3. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $175,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures account to fund a Climate Change Resilience Analysis which will focus on zoning recommendations.
Order Adopted 9-0

Jan 28, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting $175,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures account to fund a Climate Change Resilience Analysis which will focus on zoning recommendations.

The City Manager has appointed a Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force to develop recommendations to amend the Zoning Ordinance with provisions to create greater resilience to impacts from flooding and heat driven by climate change. The task force will take into consideration and draw on information and analyses that have been performed for the Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience Plan and Envision Cambridge. The task force will also coordinate with the City Council Health and Environment Committee throughout the process.

The task force is expected to start work immediately and for approximately one year. At the conclusion of the process, a detailed set of recommendations will be created which will be used to develop a formal zoning petition for consideration by the City Council.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM OTHER CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Mallon, transmitting notes from the 4th meeting of the Mayor's Arts Task Force from Jan 10, 2019.
Placed on File

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Jan 28, 2019   Amended
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: The City is developing a Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency Plan, which includes emergency response protocols for flooding as a result of more severe weather events, with increased precipitation, sea level rise and storm surge as some of the anticipated effects of climate change; and
WHEREAS: Flooding that results from non-natural causes, such as a water main break or other public infrastructure failure, can cause significant damage to private property that exacts both a financial and emotional toll on the affected residents and business owners; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review the City’s communications and emergency response policies and protocols related to flooding resulting from infrastructure failures and to report back to the City Councill; and be it further
ORDERED: That this matter be referred to the Transportation and Public Utilities Committee.

O-2     Jan 28, 2019
MAYOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack has chosen the hybrid independent review team scheme for the redesign of the throat section of the I-90/multimodal project, an alternative favored by Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: There are outstanding issues regarding the impacts of this alternative that need to be urgently addressed, particularly regarding: 1) noise and its mitigation; and 2) visual impacts of this design alternative on Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Issues regarding access and egress to Cambridge in the area of River Street, Western Avenue, and Soldiers Field Road, an area referred to as the box and including a right turn off of Soldiers Field Road to the River Street bridge toward Cambridge, also remain to be fully addressed; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record thanking Secretary Pollack for her decision, and makes the following requests:

A. That the Secretary acquire sufficient noise consultation to include in the project the best possible mitigation of noise impacts on Cambridge, including Magazine Beach and nearby residential areas, the Charles River, and the Paul Dudley White pathway so that noise levels are reduced from their current excessive levels; and

B. That the Secretary develop for the final environmental impact report a careful design with attention to minimizing visual impact of the New Soldiers Field Road elevated structure and associated roadways as viewed from Cambridge, the Charles River, and the PDW pathway, integrating creative and sustainable landscape design of the resulting river-edge parklands; and

C. That the Secretary initiate as soon as possible a study and plan for improvement to the so-called box area, which has implications for reasonable travel times and mitigation of congestion on Cambridge neighborhood streets such as Putnam Avenue, River Street, and Western Avenue; and

D. That the Secretary direct that the I-90 project include measures to improve the pathways on the Cambridge side of the Charles River to accommodate the increased use of those pathways during construction; and

E. That the Secretary direct staff to develop all of the above features of the project with integral collaboration with the City of Cambridge during analysis for and preparation of the final environmental impact report; and be it further

ORDERED: That the City Council reaffirm its earlier resolution urging the retention of a right-hand turn off Soldiers Field Road to River Street toward Cambridge to assure equitable access for Cambridge residents from downtown destinations; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Council fully supports transit moving forward, including the Grand Junction, Malvern bus connection and model future commuter rail with 15-minute headways, consistent with Rail vision Task Force, to provide a realistic picture of what supportive transit can be; and be if further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk prepare a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution and transmit it with thanks for assistance to date and cooperation in this very important project to the Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack and to the Cambridge legislative delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-5     Jan 28, 2019
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: There are 299,505 extremely low income (ELI) renter households in Massachusetts that earn 30% or below of the Area Median Income (AMI), or $28,923 annually; and
WHEREAS: In Cambridge, the AMI is even higher at $107,897, and to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the market rate of $2,829/month, a family must make $101,844 annually; and
WHEREAS: ELI renters making only 30% of the AMI in Cambridge face an average gap of $2,020/month in paying market rate rent with no assistance, and according to a 2015 report by the Cambridge Community Foundation, just 4% of Cambridge housing that is two bedrooms or more is affordable to families making $75,000/year or under; and
WHEREAS: 60% of ELI renters are “severely cost burdened”, meaning that they spend more than 50% of their monthly incomes on rent, and are 50% more likely to face eviction due to nonpayment of rent; and
WHEREAS: For lowest income households, evictions are more likely to directly lead to homelessness; and
WHEREAS: On any given night, 20,068 people in Massachusetts experience homelessness, and it was recently reported that the number of homeless individuals in the State has risen 14% in the past year; and
WHEREAS: Housing stability is not only a goal of the City Council, but “affordable housing and housing stability” was cited as the top-tier need in the City of Cambridge Community Needs Assessment in 2017, and is also the most effective way of preventing homelessness among ELI families; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) operated a successful rent arrearage program until 2003 that provided low income families with cash assistance to pay back rent, helping 96% of those who received assistance remain in their homes; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in support of HD 2395: An act to further provide a rental arrearage program, sponsored by State Representative Marjorie Decker; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Cambridge legislative delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-6     Jan 28, 2019  Charter Right - McGovern
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: New up-zoning policies are being discussed and proposed in Cambridge neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS: Up-zoning is a change in underlying zoning that creates significantly higher value for the property owner through changes of use such as: from industrial to commercial, through increased density and by increasing allowable Floor Area Ratio and/or height; and
WHEREAS: The increased value per additional square foot of commercial development in Cambridge is estimated to range from $100 to $200+/per buildable square foot, depending on the site’s location; and
WHEREAS: Regulatory up-zoning of properties produces significant additional development impacts, including but not limited to: local traffic generation, street parking, shading, noise, increased demand for public transportation systems, increased water & sewer demand, increased school enrollment, increased public safety demand, open space needs and other public services and mitigations and altered general quality of life for residents; and
WHEREAS: The City has limited infrastructure capacity and a fiduciary duty to use that capacity to best serve the citizens of Cambridge and preserve and promote a good quality of life; and
WHEREAS: Any additional grant of development rights must be considered a grant of finite public realm assets; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City departments to conduct a formal and professional financial assessment of the additional value created for the owner/petitioner by up-zonings for developments of more than 50,000 square feet, along with recommendation of proportional contributions from said property owner/petitioner towards development impact mitigation, infrastructure improvements, community public benefits, and/or fulfilling City Council goals/projects.

O-7     Jan 28, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: There is an urgent need to stop tree canopy loss in Cambridge while the City Council awaits recommendations from the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force and then deliberates on implementation; and
WHEREAS: Public Comment at the Jan 9, 2019 Ordinance Committee meeting overwhelmingly called for a stronger amendment to the Tree Protection Ordinance that would protect trees beyond merely requiring a permit; and
WHEREAS: Temporarily withholding tree removal permits as proposed herein would not interfere with any subsidized affordable housing projects, nor any large projects requiring a special permit; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the tree protection ordinance amendment discussed at the Ordinance Committee hearing held on Wed, Jan 9, 2019 and referenced in Committee Report #3 of Jan 28, 2019 be further amended per the attached language.

Proposed amendment to §8.66.040

AMEND SECTION:

8.66.040 - Applicability

This Chapter shall apply to all trees located on lots specified in the following section §8.66.050 and 8.66.055. This Chapter shall not apply to any project of the Affordable Housing Trust or otherwise for the construction of low and moderate-income housing meeting the standards established pursuant to any City, State or Federal housing program designed to assist low and moderate-income households.

ADD SECTION:

8.66.055 - Procedure for Other Significant Tree Removals

a. For any significant tree removal not subject to 8.66.050, except for emergency circumstances, a permit request will first be submitted to the City Arborist. In all cases, the City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractor(s) involved, and the name and address of the property owner. No such permits will be issued for one year subsequent to ordination, except for dead, diseased, or dangerous trees. Any tree removed in violation of this section shall require a payment into the tree replacement fund as per section 8.66.060.

KEY

Italicized: Amended language in CRT #3

Underlined: New proposed amendment

Chapter 8.66 - TREE PROTECTION

Sections:

8.66.010 - Short Title

This Chapter may be cited as the Tree Protection Ordinance of the City of Cambridge.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.020 - Statement of Purpose

The City Council hereby finds that the preservation of existing trees and the promotion of new tree planting is a public purpose that protects the public health, welfare, environment and aesthetics of the City of Cambridge and its citizens.

The urban forest serves a wide variety of functions, which promote the health, safety and welfare of residents. These functions include:

(a) conserving energy, by providing shade and evaporative cooling through transpiration;

(b) improving local and global air quality by absorbing carbon dioxide and ozone, absorbing particulate matter, and producing oxygen;

(c) reducing wind speed and directing air flow;

(d) reducing noise pollution;

(e) providing habitat for birds, small mammals, and other wildlife;

(f) reducing storm runoff and the potential for soil erosion;

(g) increasing real property values; and

(h) enhancing visual and aesthetic qualities that attract visitors and businesses.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.030 - Definitions

Building. A structure enclosed within exterior walls or firewalls, built, erected and framed of a combination of any materials, whether portable or fixed, having a roof, to form a structure for the shelter or persons, animals or property.

Certified arborist. An arborist certified by the Massachusetts Arborists' Association or the International Society of Arboriculture, or any successor of either organization.

City Arborist. The City Arborist appointed by the City Manager, or any other Certified Arborist designated by the Commissioner of Public Works and approved by the City Manager to exercise any of the authority granted to the City Arborist pursuant to this Chapter.

DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The diameter of a tree trunk measured in inches at a height of four (4) feet above the ground.

Lot. A parcel of land in identical ownership throughout, bounded by other lots or streets, which is designated by its owner to be used, developed or built upon as a unit.

Mitigation Plan. A document to be included within any Tree Study submitted for a project where any Significant Trees are proposed to be removed from a lot, stating (i) why any Significant Trees are proposed to be removed from a lot, (ii) a description of the Replacement Trees proposed to replace the Significant Trees to be removed or the value of which is proposed to be paid to the City to be deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund, (iii) an estimate from a local nursery for the cost of purchasing, planting, watering and maintaining said Replacement Trees for a period of not less than five years or the value of which is proposed to be paid to the City to be deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund, and (iv) certification from a Certified Arborist that the proposed Replacement Trees and cost estimates for purchasing, planting, watering and maintaining said Trees are appropriate and reasonable.

Owner. For purposes of this Chapter, an owner shall be defined as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Cambridge Municipal Code.

Replacement Trees. A tree or trees to be planted on a lot to replace any Significant Trees to be removed from the lot, or whose equivalent value is proposed to be paid to the City to be deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund instead of planting Replacement Trees on the lot. The total DBH of Replacement Trees, or equivalent value, as applicable, shall be equal to or exceed the total DBH of the Significant Trees to be removed from the lot.

