A court of the city council being present, let us all rise to salute the flag and then pause for a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic to withstands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Welcome to the April 3rd Business Meeting of the Cambridge City Council.
Our first order of business will be the submission of the record for February 27, 2017, and March 6, 2017.
Pleasure to the City Council.
On a motion by Vice Mayor Mark McGovern to move the adoption of the record, all those in favour say aye.
Opposed?
The aye's habit and the record has been submitted and adopted.
we now move to public comment. Public comment is a part of the city council meeting where an individual can speak on any item on on can speak on an item on the agenda.
Under the provisions of chapter 43 section 93 of the general laws and of the school committee.
The members of the public may comment upon items and the following categories of business.
Reconcerations, city managers, consent agenda, unfinished business from preceding, preceding
meetings, applications and petitions, requiring approval of referral by the city council,
consent resolutions, consent policy, order and resolutions relating to policy and analysis
or development, committee reports, ground table, working, meeting, minutes and communications
of reports from city officers. Each speaker shall limit his or her comments to no more than
three minutes. Written testimony can be left at the basket provided or given to the council
page and such written testimony will be made part of the record. A bill would ring when you
reach two minutes and 45 seconds and you will have 15 seconds to finish your comments. Thank you.
The first person to have signed if a public comment is Nan Duffy, followed by Joanna Schillman.
Please give your name and the item that you're speaking to for the record. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Nan Duffy. I'm speaking on the impeachment resolution. Thank you.
I've been a resident of Cambridge for over 25 years though, not consecutive ones.
My husband and I first moved to an apartment on here on Avenue in 1975 when I started Harvard Law School.
After our daughter was born, we bought and moved into a two-family across the street at the corner
of Huron and Fishpun, and then moved for a time to Bellmont, where our third child was born,
but we missed the Fishpun market, so we came back about 17 years ago.
I am very proud of my Harvard Law degree, and the opportunity that it gave me to devote nearly 25 years
of public service as a judge before I retired last year.
But I stand before you today not as someone with any special knowledge or understanding of the
foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution, but as a private citizen who has the utmost
reverence for our Constitution and the rule of law.
This is not unusual for those like me who arrived as refugees and immigrants from some other
place and became naturalized U.S. citizens, as I did.
My father, a Dutchman, served in the Dutch Underground, fighting the Nazis.
As a Marine, he went to Indonesia after the war, and there he and my Chinese mother
met, fell in love and married.
A year after my birth, there was a regime change.
The property and businesses belonging to ethnic Chinese, including my mother's family, was
confiscated by the new government, and because it was unsafe to stay in Indonesia, my parents
fled with me and a few belongings to the Netherlands.
We immigrated to this country in 1956 when I was six years old.
My parents came for the chance to work, to educate their five children, to be free from political
oppression, and to live under just laws that apply equally to all, including, and perhaps
most especially, to those in power.
The Foreign Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution
was ratified in 1789. For our new government, the potential interference from foreign powers
was a grave concern then, and in simple language the clause prohibits any person holding any
office of prophet or trust under the United States from accepting any present, a monument,
office or title of any kind, whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.
A lawsuit has already been filed against the President, alleging that because he has refused
to get a best himself of his business interest in a host of foreign countries, he continues
to receive benefits from those countries, including a grant of trade marks, a trade mark
as a benefit, whether it is used directly or licensed to others, or simply protects a global
brand from use by others.
Last month after a decade of failing to grant a request, China awarded 38 trade marks that
Now, protect the Trump brand in China.
Impeachment has been used 16 times since our country's founding, including against presidents,
senators, and federal judges.
The process would permit further investigation at the President's business interest and
ties to other countries, and permit resolution of its legal claims.
I thank you for your vote and supported the resolution that is before you tonight.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
testimony. I also want to remind folks that this meeting is being audio
in video tapes in their their may or can be some excerpts of this meeting that
will end up on local media or the other press I want to make sure people are
mindful of that. You'll want to show them in file by Gale Epstein. Hello Cambridge. My name
is Johanna Sholman and I stand before you first as an American
I'm actually first as a red socks fan, go socks, second as a can to Bridgian, and third as a member of cast, Cambridge area, stronger together.
My topic this evening is also in peachment, and I look forward to your unanimous vote of support.
Now in peachment is not retribution, it is not a tool for achieving a political objective.
It is not a mechanism for removing an unpopular elected official from office.
It is not even a partisan activity.
Instead, impeachment is rooted in the Constitution, as a powerful remedy to be used only
if a President, regardless of party, popularity, or ideology, willfully violate the Constitution.
And, since inauguration day, despite having been warned that this would be the case, the President
has been in violation of the Emolyman's clauses of the Constitution, as Judge Dufli just
both domestic and foreign. These clauses prohibit him from obtaining any financial benefits from
foreign state, where the federal government other than his salary, and there are dozens of
examples of violations, but the Trump international hotel, the tendency of the Trump Tower,
the extensive use of Trump-branded properties for presidential business purposes, are just a few.
But, city council, we are not asking that you jump to conclusions.
And Snorr are we asking the United States House to do so?
Impeachment is a process that begins with the House Judiciary Committee determining whether
grounds for further investigation even exist.
It is that step which this resolution demands.
Why now?
Why Cambridge?
As I stated a few moments ago, I stand before you first as an American, and when a president
willfully and self-righteously violates the Constitution, and if there is no condemnation
from the public or Congress, the Office of the Presidency is soiled and our constitutional
democracy is endangered.
Every day we delay reinforces the idea that this behavior is normal.
To date, four cities across the country have passed similar resolutions we look forward to
dozens more.
Again, this is not a partisan anti-Trump request, but rather an exercise in civic duty of
highest order, and at its core, this is a resolution in defense of the Constitution.
Now Cambridge has long been a leader in defending constitutional rights.
After waiting 19 years, my wife and I, together now, 33 years, were married in this very
chamber by Margaret Jury in 2004.
But as citizens, we don't just have right.
We have responsibilities. Surely there is no more important responsibility before us than
preserving our precious democracy and no city more qualified than Cambridge to leave
the way. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. I would ask people to be framed from clapping. Thank you so
very much. Gail Epstein, followed by Zachary Burns. Hello, my name is Gail Epstein. I'm
Speaking in support of order number two, a resolution urging the House of Representatives to act on its constitutionally granted oversight responsibility by taking the first steps to begin impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump.
Thanks to Vice Mayor McGuvern for introducing this policy order and to Councillor's Devoro and Chung for co-sponsoring it.
I speak as someone who's been a Cambridge resident for 32 years, and as a member of cast, Cambridge
area stronger together.
At this critical time in our country, the rule of law, the commitment to our constitution,
and the fate of our democracy, are all at risk as a result of Mr. Trump's behavior.
Because Congress has not yet taken adequate bipartisan steps to respond to dangerous President
financial violations of the domestic and far enamallumance clauses of our constitution.
It becomes necessary for individuals and local communities to step up and speak out to protect
our system of government from being undermined from within.
Massachusetts as a whole and Cambridge in particular have a history of taking bold steps
to protect our democracy.
At this moment, when so much as it's stake, I hope that Cambridge will be the first of many cities
and towns in the Commonwealth, with the courage and will to pass resolutions like this.
And in so doing, we will join a growing list of municipalities nationwide, insisting that nobody
is above the law, and that Congress must do its job to protect the legitimacy and credibility
of our government.
Thank you for your consideration.
I urge you to pass this resolution with unanimous consent.
And while I'm up here, I also want to support and urge passage of the inclusionary zoning
unfinished business item number seven.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
exactly burns well by Ted from Thomson.
Good evening, Mayor Simonins and Council members.
I'm Zach Burns of 220 Pro Street.
Thank you for considering the Pet Shop ordinance.
Some Cambridge Pet Shops currently source mammals
and Fibians birds and reptiles from inhumane breeding facilities.
This is logical.
If breeders can lower production costs by craming dozens of animals into one cage
and feeding them hormones to promote rapid growth,
the pet industry can maximize its profit.
Yet, Cambridge consumers are willing to pay the price
for ethical sourcing.
How else could four whole-food markets survive in a three-mile radius?
I take pride living in a progressive city that takes care
of undocumented patients at Cambridge Health Alliance
and charges for environmentally destructive grocery bags.
Tonight, we can uphold our commitment
to social responsibility by adopting the pet shop ordinance.
Crucially, it will end the sale of inhumanely bread animals in Cambridge.
According to the World Wildlife Fund, 27 species become extinct every single day due to human
pollution and habitat destruction.
Cambridge residents know that we have gone too far and must mitigate losses to fellow animals
and to our environment. On behalf of our community, on behalf of the unnamed thousands of
violently mistreated animals, so right here in Cambridge, I urge you to adopt the pet shop
ordinance. Thank you.
And thank you for your testimony. If you have written testimony, please give it to
surrogies our page and we'll make sure that that information comes part of the permanent
record of the City Council.
Ted Thompson, followed by John Tyson, Ted Thompson,
John Tyson.
Thank you. My name is John Tyson. I'm a long-term resident of Cambridge, homeowner at
310 and half Pearl Street. And I'm here to speak about the Pet Shop ordinance. I feel
like this is an important consideration for the City of Cambridge. We have an opportunity
to profoundly affect our concept of compassion in our society as a whole.
When I was growing up in the River of Southeast, we loved animals.
We loved our dogs and cats and frogs and chickens and snakes.
Considered them parts of our families and would have reacted forcefully to any attempt to do them harm.
At the same time, we thought nothing about going out and shooting things.
It was what was done.
And we never once ask ourselves, are these animals that we are killing, are they individuals?
Do they have families?
Do they want freedom like we do?
Do they feel pain?
Of course, if we ask ourselves these questions, it would have altered our actions.
As thoughtful human beings, we know that we are animals.
We have bodies, senses, and nervous system.
Distant to which we experience the world. We feel pain, seek companionship, love our families, long for freedom, and dream.
Fortunately our society is reaching a new level of understanding. Learning to respect our fellow creatures is the largest social justice movement of our time.
This ordinance is a very small step, but a vitally important one that will greatly reduce suffering and make us more aware and compassionate human beings.
Abraham Lincoln said, I am a favor of animal rights, as well as human rights, that is the way of a full human being.
Let us all work for kindness for all of our creatures. It will greatly benefit us all.
I respectfully urge you to support this ordinance and thank you very much for your time consideration.
Thank you for your testimony.
Chris Green, followed by Patricia Nolan.
I had a, oh, my name is Chris Green.
I'm a Cambridge resident of 1137 Massav.
I'd like to thank Vice Mayor McGovern for the Pet Store ordinance.
This partnership for Cambridge, Cambridge shouldn't be part of an industry that treats any kind of animal,
bird, Lizard or Dog as a commodity as these industries do. I don't want to take up too much
time because there's already been testimony on this and hopefully I will have a chance
to give more testimony when the issue comes back before the ordinance committee. So I'd
just like to encourage the City Council to move this issue forward to the ordinance committee
for full consideration and I also support the impeachment ban as well. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
Dr. Chanel and Fall by Annie Nadelle.
Annie Nadelle.
Thank you.
I do encourage the passage of unfinished business number seven inclusionary zoning.
And I hope you pass it as broadly as possible, including all previously permitted permits if you can.
But I'm here to speak as a citizen, as a member of cast, as a school committee member,
and is a mother of a policy order number two on the impeachment.
Passing this resolution is to ask for an investigation, the start of impeachment.
It is not whining since Trump won.
It is not saying we know for sure if the Constitution has been violated.
It is not even because of reprehensible acts, policies, or words that have been said by the
president.
Although people will say much worse about your intentions and reasons if you pass it, we know
that.
But we know it is about you doing your job by asking Congress to do its job.
It is about our Constitution and upholding the laws of the country.
Just as in 2000 the country became familiar with hanging chads, now the country is becoming
familiar with the emoluments clause.
It is critically important to our democracy to make sure no one is above the law, and that
the presidency is not used to enrich the president and the U.S. Treasury is not used
as a personal piggy bank.
There is evidence that is being done right now.
3 U.S. presidents have been impeached.
In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached essentially for firing one cabinet member.
Ironically enough, he fired a secretary of war who supported voting rights for free slaves.
President Nixon was impeached from manipulation line and involvement with criminal acts against a democratic party.
President Bill Clinton was impeached for line about an affair.
None of those acts, all of which led to full investigation and impeachment hearings by the
U.S. House of Representatives, are as egregious, threatening, or serious as the acts
we know of so far by Trump, just two months into his presidency.
There is a reason the Constitution forbids the President explicitly from profiting from
foreign governments or domestic entities.
It threatens our democracy, cheapens our values, and erodes faith in government, which
those we have far too little of already.
As a school committee member and parent, I also worry really deeply about what message it
sends to our children if we fail to hold the President accountable.
As elected officials, I took a note of office.
Just on school committee, you all did on City Council to uphold the Constitution of the
United States.
Part of our your responsibility is to do just that by passing this resolution and don't
stop there, then do all you can. I will certainly do all I can to see that is in fact and it
actually happens. I want to thank you for your testimony and I also want to acknowledge that
Ms. Nolan is a member of the Cambridge School Committee. Amy Nadell, I feel fall by the
Ben Clements. Thank you very much. I don't know. Bill Mayer Simmons, members of the City Council
Vice Mayor Mark McEvern. This statement is actually signed by seven residents, including
myself. First we would like to thank you Vice Mayor McGovern and Councillor Schun and Deborah
for sponsoring policy order number two, which requests that the U.S. House of Representatives
started in the impeachment investigation of President Trump. So, further thanks. Our concerns
as outlined in this policy order are not partisan and as such are not concerned with any
particular policy. Our plea for an impeachment investigation arises from the president
So, flagently violating the spirit and letter of the amendments clauses of the Constitution that if it is not stopped, puts the whole of our Constitution, our very foundational document at risk.
Policies can be changed. They can be voted up or down. We will always accept the legitimacy of sometimes unhappily of policies and presidents with whom we disagree,
because we do agree on the sanctity of the process which is derived from the constitution.
If we flat the legality of that constitution itself as this president so brazenly does,
we have no solid ground on which we, citizens, or our representatives can proceed with debate
about any policy. We cannot meet our rights and responsibilities as if we have understood them
for more than 200 years. So thank you for consideration of this policy order and we hope
the Council will pass the order with unanimous consent.
Thanks.
Our next speaker is Ben Clement, followed by Virginia, Coleman.
Thank you, members of the Council.
My name is Ben Clement.
I'm the chair of a national non-partisan advocacy group known as Free Speech for People.
And I'm here to speak in support of the resolution calling on Congress to investigate
whether the president should be impeached.
When we learned in January that President Trump would refuse to divest from his ownership
of the Trump organization as he'd been repeatedly warned, he needed to do to comply with
the Constitution.
We decided to launch a campaign calling on Congress to investigate whether he should be
impeached.
And on an auguration day, we launched that campaign and a website www.pich.ofTrumpNow.org.
Since that time, we have all had our worst fears and then some realized by this presidency.
It's now clear we are looking at one of the most, it's not the most corrupted presidency in the history of the country.
Not only has the president refused to divest of his business interests, but he is aggressively used the presidency to enrich himself, his family members, his business associates, at public expense.
