Choice Bits from the Jan 22, 2018 Cambridge City Council agenda Here's my first pass at what seems interesting (at least to me): Manager's Agenda #4. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $23,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Elections Commission Other Ordinary Maintenance Account to reimburse funds used for the 2017 voter guide printing and mailing. The reimbursement is necessary to cover other election related expenses. Voter turnout went up in the 2017 municipal election by about 26% from 17,959 to 22,581. There were many factors – reaction to the 2016 presidential election, multiple vacancies and a large field of interesting new candidates, several issues whose flames were fanned by activists, increased use of social media and related tools to target voters, and the citywide mailing of the voter guide. It's hard to say which factors had the greatest effect. I'll add that the most well-funded campaign was unsuccessful while a new candidate soared over quota with relatively little campaign funding. Perhaps money is no longer, as Tip O'Neill used to say, "the mother's milk of politics". Manager's Agenda #11. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $5 million from Fund Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Executive Department Extraordinary Expenditures account, for the City’s first contribution to the GLX project. This expenditure has me thinking about the Mass Pike (I-90) realignment project now being planned for the Allston-Brighton area across the river, and the current omission of the proposed West Station that was to be part of it. I have been reading about suggestions that since the concurrent new development in that area would primarily be by Harvard University, then perhaps Harvard should be providing the funds for the new station. Could this be the new normal, i.e. that developers and host cities who would benefit by new transit should pay for the transit? The realization of the Green Line Extension seems to have been made possible, at least in part, by the promise of financial contributions from Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, and the developer of the NorthPoint area. Manager's Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation to adopt parts of the Kroon, et al, Harvard Square Zoning Petition and to further study some parts. [Original Petition Text][CDD Memo - Nov 8, 2017][Revised Petition Text][Planning Board Recommendation] There is wisdom in the Planning Board recommendations (as usual). It is especially interesting to see the Board agreeing that the "formula business" regulations adopted not long ago for Central Square would also be appropriate for Harvard Square (and presumably elsewhere). The Board makes a special point regarding the review of signage which might be subject to review by both the Historical Commission and the Planning Board. [Frankly, I think the issue of signage is overstated. Some business districts, e.g. Central Square, would benefit from some additional "gawdy" and "spectacular" signage.] Despite some legal risk in moving toward "formula business" regulations, it is far preferable to some previous regulation such as the regulation of "fast food". One other positive recommendation from the Planning Board is for the exemption of below-grade space from floor-area limitations. This is consistent with the Barrett Petition of a couple of years ago. The Planning Board also cites the City's recently completed Retail Strategy. Indeed, the whole matter of the table of uses in the City's various zoning districts needs some attention. Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council regarding efforts to expand the number of electric vehicle charging stations, the feasibility of appropriately placing electric vehicle chargers on residential streets where there is need, the status of possible City fleet replacement to electric vehicles, expanded outreach and education on available rebates and incentive programs, and the feasibility of requiring developers to include a greater number of electric vehicle charging stations in new or substantially renovated multi-unit buildings.   Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan It's worth noting that Eversource doesn't exactly have the best track record for proactive electric utility planning in Cambridge. They generally upgrade service only when new development requires it or if the service fails. If electric vehicle charging locations are installed on some Cambridge streets it seems likely that increased capacity will be needed and aging and failed service will have to be upgraded - like on my street where the underground service failed several years ago and where numerous "temporary" quick fixes are now the norm. Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Department of Public Works to publicize and enforce a “zero tolerance” policy on space savers, working to remove them as quickly as possible following snow events.   Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Siddiqui Is this really a widespread problem in Cambridge? The only places where I have seen this are on streets near public housing. A better solution would be to selectively have even/odd side parking restrictions during which all snow is pushed back all the way to the curb and/or consolidated - assuming there are no plastic "flexi-posts" there to prevent it. Order #4. City Council support of the New York City climate lawsuit.   Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux I'm starting to get the sense that every City Council meeting agenda is going to have several climate change-related Orders, and that this will become the universal public policy litmus test - even for things that have little or nothing to do with climate change. Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to explore mechanisms for achieving greater levels of snow clearing by the city and increase the public response during major snow events or heavy snow winters.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux See above. Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Chief Information Officer for the City and report back with information regarding electronic device usage and current processes regarding the same.   Councillor Toomey Did the exiting three councillors run off with their City-issued computers and phones? Order #8. That the Mayor is requested to work with the appropriate City staff to establish a method of effectively communicating the new rules for the 2018-2019 City Council term with the members of the public.   Councillor Simmons I'm on it. Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Devereux, Chair of the Ad-Hoc Rules Committee, for a public hearing held on Tuesday, Jan 16, 2018 to discuss and suggest changes to the City Council Rules and transmitting recommended changes to the City Council Rules. Communications & Reports from City Officers #3. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Vice Mayor Jan Devereux regarding the outcome of the Ad-Hoc Rules Committee hearing. There were some good ideas and some not-so-good ideas expressed at this meeting. It doesn't look like we'll be seeing any realignment of the Council committees. At some level it doesn't really matter. The real question is whether or not the councillors actually show up for the committee meetings and if they decide to take up matters of substance. - Robert Winters Comments?

Civic Nerdiness

This week on Tuesday, Jan 16 at 2:30pm, the City Council's Ad-Hoc Rules Committee will conduct a public hearing in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss and suggest changes to the City Council Rules. This committee consists of Vice Mayor Devereux (Chair) and Councillors Mallon and Kelley; as well as Donna Lopez, City Clerk; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Maryellen Carvello, Office manager to the City Manager, and Wil Durbin, Chief of Staff to the Mayor.

I suppose it must be the pinnacle of civic nerdiness to care about the City Council Rules, but the structure of the City Council subcommittees, their mission, the number of members on each committee, and what constitutes a quorum are actually contained within the City Council Rules. From this civic nerd's point of view this actually is significant. In an ideal world the subcommittees should be where most of the detail work takes place. Unfortunately, it has sometimes been the case that these subcommittees become little more than discretionary devices for their respective Chairs where matters that sometimes have little to do with the purpose of the committee are pursued. In addition, there have been some topics in the last few years that didn't really have a natural match to any of the existing City Council committees or which were taken up by what might be viewed as the wrong committee. For example, if there is a Transportation and Public Utilities Committee, why were matters relating to bicycle transportation handled within the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Art, and Celebrations Committee? [I would restructure the committees just to shorten the name of that one.]

It's interesting to look at what the standing committees have been at various times in Cambridge history. Here are a few snapshots, including some recorded in the City's Annual Documents (yes, I really do have these original books on my shelf):

Joint Committees: 1887 Accounts Almshouse Assessor's Department City Engineering Claims Finance Fire Department Fuel Health Lamps Ordinances Printing Public Instruction Public Property Roads and Bridges Rules and Orders Water Supply Standing Committees of the Mayor and Alderman Bonds Claims Elections and Returns Fire Department Health Licenses Police Roads and Bridges Sewers Standing Committees of the Common Council Bills in the Second Reading Elections and Returns Enrolled Ordinances	Joint Committees: 1911-1912 Accounts Assessor's Department City Engineering City Home Claims Finance Fire Department Health Highways Legal Matters Legislative Matters Ordinances Parks Printing Public Property Public Instruction Water Supply Wires and Lamps Standing Committees of the Board of Alderman Bonds Cemeteries Claims Elections and Returns Fire Department Health Highways Licenses Parks Police Rules and Orders Sewers Soldier's Aid Street Railways Standing Committees of the Common Council Bills in the Second Reading Elections and Returns Enrolled Ordinances Rules and Orders	City Council Committees: 1938 Americanization and Education Bonds City Engineering City Planning Claims Elections and Printing Finance Health Industrial Development Legislative Matters Licenses Military Affairs Ordinances Parks and Cemeteries Public Celebrations Public Property and Public Institutions Public Safety Public Service Roads and Bridges Rules and Orders Soldier's Aid Water Supply Wires and Lamps	City Council Committees: 1998 Cable TV and Communications Civil and Human Rights Claims Economic Development, Training, and Employment Elder Affairs Environment Finance Food Policy Government Operations Health and Hospitals Housing and Community Development Human Services and Youth Ordinance Public Safety Public Service Rules Sister Cities Traffic and Transportation Veterans
City Council Committees: 2000 Cable TV, Telecommunications, and Public Utilities Civic Unity Economic Development, Training, and Employment Finance Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Health and Environment Housing Human Services Neighborhood and Long-term Planning Ordinance Public Facilities, Art, and Celebrations Public Safety Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Veterans	City Council Committees: 2012 Cable TV, Telecommunications, and Public Utilities Civic Unity Claims Community Health Economic Development, Training, and Employment Environment Finance Government Operations and Rules Housing Human Services Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Ordinance Public Facilities, Art, and Celebrations Public Safety Transportation, Traffic, and Parking University Relations Veterans	City Council Committees: 2016 Civic Unity Economic Development and University Relations Finance Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Health and Environment Housing Human Services and Veterans Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Art, and Celebrations Ordinance Public Safety Transportation and Public Utilities	City Council Committees: 2018 ?????

It's likely that prior to the adoption of the Plan E Charter that went into effect in 1941 there was either the need or the desire for more oversight of City departments, and both the number and the nature of the City Council (and Board of Alderman) committees seem to reflect this. Some standing committees are essentially permanent (Ordinance, Finance), but others clearly change with the times and even with the desires of individual councillors. What should be the focus of City Council subcommittees for the 2018-2019 City Council term? Should they remain the same? Are there any priorities that warrant a redefinition of the Council subcommittees? Should we revive some committees from the long past?

Looking Back at 2017 and the 2016-2017 City Council term

Two years ago I put together an outline of some of the issues and tasks that lay before the City Council and the City administration that perhaps needed attention at that time. I called this outline “Unfinished Business” (Jan 5, 2016). Let's do a status check on how we fared over the last two years.

I – Housing

1. Barrett Petition – Accessory apartments, etc.
• Outcome: This was ordained on Jan 11, 2016 and most or all outcomes seem to be positive, including better and more creative use of basement spaces in commercial buildings.
2. Affordable Housing Overlay – Citywide? Or not?
• Outcome: To the best of my knowledge no report on this was ever issued and no definitive plan ever emerged. Proposals have been floated, especially during political campaigns, but it seems doubtful that any citywide proposal to encourage "affordable housing" in all most or all residential districts will garner political support. Don't be surprised if the concept is at least explored in the current (2018-19) term, but it seems more likely that any outcome will affect only some residential districts.
3. Future housing on Central Square parking lots?
• Outcome: No word yet on any such plans. In the meantime, there does seem to be at least some acknowledgement that you can't just wish away all parking needs, but look for enhancements to structured parking lots before any new housing appears on existing surface lots.
4. Adjustments to Inclusionary Zoning required percentages
• Outcome: The City Council on Apr 3, 2017 unanimously approved an increase from 15% (effectively about 11.6% after density bonus) to an absolute 20% requirement (with no additional density bonus) along with other amendments and provisions for periodic review.
5. Vail Court?
• Outcome: The City took the property by eminent domain and the matter is currently tied up in litigation.

II – Citywide Master Plan/Envision Cambridge

1. Will it be the ultimate way to kick every can down the road “until the master plan is completed”?
• Outcome: The Envision Cambridge process is proceeding with expert analysis, but there have been frequent suggestions that some matters be delayed "until the Envision Cambridge process is completed". It has also become common to refer some pressing matters to the Envision Cambridge process - a practice fraught with the risk (or possibly the intention) of unrealistic expectations.
2. Will it be cooperative or combative with people taking sides from the start and competing to pack the public meetings and serve on committees?
• Outcome: This has not appeared to generally be the case, though there have been some indications of resistance to some of the Alewife-specific proposals. We'll have to wait and see is there will be any other push-back as additional proposals are solidified this year.
3. Will it be a competition between those who support transit-oriented development and density vs. those who support limiting growth, limiting heights, limiting density in the name of “livability”?
• Outcome: This division of viewpoint is evident in ways that reach well beyond Envision Cambridge, especially in the dichotomy that played out during the recent municipal election.
4. Representativeness of participants – will all points of view be represented?
• Outcome: Irrespective of any other aspects of the process the Envision Cambridge staff and consultants have done a better job of outreach and seeking representativeness than anything in recent memory. That said, we should all expect criticism that the opposite was the case - especially if the recommendations are not to the liking of various interest groups.
5. Alewife early action item – will the current Concord-Alewife Plan be significantly altered to respond to those concerned about pace of housing growth in the area (and NIMBYism)?
• Outcome: At this point I would have to say both YES and NO to this. The current proposals do plan for significant new housing in the area, but there's also a lot of emphasis on "light industry" uses. The reality is that some significant housing growth has occurred and is still in development - regardless of the Envision Cambridge process. Much attention remains on transportation enhancements such as a bridge (possibly only for pedestrians/cyclists but maybe also for shuttle buses) over the RR tracks connecting the Triangle and the Quadrangle, but there are no solid plans or financial mechanisms in place for building such a bridge. This is almost certain to be part of City Council rhetoric for the next year or more, but I can't imagine how the City Council might turn words into action.
6. Transportation in the Citywide Plan (likely to be renamed “Envision Cambridge”: Will the discussion continue to be dominated by “bicycle as panacea” or will there be a more comprehensive view? Will any new connections be proposed over RR tracks, rivers, or one-way patterns? Will new modes like personal mobility devices be accommodated?
• Outcome: The plan was, in fact, renamed “Envision Cambridge” and time will tell if there are any creative transportation proposals. The consultants have suggested bicycle-priority routes, but much of this seems to be going on outside of the Envision Cambridge process, e.g. among activists and highly politicized, e.g. the "bikelash" over the hastily-approved/implemented changes to Brattle St. and Cambridge St. Comprehensive transportation planning for all modes has become a war about "turf". Meanwhile, traffic remains dreadful on some major roadways, e.g. Fresh Pond/Alewife Brook Parkways.
7. Will the end product have any fundamental recommended changes or will it be essentially an endorsement, more or less, of the way we are now doing things?
• Outcome: It's fair to say that prior studies and recommendations have been fairly integrated into the Envision Cambridge plans - or so it appears so far.
8. Will there be any movement on Central Square, the C2 Recommendations, or some alternative?
• Outcome: Most progress in this has been independent of the Envision Cambridge process, e.g. the ordination of the Central Square Restoration Petition on Feb 27, 2017.

III – STEAM/STEM

1. Will there be any follow-up of discussions of the last year or so?
2. Will there be any actual jobs created or connections to jobs for Cambridge residents who actually need them?
3. Will we have simply created or grown another bureaucracy that drafts plans but delivers little benefit?
• Outcome: Creating opportunities in Cambridge-based companies, especially in the Kendall Square area, for people who have grown up in Cambridge remains one of the most difficult challenges with relatively few solutions so far. If the 2018-2019 City Council, the City administration, Cambridge schools, and these companies can make some progress in this it will be a great achievement.

IV – Bans, Ordinances, and changes in City services

1. Curbside Organics Collection
• Outcome: This goes citywide starting in April 2018.
2. Plastic Bag Ban - Checkout Bag Ordinance – when does it go into effect? Any glitches?
3. Polystyrene ban – when does it go into effect? Possible glitches, exemptions, recommended changes?
• Outcome: Actually, these bans seem to be working out OK and other cities and towns have followed suit.
4. Anything else to be banned or restricted? Soda? Candy? Fatty foods? Meat?
• Outcome: The City Council did ban the sale of all non-rescue animals in Cambridge pet shops. On the other hand, they changed the zoning to create a mechanism for beekeeping. Hopefully these are all rescue bees.
5. Regulation of outdoor lighting?
• Outcome: In spite of a zoning petition and a long effort to craft a municipal ordinance, this matter become stalled as efforts to regulate lighting became so broad that it eclipsed the more reasonable regulation of ordinary nuisance lighting.

V – Mass & Main

1. When will actual construction commence? Will there be disruptions?
• Outcome: It's happening right now.
2. Large stormwater storage tank to be built in parking lot behind Mass & Main site.
• Outcome: This is also in the pipeline (as is a pipeline crossing Mass. Ave. under the T) for 2018.
3. Will there be lawsuits to try to block project? More petitions?
• Outcome: There were, but primarily of the nuisance variety.

VI – Foundry Building

1. When will building actually become available for use?
2. Programming in building – what fraction for non-profits, etc. and what fraction for revenue generation to support the whole building? Will there be controversies over decisions made by Advisory Committee and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority?
• Outcome: There have been plenty of controversies, changes in plans, and added costs. Perhaps one day we'll all look at this as a great resource, but former City Manager Bob Healy's reaction to the gift of this building as part of the Alexandria zoning remain prophetic: "This is going to be a problem."

VII – Volpe Site – Zoning and Possible Uses

1. Likely that current petition will be re-filed
• Outcome: Development rights were award by the federal government to MIT who consequently filed a rezoning petition in June 2017 that was ordained as amended on Oct 23, 2017.
2. How will competition between economics and possible housing/open space play out?
• Outcome: I would say that this played out reasonably well - largely because MIT was the chosen developer of the site and their interests are much longer term (and they're not going anywhere). There were a lot of competing interests - all in the midst of a municipal election season - yet consensus was reached. There will be ~1400 units of new housing (20% "affordable"), a community center, a job connector program, transit improvements, money for community benefits, conveyance of rights along the Grand Junction RR right-of-way for a future multi-use path, and more. The memorandum of understanding also expresses MIT's commitment to constructing a significant amount of new graduate student housing.
3. Will Volpe Center just stay there in same building for another 20-50 years?
• Outcome: Don't look for too many immediate changes, but this site will see dramatic changes within a few years.

VII – The “Sharing Economy”

1. Uber, Lyft, taxis – how will that dilemma be resolved? New regulation by City? By State?
• Outcome: This seems to be stalled. The value of a taxi medallion has plummeted and Uber and Lyft vehicles are everywhere - often behaving badly.
2. AirBnB – will this be further regulated or will everybody run their overpriced condos as unofficial hotels?
• Outcome: The City unanimously ordained a well-considered and thoughtfully amended zoning petition on Aug 7, 2017 to regulate short-term rentals.

IX – Miscellaneous other Cambridge-style initiatives that may happen or go nowhere

1. Publicly funded municipal elections
• Outcome: This was an interesting idea that went nowhere - largely because it was presented more as an accusation than a reform. The topic will likely come up again over the next two years, but hopefully independent of any political campaigns.
2. Voting rights for non-citizens in local elections
• Outcome: This was, I believe, forwarded to the state legislature with little chance of actually being implemented either locally or statewide.
3. Shifting of political power to individual councillors via political aides, discretionary money, and differing interpretations of the City Charter
• Outcome: This is a trend that unfortunately continues. Campaign managers continue to be hired as personal aides. There are opportunities with three new councillors and changes in the City Council office to possibly realign staff along the lines of City Council committees (and their purpose) rather than personal assistance, but don't count on it.
4. Changes to Residential Exemption, e.g. only for low-income people with requirement that residents prove their income to be eligible (very unlikely – authority of state)
• Outcome: Never heard another word on this.
5. $15 minimum wage (also unlikely except for City contracts and City workers – City lacks authority to set wages/prices except perhaps in declared emergency)
• Outcome: All such authority resides with the state legislature.
6. Proposed special status for “recognized groups” at Ordinance Committee meetings – opens up a wider discussion of legitimacy and representativeness of neighborhood associations, political advocacy groups, etc.
• Outcome: Thankfully this was never heard again.
7. Proposal to have 11 full days of early voting for November election at precincts all across the city with staffing and security. A far better Order would have asked for a report from the Election Commission on how to best plan for Early Voting in accordance with changes in state law (as opposed to dictating to staff how this should be done).
• Outcome: This was implemented at 5 sites (not at 33 individual precincts) for state/federal general elections and seems to have been an great success with a high level of participation.
8. Effect of new development in Union Square, Somerville on Cambridge traffic, housing availability and affordability, access to Green Line Extension (if it happens any time soon).
• Outcome: This appears to finally be moving forward. How it affects Cambridge remains to be seen.
9. Will the current housing speculation bubble burst?
• Outcome: It hasn't yet.

X – Civic Unity – Race, class, and the never-ending conflicts between different groups, neighborhoods, etc.

• Outcome: Attention seems to have shifted locally toward things like bike lanes, immigrant-related matters, and the NIMBY vs. YIMBY dichotomy. How this helps a kid growing up in public housing seeking opportunities and a future remains to be seen.

XI – Other Notable Things that emerged in the intervening two years

1. Road reconfigurations (for better or worse) for bicycle accommodation
• Outcome: This remains unsettled and volatile.
2. Changes in License Commission policies and procedures
• Outcome: Overall things are moving in a good direction, but the loss of resale value of a liquor license stings.
3. Invasion of local politics by national political organizations
• Outcome: How's that Revolution workin' for ya?
4. Harvard Square controversies and changes
• Outcome: The Abbot building, &pizzapocalypse, proposal for revitaization of the former Harvard Square Cinema property, recent sale of Dow & Stearns properties on Brattle Street.
5. Changing of the Guard
• Outcome: Louis DePasquale takes over as new City Manager, Acting Police Commission Brent Larrabee and new Police Commissioner Branville G. Bard, Jr., retirement of Fire Chief Gerald Reardon
6. CRLS Boys Basketball repeats as State Champions
• Outcome: CRLS Basketball - Samara Vise photos   Cambridge Chronicle story   Gallery
7. Pedro Martinez plays in the Oldtime Baseball Game at St. Peter's Field
• Outcome: Pictures from the Oldtime Baseball Game - August 17, 2017
8. City Announces First Minibond Issuance, Invites Residents to Directly Invest in Cambridge
• Outcome: It was very popular.
9. The 2017 municipal election
• Outcome: 26 City Council candidates, 12 School Committee candidates
  Voluntary exit of three incumbents (Maher, Mazen, Cheung)
  Dramatic increase in voter turnout, especially among younger voters
  Election of new councillors Alanna Mallon, Sumbul Siddiqui, and Quinton Zondervan
10. Some very notable passings
• Renae Gray
• Robert Moncreiff, former Cambridge city councillor

CIVIC CALENDAR

Mon, Jan 22

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Jan 23

6:30pm   Planning Board meeting  (2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway)

General Business

1. Update from the Community Development Department

2. Adoption of Planning Board meeting transcripts

Public Hearings

6:30pm   PB#243 – 100 Binney Street and 41 Linskey Way – Major Amendment to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Special Permit by ARE-MA Region No. 45, LLC and ARE-MA Region No. 47, LLC, c/o Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. to revise the Development Plan of 2010 and to allow up to 2,700 square feet of bank use at 100 Binney Street and to shift the approved location of an active use in the Final Development Plan from 100 Binney Street to the abutting parcel, 41 Linskey Way pursuant to Section 12.37 Amendments to Final Development Plan. This will be the second of two required public hearings for the Planned Unit Development process as outlined in Article 12.000. (Notice) (Materials)

General Business

3. PB#66 – CambridgeSide exterior upgrades – informational update (Materials)

4. Board of Zoning Appeal Cases
Linwood Court – 261/63 Broadway, 267 Broadway, 269 Broadway, 200 Columbia Street, 204 Columbia Street, 210 Columbia Street, 40 market Street, 1-6 Linwood Place – Comprehensive Permit for addition of 23 new units to the existing 45 units, including two new buildings and addition to an existing building along with 26 parking spaces at grade and seeking relief from dimensional requirements for FAR (5.11, 5.31, 11.203.5(a)), setback (5.11, 5.31), height (5.11, 5.31), density (5.11, 5.31, 11.2035(b)), private open space (5.22.2, 5.31), and distance between buildings (5.13); relief from required number of off-street parking spaces (6.31, 6.36.1), requirements for on grade parking facilities (6.44.1, 6.48.1), and required number of long-term bicycle parking spaces (6.36.1, 6.107.2); multi-family special permit (4.26.1); and relocation of the curb cut.

Wed, Jan 24

5:30pm   The City Council's Ordinance Committee will conduct an additional public hearing to discuss the Zoning Petition filed by Peter Kroon, et al, to amend Section 20.50 of the Zoning Ordinance in the “Harvard Square Overlay District”. This meeting is televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Jan 29

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Jan 31

6:00-8:00pm   Envision Cambridge - Housing Working Group Meeting  (Senior Center, 806 Mass Ave.)

Topic: Housing Indicators

Mon, Feb 5

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Feb 6

6:00pm   Regular School Committee meeting  (Henrietta Attles Meeting Room, CRLS, 459 Broadway)