9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-57, regarding a report on launching a program during the summer months to activate the front lawn of City Hall in the afternoons with games.
Placed on File

July 30, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-57, regarding a report on launching a program during the summer months to activate the front lawn of City Hall in the afternoons with games, received from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Office of the City Solicitor
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

July 30, 2018
Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
Cambridge City Hall
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Re: Response to Awaiting Report No. 18-57, Council Order O-4 of 5/21/18 Re: Report on launching a program during the summer months to activate the Front Lawn of City Hall in the afternoon with games (such as cornhole boards), food trucks, and other forms of entertainment to engage a diverse age range of residents in recreation

Dear Mr. DePasquale:

We have prepared this legal opinion in response to Awaiting Report No. 18-57, Council Order O-4 of 5/21/18, which requests a report on launching a program during the summer months to activate the Front Lawn of City Hall in the afternoon with games (such as cornhole boards), food trucks, and other forms of entertainment to engage a diverse age range of residents in recreation. We evaluated whether City Hall Lawn can be used for recreational purposes, whether there are any procurement issues with this proposal, and whether this proposal exposes the City to additional liability. In my opinion, City Hall Lawn can be used for the type of recreational activities proposed. In my further opinion, depending on how this program is implemented there may be procurement issues, and as long as the City is not charging a fee for these activities, the City is protected from liability.

In regard to the first issue, City Hall Lawn can be used for active recreational activities, such as games, unless the land on which City Hall Lawn is located was conveyed to the City subject to a condition that the land be used for a different public use. Board of Selectmen of Braintree v. County Cm’rs of Norfolk, 399 Mass. 507, 512 (1987) (“Land which has been devoted to one public use cannot be diverted to another, inconsistent public use without plain and explicit legislative authority.”). If property is conveyed to the government for a specific public purpose the property may be “subject to an enforceable general public obligation or trust to use the property for those purposes.” Nickols v. Commissioners of Middlesex County, 341 Mass. 13, 18 (1960).

City Hall was a gift from Frederick Hastings Rindge in 1887, and the only conditions of the gift were that the City acquire a suitable spot for the building, and that the building bear the inscription on the balcony over the front door. The City acquired the site for City Hall in 1888, and the site originally consisted of nine parcels, one of which the City acquired by eminent domain “for the purpose of erecting and maintaining thereon a city hall.” The other parcels were purchased by the City, and the deeds do not contain any conditions on use. The City Hall building was signed over to the City after construction in 1890, for purposes of being the City Hall. As the notice of taking and deeds do not contain any condition on the land, aside from its use to erect and maintain a city hall which is not inconsistent with this proposal, there is no prohibition on using City Hall lawn for active recreational activities, such as games.

Additionally, City Hall is designated as a landmark pursuant to Chapter 2.78 of the Municipal Code, and is protected by a Preservation Restriction held by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The City Hall Landmark Designation Report prepared by the Historical Commission includes “maintain[ing] original landscape elements, including the lawn and granite curbing at the perimeter of the lot” as a standard for design review. However, the placement of temporary recreational activities and possibly other temporary equipment, such as musician’s equipment, that is temporary in nature and will not alter the lawn does not constitute the alteration of exterior architectural features that would be subject to the Historical Commission or Massachusetts Historical Commission’s review.

If the City wishes to contract with any organization to provide the games or entertainment, or to contract with the food trucks, G.L. c.30B would apply. If the City is not entering into a contract with any organizations, but is instead inviting entertainers or food trucks to perform or vend at City Hall, the City may want to adopt a policy concerning inviting all entertainers or vendors to have the ability to participate in this program.

Lastly, as long as these games, access to food trucks, and entertainment are provided without charging a fee, the City is protected from liability by the Recreational Use Statute, which shields the City from liability for damages to members of the public while on City land in the absence of willful, wanton or reckless conduct by the City or City employees.

Very truly yours, Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor

21. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition

July 30, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting for your consideration a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Date: July 13, 2018
Subject: Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,
The Planning Board held a public hearing on the Douglas Brown, et al., Zoning Petition, on June 26, 2018. This petition proposes to amend the extents and requirements of the Flood Plain Overlay District in Section 20.70 of the Zoning Ordinance and to create a new Section 22.80 entitled "Green Factor." The Board heard a presentation from petitioners, reviewed information from staff, and received written and oral testimony from many community members. The hearing concluded with the Board voting not to recommend adoption of the zoning petition.

The Board acknowledges that climate change is a global, national, regional, and local problem. The impacts of climate change, including increased heat and flood risk, are real concerns that need to be addressed. These impacts create risks for many developed areas of Cambridge, some of which contain sites that are likely to experience redevelopment, and there is a need to formulate strategies to protect existing and new buildings in the future. In its review of recent projects, the Board has incorporated standards recommended by City staff when considering flood risk mitigation, such as employing the City's 2070 projected flood elevations. In the Board's experience, developers and property owners also have an interest in mitigating climate change risks in order to protect the large investments they are making into their properties.

The Board greatly appreciates the work done by the petitioners, who have shown tremendous concern for the community and have helped to start a conversation that is important to advance given the urgency of this problem. The Board also appreciates the civil dialogue that took place at the public hearing, where many different points of view were expressed. However, the Board does not support moving forward with this particular proposal at this time.

Generally, Board members expressed concerns about the prohibitive and far-reaching scope of the petition, which would create many new requirements for almost half the parcels in the city. Some Board members were concerned about the lack of clarity as to what areas would be included or not included in the proposed Flood Plain Overlay District. Board members were also concerned about requiring Planning Board review for what would otherwise amount to minor construction or renovations, but leaving out 1-3 family homes. Board members questioned whether using the 2070 projected 500-year flood elevation was excessive, and whether restricting new development on streets that had anticipated flood risks would effectively pause all development in many places. Some Board members noted that large required setbacks, while beneficial at some level, would not always be feasible and would reduce the land that could be built on, diminishing the capacity for affordable housing and other uses needed to support the economic and general well-being of the community. Board members acknowledged that it was difficult to predict or fully understand all of the consequences and impacts of the proposed petition, but most felt that it was hard to dismiss the testimony of developers, including affordable housing developers, who described the significant detrimental impact the petition would have on their projects.

Moreover, Board members recognized that the City has invested significant time and resources into studying this issue through the Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency (CCPR) plan, which will inform the broader Envision Cambridge comprehensive plan as well as the earlier phase Envision Alewife plan. As Board members noted during the latest Envision Cambridge update, that process will result in many different objectives and potential actions that will need to be prioritized, and it might not be appropriate to pull out one topic to be addressed separately from the others. Board members understand that these complex planning processes take time, and some members acknowledged that the Envision Cambridge process will proceed even if particular issues of concern are acted upon sooner. However, on the whole, it is the preference of the Board to follow the ongoing planning processes to their conclusions, so that they can be used to weigh and balance priorities for future development. Board members also raised concern that the time and attention needed to properly address the specific proposals included in this petition could divert resources from completing the planning processes that are currently underway.

The Board hopes that the advocacy and support for this issue will not go to waste; and believes that in the interim some aspects of this petition could be utilized in the review of new and pending projects. Existing language in the Zoning Ordinance, such as the Citywide Urban Design Objectives, allows the Planning Board to investigate a broad range of issues through project review. Using the example of the Board's current incorporation of2070 projected flood elevations, the Board could ask questions about urban heat island mitigation, flood protection, green infrastructure, tree canopy, and other issues mentioned in the petition and in the City's ongoing studies. Board members expressed a particular interest in learning more about the full range of urban heat island mitigation strategies and their impacts, and several Board members identified the "Green Factor" score as an idea that could be used informally now to collect information and study the feasibility and impact of different mitigation measures.

In conclusion, the Board hopes that this petition can be a starting point for further discussion, and can be studied together with the CCPR and Envision Cambridge processes, with input from the City Engineer and Conservation Commission, in order to craft a zoning approach that will address the relevant issues without unduly impacting other city planning objectives.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H Theodore Cohen, Chair

22. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a draft zoning petition concerning the regulation of cannabis establishments in the City of Cambridge in response to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-75. [Cannabis Zone Map]
Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board

July 30, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Attached is a draft zoning petition concerning the regulation of cannabis establishments in the City of Cambridge in response to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-75. It includes proposed zoning for cannabis retail stores and cannabis production facilities, including small cultivation and/or manufacturing establishments. This proposal would amend the current zoning provisions for medical marijuana dispensaries and establish a system of rules for establishments trading in cannabis for medical use, non-medical use, or both. It would also clarify how cannabis research and testing facilities would be classified under current land use regulations.

This draft zoning petition has been informed by discussions that have taken place over the past several months at the City Council and its Public Safety Committee, Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee, and Economic Development and University Relations Committee. For example, the draft zoning petition proposes more flexible zoning allowances for Economic Empowerment Applicants, as certified by the state, who promote economic development in areas that have had historically high rates of arrest, conviction, and incarceration related to marijuana crimes. The draft zoning petition also proposes criteria to promote the continued availability of products to registered medical marijuana patients. Items that might be subject to further consideration have been identified through annotations.

This draft zoning petition was prepared with the participation of several departments, including the Law Department, Community Development Department, Public Health Department, Inspectional Services Department, Police Department, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, and Department of Weights and Measures.

As requested in Awaiting Report 18-75, the attached draft zoning petition incorporates what we consider best practices for zoning regulation of adult use cannabis. In addition to zoning, other issues related to cannabis establishments will be discussed in the future through the process of instituting Host Community Agreements, which are required by state regulations. As economic development practices are considered, we will incorporate equity practices and benefits for Cambridge residents as a component of Host Community Agreements to the greatest extent possible.

I am requesting that the Council accept this draft as a City Council zoning petition and refer that petition to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee, which will begin the formal hearing process. The specifics of the proposal will undergo further review and consideration at these hearings, and may be amended by the City Council prior to being considered for adoption.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

26. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-14, regarding a report on applying for a Targeted Brownfields Assessment grant for Jerry's Pond.
Referred to Nbhd. & LT Planning Committee

July 30, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-14, regarding a report on applying for a Targeted Brownfields Assessment grant for Jerry's Pond, received from Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq and City Solicitor Nancy Glowa.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor
Re: Awaiting Report 18-14 dated 2/05/2018 regarding applying for a Targeted Brownfields Assessment Grant for Jerry’s Pond.
Date: July 23, 2018

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a brownfield is a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. The EPA estimates that there are more than 450,000 brownfields in the U.S.

Targeted Brownfield Assessment (TBA) Grant Program
The EPA offers the competitive Targeted Brownfield Assessment (TBA) grant program to support assessment activities on brownfield sites. Site assessment can provide a higher degree of predictability toward potential reuse and redevelopment of a site. Funds from TBA grants may be used only for assessment and cannot be applied to any subsequent cleanup activities. Other funding sources exist for cleanup and/or to incentivize brownfield redevelopment. Eligibility and applicability for those funds varies based on site ownership and liability status. The sites for the TBA grant program are selected locally, once a year. The most recent grant proposal deadline was in November 2017.

Program Eligibility
The EPA’s program information regarding the Targeted Brownfield Assessment (TBA) grant program provides the following guidance:

• Applicants must be public entities or non-profits who partner with a public entity.

• It is important that the applicant currently have redevelopment plans for the contaminated property.

• The applicant should apply on behalf of a specific site which it currently owns or can obtain ownership through some other means (e.g. tax foreclosure).

• If the site is currently not owned by the applicant, the site should be "abandoned". An "abandoned" site for the purposes of this program is a site where the current owner has shown no interest in the property, has not paid taxes on the property, and does not have the resources to conduct the required site assessment work.

• Sites where the applicant could be considered a responsible party for the contamination on the site are not eligible for assistance under this program.

• The TBA program is not intended to assist private parties to assess and cleanup their sites for redevelopment.

Jerry’s Pond
Jerry’s Pond is a part of a larger privately-owned site consisting of several contiguous parcels owned by GCP Applied Technologies (GCP). GCP’s predecessor, WR Grace, performed building materials testing on the Cambridge site and it has been referred to as the Grace Site for several decades. Prior to W.R. Grace’s ownership, it was owned by the rubber company, Dewey and Almy. The site hosted industrial activity since the 1920s and environmental investigations conducted in the 1980s and 1990s identified contamination on site. The owner has informed us that in 2006, an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) was issued as part of a Response Action Outcome under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan and Chapter 21(e) regulations.

Because the Jerry’s Pond site is privately owned, the property owner is not an eligible entity to apply for the TBA Grant Program for that site. The City is also not an eligible entity to apply for the TBA Grant Program for that site, because it does not own the property.

The broader area has been studied as a part of the City’s Envision Cambridge Alewife District Study process. The long-term vision under discussion for the area contemplates clustering development in the northern section of the site and improving connectivity through the site to better link adjacent housing, open space resources, and transit facilities. Implementation of any long-term vision for the site would require a collaborative effort with the property owner, in the context of any plans they may have for the site as a whole.

Conclusion
CDD staff have been in contact with members of the Friends of Jerry’s Pond group and have met with EPA staff to learn more about the grant program and the specific purposes for which TBA grant funding could be applied. Because Jerry’s Pond is a privately-owned parcel, the property owner of Jerry’s Pond does not meet the eligibility criteria.

We have had conversation with GCP leadership about the prospect of a Targeted Brownfield Assessment grant for the Jerry’s Pond area. GCP has informed the City that it sees the AUL as the strategy ‘to ensure no significant risk to health, safety, public welfare or the environment’ exists at the Jerry’s Pond area, and GCP has expressed its intention to ‘continue to maintain the area of Jerry’s Pond as [they] do today, with periodic trash pickup and clearing of brush overgrowth’.

In recent weeks, a number of residents have reached out to GCP Applied Technologies to express their interest in environmental assessment, remediation, and transformation of Jerry’s Pond area to a publicly-accessible open space resource. GCP’s response is attached. We will continue the conversation with GCP as they develop their long-term plans for the site. If circumstances change and GCP is interested, the City will evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness of an application in collaboration with GCP during future TBA grant cycles.

---

From: "Ethier, Karen E." Karen.E.Ethier@Rcpat.com
Date: July 20, 2018 at 1:30:03 PM EDT
To: "Ethier, Karen E." Karen.E.Ethier@gcpat.com
Cc: "Kapples, Jack" <Jack.Kapples@gcpatcom>, "Hanlon. Paul W." Paul.W.Hanlon@gcpat.com
Subject: Jerry's Pond

Dear Neighbor,
We received your email regarding GCP's corporate headquarters property in Cambridge. A number of other neighbors also sent emails with suggestions for the Jerry's Pond area, including some who have voiced strong opposition to any development.

Our Cambridge headquarters site is a valuable asset to GCP. We remain focused on launching GCP as a new public company and have not developed our long-term plans for the site. However, we will continue to evaluate options to use the property for business purposes, and will make appropriate efforts to communicate significant plans in the future.

Our goal is to always perform as a reliable corporate neighbor by demonstrating ongoing commitment and support for the local community. Our corporate initiatives have ranged from sustainability investments at our headquarters facility, community stewardship efforts such as mentoring students and sponsoring sports programs, clearing pathways of snow for T access, and providing parking to neighbors and visitors of Russell Field sporting events, GCP will continue to contribute to the community in this way.

Thank you,
Karen

17. Written Protest to the zoning petition filed by Douglas Brown, et al to amend section 22.70 of the Zoning Ordinance entitled “Flood Plain Overlay District” and to create a new section 22.89 entitled “Green Factor” have been received see attached Written Protest to the zoning petition filed by Douglas Brown, et al to amend section 22.70 of the Zoning Ordinance entitled “Flood Plain Overlay District” and to create a new section 22.89 entitled “Green Factor” have been received from the following property owners:
The Davis Companies
130 CambridgePark Apartments Limited Partnership
88 CambridgePark Apartments Limited Partnership
Vecna Properties at Cambridge Park Drive
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.
Deborah Ruhe
Twining Properties
Just-A-Start Corporation
The Residences at Alewife Station, LLP
George Stylianopoulos
BioMed Realty
Harvard University
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.
Boston Properties Limited Partnership
Ten Cambridge Center Trust
Eleven Cambridge Center Trust
Fourteen Cambridge Center Trust
Seventeen Cambridge Center LLC
Cambridge Center North Trust
MIT
Laverty Lohnes Properties
Asana Partners, LP
Happy Together, LP
Wendell Terrace, LLC
Cambridge Centre, LLC
55 Langdon, LLC
Chestnut Hill Realty
John Harvard, LLC
Harvard Collection, LLC
Timbuk Real Estate, LLC
University Common Real Estate
Timbuk Tu Real Estate, LLC
George Wyner Realty – Brattle Street, LLC
B & J Brattle Realty, LLC
Brattle Square Associates
Brattle Square Office Building Company
Chauncy Court, LLC
1-3 Charles Chauncy, LLC
Brattle Arms, LLC
Catherine Morat
Stephen Gladstone
Trinity Property Management, Inc.
Dickson Brothers Hardware
David Risko
McHugh Revocable Trust
Cambridge Housing Authority
55-9 Wheels Owner, LLC
200 Cambridge Park Drive
100 Cambridge Park Drive
125 Cambridge Park Drive
150 Cambridge Park Drive
CPI/King CPD owner, LLC
PPF Off 733 Concord Avenue, LLC

7. Retirement of Ellen Shacter from the Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services.   Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui

Resolution #7     July 30, 2018
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services (CASLS) provides free legal assistance to as many low-income families as possible to help them secure some of the most basic necessities of life, and is the agency to which other providers refer clients when no one else can help and legal assistance is needed; and
WHEREAS: Ellen Shacter has spent the last twenty-five years at CASLS representing low income clients in housing, emergency shelter and public benefits matters, including many residents facing homelessness or imminent displacement from the City; and
WHEREAS: Ellen has been the “go-to” person for so many in the city who need questions answered, advocacy, testimony, or guidance on affordable housing and protecting tenant rights; and
WHEREAS: Ellen has never turned down a request to help a resident in need; and
WHEREAS: Ellen’s work has had a tremendous impact on the City of Cambridge and her advocacy for social justice causes and human rights has helped our community thrive; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record expressing its appreciation to Ellen Shacter for her years of dedicated service to the citizens of Cambridge in this capacity; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a copy of this resolution to Ellen Shacter on behalf of the entire City Council.

18. Resolution on the death of George Teso.   Councillor Toomey

Resolution #18     July 30, 2018
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The City Council was deeply saddened at learning of the death of George Teso on July 22, 2018; and
WHEREAS: George was born on Feb 28, 1927 in Worcester; and
WHEREAS: George was the proud graduate of Worcester Junior College where he earned an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering; and
WHEREAS: George married the love of his life Lillian in 1954 and together they are the proud parents of two children; and
WHEREAS: George was a decorated Naval veteran of World War II where he served in the South Pacific Theater; and
WHEREAS: George was also member of the USS Rockbridge Team that conducted H-bomb testing at Bikini Atoll; and
WHEREAS: George re-enlisted in the Korean War and was honorably discharged in 1952; and
WHEREAS: After his military service, George worked on the Mass Interstate Highway project under the Eisenhower Plan; and
WHEREAS: George spent most of his distinguished career as the Commissioner of Traffic and Parking for the City of Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: George’s passing will leave a void in the lives of all his surviving family; his beloved wife Lillian; his two adored children Leslie and her husband Bill and Deirdre and her partner James; his dear grandchildren Benjamin and Daniel; and his beloved sister Antoinette; and
WHEREAS: George will be sorely missed by all he touched and loved; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record extending its deepest sympathy for the family of George Teso at this time of such personal loss; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Teso family on behalf of the entire City Council.

19. Resolution on the death of Richelle Robinson.   Councillor Simmons

Resolution #19     July 30, 2018
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The entire Cambridge community was deeply saddened to learn of the untimely passing of CRLS student Richelle Robinson on July 22, 2018; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record expressing its deepest condolences to the Wilcox Family at this difficult time; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Wilcox Family on behalf of the entire City Council.

2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez City Clerk, transmitting a communication from Mayor Marc McGovern, appointing Councillor Mallon as chair to the newly formed Mayor’s Task Force on the Arts.
Placed on File

July 25, 2018
Councillor Alanna Mallon
Cambridge City Hall
Cambridge, MA 02139
Re: Mayor’s Task Force on the Arts

Dear Councillor Mallon:
I am pleased to appoint you as chair to the newly formed Mayor’s Task Force on the Arts, which will be charged with the responsibility of producing a set of action-oriented policy recommendations that will promote diversity and investment in the arts, as well as support Central Square, which is our designated Arts and Cultural District. The task force of 12-14 people will be comprised of city staff, local community leaders, and a diverse sampling of the artist community. Policy recommendations from this task force will be used to guide important City decisions around reliable, long term arts funding as well as the cohesive incorporation of the arts into all future City planning.

As Chair of the task force, I invite you to appoint those you wish to serve on the committee. Members of the City staff may include: a member of the Cambridge Arts Council, a member of the Community Development Department, while community leaders may include: a representative from the Community Arts Center, university representatives, and arts advocates. Additionally, the artist membership of the task force should reflect not only the diversity of art mediums, but also the socioeconomic diversity of Cambridge.

It is my hope that this task force provides a platform for artists and community leaders to speak directly and productively with City staff about the unique policy needs of the artist community. I look forward to recommendations that will allow Cambridge to maintain and promote a thriving arts and culture community, in both Central Square and City-wide.

Thank you for your willingness to serve as Chairperson, and I look forward to supporting your efforts in any way I can.

Sincerely, Marc McGovern

O-2     July 30, 2018
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: In light of potential changes to two key sites—the Millers River expansion and renovation and the acquisition of the Metropolitan Pipe site by Alexandria Real Estate—along Mass DOT’s easement along the Grand Junction Railroad, it would be helpful to receive an update on the Grand Junction Overlay District, and what efforts can be made to help create incentives and ensure commitments from property owners and developers for the eventual completion of the Grand Junction Multiuse path; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council for an update on the Grand Junction Overlay District in September.

O-3     July 30, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The Sherman Street train crossing was recently removed from its previous “quiet zone” status; and
WHEREAS: This new status requires trains to blow their whistles as they approach the crossing regardless of the time of day and this new whistle noise is extremely disturbing to area residents; and
WHEREAS: Federal regulations require certain street improvements be made to enable an intersection to become a “quiet zone;” now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with appropriate staff from the City, MassDOT, the Federal Railroad Administration, the MBTA and any other organization with jurisdiction over this intersection and related train traffic with the goal of implementing whatever street and intersection changes are necessary to get this area re-designated a “quiet zone” and then to work towards having the “quiet zone” reinstalled here; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this issue.

O-8     July 30, 2018
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that Lesley University purchased five buildings on the Episcopal Divinity School (EDS) site on July 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS: In June of 2017, the City Council voted to confer with the Affordable Housing Trust with the view in mind of immediately contacting the Episcopal Divinity School and Lesley University to begin negotiations for the purchase of the 8-acre EDS site for the development of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is in critical need of affordable housing; and
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and any other relevant City departments on what attempts were made to discuss with Lesley University or the Episcopal Divinity School about purchasing the property for affordable housing development and the results of any such discussions and report back to the City Council by the Sept 17, 2018 City Council meeting.

O-9     July 30, 2018
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR MALLON
WHEREAS: The City continues seeking ways to make our community safer, particularly in the hot summer months when cities across the country tend to see a spike in violent activity, as has unfortunately been the case in Cambridge this year; and
WHEREAS: One important component of the City’s efforts towards curbing summertime violence must be in activating as many of our public parks and community spaces as possible with family-friendly programming in the evening hours, so that these areas remain vibrant, lively, and less hospitable terrain for undesirable activities; and
WHEREAS: There has been a fair amount of this type of public programming taking place in recent years, and the regular Safe Streets, Safe City meetings continue to help connect community stakeholders in apprising one another of these efforts, yet the City must take a more aggressive, more methodical approach to activating our public spaces as we begin laying the groundwork for safer summers going forward; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City departments to establish an action plan to work with the City’s Community-Based Organizations to create a network of summertime evening programming to reduce the threat of violence in the City’s public spaces in 2019 and beyond, and to report back to the City Council on this effort by the end of this calendar year.

O-13     July 30, 2018
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The Brown petition attempts to focus attention on several sustainability issues that continue to impact the City of Cambridge and the entire region; and
WHEREAS: Since the filing of the Brown Petition, the Cambridge Housing Authority along with several non-profit and for-profit housing developers have expressed grave concerns about the unintended consequences that passage will have on both the short and long-term creation of affordable housing in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The City’s Inclusionary Housing program, which has seen the creation of nearly 1,000 affordable units, is largely dependent on the continued creation of new housing; and
WHEREAS: Housing advocates have expressed concern that passage of this petition could jeopardize future development as well as projects that are already in the pipeline; and
WHEREAS: Envision Cambridge and several other City-sanctioned committees are currently working on many of these issues; and
WHEREAS: The City has been making great strides in bringing different voices to the table regarding these important issues; and
WHEREAS: The City Council would like to ensure that a number of these issues are taken up in the near future and create a constructive dialogue to support this conversation; and
WHEREAS: It is important that all effected stakeholders are involved in this process including: residents, landowners, developers, environmental experts, urban planners, traffic experts, affordable housing developers, universities and business leaders, lenders and construction trades unions; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager, with input from Mayor McGovern and the City Council, be and hereby is requested to appoint an advisory committee to work through resiliency elements raised during the Envision process and through the Brown petition and report back to the City Council, with the input of the appropriate City agencies and departments, within 90 days of this order.

O-14     July 30, 2018
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: In 2014, Cambridge replaced every City-owned “cobra head” high pressure sodium (HPS) streetlight with 4000K LED alternatives in order to reduce energy consumption and save money; and
WHEREAS: The new system uses less than 25% of the energy that the old system used, and saves the city around $500,000 annually in electricity costs; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge was an early adopter of the technology, but since that time significant concerns have been raised by the American Medical Association about prolonged exposure to the artificial, high-frequency blue light emitted by the new streetlights, and at least one study has indicated a possible link between prolonged exposure to this type of artificial light at night and risk of developing certain types of cancer; and
WHEREAS: LEDs which emit light at lower, warmer, safer frequencies while retaining all of the energy efficiency benefits have recently become available as technology has improved, and several cities including Seattle have already begun the process of converting high frequency LEDs to these warmer models whenever a full replacement is warranted; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge has already taken important steps to address the intensity of the LED lights including installing wireless adaptive controls and dimming during off-peak hours, yet concerns remain about the frequency of the light being emitted, regardless of the intensity; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to adopt a policy of replacing any failed 4000K LED streetlights with warmer alternatives as opportunities arise, and offering shielding/filtering upon request from nearby residents whenever possible; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to explore additional ways to further mitigate the harmful effects of 4000K streetlights, including (but not limited to) reducing the hours during which they are turned to maximum brightness, reducing the maximum brightness, implementing motion sensor activation whenever possible and safe, regulating light leakage from building windows, and aggressively screening streetlights so they shine less directly into windows in residential neighborhoods; 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-15     July 30, 2018
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The City Council resolved on June 6, 2016, to recognize the second Monday of October, during that year and thereafter, as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Cambridge, and further that the day would be observed “by the people, with appropriate exercises in the schools and otherwise, to the end that the culture, history, and diversity of Native American Peoples be celebrated and perpetuated;” now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts, and Celebrations Committee hold a hearing before October to discuss the various events being planned for Indigenous Peoples’ Day 2018 and ways to properly observe the holiday in a way that promotes the culture, history, and diversity of Native American people during future years.

O-16     July 30, 2018  Amended
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR MALLON
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: GPS-enabled navigation aid devices such as Garmin, Google Maps, Apple Maps and WAZE are in general use and allow members of the public, Transportation Network Companies, trucking companies and others to use shortcuts and different routes that put unexpected and at times overwhelming traffic on Cambridge’s smaller roads or roads that, for whatever reason, cannot handle specific types of traffic such as tractor-trailer trucks; and
WHEREAS: Many navigational companies allow external editing to reflect road conditions, traffic signals, street use limitations such as “No Left Turn” or “Do Not Enter from 3-7 PM” and similar use constraints; and
WHEREAS: Such editing can help guide traffic down suitable roads in compliance with local traffic regulations in real world time as those regulations change; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant City staff to determine what navigational editing capabilities the City of Cambridge has and report back to the City Council informing the Council of, along with any other relevant information:

1. Which navigational companies have given the City editing power and to what extent;

2. Which navigational companies the City is working with to establish editing power and to what extent

3. Which street limitations, such as “No Left Turn,” “Do Not Enter from 3-7 PM” or “No Trucks” have been entered on which navigational systems

4. What sort of use information is provided to the City from which navigational systems

5. What interventions the City is considering, such as “Open To Local Residents Only” or “90 Degree turn ahead- no trucks” signs or targeted traffic enforcement details at specific stop signs (which are often rolled through as people take WAZE directed shortcuts through Cambridge), to minimize the disruptive impact of navigational devices on local streets

ORDERED: That the Transportation and Public Utilities Committee be and hereby is requested to schedule a hearing to learn more about the City’s interaction with navigational device services.

O-17     July 30, 2018  Amended
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The City’s 20% Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requires that affordable units meet the same high building, design, and material standards of the market rate units in a development; and
WHEREAS: Material equality alone is not enough to end stigma and biased practices against individuals and families residing in designated affordable units; and
WHEREAS: The City and individual City Councillors have only anecdotal evidence of bias against inclusionary tenants, even though this bias is known to be systematic; and
WHEREAS: Previous surveys by the Community Development Department of inclusionary tenants have not specifically addressed the topic of bias they may experience from neighbors, tenants’ associations, landlords, or management companies; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Community Development Department to contract with an outside survey company to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of inclusionary tenants’ experiences with particular emphasis on biased practices; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council at the Sept 17, 2018 City Council meeting.

COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:07am in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss Early Childhood Education in Cambridge and hear updates on meeting the goals set forth by the Early Childhood Education task force.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Mallon and Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor McGovern; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager, City Manager’s Office; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Michelle Farnum, Assistant Director of Children, Youth and Families; Janice Alger, Assistant Director for Administration; Meghan White, Division Head for Childcare and Family Support Services, Department of Human Services; Christine Doucet, (DHSP); David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Angela Pierre, Michelle Monsignor, Principal Budget Analysts, Budget Office; Dr. Kenneth Salim, Superintendent of Schools; Claire Spinner, Chief Financial Officer; Maryann MacDonald, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Education, Cambridge Public Schools (CPSD); Lei-Anne Ellis, Early Childhood Director of the Birth to Grade 3 Partnership, DHSP/CPSD; Kathleen Kelly, Fred Fantini, School Committee Members; Nancy Tauber, Executive Director, Family Policy Council; Elizabeth Liss, Education Liaison, Mayor’s Office; Nora Bent; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Jessie Leonard, Head Start; Honey Schnapp; Erin Tighe; Jen Baily; Cynthia Woodward; Erika Peter-Harp; and Jose Wendell.

Councillor Mallon convened the hearing and read from a prepared opening statement (ATTACHMENT A). She gave an overview of the agenda for the hearing (ATTACHMENT B) and noted that the Committee received two communications that were to be made part of the record (ATTACHMENTS C AND D).

Councillor Siddiqui added that the City Council has asked for information regarding city-owned spaces from the City Manager. She said that she received an e-mail stating that the programs are amazing but the question is how to ensure that everyone has access to such programs and ensuring that the policies are transparent.

Mr. DePasquale noted the excellent partnership between the CPSD and the City. He said that he was appointed to the Cambridge Early Childhood Task Force and the commitment by the people on the task force has been incredible. He said that the work in the last year has been pursuing the recommendations of the task force (ATTACHMENT E). He said that for the people who work in this area it is not a job, it is a passion. He thanked all present for the work that they undertake. Mr. DePasquale noted that this issue is a priority of the City Council. He explained that in looking at the FY 19 budget, the team has looked at how to address the important issues that the City Council has discussed. He said that he is proud to say that $1.1 million dollars in new money has been added to the Human Services budget for this cause. He noted the importance of the funding of the scholarships for the programs, especially for low-income families. Mr. DePasquale explained that because money for early childhood is allocated within both the school department and human services, one may not fully see what is being spent. He explained that when looking at the City’s overall Operating Budget, it is not obvious that the city is spending $13.5 million dollars on early childhood education unless you know where to look.

Dr. Salim said that at the district level, early childhood education is a priority. He said that when he speaks with Junior Kindergarten and Kindergarten teachers, they value the focus on the transitions. He said that they take efforts to have strong collaboration within the district as well as with programs outside the district. He said that they have a multi-year district plan which helps to frame and guide the work for the younger students as well. He said that the work that happens in early childhood is an important variable in that work which focuses on high quality programs and standards. He said that the partnership with the City is a strong collaborative effort.

Maryann MacDonald commented that she appreciates the opportunity to share the collective work that is being undertaken. She thanked Councillors Mallon and Siddiqui for forwarding their questions in advance of the hearing. Ms. MacDonald gave a summary of the history of the creation of the Cambridge Early Childhood Task Force along with the guiding principles, goals and strategies (ATTACHMENT F). She explained that the task force was charged with developing a set of recommendations to improve early education and care throughout the community, and ensure that all children receive high quality early education and care beginning with prenatal care and extending through third grade. She said that the goal is that all children will enter school ready to thrive academically, socially, and emotionally and continue to thrive through third grade and beyond. She explained that final report was submitted in November of 2015 and was based on three overarching priorities: Start Early, Quality is Essential and Build a Coherent Mixed-Delivery System. She noted that this work was launched with the hiring of Lei-Anne Ellis. She noted that it is significant and intentional that Lei-Anne reports to Ms. Semonoff and to Ms. MacDonald. She said that Ms. Ellis’s work is relentless to implement the plan outlined. Ms. MacDonald pointed out that this is a true collaboration between the City and the CPSD.

Ms. Ellis talked about the efforts to increase access to, and affordability of, early learning and care services. She stated that one of the first goals was to create a home visiting program for Cambridge residents. She explained that there was a collaboration with Tufts University to conduct a needs assessment. She said that the Tufts needs assessment has been used to shape the thinking about the gaps in home visiting. She said that the health subcommittee of the Steering Committee has been working on framing what the Cambridge system should look like. The subcommittee believes that the first thing to do is to align and coordinate services and then to provide professional development across the system of services. The subcommittee will be conducting focus groups in the next few weeks with providers and program managers to review the subcommittee’s proposed direction, Ms. Ellis described another one of the Birth to Third goals which was to support the sustainability of Baby U. That has happened by securing city funding for the father facilitator which has helped insure the increase in fathers. She indicated that there are currently 17 fathers participating in the program which is an all-time high. A third goal was to assist community programs in cost sharing for administrative services. Ms. Ellis explained that the Birth to Third partnership was working to support the cost sharing strategy thru the United Way of Mass Bay. Together with the Cambridge Community Foundation, the partnership is supporting a cost savings program called Shared Services Massachusetts which is being piloted in Cambridge and Somerville.

Ms. Semonoff notified the committee that Baby U graduation will take place on May 19, 2018 at 10:30am at the Fletcher-Maynard Academy. She added that most of the families have fathers who have participated which is a tribute to the work that Baby U has done with the father facilitator. Ms. Semonoff said that Objective 1.3 was to increase scholarship subsidies for low-income families. She said that 23 scholarships were awarded to children from low-income families, especially to recent immigrants, supporting their attendance at 8 different high quality community preschools. The overall cost was just under $400,000 in this year’s budget. She noted that this project included outreach to locate families and willing providers as well as providing support to programs and families. The Center for Families has been useful in helping provide that support. She said that the idea was to provide scholarships to high quality community programs that low income children might not otherwise have access to. She said that for FY 19, the funding for scholarships will more than double to 1.1 million in the upcoming budget. Ms. Semonoff explained that the limitation here is on the availability of the slots in the programs, not a question of the City’s willingness to spend the money on funding even more scholarships. She said that they anticipate doing more work this year with the families and with the program sites to ease the transition for families into programs. She noted that another benefit of the scholarship program is that it is leading more community programs that do not offer as comprehensive full day or full year programming to explore ways to move closer to full-day and full-year programming.

Claire Spinner said that one of the strategies of the Task Force report was a recommendation that the School Committee study separating Junior Kindergarten and Kindergarten classrooms in all cases. She noted that currently it is not possible for the school department given the current classrooms to guarantee that 4.5 year olds will be in classrooms separate from the 5 year olds. Rather than do a study that just looks at creating separate classrooms, the school department and city have broadened the study based on the requests from the joint Roundtable Meeting between the School Committee and the City Council this fiscal year. The RFP will ask the consultant to look at what are the possible ways the city and schools could approach providing access to high quality preschool programs for 4-years-olds. The recently released RFP for pre-school models requests an analysis of various models of expanding access. She said that they need to determine enrollment growth projections over the next ten years to see what the impact will be on classroom space if there were to be an expansion of access for 4-year-olds.

Councillor Mallon thanked all for the presentation.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked Ms. Spinner if the RFP is only for 4-year olds. Ms. Spinner responded that the study is to look at the existing system for 3 and 4-year olds in Cambridge and then models that are more related to 4-year olds. She said that they are asking consultants to give information on three potential models based on national models for preschool for 4-year-olds.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked a question in relation to the new 32 available scholarship slots for the upcoming school year. Ms. Semonoff said that the 32 slots will go to low income children for community programs. She said that currently there are two ways that the city and this project would provide scholarship assistance to low income families. The first is via the 50 slots for community based programs. She explained that DHSP also provides scholarship to their own programs. She said that anyone who applied for a scholarship that was on the DHSP waitlist would have access to the community scholarships as well. In coordination with the providers who serve young children, Ms. Ellis conducted outreach directly to parents for the new scholarship slots. She said that when an application is received, families were sent postcards indicating that their application was received. Applications are then scored based on risk factors which would help determine a family’s priority for a scholarship slot. Ms. Semonoff noted that a family would not be disadvantaged if they were also on the DHSP wait list.

Councillor Zondervan said that his son went through the preschool program more than 10 years ago. He said that he has a question regarding expansion of the program. He noted that in reading Goal 1, it does not say universal. He asked about the rationale. Ms. Semonoff replied that the initial charge to the task force was to create a universal preschool program for 4-year olds. She said that the concern was that if you look at the research on early childhood, then starting programs for just 4-year olds is not soon enough to best support children’s success. Focusing on supporting families and children starting much earlier is likely to lead the best chance for children to be successful at school and otherwise. The task force instead clearly focused on looking across the age spectrum as well as looking at some expansion of programming for 3 and 4 year olds. The strong recommendation from the task force was not to look primarily or just at expansion of 4-year-old programs. But recognizing the importance of looking at expansion given the interest of the city council and school committee, she stated that the goal of the RFP is to look at what are possible models to do that. She said that there is not one definition of universal Pre- K. If you look nationally, some models have sliding fee scale, some models are just for low income and some are for a broader set of children.

Councillor Zondervan said that he was not questioning the age range, he is questioning the word increase as opposed to the word universal. He said that if goal is to have access for every child not based on age but on need, that is different from saying the goal is to increase whatever we have. Ms. Semonoff said that they were able to figure out where about 750 of the 4-year olds were in care, either in the schools, city programs or private community programs or family care programs. She said that there are families that have their children in programs outside of the City of Cambridge. Based on the estimation of children in private schools, there is not a huge gap in ensuring that all 4-year olds are being served. She said that the question is not so much about lack of access for 4 year olds but rather about ensuring that the programs that are currently serving children are high quality programs. There is also the issue for all about affordability of the programs that exist as well as expanding the number of seats to ensure access. The City added slots for 34 children at two new classrooms run by the city at the Windsor Street Health Clinic as a part of the Birth to Third work.

Councillor Zondervan said that it is his understanding that socializing children across different age groups is not developmentally bad so he questioned the separation between Junior Kindergarten and Kindergarten programs. Ms. MacDonald responded that one of the biggest issues that came up from Junior Kindergarten/Kindergarten teachers as well as the principals is that it would better to keep the 5-year-olds together. She said that about one-half of the children who are 4 years old qualify for Junior Kindergarten. She noted that the age did not change for entrance into Kindergarten programs when the age changed for first grade. She said that Junior Kindergarten teachers feel as if they can be more aligned with quality preschool standards if they serve 4 years old children exclusively. She said that one difference for children in a mixed-grade classroom now is the challenge due to the increased standards coming from the State. She said that it is difficult for teachers to implement an integrated curriculum that includes enough play, recess and exploration while ensuring that those children meet the changing standards. Councillor Zondervan said that he has concerns about the standards. Councillor Mallon said that her children are at the Tobin Montessori which is intentionally mixed classrooms. She said that she feels that it can cause stress on the teachers and families.

Kathleen Kelly added that it is the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education that creates the curriculum. She noted that there is a difference in the curriculum in Junior Kindergarten versus Kindergarten programs. She said that there has been emphasis at the State House on early childhood education and what will work for both Junior Kindergarten and Kindergarten. She said that she is impressed with the depth of the research that is being undertaken.

Fred Fantini asked about the salary for people who work in these programs. Ms. Semonoff said that DHSP pays at a higher rate than most in the pre-school field but it is still much less than the salaries for kindergarten teachers. She said that in the community programs, the state continues to provide some salary rate increases for these programs which receive state money. She said that those rate increases are small. Ms. Ellis said that there is no question that that salaries are a challenge for teachers in some of the community programs that she works with.

Mr. Fantini asked about the number of children that are not being served in any program. Ms. Semonoff responded that the number of families not being served is relatively small.

Claire Spinner talked about the expanding access to early childhood information contained in Objective 1.4. She said that one of the biggest strategies that was implemented was the FindItCambridge.org initiative. She said that it is amazing how this initiative was created, rolled out and expanded upon.

Maryann MacDonald said that Goal 2 is really the cornerstone of the work that is being done. She said that after Ms. Ellis was hired, a Quality Program Specialist was hired. She noted that the proposal is to add a second Quality Program Specialist. Ms. Ellis said that there are 9 community preschool centers that are currently involved in a program quality improvement pilot. She said that after four months of coaching, the quality rating assessment scores using the state system have improved in these programs. She said that they have jumped 2.36 points out of a possible 7 and she feels very positive about this. She noted that they will use the same lens to roll out this quality improvement program in family child care programs. She said that they are currently recruiting ten family providers and currently seven have indicated that they intend to sign up. She said that this program will kick off in September of 2018. Like the preschool programs in the quality improvement program, the family childcare programs will receive coaching, professional development and support around assessment tools and funds to purchase appropriate materials for their family childcare programs. The Birth to Third Partnership has also supported professional development for all family and center providers in the city. She noted that 117 educators have come to 30 workshops. She said that the project is also looking at evaluation and documentation so that we can look at what are the lessons learned from the work so far.

Maryann MacDonald said that we must ensure that there is a collaborative and intentional transition for children from city and community providers to the CPSD. She said that they have come to appreciate how they take data and put it into the CPSD information system. Ms. Ellis has worked with CPS IT department to ensure that any form that is filled out by a preschool is uploaded into the Aspen system and the classroom teacher will see the preschool form which is a huge improvement. She said that the Superintendent sent a letter to all preschool providers saying how important it is and how much the CPSD appreciates this information. She said that they are intentional and clear around the collaboration and partnership. She said that preschool providers share with the child’s future JK and K teachers information on social/emotional issues, engagement with other children, etc. so that everyone has a clear understanding of how to support that child.

Mayor McGovern said that he worries about the families that are not able or choose not to go to a program. He asked how to reach out to families where children are with family members and not attending a daycare. Ms. Semonoff said that they have done enormous outreach to try to ensure that if low-income parents want a child in a program, they will learn about the opportunity. She said that the Center for Families runs playgroups and conducts outreach in many of the housing developments to reach out to home caregivers. She explained that it is challenging to reach everyone and that the efforts will continue. Ms. Ellis added that they also want to connect families to resources such as libraries, etc.

Ms. Semonoff talked about partnerships to promote strong family engagement and support and coordination with healthcare providers to ensure access quality healthcare services. She stated that the strategies are outlined in Sections 3.1 – 3.3.

Maryann MacDonald discussed the development of an effective birth through third grade governance and leadership structure. She said that there are three working subcommittees and a steering committee that meets 3 times per year that has been a wonderful opportunity for community engagement and buy-in on the subcommittees and the steering committee.

Ms. Semonoff explained that the City contracted with Strategies for Children which conducts lobbying, training, and consulting on early childhood education to consult with the city regarding the implementation of a new waitlist process for city preschool programs She explained that they began with the idea that City-run preschools are a scare resource and they wanted to ensure that these preschools were being made available and serving a population that adequately represented the lower income spectrum in the city. She said that if the commitment is to serve a diverse population, having a system that privileges people who are in a position to pay attention to the fact that you can put your child’s name on list at the age of 1 is not likely to include a fair representation of lower income families.

Ms. Semonoff gave an overview of the informational DHSP letter that was sent to families as it relates to enrollment policies and procedures (ATTACHMENT G). She said that there were over 800 families on the wait list for 150 slots for 3 and 4 year olds and that in any given year, there are only between 40 and 75 openings. She said that they went through the process to contact every family on the wait list and, over the course of several months, determined if these families were still interested in remaining on the list. She said that when this process was completed, there were 383 families left on the wait list who had a child who would be eligible in September 2018 or 2019 and indicated a desire to remain on the wait list. That meant that of the 383 families currently on the waitlist at most 80 to 150 of the them will end up with a slot in DHSP preschools. So well more than half of the families currently on the waitlist will not get a position so adding more families to the waitlist now would be futile and will continue the challenge of having too few low income children accessing the programs. She noted that DHSP will use its current waitlist to fill the programs for September 2019 but that beginning later in the fall of 2019, DHSP will accept applications from any interested family whose children would be eligible to start preschool in September 2020. She said that a lottery process will be used to determine who will be placed in a DHSP program and families will be notified at least six months in advance of the start date which is much sooner than is the case now Councillor Mallon said that there are currently 150 slots in DHSP programs and asked how many slots were available at the Windsor Street Health Clinic. Ms. Semonoff responded that there were 34.

As it relates to designing the new system, Councillor Zondervan asked why this cannot be harmonized with the existing elementary school lottery system. Ms. Semonoff explained that CPSD currently has two separate systems one for 3 year olds and a separate one for 4 year olds and the programs are different in terms of what parents may want. She said that they would be able to conduct outreach jointly and look at what else might be possible. She said that CPSD programs are school day programs and not full day and full year programs. Councillor Zondervan said that having the same rules and procedures would be beneficial. Ms. Semonoff stressed the desire to make the process as simple as possible for families.

In terms of economic diversity, Councillor Zondervan said that if you prioritize low income families and guarantee them a slot first, you would reach that goal. Ms. Semonoff said that given what we know about the income of families in the city, having just 15% of the families on the DHSP with incomes below $50,000 is a lower percentage than they hope to have. She said that there is a vast gulf between 15% of the waitlist being low income and the desire ultimately to have perhaps close to 50% of the slots in DHSP for low income children. She said that it is important to ensure that there is as much opportunity as is possible in a diverse program for low income children. Councillor Zondervan said that he would like low income families prioritized.

Ms. Semonoff said that one of the things that creates the challenge for families is that DHSP is at the lowest end of the cost of programs. We are the highest quality programs in the city and are close to the lowest cost in the city. She said that we must change the scale so that higher income families are paying more for DHSP programs. She said that providing the slots at such a low cost is a challenge because it creates such a disparity between those families who do get into the city programs and those that have to pay higher rates for high quality community programs. She said that it is the plan to work on a tuition scale that looks different than the current scale.

Councillor Mallon said that she wonders if there is the opportunity for the city to open more DHSP programs. She said that with a different sliding fee scale, it could be more sustainable. She asked how to plan for 2020 based on vacant spots in the city and budgetary priorities. She said that more can be served if we add classrooms in the city. Ms. Semonoff said that they are opening one more classroom in September of 2019 but the challenge is that there are no current possibilities of opening any additional classrooms in the schools. She said that to date, early childhood education has not been the highest priority for the use of space in city or in new developments so if that is a priority for the City Council, the City Council would need to work with the City Manager.

Mr. DePasquale said that the space issue is an important issue and a larger discussion is needed.

Ms. Peterson added that as the city begins to look at the Tobin Vassal Lane Upper school, it is looking at adding capacity and the possibility of introducing a preschool program at that facility. Councillor Mallon said that this is a very important topic of conversation that needs significant focus by the City Council.

At this time, Councillor Mallon and Councillor Siddiqui opened the hearing to public comment.

Erin Tighe said that she is devastated that her son missed getting on the wait list by about six weeks. She said that because of the change in the program, he will not be eligible to get a spot until he is 4 years old. She said that she is sad about this. She said that this represents $44,000 to her family. She suggested that perhaps the children who missed the opportunity for a small number of weeks should be given an advantage as it would be helpful. She said that her family is committed to staying in the city but it is hard for a middle-income family as well.

Councillor Zondervan said that he is suggesting harmonization of the lottery system which in turn would help with the space issues. He said that the School of Groove and Rock and Roll Daycare operate 3 programs in Cambridge and one in Boston. He said that this could be a great opportunity for a lot of vacant storefronts. He said that we could adjust rates and leverage the fact that there are high income families who want to take part in the programs.

Councillor Siddiqui said that living in Cambridge is different from the past. She said that along with these changes, the City Council has to ensure that it is helping as many families as possible. She noted the need to get creative with moderate and middle-income families.

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

The hearing adjourned at 12:05 on the motion by Vice Mayor Devereux.

For the Committee,
Councillor Alanna M. Mallon, Co-Chair
Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Co-Chair

Committee Report #2
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Tues, May 15, 2018 at 5:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss updates from the Community Development Department on affordable housing production in Cambridge, the development of an Affordable Housing Overlay District plan, and Inclusionary Zoning Draft Regulations (including eligibility preferences). The Committee shall also ask the Community Development Department to advance the conversation on tenant protections.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Simmons, Co-Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Zondervan; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Anna Lee Hirschi; Liana Ascolese; Allison Daley; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Mike Johnston, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Peter Daly, Executive Director, Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. (HRI); Tina Alu, Executive Director, CEOC; Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, Member of the Affordable Housing Trust; Michael Turk; Ken Eisenberg; Elaine DeRosa; Lee Farris; Ward Williamson; and Benjamin Lee.

Councillor Siddiqui convened the hearing and gave an overview of the hearing’s agenda (ATTACHMENT A). She read from a prepared written opening statement (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Simmons said that housing supply has been of paramount importance for the entire City Council. She noted that the Affordable Housing Overlay District was first discussed in 2014. She said that it is important to look at an Affordable Housing Overlay District so that as we continue the conversation, we address the issues in tandem with the City Council’s priority.

Councillor Siddiqui asked CDD for update on the City’s goal of creating 1,000 new affordable units by the end of the decade. Mr. Cotter gave an overview of the Memorandum to City Manager DePasquale dated May 14, 2018 regarding an update on the progress made toward the goal of creating 1,000 new affordable units. (ATTACHMENT C). He also provided the Committee with proposed updated preference criteria as it relates to selection preferences (ATTACHMENT D).

Councillor Siddiqui noted that the timeline varies for each project. Mr. Cotter said that some projects are easy to approve, and others have questions to work out. He added that other developments that are before the City but are not ready to move forward have been included in the Memorandum.

Mayor McGovern said that when Councillor Simmons filed the Policy Order for 1,000 new affordable units by the end of the decade, people were very surprised, and he noted that it is amazing that this goal will be met. He said that he wants to make it clear that everyone knows that the need is still very high. He said that he is pleased to see this number. As it relates to different preferences, Mayor McGovern said that regarding proof of residency, there are people who are living in a place whose utilities are included and therefore they do not have a utility bill in their name. He suggested an affidavit or something that will allow for people to prove their residency in another way. He said that any housing plan that is put together must include homelessness. He talked about credit checks and CORI forms. Mayor McGovern said that applicants do not always have good credit, so he would like to look at that obstacle as well.

Councillor Carlone asked about units under development. Mr. Cotter explained that the units under development reflect cases where the sites have been purchased and permits have been granted. Councillor Carlone said that he is very pleased with this number. Councillor Carlone said that with the Volpe project, the City required MIT to work on dormitory development. He said that the City can begin a discussion with MIT, Harvard and Lesley to begin planning to maintain their graduate students. He said that housing students should become the responsibility of these institutions.

Councillor Carlone asked if Vail Court will be approximately 40 units. Mr. Cotter responded that it depends on the design and type of housing to be built once a developer is identified. Councillor Carlone said that looking at parking lots makes sense to him.

Councillor Mallon asked about opportunity zones. Mr. Cotter said that the City nominated two and one was selected. He said that when looking at potential investment opportunities in opportunity zones, they thought that a good use would be to help the CHA stretch resources they would need to revitalize public housing in need of significant investment with new funding that could be generated through the Opportunity Zone designation. He said that the Opportunity Zone that was designated was in the Alewife area. He said that the same approach to generate new funding would hold true with new development in the area. Councillor Mallon asked about the Roosevelt Towers as an Opportunity Zone. Mr. Cotter said that the other area that was submitted included Roosevelt, but it was not selected by the state. Millers River is not in an area eligible to be designated as an Opportunity Zone.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there is a list of expiring use buildings, other than Fresh Pond Apts., that will need to be negotiated. She questioned if there is a pipeline of smaller projects that will turn over soon and each time one of those buildings comes up, there could be dedicated funds to acquire housing stock. Mr. Cotter said that there is not a pipeline of buildings with expiring affordability restrictions. He said that it would be a good way to get more value out of a building while preserving affordable units there. He stated that Fresh Pond is privately owned. He said that when they looked at the inventory of expiring use properties at risk by 2021, there were 10 that were high risk and at this point, 8 have been preserved and the ninth should be preserved in the next month or so. He said that they are always happy to look at ways to increase affordability in existing buildings. He noted that CDD has looked at purchasing affordability in market-rate buildings on occasion, but they have found to be cost-prohibitive.

Councillor Siddiqui said that this is tremendous progress and she looks forward to next steps and building towards that goal. Councillor Siddiqui said that she looks forward to the update and considerations to the criteria through which preference is given to certain housing applicants. Mr. Cotter said that this would apply to households that are applying for rental or homeownership housing through CDD. He said that they want to talk about preferences that are assisted with housing through CDD and the mechanism is that they would put preferences into place for the inclusionary housing program. He noted that questions were shared with the Housing Committee in the last term and CDD is happy to receive input from the Committee members as work progresses on recommended changes. He said that CDD is moving toward changes that would advance the goals of the City Council with guidance from the Affordable Housing Trust. He said that the Affordable Housing Trust will make a recommendation, the inclusionary regulations will be placed in draft form where potential changes can be made before the regulations are finalized. Councillor Siddiqui said that some City Councillors would love to give input and she said she would like to concentrate on input and general feedback.

As it relates to Mayor McGovern’s comments regarding the CORI check, Councillor Carlone noted that the Cambridge Works program helps people who have had difficulties in the past.

Councillor Carlone said that the selection preference list is impressive. He said that if the State allows the City to consider the many different levels of residency, he does not understand why a poor person living in a neighborhood that is undergoing gentrification cannot even get ½ point. Mr. Cotter said that these are ideas and questions were gathered from different settings and questions from advocates and applicants. He said that CDD has not looked at the legality or advisability of every idea noted. He said that any geographic based preference that is smaller than the municipal boundary is not possible without creating issues of fair housing. Ms. Farooq added that they have been receiving pushback from the State regarding the Cambridge residency preference. She noted that this is not manifesting itself in inclusionary, but in projects that have State funding. She said that when looking at preferences, every time they advantage one set of applicants there are others that are moving down the list. She said that the more things on the list, the less meaningful the preference becomes. Councillor Carlone said that there are studies that show psychological damage is done to people who are pushed out of their neighborhood, especially poor people.

Councillor Mallon said that as it relates to no fault eviction, it is a time limited eviction. Mr. Cotter said it is key to balance those that are most in need. He said that this is an important question and more discussion needs to take place.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked the difference between a Cambridge-based worker and the preference for someone who works in Cambridge. Mr. Cotter said they are the same. He said that they are hearing concerns from the state about Cambridge’s local preference being limited to just Cambridge residents. He said that given what we see and where we are, one question is do we want to create a pathway back for those displaced and/or advantaging those who work in Cambridge. Vice Mayor Devereux asked how the State would feel about giving city employees any preference and if this is a more justifiably legal preference. Mr. Cotter responded that he would be happy to look at that and it would be moving in the direction that the State would be more comfortable with, however State guidance is for local preference to include equally both residents and workers in a locality.

Councillor Simmons said that the idea of regulations came out of the inclusionary zoning discussion. She said that she wants to know if there is any idea when CDD will have draft regulations. Mr. Cotter replied that they are working on regulations and the preference criteria will be implemented through the regulations. He said that the draft regulations will be reviewed with other City departments and CDD will be in the position to issue them once the preference criteria are worked out. Mr. Cotter said that his expectation is that the timeline for the regulations will be over the upcoming summer.

Councillor Simmons asked if the residency preference be expanded to former residents. She questioned that if a person has a Cambridge voucher and moves outside of Cambridge, is there any way to know what the new address is. Mr. Johnston said that the CHA has this data. He noted that there was a preference for those with Cambridge ties for a number of years but that ended approximately 10 years ago. He said that what ended up happening was that it got complex due to what people were presenting to show their tie to Cambridge. He said that for filling project-based units in Cambridge, they do have a hierarchy that the project-based owners have to go through. He explained that someone that is holding a Cambridge voucher would have a higher chance than someone who does not hold a Cambridge voucher.

Councillor Simmons asked if preference for City employees could be used. She said that there is a piece where one could “income out” of the program. She said that if you are a new teacher and you come in at a certain income and over time you make more money and you are then forced to leave for not meeting the necessary income criteria. She said that there would then be a dilemma for the employee as to whether or not to take a raise to stay in the city. Mr. Cotter said that when verifying past residency, they could look at someone who has a voucher through the CHA as having been a resident or they work in the city because they have a CH A voucher that is typically limited to those who meet that criteria. He noted that a concern of CDD is how to reasonably confirm that someone without a CHA voucher was a resident at some point and determine how they were displaced, in order to have a policy that would treat all displaced former residents equitably. He said that the inclusionary program on the rental side does have an upper limit although there is no upper limit for homeownership programs. He said that the income limits for initial occupancy for rental housing is 80% median and on recertification it is 100% median.

He said that they have not seen many people surpassing the 100% of median threshold. Councillor Simmons said that we must be cognizant that there is that problem in the inclusionary zoning. Mr. Cotter said that in those situations, if someone is in an inclusionary unit, they would tell an owner that they do not have an eligible tenant and would ask that the next available comparable unit be offered to an eligible tenant, so that a tenant who has become over-income would then be able to remain but pay a market rent.

Councillor Siddiqui asked if there is a reason why we cannot use current criteria and backdate as proof of residency. She asked if there is there is a way to codify potential emergency status requirements. Mr. Cotter said that they can look at residency at the time of application and they can continue to consider them a resident. He explained that the issue then becomes the people who do not know that and then come to CDD after the fact. He said that these are the more challenging situations. He said that they want to look at the list of preference criteria and be clear so that they can say, particularly as it relates to an emergency need, here are some preferences that will give you an advantage. They would do this through regulations that would be updated regularly.

Ms. Pizza-Zeoli said that she and Mr. Daly have been on committee to review the preferences. She said that it has been a difficult, but good, discussion. She said that we should not make assumptions about why people do what they do. She said that it is a very hard thing to get data on that. She said that it is important to know that there are other reasons. She said that the CHA tried to offer new units to Cambridge voucher holders who are outside the City and they did not take them. She asked how to learn more about the process in order to have actual data if we make the policy changes. Mr. Cotter said that it is something that they are looking at as they put together the report on the inclusionary program. He said that information will be forthcoming. Ms. Pizza-Zeoli said that we cannot fix everything with the regulations. She said that one way to look at the process is to flag the gaps. She said that there is a need for some type of tenant education program as well as workshops.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if over-housed applicants are current tenants that have a unit that is larger than they need. She asked if people voluntarily move out of a unit that is larger than they need. She asked if this is that a category worth trying to preference. Mr. Cotter said that it is something that they have seen and have worked to move tenants to units appropriately sized for their household. He said that the handful of cases have been with homeowners with extra bedrooms whose children have grown and moved out. Mr. Cotter said that that they have talked about this with affordable housing providers and there are different criteria and properties.

Councillor Siddiqui said that the question as it relates to the Affordable Housing Overlay District is the process, timeline and the receipt of updates. She said that it is the top priority of the Housing Committee that this zoning gets underway. Councillor Simmons added that in 2014 there was a Policy Order to look at an Affordable Housing Overlay District. She said that there was a March 2015 Housing Committee Report that talked about an Affordable Housing Overlay District. She said that in 2017 it was a major point of the discussion. She gave context to the newer members that this is a conversation that the Housing Committee has had for some time. She said that it is a mechanism for making affordability more robust with the ability to spread affordability across the city by driving down the cost of the land so that we can build affordable units.

Ms. Farooq said that the CDD is taking this very seriously as it is a significant priority for Housing Committee and the City Council. She noted that CDD has begun looking at this within the context of the Envision working group and the consultants. She explained that the consultants have been charged to look at what is possible with a residential buildout at market rate and market rate with inclusionary and what might be a tolerable amount of density and height across the City with the focus in sample areas along major corridors. The consultant was charged with looking at what is the tipping point that allows it to be feasible for all affordable projects. She said that the notion of not having a discretionary permit needed for a project would prevent a challenge which could take time and add cost, and to not have that risk would be beneficial. She said that they are leaning toward a design review with a public hearing with a nondiscretionary as of right and certain amount of density relief. They are looking at an intermediate element. She said that the capacity is constrained as to how many projects can be funded in a given year.

They are also considering if an incentive for private developers to do more than 20% inclusionary might be advisable. She said that the question for the consultant is to find the sweet spot so the such an incentive for additional inclusionary affordability doesn’t undermine the benefit offered to for all-affordable developments through an overlay. They are having the consultants model some of these types of sizes of development to get a sense of what it would look and feel like in the city. She said that the goal is have the conceptual pieces by November and they will push themselves as much as possible to move this faster.

Councillor Simmons asked when the Envision process as a whole will be done? Ms. Farooq responded by the end of the year. Mr. Cotter said that they are now focused with the housing working group and the consulting team is setting new targets. He said that having those numbers will help with how it will fit and how it is built out. He said that they are looking at an overlay to advantage city-funded projects. The number of projects advanced through an overlay for all-affordable housing developments will be limited by City funding. He said that they are looking at areas of potential that can be unlocked. He said that they will also look at existing buildings to advantage in a way to make them affordable housing.

Councillor Carlone asked how a project could be completed without applying for a Special Permit. He said that without the Special Permit, most developers do not pay attention to the informal design review. He said that this makes it clear to him that we must have strong guidelines with examples. He said that informal design review is very subjective. Ms. Farooq said that the current process for design review is what they have for projects that are 25,000 -50,000 square feet. She said that they are envisioning that this needs to be something different such as a public hearing at the Planning Board. She noted that a more public forum will be a helpful measure. She said that the other piece to keep in mind is that the developers we expect to be working with are more sensitive to these kinds of issues. She said that developers know that they need to build a supportive coalition within the community or their next project will be harder.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that she is thinking of the project in Porter Square. She said that that project ended up better because the public had some leverage. She said that she has trepidation about taking away the ability for CDD to do serious design review and for the public to have authentic input.

Councillor Mallon said that the Porter Square project did end up better in the end. She asked if there will be different zoning rules. Ms. Farooq said that they do not know the complete answer as to whether the rules would be different in different zones. She said that the question about the tipping point is germane to figure out what the answer will be. She said that the consultants are charged to look at different concepts, not just more density. She said that they may find that there will be a different formula for different areas and they are leaving options open.

Councillor Mallon asked if there will be report before November. Ms. Farooq responded that she could plan to bring some ideas to the City Council when they have some product from the consultant.

Councillor Siddiqui said she looks forward to the update.

Mr. Daly thanked the committee for its work. He said that they have been looking for ways to level the playing field and this will help. He said that we must roll up our sleeves and take a hard look to come out with the best product with an eye toward leveraging funds.

Councillor Siddiqui moved the conversation to the issue of tenant protections. She noted that she did mention some of the protections that were outlined by Councillor Simmons Comprehensive Housing Plan. She said that she would like to have a more robust conversation amongst providers and committee members. She said that she thinks that while there seems to be limited ways to do things without state approval, we must exhaust those ways. She said that some questions came up in recent budget hearings.

Councillor Mallon said that this is a very important topic. As it relates to the Right to Counsel, she said that the percentage of cases that go in favor of the landlords is 90% if tenants are not represented by an attorney. She said that tenants often go to housing court without representation. She said that the idea of having a reporting hotline and landlord watch would be excellent. She said that regarding the Source of Income Discrimination Ordinance, the Human Rights Commission is tasked with enforcement and it is not always getting done. She asked how many complaints of discrimination were reported. She wondered about low income people who do not have a lot of access to information. She asked if there is a process whereby landlords could place information in their lobbies. She questioned if the City could require that landlords post contact information for City departments, legal services, the City Council, CEOC, etc. She said that there are a lot of boards and commissions but there is not a tenant board or commission. She said that the housing ombudsperson may be beneficial to bring people to the table to talk about issues.

Councillor Zondervan said that he has been analyzing housing production data for Middlesex County and as difficult as it is, the City of Cambridge is doing a phenomenal job. He said that Cambridge is the #1 producer of housing in Middlesex County. He said that the City must look at helping people stay in the place that they already live.

Councillor Siddiqui asked CDD to provide information on any issues that are being worked on that have been discussed throughout this hearing. Mr. Cotter said that it is important to reach out to tenants to help them understand resources and their rights. He said that the idea of getting better action in real time is being worked on. He said that the idea of creating a way in which the City can be notified as evictions are filed would be helpful to tenants as well as to track issues over time. He said that the City is working to gather some information on evictions so it can be analyzed, but good data can be difficult to get. He said that the other piece is important to know that tenants have access to support such as staff at the MSC and housing mediators.

Ms. Farooq said that having the ombudsperson on board will be helpful. She said that this person will work with the Multiservice Center, DHSP and CDD. She said that most of the tenant protections are challenging to do at the municipal level, although if there could be some critical mass and support among several communities, we may be able to achieve together what is hard to achieve individually.

Public comment began at 6:51pm.

Michael Turk, 11 Ware Street, said that a major topic of concern is expanding the right to legal counsel. He said that he would like expansion of resources available as the existing resources are inadequate. He talked about the just cause eviction law. He said that the City should proceed with that. He said the State legislature will move if cities set the tone. He said that the City should craft a good just cause eviction law. He said that it is critical to take on the issue of excessive rent increases. He said that he thinks that there is an advantage to having a housing court on the horizon for the City of Cambridge.

Ken Eisenberg, 200 Hampshire Street, said that you also must have legal counsel or access to it when you are trying to find housing and you are being discriminated against. He said that he spent close to 1.5 years looking to rent an apartment. He said that it never occurred to him to go to CDD about his housing problems. He said that it is a Catch 22, you cannot get housing and you are being faced with being forced out of your housing. He said that Community Legal Services has one full time housing attorney. He said that what is cost effective is having several full-time housing attorneys, both in the City and in the nonprofits. He said that if you go to the Human Rights Commission, how many attorneys do they have?

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated that she is a member of the Envision Cambridge Housing working group. She said that as it relates to the Affordable Housing Overlay District, she is happy to hear the progress that is being made as outlined by CDD. She emphasized that in her view, there is going to be the as of right aspect for an Affordable Housing Overlay District. She said that it is key to have the public design review as the Planning Board requires same for a Special Permit. She said that there is going to be political support across the City for somewhat increased density for 100% affordable housing and as of right for that affordable housing. She said that people have not been enthusiastic about giving as of right to super inclusionary. She said that as it relates to the as of right component for 100% affordable housing, she has sat down with Just-A-Start and they have outlined 2-3 projects that had such a provision been in place, they would have been able to acquire those properties. She said that legal assistance is key when it comes to tenant protection. She asked about income eligibility as it relates to lawyer assistance. She said that we need provide help at higher income levels as well. She said that she would like to know what kind of data we have to determine how many people the Multiservice Center is helping.

Ward Williamson, 9 Dana Street, Cambridge, stated that the conversation is not very clear for an outsider to follow. He said that his building has been bought by people who are not interested in the community. He said that the committee is dealing with policy. He said that he has been to many agencies. He said that he appreciates the conversation and the different vantage points in the room. He said that sometimes things become abstracted. He said that the real movers and shakers in any organization are the people who talk to people and get the work done. He said that it is all about values. He spoke about private assets within a one-mile radius. He said that it is about willingness, values and care. He said that allocating resources so that they are sufficiently spent is key.

Abra Berkowitz added that the building is getting evicted because of the purchase of 25 units of housing. She said that she likes how CDD does outreach. She said that she learns many things about the legality of leases. She said that events where tenants can learn about illegal clauses in leases would be helpful.

Public comment closed at 7:12pm.

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

The hearing adjourned at 7:13pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on June 27, 2018 at 5:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the Zoning petition received from Douglas Brown et al to amend the zoning in Section 20.70 Flood Overlay district and the creation of a new Section 22.80 – Green Factor.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; City Manager Louis DePasquale; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Public Works Commissioner Owen O’Riordan; City Engineer Kathy Watkins; Senior Manager of Zoning and Development, CDD, Jeff Roberts; Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environment and Transportation Planning, CDD; John Bolduc, Environmental Project Planner; Erik Thorkildsen, Urban Designer, CDD; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; Director of Assessment Robert Reardon; Margaret Donnelly Moran, Director of Planning and Development, Cambridge Housing Authority; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Mike Nakagawa and Doug Brown, the petitioners; Russ Burke, BSC Group; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; Sam Stuart; Deborah Ruhe, Just-A-Start; Carolyn Magid, 71 Reed Street; Richard Clarey, 15 Brookford Street; Kailash Nakagawa, 51 Madison Avenue; Larry Bluestone, 18 Centre Street; Jesse Kanson-Benanav, 26 Willow Street; Katie Moniz, BSC Group; Sea McFarland, 52 Pearl Street; Lydia Vickers, 45 Cherry Street; Chris Barr, 48 Russell Street; Tom Lucey, Harvard University; Bill McAvinney, 12 Douglass Street; Carolyn Fuller, 12 Douglass Street; Jim Perrine, 1588 Cambridge Street; Sheli Wortis, 106 Berkshire Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Sarah Gallop, MIT; Margaret Donnelly Moran, Cambridge Housing Authority; Bret Matthew, 124 Amory Street; Mark Johnson, 24 East Street; Alice Heller, 22 Corporal Burns Road; David Maher, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce; Tina Alu, 113½ Pleasant Street; Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue; Nella LaRobertson, 54 Curcuit Street; Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street; Larry Childs, 22 Corporal Burns Road; Eric Grunebaum, 98 Montgomery Street; Toby Hyde, 11 Wendell Street; Lynne Lombardi, 26 Whittemore Avenue; Kathy Baskin, 73 Munroe Street, Belmont; Peggy Barnes-Lenart, 115 Fayerweather Street; Michele Sprengnether, 31 Chilton Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street; Joseph Maguire, 270 Third Street; and Ellen Waters, 34 Crescent Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He stated that there are forty communications received which will become part of the report. He outlined the format of the hearing. The petitioners will present first, city staff, public comment and then the ordinance committee will discuss the issues. He stated that after the presentation by the petitioners and the staff the City Council has the right to ask clarifying questions. He stated that this is a complex petition for a large portion of the City.

Mike Nakagawa and Doug Brown, the petitioners, gave their presentation introduction. Mr. Nakagawa stated that he is from North Cambridge and he purchased a house that appeared to be outside of the flood plain. The house is now in the flood plain - after two years living there he experienced flooding. A few years later the flood plane was expanded. He pays $10,000 every four years for flood insurance. He stated that the City must to do more. The goal of the petition is to save people from changes in the environment; not to save the environment from changes by people.

They gave a PowerPoint Presentation (ATTACHMENT A). The petition’s focus is on community health, safety and resiliency. There are three major climate problems; heat is the most urgent problem, which is the number one reason for increasing deaths. He noted that most of the City is in the extreme caution zone. Concrete buildings increase the heat; but a green infrastructure changes and slows down the temperature rise. He noted that air conditioners work less efficient in high temperature.

He next spoke about flooding, which will likely spread throughout more areas of the City. Storm surge and sea level rise are important factors. He stated that the City is actively doing projects to combat flooding - $35 million would be spent on sewer improvement work in the Port area. There is also a water quality issue. He explained that there has been a D+ rating for the Little River and the Alewife Brook area. There are significant areas that do not have trees, which provide cooling. These areas are under rapid development.

Mr. Brown stated that the question is why submit this petition now? He stated that there is data that shows that the City should act, and the City has the plan. He stated that by 2030 the development in the flood plain should be completed. He stated that the petition tried not to intrude on the Envision process and Community Development stated that the petition does not affect this process. He stated that Envision proposes approximately 6 million square feet of new development in the Alewife area; 60% of which will be commercial. If the City does not mitigate the risk the market will do that for us. Mr. Brown stated that there is more than one goal in the zoning ordinances and they need to be balanced. He outlined what is known today about Concord-Alewife goals, which contain a lot about green infrastructure and how the land should be used. He said the idea that housing is not being built is untrue and 95% of the development has been within the flood plain. He stated that FEMA encourages communities to enact more restrictive requirements to better protect people and properties. The challenge is that there is more than one goal in the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Brown explained that there are three mitigation strategies: defend, retreat and accommodate and this petition focuses on two of the strategies: adapted buildings and resilient ecosystems. He stated that specific zoning language is needed and outlined what is proposed in the petition. He stated that proposed flood plain overlay is expanded to protect against future threats. He stated that health and safety requirements should be added within the flood plain overlay to protect residents. He stated that there should be restrictions on hazardous materials in flood plain areas. The petition has open space, permeable surfaces and tree canopy requirements and a minimum building setback for healthy tree growth. It allows for increased building height and reduced parking requirements. He stated that the exemptions for small homes from the special permit requirement should be kept. He stated that the green factor score is a new requirement. A green factor is a scoring system that encourages green systems. He noted the green factor standard for Seattle and their benefits. He stated that there is no study for costs for the green factor. He stated that the ideas in the petition came from the work being done by the City, such as the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency Plan and the Envision Master Plan. He stated that these should not be guidelines, but legally binding requirements. The petitioners’ goal was not to affect development. The petition allows for more height. He stated that green systems are cheaper than grey systems. He stated that reducing parking saves money. It is a challenge to retrofit a building. He stated that everyone benefits if the City is prepared.

He stated that new housing has to be safe now and in the future. 40B outlines the environmental standards for housing. He stated that the Jefferson Park project will yield 104 affordable units, including 19 three-bedroom units. This project meets many of the new standards, but only has 18% open space, which is lower than the number in the petition. It received 11- 40B exemptions and would still be valid with this petition.

He summarized the petition. People expect Cambridge to protect its residents. People need safe places to live and new housing needs to achieve this. Jobs, economy and infrastructure need to be protected. Smart growth should not make unsafe housing. Green investments are good investments. Retrofitting is expensive, but it can be done and must be done now. He concluded by saying that this petition will not interfere with the Envision Cambridge process. Climate change is happening and how Cambridge responds is how we care for one another. If we act now some of its impacts can be avoided. The Planning Board stated praised the petition either in whole or part but there is a concern about the comprehensive nature of the petition – it may have unintended consequences, particularly for housing. He stated that he does not agree with that assessment. He stated that affordable housing advocates stated that this is bad for housing, but Chapter 40B specifically exempts these projects from many of the zoning requirements. He stated that his assumption is that the Board of Zoning Appeal would continue to exempt these projects from problematic requirements. He spoke about the exemption for setbacks for the Millers River and the HRI projects. He stated that the City is grappling with the idea that the long-standing housing crisis is at odds with the climate crisis. He acknowledged that the housing crisis is real, but so is climate change.

Mr. Brown suggested that the parts of the petition be identified that are liked by the council, the parts that the Planning Board and the housing advocates support and that they then be refined over the next few months. He explained to the Planning Board that the sense of urgency is based on the mismatched rate at which the Envision process is unfolding and the rate at which the flood plane is rapidly filling up with vulnerable residents and buildings approved using now discredited zoning standards. He expressed little confidence on interim guidelines enforced on a haphazard basis. He added guidelines are not enough; requirements are needed. He suggested that there may be a middle ground. He stated that the petitioners believe that a balance between multiple priorities is possible and that there can be climate resiliency and enough housing for all. It is the responsibility of the City and its residents to try.

Councillor Zondervan wanted to understand whether some of the zoning relief proposed in the petition will be granted through the special permit process or zoning variances. Mr. Brown responded through the special permit process. This was the intent when the petition was written. He stated that if this is not clear perhaps the language could be adjusted.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about Seattle’s green factor map and the different scores for different areas. She stated that the petitioners looked at the green factor to be one citywide. She asked if a different score could be developed based on the level of risk. Mr. Brown explained that Somerville is considering this; there are different scores for different areas of the City. He stated that goal was to set the bar quite low with the idea that it would be easy for projects to meet the standard and could be refined by Envision to establish the standards. Mr. Nakagawa spoke about having one score for flood plain areas and over time determined the different levels of green factors for projects as they come online. Mr. Nakagawa stated that this is for what will be flooding in the future and the buildings need to be ready for lifetime development.

Councillor Mallon commented that the provision of the petition seemed overly prescriptive if you consider the entire flood plain areas. She asked how would the City handle 25 foot-setback on all four sides? Mr. Nakagawa stated that the rainwater is near the street and would only affect the area flooded and does not affect the whole parcel. He stated that many parcels were not affected by flooding as they appear on the maps prepared by CDD. He stated that the performance standards and the area of applicability are not matched. He stated that because you are in an area does not necessarily mean that all the requirements are needed for flooding. Councillor Mallon noted that it is difficult to know the affects if the parcels and locations to be affected are unknown. Mr. Nakagawa stated that it goes by what is actually flooding and not the map.

Councillor Mallon stated that there are exemptions for 40B and she is worried about the cost for the nonprofit housing developers. Mr. Brown stated that Jefferson Park project received exemptions for FAR, height and lot area per unit, the three things that control how many units you can have and there is no reason why this project could not have been made bigger. He stated that the 140 units were chosen because that is what was there previously. They could have added 1-2 stories on and doubled the amount generated and reduce the overall cost of the project per unit. The exemptions were received because they are in a residential B zone. He stated that on the ground we need to have the space to deal with the water and that the units are safe and protected out of the water.

Councillor Mallon noted that this has affected bond rating and will there be a different way to measure this in the future. Mr. Brown responded that this is going to become an increasing component of the rating, because the risk is increasing. He stated as more parts of the City are flooding the costs will go up.

Councillor Carlone requested City staff to come forward. They will give an overview of the city’s document on this. Mr. Roberts introduced the staff. There was a memo to the Planning Board from the staff on this petition (ATTACHMENT B). Mr. Roberts stated that the brief provided that went to Planning Board had two overall functions: to review the current planning efforts and practices relating to climate change preparedness and to review this specific proposal including an assessment of the effects it may have. He stated that the CDD memo is a brief on this topic.

Mr. Roberts stated that current development standards were reviewed that applied which included the green building standards in the zoning ordinance. This uses the LEED rating system, which includes criteria for water management and urban heat island mitigation, storm water management standards which are applied at the local and state level generally requiring retention and detention of storm water on site along with other water quality standards. He stated there are the current flood plain overlay district requirements, which require compensatory flood storage, and this is linked to the federal flood insurance policy. He stated that the tree protection ordinance, which is linked to zoning ordinance, requires replacement of significant tree caliber on private sites through the urban forestry master plan, which has commenced recently. He stated that these issues relate to climate change and are issues that have their own distinct solutions and are viewed as individual components. He noted that this is being pointed out because it is important to consider the effects of any new standards or requirements may have on the current requirements.

In the report key initiatives underway are mentioned such as Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency process (CCPR) and the Envision Cambridge process. Mr. Roberts stated that these are two separate processes but are related to one another. He explained that the CCPR process evolved from an effort called the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA), which modeled the effects of climate change in terms of heat precipitation and storm surge for 2030 and 2070 climate scenarios. These are very complex scientific models. He stated that the importance of these assessments is that they provide a detailed factual assessment of what the vulnerabilities are expected to be and provides a rational and quantitative basis for prioritizing the risk and recommending practical approaches that will produce the best outcomes. This process is still underway. However, CCD, Public Works and the Planning Board have incorporated the findings into the ongoing project review procedures that are overseen.

He stated that a key example of CCVA projects are now reviewed to protect new construction from projected ten-year 2070 flood events and are capable of recovery from the one hundred-year projected 2070 flood events through design and materials. He stated that recommendations from the CCPR process continue to be developed. He added that it is also important to note that CCPR plan is not just about new development but also about mitigating risks for existing buildings which cannot always be done through zoning or project review but requires partnerships and investments that will benefit the City and the large region. He stated that the work that is being done on CCPR plan is coordinated with the Envision Cambridge comprehensive plan. He stated that it is important to view the CCPR in the context of the City’s other long-term planning goals.

An example of this is that both processes have an early phase that focuses specifically on the Alewife area. Elements of the CCPR plan that related to Alewife are being integrated in with the urban design, housing and economic development elements and other goals that have emerge from this planning process. He stated that one focus of this process is to study ways to incorporate resiliency measures into building construction while also making pedestrian friendly environments and create street-front activation despite the noted need to elevate the ground floors of the buildings. He stated that the Envision Alewife Working Group process has concluded its most recent set of meetings with a presentation on zoning recommendations, and the CCPR process prepared its draft report of recommendations for Alewife area. CCPR and the Envision Alewife recommendations will be integrated to create a comprehensive zoning proposal that covers all the issues. He stated that the expectation is that the Envision Alewife is headed towards completing its report this year, which will incorporate the factors of the CCPR plan. The larger process, the Envision Cambridge process, will continue through this year and the broader CCPR process is targeted for completion in mid-2019.

Mr. Roberts stated that the second part of the CDD review was looking at the petition itself. He noted that the petitioners did a good job earlier explaining the issues that are being studied with the CCPR process. He stated that there were several concerns with the specific approaches being recommended in the petition. He covered the broader concerns. He explained that the overall approach is to expand flood plain overlay district to include all the areas identified as vulnerable from flooding in 2070 from sea level rise and storm surge precipitation. This results in an amorphously shaped district and would impact close to one-half of all the parcels in the City. In many cases only part of a parcel would be impacted, and, in some cases, it may be unclear to property owners precisely who would be affected. The petition would expand the current set of flood plain overlay district requirements into this new area and would require Planning Board special permits for all types of construction, not just the large-scale developments where currently Planning Board review is required, but also smaller structures, additions, alterations and earth work. He stated that the zoning specifically exempts 1-3 family dwelling from the special permit requirements, but not from other requirements of the district.

The petition would also retain and expand the requirements for compensatory flood storage, which would not necessarily be applicable or appropriate to address precipitation, base flooding or storm surge-based flooding where there are distinct strategies. He stated that the proposed boundaries themselves are based on complex models of future climate scenarios. This was not created for serving as fixed zoning boundaries, but as projects that could be revisited and updated overtime as conditions change. He stated that the zoning boundaries would become either outdated at some point or would need to be changed regularly as the scenarios are revised which would result in additional uncertainty. He stated that the number of parcels currently subject to the requirements would gain new requirements. In addition to the special permit process it would require additional engineering reports and new development standards. He spoke about the impacts of new requirements, which are hard to gauge because it would depend on many factors such as the condition of a lot and the scale of the project. He stated that smaller projects would be impacted. Some of the other requirements would put higher demands on the amount of land area that needs to meet the requirement. He stated that if proposed projects were small the cost may not be justified to undertake the studies.

He stated that the proposed standards in the petition for building elevation has many layers and if taken altogether they end up being higher than the City’s current recommendations which are based on the CCVA 2070 projections. He stated that these requirements would apply in addition to the base zoning requirements, which results in some issues. He cited prohibition on certain activities and materials, which can prohibit uses that are allowed currently in the proposed area, including hospitals, service stations and labs. He stated that it was unclear whether the City’s water treatment plant might have a problem meeting the standards proposed. He further stated that any residential uses on the ground floor would be considered non-conforming even in districts that only allow residential use and requiring dry-land access to sites could make large areas of currently developed land non-conforming under the proposed standards.

He stated that the subject of non-conformity is an important issue and, in this case, many existing building are at risk from the impact of climate change and part of the strategy is to improve existing buildings. He noted that when new zoning requirements are put in place that increase the level of non-conformity of the lots then the effect is that it can add to the time, cost and difficulty of improving a property. He stated that this could promote the status quo rather than encourage improvements. He stated that it is important to be cautious about zoning whatever the goals, by adding more zoning requirements does not always meet the goals intended. He stated that in cases where buildings are developed to meet the new proposed requirements the result could be outcomes that are not intended by the City’s other overall planning goals. He stated that an example of this is that the petition requires parking to be built above the flood elevation which would be above grade while in most of the City above grade parking is discouraged and is counted against the allowed gross floor area on the site.

Mr. Roberts spoke about urban design strategies that incorporate climate change, resiliency and other goals such as pedestrian oriented streets and a mix of housing, employment, retail and community resources is a challenge. It is being pursued in the Envision Alewife process and the Envision Cambridge process as the CCPR recommendations are incorporated into a comprehensive recommendation.

He spoke about the green factor in the zoning petition. He noted that this is an intriguing idea and it has been used in other places. This still poses questions that need to be examined more closely but the general point raised about the need to pay closer attention to the quality and not just the quantity of open space and green space on a parcel is a relevant issue. This is at the forefront of CCD thinking as they look at ways to mitigate the impacts of temperature increases.

Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board recommended that the petition not be adopted. He stated that the Board report has not yet been written as the Planning Board hearing was held on June 26, 2018. He outlined the issues discussed by the Planning Board. The Planning Board felt it was important to complete the CCPR process, and when setting policies going forward to consider the recommendations in the context of the Envision Cambridge process which has produced a long set of goals and objectives that need to be prioritized. He stated that the Planning Board members expressed concerns about the petition being too over broad and far-reaching in terms of the areas impacted and the proposed requirements. He added that there was uncertainty in understanding exactly the consequences of the petition based on the language and testimony received. He stated that some board members felt that this is a subject area that would benefit from a better understanding with a greater range of the potential strategies for mitigating climate change impacts, particularly the heat island effects.

Mr. Roberts stated that some board members stated that there are some things that can be done now even if the zoning is not changed through the development review process similarly as how the Planning Board currently incorporates the City’s 2070 flood projections into their review standards for new projects. He noted that one example mentioned by a board member was the green factor provision and the possibility that the Planning Board could ask developers to submit this analysis as an informational component part of their review.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that based on the CDD memo there does not seem to be a middle ground and there are elements in the petition that some developers are now doing. She agreed with some parts of the petition and is concerned with housing aspect. She asked Mr. Roberts if there can there be a middle ground for now and what is the informal list that could be taken out of the petition and discussed. She noted that the Planning Board felt there were some good aspects of the petition, but there were no specifics. She stated that she would not support this as it is and asked what parts are workable. Mr. Roberts stated that the CDD objective is to evaluate petitions as they come to the city and in this case the staff was not involved in this petition. The staff has developed different conclusions on the standards that should be recommended. This is one aspect of the review process. The objective was to give information to guide the City Council and the Planning Board to make the determination as to what has merit/does not have merit in petition.

Mr. Roberts stated that one zoning concern to deal with is could this be dealt with in a different way – take the flood plain overlay district (which was created for a specific reason) and then expand it over another district is a serious concern about the overall petition approach. There is a process in place for project review of projects of a certain size. It is an extensive review that provides staff an opportunity to look at the most recent planning that has been done and look at how this applies to a particular site. When issues are being developed and tested is important and should be done in a judicious way including impacts of climate change and other City goals. If there are concerns about new development that the City would like to see studied through a different lens, then it would be extracted and looked at through the current process.

Councillor Siddiqui asked about the timeline and what will happen in the next few years and when it will be implemented. Mr. Bolduc responded that the planning process regarding climate preparedness plan would be folded into the Envision Cambridge process. A preparedness plan was distributed for Alewife area with general recommendations with specific ideas about different ways to implement. He stated that currently the City is evaluating options in a specific way about how to apply the four categories of strategies. He stated that the expectation for the Alewife area is that this will be done by the end of the year. He stated that this evaluation will look at how much of the strategies are needed, such as green infrastructure to improve resilience. He stated that green infrastructure by itself would not solve everything. He wants to look at the feasibility of these measures and the cost effectiveness. He noted that the biggest challenge is the risk is to existing development and that will be dealt with the redevelopment process. He stated that the City does not want to create rules that discourage redevelopment and lock out existing buildings. He stated that this is a very complicated process and by the end of the year it is expected to come up with performance-based standard.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not understand the connection between the parking requirement and the statement that this will increase on grade parking. Mr. Roberts stated that in petition there are uses not allowed at specific elevations and included fuel stored in vehicles which interpreted as written would mean an automobile that is parked would not be allowed below the flood elevation and the flood elevation is near or above ground level it would require parking above the elevation. He stated that there is a limit to the amount of surface parking at grade. Councillor Kelley asked if he was speaking about section 20.720 hazardous materials he sees petroleum products and he does see the connection. He stated that he read this as gas stations. Mr. Roberts stated that in section 20.75 in paragraph (10) addresses this.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the impact on 1-3 families were exempt from the special permit requirement but would be covered by the flood plain overlay district requirements. He stated that he thought that these were exempted. He asked how they would be impacted. Mr. Roberts read 20.73.1. where this is covered. Councillor Kelley stated that if you needed a special permit how are these things required. Mr. Roberts stated that this is a procedural issue with the new provisions proposed and it is unclear how it would be enforced.

Councillor Kelley referred to 20.726 on variance requirements and asked is this a legal restriction on variance. Mr. Roberts that this would require a consultation with the Law Department on the legal implication. Councillor Kelley asked if shelter in place requirements were anywhere else in the zoning. Mr. Roberts responded that he is not aware of any in the zoning ordinance. He suggested checking with Emergency Management Department on this.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked when FEMA maps would be updated. Mr. Roberts stated that this is unknown. Vice Mayor Devereux asked when the improvements to Mystic River Dam would occur. Mr. Bolduc explained that Cambridge participates in the Metro Mayors Climate Preparedness Task Force, which involves 15 communities that have agreed to work together on making the region more resilient. He stated that the storm surge problem is a regional problem and the map shows storm surge flood risk in 2070. He spoke about the modeling work done which shows the protection that Cambridge gets from being located behind two dams, the Charles River Dam and Amelia Earhart Dam. He stated that the time of the risk is further in the future than for precipitation driven flooding. There is time to work on this.

There are two projects identified outside of Cambridge that would reduce Cambridge from risk. The Climate Ready Boston process includes designs for storm surge barriers in East Boston and Charlestown. He stated that the Charlestown barrier would block a significant pathway for storm surge that would start at the Schraft Center and reach the Charles River in Cambridge. He noted that this barrier is well designed, and it needs to be taken to construction detail. He stated that Cambridge was invited to participate on the advisory committee to provide input into the design stage.

Mr. Bolduc stated that the Amelia Earhart Dam water level is reaching near the top. He stated that it is not as simple to say that if the water went over the top it would lead to Cambridge flooding. He stated that this depends on how long the high-water level is sustained and the volume of water that passes the dam. This is currently unlikely. He stated that between 2045-2050 the risk becomes significant. He stated that Cambridge has teamed up with Somerville and the Mystic River Watershed Association to advocate to DCR that they raise the elevation of the adjacent park so that this can be blocked. He stated that the DCR is in the process of developing this design. Cambridge has provided its data from the assessment done that identifies the critical elevations. He explained the DCR Commissioner is committed to incorporating this information. He spoke about the need for funding for this. He stated that the City is studying the other end of the dam on the Everett side to understand other pathways and whether they are important or not to the flood risk and what needs to be done. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the picture adds to the sense of urgency.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about design standards for active street fronts and asked how realistic it is to continue to have these street fronts in the flood plain areas especially regarding the Envision Alewife. She asked would the City have to balance active street frontage with the petition’s proposed open space setback. Mr. Thorkildsen stated that it is a matter of finding design solutions that address both issues at the same time. There is a way to have green space combine active street space.

Ms. Watkins stated that specific locations must be reviewed. She explained that the City worked with on the Mass + Main development team on the 2070 build to protect. It was a matter of a couple of inches over what they were proposing. She stated Alewife with the sea level storm surge volume, which is higher than the precipitation numbers, there are different answers at different locations.

Mr. Thorkildsen stated that there is a relationship between elevation and planning. Some of the provisions of the petition raise ground level. It would be better to think through this to achieve the best balance. Vice Mayor Devereux asked how close the performance-based standards in the Alewife Preparedness Plan will be to the recommendations in this petition. Is there an opportunity for synergy or to make the city standards stronger? Mr. Bolduc stated that there have been sensitivity testing and how it would affect temperature, storm water runoff and water quality. He stated that this is in the Appendix to the Alewife Plan. It will not just be green roof or ground vegetation; it will be a combination and it will also be grey infrastructure. He stated that it is not good to set a standard that the cost is so high that people will not follow. He stated that the 2070 and 10/1% risks are being applied.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about the concern about the unintended consequences. How does the City get around this? He asked whether through zoning or design review process determines that a property needs to be a certain height above a flooding elevation level will impose a certain cost for the building. He stated that if property owners do not want to do this it does not seem to him to be a good reason not to put this in the zoning. He suggested estimating a certain elevation costs and if property owners do not want to do this it is a disincentive.

Mr. Bolduc stated that the maps developed from the vulnerability assessments or the precipitation driven flood maps and the storm surge flood maps were based on scenarios that were selected to conduct a vulnerability assessment. Now the challenge with climate change is in the past we did not have to do planning with climate change in mind. Now there is a profound variable that needs to be considered in the planning process and the challenge is that it is dynamic, and it is unknown how fast sea level will rise and when the elevations will arrive. There is uncertainty about climate change and where it will occur, and this affects planning assumptions. He stated that the City is hoping to change what the map looks like. If the City can implement some of the downstream storm surges barriers the boundaries of the risk areas will change. The options for standards and the options for implementation mechanism are locked in place and are not flexible. Climate change standards need to be flexible without going through zoning changes. He stated the City wants to review if there is a better way to do this. He stated that it is a matter of what are the standards and how they are applied and bringing this specificity into the Climate Preparedness Plan and integrate it into the Envision Cambridge process.

Mr. Roberts stated that when looking to improve a site through a zoning change does not necessarily encourage improvement. He stated that the whole set of existing and proposed requirements that apply need to be taken into consideration. He asked if height is enough of an incentive along with other requirements to make improvements. Councillor Zondervan stated that he understands flood maps are changing; if there is a large flood plain the elevation does not change much, and safe standards could be identified in this area. Ms. Watkins stated that it depends on the type of flooding. She stated that Riverside and The Port experience perception type flooding associated with the system backing up. She stated that these elevations could change depending on parcels and the zones. She noted that with the elevations associated with the ten, one hundred-year and 500-year type flood event, those areas may vary a lot. She stated that in the Port there is a difference between the 10 and 100-year flooding and if the buildup is 2-3 feet what are the impacts.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is clarifying questions on the petition and some of the questions are leading to a lengthy discussion. He urged focusing the questions to understand the petition in this phase of the meeting.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is trying to establish a standard and how this will be codified if not through zoning. Ms. Watkins stated that analysis is done on properties. This is more site- specific requiring a specific analysis.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there are any alternatives to mitigate heat and how can green infrastructure be codified to reduce heat. Mr. Bolduc spoke about the heat island impact. He noted that temperature couldn’t be changed because it is a global effect. He stated that in Cambridge the heat island effect amplifies temperature. He stated that tools available to change this are to replace heat absorbing surfaces with cooling surfaces with vegetative or reflective surfaces and the tree canopy. He stated that this is the reason for the Tree Canopy Master Plan to figure this out. He stated that there needs to be conditions created for trees to thrive to create the shading effect desired. Councillor Zondervan stated that the 55 Wheeler Street project is an example of shelter in place features, but the generator is on the ground floor. He asked would the City require generators to be above a certain level. Ms. Watkins stated that the entire building at 55 Wheeler Street is proposed raised. She stated that it is important to look at the elevation and the flood elevation.

Councillor Mallon spoke about the same prescriptive zoning being used for one-half of the City. This is problematic. She spoke about the need for a detail analysis of how this will affect the Port neighborhood before she can feel comfortable about this. New performance-based measures need to be cost tested on their impacts before implementation. She did not want a negative implication, especially on buildings. Councillor Mallon stated that the cost implication is important to her and the effect on housing projects. She stated her concerns about moving forward with this petition as written. She acknowledged that all are trying to get to a place where all feel comfortable. She did not want a prescriptive zoning overlay for the whole city and making choices that may have negative impacts.

At 7:25pm Councillor Carlone opened public comment.

Russ Burke, Director of Planning, BSC Group, 803 Summer Street in Boston stated that they have clients in Cambridge and that resiliency and sustainability are important issues for all concerned and municipalities. He questioned the timing of the petition amidst the Envision planning process raises questions. He noted that Cambridge has been ahead of the curve and leaders in adopting and implementing measures to address climate change and resiliency. He stated that Cambridge is addressing climate change and asked if there is a need for immediate action with a citizens’ petition. This is a blunt instrument that is jumping to the front of the line of the Envision process and on-going City initiatives. Effective zoning requires precise language that is transparent and predictable. The petition has standards that are not precise beginning with the applicability of the flood zone area. He stated that the petition has aspects that will affect the environment. The City needs to take a comprehensive approach in its planning policies. He urged the Planning Board and City Council to defer action on the petition to allow the current processes in place to formulate strategies. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT C).

Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place, spoke about her situation with the flood plain. She found out she was in the flood plain on July 10, 2010 when she had flooding in her basement. She stated that she supports this petition. She stated that several neighborhoods have been built upon which are low-lying areas. She noted that the petition is designed to protect “people” and the City from sizable storms. The City needs to balance its goals, including the affordable housing goal with environmental protection. She commented that Envision would not exist if it were not for the Cambridge Residents Alliance and their pressure for better planning. She stated that Net Zero came from members of the City Council and the residents, not from the City. She stated that the City’s response to the petition is trust us we are working toward this and there is no urgency. She wanted it passed forward for discussion. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT D).

Carolyn Magid, 71 Reed Street, stated that she is outside the expanded flood plain. She supported zoning proposal to protect residents against climate change. She noted that there might be other ways to achieve these objectives, but she shares the sense of urgency with the petitioners. She acknowledged that Cambridge has an affordable housing crisis and it needs to be addressed but should not be addressed against the health and safety of its residents. (ATTACHMENT E).

Kailash Nakagawa, 51 Madison Avenue, said that this petition sounds like “not in my back yard” and it is. He stated that what he does not want in his back yard are buildings that are built without proper heat protection without green spaces and open spaces. These buildings will make his neighborhood hotter especially with the climate change that is coming. This problem affects all families in this area. He does not want it unsafe for children and seniors to go outside as the heat increases. He stated affordable housing is needed but the families should not be in the hottest areas of the City in buildings that do not have protection from the heat. The areas will get hotter because of the new buildings being built without protection from heat without green space. Can we have a safer alternative for all. Heat kills more people than any other event. Why can there not be protection against heat. A vote against this petition is a vote against the protection of residents. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT F).

Larry Bluestone, 18 Centre Street, stated that he was opposed to the petition as it relates to the revisions to the existing Flood Plain Overlay District and the disruption of the Envision Cambridge planning process. He noted that the environmental protection aspects of the petition are plausible but are over restrictive, deeply flawed and contradicts other City policy goals such as affordable and transient oriented housing and urban design guidelines. The Envision Cambridge process has crafted recommendations for the City and this petition undermines the City policies, goals and the Envision process. It increases construction costs and dimensional requirements. The petition recommendations undermine the Envision process. The petition increases the jurisdiction area of flood plain area. The petition’s one size fits all makes no sense. The petition should be rejected. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT G).

Jesse Kanson-Benanav, 26 Willow Street, Chair, A Better Cambridge, requested that the City Council not forward this petition as it is written. He stated that A Better Cambridge would like to support some parts of the petition. He noted that the climate is changing, and steps need to be taken on this issue. There needs to be community conversations about issues such as climate change and other issues. Residents submitted the petition, which gives the opportunity for conversation. It has deficiencies for affordable housing, which were echoed by the Cambridge Housing Authority, Just-A-Start and HRI. This petition as written is not the step forward. He stated that the petitioners are being disingenuous about the impact on 40B for every development. However, if they are serious about allowing density to elevate buildings and bring them out of the flood plain as much as possible, he would be willing to negotiate this element of the petition and add in any additional FAR that was lost because of the strict height or dimensional issues that were included. He urged that this petition not be passed as written but have all in the community involved including Envision Cambridge. He submitted two communications (ATTACHMENT H-1 and H-2).

Sean McFarland, 52 Pearl Street, spoke about 2 points of the climate safety petition. He urged the City Council to move with urgency on this petition. He stated that the longer the delay the harder it would be to address flooding when the waters come. He supported stronger green space requirements. He spoke about the catastrophic risk of flooding and the threat of heat island affect, this petition is a positive step in the right direction. He urged the City Council to adopt the petition. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT I).

Chris Barr, 48 Russell Street, spoke as Chair, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, as an employee in Cambridge and a Cambridge resident. He expressed his concerns about the Brown et. al. petition. He stated that Cambridge Resiliency planning efforts are more extensive and advanced than most cities. These efforts have also been transparent, collaborative and inclusive. He stated that uncertainty in the Brown petition language is extremely problematic and will make the City development process uncertain. It would effectively ignore all the resources, time and energy that have been and will continue to be spent on this issue and will waste time, effort and money for both the business community and the City. He stated that the expansion of the flood plain overlay district will substantially increase the number of projects that will require Planning Board review, making the process far more inefficient and overwhelming to the schedule of the Planning Board. He stated that a 500-year flood plain is just not a recognized standard for urban planning. He added that there is no justification to use it in the City’s efforts. He spoke about Biogen’s dedication to their mission to improve patient’s lives and are reflected in the efforts to improve the environment. He stated that he has spoken before many City committees about their work in sustainability. He stated that like many Cambridge businesses they share the petitioners desire to adequately plan for the future, but believe and open, collaborative process that would identify any unintended consequences. He urged the City Council to not advance the Brown petition. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT J).

Tom Lucey, Director of Government and Community Relations, Harvard University, stated that Harvard has been engaged in sustainability planning, climate preparedness planning and resiliency planning for many decades and has worked with the City on these efforts. He stated that Harvard works hard to be a leader on its campus as well as in research done by faculty and labs. He stated that recently Harvard’s formal processes with the City included Envision Cambridge, Climate Resiliency and Vulnerability Task Force, Urban Forestry Master Plan and many other efforts, which represents time, and effort the university has given to the City. It is prudent to let these processes play out. He added that the recommendations are expected to come out soon and into 2019. He urged the City Council to recognize this and the fact that many of the ideas were started by the City Council. He stated that in addition to concerns about process and timing there are concerns about urban design, historical preservation, accessibility and the impacts. He noted that the use of the 500-year flood plain standard is not a recognized standard to be used in a planning exercise. He asked the City Council to follow the lead of the Planning Board and to allow the City processes to play out; they have been inclusive and robust. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT K).

Bill McAvinney, 12 Douglass Street, stated that this zoning petition and the process around it is not the Cambridge approach. It only applies to new construction. This approach will favor the most affluent in the City and shortchange the less affluent in the City. He stated that CDD was including all housing. This has been a process that a small group came up with the petition; the petition has a narrow set of interests, a narrow group and was not inclusive. This is not a developed process. The wording and the effects need to be reviewed. He added that to not pass this zoning does not mean that one is not working for the safety of residents. The City needs to deal with climate change.

Carolyn Fuller, 12 Douglass Street, stated that she is a housing advocate, a concerned citizen about climate change and a member of A Better Cambridge. She stated her opposition to the petition as written. Elements of this petition need to be studied by an independent analyst to evaluate impacts. She stated that the authors of this petition were laser-focused on a single issue, climate change resiliency at the exclusion of all other issues, including efforts to reduce climate change. She commented that there were no attempts to collaborate with other stakeholders to find solutions to address climate change resiliency without negatively impacting other critical City goals, including affordable housing. She added that affordable housing does not have to be sacrificed for climate change. She urged the authors to work with housing advocates to find solutions that address climate change and our housing crisis. Most want Cambridge to prepare responsible for climate change. She noted the key word is “responsible.” Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT L).

Jim Perrine, 1588 Cambridge Street, stated that he is President of Commonwealth Community Developers, affordable housing developers. He stated that he has not done a project in Cambridge. He explained that developers deal with issues relating to resiliency, climate change, sustainability and energy consumption with every development. He stated that climate change needs to be addressed soon, but it needs to be done collaborative and to get it right. This petition as written is not the solution. For one reason it includes half of the parcels in Cambridge. This is a complex issue and a complex zoning petition. He acknowledged that a lot of thought went into the petition, but that there are other issues that need to be addressed. He praised the Community Development Department. He stated that maybe CDD could be faster if the department were not given so much work. He stated that if this petition is accepted the cost of affordable housing will go up, the number of units that can be built will go down and getting a waiver from 40B is risky. He stated that when there is risk involved the funding gets more expensive or disappears. He urged the City Council to continue to work on this issue, but do not approve this petition.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated that the Cambridge Residents Alliance supports this petition. This petition balances the need for housing with appropriate planning for climate change so that people will have safe and healthy housing. She stated that the Cambridge Residents Alliance in 2012 called for the citywide planning process that led to Envision Cambridge. This petition assists the Envision process, not blocking this process. She stated that she spoke with Ms. Peters about the Envision process schedule.

Ms. Peters stated that by the end of the year Envision will produce zoning bullet points and then the process will conclude. Next the City staff will work to turn this into draft zoning language. She stated that the soonest zoning will be approved is 2020 and this leaves out the climate vulnerability process. Meanwhile buildings would be built that are not safe by 2070 unless the City Council enacts zoning changes. She stated that instead of the informal process that is led by City staff the petition seeks to create standards with zoning that is approved by the City Council and understood by the entire community. Staff will be able to develop urban design guidelines that accomplish the Envision goals. She noted that the quality of affordable housing is important along with the quantity. Those who live in affordable housing should be safe from the future heat and flood risk that is coming. She wanted people living in safe housing. She stated that heat can kill, and she did not want seniors dying with the heat in affordable housing units. She stated that at the Planning Board hearing members where concerned about the gap in time between now and when the Envision process will result in approved zoning. She stated that there are elements in this petition that the Planning Board members stated that could become standards now. She urged the City Council to make changes to the petition that they feel are warranted and pass this to the full City Council. Her comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT M).

Sarah Gallop, Co-Director of Government and Community Relations, MIT, focused her comments on one theme that is at the core the MIT’s relationship with the City, which is MIT’s long-standing practice of cooperative and productive engagement. She stated that MIT’s philosophy of collaboration is carried out in good faith with the expectation of mutual benefit and progress in areas of joint concern. She spoke about the active sharing of expertise and resources that is particularly demonstrated through the collective efforts to address climate change. Nine faculty members and 13 staff have been working with the City on a range of sustainability efforts many, which were implemented by the City Council. She gave examples and listed the projects that are being worked on. She supported the active outreach that the City uses to get residents involved. She stated that there are 22 MIT faculty and staff working on committees on climate and/or sustainable issues. She expressed the hope that these committees will be allowed to complete their committed work. Her comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT N).

Bret Mathew, 124 Amory Street, stated that he notices his street is on flood map. He is in opposition to the petition. He stated that he is a renter and the supply of affordable housing is important to him. The petition increases the height limit in the affected area and does not increase the FAR, which defeats the purpose of increasing the height. More green space needs to be set aside for flood protection and heat island protection. He commented that there is only so much land in the City and with the set aside there needs to be compensation through height and density. The City has built more in the past years and the City’s population has increased and is demanding more housing than in previous decades. He stated that in 2016 the vacancy rate for on the market housing was 3.6%. The City needs to up zone the City for greater FAR to compensate for more green space while meeting its housing goals and protecting against climate change. He stated that if the City considered doing this the opposition to the petition would reconsider and work with the petitioners to reach a compromise. He requested that the petition be rejected if the City is not willing to increase density and height.

Mark Johnson, Director of Development, Divco West Real Estate Investments, 200 State Street, Boston, stated that although Cambridge Crossing has a special permit, he has participated in conversations with business leaders and expressed concern for the citizen’s petitions’ impact on mixed use, transit-oriented development. He stated that resiliency is considered in the planning process, but not to the exclusion of other priorities, such as urban design and housing. He stated that as a registered architect he is concerned about the conflicts between the citizens’ petition and long-time urban design principles that the City has been successful in advancing. He stated that many of the proposed requirements will result in significant impacts and the ability of developers to execute new mixed-use projects that include planned amounts of open space, commercial density, retail and housing. The petition indicates that property owners could seek increases in height to replace density lost as a result of new zoning requirements. He stated that building heights are carefully vetted with surrounding neighborhoods and the federal aviation administration, which would likely preclude increases in height that would offset loss of density. He stated that the petition would disrupt the existing approvals process, preempt many existing City planning processes and create uncertainty that would make it difficult to show investors a predictable approval process for projects. His comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT O).

Alice Heller, 22 Corporal Burns Road, stated that she wanted to acknowledge the City staff for their leadership in addressing climate change. This petition speaks to the need to implement measures known to make a difference. She stated that the crisis of heat and flooding is at our doorstep today. The goal of this petition is to increase dialogue and spur action now. She supports this petition and is heartened by the dialogue. She stated that using zoning law while waiting for the Envision proposed regulations would be a proactive measure to save the City money and without the risk of displacement of businesses, residents and employees during a climate change disaster that could happen soon. She wanted all to come to a middle ground to continue a legacy of livable, safe and affordable City. She wanted this petition to move forward.

Tina Alu, 113½ Pleasant Street, CEOC Director, expressed her concern on how this petition would negatively affect the creation of affordable housing. She spoke about a moratorium on housing development and stated that the reality is that some of the proposals in the petition would have the same results. She stated that Alewife is the last large scale of land area that could help address the current and future affordable housing needs. She stated that the recommendations in the petition would reduce buildable land and, in many ways, such as setback for shade trees and set asides for thirty percent of each site for open space. She stated that in order to maximize public funding and leverage economies of scale new affordable housing projects must have forty or more units. She commented that these new requirements for tree cover and open space along with the high land costs will make new affordable housing developments of this size, especially non-profit developments almost impossible. She noted that some market rate developments may still be feasible but will likely be more expensive and less dense. Fewer units would be created under the zoning ordinance, which mandates that at least twenty percent of housing developments be affordable. The petition would expand the geographical protections to other parts of the City, such as Cambridgeport, East Cambridge and other neighborhoods. She stated that all new construction would be subjected to this petition and a lengthy special permit process. This will make it costlier and more time consuming to build new housing in these areas, especially moderate sized projects. There are several other areas of the petition that will negatively impact the City’s affordable housing goals and impede recommendations made in the Envision Cambridge planning process. She stated that efforts to address flooding and the consequences of climate change should be supported, however, these efforts must be balanced with the City’s commitment to create much needed affordable housing. She concluded by stating that this petition and future proposals should all be examined through the affordable housing lens. Her comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT P).

Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue, stated that she lives in the Alewife area and every day she sees a disaster waiting to happen. She stated that the City has built twice as fast than anticipated and now we have to build smart. She supports the petition and is in line with City goals and builds on decades of excellent work of City staff, particularly environmental planning and public works. She stated that data and ideas generated are from the Envision process. It does one additional thing, it takes action now to provide a uniform and consistent regulatory framework to protect the health and safety of Cambridge residents and workers; this is not about protecting buildings, it is protecting the environment. There should not be lower standards for residents living in affordable housing. The work needs to be done now to protect all of us. She stated that vegetative surfaces would reduce ambient air temperature and provide cooler area and reduce energy demand. Her comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT Q).

Eric Grunebaum, 98 Montgomery Street, stated that he supported the petition. He stated that it is time to build a better city that will take into account the coming climate impacts. He stated that he is a member of the Envision Alewife Working Group and has participated in lengthy discussions and paid attention to the written reports and the current development patterns and choices. He stated that as the City becomes denser the impervious spaces and tree canopy have been under increasing pressure. He stated that he has not seen the Envision process adequately respond to climate risks of heat and water. He wanted to see action on this sooner. There should not be competition with housing and the petition will take this into account and a healthy dialogue will be held on this. He wanted a healthy habitable City to be the right of all. He wanted more open space, but not at the cost of housing. This petition is a strong move in this direction.

Toby Hyde, 11 Wendell Street, stated that not enough housing has been built to allow people to live in Cambridge. He asked why the petition sacrifices space for housing at the cost of and in the name of climate change. This proposal will result in fewer units and more driving and emissions. This petition takes the language of climate and resilient efforts that should be supported through existing processes such as the Envision Cambridge and this short circuits the process in the interest of a few. There are world-class economists and academics studying these issues here. Restrictions in land supply increase inequality and decreases inter-generational mobility. A vote for this petition is a vote for increased emissions and for fewer units. He asked the City Council to reject this petition. He suggested using the existing processes to embed climate change and resilience and balance the need for housing in this City. He stated that this climate crisis in America is largely a housing crisis.

Lynne Lombardi, 26 Whittemore Avenue, asked all to please consider dredging and widening rivers throughout New England to facilitate transportation, commerce and tourism while alleviating costal water rise the way that Germany did after World War II. She thanked the City Council for upgrading long neglected fire stations. She requested enforcement of vagrancy laws to address the public health hazard of addicts, drugs and drug dealing in public spaces. She stated that working citizens deserve a basic quality of life and that life in Massachusetts is an exhausting, humiliating obstacle course.

Joe Maguire, 270 Third Street, objected to the Brown petition. He stated that this petition has not followed a good community process, such as the Envision Cambridge process. The Brown petition will impede development and hamper housing by restricting units on the first floor. He stated that the way the definitions and the 500-year flood plane was chosen in this petition and he stated that we should not look beyond the 100-year flood plain. He spoke about his Binney Street development, which has over thirty percent permeable open space, the tree coverage has been increased and is 500 inches above what was started with. There are many examples of infrastructure project that the City staff has worked on with the developers on mitigation for drainage for storm and sanitation. He stated that this petition is bad for the economic growth and bad policy for the 500-year flood plain. He stated that there are good elements in the petition and would work on what is the right vision for the Envision process.

Charles Franklin,129 Franklin Street, had his communication read into the record. In his communication he stated that all agree that there is a housing crisis and affordable housing needs to be future proof. He stated that all he sees is luxury housing. His comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT R).

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, stated that if climate is your God you are dead. He stated that all have control over their own form. He did not want any more big buildings in Central Square because we need connection to our total existence. The Creator will provide what you need to survive.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, observed that all speakers are not required to state their address. This is about the residents who live in the City. Those who represent universities and big companies should not be telling what should happen in Cambridge. The environmental impact of global warming is now upon us. He stated the threats have put us in a situation to decide if human existence will continue. He spoke about the vote of not approving the petition by the Planning Board. One Planning Board member stated that there is merit in this petition. He spoke about the complaints of the CHA and does this really mean that the CHA will not be able to close on the Millers River. If this is the case it needs serious attention, he said. He stated that there is a fix and it is to allow the first floor to be what is planned. He asked is 40B an answer to the problem. He wanted the serious concerns addressed.

Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street, stated that the affordable housing advocates are so intertwined with the developers and the universities. The City Council needs to listen to different people including affordable housing residents. She supported the petition as a resident of a new building in the quadrangle portion of Alewife. She stated that she has seen first-hand how ill equipped her home is for heat island effects and flood. She spoke about the poor conditions of where she lives. She stated that she depends on her car and if the garages flood she will be unable to replace her car. She commented that the City places low-income residents in apartments that are in flood and heat island zones via Inclusionary Zoning Units. She stated that climate change is real and urged the City Council to pass the petition. She noted that the opposition to this petition has no suggestions as how to combat this issue. She stated that if affordable housing is the only lens through which climate change is being viewed it is not good for the future. Her comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT S).

Peggy Barnes-Lenard, 115 Fayerweather Street, spoke as a member of the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance Board and spoke about the map. All the planning and the goals of the City are under the umbrella of heat and flooding and what is done economically really need to take this into account to make this sustainable. She stated that those in opposition are those who are ready to develop. She is concerned with the amount of land that is in the pipeline. She spoke about thinking creatively and suggested an interim measure. This petition is stating that we need to do this now. She noted that sixty percent of the quad is being proposed for development in the next ten years. She supported the petition and having a real conversation. She noted that three members of the Planning Board asked what can be done now and stated that the board needs muscle via regulations on increasing green infrastructure and dealing with contaminants. She stated that this is too important to wait until 2020. Her comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT T).

Ellen Water, 34 Crescent Street, stated that she supports the petition. She noted that the City’s position is more appropriate if the issue is trying to make the City more environmentally friendly and supportive of a more green approach by the City. This petition presents that this is more of an emergency situation that requires bold initiatives and bold action. She stated that what is important is that all climate change predictions have proven to be much worse than it was thought to be, and the damage has been coming quicker than predicted. She stated that the cities that take the bold action against climate change will be the ones to survive and be sustainable, viable places to live and those that do not will suffer devastation. She stated that Cambridge is not provided with any special protections. If the City takes the more conservative approach it will be detrimental to the City. She stated that given the circumstances of climate change, a bolder path will result in many more long-term effects and will mitigate the negative effects that are being predicted. She stated that the flexibility discussed by the City does not work here. The City needs to look ahead to the future; this is a paradigm shift.

On motion of Councillor Carlone public comment was closed at 8:53pm.

Mayor McGovern spoke about the petition and stated that climate change is real. The City has been working on climate change and resiliency work; the issues are complicated. He spoke about the best intentions. He stated that there are elements in the petition that he likes, such as the parking reduction conversation, utilities on rooftops of large buildings, greater permeable open space. He does not believe that emergency plans do not exist already. He stated that he does have some concerns on other parts of the petition. He thought that the petition was overreaching. He was concerned that public safety facilities cannot be located in the 500-year flood plain. This will not allow Lafayette and Inman Square Stations to be renovated because they are non-conforming. This is an unintended consequence of this petition and should be eliminated from the petition. He believes that the provision that no development be allowed on dead end roads is in effect a moratorium on development in Alewife. He stated that there are things that deserve more conversation. It is important to him that the affordable housing partners are concerned and fear that this is problematic. He stated that it is offensive when it is stated that their opinion is compromised. They need to be listened to. This petition is not ready yet for passage. The best place to have the on-going conversation is in committee, not at the City Council. He will not vote in favor to forward this to the City Council because this is not the place to do the required work.

Councillor Carlone noted that more discussion is needed on this petition.

Councillor Toomey thanked the petitioners and the staff for their presentations. He stated that the best interests of all residents are the prime concern including both climate change and affordable housing. He stated that he would not vote in favor of this petition. He stated that the request by the CHA to rehab a 300-unit building would not go forward if this petition is adopted. He stated that there are residents who live in affordable housing that need to live in a safe environment now. Some of these developments need to be upgraded. He stated that in good conscious he could not vote in favor of this petition in the current form. Discussions do need to continue and work things out.

Councillor Mallon stated that the CHA memo (ATTACHMENT U) states that the CHA has modified its request to include relief from the petition but have been advised that relief cannot be granted while the petition is being considered. She further read from the memo: Unfortunately, our financing schedule does not have any leeway and we must submit the comprehensive permit this week to ensure that we can obtain a building permit for the project by Nov 15, 2018, which is an absolute requirement for us to close on the financing with our lenders and investors prior to the end of the year. She asked if this petition were moved to committee is it still being considered and would the $110 million be affected for the renovation to Millers River development.

Councillor Carlone responded that the petition is in effect until the full City Council turns it down or the petition expires. Councillor Mallon stated that if this is not voted down tonight it would be affected. Councillor Carlone explained that tonight it is about keeping it in committee or moving it forward to the City Council or sending it forward with a negative recommendation. He further stated that there is nothing that the committee could do tonight to affect this project. The City Clerk explained that the project was affected when the petition was advertised; the project is at risk.

Councillor Mallon spoke about letting the petition expire what is the expiration date. The Chair stated that the petition expires ninety days from the City Council hearing.

Councillor Toomey stated that he believes that the CHA has until mid-November on this. He stated that the ninety days would be up by November. He asked Ms. Moran, Director of Planning and Development, CHA to clarify this. Ms. Moran stated that she would have to have a building permit in hand by mid-November.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that clarity is needed on whether the CHA needs zoning relief from this petition and cannot be granted relief while the petition is being considered. She suggested leaving the matter in committee to continue the discussions and she did not know how this impacts the CHA project. She stated that maybe there are other ways that the committee can continue consideration of this petition.

Councillor Carlone explained the process followed on the Volpe petition. He stated that he and his co-chair met with MIT and the City and modified the petition. He wanted the City Council to submit areas where they could support and he and Councillor Kelley would meet with petitioners and staff and wean this down to areas of support and there may be some resolution by July.

Councillor Zondervan said the CHA needs to apply for their permit next week so there is nothing that can be done tonight to impact this.

Councillor Carlone stated that CHA may be in process and by September there may be resolution. Ms. Moran stated that the application was submitted today. Councillor Carlone stated that all want this to work out, but this is a process, which the Ordinance committee is in the middle of.

Mayor McGovern stated that he suggested to the petitioners that before submitting this petition they meet with CDD for a more refined petition to be filed. This did not happen. If no action is taken and this impacts the Millers River Project could the committee pass this with an unfavorable recommendation and schedule a Special City Council meeting and vote the petition down. Then the City and petitioners could sit down and draft a new petition to be submitted to the City Council. The City Clerk stated that the process of the Special Meeting would be to take a vote to not pass the petition to a second reading and would still be required to wait the ninety days for the petition to expire.

Councillor Kelley spoke about five items that have been conflated and are related but not necessarily properly subject to the exact same zoning amendment. He stated that there is flooding, heat island effect, emergency protection (such as the loss of electricity due to flooding), the green factor and trees. These are all separate zoning or policy issues. He stated all are unsure of the impact of Envision and a good solution may be found while waiting for Envision. He stated that the housing discussion is the most conflated of all issues. He commented on the 2014 MAPC Study stated that up 435,000 new units of housing would be needed in the Greater Boston area by 2040. He stated that a housing discussion is important but whether this petition has a meaningful impact on the housing numbers is doubtful. The worst-case scenario is that every climate prediction will wind up being overly optimistic and agrees that this is something that we do not want to kick down the pipe. He suggested that the discussions should be held in separate directions for flooding, heat island effect, emergency protections, green factor and trees.

In response to a question by Councillor Carlone, City Solicitor Glowa stated that if the City Council wanted to move the petition forward with a positive or negative recommendation or no recommendation it could do this tonight or leave this in committee and then vote upon the petition when the City Council next meets. She stated that there is no requirement for the City Council wait a period of time in order to vote on the petition now that the City Council has the recommendation of the Planning Board. The City Clerk informed the City Solicitor that the formal recommendation by the Planning Board has not been received by the City Council. The Planning Board has twenty-one days after their hearing to make a recommendation. The Clerk stated that this negative recommendation would appear on the July 30, 2018 agenda or this could be the subject of a Special Meeting providing that it is held twenty-one days after the Planning Board hearing. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she misunderstood and was under the impression that the City Council had already received the Planning Board recommendation. She stated that once the Planning Board hearing has been held the City Council can vote upon the petition twenty-one days after the Planning Board hearing or when the City Council gets the Planning Board recommendation. She noted that twenty-one days will have passed by the Summer Meeting so whether the City Council has the recommendation or not the City Council could vote upon the petition at this time if it wished to.

The City Clerk stated that at the Summer meeting the City Council hopefully will be in receipt of the Planning Board recommendation and will have the Committee report with a recommendation of favorable, unfavorable or no recommendation before the body and generally the next step is to pass a proposed amendment to a second reading. She stated that this would be the action at the Summer meeting.

City Solicitor Glowa added that she is not positive that the amendment has to be passed to a second reading and that there have been times when the City Council has decided to suspend the rules. She stated that she did not think that the City Council would be prohibited from voting at the Summer meeting if it wanted to, but this issue can be investigated and reported back to the Chair in the meantime.

The City Clerk requested clarification on what vote the City Council could take at the Summer meeting. She explained that the action on the committee report would be to accept the report and place on file and depending on the recommendation in the report, if it were a negative vote, there would be no further action required by the City Council. If there were two negative recommendations at that point, would a similar petition be allowed to be refiled within two years.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the Planning Board recommendation is simply that, a recommendation; it is advisory. She stated that the City Council is the legislative body and has the authority to enact zoning amendments and the Planning Board is only required to hold a hearing and to have twenty-one days pass after the date of the hearing and/or to have submitted a report in this time after which the City Council may vote on the petition. She stated that the City Council has the right to vote on the petition once the time has passed or the recommendation is in front of the City Council. She stated that she does not believe that the law requires the Ordinance Committee to make a recommendation and she does not believe that the City Council is bound by a recommendation of the Ordinance Committee. She further stated that it is the full body of the City Council that has the authority to vote on a zoning petition and if the Planning Board issue has been resolved the City Council has the authority to vote upon it. She stated that as far as the second reading she stated that she thinks that this is customary, and she does not think that it is legally required, but she would research this further.

Councillor Zondervan asked what the implications on action are if taken tonight. He stated that if there are no implications then this discussion can be taken off line and return to the petition.

Councillor Carlone stated that he would prefer to return to the petition, but it has been suggested that the committee may have to reject this tonight so that the CHA project would not be harmed.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the committee seems to be going down the path to find reasons to reject this petition without knowing definitively if this would help the Millers River project be out of jeopardy. She stated that she feels that the City Council is acting on this on the fly and if it was this critical what the committee did tonight would impact the $110 million project that information should have been discussed with the City Manager and/or City Solicitor or the Planning Board because this information was known last night. She stated that she feels that the committee is being boxed into having to make a negative recommendation now without full information and this does not feel fair. She stated that this hearing has been long, similar to the Volpe hearings, and the committee is asking the City Solicitor to make decisions on the fly.

Councillor Carlone requested Ms. Moran come forward to help the committee understand the situation. Ms. Moran explained the CHA needed to have the ambiguity related to the petition resolved. This can happen during the period of time when the CHA’s comprehensive permit is under review, but that the zoning board could not grant the CHA a comprehensive permit while this petition was outstanding, and the CHA would not be able to move forward because relief could not be granted. Ms. Moran explained that the CHA application was submitted today and assumes that in August the CHA they will go before the BZA for their review and approval. She stated that the problem she heard this evening is that if this remained in committee it would stay active for the ninety-day period and while it is alive the Millers River project would be in limbo and would not be able to move forward to its next step. She noted that the further into August through October the less likely the CHA will be able to meet the conditions of financing which is to have a building permit in hand by Nov 15, 2018. She stated that the process starts today with the filing of the application and that the CHA was not expecting a negative vote tonight. The CHA wanted to put all on notice and identify the fact that the CHA is in a process and if they continue to be in limbo though the end of the summer then the project would be jeopardized.

Councillor Carlone stated that most complex zoning hearings do continue almost the full ninety days. He stated he wanted to make this work for all. He spoke about the positive aspects of the petition, especially the green factor. He stated that the petition is overly complex. He did not want to stop the process and wanted more details on the CHA project and do everything to move this project forward.

Councillor Kelley stated that there are some things in the petition that he would vote for tonight. He does not see this petition passing the first time around and thinks that this petition will expire and be resubmitted. This means that there will be no final action for the next three months, which leaves the CHA in a problematic situation with their financing. He asked the City Solicitor if the City Council could pass part of the petition without jeopardizing other aspects of the petition and bring them up in the future without prejudice.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City Council can amend this petition tonight, recommend to the full body amending the petition by carving out aspects that the committee does not wish to move forward with a positive recommendation and these aspects would no longer be part of the petition. The aspects of the petition carved out could not be acted upon again for two years. She further stated that if the body wanted to consider all parts of the petition it could be moved forward with or without a recommendation and consider any parts that the body wanted to consider without having a detrimental effect of the part of the petition the body does not wish to move forward. There is no way to have the carved-out parts become a separate petition that is still alive and able to be acted upon subsequently.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that everything could be carved out and amend the petition to only forward the green factor, which seems to be the one element that four members of the Planning Board felt would be worth considering. She stated that she is frustrated with this process. She expressed concern that this petition was filed in April and is being heard on the last day and are bumping up against all the deadlines. She stated that having a complex petition presented with no ability to discuss it.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is a very complex petition and we do need more discussion. He requested that each member of the City Council carve out questions and areas of support. He recommends that the Ordinance Co-Chairs meet with the petitioners and the City separately, work on this and come back to the Ordinance Committee. He noted that this is the committee that is supposed to work things out and this petition is a huge job.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there are no other ways to provide relief for the Millers River project besides an up or down vote. Is there way to provide relief while the petition continues?

Councillor Carlone stated that as the petition gets edited there could be an area where the petitioners do not want a negative effect and that this area would be modified. This does not go into effect until the zoning is approved. He stated that if the petition is modified during the process in July could this open the door for financing. He was unsure about this.

Councillor Mallon stated that she wonders how many other projects that have been approved and do not have building permits will fall into this category. She suggested that the petitioners withdraw petition tonight and because all agree that this should be worked on further in a committee would they be amenable with forming a committee that included petitioners, City staff and housing advocates and have this committee come back with a robust set of recommendations that could be considered in the future. She stated that all feel the need for more conversation but are feeling stymied by this particular project that will affect many people.

Councillor Carlone stated that this cannot happen and likely result in a two-year delay for the petitioners.

The City Clerk explained that if the petitioners withdraw there is a provision in the zoning that this is considered negative action once the petition has been advertised. She suggested that this be moved forward and that subsequent Ordinance Committee hearings be held to try to amend the text of the petition and that there may be two Ordinance Committee reports on the July 30th agenda with one containing amended language. She stated that this also depends on the amended language and if this is passed to a second reading. She explained that that the first two Mondays in September there will be no City Council meetings, and this gives time for another Ordinance Committee hearing to work on the text.

Mr. Brown stated that this suggestion is an interesting idea. He stated that there are challenges; he does not know if the State zoning law has such a mechanism for withdrawal of zoning petitions. There is for special permits. He stated the procedural challenges are the two-year rules if it is not substantially different and if there is a negative review from the Planning. The Planning Board did not leave this opening when they voted the petition down instead of passing it with no recommendation. He stated that he needed clear understanding about what the City Council would support in some future version. He stated that it needs to be discussed if there is some protection against a flood of new projects. He stated that they went through this with HRI who suggested that text be added to the petition, which was drafted by their lawyer and stated basically that 40B projects were exempt if their comprehensive permit were received. He stated that HRI had received their comprehensive permit, but Millers River has not. He stated that the minute that he is asked to exempt affordable housing then the petition is opened to the other side that state that those who live in affordable housing should be subjected to lower standards of health and safety in the buildings that are built for them. He stated that there could be a way to exclude them and the City Council could vote on this twenty-one days from last night.

Councillor Carlone read from the Zoning Ordinance, which states that “no proposed amendment to this ordinance which has been unfavorably acted upon by the City Council shall be considered on its merits within two years after the date of such unfavorable action. The granting of leave to withdraw after a proposed amendment has been advertised for a hearing before the City Council shall be considered as constituting unfavorable action.” He repeated that the reality of getting all of this done in a month is ridiculous; it is just too complex. He stated that both Councillor Kelley and he will ask members of the City Council for their areas of support or concern regarding the petition. He proposed that all parties meet like it has been done before on other petition and try to work this out and find consensus. When we are successful, another Ordinance Committee hearing will be held. He stated that all Councillors appear to agree to find a way to allow the Millers River project to happen. Millers River financing issue just adds to the complexity. He stated that he and other City Councillors have stated that this petition will go longer than one ninety-day period to get successfully resolved. He suggested leaving the matter in committee, address the issues and work with petitioners and staff and come up with something that is close, just as was done with the Volpe petition.

Councillor Simmons asked for clarification on where this leaves the Millers River project. If this is left in committee does this allow Millers River to go forward or put it into jeopardy.

Councillor Carlone responded that Millers River is in process. Their drawings have been submitted and are going for a comprehensive permit in August. The committee will meet again. He stated that no one wants to threaten CHA’s proposal.

Vice Mayor Devereux suggested keeping the subject matter in committee and referring the petition to the full City Council. She asked does this have any different impact or advantage. Councillor Carlone commented that the City Council could act on an incomplete, unrefined petition.

Mayor McGovern stated that he agreed with the recommendation made by Councillor Carlone. He stated that he hopes that this is resolved by August and that Millers River is not jeopardized. He favored keeping this in committee and that the Ordinance Co-Chairs meet with appropriate individuals. He urged the members of the City Council to get their comments to the Chair by the end of the week, so this can be moved forward.

Councillor Simmons also requested the petitioners withdraw the petition. She expressed her concerns that Millers River is caught in the middle of this and believes that this is not what anyone wanted to see. She does not have comfort and was unaware of the jeopardy of the Millers River project. She stated that this extraordinary body of work that has some major impacts that may have the unintended consequence of thwarting, stopping or ending housing for a vulnerable population. She urged petitioners to consider withdrawing.

Councillor Carlone stated that the co-chairs would try to make this petition process work and make the CHA application viable. If it becomes clear that this is not going to happen then he would schedule another Ordinance Committee hearing and deal with this then. He stated that he and Councillor Kelley would not wait until it is too late for the Housing Authority. He stated that clarity is needed. He stated that no one wants to hurt the public housing effort.

Mr. Brown stated that the zoning states that the petition cannot be submitted for two years. He asked if there is a standard as to what is substantially different so that the petition could be resubmitted. City Solicitor Glowa responded that the petition has to be significantly different. She stated that you could not change a few words here and there or take out or add a piece or two to the petition. This is a comprehensive, large petition so if it were at all like this petition it would not be permitted for two years.

Councillor Carlone commented that this will not be decided tonight. He stated that his impression is that this should remain in the committee for further discussion. He stated that the Mayor suggested that the comments and/or changes be submitted by the end of the week or by Monday.

Councillor Kelley commented that he does not see this petition passing in the time frame outlined by Chapter 40A and that the petition is important in so many ways. He stated that the City Council does not want to vote down this petition and not have the ability to consider the elements for the next two years. He stated that he would like CDD and the Law Department review this to see if there are other ways to resolve the Millers River issue without having to come to any final decision on the petition itself.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the two-year provision and whether this is only applicable to another citizen-generated petition. Councillor Carlone responded in the negative. City Solicitor Glowa reiterated that another petition that is substantially the same as this petition could not be refiled by anyone for two years. She further explained that there is no way to amend the zoning without a petition.

Mr. Brown stated that this only applies if the City Council acts unfavorably on the petition. Councillor Carlone responded or is withdrawn (leave to withdraw) by the petitioner.

Councillor Simmons stated that 10.51(A) of the zoning states “that four members of the Board of Appeals or five members of the Planning Board, depending upon which board took the original action, vote that there are specific and material changes to the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based and described such changes in the records of its proceedings” leads her to believe that the City Council could move this forward and not have the jeopardy of not being able to file this for two years. She stated that this is the interpretation that she gleans from this.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that this does not relate to zoning amendments. Councillor Carlone stated that there are so many aspects of this that it is unfair to put the staff, petitioners and City Solicitor through this without evaluating what the possibilities are. City Solicitor Glowa stated that Article 10 deals with appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals related to enforcement decisions or decisions of the Planning Board or Board of Zoning Appeal. She stated that this has to do with zoning decisions by permit granting authorities. She stated that the matter pending before the City Council is a petition to amend the zoning ordinance, so this section of the ordinance does not apply.

Councillor Mallon asked who determines what is substantially different regarding a petition. The City Clerk responded the staff of CDD or someone who has the knowledge of what the zoning is.

Councillor Simmons asked if it were possible to schedule another hearing next week after the July 4th holiday on this petition. She stated that all want to preserve the integrity of the Millers River project going forward and also give time and attention to this zoning amendment. This is before the Ordinance Committee, it has been filed and it requires that something be done with this. Councillor Carlone repeated that this is so complex that the key petitioners, the City, getting information on the CHA project and the Ordinance Co-Chairs should meet and then will have another Ordinance Committee hearing before the July 30, 2018 Summer meeting if merited.

In response to a question from Councillor Kelley about Section 1.52 of Article I of the Zoning Ordinance, City Solicitor Glowa stated that she has a sense that Chapter 40A differs in the withdrawal language. However, she noted that this would require a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance because it is in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. She stated that this is the applicable law for tonight and would be unless and until the zoning ordinance is amended to change this provision. She stated that she is unsure whether Chapter 40A mirrors this language or is different in this one regard. She stated that if the City Council votes down this petition the two-year provision is in the state law.

The leave to withdraw language is in the City’s zoning ordinance and could be amended to strike this language. However, this action would not make a difference if the City Council voted this petition down and if the City Council has a negative recommendation from the Planning Board and does not vote this in the affirmative then this is deemed to be unfavorable action also. She stated that unless the City Council voted in the affirmative this would have to wait for two years before a petition could be refiled.

Councillor Kelley stated that the City’s zoning could be amended to strike out the leave to withdraw and allow the petition to be withdrawn and be refiled. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she would have to research this because she does not recall if there is a slight difference with this one provision.

Councillor Carlone commented that this section of the City’s zoning ordinance was put in for a reason and was due to repetitive petitions that were negatively received and holding up things.

Councillor Kelley submitted the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor and the Assistant City Manager for Community Development to explore any alternatives to assist any affordable housing projects as it relates to the Brown petition and to further provide the City Council with an analysis on whether the City Council has the authority to change the two-year provision contained in Article 1.000, section 1.52 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.

The motion carried on a voice vote of eight members.

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

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

The following communications were received and made part of the report:
Communication from Patrick Herron, PhD, Executive Director, Mystic River Watershed Association, 20 Academy Street, Arlington, transmitting support for the Brown petition (ATTACHMENT V).
Communication from Megan Brook, 103 Inman Street, regarding the heat island petition (ATTACHMENT W).
Communication from Suzanne Trainor, Government Affairs Associate, The Commercial Real Estate Development Association, 144 Gould Street, Needham, transmitting opposition to the Flood Plain Overlay District and Green Factor zoning petition (ATTACHMENT X).
Communication from Martha Older, strongly supporting the climate change zoning petition (ATTACHMENT Y).
Communication from Jen Craft, 30 Holworthy Place, urging that the safety and wellness of current and future residents be protected by supporting the Cambridge Climate Safety Zone petition (ATTACHMENT Z).
Communication from Sarah Slaughter, 11 Stearns Street, in support of the Climate Safety petition (ATTACHMENT AA).
Communication from Lore and David Levitt, 14 Notre Dame Avenue, in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT BB).
Communication from Phillip Sego, 221 Norfolk Street, in support of the Climate Safety petition (ATTACHMENT CC).
Communication from Sheli Wortis, 106 Berkshire Street, in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT DD).
Communication from John MacDougall, 175 Richdale Avenue, in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT EE).
Communication from Allan Sadun, 17 Pleasant Street, urging the City Council not to indulge in what seems to be an irresponsible and misguided petition (ATTACHMENT FF).
Communication from Susan Farist Butler, 14 Clinton Street, in support and urging adoption of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT GG).
Communication from Michele Sprengnether, 31 Chilton Street, in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT HH).
Communication from Susan Labandibar, 8 Brewer Street, in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT II).
Communication from Ann Fleck-Henderson, 113 Richdale Avenue, in support of the Climate Safety initiative (ATTACHMENT JJ).
Communication from Charles R. Norris, Norris & Norris Associates, 446 Huron Avenue, in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT KK).
Communication from Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street, urging the City Council to work with the petitioners of the Flood Plain Overlay District/Green Factor petition to improve the petition and adopt some version of the petition (ATTACHMENT LL).
Communication from Elaine O’Reilly, governmental Strategies, Inc., 8 Beacon Street, Boston, in support of serious review and discussion about the proposed Flood Overlay District (ATTACHMENT MM).
Communication from Robbie Harwood, Florence Street, transmitting request that the City can codify preparedness, especially for new affordable housing (ATTACHMENT NN).
Communication from Bob and Mary Woodbury, 133 River Street, not in favor of a hasty rezoning petition that could leave people who want to live in Cambridge high and dry (ATTACHMENT OO).
Communication from C.A. Webb, President, Kendall Square Association, urging the City Council to not advance the Brown petition (ATTACHMENT PP).
Communication from Anne Taylor, 66 Thorndike Street, in support of the Climate Safety petition (ATTACHMENT QQ).
Communication from Gile Beye, 18 Harrington Road, in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT RR).
Communication from Bob Flack, SVP Development, Twining Properties, One Broadway, urging the City Council to support the Envision process and submit a negative recommendation on the Flood Plain Overlay District (ATTACHMENT SS).
Communication from Kent Johnson in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT TT).
Communication from Mai Le-Nguyen, Executive Assistant, The McKinnon Company, l Leighton Street, stating that the Brown petition does not find ways to address both climate change and affordable housing (ATTACHMENT UU).
Communication from Henry H. Wortis, 106 Berkshire Street, urging to avoid housing displacement the City needs solutions that do not depend on private housing development while protecting the residents from the devastating effects of climate change (ATTACHMENT VV).
Communication from Abra Berkowitz, 632 Mass. Avenue, in support of the important aspects of the Brown et al petition (ATTACHMENT WW).
Communication from Seanna Berry, 16 Clinton Street, in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT XX).
Communication from Pawel Latawiec, 2 Earhart Street, in opposition to the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT YY).
Communication from Peter Dublin in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT ZZ).
Communication from Lisan Mo in support of the Climate Safety Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT AAA).

The hearing adjourned at 10:10pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

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

Committee Report #4
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Apr 10, 2018 at 5:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the first annual report from the Community Development Department as called for in the updated Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. The Committee will also continue discussions on the Comprehensive Housing Plan that was introduced in September 2017 by then-Mayor Simmons and select the top priorities for the rest of the term.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Simmons, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor McGovern; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Neal Alpert; Anna Lee Hirschi; Nora Bent; Liana Ascolese; Wil Durbin, Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Mike Johnston, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Susan Schlesinger, Cheryl-Ann Pizza Zeoli, Affordable Housing Trust; Elaine DeRosa; Michael Turk; Ken Eisenberg; Tina Alu; and Lee Farris.

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

Councillor Siddiqui read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT B).

Ms. Farooq referred to two memos from CDD (ATTACHMENTS C AND D) that were provided to the committee. She said that the first memo, directed to the Housing Committee and dated Apr 10, 2018, is the Inclusionary Housing Program Production Report that is required by the changes to the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. She said that it is focused on production and tracking trends over a period of time. She said that there had been a concern from the development community that the increases to the set-aside might hinder the development climate and it is possible that the City may not get units that were anticipated.

Ms. Farooq said that the second memo, dated May 15, 2017, is more the “people side of the equation,” which is not required by the ordinance change. She explained that this report summarizes that information. She noted that CDD has started working on a summary for the current year.

Mr. Cotter said that it has been over a year since the change in the ordinance. He said that there are still development projects that will be coming forth that were permitted prior to the change in the ordinance. He explained that after July 1, 2017 the Inclusionary requirement was changed to 20%. He said that there have been three projects subject to the new provisions, totaling 49 affordable units. He said that we have seen the family size unit provisions in play. He said that there is a requirement for large buildings to include a three-bedroom unit for every 6,000 square feet of affordable housing floor area. He noted that the number of three-bedroom units will more than double with new developments now underway. Mr. Cotter said that Ms. Prosnitz has worked with developers to apply the different standards of the 20% set aside, and we are now over 1,100 IZ units total. He said that there are over 250 units under construction and about 700 rental units are occupied. He stated that there will be large buildings coming on line in the coming months and the pipeline continues to be strong, with more units now under construction.

Mr. Cotter said that there are projects that are expected to be approved in the next several months. He noted that 55 Wheeler Street will likely yield over 100 affordable units. He said that CDD is compiling data on residents living in inclusionary rental housing that will be shared with the Housing Committee and the Affordable Housing Trust.

Councillor Siddiqui asked if there is any way to ascertain if the inclusionary tenants are applying for homeownership units. Mr. Cotter responded that CDD has seen that in the past.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the 1,100 units include projects like Wheeler Street but haven’t formerly applied to the inclusionary program. She said that we should recognize that the 1,100 units do not include ones through Mass and Main, Alexandra and Volpe. She noted that it would helpful to know the ones that will come online in the next 5-6 years.

Councillor Simmons said that it would be helpful to obtain a timeline of when we expect each of these different projects to be completed and having their Inclusionary units coming online. Mr. Cotter noted that CDD has included projects that are at the building permit stage. He said that it does not include a lot of the units that have yet to be permitted, such as new units in Kendall Square, Volpe, and North Point. Ms. Farooq said that it is important to distinguish between the two categories and noted that it is possible to add a “projects in the pipeline” category.

Councillor Simmons commented that it would be beneficial. Mr. Cotter said that it is a great idea but advised that Special Permits is about floor area as opposed to unit count. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that all units could be presented by square footage.

As it relates to the formula for three-bedroom units, Mayor McGovern asked if this has posed an issue in terms of developer push-back. Mr. Cotter responded that it has not been an issue to date. He said that a more impactful provision is the large project requirement. Mayor McGovern said that the 2017 report does talk about some of the transitional housing. He said that as we continue to talk about the City’s housing policy, we must include conversations surrounding the homeless population as this is something that needs to be in the plans and conversations.

Councillor Zondervan said that he would like graphic projections in future reports. He said that he would love to see a percentage of the 1,100 units as a percentage of total units of housing in the city.

Councillor Toomey asked if there is one staff person at CDD who is assigned to look at Cambridge real estate on a weekly basis. He said that he would like to know what is being done to look at property opportunities throughout the city. Mr. Cotter responded that there is not one person assigned to this task but instead, there are a number of staff that watch the market and look for opportunities that would be feasible in terms of the resources available. He said that they work closely with the local affordable housing developers to look for opportunities for a purchase or investment that would support the City’s housing goals. He said that they are in discussions with the Department of Human Services regarding single room occupancy (SRO) housing and how the city could best add to the stock which would help people to be in a more permanent housing situation. He said that CDD is more than willing to look at opportunities that any of the committee members hear about. Councillor Toomey said that he will most likely bring forth a Policy Order for the creation of a full-time position for someone to be dedicated to aggressively seeking out opportunities to obtain property that could be developed into affordable housing.

Councillor Carlone asked if CDD has thought about the idea of including transitional units within a larger building. He said that Wheeler Street is such a big complex that there could be a transitional block with special design and services associated with it. Mr. Cotter said that this is something that CDD has thought about but not in the sense of how it would be designed. He said that they are aware of the needs of the community and trying to match that need in the housing stock. He said that CDD works with affordable housing providers to set aside units and access resources to create those units. He noted that the challenge is funding of services. He said that CDD is trying to figure out how to move people into more permanent housing. He noted that CDD has worked with one owner to set aside units for people coming out of homelessness with service supports through a local service provider. He added that they have 6 or 8 units in one of the larger buildings and would be interested in expanding the program if supportive services can be identified.

Councillor Carlone asked what is the sweet spot as it relates to the price of land per unit. He asked this question in relation to the City-owned parking lots. He said that friends from other countries note the amount of parking lots in the city. Mr. Cotter said that size and scale are also factors. He said that it is a continual challenge for staff, affordable housing developers, and the Trust to educate funders about the cost here and why it is important to create new affordable housing in Cambridge and not at another location with a lower cost. He said that they do track the market but there are many different data points and different types of development can support a range of acquisition costs.

Councillor Simmons said that she would like to see a map of inclusionary housing units in Cambridge. She asked if there is a need to change preferences or eligibility requirements. She said that she has heard that the inclusionary tenants have felt that they were treated differently than market rate tenants. She said that she wants us to be firm with developers that people that come into the units under the Inclusionary Zoning program are not treated less than market rate tenants. She said that inclusionary program must be monitored and fine-tuned with attention on the outcomes.

Susan Schlesinger said that it is valuable to look at the results of the policies enacted which will inform small tweaks moving forward. She said that if we monetize these units, the amount of money that has been saved is immense. She said that there have been no affordable housing policies enacted since April of 2017. She said that it is valuable to try to hone down on some proposals because she thinks there is a large degree of people coming together around proposals. She said that the enactment of a citywide Affordable Housing Overlay District is key. She said that it will be complicated process with many decisions to be made and will take time to work through. She stated that it is good to think about the timeline. She said the Inclusionary Zoning took longer than anticipated but the outcome was very good. She said that whatever density bonuses or zoning regulations that need to be changed would focused predominantly on affordable housing. She said that you cannot do what is being discussed without a vast increase of money. She said that the HUD budget was slashed and CPA matching funds will also be going down. She said the transfer tax at the state level will take a long time. She urged the Housing Committee to add significant money to the affordable housing budget. She said that if we are talking about homelessness, transitional housing and more housing for families, and do not have more money, then it is a zero-sum game among competing priorities.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza Zeoli said that some things will fall in the area of tenant protections. She referred to a recent article in the New York Times regarding eviction rates. She said that an important piece to any change would be requiring the owner of a property to notify the City when they are evicting a tenant or giving notice of non-renewal of a lease. She said that this is the vehicle that would allow the city to contact then tenant and provide necessary resources while also tracking displacement. She said that it is important to collect this data. She said that people are unaware of the city’s anti-discrimination law and this falls to the Human Rights Commission to deal with housing complaints. She said that it would be useful if the Housing Committee could receive a report from the Human Rights Commission regarding what they are seeing. She said this is an important piece of research. Ms. Pizza-Zeoli said that Boston was chosen to participate in an anti-displacement policy network. She explained that when they applied, they had to talk about what strategies they are already using. She said that the Civic Unity Committee has talked about boards and commissions and it is a great idea to conduct a survey on the current composition of each board or commission but the city should have a strategy for low income residents being really involved in decisions that are made about housing. She said that she would like to see the low-income community turn out in big numbers.

Councillor Simmons stated the need to find different ways to reach people. She said that the City has money and there is no way to keep up with the demand if there is not a huge infusion of dollars to affordable housing. She said that she plans to ask the City Manager for this type of capital investment.

Councillor Mallon said that in her research, she found old Annual Reports of the Affordable Housing Trust. She noted that she was not able to find recent information as to how much money is the in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. She asked what is the pipeline through the linkage fees over the next year and the next five years to give us an idea of how much we have, how much is coming, and where must we focus big dollar asks. Councillor Mallon asked if the Affordable Housing Trust still produces and Annual Report. Mr. Cotter replied that they do track the financing but do not have reports that they share, although they are happy to furnish that information.

Mr. DePasquale said that they have come up with a 5-year plan which shows the revenues and plans. He noted that there is a gap so we must figure out how to work with that gap. Councillor Mallon asked if there is a timeline for when that might be done. Mr. DePasquale responded that something could be presented but there are still items up in the air. He explained that the big issue is the Fresh Pond Apartments.

Councillor Mallon asked Ms. Pizza-Zeoli about the Jim Brooks Stabilization Act in Boston. Ms. Pizza-Zeoli said that the full Boston City Council voted the matter out to the Government Operations committee and a hearing has not been scheduled. She said that she is unsure that this approach would work in Cambridge. Councillor Mallon said that this could be a crucial piece of tenant stabilization in Cambridge and questioned how this could interface with the new position of Housing Ombudsman.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he appreciates the focus on tenant protection, the no cost evictions and the anti-discrimination enforcement. He asked about how we could improve the anti-discrimination enforcement. Ms. Pizza-Zeoli said that she would want to hear from the Human Rights Commission. She noted that when a person is issued a tenant based voucher and are then unable to find housing, it is difficult to prove that discrimination is the reason for not finding a unit.

Councillor Zondervan talked about increasing monies in the CPA. He said that by increasing the total amount, more could go to affordable housing. Councillor Siddiqui responded that the categories that are in place are through state law and Cambridge would not have impact as a city to change those categories. She said that the issue is that the allocation is dropping. Mr. DePasquale said the City has had 4 years of 100% match from the state. He said that Cambridge has been told that we cannot now project more than 11% match. He noted that Cambridge has increased affordable housing funding every year because the levy goes up and because of the increase of the fund balance. He said that they also help fund this by 20% from building permit revenues which will increase by $650,000 in FY19. He said that as the CPA match percentage gets lower, fewer cities will join. He said that he is not optimistic that the city will get back to 40% match funding.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that if the state passes the short-term rental tax, that is another potential revenue. She asked about the possibility of using mini-bonds. She said that the universities have participated to be resources of capital loans and we may want to reinvigorate the conversations that have taken place in the past. She said that when she was at the small business summit, there was projected population data for 2022. She said that it was anticipated that the AMI will go up to $96,000.00.

Councillor Toomey noted the importance of looking at the existing housing stock to provide affordable units.

Councillor Simmons said that her plan is to submit a Policy Order to the City Council for a $20 million-dollar per year investment into affordable housing. Councillor Simmons spoke about the Comprehensive Housing Plan (CHP) (ATTACHMENT F). She asked the committee members to declare what priorities were most important to them. She asked about the timeframe that it would take for the City to create an Affordable Housing Overlay District. She said that it is difficult for CDD to do the necessary work we ask of them when the committee does not give clear direction of how it would like to move forward.

Councillor Zondervan said that although all the priorities are important, he would like to focus on tenant protection and anti-discrimination enforcement.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that within the category of additional revenue, she would like to include short term rental fees, mini-bonds and other potential sources of revenue.

Councillor Carlone said that in addition to the overlay district, he would like to look at all commercial districts. He said that this may be a vehicle to expand the number of projects. He said that it seems that we could look at those districts as well as an overlay district.

Councillor Siddiqui said that the priority list appears to have been narrowed down to approximately 10 items. She said that both she and Councillor Simmons feel that the overlay district is certainly a priority, other priorities include tenant protections, a full-time staff member charged with looking at real estate property for purchase, $20 million dollars in additional funding, and other funding sources. Vice Mayor Devereux added that it would helpful to have an additional person who could collect data on evictions.

Public Comment began at 6:31pm.

Michael Turk, 11 Ware Street, stated that he wants to address the issues of priorities. He said that the item that he feels deserves the most attention is tenant protection. He said that it seems that a broad-based plan to try to limit displacement is crucial and just cause eviction is a piece of that. He recommended finding a way to determine whether there were excessive increases in rent. He noted that having a way to discuss and consider the process of an eviction would be helpful. He said that 20 years ago he worked on an unsuccessful statewide petition which attempted to create a statewide just cause eviction regulation and right to counsel for tenant regulation. He said that the language is impressionistic. He said that he would be happy to provide the committee a copy.

Ken Eisenberg said that going back to 2004, he had quite a few instances where he went to the Human Rights Commission to file complaints of discrimination. He noted that a lot of it comes down to he said/she said. He said that it is almost impossible to get legal representation in Cambridge although he did have legal representation for a couple of those complaints. He stated that he did have several instances at the Human Rights Commission when the attorney running the commission directed him to Boston because she said that there was no proof as the threshold is very high. He said that it would be great if someone would invite him into the discussions because he could contribute a lot of his personal experience going back to 2008. He said that he spent almost 1.5 years of his life looking for an apartment with his voucher. He said that he was discriminated against. He said that the City should communicate and coordinate with the Human Rights Commission because without an attorney you will not get anywhere. He said that he did not hear anyone speaking to whether the City will consider actually requiring inclusionary zoning to include 30% moderate income housing on top of the 20% affordable income housing.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated that prior to the hearing she forwarded three documents to the committee comprised of a personal communication regarding the prioritization of actions, (ATTACHMENT G), a list of Cambridge Residents Alliance Housing Priorities (ATTACHMENT H), and a list of Envision Housing priority actions (ATTACHMENT I). She stated her support for the priorities, especially an Affordable Housing Overlay District that includes commercial as well as residential. She said that she would like to see a public process. She said that two issues that are important are the use of university land and the use of city-owned for 100% affordable housing. She said that every time there is a request from a university for a zoning change, there should be a mechanism in place to exact increases so that they can house their own graduate students. She noted that there was a better result at the Volpe project because the graduate students brought about their own petition.

Public comment closed at 6:45pm.

Vice Mayor Devereux added that Vail Court is also land that the City owns and something will be built on that land.

Councillor Siddiqui reminded the committee that there was a Policy Order that was recently adopted which asked for an inventory of city-owned property.

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

The hearing adjourned at 6:47pm on motion of Councillor Mallon.

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

Committee Report #5
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on June 19, 2018 at 3:00pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to review the whole licensing and permitting process and to discuss ways to make it more efficient.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Michelle Kincaid, Assistant Finance Director; Branville Bard, Police Commissioner; Pauline Carter-Wells, Deputy Superintendent of Police; Ranjit Singanayagam, Inspectional Services Commissioner; Anthony Tuccinardi, Operations Manager, Inspectional Services Department; David Byrne, Senior Building Inspector; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Mary Hart, CEO, IT; Eric Belford, Assistant IT Director; Gerald Mahoney, Acting Fire Chief; Owen O’Riordan, Public Works Commissioner; Robert Linke, Operations Manager, Public Works Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Gary Mello, 324 Franklin Street; John Hawkinson; Deb Zuckar, 3 Shepard Street; Mark Levy; and Adriane Musgrave, Executive Director, Cambridge Local First.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being privately audio recorded. An agenda was distributed (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Kelley stated that he would start out with a presentation (ATTACHMENT B). The permitting process is vast, and this discussion is an overview about the challenges to have staff address shortcomings. He highlighted all the different types of licenses and permits issued. He had a snapshot of the ISD website. He stated that there are four major permitting departments: ISD, License Commission, Public Works and Traffic, Parking and Transportation. He noted that there is overlap with some major departments. He highlighted issues that have been raised by members of the public. He stated that there is concern that the City staff does not give clear guidance to the public. He spoke about the outdated land use classification in the zoning ordinance. He commented about the efficiency of the City departments when issuing permits/licenses and how this is reviewed. He spoke about archive records when they migrate to the Open Data Portal. He spoke about how the City can help the public go through the permitting process for the first time. He spoke about the best business practices.

Mr. Kale stated that last night the City Council received a report on permitting and the new software, Viewpoint. He stated that the City Manager is sensitive to customer service issues and wants to make the permitting process as seamless and easy as possible and that the sign off process for various department is done in a coordinated fashion. He stated that a new staff person was added to CDD for liaison with small businesses and an engineer position to Public Works for the licensing process. He stated that the Viewpoint system has coordinated logic; this is an enhancement which points the user in the right direction as questions are answered. There is a workflow function that will be in the ISD process when it is rolled out with updates of permits and so forth. There is an e-mail communication function in Viewpoint for back-and-forth communication about a permit. The City has gone through a business process model and has hired business analysts to help City departments. The License Commission and ISD module are live, it is a user-friendly system and the feedback from users for Viewpoint has been positive.

The land use tables will be reviewed for updating as noted in the City’s retail review work.

Special events like Harvard Square Mayfest are reviewed by a group of people. He stated that Ms. Hart and Mr. Belford will discuss the Viewpoint system.

Mr. Belford noted that Energov was in place before he started with the City and Energov would not allow applying for a permit with a Mac or an iPad, inspectors in the field could not use Ipads, people had to access Sliver Light Technology and, overall, the software was inefficient with changes having to go through a vendor which is often cumbersome and expensive. The City wanted to use a system that could work cross devices and is user friendly, with large color fonts. He spoke about making changes to the system. The licenses are combined, and the system uses conditional logic. The work flow is easy to assign across departmental approvals. Viewpoint allows the petitioner to see where the application is in the process and can print and pay at home. There is an internal comment function with Viewpoint which allows everyone involved in the permit review to see previous comments, something not possible with traditional email. Short Term Rental permitting launch is an example of system’s nimbleness and it will only get smoother. The City will achieve greater efficiencies when all the departments have migrated to Viewpoint. He stated that the License Commission has received great feedback on Viewpoint.

He further stated that the feedback that ISD has received has been positive. The goal is to get other departments on the system. He stated that processes can be put into place to shorten the permitting process, with reports being run and metrics set up to see if tings progress in the right amount of time. Ms. Hart stated that Energov was ‘immature’ when it was purchased eight years ago and there have been changes and improvements in technology that the vendor was not able to incorporate. Viewpoint had the time to mature and make these improvements. Mr. Belford stated that there is an added efficiency with Viewpoint’s corporate office being in Boston. They have done training sessions for the City and the relationship has been good.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if Boston uses Viewpoint. Mr. Belford responded in the negative. He stated that the state of Rhode Island uses Viewpoint and other municipalities are using this system. He added that Lexington, Belmont and Worcester are using Viewpoint and the accounts are the same for each town. Mr. Kale noted that with Viewpoint documents can be attached.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there is any ability to have a semi-intelligent way to ask what permits someone needs. Mr. Belford responded in the affirmative. There is a new feature, but the City has not leveraged this yet and still has some things to figure out. It will populate the permits needed throughout the City. Councillor Zondervan asked does it create a workflow for project’s permit requirements. Mr. Belford stated there is no status at the end of the day that the petitioner has applied for them. It would be good if the last workflow kicked to the new workflow. Councillor Zondervan stated that it is hard to search a permit. Mr. Belford stated that as permits are put online they can be searched on the Open Data Portal and on the petition. Councillor Zondervan asked how soon this could be utilized. Mr. Belford responded by late summer.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the five training sessions and asked if these training were just for IT or other departments. Mr. Belford responded that the trainings were departmental training; user and departmental training. Councillor Carlone stated that the City Council would like an overview of the new system. Mr. Kale stated that the ISD staff has been involved in building the system and providing feedback and it will be coordinated when it goes live. Councillor Zondervan asked if there is a way to train the public. Mr. Belford responded in the affirmative; the system is approachable and easy to use with most questions being subject matter rather than software based. Mr. Kale noted that when you start an application and do not finish it; it is not lost. Councillor Zondervan stated that it would be helpful to have a presentation for the public.

Councillor Siddiqui asked about the time line for the other departments and whether there is a plan. Mr. Kale stated that there is a plan and then the City will look at all permit platforms.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the Public Works Department coordinates special events permits even though it does not actually issue the permits for them. He stated that the Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Electrical and License Commission issues the permits, but Public Works facilitates the event. For construction, he stated that the Public Works Department works with ISD for a pre-building permit which is done in conjunction with Fire Department where they look at sewers, utilities, grease control and so forth in a process that can take months depending on the size of the project. Councillor Kelley asked Commissioner O’Riordan if this is concurrent with other permits. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that building permits do no go to ISD until they are pre-approved by Public Works. Acting Chief Mahoney stated that fire approval is done concurrent. He explained that the involvement of the Fire Department is based on the size of construction with the state fire code triggering CFD’s review requirements.

Councillor Kelley asked if ISD and License Commission are on Viewpoint. Mr. Kale stated that the License Commission is on Viewpoint. He explained that ISD will load building permits by the end of June. Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department will go on Viewpoint at the end fall; Public Works Department in the winter of 2019 and the Fire Department in the spring of 2019. Mr. Kale stated that the Health Department will also be using Viewpoint. Mr., Belford stated that the beekeeping permits will be on Viewpoint. Chief Mahoney stated that his department is on Energov. Dog licenses are online but not all online permit systems are on Energov.

Councillor Kelley asked if paper applications are still used. Mr. Kale stated that the Arts Council uses paper applications for street performer permits. Some things are siloed. He stated that the major department have an online permitting capability but are on different platforms. Councillor Kelley questioned how the public is guided to the permits needed and what is not covered and possibly rethinking permit classifications. Mr. Kale commented that CDD is filling the business analyst position and the person will be responsible for figuring out streamlining the permitting process and making it more logically intuitive.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that on the CDD website there is a step-by-step guide and should also include links and there are upgrades that are needed. There are bottlenecks as to what permits are needed. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this would be a good use of pre-recorded webinars. Councillor Kelley asked who would do the webinars. Mr. Kale suggested Mr. Gianetti. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that a small interdepartmental group would work on this.

Councillor Kelley questioned how the City can ensure that innovation or improvement is incorporated into the process. Mr. Kale stated that personnel work with IT to improve the business process and the City had a consultant assist. He stated that the Law Depart needs to be included to ensure legality.

Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that as more of the permits are automated and the special events model where Public Works is a convener. The administration will get back to the City Council on this. Councillor Kelley stated that as the users come up with ideas there needs to be a clear way that the suggestions are captured and implemented. Mr. Belford explained that there is a monthly group meeting on the permitting process, redundancies, money and so forth. This has occurred for the last seven months.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about a general feedback infrastructure and a need to have a centralized way for this feedback.

Councillor Carlone questioned if the City thinks that there will only be one permitting system or come close. Mr. Belford stated that the goal is to come as close as possible. Mr. Kale stated that the major departments will be captured and go from there. Councillor Carlone spoke about the CDD special permits- will one permit really work for all these permits? Mr. Belford said they would get as close as possible. Councillor Zondervan stated that this is focused on the process.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that from a content perspective it is more challenging. City Solicitor Glowa noted that BZA variances are on Viewpoint; but the Planning Board is more complex.

Councillor Kelley commented about permits required by the State Building Code or similar state level requirements as opposed to clear City authority over permits such as street performers. He asked will Viewpoint be used. Mr. Kale stated that the vehicle is Viewpoint; the concept and policy may differ from state to local. He used the Short-Term Rental process as an example because it is new and then Councillor Kelley stated that there may be a possibility that the state may require a permit what happens in this situation. Mr. Belford stated that if this is something that the City is requiring the questions will be prepared by the City. He stated that the content is changed so that it is more applicable. Councillor Kelley asked if the City is looking at other forms or making our own. City Solicitor Glowa. stated that the forms were created based on the concept of the applicable law. She stated that it is the content that drives the permit.

Councillor Kelley noted that some forms are more intuitive. He asked if the City is building based on what is known or using other forms. Inspectional Services Commissioner Singanayagam stated that building and electrical are state forms; the dumpster form was created.

Councillor Zondervan noted that it does not matter whether the City is using paper or an electronic system. Mr. Kale stated that the same questions would be asked based on the State Building Code. He stated that it may be laid out differently in Cambridge.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that there are field requirements. She asked if the City can require all fields to be filled out. Mr. Belford responded in the affirmative. Councillor Kelley asked could Cambridge change forms to match Belmont’s, for example, to make life easier for a plumber working in both places. Mr. Belford stated that this would be simple from a technical standpoint and this can be done in house.

Councillor Kelley opened the hearing to public comment at 4:07pm.

Adriane Musgrave, Executive Director, Cambridge Local First stated that she is encouraged about the technical tools. She is happy about the liaison position in CDD. She stated that she has been advocating for a local permitting process. She stated that small local businesses would love to participate in the monthly meetings. She explained the difficulty from a small business perspective. When things work well, it is great. When something is in limbo it can be truly awful as applicants still have bills to pay and so forth while waiting for permits to move. She wanted the City Council to think about this from a user perspective. The more businesses can talk to the City and give feedback on the process is better. More user experience and the fees involved. She spoke about the urgency in updating the land use/table of uses classification for retail.

John Hawkinson stated that he has experience getting information from Energov. He questioned what the applicant sees and how can the experience be made better and what does the City sees. He wanted the public who are not an applicant to be able to see information on a specific permit and this has not been discussed. Things like a competitor’s application could complicate open access. He stated that the picture is not as great as being suggested. He stated that until March he could see ISD information by looking at Energov, but this has been removed. He stated that he wanted this ability from Viewpoint. He stated that now it takes 14 days to get information that was instantaneously previously. It is now super complicated to get information on line. The export of information into the Open Data Portal is not user friendly. Energov was missing a lot of things but at least the information on Energov is available. The Viewpoint will not provide this information and it is a step somewhat backwards.

Deb Zuckar, 3 Shepard Street, stated that it is important for residents, not just businesses, to have transparency and to provide feedback.

Mark Levy stated that this is another example of the City taking steps backward for transparency. He wanted the previous functionality back.

At 4:16pm Councillor Kelley closed public comment.

Councillor Zondervan suggested an APP, such as news for Cambridge to make it easier for interaction. He suggested having three sets of customers involved; users, staff and businesses.

Councillor Carlone stated that each of the permits has an overview of the timeline and interesting issues about the application being filled out. If that does not exist, it should. This criterion should be in the computer.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the Water Department in relation to permits. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the Water Department has their own permitting process. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the requirement was not clear.

Councillor Kelley questioned what kind of documents are available to the general public through Viewpoint. He stated that there will be a follow-up hearing on this. Councillor Carlone suggested that there be a presentation in this committee by IT.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:21pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #6
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Wed, June 13, 2018 at 4:03pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to receive an update on the Short-Term Rental Ordinance #1397.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Inspectional Services Commissioner Ranjit Singanayagam; Sisia Daglian, Assistant Inspectional Services Commissioner; Charles McIsaac, Housing Inspector, Inspectional Services Department; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Megan Bayer, Assistant City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were David Herman, 872 Mass. Avenue; and Judith Nathans, 511 Putnam Avenue.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being privately audio recorded. He stated that this is to discuss updates and subsequent regulations regarding the City’s Short-Term Rental Ordinance. At 4:04 Councillor Kelley declared a recess awaiting City staff. The hearing reconvened at 4:05 PM. Introduction were made. An agenda was distributed (ATTACHMENT A).

Mr. Kale spoke about the activities that the City has undertaken since the Ordinance was passed. He explained what the City has done and will continue to do to identify short-term rental properties.

Mr. Singanayagam noted that the Ordinance was adopted on Apr 18, 2018 and Inspectional Services Department is working with the Law Department and the Finance Department on this matter. He stated that there are three housing inspectors doing enforcement. He stated that 257 applications have been received, 154 certificates issued, 48 applications denied, and 165 units inspected. He stated that the platforms have been reviewed. He said it is difficult to get addresses from a map, but they do respond to complaints. A warning is given if there is a violation, then a fine is issued and enforcement is being taken to court. He stated that LLC and non-profits have not been allowed to apply for a short-term rental certificate. Airbnb has not given any addresses yet to the City despite the City’s having though Airbnb had promised to do so. Mr. Kale explained that there has been city-wide notification; 23,000 letters have been sent out. There were four public hearings held on how to register a unit. The City is still waiting to see how state regulation of STRs will impact and possible assist our regulatory efforts, especially as it relates to unit registration. Watermark and 285 and other large buildings have stopped issuing short-term rentals. He further stated that when there are complaints received the inspectors are sent to investigate and if in violation a notice to stop is given; then cease and desist and then a $300 fine. Councillor Zondervan asked how many violations are there. Mr. Singanayagam responded that there are 27 properties in violation. There have been fines issued and hearings held.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked the reason for the 48 applicants that have been denied. Mr. Singanayagam stated that they have been denied mostly on qualification basis.

Mr. Kale noted that the House of Representatives and Senate has passed short-term rental legislation. The Conference Committee will take this up in early summer and then there will be guidance and a final bill hopefully by early summer. The state will have a taxing component, which would provide the incentive of a revenue stream, and possibly a requirement for STR companies to register their short-term rental properties. The legislation will require local acceptance and he stated that Cambridge is ahead of the game and the legislation will give tools for compliance. There will be revenue involved for Cambridge.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that when there are ordinance enforcement issues the Law Department works with Inspectional Services and will appear in court on the violation, though it has not happened yet. Cambridge has tried to keep up with what other communities are doing.

Ms. Bayer explained that Boston passed a short-term rental ordinance and is more restrictive than Cambridge. It has been contentious with Airbnb. Airbnb is not happy. Somerville is considering but has not adopted anything yet. Lynnfield has banned short term rentals. Cambridge is ahead of the game. Other attorneys are involved in short-term rentals of condos where landlords are using condos as short-term rentals. This is a developing area and the enforcement side has not caught up with and there can be difficulties. Airbnb will work with the Commonwealth to make this happen more easily.

City Solicitor Glowa commented that the taxation is a serious issue and will assist in the registration. Mr. Singanayagam stated that the City has investigated hotels.com and other platforms. Enforcement letters have stopped 27 properties. Mr. McIsaac spoke about the enforcement challenges of those who have not registered. There are no addresses listed and some homes are LLC or owners do not live in property. It is time consuming to issue a violation letter; screen shots are used. When there is an address a letter is sent to owner who is informed of the ordinance and that they must register. If the violation in the form of continued advertising persists a cease and desist letter is sent and then fine is issued. Ms. Daglian stated that another challenge is the primary resident and driver’s licenses are being changed.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the residential exemption. Ms. Daglian stated that it is not just the residential exemption; some do claim residential exemption. Mr. Kale commented that this is a work in progress. Mr. McIsaac stated that an owner stated that she did not live in the short-term rental; then this person came in with a driver’s license and residential exemption and it is difficult to determine whether rooms are being rented illegally. The area inspected is limited to that area associated with the Short-Term Rental which can also be a challenge. Mr. Kale stated that between Inspectional Services access and the Law Department there is evidence to enforce. He stated that the state legislation will help.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there are decoys sent to rent these rooms and why is this not done. City Solicitor Glowa noted that this needs to be considered but they have not looked at this yet. Attorney Bayer stated that staff has gone through the platform as if they are going to rent but never actually rent. Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern, Mr. Durbin asked in what way is Boston ordinance more restrictive. Attorney Bayer responded that it is only for owner-occupied and not renters. Mr. Reardon stated that Boston is more restrictive than Cambridge. It is a good sign that they are following Cambridge, but Airbnb may be having trouble dealing with multiple jurisdictions as other towns and states start to regulate the industry.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that The Chronicle had an article on short-term rentals. She commented that Cambridge is missing out on $3.5million in revenue. Mr. Kale stated that the revenue generating component will not be available in FY19.

Councillor Kelley stated that his assistant Mark Gutierrez has information from a website on short-term rentals. Mr. Gutierrez stated that there was a data scraper called Airdna that seems to be accurate. In Cambridge 1,570 active rentals; 53% for entire unit; 46% private rooms; 1-2 bedrooms are the rental size. Total cumulative rental is 6180 total units available.

Councillor Carlone asked what the scale is. Mr. Gutierrez stated that this is to see if it is worth finding a third-party data scraper. There are super-hosts, multi-listing hosts and single listing hosts. There are 570 listing one unit and are broken down by the hosts. This leave 1,000 hosts to be split with super-host or multi-listing hosts. Mr. Kale stated that this does not represent actual addresses per GIS. Councillor Kelley agreed that this does not give addresses and asked what the City can do to get the addresses. Ms. Daglian stated that City spoke to Airbnb and they do not give addresses. There is a range of 1500-2100-unit listings that was received from another vendor. The data scraping accuracy is lower; it would yield results. Mr. Kale noted that after the legislation is passed there will be a registration process this will allow the City to identify properties.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked can the state law deny Airbnb. City Solicitor Glowa responded that they must meet local regulations. Mr. Reardon stated that Airbnb testified and agreed to cooperate with the state. He added that cooperation will be different at the state level.

Councillor Kelley stated that Cambridge is at the same place that it was three months ago. There are more short-term rentals that have not registered than those who have registered. He stated that state legislature may not increase compliance.

Mr. Kale commented that Airbnb property owners received a letter and the City did get registration. He stated that the City Manager is committed to capture as many short-term rental properties to get to where the City needs to be, it may just take longer than we would like.

Councillor Carlone asked if the three inspectors were existing or was staff increased. Mr. Singanayagam responded that these are existing housing inspectors; work can be done with current staff, but City will bump up staff if needed. Councillor Carlone stated that 10% has been done in three months. Mr. Kale stated that when the state barrier is gone there will be inspections and there will be compliance to capture those who need to be captured. Councillor Carlone stated that this is a big issue for condos being rented. Mr. Kale stated that if a condo is used as a short-term rental they still must register. This can be augment with the scraping or more surveillance will be used. Mr. Reardon explained that once there is a data base from the state where STRs must register, things will get easier. Once this is in place the City will get to the bottom of who is doing what where. There can only be one primary residence. Councillor Carlone stated that if a unit is rented; taxes are higher and one of his fears is that the rental income could double. He asked could the second unit be taxed differently. Mr. Reardon stated that it would be taxed as a unit without a residential exemption.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about hiring an additional part-time inspector. Mr. Singanayagam stated that when the City has the addresses then there may be a need for additional staff. Mr. Kale noted that the City Manager will provide additional resources if needed.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that it could be a while for the state to get the registry going. Mr. Reardon stated that he thinks it will be done by the end of June as there is money involved. Mr. Kale noted that this is important for the state to get this done. City Solicitor Glowa stated that state legislation requires local registration within 60 days.

Councillor Kelley stated that he wished he shared the enthusiasm with the state passing legislation. He is concerned that this is being put on the back burner. It is unfair for those who have registered. He asked if the state does not give the City the tools it needs is there a backup plan. Mr. Singanayagam stated that the City has quotes from data scrapers. The City is holding off on using them at this time. City Solicitor Glowa announced that this is subject to procurement laws. Ms. Daglian noted that there are quotes; but it has not been put out to bid yet.

Mr. Kale stated that the scope of services needs to be tight and that the vendor can provide the specificity needed. The scope of services is being worked on. He stated that if the state does not yield what is needed does the City have a Plan B. The best vehicle is the state registration process and a data scraper may be needed if some short-term rentals fall through the cracks. Mr. Reardon stated that if state-wide legislation passes, there will be more cooperation with the vendors who will be more willing to work with the City. Mr. Kale stated that the legislation will pass this summer and the City will continue to get updates.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked does this have to pass this legislative session. Mr. Reardon stated that it is part of this budget. Councillor Kelley commented that it is not inconceivable that in November there will not be a state registration. Mr. Kale stated that when legislation is passed the City will have to see the cooperation of the Airbnb’s and the City anticipates that they will provide the necessary information.

Mr. Kale stated that there will be a 60 days state requirement for inspection. Mr. Reardon noted that there could be an emergency preamble. He further stated that normal legislation goes into effect in 60 days. Mr. Kale noted that this is revenue for the state and it gives them more impetus for passage. Councillor Kelley stated that he thought the registry will run into its own problems.

Councillor Toomey asked about the complaints at the court; how many and where is the City on this. Ms. Glowa said that at this point there have been no court cases. Mr. Singanayagam stated that there is a hearing next week for non-compliance. The property owner has been fined every day. Councillor Toomey asked how does this process work. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she will provide this information later. She stated that what is being used now is code violation.

Councillor Toomey noted that this is blatant disregard for the City ordinance; people are upset. He spoke about increasing the fines to $1,000 to send a message to illegal operators. He wanted the number of violation that are in court.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that in NY when the governor signed the law; Airbnb filed a law suit. She stated that there will be litigation. The City needs to be prepared for this lawsuit and a Plan B.

Councillor Kelley asked if the fine could be changed. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the negative; it is a state law. Councillor Kelley questioned is this the only enforcement mechanism. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there would need to be a crime to allow different enforcement mechanisms. She further explained that under Chapter 90 police do enforcement; but civil violation the police do not enforce. She does not see this as trespass and is not certain that an illegal renter is violating any laws. Councillor Kelley spoke about using the street performance ordinance and enforcement powers. He stated that it appears that the City does not care because nothing happens. He wanted other mechanism of enforcement. Mr. Singanayagam stated that this is a zoning violation and the City can issue cease and desist order and then go to court.

Councillor Kelley asked how the City could intervene in the short-term rental by the users. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she will meet with the Commissioner of Inspectional Services to see how the Law Department can assist in enforcement. Councillor Carlone asked if the court agrees it is a zoning violation, what is penalty. Mr. Singanayagam responded that the City can fine $300. Councillor Toomey commented but the owner is making $1,000 so it is still a net plus even with the fine.

Councillor Kelley stated that if the use is illegal and people are that illegal use, why would the City feel it cannot state that the use is illegal to the people doing the illegal activity, which in this case would be renting units that are not allowed to be rented in Cambridge. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the police do not have the authority to ask people to leave and this is a question to see if this is in the scope of the work of police. She will discuss enforcement with the Commissioner of Inspectional Services.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she does not want the police showing up at short-term rental properties; this could lead to discrimination.

Councillor Zondervan stated that doing what can be done by the staff and City Council, there is no need to be this aggressive with renters of short-term rental units. He wanted to let staff respond to the new regulations and then be more aggressive. Councillor Kelley noted that separate from the registration the neighbors are complaining. Councillor Zondervan noted that the neighbors need to complain about noise or other issues. Mr. Kale announced that this will discussed and the ability of the City to execute will be done immediately.

Councillor Carlone encouraged the state to fine whatever the rent is that is being charged.

Councillor Kelley stated that this will be discussed departmentally and then go to the state to increase the fines.

At 5:16pm Councillor Kelley opened the hearing to public comment.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, suggested the City use its Subpoena power to get information from Airbnb.

Public comment was closed at 5:16pm by Councillor Kelley.

Councillor Kelley stated that the next step is to meet again on the matter.

The following communications were received:

Communication from Lauren K. Gibbs, 3 Newport Road, requesting that the short-term rental policy be upheld (ATTACHMENT B).

Communication from Megan Brook, 103 Inman Street, transmitting opposition to non-resident owners to rent their property and supported a policy where residents may host short-term occupants in their homes subject to lease or condominium agreements (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:17pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #7
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on May 23, 2018 at 2:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss an Arts Overlay District ordinance that would achieve the goals of creating and preserving spaces for the arts in the Central Square Cultural District.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Siddiqui, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Carlone; Mayor McGovern; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Project Planner; Pardis Saffari, Senior Economic Development Specialist; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director, Community Development Department (CDD); Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Wil Durbin, Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern; Nora Bent; Liana Ascolese; Anna Lee; Allison Daley;, and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Sarah Gallop, Co-Director, Office of Government and Community Relations, MIT; Michael Monestime, Executive Director, Central Square Business Association; Patrick Barrett; Chatham Sullivan; Jessie Smith; Anya Bear; Callie Chapman; Greta Pradhan; Judith Nathans; Robert LaTremouille; Robert Winters; and Marc Levy.

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

She gave an overview of the agenda for the hearing (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Mallon read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT C).

Jason Weeks stated that there are three compelling reasons to discuss this issue: the loss of the EMF building along with the need to be ahead of the type of change that is taking place, the timing as we are in the midst of the re-designation of Central Square as a Cultural District by the Massachusetts Cultural Council, and a value statement for the City of Cambridge. He provided the committee with a memo regarding arts-related uses in Central Square (ATTACHMENT D).

Michael Monestime stated that the timing is right. He said that there has been a loss of cultural assets in Central Square. He said that Central Square has hosted large-scale event such as the Riverfest and the World’s Fair. He said that the Taste of Cambridge and Jazzfest have left Central Square and it would be great to retain these cultural events in Central Square. He said that the shift in property ownership in Central Square from small level property owners to mid-size and larger ownership is an issue. He said that there is new energy and advocacy in Central Square and he is trying to galvanize energy towards a business improvement district. He said that he would like to see a level of activation that can be action-oriented and quick-moving.

Geeta Pradhan, Cambridge Community Foundation (CCF), said that Cambridge is an amazing community because of the arts and culture in the city. She said that the percent for arts program was cut to $100,000 per project. She urged the city to think strategically about the arts in a community that is based on innovation. She said that CCF funds $200,000 to arts organizations for programming and the capacity of these organizations. She said that over the past three years Central Square has changed. She said that in the evening, there are people milling around very few buildings. She noted the need to invest in public art and arts organizations as well as their capacity and programming. She said that they have made a small commitment of $20,000 because they feel it is important to provide support to the business association to maximize the energy. She said that the Central Square area is becoming gentrified. She said that the ownership patterns are changing and that can be a kiss of death. She said that the business makeup is changing. She urged the city to look at how to preserve the arts organization in Cambridge, but in a way that benefits the residents of the community. She added that she looks forward to supporting this effort.

Sarah Gallop said that MIT cares about Central Square. She noted that MIT cares about Central Square. She noted that MIT is positioned between two very different squares. She said that there is a different strategy when thinking about how to increase vibrancy in each square. She said that MIT documents its property ownership in a town gown report each year. She said that MIT attempts to bring vitality to Central Square. She gave an overview of MIT’s contributions to Central Square (ATTACHMENT E).

Amanda Garrity, Community Arts Center (CAC), stated that the public arts program has gotten bigger with partnership. She said that she is interested in hearing the conversation particular to the zoning ordinance but more specifically to arts education and where the CAC can play a role.

Patrick Barrett said that he is board member of CSBA. He explained that he is the owner of a property that is being converted to a boutique hotel. He said that there has been a lot of discussion around Central Square and noted that there are many things from the C2 study that should have been adopted years ago that could have been ground work. He said that it is important to bring in the partners like MIT and other property owners to talk about what is wanted. He explained that as a developer, the ordinance tells him what the city wants. He said that this is a top-level issue. He stated that the City must think about what it wants Central Square to look like in the next hundred years.

Councillor Siddiqui said that the timing is right. She noted that she has focused the bulk of the conversation on the potential of Central Square but noted that it is important to the current state of Central Square as well as its potential future. Ms. Farooq said that the K2C2 study was one of the most fun projects that she has worked on. She emphasized the city’s commitment to Central Square. She said that the city invests a significant amount in the day-to-day upkeep of Central Square. She explained that the city is making infrastructure investments such as the work that was done on Western Avenue and the upcoming work on River Street. She noted that currently, work is being conducted on South Massachusetts Avenue which is a gateway into the Central Square. On a smaller scale, there are significant investments that are part of the commitment to help Central Square to be the special place that it has been historically. She said that there is a richness of partners in Central Square and there have been a series of recommendations that emerged from the C2 process. She noted that a majority of those recommendation have been adopted yet there are some that remain.

Jeff Roberts stated that another complication that is faced when putting together material and talking about zoning for the arts is the fundamental question of what is art. He said that art could encompass many things and they are trying to address this issue. He gave an overview of the Community Development Department’s memo regarding arts-related uses in Central Square (ATTACHMENT F). He said that in each case there are tradeoffs to consider. He said that there are always opportunities to be more specific in zoning about what we mean by a particular use. He said that if the goal is to try to promote a particular kind of use you must be careful because creating a definition could result in conflict in the future. He said that there are ways that zoning can promote particular kinds of uses. He said that incentives could be broadened. He said that it is important to remember that incentives are a reverse regulation. He said that there is a tradeoff in terms of incentives.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if we have an idea of what percentage of what arts usage are. Mr. Roberts responded that he does not know as it depends on how broadly or narrowly the definition of arts is. He said that if the definitions are similar to Union Square in Somerville, it is a fairly broad percentage. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if Somerville defines arts as a type of retail. Mr. Roberts responded that it is a basket of uses that stretches across use categories. He said that the range of uses would fall under different use categories but they have attempted to group together as a separate category.

Patrick Barrett said that the biggest elephant in the room as it relates to zoning in Central Square is the design guidelines. He said that the biggest obstacle is not having a real set of design guidelines. Mr. Roberts said that the zoning has changed a couple of times. He said that it makes sense to have cohesive zoning and design guidelines. Ms. Farooq said that it is a good idea and added that CDD can update the design guidelines. She explained that one of the challenges that they found with certain uses is the hybridization of uses which is not addressed in the zoning regulations. She noted that they are still trying to determine how to address this issue.

Geeta Pradhan said that she comes from a design background. She said that we must address what we want for Central Square. She said that she is concerned that the CDD memo misses the spirit of Central Square. She said that that we do not want to get caught up in the mechanics. She said that Central Square sits in the middle of low and working-class neighborhoods and she is not seeing an opportunity for the community to become part of this space. She urged the committee to be creative about what it wants to see. She said community engagement would be valuable.

Mayor McGovern asked Mr. Weeks about the loss of various festivals. He asked what is in the way of moving from talking about how we miss festivals to creating other opportunities. Mr. Weeks responded that the biggest impediment is funding. He said that we must talk about the opportunity to build partnerships and enhance funding. Mayor McGovern said that he would like to see the city move from talking about lost opportunities to action. He said that if it is a question of funding, we must figure out how to make it happen.

Mayor McGovern said that in the CDD memo it talks about the artist studios that are currently allowed but noted that we are not seeing them. He asked if people view them as not financially viable. Ms. Hemmerle said that it is a difficult because zoning will never solve the problem of being a victim of its own success. She said that the Economic Development Department attempts to affect changes by offering grants and workshops. She said at the business summit they discuss the bigger issue of workforce development. She said that they are finding that space is unaffordable.

Mayor McGovern asked if the city can make an Arts Overlay District that has incentives but the incentives are not guaranteed. He asked how the city can step up. He noted that another part of the conversation should be around partnerships and municipal ownership.

Patrick Barrett said that you give developers tools via guidelines. He said that we must design from the top down. He said that current design guidelines cannot be from 1987.

Councillor Mallon said that there are artist studios above Au Bon Pain. She said if there are ways to incentivize second and third floor spaces, that is something the city should do. She said that the city must be intentional about how we create spaces. She said that neighborhood participation is imperative throughout the process. She said that we must determine how to create a space for artists and retain the artists that the city currently has. As it relates to programs in Kendall Square, she said that the city could incentivize for creative space. Ms. Farooq said that Mr. Roberts described something similar in Union Square. She said that the city should evaluate that. She noted that space does not have to be on the ground floor and that would offer more flexibility. She noted that it is a challenge when a requirement is imposed, particularly in Central Square where the parcels are small. She said that the basic idea is that there is a mechanism that has been used in Kendall Square that could be something to consider.

Councillor Carlone said that if the vision for Central Square is to make it more of a dramatic or strong arts district, the city must invest. He said that it could be done by setting the character of the square with light fixtures with a special element, sculptures, indoor and outdoor cafes, etc. He said that it is all these things that add to the public domain that are not there. He said that if there was a fountain in Jill Rhone Park, kids would hang out there. He said that setting public domain which includes money and programming will make this happen. He said that we need to think broadly and tie the arts into other needs in the city such as Pre-K. He said that the notion of closing Massachusetts Avenue for the Jazz Festival is wonderful. He said that before zoning is done, it is important to envision where you are going. He noted his agreement to update the zoning design guidelines.

Mr. Weeks said that he concurs with Councillor Carlone. He added that he does not think we should forget about the opportunity to invest in ideas and to be open to new ideas. He noted the need to be open to artists to hear their thoughts. For very reasonable financial investments, it is helpful to say that we are open to ideas and see what manifests. He said that sometimes the work along the way leads us to better understand what we can do as a city.

Michael Monestime said that the CSBA is in support of more ideas and more activation. He said that the larger conversation is challenging and it will take time for itself to play out. He said that the CSBA has been trying to increase small scale activation. He said that there will be a Central Square mural project in the fall. He said that they had a design charrette at Carl Barron Plaza which was very beneficial. He said that while this conversation is a larger one, there are some low-hanging fruit that can become metrics to rally people to support the arts. He said that the CSBA is a small nonprofit and funding is a challenge. He said that he continues to work with the partnerships.

Marc Levy said that this is the conversation that should have taken place in January 2012 when the Deborah Mason School of Dance came before the City Council. He said that the city received testimony from arts organizations at the same time talking about affordability. He said that this conversation needs to be about what can be done quickly to support the arts. He said that another milestone was in September 2015 when the City Council heard from artists and musicians about the busking fee that Boston and Somerville do not charge for. He said that the City of Cambridge said no to this. He said that permitting does not mean that you must charge a fee. He said that the busking fee should be cancelled or cancel the fee in Central Square which will drive buskers back to the square. He said that this is not the urgent conversation that is being held right now.

George Metzger, 90 Antrim Street, urged the City Council not to go to more regulations and codification. He said that the arts will tell you what they are and you will love it.

Councillor Siddiqui noted that there is an Ordinance hearing on June 12, 2018 on busking.

Councillor Siddiqui highlighted some of the topics and suggestions that have been discussed at the hearing including updating the design guidelines, funding and investment, ideas of activation of spaces, outcomes and who is involved in the process, and the benefit to residents. She added that CDD would like to gain a sense of what uses are being discussed.

Councilor Zondervan said this is a different conversation and he is frustrated because the tools are limited and the challenges are large. He said that there are no artists to help form the conversation. He said that the city needs to fully include the community that it is trying to cultivate. He said that the fundamental problem is financial because we are a victim of our own success which causes displacement of other types of activities that are not able to keep up. He said that in order to counteract this, the city must financially support the uses it wants to see. He said that another issue is that the Central Square Overlay District is tiny compared to the size of the city. He said that the EMF building would not fall in the zone. He said that the city must address the problem more broadly as it is only focusing along the corridor on Massachusetts Avenue. He said that he agrees with Mr. Metzger as it relates to removing the regulations and letting the creativity flow but added that if the city does not regulate for what it wants, the city will get something else.

Patrick Barrett said that the ordinance causes roadblocks as to what can be done. He said that if it can’t be done in Central Square which is a cultural district, it will be difficult to done anywhere else. He said that while he agrees with Mr. Levy, funding is a huge issue. He said that the EMF building has many complications about what can be done there. He said that we have 54 zoning districts in the city. He said that he would like elimination of busking and design guideline changes.

Councillor Mallon said that she questioned if the city should look at the idea of making a Central Square Overlay 2.0 that would address ideas that were not addressed previously. She said that she likes the idea of focusing on the cultural district. She said that when she thinks about Central Square, she thinks about graffiti alley. She said that it is important to create feelings as we create the capacity to have the artists here. She said that she sees MIT being a large part of this conversation. She said that she agrees with the update of design guidelines. She said that as it relates to uses and use categories, Somerville has a category called arts and creative enterprise use. She said that this should be considered an actionable item.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that she fears that a lot of the incentives that are being discussed are premised on new building projects. She said that in terms of pinning a lot of hopes on redeveloping spaces to get arts, we may displace a lot of the existing uses that are not visible. She said unless you give a property owner a greater incentive to keep arts use, you will see less and less. She said that unless we are intentional about the public investment, it will be just window dressing. She noted that the city does not have a municipal civic venue. She said that it is all worth the conversation and she agrees with cancelling the street busking fee. She said that Central Square’s history is important and if all the buildings are replaced with newer buildings, we will have lost the character that makes Central Square different from Kendall Square. She stated that visioning is very important.

David Kale noted that the city will be spending $31 million dollars on the Foundry Building and that the city is making significant investment in the arts.

Mayor McGovern said that Central Square has also gone through a number of changes through the years. He said that this will always happen. He said that Councillor Simmons and he have had conversations with MIT about the MIT Museum and different possibilities and ideas for that space. He noted that Councillor Simmons has worked for years on a Cambridge museum. He said that when thinking about artist space, it doesn’t just have to be in Central Square. He said that there may be other parts of the city where we can have live/work space. He said that he does not think we need another study. He said that he there was political pressure around the adoption of C2 and what ended up happening is that to a large extent, everything was thrown away. He said that Central Square has been studied and there are a lot of good recommendations that could be implemented. He noted that it will take particular will on the part of the City Council.

Geeta Pradhan said that we need to shift the distinction from arts to culture. She said that she heard about the short-term versus the long-term. She said that we should look at short-term wins that enable activity and spontaneity. She said that to look at low-hanging fruit allows for quicker wins that incorporate the spirit and vision. We must keep eye on longer term issues. She said that ultimately if people don’t have ownership they will be subject to market forces.

Councillor Carlone said that he was talking about adding sculpture to lampposts. He said that every aspect of public domain should be unique and have an artistic bend. He said that kids love a series of small pieces. He said that emphasis should be cultural but most places that are active have restaurants. He said that the restaurants are an asset in Central Square. He said that there are quite a few historic buildings that should be specially treated in Central Square and most art districts are in old building districts for numerous reasons. He said that we need to make Central Square a place where you want to walk to on your own. He said that Harvard Square used to be that way when he moved here.

Amanda Garrity said that we must think about furthering creative placemaking. When considering what we are providing and how we are providing it, we should talk to the community. She said that she has attended community meetings run by the city and participation has been low. She said that outreach is imperative and ideas will come from that.

Ms. Farooq said that she wanted to put contextual ideas specifically to the zoning piece. She noted that there has been discussion about incentives and the overlay and what might be the extent of the overlay. In terms of incentive, she said that zoning only has a couple of things that could be incentives. She said that there are competing priorities competing for those incentives. She said that CDD is working on an Affordable Housing Overlay that will hinge upon creating incentives for affordable housing projects. She said that it may be important to think about constraining geographically so that it is not competing with other priorities of the City Council. As it relates to live/work space, she said that it is not a market desire to see live/work space. She said that in conversations with artists and the Arts Council, it ends up being about what it costs. She said that the challenge of zoning is that it can only address the creation of the space itself. She said that the city has been making gradual progress on C2 implementations.

Councillor Siddiqui said that this is the beginning of a conversation. She said that short-term and long-term approaches are integral to the goals. She said that conversations will continue.

Councillor Siddiqui thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:06pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Chair