From freshering foreign dignitaries to stay at his hotels, to freshering the Chinese government,
to reverse 10 years of precedent and grant him, and his business valuable trademark rights,
the President has been continuously and flagently violating the foreign corruption clause,
also known as the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
He has been constantly violating the domestic corruption clause or a volume as clause
of the Constitution by using federal taxpayer dollars to pay his businesses, his properties
in New York, and in Florida, untold sums, but by some accounts totaling millions of dollars
for a variety of Trump family activities and government activities at his properties.
There is only one remedy for this defiant and blatant violation of the Constitution and that
impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. We know that Congress is slow to act,
but day by day, the American people are demanding action and are demanding an impeachment
investigation. Since we launched our site on an auguration day just over two months ago,
almost 1 million people from all across the country have signed the petition calling for an
impeachment investigation. And we've included model resolutions for municipalities to call
for an impeachment investigation. On our website, I'm pleased to say that the resolution before
the Council tonight is adapted from that model, and Cambridge stands for us to become
the fifth municipality and the first major city on the East Coast to call for an impeachment
investigation. So thank you to the Council, and thank you for the citizens of Cambridge,
and leading the way to protect our democracy.
Thank you for your testimony.
Virginia Coleman, followed by a dime, some of field.
Virginia Coleman?
My name is Virginia Coleman.
I live at two Berkeley Plays.
I'm here to support the Pet Shop Ordnance.
I believe that's item number eight on your agenda.
Which very importantly protects against commercial sale animals that aren't cute and fuzzy.
lizards, snakes, guinea pigs, hamsters, birds, these activities, the breeding, if you can
call it that, is not regulated at all by the animal welfare act.
Now Trump wants to get the animal welfare act, like everything else he's doing, but we're
still, at least not only we have it, but there is nothing for these other animals and they're
important in the account, and it goes to the compassion that I think is such an important
part of Cambridge and we can be a leader in this area and unlike the other resolution which
is being discussed tonight with very good reason, we can do this. Unfortunately, asking for
Trump to be impeached is not self-execating. Cambridge can do this. Finally, just briefly on
the resolution about Trump needless to say, I support it. However, I would just mention maybe
The 25th Amendment, which is another way to go about doing this, there is a serious question
as to whether this amendment is mentally competent to perform the job, and I see a
concept that we're laughing.
I do not think it's a laughing matter.
Nicholas Christoph, who is a great daughter of the United States, suggested this.
It was discussed on morning show this morning, and it's another way to go about it.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
I ask you tonight to support the resolution to direct the House of Representatives to direct and
investigation whether there are rounds for impeach, Donald J. Trump, the President of the United
States. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
Prishy young, followed by Sub-butler,
Krishy young,
Sub-butler.
Good evening, Madam Mayor City Council. I'm Sub-butler. I live at 14 Clinton Street. And I'm
here to thank Councillor Debraue for our filing policy order number 2 directing the House
representatives to impeach the President. You've had numerous descriptions of the corruption
that's part of his behavior. Shortly after he assumed presidency, a building permit he wanted
in Argentina that had been refused for years was overturned and given to him. I'd like to know
what kind of intimidation occurred for that to happen. He certainly taking money and gifts that
In our appropriate he's taking pillage, he's exploiting intimidation, he's got his family involved
in the government in ways that are profoundly inappropriate.
In last week's New Yorker there was a letter to the editor called Trump and fraud describing
that the House of Representatives has the right and has had the right all along to demand
Trump's tax returns from the IRS. I don't know what has immobilized them but I'm horrified
that didn't occur in October before Harry Reid wrote a public letter saying that there
was explosive information about Trump and Russia. There's an enormous amount of undisclosed
information that I believe would show us vast amounts of corruption, manipulation, intimidation,
all of which get Mr. Trump money, gifts, privilege, that he does not deserve.
The emoluments clause occurred when Benjamin Franklin accepted a gift from Louis XIV.
A mirror gilded and covered with diamonds.
This corruption of Trump's far, far exceeds a golden mirror.
And it undermines the character of our country.
Some of you were here many years ago in my dear friend Jacqueline Perry, Dalan Cooler, came
to visit City Council.
She came with me and I said I had to speak and she refused.
But she got here, and she saw what was happening, and she said, it's okay, I'll talk.
When I was introduced to her, I was told that she was number one in the French resistance.
She would never admit to that, only number three.
But she came, and she started, as she spoke, she remembered being in the concentration camp
Robin's book, Far in the North of Germany.
And she remembered the sound of American bombers coming through the air, and she looked
around this room and said, thank you, America.
Thank you.
Thank you, America.
I'm not sure if we are still that country, and I'm horrified by what I see.
As Ted Thompson arrived, Ted Thompson,
Chris Young,
Susan Lava Dimbar, followed by Theodore
Feldman.
Good afternoon.
My name is Susan Lebondabar, and I live at 8-Bird Street.
20 hours ago, I found out that there was a policy order relating to the possible impeachment
of President Trump.
I put a petition out on the Internet and sent it mostly to Cambridge residents.
Within 20 hours, 111 Cambridge residents signed this petition along with many more.
Here's the petition that they signed.
Honorable Mayor Simmons and esteemed members of the Cambridge City Council, we, the
under-signed residents of Cambridge, do solemnly urge you to take action on our behalf,
to safeguard our right to be governed by elected representatives who do not reap profits
as a consequence of their office.
Vice Mayor Mark McGovern and City Counselor's Jan DeVarrell and Leeland Chung have proposed a resolution that would make our city the first in Massachusetts to ask the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate whether President Trump has been in continuous violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution since the day he assumed office.
We urge you to approve this resolution to speak out against President Trump's apparent disregard
for the foundational laws of our nation.
It is our hope that the City Council will approve this resolution unanimously and convey
it to the U.S. House of Representatives fourth with this petition respectfully submitted
by the undersigned residents of Cambridge.
And I just wanted to read just a couple of the comments that people submitted along with the petition.
Marley Myers wrote,
This may be one of the most important votes of a citizenry in modern times.
Lahas had her wrote,
A very welcome initiative.
Please publish on Facebook.
So other cities will see it and can follow our example.
And finally, Joan Hill wrote, every local action contributes to a ground swell of opposition
to Trump's outrageousness.
Let's lead the way and present the model for other cities to follow.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your testimony.
If you would, the young man is going to give you a card if you could electronically send
a petition would make it part of the record.
And thank you for your testimony.
Theodore Feldman followed by Susan Slesinger.
Hi.
anyone lettered street in summer of year representing the Harvard cycling
association. I think I'll probably be the only person here tonight talking
about bike safety. Well, maybe not. But anyway.
I'm here to actually talk about committee report item number one, which was the report
on a bike committee that we had back in February in a few things.
On that report in a few things that actually weren't on that report, I would ask
We have a discussion or an update about some of the progress and actually the communication of some of the progress on the spring bike work plan
That was a major discussion point at that meeting, and I it's not clear where we are or if there's progress
Updates are happening at least from where I'm facing in the public. I think the bigger issue and I saw this in an email
Councillor Kelly sent out just before midnight last night, was about the issue of pleading
different groups of people or the fact that there's really no particular one bike lane
infrastructure that makes everybody happy he is not a fan of the raise ones, there's some
data from Cambridge that suggests many people feel safer on those, that's matter of opinion.
But I think one of the issues he raised there was an issue of cars becoming irate when
psychos do something that they lawfully can do on a crowded road or a road where the bike lane might be blocked and that's take the full lane and I think the real point raised there is that there needs to be an issue in a consideration for how there can be recourse for cyclists who are the victims of aggressive driving
that is something that has gone unchecked and unregulated. I think in massive fuses at large and I know there are efforts underway to approve that.
but I would ask that we take that issue and think about how we can open it up to further discussion
to a larger issue of, again, recourse against aggressive driving, and the other issue raised
there, which is enforcement of traffic policies, I think, both from the cycles perspective,
we can be doing more to ensure that cyclists are obeying the law, and we can be doing more to ensure
that motorists are aware and obeying the law. Because, in fact, there are a lot of
of traffic laws pertaining to cyclists the motorists that many drivers are not actually
aware of, and there's actually data from mass bike that supports that.
And finally, I think the other piece of the policies also integrate an education piece
because this particular issue of sharing the street is one in which many motorists do
not, in fact, no is actually on the law, particularly in situations where the right side
the lane or the bike lane may be obstructed by a pilot snow or a sequence of hot holes
or craters and that is something that I think we can do better and better job and work
together on the give out how we can educate the public. Thank you.
And thank you for your testimony. Susan's lesson to your fall by Gary Mellow.
Good evening. Surprisingly enough, I'm here tonight to urge you to pass. I hope unanimously,
the inclusionary zoning petition that's in front of you.
For people who might not be as intimately connected with this petition, some of us are.
It's a really important affordable housing tool for this city of Cambridge.
What it says, what the law will say is that if you are a residential developer,
you need to provide 20% of the units in your building as affordable housing,
for low and moderate income people to live in. And that's up from the current ordinance, which
calls for 11.5%. So it's a big jump. And it's extremely important in terms of the provision
of affordable housing citywide. It means we have mixed income buildings, mirroring, arm mixed income
neighborhoods.
As we look at what the current, the current law has provided, it's over 800 units
and Cambridge. And that's without any government subsidy to it. So it's a vitally important
tool for affordable housing going forward. It's particularly important in light of the policies
that we've seen from the Trump administration. And I think that if this is passed tonight,
particularly if it's unanimous, because I think that's a tremendous sign for how important
affordable housing is to the policy makers and to the residents of Cambridge, that we should
all celebrate.
It's really a tremendous step forward, but then in the very near future we have to come
back together again and look at what the next steps are, because we're not seeing resources
growing on the national scene or on the state scene and we are seeing the need for affordable
housing growing.
So this is an issue that we need more tools, more resources, and we need to talk about how we can do that.
I also want to thank so many people that have been involved in this.
I want to thank the Council for all their work, particularly Mayor Simmons, who steered the ship through some rocky waters from time to time.
I want to thank the senior manager and the community development staff for all the hard work that they did
putting into this petition and I want to thank all my fellow residents who have come out over the past months
and months and months for all the input that they provided.
Hopefully we can move forward on this quickly tonight.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
Gary Melofo by Sarah Block.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Gary Melo and I live on Franklin Street.
I ask that the City Manager reconsider his conclusion that a stop sign is not warranted
on Green Street as it intersects within clock at the bottom of the hill.
Dryers approaching from the plans to our CS sign indicating the crossing traffic does not
stop, but except for us locals the intersection might be invisible.
A stop ahead in the stop sign itself on Green Street is a very expensive solution, very
inexpensive solution, in a location where a problem really does exist.
Secondly, Councillor Kelly suggests that an increased police presence in central square
may be intimidating to some.
I believe that citizens since the security should be paramount when considering a
minestation in your call-bomb, in your carbomb, barren plaza, and indisputable failure in the
urban experience.
Lastly, I wish to address the spectator crowd, maybe even the TD audience.
Have you looked at the council agenda this week?
Just two policy orders. Yet another plug, sorry, for these don't be electric cars to be
voted on by Councillors who don't even know what a level one charger is. And in order
to produce a suitably engrossed request to impeach the President of the United States.
Fellow citizens, this is what puts us in the newspaper. On the funny pages, we're a city
of 100,000 residents with a $600 million budget, and a legislative body, which won't
even meet for the next three minutes, waste your time posing for the TV cameras, instead
of pursuing worthwhile government.
The rest of the country looks at us and sees goofy town, not new town.
Counselors, you'll only be taken to seriously as you treat the job yourselves.
Let's come back with beneficial proposals, not a PR campaign.
And please God save me from Fox TV news.
Sarah Blockfall by John Tyson.
Hi, I'm Sarah Block.
I live at 24 Shepard Street.
I've lived in Cambridge since 1970.
And I'm just here to support the resolution
to impeach President Trump.
That's all I want to say.
Thank you for your testimony.
John Tyson.
We're going to speak again.
Oh, I didn't see if that gives me the twice.
Okay.
Richard Frisnick,
followed by Carol O'Hare.
It should question the 20 Oak Street, speaking in favor of the inclusion and exoning
ordinance and hoping that it does get passed unanimously.
I made community development professional and also a member of the Housing Committee of the
in the ABC Better Cambridge program a few days ago where the Metropolitan Area Planning
Council presented its latest information on affordable housing. It was the first time
there was a considerable discussion about Cambridge and specific at that large assembly.
And I was delighted that it was the first time in the past few years, at least that I've
noted, we're finally the argument, I seem to get considerable recognition by the body
that as long as Cambridge continues a building, high-density, high-rise buildings, that
mainly market rate buildings, the increase in land values that was caused by this forces
more working class and middle-class people out of the city than the affordable units that
are developed by these high-density development helps to keep in the city. This is simply,
but this is backed by the Lincoln Land Institute and by other professionals and it's
very up until now has been a very unpopular argument because it's very nice to be able to
believe that we're doing all we can for affordable housing by building more and bigger
because that way we get more affordable units. It's not so comfortable to accept the reality
that in doing so we're still forcing more people out of the city than we're helping to stay
in the city, simply reinforces how important the 20% inclusionary zoning is, it's a great
step forward.
And it's wonderful the way I echo the former remarks that were made, and I want to add my thanks in the same fashion.
It's wonderful the way this is proceeding. It was wonderful last year, the way the Lincoln requirement was nearly tripled.
They're both great steps forward. But unfortunately, as if it weren't bad enough, now we have to face this onslaught of foreign investors from all over the world.
world who have recognized Boston and Cambridge as these terrific markets and driving up prices
even further. So we still have a lot of work to do even after we pass this inclusionized
owning ordinance. Thank you.
And thank you for your testimony. Carol, a little fear followed by Marilyn Wellens.
Good evening. Carol, I'll hear 172 magazine straight. I'm speaking on a few things, City
manager number seven rebuilding after fire, we here often don't let the perfect the enemy
of the good. Well, the original version of this was not good. It wasn't even half bad.
It needed major work and it turned into a ace makes waste situation. It is now, I think, on
to being improved and will come out right, but it took longer than it should have in a very
urgent situation. So I would say his makes ways wins in his case. I do have some language
that I had suggested before if the city council wants it. That is from Brooklyn and from the
a new provision about rebuilding after catastrophe, and it addresses the problem that two years
is not sufficient, and neither is an extension that requires continuous building after getting
your insurance because there can be strikes, there can be recessions, there can be all kinds
of delays that are legitimate and there should be a way of extending the two years and in
four lines Newton and Brooklyn have captured it if you would like that. I will give
it to. I do support the banners for the two open suit and three locations in Cambridge
for open studios that is application number one. Public space for public banners. I'm also, I
want to congratulate everybody who worked so hard on the affordable housing. It is a major
And as to the resolution about our President,
I'm the way over here tonight, I wasn't going to speak about this, but I'm the way over here tonight. I heard on the radio that Trump, his holdings, his other holdings.
This isn't relating directly to the amyamas are in a revocable trust, which is claimed to be a safe place where he will not be able to have any influence.
Well, everybody knows that a revocable trust is controlled by the trust door that is Donald Trump.
And one son and one employee are the trustees of that's trust.
The other son gives quarterly reports, and Donald Trump can withdraw finance and receive funds from that address.
Thank you so much for your testimony.
Any written documents you let's believe at our page will be greatly accepted.
Marlon Wellen's followed by Heather Hoffman.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. My name is Marilyn Wellen. I live at 651 Green Street. I'd like to thank the counselors for the resolution having to do with the emoluments clause.
I think it's extremely important that the public interest be served. Now how you define or understand the public interest can vary from time to time in place to place.
but there are extreme cases where the public interest is pretty clear and is not served.
So I think the Constitution says what one of those instances is and it's when, for
an amyamance come to the President.
So I think the Council is for filing this policy order, continuing on the idea of public good
public space. I'd like to thank the council also for a committee report number two and I'm glad
that it's being held in committee. It has to do with leaf blowers. Once again I'm talking about
public space, noise and light pollution. There are forms of air pollution. These things are bad for
people and the city council has a hard job. You can pass the resolution about the amyamus clause.
I would think rather easily, but on something like belief blowers and noise and light pollution,
the attempt to have a significant outdoor lighting ordinance let alone anything to do with indoor sources.
This is hard work and that's why people elect you and that's why you're paid for your work because it's hard.
But I would say that I think the public does expect thoughtful, reasonable protection from the kind of work that you do.
And these are important fears. It's an election year. I call your attention to noise and light pollution and the city's inadequate regulation of them.
I'd also like to thank the Council. I hope you will pass the ordinance proposed ordinance about animal cruelty. Thank you.
Thank you, great testimony.
Heather Hoffman, followed by Catherine LeBlanc.
Hello, Heather Hoffman, 2013 Hurley Street.
I thought I'd toss in the obligatory remark about impeachment.
I recall Republicans saying that if Hillary Clinton had been sworn in as president,
they would immediately introduce articles of impeachment.
So I figure if breathing while Democrat is a high crime in this demeanor,
we probably have reached that level with the current administration.
So, I'd like to talk about AV.
Having been banished to the outside where I didn't have any way of hearing,
except by way of the AV in here, which is way better than the AV.
I've been experiencing at the senior center.
I can tell you it's a big problem, and if we want people to be able to participate in public meetings,
they've got to be able to hear what's going on.
So, I really hope that this new AV system for the Senior Center results in the ability to hear from every part of the room,
and also for the ability to see from every part of the room.
As you may or may not know, currently, if you go to a BCA meeting,
you're invited to stand behind the BCA by the windows in order to see and hear.
Because you can't from the audience.
And I was going to note the, I hope, monumental thing of passing the incentive zoning and inclusionary housing.
Hot dog guys, I hope that you will make this as strong as possible, as far as I'm concerned, this is something that is worth getting sued over.
do not give up anything that you don't have to give up. It may turn out that the
lies is against us on certain things. We'll find, but we put up the good
fight. Do not give up before you start.
And then, with respect to the letter from Craig
Kelly, I wanted to thank him very much for this because I pretty much agree. And I
came in here and there were more police officers than I've seen in ages and I regularly
go to meetings in the police station. It does not make me feel better. I'm a small
older white woman who is born as citizen of this country. So I can just imagine how it
Yes, there should be police officers, and they should be doing their jobs, but there are
limits to what we need, and I wish that you'd left the police station in Central
Square instead of bringing it to my neighborhood.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
Catherine LeBlanc, followed by Ellen Shector, Schlachter.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on number 7 on business.
Please support unanimously the inclusionary zoning ordinance.
I'm a disabled Cambridge Port resident, which allows me to live independently since my disability.
Trying to be in Cambridge so that I could get access to co-op my doctor.
Anything that I need, I've subletted, I've been a roommate, I was in an MIT independent dorm.
I lived in the legal boarding house and now I'm in an apartment, which is great except that it's about 90% of my SSDI income.
So I hope that everything passes, thank you.
Thank you for your testimony.
Ellen Chachter.
Hi, good afternoon, Ellen Chachter.
346 Concord Ave.
Here definitely to support the impeachment policy order.
People said it better than me.
So I'm just going to say go for it, do it.
I think it's great that we can be in the leadership on that issue.
I'm inclusionary zoning.
I really just felt like I wanted to be here today to celebrate, and that's presumptuous
because you guys haven't voted on the final piece yet, but I really just wanted to say thank
you to all of you for your incredibly hard work on this for me.
And there's office for initiating this and for everybody on the committee and all of you.
The only other thing I wanted to say was to echo Susan Slesinger who said we still have
to do. I got two calls from the mayor's office today, one-third family that are both being
evicted, one-third families. Over-income, inclusionary, one-first under-income, inclusionary.
So it just reminds me that there's still a lot to be done, but great work. Thank you so
much. It's a really, really important day in Cambridge.
And thank you for your testimony. Clara. Clara Wellen's followed by Katherine Anderson.
Laura Willens,
Katherine Anderson.
Hi, my name is Katherine Anderson.
I live at 52 in L.A. Street, part number two.
I'm just also here to put in my support for
Anderson. I'm number seven, the inclusionary zoning.
I think it's jumping up to 20% and including all people
and that would be really, really, really great
set for Cambridge, especially as a sanctuary city.
Thank you for your testimony.
Rachel
Warden, Rachel Warden,
This
ends the number of people that were signed up for public comment. Is there anyone that did not have an up of this Rachel?
My name is Rachel Warden and good evening everybody. Cambridge, I'm sorry, there's my words.
I'm here to defend Donald Trump our president because everybody deserves a defense and I'm sure our president does.
And I also would like to everybody to understand in Cambridge that a lot of people indeed
voted for Donald Trump.
He didn't just walk into the White House on a soliciting.
And I say that because people who are against him and wanting to take them out, they act
like nobody was voting for him.
And my understanding is there were Trump signs all across the country from Western Massachusetts
is the California. So I think it would be good if we would recognize that other people exist
and have ideas too. And I want to say I myself and my friends voted for Donald Trump
because we watched what Hillary does and we know that he is a nationalist and that she is
a globalist and all the rest of the people running president or globalist. Now if you have
Globalism, and I talk about this a little bit, because when I mention it, nobody seems to notice
or grasp the idea, even educated people.
Globalism means one world government, which means concentrated power, and I know, and everybody
else should know, the concentration of power is dangerous.
They say that power corrupts absolute power, corrupts absolute, and vast majority of us, and I
have to include myself, do not have that deep integrity that would be able to manage concentrated
power.
And that's why that's falling apart and the EU is falling.
Sign a part because there's a concentrated power that's not being used appropriately. Now, Hillary, to me, she's a disaster. She has a bad history. They say she has, she had, she had, she had, she had, she had, I don't think Ms. Clinton is on the agenda tonight.
What's that?
And somebody's saying something to me?
And at the end of your time,
Colby Clinton is not on the agenda.
Please speak to Donald Trump if you'd like to make a continued testimony.
Donald Trump's not on the agenda?
He is.
Hillary isn't.
Well, that means we can play two rules.
So, sets are rules.
And not, um, and not point that out.
I have to point out two sets of rules being played.
One for Hillary's, where she gets to be a more monger,
murder whole countries, play part in human trafficking, et cetera, and he is just maybe, I don't even know that he's doing anything to these people or claim he's doing.
I can't tell you that he hasn't been given a chance. The immediate, the corporate media, who wants a one-world government, is after him like white on rice, and they want to destroy him.
And we pray, my friends pray, that he doesn't get assassinated every day.
That's how much these people have at stake, because they've been shucking on the humanity.
That includes everybody here for the state that it has not sensed this word in your time
as it's fired.
Thank you for your testimony.
You're welcome.
Have a good evening.
If you've not had an opportunity to speak, you would like to please come and give
your name and the item you're speaking to.
The time of light is three minutes.
Madam Mayor, I'm sorry, I didn't sign up, but I'm in a vote on this petitioner to
the zone ordinance amendment to strike out Section 823 at a non-confort, but he
in subsidy ordinance for the new section for 820-823 for the firehouses on
Birfshaya Street. My house for one of the fires. I'm just coming here just to say
I think we should try to pass this as soon as possible, so we can move forward and rebuild.
Thank you.
Please, can I have your name?
Joe Buzzwell.
Thank you so much, Mr. Buzzwell.
Thank you.
Mr. Valentine.
You don't know what I'm trying to say.
It's not that you can't have a country.
If all you do is say, I don't want.
You have to say, who you want and why?
And you're speaking.
All right.
It's not enough to say, I don't want Donald Trump.
Who do you want and why?
and I thank you for your testimony. Is anyone else that would like to speak that was not signed up?
Hearing none, pleasure of the city council. Oh, one of the, if you have not spoken already?
No. Okay. I'm opera Berkowitz 253 and a half Broadway in Cambridge.
I just want to issue my support for policy order 2017 number 96, policy order 2017 number 95
and ordinance 2017 number six. I actually sent an email earlier that basically have the same
ideas but the idea of being that I mean come on like we are people living in a city who have
very strong beliefs in various strong convictions towards democracy and we absolutely have the right
to investigate Donald Trump's constitutionality or to support any measures that do so. I think it
need to start at the grassroots level. I think there have been very strong moves on the
west coast and also up in Vermont to do so and I really look forward to building a strong
coalition of cities and towns across the nation that are pushing the House of Representatives
to question Donald Trump's constitutionality and do so at a transparent way. So I think the
key is that we are the ones who are initiating this. We are going to push to the House of
Representatives very clear and transparent investigation and it needs to start locally because that's
the only way it's going to be transparent.
I am very, very happy that this is coming forward.
Absolutely, we need to demand that this investigation is fully transparent.
And I also support having local businesses provide more electronic charging stations.
I think it's an awesome way to decrease their use of fossil fuels and also just enable us
to move regionally using electric cars.
Thank you very much.
And thank you for your testimony.
this concludes public comment pleasure of the city council and a mayor moved to close public comment and a new suspension of the rules to bring policy order number two before
Oh, unless you had another plan. We were going to council car alone was going to suspend the rules to
To bring inclusionary first and then we were going to do no, so if you would
Okay, he'll defer. Okay, so then he'll be essentially the rules of ring policy order number two, then he'll do that after very good
So, I'm suspension on the rules, all those in favour say aye, oppose the eyes have it in the rules that is suspended.
I'm bringing number, policy order number two, policy order number two forward, all those in favour say aye.
Opposed the eyes have it in policy order number two is before us, pleasure and city council.
Vice Mayor McGuffin.
Thank you.
I want to thank everyone who testified tonight and everyone who sent emails to us on this
issue.
I also want to thank cast, Cambridge Area Stronger, together for bringing this issue to my
attention and working with me on this resolution, and also the thanks, Councillor Channel and
Councillor Devorow for co-sponsoring.
This order was filed because we are concerned that Mr. Trump has violated the emoluments
laws of the United States Constitution, which, in part, prohibits the President from benefiting
financially from business dealings with domestic and foreign governments while in office.
There are numerous examples of Mr. Trump's many businesses having financial dealings with
both foreign and domestic governments. And two that I would highlight, one, is that Trump and
National Hotel, which is owned by the President, continues to recruit business from
many foreign governments who routinely hold events and stay in Washington DC for meetings.
And another example is a Trump Tower, the bank called Industrial and Commercial Bank of
China, which is owned by the government of China, leases property in Trump Tower, paying
rents to the President.
The President also has another building that is close to a $1 billion loan with his bank.
So in the sense, our president and his businesses are potentially one billion dollars in debt to the government of China through this bank.
What is further concerning to me is that although Mr Trump claims to no longer be involved in the operations of his businesses,
he has sadly, in my opinion, lost credibility due to his consistent and seeming pathological line.
He has lied about things that he has said when he is on video, having said them.
He has lied about things that he has done that we know he has done.
He has lied about members of his staff having contact with Russian officials when we now
know that there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
Why, giving all these falsehoods that he has told, should we believe him when it comes
to his business feelings?
The answer is we shouldn't, and that's why we need an investigation.
Every American, regardless of party, should be concerned that we have a president who
may be financially compromised to foreign governments.
The Amoluments cause was created to protect both the president and the American people
from a conflict of interest between our nation's leader and domestic and foreign governments.
When Mr. Trump is sitting in front of the table from Chinese leaders, we want him to be
interest of America and not how his decision may impact his billion dollar loan with the Chinese
government. This is a question of national security. What we are seeing with Mr. Trump
is unprecedented. I have disagreed with presidents before both Republican and Democrat, but
I have never seen a president so potentially compromised as Mr. Trump. The American people
deserve answers, and that is why we are calling for an investigation because the risk
is too great. I hope this order passes unanimously, and I hope that other cities and towns
join us in urging the House of Representatives to call for an immediate investigation so
we can be sure that the President of the United States is not violating the Constitution.
And as far as the concern that this is not city council business, I cannot think of anything
more important than a local government standing up for the rights of the people that live
city and live in the rest of the country. This is a constitutional matter, and if other cities
and towns look at Cambridge and say, this is just Cambridge being Cambridge, I say thank
you.
For a little discussion. Councillor Madden.
Thank you. Thanks to Vice Mayor McGovern to the Councillor Schung and Debrao for forwarding this.
I think this is something that we've all been kind of juggling and thinking about and I'm very
proud to vote for it today.
I will say, you know, President Trump has definitely benefited in the ways that you mentioned.
There's almost no question, right?
But then the question is, let's see, look into it, is how deep the rabbit hole goes.
There's the potential that Russia has influenced our election and continues to influence the executive branch of government.
And, of course, there's all kinds of other constitutionally problematic executive orders and other things coming out of the Oval Office.
So, you know, to the one or two people who had comparisons to make between Clinton Trump or anything else,
we're really focused on one thing here.
And it's about whether or not the President of the United States can do his job and represent the people of the United States of America.
Now, to the council, and to those, this is, obviously, an issue that's seen almost unprecedented traction here with folks in the city.
To those who really want to move this work, we could be in Washington, DC rallying.
For this work, we could be here rallying.
We could be influencing our democratic state committee or city committee.
we could be mobilizing, we could make Massachusetts a bastion, an engine for progressive organizing.
So for those people who, as Vice Mayor McGovern noted, ask, you know, why is the city doing this?
When this is a constitutional or federal issue, I think we're doing it because we actually do think we can have an impact.
And because the people of the city can then go on to spread the message, as the good people
from free speech for people were discussing, what I would hope we would do is go on to
bring that battle to the likes of Representative King, who said, we can't make the future
of this nation with other people's babies or some garbage like that.
And that we pursue this epidemic that we pursue this epidemic of bad governance and bad
leadership and in many cases illegal behavior as far as we can.
That this doesn't start and end with statements or press or attendance that this is really
the work of a daily practice.
And I'm encouraging those who are looking on whether skeptical or totally bought in to make
that if this is your issue, if you were here to speak on behalf of this issue that you're
then following that up with five minutes of daily work, call Vice Mayor McGuvern's office,
call mine, call any of these Councillors, or reach out to free speech for people so that they
can spread this message up and down the east coast and all over the country. Truly, this is not
something that we're going to achieve in less millions and millions of people opt into to carry
the load together. So that's basically all I have to say. The last thing I'll say on this issue
is that sometimes when I'm bringing something forward that isn't necessarily a municipal
issue, what I hear is we wouldn't want the City Council to give the people of Cambridge
the impression that we can deliver on something that we can't deliver on. I am with you in this
and I'm with you in all of the reaches that the Council can make in order to achieve a better world
and in order to be the source of organizing and the source of good taste and community building for our region.
But I then hope that that same argument that I've heard before against my maybe idealistic policies won't be used again.
that if something is a lofty goal, like a progressive tax, or like a different way of establishing
our real estate tax, so it can be graduated.
Within come a fees are difficult to achieve.
I don't want to hear that we shouldn't embark on those issues as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, council.
Councilor Maison.
Councilor Debra.
Thank you, Madam Mary, and thank you to Vice Mayor McGovern for inviting me to
sponsor this and huge thanks to the members of cast, many of whom I know and respect greatly.
I want to just comment on what this is not about.
This is not as some of the speakers have pointed out retribution or referendum on Trump's
policies.
I think many people know how the majority of people in Cambridge feel about Trump's policies,
but that is not what this is about.
nor is this about political grandstanding or scoring points with the media. Frankly, I wish
all of these cameras that are pointed in our faces were here because of the vote that we're
going to take next on the inclusionary housing, which is historic in its own right.
Which we've worked on for the better part of the year. This is also not a waste of time. I've had
we've had people right to us and say, don't you have anything better to do? Why are you wasting
in the public's time on this silly resolution.
Well, in fact, it didn't take us very much time
because the good people have cast
and the good free speech for people
have done their homework.
And so they basically presented us with this resolution.
Thank you very much.
It didn't take any of our staff time.
And it didn't prevent us from-
I'm working on the other weighty issues that we have before us and the fact that there are only two policy orders on the agenda tonight.
Well, sorry, folks that, you know, sometimes the schedule doesn't work out that way, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of work going on behind the scenes.
So what this is about as others have said far more eloquently is safeguarding the reputation of the office of the president and upholding the public trust.
So in Peachman is a process and I hope that other far less liberal cities will look to our
example.
I know that everyone expects the people's Republic of Cambridge to do this kind of thing.
But when it will really gain momentum is when cities that are not known as the people's Republic
of anywhere jump on this bandwagon and say, hey, something doesn't smell right.
So thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Delro, Councillor Jones.
Thank you, I just want to thank my co-sponsors and Dan Duffley who brought this to my
attention originally.
You know, I think the question is not whether President Trump will be found guilty.
It's how much damage he's going to do before we put a stop to him.
And I think that, you know, to the criticism that, you know, why are we doing this?
I don't think any of them, this is going to pass the council, I hope unanimously, I don't
think any of us are naive enough to think that, you know, we have a great congressional
presentation. I'm sure they've all thought about the possibilities of impeachment and how to prevent
and they're talking actively about how to stop Trump from continuing to agenda. You know,
we're not thinking that this is going to, this is going to actually lead to the impeachment
of Trump. But what it is going to do, I think it's hopefully a way can residents of Cambridge
to the issues that we're facing. This Council has been talking regularly about how to mitigate
the damage that the President has in Trump's administration is doing to Cambridge. You know,
he's cutting funding for formal housing. He's cutting funding, cutting research for,
commenting climate change. He's cutting funding for the social services, all the things that
Cambridge relies upon to enact its values that cities across the country rely upon. He
is actively attacking the bad rock of our community and the social structures that make
our community whole. We're dealing with that on the council on an active basis, and we have
to be willing to say, he's actively trying to go against us. We have to go against him, but
we also need to be recognized that they're in this fight with us. We're anticipating, I think,
If he's allowed to continue in office years ahead of having to face very difficult choices
and trying to figure out how we're going to make ends meet to continue to support the
people in our community that we've done for years.
So I think this is not just an empty statement.
I think it is, I think very resonant to, you know, there is the issues of what, you know, the
many, many conflicts of interest, but there's also the issues of what this presidency is
going to mean to all our community, which I think we have not yet even begun to spread
service of, in terms of how deep it's going to cut, if he's allowed to continue to cut.
So, thank my colleagues in advance for passing this tonight.
Thank you, Councillor Chaun, further discussion?
Councillor Cullung.
I'll be very brief.
The Constitution is, in essence, a set of rules to run a country, and to run the different
bodies of government, and just like our set of rules here, once they start breaking down,
the system breaks down, and this is a flagrant breaking of rules that we all knew was in
the process of happening, including the Congress, and although when I first read the policy
order, I thought, now, why are we doing this, I have to admit that it's better to deal with
it as early as possible, and if someone is in following the rules, which is meant to protect
the country, you have to challenge that and bring it forth, so I heartily support the policy
order.
Thank you, Councillor Carlone, for the discussion.
Madam Mayor.
Councillor Ma.
Very briefly.
I will I understand the frustration that many people have regarding the president and I think
we can look at this and we perhaps are looking at it differently.
But my belief is this is a federal issue and that we have elected representatives that are responsible for the city of Cambridge.
We have Senator Warren who was a Cambridge resident and has been an outspoken critic of the president.
and we are very ably represented by two democratic congressional members in my
capital I know in Catherine Clark and it is my belief that that is who should
be leading this effort and that I think to have this come to the city council
will I understand it? I don't believe it's the right place to be and I think we're
going to have to agree to disagree on that but you know I think that if we did
not have the activism that we have in our elected federal representatives, I could see this.
But we have very, very active representatives in Washington representing the city of Cambridge
and the people and the thoughts of the people of Cambridge.
And for that reason, I am not going to vote for the resolution.
Thank you, Councilor Ma, for the discussion, and I'd like to hear, is anyone that has not spoken
about this because before we go around a second time, Councilor Timmy, which I'd like to
thank you, Mayor.
Thank you, Mayor.
Everyone who was classified here this evening, I also, I hope you're going to have a question
on this this evening.
I think it's long, with a lot of other people's devastating November 8th, the results,
I had to take a look at my colleague, Council on Marset, that this is certainly, we have excellent
representation in the Congressional and the Senate, and I think they should be taken up
the bandwagon on this, and I look forward for them, for their guidance and support and making
sure that this is all through, and so I will be voting present on this this evening, and
was a my decision on November 8th, but it's time that to let our national elected officials
are handled this, and I'd appreciate it going to send them in on this issue, as we face
these very difficult trying times.
Thank you, Councilor Tilly.
Is anyone want to speak on this before we have the has not spoken?
Hearing none, I believe, Councilor Mayors, and you have had your hand up first, Councilor
as and followed by the vice mayor.
Councilor Devoroma.
Councillor Devoroma.
I've been ahead of me.
Okay.
Well, I just wanted to pile on and maybe respond to what Councillor's
Marron and to me have said, you know, I had two experiences that lead me to believe
that it's right to pass this, even given the objection you gave, which is sounds reasonable.
Councillor, if I may, as about what rules suggests, we always like to say, as my colleague
may have suggested.
I have to say, of course, by the name of the meeting.
I don't know, right, as my colleagues have suggested, my experience was that I approached
a very well-known senator that we would all know and appreciate, and I was talking about the
importance of affordable housing and the importance of a federal package for the cities
that just don't try their best, but can't get enough going.
And five minutes into the conversation, the Senator basically said, you know, it's a really
good point, and no one is discussing it in the House, and no one is discussing it in the
Senate.
Despite the fact that it's one of the nation's leading issues, and they said, since Barney
Frank left the house, which was a long time, and my takeaway from the conversation, I think
the senators take away as well, was that we should really be engaging in this conversation
from the grassroots level up to the houses of Congress more regularly,
and that be it
as it may that these bodies are very competent and that these individuals are especially
competent to do this work, I don't think that they will be able to do their utmost and do
it with the closeness to people's real urgent needs and real urgent experiences if we
do not also help shepherd this up the ladder. And that's exactly why I said, I won't be
labor this or say the second story but it's similar, this is exactly why I said we need
follow this up by actually pursuing specific course of action in our organizing in our city
and then again in the district and in D.C. with our elected representatives, but I don't
think you can fully and exhaustively handle this issue without also taking these actions
here in this body.
Thank you.
Thank you for the testimony.
Vice Mayor, when I got involved by Councillor Debrough.
Thank you.
I just want to sit for, you know, I certainly,
you know, I know
So, both personally and professionally, Congressmen and Capuano, Congresswoman Clark and Senator
Warren, and certainly know how incredibly capable they are.
I also know how incredibly capable our state delegation in Massachusetts, how incredibly
incredible they are.
But just for folks to understand, this is not unprecedented for the council to do.
We pass resolutions quite often asking our state delegation, and in this case, our federal
debt delegation to do certain things.
We file whether it's to support a specific bill, whether it's to ask them to take action.
So, you know, I certainly, I completely respect anyone's position and reasoning for voting
in favor of something or not, but I certainly don't want the public to think that this
somehow meant to be a slight on the capabilities of our congressional delegation because it
absolutely is not at work very hard for all three of those people. But it's also, it's
also rather routine for us to do. And I'm sure we will see many more policy orders and resolutions
asking for our delegation to vote a certain way or support a certain thing. And that is our
responsibility I see it as local officials representing Cambridge to make sure that our delegations
know how we feel as representatives of this city.
Thank you, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councilor Debra.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
We'll just briefly, I wholeheartedly agree with what Vice Mayor just, Vice Mayor McGovern just said.
I, to, to say that you're going to vote present or even oppose this on procedural grounds, seems to me very odd and rather pointlessly oppositional.
I'll be very candid. I simply don't understand that when our role as the elected officials
who are closest to the ground, closest to the citizens of cities that state reps and congressmen
at the U.S. House represent, we are the relay. We carry the ground grassroots up the chain.
And I think on an important issue like that, like this one, it's absolutely our place to
What we know, obviously Senator Warren and Representative Capuano and Representative Clark are saying.
This is us doing our job.
We have many resolutions on our agenda for things pending at the State House,
where we know that Representative Decker is going to vote in favor of them.
But yet we still say, yes, Marjorie, we want you to know that you have the citizens of Cambridge behind you.
I'm completely perplexed by this and I'm very disappointed, frankly, that this won't be
in that in this vote.
Thank you.
Where are the discussions?
Hearing none.
I do plan to support this order for a couple of reasons.
One, I believe all politics is local and I think that on the federal level, there's certainly
making noise and I think here on our level, we should make a difference.
I thank my colleagues for putting forward this order and I, again, want to support it
I recognize that once in the council, particularly one from a deep blue state, does not leave
the national conversation, what I do think we are responsive and responsible to, the citizens
in this may not as you can see with this council, may not be the opinion of all the people
that live in Cambridge, but I am taking this vote from a, from my personal opinion as someone
who's worked in this body, who got together in November before the President-elect raised his
right hand to take the oath of office and say, we would stand and be firm on the opinion
in our stance on sanctuary city and we will go further to do training so that our citizens
wherever they may come from, we feel comfortable in our city and we go further than that
from the school community and make it our schools or say that our schools will be
sanctuaries schools. So a lot of times it's just letting people know that we
believe and we will fight and stand with you even though it may not have an
immediate impact because I do believe a single drop or we are rock. And so
the conversation has to stop somewhere and you know Cambridge is
a different, predictably progressive, and we shouldn't shy away from that.
And so, the people of Cambridge has said, they want us to start this, and we want that.
They want us to start this, this evening.
So, I support the resolution for many reasons, and I think this President of that President
provides new reasons every day for us to, in my colleagues, to want to introduce this
and I suspect, before it's all level, will we bring up other orders to protect and support
our citizens in Cambridge and so as we all know, as we watch television and the news,
every day, the federal government is finding ways to choke off funding for housing for education.
And I think that's, I'm just incredulous.
That someone would say that I'm going to hold back, or I'd like to hold back federal funding, which I don't believe he can do, but just a threatened.
And that this going to impact children and families and seniors.
And I'm an incredulous that this happens, and so I'm supporting this order, and this is our way as a council, whether it's unanimous or not saying,
we're not going to we're going to stand up against you and we're going to stand up with all those others and maybe we will be the in the front of the manguard that says enough is enough.
If there's no further discussion, I will call for a vote on a motion from the vice mayor but govern all those in favor say aye.
Opposed.
The vice mayor is called for the role madam clerk on policy on a number two council column.
Council.
Yes.
Council Kelly.
Council.
No.
Council.
Yes.
Yes, and the auditor is a doctor on the firm and a vote with seven in favour, one recorded in the negative
No one amps in and one recorded present. Thank you, Madam Third. We now move please. I ask people to order
I'd like to preserve
Please order and in the council. I think I understand your enthusiasm, but please I'm going to respectfully ask for decorum
I we move now to the next order of business council car loan. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like move
I move to suspend the rules to bring forth number 7 under unfinished business, the zoning
ordinance for inclusionary housing.
Thank you, Councillor Carlone, I'll come to Colombo suspension, I'm suspension, all those
various AI, the polls, the eyes have been aware, now I'm suspension, I'm bringing table
matter, unfinished business from the calendar forward, all those in various AI, I oppose,
I have it, and the number seven is now before us, Councilor Carlone, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, as you know, having chaired a housing committee with the vice mayor.
This is an ordinance that has been conceived and worked on for a long time.
And we believe has come to the point of great support.
There might have been some issues that we had to refine and work on, but the overall basis is a key component of making greater number of units in Cambridge affordable.
So I have other comments that I'll add later, but I think this is a great moment, and I'm sure others have some additional words.
Thank you, Conceal Carlone, Pleasure in the City Council.
Now, it's a demo.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
And thank you to all you, especially, and Vice Mayor McGovern, as co-chairs of the housing committee who got this conversation started and to everyone else who participated in this over the many months.
I just want to say that I hope that we as a council and the housing committee don't rest on our laurels and that we do as people have advised us, which is to take up the next challenges, which would be
helping middle-income families, people who are stuck in that gap that are either don't make enough,
make too much, need too much space, whatever.
That's, I think, the next hurdle, and I hope we can start working on that as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Debra O'Counselman.
Thank you.
hopes and dreams bucket since 2013 when I was saying maybe we could get to 20-25 percent.
And I remember that a lot of folks said that's just not going to work.
It's going to slow down building in the city.
I think there's still people saying that.
It's a similar thing we hear when there's building codes for green construction or net zero.
It's the same thing that we've heard for years.
And it turns out that in Cambridge, you just can't keep us down.
The property values are just through the roof and where things were recession-proof now.
Looking back over the last six years, I can't have enough on every surface around you for that one.
But my point is this, we're still going to have an unbelievable amount of construction,
and yet we're also going to get a new 20% of all-new luxury development.
Some say market development as affordable housing, and it's, I think, overdue.
It's something that I'm proud that we're doing now.
And the only feedback I want to give is on the positive side that we were able to reach consensus on the PUD provision and make sure that this was as fair and comprehensive and application of the new standard is possible getting the most value for the city of Cambridge.
And on the other hand, the feedback is I wish we had done it faster because I really feel like we had near super majority consensus from day one.
I really feel like we could have said 20% and these provisions and had the difficult conversations
in the first couple of weeks. And for some reason, I think this jogged on a few more months
than necessary, and in a very major way, that length of time, obviated some tens of millions of dollars
of affordable housing in the North Point major amendments to their project. And in other
project that came in past during the time of our discussion and I wish we had been able to achieve
this standard for those projects and hope them in the future we will keep those in mind as we
think about our scheduling. Certainly that was my goal and one that I will find ever sharing
that type of committee will try to heart to in the future. The last thing is that I think we can
more. That 20% affordable inclusionary housing is not going to solve the city's housing crisis.
In fact, as someone in public comment said, the very nature of luxury housing development
creates its own displacement and further its own negative community impacts, which cannot
be outpaced by the positive inclusionary housing impacts that we seek to promote. So while we
are moving up towards a better standard, we must, as Councilor Carlona said many times, continue
to invest in city, funding of affordable housing, we must engage more and more nonprofit
developers and tax credits, and we must truly change by an order of magnitude, the amount
of new affordable and especially new middle income housing units that we make over the next
10 years.
I'm fully in favor of that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Thank you.
Your leadership on this very important issue of keeping this this evening to vote on
this 20% inclusionary.
I especially thank the housing advocacy organizations and members of the general public for
their many long hours and weeks and months of work on this issue.
They really brought us to the finish line.
I just want to really thank them for the tremendous amount of commitment that they have had
to affordable housing.
And it shows the importance of providing this, and it's hopefully that soon the argument
of fighting against mass and main of providing 15 units of affordable housing there will
end and people come together in that opposition to that, and so that that can move forward
to provide 50 desperately needed units of housing.
So I'm imploring everyone here in this room and outside to make sure that that, and as a
on the moves forward, so we can provide those 50 plus affordable housing for our residents.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council.
To me.
Vice Mayor McGurvin.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I'm going to keep my comments positive.
I think we can talk a lot about housing policy and how to increase affordable housing.
I was at the ABC conference that was mentioned in public comment.
And one of the other things they said was that if people think that not building market
at housing, you're just going to stop gentrification, you're fooling yourself, because
people with money, you're coming to Cambridge, whether you build a housing, or you don't.
So we can have that debate on that long, but that's not what this is about.
This is about us passing an ordinance that is probably, I would say definitely the most monumental
thing that this particular council has done in our two years, and probably that the council
has done in a long time.
And I really want to thank Madam Mer, I was a pleasure to, and it is a pleasure, we're
still co-chairs with the housing committee, but to go through that process with you and
following your lead and your mentorship and that through that process was terrific.
I certainly want to thank Councillor Carloan, Councillor Chong and his chairs are the
ordinance committee and it came with residents of Alliance of Better Cambridge, the Affordable
Housing Trust CEO, see all the people who came up the YWCA, everybody who came up and testified
to this.
We know that this isn't going to be the sole answer.
We've said that from the beginning, but this is going to create hundreds of
hundreds of new units for people. And, you know, when the Berkshire Street Fire happened and
we were scrambling to find housing for people, about half of those units were inclusionary units.
And we have them, because we have this ordinance, we have them because there was the housing
development in the city. And so, yes, we're all on board that we have to do more things,
we're all on board that there's certainly more to be done. But I don't want people to lose
of how incredibly monumental this is, almost doubling the amount of affordable housing that developers
have to provide for the city at their dime, not ours, right, millions, hundreds of millions
of dollars is going to come in new affordable housing to the city of Cambridge at no cost of
the taxpayers or the city. A requirement, it's not a recommendation, but a requirement for developers
to provide affordable three bedroom units so that families can finally afford to live in Cambridge.
And a requirement that we're going to review this policy so that we don't have another 20 years before making a change.
Those three things are going to help people in ways that we can't even imagine right here tonight.
And so, you know, I don't want to sour this by all the things we could be doing or should be doing.
This is huge. It's significant. I'm honored to be a part of it.
And this is going to be one of those things of some day we're going to look back after our time here is done and say,
I did something good and I'm really proud to be here for this well. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I too want to thank the co-chairs for the work that they have done to shepherd this through.
I do in particular, though, want to thank you, Madam Mayor, for your steadfast support of affordable housing.
not only with this program, but over the past many, many years in making sure that the Council
is focused on affordable housing.
When this program passed, going back many years ago, I think we should remember and take
stark in the fact that it took a number of years to start to see the units come forward.
And the vast majority of those units has really been the past five or six years that we've
seen those come to light.
And now at standing near a thousand units, it is quite an extraordinary program.
We do have to remember that it is only one piece of the pie, and that the city's comprehensive
housing program to look at programs like the Switch House of Harvard, that did
allow us to give a neighborhood preference to moderate income folks, or the new program that
opened at the corner of Third Street in Vinny Street, which took moderate income housing.
And I think we have to continue to look at that and say that there are other ways that we
should be looking at housing in the city and in this community.
But I think today is a proud day for all of us, and I think it's a good day for the city
Cambridge as we look forward to what lies ahead and looking to increase the housing stock
for the people of Cambridge, and especially looking at how this is going to affect those three
bedroom apartments, the family size units, that there is a dire need for in the community.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, council ma, further discussion.
Councillor Chen?
Yes, I just wanted to, I guess, I think it's almost set already.
This is one step in a series of many steps that the Council is taking and we'll take
the trying to address housing.
We are clearly in the midst of a housing crisis.
When you have graduates from MIT coming to testify that they're going to apply for a
affordable housing, that just something is broken in the city.
We're clearly going to do more in this Council.
I think it should more courage and more determination to do more than anyone expected of it, you know, from the incentive rate to now the inclusionary to looking forward to Councillor Carlo and I'm talking about how do we make sure the mix between commercial and residential development is favoring residential.
There's a lot of things that this council is doing, but I think that this is a sign that the council is clearly taking what we all know that we have a housing crunch in the city and taking it very seriously and doing everything we can using all the tools that are disposal.
And I want to thank again Mayor Simmons and Vice Mayor McGuvern for the long work and for my co-chair
Councillor Carl Lone for the Orange Committee for getting this done, and this was that this is a huge
piece of zoning that has monumental monumental impact we got through, I think very, very quickly.
This is not the end, there's still a lot more to do, but I think we all, I think the council
as a whole deserves a round of applause, although Dome applause is not not to applause because of the
that we're doing so. It's all right. It's all right to give it done. Thanks.
Thank you, Councillor Chung. Any further discussion on this? A council card loan.
Come back to you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm thrilled to hear that everybody says this is only a part of the
solution. The public speakers as well as the council. And we certainly have actions or issues
before us that can affect affordable housing, the 20% affordable housing will affect land
value.
There is no question of that, and there might be a subtle delay in new construction. But frankly,
the land value is out of whack, anyway. And the way we can deal with that in part is to
reform zoning, much like the central square zoning, was recently done, which says at least
half of new construction has to be residential on any site. That's the beginning. My colleague
across the way. We're not allowed to mention names, is that true? We may be contentious.
Oh, this is in salute. Councillor Kelly's notion on Airbnb and limiting the number of units
that can be rented out versus leasing them as apartments seems directly tied to this, promoting
university housing, the council has been talking about this for decades, it seems, and at
least with vote be in mind, this can be an area that is now open for discussion with
MIT. And perhaps most importantly, getting the budget are budget to reflect that this is
the number one issue in the city, and this can be done in a number of ways, can be done
through issuing bonds as well as putting a proportion of our budget in affordable housing
beyond the certax. The last thing I'll say is through urban design. And you've heard
me say this before. Six story buildings cost 67% per square foot of what high-rise cost.
So, if you want affordable housing or increase the amount of affordable housing, you build what is called mid to lowerize six stories and lower.
That's how you get affordable housing.
More than the 20% that we're talking about.
So I'm looking forward to this issue being explored in all the ways discussed already by others and that I've mentioned and all these are doable.
They're all doable.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Thank you, Councillor Cahillan.
For the discussion?
Well, then let me just say as before we call for the vote,
I do want to certainly thank the citizens and the housing advocates for their hard work,
continued hard work to help and support the council as it did its work. I'm not going to
the name people because I'll forget someone. And so just please believe, understand, I
would already with a deep level of gratitude. I want to thank everyone that participated in making
this vote that we're about to take possible. I also want to acknowledge my colleagues. The committee
on housing. The committee on housing is not a committee of the whole, but the entire council
came and participated in the discussions, and that really speaks to the level and the commitment
that this council had around affordable housing. You know, we applied, we often talk about diversity
in our city, but to have diversity, particularly social economic diversity, we have to be intentional.
It will not happen on its own, and we have taken some very bold and important steps. This is only
one, with by taking property by eminent note domain, was extraordinary and an important step.
Looking at RMB and B is extraordinary and apparent and important step.
Looking at our condo conversion practices, it's an extraordinary and important step.
And as a number of my colleagues have already said, this is not one and done.
There is so much work that is yet to happen in order for us to keep Cambridge diverse and
affordable, but this is clearly an important step.
So I am extraordinarily proud and happy that we're taking this vote.
I know there's so much more work to be done, but for tonight, we will have gotten the
brass ring on this one side.
Again, I want to applaud the community and my colleagues on the council for their hard work.
That being said, pleasure of the city council.
on a motion by the Vice-Mirror call madam clerk.
I'm sorry.
The question comes on passing to be ordained on after April 3, 2017.
I'm clerk.
On our nation, council column.
Yes.
Council Council Devoros, Council Kelly.
Yes.
Council.
Yes.
And the inclusionary of the United States has to be ordained by an affirmative vote with
nine in favour.
Madam Member.
Thank you.
Vice-member Devin.
I'd like to move reconsideration.
Hope on the same will not prevail.
I need suspension of the suspension.
I'm suspension.
We'll reconsideration of the matter.
Same will not prevail.
And let me explain reconsideration.
We consideration basically, it is often important and used when both are taken as important
as this one.
It makes the vote final, it says that we will now go forward, it will not be considered
in, this will not come back up for a vote.
So it basically gives funality to this particular item.
So you have to suspend the rules in order to get to reconsideration, then we vote reconsideration,
saying the same will not prevail.
Members that do not want to bring this up again, we'll vote no, it will not be reconsidered
and the vote will be affirmed.
Madam.
I understand and it's that this petition expires if we don't finalize it right and it
Thank you and which is an important thing to keep in mind when we suspend the rules
Is why we are doing that right makes sense in this case. Thank you so much.
Council Kelly it's council committee at a rate this has to be voted this evening
It cannot be considered otherwise it just it becomes moved
So thank you council collector bringing that up
Madam clerk will will on suspension all those in face they I
No, the eyes have a very suspension on reconciteration, which can be, it's the rule of law.
I mean, we don't, oh, I even want it better.
On reconciteration, hoping the same will not prevail, and no vote says we will not.
We consider, yes, says we do so in order to make this final, I respectfully asking the Council
to vote.
So on reconciteration, hoping the same will not prevail.
All those in favour say, no, say, I, all those in favour say, I, all those in favour say,
Boy, this is not work for it, it's not working well.
Then say anything.
That's what we want.
Opposed?
The eyes have it.
And the eyes have it.
I'm so excited.
I can't get it right.
The ordinance is not reconsidered.
Thank you.
Pleasure to see you, Councillor Lee.
We now go.
Madam Mayor, move the manager agenda before us and like a poll seven eight nine please.
Okay, on a motion by Councillor Chung to bring the city manager's agenda before us or those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed.
Ayes have it and the agenda is now in front of us.
Councillor Chung is asked to poll number.
Well, poll number seven and number eight refer to the petition and poll number nine.
Okay.
So Councillor Chung, you're pulling number seven.
to amend yep and then referring number eight to the
let's let's
she's we're not going to be talking about the disdesession seven
council chung eight council chung was that all nine and nine
pleasure city council
council
the fellow hold number one
devra council's ever
now I was going to pull number one so it may be
uh council director would you like to pull number five for me
Would you like me to pull me?
I would.
Well, can I pull number six at the same time,
Yes, you can.
Pleasure of the council.
Hearing none, we will have a roll call on the balance
number two, requiring two roll calls,
and I will read it as follows.
Transman communication from Louis A. D.
P. S. Wallace, the manager relative to the appropriation
of $2,875,000 from free cash to the general fund
public works of an ordinary maintenance account.
$1,940,000, and to Public Works Public Investment Fund, $935,000, to cover winter 2016-17 snow storm
expensive associated with snow plumbing, contracts, salts, and other material would be a cost
and equipment.
On the consent agenda items for 2A, 2B, 3 and 4, council column, council chung,
council
Council of Ma, Council of Mazen, Vice Mayor McGuven, Council of Tumi, yes, Simmons, yes.
And the consent to gender items are a doctor on the affirmative vote of eight and
fade with one recorded is absent.
Thank you.
We move now to number one.
This is pulled by Council of Carlone.
Transmanic Communication from Louis A.D.
Biscoulli City Manager relative to the appropriation of $5 million to $250,000 from
We cast in the public investment public works, extraordinary expenditures, accounts of facilitates
a complete renovation of the building located at 859 messages at the Avenue.
Council Carlone of the Floor.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you to the manager and Deputy City Manager.
Obviously, we're excited that this project is moving forward.
I support it in every way.
I, and others might not feel a sway, I sure would love to see this project, even if it
had been one of the sheets to show the rest, I assume this is a restoration, is that correct
on the outside?
And that was said a good chunk of the cost.
Yes, yes, through you, Madam Ayer, absolutely, it is available on the website.
we have extensive design documents that are available on the website. I apologize for not giving
a link to the counselor not doing that year. You're absolutely right. It's a handsome design
and there is a website from the City Manager's page for the 859 Massive that has the
floor plans and has the exterior. It is a historic renovation. It has been designed as a net
And we'll have PVs on the roof, so there'll be no fossil fuels that are going to the building.
And it will be sort of super insulated walls, but certainly we're working closely with Charlie Sullivan, the historical commission.
Just because of my background, the square footage is approximately, I don't need to do exactly.
I take it, there's an addition to the project while you're looking that up.
There is an intimacy in addition to the project.
We're using basically the same footprint.
It is 5,000 square foot, planned area,
and we're doing the basically 10 SROs.
So we're in the back, we're putting a playground in there since it is for family and the building square footages.
That's actually what I was asking.
And then I'll give more questions.
Yes, some of the corridors.
I can get it later.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I just wanted additional information.
I obviously, we all believe this is a major project, not only for affordable housing and relocating the shoes to even more modern facilities,
but also for enhancing a building on Mass Avenue, a building that needed attention, so I think it's a win-win in many ways.
Thank you Madam Mayor.
Mr. Mayor.
Coach, whatever.
Good.
Thank you.
Pardon me.
Thank you.
Mr. Vice Mayor.
I guess I know that last December we were informed that you would be asking for about,
or I think, up to five million from free cash.
and it's now prepped up to 5.25 and that does bring, you know, with the, I think, 2.6
that we paid to acquire it, it is starting to look like it's going to cost us three quarters
of a million dollars for each. I mean, these aren't units, but if it's 10 single mothers
and children, it's expensive. I'll say that. And I feel like when it's, when it's that
expensive a little more detail would be helpful just because it's a lot of money and
it caught I know it costs a lot to build affordable housing I had been thinking that the
cost was closer to half a million which is already breathtaking so I just wanted a little more
context.
It is a .6 million dollars total to a .6 million purchase of the building and in 750 for
design and is 5 million to 50, which is 8.6.
That's a measure.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
So obviously, I'm in favor of this and have been following
of great interests are work to acquire the building and then now to
renovate it. I have two questions. The first one is a long line of
would love to see detail along with cost, but the second issue is that I probably would
have loved to have known about other options you were considering as well. Is there a reason
For example, that if we're gutting and restoring
We did not add on extra volume at some point in the renovation. Is there some reason that we
didn't maximize across the whole, you know, you might tell me that this is a building that is
of the utmost historical character. But to me, I would just assume the dormitory building to make way for
more families and more office space and much over-do and long-discussed city-over-flow
space. So I guess I'm wondering how we came to this price in this plan.
We, through you, met a nice mayor. You know, we did do an assessment of the building.
Again, we had a, we had a meeting to talk about it in January. We went to the council.
It was done prior to June of last year, it is available on the website as well.
