John Hawkinson

(Planning Board meeting adjourned, after a post-2072 discursion about window decals in retail spaces vis-a-vis sign ordinance compliance.)

The Planning Board was strongly supportive of the new 2072 design and proposal (not that their support is required — it's an advisory consultation!), but there's clearly more design work to be done and they had several ideas. The project will return for another consultation in a few months.

Yeah, I should have been more clear that it was clearly a conflation of the 2021 plan. But since it's obvious that the 2025 plan is quite different, it's hard to understand the excuse for the confusion.

(Also, the 2021 single elevator was absolutely code-compliant & architects told me it was fine.)

I'm not liveposting this meeting, and definitely not liveposting public comment but…
where do these weird rumors come from?

That the building doesn't have stairwells and has a single elevator?

Both are obviously untrue!

(stairwells in yellow, double elevator bank just on plan south from STAIR 01)

Obligatory zoom screenshot?

2072 Massachusetts Avenue is back at the #cambma Planning Board tonight.

I guess it is just in time for the election season, since this affordable housing development project (on the KFC site at Walden St.) was crazy-controversial last time and ultimately was killed by the BZA in pre-AHO times.

Meeting adjourned, 10:06:22:pm.

Good night.

"choo-choo, ch-ch,"
someone says into the microphone.

No meeting next week, Indigenous People's Day / Columbus Day.

EDS announces David Murphy's appointment tonight as Superintendent of Schools.

Announcements…

turns out there was an underlying order in the dangerous dogs committee report that needed passage.

Moving on to late resolutions…John Joseph Quinn and Kathleen Cummings. Both deaths [late late?]

OK, home stretch. (dangerous dogs item placed on file)

We are construing the sending it to committee not as motions but rather as an "amendment."
« Bah. »

Amended: 8-1 (PFT against, CZ "reluctantly" in favor)

MM "We don't have to vote it as-amended so that's finished."
« What? Am I getting what I want? I don't even know. »

On to the dangerous dogs…

PN queries MP in a fashion which confused me.
PN seeks to send it to the health+Environment committee simultaneously.

« I always think sending an item to multiple committees is a mistake. »

BA: I don't think this will likely get passed this term…I think they are functionally the same, making it explicit.

BA moves to send it to the Housing Committee.
PN: This is really hard for me. Worried it'll slow it down [too much].

MP notes one such zoning change might be the question of maximum unit sizes in zoning that was raised a few months back.

PFT says he gets the sense that a month from now, when the report comes back, Councillers are going to come back against it. And that would be a waste.

BA suggests sending it to committee to merge with some other zoning proposals (multifam. housing tweaks?). Also height, setbacks, compensation?

PFT sounds like he's against: "Is there any way that you can provide relief for solar on the 5th and 6th floor, without reducing the amount of units in housing that would become available in a project?"

MP: "The Q is, is there a way to protect solar without affecting housing production? No."

Whoever is running the camera is really phoning it in tonight. Normally we have closeups on the speaker…

Solar up.
BA gives the floor to CZ, who "would like to withdraw my amendment."
She favors data and wanted more specifics, but "I've been convinced by colleagues maybe it would be best to advance the recommendations of [planning staff] as proposed."
She reiterates: data.

We're done with regular policy orders and have made it to the Calendar, including the charter-right from last meeting about the solar protection zoning proposal.

The vote call:

MM: "On the policy order as-amended"
(clerk whispers):" — by substitution"
MM: "—by substitution"

« Bah humbug. »

« As always, I object to the characterization of this as "amendment by substitution" when it is amendment by redline.

But nobody listens to me. »

PFT has an amendment after talking to city staff that adds some stuff. I think I missed a screenshot adding a bullet to deail what triggers environmental testing.

The Gold Star Mother's Park PO, which links to the City's announcement: www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/...

Policy Orders and pulls.
First up, environmental contamination at Gold Star Mother's Park in East Cambridge, which seems like a pretty big deal.

highlights only.

We've moved into housing policy questions in the context of the incentive zoning (commercial linkage fee) nexus study.
(Not to be confused with the inclusionary zoning for affordable housing which sets aside 20% of units for affordable purposes).

The fast-tracking being because of a request from the CHA board chair because of quorum problems.

[ It seems problematic that this request was not evident from the agenda. ]

Despite having a requirement in the rules and potentially also the MGL, there is a desire to fast-track this appointment.

MB says it's not actually in the law.

That was also CMA#1.
Onward, to the Cambridge Housing Authority appointments.