4. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,280,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Library Extraordinary Expenditure account to support the creation of a new STEAM creativity zone, The Hive, at the Cambridge Public Library.
Order Adopted 9-0

Apr 8, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting that the appropriation of $1,280,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Library Extraordinary Expenditure account to support the creation of a new STEAM creativity zone, The Hive, at the Cambridge Public Library.

As part of the City's STEAM Initiative, the Library Department has planned to utilize a portion of the Main Library for this purpose and has recently received the final construction costs based upon formal bids for the project. Appropriation of these funds will allow the necessary contracts to be executed to allow the project to move forward with an expected completion by early 2020.

This project will expand STEAM programing at the Library. Housed in the lower level of the Main Library, The Hive will consist three distinct sections: a hands-on workshop (aka “makerspace”) stocked with digital and traditional fabrication tools, multimedia recording studios for creating audio and video content, and a 3D Motion Lab for experiencing and experimenting with virtual and alternate reality. The focus of these spaces will be on creating real and digital objects and learning by doing.

Working in partnership with the City’s STEAM Initiative <https://www.cambridgema.gov/DHSP/programsforkidsandyouth/steaminitiative> and the Department of Human Services Programs, the STEAM at the Library program will advance the work already accomplished by both entities and the Cambridge Public Schools in engaging families and the public in quality science, technology, engineering, arts and math (STEAM) learning experiences. Grounded in the City’s STEAM principles of Access & Equity, Focus on Families & Residents, Collaboration with the Community, Facilitating Innovation, Teaching and Learning, and Data & Research, the City’s efforts to increase quality STEAM education experiences for all our residents is gaining momentum. STEAM is an integrated approach to learning that fosters knowledge of these topics, while nurturing key skills such as innovation, critical thinking, problem-solving and communication, to meet the needs of the 21st century economy and citizenry.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

2. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a memorandum regarding the update on the search process to hire a new City Clerk to replace Donna Lopez when she retires.
Charter Right - Toomey

Jan Devereux, Vice Mayor
April 8, 2019

Donna Lopez, Clerk
City Hall Cambridge

Dear Madam Clerk,

I would like to place the following on the agenda for the April 8, 2019 City Council meeting as a late communication from City Officers:

“To my colleagues:

I would like to update you all on the search process to hire a new City Clerk to replace Donna Lopez when she retires at the end of her term (May 31, 2019), capping nearly 50 years as a dedicated and respected City of Cambridge employee.

A job description (attached) for the position was posted online and advertised as of February 27, 2019. Thirty-six (36) candidates had applied by the closing date of April 3, 2019.

An interview committee will review all the applications and conduct a first round of interviews to choose the top two or three candidates as finalists. The finalists will be interviewed publicly by the full City Council, following a process similar to that used to interview the finalists for the City Manager position.

The interview committee is comprised of Mayor McGovern, Councillor Carlone and myself, along with the City Council’s Executive Assistant Naomie Stephen and to-be-designated staff members (one each) from the Personnel Department, the City Manager’s Office, and the City Solicitor’s Office.”

Sincerely,
Jan Devereux, Vice Mayor

---

NOTICE OF POSTING
POSTING DATE: 02/27/2019
CLOSING DATE: 04/03/2019

Recruitment of external applicants is underway concurrent with this posting.
Resumes and letters of interest can be submitted via email to cityclerkjob@cambridgema.gov.
Cambridge residents are especially encouraged to apply.

JOB TITLE & DEPARTMENT: City Clerk, Office of the City Clerk
JOB CODE/POSITION #: #O008-701

CIVIL SERVICE: Non-civil service

HOURS OF WORK: 37.5 hours per week plus frequent evening and weekend meetings/events

UNION AFFILIATION: None

ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The City Clerk is the official record keeper for the City of Cambridge. Appointed and held accountable by the City Council for a three-year term. Performs those duties prescribed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the ordinances of the City of Cambridge and other such duties as the Cambridge City Council prescribes. Records kept by the Clerk’s Office include vital statistics (including births, marriages, domestic partnerships, and deaths), business and professional certificates, cemetery deeds for the Cambridge Cemetery, and the Cambridge Municipal Code and Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. The City Clerk is responsible for preparing and maintaining City Council documents, filings related to appeals before the Board of Zoning Appeal and Planning Board, and advertisements and postings of all notifications of meetings of Cambridge municipal bodies including all official City Boards and Commissions. The Clerk’s Office maintains a list of rules and regulations for various departments, boards, and commissions in Cambridge. Specific duties include but are not limited to the following:

• Provides administrative and supervisory oversight of the City Clerk’s office, including day to day operations and the departmental budget.
• Statutorily responsible for collecting, recording and depositing fees; developing, maintaining, and disseminating certain records and vital statistics, including marriage, death, and birth certificates, as well as business and professional certificates.
• Attends (or assigns attendance) and keeps records of all meetings of the City Council and of its committees/subcommittees and carries out the actions required by decisions at those meetings. Acts as a resource and provides guidance on parliamentary procedures.
• Responsible for the preparation and timely posting of the weekly City Council Agenda.
• Notifies and provides documentation to the public of all City Council meetings and City Council actions and provides notification of all meetings of municipal bodies and official city boards and commissions in accordance with the requirements of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law.
• Provides public information to the media and maintains the City Clerk’s website and the Open Meeting Portal.
• Assists the City Council, its members, and committees in their development of public policy.
• Performs staff work and research that may be required for the City Council to efficiently carry out its policymaking responsibilities.
• Assists members of the City Council in providing information for other agencies or levels of government.
• As directed by the City Council and in consultation with the City Solicitor, files and monitors legislation of importance to the City of Cambridge at other levels of government.
• Responsible for maintaining and updating the Cambridge Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance.
• Responsible for binding, maintaining and preserving the vital records and City Council records for the City.
• Responsible for carrying out the provisions of Chapter 40A as it relates to zoning procedures.
• Performs related duties as needed.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: Strong written and verbal communication skills, exceptional office management and organizational skills, superior interpersonal and customer service skills. Ability to communicate effectively and professionally with a diverse population in a fast-paced office. Minimum five (5) years of related experience, seven (7) years preferred. Bachelor’s degree in related field or equivalent combination of education, training and experience. JD degree desirable. Notary Public and Justice of the Peace preferred. Demonstrated computer proficiency in Microsoft Office suite. Interest in innovation, particularly in the area of document management, helpful. Familiarity with the Massachusetts Public Records Law and Open Meeting Law. Familiarity with Massachusetts conflict of interest and ethics laws preferred. Working knowledge of Roberts’ Rules of Order. Knowledge of or ability to learn municipal laws, policies, codes and regulations. Knowledge of or ability to learn the legal requirements related to keeping and preserving Council minutes and all official City records. Ability to exercise sound judgment and negotiate priorities with multiple supervisors and deadlines. Capacity to work effectively with supervisors and collaboratively with other City departments’ staff. Previous experience working in municipal government and/or with a legislative body helpful. Knowledge of Cambridge preferred.

PHYSICAL DEMANDS: Ability to access, input, and retrieve information from a computer. Ability to answer telephones and maintain multiple files. Ability to lift and carry up to five pounds of books and papers. Must read and analyze large quantities of information. Must have sufficient mobility to get back and forth from office to offsite meetings. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform essential functions.

WORK ENVIRONMENT: Work is conducted primarily in an office environment with fluorescent lighting, air conditioning, computers and other standard office equipment, but also involves meetings in other offices or facilities.

RATE: $130,000- $143,273/year plus applicable stipend as provided for under MGL Chapter 41 Section 19F.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE: Submit both your resume and letter of interest by 5pm on the closing date via email to cityclerkjob@cambridgema.gov, or to Cambridge City Council Office (attn. Naomie Stephen) Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge MA 02139.

THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER. WOMEN, MINORITIES, VETERANS, MEMBERS OF THE LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY, AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPLY. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS ARE ESPECIALLY ENCOURAGED TO APPLY.

O-2     Apr 8, 2019
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MALLON
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: In its June 2018 report, the Envision Cambridge Economy Working Group recommended the following goals for promoting Cambridge as a global economic center, with shared economic prosperity and opportunity infrastructure:

• Provide opportunities for Cambridge residents of all educational backgrounds and skill levels to access jobs that pay a living wage in Cambridge and the surrounding region so that they can share in the city’s prosperity

• Continue to support Cambridge as a leading center of the global knowledge economy that generates jobs for city and regional residents

• Connect Cambridge’s young adults, vulnerable residents, and families with education, training, and necessary social support infrastructure to help them achieve economic security; and

WHEREAS: The City offers a host of workforce development programs and services, provided by several entities including the City’s Office of Workforce Development, Just-A-Start, the Cambridge Housing Authority, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as various trade unions; and
WHEREAS: These program and service providers share a common charge of promoting equitable access to economic opportunity and supporting Cambridge job seekers in finding meaningful and lasting employment; and
WHEREAS: Communication and collaboration between providers might be strengthened through having an opportunity to regularly convene, to discuss and share developments, updates, challenges and insights across organizations and programs; and
WHEREAS: The establishment of a City-Wide Workforce Development Consortium would facilitate such an opportunity for building capacity, growing institutional knowledge, and improving the ability of the City’s many providers to better address community need and realize the Economy Working Group’s goals; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Department of Human Services to develop a plan for implementation of a City-Wide Workforce Development Consortium and report back to the Human Services and Veterans Committee on this matter in a timely manner.

O-4     Apr 8, 2019  Amended
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: There are a number of streets in Cambridge, such as Vassal Lane, that may be named in honor of individuals who have ties with the shameful slave trade that is a dark stain on this nation’s history; and
WHEREAS: In 2019, it is unacceptable for the City of Cambridge to have even the appearance of commemorating those who were involved in or profited from such an abhorrent practice; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City personnel to compile a full accounting of streets, schools, and public buildings that may be named in honor of those who have ties to the American slave trade, and to work towards renaming all of these streets, schools, and buildings as soon as possible; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner; and be it further
ORDERED: That this matter be referred to the Civic Unity Committee.

O-7     Apr 8, 2019
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: In November 2018, the City of Cambridge launched a Small Business Recycling Program Pilot; and
WHEREAS: The pilot reduced costs to businesses by eliminating the need for businesses to contract outside vendors as well as enabling the City to further increase the quantity of material diverted from the waste stream in the City; and
WHEREAS: Funds for this pilot were allocated from the FY18 budget; and
WHEREAS: To date, the Department of Public Works has not updated the City Council on the status of the Small Business Recycling Program Pilot or any plans for expansion; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works to provide the City Council with an update on the small business recycling program pilot indicating any recalibration or reconsideration of the proposed program that may be necessary and any plans for expansion in a timely manner.

O-9     Apr 8, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR MALLON
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that a number of concerning issues have arisen related to the Central Square MBTA station; and
WHEREAS: Elevator outages at the Central Square MBTA station have severely inconvenienced riders who are elderly or have disabilities, many of whom have faced daily hardships resulting from the required re-routing of their trips, including lengthened travel times, shuttle bus delays, and long waits in cold and snowy weather, all of which have negatively impacted their quality of life; and
WHEREAS: Replacement of the inbound Central Square MBTA station elevator began in April 2018, and was scheduled for Spring 2019 completion, but the project has recently been further delayed, and is now not scheduled to be completed until sometime in 2020, which would mean that this elevator will have been out of service for at least two full years before completion; and
WHEREAS: The alternative method of station entry and exit, the stairwells, exhibit dangerously uneven and slanted steps; and given that this is the exclusive option in absence of elevator service, it makes station usage unequal and extremely difficult for people with mobility impairments; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to review whether the MBTA is out of compliance with the amended MBTA/BCIL settlement agreement through this delay in completion of the elevator replacement and concurrent hazardous condition of the stairwells; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate City staff and the MBTA to coordinate solutions to these issues in Central Square and report back to the City Council on what actions will be taken to resolve them.

O-11     Apr 8, 2019  Amended
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
MAYOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MALLON
WHEREAS: In May of 2018, the City Council voted to direct the Recycling Division of the Department of Public Works to study the feasibility of expanding the curbside composting program to small businesses and non-profits in the City by the end of 2019; and
WHEREAS: With the recent appropriation of $300,000 to expand the curbside organics program to 13+ unit households in FY20 and the upcoming budget hearings for FY20, it would be beneficial to receive an update on the status of the City’s studies about the proposed expansion; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works to provide an update on the feasibility study of expanding curbside composting program to small businesses, City buildings, and non-profits by the end of 2019; and be it further
ORDERED: That this matter be referred to the Health and Environment Committee.

O-18     Apr 8, 2019
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Harvard relies upon the labor of student workers to educate its students, assist its faculty, and produce research that increases the global standing of the university; and
WHEREAS: On April 18 and 19, 2018, a majority of student workers who voted at Harvard University voted for their Union, Harvard Graduate Students Union (HGSU-UAW); and
WHEREAS: On May 1, 2018 the National Labor Relations Board certified HGSU-UAW as the exclusive bargaining representative of Harvard student workers; and
WHEREAS: Harvard delayed bargaining with HGSU-UAW until October 2018 and has only met 13 times; and
WHEREAS: In Harvard’s refusal to schedule more frequent bargaining sessions, Harvard is not only delaying its response to student workers’ demands for better pay, better benefits, and better workplace accountability, but by its delay, Harvard is also harming its ability to attract and retain the talent of students whose work is critical to the functioning of the University; and
WHEREAS: No worker can do their job well without fair compensation, sufficient health and dental insurance, and a fair procedure for adjudicating workplace harassment and discrimination; and
WHEREAS: Harvard fails to protect survivors of discrimination and harassment, cases of which are underreported, survivors are discouraged from pursuing formal complaints, internal procedures are inadequately and inefficiently handled without real recourse and an independent investigation; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge supports the right of workers to unionize and bargain with their employer; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge does not tolerate any form of harassment and discrimination; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge calls upon the Harvard University administration to bargain a contract with HGSU-UAW that reflects the values of fairness, equality, and justice the University claims to support; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge stands with the majority of Harvard’s student workers’ demand for fair pay and increased benefits; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge stands with the majority of Harvard’s student workers’ demand for a just system to protect workers from sexual and other harassment and all forms of discrimination through a grievance procedure with expedited processing for discrimination and harassment complaints, guaranteed accommodations, and an independent third-party arbiter who has no conflict of interest with the Harvard administration; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge stands with the majority of Harvard’s student workers’ demand that the Harvard administration agree to more frequent bargaining sessions in order to negotiate a strong and comprehensive contract for Harvard student workers, to take effect by the 2019 fall semester; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge calls upon the Harvard administration to negotiate a fair union contract now, and not continue to delay by moving slowly or limiting meetings.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Government Operations/Rules and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Mar 26, 2019, at 10:05am in the Sophie Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed change to City Council Rule 39 entitled “Rules of Travel” to be amended to be entitled “Rules of Travel and Other Council Related Expenditures” (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Carlone; City Manager Louis DePasquale; Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs David Kale; City Auditor James Monagle; Deputy City Solicitor Arthur Goldberg; Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council; City Clerk Donna P. Lopez; Mark Gutierrez; and Liz Walker.

Also present were Mackenzie Zamboanga, 120 Boylston Street, Boston; Marissa Cardenas, 100 Boylston Street, Boston; and John Hawkinson.

Vice Mayor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. She announced that the hearing is being privately recorded. An agenda was submitted (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Kelley explained his thought in proposing the rule change was to make participation in City Council events more inviting and to encourage more public participation. He mentioned that offering refreshments at public meetings makes them more welcoming and successful. He is not proposing spending a Councilors’ budget on private events. These events would be open to the public and noticed as public hearings/meetings. He stated that serving refreshments is an important aspect in bringing people together. This is already part of the City Council Office budget, and his proposal does not ask for more money, but instead just helps a Councillor make a different choice how to spend it. This rule has been changed previously to allow international travel. He stated that things change in time anyway, and this is just one more way to adapt the Council Rules to better serve the people of Cambridge, who should all have the opportunity to come in and participate.

Councillor Zondervan questioned what the current yearly City Council travel budget is. Ms. Stephen responded $5,000 per City Councillor. Councillor Zondervan asked how the hearing/meeting would be publicly noticed. Councillor Kelley stated through the City Clerk’s Office, or through an e-vite. Councillor Kelley stated he was more hesitant about e-vites being the sole form of notification, because many of the same people who already come to meetings are the only ones on e-vite lists. He wanted to bring in new people to the conversation.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that as Chair of the Mayor’s Task Force on Tenant Displacement, she purchases snacks for the meetings at her own personal expense. Under this proposal, she could get reimbursed. Councillor Zondervan commented that this is a great example. He suggested that this expense should not come out of Councillor Siddiqui’s individual travel budget allocation, but instead out of the general Council budget or the Mayor’s Office budget. Ms. Stephen stated that there is a line item in the budget for this type of expense. Councillor Zondervan stated that he was still struggling to understand how a meeting would be noticed and how to make sure other Councillors and the public all know about it. Councillor Kelley suggested getting prior approval of the City Council before the meeting so that he could serve refreshments. He wanted this to be fair and be approved by the City Council.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that how task forces fund their spending has not been recognized. She asked whether the Arts Task Force meetings serve food or refreshments. Ms. Walker responded that the Arts Task Force gets a full dinner at meetings, but that she did not know whether the budget for it comes from Councillor Mallon, the Mayor’s Office or elsewhere.

Councillor Kelley noted that task forces are appointed by the Mayor and generally if they have a budget, it comes from Mayor’s Office. His proposed expenditure would come from the preexisting City Council travel budget and thus is not an additional expenditure. Councillor Siddiqui noted that Councillor Mallon told her that the Arts Task Force refreshments are paid from the Mayor’s Office budget.

Councillor Zondervan asked about the equipment mentioned in Councillor Kelley’s proposal, and what equipment that would be. Councillor Kelley responded equipment such as keyboards, a dictation device or a wireless mouse. He was informed by staff that this equipment generally is provided by the IT Department.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the Micro-Mobility Conference that Councillor Kelley held at MIT, which had food and equipment. Councillor Kelley stated that the City paid for the office supplies, but not for any of the food. Vice Mayor Devereux commented that in theory, he could have paid for that food with his travel budget, if this proposal were adopted. Councillor Kelley responded in the affirmative. All City Councillors have $5,000 to spend, and if it is legal and fair, the money can be spent on things that will help Council serve the public better. He commented that many meetings are held that conflict with morning and evening meals, so offering food at a meeting is important.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked how close to reaching the limit of $5,000 the members of the City Council typically get. City Auditor Mr. Monagle stated that occasionally members of the City Council used their full allotment of funds. He explained that statutorily, food expenditures must be classified as another ordinary maintenance (OOM) expense, and it is complicated to break out money from the travel and training account to move the money to the OOM account. Mr. Kale explained that food is paid from the OOM account; travel and training are paid from the travel and training account.

Ms. Stephen commented that these hearings/meetings are happening currently, and people find out about them. Either notices are made, or flyers are posted. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the meeting notice being posted on the City’s web calendar. Ms. Stephen asked whether there was a difference between a posted notice versus a legal notice, and whether there was an established standard for how events are noticed, or if it depends on the host. Ms. Lopez clarified that the Clerk’s Office is in charge of posting notices for committee hearings. For task force and other similar meetings, Council Aides have written up notices and arranged to have them posted, but they’re not legal notices that the Clerk’s Office is involved in. The online calendar is also something that should be considered when noticing events, all public events should be posted there.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that the expenses for Cambridge Digs DEEP are being split between the Mayor’s Office and the City Council office. Ms. Stephen stated that she pays for the food every other time for Cambridge Digs DEEP. Mr. Kale stated that the City Council food budget for FY20 is $22,900 and the FY19 budget was $17,000.

Councillor Toomey commented that the City Council aides are now being served dinner for the weekly City Council meetings and asked where the funding is coming from, and how the money was allocated. Councillor Siddiqui responded that she made this request. Councillor Toomey wanted to know what the expenditure amount is for these meals. Ms. Stephen explained that there was enough to cover the cost in the remaining FY19 budget, and the appropriation amount was increased for the FY20 budget. Mr. Kale stated that the aides’ meals are charged to the same account for the food as for the City Council. Councillor Toomey inquired why the City Council did not approve or vote on this expenditure. Mr. Kale noted that there is no additional increase in the funding amount, so it did not require a vote. Councillor Toomey stated that this expense for the food for the aides should instead come out of each individual City Councilors’ allocation. He stated that this same courtesy was not extended to other employees who work until 8pm on Monday nights. Councillor Siddiqui responded that there is no additional appropriation made. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that this also did not change the rules.

Councillor Carlone commented that there is a difference, because staff leave at 8pm and City Council aides are here until the end of meeting, which can often be later than 8pm.

Councillor Zondervan stated that Councillor Toomey did bring up an important procedural issue. To add additional expenditures to the budget, the City Council needs a procedure to make each decision to cover an additional event. Ms. Stephen stated that she would also like a procedure so that it is clear so that she knows where to charge the bill against the accounts. She wanted a clear path to charge each bill to the appropriate account.

Councillor Kelley stated that what he is hearing is that if he wanted to spend money on food for meetings he should submit a Policy Order and request permission to spend money from the other ordinary maintenance account and if it is not spent it will go to free cash. There would be a running total and when it is spent it is gone. He wanted this to come from one pool of money and that it not be split up by individual City Councillors. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that one could also include information in the Policy Order on the date, time and location of the event, so that it could serve as an additional public notice.

Councillor Zondervan suggested running these types of events through the Mayor’s Office and increasing that budget, instead. He added that there is already this method in place and he did not want to recreate a new method. Ms. Stephen asked what the limit would be, and how are all the City Councillors going to be made aware of this.

City Manager DePasquale stated that the way this has worked in past is if the Mayor worked with a committee or special meeting group, the Mayor’s Office paid for food. If the meeting was not affiliated with the Mayor, this was paid for by the City Council Office. The budget system will allow the food budget to be overspent, as long as the full budget bottom line still has leeway. If there is an issue with the total budget amount not being enough, the full City Council would need to approve the addition, according to the statute.

Councillor Carlone asked if there should there be a guide for a maximum number of events or amount of expenditure per Councillor. City Manager DePasquale stated that this is a decision that the City Council have to make amongst themselves. It is in budget and it needs to be regulated by the City Council, but as long as the total budget stays balanced, it’s fine.

Councillor Zondervan commented that he is understanding that this would not require a change to the rules. It would be appreciated if the City Councillor who wanted to organize an event or to make an expenditure would submit a Policy Order, and that City Councillor could explain that he wanted to provide refreshments, and the rest of the City Council would vote on it.

Councillor Kelley stated that this sounds like a good plan, and if the expenditure fits the statutory code it will be approved. Mr. Monagle suggested that the individual Councillors travel budgets would remain at $5,000, the City Council Office budget may be increased a bit and then Councillors planning events would notify the full City Council. Councillor Kelley noted that rather than notify, they would ask for permission of another City Councillors. City Manager DePasquale stated that the City Council can discuss increasing the collective budget at the budget hearing. Councillor Kelley noted that transparency will be good. Ms. Stephen stated that the food budget increased to provide meals for the City Council aides and to accommodate small refreshments for events. Vice Mayor Devereux questioned if the City Council Office is paying for the Cambridge Digs DEEP expenses. Per City Manager DePasquale this should come from the Mayor’s budget. Vice Mayor Devereux questioned if the Mayor’s budget needed to be increased. Councillor Zondervan stated that if Councillor Siddiqui submits a Policy Order, the City Council will approve it.

City Manager DePasquale stated that there is no written rule; the expense comes from the two departmental budgets. The system in place works.

Councillor Kelley stated that there is no need for a rule change and this provides clarity and equal access to all City Councillors by submitting a Policy Order for approval by the City Council.

Ms. Stephen stated that this provides for accommodating Cambridge Digs DEEP events.

Councillor Kelley noted that this puts the City Council Office on an equal parity with the Mayor’s Office. Councillor Carlone commented that food is a courtesy for people.

Councillor Toomey stated that he wanted the dollar expenditure for the cost of the meals for the City Council aides and the increase for that in FY20 budget. Ms. Stephen stated that the cost of the food for aides has not exceeded $80 per week and that only 6 out of 8 aides get food, because food is ordered only for those who stay for the meeting.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that they had only discussed food, but sometimes people offer childcare for events, and in the interest of being complete, who is incurring the cost for childcare.

Ms. Stephen responded that the Mayor’s Office has been paying for childcare for Digs DEEP and other events.

Mr. Kale stated that the City Council Office budget has a line item of $15,000 (professional & technical) where childcare could be paid for, and that can also be absorbed in the City Council Office budget.

Councillor Kelley asked for guidance for appropriate expenditures. Mr. Kale stated that the same principle for reimbursement applies and will be paid with receipts that are approved by the City Auditor, if it is appropriate. City Manager DePasquale stated that when in doubt ask – do not purchase anything until you ask.

Ms. Stephen used the Policy Order submitted by Councillor Zondervan for the City’s attendance at the International Energy Conservation Code conference as an example of how this could work.

At 10:59am Vice Mayor Devereux opened public comment.

John Hawkinson stated that he wanted to know what the expenditure per Councillor on average was from their allotted $5,000. City Auditor, Mr. Monagle responded that on occasion a Councillor has gotten close to $5,000, but he did not have exact figures available. He said he wanted to know what amount of the total $45,000 for travel and training was spent each year, on average.

Public comment was closed at 11am on a motion by Vice Mayor Devereux.

Councillor Toomey asked about the expenditure for technological equipment and asked where this expenditure come from. Mr. Kale responded that this comes from the IT Department budget. Councillor Toomey asked what the follow-up procedure for the equipment is; is the equipment returned to the City. He stated that he wanted a follow-up on this. He added that if this is a City Council expenditure for computer equipment then it should be in the City Council budget. He wanted to see this expense breakdown in the IT budget. Councillor Zondervan informed the members that from a tax standpoint this is a write-off in 2 years, and that the equipment is worth much less after 2 years because the technology changes so quickly.

Councillor Toomey stated that this is taxpayer money and City property and it should be returned to City.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved the following motion:
ORDERED: That the following policy be approved when a member of the City Council makes a request to provide refreshments for a meeting/hearing:

A member of the City Council submits a Policy Order, in advance of the meeting/hearing, outlining the date, time, and publicly accessible location of the meeting/hearing, and the purpose for food or incidentals for the meeting/hearing;

The City Council votes to approve the expenditure.

The question now came on the motion - and the motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Councillor Carlone asked whether these meetings/hearings will only be held on City property, or could they be held throughout the City. Councillor Kelley responded throughout the City.

Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 11:05am.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Mar 13, 2019 at 3:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss under what circumstance the City of Cambridge might be interested in submitting a home rule petition to allow the City Council or another branch of Municipal Government to define, if, where and how public consumption of cannabis might be allowed in Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor McGovern; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Police Commissioner Branville Bard; Superintendent of Police Steven DeMarco; Jim Mulcahy, Legal Counsel, Police Department; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Public Health Officer Claude Alix Jacob; Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, Cambridge Health Department; Nancy Rohan-Porter and Mary Kowalczuk, Cambridge Public Health Alliance; John Silva, Cambridge Public School Department; Executive Director, Housing Authority, Mike Johnson; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present was Laura Donahue.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that he had a presentation (ATTACHMENT A). He added that this is a thought experiment as to whether the City wants to allow for non-combustible cannabis usage on city-owned property. He wanted feedback on this. He stated that medical consumption is allowed on a variety of private and public properties, with some confusion about the impacts of the Americans with Disabilities Act, while recreational consumption of cannabis in only allowed on private property which means that absent the permission of a property owner, people who do not own their own property have no legal place to consume cannabis. He wanted to discuss the possibility of expanding opportunities to allow the consumption of cannabis in public places. He spoke about renters consuming cannabis and whether it is legal for these individuals to consume marijuana in places that are, for example, receiving HUD subsidies? He asked if the City Council wanted a home rule petition to allow the consumption of marijuana products on City-owned property. This discussion is not intended to encompass possible recreational consumption at universities, store front retail, housing developments or for commercial use. This is intended for city spaces including parks and sidewalks and includes edibles, balms and vaping products but not combustionables like marijuana cigarettes. He stated that he wanted to submit a home rule petition.

Councillor Zondervan asked about consuming non-combustible products and the City is unable to tell individuals to do this and why does the City need to do a home rule petition. He asked can the City just do this. This is a weird place because of federal laws but it is a non-issue for edibles.

Councillor Kelley stated that if we want individuals should be allowed to consume these products then he wanted to change law rather than look the other way and pretend it’s okay to break the law. He explained that the state law does not allow this.

Councillor Siddiqui suggested looking at other communities. She spoke about a hemp fest in Boston and how much cannabis was consumed in various forms there and that there was some level of problems with it. She stated that she could see this being done on the Cambridge Common for the short term. She is unsure about any public place where this can be consumed. She spoke about the social justice aspect on this making sense.

Mayor McGovern stated that this is not about smoking. He asked how the City knows that an individual is consuming an edible. What can the City do about enforcement when eating an edible versus smoking. The entire marijuana industry it is allowed but a blind eye is turned to it. This is a non-problem.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked are we looking for problems to solve. Cambridge has had dispensaries for a while. She asked has there been a problem consuming edible and can individuals smoke at a hemp fest?

Councillor Carlone spoke about positive aspect of the question. He stated that possible cannabis cafes might be in jeopardy with this.

Mr. Lipson spoke about landlord property rights. He stated that under the state requirements property owners may prohibit smoking on their property but not the use of other forms of marijuana. He suggested an enforcement policy and having a pilot to see how it would work.

Councillor Kelley spoke about recreational marijuana and how equally is the legality of the issue and enforcement done and the challenges of use of any sort at someplace like the Cambridge Housing Authority. Councillor Zondervan stated that is smoking versus edibles. Councillor Kelley commented that both are illegal. He stated that vaping and edibles usage, does the City lose morality authority if it turned a blind eye to other than smoking. Commissioner Bard noted that it is never apparent when edibles are being consumed. He stated that he does not know if this is enforceable. Councillor Zondervan asked if an individual is apprehended and then the officer finds edibles on the individual and asked then it could be enforced. Commissioner Bard responded that as a primary offense it is not apparent unless it is smoking. Councillor Zondervan stated that this is an injustice if walking down the street minding one own business and then is apprehended for consuming an edible. Commissioner Bard stated that if an individual is stopped for another legal reason and then an edible is found this is a different situation. Mayor McGovern stated that if an individual is stopped for something else and is eating a cookie or gummy and the cookie or gummy it will not be tested. Councillor Zondervan stated that there may be other evidence that it is an edible. If the illegal consumption is unknown there is no offense and if it is known, then it is enforceable. Commissioner Bard stated that this is a civil citation; not a criminal citation. Councillor Kelley stated that it is legal for him to smoke marijuana on his property and the fairness of state law seems dubious for non-property owners.

Councillor Mallon stated it is illegal to smoke a combustible on the sidewalk and in a park and it is not legal to vape on the sidewalk. Councillor Kelley wanted to have it legal to vape on sidewalk. Mr. Lipson stated that combustibles are allowed in small parks. Vice Mayor Devereux can you tell if an individual is vaping tobacco or marijuana. The response was sometimes you can.

Councillor Kelley stated that he is sensing a ‘no’ from the committee.

Mike Johnson, Cambridge Housing Authority, stated that edibles are unknown, and the message is being sent is that it is okay to do this in parks. He stated that the plaza at Manning Apartments could be used for edibles is the message that would be sent, and he does not know that this is what the City wants.

Councillor Zondervan stated that smoking on sidewalks can have an impact on his quality of life, but vaping or eating edibles is not intrusive, so why enforce the law.

Ms. Farooq spoke about potential conflict with the zoning ordinance language and that cannabis sales are required to be far away from where children congregate.

At 3:29pm Councillor Kelley opened public comment.

Laura Donahue stated that she suffers from asthma and the law will not be able to control the usage. She stated that the law is NO. This would allow cannabis to be smoked in parks. She used the example of having a picnic in the park and unable to have a glass of wine as an analogy Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 3:31pm.

Ms. Rohan- Porter has concerns about the combustibles. She stated that edibles and vaping is cost prohibitive for a lot of people, leaving them with only the realistic possibility of combustionables but there is no legal place for a lot of poorer people to consume cannabis that way, which is also the type of consumption that people tend to find the most annoying. The law states that this is not legal. There is an equity issue here. If one owns a home, an individual can use cannabis, if you do not own a home you cannot use it. There should be further dialogue that a law exists that individuals cannot take advantage of. She spoke about consumption of cannabis at social clubs is something that is being considered in other communities.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 3:34pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Mar 5, 2019 at 6pm in the Sullivan Chamber to continue discussions on the Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Simmons, Co-Chair; Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chair; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor McGovern; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Khalil Mogassabi, Deputy Director of Community Planning and Chief Planner; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Neal Alpert; Sarah Stillman; Afiyah Harrigan, Mayor’s Office; and Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Peter Daly, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, William Tibbs, Members of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; Elaine DeRosa; Mike Johnston, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Brad Bellows; Esther Hanig; Deborah Ruhe; Adriane Musgrave; E.C. Houghteling; Julia Holderness; David Sullivan; Charles Franklin; Elizabeth Gombosi; Fritz Donovan; Young Kim; Jeanne Fong; Larry Bluestone; Suzanne Blier; Stephen Kaiser; Edele Mulugeta; Teresa Cardosi; Trudi Goodman; Marilee Meyer; Peter Ciurczak; Neil McCullagh; Yanisa Techagumthorn; Mick Alexander; Rebecca Schofield; Tina Alu; Patrick Braga; Toby Hyde; Don Summerfield; Betsy Harper; Stuart Lesser; William Navarre; Mary Jo Clark; Carolyn Fuller; Bill McAvinney; Fred Meyer; Justin Holmes; Matthew West; Pawel Latawiec; Margaret Samp; Rebecca Pries; Sergey Petrov; Hannah Lodi; Jonathan Behrens; Sharone Small; Noam Tanner; Mersadie Jackson; Jessica Sheehan; Louisa Johnson; Amella Zejnullahu; Eleni Maoakis; Michael Prusak; Michael Thistle; Nicola Williams; Lee Farris; Feclex Cadet; Eileen Aronson; Susan Pitman Lowenthal; and Carol O’Hare.

Councillor Simmons convened the hearing and read from a prepared written Opening Remarks (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Siddiqui welcomed those present and read from prepared written Opening Remarks (ATTACHMENT B).

Mayor McGovern apologized that he is unable to stay for the duration of the earing as he must chair the School Committee Meeting. He read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Simmons noted that the information before the Committee is the framework, and not the ordinance. She introduced Ms. Farooq.

Ms. Farooq said that CDD has been working on this issue for a very long time. She explained that handouts that have been distributed are background information in support of what will be discussed today. She explained that the blue sheets (ATTACHMENTS D & E) are information sheets that explain the basic concept of an Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay. Ms. Farooq noted that Mayor McGovern has asked what is affordable housing and is it affordable for a certain period of time or in perpetuity. She said that the way that affordable housing is defined is housing that is deed restricted and affordable in perpetuity and it is affordable to people who make up to 100% of area median income which is the middle-income bracket. She said that low and moderate income is 80% of the area median income and below. She said that the orange map (ATTACAHMENT F) shows the distribution of affordable housing units across the city as of today. She stated that there is also a map of the City’s zoning as it exists currently (ATTACHMENT G).

Ms. Farooq said that Mayor McGovern has asked how this relates to Envision Cambridge. She said that as part of the Envision process, CDD went to the neighborhoods to talk about multiple housing scenarios. She said that CDD evaluated what growth might look like under each of the scenarios. She explained that one of those scenarios included a Citywide Affordable Housing Overlay District while another version examined increasing density for market rate projects that have larger components of affordable units than is currently required under inclusionary zoning. She said that is the scenario that reflected an increase of approximately 25% in the City’s population and is different than what we are talking about today. She said that as CDD looked at buildout and what the increase in population would be, looking at the overlay they did not envision any significant increase of population as a result of adoption of an Affordable Housing Overlay. She said that this is focusing on affordable housing projects that are 100% affordable, built by affordable housing providers who are focused on developing housing units for people who are low, moderate, and occasionally middle-income people.

Ms. Farooq said that the idea of a citywide Affordable Housing Overlay did come up in discussions in 2014 and 2015. She said that CDD has been working on changes to the City’s regulations that impact and allow increase and support for affordable housing. She said that Mr. Cotter will set the stage as to some of the changes that have been adopted between 2015 to date. She said that this is part of a series of interventions. She said that we should not think of the Affordable Housing Overlay District as something that will solve every problem, it is one tool in addition to what has been being done and it is part of a continuum with more work to be done going forward in the coming years.

Mr. Cotter and Mr. Roberts gave an overview of the PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT H).

Councillor Mallon said that there have been a lot of questions from the community and about this proposal. She said that in terms of the City’s goal of an overall percentage of affordable housing that we want to get to, what is the current affordable housing percentage of the housing stock currently. She asked what is the number that the City is trying to get to through this and the other measures that CDD has suggested previously. Mr. Cotter responded that the City is currently just under 15% when they consider all affordable units subject to deed restrictions. He said that this number has come down a little but has been relatively stable. He said that the goal that has been discussed through the Envision process is to create 3,125 affordable units by 2030. He said that counting for what they would expect to come from the market, it would be roughly 1,000 units for the City funding to create over that time. He said that if successful in creating that number of affordable units over that time, they would expect to see the ratio of affordable units in the city to rise from just under 15% to close to 16%.

Councillor Mallon said that Mr. Cotter mentioned funding being limited. She said that this is an important component of this conversation. She said that there are many people in the community who feel that this proposal would create a whole lot of units and increase the density in their neighborhoods by an exponential amount. She said that FY19 funding was about $13.6 million for affordable housing and roughly it is around $540,000 to create one unit of affordable housing which is about 25 units. She said that over the past several years, the City has been averaging 50-60 units per year. She said that even with an additional $20 million dollars that the City Council has asked from the City Manager, that really only translates to another 40 units built per year. She asked Mr. Cotter to explain the funding for clarification.

Mr. Cotter responded that it is expensive to produce housing in the City and we are working in a market where we would love the costs to be lower. He said that there is no housing that the City is producing with the affordable housing providers that does not require a significant amount of total subsidy and a very significant amount of local subsidy from the City and the Affordable Housing Trust. He said that developers will seek funding from sources at the State and other available sources where they are competing with affordable housing developers in Boston, Worcester or Somerville. He said that it is intense competition and oftentimes developers are forced to wait for that funding because it is so limited. He said that in some ways, that funding is more limited than the City funding. He said that the challenge that they have had has not been resources, it has been identifying sites where they can put the funding to work. He said that as it relates to development cost, some of that cost is covered by other funding sources. He said that we are likely talking about the range of $200,000 or so a unit of subsidy from the City. He said that looking back, the City has seen about 60 new affordable housing units built per year. He said that there are success stories such as the Concord Highlands development and the Frost Terrace project.

As it relates to the Cambridge Highlands and Frost Terrace projects, Councillor Mallon noted that since 2007, the majority (over 60%) of the projects are in the Port neighborhood. She said that it is good to see projects moving into different parts of the city. She said that many people are concerned about the term “in perpetuity.” She asked Mr. Cotter to explain the mechanics of what this means. Mr. Cotter responded that when we are talking about the housing that the City of Cambridge is funding, they are putting in place long term, permanent affordability covenants that are signed by the owner and remain in place based on the funding that the City or the Affordable Housing Trust is putting into a development. He explained that it is not uncommon for projects to have multiple affordable housing restrictions held by different public agencies. He said that there may be private entities that also restrict them. He said that that is one class of restriction and they are putting that in place because the City is a lender to the project. The City is funding the project and working with the other funders to put restrictions in place. He said that these restrictions are designed to be permanent. He said that when talking about zoning would be better in terms of restrictions because the City would continue to have restrictions that would come from the funding but the City and would also look at the zoning requirements that would also require that all units be affordable and remain affordable. He said that these would likely look more like restrictions in the inclusionary program which are zoning based and notwithstanding what is happening with other funding, if there is ever a zoning violation it is enforceable by the City in addition to the deed restrictions s on record. He said that the City would be able to get a better restriction from both a zoning perspective and the financing perspective.

Councillor Mallon asked about the Planning Board and how much community engagement there would be around the urban form. She asked for clarification as it relates to the process. Ms. Farooq said that the Planning Board conducts design review of Special Permit projects and also looks at affordable housing projects that are going to the BZA for comprehensive permits. They are reviewing the projects. She said that they have a public hearing to allow for opportunity of abutters or neighbors to present and express their concerns. She said that this feeds into the BZA’s evaluation of comprehensive permit requests and their final comments on a project. She said that the Planning Board can in this way express what they would like to see changed. She said that in a Special Permit project, they are the final decision makers for a discretionary permit. She noted that they often state what they want to see and CDD urban design staff continue to have design review. She stated that many conversations take place between staff and developers to keep refining the project based on what the Planning Board has expressed. She said that in instances where they are making comments that are going to another board such as the BZA, they put together a report and the final decision rests with the BZA. She said that there would be the same kind of public process in this instance where the community would have an opportunity to provide their input and the board would hear that, and based on their evaluation as well as what they hear from the public, they would then put together a series of recommendations which will be forwarded to the Affordable Housing Trust and to staff who would continue design discussions and refinements. She said that staff will work with the developers. She said that the concern that CDD has heard is where would there be the leverage. She said that all the projects that go through that are 100% affordable require funding from the Affordable Housing Trust. She said that the Affordable Housing Trust has an interest in good design outcomes. She said that they want to ensure a good fit with the rest of the community. She said that the Affordable Housing Trust has interest in making sure that the design outcomes are positive. Ms. Farooq said that this is done with every affordable housing project and will continue.

Councillor Mallon said that the difference is that the discretionary approval process can be appealed legally, and the design review process cannot. She said that one thing missing from the conversation is the idea of middle-income. She said that this is part of the conversation that we need to have.

Councillor Carlone said that he agrees with Councillor Mallon about expanding middle income. He said that any city that loses all its middle income families will fall apart. As it relates to new affordable housing having a budget of around $13 million, which is 2% of City budget, Councillor Carlone said that none of this additional housing construction will happen successfully until that expands appropriately. He said that everything relies on this additional funding. He said that a property between Harvard and Porter Squares was ready to be taken and the City did not act on it. He said that he has heard a vast improvement over what was thought to be the particulars. He said that on page 14 of the PowerPoint presentation it talks about existing buildings. He said that Mr. Roberts mentioned that conforming additions would be allowed after preserving existing structures. He said that at the higher density within existing buildings, you would still be allowed to add additions within the existing zoning. He said that he believed that there would be an increase in square footage that is allowed to be built. He asked if the FAR is increasing in this overlay. Mr. Roberts said that the general idea is that with a form-based approach they are not regulating based on density, they are regulating on the form of the building. Councillor Carlone said that this is the correct way to do this. He said that an earlier presentation showed the possibility of knocking down buildings in a neighborhood and building something significantly bigger. He asked if this is what is being proposed currently. Mr. Roberts said that the overlay proposal would allow preservation and would also allow new development. He explained that it could be an either/or depending on the condition of the site and the preservation character of that site. He said that it could be new construction, preservation, or the combination of the two. Councillor Carlone said that the house pictured on page 14 is a big house and he understood that 6 units will be put there instead of 3 within the same square footage and maybe a minor addition. He asked if we are now saying if the option exists, are we talking about doubling the FAR. Mr. Roberts said that the approach is not to have regulations based on FAR but based on the scale of the building. He said that in a particular zoning district, you would be allowed to preserve an existing building and/or construct buildings that are of a scale and height that would be allowed under the overlay district. He said that any new construction would have to conform to the allowed height and scale and dimensional standards. Councillor Carlone affirmed that we are talking about infill in back yards, but it would be in the scale of what is there with more square footage, not necessarily two stories higher. Mr. Roberts said that that would be one of the possibilities. He said that the challenge in this kind of zoning is that every scenario will be different, so the zoning will allow enough options so that an appropriate approach can be applied to the conditions of a given site. He explained that in terms of scale, the proposal is that in districts that currently allow development that could be 3 stories, this would allow up to 4 stories. He said that if it was an existing building of a larger scale, it could be converted. Councillor Carlone suggested that examples would be helpful so that everyone can understand and buy into this. As it relates to form-based approach, Councillor Carlone said that is right on the money.

As it relates to suggestions on height and scale when in an existing neighborhood, Councillor Carlone said that even if it is a four-story building, if it is a sloped roof at the top, it will fit in better than a flat roof. He said that the quality of anything big must be better than what is being built now.

As it relates to building and site design, Councillor Carlone said all the standards become even more critical. He said that he has been in the process too long to know that public process does not typically mean much. He said that affordable housing developers try to do a better job. He said that the most critical thing is that in many cases they will be in existing neighborhoods so the character is not Alewife, it is neighborhoods that want buildings to fit in. Lastly, Councillor Carlone said that the guidelines and design review process must be impeccable. He said that the Planning Board does not always think that way and this is part of the scare. He said that in commercial districts, it is critical for structures to be maintained. He said that vacant land needs to be on this list.

As it relates to the amount of subsidy needed from the City for an affordable unit averaging about $200,000 and increasing City funding for affordable housing by $20 million per year, Vice Mayor Devereux asked if that is 100 units. She asked about the math. Mr. Cotter said that it would depend on how the funds would be deployed. He said that that the 200,000 per unit is looking at past performance, and could be different looking forward. He said that this will increase with higher cost projects and smaller projects will likely require more subsidy. He said that the $200,000 number would assume commitments from other funding sources from the State. He said that smaller projects that would not be eligible or competitive for State funding would be higher. Vice Mayor Devereux said that the numerator is what the City is contributing, apart from all of the other sources.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked how scale is being interpreted. She said that when she looks at the map on page 16 of the PowerPoint presentation, scale to her is the density but we are seeing all residential neighborhoods essentially would have similar new height limits but their existing FAR is different. She said that this does not show her scale. She said that she is concerned that the new framework compared to what was shown to them several months ago is that we have basically eliminated FAR from the calculations. She said that in converting to a form-based approach, we are saying that FAR is not one of the standards anymore. She said that hypothetically, you could end up with some very large buildings on sites and saying that some existing building are non-compliant is not justification for allowing newer buildings to be so dramatically non-compliant. She said that in Res-B if there was a 7,000 square foot lot, under current zoning it would be allowed to have two units totaling 3,200 square feet and you would have to go to the BZA to get a dormer or something innocuous. She said that under the current version of the overlay framework, removing all of the FAR, the same parcel could theoretically have about 16,000 square feet on it. She said that we are not comparing apples to oranges. She said that we are focusing a lot on height which makes this look not as dramatic as an increase as it is when you compare FAR. She said that if you filled the lot with a building, you would be increasing the FAR over the current by 5.25 times. She said that this is a much larger building. She said that there would be design review, but she feels that this would tend to raise a lot of eyebrows. She said that we are looking at every lot the same and every lot is not the same. Vice Mayor Devereux said that there are a lot of questions about how form-based works. She said that it does not differentiate between a one-way, narrow side street or a two-way busy corridor. She said that is not about who is living in these units, it is about how the new buildings live with the other buildings around them. She said that it is not on objection to the new residents, it is the presence of a building that is dramatically different. She said that she would like more clarity in the next presentation about the actual size of the buildings that could be approved in the future. She noted that she shares Councillor Carlone’s questions about how existing buildings would be preserved and how the demolition delay ordinance would be invoked. She asked if any building would go to the Historical Commission or is there a more streamlined process.

Councillor Simmons reminded the Committee that there are some participants that must leave the hearing at 8:00pm and there are many people signed up for public comment. She stated that she and Councillor Siddiqui have decided that each person will be allowed to speak for two minutes. She said that any other questions that the Committee may have for CDD should be submitted to CDD so that they can come to the next hearing better prepared to answer questions. She stated that she and Councillor Siddiqui have decided that the next Housing Committee hearing will be, first and foremost, to receive public comment.

Councillor Zondervan noted that he has questions about open space and setbacks. As it relates to open space, he asked how CDD envisions interaction with the Resilience Task Force. He said that if the Resilience Task Force comes back and says that they need 20% or 25% open space, would the zoning be adjusted? Mr. Roberts responded that it could be done. He said that it is difficult to foresee what the outcome of those conversations could be, but open space can be a bit more of a fluid issue. He said that open space can be dealt with in different ways based on what else is going on in the lot. He said that one of the big questions and tradeoffs is the question about parking. He said that in many cases, if the parking is reduced or waived, you can achieve a more significant amount of open space but that would have to be a conversation and a balance. He said that there could be an opportunity to take recommendations and decide what should be applied.

As it relates to the page 19 of the PowerPoint presentation, Councillor Zondervan said that front yards can match surrounding buildings. He said that if we are in a situation where the setback is less than 10 feet, does this mean that that would be allowed, or would they have to setback 10 feet because that can create a very weird street front if most of the buildings are actually closer than 10 feet. Mr. Roberts said that the intent of that concept is to allow buildings to come forward in the situations where the buildings on either side are already built forward of what the typical district setback would be. He said that it is a provision that is currently in some zoning districts. He said that it is a contextual setback where the goal is creating a consistent pattern.

Councillor Toomey said that he has received e-mails saying the Affordable Housing Overlay District is being rushed through. He reminded people that he has been talking about this as far back as 1991. He said that he has talked about equal distribution of affordable housing in all the neighborhoods throughout the city. He said that sponsored a Policy Order in 2014 for an Affordable Housing Overlay District throughout the city. He said that this is not something that arose from the Envision process and people have been talking about this since 1991. He said that keeping the city diverse and affordable has always been a priority of the City Council. He said that he welcomes the discussion. He said that it is important to remember that the goal is to keep Cambridge diverse and affordable for all. He said that the equal distribution of affordable housing is just not happening under our current conditions. He asked all people to respect one another and concluded that he looks forward to the conversation.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that she goes back to a remark from Mr. Roberts about the challenge in front of the City about zoning. She said that we are layering requirements over previous requirements. She said that there are a lot of strong feelings about this, but it is not about feelings, it is about the future of the City of Cambridge. She said that she finds this comical. She spoke from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT I).

Peter Daly stated that he is happy to be at this point. He said that everyone in the City agrees that there is a need for more affordable housing. He said that 40B has helped a lot, but it can be appealed, which drives up the cost of affordable developments. He said that affordable developers like HRI need sites and money. He said that he is confident to work together to shape the plan for Cambridge.

Mr. Tibbs said that he is supportive of the Affordable Housing Overlay. He noted that he is interested in the details that would allow for increased density while maintaining the character of the neighborhood.

At this time, Councillor Simmons extended the time of the hearing. She reaffirmed that the next meeting on Mar 20, 2019 will be exclusively for public comment to ensure that everyone is heard.

Brad Bellows, 87 Howard Street, said that he raised his family in the Riverside area. He said that desperate times call for desperate measures. He said that the diversity is slipping away. He said that there is a need to solve the affordability crisis. He said that zoning is a powerful tool to protect the valuable urban fabric of the City. He said that he is puzzled by two aspects of the current proposal. He said that the notion of the overlay that essentially deregulates and dismantles some really important zoning protections, he said that we want coherence and there is potential to grow and increase density in the City and he supports that. He said that the corridors are a logical place that could accommodate a huge increase in the housing supply. He said that the idea of unlocking random, high density development throughout the neighborhoods of the city feels crazy. He said that that this will cause more damage than benefit and should be rethought. He said that the premise of the zoning relief is not just for adding affordable units but for only buildings that are 100% affordable. He said that if what we value is diversity, why are we only promoting things that are not diverse. He said that income segregation should not be the goal of the housing that is produced.

Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT J) regarding expressing her strong support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District proposal without the parking requirement. She stated her support for an additional $20 million in City funding for affordable housing for each of the next five years.

Deborah Ruhe, Seven Pines Avenue, stated that she cares about the diversity, economic, ethnic, and racial diversity of the City. She said that affordable housing is critical to maintaining these things. She said that as an employer, Just-A-Start employs 45 people, with four living in the City of Cambridge. She said that a good portion of her workforce would qualify to live in this type of housing. She said that as a developer and owner of affordable housing in Cambridge, she constantly tries to find properties to acquire and the funds to go with them. She gave two examples of where this would have made a difference in the past year. She said that one parcel that they looked at in the Inman Square neighborhood was asking $5 million dollars. She explained that by right, they could have built 16 units at a cost of $312,000 per unit just to acquire the property. With this zoning, they could have gotten 40 units at a cost of $125,000 per unit. She said that the second property they looked at had a sales price of $7.1 million and by right they could have built 27 units. With this zoning, they could have gotten 55 units at a cost of $129,000 per unit. She said that this makes a significant difference in the feasibility of properties. She asked the Committee to move forward with this proposal.

Adrian Musgrave stated that she is a resident of North Cambridge. She said that recently there was a project close to where she used to live that was less than 5 minutes from Massachusetts Avenue. She said that the market is just not developing. She said that she is excited for this overlay. She said that Cambridge is not getting the families that it wants and needs and this would be a great opportunity to do that. She said that when she last campaigned and spoke to residents about the overlay, the vast majority of people were supportive of this concept. She said that she hopes that the City can come together to make this overlay happen.

Betsy Houghteling, 132 Brattle Street, stated that Cambridge is one of the densest cities in America and when looking at this proposal, she hopes that the City is considering all the services that go along with the housing. She said that the water system in Cambridge is also one of the oldest systems in the country. She said that she is concerned that schools, infrastructure and traffic must be taken into account. She said that she is concerned about why these changes must be by-right. She asked why the zoning laws cannot be amended but still give residents a chance to reflect on what they want for their own community.

Julia Holderness, 130 Brattle Street, stated that Cambridge is a beautiful place and a historic place and progressive place. She said that she would like to second the remarks of Councillor Carlone and Vice Mayor Devereux. She said that she is interested in learning more about historic preservation. She said that there needs to be open space as well as increasing affordable housing.

David Sullivan, Notre Dame Avenue, former member of the City Council, stated that he supports the Affordable Housing Overlay and the request for $20 million in additional dollars each year for the next five years. He noted that this is the first time he has spoken publicly since he left the City Council many years ago. He said that he has been advocating for affordable housing in the City for almost forty years. He said that this is the start in the right direction and an important tool in the toolbox. He said that it has been a long time coming. He stated that he disagrees with those who say it is coming too fast as action must be taken quickly. He said that the reason for “as of right” is that if this is not included in the new overlay district, then projects would all be appealable, and neighbors could then use these appeals as a tool to ultimately block many new projects from getting built, thus defeating the very purpose of this plan.

Fritz Donovan, 42 Irving Street, stated that no one in the room is opposed to affordable housing. He said that Cambridge is 15% affordable and for the last two years has required all new substantial residential developments of 10,000 square feet or more to be at least 20% affordable. He asked why the vast majority of neighborhood groups in Cambridge are upset about the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay recommendations that has been circulated by Cambridge city staff. He said that the biggest culprit is the process. He said that Cambridge has 50% more affordable housing than the statewide goal and existing Cambridge ordinances required double the statewide goal. He said that developers have been given the primary role in solving the affordable housing crisis by shaping the current 100% overlay recommendations. He said that the citizens of Cambridge are largely being presented with the result. He said that the results have changed over the last couple of years.

Larry Bluestone, 19 Centre Street, stated his strong support on the principles of the Affordable Housing Overlay District. He stated that he previously sent his comments (ATTACHMENT K) for the record.

Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place, read from a prepared written statement regarding her support for affordable housing but her opposition to the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT L) stated that she supports affordable housing.

Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, stated that the public process has not disclosed the actual zoning language. He said that he would like to talk about the economics of this proposal. He said that he’s the landlord of a three-family in Cambridgeport. He said that the subdivision is ¼ of an acre with three houses, 8 housing units and 17 people. He said that under this proposal, he estimates that the build option would produce 30 units for the ¼ acre. He stated that to pay off the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and repairs, the landlords would incur costs that would have to be paid for by the new rents from the 30 units. He said that the average rent for those costs is $4,600 per month. He said that this is not affordable housing. He said that this plan is a flop.

Theresa Cardosi, 7 Woodrow Wilson Court, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT M) asked for support of the Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Trudy Goodman, 1221 Cambridge Street, stated that she is the face of affordable housing. She said that you should not say that you are in favor of affordable housing if you are not. She said that she is a professional actor. She said that she pays rent and taxes. She is a responsible citizen and has lived in the city for 40 years. She said that she wants to see real diversity. She said that zoning needs to be changed in a humane way for all neighborhoods. She said that she and her neighbors have a right to be in the City of Cambridge, even though they may not be affluent.

Peter Ciurczak, 720 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that he would like to put some numbers down as one of his fascinations. He said that in the last ten years in Cambridge, we have lost 28% of households making $50,000. He said that we have lost 17% of households making $50,000-$100,000 but we have gained 16% of households making between $100,000-$200,000 and there was a 70% increase in households making over $200,000. He said that the Affordable Housing Overlay is a good way of maintaining the diversity of incomes and people in the City of Cambridge. He said that if we do nothing, we will not get anywhere. He spoke in support of the overlay.

Yanisa Techagumthorn, 216 Norfolk Street, stated that she is a transportation planner and she supports the Affordable Housing Overlay District. She said that an overlay will help non-profit developers. She said that she believes in density as it relates to transit. She supports a reduction of parking requirements. She stated her support for form-based codes to preserve neighborhood character and allow for a controlled way to increase density. She said that bringing these measures into reality will allow for families, students and others to live and stay in the City of Cambridge.

Rebecca Schofield, 77 Harriet Street, Brighton, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT N) in strong support of the Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Tina Alu, 113 ½ Pleasant Street, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT O) in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay District and an increase in City funding of $20 million dollars a year for five years.

Patrick Braga, 11 Everett Street, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT P) in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Toby Hide, 11 Wendell Street, stated that he strongly supports the Affordable Housing Overlay District. He stated that the treatment of existing buildings is particularly elegant. He said that he wants to emphasize that it can be improved by eliminating parking requirements. He said that this is a flawed place to start because those buildings were built under existing conditions with higher parking minimums.

Don Somerfield, 237 Franklin Street, stated that he has lived in public housing since 2004. He said that he has been disabled for 17 years. He said that when he moved into an affordable housing apartment, he got to control all decisions of his life. He said that being independent has increased his quality of life. He stated his support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Betsy Harper, 60 Stearns Street, stated that she would like the staff to do extensive and additional work under environmental standards green building requirements and its definition. She said that there is a huge conversation that is about reducing our carbon emission and those goals will only be met by reduction in the transportation and reduction of buildings. She said that there is no conversation about carbon emission or energy use.

Stuart Lesser, 115 Lexington Avenue, stated that he supports affordable housing. He said that he does not support an Affordable Housing Overlay District. He said that the Envision report talks about increased density and traffic and the character of neighborhoods. He said that we must look at neighborhood by neighborhood. He said that this is the important task. He said that in some areas this will work but we have to do the hard work to make that determination. He said that the parking requirement is not necessarily reduced parking.

Carolyn Fuller, 12 Douglass Street, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT Q) regarding her strong support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District with the exception that there should be a parking maximum not minimum.

Bill MacAvinney, 12 Douglass Street, stated that he is a homeowner. He talked about the differentials of power. He said that on his street there are roughly 17 rental units and 3 homeowner units. He said that 16 of the 17 rentals units have been forced out by rising rents. He said that people who are using their homes do not have a right to sue. He stated his strong support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District and the $20 million dollar per year addition by the City. He said that this proposal will come closer to leveling the playing field between market rate developers and affordable housing developers.

Fred Meyer, 83 Hammond Street, stated that he is concerned about the people who cannot afford the rents in Cambridge. He said that this zoning proposal does not address this issue. He said that zoning has no control over who lives there, it only controls setbacks, etc. He stated that he would like to see statistics of the privately done affordable housing developments that reveal affordable housing for whom. He asked how many of those units went to people who are deserving and how many went to the millions of people from all over the world who would like to live in Cambridge. He spoke about a large Victorian House across the street from his home that is a halfway house. He said that he encourages this use.

Sergey Petrov, 10 Dana Street, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT R) regarding consultation services, consequences, and identifying the number of people living in Cambridge who support the Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Sharone Small, 77 Hancock Street, stated her support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District and the request for an additional $20 million dollars each year over the next five years for affordable housing. She said that the lack of affordable housing has reached a crisis and the City needs to everything it can to promote the creation of new, affordable units.

Noam Tanner, 47 Sacramento Street, stated that he is on the board of a religious prayer group and due to Sabbath restrictions, the entire community has to live within walking distance of the synagogue. He said that if housing prices continue to rise, it will be difficult to maintain his group. He said that this group has formed many beautiful social connections. He stated his support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Jessica Sheehan, 99 Norfolk Street, stated that she strongly supports the Affordable Housing Overlay District and additional $20 million per year for five years for affordable housing.

Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street, stated that she is pleased about the discussion of affordable housing. She said that she supports more affordable housing policies, but the overlay should not be the end all/be all. She said that $20 million dollars in additional funding is not enough. She said that Cambridge is becoming a city of rich and poor. She said that this policy will not help a single person making less than $56,800. She asked the City Council to look at other policies as well. She said that true equity is about wealth creation which is about home ownership.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT S). She stated that she liked that stated goals of the overlay, the decision to focus on height rather than FAR, 20% of affordable housing being for middle-income people and the inclusion of specific setback amounts. She stated that more information is needed in several areas, including defining and requiring a strong community process and explaining how to protect existing trees, other buildings, and affordable rents for existing small, local retail.

Public Comment closed at 8:49pm.

Councillors Simmons and Siddiqui thanked all those present for their patience and perseverance and noted that the next Housing Committee hearings will take place on Mar 20, 2019 and Mar 28, 2019.

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

Note: 21 additional communications were received by the City Clerk’s Office (ATTACHMENTS T through ATTACHMENTS NN).

The hearing adjourned at 8:49pm.

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

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Mar 27, 2019 at 3:03pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition filed by Melissa and Christopher Grippo et al to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding at the end of section 5.30.11 a sentence that reads: “notwithstanding the foregoing, in Industry B District, a hotel use (Section 4.31.2) shall be governed by the section number (4.0) for purposes of determining the maximum ratio of floor area to lot area (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Zondervan; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Director of Zoning and Development Jeff Roberts, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Attorney Patrick Barrett; Mark Boyes-Watson; Hassanaly Ladha, 34-40 Hampshire Street LLC; and John Hawkinson.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded both publicly and privately. He outlined the format of the hearing. The petitioners would be heard first, followed by city staff and the Planning Board, then the City Council would discuss, followed by public comment and finally the City Council would conclude with a discussion.

Attorney Patrick Barrett, representing the petitioners, gave a PowerPoint Presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He stated his presentation includes a parcel owned by Mr. Ladha in the IB district. He explained that the presentation would show what could possibly be built and what the intent is. In 2001 a citywide rezoning of the Industrial-B district hotel use was reduced to 2.75 FAR as a means to incentivize residential construction. Barrett noted that no residential building has occurred in this district in past 20 years. However, there have been three large commercial developments, all of which have been approved above the 4.0 FAR. He also noted a sub-area in IB allows a 3.2 FAR specifically for larger commercial buildings.

Mr. Barrett stated that the hotel use is still listed in the Table of Uses as a residential use, but it still cannot obtain the higher residential FAR of 4.0. He showed the area of the IB District before 2001 and after the rezoning of 2001. The petitioners own a lot in the district and want to build a small independent hotel. However, under the current FAR of 2.75 zoning this is extremely difficult. He stated that the up zoning petition received a favorable recommendation by the Planning Board.

Barrett stated that residential development in this district is complicated given the large commercial/industrial buildings that surround it on three sides. Since the site also abuts the residential neighborhood, a hotel use is the best way to connect the two use areas. He informed the committee that he has met with the East Cambridge Business Association and with members of the community. He stated that One Kendall Square supports the plan because the hotel will bring an active use to this area. He stated that currently there is no active use in this area. He stated that there are 28 parcels in the IB district with parcels that are large in scale with a FAR of 4.0 or larger. He stated that because of a 2.75 FAR no one builds there.

He stated that there are 2,400 short-term rental units but only 212 are registered with ISD. He stated that short-term rentals use comprises 25% of what is deemed over-night stays in Cambridge. This proposed hotel use would draw out some Airbnb’s that are not registered. He commented that the Watermark Building and the Third Street Apartment building are the biggest Airbnb locations, which are registered through Global Luxury Suites, which should not be a residence. These are being used as hotels and are not registered. He stated that the market for the proposed hotel is for this Airbnb market. His rates will be competitive and will have to do more to draw in the crowds.

There was an 84% hotel occupancy rate in 2018 and there are over 100 nights in Cambridge where every hotel room is booked. He noted that the demand is extraordinarily high. The average rate locally is $272 a night; national average is $110, including unregistered 2200 Airbnb’s. He stated that this petition has been characterized as up-zoning. He prefers to think of it a restoration to a previous 4.0 FAR condition.

This is the perfect spot for this hotel use and for urban infill development. Three-dimensional renderings indicated that the grey zone is what could be built by right and the blue area is what the 4.0 FAR would add. This is lower than anything that is around it. He stated that Kendall Square is a great economic engine for the City but is not active or vibrant at night.

This type of hotel pays their employees more and draws employees from the neighborhood. This lot will get the architectural attention that it deserves. He stated that when the Central Square rezoning was addressed this same issue was addressed to activate the space. This is a small change in the zoning to a pre-existing condition. He stated that the Planning Board felt that this is the best way to go.

Councillor Carlone asked if the City Councillors had any clarification questions. None were offered.

Councillor Carlone asked how many square feet would be added to the proposal. Mr. Boyes-Watson responded that the petition adds two floors and each floor is 3,500 square feet.

Councillor Carlone stated that the total building is approximately four times this. Mr. Boyes-Watson responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Carlone asked staff to come forward.

Mr. Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, CDD, stated that the Planning Board reviewed this petition on Feb 26, 2019 and recommended adoption (ATTACHMENT C). This district is largely characterized with office and lab use and larger scale buildings. It is unlikely that there would be a significant change from this pattern except for a handful of small sites. He explained that the Planning Board felt that incentivizing hotel use on the site was appropriate for the district.

Councillor Carlone noted that residential use was basis for the downzoning in 2001 and asked what the Residential FAR currently is? Mr. Roberts stated that this district had a maximum FAR of 4.0 and under 2001 City-wide rezoning it was changed to allow for non-residential uses and changed to 2.75 FAR and for residential it remained at 4.0. He added that this can be increased if it is for inclusionary housing projects by 30%.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment.

John Hawkinson stated that he had drafting comments that would make the proposed zoning ordinance clearer. He stated that there is a reference to section 4.31.2 in the ordinance which does not exist. He believes this is intended to refer to 4.31 (i) 2 which in turn refers to the Table of Uses referring to hotels. He wanted the City to amend the petition to reflect this. He stated that more substantively this section is at the beginning of the Table of Uses section of the ordinance and it refers to the Table which follows eleven pages later in Section 5.34 (entitled Industrial Districts). He stated that the table contains a footnote with an exception to those numbers. He added that it is a bad idea to put one exception in a footnote of the table and have another exception eleven pages later and that the exceptions should be together however they are handled. He stated that it is better that the change be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance already written and to revise footnote (e) of Table 5-4 in section 5.34 and to revise footnote (e) to include the language regarding hotels rather than putting it eleven pages earlier before the Table in a way that is different from how all other exceptions are handled. He requested that the City Councillor revise the ordinance regarding his comments so that it is clear and easy to read and understand.

Councillor Carlone stated that the city would depend on Cambridge’s zoning expert to incorporate the suggested change and the Law Department to incorporate any overview change that is necessary.

Councillor Carlone opened discussion with the City Council.

Councillor Zondervan asked Mr. Roberts about Mr. Hawkinson’s suggestions on whether it should or should not be considered. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative. He stated that it is true that the hotel uses listed in 4.31 (i) 2 rather than 4.31.2. He stated that generally when speaking of an exception the dimensional standards they are mostly listed in the footnotes of that Table. He stated that in this case for Industrial Districts it will be Table 5-4. He would also recommend that this is where this language should go.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he wanted to move the amendments. He stated that this would be an improvement over the current conditions. He asked what sustainability features could be included in the building. Mr. Boyes-Watson stated there is limited ability to generate any power on the site. The building will be as energy efficient as possible. He noted that the lot is only 6,000 square feet and is limited in what can be achieved. This lot faces northeast and he will work with the envelope to make this building as efficient as possible. Councillor Zondervan asked about living wage and providing jobs for Cambridge residents. Mr. Ladha responded that no one would be paid less than the living wage. It is their intention to meet or exceed the living wage and would maximize the capture of local residents as employees. Councillor Zondervan stated that residents from Newtowne Court and Washington Elms would appreciate jobs in the hotel.

Councillor Carlone stated that given the location, existing parking is tight and seeking local workers who could walk to work would be a benefit.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about hospitality programs. She stated that Just-A-Start is thinking about starting such a program. She asked what the buildout timeline is. Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that based on completing this zoning process there would then be a planning and review process. Hopefully, construction would begin in the Spring of 2020 and will be eighteen months long.

Councillor Carlone stated that the site is tight and this could prolong the construction cycle. He added that the site is presently a whole in the urban block. He asked about the type of material that would be used for this project. Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that this building has the ability to restore the urban wall that creates the surrounding public space. There is a lot of frontage given the small parcel size. He added that more money could be spent on the facade because it has only one facade that faces out. He is hoping to use high quality materials and a fair amount of glazing. The adjacent brick building is dull, and the plan is stay away from brick but to add gravitas to the building with a masonry kind of feel with bay windows or a sense of a bay window. He stated that it is thought of as a building that speaks to being inhabited by people and has a patina or scale such as a classic European hotel. This is the design intent. He stated that it would do well to do a contrast and be an accent. He stated that this building could speak to One Kendall Square across the street. Councillor Carlone stated that the building abutting has a lower blank wall, and this proposal should be an embellishment.

Councillor Carlone asked if this size of building is subject to design review? Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that this project will go to the Planning Board and there will be a public hearing so that the neighborhood is involved with the project.

Councillor Zondervan now moved the amendments (ATTACHMENT D) - and on a voice vote the motion to amend -Carried on a voice vote of four members.

Councillor Carlone moved that the petition be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation as amended - and on a voice vote the motion - Carried on a voice vote of four members.

A communication was received from Jason Alves, Executive Director, East Cambridge Business Association, in support of the Grippo petition (ATTACHMENT E).

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 3:36pm.

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