We did consider whether we should add additional bulk and additional affordable housing to
the site in the back.
And ultimately it was just determined that it was a lot of bulk and a lot more expense
to do that and it would have to be managed separately and you'd have to have a separate
elevator and it just got really complicated for perhaps two or three units that you would
be adding in a lot more expensive.
In terms of what the emergency shelter and the wide W's needs are, it's the replacement
of the 10 single room occupancy unit to the family units and there's shared kitchens on
floor and obviously bathrooms in each unit and so it is a more expensive design that way
by having, you know, four kitchens essentially. I'm really happy to get you more detail on
the building. I would say that we had hoped that the price was going to come in lower. We just
the bids that were opened and the bids were much higher than what we anticipated, at least about
a half a million dollars higher than what we had when our estimate was, but I'd say we had
several more bids than they were even much higher. So this is really the lowest one I just
But we feel like it's a really important project for the city, and so we really, although
I think we recognize that it's an expensive project, we're recommending that we move forward
on it.
Of course, I don't want you to think for a second that I'm saying we should supplant the intended
project with some other project.
I'm saying this would be additional and up to and including if separate elevator banks
and separate management are at question, including, you know, whether the YW would be interested
in doing more units and more value, and of course the need is infinite, right?
So, I'm just trying to maximize this given that we're putting so much of a city's time
goodwill and money on the line, and I guess I wish we had the every time that we come into
some land as the city that we do even more every time.
But if that's not possible on the side I understand, I just appreciate you for making
And as possible, it seems like this project has moved relatively quickly so far in the planning.
So I'm thankful for that.
And thankful, obviously, for the wide WCA's continued work on this, you know, important
transitional and emergency housing offering for the community.
Thanks.
I'm going to find that a mayor that is building the area is 5,130 square feet.
For the discussion?
Council Chairman, and then.
Thank you.
I just wanted to express my gratitude and appreciation for this work.
I think we saw how many people that were here a second ago for the 20% inclusionary,
which is really targeted, you know, people have some basic level of income.
I think we really need to focus, I wish that many people as excited about,
focusing on those who have transitional housing, those who have less than the minimum amount of income.
The people who are at the lower end of the scale and starting from homeless on up,
I think it's really where we spend a lot of our time and attention,
and I think this is a project that is trying to do that.
And that this is as important to me as the ordinance that we just passed on the council, so
I just wanted to say thank you for that work and make sure that you knew that you're
touched on this, even though we're not the chairing the crowd's chairing, I think to me
at least as important and if not more so, thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Thompson.
For the discussion, I just want to say I'm very pleased to see this in front of us.
I'm, you know, this particular project and this housing is so important in terms of stabilizing
some of our more frail communities.
And as we continue to strengthen our housing program, not alone, but with the community-based
organizations across the city, we can transition people from temporary housing to permanent
affordable housing.
I just think this is one of those steps that I'm very pleased to see if I want to think
the YWCA and our community-based organizations who continue to support us and push us to make
sure that we're doing as much as we can to keep Cambridge affordable. So I think this
is a very important role in glad it's in front of us. There's no further discussion I
would call for the roles, the Council of Mark, the Council of Mark, the Council
of
Mark, the Council of Mark, the Council of Mark, the Council of Mark, the Council of
Council to me. Yes, and a gender item number one is a dropped on the affirmative vote with nine
your favour. Thank you, Madam Clerk. We now move to number five, pulled by Councillor
several of my urging, a communication transmit from Lee A. D. P.
P. Squall is the demand to relative to a way to report item number 1721 regarding a report.
I'm whether the stop sign can be reinstalled at the intersection of the green street and
in the conf-strait?
Well, would you like, would you like to, I mean, I understand the memo.
It's one of those things where we responded to resident concerns about an
unseen intersection and then their professional opinion says this intersection
doesn't have enough volume of traffic to warrant a stop sign.
So if you would like to think further on that.
And I did read it, and I see the data that you've used to support it, I just don't agree with it.
It was there. I don't know why we can't put it back. It's not like it was never there.
Sometimes, it's not about the data. It's about what makes people feel more comfortable.
What makes people believe that they're going to be safer as they try to traverse our streets.
And so sometimes we have to do something that doesn't make a lot of sense to us, but builds a lot of goodwill.
And so for me, this is about being building goodwill on our community by answering a concern that the neighborhood's have.
And so I know you're saying, no, and I'm saying, we think it, you know, I don't want to get into the habit of sending things back, but I'm sending this back. I really want you to rethink it.
But I will hear from you if you'd like to speak to it.
I'll just, obviously, we'll take another look at it at your request, but if the two things I say one is we actually have no evidence in any of our files are also looking back at any maps or anything that there was a stop sign there and it doesn't appear that there's a pole with a missing stop sign or anything like that.
So I know that the original order asked for the re-installation, but we can't determine that there was a stop sign there prior.
If you hear any of your constituents have any evidence, please let me know.
And then, you know, we'll certainly look at it like I said, but I think it is a situation where there is a lot of evidence that if we put up more signs and more stop signs and is justified than you wind it with people just not paying attention to them and then that spreads beyond. So again, we will certainly look at it again, but there is a, it's more than just us being difficult. There is sound technical reasons behind it.
And please understand, I don't see as being difficult, but just have differences of opinion of this.
But it's interesting to you say that because it was a light at one time, years ago at Brookline and Pubmin Avenue
and they replaced it with a stop sign because they felt, and what we heard that that time was that people would be more likely to stop a stop sign
at a light and a red light people would tend to run through it.
And so I'm thinking in that same light, well, stop sign makes people more compliant than
maybe stuff signs either way to go.
But I respectfully ask you to take this back and you think it, is any more just a concept
column?
Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you to Mr. Bart.
So, which corner, I meant to stop by tonight and I did it, is it the downhill going down
and coxstreet corner, which corner is the corner where it's missing?
You have a remembering correctly, it's coming down.
Because I remember a stop sign there.
And now, grant that that could be a long time ago,
but I do remember, but I also wanted to add
that I have been on green street, stopped,
and proceeded, and almost got hit by somebody who came down the hill and just kept going.
And I assumed there was a stop sign there, just because of gravity alone, people tend to speed going down the hill.
So I would say, if you don't feel comfortable with having stop signs at all four corners,
although I know one in my neighborhood and thank God it's there, I would take it out on green street.
I believe you remember, I did not look at the burial again before I came, but I believe
this stop sign is on the Hancock and green street has proceeds through, so there's a
request for a stop sign on green street.
Madam Mayor, I drive down the street every day.
On my way home, it's literally around the corner from my house.
The sign is on Hancock street.
To come down the hill, you have to stop on Hancock.
there's no stop sign on Green Street.
And I can tell you, it is a free for all, a lot of the time.
It is, it's a very confusing key to a lot of times.
People think that there should be a stop sign on the Green Street.
So they stop.
And then you're sitting there and you're not everyone's kind of who's
supposed to go, and other times, it's just a hard corner to see.
If there's any kind of construction vehicle or garbage truck,
or recycling, I mean, it's just, it's a really tough corner.
I literally drive down there, it's literally right around the corner from my house, so it is a problem for sure.
Mr. Vice Mayor, thank you for your education. You did take the floor from your colleague.
Councillor Carlos.
I was going to add a few comments, but my comments were wonderfully transmitted to the Vice Mayor and he repeated it very good.
I was completed. Thank you. I was completed. Thank you.
I don't want to disagree too much in my colleagues and I might be in the minority on this issue,
anyway, but I really feel for Joe in this situation where he's trying to implement a standard
that only becomes evident when it becomes a pattern.
And we can't let him get started on the pattern because every time you're moved or don't place a stop sign,
we are flying in a face of the best practices you're trying to teach us.
But what I'm saying is that, you know, for what it's worth, there's a generational
design divide in my family on this issue, because when I talk to about it with my parents,
they couldn't believe for a second that by removing stop signs, they're going to increase
attendance.
But if that's the data, then I think that's what we should follow, moreover, I also
that intersection a lot, and correct me if I'm wrong, but because of the way that that intersection
is arranged, there's actually a lot less traffic there than a lot of other sized streets
coming off of green street. I see people taking their care there, and the few times I've
had occasion to drive a zip car through it. I found people, well, obviously concerned about
the nature of the intersection, but now that I'm getting it properly, I don't know that
this is too important, a matter for me to be in fact about, but I'm marginally interested
and just not placing a stop sign there for the reasons I just stated.
Thank you, Council.
Council Kelly.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I would echo, I think, Council of Massons comments.
And I think this goes just beyond just the stop sign is,
we've asked the cities do something for us.
They came back with a professional response.
We don't like it.
So we're saying go back and give us a different professional response and I don't know where the council fits in that
I had my ideas about traffic
They're not every one of the ideas about traffic as sometimes they're completely wrong sometimes they're right for me and wrong for other people and
I'm happy to spend however much time second guessing city staff all the time or I'm happy to say a
Mr. Bars looking at me saying that would be great
But I think I'm more happy to say if we have a difference of opinion with what they are doing,
then we should have a different discussion about what it is that they are doing and how we ask them to do stuff.
So we've got a good response on this.
It makes absolutely perfect sense to me.
I have yet to understand why we would expect a different response coming back except because of some sort of political pressure,
which I don't think is the way we should do most traffic things.
So I will not vote to support this going back in, unless I hear from city staff that
they're likely to come back with a different discussion or a different decision.
I would comment that if there's 200 cars on the one street and 300 cars on the other street,
every app.
Now we're as I read at least for an eight-hour period. That's one car every seven seconds for eight hours, which just seems like an absurdly high amount of cars for almost any street. Is my math right, and is there not a typo? Is that really what a stop sign requires? Is that level of traffic?
The three of them are married.
They're going to make me do math on the fly, but this is the federal standard to 300 vehicles
per hour.
Now I'm struggling with doing this in real time, but it's not a tremendous volume of traffic
if you ever get out over the course of an hour.
So.
I guess I say a car every seven seconds if that's the fact where it is is not.
not it's huge volume of traffic.
Okay, it sounds like a lot to me, but so the second question then is how much flexibility
is there realistically in these standards and how much not push back but how much guidance?
Because I think counselors understand this particular intersection better than someone going
counting cars and applying the federal standard. I get that part, but how much flexibility
is it really in a standard like this?
Through your amount of merit, I would say that it's not like we would be punished for putting
in the stop sign of this location. It's not that kind of a standard. It's more, you know,
as Councilor Mazen referred to an engineering guidance that allows us to try to make the
right decisions and in different situations and prevent every corner for being in
I always stop, which I think would be detrimental to safety in the end, and allowing us to deploy the right tool of the right location.
So I mean, are there no stop signs in Cambridge or for that matter traffic signals in Cambridge that aren't fully justified according to the federal standards?
Of course there are, but I think we try to stick to this as much as we can, but if there's a strong desire for something different than we certainly, like I said, have done that in the past.
I think the only question I think in terms of what we're going back and looking at this again would be just to reevaluate the site lines of the intersection and just determine if we see something that we didn't.
We took a quick look at it but we didn't sort of go out and measure everything and so there are some additional analysis we might do I can't say what the answer would be but there is it's not like we're just sort of saying
Ask us again and maybe we'll give you a different answer.
There is some more analysis that we can do if it's as a grant as much concern as I'm hearing this evening.
So.
I'll scale it.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I'm not so concerned about this, but if this takes this much effort,
I wish us all well on these separated by claims that I imagine we'll be talking about at some point in their future.
Thank you, Council Kelly, for the discussion.
Hearing none, I'm referring back to the City Manager, all of those in various AI.
Opposed?
The eyes have it, and the matter is referred back to the City Manager.
We now move to number six.
This is pulled by council of the rub.
A communication transmitted by Louie A.D.
The square was the manager relative to the appointment
of the following persons as members of the Vision Zero
advisory committee effective April 3rd, 2017.
For the term of two years, Nicholas Dard and Crieder, Jennifer Quick, Paul Coleman, Steven
for Rikko, Becca Wilson, Nathaniel Fillymore, Stacey Thompson, Brigitte Fries, Wendy
Landman, Amy Flax, Sean Peas, Jim Geth, Keone, Michael Muie, Diane Gray, Todd Robinson,
Michelle Turr, Trophyro, and Steve Crossley.
How's the demo pull this item? You have the flow.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you to the staff.
So I applaud the creation of this group.
I think it brings together a really all-star team,
and I'm really pleased to see so many representatives
from the various advocacy groups,
because I think you'll have some really robust discussion.
So who is the staff member who is in going to be leading this group?
So I mean, it's really a joint effort between several departments.
We've been sort of, we've been coordinating with community development.
It's sort of the within the key in terms of creating this committee.
And Brooklyn County for my staff has really been the key staff member.
So, but it's really, like I said, it's been a joint effort of several departments to get us to the stage.
No, I realize that, but in terms of sort of the day to day or the month to month,
I'm assuming this group will meet maybe monthly or maybe that hasn't been worked out yet.
The three of them had a mayor.
The intention initially leads was to meet quarterly, partly because we didn't want to, you know,
given the number of people we have on this and wanting not to, so we wanted to use their time wisely,
so we felt like quarterly would be good if that turns out not to be frequently enough for certainly open to more frequent meetings.
In terms of staff, in terms of the day to day, I think my department will be taking the lead on organizing
the meetings and that the logistics of that and I would hope we haven't said a first
meeting date but I would hope that we would have them meet within the next month or so.
Great and I'm assuming they'll be involved in, for instance, the immense square we
decide when you have a meeting for that in May. I know that maybe you could take them over to
Hancock Street and green and see if they have any recommendations. I guess one of the things
In that conversation that we had and not to reopen it, it's in the context of vision zero
because we're supposed to be looking at all traffic decisions from a safety standpoint
and often when we talk about traffic we're talking about cars and cars stopping and getting
confused about when other cars are stopping or not stopping but I would argue that one should
look at what the, you know, what the pedestrian movement is on the streets.
I don't know if more people are walking on one street or another.
So that's, I think, the reason to have a group like Vision Zero that also contributes
to sort of, wait a minute, we're supposed to be thinking of safety of all users,
not just the movement, of course.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Debra for the discussion.
Madam.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Thank you to City staff.
then looking forward to how this safety discussion unfolds, where do the Cambridge Youth Services
fit into this discussion in terms of having some sort of permanent voice on it, whether
it's to a discourse or and or through the Youth Services Department?
I think that'll be fair.
So what we haven't listed on here, other than I guess, my commuteration of this village
commission, there will also be representatives of several city departments providing input
to this group, and so we expect to have representatives from both the school of department,
and if we need to, at some times from the Department of Human Service programs, to represent those voices.
But certainly, the school of department is a critical piece of this, and so we intend to have them
involved in this committee, you know, in all of the meetings going forward.
Councillor Kelly.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I would encourage there, I know have some high school students, for example, that are active in by safety issues.
I think you want to hear or we want to hear directly from people who are bicycling rather than hearing that voice
somehow interpreted by people who may or may not be bicyclists themselves.
To the extent that you can bring actual young cyclists into the discussion and understand, for example, the challenges of keeping a light on your bicycle at the high school
or carrying your lacrosse stick when you go to practice on the other side of town or whatever it is.
These young people face as bike safety challenges that most of us don't.
I think that would be useful.
Through Madam Mayor, I'll just say the city manager and I met with the bicycle safety group of the high school a few months ago.
And I think we can reach back out to them and see if there's a member of that group that would like to.
Sort of the committee and I don't think we're necessarily viewing the membership as a hundred percent complete because there are a few additional groups.
that we were we've been talking to. We just don't have. We didn't want to hold
any committee started because it has been a little while since we advertised it.
So we wanted to get this moving. But if we want to, if there's a, there is an opportunity, I
think to add, you know, a few more members to it if it makes sense. It's also looking to that.
Thank you. Councillor Cuyfe and you for the questions?
For the discussion. Hearing none, I'm placing on file. All those of you who say aye.
Opposed, I have the mass placed on file, we move now the number 7, this is pulled by
Councillor Chung, a communication transmitter from Louis A.D.
Piscouales, the manager, relative to a planning board recommendation to adopt, with
a suggestion, my application is a zoning petition to amend Section 8.23, the construction
of non-conforming structure or use for all-infinite explosion or other catastrophe.
Councillor Chung, you pull this, you have the floor.
So, I believe I need to pull, move suspension of the rules, pull, committee or report number three.
On suspension, all those in favour say aye.
Opposed?
The eyes have it.
I'm bringing committee point number three forward.
All those in favour say aye.
Opposed?
The eyes have it.
And number three is before us.
Concentrate on your floor.
So, I'm looking at the clerk.
So, next we need to refer this to the petition.
And then we, did you want to read out the changes we're making or do you want to do for
the first?
Madam Clerk.
For you, Madam Mayor, to Councillor Chun, I do believe that you have an amended text
that you want to submit?
Yes.
It's a red line version on colorblind.
So, I guess the first thing to do is to refer to the petition.
You advise referred to the petition then, discuss?
Accept the report.
I'll be the appropriate way.
We need to refer a gender item number seven to committee report number three,
and accept committee report number three in place and on file and we have a text and a
amended text.
Is that correct?
Through you, Madam Mayor.
The, if I'm not a text, we provided the red line version for your information, but there's
a clean version that is the textual changes that were discussed at the committee based upon the
of the planning board and the discussion at the committee, and we recommend that through Councillor
Chon, that the amendment language that I believe has been provided to the press of the Council
be substituted for the language in the petition.
I think we're talking about agenda item number seven.
We're talking.
Right, so what's that you might be looking at this as eight on it is what we want to be
So let's let's let's call us from on it. I believe it's the it should start if a non-conforming structure or you shall have been destroyed a damage by fire
That's what you should be reading
Does everyone have that
Excuse me madam there. What what is labeled a this also dated February 13th
Which is not you shouldn't do never ate it all you should have this right here
we're talking about. I think it's coming your way and should be first line if a non-conforming
structure or you shall have been destroyed a damage by fire. Does everyone have that?
So this is the amendment I believe. If a non-conforming structure or you shall have been
destroyed a damage by fire explosion or other catastrophe and then you have in parenthesis
except one that has been determined by the city to have been caused intentionally by or on behalf
of the owner, close pair whatever the things are.
Such structure or use may be built or restored and used to get as previously.
If a non-conforming structure or use show have been destroyed damage or caused to be moved
as a result of a public taking such structure or use may be relocated or reconstructed on
a lot or on an embedding lot in the same ownership, comma provided that said location or reconstruction does not result in the enlargement of the non-conforming use or structuring.
In either case, in either such case, comma the rebuilding restoring relocation or reconstruction shall not require a special permit provided that it commences within 24 months after such file explosion catastrophe, public taking OS,
blank 2017 date of an actment of this amendment, which ever is later in its complete within
636 months after such fire explosion catastrophe public taking or blank 2017 date of the
actment of the amendment, which ever is later. And provided the structure as we built,
restored relocator or reconstructed, shall not be greatly in volume footprint a gross floor area,
She'll not further increase any non-conformities than those of the original non-conforming structure
and she'll not further violate any dimensional requirements of the ordinance, Councilor
Chan.
So I'll just to give some context to my colleagues.
So this was in response to the council requesting after the fire in East Cambridge looking
at the difficulties of the residents were and landowners were having in terms of rebuilding
a non-conforming structure that was the struggle of the fire.
trying to make it easier for them to do that quickly and expeditiously without, I think,
an overboarder and some hassle trying to get variants of this special promise.
And this was, I think we had a good debate in the, in the ordinance committee asked for a number of changes
as to clarify the language, make it respond to some feedback that we got from the public.
All these changes, I think, reflect with the Council had discussed during the ordinance committee.
We want to try and get this done as quickly as possible to try and give some relief to the people
who are affected by the fire. I mean, it's came to a few months ago. The change is looking in the
look to be exactly what we'd asked for. I think if it's easier, we can amend the petition,
probably, we have to lay us on a table for two weeks anyways. I think we can amend it next time
if people are uncomfortable doing this, doing that tonight. If people wanted it tonight, we have
looking to the room to see what people will prefer to do, but either way, I think we
want to lay, we want to, except the report, lay us on a table for the two weeks so we
We can train or date it.
No, is that right?
Where are MSU?
I accept the report, place and on file.
We are going to amend by substitution.
If that amendment by substitution reveals,
we are going to pass the pass it to a second reading as amended.
Do we have to?
We'll go on the unfinished business.
Do we have to amend that tonight?
Are we going to amend it next week of the week after every passage was in reading?
Well, I think that that might be a question that the city's solicitor might answer better.
Now, through you, Madam Mary, yes, you can certainly pass it to a second reading tonight
as the petition is presently before the council and then move to substitute with the amended
language.
So, Councillor Cheong, do you want to, I don't know if you've done this before the agenda item number
7 to committee report number 3, and then on the report number 3, except in place on file,
and then you want to amend by substitution, which we just read, and then pass to the second meeting.
Yeah, so I think that's the chain of events we want to do.
We can amend it tonight, or we can amend it tonight, or not tonight, for those who were
to the meeting if they want to have more time to look at it.
We can certainly make that the next meeting.
Pleasure to see you, Councilor Carlin.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I just have a couple of quick questions.
I was not at this ordinance meeting.
I think that's the only one I missed this year.
I was sick.
And I just have a question.
This doesn't mean literally re-build the building that was there, because it was a store
church. So, this is rebuild the square footage that was there.
Ms. Weller, Mr. Ron, I'm Mr. Deepa Scwally.
Because when I read this, it seems to be literally rebuilt. And that is not going to happen.
Through you, Madam Mayor. The church's comprehensive permit already proved. So, that is not part of
really. The rest of the buildings they had to build as the same volume and footprint in
the area in area. Yes, I just wanted to be clear it. Great. And I take it that there's
no coordination and other that would be expected on other projects. There's no special permit,
there's no design review, you can theoretically build a square footage, but it could have
different exterior sighting, it could be painted red, white and blue, it could be anything.
Is that right?
We might as well as design as no effect on zoning, so I'm sorry.
Design on the color, I'm just a matter of zoning, so it's only the square footage and
setbacks in the loading.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
the crowd on council. Just a through you a quick clarifying question on behalf of the gentleman
who has come to all these hearings. So it's good that we've extended the time to complete
to 36 months and I think it no longer says work continuously too. So we've taken that out of it.
But what happens if, despite the property owner's best efforts, the 36 months can't be met
for, you know, an insurance problem, or something that's beyond their control, is there
what would be, would it go to the BCA, or the planning board to say we grant you an extension
of six months, or to, to launch it, how would that work? Or is that, is it low?
I don't know, three of them at a mirror. I think that, I mean, this is one of the difficult things
about a provision like this. It is a fairly long period of time, so I think that at that point
it would be out of compliance, and the honor would have to apply for a variance, because
that's the language that's here now.
If you leave it completely open, then you do run the risk of people having projects that
could go on for who knows how long, so that's really a policy decision for the Council.
I see.
What if someone started, would there ever be a situation where someone started to rebuild this
on conforming structure and for some reason beyond their control, couldn't finish it in that
time.
And then you would say, well, you can no longer build what you started building, or once
they have the building permit, I'm a little confused about, I understand that we want
to sort of suggest that from a policy standpoint that you need to get going and you need
to do this.
Because three years is a very long time for any construction project except for a certain person's
on Brattle Street that seems to have taken forever and a day, but hopefully I can do it quicker.
What I guess,
would there be a situation where somebody would be in the midst of construction
and then would be told they couldn't do what they had started to do? Or is that completely
not as close a probability?
Three of them had a mirror. It's difficult to answer questions like this,
hypothetically. There are some thorny enforcement issues that occur and I think those are things
that the Commissioner for Special Services struggles with,
and we all, various cities, staff members,
work to address situations like that when they arise.
But it would be difficult to provide one simple answer.
No, it could, at that point, be considered as any violation.
Certainly, the Commissioner works with people
when zoning violations are identified.
But, again, it's one of those things
where, as a matter of policy, generally, our recommendation will be
to give that cut-off. It's a much longer cut-off period and so that would be the staff recommendation.
Thank you.
Further discussion?
Councilor Chung, are you prepared to...
So unless any of my colleagues wanted to wait until next week to amend the petition,
I'm going to move the weaver fee to do the substitution tonight.
On the substitute, offered by Councillor Chow, all those in favour say aye, opposed by
his habit and substitution, though I'm passing on to a second reading as amended.
All those in favour say aye, opposed by his habit and the matter is passed to a second reading
as amended.
We now move to number eight.
This was pulled by Councillor Chow.
Communication transmitted by from Lewis A. D. P. P. Schwaelens to the Mayor General voted to amendment to Title 6.
Other municipal code entitled animals to include a new chapter six.
.20, entirely strictions on the sale of animals and pet shops.
Councillor Chao.
Pull this just to refer this to the petition.
Vice Mayor.
Just a quick discussion.
Thank you, Mayor.
Just a quick.
I don't think we have to do this now.
We can do this with the ordinance committee, but just some my colleagues now.
There are, I am going to suggest a couple of amendments.
It's really just one word that has to, we're going to add, because we left this out a rack
and it's with turner, spiders, because the sale of tarantulas and whatnot.
So I guess I have to go through and add that into the various places where it lists the animals.
So it's not going to be a major amendment, but it might be tedious, because it's going to
hit appears in a whole number of places.
But for now, I'll just be freeing to the Madam Madam Clerk is saying something I'm going.
Councillor Chen, our clerk is suggesting that you refer this to the ordinance and to
the clerk refer to the ordinance committee.
Any other questions?
I want to, I guess Councillor the ordinance committee meeting, I would suggest that we
to prohibitions, which seems more accurate and something I essentially support.
Very good.
For the discussion.
For the discussion, hearing none on referring to the ordinance committee.
All those in face that I oppose, I have it, and the matter is so referred.
We move now to number nine.
This is full by Councillor Cheng.
A communication transmit from Louis A.D.
The squall is that he managed a relative to a way to report item number 1710.
regarding a law and Cambridge residents to round up their water sewer bills to assist
in funding specific community relief for our DEX Council at CHAMP.
I just wanted to thank City Manager for response on this.
I know this is kind of a crazy idea and seems like it's going to be a little bit of work
to try and pull off just for the colleagues, just for us in the background, we could talk
with you with the City Manager about this idea for a while, I stole this from some other
cities that have been doing something similar. And my concern here is, you know, it's great
that we have, you know, community benefits pull a money that we can gear towards helping
some of the non-profits in our city, which do a lot of times a lot of the work, the city
would be doing if we didn't, if that nonprofit didn't exist. You know, I'm really concerned
about the cuts that are going to come down from the federal government looking forward
and the city is talking about how we're going to close the gap and meet some of the
that we're anticipating, I think they're not proper partners in the community, are going to be facing similar challenges going forward in terms of continuing to meet the demand of our residents while facing shortcuts or cuts and funding from the federal government.
It'd be great to have in addition to those, those one-time big injections of funding from, you know, when we do big zoning and big PUDs, to have some kind of ongoing funding mechanisms to afford money into the community benefits fund.
which took a lot of time and thought and it was, I think,
is really well constructed.
So, you know, one idea that I had looking at other communities
was they round up the bill, you know, for them,
it's a different bill given, you know, different states.
But, you know, round up the bill and then bring that money
to what's helping our nonprofits seem like a good idea.
If there are other ideas to try and create some kind of revenue
source for the nonprofits that, you know,
doesn't just come out of the general fund,
which is, I think, we don't wear, I think,
same reasons, we don't want to race taxes.
We want to have something as a bit optional for those
residents who have the ability to pay more, and want to pay more for an off-profits to let
them do that. I'm not married to this idea, but I am married to the idea that we need to
try and put in place some kind of fun in the mechanism. For those who need benefits to help
our non-profit partners. So, I'm not sure if you had any other ideas came up or what, but
I look forward to trying to figure out something that's trying to achieve that. If we can move
this forward, working with our billing vendor, thinking about how we would draft a home role
They'll be great if there's a way we can do it internally without going to state you've been better, but you know, why don't try and push something forward
So, not sure if you had any.
Mr. Deepa squally.
True, Madam May, I think obviously the idea works one of the major concerns to be very honest is the opt-in option.
If there was an opt-out, based on the fact we said that about 15,000 water bills, for a time
Similarly, it would certainly be some volume even if you rounded it to the nearest stall.
I think with the opt-in, we are concerned that the men will be a minimal amount of
the contribution that we end up getting, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
So I think we're going to move forward in terms of doing everything we can do to evaluate,
get ready to implement, and again, take a look at the fact, is there's any way we could make this
enough?
Right now, we don't think that's the case, but I think we need to do some more work on this,
I want to thank Michelle and David for the work they've already done to try to guess to
this place.
That was a joke.
Were the discussion?
That's a never.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I guess I think it's overall a good idea.
I am concerned that there's a fair amount of work and there's no estimate of what we think
we might be able to yield from either an opt-in or an opt-in opt-in opt-in, and obviously
is an estimate on how generous people would feel, or how well we can communicate that this
even is an option. And then I guess my second question was, are we allowed to do, Councilor
China was talking about non-profit partners. I read community relief projects as being, you know,
I mean, I could go to a future fire fund or I could go to a tree planting campaign or I could
the community projects are we allowed to actually direct it to non-profits or what it
have to go to a general fund that is dedicated to the welfare of, I don't know, I mean we
could, when we set it up with the legislature, it would be worded in a way that obviously we
would be getting a service from the non-profits as well but we would have to work. It couldn't
be a general statement but we could make it for non-profits pending what they were doing but again
That's why you need the home rotation and we'd have to work it out that way, but we will continue to do some work on this, but I think if it's round to the nearest dollar and it's an opt-in, even with a lot of publicity at 14,000 bills,
Get looking at a pretty small return now if we came up with something that has been often but you were running too much high a number
That could bring some income, but I'm much here how that would go as well
So we got some work to do
Well in a will move forward and come back with something to choose if we do this this is what we think the revenue will be
But we just wanted to get this up here to say that we'll continue to look at it and hopefully as our recommendation shortly
That's a jammer.
Thank you. Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair.
If it were legal to do an opt-out, which I'm not sure if it is. And if you wanted to maybe even do a, I think we're allowed to put things on the ballot, right? We can agree to a ballot question.
It's a perfect opportunity to ask people by referendum if they want to round up to the nearest $10 as an opt-out. And then you're making, you know, for action $1 million a year. Great. And you say it's for a good cause.
And maybe if you were people opt out and maybe it's not such a bad thing to vote on either or or maybe people don't want this at all
But it's good to know what people want and if that's a ballot question helps to that then then then great
I would just I would when I've heard something like this aired before I was concerned that you would be doing all this work and and bringing in
under $5,000 maybe much under $5,000
depending on how things went and
And that's not what I'm hoping for.
But what I am hoping for, though, is we continue to think about how to leverage people's
goodwill and how to leverage their extra wealth to support a city that needs it is this return
over and over again, the difficulty of a progressive real estate tax in Cambridge and the
that would rely on serious collaboration with the state and serious research, that I do
think is worth it. And I think will change the way that Cambridge funds and talks about funding.
It's housing crisis. So I'll put in another plug for that, which sounds similar to this,
but could have a far different impact for the discussion. Hearing none, I'm placing on file.
Also fair to say aye
Opposed the eyes having the matters placed on file. We now move to the calendar. Pleasure to the council. I'm there
That's a child. I took hold number six number six
For the further anything else on the unfinished or calendar
You're hearing none would council
Number six or three there's follows and amendment of the municipal code ordinance entitled title title a entitled
Health and safety be amended in chapter 8.12 point zero one zero and title self service station regulations
Council jump. I think we had a question comes on passing to be all day on our after April 3
So I moved to ordain unless people wanted to meet a rearrangement on ordination
Madam, please call the roll.
Council of Calone.
Council of Jones.
Yes.
Council of General.
Council of Kelly.
Council of Emma.
Yes.
Council of Madison.
Ice me of a government.
Council to me.
Bands Simmons.
Yes.
Council of Calone.
Council of Madison.
And the.
Ordnance is passed to be ordained on affirmative vote with nine.
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
We now move to applications and petitions, push to the city council.
Move to the adoption.
Council, my move to the adoption of application number one, all those in favour say aye.
Opposed?
Aye's have in it in the odd.
Order is adopted.
Communication.
Social City Council.
On the motion by council.
Mark to place items one through 13 on file.
All those in favour say aye.
Opposed?
Aye's have it.
and the committee cases are placed on file.
We move now to resolutions.
Pleasure to the city council.
The motion by council on the resolution list,
making the unanimous on adoption.
All those in favor say aye, opposed.
I have it and the matters are adopted and made unanimous on adoption.
We move now to policy orders.
Pleasure to the city council.
Number two, being exposed up.
17 to discuss next steps on bike and transit safety in Cambridge.
Question comes on, except in the report and placing on file.
Pleasure of the committee.
Do you want to speak on this?
That's it.
I'm so sorry.
Thank you so much.
Thanks for your patience.
I was just wrapping up with the city manager.
This committee report was excellent, or this committee, it was an excellent meeting
for a number of reasons and I thank everyone for coming, it was a great meeting of
Obviously, stakeholders in the bike safety and transit safety community are beginning to come together and do much
broader and deeper work and I think there's a
A broad set of constituents coming forward from the community of people who bike people who walk people who drive
In order to understand one another better and not to talk past one another in that spirit
I think also counselors who have had differing opinions are beginning also to find ways that
that these opinions can overlap.
So in particular, I think Councillor Kelly and this meeting and I talked about a way
of separated by glands and a way of pop up infrastructure that aren't so objectionable
and something that we can all agree on or at least both agree on and that is very happy
for that as well.
So with that brief summary, I hope people will read back into the full minutes and will
participate in future iterations of that conversation.
This question. Hearing none, question comes on. I have set to report and placing on file,
all those in their say, I oppose. I submit and report is accepted and placed on file.
We move to committee report number two. Communication was received from Donapy Lopez City
Clerk. Transferring report from Council Jan DeVrochier of the Health and Environment Committee
for public hearing held on March 22, 2017. To receive an update from City staff and recent changes
regarding leaf blowers made since a hearing held in June 2016, including enforcement, the
purchase, and piloted Greenland's gaping equipment plans for pilot program in spring 2017,
to use green equipment in two parks, and any of the updates on efforts the city is taking
in regards leaf blowers and any other changes to the existing leaf blow ordinance that the
council may wish to consider.
Question comes on, except in report, and placing on file, Councillor Debra.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and we discussed all the things that you just read, so I will repeat them all.
It was actually a really productive committee hearing.
We had, I think, five counselors present and a lot of members of the public.
I commend our staff at DPW and at the License Commission for really taking to heart the direction that we gave them last summer.
They have been piloting electric equipment and they will be doing these new two parks in the spring that they are going to be all electric equipment.
So moors, blowers, everything will be electric.
I think that's great.
I think that will help raise awareness.
At the same time, the licensed commission has really cracked down on violations from the product list.
landscaping contractors, they have beefed up the training that they do for both city
employees and for municipal contractors. So that's all good. Yet we're left with the
reality that leafflowers, whether electric or used according to best practices are
still a real nuisance and they are a public health hazard increasingly. There is
research to support that. And so, as much as we can, try to mitigate their effects, the only
real way to get rid of their effects is to consider banning them. And I know that's probably
not what some people would like to hear, but we did have consensus among the counselors who were
present at the meeting that that really was the logical next step. And we started to talk about that.
So I think that is the logical next step for this committee to process how we would do that,
whether there would be certain exemptions for municipal workers who, you know, we do recognize
have much bigger responsibilities to maintain the public safety and to maintain a large number
of fields and parks.
So we will be talking about that and we are excited about the effort that DPW and the License
Commission are making.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Debra, discussion?
Hearing none on accepting the report and placing on file.
All those of you say aye.
Opposed?
The aye's have it and report is accepted and placed on file.
We now move to roundtable minutes, Passover.
Communication.
We have one communication and one late communication.
On the communication that is before us, pleasure to city council.
Madam.
Councillor Kelly.
I would like to continuously talk about this, whether it's through communications to council officers
or just in general, but I am constantly thinking that we over-police, where police are
not the best thing, and they may or may not be the best thing in City Hall, I understand there
are a number of people that feel genuinely physically threatened, working in City Hall and
arrive great comfort from seeing a uniformed officer here. On the other hand, I'm certain
there are people who for whatever reason do not feel comfortable coming into a civic
building with a uniformed officer present. I think at some point we need to revisit how to
provide appropriate safety and to feel in a security for staff. Well at the same time making
excuse me. At the same time making sure that people who want to do their business here,
which is the only place you can do much city business, don't feel unnecessarily chilled.
Similarly, I think that a police substation in Central Square, which I did vote for,
and changed my mind, and rather than doing the whole very confusing whatever that thing
is that we sometimes get confused about.
Rather than doing that, I just figured I'd share my thoughts at where we did do it again.
I would vote no, I think we need a much deeper discussion about why we want police there.
What we want them to do, and the police need to be part of that discussion, or I suspect
we will have them doing things that seem reasonable in the moment, but do not look good,
for example, on TV or YouTube or wherever it might be.
And I don't think I've scheduled a meeting yet, but that's somewhere in the works in the
near future.
Thank you.
Councillor Kelly, discussion?
Councillor Mazen.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Through you to Councillor Kelly.
I agree wholeheartedly with the content and the spread of this letter.
I think I ended up floating no on this above my own trepidations.
I didn't want to disagree with the good intentions of the original order.
But in thinking about it, I have to agree.
There's just a much deeper conversation needed on the patchwork.
And the depth of services needed in order to provide a comprehensive and humane solution.
I think with great respect and great appreciation for our police, that would only be one factor in achieving the ends we wish to in the square and across the city.
So I'll echo what Councillor Kelly is saying.
I hope then that that means that Councillor Kelly and I will both, and potentially with the support of my allies here on Council, will both be able to lead a systematic approach to that type of discussion in any of the committees that we have overseen these issues.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
The specific site that was mentioned, Baron Plaza, has problems.
But the major problem is the lack of activists on the ground floor.
typically public spaces that are successful, have active uses at the ground floor that oversee
the public space animate the public space, and when you have a good bank that certainly
doesn't work, and I'm not even sure what's in the other side, I think it's completely
did. So I'm not saying the answer is only an urban design and requirements, but that is part
of the problem at this location, is that no one is in charge. A police station is probably
the last substation is probably the last thing you try to do, but there is some sense
to it, of having a small storefront. The question is, will anybody be inside during the day
or will they be out walking around? But this really gets to how we program public spaces or
just let them be. In this case, you can't let it just feed. So it's a complicated issue. Thank
Thank you, Councillor Carole and Councillor Chung.
Thanks.
Just to chime in, I continue my support in voting for the last week.
If it had come back up, I would have voted for it again.
I think we have to recognize, we have a responsibility to residents as the policy making body for the city, but we also have a responsibility to our employees that work here in the city.
And our responsibility to our employees means, you know, that having a police officer helps them feel safe and confident and able to focus on their job and doing the work of serving our residents.
I think that would we need to listen to what our employees have asked for and respond to
it and give them what they will give them, you know, provide for them the environment that
they need to do to do their job.
I think secondly, Mr. Councillor Kelly, with the discussion about whether or not the presence
of a police officer is found troubling to some, you know, we had a discussion early tonight
about the leadership that Cambridge is showing in terms of the rest of the country in setting
an example on a role model.
While the Cambridge Police Department has not been spared, it's fair share of learning opportunities.
The way that we do policing in Cambridge is very, very different from everywhere else across
the country.
The focus on community policing, the reason why, frankly, we have so many homeless in Cambridge
is because we have officers dedicated to serving that homeless population, putting them in connection
with services.
We don't just round them up, put them in jail and try to force them out of the city.
We treat them as human beings with dignity and respect, and we try to, you know, do our best
to help them.
The police officers know their names.
We have police officers who will go above and beyond, in terms of training to not just
exert authority at the end of a badge and a gun, but to work with the community
for actively.
I think we, it's not that we need to prevent people having, feeling troubled by seeing
a police officer.
We need to give them more opportunities to interact with our police and recognize what
policing in America could be if policing is based on the community, is based on the values
that the Cambridge has.
I think that having police prizes, the more opportunity that the public has, the better,
it gives the police an opportunity to know the community, and also offer the community, and
opportunity to recognize that policing, we do need a shift in policing across the country, but
here in Cambridge, we're at the Vanguard Berlin that change, and we're trying to build what
police force should look like. I think we've taken great strides in that direction. So, you
know, I'll do respect to the people who feel troubled. I think that they should go and talk
properly, solve a service or get to recognize that they are human beings as well, that they
are dedicated, they're job and they're dedicated to serving this community. Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Joe. Councilor Debra. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do agree that
our police are different, and that may not always be apparent to people who just see them as a uniform.
the relatively new regular police presence within City Hall, to me seems about as on a truce of a police presence, as you can get, the officer is never at either of the doors, so far as I can tell, today I actually came in and because of Councillor Kelly's memo made sort of a conscious effort to find this person, you know, as though I was just a casual visitor and didn't see him.
So it seems like he's often, and this is not a criticism, but he looks like he's sort of conducting business himself, he's not guarding.
He's not somebody who is looking at visitors up and down and seeing where they're going.
He's often standing in the hall chatting with somebody.
And we've made a big effort to tell people, for instance, immigrants that were a sanctuary city,
that the police are not going to ask them for papers, and I don't think anyone who
assumed that a police officer in City Hall would stop somebody and ask them why they
were here or any of that.
So that, to me, is a perfectly appropriate thing.
Heather Hoffman in public comment said that there were an awful lot of police officers
here tonight and there were, and that was unusual, and it was because we, you know, prodded
the troll in Washington and got some angry phone calls and some nasty e-mail, so that was
exceptional, but I wouldn't expect to see that. And then finally we all got an e-mail today
from someone who was saying that there was a mentally ill individual who was around a church
outside central square and that her friend was now becoming afraid to go to church because
this mentally ill individual is there.
And she wanted the police to do something about it.
And again, it's this line between, well, it's the police
or what people want.
That's what they see, the police is someone who
can solve this problem with a mentally ill individual.
It's actually a mental health issue, which
isn't really a law enforcement issue.
But that is who our society sees as having some authority
over how do we get a resource to somebody who could
potentially dangerous. So, you know, I stand by what we voted before. Obviously, it will take
some discussion. We'll have a new police commissioner probably, hopefully, by the time that we
get around to getting some sort of substation up and running the summer. So, hopefully,
he or she can have input into what policies the officers who are assigned to that beat will have.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Dero, for the discussion on this matter.
Hearing none, I'm placing on file, all those in favour of the R. Opposed. I was having the
matter placed on file. This takes care of the ordinary agenda of the city council. We're
going to now go to late resolution. Follow them. We'll have to suspend the rules, because
there is one late communication. I did not believe any late policy orders.
So on late resolutions, I'm having a clerk.
We have a resolution on the death of Mary Lou Tumi, submitted by Council of Mar and Mayor Simmons.
Resolution on the death of Senator Kenneth Donnelly, submitted by Council of Tumi,
and a resolution on the death of Lorraine M. Susan, submitted by Council of Tumi.
On the resolution to make in the unanimous on the daughter, let me just pause and say to our colleague, Council of Tumi,
I'm behalf of the entire City Council. I want to extend our sincerest condolences to you on the loss of Ms. Mary Lucy, to me, and we do wish of you and your family, all the best.
On the late resolutions, making them unanimous are on the adoption, all those that they say, I propose, I have in the resolutions, our adopted.
Madam Chair, I have a late communication that I wanted to move suspension to add just for the record.
So I think we have taken care of the late resolution.
So council mass and moves suspension.
Other rules.
On suspension.
Allows and papers.
Opposed.
Okay.
The aye.
Okay.
Well, call.
Madam Clerk.
Councilor.
Councilor, councilor.
Councilor Devorot.
Councilor Kelly.
Councilor Ma.
Councilor Maasin.
Vice-mama Governor.
Councilor Toomey.
Yes, Simmons.
And the rules are suspended on affirmative vote with six in favor.
One recorded in the negative and two recorded is absent.
I'm bringing forward a late communication offered by Council Mazen, all those in Phase II.
Those guys have it and the late communication is before us, Council Mazen.
Thanks.
I'm going to go on at length given the hour and the brevity of the letter basically says,
you know, we tried our best to get the City Council of all setting by a technical oversight
as someone out of our control.
I'm sure we could have all been chasing.
The post things or whatever to make sure it happened.
But it couldn't happen, and that's fine.
But the letter says maybe in the future
when things are of this weight, and of this importance,
we can book back up plans, we can book follow-up dates,
and that's what kind of what I was saying two or three weeks ago,
saying we could just have another meeting on the agenda,
if something happens in the first meeting,
if it's not enough time, or if we need a second meeting
for any reason, we'll have that schedule.
And I'm just saying that while we're in the same room together,
it might be a good opportunity for us to do that now with Sandra,
Or if we can't, I'm just urging the Sandra or the Mayor's office to help us schedule not one,
but three of these, a meeting, a backup, but rain day, and a follow-up, because I think we'll need to and not one.
And I think now the case is stronger than maybe when I made it last time.
Thank you, Councilor Madison.
I'm not sure what you're asking.
I don't know if you're asking for backup meetings for the goal setting, are you asking for backup meetings?
meetings to have just so that we can get together and, sorry for the goal setting, just
for the goal setting, a rain date and a second goal setting because I assume only
two meetings not one.
Thank you.
So, pleasure of the Council.
I'm placing the letter on file.
I'll vote some basic I.
Opposed that I have it in the list.
Place them file.
of the council. On motion by council, maud to adjourn, all those in favor say aye, oppose,
I have the meeting as adjourned.