* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [ROLL CALL] [00:00:04] GOOD AFTERNOON. A QUORUM OF THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE BEING PRESENT CALL. TODAY'S MEETING TO ORDER. THE CALL OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION FROM THE JUNE 16TH, 2026 HEARING ON TWO CITY COUNCIL ZONING PETITIONS TO AMEND ARTICLE 17.000 OF THE CAMBRIDGE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP REGARDING ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENTS ON NORTH MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE AND CAMBRIDGE STREET, INCLUDING A SPECIAL PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR FORMULA BUSINESSES ON CAMBRIDGE STREET. THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT CITY CLERK@CAMBRIDGEMA.GOV. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER TWO OF THE ACTS OF 2025, ADOPTED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, THE THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO USE REMOTE PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES. WE HAVE SET UP ZOOM TELECONFERENCE FOR MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO VIEW. YOU CAN ALSO VIEW THE MEETING VIA THE CITY'S OPEN ME MEETING PORTAL OR ON THE CITY'S CABLE CHANNEL 22. 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. UH, IF THERE ARE ANY VOTES TODAY, THERE'LL BE BY ROLL CALL AND THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS A ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS PRESENT. COUNCILOR ZUBI. ABSENT VICE MAYOR, PRESENT PRESENT, COUNSELOR FLAHERTY. PRESENT PRESENT. COUNSELOR MCGOVERN. PRESENT. PRESENT. COUNCILLOR NOLAN. PRESENT. PRESENT. COUNCILLOR SIMMONS. ABSENT, COUNCILLOR SABRINA WHEELER. PRESENT. PRESENT. COUNCILLOR ZUI. PRESENT. PRESENT. MAYOR SIDIKI. PRESENT. PRESENT. THAT'S SEVEN MEMBERS PRESENT TO RECORDED AS ABSENT. GREAT, THANK YOU. UM, BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO ASSISTANT MANAGER, UM, PETER'S, UH, JUST, JUST SOME HOUSEKEEPING OR, OR JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY WHERE, WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT. UM, SO BOTH OF THESE PARTI, AGAIN, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE PETITIONS, BUT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THEM TOGETHER AT THE SAME MEETINGS. UM, BOTH PETITIONS EXPIRE ON SEPTEMBER 14TH. UM, AND SO IN ORDER TO BE, UH, IN ORDER TO APPEAR ON THE SUMMER MEETING AGENDA, UH, SO THAT THEY THEN CAN GET PASSED TO A SECOND READING, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT WITH A RECOMMENDATION OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE TODAY. UM, OTHERWISE WE WOULD LIKELY BE LOOKING AT THEM EXPIRING. I, I THINK, AND IN TALKING WITH ASSISTANT MANAGER PETERS, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE MUCH CLOSER ON NORTH MASS AVE. AND SO IT'S POSSIBLE, AGAIN, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE PETITIONS, SO IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO TAKE ACTION ON NORTH MASS AVE TODAY AND GET THAT FORWARD. I THINK THERE ARE STILL SOME, UM, REMAINING QUESTIONS ON CAMBRIDGE STREET AND IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY LET CAMBRIDGE STREET EXPIRE AND THEN COME AND THEN COME BACK TO IT. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S GONNA BE THE WILL OF THE COMMITTEE, BUT THAT'S JUST KIND OF, UM, SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE TIMELINE OF WHAT, WHAT WE'RE ALSO UP AGAINST. RIGHT. SO I DON'T, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT US TO FEEL IN, IN SOME WAYS WE'RE, WE'RE UP AGAINST THE DEADLINE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD FORCE SOMETHING THAT WE MAY NOT BE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH JUST TO MEET THAT DEADLINE. UM, SO WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT. SO WITH THAT, [CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA] I WILL TURN IT OVER TO ASSISTANT MANAGER PETERS TO TAKE US, OR MR. ROBERTS TO TAKE US THROUGH THE SLIDES. GREAT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO JEFF ROBERTS WHO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT. AND GIVEN THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO REPEAT THE PRESENTATION FROM THE LAST, UH, ORDINANCE COMMITTEE HEARING, WE DID THINK IT'D BE HELPFUL TO PRESENT SOME SUMMARY SLIDES THAT PROVIDE KINDA OPTIONS, UH, THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AT COMMITTEE AS WELL AS THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, FOR BOTH MASS AVE AND CAMBRIDGE STREET. AND I THINK, AGAIN, AS THE CHAIR SAID, TAKING THEM SEQUENTIALLY SINCE THEY ARE SEPARATE PETITIONS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. UM, SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO JEFF ROBERTS. UH, THANK YOU MELISSA. THANKS TO THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE. I JUST, I DIDN'T REALLY PLAN THIS OUT WELL, BUT I, AS I WAS COMING OVER, I THOUGHT THAT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO PULL BACK A LITTLE BIT AND JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT BEFORE WE REALLY DIVE BACK INTO THE DETAIL. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE GONE THROUGH A PRETTY EXTENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESS FOR BOTH, BOTH MASS A AND CAMBRIDGE STREET. THOSE HAVE INCORPORATED, UM, REALLY A LOT OF THE, THE BIG PLANNING ISSUES THAT, THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN, IN TERMS OF HOUSING, IN TERMS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, STREETS SCAPE DESIGN AND, AND, UH, USE. I THINK THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL WANTED TO COME BACK AND REVISIT THIS QUESTION OF ACTIVE USE AND, UM, AND ACTIVE STREET FRONTS AND HOW CAN WE, [00:05:01] UM, YOU KNOW, BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, MORE FINE GRAINED IN HOW WE DEAL WITH THAT. WE CAME BACK WITH A BROAD RECOMMENDATION THAT, UM, WHILE WE CAN CERTAINLY DO MORE IN ZONING TO TRY TO PROMOTE ACTIVE USE AND INCENTIVIZE ACTIVE USE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A, IT CAN BE A DIFFICULT SUBJECT, YOU KNOW, REQUIRING ACTIVE USE DOESN'T MEAN THAT ACTIVE USE IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE THERE. WE CAN'T ZONING, YOU KNOW, GOOD RETAILERS INTO PLACE. SO REALLY IT, IT, IT BECOMES A BIT OF A TRADE OFF OF, OF HOW, UM, 'CAUSE ULTIMATELY ALL WE CAN DO IN ZONING IS PUT RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE. SO HOW, IT'S A QUESTION OF REALLY HOW, HOW RESTRICTIVE DO WE WANNA BE? AND OUR ADVICE WAS TO, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE CAN BE RESTRICTIVE UP TO A POINT. WE THINK IF THERE'S LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT GOING ON ON EITHER OF THESE PLACES, WE THINK IT'S, IT'S GOOD TO SET AN EXPECTATION, UM, FOR THE GROUND FLOOR. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE SEE LOTS OF DIFFERENT PROPOSALS HAPPENING IN DIFFERENT PLACES. SOME PROPOSALS WE MIGHT, WE MIGHT FIND THAT, UM, PUTTING A SPECIFIC USE REQUIREMENT ON THE GROUND FLOOR MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OVERBURDENSOME. AND SO WHERE WHERE WE ARRIVED, I THINK IS, AND WHAT EVAN'S GONNA PRESENT IS A FAIRLY NARROW SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, THAT FALL WITHIN THAT PRINCIPLE. AND I, I THINK THE QUESTION THAT WE ARE HOPING TO GET TO IS, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO WE WANNA SET THE DIAL WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE THINK SHOULD BE, UM, O OKAY TO GO FORWARD WITHOUT IMPOSING A, A REQUIREMENT ON THE GROUND FLOOR? AND I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, PROPOSAL THAT THE COUNCIL HEARD FROM THE CRA IS HELPFUL IN TERMS OF PUTTING SOME SHAPE AROUND WHAT'S THE TYPE OF PROPOSAL THAT, THAT MIGHT RAISE THAT QUESTION. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS REALLY WHERE WE SEEK INPUT FROM, FROM THE COUNCIL TO HELP MAKE THAT DECISION ABOUT EXACTLY WHERE WE WANNA SET THE DIAL UP. I THINK OVERALL WE'RE, WE'RE OPERATING UNDER, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE, ONE KEY PLANNING PRINCIPLE. UM, AND, AND I'M HOPING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET TO, UM, GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO MOVE THAT FORWARD. SO, EVAN, THANKS. THANKS, JEFF. UM, SO, UH, APOLOGIES, LOST MY SCREEN THAT I WANTED. OKAY, GREAT. SO, UM, AS, AS JEFF AND, AND MELISSA SAID, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE PUT TOGETHER JUST, UH, A COUPLE CHARTS TO LAY OUT, UM, THE REMAINING PIECES OF, OF EACH PETITION THAT, UM, NEEDS SOME, SOME DECISION ON, UM, A LOT OF THE, THE PETITIONS, UM, THERE WAS BROAD AGREEMENT ON, SO, SO WE WANTED TO REALLY HONE IN ON, ON THE, THE REMAINING QUESTION HERE, UM, WHICH IS REALLY AT WHAT SCALE OF A PROJECT DO THESE ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENTS KICK IN AND IN, IN WHICH AREAS, UM, OF THE CORRIDOR. SO WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO, UM, START WITH MASS AVE HAVE THIS, THIS CHART UP FOR YOU ALL TO, TO REFERENCE, UM, AND THEN MOVE ON TO CAMBRIDGE STREET. SO I'LL, I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THIS CHART, UM, RELATIVELY QUICKLY, UM, AND THEN, AND THEN TURN IT BACK TO YOU, UH, THE, THE COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS. SO THE ROWS HERE ARE, UH, DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CORRIDOR. WE HAVE SOUTH OF PORTER SQUARE, PORTER SQUARE ITSELF, PORTER TO LINEAR PARK AND LINEAR PARK TO ARLINGTON. AND THE COLUMNS ARE THE DIFFERENT SORT OF ZONING APPROACHES WE HAVE. SO THERE'S, THE FIRST COLUMN IS A, UH, EXISTING ZONING. SO WHAT, UM, THE ZONING REQUIRES NOW SINCE THE, IN THIS, UH, UH, CASE, THE, THE MASS PETITION WAS PASSED IN DECEMBER. UH, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED PETITION HERE, THE CHANGES THAT IT WOULD MAKE TO THE EXISTING ZONING, AND THEN, UH, TWO ALTERNATIVES, UM, THAT WE'VE, WE'VE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY AND THAT, UM, NEED TO BE, UM, DISCUSSED FURTHER. UM, SO UNDER EXISTING ZONING, AS, AS A REMINDER, UH, RESIDENTIAL USES ARE ALLOWED UP TO FOUR STORIES WITHOUT ACTIVE USES SOUTH OF PORTER SQUARE AND FIVE TO 12 STORIES WITH ACTIVE USES, UM, UH, IN, IN SOUTH OF PORTER SQUARE, EVERYWHERE ELSE, UH, RESIDENTIAL ONLY PROJECTS ARE ALLOWED UP TO EIGHT STORIES AND NINE TO 12, UH, STORIES ARE ALLOWED WITH ACTIVE USES. THE PROPOSED PETITION, UH, AS IT IT CURRENTLY STANDS WOULD REQUIRE ACTIVE USES IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, UH, FIVE TO 12 STORIES FROM CAMBRIDGE COMMON, UH, TO LINEAR PARK. SO RESIDENTIAL ONLY, UH, BUILDINGS COULD BE BUILT, UM, SOUTH OF PORTER, PORTER SQUARE AND PORTER TO LINEAR [00:10:01] PARK, UH, UP TO FOUR STORIES, BUT ANYTHING TALLER THAN FOUR STORIES WOULD NEED, UM, ACTIVE USES. AND, UH, AS A REMINDER, THE, THE PETITION MAKES NO CHANGE TO THE AREA NORTH OF LINEAR PARK, SO LINEAR PARK TO THE ARLINGTON, UH, TOWN LINE. UM, SO, SO THAT'S THERE FOR, FOR REFERENCE, BUT THE PETITION MAKES NO CHANGES IN THAT AREA. SO WE DON'T THINK AMENDMENTS TO THE PETITION COULD, COULD MAKE ANY FURTHER, UM, AMENDMENTS IN THAT, THAT PART OF THE CORRIDOR. THERE WAS BROAD AGREEMENT, UM, THAT THE PETITIONS CHANGES SOUTH OF PORTER SQUARE AND IN PORTER SQUARE ITSELF MAKES SENSE. SO, UH, ALTERNATIVES ONE AND TWO REALLY ONLY PERTAIN TO THAT STRETCH OF MASS SAB BETWEEN PORTER AND LINEAR PARK. THAT'S WHY WE'VE, WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT ROW. UM, FOR, FOR REFERENCE. SO ALTERNATIVE ONE. UM, SO THE PROPOSED PETITION WOULD REQUIRE ACTIVE USES ABOVE FOUR STORIES. ALTERNATIVE ONE IS THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WHICH WAS TO MAKE NO CHANGES, UM, FROM THE CURRENT ZONING, UH, WHICH, UH, CURRENTLY ACTIVE USES ARE REQUIRED ABOVE EIGHT STORIES. SO THAT WOULD REVERT BACK TO EXISTING ZONING INSTEAD OF STRENGTHENING THOSE, UH, ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENTS IN THAT AREA. ALTERNATIVE TWO WOULD, UM, REQUIRE ACTIVE USES ABOVE FOUR STORIES, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW FIVE OR SIX STORY PROJECTS WITHOUT ACTIVE USES. UM, FOR, FOR SMALLER PROJECTS, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS A LOT, UM, WITH, WITH COUNCIL AND INTERNALLY, UM, WITH STAFF. THERE'S, THERE'S SEVERAL WAYS THAT YOU COULD DEFINE WHAT A SMALLER PROJECT IS. UM, WHAT WE LANDED ON IS A, A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, UM, UH, GROSS FLOOR AREA THRESHOLD APPROACH. SO, UH, PROJECTS LESS THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET COULD BE BUILT, UM, TO FIVE OR, OR SIX STORIES WITHOUT ACTIVE USES. UM, BUT ANYTHING TALLER THAN THAT WOULD REQUIRE, UM, ACTIVE USES. AND 25,000 SQUARE FEET, WE THINK IS A, IS A DECENT SIZE TO BE ABLE TO ABSORB THE, THE COST OF PROVIDING THOSE ACTIVE USES. UM, AND IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH SEVERAL OTHER, UM, ZONING THRESHOLDS, UM, IN THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE. UM, SO WE THINK THAT THAT IS A DECENT ALTERNATIVE THERE. AND I'LL, I'LL STOP THERE AND, AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR. SO THE, EXCUSE ME. SO THE, THE REST OF YOUR PRESENTATION IS CAMBRIDGE STREET, THE REST OF THE SLIDES? YEAH. OKAY. SO WE HAVE, UM, SORRY, I, I SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THAT BETTER. TH THERE'S, UH, THE NEXT CHART IS, IS CAMBRIDGE STREET. UM, AND THEN THERE ARE SEVERAL SLIDES AFTER THAT, BUT THOSE ARE REALLY JUST REFERENCE SLIDES, UM, IN CASE ANYONE NEEDS THOSE. BUT I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE, THE GUIDING SLIDE OKAY. FOR MASS AVE. OKAY. SO WE'RE DEALING WITH MASS AVE HERE FIRST. UM, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? COUNCILOR NOLAN? THANKS. UM, THE CHART'S REALLY HELPFUL. I'M LOOKING AT, IT'S JUST REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE IT LAID OUT EXISTING, THE PROPOSED MEANS, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE BEFORE US, CORRECT? THE PLANNING BOARD IS THE ONLY THING IN PURPLE. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE FROM THE PROPOSED PETITION AND WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS RECOMMENDING. AND THEN THE ALTERNATIVE TO, DO WE HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IF THAT ALTERNATIVE TO WHICH IS A, IN A CHANGE TO THE PROPOSED PETITION, BUT ALLOWING FOR THESE SMALLER PROJECTS. IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE WENT WITH THAT TODAY, WOULD THAT LANGUAGE BE IN PLACE? AND IT COULD BE MOVED TO A SECOND MEETING OR ORDAINED OR WHATEVER. WE, UM, THANK YOU, UM, THROUGH YOU CHAIR. WE, UH, WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW, BUT WE WOULD HAVE IT FOR THE SUMMER MEETING. UM, SO YOU COULD ADOPT THOSE AMENDMENTS BEFORE PASSING TO A SECOND RATING. OKAY. AND TO YOU CHAIR, YOU HAD SAID THAT WOULD GIVE US TIME 'CAUSE THIS EXPIRES IN IN SEPTEMBER. I'M, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD COMPROMISE. I'D BE HAPPY TO PASS EVERYTHING FORWARD AS IS WITH THAT CHANGE, UM, WITH ALTERNATIVE TWO, YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH, THE ALTERNATIVE TO, TO MAKE ALLOWANCES FOR, TO, TO CHANGE IT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED. SO IT'S, IT'S IN BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PETITION AND THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION AND ACTUALLY THROUGH YOU. DOES THE STAFF HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS [00:15:01] OR IS THAT SYSTEM MANAGER? IF THAT'S AN UNFAIR QUESTION, JUST TELL ME THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION, I THINK, AND, AND, AND IF YOU RECOMMENDATIONS OR IF YOU CAN MAYBE SOME PROS AND CONS OF YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. UM, SO I THINK THE CRA, UH, PROPOSED PROJECT WAS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE UNDUE BURDEN ON SMALLER SITES. UM, GIVEN THAT THE OVERALL GOAL IS HOUSING PRODUCTION AND HOW DO WE BALANCE THAT WITH THE NEED THAT THESE ARE, UM, A MAIN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND WE WANNA HAVE ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR SPACE, UM, I THINK THE EACH AREA IS DIFFERENT IN ITS CHARACTER. AND SO THE, THE REASON THE PORT OF DELINE IS HIGHLIGHTED IS BECAUSE THAT, AS YOU KNOW, IS KIND OF THE, THE QUESTION MARK. THE OTHERS, WE ARE ALL, UM, BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND COUNCIL AND STAFF ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THE DIRECTION. 'CAUSE I THINK THE, THE TRADE OFF IS MORE CLEAR, UM, IN THE PORT OF DELINE PARK AREA. UM, WE WOULD LEAN, UM, I THINK WE'D BE HAPPY WITH AN OUTCOME OF ALTERNATIVE ONE OR TWO. UM, I THINK THE PROPOSED PETITION, UM, AS DEMONSTRATED DOES GIVE, UM, MORE BURDEN TO THOSE SMALLER SITES. BUT I DO THINK, UH, THE EXEMPTION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE KIND OF HELPS TO MEDIATE THAT. BUT WE ALSO HAVE SEEN IN PRACTICE THAT HAVING OVERLY RESTRICTIVE, UM, GROUND FLOOR RETAIL REQUIREMENTS CAN, UM, PRODUCE OUTCOMES WE DON'T WANT. UM, AND SO AGAIN, IT IS A BALANCE. I THINK THIS STRETCH OF THE CORRIDOR IS DIFFERENT AND STARTS TO BECOME MORE RESIDENTIAL. AND SO I THINK A MIXTURE WOULD BE A GOOD OUTCOME AND I THINK YOU WOULD GET THAT IN EITHER ALTERNATIVE ONE OR TWO. AND I DON'T KNOW IF JEFF WANTS TO ADD ANY COLOR TO THAT. UH, THANK YOU. NOT REALLY. I THINK THAT THAT COVERS IT. I MEAN, WE, IT AGAIN, IT'S REALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLANNING PRINCIPLES ARE, ARE KIND OF THE SAME IN EITHER CASE. IT'S THE IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, WE, WE GENERALLY WANT THERE TO BE ACTIVE USE, BUT IF IT'S A SMALLER DEVELOPMENT, WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME FLEXIBILITY. AND IT'S A QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE TO SET THAT. I THINK THE PLANNING BOARD THOUGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE, UM, AS, UH, AS SPECIFIC ON THE, THE PORT OF DE LINEAR PARK, THEIR, UM, RECOMMENDATION IS REALLY THAT HOUSING, YOU KNOW, PROMOTING HOUSING IS MORE THE PRIORITY IN THAT AREA. AND THAT WOULD HELP TO SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, A, A STRONGER RETAIL ENVIRONMENT, UM, AND MAKE IT MORE VIABLE TO HAVE TO HAVE RETAIL USES. UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, AT THE SAME TIME, IF, IF THE COUNCIL FEELS LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A, A STRONGER ENCOURAGEMENT FOR, UH, FOR ACTIVE USE, UM, TODAY, THEN ALTERNATIVE TWO IS, IS ALSO, YOU KNOW, WORKABLE. IT, IT'S, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE SAME PRINCIPLE. COUNCILOR NOLAN. THANKS. GIVEN THAT IT GIVES US FLEXIBILITY, I'D BE HAPPY TO NOT FOR THAT AREA, NOT HAVE THE PROPOSED PETITION, BUT TO GIVE MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH ALTERNATIVE TWO WOULD PROBABLY BE MY FIRST PRIORITY OR ALTERNATIVE ONE. SO THAT'S WHAT MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE. I HAVE COUNCILOR ZZI, THEN THE VICE MAYOR, AND THEN COUNCILOR FLAHERTY. UH, THANK YOU. I ALSO WOULD SUPPORT, UM, ALTERNATIVE TWO. I THINK IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CRA PROJECT AT 2326 MASS A, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET, SO IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE RETAIL ON THE FIRST FLOOR. SO I THINK, UM, I, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO BUILD IN SOME FLEXIBILITY AND, UM, I, I THINK THAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE WE SHOULD CHOOSE. THANK YOU. I YIELD, THANK YOU VICE MAYOR. UM, THANK YOU. UM, I FEEL LIKE I, I STILL DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS CONVERSATION AND THAT I, LIKE, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH CAMBRIDGE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THEIR PROJECT WITH, YOU KNOW, THE CAMBRIDGE STREET PROJECT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP LAST TIME, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL. IT FEELS LIKE THE SPECIFIC CONCERN IS THAT ON A SMALL LOT, YOU, EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO DO EVERYTHING RIGHT, THAT YOU PHYSICALLY COULD NOT FIT IT ALL TOGETHER. AND LIKE, I WONDER WITH BOTH ALTERNATIVE, ONE ALTERNATIVE TO THE ADDITIONAL TRADITION, LIKE WHAT ABOUT SMALL LOTS IN SOUTH OF PORTER, PORTER SQUARE THAT PHYSICALLY JUST CANNOT FIT LIKE THE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL WITH A 50%, WITH A TRANSFORMER, WITH ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED, UH, TO FIT ON IT. LIKE HAVE WE EXPLORED THAT PER SPECIFIC PIECE OF IT? ASSISTANT MANAGER? YEAH. UH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, VICE MAYOR THROUGH YOUR CHAIR. [00:20:01] UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT SMALLER LOTS IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CORRIDOR CAN DO. IT'S NOT THAT THEY CAN'T DO, UM, ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR SPACE, IT JUST BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT. UM, AND, AND I THINK THE CHALLENGE WITH THE CRA PROJECT IS THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED DESIGN AND SO, UM, THERE'S A COST ATTRIBUTED TO THAT. SO AGAIN, I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CORRIDOR IN SECTIONS AND SAY, WHAT'S THE PRIORITY HERE? IS THAT HOUSING OR ACTIVE USE? AND THEN, UM, MAKE POLICIES ACCORDINGLY. SO AGAIN, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO, JUST BECAUSE THE ONE PRINCIPLE STANDS TRUE IN ONE SECTION DOESN'T MEAN IT NEEDS TO, UH, BE REPLICATED AT OTHER PLACES BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, IT JUST NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE CREATIVITY. UM, AND, UM, UM, PRE-PLANNING. THANKS MAYOR. SO TO FOLLOW UP, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, TO THE, UH, TO MELISSA, SO IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT LIKE ON A 5,000, 4,000, 3000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, YOU COULD BUILD, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY NOT EVEN TO THE FULL 12 STORIES HERE, BUT JUST TO SIX STORIES WITH THE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL AND THAT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM, I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. I THINK THAT IN THAT CASE, LIKE I STILL AM NOT THE BIGGEST FAN OF ANY OF THESE, BUT I THINK THAT MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THEN FOR ALTERNATIVE ONE. AND IF WE PROCEED WITH THAT, I'LL VOTE FOR IT. I REALLY WAS WORRIED THAT WE PHYSICALLY JUST COULD NOT DO ALL OF IT. BUT IF YOU FEEL CONFIDENT AND THAT HOLDS TRUE BETWEEN NOW AND THE FINAL VOTE, I'M HAPPY TO VOTE FOR ALTERNATIVE ONE. THANK YOU. ASSISTANT MANAGER. YEAH, THANK YOU. AND, AND I, I, I THINK IT IS TRUE 'CAUSE WE HAVE, WE HAVE SEEN 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS PROPOSE SIX STORY, UH, BUILDINGS WITH GROUND FLOOR ACTIVE USE. SO IT, IT'S NOT THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. COUNCILOR FLAHERTY. THANK YOU. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT ALTERNATIVE TWO, BECAUSE OF THE, UM, LACK OF A REQUIREMENT FOR ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR USE, THAT THE EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE TWO, WERE WE TOO ORDAINED THAT OR PASS ALONG TO SECOND READING, WOULD BE TO ENTICE, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRICTLY HOUSING TO FIVE TO SIX STORIES AS OPPOSED TO, UM, SEEKING TO BUILD TO NINE TO 12 STORIES WITH AN ACTIVE USE BECAUSE OF THE COST. OBVIOUSLY THE ACTIVE USE IS A COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND, UM, THAT HAS TO BE FACTORED INTO THE ENTIRE PROJECT. IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT MR. ROBERTS? UM, THROUGH THE CHAIR? I, I THINK THE, I MEAN, THE WAY I WOULD DESCRIBE IT IS, UM, IF A SITE CAN ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT, AND ESPECIALLY, PARTICULARLY IF IT, UM, CAN ACCOMMODATE, YOU KNOW, 12 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL USE, UM, THIS WOULD, UM, ENSURE THAT, THAT A DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SCALE WOULD HAVE, UM, ACTIVE USE. SIMILARLY, IF IT'S A SIX STORY, IF, IF A DEVELOPER WERE GOING AHEAD WITH A SIX STORY PROPOSAL ON A LARGER SITE, YOU KNOW, A MORE SUBSTANTIAL PROPOSAL THAT'S, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAYBE HAVE 30 TO, TO 50 OR 60 UNITS, THEN THIS WOULD ALSO ENSURE THAT THERE WOULD BE ACTIVE USE AT THE GROUND FLOOR. WHAT THIS WOULD, WOULD DO IS WOULD GIVE KIND OF A CARVE OUT FOR SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS TO, UM, TO BUILD SMALLER PROJECTS LIKE THE ONE WE'RE WE'RE THAT WE SAW FROM THE CAMBRIDGE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, 20, ROUGHLY 20 UNIT SORT OF CONCEPT FOR A A CONDO DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD, IT WOULD DRAW A LINE OF SAYING, IF IF THE PROJECT IS SCALED DOWN ENOUGH, THEN IT CAN PROCEED, UM, WITHOUT HAVING THE ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT. SO, SO THERE'S SORT OF TWO IN TERMS OF THE INCENTIVES. THERE'S SORT OF TWO DIMENSIONS TO IT. ONE, KIND OF WHAT MELISSA WAS ALLUDING TO BEFORE, WHICH IS HOW, HOW ATTRACTIVE IS, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL USE AS A USE AT THE GROUND FLOOR AND SOME, SOME PLACES LIKE AROUND PORTER SQUARE OR YOU KNOW, MASS AVE MORE CLOSER TO HARVARD SQUARE. UM, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THAT ACTIVE USE IS GONNA BE, UM, AN ATTRACTIVE USE TO INCORPORATE INTO THE PROJECT. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GONNA BECOME NECESSARILY A BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, A DEVELOPER WOULD SEEK TO DO A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND IT, IT WOULD WORK. AND IF, AND IF THE DEVELOPER'S SORT OF ON THE BUBBLE IN TERMS OF MAYBE NOT WANTING TO DO ACTIVE USE, THE ZONING HELPS TIP THE BALANCE A LITTLE BIT SO THAT THE DEVELOPER SAYS, OH, OKAY, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO DO A [00:25:01] SIX STORY DEVELOPMENT OR, OR TALLER, I WOULD NEED TO, TO HAVE THE ACTIVE USE. SO THAT'S THE IDEA OF KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TIPPING THE SCALE A LITTLE BIT IN THE, AND THEN IN THE SECTION NORTH OF PORTER SQUARE WHERE MAYBE ACTIVE USE IS NOT AS, UM, ECONOMICALLY DESIRABLE AT THIS STAGE. MAYBE A DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, WOULD SAY, WELL, THE, THE RENTS FOR RETAIL USE DON'T REALLY, UM, AREN'T REALLY AT A LEVEL THAT WOULD MAKE IT DESIRABLE ECONOMICALLY. THIS WOULD ALLOW AN ALTERNATIVE OF A, A SMALLER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO, TO PROCEED WITHOUT, UM, THE ACTIVE USE. BUT AGAIN, IF, IF A DEVELOPER WANTED TO MAKE USE OF A LARGER SITE AND DO A LARGER DEVELOPMENT, THEN THEN THE ACTIVE USE WOULD HAVE TO BE PART OF THAT, RIGHT. SO, AND, AND I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR THIS STRETCH OF MASS AVE AND I THINK I'M THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL THAT'S ACTUALLY LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I KNOW IT VERY WELL. I KNOW IT INTIMATELY AND I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE ACTIVE USE IS LIKE ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THAT SECTION OF NORTH MASS AVE. AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HEIGHT, AND THAT WAS BEFORE MY TIME, BUT I THINK ALTERNATIVE TWO IS A MORE REASONABLE APPROACH FOR THIS AREA THAN ALTERNATIVE ONE, BECAUSE THE CONVERSE IS ALSO TRUE THAT I THINK ALTERNATIVE ONE, UM, EVEN THOUGH IT REQUIRES THE ACT OF USE NECESSARILY SAYS TO DEVELOPERS, WELL, WE'VE GOTTA GO HIGHER IN ORDER TO ABSORB THE COSTS OF ACTIVE USE IN THAT SECTION OF NORTH MASS AVE. AS OPPOSED TO, WELL, WE CAN DO A DEVELOPMENT TO FIVE TO SIX STORIES, WHICH IN MY VIEW, HAVING LIVED THERE FOR THE MAJORITY OF MY, WELL NOT THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE, BUT FOR THE, UH, FORMATIVE YEARS OF MY LIFE, THAT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE FIVE TO SIX STORY USE WITHOUT AN ACTIVE, UH, GROUND FLOOR USE IS MUCH MORE, UH, IN CHARACTER AND SCALE AND, UM, EASY TO, I THINK, UH, SEAMLESSLY INTER INTEGRATE INTO THAT VERY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAN, UM, ALTERNATIVE ONE. SO I THINK IT'S GOOD. I I THINK IT'S A GOOD, UM, RECOMMENDATION DESPITE THE PLANNING BOARD'S, UM, THOUGHT PROCESS. UH, YOU YIELD, I YIELD ANYONE ELSE? UH, COMM NOLAN? YEAH, JUST ONE MORE QUICK THING. THE, THIS IS ONLY ABOUT MASS AVE, WHICH IS A RETAIL STRETCH. I MEAN, THE WHOLE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS TO INCENTIVIZE RETAIL. CORRECT? THAT'S PART OF WHY I'M TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN. YES, WE WANNA DO HOUSING, BUT HOUSING HERE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE ABOVE RETAIL, BUT ALSO THROUGH THE ENTIRE REST OF THE CITY, THERE IS A DRAMATIC MORE HOUSING. SO THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS TO SEE IF THERE'S WAYS THAT WE CAN GET RETAIL IN ADDITION TO HOUSING, BUT THE WHOLE POINT IS THIS IS A STRETCH. CORRECT. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO, THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M WRESTLING WITH THIS. YEAH, THANKS. YEAH. UM, BEFORE WE GO BACK, UM, YEAH, WHERE I'M SORT OF STRUGGLING WITH THIS IN, IN A, IN A COUPLE AREAS. I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST, MASS AVE IS OUR MAJOR CORRIDOR, RIGHT? I MEAN, HERE WE ARE DEBATING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND HOW, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T HAVE FOUR STORY BUILDINGS IN, IN NEIGHBORHOODS AND NOW WE'RE ONLY GONNA ALLOW FOUR STORY BUILDINGS ON MASS AVE, THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE OF THE CITY. UM, OR AT LEAST A SECTION OF IT. UM, THAT DOESN'T, I MEAN IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE STEPS THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE BUILDING HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS MORE CHALLENGING, WE NEED TO BE BUILDING UP ON THE CORRIDORS. AND UM, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT, I WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE, UH, ABOUT, ABOUT THIS AND, AND THEY SAID THAT, WELL, YOU KNOW, NORTH MASS AVE DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF TALL BUILDINGS, BUT I'M FINE WITH IT IN CENTRAL SQUARE, BUT I'M NOT FINE WITH IT IN NORTH MASS AVE BECAUSE CENTRAL SQUARE HAS A LOT OF TALL BUILDINGS. AND I REMINDED THEM THAT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE TALL BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN MY LIFETIME. THEY WEREN'T ALWAYS THERE. THEY WERE THERE BECAUSE THE CITY SAID, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE GONNA ALLOW THESE TALL BUILDINGS TO HAPPEN. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S DESTROYED THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR MADE, YOU KNOW, OR, OR MADE CENTRAL SQUARE, YOU KNOW, DAMAGED CENTRAL SQUARE. ANY OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE IN CENTRAL ISN'T ABOUT THE HEIGHTS OF THE BUILDINGS. AND SO, YES, I WANT TO BE COGNIZANT OF WHAT IS ON MA NORTHERN MASS AVE NOW AND HOW DO SORT OF THINGS FIT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS A MAJOR CORRIDOR IN THE CITY AND WE CAN'T ON ONE HAND SAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING BUILDING [00:30:01] IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE SAY WE'LL PUT EVERYTHING ON THE CORRIDORS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT REALLY PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEN WHEN WE TALK BUILDING ON THE CORRIDORS, PEOPLE SAY, WELL, THE CORRIDORS ARE INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ARE THEY OR AREN'T THEY? AND, AND SO WHERE ARE WE GONNA PUT THE TALLER BUILDINGS IF WE'RE NOT GONNA PUT THEM ON THE MAJOR CORRIDORS? UM, AND FOUR STORIES, I MEAN, FOUR STORIES CAN BE DONE NOW, RIGHT? EVEN WITHOUT CHANGES. AND WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING ON MASS AVE. SO THERE IS SOME, I MEAN, IS THAT, IS THAT, AND I'M SURE THERE'S A MILLION REASONS AS THERE ARE OWNERS, RIGHT? BUT IS THAT BECAUSE FOUR STORIES DOESN'T PENCIL OUT FINANCIALLY AND IT'S NOT WORTH IT FOR PEOPLE TO DO THAT AND YOU HAVE TO GO, YOU KNOW, GIVE THEM THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE EXTRA HEIGHT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT WORK? UM, YOU KNOW, SO I MEAN, I'M JUST, I'M JUST STRUGGLING WITH, WITH ESSENTIALLY KEEPING THE SAME HEIGHT AS IT IS NOW ON A MAJOR CORRIDOR. WHEN WE ARE SAYING THAT WE NEED TALLER BUILDINGS ON THE MAJOR CORRIDORS, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THOSE THINGS FIT. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK, I MEAN, I WOULD PREFER ONE, UM, OPTION ONE BECAUSE I THINK IT DOES INCREASE AT LEAST, AND AGAIN, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE STRETCH, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S DIVIDED INTO FOUR. UM, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER, THE OTHER THREE ARE STICKING WITH WHAT, WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN. AND, AND THOSE ARE IN LINE WITH THE TASK FORCE, RIGHT? DO YOU REMEMBER MS. PETERS, UH, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER? SO THE DISCUSSION OUT OF THE MASSIVE PLANNING STUDY WORKING GROUP WAS THAT WE WANTED TO ENCOURAGE, UM, ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR, BUT THEY DIDN'T SET A SPECIFIC THRESHOLD SO THAT, THAT THAT'S, UH, WE DON'T HAVE THAT SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION. UM, SO AGAIN, I I, I THINK I PREFER TALLER BUILDINGS ON MAIN CORRIDORS. AND PROPOSAL ONE IS, DOES THAT ALTERNATIVE ONE, DOES THAT CORRECT? UH, YOU, YOU COULD STILL GET UP TO 12 STORIES IN EITHER, IT WOULD JUST BE ONE WOULD COME WITH THE CONDITION OF, UH, ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR USE, BUT SOMEONE COULD, SOMEONE COULD SAY, I'M GONNA DO FOUR STORIES 'CAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DO THE ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR USE. OTHERWISE THEY COULD DO EIGHT. UH, SO FOUR THEY COULD DO IN EITHER CASE. YEAH. BUT CORRECT, LIKE THAT PRINCIPLE. THAT'S RIGHT. RIGHT. OKAY. UM, I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM CONSTANCE, SABRINA WHEELER OR THE MAYOR COUNCIL, SABRINA WHEELER. JERRY, THANKS. I, UH, THINK A NUMBER OF WHAT I WAS THINKING HAD BEEN SAID. I THINK, YOU KNOW, UH, PREFERENCE FOR ALTERNATIVE ONE, UH, WITH ALTERNATIVE TWO BEING BETTER THAN THE, THE CURRENT, UH, PROPOSED PETITION, UH, THIS IS A PLACE WHERE WE WANNA SEE HOUSING ACTIVE USE AS AS IMPORTANT THERE. AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES, IT WOULD PREFER IT IF WE COULD JUST GUARANTEE THAT THE EXISTING RETAIL WOULD STAY THERE. THERE'S PLACES WHERE THERE'S, THERE'S NO EXISTING RETAIL RIGHT NOW. UM, BUT I THINK ALTERNATIVE ONE SORT OF GETS AS CLOSE AS WE CAN DO TO THAT A BACK MAD MAYOR. SO I THINK BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING IS IT FEELS LIKE WHEREVER PATH WE'RE HEADING, I DON'T THINK THERE'S CONSENSUS ON ONE R TWO UNFORTUNATELY. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, I IT'S FIVE VOTES DUNNO WHAT WE DO WITH THAT. SO I'M KIND OF THINKING ABOUT THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK ALTERNATIVE TO, TO MELISSA'S POINT TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER'S POINT, YOU CAN DO UP TO 12. UM, AND I THINK THE WHOLE POINT A LOT ABOUT WHY WE ARE HERE WAS ABOUT THE RETAIL. SO I THINK I AM KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH THAT ASPECT OF IT. UM, SO I THINK I'M LEANING TOWARDS I, I I, BUT I HEAR, YOU KNOW, YOU COUNCILOR MCGOVERN AROUND AVE. UM, SO I THINK, I GUESS GOING BACK TO SOMEONE'S QUESTION EARLIER, UM, IF THEY DON'T MIND REPEATING KIND OF WHAT THEY SAID EARLIER TO JUST SO THAT I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE CRYSTAL CLEAR, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING BOARD HAD THEIR RECOMMENDATION, UM, YOU HAVE THAT AND THEN THERE'S THE ALTERNATIVE TOO, UM, JUST TO HEAR FROM THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OR THE TEAM, LIKE, DID, DID YOU SAY THERE WAS A PREFERENCE THAT YOU ALL HAD OR A RECOMMENDATION? THERE'S SOME MORE THINGS TO CONSIDER ASSISTANT MANAGER? YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK JEFF DESCRIBED IT QUITE WELL TO SAY THERE, THERE THERE'RE REALLY TWO [00:35:02] VERSIONS TO GET TO THE SAME GOAL. UM, ONE SLIGHTLY SKEWING TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE TO PROTECT, UH, GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR. UM, AND I, I, I REALLY DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION EITHER WAY. I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT WITH THE, THE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS, THE, THE ROLE OF THIS IS TO BALANCE TWO REALLY IMPORTANT GOALS. THE CITY HAS HOUSING PRODUCTION AND UH, ACTIVE COMMERCIAL SPACES. UM, AND SO I THINK THE QUESTION IS, LOOKING AT THIS STRETCH OF MASS AVE, UM, WHAT'S THE FUTURE CHARACTER YOU WANT OF THAT? DO YOU, UM, IF IT WERE TO REDEVELOP WITH ALL HOUSING AND NO RETAIL, WOULD THAT BE, UM, A POSITIVE OUTCOME? IF IT WERE TO BE A MIX, WOULD THAT BE, YOU KNOW, POSITIVE OR, OR, OR ALL COMMERCIAL WITH LESS HOUSING? SO I, I THINK IT'S REALLY IS, AGAIN, IT'S A POLICY, UH, DISCUSSION. I THINK THESE ARE TWO GREAT OUTCOMES THAT GET US TO WHAT WE'VE HEARD AS THE GOALS OF COUNCIL. AND SO WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG PREFERENCE, UM, BUT DO PREFER ONE OR TWO TO THE PROPOSED PETITION. AND SO WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, I KNOW IT'S, IT'S NOT CLEAR RIGHT NOW ON WHERE THE VOTES ARE, BUT, UM, I THINK, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN GO WRONG EITHER WAY. MADAM MAYOR, CAN I JUMP IN FOR A QUICK PLEASE? JUST, UH, UM, SO WE'RE GONNA, I MEAN, WE NEED FIVE VOTES, RIGHT? TO, FOR, FOR THIS, FOR A HOUSING PETITION. I'M LOOKING AT THE SOLICITOR OUT THERE IN THE AUDIENCE. SHE'S JUST NODDING MAYBE. SO WE NEED, WE NEED FIVE VOTES TO AMEND, BUT SIX TO PASS MM-HMM . OKAY. UM, AND I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA GET EITHER OF THOSE OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE TODAY. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA GET FIVE. UM, NOW WHAT WE COULD DO, IF WE WANT TO KEEP MASS AVE MOVING, AND AGAIN, IT, IT, OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE, WE COULD TAKE A VOTE ON OPTION ONE OR TWO AND WHO, WHICHEVER ALTERNATIVE COMES OUT, YOU KNOW, ON TOP THAT THAT WOULD BE DIRECTION FOR YOU TO SORT OF CREATE THAT LANGUAGE JUST TO KIND OF KEEP IT ON PACE. IT CAN BE FURTHER AMENDED ON UNTIL IT'S FINAL. RIGHT? SO IF WE DO WANNA MOVE IT OUT TODAY WITH SOME GUIDANCE TO CDD, WE COULD JUST, WE COULD TAKE THIS VOTE. THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH TWO OF OUR MEMBERS AREN'T HERE. PEOPLE MIGHT STILL BE THINKING ABOUT IT, BUT IT WOULD KEEP IT MOVING. THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP IT IN COMMITTEE AND IT EXPIRES ALONG, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH CAMBRIDGE STREET, WHICH, YOU KNOW, SETS US BACK A LITTLE BIT. BUT, UM, SO I, I, FIRST OF ALL, MADAM MAYOR, I, I CUT YOU, YOU KNOW, I JUMPED IN, SO I, I I BACK. NO, I MEAN I THINK I'VE BEEN, I WAS THINKING KIND OF ALONG WHAT YOU'RE THINKING, UM, ON SOME OF THIS, SO, OKAY. YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK I'M KIND OF WHERE YOU ARE, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, UM, AND I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF WE COULD COME TO A CONSENSUS IN THE GROUP, BUT THERE ISN'T ONE. BUT IF I HAVE TO VOTE, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK MAYBE WE CAN CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM YEAH, SOME FOLKS, I, I HAVE THE VICE MAYOR, COUNCILOR FLAHERTY AND COUNCILOR SUZI. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK I'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT LIKE, I MEAN, MY PREFERENCE WOULD TO BE, TO NOT DO THIS, BUT I ALSO WANNA SAY LIKE, I THINK THEY WERE FIGHTING OVER TWO THINGS THAT ARE BASICALLY THE SAME. LIKE THEY'RE THE SAME IN SOUTH OF PORTER, THEY'RE THE SAME IN PORTER SQUARE, THEY'RE THE SAME IN LINEAR PARK TO ARLINGTON. SPECIFICALLY IN PORTER SQUARE. WE'RE NARROWLY TALKING ABOUT WOULD A FIVE OR SIX STORY BUILDING THAT IS BIGGER THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET HAVE TO HAVE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS LIKE VERY SMALL, LIKE AMOUNTS OF DIFFERENCES. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, UH, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE LIKE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE'S THE VOTES FOR THIS, WE SHOULD MOVE TO DO SOMETHING, WE SHOULD GO FORWARD WITH IT. I WOULD SAY THAT LIKE BOTH OF THEM ARE PRETTY SIMILAR AND SO I JUST WANNA LOWER THE STAKES OF THIS. AND I THINK SOMETIMES THAT MAKES IT HARDER WHEN THEY'RE LIKE ALMOST VIRTUALLY THE SAME THING AND 95% OF IT. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT LIKE IF, UM, FOR ME PERSONALLY, YOU KNOW, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE NOT TO DO THIS. IF WE VOTE FOR ALTERNATIVE ONE, I FEEL LIKE AT LEAST I GOT A LITTLE BONE IN IT, AND SO HAPPY TO VOTE FOR IT. SO I WOULD JUST MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE MOVE FORWARD. UH, CAN WITH, UH, OH YEAH, WELL I JUST HAVE TWO OTHER, I MEAN, TWO OTHER COUNSELORS WANT US SPEAK TO IT. UM, CAN I COME BACK TO YOU FOR YOUR MOTION AND LET THOSE, UM, IS IT OKAY IF I MAKE THE MOTION THEN THEY CAN DISCUSS IT. IT JUST GIVES US SOMETHING TANGIBLE. ALRIGHT, GOT, IF THAT'S OKAY. UM, I WOULD JUST MAKE A FORWARD A MOTION THAT, UM, WE, UH, FORWARD THE ZONING PETITION WITH A FAVORABLE [00:40:01] RECOMMENDATION, UH, TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL, AND THAT'S NEUTRAL. AND THEN, UM, I DUNNO EXACTLY HOW WE WOULD MAKE THIS MOTION, BUT I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT, UM, UH, AND AS PART OF THAT MOTION AND THAT CDD, UH, COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON ALTERNATIVE ONE. ALTERNATIVE ONE, YES. YES. OKAY. UM, I WILL GO TO COUNCIL. ARE YOU, YOU SET FOR NOW, VICE MAYOR? I AM. THANK YOU. I'LL GO TO COUNCILLOR FLAHERTY. SO I, I THINK I'M HEARING, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN APPETITE TO, UM, MAKE SOME SORT OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING ORDINANCE THAT'S CURRENTLY EXISTING TO REMOVE SOME OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN EXCHANGE FOR, UH, INCREASED DEVELOPMENT ON THE CORRIDORS ON MASS. HAVE, AM AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? I THINK SOME PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHERE I STAND, I FIND WITH THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AS IT IS, AND I WANNA HIDE ON THE CORRIDOR. YOU LIKE IT EVERYWHERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, LET ME PREFACE MY REMARKS BY SAYING THAT I'M NOT SO SURE THAT I AGREE THAT THERE'S ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE, UH, THE, THE POSITION OF ENVISION SUMMARY THAT SAYS WE, WE NEED 12,500 ADDITIONAL UNITS OF HOUSING IN CAMBRIDGE. I MEAN, I'VE LOOKED AT IT, I THINK IT'S A PROJECTED PROJECTION. I'VE SEARCHED FOR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT CAN SUPPORT THAT. I DON'T SEE ANY, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT'S A PROJECTION BASED IN GOOD FAITH UPON WHAT WE THINK THE FUTURE OF CAMBRIDGE SHOULD BE. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO WORK TOWARDS THAT GOAL, RATHER THAN SEEING THE MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT IN MY VIEW, AND I KNOW IT'S DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL, I THINK IS, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS JUST WRONG. UH, IF WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT INCREASED DEVELOPMENT ON THE CAR IT IS, AND THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE THAN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, THEN, THEN MAYBE THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN TANDEM RATHER THAN SEPARATELY. SO RATHER THAN HAVE A MOTION TO REFER THIS BOTH, UM, MASS AVE AND CAMBRIDGE STREET, UH, TO THE, TO THE, UH, CITY COUNCIL OR A SECOND READING, MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THESE TOGETHER. MAYBE WE SHOULD COME BACK AND WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING ORDINANCE AND, AND MAYBE STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT. UH, AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, WE CAN TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CENTRAL SQUARE, NORTH MASS AVE, PORTER SQUARE AND, AND MAYBE WE CAN, UM, HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, I'M, I'M CERTAIN THAT, UM, THAT ALTERNATIVE TWO IS BETTER FOR THAT PORTION OF CAMBRIDGE THAN ALTERNATIVE ONE, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING ORDINANCE IS DOING, UH, TO NEIGHBORHOODS IN NORTH AND WEST AND THAT SECTION OF CAMBRIDGE. SO I, I I MAYBE WE'RE AT AN IMPASSE, UM, BUT IT'S ONE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE, MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE RESOLVED. YOU YIELD FOR THE MOMENT I YIELD COUNCILLOR UZI. UH, THANK YOU CHAIRMAN MCGOVERN. I, UM, SO I AGREE THAT ALTERNATIVE ONE AND TWO ARE VERY SIMILAR. I AGREE THAT MOST GROWTH SHOULD BE ALONG THE QUARTERS AND THAT MASS IS OUR GRAND LA UM, AND IT'S REALLY WHERE WE SHOULD BE BUILDING HOUSING. I ALSO AM AWARE, I WAS JUST, UM, CHECKING, APPARENTLY, UM, I WAS REMINDED BY A NEIGHBOR THAT LIVES IN NORTH CAMBRIDGE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LIKE 90 TO A HUNDRED VACANT STOREFRONTS CURRENTLY, UH, AT CENTRAL HARVARD AND PORTER SQUARE. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF VACANT STOREFRONTS AND WE HAVE OTHER VERY ACTIVE RETAIL DISTRICTS. WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, INMAN PORTER, HARVARD, HURON VILLAGE, KENDALL CENTRAL CAMBRIDGE CROSSING. SO I GUESS I WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE NUMBER ONE. UM, I, I AGREE WITH COUNSELOR FLAHERTY. I, I WANNA GET, UH, DEVELOPMENT LIKE OUT OF SCALE, OUT OF CONTEXT DEVELOPMENT OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, IF ANYWHERE IT BELONGS ON OUR MAJOR ARTERIAL. SO I, I'M, I'M JUST HERE TO SAY I'M WILLING, I'M OPEN TO ALTERNATIVE ONE. UH, IF THERE IS A PORT FOR THAT, AND I, I HOPE IN EXCHANGE WE'LL KEEP, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE ACTIVE GROUND RETAIL [00:45:01] AT THREE STORIES, UH, OR, OR, OR, YEAH, BUT, OR UP TO THAT WE KEEP IT, UH, ON CAMBRIDGE STREET, WHICH IS A VERY ACTIVE RETAIL PLACE. AND, UH, I I AGREE AGAIN WITH COUNCILOR FLAHERTY THAT YEAH, THE, THE HEIGHT SHOULD BE ON THE CORRIDOR. SO I, I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ONE. THANK YOU. I YIELD, THANK YOU. UM, BEFORE I GO BACK TO THE VICE MAYOR, LOOK, I'M, I'M GOING TO, JUST SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION FROM WHERE I STAND ON THIS, I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN 80 PLUS PERCENT OF THE CITY WAS ZONED TO THREE STORIES, I DON'T CALL FOUR WHAT WE DID WITH MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, GOING TO FOUR STORIES AS OF RIGHT, AND EVEN SIX STORIES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. I DON'T CLASSIFY THAT AS MASSIVE UPZONING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHERE I STAND ON THAT. UM, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE 12,000 NUMBER FROM ENVISION CAMBRIDGE, AND THAT'S NOT YOUR VISION FOR THE CITY, THAT'S FINE. EVERYONE'S ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINION AND THAT WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VISIONS AND LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT THE CITY. IF YOU DO FEEL THAT THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER, WE'RE NOT GONNA GET THAT BY BUILDING FOUR STORY BUILDINGS. WE'RE JUST NOT BIG ENOUGH TO DO THAT. THERE AREN'T THAT MANY LOTS, IT DOESN'T PENCIL OUT FINANCIALLY. WE HAVE TO BE BUILDING MUCH TALLER BUILDINGS ALONG THE CORRIDORS. UM, AND SO THAT'S WHERE I'VE ALWAYS BEEN. THAT'S WHERE I STILL AM. UM, YOU KNOW, SO JUST TO, YOU KNOW, CONCERT FLAHERTY, I'M, I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, JUST SO WE'RE NOT, PEOPLE KNOW WHERE I AM. I'M NOT SAYING VOTE FOR TALLER BUILDINGS ON THE QUARTERS, AND THAT MEANS I'M GONNA DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. I'M I WON. I WILL MAKE THOSE DECISIONS BASED ON THE, THE MERITS OF EACH PETITION. UM, BUT WE DO HAVE, I MEAN, WE HAVE A MOTION IN FRONT OF US COUNSELOR, UH, VICE MAYOR ZEMA, I KNOW YOU WANT THE FLOOR BACK, BUT JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY, THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US IS TO FORWARD, UM, THIS PETITION WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION UNDER, WITH ALTERNATIVE ONE, DIRECTING CDD TO COME BACK WITH LANGUAGE FOR ALTERNATIVE ONE. THAT'S THE MOTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US THAT CAN BE VOTED UP OR DOWN. UM, AND THEN WE CAN, DEPENDING ON HOW THAT VOTE GOES, WE CAN GO GO FROM THERE. I HAVE THE VICE MAYOR, AND THEN I'LL COME BACK TO COUNCILLOR NOLAN. UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I'M KIND OF CONFUSED, UM, QUITE HONESTLY, AFTER THE COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES, UM, IN THAT, MY HOPE WAS THAT ALTERNATIVE ONE IS MORE RESTRICTIVE FOR HOUSING THAN WILL CURRENTLY EXIST, I WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT IN THE FORM OF COMPROMISE. I FEEL LIKE I'M GETTING CONFUSED, UH, FROM THE CO UH, STATEMENTS FROM, UH, COUNCILLOR FLAHERTY AND COUNCILLOR , WHETHER IT FEELS LIKE IF WE VOTE FOR AMENDMENT ONE, THAT ACTUALLY FEELS LIKE WE'RE MAKING SOME SORT OF PROMISE ON SOME OTHER SORTS OF ZONING, WHICH IS NOT MY INTENTION. AND SO MY, I'LL JUST SAY THIS, MY PREFERENCE IS TO DO NOTHING UNLESS THESE PETITIONS EXPIRE. I'M HOPING THAT THIS MOTION WILL GIVE EVERYTHING, EVERYONE, LIKE SOME SORT OF WIN. IF PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THIS WILL NOT MAKE THEM HAPPY, I WOULD JUST WITHDRAW THE MOTION AND WE CAN SEND THIS TO COMMITTEE HEARING WITH HOUSING COMMITTEE AND TALK ABOUT IT MORE SOMEWHERE ELSE. OR LIKE, START AGAIN WITH THE PETITION. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA GO TO ASSISTANT MAN MANAGER PETERS. AND AGAIN, I, I WOULD JUST SAY, I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE. THIS IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US. THIS IS NOT ABOUT, WE'RE NOT CUTTING A DEAL ON THE FLOOR, THAT IF YOU DO THIS, I'M GONNA DO SOMETHING ELSE ON A, ON ANOTHER POLICY. THIS IS, IF, IF YOU DON'T LIKE OPTION ONE, DON'T VOTE FOR IT. IF YOU PREFER ALTERNATIVE TWO, VOTE FOR IT. UM, THERE ARE NO PROMISES OR DEALS BEING CUT HERE. ASSISTANT MANAGER. YEAH, THANK YOU. UH, THROUGH YOU CHAIR. UM, JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, UH, LETTING IT EXPIRE WOULD BE, UM, AGAINST THE GOALS OF THE ORIGINAL POLICY ORDER THAT ASKS CDD TO LOOK AT, UM, WAYS TO STRENGTHEN ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENTS. SO, UH, THE CHOICE BETWEEN IS EITHER LET IT EXPIRE OR ALTERNATIVE ONE OR TWO. UM, I WOULD SAY NO, NO CONSENSUS WOULD RESULT IN A, UH, WORST OUTCOME BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD THE GOALS OF THE COUNCIL WERE. SO I DO THINK THERE'S, UH, UH, AN IMPORTANCE TO PASS SOME VERSION OF THIS, WHETHER IT IT IS THE, UH, VERSION THAT PEOPLE PREFER. AND AGAIN, I DO THINK THEY'RE VERY CLOSE. UM, SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE MAKING HUGE COMPROMISES WITH EITHER, BUT I THINK IT'S BETTER TO FIND THAT SIXTH VOTE TO PICK ONE OF THEM THAN TO LET IT EXPIRE AND NOT HAVE ASSURANCES OF ACTIVE GROUND FLOW USE ES, ESPECIALLY ON [00:50:01] OTHER AREAS ON MASS AVE, WHICH WE'VE ALL AGREED, UH, SHOULD WARRANT THAT TYPE OF PROTECTION. UH, BEFORE I GO TO COUNCILOR NOLAND, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COUNCILOR SIMMONS IS PRESENT. COUNCILOR SIMMONS. PRESENT. PRESENT, YEAH. AND, AND TO CONS. I MEAN, I, I AGREE WITH YOU. SYSTEM. WE HAVE TO TAKE, WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS, RIGHT? AND, AND, YOU KNOW, CD'S LIST OF THINGS TO WORK ON IS NOT GETTING SHORTER. AND, AND WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, AND IT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT, WHAT I WANT OR SOMEONE ELSE WANTS OR WHATEVER, BUT WE NEED TO DO OUR JOB AND TAKE, AND WE'VE BEEN KICKING THIS CAN FOR A LONG TIME AND I, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, AND ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GONNA LET CAMBRIDGE STREET EXPIRE, 'CAUSE THERE'S MORE WORK TO BE DONE THERE, LETTING MASS A EXPIRE AS WELL. JUST CR CREATES EVEN MORE, YOU KNOW, FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR CDD TO, TO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT. SO I, I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE THEM SOME DIRECTION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. AND I MEAN, I WOULD VOTE FOR, UH, FOR ALTERNATIVE ONE, BUT I'M ALSO NOT GONNA, IF THAT DOESN'T PASS, I'LL VOTE FOR TWO. I MEAN, I, I, I JUST, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE. UM, I HAVE COUNCILOR NOLAN. THANKS. UM, I, COUPLE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION. SO IT, COMPARED TO THE EXISTING ZONING, THE, THE ONLY REAL CHANGE ON ALTERNATIVE ONE IS THAT PORTER SQUARE IS FOUR STORIES INSTEAD OF EIGHT STORIES. AND CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THAT? BECAUSE I THOUGHT PORTER SQUARE WITH COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COULD GO UP TO 18 STORIES, SO I REALIZE I SHOULD BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS. YEAH, NO, THANK YOU. GREAT QUESTION THROUGH YOU CHAIR. SO, UM, THROUGH A PUD, UH, RETAIL REQUIREMENT IS IN PLACE, UH, BUT WHAT WASN'T IN PLACE IN THE CURRENT ZONING IS THAT IF THERE WAS A, UH, SITE SPECIFIC, UH, REDEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR USE. SO THAT WAS SOME, AN ADDITIONAL REQ, UH, A REQUIREMENT WE WANTED TO ADD, UH, TO STRENGTHEN THAT. SO IF, IF A LARGE PUD WERE TO GO FORTH, THAT WOULD BE WITH RETAIL, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY PARCELS WITHIN PORTER SQUARE THAT COULD DEVELOP OUTSIDE OF A PUD. AND SO THAT'S TO, UM, MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PROJECTS GET, UH, ACTIVE USE, UH, STARTING AT FIVE STORIES. THANKS. UM, CONSTANT ON, YEAH, I AGREE WITH, UH, THE CHAIR THAT WE SHOULD MOVE THIS FORWARD. I WOULD, UM, LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT TO AN AMENDMENT, WHICH IS INSTEAD OF ALTERNATIVE ONE, ALTERNATIVE TWO, WE VOTE ON THAT. IF THAT FAILS, THEN WE GO BACK TO ALTERNATIVE ONE. CORRECT. WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE NEWEST AMENDMENT FIRST. MM-HMM . UM, KOR SIMMONS. I DIDN'T HAVE MY HAND UP. OH, I THOUGHT I JUST HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING. I THOUGHT YOU, I HEARD YOUR VOICE. I WAS JUST SAY SAYING MM-HMM . OH, SORRY. YEAH. UM, DID YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING? I DO, YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. FIRST OF APOLOGIES FOR BEING LATE LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER. I WANT US TO DO SOMETHING. I, WE HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME ON THIS PROPOSAL, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, HOUSING IS SO AN EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO, IT'S, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EASY. WE'VE GOT THAT, THAT WE HAVE CERTAINLY REALIZED. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD. AND I, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT, UH, THE VICE MAYOR SO THAT THE WORK KEEPS MOVING FORWARD AS OPPOSED TO NOT DOING ANYTHING, LETTING IT EXPIRE. SO AS CONVOLUTED AS IS, IS BECOMING, AT LEAST FOR ME, I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF. I WOULD, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE US TAKE A VOTE ON SOMETHING. I'M LEANING, UH, TOWARD ONE, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE SOME ACTION AS OPPOSED TO LETTING IT AN ANY MORE DELAYS, UH, CONTINUE. I YIELD THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD FROM EVERYBODY. UM, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COUNCILOR NOLAN TO MOVE THIS FORWARD WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION AND ALTERNATIVE TWO, AND THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE, JUST A MAJORITY VOTE. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A THRESHOLD WE HAVE TO MEET OR WHAT HAVE YOU. SO I'M , UM, APOLOGIES. UH, CHAIRMAN MCGOVERN. YEAH, SORRY. UM, AND IF THIS MOTION FAILS, THEN MY MOTION CORRECT IS BROUGHT ALTERNATIVE. OKAY, GREAT. YEP. WE JUST HAVE TO TAKE THE MOST RECENT MOTION FIRST. SO, UM, ON COUNCILOR NOLAN'S MOTION NOT TAKING, YES, IT'LL BE AMENDED. THIS IS JUST GIVING CDD THE DIRECTION TO GO BACK AND CREATE THE LANGUAGE WHICH THEY WILL THEN BRING BACK AT THE SUMMER MEETING, WHICH WE THEN CAN VOTE THAT TO FORWARD, WHICH WHEREVER WE LAND TODAY, WHETHER IT'S ALTERNATIVE ONE OR ALTERNATIVE TWO, ALL WE'RE DOING IS GIVING C, DD THAT DIRECTION TO CREATE THAT LANGUAGE, WHICH THEY WILL THEN BRING BACK AT THE SUMMER MEETING. WE CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION THERE. WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO VOTE FOR IT, THEN [00:55:01] TO SEND IT TO THE SEPTEMBER, WHATEVER IT IS, 14TH OR WHATEVER MEETING IS. AND THEN, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE FINAL VOTES. AND JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE AMENDMENT FROM COUNCIL NOLAN IS TO MAKE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION THAT CDD PREPARE LANGUAGE ON, UH, ALTERNATIVE TWO. TWO, CORRECT? CORRECT. YES. SO THAT'S THE FIRST VOTE. SO ROLL CALL COUNCILOR ZUBE IS ABSENT. VICE. NO, NO. COUNCILOR FLAHERTY? YES. YES. COUNCILOR MCGOVERN? NO. NO. COUNSELOR NOLAN? YES. YES. COUNCILOR SIMMONS? NO. NO. COUNCILOR SERINA WHEELER? NO. NO. COUNCILOR EY. YES. YES. MAYOR SIDIKI. NO, NO. THAT'S FIVE MEMBERS VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE IN THREE. RECORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. OKAY. SO NOW WE COME BACK TO THE VICE MAYOR'S MOTION TO SEND THIS FORWARD WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION WITH ALTERNATIVE NUMBER ONE ROLL CALL COUNCIL. ZUBE. ABSENT VICE MAYOR? YES. YES. COUNCILOR FLAHERTY? NO. NO. COUNCILOR MCGOVERN? YES. YES. COUNCILLOR NOLAN? YES. YES. COUNCILLOR SIMMONS. YES. YES. COUNCILLOR SABRINA WHEELER. YES. YES. COUNCILLOR ZUI. YES. YES. MAYOR SIDIKI. YES. YES. THAT'S SEVEN MEMBERS VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ONE IN THE NEGATIVE AND ONE ABSENT. OKAY, SO WE'RE HALFWAY DONE. . UM, SO THAT GETS US THROUGH MASS AVE. UM, WE NOW MOVE ON TO CAMBRIDGE STREET, AND I KNOW THERE ARE SOME SLIDES ON CAMBRIDGE STREET, OR AT LEAST ONE IF, IF NOT TWO. UM, SO I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE TEAM TO LEAD US THROUGH THAT. THANK YOU. UM, YEAH, THIS, THIS ONE IS, IS PRETTY SIMPLE. UM, I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN AND, AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU ALL TO DISCUSS, UM, SAME, SAME SETUP FOR THE CHART. SO, EXISTING ZONING, UH, WE'VE SPLIT IT INTO, UH, THREE DIFFERENT SORT OF AREAS. THERE'S CAMBRIDGE STREET, SORT OF A, AS A WHOLE, AND THEN WE'VE GOT LEACH MIRROR AND WEBSTER WINDSOR AREA THAT ARE TREATED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING. UM, SO EXISTING ZONING ON CAMBRIDGE STREET SORT OF GENERALLY ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL USE WITHOUT GROUND STORY. ACTIVE USE IS UP TO SIX STORIES, AND THAT'S THE MAXIMUM. THERE'S NO, UM, THERE'S NO ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT AT ALL. SO YOU CAN BUILD RESIDENTIAL UP TO SIX STORIES. IF YOU HAVE AN ACTIVE USE. YOU CAN STILL ONLY BUILD UP TO SIX STORIES IN LEACH MIRROR. UH, THE EXISTING ZONING ALLOWS UP TO SIX STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL OR, UH, SEVEN TO 10 STORIES. WITH ACTIVE USE IN WEBSTER, WINDSOR, YOU CAN GO UP TO SIX STORIES, UM, WITHOUT ACTIVE USES AND SEVEN TO 12 STORIES WITH ACTIVE USES. UM, SO WE, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS, UM, IN PREVIOUS ORDINANCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS BEFORE WE, UM, BROUGHT THE ZONING PETITION FORWARD. BUT, UH, WHERE WE LANDED, UH, BEFORE THE PETITION WAS DRAFTED WITH THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, UM, WHICH WAS THE, THE PROPOSED PETITION. THE PETITION REQUIRES, UM, ACTIVE USES FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT ABOVE THREE STORIES IN EACH OF THOSE THREE AREAS. SO THREE STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL, ONLY FOUR TO SIX WITH ACTIVE USES ON CAMBRIDGE STREET AS A WHOLE FOUR TO 10, UH, WITH ACTIVE USE IN LEACH MIRROR AND FOUR TO 12, UH, WITH ACTIVE USE IN THE WEBSTER WINDSOR AREA. THE PLANNING BOARD FELT THAT THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT TOO AGGRESSIVE AND THEY WERE, UH, THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS, UM, TO REQUIRE ACTIVE USES ABOVE FOUR STORIES. UM, SIMILAR TO, TO MASS AVE. SO THIS WOULD BE, UH, ON CAMBRIDGE STREET AS A WHOLE. UM, FOUR STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL ALLOWED. UM, FIVE TO SIX, YOU'D NEED ACTIVE USES IN LEACH MIRROR, UH, FIVE TO 10 YOU'D NEED ACTIVE USES IN, IN THE WEBSTER WINDSOR AREA. UM, ANYTHING, UH, FROM FIVE TO 12 STORIES WOULD REQUIRE ACTIVE USES. SO IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DO YOU REQUIRE ACTIVE USES ABOVE THREE STORIES OR, OR FOUR STORIES. I'LL TURN IT BACK. OKAY. AND DID YOU, DID YOU WANT TO, DID YOU FEEL ANY OF THE OTHER SLIDES THAT, THAT WAS JUST BACKGROUND ON CAMBRIDGE STREET, RIGHT? YEP. THOSE WERE JUST FOR REFERENCE, IF, IF YOU ALL ARE KIND OF FLIPPING THROUGH, UM, THERE'S JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, INFORMATION ON, UM, WHAT THE PROPOSALS, UH, WHAT THE ORIGINAL PETITION WAS, AND THEN WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAD RECOMMENDED. OKAY. UH, PLEASURE OF [01:00:01] THE COMMITTEE COUNCIL, FLAHERTY, ALL THIS TALK OF DEALS HAS WEDDED MY APPETITE. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE ORIGINAL PETITION, WASN'T THE ORIGINAL PETITION SUPPORTED BY MANY OF THE PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT BECAUSE EXACTLY. FOR THE REASON WHY EXACTLY. BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF RETAIL ON THE FIRST STORY. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE THE CASE? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE WORKING GROUP COUNCIL? WELL, I'M, I'M TALKING ABOUT BOTH THE WORKING GROUP AND THE ORIGINAL PETITION, HOW IT WAS, UH, THE ORIGINAL ZONING PETITION AND THE ZONING THAT ULTIMATELY PASSED ON CAMBRIDGE STREET AT THE, UH, AT THE ORIGINAL PETITION, WASN'T A REQUIREMENT OF FIRST FLOOR RETAIL, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT GARNERED THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE THE CASE OR DO I HAVE THAT JUST THE MANAGER? THAT FACT CONFUSED Y YEAH, THROUGH YOUR CHAIR. SO THE, THE ORIGINAL PETITION, UM, WAS AMENDED TO, TO A LOWER HEIGHT THAT WE HAVE NOW. RIGHT. UM, I DON'T RECALL WHERE WE SET THE ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF JEFF OR EVAN REMEMBER WHEN THE HEIGHTS WERE TALLER. UM, I THINK IT WAS EIGHT STORIES ON CAMBRIDGE STREET. UM, MAYBE, UH, AND I THINK LEACHMAN WEBSTER WINDOR WERE THE SAME, BUT, UM, IT, IT WAS KIND OF A DIFFERENT EQUATION THEN GIVEN THE HEIGHT WAS DIFFERENT OF CLARITY. RIGHT. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE A BUNCH OF ITERATIONS OF ALL OF THIS, AND I FRANKLY CAN'T RECALL ALL OF IT MYSELF. UM, BUT MY, MY MEMORY IS THAT THE ACTIVE RETAIL, UH, ON THE FIRST FLOOR WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, VERY IMPORTANT TO THE, UH, BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, VERY IMPORTANT TO, UM, TO THAT STRETCH OF CAMBRIDGE STREET AS A, UM, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, BUT ONE WHICH SUPPORTED VERY ACTIVE RETAIL THAT WAS USED BY THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. SO AGAIN, I, I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I, I, I THINK, AND MY MEMORY MAY BE WRONG, THAT, UH, THE EXPECTATION OF MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN EAST CAMBRIDGE, UH, AND WHO OPERATE BUSINESSES IN THAT AREA WAS THAT THE PROPOSED PETITION WAS WHERE WE WERE GOING TO LAND. UM, BUT I MAY HAVE THAT WRONG ASSISTANT MANAGER. YEAH. MY, MY, UH, MEMORY'S NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE EITHER, BUT I, I DO REMEMBER THAT THE, WHERE WE SET THE ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT WAS LESS IMPACTFUL IN THAT DISCUSSION BECAUSE THE THE HEIGHT WAS HIGHER. SO IT WAS MORE LIKELY THAT PEOPLE WERE GOING TO BUILD TO THE TALLEST HEIGHTS AND THEREFORE ENSURE ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR RETAIL. WHEN THE CONVERSATION SHIFTED AND THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR TO LOWER THE MAJORITY OF CAMBRIDGE RETREAT TO SIX STORIES, THAT'S WHERE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX BECOMES MUCH SMALLER. AND SO, UM, AS A DEVELOPER, YOU MAY NOT BUILD, YOU MAY FOREGO THOSE EXTRA TWO FLOORS AND NOT DO ACTIVE USE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN THE PREDICAMENT WE ARE NOW BECAUSE THE HEIGHT INCENTIVE IS OFF THE TABLE. UM, THE WHERE WE SET THE ACTIVE USE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN IT WAS THEN. SO WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT THEN I DON'T THINK WE WERE CONCERNED THAT THE MARKET WOULD DELIVER ALL RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITHOUT THE ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR USE. COUNCIL FAIR COUNCIL FLAHERTY. I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. I YIELD THANK YOU. PLEASURE OF THE COMMITTEE. NOT ANYBODY ON MINE. UM, UH, COUNCILLOR SUZI. I DON'T REMEMBER EVERYTHING, BUT I DO REMEMBER BOTH. YES, BOTH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES REALLY WANTED THREE STORIES FOR ACTIVE RETAIL AND NOT FOUR STORIES, BECAUSE THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT INCENTIVIZING TEARDOWN TEARDOWNS OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON CAMBRIDGE STREET. UH, SO I GENERALLY, I, I RESPECT THE PLANNING BOARD AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I DO THINK WE SHOULD HONOR THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE CAMBRIDGE STREET NEIGHBORS AND RESIDENTS WHO THOUGHT THAT WE'VE GOT VERY DYNAMIC LOCAL RETAIL. I MEAN, IT'S REALLY, CAMBRIDGE STREET IS AN EXTRAORDINARY ROAD FOR SHOPPING [01:05:01] AND THAT WE SHOULD, UM, CONTINUE, WE SHOULD REQUIRE IT AT, AT THREE STORIES, UM, AS PROPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I YIELD THANK YOU COUNCILOR NOLAN. THANKS. I I KINDA LIKE MESSED UP. I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. THERE MAY NOT BE CONSENSUS, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE ON EITHER THE PROPOSED PETITION OR PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS AND SEE IF THERE'S VOTES TO MOVE EITHER OF THEM FORWARD. RIGHT? I GUESS THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION THAT IT WOULD BE EITHER ONE OR NOT. IS THAT THE CASE? YEAH, I MEAN THERE'S, THAT'S, THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS, RIGHT? IT, WE COULD DO OTHER THINGS TOO, BUT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT CAN EITHER, SIMILAR TO THE LA YOU KNOW, AS POST ALTERNATIVE ONE AND TWO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT SOON. SO IT'S EITHER, WE COULD EITHER MOVE FORWARD AND VOTE ON THE PROPOSED PETITION OR THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION OR, UM, THE OTHER OPTION WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IS DO WE LET THIS EXPIRE AND HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATION ON REGARDING CAMBRIDGE STREET? SO THROUGH YOU OR TO EVERYBODY? I, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD NOT VOTE ON THIS AND LET IT EXPIRE. 'CAUSE I, I, UNLESS SOMEONE CAN TELL ME THAT THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE WOULD GET BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER OR SOME FURTHER AND THAT WOULD PROLONG IT, IT IT, YOU KNOW, WE ALREADY PASSED SOME ZONING AND CHANGING IT. AND I DO AGREE. I MEAN THIS IS A MAJOR RETAIL QUARTER WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED. IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THAN MASS A THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO TRY TO INCENTIVIZE ACTIVE USE AND NOT TO, UM, AND, AND, AND, AND THEREFORE I THINK FOR, FOR ME TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH EITHER THE PROPOSED PETITION OR THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION WOULD RUN COUNTER TO THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE POLICY ORDER THAT WE PUT FORWARD. WHICH WAS TO SAY WE WANT YOU TO COME BACK WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR INCENTIVIZING OR DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ACTIVE USE. 'CAUSE WE RECOGNIZE YES, THE HOUSING HELPS THE ACTIVE USE, BUT WITHOUT ACTIVE USE, YOU DON'T HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD EITHER, IF IT'S JUST ALL HOUSING. OKAY. UM, I HAVE THE VICE MAYOR, UM, UH, THANK YOU, UH, CHAIR MCGOVERN. UM, MY SUGGESTION WAS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IT'S KIND OF LIKE A STRANGE OUTCOME OF WHAT WE WOULD DO HERE, WHICH IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE THE STRICTEST ZONING IN THE CITY ON CAMBRIDGE STREET IN PARTICULAR. I WONDER IF THERE'S STILL A SOLUTION WE COULD REACH ON CAMBRIDGE STREET, WHICH IS THAT LIKE, I THINK THAT WE DECIDED NOT TO GO WITH EIGHT STORIES EARLIER. MAYBE SEVEN IS A COMPROMISE. MY THOUGHT IS THAT I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE FORWARDING THE LEACH MIRROR AND WEBSTER WINDSOR PARTS OF THE REZONING AND THEN LETTING THE CAMBRIDGE STREET SPECIFIC SPOT EXPIRE. AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, IF THE COUNCIL IS WILLING, WE COULD DO SEVEN STORIES AS A COMPROMISE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE FIRST FLOOR OF RETAIL THERE. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS PERHAPS LIKE A HEALTHIER BALANCE. THANK YOU. I GUESS MY QUESTION TO THE ASSISTANT MANAGER PETERS, OR MAYBE THE SOLICITOR, IS THAT, CAN WE SPLIT THEM? CAN WE SPLIT IT LIKE THAT? WHEN, WHEN YOU, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? SO COULD WE, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, CAN, CAN WE, THIS HAS ALL BEEN PUT FORWARD IN ONE, IN ONE ORDINANCE. SO CAN WE, THE VICE MAYORS, IF I UNDERSTAND 'EM CORRECTLY, IS SUGGESTING THAT WE, WE MOVE FORWARD WITH LECH MIRROR AND, AND WEBSTER AND WINDSOR, BUT NOT THE REST OF CAMBRIDGE STREET. AND IS THAT, I MEAN, YEAH, THAT IS, THAT WE CAN, I'LL DEFER TO THAT, DO THAT AT THIS POINT CITY SOLICITOR. BUT I'M, I'M GETTING A HEAD NOD THAT YES, WE COULD, UH, GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR CAMBRIDGE STREET, UM, TO THEN COME BACK WITH A NEW PETITION, UH, AS, UH, DIRECTED BY CITY COUNCIL AND JUST MOVE FORWARD. LEACH MAYOR AND WEBSTER WINDSOR UNDER THIS PETITION IS THAT MADAM SOLICITOR? THANK YOU. AND TO YOU, UH, MR. CHAIR, JUST TO ADD, I THINK YOU WOULD AMEND THIS PETITION TO REMOVE THE PORTIONS THAT YOU DON'T WANNA ACT ON AT THIS POINT AND, UM, AND THEN MAKE THAT A NEW PETITION AND THAT WOULDN'T, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO MORE HEARINGS, SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD. ANY OF THAT TO YOU, MR. OR WOULD IF IT'S A WHOLE NEW, IF IT'S A NEW PETITION, THERE WOULD BE A WHOLE NEW PETITION. IT WOULD BE A WHOLE NEW PETITION. YEAH. BUT WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LEACH MAYOR WEBSTER WINDSOR UNDER THIS PETITION. OKAY. SORRY, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. THAT WE COULD, YES. THOSE DON'T NEED ADDITIONAL HEARINGS THAT COULD MOVE FORWARD ON THIS, UH, PASS TO A SECOND READING ON THE SUMMER MEETING AND THEN ADOPTED IN SEPTEMBER BY SEPTEMBER 14TH. OKAY. UM, MR. VICE MAYOR, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. AND, BUT ARE YOU, ARE YOU, JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTION CLEARLY, YOU WANNA MOVE FORWARD WITH LEACH MIRROR AND WEBSTER WINDSOR, BUT ARE YOU UNDER WHICH THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION OR THE PROPOSED PETITION? UM, I THINK THAT, UM, EITHER WOULD BE FINE WITH ME. I'D BE FINE, [01:10:01] YOU KNOW, IN AN ACT OF SUPPORT TO GO WITH THE PROPOSED PETITION FOR LEACH MIRROR AND WEBSTER WINDSOR. SO YOU'RE, AGAIN, YOU'RE, SO YOU, YOU WANT TO GO, YOUR, YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO FORWARD WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, THE LEACH MIRROR AND WEBSTER WINDSOR PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER THE PROPOSED PETITION. YES. DISCUSSION. COUNCILOR NOLAN. THANKS. I CAN SUPPORT THAT. AND THE REASON NOT TO GO WITH THE CAMBRIDGE STREET IS 'CAUSE PE SOME COLLEAGUES WANT MORE DISCUSSION. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OR THROUGH YOU TO ANYONE? I BELIEVE SO, YES. OKAY. PLEASURE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE AMENDMENT. COUNCILOR ZZI. COUNCILOR ZZI. SO AM I UNDERSTANDING THINGS CORRECTLY THEN? SO THE MOTION IS TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETAIL AT FOUR STORIES FOR LEACH MIRROR IN WEBSTER, IN WINDSOR, AND JUST TO VOTE ON THOSE NOW? NO. UM, AND VICE MAYOR, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE I HEARD YOU TO SAY THAT YOU ARE MOVING FORWARD THE PROPOSED PETITION, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION. SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING WE MOVE FORWARD ON LEACH ME, WINDSOR AND WEBSTER AT THE THREE STORY HEIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. ACT, YES. IN AN ACT OF GOOD FAITH TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GET WIN FOR EVERYONE, HAPPY TO DO THE PROPOSED, UH, PETITION FOR LEACH MERE AND WEBSTER WINDSOR, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS NOT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE, YOU KNOW, BUT HAPPY TO PUT THAT AS THE MOTION. OKAY. SO I AM WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT MOTION, BUT I, I WANT, I DO WANNA REMIND EVERYONE THE REASON THAT, YOU KNOW, VOTING ON SIX STORIES FOR CAMBRIDGE STREET WITHOUT STEP BACKS WAS ALSO A COMPROMISE. AND I THINK OPENING UP PANDORA'S BOX AND, AND, UH, AND, AND INCREASING THE HEIGHT ON CAMBRIDGE STREET, YOU'RE PROPOSING, UM, THE REST OF CAMBRIDGE STREET TO BE SEVEN STORIES, I THINK IS HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC. I, I THINK SIX STORIES ESPECIALLY ON, AND I'M SORRY I ALWAYS GET MIXED UP IF IT'S THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET, THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET, BUT THERE'S ONE SIDE OF THE STREET THAT'S REALLY GONNA BE CAST INTO SHADOWS, UM, BECAUSE OF SIX STORY BUILDINGS. SO I, I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANNA GO TO SEVEN STORY BUILDINGS. I, I WOULD CONSIDER, I WOULD RATHER, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER COLLEAGUES. I MEAN, I WOULD BE OPEN TO THOUGH, I, I REALLY WANT RETAIL AT THREE STORIES. I MEAN, I'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT I WANT. I THINK THREE STORIES SHOULD BE THE HEIGHT. UM, SO THAT YEAH. YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON NOW. I MEAN THAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US NOW IS, UM, THREE STORIES. THREE STORIES. BUT JUST FORWARDING POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR LEACH ME AND WEBSTER AND WINDSOR SECTIONS AT THREE STORIES. THAT'S THE PROPOSED PETITION. SO THAT, THAT IS CO VICE MAYOR EM'S MOTION. GOT IT. UH, COUNCIL FAHERTY. THANK YOU. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME, AND I MIGHT HAVE THIS WRONG AGAIN, I KNOW I'M NEW ON THIS, THAT COUNCILOR BURHANS, UM, HAM'S MOTION IS ALMOST LIKE A DEAL ON THE FLOOR. AND THIS SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. I LIKE THIS BECAUSE WE'RE ALL HERE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT. SO IF WE MOVE FAVORABLY, UH, ON HIS MOTION, LECHMERE AND WEBSTER WINSOR GOES BACK TO CDD WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WE COME BACK AT SOME POINT AND DISCUSS CAMBRIDGE STREET. THIS SOUNDS LIKE A RATIONAL WAY TO DO BUSINESS. ALMOST LIKE WE ARE EXCHANGING IDEAS. SO I THINK I CAN SUPPORT WHAT THE VICE MAYOR IS, IS SUGGESTING, AND MAYBE WE CAN HAVE FUTURE CONVERSATIONS WHERE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL DEALS MADE ON ZONING. SO I YIELD, UH, COUNCILOR NOLAN. SORRY. THANKS. SO I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR. SO LEAD TO MIRROR IS JUST A SMALL, LITTLE PORTION, RIGHT? AND WEBSTER WINDSOR IS A REALLY TEENY, LIKE ONE BLOCK AREA. SO THE ENTIRE REST OF CAMBRIDGE STREET WOULD HAVE NO CHANGES UNDER THIS MOTION. [01:15:01] CORRECT. SO I, I WOULD MUCH PREFER THAT WE DEAL WITH THE REST OF CAMBRIDGE STREET. UM, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENTS. AND THE REAL REASON WE, I THOUGHT PUT THIS POLICY ORDER FOR IT. I APPRECIATE, UM, VICE S AND COUNCILOR FLAHERTY SAYING, WELL, LET'S AT LEAST GET THESE COUPLE THINGS DONE. BUT THEY'RE REALLY, IF I'M READING IT RIGHT, THEY'RE VERY TINY PERCENTAGE OF THIS. SO I WOULD ONCE AGAIN PROPOSE. SO WE, WE HAVE THIS MOTION IN FRONT OF US. I LET'S VOTE THIS MOTION ON AND THEN SEPARATELY CAN I MAKE A, I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON CAMBRIDGE STREET. OKAY. RIGHT. I WAS LIKE, LET'S, LET'S DEAL WITH THIS MOTION, LET'S IN FRONT OF US NOW. SO THE MOTION IS TO FORWARD, UH, TO, TO REFER BACK TO CDD WITH, UH, OR TO, TO REFER LECH ME AND WEBSTER WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL UNDER THE PROPOSED PETITIONS. THAT'S THE THREE STORIES. SO THAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US. NOW. ROLL CALL. COUNCILOR ZUBIE. ABSENT VICE MAYOR. YES. YES. COUNCILOR FLAHERTY. YES. YES. COUNCILOR MCGOVERN. YES. YES. COUNCILOR NOLAN. YES. YES. COUNCILLOR SIMMONS. YES. YES. COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER. YES. YES. COUNSELOR ZUI. YES. YES. MAYOR SIDIKI. YES. YES. THAT'S EIGHT MEMBERS VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND ONE RECORDED AS ABSENT. OKAY, GREAT. SO I'LL GO BACK TO YOU COUNCILLOR NOLAN. LET'S HAVE, YEAH, SO I, I I JUST WOULD LOVE US TO GET THIS DONE. AND SINCE THE ENTIRE, THE WHOLE REST OF THE LENGTH OF CAMBRIDGE STREET, WHILE I'D GO WITH THE THREE STORIES, THE PROPOSED PETITION, I WOULD, IN HOPING THAT IT WOULD THEN PREVAIL, WOULD GO WITH THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS FOUR STORIES AND FIVE TO SIX WITH ACTIVE USE FOR THAT PORTION OF THIS. I MAKE THAT MOTION. SO YOU'RE MOVING WITH THE PROPOSED TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSAL? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO HEAR DISCUSSION. 'CAUSE I, I WOULD, I I I DON'T, WE'VE SPENT SO MUCH TIME ON THIS AND IT'S BEEN BANDIED ABOUT FOR SO LONG. I'D RATHER HAVE THIS ENTIRE THING DONE. YES. LET ME, SO I THINK THERE'S SOME VICE MAYOR, I'LL GO BACK TO YOU. I THINK THERE WAS SOME QUESTION THAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT, UM, GOING TO SEVEN STORIES INSTEAD OF SIX. AND I GUESS I GOT A QUESTION. MADAMS SOLICITOR, YOU SHOULD JUST SIT UP HERE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UM, I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE IS IF THIS IS GONNA COME TO, IF WE DON'T LET THIS EXPIRE, AND THIS IS GOING TO COME TO DISCUSSION NOW, IS THAT A CHANGE WE COULD ACTUALLY MAKE WITHOUT HAVING TO REFILE? AND, AND I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT? SO I, AND AGAIN, IF, IF, IF, AND VICE MAYOR, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS, ONE OF THE REASONS I, I BELIEVE I HEARD YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE, YOU WANTED TO SEPARATE THESE TWO AND COME BACK ON CAMBRIDGE STREET AS THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT, THAT YOU WANNA MAKE AROUND ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, CAN HE, CAN THE VICE MAYOR MAKE THOSE, THAT, THOSE AMENDMENTS TODAY UNDER THIS CURRENT PETITION? BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS, CAN WE GO, CAN WE, I ALWAYS THOUGHT WE CAN'T MAKE IT LESS FOR LIKE, I, I DIDN'T THINK WE CAN NECESSARILY, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE HAVE TO GO THE, WHICH WAY WE GO. WE CAN GO UP TO MAKE IT TALLER, BUT WE CAN'T GO DOWN TO MAKE IT, MAKE THEM SHORTER. I ALWAYS FORGET WHICH WAY IT GOES. SO IF, IF COUNCILOR NOLAN'S, UM, UH, MOTION TO MOVE THESE FORWARD UNDER THE PROPOSED PETITION, WOULD COUNCILOR, WOULD THE VICE MAYOR BE ALLOWED TO AMEND THAT FURTHER TODAY? UH, THANK YOU TO YOU, MR. CHAIR. UM, SO IT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER OF THE PETITION TO ADD ADDITIONAL HEIGHT BEYOND WHAT IS IN THE, THE PENDING PETITION AND WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED. UM, WE, IN MOST SITUATIONS, REDUCING THE HEIGHT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PETITION AND IS CLARIFYING, UM, WHERE THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO WITH HEIGHT. BUT ADDING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WHERE IT HASN'T BEEN ADVERTISED TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING BOARD HEARING AND THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE HEARING, UM, MAKES THAT CHANGE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE. OKAY. COUNCILOR NOLL, SO I'M GONNA CLARIFY. I WAS SUGGESTING JUST FOR CAMBRIDGE STREET, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION, NOT THE PROPOSED PETITION. SAY THAT AGAIN? I'M SORRY. THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, [01:20:01] YOU WANTED TO GO WITH THE PLANNING BOARDS, RIGHT. I MEAN, MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE WOULD BE, I PROBABLY CAME THE JUST STICK WITH THE PROPOSED PETITION, BUT I'M, I UNDERSTAND THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION IS LESS RESTRICTIVE AND ALLOWS FOUR STORIES. UM, SO I, I'M PROPOSING THAT. OKAY. SO, SO NOW THE AMENDMENT OR THE MOTION IS POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION UNDER THE PLANNING BOARD'S, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS I HAVE THE VICE MAYOR AND THEN COUNCILOR ZZI. UM, I, I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THE AMENDMENT. I WOULD SAY IN GENERAL, BASED ON THE LEACH MIRROR, WEBSTER WINDSOR PIECE HERE AND THEN THE NORTHERN MA MASS A PIECE EARLIER. I THINK THAT LIKE, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS EARLIER WE VOTED ON THINGS THAT MADE IT MORE EXPENSIVE, ALLOWED MORE HOUSING. AND SO EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD NOT BE MY PREFERENCE, HAPPY ENOUGH TO ADD THE ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT, THAT WAS NOT TRUE ON CAMBRIDGE DREAM AND PROPER. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF WE CAN REACH, UH, AN AGREEMENT THAT WILL MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. UM, SO I WILL BE VOTING, NO THANK YOU COUNCILOR SUZIE. I, UM, I WOULD SUPPORT, AGAIN, I WOULD PREFER THREE RETAIL AT THREE STORIES ON CAMBRIDGE STREET. YOU GOTTA REMEMBER, IT'S A VERY NARROW STREET. IT'S NOT AS WIDE AS MASS AVE. UM, BUT I WILL SUPPORT COUNCILLOR NOLAN'S, UH, AMENDMENT TO, UH, OR PROPOSAL TO HAVE RETAIL AT FOUR STORIES. WE, WE JUST CAN'T HAVE CAMBRIDGE STREET BE TALLER THAN SIX STORIES THAT'S ALREADY REALLY PUSHING IT WITHOUT SETBACKS. UM, SO I HOPE THAT WILL PREVAIL. AND AGAIN, REMEMBER IT'S A VERY NARROW STREET. IT'S, IT'S NOT MASSIVE. THANK YOU. I YIELD. THANK YOU. UM, QUESTION TO THE, TO THE TEAM AND IF COUNCILOR NOLAN'S MOTION TO SEND FORWARD FAVORABLY UNDER THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION WERE TO FAIL TODAY, DOES THAT MEAN IT CANNOT COME BACK AT A LATER DATE OR IS THAT, UH, TO YOU, MR. CHAIR? SO THE, THE VOTES TODAY ARE NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, FINAL VOTES ON WHETHER OR NOT TO PASS ANY PORTION OF THIS PETITION. AND SO, UM, IT WOULDN'T BE UNFAVORABLE ACTION ON THIS PETITION. OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, THANK YOU. THROUGH YOU TO, UM, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, BASED ON WHAT YOU EARLIER SAID EARLIER ABOUT MASS, UM, AND THE POLICY ORDER AND THE INTENT OF THE POLICY ORDER, UM, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THIS PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION IS, IS BETTER THAN KIND OF THE EXISTING ZONING WHEN IT COMES TO THE RETAIL PIECE? THAT'S IT'S ASSISTANT MANAGER? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE PROPOSED PETITION, UH, AIMED TO MEET THE GOALS OF THE POLICY ORDER? YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR NOLAN IN THAT I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR, UM, QUITE A WHILE. AND SO I, I WILL BE GOING WITH, UH, AND VOTING YES ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. UH, COUNCILOR FLAY FLAY, BUT DOESN'T, IF, IF I MAY, DOESN'T THE PROPOSED PETITION DO THE EXACT SAME THING AND IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT, UH, A DEVELOP CAN SUSTAIN THE COST UNDER THE PROPOSED PETITION AS TO THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ASSISTANT MANAGER, IF THE PROPOSED PETITION JUST REQUIRES ACTIVE USE AT ONE STORY LESS, UM, SO IT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE IF YOU WANTED TO BUILD AN ALL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, UH, YOU'D BE MORE LIMITED UNDER THE PROPOSED. I, I, CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? OF COURSE. UM, THE, UM, JUST SO COUNCIL CAN UNDERSTAND THE OPTIONS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE AND, AND, UM, SO I, I'M CURIOUS, UM, UNDER VICE MAYOR ZES PROPOSAL, WHEN HE WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, WOULD, WOULD THE COUNCIL AGREE TO ADDITIONAL HEIGHT? AT WHAT HEIGHT WOULD HE WANT THE ACTIVE USE REQUIREMENT TO, TO KICK IN? WOULD IT BE AT THREE OR FOUR OR SOME DIFFERENT LEVEL? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE TWO CHOICES. OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE MANY, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THOSE ARE THE TWO CHOICES THAT ARE ON THE TABLE. VICE MAYOR. UM, I THINK THAT I AM HAPPY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, KEEP IT CONSISTENT TO DO THE PROPOSED PETITION AT THREE STORIES IF WE GOT THE EXTRA STORY OF HEIGHT. SO, SO MY UNDERSTANDING, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UM, THERE'S AN OPTION THAT WE COULD PASS ALL OF THIS TODAY AND NOT REVISIT IT WITH A NEW PETITION WHERE, UM, YOU COULD GET, UH, LEACH MAYOR [01:25:01] WEBSTER WINDSOR COUNCIL VOTED THREE STORIES. UM, AND THEN ON CAMBRIDGE STREET, THE MOTION THAT COUNCILOR NOLAN HAS AT FOUR STORIES OR, UM, HOLD OFF ON CAMBRIDGE STREET AND HAVE A FUTURE PETITION THAT DOES SEVEN STORIES AT THE MORE RESTRICTIVE THREE STORIES. IS THAT, IS IS THAT EVERYONE'S UNDERSTANDING? UH, THAT IS AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING. OKAY. I JUST THAT THAT'S HELPFUL JUST TO, TO CLARIFY. UM, AND SO I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT AGAIN TO MAYOR SID'S POINT, EITHER OF THOSE VERSIONS, UM, WELL, LE LEACH MIRROR WEBSTER WINDSOR ARE SOLVED. I THINK THAT THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE AN APPETITE FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OR IS IT BETTER TO BE, GO WITH THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION, WHICH ISN'T, UM, AS STRONG IN RETAIL, BUT, UM, MOVES THIS, MOVES THIS CONVERSATION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANYBODY ON THAT? NO. SO THE MOTION IS TO MOVE THIS FORWARD WITH THE FA THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION FORWARD WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR CAMBRIDGE STREET ON CAMBRIDGE STREET. COUNCILOR ZUBIE IS ABSENT. VICE MAYOR? NO, NO. COUNCILOR FLAHERTY? YES. YES. COUNCILOR MCGOVERN? NO. NO. COUNCILOR NOLAN? YES. YES. COUNCILOR SIMMONS? NO. NO. COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER. NO. NO. COUNCILLOR ZUI. YES. YES. MAYOR SIDIKI. YES. YES. THAT'S FOUR MEMBERS VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. FOUR MEMBERS VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE MOTION. FAILS IT. SO THE MOTION FAILS. UM, IT DOES NOT HAVE FIVE MEMBERS. UM, AGAIN, THIS LEAVES US RIGHT WHERE WE STARTED. UM, IT'S A MOTION THAT CAN'T COME BACK. UM, SO THE QUESTION FOR US, UH, THIS AFTERNOON, UM, WE DO HAVE A, WE CAN JUST RECESS THE MEETING, WHICH CAMBRIDGE STREET, IT WOULD, EACH MAYOR WINDSOR WOULD GO FORWARD. 'CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN THAT VOTE. THE REST OF CAMBRIDGE STREET WOULD, UM, WE WOULD, IT WOULD EXPIRE JUST GIVEN THE TIME CONSTRAINTS. UM, AND OR WE CAN KEEP HASHING IT OUT AND SEE IF ANYBODY CHANGES THEIR VOTE. MOVE TO RECESS ON A MOTION BACK. SO, SORRY RICK, WE'RE NOT HAVING ANOTHER MEETING ON THIS? NO. OKAY. WE SHOULD ADJOURN. OKAY. THANK YOU TO THE CLERK. UM, BECAUSE WE WILL, BECAUSE THE INTENT IS TO LET THE, THE REMAINDER OF THE C CHIEF PETITION EXPIRE. WE CAN ACTUALLY ADJOURN, NOT RECESS. UM, SO COUNCILOR FLAHERTY MOVES TO ADJOURN. MOVE TO ADJOURN ON ADJOURNMENT. COUNCILOR ZUBE IS ABSENT. VICE MAYOR. YES. YES. COUNCILOR FLAHERTY. YES. YES. COUNCILOR MCGOVERN. YES. YES. COUNCILOR NOLAN. YES. YES. COUNCILLOR SIMMONS. YES. YES. COUNCILLOR SAPRINA WHEELER. YES. YES. COUNCILLOR ZUI. YES. YES. MAYOR SIDIKI. YES. YES. EIGHT MEMBERS VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ONE ABSENT. THANK YOU FOLKS. WE ARE ADJOURN. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.