Committee Report #1 – Feb 18 Special Cambridge City Council meeting

The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing Dec 11, 2019 at 5:30pm on the Harvard Square Zoning Petition.

Called to Order at 5:35 PM
Present: Carlone, Devereux, Kelley, Mallon, McGovern, Simmons, Siddiqui, Zondervan

Councillor Dennis Carlone 5:55
Welcome everyone. Thank you, John, the meeting is adjourned. The call of the hearing is as follows. The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on the Harvard Square zoning petition, which consists of wording that was received from Suzanne Blier regarding the Harvard Square zoning. We also have a communication from the Community Development Department, which reviews the proposed petition and comments on that. Both documents are very well prepared. We will, we do have a sign-up sheet right by where, it looks like, Fritz is signing up now. If you're interested in speaking, please do sign up and notify us that indeed you do want to speak. If not please, write "No". This hearing, as you know, is being audio and video recorded. And if you have written comments, we welcome them. When you go to the podium, there's a basket right behind the petitioner, Patrick, or you can leave them. Now, Councillor Simmons is away, recovering from a recent operation. So, as you know, we've been doing this for a few weeks now. We have a process excuse me that we go through so please bear with me. It'll take a couple of minutes. The city manager has authorized the use of remote participation at meetings of the city's public bodies and transmitted to the city council on May 13, 2012. The Open Meeting Law regulate, regulations revised by the Attorney General on October 6, 2017, 940 CMR 29.10 to be used as guidelines for the city's use of remote participation. The chair, I'm the chair Dennis Carlone announces that Councillor Simmons will not be attending the meeting and we'll be participating remotely in the meeting. I request the absent Councillor Simmons to state for the record that the proceedings are clearly audible to her.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 8:32
The proceedings are audible not so clearly but audible.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 8:36
Okay, we will keep that in mind and get a little closer to the microphone. Councillor Simmons confirms they are audible, but not clear. I announced that Councillor Simmons is clearly audible to us, to both the City Council and the public and the chair, that is me announces that all votes taken shall be by roll call voting. The format of the meeting will be as such as it is with every Ordinance meeting. We will hear from the petitioner at the main desk who has a presentation tonight. We will have clarify, a session of clarifying questions by the Councillors who I will introduce in a moment and that is to just fully understand the petition intent. We will then have city staff come forward who are relevant to this process, specifically Harvard Square and hear their presentation and thoughts, again, have a clarifying question period which will then be followed by public comments. So, if you are interested either now or after the presentations, you can certainly sign up. So, I'm joined today by Councillor, I almost said Carlone, I'm reading the sign. Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan. And in the audience, we are joined by soon to be Councillor, Sobrinho-Wheeler, and we welcome you. So, the floor is yours. Patrick, we welcome you and we look forward to your presentation.

Patrick Barrett 10:35
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. My name is Patrick Barrett. I would like to begin by describing the process of this petition. Several, actually in 2017, I was approached by several groups in Harvard Square to begin work on what eventually would sort of transform into the Kroon petition. I did not have anything really to do with that, but it is the basis of that work on which this petition has been founded. The heads of the Harvard Square Business Association, John DiGiovanni, Denise Jillson, along with Suzanne Blier had approached me individually, to help bridge what I think were personal issues between the groups in terms of vision for set for Harvard Square. They had seen the work that was done by myself, George Metzger and the Central Square Business Association in Central Square and I think in some way were envious of the process that we had. Where we had brought groups together by doing a very [sic] something very similar that I did with Harvard Square. And bringing these groups together, finding out where there's commonality finding out where there's disagreement and trying to create a better foundational platform for Harvard Square. There's an invitation as before you, much like Central Square is a beginning step to correct a few things that we feel as though our incongruous with the current city guidelines and goals, especially as they comport to the Envision process.

Patrick Barrett 12:28
And to give Harvard Square much like Central Square received a morale boost. A point where you have, I think, as they've been referred to by Charlie Sullivan as the Hatfields and McCoys, the ability to come together agree on something that while may not be earth shattering in the sense of zoning. Is earth shattering in the sense that we have a commonality agreement and we have forward momentum for an area that I think we all can agree needs help. This was recognized at the Planning Board by several members in terms of the numerous vacancies, many closings. And while development is always a messy process, its effect in Harvard Square has been palpable. And it really, I think is more exemplified in the fact they have a slightly higher than 10% retail vacancy, which far exceeds any other place in the city. The, you know, in Central Square, we had vacancies and they were prominent ones, but we didn't have a vacancy rate above 5%. And just gave the appearance of it because we had some key vacancies. Harvard Square, on the other hand, has pockets of just dead spaces right now. The Harvard Square Neighborhood Association over last summer commissioned a study, you know, being part of a slide presentation to the zoning, that determined that the total facade coverage of financial institutions in Harvard Square was something like 44%. Yet the use itself was 6%, that vacancies were at 10.6%, at that time in the summer. Useful information for us, but I think much more useful for this for this body to understand why we're doing this. And the stated purpose of the petition itself is to help look at that ground floor retail, much like we did in Harvard Square. And to give it the tools that are required to give developers and property owners the opportunity to think outside normal parameters for buildings. Harvard Square suffers from something that is sort of systemic in the zoning.

Patrick Barrett 14:44
That it was the one area of the city really, that had a higher commercial FAR than any other place versus its residential FAR. FAR for commercial is a four, residential is a three. We address that, but that's been in place for a long time it has really been the driving force of the growth in Harvard Square, which is why you haven't seen any residential development at all. But we can't go back and change all that, you have existing buildings. So how do you put together a zoning petition or zoning language that that respects the form of Harvard Square, but that also tries to prepare it for a future that's beyond a walking mall, which I think has was has been the current aspiration. It was only good fortune, that and great timing that Charlie Sullivan had been working with the Hatfields and McCoys for seven several years and revising the Conservation District guidelines. It seemed during this process, which really has come about because Charlie had been able to get all these groups to work together, that it made sense to take a look at some common sense zoning changes that would help alleviate some of the problems that people are having with retail spaces being vacant and being able to repurpose reutilize, adding some density that made sense for existing buildings. Much like Central Square, a lot of what's in here doesn't really do much for... to spur new construction. And if you really want to get new construction, we can talk about that in a second, but I will address that issue later on. But this was more about how do we take what we currently have and make the best use of it. In Central Square, we did a lot of the things that we were actually recommending here, and we've actually seen in two years some very positive results from it. And with that, I'm going to begin walking you through the presentation itself. In the zoning packet that I presented and filed originally there is a zoning key. It shows you the language that we've changed. It shows you what we've changed the language to, and it shows you why.

Patrick Barrett 16:57
It’s sort of becoming my zoning petition signature move. But I think it will help at least clarify, in the larger packet language, the first page of it looks like this, in case you're wondering. It's just a simple guide, because I've also presented language and its full form, which can be somewhat confusing to walk through. So, with that, I'm going to take you to the first slide. This describes the process that we went through the groups that we that we engaged and sort of what I had just given you in terms of the timeline of the events that we began in 2017. And that this process has been sort of ongoing through August of 2019. And that the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association, Harvard Square Business Association, Harvard University, and Harvard Square Conservation District Working Group have all been a part of this process. The first section that we take a look at is a very simple change when the conservation district was established, it wasn't clearly implemented in the actual zoning language. So that it was more of an unspoken but understood that the Conservation District language applied but was never explicitly stated in the guidelines in the overlay. This change simply corrects that omission. We add that there is a requirement to consider the Harvard Square Conservation guidelines when looking at zoning in the Harvard Square overlay. Much like in Central Square where the Central Square design guidelines are directly referenced. One thing I will point out in these slides at the very bottom I have a marker for stakeholders and objections. The reason why this has been put there is that I want the board to understand, the commission to understand that this whole entire process was a negotiation. Each individual part of this petition represents a give and take from either these groups and that no one piece on its own stands because much like with Central Square, this was a much, much thought through and bargained for agreement. But each group came at it with their own perspectives, their own desires. And that this is this represents the middle path between the two. So, in this particular instance, the stakeholders with the Harvard... Historical Commission, the conservation district, and so all groups really were on board with this when there were no objections.

Patrick Barrett 19:24
The second piece, which for some reason, has tiny language, deals with the Advisory Committee. This was a big point for the Harvard Square neighborhood group, much like the Kroon petition. This petition changes some of the dynamics of what comprises the advisory group. It requires that monthly meeting takes, monthly meetings take place, however, the board itself is able to, to waive such meetings should there not be something to discuss and the reason for that, primarily, is much like in Central Square, where we have a similar advisory group, these boards become stagnant for lack of use. And what tends to happen, and I've had this experience myself as an attorney in Central Square, where it's very difficult to convene these boards because they're so often not meeting that they tend to stray away. And that even when you have a simple thing as a variance, that you would have to go through for the advisory board because it's 20,00 square feet or greater. I had two meetings, both of which were not attended. So, the both meetings were cancelled, and we moved on. The pushback on this provision has been that the requirement for monthly meetings may become arduous for members, but I think it's actually quite the opposite. That these areas Central Square and Harvard Square, especially, are hotbeds for activity. There's always something happening. There's always something to talk about. And there's no reason why these groups shouldn't have the ability to convene more regularly. I think through that regular use, these boards become more active, more engaged, and more importantly, more knowledge about what's happening in Harvard Square. So that when a proposal comes before them, they're able to, they have the mental agility to actually adjudicate it on its merits as opposed to being a tabula rasa with someone showing off the project but they've got no real concept of what's been going on in the square. There were... This is really a sticking point for the Harvard Square neighborhood group. The last point of it, which is the necessity of a rotating chair, the board felt, feels that an Advisory Commission that, where the President sits on the board indefinitely, creates the appearance of a lack of equity amongst the group and that by putting provision requiring a rotation of that position, it gives the board, I think, a sense of more legitimacy.

Patrick Barrett 21:47
So, in the Harvard Square overlay, there's interesting language that's existing, dealing with retail and existing residential and office districts. As you may or may not know, in an office district ground floor retail is not allowed. It's an interesting aberration, I believe an antiquated in our zoning code. I have enumerated specific streets and the Planning Board had pointed out that Harvard Street was not a street they were interested in expanding this used to, and I embarrassingly had to admit that I forgot to put Arrow Street. Arrow Street and Plympton the street to a smaller degree need to be included into this petition. But the purpose of it I think, is quite clear. Already, just so the audience knows and that the board knows there is a special permit vehicle for some uses, very limited uses. What this is trying to do is trying to mitigate some of the restrictions we're placing on the BB district and allow for an expansion of retail uses where these retail uses already exist. So that these retailers which really only applied to nonformula retailers are able to go into these spaces without the need for a variance for the use itself, or, as you'll see later in the, in the presentation, a special permit for a fast food order use. Given the vacancy rate in the Harvard Square, and the desire right now to achieve rents that are not necessarily achievable, but that's a more of a learning curve process I believe for landlords. That we want to be able to offer tenants, an expansion of the retail quarter. This is absolutely what any urbanist guy would tell you that it is absolutely a necessity to maintain retail and have it be, have it still exist in the form that we understand it. Retail is going through many, many changes but to prohibit the use somewhat arbitrarily on a thoroughfare where it already exists, does not seem like a very good, does not seem like it's achieving any goal that we set out to achieve. And this gives these smaller retailers who can't afford to pay $75 triple net or 150 triple net, as some retailers are getting into Harvard Square. These will naturally be lower rent areas, they already are. Just like in Central Square, we expanded on the side streets. Those are all lower rent areas. And some of those landlords are learning that lesson pretty quickly or slowly but they're learning it because that's what it is.

Patrick Barrett 24:25
This came from Harvard University initially in my discussions with them, there was no objections from anyone in the group. I think the blue bottle coffee shop was referenced as sort of example of both a fast food special permit and a variance for the use itself, where it seems unnecessary given that the space itself was commercial already. This was also something that we pointed out to the planning, to the Planning Board in terms of the incongruity or the seeming incongruity between commercial uses on the ground floor in an office district. That that somehow is prohibited. And we're just sort of cleaning that up a bit. As it pertains to the overlay only. The next provision is dealing primarily with parking. In Harvard Square and in Central Square, largely thanks to the efforts of a couple years ago. The only two places in the city where there is a buyout option for parking, we are proposing to do away with this buyout option. This is part of what we discussed earlier in terms of a negotiated point between the groups. This has not been a wellspring of revenue for the for Harvard Square, although most recently Regency has had to pay in. This to us is, doesn't comport with any of the city go goals or guidelines. It is a duplicative tax on top of development, where there ought not to be one and that cost doesn't go necessarily to the developer, it always gets spread across the board to tenants, and whoever is buying the property. We look at this in terms of why are we tethering parking to a reduced FAR, we want density to a certain degree, we're not changing the height. We're not changing dimensional form whatsoever. But every other place in the city, we are being encouraged to get rid of parking. No other place in the city do we require a payment to do so. We already have linkage; we already have inclusionary. We have other things that we could be asking developers to do. That I would think would be money much well better spent for the special permitting process, then going through an arbitrary, arbitrary ritual where we require them to buy out of a parking space that they were never going to build in the first place. If we know Harvard Square, Harvard Square is 100% built. If you're building in Harvard Square, you're looking at an existing structure. We do not want developers going down. We never intended them to do that.

Patrick Barrett 26:55
This according to the members of the group, who wanted this is a bargained for agreement between the groups. That they're willing, that the property owners are willing to give up something and the neighborhood group was too. And there were no objections to this piece, which I personally found to be surprising. But I think given the greater goal of what these groups are trying to achieve, it doesn't make sense to continue this practice further. As the person who introduced it into Central Square, to date, it has generated no funds. It doesn't, I have no anticipation of doing so. And ultimately, I believe it was a mistake that I made in introducing it. I had worked with the neighborhood groups and trying to rationalize the reduction of parking. But I think we could have been more creative. Okey dokey. I put a big warning up here. So, people understood there's always been a sort of a confusion between groups from what FAR means and what height means. I will just reiterate for the folks at home, we aren't changing the height, the height stays the same in Harvard Square. I have something to say about height in other squares and in Harvard, then if you truly want to boost housing construction, that height is something that you're going to have to think about. But Harvard Square may not be the best place for it. As I stated earlier, it is 99% built out, and that it does have a historical component that very few other places in Cambridge have. This provision mirrors in some way, the mechanism by which density was added to the affordable housing overlay. It allows for the ability to add density into spaces that are pre-existing. And it's almost indeterminate with how much you can almost sense you could add, but we're looking in terms of form and not function. So, it's more of a hybrid than it is really form zoning or Euclidean zoning. It's taking the existing footprint and saying that we have a building that is a 2.7 or 4.0 for commercial use, we have, but it's four stories, we added another story to it.

Patrick Barrett 29:15
The way that ISD calculates FAR it's becomes problematic if you're maxed out to one use, you're maxed out to the other. This allows for groups to present their case as to why density might be added. And unlike any other square in the city, Harvard Square has sort of three flaming hoops that one must jump through that no one other square has, in order to get approval. You have Conservation District guidelines, you have historical districts, you also have the zoning itself and you also have the advisory board. All working in tandem, you do not get passed go unless you get a certificate of appropriateness and it was mentioned at the Planning Board level that that ought to be included in the language in terms of approval. My zoning does not include this provision but that a certificate of appropriateness by Historical Commission might be something we look at in terms of determining whether something is appropriate or not given the density. Again, the stakeholders in this all agree this is not a significant change. I would add that we're different from the AHO, is that this is all special permit. It's based on 10.43. There is a review process for it. There's designed for it. Which is where a lot of the confidence that I have in this petition comes from. We spent two years redoing the Conservation District guidelines. And we have design guidelines for the square unlike any other square in the city, but this will be managed very well. This is something that we did in Central Square and so far, it's been working like gangbusters. Some landlords have cried a little bit, but I don't care about that.

Patrick Barrett 30:55
A provision that exempts the ground floor retail at 1,500 square feet. This was done in Central Square it was done from the Mass and Main overlay district. To date, I've seen three developers use it, four if you include myself in Central Square, and it does exactly what I intended to do. The Chevron group has presented a project for the gas and light building which is where Bank of America is, to get the build that they need their exempting ground floor retail, they're making three 1500 square foot spaces. And the reason why I chose 1500 square feet is that oftentimes when you look for a national tenant, especially when they come from a corporation, or a larger group or a franchisee, they have guidelines for how they're supposed to be built. Those guidelines typically request across the board that 2000 square feet or the greater be used for the construction of their spaces. There is no waiver you can get, there's no committee. You can't go to Dunkin Donuts... Dunkin Donuts does not have that. You can't go to Wendy's and say no please give me relief. It will automatically exclude a good portion of retail tenants which the market central district people are, are facing that right now. They've come to CDD. They've cried to us at the BID. Oh, we can't populate our spaces with our triple net tenants that we want. And we say yeah, that's the point. You made a commitment to putting in local retailers or small retailers. By local I don't necessarily mean they live in Cambridge. I mean, you know, they're just mom and pops, and that's the tradeoff. You take the GFA which had a dollar, per square foot cost, 400 to build 800 value, and put it somewhere else in your building. On the ground floor you make the commitment to having smaller footprint, smaller footprint retail, which will undoubtedly lead to taking on smaller tenants.

Patrick Barrett 32:46
Slowly market central is getting the idea but other people have adopted this very easily. At my location on Main Street in Central Square. I found a tenant right away that was ready to take over 10... 1,050 square feet that I exempted to build a fifth story on my building, or a portion of that at least. And the rent is lower than market at $40 a square foot. Gross, it's a very different animal than the 65-triple net plus CAM fees, if you know what CAM fees are those are common area maintenance fees that are tacked on to rent. So that when you say it's $65 a foot, what I'm really saying it's actually closer to 100 bucks a foot when you tack on taxes, insurance, the maintenance piece, and then the common area maintenance. So, this provision in my opinion has been successful in Central Square. I don't think it will be as successful in Harvard Square only because there's a historical component to that, not all buildings can be sliced up this way. But it will make a difference it will be used, there will be developers who are building their spaces out that will specifically looked at this provision to find more of what I call paint in the bucket in terms of how they design their buildings. This whole entire petition is premised on the idea that by cramping down FAR, by putting obtuse regulations into place and sort of letting them idle. We turn architects into contortionists. We turn developers into people who are looking to maximize GFA. Height is what will stop that, height is what your bottleneck is. And if your bottlenecked for height, you know what form you're going to get, if you give them a 10 million FAR and a height of 20 feet, that building will never be more than 20 feet. That's the point.

Patrick Barrett 34:35
Okay, this is the only provision so far from which we've received some negative feedback from the community. This is very similar to what was introduced into Central Square, however, it's a bit more stringent. We are taking the footprint of banks, financial institutions and cannabis retail, a use which didn't exist at the time of the Central Square petition and reducing it to a 20-foot maximum. And can you take over no more than 30% of the facade of a building. In Central Square, we made it 25 feet. But we also made it a special permit to, to get around in. The reason for that was in Central Square, we did not have the market penetration that banks have in Harvard Square. As I mentioned earlier, the Harvard Square neighborhood group had conducted a study where in it was discovered that 44% of the entire facade space of Harvard Square was all financial institutions, yet financial institutions were 6% of the uses. So, if Harvard Square seems boring and dull, yes, it is. And this is largely why. I don't think banks are a bad use. I think banks are important to some degree. I think the point of sale bank becomes less useful in this more modern age of digital, but I don't believe they should be taking over almost half of the entire facade space of Harvard Square. And a more restrictive measure is what was looked at in terms of how do we curb this use. I will point out that we've had two property owners come and present counter arguments to this at the Planning Board as well. And I have left it to the neighborhood group and the business association. The two real petitioners before you are not, I am the vessel, so to speak, to determine for themselves what they're willing to give up or willing to negotiate on. I had recommended that they not negotiate at all, and that we leave it to the board we leave it to the Planning Board to determine what's the best course of action. The Planning Board had made the recommendation that had been expanded to 25 feet and a special permit likewise in Central Square. I, from my personal and professional opinion, I believe that we, we did the right thing initially.

Patrick Barrett 37:04
The other piece of this is the cannabis retail use. The Planning Board did have an issue, several members brought up an equity issue in terms of, of reducing the footprint to the point where they felt as though that the ability to open up a cannabis shop in Harvard Square may be impossible. And while I am, I respect their opinion, and while I am eternally an optimist and believe nothing is impossible. I don't believe that this actually is as restrictive as they, as they took it to be in Central Square we have, we will have four cannabis, three cannabis retail stores, opening up over the course of the next year. We have one medical that's trying to figure it out. Of those two, of those three retail spaces, two of them would comply with this ordinance, if was passed tomorrow in Central Square. So again, they do have the ability to open up. It's just they don't have the ability to command the amount of frontage that other users do. And the reason for that is not because we don't like cannabis, it's not because we don't like the use. It's just as I think, as you all well know, the state regulations require that these buildings be completely fogged up in their facades, in our opinion, they provide nothing more of interest than a bank would. Granted there may be slightly more usage out of the space though most of these retailers are looking at an appointment model where you get a fob and you, you're to walk around the city until your buzzer goes off and you can go to the store. But I think in general, it doesn't really add to the streetscape, and when you consider that 44% of the bank facade space is already, facade space is already taken up by banks, and that this use, cannabis retail, commands almost the same amount of rent per square foot that a bank would, that the logical shift will be towards the cannabis retail uses. Which again, I have nothing... I'm a, I'm an evil capitalist as well like, please landlords should go make money but if the whole purpose of this petition is to help revitalize Harvard Square and to bring back that streetscape, the cannabis retail spaces we felt did not fit the bill. And that there's probably other things we can look at, the Planning Board had mentioned that they found the buffer, the lack of a buffer between stories to be particularly problematic, in terms of being able to regulate how that forms out. So maybe through a different process. You can look at that buffer or how you really want this used to lay out.

Patrick Barrett 39:36
As I said before, we had almost, we had unanimous approval amongst the groups, but two property owners, I believe Regency and Mr. Donda who's with us tonight, were in opposition. This is my favorite one. So fast food special permit if you don't know it, now, you know. This is been somewhat of a thorn in the side small businesses for quite some time. In Central Square, we remove the fast food provision cap, but we didn't remove the requirement for a special permit across the city. If you are familiar with the licensing process for this, I highlighted the most egregious point of the provision of 75% of the seating in the premises be at freestanding tables, blah, blah, blah. There's also a sort of an unspoken of the non-disposable plates, cups and utensils, which all sounds good, but this was done primarily to limit McDonald's from opening up in spaces and in neighborhoods. This was, is having an unintended consequence of being prohibited for small businesses. Now CDD had reported that 18 special permits were granted last year, nine for formula business, nine for non, what they cannot tell us how many people have not even bothered to apply because of these regulations. Now, we had some testimony at the Planning Board from the woman who owns Black Sheep Bagels, who did come to testify that she was looking for spaces in Harvard Square. She only, she could not find one that comported with this ordinance. And she almost didn't open up her shop, but for the fact that she found a below grade space that gave her enough seating, so she fit the requirement. Now, the reason for the autograph and I have an image of Thomas Bow getting their special permit for usage. There's no real way to audit this. You can ask a business owner at the beginning of their, of their licensing commission hearing, you know what is the seating, what is the, what utensils you be using? It's almost arbitrary and how it's being adjudicated. And I think it's having a disproportionate, negative effect on smaller businesses, who are the exact people we're all trying to help out right now, not to mention the amount of legwork that ISD and the BZA have to go through to adjudicate these. Now we've lifted it for non-formula so that at least you have some sense of what use, what you can expect to happen. But ultimately, we feel as though that this provision ought to be applied elsewhere in the city. And the Planning Board spoke very favorably of this. Understanding that this is more of a bureaucratic hoop and that fast food itself has changed dramatically, from what we understand it to be. So, in my opinion, I didn't know what the best course of action was. Do we rewrite the definition of fast food order use? Or do we simply remove the special permit, deal with it as it is? We feel as though for Harvard Square and given the limited scope of this petition that was better to alleviate that, that restriction for some kinds of businesses and leave it intact for others?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 42:43
Patrick, let me just ask how much longer is the presentation? Normally we have half hour presentations.

Patrick Barrett 42:51
How am I doing?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 42:53
You're an hour.

Patrick Barrett 42:54
Holy crap.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 42:55
And we never go past 45 but because I'm interested in this...

Patrick Barrett 43:00
40 minutes?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 43:04
Well, that's true. You started at 5:30 you're approaching 45 minutes.

Patrick Barrett 43:09
I'm going to finish with one slide.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 43:10
No, you can finish. I'm just asking.

Patrick Barrett 43:13
Oh, yeah, you got about five minutes left me talking. So, this last slide was added after my Planning Board hearing. The one question that I was asked by two Planning Board members, that I didn't have a response to at the time, was how does this affect the affordable overlay. I was a little bit confused by that because the overlay itself is not before the council, but I dug through CDDs own work and I have an answer. You know, the AR 11 tax district, which, if you can see it good for you it's a little bit blurry even from my, my distance, but it's the one area of the city that comprises the majority of the Harvard Square Overlay and there is an NA where it says potentially competitive sales under the AHO. And, then percentage of potentially competitive properties is zero. The Harvard Square, you know, right or wrong has had a higher commercial FAR of it over the past few decades. And it is built out in that in that way, the AHO doesn't really do much, do anything in Harvard Square, unless you change the height. That's a different story, a different topic for a different day. That if you were looking for any kind of conflicts in passing the zoning with any future zoning that before this passes, it didn't work, the overlay did not apply, after this passes overlay still will not apply. Only through a different kind of change in whatever the overlay form it takes will it actually be applicable to any of these districts. I think if you look at the financial piece of that Harvard Square was never the intended location for this. In fact, the purpose of the overlay was to put it in neighborhoods that didn't currently have affordable housing components. That's all I got.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 44:58
So, what you're telling me is, I should of bit my tongue and just waited an extra two minutes. So, this is clarifying question time. The mayor has a clarifying question and then we'll go around the room. Councillor Zondervan after. Mayor please.

Mayor Marc McGovern 45:18
A couple questions through you, Mr. Chair. First of all, thank you for the presentation. Thank you also, the Sullivan and for everyone, for the groups coming together to find some common ground. I don't know if I'm more impressed with that or the fact they got you in a suit Mr. Barrett, but couple questions. First, I'm going to start with the explanation around banks and cannabis. I totally get it on banks and your statistics.... You know, I was amazed when you told me that, that they're only 6% of, you know, of the occupancy but 40, over 40% fan of the frontage. Shouldn't have been surprised by that but it, but it seemed I was. And I understand the explanation that there's some concern and I have the same concern that the, around the state regulations in terms of window, windows and the cannabis recreational businesses have to be frosted or what have you. I think that's a little overkill, but I understand that's the, the regulation but if I'm reading the section correctly 20.54.9, it basically says that there is no, there is no provision for a variance or a special permit or whatever mechanism is to, to ask for relief on this. It would just be as it just would be a ban and...

Patrick Barrett 46:48
So, when it’s a ban the default mechanism is a variance. So, you would have to seek a variance. Very difficult threshold, a use of especially.

Mayor Marc McGovern 47:00
So, I would just like, some maybe to think about either separating... I get it for banks. I, you know, I, when we did the cannabis zoning, I'm not talking about all the municipal stuff around EE applicants, but the actual zoning, we made a decision to expand the zoning and expand zones where cannabis shops could open to allow them to open in more areas of the city. And I think, I think Harvard Square should be, shouldn't be exempt from that responsibility. And I think if this is potentially going to make it more challenging than I don't think it belongs there or I think there should be some other mechanism to separate banks from cannabis. I think I do see this as a way of trying to not have cannabis shops open or at least make it more difficult for them to do so. And I don't think that's... I don't agree with that. So, I have one... is there a way to do that like ...

Patrick Barrett 47:58
So, certainly. The recommendation, this was concerned the Planning Board as well. And the recommendation the Planning Board, while comprehensive for banks was to expand it to 25 feet and to allow it to be a special permit. You said you could simply make it; we can really make it whatever you want it to or have it be not even be a part of this provision. And, you can solve it that way. I think the more elegant solution may be to remove that provision in its entirety and leave banks and just leave banks. The issue that you're always going to face, If I told you it's going to be 25 feet, you're going to want 27, if I tell you it's 27, you're going to want something else. It never works out quite right especially with existing buildings. Banks is more of a hammer. It really is. But because it is response to the existing condition, cannabis is unknown.

Mayor Marc McGovern 49:01
Through you, Mr. Chair. You mentioned a couple times about, that this petition doesn't change the height and also, you'd mentioned that, you know, if we wanted to encourage more residential that height could help with that. So how was that discussed? Why was it decided? I mean, I, you know, I'll say this about, you know, you know, I think the one of the ways to help the businesses of Harvard Square, particularly the small businesses of Harvard Square, or any square is to have more people living there, who are, you know, going to need, who are going to buy a pizza once a week, they're going to need to go to the you know, go to the market or what have you. So, I think having more residents helps businesses. So why was, was increasing the height, and I'm not talking 20 stories, but was increasing the height even discussed and why was it decided not...

Patrick Barrett 49:53
So, when we talked about the form and what the goals this petition were. Height was mentioned by me and I was talking twenty stories because I believe that's where you'd have to probably go to make it viable in a district like this. Harvard Square, unlike any other square in the city, is a very deeply Historic District. I don't think it's wise to go into a district like this, with massive height increases, only because what, you know, as I always say, there's lots of land in Cambridge, there just happens to be things on it. Harvard Square, there's lots of things on it. And there's lots of things that are, you really do want to preserve. That's the whole reason why this group got together for two years to revise the Conservation District guidelines. There are plenty of other places in the city, Central Square, where you could add height and build a ton of housing. I just, with this group in particular, the goal was to find common ground. When it came to height that was a nonstarter for both groups.

Mayor Marc McGovern 50:54
Okay. Maybe not 20 stories, but we probably could have gone a little higher, but I accept that they agreed on this. And then, you know, many of the vacancies that are in the square now, you know, a lot of the property is owned by a small handful, if not one individual. And, a lot of the vacancies, a lot of, I think everyone knows it's been vacant for God knows how long. And you know, the theater, but that's been that that's a different story, and there are plans for that. So how does this you know, some people will say that it's that some property owners are just holding on to their property because it increases in value. Some people call it land banking; some people will call it an unwillingness to lower their rents to get somebody in there. How is this going to help or does it with what's already there? Because I think isn't a lot of this is about...

Patrick Barrett 51:48
So unlike Central Square, Harvard Square has much larger real estate groups at play. There are several local landlords that do own a good portion of the property in Harvard Square. All of whom were consulted in this process and feel as though that this is like removing the, the duplicative tax on parking and allowing for different forms of retail gives them more flexibility in what they're able to accomplish. The biggest difficulty in this entire process was training, teaching landlords, what the world looks like today. The aspiration for the longest time for these groups was to turn Harvard Square into something like Faneuil Hall, well in 2019, Faneuil Hall is not fun. It's not exciting. It doesn't produce the kind of things that they want to, they want to see. A lot of what this petition really is, is about as a cultural change, which we saw happen in Central Square and we're still seeing happen. Can I guarantee you that Asana will wake up tomorrow and their heart will be four times bigger than it is today? Absolutely not. I can tell you though, that their aspiration for putting things like a Ray Ban store and commanding hundreds of dollars a square foot is going to quickly be dashed. And they will learn from a distance what's going to happen, but this changes the landscape in terms of what they can do. And in doing so will make them look at it like it did in Central Square. They will [sic] people who would normally not have thought to do what some developers are currently proposing to do in terms of breaking up those retail facades and putting value on the upper floors. You know, if you have a two-story building in Harvard Square, you're making all of your money on the ground floor.

Patrick Barrett 53:32
So in order to change that economic model, which you have to change it because the world is looked like that anymore, you have to be able to give them the ability to go add a few more stories and for existing structures that's all you're going to get no one's building more than three stories on an existing structure it is impossible. Without tripling your costs in steel and all sorts of nonsense but... And getting around energy issues as we discussed earlier, which are significant. So, to answer your question, I believe that this gives the ability for landlords to change the economics of their building. So, they see them doing the decision, making the decisions that look more favorable to us, even though economically they make more sense to them. And that's the whole gist of this petition is not, you know it's difficult to get these kinds of groups together to agree on things even more so to agree to do things that are not necessarily in their financial best interest. But you put them all together, and then things start to turn and they have ideas to how to use their buildings that no longer are based in getting a 3000 square foot space for an apple store or bank or canvas retail and if we take those things off the table, which we're doing. They have to start thinking differently.

Mayor Marc McGovern 54:44
And last question Mr. Chair. Sorry. Does this make it easier for permitting and for businesses to happen? I think of you know; my favorite example is Ann pizza. You know which the pizza is growing on me. But you know, even after they wanted to come in here, that process took forever, for a lot of reasons, including the debate over what color their awning was going to be. And I just, you know that that place sat vacant for a long time, however you feel about whether it should have been pizza or anything else. It's sat vacant. And, you know, I would like to see things move more quickly so that when a business is ready to come in, that there's less red tape for them to go through so that they can actually open and we can fill those vacancies. So, does this help with that?

Patrick Barrett 55:30
As I was trying to train the landlords and property owners that they're going to have to think differently on their ground floor. I also implored the neighborhood group to consider the regulatory hoops these businesses have to go through to exist. And part of the reason why this provision is in there, it addresses exactly that. While it is not a slam dunk that any of these businesses are able to go into this space, the red tape is significantly slashed in terms of their ability to operate and go from permitting to actually opening the doors. And more importantly, I added a caveat to section 11. [sic] fast food, there's two special permits, there's the ability to operate and then when you actually want to sell your business, there's a special permit on the transfer the license. Gone. So, for a lot of these businesses, it's and I think we had compelling testimony at the Planning Board, that this is a lifesaver for some of these local businesses.

Mayor Marc McGovern 56:26
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 56:27
Thank you, Mayor. Councillor Zondervan followed by whoever raises their hand next.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 56:35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And also, let's not forget Councillor Simmons on the phone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 56:43
You're willing to give up your time?

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 56:45
Sure. If she has...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 56:47
Please do and then we will go to Councillor Simmons.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 56:47
Just want to make sure she's not forgotten. So, thank you for this petition, and for being the peacemaker in Harvard Square. This very impressive achievement. So, on the, on the cannabis stores, I agree with the mayor on that, I would propose that we just amend that out of the of the petition. On housing, I'm also concerned about whether this petition adds the possibility of more housing and I hear and agree, and I think I understand what you're saying in terms of the limitations, but I look at the map. And I see a big parking lot on Church Street that's inside this, the zoning area. So is there some way that we can say, you know, if the, if the lot is vacant or a certain amount vacant then you have to build a certain amount of housing on it.

Patrick Barrett 57:58
So, the thing that stuck out to me the most when I was reviewing the Harvard Square overlay district language in its original form is that again, it's the only area of the city that had the higher FAR component for commercial than residential. That's been in place for a long time. The first thing I suggested to the group is that we correct that and make it a four. The biggest, the biggest obstacle to housing creation in Harvard Square is going to come from the lack of the ability to go out. I believe that if that's what the goal of the council is to add a provision that would incentivize housing, you're going to have to create a mechanism for residential construction to go above the existing height and no other use. The Kroon petition, I believe, in part got a negative recommendation for the Planning Board because it sort of forced the issue within the, within the exact frame. We studied the Kroon petition significantly more [sic], the Kroon petition itself but the recommendations from CDD and the Planning Board from that process, so we were making sure we weren't hitting the same notes. So, to answer your question, I fully believe that that's possible. However, much like in Central Square, I was looking at existing, not necessarily blank slate, I think if you want to create some mechanism for housing incentive, and I'm not saying this as anything other than somebody who's just done the math on it, it's a tough sell for housing in Harvard Square. And unless you're willing to put height in the table, and by height I don't think you, anything less than 12 stories would be acceptable. It's a tough thing unless you want to bring the hammer down so heavily on everything else that you bring the commercial use to a zil. But that's not what these, that's not what these, this group discussed. I think, in terms of the housing discussion, I believe we need to be a little bit more big picture. There are lots of softer sites in the city to develop housing, Harvard Square is like granite. It's just as difficult to penetrate with that use as it has been for the past few decades. Not much housing has been built at all. We give the opportunity for that. And there will be some developers who lean that way. There's, we come in all shapes and sizes and all drives. I just don't see under the current form, for existing, adding a few stories where then you're now dealing with inclusionary regulations and other regulations that sort of, call it a tax or not, but for blank, for blank land, I think you're going to have to create a different mechanism. That may be where the AHO comes back. And that's how you address it by, you know, and this is a recommendation actually, by Hue Russell at the Planning Board that if you do want to incentivize affordable housing, that through another mechanism, not unlike the AHO, you could do that in Harvard Square, have it only apply to certain parts, or we only lend itself to that. That answer?

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:00:57
Thanks, yeah that is helpful. Then on the fast food provision, as you can imagine, I first of all, totally agree that, you know, we should simplify that, that process, it makes no sense. But as you can imagine, I did read the non-disposable plates, cup and utensils with some attachment to that idea. So, are we getting rid of that too?

Patrick Barrett 1:01:30
So, we're not getting rid of the definition of fast food. So, what we're doing is not making this special permit apply to certain types of businesses, non-formula. The polystyrene ban that we have in place. I can't imagine we're going to go through another two years and not have something similar for straws. As a person who's opening up two restaurants that would, might be defined as Fast Food depending on how you look at it, and I think that's the one of the bigger issues in terms of usage. There's no way to audit online, there's no way to audit who's coming in and out really. So, like every restaurant in the city is fast food just about with a few exceptions, in terms of the use, because it's really not hitting one boxes hitting several. And I believe the cap was originally was put in place in Central Square because of trash, because everyone was using those polystyrene boxes. So, you know, this group, this is sort of outside the scope of what they're doing. But, you know, as a representative of the business community in Central Square, we are preparing all of our tenants for larger changes in terms of how they do things. In a lot of ways, It's really a selling point. If you look at Clover, you look at Life Alive and places like that. People go to those and patronize them more because they, there's, there's a conscious capitalism in the sense. But we don't intend to change any of the language the special, of what's in the current language for definition of fast food.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:03:00
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:03:01
Thank you, Councilman Mallon. Before you begin, I'm going to ask Councillor Simmons. Councillor Simmons, do you have any clarifying questions for the Petitioner?

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 1:03:14
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things that I was pleased to see in the petition... First of all, thank you Mr. Barrett. It's nice to see you in a suit and without a beard. So, you must be made, he might work on more petitions. I was very glad to see but I want to be sure I understand this. The reduction of formula-based businesses, my clarifying question is, I want to be sure formula-based business means we will have fewer chains or fast food type restaurants is that is that correct?

Patrick Barrett 1:03:49
So, in theory, this special permit would exist for chains where it would not exist for non-formula. You could still have chain restaurants; they would just have to go through a different process.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 1:04:07
Okay, what I was hoping... I certainly appreciate what's happening in Harvard Square and a lot of our squares that we do have a lot of vacant storefronts around. I see this petition is opening the doors for smaller independently owned establishments and I just want to be sure... And my clarifying question is that, that is what this is changing language, zoning language seeks to do?

Patrick Barrett 1:04:38
Absolutely.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 1:04:42
Thank you. And then lastly, I do concur with my colleagues, particularly with Marc, around the affordable housing and the proliferation of that in the city and that this does not provide a conflict between the two. It sounds like you're saying it might, or are you saying you can do that but maybe not right in Harvard Square. Now, I know the HAO. Okay, I always get the initials wrong, but I know that's not before us right now, I hope that it will become, it will come before us and I just want to make sure that they can, they can work together and not be in opposition with one another.

Patrick Barrett 1:05:31
So, the Affordable Housing overlay, the language that was before the council was language, I used to work with in terms of there being a potential conflict. The affordable overlay in its original form was never going to make any impact in Harvard Square. And the recommendation of the Planning Board was that if the overlay were to come back the way to, the real way to get affordable housing in a Harvard Square was to address the high and do it through the AHO.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 1:06:06
And then lastly, I am pleased to see or support the moving 20 feet to 25 feet and allowing more through special permit. So, if I'm to understand that that would be, it would favor let's say cannabis or EEO... EE applicants. It would not favor a bank. I wouldn't be correct about that.

Patrick Barrett 1:06:34
So, you support the 25 feet for cannabis retail not for banks, yeah?

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 1:06:41
Okay, can you speak... I can't hear you.

Patrick Barrett 1:06:43
I'm... I just want, I didn't sure if I understood correctly in terms of the, the, are you parsing out cannabis retail from banks.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 1:06:52
Yeah.

Patrick Barrett 1:06:53
Okay.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 1:06:53
Is that what you were saying that you were doing?

Patrick Barrett 1:06:56
Yes.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 1:06:58
Nod your head because I cannot hear you. I've lost audio all together. Thank you. Mr. Chair Thank you. I yield the floor.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:07:13
Thank you, Councillor Mallon.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:07:15
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you Mr. Barrett for the four-hour long presentation of this particular zoning petition. I wanted to say I really liked the spirit and the creativity of activating the non-arterial streets in Harvard Square like we did in Central Square. So those streets like Bow Street, Arrow Street, Mount Auburn, not Harvard. I mean, I'm curious, the Planning Board mentioned that many of the retail locations there are non-conforming right now and this would bring them into conformity. Is there an advantage to that like in terms of them expanding or changing uses? Is that, what would be the advantage to bring those places into conformity?

Patrick Barrett 1:07:57
The advantage is they no longer have to seek variances?

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:08:00
For anything that they needed to do?

Patrick Barrett 1:08:02
Well, I can't predict for anything. But the idea is that the use itself is no longer a variance. And that was the big concern of mine. The, there may be other relief that they have to seek through other provisions of the ordinance, but the variance for the use itself was the big one.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:08:19
Okay. And this is something that small retailers have expressed as a huge issue.

Patrick Barrett 1:08:23
It's a, well, this was expressed by Harvard University and their ability to lease out these retail spaces, as being a big issue.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:08:31
Okay, so that was one question. And then the next question I had was around the fast food formula business. And in the Planning Board, they mentioned that this approach around the special permit criteria is different than what we had done in Central Square. I'm just curious why that approach was different?

Patrick Barrett 1:08:49
The approach is different because I screwed up. I looked at the cap on fast food and not the actual use itself. We got rid of the cap it originally was 14 allowed use of fast food places. But then you'd have to the License Commission and do the song and dance and explain how you were not fast food. For Harvard Square, I corrected the mistake and actually having spoken with members of ISD. And people who actually adjudicate these issues that they were sort of the silent voice in saying please fix this. I believe this has been on the radar of CDD for quite some time, as well as the Planning Board had made mention. We also didn't have a formula business ordinance in place at all, which I think it’s sort of questionable as to where and how it applies. But that was the only way I could even get past go in Central Square was to at least create a different channel for chains. In Harvard Square, I made it so that these non-arterial streets, arterial streets would go specifically to non-formula businesses, as it seemed the most logical place for people who can't afford those larger triple net rents to go.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:09:56
So, you're learning and growing as you go? Okay. Does that mean that you will, this is outside the scope of this conversation, but I hope that means that you will go back to Central Square and...

Patrick Barrett 1:10:06
In January

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:10:07
And seek to... Okay. And then my last question as more of a statement around supporting the idea of the marijuana locations and quite honestly banks. I think for consistency 25 feet makes more sense. And in terms of marijuana, sorry, cannabis locations. These should be in our squares, we get a lot of concerns from residents who feel like when they are too close into the neighborhoods, it's not a good use. It's too far from public transit. This Harvard Square is the perfect location for cannabis locations. And so, I want to make sure that, actually, they happen there, as the mayor mentioned, and as Councillor Zondervan mentioned, we, we do need to consider that Harvard Square is a great location for the cannabis location. So those were my clarifying questions and comments but thank you again for your presentation and all of your work on this and everybody here who I know worked so hard bringing this together. The Hatfields and the McCoys, I haven't heard that expression so many times and one night. So, thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:11:13
Councillor Siddiqui, please.

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 1:11:16
Thank you, Mr. Chair through you. I wanted to ask the petitioner; you've mentioned the amount of vacancies in the square. Do you have data on, on the exact number of vacancies?

Patrick Barrett 1:11:29
I do. I did not include it in this presentation. But I can certainly email it to you.

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 1:11:33
No, I just wanted to ask because I've had, I've been looking into just vacancies in general and how many there are, and the Harvard Business Association did share some of those numbers with me. And the number that I last had was around 20. So, I'm curious when...

Patrick Barrett 1:11:53
20 vacancies or 20%?

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 1:11:55
20 vacancies. So, I think there's about, I think occupied businesses, it's around 300. And then there's around 294 occupied businesses. And so, the number that they had given it was 20. Which I think, thinking about individual vacancies, and why they're vacant this, this city has done some analysis on it. And I think some vacancies, no matter what zoning we put into place, it'll go back to the owner and who's behind it. We have some examples of that. And so that's something that I think, just as a matter of public policy, we have to think about in general, there are those vacancies that will have to, we've done somewhat of a job to get more information and push but the zoning not, I don't think necessarily will help all the vacancies, in my opinion, so that I just wanted to say that. And then on the marijuana, the cannabis business piece I think I definitely concur with my colleagues. And I think you made a statement about the facades being fogged up. I think the facades of the marijuana, of the cannabis businesses stores I've seen, I don't think I'd classify them as fogged up. I think there are a lot of different models out there. And there's very specific advertising things that the businesses have to follow. And some have even put really nice art in the window. So, I think I wanted to just say that, and then I think most of my questions my colleagues brought up, but I do have questions for city staff. So, thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:13:48
Thank you, Vice Mayor, do you have any questions?

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:13:55
Well, I mean, I don't know if there's specific to Patrick or to staff. I guess I still would like to understand how we can potentially use development to get improvements to the public realm, particularly around traffic safety. We've just got an email to the council saying that there was a pedestrian struck in Harvard Square as we're talking about it. Mass Ave and Plympton, and I don't know any details but more people in Harvard Square, more vehicles doing deliveries, you know, delivering food from restaurants that aren't fast food restaurants. I mean, it's a real problem. So, I hate to give up a source of money. I realize it hasn't been, this in lieu of parking fee hasn't been used very much. There hasn't been triggered, I guess, particularly. So, I'm hoping that maybe not as part of this petition but as part of some other effort we can, we can get some money out of that or some... Yes. You can speak, of course.

Patrick Barrett 1:15:02
So, as I had mentioned in the presentation that this is all sort of a negotiated piece. One thing that we discussed at the Planning Board level was that when projects trigger Article 19, or they are subject to special permit relief, there is that window of opportunity to attach or create criteria, whether either through this petition or another to force the outcomes that you're looking for in terms of infrastructure improvements. Eversource is already doing this to most of us, not through any process that you guys have invented, but because they need the infrastructure themselves. So, I do think that there is a way to do that. And while I do concede that this petition doesn't do that, and it's certainly within the power of the Planning Board through the special partnering process to attach these kinds of goals, should the council wish to make it known.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:15:53
Okay, well, then I guess that's maybe something to, to address with staff. And just to say, like a clarifying question about, so there's that the new Bluestone lane that replaced Crema, which is a formula business because it's a chain but did it, did it get a fast food license because I gather it's more sit down than it is actual fast food so I wonder if they did that.

Patrick Barrett 1:16:17
They needed a variance for the use

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:16:19
But they did not... Okay, so they aren't class... they are not a fast food use in essence because I think they're more restaurant-y than crema was.

Patrick Barrett 1:16:30
If we went to the Licensing Commission into ISD 10 different times with the exact same business and slightly different criteria we'd come out with nine different results as to what is a form, fast food business and what is not.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:16:43
Okay. All right, thanks.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:16:46
Councillor Kelley, do you have any questions?

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:16:50
I don't have any questions, but it did come up as a comment which, we just should get rid of parking requirements throughout the city. And I don't know that that's something to be expanded here but there are some artifacts that you are correcting, that are artifacts elsewhere as well.

Patrick Barrett 1:17:08
Attorney Rafferty showed up at the Planning Board, reminded the board that I am a non-paid attorney for these kinds of things happy to be put on staff to correct further issues.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:17:20
Thank you. I have two quick questions. We're at an hour and 15 minutes now. First one is if the 1,500, I agree with the goal of smaller storefronts, so don't misinterpret this but if 1,500 square foot storefronts... Why would you do that if you can do a max FAR? Why would you do [sic] and I want to do 1,500 square foot storefronts, but part of the rezoning is well we can max out the FAR as longer within height and a rear yard setback I imagine. And so why then would you even consider that?

Patrick Barrett 1:18:09
Because some buildings, they'll be the ability to add additional density to, other buildings less. So, I think for a building, that's two stories or three stories, you may have the ability to add a single floor. If you have a larger facade, you're not really getting your bang for your buck in the GFA. And what I really wanted to do is to create a way to fill the hole so that if there's a 0.8 or a 0.9 or 1.2, or whatever it was, that we are taking ourselves out of variance territory into special permit based on the density. We would still make that smaller footprint retail but the trade on the upper floors are the trade in GFA but if you are maxed out to FAR already, you're still going to need a special permit to add that density.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:18:51
Yes. But other than structurally and working with the historic commission, one with this policy as stated, and I agree with almost all what you're proposing, I don't, I think one negates the other. That if you can add three stories on top and go to within the rear yard setback, you're not gaining anything. There's no bonus for the 1,500 storefronts.

Patrick Barrett 1:19:23
I don't disagree and there are scenarios where...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:19:26
That you would only go that way.

Patrick Barrett 1:19:27
Correct.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:19:28
Okay, that's number one. Number two, the 1,500 square foot storefronts, I assume that's permanent. If they're getting a bonus up top to...

Patrick Barrett 1:19:41
That's kind of the point. So, like, where, I think the Chevron group's proposal for that Mass Ave building is a good example. They bottleneck them... in Mass and Main really too if you look at it, they bottleneck themselves into those spaces. They can't adjust any of that. Otherwise they'd be a variance.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:19:59
Okay, thank you. Those are my only questions. So why don't we bring city staff forward? You know, we can bring the whole team, so you all have a front row seat if you'd like. But that's up to you. You can stay back there. Well, I will ask. So, Iram and Jeff, we know the Planning Board met. We know you've written a good write up on the petition. Perhaps you can give us an overview, overview. Excuse me.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 1:20:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, happy to be here at the last ordinance committee meeting of the year, I think. And I checked my calendar. This is the 30th Ordinance Committee hearing I attended this year. So, it's been, it's been quite a busy year. We did provide a memo with some analysis and information background related to the petition. I think you have copies of that, there's I think, in particularly particular some of the maps and charts might be handy as a reference. I'll just skip to the Planning Board's recommendation. They reviewed this at their hearing back on November 19 and discussed the petition, heard from petitioners and many members of the public. They concluded with a positive recommendation. Board members were generally supportive of the petition. There were some particular items that they called out as items they recommend changing or looking at further. And I'll get to those a little bit later. I think the board for a long time has been as, as cases have come to them in Harvard Square, expressing their opinion that you know, Harvard Square really needs some help and supporting the continued growth of small businesses and, and, and maintaining that, that character and really looking towards how Harvard Square will evolve into the future, while acknowledging as the petitioner has as well, that zoning isn't necessarily going to be a cure all for these issues. There was one kind of broader point raised by some members of the board that some of the issues that are identified in the petition are issues that are more generally applicable city wide and things that could be looked at, in more of a city-wide way. There was some concern as to whether just focusing on Harvard Square might impact, whether, the way the city might look at these issues in other places as well but ultimately decided that it made sense to support these changes at this time, given that it's, it's before the city and that other changes could be addressed at another time. So that was the sort of the overall thrust of the recommendation.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 1:22:58
The, some of the specific changes is included some clarification on some, some pieces including the advisory committee language about the frequency of meetings. They suggested not changing the language about the, having a requirement that one member be affiliated with an institution, the petition suggest changing that to specify Harvard University and the board and think it was appropriate to call out a specific institution in that sense. Some other clarifying changes, some were reviewed by the petitioner in terms of the streets where, retail uses would be allowed, as of right. As many Councillors just discussed the board recommended removing cannabis retail stores from the, the frontage limitation requirements, because they felt strongly that the requirements for those users should be the same across, in districts where they're allowed across the city. All cannabis retail stores do need to come to the Planning Board anyway, unlike banks and some other retail businesses so they all undergo review for, for their façade treatments. In terms of banks, the Planning Board did recommend using the same provisions that currently exist in Central Square of having a 25-foot frontage limitation and allowing variation by special permit. The board finds that helpful to be able to deal with, with case by case scenarios and not end up in situations where a bank or a property owner might do something weird to try to squeeze into the requirement. I think we also heard, you know, from, some comments from the Historical Commission that some of the limitations on frontages or storefronts could, you know, potentially have an adverse impact on, if applied to existing buildings. So, the board felt that having some flexibility through the special permit process would be an appropriate way to deal with fat, and they have reviewed projects in the past where, you know, the, the, the just the circumstances of the site, it just made sense to have it be a little bit different.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 1:25:11
And then, you know, clarifying the meaning of frontage in that particular instance was important and some people raise concerns about whether that would be only the ground floor also other parts of the building. So those are some specific changes, the board recommended some other issues the board pointed out which were not that they didn't necessarily make a recommendation on but though that the council should look at a little bit more. The required payment in lieu of parking. The board did not object to removing that provision but suggested looking at it a little bit more closely and what, what the intent and potential uses of those funds might be, acknowledging that the way it works now has been sometimes troublesome, sometimes hasn't worked. It hasn't been as effective as it might otherwise be. But there could be other approaches given some of the interest in, in meeting transportation and other mobility-based needs. The issue with formula businesses, there are some board members who pointed out that formula businesses can in many cases be businesses that can provide important services to the community that can sometimes provide more affordable goods and services to community members. And so, some board members were a little bit hesitant to treat those in, in, in sort of more restrictive way. The board members did point out that because additional floor area ratio could be additional floor area could be granted by special permit for any kind of use. It could create the potential for, for significantly more development on some sites that could push up property values and building values and the proposal doesn't necessarily tie that additional FAR to any specific improvements. Instead it would have to make a finding of this generally in conformance with the areas, criteria and guidelines which any development coming to the Planning Board would have to meet. So the board talked about potentially, you know, what, what could be achieved, I think the petitioner talked about really the intent of that being to create more value on upper floors that could open up more economic possibilities on, on lower floors, but something some board members thought that something more specific might be called for.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 1:27:38
And the members of the council already discussed some of the comments about the Affordable Housing Overlay, and how this might create any preemptive conflicts. I'll just note that from a technical standpoint, there is no preemptive conflict of zone... The zoning amendments don't preemptively conflict with other zoning amendments because it's an amendment to the zoning ordinance and a future amendment would also be an amendment to the zoning ordinance. So, you can always amend something and then amend it, amend it back or amend it to, to have a different impact from the previous amendment. I think from really from my point of view, the issue is more from a from policy standpoint, whether it could complicate the, any sort of future effort because the, and the petitioner, I think, fairly accurately pointed out that what, what this does is similar to what in this district, what the Affordable Housing Overlay would have done by allowing development within a specific height limit, but with without the density limitations. So it changes the economics of development in a way that would make the, be affordable if as it was proposed, initially, the Affordable Housing Overlay would, would not have as, as much of a would not affect much of a change to the zoning if this, if this provision were in place in in the current petition. So that summarizes the Planning Board recommendation, we're happy to answer questions.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:29:12
So, we'll just first deal with Community Development then we'll go to the Historic Commission's input on their excellent study. Iram did you want to add anything to Jeff's? No, thank you. So Councillors any short clarifying questions? I don't see any. I have a couple. One is the BB, district business B, does not have any rear yard requirements. And if you, we need some guidance there whether it's 20 feet, the normal one or not, if we're building buildings 80 feet tall and you want to create a light well, if you can between buildings. I'm thinking of Church to Brattle block and other blocks so that's something that I hope you consider. And it might be part of the criteria instead of putting it in the zoning.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:30:23
We in cannabis, we talked... why isn't there something... I thought we put something... didn't we not put something in the zoning with cannabis about storefronts, either having displays or active uses. So, we don't have frosted windows? Isn't that, I'm pretty sure there was something about changing art, changing displays. So, we shouldn't have frosted windows. It was mentioned by Patrick and it is an issue. Nobody wants that. And, and you know, I could, I could see Harvard or business district or the university or Cambridge Arts Council literally putting placards every two months of what's happening in the city in these. [sic] I'm hoping this round we get to that because the frosted glass solution is terrible. Let me just see here. I'll stop there. So, Mr. Sullivan, you and a group of about 20 people worked on some guidelines for the Conservation District. And perhaps you could talk about how these, the proposed petition in particular would intersect and any thoughts you have that you want to share with us on Harvard Square related to the to...

Charles Sullivan, Executive Director of the Cambridge Historical Commission 1:31:56
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The City Council established Harvard Square Conservation District in 2000. That turned out to be at the end of a period of fairly intense development in Harvard Square. And then a long period of not much development. The Abbot building project came along, three or four years ago, started a whole new interest in the future of Harvard Square. And in 2017, the commission voted to initiate a study committee that would examine the goals and operation of the conservation district. And so this group that you mentioned, seven appointed members and about 15 regular attendees met for two years, every month more or less, and had sort of a continuing seminar on the character of Harvard Square and what, what it was what was valuable about it, what the opportunities were, how development should be guided and in Harvard Square to protect us commercial vitality, and it's historic character. And so, the result of that, committee is just wound up and made a report that you will see early in the new year. That recommends some changes to the goals and guidelines, but not, and a few changes to the jurisdiction of a conservation district, but mostly to the goals and guidelines of the Harvard Square conservation district that a statement that, as Patrick said, should have been incorporated, it was intended to be incorporated in the zoning in 2000 but was not and we recommend strongly that it be incorporated this time. The Historical Commission itself hasn't taken a position on this zoning but the Study Committee reviewed it with Patrick and the proponents and with Jeff from Community Development and voted unanimously to support, support this, and as do I, professionally, and in my role as Director, I certainly think this is a very valuable way of amending the very stringent regulation, onerous regulations on some aspects of use. In particular, the jurisdiction of the conservation district is such that we will continue to be more restrictive than zoning if necessary, for appropriateness, but with our goals, starting with our goal of preserving and promoting the commercial vitality of Harvard Square. It's a layer that I think is operated constructively over the years and will operate, continue to operate in partnership with the amended zoning in a way that I think will be very positive for the square.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:35:03
Thank you. And thank you for the study. Councillors, any questions? Councillor Siddiqui.

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 1:35:09
Thank you, through you. I'm going to try to frame this question in the best way I know. But I, one thing that, Jeff, you mentioned was, the in your memo to the Planning Board the, the consideration that this change could significantly change how property owners view the value of their land. Which in the end could translate into greater market pressure to redevelop and there has been some major redevelopment in the square already. And as Councillors, as a city council, we hear a lot from folks about the recent Asana, recent... Some of the tenants that have gotten rent increases. They're paying presumably lower rent and to catch it up to market, there's a gap there. And so, all this to say I think I'm, it's hard to envision the future but I do feel that there's a somewhat of a tension that things are going to be much more valuable to do things in the square. And then I am having a hard time envisioning, I just, I, you know, I just don't want
there to be this... There be more factors where we then as Councillors, as city council, hear more and more that we're destroying the fabric of the square because tenants can't meet the rents that folks who are buying the buildings are essentially, maybe overpaying, but it's what the market can bear. And so, I don't know if you have thoughts on that. I mean, that's just a worry that I have as, going forward. And for me this petition it, you know, it sounds good. But it also with some of the things that you've mentioned, it also gives me some... it leaves me a little bit scratching my head of like, Huh if it's going to add more value doesn't this mean that it'll be harder for some, some types of tenants? I don't know maybe I'm missing something, but I think there is a potential if there's greater market pressure to redevelop and get more value, what happens?

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 1:37:35
Through you Mr. Chair. So I'll, I'll try to start without maybe getting too deep in the weeds just sort of step back and explain a little bit just from our perspective, what the zoning position does so and it's helpful to understand the, the framework behind the existing zoning for Harvard Square and many other places in the city when it comes to density and height. So, in Harvard Square, you know, height is, as measured in feet, is limited to 60 feet as of right and 80 feet by special permit. And the overlay district also allows a waiver of setback requirements by special permit. So, in terms of building envelope, there's a great deal of flexibility with sort of that hard limit at 80 feet of, you know, basically seven, seven stories. But there's also the limit of FAR, which is currently limited to four. And you know, to visualize that, if you had no setback requirements, or if you provided no setback, building setbacks, a FAR of four could be a four-story building. Allowing that additional height to go up to 80 feet or potentially seven stories means you have some flexibility. You, within that amount of floor area, you have some flexibility for how it could be moved around and shaped within that. So, the so the zoning regime here now is one where there's a lot of dimensional flexibility. And the intent is to, you know, have buildings and additions that really fit into the historic character, established character, the area. But there's this limit that says, you know, you can have all this flexibility, but you can't build more than this amount of development.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 1:39:24
And so, this, this sort of proposal turns things around a little bit by saying, well, we're going to allow you a lot of flexibility on, on, we're going to allow you some limited flexibility on height, flexibility on setbacks and we're going to grant flexibility on density. Which means that somebody looking at the site now might say, well, now height is really the limiting factor, not density. And that kind of prompts a recalculation of what, what can be done with this property and how would that affect things. And, and I think it's probably safe to say it will, as the petitioner said, it won't have the same effect on every property, every piece of land isn't going to be able to do the same things. But certainly, for some, it will mean that more can be done than can currently be done. And that could affect, that affects the economics of it. That could be, could be a good thing for the, in terms of the goals of the petition, if that economic change means someone, property owner can get more, you know, more value from sort of office development on, you know, six floors of office development, and can then do things on the ground floor that are more community focused and, you know, do more to contribute to the sort of the dynamic retail environment but they don't need to be making all of their, you know, value on that, that ground floor. But again, I think the point that was made by, by members of the Planning Board was that it's, it’s not it's not very clear and specific from the zoning how that would work. And it's, it's hard to fully anticipate the ways in which property owners might seek to use that special permit provision. And if they do seek to use it often, often the way it works is that the developer will or property owner or developer will say, I want to try to achieve this additional, get this additional density, that is allowed by special permit, and then will sort of ask or look to the city to say what, you know, what does it, what's required to, to enable that that special permit? So, some clarity on that, that point is often helpful as we, as we get to seeing actual development proposals.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 1:41:52
I don't know if that directly answers your question, but I hope it gives a little bit more context to the...

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 1:41:56
Yeah, it was helpful. Thank you. Oh, I'm good.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:42:09
Okay. Any, any other... Councillor Kelley?

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:42:14
Thank you. I think following up on Councillor Siddiqui's comments. I see no way that things don't get more expensive in a Harvard Square that becomes denser and renovated. And it's not clear to me how buildings become renovated, if they don't generally get bigger, but I don't do that part for a living. So maybe there are ways. And it's not part of this petition, but from a thought experiment standpoint. If we want to bring in density and if we want buildings to be bigger, because it brings in that density and it helps, I guess bring more vitality to the square. What would happen if we got rid of the special permit application part? And just said you can do this as of right, the setback, add then at the 20 feet height on it, don't have to go to the Planning Board. If you could walk through what specifically will we get from that special permit application?

Iram Farooq 1:43:22
Through you Mr. Chair. I would say the special permit. You know, we, we adopted these special permit provisions principally to allow an opportunity for the community to weigh in, to be able to have a mechanism by which... In addition, you know, both the massing as well as the design could be evaluated. And then conformance with things like design guidelines could be... which are more subjective, can then be part of the discussion, as well as having the public hearings that are associated with it. So that's the principal purpose of special permits, I'd say in a district like Harvard Square, in fact, it has, you would think that even smaller changes, just given the nature of the district are typically, benefit from more attention. I don't think that the process is what holds people up from adding more density. It's just that it's not permitted right now. So even when there is height allowance, the density is becoming currently a constraining factor oftentimes, so the buildings cannot set the entire envelope that they might otherwise in terms of in terms of height. Does that help?

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:44:51
It does. I think my underlying point is we, we often look at special permits as something more of a, this won't happen because there's a special permit. And this might happen, because special permits are in theory simply to provide that review that you are talking about. So that otherwise permitted zoning stuff can move forward. As values increase, then I suspect we'll see more of this. And then there's still an FAR constraint if I'm not misunderstanding things. So, what would happen if we just tossed the whole FAR and GFA, and all that out the window and limited the height and setbacks?

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 1:45:35
Through you, Mr. Chair, I think that's much of what the proposal does, the current proposal does. It would, and this is fairly unique, we point out this is unique in the zoning ordinance currently. That it would allow an increase in FAR by special permit with no with no upper limit. So, the places in the zoning ordinance where we say the FAR can be, limit can be, you know, one by, by right and couldn't be increased to two by special permit. But this is different because it says it is four as of right and you could seek a special permit to, to increase it. I think from a practical standpoint, a development in Harvard Square in order to achieve that increase in density would need special permits on height. And, it could potentially allow a building up to 60 feet as of right if it didn't require any other relief. But usually some special permit relief is needed for setbacks, for parking, or for height or for other things or for use. So, the, it I think, is just echoing what Iram said, the special, the fact of it being a special permit is probably not as directly relevant as the fact that there's just no specific upper bound. So, it doesn't, it makes, it makes everything except the 80-foot height limit a flexible requirement that can be adjusted through the special permit process.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:47:20
Charlie would like to respond to that as well. Please.

Charles Sullivan, Executive Director of the Cambridge Historical Commission 1:47:24
The constraint that stays in place is that the, any such application would have to receive a certificate of appropriateness under the Conservation District goals and guidelines. And the commission in exercising authority can be more restricted than zoning, doesn't have to allow that extra height or FAR if it's not appropriate in the context of the proposal. So that is unique to Harvard Square.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:47:56
Right. I understand. Thank you and you did a great job walking through me, Harvard, walking me through Harvard Square a while back and helping me understand the importance of the historical ramifications of different developments. I guess what I am edging around is, and we don't know what the future of retail is, we don't know what the future of labor is, we don't know what the future of building [sic]. We don't know a lot about what the future is going to look like. And at, the more flexible we get, and I understand we're looking at this special permit process as providing that special, sorry, that flexibility. The more flexible we can be, the more nimble we can [sic], more nimbly, we can respond to changes in everything from delivery to where things get manufactured as manufacturing takes on a whole new look with 3D printing and other types of things. And I don't think we'll ever stop talking about Harvard Square, but I appreciate the work that you've put in to getting us this far.

Charles Sullivan, Executive Director of the Cambridge Historical Commission 1:49:03
Chair, I'm sorry. I've been prompted to point out that section 20.51 of the proposed measures should say, it could, should add "goals and" to this statement and Harvard Square Conservation District guidelines for three goals and guidelines. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:49:25
As long as Community Developing got that we're in good hands. So, Councillor Kelley, you're, you've completed your question. Thank you. Councillor Zondervan.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:49:37
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do appreciate the questions and concerns around property values, because that's, to a large extent, I think what's driving some of the issues that we're seeing in Harvard Square. And so, I share some of those concerns and I wonder, if there's an opportunity, maybe not through zoning, but to, to put some caps on, on how much rent can be charged. Because ultimately, we're trying to do some very indirect manipulation of the situation but as long as people can speculatively buy properties and, and crazy valuations because they believe that they might be able to collect crazy rents it’s just going to keep going up. And of course, eventually the market will correct itself, but we may not, we may not like that correction. So, I'm not sure if that's really part of zoning, but...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:50:44
It isn't.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:50:46
So, so maybe not appropriate for this conversation but some of you think about how do we more directly impact what's going on there because this petition while it certainly seems to make a whole bunch of things better could have unintended consequences that make other things worse.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:51:08
Yes, Ms. Farooq.

Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development 1:51:10
Through you, Mr. Chair. The one thought that, I think this is just maybe a different way of saying what the Planning Board has, has suggested. That I think the, you know what, what you are all saying about changes in property values are, is inevitable when there's additional density that is added. The goal of the petition as Patrick spoke about is to, the intention is that there will be enough value on the upper floors, that then a property owner will feel comfortable about not deriving value from the say the ground floor and then allow it to be things that are more desired by the community. And the question that the Planning Board raised is, is there a way to make that more explicit, and perhaps have a set of desired uses for the ground floor that could then be connected to any special permit under this additional density provision, which might get to at least some of the concerns that you're raising, if not all, because the office space might, would still in that scenario, perhaps be more valuable than [sic]

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:52:31
Excuse me. Couldn't that be part of the criteria given that you're getting a lot more as a developer potentially, than what you're giving up? And fact, it could be 2 to 1, 3 to 1, 5 to 1. As I understand it, now, I'm seeing the petitioner saying not quite five, but 4 to 1. And I see no reason why, to build on that even though it's not in the zoning, but in the next version that we couldn't do that. Just like with the 1,500 has to stay and it should be affordable. I don't know how you define affordable. But it seems to me it's a give and take.

Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development 1:53:12
Mr. Chair, the I think the affordability piece might be a challenge to define, but certainly the...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:53:19
Half the normal rent or some percentage of the normal, average rent. I'm just throwing out an idea.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:53:28
I like that idea. Any other questions? clarifying questions? I'll go with... let me ask Councillor Simmons. I miss your...

Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development 1:53:28
Let us think about how about might, and we can talk to the proponents about whether there is potentially some definition that, that might work. But that gets to the rent and affordability point that you just mentioned is difficult to regulate through zoning. However, a set of uses could be identified, like for instance, on North Mass Ave, the corridor talks about active uses at the ground floor and then identifies what might be in that, within the scope of that. This could be a different set of, not just active, it might include some community focus, and it could have definition, I'm again making this up without having talked either, to the law department or to Jeff. So, one of them is likely to tell me that I maybe making up too much stuff, but certainly we can have that discussion with the proponent as well.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 1:54:37
Thank you, no thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:54:39
I miss your face. I apologize. I'm sorry. Did you say you do or do not have questions?

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 1:54:45
I do not have questions.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:54:46
Thank you, and I apologize for not getting to you sooner. Councillor Kelley?

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:54:51
Thank you. And this may, may be a better question to ask the petitioner but, four point... and maybe I missed In the discussion, but 20.54.3, where they talk about the uses, the petition seems to strike out the preexisting "I", which is a much vaguer sort of if this thing works with the function of the square, then it's allowed, general definition. And I was wondering why that, because that at least partially addresses my flexibility question because we don't know what the future of all this different stuff is going to be.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 1:55:40
Sorry, Mr. Chair. It sounded like a question to the petitioners to explain or was a question to staff?

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:55:47
It is a question to anyone who feels like answering it.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 1:55:51
Well, it does. So yes, the petition does strike a paragraph which is in the, it's in this section. Which says that in an area otherwise zoned office or residential, that Planning Board can grant a special permit for, for a business. It is a fairly narrow provision. It doesn't apply to everything, everywhere in the district. And it just has some criteria that says that there's a demonstrated need for as, for, for that particular use to the adjacent residential communities or the academic community. And that can't be easily located in existing business or office districts where they use is permitted. I guess the petitioner can speak to the rationale for striking that.

Patrick Barrett 1:56:41
One, I like striking things out. Two, the real reason for removing the section is because of exactly the flexibility that you're talking about. That by trying to prove something arbitrary, like there's a need for this, that and the other thing, that you don't really... The language itself I thought was too squishy in terms of what you're actually going to allow and why. So that all I really cared about was that we have a zone right now that these uses are not allowed in, where they use is currently already are to some degree. And then if you're talking about any kind of affordability component for retail, there's a natural occurring affordability by expanding these uses to these, these kinds of areas and not attaching caveats like a proven need for pizza, for example, or a proven need for Ray Ban or proven need for any one particular use over another. That the petitioner can look at the, the area itself and with some degree of certainty know whether or not their use is applicable.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:57:50
Through you, Mr. Chairman to Mr. Barrett. But that does keep someone from saying hey, this isn't covered in this list of things that are allowed. In fact, maybe it wasn't even invented when this was, was discussed, but boy would fit really well in what the square has become.

Patrick Barrett 1:58:12
So, a lot of the work that we done in this particular group is trying to solve the problems of today and maybe three or four hours into the future. I can't predict the uses that come. And quite frankly, I think when we open the door to an ever-expanding use category, you run the risk of allowing things to happen that you wouldn't normally accept. I can set examples of like Airbnb and Uber, and all other kinds of technological advances that at the first seemed fantastic, but then become sort of invasive and nonproductive. That if a new use should present itself, it doesn't quite fit into the category. Well, then we should have a discussion about it, a controlled discussion as opposed to allowing something to enter into an area that we didn't really quite predict for.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:59:00
Okay, through you Mr. Chair to the petitioner. Then as I read it, this is an intentional attempt to provide more long-term predictability in a very unpredictable future. And if it turns out that something needs to be changed, it results in either a minor zoning change or be a variance or revisiting the zoning?

Patrick Barrett 1:59:22
Short answer, yes.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:59:26
Vice Mayor, please.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:59:28
Well, I would just add that the table of uses, I believe, is still under review. But I was also going to say it's almost 7:30. Are you going to have public comment? Because we do have people sitting there.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:59:39
Yes, of course.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:59:41
Well, I know but it's, it's almost, we've almost reached our time limit here.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:59:45
If I could speed you all up, I would.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:59:48
I'm happy to suspend our back and forth because it's, I don't know maybe...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:59:54
So, you don't have an important question?

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:59:56
I don't and I'm encouraging you, I'm sorry to open it up the floor so these people can go home if they want to.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:00:02
Yeah, I was just about to do that. In fact, I was going to say time is up, come back next time. No, I'm kidding. But first, did either other Councillor want to ask a quick question, no. Great. So, first of all, we have to extend the meeting. You can stay there if you wish or you could sit on the side tables. People will be speaking at the podium. We will have public comment, but first, we need a motion to extend that meeting.

Mayor Marc McGovern 2:00:34
Move to extend Mr. Chair.

Mayor Marc McGovern 2:00:35
Move to extend the meetings to...

Mayor Marc McGovern 2:00:35
Pardon?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:00:36
Okay, and you need a specific time. No. Great. All those in favor say "aye". Yep.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:00:52
On the motion to extend the meeting, Mayor McGovern?

Mayor Marc McGovern 2:00:56
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:00:57
Yes. Vice Mayor Devereux?

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 2:00:59
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:01:00
Yes. Councillor Kelley?

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:01:02
Yes. Councillor Mallon?

Councillor Alanna Mallon 2:01:03
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:01:04
Yes. Councillor Siddiqui?

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 2:01:05
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:01:06
Yes. Councillor Simmons?

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 2:01:07
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:01:08
Yes. Councillor Toomey?

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:01:09
absent. Councillor Zondervan?

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 2:01:12
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:01:12
Yes. Councillor Carlone?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:01:14
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:01:14
Motion passes. Eight in favor, one absent.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:01:16
Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:01:21
Yes. So, each of you will have, there are six people who've signed up. Each of you will have three minutes. Those of you who've been here before, you know, you come to the podium. The first speaker is Robert LaTremouille. Second speaker is Elizabeth Gombosi.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:01:48
Is the light on Robert? There you go.

Robert LaTremouille 2:01:55
I'm good. My name is Robert LaTremouille. I am the advancement of the three citizen initiative zoning petitions, which constitute said 85% of the zoning on Massachusetts Avenue from the former [sic] Harvard building to City Hall. Simultaneous with this meeting is a meeting of Mass DOT, directly overlapping the discussion for this meeting. They are discussing the Harvard properties in the massive area next to the Mass pike. Councillor Kelley's question was excellent. And it's a key problem in that paragraph, there were two senators in that paragraph. The second sentence starts with the words for all other lots and you've got a page full of comments. But it’s for all other lots. The first sentence reads, any retail use allowed in the business B zoning districts, within the overlay, may also be allowed as of right. In any office residential zone within the overlay district, provided the structure contains the use has a main entrance from five stated streets. English translation, all office and residential zoning districts between Mass Ave and Memorial Drive, subject to a bunch of bootstrapping by letter, are trashed. They are not residential districts. They are not office districts. They are retail districts. Period.

Robert LaTremouille 2:03:51
By this provision in here, Harvard's overwhelmingly residential office properties have a payment from their city council encouraging Harvard to move those properties to that massive area next to the Mass pike. And this is not minor. You're giving them retail. They can destroy housing. They can destroy offices; they can destroy residence halls. You got a general claim saying that, throughout the district. You've got all these retail uses, it's nonsense. As my letter goes in on a point by point basis. These areas being destroyed. Our residential and office and hotel those are not commercial uses.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:04:50
Thank you, Robert. That's three minutes. Elizabeth is next, followed appropriately by Fritz Donovan.

Elizabeth Gombosi, 42 Irving Street 2:04:59
I am Elizabeth Gombosi. I live at 42 Irving Street. I won't address the several sensible changes proposed, although I believe that they will help provide Harvard Square with the boost it needs to once again become a vibrant destination for residents as well as visitors. What I would like to note is that this is exactly the kind of collaboration of neighbors, business and institutions that will bring positive and productive change to our city, while preserving the unique qualities of our diverse neighborhoods. For the various constituencies to sit down together and work out a mutually beneficial plan is exactly how we should be promoting new ideas in our changing city. Cambridge is full of innovative thinkers and this petition is the result of melding what all concerned parties brought to the table. I commend the authors for their efforts, and I hope you will support the Blier petition.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:06:06
Thank you. Fritz is next, followed by Tom Lucey.

Fritz Donovan, 42 Irving Street 2:06:14
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, Madam Vice Mayor, Councillors of the Ordinance committee, I'm Fritz Donovan, resident of 42 Irving Street, Cambridge. I'm here to record my enthusiastic support for the Harvard Square zoning petition on tonight's agenda. With the holidays thundering down on us just a few days away. I'm fondly reminded of the decades starting with my 1955 arrival, when I did almost all my Christmas shopping in Harvard Square. More than once I shamefully admit on December 24. But that doesn't happen anymore. And it hasn't happened recently for decades. Our famous Harvard Square has deteriorated to the point where local consumers have virtually no reason to go there. Other than for a quick bite with fast food. That is a shame. Part of the problem is worldwide with the internet challenge to brick and mortar retail. But a huge part of it is strictly local. And that is something we can remedy. Space has gone to the high bidder or simply sat empty for months, on end, until somebody finally comes up with the asking price. The exciting little shops you could always count on for something unique and delightful have almost all been driven out. The rest are hanging on by their fingernails. The high bidders of course include 10 banks already and we will soon have 11 or more. My own longtime Bank of America occupies 90 feet of prime frontage opposite our famous Harvard Square kiosk and several others are almost as big. That's not exciting to shoppers. It's dull. It's sad. For years now, a whole lot of people have been griping about the situation, but at last somebody's doing something about it. Something really clever. This is exciting. The petition before you tonight is a result of an extraordinary collaboration to the neighborhood, Harvard Square Neighborhood Association, and the Business Association, Harvard Square Business Association, to return Harvard Square to the thriving, vibrant place it used to be. In which local businesses will once again have a better chance. It is a cleverly conceived balance of current heights with some added density, more residential units, elimination of parking fees and increased basement use. It will result in new affordable space for smaller retailers and a new sense of excitement and appeal for this very special corner of the world, we all treasure. Please give it your most supportive attention and help us bring Harvard Square back to the productive and enjoyable place at once was.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:08:47
Thank you Fritz. Three minutes. Perfect.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:08:53
Tom, you're ...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:08:54
Good evening. I'm back, not talking about natural gas either. Tom Lucey for the record. On behalf of Harvard University, we want to, I submitted a letter of support that I encourage you to look, it outlines our support of what we think is a very strategic intervention for the square. Appreciate the City Council and the staff and the Historic Commission's work on this. We've gathered many, many times over the last decade talking about ways to improve Harvard Square. And I think that conversation will continue but this is worthy of your support. I also want to recognize the Business Association and Neighborhood Association for getting together, working together in a collaborative fashion. We, as a university, we encourage them to continue along those lines and we'd like to be part of that, working with both the city and those two groups for Harvard Square. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:09:39
Thank you, Tom. Next is Nicola Williams, followed by Robert Winters. Welcome Nicola.

Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street 2:09:50
Good evening, everyone. Councillor Simmons, to you as well. So, I really appreciate the dialogue and discussion and the opportunity today. I'm at 8 Brewer Street by the way. I'm a proud signer of the petition, the Blier petition, and I'm speaking on behalf as a Harvard Square business owner for 25 years, a resident in Harvard Square for 32 years, a member of the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association, Harvard Square Business Association, Cambridge Local First and Sustainable Business Network, which founded Cambridge Local First. I'm really proud of the fact that this approach the zoning petition, was community led and involved all the stakeholders, residents, landowners, local businesses, Historical Commission, Harvard University, and Pebble Gifford. We all had to give and take for this petition. And I really appreciate Patrick's firm and understanding guidance. Patrick Barrett. As a locavore, I believe in this petition because I believe it will help local and independent businesses. It's a very good plan, and I hope you support it. This is just a beginning point; I don't see this as an endpoint for the economic revitalization of Harvard Square. I feel the city's retail strategy study that was done in 2017 addressed some of the problems that we have, and which is city wide it's not just for Harvard Square in terms of the demographics that are changing. The fact that we have online retail going on. So, it's just something that's relevant that we really need to pay attention to. Property values, of course, that's something that we should be concerned about, and the way people are shopping, and the displacement of middle-income folks, city wide has affected all retail. So, I appreciate the questions from Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui. And particularly, as it addresses diversity, small and local independent businesses. We have a lot more work to do. Out of the 470 plus restaurants in Cambridge, five are, about 1% are owned by black businesses. And there's only one black owned liquor license in Cambridge. So, I just don't want us to think that this is a Harvard Square is, is isolated. This is a city-wide issue. And some of the questions and issues that you raised are citywide and should be addressed. And later on, around how do we address some of these inequities and revitalize all local businesses in Cambridge. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:12:34
Thank you, Nicola, Robert Winters.

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway 2:12:39
Robert Winters, 366 Broadway. And I’d just like to speak in enthusiastic support of the petition in general. But I'd like to make just a few specific statements. And these are statements that I could say just as well about Harvard Square, as Central Square and various other places. One of the terms that I Introduced when the K2C2 process was happening in the Central Square was the need to produce, promote retail diversity. In other words, how do you actually find places where they are a little bit more affordable, a little bit lower rent, so you can actually develop the kind of diversity that people want. And part of the calculus for doing that that I've been speaking of for over 20 years, is the importance of promoting active uses on the side streets and the back streets. Harvard Square is sort of natural for it, but Central Square could do it too, as well. One of the things that I like about this is that it actually delineates mechanisms through which you can make it easier to open and easier to operate, less regulation on a much broader range of streets. Which will, going to create the opportunities, even some of the places that get forced out in some places, by high rents may be able to find places, you know, in some of these other locations. That would be certainly my hope. The other thing I want to mention here is that I don't know that I would be so quick to chop out the cannabis retail aspect of this. The real issue isn't so much cannabis versus banks, but as much as it is about, you know, killing retail frontage, and just saying, well, we want to, we want to, you know, do a solid for the cannabis industry here. That's fine, but the thing is, is that if it's still going to be a retail killing of the retail frontage, that's a net negative. There are better ways to address that other than sticking art in the window, which is something I find deplorable quite honestly. I love art, but that ain't retail, that's fake retail. What I think would be much nicer is, and if there's some mechanism and I don't know if there is to actually, and I talked to some of the Revolutionary Clinic people about doing this in Central Square. He said, don't, find a way, work with the landlord to have, what you might call, maybe we call it micro-retail that actually does something small, real small, I mean micro small in some of those frontages. You know, maybe newspaper stands are on the on the way out, but a newsstand can be five-foot-deep, ten-foot-deep and the frontage. Use up that retail frontage in a retail-oriented way, not depictions of what you want, but what you want. Right? It could be something like selling a hot, you know, hey, my own personal favorite wouldn't would it be great if a little hotdog stands off the sidewalks and things like that. If there were could be a way and maybe by restricting the frontage, and I'm not saying whether it should be 20-25, special permit or whatever. But to actually find a mechanism to encourage that type of micro-retail, right out of the sidewalk. I think that will be a positive thing. So, don't be too quick to throw out a mechanism that might actually be able to deliver something like that. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:15:58
Thank you for that suggestion. We actually did that with non-medical, sorry, with medical in Inman Square and we proposed that elsewhere, but it didn't get incorporated to non-medical, unfortunately. So, is there anyone? We're done with the list. Is there an additional person? I see a hand; I see a face. Suzanne, please come up. And if your last name isn't Blier, please correct me.

Suzanne Blier at 5 Fuller Place 2:16:30
I go by anything. Thank you and I Live at 5 Fuller Place. And I want to thank everybody who has participated in this and I thought it would take this opportunity to just address a couple of the great questions that were raised by Council. The petition itself actually began a couple years back when we were trying to address the Abbot building, which we were hoping to landmark and out of our efforts on that we decided to look at the conservation district as a whole. And I'll say that the, that effort through the Cambridge Historical Commission and Charlie Sullivan was one of the most wonderful experiences I've had in the city. It was truly extraordinary from that vantage. I think there are many issues in Harvard Square, I think some, as have been stated are local to Harvard Square, some are citywide, and some are national and some it's simply a tsunami of problems. It related in part to the sale of the Dow Stearns properties which is Asana and Pizza and the Regency, concomitantly with a huge increase in property investment. So, if we can get it right now, before Asana and some of the others come into play, I think it will be important. And speaking of Asana and thinking about the impacts visually of this, if you've gone into the Harvard Square flower, floor, flower store, and you can look back and see all the way through it. It's a very thin building. So, if we keep the heights at 60 feet or 80 feet by special permit. And presumably these buildings, if it's a new one, would have to go through Historic Commission and special permit, you can see really how much space we're talking about or the Chan building. It's maximizing, it could maximize FAR by removing the atrium, but it's basically getting the height, roughly as it would be. And again, going through the Historical Commission.

Suzanne Blier at 5 Fuller Place 2:18:23
I should also add that Harvard Square, it's very unique, its owned principally by six property owners, three of whom are here, and the other two representing or owner of trinity, of a, Gerald Chan and then two out of state investment firms in part, why we are where we are. But to have three of the principal owners here, I think is really important. And on the cannabis, I would simply say, I want to two more quick points to cannabis and housing, that I do support the 20 feet. In part because Harvard Square is unique. We've got a lot of space in the basement areas, whether it's the garage, or other places or the second floor, such as Eastern Mountain Sports. And there many other places as well, where we want would welcome it and would welcome more. But again, I think as Robert Winter said we're really concerned about the facades of the ground floor buildings. Housing is a, is a really critical issue in in the Kroon petition that I had brought up, with, I've been involved with before, we were told, and I think rightly so. You can't put that on the second floor and third floor and higher criteria for property owners, it's simply too expensive. And finally, on vacancies for Councillor Siddiqui. One of the things that we, our report found this summer is that the average vacancies have facade lengths of 44 feet. So, our hope is that by limiting the size of interior space to promote local businesses, that people would get the view also that this might help with vacancies. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:20:00
Thank you. Are there any others who wish… please come forward.

Raj Donda. property owner in Harvard Square 2:20:10
My name is Raj Donda. I'm a property owner in Harvard Square. And my comment on the overall petition is very positive. I think it will make many things easier. Some of things I struggled through and in some of my development proposals. I would urge that the Planning Board recommendation on the bank, bank frontage, and, and special permit. And also, there's something, I didn't hear it mentioned, about what the definition of frontage is, those were items that were recommended by the Planning Board and I completely support that. One other final thought I would have is yes, there are lots of reasons why the retailing is not doing so well. In many parts of the retailing areas, it's on life support, if that. But perhaps the thing to do is have businesses which bring more people to this, to the square. In one of my own properties, I have six restaurants, and we get literally thousand to 1,200 people every day. And so, whatever can be done to make the restaurant process easier, that would help. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:21:58
Thank you. Any others? I only see Denise, please come forward. Welcome.

Denise Jillson, Executive Director of the Harvard Square Business Association 2:22:07
Good evening. Thank you. Denise Jillson, Executive Director of the Harvard Square Business Association. I'm not sure if I'm a Hatfield or McCoy. But in any case, here I am, and the proud second signer of the Blier petition. I want to thank all of the committee members and, you know, the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association and, and the Cambridge Historical Commission, as well as all of the members of the Harvard Square Conservation District Study Committee that met for two years and have some 22 meetings over that period of time, sort of helping to develop this, this petition that's being presented tonight. A couple of points of clarification. As you all know, we keep a very tight survey of the Harvard Square overlay district. The area is about 44 acres. It's about a million square feet of space. And we pay attention to the retailers, the restaurateurs, the service organizations and keep a survey. So, we know, square footage. We know whether it's a national, international, regional, a local, and right now over 70% of the businesses within the district are in fact locally owned independent. Something that they [sic] we're very proud of. Of the 20 vacancies that we talked about; we're also extremely pleased that so many of them, probably about 14 have something in the pipeline. So very soon, we are going to see just to name a few, Patagonia is coming, Spice, Dig, Wachusetts’ Brewery, the Smokehouse, Charles River remedies, as of last night at the Planning Board, they received their certificate of, whatever it was, appropriateness maybe, and moving forward with the, with, with 31 Church Street. Looking forward to the 10 Church Street development. One of the things that you in fact, Mr. Chair recommended and we're going to add to what we survey is the store frontage. So I'm actually going to get out on the street in each store frontage, we will take your recommendation, and make sure that we have that, that number also, several years ago when we were giving these numbers to our board, somebody mentioned, Yes, but if you take the number of locally owned independents and you convert that to square footage, what does that represent? And according to our, our calculations, over 60% of the businesses, the occupied businesses within that million square feet, is actually, 66% is locally owned and independent. So, we have a little bit of work to do. But overall, I just want to thank you. And also thank you for probably the most important piece, which is the investment that the City of Cambridge is making in the public domain. That's probably the most critical thing that we can do. And as Mr. Donda said, you know, there are some businesses that, that are, in fact on life support. And even in the past couple of weeks, I've had several, several come to me and tell me that they're down 20%. So, we have a lot of work to do. And I think getting foot traffic in the square will make the difference. Thank you very much.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:25:20
Thank you. Any... Yes, John? I think you might be the last person that hasn't spoken. Welcome.

John DiGiovanni, Trinity properties 2:25:30
Thank you. Good evening, John DiGiovanni. I'm with Trinity properties. And also, President of the Association. I primarily just want to thank a number of folks, you know, Patrick's work, but truly, when this council, I believe, suggested that there be a review of the Conservation District guidelines. Which I was a part of 20 years ago, and I think there was some 40 odd meetings, if I'm right Charlie, back prior to the inception of the conservation guidelines in 2000. And this review, I was an observer, I was not part of the committee. But really, and I mean, this genuinely the patience of Charlie and Sarah through the past two years in reviewing, painstakingly this 90-page report that you have. And I think that's probably the most important thing to think about is this zoning is subject to these 90 pages that breaks a fairly small district into six sub districts. And it's done thoughtfully. So, I really want to thank, and I think, really, the Hatfields and McCoys got together at these two years of meetings, and that's why this happens. So, I really do think the staff of the historic commission deserve a lot of credit for their patience in helping us get to this point. I think we recognized that some zoning needed to be updated as well. And I don't want to try to do this here. I hear a number of the questions and concerns. I've been leasing in Harvard Square for 32 years, and we've seen changes, and we don't operate in a, in a way that's not subject to the rest of the world, what's happening around us. So we're impacted there, and what I would say to you, we do think, and the vast majority of the businesses in our buildings are local, they want more people walking by their store, they want more people coming into the square, and our collaboration with the city. And creating space like that and activities in Harvard Square is what is most desperately needed. And I'm hoping that in a short while be coming in with some more ideas to actually do that. I think this is a good first step. But it alone does not solve all the problems that we face in this urban district. But I think you see people here that really care about it, as well as the members of the council that we hope this is a good first step. So, thank you, and thank you for your time.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:27:49
Thank you. So, I believe we're going to wrap this up, but if there's... I have some final comments, but... Who are you pointing to? Oh? Welcome.

Marilyn Meyer, 10 Dana Street 2:28:09
Hi, Marilyn Meyer, 10 Dana Street. I don't know how... What I can actually add, and I apologize if I'm belaboring. But this whole idea of zoning is slightly outside my wheelhouse. There's a lot of details I have a hard time kind of grasping some of the things, but some, some points that jumped out at me. I was also part of the Conservation District study group for the past two years. And preservation and brick and mortar are very important to me. The character, all that kind of identity for the, for Harvard Square. What I like is that the Conservation District, the conservation, the Historic Commission has priority. And this, this zoning is, is in conjunction with this. It was only mentioned but also part of this zoning is the resurrection and maybe even more formalizing the Harvard Square advisory board made up of stakeholders to look at projects to oversee maybe lighting and, and signage and make recommendations before projects get moved on to the Historical Commission or Planning Board or whatever, but that is also part of looking at this, paying attention. And at the Planning Board itself, the, the one dissenting vote was based on the fear that this zoning would interfere with the over, of the Affordable Housing Overlay and which is not even written yet, which is, doesn't even, I mean it's a, it's a thought at this point. So, with the ability to have permits and, and even amendments, one should not preclude the other. And if this works in the square, and there are some good things out of this, then this is kind of incremental changes and incremental zoning that might be appropriate in looking at how we look at the rest of the city instead of blankets, zoning and heavy handedness to see what, what is important in all the other areas of Cambridge and maybe even tailor something for a better response to what we're looking for. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:30:58
Thank you, Marilyn . All right. I'll ask one last time. Anybody else would like to speak? I don't see any. So, I'm going to close public comment. Any closing comments?

Mayor Marc McGovern 2:31:10
Mr. Chair.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:31:11
Yes, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Marc McGovern 2:31:12
Just, Just really quickly. And I, you know, I kid you not about this. You know, there was there were some comments at public comment. And I think we've all made comments. I just want people to keep some things in mind. I know Harvard Square has changed a lot. And I know that there are a lot of issues that we're trying to address. And this petition is going to take some time to address those issues. And I just worry, I want us to just be a little careful when we talk about the square as this horrible, desolate place that nobody would want to go to because that's not going to help the businesses that are there. And I say this because, and I know it's changed and is different, but I.... my... I kid you not, and I swear, I am picking up my 18-year-old son, who's in Atlanta for, for college next week. Who's coming home for the holiday. And I said, we'll all pick you up at the airport and we'll go out to eat. And his response was I'm meeting my friends in Harvard Square, I don't want to go to dinner with you. Which broke my heart, but shows that, like, as much as Harvard Square has changed for those of us that are a little bit older, he's going to tasty burger for dinner where I went to the tasty. And I just think I just want us to be a little careful how we talk about it because, you know, yes, it's changed. And yes, there are issues, but saying things like, Oh, this is a terrible place is not going to draw people into the square to support the businesses that are there now. So, let's just be a little more supportive of the square. We all care about it deeply. The Business Association is trying to do a lot of work to bring people in. And despite all the construction and the mess, I encourage people to visit Harvard Square, buy Christmas presents and spend a lot of money. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:31:49
I don't recall anybody saying it was a horrible place. But there are issues that we need to address. There's no question. Any other closing comments, I would just suggest that, that we think about zoning, urban design guidelines for the back of these new expanded buildings. You probably don't want an 80-foot wall, which doesn't allow any light or minimal air to get in... We're basically going to create courtyards, with bigger buildings. So, what is that profile? And the other thing I would say is, I think this, especially when it's a two-tier wedding cake, three tier, I'm sorry two setbacks. The building in Harvard Square that has that fails urbanisticly. And I think there are key places, such as corners, where we might not want a setback. Could be, I'm going to be romantic for a moment. It could be a clock, but it could be an entry, the main entry below a pediment. That comes forward to add some urban interest instead of this constant setback. There are exceptions and very few, but there are some and, and that's beyond the zoning, but I hope we get into that. I do, I share everybody's enthusiasm for the effort for the result. And if we have questions or requests about the rent or whatever, don't take that as a super negative. It's just refining it.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 2:34:35
Mr. Chair?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:34:36
Yes, madam. Go ahead, Councillor.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 2:34:39
Procedural question. Could you just, just for me, and perhaps my colleagues and those that are listening; procedurally, where are we at? We've had this meeting, what will be the next step?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:34:52
Well, I was just going to talk about that. My own gut is there are, as much as we support it, there are still questions. And I would recommend keeping it in committee, getting the questions answered and then approving it earlier in the year, early in the year, but I'm open to other considerations. That would be my recommendation. I don't hear anybody else.

Mayor Marc McGovern 2:35:22
Are the question, Mr. Chair...I mean, I'm fine with, I mean, I have my questions about the cannabis piece and what, and what have you and that could be amended in Council [sic]. I do think the questions are significant. And I think there's a lot of agreement to the people, feel pretty positive. I'd be fine either way to move it out of committee tonight, but I'll, I'll go to, I'll yield to you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:35:41
Council? So, there's two proposals, not motions, move it forward or leave it in committee. Vice Mayor.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 2:35:52
Well, we certainly asked a lot of questions and CDD asked some questions and Planning Board made some suggestions. So, it's not clear to me how you guys would figure out what the, what questions you're trying to answer and how you would change the draft. So, are you going to? Are you personally? Or is somebody going to work with staff to figure out how to. which things... I don't know.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:36:17
Well, I think we want all the questions answered. And any inquiry?

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 2:36:24
Well, then, or is somebody going to... Do you know what questions need to be answered? Because we asked a lot of questions. And a lot of them were sort of answered, but it's like, I don't know what...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:36:41
We're going to get an answer from city staff, and then I'll go right to you, Councillor Simmons.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development 2:36:47
Thank you... I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just say, there, there were some questions and we're happy to, I think we've done our best to provide answers to the questions that were asked this evening and if there's additional information, we can provide, we're always happy to do that. There are some matters raised in the Planning Board recommendation that I think were, should be taken as suggestions for the council to consider how, really as questions for the council to answer in terms of what direction they might want to take on, on certain aspects of, specific aspects of the petition. In, there were some changes also suggested by the Planning Board, which unless, and I think there was some discussion on some of them, but if the, if the council was in agreement, those could be could be drafted as amendments of the petition and then submitted back to the council. So there so there are some specific items that the Planning Board I think if could be endorsed in the Planning Board recommendation, and then we could work on drafting them. And then there are some other just general issues that are posed, I think for the council to consider and provide direction on.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:37:57
Well, I would suggest set the meeting is G]going on to too long, I would suggest that you do it as a draft with a different color on it. And that's one of the things we would look at including the responses to the questions, or even the petitioner or the petition or team. petition team wanting to alter something. That's my recommendation. But you know, guys, I know it's late, but that's just my opinion.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 2:38:29
Very quickly, Mr. Chair.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:38:31
Yes.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 2:38:32
I certainly do want to honor the work that has happened. I forgot what the term is, the Hatfields and McCoys. I don't quite get that. But I'm sure I will. Two groups have come together and have worked over a long period of time to bring this forward. And so, I want to hear what the argument would be for not to move it forward. It sounds like it may be, I'm misunderstanding the CDD is saying, if it moves forward, we can still make the needed amendments and changes and still before the entire committee because the Ordinance committee like Council can meet as a whole. So, I don't know if [sic] of the Councillors, but I don't see anything wrong with moving it forward with a favorable recommendation because it's been so well vetted. And I don't think there are that many pieces that need to be made better, if you will.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:39:36
Well, that's your opinion, and you're certainly allowed to offer that opinion. I would say this is not complete, and its zoning. And we just started the round. And we could have the meeting as early as we have our committee set. I don't Like moving zoning, personally, as someone who's worked on zoning and urban design and architecture, I don't like moving something forward to a meeting where there's 20 other items on the agenda, and then it never gets the full attention. This is what this committee is about, to get the full attention. And this has so many good things going for it, that if we can make it even better, and get responses to the Planning Board comments, which we've only done, hit and miss, and get questions answered. It seems like a pretty quick meeting next time.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 2:40:43
Mr. Chair, I'll yield to your planning and development expertise. I just want to be sure that we, just because we have a lot of time, we don't take it right down to the belt.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:40:56
Okay, we just started the 90 days. Vice Mayor.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 2:41:01
I think, although I certainly understand that there's general agreement and that the questions seem not substantial enough to really hold it up. I think we should keep it in committee because we do have two new members. And I think for them, it would be probably better, as you say, to be discussing these things in the ordinance format, so that it's not part of a larger agenda and if they have additional questions about... because some of the questions are really policy decisions, we kind of, we have clarity on what things mean now, but now it's about like, well, what do we want to do? And I think they should have a voice on that. So, I think, when is the expiration date of this?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:41:45
90 days from today.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 2:41:48
Okay, that's January, February, sometime in March, mid-March. Okay, well, then I guess I would support leaving it in committee.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:41:59
Yes, Ms. Farooq.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:42:02
Mister... This does not illuminate the discussion but just a procedural cleanup thing. It would be very helpful for us if the committee would just officially ask CDD and law department to work with the petitioner to make the changes, to draft the changes based on the Planning Board's recommendations and the issues that were raised by the, the Ordinance committee today.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 2:42:30
Mr. Chair?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:42:33
Pardon me. So, moved?

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 2:42:36
So, moved.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:42:37
Yes, I do think it's interesting that we have to do that, but I get it. So, the motion is before us to have Community Development and the petitioner work together on answering the questions, making possible changes that incorporate the Planning Board comments. All those in favor say "aye". Oh, roll call. Roll Call.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:43:09
On the motion. Mayor McGovern?

Mayor Marc McGovern 2:43:12
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:43:13
Yes, Vice Mayor Devereux?

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 2:43:14
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:43:15
Yes. Councillor Kelley?

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:43:17
Yes. Councillor Mallon?

Councillor Alanna Mallon 2:43:18
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:43:19
Yes. Councillor Siddiqui?

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 2:43:20
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:43:21
Yes. Councillor Simmons?

Councillor E. Denise Simmons 2:43:23
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:43:23
Yes. Councillor Toomey?

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:43:24
Absent. Councillor Zondervan?

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 2:43:26
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:43:27
Yes. Councillor Carlone?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:43:28
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:43:28
Motion passes. Eight in favor, one absent.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:43:31
Thank you all for coming. The meeting is adjourned. I'm tired. This this is the fifth ordinance meeting we've had in two days.

1. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Suzanne P. Blier regarding Harvard Square Zoning Petition.

2. A communication was received from Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager / Community Development City of Cambridge, regarding the Harvard Square Zoning Petition.

3. A communication was received from Thomas J. Lucey, Director of Government & Community Relations for Harvard University, regarding Harvard Square zoning petition.