Cambridge City Council meeting - January 6, 2025

2. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,500,000, from Free Cash, to the Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,500,000), and to the Finance Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,000,000), to support the continued operation and needed capital and equipment improvements to Neville Center, a 5-star skilled nursing facility with 112 beds, which is part of Neville Communities Inc. (CM25#2)
pulled by Siddiqui w/questions about meetings related to this; Yi-An Huang notes difficulties in funding health care institutions, some history leading up to this point, changing loan terms w/Rockland Trust; Claire Spinner (Finance) additional comments and explanation; Andy Fuqua (Neville Board) on reducing monthly debt service and preservation of physical building; Siddiqui inquires about role of State Legislature delegation; Fuqua notes recent Act adjusting Medicaid reimbursements; Nolan notes concerns about use of public funds to pay down loan to a private bank, wants to know terms of original loan; Spinner notes that original term was 10 years at a high interest rate, term extended, now to be extended to a 30-year term, current debt service is ~$120,000/month to be reduced to ~$75,000/month; Charter Right - Nolan [Azeem asks if City Manager’s Agenda items are subject to Charter Right (of course they are, as are any New Business items)]

CM25#2 Jan 6, 2025
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting an appropriation in the amount of $2,500,000, from Free Cash, to the General Fund Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,500,000), and to the General Fund Finance Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,000,000), to support the continued operation and needed capital and equipment improvements to Neville Center, a 5-star skilled nursing facility with 112 beds, which is part of Neville Communities Inc.

Neville has been an important community asset in Cambridge for nearly 100 years. In 1928, the City of Cambridge built the Neville Manor Nursing Home and operated it as a municipal nursing home until 1996, when it was transferred to the newly formed Cambridge Public Health Commission (Cambridge Health Alliance). In 1999, in response to operating challenges, the City, the Housing Authority and the Health Alliance joined forces to propose legislation that would create an affordable continuum of housing and care for the Cambridge community. Enacted in 1999 by the state Legislature, Chapter 42 of the Acts of 1999 (the “Neville Act”), authorized the redevelopment of the Neville Manor building as an affordable assisted living facility and the construction of a new nursing home. The legislation requires that both the assisted living facility (Neville Place) and the nursing home (Neville Center) be subject to affordability covenants. In addition, the act requires that Neville be controlled by a public entity or entities. The Board of Directors of Neville is made up of appointees from the City, the Affordable Housing Trust, the Health Alliance, and the Housing Authority.

The assisted living and skilled nursing facilities opened in 2001. Neville Place, a 77 unit assisted living facility, provides various levels of care, including life enrichment programs and a holistic approach to memory care. Fifty-seven apartments are reserved for low- and moderate-income individuals. Neville Center is a 5-star rated skilled nursing facility with 112 beds. The facility provides short- and long-term care and dementia/memory care services. For nearly 20 years (2001 -2020), Neville was able to manage positive bottom lines to support its ongoing operations and capital needs. However, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed Neville’s fragile finances, especially on the skilled nursing side. Reimbursement rates have not covered the cost of care, especially as wages and other expenses skyrocketed during and after the pandemic.

During the past year, City staff and representatives of the Neville Board have met periodically to discuss the financial issues facing Neville. As we presented at the May 23, 2024, City Council Health and Environment Committee meeting, the most pressing issue has been the refinancing of an existing $13.8 million loan with Rockland Trust that initially matured in 2023. The Neville Board requested support from the City Manager in working with Rockland Trust to negotiate a sustainable restructuring of the loan. During the past year, representatives of the Neville Board, as well as the City Manager and members of his staff met with Rockland Trust to discuss and negotiate loan terms. These discussions resulted in Rockland agreeing to continue to finance the loan and to offer loan terms that are more sustainable for Neville, including a 30-year amortization schedule, a 10-year loan period, and a lower interest rate than Rockland originally proposed.

While the new loan terms resulted in lower monthly debt service payments, the level of debt remains high, and these payments are still a significant monthly expense for Neville. In addition, the skilled nursing facility faces capital expenses related to deferred maintenance needs and equipment replacement that it does not have the capacity to fund at this time. Given these issues, the Neville Board has requested $2.5 million from the City. Neville proposes to use $1.5 million of the funds to reduce the outstanding loan principal and $1.0 million to support capital expenses, maintenance and equipment needs of Neville Center. The reduction of outstanding debt would benefit Neville in reduced principal payments and the overall cost of interest both monthly and over the loan term. As part of the loan negotiations, Rockland agreed to lower the interest rate by 1% as compared to what was originally proposed if the principal is reduced by $1.5 million. This will result in an overall savings of approximately $2.3 million in interest expenses over the 10-year loan term.

I am recommending that the City Council appropriate $2.5 million to support the request from the Neville Board. The Neville continues to be an important community asset for Cambridge, providing both affordable assisted living and high-quality skilled nursing care.

As of January 6, 2025, the City’s Free Cash balance is $233,151,653.

Very truly yours,
Yi-An Huang
City Manager

3. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $10,000, to the Grant Fund Library Other Ordinary Maintenance account. Funds will support digital learning classes through FY25, including though the procurement of translators and Chromebooks. Classes will cover 8 specific topics developed by PLA and implemented at Main with other branch locations to be determined. (CM25#3)
Order Adopted 9-0

4. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $4,000 to the Grant Fund Library Other Ordinary Maintenance account. Funds will support digital navigator classes through FY25, including though the procurement of translators and Chromebooks. Digital Navigators will offer tech help and will use content from 8 specifics topics developed by PLA. (CM25#4)
Order Adopted 9-0

5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of members to the Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity. (CM25#5)
Appointments Approved 9-0

CM25#5 Jan 6, 2025
I am writing to inform you that I am appointing and reappointing the following persons below as members of the Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity for a term of three years, effective January 1, 2025:

• Bradley Halpern

• Angela Flynn

• Gassendina Lubintus

• Arleigha Cook

• Sydney Ramos de Paula

• Angela Camacho-DeSousa

• Tyrie Daniels

• Lawrence Bailis

• Kelly Hassett

• Steven Lee

• Betsy Bard

• Namrata Sengupta

The current City of Cambridge Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity was established as a result of a 2013 City Council order. The mission of the group has been to identify and raise awareness of civic issues; provide opportunities for honest dialogue and engagement; and work to build bridges across communities to better understand and connect with one another.

Activities have included bringing in guest speakers; sponsoring theatrical presentations; poetry night event; community events and discussions; and collaborating with other city groups and organizations. The newly appointed members will help to maintain diverse perspectives, implement programs and events, and effectively continue ongoing work and discussions. Advertisements seeking new members were posted in August 2024, and 16 letters of interest were submitted in response.

I have appointed the following 8 individuals to the Committee for 3-year terms:

Bradley Halpern is a consultant with experience in organizational change and performance. An area resident for almost a decade, he has a strong interest in consensus building and civic engagement. He brings leadership and facilitation skills through a range of educational and professional experience.

Angela Flynn has a strong interest in building and fostering connections across communities to improve overall civic health. Throughout her professional career she has served on several boards and committees that strove to bring people together. She also brings experience in collaboration and event planning.

Gassendina Lubintus was raised in Cambridge and is currently employed with the Cambridge Housing Authority. She has a strong interest in housing issues as well as community engagement. She also brings volunteer, organizational, and event planning experience.

Arleigha Cook has a legal background as well as strong interest in community issues. She brings experience in inclusion focused Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) work and a passion for increasing inclusion through educational content.

Sydney Ramos de Paula was born and raised in Cambridge and has very strong connections to the community. She has a demonstrated strong commitment to civic unity ideas and brings experience as a DEI practitioner and in nonprofit leadership.

Angela Camacho-DeSousa is currently employed at Harvard Law School. She has a educational and professional background in political science and race and ethnic studies. She also has a wide range of community focused volunteer and leadership work.

Tyrie Daniel was raised in Cambridge and currently works at Cambridge Rindge and Latin Highschool. He has experience working with youth through school and neighborhood-based programs. He also brings experience organizing and planning a range of community events and initiatives.

Lawrence Bailis brings over 30 years of teaching and research experience on social policies, civics and community organizing. He has also served as member or leadership positions on a variety of boards and commissions.

In addition, the following current members have been reappointed to the Committee for 3-year terms:

Kelly Hassett is a lifelong Cambridge resident and full time professional in the electric utility field specializing in engineering design. She is the current chair of the Citizens Committee for Civic Unity and has enthusiastically served on the committee since 2017.

Steven Lee is a lifelong Cambridge resident, a human resources professional, and also serves on the LGBTQ+ Commission. He brings valuable analytical and communication skills to the group.

Betsy Bard is a former employee at the Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and is also involved in theater. She provides unique ideas about how to use creative methods to address civic unity issues, including through investigative theater.

Namrata Sengupta has lived and worked in Cambridge since 2016 and currently leads public engagement and science policy efforts for the Broad Institute. She also serves on the board of directors for Asian Women for Health and Innovation Trail of Greater Boston and is one of Kendall Square Association’s Emerging Leaders.

