all be here happily retired before this thing is finally done, but at least while you're here and whoever is on the council at the time, We keep talking about engagement. This is something that whether it's every six months as things get moving and giving people a big heads up because I don't want the city manager or the councilors or the DPW staff to get you know lambasted by the public in the future because they didn't know it's like no this is I've been waiting for 20 years for you to tear up Mass Ave and change the pipes because I was told 20 years ago that was happening and it hasn't happened yet so I think the more we can do to educate the public of the significance of this project the total cost and you know that that I forget the term you use, city manager, but budgeting to the plan or planning to the budget going forward. This is going to be one huge ticket item going forward.

Thank you. You yield, Councilor?

Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Chair McGovern. I am just so grateful for all the work you've done over the past decades and I'm glad that you're amending our regulations and that you're putting the onus of water storage on private property owners and on the developers of these properties, too. So I'm really happy that you're updating your regulations on smaller properties. Actually, earlier today I was meeting with some constituents on Jackson Street where they're very concerned about Nine luxury units being built, like maxing out the FAR on a property. And there's a real concern about, it's a very wet area. and where the water will go. So we need to make sure that they have a water filtration system that is up for the job. And then also on Lakeview, all around Fresh Pond, it's very, very wet.

As you know, I know... Neighbors have been very concerned because I think often people have built on the driest land, right? And then they've left the other land alone, and that is where a lot of development will be happening. over the next decade or two. So anyway, I appreciate your reviewing plans evaluating storage for 320 building permit applications annually. I'm just wondering with the multifamily housing ordinance, How many, so do you think that might be another hundred properties that you'll be reviewing a year? Do you have any sense for the... I do believe that this is very important work as we plan for the future. Thank you.

Mr. Wilcox?

Yep, through you, Vice Mayor McGovern. Tough to tell at this point. I would say the number of projects we've been reviewing the past couple of years has been down. I think that's really a function of the economy. I think as interest rates improve and developers get back to work, we'll probably see a big uptick in these type of developments. As you saw out on Jackson Street today, there's a lot of properties out there that have small single-family homes with good-sized yards that are really going to be ripe for development for these multifamily properties. So we're going to need to be really careful about how they do stormwater management on these properties, but also just utility use in general, because it will be more intensive than what is there now.

Councilor Zusy.

Anyway, I really appreciate DPW and your being on this because We've got to be a livable city. And something I question and I know others do too is if we already have a permeability challenge, Like, does it really make so much sense for us to be adding so much more density and often taking down trees, mature trees. Like this is what we keep seeing all over the city is that trees often on property lines are either coming down because they're on the property that are being developed or they're just over the line and there's some question as to who will be responsible for those trees.

and taking them down because they'll be they'll they're likely to die as their roots are impacted but I feel as though the trees and the open space that we've had have actually been part of the solution So I do worry about the impact of increasing density in areas that are very wet and are known to flood. and whether that really meets our long-term interests. I know we want housing but there must be dry places to put housing. My other question was about, I thought you laid out very clearly here all your public comment. But I think what people were concerned about was when they read the Boston Globe piece where Fred Lasky said, let's lower the water quality for the Charles and all our rivers, right? Let's just put more sewage in the rivers because We can't afford to do this.

So I think that's where people were really surprised because there was all this public process. It seemed like Cambridge, Somerville, and the MWRA have been working collaboratively to make improvements, and I know you still are, but then to read that Fred Lasky, the head of the MWRA, who's dedicated his career to cleaning our rivers, would think that this was the natural Next, Best Thing to Do, just was very surprising. And then afterwards we heard that The MWRA said they didn't have the money to do it, and so Cambridge and Somerville, we didn't have the money to do it. But I was reading that... Somewhere I was reading that the MWRA may have a $2.1 billion in newly available borrowing capacity. Is there any chance that that money will...

I know they have other interests for the use of that money as well, but is there some chance that we might be able to get some of that money for our systems? Thank you through you, Chair McGovern.

Commissioner Arnaud. Through you, Vice Mayor, Councilor Susi, as I mentioned, we are still going through, first we need to land on what our plan is gonna be, right? We need to go through a full cost share analysis. And we are hoping that MWRA does step up to the plate. And right now, when we're looking at it, I think they are taking a bigger cost share. But we may need to push them to make that even bigger. We just haven't crossed that bridge yet. But certainly it's something we have been discussing and we need further discussions on that. Yeah, thank you so much.

Please let us know how we can be helpful as advocates for that funding that will make all the difference for this area. Thank you. Thank you so much for your work, and I yield.

Pleasure, the council. On a motion by Councilor Nolan to place the matter 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.

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

Thank you. We now move on to city manager agenda item number six. I know that, let me just say this off the bat, I know that Item 6 and 7 have been linked, but they are two separate petitions, so I would like to take them individually. City Manager Agenda Item Number 6, a communication transmitted from Eon Wong, City Manager, relative to a... Revised Massachusetts Avenue Zoning Petition. I pulled this before we get into discussion. There's a little housekeeping we have to do, but before we even get to that, Just remind folks where we are in this process. Tonight is the first opportunity that we have to actually vote to either pass this petition Thank you. Thank you.

Herm, this petition as well as the Cambridge Street petition both expire January 28th. and so they do not have to necessarily be passed tonight but they to carry over into the next calendar year. Just a few notes about that. Also just thinking of the calendar, let's remember that January 5th is inauguration, so we will not be taking up You know, regular business. And the 19th is Martin Luther King Day, so we don't have a meeting on the 19th. So we could vote on them if the intention is to vote on not letting them expire, we would We could vote as late as January 26th would be the meeting. So just to give people a framework of where we are in terms of the calendar.

So before we get into discussion of city manager agenda item number six, which is the Mass Ave zoning petition, a few... Housekeeping, I'd like to suspend the rules to bring forward calendar item number three, which is unfinished business ordinance 25, number 16, and Charter Right Number 1, which is the policy order regarding 12 stories or 11 stories, dropping the 12 to 11. So I might move suspension to bring those two forward.

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

Okay, so unfinished business item number three and charter right number one are also in front of us. We also need to amend the petition language by substitution. And again, this is not passing this now. We're just bringing the more current language in front of us. Madam Clerk, roll call.

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

Okay, so now the Mass Ave petition with the most recent language. as well as charter right number one which I will read again for the record that the city manager is requested to instruct the community development department to reduce The recommendations for the Massachusetts Avenue Sub-District, Mass 12, from a maximum of 12 stories to 11 stories with ground floor. Active Use slash Retail as consistent with the recommendation of the Mass Ave Planning Study. And so that is now in front of us as well. I will open it up to council discussion. Toner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to voting on this this evening, I hope. I have a vested interest in it because I'm the one that brought the policy order over two years ago with I forgot who co-sponsored with me asking for a citizens committee advisory group to review all of this and they've done their work and I'd really like to be able to vote on this tonight as part of this council. So I do hope we won't put it off. I'm supportive of the proposal. And with that, I yield.

I'm going to go to Councilor Siddiqui who actually has had exercised her charter right on the what is now charter right item number one and then I'll come back to Councilor Nolan and Councilor Siddiqui.

Sure, through you. I guess I'll speak to the merits of the policy order first, and then I can make a comment about the underlying petition. I think I've been pretty consistent since I chaired that meeting that I respected the thorough community process that had been laid out with... you know eight community meetings, many working group meetings, focus groups, interviews, many different interactions with the public and you know I think Going to 11 does respect that community guidance while still allowing for meaningful housing and strong design controls. I think to Councilor Toner's point, that's also the reasons I'm supporting the underlying.

I would like to support the underlying position as well. I think there was a comment about the process being a sham. I think I hear the frustration behind that comment. I don't agree with the label, particularly because of the fact that the council asked for this process. We also got to see who was going to serve on the 14-member working group. We were very aware of what was happening. And I think the zoning reflects what the process asked for. And so I think we can definitely debate the outcome, and we have. but I do think it deserves to be debated on the merits and I think there's a lot of compelling reasons why we should move forward and also why I support the policy order from my colleagues. I will yield. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Siddiqui. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. Question, Chairman McGovern. We have both the policy order and the underlying petition before us, correct? Yeah, okay. I want to say I do hope that we will pass the policy order reducing to 11 because it's better aligned with the community process, as Councilor Siddiqui had said in the MassAB planning study and maps. and the recommended zoning language. And I wanna note, I think we all know this, but it's important to remind people, whatever we pass, even if we pass 20 stories, which I'm not saying it's even on the table, we're not gonna solve the housing issue alone with this. But no matter what we pass, and if we pass 11 stories, by passing 11 stories, we would still be passing a very bold change, almost doubling the as of right height along all of Mass Ave. that is something many of us including myself have talked about for years to increase height along the corridors. I'm the willingness to compromise to pass these important changes.

I will support this if the 11 stories does pass because I do think While there's a lot of people urging us not to pass anything, to let it expire, to move forward, I think I would respect the work that was done by MAPS and pass it. and also if we don't find, there's a lot of evidence that some people are saying, well, we can't possibly, we won't get anything built and then other people are saying, well, they're only gonna get built at six to eight stories anyway, so then 11 or 12 shouldn't really matter. If we don't see what we want, we know, then this council can take it up again and say we can then increase it to 12 or 13. If we believe that emerging building typologies, modular construction, timber frame can produce at cost-effective at 11 stories, then we will be able to see A lot of the housing that we so desperately need at 11 stories. So I really hope we do pass that and then I'd be happy to vote for the proposals at all. I want to remind all of us and I think the city that

Right now, every building over seven stories would have 20% inclusionary units. That's good. We hope that additional height incentive would work, that we're creating it. and if for some unforeseen reason inclusionary zoning is struck down as a result of the lawsuit I do want to know and through you perhaps Chair McGovern would we be able to pass then incentive zoning because I think that's something we're all aware of that if If inclusionary percentage came down we would have to follow that, but if it disappeared entirely, The base story, the baseline would be whatever we pass, if it's 11 or 12 stories, and I think that would be quite challenging for most of us because we want to do this partly for affordable housing, not just market rate housing. So would we be able to pass some kind of incentive zoning or how quickly could we adjust to it if that happened? I think that's a question perhaps through you if Solicitor Beyer is open to answering it.

Madam Solicitor.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Vice Mayor. So if our inclusionary zoning wasn't in place, then we could look at making changes to the zoning ordinance to Give some type of extra density or extra height. in exchange for building affordable units, if that's what you mean by an incentive type approach. At any time we could always look at making future amendments to the zoning ordinance and that could be a possible amendment down the road if there was a need to do that.

Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. I think that's important because I would support that if whatever happens with our NEXUS study, with our incentive, and I did ask whether we should do that now and whether we could do it in this petition, and it sounds like that is not something we could do. and I would expect us, when that happens, which may be a long way away, that we could pivot and look at it. I also want to make sure we all understand, because this was, I think, some confusion from some people, the question of 18 stories Porter Square. That also was in the written map study. And to remind us all that it, well, some of us people telling me don't pass this, you know, it really, it has to be much lower heights. I'm disappointed when I say, well, if the 11 stories passes, I'm willing to pass the rest of it as well. Because 18 stories is in the zoning, however, it's a PUD.

and it means that it would be subject to negotiation with community benefits and that's the only way that 18 stories would ever be built and it doesn't mean it has to be built but it just means there would be conversation and negotiations around that. So I think again, just to explain to people, that's important to me that it would be something that would then come along with some community benefits. I know a lot of residents have concerns about the heights, and I feel them. As I've said before, I can take some hard votes to say if we can move forward with this, that would be exciting. I agree with Councilor Toner that all along, Some of the things I've said over the years and not voted on other things because it wasn't focused on the quarters and the squares and this does do some of that that we have asked for. I will also note that it wouldn't have been my first choice. was actually up on Northern Mass Ave just yesterday doing some holiday shopping and I was thinking and walking along and 12 stories is

Thank you very much. and for most of it only about six or seven stories so that we are close to doubling it, whatever we come up with. So with that, I know we'll all be monitoring the results and changing it if we need to, but that's the specific couple of questions I had and I yield.

Zuzi. Thank you. I have Councilor Zuzi next.

Thank you, Chair McGovern. I will vote to support the policy order to Lower the height for North Mass Ave to 11 stories from 12 stories because I fear my colleagues are going to pass these policy or these zoning petitions. The Hindu scripture, the Bhagavata, says that inaction is often the best action. And sometimes I feel as though my colleagues and even the community development department believe that we're really committed to action, but sometimes you accomplish more By doing less, we just upzoned Cambridge's corridors with the affordable housing overlay too, which allows up to 12 stories on major corridors and 15 stories

at Cambridge, Harvard, and Porter Squares for affordable housing. And just this February 10th, we passed the Multifamily Housing Ordinance, which allows for developers as of right to go up to six stories with inclusionary housing. And that is on all of our corridors too. So I think we should really just leave things and see what happens. Let's let that sit for a while, especially as we're going to reconsider our inclusionary zoning percentage in June. I just I see no reason to give developers more base height now without any expectation of community benefits to say that so if we're going to have a base height of 11 stories, let's say the policy order passes for North Mass Ave, that's where the negotiation would begin for inclusionary units. So that means it could be 13 units.

I mean, 13 stories. It could be 14 stories. It could be 15 stories. So why would we start at 11 stories? Why not leave things where they are at six stories? And wasn't the whole impetus for the upzoning to get more affordable units and other amenities like parks, cultural spaces, parking, and other things? I mean with the zoning as it's been drafted and I just think we need to do more thinking about it and lower the heights. We're not going to get very much, and we actually need a lot. With greater density, we're going to need more open space. We need more cultural space. I firmly believe we need more parking. and there are other public amenities that we'll want too. So I...

I only see these upzoning proposals as mostly inspiring the production of one, two and three million dollar units. raising property values and displacing residents in our local businesses. You know, it costs a million dollars to build a unit. It's not like... The students that so want to stay in Cambridge are not going to be able to live in these one, two, and three million dollar units. And there aren't going to be that many inclusionary units. You know, likely, once we get the NEXUS study information back, I do believe our growth should be along the quarters. but not to such heights and without review. And we want community benefits in exchange. Rather than trying to house the world, we need to continue to advocate for investment in mass transit projects.

and make it easier for people to commute into Cambridge. And then we gotta look at those underutilized lots. Because again, if we could just do six big projects on underutilized lots, we could house a lot of people and it would be so much less disruptive. I just see this, I feel like we haven't thought it through. I think it needs more time. I think it's much better to postpone to the new year. And I think we've really got to, Thank you so much. Why don't we do this after? Why don't we just put this on hold? We can start thinking about Central Square and pick this up again after we get the results of the Nexus study.

I think we'd be foolish not to. Thank you. So I will be voting against the petitions, but I'd vote for 11 stories instead of 12 on North Mass Ave. Thank you.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Chair, through you. I'm a yes on the underlying petition. I would like to move forward with this tonight. I'm a no on the amendment to reduce the height to 11 stories for the same reason. that I was a no last week on the amendment to lower the Cambridge Street Heights. We've not heard many folks from the community saying, I'm against this at 12 stories, but I would absolutely support it at 11 stories. If there were a lot of more community support we'd get for that reduction, I might consider being in support of it. But it seems like the folks who are against it at 12 stories will still be against it at 11 stories. And on the other hand, We're going to be losing affordable housing for it. Above a certain height, 20% of the units will be affordable. At the heights we're talking about in this petition, the buildings are all going to be above that height. Every additional floor that we're removing means not only less housing, Thank you. So many people in Cambridge who recognize that there can and should be more housing on this corridor. There are multiple T stops nearby.

There are already tall buildings on North Mass Ave. and I think there's a real recognition from folks, from residents, we've added a lot of jobs in Cambridge but have not added a lot of housing. There was a good article in the Boston Globe just today about the increasing number of people who work in Cambridge and Boston are having to commute for hours and hours each week because they cannot afford to live here. And that is because places like Cambridge have added lots of jobs, including this council, this term. We've voted to add more commercial development in Cambridge. We've all voted to add more jobs. I don't know how we can not also vote to add more housing. The disconnect there just is extremely strange to me. I also get confused when folks say that this could displace local businesses because that's actually what's at risk of happening under our current zoning. We're seeing right now we're actually putting more protections for ground floor retail with this zoning. Cambridge J had an article this week about redevelopment on North Mass Ave under our current zoning.

That could displace Kiesers and Simons on North Mass Ave. That's under the existing zoning right now. We've made no changes, already there's redevelopment there, and that's because we're not protecting the ground floor retail there. This adds more protections. If you want more protections for, Local Retail on North Mass Ave, on Cambridge Street. We're talking about that because of this process. Right now, you could redevelop any of the buildings on North Mass Ave, any of the buildings on Cambridge Street, and eliminate the retail there. That's under our existing zoning and that'll continue to be the case under our existing zoning. Under the current zoning also, there are a lot of buildings on North Mass Ave that have zero affordable housing. 0%. And the status quo would continue that. 100% market rate housing, 100% luxury housing, 0% affordable housing. We spent a lot of time talking about housing vouchers this term, including starting a new municipal voucher program.

And as part of these discussions, we've heard that right now many Cambridge residents with vouchers are not able to find us any place to use them. because housing is so expensive here. They end up having to leave Cambridge and go farther afield to find any place they can use affordable housing voucher. One of the few places that folks who are able to get a housing voucher in Cambridge are able to use them are in the 20% of affordable housing units. These housing units, in fact, have become so important for residents with a voucher that in 50% of all the affordable housing units and inclusionary in these 20% affordable housing, 50% of all of them are folks with a voucher. These are very low income residents who depend on these units. We want folks to be able to use them in Cambridge, to be able to stay in Cambridge The place that they live now, the place that they grew up, the place that they work. If we want them to be able to stay here, we need more of these units. This North Mass Ave petition will allow that, and 12 stories will allow slightly more of that for Cambridge Street. So I'm hopeful we can move forward with that tonight. I yield back.

Councilor Azeem.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Just wanted to clarify a few things. One is that, you know, no one is going to build a 12 story building without a special permit. I know that we've been saying everything is by right, but there's still the same special Thank you. Thank you very much. I just wanted to add that because I know it was a major concern during the multifamily zoning and everyone was like we would support these more if we had special permit requirements. All of these have special permit requirements. The second is that like, you know, I think that, you know, the 11 versus 12 stories in some ways doesn't feel like a big difference. And in other ways,

like I don't think people will really notice the difference between 135 foot building and 145 foot building but economically it does make a difference like we do know that there is a dead zone and that 12 story does help to make it financially viable and so for that reason I think that you know it's one of those small little details but that really does help that if we're going to make people I've said or say like hey here's a big change you have to like live with um that's really hard and like but we think it's important we should at least make sure that you're actually going to get a change in result it's for that same reason I was not here last week because I was sick but I would have voted for the reduction in height and square because I think that no one is going to build a 10-story building and so there's no point right and so but I think that it's on like important to be um Thank you. Thank you.

well part of that is our inclusionary requirement part of that is like we have climate resiliency zoning right we just talked about like water we have the highest levels of water retention or like storm water prevention and storm water storage of any municipality in the state by far Like no one even comes close to us on the climate resiliency zoning perspective. But that also adds cost, right? And so it's always trade-offs. Like we're at a million dollars a unit, not by accident, but by choice, right? and I think that desk is just like one of those things that we have to think about where we do one thing with one hand and then we do something else with the other hand and we don't necessarily think how they interact. and I think that the place that we've ended up so far is that we'll add up all these requirements and then try to make housing pencil and housing will then pencil at like 12 stories on a corridor because of all these requirements. if we wanted to make 11 stories work, sure, but then we should also get rid of some of these other costly requirements just to make sure the housing is still penciling. And so I think that for those reasons, I will not be supporting the policy order, but I will be supporting

Wilson.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you all. I just want to appreciate the conversation that we're having here and recognize that there's been such a robust process. And while I say robust, and many people will say it's not, I think to each his own on how we as a community engage around a variety of topics here. What we have before us is something that is obviously historic and right now we are in a time where we need to be making extremely bold decisions in order to help shape Make and shape what the city of Cambridge is going to look like moving forward. And I want us to be able to look back 20 years from today and be proud of the decisions that are being made today at this council table. and so I do not take this decision lightly.

I think the multifamily zoning process that we went through last year and into February was really trying on a lot of levels and obviously kept us in a very divisive space. But it passed, right? And it passed recognizing that there's still still work to be done on that because it didn't pass, you know, we're still missing things on solar, we're still missing, you know, a variety of different things that should be included. And I think that's going to be the same here. So a question that I do have, because I don't feel like we have had this baked in like we did in the multifamily zoning, is is there actually an... A review process that is baked into this. Through you, Vice Mayor.

Who wants it? Is Assistant Manager Peters on? On Zoom? Okay, so let me go through her. Assistant Manager?

Yeah, thank you. Through you, Vice Mayor. I believe the question is about review process. Maybe we can get clarification. Councilor Wilson, you're talking about design review or review of projects A year from now, like we are doing with the multifamily. Exactly that.

So just as a council, as CBD, like how are we going to be Thank you, Vice Mayor.

So we consistently commit to reviewing Councilor Wilson.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, and through you to Assistant City Manager Peters. Is that actually written into this, into... Is it actually written into this petition as it was for the multifamily zoning?

I don't believe it is currently written into the ordinance and I'll ask Jeff to confirm.

Mr. Roberts. Through the Vice Mayor, the annual review process, the housing review process that was adopted in the multifamily zoning, that extends to the entire zoning ordinance. Any zoning, new zoning, old zoning, that's all incorporated into that annual housing review process that was adopted in February.

Councillor Wilson.

Okay, thank you very much. I recognize that this process is going to have people who didn't like the process initially still not liking the process and people who love it will still continue to love it. I'm still not sure where I am on this. I will definitely support the policy order of what I co-sponsored, which is bringing it down from 12 to 11. In terms of the overall, I'm still not sure. And I struggle with that because I think, especially someone who grew up in affordable housing in the city of Cambridge, I struggle with how our city actually looks at and values what affordable housing is in the city of Cambridge we are currently living

If you are low income or poor, again, this is why we have a wait list that is over 20,000 people long or 6,700 if you live or work in Cambridge, it's that long because of the unaffordability. and so there has to be something massive to happen and I'm not sure and I'm really just not convinced that this is going to be the way that gets us there. But I do want to acknowledge that there was a substantial amount of work that was put into this and I'm never going to discredit or devalue that work. I really appreciate from CDD down to members of our community and our public and those who are truly invested in housing. who often speak out and speak up in these spaces. But I often have to come back to those who are never a part of these conversations are possibly the people who will probably live in them.

whether we're thinking about inclusionary or 100% affordable units, etc. So, I don't know. I'm going to definitely support the policy order that I co-sponsored, but I'm not 100% sure on where I am with the final and I just think as a city, we really better stop putting our money where our mouth is in terms of what we value, who we value, and what does that look like in decisions that we make especially around zoning because that will create outcomes that is going to impact what generations to come are going to experience in the city of Cambridge. We are already the tale of two cities. How are we going to change that narrative? Well, it's zoning things like this that's going to help to change it. But I'm not convinced that this is giving us the actual affordability that we want because I'm not seeing like inclusionary units.

I feel like folks that, developers to build higher to get to inclusionary is gonna be a little bit harder. and that's something that I'm worried about is how much it's actually going to get us to inclusionary units. Where is the affordability going to truly come in at? and when we measure what success looks like because we don't have an ultimate plan of what success looks like, I just worry that those conversations a year from today are gonna be really superficial or super performative and not really get us to where we want to be. So again, I'll yield, but I'm just not sure where I'm at right now. Thank you.

Thank you. So I'll ask a couple, take a shot at this. On the 12 stories or 11 stories, I guess I'm going to ask through you Mr. Manager to Assistant Manager Peters, what is CDD's position?

Yeah, thank you through you, Vice Mayor. We strongly recommend 12 stories. Given the current economics, when you move from stick-built construction to high-rise construction, at about six or seven stories, every additional floor helps makes the economics work. And that's particularly true when the margins are so close now. And so if our goal is to have housing be built, We really think 12 will be more advantageous and people will go to 12 rather than staying at stick-built construction at 6 or 7.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Manager. Through you, Vice Mayor, I would just echo support for getting to 12 and sticking with Thank you so much for having me. were more comfortable with heights. And I think if you actually think about the way that some of the zoning is stepped back, this isn't going to be in the absolute middle of a residential neighborhood. and the difference between 11 and 12 is gonna be pretty hard to actually perceive. I think that's actually a pretty important thing to note where I feel like a lot of, where I think we have a lot of concern is thinking about, A home that you may be living in which is two stories or three stories and a lot of what we're trying to do is actually find More density on the corridors, closer to transit.

And I think, you know, especially in this time where the economics are tough and we're trying to find More housing units that will help bring down some of the pricing and make the overall city more affordable. Those additional units can make a big difference. Thank you.

So a couple of things from me. In general, there's always a lot of talk about can you build enough housing and does it bring down prices? I think part of the problem is it takes so long to build things that, you know, we're building little bits, right? Like, you know, 50 units this year and 60 units that year, and that makes it hard to see It's not the splash that we need to move the market. So it doesn't feel like it's changing much. But not building housing is not the answer. I don't know in any situation where restricting supply of something in such high demand ever brings prices down. I don't know how much we can bring prices down by building more housing, but I firmly believe that not building housing and waiting is certainly not going to help.

As far as the lawsuit, we heard concerns about the lawsuit. on inclusionary. We don't know how that's going to turn out. We also don't know how long that's going to take. That could take years. I mean, if the city is successful, I would imagine there's an appeal coming, right? And then how long does that take? So are we gonna sit here and say, I mentioned it when we discussed this before, Vail Court took eight years. Are we gonna sit here and say we're gonna wait Potentially five, you know, four, five, six, seven, eight years to change any zoning because maybe we're going to lose a lawsuit. I don't want to wait that long. We have a crisis.

In terms of the inclusionary and the nexus study, we could very well come back with a nexus study in June that says we have to lower the percentage. It's sort of flat to say, well, we might have to lower the percentage, so let's build shorter buildings. Well, the taller the building, even if the percentage comes down, the taller the building, the more actual IZ units you're gonna get in that building. You're gonna get more IZ units in a development that is 70 units or 100 units and you are in a building that's 20 units, right? So if the taller building is going to yield more inclusionary units even if that percentage were to come down.

I would say that we keep hearing, well, this is supposed to all be about affordable housing. and it's not going to yield that much affordable housing. I don't know where that narrative quite came from. Upzoning and upzoning on the court is not about all affordable housing. The affordable housing overlay, which people also criticized, was specific for 100% affordable housing. This upzoning is trying to get us closer to the envisioned number of 12,000 units, 12,500 units of housing, which includes affordable housing through inclusionary, But it's mostly about adding to our market rate housing stock to deal with the supply and demand issue. So this isn't just about affordable housing. We will get inclusionary units out of this.

But this is not solely an affordable housing petition. So, I think in terms of... Let me say this too. What makes it hard for me sometimes is the shifting of the goalposts, right? And someone mentioned this in public comment. Just a few years ago, 2072 Mass Ave, was a nine-story building on Mass Ave. stepping down to eight stories in the back towards the neighborhood, 100% Low-income subsidized units, of which the majority were going to be three-bedroom units,

Passive house construction, so environmentally, the highest level of environmental sustainability on a corridor, nine stories, 100% affordable, and people fought like hell to kill that. at nine stories. There's a project now, you know, the project on the corner of Mass Ave and Linnean Street. It's a six-story building. And people are fighting to kill that. So it makes it hard. I don't know what the number is, right? Sometimes people say we need to put more housing on the corridors. You don't even want six stories on Mass Ave. To Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler's point about the commercial, and using that Walgreens site as an example, that's one story. Even if they were gonna go to two stories or three stories, those businesses would have to shut down.

because you have to shut down the electricity and you have to shut down the water and you have to turn off the heat and you're building on top of a business. So the height, those businesses are going to be in jeopardy whether you build, unless you keep everything the same. Those buildings, those businesses are gonna be in jeopardy whether you build two stories, three stories, six stories, or 12 stories because they have to shut down during construction. Now, what protections do we put in place to help bring them back? That's another conversation. I do support this petition. Councilor Nolan's point, I appreciate Councilor Nolan's point about the 18 stories. Let's be really clear. It is not 18 stories all along Mass Ave that's been talked about.

It is 18 stories in a particular location that is part of a PUD, which will only be granted if certain community benefits, like parking, like open space, like trees, becomes part of that development. Otherwise, they don't get the 18 stories. So that's a different animal altogether. It is not 18 stories. all along the corridor. So I do support this. As far as the policy order to drop from 12 to 11, I will not vote for that. In terms of passing this now instead of waiting, I do think that there's some difference between the Mass Ave petition and the Cambridge Street petition. Nolan, and so I am ready to pass Mass Ave tonight. And that's just, that's my comments.

I'm going to go back to Councilor Nolan, and then we'll go back around if anyone else wants to say anything.

Thank you, Chairman McGovern. Just a quick point. I'm just sitting here. I'm reading from the report on maps, which was not that long ago, that the city itself and maps specifically said 11 stories made sense. Traditionally, construction has been limited to six-story buildings, five stories of stick frame over a podium, or required a significant jump to 12 stories with steel. However, And this is quoting, emerging building typologies such as modular construction and mass timber are making mid-rise buildings of nine to 10 stories increasingly viable, expanding the range of feasible development options. We heard from the city before, 11 stories or 12 didn't really matter. So I really don't understand why all of a sudden we're doing 12. I am surprised that, and yes, would it make a huge difference? No, but we're following a community process. We already heard that 2072 is going to be viable at nine stories, so Anyway, I just wanted to make that point that there seems to be some shifting and I understand.

I've certainly gotten a lot of calls from developers, why not? Thank you. Do you want CDD to respond or?

Can you speak into the mic?

Yeah, I don't understand why the change, since it is a change, and I know, having talked to a number of people, that 11 stories can make sense. It just feels odd that we wouldn't be trying to do everything we can to follow the process. Because I know for sure a lot of the people on this map didn't even want to go to 11. They did it as a compromise. And we never went back to them and said, oh, by the way, we're just going to increase it to 12.

Okay, so do you want a response? Assistant Manager Peters?

Yeah, thank you, through you, Vice Mayor. I mean, given the current technologies and the market, again, as I said before, the additional floor does help current projects pencil out. So we want change to happen. Now, I think it is important. It is true that technologies will change. We don't know when those will happen. And it could be that current dead zone that Councilor Azeem talked about between... 8 and 11, that goes away. But until then, I think 12 makes the most sense if the goal is to create more housing and more affordable units.

I appreciate that. I just wish the MAPS study had said that because that was clear then and it's really honoring the community and This is already a year out, and we already are seeing modular construction. Reframe is already built in the area. We're already seeing timber frame that is able to be built at 8, 9, or 10 stories. So that's why I really still hope that we pass the 11th. Zuzi.

Thank you, Councilor Nolan. Councilor Zuzi.

Thank you, through you, Chair McGovern. I agree with Councilor Nolan. Let's go for 11, and if it doesn't work, we can go up to 12. But I do think we need, Louise Vendon, who's written some great letters, would have been great on the council, has asked, you know, who is it that we're hoping to house? And again, I just feel like, what I feel like is so sad is that All those brilliant graduate students at Harvard and MIT that elected most of my colleagues, they elected you because they want to live here. Who wouldn't want to live here, right? This is a fantastic place to live. But I think this will not make Cambridge a more affordable city. It's going to make Cambridge a more expensive city. That is my concern, I feel like.

Of course people want to live here, but this isn't the way to make Cambridge a place that they can afford to live. This isn't going to do it. This is going to edge them out faster. And I think this zoning will dramatically change the nature of the city. I come from Montgomery County, Maryland, Home of the great housing production fund, very progressive county. And during my lifetime, I saw Silver Spring, Maryland grow up. I saw Bethesda, Maryland grow up. These were smaller communities. I feel like Cambridge is a city, but we're not like a big city. We're sort of like a city suburb of Boston, which is part of our charm. We've got...

Trees, we've got parks, we've got, I mean, the city has been so extraordinarily livable until we had all this commercial development. when all of a sudden it became, all of us that are property owners became much richer, right? But it didn't really serve the city because it meant that The next generations can't afford to live here. And I think that's in part the problem that we all want to solve. We want the next generations to be able to live in this community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Giving away to developers an extra six stories

and not even being sure we're gonna get much inclusionary back and not even getting any community benefits for those six extra floors that are gonna make them even richer than they might be already. That makes no sense to me at all. And again, in most cities, there are taller parts of the city, some places. like we have Kendall Square. That's where we have skyscrapers. We have taller buildings at Cambridge Crossing. We have taller buildings at Alewife. We're going to have taller buildings at the Alewife Quad. You know, I do think if anywhere we could have taller buildings, I'm not gonna, people aren't gonna like this, but I feel like Central Square is our downtown. It is the part of the city on Mass Ave which is most opportune. We also have the T. We have a lot of buses going through. It is the most obvious place for height.

But just to allow developers willy-nilly to build up to 12 stories or 11 stories on North Mass Ave. is problematic to me. That's not planning to me. That's not thoughtful planning. That's like random deregulation, letting developers decide where they want to build. Without really thinking about the open spaces that we need, all the other things that we need to make this city a livable place where people will continue to wanna live. I mean, again, what makes Cambridge so sweet is not only our diversity, the brilliant students that come here, the brilliant people that choose to live here, the interesting, odd, unusual people that come to live here, the old hippies that are here. The young people with so many dreams. But also, it's whether we're aware of it or not.

It's the built environment that we do have access to the Charles River parks, all these other things. and that we have neighborhoods, coherent neighborhoods, is also, whether you feel it or not, it impacts the livability of the city. That's what I worry about with this petition. I appreciate all of the work CDD has done, and I think some of it can be built on, but I think As many people have given testimony, they've written letters. I just think we need to do more refinement. And again, we really need to think about upzoning before I mean, we need to think about, we need to understand what we're going to get out of inclusionary before we give developers a six story bonus. With that, I yield. Thank you.

Wilson, was that hand up from before or new?

Thank you, Vice Mayor. I did have my hand up and I didn't want to be redundant, but I did want to just add one more piece in regards to obviously every vote. may have its consequences right and I think it is important that while we want to be very robust and making sure that we create space to build and build is Thank you so much. That's a fact. And I need folks to really sit with that. So I don't know how many units we're going to need to build in order to actually see some true affordability around here. But that's going to take us like forever to get to that place. And I just want to name it.

So I think while we're having a really robust conversation, and again, for me, I'm appreciating it. I'm continuing to struggle with Thank you so much. to so much more that we would be moving forward. But that's kind of where I'm at right now. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. If there's nothing further, so if... There are a number, well, first of all, I'm going to need, we can take up the policy order, the charter right number one first, and then I will need a motion. or not. If we want to vote on Mass Ave tonight, I will need a motion from someone to do that. If it doesn't pass, then it kills it. and so forth. Charter right number one, which is Mass Ave going from 12 stories to 11 stories. Roll call. Nolan.

She was the lead sponsor.

Councilor Azeem. No. No. Vice Mayor McGovern?

No.

No. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? No. No. Councilor Toner? No. No. Councilor Wilson?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have five members recorded in the affirmative and four members recorded in the negative.

Okay. On a motion by Councilor Toner, let me make sure I get this language correct. So it's to ordain as amended by substitution. Yes. Madam Solicitor.

Thank you to you, Mr. Vice Mayor. The Community Development Department has some substitute language that effectuates the change that was just voted on on the charter right item reducing the nine excuse me twelve stories to eleven stories and so I don't know if you want to put that on the screen at all or what Mr. Roberts recommends. So the vote by substitution would be for that language. that will make this change that was just voted on.

So we have to do another substitute, a new language. Okay.

Yes, to the Vice Mayor, and this is maybe outside my wheelhouse, but my understanding is the council because this was chartered the last time, it was a policy order to direct the language be provided, but I believe the council would still need to amend the petition in order to make that change. And so we provided to the clerk's office and so forth. This is the first wording that effectively does a couple of things. It amends wherever the height limit was 12 stories or 145 feet above grade to 11 stories and 135 feet It also, just for clarity, recommends amending what was called in the original petition the MAS-12 and then the MAS 12A districts to MAS 11 and MAS 11A for clarity. So that's a number of places in the text change and the map change that would change that name.

Okay, so we're going to take this.

Mr. Chair.

Madam Mayor.

Apologies. I think I was not clear what we were voting on, and so I wanted to change my vote to no. On just the last one, I thought I was thinking it was something else. I'm not looking at the agenda, so I apologize.

Okay, so I have to move. Mayor Simmons asked for unanimous consent to change her vote on Charter Right Item Number 1 from yes to no. You can say you don't give unanimous consent and we can do a roll call on suspension to allow. So is that what you're doing? Yes, no, Councilor Nolan? No, okay, so hearing unanimous consent, Mayor Simmons is changing her vote on charter right number one from yes to know, which changes the outcome that the policy order fails five to four. Okay. So now we are Back. Can we get the amended language up on the screen?

Vice Mayor.

Mr. Roberts.

Vice Mayor. I'm trying to keep up with this myself. I believe that with the policy order failing, then there would not need to be any amendment to the position.

That's true. Good point. Good point. Okay, so we don't need to do that. So, now, on a motion by Councilor Toner to ordain ordinance... By substitution, roll call.

Azeem, Vice-Mayor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Siddiqui, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Toner, Councilor Wilson, No. Councilor Zusy?

No.

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

Okay.

On a motion by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler to move suspension of the rules for the purpose of reconsideration, hoping the same will not prevail. On suspension.

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

Yes.

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

On reconsideration, roll call.

Councilor Azeem. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No, Councilor Zusy.

No.

No, Mayor Simmons. No. No, and you have nine members recorded in the negative.

Okay, we now move on to city manager agenda item number seven.

Did you have to place on file?

No, we've got some votes we gotta do. Oh, oh, sorry. Yep, yep, sorry, sorry. Yep, we've got to move to place city manager agenda item number six on file.

Move to place on file.

Roll call.

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

Thank you, sorry, got a little ahead of myself. Now we move on to city manager agenda item number seven, a communication transmitted from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to a revised Cambridge Street zoning petition. Before, again, this is not the final vote, but we need to suspend the rules to bring forward calendar item number four on unfinished business relating to ordinance 2025 number 17. So on suspension of the rules, moved by Councilor Azeem to bring forward calendar item number four, 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. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Great. So now both unfinished business item number four and the city manager agenda item number seven are before us. I will open it up to council discussion. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks for sharing through you. I was glad we could move forward with the Mass Ave petition and do that at 12 stories. I think the Cambridge Street petition has some issues the council has asked CDD to address and doesn't expire until next term. We'll say clearly now, I'm supportive of the aims of the petition overall, which include creating more housing, including affordable housing at 20%, requiring ground Floor Retail, which the current zoning does not do at all right now, and we've asked CDD to bring that forward and add that new protection, and hopefully we can do that alongside Thank you. Councilor Toner.

Again, personally, I'd prefer to vote on it. I understand Councilor Sirena Wheeler's issues that it'd be nice to have answers for that. I think I heard you at the beginning of the meeting say between now and the new term the fifth is a Just as the swearing in inaugural meeting and then you have two meetings, whether all those questions can be answered effectively for the new council with two new members who are going to need to get caught up to speed on the issues. So personally, I'd prefer to vote on it tonight if the majority agrees. Thanks. The pleasure of the council. Councilor Nolan.

I think it would be best, I thought that was of Mass Ave too, but we didn't do that, but I would definitely think it's good to forward this to the new council.

Madam Mayor, can you mute, please? Pleasure to counsel. So, again, just to lay this out, if If you call a vote on this, then we have to vote it up or down. If we want this to carry over into the next term, we will just vote to leave it unfinished business. Correct? Madam Clerk?

I want to defer to the solicitor.

Madam Solicitor. I got that right?

Yes, to you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Yes, there needs to be a vote to put it back on the table, yes.

Okay. I'd make that motion, Mr. Chair.

on a motion by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler to place Cambridge Street petition back on the table and not take action on it tonight. Roll call. I'm sorry, Councilor. And be forwarded to the next city council, which would happen automatically because we don't meet again.

So, point of order, Mr. Mayor, just so I know exactly, this vote that's before us now is to place it on the table.

Correct.

Is that correct? Correct.

Thank you.

I yield.

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? No. No, Councilor Wilson? No.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Mayor Simmons? Mayor Simmons. No, sorry. I turned myself off. I apologize. Mayor Simmons is a no. So you have seven members recorded in the affirmative and two recorded in the negative.

Okay, so again, just to clarify for the audience, Cambridge Street will now be held over to the start of the next term. It still does not expire until the end of January. There will be two other opportunities for us to vote on this in January before the petition expires, but no action is taken on it tonight. All right. We now move to policy orders. There are two. Pleasure of the council. Do I still have to place it on file again? Place city manager agenda item number seven on file. Roll call.

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

Okay, policy orders, pleasure of the council. Councilor Nolan?

I don't know if this is a point of information or not. If we pass them, I just want to make sure that since they ask for a report or action, if we pass them tonight, will they automatically be forwarded to the next council? Because that would be really important. Obviously, it's the last meeting of the term, and we've already put forward which ones go to the next council, so I just want to make sure that if these do pass, that they will be forwarded.

Madam Clerk?

I'm sorry, I was getting my roll calls.

If we pass these tonight, will they automatically go, because they asked for reports back, will they automatically go to the next term?

Yes, none of these were asked to be reported back. Neither one of them asked that the city manager be in here, but is requested to report back.

Well, okay, so let me just look at the first one. So the city manager works with the government operations and civic unity committee to hold hearings to discuss new ideas. So it may not be a report back, but it's asking for future action.

Yes.

Right. And then the same with the parking. That's obviously we're going to have to get a response from the law department. in 2026. So they both are going to require future action. So I guess the question is will they automatically go If we pass them as is, will they automatically go to the next council or do we have to amend them to say, you know, carry over to the... Mr.

Chair.

Madam Mayor.

Thank you. Just a question. So if we were just to use our, if someone were to use their charter, it would be carried over anyway, and it would go to the next committee anyway, and they would be acted on anyway because we would have, voted for in the new term. Isn't that not correct? That may be a question for the clerk. Look at me.

Madam Solicitor. I can't see. I'm going to go to the Solicitor, Madam Mayor.

Madam Solicitor.

Yes, thank you. Through the Vice Mayor to the Mayor. Yes, the Charter Right would push it to the next regular meeting of the council. So that would be the new term. So I think that by operation of law, because the charter right is actually found in a state law, that that would carry something over without the council having to take any other votes to do that.

Mr. Chair, I exercise my charter right on one and two.

On one and two, okay. Mayor Simmons exercises her charter right on policy orders number one and number two. We now go to the calendar. We took care of Number one, is anyone wishing to pull anything off the table? I don't see any, I think we can just pass over these. Applications and petitions, pleasure of the council. On a motion by Mayor Simmons to move adoption, roll call.

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

We move on to communications. There are 59.

On file.

On a motion by Mayor Simmons to place on file. Roll call.

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

Yes.

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

We move on to resolutions. Councilor Toner? What, Councilor Toner? 12. Poll number 12. On the balance, making unanimous upon adoption.

Move to adoption, making them unanimous upon adoption.

Roll call.

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

Okay. Councilor Toner?

I just pulled number 12 to add Wilson to it as well.

On a motion by Councilor Toner to add Councilor Wilson as a co-sponsor to resolution number 12, roll call.

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

On the resolution making unanimous upon adoption as amended, roll call. Councilor Azeem.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. You have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Zuzi, did you have a question?

I guess a point of information. So policy orders that we passed last week, they weren't on the list of the policy orders that we were asking the city manager to continue

Let me get to that right now.

Okay, thank you.

And then we can have that question without a point of information. So, communications and reports from other city officers. There are two. I'd like to pull number one.

Let's not file number one.

No, no, no. I want to pull number one because we have to do some things. On number two, motion to place on file by Mayor Simmons. Roll call.

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

Okay. We now go back to communications and reports from other city officers. Number one, a communication was received from interim city clerk Paula M. Crane transmitting a memorandum regarding COF 2025 number 154 in council on December 8, 2025 regarding pending awaiting reports that it wished to be carried forward to the newly elected city council. for their consideration in the next legislative term. Councilor Zusy your question.

I'm seeing that some of the policy orders from last week are integrated into this, so I'm all set. Thank you.

Any other discussion on this? So I move to forward the awaiting reports that appear on the list compiled by the city clerk to the next city council and to place the report on file. Roll call.

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

On a motion by Councilor Nolan to move suspension of the rules to move reconsideration, hoping the same will not prevail. On suspension.

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

On reconsideration, roll call.

Councilor Azeem. No. Vice-Mayor McGovern? No. No. Councilor Nolan? No. No. Councilor Siddiqui? No. No. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? No. No. Councilor Toner? No. No. Councilor Wilson? No. No, Councilor Zusy.

You sound so much younger, Councilor Wilson.

Councilor Zusy? No. No, Mayor Simmons? No. No, and you have nine members recorded in the negative.

We now move, are there any late resolutions, Madam Clerk? There is one. We have to move suspension of the rules to take up late resolutions. On suspension, roll call.

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

Yes.

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

Madam Clerk, the late resolution.

There's one late resolution sponsored by Mayor Simmons that the City Council go on record honoring Christopher C.B. Brown. for 25 years of legal excellence and for his admission to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mayor Simmons, did you want to say anything?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I was very excited about this opportunity. I'm sorry I'm not bringing it earlier. It took me a while to get this information, but Attorney Brown is a Cambridge resident for over 20 years, has raised his children, child children here. extraordinary young man does a lot of good work and I was very excited for him when he got this appointment doesn't happen very often and so I just wanted to acknowledge him and congratulate him on this landmark and hallmark opportunity.

Thank you. On the late resolution, making unanimous upon adoption, roll call.

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

Wilson. Say yes, Councilor Wilson.

Councilor Wilson. Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recording the affirmative.

Madam Clerk, are there any late policy orders? There are none. Okay.

All right, announcements?

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Madam Solicitor, we may have missed something.

Thank you. And I'm just going to grab Jeff, Evan, and Franz. We realized there was a problem with the Mass Ave zoning, and we need the council to take some additional action.

Okay. Okay.

which I will try to explain.

Hold on. On suspension to go back to the Mass Ave. Suspension or unanimous consent, one or the other. Madam Clerk.

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, yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recording the affirmative.

So let's go, Madam Solicitor.

Thank you to you, Mr. Vice Mayor. There was a mistake made when the agenda got...

Since we did reconsideration, do we have to do anything else?

Let's, yeah, she'll walk us through it.

Yep, can just walk us through what happened and what I think needs to happen now. There was a mistake made when the agenda was put together that unfortunately we didn't catch until this was all happening and didn't process until we walked right out of the chamber tonight. CDD submitted stuff that got put in agenda item number seven on Cambridge Street and then they also had submitted an amended version to the Mass Ave zoning that was supposed to be Agenda item number six. And Jeff and Evan can explain more about what that amendment was, but it was just fixing some typos they had found. And what they had hoped was the council would amend by substitution for that version that fixed the typos. So the very first vote that the council took tonight was to amend by substitution.

However, the only thing that was posted with the agenda was an extra copy of the Cambridge Street petition, not that Mass Ave petition. So the vote, Okay. So... Because there's already been a vote on reconsideration, I think the council should vote to suspend its rules again to allow it to vote reconsideration again, this time hoping reconsideration passes. To then vote, and if Jeff could send the clerk the version that fixes the typo.

So then it would be a vote to amend by substitution with this version of the Mass Ave petition that fixes the typo. And then a vote... to ordain the petition as amended. And I'll turn it over to Jeff to explain or to Evan to explain what the amendment is.

And before we do that, and then once we get through this and we substitute again, ordain as amended by substitution, we then have to move reconsideration and do all that again to make it final. All right, so do you want us, Madam Clerk, to move suspension and move reconsideration before Mr. Roberts gets into the amendment so that we're... Yes, I think we should do that. I think that makes sense. So on a motion by Councilor Toner to move suspension of the rules to move reconsideration, hoping the same does prevail, so it would be a yes, so that we can bring up this new matter. So on suspension.

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

On reconsideration.

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

Yes.

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

Mr. Roberts.

Thank you for the Vice Mayor. We get to spend a little more time together this evening because in the final review of the Mass Ave Zoning Petition, We noticed that there is a section, section 17.803.2, paragraph C, In the original petition, there was a reference to Section 17.705, but it should be a reference to Section 17.805. That was the correction that we had intended to provide, but because of an error of some sort that we didn't catch right away, that communication didn't make it to council. So that is a very minor correction that we were intending to make, and that's it.

Is there any discussion on that amendment? Please, God, no. Okay, on a motion by Councilor Toner to amend by substitution, roll call.

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

To ordain as amended by substitution.

Yes.

I'll motion by Councilor Toner.

Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice-Mayor McGovern.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan. No. No. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner.

Yes.

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

On a motion by Councilor Azeem to move suspension of the rules, to move reconsideration, hoping the same will not prevail. On suspension.

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

On reconsideration, hoping the same will not prevail. Roll call.

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

No.

No. Councilor Zusy. No. No. Mayor Simmons. No. No. And you have nine members recorded in the negative.

Uh-oh. Why don't you go back and get on your mic. Give the floor to Councilor Zusy.

Yeah, excuse me. I know we all want to go home, but I think we made another little mistake on awaiting report status update. I think we lost a report. We lost 2561. No, 25, I'm sorry. We lost 2567. This was a policy order Mayor Simmons introduced to assess opportunities to improve the consistency of how meeting information is posted and accessed on the city's website, including Clear navigational paths, standardized posting practices, and improved user friendliness, and report to the council on recommended steps. That didn't make it to what we- voted on tonight, I don't think.

So, Councilor Zusy, you're saying that that was supposed to be on the list?

Yeah, it's supposed to be on the list of items to be carried over to the next year. It's the only one that wasn't, there were two that weren't included. There was one that we discussed tonight because there was a report back on Alewife, but we didn't have a report back on 2567.

According to the clerk, there was no request to put those back on. So what I would recommend is that they just refile them.

Okay. Thank you.

In the new year. Okay. Announcements. Councilor Toner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for allowing me to take a moment to make some comments. This being my last city council meeting, I want to take a moment to thank my family, friends, and supporters for allowing me to serve them on the council. I'm deeply grateful to the many friends and supporters who have reached out to me over the past year to offer me their continued encouragement, support, grace and friendship. I cannot tell you how much it means to me. I truly enjoyed serving as a City Councilor. I deeply believe in public service and serving my community. I'm proud of my record on the Council as an advocate and being responsive to both residents and businesses. As a councilor I have tried to bring a balanced and common sense perspective to the issues facing the city. What I've enjoyed most in my role as a city councilor is helping residents navigate the bureaucracy of municipal government and addressing their day-to-day concerns.

I have done my best to represent my constituents and I'm thankful that they have given me this honor and opportunity. Although we, as a council, have not always agreed on the issues or the proper course to take, I have enjoyed working with my colleagues, the city manager, and the city staff in developing policies that will shape the future of the city we all care so much about. I want to give a very special thank you to all the employees of the city, from the city manager and our department heads to our frontline service providers. You all work very hard day to day, day in and day out to meet the needs of our residents and make Cambridge a leader in so many areas. I appreciate you and I know our citizens do as well. Now that my term is complete, I wish you all well. I will continue to be active in Cambridge civic life as a private citizen. And as we see each other on the streets, please stop and say hello and we can talk more about how we can all work to make Cambridge an even better community to live in, work in, and to do business.

And I want to thank you all. Have a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year. and I want to thank the Vice Mayor for allowing me to do that at my request. Thank you.

Mr. Chair?

Mayor Simmons.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. As is always traditional commonplace is when a colleague leads service and, you know, we at least acknowledge that. And I just wanted to acknowledged Councilor Toner's service. I've known Councilor Toner since he was the head of the Cambridge Educators Association. I think it was the Cambridge Teachers Association at the time. His daughter, my daughter played hockey together. So we had that interchange as being hockey parents. I hated it. I don't think he did. I didn't like the early ice. Acknowledge his service with the Massachusetts Teachers Association where he served for a number of years with distinction then later came to the council to serve. I do want to Call Out, or at least acknowledge his willingness to really meet people where they were. And also just doing a lot of work in his community in particular, but across the city of Cambridge, trying to engage people.

We talk about engagement a lot. Engagement is something you have to practice every day, and I know he worked very hard at it. I did appreciate his thoughtfulness on a number of council petitions that we brought forward, even when we were on opposite sides. of the issue. He always was very thorough in his work and looking at the issues, came prepared to do the job. And I just want to acknowledge that and wish him well in his future endeavors. I yield the floor.

Any further announcements? Have a good holiday break, everyone, for a few days anyway. We'll be back. Some of us will be back to work next week. I hope folks take a few days off. Enjoy it. We'll be back. Nolan, former session on the 5th. And with that, on a motion by Councilor Nolan to adjourn.

Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sieniewicz, Sieniewicz, Sieniewicz, Sieniewicz,

Yes.

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

We are adjourned.