2026-09-16 - Joint Housing and Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee Meeting

* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. GOOD

MORNING EVERYONE. IT'S A LITTLE AFTER 11:00 AM AND I WANNA GET STARTED. WE HAVE A LOT TO DISCUSS. UM, I AM GOING TO CALL TODAY'S JOINT HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD AND LONG-TERM PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

TO ORDER. THE CALL OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONTINUE THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE RECESSED JUNE 25TH, 2026, MEETING ON THE 2025 MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING AMENDMENTS, CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL

MODIFICATIONS AND REVIEW OF, OF POLICY ORDER 2026 DASH 1 23 RELATIVE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO THE HEARING AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

HELD JUNE 8TH, 2026. THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT CITY [email protected]. PURSUANT TO

CHAPTER TWO OF THE ACTS OF 2025, ADOPTED BY MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO USE REMOTE PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL IN

ITS COMMITTEES. WE HAVE SET UP ZOOM TELECONFERENCE FOR MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO VIEW. YOU CAN ALSO VIEW THE MEETING VIA THE CITY'S OPEN MEETING PORTAL OR ON

THE CITY'S CABLE, CHANNEL 22. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDS THIS MEETING AND MAKES IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR FUTURE VIEWING. IN ADDITION, THIRD PARTIES MAY ALSO

BE AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING. THIS MEETING, THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS A ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS PRESENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LONG-TERM PLANNING COMMITTEE. COUNCIL ZUBE PRESENT, VICE MAYOR

PRESENT, COUNCILOR FLAHERTY. PRESENT. PRESENT. COUNCILOR NOLAN. PRESENT, COUNCILOR ZUI. PRESENT. PRESENT. THAT'S FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT. AND FOR THE HOUSING COMMITTEE, COUNCILOR ZUBI. PRESENT, VICE ZI.

PRESENT. PRESENT. COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN. PRESENT. COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER. PRESENT. PRESENT. COUNCILOR ZUI. PRESENT. PRESENT. THAT'S FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT. FANTASTIC. FINALLY, COUNCIL DISCUSSION ABOUT

AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE. OVER THE PAST 20 MONTHS, THIS ORDINANCE HAS INSPIRED ALMOST 150 PROJECTS NOW IN VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT ALL OVER THE CITY, AND DOCUMENTED BY THE

CAMBRIDGE REDEVELOPMENT TRACKER. THOSE SUPPORTING THIS ORDINANCE BELIEVED IT WOULD YIELD SUBSIDIZED INCLUSIONARY UNITS THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO STAY IN CAMBRIDGE. AND THEY BELIEVED THAT INCREASED

HOUSING PRODUCTION WOULD LOWER HOUSING COSTS. WHILE THE STORY IS STILL BEING PLAYED OUT, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT BOTH OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS ARE PROVING FALSE. MOSTLY THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE IS

PRODUCING LUXURY UNITS, AND IT CERTAINLY HASN'T LOWERED THE COST OF HOUSING. THE ORDINANCES, LACK OF CLARITY, HAS CONFUSED AND ENRAGED, BOTH DEVELOP DEVELOPERS AND ABUTTING HOMEOWNERS. AND IT HAS

INCENTIVIZED THE TEAR DOWN OF EXISTING NATURALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK. THE REMOVAL OF MATURE TREES AND THREATENED PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FROM FIRE, FLOODING, ASBESTOS, AND LEAD. BECAUSE OF THE

LACK OF DESIGN REVIEW, IT HAS LICENSED THE PRODUCTION OF SCHLOCK AND UNCOMFORTABLY HAS MADE THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION THE GATEWAY TO DEMOLITIONS IN OUR ONLY HOPE FOR BETTER BUILDINGS AS OF, OF A FEW

DAYS AGO, PERMITTED PROJECTS THERE ARE 49 OF THEM WILL ONLY YIELD 30 INCLUSIONARY UNITS. MOST PROJECTS ARE UNDER NINE UNITS. AND THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT THRESHOLD REQUIRING INCLUSIONARY UNITS, OF

COURSE, THE MOST, UH, THE LAR THE MOST LARGER PROJECTS ARE ON HOLD. AS DEVELOPERS HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL LOWER THE REQUIRED INCLUSIONARY PERCENTAGE. IT'S TIME THAT WE AMEND THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING

ORDINANCE SO THAT IT INSPIRES HOUSING PRODUCTION WITHOUT CAUSING SO MUCH COLLATERAL DAMAGE. WE CAN DO THAT, MOST OF ALL BY INTRODUCING MORE GENEROUS SETBACKS AND GREATER GREEN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

AND BY REINTRODUCING DESIGN REVIEW, A HEALTHY CITY IS SO MUCH MORE THAN A NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PRESENTATION BY CDD TODAY AND TO THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION. AND JUST TO KEEP OUR

EYE ON LIKE WHERE WE WANNA GO, UM, WE NEED, UH, I'M HOPING TODAY THAT WE'LL HAVE HARDY DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. I'M, I'M HOPING THAT, UH, WE'LL BE ABLE TO, UM, BEGIN TO ASK

CDD TO WRITE ZONING LANGUAGE. SO LET'S SEE WHERE WE GO WITH THIS MEETING. AND, UM, AGAIN, I THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. MADAM CHAIR, I JUST WANNA NOTE THAT COUNCILOR SIMMONS IS ONLINE, AND

YOU ALSO HAVE MAYOR SADIKI JOINED WITH YOU AT THE TABLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. BEFORE WE BEGIN, SHOULD WE JUST GO AROUND THE TABLE AND INTRODUCE, UM, CITY STAFF? I'M THINKING 'CAUSE YOU'LL BE

ANSWERING QUESTIONS. SO, STEPHANIE, DO YOU WANNA START? DO YOU WANNA UPSTAIRS? OH, ALSO IF THERE, THE UPSTAIRS IS OPEN. IF THERE AREN'T STAIRS DOWN BELOW, YOU CAN GO UPSTAIRS. THANK YOU. AND THERE'S

AN ELEVATOR THAT WILL TAKE YOU UP THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR SUZI. MY NAME IS STEPHANIE GROHL. I'M THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION. BROOKE MCKENNA, TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER KARA FELIZ. I'M A SUPERVISING ENGINEER AT PUBLIC WORKS. HI, JOHN NADONE, THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS. JEFF ROBERTS, DIRECTOR OF ZONING

AND DEVELOPMENT AT CDD. MELISSA PETERS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. JEN RAD W, CHIEF OF PLANNING AT CDD. JACOB LAZARA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WITH INSPECTION. AND, UH, DANIEL MASS

PLAY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DESIGN AT CDD AND MEGAN BEARER, CITY SOLICITOR, HIDING IN THE BACK. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER PETERS, PLEASE LEAD US ON. GREAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, COUNCILLOR ZI. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE A GROUP OF STAFF HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE CDD PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, WE DID WANNA BROADEN THE DISCUSSION TO TALK

ABOUT OTHER CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED REGARDING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, CITYWIDE, INCLUDING RESIDENT PARKING, THE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE, STORMWATER REGULATIONS. WE KNOW ALL OF

THESE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, UH, HOLISTICALLY TO UNDERSTAND, UH, THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT. UM, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT GEN CAIRO WILL MOSTLY LEAD TODAY. UM, ADDITIONAL STAFF WILL ALSO, UM, SPEAK TO

SPECIFIC SLIDES RELATED TO THEIR DEPARTMENTS. BUT BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO JEN, I I JUST WANTED TO SAY A FEW THINGS. UM, THE FIRST IS THAT, UM, I THINK IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE 2025 MULTIFAMILY

ZONING WAS A TRANSFORMATIVE POLICY THAT IS ALREADY DELIVERING MORE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, MORE EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE CITY. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DO NOT CHANGE THAT GOAL. UM, THE ORDINANCE

IS DOING A LOT OF THINGS RIGHT, BUT THERE ARE SOME IMPACTS THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS REPRESENT THOUGHTFUL INCREMENTAL ADJUSTMENTS TO EXPAND HOUSING SUPPLY, WHILE ALSO ADVANCING

OTHER KEY CITY PRIORITIES, INCLUDING CLIMATE RESILIENCY, SOCIOECONOMIC DIVERSITY, AND HIGH QUALITY URBAN DESIGN. IMPORTANTLY, THE PROJECTED NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS UNDER THE 2025 MULTIFAMILY ZONING

ORDINANCE REMAIN UNCHANGED. AND THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 250 TO 300 UNITS A YEAR IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THE ORIGINAL PROJECTIONS ALREADY ASSUMED A SMALLER BUILDING ENVELOPE THAN THE ZONING

ALLOWS. RECOGNIZING THAT DEVELOPMENTS MUST ALLOCATE SPACE, UH, TO MEET OTHER REQUIREMENTS. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT MOST HOUSING UNITS NEEDED TO MEET OUR HOUSING GOALS WILL OCCUR IN OUR

PUD DISTRICTS AND CORRIDORS, WHERE IT WILL TAKE DOZENS OF PROJECTS TO GET TO 300 UNITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. WE CAN DELIVER THOSE NUMBERS WITH ONE TO THREE PROJECTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY BY

BETTER ALIGNING THE ZONING FOOTPRINT WITH OTHER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SO WE CAN BETTER SUPPORT MULTIPLE CITY OBJECTIVES AND PROVIDE GREATER PREDICTABILITY FOR BOTH DEVELOPERS AND RESIDENTS ABOUT WHAT

THE FUTURE OF HOUSING WILL LOOK LIKE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. AND WITH THAT, I'LL PASS IT OFF TO JEN KYRA FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, MELISSA. UM, SO AS YOU JUST HEARD, OUR GOAL TODAY IS TO

PRESENT SOME RECOMMENDED UPDATES TO THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING, UH, THAT WE THINK WILL ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE SEEN ARISE OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF OF IMPLEMENTATION. WE'RE ALSO GONNA GIVE AN

OVERVIEW OF THE MORE COMPREHENSIVE WORK THAT IS UNDERWAY ACROSS THE CITY THAT IS RELATED TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING TODAY. UH, LEMME GO. SO, HOUSING REMAINS FRONT AND CENTER AS A PRIORITY, AND IT'S

IMPORTANT THAT WE NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE OTHER CITY GOALS, UH, THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT. SO THESE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED AS WELL AS THE OTHER WORK WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS TODAY. UH, WE BELIEVE KEEP THE

FOCUS ON HOUSING PRODUCTION WHILE BETTER BALANCING OTHER IMPORTANT OUTCOMES, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO CLIMATE AND DESIGN. AND AS WE SAID TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, AS WELL

AS A NUMBER OF RELATED EFFORTS. YOU CAN SEE HERE, RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS, URBAN DESIGN, COMMUNICATION EFFORTS, PERMITTING PROCESS, TREE PROTECTION, STORM WATER, AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. SO FIRST

WE'RE GONNA REVISIT THE MULTIFAMILY GOALS AS WELL AS THE OUTCOMES WE'VE SEEN. SO THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING WAS ADOPTED TO END EXCLUSIONARY ZONING IN CAMBRIDGE AND TO MAKE IT EASIER TO BUILD AND ADAPT

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING IS A COMPLIMENT TO THE A HO AND IT WAS MEANT TO INCENTIVIZE MARKET RATE HOUSING TO RELIEVE SOME OF THE PRESSURE FROM THE MARKET ON HOUSING, WHILE ALSO

INCENTIVIZING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. SO FAR, IT IS ACCOMPLISHING THESE GOALS. WE ARE SEEING MORE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. WE'RE SEEING FEWER DOWN CONVERSIONS WHERE AN EXISTING TWO OR THREE FAMILY MAY BE

CONVERTED TO A SINGLE FAMILY. AND WHILE THE LARGER INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROJECTS TAKE SOME MORE TIME TO GET GOING, WE ARE SEEING THOSE BEING PROPOSED AND MOVING INTO CONSTRUCTION, THE MULTIFAMILY

ZONING TRANSFORMED HOW DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS AND THE INTENT OF THOSE GOALS SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. HOWEVER, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN PRACTICE IS SOME TENSION BETWEEN WHAT THE ZONING ALLOWS AND OTHER CITY

STANDARDS AND GOALS. WE SEE DESIGNS THAT HAVE THE PROPOSED BUILDING GOING OUT TO THE SETBACKS, AND THEN LAYERING ON THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND TRYING TO MEET THE MANY OTHER STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

THAT ALSO APPLY, SOME OF WHICH ARE LISTED HERE, GREEN FACTOR FLOOD RESILIENCE, OTHER BUILDING AND FIRE CODES, STORM WATER, UTILITY PLACEMENT, TREE PROTECTION. WE'RE ALSO SEEING A FEW INSTANCES WHERE

WE'RE SEEING A NEW LARGER BUILDING WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS. SO WHERE TWO FAMILIES TAKEN DOWN AND A NEW TWO FAMILY IS BUILT, BUT WITH MUCH BIGGER UNITS. AND SO WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO

ADDRESS THAT. THE KEY PIECE OF OUR RECOMMENDATION RELATES TO SETBACKS. AND SETBACKS ARE NOT JUST TO ALLOW SPACE BETWEEN NEIGHBORS, THOUGH OFTEN IMPORTANT, THERE ARE MANY REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT LIMITED

SPACE THAT EXIST ON THE SITE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. AND THOSE DEMANDS ON THIS SPACE INCREASE AS CODES EVOLVE. SO YOU LOOK AROUND AND CAMBRIDGE HAS A HISTORY OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE VERY

CLOSE TO EACH OTHER, WHERE YOU CAN REACH OUT YOUR WINDOW AND TOUCH YOUR NEIGHBOR. HOWEVER, THESE BUILDINGS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO TODAY'S CODES. SO TODAY WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER SYSTEMS TO

DETAIN WATER ON SITE, UM, UTILITIES THAT REQUIRE CERTAIN SEPARATIONS, TRANSFORMERS TO MEET ELECTRIFICATION REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE, UM, PRETTY RESTRICTIVE CLEARANCES THAT ARE REQUIRED. YOU ALSO NEED TO

MEET EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. YOU NEED TO FIT WINDOW WELLS HAVE ADEQUATE, UM, SPACE TO GET TO THE BACK OF THE SITE TO REACH OTHER UNITS. YOU NEED SPACE FOR STAIRS AND RAMPS YOU A DRIVEWAY IF PARKING IS

REQUIRED. AND THEN YOU NEED SPACE TO PROTECT EXISTING TREES IF POSSIBLE. AND TO PUT IN NEW PLANTINGS ON THESE SMALL SITES, EVEN JUST A FEW FEET CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING

DRAMATIC INCREASES IN SETBACKS, BUT A LITTLE BIT WILL HELP ALL OF THESE THINGS WORK TOGETHER AND FIT BETTER ON SITE. SO IN ADDITION TO SETBACKS, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT MORE IN A MORE COMPREHENSIVE WAY,

GETTING BETTER OUTCOMES FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. AND THIS WILL BE ENCOURAGING MORE MODERATELY SIZED UNITS BY DISINCENTIVIZING THE, UM, BUILDINGS THAT ARE JUST LARGER UNITS. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO ADD

MORE DESIGN STANDARDS INTO ZONING, IMPROVE HOW WE CONVEY INFORMATION, UM, NOT JUST TO APPLICANTS, BUT TO THE COMMUNITY. UPDATING TREE PROTECTIONS, STORMWATER REGULATIONS, UM, TO IMPROVE CLARITY AS

WELL AS LOOKING AT OUR GREEN BUILDING, UM, AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICIES. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THESE AMENDMENTS STILL PRESERVE OUR HOUSING, UM, PRODUCTION POTENTIAL. SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, UM,

AS YOU HEARD EARLIER, ARE ALIGNED WITH THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE BUILT INTO THOSE INITIAL PROJECTIONS. THEY ALSO, AT THE SAME TIME, HELP REDUCE SOME OF THE CONFLICTS WE'RE SEEING WITH UTILITIES,

TREES, OTHER BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND ADDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, WHICH WE'LL DISCUSS LATER, CAN PROTECT PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PIPELINE AND NOT REQUIRE THEM TO BE REDESIGNED. AND

AGAIN, MOST OF OUR SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL IS STILL COMING FROM STALLED, PUD PROJECTS, OTHER PUD ZONES AND OUR CORRIDOR ZONING. SO NOW I'M GONNA HAND IT OFF TO JEFF ROBERTS, DIRECTOR OF ZONING AND

DEVELOPMENT TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON THOSE ZONING AMENDMENTS. HI. THANKS. GREAT TO BE, UH, BACK WITH THIS, UH, COMMITTEE COMMITTEES. UM, WE'RE, UH, AS JEN WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, REALLY WE'RE TALKING

ABOUT, UM, SETBACKS IN RESIDENCY ONE. THAT'S THE, THE MAIN FOCUS OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, UM, AS WELL AS SOME REFINEMENTS TO THE OPEN SPACE STANDARDS IN THAT DISTRICT. AS A REMINDER, WE'RE,

WE'RE REALLY NOT TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT OR DENSITY OR LOUD USES. THOSE ARE ALL REALLY CORE ELEMENTS OF THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING THAT, THAT WOULD BE RETAINED. UM, THE CHANGES THAT ARE, UH, BEING SUGGESTED

HERE ARE MEANINGFUL AS WE THINK THEY'LL HELP WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS. MOSTLY WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE REVIEW AND TRYING TO

SQUARE ZONING REQUIREMENTS WITH, UM, ISSUES AROUND BUILDING CODE, FIRE SAFETY, STORMWATER REGULATIONS, OTHER STANDARDS THAT TEND TO GET REVIEWED AFTER THE ZONING STAGE. IT CAN OFTEN BE DIFFICULT TO

WORK OUT WHEN, UM, YOU KNOW, A A DEAL MIGHT ALREADY BE STRUCK WITH EXPECTATIONS FOR, FOR WHAT THE SETBACKS WOULD BE. UM, IT'S ALL STILL MORE PERMISSIVE THAN WHAT THE PRIOR ZONING WAS BEFORE THE, UM,

2025 ZONING AMENDMENTS AND STILL MEANT TO ENABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. AND, UH, SINCE YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN ALL OF THIS, I'M GONNA TRY TO REALLY GO THROUGH IT QUICKLY AND, AND JUST HIT THE MAIN POINTS

AND, UM, AND THEN GO BACK TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. UM, THIS, UH, WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING IS REALLY MEANT TO RATE, RETAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF FLEXIBILITY. AND WE'RE DOING THAT

BY, UM, LEANING A BIT MORE ON THE SUB, WHAT WE CALL THE SUM TWO APPROACH FOR SETBACKS. SO, UM, HAVING THE SETBACKS BE DETERMINED MAINLY BY, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE OPPOSITE SIDES ADD UP TO. UM, WE'RE

SUGGESTING, UH, INCORPORATING THAT INTO THE FRONT AND REAR AS WELL. THAT, THAT CONCEPT. UM, THE, UH, OPEN SPACE, WE'LL, WE'LL TALK ABOUT A BIT. IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A REFINED, UM, CHANGE WHERE

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BALANCE OF PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE TO, UH, TO USABLE OR, OR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. UM, LET'S MOVE ON. 'CAUSE IT, IT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE JUST WITH THE PICTURES. SO THE, UH, SIDE

SETBACKS WOULD BE, UM, INCREASED BY A TOTAL OF FIVE FEET COMBINED. UM, THE ONE KEY THING THAT WE FOUND IS IMPORTANT IS TO, UH, MAINTAIN A FIRMER FIVE FOOT SETBACK. UM, BECAUSE, UH, THAT HAS BEEN ONE

OF THE ISSUES THAT'S, THAT'S PROVEN A BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO RESOLVE WHEN IT, IT THEN IS, IS PUT IN PLACE ALONG WITH BUILDING CODE ISSUES THAT, UM, THAT JEN MENTIONED, LIKE, UH, EGRESS AND, AND FIRE

SAFETY. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE'VE, UH, HAD TO, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT WAYS TO ADDRESS. UM, WE WOULD STILL HAVE EXCEPTIONS FOR, UH, MORE UNIQUE CASES LIKE TOWNHOUSE OR ROW HOUSE DEVELOPMENT. IN SOME

NEIGHBORHOODS THAT'S MORE TYPICAL AND IN SOME IT'S NOT. BUT IN, IN PLACES WHERE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO HAVE BUILDINGS A BUT ALONG PARTY WALLS AND YOU KNOW, WHERE ACCESS AND EGRESS WOULD BE

HANDLED DIFFERENTLY, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT WOULD STILL BE A PROVISION IN THE ZONING. UM, ON THE FRONT TO REAR, UH, DIMENSION, THE, THE TOTAL SUM WOULD BE INCREASED BY A TOTAL OF 10 FEET. THE GOAL

BEING TO GET SOME MORE, UH, WHAT, WHAT I SOMETIMES REFER TO IS DIMENSION OPEN SPACE. SO OPEN SPACE THAT HAS SOME DIMENSIONS TO MAKE IT A BIT MORE USABLE AND FUNCTIONAL IN BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE

THINGS LIKE, UH, TREE PLANTING TO, TO HELP MEET GREEN FACTOR STANDARDS OR, OR OTHER, UM, OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT DO REQUIRE SOME, UH, SOME SPACE. UH, WE ARE PROPOSING A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY THAN IN

THE CURRENT ZONING WHEN IT COMES TO THE FRONT AND THE REAR, PARTICULARLY IN BEING ABLE TO BRING, IT'S NOT REALLY SHOWN WELL IN THE PICTURE, BUT BEING ABLE TO BRING THE, UM, THE FRONT SETBACK IN A BIT

MORE. IN CASES WHERE IT CAN ALIGN WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS, WE WERE, WE'D ACTUALLY PROPOSED BEING EVEN A, A BIT MORE FLEXIBLE THAN THE CURRENT ZONING. UM, SO THAT BUILDINGS COULD JUST ALIGN WITH, UM,

WHATEVER BUILDING IS NEXT TO IT. UM, BUT THAT WOULD THEN BE, WOULD CREATE AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE REAR SETBACK. SO IT'D BE A TRADE OFF OF, OF MOVING IN ONE DIRECTION VERSUS THE OTHER. UM, THERE MIGHT BE

SOME CONSIDERATIONS WITH THE FRONT, UH, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH, UM, WITH PUBLIC WORKS ABOUT CONSIDERATIONS LIKE WHERE THERE'S A PUBLIC SHADE TREE THAT COULD BE IMPACTED, THAT MIGHT BE A PARTICULAR

ISSUE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO, UH, TO CONSIDER WHEN THINKING ABOUT THAT, THAT FLEXIBILITY. GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. UM, THIS SORT OF HELPS ILLUSTRATE HOW THAT SUM TWO FLEXIBILITY, UH, PROVIDES SOME ABILITY

TO, YOU KNOW, BOTH MOVE BUILDINGS OR SIDE TO SIDE, UM, TO ACCOUNT FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS. UM, AND TO CREATE, AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE IF THERE'S ROOM ON, ON THE SIDE THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE, YOU

KNOW, UM, COULD ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY, COULD ACCOMMODATE, UH, STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE'S OTHER, OTHER THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE. UM, IT COULD ALSO HELP AVOID SOME ISSUES WITH EXISTING

CONDITIONS. IT ALSO, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT, HAS PROVIDES SOME ABILITY TO, UM, MORE TO SHAPE AND ARTICULATE THE BUILDING MASS A LITTLE BETTER. THAT'S PART OF THE, THE URBAN DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF

THE CITY IS, IS BEING ABLE TO KIND OF BREAK DOWN THE MASSING OF BUILDINGS AND, AND GET BETTER URBAN DESIGN OUTCOMES. NEXT SLIDE. UM, WE, UH, UH, PROJECTIONS. SO PROJECTING ELEMENTS, THINGS LIKE BAYS

OR, OR BAY WINDOWS, UM, OR OTHER, OTHER ELEMENTS THAT KIND OF STICK OUT FROM THE MAIN FACADE OF THE BUILDING. THEY'RE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY, UM, IN SOME CASES TO CREATE MORE

USABLE SPACE WITHIN A BUILDING WHILE STILL, UM, HELPING TO MEET URBAN DESIGN AND, AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. WE HAVE FOUND, UM, ESPECIALLY IN THE, UH, WITH THE CHANGE IN ZONING, THAT THERE'S A LOT

OF AMBIGUITY IN THE CURRENT ZONING ABOUT HOW PROJECTIONS ARE TREATED AND, AND HOW THEY'RE MEASURED AND REGULATED. THAT'S MADE SOME OF THE COMPLIANCE REVIEW PROCESS A BIT CHALLENGING. AND SO WE THINK

IT'LL HELP TO CLARIFY HOW THOSE ARE DEALT WITH, UM, PROVIDE BETTER GUIDANCE TO, TO HOUSING DESIGNERS ABOUT, ABOUT HOW THOSE CAN BE USED. AND NEXT SLIDE, UH, CORNER. LOTS OF SOMETHING THAT HAVE COME UP

AND IT'S SOMETHING I, I DIDN'T, I DON'T THINK I EXPLAINED THAT WELL THE LAST TIME, UM, SIMPLY BY SAYING WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT JUST TREAT ALL TREATED THE SAME. UH, THE CURRENT ZONING HAS THIS

PROVISION, WHICH SAYS AT THE, WHEN YOU HAVE A CORNER LOT, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TWO FRONTS AND TWO SIDES, WHICH THEN IT, IT KIND OF COMPLICATES SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS

OF TRYING TO SET A KIND OF A, A SIDE TO SIDE STANDARD AND A FRONT TO REAR STANDARD. AND SO WE WOULD SUGGEST HERE IS, UM, JUST TREATING QUARTER LOTS, LIKE ANY OTHER LOT MEANING, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD

HAVE ONE SIDE OF IT DESIGNATED AS THE FRONT OR ONE, ONE FRONTAGE, I GUESS DESIGNATED AS THE PRIMARY FRONT. AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE CALCULATED BASED ON THAT. OTHER ONE WOULD BE THE SIDES AND

THE REAR. YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THE PROVISIONS WHERE YOU COULD LINE THE BUILDING UP TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS ALONG THE, ALONG THE STREET FRONT AND ALONG THE FACADE. BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD,

YOU WOULD ADJUST ACCORDINGLY, UM, WHAT THE, THE SETBACKS ARE IN THE INTERIOR OF THE LOT. NEXT SLIDE. UM, ADDITIONS WOULD BE, UH, TREATED THE SAME AS, AS THEY ARE IN CURRENT ZONING, UM, WHICH IS

INTENDED TO ALLOW VERTICAL ADDITION. SO IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT'S NON-CONFORMING BASED ON SETBACKS, YOU COULD, UM, YOU COULD ADD, UH, HEIGHT TO THOSE BUILDINGS, UH, IN ONE, MAINTAINING

THE NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS, HORIZONTAL ADDITIONS. SO IF YOU'RE PUTTING A TYPICAL, LIKE A, YOU KNOW, AN AN ANNEX ON ONTO A BUILDING THAT WOULD FOLLOW, UM, THE DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ONE OF THE

ISSUES WE REALIZED IN, IN IMPLEMENTATION IS THAT THE, THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS A, UH, FLEXIBILITY ON THE SIDE IN THE REAR FOR, FOR A VERTICAL ADDITION BUT NOT THE FRONT. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS

WE'D WANNA PUT FORWARD IF WE, IF WE WANT TO RETAIN THIS PRINCIPLE AND ALLOW FOR BUILDINGS TO, UM, TO HAVE THOSE TYPES OF ADDITIONS, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO EXTEND THAT FLEXIBILITY TO THE, TO THE

FRONT SETBACKS. NEXT SLIDE. UM, THIS IS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION OF, UH, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE OPEN SPACE CHANGES CURRENTLY. UM, THERE'S A 30% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT IN RESIDENCY ONE, AND

THAT'S SPLIT INTO PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS, IS GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE. IT HAS TO BE A PARTICULAR KIND OF MATERIAL, UM, TO, UH, TO ABSORB WATER. UM, AND THEN THERE'S, AND THEN THE OTHER 15%

WOULD, A MINIMUM 15% WOULD HAVE TO BE WITH PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, WHICH COULD BE, YOU KNOW, USABLE SPACE FOR RESIDENTS, YARDS, PATIOS DECKS. THOSE ARE ALL THE, THE INTENTION OF THOSE IS TO PROVIDE, UM,

RESIDENTS WITH, UH, WITH USABLE OPEN SPACES, UM, AS AN AMENITY. THE CURRENT, THE PROPO, THE, THE SUGGESTION IS, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT, YOU KNOW, FOOTPRINTS ARE, ARE BECOMING BIGGER WITH THE, UH, WITH

THE CHANGES IN ZONING THAT IT POTENTIALLY MAKES SENSE TO HAVE MORE PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE SHIFTED TO THE GROUND LEVEL. AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S HELPING TO, UH, UH, DEAL WITH SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

STANDARDS THAT NEED TO BE MET. AND AS A RESULT, YOU KNOW, JUST THE, A COMPENSATING REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF, OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. SO INSTEAD OF HALF AND HALF WOULD BE TWO THIRDS PERMEABLE,

ONE THIRD PRIVATE. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, AND THE FINAL PIECE WE TALKED ABOUT THE LAST TIME IS, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE

HAVE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE THERE'S A PREFERENCE TO, UM, RETAIN AN EXISTING BUILDING ON THE SITE OR AN EXISTING SORT OF STREET FRONT AND PROMOTE A, UH, A, AN ADDITION TO THE REAR, UM, IS A WAY TO

EXPAND THE, THE HOUSING ON THE SITE. AND, UH, THAT'S AN INSTANCE WHERE WE COULD PRO POTENTIALLY PROVIDE SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY, UM, MAYBE HAVE A, A WAIVER OR MODIFICATION FOR SOME OF THE SETBACK AND

OPEN SPACE STANDARDS IF THIS, IF IT'S BEING DONE IN SERVICE OF, OF ACHIEVING A GOAL WHERE, WHERE THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION OR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION COMMISSION HAS IDENTIFIED A BUILDING AS BEING,

UM, PREFERABLY PRESERVED AS A, AS AN ADAPTIVE REUSE AND, AND, UH, WITH ADDED HOUSING IN THE REAR. NEXT SLIDE. UM, SO JUST SHIFTING TO SOME SORT OF UNIQUE CASES THAT WERE, UM, THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE

LAST TIME, AND I'LL TRY TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR ABOUT THIS THAN, THAN AT THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION. UM, WE KNOW THERE'S BEEN CONCERN ABOUT THE, THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING CHANGES RESULTING IN, IN

PROJECTS WHERE, UM, INSTEAD OF GETTING, UM, SORT OF MORE, MORE UNITS OF A, OF A KINDA MORE MODERATE SIZE, WE'RE SEEING PROJECTS THAT ARE, HAVE FEWER UNITS THAT ARE LARGER, UM, USING THE ADDITIONAL

HEIGHT AND, AND DIMENSIONAL, UH, CHANGES TO, TO ENLARGE THE SIZE OF UNITS. AND, AND THAT WAS A CONCERN WE FOUND THERE HAVEN'T BEEN, UM, AND WE'LL, WE'LL SHOW THE SLIDE AGAIN, BUT THERE HAVEN'T BEEN

ALL THAT MANY PROJECTS. YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF EVERYTHING AS A RESULT OF THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING CHANGES. SO WE'VE SEEN SOME PROJECTS LIKE THIS, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN THE, IT HASN'T BEEN THE

GREATEST, UH, TREND WE'VE, UM, BUT WE KNOW THAT IT'S A, A CONCERN. AND SO WHAT WE WOULD SUGGEST, UM, AND, AND WE'VE, THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OF THE LEGAL COMPLICATIONS OF

TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, DIRECTLY LIMIT UNIT SIZES THROUGH ZONING, UH, WHICH, WHICH LEADS TO A, A NUMBER OF, OF KIND OF ISSUES AND, UH, POTENTIAL SORT OF TRIP WIRES TO, UH, TO HAVE TO STEP AROUND THAT A

MORE OF AN A SORT OF AN INCENTIVE, OR IN THIS CASE KIND OF A DISINCENTIVE BASED APPROACH MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE THAT WE WOULD SET A KIND OF AN EXPECTATION FOR THE AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, GROSS FLOOR AREA

PER UNIT WITH THE INTENT OF ENCOURAGING, YOU KNOW, MORE UNITS OF, OF MORE MODERATE SIZE, NOT NOT TRYING TO MAKE THE UNITS THAT SMALL, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST STILL, STILL HAVING THEM IN THE RANGE OF

WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER A FAMILY SIZED UNIT. UM, BUT IN THOSE CASES, WE, WE COULD INSTITUTE ZONING STANDARDS THAT MAYBE ARE A LITTLE CLOSER TO WHAT THE, THE PRIOR ZONING WOULD'VE BEEN FOR UNITS THAT

ARE OF THAT SIZE, WHICH YOU MIGHT FIND IN SORT OF RESIDENCE B OR OR OTHER KIND OF LOWER DENSITY DISTRICT. SO BASICALLY IN AT A HIGHER OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, A, A GREATER, UH, SIDE SETBACK

REQUIREMENT. SO MAYBE SOMETHING TO 20 INSTEAD OF 15 FEET, A GREATER FRONT REAR SETBACK, MAYBE SOMETHING TO 40 INSTEAD OF, UM, UH, INSTEAD OF 25 FEET. AND THAT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, A WAY TO STILL ALLOW

THINGS. AND, AND ONE OF THE GOALS OF THIS IS TO ALLOW, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, EXISTING HOMES TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE ADDITIONS AND, YOU KNOW, DO THINGS WITHOUT HAVING TO DEAL WITH, UM, BEING

TREATED AS, AS A NON-CONFORMING SITE OR THAT THE, WITHOUT THE GROSS FLOOR AREA BECOMING SORT OF BE BECOMING MORE OF AN ISSUE. UM, BUT TO NOT BE ENCOURAGING, YOU KNOW, LARGER SCALE. AND, AND THIS WOULD

ALSO, AS WE DISCUSSED THE LAST TIME, WE COULD ALSO LIMIT THE, THE HEIGHT TO THREE STORIES FOR THOSE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS TOO. SO IT'S AN OVERALL LIMITING OF THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT IF, UM, IF THOSE

ARE, ARE FOR LARGER UNIT SIZES. AND WE TALKED TO ABOUT THE, THE GROSS ORDER EXEMPTION FOR, FOR BASEMENT SPACE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD, UM, WE COULD TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT.

BUT IT'S THE, THE POINT TO EMPHASIZE HERE IS THAT THERE, THAT WAS, THERE WAS AN EXEMPTION THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE IN, I THINK IT WAS 2016. IT'S NO LONGER RELEVANT NOW IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF, UM,

SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU CAN BUILD FOR HOUSING BECAUSE IT'S NO LONGER LIMITED BY, BY FAR. BUT WHAT IT DOES DO IS IT CREATES SOME COMPLICATION IN MAKING DETERMINATIONS ABOUT THINGS. WELL, WHAT, WELL, WHAT IS

THE GROSS FLOOR AREA PER UNIT? DOES THAT COUNT? BASEMENT SPACE DOES NOT COUNT BASEMENT SPACE SIMILARLY WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS IS THE THRESHOLD TRIGGERED BY BASEMENT SPACE OR NOT

TRIGGERED BY BASEMENT SPACE. SO IT MIGHT MAKE EVERYTHING CLEARER TO JUST, UM, SIMPLIFY THAT AND, AND JUST HAVE A, A GENERAL SORT OF ACCOUNTING OF WHAT WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, USABLE HABITABLE SPACE IN THE

BUILDING IS, IS PART OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA. AND THE NEXT SLIDE WE WE'LL JUST KIND OF TOUCH ON QUICKLY. AGAIN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, A CONTINUING TO SEE A RANGE OF, UH, AND THIS IS

BACK FROM, FROM, UH, LAST JUNE. I DON'T THINK THE OVERALL PROPORTIONS HAVE CHANGED THAT MUCH. YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL SEEING KIND OF A BALANCE OF, OF SINGLE FAMILY, TWO FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS.

OF COURSE, THE UNIT, THE NUMBER OF UNITS BEING PRODUCED IS GREATER IN THE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS, UM, THAN THE SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY. AND FOR THE MOST PART, ONCE YOU GET ABOVE, I WOULD SAY THREE

OR FOUR UNITS, THE, THE UNIT, UM, THE, THE, THE GFA PER UNIT RANGE FALLS WITHIN LIKE 1600 SQUARE FEET OR, OR LESS. IT'S REALLY JUST, IT'S MAINLY THE SINGLE FAMILY, TWO FAMILY, AND SOMETIMES A THREE OR

FOUR FAMILY WHERE THE, THE AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, GROSS AREA PER UNIT RANGE IS, IS KINDA EXCEEDING, UM, 2000 SQUARE FEET. UM, AND THEN THE LAST PIECE IS, UM, CLAR THE CLARIFYING EDITS. SO I WON'T GO

THROUGH ALL OF THIS, BUT WE'VE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH ISD. WE'VE HAD LOTS OF EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW, TALKING TO DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS AND, UM, IDENTIFYING PARTS OF THE ZONING

ORDINANCE THAT COULD USE CLARIFICATION. SO WE, WE HAVE A, A WHOLE LIST THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON OF, OF, UM, TO ISSUES TO RESOLVE, UH, WITH THOSE. THE LAST PIECE IS, UM, I THINK WE MENTIONED THIS THE

LAST TIME, BUT YOU KNOW, AS THE GOAL OF THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, IMPEDE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, IT'S TO SET BETTER STANDARDS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AND WHEN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, NEW STANDARDS,

ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE MORE RESTRICTIVE STANDARDS THAT WOULD CAUSE PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN REVIEW TO HAVE TO SORT OF STOP, GO BACK AND, AND SHIFT AND ADJUST THEIR PLANS, WE SOMETIMES

DO THAT WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND THE GOAL OF THAT EFFECTIVE DATE IS, IS BASICALLY SO THAT PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE PROCESS CAN, YOU KNOW, HAVE TIME TO CONTINUE THAT PROCESS OUT AND, AND GET

INTO DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS PROJECTS THAT MAYBE HAVEN'T STARTED BEING CONCEIVED OF YET WOULD BE ON NOTICE THAT THERE ARE NEW STANDARDS THAT ARE COMING INTO EFFECT. UM, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING PETITION

PROCESS ITSELF PROVIDES SOME OF THAT NOTICE BECAUSE IT, IT IS A, YOU KNOW, THREE TO SIX MONTH PROCESS. THERE'S ADVERTISING AND, AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS THAT'S SORT OF BUILT INTO IT. BUT, UM, WE'VE,

WE WOULD SOMETIMES HAVE AN EFFECTIVE DATE THAT'S THREE TO SIX MONTHS AFTER ADOPTIONS TO, TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A, OF A GENEROUS, UH, WINDOW OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE REVIEW PROCESS. ALSO, YOU

KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WHAT'S FIRST ADVERTISED AS ZONING PETITION MIGHT NOT BE WHAT THE FINAL ZONING IS. AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ADEQUATE TIME FOR, UM, DESIGNERS TO WORK

WITH WHATEVER THE, WHATEVER THE FINAL ZONING WOULD BE BEFORE THEY, UH, BEFORE THEY GO INTO THE PROCESS. UM, SO I, I THINK I'M GONNA TURN IT BACK OVER TO JEN AND THANK YOU SO MUCH, ALL OF YOU. I JUST

WANNA MAKE SURE THE NEXT PART OF THE PRESENTATION, CAN WE GO THROUGH IT REALLY FAST, SO WE'LL HAVE SOME TIME FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU. UM, WE CAN TRY AND GO THROUGH THIS

QUICKLY. I EXPECT MOST OF THESE EFFORTS WE'LL COME BACK BEFORE THE COUNCIL AS THEY MOVE FORWARD TOWARD ADOPTION AS WELL. SO WE'LL START WITH RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS. THANK YOU, JEN. UM, I WILL GO

QUITE QUICKLY. I THINK THIS IS A BIGGER CONVERSATION THAT DEFINITELY MERITS ITS OWN CONVERSATION. SO THIS IS JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW. UM, SO BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE CAME BACK TO THE COUNCIL, UM, EARLIER

THIS YEAR WITH A RESPONSE TO AN AWAITING REPORT, UM, WHERE WE LAID OUT SOME OPTIONS FOR, IF WE WANTED TO, UM, BASICALLY MAKE OUR REQUIREMENTS TO GET A RESIDENT PARKING STICKER STRICTER, WHAT WOULD BE

THE OPTIONS TO DO THAT? AND REALLY, UM, HISTORICALLY WE'VE ONLY LOOKED AT, UM, RESIDENCY AS THE REQUIREMENT. SO THIS WOULD, UM, THINK ABOUT OPENING, UM, THAT UP A LITTLE BIT. UM, SO WE LAID OUT FOUR

DIFFERENT APPROACHES, AND ALL OF THESE COULD BE CUSTOMIZED AS WE KIND OF MOVE THROUGH ALL OF THE ISSUES AND, AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE AND, AND HOW PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT THE DIFFERENT IDEAS. UM,

ONE OPTION WE TALKED ABOUT WAS RESTRICTING RESIDENTS IN NEW BUILDINGS, UM, THAT ARE LOCATED IN TRANSIT RICH AREAS AND RESTRICTING THEM FROM GETTING RESIDENT PARKING STICKERS. SO, UM, THAT WOULD MEAN

IF YOU ARE ALREADY LIVING IN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE LIVING SOMEWHERE THAT IS NOT WELL SERVED BY TRANSIT OR YOU'RE LIVING IN EXISTING HOUSING, YOUR REQUIREMENT RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS WOULD REMAIN,

EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD STAY THE SAME. BUT IF YOU ARE NEW TO A BUILDING THAT HAS JUST BEEN BUILT, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET A RESIDENT PARKING STICKER. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED

IN SOMERVILLE. UM, ANOTHER APPROACH COULD BE LOOKING AT, UM, CAPPING THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF RESIDENT PARKING STICKERS. RIGHT NOW, WE DO NOT PLACE ANY LIMITS OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE

WHO COME AND APPLY AND MEET ALL THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND THE PERMITS ARE ISSUED. AND THEN THAT GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK FOR PARKING. IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE PARKING. UM, AND WE HAVE NEVER

PUT ANY LIMITS ON THE NUMBER THAT WE ISSUE, BUT WE COULD LOOK INTO CHANGING THAT. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS TO DO THAT WHERE WE COULD, UM, LOOK, YOU KNOW, UH, AREA BY AREA, HOW MANY PARKING SPACE,

HOW MANY RESIDENT PARKING SPACES ARE THERE, AND THEN SET SOME SORT OF CRITERIA FOR ISSUING UP TO A CERTAIN CAP. UM, AND AGAIN, THERE ARE MANY WAYS THAT WE COULD CUSTOMIZE AND CHANGE HOW WE, HOW WE

TOOK THAT APPROACH. UM, ANOTHER APPROACH, WHICH WE HAVE STARTED TO USE IN A LIMITED WAY IN THE PAST YEARS, IS LIMITING HOW MANY RESIDENT PARKING STICKERS AN INDIVIDUAL CAN HAVE. UM, THERE USED TO BE

NO LIMIT. SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE WENT TO FOUR, UH, RESIDENTS PER PARKING STICKERS PER PERSON. THIS YEAR WE ARE MOVING DOWN TO TWO PER PERSON, AND WE COULD BRING THAT FURTHER DOWN TO ONE PER PERSON. AND

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THAT IS PER PERSON, NOT PER HOUSEHOLD. UM, SO THAT BY DOING IT THAT WAY, IT REALLY ADDRESSES THE VERY MANY TYPES OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT WE SEE IN CAMBRIDGE. UM, SO THAT WOULD

BE ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. UM, ANOTHER APPROACH THAT WE COULD TAKE. UM, NOW THAT WAS REALLY FAST, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT IS JUST TO SAY THAT THIS IS JUST A STARTING POINT FOR TALKING ABOUT THIS TYPE

OF CHANGE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WE CAN REALLY CUSTOMIZE IT TO MEET THE NEEDS, UM, AND GOALS HERE IN CAMBRIDGE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. COMMISSIONER MCKENNA. UM, WE WILL BE DISCUSSING, UH,

PARKING THIS, THIS ISSUE AT A TRANSPORTATION MEETING COMING UP SOON. I HOPE. THANK YOU. I, I HOPE TODAY'S DISCUSSION WILL NOT FOCUS ON PARKING, 'CAUSE WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON THE AMENDMENTS. THANK

YOU. SO, UH, I'M DANIEL MASLEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING. I'M GONNA BE TALKING QUICKLY ABOUT SORT OF AN ADJACENT, UM, ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN RELATED, UM, EFFORT THAT WE COULD, WE COULD EMBARK

ON. THI THIS, UM, THERE'S AN AREA OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 19.50, WHICH IS OUR BUILDING AND SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. UH, THIS, THIS SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE COVERS DEVELOPMENT SORT OF IN

A GOLDILOCK ZONE, SO KIND OF THE MIDSCALE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, UH, PROJECTS THAT AREN'T SO BIG AS TO REQUIRE A SPECIAL PERMIT, UH, BUT PROJECTS THAT ARE LARGER THAN, UM, THOSE THAT CAN JUST

PROCEED STRAIGHT TO BUILDING PERMIT. SO IN NUMBERS TERMS, THAT'S GENERALLY PROJECTS OF 25,000 SQUARE FEET UP TO EITHER 50,000 SQUARE FEET OR 75,000 SQUARE FEET. THE IDEA OF THIS, UH, SECTION OF THE

ZONING ORDINANCE IS GENERALLY YOU'VE GOT SORT OF SLIGHTLY LARGER PROJECTS, UH, THAT HAVE POTENTIALLY MORE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAN PROJECTS THAT CAN GO STRAIGHT TO BUILDING PERMIT AND THUS, YOU KNOW,

WARRANT SORT OF A, A HIGHER LEVEL OF DESIGN SCRUTINY. UM, THE WAY THAT THIS SECTION CURRENTLY WORKS IS THAT IT LAYS OUT SORT OF A SUITE OF DES PRESCRIPTIVE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS THAT YOU

MUST DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH EACH ONE. UH, AND STAFF CERTIFIES THAT ALL OF THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE MET BEFORE YOU CAN PROCEED TO, UH, BUILDING PERMIT. IF YOU CAN'T, FOR WHATEVER REASON MEET ALL

OF THE INDIVIDUAL STANDARDS, THEN YOU CAN ALSO SEEK A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTING RELIEF FROM ONE OF THE STANDARDS. UH, THIS WAS A SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WAS

CREATED AS PART OF THE PROJECT REVIEW ARTICLE 19, UM, CHANGES AFTER THE 2001 CITYWIDE REZONING. SO IT'S BEEN, UH, QUITE A WHILE SINCE WE'VE SORT OF HAD A FRESH LOOK AT THIS SECTION OF THE ZONING

ORDINANCE. UM, JUST, OH, QUICKLY, SORRY. ONE MORE, ONE MORE NOTE ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY OUR, OUR, OUR URBAN DESIGN THINKING HAS CHANGED QUITE A BIT SINCE 2001. AND, UH, THAT'S

BEEN REFLECTED IN SOME OF THE, THE RECENT DOCUMENTS THAT WE'VE PUT TOGETHER. SO THE, THE MULTIFAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES FROM LAST YEAR. UH, SO THE THRUST OF THIS

EFFORT WOULD BE TO UPDATE THE LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BETTER REFLECT OUR, UM, OUR URBAN DESIGN THINKING FROM THESE DOCUMENTS. SO THIS COULD BE, YOU KNOW, A NATURAL THING

FOR US TO UPDATE. WE COULD INTRODUCE A STRUCTURE TO THIS SECTION. UH, CURRENTLY IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE ALL ALL OVER THE PLACE, UH, BUT WE COULD INTRODUCE A STRUCTURE THAT KIND OF BETTER ALIGNS WITH HOW

OUR URBAN DESIGN TEAM ACTUALLY REVIEWS THESE PROPOSALS. SO STARTING SORT OF, UH, ZOOMING OUT AT SORT OF THE SITE LEVEL AND LOOKING AT SITE DESIGN ELEMENTS LIKE BUILDING PLACEMENT AND CIRCULATION, UH,

MECHANICALS, LANDSCAPING LIGHTING, AND THEN FOCUSING IN ON THE ACTUAL BUILDING DETAILS. SO THINGS LIKE FACADE ARTICULATION, TRANSPARENCY, GROUND FLOORS, INCLUDING SOME UNIVERSAL DESIGN ELEMENTS AS

WELL RELATED TO GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK AT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN EXPLORING IN THIS NEW STRUCTURE IS INCLUDING SORT OF A MENU

OF OPTIONS FOR SOME DESIGN DETAILS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAD A REQUIREMENT TO ADD DETAIL TO A PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE, FOR INSTANCE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE COULD HAVE SORT OF A LIST OF POTENTIAL

EMBELLISHMENTS, UH, THAT YOU COULD, UH, CHOOSE FROM AND MAYBE PICK TWO AND ADD TWO. SO, SO SORT OF A MENU OF OPTIONS APPROACH TO SOME DESIGN STANDARDS. WE'VE ALSO BEEN THINKING ABOUT, UM, LIKE

INTRODUCING POTENTIALLY A HIERARCHY IN SOME CASES. SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT, UH, BUILDING MECHANICALS FOR INSTANCE, WE COULD SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, UH, HIGHEST PRIORITY WOULD BE TO PUT THE MECHANICALS

INSIDE THE BUILDING, BUT IF, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEN IT EITHER GOES ON THE ROOF OR, UH, OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING IN AN UNDERGROUND VOLT, OR IF IT CAN'T GO IN AN

UNDERGROUND VOLS, IT GOES AT GRAY, BUT IT'S SCREENED. SO SORT OF INTRODUCING, UM, A A WAY OF SORT OF, UH, ILLUSTRATING STAFF SORT OF PRIORITIZATION OF HOW YOU WOULD APPROACH CERTAIN DESIGN ELEMENTS

THAT END UP BEING, UM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF TRICKIER TO SET A UNIVERSAL STANDARD FOR, BUT COULD BE EVALUATED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS. UM, SO THAT I THINK IS JUST A KIND OF A QUICK SUMMARY OF, UM, YOU

KNOW, ONE OF THE TANGENTIAL THINGS WE COULD BE WORKING ON WITH, UH, THE ZONING TEAM. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND IS THERE A TIMEFRAME FOR THAT? LIKE, WHEN, WHEN WOULD WE BE, WHEN WOULD YOU BE PREPARING

DOCUMENTS TO CREATE STANDARDS? SURE. UH, SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD KIND OF WANT TO WORK WITH THE ZONING TEAM TO SORT OF ESTABLISH THE APPROPRIATE TIMELINE FOR THAT. A LOT OF THE PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD

SORT OF MAKE UP THE ZONING LANGUAGE IN THIS CASE HAVE, ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED. THEY'RE IN THE CITY'S DOCUMENTS ALREADY. SO THIS IS MORE OF AN EXERCISE OF SORT OF TRANSLATING SOME OF THOSE PRINCIPLES

INTO ZONING LANGUAGE THAT CAN BE ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED. UM, SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT EFFORT WOULD FIT INTO SORT OF SOME OF THESE BROADER ZONING CHANGES WE'VE BEEN TALKING

ABOUT. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. UM, THANKS. BACK TO ME FOR A SECOND. YOU CAN MOVE ON, UM, JUST QUICKLY TO SOME THINGS WE'RE WORKING ON. SO THE CONTEXT OF OF THIS IS THAT OUR, UH, GREEN BUILDING

REQUIREMENTS, UH, IN, IN, UH, SECTION 22.20 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THESE ARE THE, THE, UH, UH, STANDARDS THAT ARE TIED TO, YOU KNOW, LEAD AND PASSIVE HOUSE AND OTHER KIND OF HOLISTIC SUSTAINABLE

DESIGN, UH, METRICS. UM, THEY WERE PUT IN PLACE IN 2019, OR THE LATEST VERSION 2019 AS A, AN EARLY IMPLEMENTATION ITEM FOR THE NET ZERO ACTION PLAN. SINCE THAT TIME, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF PROGRESS ON,

UH, THE BUILDING CODE SIDE WITH, UM, UH, THE SPECIALIZED STRETCH ENERGY CODE AND THE FOSSIL FUEL FREE, UM, UH, PILOT. SO WE ARE, WE'RE, WE'VE SEEN IN A LOT OF CASES THE, THE STANDARDS ON THAT AND HAVE

CAUGHT UP TO GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS, BUT THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME, YOU KNOW, WAYS IN WHICH THEY'VE DIVERGED A LITTLE BIT AND CREATED SOME SORT OF CONFUSION IN THE OVERLAP BETWEEN THOSE STANDARDS.

SO WHAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH NOW IS SORT OF TWO PHASE PROCESS. THE FIRST ONE IS KIND OF STRAIGHTENING OUT THE PROCESS TO MAKE SURE ALL THE, THE PROCEDURES ARE ALIGNED SO THAT THERE AREN'T SORT OF

SLOWDOWNS AND SORT OF GOING FROM ONE, ONE STANDARD TO THE OTHER, AND THEN, AND THEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER. AND THEN THE SECOND PHASE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A POLICY LOOK AT

OKAY, WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO WE STAND, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH THE SUSTAINABILITY, UH, OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY TEAM ABOUT WHAT ARE OUR, YOU KNOW, CURRENT, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS OR, OR WHAT ARE OUR

CURRENT, UH, OBJECTIVES WHEN IT COMES TO OUR NET ZERO PLAN, AND THEN POTENTIALLY MAKING SOME REFINEMENTS BASED ON THAT. SO WE THINK THERE'S A SET OF SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS THAT'LL BE COMING, UM, THIS

YEAR. AND THEN SOME, SOME MAYBE BROADER POLICY DISCUSSION THAT WILL COME NEXT YEAR. I THINK I HAVE THE NEXT ONE TOO. UM, SO THE, UH, THE, ANOTHER KIND OF GENERAL CATEGORY OF, OF ITEMS WE'VE BEEN

WORKING ON HAVE TO DO WITH, UM, COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPARENCY. UM, WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE IDEA OF HAVING A HOUSING DASHBOARD. SO TO HAVE A, AN AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCE, UH, THAT SORT OF

CONSOLIDATES A LOT OF THE SORT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT'S ALREADY OUT THERE AND, UH, TURNS IT INTO, UH, A FORMAT THAT'S, UH, MORE USER FRIENDLY AND EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK AT A MAP TO AND TO LOOK

AT, UH, TO, TO VIEW THE DATA, UM, TO SEE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS IS UNDERWAY AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF REVIEW. SO ALL THE WAY FROM KIND OF THE, THE PRE PERMITTING REVIEW, IF IT'S A

HISTORICAL COMMISSION OR PLANNING BOARD, ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE, THE BUILDING PERMIT AND, AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. AND THEN, UM, A FEW THINGS, YOU KNOW, RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, WE GOT A REQUEST FOR A

LOT OF INFORMATION THAT THE IS SORT OF DESIRABLE FOR, FOR THE PUBLIC TO GET. AND SO WE'VE, WE'VE KIND OF BROKEN THAT DOWN INTO THREE MAIN AREAS TO FOCUS ON. ONE IS, UM, PROVIDING SOME, SOME MORE,

MORE, AGAIN, MORE USER FRIENDLY GUIDANCE TO WHAT THE PERMITTING PROCESS IS LIKE FOR HOUSING SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT. WE'RE TRYING TO SORT OF FRONT END THAT PIECE OF IT.

WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME UPDATED, UM, EXPLAINERS FROM THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING. SO WE, WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON OUR WEBSITE ALREADY. IT, UH, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY COULD USE SOME, UM, IMPROVEMENT TO,

TO HELP REALLY, UH, CONVEY SOME OF THE MESSAGES ABOUT WHY THE, YOU KNOW, THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING WAS ADOPTED, WHAT, WHAT THE, UM, WHAT THE OBJECTIVES WERE AND WHAT THE CHANGES ACTUALLY DID. AND THEN WE

ALSO HAVE, ALTHOUGH IT'S A LITTLE BIT COVERED BY THE CAPTIONING, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WE'VE DONE MANY TIMES IS, IS SORT OF A ZONING, UM, KIND OF, WE CALL IT A ZONING ONE OH ONE, OR A ZONING BASICS

PRESENTATION THAT WE'VE DONE FOR LOTS OF GROUPS, UM, IN THE CITY. AND WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE THAT AND, AND SORT OF TURN IT INTO SOMETHING THAT'S MORE BROADLY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. SO THOSE ARE SOME

THINGS WE'LL BE PROVIDING UPDATES ON AS, AS THEY CONTINUE. THANKS, JEFF. UM, WE HAVE ALSO BEEN LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN MAKE THE PERMITTING PROCESS SMOOTHER AND EASIER FOR APPLICANTS. UM, AND THIS WE

PRESENTED ON AT THE AUGUST 3RD COUNCIL MEETING, A LOT OF THIS DOVETAILS WITH THE COMMUNICATION EFFORTS THAT JEFF JUST MENTIONED. UM, CREATING CLEARER GUIDES FOR APPLICANTS, UM, FAQS, CHECKLISTS,

PROCESS MAPS, CREATING, UH, PROJECT INTAKE PROCESS THAT ALLOWS FOR BETTER COORDINATION WITH STAFF PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN WITH GOING FROM MOSTLY

DISCRETIONARY TO MOSTLY BUY RIGHT PERMITS, IS NEEDING A SORT OF TOUCH POINT EARLIER TO TALK ABOUT THE DESIGN, AND ALSO WORKING ON UPDATING SOME OF THE REDUNDANT OR CONFLICTING, UH, REQUIREMENTS TO

REDUCE REVIEW TIMES. I'M NOW GONNA HAND IT OFF TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, OR NO, SORRY, COMMISSIONER NARDONE TO TALK ABOUT URBAN FOREST AND STORMWATER. THANKS, JEN. I THINK I GOT A RAISE THERE FOR A

SECOND. UM, AS FAR AS THE, UH, PUBLIC WORKS, I THINK A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, UM, OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON UPDATING OUR URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN. AS PART OF THOSE UPDATES, WE'RE

LOOKING AT ORDINANCE CHANGES AND WHAT TYPES OF ORDINANCE CHANGES WE MAY WANNA MAKE. UH, AS IT RELATES TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, WE ARE LOOKING REALLY AT THREE THINGS. UH, ONE IS OUR PUBLIC SHADE TREES.

I THINK JEFF MENTIONED THAT, UM, THOSE PUBLIC SHADE TREES ARE PROTECTED UNDER STATE LAW, SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALIGNING WITH THAT. UM, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT PEOPLE THAT ARE TAKING DOWN

TREES ON THEIR OWN PROPERTIES. HOW CAN WE CLARIFY THE STANDARDS OF WHEN THEY, THEY PUT IN A NEW TREE? AND THEN REALLY MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON ENSURING THAT NEW, NEW TREES BOTH SURVIVE AND THRIVE.

AND THAT'S REALLY WITH FOCUSING ON THINGS LIKE SOIL VOLUME MAINTENANCE AND SITE CONDITIONS. THE LAST THING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT ON THIS, IS, UH, WHAT

EFFECTS THIS NEW BILLING ZONING MAY HAVE ON TREES THAT, PRIVATE TREES THAT ABUT THESE PROPERTIES. UM, AND AGAIN, WHILE WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE, UM, I THINK WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS WE

MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT SOME GUIDE RAILS IN PLACE. UM, BUT THE USE OF SETBACKS MAY BE REALLY A GOOD TOOL FOR US TO BE ABLE TO HELP DEVELOPERS ADJUST THINGS, UM, SO THEY CAN SAVE NEIGHBORING TREES. NEXT

SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, THE OTHER EFFORT THAT PUBLIC WORKS HAS BEEN WORKING ON IS UPDATES TO OUR, UH, LAND DISTURBANCE REGULATIONS AS THEY RELATE TO STORMWATER. UH, AND IT'S REALLY CLARIFYING, UH, WHAT

TRIGGERS STORMWATER IN AND HAVING, UH, HAVING THEM CLEARLY IN LINE WITH SOMETHING BY THE NEW ZONING CHANGES. UM, I KNOW THIS SAYS THAT THE DISTURBANCE, LAND DISTURBANCE REGULATIONS WENT INTO EFFECT

NINE 12. THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE END OF PUBLIC COMMENT. UH, WE DO EXPECT THAT, UH, WE'RE GETTING STUFF UP ON OUR WEBSITE NOW, AND BY THE END OF THE WEEK AND NEXT WEEK, THOSE REGULATIONS WILL BE IN

PLACE. UM, THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING IS ISSUING SOME GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS, UH, THAT REALLY GIVE PEOPLE CLEAR DIRECTION ON WHAT THEY SHOULD EXPECT AS A PERMITEE. UM, THERE ARE DOCUMENTS

THAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE TO US, UH, SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO MEET OUR, UH, STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTING THINGS. UM, AND THEN FINALLY, JUST WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS

ON SITE PLANS WHEN, UM, SOME TECHNICAL DEFICIENCIES MAY REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE TO ADJUST SOME OF THE DESIGNS. SO THAT IS IT FOR PUBLIC WORKS IN A NUTSHELL. UH, GREAT. THE, THE NEXT THING WE WANNA

PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THAT MORE IS A UPDATE OF, UH, MORE TO COME. UM, WE ARE WRAPPING UP THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS AND ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO PRESENTING, UH, THE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 28TH. UM, THE ANALYSIS DID FIND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SETASIDE RATE OF 20% BASED ON THE IMPACT THAT NEW MARKET RATE HOUSING GENERATES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY, AND

THE RESULTING SOCIOECONOMIC DIVERSITY IN THE CAMBRIDGE. HOWEVER, DUE TO MACROECONOMIC CONDITIONS, MARKET RATE HOUSING PRODUCTION CONTINUES TO BE FINANCIALLY DIFFICULT TO BUILD, UH, PARTICULARLY FOR

PROJECTS OVER SIX STORIES THAT, UH, REQUIRE MORE EXPENSIVE CONSTRUCTION METHODS. SO, AS YOU KNOW, CITIES NATIONALLY AND LOCALLY, I'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THESE CHANGES AND, UH, WE WILL BE DOING THAT AS

WELL, LOOKING AT DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT DISCUSSION ON THE 28TH. THANKS, MELISSA. UM, OKAY, THAT WRAPS UP OUR PRESENTATION. IN CONCLUSION, THE ZONING REMAINS

INCREDIBLY PERMISSIVE AND MUCH LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN PRIOR TO 2025. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO MAKE BOLD MOVES TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS. UM, AND THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RETAIN THE CORE

PRINCIPLES OF ALLOWING MULTIFAMILY EVERYWHERE. AND WE ARE SEEING THAT THAT HOUSING IS BEING MORE EQUITY EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE CITY, AND THE AMENDMENTS WILL NOT CHANGE ANY OF THAT. THESE

SMALL ADJUSTMENTS JUST HELP ENSURE THAT WHILE THE CRITICAL HOUSING IS STILL BUILT, THAT IT CAN ALSO BETTER ADDRESS AND RESPOND TO OTHER IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS, UM, RELATED TO CLIMATE FLOODING, TREES

DESIGN. AND THAT MAKES THE SITE PLANNING A LITTLE BIT EASIER AND MORE RESPONSIVE TO OTHER CITY GOALS. AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. FANTASTIC. UM, PRESENTATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH, UM, TO

MAKE THIS A PRODUCTIVE SESSION, I'M THINKING MAYBE EVERY COUNSELOR, UM, CAN RESPOND TO PLEASE FOCUS ON THE SORT OF GENERAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED RELATING TO SETBACKS, OPEN SPACE, DESCENT,

DE INCENTIVIZING LARGER AND FEWER UNITS. AGAIN, LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT PARKING AT THIS PRESENTATION, 'CAUSE THAT WILL BE, OR AT THIS MEETING, BECAUSE THAT'LL BE A DISCUSSION AT, AT A SEPARATE MEETING.

UM, I, I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOUR, YOUR QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF. UM, YES, COUNCILOR ZI. UH, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. UM, JUST TWO THINGS. UH, BEFORE I GET STARTED, I JUST WANTED

TO ANNOUNCE THAT I HAVE A HARD STOP AT ONE O'CLOCK. UM, I HAVE TO GO AND TESTIFY IN A TRIAL AT TWO O'CLOCK, SO I HOPE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT I CAN'T, UM, DO I HAVE A CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINATION ? UM,

AND THE SECOND IS, UM, UH, COUNCILLOR SIMMONS JUST WANTED TO BE IN THE RECORD THAT SHE COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY, BUT THAT SHE SENT THREE QUESTIONS. WHAT SPECIFICALLY CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE SUMMER,

UH, MEETINGS HAS CDD QUANTIFIED HOW MANY UNITS THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD ELIMINATE? WHAT IS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES? AND I THINK SHE SENT THAT TO THE CLERK AND WAS HOPING TO GET

A RESPONSE. UM, THOSE ARE NOT MY QUESTIONS, SO I WON'T BE ASKING FOR A RESPONSE, BUT SHE JUST ASKED ME TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. UM, SO, UM, I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. YOU KNOW, I THINK

THAT, UH, TO START WITH WHERE WE WERE, YOU KNOW, ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS A GOOD EXAMPLE. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I ASKED, UH, THE CLERK TO GO AND PRINT THIS REDDIT POST THAT I READ TWO

YEARS AGO, WHICH WAS, PLEASE JOIN ME IN LAUGHING AT THE PROPOSED MONSTROSITY. MY DEMOLISHED CHILDHOOD HOME IS ABOUT TO BECOME, UH, MY GRANDFATHER, UH, PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY BACK IN THE FIFTIES,

SIXTIES FOR A SMALL TERM. MY PARENTS AND I MOVED TO HERE IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS, BUT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD A FEW YEARS BACK, AND MY GRANDMOTHER, WE NEVER OWNED IT. IT REMAINED UNDER MY GRANDMA'S

NAME, AND THE MONEY FROM SALE WAS SPLIT AMONG HER CHILDREN. ANYWAY, THE BACKSTORY OUT OF THE WAY, LET ME JUST TELL YOU THIS HILARIOUS, HILARIOUS STORY OF THE PROPERTY SALE. APPARENTLY A GREAT OFFER

WAS MADE TO A GUY WHO WANTED TO FIX UP THE PLACE AND LIVE THERE HIMSELF. THE SALE WAS APPARENTLY DENIED BY THE CITY BECAUSE HIS MODIFICATIONS WOULD MESS UP THE GREEK REVIVAL AESTHETIC OF THE PROPERTY.

A LOWER BID WAS THEN MADE BY DEVELOPER, AND APPARENTLY THEIR OFFER WAS OKAYED BY THE CITY. I GUESS IF YOU COMPLETELY DEMOLISH A PROPERTY, THAT IS FINE, BUT CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS ARE A STEP TOO FAR.

EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A, I WAS SAD AT THE IDEA OF A DEVELOPER BUYING THE HOME INSTEAD OF THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY WANTED TO LIVE IN IT. I WAS ULTIMATELY OKAY WITH IT IF IT MEANT THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY

HOME WITH AMPLE BACKYARD WAS TURNED INTO A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN THE CITY. BUT NO, THE PROPOSED NEW BUILDING WILL STILL REMAIN SINGLE FAMILY SOMEHOW, THOUGH IT WAS PUSHED THROUGH BEFORE CAMBRIDGE

ZONING CHANGED, I HAVE NO IDEA IF THE WHOLE SYSTEM WORKS, TO BE FRANK. AND WHEN WE LAUGH AT ME IN THIS, I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE, ANYWAY, PLEASE JOIN ME IN LAUGHING AT THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE

TO COPE. AND ABOVE IS ABOUT A $4 MILLION, 5,000, 4,500 SQUARE FOOT, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND THEN AS YOU SEE LATER ON, UH, COUNSELOR SUSIE'S WONDERFUL WEBSITE, UM, AFTER THE ZONING PASSED, INSTEAD

OF THAT, IT'S GOING TO BECOME NINE UNITS. AND SO I JUST THINK THAT TO REMIND HER THAT THAT WAS WHAT WAS ALLOWED BEFORE IT WAS REALLY LARGE, REALLY EXPENSIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND THAT THE STATUS

QUO BEFORE WAS ALSO NOT GREAT BECAUSE WE SAW THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I FRANKLY DISAGREE WITH A LOT OF HOW COUNSELORS OPEN THIS EMAIL, BUT THAT'S ALREADY KNOWN. I THINK

THAT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT ONE THING, WHICH WAS LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A, WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A BAIT AND SWITCH, WHICH IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A THOUSAND UNITS PROPOSED, BUT ONLY 30 UNITS ARE IZ.

WELL, PART OF THAT WAS A SWITCH IN SAYING THAT ONLY 30 I ZS UNITS ARE PERMITTED, WHICH IS THAT LARGER DEVELOPMENTS TAKE LONGER TO PERMIT, RIGHT? EVEN ONE OF THE EARLIEST PROJECTS, WESTERN AF I BELIEVE

DOESN'T HAVE A PERMIT YET, RIGHT? AND SO I THINK THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHY IT CAN TAKE A YEAR AND A HALF TO PERMIT A PROJECT, BUT A LOT OF THE IZ UNITS ARE WORKING THEIR WAY

THROUGH THE PIPELINE. IT'S JUST THAT THEY TAKE QUITE A LONG TIME TO PERMIT. I THINK OTHER THINGS TO REMEMBER IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE REALLY, REALLY STRICT REQUIREMENTS WHICH MAKE IT TAKE SO LONG,

RIGHT? I THINK IN GOOD WAYS. BUT FOR EXAMPLE, STORMWATER I KNOW HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP OFTEN BOSTON REQUIRES YOU TO BUILD FOR A 10 YEAR FLOOD, UH, UH, SOMERVILLE FOR 10 YEARS. CAMBRIDGE HAS THE HIGHEST

STANDARD AT 25 YEARS, RIGHT? AND SO IN MANY WAYS WE LEAD IN REQUIREMENTS. UM, AND I THINK THAT WE WON'T TALK ABOUT PARKING TODAY, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY I ACTUALLY VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT A LOT OF

AMENDMENTS. UM, I'LL ACTUALLY GO FURTHER THAN SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS HERE TODAY IN MY, UH, CONVERSATION. BUT JUST SAYING LIKE, I THINK PARKING IS A HUGE PART OF IT, I THINK THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF

DIFFICULTIES, AND I THINK IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE IN THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A GENERATION, WE'RE GOING FROM HOUSING BEING ILLEGAL. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS PROCESS TO ACTUALLY, HOUSING IS OKAY.

AND OF COURSE THERE'S GONNA BE LIKE HICCUPS AND SPEED BUMPS AND CHANGES THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE. I ALWAYS, UH, UH, ASSUME THAT THERE WOULD BE AMENDMENTS. AND EVEN LAST TERM WE ENDED WITH LIKE A WHOLE

BUNCH OF IDEAS FOR AMENDMENTS. SO I THINK THAT THAT IS, UM, A GOOD REMINDER. SO I WANTED TO JUST BREAK DOWN THE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE A LITTLE BIT AND SEE THAT THERE'S FOUR TYPES OF PROJECTS.

THERE'S ONE IS MAKING CHANGES TO YOUR OWN HOMES, RIGHT? WHICH AS THE REDDIT STORY, UH, GIVES AN EXAMPLE OF, UM, WAS REALLY DIFFICULT TO, BEFORE THERE'S BUILDING A LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR BUILDING,

YOU KNOW, MAYBE EVEN A NEW TRIPLE DECKER OR A THREE UNIT BUILDING, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY ADD UNITS. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, UP TO A NINE UNIT BUILDING, AND THEN THERE'S THE INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS THAT ARE

ENABLED BY IT. I THINK THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WERE PROPOSED IN MANY WAYS AS SMALL AMENDMENTS, RIGHT? AND I CERTAINLY THINK THAT THEY ARE SMALL IN SOME EXTENT, BUT THERE WAS AN EMAIL SENT US TODAY BY,

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE FEW DEVELOPERS WHO IS BUILDING, UM, ACTUALLY THE INCLUSIONARY UNITS EVEN IN THIS ENVIRONMENT RIGHT? TODAY FROM D AND D HOMES. AND AS I WAS READING THROUGH IT, I NOTICED SOMETHING

WHICH IS, IF YOU HAVE A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, WHICH IS THE MEDIAN LOT IN CAMBRIDGE, UM, UNDER THE CURRENT SETBACKS AND RULES, UM, YOU CAN BUILD UP 3.4, UH, 3,400 OF THAT IS BUILDABLE, RIGHT? AND I

BELIEVE THAT IT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS FOR STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ACTUALLY THEIR PROJECTS AT LEAST ALREADY MEET STORMWATER WITHOUT HAVING TO

GO TO THESE FULL SETBACKS. IS THAT CORRECT? OR IN GENERAL, YOU CAN SPEAK IF YOU DON'T WANNA SPEAK ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT. THE QUESTION IS, IS IT THESE, THESE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS ARE NOT

AUTOMATICALLY ALREADY REQUIRED BY STORMWATER? NO. THE, THE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS WOULD HELP ACCOMMODATE MULTIPLE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, STORMWATER BEING ONE OF 'EM, BUT ALSO, UH, GREEN FACTOR, UH,

TREE CANOPY, UH, TRANSFORMER REPLACEMENT BUILDING CODES. UM, IT IS TRUE THAT SOME PROJECTS MIGHT BE ABLE TO, UH, MEET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE EXISTING SETBACKS, BUT WE'RE FINDING THAT

THE OUTCOMES ARE, ARE LESS THAN IDEAL. GOT. SO IN THAT SENSE, WHAT HE SAID IS THAT THIS WOULD REDUCE HIS BUILDABLE SPACE FROM 3,400 TO 2,300, WHICH IS A DRAMATIC REDUCTION OF 25%. MY QUESTION IS LIKE,

IF THAT IS TRUE, UM, OR IS GENERALLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, A 25 PRODUCTION PERCENT REDUCTION IN BUILDABLE SPACE, WON'T PEOPLE LIKE, WHO ARE ALREADY MARGINALLY BUILDING INCLUSIONARY, BECAUSE AS YOU SAID,

IT'S REALLY HARD TO BUILD IN THIS FINANCIAL REQUIRE, UH, ENVIRONMENT AT THAT INCLUSIONARY WITH ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. JUST BUILD NINE UNIT BUILDINGS INSTEAD. WAIT, COUNCILOR ZE, YOU'RE AT, YOU'RE

AT FIVE MINUTES, SO LET'S GET A RESPONSE AND LET'S GET, GIVE EVERYONE A CHANCE TO SPEAK. THANK YOU. YEAH, YEAH, CERTAINLY. UH, EACH, EACH SITE BASED ON THEIR SIZE IS GONNA BE IMPACT DIFFERENTLY. I, I

DON'T DISCREDIT THE, THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS THIS DEVELOPER IS POINTING OUT TO. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JEN DISCUSSED WAS THE IMPORTANCE OF AN EFFECTIVE DATE, UNDERSTANDING THAT DEVELOPERS BOUGHT LAND,

UNDERSTANDING CERTAIN EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT COULD BE DONE. AND SO THERE WOULD BE A HARDSHIP IF THAT HAS CHANGED, UH, MID CYCLE. SO WE DO RECOMMEND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. UH, WE DO THINK THAT MOVING

FORWARD, THAT THE MARKET WILL ADJUST TO, UH, THE, THE NEW, UM, ECONOMICS. GREAT. SO, UM, WELL, I AM ALSO A CO-CHAIR. NO, YOU'RE AT FIVE MINUTES. I THINK LET'S GIVE OTHER PEOPLE A CHANCE TO SPEAK AND

THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. OKAY. LEMME JUST MAKE A CLOSING. OKAY. THANK YOU. WHERE, UM, EXCUSE ME, CAN I JUST CLOSE MY STATEMENT? 30 SECONDS IF 10 SECONDS. GO AHEAD, BILL. NO, IT'S OKAY. I'LL YIELD.

IT'S I'LL YIELD YOU. JUST COME BACK TO ME. OKAY. UM, COUNSELOR, UM, ZUBI, YOU WERE NEXT. OH, I'M SORRY. COUNSELOR NOLAN, YOU WERE NEXT. AND THEN COUNSELOR ZUBI. THANKS. UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE

WORK THAT'S GOING GONE INTO THIS. I WILL TRY TO ADHERE TO THAT FIVE MINUTES. UM, I, I THINK THE CONTEXT IS REALLY IMPORTANT HERE. THE STAFF HAS WORKED UNBELIEVABLY HARD TO ADJUST TO EVER CHANGING

UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACT OF THIS, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. IS IT, YOU COULD EITHER SAY, OH MY GOSH, IT'S BEEN LESS THAN TWO YEARS. HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW? OR YOU COULD SAY, OH MY GOSH, IT'S

ALREADY BEEN TWO YEARS AND WE'RE SEEING DEMOLITIONS ACROSS THE CITY, AND, AND IT'S IN BETWEEN. WE HAVE SEEN IMPACTS. THIS ISN'T JUST SIX MONTHS IN, WHICH IS WHAT I HAD ASKED FOR. AND AT THAT TIME IT

WAS, WELL, WE CAN'T REALLY TELL, SO WE NEED MORE TIME NOW. WE DO NEED MORE TIME. AND THERE'S SOME, SOME PROJECTS AS COUNCILOR AS YOU REFERRED TO, WHICH NOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE, YOU KNOW, SIX OR NINE

UNITS ON LOTS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN EMPTY OR SINGLE FAMILY. AND YET WE HAVE OTHER PROJECTS WHERE THERE'S GONNA BE 50 UNITS WHERE IT'S EXTREME AND PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THIS IS REALLY, UH, CHALLENGING. AND

FOR ME WOULD BE A POSTER CHILD FOR WHAT WE DIDN'T INTEND BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST ALL MARKET RATE HOUSING. AND, AND EVEN IF THERE'S SOME INCLUSIONARY, IT'S NOT, UH, IT'S NOT GONNA RUN DOWN TO THE BENEFIT

OF THE ENTIRE CITY. I WOULD SAY, WHILE I WON'T SAY EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE CITY, I WILL SAY, I GUESS 98% ARE NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD GO BACK TO WHAT WE HAD BEFORE, WHERE THERE WERE SINGLE FAMILY

ONLY ZONES. AND, UH, AS WE JUVAN COUNCILOR, SABINA REALER AND I WERE THE ONES TO START THIS PROCESS A FEW YEARS AGO BY SAYING, HEY, LET'S START LOOKING AT GETTING RID OF SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY ONLY

ZONES. AND SO I'M REALLY GLAD THAT IT WAS PICKED UP BY SUBSEQUENT COUN COUNCILS. AND WE ARE NOW IN THIS PLACE WHERE WE HAVE THIS, I I, WHAT I WILL SAY IS I'VE, I WITH COUNCILOR ZUBIE AND MAYOR SIDIKI

IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, BUT IS, UM, SUPPORTIVE, HAVE PUT FORTH JUST SO PEOPLE KNOW, TO BASICALLY SAY, I I CAN SUPPORT ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITY ON THIS. I THINK THEY'RE

REASONABLE. I YOU COULD EITHER SAY, WELL, THEY'RE RELATIVELY SMALL AND MINOR. YOU COULD SAY, OH MY GOSH, THEY'RE HUGE. I PERSONALLY WOULD PROBABLY GO A LOT FURTHER IN, IN EVEN MORE OPEN SPACE, YOU

KNOW, 30% PERMEABLE INSTEAD OF JUST THE 20%. THERE'S, AND YET I ALSO RECOGNIZE THERE'S COMPROMISES. JUST LIKE THERE WAS COMPROMISES IN GETTING THIS OVER THE FINISH LINE, WHICH I APPRECIATE. UM,

COUNCILOR MCGOVERN AND, AND AZI WORKED, UH, WITH COUNCILOR TONER AND I TO DO THAT. SO I I TOTALLY GET THAT. FOR SOME PEOPLE, THESE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH. AND FOR OTHERS IT MAY BE. WE'RE,

WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING EMAILS LIKE, YOU'RE GONNA STOP BUILDING IN THE CITY IF YOU PASS ANY AMENDMENTS, WHICH IS SO NOT TRUE. WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM THE CITY AND WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT GONNA

BE THE CASE. UM, THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE A LOT OF BUILDING. SO EVEN IF WE PASS THESE AMENDMENTS, LET'S BE CLEAR, THERE WILL STILL BE A LOT OF LARGE PROJECTS IN THE CITY, MOST OF WHICH WE WANT. ON

THE OTHER HAND, THERE WILL BE FEWER OF THE PROJECTS. I THINK THAT COMPROMISE ALL THE OTHER GOALS THAT WE HAVE OF THE CITY IN TERMS OF, IT'S NOT JUST THE GREEN FACT, BUT REMEMBER, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

REQUIRES US TO CONSIDER WHAT OTHER PEOPLE MAY SAY. OH, IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU CARE MORE ABOUT TREES THAN PEOPLE. NO, I CARE ABOUT TREES BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT PEOPLE. AND ALSO, THERE'S A WHOLE RANGE

OF OTHER WAYS IN WHICH I THINK THE CITY STAFF HAS DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB THAT OUTLINING HOW IT IS THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD IN A VERY POSITIVE DIRECTION AND STILL HAVE

THE BOLDEST, MOST AGGRESSIVE CHANGE IN THE WHOLE STATE, COMMONWEALTH, IF NOT THE COUNTRY, IN TERMS OF ALLOWING, UH, CITIES TO, UH, BUILDINGS ACROSS THE CITY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER IS

EVEN WITH THESE CHANGES OR EVEN FURTHER AMENDMENTS, IT WOULD STILL BE THE MOST BOLD CHANGE IN THE ENTIRE COMMONWEALTH, WHICH WE CAN BE PROUD OF. AND WE'RE ALREADY BUILDING A LOT MORE HOUSING THAN

PRETTY MUCH ANYWHERE ELSE. I WILL SAY, IF, IF ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES IN THE COMMONWEALTH WERE BUILDING THE WAY WE WERE BOTH REGULAR AND AFFORDABLE, THERE WOULDN'T BE A HOUSING CRISIS. SO I HOPE THAT,

THAT MY COLLEAGUES, UH, CONSIDER THIS, UH, POLICY ORDER, WHICH BASICALLY SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THE TRADE-OFFS AND WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S COMPROMISES. AND WE, I I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN RELATIVELY

QUICKLY, WHICH IS WHY COUNCILOR ZUBIE AND I PUT THIS FORWARD SO THAT WE COULD FROM TODAY, ASK THE CITY YES. PUT THIS INTO ORDINANCE LANGUAGE SO THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WE CAN CONSIDER IT. UH, THANK

YOU SO MUCH, COUNCILLOR NOLAN COUNCIL, UH, YOU HAVE A FEW MORE MINUTES IF YOU WANT. I, OKAY. UH, COUNCILLOR ZUBIE, THANK YOU. THROUGH YOU CHAIRS. UM, I DO WANNA FIRST PREFACE MY PART BY BEING MINDFUL

THAT THESE CONVERSATIONS ARE NOT EASY WHEN WE FRAME THE CONVERSATION AS A CHOICE BETWEEN HOUSING OR THE ENVIRONMENT OR HOUSING OR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. WE'RE LOSING SIGHT OF THE CORE OF WHAT'S

SUPPOSED TO ACTUALLY HAPPEN IN THIS DIALOGUE. WE DO NEED MORE HOUSING, AND WE DO NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE ELEMENTS TO HOUSING THAT IMPACT THE LARGER INFRASTRUCTURE, LIKE THE ENVIRONMENT AND

LIKE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. SO I, I DO WANNA THANK C-D-D-D-P-W, THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR TIRELESS WORK ON THIS BECAUSE NAVIGATING IT IS NOT EASY WHATSOEVER. SOME NOTES, UM, THAT I HAVE

BASED ON THE DATA AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF DEMOLITIONS AND UPDATES THAT HAVE AFFECTED THE ACTUALLY NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT THEN WILL

BECOME HIGH END MARKET RATE UNITS OR UNITS THAT AVOID THE INCLUSIONARY THRESHOLD. AND I'VE SAID THIS MANY TIMES, ONE OF THE BIGGEST TOOLS THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS IS THE LEVERAGE AROUND ZONING. WE

HAVE TO BE ABLE TO THOUGHTFULLY RECKON WITH HOW TO EXTRACT FOR GUARANTEED PUBLIC GOOD OUT OF THE EXTRACTIVE SYSTEM THAT EXISTS TODAY. I, I DO SUPPORT MORE DENSITY. FOR ME, IT'S A QUESTION OF HOW WE DO

IT AND FOR WHOM A NUMBER OF THINGS I WANT TO RAISE FIRST. UM, LIKE COUNCILOR NOLAN SAID, I WILL SUPPORT CD'S AMENDMENTS TO THE SETBACKS PERMEABLE SPACE PERCENTAGE AND EXPLORING THE INCREASE REGARDING

LIMITING TO THREE STORIES. THAT'S CONTEXT DEPENDENT. I WILL NOTE THOUGH, UH, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT IT BE EXPLICITLY JUST THREE AND THREE INSTEAD OF LIKE THE, THE FOUR AND TWO THAT WE HAVE. AND I

KNOW THIS KIND OF SEEMS LIKE A BIT OF AN IN-BETWEEN, AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE I, I REALLY WANT TO DISINCENTIVIZE TEARDOWNS OF NATURALLY AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE THEN REPLACED BY PROJECTS WITH NO

AFFORDABLE UNITS. UM, AND I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT HOUSING PRODUCTION. I THINK IN FACT, CDD, SOME OF CD'S ANALYSIS HAS SHOWN THAT AS WELL. UM, WE, AND IF ANYTHING, WE SHOULD BE, UH,

FINDING WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE ACTUAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THESE PROJECTS BECAUSE WE KNOW TO SOME EXTENT, MANY OF THE DEVELOPERS ARE SKIRTING THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE 10 UNIT

THRESHOLD. I KNOW THIS WASN'T SAID ALSO IN THE PRESENTATION EXPLICITLY, BUT ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UM, IS MORE DATA AND RESEARCH ON DISPLACEMENT. I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS THAT CAN

HELP US BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT LIKE THE LOCATION OF WHERE THIS IS HAPPENING, THE RENT, THE CHANGES IN RENT. AND THAT WAY WE CAN COME BACK AS A COUNCIL AND TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE PAYING FOR

DISPLACEMENT COSTS OR RIGHTS TO RETURN. ONE QUESTION I DO HAVE IS, UM, REGARDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE ON SLIDE 24, UH, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF A SUDDEN CHANGE TO THIS ZONING INSTEAD OF THE THREE TO

SIX MONTHS ON THE HOUSING ALREADY AND PLANNING? 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT, THAT IT WAS RECOMMENDED THERE AS ONE OF THE, THE BULLET POINTS. I'M JUST CURIOUS TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS. YEAH, SO CERTAINLY, UM,

PROJECTS THAT HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT WOULD OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY ANY FUTURE ZONING CHANGES, BUT IT IS A, YOU KNOW, THAT CUTOFF TIME OF WHAT WOULD BE AFFECTED AND WHAT WOULDN'T BE. AND SO

RECOGNIZING THAT THE, IT TAKES, UM, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL MONTHS TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT AND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S EVEN BEFORE THAT PRE-PLANNING STAGES, YOU PURCHASING ACQUISITION OF SITE, UH, MANY

DEVELOPERS HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS BASED ON CERTAIN EXPECTATIONS AND TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO, UH, NOT BE PENALIZED BY THIS. BUT THEN MOVING FORWARD, UM, AS I DESCRIBED EARLIER, MY COMMENTS, UM, THE MARKET

COULD CORRECT, UM, AND PEOPLE WOULD PLAN FOR IT ACCORDINGLY. GOTCHA. THAT'S DEFINITELY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND. UM, SORRY, SORRY, COUNSELOR ZUBY, IF I COULD JUST, UM, JUMP IN WITH ONE QUICK CORRECTION

TO WHAT MELISSA SAID. THE VERY RECENT CHANGES TO CHAPTER 48, THE ZONING ACT HAVE ACTUALLY MADE IT SO THAT ANYONE WHO HAS APPLIED FOR OR RECEIVED A BUILDING PERMIT IS PROTECTED FROM CHANGES TO THE

ZONING ORDINANCE. THAT IS DEFINITELY HELPFUL TO KNOW. UH, THANK YOU GUYS FOR THAT INFO. I, I, I JUST WANNA NOTE THE EXAMPLE THAT, UH, COUNSELOR AZI BROUGHT UP DOESN'T INCLUDE INCLUSIONARY ZONING,

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, WHICH AGAIN, FOR ME SPECIFICALLY, I REALLY CARE ABOUT THAT. UM, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO YOU IF YOU WANT THOSE 30 SECONDS BACK. THERE, YOU, YOU HAD 30

SECONDS. DO YOU WANT, YOU WANNA GIVE IT TO HAN? UH, I'M SORRY. TO COUNCILOR , OUR VICE MAYOR, THAT WAS, UH, VERY GENEROUS. I, I THINK I'M HAPPY TO LET OTHERS SPEAK. I WILL SAY, UM, I LOOKED UP THE

RULES AND THE FIVE MINUTE TIMELINE IS ONLY FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT FOR COMMITTEE MEETINGS, BUT HAPPY TO YIELD AND LET OTHERS SPEAK FOR NOW. THANK VERY GRACIOUS OF YOU. OH,

OKAY. UH, LET US LET, UM, COUNCILOR MCGOVERN SPEAK PLEASE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR THROUGH YOU. UM, THANK YOU, UH, TO THE CITY FOR, UM, ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS. UM, JUST A, A COUPLE THINGS. UM,

FIRST OF ALL, YOU KNOW, I, WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME, AND I'VE SAID THIS ALL ALONG, IS THAT I WAS OPEN AND WOULD BE OPEN TO AMENDMENTS SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT UNDERMINE THE OVERALL GOAL OF MULTI-FAMILY

HOUSING, WHICH IS TO ADD MORE MARKET RATE HOUSING STOCK TO OUR CITY. UM, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM YOUR CALCULATIONS, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD NOT REDUCE, UH, THE NUMBER OF UNITS, UH,

THAT YOU, THAT YOU PROJECTED. UM, IT IS, I THINK TO, TO THE VICE MAYOR'S POINT, UM, IF YOU, IF YOU COULD JUST FOR TAKE A MINUTE, I ONLY GOT FIVE TO SORT OF WALK THROUGH HOW, HOW YOU CAME TO THAT

CONCLUSION. BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN YOU DO SHRINK THE BUILD IT, IT'S HARD TO SORT OF COMPREHEND THAT SHRINKING THE BUILDABLE FOOTPRINT OF A LOT AND NOT ALLOWING GREATER HEIGHTS OR, OR SOMETHING ELSE TO

OFFSET THAT, THAT, UM, THAT SHRINKAGE THAT IT DOES. IT'S NOT GONNA YIELD FEWER UNITS. I MEAN, HOW DO YOU ALLOW LESS TO BE BUILT ON A LOT AND NOT LOSE ANYTHING? YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION THROUGH

YOUR CHAIRS ZUI. UM, SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT, UH, YOU CAN BUILD AND YOUR ZONING ENVELOPE AND THEN WHAT, UM, WHAT IS BUILT IN, IN PRACTICE WHEN YOU MEET OTHER REQUIREMENTS. SO WHEN WE DID

OUR PROJECTIONS, WE ASSUMED, UM, A BUILDING FOOTPRINT THAT WAS NOT AS LARGE AS WHAT THE ZONING ALLOWS TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEED TO INCORPORATE SPACE FOR OTHER REQUIREMENTS, UM, AND, UM, THINGS THAT ARE

NECESSARY FOR BUILDINGS. UM, THEREFORE OUR ASSUMPTIONS AND THE PROJECTIONS WERE, UM, MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN IF WE WERE TO JUST DO IT BASED ON STRICTLY THE ZONING ENVELOPE. UM, THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT

IF PROJECTS, UM, ARE BUILDING TO THE MAXIMUM ZONING ENVELOPE AND ABLE TO, UM, SQUEEZE IN ALL THOSE OTHER ISSUES, THAT THEY WILL GET SMALLER. WE'RE NOT DENYING THE FACT THAT SOME PROJECTS WILL GET

SMALLER. UM, UM, AND, AND TO THE EMAIL FROM DD THAT IT ILLUSTRATES THAT, UM, WE DO THINK IT, GIVEN ITS, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE ONE OR TWO UNITS, IT COULD BE NO UNITS, IT COULD BE THAT UNITS BECOME

SMALLER AND YOU GET THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS OVERALL, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE SITES. SMALL SITES WILL BE IMPACTED MORE JUST BY NATURE THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD AS MUCH ON SMALL SITES AS YOU CAN LARGE

SITES. UM, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT OUR PROJECTIONS, UM, REMAIN UNCHANGED BECAUSE WE HAD KIND OF BUILT IN THAT ASSUMPTION THAT THESE OTHER, UH, REQUIREMENTS WOULD TAKE PRECEDENT. THANK YOU. UM,

THROUGH YOU MADAM CHAIR. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE O THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS IS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN OVERALL HOUSING GOAL FOR THE CITY. AND AND I I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE AND CONTINUE TO BELIEVE

THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL PARTS OF THE CITY, ALL NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE CITY NEED TO BE PART OF HELPING SOLVE OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE. AND WE CAN'T JUST PUT, UM, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING ON THE, ON THE, ON THE

CORRIDORS. RIGHT? AND, AND YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU DO THAT, WHEN YOU SAY, AND THIS IS, THIS IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS. WHEN YOU SAY SIX STORIES AND ABOVE ONLY ON CORRIDORS, WHAT

THAT DOES, SIX STORIES IS WHAT YOU NEED TO GET INCLUSIONARY. SO WHAT YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING IS ANY INCLUSIONARY UNITS, WHICH ARE ARE SUBSIDIZED LOW INCOME UNITS ARE GONNA BE ON THE CORRIDORS. AND

THAT TO ME, SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING BACK TO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE EXCLUSIONARY ZONING THAT WE TRIED, EVERYONE SAYS THEY WANT TO PREVENT. YOU'RE SAYING LOW INCOME PEOPLE ARE ON THE CORRIDORS AND NOT IN

THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I I, I WORRY ABOUT THAT. UM, UH, THE QUESTION OF NATURALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE HEAR THIS A LOT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE MINUTE SOMEONE, SO LANDLORDS, MY

GRANDMOTHER WAS ONE OF THESE LANDLORDS WHO KEEP THEIR RENTS BELOW MARKET, DO IT FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT A A LOT OF THE TIMES IT'S BECAUSE THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE ALREADY PAID OFF THEIR

MORTGAGE. THEY, THEY ALREADY OWN THE PROPERTY. THEY DON'T, THE PROPERTY IS NOT RENOVATED. UM, YOU KNOW, SO THEY CAN CHARGE LESS MONEY FOR IT, AND ALL THAT IS GREAT, BUT THE MINUTE THAT HOUSE SELLS,

WHETHER IT GETS SOLD TO A DEVELOPER OR TO A PRIVATE CITIZEN FOR $3 MILLION OR $4 MILLION, THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE GONE. NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, WHETHER THAT HOUSE GETS DEMOLISHED OR NOT, BECAUSE

THE NEW OWNER IS GONNA RENOVATE THEM AND CHARGE MARKET RENT BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE CARRYING A $4 MILLION MORTGAGE ON A HOUSE THEY JUST BOUGHT, PLUS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT KIND OF STUFF HAS

BEEN HAPPENING IN THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME, AND THAT'S GONNA CONTINUE TO HAPPEN, WHETHER THE HOUSE GETS DEMOLISHED OR NOT, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOW, THE NEW OWNER IS INCURRING QUITE A BIT OF COST AND

THEY'RE GONNA NEED TO MAKE UP THAT, THAT COST SOMEHOW. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT I, I, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT HAPPENS, UM, IN THE, IN THE, UH, ONE OF THE LATER

SLIDES THAT YOU HAD ABOUT SOME OF THE INFORMATION, UM, THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE PRODUCING THE WEBSITE AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. UM, I REALLY THINK WE HAVE TO DECIDE, THERE NEEDS TO BE A DEFINITIONS PAGE

OF THIS. AND WHEN YOU DO THESE PRESENTATIONS, 'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S A LOT PEOPLE TALK ABOUT, WE THROW AROUND WORDS THAT I THINK PEOPLE THAT MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS AND PEOPLE USE THEM DIFFERENTLY. SO

THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. YOU KNOW, ONE WAY IS SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, LOW INCOME, INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING. THAT'S USUALLY THE WAY WE, WE MEAN, BUT REPLACING, AND

IT GOES TO THE VICE MAYOR'S POINT ABOUT THE, ABOUT THE DOWNSIZING THAT WAS HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, BUILDING A 4 MILLION, WHAT WAS HAPPENING BEFORE BUILDING A $4 MILLION SINGLE FAMILY HOME VERSUS WHAT'S

HAPPENING NOW, BUILDING A $1.8 MILLION CONDO. I KNOW IT'S CRAZY TO SAY 1.8 MILLION IS LESS EXPENSIVE, BUT IT IS LESS EXPENSIVE THAN A $4 MILLION BUILDING. COUNCILOR MCGOVERN, YOU'RE AT MINUTES. AND,

AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO SET SOME DEFINITIONS SO THAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. WHAT IS LUXURY? YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? UM, COUNCILOR MCGOVERN, I THINK YOU'VE MADE YOUR

POINT IN YOUR OVER FIVE MINUTES. UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK AND, UM, I GREAT TO HEAR FROM YOU. ARE THERE OTHER MEMBERS OF EITHER COMMITTEES THAT WOULD LIKE TO

SPEAK? YEAH, COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER. THANK YOU. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. UM, THROUGH YOU THANKS TO CDD AND OTHER STAFF, UH, FOR THIS PRESENTATION AND ALL THE WORK ON THIS. YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S TAKEN A

LOT OF TIME AND I HAVE, ALONG WITH OTHER COUNSELORS, HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU ON THIS. UM, A FEW POINTS, AND I, UH, A COUPLE QUESTIONS IN HERE. I THINK, UH, I, YOU KNOW, AT THE

OUTSET, NOT INTERESTED IN ANY CHANGES THAT ARE GONNA MAKE IT HARDER TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH INCLUSIONARY ZONING. THAT IS A BIG FRAMEWORK. I'M LOOKING AT THIS, I KNOW OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED

THAT, AND TRANSIT COUNSELOR, UH, INCLUDING COUNSELOR ZUBIE. IF THIS DECREASES THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT'S GETTING BUILT, UH, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN CHANGES. FULL STOP. UM, I THINK WE CAN

TALK ABOUT AND DEBATE SORT OF HOW MANY AFFORDABLE HOMES ARE BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW. I LOOKED AT THE, UM, SPREADSHEET THAT COUNSELOR ZUI CREATED, WHICH IS, UM, YOU KNOW, USEFUL IN A LOT OF WAYS. AND

ON, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT HOW MANY AFFORDABLE HOMES ARE BEING PROPOSED IN THAT SPREADSHEET, IT'S MORE THAN 160 AFFORDABLE HOMES. THOSE ARE HOMES FOR RESIDENTS THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT UNDER THE

ZONING WE HAD A YEAR AGO. THOSE ARE TEACHERS, THOSE ARE SOCIAL WORKERS, THOSE ARE CUSTODIANS WHO ARE GETTING PRICED OUT OF CAMBRIDGE RIGHT NOW. PEOPLE WHO GREW UP HERE AND CAN NOW NOT AFFORD TO LIVE

HERE. EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT'S ONLY JUST ONE OR TWO PEOPLE PER UNIT, THAT'S STILL HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GONNA BE ABLE TO LIVE IN CAMBRIDGE, WHO WOULD NOT OTHERWISE, UH, 50% OF THE PEOPLE AT

INCLUSIONARY UNITS HAVE SECTION EIGHT VOUCHERS. THESE ARE REALLY LOW INCOME FOLKS, AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS WE HAVE. UM, SO TO THAT, UH,

POINT, THE QUESTION FOR CDD CAN, UH, WE REQUIRE THAT INCREASED SETBACKS, UH, FOR BUILDINGS THAT DO NOT HAVE INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, BUT NOT REQUIRE THEM FOR THE BUILDINGS THAT DO HAVE

AFFORDABLE UNITS. SO ANOTHER WAY TO PUT THAT, COULD WE REQUIRE THEM FOR FOUR STORY AND BELOW BUILDINGS, BUT NOT REQUIRE THEM FOR THE SIX STORY BUILDINGS THAT HAVE INCLUSIONARY UNITS? UM, SO TO, TO, TO

ATTEMPT IN AN ANSWER. AND I MAY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT THE, THAT THE CITY SOLICITOR KIND OF PROTECTS ME FROM, FROM SAYING SOMETHING WRONG. UM, I MEAN, CONCEPT IT, YOU KNOW, BE AN APPROACH

LIKE THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO, YOU KNOW, THE APPROACH WE HAVE NOW WITH HEIGHT WHERE THERE'S, UH, A DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS FOR, FOR INCLUSIONARY DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO NON INCLUSIONARY

DEVELOPMENT. AND, YOU KNOW, YOU, ONE WAY WE SORT OF FRAME THAT IS AS A BONUS, RIGHT? YOU GET, YOU GET OTHER DEVELOPMENT, YOU GET FLEXIBILITY AND ZONING AND EXCHANGE FOR, FOR DEVELOPMENT. SO I THINK IT

WOULD BE CONCEIVABLE THAT THERE COULD BE DIFFERENT, UM, STANDARDS, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AS WELL AS HEIGHT STANDARDS FOR INCLUSIONARY VERSUS NON INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS. I'M GETTING A NOD. THAT'S GOOD.

. IT MEANS I HAVEN'T, I WON'T BE GOING TO JAIL. THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR. THAT WOULD BE MY STRONG PREFERENCE. AGAIN, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN ANY CHANGES THAT ARE GONNA MAKE IT HARDER TO BUILD AFFORDABLE

HOUSING. UH, AND COUPLE OTHER COMMENTS. I THINK, UH, IN GENERAL ABOUT THIS, I THINK PART OF THESE AMENDMENTS I'M EXCITED ABOUT, PART I'M NERVOUS ABOUT AND PARTS I'M, I'M PRETTY WORRIED ABOUT. UM, I'M

REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE PROPOSAL FOR DISINCENTIVIZING LARGER AND FEWER UNITS. I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME GOING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THAT WITH CDD ABOUT THIS PART. UM, I, I'M, YOU KNOW, EXCITED TO SEE

THIS PROPOSAL HERE, STILL NEED TO SEE THE FINAL ZONING LANGUAGE, BUT I RESTRICTIONS ON MCMANSIONS AND THE MOST EXPENSIVE TYPE OF HOUSING ARE A GOOD THING. AND WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE THE CREATION OF

MORE MODEST, LOWER COST HOUSING AND INCLUSIONARY UNITS. UH, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, NOT GONNA BE AN IMPACT ON INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. UH, AND, AND IT SEEMS LIKE

THAT'S WHAT THIS PROPOSAL IS AIMED AT. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK ON THAT. UM, ALSO WANT TO AVOID THE SUDDEN IMPACT ON HOUSING ALREADY IN PLANNING AND REVIEW BASED ON CURRENT ZONING AND THE EFFECT

OF DATE, UH, SUGGESTION TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT IMPACTING CURRENT PROJECTS. UH, MAKES SENSE. UH, AND THEN THE FINAL POINT IS THAT WE NEED TO MODEL THE IMPACTS OF ANY AMENDMENTS ON HOUSING AND CREATION

LIKE WE DID WITH THE ORIGINAL MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE. WE HAD A CHART THAT SAID, THIS IS WHAT, HOW MANY HOUSING UNITS, UH, THE PROPOSAL IS GONNA CREATE. AND THEN WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT FOUR PLUS

TWO AND THREE PLUS THREE, WE HAVE MODELS FOR THAT AS WELL. HOW MANY HOUSING UNITS IS IT GONNA CREATE? HOW MANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IT'S GONNA CREATE? WE NEED TO HAVE SIMILAR MODELING, UH, FOR

THESE AMENDMENTS. UM, TO THAT EFFECT, I, UH, SUBMITTED A A, I KNOW WE HAVE A POLICY ORDER HERE FROM COUNCILLOR NOLAN. UM, I SUGGESTED AN AMENDMENT TO THAT. UH, TO THAT EFFECT, UH, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE

THAT ANY AMENDMENTS ARE GONNA LEAD TO FEWER, YOU KNOW, GIANT MCMANSIONS, FEWER REALLY LARGE, UH, HOUSING AND MORE MODEST, REASONABLY SIZED HOMES AND MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT

ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE GONNA BE NEUTRAL OR LEAD, ACTUALLY LEAD TO MORE HOUSING OVERALL. WHICH IF WE'RE SAYING, HEY, YOU CAN'T CREATE REALLY LARGE HOUSING, BUT YOU CAN CREATE MORE MODEST MULTI-

FAMILY HOUSING, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH THESE AMENDMENTS. UH, AND THE PROPOSAL HERE ON THE SLIDE 21, YOU KNOW, DISSENT LARGER, FEWER HOMES, THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT. THE PROPOSAL THAT CDD

LAYS OUT HERE, UM, AND TO COUNCILOR OZU BE'S POINT, WE NEED TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT WE AREN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT WOULD REDUCE THE CREATION OF INCLUSION AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, WHICH IS

PART OF THE, THE AMENDMENT I SUBMITTED. UM, SO I'LL YIELD FOR NOW, UM, TO LET OTHERS SPEAK AND THEN HAPPY TO, TO TALK MORE WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE, THE, UH, POLICY ORDER AND AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. UH,

COUNCILLOR, SABRINA WHEELER. UM, YES, COUNCILLOR FLAHERTY. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, SORT OF AS AN OVERVIEW, UH, YOU KNOW, I WASN'T PART OF THE COUNCIL OF THE VOTED FOR THIS, AND ONE OF THE MAJOR

OBJECTIONS THAT I'VE HAD TO THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING ORDINANCE IS THE HOUSING SHORTAGE THAT WE'RE ENCOUNTERING IS NOT SPECIFIC TO CAMBRIDGE. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A REGIONAL ISSUE, AND SOMETIMES I

THINK WE TREAT IT AS IF CAMBRIDGE IS IN A SILO, AND THAT WE'RE CREATING THIS VERY AGGRESSIVE AND PERMISSIVE, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE WITHOUT PARTNERING WITH OUR, UH, NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES TO MAKE A

REAL IMPACT ON THE HOUSING SHORTAGE, UH, THAT WE'RE SEEING REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY. AND THE OTHER ISSUE I HAVE IS THAT THIS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE, AS IT'S PLAYED OUT PRAGMATICALLY AND

PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, UH, DEMONSTRATES THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POOR PEOPLE OR FAMILIES. UM, AND IN FACT, WHAT IT'S DOING IS IT'S ACTUALLY INCREASING DENSITY, UH, THROUGHOUT OUR CITY WITHOUT

ACHIEVING THE GOALS THAT IT'S SET OUT TO ACHIEVE. AND THAT'S DISAPPOINTING TO ME. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT CDD HAS DONE, AND I'VE TALKED TO THEM, AND I KNOW MAYBE MY IDEAS ARE NOT THE MOST

POPULAR IDEAS, BUT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME EFFORT TOWARDS, UH, I APPRECIATE DISINCENTIVIZING LARGER, UM, BUILDING WITH FEWER UNITS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN COUNT BEDROOMS.

HOW ARE WE CREATING HOUSING FOR, UH, FAMILIES? BECAUSE I THINK IF WE DON'T DO THAT, IF WE DON'T INCENTIVIZE THAT, THEN AS WE TAKE THIS OUT TO ITS LOGICAL, UH, CONCLUSION, AND BY EXTRAPOLATION, WE'RE

NOT GONNA BE THE CITY WE ARE NOW IN ONE GENERATION. AND TO, UH, MY, MY GOOD FRIEND COUNCIL EM'S POINT ABOUT D AND D DEVELOPMENT, UH, CREATING IZ HOUSING IN THESE MACROECONOMIC CONDITIONS, THEY'VE

SOLICITED ME MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS TO BUY MY PROPERTY, UM, BECAUSE THE RENT RESTED, I GUESS, IN CREATING IZ. UH, BUT THEY'VE ALSO ARE THE DEVELOPER AT NINE WYMAN ROAD, AS YOU

KNOW, WHERE THEY'RE REPLACING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH 56 UNITS, MAINLY STUDIO AND SINGLE, UH, BEDROOM APARTMENTS, UH, RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF, UH, HURON ITS BOX, WHICH IN MY VIEW IS NOT WHAT THIS

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING ORDINANCE WAS INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH. IT JUST ISN'T. I MEAN, THAT'S MY VIEW. AND WITH RESPECT TO NO, NO RESPONSE IN THE, YEAH, AND, AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT

DEVELOPMENT ON, ON RIN JAV, I KNOW IT WELL, UH, THAT VACANT LOT. UH, BUT WHEN WE THINK OF IT AND CONCEPTUALLY ON RING J, WHICH I DO, I ALSO CONSIDER THE 10 STORY BUILDING WITH 92 UNITS, JEFFSON PARK,

UH, RING COMMONS. AND I THINK OF THE IMPACT IT HAS ON THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ON LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL, LIKE HOMO FIELD ON THE TRAFFIC, ARMIN J AND HOW IT ALL FITS TOGETHER IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE. AND I

KNOW THAT THIS IS MAYBE NOT THE MOST POPULAR THING TO SAY IN THIS, IN, IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, BUT, UM, CREATING HOUSING I THINK IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA, AND WE SHOULD BE DOING IT, BUT WE'VE GOT TO BE DOING

IT IN A WAY THAT REFLECTS WHO WE WANT TO BE AS A CITY AND WHAT KIND OF A CITY WE WANT. UM, AND, AND DO WE WANT TO BE A CITY OF FAMILIES, A SUSTAINABLE CITY THAT CONTINUES TO BE A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE?

WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO BUILD OURSELVES OUT OF THE DEMAND THAT THERE IS TO LIVE IN CAMBRIDGE WITH ALL THE DRAMATIC, UM, EXTERNAL IMPACTS THAT WE HAVE ON OUR HOUSING WITH THE UNIVERSITIES, THE

HOSPITALS, KENDALL SQUARE, UH, LOCATION AND PROXIMITY TO BOSTON. WE'RE JUST NOT, AND WE'VE GOTTA RECOGNIZE THAT. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, WE DO HAVE GOALS THAT WE SHOULD BE MEETING, UM, AND I THINK ONE

OF THE WAYS THAT WE MEET IT IS BY SETTING UP A SYSTEM WITHIN OUR OWN ZONING ORDINANCE TO COUNT BEDROOMS. I'M NOT SURE HOW WE DO THAT. AND I'VE GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

NOW IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO DISCUSS 'EM, BECAUSE A LOT, A LOT OF IT IS SINGLE AND SPECIFIC TO ME, LIKE WITH THE PROJECTION PROJECTIONS, UM, AND HOW THAT WORKS WITH THE PERMEABLE OPEN SPACE,

INCLUDING LIKE, UM, DECKS ON HOMES AND HOW THAT RELATES TO SETBACKS. UM, YOU KNOW, NOT LOTS OF SORT OF IN THE WEEDS QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE, BUT OVERALL I APPRECIATE, UM, THE EFFORTS THAT YOU'VE MADE.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY STICKS OUT IN MY MIND, SOMEONE MENTIONED, AND I THINK IT WAS YOU, MS. PETERS, THAT ONCE, UH, MAYBE IT WAS MR. ROBERTS, YOU'RE BOTH, UH, SO HIGHLY, UM, ARTICULATE THAT

OFTENTIMES THAT CONFUSE EACH OF YOU, UH, WITH ONE ANOTHER. BUT IF OUR PUD GOALS ARE GOING TO GET US CLOSE TO THE OVERALL HOUSING, UH, GOALS THAT WE'RE, AND THIS IS MY QUESTION, ONCE WE DO THAT WITH

THE CAR TO ZONING, IF WE GET CLOSE TO THE HOUSING, DO WE THEN COME BACK AND AMEND THE EXISTING AMENDMENTS TO TRY AND STOP THE DEVELOPMENT, THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE'RE SEEING FOR FLAHERTY? LET'S GET

AN ANSWER AND, UH, PLEASE AN ANSWER. AND LET'S MOVE ON. THE QUESTION WAS, ARE WE GONNA GO BACK? CAN CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? MY QUESTION IS THAT A LOT OF WHAT THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONING

ORDINANCE HAS DONE IS IN, IS INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT IN NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT IF THE PUDS AND THE CORRIDOR ZONING ARE GOING TO GO A LONG WAY TO HITTING OUR HOUSING GOALS, ARE WE THEN GOING TO RESTRICT

DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS ONCE WE MEET THE GOALS, UH, THROUGH OUR PLANT UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND CORRIDOR ZONING? NO, I THINK THE EXPECT WE, WE NEED HOUSING, UH, IN ALL AREAS OF THE CITY. UM, LIKE

A GOAL IS ALSO TO HAVE IT EQUITY DISTRIBUTED, THAT AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE EQUITY DISTRIBUTED. UM, WE ARE, UH, SHY OF MEETING OUR HOUSING GOAL. AND SO, UH, WE, WE DO WANNA CONTINUE TO, TO BUILD, UM, MORE

INTENSELY ON THE CORRIDORS, UM, IN OUR TRANSFORMATION AREAS, A OYF CAMBRIDGE CROSSING, UM, BUT ALSO IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, THE POINT BEING MADE THAT, UM, IF, IF THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT ARE,

ARE MODEST, UM, UH, ARE, ARE ADOPTED, UM, THE IMPACT ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS, UM, CAN, CAN BE MADE UP EASILY IN FEWER PROJECTS IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY, UM, THAT ARE MORE CONDUCIVE TO DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, I KNOW THAT, UM, COUNCILLOR SIMMONS HAD SOME QUESTIONS. COUNCILLOR SIMMONS, YOU'RE ONLINE. WOULD YOU LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS DIRECTLY OR DO YOU WANT ME TO

ASK THEM FOR YOU? UH, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. UH, FOR THE, FOR THE COURTESY OF BEING ABLE TO BE HEARD AT A, AT A HEARING WHERE I'M NOT A MEMBER, UH, AND THE COUNCIL THANKING, THANK YOU FOR READING THEM

INTO THE, THE RECORD. THIS IS A LOT OF INFORMATION TO TRY TO TAKE IN ALL AT ONE TIME. SO I'M JUST GONNA LEAVE WITH THE ONE QUESTION AND HOPEFULLY WE, MAYBE ON THE SECOND AND THIRD ONE CAN BE ANSWERED

AT ANOTHER TIME. I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE IT BEFORE OUR FULL FINAL VOTE IS MADE. QUESTION IS WHAT SPECIFICALLY CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE SUMMER STAKEHOLDER MEETING? MANY OF YOU MAY

KNOW THAT, UH, COUNSELOR AZI AND A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE CAME, HAD A MEETING WITH, WITH DEVELOPERS, KIND OF TALK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALREADY STARTED BUILDING, AND WHAT

WAS, WHAT ARE THESE CHANGES THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING GOING TO HAVE? WHAT KIND OF IMPACT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE? AND SO SPECIFICALLY THE QUESTION READS AS FOLLOWS, CAN CDD IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC MODIFICATION

IF IT MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE FEEDBACK FROM DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPERS AT COUNCIL HAN'S MEETING IN PARTICULAR, HOW DID CDD ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT INCREASING FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS WITH MATERIAL AT

REDUCE DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ON SMALLER LOTS? SO THE FOLLOW UP TO THAT IS, WOULD CDD CONSIDER MAINTAINING THE EXISTING OVERALL SETBACK FRAMEWORK WHILE PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY, FOR EXAMPLE, ALLOWING THE

REQUIRED FIVE AND 10 FOOT YARDS TO BE ALLOCATED BASED UPON THE PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, RATHER THAN IMPOSING MORE RESTRICTIVE UNIFORM STANDARD? YOU MAY HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT.

I WAS GOING IN AND OUT A LOT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SPOKE TO IT SPECIFICALLY, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CDD THROUGH MS. PETERS AND MR. SPEAK TO? Y YES. THANK YOU, COUNSELOR. I APPRECIATE THE

QUESTION. IT'S A GOOD ONE. UM, I, I DID SPEAK TO, UM, A LITTLE BIT IN REGARDS TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT WE HEARD, UM, CLEARLY AS AN IMPORTANT, UM, CONSIDERATION FOR COUNCIL TO

CONSIDER NOT TO, UH, DETRIMENTALLY IMPACT DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY KIND OF, UH, ABSORBED THESE COSTS INTO THEIR FINANCIAL PLANNING. SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE KEY, UM, SOLUTION FOR THAT. UM,

IN REGARDS TO THE FLEXIBILITY, UM, AS JEFF DESCRIBED, UM, THE BENEFIT OF THE SUM TWO APPROACH IN SETBACKS IS TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE UNIQUENESS OF DIFFERENT SITES IN THE CITY AND TO,

UH, PROVIDE THAT FLEXIBILITY FOR, UM, FOR DEVELOPERS, UM, AS WELL AS TO, UH, ADDRESS, UH, CONCERNS THAT MIGHT BE UNIQUE TO SITES. UH, THANK YOU MS. PETERS THROUGH YOU MAD AND CHAIR. CAN YOU JUST TEASE

OUT THE, THE SUM TWO THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED? I'VE HEARD IT BEFORE. YOU JUST MENTIONED SUM TWO AND I WASN'T SURE WHAT THAT MEANT. YEAH, SO FOR THE SETBACKS, INSTEAD OF HAVING A, A STRICT SETBACK

REQUIREMENT THAT YOU MUST MEET ON THE SIDES AND FRONT AND REAR, IT WOULD BE A SUM TWO APPROACH. SO ON THE SIDES WE'RE PROPOSING A SUM TO 15, A MINIMUM OF FIVES. SO YOU COULD GO, IT COULD BE 10 AND

FIVE ON THE SIDES, IT COULD BE SEVEN AND A HALF, AND SEVEN AND A HALF, OR ANY OTHER COMBINATION AS LONG AS, UH, THE MINIMUMS OF EACH SIDE ARE FIVE. UM, SO FOR INSTANCE, IN A CASE WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE

EXISTING, UH, TREES ON ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU COULD ACCOMMODATE THOSE BY, UH, SCOOTING THE PROPERTY OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE. UH, YOU COULD ALSO, UM, HAVE A, A TURN IN THE PROPERTY AND SOME OF

THE DIAGRAMS THAT JEFF SHOWED THAT, UM, KIND OF ACCOMMODATES A SPECIFIC SITE ISSUES, UH, IN THE REAR AND FRONT, WE WERE PROPOSING A SUM TO 25, AGAIN, WITH THE MINIMUM BEING FIVE, BUT YOU COULD DO FIVE

IN THE FRONT, 20 IN THE BACK, YOU COULD DO 10 AND 15, AND ANY OTHER COMBINATION THAT MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE BETTER AT MATH COULD, UH, COME UP WITH THAN I COULD RIGHT NOW. THAT'S OKAY. MY, MY STRONG SUIT

IS NOT MATH EITHER. I CAN SPELL, BUT I CAN'T COUNT. UM, THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. OH, SOMETHING THAT, UH, COUNCILMAN GOVERNOR MENTIONED, IT'S NOT ON MY LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT I THOUGHT IS HOW

HELPFUL WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT HOW DO YOU HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING, BECAUSE WHEN, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT A DASHBOARD, IT SOUNDED VERY TECHNICAL TO ME, AND IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS GONNA ONLY

TALK ABOUT WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE AS OPPOSED TO EXPLAINING WHAT SOME OF OUR, THESE, WHAT THESE ZONING INITIATIVES, THESE HOUSING ZONING INITIATIVES THAT WE HAVE CREATED, WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED

TO DO, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDING AROUND THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING. AND SO IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A DASHBOARD OR A GLOSSARY OR WHATEVER, I, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE, I WRITE IT IN SUCH A WAY

THAT PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE I, I DO KNOW, AND I'VE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE JUST AS RECENTLY AS, WELL, I GOT EMAILS, I SHOULD SAY, AS RECENTLY AS TODAY, THAT SAYS TO ME, PEOPLE DON'T

UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, WHAT PARTICULARLY THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING IS SUPPOSED TO, TO ACHIEVE. SO TO WHAT DEGREE THAT WE CAN BE BETTER INFORMED PEOPLE IN A WAY THAT THEY CAN BEST UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE

DOING WOULD BE HELPFUL. AND THEN MADAM CHAIR, DO I HAVE AN A OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS. I CANNOT DO IT IN 30 SECONDS, SO I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR. I'M, UH, I THREW YOU

MADAM CHAIR TO CDD, UM, THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE REMAINING, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE COUNCIL HAVE THOSE, THOSE ANSWERS, UH, SPELLED OUT OR POINT US TO WHERE IT IS IN YOUR POWERPOINT SO THAT WHEN, WHEN

IT DOES COME TO THE COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION, WE ALL HAVE THAT INFORMATION. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND NEXT WE HAVE OUR

MAYOR, UH, BEL SIDIKI. THANK YOU CHAIR. UH, I'LL BE BRIEF. I THINK I'VE KIND OF SHARED WHERE I'M AT ON SOME OF THIS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE POINTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES. UM, AND I AGREE WITH A LOT OF

THE POINTS THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. I'LL SAY THAT I, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THESE AMENDMENTS. I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, INTENT VERSUS IMPACT, I THINK, UH, I DO BELIEVE IN THE, THE ORDINANCE AND WHY WE DID

THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND I THINK WE'VE HEARD THERE HAVE BEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, REAL CONCERNS. AND I THINK THESE AMENDMENTS ARE RESPONDING TO AT LEAST, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, A NUMBER OF THEM. I KNOW

THAT AS A BODY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALL, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE A TOTAL ZONE OF AGREEMENT. UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DO THINK THERE, YOU ALL HAVE DEMONSTRATED THERE IS SOME RECEPTIVENESS. AND SO I DO

APPRECIATE THAT. AND I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THERE, AS CD HAS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OTHER ZONING THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY TRYING TO WORK ON CENTRAL SQUARE. THERE ARE THINGS

THAT I THINK, UM, WILL, UM, DO A LOT TO IMPACT, UH, OUR, UM, HOUSING NUMBERS AND THE ABILITY TO BUILD. AND SO I, I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. AND I, I DO THINK WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED HERE DOESN'T UNDERMINE,

UM, THAT OVERALL GOAL BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD AND WHAT I'VE SEEN. I THINK THERE ARE DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE QUESTIONS STILL THAT I THINK WE CAN GET ANSWERS ON. BUT AS A WHOLE, I THINK, UH,

I'M SATISFIED WITH WHAT CDD HAS, UH, RECOMMENDED. AND SO I DON'T, I CAN'T VOTE HERE, UH, BUT I WOULD EVENTUALLY VOTE, UM, IF WE CAN GET THERE. AND, UH, AGAIN, I THINK HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME TO SOME,

UH, SORT OF AGREEMENT, UM, AS A BODY AND THEN CONTINUE TO WORK ON SOME OF THE REALLY MAJOR OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO. SO I'LL YIELD THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UH, NOW I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS. I

I JUST WANNA THANK YOU ALL FOR THE DISCUSSION TODAY AND FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. AND I THINK YOU'VE RECOMMENDED SOME FANTASTIC AMENDMENTS THAT WILL REALLY IMPROVE THINGS. UM, AND I WILL SUPPORT THE, UH,

THE RESOLUTION OR THE POLICY ORDER HERE. UH, WHAT THE MOTION, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. UH, I WOULD, OF COURSE, UM, I, I FEEL AS THOUGH IT'S BEING PROPOSED AS A BEGINNING. AND I, AND I, I WISH THESE

THINGS HAD BEEN WORKED OUT BEFORE THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE HAD BEEN PASSED, BECAUSE I, I THINK WE'VE CREATED A LOT OF MESS IN THE MEANTIME. UM, SO NEXT TIME WE PASS A LANDMARK ZONING

ORDINANCE, UH, LET'S THINK IT THROUGH COMPLETELY AND THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE SO MANY CHANGES LATER ON. I, IF, IF IT WAS UP TO ME, I WOULD, I, I FEEL LIKE THE SETBACKS,

UH, I LOVE THE SUM TWO APPROACH, UH, FOR FRONT AND BACK 25 FEET. UM, I THINK THOSE 25 5 FEET NEED TO INCLUDE THE BALCONIES AND PORCHES AND WINDOW WELLS. SO I, I SO DON'T EXCLUDE, I CURRENTLY, WE'RE

EXCLUDING, WE NEED TO FACTOR IN THE BALCONIES, PORCHES, AND WINDOW WELLS AS PART OF THE 25. AND I FEEL AS FOR THE SIDE SUM, IT SHOULD REALLY BE 20 FEET RATHER THAN 15 FEET FOR SIX STORY BUILDINGS.

LARGER BUILDINGS NEED, UM, MORE OPEN SPACE. AND AS I'VE EXPLAINED TO SOME OF YOU, YOU KNOW, WHEN I FIRST JOINED THE COUNCIL AND WAS WALKING UP AND DOWN MAGAZINE STREET, REALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW THIS,

UM, ORDINANCE WOULD IMPACT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, I REALIZED ON MAGAZINE STREET THERE ARE, THERE ARE MANY SIX STORY BUILDINGS, BUT THEY'RE ON A MAIN, UH, AVENUE AND THEY'RE ON CORNER LOTS, AND THEY HAVE A

LOT OF OPEN SPACE. SO I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER ASIDE SOME TWO OF 20 RATHER THAN 15 ON SIX STORY BUILDINGS. AND, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS LATER. ALSO WITH THE OPEN SPACE, UH, 30% GREEN

OPEN SPACE, UM, OR AT LEAST 20% SHOULD NOT INCLUDE PAVERS. IT REALLY SHOULD BE GREEN OPEN SPACE. AND, UM, AND WE REALLY NEED TO RECONSIDER THE GREEN FACTOR SCORE QUICKLY, UM, TO ENCOURAGE TREE

PLANTING. I, UM, SO I'M GLAD WE'RE GONNA BE THINKING ABOUT THE GREEN FACTOR SCORE. I MEAN, CURRENTLY WE, WE'VE GOTTA CHANGE THE SCORING OF THE GREEN FACTOR SCORE ONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. AND APPARENTLY

IT ONLY TAKES EFFECT IF YOU'RE INCREASING IMPERVIOUS BY 50%. SO IF YOU'RE PRODUCING A LARGER BUILDING, AND MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE A NEGATIVE SCORE FOR REMOVING TREES AND OPEN SPACE. AND I WORRY ABOUT

ALL THE TREES THAT ARE PLANNED FOR THE SIDE, UM, SETBACKS, BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REALLY DON'T WANT THEM THERE. YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS A FIRE, THEY REALLY NEED THE SETBACKS CLEAR SO THEY CAN PUT

UP THEIR LADDERS. SO I, I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO BE THINKING MORE ABOUT THE GREEN FACTOR SCORE AND THE PLACEMENT OF TREES, ESPECIALLY IN THE OPEN SPACE AND WHAT WE CONSIDER PERVIOUS AND WHAT WE DON'T

CONSIDER PERVIOUS AS FOR HEIGHT, I, I REALLY WISH THE SIX STORY BUILDINGS WERE ONLY ON WIDER STREETS AND ON LOTS LARGER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. ACTUALLY, I WAS TALKING TO DEVELOPER PATRICK BARRETT,

AND HE ALSO, HE AGREED THE, THE LOT SHOULD BE 7.5 OR 10,000 SQUARE FEET. IF YOU'RE BUILDING A SIX STORY BUILDING, I KNOW I, I COULD GET VERY RICH AND BUILD A SIX STORY BUILDING ON MY LOT, WHICH IS

JUST OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET. AND, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD OVERPOWER THE STREET, IT WOULD OVERPOWER MY NEIGHBORS. IT'S COMPLETELY, IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY

INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I, I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA BE DOING THAT WITH THIS ROUND OF, UH, ZONING AMENDMENTS. UM, BUT I THINK IN THE, IN THE LONG

TERM, THAT'S A CHANGE THAT SHOULD BE MADE. AND I THINK THERE SHOULD BE DESIGN REVIEW FOR FOUR STORIES OR UP. AGAIN, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT I WOULD REALLY WISH FOR, THAT I THINK WOULD MAKE FOR MUCH

BETTER ZONING. UM, AND THEY WOULD, UM, UH, RESULT IN A, A BETTER CITY. AND, BUT I, I REALIZE BEING ON THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, COMPROMISE, UH, I, WE CAN ONLY CHANGE THE ZONING WITH SIX VOTES. SO I,

AGAIN, I REALLY, I SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY WE, WE NEED TO DO MORE. WE, UM, I FEEL AS THOUGH, UM, BY ALLOWING FOR FLEXIBLE, UH, SETBACKS, HOPEFULLY THERE WILL NOT BE THESE

135 FOOT WALLS THAT WE'RE SEEING AT MANY, MANY PROPERTIES, LIKE 95 CUSHING, 90 LEXINGTON, THEY'RE INAPPROPRIATE. UM, THERE NEEDS TO BE BETTER COMMUNICATION WITH THE BUTTERS. UM, AND WE NEED TO REQUIRE

DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE RENDERINGS THAT INCLUDE PHYSICAL CONTEXT AND ILLUSTRATE THE SIZE AND DENSITY OF ABUTTING PROPERTIES, INCLUDE ELEVATIONS, INCLUDE SHADOW STUDIES. UM, IS THAT, WAS THAT FIVE

MINUTES? OKAY. UH, SO, UM, THANK YOU, UH, THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR COMMENTS. UH, WE HAVE A FEW MORE MINUTES BEFORE I, I THINK WE SHOULD SEE WHETHER, UM, WE HAVE SUPPORT FOR THIS MOTION, UH, THAT'S

BEEN PROPOSED. UM, COUNCILLOR MARIE GOVERN. DO WE, SO WE HAVE MAYBE A, LET'S DO TWO MINUTES OF COMMENTS THIS ROUND SO THAT WE CAN TAKE A VOTE. THIS IS ON THE AMENDMENTS. OKAY. THIS OR THE MOTION THAT,

THAT, UM, YEAH. UM, I JUST WANNA SAY IN GENERAL THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY CDD ARE INSIGNIFICANT. UM, BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO STOP HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN WE PASS ORDINANCES OF, OF ANY KIND THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU GO BACK AND YOU LOOK AT THEM BECAUSE THINGS THAT YOU THOUGHT WEREN'T GONNA BE A PROBLEM TURN

OUT TO BE A PROBLEM, THINGS YOU THOUGHT WERE GONNA BE A PROBLEM, TURN OUT NOT TO BE A PROBLEM. AND YOU NEED TO, TO, UM, ADJUST THAT. UM, BUT I, I DO HOPE THAT FOLKS CAN SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS. AND

THIS IS A COMPROMISE TO ADDRESS MANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, BUT KEEPS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ORDINANCE TO BUILD MORE MARKET RATE UNITS. AND REMEMBER, THESE ARE

FOR PEOPLE WHO EARN TOO MUCH MONEY TO QUALIFY FOR A SUBSIDIZED UNIT, BUT CAN'T AFFORD A $4 MILLION SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO THERE THAT THEY MATTER. THAT IS THE MIDDLE CLASS OF CAMBRIDGE. AND SO, UM, IT

IS IMPORTANT TO GET MORE OF THESE, UM, UNITS ON THE MARKET. THESE ARE FAMILIES. UM, THE, THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT THE CONDO NEXT TO MINE, CAMBRIDGE ONE, UM, ONE OF THEM GREW UP IN CAMBRIDGE. THEY HAVE

TWO KIDS WITH ONE ON THE WAY. THERE ARE FAMILIES THAT MOVE INTO THIS, UH, A COUPLE THAT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE KIDS. THAT'S A FAMILY. THESE ARE FAMILIES. UM, AND SO THESE ARE, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT

THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS, BUT NOT UNDERMINE THE OVERALL GOAL. UM, I'LL BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION. UM, BUT I, MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN BEFORE WE

LEAVE TODAY OR, OR AT SOME POINT, UM, WHAT THE PROCESS IS MOVING FORWARD. BECAUSE EVEN HOWEVER WE VOTE TODAY IS NOT THE END OF THE CONVERSATION. YES. AS I, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE

ABLE TO ADVANCE A MOTION TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. UM, SO THEN IT WILL GO TO THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE FOR FULLER DISCUSSION. AND, BUT, BUT I'M HOPING THAT TODAY WITH THIS POLICY ORDER, UH, WE

WILL BE DIRECTING, UM, CITY STAFF TO START DRAFTING ZONING. SO THOSE ARE THE NEXT STEPS AS I UNDERSTAND THEM. YEAH, THERE'LL BE, UM, ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THIS, WE'LL HAVE TO GO TO THE FULL

COUNCIL FOR A VOTE, THEN TO ORDINANCE FOR ANOTHER SERIES OF MEETINGS AND THEN BACK TO THE COUNCIL ONCE IT COMES OUT OF THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, UM, FOR AT LEAST TWO HEARINGS, ONE FIRST VOTE, AND THEN

IT HAS TO SIT ON THE AGENDA FOR TWO WEEKS. SO WE'RE A WAYS AWAY AND JUST TO ANYTHING CAN BE FURTHER AMENDED UP THROUGHOUT THAT TIME. SO THERE COULD BE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT COME FORWARD. THERE COULD

BE OTHER CHANGES THAT COME FORWARD. A VOTE FOR THIS TODAY. DOESN'T EVEN AT THIS POINT NECESSARILY MEAN. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GONNA END UP AT THE END. MARK. THANK OH, I'M SORRY. COUNCILOR MCGOVERN. THANK

YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. UH, OKAY. WE REALLY, OKAY. UH, COUNCILOR AZI SOMETHING QUICK. 'CAUSE THEN I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS, UH, COUNCILOR JOVAN, SABRINA WHEELER'S, UH, AMENDMENT. IT'S ON POINT.

UM, AND SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO CONTINUE AND SAY I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA MAKE THE SAME POINT THAN COUNCILOR ZUBIE WAS GOING TO MAKE, WHICH IS THAT, UM, I DON'T LOVE 1 21 RANGE, RIGHT? IT'S NINE UNITS

WITHOUT INCLUSIONARY. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER. THE POINT I WAS GOING TO MAKE WAS THAT 1 21 RANGE WON'T BE IMPACTED BY THESE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAS BIG ENOUGH SETBACKS, RIGHT? INSTEAD

IT'LL BE PROJECTS LIKE NINE WINEMAN OR, UH, IT'LL HAVE A HURON ADDRESS, ONE 30 HURON THAT WILL BE IMPACTED, RIGHT? AND MY CONCERN IS THAT UNLESS WE ADD AN EXEMPTION FOR THE INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS,

WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY PUSH PROJECTS LIKE ONE 30 HURON TO BE NINE UNIT PROJECTS INSTEAD AND LOSE THOSE INCLUSIONARY UNITS. AND SO I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT A HUNDRED PERCENT

AFFORDABLE IS THE BEST TYPE OF BUILDING, BUT THEN THE SECOND BEST WOULD BE INCLUSIONARY BUILDINGS. AND SO I REALLY HOPE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE, UM, AMENDMENTS DURING THIS PROCESS. UM, AND I

JUST WANTED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I WON'T GO INTO THE NUMBERS, BUT SOME SMALL POINTS IS LIKE IF YOU'RE ON A SMALL LOT LIKE A THREE K LOT WITH THESE SETBACKS, YOU'RE BASICALLY ONLY ELIGIBLE TO BUILD ON 30%

OF THE LOTS. IT'S LIKE A 70% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. UM, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA TOUCH THAT TODAY, BUT JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. UM, AND SO I WILL YIELD, I'VE ONLY TAKEN A MINUTE OF MY TIME,

BUT JUST WANTED TO SAY, I, I HOPE WE CAN, UH, EXCLUDE INCLUSIONARY BECAUSE I THINK WE'LL PUSH IT TO BE, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN NINE UNIT PROJECTS. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, UH, COUNSELOR SABRINA

WHEELER, DO YOU WANNA INTRODUCE YOUR AMENDMENT PLEASE? SURE. THANK YOU. UM, I SENT TO THE CLERK AND TO THE COUNCIL. UM, THEY ARE KEEPING ALL OF THE LANGUAGE, UH, IN THE MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR NOLAN

AND JUST ADDING TWO ADDITIONAL ORDERED SECTIONS THAT GET TO THE POINTS I WAS SPEAKING TO EARLIER OF KEEPING THE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND MAKING SURE IT LEADS TO A NET NEUTRAL OR INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF THE

OVERALL HOUSING SINCE OBVIOUSLY IT'S VERY CHALLENGING TO KNOW FOR SURE THIS NET INCREASE. BUT WHAT YOU MEAN IS COMPARED TO THE CURRENT ZONING MODEL WHICH CDD ALREADY DID. RIGHT, EXACTLY. YEP. RIGHT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? DO MY COLLEAGUES HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT, OR DO, DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT? SO AGAIN, TO CLARIFY, THE, THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT BE USED TO FOR PROJECTIONS

OF THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED. SO IT WOULD BE NEUTRAL. THAT, THAT SOUNDS GREAT. WE JUST NEED TO SEE THE, THE CHART AND LOOK, THIS, THIS WILL HAVE AN IMPACT, RIGHT? I THINK THAT WE'RE,

IT CAN'T HAVE NO IMPACT IF IT LEADS LEADING TO SMALLER UNITS, UH, BUT WITH THE SAME NUMBER THAT THAT'S FINE. WE JUST NEED TO, WE WANT 'EM SEE SOME MODELING AROUND THIS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YES. AND,

AND TO SET EXPECTATIONS, THE, THE, THE LEVEL OF PLANNING PROJECTIONS CAN, CAN'T GET INTO THAT SPECIFICITY, WHICH IS WHY IT'S MORE OF A BLUNT TOOL TO COMPARE HIGH LEVEL PLANNING SCENARIOS AND NOT SITE

AGAINST SITE, BUT BASED ON WHAT IT IS, THE POINT THAT IT'S SERVING, IT WOULD HAVE A NEUTRAL IMPACT ON HOUSING PRODUCTION AND WE CAN RESHARE THAT MODEL. UM, IF THIS IS SO ORDERED. DOES ANYBODY HAVE,

UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AMENDMENT? YEAH, COUNCILOR FLAHERTY, I HAVE A QUESTION, MS. PETERS, IS THERE A WAY THAT THIS LANGUAGE CAN EVEN BE TESTED? LIKE, IS, IS THAT WORKABLE? AND AGAIN,

I, I BELIEVE, UH, COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER'S ASKING ABOUT HIGH LEVEL PROJECTIONS. SO AS WE DO FOR ALL OF OUR PLANNING STUDIES AND ZONING CHANGES, UH, WE HAVE VERY ROUGH ASSUMPTIONS, UM, THAT WE

COULD, AND WE'LL BE CONSISTENT IN WHAT WE APPLY TO THOSE. SO WE CAN SHOW THAT, UH, WE COULD CONDUCT THIS, UH, ANSWER. AGAIN, IT'S A HIGH LEVEL PLANNING PROJECTION, UH, AND SHOULDN'T BE SEEN AS A

DEFINITIVE PRODUCTION COUNT. AND IF I COULD, I THINK THIS IS MAYBE A SEPARATE QUESTION, BUT JUST TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, I'M CLEAR ON THE SECOND POINT OF THIS AMENDMENT IS, IS THIS SAYING THAT WHAT

YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IS A VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD HAVE, UH, THAT WAS, THAT COULD BE TWO TIERED WITH A TIER THAT WOULD HAVE SETBACK AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS FOR NON INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS, AND

THEN A SEPARATE SET FOR INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE THIS, YOU KNOW, EQUIVALENT IN SOME WAY TO WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. OKAY. WE, WE CAN, I THINK,

PROVIDE A, A VERSION OF THAT THAT THE COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER. I, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE AMENDMENT. I I WON'T BE SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE I, I THINK, LIKE I WAS SAYING, WITH LARGER PROJECTS, YOU

NEED MORE OPEN SPACE, NOT LESS OPEN SPACE. THAT THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM WORK. UH, AND ALSO THE WHOLE PURPOSE, THE WHOLE REASON THAT WE'RE AMENDING THE ZONING IS BECAUSE THE CURRENT ZONING, UH, HAS BEEN

CREATING CONFUSION AND, UH, AND AS, AND CONSEQUENTLY A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, TREE PROTECTION, ALL SORTS OF THINGS, UH, CODE, UH, AND CODES AND REGULATIONS ARE NOT BEING AN ENFORCED IN A WAY THAT

PROVIDE FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE CITY. SO I, I THINK THE AMENDMENTS BEING PROPOSED TODAY ACTUALLY PROVIDE BALANCE. AND I, YOU KNOW, I I THINK TO HAVE INCLU PROJECTS WITH INCLUSIONARY UNITS, UH, I

UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANNA ADVANTAGE PROJECTS WITH INCLUSIONARY UNITS, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE WANT TO PROVIDE MORE INCLUSIONARY UNITS. BUT I THINK AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT WE'RE SEEING ARE THAT THOSE

INCLUSIONARY PROJECTS, OFTEN STUFF VERY BUILT, VERY BIG BUILDINGS ON VERY SMALL SITES, AND THEY, UH, ARE PROBLEMATIC OVERALL. SO I, I FEEL LIKE BY, BY LOOKING BY, I, I, SO I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS

AMENDMENT, I THINK IT, UH, IT WILL NEGATE THE BENEFITS OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. WE SHOULD VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FIRST. YEAH. SO LET'S TAKE A VOTE

ON THE AMENDMENTS. UM, SO IT SHOULD BE A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LONG-TERM PLANNING COMMITTEE. COUNCIL ZUBY? YES. YES. VICE MEZE? YES. YES. COUNCILOR FLAHERTY. WHICH AMENDMENT ARE WE

DISCUSSING? CHIEFS? THE TWO ORDERED BEING ADDED? NO. COUNCILOR FLAHERTY IS A NO. COUNCILOR NOLAN? YES. YES. COUNCILLOR ZUI. NO, NO. THAT'S THREE MEMBERS VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. TWO RECORDED AS NO.

AND FOR THE HOUSING COMMITTEE. COUNCILLOR ZUBY? YES. YES. VICE MAYOR. YES. YES. COUNCILOR MCGOVERN. YES. COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER. YES. YES. COUNCILOR ZUI. NO, NO. THAT'S FOUR MEMBERS VOTING IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE. AND ONE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. OKAY. SO THE AMENDMENT DOES PASS WITH THE AMENDMENT. UM, LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THE, ON THE POLICY. WHAT IS THIS? OH, YES, I HAVE THE OFFICIAL MOTION, UH,

MOVING FORWARD, A MOTION THAT THE HOUSING NLTP COMMITTEES RECOMMEND TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED POLICY ORDER AS AMENDED, REQUESTING THAT THE CITY MANAGER WORK WITH CDD AND

RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS TO PREPARE ZONING LANGUAGE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS DISCUSSED AT THIS SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026 JOINT COMMITTEE HEARING FOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND LONG-TERM PLANNING COUNCIL ZUBI.

WELL, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WANTED TO DO DISCUSSION BEFORE THAT, BUT, WELL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I I DON'T THINK WE HAVE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. SORRY. YES. COUNCIL ZUBI IS YES. VICE MEZE. YES. YES.

COUNCIL FLAHERTY? NO, THE WHOLE THING. WHOLE THING AS AMENDED, AS WRITTEN, AS AMEND, AS AMENDED. AS AMENDED WITH THE TWO ORDERED AS AMENDED BY THE PRIOR VOTE. NO. COUNCILOR FLAHERTY IS A NO.

COUNCILLOR NOLAN? YES. YES. COUNCILLOR ZUI. NO. CLERK. I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE MY VOTE TO A NO. COUNCILLOR ZUI IS A NO. VICE MAYOR IS A NO. UH OH. I WANNA CHANGE MY VOTE TO A YES. OKAY. UM, SO WE ARE

GONNA DO THAT ROLL CALL ONE MORE TIME, , JUST FOR WE HAVE IT CORRECT ON THE RECORD. COUNCILOR ZUBIE? YES. YES. VICE MEZE. YES. YES. COUNCILOR FLAHERTY? NO. NO. COUNCILOR NOLAN? YES. YES. COUNCILOR

ZUI. YES. YES. THAT'S FOUR MEMBERS VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. ONE. VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE. AND THAT WAS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LONG-TERM PLANNING COMMITTEE. AND THIS IS FOR THE HOUSING COMMITTEE,

COUNCILOR ZUBIE? YES. YES. VICE ZE. YES. YES. COUNCILOR MCGOVERN. YES. YES. COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER. YES. COUNCILOR ZUI. YES. YES. THAT'S FIVE MEMBERS VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. FANTASTIC. UM,

THANKS TO ALL OF YOU. I'M THRILLED THAT WE'RE GONNA BE ADVANCING THESE AMENDMENTS AND, UH, I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH I HOPE WILL BE SOMETIME SOON. THANK YOU. SO A MOTION, UH, MOTION

TO ADJOURN WHAT, BEFORE WE ADJOURN? SO THE NEXT STEPS WOULD BE THIS POLICY ORDER AND MOTION WILL APPEAR ON THE SEPTEMBER 28TH MEETING FOR THE FULL COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. IS THAT CORRECT? AND IS THAT THE

STAFF UNDERSTANDING? CORRECT. I CAN GET THE MINUTES WITH THIS POLICY ORDER ON THE, JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS SEPTEMBER 28TH MEETING, WHAT THE TIMING IS AND THAT THE NEXT STEP WILL BE THE FULL CITY

COUNCIL WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 28TH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for

errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.