4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-105, regarding the feasibility of placing a condition in the public bidding documents prohibiting municipal contractors from displaying any signage other than company makers and contact information on vehicles. [City Solicitor's Response]
Placed on File

Feb 25, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-105, regarding the feasibility of placing a condition in the public bidding documents prohibiting municipal contractors from displaying any signage other than company makers and contact information on vehicles, received from City Solicitor Nancy Glowa.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

5. Transmitting communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $600,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Executive Department Extraordinary Expenditures, to be used for shoreline and landscape improvements at Magazine Beach.
Order Adopted 9-0

Feb 25, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $600,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Executive Department Extraordinary Expenditures, to be used for shoreline and landscape improvements at Magazine Beach.

Magazine Beach is a regional open space and ecological resource, and functions as an important neighborhood connection to the river. This project is a key component of Phase II-1 improvements to the park, encompassing the shoreline area between the new kayak launch and the Powder Magazine. The project will include planting new trees; pruning of existing trees and shrubs and other plant care; new naturalized bank treatments (river bank and wetland area); a new accessible path connecting the new kayak launch to the Powder Magazine; new site furnishings, including 10 new benches; new electrical connections and pole inserts for canopy lighting or outdoor art; and a new storm water infiltration system that will manage run off from the paved surfaces into the river.

The City’s contribution to the project will be matched dollar for dollar by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) in order to create a new accessible patio and terrace and newly paved walkways.

Since 2012, the City has provided over $500,000 in funding for improvements at Magazine Beach ($341,050 since 2017), which has leveraged hundreds of thousands of additional dollars in matching funds from DCR, neighborhood organizations, and nonprofits.

This project further exemplifies the City’s commitment to Magazine Beach, by working closely with neighborhood residents, Magazine Beach Partners, DCR, and elected officials to support strategic, incremental, improvements to Magazine Beach. Work on the improvements is anticipated to begin in spring 2019.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

4. A Zoning Petition has been received from the residents of the City of Cambridge requesting that the City Council amend Chapter 8.16 "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code.
Referred to Ordinance Committee

Citizen Petition

The undersigned residents of the City of Cambridge respectfully request the City Council to amend Chapter 8.16, "Noise Control" of the Cambridge Municipal Code of Ordinances by deleting Section 16.081 through 16.081.7 thereof, entitled "Leaf Blowers" and substituting the following therefor:

"16.081. Statement of Purpose. The City Council hereby finds that

1) Cambridge is committed to minimizing its greenhouse gas emissions, improving quality of life, maximizing sustainability practices and improving air quality;

2) Leaf blowers are harmful to the health of those who operate them and of those who are exposed to them due to excessive noise levels, emission of toxic, carcinogenic exhaust and ozone-forming compounds, and stirring up of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), allergens, lead and other contaminants present in soil and dirt;

3) Gas-powered leaf blowers release much higher levels of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere than do automobiles and thus contribute disproportionately to ongoing climate change which threatens the future of all life on earth;

4) Leaf blowers are harmful to the environment through the stripping of topsoil, thereby exacerbating drought conditions, and removal of leaf cover required by pollinators to overwinter;

5) Continued use ofleaf blowers is inconsistent with the sustainability goals of the City of Cambridge and of the Cambridge Compact for a Sustainable Future;

6) Leaf blowers are unnecessary to the optimal maintenance of property in the City, but the City will require a period of time to phase out the use of leaf blowers on certain city owned facilities.

16.081.1 Definitions.

1) A leaf blower is defined as a portable, handheld, backpack style or vehicle mounted power equipment that is powered by gasoline, other fuel, or electricity and used in any landscape maintenance, construction, property repair, or property maintenance (including without limitation sidewalks, parking lots, driveways and roofs) for the purpose of blowing, vacuuming, moving, removing, dispersing, or redistributing leaves, dust, dirt, grass clippings, cuttings and trimmings from trees and shrubs or any other type of litter or debris, not including lawn mowers.

2) Non-City property means any property not owned by the City of Cambridge, including without limitation property owned by a federal, state or other local governmental entity.

16.081.2. Ban on use. Except as otherwise provided in this Leaf Blower Ordinance, and notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code of Ordinances, the use of leaf blowers is hereby prohibited at any time within the City of Cambridge.

16.081.3. Special interim rules for certain City properties. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance, until 2 years after date of enactment (the "Interim Period"), municipal operators and municipal contractors may use leaf blowers for the maintenance of city-owned parks, golf course greens and playing fields as and to the extent that the City reasonably determines such use necessary for safety reasons or for adequate maintenance and further determines that alternative means such as brooms and rakes are not feasible; provided that such use shall not be permitted within 200 feet of any privately owned property or of any municipal property described in the following sentence. Leaf blowers may not in any event be used on City-owned playgrounds, schools or hospitals, nursing homes or similar facilities. The Department of Public Works shall report annually to the City Council during the Interim Period as to progress being made to eliminate the use of leaf blowers on all city owned property. During the Interim Period, municipal operators and contractors using leaf blowers as permitted by this section shall be subject to the limitations provided in Section 16.081.2 of the Leaf Blower Ordinance prior to its amendment by this Ordinance. Employees or non-employee workers of Municipal operators or contractors using leaf blowers under this section or under section 16.081.4 below must utilize appropriate personal protection equipment to include hearing protection, masks and eye protection.

16.081.4. Special emergency rules. This Ordinance does not apply to municipal operators and municipal contractors using leaf blowers for emergency operations and clean-up associated with storms, hurricanes and the like as and to the extent that the City reasonably determines that such use is necessary for safety reasons and that alternative measures are not feasible.

16.081.5. The Chairperson of the License Commission or his or her designee (the Enforcing Person) shall use best efforts to publicize the requirements of this ordinance, including without limitation giving notice thereof at least one month before its effective date to those commercial leaf blower operators with an approved operation plan for the 2019 season under Section 16.081.2.c. prior to its amendment by this Ordinance. The Enforcing Person shall use best efforts to identify commercial landscapers and arborists which do not use leaf blowers in their business and shall make those names publicly available.

16.081.6. Violations. Companies whose employees or non-employee workers use leaf blowers in violation of this Ordinance, any individuals other than employees or non-employee workers described above using leaf blowers in violation of this Ordinance, and owners of non-City property on which such use has occurred in violation of this Ordinance shall be subject to the following:

1) Upon the first violation a notice and warning that additional violations will be subject to a fine.

2) Upon any subsequent violation a fine of $300 (or, if greater, the maximum penalty allowed under Mass. G.L. c. 40, sec. 21 (or any successor statute)).

The use of a leaf blower in violation of this Ordinance by multiple employees or nonemployee workers of a single Company shall be treated as a separate violation for each such individual so using. Similarly, the use of a leaf blower in violation of this Ordinance by employees or non-employee workers of a single Company on multiple properties or multiple occasions shall be treated as a separate violation for each such property or occasion on which such use occurs.

The use of a leaf blower by an employee or non-employee worker of a municipal operator or contractor, otherwise permissible under sections 16.081.4 or 16.081.5, shall be treated as a violation of this ordinance if such employee or worker lacks personal protection equipment. Furthermore, such use by multiple employees or non-employee workers of a municipal operator or contractor shall be treated as a separate violation for each such individual lacking such equipment.

16.081.7. Enforcement. The authorized enforcement personnel charged with the enforcement of this Ordinance shall be the Police Commissioner and the Chairperson of the License Commission, which shall have authority to promulgate regulations to implement this Ordinance and to establish a procedure for the disposition of complaints of violations.

16.081.8. Effective date. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Leaf Blower Ordinance shall take effect on June 30, 2019."

5. Resolution on the death of Paula Sharaga.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux

R-5     Feb 25, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE

WHEREAS: The City Council was deeply saddened to learn that Paula Sharaga, a longtime resident of The Port, tragically passed away as the result of a traffic crash in Boston on the afternoon of Feb 15, 2019; and

WHEREAS: Paula’s death will leave a void in the lives of all her surviving family, including Eric Zinman, her devoted husband of 25 years; and

WHEREAS: Through sentiments shared by neighbors, friends, and colleagues after her passing, it is clear that Paula’s gentle soul had a profound and lasting impact on everyone she met; and

WHEREAS: Paula worked as a librarian at the Coolidge Corner Branch in Brookline for nearly 20 years, where she delighted children with sing-alongs on the guitar, lots of story times, and an infectious passion for the craft that inspired many generations of children to take up a love of reading themselves; and

WHEREAS: Paula was a political activist and active volunteer with Massachusetts Peace Action for nearly 30 years, where she participated in countless peaceful demonstrations and campaigns around the region in pursuit of global denuclearization and world peace; and

WHEREAS: Paula was also a longtime climate and environmental activist who led by green example in every facet of her life, including by riding her bike nearly everywhere she went, and who fought tirelessly to protect our natural environment and tree canopy including protecting the Silver Maple Forest and advocating for Cape Wind; and

WHEREAS: Paula’s radiant light brought joy to everyone she knew, and she had a unique ability to leave a lasting, memorable impression even from a single encounter; and

WHEREAS: Paula’s selfless dedication to her community, as well as to solving the vexing problems facing our world, from long before it became popular to do so, made a remarkable difference and will serve as a lasting testament to her strength of character; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record extending its deepest sympathy to the family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors of Paula Sharaga during this time of tremendous loss; 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 family of Paula Sharaga on behalf of the entire City Council, with our most sincere appreciation for the contributions she made to our community during her many years as a resident and caring friend.

7. Appreciation for Red Mitchell.   Councillor Simmons

R-7     Feb 25, 2019
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS

WHEREAS: As tonight is the final City Council meeting to take place during this year’s Black History Month observation, it is a fitting moment to recognize one of our own who has made a true difference in the world around him; and

WHEREAS: Mr. Red T. Mitchell, who at age 91 continues to have more energy, enthusiasm, and passion for life, has packed so much into the past several decades, and the following resolution speaks to just a tiny portion of that life; and

WHEREAS: Red T. Mitchell enlisted in the United States Army in 1946, was stationed in Germany as a medic until 1950, and after his honorable discharge he earned his Bachelor of Arts at Duquesne University, having studied Political Science and Philosophy, before setting off to work in the world of insurance in the hopes of making a positive difference in the lives of others; and

WHEREAS: As he worked his way up in the insurance world, Red T. Mitchell served as Agency Director of the Wright Mutual Insurance Company in Detroit, MI, he was later placed in charge of Sales and Management of the Supreme Life Company (the largest Black-Owned business in North Chicago), and then, in the mid-1970s, he made his way to Massachusetts; and

WHEREAS: Due to Red T. Mitchell’s tireless work ethic, his tremendous knowledge of the insurance business, and his commitment to helping people plan to have a financial safety net, he was hired as Staff Manager in Sales and Management in John Hancock’s Boston office, the first person of color ever to assume this role, and he won friends and admirers across the region for his hard work and positive attitude in those years; and

WHEREAS: Red T. Mitchell would go on to help start his own locally-focused insurance business in Cambridge in the early 1980s, and in his later years he would serve as site manager for Meals On Wheels in Plainville, MA, and he was also an employee of HESSCO Elder Services; and

WHEREAS: The accomplishment for which Red T. Mitchell is most known, however, is his lead role in successfully pushing for the establishment of a monument to early abolitionist, mason, and freedom fighter Prince Hall, which was placed upon the historic Cambridge Common in 2010, the first statue of its kind anywhere in the United States; and

WHEREAS: Without Red T. Mitchell’s advocacy, enthusiasm, and constantly prodding the project along, the Prince Hall Monument likely would not have been realized, and this project has fit into Mr. Mitchell’s continued endeavors to ensure that Prince Hall’s role in shaping this country’s earliest years, and the ripple effects still felt from his life, are properly recognized; and

WHEREAS: Red T. Mitchell’s tireless campaigning to restore Prince Hall to his rightful place in our country’s history, his many works of compassion via his work with seniors and through his work selling insurance, and his quiet example of always spreading kindness and civility to those around him are all qualities that should rightfully be recognized and honored, and it is only fitting that they be recognized and honored at this evening’s meeting; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in appreciating the exemplary works, deeds, and continuing examples of Red T. Mitchell; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Red T. Mitchell on behalf of the entire City Council.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Feb 25, 2019  Amended
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MALLON
WHEREAS: The MBTA recently released a fare proposal that would increase fares by a system-wide average of 6.3%; and
WHEREAS: If adopted, this increase would take effect July 1, 2019; and
WHEREAS: The MBTA is accepting public comment on the fare proposal at a series of public meetings and online through Feb 28, 2019; and
WHEREAS: The MBTA projects that this fare increase, the fourth since 2012, would reduce ridership by 1.3%; and
WHEREAS: A recent report from INRIX found that Boston has the worst rush-hour congestion of any urban area in the country; and
WHEREAS: Public transit ridership in Massachusetts must grow in the coming years, as an essential component of both the fights against climate change and against extreme roadway congestion; and
WHEREAS: An increase in fares would only disincentivize the use of public transit, as increases have been shown to do in the past, and worsen vehicular traffic in the region; and
WHEREAS: This proposed increase is a regressive funding mechanism that will disproportionately impact lower income residents who especially depend on access to public transit and will be more sensitive to higher costs; and
WHEREAS: The MBTA must identify progressive funding mechanisms that improve service and conditions within the T without putting an undue burden directly on the T’s ridership and the working/middle class; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record opposing the MBTA fare increase proposal; 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 members of the Cambridge delegation, MBTA Fiscal and Management Control Board and to Governor Baker on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-3     Feb 25, 2019
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: There exist five hundred affordable homeownership units in the City of Cambridge, provided through a variety of means from non-profit development and inclusionary housing to the City’s Down-Payment Assistance and HomeBridge programs; and
WHEREAS: The Housing Division oversees both sales and resales of these affordable homeownership units to qualifying buyers in the Homeownership Resale Pool through a lottery process; and
WHEREAS: The September 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report provides helpful data with respect to inclusionary homeownership units—which account for 40% of all affordable homeownership units—such as the frequency of resales and the length of time that owners remain in inclusionary homeownership units; and
WHEREAS: As the report states, the overall rate of resale of inclusionary homeownership units is low (from the time the first resale of an affordable homeownership unit occurred in 2008, the highest rate of resales was in 2014 and 2016 when 2.6% of the units were resold), and of the limited resale data available, only in some cases was the seller’s motivation or reason for selling documented; and
WHEREAS: The remaining 60% of the City’s affordable homeownership units are not included in this report’s analysis; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department on a process for establishing a formal, thorough review of the City’s Affordable Home Ownership programs, incorporating a plan for obtaining and analyzing substantial quantitative data (see Attachment A for suggestions) inclusive of all types of units; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council with a plan for this formal review process and any additional available data as soon as possible.

ATTACHMENT A

• What, if any, level of contact is maintained between the City and Cambridge residents participating in its Affordable Homeownership programs?

• How long do potential buyers remain in the lottery before being selected to purchase a unit?

• What is are turnover rates for the non-inclusionary units?

• How frequently do additional units become available?

• Where are units located?

• Of the existing units, what is the breakdown of number of bedrooms/unit?

• How are participants benefitting?

• How many owners are coming from public housing, non-profit/other affordable housing, or the market?

• What is the median length of ownership in years?

• What are the reasons owners sell an affordable unit/ motivation for selling?

O-5     Feb 25, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MALLON
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: On Jan 23, 2017, the City Council adopted Policy Order #2 to consider allowing live acoustic music performances without a license; and
WHEREAS: No response to that order has been received, and in the meantime, this topic has resurfaced in discussion as part of the Mayor’s Arts Task Force as a precursor to their March meeting on licensing and permitting; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has an interest in promoting a vibrant arts community and music scene, as well as supporting small, local businesses; and
WHEREAS: The License Commission requires that any business that wishes to have live music performances be granted a license, to control for noise and safety concerns; and
WHEREAS: Acoustic music creates a lively environment and attracts customers without creating significant noise or crowd issues; and
WHEREAS: The City of Boston recently instituted an ordinance to allow small businesses to host live acoustic music performances without a live entertainment license, with reported success from both the business and musician communities; and
WHEREAS: Allowing small businesses located in defined business districts to have acoustic performances without having to go through the process of receiving a license aims to increase foot traffic to support small businesses and create a dynamic arts scene; and
WHEREAS: Boston’s ordinance requires that a business be registered with the City Clerk’s office, have a business license, and comply with all regulations and accessibility requirements in order to host an acoustic performance; and
WHEREAS: Boston’s ordinance limits the number of performers at a single location to no more than five at a time, limits performances to the hours of 10am to 10pm, limits the amplification of the music to a single microphone, and only permits the business to sell food or drinks if they are already licensed to do so; and
WHEREAS: Boston’s ordinance permits the Police Department to issue violations and/or fines for any violations; and
WHEREAS: At a time when small, local businesses are struggling to attract new customers, the City of Cambridge must support and enable strategies for businesses to bring customers through their doors and encourage them to shop and dine local, while activating the urban space and minimizing disturbances to the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS: Less onerous permitting also benefits local musicians by encouraging more businesses to offer performing opportunities, which increases the number of venues where musicians can find work and share their talent with live audiences; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the License Commission, the Cambridge Arts Council, the Community Development Department, the Police Department, and any other appropriate City department to discuss the feasibility of allowing small businesses to host live acoustic music performances without a license, and if feasible, present the City Council with a proposal to allow such performances; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

O-7     Feb 25, 2019
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The City is currently in the process of updating the Zoning Code’s Table of Uses; and
WHEREAS: Lodging Houses, which allow for single-room occupancies, are an essential component of the City’s affordable housing stock and these forms of housing are increasingly scarce; and
WHEREAS: Non-profits such as Heading Home, with the assistance of the Affordable Housing Trust, have been able to buy single-family houses and convert them into lodging houses; and
WHEREAS: Zoning regulations have made the purchase of single-family/multi-family houses to be converted into lodging houses not feasible in certain neighborhoods which do not provide any affordable housing; and
WHEREAS: SRO’s could provide transitional housing options to Cambridge residents, veterans, the homeless, immigrants, seniors who have been displaced and starter apartments for young adults; and
WHEREAS: A good portion of the Cambridge’s single-family/multi-family houses are in Residential A1, A2 and B zoning districts which do not allow lodging houses; and
WHEREAS: Real estate transactions move very fast in the City of Cambridge and removing this zoning restriction would alleviate some of the burden for non-profits/property owners who are interested in converting these houses; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and any other relevant City departments to amend the Zoning Ordinance “Table of Uses” to allow for lodging houses in Residential A1, A2, and B Zoning Districts; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Assessing Department and any other appropriate department on what tax incentives could be utilized to assist in the conversion of single-family/multi-family houses into lodging houses; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the Council on these issues by the Mar 18, 2019 meeting.

O-9     Feb 25, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: One of the expressed goals of the Cambridge City Council is to "deepen our commitment to sustainable use of energy and strengthen our capacity for resilience”; and
WHEREAS: On June 24, 2013, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt Policy Order #9, requesting that the City Manager urge the Trustees of the Cambridge Retirement Board (CRB) to review Cambridge's investment portfolio and consider divestment from fossil fuel companies; and
WHEREAS: On June 26, 2017, the City Council again voted unanimously to adopt Policy Order #4, which made the same request; and
WHEREAS: A response was received on Oct 23, 2017 from the Cambridge Retirement Board and the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC) indicating that a statutory restriction would be necessary to limit the investing powers of the Cambridge Retirement Board in this manner; and
WHEREAS: Before the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts there is a bill currently under consideration that could provide such a statutory restriction; and
WHEREAS: This bill, HD.2817/SD.505: “An Act authorizing independent retirement systems to divest from fossil fuel companies,” is sponsored by Representative Dylan Fernandes (Barnstable, Dukes & Nantucket), Representative Jay Livingstone (8th Suffolk) and Senator Mark Pacheco (1st Plymouth & Bristol), and co-sponsored by many members of the Cambridge legislative delegation; and
WHEREAS: As the City and the Commonwealth stand at odds with a federal administration intent on reversing all progress made in recent years to protect the environment, the City Council must stand up to the major fossil fuel companies to protect our environment for generations to come; and
WHEREAS: By divesting Cambridge’s retirement pension fund from fossil fuel companies, the City will be taking yet another step to combat pollution and commit to fighting climate change; and
WHEREAS: Research by the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment indicates that divestment from fossil fuels would have a minimal estimated effect on fund returns; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Retirement Board portfolio’s direct and indirect fossil fuel holdings at the time of the October 2017 report were de minimis, at 4.2% of the total $1.2 billion holdings, and one can project that those figures have remained similar since that time, and expect that changing such a small percentage of holdings would have a negligible impact on returns; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record supporting HD.2817/SD.505, and encouraging the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to continue to act in support of this bill; 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-10     Feb 25, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Cambridge has a number of affordable housing developments where the units are owned as limited-equity condominiums, thus helping ensure that property owners can have reasonable expectations of housing costs over time and also might be able to make some small profit when they sell their unit; and
WHEREAS: Condominium associations are responsible for conducting repairs and maintenance for the building and they get the funds for those activities through assessing the individual condo owners; and
WHEREAS: If a condominium complex runs into extraordinary costs for elevator repairs, siding replacement and similar high-expense issues, the association may assess special fees for these repairs that may exceed both the ability of the residents to pay the fees and, because of the limited equity nature of their ownership, limit the ability of residents to recoup these expenses; and
WHEREAS: Sales of limited equity affordable housing units are governed by the City's regulatory programs and resales are not carried out on the open market; and
WHEREAS: Many purchasers of these limited-equity units may not be fluent in English, especially as it relates to real estate and financial transactions and obligations; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant City and other staff and report back to the City Council on:

1. The ability of owners of limited equity condominiums to recoup extraordinary repair and maintenance costs.

2. The procedure through which City or non-profit staff inform would-be purchasers, to include those who may not be fluent in English or be conversant with real estate and financial documents, of existing or possible construction and maintenance issues that may result in higher-than expected condo fees.

3. The possibility of allowing limited equity owners to have roommates to allow them to cover these sorts of unexpected expenses.

O-13     Feb 25, 2019
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: On Feb 13, 2019, the Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a hearing to receive an update on the City’s Retail Strategy Plan and Vacant Storefront Initiative; and
WHEREAS: The Economic Development Department presented recommendations from the 2015 Commercial Land Use Classification Study in response to a Dec 17th policy order (POR 2018 #318) requesting a timetable for updating the Table of Uses; and
WHEREAS: The Economic Development Department stated that it is possible that zoning may come before the Council by middle of the 2019 year, although the department could not be certain; and
WHEREAS: Given that the Commercial Land Use Classification Study was completed in July of 2015, it is imperative that the City move forward with the following recommendations, specifically:

• Creating consistent definitions for each use;

• Adding use types that are not listed (e.g. a temporary open-air market, fitness center, grocery store, etc);

• Clarifying the range of allowed activities for a given retail type, especially given the rise in success and number of “experience-based” businesses;

• Establishing new use types for retail/production establishments and food service/production establishments;

• Updating commercial activity uses on residential property;

• Creating a “General use” category as a mechanism for permitting unforeseen use types and establishing criteria for a conditional use special permitting process;

• Exempting new parking requirements for any retail use up to 10,000 square feet in an existing building; and

• Converting an existing, non-conforming commercial use to a new type of retail use by special permit;

now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Economic Development Department on expediting zoning based on the 2015 Commercial Land Use Classification Study and exploring the feasibility of hiring more zoning planners; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter by the Mar 18, 2019 City Council meeting.

O-14     Feb 25, 2019
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: At the Ordinance Committee hearing held on Feb 5, 2019 for a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) the original petition was amended by substitution, which prevailed; and
WHEREAS: At the same Ordinance Committee hearing a series of related concerns were raised; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor and the appropriate City Staff to provide the City Council with the following information:

• A legal opinion on incentivizing and creating affordable housing specifically allowing Section 8 and any other forms of public assistance relative to affordable ADUs;

• Whether owner occupancy can be required at the initiation of an ADU project, but not when the project is completed, so that the property can be sold without a title issue;

• Information on whether multiple garages on one site can be replaced by ADUs under some affordable housing incentive, including the total square footage of the garages;

• Information on the existing five ADU units, including their location, permit process, and the final result;

• Information on how the proposed ordinance can be amended relating to ADU use as a short-term rental;

• Information on the requirement for review regarding potential flooding and using the basement overlay and reflecting similar requirements in the ADU zoning proposal

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1

The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Feb 14, 2019 at 5:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal code to amend Chapter 8.66 entitled “Tree Protection: in section 8.66.055 entitled “Procedure for Other Significant Tree Removals” by adding new sentences at the end which read “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” (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Siddiqui; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works; John Nardone, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works; Andrew Putnam, Superintendent of Urban Forestry and Landscapes; David Lefcourt, City Arborist and Tree Warden; Catherine Woodbury, Project Manager, Urban Forestry Masterplan, Public Works; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Susan Labandibar, 8 Brewer Street; Nancy Donahue, Director of Government Affairs, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce; Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street; Sarah Diehl, 25 Wheeler Street; Sylvia Parsons, 22 Hancock Street; Trumbull Barrett, 11 King Street; Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place; Judy Johnson, 55 Antrim Street; Susan Donaldson, 187 Harvey Street; Helen Schultz, 187 Harvey Street; Skip Schloming, 102R Inman Street; Ellen Mass 104A Inman Street; Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Ann MacAdam, 28 Union Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Steven Nutter; Charles Teague, 23 Edmunds Street; Karin Weller, 12 Humboldt Street; and James Randall.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He stated that there is a packet of information presented by the City staff and stated that included is a proposed draft amendment to Chapter 8.66 Tree Protection. He stated that this is what the City staff has prepared including minor changes to the proposal submitted by Councillor Zondervan. He moved to amend by substituting the City document entitled draft (ATTACHMENT B). The motion carried on a voice vote of five members. He clarified that what is being discussed is Chapter 8.66 Tree Protection draft document.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that there are number of documents submitted to help this discussion. The cover letter (ATTACHMENT C) provides the overview of what is anticipated. There is a redraft of the ordinance and on page three of the draft section 8.66.055 has been redrafted and to ensure that this is consistent with the structure of the existing ordinance. He explained that there are additional changes for consideration. There is a draft sample of regulations to be promulgated by the Commissioner of Public Works if the ordinance amendments are approved by the City Council (ATTACHMENT D). There are three other documents. One; a certification letter form for a certified arborist identifying as to why a tree is dead, dangerous or an emergency circumstance (ATTACHMENT E). The second document is an ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form (ATTACHMENT F) to be completed by a certified arborist for submission to the City Arborist for consideration in terms of getting a permit. The third document contains photos that the City would like to see submitted if someone were seeking to remove a tree (ATTACHMENT G).

Commissioner O’Riordan turned to section 8.66.055 and read the revised section. He stated that this applies to trees other than those associated with large projects. He highlighted the additional changes being proposed by the City, namely; utility infrastructure projects undertaken pursuant to state and federal regulations or programs and City park projects. He stated that ‘diseased’ was excluded from this proposed amendment because trees can survive for a significant period of time even though diseased and can still contribute value to the community. He noted that another change was for the payment into the tree replacement fund pursuant to section 8.66.070. He stated that the cost for removing a significant tree will be $850.00 per caliper inch at DBH. He stated that an eight-inch tree multiplied by $850 is equivalent to $5,000. This is the minimum cost that would be required from an individual who takes down a significant tree other than for reasons associated with emergency circumstances or for dead or dangerous trees. He stated that in the enforcement section 8.66.090 2 (d) has been changed to “a fine of not more than $300.” This give more discretion in terms of how the fine is levied. A similar change is being proposed by amending 8.66.090 2 (e) to read “not more than $300.” This is what is being proposed for consideration by the City Council regarding the Ordinance.

Commissioner O’Riordan went on to discuss the draft regulations proposed. He explained that the Commissioner of Public Works has the authority under the Tree Protection Ordinance to promulgate regulations and that this is typically done in conjunction with a review by other City offices such as the City Solicitor. There is no time delay between promulgating a regulation and their taking effect. He stated that regarding identifying a dead or dangerous tree and getting a permit associated with this he is proposing what is included in the regulations. He stated the regulations contain five sections and will be placed on line if the City Council approves the ordinance amendment. He stated that there are two types of emergency in the regulations. He spoke about the significant utility infrastructure projects and City Park projects where a significant tree is proposed to be removed and how those would be excluded from these regulations as there would already be a lot of process. He stated that there is a list of documents that would need to be provided. He stated that in the cover letter it states that if the proposed amendment is ordained, property owners in the City would be notified within two weeks of ordination. He added that the change will also be listed on the various social media platforms. He further added that the state and national arboricultural organizations will be notified of the change. He stated that known contractors who are typically involved in landscaping will be notified also. He spoke about the legal and procedural constraints that would continue to exist if the proposed amendment were passed. He stated that MGL Chapter 87 provides the City Arborist and the City Manager with the authority to remove public shade trees in the City of Cambridge. This proposed amendment does not apply to public shade trees. He spoke about the burden placed on urban forestry divisions of other communities associated with these types of ordinances or amendments. He stated that staff from the Public Works Department from both a legal and resource perspective will not be responsible for giving advice and the City Arborist does not have the authority to go onto private property nor the authority to provide risk assessments for trees on private property. He stated that in terms of limited access onto private property, if a tree is taken down without a permit it may be challenging for the City to verify that the tree was a significant tree and levy a mitigation requirement as well as a fine.

Councillor Zondervan stated that this is good work and he is pleased to see the clarification on emergency circumstances. He asked about other cities that have similar ordinance and what is their experience on the impact of tree protection of having such ordinances. Commissioner O’Riordan could not provide the information because he was not involved in the conversations. Councillor Zondervan asked for clarification the certified arborist form states that if a tree is dangerous a property owner could remove the tree. Commissioner O’Riordan responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Zondervan asked about issues with identifying a significant tree other than the private property access. Commissioner O’Riordan cited the definitions of “significant tree.” There has been no difficulty identifying a significant tree. Councillor Zondervan questioned changing the fee to be no more than $300 to give more discretion; how this discretion would be applied in certain circumstances. City Solicitor Glowa stated that from a legal perspective this was in response to a request by the City Council to have there be some flexibility in terms of the practical meaning. She stated that the Commissioner of Public Works has the authority to promulgate the regulation such as those drafted for consideration by the City Council and if after review and consideration it was determined that there should be lesser amounts of fines or fees such as for the first time or something else it would provide discretion to the Commissioner of Public Works to establish a fee schedule for amounts less than $300. She stated that this would need study and consideration before this would occur, but this ordinance would give the authority to the Commissioner of Public Works to make such changes.

Councillor Zondervan asked about additional means of outreach to the public. He questioned this being an exhaustive list and stated that he could contemplate additional means to reach the public. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this is a significant list and it is thorough and is as much as necessary. Councillor Zondervan suggested on-going outreach such as putting information into tax bills to inform public of the ordinance change. He noted that the previous version of this amendment was passed to a second reading and maybe it all could be ordained at the City Council on Feb 25, 2019 and asked if this language could be substituted for this language and if this proposal could be ordained on Feb 25, 2019. City Solicitor Glowa responded that the ordinance can be amended and ordained on the 25th without need for a further reading.

Mayor McGovern asked about the notification and the fines. He stated that a $5,000 minimum fine is not insignificant. He spoke about the flexibility of the $300 a day fine but that there is no flexibility in the cost of replacing a tree. He stated that this concerns him. He commented that it took one year for plastic bag ban to go into effect and this proposal will go into effect immediately. He stated that if the public is unaware of the ordinance and cuts down a tree and gets a bill from the City for $5,000 and then a potential fine of $300 per day on top of this the result could bankrupt individuals. Mayor McGovern asked can payment installments be allowed.

Commissioner O’Riordan said that payment would be required as soon as the fee was issued. Mayor McGovern stated that because the City Arborist will not be authorized to provide the risk assessment associated with trees on private property; then who decides if a tree is dead or dying. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this will be a certified arborist. He stated that the City Arborist’s role is administrative. The home owner needs to hire a certified arborist. Mayor McGovern asked about section 8.66.040 whether this include inclusionary housing units as a City, state or federal program. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she wanted to confirm this because this is an existing section of the ordinance. Mayor McGovern stated that he wanted this clarification. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she thought it would likely apply to inclusionary housing because it is a City program designed to assist low- and moderate-income households.

Mayor McGovern asked who does this ordinance apply to. City Solicitor Glowa stated that section 8.66.050 in the existing ordinance includes a provision which pertains to developments between 25,000-50,000 square feet which are subject to the large project review process at the Planning Board and that these projects are required to submit a tree study to the City Arborist and to the Planning Board. She stated that in addition, projects over 50,000 square feet which require a large project special permit are required to do this. For any project that meets those perimeters they are already required under this ordinance to be subject to the provisions of the ordinance and thus these amendments would not cover any trees impacted by those projects. She further added that with respect to the new provision being proposed by the City Council it relates to any significant tree removal not subject to section 8.55.050. She stated that anything over 25,000 square feet in size is subject to section 8.55.050 and what would be exempted from the application of the ordinance would be dead or dangerous tree situations, other emergency situations or utility infrastructure or parks as currently drafted. So, for the first year no significant tree not previously covered could be legally cut down at all unless it fell into one of the amendment’s proposed exemptions; with a permit or not. This applies to everything else except public shade trees. Mayor McGovern asked does this ordinance expire in one year. City Solicitor Glowa explained that for a one-year period one cannot get a permit to remove a healthy tree except under certain circumstance. When the year is over, an individual could get a permit. She stated that this could be further refined by the City Council in this process. She stated that the prohibition of cutting down healthy trees ends in one year.

Councillor Simmons spoke about the sunset provision. She asked if there is language that states that this will end one year after ordination. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the language is clear upon ordination of this amendment no one can obtain a permit to cut down a healthy tree, except under the specific circumstances, for a period of one year and then at the end of the one year this section does not apply anymore. Councillor Simmons spoke about public notice and how are people notified, especially seniors. She asked if every home will be getting a notice of this ordinance. She spoke about her concern regarding the fee. She referred to the abatement process for seniors on their property tax bill and asked if this could be used for extreme circumstances and if there is a way to add a cushion for extreme circumstances. She noted that there is no go-to person for the public for the fine.

Councillor Carlone stated that the reason this is being discussed is because of the urban tree canopy study and the preliminary findings that the canopy is in trouble. The biggest loss in the canopy was residential and commercial, private properties. He noted that since this discussion there has been a significant loss to the tree canopy. He spoke about the Volpe Project and in the negotiations with MIT there was a discussion about moving the significant healthy trees. He explained that there is a 75% success rate for replanting trees. He stated that the $5,000 is not a fine; it is a replacement fee. He stated that regarding the daily fine, the wording was changed to up to $300 a day. The review committee would ascertain the appropriate fine. He stated that shade trees could be on the front lawn of private property and shades the public domain. Is this officially considered a shade tree if on private property, he asked. Commissioner O’Riordan responded in the negative. He stated that what is considered a public shade tree is a tree planted with public funds in the public right-of-way or within twenty feet of the public right-of-way with the permission of property owner. Councillor Carlone stated a tree could be hurt by over cutting limbs. He asked if a permit is required to cut tree limbs. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that on private property tree limbs can be cut without a permit. This proposal addresses removal. After a year can a tree be removed? Commissioner O’Riordan stated that per the proposed amendment a permit would be required to remove a tree and it would not be refused after the year is up. He stated that the Urban Forestry Task Force Masterplan is considering changes to alternatives to the ways that trees are removed as part of their work. He stated that by the summer of 2019 the City will have a draft report and then the City Council can consider alternatives. Councillor Carlone stated that Cambridge is so dense and has one-half the park space that a city of the same size has, and this is a reason to expand open space and plant all open space in a more intelligent way and is this been discussed in the tree canopy study. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the Memorial Drive property has been discussed by the Urban Forestry Task Force.

Councillor Mallon what are the staff implications for Public Works if this were to go into effect. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this is onerous in terms of staff time. He stated that Urban Forestry is one of the busiest divisions in Public Works and will need more resources. Councillor Mallon spoke about things not included in the ordinance. She stated that she has reviewed other ordinances on tree protection from around the country and asked if there are too many trees and for the health of the overall tree canopy an arborist states a tree or two need to be removed for the health of the other trees that will flourish. She noted that in this proposal there is no allowance for this. She suggested an amendment that would read “that the lot is of such density with existing trees that the removal of certain significant trees is considered beneficial to the health of the tree canopy.” She stated that this could be considered an addition or exception by the City Council. Councillor Mallon stated that regarding a tree being planted too close to a house, there is no provision for this in the Tree Risk Assessment Form where the arborist could state that the tree is not diseased, dead or dangerous but is dangerous to a homeowner if a tree is leaning on their house and if the roots are growing into the foundation of the housing and causing structural problems. She stated in other places where this is a tree protection ordinance that is stronger than the proposal being considered there is a provision that a tree can be taken down within ten feet of a house. She stated that Cambridge should consider this provision as well. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that City Council can amend this proposal, but the proposal was drafted with dead, diseased and dangerous trees and on this basis the regulations were promulgated. He stated that the City Council can further amend this proposal and the Public Works can draft additional regulations to provide for these situations.

Councillor Mallon spoke about the fees and she is uncomfortable with small property owners paying the same that large developers pay. She wanted to differentiate in terms of the fees whether it be a cap and wanted flexibility in the fee structure. She does not feel comfortable with levying one fee for all. City Solicitor Glowa clarified that the fine is for the violation of law and it is $300 per day. She stated that this needs to be established in a fee schedule with a set amount and it is not waivable for certain people. She stated that the City Council could lessen the amount of mitigation funds required under certain circumstances. She noted that there is nothing that requires that this particular amount be used nor is it required for all circumstances. She suggested that the City Council could state that parcels under a certain size are exempt from the mitigation fee or that people could pay only a percentage of the mitigation fee. She stated that there could be standards where if an individual could show that they are eligible for financial assistance or are elderly and could show that they are eligible for certain programs that the City has, that this could be a factor in paying a lesser mitigation amount. She stated that the structure for the mitigation funds is separate from the fine. It is important when there are laws that have sanctions for violations of the law that they be uniformly applied. There is more flexibility in the tree replacement fund. She stated that if the City Council agreed to a lesser mitigation fine could this be done through this process or a separate process. City Solicitor Glowa responded that that would have to be done through this process. She stated that the ordinance could outline the circumstances and that they would be less than what they are, or the fee shall be between X amount and Z amount and with authority granted to the Public Works Commissioner to promulgate regulations that would have the specific circumstances. She stated that to be fair, uniform and consistent, it is important to have there be an approach that has been decided upon and put into the ordinance so that all individuals are on notice of what the provisions are. She noted that there can be exceptions in the ordinance, but the language must be clear.

Councillor Mallon spoke about the timing of one year. She questioned if the Urban Tree Task Force brings forward amended zoning prior to one year would the City be able to begin the ordination process. She asked if language needs to be added to the ordinance such as “for one year or until the Urban Tree Task Force provides recommendations. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is not zoning; this is part of the Municipal Code and it can be amended at any time and in a less cumbersome process than a zoning amendment. She stated that it would be better to be for a period of time which could be revisited in another amendment subsequently. Councillor Mallon asked if a fine is levied on a homeowner and if not paid what are the ramifications. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City does not have the authority under the ordinance to place a lien on their home. The City can go to court to enforce payment of the fine and seek a court injunction to require the payment of the fine. The City would have the authority to go to court to seek to enforce a violation of this ordinance where the mitigation funds were not paid. She stated that there is legal recourse.

Councillor Kelley asked if this ordinance were to pass would it keep significant trees from being cut down or would trees still be removed even if the ordinance is passed. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the ordinance applies to all circumstance that are laid out in the ordinance. She commented that there could be some trees that are not covered. This ordinance is comprehensive and would not apply to public shade trees and there is a process for trees on properties where there is going to be a development project over 25,000 square feet and this amendment would apply to any trees that are not subject to those requirements. Councillor Kelley stated that if an individual goes through the large project permitting process and the Planning Board approves the project and it goes forward, this ordinance would not impact development projects and not affect the trees. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that a Planning Board special permit is granted under the Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of the Zoning Act. She stated that although there is a process in the tree ordinance to undertake the tree study and submit the tree study to the Planning Board it is questionable whether the zoning authority extends to treatment of actual trees or other foliage or plants other than reasons that relate to the structures being constructed like requirements for landscaping and screening in parking areas. She stated that she is unsure that the City has the authority to regulate trees in the Zoning Ordinance. This is connected to this and it goes to the Planning Board and there could be some conditions which would have to relate to the overall zoning authority that the Planning Board has. Councillor Kelley spoke about 8” DBH and stated that this has nothing to do with height. He asked if there are things that look like trees but would not be considered trees because they are shrubs or some other type of vegetation. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that if a trunk is 8” DBH; it is considered a significant tree. Councillor Kelley asked does this cover state and federal land. City Solicitor Glowa responded that the City has no authority to regulate state or federal property if used for an essential governmental purpose. Councillor Kelley asked if there are any criminal elements to this ordinance proposal. City Solicitor Glowa stated that in the Municipal Code if one fails to pay a fine for a violation associated with the Code the City can seek to enforce and can either go to the criminal division of district court and asking a judge to order that the fine be paid or by pursuing this in superior court in a civil manner for injunctive relief. This is for the Municipal Code in general and in this ordinance where it states a fine of up to $300 is the mechanism by which the City would seek to collect this fine if an individual failed to pay. Councillor Kelley noted that violators can cut trees, go forward with a project and pay appropriately into the tree mitigation fund and that is all that is required under this proposal.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that there is no jail time associated with this ordinance. They have violated that law and are subject to the penalties provided. Councillor Kelley asked if the ordinance is passed could a later effective date be established because of the two-week notification period. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the affirmative; it is permissible. She explained that the default is that an ordinance is effective upon ordination unless there is language in the ordinance to the contrary.

Councillor Kelley asked how easy is it for the Commissioner of Public Works to change a regulation if it is not working. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that a regulation can be changed as he sees fit to meet the requirements of the ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa explained that some ordinances provide department heads with the authority to promulgate regulations and the department head confers with the City Manager and the Law Department and once approved they go into effect. Councillor Kelley asked if there is a requirement to re-advertise. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the negative.

Councillor Kelley commented that the City Council could set tree replace fund payments at various levels as long as the rules are appropriate. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the affirmative. Councillor Kelley asked about the Type 2 Emergency on the Public Works regulations regarding a requirement that a tree could not be closer than ten feet from the foundation of a house, is this a regulation where the authority is given to the Commissioner of Public Works to change. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this is a Type 1 Emergency circumstance. He spoke about the various situations that may arise. Councillor Kelley asked if the regulations could be changed within the scope of ordinance. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the ordinance as written provides for emergency, dead or dangerous trees to be removed.

Mayor McGovern asked about adjusting the fee and could the fee be doubled for those who are flipping a house but include an exemption for a senior on a fixed income. City Solicitor Glowa stated that you cannot fine someone based on who has money to pay the fine. She noted that frequently developers have purchased property and they are homeowners. You cannot have arbitrary and capricious regulations. Mayor McGovern asked how we can have a flexible fee structure and what would it look like. City Solicitor Glowa stated that one way would be to exempt a parcel under a certain size, for example, 3000-4000 square feet. She stated that another idea that could be considered is the first tree cut could have a lower mitigation fee but for each subsequent tree the fee could be higher. This needs to be justifiable and defensible as an approach. This needs to be considered reasonable.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there could be a lower fee for homeowners who qualify for the homeowners’ exemption. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she would like to investigate this more, but she believes so.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 6:52pm.

Susan Labandibar, 8 Brewer Street, stated that she has protected trees for ten years and is involved in tree advocacy in Cambridge. If you look at the trees that need to be protected they are not the small trees on property growing too close to the foundation. The trees die because of climate change and the trees that are being cut down on residential and commercial property are being cut down by developers. She added that there will not be a large percentage of small property owners who are cutting trees for ascetics. She stated that trees are being lost to development. She suggested the regulations that focus on developers and have fines increase per tree cut down.

Nancy Donahue, Director of Government Affairs, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, stated that the one-year moratorium on permits has raised concerns from Chamber members over the unintended consequences for small property owners because the amendment is short on specifics. She submitted here comments (ATTACHMENT H).

Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street, spoke about Certification of Certified Arborist Form. She stated that in the third line of # 1 there is a big difference between a high and an extreme risk if you are a certified arborist. She stated that at a hearing a Harvard University expert from Bartlett Tree and determined the tree in question, a 100-year old Red Oak, was at high risk of failure. The tree is 45” in diameter and the high risk of failure means that a large limb will break or fall within a 2-5-year period. She noted that any tree seventy years or older will be full of scars because a large limb breaks or gets damaged and has to be cut back periodically. She stated that this is natural and normal for all large trees. She stated that this ordinance is allowing any tree of high risk to be taken down. Any large tree can be removed by any owner for high risk which is nothing. She stated that the cities who have ordinances to protect large trees stated that any tree over X is an exceptional tree and may not be removed unless there is an imminent danger. She stated that this is appalling that the Public Works Department has not been informative about the high and extreme risk categories. She stated that the City Council is delaying this. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT I).

Sarah Diehl, 25 Wheeler Street, supported tree protection except for developers. She stated that special permits should have a moratorium until the City redefines what is allowed with a special permit. She stated that trees must be saved under the tree ordinance. She stated Somerville is voting on their comprehensive tree ordinance. She stated that Cambridge has fallen short on tree protection. She stated that she has just started to fight. She wanted developers not to go around the law with special permits. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT J).

Sylvia Parsons, 22 Hancock Street, stated that trees are not single organisms; they are a supporter of biodiversity of a larger ecosystem. She stated that this not just about tree protection but about the other life forms that trees support. She stated that the issue is time. She stated that the replacement value of a mature tree that is cut down is not simply the number of younger trees planted. It is measured in the decades that it will take those trees to be the equivalent of a tree that has been cut down. She spoke about the financial impact of tree regulations on lower income individuals. She stated that she supports sensitive measure to try to let the individuals who can most afford to pay the cost and who are responsible for most of the destruction of the tree to pay the cost. She noted that there is a cost that cannot be covered. She wanted to put a stay on the loss of the tree canopy while more comprehensive and nuanced measures are developed to preserve the canopy long term.

Trumbull Barrett, 11 King Street, stated that he is a Massachusetts Certified Arborist. He spoke about the trends to understand the canopy and looks forward to the trend of decline being reversed in the coming years under the guidance of the new Masterplan. He reviewed a Butternut and Oak tree near Harvard Square. He examined the Butternut tree and it seemed to be doing well and the client wanted to remove the two trees. He stated that Butternut trees are not common in Cambridge and two years prior the client was encouraged to preserve the tree to keep the biodiversity. In 2016 there was a storm and there was a drainage problem and the ground floor apartments flooded with sewerage. An expensive cleanup was done, and the pipe turned out to have been filled with roots. He stated that a plumbing company now comes four times a year to clean out the pipe at about $1,000 per visit. He spoke about the dangers of preserving the Butternut because of the strain on the building and the damage to the tree roots. He stated that the Oak tree was preserved. He spoke about the challenge of managing trees in an urban setting. He stated that asking an arborist to call a situation an emergency might be a perversion of the term.

Judy Johnson, 55 Antrim Street, cited a book entitled “Should Trees have Standing” by Christopher Stone. She stated that he is asking if trees have legal rights. He makes it sound like a tree is a living thing. She stated that her children, her dog and her tree belong to her and have no rights of their own; she owns them. She held up a book entitled The Hidden Life of Trees - more talk of trees like they are a living being. Like trees help us to survive, give us important things and that they should be protected because like children and animals they cannot speak for themselves. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT K).

Susan Donaldson, 187 Harvey Street, stated that she is a retired physician. She stated that trees are a public health good and as climate change and heat becomes more of a problem; trees are our big protector. Any tree cut down is a loss to the community, to its health, mental health, the wellbeing and the planet. She wanted to make it difficult to cut down trees.

Ellen Mass, 104A Inman Street, spoke about 8.66.040 for a specific development at 55 Wheeler Street that is a concern and overreaching in terms of its plan to eradicate about fifty full-grown mature trees. She also spoke about the tree study to be presented twenty-one days in advance of the Planning Board hearing which was not done accurately in this case. She stated that a second tree canopy study was done, and the fifty full grown mature trees did not have to be excavated to get to a garage that already existed. She wanted the exemption issue reviewed in this ordinance; to exempt special permit and large affordable housing projects. She wanted extra scrutiny added for developers that want to cut down trees, to protect 55 Wheeler Street. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT L).

Carolyn Shipley,15 Laurel Street, spoke about 8.66.055 (a) states that there must be a reason for removal, but it is not clearly defined what the reasons could be, and it needs to be clarified. She asked how many trees on private land will be cut down in one year versus trees on large sites which are exempt. She noted that the amendment is short on specifics. She spoke about the resources required to implement this should be spent on enhancing the tree canopy. She stated that in her opinion the City is not taking care of the public trees. She commented that no one waters newly planted trees. She stated that soil washes away from tree wells and the tree roots are exposed and are improperly mulched. There should be more enforcement, monitoring and watering trees. She stated that if an individual wants to take down a tree on private property, the ordinance requires the individual to replace the tree. She asked what if there are two or three other trees in the said backyard.

Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that she hopes the City Council can move this forward. Infill housing and affordable housing overlay will be at odds with preserving trees. She asked if mailing and e-mail notices are possible because City residents are signed up on all types of e-mail lists. She stated that regarding the fine, penalty and repayment what is required as a major disincentive should be adopted. She commented that being a senior does not mean you cannot afford the fine.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, expressed the support of the Cambridge Residents Alliance to the revised version of the ordinance to require a permit before removing a large health tree and to stop granting permits for one year until the recommendations of the Urban Forest Task Force are implemented. She is a homeowner with two significant trees. She would like the regulations to include an appeal process to cut a tree after the one year has passed that neighbors have a change to appeal. She stated that she hoped that the regulations created a process to immediately stop cutting down a tree without a permit. She wanted the City Council to work with staff to develop criteria for evaluating the outcomes of the revised ordinance with a timeline for the evaluation and suggest areas for improvement. She liked the fee structure for those who have a homeowners’ exemption but should still come under the ordinance. She supported a higher mitigation fee for those who cut down more trees. She suggested only issuing a permit for an extreme risk. She wanted the City Manager to communicate with all staff and potential developers the desire to limit the removal of trees and that the City’s expectation is that any replacements will at least equal the canopy of the trees that were removed. She noted that this is a dialogue. She wanted this communicated to the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeal with the request that proposed tree removals be discussed in detail at hearings. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT M).

Ann McAdam, 28 Union Street, spoke on behalf of the Committee on Public Planting and submitted an attachment (ATTACHMENT N). She applauded the amount of work done by Public Work on this amendment and the Forestry Department. She stated that all want to protect trees. She wanted the special projects to be exempted from the ordinance. She stated that the Committee on Public Planting believes it is crucial to act now to stem the accelerated loss of tree canopy in the City. She noted that the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force is working to broaden and strengthen the tree protection ordinance. She stated that while they finish their work increased tree protection is urged due to development and infill projects that cut land of all trees rather than designing or working around trees. She stated that the Public Planting Committee urged the Ordinance Committee to approve an interim ordinance.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that this needs to be clarified and language needs to be improved and made more explicit in the revised text. Everyone in the City deserves the same level of protection for the environment and the same rights; this is a fundamental equity and justice issue. There is an exemption for anything done with funding from the Affordable Housing Trust. Those who live in low-moderate income housing deserve more from the City Council on this matter. He asked what the alleged obstacles are to effectively move forward with affordable housing without protecting trees and if protecting trees in a certain way is going to unacceptably raise the cost of building affordable housing then this should be mitigated. He stated that there ought to be a compelling reason for an exemption for a developer doing affordable housing. He does not want trees cut down because it is cheaper to do this.

Steven Nutter, Executive Director, Green Cambridge, stated that this ordinance is not perfect nor is the method to make changes at the municipal level. He stated that if the City follows through with the Urban Forest Master Plan will allow Cambridge to set an example for other cities and towns. This is just as important for the environment as what is done in the City. He noted that this is a start. He stated that Green Cambridge will help with the notification an outreach about the change. Big old trees are part of our built environment, our heritage and should be protected. He stated that trees are public infrastructure that benefits all. He urged the committee to move this ordinance forward.

Charles Teague, 23 Edmonds Street, thanked staff for their work on the revised ordinance. He urged do not delay the effective date. He spoke about Cambridge police being empowered to stop cutting a tree if there were no permit on site. He stated that if the mitigation fees were applied to the tree companies who remove the trees they should pay the fines.

Karin Weller, 12 Humboldt Street, spoke about a tree being ten feet from house and if less can it be taken down. In Cambridge all live close to each other in most neighborhoods and should be allowed to have a tree within ten feet. She asked if there is any way to regulate the way the street trees are pruned by the utilities because they make a huge hole in the tree.

Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street, stated that trees cannot wait. While the City Council debates this she urged taking a pause or moratorium while debating this. She stated that during this discussion the trees have been hurt. She suggested defining what risk is and definition of significant tree risk. The root of the matter is that no one is educated about the value of trees. She stated that the City has an opportunity to use this as a public education moment.

On motion of Mayor McGovern public comment closed at 7:39pm.

Councillor Kelley asked the members of the Committee if they had comments or questions.

Councillor Mallon asked about the rights of the City to go onto public property to assess whether a tree was taken down and how big it was. She asked if a property owner does not allow City personnel on their property what is role of the Public Works Department. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this creates a challenge and stated that Public Works has a duty to investigate. He would approach the property owner to ask if they could go onto the property to confirm the size of the tree and if not allowed the City would contact the company that did the removal and see if they would provide the City with information about the tree. He explained that it would be based on the size of the tree whether the City could levy a fine. This becomes very challenging. Councillor Mallon asked how much work is this for the staff of Public Works.

Councillor Carlone commented about minor modifications and he asked if the staff would consider adding additional information to the proposed ordinance before the City Council meets again. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the process is that the committee would vote on proposed amendments to forward to the full City Council for consideration which will be in the Ordinance Committee Report and then it is up to City Council to decide whether to adopt the recommendation as an order. She stated that this not something that can be done without guidance from the City Council. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that it is the City’s expectation to meet and to look at testimony and consider any changes.

Councillor Zondervan proposed an amendment and an associated motion. He stated that the amendment would change the tree replacement fund. He moved to amend section 8.66.055 by adding after the word “8.66.070” the words “fund as per regulations to be promulgated by the Department of Public Works.” SUBSEQUENTLY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN WITHDREW HIS AMENDMENT. He stated that this would give the ability to adjust the replacement fund fee structure. He added that if more trees were removed then the mitigation cost would increase for additional trees.

Councillor Kelley asked if the authority can be given by regulation to set up a tree replacement fund schedule. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the ordinance authorizes the Commissioner of Public Works to promulgate regulations to accomplish any of the provisions of this chapter. This is interpreted to mean that if the intent is clear in what is being regulated in what way in the ordinance then finer details can be established by regulations. She stated that in this instance these suggestions are significant enough that they would need to be in the ordinance as opposed to giving broad discretion to the department. This needs to come from the City Council in the body of the ordinance.

Councillor Kelley stated that the City Council would have to set up a more detailed fee schedule in which Public Works could follow whatever the City Council sets for guidance. City Solicitor Glowa stated that setting the fee for the first tree removed based on the residential exemption and removing the fee for those who have financial assistance are things that should clearly be in the ordinance. She stated that if the ordinance established a reduction for individuals on financial assistance the details of how that reduced fee is applied is based on a City, State or Federal regulation can be inferred from the ordinance and Public Works can add to the regulations. She stated that the bones of what is being proposed needs to be in the ordinance.

Councillor Zondervan withdrew the amendment and kept the motion.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Commissioner of Public Works and the City Solicitor to promulgate a tree replacement fund payment schedule to include reductions for the first tree removed on a property based on the residential exemption and to eliminate the fee for property owners that receive an established forms of financial assistance and to have an escalating schedule based on the number of tree removed within one year. No action was taken on this motion.

Mayor McGovern spoke about those who qualify for City programs, and seniors on fixed incomes and that this does not mean that people are able to pay. He spoke about people who qualify for financial assistance but there are individuals who do not qualify for financial assistance, but this does not mean that they are wealthy. He wanted this to be considered when discussing a fee schedule. He noted that people want this moved forward and there is concern that if this takes longer that trees will be cut down. He wanted evidence that no more trees would be cut down with this ordinance on properties affected by this ordinance. He wanted to see the rate at which private individuals are cutting down trees. He stated that what is before the committee tonight is being asked to be moved out of committee, favorably or with no recommendation or to keep it in committee. He asked if the City Solicitor can answer the questions by Feb 25, 2019.

Councillor Kelley stated that the committee could figure out want it wants answered tonight and on Feb 25, 2019 amend what is on Unfinished Business and ordain this. Councillor Kelley suggested that the tree replacement fee be set differently for individuals who qualify for residential exemptions and those who do not. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she needs to check to confirm if this is a permissible basis. Councillor Kelley stated that there could be a small tree replacement fee for individuals that qualify for the exemption. He spoke about defining this as a homeowner residential exemption and non-residential exemption. He asked if there is a maximum for the tree replacement fee. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City does not have the authority to assess punitive fines against people. She stated that the basis for this fine has been determined by Public Works Department as the actual cost, based on their experience and the cost of purchasing, planting, maintaining, watering a tree and monitoring the tree to see if it will survive, which is based on real information. This has a reasonable basis. Councillor Kelley stated that if the fee structure cannot be separate he would make it lower for those who have a residential exemption and make it as high as possible for individuals who do not have a residential exemption. He wanted clarification on this by Feb 25, 2019.

Mayor McGovern asked what this fee is based on.

Councillor Zondervan stated that an idea could be to charge a percentage. He suggested 10% of the replacement value if there is a homeowner exemption of the full replacement value of the replacement.

Mayor McGovern stated that he can live with this.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is not worried about elderly cutting down trees. He understands wanting to thin out trees on property, but they could wait a year. He stated that he does not think that the replacement fee should be extremely reduced. He stated that $2,500 is reasonable. He stated that this feedback is reasonable and can be moved forward. If $5,000 is the replacement value, then it is reduced or increased if there are conditions deemed reasonable and legal. He stated that there is no reason this cannot be moved forward when the City Council gets the feedback from Public Works and the Law Department. He added to knock down a tree is expensive.

Councillor Mallon would be more comfortable with Councillor Zondervan’s percentage fee schedule. She is concerned with people who have a construction project and have gone through the approval process and moving this forward with a comfortable fee schedule. Councillor Mallon stated that there should be an exception around the overall health of the tree canopy and making a provision for individuals who need to thin out trees to make a healthier tree canopy.

Councillor Zondervan moved to amend the revised language in section 8.66.055 by adding after the word “section 8.66.070” the following “according to a schedule as follows: 10% of the replacement value for property owners who qualify for the residential exemption, no fee for property owners that receive established forms of financial assistance, and the full replacement cost in all other circumstances.”

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

Councillor Siddiqui was recorded as present.

Councillor Mallon moved to amend in section 8.66.055 by adding the words “or where a lot is of such density with existing trees that the removal of certain significant trees is considered beneficial to the health of the tree canopy.”

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the language in the regulations is the implementation of language that is in the ordinance amendment. She stated that she would recommend that there be a companion language that could be added to section 8.66.055 then there would be the more detailed regulations that the Public Works Commissioner would promulgate to carry out the intent of the language. It would be important to have this language in the ordinance.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the situation to remove trees will not come up often over density. He stated that trees regulate themselves as to how many can grow in a particular area.

Councillor Mallon stated that this is important; this is an urban environment with very different landscapes.

The question now came on the amendment - and on a voice vote of four the amendment - Carried. Councillor Zondervan was recorded in the negative and Councillor Siddiqui was recorded as present.

Councillor Kelley asked if there was any interest in discussing exceptional trees. There was no interest in discussing this currently.

Councillor Zondervan moved that this be forwarded to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. The motion carried on a voice vote of five members. Councillor Siddiqui was recorded as present.

The following communications were received and made part of the report:

Communication from Bjorn Poonen stated that it is urgent to have regulations in place while the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force completes its work (ATTACHMENT O).

Communication from Leslie Borden, 12 Saginaw Drive, noting that it is important to take serious action to protect the tree canopy (ATTACHMENT P).

Communication from Christina Leshock and Robert Beerman, 16 Newman Street, in support of a proposed amendment to the Tree Protection Ordinance to have a one-year moratorium on removal of trees (ATTACHMENT Q).

Communication from Susan Markowitz, 20 Oak Street, in support of an ordinance to prevent the removal of large healthy trees for one year (ATTACHMENT R).

Communication from Kathleen M. O’Connell, 17 Hillside Avenue, urging the City to focus on the dwindling number of health trees on the sidewalks and public spaces (ATTACHMENT S).

Communication from Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street, in support of a one-year moratorium on cutting down large trees (ATTACHMENT T).

Communication from Ted Hoff, 17 Hillside Avenue, urging the City to focus on first planting more trees on sidewalks and public lands (ATTACHMENT U).

Communication from Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, regarding the need for a provision to allow the removal of a tree to allow healthy trees to thrive (ATTACHMENT V).

Communication from Gile Beye, 18 Harrington Road, in support of an ordinance to prevent the removal of large, healthy trees for one year (ATTACHMENT W).

Communication from Renee Scott in favor of requiring a permit to remove a tree (ATTACHMENT X).

Communication from Alice Heller, 22 Corporal Burns Road, urging enforcement of the Tree Protection Ordinance (ATTACHMENT Y).

Communication from Abra Berkowitz, 632 Massachusetts Avenue, in support of the proposed amendment to section 8.66.055 of the Tree Protection Ordinance (ATTACHMENT Z).

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

The hearing adjourned at 8:17pm.

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

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Feb 5, 2019 at 1:05pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the petition filed by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinances in Article 5.000 as it relates to rainwater and flat roofs (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; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq; Director of Zoning and Development, CDD, Jeff Roberts; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

No one else appeared at the hearing.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He announced the format of the hearing. The petitioner would be heard first, City Staff and then public comment. He stated that Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, would assume the chair during the presentation as he is the petitioner.

At 1:07pm Councillor Carlone assumed the chair.

Councillor Kelley gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He explained that this is an amendment to the Zoning Code that would allow individuals to do certain things to flat roofs. He stated that the reason to worry about flat roofs now is because of climate change. He stated that much greenhouse gas emissions come from residential buildings. He stated that the Urban Land Institute, an environmental group, stated that new strategy for building envelopes and flood proofing will need to become common place when talking about the urban experience and the future. He stated that central drains on a flat roof can clog up when the roof is insulated because the heat from inside the house does not melt the snow and ice forms and if the water flows to the central drain and freezes the center drain never undrains. This is an incentive to not insulate a flat roof. He highlighted that the drain is in the middle of the roof which slopes to the drain and the drains goes down through the house and connects to the MWRA sewerage system. This system also picks up the water from toilets, showers and sinks. He spoke about the water that a single triple decker home will get as being fairly large in quantity but not contextually given the size of Cambridge. His stated that his goal is to reduce runoff. He stated that insulated flat roofs could result in snow and ice buildup; damaging flooding when water cannot go down the drain and structural challenges.

He stated that the flat roof amendment allows for extra FAR and or height relief for residential property owners to incentivize replacing the flat roof with something that is pitched and insulated, cut down on greenhouse emissions and reduce the amount of water sent to the MWRA. He noted that the incentive is the extra FAR and the ability to add height to a building. A special permit is required for the flat roof amendment. This is narrowly defined for just flat roofs that meet the requirements of poor insulation and central drainage. He stated that the flat roof and the Brown petition previously did not move forward, examples of both narrow and broad environmentally-oriented zoning. The goal is to incentivize greenhouse gas reducing insulation of residential flat roofs. One idea is to capture rain water. He stated that Cambridge has iconic triple-deckers and a concern of increasing size and height the area may be less attractive and have a negative impact. The visual impacts on neighbors and from the street will be minimal he stated. The proposal does have set backs. There is a minimal impact on the natural light and view to neighbors’ houses. The petition requests 20% over the existing FAR, the set backs are 3 feet for side and rear and 6 feet for the front with a maximum roof height gain of 10 feet. He spoke about creating value to incentivize this sort of work and how we do that in all sorts of different parts of the zoning code. He spoke about what the special permit and what the Board of Zoning Appeal can allow. He stated that this is good for environment and funds itself through the incentive through the FAR.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not think this proposal will go anywhere, which he accepts but is disappointed by. He is thinking about how this is the best way to do these things in the future because there are many challenges that the world is facing. He noted that the Planning Board had discussed the challenges of meeting many relatively small but cumulatively important zoning issues with a “Department of Small Things” effort.

Councillor Carlone asked if the City Council had any questions on the petition.

Mr. Roberts stated that this proposal the Planning Board and the City Council have reviewed over the years and there have been some modifications to the most recent version. He stated that the Planning Board held their hearing on Jan 22, 2019. He stated that, as in the past, the Planning Board concluded with a vote to not recommend adoption of the petition. He noted that the Planning Board expressed sympathy with the goal of the petition to enable the separation of stormwater from central storm drains and was supportive of the general notion that zoning incentives may be appropriate to achieve public policy goals related to sustainability. He stated that the Planning Board was concerned about singling out this very specific type of improvement and providing a significant incentive in increasing development capacity for this one type of project for a specific type of building when there may be other incentives or priorities that need to be weighed along with this because of how the nature of how zoning incentives work. He added that in order for it to be meaningful there has to be a balance between the restrictions and the allowances and priorities that need to be weighed at the same time. He stated that there were specific issues that were raised. He stated that there was concern about the impact of having these additional structures built on buildings in terms of the prevailing character of neighborhoods that had predominantly three-story flat roof buildings as well as some technical issues of whether a feasible project could be enabled under the zoning as proposed or other technical constraints in construction. He stated that this approach was a concern and if this was the best way to deal with the issue of central storm drains. He added that there could be other measures more limited in scale, such as adding a slight pitch to the roof and making plumbing modifications, that would have the same effect. He stated that there was concerns of whether Historical Commission input is needed. He spoke about the feasibility for properties with multiple owners, such as a condominium structure, and whether this approach would be effective for condominium owners to share in the benefit of the additional value from a zoning change. He stated that the City Council should be receiving the Planning Board report in the future.

Councillor Carlone asked if the City Council had any questions for Mr. Roberts.

Councillor Zondervan asked how many triple-deckers would be eligible for this type of zoning. Mr. Roberts responded that there is no specific answer to the question. There was one area in the City that was being looked at as part of the sewer storm water separation project by Public Works and there was a generalized number of those that fit the characteristics. It may be 1,000 buildings; a fraction of the residential buildings in the city of 11,000 residential buildings in City equaling under 10%. Councillor Zondervan asked if there were any thoughts to incorporate in a broader zoning strategy the issues of energy efficiency, stormwater capture and renewable energy in these residential structures. Mr. Roberts responded that the City has been working through the Net Zero Action Plan and the on-going Climate Change Resiliency Plan. He stated that these two planning processes have generated a number of different zoning initiative to revised the standard for sustainable building design for new larger developments, changes to facilitate improved insulation upgrades for existing buildings, incentives for better energy performance heading towards Net Zero development, the Climate Resiliency Task Force process as a way to discuss initiatives and standards that can be related to zoning which could range from larger development to smaller buildings.

Councillor Carlone stated that from a construction and architectural point of view the obvious easy thing to do is to add insulation that casts the water toward gutters into a dry well. He added that this is what is done on a commercial building when the roof is redone.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about question on how to deal with existing building stock, in particular these smaller residential buildings. He suggested a zoning effort that takes a broader look at this particular building stock. He stated that there are opportunities to streamline the zoning so that if an individual is trying to modify or rebuild some of the smaller structures that the City provide some incentive and accommodations for changes that are being made to make the building more sustainable. He added that this petition may be too narrow to move this forward, but a more comprehensive look may be warranted.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that an image showed rain barrels catching the water and is a low budget low-tech solution. She spoke about elaborate connections of downspouts from gutters that pours water onto the sidewalk and creates ice. She stated that where the water is going needs to be specific.

Councillor Carlone stated that what the Vice Mayor Devereux described is in violation of the City code. She asked if that there is a railing requirement and asked if there was a structure on the roof would there be a requirement to have a railing to prevent someone from falling off the roof. She stated that if the new structure were setback there may be a fence around the top of the roof. She asked about pitched solar panels on a flat roof and asked if this would help keep the snow from piling up because it would fall on the panel. Councillor Zondervan stated that the roof still needs to be pitched to get the flow off. Vice Mayor Devereux agreed with the Planning Board recommendation. She stated that this is something that the Climate Resiliency Task Force includes in the ways that homeowners could make their homes more resilient, but it may not be within their immediate scope of work.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about significant value for one group. She asked how up-zoning is being defined; this is still vague. She spoke the difficulty about implementing this for condominium associations and asked how many would actually use this. She stated that to implement this, permission will be needed from the condominium association. She asked if the Planning Board has defined the value as the Council had recently discussed for up zoning in general. Mr. Roberts spoke about the question of increasing value. He stated that this proposal has not been studied for value and could vary significantly dependent upon the circumstances of the specific case. Increasing living space could increase value. The condo value is unknown now but would get the information and make an estimate based on Assessors’ records. He stated that this is a matter of evaluating the outcomes for their public benefit rather than what is the value created for the property.

Councillor Kelley asked how many people have used the insulation rezoning. Mr. Roberts it has not been many. He stated that Community Development has been looking at additional modification to the zoning to enable more properties to be able to use it; there are many non-conforming buildings that cannot use the provisions. This does not require a special permit for zoning and a more in-depth analysis could be done and to get this information. This zoning will be discussed in the future.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the City Council were to ordain this petition would it require a special permit from the Board of Zoning Appeal. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 1:45pm. No one appeared and public comment was closed.

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing for City Council to discuss the merits of the petition.

Councillor Kelley stated that we need to think about this and used the insulation zoning as an example of zoning not doing what it was to do. He stated that accessory dwelling unit zoning is not doing what it was intended to do either. He hopes that the issue of effective zoning for climate change and resilience is revisited or rethought about how this can be done. He stated that he is now using this petition as a thought instrument in how to have more useful discussions about adaptive planning and zoning in the future. He thanked all for their attention to this, but he is disappointed it will not be enacted.

Councillor Carlone stated that this was a good Planning Board discussion. He spoke about heat loss and water loss and it is basic construction to add an insulated roof that is pitched to drain the water into dry wells. The fourth-floor attic the roof is pitched because the walls can bear the weight. The issue does hit at the heart but there are other ways to deal without additional FAR or do a pitched roof to match the design with those buildings around it.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he made modification to his house without zoning changes. There are things that can be done without looking at zoning; but there are circumstances where it is challenging with insulation and non-conforming houses. There is room to consider a collection of ideas that could address the smaller buildings that make up the majority of the housing stock. There is room for a broader effort that looks at the overall question of how the City does deal with existing buildings particularly the residential buildings and what changes are need in zoning that facilitates sustainability upgrades.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that a simple solution exists. She stated that a majority of triple-deckers are already condos and it will be hard for condo to decide on how to do this because one of the three owners with the additional FAR a greater share of the association and this upsets the balance. She stated that when developers or contracts apply for a building permit could be encouraged by Inspectional Services Department to get rid of the center drain. She stated that this would be a simple solution.

Councillor Siddiqui compared this to other petitions. She stated that this petition has been pushed by one or two individuals and when she analyzes this differently than the accessory dwelling which has a broader impact. She stated that when considering future petitions the numbers need to be considered.

Councillor Kelley stated that at 35 feet the roof will have to be pitched and it cannot be done currently in zoning given height limitations. He commented on the Planning Board concerns was about preserving the iconic nature of neighborhoods. If there are few individuals who will do this sort of project, it would not have a huge impact. This is a good way to discuss how zoning will identify what environmental issues it can handle.

Councillor Zondervan clarification of pitched roof; it is not pitched it is sloped. Councillor Carlone stated that he was targeting the image in Councillor Kelley’s petition. He spoke about standard roof construction. Mr. Roberts stated that a structure with 35 foot height limit and if taller than 35 feet is a non-conforming structure. This is not addressed in the insulation provision which deals with walls and setback. This has not been raised as an issue that needs to be addressed. Councillor Zondervan stated that this could be modified, and zoning should be adjusted so that they are not non-conforming.

Vice Mayor Devereux this should be formalized in zoning about setbacks and adding insulation on walls and can be used to make minor changes to the roof. This should be allowed if improving insulation.

Councillor Carlone suggested that the petition be referred to the full City Council with an unfavorable recommendation. Councillor Kelley stated that he would like the petition to remain in committee and to expire. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that letting the petition expires it can come before the City Council again. Councillor Mallon noted that this petition has expired twice. It should be forwarded to the full City Council with an unfavorable recommendation. She spoke about the staff time spent on this.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he did not want to discuss this specific idea again and again. Councillor Kelley clarified that the second time the petition was before the City Council, it was due to the Planning Board’s not have a quorum for their hearing and the petition expired. Thus, it had to be reintroduced so the Planning Board would review it rather than this being a third bite at the apple as the petition had been described.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved that the petition be referred to the full City Council with an unfavorable recommendation. The motion carried on a voice vote of five members with Councillor Kelley recorded in the negative.

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

The hearing adjourned at 2:07pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Feb 5, 2019 at 3:02pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the petition filed by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinances in Section 4.22 to allow for a special permit for the alteration of a single, two-family or accessor structure in existence as of January 2019 to provide one accessory apartment if the appropriate conditions are met (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; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq; Director of Zoning and Development, CDD, Jeff Roberts; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present was Patrick Barrett, 41 Pleasant Street; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; and Robert Winters, 366 Broadway.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing a recommendation may be made as to the status of the petition.

Councillor Kelley presented the petition and stated that the following documents were distributed: Community Development Department memo dated Jan 14, 2019 (ATTACHMENT B); Existing accessory dwelling unit (ADU) language (ATTACHMENT C). He stated that based on the Planning Board hearing he submitted an ADU amendment by substitution which meets the Planning Board’s goals of the original amendment (ATTACHMENT D).

Councillor Kelley moved to amend the petition by substitution and the question now came on the amendment by substitution and it was unanimously approved.

Councillor Carlone stated that the amendment by substitution was before the City Council and was being discussed.

Councillor Kelley now gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT E). He explained a situation where a couple reaching retirement wanted to turn their basement into a source of income with modifications that met the Building and Sanitary Codes, but it did not meet the Zoning Ordinances. The couple needed a variance, slowed the project and had a cost of aggravation and money. This kind of problem could be avoided with modifications to ADU. He stated that the basic ADU language already exists which was modified, but it does not work perfectly. He noted that the City Council wants individuals to have ADUs from a policy perspective. The existing provision does not fully work as well as it could concerning issues of parking, lot size and FAR. The petition proposes to use existing enclosed structures as accessory units and unmodified freestanding structures such as garages for accessory units and to eliminate parking requirements and lot size requirement as they impact ADU. He stated that ADUs would raise the value of property. He explained that this would not allow new, detached structures to be built and then used as ADU; this was not the intent of the proposal and existing language should be changed and clarified. He stated that it could be used for non-single- and two-family home. The Board of Zoning Appeal would issue the required Special Permit.

Councillor Carlone asked the Council if they had any clarifying questions of content. Vice Mayor Devereux asked why it would be allowed to use a pre-standing structure as an additional unit for house that are more than two family or single-family structures. She noted that three family structures have asked why they cannot create an ADU in their building. Councillor Kelley stated that it has to do with the way that one- and two-family homes are Building Code classified versus three family homes and above.

Mr. Barrett stated that the even a two-family is problematic because in the eyes of the Building Code once you add an extra unit there are different code and sprinkler requirements. He stated that with a six-family home with a garage in the back can be done is because the separate structure isolates itself from the rest of the building. This is a value proposition and the Building Code could look at this as adding a seventh unit onto the parcel. He stated that for a single standing structure an ADU is not allowed. Mr. Barrett stated that there is a size regulation as it relates to a pre-existing structure.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if any size building could add an additional separate unit. Mr. Barrett stated that there are regulations limiting the size of the structure that can be built within a pre-existing structure. He stated that if the date is put into place for the pre-existing structures this discourages negative behavior. He noted that mechanicals and parking are not counted as GFA or FAR, but they are counted when the space is filled up where humans can live. Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the owner-occupancy issue. Mr. Barrett stated that this was in the original petition but was stricken from the substituted petition because of title issues. He spoke about a six-family that has an ADU in the basement and the property is sold and the owner does not want to live in the property the ADU may need to be ripped out. He noted that this is hard to track. Councillor Kelley stated that this is an issue brought up by the Planning Board. There was a discussion at Planning Board about modifications and what does “significant modification” mean and because of this it was eliminated.

Councillor Mallon wanted to understand all the changes. She noted the addition of a new definition to accessory apartment and adding the words “in existence as of Feb 1, 2019”. Then under 4.22.1 removing #1, #3, and # 5 and under 4.22.2, #2, #3 and # 4 are being added. She requested that changes be identified in the future. Councillor Carlone concurred and stated that this will be requested in the future and because of this it warrants another hearing for clarity.

Councillor Zondervan noted that there is an additional section for 4.22.12. He stated that he did not understand 4.22.2 (2) and asked what the lot per dwelling unit calculation means. Councillor Kelley responded that within a Residence B zone a certain size of lot is needed for the residential unit. The petition eliminates this so that the lot per dwelling unit does not count and not need a variance for the lot size for an ADU.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about any ADU created in the last year no longer having to be owner-occupied. Councillor Kelley stated that he did not think so.

Councillor Carlone asked what connotes owner-occupied and at what point can it be sold to a non-owner-occupied. Mr. Barrett stated that this is the problem. With the original language, based on the state guidelines this was a good provision so that individuals were not gaming the system. He stated that someone who is building a unit inside an existing dwelling unit is maximizing profit the same way someone who knocks down a house then builds on one section of the lot and the other. He stated that by removing this provision it allows for the title not to be clouded at the sale. Mr. Barrett stated that if he had a single-family house and put in an accessory dwelling unit then it could sold as non-owner occupant and not have to worry about the title.

Councillor Carlone stated that it is confusing going back and forth between the original and substituted version of the petition. He stated that if short-term rentals were allowed it would make economic sense to do this for a short-term rental as opposed to adding to the city apartment count. Councillor Kelley stated that he had no idea. He stated that therefore he amended the petition by substitution because the substitution is to be looked at on its own. He added that if someone wants to use this space for a short-term rental assuming all other short-term requirements are met, this could be used as an ADU.

Councillor Carlone stated that an ADU in an old garage, if for a single car, is approximately 320 feet; double garage is approximately 600 feet, and this connotes a studio or a one-bedroom unit. He believed that this is in the spirit of what is being proposed.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about the intent of this petition and when talking about short-term rentals as a matter of public policy the ADU should not be used for short-term rentals. She noted that the legislative history indicates that these spaces would be turned into ADU for families, elderly, disabled and other deserving Cambridge residents and property owners with the flexibility of creating income generating apartments, assisted living units, child care providers, college students or older parents. She would not support ADU being used as short-term rentals as a matter of public policy.

Councillor Carlone asked City staff to come forward. Ms. Farooq and Mr. Roberts appeared. Mr. Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, CDD, stated that the Planning Board held a hearing on the petition on Jan 22, 2019. He provided a brief report dated Jan 14, 2019 based on the original petition, which now due to the substituted version is no longer relevant (SEE ATTACHMENT B). The intention of the petition is to revise the accessory apartment provision in the current ordinance as it was previously amended in 2015. He spoke about what an ADU actually means and the way they are treated in other communities. He stated that an ADU by definition are a subordinate part of another existing use on the lot. An ADU only exists because of its relationship with another unit or another principal dwelling structure on a lot. The Planning Board recommendation is pending. He stated that the Planning Board did vote to support adoption of the petition and noted that there are a number of concerns about the drafting and other specific issues with the petition that have not been fully sorted out. He explained that the Planning Board was not comfortable with the language of the petition as written and suggested that the petition should be referred to staff for language, its practical implications and how it would be implemented by Inspectional Services Department and the Board of Zoning Appeal.

He stated that the Planning Board did discuss the topic of short-term rentals and it was noted that there is a separate section of the ordinance that regulates short-term rentals Section 4.60, which would need to be reviewed. He stated that there were questions about the criteria in the original petition as filed. The petition removes some of the limitations that exist in the current zoning having to do with the minimum lot size for a lot with an accessory apartment and the lot area limitations were some of the key impediments because there are many lots that are smaller than the minimum size. He stated that putting a new accessory apartment is an equivalent to adding a new dwelling unit on the lot and could run into the zoning controls that are in place that limits the number of dwelling units that can be put on a lot. He commented that some of the intent of this petition is to override the limitation in a case where accessory apartments are being created.

Mr. Roberts continued that there were questions about a provision in the current zoning about limiting to buildings that have not been substantially enlarged since they were built, and the substantial enlargement was determined to be an increase of up to 250 square feet. He stated that the conclusion of the Planning Board was that the degree to which a building has been enlarged might be a consideration when a case comes for Special Permit review. However, if the building remains within the FAR limitation of the district the Planning Board did not feel that this limitation of increasing in size was something that was really relevant and did not need to have this strict limit of 250 square feet. This was based on the overall dimensional controls, which would apply and would have to be within the district FAR or within the existing building if it was a non-conforming building then it could maintain the existing non-conforming square footage.

Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board discussed the ownership issue, which is in the current zoning. Before 2015 there was no requirement for owner-occupancy and it was added in 2015. An issue about the difficulty with enforcement or application of the time and has been removed from this version. He stated that there were provisions in zoning related to basement apartment that handles concerns related to flood risk. This is in cases where new dwelling units are created in basement levels and the Planning Board recommended including similar provisions which would include having to get a report from Public Works where below grade accessory apartments were created.

Councillor Zondervan asked about basement flooding solution. Mr. Roberts stated that in Article 20 of the zoning, the Basement Housing Overlay District, which came into place before the most recent accessory apartment amendments, is different and similar in some ways as it has a list of criteria that would apply related to utility connections being upgraded and other specific requirements that would be applied in order to mitigate potential flood risk.

Mr. Roberts stated that another piece of this zoning would require a report on the historical incidents of surface flooding in that area. The Planning Board reviews Special Permit applications for basement accessory apartments; this petition required BZA to review the Special Permits, but the Planning Board suggested that there might be language so that there is guidance from Public Works about whether flooding may be a potential flood risk.

Councillor Zondervan asked if these provisions could be required by reference. Mr. Robert stated that for clarity they would be incorporated directly into the zoning rather than referring to another separate overlay district of another section of zoning ordinance. The applicable language can be provided to the Ordinance Committee to consider and could be attached to the Planning Board recommendations. Councillor Zondervan noted that the existing overlay would not automatically apply. Mr. Roberts responded in the negative. He stated that the basement overlay district is similar in its nature but a totally separate part of zoning ordinance that only applies to specific types of buildings in specific districts in the City and the units that would be created under the basement housing overlay district would not be considered accessory units. He explained that the basement overlay district would allow the creation of additional units in buildings that already have many units in them. This is different from the proposed petition because this concerns only a single to two-family or existing separate structure and adds an accessory unit to a smaller property. Councillor Zondervan asked if there were any concerns about non-basement flooding and how is this accounted for.

Councillor Carlone stated that converting garages into living space requires a raised finished floor. The Building Code addresses this issue. Mr. Roberts stated that there is no other provision in the zoning that addresses this. He stated that the current zoning ordinance disallows any accessory structure to be converted into a dwelling unit.

Councillor Carlone noted that in some instances garages are in such terrible shape that there could be a proposal, subject to a Special Permit, to rebuild the garage. Mr. Roberts commented that this is a complicated issue. He stated that Inspectional Services Department deals with this.

Ms. Farooq stated that the provision in the basement apartment overlay relate to both separation of storm water and sanitary sewer lines as they connect to the street from the parcel and providing back flow prevention. This could be incorporated for garage and other existing structures; it would be a more expensive project doing the conversion but is a good thing.

Councillor Mallon stated that since the original ordinance was put into place in 2015 there has been five permitted ADUs. She noted that ADUs were allowed in Residence A-1 and Residence A-2 since 1981. She asked if the five ADU were outside of the residential areas or spread across the City. Mr. Roberts stated that he would guess that the most recent cases were not in the Residence A-l and Residence A-2 districts since these districts are limited in the City.

Councillor Mallon stated that she wanted to know where these five units were located. She asked how will updated zoning mitigate this requirement for ADU. Mr. Roberts said it would not; there is no change in how the Building Code treats this type of structures.

Councillor Mallon asked about using ADUs for short-term rentals and if the City Council did not want short-term rentals to be ADUs would the zoning have to be amended. Mr. Roberts stated that this would be the effective approach to do this. Councillor Mallon asked if the proposed zoning would allow detached accessory apartment structures and if so, would staff express this though zoning. Mr. Roberts stated that the intent was to allow separate ADU only in existing accessory structures and not to allow the construction of new detached accessory apartments. He stated that the original zoning petition did not make this explicit and now there is new language in this version, which the staff needs to review to ensure clarity.

Councillor Mallon stated that the Community Development memo from 2015 points out that this could provide additional affordable units. She read some Massachusetts communities have considered promoting accessory apartments as an alternative to creating multi-family housing to meet affordable housing thresholds. She spoke about this being one of the affordable housing strategies. Can this be done within zoning.

Mr. Roberts stated that it depends on the strategy. He stated that the formal affordable housing programs of the City, which are represented in Inclusionary Housing, the zoning ordinance and other programs provide support specifically for housing units that are reserved for income eligible households. If there were an approach such as this to utilize accessory apartments it would need to be studied more closely to see if this would be feasible and the financial implications as it has been studied for Inclusionary Housing and other programs that have been codified. He spoke about opportunities within the general housing market for the creation of dwelling units that are smaller and in locations that are more affordable by nature or more suitable to a segment of the population of students, young families, the elderly or disabled and to meet these needs may be better served by accessory units than other types of housing. Ms. Farooq stated that it would be helpful for staff to understand if the City Council is interested in exploring a path that looks at deed restrictions for all other affordable housing stock and staff would have to consult with the City Solicitor on this. Councillor Carlone stated that the City Council needs this information.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that in 2015 the CDD memo discussed four issues to allow economic opportunity for home owners who needed space and do not wish to move, provide housing for single individuals, young workers and to create opportunities for affordable units. There should be a discussion about the merits.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she is not comfortable with removing the requirement for owner occupancy, and as it relates to the short-term rentals. She stated that she did not want to create ADUs to become short-term rentals. She noted people were more comfortable creating ADUs to help an owner-occupied homeowner with a particular need, but not to become a short-term rental host. She asked about a detached garage and would there be a requirement to use the same foundation and how low or small can you go to get what you need.

Councillor Zondervan stated that a way to do this for affordable housing would be to restrict ADU to vouchers for a period of time and questioned if this would be legal and requested that this be included in the analysis. Mr. Roberts stated that this would need to be referred to the Law Department.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 4:06pm.

Patrick Barrett, 41 Pleasant Street, stated that he, along with others, wrote the original accessory units petition and that he heard comments about affordability and short-term rentals. He spoke about how a title carries from property to property. He commented that the Cambridge ordinance passed a few years ago has been praised. He stated that unless there is an incentive from the City there would be no affordable ADUs with a deed restriction. He explained that a single or a two-family house with a deed restriction would cloud the title across the transfer. He stated that limiting short-term rental in an ADU is a use restriction. Adding ADU structures was hard to categorize. The Building Code dictates what is allowed. He stated that building a unit in a garage is super complicated and the plumbing makes it cost prohibitive. The original intent of this petition was to create 1000 + units of potential housing without building anything. He stated that he has issues with short-term rentals. He stated that when you are looking to building this type of housing, the more restriction to build this type of housing the less will be built. He stated that programs could be created with mitigation funds. He spoke about a construction cost chart to build these ADU units. He stated that this is expensive to build with the cheapest being $120,000. He stated that size a human can occupy legally is as little as 120 square feet and that the garages can be done. He stated that with the Building Code if you want to raise a building it is expensive. He stated that he hopes that this amendment passes.

Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street, applauded Councillor Kelley for the amendments. She noted that no additional construction is contemplated. She spoke about garage conversion should be a concern based on the recent renovation of 120 Magazine Street. No additional construction needs to be clarified and there may need to be additional language as to what extent existing structures may be used. She stated that the owner occupancy requirement needs to be dropped because it is a title defect. If a lender needs to foreclose the lender is not an owner occupant and it would reduce the pool of buyers that the lender would have available when the lender went to sell the foreclosed unit. She noted that this is very different from the short-term rental requirement because this is a temporary situation that can be cured immediately whereas owner occupancy requirement in zoning would create a blemish on the title if the owner occupant was not living in the unit.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, supported the clarification of this pertaining to existing structures. She stated that she finds the existing language on ADU confusing. She stated that regarding owner occupancy she suggested that perhaps the City does want this to be the owner occupant that does do the conversion and then not require that this be part of the title for the next owner. She stated that this might be a good idea because if you remove the requirement altogether then the value of the land is being raised. She added that if the person doing the redevelopment is required to be the owner occupant the product will be very different than if you remove the requirement altogether and let the owner occupant sell the property with the value increased because it has the potential for an ADU. She noted that every unit is worth more than shared living space and this means that the developer that purchases the property and redevelops from a one family to a one family with an ADU is the person that gets the economic benefit. She asked about the possibility of a four-garage property being torn down and turned into a large ADU; is this what is wanted. She stated that it would be better to have the language restrict the ADU to 1-2 family structures. Enforcement of her proposed owner occupancy suggestion would only be done at the building permit stage. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT F).

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 4:20pm.

At this time Councillor Carlone opened the hearing for City Council discussion.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the discussion starting off with building an ADU per laws that have already passed, and the problem was highlighted, and it seemed simple to solve. The language being discussed is what was previously passed. He wanted to eliminate the parking and GFA requirements to allow for ADUs without variances and the discussion has morphed into something to change the ADU into something that is based on affordability challenges and how a parking structure can be changed and the size of the unit. He stated that he is not married to the accessory structure proposal and it can be taken out. He stated that using ADU for affordable housing and what he has heard from other communities is there is a direct subsidy from the municipality to the person who develops their own ADU rather than conditioned on granting a permit. This was simply to allow people to do what they wanted to do without going to BZA and get a variance for the parking and the size of the lot.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that if only five ADUs were created she wanted a summary of where they are located and how it worked as well as the one explained by Councillor Kelley that tried and failed. She stated that if the intent is to make the original law more feasible for more people to build more units without building towers that would help her to understand it better. She liked it being an owner-occupant that gets permission, renovate and not necessarily have to remain owner-occupied. She noted that there is a way for a developer to accomplish this. This eliminate the cloud on the title concern.

Councillor Kelley explained that his friends got a variance and delayed the project. He stated that the challenge is abusing the variance process. If we want ADUs then the law should be changed to make it easier to have them. The BZA is not the place to have the discussion on GFA.

Councillor Zondervan spoke on the two fixes originally intended by this petition to remove the parking restriction and lot size calculations. He is in favor of moving these forward but likes the discussion to further improve the ordinance to lead to the creation of more affordable housing. He asked if the garages are behind a property is the City Council against these being ADU. Do we object to demolishing the old garages and building ADU? Councillor Carlone stated that this might need to be part of the next petition.

Councillor Mallon asked if there is an appetite for ADU. Councillor Carlone noted that there is some interest. Councillor Mallon stated that if there is no appetite to create affordable housing she would be supportive of using an incentive to build ADU for homeless and for three years to house the homeless. This was a way for 1,000 units without building anew and only five have been built.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that this needs to be discussed separately in context with housing. She asked about implications of ADU and affordable housing. Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board recommendation suggested intent of changes and staff would clarify the language to make it successful in its implementation.

Ms. Farooq stated that it would be very helpful and more efficient to have additional discussion on the issues so that staff is making changes in one consolidated effort rather than in multiple times. She added that the questions for City Solicitor need to be clearly articulated.

Councillor Carlone stated that each Council member has requested certain things.

Councillor Siddiqui requested a legal opinion on incentivizing and creating affordable housing specifically allowing section 8 and any other forms of public assistance relative to affordable ADU.

Councillor Zondervan questioned allowing multiple garages replaced with ADUs under some affordable housing incentive, which includes the total square footage of the four existing garages.

Vice Mayor Devereux requested information on the five existing ADU units regarding their location and how they worked.

Councillor Mallon wanted information on the location of where the five ADU were permitted.

Councillor Kelley stated that if the zoning does not allow this one would not apply for it. He stated that the fact that if the City does not have applications for ADUs, it does not reflect any lack of desire but reflects that an imperfect zoning was earlier passed. He stated that this proposal was to clean up some of the zoning and since then it has become a discussion on all things ADU and he fears that the original intention of the petition will be forgotten which was to change some of the dimensional requirements.

Councillor Carlone stated that there is general support for the overall effort, but it is being used to learn more about the issues that may lead to other improvements.

Councillor Kelley stated that he would defend the petition on the GFA, parking, the lot ratio and the accessory structure but this has morphed into place where he is stumbling. Councillor Carlone stated that this raises other issues and it is now in CDD, Planning Board and the City Council hands and this will hopefully lead to good results.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about giving direction to the staff and stated that she wanted to know how the ordinance can be amended relating to the question of short-term rentals being used as ADUs and the requirement for review regarding potential flooding and using the basement housing overlay and reflecting that knowledge in this proposal. She stated that there is general consensus but if Councillor Kelley’s intention to remove the lot ratio and the parking are relatively easy and he also introduced new elements to allow ADU in detached structures, removing the owner occupancy requirement. She stated that the original petition increased the maximum size from 900 to 1,000. She commented that this did more than just remove the two obstacles.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he wanted an opinion on the suggestion made by Lee Farris to require owner occupancy at the initiation of project but not when the project is complete so that the property could be sold.

Councillor Kelley stated that this discussion would be easier when the Planning Board recommendation is received. He stated that they did not care about the home ownership or the modifications; these were brought up by the Planning Board.

Councillor Carlone asked if the second hearing of the Planning Board has been scheduled. Mr. Roberts responded that the Planning Board concluded their hearing, voted their recommendation but it has not transmitted to the City Council.

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

Councillor Carlone moved to leave the subject matter in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

The hearing adjourned at 4:46pm.

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

Committee Report #4
The Civic Unity Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber to receive an update from the City on its efforts toward establishing Pay Equity, and to receive an update on the City’s efforts around Diversity Training throughout the City’s workforce.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Simmons, Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Toomey; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Sheila Keady-Rawson, Personnel Director; Betsy Allen, Director of Equity and Inclusion; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Michelle Farnum, Assistant Director of Children, Youth and Families, Department of Human Service Programs; Christine Elow, Superintendent, Cambridge Police Department; Taha Jennings, Acting Budget Director; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Neal Alpert; Wil Durbin, Chief of Staff, Mayor’s Office; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Councillor Simmons convened the hearing and read from prepared opening remarks (ATTACHMENT A).

Lisa Peterson said that this topic is very important. She said that there is a larger umbrella in which the diversity training and program falls. She noted that if there are elements that are not covered in the meeting, City administration is happy to get that information to the committee. She explained that Sheila Keady Rawson will cover pay equity and Betsy Allen will give an update on training. Ms. Peterson noted that Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) training was recently completed for all city employees. She said that Mr. Jennings will give more detail on this training. She noted that Ms. Semonoff and Ms. Farnum will talk about the variety of trainings that DHSP conducts. She explained that moving forward, the City Manager and leadership are in the process of setting leadership expectations for all city departments. She advised that there will be four general categories included in these expectations:

• All City employees have a responsibility to create environments that support Equity and Inclusion for all employees and residents;

• In order to build Equity and Inclusion we need to understand the historic factors that created inequity and exclusion and educate ourselves about people who are different from us;

• Equity and Inclusion are fostered in the context of meaningful and authentic relationships; and

• Creating Equity and Inclusion requires organizations and individuals to continually learn, stretch, and build skills.

Ms. Peterson noted that there are trainings that are necessary to support this work and said that the City is in the process of hiring a Training Manager for Training and Staff Development. Ms. Peterson introduced Sheila Keady Rawson.

Ms. Keady Rawson said that on July 1, 2018, the Mass Pay Equity Law was expanded. She explained that the new law put some parameters in place, such as the fact that an applicant can no longer be asked, either on a job application or during the interview process, what their salary history is. She said that another major piece of the law that impacted the City is the encouragement to perform a self-evaluation of wage structures to address any gender inequities in pay. She stated the Pay Equity/Diversity dashboards on the City’s website had been developed as a tool to begin looking at the City’s pay structure. There is a desire and commitment to do self-evaluation, taking 2018 actual pay data to look at multiple components of pay. They are advised to look at benefits offered to ensure that they are not different between genders. She said the City is actively beginning to search out a third party to conduct a deep-dive into the pay equity structure evaluation.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there is enforcement of the state law or if there is something that would trigger enforcement. Ms. Keady Rawson responded that an employee can bring a claim of disparate wage to the Attorney General’s Office. She explained that part of the idea of a self-evaluation and self-audit is that an organization is paying attention to the pay structures. She said that it is an ongoing process. She said that when the Equity and Inclusion dashboards were put together, information from past years was included so one can see a comparison. She said that the big picture is a good one, but when drilling down, there are areas that need to be addressed.

Councillor Zondervan said that his understanding is that there is a limitation as to how soon one can bring a claim. He asked if it was three years. Ms. Keady Rawson answered in the affirmative. Councillor Zondervan said that oftentimes people do not know what their colleagues are being paid, and in this scenario he wanted to know how people would actually know that they might be paid less than what they should be. Ms. Keady Rawson said that the City’s Open Data Portal and the Cambridge Chronicle publishes all City salaries each year. She added that salaries are also published in the budget notebook. She explained that it is much more of an issue in the private sector as the City side is very public.

Councillor Zondervan said that it is difficult to know if your pay package is equitable compared to someone else as a person may not know who is comparable to you in other departments. He asked how that information is made available to people. Ms. Keady Rawson said the benefits package is relatively standard because people pay the same amount for health care costs, vacation accrual, etc. and therefore there are not a lot of ways in which there are differences.

Councillor Mallon said that last year’s Cambridge Chronicle asked where the Cambridge women were on the list. She said that she is curious about whether the City has done an expensive cross-department look. She said that she is aware that it is not always an easy task but there are apple to apple comparisons that can be made across City departments. She asked how the City can make that happen as the list is very depressing.

Councillor Simmons explained that in the early iterations of creating the dashboard with Victoria Budson from the Kennedy School of Government, you could look at that information. She said that the School Department had more women employees than the City side. She said that women more often go into teaching at higher numbers than men. She noted that when looking at women in leadership positions in the schools versus the City, and then you control for race, the City did not do as well as the School Department. She said that the dashboard has two functions, it is both forward facing and outward facing, in that people looking at it from within the City could see more information than someone accessing the Dashboard from outside the City, or at least it was initially set up this way. She said that they found difficulties around how the City versus the School Department classify equal employment opportunities. For example, she said that an Executive Assistant position on the School Department side is not necessarily the same kind of job, with the same title, on the City side. She said that they also desegregated by City departments and some departments were very good around hiring and advancement of women.

Councillor Mallon then asked if it is incumbent on the employee or department heads to do the work of determining where the gaps are, and of making it easier for employees to determine if similar positions are, indeed, being paid comparable wages. She asked how much of the pay equity comparison falls to the employees themselves to do the work and make that determination, when perhaps they have not been given the tools. She asked what kind of work is being done by the employees versus by the department heads.

Ms. Peterson said that the City does need to conduct a larger-scale self-evaluation. She explained that the plan is to have an independent entity to help do that work. She said that the City does want individuals to be empowered to advocate for themselves and department heads as well. She said that they are all important pieces.

Ms. Keady Rawson said that part of the intent and desire in terms of a wage equity study is to change the pay structure, so employees don’t have to self-advocate.

Councillor Simmons said that there had been a couple of forums and trainings which were very good. She said that the trainings were beneficial. She said that women often will not advocate for themselves the way that a male counterpart may. She said that we must teach managers as well. She said that one idea is to show managers how to develop career paths for their employees, particularly women. She is hoping to see this work happen.

Councillor Siddiqui said that a few City Councillors did have a discussion with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) and what it could look like if they were brought into the City to conduct workshops. She said that she supports this idea. Councillor Simmons noted that one hope is an individual development plan for employees with the goal of determining how that employee can get to where he/she would like to land professionally.

As it relates to the Dashboard and the top 300 earners, Vice Mayor Devereux asked how it looks when you sort out women who are eligible for overtime, inclusive of the Police and Fire Departments.

Councillor Simmons noted that there is great disparity between union and non-union positions. She said that less obvious is women who take more time off who were held back. She noted that this played into the numbers. She said that it was found that women had less retirement benefits because they didn’t have as many accrued hours.

Councillor Mallon said that it is important to push for more women to enter the public safety field as less than 10% of the Police Department employees are female. She noted that the Fire Department numbers are even less than the Police Department. She echoed the need for more women in public safety.

Councillor Simmons said that it is important to have someone from the Kennedy School of Government or other similar organization to advance the discussion. She questioned if there is something that the City of Cambridge can “borrow” to advance the discussion and help with a plan for pay equity with benchmarks and timetables which would hold everyone accountable.

Councillor Simmons asked Ms. Keady Rawson if the City’s interview panels are diverse and inclusive. She questioned the process when an employee has a grievance. She asked if there is a panel of peers as she would like to see the development of this type of panel when a grievance is filed.

Betsy Allen said that when she came onboard there were several projects underway: Leaders as Catalysts for Diversity, the Cambridge Leadership Initiative, and the work that she was hired to do which was to continue the work of Affirmative Action as well as being a more proactive voice for equity and inclusion. She said that with these projects underway simultaneously, it was important to be deliberate and methodical so that they can be aligned to be supportive. She said that a Steering Committee was set up to look at these issues and they hired an organizational consultant and race and diversity expert that worked with DHSP to see how the work was aligned to be supportive. She said that on Nov 9, 2017, the kickoff workshop was attended by the City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and 23 other City leaders to reinvigorate the work that was underway and to help move that work forward. She said that they developed a purpose statement which undergirds all that they do, which is that “everything we do must work towards providing excellent customer service to each and every resident.” She gave an overview of the handout (ATTACHMENT B) that was received by the Committee.

Councillor Siddiqui thanked Ms. Allen for the presentation. She said that she is thinking about what else could be useful in the context of the slides. She asked how many trainings overall have been held. She said that having raw data would be helpful. She noted that it would be interesting to know the breakdown of attendees, as it helpful to have a visual. She said that it may be uncomfortable for us to see, but it would be useful information to have. She said that she understands that the School Department has a quota and she is in favor of thinking about goals. She said that she would like to tie outcomes to data and if this is not possible, we should be asking ourselves what are some of the challenges.

Councillor Mallon said that although she will be unable to attend the next Cambridge Digs Deep meeting, there was a robust couple of days where diversity was discussed, and she remembers Ramon DeJesus talking about the fact that they really looked at job descriptions and how to look at those descriptions through an equity lens. She asked Ms. Allen about other changes that her department has made.

Councillor Mallon said that she would like to see what transformational changes have been made since Ms. Allen has started her employment. Ms. Allen responded by saying that every day, she looks at the packet of Personnel Transaction Sheets and she has spoken with Ms. Keady Rawson about promotions. Currently, if she sees a memo of a person advocating on behalf of another person for a promotion, she cannot really tell if it is because of excellent performance or a good relationship between the two people, or if it is truly merit based. She said that she would like the consultants to give guidelines on how to promote staff. As it relates to trainings, she said that it was determined that it is the intention to invigorate the training curriculum with the new hire. She said that she struggles with what is done with people who are not happy with their jobs and not advocating for themselves in terms of promotions. She said that this is an area where she would like to dig deeper.

Councillor Simmons asked what are we actually asking the consultant to do. Ms. Allen responded that they will conduct a needs assessment of 41 departments through a lens of diversity, equity and inclusion, and how to recruit, hire, and promote City staff. She explained that the consultant will also be asked to conduct a trend analysis report with deficiencies that they have found. She said that once these two pieces are in place, they will go to the City administration and recommend a formal document that would lay out how to resolve the deficiencies.

Councillor Mallon asked about the timeline for hiring the consultant and asked how long the consultant’s work will last. Ms. Allen said that months of collaboration culminated in a very specific scope of services in the RFP. She noted that the firm that was chosen will put together experts in their own fields under the umbrella to deliver all the asks of the RFP. She noted that on the team is the former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a nationally recognized attorney who has worked with the NFL, a woman in labor and employment, and a person who will dig deep into data analysis. She noted that this team is excited that the City of Cambridge is undertaking this kind of work.

Ms. Peterson added that one of the key elements of the process is that over 50% of the hours devoted to this work will be meeting people in City departments and hearing their experiences. She noted that the team will work closely with people inside the organization as it relates to their experiences and practices. She explained that the estimated timeline is 18 months with a cost of $300,000 over two years. Councillor Simmons said that she would like to see the scope of work. Ms. Peterson said that she will be happy to provide this information.

Councillor Toomey said that to increase the number of women and minorities in each department, he would like to see the breakdown by each department. He said that he is aware that the Police Department is actively reaching out to hire Cambridge residents, women and people of color. He said that less and less Cambridge kids are applying for Cambridge public safety jobs. He said that DPW does not seem to have a significant number of women in their workforce. He said that it is important to make the effort to get women to apply for public safety jobs. He said that he would like to see this done in a more aggressive way. He said that we must start in the grammar schools to mentor young individuals.

Councillor Simmons said that she is concerned about what will happen in the two years while this work is being done, as she doesn’t want the important work that needs to be done immediately to be delayed. She invited the members of the Committee or other City Councillors to forward any questions to the Deputy City Clerk for further conversation and responses.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there has been any thought given to remedial practices so people who may have been underpaid historically can receive payment retroactively. Ms. Peterson responded that if a nonunion employee feels that there is a pay inequity, the City Manager has the authority to address said inequity. She noted that with collective bargaining, it will take more work to address a concern on inequity. She noted that the City has not had recent success with the Teamsters Union regarding the pay scale for Administrative Assistants. She said that if there are early action items that need attention, they can be attended to.

Ms. Semonoff summarized the training and sessions of the Community Engagement Team which has a number of outreach workers who help connect people to services and build a greater sense within those communities. She said that DHSP provides a set of trainings that began as a pilot in 2014 and revised this past year. Councillor Zondervan asked if the trainings are supposed to be given to all staff. Ms. Semonoff said that these are trainings that are available twice a year and any City employee is given priority. She noted that it is a heavy commitment with 7 Fridays in a row consisting of 4 hours. She said that the supervisor is required to sign-off on an employee’s attendance. Ms. Peterson said that the trainings that are being discussed are in addition to the trainings that Ms. Allen discussed.

Michelle Farnum gave an overview of DHSP Race and Equity Initiative trainings and ongoing diversity and inclusion training.

Councillor Mallon said that it is amazing to see how much work has been done and how many employees have undergone training. She said that the Drop Everything and Learn is a great initiative. She said that it is a big commitment and she thanked DHSP. She asked if Structural Racism and Affinity Group/Allyship Work will be offered to all staff DHSP. Ms. Farnum said that this is the goal. Councillor Mallon said that the schools have discussed the idea of creating Affinity Groups. Ms. Farnum said that she is not sure where they are currently in that plan.

Councillor Zondervan said that this is important work. He asked if there is any resistance encountered by staff as the training is done and if so, how is that dealt with. Ms. Farnum said it is not resistance but there have been challenges in participation. She said that creating the expectation about what it means to be an employee of the City is essential. She said that participation in training is not optional.

Councillor Simmons said that she is impressed with the work, but she noted that it is has been a long journey. She said that it is good to acknowledge how much the work has grown. She asked if there is any way to measure attitude change. Ms. Semonoff said that a pre-assessment was conducted but they are interested in how to capture better what is being learned by the employees. She said that people struggle when you are asking them to dig deep and part of the reason on being so intent on supporting senior managers is that if they are not in a position to step up big, their ability to ensure the continuity of the work is not as strong. Councillor Simmons said that she is happy to see that these trainings are mandatory. In terms of best practices, Councillor Simmons asked if other City departments do this work. She said that when the whole organization partakes, it makes a better environment for all.

Taha Jennings talked about the SOGI training that took place in 2017 and was mandatory for all City staff except for Public Safety because they had their own version of this training. He said that over 1,000 City employees participated in the training. He noted that the training encompassed sixty three-hour sessions and the process included collaboration between the City Manager’s Office, the Personnel Office and members of the LGBTQ+ Commission. He said that it was important to ensure that the process of developing the training was as transparent as possible. He noted that part of the strategy was to build the buy-in early on, so an employee feedback team was created. He said that it was open to any interested employee who wanted to be part of the process of developing the training. He said that the RFP was used to develop and implement the training which enabled the City to compare different ideas and approaches. He said that the Fenway Institute was selected to develop and implement the training for the entirety of the City of Cambridge workforce.

Councillor Simmons said that she was not aware of the SOGI training and she is very pleased that the City took the initiative to do this. She said that she is pleased that this training will be continued. She said that it is important to let people know that Cambridge is being a leader in this work. She asked if Superintendent Elow had any thoughts to share from the perspective of the Police Department, and she responded by saying that the CPD is working diligently to recruit residents from the City of Cambridge.

Councillor Simmons said that she would like to see an action plan in writing as well as an action plan for pay equity. From a policy perspective, Councillor Simmons asked what kind of policies should be in place to ensure that this work continues. She said that she would like to see an Annual Report on diversity and inclusion as well as an annual update on SOGI training.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that she will look at the dashboard and if data is there and collected, there may be more qualitative reporting that can go around it.

Councillor Mallon said that having a conversation with AAUW would be beneficial as well.

Councillor Simmons thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:53pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair