4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-13, regarding electric vehicles.
Referred to Transportation & Public Utilities Committee

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Date: May 9, 2018
Re: Policy Order 18-13, regarding electric vehicles

Community EV Strategy
The City of Cambridge has a long history of implementing policies and programs to reduce vehicle ownership, limit single-occupancy vehicle trips, and encourage use of alternative and more sustainable modes of transportation. However, we know that automobiles will continue to be part of the mix of modes in the city, and for those that continue to own and drive a vehicle in Cambridge, electric vehicles (EVs) will play an important role in reducing both GHG emissions and local air pollution. Per the Climate Protection Action Committee’s Goals and Objectives for 2020 that were adopted by the City Council in 2015, a key component of the City’s climate protection strategy is to encourage a shift from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles, while still reducing overall vehicle ownership and vehicle miles travelled (VMT).

Given this hierarchy of priorities, it would be beneficial for our programs and policies to incentivize electric vehicles over internal combustion engine vehicles without incentivizing new vehicle ownership or new vehicle trips.

The majority of residents in Cambridge do not have dedicated off-street parking and therefore the availability of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) remains a key barrier to the adoption of EVs in Cambridge. This is supported by a 2015 study commissioned by Eversource that Cambridge participated in, “Accommodating Garage Orphans”.

The Massachusetts state goal is to have 300,000 EVs registered statewide by 2025. Proportional to the State’s total automobiles registered in Cambridge, this equates to a goal of over 4,000 EVs registered in Cambridge by 2025. The exact number of EVSE, and the most appropriate level and location of EVSE chargers needed to support that level of EV ownership by Cambridge residents has not been determined. However, given the high number of homes without access to off street parking, we believe that the availability of EVSE charging in public places and in the public right of way will need to increase to support EV ownership in Cambridge.

Funds are included in the FY19 operating budget proposal for the Community Development Department (CDD) to further develop and refine an EV Strategy.

The EV Strategy is expected to include recommendations on the following:

• Options for expanding the network of publicly available EVSE to meet resident and visitor needs, including a strategy for siting of stations, EVSE technology most appropriate for different use cases, and public EVSE ownership models and funding sources.
• Policy mechanisms and incentives the City could consider to support EVSE on private property.
• High impact outreach activities to support the recommendations in the EV/EVSE strategy.
• Plans for monitoring and evaluating strategies that are implemented.

The EV Strategy recommendations will prioritize equitable access to EV information and EV charging for all Cambridge residents.

While the EV Strategy will provide a long-term plan for supporting EV ownership, the City continues to pursue short term opportunities. In the FY19 budget proposal, the City has allocated $100,000 in capital funds for EVSE installation on municipal property. The funding is expected to cover the hardware and installation costs for three EVSE stations in municipal parking lots. The City is also working with Eversource to apply for funds that the utility has available. Through their “Make Ready” program, Eversource plans to invest $45 million in extending electrical capacity for EVSE statewide. If Cambridge municipal parking lots are accepted for the Make Ready program funding, it would reduce the City’s cost of installation, freeing up capital funds for additional EVSE installations.

The City also continues to pursue opportunities for EV and EVSE outreach, beyond providing information on the City’s webpage and at general outreach events. Last year CDD hosted two Ride and Drive events during National Drive Electric Week. The first was a stand-alone event, and the second was part of Danehy Park Family Day. CDD is coordinating with staff from other City departments, EV advocacy groups, the State Department of Energy Resources (DOER), and Eversource to host Ride and Drive events again this year. We are focused on adding Ride and Drive events to existing City events, such as the River Festival and Danehy Park Family Day, as those events attract a large and diverse audience.

Municipal Fleet Initiatives
The City’s fleet comprises approximately 360 vehicles. These vehicles perform diverse tasks such as refuse and compost collection; fire-fighting, emergency medical response; police-related activities; snow plowing; tree watering; park and street maintenance; food services for public schools; staff work-related transportation, and other functions. These tasks require a range of vehicle types, weights, and performance capabilities.

In 2010 the City adopted a Green Fleets Policy as a prerequisite for becoming one of the first Green Communities in Massachusetts. The policy requires all vehicle purchase requests to be evaluated by an interdepartmental Green Fleets committee. The guidelines include reducing vehicle and fleet size when appropriate, using alternative fuel vehicles when feasible and meeting state Green Community fuel efficiency guidelines for administrative vehicles. The fleet currently includes close to 40 hybrid and two electric vehicles. In 2017 we converted a rubbish packer, Human Services shuttle bus and two maintenance vans to hybrid drive systems. We’ve submitted a grant proposal to the state to equip an additional 11 medium and heavy-duty vehicles with similar technology.

It is also worth noting that all non-Fire department diesel vehicles use B20 biodiesel fuel that has been sourced from restaurant waste oil in the Northeast region.

Municipal Clean Fleet Plan
The Department of Public Works (DPW) is currently developing a Clean Fleet Plan to set a 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target and implementation plan for the municipal fleet. Work to date has included:

• A fleet GHG inventory for 2009 through 2016.
• Business-as-usual and several reduction scenarios for 2030
• Meetings with stakeholder departments to understand operational needs and introduce GHG-reducing technologies.

As might be expected, 80% of the City’s fleet emissions are associated with DPW, Fire and Police vehicles. The technologies being investigated include converting or replacing vehicles with hybrid drive systems, installing auxiliary power units and other anti-idling devices and purchasing plug-in electric vehicles and equipment. Central to the success of the program is the need for a clear understanding of the operational requirements of departments, including whether a vehicle is used for snow plowing, emergency response, or during severe storms, space required for on-board cargo and equipment, driver and mechanic training and infrastructure requirements. For electrification, this would include identifying electric infrastructure and locations for EV charging stations.

Upcoming work includes:

• Specifying the 2030 emissions reduction target and developing department-specific implementation plans.
• Refining the analytic model to understand the impacts of factors such as price changes, energy supply mix and technological and market changes.
• Evaluating a buy-electric policy for sedans and SUV’s.

We will be working closely with other City departments and anticipate reporting on our work in FY19.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     May 14, 2018
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: Over the past several years, City staff from multiple departments, members of the Outdoor Lighting Task Force, and other community members have invested significant time and resources in drafting an Outdoor Lighting Ordinance to “permit an amount of outdoor lighting that is appropriate to allow for the safe use and enjoyment of outdoor areas, while also mitigating light trespass and glare to abutters and the public at large, reducing light pollution, and promoting energy conservation”; and
WHEREAS: A draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance was heard during the 2016-2017 term by the Planning Board and the City Council’s Ordinance Committee; and
WHEREAS: Both bodies were generally supportive at that time, but returned the draft to the Community Development Department for refinement; and
WHEREAS: Light pollution is a nuisance to many residents, a known health risk, and a waste of energy; and
WHEREAS: A Policy Order was adopted by the City Council on Sept 18, 2017 asking for an update on the status of the Light Cambridge Committee, but no update has been received; and
WHEREAS: Another Policy Order was adopted by the City Council on Sept 18, 2017 asking that the City Manager report back “with a schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates clearer wording…with a goal of seeing such an Ordinance adopted by the end of this City Council term”; and
WHEREAS: No response to the above order was received, and it remains on this term’s Awaiting Report list as AR 17-87; and
WHEREAS: Considerable time has passed since these orders were adopted, and since the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board sent the proposal back to the Community Development Department; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council by June 11 with an updated schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates suggestions from the Light Cambridge Committee.

O-3     May 14, 2018
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: Clinton Street connects the heavily used Harvard Street and Massachusetts Avenue corridors and is frequently used as a cut-through by drivers who engage in excessive speed; and
WHEREAS: Last month, a car speeding down Clinton Street struck another car that was backing out of a driveway, displacing it by 3.5 feet from the pre-impact location; and
WHEREAS: Dozens of neighbors are concerned about safety on Clinton Street, which is home to many elderly residents and young children, and have submitted a petition asking for additional traffic calming measures including speed bumps or speed platforms along the length of the street; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to explore the possibility of improving road safety conditions on Clinton Street based on the resident petition; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter as soon as possible.

O-4     May 14, 2018
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: The University of Vermont Spatial Labs (UVM) conducted a survey of Cambridge’s tree canopy, based on LiDAR flyover data from 2009 and 2014, with the resulting study documenting a 7% citywide canopy loss over that period; and
WHEREAS: Another LiDAR flyover data collection was done in April 2018, which will allow the city to assess the current state of our tree canopy; and
WHEREAS: The cost of a flyover is $87,000, which includes the LiDAR data cost ($22,000), and yields other useful data to the city; and
WHEREAS: The cost of the UVM study is $5,000 plus an additional $3,500 for quality assurance analysis; and
WHEREAS: Some or all of these costs can be offset through grants, collaborations and sometimes federal funding; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge’s trees are a precious resource that provide many essential public health benefits, including cleaner air, oxygen, carbon storage and protection against the urban heat island effect through shading and evaporative cooling; and
WHEREAS: Tree canopy coverage and the corresponding heat protection it provides is generally the lowest in underserved and vulnerable populations in our city; and
WHEREAS: A thriving tree canopy is an essential component of our climate resilience; and
WHEREAS: Citizen activists have documented severe tree canopy destruction in the years since 2014 including more than 50 healthy trees lost over a 10-day period in April 2018; and
WHEREAS: It is likely that the recent flyover will reveal even further canopy loss since 2014, and Cambridge cannot afford to continue losing trees at this rate; and
WHEREAS: Regular measurements of our tree canopy are an essential data tool to help us assess our urban tree canopy and respond to threats and damages to its health; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to complete a tree canopy study based on the April 2018 LiDAR data before the end of 2018, and to complete future LiDAR based studies as frequently as possible, but no more often than once a year; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter as soon as possible.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:06pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed Surveillance Ordinance. He outlined the format of the hearing.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; City Manager Louis DePasquale; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Police Commissioner Branville Bard; Mary Hart, CEO, IT; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; Keplin Allwater, Assistant City Solicitor, Law Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Kade Crockford, ACLU; Richard Stallman, 303 Third Street; Faye Dukhovni, 69 Chestnut Street; Ray Hua Wu, 117 Sciarappa Street; Richard Barran, 58C Hammond Street; and Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being audio recorded privately. An agenda was distributed (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that the City and others have done work on this ordinance (ATTACHMENT B) and it will be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee. Introductions were made.

City Manager DePasquale thanked all for the work done to date. He committed to make this a joint effort and get the input of ACLU. He thanked the City staff.

Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that she was pleased to be submit the draft ordinance; it is a major step for the City. She spoke about the purpose of the ordinance; it is well laid out. She read the purpose. There are important things trying to be achieved.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that in preparing this draft (there was an earlier draft that was not what was desired and which has been put aside) the City has met with representatives of the ACLU. She spoke of other ordinances from other communities. This draft is most like the ordinances of Santa Clara County and Seattle, WA, but Davis, CA was also a relevant reference. She spoke about the definition sections and highlighted surveillance technology defines what technology is and includes what is covered by the definition. She spoke about what was excluded from the definitions. She stated that there are exemptions from the ordinance. The ordinance requires a technical surveillance use policy. The City Manager and the staff would put together an impact report on technology used and a draft policy as to how it will be deployed. This will be submitted to the City Council for review. She noted that another definition of importance is the exemption for temporary acquisition. After the police commissioner has determined that there is no need to report on exigent technology, it would be reported to the City Council. There is an oversight section, enforcement is done by the city. The effective date of the ordinance is nine months after adoption.

Councillor Kelley asked what constraints were not included. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that one of the key issues that concerns people is technology that can track data about an individual or a group. A camera with no facial recognition or no ability to capture a license plate number could be used for traffic; the City wanted to use this in an effective way. She noted that exempt technology was spelled out. Councillor Kelley commented that the personnel involved are Police, Law, Inspectional Services, and Fire. Emergency Communications Center is not included. City Solicitor Glowa explained that she met with Fire, Traffic, ECC and IT. She stated that Public Works will be affected by this ordinance. She stated that she did not meet with ISD and was not sure how they would be doing surveillance.

Councillor Carlone stated that Santa Clara and Seattle are the basis for the ordinance developed. How long have policies been in effect and have there been edits or changes. City Solicitor Glowa responded that the Santa Clara’s ordinance was promulgated in 2016 and Seattle’s in 201l and amended in 2017. She stated that she is unaware of any changes. Councillor Carlone stated that he agrees in principal with what he has read. He stated that if the law is broken and there is a security camera that tracks a license plate is this allowed. City Solicitor Glowa stated that automatic license plate readers would not be allowed but traffic cameras simply for counting traffic, without capturing plate numbers, would not need approval because the scope and what is not included is traffic counting because this information is blurred before it is stored. This would be included in the technology that this ordinance covers and it depends on which technology is more critical to the police.

Ms. Crockford thanked the City for the amount of work done on this ordinance. She stated that there has been back and forth on the language in the ordinance. She stated that ACLU has concerns, especially with Trump as president. She spoke about political concerns. The key disagreements with the City has to do with government trust. This is to protect civil liberties no matter who is in charge. She spoke about the specific concerns of the ACLU. She highlighted the eight concerns in her testimony. (ATTACHMENT C).

She stated that section 12.22.020 (F) 3 c exempts license plate reader cameras. This needs clarification.

She stated that section 12.22.030 A and B impact the report and a surveillance use policy both should need to be approved by the City Council.

Section 12.22.030 C invokes police department function shall balance and she suggested that this be changed to “the City Council shall consider the safeguarding of individuals’ rights to privacy, freedom of speech and freedom of association, as well as the investigative responsibilities of the Police Department”.

Section 12.22.050 B the language is too broad an overview by the City Manager. This should not appear in a City ordinance because it does not oversee the Middlesex DA or the Office of the Sheriff.

In section 12.22. 060 (A) the draft ordinance states that “if the City Council received but did not approve a Surveillance Impact Report from the Police Department because of concerns over obstructing the investigative or prosecutorial function of the Police Department” and she stated her concerned with the construction of the sentence. She stated that where the City Council does not approve technology it should still be reported to the City Council.

In section 12.22.060 (B) her concern is for on-going oversight. The City Council should be able to revoke technology if not used as outlined in the ordinance or not useful to the Police. The City Council could revoke the future use of the technology. Once authorization is given there is oversight provided by the City any may consider modifications to the Surveillance Use Policy that address the City Council’s concerns to the City Manager for his consideration and or request a report back from the City Manager on the steps taken to address the concerns of the City Council.

Ms. Crockford noted that the draft ordinance does not require public input. She suggested a time period where the public can submit comments.

In section 12.22.070 enforcement of the entire ordinance rests with the City Manager. She spoke about unintended elections; there should be an external civil remedy to be able to receive justice if surveillance is misused. She spoke about the ordinance including a private right of action. She noted that she would like a section added that makes the Council vote on surveillance impact reports and so forth.

Councillor Zondervan questioned the ordinance. The definition on page two of Surveillance data he asked why limited to electronic. He wanted to drop “electronic.” He asked: “What is the benefit to limiting this to electronic data?” Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that this would be a huge shift and she needs to think about this. This data could include paper and what implications does this have. Councillor Zondervan stated that whether the data is collected by paper or electronic it is how it is being used. Councillor Zondervan asked why there is a separation in the language for police and non-police departments. City Manager DePasquale stated that he is uncomfortable answering questions on this; he wanted a list of questions and will respond later. Councillor Zondervan stated that he would submit his questions in writing. He stated that the City Council approval is not defined in the ordinance. He wanted to know what is meant by City Council approval and to build in public comment. He stated that on page eleven under enforcement it is not defined what enforcement is. He wanted more clarity on enforcement. The City Council should have the power to revoke and any powers not outlined in the ordinance are available to the City Council. He wanted the City Council approval explicitly outlined. He asked if any consideration was given to limiting or supervising private surveillance. Ms. Crockford stated that private surveillance is something that also concerns her but for political reasons it may be better to keep this separate; it may complicate the issue and slow down the ordinance.

Mayor McGovern spoke about the things that concern him. He noted that the City Council does not move quickly. He stated that it is important to have a public hearing for things not of an emergency nature and that if the council cannot act before something is done, it should at least have the final say afterwards. He spoke about protection of information and asked how long will the information it be kept. He stated that he wanted more information on this. He questioned what is meant by a non-private audit.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that it is police report that includes confidential information.

Mayor McGovern stated that in situations where there is significant property damage or loss he wanted a better definition of significant property loss or damage so that relevant surveillance would come before City Council. He noted that other versions of the proposed ordinance have had language that had the Council determining what technology is deemed surveillance and he asked why it was struck from this ordinance draft.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she does not want to tie our hands when it comes to smart technology, she wants to make sure the City has a process to allow its use if appropriate. She is taking seriously the ACLU concerns and supports their comments. She spoke about the loophole where the Manager could decide if process gets in the way of lawful governmental operations and asked is there a middle ground.

She asked could an Executive Session be used for an emergency situation. The ACLU suggested deleting. She wanted middle ground. Ms. Crockford stated that there are legal loopholes on exigent circumstance and ‘exigent’ is sufficiently defined. The City Council would not be required to approve before but the police would be required to report that the technology was used.

Councillor Siddiqui asked how are civil rights and liberties and so forth measured. Ms. Crockford stated that Boston, which does not have a Surveillance ordinance, has deployed license plate readers in neighborhoods of color or low-income areas. Is the intention to put this in black or low-income areas. This is an important area to look at.

Councillor Kelley stated that he wants the surveillance ordinance to be able to be expanded as things change. He stated that privacy information is given out with charge cards and other measures. He stated that the high school will be issuing a Chrome book to students. He wanted this ordinance to be as adaptive as possible. He spoke about cameras and their ability of data manipulation.

At this point Councillor Kelley opened the hearing to public comment.

Richard Stallman suggested using “yielding digital data” instead of “electronic.” This information is in computers and can be used as surveillance. If something just exists on paper, it’s difficult to analyze in the same manner. Exigent circumstances should be limited in time and that after a certain amount of time the city officials should come to the City Council to get approval to continue to do surveillance. He stated when you hear “smart cities” you should think “spy” and they are not to be given a pass in this ordinance as smart cities are a type of surveillance, too. He stated that regarding opting out what is lost when giving information. He stated that the definition of surveillance should combining any data as aggregating data can become an issue if it leads back to the person in question. He stated that definition D is too narrow. Surveillance should be done by City in cooperation with other cities. He stated that “surveillance” needs to be kept to a single device and cannot be shared and that definitions of what is a ‘camera’ and so forth are important. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT D).

Faye Dukhovni, 69 Chestnut Street, agreed with the concerns stated by Ms. Crockford and expressed concerns on enforcement. The City Manager should not be able to opt out and she stated that exigent circumstance is too broad and wanted it defined better.

Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place, stated that there are many reasons why this ordinance is needed and she appreciated City’s efforts to protect people’s rights not to be surveilled. She spoke about the language of balancing individual rights and public safety. She stated that prosecutorial function is not mentioned anywhere in this ordinance. No one person, including the City Manager, should have authority for surveillance deployment in this ordinance; only the City Council should and there must be public input.

Ilan Levy, 48 Spring Street, stated that proposed supervision of technology surveillance should be in the hands of the public and the City Council and not the City Manager. He stated that exigent circumstances are defined well enough. He is disturbed about the property damage issue. A protest could do some damage on property and could the police use that damage to require surveillance. He cautioned about a smart city because the information can be misused and noted that it is important to try to understand what others are doing and how they might abuse information the City collects before it is collected. He spoke about technology influencing lives. He wanted the city to be tight and narrow with this ordinance because the technology changes so rapidly.

Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street, noted that a lot of city staff time has been devoted on this. He had 3 points. He as uncomfortable with the City Manager determining if something is unlawful; he stated that he is uncomfortable with this power residing in one individual and enforcement should be larger than the City Manager. This is about transparency. He spoke about private companies and that there are other police forces in the city that he would look at regarding surveillance before private companies. He has more concern with the private corporation of Harvard and MIT. He spoke about smart cities and stated that they are surveillance cities. He stated that MIT’s proposal was for smart devices where the data would stay on the device and not move anywhere. He stated that we should move towards privacy protection.

Bruce ______, 625 Mass. Avenue, stated that he has a background on privacy rights. He stated that he understands the need to have access to surveillance technology but worries about its actual use. Once the equipment is purchased the City Council should have power over the licensure and suggested certification for the operators. This would ensure oversight and accountability of the operators. There can be a limit to who has access to the equipment.

At 3:19pm Councillor Kelley closed public comment.

Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted something before the City Council before this summer. Is this possible? He suggested having one more Public Safety Committee hearing and a couple of working meetings. He stated that once referred to the Ordinance Committee this may not need to be vetted again. He wanted this before the Ordinance Committee before June.

Vice Mayor Devereux suggested one more Public Safety Committee hearing before sending the ordinance to the Ordinance Committee. It would be in a “close enough” version if not absolutely final.

Mayor McGovern stated that this started in June 2016 with a discussion with ACLU and it has been before the City Council. He wanted to see this more forward. He would be fine going to the Ordinance Committee sooner rather than later.

Councillor Zondervan supported sending the ordinance to the Ordinance Committee as soon as possible.

Deputy City Manager Peterson noted that there are a lot of questions that have come up today. She wanted to get back to the committee in a month with the answer to the questions. She suggested a Public Safety Committee hearing at the end of May or early in June.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not want to give this back to City and then the City Council is not doing anything. He envisioned touching bases to ensure that this not drifting too far from what is supportable. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated it is hard not to do this in the Public Safety Committee. Councillor Kelley wanted a working group to meet. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she would have to investigate to ensure that it is a requirement of open meeting law. Mayor McGovern wanted the City to work with the ACLU. City Manager DePasquale stated that the City can work with ACLU and he would like to keep this as it has been going. This is the third revision and he wanted to get to a position where all are happy. He wanted to keep this in this format.

Councillor Carlone noted that the Manager’s suggestion made sense and asked that where there is disagreement that both positions be outlined.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is a healthy working relationship. She wanted the City staff to get closer to the ACLU’s position. The City and ACLU can continue their discussion. This needs to be opened to the Ordinance Committee for their input.

Councillor Kelley stated that the ball is with the city staff to continue working with the ACLU. He wanted to be kept abreast of these meeting. Councillor Kelley stated that the following communications that were made part of the record.

Communication from Nancy Murray, 204 Erie Street, in support of making the purchase and implementation of surveillance technology transparent and accountable to the public (ATTACHMENT E).

Communication from Sarah G. Vincent, 11 Cogswell Avenue, in support of a strong surveillance oversight ordinance (ATTACHMENT F).

Communication from Olivia Santoro, 224 Concord Avenue, encouraging the City Council to pass a surveillance oversight ordinance for the City (ATTACHMENT G).

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 3:33pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:03pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss marijuana laws, education and enforcement.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Police Commissioner Banville Bard; Adam Baton, Police Department; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Deputy City Solicitor Arthur Goldberg; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Planning and Development, CDD; Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, Department of Public Health; Mary Kowalczuk and Nancy Rihan Porter, Cambridge Public Health Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Timothy R. Flaherty, 103 Fresh Pond Parkway; James C. Eisenberg, 60 State Street, Boston; Preston Horton, Transit Police, MBTA; Daniel Artige.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio recorded, privately. An agenda for the hearing was distributed (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that this is about land use planning and social justice issues. Cambridge is an interesting place to discuss this issue and that this is one example of how the City must address a changing world.

Introductions were made. Councillor Kelley stated that the police commissioner went to NLC and gave a presentation on this.

Councillor Kelley gave a PowerPoint Presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He noted that marijuana is a drug and medical and recreational adult use are both legal in Massachusetts. He spoke about a map on marijuana use and the rules across the nation. He stated that the rules are different in other states. The federal government has not made marijuana legal. He stated that marijuana for use in Massachusetts has to be grown in Massachusetts. He stated that there are challenges and legal issues to include a RICO suit that might implicate both operators and bankers in the marijuana industry. He stated that he toured a marijuana growing facility. This is a big business and this is different from the smaller business model of years past. This facility tests its marijuana regularly. He spoke about bad things can happen if drugs are used that are not approved, such as happened a few years ago in New York City. Both recreational and medical marijuana has limits. It is important that Cambridge be super-intentional about this discussion.

He stated that the City has to start making good decisions. If marijuana is legal how does that impact jobs for City employees who smoke marijuana? He spoke about the universities having their own rules and regulatory programs and how federal grant funding might impact them. He stated that, for him, the most problematic part is that marijuana is available in different forms that look more like food or candy and he showed a picture of gummies as an example. He stated that medial is always packaged with the dosage on the packaging to help avoid people taking the wrong dosage. He stated that with some limits marijuana can be grown at home. He spoke about the different technology that can be used to be grown; it can be legally carried in cars if in a proper container. Tobacco and alcohol rules do not apply to marijuana. He spoke about the places where marijuana is not legal to smoke which is all public property in Cambridge.

Mr. Lipson stated that on private properties marijuana is not prohibited if smoked outdoors. Councilor Kelley stated that even where marijuana is legal it may be illegal, or against the property owner’s rules, to smoke marijuana. He listed the places where marijuana cannot be smoked. He stated that one challenge is finding out who is smoking marijuana and who is driving impaired after smoking marijuana when a car smells of marijuana. He spoke about those under 21 being unable to smoke marijuana. He spoke about what guidance will be placed on the police department on this matter, enforcement is likely to be imbalanced because there are fewer owner-occupied homes occupied by minorities which means they have fewer legal places to smoke. Mr. Lipson stated that it is against the state law to consume marijuana on public land, which includes edibles. He spoke about what type of health messages does the City want to do promote. This is all a challenge.

Councillor Kelley opened the hearing for comments.

Mr. Lipson stated that public sidewalks are controlled by the City and smoking would be prohibited on them, to include designated restaurant seating areas where one can smoke cigarettes but not marijuana. On a private restaurant patio, such as at Charlie’s Kitchen, cigarettes cannot be smoked, but the restaurant owner could allow marijuana to be smoked.

Councillor Siddiqui asked what the main concerns are about enforcement and what enforcement factors should be considered by the City.

Mr. Horton, Transit Police Officer, stated that zero tolerance is never a good approach. There is no smoking anywhere on MBTA property and smoking is their number one complaint. A $25 fine is issued as a civil infraction. He added no one goes to jail for smoking even though signs state this is possible and that if an officer chose to run a warrant check on a smoker and found an outstanding warrant, jail could result from that. If smoking is underground and a citation is issued for smoking, an individual would be asked to supply an identification. If outside, smokers are just asked to move. This is a quality of life issue and it’s just one more thing the transit police does. It is a nuisance to stand next to a smoker. Councillor Kelley questioned if a bus stop is viewed as MBTA property. Mr. Horton explained that this is only enforced on MBTA property and there are no street level bus stops owned by the MBTA in Cambridge.

Councillor Zondervan noted that the Harvard Square tunnel is MBTA property. He stated that state law makes it illegal to smoke marijuana in public and wondered if it could it be made legal. Mr. Lipson stated there is no override in the language. Councillor Zondervan asked if there is a reason to treat marijuana smoking in public different than cigarette. Mr. Lipson stated that there is no evidence basis that there is harm but the trigger level for marijuana smoke is very low. Councillor Carlone stated that the cigarette smell makes him nauseous.

Commissioner Bard gave an overview of Cambridge Police Department role on marijuana use. He stated that marijuana was legalized in October 2016. He stated that there was a lot of misinformation about this in the City. He explained that smoking in public is not legal and that only one ounce could be carried and could be gifted but one could not accept anything in exchange for this and 3 ounces or more is criminal. An engagement campaign, rather than enforcement campaign was instituted by the Police Department. He stated that an education campaign is used. There are very few citations. Councillor Zondervan asked how prevalent is public smoking. Commissioner Bard responded that it is more prevalent than he would like it to be. It is prevalent in “safe space” like parks. Anywhere cigarette smoking is illegal; marijuana use is illegal. He spoke about the lack of education and this is the reason why the police have focused on education. Once people are informed, they comply and complaints are coming in fewer and fewer.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked when retail start this summer will there be an increase in smoking where it will not be allowed. Commissioner Bard commented that when medicinal marijuana was allowed it was anticipated that there would be a rise but there was none. He stated that arrests are down 50% for marijuana from 2016-2017.

Councillor Carlone stated that controlling the quality of marijuana is important and will influence the safety of use. He stated that he has gotten complaints about marijuana smoking in housing authority apartments and that the management does nothing about the complaints. He wondered if people could call CPD to complain about neighbors smoking in a subsidized unit if the management company does nothing. Commissioner Bard said that the CPD would not enforce on Cambridge Housing Authority Property. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if this would apply to inclusion apartments. Mr. Lipson stated not on private property. He spoke about the challenge of meeting the standard of proof to prove marijuana is being used.

Councillor Kelley spoke about smelling marijuana. He asked Commissioner Bard if this is complaint driven. Commissioner Bard responded in the affirmative and that CPD officers are not supposed to turn a blind eye to smoking but they will not pull marijuana enforcement out of a big festival. Smoking marijuana in an open vehicle is against the law. There is no test available to test for marijuana, but it would be one condition that would affect impaired driving. He stated that the police should educate an offender that it is illegal to smoke marijuana in public. He further stated that this is a case-by-case basis for the police; this is not a good use of resources to go into a crowd to enforce the marijuana law.

Councillor Zondervan asked should enforcement have impact on zoning. The City needs to figure out where cannabis can be sold. Commissioner Bard stated that it was unlikely that sales impact actual use in Cambridge. Ms. Farooq spoke about the proximity of uses might impact where the City may not want marijuana to be sold. Councillor Carlone noted that adult use is a different clientele.

Councillor Kelley gave an example of someone who likes to smoke marijuana and does not own their own home so where does the individual smoke marijuana? How can we create fair, legal spaces to smoke marijuana? It’s legal but not allowed. He stated that the City needs to figure this out legally because this puts the police in a bad situation. Mr. Lipson stated that property owners may not choose to prohibit marijuana. Councillor Kelley commented that most apartments smoking is not allowed. Councillor Zondervan stated that smoking is prohibited indoors and asked if we could allow it. Mr. Lipson stated that the Cannabis Control Commission is reviewing these issues that create problems and he spoke about carveouts such as the one for cigarettes. He stated that there are ways to create isolation and the Cannabis Control Commission needs to be clear on how to address the conflict with outdoor smoking and state workplace laws. He noted that vaping is a different issue.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there are any second-hand smoke issue with vaping. Mr. Lipson stated that vaping is still pretty new and it has not been studies a lot. The exposure is lower than combustibles with vaping and exposure for health effect if difficult to assess.

Nancy Rihan Porter spoke about social consumptions sites in Massachusetts are being worked on. She explained that in Colorado there are no social consumption sites. The “Coffee Joint” is a social club that does not sell combustionables, tough people can bring their own. Mr. Lipson spoke about smoking prohibited in social clubs in Cambridge. He explained that social clubs are considered a work place and this needs to be resolved by the Cannabis Control Commission and he spoke about this language being in the statute. Councillor Zondervan noted that the constant focus is on smoking and asked what about vaping and edibles in public. Mr. Lipson stated that the state prohibition in public places includes language about ingestion. Councillor Carlone spoke about the packaging. He stated that there may be a faint odor. Councillor Kelley stated that no edible in the public is illegal. Commissioner Bard stated that this is not enforceable. CPD spends most of their efforts on education, officers can run warrants on their discretion and the statute allows officers to get someone’s ID. For minors, officers have a wide latitude of actions, from arresting a person, putting them in a safety net program, taking them home. The last resort is putting them in the juvenile justice system.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the lack of clarity being a concern for the public. He stated that he is more focused on smoking but from a public housing use of edibles is a problem if people might be evicted for their use. Mr. Lipson stated that edible is protected use for use with private housing; will there be a problem with the feds if edible ingestion is in subsidized housing. He did not see a good reason for local regulations beyond zoning. A lot of power resides in the host community agreement. This issue about odor is in the very pungent product odor, so it is unlikely selling marijuana will be annoying except if it is repackaged on site. He wants a common message, collaboratively done with DPH, about the use and health of the product and noted that the state would pay for this. Mr. Lipson summarized the public health issues: nuisance odor and public information (ATTACHMENT C). There is not a lot of point of sale information and guidance other than that the businesses have to pay for the messaging so he wants the community to be involved in the messaging about impairment, health and so forth letting the consumer know there may be risks and how to talk with kids.

Ms. Farooq spoke about the capacity of enforcement and this burden may be placed on housing authorities to enforce. Commissioner Bard spoke about the Executive Office of Public Safety guidelines and noted that the police department was trained by one of the drafters of the state statute. Councillor Kelley stated that smoking in public housing is illegal. He commented that no City Councillor is asking for aggressive enforcement for marijuana. Commissioner Bard stated that this is the stance that the department has taken. The focus by the police has been in public parks. Councillor Kelley stated that he is not looking for aggressive enforcement, but we are not asking people to come to smoke marijuana in our parks either.

Councillor Kelley asked Mr. Horton if the MBTA will remove people from MBTA property, but will issue a fine for underground use and a warrant is issued. Commissioner Bard explained that this can be done under the discretion of the individual police officer, but it is an education process. If a warrant is issued an ID is needed and if refused the officer can take offender into custody. Councillor Kelley asked what is done with minors. Commissioner Bard stated that minors would not be entered into juvenile justice system; the diversion safety net program is used. He stated that 10 officers work with youth. It would be outside the norm to arrest a youth.

Mr. Lipson spoke about chronic long-term health effects. He stated that there are no good studies on this. He commented on the messaging for youths. Nancy Rihan Porter stated that as written in the regulations, materials need to be distributed with input from the public health and enforcement community and that all are receiving the same information. She spoke about 3 issues: legality of consumption; consumer safety, dosing and courtesy campaign. She spoke about the courtesy campaign on legality and consumption.

Mary Kowalczuk stated that retail training is needed to be able to check IDs to protect minors. She wanted standard training like what is done with alcohol and tobacco. Mr. Lipson stated that this will come from the Cannabis Control Commission. He spoke about the possibility of there being a state grant on tobacco, alcohol and marijuana compliance. Councillor Kelley noted that if cannabis is repackaged in Cambridge the Sealer of Weights and Measures employee needs to be involved to ensure that the scales are accurate.

Councillor Zondervan asked how are concerns regulated, where is the city’s leverage. Mr. Lipson responded that zoning restrictions, Host Community Agreements and a local health regulation are the three mechanisms to address this. How to process product quality could be included in the Host Community Agreement without a health regulation.

Councillor Toomey spoke about the nuisance odor and asked if the zoning could include that the odor cannot seep out from the establishment. He is allergic to cigarette smoke. Mr. Lipson stated that once violated compliance may not be possible and the odor will continue with the use. Councillor Toomey asked what would happen in a situation where there were three separate condos in a three decker and one tenant is affected by smoke and one tenant uses medical marijuana. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is a private issue between the condo owners and they could go to court. Councillor Toomey asked if there are two buildings side by side and smoke is a nuisance how will this be dealt with. Ms. Farooq stated that the challenge is parallel if she cooked strong Indian food. Councillor Siddiqui commented that leases have provisions for quiet enjoyment.

Councillor Carlone spoke about gummie bears being editable and compared them with Joe Camel ads in being dangerous for misuse. Mr. Lipson stated that strict provisions were added so that there is no fruit to create an appealing product. Councillor Carlone noted that there is no need for local repackaging. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that you can purchase loose tea, maybe marijuana would be the same way. Mr. Lipson noted that it has to be packaged and sealed prior to sale; some establishment can sell loose package. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the nuisance smell at the facility visited. She explained that CO2 was used at the facility. She wanted a consistent hand out at point of sale and asked how soon can this be done, noting that we had time to write our own messaging. Mr. Lipson stated that this depends on the Host Community Agreement. The facility pays for the production and distribution at point of sale. He is looking for local leverage about what the material should say. Ms. Kowalczuk stated that Colorado has done this work. Mr. Lipson noted that this information is put into the bag at the point of sale.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there are any complaints for non-smoking odor issues. Mr. Lipson responded that both facilities agreed not to divide the product so there are no complaints. The state gives communities a lot of leeway in Host Facility Agreements. Councillor Zondervan asked if the City is allowed to regulate repackaging and how big a problem would that be. The Law Department will put this into the Host Community Agreement. If the standard on repackaging were stringent this could impact businesses. Mr. Lipson noted that enforcement of the Host Community Agreement unclear. Councillor Zondervan suggested that this be under the authority of the License Commission. Mr. Lipson stated that he did not see causes for requiring a local public health regulation but maybe revisit that at some point.

Councillor Kelley asked about training. Mr. Lipson explained that tobacco enforcement training is done by State. City Solicitor Glowa stated that analysis of the authority of the License Commissioner and the Health Commission is the best way to proceed as it is not clear where authority lies. Councillor Zondervan stated that he wanted clear answers about role of the License Commission before deciding on zoning. Ms. Farooq stated that the key is to determine what direction the City Council wants to go in and what level of control on what aspects needs to be determined. That will help guide the city’s regulatory program. Councillor Zondervan wanted information on what is the best way to proceed either through the Public Health Department, the License Commission or a Host Community Agreement. Mr. Lipson acknowledged that these are active questions and there are certain things that should not be in zoning and he is working with an interdisciplinary team about what should go into a host facility agreement.

Councillor Carlone stated that he would like issues to be described with responsibilities.

Councillor Kelley suggested specific questions should be sent to the City Manager on the Host Community Agreement. He asked about impaired driving and the challenges. Commissioner Bard stated that it is against the law to have marijuana in an open container and it is used as one additional factor that an officer can use for driving impaired.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the Host Community Agreements being a three-pronged approach. He noted that the police are doing what the City Council wants them to do and if this were to change it require an additional conversation before aggressive enforcement.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 5:44pm.

Sonia _______, a consumer advocate, applauded Commissioner Bard for the educational effort because the law is unknown. She stated that Host Community Agreement should include education and consistent information and be homogeneous. She spoke about the booklet her book has created. She stated that edibles can be consumed without permission from a landlord. She spoke about Cambridge being creative, interactive and educational. She stated that other communities have been studied and that since no tax dollars have thus far been collected, the City should not look to the state for assistance yet.

George Hightower, Boston resident, and a cannabis consultant, stated that education by the Cannabis Control Commission is important. He asked about when will zoning be discussed and will Cambridge stick to 500 feet buffer from school and that no parks be included in the zoning.

At 5:48pm Councillor Kelley closed public comment.

Councillor Carlone responded to Mr. Hightower with “it depends.” If a daycare center is concerned we will be concerned. Ms. Farooq stated that medical marijuana requires a special permit. Councillor Zondervan’s response to Mr. Hightower was “as soon as possible and as unrestrictive as possible.” He stated that this needs more discussion.

Councillor Kelley asked City Solicitor Glowa if someone is smoking marijuana and the odor is different than cigarette odor could the City prohibit this at the property line like the Noise Ordinance prohibits noise above a certain level. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she would have to look at this.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The following communications were received:

Communication from Augustus Colangelo stating that marijuana use in City parks is a big problem and will increase after legalization (ATTACHMENT D).

The hearing adjourned at 5:53pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to receive a general overview on the state of affordable housing throughout Cambridge, and to receive updates from the Community Development Department, the Cambridge Housing Authority, Homeowners Rehab, Inc., and Just A Start on the work they are currently engaged in.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Simmons, Co-Chair; Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chair, via remote access; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Kelley; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner; Donna Claudio, Asset Manager, Community Development Department (CDD); Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Neal Alpert; Anna Lee Hirschi; Liana Ascolese; Matt McLaughlin; Allison Daley; Nora Bent; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Mike Johnston, Executive Director; Margaret Moran, Director of Planning and Development, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Peter Daly, Executive Director, Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. (HRI); Bill Gordon, Director of Real Estate, Just-A-Start (JAS); Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, Member, Affordable Housing Trust; D. Margaret Drury; Elaine DeRosa; Peter Valentine; Lee Farris; Phoebe Sinclair; Sarah Kunnemann; Sharon Rijadurai; Charles Franklin; Susie Devins; Nancy Ryan; Ron Axelrod; Judith Nathans; Rosalind Michahelles; Dominick Jones; Peggy Barnes Lenart; Ruth Ryals; and Ken Eisenberg.

Councillor Simmons convened the hearing and read from prepared written opening remarks (ATTACHMENT A) which included discussion about the Comprehensive Housing Plan (ATTACHMENT B) for Cambridge.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she looks forward to co-chairing the Housing Committee and working with committee members. She stated that affordable housing is the City Council’s number one priority. She said that she looks forward to hearing from housing providers on the important work that is being done in the City of Cambridge. She stated that City Council priorities are informed by the providers.

At this time, Councillor Simmons invited the staff of CDD to give an update of its work in the area of affordable housing. Chris Cotter stated that he would like to give an overview and highlight significant programs. He explained that the Envision Cambridge process is continuing. He noted that there is an upcoming meeting where they will learn about the ideas from all working group discussions that have been taking place over the past several months. He said that there will be meeting in April to talk about housing indicators and targets related to housing to be included in the plan. He noted that suggested indicators include the number of new housing as well as the number of affordable housing units produced.

Mr. Cotter explained that CDD is in the process of applying to the Commonwealth to be designated as a Housing Choice Community, noting that it should be an easy designation for Cambridge to achieve. He said that the City should meet the threshold, which will entitle the City to apply for housing capital grants that will be coming out in the next couple of months, in addition to a preferred consideration for state funding programs. Mr. Cotter said that the City will be notified in the next month if it has been designated as a Housing Choice community.

Mr. Cotter spoke about the Opportunity Zone designation through the Department of Treasury. He explained that they are looking at areas in the City that would be eligible for such a designation. He said that nominations will be submitted to the Commonwealth this week and the Commonwealth will then choose which areas it will recommend for this designation.

Mr. Cotter then gave program updates. He said that a report on inclusionary housing production since the 2017 zoning changes is being worked on. He said that several new developments are now looking for approvals under the inclusionary provisions. He said that 49 units have been approved under the new provisions at three projects. He said that in the inclusionary program, there are more than 225 units under construction. He said that the inclusionary rental program will soon expand as units come online. He said that the City is on target for 100 lease-ups this year, with more than 200 rental units now under development in new buildings at Ames Street, Avalon, and Cambridgepark Drive that will be delivered in the coming months. He noted that there is more movement in the inclusionary pool and gave an overview of the Summary of the Inclusionary Housing Rent Waiting Pool Memo (ATTACHMENT C).

As it relates to homeownership, Mr. Cotter said that we will see the first inclusionary zoning homeownership units completed in late spring. He said that there is one 3-bedroom unit in Cambridge Highlands that will be marketed soon. He said that they are beginning to see closings through the Homebridge Program with two closings to date. He said that it is a challenging market given the lack of inventory.

As it relates to preservation and development, Mr. Cotter stated that the work on expiring use buildings is a prime priority. He noted that 8 of 10 buildings have successful preservation in place and they are working on preservation plans for the last two of the ten buildings with expiration risks before 2020. He said that there are still 650 units that they are working on, with a prime focus on the Fresh Pond Apartments. He noted that 565 units do not have protections beyond the current restrictions in place. He said that there continues to be good dialogue with the owner of Fresh Pond Apartments and progress is being made. He said that they are now engaging with HUD on Fresh Pond Apartments because HUD will need to sign-off to change of restrictions and extend the contract for Section 8 units. He said that the CDD will soon be meeting again with the Fresh Pond Apartments tenant association to answer questions and ensure that accurate and updated information about this process is being made available to all. He noted that residents who have been contacting CDD about any housing concerns are being followed up with directly, and that CDD staff remain available to answer any questions tenants may have about preservation planning there. He said that the CDD is continuing to work with Just-A-Start, the owner of the George Close building, to put together a plan to extend affordability in that building as well.

Mr. Cotter explained that CDD is also focused on working with housing partners to add affordable units wherever possible; he added that they are working with HRI as the 98-unit Concord Highlands project moves toward construction, and with a private developer on the 40-unit Frost Terrace development in Porter Square. He said that CDD will continue to look at opportunities to add to the housing stock, recognizing the impact of preservation and changes to the federal budget, which is very drastic. Councillor Simmons thanked Mr. Cotter and then turned the floor over to HRI for an update.

Peter Daly summarized the three projects that HRI is currently focused on: 808 Memorial Drive, Columbia Cast, and Concord Highlands. He began with Concord Highlands since it is the furthest advanced. He thanked the City Council for their commitment to affordable housing and stated that projects like this don’t get off the ground without CPA funds. He also thanked the City Manager for his leadership as well as City staff. He said that having local support is crucial.

He explained that Concord Highlands is 98 units of new construction and will be mostly a family development. He said that 60 apartments will be reserved for low income, with 21 for moderate income and 18 for middle income. He noted that 67% of the total units and 75% of the lower income units will be family sized-2 bedroom and up. He said that they just received financing approved by Mass Housing and will soon go to HUD for their review. He stated that they are looking towards a middle-May groundbreaking and plan to heavily market units to CHA voucher holders. He said that they will be looking for applications in late 2019, with occupancy in early 2020. He said that with financing in place, they will be signing a construction contract soon. He highlighted that there are many “green” features for this project with amenities including onsite management and active ground floor areas. As it relates to 808 Memorial Drive, he said that this is a 300-unit preservation development with major renovation to address exterior needs and interior updates. He explained that construction will begin in the summer of 2019. He said that they rely heavily on HUD subsidies, which may make this a lengthy approval process. Mr. Daly said that Columbia Cast is a development that they bought 16 years ago, and they have recently bought out their partner. He said that HRI is taking this opportunity to do thorough rehab. He said that they are looking for resources. He explained that with subsidies in short supply, this may be a long process. He said that funding cycles are becoming more oversubscribed and the Trump Administration’s tax reform has had a negative effect on housing. He noted that there is hope in the Senate for a bill which will add to federal tax credits available, but indicated that the House bill does not boost to these resources – therefore, he is hoping that the Senate version will prevail. Councillor Simmons thanked Mr. Daly and then turned the floor to Just A Start.

Bill Gordon stated that as it relates to preservation, the Close Building is a 61-unit building that is owned by JAS. He noted that it is a true preservation deal with significant improvements on the building. He noted that JAS is not coming to the City for resources, for this project is financed with tax credits. He said that they are working on the project at 50 York Street, which is included within their larger, 112-unit consolidated renovation project. He explained that the new foundation has in place installed for St. Pat’s with the plan to be ready for residents moving back into the building by Spring of 2019. He said that they recently got approval from the City for the Squirrelwood project, part of which will include 23 new units that will be put onto land that JAS owns. He noted that the City is supporting JAS with Affordable Housing Trust funds. He explained that JAS works closely with CDD to work through the approval process. He said that in terms of new projects, it is a challenge. He said that JAS is looking to build 15 units for veterans at one of their small parking lots. He explained that one of the challenges is that when JAS looks at new project, the demand is so high that they have to move very fast to obtain the property before another buyer swoops in and purchases it first. He said that it would be ideal if there was a way to work with the City in the early stages of a project to analyze and put money down more quickly, in order to gain site control. He said that it would be great to have a way to allocate “nimble money.” He said that they lose properties not because of cost, but because of time. He said putting together resources just to purchase a new property is the greatest challenge. He said that if the City, when possible, could reduce or eliminate some of the City fees, it would mean less pressure on other resources and could lead to the creation of more affordable units.

Councillor Simmons thanked him and then turned the floor over to the Cambridge Housing Authority.

Mike Johnston said that the CHA serves 7,000 households in Cambridge. He said that most public housing units have moved out of what is traditionally known as “public housing” buildings. He said that there are 14,000 distinct applicants on the combined CHA waiting lists. He said that the Family public housing list has been closed for several years but they are getting geared up to open that list in the middle to late summer. He said that now that projects are coming back online, they will open the list to get more Cambridge residents on the list. He said that what has taken up a lot of time of the CHA is modernization, which has been an effort to preserve the housing stock that they currently have. He noted that the CHA has renovated 2,700 hard units, some of which have been financially starved by HUD for years. He noted that, by way of comparison, New York City has a $25 billion-dollar backlog in repairs to their housing stock. He said that when looking at public housing, there is an operating subsidy and a capital fund, which is the amount of money used for roofing, windows, and other repairs and maintenance. He explained that for years, the CHA would allocate $3-$4 million dollars per year in capital funds. He said that with 30 sites and 2,700 units that need renovation, that money doesn’t go very far on a yearly basis. He said that the CHA has recently finished $232 million dollars worth of construction, with 1,300 units in public housing which include Woodrow Wilson Court, Washington Elms, Newtowne Court, Putnam Gardens, Manning Apartments, and Jefferson Park State. He added that the Russell Apartments renovations have just begun. He said that the next big project is Millers River, and added that there are six brand new units at the Manning Apartments that used to be office space. He said that there will be an extra unit at Russell Apartments. He said that the CHA is grabbing every opportunity to add new units. Mr. Johnston said that the next pressing priorities are Jefferson Park Federal, which is 175 units in North Cambridge. He said that 57 units in the property have part of their living space considered as being “below grade.” He said that they are working with the residents of those 57 units to move them to new locations. He said that as residents move out of these units, they will be boarded up until they can receive bonds. He said that Corcoran Park, the Burns Apartments, and Roosevelt Towers low-rise are also in the queue. He said that challenges are the bond cap and the ability to get into the queue with the Commonwealth to access tax credits.

Councillor Simmons asked Mr. DePasquale about the possibility of discussing the elimination of payment in lieu of taxes for non-profits. Mr. DePasquale stated that the discussion can take place, but that no city can solve the problem if the state and federal government walk away from contributing funds for housing. Councillor Simmons said that the state and federal have, indeed, turned their back on housing affordability.

Speaking as a member of the Affordable Housing Trust, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli referred to discussions taking place at the national level, where it seems like our national leaders are continuing to seek ways to cut back on HUD funding, that they are setting this program up to fail – and then using any failures resulting from this lack of funding as justification to cut even more funding. She stated that philanthropy and private capital will not fill the gap that is left by the withdrawal of federal funding for affordable housing programs. In calling back to Mr. Gordon’s comments about whether it might make sense to ease some of the various requirements that the City imposes upon developers, Ms. Pizza-Zeoli stated that the City may also wish to look at the various parking and bicycle requirements the City imposes; she said that being open to modifying these requirements could also have the added and welcome impact of leading to more beneficial building designs.

Ms. Pizza-Zeoli talked about the inclusionary housing tenant selection policies. She noted that it is a difficult, but necessary, discussion to have. She said that the program cannot serve everybody and there will be a public process about the draft regulations that will happen later this year. She asked what can be done about longtime residents that have been involuntarily displaced. She stated that it is difficult to serve the people with an “emergency need” and noted that the Affordable Housing Trust is looking at the definition of “emergency” which would include those displaced due to domestic violence. She said that they are looking at points for having a family with children of certain ages. She said it is important to create a formal appeals process, which does not exist currently in a formal way. She reminded those in attendance that included in the updated inclusionary ordinance is an annual review and report of the program from the CDD.

Councillor Siddiqui asked if the City Council has any say regarding the number of units that are being built as it relates to 2 and 3-bedroom units. She said that what is being built is smaller units. Mr. Cotter responded that one of the key changes to the ordinance last year was that developers can look to build affordable units on an FAR basis as opposed to just meeting a “number of units” basis. He said that they are getting 20% of floor area, and this can allow for the creation of larger units even if it might mean slightly fewer units, and that this is a positive development. He said that the ordinance had not produced a lot of 3-bedroom units over the years, but that this was poised to change going forward. Councillor Siddiqui said that the most helpful thing would be money and she said that she is looking forward to further discussion with her colleagues to assist with revenue streams.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the two new positions at CDD that will be devoted to housing. She asked if any thought has been given to the idea of an Office of Housing Stability, which could help in an “ears to the ground” way of organizing. Ms. Farooq responded that one of these new positions is housed in CDD and is supporting the inclusionary program, adding capacity and leadership in that group. She explained that the other position is a version of what Vice Mayor Devereux has described. She said that this position will more broadly assist people who need assistance who are in jeopardy of losing their homes. She said that they are currently trying to determine where this person will be housed, noting that a decision will be made before the budget process is concluded. Ms. Peterson stated that this person will likely hold the title of Housing Advocate or Housing Ombudsman, and will report directly to the City Manager, but that the person may be housed at the MultiService Center.

Councillor Mallon asked if HRI and JAS use a formula in the breakdown as it relates to determining what sized units to build. Mr. Daly responded that the waiting list is the most dominant factor. Mr. Gordon said that some of the funding has a recommended stipulation of how they would like to see the housing ratios – i.e., 1, 2, or 3-bedroom. He said that JAS looks at the overall portfolio so they can move people in a development so they are not over-housed or under-housed. He said that they want to address the different kinds of housing needs.

Councillor Mallon said that an affordable overlay housing district is something that the City Council may want to investigate. Mr. Johnston stated that it would be helpful but he deferred the matter to the desire of the City Council. He noted that one of the things that they have discussed in-house is that there should be some type of a reward for increasing density of affordable housing. He said that for the CHA, it would be a big win. Mr. Cotter noted that what Councillor Mallon and Mr. Johnston are talking about is actually a recommendation that will be made by the Envision working group. He said that the Envision working group is also looking at standards that would allow for more flexibility.

Councillor Toomey stated that he wants to move forward to continue to try to resolve the affordable housing crisis in the City. He noted that he is encouraged by the comments that he has heard and said that he looks forward to a broader discussion.

Councillor Kelley stated that the challenge seems unbeatable, but it is worth working to establish an aggressive overlay district that would allow for greater density for affordable housing. He said that it is worth a direct conversation. He noted the need to look at the financial resources to support the housing and the education, which is a much bigger discussion. He said that given the housing pressures, the City of Cambridge cannot solve this on our own, in spite of the fact that we are a resource rich city. He said that he does not know how to regionalize the resource and challenge, he does not know that we must think beyond the current Home Rule status. He said that more conversations need to take place.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the City Council did pass a resolution in support of the affordable housing credit improvement act. He asked if additional units can be added to the York Street project. Mr. Gordon responded that they kept the same number of units in order to get the units back online after the December 2016 fire as quickly as possible. Councillor Zondervan stated that it sounds like the right decision was made in this respect.

Councillor Zondervan asked about the term “nimble money” that was used by Mr. Gordon earlier. He asked what this money is and could he explain how the City Council could lend support. Mr. Gordon said that in his perfect world, it is a way to make a certain amount of money available that can get quickly allocated to get site control. He explained that “nimble money” means that it can move fast. Councillor Zondervan asked about “site control” and to what extent that if such a vehicle existed, could the money be put at risk. Mr. Gordon answered that a small percent could be lost, but noted that it is worth the risk. He explained that “site control” is a written agreement between the seller and buyer of a property.

Councillor Zondervan asked about the exact number of 3 bedrooms in the inclusionary program. Mr. Cotter answered that there are 18. As it relates to site control and access to funds, Mr. Cotter said that there is a bit of a distinction. He explained that the AHT makes its funds available aggressively. He said that the AHT is not there to fund projects before there is site control, but has had a longstanding practice of funding the quick acquisition of sites to compete in the market. He remarked that the AHT meets every month, listens to requests, and moves very quickly. He added that more competition arises from cash buyers who can complete purchases very quickly.

Councillor Simmons opened the hearing to Public Comment at 6:33pm.

Peter Valentine stated that he has studied massive defense for many years. He asked if there is a certain number of people who can live in Cambridge. He said that it would be helpful to know how many could fit in Cambridge comfortably.

Ron Axelrod, 26 Shepherd Street, stated that he came to Cambridge after college. He said that he developed a housing program in Indonesia to provide housing at the cost of $1.15 per day. He said that he has a lot of experience with housing. He said that he sees that there are many organizations that have done great work and he wonders how we can consolidate that towards a larger effort in terms of a Master Plan for housing. He said that there is an opportunity to develop a task force to focus on housing over a defined period of time that would include stakeholders including the City Council, developers, tenants and owners where there would be plan of combining efforts to increase housing. He said that this task force could hire a consultant to work with the City to spearhead this effort and the task force could be formed over the next few months and deliver a product in 2019. He said that we have a very wealthy city that has a low tax base. He suggested an increase to taxes that would supply housing in situations where subsidy would be helpful. He said that this effort should be guided with the Housing Committee as the overseer, along with the help of CDD. He said that it is an opportunity that looks at a grander scheme.

Ken Eisenberg, 200 Hampshire Street, stated that three things that jumped out at him from the Comprehensive Housing Plan (CHP). He said that one of the things was the antidiscrimination rules against Section 8 voucher holders. He said that if there could be better enforcement of anti-discrimination laws so that landlords could not discriminate against Section 8 voucher holders, it would be huge in opening up the region and the market. He said that the second thing is that 56% of the Inclusionary Zoning apartments are occupied by tenants with a Section 8 voucher. He said that this does not make a lot of sense and he asked how that works. He said that his third thought was that he thinks that “affordable housing” is a euphemism for “low-income housing” and we need to get back to calling it that. He said that if we could that, the next step would be to mandate 20%-30% moderate income units to new construction. He said that the city needs a condominium conversion law.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, thanked all for their comments and testimony. She said that she is on the Envision Housing working group and everything that has been discussed has been discussed within the working group. She said that the working group has been working similar to what Mr. Axelrod suggested and she noted that it did consist of a cross-section of people. She said that Councillor Simmons’ Comprehensive Housing Plan has a lot of great things included. She said that the working group has tried to integrate some of these. She said that an affordable housing overlay is a really important tool that the City should prioritize moving forward on. She said that this would have the effect that Mr. Daley discussed regarding the need to lower acquisition cost as distinct from advantaging for-profit developers. As it relates to an Office of Housing Stability, she noted that just-cause evictions are done in Boston. She said that the City is notified about the sale and then the City contacts tenants and informs them of their rights. She said that this would be a great start at being proactive. She said that she is happy to hear about the addition of the positions at CDD. She said that an Office of Housing Stability could work on just-cause eviction, which requires a Home Rule Petition.

Ruth Ryals, Upland Road, said that she believes that the City does not understand the body of people in the city who provide close to half of the housing for people in the city. She said that she fought hard to defeat the Right of First Refusal proposal because a solution should not be had by attacking landlords. She said that there are a lot of landlords that want to be part of the solution. She said that she is attending this hearing to learn more.

On a motion by Councillor Simmons to close Public Comment, the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons and Councillor Toomey -5
and the motion – Carried.

Councillor Simmons notified the attendees that the next Housing Committee will take place on Apr 10, 2018. She invited the three new City Councillors to take the opportunity to read through the Comprehensive Housing Plan in order for them to prioritize issues that they feel could be addressed.

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

On a motion by Councillor Simmons to adjourn the hearing, the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, and Councillor Simmons. -4
and the motion – Carried.

The hearing adjourned at 6:58pm.

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