Significant Trees. Any tree or trees larger that 8" DBH which is on a lot or which has been removed from the lot within one year prior to the submission of a Tree Study to the City Arborist.

Tree Protection Plan. This plan may be either a separate drawing or part of a landscape plan, and shall include the following information:

a) Drawings of tree protection measures and (i) their location on the lot, including Tree Save Areas, and the location, height and DBH of Significant Trees and an indication of which Significant Trees would remain on the site, or (ii) in the event that any Significant Trees are proposed to be removed, the location of those Significant Trees, and the location, height and DBH of Replacement Trees which are proposed to be planted on the lot if feasible, or (iii) in the event that Replacement Trees are not proposed to be planted on the lot, the total sum, as identified in the Mitigation Plan, to be paid to the City to be deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund, shall be required to be submitted together with the Tree Protection Plan;

b) A schedule for planting the proposed Replacement Trees and a representation that such trees will be inspected and, if necessary, treated by a Certified Arborist once a year for five years; and

c) Such other information as is required by the City Arborist pursuant to applicable regulations.

Tree Save Area. The area surrounding a tree which must remain undisturbed so as to prevent damage to the tree.

Tree Study. The information submitted to the City Arborist, which shall include a Tree Survey, a Tree Protection Plan, and, if applicable, a Mitigation Plan.

Tree Survey. A plan showing the location, type, height and DBH of all trees on a lot.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.040 - Applicability

This Chapter shall apply to all trees located on lots specified in the following section §8.66.050 and §8.66.055. This Chapter shall not apply to any project of the Affordable Housing Trust or otherwise for the construction of low and moderate-income housing meeting the standards established pursuant to any City, State or Federal housing program designed to assist low and moderate-income households.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.050 - Procedure for Large Projects

a. In any project which requires a special permit under §§ 4.26.l - 4.26.3, §19.20, §11.12.1, §11.12.2, or §11.12.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the application for the special permit shall include a Tree Study, which shall first have been submitted to the City Arborist not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the submission of the application for a special permit. The Tree Study shall be reviewed by the City Arborist, who shall certify that he has reviewed it, indicating whether it is complete and complies with the applicable provisions of this Chapter and regulations promulgated thereunder. The City Arborist shall refer the Tree Study with his certification and recommendations to the Planning Board, to assist the Planning Board in establishing any conditions that may be required as a result of the findings of the Tree Study in connection with the issuance of a special permit.

b. Regarding any project which includes a building of 25,000 square feet or more and which is subject to the provisions of § 19.50 of the Zoning Ordinance, the materials submitted to the Inspectional Services Department with the application for a building permit shall include a Tree Study, together with a certification from the City Arborist that the applicant has submitted the Tree Study for review to the City Arborist not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the submission of the application for a building permit, and that the Tree Study is complete and complies with the applicable provisions of this Chapter and regulations promulgated thereunder. The owner of the lot shall be required to commit to comply with all provisions of the Tree Study and the applicable provisions of this Chapter and regulations promulgated hereunder in the application for a building permit.

8.66.055 - Procedure for Other Significant Tree Removals

a. For any significant tree removal not subject to 8.66.050, except for emergency circumstances, a permit request will first be submitted to the City Arborist. In all cases, the City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractor(s) involved, and the name and address of the property owner. No such permits will be issued for one year subsequent to ordination, except for dead, diseased, or dangerous trees. Any tree removed in violation of this section shall require a payment into the tree replacement fund as per section 8.66.060.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.060 - Tree Replacement

If Significant Trees are to be removed from a lot in connection with the development of a project subject to the provisions of this Chapter, upon approval of any project subject to the provisions of §8.66.050(a) of this Chapter by grant of a special permit from the Planning Board, or submission to the Inspectional Services Department of certification from the City Arborist under the provisions of §8.66.050(b) of this Chapter, the owner of the lot shall either plan Replacement Trees on the same lot in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Tree Study, or he shall pay the estimated cost of Replacement Trees and associated costs for the maintenance of said trees pursuant to the Mitigation Plan, if applicable, to the City to be deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund. In addition, the owner of the lot shall, prior to the issuance of a building permit, post and file a bond with the City Clerk in the amount of the total costs set forth in the Mitigation Plan, but in no event less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), with one or more sureties conditioned to the faithful observance of the conditions and specifications of the Tree Protection Plan and, if applicable, the Mitigation Plan.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.070 - Tree Replacement Fund

There is hereby established a Tree Replacement Fund which shall be held by the City Treasurer in an account and administered in accordance with applicable provisions of the General Laws. Any payments into the Tree Replacement Fund required by §8.66.060 shall be deposited in said Fund, and shall be used solely for the purpose of buying, planting and maintaining trees in the City.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.080 - Regulations

The Commissioner of Public Works shall have the authority to promulgate regulations to accomplish any of the provisions of this Chapter.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.090 - Enforcement

(a) Notice of Violations. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be notified by the City Arborist of the specific violation by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by hand delivery. The notice shall set forth the nature of the violation and a reasonable time period within which compliance must be had.

(b) Stop Work Order

(1) Upon notice from the City Arborist that work on any lot on which a Significant Tree is located is being performed contrary to any applicable Mitigation Plan or Tree Protection Plan or any provision of this Chapter, such work shall be immediately stopped by the Commissioner of Inspectional Services or his designee. The stop work order shall be in writing, and shall be given to the owner of the lot involved, or to the owner's agent, or to the person doing the work, and shall state the conditions under which work will be permitted to resume.

(2) Any person who shall continue any work in or about said lot after having been served with a stop work order, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be liable to a fine of not more than $300.00. Each day during which a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense.

(c) Injunctive Relief. Whenever there exists reasonable cause to believe that a person is violating any applicable Mitigation Plan or Tree Protection Plan or any provision of this Chapter, the City may institute a civil action for a mandatory or prohibiting injunction in a court of competent jurisdiction ordering the defendant to correct the unlawful condition upon or cease the unlawful use of the property.

(d) Failure to Replace Trees or Make Payment. Each failure to replace a Significant Tree or make a payment into the Tree Replacement Fund or to post and maintain a bond in accordance with §8.66.060 shall constitute a separate violation of this Chapter for which there shall be a fine in the amount of $300.00. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.

(e) Alternative Penalty. As an alternative to any fine stated in this §8.66.090, citations may be issued pursuant to G.L. c. 40, §21D, assessing a fine of $300.00 for each day the violation is committed or permitted to continue. The Commissioner of Public Works or his designee, the City Arborist, employees of the Department of Public Works and Police Officers shall be the authorized enforcement personnel.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.100 - Severability

The provisions of this Chapter are severable. If any section, provision or portion of this Chapter is determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Chapter shall continue to be valid.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.110 - Effective Date

This ordinance shall take effect only upon ordination of the companion zoning amendment and any other zoning amendments necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Tree Ordinance.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

O-8     Jan 28, 2019   Amended
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: On Apr 30, 2018 the City Council voted to explore the possibility of creating the “Cambridge Publicly Financed Municipal Election Program” and the “Cambridge Municipal Election People’s Pledge” and it was referred to the Government Operations/Rules and Claims committee; and
WHEREAS: On Nov 14, 2018 during the Government Claims and Operations Committee meeting about the proposals, the following motion was passed: "That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Election Commission, to report back on the legality and constitutionality of the attached proposal submitted in the Apr 30, 2018, Policy Order; said proposal amended to read such candidates would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or outside of Cambridge, Massachusetts" which was adopted by the City Council on Dec 3, 2018 as Policy Order #15; and
WHEREAS: Policy Order #14 of December 3, 2018 requested the City Manager to form a committee or working group to assist the City Council with potential options for publicly financed elections; and
WHEREAS: To date, the City Council has not received the report back from the City Solicitor and the Election Commission; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Election Commission, to provide this report no later than the Feb 4, 2019 City Council meeting.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:07pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss Urban Form Recommendations from the Community Development Department.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Vice Mayor Devereux; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Melissa Peters, Director of Community Planning; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development; Erik Thorkildsen, Urban Designer, Community Development Department (CDD); Matt McLaughlin; Liz Walker; Wil Durbin, Chief of Staff, Mayor’s Office; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present was Bill Kane.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated that City staff will present update on guidelines and other related areas. He explained that there would be a question period followed by public comment and a greater in-depth discussion.

Melissa Peters gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the Urban Form Recommendations (ATTACHMENT A). Two handouts were also distributed at the hearing; Urban Form Draft Goals (ATTACHMENT B) and Urban Form Draft Indicators and Targets (ATTACHMENT C). She noted that the Envision Cambridge process is wrapping up and the last year has been spent fine-tuning recommendations across the 6 planning topics, one of which is Urban Form.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that Page 10 of the presentation is difficult to understand. Ms. Peters explained that the idea is to minimize curb cuts and interventions in the street wall. She said that the corridors are not uniform, thus different targets for different areas of the corridors. Councillor Carlone agreed with this comment. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there is a need to be concerned about other streets, such as Broadway and Concord. Ms. Peters advised that the corridors in the squares were an area of focus because larger growth may occur in these areas.

As it relates to proximity to parks, Vice Mayor Devereux asked why parks and adjacent municipalities would be factored in. She questioned where the adjacent municipalities help in the area. Ms. Peters said that it is important to look at this through a wider lens. Ms. Farooq added that one of the rationales behind this is that as a resident, life in the city it is not always confined by the municipal boundaries. She said that the point is that a resident’s personal experience is going to encompass multiple cities if you live close to a city line. She said that as long as there is consistency in how to measure this, it should not be an issue. She said that this is a more holistic understanding of how people live their lives. Vice Mayor Devereux said that she does not want this to be an excuse not to take care of the City’s own open space needs. She said that we could take care of our own needs and do better on this front.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that overall appearance and design quality is a difficult thing to assess in a survey. She said that there is disagreement about what quality design looks like.

Councillor Zondervan said that he liked the goals but noted that the word “trees” is not contained in the goals. He said that Cambridge did a study in 2015 of per capita open space and it came to 4 acres per 1,000 residents. He said that he would like to see a per capita green space indicator as well.

Councillor Carlone said that the Priority Urban Form Actions from the working group process indicates that they are trying to create a square (Alewife Square). He said that Cambridge squares are easily accessible and visible. He said that the square at University Park feels like an office park. He said that it is very much associated with the office/lab building and not as much part of the surrounding city. He said that if we need an area to become a true square, how do we shape that development around it so the defined open space becomes more significant and tied to the city.

Councillor Carlone said that the action to identify opportunities for increasing the amount of open space in or near growth areas makes reference to the Green Ribbon Report (2000). He said that he would like to see the Green Ribbon Report information added into the report. He said in the past, there have been discussions about moving the Department of Public Works facilities and making the existing DPW site in Wellington-Harrington a park. He said that by the map’s calculations, there are a number of areas that have only one or two parks, so those strategies will be more difficult. He said that he would like to talk about realistic potentials in the future. He said that on the map on page 13, a graphic scale of what a square mile is would be beneficial. He said that on page 10, it is important to think about a retail zone on baseline. He said that in most retail, the goal is to have almost 100% active frontage. He said that you do not want a blank or dead area or people will lose interest. He said that as it relates to Design Quality on page 14, most people think of their immediate neighborhood, so he suggested that in the next survey, it should have people list their neighborhoods and you will get a very different percentage. He said that design quality should be district-by-district, not citywide. He thanked CDD for its work.

Councillor Carlone said that CDD is responsible for the physical report but noted that if this becomes City policy, he would like the City Council to be able to refine the policy. He said that this is for the whole city so that it is very important.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that given the changes in retail and the difference with new buildings along corridors that have been identified as needing active retail, is there a plan for any types of subsidy? She said that unless we put teeth or money into it, we will end up with a lot of empty spaces. Councillor Carlone said that the price of the land should be valued on renting retail space at a rate ensuring a renter’s success and not at an equivalent rate and upper floor condominiums or office space, which relates to other retail concerns that have been discussed before.

Councillor Siddiqui said that looking from an aerial perspective, she has questions about rooftops. She asked if there are residential buildings that have roof space that encourages social interaction. She asked why rooftops are so challenging. Mr. Roberts said that there are a lot of things that can be done on a rooftop of a residential building. He said that one of the tricky things about the Zoning Ordinance is that we tend to count usable rooftop deck space as part of the total floor area of the building. He said that there are projects that have roof deck spaces and the developers choose to do that as an amenity of the building. He said that functional green roofs are different from roof decks. He noted that there are provisions that if there is some function of green roof space, you can also have some roof deck area that is not considered part of the total floor area of the building. He said that many times the heating and cooling systems of the building have equipment that can ventilate upwards so that can be something that competes with space that can be used for other things. He said that the City is interested in the possibility of having solar on rooftops. Councillor Siddiqui commented that she has been to other cities that are doing more and more of this. Councillor Carlone added that there is no reason why the City could not add that.

As it relates to green roofs, Councillor Zondervan said that he believes that the City is planning to have a solar acquired ordinance come forward at some point. He said that on a residential building you must choose – solar or something else. He said that as a building gets bigger, the ratio gets less favorable. Councillor Carlone said that it depends on the location because if there are not many opportunities for open space, you may want to reconsider priorities.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that when looking at aerial views on page 19 the scale of the proposed buildings in the quad are huge. She said that for reference, 3 Rindge Towers looks very small. She said that this area would not feel like any place in Cambridge with buildings of such a massive scale. She said that the contrast is very startling to her. She said that she couldn’t tell which are residential buildings and which are light industrial buildings with housing interspersed. She said that it does not appear to reflect what has already been built in some locations. Vice Mayor Devereux was shown buildings that she inquired about.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked whether there would be a green network behind the buildings. Ms. Peters stated that it is still a requirement in the residential and commercial areas. Vice Mayor Devereux said that it looks like the creation of a gigantic heat island. Ms. Peters said that this is a challenge of light industrial. She said that there is a need for truck access so certainly there are challenges. Vice Mayor Devereux said she has never been sold on the idea of putting an area that is going to demand a lot of truck traffic in the corner and add it to an area already impacted by heavy traffic. Councillor Zondervan asked why not return this area to a more natural area, which will resolve open space issues and some of the flood mitigation issues. Ms. Peters responded that with the overall citywide need for housing and jobs, they wanted to retain enough value in the area to encourage redevelopment. Councillor Zondervan said that he was referring to the industrial area. He said that he shares the concern of Vice Mayor Devereux as it relates to putting trucks into a designed heat island. He said that given the transit automation, he wonders how much would really happen. He said that in terms of changing it through subsidy, what is wrong with that?

Councillor Carlone said that he heard in the presentation that the lower right zone in the quad is mixed use. He said that he assumes that it is mixed use with a minimum 40% of the square footage being residential. Ms. Peters said that this is currently not a recommendation. Councillor Carlone said that it should be more residential. He said that early presentations showed 40/60 with 40 being the minimum on residential. He said pictures could convey wonderful images that never get implemented and not be a true urban design. He said that his goal is that the best part of this does get implemented. He said that he agrees with Vice Mayor Devereux about the size of the blocks. He said that wherever there are breaks (access points to mid-block parking/service), there should become actual streets. He said that the larger the blocks, the more people are disenfranchised. He also said that retail must be where people can see it; nothing else works.

Councillor Carlone said that on Page 20 there are three guidelines on built form. He asked if there would be more specific guidelines. Ms. Peters answered in the affirmative.

Councillor Carlone said that on page 23, the only place that he can think of that looks like the proposed Linear Park is the Fenway area. He said that for many years, no one would be caught in this area because there was no public overview. He stated that there must be at least a one-way road on one side or it becomes a privatized park that will be avoided at dusk.

Councillor Carlone said that on page 24 he was excited to see two little neighborhood parks but if it is not accurate, it is camouflage. He said that he would like to see detailed elements. He stated his hope that in the next phase we look at all the recommendation and resolve them through urban design examples. He explained that it is essential to take the community recommendations and have a solution that is a good balance of the conflicting recommendations. He said that you are not going to have all the trucks indicated for one-story industrial in these buildings. He said that you don’t need all that. He said that it is office space above.

Councillor Carlone said that the scale is right, and the street patterns are reasonable except in the super blocks. He said that this should be an area where all users integrate with each other easily.

Councillor Zondervan said that he likes the Urban Form Draft Goals, Strategies and Actions. He said that they conflict in some ways with some of the other ideas that are being put forward, particularly the Affordable Housing Overlay District. He asked how these conflicts would be resolved? As it relates to the development pattern goal, Councillor Zondervan asked if housing as a significant existing building is included. Ms. Peters said that any plan is an opportunity to set goals across a variety of topics. She said that there will be conflicts and synergies and they cannot be solved at such a high level. She said that this is a tool to take conflicting goals and see how they play out at the local level. She said that they have goals that talk about the need to increase affordable housing and equitable distribution of housing and maintaining character of neighborhoods. She said that specifically with regard to the overlay, the scale that this would play out would be modest. She said that there are conflicts and how the City Council wants to deal with those is part of the conversation. As it relates to the goal of growth in evolving areas, Councillor Zondervan said that he agrees with the goal but questioned how to make it real. He said that the Rindge Towers are surrounded by parking lots and what will happen to those parking lots when we no longer need them. He asked about the possibility of having strategies in the plan that will focus on the choices that need to be made.

Councillor Zondervan said that he is hearing from people in the neighborhoods that they are concerned about up-zoning. He said that in that transition, it is important to make sure that current retail and other uses are preserved. He noted the need for specific goals and strategies to maintain retail and other uses in those areas with up-zoning and taller buildings.

Councillor Zondervan stated that Urban Form Goal #4 talks about regional natural aspects and he would like more specificity to improve this goal.

Councillor Zondervan said that design process is a great goal, but he said that he feels that this conflicts with what is being seen in the overlay. He said that he recognizes that conflicts are inevitable, but he suggested that it is important that the goals are clear and have broad buy-in from the community. He said that people are afraid that the goals that promote development are always going to win. He said that if the other goals are not clear without strong buy-in, people feel threatened.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he supports the removal of parking minimums and he would like to see this throughout the city. He said that the City is seeing a lot of continued development that is imposing parking minimums that we will regret.

Councillor Zondervan asked if it is realistic to raise the roads in the Alewife area. He asked who would pay for the engineering. He questioned how these raised roads would interact with roads that are not raised. He said that without clear guidelines and requirements, it may not happen. He asked how to ensure that the raising of the roads will take place. Ms. Peters said that the sidewalks and the building frontage would be raised but the roads would remain the same. She said that new roads are part of the development. Councillor Zondervan said that we are turning the roads into canals in the event of a major flood. Mr. Thorkildsen said that the sidewalks will be raised by 4 feet due to the flood plan. He said that these are meant to be at the east-west streets and Smith Place as these are locations where quasi ground level establishments would be. He noted examples in the presentation. He explained that the guidelines require that they be 12 feet wide. Councillor Zondervan asked why not raise the road to match the sidewalk so that during flooding the road is still useable. Ms. Farooq said that elevating the roads would eliminate storm water storage. She said that in terms of being able to access sites, there would be disruption to existing buildings that will not change. Councillor Zondervan said that all the buildings are colored yellow on the map, which means that they do not exist currently. He asked why this is a problem. Ms. Farooq said that the sites are not owned by the same person and will be developed at different times. She said that there are many sites that will not change hands and may be there for 10-15 years but at some point, there will be an incentive to change them. Councillor Zondervan said that it is a little bit confusing to present this as a concept when we are not controlling the variables that would take place. He said that we should have a plan that will result in the outcome that we want. Ms. Farooq said that this is the challenge of planning in an urban context where the city does not own much of the land. She said that the city can only say what is permitted on the property. She said that one cannot make one person’s actions contingent on another person’s actions. Councillor Zondervan stated that the light industrial area is very fluid, there is some consolidation happening, and there are potential conversations that can be had with the owners. He asked how to exercise the maximum control to get the outcomes that we want. He said that he would like communication through the strategies and actions that give people comfort in the outcome. Ms. Farooq said that this sets the vision for conversations with future developers. She said that it is a diagram for the conversation with future developers.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there is parking underneath the light industrial buildings. Ms. Farooq responded in the affirmative.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that we are not creating housing, we are creating commercial that will bring in trucks and workers. She said that she is not on board with the plan at Alewife. Ms. Farooq said that the jobs will create the need for housing, but the light industrial jobs address the fact that we don’t have jobs that are easily accessible to residents of Cambridge who may not be able to access jobs in Kendall Square. She said that this was the driving force behind this particular land use in the quadrangle. Vice Mayor Devereux said that the first floor will be light industrial, but the higher floors will be regular office space. Therefore, housing will be needed. Councillor Carlone added that Vice Mayor Devereux is expressing the housing issue in a very good way. He said that he feels that there should be more housing.

Councillor Carlone said that there should be a school in the middle of the map. He asked what, if any, the public and social facilities are being planned. No answer was given. He said that this is what makes a neighborhood. He asked about trees on the street and the need for a well-designed planting/irrigation strip.

Councillor Carlone said that the plan must be something that will work for the long-term. He said that taxes on housing are undertaxed and that is part of the reason there is no housing. He said that this is not the place for commercial development and if so, it must be limited. He said that as beautiful as the drawing and urban design are, it is not enough if it doesn’t reflect Council goals. He said that there is not enough housing. He said that he would like to see 60% housing and 40% commercial. He said that the recommendations are good but are not specific enough in some cases. He said that he looks forward to follow-up with more detailed work in the near future.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:59pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair
Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair

Committee Report #2
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber to continue discussions on the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District and on the first annual Inclusionary Zoning report.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Simmons, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Carlone; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Donna Claudio, Asset Manager; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Neal Alpert; Sarah Stillman; Liana Ascolese; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Mike Johnston, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Elaine DeRosa, CHA Board Member; Peter Daly, Executive Director, Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. (HRI); Bill Tibbs and Cheryl-Anne Pizza-Zeoli, Members of the Affordable Housing Trust; Marilee Meyer; Moana Bentin; Mike Turk; Ken Eisenberg; Suzanne Blier; Christopher Mackin; Lenny Solomon; Lee Farris; and Sally Benbassit.

Councillor Simmons convened the hearing and stated that the hearing is being audio/visually recorded. She read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT A) and noted the handout of questions and topics that she would like discussed (ATTACHMENT B) from the 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Siddiqui said that she looks forward to reviewing the 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report. She acknowledged that the committee received a handout of CDD’s presentation (ATTACHMENT D). She stated that it would be extremely helpful to members of the Committee to receive information from CDD before the start of the meeting in the future, rather than just as the meetings are getting underway. She noted that there are open questions that must be answered and there is a lot of information that must be clarified.

Councillor Siddiqui gave a brief overview of the questions and topics she hoped to touch upon, and she stated that she would like to address the role of the Inclusionary Housing Manager as well.

Linda Prosnitz gave an overview of the highlights of the 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that there are many applications to the Inclusionary program that are denied due to credit issues. She questioned if there is a way to determine if there are higher rates of denial in certain properties. Ms. Prosnitz answered in the affirmative. Councillor Siddiqui stated that she would like to see that data. Councillor Siddiqui asked if there is a resource sheet that is provided to applicants who need to clean up their credit. Ms. Prosnitz said that there is an information sheet that is given to applicants in this regard, and she will provide this information to the committee. Councillor Siddiqui noted that the trends show that there must be more middle-income and homeownership units, so it is important to do more to concentrate in the middle area.

Councillor Zondervan asked what are some of the main obstacles as to why there is not an increase in homeownership units. Ms. Prosnitz said that this is in response to the market. She said that this is reflected in the inclusionary numbers. Mr. Cotter said that after the recession of 2008-2009 homeownership development became more difficult and that obtaining financing for buyers became more challenging. He said that there is a lot of demand and CDD is excited to see the number of homeownership units begin to increase. Councillor Zondervan asked if there is anything that the City Council should think about to increase the homeownership piece. Mr. Cotter responded that it is difficult to make a big impact at the local level, and that most of the variables influencing homeownership would be national policies, such as those focusing on the Federal National Mortgage Association.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the 935 inclusionary units that are completed, and the fact that CDD had earlier stated there are 736 units occupied; she sought clarity as to how many of these units are actually occupied. Ms. Prosnitz said that the 935 number includes both the 736 rental units and the balance of those units are the homeownership units – and she did not mean to give the impression that there were nearly 200 vacant IZ units waiting to be leased up. That would be an incorrect impression. Vice Mayor Devereux thanked her for this clarification.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that her understanding is that when a developer constructs a buildings with a fractional unit, the developer must pay the City $397 per square foot for that fractional unit. She asked how figure is derived. She asked if this includes land cost. Mr. Cotter said that the $397 per square foot figure is determined under the terms of the new ordinance that was adopted in 2017 by looking at the subsidy needed to create that fractional unit. He explained that the CDD looks at the subsidy for a number of recent projects that received funding from the Affordable Housing Trust and analyze that to create the amount of subsidy needed to create that affordable floor area. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the overall figure would include land cost. Mr. Cotter answered in the affirmative.

Councillor Mallon said that with the number of Inclusionary units that the City has and the number of units coming online, the City is becoming a de facto housing authority. She asked if there has been any thought given to creating a tenant group for the inclusionary renters, as this could become a powerful group for advocacy. Mr. Cotter said that it is a great idea and CDD is thinking about how to assemble an advisory group of Inclusionary tenants. He said that having some type of association to give feedback would be helpful as the City looks at guidelines, requirements, programs, etc. Councillor Mallon asked about the timeline for establishing such a group. Mr. Cotter responded that currently there is no timeline. He said that when CDD conducted their survey regarding tenant satisfaction, the information that they received was extremely beneficial. He said that a more formalized mechanism to receive feedback from tenants would be very positive. Councillor Mallon asked who conducts the maintenance for the Inclusionary rentals. Ms. Prosnitz said that the building turns over the units and inspection is done by CDD for most units to ensure that the unit is in good shape. Councillor Mallon asked what percentage of inclusionary units are Section 8 voucher holder units. Ms. Prosnitz responded that 56% of the renters are Section 8 voucher holders. Councillor Mallon said that when Section 8 voucher holders attempt to rent a market-rate unit, they are often met with a sense of income discrimination which can ultimately prevent them from obtaining a unit. This also tends to drive these voucher holders toward the Inclusionary units, and she doesn’t want this to be lost in the conversations we are having. She noted the need to figure out how to better serve Section 8 voucher holders in the market, as this would have the added benefit of freeing up some of those Inclusionary to other applicants. She questioned how the City could better help market-rate landlords rent to Section 8 voucher holders so inclusionary units are opened up to everyone.

Mayor McGovern asked about the status of reviewing the preferences for Inclusionary units. Mr. Cotter responded that CDD is in the midst of the discussion with the Affordable Housing Trust. He said that they had discussed changes from the last term as it relates to preferences. He said that there is a set of recommendations before the Affordable Housing Trust which will then be brought before the Housing Committee. Mayor McGovern said that it is important to think about the Section 8 voucher holder who is forced to move out of their home because the voucher does not provide a suitable amount of rent acceptable for a landlord. He said that we must think about the people who have had this experience, have been priced out of the city, and who want to come back to Cambridge. He said that he sees the “proof of residency” requirement at CDD as a barrier to the applicant who is renting a room in Cambridge but is not listed on the lease, or does not have a utility in their name. He said that this is something CDD must figure out, as he believes the problem of proof of residency blocks far more people from the Inclusionary program than people realize. As it relates to Councillor Mallon’s comments on a tenant group, Mayor McGovern said that he and other Councillors hear from Inclusionary tenants that they are not treated well in their buildings by the management company, and that they often feel like once they’ve moved into a building, they feel like they are out there on their own. He noted that these tenants must be better supported.

Mayor McGovern asked if the waiting list is broken down any further as it relates to determining why people are on the waiting list. He asked if people are on a waiting list because there are not enough units, or because the City doesn’t have enough units of a particular bedroom size. Mr. Cotter responded that smaller households are typically served more quickly, given the limited availability of larger units. He said that CDD is hopeful that the waiting lists might move more quickly once larger units come online and the preferences have been adjusted. He said that they are trying to better determine who is being served and who is not, and they are trying to determine if there is a better way to direct the resources to those most in need. Mayor McGovern said that when looking at inclusionary zoning, Cambridge fares very well compared to other communities. He noted that Cambridge’s program is the envy of other communities.

Councillor Carlone stated that when looking at the 2018 Inclusionary Report, page 12 – which shows the amount of inclusionary units in a coded and sized way – that is much easier to understand as opposed to just showing the building site. He said that the beauty of this diagram is that one knows where the units are. As it relates to the applicant waiting list, Councillor Carlone said that there have been discussions about prior residency and he is curious if these numbers include people who were raised in Cambridge but had to move out. He said that it should be clear if applicants are existing residents, non-residents, or former residents. Mr. Cotter explained that the number includes applicants who are residents at the time of application.

Councillor Carlone said that at recent Planning Board meeting it was said that there will be 12,000 new units projected citywide up to 2030. He said that it would be great to have a sense of the projection beyond 2030. He said that in the past, the City has built more than projections in many cases. Lastly, Councillor Carlone said that when the 20% requirement came in, there were concerns that developers would not build. He said that he is sure that developers would rather only build 11.5% inclusionary but nevertheless, there is a steady flow of development. Ms. Prosnitz said that over time the City will better see the impact. Councillor Carlone said that housing supports retail much more than office, so in an odd way, it creates more of a Cambridge that we all love.

Councillor Simmons asked if CDD anticipates that in the next two years new inclusionary units will be created in neighborhoods that currently have very little or no inclusionary housing. Mr. Cotter responded that the larger developments continue to be at opposite ends of the city. Ms. Prosnitz noted that there are some smaller projects, but the major development areas are still Kendall Square, NorthPoint and Alewife.

Councillor Simmons asked if CDD tracks how long tenants remain on minimum rent. Ms. Prosnitz responded in the affirmative. She explained that when a tenant goes on minimum rent, CDD meets with the tenant to review how they will afford a set rent at 40% of AMI if their income is below that, and to help them assess what other resources they might access such as job training programs. She said that there are people who do run into trouble and they cannot meet the rent. She said that these tenants would then be referred to the Multiservice Center. Councillor Simmons questioned if there should be a one-time fund to help stabilize those tenants who otherwise might find their tenancy in jeopardy. She asked if a person does receive a one-time gift, would that gift factor into the gross income of the person (and therefore would this potentially count against them in terms of qualifying for subsidized housing). She said that this is something that we need to have a larger conversation about, and that the City needs to think more about how we stabilize those tenants who otherwise might be in danger of losing their subsidized housing. Mr. Cotter said that these are units that have expectations for rent and finding a balance is important. He said that they try to connect people with resources. He said that CDD is always open to see if there are things to look at to help support those people. Councillor Simmons asked if CDD provides a fact sheet to households regarding rental assistance. Mr. Cotter said that they will tailor advice specific to each household. Councillor Simmons noted the importance of making this information widely available.

Councillor Simmons asked how many applicants who met the criteria for emergency need remained in the rental applicant pool. Ms. Prosnitz responded that she does not have that number available but will work to provide this information. Mr. Cotter explained that with the way that the preferences work, there are unfortunately applicants with emergency need that are not considered because they do not have children. Councillor Carlone asked if the homeless receive units in this process and if so, how many? Mr. Cotter responded that 5 homeless applicants were housed in this reporting period. Councillor Carlone asked if this has been successful. Mr. Cotter noted that when homeless individuals are housed with access to support services, they tend to be successful, and the Inclusionary program isn’t always necessarily the best fit for those who may need additional support services beyond just affordable housing. He explained that CDD works with non-profits that deliver supportive services and they work with DHSP to ensure that how they are serving the homeless is being done in conjunction with their services to target groups in the homeless continuum.

Councillor Simmons asked if CDD knows how many households were housing cost-burdened in the private housing market. Mr. Cotter said we don’t know in every case, but that there is census and other information which at least estimates those who are cost-burdened in the city. He said that severe cost burden is the threshold that they would give an emergency preference for applicants.

Councillor Siddiqui said that when she thinks about this discussion, she thinks about social mobility. She said that it is important to think about whether and how we are moving people from public housing to higher-income housing through the inclusionary program. She noted that this is part of a larger discussion.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if CDD tracks applicants that are being displaced from buildings that are being converted and if so, do they get emergency preference. Mr. Cotter said that emergency preference would be tracked. He said that many of these people would be facing a no-fault eviction and the CDD would try to work with these people to find a landing spot. Vice Mayor Devereux said that the city did not put anything into the law that would help overcome that, and this may be something that should be revisited.

Councillor Simmons said that she did have several additional questions related to this conversation and she would be submitting these to CDD for a written response.

Councillor Simmons asked about the brand new Inclusionary Housing Manager position. Mr. Cotter said that the new position is being added because inclusionary housing has become a significant part of what the Housing Division does. He said that it will be a Senior Program Manager position. He said that this person will be introduced to the Housing Committee. He noted that Ms. Prosnitz will remain working with developers to ensure new buildings are approved consistent with the requirements of the inclusionary ordinance for the benefit to the community. Councillor Simmons stated her hope that this hire will be a person with a compassionate demeanor and a keen understanding of the population that they will be working with.

As it relates to displacement and tracking, Councillor Mallon said that the Affordable Housing Trust is meeting about the criteria and she wants to ensure that people who are in a court-ordered eviction and other evictions are included in this conversation. She said that she would like to ensure that this is carefully considered because this is a place where many get caught.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked how often the applicants on the waiting list are contacted to see if they still want to be on the list and if they still qualify. Mr. Cotter said that CDD is in touch more frequently with those in the pools that are more active. Councillor Simmons then invited the housing providers at the table to weigh in with their thoughts.

Ms. Pizza-Zeoli said that this program does not serve everybody. She said that the housing system sorts people out. She said that she welcomes the City Council working with the Affordable Housing Trust to share the housing preference recommendations. She said that the Trust has tried to make emergency status mean something through its discussion of changes, and that we can always go back and change things or tweak them if we find that what we have in place is just not working as intended. She said that they have discussed adding domestic violence as an emergency housing preference. She said that it is difficult to look at people who have been involuntarily displaced. She said if there was a better understanding of why people move and where they move to, it would be beneficial. She said that they are grappling with the base issues of not wanting homeless people to sleep outside. She noted the need for a discussion about the purpose of the homeownership program – is it intended to help people build assets? She said she has long been urging the CHA to conduct exit interviews with those who exit their programs. She said that it is important not to make assumptions about why people leave. She said that, overall, she is encouraged by this discussion.

Peter Daly said that as it relates to the growth of inclusionary chart, he would like to extend his congratulations to the City Council. He said that being bold was the right way to go. He said that his only regret is the opportunities lost to create more affordable housing, and how long it took to get to 20 percent.

Councillor Simmons then turned the conversation over to focusing upon the Affordable Housing Overlay. She said that at last meeting, there was discussion on the Affordable Citywide Overlay District, and that the City Council talked about wanting to know long it would take to vet this and what specific steps would be needed to bring it to a final vote before the full Council. She said that it is important to know what needs to be done and when. She said that this conversation has been taking place for a long time, and it started circa 2014 when Brian Murphy was heading the Community Development Department. She said that the Affordable Citywide Overlay District is only one of many ways in which to keep Cambridge diverse. She said that opportunity and access are very different. She said that we should be bold, and be expeditious without being insensitive.

Mr. Cotter gave an overview of document titled “100% Affordable Citywide Overlay District: Background, Concept, Considerations & Next Steps.” (ATTACHMENT E).

Councillor Simmons echoed the comments by Councillor Siddiqui at the top of the meeting regarding receiving reports and information from CDD at least 48 hours in advance of a hearing so questions can be prepared by members. She cited her frustrations that she and the other Committee members were laying their eyes on these materials for the first time at this meeting.

Councillor Siddiqui said that it would be helpful to talk about retail and any impact the Affordable Housing Overlay may have on retail. She said that the City Council has received e-mails from people who are concerned that this could potentially destroy retail, and she would like some clarity as to whether these concerns have any basis.

Councillor Toomey said that he is encouraged by the continuation of the topic of an Affordable Citywide Overlay District. He said that there have been a lot of lost opportunities to build affordable units over the years. He spoke about the Harvard Divinity site and the fact that this would have been an ideal location. He asked if it would have been easier to develop affordable units on that site if there was an Affordable Citywide Overlay District in place. Mr. Cotter responded in the affirmative. He noted that he was aware of an affordable housing developer that was looking at that site who felt there was risk that the amount of housing needed to make it a feasible development might not have been approved. Councillor Toomey asked if there would have been a legal challenge. Mr. Cotter said that this was a concern for the developer, as it could have resulted in a permitting process that might take several many years. Ultimately, the developer opted not to pursue a project in that area.

Councillor Zondervan said that he is interested in “lost opportunities”. He said that if the city is looking at 42 potential opportunities but only 4 went forward, would we be able to actually build those developable sites. Mr. Cotter said that it takes 40 opportunities to find 3 to move forward. He explained that if every opportunity was able to move forward, there would be less time searching and more housing produced more quickly. He said that there is a lot of time invested in analyzing opportunities, most of which do not go forward.

Councillor Zondervan said that this raises one of his concerns about this approach. He said that he wonders whether this approach is the right one. He questioned if this gives the City the bang for its buck as opposed to other approaches. He said that this acknowledges how difficult it is to compete in the private market. He questioned the assertion that the City needs to better distribute affordable housing. He asked why we feel that we need to force affordable housing construction in areas that are already developed. Ms. Farooq responded by saying that the solutions are not either/or. She said that making sure that the City is allowing affordable housing developers to be as competitive as possible in the open market across the city is a piece of the puzzle. She said that it is important not to think of this as a silver bullet, but instead to think of it as one of the tools that help to maximize the ability of the City and partners to work most effectively. In terms of distribution, she said that it is one of the important policy considerations for the City Council. She said that there is good in making sure that all parts of the city are as diverse as possible, but how that manifests itself in the context of other City Council priorities is something where they would like to receive additional guidance from the City Council.

Mayor McGovern said that the City Council has a long way to go on this matter and he would like to make something clear. He said that the vote on the Affordable Housing Overlay is not happening next week. He said that there will be numerous opportunities for the conversation to take place. He said that the City is talking about people and what kind of community we want Cambridge to be. He said that if we are okay with the idea that certain neighborhoods are going to be off-limits to people who cannot afford million-dollar homes, let’s just say it. He said that we must take action to disrupt the market that keeps affordable housing development from happening in certain places. He said that yes, there will be neighborhoods that will see change if this Overlay is passed. He asked what priorities should take preference over people having an affordable place to live. He said that he’s sat with hundreds of people begging for help to stay in this community, and he cannot prioritize parking, density, and height issues over the stories these people bring to him. He said that the potential negative impact on retail and lack of community input are issues that must be addressed. He said that, nevertheless, affordable housing developers need more opportunities to build that housing and that is what an Affordable Citywide Overlay District will do. He said that this is a question about what kind of city we want Cambridge to be.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that the City is proposing something that has confused and alarmed a lot of people because it has not been clear its presentation. She said that an overlay may not prevent the situation of a developer being outbid from other developers, as far as she can tell.

Councillor Mallon stated that the City Council has been fighting for more funding for the future to ensure more affordable housing. She said that as it relates to the idea that an overlay is social engineering, she said that this is an equity issue and she hopes that people are understanding that these are people and children in our community. She said that the devil is in the details, and many people are frightened by this conversation because the details haven’t been explained very well. She stated that she agrees with Mayor McGovern’s statement.

Councillor Carlone said that the City Council agrees that there needs to be an increase of funding for affordable housing. He said that if you look at City Council goals, affordable housing is the #1 priority. He stated that affordable housing is funded with only 2% of the budget. He said that we know how to build bigger buildings so that they fit in so having a general zoning does not have enough conditions. He said that it should be housing in every neighborhood, but not everywhere. He said that most of these people will not have cars and will need to walk to retail and mass transit. He said that these buildings are on main streets, usually at corner locations and that is what should be emulated. He said that in urban design there is a hard and soft analysis. He said that soft buildings are parking lots and one-story buildings. He said that these sites are the most likely to be torn down by private development in the next 20-30 years. He said that we must look at the total picture, not just an overlay, funding, or guidelines.

Councillor Simmons noted that that Housing Committee has received three communications and she asked that they be made part of the record (ATTACHMENTS F-H).

Councillor Simmons opened the hearing to Public Comment.

Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, stated that she is encouraged with the depth of the conversation. She said that she does not see this as a resolution and there has not been enough discussion on tenant rights. She said that social mobility is important to the discussion. She said that the city has affordable housing. She said that she has not heard about restrictions on developers and tracking what they will do. She asked how many household residents were displaced. She said that more information is needed. She said that conservation and historical districts have not been discussed. She said that affordable housing everywhere does not necessarily work.

Mike Turk questioned what else might be possible under inclusionary zoning. He said that an entry point would be to use some of the information available from the Mass + Main project because the financing is public. He said that if you track that, they are projecting a rate of return on their investment of 11.1%. He said that getting that kind of information is very helpful. He said that there is no reference to neighborhood amenities at Concord Turnpike. He asked what degree of isolation is being accepted. As it relates to types of households, he questioned how many will have cars because without cars, they are trapped in those sites.

Ken Eisenberg said that when he was last facing displacement he spent 1.5 years in an apartment search. He said that he found apartments across the city that he hoped to rent, and he could not access them due to income discrimination against him because of his Section 8 voucher. He said that subcultures could be integrated across the city if people with subsidies were not locked out. He said that we must fix the broken system, that the rents are going up faster than housing can be subsidized, and if you want to open the city to diversity, you must put a cap on rent increases and deal with the fact that people are being discriminated against.

Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place, said that Temple Place is in the commercial district so rather than being an example for West Cambridge, you must look at particular circumstances. She said that the Episcopal Divinity School sold for $25 million dollars so if the City was going to take two years of its allotment, she does not believe it would have been feasible. She said that the City Council should be commended for its work on affordable housing. She said that this speaks to the commitment of affordable housing. She said that it is clear that the up zone is not assumed to bring much new development from the vantage point of affordable housing. She said that neighborhood groups across the city are concerned about this, in part because those areas are going to be hit hardest. She said that those in West Cambridge support housing, but they want it done in a way that is equitable. She said that the racial diversity data for the city is wrong from the vantage point of West Cambridge.

Christopher Mackin, JFK Street, said that he wants to commend Councillor Zondervan for asking the City to pause and think about what it is doing by trying to play in a market stacked against it. He said that the City is a sidecar on a powerful motorcycle that engages in races around a very expensive track. He said that there are alternative approaches that can be taken that have to first be funded. He said that the overlay approach is not the best approach.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, member of the Envision Housing Working Group, recommends a substantial increase in annual funding to $20 million starting in the next budget possible. She said that this would make a lot of things possible. As it relates to the inclusionary report, she said that if a developer owes a partial unit to the city, instead of taking cash from the developer for that partial unit, could the City invest some money to get one more unit from the building. She said that when there is a situation where there is a gut rehab of a large apartment building, she would like the Inclusionary Ordinance changed and she asked CDD to bring a specific proposal to the committee to discuss that. She said that she is in support of the idea of affordable housing in all parts of the city. She said that open space and trees are a top priority.

Councillor Simmons and Councillor Siddiqui thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 2:31pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair
Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Co-Chair

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:33pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.66 entitled “Tree Protection” to amend section 8.66.40 entitled “Applicability” and by adding a new section 8.66.055 entitled “Procedure for other projects.” (ATTACHMENT A)

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Zondervan; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Public Works Commissioner Owen O’Riordan; Deputy Public Works Commissioner John Nardone; City Arborist David Lefcourt; Cathy Watkins, Project Planner, Urban Forestry Task Force; Deputy City Solicitor Arthur Goldberg; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Lucas James Gyrator, 225 Brookline Street; Christine Kuta, 7 Fairview Avenue; Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Gregg Moree, 25 Fairfield Street; Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street; Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue; Nancy Donohue, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce; Steven Nutter, Green Cambridge; Helen Kobek, 69R Gore Street; Sylvia Parsons, 22 Hancock Street; Marilyn and Phil Wellons, 651 Green Street; Jules Kobek, 69R Gore Street; Kelly Dolan, 233 Upland Road; Franzislea Amedeo, Trustee, Riverbend Park, 239 Mt. Auburn Street; Helen Snively, 1 Fayette Park; Pat Goudvis, 179 Harvey Street; Claire Schubert, 4 Thingvalla Avenue; John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street; Tom Roebes, 38 Sparks Street; Theodora Skeadas, 988 Memorial Drive; Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street; Maggie Booz, 27 Lawn Street; Elena Saporta, 102 Ellery Street; Florrie Wescoat, 33 Market Street; Paula Sharaga, 234 Columbia Street; Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street; Dick Clarey, 15 Brookford Street; Dillen Seger, 140 Foster Street; Jo Solet, Berkeley Street; Deborah Masterson, Foster Street; Charles Teague, 23 Edmonds Street; Rhonda Massie, 211 Charles Street; Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street; Kate Frank, 53 Crescent Street; Ellen Mass, 104A Inman Street; Bruce Grunebaum, 98 Montgomery Street; Peggy Barnes Lenart, 115 Fayerweather Street; Anita McClellan, 50 Stearns Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Share Brodie, 253 Pleasant Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Heather Barney, 3 Hammond Street; Ann MacAdam, 28 Union Street; and Catherine S. Alexander, 4 Crawford Street.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He highlighted the format of the hearing.

Councillor Zondervan gave a PowerPoint Presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that the current Tree Protection Ordinance was adopted in 2004 but it does not protect trees. It applies to a limited part of the canopy. It applies to large projects that need to undergo large project reviews. This is for 25,000 square feet or above projects and does not pertain to affordable housing projects. The current ordinance is retroactive to one year prior to a special permit application. If an individual were to cut down trees two years ago and then apply for a special permit on the property these trees would not be covered under the ordinance. Only trees cut down within one year of applying for a special permit are covered. This applies to trees over eight inches in diameter at chest height. He stated that the ordinance has a replacement plan which allows for a payment, based on a variety of conditions, to be made into the Tree Fund instead of replanting trees or not cutting them down in the first place. He stated that the ordinance does not cover any trees cut down outside of large project review projects, any tree cut down more than one year prior to a special permit application and affordable housing projects. He outlined the proposed amendment. He explained that the amendment would preserve the affordable housing exemption. The ordinance also exempts dangerous and emergency situations. He stated that the amendment does require a permit for significant trees more than eight inches that are removed and are not part of a large project review, in which case they would already be covered, or if removed more than one year ago. He stated that the permit would be issued by Public Works and would be discretionary and would document why the tree was cut down and the specifics pertaining to the tree being cut down. He commented that no one cuts down their own large trees. A contractor is hired. He stated that the City would inform the contractors that a permit is required and that would help compliance. Contractors can obtain permits on behalf of the property owner. He explained why this proposed amendment is needed now. He stated that 18% of the tree canopy has been lost in the last 9 years based on preliminary data. He stated that the current data shows that the loss is worse, and the task force analysis is showing that there will be more loss in the future. He stated that the two solutions to the problem are to stop cutting down trees and to plant more trees. He acknowledged the work of Urban Forest Tree Task Force and noted that the Task Force will be making recommendations in the future.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked why this did not include Wheeler Street. Councillor Zondervan responded because it has inclusionary housing units. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that to her affordable housing does not include inclusionary housing. This does not apply to Wheeler Street and does apply to Millers River.

Councillor Kelley stated that the copy of the ordinance he is looking at does not have a retroactive date of one year. Councillor Zondervan stated that this is in the current ordinance. Councillor Kelley stated that it would be a retroactive hearing for trees that have already been cut down. He stated that there would be a violation of cutting down trees within one year of the special permit application.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the existing ordinance applies to large projects and there is nothing at this time regarding tree removal private property in the City that is not associated with a large project. This does place a burden on the staff with this new amendment and he asked how this ordinance will be enforced and if a tree is removed without a permit how is this handled by the City. When legislation has been enacted such as plastic bags or polystyrene there has been significant outreach and education programs prior to promulgating the ordinance. He stated that it is custom that the City provides notice and educational documents before implementing a change in regulations. He stated that his concern is that this is going to take time for the City to do this. He stated that the Urban Forestry Masterplan has been ongoing for the last eight months and it will be a while before the report will be ready for consideration by the City Council. He stated that the integrity of this work needs to be maintained and shared thoughts about changes to existing ordinances while this work is on-going so that the City Council can be provided with a thorough analysis of what other communities are doing, how best the City can provide different ordinances and/or regulations so as to better protect the tree canopy. He wanted to make the City Council cognizant of the Task Force’s work as the Council considers changes to the existing ordinance.

Councillor Mallon asked has there been any preliminary discussion with the Urban Forestry Task Force on this issue. She stated that the draft recommendations will be done in May. She stated that the goal of this ordinance is to collect data and to have conversations around alternatives. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the first few months of the task force was providing background on the existing urban tree canopy, the loss and where the loss is most pronounced. He stated that the loss is most pronounced in residential areas in the City. He stated that the reason for the loss is uncertain at this time. He stated that that are reviewing closer the loss in residential areas and are looking at the degree to which pervious areas have been lost. He stated that this may be related to redevelopment or extended development on residential properties. He stated that the City is also looking at house sales and whether properties have been redeveloped where trees have been removed as a result of development. He stated that in terms of changing ordinance and regulations and a meeting held in December looked at changing the definition of significant tree. He stated that presently a significant tree is an eight-inch tree. He stated that they are looking at a six-inch tree being a significant tree, and this is consistent with what other communities are doing. He stated that they are looking at regulating tree loss across the entire City, looking at changing the way that mitigation costs are proposed and looking a mitigation when significant trees are cut down and diameter of trees at breast height and the area of a tree trunk at breast height. He stated that tree species are being reviewed. He stated that there is details that are been reviewed as to how to protect trees in the community. He stated that it is important to let this conversation continue. He spoke about the more significant protections for trees the more onerous it become for homeowners to take down trees. He added people may be less likely to plant trees in the future as well. He stated that there is a balance needed in incentivizing planting trees on private property. He spoke about protecting people’s ownership of property and rights of homeowners to protect their property. He noted that there are five more meetings scheduled.

Councillor Mallon stated that in May when the draft recommendations from Urban Forestry Task Force come out will there be something that the City Council can work with from that that addresses the issues outlined by the Commissioner of Public Works or does the City Council have to wait for the final recommendations in December. She asked if this ordinance does not get passed is there a way to have the data collected between now and May. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that all the presentations, minutes and correspondence from the public are on line on the Public Works page. He stated that the expectation is that the draft report will also be on line. The draft report may contain specific recommendations or may be more general. He stated that the report will be detailed. He is unsure about the successfulness of the data collection. He stated that the University of Vermont is working with the City on this and they did the 2009 and 2014 studies and they have been asked to look at the current 2018 study for consistency of the analysis.

Councillor Carlone stated that the proposed ordinance changes are benign. There is nothing in this proposal that is threatening. He suggested sending out postcards and noted that word of mouth travels fast. Awaiting the recommendations in May and what might be possibly ordained in September at the earliest, this proposal is not a terrible thing to have on the books and may not be enforced immediately, isn’t this a good start to let people know that there is a concern. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that it is benign from the perspective of the homeowner. He expressed his concern about enforcement and it is an onerous undertaking from the City’s perspective. The amendment speaks to emergency circumstances and this is not defined in this proposal and asked what is considered an emergency. He spoke about the one-year period of time is defined for significant trees, larger than eight inches. He stated that he does not think the proposed amendment is applicable for a special permit unless there is a change in the definition of a significant tree. Councillor Carlone spoke about making the language stronger and clearer. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that if one is to remove any reference to a period of time does this mean that a property that lost a tree ten years ago would have to have this mitigated to develop their property now.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about urgency and competing with a process and how is this balanced. There are policy strategies could be considered now or do we or can we wait. She stated that she is struggling with this with that data before the City, the tree canopy loss and climate change.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that we have already waited; this conversation began early last term. She stated that the City Council was prodded to start this Urban Forestry Task Force, and this took six months to get this going. She stated that there is no penalty in this ordinance. She spoke about the concern with enforcement and used the example of Airbnb which the City is having trouble enforcing. She stated that this interferes with the work of the Urban Forestry Task Force and that the City Council acknowledges the urgency of their works and want to support them. She added that all this is doing is gathering data and it is not imposing any fines and does no more than allow the arborist to have a conversation to suggest an alternative to the property owner. The longer before these conversations occur, the more trees will be cut down. She wanted this proposal approved.

Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the enforcement provisions existing in the ordinance would apply to this amended provision. He stated that the existing enforcement provisions mention a stop work order if tree are removed in violation of the chapter and there could be penalties imposed.

Councillor Zondervan agreed emergency circumstance are not defined and this is on purpose to give this discretion to the arborist to determine if an emergency exists. He would be fine adopting this as is and that this does not apply to any trees more than one year. He stated that he does not believe that this is retroactive from ordination and would not apply to trees cut down ten years ago.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked why this is worded makes trees not subject to the current ordinance and if included as proposed a permit request why the other enforcement mechanism apply. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that he is not sure that the tree replacement fund provisions would apply to the mitigation plan. He stated that the enforcement section, 8.66.090, applies to enforcement remedies, including a stop work order, fines of $300 per violation, the possibility of injunctive relief and alternative penalties for non-criminal penalty. Councillor Zondervan stated that subsection D does specifically reference the large project and it does not apply. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg agreed. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about Councillor Zondervan’s intent when drafting the proposed amendment. She stated that the City Council can state that enforcement does not apply to this other type of tree. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the ordinance could be written this way but if there is no enforcement provision there is no incentive to comply with the ordinance. If there is no compliance, there is no penalty for compliance. This is an ordinance without any teeth. The way the amendment is written and if this section is being added in it is being put in the context of the ordinance and it does have the enforcement provision. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that a different approach to enforcement could be suggested. She stated that a mechanism could be developed that would make the contractor responsible, such as leaf blower ordinance.

Councillor Kelley stated that if the concern is about retroactivity he suggested language at the end: This section is only applicable to trees standing as of enactment of this section. He stated that if someone is cutting down trees not related to a project this is not included in the ordinance. He asked if this is the intent. Councillor Zondervan stated that this states procedures for other projects and the language could be changed to all projects or significant trees. He stated that the intent is that this new section would apply everywhere where the current section does not.

At 6:16pm Councillor Kelley opened the hearing to public comment.

Lucas James Gyrator, 225 Brookline Street, spoke about the proposal by Councillor Zondervan for tree protection. He requested the inclusion and consideration of the following knowledge and guidelines. He requested that all trees in the City of Cambridge are completely protected by the City’s systematic processes of protection. He requested that the protection apply to all trees on public, private, commercial, state and City properties and preservations. He requested that the implementation of this protection be effective to all trees of any kind. He requested that trees be protected especially on private land. He stated that trees of this City are beings of this earth and are to be respected for their life and being. They provide oxygen and are the reason we are currently breathing. Trees filter the air and contribute to the eco-system of all planetary life. He noted that trees are not owned by the City or its people even though they may grow on illegally owned land or the land of private owners or in public space. He stated that the concept of the ownership of a tree is out of the hands of any one person and thus trees do not fall under the ownership of people at all. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT C).

Christine Kuta, 7 Fairview Avenue, stated that the permitting process is a burden on the private land owner. She stated that she has a tiny house on a small lot of land and it is difficult to maintain. She stated that going through what seems a benign process of a permit is another thing she has to deal with to get anything done on her land and it is also a burden on the arborist. She noted that when the street trees around her house needed to be trimmed it took a year to get this done. She stated that currently there is a public dead tree across the street and has not been taken down since last year. The Public Works Department is overburdened. She was not in favor of the permitting to add more work no matter how benign this is. She stated that she does care about the tree canopy of the City but disagrees with this new policy that is based on maintaining the status quo. Climate change is here, and the trees planted years ago were planted in a different climate and therefore they are dying. These trees need to be replaced with trees that are more resilient to the climate situation of today and the City should not waste resources trying to maintain trees that are not going to survive.

Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street, stated that the proposed ordinance is not nearly sufficient. She requested the entire City take a brief pause in cutting all trees on public and private land until the Urban Forestry Task Force can submit their recommendations and until the Tree Ordinance can be amended to actually give protection to mature trees. She spoke about a photograph on a news clipping shows residential land and those who cut the trees were not residents of the City; they were developers who purchased residential land and developed and sold it. She noted that this is the major problem with tree loss on residential land. She submitted a document showing the amount of carbon that a large tree takes out of the air is exponentially essential. She stated that the large trees are extremely valuable, and they need to be protected. She submitted two documents (ATTACHMENT D-1 AND D-2).

Carol O’Hare, 172, Magazine Street, supported getting a tally on tree removals but more importantly vigor and rigor are needed to effectively curtail tree removals. The ordinance needs to be corrected that would require simple tree removals, tree removals that are not associated with any project, to be covered by this ordinance, which it currently does not do. She gave the examples of someone who does not like shade or to rake leaves. This individual could remove the tree without doing anything. She stated that there should be a moratorium with specific exceptions and a waiver process. She stated that there are other cities that have done this. She stated that Public Works needs more personnel to monitor and enforcement this proposal. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street, stated that he supported the proposal submitted by Councillor Zondervan and some kind of a moratorium. He stated that with the rapid development that the City is facing it is a given that there would be tree removal without some type of a moratorium. He stated that the tree loss rate is accelerating. He stated that the Public Works Department needs more resources. There are 500 empty tree wells that need trees in them. This will provide information for the task force. He stated that over half of the trees removed are on private residential land. He stated that the City needs some type of tree regulation on private residential land. He noted that the accelerated tree loss is due to accelerated development. He stated that the City needs a tree replacement regulation in place as soon as possible to stop this.

Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue, stated that she supported the amendment. She stated that it should require public notice and permitting for the removal of all trees on private property for whatever the reason is. She added that there should be a justification for the removal and full mitigation of the negative impacts of any removal where it is shown that it is not essential. She commented that the City has a long history of restricting what property owners can do on their own property. She highlighted the benefits of trees. She gave an example of the private property issue. She used the dormer; she was unable to add a dormer to her roof to add a second bathroom. She noted that this application was denied. She stated that a large cooper beech tree was removed and cut down when the property changed ownership. She noted that this tree was a major asset to the neighborhood. She stated that she does not understand why this change was allowed when a small ascetic change is not. She acknowledged that there are good reasons to remove trees; she removed trees on her property but planted more replacement than removed. She stated that she wanted some aspects of this proposal strengthened. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT F).

Nancy Donohue, Director of Government Affairs, Chamber of Commerce, stated that members of the Chamber have expressed concern about certain aspects of the proposal and she spoke about unintended consequences. She requested that the Chamber be included in the discussions. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT G).

Steven Nutter, Executive Director, Green Cambridge, stated that Cambridge is in a tree emergency and need the leadership of the City Council to plan a better future. He stated that this urgency means that this cannot wait. He stated that with the good work of the task force, this amendment sends an immediate communication to all that Cambridge is serious about solving this problem. He stated that the tree canopy will continue to decrease and will decease to 10% by 2030. He noted that there are many actions that can be taken, but it is simple plant more trees and stop cutting down the existing trees. The City Council leadership is needed to make this change and without your leadership this change cannot occur. He noted that the proposed amendment is a great first step to fix an outdated regulation, but this is only a first step. He stated that Green Cambridge will help promote this change and educate residents. He commented that trees make Cambridge livable and is a social justice and equity issue.

Helen Kobek, 69R Gore Street, spoke about 100-year-old pin oak was destroyed. She wanted the strongest amendment to the ordinance. She wanted trees protected on private property and wanted a moratorium with adjustments as needed.

Sylvia Parsons, 22 Hancock Street, stated that she supported the amendment and is in favor of strengthening it and for some type of a moratorium on the cutting of trees in Cambridge with necessary exceptions. She noted that the timeline for climate change is unforgiving. She stated that the concept of replacing trees while planting new trees is a good thing, but a fully-grown tree cannot be replaced. She spoke about the benefits of trees in terms of carbon sequestration, mitigating heat wave and flood. She spoke about the life supporting element of trees with moss growth and supporting insects. She spoke about the complexities of the systems that are being destroyed.

Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, stated that feelings run high on this topic both pro and con. There are some that feel that trees are a danger, but others see the benefit of trees. She stated that this is a matter of life for both humans and mammals and also for plants. She wanted a moratorium. She stated that anything that the City Council does is necessarily part of the process. She commented that the need for action is now. She stated that she is concerned with the countervailing values at stake are embodied in the City’s development strategies. She stated that the tree loss in residential neighborhoods is infill development in the name of additional units. She stated that the development in Kendall Square has removed trees. She went to many tree removal hearings. She wanted enforceable action and protection of trees including invasive and non-native. All trees sequester carbon and provide benefits regardless of their pedigree.

Jules Kobek, 69R Gore Street, supported the amendment. She stated that it is more important to protect large healthy tree rather than replace it with small saplings. She noted that a new sapling may die, and it takes decades for a sapling to grow to a large tree. She stated that there needs to be protections for trees sooner rather than later and penalties with teeth.

Kelly Dolan, 233 Upland Road, stated that she supported the amendment to the tree ordinance. She urged that a moratorium be proposed on cutting down any more trees in Cambridge. She spoke about the importance of trees in mitigating climate change by cleaning the air, shading the City and managing flood waters. The tree canopy needs to be treated as a valued asset. She noted that limiting property rights for private property is a difficult discussion, but the collective well-being of the residents and the tree canopy needs to supersede the personal rights of individuals. She stated that having clean air and water is a social justice issue. She submitted written comments (ATTACHMENT H).

Franciscan Amedeo, 239 Mt. Auburn Street, trustee of Riverbend Park, stated that she wanted the City Council to include trees on public land. She stated that the Sycamore trees are in crisis along Riverbend Park. She supported the amendment as a first step. All possible things need to be done to mitigate climate change and trees have an important role. She encouraged the City Council to be more aggressive in addressing climate change. She wanted to see more funding for planting trees on public land.

Pat Goudvis, 179 Harvey Street, encouraged the City Council to approve the amendment. This is an emergency and we need something stronger than the amendment. She noted that all benefit from trees.

John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, member of the Friends of Inman Square, who are still working to preserve the trees in the plaza in Inman Square. He stated that he favored the proposed amendment. He noted that this would enable the City to acquire valuable information on tree removals from private property on an ongoing basis. This would also provide an opportunity to educate property owners in a critical moment on the life of a tree. The City needs to communicate in order to have an impact on property owners’ decisions to cut trees. He stated that our survival depends on trees; individuals cannot live without trees. He stated that trees are living beings that take a few hours to kill and a lifetime to regrow. There is no such thing as just one tree, whether public or private. These concepts are necessary for any voluntary measure to stop the loss of the tree canopy. He spoke about creating a culture of awareness and stewardship. He stated that a moratorium on the removal of trees from private land would be a beneficial measure when the task force makes their recommendations.

Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street, stated that he supported the proposal. He highlighted the importance of trees and the quality of life. He noted that the City does plant trees but has a hard time keeping them alive.

Maggie Booz, 27 Lawn Street, spoke about this amendment bringing the tree emergency to the public floor. She does not support the amendment as it is inadequate, ineffective and it is premature to make ordinance changes before the work of the Tree Task Force and the consultant have come to conclusions about how to solve the crisis. What is not premature and is called for is a complete moratorium on tree cutting in the City until the task force has completed its work. She spoke about issues introduced by Hildebrand to the monthly meetings of the tree task force. She stated that by 2030 with the current planting, 600 trees a year, there will only be 1/2 the tree canopy of what the City has now. She stated that by 2070 there will be 9% of what the City has now. She stated that this is a big problem.

Elaine Saporta, 102 Ellery Street, stated that she is a landscape architect and a member of tree task force. She noted that the tree task force is only halfway through the process and the news is not good. She stated that it is known what is killing the trees. She named development, oversalting, disease and the changing climate pressure and four years of successive drought as some of the reasons. She stated that this is a state of emergency. She supported a six-month moratorium on the cutting of all trees in the City.

Florrie Wescoat, 33 Market Street, stated that she is the Co-chair of the Committee on Public Planting, a member of the tree task force and a member of the Friends of Inman Square. She stated that currently there is no incentive for developers or property owners to preserve trees. Trees are being removed for development and housing infill. She noted that there is less permeable space for planting in the City. She stated that individuals want trees to shade them; to enhance the quality of life and to enjoy. She commented that this is an issue of equity and social justice. She stated that the notion of a pro-tree stance is anti-development or anti-housing is false. She stated that the City needs development that respects the trees and to plant more. The City needs to be leader to protect and preserve public trees. She appreciated the City’s commitment to an Urban Forest Master Plan but because of the rapid diminishment of the canopy in Cambridge she urged a moratorium on tree cutting while the Urban Forest Master Plan is being developed.

Paula Sharaga, 234 Columbia Street, stated that she has seen many trees planted which have died. She noted that Columbia Street is an area where there is a need for trees to be planted. She supported the amendment but wanted the proposal to have more teeth, enforceable and a moratorium until this can be figured out.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, stated that he magically intends to grow all the trees. He added that the money worshippers are killing the trees. They will be completely eliminated from the earth.

Dick Clarey, 15 Brookford Street, Chair, North Cambridge Stabilization Committee, and a board member of the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, stated that he favored a moratorium and the case for a moratorium has been overwhelmingly made. He spoke about how this issue developed for him. He stated that 130 years ago Charles Eliot stirred the people up over the destruction of the Waverly Oaks along the Belmont and Waltham line. He explained that the citizen involvement that this created ended up with the creation of the MDC. He noted that this is an example of what can happen when there is a sufficient outrage being perpetrated. He stated that the present-day Charles Eliot has put together a document, a newspaper, that contains an enormous amount of information.

Jo Solet, 15 Berkeley Street, spoke about enforcement and was disturbed that in some way the leaf blower ordinance was considered a model here. She stated that violating the ordinance is the cost of doing business for landscapers. She spoke about all the violations to the leaf blower ordinance by contractors hired by the City. She stated that homeowner need to be included in the enforcement.

Charles Teague, 23 Edmonds Street, distributed a list of 27 moratoriums passed by the City Council (ATTACHMENT I). He stated one moratorium that is not on the list is the bio lab moratorium and it has shaped Cambridge. He stated that this is not a big a deal and will not take as long. He stated that the task force has already presented. The consultants, the Conservation Law Foundation, have presented their nationwide review of tree laws on Oct 3, 2018 and in December guidelines were presented to change the laws. He stated that in 2002 the Supreme Court approved a moratorium for a short period of time, for less than a year. He urged the City Council to choose a moratorium.

Ronda Massie, 211 Charles Street, spoke about balancing open space with development. She stated that the City’s record on open space and trees is dismal. She acknowledged that it may be difficult to encourage homeowners and developers to retain trees, it is disheartening to witness the number of trees that have disappeared in the last several years. She spoke about the tree loss in the parking lot at the Charter School on Bent Street because of the difficulty of plowing around trees. She spoke about infill development and the $3 million condos built that made it imperative that the trees were cut down for these condos. She spoke about trees planted on both sides of Third Street from Kendall Square to Cambridge Street. She stated that the City planted trees and did not water and none of these trees survived. She spoke about the loss of open space and trees at the Volpe Center.

Kate Frank, 53 Crescent Street, stated that all neighborhoods will be affected by the tree problem. She stated that people are speaking about this because it is our civic responsibility. She spoke about the Japanese who planted fruit trees so that future generations will have fruit and wanted Cambridge to have a similar attitude about our trees. She asked the issue of private property be rethought. She spoke about the need for education and it could be as successful as the composting program. She stated that it may not move fast enough, but some movement is better than none.

Ellen Mass, President of the Friends of the Alewife Reservation, spoke about a moratorium and the awareness about trees were not in front of the public previously. She stated that this would have been a wonderful hearing to have had before the Silver Maple Forest was taken down. She stated that most of the discussion has been about the past, but she wants to discuss what is coming up. There is a situation in North Cambridge where there is a one-acre arboretum of sixty trees that were carefully planted forty years ago which is a crime waiting to happen because the two developers have misrepresented their building special permit to the Planning Board in December 2017 by leaving off the major canopy of these rare arboretum planted trees. There is a new design map, but it does not go along with what is in the tree ordinance. She stated that the tree ordinance states that a full display of the entire design must be given twenty-one days before the hearing by the Planning Board. This was not done. She stated that there was a major misrepresentation of the design which had a court yard with these arboretums. She noted that the Public Works Department is going to investigate this situation. She explained that the trees need to be removed to construct a garage underneath.

Erick Grunbaum, 98 Montgomery street, stated that he supports a moratorium; the tree canopy is in serious decline. He planted trees in The Port in the l990s where at the time it cost $125 to get a street tree. He stated that he sought and received a grant to subsidize this for those who could not afford to plant trees. There are massive opportunities to plant more trees. He spoke about counting the opportunities in the empty spaces in the sidewalks, not the empty tree wells, the spaces where trees can be planted. He stated that 2,500-3000 locations had been found in each of two quadrants of the City. This could yield 10,000-15,000 street trees which are the most important trees. This is what provides shade and greenery. He stated that the City needs to do a better job in investing in the canopy. He added that a short-term moratorium in reasonable. He supported more investment in the canopy, both in staffing and financing.

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 7:17pm.

Councillor Zondervan proposed and amendment and stated that Councillor Kelley wanted to capture the retroactive nature of the tree protection. His amendment was to change the title of section 8.66.055 to strike out the word “Procedure for Other Projects” and insert in place thereof the words “Procedure for Other Significant Tree Removals.” He further moved to amend the section by striking out the first sentence and inserting in place thereof a new sentence which reads as follows: For any significant tree removal not subject to 8.66.050, except for emergency circumstances, a permit request will first be submitted to the City Arborist.

He stated that a general moratorium on tree cutting cannot be considered because it is not part of this proposal. He stated that what the committee could consider is to not issue any permits proposed in this section until the ordinance is further amended based on the recommendations of the tree task force. He stated that he wanted the committee to consider this concept.

Councillor Kelley noted that the amendment offered by Councillor Zondervan was to bring all significant trees under this section, not just those trees associated with a project. The second suggestion was to prohibit the granting of any permits until after the tree task force finishes its work. Councillor Zondervan added that the ordinance could be amended based on their recommendations.

Councillor Kelley moved for a recess at 7:22pm.

Councillor Kelley reconvened the hearing at 7:24pm.

Councillor Kelley noted that there is a lot of public interest in a moratorium. He stated that another hearing can be scheduled to discuss the amendments by Councillor Zondervan and does the committee want to delay the granting of any permits which would be a defector moratorium or want to discuss a moratorium in some other fashion.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he wanted his clarifying amendments acted upon and can discuss a moratorium when the ordinance is adopted. He stated that he did not favor having another Ordinance Committee hearing and wanted this proposal to move forward to the full City Council.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she would vote in favor of the amendments offered by Councillor Zondervan and forward this to the full City Council.

Councillor Mallon stated that she was under the impression that regarding ordinance committee hearings that the committee could make something less restrictive and not more restrictive. She added that a moratorium seems more restrictive. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg responded that this applies to zoning provisions where there has been advertised zoning language and the City Council may be trying to make significant changes to this language and there may be restrictions based on the language. He stated that this is not a zoning ordinance and the issue of restrictions does not apply. The City Council can consider something that has been advertised. He stated that the issue of these amendments has been advertised.

Councillor Kelley stated that he is uncomfortable with passing a moratorium now and does not understand the implications. He added that the moratorium was not part of the call of the hearing. He stated that when this was advertised to the public it was if you care about trees and want public notice about cutting down trees come to this hearing. This was not advertised as if you care about a moratorium come to this hearing. He stated that he feels that this is a huge difference. He stated that there can be another hearing scheduled to specifically discuss a moratorium. He stated that this is a dangerous way to go. He would vote on the amendments but would not vote to move this out of committee.

Councillor Carlone stated that he supports a moratorium but agreed with Councillor Kelley’s interpretation.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the amendment he forwarded to the City Clerk does not reference a moratorium; it is just the clarifying language. He moved his amendments and stated that after amending he would move to refer to the full City Council. He stated that when the issue gets before the City Council a general moratorium could be discussed or not. Councillor Kelley stated that discussing a moratorium in the Ordinance Committee is a much better place for this discussion. He stated that he supported amending the language and keeping the matter in committee for another hearing and forwarding to the full City Council. He added that the subject of a moratorium should be the subject of a full hearing. Councillor Zondervan stated that a more general moratorium is a separate discussion and should not encumber the amendments. He is asking that the amendments be moved forward and then discuss a moratorium as part of a separate discussion.

The question now came on the amendments to change the title and the language of the first sentence in 8.66.055 submitted by Councillor Zondervan - and on a voice vote of six members the amendments - Carried.

Councillor Zondervan now moved that the amended proposal to the full City Council for further discussion.

Councillor Kelley stated that he thinks that this is a bad idea and would like to explore the idea of what a moratorium might look like.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked how the Ordinance Committee would discuss having a moratorium. She asked would there need to be language in front of the committee. Councillor Kelley noted that it always best to have language before the committee. He stated that Councillor Zondervan had an idea of making the permitting authority of the City Arborist start only when the City Council had some type of actionable things from the tree task force and if the committee met to discuss this Councillor Zondervan or anyone else could provide language for discussion.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is suggesting that a moratorium is a general conversation and may be enacted in the way he proposed or may not, but he would prefer this conversation with the full City Council and this conversation could always be brought back to the Ordinance Committee. He stated that he did not want to delay moving this forward since there is consensus around the clarifying language. The moratorium is a separate question on whether there should be a moratorium on significant tree removals or for all trees removals. He stated that the full City Council should be part of this conversation. He stated that rather than keeping this in committee he would prefer that this amendment be forwarded to the full City Council and then the City Council can decide whether it wants to have a further conversation about a moratorium or to adopt this amendment as is or enact a moratorium differently than through this proposal. He stated that these are broader questions than his amendment which did not include language for a moratorium.

Councillor Carlone stated that the only way that the City Council could discuss a moratorium if there is a petition submitted. He asked how this would be discussed at the City Council level. City Clerk Lopez stated that this is an amendment to the Municipal Code and amendments can be made at any time. She explained that the Ordinance Committee report would go before the full City Council who could accept the report and place it on file and pass to a second reading the original proposal as amended by Councillor Zondervan. Two weeks later the proposal would be before the City Council for ordination and at this point the proposal could be amended on the floor to add language regarding a moratorium. Then it is up to the full City Council if they wanted to pass the proposal to be ordained as amended.

Councillor Kelley commented that it is simpler and cleaner to figure what is wanted in the Ordinance Committee than at a City Council meeting.

Councillor Kelley moved that this be referred to the full City Council and on the motion the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui and Councillor Zondervan – 5
NAYS: Councillor Kelley – 1
ABSENT: Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern – 3
and the matter was - Referred to the full City Council.

The following communications were received and made part of the report:
A communication from Gretchen Friesinger, 18 Orchard Street, in support of Councillor Zondervan’s proposal to gather more data and supporting a tree cutting moratorium (ATTACHMENT J).
A communication was received from Share Brodie, 253 Pleasant Street, in support of the proposed amendment to strengthen tree protection and in support of a moratorium (ATTACHMENT K).
A communication was received from Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street, in support of the proposed amendment and suggesting the phrase “significant tree” be used. (ATTACHMENT L).
A communication from Charles Studen, 98 Erie Street, urging the City to adopt a comprehensive plan to place all overhead utility lines underground within the next twenty years to help the trees (ATTACHMENT M).
A communication from Maria Ritz in support of the amendment to the Municipal Code on Tree Protection (ATTACHMENT N).
A communication from Martha Older noted that gas leaks and the urban heat island are killing the trees (ATTACHMENT O).
A communication from Andrea Simpson, 2 Hutchinson Street, in support of the proposed amendment to protect the trees (ATTACHMENT P).
A communication from Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, noting that trees should be considered as part of the topography for any zoning and transmitting pictures of the Broadway and Prospect street trees (ATTACHMENT Q).
A communication from Pamela Hart in support of a moratorium on cutting mature trees on private property (ATTACHMENT R).
A communication from Catherine Jaffa in opposition to cutting down any more trees in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT S).

Councillor Kelley and Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:38pm on motion of Vice Mayor Devereux.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair