O-4     May 18, 2015
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will be discussing whether to begin requiring that all public school students take the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers or PARCC; and
WHEREAS: The increase of high-stakes standardized tests are ravishing creativity, project based learning, and critical thinking skills in our public schools; and
WHEREAS: Far too often, these high-stakes standardized tests become the focus of education, even for children in kindergarten; and
WHEREAS: Far too often, these high-stakes standardized tests result in increased stress for teachers, children, and parents; and
WHEREAS: These high-stakes standardized tests take valuable time away from other developmentally appropriate learning in the arts, physical education, and foreign language; and
WHEREAS: These high-stakes standardized tests interfere with social-emotional learning; and
WHEREAS: Teachers in Cambridge - and across Massachusetts and the United States - are pleading to end these disruptive and unproven high-stakes standardized tests; and
WHEREAS: These high-stakes standardized tests have not proven to actually improve education; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That this City Council go on record in support of House Bill 340 filed by former Cambridge City Councillor and current State Representative Marjorie Decker that calls on the Department of Education to not approve PARCC for Massachusetts public schools; calls on the state to not require high-stakes standardized tests be used as a requirement for high school graduation for at least the next three years; and that the state establish an Educational Review Task Force to examine the effectiveness and impact of these high-stakes standardized tests; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to Mitchell D. Chester, Director of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Governor Charlie Baker, and all members of the Cambridge House Delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-6     May 18, 2015
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review the attached seven recommendations submitted as part of the Apr 30, 2015 Housing Committee hearing minutes and instruct the City Solicitor and the Acting Assistant City Manager of the Community Development Department to prepare appropriate zoning language to achieve these recommendations; and be it further
ORDERED: That the zoning language when prepared by the City Solicitor and the Acting Assistant City Manager of the Community Development Department should then be referred to the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board for a hearing and report.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOUSING COMMITTEE - April 30, 2015
The City Council recommends that the City should:

• Remove the special permit trigger and apply housing contributions to all projects over 30,000 square feet with defined uses
• Expand the project definition to add seven uses (Hotel/motel, radio/TV studios, institutional health, education and social services, light industry/wholesale and heavy industry
• Set rate at $12 per square foot, with an increase of $1 per year over the next three years and we should continue the single rate across uses and CPI increases
• Mandate that the City Initiate a new nexus study every three years, to be implemented no later than the fifth year
• Eliminate the 2,500 square foot exemption
• Ask the Ordinance Committee to examine the legality of tying linkage fees to job training programs
• Ask the City to conduct a nexus study exploring tying the living wage ordinance to linkage
• Ask the City to initiate a nexus study tying the living wage ordinance to linkage to be completed within a year and to have community involvement as part of the process.

O-16     May 18, 2015
MAYOR MAHER
VICE MAYOR BENZAN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge Community Development Department is embarking on a collaborative effort based on the findings of the C2 Committee and the C2 study to provide economic opportunity, social justice and housing opportunities for residents at all income levels; and
WHEREAS: The C2 Study was guided by a committee of diverse members including neighborhood residents, property owners, and representatives of businesses and institutions; and
WHEREAS: The C2 Committee held numerous meetings and discussions that were open to the public and included a public comment period while also engaging in a series of public meetings, workshops, charrettes, and Mondays-in-the-Square that were held to solicit input from the broader community; and
WHEREAS: An overwhelming number of Cambridge residents, neighborhood groups and business owners have voiced significant support for the C2 study and its findings and anxiously await the future recommendations of the Community Development Department as a result of the C2 findings; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Cambridge City Council officially go on record supporting the efforts and progress of the Cambridge Community Development Department related to the C2 study and we look forward to considering the zoning and non-zoning recommendations when presented to the Council.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Transportation & Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 4:18pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to receive updates and to discuss next steps for the shared-use, rails-with-trail path along the City’s Grand Junction Corridor.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Timothy Toomey; Iram Farooq, Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department (CDD); Susanne Rasmussen, Director, Environmental and Transportation Planning, CDD; Bill Deignan, Transportation Planner, CDD; Tegin Bennett, Transportation Planner, CDD; Mike Connolly; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Tom Evans, Executive Director, and Jason Zog, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority; Sarah Gallop, Co-Director Office of Government and Community Relations, MIT; Kelley Brown, Project Manager, MIT; Scott Hamway, Mass DOT, Department of Transportation Planning; Matthew Ciborowski, DOT; Rachel Burckardt and John Sanzone, Friends of the Grand Junction Path; Robert Winters, 366 Broadway; Ethan Fleming, 144 Nagog Hill Road, Acton; Matt Carty, Medford; Barry Zevin, 67 Hampshire Street, CRA Board member; John Goodman, 8 Fairmont Avenue; Peter Klinefeiter, 220 Erie Street; Steven Bercu, 132 Fayerweather Street; Wig Zamore, 13 Highland Avenue, Somerville; Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; and Arthur Strang, Fresh Pond Parkway.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose.

He stated that this is a continuation of the Transportation and Public Utilities Committee meeting held last year on this matter. This is a great opportunity to connect the eastern side of the City with surrounding areas. This is a discussion about multiple modes of transportation. CCD will provide a presentation and next steps will be discussed.

A presentation was made by the Community Development Department (ATTACHMENT A). Ms. Tegin Bennett, CDD, did the presentation as an overview of the project concept, including updates since the 2014 committee meeting and next steps. The Grand Junction Path is intended to be a shared use path. In the regional context, the Grand Junction Path will provide transit and recreational connections; it will connect children to schools and also connect to the local shopping area and the Charles River. She outlined the six segments of the path. A single track would need a width of 36 feet which is the desirable dimension. The minimum width for two trains is 42 feet. She highlighted the updated timeline. It began in 2000; the feasibility study was completed in 2006 by the City. In October of 2014, the MIT feasibility study was also completed.

She provided updates for each of the six segments. She stated that section 5 could be a significant role for the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA). The CRA construction time is 8 weeks and will begin in the summer of 2015. The Department of Public Works will serve as the onsite construction supervisor for the CRA. The design was worked on by the Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Public Works and Community Development Departments. The conclusion of the MIT portion revealed that the path is feasible, but there are pinch points. This does not preclude two track service if the path is built on the north side. The I-90 connection includes a people’s path to the Grand Junction railroad bridge. The Community Development Department is developing an overlay district to protect the right of way of the track.

Next steps were provided on North Point and Green Line Extension coordination with Somerville; CRA construction expected in 2015, MIT coordination is needed; I-90 additional details need to be included in the EIR; zoning overlay public outreach is needed to the property owners and residents. MASS DOT is doing a Kendall Square Mobility Study which is a multi-modal transit study.

Councillor Carlone asked if the City Council had any questions. None were asked.

Councillor Carlone stated that on the I-90 EIR he would love a presentation to understand all implications. Mr. Ciborowski responded 2016; design and build in 2017. Councillor Carlone stated that he wanted an update and he asked Mr. Ciborowski to stay in touch with the City Council. Councillor Carlone asked Ms. Bennett if the north option would go under McGrath Highway. Ms. Bennett stated that this is a draft concept and this portion of McGrath will not come down. Councillor Carlone asked about conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists. Mr. Deignan stated that along the river the paths are separate. There are shared use paths. The 14 feet mixed use path on CRA site is proposed. This increases the width without disturbing trees.

Mr. Evans stated that in the future there may be an opportunity look at a road on Galileo Way. He hopes that there will be minor setbacks in the zoning to soften the path. Pedestrian movement along MIT property is isolated with buildings, trucks and bikes. Should pedestrians be on sidewalk rather than path? This should be explored.

Councillor Carlone noted that MIT did a study of their land. He asked about MIT’s plans for the future buildings.

Sarah Gallop, MIT, stated that the Feasibility Study is completed and MIT is looking at issues on their property for a shared path. The Feasibility Report can be found at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gp94k9cfqf8618m/AACY25zMsNFC-kNRv5_enGINa?dl=0

Kelley Brown, MIT, Project Manager, spoke about the regional context. He stated that MIT uses the property as a service core. It is an important issue west of Mass. Ave. and to get the necessary space for service and path width would require relaxation of the railroad easement. Without the relaxation of the easement it would difficult to make the path feasible in this location. The conclusion of the MIT study is that this is feasible. Building construction adjacent and over the path will not interfere with the path construction. Utility work could be disruptive and take a long time. Councillor Carlone asked if the utility work was above or below ground. Mr. Brown stated that the utilities are below grade. Councillor Carlone commented on a low MPH for the trucks to travel on the access roads. Mr. Kelley stated that this would be considered by MIT. There is behavioral change in this corridor. Councillor Carlone reminded everyone that the MIT locations are the pinch points.

Mr. Ciborowski stated that as the right of way curves it requires a wider width. MIT’s portion is straight. The area at 640 Memorial Drive runs close to the property line and it is a challenge.

Ms. Burckardt spoke of another pinch point at Cambridge Street to Binney Street; the right of way is narrow. Work needs to be done with private land owners. A building on Cambridge Street is a pinch point and past the church. She suggested an agreement with the landowners could alleviate this. The parking garage on Binney Street is planned to be dismantled.

Councillor Kelley questioned the pinch points and whether this is a concern about using the path or making the path challenging. Ms. Burckardt was speaking about the proper width to build the path. Councillor Kelley wanted to make sure that when people are on the path that people do not find that it does not make sense.

Vice Mayor Benzan questioned whether Whitehead was asked to assist with Grand Junction path; what assistance could Whitehead provide? Mr. Evans stated that there is an urban renewal plan that covers the Whitehead property. The CRA believes it can be built with MIT funds. Crossing Main Street could be an opportunity for solutions. No improvements have been finalized. There are no specifics made to the funding. Vice Mayor Benzan asked if there is extensive cost between Main and Broadway. Mr. Zog stated that $500,000 for the construction of Main to Broadway was approved by the CRA. Councillor Carlone asked if Boston Properties has submitted funds. Mr. Evans stated that Boston Properties would provide funding for the pork chop park.

Mr. Ciborowski, Mass DOT, gave an update on the process. The Grand Junction is an opportunity to enhance the mobility for the City. This has a lot of moving parts. The state is behind and is trying to catch up. There may be a role for transit service in the corridor. The Kendall Square Mobility Task Force study will determine the demand and the need for transit in the corridor. Mass DOT believes the prudent approach is to ask all to be patient and to let the task force to do its work. To do short work may only complicate the matter. He spoke about street networks to do transit. The Grand Junction is a unique asset and Mass DOT wants to get the most use out of it.

Councillor Carlone asked if the proposed West Station will use Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Vehicles. Mr. Ciborowski responded that it is still up in the air. A station is being designed that can use multi service function. Mr. Zog stated that CRA is aware of the commitment of Mass DOT to the Grand Junction and the task force study. Single and double track DMU were superimposed over the CRA site.

Rachel Burckardt, Friends of Grand Junction, wanted the City Council to be made aware of the width of the path. Kendall Square requires platforms for riders to get off. The width may not be an issue. The “pork chop” has potential for a station. She spoke about connections to Allston. This is a place to think about a mobile split. She did not want to see studies that exclude the connectivity.

Public Comment began at 5:19pm.

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, asked when connections to Somerville will be completed. Mr. Deignan spoke about incentives to connect the path in the vicinity of the Twin City shopping center. There is not a clear process to figure out issues with Somerville. Mr. Winters stated that he wanted to see the maximum use of the railroad rather than a zigzag pattern. He asked if the community will be involved. Mr. Deignan stated that the community will be involved.

Ethan Fleming, Acton, stated that as a cyclist Cambridge is a nightmare. He wanted a separate track between pedestrians and cyclists. This is logical. The Minuteman Path has no problem with pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists slow down on paths rather than roads. The Charles River has made separate paths and it is not working. There are many things to consider for 2 paths.

Matt Carty, Medford, commutes through Cambridge. He stated that many will come to use the path to walk or cycle. He supported the Grand Junction Path.

Steve Bercu, President of the Boston Cyclist Union stated that the Kendall Square corridor to the I-90 interchange is an important area for innovation. It will be vital to plan for multi-modal opportunities. He wanted sections of the path built as soon as possible, without delay. He wanted to see people put the path to use right away.

Wig Zamore, 13 Highland Avenue, Somerville, supported circumferential transportation. It is important to think about the Longwood area and the connection to Kendall Square. He stated that it will be 50 years before Harvard University moves its medical teaching facilities to Allston. He stated that circumferential opportunities will add capacity. He noted the potential for the Grand Junction to connect with Somerville and lead across the Mystic River to the North Shore. He stated that it is important to get a double track here. He stated that transit should be shifted to electricity. He noted that Somerville has the most roadway traffic, and it is through traffic.

Arthur Strang stated that the Grand Junction Bridge is not part of the project.

Mark Jacquith, 213 Hurley Street, asked about crossings. Ms. Rasmussen stated that it is a cause for concern when pedestrians cross over active rail. There is concern about additional rail crossings.

Steven Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, stated that he rode his bike in winter and that it is feasible. He suggested snow clearance so that the path is used year-round. This should be the Boston, Brookline, Somerville path with a small portion in Cambridge. He urged not waiting and to build what can be done now. The problem is with the MBTA; not with Boston or Somerville. The “dead track” does not need to be in the pinch point; it could be at North Point. He stated that the MBTA has to change their thinking. He urged proceeding ahead.

Public comment closed at 5:41pm.

Mr. Sanzone stated that issue is not asphalt, it is the connections. There are no good connections to Longwood and the Mystic River. He suggested smaller street-to-street sections as needed. He suggested proceeding with any low hanging fruit.

Ms. Burckardt spoke about continuing the path along Brickbottom. It is now possible that the path would be on private land at this location. Instead of the route that goes under the highway, the other option is better.

Councillor Toomey stated that the Grand Junction has been worked on for many years. He appreciated the work by MIT and CRA, and he is optimistic that the process will move forward. He hopes this becomes a reality in the future.

Councillor Carlone stated that the City Council is proud of the efforts of the Community Development Department to advance the path. He applauded MIT on their study as well as MassDOT on its commitment of new Kendall Square study. He also thanked the CRA and the Friends of the Path for working with the City.

Councillor Carlone asked what the next logical step is other than more information on I-90. He wanted the City Council to be kept informed. He wanted to know about the MIT construction.

Councillor Carlone thanked all attendees for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 5:50pm on a motion of Councillor Mazen.

For the Committee,

Councillor Dennis J. Carlone Chair

Committee Report #2
The Economic Development & University Relations Committee conducted a public hearing on Apr 29, 2015, beginning at 4:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss recommendations to ensure that all positions hired directly by the City of Cambridge, or by outside vendors, uphold the same high employment standards that the City urges all businesses to uphold.

Present at the hearing were Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Vice Mayor Dennis Benzan, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Marc McGovern; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Leland Cheung; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Sheila Keady Rawson, Personnel Director; Amy Witts, Purchasing Agent; Neal Alpert; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Dan Nicolai, District Leader, 32BJSEIU, District 615; Katie Belgard, Political Director District 615; Karla Walter, Associate Director of the American Worker Project, Center for American Progress Action Fund; Carlos Chacon; Eliseo Perez; Antonia Cordova; Devon Weber; Jeb Mays; Hector Ruiz; Marie Elena Lara; Rafael Segura; Edith Buruca; and Rene Pacheco.

Councillor Simmons opened the hearing and gave an overview of the agenda for the meeting. (Attachment A). She then gave opening remarks. (Attachment B). She stated that this meeting is a result of a policy order that she introduced to the City Council on Mar 2, 2015 in which she asked that a public hearing be held to ensure that all custodial positions hired directly by the City of Cambridge, and by outside vendors, uphold the same high employment standards that the City regularly urges all local businesses to uphold. She stated that some have indicated that perhaps this is an issue that actually impacts only a small segment of the community and there are better ways to utilize time and resources. She countered this notion by stating that the time is always right to have a conversation about how the City treats its workers and this is an issue that reverberates throughout the entire community. She stated that without fairness and stability, many of the people who work in these positions will be forced to apply for public benefits, subsidized housing and in food pantries where public tax dollars will be footing the bill to help these people scrape by. She stated that this is a national issue. She stated that it has come to the City Council’s attention that a number of City custodians, all of whom used to be hired directly by the City itself, are now hired by independent vendors who do business with the city. She stated that vendor contracts are awarded via a bid process and the vendors that have contracts with the city this year may not win the bid next year or the year after. She stated that she would like to ensure that, whether a custodian is hired directly by the city or whether they are hired by an independent vendor, they are treated the same in terms of wages, job protection and opportunities for advancement. She stated that this issue is about fairness and setting good employment policy. Councillor Simmons then introduced Ms. Belgard.

Ms. Belgard thanked Councillor Simmons for the opportunity to speak before the committee and invited Dan Nicolai, District Leader, 32BJSEIU to give his remarks. He noted that he is a member of the Executive Board of SEIU. Mr. Nicolai read from a prepared statement (Attachment C). He thanked Councillor Simmons and Vice Mayor Benzan for holding this meeting. He stated that 32BJSEIU is the largest property service local in the country representing 145,000 workers including 18,000 in Massachusetts including over 2,000 who clean and secure buildings in Cambridge. He stated that the members clean, maintain and secure the city’s universities, businesses and government buildings. He stated that the members are proud of the work they do and have worked hard to earn wages and benefits that they can support their family with. He asked the City of Cambridge to continue its history and commitment to lifting up all people. He stated that a city with a proud and progressive history defending the weak and persecuted should be at the forefront promoting progressive legislation to make sure that the cleaners and security officers who care for city buildings can afford to pay their bills and support their families. He stated that 32BJSEIU members are a diverse population with members from Portugal, Cape Verde, Albania, and Dominican Republic, to name just a few of their countries of origin. Mr. Nicolai stated that many service workers struggle every day even though they work full-time. He stated that city contracts have gone from responsible contractors to contractors who win their contracts in this low bid system by exploiting workers. He stated that workers currently cleaning city buildings report issues such as wages below the Cambridge living wage. He stated that Cambridge has strong living wage language but it is not enough to make sure that in the case of subcontracting for cleaning and security services the city is employing responsible contractors. He stated the subcontracting has prompted a race to the bottom that affects every day people. He stated that it is within the power of the City Council to stop it by leading the way by amending the living wage to ensure that the city can employ responsible subcontractors.

Karla Walter thanked the committee for the opportunity to present testimony. (Attachment D). She stated that she is the Associate Director of the American Worker Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. She noted that CAP Action is an independent, nonpartisan and progressive education and advocacy organization dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and actions. She stated that she will provide context and recommendations for legislation to create a standard wage for building service workers in the City of Cambridge. She stated that at CAP Action she has conducted extensive policy research on how cities, states and the federal government can use government spending to uphold high standards for workers, allow businesses to compete on an even playing field and ensure taxpayers receive good value. She noted that she will make three main points in her testimony:

1. Cities and states across the country are successfully using standard wage policies, often known as prevailing wages, to ensure that government purchasing does not support employers that drive down pay and benefits in specific industries;

2. The Cambridge standard wage proposal could expand on this successful model and establish the city as a national leader; and

3. These laws are good for workers, taxpayers, businesses and the economy.

Ms. Walter stated that more than 120 cities and one state have adopted living wage laws requiring that public contractors pay their workforces a non-poverty wage. She noted that the City of Cambridge, with a living wage of $15 per hour, is a national leader in upholding high standards. She stated that these laws make a significant impact on the lives of workers employed by contractors, uphold government’s promise to function as a model employer and help raise standards throughout the economy. She stated that state and local leaders can do more to raise standards for government-supported work. She stated that a growing number of state and local governments are adopting additional responsible contracting reforms to improve the quality of jobs generated by their procurement spending. She encouraged the committee to introduce language that would build on these best practices in order to ensure Cambridge’s government purchasing does not drive down local industry standards. In particular, the legislation should ensure covered building services workers are paid no less than the standard wage rate paid in the local private-sector market, receive employer-provided health coverage or an hourly pay supplement in lieu of coverage and receive paid time off. She stated that the requirements should apply to city contracts, as well as projects that receive economic development subsidies and buildings where the city is a tenant. Ms. Walter stated that the proposal should include strong enforcement mechanisms to help ensure that bad-actor contractors do not attempt to win contracts with bids so low that they would necessitate paying under the legal requirements. She stated that bidders should be required to indicate the hours of work required to complete a contract and include the required pay for the work in covered contracts. She stated that violations of the standard wage requirements should be considered a breach of contract and also be enforceable through the courts.

Ms. Walter stated that when governments adopt wage standards it is not only good for workers but also for high-road businesses. She stated that without strong standards, too often these companies are forced to compete against low-road companies that undercut the market by paying low wages. She noted that after Maryland implemented a contractor living standard, the average number of bids for contracts in the state increased by 27%. She stated that nearly half of the contracting companies interviewed by the state of Maryland said that the new standards encouraged them to bid on contracts because it leveled the playing field. Moreover, Ms. Walter stated that a review of state and local contracting practices by the National Employment Law Project found that adoption of contracting standards has often resulted in decreased employee turnover with corresponding savings in re-staffing costs.

In conclusion, Ms. Walter stated that cities and states across the country are successfully using industry standard wages to ensure that government purchasing does not undercut fair market wages. She stated that these laws help to ensure that workers have access to decent jobs, taxpayers receive a good value for their investment, and businesses that respect their workers are able to compete on an even playing field. She stated that adoption of standard wage provisions by the City of Cambridge would build on this successful model and establish the city as a national leader.

Carlos Chacon read from a prepared statement. (Attachment E). He stated that he has worked for many years in the City of Cambridge. He stated that he has seen how Cambridge has historically welcomed immigrants, declaring itself a Sanctuary City where workers have felt able to work safely and contribute to the development of the city. He stated that he now works for a project of 32BJ SEIU. He commented that in this role he has had the opportunity to visit workers in their buildings and talk with them about their working conditions, including workers subcontracted by the City of Cambridge. He stated that he has seen cases wherein the City administration is contracting with companies, specifically in cleaning, that are lowering the standards of these jobs. He stated that they do not pay benefit, the wages are low and often they are not paying taxes as required by law. He asked the administration to ensure that these companies offer their workers decent salaries and benefits so that those workers can meet their needs and support their families in dignity. He stated that when Cambridge renewed its commitment as a Sanctuary City for immigrants, people said to themselves that it was a sad fact that so many immigrants no longer live here because it is too expensive. He stated that, nevertheless, the immigrants may not live in the city but they are the ones who clean its universities, work in its hotels, and staff the kitchens and restaurants. He thanked the committee for its support.

Antonia Cordova stated that she works in the Pfizer building. She thanked the committee for their concern for service workers in Cambridge and noted that this is an important issue for her as well as for her family. She noted that this issue affects thousands of workers throughout the community.

Eliseo Perez stated that he works in Genzyme in Cambridge. He stated that he has been working in Cambridge for a number of years as a building cleaner. He stated that it is well known that the City of Cambridge and Massachusetts are special places where it is good to come to work. He stated that the workers love this state and they are an important part of the economy of the state and the country. He stated that it is important that elected representatives bear in mind the effects of their policies on the workers. He stated that when they turn to the elected officials regarding issues that are important, they have gotten support. He thanked Councillor Simmons and the Vice Mayor. He said that he is pleased that workers like janitors and security guards can make enough money to make ends meet. He stated that this is important to individuals and to their families.

Councillor Simmons stated that Cambridge is known as a city that is very proactive. She cited the City Council’s commitment to issues including Sanctuary City status, the living wage ordinance, and income insecurity. She stated that when policies are implemented there may unfortunately be loopholes that some people will take advantage of. She stated that the City of Cambridge stands strong on the issue of fairness and equity. She noted that some policies and procedures may need to be refined to ensure that people are treated with fairness and respect, and that loopholes can be sealed up.

Vice Mayor Benzan thanked Councillor Simmons for conducting this hearing and bringing this matter to light. He confirmed the support of the City Council to service workers. He stated that he and other members of the City Council in the past have joined with workers on the picket line. He stated that he looks forward to working on the issues of equity and fairness for all service workers.

Mr. Rossi stated that the city insists that contractors who are hired by the city are informed of the criteria and procedures that are in place. He urged that anyone possessing information regarding contractor abuse of said policies should notify the city. He stated that the city will take action against contractors that violate these policies and procedures. Mr. Rossi stated that he would like to clarify information contained in the Policy Order regarding the outsourcing of city custodial positions. He stated that the city has not opted to take work away from city staff as the city has decades of shared work, meaning that most work is done by the city’s workforce. He noted that some work does indeed get contracted to outside vendors and cited examples such as snow removal, plowing, landscaping, off-hours custodial work, carpentry and street sweeping services. He assured Councillor Simmons that this number of outside contractors has not changed dramatically. Mr. Rossi explained that the city does follow State statutes and has adopted progressive policies over the years, particularly on the construction side. Mr. Rossi then introduced Amy Witts, Purchasing Agent.

Ms. Witts introduced herself and stated that her primary role is to oversee compliance with public biddings laws and city contract administration. She stated that it is frustrating because much time and effort goes into ensuring that contractors are aware of the high standards that are expected of its contractors and the terms to which they have agreed. She urged that anyone with knowledge of poor employment practices by a vendor doing work for the City should contact the Purchasing Department so that an investigation can take place. She noted that unfortunately enforcement is a complaint-driven system and if the city is not made aware of violations, then there is nothing that can be done. Ms. Witts discussed some relevant terms currently in City contracts related to good employment practices by vendors. The City has an Equal Opportunity clause which does not allow vendors to discriminate in employment practices or any other circumstance. She added that there is also the Living Wage requirement of $14.95 per hour which vendors are required to pay their employees. She noted that vendors are required to pay living wage as it adjusts each year of any multi-year contract. She noted that contractors are also required to have Workers Compensation insurance and noted that the Purchasing Department tracks when the policies expire with the requirement of proof of renewal upon expiration. She added that vendors have to complete an Americans with Disabilities Act compliance form stating that they do not discriminate based on any given disability and provide reasonable accommodations when required to do so. She also noted that vendors must complete tax compliance documentation under the pains and penalties of perjury that states compliance with tax laws and classification of employees for determination of benefits.

Councillor Simmons stated that loopholes need to be closed. She made it clear that the city is strong and deliberate in how we treat employees.

Councillor McGovern thanked Councillor Simmons for conducting this meeting. He stated that one of the things of which he is most proud is the commitment of the City Council to working men and women. He stated that he lives blocks away from this meeting venue in a home that his great-grandfather purchased 100 years ago. He stated that his grandfather was a union ironworker. He stated that he and his family live in a house that they could not afford to live in because of the protection his grandfather received by being a union worker. Councillor McGovern spoke of his work with the Mayor’s Commission on Income Insecurity. He stated that the benefits are for the whole family. He stated that for a two parent family with two children to live in Cambridge, they would need to make over $90,000 per year to be completely service free. He stated that he has spent a lot of time in food pantries and meal programs and the people he has met are not typically unemployed or homeless. He stated that they have jobs and homes but can’t afford to feed themselves. Councillor McGovern stated that what worries him about Cambridge is that because we are often the leader, sometimes we can become complacent. He stated that we don’t always take time to reevaluate and say “Is this still good enough?” He noted that in addition to having the living wage increase with inflation, we need to look at why it is that the universities in Cambridge don’t comply with these standards in terms of outsourcing. He stated that City Councillors have walked the picket line with the DoubleTree housekeeping staff and noted that Harvard owns DoubleTree. He stated that City Councillors have walked the picket line at Cambridge College and Lesley University. He stated that these institutions are outsourcing jobs and stepping back and saying that it is not their responsibility. He noted that these institutions are very much a part of the community, and that Harvard and MIT don’t have separate sewer capabilities or a separate Fire Department or separate roads; rather, they use the existing City infrastructure. He stated that it is a mutual benefit to have these institutions in the city and noted that the universities should have to hold the same high standards. He questioned how to ensure that the business community is doing its part and that all of their workers are being paid a living wage. He stated that a topic of the Mayor’s Commission on Income Insecurity is the possibility of a nexus study to look at the possibility of tying a living wage into the linkage fee and if this is something that the city can require for businesses.

Councillor Mazen thanked Councillor Simmons for her leadership on this issue. He said that he agreed with the items raised by Councillor McGovern. Referring to the handout that was provided by the SEIU, Councillor Mazen stated that he sought clarification of the bullet point that states “Pay: Either the rate provided under the previous contract or 150% of the state or federal minimum wage whichever is higher or the hourly rate paid to workers in a relevant classification under a preceding qualified contract.” He asked what the number would actually be in this clause. Ms. Walter said that this phrase echoes the Pittsburg minimum wage ordinance/prevailing wage ordinance, but it allows the prevailing wage to create a higher standard. She said that in Cambridge, the prevailing wage is already higher. She said that you would want the floor to be the current living wage, but the goal is actually the prevailing wage, so the City is not actually lowering standards. Councillor Mazen asked what a person would earn under these two scenarios. He said that he believes the national “Fight For $15” is a good movement and something he supports. Ms. Walter said that if the local janitors are currently making $17 per hour, you wouldn’t want to go below that as a standard. Councillor Mazen said he now understood the point of this bullet point and thanked Ms. Walter.

Councillor Simmons opened the meeting for public comment. Hearing none, public comment was closed at 4:58pm.

Councillor Simmons stated that she would like further discussion on this topic and recommended that this matter stay in committee. She stated that Cambridge has to realize that having policy without checks and balances and revisions is a policy that will, at some point, fail. She stated that the City Council must review current language with the view in mind of amending any language that may inadvertently allow for loopholes in order to protect all employees.

Councillor Simmons thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing was adjourned at 5:01pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Dennis Benzan, Co- Chair
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair

Committee Report #3
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Apr 30, 2015, beginning at 4:02pm in Basement Conference Room, 831 Mass. Ave.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue the Apr 22, 2015 discussion on the incentive zoning study from the Community Development Department.

Present at the hearing were Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Dennis Benzan; Councillor Marc McGovern; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Leland Cheung; Mayor David Maher; Richard C. Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Acting Assistant City Manager; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Planner; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Planner; Jeff Roberts, Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Robert P. Reardon, Director of Assessment; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Mike Connolly; Neal Alpert; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and Alliance of Cambridge Tenants; Sarah Kennedy, Director of Government Affairs, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce; and Elaine DeRosa, Executive Director, Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee.

Councillor Simmons gave an overview of agenda for the hearing and gave a brief opening statement. (Attachments A & B). She stated that there would be a slight change in the agenda to allow Robert Reardon and Louis DePasquale to give a brief presentation on the assessment process, classification process and the classification of Cambridge real estate. (Attachment C).

The presentation included an explanation of the Massachusetts Tax Classification Amendment which allows for taxing real and personal property taxes at different tax rates. The Classification Amendment allows for Commercial, Industrial & Personal Property to be taxed at 175% of what would be paid under a single tax rate system provided that the residential properties not pay less than the minimum residential factor established by the Department of Revenue. The City of Cambridge tax levy for FY15 is currently at the minimum residential factor of 34.5615% and $6,188,599 under the maximum amount able to be shifted to commercial, industrial and personal property. The presentation gave a historical perspective of what happened to the classification shift if residential appreciation and new property growth exceeded the amount of commercial, industrial & personal property appreciation and new growth. A projection was also provided demonstrating what would happen to the classification shift with an overall residential assessment increase of 10% and an overall commercial, industrial and personal property increase of 5% which would shift approximately $0.25 per thousand of assessed value from commercial, industrial and personal property to the residential class of property. The final slide showed actual FY15 numbers showing residential assessed values increasing 11.53% including 1.64% in new growth and commercial, industrial & personal property increasing 10.09% including 6.49% in new growth. The presentation demonstrated the impact classification could have on individual tax bills when there is a shift in the tax levy between the residential and commercial, industrial & personal property.

Councillor Carlone stated that this discussion relates to business and noted that the City is never going to get all the business it wants, but it will get a huge percentage of businesses that want to come to Cambridge. He stated that affordable housing is at the top of the list. Mr. Reardon stated that if the commercial slowed there is a cause and effect. Mr. DePasquale stated that the CPA funds are raised through the property tax. He stated that the City is paying the highest surcharge under the CPA and allocating the maximum amount towards affordable housing. Councillor Carlone stated that he feels that this amount is not enough and questioned how much of an impact makes sense. He stated that, like any priority, affordable housing is going to cost money. He stated that his children cannot afford to live in the city. He stated that his previous condominium, which has not had any improvements in 25 years, was sold for $695,000. He stated that with a budget, you must set priorities. He stated that we lower the taxes every year with undesignated funds. He stated that that available affordable housing is in crisis, but the problem is more acute in Cambridge. Mr. DePasquale stated that if the incentive zoning requirements were to slow down commercial development, the tax burden could potentially shift to the residential property. Councillor Carlone countered by stating that this is true every year. Mr. DePasquale stated that his goal is to give the City Council as much information as possible so that an informed decision can be made by the City Council. Councillor Carlone stated that every cycle has an up and a down. He commented that the overall goal and need is more easily met when times are golden than when times are not. He stated that there is wealth in the city now, and there may not be in the future, so the time to try to get more funding for affordable housing is now.

Mayor Maher stated that he appreciates the facts of the presentation. He stated he and Councillor Simmons were the only members present on the City Council when there last was an increase which negatively impacted residential tax payers. He stated that prior to 2005, the City was on a little bit of a “free ride” that was followed by a wake-up call. He stated that he believes that this was the first year that the City Council included a goal about being financially responsible. He stated that the residential taxpayers were very unhappy and noted that predictability is the biggest assurance that the City can give to the taxpayers. Mayor Maher stated that there is not one person on the City Council who is not in support of affordable housing. He noted that he is not embarrassed about the City’s investment and progress as it relates to affordable housing. He stated that existing housing prices have gone through the roof, so acquiring existing housing is more difficult. He stated that Cambridge has done more to preserve and create affordable housing than most every other city in the Commonwealth. He said that Cambridge has been able to leverage the money and it has been utilized tremendously well. Mayor Maher stated that there is always room for improvement but it is important to look at Cambridge’s success in an extremely difficult market. He added that the City will never be able to meet the complete need. Mayor Maher stated that he has witnessed the City’s multifaceted approach to affordable housing. He stated that in decades past, funding affordable housing programs was the responsibility of the federal and state government, but that Cambridge has been fortunate in having resources and a housing community that has been willing to think outside of the box.

Councillor McGovern stated that he is in agreement with Mayor Maher that there is no one clear answer to the issue of affordable housing. He noted that the City needs to look at how we want to spend money. It is about being more careful about what we fund and what we don’t. He stated that these are gut check moments. He stated that while we talk more about affordable housing, there are still individuals who are in who have opposed developments that would increase affordable housing units. Councillor McGovern noted that the City has had difficulty putting affordable housing units in certain parts of the city. He noted that he attended an Inclusionary Zoning workshop in Plymouth with many communities present. He stated that people at that workshop were in awe of what Cambridge has accomplished in the area of affordable housing. He stated that he does not want to give people the impression that Cambridge is not doing anything about this issue. He stated that it is the incumbent upon the City to do a better job getting program information out to the public, and to tout its accomplishments.

Councillor Cheung added that a few months ago in Washington, D.C., there were parties that were open to the public. He stated that when he was attending one such party, he saw Cambridge Housing Authority Executive Director Greg Russ and people from Just A Start there. He noted that people around the country are astounded at what Cambridge is doing as it relates to affordable housing. Mr. Reardon added that the most important dataset is the competing communities. He noted that when looking at other areas in neighboring cities, they do not have the same draw as Kendall Square does. He stated that people do want to develop in Cambridge, but if they can make more money in another community, they will choose that city. Councillor Cheung asked if it is possible to set a different linkage rate in different parts of the city. Councillor Simmons responded that the recommendation was that this would not be prudent, although there is no rule that this cannot be done.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that it is important that the City does not choke development moving forward. He stated that development has been important to the City and has allowed the city to accomplish many things. He stated that he is comfortable with $12 square foot with an increase of $1 every year for three years. He added that he is comfortable with the 30,000 square foot threshold and would like this to move this matter to the full City Council for referral to the Ordinance Committee.

Councillor Mazen stated that he disagreed with prior speakers about the impact of going to the maximum rate per square foot. He stated that going to the maximum figure will not have a negative effect on development. He stated that we are talking about something less than the price of overtime for police officers. He stated that a commercial tenant is not making a decision based on the impact of this on rents. They look at cost, constraints, and then they look at zoning. He stated that we have to decide if we want extra affordable housing or if we do not.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that it is important to think about the fact that the City must preserve a number of expiring use units when thinking about a rate increase. He noted that it must be a multifaceted approach as there will much money needed for the preservation of affordable housing.

Iram Farooq stated that the K2 study proposed $10 per square foot on commercial development. She stated that this amount would go towards transportation improvements, public space improvements and workforce development. She noted that this is currently adopted in the zoning for MIT and when the Volpe zoning comes before the City Council it will be included in the zoning requirement. It would be over and above the incentive requirement. Ms. Farooq stated that one outstanding question from the last Housing Committee hearing was the potential impact if incentive zoning is applied to projects smaller than 30,000 square feet. She stated that this threshold is the recommendation of CDD for several reasons: retaining the 30,000 square foot threshold will capture the majority of non-residential development; lowering the threshold to capture smaller projects could potentially impact the types of smaller-scale commercial and neighborhood retails which is desired by the community; and lowering the threshold could impact the regional competitive balance for smaller projects.

Councillor McGovern stated that he does not doubt the commitment of any member of the City Council to affordable housing, although there may be different ideas on how best to gain more units. He also stated that he does not buy into the idea that everyone is always going to want to flock to Cambridge. He stated that geographically, we are on top of each other in the region. He stated that he gets accused of being favorable to developers and noted that he is well aware that the developers want to make money. He stated that Boston gives a tax break to developers, and that when you have other communities saying that they will give a developer what it wants in order to lure these developers to their communities, it is concerning. He noted that what happened in Kendall Square did not happen by accident, but rather was the result of strategic planning and bold thinking. He stated that the City has to be bold, yet reasonable. He commented that he does not share the same confidence as other City Councillors that increasing the linkage rate to $24 dollars per square foot would not mean anything to businesses. He stated that the study team leader Mr. Seidman, the CDD, and the Affordable Housing Trust have all agreed and suggested an increase of $10-$12 dollars for the incentive rate. He stated that he is comfortable with the $1 increase over a three year period. He stated that it is not imperative to increase the linkage rate all at once and stated that he does not want to scare developers away from the City.

Councillor Cheung stated that it is important to think about the linkage rate as it relates to Net Zero which will come about with additional cost. He stated that we are in a competitive environment and there is a housing crisis without a lot of good options. He stated that the neighbors to Cambridge are actively soliciting Cambridge companies to their cities/towns.

Councillor Carlone stated that it is normal for companies to leave the city. He stated that $15 does sound right to him. He stated that we are still in a golden position, and when you are in a golden position, that is the right time for communities to do exciting things.

Mayor Maher stated that you can slice and dice the numbers many different ways. He recalled how Governor Patrick kicked off the campaign about the Innovation Corridor. The fact of the matter is that we are a city that was laid out in excess of 100 years ago. He stated that he can remember having discussions about innovation space and the fact that we were pricing companies out of the city. He stated that there are a number of companies that can pay the increase in linkage rate. He stated that rather increasing the number too high and then adjusting it lower, it would be good to increase now and then increase further in the future if there is the desire to do so. He noted that when Vertex left Cambridge, it sent a shockwave through the city. Mayor Maher stated that there has been a bit of an unrealistic approach by some in Cambridge thinking that we offer everything and have everything. The reason that Vertex went to Boston is because they were wooed through public financing incentives. He stated that the last corporate tax break that was given in Cambridge was to Biogen and added that the former City Manager suggested it was not prudent to offer Biogen the deal. He stated that the City should do something. Mayor Maher added that while it is easy to take aim at the business and institutional community, the business community has been good corporate citizens for the most part and they have helped make Cambridge the great city it is. He indicated that he is not looking to cripple these companies. He stated that the 30,000 square foot threshold will effectively exempt small community non-profits.

Councillor McGovern stated that the City should start a nexus study three years from now because it takes 18 months to complete.

Councillor Mazen stated that he strongly believes that developers will make it work no matter what figure is chosen. He stated that he is excited that there is a suggested zoning component in Kendall Square. Diversity of tactics is important. He stated that Councillor Cheung said 50% higher and it depends on what context you are looking at. It is 50% of linkage rate but a fraction of a percent when thinking about Boston and Cambridge. He stated that people are not leaving Cambridge because the cost of the linkage requirements. Tenants are leaving because of relaxation on rent in other cities and towns. He stated that we can continue making incentives and continue looking to see how high we want the dollar value to be and this can be independent of what others do. He stated that when one negotiates without data, it is too nebulous for him. He stated that if people are not leaving for linkage rate, they will leave because of other incentives that are offered. He does not want fear to be considered equally important in the calculus from the money that we will get from this requirement.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that as co-chair of the Economic Development & University Relations Committee he embarked on tour of small businesses around the city. He stated that many are businesses that are struggling to pay rents. He noted that one of the biggest challenges is to get mom and pop businesses to be part of the economic boom. He stated that if the City does something unreasonable, that cost will be passed on to same mom and pop businesses that we are looking to attract. To say that we don’t have data to demonstrate that these businesses will not be hurt is false. He again stated that he is in favor of an increase to $12 per square foot with a 30,000 threshold with a review beginning in the third year to be completed by the fifth year. He stated that the rate can be increased further if the economy continues to grow and at that point the City will have the option to review.

Mr. Rossi stated that when and if we have a slowdown in economy, we are not going to know for a while. The competitive edge is an issue. He stated that there is still housing pressure in Cambridge. He stated that we are still stuck in a quagmire. He stated that Cambridge’s problem is not so much the dollars but the opportunities in a built-out city with specific concerns about many developments. He noted that Boston has surplus land and can offer great incentives and opportunities and that there is no inexpensive land in Cambridge. He stated that the City tells Volpe that we want a great development and neighborhood retail on the ground floor, but stated that neighborhood people cannot afford that rent. He stated that we are shut out on the land cost. He stated that it makes sense to start at a reasonable level that can be watched for 1-2 years to see how the development market handles it. He stated that he does not want Cambridge to lose its competitive edge. Mr. Rossi stated that developers don’t know how to solve the middle-income housing issue, which is a growing issue for many cities. Mr. Rossi stated that Cambridge should be the strong voice of the region. He stated that he regularly hears that Cambridge is the model when it comes to the issue of inclusionary housing and its overall commitment to affordable housing. Even with this commitment and many successes, there remain major issues to address and we need to solve them in a team way, sharing the credit for what has been successful and joining together to tackle new challenges. He stated the need for creative solutions, and for a collaborative effort throughout the city.

Councillor Simmons opened the meeting to public comment.

Cheryl-Anne Pizza-Zeoli stated that the Affordable Housing Trust recommends the $12 linkage rate with a $1 increase per year for 3 years. She stated that they did not come to this figure for political reasons, but for practical ones. She stated that there haven’t been local legal challenges to incentive and inclusionary zoning and that changes must be able to withstand this review, as there are have been challenges to housing ordinances in other states. She stated that any sort of delay in the process is really a dangerous thing.

John Hawkinson stated that he is puzzled at the $1 increase on top of the $12. He stated that to go from $4.30 to $12 is a 279% increase, and then from $12 to $13 is an 8% increase. He stated that if the intent is predictability on the part of developers he did not believe that the city would be getting that. He stated that they’ll be able to predict it, but that developers would not care about the 8% increase very much. He stated that he is not saying that he thinks the City should spread it out over more time, but he thinks that you’re probably correct that the appetite is sufficient to go to $12 instantly. He stated that it probably means if it’s sufficient to go to $12 instantly, it’s sufficient to go to $15 instantly. He stated that 279% and 8%, 8%, 8% sounds weird to him. He stated that he does not know if the Trust can articulate what the thinking was. He reiterated that he is puzzled.

Sarah Kennedy stated that the business community is often the first and continuing voice to ask for more housing in Cambridge. She suggested that the City Council treat commercial development as a healthy part of Cambridge’s growth. She stated that she is pleased that the meeting began with an overview and projection of the tax base. She stated that she would like the City Council to consider the professional recommendations as well as the professional consultant that the city hired. She stated that the business community is glad to see this is moving forward and asked that the professional recommendation is given its due respect.

Elaine DeRosa stated that the affordable housing crisis is a complex issue. She stated that we all realize that there must be a balance and the tax base is part of the balance. She stated that this is one piece of a large puzzle. If this can move forward we can begin to talk about other things.

Public comment closed at 5:42pm.

Councillor Mazen stated that he would be pleased to support a recommendation increasing the linkage rate to anything over $12 per square foot. He stated his belief that the City can do better. He stated that the discussion is not about special interest dollars and noted that the discussion has been collegial and productive. He said it is heartening that the City Council members can disagree about things with a respectful tone toward one another.

Councillor McGovern stated that if the rate were increased to $12 per square foot and in three years the City could consider a further increase, he would be happy to take the vote. He stated that he trusts the recommendation of the consultant, CDD, and the Affordable Housing Trust.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he feels comfortable increasing the linkage rate to $12 per square foot.

Councillor Simmons submitted the following recommendations to the committee:

Remove the special permit trigger and apply housing contributions to all projects over 30,000 square feet with defined uses

Expand the project definition to add seven uses (Hotel/motel, radio/TV studios, institutional health, education and social services, light industry/wholesale and heavy industry)

Set rate at $12 per square foot, with an increase of $1 per year over the next three years and we should continue the single rate across uses and regular CPI increases

Mandate that the City initiate a new nexus study every three years, to be considered no later than the fifth year

Eliminate the 2,500 square foot exemption

Ask the City to examine the legality of similar linkage requirement for job training programs

Ask the City to examine the legality of tying the living wage ordinance to linkage

Ask the City to initiate a nexus study tying the living wage ordinance to linkage to be completed within a year and to have community involvement as part of the process.

Councillor Mazen made a motion to increase the linkage rate to $13 or above. This motion failed on a voice vote.

The committee now moved that the above recommendations be forwarded to the full City Council for their consideration.

This motion carried on a voice vote of four members.

Councillor Simmons thanked all those present for their attendance and participation and stated that a City Council Roundtable discussion is scheduled for May 11, 2015.

The hearing was adjourned at 6:11pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on May 12, 2015 beginning at 5:45pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition filed by Chestnut Hill Realty to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge, Section 20.600 Basement Housing Overlay District by including language to clarify the intent of the provisions to apply to multifamily structures that are wholly or partially located in Residence C, C-1, C-1A, C-2A, C-2B, C-3, C-3A or C-3B base zoning districts.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Mayor David P. Maher; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Matthew Zuker and Margaret Murphy, Chestnut Hill Realty (CHR); John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; and Deepti Nijhawan.

Vice Mayor Benzan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being audio and video recorded.

He opened the hearing to the petitioner. Mr. Zuker, CHR, stated that the petition was to address the language inconsistency in Basement Housing Overlay District. He stated that in 2012 that basement units were a way to add moderately priced units in wasted space. He explained that to qualify for this district the building must have been built before 1930, contain thirty or more dwelling units and must be in the overlay district. He stated that in April 2013 a special permit was received to construct four new basement units at 19-21 Wendell Street. At the same time one existing basement apartments was renovated creating five new basement apartments. He stated that in April 2015 the renovations have been completed and the market rate units have been leased. He stated that the sewer and storm water were separated and back flow preventers installed. He stated that CHR met all the requirements of the storm water and the bylaws. He explained that the Engineer signed off on the project. He stated that the Housing Authority was contacted for the affordable unit. In June of 2013 while 1-3 Langdon Street received a special permit for five new basement units. He stated that CHR went through the whole process and an Affordable Covenant was recorded for one of the units. In September 2014 when CHR went to get its building permit Mr. Zuker stated that the Inspectional Services Department identified an inconsistency in the zoning bylaw. He stated that CHR met with Inspectional Services, Community Development and the Law Department. In January of 2015 the City Solicitor determined that the best way to solve the issue was to revise the Basement Overlay District to bring the zoning bylaw in line with the intent of when the zoning was originally passed. The new language was suggested and approved after consultation with Inspectional Services, Community Development and the Law Department. He stated that CHR filed the zoning petition to rectify the language in the zoning bylaw. He stated that the unanimous approval for the language was received from the Planning Board. There are 13 potential buildings that could qualify for the Basement Housing Overlay District. He stated that there are 8 buildings that are in two zoning districts. This revised language allows the 8 units to be allowed under the Basement Housing Overlay District. The revised language does not increase any building to be included in the Basement Housing Overlay District it just clarifies an inconsistency that these building could qualify for the Basement Housing Overlay District. The revised language also allows a Special Permit previously granted by the Planning Board to move forward.

Mayor Maher stated that he chaired the Ordinance Committee when the original petition came before the Ordinance Committee. He stated that there was an exhaustive look at this. He stated that this was a pilot project. After a lengthy examination this district was looked at as a pilot project by adding density to buildings without building density. CHR contacted him to resolve this issue. It was suggested that a zoning petition be filed to clarify the issue. This has a component that goes beyond the inclusionary units. He noted that one inclusionary unit is required for every four units and 2 inclusionary units are required for 10 units. Mr. Zuker stated that no matter how many units were constructed one unit must be inclusionary. Mayor Maher informed the Committee that Mr. O'Riordan looked at this building extensively and it was determined that these buildings did not have flooding issues and were not in a flood zone. This was a pilot and these buildings have easy access to Harvard and Porter Squares and are on transit lines. The Planning Board has looked at this and suggested that the language will resolve the issues.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked who would manage the affordable units. Mr. Zuker state that the Housing Division. He stated that to receive the Certificate of Occupancy for Wendell Street the units were inspected to ensure that all the fixtures were the same. He further stated that there are safe guards in the zoning for drainage back up and there are separate sewer lines coming from the building and there are back-flow preventers. There are general criteria that must be met and through the Special Permit process an engineer plan must be submitted to the City engineer and he must approve the plan. The City Engineer and the Planning Board could add additional safe guards for a specific building. Drainage for the window wells for Wendell Street had to be approved by the City Engineer.

Councillor Carlone stated it is impressive the work that was done on this. The pre-l930 buildings were the best buildings chosen because the buildings changed after that period. He was dubious about the flooding issues but this was answered by the petitioners. He suggested that petitioners review the moisture in these units each year. Mr. Zuker stated that one of the requirements was that there had to be an existing basement unit in the building to show history and to ensure that the units are inhabitable. Flooding and moisture issues could have been the deciding factor on denying the Special Permit. Mr. Zuker stated that witness soil testing was done with engineer.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked if CHR is one of the largest property owners in the overlay district with pre 1930 building that qualifies for the Basement Housing Overlay District. Mr. Zuker stated that CHR is one of the larger property owners. He did not know if CHR is the largest property owner. He added that this is not a cheap endeavor to create these units with the utility and drainage work that was required. This is an investment in their property and the city. This work is worth the effort to hold the property long term.

Mayor Maher stated that site visits were done of the buildings. He stated that the basements are 10 feet high and are spacious. Mr. Zuker stated that new bike spaces have been added to all buildings that meet city requirements.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened meeting to City staff. Mr. Roberts stated that CDD and the Law Department reviewed the revised text. There are no objection to the changes. He stated that the change is consistent with the intent of the original zoning ordinance in 2011. The Planning Board held their hearing recommended the change. The Planning Board recommendation should be coming to the City Council soon.

Councillor Mazen asked what is special about basement units; what makes them special. Basements citywide could create many units. Mr. Roberts stated that issues were raised in 2011 on whether this would be generally beneficial to other areas across the city. The risk is the issues about flooding and utility concerns. The City Council concluded limiting the overlay district to a district where there that was good number of candidates for the overlay and where flooding risk was low was the appropriate place to try this type of provision. He stated that implementation of this zoning could lead to where it may be applied elsewhere. Councillor Mazen noted that when prone to flooding only a certain amount of units flood.

Mayor Maher stated that the issues where flooding and lighting issues. Adding density without building density and access to public transportation was chosen as a pilot. He stated that this should be evaluated and in the future this should be revisited. He was open to adding units where density is not an issue. Councillor Mazen stated that he has heard that there is a potential new petition that may come before the City Council. He stated that people are being excluded for a lower quality of life. He favored retrofit basement apartments for lighting.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that some of this is cost prohibitive. This is a huge investment. He wanted to hear what it would take to create basement space in a traditional 2-3 family home. Councillor Carlone stated that you do not want to take a chance of flooding; it is a terrible experience. This can be a difficult burden. It takes precautions to prevent flooding. He agreed trying this out in a higher area. He discuss the amount of time to do the repair.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked Mr. Zuker if he is requiring tenants to get flood insurance. Mr. Zuker responded that flood insurance is encourage but is unsure if it is a requirement. He stated that it takes an incredible amount of work to determine what properties qualify for Basement Housing Overlay District. He would discuss what he has learned about this process if this is expanded in the city. Councillor Carlone told of instances in Denmark where senior units were created in the upper floors by pitching the roof and building elevators.

Councillor Mazen asked Mr. Roberts if it is expensive to retrofit a wood frame building because he wanted to understand the unit economics. Mr. Roberts stated that he did not did not know.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he suffered $40,000 damage from his basement flooding; pumps and French drains need to be installed. He stated that most basement apartments are poorly constructed. There are issues with emergency egress and this is a major task. He stated that he wanted to make this pilot work.

Mayor Maher stated there was no review period built into the ordinance. He hopes that in 5 years this could be reviewed. There have only been a handful of units that have been building. CHR is a large land owner of older buildings in the City. He stated that after implementation this could be reviewed in 3- 5 years. Mayor Maher stated that the City could ask property owners what worked and what did not work.

Ms. Murphy informed the Committee that CHR had 3 buildings eligible for the Basement Housing Overlay District.

Councillor Mazen suggested that there should be banks on board and that the City should create a package for perspective property owners who could be eligible. Ms. Murphy added that CHR still has to go back to the Planning Board.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened the hearing to public comment.

Deepti Nijhawan stated that she lived in the district and asked the total number of units that could be created. Mr. Zuker answered about 17-18 units with 5 units done. He stated that of these units the city will have 3 affordable units. Ms. Nijhawan asked what the cost for the renovation is. Mr. Zuker stated that the highest cost was rerouting the utilities. The units were not cheap to build. Ms. Nijhawan asked what the pay back to recouping the cost is. She asked if there will be resources for small property owners to get advice on this issue. Mayor Maher stated that this does not apply to this petition. ISD would look at this and see what can be built. Plans can be accessed through the Building Department. Mr. Roberts added that basements are renovated all the time and this falls under the purview of the ISD. There are assistance from HRI or Just A Start for home renovation projects. Mayor Maher urged all to make sure that they meet the requirements.

Vice Mayor thanked all those present for their attendance. Councillor Mazen made a mot to refer the petition to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

The hearing adjourned at 6:34pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair