[00:00:01]
USES AND CHILDCARE USES CMMA 2025.THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS A ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS PRESENT.
COUNCILOR MCGOVERN, US TRAVEL A IS ABSENT COUNSELOR NOLAN, OR GOTTEN ABSENT? COUNCILLOR ZUI.
COULD YOU MUTE WHILE YOU'RE, UH, THANK YOU.
UM, COUNCILLOR SIMMONS, PRESENT AND NOT AUDIBLE PRESENT.
PRESENT AND AUDIBLE PRESENT, MAYOR SADIKI.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER TWO OF THE ACTS OF 2025, ADOPTED BY MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO USE REMOTE PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES.
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.
IN ADDITION TO HAVING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PARTICIPATE REMOTELY, WE HAVE ALSO SET UP ZOOM TELECONFERENCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE VISIT THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION OF THE CITY'S WEBPAGE.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOW TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK ARE POSTED THERE.
ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED SIGN UP PROCEDURE, YOU WILL RECEIVE A LINK TO THE ZOOM MEETING.
TO WATCH THE MEETING, PLEASE TUNE INTO CHANNEL 22 OR VISIT THE OPEN MEETING PORTAL ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
WITH THAT, ALL OF TODAY'S VOTES WILL BE BY ROLL CALL AUDIO IS CURRENTLY NOT WORKING THROUGH THE STREAMING SERVICE.
UH, THE VIDEO STREAM FOR THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE 22 CITY VIEW PAGE, CAMBRIDGE MA.GOV/DEPARTMENT/ 22 CITY VIEW.
UM, SO FOR THE ORDER OF TODAY'S MEETING, WE'RE GONNA FIRST HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM CITY STAFF, AND THEN WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN WE WILL GO TO QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS FROM CITY COUNSELORS.
WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO CITY STAFF.
I'M EXCITED TO BE HERE TO TODAY TO PRESENT, UM, UPDATES TO, UH, THE INSTITUTIONAL USE ZONING.
AS A REMINDER, THIS IS REALLY TO GET US INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW.
SO WHEN WE CHANGED MULTIFAMILY ZONING LAST YEAR, WE ELIMINATED, UM, MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR DWELLING UNIT AS A, A DENSITY RESTRICTION.
AND THAT WAS THE, UM, HOOK THAT ALLOWED US TO FOLLOW AN EXEMPTION FOR THE DOVER AMENDMENT.
AND NOW THAT THAT NO LONGER APPLIES, WE WANNA JUST MAKE CLEAN UP THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAKE SURE WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE.
SO JEFF WILL WALK US THROUGH THAT PRESENTATION AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, JEFF ROBERTS, DIRECTOR OF ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CDD, AND I THINK WE'LL BE JOINED BY MEGAN BAYER, THE CITY SOLICITOR SHORTLY.
UM, I HOPE MY VOICE HOLDS UP THROUGH THIS.
I'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH SOME, A LITTLE BIT OF THROAT ISSUES FOR THE PAST COUPLE WEEKS, BUT, UM, THIS IS CITY COUNCIL ZONING PETITION.
WE, WE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH, UM, OH, AND BY THE WAY, THIS, UM, HAPPY TO BE AT THE FIRST ORDINANCE COMMITTEE OR MY FIRST ORDINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE, THE NEW TERM.
SO, UM, AND TO THOSE COUNCILORS I HAVEN'T MET.
WE HAVE, UM, OH, LOST MY SCREEN FOR A SECOND.
UM, THIS IS CITY COUNCIL ZONING PETITION.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A BIT IN THE LAST TERM, UM, WITH A COUNSELOR.
SO SOME OF THIS WILL BE FAMILIAR WITH YOU.
I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA WALK THROUGH ALL OF THIS, UM, UH, IN DETAIL JUST, UH, FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN PART OF IT.
AND AS A REFRESHER, UM, THIS IS A SPECIFIC ISSUE AS, AS MELISSA MENTIONED, WHERE THE CAMBRIDGE ZONING ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE ALIGNED WITH STATE LAW.
UM, SO THE, UH, BACKGROUND OF ALL OF THIS, UH, THIS HAS TO DO WITH, UM, SOMETHING WHICH IN OUR ZONING WE CALL INSTITUTIONAL USES.
UH, INSTITUTIONAL USES, UM, GENERALLY REFER TO USES THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL, OR AT LEAST NOT PRINCIPALLY RESIDENTIAL, BUT ALSO NON-COMMERCIAL IN NATURE.
UM, THIS PETITION ONLY FOCUSES ON A FEW TYPES OF INSTITUTIONAL USES, BUT THERE'S A, A WIDE RANGE OF USES THAT ARE ALL, UH, REGULATED WITHIN OUR INSTITUTIONAL USE SONY CATEGORY.
UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT, THAT GETS REFERRED TO AS THE DOVER AMENDMENT.
UM, IF YOU LOOK, IF YOU LOOK IN THE STATE STATUTES FOR DOVER AMENDMENT, YOU WON'T FIND IT.
UM, IT, THAT'S A, A TERM THAT DATES BACK TO I THINK THE 1950S.
UM, IT, IT'S ACTUALLY A, A SECTION OF THE STATE ZONING, UH, LAW, UM, WHICH WE KNOW IS CHAPTER 40 A.
SECTION THREE SAYS, ESSENTIALLY WHAT KINDS OF USES CAN AND CAN'T BE REGULATED THROUGH ZONING AND, AND WHAT THE, UM, WHAT
[00:05:01]
THE LIMITATIONS ARE ON WHAT CITIES AND TOWNS CAN DO.UM, AMONG THE USES THAT CITIES AND TOWNS CAN'T REGULATE THROUGH ZONING ARE RELIGIOUS USES AND EDUCATIONAL USES, UH, SPECIFICALLY IF THEY'RE OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS, PUBLIC OR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.
UM, IN ADDITION, AND THIS IS ALSO IN, IN SECTION THREE, CITIES AND TOWNS CAN'T PROHIBIT OR REQUIRE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CHILDCARE FACILITIES, UM, AS OF 2024.
UM, THIS ALSO APPLIES TO CHILDCARE HOMES, WHICH IS THE, THE STATE LAW WAY OF REFERRING TO HOME-BASED CHILDCARE.
SO A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE THE, A PERSON WHO LIVES THERE OPERATES A, A CHILDCARE SERVICE.
AND WHILE CITIES AND TOWNS CAN'T PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT THESE USES, STATE LAW SAYS THAT CITIES AND TOWNS CAN IMPOSE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS ON BUILDINGS AND LOTS JUST LIKE WE DO FOR OTHER USES.
THE STANDARDS HAVE TO BE REASONABLE.
YOU CAN'T HAVE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT SERVE AS A DEFACTO PROHIBITION ON THE USE.
UM, AND, AND THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, THERE'S ALWAYS A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN CASE LAW ABOUT, UH, WHAT CONSTITUTES, UH, REASONABLE OR NOT.
SO IN SOME, THESE ARE USES THAT YOU CAN'T PROHIBIT THROUGH ZONING, BUT YOU CAN REASONABLY REGULATE THEIR, UH, HEIGHT, BULK, AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS.
UM, I SHOULD NOTE HERE, BECAUSE WE, IT, IT'S COME UP IN IN SOME DISCUSSION, THIS STATE LAW IS DISTINCT FROM THE FEDERAL, UM, RUPPA LAW, WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT A BIT LAST YEAR, UM, THAT ONLY DEALS WITH RELIGIOUS USES.
AND IT, IT'S A FEDERAL LAW AND IT HAS SOME DIFFERENCES IN, IN PER, IN HOW, UH, THOSE REGULATIONS WORK AND EXACTLY WHAT'S RESTRICTED.
WE'RE NOT GONNA BE GETTING INTO RUPPA AS A PART OF THIS.
THIS IS REALLY FOCUSED ON THE, THE STATE, UM, ZONING LAW.
UH, HERE'S WHERE IT STARTS TO GET A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED.
UH, AND AS WE FOCUS ON CAMBRIDGE IN THE LATE SEVENTIES, CAMBRIDGE PETITIONED THE STATE FOR SPECIAL LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO REGULATE RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL USES IN WAYS THAT GENERALLY ARE NOT ALLOWED.
THIS CAME ABOUT AT A TIME WHEN THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF COMMUNITY CONCERN ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL EXPANSION, PARTICULARLY BY UNIVERSITIES IN THE CITY.
AND THIS SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION CAME WITH A CAVEAT THAT THESE ARE USES THAT CAN ONLY BE RESTRICTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAT PERMIT A LOWER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.
AND THAT DENSITY IS, IS BASED ON, UH, WHAT WE CALL THE LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, UH, REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A WAY OF LIMITING THE NUMBER OF, OF DWELLING UNITS YOU CAN HAVE ON A, A LOT.
UM, AS A SIDE NOTE, UH, THIS ORIGINAL LEGISLATION IN 1979 EXEMPTED OR, OR CARVED OUT HARVARD, UM, BASICALLY SAYING THAT THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO, TO HARVARD.
AND THEN A YEAR LATER IN 1980, ANOTHER, UH, PETITION AND THE LEGISLATION WAS CHANGED SO THAT HARVARD WAS INCLUDED, UM, IN THESE, UH, REGULATIONS.
SO, SO THIS WAS A, A LAW THAT APPLIED, YOU KNOW, BROADLY TO ALL RELIGIOUS AND, AND EDUCATIONAL USES.
UM, SO, UH, HERE'S WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS NOW.
UM, FROM 1980 TO 2025, WE HAD A NUMBER OF ZONING DISTRICTS THAT HAD THOSE LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTED THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ENOUGH THAT RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL USES COULD ALSO BE RESTRICTED.
UM, WHEN THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 2025, IT REDUCED, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS IT DID WAS IT, IT TOOK ALL OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD THAT LOWER DENSITY LIMITATION AND REZONED THEM ALL TO A SINGLE, UH, DISTRICT RESIDENCY ONE.
AND MOREOVER, THAT, UH, ZONING AMENDMENT REMOVED ALL OF THE LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
AND THIS WAS SOMETHING WE, WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE TIME.
UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE, THE CONSEQUENCE OF REMOVING THE LOT AREA PER DWELLING, UNIT REQUIREMENT.
UM, BUT ULTIMATELY THIS, THIS CHANGE WAS ADOPTED.
UM, ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS OF THE ZONING WAS TO REMOVE RESTRICTIONS LIKE LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, WHICH TEND TO LEAD TO INEQUITABLE ZONING ACROSS THE CITY.
SO THIS WAS PART OF THE EQUITY, UM, UH, GOAL OF, OF, UM, OF THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING.
UM, THE INSTITUTIONAL USE REGULATIONS THEMSELVES WERE NOT CHANGED AT THE TIME, BUT WE DID POINT OUT THAT BECAUSE CHANGING THAT LOTTERY FOR DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENT WOULD MAKE THE,
[00:10:01]
THE STATE, UH, PROVISION NO LONGER APPLY, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND ADDRESS THE INSTITUTIONAL USE REGULATIONS.AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
SO LET'S, UH, TALK QUICKLY ABOUT WHAT THIS PETITION DOES.
UM, THE PURPOSE AGAIN, IS TO ALIGN, UH, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE WITH THE CURRENT, UH, WITH THE STATE LAW AND HOW IT CURRENTLY APPLIES, UM, WITHIN THE CITY.
UM, IN ORDER FOR OUR ZONING OR ORDINANCE TO BE CONSISTENT, WE NEED TO MAKE RELIGIOUS USES EDUCATIONAL USES OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS, PUBLIC OR NONPROFIT ENTITY.
AND CHILDCARE USES ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND, UH, TO DO THAT, UH, THE PROPOSAL IS TO AMEND OUR INSTITUTIONAL USE ZONING.
UM, SO WE'LL NEED TO TALK FOR A SECOND ABOUT HOW OUR INSTITUTIONAL USE ZONING WORKS.
'CAUSE THAT, THAT'S ANOTHER, A BIT OF OUR ZONING, WHICH IS A LITTLE COMPLICATED.
UM, IT'S KIND OF LIKE TYPICAL ZONING WHERE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS AND THEN YOU HAVE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN SOME DISTRICTS NOT ALLOWED IN OTHER DISTRICTS, BUT THERE'S A FEW ADDITIONAL LAYERS TO IT.
UM, IF YOU WANT TO DETERMINE IF AN INSTITUTIONAL USE IS ALLOWED, EITHER AS OF RIGHT OR BY SPECIAL PERMIT OR PROHIBITED, THERE'S A FEW QUESTIONS YOU HAVE TO ANSWER.
UM, THE FIRST IS WHETHER IT'S WITHIN A RESIDENCY ONE DISTRICT OR NOT.
IF IT'S NOT IN RESIDENCY ONE, THE NORMAL BASE ZONING APPLIES.
UM, IF IT IS IN RESIDENCY ONE, YOU FIRST NEED TO DETERMINE IF IT'S INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF AN INSTITUTIONAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A SECOND.
AND THEN THE THIRD IS YOU NEED TO DETERMINE IF THE EXISTING USE ON THAT SITE IS RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL OR NEITHER.
AND THERE'S A SPECIAL USE TABLE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH I'LL SHOW IN A SECOND, WHICH USES ALL THOSE DIFFERENT FACTORS TO, TO THEN GIVE YOU A TABLE OF, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SORT OF THE TYPICAL YES NO TABLE THAT, THAT TELLS YOU WHETHER SOMETHING'S ALLOWED OR NOT.
UM, I TALK ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
THIS IS, UH, A MAP, THIS, THIS, THESE WERE THE INSTITUTIONAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICTS AS THEY WERE ADOPTED IN 1980.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME.
UM, YOU CAN SEE MOSTLY THOSE, THOSE OVERLAY DISTRICTS COVER UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES.
UM, THERE ARE SOME, UH, PRIVATE K 12 SCHOOLS LIKE THE MATTING YOUNG, WHICH IS NOW A DIFFERENT SCHOOL, BUT THAT'S STILL THE NAME OF THE DISTRICT.
AND THEN SHADY HILL, BB AND N.
THERE'S, UM, SOME AREAS, UH, LIKE THE CAMBRIDGE, WHAT'S CALLED THE CAMBRIDGE STREET HEALTH CENTER, THAT'S NOW THE, THE SPALDING, UM, HOSPITAL, UM, AND MOUNT AUBURN HOSPITAL ARE SOME OTHER AREAS THAT HAVE THEIR OWN, UM, DISTRICTS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED.
UH, AREAS THAT ARE IN, SO EITHER IN SOLID BLUE, UM, ON THIS MAP OR IN WHITE ARE AREAS THAT PREVIOUSLY WERE, UM, NOT, UH, AREAS WHERE BASICALLY AREAS WHERE INSTITUTIONAL USES WERE GENERALLY ALLOWED.
SO THOSE WERE AREAS WHERE THE CAMBRIDGE'S EXEMPTION FROM, UH, THE, UH, DOVER AMENDMENT DID NOT APPLY, UH, BEFORE.
THE AREAS WHERE THE INSTITUTIONAL USE REGULATIONS ARE REALLY RELEVANT ARE THOSE HATCHED AREAS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREAS WHERE IT'S, IT'S YELLOW, WHICH IS A RESIDENCY ONE DISTRICT, BUT WHERE THERE'S A BLUE OUTLINE AND A HATCH WITHIN IT, THOSE ARE AREAS WHERE IT'S BOTH WITHIN AN INSTITUTIONAL USE OVERLAY AND, UM, A RESIDENCY ONE DISTRICT.
UM, SO THEN YOU GO TO THE TABLE, UM, THIS IS CURRENTLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE FOR RELIGIOUS USES.
IN GENERAL, ZONING TENDS TO BE MORE PERMISSIVE INSIDE THE INSTITUTIONAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT THAN OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT.
AND IT ALSO TENDS TO BE MORE PERMISSIVE WHERE THE EXISTING USE IS INSTITUTIONAL, OR AT LEAST NON-RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE IF THE EXISTING USE IS RESIDENTIAL.
SO YOU GO THROUGH THAT TEST THAT I MENTIONED, AND YOU CAN, YOU CAN SEE WHETHER SOMETHING IS ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED OR NEEDS A SPECIAL PERMIT.
SO THIS IS WHAT THE CURRENT, UM, ZONING IS FOR RELIGIOUS USES.
AND THEN THE PROPOSED ZONING AS MENTIONED BASED ON THE, UM, THE DOVER AMENDMENT, UM, WOULD MAKE ALL OF THE RELIGIOUS USES ALLOWED AS OF RIGHT IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO IT'S A SIMPLE CHANGE WHEREVER IT'S NOT ALLOWED AS OF RIGHT TO MAKE IT ALLOWED.
THIS IS THE SECTION FOR EDUCATIONAL USES.
UM, CURRENTLY OUR ZONING PUTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN ONE CATEGORY.
THE, THE ROW THAT STARTS WITH B, UM, IS PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
[00:15:01]
IS ANYTHING THAT'S PRIVATE, INCLUDING, UM, NONPROFIT.SO, SO, UH, A CURRENT ZONING, RIGHT, YOU KNOW, ALLOWS PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL USES EVERYWHERE.
BUT, UM, PRIVATE, INCLUDING NONPROFIT ARE, ARE REGULATED DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF USE.
AND THIS ISN'T THE WHOLE TABLE, IF YOU KEEP GOING FURTHER DOWN IT, IT LISTS OUT ALL THE DIFFERENT, UM, TYPES OF USE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, K 12, UH, PRIMARY SCHOOL, SECONDARY SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE, ALL OF THAT.
UM, WHAT THE SIMPLEST WAY THAT WE FOUND TO MAKE THIS SECTION CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW IS JUST TO CHANGE B.
SO THAT WHERE WE ALLOW ALL USE, UH, ALL OF THE, THOSE PUBLIC RELIGIOUS USE, PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL USES, AS OF RIGHT, THIS WOULD CHANGE SO THAT, UM, PUBLIC, RELIGIOUS AND NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL USES ARE ALL WITHIN THAT SAME LINE.
SO THIS, THIS JUST MAKES EVERYTHING WITHIN B INCLUSIVE OF ALL OF THE USES THAT ARE COVERED BY, UM, BY STATE LAW AS, AS USES THAT, THAT HAVE TO BE ALLOWED.
AND THEN FINALLY, WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF, UH, PRIVATE, SO, SO C THEN BECOMES ONLY PRIVATE, NOT, UH, FOR-PROFIT, UM, EDUCATIONAL USES.
AND THE FINAL CHANGE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHILDCARE PROVISIONS IS TO MAKE CHILDCARE CENTERS ALLOWED.
AND IN, IN ALL DISTRICTS, AND IN, IN THIS CASE, WE'VE CHANGED THE, THE LINE ITEM FOR CHILDCARE JUST TO MAKE THE WORDING CONSISTENT WITH THE WORDING IN STATE LAW, WHICH, WHICH DEFINES CHILDCARE CENTERS AND FAMILY CHILDCARE HOME AND, OR, SORRY, CHILDCARE HOMES.
SO A COUPLE KEY THINGS TO NOTE HERE ARE THAT, UM, FIRST OF ALL, ALL OF THE OTHER INSTITUTIONAL USES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, SO PRIVATE EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, NON-COMMERCIAL RESEARCH, ALL OF THOSE USES ARE ALL THE SAME.
THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THOSE IN OUR INSTITUTIONAL USE.
SO THOSE STILL FOLLOW THE, THE RULES THAT I WAS MENTIONING BEFORE ABOUT HAVING TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY'RE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF AN INSTITUTIONAL USE DISTRICT.
UM, THERE'S ALSO NO CHANGE TO THE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS.
UM, SO IF YOU RECALL, MULTIFAMILY ZONING AMENDMENT DIDN'T CHANGE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, MOSTLY THOSE ARE STILL SUBJECT TO, TO FAR LIMITS AND, AND LOWER HEIGHT, UM, REQUIREMENTS, UH, WITH, WITH AN EXCEPTION WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A SEC.
UM, THIS IS A CHANGE THAT IS BEING MADE LARGELY FOR TECHNICAL AND LEGAL REASONS.
UM, BUT WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO, AND WE DID TALK WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ABOUT, UM, HOW THIS RELATES TO OUR PLANNING.
SO IT, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO REFLECT ON THAT.
UM, THE MAIN GIST OF OUR, OUR PLANNING OBJECTIVES FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES, WHICH, WHICH FOCUSES PRIMARILY ON, UM, THOSE HIGHER EDUCATION USES BECAUSE THERE'S SUCH A, A PROMINENT, YOU KNOW, LAND USE WITHIN CAMBRIDGE IS, UM, TO, UH, ALLOW FOR GROWTH, BUT TO, UH, GROW PRIMARILY WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL CORE CAMPUSES OF THOSE AREAS OR ADJACENT MIXED USE AREAS.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN A FAIRLY CONSISTENT, UM, GROWTH POLICY OVER MANY DECADES.
YOU CAN, IT'S, IT'S IN ENVISION CAMBRIDGE, BUT YOU CAN TRACK IT BACK THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF, OF PLANNING AND DOC, UH, PLANNING DOCUMENTS.
THIS IS A, A MAP THAT WE SHOWED WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST YEAR, AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS HELPFUL TO KIND OF GROUND OUR OURSELVES IN THIS A LITTLE BIT.
THIS IS A LAND USE MAP, SO IT SHOWS CURRENT LAND USES THE, THE DIFFERENT COLORS THROUGHOUT THE CITY SHOWS WITH THE, THE CURRENT LAND USES.
AND, AND THIS IS JUST, UH, IN THOSE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF THOSE INSTITUTIONAL USE.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE, YOU KNOW, THE EDUCATIONAL USES ARE THE ONES THAT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF TAKE UP THE BULK OF THE, THE SORT OF THESE LARGE CAMPUS AREAS.
THEY'RE FAIRLY CONSISTENT WITH OUR, OUR INSTITUTIONAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
UM, YOU KNOW, TO A LESSER EXTENT THERE ARE THESE, YOU KNOW, HOSPITAL CAMPUSES IN, IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY.
AND THEN THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER INSTITUTIONAL USES THAT ARE MUCH MORE DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF RELIGIOUS USES.
THERE ARE, THERE AREN'T VERY MANY, YOU KNOW, LARGE RELIGIOUS CAMPUSES IN, IN THE CITY.
IT'S ALL FAIRLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, AND THEN SIMILARLY FOR, YOU KNOW, CHARITABLE USES, SO COMMUNITY CENTERS, SOCIAL SERVICE CENTERS, YOU TEND TO SEE THOSE MORE, A LITTLE BIT MORE DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
UM, THIS IS A MAP THAT WE WERE ASKED TO SHOW THE LAST TIME.
THIS IS THE UPDATED, AND, AND WE JUST HAD THE TOWN GOWN, UM, DISCUSSION WITH THE, UH, PLANNING BOARD LAST WEEK.
BUT THIS IS THE UPDATED MAP OF, UH, UNIVERSITY OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE CITY.
SO, UM, JUST IN, IN THINKING ABOUT HOW WE, WE LOOK AT DIFFERENT USE, DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONAL USES IN TERMS OF OUR PLANNING, RELIGIOUS USES, UM, ARE A BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY'RE PROTECTED BOTH BY THE DOVER AMENDMENT AND THE FEDERAL
[00:20:01]
LUPA LAW.WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT LAST YEAR, AND, AND THOSE DISCUSSIONS LED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE MARISA, UH, ZONING AMENDMENT, WHICH RELAXED DIMENSIONAL REG REGULATIONS FOR RELIGIOUS USES, SIMILAR TO HOW THEY HAD BEEN CHANGED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING.
UH, UNIVERSITIES, UH, ARE A LOT OF THE FOCUS OF OUR INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING.
UM, THERE ARE PLANNING TOPICS THAT COME UP PRETTY FREQUENTLY IN, IN THE TOWN GOWN DISCUSSIONS, INCLUDING IN LAST WEEKS.
UM, THERE ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CORE, YOU KNOW, ISSUES, I THINK WHEN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR INSTITUTIONAL USE REGULATIONS IS, IS THE ISSUE OF OUR, UM, UH, TAXABLE PROPERTY BASE AND, AND HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, LAND IS THERE TO SUPPORT, UM, THE CITY'S, UM, THE CITY'S PROPERTY TAX.
UM, THERE ARE ALSO LOTS OF OTHER EDUCATIONAL USES THAT WE DON'T, WE DON'T OFTEN TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE PRIVATE K 12 SCHOOLS, WHICH ARE REGULATED BY, UM, OUR, OUR INSTITUTIONAL USE, UH, DISTRICTS.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO OTHER NON-TRADITIONAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THINGS LIKE THE CAMBRIDGE CENTER FOR ADULT EDUCATION, UM, WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ZONING IS RELEVANT TO THOSE KINDS OF USES TOO.
UM, THE PLANNING BOARD DID HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION, UM, BOTH WHEN THEY TALKED ABOUT THIS AND WHEN THEY TALKED IN THE TOWN GOWN REPORT ABOUT, UM, THINKING ABOUT FUTURE, UH, PLANNING FOR, FOR UNIVERSITIES, WHICH COULD INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME ADDITIONAL LOOK AT OUR ZONING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S WAYS TO SUPPORT OUR PLANNING GOALS.
IT COULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE NEED TO, TO TALK ABOUT WITH COUNCIL.
UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALL THESE OTHER USES THAT WE REGULATE UNDER OUR INSTITUTIONAL USE REGULATIONS.
AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT BEING CHANGED AS PART OF THIS PETITION.
UM, BUT THERE IS, THERE ARE SOME, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS WE MIGHT WANNA ASK OURSELVES ABOUT.
YOU KNOW, DO WE THINK THAT THIS MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL USE OVERLAYS AND, UM, AND, UH, TRYING TO, TRYING TO SORT OF CONCENTRATE USES WITHIN, WITHIN PARTICULAR AREAS.
DOES, DOES THAT POLICY REALLY WORK? DOES THAT SERVE OUR CURRENT GOALS FOR SOME OF THESE, THESE OTHER TYPES OF USES? UM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, WE MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT, ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS PETITION.
UM, THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, SUBMITTED A RECOMMENDATION.
THE COUNCIL GOT THAT REPORT LAST NIGHT.
YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, REITERATING THE POINT THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, THAT THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY.
IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO, FOR EXAMPLE, OPEN A CHILDCARE CENTER, WE DON'T WANNA BE TELLING THEM, WELL, OUR ZONING SAYS THIS THING, AND THEN THE STATE LAW SAYS ANOTHER THING.
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF, A LOT OF, WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD THAT EXPERIENCE WHERE CHILDCARE OPERATORS ARE MAYBE NOT, NOT THE PEOPLE THAT WE SHOULD BE PUTTING IN THE POSITION OF TRYING TO INTERPRET THESE, THESE LEGAL ISSUES.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THE PLANNING BOARD NOTED IS THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE LEG DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE STATE LEGISLATION IS STILL THERE AND ON THE BOOKS.
AND IF THERE WERE A CONCERN AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT, RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S NOT A, UM, STRONG TREND TOWARDS INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH AND EXPANSION, UM, CURRENTLY, BUT IF SOMETHING WERE TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE AND, AND THE CITY WERE TO NEED TO USE THOSE TOOLS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ZONING COULD BE AMENDED AGAIN TO, UM, TO MAKE THAT, THAT LEGISLATION APPLICABLE IN, IN WHATEVER WAY WAS NECESSARY AT THE TIME.
IT'S HARD TO PREDICT EXACTLY HOW THE COUNCIL MIGHT WANT TO USE THAT IN THE FUTURE, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S STILL THERE.
UM, THEY DID RAISE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CLARIFICATIONS.
THOSE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE, WE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION.
AND WE'RE, WE'RE ACTUALLY, WE, WE SORT OF UNDERSTAND THE POINT THAT SOME OF THIS IS COMPLICATED, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE THAT THERE'S AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD NECESSARILY MAKE IT MORE CLEAR.
UM, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT MORE, UM, IF YOU LIKE, BUT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DID LOOK AT THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING ANY, ANY CHANGES.
UM, ALTHOUGH WE DID TAKE A SECOND LOOK.
AND THEN THE FINAL POINT, UM, AS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLANNING BOARD NOTED THAT IT, IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO ENGAGE IN SOME DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, WITH INSTITUTIONS, UM, WITHIN THE CITY TO FIGURE OUT, WELL, WHAT IS OUR, WHAT ARE OUR CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING GOALS, AND HOW ARE OUR ZONING STRATEGIES ALIGNED WITH THOSE GOALS? OR HOW CAN THEY BE BETTER ALIGNED WITH THOSE GOALS? SO THAT'S, UH, THAT'S IT FOR THIS.
I'M, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
UM, WE'LL GO NOW TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
OUR FIRST, OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS MARYLEE MEYER.
[00:25:01]
AND THAT IS ALL WHO SIGNED UP.WE WILL GO NOW, UH, TO QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION FROM CITY COUNSELORS.
UM, SO THE, UM, I KNOW THIS, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE CITY PURSUING ADDITIONAL, UM, REGULATIONS AROUND INSTITUTIONAL EXPANSION, EITHER AS A, YOU KNOW, NEW EXEMPTION FROM THE, THE DOVER AMENDMENT OR, OR SOMETHING ELSE.
CAN CITY STAFF TALK ABOUT WHERE THAT IS AT IN THE PROCESS? AND IF, UM, ANYTHING ELSE IS NEEDED FROM THE, THE COUNCIL TO DRAFT UP THAT, UM, PETITION TO THE LEGISLATURE? DO WE NEED A, A POLICY ORDER OR SOMETHING? IS THAT ALREADY MOVING? UM, IF YOU COULD GIVE A REFRESH OF WHERE THAT IS IN THE PROCESS, UH, TO YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UM, SO I, MY RECOLLECTION IS THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW DO WE WANT TO, UH, REGULATE INSTITUTIONAL USES BEYOND JUST THESE, UM, YOU KNOW, SORT OF FIXES THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, BUT THAT THERE HASN'T REALLY BEEN DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL YET ON WHETHER WE WANNA SEE THESE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOVER AMENDMENT APPLY AGAIN IN CAMBRIDGE.
AND IF SO, DO WE WANNA DO THAT BY CHANGING LOT DIMENSIONS TO REQUIRE THE 1200, UM, SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT? AGAIN, DO WE WANNA DO THAT BY A NEW HOME RULE PETITION, ASKING FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF EXEMPTION FROM STATE LAW? UM, AND SO, UNLESS, UH, JEFF OR MELISSA, UM, ARE AWARE OF SOMETHING THAT I'M MISSING, I THINK WE WOULD NEED A POLICY ORDER FROM THE COUNCIL.
IF, IF THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS SAYING, WE WANT NEW A, YOU KNOW, A NEW HOME RULE PETITION TO SEEK SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO HAVE AN EXEMPTION AND WHAT YOU WANT THAT EXEMPTION TO LOOK LIKE.
UH, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THAT THRESHOLD OF MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT, IT COULD BE BASED ON A A AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT.
IT WILL HAVE TO BE BASED ON SOME OTHER TYPE OF DIMENSIONAL THRESHOLD.
AND WE NEED GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT THE COUNCIL WOULD WANT FOR THAT, OR, OR IF THE COUNCIL WANTS STAFF TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
AND JUST, UM, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THERE, IF FOLKS KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, 'CAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHEN THE, THE EXEMPTION TO THE DOVER AMENDMENT WAS ORIGINALLY PASSED, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHY IT WAS TIED TO MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE FIRST PLACE AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING ELSE.
WAS THERE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AT THE TIME THE COUNCIL ADOPTED IT, OR, UH, JUST IS A STRANGE WAY TO, TO HAVE TIED THE EXEMPTION? I'M CURIOUS WHAT LED TO THAT, UM, TO YOU, MR. CHAIR? I, I BELIEVE JEFF TOUCHED ON IT, IT'S LIKE 19 79, 19 80, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHY.
TIED TO MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT.
UH, THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION HAD A FEW ARTICLES THAT HAD BEEN IN THE PAPER FROM THE TIME.
I'M NOT REMEMBERING IF THEY SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT WHY THAT WAS THE THRESHOLD USED.
TO THE CHAIR, I, I SIMILARLY, I, I WASN'T ABLE TO FIND ANYTHING THAT EXPLAINS EXACTLY WHAT THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS.
I MEAN, IT, IT COULD HAVE JUST BEEN A CONVENIENT WAY TO KIND OF CREATE A CATEGORY OF, OF ZONING DISTRICTS BECAUSE IT, THE, THE 1200 SQUARE FEET AT THE TIME WAS THE, UM, THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT IN RESIDENCY ONE, ONE, AND THERE, AND THEN OTHER DISTRICTS, LIKE THE RESIDENT B AND THE RESIDENT, A DISTRICTS HAD EVEN HIGHER, UM, LOTTERY FOR DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS.
SO IT MIGHT HAVE JUST BEEN LOOKING AT THE LIST OF DISTRICTS AND SAYING, THIS IS THE DISTRICT, THESE ARE THE SET OF DISTRICTS WE WANNA DO AND WE WANNA DRAW THE LINE.
BUT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN MORE TO THAT DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, AND THEN, AND OF COURSE, PART OF THE, PART OF THE COMPLICATION, BOTH WITH THAT, AND, UH, AND WE COULD TRY TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH IF WE COULD.
UM, BUT PART OF THE, THE DIFF THE ISSUE WITH THAT AND WITH ANY KIND OF NEW LEGISLATION WOULD BE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WELL, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE RATIONALE? YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY WE WOULD PICK CERTAIN DISTRICTS TO, TO, TO SORT OF MAKE THE CASE THAT THOSE SHOULD BE EXCEPTIONS TO THE, TO THE GENERAL RULE.
I HAVE A COUPLE OTHER COMMENTS, BUT I SEE, UM, COUNCILOR ZE AND COUNCILOR
UM, WELL, I GUESS, UH, I WASN'T SURE HOW MUCH THE DISCUSSION THERE WAS GOING TO BE.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT IT SEEMED RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD, WHERE LEGALLY WE HAVE TO PASS THIS, AND I THINK THAT THERE'S LOTS OF CONVERSATION ABOUT ALL THE WORK THAT WE WANNA DO THIS TERM.
SO I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO FORWARD THIS TO THE, THE FULL CITY COUNCIL.
UM, BUT IF OTHER COLLEAGUES HAVE STUFF, WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GET THERE.
UH, COUNCILLOR
I THINK THOUGH, THAT, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE AND WHY WE NEED TO DO THIS, I THINK THE, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON COUNSELOR, UM,
[00:30:01]
SABRINA WHEELER'S QUESTION, YOU KNOW, THE, I THINK THERE'S ADVOCATES WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE, UH, YOU KNOW, EXPANSION INTO RESIDENTIAL, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS.AND SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY, THERE'S AN ASK TO SAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WANT TO ALIGN WITH WHAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE 2019 AND, AND VISION GOALS SAID, WHICH WERE, UH, THE, IT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY OCCUPIED.
WE HAVE THE MAP, WE KINDA KNOW WHERE IT'S HISTORICALLY BEEN.
WE HAVE THESE TAN GOWN REPORTS, WE HEAR FROM THEM EVERY, YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR.
I THINK THEY'RE HAPPENING SOON.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE HAPPENED YET IN FEBRUARY.
BUT, UM, I THINK MY QUESTION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, HOW ARE WE, WHAT IS, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON, ON THAT KIND OF, THAT CRUX OF SHOULD, IS THIS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT? UM, OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON, YOU KNOW, BASED ON TRENDS AND WHERE WE ARE IN THE MAP, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE A CONCERN.
I MEAN, I'M JUST REALLY CURIOUS ON, AS YOU'RE THE PLANNERS AND, UH, WHAT YOU'VE, WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU THINK COULD HAPPEN AS WE GO BEYOND, JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING THINGS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAD TO DO THAT GIVEN WHAT OUR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, UM, ORDINANCE DID.
UH, BUT THESE ARE SOME OF THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, SO IT'S A BROAD QUESTION.
SO WHATEVER YOU CAN ANSWER, I'M, I'M CURIOUS.
THANK YOU MAYOR SADIKI THROUGH YOU CHAIR.
UM, LAST TERM, WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS AT COMMITTEE, UH, WE HAD REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE UNIVERSITIES, HARVARD, MIT, AND LESLIE.
UM, AND THEY KIND OF INDICATED THEIR, UM, PLANS, UM, IN TERMS OF, UM, WHY THEY DIDN'T SEE THIS AS A, A RISK.
AND I THINK THEY OUTLINED THAT, YOU KNOW, AND I CAN ATTEST TO THEM BEING GOOD PARTNERS AND COLLABORATING WITH THE CITY.
UM, UM, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE, YOU KNOW, VERY MATURE CAMPUSES AT THIS POINT.
UH, 1979 WAS A VERY DIFFERENT TIME IN TERMS OF THEIR INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH.
AND, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST MOSTLY FOR HARVARD, MOST OF THEIR GROWTH IS HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY.
UM, AND, AND YOU MIGHT RECALL SARAH GALLUP AT MIT RESPONDING, THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE GONE THROUGH, UM, THE CITY STAFF AND PLANNING BOARD AND THE RIGHT CHANNELS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY PROCESS, UM, IS RESPECTED AND THEN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR GOALS ARE.
AND SO, UM, I DON'T THINK WE SEE THIS AS A, A RISK.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT, THE, THE DOVER EXEMPTION NO LONGER APPLIES.
THERE, THERE COULD BE THAT CONCERN.
UM, BUT IT, I DON'T SEE IT AS A BIG PRIORITY.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THE COUNCIL CAN DISCUSS IF WE WANTED TO CHANGE THE DOVER EXEMPTION TO HAVE A NEW HOOK THAT, UH, RELATES TO OUR NEW ZONING REGIME.
BUT I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY A LOWER PRIORITY, AND I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS IT AS PART OF HOW WE SEE ALL OF OUR OTHER ZONING PRIORITIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS TERM.
I THINK I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT MEETING, SO THAT WAS A GOOD REFRESHER.
UM, HI, IS, UH, COUNCILLOR ZUI.
UM, I WILL SUPPORT, UH, THIS ZONING, UM, ALIGNMENT OF, SEEMS LIKE WE NEED TO ADVANCE IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS, UM, OUR LONG-TERM PLANNING WITH UNIVERSITIES FURTHER AT AN, AT AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE, UH, RELATIONS COMMITTEE.
UM, WHAT I'VE HEARD, AND WHAT I'VE READ IN THE 1981 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, IN ANOTHER INSTITUTIONAL USE STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN 1991, SO WITH, THERE WERE STUDIES DONE IN 81 AND 91, IS THAT WE REALLY, IT'S ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT THE CITY CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OUR UNIVERSITIES, UM, AND TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE, UM, NOT JUST THE PLANS FOR THE COMING YEAR, WHICH ARE SHARED AT THE TOWN GOWN MEETINGS, BUT ALSO THEIR LONG-TERM PLANS FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS AND GOING FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN REALLY BE IN SYNC.
UM, AT THAT MEETING THAT WE HAD WHERE, UM, MIT AND LESLIE WERE PRESENT ACTUALLY WAS, I THINK TOM LUCY WAS THERE TOO, UM, THEY TALKED ABOUT THE NEED ALSO TO REALLY TALK ABOUT HOUSING, BECAUSE I THINK WE KEEP DEMANDING
[00:35:01]
THAT THE UNIVERSITIES CREATE MORE HOUSING, ESPECIALLY FOR THEIR GRADUATE STUDENTS, AND THEN WE MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DEVELOP THEIR HOUSING.SO AT THIS MEETING THAT, UM, COUNCILOR FLAHERTY AND I WILL SCHEDULE, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THAT BROADER DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE CAN DO BETTER LONG-TERM PLANNING, BECAUSE I, I THINK IT'S ESSENTIAL, UM, TO A HARMONIOUS FUTURE.
UH, OTHER COUNCILORS, UH, COUNCILOR FLAHERTY, AND THEN COUNCILOR ZUBY, I, I CONFESS THROUGH YOU, UH, MR. CHAIR, TO NOT BEING AS FAMILIAR WITH THIS AS I SHOULD BE.
SO I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT MAY SEEM, UH, UNEDUCATED, BUT DO I UNDERSTAND, I, I KNOW WE SAID THAT THERE'S A NEED TO ALIGN THIS WITH STATE LAW, BUT WHAT'S A LEGAL REQUIREMENT? I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN'T, UH, RESTRICT RE RELIGIOUS OR EDUCATIONAL USES, BUT AS FAR AS THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, AS LONG AS THEY'RE REGIONAL REASONABLE, WE'RE STILL ALLOWED TO DO THAT, CORRECT? THROUGH YOU, MR. CHAIR? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SO WHAT THIS WOULD DO, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT WOULD MAKE THE MAP THAT WE SAW EARLIER, UM, WITH THE YELLOW NOW C ONE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THROUGHOUT THE CITY, THAT WOULD THEN BECOME ESSENTIALLY A, UH, AN INSTITUTIONAL OVERLAY DISTRICT.
SO EVERYTHING, THE ENTIRE CITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THIS USE, CORRECT? UH, THROUGH YOU, MR. CHAIR? YES.
FOR THE, UM, NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL USES AND RELIGIOUS USES.
AND, AND THAT'S AS OF RIGHT, NO SPECIAL PERMIT, CORRECT? YES.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION, JUST THINKING DOWN THE ROAD, UM, AND I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE MAJOR UNIVERSITIES IN CAMBRIDGE, HARVARD, OR LESLIE OR MIT, UH, ENCROACHING IN PART RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
BUT IF I WERE HYPOTHETICALLY DECIDING TO CONVERT MY HOME TO, UH, RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, UM, AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER USE THAT I WANTED AT MY HOME FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES UNDER THIS, UM, ZONING CHANGE, I'D BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
IS THAT RIGHT? OR, OR I GUESS THE, THE BETTER QUESTION IS WHO DETERMINES WHAT A RELIGIOUS OR EDUCATIONAL USE IS, OR IS THERE A, A CODIFIED, CODIFIED DEFINITION OF, OF THAT USE SOMEWHERE, UH, THROUGH MR. CHAIR? SO THAT'S A DETERMINATION THAT WILL BE MADE BY, UH, THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER WHEN SITUATIONS ARISE.
AND THERE HAS BEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CASES IN THE STATE WHERE THE COURTS HAVE WEIGHED IN ON WHETHER SOMETHING IS AN EDUCATIONAL USE OR IS A RELIGIOUS USE THAT'S, UH, ENTITLED TO THIS PROTECTION.
UM, AND IT'S AN ANALYSIS THAT THE COURT HAS APPLIED THAT IN, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST INSTANCE THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER WILL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, AND THEN IT COULD BE CHALLENGED IF, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT OR, UH, ABUTTERS DISAGREE WITH THAT DETERMINATION.
BUT THERE, THERE IS GUIDANCE TO LOOK AT FROM HOW THE CASES HAVE INTERPRETED IT.
AND, AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, UM, IN ATTLEBOROUGH OR, OR SOMEWHERE DOWN THERE, THERE'S, UM, A RELIGIOUS USE THAT DOES A BIG HOLIDAY LIGHT DISPLAY AROUND DECEMBER.
AND SO THERE WAS A CASE ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS ACTUALLY A RELIGIOUS USE OR WAS IT NOW A COMMERCIAL USE.
AND SOME OF THE CASES ALSO OVERLAP WITH, UM, LOOKING AT THEM FROM, UM, AN, A TAXING STANDPOINT FROM THE ASSESSOR'S STANDPOINT, HOW THEY TAX 'EM.
UM, AND THEN THERE'VE BEEN CASES THAT HAVE LOOKED AT, UH, INVOLVING LIKE REGIS COLLEGE AND LASALLE COLLEGE ABOUT ADDING IN, UM, SOME RESIDENTIAL, UM, ONE OF THE SCHOOLS WAS GONNA ADD LIKE A SENIOR LIVING MM-HMM
BUT COMBINE IT WITH THE NURSING SCHOOL.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE ARE VERY FACT SPECIFIC.
UM, BUT IT'S NOT JUST A BLANKET, I SAY I'M A RELIGIOUS USE, I SAY I'M AN EDUCATIONAL USE, I GET TO DO THIS.
THERE HAS TO ACTUALLY BE A DETERMINATION THAT IT DOES, UH, THE USE REALLY DOES AMOUNT TO A RELIGIOUS OR EDUCATIONAL USE.
AND, AND SO, AND I, I'M JUST TAKING THIS TO ITS, YOU KNOW, ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION.
[00:40:01]
YOU KNOW, THAT AS A, UH, GRADUATE OF BOSTON COLLEGE, I WAS NOW GONNA START THE CHURCH OF TIM AT, UH, AT MY HOME, UM, THEN THEORETICALLY I WOULD NO LONGER BE, BE SUBJECT TO RESIDENTIAL TAX IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.IS THAT RIGHT? OR AM I MISSTATING THAT, UH, THROUGH YOU, MR. CHAIR? SO THERE ARE, UM, TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL USES, JUST LIKE THERE'S THIS ZONING EXEMPTION.
BUT AGAIN, IT WOULD BE A FACT SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF WHETHER, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU'RE REALLY USING THE PROPERTY, RIGHT.
AND WHETHER YOU'RE ENTITLED TO THAT EXEMPTION.
AND TO TAKE IT TO A MORE LOGICAL, I GUESS, CONCLUSION, IF THERE WERE A CHURCH THAT DETER THAT DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO EXPAND, AND THE USE WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE USE WHERE IT WAS SENIOR HOUSING OR HOUSING FOR STAFF, UH, THAT'S A DETERMINATION THAT THE BUILDING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO MAKE, WHETHER THAT'S, THAT USE OF THAT ANNEXED PROPERTY, UH, FITS UNDER THE DE DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS, RELIGIOUS, RELIGIOUS OR EDUCATIONAL USE.
AND THAT'S THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER THAT WOULD MAKE THAT INVESTIGATION A DETERMINATION THROUGH YOU, MR. CHAIR? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
COUNSELOR ZUBI, COUNCIL ZUBI, AND THEN COUNSELOR AZI ZUBI.
A QUICK QUESTION ON PAGE 14, JUST FOR SOME MORE CONTEXT, WHY WEREN'T THE WHITE AREAS PART OF THE PLACES THAT WERE ON THE EXEMPTION FROM THE DOVER AMENDMENT? SO, UM, SORRY, JUST TO GO UP, I DON'T HAVE THIS, HOPEFULLY EVERYONE CAN IMAGINE THIS OR YOU MAYBE HAVE A PRINTOUT.
SO THE, UM, IF WE GO BACK TO THE BE THE BEGINNING WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THIS, YOU KNOW, CAMBRIDGE EXEMPTION FROM THE DOVER AMENDMENT, IT ONLY APPLIES IN, UM, IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS WITH THE, THE LOWER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.
AND THOSE, THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS NOW ARE, ARE KIND OF CO-TERMINUS WITH OUR RESIDENCY ONE, UH, ZONING DISTRICT.
SO THOSE YELLOW AREAS ON THE MAP ARE ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUSLY BEFORE, BEFORE AMENDING THE ZONING AND REMOVING LOTTERY FOR DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS, THOSE WERE THE DISTRICTS WHERE THE, THE STATE LEGISLATION ALLOWED US TO, TO REGULATE, UH, RELIGIOUS EDUCATIONAL USES.
THE DISTRICTS THAT ARE JUST IN WHITE ARE, UM, DISTRICTS THAT WOULD NOT HAVE, UM, BEEN, YOU KNOW, ABLE TO USE THAT SPECIAL LEGISLATION.
SO IN, IN OTHER WAYS IT'S THE LOOKING AT THOSE DISTRICTS IN WHITE, THOSE ARE DISTRICTS WHERE THE ZONING HAS NEVER, YOU KNOW, REGULATED RELIGIOUS OR EDUCATIONAL USES AND THAT, AND THERE'S REALLY NO CHANGE BASED ON THIS PETITION.
UM, ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT NEXT STEPS WE TAKE OUTSIDE OF COMPLIANCE, IS, IS IT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WOULD NEED A HOME RULE PETITION AND THAT IT COULDN'T BE UNDER THE LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT MEASUREMENT? UH, SO THROUGH THE CHAIR, THE, UM, UH, SO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION HAS THAT PROVISION THAT I, I PUT ON THE SCREEN THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO, BUT WE CAN REGULATE RELIGIOUS EDUCATIONAL USES IF IT'S IN A, A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, MINIMUM LOTTERY OR PER DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENT.
SO, AS I THINK AS MEGAN WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANTED TO, IF WE WANTED TO STILL BE ALLOWED TO, TO REGULATE THESE USES THAT THE STATE OTHERWISE SAYS YOU CAN'T, THE OPTIONS WOULD BE TO REINSTATE MINIMUM LOTTERY OR PER DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WE, YOU KNOW, WE, THERE WERE LOTS OF REASONS WHY WE WANTED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT IN THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING, BUT THAT, THAT IS AN OPTION TO GO SORT OF GO BACK TO THAT.
UM, ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO SEEK SOME ADDITIONAL STATE LEGISLATION, BUT EXACT, YOU KNOW, AS, AS MEGAN WAS SAYING, EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD WANT THAT TO LOOK LIKE IS SORT OF HARD TO SAY AND WHAT, WHAT THE, WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OR RATIONALE WOULD BE.
WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
AND, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR THE INFORMATION THAT YOU ALL SHARED WITH US AND, AND YOUR WORK ON THIS.
SIMILAR TO MY COLLEAGUES, I, IT MAKES SENSE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD COMPLIANCE AND, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THE CONVERSATION SHOULD STOP THERE.
I, I THINK WE DO NEED MEASURES TO, TO ESSENTIALLY CONCENTRATE INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH WITHIN EXISTING CAMPUS BOUNDARIES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS OR EVEN A PROCESS TO JUST BRING THEM IN AUTHENTICALLY.
UM, AND I'D LOVE TO BE A PART OF WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE.
AND I MEAN, HISTORICALLY, EVEN IN OUR CITY, WE KNOW REP SANDRA GRAHAM IN 1970 STEPPED UP TO CHALLENGE HARVARD UNIVERSITY'S REAL ESTATE EXPANSION INTO THE RIVERSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD DISPLACING RESIDENTS.
SO NOT LONG AFTER THAT, WE SAW
[00:45:01]
THIS EXEMPTION.SO I'M KIND OF HOLDING THAT CONTEXT.
I, I WANNA BELIEVE THAT THE INSTITUTIONS MIGHT SAY THAT THIS ISN'T REALLY GONNA BRING A RISK, BUT I ALSO WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT THE DOORS HAVE SHIFTED FOR THEM.
AND AS OF RIGHT NOW, I, I'M NOT REALLY SURE I CAN TRUST IN GOOD FAITH JUST CONSIDERING SOME OF THE HISTORY AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'VE ALSO EXPANDED INTO AUSTIN AND RAPIDLY MOVED ON THAT CONSTRUCTION.
I, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT COULD POTENTIALLY APPLY TO OUR CITY AS WELL.
UM, AND THEY'RE NOT EVEN REALLY ENGAGING FINANCIALLY AS MUCH AS I THINK THEY SHOULD, EVEN IN THEIR PILOT AGREEMENTS.
SO HOPEFULLY WITH WHAT COUNCILLOR SUI SAID, I I, I'D BE LOOKING FORWARD TO AT LEAST HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THEM ON, ON HOW THEY COULD, UM, DO MORE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR THEIR STUDENTS.
'CAUSE I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE, WE'VE HAD ALL YIELD, RIGHT? COUNCILOR ZE AND, UH, VICE MAYOR, AND THEN I'LL PUT MYSELF ON STACK, UM, VICE MAYOR ZE.
UM, UM, SO, UH, I WANTED TO JUST, UH, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CONTEXT HERE, UM, AND THEN JUST MOVE TO THE MOTION AND FORMALLY INTRODUCE IT.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT CHANGE IS ALWAYS SCARY AND WE ALWAYS THINK ABOUT WHAT ARE THE UNINTENDED, UH, EFFECTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING A CONVERSATION IN MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE DOVA AMENDMENT.
UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WILL MEANINGFULLY CHANGE THINGS, BUT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO REINTRODUCING AN EXEMPTION TO IT.
UM, I DID JUST WANNA BRING UP A FEW POINTS JUST TO START WITH, WHICH IS THAT WE WERE THE EXEMPTION TO THE DOVER AMENDMENT, UM, BUT ALL 350 OTHER COMMUNITIES IN MASSACHUSETTS, UM, OUR SUBJECT TO IT.
AND NOW WE'RE JUST IN LINE WITH EVERYONE ELSE.
AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT IN THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'LL BE A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE IN THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL THE OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE MANAGED RELATIONSHIPS AND WORKED WELL WITH OTHER PARTNERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, I ALSO WANTED TO ADD THAT IT'S FOR NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL USE, WHICH OF COURSE, WE THINK ABOUT OUR BIG UNIVERSITIES, BUT IT ALSO MAKES IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO OPEN DAYCARES, OTHER SORTS OF AFTERSCHOOL INSTITUTIONS, ALL SORTS OF OTHER NONPROFITS THAT ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE, UM, EDUCATION TO OUR YOUTH.
AND WHEN WE DO REVISIT THAT, I HOPE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO AT LEAST CARVE OUT AN EXEMPTION FOR THEM.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WE HAVE MADE IT INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO OPEN UP DAYCARES IN OUR CITY.
UM, I THINK THAT, UH, JUST TALKING, UM, AND THEN I JUST FINALLY WANTED TO SAY IT, IT'S ALSO A VERY DIFFERENT TIME.
I THINK THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT HARVARD OR MIT ARE GOOD ACTORS OR NECESSARILY HAVE JUST THE SAME INTERESTS AS, UM, CAMBRIDGE.
BUT YOU KNOW, SINCE THE EXEMPTION TO THE DO GOVERNMENT WAS PASSED, WE NOW HAVE A LOT MORE TOOLS AROUND PERMITTING AND REGULATION THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, MAKE IT SO THAT WE HAVE OTHER LEVERS TO PULL, TO INCENTIVIZE OR TO LIKE, TO PUSH AND LEGALLY MANDATE THAT HARVARD NMIT DO THINGS WITH THE CITY'S APPROVAL.
AND SO JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT CONTEXT AS WELL, AND THAT WHEN THIS WAS INTRODUCED, WE HAD A LOT LESS POWERS THAN WE DO NOW.
UM, I DID WANNA JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RELIGIOUS USE PIECES, BECAUSE I THINK THE EDUCATIONAL USES PIECE WAS, IS STILL VERY RELEVANT.
THE RELIGIOUS USE PIECE, UM, WAS SUPERSEDED IN SOME PARTS AT LEAST, OR IN LARGE PARTS, AT LEAST BY RUPPA AND THE FEDERAL LAW.
UM, SO I WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE EXAMPLE OF THE CHURCH OF TIM AND, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE A FUN PLACE, MAYBE OUTTA 10.
UM, BUT IF, UH, THAT WAS TO BE EXIST, LIKE EXIST, EVEN IF WE HAD THE EXEMPTION TO THE DOVER AMENDMENT WOULD RE LUPA JUST SUPERSEDE THAT IN BEING ABLE TO OPEN A RELIGIOUS USE IN, YOU KNOW, A HOUSE THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, THANK YOU THROUGH YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UM, SO IT, IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC SUPERSEDING AGAIN, WE'D HAVE TO DO THE ANALYSIS.
UH, IF THERE'S A RELIGIOUS USE THAT WANTED TO OPEN UP, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT, UM, IS NOT ALLOWING IT IN A CERTAIN AREA.
YOU KNOW, SAY WE GOT SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO EXCLUDE INSTITUTIONAL USES FROM CERTAIN AREAS, AND THEN A RELIGIOUS USE COMES FORWARD AND STILL WANTS TO OPEN IN THAT AREA, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP TO THEM TO NOT BE ABLE TO OPERATE THEIR USE IN THAT AREA.
WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT WE HAD A COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE FOR HAVING THAT RESTRICTION AND THAT OUR COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE WAS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE WAY TO ACHIEVE OR ARE, ARE NOT ALLOWING THEM TO OPEN IN THAT AREA IS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE WAY TO ACHIEVE THE COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE.
SO IT, IT DOESN'T JUST AS A BLANKET EXCEPTION, UH, YOU KNOW, ALLOW THEM, EVEN IF WE HAVE THE DOVER MEN AMENDMENT EXCEPTION, UM, BUT IT INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY COULD OPERATE IN AN AREA, EVEN IF WE HAVE THAT DOVER AMENDMENT EXCEPTION.
[00:50:01]
SOLICITOR.AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAD THIS EXPERIENCE LAST TERM WHERE, UM, IT MAY NOT BE AUTOMATIC, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A FAIRLY HIGH BAR TO REGULATE RELIGIOUS USES.
I WOULD SAY EXTREMELY DIFFICULT IN OUR EXAMPLE LAST YEAR.
UM, AND QUITE EXPENSIVE AT TIMES TO EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO SO.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS USES FROM, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF, UH, UH, ZONING RESTRICTIONS IN THIS WAY, WAY THROUGH A LUPA WAS INTRODUCED BY OUR VERY OWN SENATOR TED KENNEDY BACK IN THE DAY, WHO WAS THE LEAD CHAMPION FOR IT.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT HAS A STRONG HISTORY IN MASSACHUSETTS IN PARTICULAR, SO JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME OF THAT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT.
UM, AND THEN WITH THAT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FORWARD THIS TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL.
UH, I WAS GONNA GO NEXT AND, UM, WHENEVER WE'RE DONE WITH QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL, WE CAN, UH, GET TO THAT MOTION.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS OTHER COUNSELORS SAID, WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO THIS UNDER STATE LAW.
UM, SORT OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY IS PUTTING IN, IN CITY AND COMPLIANCE WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, THE PRESENTATION FROM CITY STAFF WAS A REALLY GOOD TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF, OF, UH, THE BACKGROUND ON THIS AND WAS HELPFUL.
I, UM, WANTED TO GIVE JUST A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT INTO THE, THE HISTORY OF THE POLITICS OF HOW WE GOT HERE.
UM, WE ARE SORT OF HAVING TO DO THIS BECAUSE OF A REALLY PROBLEMATIC DEAL THAT WAS MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL DECADES AGO.
UM, I ASKED ABOUT THE, THE DEAL OF TYING THE DOVER AMENDMENT TO THE 1200 SQUARE FOOT LOT MINIMUM, UH, BECAUSE THAT DEAL IN, IN MY MIND IS REALLY A DEVIL'S BARGAIN.
IT SAID, YOU, YOU CAN BAN UNIVERSITIES FROM BUILDING AND NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT ONLY IF YOU TIE THAT BAN TO MAINTAINING THE EXCLUSIONARY AND RACIST ZONING THAT REQUIRES MINIMUM LOT SIZES.
UH, IN ORDER TO, TO KEEP THAT PREVIOUS EXEMPTION WITH THE DOVER AMENDMENT, THE CITY HAD TO HAVE 1200 FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZES CITYWIDE.
AND AS WE'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, REPEATEDLY FROM CITY STAFF OVER THE PAST COUPLE YEARS, MOST OF THE HOUSING THAT EXISTS IN THE CITY CURRENTLY WAS BUILT, UH, MANY, MANY DECADES AGO, UH, AND DOES NOT MEET THOSE MINIMUM LOT SIZES.
MOST OF THE HOUSING IN THE PORT IN CAMBRIDGEPORT AND EAST CAMBRIDGE AND WELLINGTON HARRINGTON IN NORTH CAMBRIDGE, AND THE BALDWIN NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT CONFORM, UH, TO THE EXCLUSIONARY 1200 FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZES.
I THINK THE ONLY PART OF THE CITY WHERE MOST LOTS ACTUALLY MET THAT 1200 FOOT LOTS MINIMUM SIZES IS WEST CAMBRIDGE.
SO THE ONLY WAY THE CITY COULD HAVE REALISTICALLY MAINTAINED THAT DOVER AMENDMENT EXEMPTION WAS BY A UPHOLD, THE EXCLUSIONARY ZONING THAT WOULD HAVE SLOWLY BUT SURELY TAKEN HOUSING.
AND MOST OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN CAMBRIDGE FROM THE VIBRANT MIX OF TRIPLE DECKERS AND APARTMENTS AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WE HAVE TODAY AND FULLY BUT SURELY TURNED IT INTO MULTIMILLION DOLLAR MCMANSIONS.
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY, UH, THAT EXEMPTION COULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED.
BUT WE CAN AND PURSUE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS ON THE INSTITUTIONAL EXPANSION AT SOME POINT.
I THINK ALL OF US HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, APPRECIATE THE, THIS, THE INSIGHT AND SORT OF WHERE UNIVERSITIES ARE AT NOW, UH, AND NOT, YOU KNOW, BEING A LOT OF, UH, ADDITIONAL INTEREST IN UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT AT THE MOMENT.
BUT, UH, CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE AND IT, I THINK IT DOES MAKE SENSE FOR US TO BE PREPARED.
UM, BUT I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR FOR MY PART THAT I, YOU KNOW, REJECTED THE ARGUMENT SOME FOLKS, UH, HAVE, UH, BEEN MAKING, UH, IN THE COMMUNITY THAT SOMEHOW THE COUNCIL DIDN'T DO ITS HOMEWORK INTO THE DOVER AMENDMENT EXEMPTION AND THAT WE SHOULD HAVE KEPT THE PREVIOUS DEVIL'S BARGAIN IN PLACE.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, FOR MY PART, WE UNDERSTOOD THE EXCLUSIONARY DEAL THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MADE IN 1979 AND WE REJECTED IT, AND NOW WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UH, A PATH FORWARD.
UM, WITH THAT, UH, WE HAVE COUNCILOR ZIMS MOTION, VICE MAYOR ZIMS MOTION, UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? YEAH.
ONE LAST, JUST ONE LAST COMMENT TO, UH, VICE MAYOR, UM, ZIMS, UH, REMARKS, WHICH ARE WELL PLACED.
UM, WE DO HAVE MORE TOOLS NOW, BUT I THINK IT'S A, A SLIPPERY SLOPE WHEN WE START PASSING ZONING.
AND WHEN THERE IS A, UM, A, A VAGUE AND OVER BROAD DEFINITION CONTAINED IN THIS TYPE OF, UH, LEGISLATION, RELIGIOUS OR EDUCATIONAL USE, I THINK IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT A SPECIAL PERMIT CRITER WITH CRITERIA SHOULD BE USED AS A MECHANISM TO, UH, ASSIST THE BUILDING COMMI COMMISSIONER IN DOING HIS, UM, HIS DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE APPLICANT MEETS THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE'RE, UH, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT PASSING.
SO, UH, WITH THAT, I'LL YIELD ON THE MOTION TO FORWARD THIS, TO FORWARD THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CDD ON UPDATES TO INSTITUTIONAL USE ZONING TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVOR.
ABSENT COUNCILLOR SIMMONS? YES.
THAT'S SEVEN MEMBERS VOTING YES.
[00:55:01]
OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COUNCIL OR ANYTHING STAFF WANTED TO ADD? OKAY, GREAT.UH, AND THEN I'M ON A MOTION TO ADJOURN FROM COUNCILOR FLAHERTY.
THAT'S SEVEN MEMBERS VOTING YES.