We appreciate the willingness of these community members to serve and look forward to their contributions as members of the City of Cambridge Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity.

6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $6,000 received from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) to the Grant Fund Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance account to pilot initiatives to reduce move-out waste during the May/June 2025 moving season. The grant program is meant to provide municipalities, nonprofits, and other entities with seed funding for initiatives that may have potential for long-term waste reduction. (CM25#6)
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, DPW Commissioner Ellen Watkins re: move-out waste; Order Adopted 9-0

8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board Report regarding citywide Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions. (CM25#8)
pulled by Toner re: insinuations that councillors have not paid attention to Planning Board, explains proposed revisions in line with Planning Board suggestions, notes impasse re: development review and relation to AHO; Toner notes that he would prefer to focus first on Squares and Corridors (still undefined) but that other councillors disagree; Azeem notes feedback from both sides of the advocates, prefers version prior to proposed amendments, suggests plenty of time and process to go [not really]; McGovern claims that he and other councillors are listening, disputes suggestion that Council is “eliminating zoning” [which is, of course, an intentional misreading of what people are actually saying]; Nolan notes that exclusive single-family zoning is proposed to be eliminated, wants Planning Board feedback on “4+2” vs. “3+3+3” options, previous Planning Board meetings were specifically about original proposal; Jeff Roberts notes that there is no precedent for back-and-forth w/Planning Board, but that expiration and re-filing would allow for this [It is worth noting that the Planning Board could voluntarily choose to do this. - RW; Simmons notes that Planning Board generally in favor (but with what?), does not want to slow this process down; Nolan notes that Planning Board is advisory to the City Council and has not opined on these specifics even though they have been requested to do so [seems like the CDD staff is the real roadblock here]; Zusy notes that many feel that this process has been rushed, Planning Board report doesn’t really reflect sentiments of Planning Board members and that they gave no recommendation because of their expressed concerns - some of which have not been addressed, possible escalation of property values that will make housing less affordable, notes thousands of letters expressing concerns, wants additional Planning Board meeting on this topic and CDD response to questions raised by councillors; Simmons objects to suggestion that process has been rushed [and not acknowledging that the scale of this proposal is unprecedented]; Jeff Roberts says CDD staff and Law Dept. have been working on this and plan to have responses for Jan 16 Ordinance Committee meeting; Zusy notes some developers are already amassing properties for redevelopment, not much time for evaluation of proposal; Siddiqui notes that Planning Board is only advisory and that City Council’s word is only thing that really matters noting past actions ignoring Planning Board’s advice; Referred to Petition 8-1 (Zusy - No)

Date: December 27, 2024
Subject: Citywide Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions
Recommendation: The Planning Board provides the following report with comments and no recommendation.

To the Honorable, the City Council,
On November 12, November 19, and December 17, 2024, the Planning Board (the “Board”) held a public hearing on two zoning petitions (the “Petitions”) by the City Council. These Petitions are intended to comprehensively reform zoning regulations for multifamily housing throughout the city, and therefore were heard and discussed together as a single proposal.

Description of Petitions

The first Petition would amend the Zoning Map and Articles 2.000, 3.000, 4.000, 5.000, 6.000, 7.000, 8.000, 10.000, 11.000, 13.000, 14.000, 16.000, 17.000, 20.000, and 21.000 of the Zoning Ordinance with the intent of: (1) removing zoning districts that are intended to permit single-family or two-family but not multifamily residences; (2) permitting multifamily and townhouse residences as-of-right in all zoning districts except Open Space and removing special requirements applicable to multifamily and townhouse residences; (3) removing dimensional requirements including minimum lot width and area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, removing floor area ratio (FAR) limitations for residences, reducing minimum yard requirements for residences, and increasing height limitations for residences to permit at least six stories above grade in all districts except Open Space to allow for additional housing units beyond what is permitted under current zoning; (4) removing remaining references to minimum parking requirements; and (5) revising other parts of the Zoning Ordinance for internal consistency.

The second petition would amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Articles 5.000, 11.000, 15.000, 17.000, 19.000, and 20.000 with the intent of: (1) revising open space standards to provide greater flexibility by allowing all types of open space to contribute to meeting requirements; (2) revising certain standards of the Affordable Housing Overlay so they are not more restrictive than comparable standards for residences in base zoning; (3) making project review special permit requirements applicable in all zoning districts and applicable to residential development of 75,000 square feet or more; (4) updating advisory development review procedures and introducing a new Planning Board Advisory Consultation for some larger development not subject to a special permit, similar to what is currently required in the Affordable Housing Overlay; and (5) revising other parts of the Zoning Ordinance for internal consistency.

Hearing Process

On November 12, 2024, the Board heard a presentation from staff in the City’s Community Development Department (CDD) and testimony from the public. The Board then continued the hearing to November 19, 2024 to begin deliberations. After discussion, the Board continued the hearing again to December 17, 2024, to have more time to review the information provided along with information that had been provided to the Ordinance Committee. Staff from the Housing Department and the City Solicitor joined CDD staff to participate in these discussions.

After more questions and deliberations on December 17, 2024, the Board voted to transmit a report to the City Council that conveys the shared opinions of Board members and describes aspects of the Petition on which Board members were not in full agreement, with no positive or negative recommendation.

Report and Comments

Overall, Board members were strongly supportive of the Petitions’ goals of encouraging housing growth across the city, with a particular focus on affordable housing created through inclusionary housing and other programs, and removing exclusionary barriers in zoning that prevent multifamily housing in different parts of the city.

Board members all voiced support for the following aspects of the Petitions:

• Allowing multifamily housing across all zoning districts, particularly by deleting zoning districts that are restricted to single-family or two-family dwellings and rezoning residential neighborhoods uniformly to Residence C-1.

• Removing minimum lot size limitations and minimum lot area per dwelling unit limitations, which restrict greater numbers of housing units and make the majority of existing sites in residential neighborhoods non-conforming.

• Removing floor area ratio (FAR) limitations for housing, and incorporating height limitations based on a total number of stories above grade.

Some Board members also voiced support for proposed changes in the Petitions that would facilitate mixed-use development. Beyond what is proposed in the Petitions, several Board members emphasized the importance of also addressing the zoning for squares and corridors that may be suited to greater residential height and density. Several Board members also asked for regular updates on housing production and related issues to be made to the Planning Board and City Council.

Board members did not reach agreement or raised general concerns regarding several aspects of the Petitions as summarized below:

• Height. Some Board members expressed support for the proposed 6-story height limit in residential neighborhoods, but most Board members expressed concerns that development at that scale would contrast with the prevailing urban form in those areas. Many Board members expressed a preference for a 4-story height limit with potential increases up to 6 stories to incentivize inclusionary housing. Some Board members felt this approach helped to balance between the Envision Cambridge goals of providing more affordable housing and maintaining neighborhood urban form. Board members who were supportive of a 6-story height limit noted that housing at different scales exists throughout Cambridge and did not believe that it had a negative effect. Board members suggested other limitations might be considered to limit the potential impacts of 6-story development in residential neighborhoods, such as minimum lot sizes, step-backs or bulk control planes to limit impacts on sunlight and shadows, or special permit requirements for increased height. Board members also generally agreed that if there is increased height it should only be for multifamily development and not for larger single-family or two-family houses.

• Setbacks. Board members generally agreed that some side yard setbacks were preferable for new housing development in residential neighborhoods to provide for necessary site design features, such as access/egress and trash storage, and limit impacts on abutting lots. Some members opined that building code standards along with open space requirements would result in adequate setbacks, but most Board members agreed that a modest, uniform side setback required in zoning would be beneficial in residential zoning districts (but not necessarily in mixed-use corridors and squares). Board members suggested some different minimum setback distances, generally around 5 feet, but left details to be considered by Council and staff. Most Board members also agreed that rear yards were beneficial but had differing views about whether a minimum setback distance should be required or if open space requirements should be relied upon to produce backyard space.

• Open Space. Though Board members did not suggest specific changes to the proposed open space requirements, some Board members did express general concerns about the potential for reduced open space and tree canopy that may result from additional housing development in residential neighborhoods. Those members pointed out the tension between the planning goals of growing the housing stock and growing the tree canopy, and suggested that the City should study what future tree loss may occur on residential lots and ways to mitigate such potential loss.

• Development Review. Board members agreed that special permit requirements are a complicated issue. Some Board members voiced support for requiring special permits for a wider range of development than currently proposed, either at a lower size threshold or as a condition of additional building height. Those Board members cited concerns about site-specific impacts of larger development, such as shadows and local utilities, as well as concerns about worsening public sentiment against new housing development. On the other hand, some Board members believed that the risk of special permit appeal is a real concern that could lead to threats of litigation that would counteract the Petitions’ goal of equitable housing opportunities across all neighborhoods. Overall, Board members shared the view that special permits may be necessary for some housing development but should not be required for all housing development, and agreed that it is difficult to weigh the benefits and drawbacks. Some Board members also cited the advisory review process established under the Affordable Housing Overlay as an effective alternative, but it was not clear whether it would be as effective for developments that were not also seeking funding support from the City.

• Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). Board members agreed in principle that the Zoning Ordinance should continue to incentivize all-affordable housing development. Some members expressed concerns about whether the proposed change would impact the benefit provided by the AHO and suggested further analysis of the effect it might have on future affordable housing development. However, some Board members also voiced concerns about allowing affordable housing development up to 13 stories in residential neighborhoods and suggested that a height limit of up to 9 stories would be preferable under the AHO.

The Planning Board voted 6-0 in favor of transmitting the above report.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
Mary Flynn, Chair

ORDERS
1. That the City Manager is hereby requested to work with the relevant City departments to report back on additional multi-family zoning considerations, along with the other amendments put forward by the City Council on Dec 23, 2024. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem (PO25#1)
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler to add Siddiqui as co-sponsor (Approved 9-0); Nolan asks clarification of “below current threshold of the inclusionary zoning ordinance”; Toner disagrees with the “average maximum unit size of 2,000 square feet per lot area” requirement; Zusy concurs on this; JSW notes desire to prevent a large single-family (“McMansion”) from being built under proposal; Zusy would prefer language to allow density increase only if increased housing units on the lot; JSW notes that proposal consistent with current zoning language; McGovern dismissively notes that “all we’re doing is asking a question”; Azeem concurs with JSW, says California concept (conditional upzoning based on adding units) noted by Zusy not consistent with existing enabling legislation (Chapters 40A or 40B); Simmons asks if Zusy has a specific proposal); Zusy notes that Azeem answered her question; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2 (Toner, Zusy - No)

2. That the City Council petition the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to enact the attached Home Rule Petition entitled: An Act Establishing the City of Cambridge Employment and Job Training Trust, and that it be forwarded by the City Clerk to Representative Steven Owens who will be filing the legislation. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (PO25#2)
Order Adopted 7-2 (Toner, Zusy - No)
{Ref: City Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-65, regarding the creation of a jobs training trust through Home Rule Petition. (CM25#7) [text of report]}

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. An Ordinance 2023 #8B has been received from City Clerk, relative to Amend Chapter 14.04 – Fair Housing. [Passed to 2nd Reading Oct 2, 2023; Amended Nov 6, 2023; to remain on Unfinished Business pending legislative approval of Special Act needed prior to ordination] (ORD23-8B)
Siddiqui notes that legislative approval has been obtained, nod to Rep. Marjorie Decker shepherding it through process; Ordained 9-0

2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to proposed amendments to the Cycling Safety Ordinance to extend the deadline associated with the completion of those sections of the ordinance that are required to be completed by May 1, 2026. [Passed to a 2nd Reading Dec 16, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained on or after Jan 6, 2025] (ORD24#8)
McGovern comments, Toner amendment to seek status of Grand Junction Multi-Use Path Adopted 9-0; Nolan says the current timelines are aggressive and that she looks forward to completion of currently planned lanes and additional expansion of the network; Ordained as Amended 9-0

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. An application was received from Carole Steele, 8 Eliot Street, regarding a Flag on pole affixed to building facade. (AP25#1)
Order Adopted 9-0

COMMUNICATIONS
1. Michael Massagli, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

2. Adriane Bishko, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

3. AJ Hodgson, regarding Housing.

4. AJ Hodgson, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

5. Alexander von Hoffman, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

6. Alfred DIsidoro, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

7. Alida Castillo, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

8. Ann M Gantz, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

9. Anne and Anand Sundaram, regarding No to your proposed zoning.

10. Anne Sundaram, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

11. Annette LaMond, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

12. Arthur Strang, regarding [LarchList] in opposition to current radical up-zoning proposals.

13. Arti Pandey, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

14. Ausra Kubilius, regarding “Please pause housing petition – Amendments don’t address issues voiced by many in the community”.

15. Austin Smith, regarding Support for the Citywide Multifamily Housing Zoning Petition.

16. Banti Gheneti, regarding Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition: Support 3+3+3 version of Multifamily Zoning.

17. Barbara Rubel, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

18. Dan Totten regarding zoning.

19. Benjamin Flaim, regarding Upzoning.

20. Dana Schaefer regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

21. Beth Gamse and Judy Singer, regarding Please take the necessary time to consider alternatives to the current MFH proposal.

22. Camilla Elvis, regarding Thank you!

23. Dana Tighe, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

24. Candace Young, regarding Zoning.

25. Daniel Tenney regarding “Do not rush the multi-family petition amendments – Do not circumvent community input”.

26. Carol Anastasi, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

27. Carrie Jones, regarding Monday’s hearing – Dec 23.

28. Daniel Vlock regarding West Cambridge Neighborhood Association and the Proposed Upzoning Plan.

29. Catalina Arboleda, regarding Pedestrian Safety when it snows.

30. Catherine Coleman, regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

31. Elizabeth Gilmore regarding West Cambridge Neighborhood Association and the Proposed Upzoning Plan.

32. Cathy Hoffman, regarding Multifamily housing.

33. David E. Sullivan, regarding support for multifamily housing compromise.

34. Charlotte McGuinness regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

35. David Keeler regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

36. Chris McElroy regarding It’s the holidays – “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

37. Chris Willard regarding linear park - please don’t add more asphalt / remove more green!

38. David Myers regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

39. Christine M. Cannava regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

40. David O’Connor regarding the Multi-family housing petition.

41. Christopher Germer regarding No need to do this radical proposal!

42. Deborah Belle regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

43. Claire Moore regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

44. Diana Yousef-Martinek regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

45. Gene Hull regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

46. Gleb Bahmutov regarding In strong support for building more housing in Cambridge.

47. Gordon Moore regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

48. Harold J. Bursztajn regarding A very thoughtful analysis of the Cambridge City Council attempt at a quick fix via zoning deregulation.

49. Hayley Arnett regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

50. Heidi Legg regarding Request to speak at tomorrow’s City Hall meeting on up-zoning.

51. Helen Abraham regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

52. Helene O’Brien regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

53. Howard Bauchner regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

54. Diane Reposa regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

55. Jacqueline Brown regarding NEW Upzoning Council Meeting Dec 23.

56. Jaine Darwin regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

57. Jane Murphy regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

58. Jane Stoleroff regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

59. Janet Plotkin regarding My concern over the current Zoning Proposal.

60. Jean G. Krulic regarding support of Councillor Azeem, Councillor Siddiqui, and Councillor Toner’s amendments to Housing Proposal.

61. Dominick Jones regarding opposition of upzoning.

62. Jeff Meese regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

63. Jeffrey Peterson regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

64. Doug Frank regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

65. Jess Sheehan regarding thanks for your thoughtful service and good example.

66. Jim Gray regarding “late order” comments: please be inclusive and cautious.

67. Jim regarding Multifamily discussion or vote today.

68. Joan and William Magretta regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

69. Joan Krizack regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

70. John Bright regarding Concerns with the Multi-Family Housing proposal.

71. John G. Wofford regarding Letter to City Council 12.23.24.

72. Ed Abrams regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

73. John Hanratty regarding “Stop – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

74. Eileen Babbitt regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

75. John LaFreniere regarding 2 significant flaws to assumptions that design review and less than 6-stories of housing does not “pencil out”.

76. John McDonough regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

77. Jonathan Hodgson regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

78. Jose Martins regarding J. Martins Investigation Closeout.

79. Joseph Moore regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

80. Joyce E Myers regarding In support of Paul Toner’ s amendment to Multifamily Ordinance.

81. Judith Leff regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

82. Judith Taylor regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

83. Elise Moore regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

84. Judy Bright regarding Cambridge Upzoning proposal.

85. Elizabeth Greywolf regarding Please Stop the rush - The issues voiced by the community have not been addressed by petition amendments.

86. Julia Schlozman regarding Support Upzoning.

87. Elizabeth Houghteling regarding opposition to rush on zoning.

88. Elizabeth Ross regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

89. Esther and Chris Pullman regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

90. Faye Halpern regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

91. Francis Bane regarding rushing petition amendments.

92. Frank LoGerfo regarding housing plans.

93. Frank Scibilia regarding no need to rush zoning changes.

94. Frederick Mueller regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

95. Karen and Peter Falb regarding opposition to rushed upzoning without regulation by right - absolutely will hurt your citizens’ health.

96. Karen Eton regarding upzoning.

97. Kathryn Dahl regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

98. Kelsey Harris regarding support (Re-legalizing) Multi-family Homes.

99. Mark Dibble regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”

100. Laura Roberts regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

101. Mary Jane Kornacki regarding Amendments to upzoning proposal.

102. Lauree Mansour regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

103. Lee Farris, Residents Alliance support for 3+3+3 Multifamily proposal.

104. Maureen Mueller regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

105. Lesli Gordon regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

106. Linda Garmon regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

107. Maureen Whitehouse regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

108. Linda Moussouris regarding Ordinance Committee will file a late Policy Order at Tonight’s City Council Meeting.

109. Michael and Ina Sipser regarding Please VOTE NO on the Multifamily Housing Ordinance Proposal.

110. Lindsay Greimann regarding new zoning law proposal and open space.

111. Lisa Blout regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

112. Mike Volles regarding Oppose all up-zoning.

113. Lisa Sebell-Nevins regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

114. Molly O’Brien regarding Multi-family housing proposal.

115. Lisa Ziegler regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

116. Nancy Lange regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

117. Nancy Preis regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

118. Liz Byron Loya regarding Multifamily Upzoning.

119. Neil and Margot Goodwin regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

120. Liz Murphy regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

121. Neil Miller regarding Thank you for action on #1 issue in Cambridge.

122. Lynne Reiss regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

123. Nicoleta Theodosiou regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

124. Pamela M. Lingel regarding the current Zoning Proposal.

125. Nina Herrera regarding Multifamily proposals, etc.

126. Peter Yeager regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

127. Philippe Sauvage regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

128. Omar Eton regarding Against blanket new zoning rules.

129. Phyllis Pownall regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

130. Piotr Mitros regarding Zoning Change and Open Meetings.

131. Carol Lynn Alpert regarding Please don’t betray us.

132. Sally Edmonds regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

133. Rafael Jaramillo, West Cambridge Neighborhood Association, regarding proposed Upzoning Plan.

134. Sandy Sweetnam regarding Stop the train.

135. Rahel O’More regarding amendment of housing proposal.

136. Sara Levy regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

137. Rebecca Hall regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

138. Sarah Stone regarding Continued support for (amended) multifamily zoning petition.

139. Shelagh Hadley regarding Please delay tonight’s decision.

140. Rich Goode regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

141. Rick Roth regarding opposition to housing ordinance amendments.

142. Ann Stewart and Ann Tennis regarding multifamily petition comment Dec 23 2024.

143. Robert Camacho regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

144. Stuart Lipsky regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

145. Rochelle H. Zapol regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

146. Russell Windman in opposition to current radical up-zoning proposals.

147. Susan Johansen regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

148. Susan McGlennon regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

149. Susan Smith regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

150. Suzanne Blier regarding City Council meeting on the 23rd: request for amendments - and holiday greetings.

151. Sharon Stichter regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

152. Stephen McAuliffe regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

153. Tanya Cosway regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

154. Theresa Gallagher regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

155. Sue Stewart regarding opposition to current radical up-zoning proposals.

156. Thomas Hentschel regarding Ordinance committee – zoning amendments.

157. Vickey Bestor regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

158. Virginia Pye regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

159. William Graham regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

160. Multiple communications were received from Young Kim regarding My Oral Comment tonight, Amendments to the MFH Petitions #1 & #2, Ordinance Committee Policy Order re Multifamily Housing Petitions and Time Sensitive Tree survivability Question.

161. WM MGMT. regarding “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

RESOLUTIONS
1. Congratulations to Bishop Cristiano Barbosa for being awarded the 2025 MAPS Person of the Year. Councillor Toner

2. Congratulations to Edilia Gomes as the Recipient of the 2025 MAPS Mary & Manuel Rogers Lifetime Community Service Award. Councillor Toner

3. Congratulations to Michael Carreiro as the recipient of the 2025 MAPS Alvaro Lima Outstanding Business Award. Councillor Toner

6. Resolution on the death of Maria Alexandria Forde. Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons
pulled by McGovern to add Simmons as sponsor

10. Congratulations to the Holy Trinity Armenian Apostolic Church on its 100th Anniversary. Mayor Simmons

11. Congratulations to Michelle Borden on her retirement. Mayor Simmons
Mayor Simmons notes combined 90 years of service of these three women.

COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication from Diane LeBlanc, City Clerk, transmitting an update regarding legislative activity. (COF25#1)
Placed on File 9-0

2. A communication from City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer, with attachments relative to the Open Meeting Law Complaint of Piotr Mitros (The “Complainant”) dated Dec 26, 2024. (COF25#2) [text of report]
Nolan, Simmons note City Solicitor’s opinion and that complaint was subsequently withdrawn; Placed on File 9-0

Wed, Jan 8
5:00pm The Ordinance Committee will hold a public hearing on two Multifamily Zoning Petitions. There will be public comment at this meeting. This is a continuation of the public hearing that began on Nov 19, that reconvened and recessed again on Dec 4 and Dec 19. One additional meeting has been scheduled for Jan 16.

Mon, Jan 13
5:30pm The City Council will conduct a Joint Roundtable of the City Council and School Committee to discuss the City’s universal pre-kindergarten program.

Thurs, Jan 16
3:00pm The Ordinance Committee will hold a public hearing on two Multifamily Zoning Petitions. There will be no public comment at this meeting. This is a continuation of the public hearing that began on Nov 19, that reconvened and recessed again on Dec 4, Dec 19, and Jan 7.

Mon, Jan 27
11:00am A Special Committee of the Whole will hold a public hearing to resume the review and discussion of recommendations from the Charter Review Committee and any additional suggestions from the full City Council pertaining to the Cambridge City Charter. This public hearing is a continuation of the meeting that was recessed on Dec 9, 2024.
5:30pm City Council Meeting

Tues, Jan 28
3:00pm The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee will hold a public hearing to discuss inter-jurisdictional projects that are in play that may impact mobility in Cambridge. This discussion will build on CDD’s report of Nov 14, 2024 to the City Council (Awaiting Report 24-36).

AWAITING REPORT LIST
24-31. Provide an update to the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan (MFIP) including revised cost estimates to help inform the FY26 and ongoing capital budget priorities in a timely manner.
Councillor Pickett, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner (O-1) from 6/10/2024

24-53. at the City of Cambridge assist companies, institutions, and other organizations in adopting truck safety requirements for their fleets and finding trucking vendors who are able to comply by providing an informational resource and publicizing those that comply.
Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem (O-1) from 9/16/2024

24-54. t the City Manager is hereby requested to work with relevant departments to review Cambridge’s curb cut policies and report back on if they can be improved to help meet the City’s transportation and sustainability goals with some proposed updates and draft ordinance language designating City staff as the final approval authority for curb cuts.
Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson (O-2) from 9/16/2024

24-58. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Finance Department, Law Department, and other relevant departments to explore the feasibility of a successor program to Rise Up Cambridge.
Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (O-6) from 9/23/2024

24-60. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to report back to the City Council on the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing) NOFO as soon as possible.
Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (O-5) from 9/30/2024

24-62. The City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department to provide an update on the status of the Resident Experiences of Inclusion and Bias in Inclusionary Housing in Cambridge report’s recommendations, including progress on implementation and planned next steps.
Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson (O-3) from 10/21/2024

24-63. The City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to prominently incorporate recognition of the Massachusett Tribe during key official events, documents, websites, and communications, establish a living memorial in Cambridge that honors the Massachusett Tribe, with special recognition of Sqa Sachem for her leadership and enduring legacy and place a plaque with this language in a prominent location within City Hall, ensuring that this acknowledgment remains visible and lasting and report back.
Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson (O2) from 11/4/2024

24-64. The City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare a Home Rule Petition to enact legislation which would allow the City of Cambridge to prohibit associations from unreasonably restricting the use of a solar energy system.
(Calendar Item #1) from 11/18/2024

24-65. The City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department to draft a home rule petition for the creation of a Cambridge Jobs Training Trust, and report back to the City Council in a timely manner. See Mgr #7
(Calendar Item #2) from 11/18/2024

24-66. The City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare a draft home rule petition to authorize the City of Cambridge to implement automated parking enforcement technology; and to continue to work with the City of Boston to collaborate on the home rule process.
(O-1) from 11/18/2024

24-67. The City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to review with a robust and inclusive community process the Cambridge Bicycle Plan, most recently updated in 2020, and identify potential improvements and consider next steps for a network of Separated Bicycle Facilities, and Separated Bicycle Facilities on streets across the city in order to facilitate safer travel and ways to coordinate routes with neighboring communities including Arlington, Somerville, Watertown, Belmont, Boston, and others.
(O-1) from 12/2/2024

24-68. The City Manager is requested to work with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and Harvard University to restore Garden Street to two-way automobile traffic while preserving two-way protected bike lanes, preserving as much parking on and/or near Garden Street as possible and identifying potential areas for resident parking on neighboring streets and communicating the changes to the affected neighborhood.
(O-1) from 12/9/2024

24-69. The City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and encourage the state Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the MBTA to adhere to Cambridge local ordinances, including the Cambridge Asbestos Protection Ordinance, during Alewife Construction.
(Calendar Item #1) from 12/9/2024