4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following person to the position of Assistant City Manager for Finance, effective Mar 13, 2017: David Kale.
Placed on File

Jan 23, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am pleased to announce that I have appointed David Kale as Assistant City Manager for Finance, effective Mar 13, 2017. Mr. Kale’s background as Town Administrator for Belmont, former Deputy Finance/Budget Director for the City of Cambridge, and various financial positions in the Cambridge and Arlington Public School systems, makes him the right choice for this key position in my Administration.

During his more than four years of employment with the Town of Belmont, Mr. Kale was the Chief Administrative Officer responsible for directing and managing the delivery of municipal services under his authority, providing strategic planning to the Board of Selectmen, preparing annual operating budgets, and working on major policy questions facing the Town’s elected bodies.

As the Director and Deputy Finance/Budget Director for the City of Cambridge from 2003 through 2012, his prime responsibility was to develop the City’s annual performance-based operating and capital budgets. Additionally, he was responsible for the timely preparation of multiple documents in collaboration with the City’s financial team, including the: City’s official statement; rating agency presentation documents, and other related documents for the City’s annual bond sale; preparation of property tax, water, and sewer rate analysis and recommendations to the City Manager; and Community Preservation Act analysis, public presentation documents, and recommendations.

Mr. Kale has a strong understanding of the unique characteristics of Cambridge and has existing working relationships with most of our current department heads, and familiarity with the many community organizations and neighborhood groups in the city. As Assistant City Manager, he will work to strengthen connections and expand opportunities to enable residents to engage in and understand the City’s budgetary process and other public processes while ensuring that Cambridge retains its distinction as an innovative community with a strong tax base that allows a high level of public services and amenities.

Additionally, Mr. Kale’s administrative experience as Belmont’s Town Administrator has prepared him for overseeing the Assessing, Budget, Finance, Information Technology, Personnel, and Purchasing departments. Mr. Kale has demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting the quality of life, diversity, and fiscal stability of our city.

Mr. Kale, who is a lifelong resident of Cambridge, received a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Suffolk University and a MBA from Suffolk University, Graduate School of Business Administration. Please join me in congratulating David Kale on his appointment as Assistant City Manager for Finance.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 16-107, regarding the purchase of K9 Rumba by Officer Peter Neal.
Placed on File

To: Louis DePasquale, City Manager
From: Brent B. Larrabee, Police Commissioner
Date: Wed, Jan 18, 2017
Ref.: City Council Order #1, dated Dec 19, 2016

Dear Sir:
The purpose of this response is to address City Council Order #1, dated Dec 19, 2016 whereby you were requested to confer with the Police Department regarding Officer Peter Neal’s retirement and options available on his desire to allow K9 Rumba to also retire.

Deputy Superintendent Stephen A. Ahern is the Commanding Officer of the Tactical Operations section, and his responsibility is to maintain continuity of operations for the Explosive Ordnance unit to which Officer Neal and K9 Rumba are assigned. We truly understand the bond that develops between a handler and the assigned K9 partner, but we must deny Officer Neal’s request to have K9 Rumba retire with him.

K9 Rumba has just turned four (4) years of age, has served with the unit for less than three (3) years, and has an additional four (4) to six (6) years of future service. As of this moment, K9 Rumba’s estimated value is between $20,00.00 - $25,000.00, which includes purchase price, initial 10-12-week training period, with an additional thirty (30) months of in-service training and more importantly real time work experience.

According to the Inspector General’s (IG) Office, K9 Rumba is considered City “property” and is subject to c. 30B rules on the disposal of surplus property. If the City decides to sell K9 Rumba, c. 30B provisions must be followed.

In terms of training a new handler, we will be able to re-home (assign) K9 Rumba with the new handler within a 5-6-week training period. If K9 Rumba were released to Officer Neal upon his retirement, it would require the purchase of a “green dog;” the training for the new dog would be a 10-12-week period and does not guarantee the new dog will meet the minimum standards—which would then require the purchase of another “green dog.” Moreover, it should be noted that we have another officer in the unit set to retire in April of this year. If we were to set the precedent of allowing serviceable K9 dogs to retire with their handlers, we would lose another K9 effectively reducing the operational readiness of the Explosive Ordnance unit by 40%.

In addition, as you may recall, this Explosive Ordnance unit was started a few years ago with UASI funds. As such, we are part of a regional team comprised of nine (9) communities and the K9 dogs are considered a regional asset to be called upon when and if needed. Therefore, this decision would affect not only the City of Cambridge but also the entire UASI region. Specifically, 44 C.F.R. 13.32 provides guidance and supports the City’s decision to retain K9 Rumba because it is of value and not past its useful life.

By way of background, at the implementation of the Explosive Ordnance unit in 2014 Deputy Superintendent Ahern and Sergeant Edward Frammartino (Unit Commander) sat with each prospective officer prior to selection and informed those officers that upon them leaving the unit the K9 would not be allowed to go with the officer, all officers understood this prior to being selected for the unit. In regards to Officer Neal, he has chosen to retire, a decision I respect but a decision that he has made should not adversely impact the unit, city or region. It would be fiscally as well as operationally irresponsible if we allowed K9 Rumba to retire with Officer Neal at an age where K9 Rumba is operationally at his best.

The council order makes mention of other agencies allowing K9 dogs to retire with the handler, other agencies only allow K9 dogs to retire with the handler if the K9 is deemed to be non-serviceable, something K9 Rumba is not. The average working life span of a single purpose (Explosive Detection) K9 dog is between eight (8) and eleven (11) years, with the most productive years being between four (4) and eight (8) years of age (Rumba just turned 4 years old), this is the time when the dog is considered to be in his/her “prime” and considered to be the best years of the dog. Police agencies such as Boston, MBTA, and State Police re-home their dogs with another handler when a retirement, resignation, or promotion out of the unit occurs. Most recently the MBTA Police Department re-homed a 6 1/2-year-old dog due to the handler resigning from the department.

In closing I would like to say we understand the bond that occurs between K9 and handler, however it would not be in the best interest of the City or the region to allow Officer Neal to take K9 Rumba with him upon retirement. We of course would not be opposed and actually would encourage in having Officer Neal and Rumba visit with each other as many times as Officer Neal would like.

I hope you find that this information sufficiently addresses this City Council Order, and if there are any additional questions or concerns regarding this matter, please let me know.

Respectfully submitted, Brent B. Larrabee, Police Commissioner

11. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $35,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Human Services Other Ordinary Maintenance account, to be used to expand the existing contract with Food for Free to support the Weekend Backpack Program.
Adopted 9-0

Jan 23, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $35,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Human Services Other Ordinary Maintenance account. Funds will be used to expand the existing contract with Food for Free to support the Weekend Backpack Program. This critical food program lost a significant portion of its annual budget when the state made 9C cuts in December.

Food For Free's Cambridge Weekend Backpack Program supports close to 500 food insecure Cambridge public school students each weekend during the school year, and ensures they come in Monday mornings ready to learn.

Food For Free has aggressively been raising funds over the last month since the cuts were announced and community members and the business community, including Biogen, have stepped forward and contributed in a major way. Food For Free has reported that they have raised $75,000 in specifically earmarked contributions to replace these funds. The City was asked to provide the remaining funds necessary to close the funding gap for this year and we are in communication with Food For Free to discuss how the City will support the Weekend Backpack Program going forward.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

17. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation regarding the Medical Marijuana Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition

Date: Jan 18, 2017
Subject: Medical Marijuana Zoning Petition (City Council)
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On Jan 3, 2017, the Board held a public hearing on the Medical Marijuana Zoning Petition submitted by the City Council. The Board had continued this hearing from Nov 1, 2016, in order to learn the outcome of the statewide ballot initiative related to non-medical marijuana, which was later approved. CDD staff presented some background material on various topics related to medical marijuana and the recently approved non-medical marijuana law, which had also been provided to the Ordinance Committee, and staff provided information on conversations that had occurred within the Ordinance Committee in the intervening time.

The Board has been very supportive of medical marijuana over the years, supporting the initial zoning ordinance for Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMDs) adopted in 2013, the subsequent rezoning proposals to expand the districts where RMDs are allowed, and the specific RMD proposals that have sought special permit approval. There are now three RMDs in the permitting process in Cambridge, of which one has been granted a special permit and has begun construction (1001 Massachusetts Ave.), another was very recently approved (110 Fawcett Street), and another is in the Planning Board’s pre-application engagement phase. Since no RMDs have actually begun operation, it is still difficult to gauge their benefits and impacts to the community and whether additional service will be needed.

There is also a great deal of uncertainty regarding the recent non-medical marijuana law, which suggests that further expanding the allowed zoning districts for RMDs could limit the City’s zoning options for non-medical marijuana retail establishments. Potential land use concerns related to non-medical marijuana retail establishments are not well understood because there have been no regulations promulgated at the state level, and it appears that such regulations may not be known for many months.

Given the processes currently underway to establish RMDs in the City and the uncertainty around non-medical marijuana zoning, the Board does not believe there is an urgent need to expand the allowed districts for RMDs at this time. Moreover, as noted in the materials provided by CDD, some of the proposed districts may not be suitable for RMDs. In particular, the Industry A-1 (IA-1) districts tend to have a more residential character and exist within and directly adjacent to predominantly residential neighborhoods like East Cambridge and the Danehy Park area. Also, some special “SD” zoning districts in Cambridgeport allow commercial uses on a transitional basis, but are intended to evolve toward a prevailing residential character over time.

The Board anticipates that over the coming months, as state laws and regulations are clarified, the City will be better able to comprehensively analyze and adopt zoning that provides clear guidance for the permitting of both medical and non-medical marijuana establishments.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H Theodore Cohen, Chair

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. A zoning petition has been received from Richard Harding, et al. to amend 20.800 titled the Mass and Main Residential Mixed Income Sub district to reflect a more appropriate affordable housing contribution and height limitation for this zoning.
Charter Right - Toomey

Dec 26, 2016
Honorable Members of the Cambridge City Council
Cambridge City Hall
795 Mass Ave
Cambridge MA 02139

To Mayor Simmons and Honorable members of the City Council.

The undersigned registered voters of Cambridge submit for adoption this zoning petition to amend 20.800 titled the Mass and Main Residential Mixed Income Sub district to reflect a more appropriate affordable housing contribution and height limitation for this zoning.

Overview and rational
The Mass and Main Residential mixed income sub district was approved by the City Council in May of 2015 over 18 months ago. The applicant for that petition told the community it would create 230 units of housing. As the council knows the neighborhood is extremely sensitive to income diversity and gentrification. Despite a controversial process the developer waited a significant period of time and added a substantial number of units (approx. 75) to the over all proposal. The new proposal also identifies at least two new parcels for development creating all new impacts to the community. Along with new elements such as new development parcels and underground parking the developer has also not increased the affordable housing commitment to comply with the proposed new City Standard. The developer has changed the terms of the original proposal and has signaled a much more significant impact. The two major components of this amendment are simple. Reducing the height to a more appropriate height limit of 150 feet and increasing the affordable housing requirement from 17 affordable and 3 middle income to 20 percent affordable and 5 percent middle. Underlying zoning allows up to 80 feet with a planning board waiver and will require 20 percent affordable (under the new standard when adopted). For context the new amended sub district if approved would be granting 70 feet of new height and maintain the FAR increase (nearly 2.5 times the allowable FAR under zoning) in exchange for only 5 percent middle-income housing. This is not an attempt to stop this project but it is an essential amendment to ensure the community is not impacted by unreasonable height and is not infused with luxury units without a reasonable "offset". Please find the attached zoning petition to amend 20.80 as to reduce the height of the "tower" and increase affordable housing requirements for moderate and middle-income units located within the Mass Ave Height zone.

We the undersigned registered voters of Cambridge submit the following zoning petition to amend 20. 800 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend 20.307.6.2 Maximum Height a) by striking the number 195 and replacing it with the 150 feet.

Amend 20.307.08.1 Affordable Housing and Unit Mix Requirements section a) to strike the number 17 % and replace it with 20% AND in section b) of strike 3% and replace it with 5% in the section referring to middle income units

Harding Amendments to 20.800 the Mass and Main mixed income sub district January 2017.

Name	Address	Registered voter?	Petitioned to withdraw (May 8, 2017)
Richard Harding	189 Windsor St.	yes	withdraw
Kenneth Reeves	340 Harvard St.	yes
Alexis Harding	189 Windsor St.	yes	withdraw
Amarl DaCosta	207 Columbia St.	no
Renee Green	110 Harvard St. #5	yes
Moses Moore	242 Western Ave. #2	yes	withdraw
Oliver Dunbar	25 Eighth St.	yes
Donald Harding	181 Windsor St.	yes	withdraw
Charnee Green	110 Harvard St.	yes
Cheryl Harding	189 Windsor St.	yes	withdraw
Robin Hawkins	18 Ware St.	yes
Kessen Green	110 Harvard St. #5	yes
Christopher Chapman	471 Memorial Dr.	yes
Deborah Thomas	2511 Mass. Ave.	yes
Kiesha Price	2515 Mass. Ave.	yes
Sonia McDonald	267 Columbia St.	yes
Aisha Harding	189 Windsor St.	yes
Greg A. Johnson	340 Harvard St.	yes

Note: There are 18 signatures or which 17 are registered Cambridge voters. At the May 8, 2017 City Council meeting there is a petition from 5 of the signers asking to withdraw the petition. In that petition it is claimed that there were only 13 original signers. However, if the 5 registered voters are petitioning to withdraw the original petition, this still leaves 12 signers who are registered voters - 2 more than are necessary for the original petition to remain active.

COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from Massasoit Elk's Lodge #129 Membership, 55 Bishop Allen Drive, transmitting opposition to the 19th floor height of the B-1 and B2 towers that are grossly out of scale for Central Square and Port neighborhoods, and far higher even than proposed by the C2 study.

Jan 9, 2017
To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is to inform you that we the members of Massasoit Elk's Lodge #129 still oppose the 19 floor height of the B-1 and B2 towers that are grossly out of scale for Central Sq. and Port neighborhoods, and far higher even than proposed by the C2 study. We also have great reservations about the proposed housing development proposed at 47 Bishop Allen Drive.

The tower height does not follow the Central Sq. Design Guidelines, which state:
"Limit shadow impacts of new development on portions of neighborhoods outside the study area and public parks within approximately 1-2 blocks or 500 feet of development site. Shadow impacts should not substantially reduce the appeal of public spaces, nor direct sun access to neighborhood housing, during spring and fall." The proposed building will also greatly disrupt the lodges ability to operate and survive during the massive construction project. We ask the City Council to suspend this project indefinitely. We have filed a downzoning petition with the City Clerk's Office today.

This tower will cast shadows on nearby residential buildings on Bishop Allen Dr. It will cast shadows on any future housing and open space constructed on city lot #6.

The proposed unit mix is 31% micro and studio units, 34% 1BRs and lofts, and 35% 2BRs and 3BRs. It would be better if a greater proportion of units were larger family-sized units. Unless this changes, unfortunately, under the current proposal, 1/3 of the affordable units will be family-sized units.

The discussion of the new Inclusionary Zoning ordinance emphasized the need for affordable 3BRs. I request that the Planning Board require in the special permit conditions that at least 35 of the 45 3BR units will be designated affordable. This is a small request, given the amount of upzoning that the building received. Keep in mind that the draft inclusionary zoning ordinance will keep current building heights while requiring net 20% affordable. This means the city is not getting nearly as much benefit from this project as it could have gotten. The city should have asked for at least 35% to 40% low, moderate, and middle income housing, since the GFA is over twice the GF A allowed by the prior zoning.

We ask that a construction mitigation program be a condition of the special permit. It should include monitoring of both foundation conditions, groundwater levels and a traffic study.

We agree with the Historical Commission that the developer should not demolish the Apollo Dental building, and appreciate that the project will re-use the building. The Planning Board should require that any possible decision not to re-use the Apollo Dental building be reviewed by the Planning Board.

We support CDD's recommendation of forming a Central Market committee, and ask that the Planning Board include the Central Market committee in the special permit conditions.

Questions and Comments:
Please explain the construction schedule and how it will not impact the businesses, residents, and churches by blocking the narrow Bishop Allen Dr. If the city's construction schedule runs late, how does that impact construction of the Twining buildings?

What will the builder do to minimize impacts on nearby property owners, including the Elks, St. Paul's AME Church, and the Toscanini building, such as rising water tables, foundation cracks, etc.?

How will building owners know if problems are caused by the city construction or the Twining construction, since they will be simultaneous?

Have the owners disclosed the fact that they have already profited from this project so that the neighborhood understands the nature of the developers financial dealings with the proposed project?

Are you aware that the developer overpaid for these parcels knowingly with the intent to recoup these profits on the backs of the businesses and families of the Port and Central Sq.?

Respectfully Submitted,
Massasoit Elk's Lodge# 129 Membership
Massasoit Elk's Lodge
55 Bishop Allen Drive
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617)354-0404

2. Congratulations to José Mateo for being named a 2017 Commonwealth Award honoree for Achievement by the Massachusetts Cultural Council.   Councillor Devereux

R-2     Jan 23, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: José Mateo, Founder and Artistic Director of José Mateo Ballet Theater, has been named a 2017 Commonwealth Award honoree for Achievement by the Massachusetts Cultural Council; and
WHEREAS: The Commonwealth Award, presented every two years, is a statewide recognition of achievements in arts, humanities, and science; and
WHEREAS: The honorees will be presented with their award by Governor Charlie Baker on Feb 15, 2017; and
WHEREAS: José Mateo founded the Ballet Theater in Cambridge 31 years ago, choreographing dozens of original works and creating a nurturing educational environment for students of all ages; and
WHEREAS: In 2008, José Mateo hosted the first annual Dance for World Community event, open to all in Harvard Square, which has since expanded to include film and speaker series to explore the broader connections of dance to social issues; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record congratulating José Mateo for being named a 2017 Commonwealth Award honoree for Achievement by the Massachusetts Cultural Council; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to José Mateo on behalf of the entire City Council.

14. Retirement of Greg Russ from the Cambridge Housing Authority.   Mayor Simmons

R-14     Jan 23, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Gregory Russ has served as Executive Director of the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) for over twelve years, and in the opening weeks of 2017, he has made it be known that he shall be moving on to the next exciting phase of his life; and
WHEREAS: Throughout his tenure with the CHA, Gregory Russ has demonstrated an extraordinary dedication to public service and to the mission of the CHA; and
WHEREAS: Gregory Russ leaves the CHA a rich legacy of collaboration through his tireless efforts to forge substantive partnerships with the City of Cambridge, Homeowners Rehab, Just-a-Start Corp., CASCAP, Inc., Cambridge YWCA, Transition House, Heading Home, COMPASS Working Capital, The Possible Project, CEOC, Neville Communities Inc., the Alliance of Cambridge Tenants, and Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services; and
WHEREAS: Gregory Russ, during his tenure at CHA, had a significant role in national affordable housing policy and advocacy, serving as the President of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA), Board Member of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA) Board Member of the Citizens Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA), he was instrumental in the national campaign to preserve the Moving to Work (MTW) Program (which resulted in its expansion and extension), and his leadership, dedication, and willingness to “fight the good fight” on behalf the CHA’s residents and the families and individuals in need of affordable housing has been superlative; and
WHEREAS: Capitalizing on MTW flexibility, Gregory Russ excelled at positioning the CHA to take advantage of transformative funding opportunities and major policy initiatives; and
WHEREAS: During his tenure at the CHA, Gregory Russ was instrumental in the development of innovative policies and initiatives which included Rent Simplification, Sponsor-Based Voucher Program, Family Opportunity Subsidy Program, Expiring Use Preservation Program (preserving 1,800 units in Cambridge and environs), Block Grant Fund, development of permanent office space for the CHA in collaboration with the City of Cambridge, Work Force expansion and alumni support, This Way Ahead Program, Work Force College Matched Savings Program, Healthy Air Initiative, new Lease, ACOP, Administrative Plan and RAD-min Plan, Career Family Opportunity - Cambridge, Family Savings and Stability (FSS+), Mixed Family rent protocol (providing access to affordable housing for families with mixed immigration status), MRVP Preservation, Locally-determined payment standards and annual adjustment factors in the HCV Program, and many other initiatives aimed at preserving and creating “hard” affordable units in Cambridge and providing tools to residents to improve self-sufficiency; and
WHEREAS: Over the course of his tenure, Gregory Russ transformed the CHA-owned housing portfolio through the new development opportunities which has added approximately 100 new units to CHA’s portfolio as well as the Public Housing Preservation Program, initiated in 2007, which to date has resulted in over $400 million in capital investment, the conversion of all state-subsidized public housing units and the ongoing migration of the federal public housing portfolio to a secure, project-based platform through the Rental Assistance Demonstration; and
WHEREAS: During his tenure at the CHA, Gregory Russ was the recipient of the William “Bo” Holland Public Service Award, so chosen because he embodied the ideals of a public servant and in recognition of his commitment and dedication to furthering the mission to end homelessness; and
WHEREAS: Gregory Russ’s stewardship has had a profound and lasting impact on the lives of thousands of Cambridge seniors, families, and disabled individuals; and
WHEREAS: The City Council of the City of Cambridge wish to recognize and commemorate Gregory Russ for his twelve years of leadership, service, dedication, and contributions to the Cambridge Housing Authority and its residents; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council wishes to formally recognize Mr. Gregory Russ for his tremendous service to the CHA, its residents, and to the City of Cambridge, and this body wishes him well on all his future endeavors; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Gregory Russ on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-2     Jan 23, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has an interest in promoting a vibrant arts community and music scene, as well as supporting small, local businesses; and
WHEREAS: The License Commission requires that any business that wishes to have live music performances be granted a license, to control for noise and safety concerns; and
WHEREAS: Acoustic music creates a lively environment while attracting customers without creating significant noise or crowd issues; and
WHEREAS: The City of Boston recently instituted a one-year pilot program to allow small businesses to have live acoustic music performances without a live entertainment license; and
WHEREAS: Allowing small businesses located in defined business districts to have acoustic performances without having to go through the process of receiving a license aims to increase foot traffic to support small businesses and create a dynamic arts scene; and
WHEREAS: Boston’s pilot program requires that in order for a business to host an acoustic performance, the business must be registered with the City Clerk’s office, have a business license, and comply with all regulations and accessibility requirements; and
WHEREAS: Boston’s pilot program limits the number of performers at a single location to no more than five at a time, only allows performances from 10am to 10pm, limits the amplification of the music to a single microphone, and only permits the business to sell food or drinks if they are already licensed to do so; and
WHEREAS: Boston’s pilot program permits the Police Department to issue violations and/or fines for any violations; and
WHEREAS: At a time when small, local businesses are struggling to attract new customers, the City of Cambridge must encourage strategies for businesses to bring customers through their doors while activating the urban space and minimizing disturbances to the neighborhood; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the License Commission, the Cambridge Arts Council, the Community Development Department, the Police Department, and any other appropriate City department to discuss the feasibility of allowing small businesses to host live acoustic music performances without a license, and if feasible, present the City Council with a proposal to allow such performances.

O-3     Jan 23, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: The demands and expectations placed upon not only individuals, but upon businesses and government entities, have dramatically changed and evolved along with all the other aspects of life that have been greatly impacted by the technological revolution of the past two decades; and
WHEREAS: The template for how the City of Cambridge operates at an institutional level has, for the most part, changed little since the Plan E form of government was adopted in 1945, with inter-department communication and the assessment of departmental performance and effectiveness seeing practically no changes in the intervening decades; and
WHEREAS: The consistency of the municipal government’s internal operations is virtuous on the one hand, providing a stable framework for conducting important and necessary City business over the course of many generations, yet there is the risk that this framework could become ineffective if not periodically reviewed and adjusted to meet the demands of a rapidly changing, faster-paced world; and
WHEREAS: Adjustments such as reorganizing the Community Development Department to ensure that that the City can more adroitly and effectively assess and address the City’s rapidly changing development needs, re-conceptualizing the City’s Personnel Department to better ensure our workforce is fully diverse, professional, and able to meet the needs of our evolving community, and reinvigorating the IT Department to ensure that it is undertaking constituent-facing design and development, are just three examples of what this re-assessment and reinvigoration effort could and should entail; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to hire an independent consultant who shall assess the efficiency and effectiveness of how all City Departments conduct their work, who will begin implementing whatever necessary adjustments are deemed to be necessary, and who will report back to the City Manager and the City Council on his or her progress in regular monthly intervals.

O-6     Jan 23, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on current or potential future public private-partnerships that could deliver an operational Foundry that consists of significant community space for the community.

O-8     Jan 23, 2017  Amended
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: Many Cambridge residents continue to be concerned about the lack of high speed broadband in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Approximately six months ago the Broadband Task Force issued their initial report; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is hereby requested to issue a report on the current status of the Broadband Task Force, including a schedule for ongoing discussion and final decision and recommendation; and be it further
ORDERED: That this matter be referred to the Neighborhood Long Term Planning Committee.

O-9     Jan 23, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: Cambridge has instituted two trial “pop up” bike lanes on Massachusetts Avenue to determine if and how such protected lanes could be replicated in other parts of the City to help make cycling as safe as possible in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Safe bicycling is an crucial component of urban mobility; and
WHEREAS: There is hope that the City will expand its bike safety infrastructure in the immediate future, perhaps as soon as Spring, 2017, based on the experience gained, at least partly, through these “pop up” lanes; and
WHEREAS: Both Boston and Somerville have instituted a variety of their own separated bike lane projects; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant City staff and report back to the Council with an explanation of how the success of these “pop up” lanes will be measured and what lessens we expect to learn from them to help implement safer bicycling facilities throughout the City as soon as possible.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Dec 13, 2016 beginning at 5:09pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss recent and anticipated development projects and commercial and institutional leasing in Harvard Square and how such changes may affect the future of Harvard Square.

Councillors and staff present at the hearing were: Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Vice Mayor Marc McGovern; Councillor Craig Kelley; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Sandra Clarke, Deputy Director CDD; Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director; Pardis Saffari, Senior Economic Development Specialist; Sarah Burks, Historical Commission Preservation Planner; Charles Sullivan, Director, Historical Commission; Nora Bent; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Tom Lucey, Harvard University Director of Government and Community Relations; James Rafferty, attorney appearing on behalf of Equity One; Anthony Galluccio, attorney representing Morningside; Paula Turnbull, Morningside; John DiGiovanni, Trinity Properties and Harvard Square Business Association; Laura Donohue; Susan Miller-Havens; Dennis Callahan (Colliers); Paul Overgaag; Nancy Gold; Chris Kotelly; Marilee Meyer; Susan Corcoran; Suzanne Blier; Frank Kramer; Jennifer Pho; Robert Winters; Ken Taylor; Bertel Jean; Fritz Donovan; David Matthews; Marty Levin; Daniel Bernard; Elizabeth Gombosi; Marilyn Wellons; Alex Attia; Bob Travers; Connor Epstein-Kraus; Kari Kuelzer; James Williamson; Hasson Rashid; and Susan Landibar.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and gave an overview of the agenda (Attachment A). She stated that over the past year or so, Harvard Square has seen some significant changes. She said that the City Council has adopted several policy orders that reflect the concern over planning and development issues and balancing public and private interests. She explained that there was controversy over the redesign of the Holyoke Center’s public plaza and the loss of retail on that block during construction. There has been ongoing concern over several other projects, including the future of the Out of Town News kiosk, development proposals for the Curious George block, and the long-term vacancies of the Church Street Cinema, the American Express corner, and the City Sports location. All of these combined have created anxiety among residents and businesses, who worry that the Square is in danger of losing many of the cultural landmarks and legacy businesses that have made Harvard Square what it is. She stated that the City has seen similar changes before and the City’s response was to create the Harvard Square Conservation District. But with the current changes afoot in Harvard Square, the financial stakes are much higher and the pace of store turnover is quicker. She stated that changes in ownership and management at the Dow Stearns Trust means that the foundation no longer serves as the bulwark of stability that was cited as a protection when the Conservation District was created. She noted that greater communication, coordination, collaboration and cooperation will be needed to restore and preserve the equilibrium of the economic ecosystem in Harvard Square. Councillor Devereux introduced Mr. Stuart Dash.

Stuart Dash explained some of the planning work that the City has engaged in. He stated that CDD, the Historical Commission, and the Planning Board have cooperated dating back to the establishment of the Overlay District, the Harvard Square Conservation District and the Harvard Square Redevelopment Guidelines. 2000 was a year of significant citywide rezoning work, and CDD reduced the amount of commercial development allowed in many areas of the city, except in Harvard Square. He said that Harvard Square was not down-zoned at that time in order to preserve the vibrancy. He stated that the density was left at 4.0 in Harvard Square, which is higher than in most parts of the city, and the height was kept at 80”. He said that preserves the character that people appreciate about Harvard Square. This rezoning work established Article 19 design review. He said that most areas of the City at that time did not have design review, but Harvard Square did. He said that this added layer of design review helped to maintain the strength and vitality of public squares. He stated that since this rezoning work, the annual Town Gown Report process began. He said that in that report, institutions including Harvard discuss their plans their campuses and other properties for the short-term and long-term. The current planning effort is Envision Cambridge, the citywide master plan. He stated that the Envision Cambridge process talks about the goals and desired image of the City for the future. He stated that along with the issues of the use of space, density and zoning, transportation, public space, and housing, work has also focused on retail market analysis in the City as well as specific areas such as Harvard Square. He discussed the Red Line Extension and the taking of the Red Line yards in 1980; the establishment of Quincy Square in 1997 from a gas station/parking lot area which is now a gateway area and important public space; Putnam Square in 1998; and the work of the Harvard Square Design Committee in 2006 that improved the streetscape throughout Harvard Square.

Charles Sullivan stated that Harvard Square has been a hotbed of real estate development since the early 1980s. He stated that in the 1990s the Historical Commission saw proposals to redevelop buildings around Winthrop Square and the Historical Commission was involved in this project through the Demolition Delay Ordinance. He stated that this process preserved the building that Grendel’s Den currently occupies. He said that that they were unable to save the Tastee but did save some of the architectural details of the Reed Block due to landmark designations that were in place. The Historical Commission successfully implemented a Conservation District, which was adopted by the City Council in 2000. He noted that this seemed to quell some of the development pressure in Harvard Square. He said that the Commission denied an application by Harvard University for a radically inappropriate library building on Mount Auburn Street. He said that the building that is currently on that site reflects the second attempt by Harvard to come up with an appropriate design. He stated that the Commission reviewed and approved the adaptive reuse of 1230 Massachusetts Avenue at the corner of Bow Street and Massachusetts Avenue with the addition of another story on top of the former concrete garage. He said that the focus has been preserving the upper floors and masonry facades of buildings in Harvard Square and trying to support the commercial vitality of the Square. He stated that the former Pizzeria Uno storefront has been significantly restored. He said that when the Conservation District was established, it was done in consultation with all of the stakeholders in Harvard Square. He said that the goal statement for the Conservation District was adopted as the goal statement for the Harvard Square Overlay District, so that the zoning, the Overlay District, and the Conservation District share a common goal and set of objectives. He noted that preservation of the 4.0 FAR was a goal of property owners in Harvard Square. He said that this is subject to review by the Historical Commission, which can make decisions more restrictive than zoning where necessary and appropriate. He stated that the Historical Commission has special restrictions for sign review which is intended to enhance the commercial vitality of Harvard Square. He said that the Commission has received over 1,000 cases in 15 years in Harvard Square with 25%-30% coming to hearing status. He stated that many have been storefront projects. He stated that the report that the City Council asked for in September is still in progress and will be presented to the City Council within 1-2 months.

Councillor Devereux asked if there is any sense of how built-out Harvard Square is in terms of the 4.0 FAR. Mr. Sullivan stated that he does not have that answer but noted that there are areas where there is potential for significant new development. He said that there is some potential at the Abbot Building site.

Lisa Hemmerle provided the Committee with a list of programs that the City offers to assist small businesses. She stated that CDD programs include:

• Approximately 20 annual business development workshops;
• The Storefront Improvement Program which is a reimbursement grant ranging from $2,500 to $35,000 for exterior storefront improvements, signage, ADA improvements, window enhancements, etc.;
• Small Business Enhancement Program which is a reimbursement grant towards equipment and marketing improvements. Ten Harvard Square businesses have utilized this program;
• The Retail Interior Accessibility Program which is a small mirror program of some of the storefront improvements related to interior accessibility issues such as bathrooms, counters, etc., technical one-on-one assistance to meet with businesses to answer any questions and help identify resources that they need if the City does not have them internally;
• Site search assistance to aid businesses in identifying available space in the city;
• Ten-week business training program;
• Retail Strategy Plan which is outside of the specific services that are offered to businesses.

Related to the site search, Councillor Devereux asked if the City is involved with trying to help lease some of the bigger spaces such as the former City Sports space. She questioned at what point the City becomes involved. Ms. Hemmerle responded that the City tries to engage with the Chamber of Commerce and business associations and Cambridge Local First so that people know that CDD is available to answer questions and aid in research. She stated CDD sends out a newsletter, which urges people to reach out with any issues.

Councillor Carlone stated that there was a long list of various planning studies, but it would be great to know what the current planning goals of CDD and the Historical Commission are in regards to Harvard Square. He stated that it is important to have this information readily available so that it is clear what work is underway. He stated that it is great to have a study every ten years, but we must have learned something about what works and what doesn’t work as well as the general direction in which retail in Harvard Square is moving. He said that Harvard Square is losing its uniqueness and it is important to ask what we are doing to ensure its vibrancy. Mr. Dash responded that the Harvard Square Conservation District study put out a summary of the overall goals and this can certainly be brought forward and updated with any other studies. He stated that it is worth it to take a look at the Harvard Square Development Guidelines which lay out what is essentially the same as the work of the Harvard Square Historical Commission’s works on the goals for the Square.

Councillor Carlone stated that this would be helpful. Councillor Carlone stated that the loss of the movie theater has had a tremendous impact on restaurants in Harvard Square. He stated that Equity One is a significant project, and asked how we ensure that this project fits in.

Councillor Mazen stated that the draft Harvard Square Development Guidelines seem to be from 2002. He asked if this is the most recent, and the staff answered in the affirmative. He stated that by virtue of its age, it may not be relevant. Mr. Sullivan responded that the goals are quite relevant and very useful in understanding Harvard Square. He stated that they reached that understanding after a great deal of effort. He stated that it is certainly appropriate to re-examine the goals. He noted that the Historical Commission does refer to them every time they have a case in Harvard Square. Councillor Mazen said that he is concerned that it is difficult to keep up with the rent increases. He said that there are usually tools that regulators can use to nudge the market in the right direction. He asked if the experts have any understanding of what tools are available when there are significant rent increases to assure that neighbors and the diversity and vitality are preserved. Mr. Sullivan responded that zoning and historic preservation are the tools. He stated that they cannot deal with tenancies, protection of individual tenants or property values. He stated that there is not a lot that the Historical Commission can do to affect the rent values. He stated that they cannot necessarily protect market price. Councillor Mazen asked what tools urban planners use in the rare circumstances that almost all stakeholders are in agreement that property values should go down. He asked how the City would apply pressure in that direction.

Lisa Hemmerle stated that she does not agree that we want a downward turn on property values. She said that the hope is that we will be able to identify best practices and other ways in helping retailers be as successful as possible. She stated that they have hired a consultant to conduct the citywide study that was mentioned by Councillor Devereux as a prior meeting of the City Council and looked at some of those and they certainly want to take them into account when they are conducting the Retail Strategy Plan this year. She stated that she believes that the City could not do some of the ideas mentioned because of tax abatements and credits because of the Home Rule process and Proposition 2 ½. She stated that other states may be able to do this but Cambridge cannot. She stated that some of the steps being taken in New York are being constitutionally challenged.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is important to stabilize rents so that people can feel like they are not always playing catch-up with what is perpetually a runaway train. He stated that you cannot catch your breath if you are a small business owner in Harvard Square and other squares in the City. He said that if these have always been the strategies and we have always been playing catch up, then it may be time to employ some new strategies.

Councillor Cheung stated that it is not the historical nature of Harvard Square that he is most concerned about. He said that he is worried that there are two CVS Pharmacies in Harvard Square and there is too much bank frontage. He stated that he is concerned about increasing rents and smaller businesses being replaced by big box retailers. He stated that there is an empty theater in Harvard Square and he noted that if the owners are not going to do anything with it, the City should take it. He stated that Harvard Square is almost a victim of its own success. He stated that the programs that CDD is offering do not seem appropriate to the times. He stated that he does not want more studies but instead, quick action.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not want to drive property values down and it is not his goal. He said that we are stuck in a place where rising property values and rents are changing in ways that we don’t necessarily understand but would like to control. He stated that he would like City staff to tell the City Council what to do in terms of how we can set rules that manage the situation effectively. He stated that he would be willing to sacrifice some property values for a vibrant square. Councillor Devereux said that the property value is abstract until an owner sells a building. She stated that there does not seem to be the same level of concern from staff that she is sensing from the Council. She said that the current situation feels more urgent in that the number of major projects and changes in ownership are unprecedented.

Tom Lucey, Director of Community Relations at Harvard University, stated that Harvard owns about 14% of the retail space in Harvard Square. He stated that in most of Harvard-owned spaces, one will find unique, local retailers such as Harvard Bookstore, Grolier Poetry, Club Passim, and Leavitt & Peirce. He stated that Harvard is interested in a unique experience in Harvard Square. He stated that regarding the Smith Campus Center, he does not see it as controversial. He stated that it was a lengthy process with constructive dialogue with the community. He stated that his recollection is that at the last BZA hearing, every person supported the project. He said that while it took a while, there was a win/win in the end. He stated that Harvard has helped almost every single retailer relocate during construction to keep them in the Square. He stated that the Smith Campus Center is going to be much more open to the public when complete. He said that they are opening up the bottom two floors entirely to the public. He stated that in general, Harvard works very hard to collaborate with the City whether by way of affordable housing and preservation, transportation such as Hubway, and infrastructure contributions. He stated that in terms of retailers, a lot of Harvard tenants have been in place for 30-40 years so there is stability among many of their tenants.

Councillor Devereux asked Mr. Lucey if Harvard has a breakdown of their own properties that are streetfront institutional usage. Mr. Lucey responded that he does not have this information but explained that Harvard owns 14% of retail square footage as measured by what is in the Harvard Square District.

Councillor Devereux asked if there was a map available of property ownership. Mr. Dash prepared a draft but they are seeking additional information in order for the map to be more helpful. Councillor Devereux stated that it is much easier to visualize the area with the aid of a map. Mr. Dash stated that he would provide the committee with a map. (Attachment B).

Councillor Carlone stated that Yale University overlooked a desolate, downtown retail environment 25 years ago and they recently began purposely subsidizing people coming in to open up a new mix of shops. He stated that Harvard has, to their credit, a similar attitude in that they are looking at the whole neighborhood. He stated that the kind of thinking of what happens on the first floor is what many City Councillors are looking to developers to provide. He said that this will broaden the view of high rent and getting that kind of mix. He stated that there has been talk about setting up a Special Permit process where there may be a requirement of small, locally-owned shops.

Councillor Cheung stated that Harvard University is doing great work for the community and with the Cambridge Public Schools. He stated that the City has not given any real direction to Harvard University. He stated that we need to reopen dialogue and start talking about the retail presence and the interaction at street level. Councillor Cheung noted that there is a big difference between national and international developers and the people who will come to the local City Council meeting. He stated that this is the benefit of local developers.

Councillor Devereux stated that this conversation is about how can work together to address the problem. She said that this is not about blame.

Councillor Mazen stated that there is a conversation that is going on with Tom Lucey and Kevin Casey about university permeability and the idea of providing neighborhood residents with campus benefits and getting people into the academic workforce. He stated that this extends to the commercial nature of the squares. He stated that hopefully the fringe benefits of that conversation will be that they will impact the ever increasing vibrancy of the square. He noted the need for all of the tools in order to have more in-depth conversation.

Stuart Dash stated that he does not want CDD to be mistaken for not sensing the urgency. He stated that CDD feels the importance and the challenge of this issue.

Paula Turnbull, Morningside Group, stated that she hears the concerns about retail and the Church Street property and she would like to bring committee up to date on these projects. She stated that they have worked with CDD, the Harvard Advisory Committee, the Harvard Square Business Association and Cambridge Arts over the past several years with regard to zoning changes, historical preservation, and restoration of buildings. She stated that the storefront at 39 JFK Street has been changed and adds to the activity of the street. She noted that Morningside has been working at 115 Mt. Auburn Street and a full historic renovation and preservation of that building should be completed by summer. She stated that they have worked on preservation at 40 Bow Street. As it relates to tenants and concern about high rents, she stated that their rents are market driven. She stated that the tenants that approach them want to be in Harvard Square. She stated that it has to make economic sense to the tenant for them to locate in a specific area. She stated that they look at that with every tenant. She noted that Morningside is very careful about who they bring into the Square and want their tenants to be successful. As it relates to the Church Street theater, they have owned it for about two years and they have been doing studies regarding architectural and the structural integrity of the building as well as feasibility studies. She stated that it is their intention to develop plans in the spring to move forward on the development. She stated that Gerald Chan has an affinity for Harvard Square and has purchased these properties through his commercial family enterprises with the intention of restoration and making the Square as lively and attractive to the whole world. She stated that Mr. Chan attended Harvard University and loves Harvard Square. She said that other things that are important to Mr. Chan are science, education and furthering those missions within Cambridge. She mentioned this because while they have looked at traditional use redevelopment of the Church Street property to have lively retail on the first floor and then office above, they are also looking at other things that may be science or education related. She stated that Mr. Chan does not just look at the traditional economic redevelopment plan.

Councillor Devereux inquired if 115 Mt. Auburn Street is apartments. Ms. Turnbull responded in the affirmative. Councillor Devereux asked if they are rental apartments. Ms. Turnbull answered in the affirmative, stating that they were always rental apartments. She stated that this property started out as a gut rehab but turned into a bigger project due to the lack of structural integrity in the building.

John DiGiovanni, Trinity Properties, President of the Harvard Square Business Association, stated that there have been comments about the idea that Harvard Square is not vibrant. He stated that Harvard Square is plenty active. He stated that the City has done many things to help with the vitality and evolution of Harvard Square. He stated that regarding rents that people seem to be heavily focused on, he suggested that when thinking about Harvard Square in the marketplace, we are at the beginning of the impact of buying online. He stated that this has an impact on bricks and mortar retail in Harvard Square. He noted that retailers are not growing because people can buy in other ways. He stated that one thing that the City can do to help that is to continue improving the public space. He stated that it is the experience of coming to a place like Harvard Square that matters. He stated that Harvard Square is safe, clean, well-lit, and esthetically-pleasing. He stated that the environment is human scale, mixed use and the buildings have character. He said that it is also very walkable and interesting. He said that generally, it is working well. He does agree that there could be some better mixed use on ground level. He said that he never starts with the topic of rent with a perspective tenant or vacant space. He stated that he does not have an asking rent. He stated that if you want to help small retailers, you must make sure that there are more bodies in Harvard Square and that traffic isn’t a bad word. It is an authentic place but retail sales are dropping.

Councillor Carlone stated that it is the programming of the users that add to the street and the concern is that we are losing that. He noted that with two major projects happening, there is concern. He stated that a percentage of sales can work for people. Councillor Devereux stated that it is the experience and that is why people come to Harvard Square. She said that Morningside and Sweetgreen have just renovated that section of the block and she believes that this directly abuts the Urban Outfitters property which could become a hole in the ground for two years. She stated that the City is also looking at doing something at the Out of Town kiosk. She stated that it will be hard to move around Harvard Square and she does not know if there is any mechanism to stage what major development projects so they are not all happening simultaneously because the stores surrounding this construction will not have foot traffic and they will not be able to pay these rents.

Mr. Rafferty stated that he represents Equity One, which owns the Abbott Building. He stated that they have a focused on returns that may not be consistent with how the prior ownership evaluated the property. He stated that for the current proposal they have been working with the Historical Commission and Community Development on issues associated with renovation and making additions to the building. He stated that in response to some comments that were received at a few of the public hearings, they amended their proposal to remove portions of the existing façade and that was done largely in response to comments by City Councillors as well as members of the public. He stated that the expectation is that there are several more months necessary with the Historical Commission before the project moves to the Planning Board where it will spend a comparable amount of time to discuss the proposed height of the building, the requirement to reduce parking, to allow the parking to be satisfied through a payment into the Harvard Square Improvement Fund, and ultimately who will be the likely tenants. He stated that the feel of the building will be somewhat dictated by the tenants. He stated that they anticipate having a floor plate that would give them a bit of an advantage to create a size that may not be currently available in the square. He stated that the notion is that the second floor of the building will be retail and the entrance is 1,000 square feet at the nose of the building. He said that there is no expectation that anything will happen in calendar year 2017. He stated that there have been decades of deferred maintenance and the building is in need of a gut rehab. He said that few retailers want to close, relocate and then come back again. He stated that this is on the table as an option but the understanding is to try to identify locations in the near term which is ongoing.

Councillor Cheung stated that the experience in Harvard Square is what makes it so compelling. He stated that Assembly Row and Newbury Street are doing a lot of things to garner attention and which will culminate in people spending more time in the location. He stated that Harvard Square needs to do this as well. He stated that he feels that Curious George needs to stay in the Square. He asserted that it an integral part of the Square. He stated that he feels that the City Council should introduce a zoning petition to stop any type of work if they are not going to figure out a way to keep Curious George in Harvard Square. He stated that it is great to talk about Gerald Chan’s affinity but he is not present at this hearing. Ms. Turnbull stated that Mr. Chan was planning on attending the hearing but had a dental emergency. Councillor Cheung stated that when he hears the term “market driven rent”, he feels that it is an excuse to charge as much as possible.

Public comment opened at 6:28pm.

Laura Donohue, 90 Putnam Avenue, stated that she is a 35-year resident of Harvard Square and has been the owner of Bob Slate Stationer for the last five years. She stated that Harvard Square learned the hard way what it was like without one of its favorite stores for the six months that it took her to close on the business and find a new lease. She stated that the landlord looked at her and asked, “Who the hell are you?” She stated that another landlord was very generous and stated that he knew the economics of the store and that brings her to the question of what constitutes market price. She stated that when you have two large scale players, they can skew the market quite a bit. She stated that by definition, the price that closes is the market price but she asked how we know what the shape of the demand curve really is. She stated that the market clearing price is the one where a business can stay stable through ups and downs. She stated that when you have a rent that can sustain a business like Bob Slate since 1933, that tells her that was a reasonable market clearing rent. She stated that it is open for discussion what is open market price because there are so few transactions. She disputed what is being portrayed as market price.

Susan Miller-Havens, resident at 221 Mt. Auburn Street and a business tenant at 18 Brattle Street, stated that she has three unrelated comments:

• She would love the City Council to think a little bit about what Seattle, Washington, is currently looking into and what New York is looking into. She stated that this has to do with rent control for small businesses. She stated that in Seattle, some of the businesses are legacy businesses that come under that purview.
• She stated that Mr. Brown from Equity indicated that the construction demolition will take about 2.5 years. She asked who manages the disruption of the Square. She asked if this goes before the Planning Board, or the City Council? She asked what the cost of this is to the city and what happens in terms of police and fire. She said that the project on JFK and Brattle is a huge project and if one truck stops on either side, the whole Square stops. She stated ¾ of the block is affected by this purchase. She stated that the tenants are assuming that they will be evicted and not be able to afford to move back in are also concerned about neighbors who are already talking about leaving.
• She stated that the public doesn’t know very much about this and there is a feeling that public notices have not been posted about projects in a timely way. She stated in the most recent meeting with the Historical Commission, there were no notices posted. She said that they asked for some to be posted and one was posted inside the door of #18. She said that the City has a responsibility to inform the public in some way.

Nancy Gold, a retail tenant in the Abbott building, said that Councillor Cheung is correct and we should focus on issues that he brought up.

Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, stated that she thinks there needs to be a real study of the definition between Conservation District, Historical District and landmarked buildings. She stated that if there is not much difference between them, then why make the distinction. She stated that Harvard Square has watchdogs such as the Conservation District, the Harvard Square Business Association, the Harvard Square Advisory Committee and the Historical Commission. She said that she rarely hears anything about the Harvard Square Advisory Committee and that they are supposed to work with the Historical Commission. She asked what they provide as an added layer of protection. She asked if there is relationship between the Harvard Square Business Association and the Harvard Square Advisory Committee and is that supposed to be objective. She asked why the President of both organizations is the same person. She said that there could be conflict of interest. She said that preservation seems to be lost in this argument. She stated that it is possible to learn something from Davis Square in Somerville which has exciting small businesses. (Attachment C)

Frank Kramer stated that he is former owner of Harvard Book Store, Co-Founder of Cambridge Local First, and a member of the Harvard Square Advisory Committee. He said that he has long history in Harvard Square. He thanked Harvard University, which has strived to keep locally owned businesses in their locations. He stated that as the founder of Cambridge Local First, he added one word to description of Harvard Square - unique. He stated that people come to Harvard Square for unique businesses, not for CVS. He stated that he is not opposed to development. He said that the original location for the Harvard Book Store was 19 Boylston Street and it had to move because Corcoran’s was built. He stated that it is interesting that now they are talking about the same building. He stated that keeping locally owned businesses in Harvard Square is important to the economy and quality of life in the city.

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, stated that “accommodation” needs to be put into the conversation. He stated that as much as he would love to see long-term retail entities remain in their current locations, sometimes it just doesn’t happen due to market reasons or other reasons. He stated that he hopes that part of the conversation includes some discussion of finding ways to accommodate businesses that we want even if they have to move. He stated that Curious George is an example of this. He stated that some of his favorite places in Harvard Square through the years were not the ones that were on the corners and the high rent areas. He stated that the places he goes to are the ones that are around the corner because there is a way of accommodating retail diversity, not by ensuring that they all must be on the main drag, but making sure that they can exist somewhere in or around the square. He said that he would like Harvard Square to retain its diversity through some form of accommodation.

Susan Corcoran, owner of Black Ink at 5 Brattle Street, stated that she opened her first retail business, Black Ink, on Charles Street in Boston in 1994 and a second location at 5 Brattle Street in 2002. She said that one of her concerns has to do with the potential construction at the Harvard Square Collection buildings across the street from her store. She stated that after spending many hours at the Historical Commission meetings, she was dismayed that the new owners and developers of the properties were given provisional permission to potentially demolish a historic building at the heart of Harvard Square while displacing 20+ independent businesses in the process and potentially threatening the viability of remaining businesses in the neighborhood. She stated that the plan is completely out of scale and out of touch with the surrounding neighborhood and community who have historically rejected the mall-type stores that will most likely occupy the new building. She stated that before they learn this expensive lesson, they will unleash a construction plan that will affect everyone who lives, loves, commutes through, or does business in Cambridge. She asked at a Historical Commission meeting how Equity One plans to mitigate losses to surrounding businesses and was met with disregard. She stated that from her perspective this project will ultimately affect neighboring businesses because construction will divert foot and vehicle traffic, and scaffolding and sidewalk and street closures will limit visibility. She stated that street parking will be non-existent and the ability to receive goods and merchandise will be severely compromised. She said that Equity One is expecting the community to pay for its project. She stated that it is unclear if anyone will be overseeing this vast process. (Attachment D)

Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place, stated that she has lived and worked in Harvard Square for nearly 25 years. She stated that she is an architectural historian and lectures around the globe. She stated that she has not paid close attention to Harvard Square until recently and it strikes her how successful New Haven is. She stated that the same is true of Columbia and they have challenged the setting and transformed it. She would love to see Harvard doing more with its properties and help engage with the critical part of their front yard. She said that at this point there is a need to bring in various groups and planning goals to think broadly. At present, this is being done piecemeal. She stated that there are tour busses that line up in front of houses, polluting the air. She stated that this is not safe for bicyclists or tourists. She stated that we must think about security and safety. She stated that it is easy to do light studies with GIS. She stated that razing the Corcoran Building without first conducting an energy study is a mistake. She stated that we must really rethink the Harvard Square Conservation District and there must be best practices so that individuals have to have a turnover of officers in the key non-profits that the City does business with. She said that we need to think forward about what people want in the Square.

Ken Taylor, 23 Berkeley Street, stated that he is an architect and planner and lives in Harvard Square. He stated that he would like to speak about the Abbott Building and the process moving forward. He stated that it is important that the Historical Commission, Community Development Department and the developer work closely together to identify what the objectives are and should be when doing a major surgery on Harvard Square. He suggested that some of the goals should be increased frontage, improved pedestrian ways, and historical preservation. He stated that the Abbott Building may not be an appropriate candidate for ripping out the front door to make an access to a major retail space above. He stated that this should be preserved. He stated that there is a great opportunity to do something creative in new construction on the Stable building site. He stated that he hopes that the Community Development Department will look at requiring a pedestrian way extending the Palmer Street pedestrian way all the way to JFK through the site, which would afford an opportunity to make a main entrance for the retail above in the center of the site rather than taking the corner of the site for that purpose. He stated that a pedestrian way would increase the amount of frontage that would give access to more small shops on the first floor. He stated that this requires the input of the key players. He stated that this should be a public process.

Bertil Jean stated that he is resident of the Harvard Square Historical District and has a business in the Square (The Beat Hotel). He said that it is interesting to have so many people discussing this tonight. He stated that the point is that we need to grow as a community and accepting that things are changing and we need to adapt. He stated that increased rents are not only in Harvard Square, it is everywhere. He stated that 22 new independent businesses have opened in Harvard Square in the last three years. He stated that they are worried everything is going up. He stated that there must be discussion with the City and the HSBA about how to offer support to business owners and how to have the developer help the owners.

Marty Levin stated that he came to Cambridge 43 years ago. He stated that there was a magic to Harvard Square. He said that he does not feel the magic anymore. He stated that when Harvard Square became upscale, the artists started to leave. He stated that he hopes that money does not rule out in Harvard Square and he would like it to become a spiritual consideration. He stated that when he saw the Wursthaus and Tastee leave Harvard Square it broke his heart. He stated that need to rejuvenate Harvard Square with compassion and wisdom. He stated that the loss of the movie theater was crushing to him. He stated that he would like to see another movie theater or live theater venue or something for the arts at this location. He stated that two CVS Pharmacy stores in Harvard Square was a bad sign to him.

Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, stated that she learned a lot this evening. She stated that the building at 1050 and 1100 Massachusetts Avenue are the eastern edge of the Harvard Square Overlay District. She wondered how the ripples of the development will affect her. She stated that 1050 Massachusetts Avenue has already been sold and 1100 Massachusetts Avenue is on the market. She stated that she listens with interest to the proposal for the cinema building. She stated that when she hears that science as well as office, possibly in place of office, might be in the cinema building she is concerned. She stated that lab use is allowed as of right where office is which is part of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. She stated that if one converts a building over 50,000 square feet, if less than 25,000 square feet is converted to lab use, it is allowable as of right with no Special Permit. She stated that this will bring noise, the possibility of façade lighting, mechanical on the rooftops which would be right in the center of Harvard Square.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that many people in the city are giving up on Harvard Square. He stated that we have to recognize that many residents have this feeling for good reason. He said that the mallification of Harvard Square, the character of the retail, the tour buses and tourists parading around Harvard Square has given people the sense that we have lost a piece of the community to something else. He stated that he heard a talk about the French Quarter in New Orleans and the tension between the idea that the French Quarter is a beautiful place and as a residential place and as a very intense location for tourism. He stated that they talked about a prohibition of tour busses. He stated that an important moment in this history was in 2000 after a debate that Harvard Square was going to be a Historic District and it was shot down. He stated that the City Council would not approve a Historic District because some stakeholders did not like it. He stated that we must take ownership of public spaces. He stated that we have to acknowledge that when we make value in Harvard Square, we have a right to expect something back.

Hasson Rashid, 820 Mass. Avenue, read from a prepared statement. (Attachment E)

Connor Epstein Kraus stated that he did not hear any discussion regarding climate change. He stated that any conversation about development should be factored through the lens of climate change and sustainability.

Susan Labandibar, 8 Brewer Street, stated that she is the President of the Sustainable Business Network of Massachusetts and Treasurer of Green Cambridge. She stated that she is also a business owner in South Boston. She stated that one of the points that is missing is that we are not making decisions in a vacuum. She stated that we are in an extraordinary time where there has been an extraordinary wealth transfer that is unprecedented since the Great Depression. She stated that the top tenth of 1% now owns as much of the wealth as the bottom 90% of the population. She stated that in the midst of this wealth transfer, Equity One’s website states that they strive for a fully integrated approach to sustainability in which conservation and strong employee culture are treated with the same priority as squeezing every last dollar of income out of our core portfolio. She stated that her business is a benefit corporation and they have the opposite goal. She stated that her investors cannot force her to prioritize profit over people. She stated that she finds this offensive and we have to take strong action to preserve what we hold dear.

Pebble Gifford, 15 Hilliard Street, stated that she has had a long career in Harvard Square in different capacities. She stated what has happened is unfortunate. She stated it was a mistake to not extend the Historic District to more of the commercial area of the Square. She stated that it would be important to evaluate whether the Conservation District concept has worked. She said that this hearing is proof that we are getting a mish mash. She stated that we are not going to see the Harvard Square that we have loved. She stated that she thinks it is time to get rid of the Conservation District and expand the Historic District. She stated that conservation districts are called “Historic District Lite”. They are all over the country and in every instance they are enacted because they are considered much less restrictive.

Public comment closed at 7:18pm.

Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide information about the remaining development capacity in the Harvard Square District based on the current zoning and 4.0 FAR limit; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide the City Council with an update of the 2002 Harvard Square Guideline Study.

On a voice vote the motion passed.

Councillor Cheung stated that we need to make sure that we are preserving what is in Harvard Square such as Bob Slate and Black Ink. He stated that we have to draw distinction between urgent issues and longer-term planning for Harvard Square. He said that he is all for historic preservation of Harvard Square but he does not want to see a historic building with banks in it. He wants the historical preservation to also have presentation of the retail and character. He stated that he wants CDD to move forward expeditiously. He stated that he finds it ridiculous that on City property we are selling cigarettes, tobacco, lottery tickets, etc. He thinks that something better can be done with the kiosk. He said that when they had MIT doing rezoning, they committed to things such as a minimum requirement on locally owned retail and limiting bank frontage. He stated that these ideas with MIT should prompt thinking about having an overlay district in Harvard Square. He said that he would like some of these ideas incorporated into Harvard Square.

Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 7:23pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Dec 21, 2016, beginning at 3:05pm in the Sullivan Chamber. The purpose of the hearing was to conduct an additional public hearing to amend the zoning Ordinance on the petition of the City Council to delete the existing Section 20.700 – Medical Marijuana Overlay Districts; create a new Section 11.800 – Medical Marijuana; and list Registered Marijuana Dispensary within Section 4.35 of the Table of Use Regulations, allowed only by Planning Board Special Permit within Business A, B, B-1, B-2, C, Industry A-1, B-1 and B-2 districts.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Cheung and Councillor Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Mayor Simmons; Sandra Clarke, Deputy Director/Chief of Administration & Operations; Swaathi Joseph, Zoning Associate Planner, Community Development Department; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Jamila Bradley; Nora Bent; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present was Sunny Rose Roberts.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing and invited the Community Development Department to update the committee on the status of the petition.

Sandra Clarke stated that the Planning Board held a hearing on Nov 1, 2016 and at that time decided to continue the hearing for a future date due to a pending ballot initiative that would be before the public on Nov 8, 2016. She stated a series of questions came about via City Council Policy Order #11 on Nov 21, 2016 and noted that the Policy Order will be on the agenda for the next Planning Board meeting scheduled for Jan 3, 2017. She stated that questions in the Policy Order will be presented to the Planning Board at this meeting.

Ms. Clarke gave an overview of the Memorandum to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee from Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, (Attachment A) which responds to the six questions that arose at the Nov 9, 2016 Ordinance Committee hearing. Ms. Clarke stated that when the Massachusetts medical marijuana law was first adopted, it provided for initial registration of up to 35 dispensaries statewide with no more than five per county. These dispensaries would be distributed geographically so each dispensary would be expected to serve multiple communities. She said that the population of registered patients was estimated to be about 0.5% of the total population. She stated that deducing from those figures, there would be about one dispensary for every 1,000 patients. She stated that if those initial assumptions were applied in Cambridge, only one dispensary would be needed to serve the city’s expected patient population, suggesting that it could be as much as 2% of the total population. As a result, there is some rationale for siting more than one dispensary within Cambridge. She noted that currently there are three medical marijuana dispensaries in the permitting pipeline in Cambridge with all three being in the areas that would be allowed under the proposed zoning.

As it related to distribution of dispensaries to avoid clustering issues that might affect the character of an area, Ms. Clarke stated that any limitation on the distance between dispensaries, on the number of dispensaries within a particular district, or similar measure should be included in the “Requirements” section of the zoning.

Moving to the question of how zoning for medical marijuana will affect the future establishment of nonmedical marijuana retailers, Swaathi Joseph said that there is conflict because the current medical marijuana act prohibits non-medical dispensing at the dispensary. She said they are waiting for more discussion and clarity of how that will play out. She noted that at this point, they do not have an answer. Ms. Clarke added that the medical marijuana regulations will be overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health while non-medical marijuana oversight and regulation is via a newly appointed Cannabis Control Commission.

As it related to how many non-medical marijuana retailers might be expected in Cambridge, Ms. Clarke responded that there is some clarity on how to go about determining that. She said that the new law provides that a city or town may establish requirements for non-medical marijuana retailing, cultivating and processing facilities, but a requirement resulting in any of the following restrictions would require a “vote of the voters of that city or town.”:

Prohibits the operation of one or more types of marijuana establishments within the city or town; Limits the number of marijuana retailers to fewer than 20% of the number of licenses issued within the city or town for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages not to be drunk on the premises where sold under Chapter 138 of the General Laws;

or Limits the number of any type of marijuana establishment to fewer than the number of medical marijuana treatment centers registered to engage in the same type of activity in the city or town.

Regarding the local review process in the future for both medical marijuana dispensaries and medical marijuana retailers, Ms. Clarke stated that initially the rationale for making the Planning board the review authority for medical marijuana dispensaries was that these were new uses for which the potential impacts on the city are not well understood, particularly related to transportation and urban design, which are issues typically under the purview of the Planning board. She said that as the impacts become better know, it may be desirable to establish objective requirements in place of the Planning Board criteria and to proceed by allowing or disallowing such use based on the applicable zoning district and conformance with a clear set of standards. She stated that moving forward, there will be interdepartmental group convened to review what future implications will be.

Councillor Cheung asked Arthur Goldberg for input. Mr. Goldberg stated that he did have some input into Mr. Roberts’ memo that discussed the legal issues. He stated that he concurs with what is stated. He said that with regard to the draft ordinance that is before the committee, one reference to 1500 square feet really should be changed to 1500 linear feet. As it relates to the draft ordinance, Mr. Goldberg stated that the proposal is to repeal the existing Section 20.700 where there is a reference to a Sage Cannabis commitment letter that was incorporated into the ordinance. He said that if repealed, the City Council would want to save the portion of the Sage Cannabis commitment letter.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the memo from Mr. Roberts was very clear and he was thankful. He stated that different options are very helpful when thinking about future. He noted that he likes that for those who strongly support medical marijuana as well as non-medical marijuana, this will allow for more dispensaries than what the current zoning allows and it would allow more than the formula of the state. On the flip side, he said that there are limits so there will not be a dispensary on every corner. He stated that this does not remove the City from making a final decision. He stated that the Special Permit process allows for only a few places in which a dispensary would be possible. This is how we control the number. He stated that there is concern about medical marijuana and non-medical marijuana and added the he understands that we have to look at the big picture but at best, the Commonwealth will not come out with regulations until September of 2017. He said that he does not want to be held up moving a medical marijuana forward while we wait for Commonwealth to come forth with their regulations. He asked Mr. Goldberg if the City could require that a non-medical dispensary would have to comply with the same 1500 feet, 500 feet from the school requirement. Mr. Goldberg responded that we do have authority under the new act related to non-medical marijuana to enact zoning. He said that there is discretion but there are limitations as to what the zoning can and cannot do. He stated that it is hard to predict exactly what we can do.

Vice Mayor McGovern said that as it relates to the siting of the dispensaries, he does not want them to be pushed to the outskirts of town. He stated his hope that there is not an underground or dirty feeling about having these facilities in sight.

Councillor Carlone thanked Mr. Roberts for the highly detailed and informative memorandum. He stated that when you review the medical marijuana guidelines, there is a very high level of security. He said that he expects that a non-medical marijuana dispensary would be set up very differently. He said that these dispensaries are very different and should not be together. He said that the oversight issue is going to be a driving force of realizing that the difference between medical marijuana and non-medical marijuana entities. He noted that he wants to be cautious about recreational marijuana dispensaries and wants to ensure that it is done correctly.

Councillor Devereux asked if there is a mechanism that the City Council can be notified when CDD submits Mr. Roberts’ memo to the Planning Board. She stated that it would be helpful. Ms. Clarke responded in the affirmative. Councillor Devereux asked if the maps reflect zones that are proposed in the petition. Ms. Joseph responded in the affirmative. Councillor Devereux noted that there are striped areas not within base zoning but having uses consistent with base zoning. She stated that she feels that there are some language changes and she does not have the right maps. She said that while the Planning Board is busy, the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA)is busy as well but it may solve problems by sending this issue to the BZA. She questioned if there is any role for the License Commission to play. Ms. Clarke stated that there will be working group to consider this as there is a lot to be understood at this point. Councillor Devereux asked if applicants will be able to apply for a variance? Ms. Joseph responded that the use variance is very seldom applied as it is usually the dimensional variations that go for variance request. Councillor Devereux stated that if use is prohibited in a zone, one could apply for a variance. Ms. Joseph responded in the affirmative but added that the case must be very unique. As it relates to clustering, Councillor Devereux stated that she is unclear whether it would have to be written into zoning that this would also apply to non-medical marijuana. Ms. Joseph responded that they are looking at a whole set of zoning recommendations to be framed and adopted for non-medical marijuana use. She stated that this is not in the purview of the current petition. Councillor Devereux.

Councillor Mazen stated that he is new to the commercial side of the discussion. He asked what the value of a medical facility is at all in the face of having a non-medical facility. Ms. Clarke stated that as a medical facility, there is possibility of different types of compensation or sources of payment for that type of a product. Councillor Mazen stated that he feels that this does not look complete to forward to the full City Council. He stated that he thinks some could use more understanding as it is funny to imagine 2-3 dispensaries in the same place. He stated that this is described nebulously in the report. He stated that the medical to non-medical connection needs more discussion. He said that it is important to understand the locations that are being carved out. He said that there should be a map to discuss as though this is coming to some finality. He stated that with a concrete map and zoning language, the committee could look at a concrete scenario. He added that he wants to understand what it will feel like and be like. Ms. Clarke stated that there is so much still to be understood. She stated that we are just beginning to learn more about the broader non-medical use and there is much to be determined before we can merge the two areas. She said that the Planning Board discussion is about medical marijuana with future consideration on what will happen with non-medical marijuana regulations.

Councillor Kelley stated that he is hesitant to move forward on this as he is not sure of the point with the legalization of marijuana.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that in terms of forwarding the issue to the full City Council, if the City Council is going to make a decision and tie medical marijuana to non-medical marijuana, the medical marijuana piece will be on hold. He said that these are two separate issues and we do not know the regulations for recreational marijuana and how it will impact medical marijuana dispensaries. He said that there are questions but he pointed out that recreational marijuana will have a different approval process. He stated that you cannot separate the 1500 linear feet from the 500 feet and that is also a limitation which limits these facilities to major squares. He stated that as it relates to Councillor Devereux’s point about the variance, people can come before the City Council and file a zoning petition. He said that he understands if the committee does not want to move forward without a recommendation from the Planning Board but stated that waiting until non-medical marijuana regulations are completed would be a mistake. He said that he does not want people to confuse the issue of medical marijuana with non-medical marijuana.

Councillor Devereux stated that it would be helpful to the committee to receive reports in advance. She said that she does not want to stop medical marijuana from being zoned and opening in Cambridge. She stated that this is not her intent. She pointed out that there are also have petitions from Healthy Farms and CAS that could also be acted upon. She said that she believes that three dispensaries are possibly appropriate. Ms. Clarke stated that the Planning Board is looking at the Medical Marijuana Overlay District which is not being held up due to non-medical marijuana.

Councillor Cheung stated that he senses that people want to look at doing more in a citywide approach so that is the reason why this came to be and is before the committee. Councillor Devereux stated that there is no language that we have to have a minimum. Ms. Clarke stated that if a municipality decided it wanted to restrict, then it would require a vote.

Councillor Carlone stated that it is very hard to get a use variance, especially with neighborhood opposition to the variance. He stated that the graphics are terrible and only half of the map is seen. He stated that he is fully for the idea that information be given to committees in advance of a hearing. He noted that he agrees with the idea of more logic, such as 1500 feet between any facility that provides marijuana. He questioned if a permit to operate is endless. Ms. Joseph responded that if a business is transferred, the permit is no longer valid. Councillor Carlone said that we must ensure that if the city is going to have more than three dispensaries, they must be spread around the city. He stated that he will not vote to move this matter to the full City Council. He said that while he believes in it 100%, we must get it right.

Councillor Devereux stated that zoning states that the Special Permit goes with the dispensary that has been authorized by the state.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he understands the complexity but added that this ordinance does exactly what the City Council wanted done which is to set a city wide zone and set limits on how many dispensaries and location. He stated that what will happen is that individual petitions will continue to come forward. He stated that we may end up with 10 petitioners. He stated that this limits the number of dispensaries in the city. He stated that compounding this issue with the recreational marijuana issue is delaying this and he believes that this is a mistake. He said that this was in response to trying to get a more citywide plan which is what the City Council asked for. He noted that amendments can be made in the future and he feels that this does solve a lot of concerns that the City Council raised. He noted the need for structure and clear rules.

Councillor Cheung thanked Ms. Clarke for her participation.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is helpful to know that there is zoning language. He stated that there is a win/win. He stated that people are concerned that more conversation needs to happen. He stated that another committee meeting can be held. He stated that if it is the intent to get it done, it is not impossible. He stated that it is related to the recreational use so we should talk about that as a peripheral matter. He suggested that the current applications may have deadlines and needs that he is not considering and it is important to be helpful. He said that with the exception of one of the groups, the interaction as a City Council has been great. He suggested that that to hear from entities before a meeting or at a meeting helps them contextualize and move on their needs.

Councillor Carlone requested the following information to be provided to the Ordinance Committee by CDD:

• Planning Board/CDD opinions on the potential impact of Medical Marijuana vs. Recreational Marijuana on each other's operation:
  Given medicinal non-euphoric vs recreational euphoric product, the very different clientele with different needs, one requiring a prescription and the other run as a walk-in business, does it not seem reasonable to ensure that the diverse types of operation should be remote from each other and not under one roof with one entry? Couldn't this be part of all future zoning?
  Are there further issues that need to be considered that would enhance the viability of medicinal marijuana providers for us to consider?
• Location Factors for Future Medicinal and Recreational Marijuana Providers:
  Does the city believe it is best to distribute all provider locations at transit locations in the city, rather than within 1,500 (7 city blocks) from each other?
  Is there another way to look at distributing locations?
• Better graphic information:
  Please make sure that the Ordinance Committee and City Council receive the same quality support graphics (maps, drawings, photos): in color, size and clarity as the Board/CDD reviews in their findings. Otherwise, we cannot make accurate decisions.

Councillor Kelley asked about federal law and local use. Mr. Goldberg responded that he does not know the answer but he would have to research.

Public comment began at 4:21pm.

Sunny Rose Roberts, 20 Ware Street, suggested that there be insight to the idea that there will be trials so areas designated for trials should be considered. She stated the importance of assistance through the medical marijuana issue which is different than the recreational marijuana issue. She stated that specific zoning will be needed to contribute to the city.

Public comment closed at 4:22pm.

Councillor Cheung stated that it is possible to schedule another meeting and get additional information with colored map. He stated the option to refer the matter to the full City Council where changes could be made at that level.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is in support of a slightly revised form addressing the issues that he mentioned. He stated that he wants this done in the best planning way to avoid further issues. He stated that he is concerned about the impact between medical marijuana and non-medical marijuana.

Councillor Devereux stated that she would like the Planning Board to recommend which of the suggested base zoning districts are appropriate to be included in this ordinance and whether any of the use districts should be included (North Point, PUD K-5/Volpe, SD-5 near Central Square and SD-7 and SD-11 Cambridgeport near the BU Bridge. She noted that she is fine with most of the zoning but looks forward to the Planning Board recommendations.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he is concerned that there are not currently answers to any of the nonmedical marijuana questions. He stated that if that is going to be the area of concern for people, we will not get any answers about non-medical marijuana for a long time. He said that he does not want this petition refiled and does not want to waste time. He said that it is important that CDD is clear about what the committee is asking for. He suggested the possibility that individual City Councillors e-mail questions to the Deputy City Clerk for inclusion in the report in order to avoid not getting answers to questions that the committee has. Councillors Devereux and Carlone stated that they would forward their inquiries to the Deputy City Clerk who would further said inquiries to CDD.

Councillor Carlone made the motion that the matter remain in committee.

The motion passed.

Councillor Devereux moved that action be taken on this petition prior to expiration of the petition.

The motion carried on a voice vote of 5 members.

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:32pm on the motion of Councillor Kelley.

For the Committee,
Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chair

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held an additional public hearing on Jan 3, 2017 beginning at 3:12pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on the petition of the City Council to delete the existing Section 20.700 – Medical Marijuana Overlay Districts; create a new Section ll.800 – Medical marijuana; and list Registered Marijuana Dispensary within Section 4.35 of the Table of use Regulations, allowed only by Planning Board Special Permit within Business A, B, B-1, B-2, C, Industry A -1, B-1 and B-2 Districts. This is the third hearing held on this petition. At the Nov 9, 2016 and the Dec 21, 2016 hearings the matter was left in committee.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor McGovern; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Nicole Snow and Michael Latulippe, Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance (MPAA), 190 Bridge Street, Salem; and Jeremiah MacKinnon, 39N Central Street, Peabody.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting was being audio and video recorded.

Councillor Cheung requested an update from the Community Development Department and the Planning Board on questions raised from the Ordinance Committee hearing held on Dec 21, 2016.

Councillor Carlone stated that since the last meeting he read the Community Development Department's memo in detailed and there are many good recommendations from memo from CDD related to the discussion from the last hearing. He stated that the issues raised are in the memo and can be discussed to help us more forward.

Mr. Roberts stated he provided material for the last meeting. He stated that Planning Board will hear this petition Jan 3, 2017 at 8:00pm. The Planning Board continued their hearing from November because they wanted more time to consider the ramifications of the non-medical marijuana law that was adopted as a ballot initiative in November. He noted that at the hearing there were discussions about the different location and different zoning district and other ways potential requirements that might be included. He stated that the most complicated piece is the relationship with the non-medical marijuana law which contains some provisions which are unclear at this time. He stated that it came up at the last hearing medical establishments being allowed to apply for and to convert into non-medical establishment which will be decided by the state. The only thing new since the last hearing is that the Legislature has postponed the licensing of recreational marijuana establishments for six months. The regulations were expected in six months and may not happen until the end of the year.

Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated he had nothing to add from the last hearing.

Councillor Carlone stated that he did not recall the questions from the Dec 21st hearing and the Committee Report has not been received. He stated his questions related to the mixture of recreational and medicinal marijuana facilities.

Councillor Cheung stated that one question was about the diverse types of operations under one roof with one entry. He spoke about separating and recreational marijuana sales from medicinal marijuana sales is there a way to do this and would future zoning be needed. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that if a legal opinion is being requested he would have to wait until the regulations are received from state. He stated that there are some provisions in the law that make it at least questionable about whether a municipality can prohibit co-location. He noted that previously the City Solicitor did an opinion which summarized the ballot question and there were provisions cited in the opinion in the ballot law that the Cannabis Control Commission cannot pass regulations that would prohibit co-location. He stated that if the state cannot do this it is highly questionable whether a municipality could do this.

Councillor Carlone stated that the City Council was educated on medicinal marijuana and the need for security at the front door, the need for a prescription to get into the facility and the product is different from recreational marijuana. He noted that the reason for promoting medicinal marijuana is to help people in need but recreational marijuana is very different. He stated that this was fine to have both in the same district, but not in the same entry. He expressed his concern about this. He felt that eventually the two will not be allowed together. He commented that the law is unknown.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the questions about the non-medical marijuana are good but are hard to resolve because it is unknown what the state will do or what the regulations will be. He cautioned about combining the medical and non-medical marijuana in this discussion. He noted that the petition submitted was for medical marijuana dispensaries and there was a need for a city-wide ordinance. This proposal provides the city-wide map and also limits the number of medical marijuana dispensaries facilities that can open in the City by zoning. He stated that it is 1,500 linear feet in conjunction with the 500 feet provision from a park, playground or school. He added that when these two are added together there are only a few locations in the City where a dispensary could open. This is only 5-6 facilities that can be permitted. He stated that that this limits the number of dispensaries that can open, spreads the locations out in the City and keeps them out of residential districts and is included on a city-wide map. He stated that the concerns that he is hearing lately is about the non-med marijuana facilities and how these will be regulated which is unknown at this time. He stated that non-medical marijuana establishments will be discussed when the regulations by the state are known. He stated that this hearing is about medical marijuana facilities; no one can answer the non-medical marijuana questions. Vice Mayor McGovern moved to amend the text by changing "square" to "linear" feet and removing Business A and Business A-1 to further limit where dispensaries are allowed.

Councillor Carlone moved the following amendment:
ORDERED: That it is the intent of this ordinance, subject to state regulations, that any approved medicinal marijuana facility shall not physically incorporate a future recreational marijuana facility within the same location.

Councillor Carlone noted that he sees more than 5-6 marijuana dispensary locations on the map. He stated that the locations of these facilities should be in the prime commercial districts. He stated that these facilities should be in public locations. He stated that he supports medical marijuana facilities and felt that recreational marijuana facilities will impact the medical facilities.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the Planning Board has to approve the facilities and the City Manager needs to supply a letter of approval of the medical marijuana dispensaries. He added that the control of the dispensaries is still with the City Council as where and how many dispensaries open in the City. If there is no letter of support the dispensary does not go forward. He asked if language was added that did not allow medical dispensaries to operate in the same facility as a recreational facility, where would this fit. Councillor Carlone stated that a separate facility may even be adjacent to the medical facility, but he would prefer that there is some distance between the two facilities. Councillor Cheung stated that while thinking about recreational marijuana facilities we do not want to stall medical marijuana facilities. He added that the City Council needs to be cognizant of where medical marijuana facilities are sited may lead to recreational marijuana facilities.

Councillor Carlone stated that when the medical marijuana proponents came in they stated that they wanted to help people in pain. He stated that it is odd to have the medical marijuana entity have a recreational marijuana identity right next to each other. These are two different purposes and it is odd that the same medical entity can have a recreational facility next to each other. He stated that he wanted the reasons for the medical marijuana facilities maintained. In addition to 1500 feet they should be in commercial districts and as far apart from each other as possible.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated he did not know if the medical marijuana facilities were applying to be a recreational marijuana facility. He stated that medical marijuana facilities need to be a non-profit. Vice Mayor McGovern requested Nicole Snow from the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance to come forward to answer the question of how will recreational marijuana facilities be allowed with medical facilities.

Councillor Cheung opened public comment at 3:40pm.

Nicole Snow, Executive Director, Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, Michael Latulippe, Development Director, Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance and Jeremiah MacKinnon, Advisory Board Member, Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance introduced themselves. Ms. Snow stated that the group did work to pass Question # 2012 and has been working to implement the Medical Marijuana Program which is strictly for patients who qualify for medical marijuana.

Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about a medical marijuana dispensary being able to open a non-medical dispensary in the same location or adjacent. Ms. Snow noted that the regulations have not been promulgated as of yet. She stated that kill switch was incorporated into the legislation and this was voted on. It is confusing as to how this will actually work in the real world. She stated that this petition is only for a medical marijuana facility and to have an overlay. She stated that when the committee starts talking about the future it causes confusion. She spoke about the rights of the patients as it related to recreational marijuana facilities all need to be clarified. Today's discussion is about the map developed for medical marijuana facilities.

Mr. Latulippe stated that there is kill switch delaying the date for implementation for 6 months. The Legislature has acted on this and this has to do with adult usage licensing. It is unclear if medical marijuana facilities and if the regulators do not act in time that a medical facility would be able to start selling to adult users, without a license. He suggested taking a step back and look at the federal governmental level with shift in the President and Congress. There may be changes in federal enforcement priorities. Cambridge license holders are not going to risk their license being seized by the federal government if they start selling marijuana without a license to adult user.

Councillor Cheung asked how medical marijuana facilities will make money when there is recreational facilities for adult users. Ms. Snow noted that there will be no regulations or applications for license for recreational marijuana until 2018. Mr. Latulippe stated that in some states the medical marijuana facilities are solvent and there are few adult marijuana users. He spoke about the changes that the Legislature may propose. He stated that the Legislature may offer amendments to allow cities to ban recreational facilities. He added that medical marijuana cannot be banned and that there are 90 licenses issued throughout the state.

Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about the requirements for medical marijuana criteria why would someone go through this instead of going to an adult user marijuana facility? Ms. Snow stated that the medical marijuana program has not been finally structured and implemented. She stated that adult user facilities will charge taxes, stigma and there will be no subsidies. Mr. Latulippe stated that a clinical context is what needs to be considered here. He stated that medical marijuana facilities will provide safe, secure access for the patients who qualify. He added that getting a medical marijuana card for patients who qualify is important to these patients because most do not know how to use medical marijuana.

Councillor Carlone questioned if the product is different for medical marijuana than for recreational marijuana. He stated that all City Councillors agreed that medical marijuana makes sense. He wanted 2 separated facilities. He wanted the intent to be that the recreational facilities remain separate from the medical marijuana facilities. He stated that if they are combined the facility would become more recreational.

Mr. MacKinnon spoke about co-location happening. He stated that Question 4 passed and it states that a medical marijuana facility that has a license can apply for a recreational marijuana license and be located in the same location. He stated that the 6 month delay was passed by the Legislature and the Governor. He spoke about the changes that may be made by the Legislature and the Governor and that Cambridge may be given the ability to require that the facilities be separate. He stated that if the Cannabis Commission grants a recreational license then both facilities can be in the same location.

Councillor Carlone asked if it makes sense to keep the dispensaries separate. Ms. Snow responded that the two access points would have to be properly partitioned so that the medical integrity of patients can be maintained. She added that patients want privacy protections and the security that they are not stigmatized. To combine the two dispensaries and call it the same is not the right thing to do. She stated that some of the facilities can be properly partitioned so that parts of the mission to promulgate medical marijuana dispensaries can be maintained. She stated that this is a responsibility that the City of Cambridge has to take one. She added that the Massachusetts Patients Advocacy Alliance has their mission to protect the patients and the promulgation of the regulations.

Councillor Cheung stated that at some point patients should be able to pick their medication up at CVS. Mr. Latulippe noted that this is a Schedule 2 drug and allow dispensary at CVS. He stated that there is pending Legislation that this be classified as a Schedule 2 drug. He stated that MPAA also wanted this dispensed at CVS.

Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about the timing of the petition so that it does not have to be refiled. He stated that with the amendment to "linear" he wanted to move the petition forward to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. He noted that the Planning Board will be hearing this petition tonight and that there will be two other opportunities to incorporate any other changes that may be recommended by the Planning Board.

Councillor Cheung submitted a revised text and stated that "square" is removed and it is understood that it is "linear" feet (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Carlone agreed that input from the Planning Board is needed. He stated that he believes these facilities, in addition to the 3 facilities permitted now, should be in main commercial district. He stated that they should not be in Industry A-1or Business A as one alternative. He further stated that some of the special districts do not make sense for the medical marijuana facilities to be located. He stated that these include other districts allowing expanded retail use, Special Districts 5, 8 and 11. He supported the locations contained in the memo from Mr. Roberts which are Business B, Business B-1, Business B-2, Business C, Industry B-1 and Industry B-2. Councillor Cheung stated that Business A and Industry A-1 he is fine with. Vice Mayor McGovern supported Business A and Industry A-1.

Councillor Carlone wanted this to be a medical office location and he did not want a major store front; subject to state regulations, these facilities should be aligned with medical marijuana facilities.

Councillor Cheung stated that this is clearly about medical marijuana facilities. He spoke about when state regulations for recreational marijuana facilities are created that there will be time for the City to create its zoning. This allows the City Council to craft an ordinance relating to adult marijuana use facility. Councillor Carlone commented that every developer of such a facility is going to assume that they can build a facility because the state ballot stated that medical and recreational marijuana facilities could be located together. He stated that unless it is stated now that subject to the final state law it is the intent that medical and recreational marijuana facilities be located separately. He wanted this added to the purpose.

Councillor Carlone moved the following amendment:
ORDERED: That the following language be added to Section 11.801 Statement of Purpose:
That it is the intent of this ordinance, subject to state regulations, that any approved medicinal marijuana facility shall not physically incorporate a future recreational marijuana facility within the same location.

Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg suggested the addition of language at the end to read: "to the extent permitted by law". So the final motion reads as follows:
Councillor Carlone moved the following amendment:
ORDERED: That the following language be added to Section 11.801 Statement of Purpose:
That it is the intent of this ordinance, subject to state regulations, that any approved medicinal marijuana facility shall not physically incorporate a future recreational marijuana facility within the same location to the extent permitted by law.

The question now came on the motion as amended - and on a voice vote of three the motion as amended - Carried.

Vice Mayor McGovern moved to remove11.802 Applicability of Regulations and to move to 11.802.8 as contained in Attachment A which also strikes "square".

The question now came on the amendment - and on a voice vote of three members the amendment - Carried.

At this time Councillor Cheng asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in public comment. No one appeared.

Vice Mayor McGovern closed public comment at 4:13pm.

Vice Mayor McGovern moved that the matter be forwarded to full City Council with favorable recommendation as amended. The motion carried on a voice vote of three members.

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:16pm on motion of Vice Mayor McGovern.

For the Committee,
Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Jan 4, 2017 beginning at 3:09pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a petition by the City Council to amend provision of the Zoning Ordinance related to Inclusionary Housing, including the insertion of new definitions into Article 2.000 and the substitution of revised zoning text for the current text of sections 11.200 through 11.206 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Maher; Vice Mayor McGovern; Mayor Simmons; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department (CDD); Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Planning and Development, CDD; Chris Cotter, Housing Director, CDD; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner, CDD; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Members of the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust present were James Stockard, Peter Daly, Susan Schlesinger, Elaine Thorne and Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli. Councillor Mazen participated in the hearing remotely.

Also present were Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street; Marc Truant, 32 Warren Street; Michael Turk, 11 Ware Street; Ellen Shachter, 346 Concord Avenue; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Nancy Ryan, One Ashburton Place; Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place; D. Margaret Drury, l Dudley Court; Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Matthew McLaughlin, 50 Flint Street, Somerville; and Lynne Lombardi, 26 Whittemore Avenue.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing, stated the purpose and announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded.

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Councillor Cheung stated that Councillor Mazen has requested to participate in the hearing remotely and proceeded with the procedure to accomplish this.
The City Manager has authorized the use of remote participation at meetings of the City’s public bodies and transmitted to the City Council on May 13, 2012 the Open Meeting Law Regulations issued by the Attorney General on Nov 11, 2011, 940 CMR 29.10, to be used as guidelines for the City’s use of remote participation.
Pursuant to the guidelines:
Councillor Cheung announced that there is a quorum of the Ordinance Committee, including the Chair, physically present at the hearing location. He stated that a quorum is present.
The Chair announced that City Councillor Mazen has prior to the hearing notified the Chair of his desire to participate remotely in the hearing and identified the reason for and facts supporting his request.
Councillor Cheung stated that the Chair has determined that one of the five permissible reasons listed in the regulations was identified by the absent City Councillor as the reason for his desire to participate in the meeting remotely and makes the City Councillor’s physical attendance at the meeting unreasonably difficult. The permissible reasons are: Personal illness; Personal disability; Emergency; Military service; or Geographic distance.
The Chair has determined that because the absent City Councillor’s physical attendance at the hearing is unreasonably difficult due to geographic distance, the absent City Councillor will remotely participate in the meeting and is in attendance at the hearing via teleconferencing. This information must be recorded in the hearing minutes.
Councillor Cheung requested that Councillor Mazen state for the record that the proceedings are clearly audible to him. Councillor Mazen responded that the proceedings were clearly audible to him.
Councillor Cheung announced and confirms that Councillor Mazen is clearly audible to both the Ordinance Committee and the public.
Councillor Cheung announced that all votes taken at the hearing must be by roll call vote.
Councillor Mazen remotely participated in the hearing.

Councillor Cheung outlined the format of the hearing. He stated that all are interested to see this go forward. He stated that there are many in the audience and if there is a need for a second hearing this has been scheduled so that this can be done. He turned the hearing over to Ms. Farooq.

Ms. Farooq stated that a housing study was completed in 2016 and recommendations were taken from the study. She stated that since the study there has been a lot of discussion and consideration of various elements. She stated that it is great to have the zoning being considered. She stated Mr. Cotter, the Housing Director will outline the key elements contained in the petition. All the divergent opinions have been included in the proposal. The proposal creates a significant increase in the set aside and proposes a set aside for affordable housing for low and moderate households and it does it in a way that recognizes development decisions made in the past and allows time for these to come to fruition without hindering the pipeline of housing development.

Mr. Cotter spoke about the details of the petition. The study was planned 3 years ago and completed in 2016. He gave a PowerPoint Presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He gave an overview of the petition and the timeline. He stated that since the ordinance adoption in 1998 over 960 affordable housing units have been created with 200 ownership units and 760 affordable rental units. He spoke about the timeline. He noted that the Housing Committee held many hearings in the spring and summer on this matter. He highlighted the key provisions of the ordinance. He stated that the ordinance currently applies to projects of ten units or more. It is a 15% requirement for affordable units, which, after the application of the density bonus for a 30% in unit count and floor area, results in roughly 11-13% of units being affordable. This targets affordable households at 65% AMI. He spoke of the key provisions that have been maintained in the current petition. He stated that the most significant change is how the affordable component is being looked at. The proposed change is that the floor area and not the number of units will be considered so as to create more opportunities for larger units with three or more bedrooms. He stated that another change is the set aside ratio. Based on the recommendation of the housing study and the Affordable Housing Trust this petition would increase the housing ratio to 15% at adoption of the ordinance and further increase the floor area to 20% as of June 30, 2017. There is a phase in to lead to 20% recommended by the Housing Committee. He stated that the family sized units and for projects under 50,000 there would be the ability to look at floor area and encourage larger units to create more three bedroom units. He stated that for projects 50,000 or more that there be a requirement that 20% of floor area be delivered in three bedroom or larger units. He stated that the Chamber of Commerce had suggested this provision. He spoke about the fractional unit requirement. He stated that when looking at floor area rather than units there will be remainder floor area within the 20% set aside that will not be able to be built in units and a building may end up with affordable floor area that is not large enough to be a unit. A provision was created to deal with this in an equitable way across projects and allows for a financial contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust for the remainder floor area. This will vary building by building and he stated that this will be worked on with the Affordable Housing Trust to understand the subsidy amount that would be needed to create that area. He stated that looking at income eligibility and occupancy the petition included a change with home ownership to increase the eligibility limit to 100% of median for home ownership while maintaining rental eligibility at 80% AMI. He stated that this will expand the program and allow for middle income eligibility for home ownership. He stated that pricing for studio units would be looked at differently and would be priced at 25% of household income to make studios more affordable. He stated that the current key program policies were added to the ordinance such as minimum rent for household under 40% AMI; annual recertification to determine eligibility for tenants, and allowing for eligibility upon recertification for tenant households up to 100% AMI. He stated that the ordinance would be assessed in 5 years for review of the impact. He stated that there is a provision that the policies, standards and procedures will be developed by CDD and that the Assistant City Manager for Community Development would have authority to promulgate regulations. He stated that a change was made to the voluntary inclusionary provisions which required a special permit. The changes is that for projects of 10 units or less they may receive the bonus without the special permit requirement.

Councillor Carlone asked how many units there are in Cambridge. Mr. Cotter responded 48,000 - 49,000 units. Councillor Carlone stated that projects over 50,000 - 20% of the floor area must be three affordable bedroom unit and asked why the threshold could not be lower. Mr. Cotter stated that the Planning Board had discussed this and is recommending that the area be lowered to 30,000. Councillor Carlone questioned the subsidy and what is the current subsidy amount. Mr. Cotter stated that he cannot give a specific number at this time; it has not yet been determined. Councillor Carlone asked about the development of policies and procedures by CDD and questioned if this would be done through the housing division. Councillor Carlone requested clarification on this. Mr. Cotter stated that this addresses elements about how the program is run; how tenants, buyers and projects are selected. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the essential policy is established by the City Council. She added that the word "policy" is a misnomer in this context. She stated that the standards and procedures and promulgating the ordinance is the intent.

Councillor Mazen noted that he had no questions.

Councillor Devereux asked how would compliance for ten units receiving a bonus without a special permit work; is there any mechanism to make sure that the density bonus is appropriate for the site. Mr. Roberts stated that this is a policy consideration by the City Council. He stated that the motivation for this is due to the discussion around affordable units in smaller developments. The specifics for smaller projects the bonus would be a floor area and unit density bonus. He stated that there are other controls such as height limitations, setback and parking requirements which would all still apply. He added that there may be situations where smaller developments seek relief but the difference is that the inclusionary housing provision would provide the as-of-right relief for density but the other requirements would be Board of Zoning Appeal considerations.

Mayor Simmons questioned the threshold project size and the expanded definition which she did not see in the presentation of inclusionary projects to include existing residential properties of ten or more units that are being restored after they have been 100% vacant for a period of time of two years or more. Mr. Cotter noted that this is included and should be noted as it is a key component. He explained that buildings vacant for two years will be considered inclusionary projects when they proceed to be occupied. Mayor Simmons questioned the provision of policies being established by CDD and asked how this supports the role of the Affordable Housing Trust. Her understanding is that the Affordable Housing Trust developed the standards and she did not want the role of the Affordable Housing Trust diminished. Mr. Cotter stated in response to Councillor Cheung that this information is in Section 11.204 Implementation of Incentive Zoning and Inclusionary Housing. He stated that Section 11.206 includes all the elements in the Zoning Ordinance related to the Affordable Housing Trust. He highlighted section 11.206 (c) (v) which stated that the Affordable Housing Trust advises on policies, standards and procedures for the implementation of the provisions of Sections 11.200 to 11.206. He added that in the end it was felt that the Administration should be in the position to establish regulations. Mayor Simmons felt that this needs more definition and that she wanted to hear from the Affordable Housing Trust on this before she supported this.

At this time Mayor Simmons moved to open public comment at 3:47pm.
On this motion the roll was called and resulted as follows: YEAS: Councillors Carlone, Cheung, Devereux, Maher, Mazen, Vice Mayor McGovern and Mayor Simmons; - 7; NAYS: None – 0; ABSENT: Councillors Kelley and Toomey – 2
and the motion carried and the Public Comment was opened.

Councillor Cheung stated that communication have been received. Councillor Kelley communicated that he is unable to attend the hearing. He stated that the following communication would be made part of the report as follows:

Communication from Lee Farris transmitting the communication that the Cambridge Residents Alliance submitted to the Planning Board and supporting comments from Ellen Shachter to have full 20% upon passage of the ordinance and not have a phase in (ATTACHMENT C).
Communication from Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, in support of the 20% requirement (ATTACHMENT D).
Communication from Jack Boesen, 25 Suffolk Street, supporting the 20%, fractional requirement and lowering the large project from 50,000 to 30,000 and requiring the 20% affordable housing (ATTACHMENT E).

Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street, supported the Cambridge Residents Alliance letter and the Cambridge- Somerville's Legal Services letter. She requested that the residential units to be built in the PUD's to be included in the 20% affordable unit requirement. She supported 20% lower income units and 5% middle income units. There needs to be interim reviews for families that have their income diminished so that they will not be subject to eviction and lose their unit. She stated that tenants with housing subsidies that have an inclusionary unit need to be given leeway on the issue of credit. She noted that low income tenants generally do not have good credit and for those with poor credit should not be denied affordable housing. The affordability eligibility should include gym and pet fees. She spoke about storage units placed in hallways and there is a fee for this and inclusionary unit residents should have a reduced fee for storage units. She added that there needs to be a clear policy on transfers within inclusionary unit development. She stated that inclusionary policies should be reviewed every three years, the same as linkage.

Councillor Cheung stated that a letter from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust would be made part of the report (ATTACHMENT F).

Marc Truant, 32 Warren Street, stated that he believes in diversity and loves Cambridge; but is opposed to inclusionary housing. He stated that he is part of the Housing First Program which is making an impact on homelessness by providing homes for people. He felt that legislating providing more homes through the private sector is not the answer. He stated that 900 units since 1998, compared to the number of residents in the City, this number is very small. It is too small to achieve the type of diversity wanted. If we all agree that we want more diversity we need to put funding where the ideologies are and we need and raise residential taxes. He added that money needs to be provided for those who need market rate housing. He stated that the City cannot depend on developers to solve this problem.

Michael Turk, 11 Ware Street, stated that he submitted a letter to the City Council in October regarding the early history of inclusionary zoning. A housing referendum was passed in 1983 for inclusionary housing; the referendum was non-binding. In l984-1985 City Council session he stated that two inclusionary proposal were put forward; one by City Councillor David Sullivan and the other by the Cambridge Rent Control Coalition. He explained that the reason that there were two petitions was because of the percentage. Councillor Sullivan's proposal had a percentage of 25% and the second proposal had a 30% affordable housing requirement. He noted that both petitions were passed to a second reading, but in the end failed. He stated that the Chamber of Commerce opposed these petitions and were able to succeed by enlisting the support of the universities and this opposition was accepted. He stated that the chamber has spearheaded this opposition. He stated that 20% will affect land values for developers. He stated that inclusionary is not a gentrification program; it provides additional affordable housing where it might not exist. It is hard to say that this will slow gentrification down. If the developer is correct and the 20% impacts land values this is a way to rein in gentrification. If land values keep rising it is impossible to keep rents and housing affordable.

Ellen Schacter, 346 Concord Avenue, Attorney CASLS, stated that two things that create good housing policy. One being the creation of a significant number of affordable units and secondly that the units and programs created actually work for low income people that they are designed to protect. She stated that the definition of "dwelling unit" as drafted stated that rent paid is 30% if eligible for units except is there is a subsidy. The subsidy determines the rent paid. She explained that this is problematic with the Section 8 program because the Section 8 no longer has a cap. She stated that there needs something in the ordinance to protect Section 8 tenants from having unreasonable rent increases. She stated that the way that the program has been set up there is nothing required for developers for 9 units, but there is requirements for developers with units of 10 or more. She suggested a graduated tier for buildings with 7, 8 and 9 units. She commented that Somerville has a monetary amount that is less than the full unit requirement for a ten unit building, but actual decreased the amount to the Affordable Housing Trust for buildings with less than ten units. This eliminates the incentive to building a nine unit building instead of a ten unit building to avoid the inclusionary requirements. She spoke about the review schedule for the effectiveness of the ordinance and stated that a three year schedule would put the ordinance on the same schedule as linkage. She supported the lowering of the 50,000 square feet trigger for three bedroom units. She stated that the issue of policies developed by CDD is an important question. She stated that there have been times when there have been significant gaps in the ordinance and reaching out to CDD to decide policies that affect tenants. There should be a public participation requirement process for significant changes and that there be an advertisement thirty days in advance. This needs to be institutionalized. She spoke incorporation of transfer of units should be incorporated into the ordinance; there is no policy on transfer of units. She stated that tenants should not be denied by a landlord based on the amount of their income. She expressed concern for tenants who reach 100% AMI there should be transition procedures in the ordinance. She spoke about discrimination based on credit. She stated that she has seen good Section 8 tenants who want to get into inclusionary units who are being denied based on credit. She urged prohibition denying a tenant on discrimination based on credit, not related specifically to rental history. She wanted a period of transition to decrease rent of tenants who have their income decreased. She stated that now is the time to change the ordinance to protect these tenants. She stated that tenants should not be evicted absent tenant cause. This should be included in the ordinance. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT G).

Lee Farris, Vice President, Cambridge Residence Alliance, spoke about implementing changes to rules and regulations and to have a public participation process. She urged separating rules from where this is a need for an administrative change. She spoke about the PUD and MXD and per legal advice that it is not possible under state law to require that new percent to apply to unbuilt units. She wanted this documentation to be made public. She spoke about putting a limit on the amount of time on the PUD and if the residential is not built by a certain time the new percentage would apply. She questioned why incentive is different from inclusionary. Maybe the new percentage could be triggered on the point of sale. She noted that developers tend to build the commercial on time, but the residential fall behind and the new percentage could be applied unbuilt buildings and PUDs. She stated that the inclusionary review should be every three years and be consistent with the linkage. The language needs to be changed. She supports reducing the 50,000 square foot to 35,000 for three bedroom units. She spoke about fractional three bedroom units would be dealt with. She stated that on the fractional units it needs to be decided who decides the amount and the formula used. A reference should be added to the ordinance as to who will be making this decision. She stated Affordable Housing Trust should pay .6 for a fractional unit and that the City end up with a unit. She spoke about the special permit being triggered at 50,000 square feet and stated that the members of the Planning Board felt that if a developer got passed the 50,000 square foot that a special permit should be required. She supported the suggestion of 6-9 units making a contribution to the Cambridge Affordable Trust is a good move.

Susan Schlesinger, 34 Glenwood Avenue, Affordable Housing Trust member, spoke about the urgency to pass the ordinance. She expressed concern with the Trump presidency. She stated that Mr. Ben Carson will be the new Secretary of HUD. She added that there will be a fight to keep Section 8 subsidies. This makes inclusionary zoning more important. She stated that if HUD's budget and the subsidies are cut across the county and this is a small way to keep affordable housing in Cambridge by acting as quickly as possible. She stated that the number of affordable units created by inclusionary has been significant. This is not the only way that affordable housing is created. City resources and other innovative issues need to be looked at also for affordable housing. It is important to show forward movement. She urged voting to move this forward to the full City Council.

Peter Daly, HRI, Affordable Housing Trust member, stated that this was a tool and now is the most important tool in the box. He spoke about the low income credit tax program and how this is being seriously diminished because of proposed tax reform. He stated that this needs to get done.

James Stockard, 141 Oxford Street, Affordable Housing Trust member, stated that the Affordable Housing Trust is 100% in support of this ordinance. He spoke about the future uncertainty and that this is a program that adds affordable housing without any public funds. He stated that there is a different between housing cost and price. He stated that Cambridge has an infinite demand for affordable housing and a difficulty to add to the supply. He stated that inclusionary housing does not work everywhere; Cambridge has wanted diversity at all levels. He urged passing the ordinance quickly and to have the development community help. He stated that modifications can be made.

Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place, CEOC Director, stated that there are solid recommendations today but this needs to move forward and stated that the recommendations can be incorporated. She urged moving the ordinance forward. She wanted to have an annual report requirement added and wanted clarification of the role of the Affordable Housing Trust.

Lynn Lombardi, 26 Whittemore Avenue, asked what methods are being employed to collect feedback from people who cannot attend daily meeting. She introduced the term "civilization synergy" and stated that it should be a guiding vision for development. She stated that successful civilizations facilitate and incentivize synergy by encouraging the economic opportunities through stable businesses, communities, institutions and families using holistic, systemic health as a guiding principle. She wanted her questions to be considered during the implementation phase:

• Do students qualify for affordable housing;
• Can student loans or medical debt be deduct from gross or net income so that recent graduates or those seeking medical care qualify for affordable housing;
• Will the City of Cambridge make outreach efforts and provide first priority access to people performing civil service, such as veterans, active duty service members, health care workers, people participating in research trials, city, state and federal employees, interns working on grants, infrastructure companies and employees, those working at airports, transportation, law enforcement, mental health, legal services and security;
• Will citizenship be reviewed so that only citizens will receive affordable housing;
• How can pitting the lower class against the middle class be reduced while providing opportunities to everyone;
• Are there limits for receiving affordable housing and are there any working families and responsibility requirements and methods to consider off the books income, qualifications and screenings;
• Will candidates with chemical addiction be screened out so that unnecessary risk for others and neighbors are eliminated.

She spoke about the high cost of living in Massachusetts and the difficulty entering the conversation and representing people whose voices are not being heard. She spoke about the impact that affects individuals because of the high costs of living including education.

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, suggested not approving the ordinance because of 20% requirement and if the percentage had been increased periodically over time in a reasonable way over time the 20% would not be drastic now. She stated that the suggested changes could be incorporated into the ordinance as amendments including the bonus square footage that is not included in the total square footage that triggers the special permit requirement. She stated that the ordinance should not be adopted as is, but to considered the reasonable suggested amendments.

D. Margaret Drury, 1 Dudley Court, supported amending the inclusionary zoning petition before the City Council. She stated that she supported the increase to 20% immediately, without delay. She supported the 20% net increase of affordable units. She stated that this percentage can be achieved without impeding developers achieving a reasonable return on their investment. The 20% will greatly help the city achieve its affordable housing goals which has been a priority cited in the Citizens Satisfaction Survey. The square footage vs units’ formula is more flexible and will add more affordable housing units including three bedroom units for more family affordable units. It is important to get this done as soon as possible.

Matt McLaughlin, Alderman in Somerville, stated that in Somerville the PUD agreement in Assembly Square was overridden. He stated that he has three development meetings next week all with the 20% inclusionary. He stated that the developments are blooming in Somerville. There is no grace period in Somerville's zoning ordinance. He asked if this is a development crisis or an affordable housing crisis. He stated that developers want to build here; they should build on the City's terms.

Representative Connelly stated that he supported the 20% inclusionary zoning. He asked if these are PUD. He stated that there are many units which are unbuilt in North Point.

Abra Berkowitz, 253 1/2 Broadway, spoke about the chef crisis and this is due to there not being enough affordable housing. She stated that consumers pay higher prices so that the restaurants to pay higher wages. She stated that it is bad for business for the Chamber of Commerce to oppose this ordinance. She spoke about the financial implications that the lack of affordable housing caused. She stated that businesses need workers and workers need affordable housing. She noted the similarities of Cambridge and Provincetown. She explained that Provincetown has 10% affordable units and the Chamber is behind this and are interested in finding solutions to provide more housing.

Vice Mayor McGovern moved to close public comment at 4:48pm.
On this motion the roll was called and resulted as follows: YEAS: Councillors Carlone, Cheung, Devereux, Maher, Mazen, Vice Mayor McGovern and Mayor Simmons – 7; NAYS: None – 0; ABSENT: Councillors Kelley and Toomey – 2
and the motion carried and the Public Comment was closed.

Councillor Mazen spoke about implementing quickly. He suggest that the City Manager be instructed to work with Community Development Department and that the comments made by Matt McLaughlin, Lee Farris and Ellen Schacter be included in the ordinance and that the most aggressive version of the ordinance be considered. He wanted the comment in a bullet format in the language of the ordinance so it can be voted on.

Mayor Simmons spoke about how soon a review should be done. She stated that in the early conversations on this annual housing reviews would be done that would influence or guide the City for the five year review. She wanted to see it codified that there is an annual review. She wanted the community based organizations to be part of the discussions and annual review. She stated that ordinances are a living document that should not be walked away from; it should be reviewed and amended based on the changes that are needed. She spoke about the work done by the Housing Committee. She stated that it is important to move this forward to the full City Council and keep the subject matter in the Ordinance Committee. She did not want this bogged down. There were many Housing Committee hearings held on this matter and she noted that some of the smaller hearings that vetted the issues were not list on the presentation. She noted that all are not far apart on this issue. She supported the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Trust. She noted that this should move forward and to continue the discussions the subject matter remain in the Ordinance Committee.

Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about the issue of PUDs. He stated that Housing Committee held several public hearings in conjunction with CDD. He stated that the issue around PUDs was thoroughly researched and studied. He stated that CDD was aggressive on this ordinance and thoroughly considered the PUD issue. He is pleased with the 20% and the three bedroom requirement. If the review is three years or five years is not important to him, either one would do. This was last reviewed in 1998. These ordinance will be reviewed so that changes can be made moving forward. He stated that inclusionary zoning is one part of multi-facet puzzle for affordable housing. He highlighted the work done this term on affordable housing. There is no one solution to this problem. He stated that he was bringing in amendments to the ordinance based on the comments made by Ellen Schacter, but CDD wanted to move time to review them before there is a vote on them. He stated that protecting low income tenants is important. He added that the credit issue is problematic. He wanted this to move forward. He requested CDD and the City Solicitor to address the questions raised by the Cambridge Residents Alliance and the CASLS and come back to the City Council with ways that these issues can be done.

Councillor Devereux wanted the real life situation of the tenants and the policies to be prepared as rules that could be administered that would not slow this ordinance down. She spoke about when the 15% goes into effect. She wanted the substantive changes made. She spoke about PUDs being too big an opportunity to waste and when changing hands it could be considered as a building that has stayed vacant for two years and is subject to inclusionary and the new rules. She wanted the Somerville and Cambridge legal departments to confer on the PUD issue. She wanted the language changed to "no more than five years." She added that the trigger for special permit review for large projects should include the bonus. She supported public participation when the lives of tenants are being affected. She supported the ordinance and wanted it put into place as soon as possible. Councillor Devereux after discussion retracted her requested that Somerville and Cambridge legal department confer.

Councillor Carlone expressed his concern with forwarding to the City Council. He spoke about leaving it in committee and working out the details and then the City Council deals with the matter. He commented on PUD special permits being extended. He stated that PUDs do not have to stick to a building schedule. He stated that what is happening is land banking. He wanted a record of outstanding PUD special permits, status and building schedule. He stated that he hopes that the subsidy amount is established by the spring; he wanted the calculations. He spoke about the Planning Board reducing the three bedroom large projects to 30,000 square feet. He spoke about the next steps to insure that incentive zoning is balanced.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he wanted to understand the recommendation on the PUDs. He stated that the recommendation is not to exempt PUDs under any circumstances from being exempt from the 20%. If there is a major change to what has already been permitted then the PUD would be subject to the new percentage. The goals was not to disincentivize minor changes. Ms. Farooq stated that the not all PUD are exempt. She stated that the timeline for PUDs will be reviewed by the Planning Board. She stated that the proposal is to trigger the new percentage if a PUD makes modifications to increase commercial gross floor area, but not to penalize if they are increasing residential gross floor area. She stated that this will allow road changes or building shifts which are beneficial or positive design changes. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that it was important to clarify this.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the theory that these projects have met their scheduling requirements and have therefore met the special permit requirement. This is 100 additional affordable units. Ms. Farooq that the track of the PUDs will be provided for those that are not fully built out yet. She stated that she would work with the City Solicitor on the timing question. She stated that if there is an amendment relating to the extension of time it may be more of a possibility. This will be explored with the Law Department.

Councillor Cheung questioned when the City Council would be receiving the report from the Planning Board. Ms. Farooq responded that the report is currently in the process of being drafted. She anticipated that it would be on the Agenda for Jan 23, 2016. Ms. Farooq stated that Mr. Roberts could explain the recommendations of the Planning Board.

Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board did discuss looking more into the PUD special permits. The threshold for requiring that 20% of the floor area be three bedroom or more units be lowered to 30,000 square feet. This was the level most likely at which the application of the formula would result in one three bedroom unit. He stated that they would revisit the trigger and how the inclusionary bonus effects the trigger for multi-family townhouse and project review special permits. This is a provision in the current ordinance where the bonus is meant to be an as-of-right balance of the inclusionary housing requirement.

Councillor Cheung spoke about the fractional unit requirement and the fact that developers will build nine units instead of ten to not trigger this. He asked if developers will come in just under so as not to trigger the payments. Ms. Farooq stated that the fractional unit provision is actually intended to address this problem. She stated that this removes the incentive and eliminates the requirement and equalizes the playing field. She explained that staying at the ten units’ threshold is because in Cambridge there is not a lot of development in the 8-10 unit range. She added that the burden is on the smaller development and this is not to penalize smaller developments. Councillor Cheung asked how many developments are in the 8-10 range in the City. Ms. Farooq stated that she would provide this information to the City Council.

Councillor Cheung asked, of the inclusionary units, how many have been three bedroom or family units over time and how is this expected to change. Mr. Cotter responded that there are sixty-five inclusionary united that are three bedrooms or larger which is about 7% of the inclusionary stock.

Councillor Cheung spoke about middle income units and that the wait list is less for these units and asked what is the different time frame. Mr. Cotter stated that homeownership units are offered to low, moderate and middle-income households and there are middle income buyers in the pool of homeownership. There is a demand for homeownership in the middle-income category, but there are not a lot of units in stock to be affordable to them. He further stated that on the rental side there were 15 units in Kendall Square for middle-income renters. When initially offered there were 45 applications for the rental units and it took eight months to rent these units. There was not a lot of demand for these units. He explained that there are over 2000 applicants for units in the low to moderate inclusionary rental pool.

Councillor Cheung noted that low - low income needs to be considered as opposed to low - moderate income. Mr. Cotter stated that the City has success serving low income in the inclusionary units with vouchers from the Housing Authority. It is hard to serve the low income without public subsidy.

Councillor Cheung spoke about access to storage where would these policies be covered. Mr. Cotter stated that the petition has the ability to include these charges in the rent as long as they are approved by CDD. He stated that regulations need to be enumerated as to what the charges may be. He stated that the amenity fees are now less of an issue, but new fees are being seen and the goal is to keep housing affordable.

Councillor Cheung stated that he has concerns with the Assistant City Manager setting policies which is purely the purview of the City Council as well as the authority of the Affordable Housing Trust. He asked where 11.204 (Implementation of Incentive Zoning and Inclusionary Housing) came from. Ms. Farooq explained that the provision is not intended to dilute the authority of the Affordable Housing Trust. She stated that when the inclusionary ordinance was first adopted in Cambridge there was a realization that there were issues that needed to be addressed after the adoption of the ordinance. She stated that the CDD has worked with the Affordable Housing Trust to define, resolve and developed regulations and policies related to this. She stated that the word "policies" may need to be removed. She stated that the whole issue that has driven this change which has come through the constitutional law analysis resulted that the policy making authority lies with the City Council and only administrative type authority can be delegated to staff.

City Solicitor Glowa explained that the Constitutional Law frame work is very important in terms of analyzing this ordinance. She stated that this is important if the City Council wishes to be protected from a challenge to the ordinance on the basis of a taking of property. She stated that when reviewing this the Law Department tried to ensure that the incentive to property owners such as providing the bonus compensates the owner essentially for requiring the owner to provide inclusionary units and thereby thwarting any efforts by the owner to challenge the imposition of the inclusionary requirements as a taking. This Constitutional framework is imposed by the courts on the understanding that the City Council is in fact the policy making body and the legislative body of the City. This is why it is important for the policies to be embedded in the ordinance itself. It is also recognized in law that making minor small details are less cumbersome and more feasible for the policy making body to delegate the regulation making authority to the department or agency charged with carrying out the provisions of the ordinance. She stated that the issue with the Trust is that the Trust is not actually charged with carrying out the provisions of the inclusionary program. The Trust plays a critical role in getting funds from the City and using them to support the development of affordable housing and has played an important advisory role in terms of policy making to the City Council and policy decisions that are carried out by regulations of CDD.

Councillor Cheung questioned why this authority could not be given to the Affordable Housing Trust. City Solicitor Glowa responded because the City Council is the policy making body for the City of Cambridge; not the Trust. She stated that even the procedure that funds are given to the Trust is out of the ordinary and is something that the City went to the State Legislature to obtain home rule legislation to support. She stated that it is important that the implementation of an ordinance to support property owners of the City of Cambridge be established by the City Council as the policy making body and then carried out by City department and staff at an administrative level to implement the vision of the City Council in promulgating the ordinance. The Trust plays a different, significant role, but not as actually implementing and enforcing the provisions of the ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa noted that Mayor Simmons pointed out that the Trust is to develop policies to carry out the functions and role of the Trust and this is true regarding the significant role of the Trust with respect to obtaining and expending funds for the development of affordable housing. She stated that language has been put into the inclusionary ordinance that codifies that the Trust has a significant role in advising CDD on regulations that will be adopted. She stated that CDD staff agrees with the City Council that this should be a public process in terms of developing the significant regulations that will be adopted by the City to carry out the provisions of the ordinance. The Trust would be a significant contributor that the staff would be looking to for advice and to review said regulations.

Councillor Cheung stated that when the 15% first came up he was told that the reason that the density bonus was done was to match the 15% taken for inclusionary, but now we are going to 20% with the same density bonus. He asked what has changed on the intervening years on the City Council as this is no longer seen as an illegal taking. The City Solicitor stated that this is a policy determination of the City. She explained that when the ordinance was created she believes that Cambridge was the first City in the country to have such an ordinance. She stated that the Constitutional analysis was conservative in that the consultants that the City worked with and all the lawyers, both in house and outside counsel, felt that what was being given was sufficient to preclude the challenges. She stated that that other ordinances have been promulgated since then and there has not been a significant challenge to the Ordinance. She added that the fundamentals of the ordinance have not been challenged. It a challenge were to happen it would be on the basis of the Constitutional analysis as to a taking. This is in the purview of the City Council with respect to the housing crisis.

Councillor Cheung noted that the review period was to be no more than five years. He asked if this was supposed to be no less than five years. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the intention was to be 3-5 years. Mr. Cotter stated that it was stated to be no more than five years with the intention that it be reviewed in five years. He stated that the impacts need to be seen before any assessments can be made. Councillor Cheung favored reviewing yearly. It comes down to how many units are being put on the market. He noted that transactional data was not provided to the consultant so there is no comparison. He wanted a benchmark in the future for how many inclusionary units are expected to be put on the market every year so that there can be a yearly review. Mr. Cotter stated that the department is happy to do an annual review to see what is working and effective. He stated that a goal in the annual budget is a track of the inclusionary program. Councillor Cheung spoke about an analysis on the cost of land and see how over time this is affecting the value of land. He did not want to see the value of land go so high that it is affecting rental and inclusionary units in the City. He wanted to see a yearly review on the data of land transactions. Councillor Cheung asked for clarification on the report offered by the Chamber of Commerce and the City offered. What is the conclusion differences? Councillor Mazen stated that in committee this was treated in detail. The report by the Chamber of Commerce was criticized and for the most part this document disappeared from the conversation.

Mayor Simmons explained that the petition expires on Apr 4, 2017. If this is reported to the City Council on Jan 23, 2017. She stated that the Ordinance Committee wanted to hear back from CDD and the Law Department on the motions in this report by Feb 13, 2017. The Ordinance Committee could schedule another hearing between Feb 13-22, 2017 and the report will be on the agenda on Feb 27, 2017 and available for ordination by Mar 30, 2017. She stated that one City Council meeting is lost in January, February and March. She cautioned the City Council that it may seem that there is a lot of time when there is not. She wanted the City Council to be mindful of the work of CDD, City Clerk's Office and the number of hearings that may be scheduled by City Council committees. She wanted this petition referred to the full City Council and to keep the subject matter in committee and pass the motions so that CDD can begin their work on this matter with a deadline of Feb 13, 2017. She wanted this kept to a tight schedule. She even wanted the Ordinance Committee to set a date for an additional hearing now.

Councillor Carlone stated that he wanted to hear the pros and cons for leaving it in committee and moving it to the full City Council or just holding the matter in committee.

City Clerk Lopez stated that this is up to the purview of the City Council. Mayor Simmons explained that this states to the public that there is movement taking place and an additional hearing has been scheduled. She noted that this does not undermine the process. Councillor Cheung stated that there are a number of options to move this forward. It can be forwarded to the City Council, with an unfavorable, a favorable or no recommendation or the subject matter can be kept in committee and schedule another Ordinance Committee hearing to review the changes and various amendments suggested or just leave the matter in committee.

Councillor Carlone stated that some form of this petition will be passed, but this is an unfinished petition and to move it forward is just not the way to do business. He agrees with the schedule outlined by the Mayor and 4-5 issues. He stated that the answer on the PUDs may not matter but he wanted this clarified. He stated that the issue is what are the final details and at what location are they discussed. Mayor Simmons commented that she is not suggesting that an incomplete document be forwarded to the City Council. She stated regardless of the action to refer or keep in committee the underlying motions need to be voted on otherwise there is no direction for the staff. She stated that it is important to keep to the timetable she suggested.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he does not want this portrayed that this is being forwarded and is unfinished. He added that this could be forwarded to the full City Council and amendments can be made to the petition. He used the plastic bag amendments as an example. He anticipated that there will be amendments as suggested by CASLS. He asked what the fastest way is to move forward and be able to make amendments. Councillor Cheung stated that another hearing will be required to go through the amendments. City Clerk Lopez explained that the procedure has been done both ways. This is a process of refining. The Planning Board report has recommendations that need to be accepted. This is giving staff time with the suggested changes made tonight to incorporate in either the Planning Board recommendations or the petition so that the City Council has a refined proposal before them. The petition can be passed to a second reading with refinements and amendments can still be made on the night of ordination.

Councillor Mazen wanted outside legal counsel to firm up the last remaining issues before it goes back to the City Council. He wanted to hope that the issues of contention are over and on the way to resolution. To send it back to the City Council now sends us over the hump of the remaining hearings necessary to clear this issue. He was concerned that something important would be glossed over.

Mayor Simmons stated that there is agreement to vote on the motions from this hearing. The last vote can be on referring to the City Council and let it fall where it may. Councillor Cheung committed to having another hearing on this. Mayor Simmons stated that CDD needs clear guidance that this information needs to be back for review no later than Feb 13, 2017.

The motions were acted upon as follows: Councillor Mazen submitted the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department and the Law Department to review the comments made by Matt McLaughlin, Lee Farris and Ellen Schacter at the Ordinance Committee held on Jan 4, 2017 and that the comments be converted into a bulleted list of recommendations and that the staff respond to each one and that said information be forwarded back to the Ordinance Committee no later than Feb 13, 2017.

On this motion the roll was called and resulted as follows: YEAS: Councillors Carlone, Cheung, Devereux, Mazen, Vice Mayor McGovern and Mayor Simmons – 6; NAYS: None – 0; ABSENT: Councillors Kelley, Maher and Toomey – 3
and the motion - Carried.

Mayor Simmons stated that the annual housing review and the substantially vacant property were not in the ordinance. She spoke about the language regarding CDD developing policies, standards and procedures and that the Assistant City Manager promulgate regulations. Ms. Farooq stated that the language about substantially vacant properties is in the zoning language.

Mayor Simmons made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department and the Law Department to insert language that there be an annual housing review in the inclusionary housing ordinance and further that clarifying language be provided relating to CDD developing policies, standards and procedures and the Assistant City Manager promulgating regulations; said information be forwarded back to the Ordinance Committee no later than Feb 13, 2017.

On this motion the roll was called and resulted as follows: YEAS; Councillors Carlone, Cheung, Devereux, Mazen, Vice Mayor McGovern and Mayor Simmons – 6; NAYS: None – 0; ABSENT: Councillors Kelley, Maher and Toomey – 3
and the motion - Carried.

Councillor Devereux made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department and the Law Department to review the language in the inclusionary ordinance to
1. change the wording to read "no more than five years;" ‘
2. to provide information on the trigger for the special permit requirement for the bonus; and
3. that there be a public participation process when regulation changes are proposed; and be it further
ORDERED: That said information be forwarded back to the Ordinance Committee no later than Feb 13, 2017.

Councillor Devereux withdrew her request that the legal departments from Cambridge and Somerville consult. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that Cambridge and Somerville are different places. Mayor Simmons stated that she would not support this and that this needs to be bifurcated. Councillor Mazen stated that the PUD issue is the remaining unresolved issue. He noted that it was amazing that Somerville found a solution to their PUD issue. He stated that to hear a new opportunity is exciting to him. He noted the potential for more affordable units from the PUDs; this is too good an opportunity to pass up. He was going to suggest outside counsel to see how the City could push on this but thought that Councillor Devereux's suggestion was more benign by reaching out to Somerville to see if their research was a different type. He stated that he did not understand the objections of his colleagues.

City Solicitor Glowa requested specific questions that the City Council wanted her to answer. She further stated that there are a number of legal possibilities that can be explored with respect to this ordinance. She stated that the existing language was discussed extensively at the Housing Committee. She noted that there is no opinion offered by the Law Department stating that there are no other possible ways to approach some of the timeline or applicability issues. She stated that it would be helpful to her to understand what the City Council would like to do or if there are specific legal questions that the City Council wanted answered. Councillor Cheung acknowledged that there is a difference between what Cambridge has done for affordable housing compared to Somerville. There is no need to interface with Somerville. Councillor Carlone noted that PUDs are a device that is used by many cities. He stated that Mr. McLaughlin stated that Assembly Square had a special permit PUD which was changed. He noted that in the petition it states that anyone with a special permit does not have to comply with this ordinance. He stated that it is obvious that this should be looked into.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the inference is that this has not already been looked into dealing with this issue in a number of ways. This issue has been reviewed and the opinion is that this is the best way to move forward. This came forward with a legal recommendation with the best way for Cambridge to move forward. He added that he is not sure if the PUD in Assembly Square is the same as the PUD in North Point. This is the best recommendation for moving forward for Cambridge. He wanted to move forward because this issue has been discussed for a year.

Mayor Simmons wanted to go back to the vote on Councillor Devereux's motion who has removed conferring with Somerville. Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted to resubmit what Councillor Devereux has withdrawn. It is important to the 900 units that the City look at the PUD units that could be considered. He stated that the City Solicitor stated that there are other ways to look at this particular issue. He stated that he cannot turn down additional affordable units for PUDs. This is a big issue. He stated that he would defer to Councillor Devereux on this matter.

The committee proceeded to vote on Councillor Devereux's motion as follows: YEAS: Councillors Carlone, Cheung, Devereux, Mazen, Vice Mayor McGovern and Mayor Simmons – 6; NAYS: None – 0; ABSENT: Councillors Kelley, Maher and Toomey – 3
and the motion - Carried.

Councillor Carlone moved the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is instructed to direct the Community Development Department and the Law Department to provide a record of all outstanding large project PUDs, including special permits for large projects, and the status, history, schedule and time extensions; said information be forwarded back to the Ordinance Committee no later than Feb 13, 2017.

Mayor Simmons asked how much work this would be to obtain this information. Ms. Farooq stated that the summary of the PUDs can be done but the subsidy is a significant amount of work. She stated that the CDD will need to work with the Affordable Housing Trust on this issue. Councillor Carlone stated that he did not want the information on the subsidy. He asked if the time extensions break the PUD schedule.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked how this information affects the decision on this petition. Councillor Carlone responded that there are 3-4 large outstanding PUDs in the City; what is the status of these. He wanted to know if the permitted schedule has been met. He stated that the way that the inclusionary petition is worded it is carte blanche. If there is already a special permit the affordable housing does not have to be increased.

Councillor Devereux commented is asking for extensions like asking for a major amendment. Mayor Simmons asked why this is being asked now. Councillor Carlone responded because it is in the petition. He added that this was brought up in the Housing Committee but there was no petition at the time. Ms. Farooq explained that every PUD amendment is not exempt. She stated that according to the language the only things that could be exempted are if an amendment does not increase the amount of commercial development capacity in the PUD. The increase would trigger the new set-aside stated Ms. Farooq. She explained that the timing issue is before the Planning Board for discussion. Mayor Simmons stated that if this is being discussed at the Planning Board there is no need to do double work.

Councillor Devereux questioned Ms. Farooq about what exactly the Planning Board asked about PUDs. Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board will be looking into whether there is a way to make PUDs subject to the new set-asides given time durations. It is being explored if there is a certain time threshold at which PUDs could be subject, either through a window of time or if a PUD requests a time related extension.

City Solicitor Glowa explained that in Section 11.203.1 entitled Applicability where it states that “the requirements of this Section 11.203 (b) shall apply to any Inclusionary Housing Project issued a special permit or, if no special permit has been issued, a building permit on or after the date of the first advertisement of the most recent amendment to this Section 11.203”, this is a restatement of state law. She further stated that Section 11.203.1 (c) reads that “any Inclusionary Housing Project issued a special permit, or if no special permit has been issued, a building permit prior to the date of the first advertisement of the most recent amendment to Section 11.203 shall be subject to the Inclusionary Housing requirements then applicable on the date the special permit or building permit was issued, whichever is earlier.” She clarified the section being discussed and referred to by the Somerville Alderman by reading Section 11.203.l (d) “Any Inclusionary Housing Project issued a Special Permit for a Planned Unit Development by the Planning Board prior to the date of the first advertisement of the most recent amendment to this Section 11.203 but which has not obtained certificates of occupancy for all phases of the project as permitted under the Final Development Plan of the PUD Special Permit may apply to the Planning Board for an amendment to the Final Development Plan and if such amendment is granted, shall be subject to the Inclusionary Housing provisions then in effect upon the date of issuance of the Planning Unit Development Special Permit, so long as there is no increase of Gross Floor Area except Gross Floor Area devoted exclusively to residential uses and there is no decrease of the total amount of approved residential Gross Floor Area.” She stated that the reason for this provision was that City staff was approached by members of the development community who expressed concern about the potential for a situation where at the request of another governmental entity in a project with a long term project buildout, such as a PUD Special Permit, there is need for a roadway to be moved or another infrastructure element that would impact the footprint of the previously approved building in the PUD Special Permit, they did not want their project adversely effected by making this minor change that did not affect the overall approved plan. She stated that this language was tightened up from what was originally proposed to make it clear that the only changes that would not require a new special permit would be where there would be new residential housing as a function of the amendment and no decrease of any residential housing. She explained that the analysis of the provisions depends on the existing language in the ordinance and the language in the PUD at issue. She stated that there have been amendments over the years for the North Point PUD and they would need to be reviewed for compliance. She stated that any changes to PUD special permits need to comply with the provisions of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance when they seek a special permit amendment.

Councillor Carlone suggested that this be made clear in the petition. He stated that time amendment would mean the project needed to be updated. City Solicitor Glowa stated that is what it states but would look at the language if this is the pleasure of the City Council.

The roll was now called on the motion submitted by Councillor Carlone and resulted as follows: YEAS: Councillors Carlone, Cheung, Devereux, Mazen and Vice Mayor McGovern – 5; NAYS: Mayor Simmons – 1; ABSENT: Councillors Kelley, Maher and Toomey – 3
and the motion - Carried.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to draft language clarifying the Applicability provision in Section 11.203.1(c) regarding what does and does not trigger a potential revision.

Mayor Simmons commented how much clearer the language can be. She stated that the City Solicitor is adept at writing language so that it will withstand a challenge. She requested that Councillor Mazen bring this in as a separate policy order and noted that it is difficult to understand him with the remote participation.

The roll was called on the motion by Councillor Mazen and resulted as follows: YEAS: Councilors Carlone, Devereux and Mazen – 3; NAYS: Councillor Cheng, Vice Mayor McGovern and Mayor Simmons – 3; ABSENT: Councillors Kelley, Maher and Toomey – 3
and the motion - Failed.

At this time Mayor Simmons moved that the report be placed on the Agenda for the Jan 23rd City Council meeting with the requested information to be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee no later than Feb 13, 2017, the Ordinance Committee schedule another hearing on Inclusionary between Feb 13-22 with this report being on the City Council Agenda for the Feb 27 for passage to a second reading and the petition is before the City Council for ordinance on Mar 20, 2017.

Mayor Simmons moved the following motion:
ORDERED: That the Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee schedule an additional hearing on the Inclusionary Housing petition between the period of Feb 13-22, 2017 at which time the Ordinance Committee will discuss the requested information from Jan 4, 2017 Ordinance Committee hearing related to this petition.

On this motion the roll was called and resulted as follows: YEAS: Councillors Carlone, Cheung, Devereux, Vice Mayor McGovern and Mayor Simmons – 5; NAYS: None – 0; ABSENT: Councillors Kelley, Maher, Mazen and Toomey – 4
and the motion - Carried.

Mayor Simmons moved that the matter be forwarded to the full City Council and that the subject matter remain in committee.

On this motion the roll was called and resulted as follows: YEAS: Councillors Carlone, Cheung, Devereux, Vice Mayor McGovern and Mayor Simmons – 5; NAYS: None – 0; ABSENT: Councillors Kelley, Maher, Mazen and Toomey – 4
and the motion - Carried.

On a motion by Mayor Simmons to adjourn the roll was called and resulted as follows: YEAS: Councillors Carlone, Cheung, Devereux, Vice Mayor McGovern and Mayor Simmons – 5; NAYS: None – 0; ABSENT: Councillors Kelley, Maher, Mazen and Toomey – 4
and the motion - Carried.

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair

Committee Report #5
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Jan 11, 2017 beginning at 3:16pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code by amending Chapter 2.125 entitled “Cambridge Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Commission” by changing the name to “Cambridge Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus Commission.” The proposed amendment appeared on the City Manager’s Agenda on Dec 12, 2016 as Agenda Item # 5 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; John Gintell and Aren Stone, Co-Chairs, GLBT Commission; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being privately recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing as petitioners will be heard first, city staff, public comment and then comments by the City Council.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the changes to the ordinance are simple and brief. She stated that Mr. Gintell, Co-Chair of the GLBT Commission will explain the reasons for the changes to the ordinance.

Mr. Gintell gave a history of the GLBT Commission. In August 2003 a City Council Order was adopted and sent to the City Manager that Cambridge ought to have a GLBT town meeting. On Feb 4, 2004 the Town Meeting was held. He commented that 2004 was also the year when same sex marriages was legalized in May 2004. At the Town Meeting it was clear that both seniors and youth population were concerned about how they were being treated. There was concern about the police. Councillor Simmons put in a City Council order requesting that a GLBT Commissioner be established. The name of the commission was discussed and GLBT was the name selected. The GLBT Commission began meeting in 2005. Project 10 East was reinstated at the School Department. Training was also provided to the Police Department. He stated that now things have changed. There is more understanding about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues and gender identification. He stated that the commission felt that it is time to change the name to be more modern. The name Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Plus Commission was selected. He explained that the + is important to be inclusive. This is the name that the commission is recommending. The commission worked with the Law Department on the change to Chapter 2.125. The commission will also be known as LGBTQ+ Commission. He noted that a change is in Section 2.125.030 entitled Membership - Appointment - Term where there is a quorum requirement in G.

Councillor Cheung stated that this is unfunded commission. He stated that there is funding in the Mayor's budget for supplies for the commission. City Manager DePasquale stated that funding for the commission is being discussed. Mr. Gintell added that there is funding in the Human Rights Commission for part time employees. He stated that the commission has conducted a survey of health care services for seniors. There was also a survey of housing and one is ongoing about youth with the School Department. He noted that the commission is an advocacy group.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that in addition to name change and quorum requirement there is a change to Section 2.125.020 entitled Function and Purpose. She stated that the words "and expression" have been added to the end of sections A and B.

Councillor Kelley stated that he likes the + sign. He commented that "other" is not understood and hopes that the + includes straight people to come into the conversation as it relates to lavatory use. The + is all encompassing. Mr. Gintell stated that the + is meant to be all encompassing. Councillor Kelley stated that this cannot be over-discussed. He encouraged that the discussion keep going forward. Mr. Gintell spoke about gender neutral bathrooms in city buildings and commercial establishments and that nothing has happen on this issue. He stated that the commission will be working on this issue; progress needs to be made on this.

Councillor Devereux asked about term limits for other boards and commissions. Mr. Gintell stated that most commissions have staggered terms. People can be on the commission who either live or work in Cambridge. He stated that currently there are 6 openings and the commission has received 12 applications and will be interviewing and recommending appointments to the City Manager.

At 3:37pm Councillor Cheung opened the hearing to public comment.

Aren Stone, Co-Chair of the GLBT Commission, stated that there are straight members on the commission. The commission does not ask or seek this information. There are straight allies on the commission and it is important to the commission. She stated that the commission is asked why they are called GLBT so this is one of the reason to change the name.

Councillor Cheung closed public comment at 3:39pm.

Councillor Cheung added that the commission has done good work and that he supported the commission on this matter.

Vice Mayor McGovern moved that the matter be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 3:40pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair