Committee Report #2 – Feb 18 Special Cambridge City Council meeting

The Ordinance Committee will meet on Thurs, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:30pm to reconvene its hearing on the Harvard Square Zoning Petition.

Called to Order at 5:33pm
Present: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan, Simmons (late), Toomey (late)

Councillor Marc McGovern 04:13
Good evening, everyone. A quorum of the Ordinance committee being president I call tonight's meeting of Thursday, January 30, 2020 to order. The call of the meeting is that the Ordinance committee will meet to reconvene its hearing on the Harvard Square zoning petition. The... we will conduct this meeting as all other Ordinance committee meetings. First, we will hear from the petitioner... Oh, we're being audio and video recorded. Right. So, we, so this is a, so this is a continuation of the previous meeting where we recessed and public comment was closed, so there will be no public comment at today's meeting. We will first hear from Mr. Barrett and then have some clarifying questions from councillors, then hear from the city, followed by some clarifying questions and then city council discussion. So, without further ado. Yeah, so we will go... when we get to the point of... CDD has made some proposed amendments and there's other amendments. So, when we get to that section, we'll, we'll, we'll go section by section and go through those. But first, I'll turn it over to Mr. Barrett.

Patrick Barrett 05:47
Thank you, Mr. Chair. City council today was my understanding that we would be spending some time looking through amendments that were born out of the Planning Board hearings that we had last year, as well as some recommendations that came about for the last Ordinance committee hearing. While I am not going to be walking people through my presentation that I did the first go round, I think it's important to highlight what changes we've sort of arrived at why we arrived at them and what their impact is to the overall petition. First and foremost, the bank regulations restrictions in Harvard Square that we had asked for a 20-foot limitation on the Planning Board felt as though that that was too restrictive. And that a something very similar to what was done in Central Square where banks were limited to 25 feet of total all ground floor frontage. And a 30% of the overall build, the building seems more reasonable. I think as far as a petition, position of the petitioner, I believe on both sides of the fence, whether it be the Harvard Square business associates Or the Harvard Square neighborhood group. There's differences of opinion and how that should be perceived. I think this is an unusual scenario where I'm representing multiple groups, not my own opinions necessarily. But in terms of their understanding of these amendments, I believe that both groups felt as though these, that alteration was amenable. However, I think just to understand the impact that once we allow it, something to go under a special permit versus a variance, it does give a broader opportunity for, for things to go by that they may wish to prevent.

Patrick Barrett 07:48
I think, given the fact, and I say this is an overarching theme to the entire petition, the fact that we have a conservation district with very significant guidelines and that projects are to receive something called a certificate of appropriateness for the district that those controls would probably be enough to eliminate the more egregious spaces. I will note that in our last meeting, we've had several, not several, had two property owners really come with opposition to this one piece in terms of it being a variance or a special permit. And that was predominantly because they have large frontages that they wish to put banks in which, again, this is kind of what we're trying to put the brakes on. And for the only real reason in this will, I'll pivot to cannabis retail in a second, to liven up the streetscape. I think the every time Harvard Square kind of pops up in the news. It's always about a closure. It's always about something, at least the past six months. I think the perception doesn't necessarily match with the reality I think Harvard Square still a vibrant, bustling district but banks are predominant presence in the landscape. And that was what this is trying to do. To... I think that there is consensus among the groups that willing to accept the amendment as proposed by CDD. But I believe that's at the pleasure of the council.

Patrick Barrett 09:16
Pivoting to cannabis retail. And this was something that the Planning Board felt very strongly about was somewhat of a step too far. And predominantly as it related to equity issues. It's unfortunate that the state guidelines are what they are. But it's the same that applies to everywhere else in the district. I think that, again, I can't speak for the Harvard Square neighborhood group and the Business Association even though I'm their conduit here. I think that the Harvard Square Business Association is somewhat agnostic in that, in this, in this provision of being stricken from the ordinance where the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association would prefer to remain intact. If to prevent the proliferation of basically dead spaces in the streetscape. The particularly egregious part of that, and I think, I think the real reason why I was comfortable in drafting it this way. The current guidelines for E applicants that don't have the restriction for buffer zones creates the possibility even the unlikely outcome because there's a host agreement, there's still a special permit that they're required to get for the use entirety, that multiple stores could take, you know, entire streets away from the ground floor. It seems an unlikely outcome and to me, but as the zoning is currently written, that's what would allow for, but that's a different issue and not addressed here. As it pertains to the amendment to strike this provision. We largely are, I think, we support it and we're against it.

Patrick Barrett 10:52
Other changes that have been made by the Planning Board and CDD has codified are more semantic. I had forgotten to put Arrow Street for instance, as a street that was supposed to... I had forgotten. I had it in my presentation, but embarrassingly, it was not in my language when I presented. In [sic] they struck Harvard Street from the expansion of commercial uses on the ground floor. We largely agree with all of that. I think the general provision has always been there, that it, by a special permit, those uses are allowed anyway, we just allow for some of these things to spread into the districts where they currently already are, without as much red tape and really only for non-formula businesses, which is really the key to this were trying to expand the commercial footprint to allow for commercial uses. In areas that by definition will be less price per square foot will provide more opportunities for small and local retailers because the footprints are much smaller anyway. It doesn't change the character of the residential or office district they're already and so I think its kind of an interesting side note to say that res... commercial uses, retail uses are not currently allowed at the base of an office building which just seems to not make much sense.

Patrick Barrett 12:15
But you know, Cambridge zoning has evolved over time and a lots of things that are where they are for different reasons. And we've changed the zoning to the point where sometimes it's hard to trace back why, why things are that what they are. The last bit, I believe those are the biggest amendments they put forth. I think the rest of it is all more language to explain the desire of the council or desire at the Planning, desire the Planning Board in terms of what the recommendations were, I believe Councillor Carlone has some other recommendations he plans to bring forward. Which we're open to, I think by and large, this entire process has been one of communication and transparency, so we'd like to keep, maintain that. I'm happy to answer any questions about what's out there right now, if anyone has any.

Councillor Marc McGovern 13:09
Thank you. Pleasure of the committee. Any questions for Mr. Barrett? Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 13:15
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, Mr. Barrett. The proposal to go up to 80 feet and maxing out the density is truly subject to the guidelines. The package by the, for the Conservation District and subject to the Planning Board's overview with the Historical Commission is throughout the whole district, even where there is a lower density zone.

Patrick Barrett 13:56
So, where the base zoning says that there's a height limitation, you start with the base zoning districts height limitation. It's always the lesser number, a... the by right high in the BB district of Harvard Square 60 feet.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 14:10
Yes.

Patrick Barrett 14:11
The special permit height, you need to get the extra 20 feet, you need a special permit for that as well.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 14:15
Yes.

Patrick Barrett 14:16
So, to answer your question the height doesn't change by way of this petition. It's exactly as it currently is in the zoning. The ability to realize that height through a special permit of increased FAR is the only real adjustment. So, where the zoning height is 45 feet, you would still be at 45 feet.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 14:35
And additional height would be...

Patrick Barrett 14:39
Only in that scenario. Actually, for a non, for a non-BB district property would be a variance. You wouldn't be...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 14:46
Okay. Okay, that I just want to say that was not clear and that relieves some of my concern. A lot of my concern.

Patrick Barrett 14:56
Clarity is not where our ordinance excels.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 14:58
Yes, I agree. But it might be a good idea that we summarize that. This is where I'm not saying you do, but in the city's efforts, this is what's existing. With the overlay doing... based on your proposal, these are of the new heights, and the ones.

Patrick Barrett 15:18
Well, I just took a point of clarification. I think that new height is not the correct way to describe that because...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 15:26
Maximum heights.

Patrick Barrett 15:27
Okay, well, we're not really changing the height. Right?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 15:30
That needs to be clear. That's all I'm getting at. It, when I read it, and I've actually asked other people their opinion, they thought, indeed, we could go up to 80 feet in the C-2 ,the C-1, whatever the districts are. And the fact that you can't, based on your opinion, and hopefully the city's, as I said, that makes me feel better about this proposal it That was my major concern.

Patrick Barrett 16:03
I would, I would offer even further that if it's just, if it's deemed that there is a loophole that I can't quite perceive that would allow for this. It is the intent of this petition this only to be realized in the BB district of the Harvard Square overlay. That was my understanding of the base height requirements in the zoning itself and that we revert back to the base for all the existing districts, that the BB alone allowed for the increased height. Similar to actually Central Square.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 16:35
Just bear with me, Mr. Chair. [sic] I'll stop there. I think there was another question, but I can bring it up later.

Councillor Marc McGovern 16:47
Councillor Mallon.

Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon 16:50
Thank you, Mr. Chair through you to Mr. Barrett. I just want to clarify something on 20.54.3 at one of the uses that is not allowed is a cannabis retail store, is that correct?

Patrick Barrett 17:07
This refers to the section of the ordinance that allows for the expansion of commercial uses in the non-business district, residential and office. Currently, as it is written that cannabis retail business would not be allowed in that district, based on this change.

Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon 17:24
And just to clarify, the entire district or just part of the district.

Patrick Barrett 17:29
Just, just the residential and office district.

Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon 17:34
And I'm looking at a zoning map. Is there something specific I should be looking for? When I'm looking?

Patrick Barrett 17:40
I don't know what map you're looking at. Is it in my packet here because I don't have a map with me? There's, there's a residential there's, the center... the Harvard Square overlay?

Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon 17:53
Yes.

Patrick Barrett 17:53
Is comprised of BB zones.

Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon 17:55
Correct.

Patrick Barrett 17:55
Residential zones and office zones. The expansion of commercial uses only applies to the residential and office district where they curr... not currently, not allowed. In the criteria of restricted uses in that section. There's a lot, there was a laundry list of things you can do. Ranging from...

Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon 18:13
I see them. A massage establishment also.

Patrick Barrett 18:15
Yeah, yes, exactly. I think mortuary is one of them. And amongst those restrictions, we've included cannabis retail. The reason for that was the, the group's felt as though that opening up the ability to allow for retail in these districts presented an opportunity for small local retailers that otherwise wouldn't be able to pay a higher rental amount to get into. And that if we allowed for cannabis retail to enter these zones, they're able to pay almost the equivalent of what banks pay, in terms of price per square foot and that even an EE applicant or a group like that would still, would outmatch and outpace those kind of retail opportunities. And that given the likelihood that there's probably not going to be more than two or three cannabis retail spaces in Harvard Square, there's two now and maybe there's a third one on its way. That this seemed like a decent enough carve out for those other retailers that once, you know a [sic] closes or these other small places close that there are opportunities that are really exclusive to them.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 19:26
So, thank you. So, okay, so in the BB districts, they will be allowed. I think we're in a very unchartered territory with cannabis locations since there's slated to be four in Central Square at this moment.

Patrick Barrett 19:39
That is correct.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 19:39
So, I think saying that two is probably the cap and Harvard Square, we don't know that.

Patrick Barrett 19:44
We don't know it. I'm just saying that I think there's two now there might be a third one in the way. I don't know the exact count. But what I do know is that when you're talking about the competitiveness between a, call it a hard retail use, versus a Cannabis retail or a bank, it's very difficult for them to compete for those kinds of spaces. And as a landlord, you will probably always try to grab the highest and best paying tenant in that by allowing for the residential and office zone to restrict cannabis retail, you open up the opportunity for smaller retailers to actually have enough to be able to not be out priced.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 20:26
Okay, thank you. That's all for now.

Councillor Marc McGovern 20:29
Councillor Zondervan.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 20:32
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this the amended language that's before us?

Patrick Barrett 20:37
So, what has been presented to you from the CDD is a memo that codifies by way of individual amendment, each section that the Planning Board and that the Ordinance committee, through our last discussion arrived at as potential changes to the ordinance. So, there is no complete document right now where you have a sort of like a selection of things that were highlighted as amendments to this zoning petition that everyone agreed on and the Planning Board or either everyone agreed on or the Planning Board recommended. And the position of both the Harvard Square neighborhood group and the Harvard Square Business Association, is that they will follow the will of the Planning Board.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 21:20
So, you're planning to submit a new amended petition.

Patrick Barrett 21:25
This petition is currently in the hands of the Ordinance Committee. And if the Ordinance Committee by way of a vote may amend it now. I am not able to amend the petition any further.

Councillor Marc McGovern 21:37
So let me, Clerk and I consulted. So, what we're going to do once we get through this round of questions here from the city, get through that we're going to go through section by section and adopt, or not, the amendments that are in this, in this document.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 21:53
Right, so I guess, I guess there's a point of order. I'm still confused. What amendments? Do we have amendments before us?

Councillor Marc McGovern 22:03
So, the amendment in the documents page in the packet, I guess its page 24 starts on, and this is the... from Ms. Farooq. What you see highlighted in gray are the changes.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 22:32
Right. So, this is an amended petition?

Councillor Marc McGovern 22:35
Mr. Clerk.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 22:38
Through the Chair. What you have before you in your agenda packets are, number one, the original petition and then starting on page 24 is the submission from CDD, a communication from the community development department regarding recommended changes of language from that department. My understanding of, from having discussed this with the chair is that at the conclusion of hearing from the petitioner, and then hearing from representatives of the city, the city council will then go through the documents starting on page 25 section by section, and then will be voting on whether or not to adopt those language changes.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 23:18
Got it. Thank you. So, you mentioned the 20-foot frontage for banks, but that's still in here.

Patrick Barrett 23:29
So, the, I guess it...

Mayor Marc McGovern 23:33
Into the mic.

Patrick Barrett 23:34
Yeah, I'm on the page. So, on page 233.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 24:02
Right.

Patrick Barrett 24:03
You have the section 20.54.9 which has the section that we offered as part of the amendment stricken through.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 24:16
Got it and then

Patrick Barrett 24:19
Below that is the amended language.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 24:20
Right. And then on the cannabis retail store. So, this is back to Councillor Mallon's question, just so I understand the, if you didn't have this restriction, would cannabis retail store be allowed in this zone or not?

Patrick Barrett 24:45
In the residential and office district, I believe they are not allowed. It's only in the BBB A's one through three. This restriction is duplicative and probably more of a reminder than an actual significant change to the district by it removed it, it would have almost no impact. If the law were to be amended down the road, cannabis retail, we expanded it to different kinds of districts, like I think Office 1 is kind of a curious one. Because to me office, an office district and a business district, to me are almost indistinguishable. And I think by and large from our planning and Envision, and any of the report we've done, mixed use seems to be the direction we're headed. But if those things were to change, that the overlay remained the same, that this provision would be helpful.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 25:44
Right. Just so I'm clear, as it's currently written, it's not an additional restriction, in fact. Thank you.

Councillor Marc McGovern 25:57
Any further questions for Mr. Barrett? Yes, in the I'm sorry, I do have one in. And that's helpful. Because I was concerned about that restriction on cannabis as well. I'm, we're going to get into comments later and things. So, I have a little bit to say about that. But in that same section are we, are banks going to be not allowed and in that area?

Patrick Barrett 26:25
So financial institutions as a use in their residential or office district, I believe in residential, they are definitely restricted in office use. I'd have to refer to my, my good friend Jeff Roberts. I believe they are also restricted. This was... the bank provision is really for the areas where is currently allowed. So, like I don't... there's no you still need a variance to have a bank and an office in a residential district, which it seems unlikely something that anyone would issue.

Councillor Marc McGovern 26:56
So, okay, so we can maybe find out from Mr. Roberts Because if again, if the goal...

Patrick Barrett 27:02
Yeah.

Councillor Marc McGovern 27:03
If the concern is cannabis is going to be able to pay more per square foot for rent, therefore, we should take this special, you know, action.

Patrick Barrett 27:10
Right.

Councillor Marc McGovern 27:10
The same would be true about banks. And so...

Patrick Barrett 27:12
I think in there in the, the residential and the office district because they are operating within the overlay. I like just to make things as clear as I could possibly make them in terms of what's allowed and what's not allowed. So, I think by enumerating the use, you make a very clear distinction, even if at some point in time, someone were to seek a variance for say that there's actual explicit exclusion for that use is a pretty compelling argument as to why they should not be issued. In the terms of financial institution. I think I'm less concerned about a group bringing a variance to a residential district for a bank ever being pushed through the BZA versus cannabis retail.

Councillor Marc McGovern 27:53
So, so if we if we specifically. If we specifically saying, no cannabis in that, in that part of the district and no banks? Are there other businesses that would, could pay a higher, for rent per square foot that we also have to? I mean, it seems like, it seems like, it seems like there's a few things in here that are specifically going after cannabis in particular, which I don't think is right. But I mean, what... Are there other types of businesses that, if the, if the reason is, oh, they can pay more per square foot and by excluding them we lift someone who can pay less, have an opportunity. What other industries should we be...

Patrick Barrett 28:36
So, I also included a catch all, formula businesses are also prohibited from going into the residential and office district. While I can't predict what is today or tomorrow, it seems that a formula business regulation restriction for this particular district is appropriate for a bunch of different reasons. One is yes, they will be able to outpace our local retailers and people who are not our non-formulaic businesses. And two, in terms of keeping with look and feel and represent... and respecting the residential aspect of this, I think there's something to be said for design controls. That's really all formula business regulation is. It's not like you can say, you know, Dunkin Donuts, you can't come here, you just have to say, Dunkin Donuts, you can come here, but you have to look like you fit into the district. It seemed appropriate to put that caveat in there because the formula business regulations in Massachusetts don't really have much teeth. They just are design guidelines essentially designed to give larger corporate entities who have a more difficult time adjusting to require changes. You know, they see the opportunity but to put them on a different path than say a local retailer who is likely to fit into the space. Also bear in mind That it's in the Harvard Square overlay, still has to deal with the other layers of regulation.

Councillor Marc McGovern 30:07
Thank you. Further questions for Mr. Barrett at this time? Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler 30:11
Thank you. Where did the petition land with removing the required payment for weaving parking and loading requirements?

Patrick Barrett 30:18
So, the CDD memo that was sent to the Ordinance committee and to the council, I think is been left to the pleasure of the council. In terms of Harvard Square in Central Square, the only districts that have this provision, it doesn't really serve the intended purpose. It certainly doesn't comport to, at least our modern understanding of where urban planning is going. And that, really, it's up to the council to decide whether this is an appropriate provision they would maintain, whether it's actually doing what it's supposed to do. Or if it's just another layer of prohibition on development that makes it more problematic than not. In terms of, I think that's what that's how they left it in the memo. Between the groups, I think what I would say amongst the neighborhood group and the Business Association, that the document itself represents, at least from between my apart over a year of tedious negotiation and discussion with the conservation district and what people would find appropriate. And that each piece of this represents a little give and take between all the groups. And that the reason why our hearings have gone the way they have in terms of there's been very little outcry, very little condemnation of this because that work had been done prior. And that, by and large, each piece of this is important to a certain group of people and that together the document represents that negotiated work and that pieces are pulled apart, then doesn't really come accomplish the goal? I think like I told the groups in part in Central Square, ages ago it seems now. That the zoning really isn't the piece that gets us to a better place to Harvard Square, it's the culture and that by doing this like we didn't Harvard, Central Square and we need to do a lot more in Central Square, by the way began to change that allowed us to do things like we did in Central Square. And we see the positive impacts with that is the hope that this process does something similar.

Councillor Marc McGovern 32:32
Anything for Mr. Barrett? Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 32:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I found the... I have the old... On page 13 of the new package tonight. Under the last at the bottom it says additional FAR. And this is what confused me, and I'll read it. It short. Upon the issuance of a special permit, the special permit granting authority may increase the allowable FAR on any lot or portion of a lot located within the Harvard Square overlay district. Well, that includes multiple zoning districts, for any residential use in Section 4.31, or any commercial use section 4.34, 4.35 provided the use and design complies with the goals and the design guidelines set forth and the Harvard Square Conservation District. So, as I read that, and it might be a misquote, that says any district and not what I thought you said earlier and what you said earlier, I totally agree with. That it shouldn't be the buffer zones, at least at that height may be modified height.

Patrick Barrett 33:56
What page are you on? I'm sorry.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 33:58
In the package, just say handed out. The black and white package. It's page 13. Page nine of your submittal but it's page 13 in the big package. Lower right-hand corner says 13. it's 20.54.7. And reading that, that's different than what we discussed a moment ago and why I was confused.

Patrick Barrett 34:30
No and I know, No I can see why you are confused because I think that the intent of this was to caps... encapture the allowed uses within the districts themselves. And that I might be I might be leaning a little too heavily on Charlie here in terms of reliance.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 34:49
No, this says, FAR...

Patrick Barrett 34:54
It says FAR but I also have the sit... you know complies the goals and design guidelines [sic]. I think it is important for clarity to specify that this belongs exclusively in the BB district.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 35:09
Thank you. I agree. And I thought that's what you said earlier. And I wanted to clarify.

Patrick Barrett 35:15
That's the intent. That's how it was. That's how it came about its not intended to pierce those other districts.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 35:21
So, if I could continue, Mr. Chair? The retail exemption for ground floor retail, I can't agree more with this than anything else in here. I agree with that approach. But if you're in the BB district, it doesn't really mean much. Unless as we, you and I discuss we make it a criteria that, to what extent are there small-scale retail spaces on the first floor for the Planning Board and, for that matter, Historical Commission to approve it?

Patrick Barrett 35:58
This was a tricky provision Include into this package because Harvard Square is, like all Cambridge, unique. The overlay itself, the map is difficult to work with. It's a very amorphous large space that covers multiple zones, unlike Central Square, which is essentially a corridor. I think, Charlie, I think the first concern raised by historical is what happens as people try to chop up storefronts and how do we prevent this from happening? Some of the recommendations in the business association was that we use linear footage as opposed to actual square footage space.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 36:35
I agree with that.

Patrick Barrett 36:36
I'm not, I don't agree or disagree. I think that's a fine way to delineate in terms of its impact, because this is a provision that sort of encompasses the overlay. I kind of like to give, at least when I, when I recommend different zoning to different groups of people and they're trying to create a different form for an area, multiple options, multiple directions that could take a project to allow for them to achieve the intent. This ground floor retail exemption has worked, so far pretty well in Central Square. I see it having a similar impact in Harvard Square. But again, I don't know, I don't know exactly how that's going to turn out. The again, the only thing that really give me any kind of solace in any of this was that we have multiple levels of engagement in terms of certificates of appropriateness being given by the Historical Commission and other layers of review that they'd have to go through before they actually wound up at the Planning Board.

Patrick Barrett 37:36
But in terms of the BB district, there will be, there'll be, there will be buildings that are already non-conforming, that are already maxed at the FAR where this provision could help immeasurably. In terms of getting you out, getting yourself out of a variance and into a place of compliance. How, again like this is a little bit unpredictable in terms of how that will be used. But I think given the fact that we do have that review piece from the Historical Commission, you're not going to see someone present to you a proposal where they're cutting a window and half in order to make this work.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 38:18
Is it, was it primarily for O-2 district and the... I dawned on me that it could be beyond the BB were its...

Patrick Barrett 38:28
I wanted it to apply to all districts because I think especially in the "res" an O-2 district where you have less form, that that flexibility might be much more useful because those buildings to would also be non-conforming.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 38:39
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councillor Marc McGovern 38:41
Thank you. If there's nothing further from Mr. Barrett, don't go anywhere though, we'll ask the city to come up and to present. You might want to stay there in case... He's on the bench? Okay.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 39:07
Mr. Chair could we have Mr. Sullivan join the table.

Councillor Marc McGovern 39:10
Absolutely anyone from...

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 39:24
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mayor Marc McGovern 39:26
Your batting leadoff Mr. Roberts?

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 39:28
I'm going to kick it off. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development. Since this is the second hearing on this, since the previous hearing, our team worked on doing a, in the material you have which you've been talking about a little bit for the past little while, I'll try to present. it incorporates the, first, on the first page of summary of some of the discussion that occurred at the last meeting, which lays out some of the broader issues that the Planning Board suggested in their recommendation but didn't necessarily have specific recommendations about. And then on the following pages, the zoning text, which if you look at that particular document, you'll see that what we've attempted to do is to take the zoning, the text of the original zoning petition, which was shown as a unformatted document, and show that in a markup format, so that it's possible to see where the original petition amends the current section 20.50 for the Harvard Square overlay district. And in addition to those changes from the original petition shows the changes that were recommended by the Planning Board, so You see all the changes together in one document and if you have keen eyesight, you would see that the original petition changes either have a single underline or a single strike through and additional changes from the Planning Board have a double underline or a double strike through. Hopefully that's readable in your version. Just stepping back a second, I wanted to make one note one things is the first ordinance committee meeting of the year. Often in the past, I've referred to our team working on these things, and I'm often just referring to myself but I actually have with me, some members of my team that I just introduced quickly, so Sarah Scott, in in the red, you've seen before and she's been doing a lot of the work on this petition and more recently, Daniel Messplay to her right is senior zoning manager. So, I'm no longer just referring to myself. The... so with that, back to this document, so just to very quickly walk through, again, some of these are changes that you've already been discussing. But to go through them a little bit more thoroughly. On... And you'll have to excuse me, I don't have the same packet you have in front of me, but I have the document that we numbered is page one to 10 through page 10 to 10. Is that does that appear on your version?

Councillor Marc McGovern 42:32
So, Mr. Roberts here's, see what my colleagues think, as opposed to you going through... we're going to go through all of these amendments anyway because we have to vote on them. Maybe we should and maybe have Mr. Barrett get back to the table and we should just start going through them. If people have questions about them then you can explain them having you go through them once and then us go through them again. Seems... kind of seems...

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 43:01
At your disposal Mr. Chair.

Councillor Marc McGovern 43:02
Folks feel about... any issues with that?

Councillor Marc McGovern 43:07
Okay, so why don't, why don't we Why don't we do that and then we can take, then people can just ask questions as we go through. So, I'm sure there's a lot of these are going to be pretty simple and some will be more complicated. So, if we turn to page one, packet, packet, page 25 at section 20.51.

Councillor Marc McGovern 43:37
The, the changes that are being recommended is to strike the word "and" after "Harvard Square overlay district", and then after "Harvard Square Historic overlay district" add, ", and Harvard Square Conservation District goals and guidelines", excuse me, and this was suggested by the Historical Commission staff that noted the goals as well as the guidelines of the Conservation District should be referenced. Is there any question as to why that change was made or any issue with that, or can we vote that now? Okay, good. Do you have a question? No. So on adoption of those amendments, all those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it.

Councillor Marc McGovern 44:34
Hold on one second.

Patrick Barrett 44:38
Mr. Chair?

Councillor Marc McGovern 44:38
Mr. Barrett.

Patrick Barrett 44:41
In our discussion, Councillor Carlone and I discussed an amendment that is not currently in this packet. I think it's an important one...

Councillor Marc McGovern 44:51
Is, is it next I mean, I'm going to [sic] when I get to it speak up, jump up and down, raise your hand? Okay. So, then the next amendment is on the page 26, 20.53.3 and it comes in 2, under 2(B) at the end, "significant building as defined by the City of Cambridge demolition ordinance" and this is striking number 965. On adoption. All those in favor say "aye"? Those opposed "nay"? The ayes have it.

Councillor Marc McGovern 45:31
We now go to 20.54.1 (C) and this is to add, add "C" and it reads "to support local businesses and uses that enhance the vibrancy and historical nature of Harvard Square with the aspirational goal of maintaining a 70% local and non-formula retail experience throughout the district". Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 46:01
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if this number is ground floor, or this is district wide. The garage, of course says small retail on the second level. It's wonderful. But it seems to me the public domain is the key. And if this percentage is different, and I know people know what that percentage is, maybe not right now, it should be the ground floor and adding the words "at ground floor".

Patrick Barrett 46:31
To...

Patrick Barrett 46:34
Through you, Mr. Chair. I have absolutely no objection to that, the only thing that I would point out is that currently the Harvard Square overlays around 70% non-formulaic retail and the distinction really comes as a part of the advisory board’s recommendations. So even though we have these provisions in here, the advisory board is, their opinions are advisory in nature, they can only give guidance to the Planning Board. The only real reason they ever come up is when the Planning Board Disagrees with the findings of the advisory board. But to your point, it fully comports with the intent.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 47:13
So, Mr. Chair, I, if I could continue, I think the aspiration is true, but it might be good to know what the actual ground floor may be in parentheses as a guide, and I'm guessing it's close to that but it, it is that public edge that most people see, we want them to go into the garage, but if they don't know it they won't go in, but and that... it's a minor thing, but I would add, make sure to get that information at ground floor.

Patrick Barrett 47:48
So, is the suggestion to change from 70% ground floor local and non-formulaic retail experiences? Yes. I have no objection.

Councillor Marc McGovern 47:59
So, your... I'm going to go to Councillor Siddiqui in a second. So Councillor Carlone you're amending...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 48:05
Yes, I am.

Councillor Marc McGovern 48:05
Tell me where and what exactly.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 48:07
Just Mister... Mr. Barrett's back mentioned maintaining... Well, I would put it at the end throughout the district under C, "at the ground floor level" at the end of that sentence.

Councillor Marc McGovern 48:25
Okay. Councillor Siddiqui.

Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 48:30
Mayor, sorry.

Councillor Marc McGovern 48:33
Sorry.

Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 48:34
No worries. No worries. So, this is something I had a question about. When I read to support local businesses, where are we define local, right, I think what I'm confused by is, where's that definition coming from and how are we defining it? Where is it somewhere did, I miss it?

Patrick Barrett 48:55
So right now, we don't define local as much as we defined formula ,formulaic. So, in the definition of Formula it references national, things like that.

Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 49:07
Okay, just want to be clear because we, there's so much stuff that's thrown away, thrown out about chains and even small business. What a small business can be. I could you know, you can have up to 500 employees, right, there's all these different decisions. So, I just wanted to...

Patrick Barrett 49:23
Unfortunately, in zoning, it's a thin line to start pointing out local retail specifically.

Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 49:31
Okay. Thank you.

Mayor Marc McGovern 49:33
Councillor Zondervan.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 49:35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you. I guess I don't quite understand the point of adding this language. I mean, what, what happens if the district it goes down to 50% local and non-formula is however we define that, what would this accomplish?

Patrick Barrett 49:54
So, the Advisory Board itself provides a report to the Planning Board. The Planning Board then, as it's written in zoning is supposed to look at this report, say that the district was... had declined to less than they desired. That the Advisory Committee's recognition of this and they're either, I guess in this case, let's say they disapprove of the project, the Planning Board can look at the special permit criteria. And typically, 10.43 there's somewhat broad parameters that can fulfill to you know we think the language will usually be granted. But in this case, they can look at their Advisory Board recommendations and say, Oh, we are not fulfilling the goals, this comes as a negative recommendation, they can use that opinion to essentially reject a special permit.

Councillor Marc McGovern 50:48
Okay, so first, we need to vote on Councillor Carlone's amendment which is to add after at the end after "district", "at the ground floor level". All those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it. Now on the... adding C as amended. All those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it. Next is very simple, hopefully, it's just changing C to D since we added a new, a new section. All those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it. We now move down to number two in that section. And the amendment is to strike, "may wish to receive advice and recommendations". And then to add, "has planned for the overlay the committee shall meet on an approximately monthly basis or with as much frequency as", strike "deemed required", add "needed", "to address pertinent issues in the Harvard Square overlay district with the schedule to be determined at the discretion of the chair". This was requested... put forward by the Planning Board. Mr. Robert.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 52:11
I think this is the first point I'll just sort of jump in to briefly explain that there was a, the amendment in the original petition, the Planning Board commented that it didn't seem clear exactly how the schedule would be determined. And so they recommended it be modified so that it would be clear that there's an approximate sense of when the meeting would meet, but to make it clear who would be determining the schedule and in this case, we suggested that the chair should be the final say on when the committee would meet.

Councillor Marc McGovern 52:45
Any questions? Seeing none, all those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay" the ayes have it. We now flip to page 28. And we go to down to number 4(A)(1).

Councillor Marc McGovern 53:04
And then it is to strike the word "one" and to add "two members", and then it reads having recognized qualification as an architect, and then to add ", attorney who specializes in zoning, urban planner, architectural historian". Questions? None. On adoption. All those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it and then move to number two, and that is to strike number two in its entirety. All those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it. We now moved on to add a new number two, "one member who operates a" and then the addition will be "non-formula business within the Harvard Square overlay district". All those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it. We now move to what was number four, which will now be number three, is to strike the word "two" and add the word "one". All those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it. We now move to what was number five, which is now number four. That is to strike "five members representing residents of the five abutting Cambridge residential neighborhoods" and to add "four residents living within a half mile of the Harvard Square overlay". All those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it. Next move down to what was number six and is now number five. That would strike "one additional resident to be appointed with should serve at large" and to add "one member representing the Harvard Square neighborhood association or neighborhood group representing Harvard Square and registered with the City of Cambridge". All those in favor. Councillor Simmons.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 55:08
Just a clarifying question. It's a definitional one. I lost my place this...

Councillor Marc McGovern 55:18
Under number four.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 55:19
And registered with the City of Cambridge, what does that mean?

Councillor Marc McGovern 55:24
Mr. Robert?

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 55:26
Well...

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 55:27
The neighborhood associations registered.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 55:29
This is something that was pointed out in some of the staff comment. The Planning Board, I don't think had any particular concern with this, but staff didn't know that there is not a registration process for neighborhood groups. Typically, the way the Community Development Department addresses neighborhood groups, they are, you know, they're formed in their independent of the city. If a neighborhood group contacts the city and wants to be listed among the various neighborhood groups, we will list them and have contact in information for them so that, for instance, a proponent, a business owner who's trying to open a business and wants to meet with a neighborhood group, they can see who to contact. But I wouldn't describe it as a formal registration process. It's more of a notification process for the city.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 56:15
So, through you, Mr. Chair, it's more of "and is known by the city" as opposed to just saying you are one. Is that what you're trying to say? There's no poi... I never knew that we had a registration process for a neighborhood association. So that's what that makes the language odd to me.

Councillor Marc McGovern 56:28
Would it make more sense to say recognized as opposed to registered or listed by the City of Cambridge?

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 56:36
Through you Mr. Chair. If you're not... if... We're setting up... It looks like you're setting up a criteria that doesn't exist. And if we're going to have it, then you have to have it for every one so now we are going to have a neighborhood association registration process, which may not be a bad thing, but if we don't have it, right then why is it in here as something sort of acknowledges  something that doesn't exist? You know, if we don't have a criteria of through whichever Neighborhood Association registers itself, then why is it in here, but we may have a process through which we recognize in Neighborhood Association. If it's for the purpose of whoever is accessing this document to know that they have at least made some contact with the city and we know that they exist, that you might want to finesse the language a little bit.

Councillor Marc McGovern 57:21
Mr. Barrett.

Patrick Barrett 57:23
Just a point of clarification on this point. While there is no specific process for registering neighborhood groups, they do often register with the City of Cambridge so that they can be put on lists when projects come into the area. Part of the problem, I say problem. One of the things we're trying to address is the participation among these neighborhood groups in this process, and that even though there's not a specific process to register, that's kind of a half-truth in that you can register with the city and we're hoping that this provides the impetus to do so.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 58:00
Through you Mr. Chair to Mr. Barrett. I understand where you're coming from. The problem I have is the word registered. Because we don't, registered is a little bit more formal, then being known by and I don't say that there isn't a problem being registered. It's, it kind of lifts up a group to a status that doesn't quite exist. I mean, it's just difficult language. Is that the hill I'm going to die on? No. But I'm just I raised that to say the Port, the Port doesn't have a registered Neighborhood Association. You know, it's just a diff [sic].

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 58:35
That would make me. Through you Mr. Chair, I'd be more comfortable with that.

Patrick Barrett 58:35
If the language read one member renting the Harvard Square neighborhood association or neighborhood group representing Harvard Square period [sic].

Councillor Marc McGovern 58:49
Let me go to Mayor Siddiqui.

Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 58:50
I think that makes sense. And one, just wanted to add that on today's website, you have a list of the neighborhood organizations and so I think, I think this makes sense. But if you're listed in that, and that's pretty clear, so listed with the City of Cambridge, but I’m in favor of the former over what you just suggested, making it clear. Thanks.

Councillor Marc McGovern 59:15
Okay, so the question we first have to vote to strike... Is there a motion to amend this section to strike "and registered with the City of Cambridge" by Councillor Simmons. On that amendment, all those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it. On number five as amended. All those in favor say "aye". Those opposed "nay". The ayes have it. We now move to what was number seven now number six and it’s to strike "one member representing an institution owning institutional property in the Harvard Square overlay district". Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 59:57
It's the same wording as what we're striking. Maybe a word is missing? Or is that a typo? I'm only raising and in case something's missing.

Councillor Marc McGovern 60:09
You are correct. It does seem to be exactly the same. Mr. Roberts.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 60:13
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is another situation where the formatting is, is important. So the, the original petition suggested striking "one member representing an institution owning institutional property in Harvard Square overlaid districts" and I believe added the set, the above, earlier in the list one member from Harvard University, the Planning Board's recommendation was to reverse that change and go back to the original language, finding that it wasn't appropriate to single out a particular institution within the zoning ordinance.

Councillor Marc McGovern 60:51
So... Councillor Zondervan.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 60:54
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you the language does seem a little bit redundant, Institution owning institutional property.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 61:06
I can, I guess address that. So, this is the original language. So, I can't actually speak to how it was drafted, but it is, it is the case that institutions sometimes own non-institutional property. An institution like Harvard or MIT may own commercial property or residential property. It may be is belaboring the point to have that both in the sentence, but it is accurate, if we want it to be an institution that has an actual institutional presence in Harvard Square rather than an institution that might just own commercial property.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 61:48
Okay, thank you.

Councillor Marc McGovern 61:50
So, the question comes on striking was number seven. And then... We'll do that first. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. And then to add the language back as number six. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. And then next in this section is to change the number eight to number seven. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it.

Mayor Marc McGovern 62:22
We now go to B and the amendment is to add on an annual basis is the first meeting in September the Harvard Square Advisory strike board ad committee will strike appoint elected chair who may serve no more than two years as Chair within a three-year period. And questions on adoption. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have. Now flip to page 29. We go down to 20.54.3 Number one, to add any retail use 4.35 allowed in business be zoning districts within the overlay may also be allowed as of right in any office or residential zone within the overlay provided the structure that contains the use has a main entrance on Massachusetts Avenue, Mount Auburn Street, strike Harvard Street, add Arrow Street or Bow Street for... period for all other lots, and then at the bottom to strike or findings made. Questions? On adoption, all those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. Now go to B, 1(b) which is to strike "and will not involve significant new construction". Those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it.

Councillor Marc McGovern 63:56
This is the section that we spoke a lot before. And we were asking clarifying questions and not so much statements. But I do. I just do want to reiterate that I do think that you know, I... given what Mr. Barrett said that cannabis establishments are not allowed there anyway. I'm at, that put me a little bit at ease, but I do. You know, I do have some concern about where that's going to lead.

Patrick Barrett 64:23
Through you, Mr. Chair, I think the concern could be put to rest by striking it. If you feel as though at some point in time, that if this were to be altered in a significant way that this could be addressed or should be addressed.

Councillor Marc McGovern 64:43
Yeah. I mean, I think that you know, if you, one of the things Mr. Barrett, that you mentioned in the presentation was this was also to help local businesses and I think if you look at certainly the EE applicants that have applied to open in Cambridge, a lot of them are local people. You know, their, it's, their, it's cannabis. But there are people that are, who live in this community and their local people. It's a local business. So, you know, that does kind of, again, I think, and we'll get to the other part about striking around the frontage. You know, I think this council spent and extraordinary amount of time on the zoning, forget the whole conversations around EE versus medical and all that, just on the zoning and one of the things that we overwhelmingly voted for is to make sure that cannabis establishments are able to open throughout the city and no other square has these kinds of protections or these kinds of hurdles in it, you know, as was noted by Councillor Mallon. Four our opening in Central and that actually, you know, given what the decision in the lawsuit that just came down and where that goes revolutionary clinics which is medical could also do it. That could be the fifth. There are two going into, at least two applying for Porter square. And so, you know, we are giving certain, we are making it more difficult to for them to open in Harvard Square, which is not something that any other square has, that we've done anywhere else in the in the city. And in fact, we voted to make it city wide for a reason. So, it just, it doesn't totally sit well with me.

Patrick Barrett 66:25
Point of clarification. So, the use is already not allowed in these districts have also a special permit requirement throughout the city. So, it's not really putting any more undue burden than it was already present for that. I do agree that the other provision dealing with frontage, and not allowing cannabis retail in the BB district that has that component is a much more stringent provision that exists anywhere else in the city. And I think that was the thing that the Planning Board had the biggest issue with relative to equity in a cannabis retail, not this particular provision.

Councillor Marc McGovern 66:58
Yeah, we'll get, we'll get there. So now we will flip to page 30. And the first amendment is to strike section I. Questions? On adoption. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. Next, the next amendment is to change from j to i. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. The next amendment is to change K to J. And to add, "the use is not a formula business". Questions? All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. The next amendment is to change l to K and to strike, the proposed use is not located in a base residence C to B or office to district. And then it will read the following users listed in Section 4.35 are however specifically prohibited. And then the amendment goes further to strike 4.35(e), 4.35(f), 4.35(g). Questions? On adoption all those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. The next amendment also under K is to add 4.35(s) cannabis retail store. That's what we're already talking about. All those in favor say aye.

Councillor Marc McGovern 68:53
Mr. Roberts, if you could... No, I'm sorry. So, the if you flip back to number one it says anything allowed in business be zoning district within the overlay may also be allowed as a right in the office and residential zone within the overlay. And then so that, but then, so is that saying that, is, does that contradict in terms of the cannabis retail. Is it saying earlier saying it is allowed and then...

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 69:45
So, it's a good question Mr. Chair. So, with the provision says any retail use allowed in the business B zoning districts may also be allowed as a right in any office or residential zone within the overlay. The question, then that the more specific question that I would need to ask is, does that mean that it must be allowed in business B as a right? Or could it also include uses that are allowed by special permit? So, for instance, in a business be zoning district, a cannabis retail store would be allowed by special permit as would a fast food establishment or commercial recreation establishment. So that might be a matter of interpretation. I think if the council wanted to be more specific or more sort of conservative on this note, it could be added to that text that any retail use allowed in the business B zoning district or allowed to as of right in the business be zoning district within the overlay may also be allowed as of right so that it's clear that only those uses allowed as of right would have the same allowance if they're along Mass Ave, Mount Auburn Street, Arrow Street or Bow Street.

Councillor Marc McGovern 71:05
So why don't you... we don't have to do that now and go backwards. Why don't you play with some of that language and then we can amend it as this moves forward? So, on 4.35(s), cannabis retail store, all those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it.

Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 71:28
Mr. Chair. While we're on that section. I hate to do this because it's so annoying, but it's bothering me. Can we please capitalize the "S" in sales?

Patrick Barrett 71:40
I fully endorse that amendment.

Councillor Marc McGovern 71:40
Where are you?

Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 71:40
It's the contract attorney in me. The drafting. It's 4.35(M). And the "sale", "s" is lower case. That doesn't have to be an amendment but just it was bothering me.

Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 71:55
Thank you.

Councillor Marc McGovern 71:56
Good catch.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 71:59
Point of order. A little bit relevant if, if we do change the language to say, as of right in number one, then it doesn't make sense to say, cannabis retail store at all because it's not allowed as of right. So, I think it does make sense to try to resolve that right away.

Patrick Barrett 72:24
Through you, Mr. Chair. I think last time I spent a good amount of time with his language was before the new year. And going through the amendments. That's precisely why it is enumerated at the base of this because I say not all, not all commercial users in the BB district, but all retail users under 4.35 are allowed in this district and specifically enumerating cannabis retail. Even if I were to go and get a special permit for it, I think it's certain puts the person on notice that that use simply is not allowed in this district. So, it's not really as duplicative I think, as it was explained before. But I think to Councillor Zondervan's point, I think you'd kind of choose one or the other. And you can in the amendment, if you just decided that you could strike that language, if it's strictly as of right, or leave it is and it's pretty clear that that use is not allowed. Okay.

Councillor Marc McGovern 73:24
So, if that's the case, we can, if folks agree with that since we just voted to add 4.35(s), you don't have to come back with the new language in the other section if people feel comfortable with that answer. So next we go.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 73:40
Can I stop for a second? Because I'm trying to make sure that I understand that the answer and the intent of the of the Ordinance committee. So if the, I guess that this is really complicated language, because it's all about sort of negative space, it's you know, certain users are allowed and then they're not allowed but then we're allowing them again But sometimes we're not allowing them and some as we're requiring a special permit so we can get very, very tangled. I think it's important to just to lay all that aside and understand is it, is it the intent or the desire of the council to allow cannabis retail stores in office and residential zoned parts of the Harvard Square overlay district? Ordinarily, cannabis retail stores would not be allowed in residential or office zone-based zoning districts. But that would be, it would be a significant, it, you know, it would be a significant difference if they were allowed and if it were unclear whether or not they were allowed, it could cause some complication.

Councillor Marc McGovern 74:51
Councillor Zondervan

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 74:53
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe it is our intent to not allow them as is already the case. And so, I think the existing language just clarifies that. But it doesn't actually impose that restriction. I think where we're getting stuck is the as of right language, I'm not sure if that's even needed. I mean, we could simply strike the as of right phrase in that sentence.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 75:35
So, Mr. Chair, I think if that is the, not to interrupt, but if, if that is the agreed upon intent of the committee, I think we would still ask to look at the language and make sure that that is how it would be interpreted. And if we feel that there's a need to make that clearer that we would provide that.

Councillor Marc McGovern 75:55
Okay, so let's move on from, from that. So now we go back. Again, it’s to strike the entirety of number three in that section. Questions?

Councillor Marc McGovern 76:08
All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. Now flip to page 31. And the amendment, recommendation is to strike 2(a), A-1, -2, -3 and then the two paragraphs below. Councillor Mallon?

Councillor Alanna Mallon 76:32
Mr. Chair, I have questions for the staff on this particular item. I think there was some need for greater clarity around the fund, the Harvard Square improvement fund that is paid into when there's new development and if we get rid of this, what the implications are. I think we need to understand that from the staff. I have a few questions. When was the last time this fund was contributed to? And what were those funds used for? And I guess my underlying theme is I'm, I'm not ready to move away from this revenue stream, if it is something that we use for streetscape improvements or safety improvements or placemaking in Harvard Square. If this is a revenue stream that does work if there is development, and we are trying to plan for development in Harvard Square, I don't want to walk away from this as a revenue stream. But I also want to understand if there's no money in it, and there hasn't been, and we don't do anything with that. I'm fine striking this. I just want to have a clear understanding of what this is, what it could be and what it what it is right now.

Councillor Marc McGovern 77:43
Mr. Roberts. Or who? Mr. Roberts.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 77:44
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, to answer the first part of the question. The so, the, on the most recent contribution... In fact, we did have a contribution made last year it's for the Regent, the Abbot building project right at the corner there, JFK and Brattle Street. So, it was recently approved project by the Planning Board, there was also reviewed by Historical Commission, and it provided because there's no parking provided on the site, it provides a contribution of approximately $2 million, I believe. So, the way that the ordinance works is it requires a contribution based on the cost of construction of parking spaces, which is pretty high in Cambridge. So, based on staff's analysis of the construction costs, the payment that a, the contribution that a project would have to make is about $50,000 per parking space. Approximately. So, the source for some from Matt some background that was the first contribution to the fund, in probably over decade. So, it... to the Councillor's question or the vice mayor's question about this being a sort of reliable revenue stream, it hasn't been what I would refer to as a, sort of a constant stream of funding for any particular kind of us. It's more of a every once in a while when there's a project that is of a sufficient scale, and really with the, frankly, with the resources to be able to provide that kind of a contribution that it does, will provide a chunk of funding which the city can then decide how to use. This in this case, because it was a recent contribution. It hasn't gone through the review process yet in terms of determining what the use might be and then the advisory harvest Advisory Committee makes a recommendation. It is, I think, beyond that it's, because of the way the zoning is written, it's, you know, a development might not have to make the contribution based on reducing the overall size.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 80:17
And so for smaller projects that don't want to or don't have the resources to make that funding contribution, they will often make the choice of trying to reduce the scale of the project, the size of the project to be within the within 80% of the district limit, so as to not have to make the contribution. I think the other point that was made by the petitioners, in this, is that aside from Harvard Square and Central's where in any other part of the city, a development can seek a special permit to waive or eliminate the parking requirement and there's no there's no funding contribution required. So, it's a, it's a rather unique provision in the zoning ordinance. It, the application of it is, it's not completely, it doesn't work in the same way in each in each particular case. And so, it's hard to look at it as a reliable ongoing source of funding. But the Planning Board did note in their recommendation that while there are some issues with the provisions that is written now, they urge the city council to think about, you know, are there other alternatives rather than doing away with an entirely. Are there ways that it could be reformulated? And to think carefully about the uses of those funds or the purpose that those funds might serve? I'll make one more point I think to answer another part of your question about the uses of the funds. The zoning language states that the, the initial intent of this was when projects aren't providing parking, it would provide some revenue to the city or some funding to the city. So, the city could create public parking, which is something that no matter how much funding comes in, it's still very challenging. It would be very challenging for the city and may not be desirable for other reasons to try to create new public parking in the area. So, it often is used for other transportation or public realm related improvements, pedestrian, bicycle facilities. That's how it's generally been used in the past.

Councillor Marc McGovern 82:44
Miss Farooq.

Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development 82:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to add that one other thought that I think that the petitioner did touch on. Which is that just thinking about how we look at parking in planning today. We're not actually creating more parking requirements we, are across the board, thinking about how we can reduce parking requirements and not have people be incentivized to build more. However, that said, I think that the vice mayor's point is an important one, because even though we have not had contributions to this fund for a long time, that has been because there really hasn't, hadn't been construction activity in the square. And now we have seen some amount of turnover of sites and a lot of anticipated development. So, there could in fact, be, it could be more of a revenue stream if it is retained. And one way to think about how this interfaces with planning is to not try to solve this in this particular rezoning but to think about when we address parking in a city wide way, it might impact the parking ratios, and then there, as a result of that could impact whether there are contributions or not.

Councillor Marc McGovern 84:17
Vice Mayor.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 84:19
Thank you. I was just... thank you for that, because we've been talking a lot about parking and parking ratios. And I do think that that is a way for us to address this particular issue. While not doing it here. I know in Central Square; I know I haven't had a minute to look up how exactly it works. But there are different buckets that the parking fund goes into and it seems to me, you know, we have a provision for arts and culture, we have a provision for street improvements, sidewalk improvements. So, you know, it's not about creating new public parking. I do think it is something that we need to address overall. I just, I can't figure out what problem we're trying to solve. I'm just wondering if the petitioner maybe we are trying to incentivize smaller developments where, for which this is a financial barrier. So, Mr. Barrett? Through you.

Patrick Barrett 85:13
Thank you. I think, I just get a bigger picture of this. You know, the groups that came together to put this petition together represented interests across the board, whether it be property owners, business owners, universities, as well as neighborhood groups, and that each piece of it for represents a give and pull on either side. This particular provision exists in Central Square because I put it there. And in my last presentation on this, I look at that provision now aspotentially a mistake on my part. For the reason that, I think as stated by Jeff and Iram indirectly. That if you have a group that has enough capital, you're going to be able to get, exact a fund or some money from them, potentially, provided that if they want to go above 80% of FAR. For the infill projects, the smaller projects, which are still many potentially there. This is a prohibitive barrier because remember, you're not going to pay to exclude parking in an existing building. That provision already exists, but you will pay for any addition there too. The problem that I think we're trying to address is in predictability and the ability for the infill development that we anticipate, will trickle through Harvard Square and as stated this, this fun hasn't really done a lot. It has done something recently and may do something when Church Street gets lift off for another decade or so or and when you know the Asana group decides to stop kicking all their tenants and maybe do something there.

Patrick Barrett 87:06
But, in my opinion, this represents sort of an archaic provision and planning and that, why do we want someone to stay below FAR? Why do we want someone to put money and provision for transfer, for more parking in the district? And I don't think that we do. All these things that unique about Harvard Square is, unlike most squares, it has a significant collection of important buildings that we don't want to incentivize ripping out and going underneath to build parking to either avoid paying a $2 million fee, or that we don't want to simply have stagnate. That's the reason why we're here. We didn't want this district to keep languishing. We wanted to infuse it with some incentive to do things. This provision is not a boon for the city. And while $2 million coming from Regency now is nice to have, I think in the grand scheme of 20 year, 20 years into zoning in Harvard Square.

Patrick Barrett 88:07
I don't see it as being as much of a potential benefit to the district as the infill development that we're trying to spur. So, in that sense, it was a balance. This one provision was the biggest point of interest among small, small property owners and landlords in Harvard Square because this does block them from utilizing anything in the zoning essentially, that if this provision were to be, were to be not stricken, that essentially, you're going to continue to see the proliferation of larger groups buying smaller groups out which you'll still see but that eventually the smaller landlords will just, they won't utilize this and the way that we anticipate it.

Patrick Barrett 88:55
Vice Mayor.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 88:56
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you. I mean, I, with all due respect, I don't think anyone is going to build underground parking to avoid $2 million in a contribution with the amount of money at cost per parking spot, under underground...

Patrick Barrett 89:10
That's precisely my point, they're not going to build at all. So if you're faced if you're a small developer and you're faced with the either you have a project that you're going to add a couple thousand square feet to and then buy into a parking provision where you're paying a couple hundred thousand dollars to get out of it, that has the potential to destroy a pro forma for a small project.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 89:32
Okay, so thank you, Mr. Chair through you. I'm curious to see what my colleagues think about this. If anybody has any thoughts. I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with striking this language and walking away from a potential revenue stream. And I'm not sure I'm convinced that that's the right thing to do. So, I yield the floor.

Councillor Marc McGovern 89:56
Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 89:57
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand why this discussion is happening. In some ways it seems like a step back from a policy that has stated goals but on the other hand in a special permit there can be sharing a public improvements can they're not with the developers’ part of the scheme if the criteria said such.

Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development 90:28
Through you Mr. Chair. Only if there is some trigger that is some thresholds that is crossed and that it is a mitigation for that. It's very hard to have criteria that, that that might accomplish that. So, for instance, the only instances where a special permit is able to require something of this nature, in terms of infrastructure improvements are if they, if one of the traffic triggers, for instance, is exceeded. And then somebody might be required to make a safety improvement or signal changes or so forth.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 91:14
And, Mr. Chair, if I could just sort of add to that a little more sort of context of the way it works outside of Harvard Square, city wide. So, in, in well, back in Harvard Square, it has this provision that says the parking requirement can be waived, and under certain circumstances, they have to make the payment. That's sort of the it lays out pretty clearly, that's the exchange. In other parts of the city when there's a special permit to reduce or waive parking. It requires an analysis of what the different transportation options are, what the different parking availability and options are. So that all becomes part of the special permit review. And as with any special permit, the Planning Board or the BZA that's reviewing it can attach conditions that are meant to ensure that the, that the criteria are met. So it's fairly routine if someone's seeking a parking reduction that, for instance, traffic and parking might review that and recommend transportation demand management or other measures that would be attached to the special permit conditions to make sure that they're meeting the finding that the project won't cause undue spill over parking or other negative impacts on the public.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 92:24
But, Mr. Chair it, through you. When a contractor works on a project, the sidewalk is generally redone that becomes a condition of using the public sidewalk. If there is a strategy, I'm not saying there is but if Harvard Square, the association decides to irrigate their trees and that becomes a criteria of ours to be part of the, you can't do that.

Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development 92:56
Through you Mr. Chair. The only way that one could require that through a special permit is if a tree were being removed through this process and was then being re... You know, a new tree was being installed or some somehow it was being disrupted in the public way. Otherwise, the things like trees and things, enhancements related to that might be more likely to be accomplished on the site. It's challenging to be asking somebody to be doing something on the public way unless there's a very clear nexus between the project and its impact on whatever is desired to play against.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 93:42
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councillor Marc McGovern 93:43
Mr. Barrett.

Patrick Barrett 93:45
I just like to add a couple of points. One, the provision that requires an 80% of FAR to trigger this effect, that if you stay under the 80% of AFR, we are rewarding developers or we’re essentially rewarding development by less density. Essentially goes contrary to everything we're being told in transit nodes about development. That we want to actually increase the density of these districts, more so than other districts. I think it's interesting to note that Harvard Square and Central Square though I put an asterisk next to my name for that one. This is the only place where we penalize development in this way. It is also the most difficult place to address parking concerns. I've oftentimes heard the council discuss and citizens discuss the possibility of making Harvard Square carless or the possibility of, you know, increased bike lanes and you know, what have you. But if a project is built in Kendall Square, arguably the most lucrative part of our city. Such provision doesn't exist. If you build in Porter square, it doesn't exist. If you build in any part of the city but the overlay of Harvard Square in Central Square, this doesn't exist. So in my mind, and through discussions with these groups, we came to the conclusion that if we're going to put prohibitions on a large triple net tenants like banks, if we're going to try to incentivize local retail, smaller footprints and invigorate the square with uses that people will like, that putting a duplicative tax on top of that kind of development scheme is contrary to almost everything this petition stands for. And while I do understand that the desire to keep a potential revenue stream in line because you simply have it there. I don't think that the fact that you have it justifies keeping it.

Patrick Barrett 95:49
Again, we have always been sort of amicable in terms of our working with the council, but this one provision is an important one to property owners in Harvard Square for lots of important, for lots of obvious reasons. I don't think we want to incentivize them to duck it. I think if you are encouraging to go beyond the 80% of FAR, you're increasing the tax base of the district, which is obviously a net positive revenue-stream-wise. But I would ask the council just to consider, what is it you're teaching us with this provision? What is it that we're supposed to glean from it development-wise in terms of the plan of a Harvard Square is that we're supposed to stay under 80%? Is it that we're supposed to keep our belt, keep the existing buildings exactly as they are, do not go beyond the scheming, and, of course, a lot of them are beyond the 80% already, because a lot of buildings were built before FAR before zoning and they're already noncompliant? So, I think it's, I do understand fully the power of having a revenue stream. I don't always think that that is the best way to achieve the goals that you're trying to achieve for a district. When there are other, more practical ways that also apply to other parts of the district. Unless, I mean, I'm not recommending you do this, you know if we're willing to apply this to city-wide. What's unique about Harvard Square that this has to stay this way? And I think in terms of support, if this provision is withdrawn, I cannot see the Harvard Square Business Association continuing their support for this, although [sic] beyond their grasp. It's simply one of the probably, if not the most important piece to the small owners in Harvard Square, that they are alleviated from this in order to realize the density that this petition ultimately is pushing.

Councillor Marc McGovern 97:41
Pleasure the council? Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler 97:46
Yeah, I'm generally in favor this, in favor of, I think we should be moving towards getting rid of parking minimums in general and I realize this isn't a parking minimum but sort of anything that incentivizes parking, and this seems like a provision... One of the sort of similar angles, so, yeah, I support it.

Charles Sullivan, Executive Director of the Cambridge Historical Commission 98:07
Can I make a comment Mr. Chair? I think the motivations for this provision in the first place were that it occurred during a period when this was a car centric culture. That Harvard Square was the only place in Cambridge where there was significant economic development activity in the 1970s and early 1980s. Before Alewife before, before Lechmere, before Cambridgeport, Cambridge Research Park. And the thought was that there was so much demand at Harvard Square that parking should be controlled in this way. That on the one hand, I think the Planning Board recognized that parking in the center of Harvard Square was not very desirable. No one wanted curb cuts. People didn't want cars actually coming into the middle of the city. But that the city could take advantage of the demand for redevelopment potential in Harvard Square to impose this sort of fee on development. The climate is entirely changed. Harvard Square is no longer the only economic development game in town. And I think it's an historical anomaly that this was put into place when it was and that it remains in effect.

Councillor Marc McGovern 99:33
Pleasure of the committee? I would just, you know, I think this is a, I think this is a tough one because I actually I think the vice mayor makes some really valid points about... Even though it hasn't yielded a lot of money in the past... You know, it may... You know, it may in the future, but I also, I hear what, you know, I also don't want to do something that is going to make it more difficult on small property owners in the square. Mr. Barrett.

Patrick Barrett 100:05
one point that we already have a provision to address commercial development in the city. It didn't exist at the time of adoption of this provision particularly. And it's called linkage. And when we look in development, we now calculate the totality of that building. So even the existing square footage, so that when a linkage fee is associated with commercial development, which, just so we understand, the reason why there's not a massive amount of housing requests in this petition is because Harvard Square has been at a 4.0 for commercial development, for decades, whereas residential has been a 3.0 which is another big change. We've tried to least normalize that condition. However, this provision existed before linkage existed. So, I think it's worth noting that you are able to now especially with the increases to linkage, to get money from commercial development in the way... I think a more modern way than anticipated by this. So, I just want to make sure that that's clear.

Councillor Marc McGovern 101:09
Alright, if we're ready to vote?

Councillor Marc McGovern 101:12
On striking "a", in its entirety, all those in favor say aye. Those opposed. The ayes have it. We also, this wasn't, now that we did that it's not listed here, but we then have to change in that section under number two, we have to change B to A, C to B, D to C and E to D. So, on that amendment, all those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. We now move to page 33, 20.54.6. It's to add nonresidential uses and 4.0 for all residential uses. For... parentheses 4.31 A through H and to strike uses except dwellings, 3.0 for dwellings. Any questions? On adoption, all those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. Then is to add, the next amendment is to add 20.54.7 additional FAR upon the issuance of a special permit, the special permit granting authority may increase the allowable FAR on any lot or portion of a lot located within the Harvard Square overlay district for any residential use in Section 4.3, A through H or any commercial use in Section 4.34 or 4.35 provided the use and design complies with the goals and design guidelines set forth in the Harvard Square Conservation District. Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 102:55
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the area that we were discussing earlier to specify at the end of the second line on any lot or portion of a lot and add in the business B district located within. So, it's not the whole overlay district it's only business B.

Councillor Marc McGovern 103:19
So, you would amend this on any lot or portion of a lot...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 103:25
In the business B district located within the Harvard Square or something to that effect if Jeff wishes or the petitioner wishes the change it.

Councillor Marc McGovern 103:39
Ok with that? Okay. So, first, we would, we would have to vote Councillor Carlone's amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. And then on 20.54.7 as amended, Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 103:55
Just, I know we're not going to do it now. But the whole notion... This allows labs, continues to allow labs, which means they could get the increase in density. And there's question, I'm not suggesting we discuss it now, in the city about labs and the squares, including Central Square. So, I'm just raising it as something that we'll talk about in the future. But I question that.

Patrick Barrett 104:23
To Councillor... to Councillor Carlone's point, I fully agree with him. And I do believe we need to address this in Central Square, in Harvard Square, you know, for better or worse or whatever. It's been a business district for... it's there. The thing that would ask the council to look at beyond this petition is the definition of a lab. Right now, it's not quite clear, and that the unintended consequences of adding any kind of language like that right now would be unfortunate. But I do ask the council to look into that.

Councillor Marc McGovern 104:56
Thank you. So, we pass Councillor Carlone's amendment. On 20.54.7 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are then down to 20.54.8 FAR exemption for ground floor retail, retail spaces of 1500 square feet or less shall be excluded from the calculation of floor area ratio. Questions?

Councillor Marc McGovern 105:27
Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 105:28
Well there was the comment about frontage versus square footage, I thought. We could move with this and then discuss it in the future. And then there was this discussion is a 2,000 square feet. I think I read that the Planning Board said that. I'm fine with this for now, but yes, please.

Patrick Barrett 105:50
Through you Mr. Chair. A point of clarification. I believe the mention of 2000 square feet came from board member Bowie and it was a misreading of the language in the petition. Also, the distinction between linear frontage and footage. I'm happy to discuss that as a potential element, but I think for now it needs to stay table. Thank you.

Councillor Marc McGovern 106:20
Okay. Jeff.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 106:22
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify on that point, there was a comment in the staff materials that came at the very beginning of the petition review, about 1500 square feet and suggesting potentially 2000 square feet as a number. I think that came from some, just commentary by our economic development division. They work with a lot of local retailers and they were finding that there were some number of local retailers falling in that 1500 to 2000 square foot range. So it's never an exact science trying to pin down you know, what numbers the appropriate number, but I think it's... Whatever you pick, there's always going to be some businesses that you really like that are going to be constrained because they're a little bit above it. But I think the suggestion from economic development staff was that to you know, they're starting to see businesses that are under 2000, but over 1500.

Councillor Marc McGovern 107:19
On adoption. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. We now move to 20.54.9 and the recommendation is to strike, restrict uses no bank or financial institutions section 4.34 (e), or cannabis retail store section 11.803.1 shall occupy more than 20 feet of building frontage within the Harvard Square overlay, and no more than 30% of a lot's aggregate ground floor building frontage facing one or more public streets may be occupied by such uses,  and to add, frontage restrictions banks Trust Company or similar financial institutions as identified in Section 4.34. Shall occupy no more than 25 feet of the ground floor level frontage of a building, facing a street measured horizontally parallel to the street. In addition, such uses shall not occupy more than 30% of the buildings total horizontal ground floor building frontage aggregated over one or more streets, the Planning Board may grant a special permit to allow a minor increase in the permanent frontage upon finding that such increase would create a, would create a result that is more compatible with the unique conditions of a particular building or site. And that and that the criteria set forth in Section 20.53.2 above are met. So essentially, I think the key to this is that we're taking out cannabis. The recommendation is to take out cannabis and then to go to 25 feet versus 20 feet. Is that the gist? Mr. Roberts.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 109:02
Yes, Mr. Chair, I think that the wording was developed. This is one where we spend a little bit more time on the wording because there were many questions during the hearing process about how to interpret what frontage means and how it's calculated. So, the gist of it is that this 25 feet with a provision for a special permit. And I'll just note, just given the we know that there was a concern to the petitioners about whether this, whether the special permit should be allowed or not. And whether it would, you know, leave everything really open ended, we really tried to phrase the special permit provision to be very specific as to what the intent was. It really doesn't leave everything wide open. It just accounts for situations where just the design of an existing building might make it more appropriate to have a 28-foot frontage rather than having to kind of mess with the facade and an unusual way to try to squeeze it into the into the desired frontage trip limit.

Councillor Marc McGovern 109:59
Are there any questions?

Councillor Marc McGovern 110:03
On adoption of this amendment? All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. 20.54.10 to add fast order food establishments, as identified in Section 4.35(o), are allowed by right within the Harvard Square overlay district and are further not subject to the provisions of Article 11.30 of this ordinance provided the fast order food establishment is not a formula business. Questions? Mr. Barrett.

Patrick Barrett 110:41
I don't have a question as much as I... this particular provision. I think if any part of this petition has me in it, it's this one. This is a city-wide issue that I think the council needs to look at as a city. Why don't you eventually but that the fast order food as defined and the requirements into article 11 that upon transfer of that business to another person also requires a special permit. I think we're beyond this, and I'm going to get on my soapbox, but thank you.

Councillor Marc McGovern 111:12
Okay. Questions? comments? On adoption? All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. That is the end of what has been proposed. So, where we stand now is, we now have an amended Harvard Square overlay district zoning petition in front of us. There's one piece that's still a little bit outstanding, which CDD will get back to us down the road, but we could certainly do that in Council. Doesn't necessarily, it's pretty minor, doesn't necessarily have to come back here. Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 111:47
Two things to Mr. Chair. One is I would love to have Charlie Sullivan talk about the Conservation District not... it's a 90-page document. So, we're not expecting everything but just a quick overview. And to talk how was, to tell us how it was, remind us how a certificate of appropriateness is necessary, and how that works with a special permit. I know they're two separate things, but how does, how will this review work? And then secondly, I'd like to talk about criteria for approval and how we're going to work on that together.

Councillor Marc McGovern 112:35
I'm sure if I know Mr. Sullivan, he has every word of those 90 pages committed to memory.

Charles Sullivan, Executive Director of the Cambridge Historical Commission 112:43
Well, the neighborhood conservation district was established in 2000s...

Mayor Marc McGovern 112:49
Hate to cut you off, but the clerk did notify... just mentioned to me that this is beyond the call of the meeting.

Mayor Marc McGovern 112:55
Oh, well, then that's, I don't see how that can be since zoning is based... This whole thing is based on the conservation district.

Mayor Marc McGovern 113:09
Maybe it's the question...

Charles Sullivan, Executive Director of the Cambridge Historical Commission 113:11
Mr. Chair.

Councillor Marc McGovern 113:12
Mr. Sullivan.

Charles Sullivan, Executive Director of the Cambridge Historical Commission 113:13
The Conservation District Study Committee that has been operating for the last two years, reached its conclusions at the end of 2019. Has prepared a final report the 90-page report that Councillor Carlone refers to, that is on its way to the council. A section of that would require a hearing before the ordinance committee, and perhaps that's the appropriate time to discuss that.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 113:42
Fine. I would disagree in that interpretation, but so be it. I'm not the clerk. The criteria, every kind of special permit has a list of criteria. And I mentioned it to Jeff and what I'd like to suggest, and petitioner and I have talked about this is to do a draft together the Ordinance Committee with Historic with the petitioner, with Community Development, and come back when we meet next and just talk about it. And it's the kind... the Planning Board said, what are the aspirations? How are we going to decide if something's yay or nay? And it's that kind of thing. The amount of ground floor retail, obvious things like that. Is there any housing? Maybe that's not appropriate, but those kinds of questions, and we would make sure that it's true criteria. There are none in this package.

Councillor Marc McGovern 114:39
We can do that moving forward. So, I would, our options is to move this forward as amended favorably to the full city council is there a motion?

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 114:48
Move to forward with a favorable recommendation.

Councillor Marc McGovern 114:49
Councillor Simmons moved that we move the Harvard Square zoning overlay petition forward as amended with a favorable recommendation, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. On a motion by Councillor Simmons to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned.

1. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Suzanne P. Blier regarding Harvard Square Zoning Petition.
RESULT: REFERRED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION

2. A communication was received from Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development, regarding the Harvard Square Overlay District Zoning Petition.
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE