32. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-60, regarding small business parking pilot.
Referred Back to City Manager - Kelley

July 29, 2019
Re: Response to Awaiting Report No. 18-60, Policy Order #133 of 5/14/18 Re: Report on a small business parking pilot that would allow temporary on-street employee parking during typical daytime operating hours

Dear Mr. DePasquale:

We have prepared this legal opinion in response to Awaiting Report No. 18-60, Policy Order #133 of 5/14/18, which requests a report on the feasibility of implementing a small business parking pilot that would allow temporary on-street employee parking during typical daytime operating hours. Specifically, Awaiting Report No. 18-60 requests that the City Manager "work with the Traffic and Parking Department and the Economic Development Department to ... determine the feasibility of implementing a program that would allow day or temporary [parking] passes for small business [employees] during daytime operating hours." In my opinion, as discussed further below, allowing employees of local businesses to park in on-street resident-only parking spaces may be found to be contrary to the purposes for which the City's resident permit parking program was established. Therefore, if there is a future challenge to the constitutionality of the City's resident permit parking program, allowing local business employee parking on residential streets could impact the City's defense of the resident permit parking program.

The Department of Traffic, Parking and Transportation was established by Special Act, Chapter 455 of the Acts of 1961 (the "Act"), which has been amended on several occasions. In 1972 and 1981, the Act was amended by Chapter 340 of the Acts of 1972 and Chapter 166 of the Acts of 1981, to authorize an exception from parking prohibitions in specified residential areas for vehicles of City residents. This is the legal authority for the residential permit parking regulation that designates certain streets for resident parking only and requires residential parking permits. City of Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation Regulations, Schedule 7B (2014).

In 1977, an individual was charged with a parking violation arising out of parking on a City street that was designated for residential parking only, and was found guilty and appealed the conviction. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the residential permit parking regulation adopted under the authority of the Act on the basis that "the parking regulation discriminates against him as a nonresident in violation of his right to equal protection of the law," and the case was reported to the Supreme Judicial Court (the "SJC"). Com. v. Petralia, 372 Mass. 452, 455 (1977). The SJC upheld the residential permit parking regulation and found that "the classification made by the regulation bears a rational relation to proper legislative objectives." Id. at 452.

In reaching this conclusion, the SJC looked at whether allowing only City residents to park on certain streets, while excluding others from parking on those streets, is rationally related to a legitimate State purpose. The SJC held that the legitimate State purpose furthered by the Act is the "the public interest in reducing highway congestion, in reducing air pollution and in encouraging the use of public transportation in place of private transportation." Id. at 457. The SJC further held that the exclusion of non-residents in favor of Cambridge residents is rationally related to this legitimate State purpose because:

[t]hose Cambridge residents most interested in parking in the restricted area are those who live in it. If they leave their cars parked near their homes, they contribute nothing to air pollution or to the congestion of moving traffic on the highways. In general, those Cambridge residents who do not live in the restricted area but are permitted to park in it have a shorter distance to travel and will contribute less to traffic congestion and pollution than will persons driving to the restricted area from other municipalities.

Id. at 458. In conclusion, the SJC found that the rational distinction made by the Cambridge regulation is founded on vehicle use, and that place of residence is a reasonable means of measuring that use. Id. at 459.

Accordingly, if employees of local businesses were allowed to park in on-street resident-only parking spaces, the City's resident permit parking program could be subject to a challenge on the basis that business employee parking, which necessarily includes residents of other municipalities, weakens the legitimate State interest, i.e., mitigating traffic congestion and air pollution, and encouraging use of public transportation, that is furthered by the resident permit parking regulation. Indeed, allowing local business employees to park in on-street resident-only parking spaces would likely increase the number of cars that are contributing to congestion, air pollution, and private vehicle use, and it would likely reduce parking availability to Cambridge residents who, by leaving their cars on streets nearest their homes and taking public transportation, are not contributing to congestion, air pollution, and private vehicle use. Therefore, if local business employees are allowed to park in on-street resident-only parking spaces, the City's resident permit parking program may be vulnerable to a legal challenge on the basis that the restriction is no longer rationally related to a legitimate State interest.

Very truly yours, Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor

4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the proposed Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance. [ON OR AFTER APR 22, 2019 THE QUESTION COMES ON PASSAGE TO BE ORDAINED]

To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am submitting the attached proposed Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance to the City Council which would, among other things, create a social equity and economic empowerment applicant preference for proposed cannabis businesses in the City. The recent zoning ordinance passed on December 17, 2018 by the Council provided at §11.806 that the zoning for cannabis businesses would take effect on April 20, 2019 “or upon passage of a ‘Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance,’ whichever comes first.” After the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance is enacted, actions required by the City Council relating to cannabis businesses in the City would be completed.

This draft Ordinance creates an independent permitting process that all cannabis businesses in the City will be required to satisfy as a condition to operating in Cambridge. The Ordinance applies to Cannabis Retail Stores, Cannabis Cultivators, Cannabis Product Manufacturers and Cannabis Transporters. The Ordinance creates an initial two-year period of exclusivity allowing only Priority Applicants, as defined in the Ordinance, to obtain a Cannabis Business Permit in the City. After the two years, other applicants may also be granted Cannabis Business Permits. Group A Priority Applicants are defined in the Ordinance as those certified by the Commonwealth as Economic Empowerment or Social Equity Program applicants, or a Women or Minority Owned business. Group B Priority Applicants are existing Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (“RMDs”) selling medical cannabis who also want to sell retail cannabis. All applicants must satisfy the ten permitting requirements listed in section 5 of the Ordinance.

The permitting process will be primarily administered and enforced by the Inspectional Services Department. However, the Community Development Department, Public Health Department and the Police Department will also have a role to play in the administration and enforcement of the Ordinance provisions. In brief, the Ordinance proposes the following steps in the overall City permitting process for Cannabis Businesses:

a. Priority Applicants to request certification as such by the Director of the Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department;

b. All applicants to enter into a Host Community Agreement with the City to be executed by the City Manager and the applicant;

c. All applicants to apply for and obtain a Planning Board special permit in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;

d. All applicants to obtain all other permits and approval required by State and local laws and regulations to the extent that such other permits and approvals can be obtained prior to the City’s issuance of the Cannabis Business Permit; and

e. All applicants to obtain the Cannabis Business Permit from the Inspectional Services Department provided for by the attached Ordinance.

The Cannabis Business Permit will be subject to annual renewal and will be subject to revocation if the holder violates the applicable laws and/or permit conditions. Both ISD and CDD will have authority to promulgate regulations to implement the Ordinance with respect to their respective Ordinance responsibilities.

This Ordinance 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. This draft 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, Department of Human Services Programs and License Commission.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

[Draft Ordinance] [Advertised Draft Ordinance] [Zondervan memo] [Kelley Memo]

O-6     July 29, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has adopted a Complete Streets policy and has formally committed to Vision Zero, with goals of eliminating transportation fatalities and serious injuries, as well as continuing to reduce crash rates for all modes; and
WHEREAS: In 2016, after conducting a study that found increased crash rates for heavier trucks, ranging from 47% to 400% increases, the USDOT issued a final recommendation that no changes be made to increase relevant truck size and weight limits; and
WHEREAS: The study also found that longer double trailers had a 22-foot increased stopping distance, bigger blind spots, wider turning radiuses, and a lessened ability to make evasive maneuvers, demonstrating there are unique dangers associated with these vehicles, especially in an urban environment like Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: It is already extremely challenging to manage the large volume of commercial vehicle traffic in Cambridge, and too often, trucks have been involved in crashes with pedestrians and cyclists, many times with fatal consequences; and
WHEREAS: The larger and heavier gasoline- and diesel-powered trucks are, the more they compound the drastic contributions of motor vehicles to the climate crisis; and
WHEREAS: Federal proposals that would raise maximum semi-truck weights from 80,000 to 91,000 pounds and increase the length of double trailers from 28’ each to 33’ threaten the City’s efforts to protect pedestrian and cyclist safety and would lead to additional greenhouse gas emissions from trucks, further exacerbating the climate crisis; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record opposing any proposal that would increase allowable semi-truck weight or trailer length without the ability to regulate such at the municipal level; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to Senator Ed Markey, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Congresswoman Katherine Clark and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-7     July 29, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: Open Meeting Law compliance can be a complex challenge for public officials, including both appointed and elected officials; and
WHEREAS: Issues include appropriate notice of public meetings, training of relevant officials, participation on list-serves and other email and digital communications and quorum attendance of elected officials at non-public meetings; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Government Operations/Rules and Claims Committee be and hereby is requested to coordinate with relevant representatives from the Attorney General’s office and the City Manager’s office to hold a meeting, to include City staff, to review Open Meeting Law requirements for elected and appointed City officials.

O-11     July 29, 2019  Amended
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: In the course of executing their ongoing responsibilities, City Councillors often have questions that require specific and immediate legal expertise; and
WHEREAS: The City Solicitor’s Office regularly provides guidance on a range of issues and across City departments, but is less able to provide individual representation or advice to Councillors on specific City Council matters, absent a formal City Council request for legal assistance, and may be limited in its ability to provide answers in as timely a fashion as City Councillors might want; and
WHEREAS: A City Council budget item for City Councillors to seek direct legal advice from a preselected private attorney(ies), while providing all relevant questions and legal opinions through City Council communications, would provide additional options and a more customized and possibly more timely response to issues for which City Councillors want specific legal guidance; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Government Operations/Rules and Claims Committee be and hereby is requested to coordinate with relevant staff to hold a meeting to discuss the feasibility of adding a private attorney budget item to the City Council budget.

O-16     July 29, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Brick sidewalks have been a signature characteristic of Cambridge for more than one hundred and fifty (150) years and this legacy helps distinguish Cambridge from less historical cities across the US; and
WHEREAS: Brick sidewalks, and brick buildings, beautify the City and reflect its history as one of the nation's earliest pre-Revolutionary municipalities; and
WHEREAS: This legacy of brick sidewalks is being reduced as brick sidewalks and, especially, their associated ramps across the City are being replaced, in part or in whole, by concrete or asphalt; and
WHEREAS: Wire cut bricks properly laid on a foundation of concrete can minimize vibrations for wheelchair users, mitigate trip hazards and improve drainage compared to concrete sidewalks while offering similar longevity and ADA accessibility options; and
WHEREAS: The current approach to sidewalk maintenance and replacement is inconsistent and results in many brick sidewalks being disrupted by construction cuts with makeshift patches of concrete or asphalt that remain in place often for years; and
WHEREAS: Replacing brick sidewalks with concrete sidewalks edged with a small strip of bricks is not replacing brick with brick nor is it consistent with the long history in the City of sidewalks paved completely with brick; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee be and hereby is requested to hold a hearing to review City policy on sidewalk surface treatments, with the goal of clearly establishing that where sidewalks are or traditionally were made of brick, the sidewalks should remain or become brick, when feasible after sidewalk work.

O-17     July 29, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR MALLON
WHEREAS: The urban mobility ecosystem is rapidly evolving and paving the way for new forms of personal transportation systems and technologies; and
WHEREAS: Future developments in this space are unknown, but the current landscape of Shared Mobility, while not perfect, offers convenience, safety, cleaner air, reduced traffic congestion, less road wear-and-tear, provides a more robust transportation network, and allows for the reclaiming of car-devoted real estate that may be returned to citizens in the form of housing, parks, and commercial space; and
WHEREAS: The attached zoning language intends to address the changing mobility landscape by supporting and allowing Shared Mobility options across the City; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the attached proposed zoning amendments to Articles 2.00 and 4.32 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to permit Shared Mobility be referred to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee for hearing and report.

Shared Mobility Platform

Proposed Zoning Amendments (highlighted)

1. Article 2.000 Definitions: Create new definition:

Shared Mobility Device. A mobility device such as a scooter, bicycle, car, or other transportation device that is made available for personal use to members or customers through a self-service automated reservation system, but not by means of a separate written agreement that is entered into each time a device is operated by a member or customer. A Shared Mobility Device must be owned, maintained, operated, and/or made available through a Shared Mobility Platform and may be privately owned. A shared mobility device does not include Carsharing Vehicles and Organizations as regulated in Section 6.24.

Shared Mobility Platform. An entity with a distributed fleet of Shared Mobility Devices, either owned by or made available through the Platform, that charges a use-based fee related to a specific device or for which the Platform provides services based on membership.

2. Article 4.32 Table of Use Regulations; Transportation, Communication & Utility Uses:

Add a new use category:

Open Space

Res A 1&2

Res B

Res C, C-1, C-1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 3, 3A, 3B

Off 1, 2A, 2, 3, 3A

Bus A-1, A-2, A-3

Bus A, A-4

Bus B, B-1, B-2

Bus C, C-1

Ind A-1, A-2

Ind A

Ind B-1, B-2

Ind B

Ind C

l. Shared Mobility Platform

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

O-21     July 29, 2019
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The City Council passed Chapter 2.128 Surveillance Technology Ordinance on Dec 10, 2018, which imposed a requirement that the City Manager seek approval from the City Council prior to acquiring or using certain surveillance technology, including Biometric Surveillance Technology and facial recognition software and databases; and
WHEREAS: Notwithstanding this existing check on the City’s authority to acquire and use face recognition technology or data derived thereof, the potential threats to residents’ civil rights and civil liberties that are unique to face recognition technology warrant its outright ban; and
WHEREAS: Facial recognition software can discriminate based on classes like race and gender; a 2018 report out of the MIT Media Lab and Microsoft “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification” found that while the “maximum error rate for lighter-skinned makes is 0.8%” in commercial gender classification systems, “darker skinned females are the most misclassified group (with error rates up to 34.7%);” and
WHEREAS: The use of face recognition technology can have a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech, with the technology being used in China to target ethnic minorities, and in the United States, it was used by police agencies in Baltimore, Maryland, to target activists in the aftermath of Freddie Gray’s death; and
WHEREAS: State Representative Dave Rogers (whose district includes parts of Cambridge) has filed legislation that would impose a moratorium on face recognition technology, and as recently as Thurs, July 25, 2019, Representative Ayanna Pressley introduced a bill before Congress that would:

1. Prohibit the use of biometric recognition technology in public and assisted housing units funded under HUD; and

2. Require HUD to submit a report to Congress that provides analysis on any known use of facial recognition technologies in public housing units; the impact of emerging technologies on tenants; the purpose of installing the technologies in the units; demographic information of impacted tenants, and; the impact of emerging technologies on vulnerable communities in public housing, including tenant privacy, civil rights and fair housing includes HUD federally assisted rental dwelling units;

WHEREAS: Three cities have already banned the use of facial recognition technology by municipal authorities, including San Francisco, Oakland (CA), and next door in Somerville; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the attached amendment to Chapter 2.128 Surveillance Ordinance Technology be forwarded to the Public Safety Committee for a hearing as soon as possible.

Amend Chapter 2.128 Surveillance Technology Ordinance by adding in “2.128.020 Definitions” a new definition:

(K) “Face Recognition Technology” means an automated or semi-automated process that assists in identifying an individual and/or capturing information about an individual, based on the physical characteristics of an individual’s face.

Also, by adding a new Section 2.128.075 Prohibition on City’s Acquisition and/or Use of Face Recognition Technology:

2.128.075 Prohibition on City’s Acquisition and/or Use of Face Recognition Technology

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter 2.128, it shall be unlawful for the City or any City staff to obtain, retain, request, access, or use:

1) Face Recognition Technology; or

2) Information obtained from Face Recognition Technology.

B. City staff’s inadvertent or unintentional receipt, access of, or use of any information obtained from Face Recognition Technology shall not be a violation of this Section 2.128.075 provided that:

1) City staff did not request or solicit the receipt, access of, or use of such information; and

2) City staff logs such receipt, access, or use in its Annual Surveillance Report as referenced by Section 2.128.075. Such report shall not include any personally identifiable information or other information the release of which is prohibited by law.

O-25     July 29, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: In March of 2014, the License Commission refused to allow UpperWest to open at its original location at 1001 Mass. Ave., despite having required UpperWest to invest money to build the space prior to applying for the liquor license, apparently in order to protect a neighboring bar from competition; and
WHEREAS: The owners of UpperWest, located at 1 Cedar Street, were issued a five-day liquor license suspension by the License Commission at a Nov 7, 2018 hearing, over what the Commission called an “egregious” threatening of fire inspectors during a Sept 29, 2018 inspection, despite inspectors testifying that they didn’t consider anything about the interaction to be physically threatening; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts ACLU has concluded that the License Commission’s action is in violation of First Amendment free speech and due process protections under the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, partially because residents and business owners have a right to object to how public employees are carrying out their duties; and
WHEREAS: Fire enforcement officials cited UpperWest over their use of tea light candles for mood lighting, even though two city officials later testified that Cambridge has no law prohibiting the use of candles in restaurants, and the state statute only governs the use of candles as “portable cooking equipment”, which were not in use at UpperWest for any period of time; and
WHEREAS: UpperWest has twice been unreasonably denied a fair and impartial hearing for a package store license application, one of which is now under appeal, with the License Commission determining that there was “no public need” despite overwhelming support and need expressed by the public; and
WHEREAS: UpperWest has been the target of persistent excessive enforcement and unfair denial of their right to fair and impartial hearings, possibly as retaliation for their criticism of Commission practices over the past five years, and exposing the License Commission’s failure to comply with state law in its handling of liquor licenses, and UpperWest owners representing Cambridge business owners in pursuing their legal rights against the city; and
WHEREAS: In its efforts to punish UpperWest, the city has repeatedly violated state law as determined by the Attorney General’s Office, including a violation of the Open Meeting Law in the creation of the decision to suspend UpperWest’s liquor license; and
WHEREAS: This conduct by the city is unacceptable and contrary to the stated council goal of “integrating businesses of all sizes into a thriving ecosystem”; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the License Commission and City Solicitor’s office to drop all charges against UpperWest and its owners, to reconsider UpperWest’s package store application, and to issue a public apology to UpperWest and its owners; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to investigate the License Commission’s extreme abuse of discretion and power in regards to UpperWest’s liquor license suspension and package store application denials; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to meet with UpperWest owners to discuss generally how the License Commission practices can be improved; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter no later than Sept 9, 2019.

O-35     July 30, 2019
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: A zoning petition was filed by the City Council on June 10, 2019 to amend Article 19 of the Zoning Ordinances regarding permit criteria; and
WHEREAS: The Ordinance Committee hearing was not scheduled in the required amount of time; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the attached zoning petition be refiled as of August 15, 2019 and be referred to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee for hearing and report.

Proposed Amendments to Article 19 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance
Description
With the alarming news that Eversource has reached maximum capacity in Cambridge for its
electrical infrastructure and is moving ahead with transfer station expansions at Alewife and
Putnam Ave, as well as planning a new transfer station in East Cambridge, at Fulkerson St., it’s
becoming glaringly obvious that our planning and approval processes for large developments in
the city do not fully account for the utility infrastructure needs of additional buildings. Upon
reviewing the zoning code we determined that the following changes may begin to address this
concern, and so we put them forward as a proposal for consideration by the council.
ADD TO Section 19.24: This section outlines the application procedures for large projects,
which require a Project Review Special Permit. It lists requirements such as a parking study, a
tree study, sewer and water infrastructure narratives, and a noise mitigation narrative. So it
seems relevant and appropriate to add requirements to this section around electrical service
infrastructure and gas service infrastructure narratives, which is what we have proposed below.
ADD TO Section 19.25.2: Add a “project specific urban design overview” requirement. This
requires a project specific urban design analysis and set of recommendations that are
presented to the planning board and the public.
ADD Section 19.25.3: Utility Impact Findings. This section requires the planning board to grant
the permit only if it finds that the utility impacts of the project would not be significant.
We further recommend that if these provisions are adopted, the application form be changed via
regulation to add the following requirements:
Electricity Service Infrastructure Narrative Project Review Special Permit (19.20)
(certified by Electrical Dept.)
Gas Service Infrastructure Narrative Project Review Special Permit (19.20) D
(certified by Dept. of Public Works)

Zoning Language
ADD to Section 19.24 :
(8)
Electric Service Infrastructure Narrative. The application shall include a report by the applicant
detailing the anticipated impact of the project on the city's electricity infrastructure and supply. It shall
indicate the likely improvements to infrastructure necessary to accommodate the identified impacts.
Where such determinations cannot be made at the time of application, the report shall indicate what
investigations must be undertaken by the applicant to make such determination, their anticipated
costs, and the schedule for their completion. The applicant shall provide certification that this report
has been submitted to the Electrical Department and the Electric Utility (Eversource).
(9)
Gas Service Infrastructure Narrative. The application shall include a report by the applicant detailing
the anticipated impact of the project on the city's methane gas delivery infrastructure and supply. It
shall indicate the likely improvements to infrastructure necessary to accommodate the identified
impacts. Where such determinations cannot be made at the time of application, the report shall
indicate what investigations must be undertaken by the applicant to make such determination, their
anticipated costs, and the schedule for their completion. The applicant shall provide certification that
this report has been submitted to the Public Works Department and the Gas Utility (Eversource).
EDIT Section 19.25.2:
Urban Design Findings. The Planning Board shall grant the special permit only if it finds
that the project is consistent with the urban design objectives of the city as set forth in
Section 19.30. In making that determination the Board may be guided by or make
reference to urban design guidelines or planning reports that may have been developed
for specific areas of the city, or in their absence, there shall be prepared a project specific urban
design overview that will be presented to the Planning Board and the public at the appropriate
hearing(s). They shall apply the standards herein contained in a reasonable manner to nonprofit
religious and educational organizations in light of the special circumstances applicable to nonprofit
religious and educational activities.
ADD Section 19.25.3:
Utility Impact Findings. The Planning Board shall grant the special permit only if it finds that the
project would not cause undue adverse impacts on the residents and the environment by requiring
extensive additional utility infrastructure to be added to the city, including electrical, gas, sewer,
stormwater and any other utility service.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on June 4, 2019 at 6:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay as it relates to the tree canopy, open space, green space and stormwater management.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux and Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Siddiqui; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department Iram Farooq; Housing Director Chris Cotter; Public Works Commissioner Owen O’Riordan; Superintendent of the Urban Forestry Division Andrew Putnam; Superintendent of Parks and Recreation David Webster; and Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Frey Meyer, 83 Hammond Street; John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street; and Derek Kopon, 8 Wright Street.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. Introductions were made.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he has a set of questions to stimulate the conversation. He spoke about the anticipated impacts of the Affordable Housing Overlay District (AHOD) on green space, open space, tree canopy, stormwater and the environment in general. He stated that he would start with some questions.

1. How much affordable housing is the City expecting to build?

Ms. Farooq stated that AHOD, if adopted, will be one of the tools to build affordable housing to support affordability in the City together with all other strategies including inclusionary and incentive zoning. The impact will not be a huge increase in the amount of affordable housing but will be significant from the perspective of enhancing the pool of available affordable housing. She spoke about an increase from the current 70 units to 90-100 units will be a successful outcome. Councillor Zondervan stated that this is 1,000 units over the next decade for the goal of affordable housing through AHOD mechanism. What are the environmental impacts to achieve this rate of affordable housing construction and without the AHOD there would be about 50-70 units per year. Mr. Cotter spoke about whether the City can deliver the same number of units at the same pace if bringing units on line as done currently. Overall the number of units will be the affordable housing goal and funding the AHOD will allow units to come on line more quickly, shorten the development cycle and require less subsidy per affordable units and will allow the City to do more with the resources available. Councillor Zondervan asked is if fair to state that it is expected that a few hundred additional unit if the AHOD is implemented in terms of the impact. Mr. Cotter stated that if there are higher development costs from higher land costs and longer permitting times that fewer units would be developed with the same amount of resources over the same amount of time. It is hard to predict the numbers because it depends on changes in development costs over time and land availability. He explained that land cost is the single most important component of the development costs. Councillor Zondervan asked if this means the difference is 100’s of units. Ms. Farooq stated that this is a fair assessment.

Councillor Zondervan asked question number two.

2. Where will affordable housing be built in the City. He stated that a goal of the AHOD is to distribute affordable housing throughout the city. What are the perimeters regarding the plots and where are the plots that will be built on in the City.

Mr. Cotter spoke about the approach taken putting together the affordable housing and looking at different development standards in different areas and whether there is a distinction with developing in major corridors versus residential areas. He stated that he expects to see more units brought on line in the major corridors due to larger buildings can be reviewed through the overlay provision given the way that affordable housing developers go about their work and looking for larger site where they can do 30-40-unit developments as opposed to a 6-8 unit in the residential areas. He explained that inclusion of the whole City in the proposal is important because it will allow the City to look at opportunities in areas where the City is not able to. The allowance in residential areas can begin to see the creation of affordable housing in residential areas.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the opportunity to do small scale development in residential areas. She stated that 6-8 units are not the density ratios that would make it possible and, in some cases, there would be more units in residential districts. She stated that the City needs to look at scenarios of what the zoning is in each residential district could do because the calculation of the ratios in the residential areas can produce 16-20 units on the side streets which is a greater density ratio. The corridors can support bigger buildings. She wanted to understand how the economic and the zoning would work for an affordable developer to potentially build more units to receive more value. She stated that this needs to be explained why this would not happen. Mr. Cotter stated that modeling is being reviewed for what would be the impact. The factor will be the size of the site. The larger lots will have larger buildings. This will be shared with the City Council when modeling is done to show the expected impact. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that with the AHOD and getting public funding is a lot of work for 6-8 units and may be more beneficial for larger building. The goal is to get as many units as possible and get larger lots. Ms. Farooq noted that everything is not always equal. She spoke about what site the City is able to access determines how many units are going to be accommodated on the site. She stated that the goal is to simplify the process and make it more competitive process and will still be a challenging prospect for developers to compete. The idea is to make this simpler. She spoke about smaller sites and the fact that they cannot accommodate 30 units and spoke about an efficiency of scale with soft costs and a community process. She commented that developers would choose to go to a larger site. She stated that below six units is difficult but six units and above where the feasible threshold lies and after this it is much bigger investment for the City and it is not possible to access the state funding. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that with the ratios in the overlay there is almost no lot in Cambridge below six would be an outcome.

Councillor Carlone asked if the graphics will be available by the June 25th Planning Board hearing. Ms. Farooq responded that it is the plan to have them for the hearing. Councillor Carlone stated this will make this clear and will be able to understand what 30% open space means. Will this be a range of sites including large and small sites? Mr. Cotter responded a range of sites. Councillor Carlone stated that what the Ordinance Committee is doing is that whoever is asking for zoning change that there be graphics that represent the character and size, so it can be evaluated. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that there are more than three variations where this can play out. This all goes to the open space without setbacks. More than three examples need to be seen. Councillor Carlone noted that any non-profit developer would have to do an analysis of the site and how does one integrate the spirit of the building so that it does not stand out as a sore thumb. This puts onerous on the architect and developer. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this needs to be in the zoning. Councillor Zondervan stated that he wanted more than three examples and wanted the City to go beyond the three examples. Ms. Farooq stated that additional material cannot be ready for June 25th Planning Board hearing.

Councillor Zondervan asked about the tree canopy on the impacts in question three.

3. Where are we with the Urban Forestry Master Plan Task Force recommendations and how will these interact with the AHOD if it gets adopted.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that consultants are in the process of drafting a white paper associated with the Urban Forestry Master Plan. There have been eleven task force meetings and two public meetings. He stated that an initial draft will be ready in July and will take comments regarding this. There will be an additional task force public hearing held in September and the final document will be produced by the end of the year. The interaction with the AHOD is in a holding pattern. He stated that the Tree Protection excludes affordable housing from its provisions and this will be the operating procedure until told otherwise as this process moves forward. He awaits the outcome of the AHOD. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that in the zoning it is mentioned that protecting the trees is a priority in the creation of affordable housing and this conflicts with the current Tree Protection ordinance. If there is no requirement for mature trees to be protected for affordable housing and open space is reduced it will have a negative impact on the tree canopy.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the Urban Forestry Task Force will not recommend changes to the Tree Protection Ordinance. Commissioner O’Riordan noted that there was no direction to change the Tree Protection Ordinance.

Councillor Mallon noted that some of the Just-A-Start and HRI potential sites that were lost as opportunities (because they were outbid) were covered with asphalt and there are opportunities to create a healthier tree canopy especially along the corridors if there is a requirement for open space along the corridors. She noted that former gray spaces could be turned into green space with the added benefit of providing affordable housing. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this has not been discussed with the Urban Forestry Task Force about this level of detail to create an overlay for affordable housing together with incentivizing additional tree canopy with this. He spoke about incentivizing by planting more trees and protecting the existing tree canopy.

Councillor Siddiqui asked for transparency sake to have a sense of how affordable housing developers work with preserving the tree canopy. She spoke about data to have about how many trees have been removed for the building of affordable housing and how many were replanted. She wanted data on this rather than assuming. Mr. Cotter stated that there are three sites under development now and cannot think about trees that were removed but will be looking into this and will provide the number of trees cut down for the housing. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about sites being developed, including those developed for market housing in places like Alewife and Kendall Square were formally industrial land. She stated that the Frost Terrace site development there was an effort to save a couple of mature trees. She added that there is a net gain under current conditions, but the concern is that the AHOD is taking this into areas that have not been the focus of economics and zoning where there are trees in green areas and are potentially now at risk.

Councillor Zondervan stated that yes, this will create opportunities in hardscape sites to add to the tree canopy. The challenge that is being faced is that the canopy has declined so much that the City has to take a hard look to not remove mature trees on sites where the City wants to build affordable housing and how this will be codified in the zoning. The Tree Protection Ordinance currently exempts affordable housing projects so there is no idea what will be added or removed before a project is approved or completed. He suggested considering a softer requirement so that the City is informed about what the developer will do if we do not require them to pay into a tree fund like for private developments. He added that it is worth thinking about how to not degrade the tree canopy as affordable housing is being added.

Councillor Mallon stated that this is a difficult conversation when weighing protecting the tree canopy against protecting vulnerable residents in our community and to not pit these two values against each other and to find creative ways to ensure that both valuable assets in the community are protected. She added that it is very difficult to have this binary conversation pitting two valuable things against one another.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about the potential impacts of the overlay. She stated that some of the affordable housing developers want to preserve trees and look forward to working with the City and coming up with potential language that works for both sides. She stated that the modeling and the data can inform some of the unknown. Councillor Zondervan agreed but wanted to have both trees and affordable housing. He added that trees are environmental protection for the residents. It would be an environmental injustice to build affordable housing without trees. This is the challenge because economically there will be trade off made about which sites can provide access and develop. He stated that it is important to think through the challenges and best protect the City against scenarios.

Ms. Farooq stated that the notion about documenting the impact is a good idea because it will be understood about what happened in the past and may not be able to speak about what might happen on the sites. This is easy to add, and it allows the City to understand the impacts and think through strategies to address this. She spoke about the environmental value of the tree that is being sought to protect. She stated that performance wise this is to impact heat island, stormwater and resilience. She spoke about other methods to achieve this on a site in instances where there may be an impact on trees. The affordable housing developers have been cooperative to work collaboratively with the City to come up with strategies to meet City goals. She spoke about creating a road map to meet the goals. She stated that on a particular site the City may end up in the binary situation. She stated that if the City can zoom out Citywide to balance the value of both trees and affordable housing there may be a greater chance of success.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the challenge is to find the balance with the requirements and need for flexibility. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about habitat for trees and the need for the definitions of permeable open space, private open space and green area work against mitigating heat island effects because permeable spaces can actually be paved with small stones or pavers which are not green space and could meet the open space requirement and be neither green nor cooling. She commented that if the City is serious about meeting these performance standards the City needs to look at the definition of open space in the AHOD.

Councillor Zondervan wanted to clarify open space and green space; what this means.

Ms. Farooq stated that open space is in the zoning definition section because there are multiple types of open space. Councillor Zondervan wanted common sense and distinguishing characteristics. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that in terms of open space there are five definitions of open space but the AHOD only talks about private open space and one- half of the open space has to be permeable, but permeable has multiple definitions and does not mean grass. She asked for an explanation of how the open space requirement is met in the AHOD and what portions can be paved and used for accessory uses or covered by balconies, leveled or sloped. She stated that in the current ordinance there is a requirement to have a minimum of 15 x 15-foot space. She added that the open space requirement could be met with minimal setbacks which could be covered by extended decks and bike parking. The visuals will be important to show how the building covers the lot and how the open space requirement can be met because it is complex, and a developer can find many ways to meet the open space requirement and that the way it is met is principally with side backs or small setbacks.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about the site by site issue versus global issue. He asked if there is room in zoning to incorporate open and green space not on that particular site in order to add affordable housing to different areas of the City and to link these things together so as to not limit ourselves to what is on a particular site. Ms. Farooq stated that the notion is good but cannot be incorporated in zoning. She explained that zoning deals with what can be done on a parcel by parcel basis and does not attach conditions that are offsite. Community benefits are incorporated in a MOU and cannot be in the zoning. She added that this could be City Council or planning goals or directives to the City Manager or staff. Councillor Zondervan stated that zoning could specify what can happen by zone or by site. This is to think about green space in the context of affordable housing and to ensure that those living in affordable housing have access to open and green space convenient to them because this is an environmental justice issue.

Vice Mayor Devereux mentioned car storage, bike parking and what impacts in zoning on parking cars and permeable open space that could be used to park cars and how this relates to goals of transit and mode shift and transportation. Ms. Farooq stated that all definitions in zoning and as the relate to AHOD tried to clarify this. She stated that many are not new provisions for the AHOD. She stated that it does say that out of the 30% of site required to be open space, some part could be paved and once paved could be reduced by as much as 50% of this space and would be 15% net for the site. A large amount of parking would not be required to be counted as open space and would 15% of the site needs to be open space. She stated that in the parking section she spoke about reducing parking when close to transit. She stated that the City tried to match what is known about utilization in existing affordable housing buildings. There is data from buildings on utilization and they mimic this in the reduction in the parking requirements. Bike parking was left as is and encouraged sustainable modes and be consistent with the other transportation and mode share goals.

Vice Mayor Devereux: bike parking can be part of the open space. Ms. Farooq stated that area use for uncovered bike parking spaces that are not contained in the building shall be considered private open space but shall not be considered permeable open space.

Councillor Zondervan: it would be helpful to show different scenarios. He spoke about the requirement for car storage. Ms. Farooq: on parking requirements in addition to looking at utilization and where would the transportation staff feel comfortable that this will be workable and will meet all the needs of the residents. She stated that by reducing parking requirements further and see what happens and by reducing the parking requirement the City is not prohibiting individuals to do more. She stated that this approach may be worth trying. Councillor Zondervan stated that taking this to the natural limit, why require any parking. Mr. Cotter stated that when looking at sites with the nonprofit developers the City is looking at the demand for parking to be based upon the type of housing. He explained that larger units for families have different requirements. He stated that the City wanted to preserve flexibility to make these decisions. He stated that to set numbers is consistent with the utilization from the analysis done and discussing this with other City staff more familiar with parking around the City.

Councillor Mallon stated that there is a wide consensus to look at the parking requirement for affordable housing. She asked if Frost Terrace is zero parking with some handicapped parking spaces. Mr. Cotter responded this it has only accessible parking. He added that there is no parking giving its overall location (near Porter Sq.). Councillor Mallon spoke about putting a zero-parking requirement into the zoning, exclusive of ADA parking if it is within a certain distance from a transit mode or a transit hub. She asked about permeable space and that is a different conversation. She spoke about a paved space for parking; can the City require all paved spaces to be permeable; can this be required through zoning or around development standards or design guidelines. Ms. Farooq stated that there is a permeable open space definition in the ordinance and includes permeable pavers and it could be incorporated in the zoning.

Councillor Zondervan asked can there be a requirement that all paved area be permeable area. He is in favor of limiting the amount of impermeable paving. Ms. Farooq stated that from a zoning perspective this could be done. Commissioner O’Riordan asked what you want to achieve in terms of permeability. He added that if it is green space and reducing urban heat island impact or stormwater quality there are other mechanisms and ways that you can increase base flow to the river and improve the water quality other than providing permeable pavers which are easier to manage, easier to build, are cheaper and more effective. He stated that if this is about flood or run off control this is another discussion. Councillor Zondervan spoke about a tradeoff and two handicapped parking spots and a driveway that connects to the road surrounded by permeable green space this is fine, but if a big parking lot is done and paved from the sidewalk to the building is not a good idea. He urged figuring this out and a way to capture this distinction in the requirements. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that there are performance standards required for each and all developments to include affordable housing development; this has been successful. He noted that if the City wanted to be more prescriptive this can be reviewed through this process. This is looked at from a benefit and performance perspective. He added that the performance criteria may need to change as this process moves forward.

Vice Mayor Devereux: in draft of AHOD there are times when parking requirement is waived, and it does include proximity to a transit or bus stop. She stated that this is problematic. She is concerned about Frost Terrace and the two handicapped spaces and if there is a drop off space because individuals arrive by car and need to be dropped off and in this location that could be in direct conflict with the protected bike lanes being put on Mass. Ave. It will be important to provide some sort of drop off areas. She suggested tailoring the open space permeability and the heat island requirements for areas that have been designated as more susceptible to flooding. She stated that the flooding areas as outlined in the maps will need to have greater resiliency built into the zoning for all types of housing including affordable housing. She asked will the City be able to manage stormwater with the Citywide ratios, but the topography differs greatly by area. Councillor Zondervan likes the idea of drop off spaces. He wanted to eliminate the parking minimum requirements. He added that the places not near transit individuals use more TNC transportation modes and if the City is requiring minimum parking that could have been used instead of pickup/drop off areas there may have been a better outcome. He stated that there is more flexibility to remove parking requirements altogether and impose a pickup/drop off requirement instead. Ms. Farooq spoke about Frost Terrace that has a driveway that leads to the accessible parking spaces and asked if a drop off space is different than the driveway or on the street. She added that the driveway could serve as a drop off location. Councillor Zondervan responded in the affirmative if it is configured so that it is easy to drop off an individual and leave the site.

Councillor Zondervan asked what some of the impacts are that the AHOD will have on stormwater and is there anything that needs to be done in zoning. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that there are requirements in place regarding stormwater for any development as it relates to affordable housing developments. He added that there are water quality requirements in terms of phosphorus control, salt control, water quality requirements in terms of peak storage between the two-year present and the twenty-five-post construction event. He stated that there are also infiltration requirements generated offsite. He stated that in every affordable housing project before the City for the last 15-20 years they have met these requirements. This is not a challenge meeting the performance requirements. He stated that beyond resiliency, large affordable housing projects have the additional benefit of being socialized spaces.

Councillor Zondervan asked about flooding and heat protection and whether there is a need to have different standards in more flood or heat prone areas related to affordable housing developments or are there uniform standards across the City. Ms. Farooq stated that regarding open space amendments, there have been no exemptions from other environmental regulations whether zoning or other City regulations through the vehicle of the AHOD. The resilience zoning task force will be addressing these issues and provide recommendations. She added that the AHOD does not exempt developments or buildings from those future requirements. Ms. Farooq stated that the City Council can discuss whether they want to adopt some sort of waiver for affordable housing or to be uniformly applicable to everyone. She added that if there were an exemption or carve out it would have to be done explicitly at this point in time and this is the best approach.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that regarding grey versus green infrastructure, how are these met. She stated that it is unclear to her with the amount of non-built space and some of the possible ratios with AHOD that there will not be much non-built space to perform in the way required. She stated that in the scenarios there needs to be consideration as to how the density would interact with the building’s ability to meet the performance requirements of the storm water management. How will this work and meet the requirements with natural space that already exists. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that Alewife area and the idea of using open space for storage available for flood mitigation and this is extraordinarily challenging for this space for hydrological reasons. There is a ground water table that is between 2-4 feet below grade and when this space is opened it is filled with water before a storm begins. He stated that in many instances in terms of mitigating floods it ends up being stored on the roof or below grade. He spoke about climate change and about sea level rising and surge events. The idea of using storage in the City to engineer our way out of a major flood scenario does not hold. In a situation where one can build and protect from this type of scenario the recovery is more realistic given the significant volume of flood water anticipated in these extreme events.

Councillor Zondervan now discussed climate mitigation resiliency in terms of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from additional construction and whether the City could require the housing to be constructed net zero, passive house or whatever are the standards. He stated that it is being anticipated that the small residential construction be net zero by 2022 and large residential by 2025 and that this would apply to the affordable housing projects as well. He asked if this is an opportunity to advance this time schedule because this is incentive zoning. The City wants to make it easier to build affordable housing and a requirement in return could be that it be net zero before the schedule. He stated that this has benefit to residents because their utility bill would be lower and would not be contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. He asked if this type of a requirement could be considered. This would increase the upfront cost for these developments and could the City pay this difference because the City’s goal is to reduce emissions. Ms. Farooq responded that at present the affordable housing development community is the shiny beacon for energy efficiency and green buildings. She stated that these are entities that build and care about the long-term cost of what the residency is going to be. They make every effort possible to be as green as possible and reduce energy use in the buildings. She stated that she is concerned with creating a requirement that is unknown if it can be done in a financially feasible way. There are not many affordable housing projects that will be in the small category, up to three units. She added that the bulk of the projects will not trigger net zero requirements until 2025 and this will allow technology to catch up and the development industry to catch up. She urged caution about neutralizing or advantaging the benefit and to continue this conversation. Councillor Zondervan suggested a subsidy program for building net zero and that funding could be made available and stated that data would be helpful about the cost to build with and without net zero.

Councillor Zondervan opened public comment at 7:24pm.

Fred Meyer, 83 Hammond Street, spoke about having design materials and graphics are important for the residents in the neighborhood who have trouble visualizing this zoning. He suggested that the general public understands models rather than graphics and having a model for each neighborhood showing a side street and a main corridor of what it would look like with a change under the zoning. He added that the models should be at eye height. He stated that tree loss is not the only issue; it is about the tree roots. He spoke about building not be built in tree root zones. The Affordable Housing Overlay bothers him if there are buildings of a certain height and once is demolished for an affordable housing building he stated that common sense is that the larger building should have more open space and the overlay district is the opposite because it reduces the open space. He stated that he does not understand this. He asked why people in affordable housing should have less open space than others. He stated that the City needs to not think of zoning as the answer to the problem of people being displaced by high rents but to consider more the enormous increase in taxes because of our amazing low tax rate. He stated that what disturbs him greatly about the affordable housing overlay is the elimination of binding design review. He stated that the Frost Terrace project was improved by a unanimous vote of the Board of Zoning Appeal board under existing zoning.

Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that without protection or incentive it is unlikely that trees will win out. If there are five different definitions of open space what is the least tree growing percentage of open space that is left after everything else is counted as effective open space. She asked how much actual tree potential there will be. She commented that it is embarrassing to beg for models. She spoke about the Buddhist Temple on Concord Avenue that just got unanimous zoning approval by the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals for a one-story addition had very good graphics. She spoke about the positive aspects of graphics. She asked why the City cannot supply graphics. She submitted her communication (ATTACHMENT A).

Derek Kopon, 8 Wright Street, spoke about the impact on the tree canopy will be larger than projected. He stated that it is misleading that the conversation is about non-profit and affordable housing developers and that this overlay is designed for for-profit developers to accommodate affordable housing. He noted that the Frost Terrace developers are for-profit developers. He stated that the primary reason why there will be some trees remaining in the Frost Terrace development is because those are the trees that are in the setback and to make the open space requirement. He stated that the neighbors wanted the trees and there was an extensive permitting process. He added that some of the trees on Frost Terrace are still being cut down. He stated that when you have a for-profit developer that can build by right and replacing single family homes with family multi-unit type development they are going to expand the footprint into reducing the setbacks and this is where the trees are. The effect on tree canopy will be more significant than anticipated. He stated that he takes issue that the developers are environmentally minded. He asked the Frost Terrace developers why they did not put solar panels on the roof and was told because they could not get the funding.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, stated that trees should be protected for physical energy. He suggested naming Central Square Skylight Square. He stated that a building should be transformed so that bicycles have a parking place, and this will solve the bicycle problem.

John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, spoke about the trees and he attended a hearing by the Mid-Cambridge Conservation Commission about a project on Inman Street. He stated that the tree has a diameter of 30 inches and is breast height in the middle of a back yard. He explained that there was conservatively at least 25 people in attendance. He stated that to a person in support of affordable housing overlay they would be horrified if the tree were cut down or building on its tree roots. The tree provides an amenity and covers a large portion of the block. He stated that there should be some type of system or area wide could justify cutting down this tree is horrific to him. He stated that this housing needs to be affordable and also needs to be social housing and has to benefit the social good and forces of life. He stated that at this time, late in the history of Cambridge, we need to be on the side of life and need to make zoning respect life.

Hong van Fan stated that she supported 100% affordable housing overlay. She stated that she appreciated the comments made by Councillor Mallon about setting up a false choice between trees or more housing. She stated that the median rent for a one-bedroom in Cambridge is $2,500 per month. She stated that there is a housing crisis in the City that is not unique to Cambridge. She stated that the City is doing a huge disservice to use and leverage the environment as an excuse to prevent more housing development. She stated that as a renter and voter that she fully supports the 100% affordable housing overlay.

Councillor Zondervan closed public comment at 7:37pm.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about a comment made in public comment regarding Frost Terrace relating to solar and she and Councillor Zondervan had conversations with the developers about installing solar and the developers have executed a memo of intent with a solar provider to install rooftop solar. This took a fair amount of push. She stated that she would like this to be more explicit in the zoning to incentivize solar.

Councillor Mallon stated that with regards to open space and the concern around affordable housing residents not having enough or less open space than other residents. She stated that when she purchased her condo it had a very small backyard but there were four great open spaces within two blocks. She spoke about the parks and tot lots and the river are open space options for all in the City. She did not want to have a micro conversation about open space. She stated that in terms of the modeling and comments made about the City not providing models or graphics. She stated that she has conferred with architects in the City trying to get them to do some of this modeling. She stated that architects and designers are hesitant to provide any kind of modeling or drawings because people fixate on the drawings versus the concept. She stated that she is happy that there will be drawings and stated that more than three examples are great. She stated that providing the type of models that is seen with a private development is incredibly extensive and would incredibly onerous for Community Development Department to do this. She commented on a statement made by Commissioner O’Riordan that affordable housing acts as socialized housing because of the nature of who lives there and the type of community they form. She stated that this is important when mitigating climate change and social resiliency and how important this is going to be to have affordable housing thought about as social housing and providing social resiliency the City cannot lose site of the fact that this will also be happening. Zoning is a living document and not thinking of it as something that the City can be responsive to over a certain time period and will this be a two year look back period about some of the data around trees and environmental concerns. She spoke about building in levers so that the City can be responsive and not that the zoning will be voted on and never looked at again.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about statements made about non-profits versus for profit developers. She stated that the City rarely sees for-profit developers building affordable housing. She stated that there are going to be covenants to prevent for-profit developers to turn this housing into market rate housing. She stated that if there is concern that for-profit developers are going to take over there should be guidelines for the trust. What are the advantages that the for-profit developers have and level the playing field for all types of 100% affordable housing. She wanted to ensure that non-profit developers are not left out and give guidance to the affordable housing trust.

Councillor Zondervan commented on the zoning as a living document. The affordable housing overlay district is a special case because the residents are requested to give up their rights to challenge on individual projects in exchange for knowing in some certainty what is going to be built where. He stated that this is the reason that there is so much pressure on this conversation to reveal this in detail because without this knowledge it is not a fair question. The City Council does not want resident to have the right to stop an affordable housing development project because it makes the project more expensive and more difficult to develop affordable housing. It is important to get the details right up front to satisfy the criteria so that this will not be challenged to obtain this desired result. Councillor Zondervan got the Frost Street developer to consider solar. He stated that the state now has a solar ready requirement for buildings over 10,000 square feet. He further stated that as part of the Net Zero Action Plan there is a solar requirement being considered. He noted that solar is cost effective and profitable. He suggested a solar ready requirement across the board for the affordable housing overlay. He spoke about the example of the 30” tree and could consider additional protections in the Tree Protection Ordinance to protect very large trees. He noted that currently it is 8 inches or larger.

Councillor Mallon stated that the Tree Protection Ordinance conversation was going on she researched across the country and found a heritage tree protection, and this could be considered. Councillor Zondervan stated that this is complex because the current Tree Protection Ordinance exempts affordable housing projects.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that good questions have arisen and there is a need for more information. She noted that there are many public parks in Mid-Cambridge and it has a lot of open space assets. She stated that the conversation around the Frost Terrace development was that the Porter Square area does not have open space and the quality and quantity for open space varies significantly by neighborhood. She stated that West Cambridge has a lot of private open space but aside from Fresh Pond at one end and the cemetery at the other it does not have a lot of public parks but there is private open space. The population is increasing to 119,000 and the limited public open space that the City has is going to have a greater demand for its use and there is no new open space created. She stated that she does not feel that it is too onerous for Community Development Department to produce models and that models can be printed 3D, and this is within the capability and within the budget and it is important because this is City-wide zoning entirely without precedent. She noted that there is a tremendous amount of anxiety among residents because they are being asked to give up what has been a fundamental right which is to have a project go through design review process and as a last resort be able to appeal this. She is not supportive of appeals, but it provides leverage and produces better projects. Models are important and an excellent investment. The only way the public can understand this and buy in is to provide models.

Councillor Mallon stated that the City needs to be careful about using fundamental rights in the contexts of being able to have a review process. She stated that she believes that housing is also a fundamental right.

Councillor Zondervan and Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:56pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Co-Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on June 26, 2019 at 3:35pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a petition received from Self Storage Group, LLC to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating a New Street Overlay District (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Director of Zoning and Development Jeff Roberts; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk’s Office.

Also present were Attorney James Rafferty, 907 Mass. Ave., co-petitioners of Self Storage Group, LLC (SSG); David M. Williams, Director of Development, SSG Development and Construction, 129 South Street, Fourth Floor, Boston; and George A. Bachrach, Principal; David Fulton; Mark Boyes-Watson, architect for the project; and Craig Nicholson, Just-A-Start (JAS).

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing: petitioners, staff, clarifying question session, public comment and the Ordinance Committee will discuss the petition and come to a conclusion and make a recommendation.

Attorney James Rafferty spoke on behalf of the co-petitioners SSG, the owner of one of the parcels, and present from SSG is David Williams, George Bachrach and David Fulton. The architect for project, Mark Boyes Watson, is present. He stated that this is a petition that is being jointly filed by the owners of two parcels that are contained in the proposed New Street Overlay District. This is a refiled petition and the original petition did not advance beyond the Ordinance committee. He stated that with lessons learned from the original petition and feedback received, the property owner went back and analyzed the entire program. He noted that the overriding message that was heard from the last presentation was the need to create more of an active and mixed-use environment on New Street. He explained that the prior proposal allowed for an increase in density and height for this newly created use. The petition creates a new category of storage. He stated that the current storage is treated with no distinction in the table of uses between a warehouse that would accommodate all types of truck traffic and uses typically associated with storage warehouses, versus self-storage which is a consumer-oriented establishment. He stated that the representatives from SSG can tell more about self-storage which has a number of benefits and attributes that are stabilizing forces in residential communities. He stated that this is the goal sought by the proponents that believe that this location will benefit greatly from the type of business that they provide.

From a zoning perspective Rafferty said there are three changes to the petition that are noteworthy. He stated that the first change is the criteria that would be imposed on any application for a special permit to allow for additional height and would not include a requirement affordable housing. He noted that there was no housing proposed in the prior petition. He continued that the petition in its current form in Section 20.95.1 (1) The first criteria talks about a minimum of 8,000 square feet of affordable housing. The proponents have modified and will show a plan to include 20,000 square feet of affordable housing and petitioners are pleased to report that they have entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Just-A-Start (JAS). Attorney Rafferty announced that Mr. Nicholson from JAS is here to discuss this joint venture agreement that they intend to pursue where JAS experience, expertise and knowledge in affordable housing will be put to good use here. He stated that JAS will own and control this affordable housing. He added that the design of the housing has become a critical aspect of mitigating the impact of the building. The architect will demonstrate how the housing use at this site can be compatible and can serve as a softening of the building edge as it approaches the street.

He stated that the other notable amendment that would be sought by the applicant would involve the height dimension. This is in Section 20.96 and the language of the petition states that the maximum height for the petition could be 65 feet. They are proposing an amendment that there would be a bulk plane requirement, a requirement that exists in many zonings and overlay districts in the City. He explained that at the 55-foot height the building on all four sides will have to step back at a 45-degree angle from 55 to 65 feet. He stated that this has the effect of reducing the mass of the building both as the building is seen on New Street and from Danehy Park. He noted that these are the two substantive changes.

Rafferty stated that the third component of petition that there is an area of 2,500 square feet devoted to retail use. He noted that the intention is for the Evolve Gym to have a facility. He stated that Mr. Bachrach can go through the details of the arrangements. The Evolve Gym is now a tenant at will and their lease expired at the end of December 2018 and the owner of the building is fully intent on selling the building. He noted that it has been a case that the Evolve Gym’s long-term use at the site is very limited. He explained that an arrangement has been made that the proponents will build out a space for Evolve at a size that will work for the gym, although it is a different size. He stated that the size was the subject of negotiations with Evolve and the rental rate for the space will be a below market rate in an effort to keep this component an active use in the building. The hope is that Evolve will remain for a long time. The scaling back of the proposed height and the introduction of the gym are two of the changes.

Rafferty stated that the Planning Board’s presentation did not include the bulk plane restrictions nor the increase in the amount of affordable housing. He noted that there are components of the petition that are very different than what the Planning Board evaluated.

He stated that Mr. Boyes-Watson will present some visual elements of this presentation that would turn the text of the petition into an understanding of what can be built at the site. He commented that it has been an effective collaboration with Mr. Boyes-Watson and JAS on how to optimize housing at this location, creating the type of unit size that would be most affected. He spoke about the obvious adjacency to a large recreational facility, walking distance to an elementary school makes this a very attractive housing location for families and the fact that there are residential uses emerging on the other side of New Street. He addressed the comment about why the overlay district only encompasses one side of the street. He responded that this is a function of reality. The other side of the street has an existing residential building already underway and it did not make sense to include those parcels in the overlay district because it was unlikely to see much change in those buildings. He stated that the other element of the petition that is new to the petition addresses a consistent theme with the Envision Planning in the Alewife Area. He stated that the idea to find locations in emerging mixed-use districts within Alewife where additional housing could be permitted. He stated that the petition does contain language that Mr. Markarian (owner of adjacent site) or his successor to be motivated to convert the automotive and the light industrial uses to housing. This is to incentivize housing on this side of New Street. He stated that regarding the site presentation there is an opportunity to make the connection on land owned by the petitioner to the back end of Danehy Park. At this time Mr. Boyes-Watson gave his presentation.

Mark Boyes-Watson, architect, spoke about the overarching urban design of the overlay by viewing slides, including existing conditions and some of the proposed streetscape design, to see if New Street can with the change in zoning become what it seems to want to become, which is more of a housing street and less a street of a strange mixture of uses that it is today. He stated that with the changes New Street can become a mixture of housing. He gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT B) of the overall building that incorporates housing along New Street, which is accessible on the ground floor. One of the slides begins to show the relationship is of the housing to the storage building. He stated that there is a planted setback on the New Street level before Danehy Park rises. The building is raised out of the ground because it is in a flood zone. He spoke about the bulk plane setting the top story back and it is more than a 45-degree bulk control plane on New Street. He stated that the top floor of the storage building starts 40 feet back and the public will not be aware of the upper top story when on New Street.

He stated that the parking is concealed inside the building. This parking is also for the housing and gym. He noted that the storage space is a low traffic generation and does not require parking; it is used intermittently and there is a modest loading zone. The gym has windows that look out onto Danehy Park.

There is a proposed bike and pedestrian pathway. Watson spoke about a storage facility for sports equipment because there is a shortage of storage at Danehy Park. This is accessed off the pedestrian pathway. He stated that the housing is used as the primary street frontage for New Street. He stated that the storage facility has a green wall design and a gallery of windows overlooking Danehy Park and the upper setback story of the storage facility is setback 45 feet. He stated that additional plant material will be introduced on the site. He stated that there are existing trees along the border and on the park edge. He stated that a robust row of trees will be planted down the property line. He explained that the intention of this building is to get to Net Zero and the storage area is energy efficient. He stated that combining the large roof and the well-designed envelope it is expected that this building can be both the equivalent of LEED Gold and Net Zero.

The proposed building is creating a more consistent urban form down this side of New Street as is the HRI building (now under construction) that overlooks Fresh Pond. He stated that the creation of these units of affordable housing is an appropriate urban design response to this location. He spoke about the traffic at the site. He stated that the self-storage use is one of the lowest traffic generators. He stated that the 2070 compliance is for the flood and storm water requirements and currently the site tends to flood but a storage infiltration system can be designed that sits under the parking level to deal with this. The site can be designed to mitigate environmental conditions and this is a great advantage.

Craig Nicholson, JAS, stated that JAS was approached by SSG to work with them on the affordable housing component for this site. JAS entered into a MOU and upon this project going forward JAS would be in a position to take over the housing component, own it, keep it permanently affordable, manage it and maintain it in the same fashion as JAS does for the rest of its portfolio. He commented that the inclusion of affordable housing in the project is a creative way to take something that could just become a commercial component and have some inclusionary money sent into the trust fund. Hopefully it would get used in the right place and right time, but put it into a situation where housing definitely gets built and by having it be a mixed used building where the entire front of the building is housing there is no possibility that there will be only a storage structure without housing up front. This is unique and a way to ideally and ultimately create affordable housing at less cost than if it were an open market transaction. He added that JAS is excited to partner with SSG on this.

He stated that a 20,000 square foot building would yield approximately 20 units, but in this scenario, we are looking for less than 20 units because the goal is predominantly family size units. He outlined the units as 20% of the units would be 3-bedroom units and 60% of the units would be 2-bedroom units and on the affordability level would be looking for more of a moderate affordability at 80%. He spoke about the typical family size that occupies a 1, 2- or 3-bedroom units, which would bring families into this neighborhood next to Danehy Park with the moderate affordability at the 80% AMI. This is very difficult to achieve in Cambridge. He stated that a lot of the programs for new construction for affordable housing requires tax credits, which puts this tier significantly lower and creates a gap in the middle. He noted that this unique situation where housing can be created without the same overly heavily subsidized tax credit type of approach creates a moderate tier for ideally working families within Cambridge is something that JAS is excited to be a part of.

Mr. Bachrach stated that he is proud of the work being done with JAS and the efforts to accommodate the gym. He stated that much was learned at the Planning Board hearing which did not go well and as a result significant changes were made to the design to reduce the height, allow setbacks so that you are looking at four-story building from the front of the building. He stated that the self-storage business is nothing more than a neighborhood closet. He stated that 75% of customers are residential and 25% of customers are small businesses and all from the immediate neighborhood. He stated that this industry helps to stabilize neighborhoods. He spoke about small businesses that run out of storage space and cannot afford to rent larger space at $30 a square foot in Cambridge so they come to the storage space at $2 a square foot to offload their back-office inventory or record keeping and are able to stay in the neighborhood. He cited other examples where storage space is needed. He stated that this is a local amenity with low traffic and uses less water than a single-family home.

He stated that in terms of the public benefits if approved the project would provide storage space for families in transition who are at risk of losing their possessions, storage space for athletic equipment used at Danehy Park and the pedestrian and bike path along the Danehy Park side of the building. He stated that he is proud of the proposed rooftop solar field, which will the largest private solar field in the City. He stated that he hopes to do more as time goes by with more community input into this process which is only at the early stage. He expects to get more input if given the opportunity to proceed.

Councillor Carlone asked if there are any clarifying questions.

Councillor Zondervan stated that storage does not require parking, just the loading. He asked if all the parking is for the housing and the gym. Mr. Williams stated that the storage does need a little parking. He added that most of the activity happens in the loading area. He stated that when a customer comes to a storage facility they park, go into the office and arrange for a contract and when they go to use the storage facility by either taking possessions in or out of the storage unit they park in the loading area and go in and out; there is a low parking need for this type of building. Councillor Zondervan asked could there be less parking. Mr. Williams said this parking will support the housing, the gym and the storage. He stated that there is an allowance of 5-7 spaces for the gym and 7-8 spaces for the 15 units of housing for a total of 20 parking spaces in the parking field.

Attorney Rafferty said the petition proposes that the parking requirement for dwelling units be reduced from the current l in the district to .75 so the residential parking is being scaled back. He explained that Mr. Nicholson has stated throughout his portfolio there are many households without cars. Councillor Zondervan commented that he is in favor of reducing this to zero. He asked if this can be constructed in such a way that the parking can be reclaimed in the future if it is determined that the parking is not needed. Mr. Williams responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there is another floor above and referenced slide 7. Mr. Williams stated that this is showing a typical upper floor. This floor plan would be for floors 2, 3 and 4 of the housing and storage. The fifth-floor storage would be a smaller footprint because it is set back.

Councillor Zondervan stated that on slide 9 he questioned LEED Gold and Net Zero and stated that this felt tentative. Mr. Boyes-Watson spoke of the design being changed and the roof shrinking. He noted that the housing does use more energy than the storage facility. He stated that he was trying not to over promise. Mr. Williams stated that on the original design from last year calculations were done and they were able to get the storage building at the Net Zero classification. He noted that the design has evolved with input and the roof for the self-storage has shrunk with the inclusion of the housing. He stated that all the calculations have not been finished with the modified design. He stated that he felt confident that they can get a large solar field on the fourth floor of the roof and parts of the fifth floor of the roof and the housing has not been analyzed to see how a component could work with this. He stated that this goal is important to the petitioners. Mr. Nicholson stated that JAS tries to make all their buildings energy efficient for lower long-term maintenance. Lower operating costs are critical to maintain reduced rents so a highly efficient envelope, lower energy consumption and LEED is what is being strived for. He stated that JAS will make this as efficient as possible and get to Net Zero and LEED Gold. Councillor Zondervan suggested considering making it Net Zero Ready because Net Zero is not a design standard. Net Zero cannot be verified until it is operating but if it is made Net Zero Ready will enable getting to Net Zero practice.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about slide 11 and wanted more detail on what is envisioned for the multi-use path and what will it be used for; how wide it is and is it just a bike path or is it truly a multi-use path. Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that it is a five-foot path by the side of the building. There is a wide unused berm, which is part of the Danehy Park design. What is being shown on the slide is that the berm will be an amenity; the petition will provide a five-foot pathway. He stated that there is a bigger opportunity here that is beyond the scope of this overlay and as a landscape architect he would be thinking creatively whether there can be more uses for the berm. Councillor Zondervan commented that five feet is not enough and wanted more work on this aspect.

Councillor Zondervan moved to slide 12. He asked if the stormwater can be captured and reused the same way as is done on the King School on Putnam Avenue. Mr. Boyes-Watson responded in the affirmative. He spoke about irrigation requirements and would definitely look toward doing this. Councillor Zondervan stated that on slide 14 regarding the parking, he noted that there were concerns raised at the Planning Board about making sure that the parking is secure for the affordable housing tenants. Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that there is nothing about the way the parking is designed that would not allow some type of gated access as long as it is compatible and further stated that because this is a mixed-use building accessibility is needed for the users of the gym and housing. Mr. Williams stated that one of the components of the self-storage business is secure and there are sixteen security cameras on site constantly surveilling; there is a record of all who enters or exists the site. Councillor Zondervan suggested a garage door that closed at midnight and some type of gated access. Mr. Nicholson stated that there is no gated parking at any JAS sites; there are security cameras; proper lighting and make it inhospitable for anyone to lurk.

Councillor Mallon asked for clarification on the AMI. She asked is it a minimum of 80% AMI for all the units. Mr. Nicholson responded that it is the maximum. Councillor Mallon asked did JAS look at this parcel when it was available for sale for affordable housing. Mr. Nicholson responded in the affirmative, but it was under agreement with SSG. He stated that an initial cursory look was done on the property. He stated that obviously with the full site there would be more affordable housing but would have to be fully born by the subsidies and rents by the housing. He stated that the request for the City and Affordable Housing Trust would have been more on a per unit basis than in a situation like this. He stated that regarding the timing it would take several years to get underway and to break ground. He stated that based on the scarcity of resources and process that needs to be undertaken with the state to get these resources granted to a project. Councillor Mallon commented that there is sentiment to have the whole site for affordable housing.

She asked if the traffic generation is the same as last year and will there be more traffic with the 15 units of housing. Mr. Williams responded that the traffic study has not been updated with the plan redesign. Councillor Mallon asked if the art mural wall was lost, which was on the original proposal. Mr. Bachrach stated that he is open to have an art wall and will be happy to work with the Arts Council. Councillor Mallon wanted the benefits for sports storage and family in transitions and asked why this is not listed on the public benefits. Mr. Bachrach stated that the focus is on the overlay district. He stated that he is committed to the public benefits as listed in the past and including the art wall, storage for sport facilities and families in transition. He proposed a green wall and if this petition goes forward this will be left up to the City on whether it wants a green wall or an art wall. Attorney Rafferty stated that in the petition in section 20.95.1 spells out the criteria for the Planning Board to evaluate an application for a special permit. He noted that # 2 is public benefits that will enhance the use of the adjoining Danehy Park. This was a way to capture this concept without specifically doing so. He stated that this could be subject to amendment. He stated that specifically number 4 goes to the provisions for affordable short-term storage. He commented that this has not fallen out of the petition. This was in the prior petition and is in this petition explicitly as criteria necessary to grant a special permit.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked what the total GFA is of this building that is available under the zoning. She noted that this is a substantial up zoning. Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that the components of project as drawn is just over 110,000 square feet of storage; 20,000 square feet of housing and 2,500 square foot for the gym. He stated that the parking for the housing is exempt but because of the flood plain all the housing would be exempt. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the vision of the zoning goes lot line to lot line. Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that the building has setbacks on all sides. He stated that the illustrations show a building setback 5 feet everywhere with 10 feet on New Street in addition to the other bulk plane controls. Vice Mayor Devereux commented on a discrepancy that she sees in terms of this area described as unused park land along Danehy Park side shown on slide five. She stated that what is shown is a grassy lawn with some trees, but this is fenced off because it is a methane trench and it not open to the public. Mr. Watson stated that where the line of trees along the path is about 2 feet from the property line. Vice Mayor Devereux repeated that the other area does not exist; it is a methane trench and is fenced off for health and environment reasons. This path is not a realistic benefit unless the petitioner is going to give more of his land to create a desirable path. Attorney Rafferty stated that the path and its location was provided to the petitioners by the Envision Study. He stated that the location of the path in that area and image in the presentation shows the path was not a creation of the petitioners. He noted that this is the desired connection from the Envision Study. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the path needs to be created on the land of this site because the public land is not available for a path. Gym windows will be looking at an embankment of the park and will not be looking at Danehy Park.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is a big ask for both height and FAR beyond what is allowed in current zoning. Attorney Rafferty stated that the current FAR would yield a building one-half the size of the proposed storage building. He stated that the petition is looking to increase the FAR to 3.0 and the current FAR is 1.25. This would not allow the 20,000 square feet of housing, which over and above the increased FAR permitted for the commercial building. This is 20,000 on housing side and on the storage side the square footage increase. Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that this calculation has not been done because there would be a bonus for the affordable component. He stated that if the site is 43,000 square feet the increase in GFA is worth 50,000. Councillor Kelley noted that this is a big thing for this area.

Councillor Siddiqui asked why they chose 15 housing units and if they had similar joint venture partnership in the portfolio before. Mr. Nicholson looked at joint ventures for developments but nothing as concrete as this proposal. He stated SSG decided to increase the housing and the 15 units is a factor in increasing the number for family sized units. Councillor Siddiqui asked if there is a mixed-used self-storage. Mr. Bacharach responded that he unaware of any-mixed use storage has been done anywhere in the country. He stated that he has done projects that included other uses. He spoke about a current project in Jamaica Plains where the City asked to have built a housing complex adjacent to the storage building he is building. A common parking lot is shared.

Councillor Carlone asked what the GFA storage size is. Mr. Boyes-Watson said 110,000 square feet. Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Nicholson about the statement that this is an unusual deal from an affordable housing perspective. He asked what the deal is. He asked if JAS is seeking funds to compliment what is being offered. Mr. Nicholson stated that JAS would act as a development consultant during the process and upon completion of the units JAS would purchase the units as a turnkey situation. He stated that JAS investment is time and a lump sum purchase of a finished project. He stated that in terms of cost he does not have the numbers and cannot say what levels of funding will be needed. The funding will involve a standard mortgage which the property would pay. He spoke about state subsidies that would be applied for. He stated that depending on the final numbers and through the City through the Affordable Housing Trust acted as a gap filler for this type of thing. He added in this scenario he does not know what the gap would be. Councillor Carlone stated that new unit locations could cost $100,000 - $200,000 per unit for the land and is there a benefit other than turnkey on a financial basis or a land value. Mr. Nicholson responded that a land value is being discussed but was not negotiated yet. The land value is significantly less than $100,000 - $200,000 per unit. Councillor Carlone noted that there needs to be a financial investment from both sides.

Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Roberts to come forward and discuss the Planning Board’s comments.

Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board heard the current petition on June 4, 2019 and the original petition was not heard by the Planning Board last year due to scheduling complications. The Planning Board voted not to recommend the petition. He explained that the Planning Board had no concern with the self-storage as a use but had concerns conceptually. He stated that the Planning Board was receptive to some of the petitioner’s descriptions of how this kind of use can work in a complimentary fashion to residential uses. He stated that the concerns of the Planning Board were with the notion of whether there should be such different treatment for self-storage uses on this particular site, rather than having criteria and standards for self-storage uses in all similarly zone districts of the City.

He stated that another Planning Board concern for this particular overlay district was about the overall commercial development scale that was being proposed and the impact it would have in an area that has begun to transition significantly from commercial to residential character. He stated that the Planning Board did hear the proposal with the additional affordable housing units and felt that this was an improvement to the proposal and going in the right direction. He noted that the petitioners did not assess the bulk control plane that was introduced in the interim but ultimately the Planning Board still felt that there were concerns about the overall scale in relation to surrounding areas such as the adjacent residential sites and Danehy Park and the impact.

He stated that from a site-specific point of view there were more concerns about project review concerning the path proposed along the side. The Planning Board wondered what the character and feel of the path would be considering it is in a low point of the park and the proposed self-storage use generating minimum activation in this area. Mr. Roberts noted that the Planning Board appreciated the suggestions in the petition about retail space on the ground floor would help to serve the continuation of the gym use on the site and that the adjacent site where this building is proposed could in the future be developed into housing in a way that will help to further visually screen the storage site but given the uncertainty of retail tenancy on a long-term basis as well as the uncertainty about what could actually happen on the adjacent site the Planning Board felt that it was hard to come to a conclusion based on these factors. He stated that this was the overall impression of the Planning Board.

He added that some Planning Board members noted that if this were to move forward that there are provisions in the language that the Planning Board suggested should be reviewed more carefully to make sure that the expectation and criteria are clear and consistent with other parts of the zoning ordinance which is recommended for any zoning proposal.

Councillor Mallon asked about the Planning Board’s concerns about the path and the low activation and asked if the board felt that this would be unsafe. Mr. Roberts stated that this was part of the concern. He stated that the overall impression of the pathway that on one side would have a building with a self-storage use with no windows, except on the residential side, and would have uses with no windows looking down onto the path and then on the other side is the methane trench with the hill going up to the taller part of Danehy Park may feel like a closed off space. Ultimately it may be a space where individuals would feel uncomfortable being there.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the Planning Board unanimously voted not to forward this petition with an unfavorable recommendation. She stated that Ted Cohen felt it was close to spot zoning without any good planning rationale. Mr. Cohen noted that the environmental features are things that are currently required or will be soon. She added that Steve Cohen wondered why when the City is trying to incentivize housing, when it is already the emerging use and noted in Envision, why go in the other direction to up zone for a non-residential use. She stated that the City Council is being asked to change the zoning but this seems like it is going in the wrong direction. She stated that Mr. Bacci has questions related to security and how the storage would be used, and traffic was understated for the storage uses. She added that another Planning Board member commented on the blank tall wall looming over Danehy Park and Mr. Russell noted that the 65 feet would be overwhelming on the soccer field and had questions on the wording of the zoning petition. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the Chair of the Planning Board was uncomfortable with the spot zoning and she felt that is one cannot tell if you are reviewing a project or zoning this is not in a good place. Vice Mayor Devereux commented that the City Council is not in a good place with this petition in terms of what it is trying to do from a planning standpoint.

She noted that the Planning Board is being asked repeatedly to approve up zoning and they commented at one of their meetings that the Board felt they were getting out of planning because everything was being negotiated on a parcel by parcel basis with potential community benefits that were often subject to letters of agreement or political negotiations in this City Council rather than with them. She stated that she is not comfortable doing planning this way. She spoke about the other parcel and the co-petitioner is a larger parcel than this one and do not know what this zoning would do for this owner and his intentions to redevelop this parcel. She stated that if this was being zoned for self-storage at a greater density the City should not be unhappy if he decides that a self-storage building is profitable and builds a large storage building and throw in housing. This would result in a large portion of New Street where it meets Bay State Road. She noted what has not been mentioned is that both lots back up onto Bay State Road that may one day want to be redeveloped but are not up zoned and currently some are residential at a low scale. She added from a planning standpoint why would the City Council do this and in particularly when the Planning Board has unanimously advised that they would not.

Councillor Carlone noted that the scheme has changed somewhat but may not satisfy issues such as the green wall and setback and windows at the top.

Councillor Kelley stated that he was confused with the establishment of the housing here impacts what would normally be paid into the linkage fee or does it. Mr. Roberts stated that the incentive zoning requirement would apply to commercial and non-residential uses above a certain size of development; 35,000 square feet or more. The commercial component has a per square foot contribution which goes to the Affordable Housing Trust and this is no provision and would not translate into a payment for these particular units. He noted that this would be a separate payment to the Affordable Housing Trust and would be under a separate agreement.

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing to public comment. No one signed up for public comment.

Councillor Zondervan asked what the term lease is for the Evolve gym. Mr. Williams stated that in the letter of intent with Evolve it is a 10-year term with 2 five-year renewal options. Councillor Zondervan asked who is paying for housing. Mr. Nicholson stated that the ultimate cost of housing will be dependent on the cost to build it. He stated that the price for the land is significantly reduced which is a benefit. He believed that the incentive zoning fee gets paid into the Affordable Housing Trust. He stated that as the Affordable Housing Trust is the typical gap filler for affordable housing projects in Cambridge and construction costs are still high with the reduced land what this gap will be needs to be filled. He stated that his estimation is that it will be significantly less that the gap that needs to be filled in a standard project. Councillor Zondervan asked what the land value contribution is. Mr. Nicholson stated that no final conclusion has been reached. He stated that he would like to look at the overall costs and see what exactly it must be from his perspective to make it all work out and make it a true benefit to the City. Councillor Zondervan stated that it is important for the City Council to know this because the only reason to approve this project is because it comes with affordable housing and if it did not the City Council would not approve this. He added that it is important for the City Council to understand this and what the City is getting. He added that if all that is happening here is that that affordable housing is being built under normal circumstances then the only real housing contribution is the land value which sounds like it is a discount and not be full value of the land. He stated that he wanted to know what this is. Mr. Nicholson then stated that this is more than a 50% discount on the land and considerably more.

Mr. Nicholson spoke about deals lost above the $200,000 per unit range. He stated that they have discussed a land price but if this continues to be lowered to make sure the deal works and provides the benefit that the petitioners are trying to commit to then the price of the land will continue to drop to ensure that the deal works. Councillor Zondervan noted that self-storage is not an ideal use in this neighborhood. He commended the developer for making sure that the gym can stay open. The partnership with JAS is significant; 15 units of affordable housing is significant. He added that more housing could be built on this site if there was no storage. He spoke about the other community benefits of the storage for transition families, sports storage and net zero building particularly if it includes housing. He noted that there is no true Net Zero housing in Cambridge yet. He stated that he understands and shares the concerns of the Planning Board because this is a massive up zoning and is very concerning but the developer has gone above and beyond and has set a high bar for the kind of up zoning that the City Council ought to consider. He is ready to support the project but wanted 3 items clearly specified in the zoning or the commitment letter to include:

That the entire building should be built to a Net Zero Ready standard;

Retail space to continue to be retail or some other community space; no banks and no additional storage in the space; and

A 5 feet path is not wide enough and wanted assurances that this will be top notch community path and that it would be a true benefit to the community.

He stated that other up zoning projects in the City provide little community benefit to the City and are not providing affordable housing. He added that this project is very different for these reasons.

Councillor Kelley stated that he shares Vice Mayor Devereux’s concerns. He noted that he does not know what is being negotiated at this point. He stated that this is what the City Council seems to be doing a lot of. He shares the Planning Board concerns on doing one offs on specific things on a regular basis. He added Cambridge can buy and build its own sports storage for youth. He stated that he felt that the City Council is negotiating too much little stuff. He stated that he is concerned about how this continuously goes.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the path is a huge distraction. She stated that their land ends in the back yards of existing buildings on Bay State Road. There is no benefit to a path going from a part of Danehy Park that is not used and does not go anywhere; there is not connection that anyone is asking for and the security risks are real. She asked if the site has been evaluated under the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay by JAS. She stated that there could be a bigger building that could be entirely housing under the AHO. This building could be 80 feet tall and have many units and could continue to have a 2,500 square foot active studio gym. She commented that the current gym is 18,000 square feet and has child care and multi-class rooms. The proposal is a workout space but to call it a gym is a misnomer. Evolve gym users depending on the parking and this is not a transit friendly location; it is a car dominated area and reducing parking does not help this. She stated that if this an attractive area for housing she asked why the City is settling for 15 units of housing and the City is still contributing funds to this and is enabling this. She stated that the cost is too high on the rest of the planning goals and the surrounding neighborhoods. She urged the owner to come up with a better housing proposal for this site that is next to the park and is family friendly and environmentally sustainable.

Councillor Mallon spoke about the Pizzuto family, the former owner, who went to the self-storage group because they wanted a low impact, low traffic for this street. She noted that this is a major concern in this area about the traffic in this area. She noted that this began with a low impact traffic goal. She shared the Planning Board concerns about spot zoning, the parcel next door and what happens with this. Councillor Mallon stated that asking JAS to build 100% affordable housing for this site was not feasible based on timing and the finances needed. She stated that suggesting that this could be building under AHO, which has not been passed yet and may not happen. She commented that the land value is significant, and JAS has come before the City Council many times informing the City Council about how they were unable to bid on property because of the land price and the cost of building housing. This offers an opportunity to build affordable housing quickly. She stated that keeping Evolve, 15 units of affordable housing and low impact traffic on a s street which is being built up with residential housing and having commercial and residential on the same site that will keep the traffic low makes this project appealing. She expressed her gratitude to the petitioners for their work to make this project supportable. She stated that she is struggling with this. She asked Mr. Nicholson if it is possible under the AHO could this be 100% affordable housing in the future.

Mr. Nicholson stated that there could be a mechanism where that site becomes all housing but whether it would be all affordable housing or mixed income housing similar to the HRI project on Concord Avenue is hard to say at this point. He stated that the numbers were run 1.5 years ago, and they have not been run under the potential of the overlay zoning. He stated that this is an expensive project. It would involve 9% and 4% tax credits as well as a significant subsidy from the state and the City. He explained that 9% credits are very competitive and may take 2-3 years for this to be approved. He added that the process of entitling it under 40B involves a potential for various appeals and lawsuits associated with this because it would not be a by-right type of building in terms of parking ratio and setbacks looking to maximize the space. These are the difficult things that JAS does all the time, but it is not quick, and he cannot guarantee this, and it is not simple. This site can be all housing but will likely not be all affordable housing.

Councillor Mallon noted that there would have to be 75 units to get the amount needed for the incentive zoning. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the HRI project on Concord Avenue it was stated that it was 98 units of affordable housing. Mr. Nicholson stated that there is mid-market component and there is a market rate component. He stated that there is a middle market that is outside of the standard structure and he thought that there was a market rate component. He explained how the 9% tax credits work. He stated that there is a sweet spot at about 45 units. Once above this the 9% tax credits are maxed out that can be applied to the building. Then you start with the 4% tax credit tier and this is about 3.25% and this is one-third of all the tax credits beyond this which means that this requires more subsidy. He explained that this is offset by having higher rents that the tax credits allow. Councillor Carlone added of the 98 units, 10 units are middle-income units. Councillor Mallon stated that the CDD’s website states it is 98 units and all units will be affordable.

Councillor Siddiqui asked what is the public purpose to provide this type of use that has not been recognized. The petition has changed since June 4th and it does not feel as well thought out as it should or could be. She stated that to negotiate this way is difficult.

Councillor Carlone announced that the petitioners would like this to be moved forward because of a purchase and sale agreement.

Councillor Carlone stated that understanding the value of the affordable housing investment by petitioner is key. He noted that having access to land is a good thing. He stated that he would rather the gym space be a Pre-Kindergarten space, which is sorely lacking in Cambridge. He wanted this to be a true public benefit and understand the value of affordable housing investment. The impact of the project has been minimized by the design of project and the programming. He agreed that there are issues with the path, but the path was what Envision put on the site knowing that the methane was on this site. He stated that taking out the path will add more green. He stated that architecturally there are things that could minimize the massing. The set back on the roof with the top floor instead of being vertical could be treated like a roof on an angle so that the bulk plane is actually a metal roof instead of a metal facade which would make the appearance feel less overwhelming. He stated that most people would experience this from the soccer field which would reduce the overall building to about 30 feet. He commented that the solution from the street is good. The value of affordable housing investment has to be known for him to fully understand. He applauded the effort on the petition by the petitioners.

Mr. Nicholson spoke about the value of affordable housing. The land price is in the area of $50,000 per unit; this is a significant discount. He spoke about how the construction costs would be dealt with. He noted that the foundation, parking, and the podium that’s the housing will be sitting on will be done by developer and there remove those costs. Only the stick-built component of the actual unit is what JAS would be buying. He stated that this is $2.5-$3 million of benefit and reduced cost for the affordable housing. He spoke about not having to do site work, podium, steel construction on this level is a significant discount on a per square foot price from overall construction. Councillor Carlone stated that this information needs to be formalized.

Councillor Kelley stated that he would feel better if someone with more knowledge about housing construction and affordable housing policy come to the City Council and state that this is a good deal. He commented that the proponents are good people and are proposing to do something that will be a big deal for them and it may be a great deal for the City of Cambridge. He stated that if we are going to do this we should be up front about the fact that whatever is done is a negotiating process. He stated that the zoning should not stay as it was written decades ago especially in a world that is evolving fast. He resents making judgments based on the money being saved per unit given the cost of the site and adding to this confusion about the placement of the path and the use of the path is troubling. He stated that this is not a comfortable discussion for him.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is uncomfortable to negotiate with so little information. He suggested moving this forward without a recommendation and this will be before the City Council at the July 29th meeting and it will give petitioners time to address the concerns of the Ordinance Committee and provide information requested. This provides the City Council with the opportunity to fully weigh the cost and benefits of this project. He commented that as difficult it is for his colleagues to say yes to this project; it would also be difficult to say no to 15 units of affordable housing (20,000 square feet of affordable housing) because they are family units. He added that it is difficult for him to say to the first truly Net Zero project in Cambridge. He stated that he would like to see the whole site be affordable housing but short of the City Council rezoning this it cannot be guaranteed.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the City Council is perfectly willing to rezone for developers and cannot see why not rezone for the City. She stated that with the current FAR at 1.25 there could be 55,000 square feet of storage would be allowed on this size lot and with this petition it is being doubled at 110,000 square feet. She felt that there could be more housing. She commented that 20,000 square feet is a small amount of the total square footage. She stated that they are getting a bonus. She stated that she does not know what commercially viable is as stated in the petition. The City Council is up-zoning something without enough information. She asked the Clerk to outline the procedural aspect of the petition in relation to the summer meeting. In response to the question by Vice Mayor Devereux, Ms. Lopez stated that the Committee Report would be on the agenda for the July 29th City Council Meeting. She stated that the decision of what to do with this petition is up to the City Council. This could be passed to a second reading at the July 29th meeting and then there is time from the July 29th meeting to September 24 to further negotiate or discuss more with the petitioner before ordination.

Councillor Kelley spoke about a zoning petition to up zone the quadrangle and there will be benefits associated with this and there may be benefits associated with other zoning proposal as well. He stated that this is the way that business is done but he would like to know that the City Council is confident if this gets passed that the hardest and best bargain has been received on behalf of the City.

Attorney Rafferty stated that the petitioners are willing to provide the information requested by the City Council and to work further on the MOU with JAS. He stated that the calendar reality is that if the petition does not leave the Ordinance Committee in time for the opportunity to be on the July 29th agenda the petition would run out of time to do the substantive work. He stated that hearing the concerns expressed, particularly on the path, the petitioners will go back to CDD to discuss the benefits of the path. Other than the width there may be other short comings with the path that will make it not viable. He noted that there is time between now and the July 29th meeting and between the July 29th meeting and the expiration date of the petition. He noted that if this is not referred to City Council for July 29th Special City Council meeting there will be no time for further discussion about this opportunity. He stated that the one consensus he is hearing from the City Council is that this does represent an opportunity and if this is an opportunity worth exploring the petitioners would welcome the chance to continue to work with the staff to provide the details needed to get the City Council in a position of knowledge, particularly on the cost of construction. He stated that with the presence of JAS there is experience with building housing. He stated that there is credibility and a track record that can be built upon with providing the City Council with additional information.

Councillor Kelley moved to refer the petition to the full City Council without a recommendation. The motion carried on a voice vote six members. Vice Mayor Devereux was recorded in negative.

Councillor Carlone stated that information is being requested to further understand the value that is being generated that JAS or another non-profit will be able to count on. He requested more understanding on architecture and quality of finishes so that it is a positive addition to the street. Vice Mayor Devereux regarding the renderings wanted to see views not from above but from all side and there will be blank walls that are facing Bay State Road. Councillor Carlone commented that if this use is going to be it has to be a positive on all sides.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the Planning Board mentioned that the language in the petition was unclear. She made the following motion:

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Community Development Department to revise the language in the New Street Overlay petition and to include in the revision the following changes:

20.95.1 (1) by striking out 8,000 and inserting 20,000 square feet;

20.94.1 and 20.96.1 entitled Maximum Height be amended by adding at the end the words “provided, however that no building shall exceed 55 feet without complying with a 45-degree bulk plain.”

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

The following communication was received and made part of the report.

Robin Bonner, 15 Corporal Burns Road, urging the Ordinance Committee not to approve the petition (ATTACHMENT C).

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

The hearing adjourned at 5:46pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on July 11, 2019 at 5:37pmin the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the refiled petition from Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. to amend the Zoning Ordinance in Article 20 to add at the end thereof the creation of a Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq; Director of Zoning and Planning Jeff Roberts; Deputy City Solicitor Arthur Goldberg; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk’s Office.

Also present were Joseph Maguire, Senior Vice President - Real Estate Development and Asset Services, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.; Michelle Lower, Vice President - Real Estate Development and Community Relations, Alexandria Real Estate equities, Inc.; Attorney James Rafferty; Jay Siebenmorgen, Architect, NBBJ; Ben Simon, 67 Bishop Allen Drive; Nancy Donahue, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce; Christopher Correa, 19 Plymouth Street; Jose Luis Rojas, 19 Cornelius Way; Josh Drayton, 36A Rice Street; C.A. Webb, President, Kendall Square Association; Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Jason Alves, East Cambridge Business Association; Edwidge L. Hercules, 524 Winsor Street; Rafi Mohammed, 10 Rogers Street; Charles Franklin 162 Hampshire Street; Matt Connolly, 13 Cornelius Way; Jim Gray, 2 Michael Way; Rich Pedi, Carpenters Local 328, 10 Holworthy Street; Anthony Keebler, 4 Cornelius Way; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Patrick McGee, President, East Cambridge Business Association; Richard Petty, Business Manager, Carpenters Local 328; Lino Becerra; and Pamela van Dort, 13 Cornelius Way.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing. He stated that the Linden Park Neighborhood working group will discuss the work done with Alexandria.

Joe Maguire, Senior Vice President - Real Estate Development and Asset Services, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (ARE) thanked Councillor Carlone for all his efforts and the Linden Park Neighborhood Work group who have held 6 meetings to come to where we are now. He asked Attorney Rafferty, to present the presentation (ATTACHMENT B). Attorney James Rafferty, 907 Mass. Ave. stated that this is a refiled petition. The original petition expired. He noted that there are changes in the refiled petition. He noted the biggest changes occurred at the end of the last Ordinance Committee hearing when the Chair agreed to serve as a facilitator in the creation of a working group with 3 members of the neighborhood association and Alexandria. He stated that this has been a productive exercise and the petitioner is grateful for their participation which has improved the petition. He stated that the petitioner was responsive to the working group. He stated that the original petition had confusion around the transfer of development rights and this language has been removed from the refiled petition.

In the refiled petition he stated that for the four-acre site there were concerns were height could occur on the site. He noted that there was a preference for transitional heights in recognition of the different areas of the site as one proceeds down Fulkerson Street. He stated that in the refiled petition there are 3 different height zones. Alexandria agreed to modify the 105 feet height to 90 feet and requested that the revised petition be amended by the City Council to reflect the change from 105 to 90 feet. He stated that there are other amendments which are not in the revised petition. He stated that in the refiled petition it has been made clear that no commercial building could occur in the residential district and language in the petition addresses this directly.

The second amendment concerns the language around restricting mechanical equipment. In the Binney Street zone where a 90-foot building would be permitted the mechanical equipment cannot exceed 25 feet for a total height of 115 feet. He explained that the working group had proposed to the Planning Board that there be a 75 foot with 40 feet for mechanicals. The petitioner is proposing to reduce the mechanicals to 25 feet. This is an agreement with the working group on height. The neighborhood group was not speaking for the entire neighborhood and need to report back to them. This amendment is in the petition (ATTACHMENT C).

Mr. Rafferty spoke about the proposed transitional zones. The Binney Street zone is limited to 90 feet, the transition zone is 60-foot height and the remainder of the district would have no change in the height. Attorney Rafferty stated that present height under the zoning in the district under Industrial A-1 and Residence C-1 is 45 feet and the 60 feet which represents 50% of the building mass is only15 feet over the current allowed zoning. He stated that in this transition zone it was agreed to have a 60-foot height limitation and the mechanical equipment is restricted to 20 feet. He stated that a lot of the decision making in the process involved a close examination with the participation of the neighbors on the issue and relationship between distance and height. He spoke about the massing models that the architects and the design team went through in trying to figure out how to modify the massing in a way that would be least impactful upon the residents of the Linden Park Neighborhood Association. He stated that the greatest benefit in height reduction would occur in the rear portion of the site at 60 feet. He explained that the 60 feet was previously proposed at 120 feet. He hoped that this reduction gave the petitioner credibility with the working group.

He stated that much time was spent on the front portion of the site because there is a distinction in this site. This site runs three City blocks down Fulkerson Street. He noted that the characteristics of the site at Binney Street are different than when one crosses into the neighborhood and gets closer to Rogers Street. The proposed building massing reflects this. He stated that the other change related to impacts is a decision in the petition to limit the Grand Junction Overlay District to only land owned by Alexandria. He then spoke about the geometry of the parcel. He stated that the original petition included land owned by Eversource and there was a thought for a land swap which would create a more regular geometry of these parcels with the intention that a land swap would create an acre of open space that would be conveyed to the City. As Eversource’s plans started to emerge the petitioner did not want to do anything that would be seen as facilitating the location of the proposed electrical substation at the adjacent location and terminated discussion with Eversource about a land swap.

Mr. Rafferty noted because of the elimination of the Eversource parcel the zoning map is different in this petition. He spoke about the boundary between the resident C-1 district and the transition. He stated that building should take their cue from the surrounding context. He stated that buildings long Fulkerson Street are not consistent with the adjacent buildings. He noted that some of the changes are in the refiled petition and three other changes involving the restriction on the mechanical’s equipment and the reduction of height from 105 to 90 are being offered to the Ordinance Committee for inclusion in the petition.

Mr. Maguire spoke about the condition of the site prior to demolition. He stated that Alexandria proposes community benefits with the Grand Junction multi-mobility path. This connects Cambridge Street to Binney Street, which is a distance of 1800 feet. He stated that the Grand Junction Path vision has existed for the last twenty years. This would connect Boston, Somerville and beyond is one that will have meaningful regional and local impact for mobility path usage. He stated MIT and CRA have committed to other sections of the Grand Junction with an additional section to be built adjacent to the proposed “pork chop” park. He stated that ARE has an agreement with the Portuguese Church and ARE owns 686 Cambridge Street, which they would like to make into a public park. This would connect to land ARE currently owns which runs behind the Linden Park neighborhood alongside the railroad tracks to Binney Street.

He outlined the community benefit offered by ARE is the land and the cost to build the path. The City estimates the cost of the construction of the Grand Junction is $11 million. He spoke about the 375 union jobs that would be created and would use union workers in the construction. He added that there will be approximately 1,000 permanent jobs that will be in this building. He noted that this building is critical to the life science community as part of discovery and innovation in the chance that some new product that would come to market that could be cure for a variety of illnesses. These jobs are critical to humanity. There would be $88 million in taxes paid over twenty years and there would be a contribution to the incentive zoning fee for the building which may be in excess of $6 million dependent on the size of the building.

Mr. McGuire spoke about the presented chart that outlined the meetings held on this petition. He stated that he will be continuing the discussion with the neighbors and the City Council. He stated that he wanted to target this as the first sustainable commercial lab building with a geothermal system that will reduce the amount of fossil fuel as much as possible with the types of efficiencies of ground source heating and cooling and a flexible state of the art mechanical systems including PVA at the site. Water reduction methods will be utilized and a high-performance building envelope will be used.

Jay Siebenmorgen, Architect, NBBJ, stated that the 10/29/18 original massing was displayed with 2 building wings of 120-foot height. The design and massing and related zoning were adjusted to better fit the site. He noted that there would be no building to the north of the line labeled 60 foot to 45 foot. He then spoke about a recap of what was proposed by the neighborhood at the June 18, 2019 Planning Board presentation. This was for a building with a 75-foot height with 40-foot mechanicals totaling an overall height of 115 feet. He commented that these buildings have not been designed yet and are purely massing. He explained that a lot was done regarding the design of the project to redefine how the mechanical penthouse could work to reduce everything to a 25-foot height resulting in the project being 115-foot total height to meet the neighborhood overall height proposal. He spoke about the original and the proposed massing reduction. The map included an update of the massing in relation to the neighborhood and how it frames the area at pork chop park. The proposed new building at 115 feet is directly across the street to the 300 Binney Street and is lower than the Amgen Building to the southwest. The north massing of the project at an 80-foot height and relates directly to the east with 320 Bent Street as well as the massing of the One Kendall Square garage. He added that part of the proposal is that the remaining site to the north will be planted with trees. He stated that it was important to keep the size of the facade in tune with the existing massing of the buildings on the adjacent streets around the site. He stated that the proposed building facades on Rogers and Bent Streets are in tune with the scale of the architecture in the area. Sun studies were included in the presentation, in particular winter solstice, which is the shortest day of the year and results in the longest shadows for this particular day of the year.

Attorney Rafferty stated that there is a draft copy of the commitment letter (ATTACHMENT D). The cost of the design and construction of the Grand Junction Path based on estimates provided by CDD. There is an agreement from ARE to fund a Linden Park Improvement Fund. He stated that landscape improvements could be made to neighborhood and the proposal will be distributed by the neighborhood and would be administered by the neighborhood association. He stated that the third item in the commitment letter is issues that ARE is committed to regarding other forms of open space in the project, such as a no build situation in the back portion of the site. There is a written commitment by ARE that states that if the Eversource land become available for sale ARE would commit to purchase the land from Eversource at the price they paid for the land. He explained the rational. That it is not unreasonable to anticipate that there were discussions progressing with Eversource about a possible relocation, but one issue of concern is that it is unlikely that a successor owner of this site would pay the same amount that Eversource paid for the land, which was significantly in excess of what would be considered as fair market value. He stated that to avoid a scenario where this would be an impediment to a possible relocation ARE will commit that if Eversource is willing to move and find a location the cost of what was paid for the site should not prevent this from occurring. ARE would purchase the site and would not seek to rezone this land and would remain residential land. He stated that what could be built on this site was discussed with the working group. Housing and open space was discussed as good choices because ARE would own the land and the proposed substation would go elsewhere.

Councillor Zondervan asked about environmental aspects and noted that they are not mentioned in petition or the commitment letter. Attorney Rafferty this is accurate and possibly an oversight. He added that this can be added in either one or both places.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the models shown include the mechanicals. Mr. Maguire responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Devereux asked how would the planted area be used. Attorney Rafferty responded that the language of the zoning petition states that if the special permit is granted for additional height and density then this land would become publicly beneficial open space; a necessary zoning requirement. Mr. Siebenmorgen explained that the geothermal wells would be underneath this area about 6 feet down from the surface. Vice Mayor Devereux commented that if the path is publicly beneficial open place then there needs to be a way that the public can access the open space. She asked if the Grand Junction path is on the same side of the railroad tracks. Attorney Rafferty responded it is on the opposite side; there is 40-foot separation between our buildings and access to this area can be achieved by coming in from Binney Street along the Grand Junction but would be on the other side of the railroad. He noted that there is a point on Fulkerson Street where the land abuts the driveway. Vice Mayor Devereux asked about a desire line for the public using the path to not have to go down to Binney Street and have to double back. Attorney Rafferty stated that it is anticipated in design work a crossing would be considered to cross the tracks and to connect the neighborhood has been discussed. He noted that this is one of the limitations of the space and why ARE had been asked to engage in a land swap because the utility at this space admittedly is not ideal for public use. He explained that the principle thinking on this is that this would serve as an effective buffer between ARE and Eversource land.

Councillor Toomey asked about the transportation modes and the existing garage and if there will be additional parking on site. The Grand Junction Pathway is tremendous and he is assuming that there will be bike racks and T passes and noted that these are not mentioned in the petition. Attorney Rafferty stated that this proposal would involve the construction of a below grade garage of three levels to accommodate the new building and the garage would need to provide for the requirement amount of bike parking and other transit remedies. The project would have a PTDM Plan which would include transit subsidies, T passes and measures that are effective in the Kendall Square area. He stated that one of the issues in the commitment letter which became a discussion with the neighbors was some assurance that that some point in the future ARE or a successor of ARE might try to rezone the area where the existing garage is and there was a concern that the 90-foot zoning in the Metropolitan Pipe site would serve as a precedent for such a move. He responded that the garage is encumbered through 2050 and it contains 1500 vehicles. He stated that the garage satisfies all of the parking requirements for One Kendall Square. He stated that the language in the commitment letter which would be filed with the City Clerk is that ARE would agree they would not seek to rezone land to a height above 65 feet.

Councillor Mallon stated that the construction of the Grand Junction path at a cost of $11 million would be paid by ARE. She asked about the cost to purchase the land on Cambridge Street as well as the easement along the back wall of the Church. She noted that there is no monetary amount contained in the Commitment Letter and asked what this community benefit is. Attorney Rafferty explained the purchase of land on Cambridge Street is a matter of public record and this transaction has been concluded. He stated that for a parcel slightly more than 3,000 square feet the cost was $2.75 million. The purchase of land from the Church, would be a fee interest and an easement which would ultimately be conveyed to the City, is under contract now. Mr. Maguire stated that the total cost of this land is $8.5 million. Councillor Mallon asked about the easement for Linden Park neighbors behind the One Kendall Square garage. Attorney Rafferty stated that there is a utility to ARE that forms the rear property line for 3-4 of the houses and there has been efforts over the years to mitigate the impact of the garage and its lighting. He stated that the petitioner proposed that the properties that abut this area ARE would grant access rights so that property owners could extend their yards into this area. Councillor Mallon asked would parking be negotiated through the special permit process. Attorney Rafferty stated that this is negotiable but was based on the prevailing ratios of Kendall Square and the development along Binney Street. He stated that in the special permit process the traffic study and mode split studies will be reviewed.

Councillor Carlone stated that when and if the petition is ordained, the committee needed all numbers calculated and the value of any up zoning per square foot for the use. It is estimated at $150 per foot. He added that this negotiation will be public, and all will be provided the information on the numbers.

Mayor McGovern stated that on the Grand Junction path the $11 million will go to City and City will do the construction of the path. Attorney Rafferty explained that the conveyance and remediation of land would conform to City policies. The cost of construction and design has to be paid to City prior to the issuance of building permits. He stated that once land is conveyed to City it becomes a public project and it is not easy for private interests to perform construction on public land. Mayor McGovern stated that the community benefits part of these projects comes later. He wanted the path worked on first or simultaneously so that this community benefit is done sooner rather than later. Mayor McGovern asked if mechanicals take up the whole roof. Mr. Siebenmorgen responded they occupy a vast majority of the roof. Mr. Maguire stated that the 45-foot height moved down to 25 feet and this forces mechanicals to be moved back into the building. Attorney Rafferty stated that there is a design gesture in the rear corner closer to the neighborhood that reduces the height impact. Mr. Siebenmorgen stated that the mechanical penthouse is being set back from the proper building facade below. Mayor McGovern wanted the green space as accessible as possible. The lot closest to the housing is going to be open or green space and this is a benefit. Councillor Carlone noted that being adjacent to the path it would be an expanded space benefit.

Councillor Simmons appreciated the petitioners listening and working with the community. She is pleased with the open space. She asked if the open space is an amenity to the community at large or just an amenity for those who live on Michael Way. Attorney Rafferty stated that the public beneficial open space is accessible to the public and is required in the zoning. Councillor Simmons commented that there will be no changes with the garage. Attorney Rafferty noted that if the garage were demolished, there would be not effort by IS to submit zoning petition that would seek to increase the height above 65 feet.

Councillor Siddiqui asked about the feasibility and time line for the Grand Junction and about how fast this will happen and how long a certificate of occupancy would take. She wanted a realistic time line. Councillor Siddiqui asked how the $500,000 contribution was determined. Attorney Rafferty explained this was an offer made by ARE to members of the working group. Councillor Siddiqui asked what the amount is based on. Attorney Rafferty stated that the size of the 60 households were reviewed and what might be an average improvement opportunity and it is based on this. Mr. Maguire said the working group has accepted the idea but they still need acceptance of the neighborhood. Councillor Siddiqui asked what else does the City have to contribute to build out the Grand Junction pathway that is not included.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked whether it was possible for the path to be timed with the building permit and not the certificate of occupancy. She asked about Eversource and noted that ARE is not obligated to close on the land until 90 days after the permanent certificate of occupancy is issued for the project. She noted that this would be several years. Attorney Rafferty stated that the commitment letter is a draft and he wanted feedback. He stated that ARE has been involved with 2 conveyances to the City, a 2-acre park and the Foundry building, and it was not the hesitancy on the conveyance that extended the timeline and that there are other factors involved on this. ARE can get a commitment with the City and make this real. He stated that ARE has a record for delivering on these types of commitments. Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the proposed payment to Eversource. Mr. Maguire stated that ARE has made several attempts to Eversource to buy the land.

Councillor Zondervan noted that any redevelopment of the One Kendall garage could not exceed 65 feet. Mr. Maguire stated that ARE would respect the existing height and would go no higher and will respect the setbacks. Councillor Zondervan stated that this is not entirely clear. Attorney Rafferty stated that if there is a need for more precision then it will be done. A redevelopment would occur in decades.

Councillor Carlone wanted to hear more about mechanical reduced from 40 to 25 feet. He also stated that on the site plan it looks like there is a slight setback on Fulkerson Street. He asked what the intention on this is. Mr. Siebenmorgen stated that this is expanding the depth of the sidewalks to 15-feet with plantings. Councillor Carlone asked if the 25-foot penthouse exhaust goes above a penthouse. Mr. Siebenmorgen responded that there would be no equipment above 25 feet.

Councillor Carlone asked the Linden Park Neighborhood Working Group to come forward.

Mr. Lino Becerra, 6 Cornelius Way, Pamela van Dort, 13 Cornelius Way and Jose Luis Rojas, 19 Cornelius Way, Association President, identified themselves. A presentation was made (ATTACHMENT E).

Ms. van Dort stated that they are close to an agreement on the total height of the structure. She stated that the working group are only representatives of the community and a tentative agreement was reached on July 8, 2019 with ARE but have not had the opportunity to get agreement from their organization. There have been additional community benefits put forth by ARE. She stated that the working group has not received a copy of the commitment letter. She stated that despite the progress made there are significant concerns that remain that she hopes to work through with the working group. She stated that she asked for additional time to engage in dialogue on some of these other major concerns.

She stated that the first concern is Eversource and the question that this property abuts the ARE site. She spoke about the benefits to ARE for this up-zoning petition. She stated that there is concern with the completion time of this part of the Grand Junction Path and stated that density has been a concern which ARE is asking for double density. She outlined that process to date. She commented that the neighbors still feel that zoning is an appropriate means to protect the transitional nature of this site but in the interest of reaching an agreement they have made three additional offers in addition to ARE. She stated that the final proposal to ARE made at the Planning Board meeting in June was 115 total height and was based on the 45 feet mechanical structure and would have been less if it were known that ARE could do 25 feet. She stated that in the interest of reaching agreement and moving forward the working group plans to ask their neighbors to accept this height.

She added that density has been a main concern throughout this process. ARE is asking through this up-zoning petition to more than double the current density allowed for this site. She stated that the site is currently zoned IA-1 but some other portions of the site are zoning residential. ARE is attempting to convert the density to industrial use. She stated that it is important to point out that this building and the height that the neighbors are willing to agree to is a total of 115 feet which is 25 feet higher than buildings that immediate abut Binney Street on the north side between First Street to Cardinal Medeiros Way. She stated that the Planning Board has recognized north of Binney Street as a transitional zone between commercial Kendall Square and the residential areas north of this. She stated that it is meaningful for urban planning to have consistency within a transitional zone to help define this and not have the creep of the commercial areas into transitional or residential zones.

She asked was it inappropriate to convert housing density into industrial density. She stated that this is subject to a Housing Overlay already that would allow density up to 1.25 and default C-1 zoning is .75 FAR. She stated that ARE in its petition is proposing to use 1.25 FAR applied to the 60,000 square foot C-1 zone and convert that allowable housing incentive density over and to convert it to industrial use on the IA-l land. She stated that it is positive to have no development and have a buffer in the C-1 land but the reason for the buffer is because ARE is using the allowable density for the residential area to make a bigger industrial building. Ms. van Dort commented that if the City Council does not find this to be problematic in the current discussions for incentives and housing and concerns in the City the neighbors do not think that it is appropriate to apply the 1.25 FAR multiplier that was specifically only for housing and at a minimum should only be allowed .75 FAR increase for this area.

Ms. van Dort spoke about the concern with the Eversource land. She stated that developers have submitted significant up zoning petitions over the last fifteen years that have effectively, according to Eversource, created an energy crisis which requires them to immediately as of this fall move forward with an additional substation or they will not be able to provide power to the recent developments. She noted that the additional proposed up zonings currently pending before the City Council, including this petition, CambridgeSide, and others that are coming down the pike have been contemplate in the need for a new substation. She questioned that if this up zoning is permitted how much bigger that substation on this plot of land, across from a school and near residential areas, going to be. She stated that the position of residents is that the City should not consider ARE or any other up zoning separately until Eversource issue has been resolved.

She spoke about the proposed plans for the substation from information provided by Eversource. She stated that the developers with their increased commercial developments have created this negative consequence that should not be considered separately. She expressed concerns about setting a precedent for future development. She stated that she is concerned about the redevelopment of the One Kendall Square garage but they are close to an agreement and need to work out the details. There are concerns about allowing bigger buildings built that will again transform the nature of this transitional.

She stated that there is concern about the adequacy of the community benefits. There should be  community benefits and mitigation to offset giving ARE this additional density. She stated that ARE stated that it would be profitable to develop this building under current zoning so any additional density and revenue that would be generated from this up zoning is effectively a windfall and neighbors want a fair community benefit. She spoke about other concerns that the working group has that need work, such as light and noise pollution, traffic impacts and specifics of the loading dock and mitigation of potential noise of beeping trucks. She noted that 5 of 7 Planning Board members did not support the petition. She requested that this remain in committee to complete the negotiations.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted a discrepancy in the presentation showing the Eversource site.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about the light pollution and how automatic shades mitigate the light, but not all the light.

Mayor McGovern noted that a lot of the issues are addressed in the commitment letter. He added that holding this in committee about issues that have nothing to do with zoning.

Councillor Carlone stated that there could be another Ordinance Committee hearing in September and still have time to move to ordain the petition, which expires on October 9th.

Mayor McGovern stated that automatic shades are not included in the zoning ordinance issues. He stated that he wanted the work done by ARE and working group to continue and a financial calculation of the up zoning be provided to the City Council. Ms. van Dort stated that ARE will continue to listen to the community concerns and stated that this is in East Cambridge and includes broader community participation. Councillor Carlone stated that the issues are citywide and will be resolved.

Councillor Simmons spoke about the community input and what will be voted by the Linden Park Neighbors and East Cambridge community. You need to figure out who has the last word from the community input standpoint. She asked who the decision-making authority for the neighborhood is.

Councillor Siddiqui said there is consensus on certain issues. She asked about the petition’s relationship to housing needs. She asked if housing has been discussed with these working group meetings. Mr. Becerra stated that the working group asked ARE to produce a plan of their site developers for lA-1 according to zoning and C-1 for housing. It was found to be acceptable. Councillor Carlone stated that for the proposed open space site there was a proposal to show what type of housing could fit in. But given Eversource’s proposal (currently 110-feet tall) creates great uncertainty and this site be might be more realistic as a green buffer. Councillor Siddiqui stated that she thought some of issues are so big and she questioned whether they could get resolved.

Councillor Mallon spoke about the compromise and all the work that has gone into this both the working group and ARE. She expressed concern about the density issue and that a compromise is proposed. She noted that ARE has no control over the Eversource issue and questioned that rationale to keep this petition in the Ordinance Committee. She spoke about the Grand Junction Path time line, the community benefits, light and noise pollution; traffic and loading dock are all things that come during the special permit process, which is in the next phase. She stated that she felt that keeping this in committee to address the working group concerns is the best procedure because most concerns can be worked on through the special permit process as well as continuing the working group.

She spoke the items in the commitment letter for the community and the community benefits. She is comfortable to move this out of committee because the existing process will be long, and it will take a long time before there is a building on this site. She spoke about the model used by ARE to help developments and neighborhoods work to move things forward. She wanted this moved out of the Ordinance Committee tonight and allow to work through the process. Ms. van Dort stated that if the City Council moved this forward she requested that the City Council consider the issues raised particularly the density. She stated that the working group gets its negotiation power through support of the City Council.

At this time Councillor Carlone requested City staff to come forward.

Mr. Roberts spoke about the Planning Board review of the petition. He explained that the Planning Board hearing on the original petition was heard and reviewed in January, and left it open for a response to the Board’s comments. He stated that the Planning Board revised the petition on June 18, 2019 with ARE’s proposed changes without the current amendment regarding the reduction in mechanical system height. The Planning Board heard from Linden Park Neighborhood working group and their alternative proposal made at that time. He stated that there was a wide range of comments expressed by the Planning Board and no consensus recommendation was reached. The Planning Board requested staff to prepare a report summarizing the diversity of the comments made by various Planning Board members on topics including size and scale of the development project, the proposed public benefits in exchange for the increase in development. This report will be prepared for the July 23rd Planning Board hearing to review. He commented that no vote was taken by the Planning Board on a recommendation. The Planning Board noted that they might be able to make a recommendation if changes to the proposal continued and urged the petitioner to continue working to reach consensus with nearby residents. The petitioner stated that they would do.

Ms. Farooq spoke about the timeline regarding the community benefits. The CDD will review the commitment letter. She stated that it appears to follow the mode of the prior commitment letters which was agreed to with a lot of input from both CDD and the Law Department at the time of the first ARE rezoning petition. She noted that it is fairly typical for funds or property in the letters of agreement to be transferred at the time of CFO but sometimes there is a component that can be transferred at the time of the building permit. However, typically a proponent wants to make sure that they have some assurance that their project is moving forward before they deliver on the community benefits. She stated that funding and design could be separated from the rest of the community benefits funding which may allow for the dollar amount early on to be able to allow the design process to begin sooner.

Ms. Farooq stated that in terms of the prior ARE petition, ARE received their rezoning in 2009, then went for their PUD special permit in 2010 and their design review in 2013. The building permit was probably issued in 2014 when the City received the funding for the design piece. These were funds associated with the park design and in 2014 the Connect Kendall Square Design Competition was initiated utilizing some of the funding. She commented that the 2009 ARE petition was significantly larger and included multiple sites and the conceptual design for the PUD and the design review would have been a much more elaborate process. In that process the City received two park parcels that ARE had transferred to the City: the Rogers Street Park and another at First Street and Land Boulevard. The design work is only now completed, and the city is about to put out to bid the Rogers Street Park for construction.

She noted that it is true that the City process usually takes longer than in private hands, but she anticipates in this case it could move faster for the Grand Junction design since that process is underway at other locations currently. A committee has begun working on the Grand Junction design and all the stakeholders are at the table including ARE and the other property owners. She expects this work to be completed even before the ARE building design is completed. So, if funds were transferred the City would be able to go into construction in a faster timeline than what occurred in the prior rezoning.

Councillor Carlone commented that the City Council has stated that any approved increase in zoning must pay for their resulting increased land value. He stated that it is assumed that these discussed benefits would come at that time, not when a building is built. He stated that the funding would come earlier with design money or even the right of way. This is part of the up zoning and not part of actually constructing the building.

Ms. Farooq questioned that the Chair is suggesting that some of the funding be received sooner. Councillor Carlone responded in the affirmative. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the commitment letter is passed and accepted at the same time that the ordinance is ordained, and the commitment letter is incorporated into the zoning ordinance and should be happening simultaneously. Co-Chair Carlone responded that the commitment letter could state a maximum value for the up zoning approval with an undetermined list of related projects/amenities to be determined.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that when the Planning Board on July 23, 2019 reviews a summary of their hearing in June, would they be informed about the petition changes submitted tonight. She then asked would the Planning Board transmit a recommendation for the July 29 City Council Meeting. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative and Planning Board will be provided with changes to petition and if the Planning Board decides to forward a draft recommendation with minor changes that can be made effectively overnight, it could be submitted to the City Council. However, if the Planning Board has more complex thoughts and wants to consider the petition further and if they do come to a conclusion, the recommendation could be made at the City Council for the July 29th agenda.

Councillor Zondervan said since the design of Grand Junction is underway and ARE is offering funding to pay for its portion of the Grand Junction work, how can this be coordinated. Ms. Farooq stated that it has suggested to ARE to include the funding that would be equivalent to both design and construction because the City has already front-ended the design funds and the ARE money could be used for construction where needed. Councillor Zondervan stated that absent this process how soon could construction begin on the Grand Junction pathway. Ms. Farooq stated that absent this process the City needs to think about how the Grand Junction gets phased because there is a possibility that the construction happens in the southern section of the corridor first, which would be transferred to the City by MIT through the Volpe rezoning. That phase would not happen for a few years. The section north of Cambridge Street, which the City is in an agreement with the Cambridge Housing Authority, will be after all their construction work is completed for their project. This is all a few years out and would happen in a fragmented way because the City does not control the entire segment from Binney to Cambridge Street.

Councillor Zondervan asked if the City had control of the land today how soon could construction begin on this section. Ms. Farooq stated at least 3 years out because they are only now working on design and then preparing construction drawings would need to be done followed by the bidding process. This can be time consuming.

Councillor Mallon stated that land conveyances could take a long time given the legal process. She asked what is a realistic time frame for the land. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that it would be done as soon as ARE makes the conveyance legal and it could take months. Councillor Mallon asked if funds would be transferred from ARE to start construction as long as the City had an MOU. Ms. Farooq said this may be a possibility because the City has already bonded this Grand Junction segment so there is some funding that would be available, but she wanted to confirm this with the City Manager. Ms. Farooq stated that present funding for the Grand Junction is $10 million and some of the funding is being used for design and some will be for construction.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment began at 7:45pm.

Ben Simon, 67 Bishop Allen Drive, urged letting the community impacted by this development take the lead in shaping this. The community as a political actor is disempowered by the political and economic structures. The community gets to play defense and gets to say what is not wanted only right before it happens. On the other hand, the rights of very wealthy individuals get to reshape our cities as they pursue greater amounts of wealth, which is considered sacrosanct. He stated that because a developer can buy property and with a single act can amass more power over the community and the people by shaping development and their community. He spoke about this being the situation where a private developer EMF kicked out the artist community and lost the art and musician space after twelve years in the space. He urged the City Council to reject the ARE petition.

Nancy Donahue, Director of Government and Community Relations for Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, stated that the chamber supported the ARE development. She stated that Kendall Square thrives on the new ideas that foster collaboration of nearby companies. The Grand Junction will benefit the community. She stated that ARE’s development is high quality. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT F).

Christopher Correira, Plymouth Street, stated that he is a resident and represented Carpenters Local 328. He stated that this project will result in about 375 union construction jobs. He noted that ARE has been a great partner to the City of Cambridge. He spoke about this development benefitting the community with being built with union workers. He spoke about the benefits that the Linden Park residents will get. He stated that regarding the noise pollution the mechanicals will not be as loud as the trains.

Jose Luis Rojas, 19 Cornelius Way, stated that he did not want the City Council to let ARE to transfer housing FAR to an industrial use on the site.

Josh Drayton, 36A Rice Street, represented local 328 Carpenters and ARE is big with the union. He supported the jobs that this development will provide. He applauded biking and the Grand Junction path. The trains are louder. He supported the ARE project. This will provide more union and community jobs.

S. A. Webb, President, Kendall Square Association, whose mission is to protect, preserve and advance the well-being of Kendall Square, the worlds densest innovation district. She stated that the Kendall Square Association gets calls from cities around the world asking how we created what we have. She commented that Kendall Square is the envy of world to have the kinds of world driven organizations, research institutions, MIT and companies working together to bring the next generation of products, services and therapeutics to the market. She stated that as long as Kendall Square remains an innovation driven district, it could be an evergreen economy for the City as long as the next wave is developed. In order to develop the next wave, more space is needed for new talent to come together to solve these problems. She stated that there is no real estate available for organizations that want to move into Kendall Square. It is so hard to get a lease in this district. She stated that the Kendall Square Association is in support of the ARE petition. She stated that are use in Kendall Square has remained flat while the development has grown over twenty years in large part due to the T and bus lines. She added that the Grand Junction is critical for Kendall Square.

Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, spoke about the unity between adjacent, affected neighborhoods. The Linden Park and East Cambridge neighbors will continue to work together. He agrees with the Linden Park working group that Eversource’s location needs must be better resolved. If you moved this petition out of the Ordinance Committee this takes away the leverage that the City Council has. The petition is contract zoning and Eversource is still an issue. He stated that the mitigation by ARE is not an act of generosity, kindness or anything of sort; it is the payment for the increase in density that the petitioner is proposing. He stated that it is a matter of importance that the City Council maintain its leverage and not to keep giving it away thinking that you will solve the problem. He stated that doing great things in Cambridge is actually not having a substation next to an elementary school. He stated that it is time to put action behind the words when it comes to the elementary school and the most vulnerable in the community and to pay attention to this matter and to take care of them. He stated stop negotiating the deals and get Eversource out of the elementary school environment, because the impact of this substation on the children is unknown.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, spoke on behalf of the Cambridge Residents Alliance, which is in opposition to the petition. The proposal is still too large for the neighborhood. There is supposed to be a transition to the neighborhood along the north side of Binney Street and this still far exceeds this. She noted that the Chair of the Planning Board stated that this is contract zoning and the practice of site-specific zoning is objectionable. It was stated by CDD that the petition does not meet the goals of the Envision for more housing. She stated that she wanted to see more housing in Kendall Square to accommodate the jobs being added to Kendall Square. This is one of the top Envision plan priorities and the Planning Board Vice-chair stated that he would support the proposal if it were for housing. The Planning Board Chair proposed that they should ask for more housing whenever up zoning is requested. This parcel already was zoned for greater housing density indicates that this is what the City Council was trying to incentive. She urged the City Council to stick to what it was looking which was more housing and not looking to incentivizing more lab development in this area.

She stated that given Eversource’s situation and adding more demand for energy without a solution to the problem is an important point. This could be grounds for holding this petition in committee in the hopes that the Eversource issue can be resolved. The open space is a buffer to the Linden Park neighborhood, but it will not be a good public space for the public to use. She stated that there will be poor access and will have an Eversource substation on one side and a large building on the other side. She stated that if the City Council does approve this petition, she requested that ARE hand over the land before being granted a certificate of occupancy. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT G).

Jason Alves, Director, East Cambridge Business Association, supported the ARE’s improved petition due to the hard work of those in the neighborhood and the petitioner (ATTACHMENT H). He stated that the business association has supported the Grand Junction Path by for a long time. This petition will advance the timeline greatly. He urged moving this along and completing the Grand Junction Path. He applauded ARE for taking steps to address the Eversource problem.

Rafi Mohammed, 10 Rogers Street, spoke on the proposed height agreement, which he stated is step one. He stated that step two is taking into account the negative externalities of zoning and the costs which can be imposed on Cambridge citizens. He stated that from a financial standpoint there is a tremendous upside for ARE with this up zoning. He estimated that the project value is about $1,342 per square foot and can go as high as $1,800 per square foot. This leads to a total upside of $318 - $427 million before cost are taken into account. He spoke about asking the developer what their costs are. He is not against profit but wants it done fairly and equitable.

He spoke about the Council’s lack of focus on the cost of up zonings. He spoke about the problem of energy caused by new development. This is dangerous, and the City Council should not move forward with any up zoning until this is taken care of. He spoke about traffic and if one added two minutes to your day due to this extra people entering the City this is 80 minutes a month of extra time, which are negative aspects to the environment. If you change zoning and it affects someone’s view that is a cost. He stated that in summary Cambridge is in a great financial situation but there is not enough focus on the cost of up zonings.

Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street, stated that the proposal is not ready to be forwarded to the City Council. He expressed concerns with the community benefits, particularly the publicly accessible open space. He spoke about the Eversource project. It is unknown when the substation will be completed and if there will be enough energy to power this building. He stated that until the City understands where the power is coming from the City should not be considering any significant up zonings.

Matt Connolly, 13 Cornelius Way, shared the neighborhood sentiments on two points. One is the issue about how to move forward tonight and as a concerned resident he believes that there are many ordinance issues that need to be resolved. There is density and that this is contract zoning. He stated that the line between planning and community benefits. The community benefits are unknown because the commitment letter was distributed at the hearing. He stated that the only thing that the City is considering is if the building is appropriate and is the City getting a fair return. He stated that because this is a planning process he urged the City Council to consider the energy impact of this up zoning. He stated that the Eversource issue has been an issue for some time and now is the time to resolve this issue, which was a hidden issue with all the up zoning over the last ten years. He stated that the City needs to consider the energy infrastructure and the energy planning that comes about from this. He urged the City Council to vote against this petition or keep it in committee until this is resolved regarding the Eversource substation. He stated that there is a direct issue about all up zonings, how much additional energy is going to be needed, and how much bigger the substation will be. There is a direct impact because this proposed substation is directly next to an elementary school. He stated that the transmission lines will run underneath the Grand Junction Pathway, which will impact the timing of the pathway. He stated that this is a large up zoning for a lab building that directly affects the substation. These issues have to be considered together. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT I).

Jim Gray, 2 Michael Way, commented that the working group has done a lot of work looking at the interconnection issues and the fact that many are related to ordinances and zoning. He stated that collectively we should make sure that we take a breath and do this right and wait until September. This is worth a step back to make sure that all has been looked at. The process should move forward with the right guidance in a couple of months. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT J).

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, spoke about getting to the meeting at the school about the court house and questioned how he would get to the hearing without public transportation. He stated that he took the 68 bus and walked where there was no sidewalk. He stated that this is not just about shadow studies; it is about when you walk through the transition from a really huge developed area into a residential neighborhood and what this experience is like for a pedestrian. He stated that there are issues with the scale of the building as proposed. He stated that this area is not well served by public transportation. He stated that he wished that the Kendall Square Business Association could make up their mind on whether this is wonderful for transportation or did they write a letter to the governor complaining about the problems with the T. He spoke about rezoning the whole city for housing in a controversial way when there is area where housing is allowed, and we are not doing residential. He spoke about Grand Junction being a bike path. He stated that there is only 14 feet for this path. He asked if this is enough to have separation between pedestrians and bicyclist because if it is not this is not going to be a multi-use path. It will be a bike path. He noted that an advocate for bicycling at the Planning Board called this a bike path. He stated that if this is not going to be a truly multi-use separated path be honest about this and consider its value for what it is. He stated that the two-track Worcester line commuter rail is an important aspect of this and he values this He stated that a Planning Board member suggested taking this by eminent domain and it was not in the summary provided by the Planning Board.

Patrick McGee, 877 Cambridge Street, President of the East Cambridge Business Association, supported this petition as a resident. He stated that he is excited to see the connectivity from Cambridge Street down to Kendall Square proper. He applauded the work done by the Linden Park Neighborhood group with ARE to come to consensus with the size and density of the building.

Richard Petty, Business Manager of Carpenters Local 328, 10 Holworthy Street, stated that ARE is a good partner to the City and unions. He stated that he is the Chairman of all the apprenticeship program in New England and New York. There is a participation agreement with Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and the more projects that are approved and moved forward in the City it allows Cambridge students to participate in the apprenticeship program and be given a career. He stated that it is important to move this forward and onto the next stage.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 8:17pm.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about the productive process that has produced significant progress. He stated that this is not the model for how we should be developing our City at all; this is spot, or contract zoning. He finds it frustrating to be constantly involved in the high-stake negotiations with developers who are far better resourced then we are to conduct this type of negotiation. He stated that this is inappropriate to hold the Grand Junction Path hostage for this up zoning. He stated that half of the segment has been committed to the City and the remaining half is what is being discussed and this land should be transfer to the City immediately and independently of this zoning proposal. If this does not happen he will move to vote this petition down. He spoke about the City’s power of eminent domain. He has an innovation business and stated that labs are the highest energy use intensity buildings in the City and the buildings are 80% of our emissions that cause climate change in Cambridge. Why are we talking about permitting more buildings that would generate more emissions and cause more pollution, climate change and cancer and then are told that cancer may be cured in this particular building. He asked where the housing is. Why is there another commercial building proposed in the neighborhood when we all know we need more housing. He stated that the City Council cannot approve these up zonings with the threat of energy and the need to build more infrastructure in the neighborhoods and under the City streets. He added that it has been pointed out many times that this Eversource substation is a big massive octopus that is being dropped in the neighborhood that will extend tentacles under the City streets in multiple directions. He commented that residents have to live through this construction and disruption for a few million dollars when there is credible evidence that this up zoning is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and the City is being offered peanuts. Unless and until Eversource has been resolved and there are clear commitments that this building will not increase energy consumption and our emissions profile in Cambridge, he is not prepared to approve this petition with appreciation for the hard work that has gone into this proposal. He stated that it is time to stop planning the City this way and short changing the residents.

Councillor Carlone reminded the Council that this site was downzoned 20 years ago and that on all those downzoned sites not one unit of housing was built. He noted that over time zoning goes up and down.

Councillor Mallon spoke about eminent domain and spoke about the Vail Court eminent domain taking and that nothing has been done with this land. Ms. Farooq spoke with the City Manager on this matter. There is a part of the Grand Junction segment that is committed to be transferred to the City as part of a special permit condition by ARE and that is not contingent on this zoning passing because this commitment has been made. The rest of the petition’s proposed right-of-way that would be needed there is no commitment related to this. The bulk of the Grand Junction is not owned by ARE currently. She stated that the City has not had any discussion with the Church about taking this and based on what the proponent has noted it is not a price that the City could easily pay because in any transfer that relates to eminent domain the City is bound to things such as fair market value, both in state and federal law. She stated that the City Manager has expressed that he is not interested in embarking upon an eminent domain taking that is not with a willing partner. There is no indication that such an agreement would be able to be reached.

Councillor Mallon noted that the City would be bound to a fair market value because it would be using taxpayer funds. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg explained the eminent domain process. He stated that there is state and federal law that if a government entity takes property they have to pay just compensation. The City would be required to have the value assessed for what was being taken and would have to pay this amount. He stated that if it is a hostile taking the property owner has the right to challenge the City’s valuation and this can be taken to court, which could lead to an extended litigation. Councillor Mallon asked if this is the situation with the property on Bishop Allen Drive. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg responded in the affirmative. Councillor Mallon asked about the part of the path that has already been conveyed is 10 feet wide and this discussion is about an additional 4 feet. She asked if 10 feet is wide enough for a multi-use path. Ms. Farooq stated that it is not a desirable width for a multi-use path and the other challenge is that it does not go all the way from Binney Street to Cambridge Street. It terminates part way and would be a dead-end section of the path and would not be particularly meaningful if built to mid-block.

Mayor McGovern stated that eminent domain is not something thrown around lightly. He noted that the City has to pay 20% above the assessed value if taken by eminent domain. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg explained that the land has to be appraised at the highest and best use of the land. We should be discussing how to get a project that is good for everyone. He asked ARE if they wanted to discuss the housing issue. Mr. Maguire stated that given the location, not knowing the situation with Eversource and desire to do life science buildings, this location is not seen as a good housing site. He stated that there could be housing on the Eversource parcel but would want to work with someone like JAS to develop housing.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this petition is not ready to leave this committee and the Ordinance Committee’s schedule is not a reason to rush this forward. She read Mr. Connolly’s summary of the Planning Board members concerns on the petition. Vice Mayor Devereux said that that there is no neighborhood agreement. There are still outstanding issues of contract zoning and Eversource. She stated that the Eversource issue cannot be separated from this upzoning. This is the reality of the situation. She stated that those speaking about jobs should realize that these jobs create a greater demand for more housing. She stated that the elephant in the room is being ignored. This petition can be refiled a third time. She stated first figure out Eversource and then we can talk.

Councillor Simmons has a problem with eminent domain and ARE is not adversarial. She stated that if there is a possibility for housing in the C-1 zone then a conversation with ARE for housing should occur. She suggested transitional housing for the homeless on this site. She then suggested that the Council should step away from the conversation, as it is not being fruitful.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that this is at an impasse and this means that there is no room for agreement. There are a lot of moving parts with this petition and the Eversource issue is evolving. She stated that there is time before the petition expires and then it can be voted up or down. She noted that progress is being made but there are still some open questions. She suggested keeping this petition in committee versus voting it down.

Mayor McGovern stated that if kept in committee and another Ordinance Committee hearing is held, it is needed before September. He does not know what another month will do and suggested another Ordinance Committee hearing in August. He stated that there are issues that will be resolved in the special permit process and he did not want to hold this in committee for the sake of holding it in committee. He wanted this project to move forward. He added that ARE does not do housing and they own this property.

Councillor Toomey moved the petition to full City Council. He wanted the dialogue to continue. He acknowledged that Eversource is the elephant in the room and how this is addressed is paramount.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved to keep the matter in committee and to keep discussions going. She added that Eversource needs to be resolved before this up zoning is discussed.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Eversource is not a City development issue; this is a private development issue. A Kendall Square developer consortium should resolve this because no new buildings will get the rights to electricity as it now stands no matter what the City Council does.

Councillor Mallon questioned keeping the matter in committee. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the City Solicitor has ruled it can be kept in committee but that the City Council has the power to consider the matter even if it is still in committee. Councillor Simmons commented that if something is kept in committee the purpose of this is so that the conversation can continue. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that if the matter is kept in committee the committee can still hold hearings and act on the petition even letting the City Council know that they can take up the petition.

Councillor Carlone stated that his reservation about this is that the only place it will be discussed in detail is in the Ordinance Committee and not at a City Council meeting. Councillor Carlone reiterated that the motion is to leave the petition in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote of six members. Councillors Mallon and Simmons voted in the negative.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the report.

Communication from Piotr Mitros urging that the matter be kept in committee (ATTACHMENT K).

Communication from Hazel Arnett in opposition to the zoning petition filed by Alexandria (ATTACHMENT L).

Communication from Steve LaMaster, 395 Windsor Street, in support of the zoning petition filed by Alexandria (ATTACHMENT M).

Communication from Robert K. Coughlin, President and CEO, MassBio, in support of the extension of the Grand Junction Pathway as allowed by the zoning petition filed by Alexandria (ATTACHMENT N).

Communication from Phil McKenna, 135 Willow Street, in support of creating the Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District (ATTACHMENT O).

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 8:54pm.

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

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on June 27, 2019 at 3:33pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue discussions on a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 5.50 entitled “Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance.”

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 Solicitor Nancy Glowa; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq; Director of Zoning and Development, CDD, Jeff Roberts; Director of Economic Development, CDD, Lisa Hemmerle; Commissioner of Inspectional Services Ranjit Singanayagam; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk’s Office.

Also present were Marvin Gilmore; Joanna Varner; Nicole Snow; Frank H. Shaw, 126 County Road, Ipswich; Mitchell W. Bowie; Anne Wolf; Maggie Kinsella; Ed DeSousa; Sieh Samora, 11 Wellington Street, Boston; Grant Ellis, Long Avenue; Gary W. Gill, 12 Pope Street; Ryan Tompkins, Harvard Street; Thomas Steele, 17 Bellevue Avenue, Norwood; Jeremy Thompson, 418 Mass. Avenue, Boston; Elizabeth Dosr, RN, 100 Solitude Drive; Chauncey Spencer, 53 Rolin Street; Hatim Jean-Louis, 78 Rethven Street; Saskia James, 251 Garden Street; Lisa Price, 1675 Mass. Avenue; Derek Kopon, 8 Wright Street; Christian Palmer, 250 Main Street; Jennifer Oberhausen, 424 Windsor Street; Shaun McGee, 46 Dowey Street; Damond Hughes, 1916 Hyde Park Avenue; Jean L. Binjour, Jr., 55 Walnut Street; Selvin Chambers, 134 Putnam Avenue; Justin Springer, 594 Columbia Road; Joseph Gilmore, Director of Outreach for the Massachusetts Recreational Consumer Council, 6 Medway Street; Taba Moses, 73 School Street; Richard Harding, Windsor Street; Christopher Hunter, 33 Rogers Street; Amine Benali, 38 Franklin Street; Carlos Dugne, 3A Lauriat Place, Medford; Dawne Young, 49 Magee Street; Jude Glaubman, 159 Auburn Street; Ahmed Lawal, 31 Blakelyar; Jeremiah MacKinnon 39 N. Central Street, Peabody; Nicole Gittens, Cambridge; Laury C. Lucien, Chief Compliance Strategist, Greenlight Business Solutions, LLC; Vernon P. Hamiry, 290 Quincy Street; Zackary Berk; Saul Ewing, Arnstein & Lehr, 131 Dartmouth Street, Boston; Keith Cooper, 81 Woodridge Road, Wayland; Khari Milner; 16 Farrar Street; and Hipolito Cruz.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the meeting. There is a suggested new proposal from Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui who have given it to the City Solicitor who has given this back to the City Council with minor amendments. He moved that this be moved as a substituted amendment. He added that Councillor Simmons has an amendment. The committee will hear from City staff and then public comment. He hopes that the Ordinance Committee will agree on something and refer the matter to the full City Council for the Summer Meeting. He explained that the Ordinance Committee cannot on its own ordain an ordinance; it can simple review and refer to the City Council who, as a whole, can ordain the proposal.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the draft amendments that she prepared and submitted to the City Clerk to be placed on website for this hearing were only changes made by the Ordinance Committee and referred to in the May 9th Ordinance Committee hearing and adopted by the City Council on June 3, 2019. She added that any other subsequent proposals are not included in the draft amendments that were placed on the website prior to this hearing. Councillor Kelley commented that when he reviewed the draft he thought it contained amendments from Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui. She added that the Committee Report requested that she meet with the Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan and the suggestions given to her at those meetings that were included. She added that it was somewhat similar to those submitted by Councillor Siddiqui and Councillor Zondervan as a communication on June 24, 2019 amendment text includes the amendments submitted on June 24, 2019 in a memo from Councillors Siddiqui and Councillor Zondervan (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Zondervan stated he and Councillor Siddiqui met with the City Solicitor and put forth the ideas that were in a memo for June 24, 2019 and they are incorporated into the draft ordinance text.

Councillor Kelley moved to amend by substitution the draft ordinance text (ATTACHMENT B). The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

At this time Councillor Simmons moved her proposed amendment (ATTACHMENT C). She stated that the amendment addressed the hurtles that Economic Empowerment (EE) applicants face; which is capital. She is proposing an Accelerator Fund which is essential. She stated that the existing Cambridge business owners, specifically around women and minority business owners, and she hopes that they are not struck from this. She is concerned with keeping existing RMDs from converting to adult use sales for two years and feels that this will hurt patients, access and may violate state law. She wanted to discuss this and work on details in an effort to be equitable and to move it forward. She stated that there are many that cannot move forward because the City Council has not moved forward on this. She wanted the City to be as equitable as possible, particularly to the economic empowerment or minority and women who have been disenfranchised by the cannabis industry for years. She stated that she wanted to ensure that Cambridge is providing as much equity and continuity of service and care as possible.

Councillor Zondervan spoke on his amendments. He commented that there are people currently in jail because marijuana has been illegal for decades. He stated that wanted to ensure that there is equity and that the industry can move forward as quickly and as equitable as possible. Cambridge has the opportunity to be the host community for the first economic empowerment applicant retail store in Massachusetts. He noted that there are 100 EE applicants in the state and not one has been able to open a store yet. This is a great opportunity for Cambridge. He stated that Councillor Simmons amendment captures what has been swirling around in the conversation and proposes an equity fund that the RMDs would contribute to, but this idea has not been made real. The fund does not exist yet and it is premature to capture this in the ordinance language now because the EE applicants have not had a chance to sit down with the RMDs and make sure that this agreement is going to work. He stated that he is optimistic that this will happen over the next four weeks and when it does it can be captured in the ordinance. He stated that he would not be comfortable voting this amendment into the ordinance tonight but would recommend this structure provided that the EEO applicants and the RMDs come to an agreement.

Councillor Simmons confirmed that Councillor Zondervan is proposing that this amendment stay before the Ordinance Committee so that it can move forward as part of the ordinance in July. It is hard for EE applicants to move forward without some sort of structure and this in innovative and allows them the ability to compete. She spoke about the disparity. She wants to ensure that this amendment stays alive. Councillor Zondervan stated that the amendment offered by Councillor Simmons can be attached to the committee report and incorporated later.

Councillor Zondervan outlined his amendments: He stated that in the priority applicant definition in 5.50.020 Definitions he clarified the EE and social equity applicants so that they are two separate sentences. He stated that for the social equity applicants a Cambridge residency requirement is being proposed for at least the past three years. He stated that the next amendment is to add a Cambridge resident who is low income and has been for the last three years and also a priority applicant. He explained that this is someone who does not qualify as a social equity or EE applicant but who is a Cambridge resident with a low income defined as below 50% AMI. He stated that in the Group B applicant there is clarifying language that the City Solicitor provided that RMDs are Group B priority applicants.

5.50.040 Permitting Preferences for Priority Applicants removes the prior language and what is proposed is to only issue a retail store permit to EE applicants for the first two years. This is the main equity component here. He stated that the amendment offered by Councillor Simmons builds on the two-year exclusion allowing the RMDs to participate providing they contribute to the fund. This could be amended in July to allow RMDs to participate to operate a retail store during the two-year exclusion providing they are contributing to the equity fund.

5.50.050 Permitting Requirements a new provision 11. It is a business in good standing with no outstanding federal, state or local investigations or judgments pending against it.
Also, by adding in section (c) at the end to read: As part of the Cannabis Business permit application process, the City shall require the applicant to disclose all individuals and legal entities who have a beneficial interest in the applicant’s business. He stated that sample disclosure forms were provided as used in Boston.
The changes to 5.50.060 voted on at the May 9th Ordinance Committee hearing.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the controversial amendment is the two-year exclusion and asked the City Solicitor about the legality of the exclusion. Councillor Kelley asked the City Solicitor if she had another comment because there was concern about the placement of marijuana facilities and this was addressed through the zoning. He asked what can be discussed.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that it is legally permissible to have a delay to prefer EE applicants. In the materials provided by the state was an example of six months but believes that this period was just an example. She stated that a delay up to 2 years would be a permissible delay if the City wanted to adopt that type of provision prior to when anyone other than EE or social equity applicants could obtain a permit under this ordinance. She added that Ms. Farooq or Mr. Roberts will answer zoning questions.

Ms. Farooq stated that there is one regulation already adopted by the City Council. It is the zoning regulation, and this is the regulation that pertains to the business permit process. This relates to who can operate and when in the City and what way; however, the locations in the City where a retail cannabis business or RMD are allowed to locate have been determined by the Zoning Ordinance and is not under discussion today. City Solicitor Glowa stated there was a question of whether the City Council could manage locations through regulations rather than an ordinance and the answer to this question is no. She added that placement of stores cannot be regulated through this ordinance or regulation but must be done through zoning.

Councillor Carlone stated that there were several questions at the last Ordinance Committee hearing about co-location. He stated that when the City Manager developers host community agreements the City Council can set criteria as to what is desirable beyond zoning. He cited concern about the operation of three locations in one block and neighbors have repeatedly expressed concern having three in one neighborhood especially since the law requires that only eight can be located in the City. He stated that if a social equity or minority opens an operation there is no limitation where a non-equity group can be located. He stated that it is counterintuitive that there can be 2 or 3 entities located side by side if two are equity oriented. He asked can the City Council set host community agreement criteria and how does the City Manager decide when there are 3 applicants for one neighborhood and establish criteria for areas missing in zoning and missing in permitting. He asked if this were true. City Solicitor Glowa responded that she will review this and get back to City Council.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that the Ordinance Committee will have to decide on this amendment proposed for the first 2 years and the amendment proposed by Councillor Simmons. She supports the amendments submitted by Councillor Zondervan and herself. This is about intentional equity. She stands behind this amendment.

Vice Mayor Devereux has concerns about the criteria. If the City Council sets criteria to help guide the City Manager in negotiations for the host community agreements where would these placed. She asked if they would be placed into this ordinance or would there be a separate thing and how would this be made transparent. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City Manager is the person who executes host community agreements with applicants. Ms. Glowa stated that she wanted more time to report back and could be part of this ordinance or by a Policy Order.

Councillor Mallon asked about potential conversion of existing RMDs. She asked can the City Council require existing RMDs who convert to adult use to keep any percentage of their floor space for medical. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the negative and this research has been confirmed with the Cannabis Control Commission. Councillor Mallon stated that there is concern if the City waits for two years and only issue permits to EE applicants that the RMDs will close or medical patients will not be able to access their medical marijuana. She added that there is no guarantee that the existing RMDs will keep the medical if they convert to adult use. She stated that this is an opportunity to ensure equity in a burgeoning business that is going to help to repair the harm that the war on drugs created; the City has an obligation to do this. She stated that she wanted this done fairly and equitably and wanted the public to understand that within the ordinance the City cannot require RMDs to keep the medical dispensaries. She noted that her major concern is that there is an equitable program.

Councillor Zondervan stated that in 5.50.050 paragraph (b) states No discretionary permit conditions may be imposed by the permit issue in authority pursuant to this Chapter. He asked who the permitting issue authority is the City Manager or Inspectional Services. City Solicitor Glowa responded Inspectional Services. Councillor Zondervan stated that too many stores close together should be regulated in the zoning and should be determined by the market place.

Councillor Carlone asked does an RMD have any requirement to maintain an RMD if converted to adult use. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there is no requirement to keep the RMD. Councillor Carlone stated that what was important to him was for RMD to be spread out through the City and social equity applicant. This was what was important to him to vote for this ordinance. He stated that if there are no criteria that the City Council is requesting that the City Manager follow the City Council and not give up a responsibility to make RMDs keep medical marijuana for patients in the host community agreement. He will not vote for this if this is not in writing.

Councillor Toomey asked Ms. Glowa about the zoning and asked if every area in the City can have a marijuana dispensary. City Solicitor Glowa explained that the locations where marijuana establishments can locate are governed by the zoning and it is not permitted everywhere. Mr. Roberts stated that cannabis retail stores in the zoning ordinance are regulated by the ordinance adopted by the City Council in December 2018 and took effect in April 2019. He stated that the establishments are only allowed by special permit from the Planning Board in business and industry zoning districts in the City. They can be in districts that generally allow retail use and cannot be in residential districts in the City. He stated that there are restrictions on the distance between different establishments which can be waived for EEO or social equity applicants. There are also requirements from the distance from public schools and public recreational facilities. Councillor Toomey noted that the City Council voted to change the 500 to 300 feet from these locations in the zoning. Mr. Roberts responded that the distance was changed from 500 to 300 feet, the distance from public schools and public recreation.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 4:17pm.

Marvin Gilmore, 26 Mt. Vernon Street, stated that he is a proud African American man who is the grandson of slaves. He served the United States with courage and dignity in WW II. In 2010 he received the highest award from France for his heroic service. He stated that when he was leaving Europe at the end of the war he was denied passage on a military ship full of white soldiers and despite his service he had to cross the Atlantic on a small tugboat. He spoke about his professional life since the war to encourage economic empowerment among the black community. He stated that he was the first Africana American in Cambridge to hold a beer and wine license, to operating the Western Avenue Jazz Club and developing the Hyde factory on Columbia Street. He spoke about his entrepreneurship and wanted to enter the cannabis industry as an EEO applicant at the age of 95. He stated that the moratoriums lead to stagnation and promote blight. He stated that this moratorium on the RMDs will not help the EEO applicants because this is not what they need. He stated that in order to be successful communities of color need access to capital. He stated that in l960 he formed the first full-service black owned bank in all of New England and it worked.

At this time Councillor Mallon moved for suspension of the rules to allow Mr. Gilmore more time. The question now came on suspension of the rules – and on a voice vote the rules were - Suspended.

Mr. Gilmore further stated that cannabis EEO applicants need access to capital and operational support. He stated that Councillor Simmons’ amendment is a solution to the problem faced by himself and other EEO applicants. This amendment is a thoughtful way to provide much needed funds and support so that EEO applicants can enter the business, open retail cannabis establishments and prosper as opposed to amendment by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan which just seeks to stop someone else from entering the legal cannabis marketplace. He stated that equity is resolved by working together for EEO, RMDs, City and staff. He stated that this amendment provides a pathway to a partnership between existing RMDs and the hopeful EEO applicant. Cambridge can be a leader and set a better example and he urged the City Council to vote unanimously in favor of Councillor Simmons amendment. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT D).

Joanna Varner, Weymouth, representing patients across the Commonwealth through the New England Grassroots Foundation. She spoke about what happens when someone is a hardship patient and go into a dispensary with no money to get your medicine and you cannot get your medicine because all they are offering is a 10% discount. She stated that it is our duty to make sure the dispensaries are providing clean medication and are providing medication for hardship patients. She stated that no one should advance unless they are doing right by patients. She noted that there are patients suffering. She stated that she lives on $300 a month and is suffering and does not know where her medicine is coming from. She stated that she is going off donations of medicine now. She commented that the City is allowing Big Canada to come in and should be allotting money to take care of their patients before they can go into recreational cannabis. She added that social equity has been a joke and applicants are not being taken seriously. She stated that there are people spending their life savings to apply for business and are keeping a building open because they are waiting. She stated that patients need to be helped now and helping the underserved in this community that have waited long enough.

Joseph Gilmore, Director of Outreach, Massachusetts Recreational Consumer Council, he supported the equity ordinance and the amendments offered by Councillor Siddiqui and Councillor Zondervan. The EEO and the social equity applicants who are trying to get through the process need a more equitable playing field when adult use is implemented in Cambridge. The RMDs state that they will be devastated by the moratorium and the RMDs main focus should be on patients and to take care of their original obligation before expanding into adult us market for monetary gain. There is a proposal by the dispensaries to create a grant program that would supplement grants for EEO applicants which is not enough. He stated that $250,000 over the course of four years is not a lot of money for EEO to start their own businesses. He stated that in order to create a balanced playing field he supports the moratorium for EEO and social equity applicants. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Nicole Snow, President and Executive Director, Mass. Patient Advocacy Alliance, 190 Bridge Street, Salem stated that she has done this work in Massachusetts for over ten years and has helped patients harmed by the war on drugs. There is an intention to make this ordinance equitable by all the City Councillors. She originally supported the City Manager’s ordinance because it was clear, expedient and efficient and was going to say that it required RMD that are allowed to move forward to remain medical or have an agreement to remain medical dispensaries before moving forward with adult use. She stated that she agrees to holding them back if they are not contributing to our community. If they are going to contribute to our community, especially in the ways that they have compromised in meetings held with the City Council and support EEO financial means, which may be $5 million over four years and this will come faster through Cambridge than through the state of Massachusetts. She supported the budget amendment that was put forth by the Cannabis Control Commission; and it failed. She added that there may not be an opportunity for a while to collect money for EEO. She supports EEO and the small benefits that will take for moving the RMDs forward, but she suggested a condition be placed on the RMDs that they remain medical. She added that if the City can enter into a host community agreement, which is a private contract, she believed that the RMDs will enter into contract with Cambridge, Massachusetts in order to show that their agreements are equitable. She stated that she supports the compromise. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT F-1 & F-2).

Frank H. Shaw, 126 County Road, Ipswich, supported the compromise amendment on the cannabis business permitting ordinance submitted by Councillor Simmons. He stated that he is 66 years old, disabled and a registered medical marijuana patient who travels to Cambridge to obtain his medicine. He has suffered for 20 years with AIDS and medical marijuana means life to some patients like him. He stated that the Councillor Simmons amendment will not cause a conflict with medical patients and equity entrepreneurs. He stated that medical patients stand with the social equity applicants. $5 million for EEO applicants in Cambridge is nearly one-half of what the entire state failed to pass in their new budget for social equity. He stated that if Cambridge passes the amendment submitted by Councillor Simmons Cambridge will be the first City in the entire state to put real money into the social equity program. He stated that existing medical marijuana dispensaries who opened for patients and who have helped small businesses in Cambridge do not deserve to be punished. He added that the Councillor Simmons amendment is legal and act to protect small businesses and relationships that have been developed. He stated that City Councillors pushing an agenda that hurt medical marijuana patients and current existing businesses will lead to law suits and prevent equity in recreational sales from coming to Cambridge for years. He stated that delaying RMDs from opening will cause major law suits and will ensure only EEO applicants supported by big out of state companies are able to hold onto real estate during litigation. He stated that the largest barrier of entry for EEO is funding and the amendment submitted by Councillor Simmons creates a real pathway for EEO applicants not supported by big out of state money by creating a real grant fund of $5 million. He stated that other states medical programs have been eliminated by similar local level efforts after legalization. He stated just look online to see how recreational hurts medical. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT G).

Mitchell Bowe, Beacon Street, Cambridge stated that if RMD are barred from operating as adult use dispensaries for two years these dispensaries will not be able to operate in general in Cambridge. He stated that in Oregon the rise in recreational marijuana sales has already put medical facilities out of business. This trend may be seen in Massachusetts and it will be impossible for these businesses to operate as medical only especially in Cambridge where voters overwhelmingly support recreational sales. He stated that the residents of Cambridge have waited long enough.

Anne Wolf stated that as a patient she is in full support of the compromise. She stated that medical marijuana sales have plummeted in other states where RMDs have been forced to close leaving medical patients with limited access to medical marijuana. She stated that patients lose when access to medical programs are jeopardized. She requested the City to issue licenses now and allow RMDs to convert. She wanted Cambridge to be a leader in creating a real sustainable and achievable EEO program alongside an equally strong and sustainable medical program.

Maggie Kinsella stated that she appreciates the focus on prioritizing EEO and social equity but hearing feedback it is important to think about what the intention of law was. She stated that at this point there could have been 14 RMDs that were co-located and only be discussing licensing EEO and social equity applicants but there are small fish fighting small fish. The compromise is crucial to ensure that everyone can move forward. She stated that she does not see why the City of Cambridge has to limit its zoning when one would not know what a pot shop looked like standing on a corner from any other business. She added that there should be not issue with 3-4 shops in the same area. What is creating this issue is the stigma created around cannabis. She wanted medical patients to be allowed to continue to be supported even with moving forward with the co-location. The 3 applicants could be moved forward while at the same time prioritizing EEO and social equity applicants. She supported the compromise and creating a fund and an agreement in writing to remain medical.

Ed DeSousa stated follow the money. He stated that Massachusetts made $150 million since cannabis has become legal for the past six months. There are RMDs selling to Canadian and out of state entities and this money is leaving the state. He stated that $15 a gram is not looking out for a patient; it does not cost this much to produce cannabis. He stated that there is big marijuana and local cannabis. The amount of money for the EEO applicants is a drop in the bucket. He stated that these organizations are making over $250,000 a weekend and this is to be contributed over several years. He stated that he is not an EEO but is an advocate for a micro business and that he fights for the small guy. He stated that he is fighting for those who have been doing this in the shadows and now looking to become legal in their own municipality. He stated that if the City wants to stand with big marijuana understand what you are standing for but if you want to stand for patients lets create a program where patients on a small budget can afford their medicine. He stated that to eliminate the black market the entities who support patients should be licensed because you will have low income patients going to black market and it will never come to the legal market. He stated that he supports the ban.

Sieh Simora, stated that he is a certified EEO applicant. He supported the compromise amendment by Councillor Simmons. He thanked the City Council for the hard work they have been doing on this and the interest in this and the support for EEO and social equity applicants when other municipalities have failed. The compromise is the solution for all the parties involved and could set a precedent that other municipalities could follow. He stated that EEO applicants can be funded and bring them into the industry and make the industry stronger and allow RMDs to move forward with the promised priority.

Grant Ellis, disabled medical cannabis patient, stated that he lives on Long Avenue, Cambridge. He stated that the amendment submitted by Councillor Simmons, although well-intended, should only be endorsed by the Ordinance Committee if every single existing medical dispensary is will to admit to remain a medical dispensary and to do otherwise would be tantamount to putting corporate marijuana interests on an equal playing field with EEO and social equity applicants who have suffered for decades at the hands of the drug law which these existing corporate medical dispensaries are now using to profit every single day while people remain in jail as Councillor Zondervan pointed out. He stated that as many have testified today the priority period for EEO and social equity applicants is a crucial program because nowhere else in the state is something like this being done. This is an unspoken hand of monopoly and regulatory capture that runs through the marijuana program from top to bottom. He stated that these vailed monied interests obtain licenses, sell them off to out of state or corporate factions and undermine the intent of the program to facilitate profit for people who are not in the state and have no interest in this process. He stated that when people stand before you stating that they speak for patients, it is important to ask where they are being funded from and what are the actual interests attempting to facilitate this equal playing field for corporate marijuana dispensaries. He stated that the well intention amendment is rooted in a desire to reach a compromise, but this compromise should not be so blind as to overlook the blatant conflation of corporate cannabis interest with EEO and social equity applicants. If the 2-year moratorium is legal go forward with it and allow the EEO and social equity applicants a chance to get a foothold in this industry. He stated that if the City does not these dispensaries will take the chance to switch to recreational, abandon every medical patient and go for their own profits. He urged enforcing the moratorium and give priority to EEO and social equity applicants and put patients over profit.

Gary W. Gill, Salem, stated that he is a medical patient and an advocate and speak for 65 LGBT patients with HIV and AIDS elderly patients. He stated that the price of cannabis at dispensaries the elderly cannot afford. He stated that on the economical part he thinks that Cambridge is going to win because if the funding is provided for EEO to move up to be part of this program Cambridge is doing the best to fund the program. He stated that he supports the amendment offered by Councillor Simmons for the patients. The patients will not allow the City Council to ignore the patients. He stated that keeping EEO applicants down will not be tolerated. He added that the economical idea is to be mentored, shown how to create a business and to help it grow from the bottom up. The ideas on the floor are good and no delay is needed. He stated that this needs to move forward quickly and this is a win-win for all. He added always remember the patients.

Ryan Tompkins, Harvard Street, stated that he is supporting his local dispensaries. He spoke about the price of the average ounce of cannabis and Massachusetts is the highest for the cost of medical cannabis. This cannabis is too expensive. This is preventing local dispensaries from providing cheap medical cannabis that is successful for all.

Thomas Steele, 17 Bellevue Avenue, Norwood stated that he is an advocate for medical cannabis. He focused on the personal aspects. He is a veteran with issues that can be helped with cannabis. He stated that all patients have their own story. He asked the City Council to help the group they want to help without hurt the other group. The compromise is the best way to go. He supports the amendment offered by Councillor Simmons. He asked is hurting medical patients the best way to help EEO and social equity applicants.

Jeremiah Thompson, 418 Mass. Avenue. South Boston stated that he and his partner have a proposed business in Cambridge. He stated that a powerful legislation was created that took big business and gave them an opportunity to work with EEO applicants to get ahead of the line. He stated that RMDs have things in place to work with EEO applicants and the EEO applicants need the RMDs to step up to work with EEO to go to the head of the line so that they can move forward. He stated that he is not for the compromise but wanted RMDs to work in unison with EEO. He stated that $5 million over the course of years is a drop in the bucket. He wanted to find out a way to work together.

Taba Moses, 73 School Street, stated that the role of the government is to work for the good of the people, not to make deals on behalf of elite businessmen that have a negative impact on the communities that they have been appointed to serve. He stated that Revolutionary has tried to create a monopoly in Cambridge. He stated that Sira Naturals has asked EEO applicants to support them and are opening all over greater Boston in exchange for unfair shelf space agreements and some munch money. He stated that both have come together and are threatening to sue the City. He stated that those who have never risked anything when it comes to this game and have benefitted first while those most negatively impacted have been sitting on the sideline. He stated that in Jan 4, 1958 Narcotics Commissioner Harry J. Angslinger announces a series of raids in big cities around the country crippling the narcotics trafficking in New York. He explained that during the Narcotics Commissioner’s time he implemented stringent drug laws and unreasonable long prison sentences that would give the rise to America’s industrial prison complex. He stated that millions of black lives were swept away and many were lost. He stated that this was not a war on drug; it was a war on culture the same in our culture now. An attempt to squelch the radical freedom of jazz and the age of colored people. He stated that this is not about denying medical patients access to cannabis. He stated that he supports the medical patients. He stated that in Massachusetts there are over 50 RMDs and all have been approved for sales and hope that the continue to serve the medical community. He stated that for his community, the community of color, in 2019 it is about the right to a quality education and economic access. He stated that it is also about righting a wrong to his community based on the war on drugs. He stated that the CEO of Sira Naturals knew nothing about cannabis or a profit and loss sheet but somehow, he is qualified to run one of Cambridge’s most profitable cannabis company. He stated that the funding is not enough, and he wanted access, opportunity and inclusion.

Richard Harding, Windsor Street, stated that there is a new disease in Cambridge; it is called Lieabetes. He stated that testimony heard is false. He stated that equity is not an abstract thing; it is up to the leaders to establish equity in the new cannabis regulations. He stated that all know who will benefit if the City Council does not stand up here. He stated that the RMD could stay the way they are; this is about greed in its worst form. He stated that there was no equity involved in RMD. He stated that $5 million in this billion-dollar industry is nothing. He noted that this is a legacy vote. He stated that if the City Council messes this up it cannot be fixed; there is no going back. He stated that this is not a compromise. He stated that this will not be the first bad decision made in this chamber. He stated that the public needs to find out today if the City Council is representing the people of Cambridge or vote for big cannabis. He stated that EEO and social equity empowerment and the livelihood of the working people in Cambridge could be ever changed with this decision. He stated that this is not a game. He stated that it is legal to give the 2-year moratorium. He urged the City Council to show its leadership and get this done.

Christopher Hunter, 37 Rogers Street, stated that he supported the EEO and favored the 2-year moratorium for conversion of RMDs to retail facilities. He stated that the concern that if existing RMDs are not permitted to convert that there will be reduced access to medical treatments. He added that access is best defined in terms of supply and affordability. He stated that looking at other states from the transition from an only medical market to medical and recreational market there is no evident to support that access has been reduced except in the cases where RMDs have elected to disregard their responsibility to their medical patients. He added that evidence points to a more accessible market and in the presence of increased supply prices tend to decrease. He further stated that in the presence of a recreational market the variety of products tends to grow. The patients in need of high potency products still have access to them while those who do not have the highest medical needs have the ability to access cannabis products without jumping through regulatory hurdles. He stated that focus should be on the impact of the proposed amendments on equity in the industry. The Cannabis Control Commission’s mandate was to promote full participation in the industry by EEO applicants. This access is most highly prevented by barriers related to access to capital. He stated that the primary barrier to access and capital is site control and access to licenses. These communities that have been disproportionally harmed are already at a disadvantage to those categories and should be placed on an equal playing field with respect to accessing site control and capital and the best way to provide access to the capital is to provide a roadmap with a runway for acquiring the capital. He supported the moratorium rather than a compromise.

Amine Benali, 38 Franklin Street, stated that he supported the amendments submitted by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan. This is a critical moment for social economic justice in the community and the country. He hoped that decisions could be made based on facts and be sensitive to the anxiety that is generated from misinformation. There is nothing in the proposed amendments that creates barriers to access to products that have been received from the existing medical dispensaries. There is nothing in the amendments that restricts those dispensaries from continuing to successfully operate as they have for several years. He stated that the notion that allowing recreational retail stores to open before medical dispensaries open their own recreational facilities and that this will restrict access to medical products lacks logic. He commented that in the end there will be recreational stores operating in the City anyway. He stated that the issue at hand is who owns the recreational stores first the existing RMDs or the EEO applicants. He stated that it is not the City Council that is talking about the reduced use of medical products and it is not the EEO applicants who are threatening that supply; it is the existing RMDs who are raising this concern without any evidence of this threat materialized anywhere in the state or in the country. He commented that evidence points to the contrary to improved access to the product, increased affordability, broader access especially for individuals. He stated that professionals that work for the government who have no interest or desire to acquire medical cards would like to have access to the product without the stigma. He urged the City Council to consider the facts and the will and desire of the residents of the Commonwealth to support equity and justice for the communities that have suffered the most during the previous enforcement regime.

Carlos Dugne, Attorney, 3A Lauriat Place, Medford stated that he supported the amendments submitted by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan. He stated that he is supporting equity applicants here as their attorney. He spoke to the general trends and it is incredibly difficult to advance and to raise capital to be successful for EEO applicants. He stated that the well-intentioned compromise amendment will not help EEO applicants hope of success.

Laury C. Lucien, Attorney and a Certified EEO Certificate holder, stated that she has been in the process of seeking a license since 2016. She stated that she started in the medical market but was booted out because it was not friendly to a social equity applicant or an EEO applicant. She stated that instituting a moratorium of 2 years to allow these individuals who have been kept out of the medical timing is important. She stated that the individuals who were given the opportunity to be medical had the funds, the ability and power to get into the industry then; EEO or social equity applicants did not. It is unfair to us for them to think that to institute this band because they already had a starting chance at this and EEO and social equity applicants did not. The moratorium is leveling up what did not happen in the medical regulations. She added that this is an opportunity for justice and would like to maintain her space in the adult use industry in the City now because this is what is required to bring fairness. She stated that timing matters and the timing of this was unfair for EEO and social equity applicants and those who do not have access. She spoke about taking the time to get this right and ensure that a system is created that those who were left out can build themselves back up before the big guys come in and crush them.

Elizabeth Dost, RN, stated that she was the first nurse to support the medical use of marijuana in Massachusetts. She stated that she supports the compromise submitted by Councillor Simmons. If the patient is not supported these cuts the very program that this was built upon. She stated that we are here to discuss EEO and social equity applicants because there are patients that needed medical marijuana that the state courageously passed the bill in 2012. She added that patients are still underserved. She stated that the most vulnerable, most discriminated against, the most marginalized are people of all colors who are sick and suffer and the government has turned its back on them. She stated that is we turn our backs on the medical patients we are turning out backs on the patients that this law was built upon. She stated that everyone bleeds red. She urged the City of Cambridge to stand up and supports the medical patient while empowering those who have been disproportionally harmed by the system.

Chauncey Spencer, 53 Rolin Street, stated that he is an EEO and social equity applicant. He explained that this is a designation provided by the state for people who have suffered certain injustices. He stated that when we grew up we were terrorized and abused, and we are now trying to become entrepreneurs. He stated to have rich people already operating these dispensaries and pitting patients against us trying to get into this is shameful. He stated that the RMDs are profiting off the backs of poor people; it does not cost that much to cultivate cannabis to bring it to the front of the store. He stated that RMDs are robbing patients blind. He supported competition coming into this space. He stated that people are trying to be entrepreneurs; not profiteers.

Saskia James, 251 Garden Street, applauded how far this has come in a short period of time. She suggested Group A priority applicants in the section for a women or minority owned business as certified by the Commonwealth and/or the City to amend this to include residency to support Cambridge First. She stated that regarding permitting requirements she stated that she did ask for shelving space to be required for local Cambridge First and to be included in the ordinance. She stated that regarding the accelerator fund to be in tandem when this goes into effect. She stated that there is no need for a 2-year period for social equity applicants and there being no funds available for this. She stated reparations needs to provide funds for the damage to communities from the war on drugs that has affected Cambridge. She added that the City of Cambridge as well as the dispensaries need to provide these funds. She did not want this to become effective until the funds are available.

Lisa Price, 1675 Mass. Avenue, applauded the efforts for the EEO and social equity applicants. She stated that she is speaking for those who are not here and not allowed to speak; she is speaking on behalf of children and youth. She spoke about the public healthy aspect of the law. She explained that she is a physician and takes care of children, adolescents, youth under the age of 21 and adults. She noted that it has been seen nationally the effect of the vaping epidemic. This was a product designed for adults with a good, well-intended purpose and it became an epidemic throughout the nation. She stated that San Francisco has banned e-cigarettes. She stated that the Surgeon General in San Francisco has issued an apology as to how it was handled. She stated that Cambridge has an opportunity to and an obligation to think about the decisions being made now because they will impact the youth and the future of the City. She stated that she wanted the City Council to think about the well-known fact that 25-50% of teens who are heavy users become addicted; 70% of teen substance abuse admissions are for marijuana. These are well established facts. She further stated that risk is increased 2-5 times for first episode psychosis for youth users. She added that the marijuana used today is not what is thought about in the past. She noted that the vaping industry has made available products, dab pens, that avail the use. She stated that diversion, which is what the businesses talk about and is supposed to protect access for youth, does not occur in the vestibule of buildings but occurs in the neighborhoods and in the homes. She explained that she became alerted to this because across the street from her office 1676 and 1686 Mass. Ave. are two businesses in a thickly settled, child-oriented neighborhood that has a public park and two renovated children’s playgrounds less than 300 feet away and there is a public school less than 450 feet away; an after-school and summer camp with 130 children per week less than 300 feet away. She urged the City Council to think carefully about the decisions moving forward because it is in the City’s interest to take good care of our City.

Derek Kopon, 8 Wright Street, spoke about the health effect on the use of cannabis on children. He stated that an increasing number of studies are showing correlations and observational evidence of the serious adverse effects of cannabis use on children and adolescents. He stated that while the majority of the Cambridge electorate voted in favor of legalizing cannabis, it is important to note that the weed his neighbors were smoking back in the l970’s was significantly less potent than the cannabis commercial products available today. He spoke about the content of the product that have a 500% higher than the products available decades ago. He added that some of these products are in the form of candy, chocolate and gummy bears. He noted that this City Council has had lengthy discussions on various issues of equity, empowerment and permitting, however the most important issue that should be considered is the health of children and families. He added that it is disturbing that the 500-foot limit proposed by the Commonwealth, adopted by the City of Boston, has been relaxed to 300 feet in Cambridge. He stated that the City Council should be erring on the side of caution and making zoning more restrictive in areas frequented by young people; not less. He commented on Dr. Price’s suggestion to adopt a conservative approach to permitting cannabis near schools and urged the City Council to heed Dr. Price’s advice and keep these shops away from schools, daycare centers, playgrounds and neighborhoods where children are growing up. He added that if this means restricting the number of cannabis stores to a lesser number then so be it. This is a public health issue and should be treated as such. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT H).

Christian Palmero, Chapter President of Students for Sensible Drug Policy at UMass Boston, 250 Main Street, stated that as a student leader and activist that has been directly and indirectly impacted by the war on drugs he finds it difficult for himself and other student or community members to participate in the cannabis industry that have been doing this longer than any of these RMDs that have no experience with this. He stated that it is redundant that people of color and Latinos experience what the Northeast has to offer and that it is overwhelming to see people of color not participating in cannabis business. He stated that we are going through post marijuana prohibition and the rules are being rewritten. He supported the amendments submitted by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan because giving support to Group A applicants will provide opportunity to those who experience marijuana criminalization, directly or indirectly, to participate in adult use marijuana industry. He added that this would restore not only economically disadvantage but restore the consequences that revived from the war on drug. He stated that there are a lot of consequences from this 40-year campaign which was directed for people of color and hippies. He stated that allowing an equal playing field for the EEO and social equity applicant will start to bridge the gap for the disadvantaged consequences that are now being seen with statistical data and provide an equitable program. He concluded that as a consumer he does not want to see a Walmart model of cannabis.

Jennifer Oberhouser, 424 Windsor Street, stated that she does not know why RMDs and EEO and social equity applicants are being pitted against each other and competing for the resources. She spoke on behalf of those who do not have a voice or allowed to speak, who are also the victims of this disenfranchisement and will not have a chance to participate in the EEO opportunities because they are incarcerated for selling drugs. She stated that since President Nixon began the war on drugs in l971 as a tool explicitly to oppress both the African American community and those who opposed the Vietnam War at the time. She commented that she has been by the dispensary in Brookline and seen young white college students in line waiting on Friday afternoons. She asked if there is any room for legal advocacy on the state level on behalf of the prisoners who are incarcerated for minor drug offenses.

Damond Hughes, 1916 Hyde Park Avenue, Boston, stated that he is a certified EEO applicant who has been working through this cannabis landscape for some time. He supported the 2-year band. He stated that EEO groups can work with the RMDs to create equity. He stated that the EEO applicants need a jump start. He stated that this is all we want. He stated that he does not want a hand out or money. He stated that if there is an EEO applicant who is against the 2-year band the City Council needs to look at who they are truly working with and who is backing them.

Jean L. Binjour, Jr., 55 Walnut Street, stated that he is a Boston Scientist teacher and has taught for eighteen years. He stated that he is interested in the science behind cannabis. He stated that this sounds suspiciously like what is happening with big farmer and if the City is not careful about this roll out this could end up being controlled by big Canada. He stated that with the EEO rolling out will be great because he stated that he has family members that have been the victim of the war on drugs. He stated that EEO and social equity applicants get a license for the first 2 years they can build up the business and other can have an opportunity to make up for the wrongs done early in life and provide for their families.

Ahmed Lawal stated that he is a veteran and an EEO applicant. He supported the moratorium and the amendments offered by Councillor Siddiqui and Zondervan. He added that RMDs and big cannabis have had a 4-year head start and EEO should have a 2-year head start. It is important that Cambridge gets this right.

Jeremiah MacKinnon, 39 North Central Street, Peabody, stated that he is a medical marijuana patient. He stated that medical patients do not have to be hurt to help equity. He stated that the RMDs are serving patients. He asked who else is going to take care of the patients and asked if there are any new medical applicants. He stated that the answer is no. He added that RMDs are here to serve patients and he is not going to pretend that this is not the case. He stated that Sira Naturals gave a 40% off on Mother’s Day weekend and Revolutionary Clinics gives 20% off to veterans. He stated that it has been frustrating pitting equity and patients against each other and it is not necessary. He urged the City Council to vote against the amendments offered by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan and to support the amendment submitted by Councillor Simmons. He stated that he shares the goal of making cannabis equitable and supports the City Council’s recognition of supporting EEO and intentionally prioritizing them but the ability for EEO applicants to locate their location in buffer zones would help them but prioritizing RMDs alongside EEO exclusive. He stated that it is not contrary to equity to prioritize both groups that the commission certified as priority applicants. He stated that there are over 64,000 active card holding patients in this state. He agreed that a 2-year moratorium is illegal and will hurt patients and could lead to a longer delay for consumers to get access to recreational marijuana. He stated that he is not comfortable voting for the amendments submitted by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan in this ordinance because of the 2-year delay and the detriment to patients. He stated that he believes that the City Council can come to a compromise and further assist EEO applicants without preventing or establishing a 2-year punishment on RMDs that can have unforeseen consequences on patients. He stated that patients are trying to prevent the collapse of the medical marijuana program in Massachusetts. He stated that he has been an advocate for medical marijuana in Massachusetts for 4 years. He stated that other states programs fall apart when recreational marijuana begins. He stated that medical patients just want security that they will be able to get their medicine. He stated that almost worse than the medical program failing at the state level would be for a city to unknowingly contribute to the down fall within its own borders. He stated that the RMDs are serving patients and want to continue to serve patients and these other applicants do not have plans to provide medical marijuana.

Nicole Gittens stated that she supported the amendments submitted by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan for a 2-year moratorium. She stated that it is clearly obvious that the RMDs need to focus on patients and get to the place that patients are being served as well as meeting the EEO applicants that the City deserves. She stated that Cambridge was built on small business. She stated that EEO applicants are those who live, work and serve Cambridge. She stated that this is an opportunity to take hold of any financial stability that is deserved. She stated that as an educator she spoke about the impact on families and student that the war on drugs has had on the community of color. She stated that it is time to return to the center to allow this community to look more diverse and for small business where all have an opportunity to benefit.

Vernon Fleming, 290 Quincy Street, stated that when discussing cannabis and EEO it is always about equity first. He stated that equity first is not about starting at the racing line at the same time. It is about giving enough time for someone to be a competitor in this cannabis business in Cambridge. He spoke about who is affected by the war on drugs which has been predominantly been people of color. He stated that this has been initiated multiple times by speakers as those who have been most affected should be the people who should benefit most from this cannabis industry. He stated that he has friends who are in jail for selling less than an ounce of marijuana. He stated that EEO is about who we benefit to and who we get benefit from. He stated that when one thinks about the cannabis industry where are the black or the Latinos; it is predominantly white men who are controlling the cannabis industry. He stated that EEO is not about starting at this racing line at the same time because the community of color is not moving at the same speed, do not have the same resources, the same lobbying or political or economic power that anyone else has. He stated that when one thinks about small businesses in the cannabis industry we have to think about how one smokes local and our local vendors, local dispensaries, local weed and drug dealers because the cost is too high. He stated that he is a medical patient and could not have survived with cannabis and understands the benefits of medical marijuana but when thinking about EEO applicants we need to think about who has been wronged from this war on drugs and who needs to benefit first from this empowerment of the cannabis industry. He stated that this is about money, how it affects the community and how it can create generational wealth within these communities that do not have it because people were denied, demonized and criminalized for the exact things that these medical industries are doing now.

Zachary Berk, a partner at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, stated that he represents 3 of the existing medical treatment centers currently operating in Cambridge, known as RMDs. He stated that he appreciated all the perspectives that were shared today. He submitted comments (ATTACHMENT I). He entered into the record a letter dated June 27, 2019 from Representative Mark J. Cusack addressed to Mr. Hoffman, Chair of the Cannabis Control Commission. (ATTACHMENT J). He stated that in the letter Mr. Cusack stated that it has been brought to his attention that some applicants are attempting to convert and co-locate a current medical marijuana treatment center and recreational marijuana business that municipalities are once again disregarding the law in order to prevent their opening. The law clearly states that a municipalities local zoning ordinances or bylaws shall not prevent the conversion of a medical marijuana treatment center. He further stated that if these treatment centers wish to convert and co-locate and have been given approval by the Cannabis Control Commission, a municipality shall not be able to create new bylaws to prevent it and the Cannabis Control Commission as a governing body should be there to inform these municipalities as such. Mr. Berk stated that as explained in the Cannabis Control Commission’s municipal guidance the only delay that is permitted with the regard to the conversion of RMD licenses is to allow the City to adopt ordinances. He stated that it is critical that the Ordinance Committee adopt a reasonable and legally tenable proposal today. He stated that therefore on behalf of his clients he urged the City Council to adopt the amendments submitted by Councillor Simmons which is a win-win for all.

Khaki Milner spoke about finding the level playing field which does not exist. He stated he is familiar with the history of laws benefitting some and keep others down. He stated that it is up to us to continue to push and not allow what is written or interpreted as written to what or how decisions are made. He stated that we can go back to the history of black and brown people in this country and it was illegal for us to learn to read and write, illegal to own land, open a bank account, to start a business. He stated that in some state’s possessions were taken from black people and distributed to poor white people. He added that this is not about evening the score because the score will never be even. This is about us thinking as a City do we want to perpetuate equity or to continue inequity and this is one step towards disrupting a cycle which has kept certain people in the advantaged column and others disadvantaged. He stated that it is not too difficult to figure out what a decision could mean in either direction. He stated that he hopes that this is not a complicated assessment. This is an opportunity as a City to stand up for something that is believed in and to ensure that our communities have an opportunity so that the next CEO’s or researchers have an opportunity to come from our communities and not to have the biased to think that they could not.

Hipolito Cruz, stated that he is a former Sira Naturals employee. He stated that African American and Hispanics have been gentrified and pushed out and have had an unimaginable burden of trying to succeed at home in a system built to ensure and guarantee that the white population will be given the first opportunity, first chances, the first loans, first approvals and the first steps in upper hand in anything ownership. He stated that it is time to balance out the playing field by giving minority small business entrepreneurs just a fair and equal chance to make a stake and claim in this industry. He stated that from cars, natural resources, biotechnology, corner stores, liquor and convenience stores and banks African Americans and Hispanics have been discriminated against in the process of owning something in those markets. He stated let us allow for the cannabis industry to be different and write history the right way. He stated that he and his girlfriend are victims of discrimination from Sira Naturals and Revolutionary Clinics.

Keith Cooper, 81 Woodridge Road, Wayland and CEO of Revolutionary Clinics stated that he wanted to make very clear three things. He stated that he is not big marijuana from out of state. He stated that he is from this area, went to school here and is a local entrepreneur and has created over 500 jobs in the last twenty years. He stated that for those who say we do not care for our patients, you have never been to our store because we love our patients and care for them very much. He stated that he has won awards because of this and patients come back. He stated that he never thought about giving up his RMD license when he applied for the recreational license. He stated that he will put this in writing that he will stay with the medical program and protect patients. He suggested that those who are applying for new licenses that they attest that they will supply the medical program also. He spoke about the services offered by Revolutionary Clinics. He stated that over 8,000 patients are helped by Revolutionary Clinics to deal with stress, pain and other issues without narcotics. He stated that he is for medical discount pricing. He stated that over l15 new jobs have been created and will have 60 new jobs in Cambridge. He stated that compensation is 30% higher than the average wage in the service industry. He stated that full medical benefits are provided to employees and free transit. He stated that the minority employees count for 34% of the team and the target is 50%. He stated that Revolutionary Clinics has the highest customer service rating in the industry and voted best dispensary in New England in 2019. He stated that alternative treatment was founded for veterans to help our wounded heroes. He stated that there is a belief by delaying the opening it is the best way to help the EEO applicants to benefit. He stated that this is further from the truth. He stated that in that plan Cambridge businesses lose millions of dollars, Cambridge loses $12 million in tax revenue in the 2 years and this does not come back because this goes to Brookline and Newton. He added that 80 jobs in Cambridge will be delayed by 2 years and creates a legal nightmare that will keep everyone out of the business well beyond 2 years. This does nothing to solve the two real problems facing the EEO applicants which is capital and support. He stated that he supports 100% the equity initiatives in the market and he has never viewed this as us versus them issue. He stated that this does not have to be. He noted that even though there is the statutory property right to add adult use to the medical program he has come here to support a plan which collaborates with the City to actually benefit the EEO applicants with real financing and real support. He stated that when the RMDs are allowed to add adult use there are real funds available to make a real difference for the EEO applicants to get into the business. He noted that the RMDs have committed $5 million to be granted to EEO applicants; $1.25 million per year for four years with no strings attached. He added that without this plan it will very likely be over 2 years before the first EEO door opens. He stated that let Cambridge and its leaders be headline news for introducing the most progressive and successful program in the country as opposed to headlines for creating a delay, legal challenges and problems. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT K).

Shacker Ramsey stated that he is a Cambridge resident for ten years. He supported the compromise proposal submitted by Councillor Simmons. He stated that he supports EEO and social equity applicants and should not be mutually exclusive. He stated that the he has had family and friends whose lives have been affected by the war on drugs. He stated that he speaks as the Vice President of Retail Operations for Revolutionary Clinics. He stated that before he entered this industry he made a personal commitment to himself and if he were in a position to create opportunity for people from his community and the disenfranchised communities from the war on drugs that he would do all in his power to create a change in the industry. He stated that he is the person responsible for the hiring all employees at the two Cambridge locations. He stated that as a company and as a personal goal there is a priority to hire local residents, women and minorities and will continue to do so with a goal of over 50% to be reflective of the population of the community. He stated that the company cares a great deal about its staff and the medical patients.

Mike Dundas, Founder and CEO of Sira Naturals, stated that operating a medical marijuana company one grows a thick skin. He stated that he has been before countless municipal bodies and has been called several different things. He stated that he is not here to defend character assassination. He quoted one of his personal heroes: “When our opponents go low we go high.” He stated that he takes deep offense at accusations being leveled that his organization does not care about EEO and have done nothing for the EEO movement. He stated that the record speaks for itself. He pointed out that the Sira accelerator alone started well before the crest of this economic empowerment movement at the state and local level, has spawned a cottage industry among established RMDs to see who can do more in their local programs to help EEO applicants. He commented that when it comes to the policy he supports the proposition that the success of EEO applicants and the success of RMDs is not mutually exclusive. To the contrary that success can be and is interdependent. He stated that the cannabis industry is unique in many ways. At the state level, it was thought early on that expedited state licensure was the answer to the EEO problem and the EEO priority class was born. He stated that the results hoped for has not been seen. He stated that from his vantage point as a long-time industry participant and entrepreneur, this is not surprising because it takes so much more than expedited licensure to start and build a regulated cannabis business. He stated that new entrance will require capital, an extraordinarily scarce resource for new and emerging businesses, but there is no silver bullet for this issue. It will take more than just capital; it will take skills training, knowledge, information sharing, partnerships and relationship building. He asked who is best positioned to facilitate these unique and difficult tasks - Group A and Group B applicants working together. He stated that cannabis business owners, small and large, share a set of experiences that make them natural alias. Industry participants, both small and large, should be working together to create an industry that recognizes and redressed the devastating part of cannabis prohibition.

Shileen Tyler, Commissioner at the Cannabis Control Commission, commented on the opportunity to listen to all who testified, especially the patients and the EEO applicants. She stated that localities ability to govern the time, place and manner of establishments has been interpreted very broadly. She noted their guidance explicitly contemplates and exclusivity period of this type. She stated that Cambridge is being bold and visionary and the exact type of leadership that is needed to address this very complex problem of equity and to make this industry what the voters envisioned.

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 5:58pm.

At 5:59pm Councillor Kelley moved for a ten-minute recess. The motion carried on a voice vote.

On a motion by Councillor Kelley the Ordinance Committee reconvened at 6:09pm.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about the EE applicant’s needs. He stated that the has met with EE applicants and connected them with the Cambridge Community Foundation which has offered to be the holder of some type of equity fund, but the fund does not exist. He added that in order for it to be real and to provide equity he is hopeful that this will happen over the next four weeks but currently it does not exist. He is not prepared to vote for a compromise that anticipates a fund that does not exist yet. He suggested that the ordinance as amended by substitution to the City Council and forward the amendment submitted by Councillor Simmons as an attachment to the Committee Report for the consideration of the City Council and do not take a position on this now because it is premature to try to work this out. He stated that there are details in this amendment that he would want to discuss with EE applicants and other first before he would be able to consider this. Councillor Zondervan stated that he wanted to bring forward amendments submitted by himself and Councillor Siddiqui that was placed on the agenda on June 24, 2019 and most have been incorporated into the substituted text. He stated that he tried to include a provision so that adult use cannabis stores would honor the medical marijuana card but have been informed by experts that this is not allowed. He added that he had proposed possible regulations so that the City Manager will not issue a license to an applicant if any third party has more than 50% stake in the applying cannabis retail establishment and also has a controlling interest in any other licensed cannabis retail establishment in Cambridge. He explained that the idea is simply to prevent monopoly ownership. The memo also includes proposed language around shelf space, loans and other financial interests. He explained that the purpose behind this is that parties can disguise a controlling interest by mandating that a certain amount of shelf space is supplied with their products. He stated that his final proposal for a Cannabis License Registry that asked the Community Development Department to publish online a registry that lists all currently licensed cannabis establishments. He wanted to bring this forward for discussion and to be part of the committee report. Councillor Kelley asked if these are being proposed as amendments or as general theories. Councillor Zondervan noted that the language was not written as legal language and he is unsure if the City Solicitor has had a chance to review them. Councillor Zondervan moved that these proposed amendments be forward to City Solicitor for review for further discussion on what is the best way to incorporate these ideas.

Councillor Kelley suggested working off the substituted text and amend this text if needed. He stated that before the committee is the amendment by substitution and the amendment submitted by Councillor Simmons. He noted that these are competing amendments which were trying to bring equity to a broken, troubling system. He stated that Councillor Zondervan moved that Councillor Simmons’s amendment be attached to the Committee Report. Councillor Kelley commented that this amendment is the heart of this whole discussion and this should be solved now.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is encouraged by both suggested amendments, however the figure of $250,000 he has no idea who this would impact the multiple EE applicant given the funding needed to operate such a system. He added that it would be helpful to learn this compared to what funding is needed for an EE applicant. He stated that these compete. He stated that what has been proposed by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan regarding RMDs commitments to maintaining medicinal facilities. He stated that the City Council needs to discuss what is the criteria for the City Manager’s decision. He added that this is beyond zoning and beyond permitting. He stated that if the City Manager is deciding which of the three facilities makes sense and he felt that the City Council needs to inform the City Manager about the criteria and the issues. He stated that he wanted to hear more than the other RMDs will continue medical. He wanted to discuss the criteria for the City Manager for community host agreement. Councillor Carlone stated that he wanted to hear how $250,000 will make a difference. He spoke about the public comments that the $250,000 is not enough.

At this time Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council with what is the impact of $250,000 and its relevance to the cost of developing an EE cannabis establishment; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to provide a legal opinion to the City Council about the legality of providing funding to non-profits related to the cannabis establishments and how this funding can be used for economic empowerment entrepreneurs.

Vice Mayor Devereux questioned the special permit process when an RMD applies for a license. What criteria will the Planning Board be using for adult use. Mr. Roberts stated that there are criteria in the zoning adopted by the City Council in Section 11.800 and more specifically, section 11.805 has special permit criteria for all types of cannabis establishments and there are general special permit criteria for any conditional uses allowed only by special permit in Article 10 of the zoning ordinance. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is all zoning criteria and is not operational. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative; this has to do with the use, location, transportation, design and impacts on abutting uses. The City Council added a criterion for nonmedical stores or facilities that are not providing medical services that they provide program of some sort. The City Council was interested in this being a subject of review. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that there is something in adult use special permits that mentions medical. Mr. Roberts responded that one of the criteria in the zoning for special permits states that if the cannabis retail store or cannabis production facility is not proposed to include a medical marijuana treatment center, this is any non RMD would provide programs to assist qualifying patients within the City or neighborhood or registered through the Massachusetts Medical Use of Marijuana Program in obtaining services for that program. This was a provision that the City Council wanted to recognize a non-medical establishment should provide some kind of a service to assist patients who are seeking medical. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about a way to formalize that RMDs would continue to provide medical if converting to adult use. She asked if in section 5.50.050 Permitting Requirements in (2) regarding hiring 51% of minority, women or veteran as employees was this resolved at the last hearing.

Councillor Mallon asked regarding registered medical marijuana dispensaries if there is a way to use the community host agreement to require medical and if so, how often would this be reviewed to ensure that they are still offering the medical products. She stated that she would like the City Solicitor to respond to this for the summer meeting. She spoke about what Boston is doing regarding the beneficial interest’s disclosure form and asked if this is something that the City is requiring the City Solicitor to look into and develop one for Cambridge. She stated that in the ordinance it states that the City shall require that an applicant to disclose all individuals and legal entities who have a beneficial interest in this applicant’s business. She asked if the City Council will have to sign off on this at the same time at the summer meeting.

At this time Councillor Mallon submitted the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to provide a legal opinion on whether a provision could be included in the community host agreement about requiring RMD to provide medical after converting to adult use and information about whether the disclosure of beneficial interest in an applicant’s business needs to be finalized by the summer meeting.

Councillor Mallon stated that she is prepared to move forward with the substituted language tonight. She spoke about what was heard from the EE applicants was that it is not just about access to capital it is about access to site location and permitting. She noted that it is about equity and leveling the playing field. She stated that they are not operating with the same resources and there is a huge inequity of where people are right now. She stated that if the EE applicants can be given this runway for acquiring the capital and having the time to get set up and that the City needs to move forward with this. She stated that Boston is committed to the disclosure form and Cambridge should be because there are some RMDs that have permits that are under investigation. She suggested having something annually that outline who is the beneficial interest in these organization.

Councillor Kelley suggested that the questions be written down and at the end of the hearing they will be reviewed and put a motion in the Committee Report for the staff to answer so that all will know what is being asked.

Councillor Siddiqui wanted to know who crafted the amendment offered by Councillor Simmons and where the numbers came from. She stated that she is comfortable moving forward with the substituted language. She noted that people of color have been largely shut out of the legal cannabis industry and they are paying the heaviest price for it. She spoke about the definition of equity by the Cannabis Control Commission. The definition is the recognition and accommodation of differences through fairness and process and result to prevent the continuation of an inequitable status quo. She added that providing this time to EE applicants would be perpetuating equity. She stated that this is where she stands.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about having discussed with the Cambridge Community Foundation the possibility of hosting a fund and this would get around the question of who could hold the money. He stated that the purpose of this ordinance is to have annual review of the business license. He noted that any criteria attached to this ordinance will be reviewed annually and if the business does not meet the requirements they could be denied the license. He stated that any enforcement criteria should be attached to the ordinance directly.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that there was not a clear majority of support for either Councillor Simmons or Councillor Siddiqui and Councillor Zondervan amendments. She was interested in an agreement that does not pit RMDs against EE applicants because for the long-term health of the industry there does need to be collaboration and cooperation rather than an adversarial relationship. She stated that she does not want to rule out a compromise that would enable the RMDs and EE applicants to collaborate and for the existing RMD to share their time, money and taken to help to accelerate the EE applicants. She does not know if $250,000 a year for four years is the right number. There could be a provision to reevaluated this after four years when we see how many EE applicants have opened in the first few years and reassess this. She wanted it written into agreement that an existing RMD cannot co-locate with adult use and discontinue serving medical patients’ medical products. She stated that RMDs should serve medical patients in perpetuity. She added that all the beneficial interest of all of the EE applicants is unknown by the City Council. She stated that there is not a clear-cut answer to which one is equity, and which one is not an equitable situation. There is the potential for a cooperative agreement that could be a win-win. She hopes that this is what the City Council goes for and that it is not caught up in a much bigger issue. She stated that the war on drugs has devastated communities but does not want to overstate what Cambridge can do with the business permitting regulations and want to look for a way to help EEO, help redress the wrongs of the war on drugs, help medical patients and open stores of all kinds that are appropriate for the community. She stated that she likes the ideal of helping local residents and entrepreneurs. She stated that she is not against the compromise.

Councillor Kelley stated the focus is on stores. He stated that there is a whole other category of EE opportunities such as the cannabis cafes and the home delivery services. He stated that someone 25 who purchased a car and did non-medical and medical home deliveries you would need $8,000 to add a lock box and cameras on the car and he asked where this person would access this capital. He stated that when he looks at the accelerator fund he sees this as an opportunity for people to go to this fund to get the $8,000 to turn the car into a small EE facility. He stated that the Public Safety Committee discussed the equitable consumption in public of cannabis which is not the case in Massachusetts. He stated that in Massachusetts if a person does not own their own home the odds of being able to legally consume marijuana are slight because it cannot be consumed in public. He stated that addressing the equity issue with cannabis cafes and he understands from the CCC that these cafes would also be EE entitles and if there were a fund from which people could draw to get approved for a concept plan, to put down the first and last month’s rent this is providing another way for someone to break into this market on a very small level. He spoke about making your own marijuana goods and if you are going to sell marijuana brownies and you do not have a commercial kitchen you need access to one. He stated that he views the empowerment fund as something that goes much broader than what has been discussed and is more impactful to people who will otherwise have no hope of getting into this business because they will not be able to fund anything. The idea that people need a lot of money to start a business is not a new idea and the heart of the question is how to help people who have extra hurtles to jump over whether financial or expertise how best we help to do this. He stated that it is not clear to him that a moratorium for two years is the best way to help the people you want to help. He stated that he would choose Councillor Simmons proposal. He does not think this will be resolved by the summer meeting. He suggested keeping this in committee and scheduling another Ordinance Committee hearing.

Councillor Zondervan moved that the substituted text be forwarded to the City Council and that the subject matter be keep in committee and have another Ordinance Committee hearing. He stated that he does not want to keep this in committee and not move it forward because this precludes the possibility of settling the matter at the summer meeting. He stated that in terms of the compromise he stated that this is being dropped in the middle of an ongoing conversation and this compromise proposal did not come out of thin air. This came from the RMDs who want to put the compromise forward so that they can open their stores. He stated that he is not opposed to some kind of agreement reached we are not there tonight and cannot be voted on tonight that this is a good answer when there is no assurance from EE applicants that this is what they want. He stated that the committee would not be having this discussion if it were not for the introduction of the 2-year moratorium by Councillor Siddiqui and himself and this is not a reasonable way forward tonight. He stated again that the substituted language needed to be moved forward with a solution worked out between the RMDs and the EE applicants. He stated that he is optimistic that this can be resolved at the summer meeting and move the cannabis industry forward in an equitable and expedient manner. Councillor Kelley stated that suggesting that any block of applicants feels a particular way is misleading. He stated that this being dropped into the conversation is correct. He stated that this is in response to the memo submitted by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan submitted on the June 24th Agenda. He stated that this is part of an ongoing discussion.

Councillor Carlone noted that this has not been resolved. He recommended voting on the motion and agreed that this will not be resolved by the summer meeting. He noted that the summer meeting is already heavily scheduled with many ordinance issues. He asked if this could be voted on at the summer meeting and asked if it needed to pass to a second read. Ms. Lopez informed the committee that this has already been passed to a second reading and it is ready for ordination. She stated that the Ordinance Committee report will hopefully be on the agenda for the summer meeting.

Vice Mayor Devereux agreed that the summer meeting will be busy; there is a public hearing on the disposition of the First Street Garage. She stated that it was alluded that the EE applicants need time, capital, locational advantage and she thought that the zoning gave them this because they are allowed to site themselves within the 1800 buffer which gives them more flexibility in choosing a location. She stated that this is not a particular disadvantaged faced.

Mr. Durbin, Mayor McGovern’s Chief of Staff, communicated that prior to the Mayor’s departure there was a discussion about the possibility of scheduling a special summer meeting to discuss this matter individually because the July 29th meeting is long. He asked if the City Council wanted to give guidance if they wanted to schedule a special meeting. A special City Council meeting would be the recommendation of the Mayor.

Councillor Mallon stated that siting conversation was not about finding a location, but it is about the EE applicants being able to move forward within the 2 years and find a place and get started.

At this time the committee proceeded to act on the following motions:

At this time Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council with what is the impact of $250,000 and its relevance to the cost of developing an EE cannabis establishment; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to provide a legal opinion to the City Council about the legality of providing funding to non-profits related to the cannabis establishments and how this funding can be used for economic empowerment entrepreneurs.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

At this time Councillor Mallon submitted the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to provide information on whether a provision could be included in the community host agreement about requiring RMD to provide medical after converting to adult use and information about whether the disclosure of beneficial interest in an applicant’s business needs to be finalized by the summer meeting.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Zondervan moved the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to consider the proposed amendments included in the memorandum submitted by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan at the June 24, 2019 City Council meeting as a Communication and Report from Other City Officers and to incorporate the amendments on page 4 relating to the City Manager not issue a license to an applicant if any third party has more than 50% controlling interest in a cannabis retail establishment, shelf space, loans or other financial interest in a cannabis establishment and the creation of an online Cannabis license registry either as regulations and/or ordinance or Policy Orders.

The question now came on the motion and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: - Councillors Carlone, Mallon, Siddiqui and Zondervan – 4
NAYS: - Vice Mayor Devereux and Councillor Kelley – 2
ABSENT: Councillors Simmons, Toomey and Mayor McGovern – 3
and the motion - Carried.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she does not understand the business with the third-party controlling interest and what this means. She stated that she thought that there was a state law that precluded the same entity from opening more than three retail stores statewide. Councillor Zondervan stated that this is only for RMDs and this is statewide. He stated that in Cambridge the limitation would be that one entity could not have a controlling interest in three if all were in Cambridge. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if this means that Revolutionary Clinics could not have two stores in Cambridge. Councillor Zondervan responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she cannot support this and how this does not become a monopoly.

Councillor Zondervan stated that this is asking the City Solicitor to provide an opinion on how to incorporate these types of provisions. Councillor Zondervan stated that he is asked the City Solicitor can this be done and what is the best way to do this. Councillor Kelley suggested that Vice Mayor Devereux amend Councillor Zondervan’s motion to take out what she does not agree with.

Councillor Zondervan now moved to forward the substituted text to full City Council and to attach the amendment submitted by Councillor Simmons as an attachment to the Ordinance Committee Report. The motion carried on a voice vote of five members. Councillor Kelley recorded in the negative.

Councillor Kelley stated that if there is interest a for Special Meeting to discuss this with the Mayor.

Councillor Zondervan stated that it is a good idea to have another Ordinance Committee hearing and have a special City Council meeting.

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

A communication received from David Kelston, Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, 90 Canal Street, Boston, transmitting the support of Green Soul Organics, LLC of the amendments submitted by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan (ATTACHMENT L).

A communication received from Sherri Tutkus, RN, Founder of GreenNurse Group, in opposition to the amendments submitted by Councillors Siddiqui and Zondervan (ATTACHMENT M).

A communication received from Michael Byrne, 79 Kinnaird Street, urging the City Council to limit the total number of cannabis licenses granted and ban all cannabis advertising (ATTACHMENT N).

A communication received from Nancy E. Donohue, Director of Government and Community Affairs, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, expressing concern with the proposed amendment (ATTACHMENT O).

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

The hearing adjourned at 7:15pm.

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

Committee Report #5
The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on Wed, June 19, 2019 at 2:04pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the results of the City Manager’s Opioid Task Force Report and the recommendations that could be implemented to reduce the harmful effects of the opioid crisis in the City of Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Mallon and Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Zondervan; Superintendent Steve DeMarco; Sergeant Louis Cherubino, Cambridge Police Department (CPD); Acting Fire Chief Gerard Mahoney, Cambridge Fire Department (CFD); Claude Jacob, Chief Public Health Officer; Tali Schiller, Substance Abuse Prevention Coordinator; Mary Kowalczuk, Manager, Substance Abuse Prevention Programs, Cambridge Public Health Department; Liana Ascolese; Liz Walker; and Interim City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Bill Mergandahl, Pro Ambulance; Ellie Grossman, M.D.; Christopher Fischer, M.D., Emergency Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance; Nancy Mahan, Bay Cove Human Services/CASPAR; Hadassah Fleisher; Nasim Memon; and Edwidge L. Hercule.

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

Councillor Siddiqui thanked everyone for the hard work that is being done daily. She said that the City of Cambridge is a leader in this work and she noted that Cambridge’s resources help many other communities as well.

Claude Jacob thanked the Co-Chairs of the Opioid Working Group, Assaad Sayah, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Cambridge Health Alliance, and Commissioner Branville Bard, Cambridge Police Department, and the members of the group for their work on this issue. He introduced Tali Schiller who gave a summary of the document titled “Addressing the Opioid Crisis in Cambridge” dated June 19, 2019 (ATTACHMENT C) which is a summary of the City Manager’s Opioid Working Group Final Recommendations dated March 2019. (ATTACHMENT D). Ms. Schiller noted that monthly Naloxone trainings are being scheduled as it is important to get Naloxone out and to ensure that people know how to use it.

Councillor Mallon inquired about the cost of Naloxone and if it is covered under health insurance. Ms. Chiller responded that it is covered under health insurance. She said that a person can go to a pharmacy and purchase Naloxone. She explained that the cost depends on an individual’s health insurance co-pay.

Councillor Mallon said that the Central Square Business Association held a meeting and training with Naloxone. She said that the City received a bulk order through the CPD and the business owners were provided with Naloxone because otherwise they would have had to go through their private insurance. She said that this is another way that the city can help if given those such opportunities.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the presentation lists the 2018 data statewide data overdose death rate, but the Cambridge rate stops at 2017. She asked if a number for 2018 is available for Cambridge. Mr. Jacob said that we are in the same ballpark. He said that the high-water mark for Cambridge was in 2016. He said that based on the run rates and the deaths in 2017 and 2018, they are in the same range.

Councillor Kelley said that on page 4 of the presentation, the number of people who are “not homeless” is a huge category. He asked if this is randomly distributed across everywhere or are there places where we want to be more focused on our intervention and attention. Ms. Schiller said that the homeless are clustered around the Central Square area with a small amount in Harvard Square and Alewife. Councillor Kelley said that from a public health and public standpoint, the idea that opioid addiction and overdose does not happen near his home is a false idea. Ms. Schiller responded that we now know conclusively that overdoses happen all over Cambridge.

Mayor McGovern thanked the members of the Opioid Working Group for their work. He said that on page 2 of the presentation, it shows that since 2016, the number of annual non-fatal overdoses have dropped in Cambridge. He asked if this is related to the increase of harm reduction strategies. He said that it would be interesting to see what the number would look like for the times that an ambulance is not called. He said that this number may be higher than what is known.

Mayor McGovern said that one thing that he learned during his fact-finding mission in Montreal is how far ahead Montreal is in terms of understanding that substance use is a mental health disorder. He said that that the general public in Montreal is light years ahead of the United States in terms of integrating and educating the average person about substance abuse.

Councillor Siddiqui asked if Cambridge has any medical/legal partnerships. Dr. Fischer said that the CHA used to have a medical/legal partnership, but it does not currently. Councillor Siddiqui said that as a legal attorney, she has seen that many clients are dealing with a host of issues and the non-profit that she is affiliated with has received funding for some type of partnership which could be something that could be considered as part of one of the recommendations. Superintendent DeMarco said that there is a Homeless Court and that is part of their initiative to get these people out of the mainstream criminal justice system and into a more resource-based system to ensure that people receive proper treatment.

Councillor Mallon said that in the full report, it was noted that 8-12 of the people who died in 2013-2014 had an opioid prescription between the years 2011 and 2014. She said that in terms of the continuum of prevention/intervention treatment and recovery, what are the CHA and physicians doing to ensure that opioids are not being over-prescribed. Dr. Fisher stated that there has been a cultural and generational change in their approach to pain management. He said that there is less reliance on opioids and more reliance on other treatment modalities. He said that when looking at the prescribing in the Emergency Department from 2009-2018, they saw an 85%-90% drop-off in prescriptions for opioids. He said that there has been a dramatic drop in prescribing over the last 10 years that preceded the regulatory and legislative approaches that have come from the state and the Massachusetts Hospital Association. He said that this will hold true overall within the CHA system. Dr. Grossman said she is a Primary Care doctor and involved in CHA’s Behavioral Health Integration Program. She said that they are front and center in their Behavioral Health Integration Program at CHA. She said that in the past 12-18 months, it has been chronic pain management in the primary care setting because that is where patients get care. She said that they have been focusing efforts on building up workforce and professional culture around using non-pharmacologic strategies which are evidenced-based better than opioids to treat pain. She said that they can offer patients something positive. She said that at the same time, they have introduced dashboard-based, quality measures around opioid prescribing. She said that they are looking carefully at patients, in particular those who are on chronic opioids for more than 90 days in the last year and making explicit that they are expecting urine toxicology screens, controlled substance agreements, and instituting hard safety measures for those who are on high-risk medications.

Bill Mergandahl said that this strategy has made it into the pre-hospital world as well. He said that they do not carry Morphine on ambulances anymore. He said that they carry Fentanyl but more and more that is being replaced by Ketamine for pain which is a non-opioid. He said that this has been recently approved by the state. Councillor Mallon asked if Ketamine is addictive. Mr. Mergandahl answered in the negative. He said that it was only recently approved by the state for pain management.

Councillor Mallon said page 4 of the presentation shows that 72% of those hospitalized in 2017 for an opioid overdose were white. She asked how much race or other demographic factors come into play when determining a public health crisis. She said that when thinking about substance abuse and crack cocaine addiction, for example, in the 1980’s and 1990’s there was not this type of focus, resources or energy directed toward it in the way that there is currently. She said that she is pleased that the working group described the work as a blueprint for future addiction issues to avoid the same kinds of implicit biases in what we determine to be epidemics. She said that in researching the racial breakdowns and what populations this is affecting, she looked into a few clinical researches and over the past 35 years, it has gone back and forth as it relates to which types of populations it is affecting if looking at black vs white populations. She said that in the beginning there was a heroin mortality rate and then shifting into more of a prescription drug problem and more recently a heroin and Fentanyl problem that is affecting both the black and white populations. She said that, since 2010, increases in mortality have been similar in both populations. She said that this report said that the different patterns in the opioid epidemic by race suggest the need for targeted policy interventions to account for the distinctive pathways to addiction. She asked if race was ever talked about in the working group as it relates to target policy interventions. Mr. Jacob said that he does not recall discussing race specifically. He said that what is being seen is a snapshot specific to CHA patients. He said that this is a composite that is seen in one data source but there is not a specific policy for only white men. He said that there is no designed policy for any one specific demographic. Councillor Mallon asked if this is something that the advisory committee would be interested in looking at.

Mayor McGovern stated that he was appointed as one of two Mayors to the state’s Harm Reduction Commission. He said that they discussed many harm reduction strategies but what took up the bulk of their conversation was the conversation around safe consumption sites. He said that he saw a news story that Montreal opened a couple of sites so as a way to educate himself and others, he and a number of others went to Montreal to tour their facilities. He said that the goal was to look at Montreal’s experience putting into practice opioid use related harm reduction strategies, the impact those strategies had on those individuals with opioid addiction, how safe consumption sites interact with the surrounding neighborhoods and the municipal partnerships that support safe consumption operations. He gave an overview of a document titled “Harm Reduction Strategies in Montreal” (ATTACHMENT E). Mayor McGovern said that the trip was very informative and working on the Harm Reduction Commission was informative. He said that the “honeypot concern” was raised which is “Will this site attract users from other communities?” He noted that the research shows that people do not travel more than 15-20 minutes to access a site. He said it is important to talk about how to do this in multiple places, but he feels that Cambridge needs to be a leader in this area. He said the evidence is strong that these facilities save lives. He said that it is multi-faceted puzzle combining education, treatment, and harm reduction.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that she understands the “honeypot effect” but noted that Cambridge’s death rates are lower than the state and Middlesex County averages. She asked where the death rates are the highest. She asked if there is a case to be made that a place with a higher death rate should be the focus of a safe consumption site. Mayor McGovern said that the next phase is that the topic of safe injection sites will go before a committee at the State House and then they will make some type of recommendation. He noted that the concern is the state saying to municipalities that they have to do this. He said that he hopes that people will see the evidence and the value of these facilities. He said that there is reluctance to have the state dictate where the sites are located. Mayor McGovern added that there are different ways to do this. He said that in Vancouver, they put a lot of these services in one particular neighborhood and they have seen some issues in that neighborhood. He said that in Montreal, the sites were spread out and it was a very different feel.

Councillor Kelley said that he would like this to work. He said that we must be concerned about secondary impacts. He said that we must look as far away as need be to mitigate impacts. He thanked all for their work. Mayor McGovern said that he used Montreal as an example and there is no guarantee that what is happening in Montreal will happen here. He added that it has been found that because of safe injection sites, people are using less in public. Councillor Kelley said that a similar program is in the New England Center for Veterans in Boston.

Councillor Mallon said that there has been a lot of talk about Fentanyl strips and testing for Fentanyl. She asked if Cambridge has that capability at the Needle Exchange. Mayor McGovern answered in the affirmative and said that the Needle Exchange has a van that will be able to bring those types of supplies and resources out more broadly. He said that they do give out Fentanyl strips and they would like a better machine that can be used so they are trying to get funding for that as well.

Dr. Grossman said that the local drug epidemiology in Montreal and Cambridge are quite different. She said that the story in Montreal is more about cocaine related products and some opioid pills and some heroin. She said that they are more opioid naïve people for whom injecting Fentanyl when thinking that they are getting cocaine is a much more deadly experience. She said that that in the Boston and Cambridge area, many would say that “the cat is out of the bag” in terms of bothering to test our opioid and heroin supply for Fentanyl. She said that it is all Fentanyl. She said that there is utility in testing the cocaine supply for Fentanyl here, but many would argue that it is not worth the bother to test our heroin supply for Fentanyl anymore. She said that this may change but this is a moving target. She said that the money is not in the Fentanyl test strips. Mayor McGovern added that he was told by city personnel in Montreal that Montreal is the cocaine capital of the world.

Councillor Mallon said that she and Chief Mahoney have talked about more public syringe drop-off boxes, particularly in Central Square. She asked if any of this will come out of the working group. Mayor McGovern said that 4 years ago there was an order for more syringe drop-off boxes. He said that it was more complicated that he thought. Mr. Jacob said that they are working with DPW to collect syringes as soon as possible. He said that they are dealing with the problem in Central Square. He said that there are no additional drop boxes to date.

Councillor Mallon said that for Big Bellies, there is a product sold that can be attached for needles. She noted that the Fire Department is being sent on calls to pick up needles. She said that if the City had additional drop boxes that were secure and safe, it would limit the resources that are being put on the Fire Department or Department of Public Works employees. She said that this is a conversation that needs to take place.

Councillor Mallon asked what is next for safe injection sites. She said that the Overnight Warming Shelter has acted as a honeypot for homeless residents coming from Boston. She noted the need for a companion facility in Boston. Mayor McGovern said that he is unsure. He said that Representative Decker is doing due diligence to talk to people to inform herself. He said that he does not know what the support in the legislature will be. He said that he thinks that they will be looking for municipalities to step up and take the first step. He said that he expects to meet with other Mayors who are interested to think of a plan on a more regional basis. He said that we will have to ensure that everyone is pulled into the conversation to see if there is a will to move forward. As it relates to legal implications, Mayor McGovern said that if people can make the case that the federal government is not doing enough and then the state is not doing enough, then a municipality could make the case that the government is failing to address this crisis and therefore the municipality needs to address it. He said that this is one of the things that was presented to the Montreal group. He said that this is a legal question as it relates to acting locally.

Councillor Siddiqui said that when she broke her ankle she was prescribed Vicodin. She said that her doctor friends told her not to use it. She asked if there is any movement for alternative treatments such as acupuncture or if there is any other focus on other pain management strategies. Dr. Grossman responded that the CHA is trying to address this issue via their workforce development. She said that in terms of specific services, there are some at CHA and they have identified others in the community where they refer patients when needed. She said that it is complicated.

Hadassah Fleisher talked about alternative pain therapies that are non-addictive. She said that safe injection sites can be an alternative that is incorporated into a concept. She said that she is a graduate of the New England School of Acupuncture and has a Master’s degree in Clinical Psychology. She said that there is a cooperative movement all over the country who address themselves to people who cannot afford regular acupuncture treatments. She said that there are at least 3 of these co-ops in Cambridge. She said that it is communal acupuncture. She added that the cost is minimal and there are several of these co-ops in Boston as well.

Nasim Memon said that she will contact Mayor McGovern and Mr. Durbin to move forward to get safe injection sites implemented in Cambridge.

Vice Mayor Devereux talked about the Stigma Free Worcester app that holds a host of addiction, substance abuse and mental health care resources and access information, including connections to clinics, hospitals, housing and shelters, food and clothing, and events held by the city’s Health Department. She said that there are existing platforms that can bring information to people who want help.

Mr. Jacob said that that they have put a lot of energy into primary prevention efforts around education. He said that they are trying to invest more in the social media platforms. He said that he looks forward to people sharing information.

In terms of education and other interventions, Mayor McGovern said that two things that are being done over the summer is that every parent who has a high school student who plays sports have to take a concussion course. He said that they are also working on an initiative at the high school where a video will be made around warning signs, questions for parents to ask their child’s pediatrician, and alternative prescription medications. He said that the Athletic Department is prepared to make this a mandatory training that a parent must attend if their child is to play sports. He said that the Mayor’s Office is in the process of purchasing medication lock boxes that are available to anyone who wants one. He said that these are additional steps.

Mayor McGovern talked about the coaching piece and support work in the city. He asked Mr. Jacob to talk about relationship with MIT about the sewage. Mr. Jacob said that one of the learning sessions featured a team from MIT that are looking at pilot sites. He said that they designed a modality where they can test metabolites, specifically looking at opioids. He said that they did present to the group last summer and are identifying sites around the state where they could test out and it allows for a different dimension when looking at surveillance. He said that this is something that was designed and built in collaboration with the Department of Public Health and the Department of Public Works. He said that there are communities where this work is already anchored. Bill Mergandahl said that he was amazed by this presentation. He said that they did train recovery coaches which was an effort that was helpful in going after high utilizers. He noted that ongoing work includes the Homeless Outreach Team led by CPD and Human Services who touch base with people every week. He noted that this initiative has been very successful. As it relates to the decrease in the numbers in the non-fatal overdoses, Mayor McGovern is 100% correct. He said that 5 years ago, Pro Ambulance had to respond to every incident but that is not the case anymore. He said that the proliferation of Narcan has led to a drop in numbers. He said that we are not capturing these incidents in the data. He said that Dr. Fischer conducted a presentation in collaboration with Healthcare for the Homeless at Pro Ambulance that was attended by 70-80 people. He said that this was a fascinating case of taking one patient that all service providers were familiar with.

Dr. Fisher said that last month they did a presentation at PRO EMS which was modeled at looking at a case of a longtime homeless man who had substance abuse issues and they tracked his progress. He said that he died of an overdose after getting a home. He said that there were a lot of people who had touch points with this gentleman and many communicated with others who also had touch points. He said that they got 70-80 people from the CHA, the medical system, CPD, the Needle Exchange who attended and talked about what went well and what did not. They looked at this case for opportunities to improve their work. He said that in the Emergency Department, they have recovery coaches that are present, and they have the ability to connect people to treatment within the CHA system. He noted that there are a lot of resources available on the spectrum of harm reduction.

Councillor Mallon asked if there are questions around opioids on the Teen Health Survey. Mary Kowalczuk said that there are. She said that with the high school students it is fairly low and there is no increase in opioid use. She added that lock boxes are critical.

Councillor Mallon asked Superintendent DeMarco and Sergeant Cherubino about the Narcotics Division and cybercrime and how they interface and what kind of resources will come out of the recommendation around cybercrime. She asked if there will be additional staff, training, or equipment. Superintendent DeMarco said that they realized very early on that they needed an entire unit dedicated to the opiate outreach strategy which is their coaching and intervention strategy which is called PARTNER. He said that they initiated an entire unit to combat this issue. He said that they respond to every overdose, follow-up at the hospital, listen, assess and give resources and they follow-up with a licensed social worker. He said that they have found that a lot of the drugs being sold are not just on the street, they are being sold and coming into the city through the mail and nefarious dealings on the internet. He said that the Cybercrime Unit has been up and running for a couple of years. He said that they trained the entire detective unit in terms of getting the basics of cybercrime. He said that the city needs more experts. He said that it is not a personnel issue, it is a training issue. He said that the CPD has resources to dedicate to these crimes, but they need to focus their attention on the training aspect. He said that are talking about how to embed someone in the Special Investigations Unit that is going to be up and running with cybercrime as it relates to drug dealing. He explained that packages are being delivered through nefarious sources and these sources are getting Fentanyl out of other countries. He said that the majority of what is coming into Cambridge is Fentanyl. He said that it is not being done through regular street dealing. He said that the Special Investigations unit needs to be aware of current methods of drug dealing. He explained that they must work with federal, state and local partners to initiate this work. He said that the DEA has a Fentanyl Task Force. He said that CPD has a person embedded in the DEA as well that is a resource for Cambridge. He said that CPD has a person embedded in Secret Service Computer Crimes Task Force that is a resource for the city. Superintendent DeMarco said that he would like member of Cambridge’s Special Investigations Unit to understand further what is happening currently and how we can impact the drugs that are coming into Cambridge. Councillor Mallon said that she is curious as to when this work could begin. She asked if it can happen between budgets and rather quickly. Superintendent DeMarco responded that he believes that it can happen very quickly, and it is one of the CPD core competencies in the training and development matrix.

Nancy Mahan, CASPAR/ Bay Cove, said that in terms of needle pick-up, she said that at all their program sites they have invested in sharp safe gloves and red sharps bins. She said that it she appreciates that the Cambridge Fire Department does pick up needles, but it seems that there is a cost-effective way to do this work safely that does not put anyone in harm’s way. She said that a sharps container and good set of gloves cost about $150. She said that last December, two nurses at Boston Medical Center were denied life insurance for getting a standing order for Narcan to offer support to anyone that needed it. She said that this was an outstanding question and she is unsure if this has been resolved. She said that she instructed her staff to stop doing that they have worked harder to get grants to ensure that they have ample Naloxone. She asked if anyone knows the status of this concern. Tali Schiller said that this is being reviewed and it has not been decided upon. Ms. Mahan said that this is a legitimate concern for a good Samaritan. Councillor Mallon said that the CSBA retailers were very reluctant as it relates to insurance and getting Naloxone and they were able to connect them with the CPD who distributed it to them.

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

The hearing adjourned at 3:57pm.

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

Committee Report #6
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on May 29, 2019 at 5:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to conduct a joint hearing with the Climate Resilience Task Force to receive an update on the progress of the task force to date and to receive input and feedback.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux and Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Mallon; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, CDD; John Bolduc, Environmental Planner, CDD; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works; Kathy Watkins, City Engineer; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Members of the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force present were Louis Bacci, Douglas Brown, Tom Chase, Ted Cohen, Conrad Crawford, Nancy Donahue, Ona Ferguson, Thomas Lucey, Margaret Moran, Mike Nakagawa, Mice Owu and Tom Sullivan.

Also present were Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Peggy Barnes Lenard, 115 Fayerweather Street; Steven Nutter, Green Cambridge; and Jason Alves, East Cambridge Business Association.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. This is the first joint hearing. This will be run as a committee hearing, public comment and then hear from the task force.

Ms. Farooq asked the Task Force members to introduce themselves.

Mr. Roberts stated that he is the key staff member working with the task force together with other City staff. His task is to give the committee an update of the work of the task force over the last four months. He would provide the greatest hits of the task force. The discussion now is on flooding, climate change and land use and development strategies that would be appropriate to think about when addressing these concerns and how they will translate into potential zoning strategies. Mr. Roberts had a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT A). He highlighted who was on the task force. He stated that the goal of this group is to recommend a set of zoning changes that can be worked into a zoning petition and be presented to City Council for their consideration. He stated that this has been divided into impacts for flooding, impacts from heat from rising temperatures which in an environment like Cambridge raises concerns given the urban heat island effect in urbanized areas. He highlighted the scope of zoning recommendations which may not be totally comprehensive and may be looking at zoning that may impact new development as well impacts to smaller developments and impact the way people can alter, use or reuse an existing building. This is aimed generally across the City. He spoke about the meetings held and the future meetings to be held. He stated that the last meeting focused on flooding and the key theme that emerged from the discussions. He stated that this process is a twelve-month process with monthly meetings. He stated that the next step will be to have a similar discussion on heat resilience and move to take some of the key principles and themes that emerged from the separate discussions and put together and lay out some of the potential approaches that would help address the issues that were raised and follow the principles that have been established through the group discussions. He stated that a joint meeting is planned for August which will start the work through draft recommendations and will identify where there is agreement. He stated that it is hoped that recommendations will be finalized by the end of the calendar year.

Ms. Watkins spoke about the flooding. She stated that discussions focused on the Cambridge Climate Vulnerability Assessment and the CCPR work and the Alewife handbook that the City has been doing. She stated that one of the things emphasized regarding flooding there are existing locations that currently flood and with climate change this occurs more often. She highlighted pictures taken during a 2010 flooding at Green and Sidney Streets and Bishop Allen Drive and School Street. She stated that when one thinks about flood plains and flood zones one thinks about the FEMA Regulations. She stated that the FEMA Regulations are backward looking, and it is past data. She stated that the FEMA zone is only focused in Alewife for the 100- and 500-year flood zone. There is a 1% probability for flooding in any given year in the 100-year flood zone, and in the 500-year flood zone, the percentage is 0.2%. She stated that the impacted properties for the 100-year flood is 2% and 5% of the land area and in the 500-year flood it is about 6% of properties and 14% of the land area. She stated that this does not really represent what is seen and experienced or anticipating experiencing in Cambridge. She spoke about risk in terms of probability and impact and how often the flooding may occur for the 10- or 100-year floods. She stated that the risk is based on what is impacted by the flood. She spoke of impact in terms of people and money. She spoke about the design standards as it relates to City infrastructure, private property and infrastructure. She spoke about City infrastructure in terms of a two-year storm and there were small amounts of precipitation and there would be flooding. She stated that the City wanted to look at a ten-year storm as it relates to the City’s system and then a twenty-five-year design storm. She stated that for private property there has been a focus on if one was in the FEMA flood plain requirements but outside of it there have not been specific requirements. There is a small part of the area and traditional property in Cambridge would not have had specific requirements in terms of flooding protection. She spoke about the larger infrastructure such as the Water Treatment Plant, Power station, and the Dam the City wants to ensure that they are designed at a higher-level design standard. She spoke about future flooding risk in 2070 and looking at climate change for the future including precipitation and sea level rise plus storm surge and thinking about the City’s approach to adapting to increased flooding is to think about reducing the risk and adapting and preparing buildings so that the impact of flooding is reduced. She spoke about the types of risk looking at 1-2 days of flooding and not looking at a one week expanded flooding. She noted that floodwaters are not clean and carry containments and the impact of the flood waters is not minimized. She commented that storm surge flooding is a regional issue and Cambridge is committed to working on this in a regional forum. She noted that climate change does not stop in 2070 and if the City is conservative on some assumptions, it means that the designs may be protected beyond 2070. She stated that there is uncertainty in some of the projections, but it is coming and is a matter of when not if. She spoke about the maps looking at 2070 and the chance of a 10% storm event. She stated that these are the areas of the City that are expected to be flooded. The precipitation rain driven flooding in East Cambridge, The Port and Alewife may be affected in 17% of properties and 6% of the land area. She stated that sea level rise storm surge flooding is water that is coming back up from the harbor up through the Mystic River and around back to Alewife, the 10% chance in any given year the areas that will be flooded by sea level rise storm surge. She stated that the 100-year flood event has a 1% probability of occurring in any given year, and in Alewife and East Cambridge would flood 47% of properties and 19% of the land area. She stated that sea level rise storm surge impacts a large area in Alewife and when the level of the rivers is higher, the stormwater infrastructure backs up. This is flooding associated with sea level rise, but not necessarily overland flooding. She stated that every year there is a 10% chance of a 10-year flood. She highlighted a graph over a thirty-year period showing cumulative risk where there is a 96% chance of experiencing a 10-year storm event at some point during that period. She stated that the 100-year storm, of which there is a 1% chance of flooding, cumulatively over thirty years there would be a 26% change of experiencing such flooding and with the 500-year storm, a 5.8 percent chance cumulatively. She spoke about the recommendations being made to property owners and developers of properties and improvements to properties. The flood viewer was created to see the flood risk on certain properties including the existing elevations and projected flooding elevations. The focus was the 2070 flood elevations and thinking about a 10 year and a 100-year storm. She stated that with a 10-year storm can the property be built to protect the property and will not be impacted by flooding and thinking about recovering from a larger 1%, 100-year storm event. This includes thinking about how the spaces are used and what this means. She stated that there is increased development being seen in basements. This has an impact on the increased risk of flooding. She stated that before the last meeting, Public Works reviewed fourteen building permits, five were for basement only renovations and 4 were gut renovations including basements. There is an increase in the use of basement space and this provides more usable space but that comes with a consequence. She stated that Public Works provides information about designing this space and to build to protect from a smaller flood event and recover from the larger events. She spoke about thinking about where the utilities are located and where the critical elements are. She stated that when the City works with developers there is a lot of discussion about stormwater management and the goal is to ensure that their property and the City’s system is better after the development than before the development. Ms. Watkins stated that in the Alewife there have been built underground water storage tanks and discussed infiltration and other ways that the amount of runoff going into the system can be reduced during the critical times. She stated that green infrastructure is being discussed. She stated that green infrastructure has been used to meet performance criteria and the City does not have requirements about the specific amounts of green infrastructure and this discussion is being pursued. She highlighted the other consideration as it relates to flooding in an emergency.

Mr. Roberts now spoke about the zoning aspect and strategies. He stated that the impact and zoning goal is to marry the two. He stated that zoning is land use regulation and it is about the patterns of land use; there are specific things that are not included in zoning such as anything subject to other or general types of regulations that are not in zoning purview. He stated that the zoning map splits the land in the City into districts defined by the character of land use such as scale and intensity of use. Some districts are more restrictive and do not allow certain types of uses at limited scales. The key to zoning is that within a zoning district the rules are uniform. He stated that he frames zoning requirements in different types of development controls in two categories: use type and intensity, and development standards are things building around the type and intensity. He explained the difference between variances and special permits. Special permits are things allowed in the zoning ordinance and variances are not allowed in the zoning ordinance. He spoke about how zoning tools are used to advance policy objectives. He stated that rezoning could be considered or to re-look at the development standards. This is primarily focused on development standards and to have standards and objectives and this is where the focus is in the presentation. He stated that development standards are applied in different ways and the baseline is by zoning districts. He stated that each zoning district has its own development standards. This could also be looked at Citywide or as an overlay concept. He outlined the pros and cons for the three concepts. He spoke about the unintended consequences. There are four types of development standards. He stated that approaches are prescriptive, performance-based standards, discretionary standards and incentives and their pros and cons. He stated that choosing what type of standard to use can be based on types or scopes of projects, the choices and the outcomes. He gave examples of development standards. Floodplain overlay district is a mix of different development standards and is subject to performance standards verified by an engineer and discretionary review from the Planning Board.

At this time Councillor Zondervan asked for any clarifying questions.

Mr. Roberts spoke on the Summary of Key Discussion Themes on Flooding (ATTACHMENT B). The discussion focused on 4 questions. How is flooding affecting people and land use and identifying the areas of public concern and what are the strategies to mitigate these concerns. He spoke about the items discussed and choices and tradeoffs. He spoke about the responsibility of the City as regulator versus the responsibility of property owners for their own land. He expanded the themes. The City cannot build out of the situation. The Water needs to go somewhere. He stated that the sewer separation helps to reduce contamination. He stated that the focus of the discussion of the task force was the impacts of residential flooding. He stated that power outages and disruption of systems in a building, backup power, mold exposure, air quality and water contamination were discussed. Other issues discussed were displacement, property damage, mobility and evacuation. There were not as many impacts to commercial uses. He outlined the principles to zoning strategies. Housing and scale and affect to residents and how impacted differently and the limitation of resources were discussed. Homeowner personal choices were discussed in terms of flooding versus the need for space and risk. He outlined the principles. Zoning strategies for larger new developments and how that affects the Cambridge community as a whole compared to the existing housing stock in the City. There should be a process where standards are regularly reviewed. This is a summary from the last meeting of the task force.

Councillor Zondervan opened public comment at 6:33pm.

Peggy Barnes Lenart, 115 Fayerweather Street, asked about thirty-year cumulative risk and it appeared that there is a high probability of flooding. She stated that this is a comment she wanted to make.

Stephen Nutter, Executive Director, Green Cambridge, applauded the strategies. The FEMA maps are accurate as can be and glad about the thoughts about the impacts. He spoke about hurricane impact zones and with a hurricane one-half of the City could be flooded. He stated that as the seas warm and rise, hurricanes could become more common. He spoke about flooding in 2070. He stated that every day there will be more rain and there will be foundation and mold issues. He spoke about a comprehensive green infrastructure strategy with the regional partners. How can all parties work together to repair the structure? He stated that Green Cambridge has helped with rain barrels. He stated that Cambridge gets 49” of rain every year.

Councillor Zondervan closed public comment at 6:38pm.

Councillor Zondervan asked the City Council it they had any comments or feedback.

Councillor Carlone stated that the City updated an urban design plan for Alewife and this should be a discussion point. There are plans to modify and he suggested that it should be used as a tool to test or explore thoughts. This would make the final product something to aspire to.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there are any thoughts to taking areas that were historical wetlands and restoring them and transferring the development rights to areas that are less vulnerable. She spoke about the Fresh Pond mall which is developed as a heat island. This area was once part of the Alewife wetlands and we should design areas to flood.

Councillor Zondervan stated that a wetland restoration program was done in Alewife. He stated that green space and depaving are important to consider. He spoke about regular review and should this be a review by the resilience committee. He has concerns about evacuations and car dependence. Emergency response, who cleans up after the flood and does the City have other resources to do this. This process is good so far.

At this point Councillor Zondervan turned the hearing over to the task force and closed the committee hearing process.

Ms. Farooq spoke about the potential for a strategy for transfer of development rights in exchange for creating significant green infrastructure or reverting to wetlands. This could fall into a zoning approach strategy. She stated that the City has tried doing transfer of development rights (TDR) and this is a challenging strategy to see it implemented. She stated that as the City gets more build out there may be more of a desire to build infill in areas where it is most attractive and if made significantly attractive through provisions there may be a way that it becomes a feasibility and task force should think about this. The charge is to come up with zoning strategy which impacts new development it is hard to think about climate change and resiliency without thinking about all the other aspects that deal with human impact and how to protect people when there is a storm event through evacuation and emergency response. She explained that this task force will not address these aspects in detail. These elements are being considered as part of the climate change and resiliency preparedness work and this work is expected to be completed by end of year and should have some recommendations.

Mr. Brown stated that all issues are interconnected and there are tradeoffs to be made. We can underestimate as well as overestimate. He stated that it is known that onsite sequestration of water is necessary across the entire City and wanted to see this for all properties which currently is only required in the flood plain. He wanted to see more of a requirement for a flood plain plan in the ordinance. The open space is a public utility and it is important that there are tradeoffs such as housing versus trees; climate versus development. Something will need to be addressed on a universal basis.

Ms. Ferguson stated that she is interested in the zoning principles. She grouped them into five categories. Focus on people and lives, avoid being too prescriptive, be flexible, aim to impact parcels and building stock overall, investigate performance-based standards and consider links to other regulations and emergency services. She stated that this applies to heat as well as flooding.

Ms. Watkins stated that it would be helpful to think of groups in flooding and heating and the task force will come back for recommendations and they may overlap.

Councillor Zondervan struck by complexity involved. It is not realistic that this will be figured out in six months. This needs to be an on-going process. He stated that the Climate Protection Action Committee (CPAC) is looking at the whole thing (climate change) and the resilience component is big enough for its own space and how science is changing, and adjustments are needed. Maybe there should be a standing committee or working group on climate resilience/adaptation?

Ms. Farooq stated that this is a reasonable recommendation for the committee to make and staff and City Manager can evaluate the best process. This could be a sub-committee of CPAC. It is hard to tease apart mitigation and adaptation given how interconnected the strategies are.

Mr. Nakagawa stated that framing the issues should be considered in discussions. He stated that large scale development tends to reduce future flexibility on what can be done on a site which cannot be changed, and this should consider why zoning is important. He stated that if too much is required there may not be housing build because individuals will not want to build. He spoke about emergency displacement and have a plan in place and this disrupts infrastructure. He spoke about personal responsibility. There is an expectation that the City will protect people from unsafe practices. This is part of zoning. It is presumed that people will be responsible. Basement usage may not be known that it is not a great use of the space. Pumping out the water from a basement the foundation could crush. There should be a push back for renovation which may be beneficial to the property owner. He spoke about the need for an evacuation plan.

Mr. Cohen stated that regarding zoning, there is the existing concept of a non-conforming use with zoning. He spoke about upgrading septic systems when there is a transfer of ownership. He stated that ADA requires individuals to take a certain action when they reach a percentage to dollar amount of renovation. He stated that the most that could be done is to write in some provision if there is going to be prescriptive regulation that would apply mostly to the small property owners and at what point they may be forced to do something. He stated that the larger developments that are seeking special permits this is where the City can impose obligations but will be difficult to impose obligations on pre-existing property.

Mr. Crawford stated that there is plenty of scale to do this in Cambridge with the population and the additional 40,000 (people a day) who come to work here. He encouraged to get more people in the room. On tactical issues; one requirement for new buildings is to use Transportation Demand Management as an emergency evacuation tool. He spoke about looking at the demographics of impact when thinking about the heat island and flooding relating to income and mobility preference on evacuation. He is encouraged with the interest of the City Council in following up on precedence.

Mr. Nakagawa spoke about property ownership turn over in the City. The more people vacancies the less catastrophic. He stated that the majorly evacuation zones in the City are going through flooding areas. He used Route16 as an example. He spoke about economic loss, and to mitigate and not make things worse. He spoke about the climate safety aspect on humans.

Mr. Bolduc provided context. There is an on-going climate preparedness process and a neighborhood plan for Alewife and we are about to release a neighborhood plan for The Port. It is expected that the Citywide plan will be done by the end of the year. He noted that zoning is one set of tools to be applied and complimented with non-zoning tools.

Mr. Brown stated that the City is getting ready to release the Envision Alewife Plan; it is the wettest and hottest area in the City. He is interested in what the plan states. This may be in opportunity to embrace the future. He spoke about thinking about this area as a climate or Eco district.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the Alewife Plan be the first phase of Envision doing the same with a higher standard. She spoke about basement renovations. In her neighborhood there are 2 two family homes that are being renovated with basement renovations and asked how basement space is being marketed. When ADU ordinance was passed Public Works had reservations about this and if this needs to be rethought. There need to be triggers for transfer of property and this needs to be built into the sale price. She spoke about creating a rainy-day fund to help property owners to do this. This needs to be anticipated. This will be phased in the net zero roadmap and go into effect for an area or property. This needs to be a deliberate phased in thing. The storms in Midwest are terrifying. The Urban Forestry Master Plan is happening on a parallel track and will have recommendations that will target the green infrastructure. She stated that green space needs to be treated as universal space through zoning and other requirements.

Councillor Carlone stated that he met with the Inspectional Services Department relating to basements and thinks it is inappropriate. He spoke about the effects of flooding. He spoke about the contaminants in the water after hurricane Sandy (in New York City). He spoke about the insurance industry need to be a major force in upgrading. The federal assistance his sister received (after Sandy) was minimal and had to take out a $110,000 loan to renovate her home. The Alewife Quadrangle is a place to implement this. He spoke about those walking around Fresh Pond and impacting the water. This could lead to something broader than green space in Fresh Pond. He suggested bringing in the Water Department in this process.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about small business and in the aftermath of Sandy many small businesses that did not re-open. There is a challenge for residents and small businesses to protect themselves. He spoke about creating the City’s own insurance program. He spoke about depaving and suggested incentives for people to consider removing paving and this could open green infrastructure.

Ms. Watkins spoke about the Urban Forestry Master Plan and at the June meeting there will be focus on heat island there will be a presentation about how the urban forestry master plan and how it affects urban heat island. She spoke about green infrastructure and protecting from smaller storm event this affects water quality and urban heat island. Basement units when coming in for building permits the risk are being explained. She spoke about height changes do not change the FAR and may be an expansion of an existing unit. She stated that many are coming in as expansion of existing units.

Mr. Crawford spoke about tradeoffs and are not problematic as scale of need. He spoke about siting of a utility on a problematic site. He spoke about solicitor as a presence of the City at the Public Utilities Board. He spoke about the Energy Facilities Siting Board might be approached according to these principles. He spoke about flooding capacity of the Millers River site. He stated that the energy could be channeled constructively. He spoke about trees and doing something interesting at Volpe and 18% of the tree canopy could be improved through intervention.

Mr. Chase spoke about the resources of the staff in understanding the specificity of the problem. When there are goals and the data from the vulnerability assessment there is an opportunity to state that there is a Citywide heat issue and could be dealt with through zoning. Be smart about painting a broad brush.

Ms. Farooq spoke about smaller business good idea to include small businesses in the same category as the most vulnerable populations. A focused effort with small business was done around business continuity and emergency preparedness to help people to understand the challenges. She stated that building the awareness and give options for building some resilience in the organization. She noted that a lot of work needs to be done in this regard.

Mr. Nakagawa asked about low interest loans to be used for repair and use the City’s leverage to provide backing.

Deputy City Manager Peterson concept of how and if the City can provide aid to private property owners (anti-aid amendment to Mass. Constitution) to do work on their property is an important question. It is limited in terms of what the City can do and needs to be answered whether or not the City financing should be used.

Councillor Carlone stated that if this were part of an overall strategy for the Port a case could be made to assist but if it is legal is another matter. Federal funds received by CDD could be used. Ms. Farooq stated that the federal funding used to support individuals is received from block grants and there are different constraints.

Mr. Crawford stated that CRA is looking to take proceeds of development rights being issued to master developers in the Urban Renewal Zone in Kendall Square those funds are actively discussed in this context. This is an important resource to explore.

Mr. Cohen there are incentives. There are proposed zoning amendments related to changing flat roofs and Planning Board has not recommended repeatedly because it did not seem to be fair to do this for one purpose. Some zoning could be done to change flat roofs and incentives could be modifications to the zoning to build larger units.

Mr. Alves stated that Just-A-Start would do work to do resiliency upgrades. He suggested discussing this with Just-A-Start.

Mr. Bolduc stated that for the Port preparedness plan he has done an analysis looking at the role of private property in reducing flooding and stormwater runoff and weighing how much can be done in the public realm and some of the analysis will help to form the discussion. He stated that climate resiliency tool kits are being created for renters, property owners and small businesses.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about Eversource and asked if there could be a higher-level prescriptive zoning that relates to the siting of public utility facilities and a level of resiliency that they would have to build to a higher standard. She spoke about a mini bond sale to build up a fund that could be used for low interests’ loan. She stated that Harvard University gave $20 million for a loan fund for a public purpose. This fund needs to be built up.

Mr. Brown stated that basement space can be added as of right where an ADU requires a special permit.

Mr. Nakagawa spoke about incentivizing through larger development and is the way that things need to be funded.

Councillor Zondervan and Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:42pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Co-Chair

Committee Report #7
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on July 2, 2019 at 5:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create a city-wide Affordable Housing Overlay District (AHOD).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Siddiqui; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Toomey; City Manager Louis DePasquale; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department Iram Farooq; Housing Director, CDD, Chris Cotter; Director of Zoning and Development, CDD, Jeff Roberts; Gale Willette, Director of Assessors; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk’s Office.

Also present were Elena Sokolow-Kaufman, Cambridge Non-profit Coalition; Becca Schofield, HRI; Skip Schloming, 102R Inman Street; Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Street; Marilee Meyer, Dana Street; John Gilmore, 47 Reservoir Street; Carolyn Fuller, 12 Douglass Street; Patrick Braga, 11 Everett Street; Larry Field, 42 Mt. Vernon Street; Bill McAvinney, 12 Douglass Street; Elizabeth Gilmore, 47 Reservoir Street; Babette Meyer, 8 Newport Street; Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street; David Sullivan, 16 Notre Dame Avenue; Adriane Musgrave, 48 Haskell Street; Tom Byrne, 4 Berkeley Place; Deborah Ruhr, JAS, 1035 Cambridge Street; Dominick Jones, 6 Hurlbut Street; Brad Bellows, 87 Howard Street; Ben Simon, 67 Bishop Allen Drive; Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street; Larry Bluestone, 18 Centre Street; Susan Schlesinger, 34 Glenwood Avenue; Teresa Cardosi, 7 Woodrow Wilson Court; Chris Schmidt, 17 Laurel Street; Annette Lamond, 7 Riedesel Avenue; Deborah Gevalt, 55 Reservoir Street; Louise Erving, 36 Cottage Street; Bill Boehm, 18 Laurel Street; Bob Camacho, 24 Corporal Burns Road; Tina Alu, 113½ Pleasant Street; Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place; Yanisa Techagumdhorn, 216 Norfolk Street; Yemi Kibret, 4 Putnam Avenue; Sanjay Mahayan, 950 Mass. Ave.; Suzanne Shaw, 46 Clarendon Avenue; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Fred Meyer, 83 Hammond Street; George Metzger, 90 Antrim Street; Dan Eisner, 6 Bristol Street; Allan Sadun, 17 Pleasant Street; James Zoll, 203 Pemberton Street; Mike Johnston, CHA, 362 Green Street; Shiela Y. Moore, 614 Mass. Ave.; Maura Pensak, 346 Concord Avenue; Carol Weinhaus, 271 Concord Avenue; Hu Alpert, 56 Winslow Street; Peggy Barnes Lenart, 115 Fayerweather Street; Bob Woodbury, 133 River Street; Peter Kroon, 16 Linnaean Street; Nancy Alack, 346 Concord Avenue; Patel Latawiec, 2 Earhart Street; Lauren Curry, 3 Concord Avenue; Derek Kopon, 8 Wright Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street; and David Rabkin, 184 Huron Avenue.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing. He noted that numerous communications have been received and will be part of the report. The petition will be discussed, and a presentation will be made by CDD, clarifying questions by City Council, public comment and then there will be a discussion by the City Council. He stated that given the complexity of the issue any amendment that the members wish to be considered must be submitted in written form. At the end of the hearing a committee recommendation will be made.

At this time Ms. Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department, introduced City staff. She stated that the two versions of the amendment are the same- one is a clean copy and the others is a redline version (ATTACHMENT A AND ATTACHMENT B). She stated that there is a CDD memo dated June 20, 2019 that explains the petition in some detail (ATTACHMENT C); frequently asked questions (ATTACHMENT D) and memo from City Manager Louis DePasquale which responses to questions raised by the City Council via a Policy Order that looks at the utilization impacts of the proposed zoning (ATTACHMENT E). She stated that the AHO came up several years ago, in 2014, because the City Council asked CDD staff to take a look at what it would take to create 1000 new units of affordable housing by 2020. The CDD staff worked closely with other departments, members of the Affordable Housing Trust, developers of affordable housing and the public and discussed possible appeals. She noted that in the 2015 document there is a series of recommendations which the staff has been working on. She stated that for instance in 2016 the City Council adopted an update to the Incentive Zoning Ordinance whereby the incentive payment, which comes from all new commercial development was raised from $4 to $12 going up to today’s $16.66. She stated that in 2017 the City Council adopted changes to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance every time someone builds more than ten units of market rate housing. Raised to the present 20% of the square footage of the housing that is created affordable to low- and moderate-income households. She stated that two years ago for the first time in addition to CPA there was funding in the City budget from the building permit fees that has been increased and this year there is funding from City taxes. She noted that for the first time the total funding from the various sources of the CPA, taxes and building permit fees is netting out to be $20 million in total which is a significant increase. She stated that going through these recommendations which were made in 2104 we are at the next stage which is to think about how to facilitate development through zoning the development of 100 % of affordable housing. This is where the process is now. At this time Mr. Cotter started his presentation (ATTACHMENT F).

Mr. Cotter gave background of the goals and intent behind the petition from a housing needs perspective. He stated that several years ago CDD came to City Council with a number of recommendations designed to achieve the City Council goal of creating 1000 new affordable housing units by the end of the decade. He stated that improved mechanisms that are already in place and now getting to new ideas, such as an overlay district for 100% affordable housing. This discussion goes back years and zoning has been discussed to help developers of 100% affordable housing to compete in the market with private market buyers or buildings and development sites. Proposed zoning through an overlay allows additional development capacity and streamlining the permitting process for 100% affordable housing projects. He spoke about working with the Affordable Housing Trust and local affordable housing developers to create new housing. He stated that the City works predominantly with a small number of affordable housing developers who the City has seen bring new housing on line over the years. They are CHA, Just-A-Start Corporation, Homeowners Rehab and Capstone Communities and Hope Real Estate. He commented that these are the groups are helping the City use the resources that are available through the Affordable Housing Trust to create new 100% affordable housing to supplement housing that is created through the Inclusionary Program, what the City can do by providing financial assistance to first time home buyers. These entities have a tough job competing in the market with an increase in investment coming into Cambridge- making it more difficult for them to bid on property when it becomes available, to purchase buildings, purchase sites for development and to move the proposals through the development process.

He added that in an increasingly difficult funding environment funding is scarcer than it used to be, more difficult to get and in some cases not funded at the same level as in the past. He spoke of the challenges from a financing standpoint and at the same time that costs are going up and they have to raise more resources to build the same amount of housing from sources who are not used to seeing the costs of building in Cambridge. He stated that the land costs per buildable unit is in excess of what might be found for all land development cost in other communities. He stated that these are some of the challenges the affordable housing providers are facing in bringing new housing on line. They are providing 100% affordable housing and are putting in place long-term deed restrictions to ensure that the permanent affordability of the housing and becoming the resource for the community. He stated that the challenges they see are the land costs and the competition and this has increased dramatically. Looking back the most significant strategy employed to add 100% affordable housing to the City’s stock of restricted affordable housing has been to purchase existing rental housing and keep it as rental housing and not allow it to be converted to condominiums. This has become increasingly challenging over the last 5-10 years. It is cost prohibitive for affordable housing providers to purchase most multi-family housing. He stated that there are similar situations where new buildings can be built and there is a challenge in the market and given the fact that they cannot support the same level of acquisition a market developer can they are taking on more risk. He noted that in some cases affordable housing developers purchasing properties with the hope that they will get zoning relief to allow them to build the number of units that would be needed to make the project successfully affordable. He added that the appeal of discretionary approvals under the current system with the permitting relief sought through the comprehensive permit adds to the time frame, risk, cost of new housing particularly with the approval of new developments are sometimes challenged and projects are delayed.

He spoke about the deed restricted housing stock appears on the map and one of the things heard from the City Council over the years is a desire to look at creating affordable housing opportunities in areas where there are fewer. He spoke about what zoning could do to help get more affordable housing both in terms of making new unit creation feasible financially but also to look at this as a way to help create opportunities that currently are unable to create due to the limitation of existing zoning regulations. He stated that over the last several years the number of opportunities that affordable housing providers have looked at on a daily basis. He stated that CDD works with them on those that are most promising to see what might be feasible and how it might be feasible, the resources needed and the risk. He explained that the City often acts as an acquisition lender absorbing a lot of the risk in these processes of seeking permits. He noted that roughly 1-10 sites assessed resulted in one offer that is accepted. The number of sites acquired is a small number relative to the number of opportunities looked at. There exists very strong market interest limits in what affordable housing developers can pay for land per buildable unit and the limitations in the overall development costs and that it is done in a way that leverages other funding. Sites assessed by the housing providers are significantly outbid. He stated that the idea of the overlay is to try to begin to address some of these challenges, build off of the Envision goals, to help housing providers to be more successful in the marketplace to give them an advantage when looking a sites, ensuring long term deed restrictions are in place to ensure the continued affordability, to look at the distribution of housing across the City, to better spread this across the communities particularly in communities where there are fewer opportunities, to look for opportunities for residents in all neighborhoods and all income levels, to make it easier to permit fully affordable housing, to take out some of the risks these providers face and to allow projects to more along more quickly to efficiently and effectively create more housing with the capacity and the resources that they have. He spoke about reducing the cost to build housing as the process is streamlined and reduce the time that groups must hold sites while going through the permitting and financing process and eliminate some of the costs with this expedited permitting process. He stated that Mr. Roberts will discuss the details of the zoning petition.

Mr. Roberts showed a presentation which contained a map of the City and the zoning districts. He noted that some districts in the City are more restrictive in their use. He noted that restrictive zoning districts make it difficult to create affordable housing. Current zoning was adopted in 1924. Due to this there are very few developments in Cambridge that can be built without zoning relief, a special permit or variance needed. He stated that affordable housing projects apply for special permits or variances. The affordable housing overlay approach creates a set of standards that would apply only to projects in which all units are affordable to promote affordable development. He stated that the intent is not to spur some private market activity through economic incentives. The intent is to give more leeway to projects that are already limited because they require subsidy in order to be feasible.

Mr. Roberts explained that the idea is to modify zoning in a way that creates less restrictive standards for projects in which all units are affordable; allows greater density and more flexibility so that affordable housing projects can be competitive to purchase sites; and to have specific standards so that a project that meets the standards can seek approval without needing to seek relief from zoning through a special permit or variance process. He stated that the idea is to have the set of standards apply across the City in a way that makes projects feasible even in the most restrictive zoning districts where historically there has not been as much affordable housing produced. He highlighted the sections of the text and the purpose, the intent, and the applicability have been covered.

He stated that Section 3 details what it means to be 100% affordable. This means that all units are restricted in terms of the income eligibility of the households that can be rented or sold. The prices are kept at an affordable level which is determined in relation to Area Median Income (AMI). Permanent affordability is established by covenant that gets recorded before a building permit is issued for the project and this stays with the use in perpetuity. He stated that in all these instances the eligible households would also be households earning up to 100% AMI. He spoke about the details for rental eligibility for rental units the projects must be at least 80% of the units affordable. He stated that typically the affordable housing programs is set as an eligibility threshold and there is some flexibility so that the rest of the units could be affordable to households earning up to 100% of AMI. He stated that for home ownership units there are similar restrictions except that only up to 50% would have to be affordable for those earning up to 80% and the rest could be affordable up to a median income creating the potential for more opportunities for middle income home ownership units at 80-100% range. He stated that the use section would allow multi-family and townhouse residential development as of right for an affordable project. In some districts projects of this type would require a special permit or variance to approve the use. He noted that affordable housing projects could have some nonresidential use at the ground floor to enable some of the urban design goals and concerns around maintaining ground floor uses that have discussed regarding this petition.

Mr. Roberts stated that the next Section is Development Standards, where the height, setbacks and open space is discussed. He stated that it is important to start with the main perimeters around regulating development. He explained that this discussion began with density and the idea that more units would need to be created for affordable housing developments to be competitive to acquire sites in the market. The staff realized that people wanted to know what would happen with height and scale in the new overlay. The current zoning tools to regulate density do not always give the clearest picture of what this means.

Mr. Roberts explained this was to start with regulating the number of stories in the building instead of starting with density. There could be other restrictions or regulations in place. He stated that density can always be regulated, but this presents challenges to enable affordable housing development. An important consideration is to be selective about what regulations to put in place and what flexibility to allow if the goal is to enable the creation of more affordable units. He stated that starting with the approach of looking at housing development based on height and scale is a different way to look at the zoning map. He stated that the yellow areas on the map are traditional neighborhoods and the current height limits in zoning is mostly 35 feet and allowing 3 stories of development. The green areas allow 45-80 feet and under current zoning could allow between 4-7 story buildings. The blue areas currently allow 80 feet or more in height and could include high rise buildings. He explained that the proposal is for affordable housing projects under the overlay to allow 4 story buildings in those districts that are in yellow where currently 3 stories are allowed and to allow 7 stories in all areas where taller heights are allowed. He stated that in districts that allow more than 80 feet an affordable housing project that wanted to go beyond 7 stories would have to do this under the normal underlying zoning requirements. He added that an affordable housing project could still be larger, but it would not come under this overlay and would have to go through the comprehensive permit process or some other process to seek relief. Mr. Roberts stated that the site models were incorporated to illustrate what developments would look like in context of a range of buildings that are typical in Cambridge. He stated that in residential areas where it is predominantly three stories of development showing there are 4 story buildings that can be used as reference. He stated that in the taller height districts, a building of 7 stories might make sense. He noted that when looking at the models the staff has tried to assume what the maximum development could be under zoning. He commented that there is nothing that states that projects must be built in the maximum, but he is trying to illustrate what it could look like if it were fully built. He stated that 7 story buildings depending on the surrounding context could range from small buildings to taller buildings. He noted that there are not many 7 story buildings in Cambridge. He stated that there was one example of a residential building showing what this scale might look like. He stated for the taller height districts where up to 7 stories would be allowed there is a provision that requires a step down to 5 stories where a taller height district borders a lower height district. He explained that the goal of the provisions as is to create a sky plane so if you are stepping back a considerable distance you can see the full height of the building, but the closer you get to the building the taller part of the building becomes less visible and is shielded by the lower height part of the building.

Mr. Roberts then spoke about open space. He stated that a report was produced for the Planning Board which details the complicated ways that setbacks and open space are calculated in current zoning. The approach here is to apply direct standards, and the underlying zoning requirements could apply if they are less restrictive than what is in the AHOD. He stated that the baseline standards for setbacks and open space are modeled after what is in Residence C-1 district, which is the most typical multi-family residential district in Cambridge. The setbacks are 10 feet in the front and 7.5 feet on each side and 20 feet in the rear. He stated that the open space requirement is set a 30% minimum and half needs to be permeable. He stated that under current zoning different districts have different standards for how much open space is permeable versus other dimensional requirement. He stated that the approach is to keep it as simple as possible by stating that it is 30% with one-half required to be permeable. This only includes grade level open space and does not include balconies or decks which sometimes can be included in the open space calculations for housing. He stated that with current zoning vehicular parking and driveways are not counted as open space in both the current zoning or the AHOD, but there is a provision that is suggested in the zoning that the open space requirement under certain circumstances could be reduction to no less than 15% to counterbalance the potential need to provide surface parking or to facilitate the preservation of a historic building. He commented that with all the provisions there are tradeoffs which can be discussed further. The parking in AHOD is to apply a baseline standard based on what was thought to be a right sizing of parking requirements by looking at affordable housing projects across the City. Around .04 spaces per unit seems to be the demand. Setting this as the baseline ratio for minimum parking requirements, but also having some flexibility to waive requirements for projects near public transit, preservation of historic buildings, may be considered. There is additional flexibility proposed for off-site parking and bicycle parking. Parking would still be required, but flexibility in where it is located beyond what the current zoning allows and potential reductions if bicycle sharing is provided. He stated that wherever this is a parking reduction there would be provisions included for transportation demand management programs to ensure that this demand for parking is minimized as much as possible. He stated that issue of the preservation of historic buildings has come up in the discussions. He explained that the first this is that this is zoning which sets standards for land use and development and does not affect ordinances governing historic preservation or conservation. The demolition delay ordinance would continue to apply, as it is a municipal code ordinance which is separate from zoning. He stated that this is trying to make it easier through zoning for an affordable housing project to preserve an existing building for historic purposes, or because in some instances it may be more economical for an affordable housing project to reuse an existing structure. This discusses various ways that current zoning can at times be an impediment to the adaptive reuse of a building and how the proposed zoning helps to alleviate some of the impacts. He stated that if an existing building were adding affordable units this could require relief if it increases the amount of floor area or the number of units. Because this is more of a form-based approach it would allow for additional density to be created inside the existing envelope. Mr. Roberts stated that additions and alterations to a nonconforming building under the current zoning could require a special permit or variance. Under this provision if the additions conformed to AHOD standard they could be allowed without requiring this type of relief.

He stated that conversion of non-residential buildings can sometimes create issues which are addressed in the zoning proposal by allowing existing setbacks and open space to be maintained, allowing some flexibility for alterations such as improvements for accessibility or the envelope of the building in terms of energy use. He stated that there is more flexibility for parking in the AHOD specifically with the intent of preserving existing buildings or facilitating the use of historic buildings.

Mr. Roberts stated that the next Section is about building and site design standards which would apply to new construction. He commented that the best way to describe these standards is a compilation of design standards currently found in the zoning ordinance. Many are in Article 19, Building and Site Plan Requirements. These apply to projects that are 25,000 square feet or more and include standards and design-based requirements that are in specific districts where there is an urban design plan. He explained that these standards are mainly concerned with projects that are designed as pedestrian and bicycle friendly, rather than automobile oriented and developed in a way to complement the patterns of development that has evolved over time in Cambridge. When it comes to site design and building facades some of these are variations on existing standards. He stated that there are design standards that make sure that the ground floor is addressing the sidewalk in an appropriate way.

He stated that there are standards about mechanicals and screening and the current standards in Article 19 were used. He spoke about new concepts that have been introduced. He stated that buildings longer than 250 feet would require court yard breaks so that a longer building massing can be broken down into a smaller scale pattern that fits better in a typical Cambridge context. Mr. Roberts stated that there are provisions that deal with facades requiring some degree of articulation that could be achieved in different ways. He stated that the goal is set a standard of minimum requirements that are not onerous that they will be either too restrictive or result in the same exact form of development on all the affordable housing projects that would come under the overlay. This is to ensure that the baseline standards are met but to allow for some differences in expression. He noted that this would be complimented with a set of design guideline standards to achieve a good design outcome that is not a prescriptive as the required set of standards would be.

Mr. Roberts explained environmental performance standards. Performance based requirements currently apply through administrative review rather than requiring a special permit review. This would continue to apply to projects under the AHOD. He spoke about the design consultation procedure. He stated that the proposal is to have a non-binding review process which is a more intense version of the non-binding consultations currently have in Article 19 in the zoning ordinance. They apply to as of right residential projects. He outlined how the process works. He stated that the review process with the Planning Board is an advisory consultation process. It is a process where projects come to CDD staff for review and then to the community for review. He stated that the Planning Board under the comprehensive permit process makes advisory comments and suggestions, which get written in a report that goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated that the BZA is not generally a design review board. The BZA’s role is to make a decision on the project in light of comprehensive permit criteria. He stated that the one thing about this process that is changing is the review by the BZA comprehensive permit; this is different in this process.

At this time Councillor Carlone stated that Councillor Mallon is unable to attend this hearing and has submitted a memo regarding the need to update the criteria for funding approval (ATTACHMENT G).

Councillor Carlone asked for clarifying questions by the City Council.

Councillor Kelley stated that according to the zoning 4 stories is arguably 5 habitable stories if the ground floor stops at below 4 feet of medium grade. He asked if it is possible to make a 5 habitable story building where the zoning states it is a 4-story building. Mr. Roberts stated that this is 4 stories above grade. He stated that there is nothing currently in the zoning that would prohibit anything that is happening below grade. He added that for affordable housing projects there they are hesitant to develop units that are below grade. He further stated that there are issues with resilience and other standards and criterial for affordable housing design. The Affordable Housing Trust said there is an inclination to stay away from basement level habitable space because of issues with livability of spaces, storage and utilities. He stated that this is good question which may need to be clarified.

Councillor Kelley commented that there could be 5 habitable floors on a 4-story building. Councillor Kelley asked about what is meant by a long-term restriction. Mr. Cotter responded that long term restriction means a permanent restriction and in perpetuity means forever. When talking about permanent this is something that continues for as long as the building is in existence and relies on this provision to be compliant with the zoning. Councillor Kelley asked what maximum amount of value per unit for land that is makes a project affordable. Mr. Cotter stated that what has been used in modeling is $200,000 per buildable unit and this is higher than what has been seen. The highest land cost on an acquisition is $170,000 per unit and chose to model to $200,000 to push areas where there would be fewer opportunities to be able to create some affordable housing with a premium. He stated that going past $100,000 you would not be able to assemble the financing that would be needed to create a viable project.

Councillor Zondervan questioned the height under AHOD no buildings could be built more than 7 stories and more Thant 80 feet tall. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative. He stated that 7 stories are above grade and have to be within 80 feet of height. Councillor Zondervan said if someone wanted to build a 10-story affordable housing building they would have to follow current zoning procedures that they would follow today. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative. Councillor Zondervan asked whether it is legally allowed to have different standards for affordable housing versus market rate. He asked if there will be an official opinion from the City Solicitor that there is no legal risk in terms of the City doing this. Ms. Farooq stated that the Law Department has been involved with drafting this zoning and have thought through the risk but if the City Council wanted an opinion could vote to request this. Councillor Carlone said normally housing above 70 feet is more costly and this is why affordable housing generally stops at 70 feet.

Councillor Siddiqui asked about the implementation of the AHOD. She asked if there would be other regulations that will govern this document. She noted that Councillor Mallon in her memo questioned the notion of additional criteria that should be reviewed since it has not been updated since 2007. She asked if this be put into a regulation. Mr. Roberts stated that the language in the proposal mirrors what is in inclusionary housing zoning regarding the promulgation of regulations. This is intended to provide for the zoning that lays out a set of standards for affordability, rent, prices and selection of eligibility of households. It sets the requirements in place but there are details and procedures that need to be put into place to ensure that the requirements are carried out properly. Mr. Roberts stated that this is where regulations might be helpful. It is important to provide in the zoning the possibility that the City may need to promulgate regulations to make sure that those standards that are laid out in the zoning requirements are met. Ms. Farooq stated that Councillor Mallon suggested the appropriate location for the criteria to be utilized. She stated that who is eligible in the funding allocations from the Affordable Housing Trust cannot be incorporated into the zoning because zoning can only discuss what can be built, not who can build it. She commented that this issue arose with the formula business ordinance where all businesses had to be treated the same. Similarity all developers need to be treated the same way. The financing is challenging for 100% affordable housing projects and it is anticipated that people will have to come to request funding from the City or state and by having this guidance in the Trust Rules this is the way to have the same oversight. Councillor Siddiqui stated that this is open to all developers who also build affordable housing. She requested clarification on this moving forward.

Mayor McGovern stated that these are non-expiring affordable housing units. These are permanent affordable housing units. Mr. Cotter stated that there will be restrictions put in place through the zoning and enforcement of the ordinance that require that units must remain affordable and funding restrictions will also be in place and not expiring. Mayor McGovern spoke about the concern that for-profit developers are going to come in and use the overlay to buy property, knock down a house, build a unit and then in 20 years flip the building. He stated that this cannot happen. Ms. Farooq stated that this is a covenant and is recorded at registry of deeds and if a building is sold the covenant remains. Mayor McGovern stated that if a for profit developer wants to build an affordable housing building it will have to be 100% affordable in perpetuity. He stated that 7 story buildings are only permitted in the blue areas on page 16. Mr. Roberts stated that it is in the blue and green areas. Mayor McGovern stated that in yellow areas that are residential, and developers cannot build a 7-story building. Mr. Roberts responded in the negative. Mayor McGovern questioned that there are buildings that are higher than 35 feet in these neighborhoods. Mr. Roberts stated that there are many places in the City where buildings of 4 stories or more were typical in the residential areas before they were zoned to allow only 3 story residential buildings. Over time many districts have been zoned to be more restrictive in terms of density and height so that there are a lot of non-conforming buildings that are taller than 3 stories in these areas. He stated that zoning has changed over time and the biggest change was from having no zoning to having zoning. Mayor McGovern stated that there are concerns if the overlay passes it will lead to new massive development throughout the City. He asked about the estimated number of units will the overlay provide. Mr. Cotter stated they hope that about 100 new units would be funded each year. He said larger developments would be in the corridors. There would be limitations in resources from the state and other funders, but they hope to get 1-2 projects funded in any given year. He stated that there are 3 active new construction projects underway and expect to see similar activity with more infill projects in the neighborhoods to add to this. This will be limited due to funding and using local resources and the limitation of the state and other funders given the competitiveness. Mayor McGovern asked if it was fair to say if the overlay were to pass this is not going to open flood gates of development in every part of the City in every street in the City with massive developments. Mr. Cotter responded that it is not the expectation that there will be a massive wave of new development. Mr. Cotter stated that the challenge seen is that in the current market it is difficult for affordable housing providers to get new sites and opportunities under control and to move forward. He stated that the ability to use the resources is challenged and creating a way in which housing providers could more effectively get more sites underway is the goal and then look to work within the resources available and with this funding it is hoped to fund 100 new units per year. Ms. Farooq stated that this would allow the City to more efficiently utilize the funding that the City has. She stated that currently the City averages about 60 apartment units per year of affordable housing and it is anticipated that if this proposal were adopted the City would be at 100 units. She stated that the total number of market rate housing units in the City make affordable it is not a huge increase but the change from 60 to 100 from the perspective of expanding the pool of affordable housing it is actually a significant change.

Councillor Toomey asked about parking. He stated that page 21 of the presentation states that the parking utilization survey for affordable housing properties is 24. He asked if the 24 properties are all affordable units or is it a mix. Mr. Cotter responded that they are all 100% affordable. Councillor Toomey stated that there are 1,076 units and parking spaces provided are 623 and the actual cars parked are 425, a difference of 198. He noted that 25% of the parking spaces are not being utilized which means that the tenants do not have vehicles. He stated that it is felt that with more affordable housing there will be more parking. He stated that a year ago the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department did a report about the number of housing units added in the City, but the number of parking permits issued for cars was reduced by 3,000. He asked if this trend is being seen in other buildings with 15-20% affordable housing buildings. Ms. Farooq stated that this level of detailed analysis has not been done but they rely on the parking permit information and information from the RMV and parking permits are lower despite the additional housing units in the City. This trend is being seen in both residential and commercial development and developers have discussed how they have overbuilt parking historically. She stated that shared parking solutions are used in Kendall Square to be able to have people not just reserving parking for specific users but to utilize it throughout the day. Councillor Toomey stated that this is dramatic to see that there are 198 spaces allocated and not being utilized. Councillor Toomey stated that he wanted an update on the analysis of the new housing units and how many parking permits have actually decreased.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the 1,000-unit goal set in 2015 and if this included inclusionary units. She stated that this 1,000 is in addition to any inclusionary units that will be created in the next ten years. Mr. Cotter stated that the goal is to produce 100 units per year with City funding and inclusionary would be a separate number on top of this. Vice Mayor Devereux asked which waiting list will these potential residents be coming from. Mr. Cotter responded that housing providers would utilize their list for their building which can vary by buildings and some may come from CHA waiting list to the extent that CHA is providing any assistance to builders of housing through this effort. This will vary building by building. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that there was a hearing regarding the criteria and the priorities for inclusionary residents and that conversation is not relevant on selecting residents for these buildings. She stated that the discussion included rebalancing the preferences and this conversation is parallel but not directly applicable to this conversation. Mr. Cotter stated that the hearing last week was about the changes to the preferences used to fill housing that is created through the inclusionary where there is no public funding and the units are accessed through CDD. He stated that these units would be different in that they would be operated by affordable housing providers who are capable of managing access to them. Access to the CHA list may also be a possibility. To the extent of the conversation about preferences with regard to inclusionary units, the city will bring this to the Affordable Housing Trust for a discussion about using the recommended model and implementing it to the extent that it can for buildings that are funded by the Affordable Housing Trust if criteria is determined about residency and bring this to inform tenant selection or residency selection policies that are being put into place in trust funded housing as well. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that on page 14 relating to active use and non-residential use on ground floor consistent with the zoning district and it would consider whether there is retail on either side. She stated that it has not been discussed how non-residential uses are financed in these projects and is there complications on how this is financed. Mr. Cotter said it can but they found a way to do this if there was the opportunity of desire to create ground level space. He explained that the ground level use does generate income that can be used to leverage debt to pay for some of the space and looking at other funding options the City has been able to do this when there is funded ground floor retail space. Vice Mayor Devereux asked about active retail or potentially active retail. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that map on page 16 that is about development standards. Height and scale needs to be in large format and it would be helpful to show the areas where an additional story could be added for retail to be included. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that on page 18 there was one example of a 7-story residential building where is this located. Mr. Roberts responded on First Street where Lechmere Station is. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that it would be helpful if the blocks were identified. Ms. Farooq stated that these are more abstract model. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that on page 19 regarding the transitions asked if this step down is the same as a bulk plane setback. Mr. Roberts stated that this is a way to frame it as a step down from a certain amount of stories to a lower number of stories within a certain distance. Vice Mayor Devereux needed to understand this better and needed to see different types of diagrams because this does not look adequate and asked if this is also being considered for building that is 5 story next to 2 story. Mr. Roberts stated that in the yellow area and would not necessarily apply in all the yellow areas it would just be the areas where non-residential uses are allowed at the ground floor the number of stories would not increase and it would still be 4 stories that is allowed. He stated that the increase to 50 feet is because of the ground floor retail space the first floor would be taller so a 4 story with retail at the ground level will be 49-50 feet to accommodate the ground floor retail. Vice Mayor Devereux commented that this is where we get into stories versus height and if height is the only dimensional standard that this zoning controls then height is what should be discussed in terms of impact on abutters. She spoke about historic building preservation and asked how this is defined. Mr. Roberts stated that there are limited provisions in the zoning that provides more flexibility for designated historic building. There are some provisions that would make it easier to reuse any existing building and then there are some that give flexibility for historic buildings. He explained that he consulted with the Historical Commission on this and it was suggested using the State Register which is a designation that encompasses all buildings that are designated on the National Register and additional buildings identified by the Commonwealth. He added that consulting with the Historical Commission was a way to come up with a straight forward way of identifying buildings that have been designated as having historic interest. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is not any building in a historic conservation district; this is a small number of designated buildings. Ms. Farooq said protection that currently exist in historic districts would not be modified by this zoning petition. The review and protections would continue into the future. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if any of the 100% affordable buildings surveyed charge for parking in their lots. Mr. Cotter responded in the negative; the funding prohibits this. Vice Mayor Devereux on page 24 the court yard breaks for massing longer 250 feet how was 250 feet arrived at. She noted that this would be 5 - 50 foot lots in residential neighborhoods. This is a type of building that would be built in Alewife or Kendall Square. Mr. Roberts responded that this is a way of getting at a typical block pattern in Cambridge, but the difficulty is that nothing is completely typical in Cambridge. He explained that when this was first reviewed it was thought that something between 200-300 feet made sense. He added that for many urban typical patterns in Cambridge 250 is a standard block dimension but there are instances where a block might be 210 or 230 feet at which it might impact the economics of a project to say that if the site would enable a building that is 210 feet that it would have to be broken up into different sections. He stated that 250 feet was arrived at as kind of a middle area and intended to be something that indicates an interest in having buildings fit into a typical Cambridge residential or mixed-use block pattern but not to be too onerous in a way that might prevent flexibility for cases where something longer may be acceptable. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that on page 4 Lincoln Way is pictured which is smaller buildings clustered around court yards which is attractive but if this were to be developed under the overlay it would be developed differently.

At this time Councillor Simmons suggested moving to public comment.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that on page13 contains the standards of livability. There have been questions about why the City is not doing more in Cambridge to help the middle-income residents. She commented that the City is losing a lot of people in the middle. She asked why we are not going up to 120 AMI. She stated that there is a middle-income rental program in the City which is not mentioned in the FAQ. She commented that it is important that residents know that there is a middle-income program that exists through inclusionary zoning and the minimum-maximum a single person can make is $63,000 - $95,000 and that there are units and that there are more units coming on line. She commented that this is a commitment to middle-income residents. She stated that it would be important to state why in this zoning the City is not going up to 120 AMI. Mr. Cotter responded that with this zoning the City is looking at households earning under 100% AMI. He explained the reasons. He stated that the greatest demand for housing is from households under 80% and in the current market increases from households under 100%. He stated that this is the low end of the middle-income range which is between 80-100% AMI. He stated that over the last several years it has been seen an increase in demand in this cohort but not comparable to the demand and need for households under 80%. He stated that this was included because the City wanted to see housing created with 80-100% tiers and to allow for the flexibility for where this can be done. He stated that the focus of the majority of the housing for household under 80%. The public funding for this housing is predominately targeted at households under 80% AMI, including CPA funding through the Affordable Housing Trust eligibility goes up to 100%. He commented to go beyond this would be challenging because there is no funding dedicated for this and to say 110-120 would be in name only because it would be challenging to fund these units. He spoke about the middle-income rental housing program that is like the inclusionary housing program where there are rental units created in market rate buildings and there are units available to middle income households earning between 80-120% AMI. He spoke about the demand seen for the 80-120% range to the households under 80%. He stated that there have been other zoning restricted units created for households up to 120% in the home ownership program as well. He stated that there is a stock of units in the City that are affordable and restricted to households within this range. It is growing because new units will be added as units in the Mass+Main come on line that will be added to the middle-income rental program.

Councillor Carlone asked how it is decided what is home ownership versus a rental. Does funding dictate what program it is? He asked if there is a way to expand home ownership. Mr. Cotter explained that this is determined on a case by case basis. He commented that some sites lend themselves to rental housing just by the size and scale. He stated that the funding is not available for home ownership. He stated that with smaller developments more success has been seen creating new home ownership units and from infill type development and small condominiums. These are places where there are no other subsidy sources that are available now to create this housing. The City has been able to use City funds to create 100% affordable deed restricted condominium units. Councillor Carlone stated that under zoning the bay windows can project into the side yard setback which is 7.5 feet but does not specify the width of the bay windows. He suggested that this be added. Councillor Carlone noted that open space is typically thought as 15 x 15 feet and this proposal is not looking at open space this way. He asked how this is rationalized especially, with bay windows going in the side yards. Mr. Roberts stated that the provision in the current zoning varies by district but has the minimal dimensional standard of 15 x 15 for what is referred to as private open space which, is open space intended to be used by residential occupants of a building. There is a rationale for having this. He stated that with a normal rear setback a 15 x 15 can be met. He stated that the issue is when there are lots of varying sizes and shapes where strictly meeting the 15 x 15 dimension can become onerous. He stated that it is difficult to show how it plays out in every case but the experience with this provision in the zoning is that developments can find difficulty conforming to this and may have to seek relief. There would be in selecting standards as to what should or could be applied flexibility and could be provisions for having some amount of open space have a dimension of 15 x 15 or a more flexible way of characterizing this. The intention is to have some space on the lot that is usable as recreational or yard space that residents can use. Mr. Roberts stated that the City can consider if there are ways to include similar provisions but the exact provision that is in the current zoning ordinance especially where it requires all private open space to be a minimum of 15 x 15 can be onerous. Councillor Carlone stated that if there is not going to be yard space for eight families bigger than 20 x 50 what communal spaces are there in the building and why isn’t the City requesting for porches which is the greatest communal space. He stated that he is trying to humanize the buildings and create places where people can be. He stated that the bigger the building the more communal or community space is need. He stated that the 15% glass is ludicrous unless the affordable housing developers state that they do this all the time. He stated that housing usually comes in 60 feet and is generally building in this range and not in a 250 feet range.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 7:24pm. Public comment was limited to 2 minutes.

Elena Sokolow Kaufman, read a statement on behalf of the Cambridge Non-Profit Coalition, to express the support for the 100% affordable housing overlay. She stated that the statement represents the voices of 32 non-profit leaders serving Cambridge residents most deeply impacted by the affordable housing crisis. She stated that there are clear differences of opinion on this proposal there are values that all share in Cambridge. She stated that people want to live in a community that takes care of its residents and celebrates diversity in all its forms. This diversity is a key driver for making Cambridge such a vibrant place to live and work. She stated that the current lack of affordable housing options is in sharp contrast with the values expressed. The Cambridge Community Needs Assessment done in 2017 details some alarming statistics that affirmed by several Citizen Surveys and Assessments. She stated that in 2014 a market rate one-bedroom apartment was out of reach of over one-half of Cambridge households. She noted that this gap widens for larger units. She further stated that in 2013 the wait list for housing vouchers in public housing was over 9,000, demand outstripping supply by 300%. She stated that because income and housing affordability are closely linked and the median income by race is inequitable access to housing is inequitable by race as well. She stated that CNC supports the 100% affordable housing overlay because it will add a tool to create additional units of affordable housing. She stated that it is believed that this is an issue of equity. She commented that if the Cambridge community is serious about maintaining the City’s rich diversity the City must be willing to change our systems in ways that allow all residents access to safe, affordable and appropriate housing. She stated that the opponents of this proposal may say that they believe in affordable housing but not this proposal and that the City of Cambridge and the City Council should wait until another alternative is identified. She stated that the CNC strongly disagrees and know that waiting is a privilege that the clients CNC members work with simply do not have. Something needs to be done now to create more affordable units and use every tool at the City’s disposal to do so. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT H).

Becca Schofield, 35 Norris Street, stated that she is a project manager at a local housing nonprofit and a Co-Chair of ABC. She stated that she is a strong supporter of the AHOD and believes that it is an essential tool for building urgently needed affordable housing in Cambridge. She highlighted in order to address the housing crisis to the extent possible in the current market the overlay’s provision allowing for slightly more density as of right is key to the success of this policy. She applauded the City staff for the information provided and educating all about this proposal. She stated that open houses this summer will be helpful and stated that the City has to take this policy and run with it.

Skip Schloming, 102 Inman Street, stated that there is a fatal flaw in the affordable housing proposal and the flaw is that all love the sound of affordable housing but housing itself is in no way affordable and it is exorbitantly expensive. He stated that according to CDD and the MIT professor who came to discuss affordable housing, a 2-bedroom unit costs about $.5 million to acquire the land and build. He added in the end what you have for a 2-bedroom unit is a unit worth about $3,500 per month. He noted that this is all tax money and is tax-payer funded in one way or another. He stated that to reduce the $3,500 to an affordable level of 60-80% of median income is about another $.5 million to keep the low rent funding in place for thirty years. He noted that this is $.5 million benefit for one unit or one household and he does not see the justification for taxpayers to be giving a few households such a huge benefit. He stated that a lot of households with the same income level are those who will occupy the affordable housing will be totally not helped. He stated that he does not see the justification for City money for this. He suggested he will come up with zoning proposal. He stated that if the money spent is taken and put into mobile tenant vouchers to rent private rental housing.

Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Street, stated that she was one of ten citizens who submitted a detail analysis of some of the critical problems with the AHOD and what is needed to fix it to make it viable for the City (ATTACHMENT I-1). She cited the CCD website on design has a set of three guidelines. She stated that mainly that context is critical, history of place, character and set of uses; relations to abutters and relations to the project and the ground and finally the scale and character of a new project. She stated that the AHOD overlooks these critical concerns that have been an important part of the City’s history and need to be important going forward. She stated that she believes strongly in equity but does not support the idea of putting economic segregated housing which is a thing of the past. She supports a means to home ownership. She commented that the City has built a lot of housing and a sunset clause is needed. She spoke about the need for key criteria such as when does building the 1,000 units begin and when does it end and how is this defined. She commented that this is a radical zoning change which is found nowhere else in the country and does not address the core problems which is the huge amount of increase the City has had in development, including luxury housing which has caused gentrification. She noted that the highest rents in the City are in those areas with the highest number of new housing, East Cambridge and Alewife. She stated that the City does not have to rush this proposal. She commented that all do believe in affordable housing, but the Boston Foundation showed that Cambridge’s rents meet or beat rents in Arlington, Belmont and Somerville. She stated that there are key green issues such as saving mature trees. She submitted her comments as a resident (ATTACHMENT I-2)

Marilee Meyer, 8 Dana Street, stated that while seeking housing solutions one cannot ignore what makes Cambridge which is its architecture and social history. She noted that gentrification has displaced renters and longtime residents and equitable, actionable measures to protect both are still lacking. She stated that the affordable housing review process cannot be eliminated and ignore those residents who have invested their life savings or inheritance in properties to be passed down. She stated that if we are looking at 40B amounts of units we must also look at the State’s 40B design standards which are stronger than Cambridge’s. She stated that the zoning encourages shortcuts and waives the binding design review. She stated that across the country affordable housing is easily identified by shoddy materials and poor design. She stated that developers who combine properties for those block long projects should be required to present a contextual model. She stated that the form-based code does not relate to our non-conforming lots. It only deals with height, width and depth and does not include the rigorous study of neighborhood. She stated that developers can disregard any suggestions made and context is crucial. She stated that even in the corridors 6 stories or more are human scale and 7 stories may not be appropriate. She stated that density should be limited in some cases to three times instead of ten times the current zoning density. Incidentally, she stated that the blue and green areas are zoned up to 350 feet. She stated that a sunset provision is needed.

John Gilmore, 47 Reservoir Street, stated that 20-30% of the tree canopy has been lost in the last ten years and this is a severe environmental concern. He added that the AHOD does nothing to ameliorate this; it aggravates this with a minimum setback. He stated that he strongly recommends that the City Council retain a neutral outside experienced urban planner to identify and explain to the City Council and the public the impact of the AHOD on City goals of affordable housing on other key envision goals. He stated that the AHOD draft does not set standards to protect and ensure adequate green space. He also urged the City Council to engage an outside experienced zoning lawyer to identify to the City Council and the public before the regulations change the impact of major exception to the black letter zoning law that may be hidden by practice or otherwise in the draft of the AHOD ordinance. He spoke about the practice to treating below grade floors as underground even if they are actually above ground so that they are not subject to setback rules. He stated that the Planning Board should not lose its traditional role in design oversight. The rationale for doing so in the AHOD are not justified. He stated that FAR should not be replaced by what CDD is calling form-based design particularly since FAR provides greater flexibility for addressing the diversity of building context and design issues. He commented that the AHOD is not form based zoning which CDD has referred to it. He noted that in form-based zoning one looks for consistency in scale and look on the streetscape. The prototypes in the handout by CDD show clearly these buildings stick out in their neighborhoods. He stated that this upzoning will be here for decades and it is unknown what will happen in ten years. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT J).

Carolyn Fuller, 12 Douglass Street, stated that she is a strong proponent for a richly diverse population throughout the entire City. She stated that she supports the AHOD in hopes that zoning is no longer allowed to be the tool used to bifurcate our fair City into the haves and have nots. She stated that it is easy to say that Cambridge welcomes new immigrant arrivals, supports greater diversity, supports the production of more affordable housing but these sentiments fly out the window with the first whiff of sacrifice. She commented that all want to control what happens in our back yards, but the reality is that any one person’s personal concerns often conflict with wider community goals. She noted that restrictive zoning is currently hampering our ability to reach our stated affordable housing goals. She added that it is time to loosen the zoning restrictions and give any developer who is willing to build 100% affordable housing an opportunity to do the job. She stated that each City Councillors state that they are for affordable housing she urged them to walk the talk and give this overlay plan a chance, a plan that has been carefully crafted to meet our community’s stated goals. Her comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT K).

Patrick Braga, 11 Everett Street, stated that he is an urban planner at Harvard and a registered voter. He stated that he supports the AHOD. He stated that at last week’s Planning Board hearing a speaker stated and most are home owners and he was correct. He noted that the City budget states that 33% of residents own their homes. He stated that this is an issue in a City with 67% renters. He stated that the public hearings amplify home owner’s positions over experiences of housing hardship. He stated that home ownership is an investment. He stated that homeowners are just as concerned about their equity appreciation as commercial investors. He added that some speakers expressed fear that the AHOD would reduce their property value. He stated that the difference unlike a commercial investor, many homeowners put their equity in a single, non-liquid, non-diversified asset. He stated that change is a risk one has to be willing to take especially in a City with explosive growth and progressive politics. He stated that many opponents decried by right zoning, but this already exists in Cambridge. He stated that while as of right approvals exist for people making above the median income he wanted this to be expanded this right to housing for residents earning below the median. He stated that 100% affordable housing would not mean segregation because the economic story of a household earning 80% of the median in income is very different than one earning 50%. He asked why we can’t be brave enough to reengineer, reinvent or redevelop the City to make it a more inclusive every more perfect community. He stated that the AHOD has been called undemocratic, but it is not democratic keeping up regulatory barriers that make it harder for more people to enjoy the blessings of an opportunity rich City like Cambridge. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT L).

Larry Field, 42 Mt. Vernon Street, stated for the last eight years he has been working for the Department of Housing and Community Development in the Executive Office of Housing Economic Development and the non-profit Massachusetts Smart-growth Alliance. He supported this proposal because it will keep the economic and racial diversity that all value. He stated that this is a smart-growth and climate friendly proposal. He stated that the numbers show that Cambridge is the most walkable, most transit connected and the most bike friendly City in the state. He stated that every piece of Cambridge is within one-half mile of subway stop or bus stop. He stated that in this proposal there is a number of lots that will be developed over the next ten years and all these lots have existing structures and/or impermeable surfaces. He stated that given the smart-growth characteristics it more than makes up for the possible negative climate change facts of loss of tree canopy and open space. He stated that each tree absorbs 48 pounds of carbon a year and each car emit 9,200 pounds a year. So, every time there is a tenant who is walking or using public transit rather than driving more will be done for the environment. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT M).

Bill McAvinney, 12 Douglass Street, stated that he has stayed in Cambridge because of the economic and racial diversity of the City and stated that Cambridge is losing this economic diversity is no action is taken. He stated that for middle- or high-income residents this is a contest between those who want to preserve Cambridge’s economic and racial diversity and those who feel that small changes in the architectural character of the neighborhoods is offensive. He noted that both pales to those who are losing their homes. He stated that this is what is happening to many low-income residents; they are losing their homes because they are being priced out. He urged the City Council to pass this proposal and will provide new unit of housing to be built each year and will keep Cambridge at the amount of low-income residents. He urged not making perfection the enemy of the good. He urged the City Council to pass this and then make changes as needed.

Elizabeth Gilmore, 47 Reservoir Street, stated that the longer this is studied the more puzzled people become as to why the City is considering this deeply flawed proposal. She stated that Cambridge is one of the densest City in the United States. She noted that 10,000 housing units have been added in the last ten years and millions of square feet of office space and more construction is in the works. She stated that the Fresh Pond/ Alewife area which has changed beyond recognition in terms of the ability to get around walking, biking or driving. She stated that more than 20% of tree canopy has been lost, a form of urban infrastructure that is beneficial to health. She stated that 1,000 affordable housing units have been added in the last several years and already compare very favorably to the surrounding communities. She stated that through existing programs, direct subsidies and work with the universities and businesses more could be done. She stated that against this background why go where no other city or town in America has gone with an ordinance that will likely have ruinous consequences for the City in terms of the environment, traffic and the degradation of the historical fabric of the City. She noted that the only real beneficiaries may be the developers. She stated that under the AHOD her home could be bought, torn down and replaced with 20-25 apartments in a 4-story building and the twenty mature trees on the lot would be cut down and traffic would increase heavily. She stated that in the memo from the City Manager there is another example if the AHOD had been passed it would be in effect now. She urged the City Council to think very carefully before adopting this proposal. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT N).

Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street, spoke about redlining which was the practice of denying black and minority families the ability to own homes either by denying traditional loans, government subsidies or just not selling. He stated that he has heard that the AHOD will help to correct the redlining and undue this injustice. He stated that this is not true.

David Sullivan, 16 Norte Dame Avenue, stated that he supports the AHOD. It is important to keep the number of units in perspective. He stated that he was member of the City Council at a time when Rent Control was in force. He noted the Rent Control kept 14,000 rental units in this City affordable to low- and moderate-income residents. He stated that if one added the 14,000 units to the units on the State’s official registry of affordable units this comes close to one-half of all the affordable units of all the housing units in the City. He stated that currently there are about 15% of those units that are affordable; a dramatically lower number. He noted that this overlay will not fix this and at most it will produce 100 units per year, but the City needs to start somewhere. The City Council has limited legal powers in this area. He stated that zoning is one and this is a robust power that the City has, and it needs to be used. He commented that this is the best proposal he has seen to use these powers for the benefit of a lot of low- and moderate-income people in this City.

Adrian Musgrave, 48 Haskell Street, stated that Cambridge has immense wealth, opportunity and resources and need to hold ourselves to a higher standard for how opportunity is created for everyone in this City. She stated that she loves her neighborhood because it is diverse. She spoke about the beauty of the buildings in her neighborhood. She stated that she is happy with the new housing on Rindge Avenue. She spoke about the other non-profit project that have been created and stated that they are gorgeous. They provide an opportunity for many to live in the City especially children who have access to amazing schools. She stated that the concerns around the design guidelines are overblown. She stated that the developers who create affordable housing want beautiful places for people to live in and have created them. She stated that she supports the AHOD because she wants to create more housing for more people especially low-income families. She commented that since 2011 the City has lost 19% of low-income units. This is a dire need and Cambridge has a full set of resources to create the opportunity for these families. She thanked the City staff for the immense amount of work and for their outreach to the community to address a complicated, complex issue.

Thomas Byrne, 4 Berkeley Park, stated that affordable housing is the most important, but the devil is in the details and the City Council have raised questions in their debate. He suggested that whatever is decided that it have a sunset clause. He spoke about whether new properties can be created in the future. He wanted the City Council to consider the infrastructure in the City. He spoke about incidents where there were large bursts of water lines in the City and asked can the infrastructure support this new housing and what is the cost. He expressed concern about maintaining the properties going forward. He spoke about turning single family homes into 2-3 family homes.

Deborah Ruhe, Executive Director, Just-A-Start, stated that she lives at 16 Seven Pines Avenue. She stated that this is a much-needed tool. She stated that JAS is a non-profit developer and takes offense about inferior design. She invited anyone in Cambridge who thinks that affordable housing is inferior to come sign up for a tour for what affordable housing looks like. She supports this proposal. She explained that JAS has not been able to develop property for 7 years because they could not acquire land, and therefore this tool is needed. She explained that last year JAS lost out on two properties and if the AHOD were in place 90 homes could have been created. This is needed to make projects feasible. She stated that JAS is in the process of building on parking lot owned by JAS and there are two projects being built on parking lots owned by JAS. She urged passage of the AHOD.

Brad Bellows, 87 Howard Street, stated that his neighborhood is dense and diverse which is what he likes about it. He has concerns about the AHOD from several stand points. He stated that from a social justice perspective, it is a great amenity to have diversity in Cambridge, but in terms of the impact on people who are locked into ownership or renting where there is no equity potential this is a negative aspect. He stated that he wanted his children to benefit from owning something and this is not going to happen in Cambridge at all. He stated that the transportation system in this region is broken. He stated that as the City Council considers the major changes to the zoning regulations he urged the City Council to consider the unintended consequences of sensibly virtuous acts. He stated that the housing crisis is fueled by regional policy failures, specifically transportation. He spoke about the Chapter 40B obligations and the need to continue to expand our efforts building income segregated housing is no way to do this. He stated that all the research suggests that mixed income housing provides far more benefit. He stated that it is perverse that income segregation is the cornerstone of the effort to increase income diversity. He added that he does not understand the fixation on producing 100% affordable housing and nothing short of this. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT O).

Ben Simon, 67 Bishop Allen Drive, stated that he is a low-income renter and nothing that this AHOD would incentivize would be accessible to him. He stated that whether the overlay passes or not renters in the private market in his income bracket lose and will continue to be displaced. He stated that there is one party that comes out a winner in this debate and this party is private developers. He stated that the City has let private developers determine what is affordable housing and what housing equity should look like. He stated that they will define these terms in ways that will protect their basic interest. He stated that the problem with the situation is that the policy that would actually better the lives of the vulnerable community are a threat to developers. He stated things such as rent control, just cause evictions, tenants right to purchase and nonmarket truly affordable housing are all concerns. He stated that he wished that this was the discussion today on how to achieve these policies in Cambridge instead of this wrong-minded, market-based solution. He commented that this whole discussion has turned one-half of Cambridge against the other. He stated that while residents are exhausting themselves fighting one another the developers win no matter the outcome. He noted that this is classic divide and conquer. He stated that whether the overlay passes or not the fundamental positive displacement, homelessness and housing that is not affordable goes unchecked, a commodified, for-profit housing system. He stated that housing equity is not a question of policy as much as it is a question of power. He explained that in Berlin rapidly rising rents led to a popular mass movement for nationalizing buildings from corporate landlords and adding them to the social housing stock. It was in this political climate that Berlin’s government recently agreed to a five-year rent freeze. He commented that this recent victory in Berlin and similar victories throughout American history instruct us that the surest way to get elected representatives to represent the people instead of their corporate donors is a popular mass movement. He stated that Cambridge needs a movement for real housing justice, one that calls for tenant protection, truly affordable social housing and a stop to the endless displacement drive in development.

Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street, stated that she supported the AHOD. All are aware of the need for affordable housing that is particularly great in Cambridge because of the high housing costs and heavy demand. She stated that additional affordable housing will provide badly needed housing for those who are struggling to make ends meet, including people who were raised here and those who work here. She stated that she has another strong reason that she supports more affordable housing in Cambridge. This will help to preserve and expand the too rapidly decreasing diversity of the City which she strongly values. She spoke about concerns that were raised in previous hearings about how this proposal would impact the people who would find housing as a result of it. The first concern was the impact of less open space. She stated that we are fortunate to live in a City where there is extensive access to parks. The families who would get the additional units made possible by less open space would far prefer this than being forced to live far away from Cambridge or even worse in shelters or motels. She spoke about the concern that these families are being segregated because they will be living in 100% affordable buildings. She stated that these buildings will not be like the housing projects such as Newtowne Court or Washington Elms. She stated that while such projects provide much needed housing and the residents have built strong and vibrant communities, none the less they are to some extent separate and isolated from the rest of her neighborhood. She noted that this initiative would produce buildings that the two on her street whose tenants have become a welcome part of the neighborhood and have made the street the rich and diverse community that she loves and values. She urged the City Council to pass the AHOD so that more diverse and rich streets and neighborhoods can be created throughout all of Cambridge. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT P).

Larry Bluestone, 18 Center Street, supported the AHOD and urged the Ordinance Committee maintain the overlay’s three key principles as currently drafted. The first that the overlay is applicable throughout the entire City for purposes of equity. The second that the dimensional bonuses are maintained as a necessary incentive to make affordable housing financially viable and third that the by right approval process be maintained to avoid unnecessary community challenges and long delays which can be used effectively to kill affordable housing developments. He stated that one of the chief barriers to providing affordable housing is the unpredictability of the cumbersome review process now required. He stated that this long review process subject to many outside challenges introduces lethal uncertainty for affordable housing financing. He stated that market rate developers can endure this process, but affordable housing developers most often cannot. He stated that a more streamlined process is clearly required. He stated that the answer proposed in the overlay is the use of the by right process, however, within this process the Planning Board and neighbors all have a reasonable expectation to see what may result given many project proposals during the advisory review. He noted that this expectation has been superbly answered in this AHOD by providing upfront, explicit details for design guidelines, 3D illustrations and dimensional controls directly into the ordinance, even before the review process begins. He stated that he reviewed the 3D illustrations recently prepared to accompany the ordinance what struck him most was how similar the projected physical outcomes were to what is already physically existing throughout the Cambridge neighborhoods, a variable mix of housing types and different heights and scales.

Susan Schlesinger, 34 Glenwood Avenue, stated that she supported the AHOD. She suggested as the City goes through this process at looking at more specific design guidelines. She stated that key goal of looking at design guidelines should be that they do not impact the feasibility of creating 40 units of additional affordable housing in the City. She stated that if changes are going to be made that impact feasibility then at some point this becomes many cuts that kill what the City is trying to achieve. She urged all to keep in mind what the City is trying to do which is to create more affordable housing, because it is the biggest crisis facing the City and because it has been named by the City Council and the public the biggest issue facing the City. She stated that this needs to move forward and she thinks that there will be changes to the proposal. She noted that she agreed with Vice Mayor Devereux’s comments on ground floor retail and reviewing this as there is so much vacancy and there is no source to pay for this except for affordable housing funds. She stated that as a member of the Affordable Housing Trust and responding to questions raised by Councillor Mallon regarding criteria for teams of developers. She stated that the trust acts primarily as a loan committee or as a lender. She spoke of the criteria that is not specifically spelled out as they might be, but a key criterion is to look at a development team. She stated that a key criterion of the trust is that the trust does not fund development teams and developers who have not created affordable housing as the type that they are proposing.

Teresa Cordosi, 7 Woodrow Wilson Court, urged the City Council to support the 100% affordable housing overlay because it is the only way that the non-profits can compete with the profit building developers. This cannot wait because the property will all be bought out soon. She stated that renters want to establish roots but the AHOD brings fear, but she wanted people to think about the renter who is in fear of losing their home and uprooting children from school and losing their support system. She added that the 100% overlay would create a permanent deed restricted unit that will produce generations of stable housing for families for the future. She stated that financing has social impacts and zoning is more than a set of rules; it is an equalizer for fairness. She stated that the value of a City is not its property; the value of a City is its community. The value of a community is its ability to unite. She stated that this community unites by tolerating and discussing opposite view points and finding common ground which leads to solutions which includes all income levels are at the table. The AHOD is a good solution and it is a way to ensure equal diversified community for now and the future. She asked the City Council to please support AHOD.

Chris Schmidt, 17 Laurel Street, stated his support for the AHOD. He explained why this is important to him. He had people living with him to make ends meet. One person in the household went to school to obtain a Veterinarian degree and shortly after receiving her degree the property owner died, the property was sold and could not find additional housing. He was forced to move to a smaller house and would not share space and he lost his friend even though she had a full-time job as a veterinarian and could not afford a place to live in Cambridge. She moved to Salem and continued to work for Cambridge Vet Care and took the commuter rail from Salem to Cambridge to work each day. He stated that unfortunately in the end this did not turn out to be affordable either. She was forced to leave the area and returned to live with her family seven states away. He spoke about her inability to live in Cambridge because she could not afford to and with the affordable housing waiting list being so long there was no way she would be able to live in Cambridge. He stated that he lost his friend because Cambridge was not welcoming to her. He stated that when he looks at the ways to increase affordable housing he thinks of his friend. He stated that he hopes that the AHOD will be a way to make more room for people like his friend. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT Q).

Annette Lamond, 7 Riedesel Avenue, opposed the AHOD. She noted that the City is already making good strides to its goal of affordable housing through inclusionary requirements for new development. She stated that the new apartment construction over the past few years has greatly increased traffic congestion on City streets, many of which are narrow and one-way streets. She stated that the environmental costs of further increases in congestion if the overlay is adopted should not be overlooked. She stated rather than a divisive debate on this proposal the City should be uniting to press for transit improvements to make it easier to commute in and out of Cambridge. She commented that Cambridge is a historic City and although there are historic districts and neighborhood conservation districts not every neighborhood has a historic protection that it deserves. She stated that her neighborhood will have no special protection beyond the demolition regulations on houses that are more than 50 years old. She stated that if the AHOD is adopted her neighborhood will have no protection. She spoke about the housing insecurity her mother’s family faced as an immigrant she holds in her heart. She stated that she wanted to see this City as a model for housing, but Cambridge needs a master plan looking at housing solutions across the entire City, not a zoning change that has not been tested anywhere else and promises to do more harm than good. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT R).

Deborah Gevalt, 55 Reservoir Street, stated that her house is the only 2 family residence in a row of condos which were originally 2 family homes. She stated that she is concerned about the impact of the 100% affordable housing issue on the City. She stated that 10-12 units on a lot which has a house of 1700 square feet and her lot is smaller at 4200 and 8-10 units could be built on her site. She summed up her concerns about the AHOD as loss of tree canopy, abandonment of FAR in favor of form based zoning and affordable housing construction resulting in a dense City that will overwhelm existing residential structures and neighborhoods. She hoped that the City will consider suspending action on this plan and put this issue to a vote by the citizens of Cambridge in the form of a binding referendum. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT S).

Louise Elving, 36 Cottage Street, favored adoption of AHOD and move quickly because of the great urgency for the need for affordable housing in the City. She spoke about the 9,000 on the CHA’s waiting list for affordable housing. She stated that new affordable housing, when available, generally has hundreds of applicants for every unit. She stated that the rapidly escalating rents and prices in the City mean that as units’ turnover we are becoming increasingly a wealthy City and losing people of more modest and low incomes. She stated that one of the points of contention is that people feel that this will create income segregated housing, but the numbers state that this is not really what will happen. She stated those who quality for this housing will earn up to $90,000-$100,000 a year and people may also qualify if resources are available and will be in a range of incomes. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT T).

Bill Boehm, 18 Laurel Street, stated that he is an architect working with non-profits in Boston and Lawrence on 100% affordable housing projects. He supported the AHOD and is one of the many efforts needed to address the housing crisis in our City. He noted that since its inception zoning has been used among other things as a tool to segregate neighborhoods. He spoke about a book entitled The Color of Law. He added that this proposal will begin to undo some of the damage done in zoning by supporting affordable housing in all neighborhoods. He commented that the proposal, all zoning and development is complicated. He applauded the efforts of the Community Development Department of explaining the proposal, listening and responding to residents’ concerns. He stated that the response to the questions raised by the City Council and the site models address many of the questions and concerns raised over the past few months. He stated that he is fortunate to live in a desirable diverse community and should do everything to create affordable housing, maintain diversity and stem the tide of gentrification and displacement.

Bob Camacho, Corporal Burns Road, stated that AHOD is an assault on the historical and democratic system of current zoning regulations which is the only recourse a current home owner can rely on to prevent inappropriate structures from being built on adjacent property. He stated that the closest to this plan that he found occurred in Paulo Alto which passed 100% affordable overlay on currently zoned commercial property within one-half mile of transit hubs and one-quarter mile of transit corridors. He noted that there are numerous sites in Cambridge that can be targeted this way for affordable housing without putting homeownership in the entire City at the risk of unintended consequences. He stated that there is nothing wrong with an incremental approach for affordable housing. He spoke about the infrastructure to support a Citywide zoning change. He stated that there has been no other consideration on the impact on sewer systems, flood map, storm drain requirement, wet lands protection nor on the City’s electrical power requirements or public schools. He asked if any consideration has been given to vehicular traffic. He stated that AHO developments should not be exempted from the tree protection ordinance. The AHO, he stated, will adversely impact climate resilience by removing tree canopy, open and permeable space. He stated that he believes that this proposal will encourage move tear downs of existing properties perpetuating the loss of existing middle-income housing that the City has really not affectively addressed. He stated that the mention of the phase “affordable housing” has become a key word used by petitioners to manipulate City government for exceptions to current zoning. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENTS U-1 AND U-2).

Tina Alu, 113½ Pleasant Street, Director of CEOC, shared with the City Council the people who come to CEOC are concerned about who are not here today because it is hard for them to come to a five-hour hearing. She invited the City Council to make an appointment to hear the voices of this who will be impacted by the overlay. She stated that when people come to CEOC they are not talking about the size of the yard that they will have in their building and are concerned about porches, accruing escrow; they are concerned about remaining in Cambridge and to be able to raise their families and their children attend the Cambridge public schools. She stated that they are concerned about their community, many of which they have seen have to leave the community. They are concerned about having a size apartment that fits their needs as their family expands. She commented that these are the issue that people speak to CEOC about. She spoke about finding ways to hear the voice of those who will be most impacted by this proposal.

Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place, stated that CDD has put on the table what this ordinance is about and answering all the questions and concerns. She stated that the biggest threat to poor people in Cambridge is that their house will be sold if they do not have the luxury of being in a permanent, forever home that they will not be thrown out of. She noted that this is the difference between being a property owner in Cambridge and being a tenant who has probably lived in the City for decades, went to school in Cambridge is worried that they will not be able to stay in Cambridge. She added that the addition of 100 units is a piece of hope for these people. She stated that the clock is ticking because the price of land is increase and people are dying to stay in Cambridge and the City needs to move on this because every day is another day lost.

Yemi Kibret, 4 Putnam Garden, supported the AHOD. She stated that she works at CEOC and is a community advocate. She submitted a petition which she read in support of the AHOD (ATTACHMENT V). She stated that she lived in public housing for 9 years at Fresh Pond. She stated that she moved to Putnam Garden in a three-bedroom apartment with her three children. She stated that the first thing that human beings need is housing and this needs to be affordable.

Sanjoy Mahajan, 950 Mass. Avenue, spoke about the as of right zoning exception of the AHOD which applies across the entire City. He stated that in the FAQ question 3b states that the reason for this is currently projects are subject to appeals that can add significant costs, take more time to resolve and resources. He noted that this argument can be made about many democratic processes. He stated that given defendants the right to lawyers, the Miranda warning and public court room trials are more expensive, creates more delays than just locking people up, but this is part of democracy. He stated that giving blanket variances across the entire City, which is what the AHOD does, by avoiding the entire variance process and the Board of Zoning Appeals is not democratic. He stated that currently the public has some rights; they are not extensive but there are rights through the Board of Zoning Appeals. He compared this situation to teenagers who have some rights. He stated that the current proposal would reduce the public to that of toddlers. There is not much space for public input anymore; it is all consultation and voluntary on the part of the City and the developers. He stated that for these reasons he is opposed to the proposal. His comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT W).

Susanne Shaw, 46 Clarendon Avenue, stated that she supports AHOD and she explained why. She stated that she lives in a neighborhood of mostly single and multi-family homes about three stories. She stated that she lives across from the Burns Apartments, 196 units of affordable housing and there are 4-6 story buildings and they do not harm the neighborhood. She stated that the density is a great thing for the neighborhood and this is not segregated housing. She stated that these residents are part of our community. She spoke about the new affordable, rental and owned housing built in her neighborhood. She stated that these developments have reinvigorated the aging demographic of the neighborhood, brought children into the parks, has brought vibrancy to the community and has bolstered the racial and income diversity, all the things that make Cambridge special place to live. This has also helped many Cambridge natives to stay in the City. She stated that in all cases the non-profit developers enhanced the landscaping by planting trees and creating private and public green space. She noted that she cannot say the same for private developers. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT X).

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, spoke for the officers of the Cambridge Residents Alliance. She stated that a core priority of the Residents Alliance is to increase affordable housing in Cambridge. She stated that the Residents Alliance seeks to balance this priority with other important priorities. She stated that the AHOD Cambridge’s below market housing would increase by 1.2% per year or 12% over ten years. She noted that this would be a huge advance and would help meet the Envision target of 3175 new affordable units by 2030. She noted that the Planning Board had many concerns at its meeting last week about the AHOD and they plan to suggest fixes at their hearing on July 9, 2019 and kept this in committee. She encouraged the Ordinance Committee to keep this matter in committee. She expressed concern about open space and felt that people in larger buildings need a gather space out of doors and that there should be the 15 x 15 space that has been removed. This could be on a roof deck. She commented that the 30% open space should be required and not reduced to 15% open space for parking. He stated that Residents Alliance would like none of the larger trees removed to construct new buildings or renovate old buildings. Regarding the density and the FAR, Ms. Farris stated that a lot of the concerns expressed could be accommodated by limiting the FAR to a number such as 3.0 in the residential areas. This is bigger than the 2.0 that the Envision Study stated was necessary. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT Y).

Fred Meyer, 83 Hammond Street, stated that the pictures shown by Mr. Roberts were of existing buildings built under existing zoning and how do these pictures build a case for change in the zoning. He stated that the building in his neighborhood was built by a profit-making developer and went through exhaustive review by the Board of Zoning Appeals and received unanimous approval to build 40 units of affordable housing with three handicapped parking spaces. He asked why the City is removing binding design review because the projects are better with the community input. He spoke about the developers complaining about the long process but in the end, all agreed that the projects were better with the community input. He asked why the City is leaving out neighborhood input. He asked why Cambridge as the wealthy City it is, is not build itself 100 units a year of affordable housing. He commented that Cambridge has the lowest tax rate and the tax rate could be increased and build buildings under the existing zoning. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT Z).

George Metzger, 90 Antrim Street, stated that the AHOD has generated a lot of angst in the City. He stated that sensible tree mitigation and climate change mitigation against a modest proposal to increase affordable housing as if the City cannot do both. He noted that several years ago the City declared a housing crisis and two years ago Envision Cambridge identified the need for considerably more housing. He commented that as a City all agree with the importance of affordable housing and the need to maintain the City’s diverse community with locally owned stores as well. He stated that the AHOD is one tool that can be used to accomplish some of these goals. This is less than100 units per year. He stated that today housing development is seen everywhere and large developments are adding affordable housing under the inclusionary zoning, but small, private developers are filling the back and side yards in the neighborhoods without providing a single unit of affordable housing. He spoke about those individuals who are vocal about affordable housing not getting a pass from regulatory review that private developers must cope with. He stated that this is a particular specious argument because the planning field for affordable housing is nowhere near level with market rate development. He stated that hands are rung about the housing crisis but fail to question how much affordable housing is needed. He stated that people lament that our children cannot afford to live in Cambridge and then worry about neighborhood stability. He stated that the development boom is changing the City and the neighborhoods before our very eyes. He asked do we really think that a small number of homes for people who might teach our children, care for our parents, clean our schools, sell local goods in locally owned shops will destroy our neighborhoods. He stated that he did not think so. He asked do we really think that highly paid people working a Novartis and displacing families in what were affordable apartments are not already changing our precious neighborhoods. He stated that he requested the Planning Board to support this modest proposal in principle and improve it. He stated that now he is asking the Ordinance Committee to approve the petition.

Dan Eisner, 6 Bristol Street, stated that as he has learned more about the AHOD and how it would work in practice it has been confirmed with the experts that this is an entirely reasonable and sensible measure to expand the supply of affordable housing in Cambridge. He stated that the zoning change would effectively legalize the types of buildings that is seen throughout much of Cambridge. The buildings may be taller or bumpier, but this does not deviate from the norm. He stated that when walking down Linnaean Street there is a 37-foot-tall ten-unit apartment building next to a 55-foot-tall 48 unit building and this is next to a 30-foot-tall single-family house and further down the street is Senator Elizabeth Warren’s home, 41-foot-tall single-family house. He stated that across the street is a 55-foot-tall 23-unit building. He added that if Elizabeth Warren can enjoy living in a neighborhood with a diversity of housing the rest of us can too. He stated that he is confident in the future that Cantabrigians will look at housing build under the overlay and be perplexed that individuals were concerned that it would destroy the character of their neighborhood. He stated that individuals will appreciate how these buildings contribute to the fabric of their community and give them more neighbors.

Allan Sadun, 17 Pleasant Place, supported AHOD and urged the City Council to move forward. He suggested adjusting the design guidelines but reject any proposals to weaken it. He spoke specifically about the concept of as of right. He explained, at a street fair, how the AHOD was going to make it easier to build affordable housing. He stated that the City is zoned to make most feasible projects illegal but to get the funding to build affordable housing a non-profit has to first have the permission to build; so, the non-profits have to ask for an exception from the City, but because the permit is discretionary the neighbors can sue if they do not like the idea. The goal is to just make it legal to build the affordable housing without going through this process. He stated that the response was - amazing I love how this City works. He stated that anyone who is not familiar with the zoning code can imagine that as of right is the way it is supposed to work. He commented that the developments that residents want to see should be legal and developments that residents do not want to see should be illegal. He stated that Cambridge has a ridiculous status quo system and the system is absurd. He stated that overlay is a tiny tweak to the zoning code which will apply to a tiny number of housing projects and if the City is lucky it will raise the amount of affordable housing in the City from 15% to 16%. He spoke of all who support the overlay. He stated that being stuck in such a heated argument over this is a testament to the undemocratic, unrepresentative nature of our City’s politics. He urged the City Council not to weaken the proposal, adjust it and pass it. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT AA).

James Zoll, 203 Pemberton Street, urged the City Council to focus on goal of the affordable housing overlay which is to increase the supply of affordable housing and distribute it fairly. He commented that this has been a stated City goal for many years and the beneficial effects of the overlay have been described by CDD repeatedly and is supported by statistics provided to the City Council by the City Manager. He stated that the existing zoning restrictions and the current permit process work against this goal. This needs to be changed. He spoke about by right aspect of the overlay proposal. He added that this is not a threat to democracy. He explained that a key part of our democracy is the idea that we are a nation of laws. He stated that in most cases where there is restriction, or one has to apply for a permit there are a list of rules and requirements that must be met and if met the permit is granted whether neighbors object or not. He felt that the objections to the overlay seem to be based on the unsupported claim that taller buildings with more residents will ruin a neighborhood. He added that this is continuing the present policy. He urged the City Council to pass the AHOD.

Mike Johnston, Executive Director, CHA, stated that the Cambridge Housing Authority strongly supports the AHOD. He explained that the CHA serves almost 8,000 households through housing owned and managed by the CHA in the City as well as though the voucher program, both in Cambridge and within the 495 Belt. He stated that for the record 50% of mobile vouchers are outside of Cambridge because people cannot find affordable housing in Cambridge. He stated that in total the CHA serves about 14,000 residents which is about 12% of the population of the City. He noted that according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development the 2019 Boston Area Median Income for a family of four is $113,000 a year. He further stated that almost 70% of the people served earn less than 30% of the AMI and for a family of four this is $35,000 a year. He commented that without affordable housing the CHA and other non-profit developers own and manage in the City of Cambridge what could residents afford in the City. Mr. Johnston responded - nothing. He stated that as of tonight the AMI for a three-bedroom apartment in Cambridge is $3,950 or on the low side $2,800. If the $2,800 is used a household would have to earn $112,000 to afford to rent this apartment and pay 30% of their income to rent. He stated that there is no one on the waiting list and no one in our housing that earns $112,000. He stated that currently there are 19,000 on the waiting list; 5,000 work or live in the City and not one earns $112,000 a year. He urged the City Council to move forward with the AHOD.

Margaret Donnelly Moran, Director of Planning and Development, CHA, 362 Green Street spoke on the development perspective for the Housing Authority. She explained that it has been very difficult to develop affordable housing in Cambridge. She noted that available land is very limited and costly. She stated that the CHA looked at a parcel recently where there was a 5,000 square foot lot with a dilapidate 2 family houses on it in Cambridgeport. This sold for land because the building was worthless for $1.25 million; about $6,000 per unit. She stated that by adding the AHOD by adding one floor the CHA would be able to construct 6-7 units driving down the land costs to under $2,000 per unit; making this financially feasible for the CHA to move forward with constructing affordable housing. She stated that in addition to opening up opportunities the AHOD would eliminate risk. She stated that on the CHA’s successful project on Temple Street the CHA endured over three years of litigation with the result being that an agreement was reached with the abutter to move the property a few feet. She noted that during the ligation time the cost of construction increased and when the project went out to bid was $4 million higher than the funding that was available. She further explained that the only way to move forward was to redesign the project and the total number of units was reduced and family 3-bedroom units were eliminated. She stated that in addition to the time delay and the change in the building design the delay resulted in over $1 million in added costs for the project litigation, redesign and added carrying costs. She addressed the comments made that affordable housing developers will build buildings that will not be attractive or energy efficient. She noted that the CHA is proud of its work extending back over thirty years from the Russell Apartments in the l980-l990s. She stated that the CHA has won a lot of awards and will continue to provide the same quality of construction in the future.

Maura Pensak, 346 Concord Avenue, stated that she supported the AHOD. She stated that she is both a Cambridge resident and as someone who has worked for more than thirty-seven years with individuals and families homeless or at risk of homelessness. She stated that throughout her career has always been challenged to assist people in navigating complex affordable housing systems to obtain or retain affordable housing. She spoke about the rising costs to develop housing, and/or to purchase owner occupied multi-family units that might result in reasonable rents as well as limited existing housing stock has resulted in a rental crisis. She stated that living in Cambridge has become unviable for the middle income retired couple who have always rented in Cambridge but finding their building be sold, it is unattainable for the young single parent who is born and grew up in Cambridge and even with two jobs cannot afford to raise their children in their home town and it has become nearly impossible for a voucher holder to find a unit. She noted that 50% of vouchers holders have had to find housing outside of Cambridge. She commented that she finds these situations unacceptable because Cambridge has the knowledge, the know-how and the resources to increase affordable housing opportunities yet she continues to hear “I support affordable housing BUT there has been no process.” She stated that this process has been going on for many years. She stated that it is time to move this forward. She further commented that the neighborhoods are changing every day because Cambridge is losing neighbors. She stated that this proposal enables the non-profit developers to compete with private developers. She urged the City Council to find the will and support the overlay. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT BB).

Carol Weinhaus, 271 Concord Avenue, stated that she is in opposition to AHOD for a number of reasons. She stated that the zoning cannot legally exclude for profit developers from using the same rules. The rules included increased height limits, lack of studies on utilities infrastructure costs, traffic and parking, lack of significant green space and other criteria. Secondly, she stated, that there are so many exceptions in the proposed zoning that the result is unclear. She commented that stating what you expect is not the same as what the zoning states legally. She stated thirdly, and most importantly, the zoning removes any legal comments by citizens, neighborhoods and property owners. She stated that it opens the entire City for massive new development way beyond what the current zoning permits. She stated that there are documents from the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association and other neighborhoods Citywide that highlight the problems with the proposed up zoning in detail. The City is holding this critical hearing on July 2nd when people are on vacation and out of town. She stated that the City has many other tools other than the zoning to address the housing issues. She requested that the City start again with accurate studies and real community input. Her comments and attached information are attached as (ATTACHMENT CC-1-CC-4).

Peggy Barnes Lenart, 115 Fayerweather Street, stated that the goals of overlay were to increase affordable housing opportunities with stability for the tenants of the units as well as diversity opportunity throughout the City. She stated that she supports this but stated that the way that the proposal is written she encouraged the Ordinance Committee to continue this hearing. She stated that she is curious about the continued Planning Board hearing and what the questions by the members of the board will be in their deliberations. She is concerned about the holistic way of looking at this increased density. She stated that in terms of open space she wanted green infrastructure and that this is crucial; there is a climate crisis and the projections for heat and flooding. She stated that ideas to deal with the housing approach outside of a market driven approach she found intriguing. She stated that it is important to look at the design review guidelines if trying to eliminate some of the overview of the Planning Board. She spoke about windows being included in the guidelines for the developer on an environmental impact level. She noted that the non-profit developers to this better than the for-profit developers.

Nancy Alack, 346 Concord Avenue, stated that she supports the AHOD proposal. She stated that she begun working in Cambridge in l974 and moved to Cambridge in l983. She stated that she raised her son in Cambridge and attended Cambridge public schools. She stated that she has been increasingly disturbed by the number of people who stated that they are in favor of affordable housing BUT. She stated what has matter to her, wherever she lived in Cambridge, was the people, the diversity, the vibrancy and the progressive heart of the City. She stated that what comes down to it for her is the ability for people to find housing which is a basic human need. This is more important than yards, porches and views. She stated that she would give up her back yard in a heartbeat if it meant that more of her son’s friends, who grew up in Cambridge, could afford to live here. She urged the City Council to search your hearts and souls and open your ears to the voices of those Cantabrigians who are finding it harder to stay in the City where many have lived for generations, rather than the voices of those Cantabrigians who are opposed to the overlay and could choose where they could live. She commented that this is a question of privilege, opportunity, access and who the Ordinance Committee chooses to prioritize when it comes to housing in Cambridge.

Lauren Curry, 3 Concord Avenue, stated that she supported the AHOD. She stated that it is essential to provide housing to those who are unable to afford and access it in Cambridge. She added that this is a step to provide the affordable housing. She stated that wanting this to be lockdown more is the inability of people to accept change or their uncomfortableness with change. She stated that zoning cannot be written for the past fifty years; it needs to be written for the future and opening the neighborhoods to multi-family housing, specifically affordable housing is a realistic way of dealing with the current circumstances. She noted that change cannot be eliminated. She spoke about the income equality and the increased housing prices. She stated that preservation cannot lock us into the past. She noted that there are certain aspects of the community that need to be looked at and preserved, but not every house can be preserved. She urged being open to change and newness of thought and a recognition of the needs of the neighbors.

Derek Kopon, 8 Wright Street, stated that when this proposal was voted out of the Housing Committee the vote was 4 to l. He spoke about looking through campaign financing disclosures it appears that 3 of the 4 City Councillors who voted in favor of the overlay receive contributions from the for-profit community. Councillor Carlone commented that the comments need to be on the petition. Mr. Kopon alleged that there is a conflict of interest by City Council. He stated that it is disturbing as he listens to the debate residents used to be represented by City Councillors and City Officials who were funding limited. He stated that this proposal changes the economics of development. He noted that money is not needed from the Affordable Housing Trust to build affordable housing units. He noted that if the City Council does not put a cap on this it is opening the flood gates. He stated that if a developer comes into his neighborhood and wants to cut down trees, bull doze all the green space and make money doing this it bothers him that they are trying to use their profits to influence the political discussion. He stated that this needs to be discussed.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, suggested a local preference for affordable housing. He stated that he believes that Concord Highlands will not have a local preference and the local preferences as they exist are watered down. He commented that the local preference issue should go deeper and ask if an individual grew up in Cambridge, did you attend the high school, and not just did you live in Cambridge for the last year. He stated that this is not a sudden idea and added that people tried to get MIT to do something about housing on their campus. He noted that 4 of the 5 new buildings being built by MIT are commercial buildings for an academic institution. There is an increase of only 240 units for graduate students. He stated that Takada and Millennium was zoned residential and was rezoned to accommodate these businesses. He stated that in Porter Square there are three hotels all owned by the same investors. He spoke about the White Hen Pantry site was a perfect site for affordable housing, but nothing was done. He asked what the reason for 7 stories is. He stated that there needs to be a careful evaluation of what have been successes and what have been failures with the use of the comprehensive permit process.

Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street, stated that she supports the goals of the AHOD and supports affordable housing for all Cambridge residents. She requested that the word “projects” not be used when referring to government subsidized housing; it is derogatory. She stated that these are people’s homes and live in them with dignity. She stated that these are our neighbors and not experiments. She stated that what is on the minds of Cambridge residents is the fact that housing is not stable in Cambridge, especially for African Americans and middle-income residents. She stated that African Americans is a demographic in Cambridge that has been displaced more than any other ethnic group in recent data. She noted that middle income residents have also been displaced at a rapid pace. She stated that she believes in non-segregated low-income housing in single buildings. She stated that this up zoning overlay is the best that the City can do at this point is not good enough. She stated that the Cambridge can and should do better. She stated that a comprehensive housing strategy is needed that does not stress residents out if their income changes or disincentives people from improving their socio-economic situation. She stated that an individual should not have to defer a promotion in order to remain in Cambridge and keep their children in school because their income changes. She stated that Cambridge needs stable communities and do this the City needs stable housing.

David Rabkin, 184 Huron Avenue, stated that this is about issuing pre-approved special permits. He stated that when special permits are issued requests are made around them. He requested that the City Council consider the requirements around environmental sustainability, climate impact and resiliency. He stated that the City should carefully consider how these structures are being built and take these issues into account. He stated that 100% AMI is good money. He asked what about 30% or 50% AMI and are these individuals being taken care of. He stated that inclusionary zoning seems to be very effective, but it is economically inefficiency and he asked if it made sense to push harder for inclusionary zoning and use the funding to help people gain access to these units. He suggested simulating how this will play out and asked what this is going to look like on the ground when this happens. He wanted to know if the City is going to spend money at the $20 million level and more and how will this look and then an informed decision can be made about how we feel about the consequences. He stated that as a citizen he does not feel he has good information to form an opinion about this at this point.

Public comment was closed at 9:17pm by Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Carlone asked Ms. Farooq and Mr. Roberts to come back to the table. He asked for a report on Planning Board hearing.

Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board had their first hearing on this matter last week and had a significant amount of public comment. The Planning Board kept the matter in committee and have not made any recommendation due to a significant amount of questions. The hearing went until midnight and recessed their hearing until next week. She added that a whole range of issues were discussed such as the geographic scope, heights, urban design and design guidelines. She explained that there was no robust discussion on any of the issues. She informed the City Council that there may be more concrete things to report after the next Planning Board hearing.

Councillor Simmons stated that she wanted to hear the process and the timeline to move the AHOD forward. She spoke about the CHA waiting list and therefore the AHOD is so important. She commented that this is moving at a snail’s pace and stated that the longer it takes to build affordable housing the smaller the units become. It is important to set a time to move this forward. She stated that the City’s middle-income housing program is important and noted that people are not going after this housing as aggressively as thought. She stated that she wanted the term to be “affordable homes” because this is where people are going to live and raise their families. She acknowledged that there has been a community process on this issue.

Councillor Carlone said this is the first hearing before the Ordinance Committee on this proposal. He stated that this is the most complex zoning he has ever seen. He stated that CDD and the Planning Board has both stated that more refined guidelines are needed and he agrees. He noted that all want more affordable housing, but it would be wrong to push something forward that is not complete and will not pass. He wanted to meet with CDD on this zoning and discuss this further. He stated that implementation needs to be discussed beyond the zoning.

He announced that there will be another Ordinance Committee hearing after the July 29, 2019 Special City Council Meeting and there is a possibility that there will be another hearing in August. He noted that if the proposal is ready then it will be moved to the full City Council.

Councillor Simmons stated that she is asked so that people can prepare it would helpful to have some idea of the dates of the proposed hearings. Councillor Carlone stated that he will be submitting refined zoning.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about some areas where there is consensus in the zoning. She stated that the areas with consensus are that there should be some evaluation period in the zoning like inclusionary zoning. She stated that she agrees that there should be a City Council review every three to five years and an annual report. She stated that she does not agree with a sunset provision.

Mayor McGovern addressed the issue of the timing of the hearing and explained about the state zoning law. He stated that this is about 100 units per year spread out over the city. He heard claims that the City will be harmed, schools will be overrun, and infrastructure will be destroyed. He commented that this is a modest proposal. He stated that adding affordable housing will not ruin the City but rather enhances the City. He commented on the comment that this is a giveaway to for-profit developers. He explained that the way the market is now the only developers who can afford to building anything in Cambridge are for-profit developers and they will not be happy with this proposal because there may be competition for the for-profit developers for property. This idea that this is a giveaway to for-profit developers is absurd. He highlighted the map of where affordable housing is located now and the gaping hole in the middle of the City. He stated that if we are truthful about our desire to create equity, inclusion and diversity in our City this map should disturb everyone. He stated that there are certain sections of the City that are off limits to certain groups of people. He spoke about the chart on page 6 shows that out of the 51 potential parcels where affordable housing developers could have built affordable housing since 2016, 4 parcels were purchased. He stated that it is almost financially impossible for the affordable housing developers to buy parcels of land to build affordable housing. He noted that if the market is not interrupted to change this dynamic the for-profit developers will win every time because they have more money. He stated that if this is not wanted the City needs to do something to help the non-profit developers. He stated that he is supportive of any amendment that makes this more palatable to individuals as long as the amendments do not undercut the foundation that this is to make it financially viable to build affordable housing. He stated that it is painful to sit across the table from those in need and not be able to help them and to sit here and hear that we have done enough. He stated that he understands that there will be changes to certain neighborhoods. He told of his experience with what has been built in his residential neighborhood and stated that nothing has changed in his neighborhood other than is street looks a little different than in years past. He stated that zoning dictates who gets to live in our community and who does not.

Councillor Carlone said all want to increase affordable housing, but the question is how to do this. He stated that this can be done but the City needs to be more specific on locations, priority of locations and details on how new housing is shaped so that it best fits in. He noted that one structure that may fit on one street may not fit on another street in the City. He commented that this can be solved.

Councillor Zondervan agreed that this is a modest proposal, but this does not do much to counteract the housing affordability crisis. He understands the frustration of not being able to help more individuals find or preserve their housing. He spoke of his personal experience of his family wanting to move to Cambridge but were unable to do so because they could not afford it. He understands why people think this is a good idea to move forward with this approach and he will support this, but he does have concerns and it is important to address these concerns. He noted that this proposal tries to do 2 major things to benefit affordable housing construction. The first is giving a density bonus for 100% affordable housing makes more projects available to affordable housing developers because it reduces the relative cost of land per unit that can be built. The second thing is to eliminate the ability to challenge a project in the design phase. He stated that he learned from the Planning Board hearing is that the project can still be challenged at the building permit phase, after it has received its permit. He stated that eliminating the challenge at the design phase saves time and effort and allows the project to get funded where if the project is at risk prior to this it may not be able to receive funding at all.

Councillor Zondervan stated that there is a third attempted benefit which is to spread affordable housing construction more evenly across the City. He noted that this is a wonderful goal but does not think that the current proposal will accomplish much of this because of the high cost of land in some areas versus others. He stated that he is not concerned about what a building looks like. He stated his concerns are about environmental justice. Councillor Zondervan asked if the chair wanted amendments submitted tonight or to discuss them or forward the amendments to the City Council.

Councillor Carlone responded that amendments will be discussed at the next Ordinance Committee hearing. He suggested that the amendments be submitted for the Agenda for the July 29th Special City Council Meeting so that the amendments can be organized in a clear way.

Councillor Zondervan outlined the issues that he wanted addressed. He wanted the legal issue addressed about if there can be different legal requirements for benefits for affordable housing versus market rate. He wanted a formal legal opinion on this from the City Solicitor.

Tree canopy is an issue for him. He said it is a modest proposal and he does not think that it will devastate the tree canopy, but the decline of tree canopy so bad now that the City needs to make sure that this is not made worse, even in a small way. He added that this is an environmental justice issue because everyone deserves access to green and open space. He spoke about the immediate health benefit of trees and the protections to the climate that trees provide. He wanted the Tree Protection Ordinance amended to remove affordable housing exemption from the ordinance at the same time that the AHOD is moved forward. The City should pay this cost through the Affordable Housing Trust to ensure that the residents living in these homes have access to trees. Trees should not be traded for housing. Affordable housing units should be net zero ready and the Affordable Housing Trust should pay for this extra cost. (He announced that he would be submitting an amendment to provide for this).

Regarding car storage Councillor Zondervan wanted to remove the parking requirements because the trends are toward less car ownership across the City. In the information provided by CDD the parking built is underutilized especially in affordable housing projects. He stated that JAS will be building additional housing on their surface parking areas in the future. He added in the future the parking utilization may be lower and if there are no parking requirements the City retains full flexibility for the developers to respond to actual utilization of the parking.

He stated that his last issue which cannot be addressed through this zoning is around transit issue and the City needs to do more to support transit. He stated that transit is degrading before our eyes.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the Alewife zoning that went faster than expected, the angst of the community, the commitments to a moratorium by City Councillors this cannot be stopped. He stated that whatever is passed will continue absent a sunset clause. He stated that seeing how the City is not good at predicting how zoning turns out he wanted an ability to review this in a way to ensure that the zoning does not do things not wanted, whether it be a sunset clause. He questioned where the 100 units number came from. He stated that he assumes that when the zoning is changed it will change the market forces. He stated that if the AHOD is being sold on 100 units then this should be in the zoning or acknowledge that it will be as many units as the market dictates. He asked why this is limited to state or federal funding. If the City does this the way it wants it should become attractive to more people. He stated either this is being proposed as five habitable floors of four habitable floors. He questioned the legality of stating it is four habitable floors and have it possibly be five. He wanted four or five habitable floors chosen because the zoning proposal is being down played and may cause problems in the future.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that as a Housing Committee member she did not think this was ready to be forwarded to the City Council. She stated that this proposal is not ready to be ordained. It needs to be improved and hopes that in the rush to pass something it will not be regretted. She spoke about the market-based approach. The density multiples are calculated based on today’s market values and construction costs. She asked if this has to be recalculated when prices increase. She suggested everyone read the Cambridge Growth Policy Goals Toward a Sustainable Future which were adopted in l990 and updated in 2007 and what this says about residential neighborhoods and incremental growth. She added that this is a step away from this that has not been acknowledged. She stated that the lack of broader planning priorities for specific criterion within the AHOD that would guide affordable developers and their site selections is missing and needs to be added. She stated that there are sites in every neighborhood, including West Cambridge where such projects would create more units and increase income diversity, would align with the broader planning and environmental goals and enhance neighborhoods with livability and social cohesion and there are sites with out of scale buildings that would not meet the criteria. She stated that it would be important to write down criteria to guide these decisions so that the public has confidence that we agree about what we want to prioritize in addition to affordable housing. She stated that she would ask the City staff about how they would set the criteria and work with the Affordable Housing Trust. She agreed that the affordable housing should not be exempt from the Tree Protection Ordinance. She spoke about super inclusionary and the gain of 40 units could be accomplished quite easy. The 1,000-unit goals was not originally intended to be all City funded. This is changing the City more than just this initiative. A review provision needs to be added and adjusted as needed. She stated that the BZA should have a chance to review these projects. She stated that in the comprehensive 40B permit process the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the BZA and the BZA holds the hearing. She added that the BZA offers opinions. She stated that the BZA is being ignored who could provide meaning input into the design. She stated that adding a control for density and come up with a maximum over the base zoning. She expressed concern about combining parcels to create supper lots and basement spaces and setbacks. There is no solution for displacement of tenants who are living in buildings that may be purchased for redevelopment and are the barely middle-income families and need to come up with a right to return or that sites do not meet the criteria. She stated that local preference is important and Cambridge residents should have the higher priority. She asked where are the universities and major employers in this problem? She agreed with private open space that is more significant and what is put into setbacks especially with larger buildings. She stated that it is important that residents of buildings have private open space where they can gather as their neighbor. She stated that she will work on submitting amendments in writing.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is unique zoning and the City Council needs to make sure it is legally sound and addresses neighbor concerns both positive and negative. He stated that the City Council may need a second legal opinion on this because he has heard from four separate real estate lawyers who questioned the wording of the petition as it is now. He added that the review process is essential. He stated that land owned by City and universities are gaps in the City. He stated that the main corridor will allow for the most units per square foot of land, includes transit and social amenities and are close to retail. These are the areas that should be the focus. He spoke about transitions and setbacks and the total distance between an existing building and a new building with the sum on both sides of the property. He stated that he wanted guidelines and enforced the guidelines. He stated that he is going to meet with the Commissioner of Inspectional Services to discuss the BZA issue.

At the time Councillor Zondervan made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to provide the City Council with a legal opinion regarding the uniformity clause in Chapter 40A on the issue of the different requirements for affordable housing and market rate housing as it pertains to the AHOD.

A discussion ensued about when the legal opinion would be provided to the City Council and based on the Committee Report being on the Agenda for the July 29th Special City Council meeting and the vote required by the City Council.

At this time Mayor McGovern announced that the City Charter provides that the Mayor can request an opinion from the City Solicitor and if this is referred to the Mayor’s office he can make this request tomorrow. The motion was amended as follows:
ORDERED: That the Mayor be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to provide the City Council with a legal opinion regarding the uniformity clause in Chapter 40A on the issue of the different requirements for affordable housing and market rate housing as it pertains to the AHOD.

The motion carried on a voice vote of eight members.

The following communications were received at the hearing and made part of the Committee report.

A communication from Babette Meyer stated that she supports affordable housing in Cambridge but urged the Ordinance Committee to go back to the drawing board and develop a plan that incorporates the concerns of Cambridge residents (ATTACHMENT DD).

A communication from Bob Woodbury, 133 River Street, urging positive action by the Ordinance Committee, the Planning Board and the City Council to pass this zoning and make it easier for non-profit organizations to purchase land and build affordable housing units (ATTACHMENT EE).

A communication from Pawel Latawiec, 2 Earhart Street, in support of the AHOD (ATTACHMENT FF).

A communication from Thomas Alwen in opposition to the AHOD petition (ATTACHMENT GG).

The following sundry e-mails were received in support of the AHOD petition and made part of the report:
Eugenia Schraa, 259 Washington Street (ATTACHMENT HH-1).
Eleanor Marsh, 609 Green Street (ATTACHMENT HH-2).
Abra Berkowitz, 632 Mass. Ave. (ATTACHMENT HH-3).
Rebecca Pries, 10 Longfellow Road (ATTACHMENT HH-4).

The following sundry e-mails were received in opposition to the AHOD petition and made part of the report:
Lenny Solomon, 50 RC Kelley Street (ATTACHMENT II-1).
Young Kim, 17 Norris Street (ATTACHMENT II-2).
Rhonda Massie, 211 Charles Street (ATTACHMENT II-3).
John Whisnant, 61 Otis Street (ATTACHMENT II-4).
Zack Goldberg, 118-120 Aberdeen Avenue (ATTACHMENT II-5).
Gvido and Aleta Cerberus, 100 Erie Street (ATTACHMENT II-6).
Charles Teague, 23 Edmunds Street (ATTACHMENT II-7).
Chuck Hinds, President, East Cambridge Planning Team (ATTACHMENT II-8).
Susan L. Johansen, 150 Cambridge Street (ATTACHMENT II-9).
Kathleen Desmond, Third Street (ATTACHMENT II-10).
Sally and Stuart Lesser, Lexington Avenue (ATTACHMENT II-11).
Rosemary Booth and Jerry O’Leary, 303 Third Street (ATTACHMENT II-12).
Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street (ATTACHMENT II-13).
Philip Balboni, 132 Brattle Street (ATTACHMENT II-14).
Catalina Arboleda, 950 Mass. Ave. (ATTACHMENT II-15).
Christine Brown, 182 Appleton Street (ATTACHMENT II-16).
Christopher Mackin, 48 JFK Street (ATTACHMENT II-17).

The following sundry e-mails were received expressing concern with the AHOD petition and part of the report:

Guillemette Simmers, 8 Alpine Street, expressed concern with the vague language in the petition, density, untested form-based zoning and the as of right benefits to developers (ATTACHMENT JJ-1).

Kelly Dolan and Gregory V. Berndt, Upland Road, expressed concerns with the vague language, parking, density and untested, unfamiliar form-based zoning (ATTACHMENT JJ-2).

Phil Wellons expressed concern that AHOD reduces green space and mature trees need to be protected, parking, porches and decks should not be counted as open space (ATTACHMENT JJ-3).

Caroline Bruzelius, 24C Bradbury Street, expressed concern with the architecture, trees, plants and botany. She urged the City Council to take its time to revise the proposal (ATTACHMENT JJ-4).

Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street, asked if this type of zoning is authorized by Chapter 40A or if it is a form of spot zoning and vulnerable to a legal challenge (ATTACHMENT JJ-5).

Davidson Hamer, MD, 129 Auburn Street, expressed concerns about density and that Cambridge has vastly exceeded the state’s minimum for affordable housing, the AHOD does not provide a solution for the middle income for housing, traffic congestion, inadequate infrastructure planning and untested and drastic zoning scheme (ATTACHMENT JJ-6).

Janet Littel, 13 Ware Street, requested more assistance for the middle class to buy property and green space (ATTACHMENT JJ-7).

Doug Brown, 35 Standish Street, expressed concern that the AHOD is in direct conflict with City planning, creates a new set of inequities as it attempts to solve the existing hosing inequities, has not mechanism for regular evaluation, allows greater density, does not protect the middle-income tenants, manipulates open space calculations, reduces setbacks and has no protection against profiteering (ATTACHMENT JJ-8).

Councillor Carlone moved that the matter remain 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 hearing adjourned at 10:21pm.

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

Committee Report #8
The Civic Unity Committee held a public hearing on Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the Massachusetts Equal Pay Law that was enacted in 2018 – what employees, supervisors, and City leadership should know, what are the best practices, and how metrics must be established to ensure compliance with this new law.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Simmons, Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk; and Neal Alpert.

Also present were Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Taha Jennings; Lee Gianetti; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Sheila Keady Rawson; Betsy Allen; Owen O’Riordan; Kimberly Sansoucy; Kathy Watkins; Victoria Budson, Executive Director of the Women and Public Policy Program, Harvard Kennedy School of Government; Giovana Manfrin; and Renee Lucas.

The meeting began at 12pm with quorum reached. Councillor Simmons began the hearing by reading her prepared remarks (ATTACHMENT A). Following her opening remarks, she invited Victoria Budson to introduce herself to the committee and to give a presentation about the Equal Pay Law that went into effect across the Commonwealth on July 1, 2018.

Victoria Budson introduced herself and stated that it has been a pleasure to work with Councillor Simmons over the course of the past couple of years. She said that she wanted to begin her remarks by pointing out how important it is that people who give of their time, their labor, and their expertise be fairly compensated for their work, and that they are made aware of their value by way of that compensation. She said that transparency really builds trust and engagement among employees. She said that she wanted to note that Massachusetts was the first state in the union to pass any form of equal pay act, back in 1945 – yet she also stated that just because a bill is passed, it doesn’t always mean that the desired outcomes automatically follow. She said that a number of years ago, a group of 40 different organizations formed a coalition with various legislators to figure out how to update the Commonwealth’s equal pay statute in order to make it more effective. This led to the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, which went into effect on July 1, 2018. Ms. Budson said that she would walk the Committee through the key provisions of this law. She said that the first item to note is that you can’t pay people differently for the same work based on sex or gender. She cited an example that catalyzed the need for this provision – lunchroom workers and janitors who were paid very differently. The all-male janitorial team received high wages, and the lunchroom team, which was comprised of women, received low wages. The lunchroom workers brought forward a case which went all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and the lunchroom workers were able to demonstrate that they were doing the same type of work as the janitors, it was comparable work, and comparable work has to be paid equivalently, even if it’s different work.

She said that the second provision of the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act is that employers cannot ask employees about their salary history. She said that this could unfairly keep someone in a low salary bracket from job to job. She said that there are many legitimate reasons why an employer can pay different employees differently, such as their level of education, their training levels, seniority, a merit system (she made a point of stating that this must be a clear and transparent system), a system that measures the quality or quantity of production, or travel costs. Ms. Budson stressed that there needs to be a transparency component. She said that one should note that when there is good transparency, wage inequity tends to go away. She said that under this law, employers cannot resolve differences in pay by lowering someone’s pay, wages can only rise under this scenario. She said that everyone can share their wages with whomever they like, which helps workers better understand what kinds of salaries their coworkers make and the general neighborhood of what they, themselves, might be entitled to earn. She said that under this law, employers cannot make it a condition of employment that one must hide this type of salary information from others. She said that a key piece of the bill is that it gives new impactful tools to employers and employees. For employers, it has what is called a “safe harbor” provision – this is an affirmative defense for any employer that conducts an internal audit, finds that there are disparities in how it pays its employees, and then takes reasonable steps to correct these disparities over the course of three years. Under this new law, the employer would then be found free of malice so long as they are taking meaningful steps to ensure that they are trying to correct the wage disparities in their company.

Ms. Budson said that this “safe harbor” provision also removes the anxiety that many employers might otherwise have, which could possibly prevent them from taking steps to self-correct. She said that the bill is about not putting the whole burden on each employee individually to determine whether or not they’re being paid appropriately, but it is instead working to create a new environment that encourages employers to get this right, as a community. She said that this encourages conversations with employees and employers while removing some of the fear from the conversation, and she said this can be a really important step for the employers. She stated that the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office has created a fantastic set of guidelines to assist employers and employees with this process (ATTACHMENT B). She said that there’s also “HRI Assistance,” such as Peoplesoft, which is the Cadillac of the services. She said that these make this kind of work much easier. She said that there are also resources from the academic world, as well.

Ms. Budson then introduced her assistant Giovana Manfrin, a Research Fellow at WAPPP, who has traveled the world with her in conducting these sorts of discussions. She also introduced Renee Lucas from the Boston Women's Workforce Council.

Councillor Simmons thanked Ms. Budson, and she stated that she would now open the floor to take any questions that people might have for Ms. Budson about wage equity and the new law that went into effect in 2018.

Ellen Katz came to the microphone and stated that she recently attended an event where she heard from other well-informed and engaging speakers from WAPPP, she said it was an amazing amount of work the institute has engaged in, and there is an amazing amount of research out there. She said that she would like to know if Ms. Budson and her cohorts could share more about the nuances out there in the workplace that might be obstacles to women advancing.

Ms. Budson responded by stating that this is a great question. She praised her colleagues who had run the specific event that Ms. Katz was referring to. She stated that when we talk about closing wage gaps, we find that compared to white male average median income, Asian men are making 123 percent of that dollar, Asian women are making 95 percent, white women are making 81 percent, Black men are making 74 percent, Hispanic men are making 69 percent, Black women are making 67 percent, and Hispanic women are making 62 percent – and this is why she really looks at this question as one of several wage gaps, and not one singular wage gap between men and women. She said that a good way of conceptualizing this is to imagine sitting at your dining room table and trying to pay your bills with only 62 percent of your income. She said that sometimes during the larger discussion around the gender-based wage inequity, people may try to get around it by asking whether women are truly the primary breadwinners in their households, and she responded by stating that in Massachusetts, women are making around 84 percent of what their counterparts make; in Boston, approximately 48 percent of the children will grow up in a single parent household, and we can therefore look at this figure and state that these households are getting by on 84 percent of the salary that a male-headed household makes. She also said that in the majority of the households in the United States, the households depend upon all the paychecks being brought home by each family member. She said that the old myth of the male head of household being the sole breadwinner has never been entirely accurate, and it is even less so today.

Ms. Budson said that we know that women face obstacles from the time that they graduate. She cited a study by the American Association of University Women called “Graduating to a Pay Gap,” which shows that even several months after college, even controlled for college majors, women are often making appreciably less than their male counterparts. She said that we see less disparity in the STEM fields, because they are typically paying more attention to the numbers. She said that one of the goals that we must strive for is how do we get the bias out of ourselves, we must recognize that we all do have bias within ourselves, and we need to be intentional in moving beyond this. She said that we can very effectively create systems of work distribution, systems of making sure that when we hire, we’re blinding ourselves to gender, race, ethnicity, and so forth, and instead looking at just the qualifications on the paper in front of us. We could blind out names, blind out schools, blind out age, and blind out parental status. She said that this would help erase so much of the wage gaps and opportunity gaps.

Rachel Tanenhaus came to the mic and asked if Ms. Budson has data around wage gap and disability, which might be hard to gather because the disabled might be less employed. She said it would still be important to know.

Ms. Budson thanked Ms. Tanenhaus for her question, and she said that her comments are both instructive in what needs to be studied, and also they speak to some of the gaps in the information that has so far been gathered. She said, based on her work with the Obama Administration, the majority of those who are classified as being disabled are female, it is thus an incredibly feminized category, and she said that this is a really important area of conversation. She noted that in Massachusetts as well as nationally, we are in an area of economic expansion, and there is greater access and greater opportunities for people with disabilities to get involved and get access to jobs. She said that she doesn’t like to use the term “disabilities,” preferring instead to use the term “differently abled.” She conceded that this is an area where we don’t have the data yet, but we have the model for how to collect and assess the data. She said that, particularly in terms of new technological advances, there are new ways for people to participate in conversations, and the technology has removed many barriers for those who are differently abled to participate, but the data has not yet been captured to the degree that it needs to be. She said that she hopes this will change going forward, and she said that there will be a center at UMass Amherst that shall serve as a repository for all this data going forward, and that is very exciting.

Kathy Watkins of the City’s Public Works Department mentioned to Ms. Budson that she had spoken of merit-based systems, and she is wondering if she has examples of effective merit-based systems in a government setting that could be shared?

Ms. Budson responded by pointing to the guidelines created by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office. She said that merit and seniority need to find ways to exist together and be applied in fair ways. She said that the Attorney General’s Office also has a team in place that can help advise local governments in navigating how to put these questions into practice and how to handle these concerns.

Kimberly Sansoucy of the Cambridge Women’s Commission stated that the law applies to everyone, but she feels like governments hire people in different ways than a typical for-profit company or organization might, and she wonders if there are a “top three ways” that organizations and government bodies might best pay attention to when hiring.

Ms. Budson responded by stating that the first thing organizations should do is take stock of current conditions by starting with an audit – if not system-wide, then just within your particular unit or department. She said that when an employer is writing a job description, it should be made as specific as possible. This will help give prospective candidates a better idea of whether their skills would match the job, and it also helps employers really focus on trying to find someone whose skill sets match the job being offered. She said that the more transparency that is put into this process, the better will the organization be able to tie salary and compensation to the work being engaged in. She said that for corporations, base salary isn’t necessarily where the money is, it often is found more in bonuses and perks of different kinds. She stated that by creating specific job descriptions, and by creating a payment structure based upon what the work is worth, it helps employers do the work in advance of figuring out how to compensate people for different jobs – and she underscored that a company is supposed to be paying for the work, not the person in front of them in the hiring room. She said that she urges people to move away from sentiments like “they seem like a good fit,” because this often translates to “people who look the part” or “people whom I am comfortable with,” rather than something more quantifiable and that speaks directly to the job that is being filled. She said that it is also important for an employer to have in mind how to quantify if a job is being well done or not – what are the metrics to determine performance reviews upon? She said that having clear, transparent metrics are important for both the employer and the employee, and she said that the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act helps move employers towards these ideals.

Councillor Simmons asked if there were other questions from people in the room. Taha Jennings asked Ms. Budson if she has recommendations for how an employer can take proactive measures in the absence of any worker complaints.

Ms. Budson responded by stating that an employer always wants to be in that space of getting ahead of potential complaints. She said that when an organization conducts an internal audit, they give themselves protection from any issues that arise from that point forward, so long as the organization is taking reasonable steps to address the issues that are uncovered from the audit. She said that if an employer does find that it’s not where it wants and needs to be following an audit, talk about it with your employees, and talk about your goals and the actions you want to take to ensure that everyone is being paid fairly and equitably. She said that companies want to do this hand in glove with their HR departments. She said that employers should feel empowered to speak with their employees and tell them they want to raise their wages, they want to engage in best practices, and have earnest conversations. She said that there is no organization that does a self-audit and finds nothing – if it has been done correctly. She said that none of us are perfect people, everyone has the potential to fall into their blind spots, and we need to recognize that we can always strive to do better, and that this work is not simple to do. She said that employers must always keep a keen eye on those workers who haven’t progressed, are there common denominators there, what do they look like? If someone is passed over for promotions a number of times, why is that?

Councillor Simmons stated that the more she hears, the more she feels like she needs to hear. She said that she is aware of the City’s employee dashboard that allows people to find some of the information this hearing has touched upon, and she also feels like there’s always going to be a degree of disparity, based on imperfect comparisons of, for example, different departments having the same types of job titles but with very different roles and requirements based on that department, and this can make it difficult to easily make comparisons of different roles across the board. She said that nevertheless, we shouldn’t be afraid to ask the questions and examine the different roles, the different departments, and make a good effort to address these issues. She then asked Ms. Budson to focus her remarks of Best Practices across municipalities.

Ms. Budson opened this portion of the hearing by stating that one of the things that it is important to keep in mind is that an internal wage audit is good for three years, and that ought to signal to an organization that it will want to repeat these audits every so often, perhaps every two years, to ensure that they are adhering to best practices. She said that over time, it becomes like building muscle memory, and the best practices get baked into the DNA of the organization. It becomes like second nature. She said there is an initial investment of coding different jobs, comparing different roles, and making the kinds of analyses that help an organization be clearer about what roles are being paid at what rates, and making this much more transparent. This helps build the metrics for compensation and evaluation over the long term. She said it’s much simpler after a company has been done the first time. She also said that we have tried to shift the frame for organizations from a “punitive frame” to one of trying to help companies and organizations get it right. She said that the Massachusetts Treasurer’s Office has put together some very helpful handouts (ATTACHMENT C). She said that the movement is really to shift the burden from the employee trying to figure out if he or she is being fairly compensation onto the employer, to ensure that all employees are being paid fairly. She made a point of stating that this is not called the “Equal Pay Act Around Gender,” and instead this is something that ultimately benefits every single employee. She said that it is supposed to cover everyone. She also stated that tools are only helpful if people have access to them, know about them, and use them.

Ms. Budson asked the hypothetical question, “what happens if we have a situation where we’ve conducted an audit and realize that we have underpaid the women in our organization?” and then answered by stating that, in that scenario, her recommendation would be to just make those employees’ day by offering them the higher wages that they are entitled to. She said that it is best for organizations to get it right, and over time this builds loyalty and engagement among its employees. Councillor Simmons then opened the floor to her colleagues to see if they had any questions for Ms. Budson.

Councillor Zondervan stated that one challenge is that, after an organization conducts an audit and then makes whatever changes need to be made, they may then think they’re all set and they may ultimately grow complacent. He asked how we can protect against this kind of pattern?

Ms. Budson responded by first clarifying that an audit does not protect against issues that happened prior to the audit – and if an employee can demonstrate in court that they’ve been underpaid based on sex or gender, then that person gets double damages plus reasonable attorney’s fees. So conducting an audit does not wipe away the past, but it does demonstrate an employer is making a good faith effort to make good, and it can also buy the employer some time to set things right. She said that an important piece of this to remember is that employers may wonder, how do they create an atmosphere of trust after they conduct an audit and then have to tell their employees that they may previously have been underpaying them. She said that holding forums like this one is a good first step, because it communicates that the organization is trying to educate itself, is trying to do better, and sometimes an organization is big to the point that it just doesn’t see the trends and the warning signs until a proper audit has been done and a clearer picture begins to emerge. When looked at just one employee at a time, the organization may seem fine, a department may seem fine, but when you when you pull back the lens, you begin to see trends and a different picture. She said that this is why the audit is important, to take the temperature of the organization. She said that acknowledging past mistakes and being able to say “we’re sorry” can go a long way toward making employees feel valued. She said that acknowledging mistakes and inviting people to be part of the process is an important way to move forward and to progress, making it a shared experience.

Councillor Zondervan stated that in many cases, it just may not be realistic for an employee to take legal action against an employer. What do we do in those types of situations, where past injustices cannot be remedied?

Ms. Budson stated that in issues of justice, questions like this one are part of the very serious conversations that must be had. She said that there are people who likely study different types of justice, and justice systems. She said that in the public domain, transparency, acknowledgement, and being able to show why it won’t happen again – and giving an apology to people – truly matters to people. She said that the lack of such acknowledgement is very unhealthy and can let dissatisfaction grow and fester. She said that good governance and good leadership is about weaving people together. She said that much of what we’ve seen around issues of women’s equality is about dignity, whether it’s the #MeToo movement, or around Wage Equity, and it’s important that we continue to have these kinds of discussions in a positive, holistic fashion.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that in the municipal government, we have both union and non-union employees, and she wanted to know how unions influence this discussion?

Ms. Budson stated that it’s rare that people ask about where unions factor in this discussion. She said she was glad this was raised. She said that unions traditionally are in a better position to have these conversations because there is usually a built-in structure, metrics, and clarity about job roles, what jobs do and do not entail, and their contracts often fill in a lot of the work from the very start. She said that outside of unions, there is less of that pre-work being done. She said that sometimes in union-based positions, we do see discrimination based on gender, such as in the building trades. She said that when she chaired the Mass Commission Status of women, she often heard testimony about how a third-year apprentice might not get the experience they need, but they’d still have the title, and that was a form of gender-based discrimination. She said that this is not just about income parity, but also about ensuring that people have equal opportunities to be trained and given advancement opportunities.

Councillor Simmons asked what sort of metrics must an organization establish in order to ensure that they comply with the new law. Ms. Budson responded by stating that an employer is going to have computerized records, and therefore they’re going to want to use their Human Resources department to properly code and classify all jobs, and create clear job descriptions, as these will all help with future audits. She said that when an organization has a clear process, and when tools like the dashboard are being kept up to date, that amounts to an investment in ensuring compliance with the law. She that it is important to think of this as a continuing, ongoing process, not as something a company does once and then sits it on the shelf. She said that we live in a great time, because there are all these new tools for people to be communicating with one another, and for information sharing and making quick adjustments when necessary. She said that employers should also not be shy about celebrating their victories, recognizing when they are meeting their goals and doing a good job. She said that a company should trumpet its successes and make that a point of pride.

Councillor Simmons asked questions about the mechanics of conducting an audit, inquiring whether it would be done on a department-by-department basis, and would each department head be responsible for the audit?

Ms. Budson said that there are a variety of different ways of conducting an audit, depending on the organization. She said that ideally, the information being collected and collated is being captured in the organization’s HRS system, the HR information system like PeopleSoft. These would have all the different jobs listed, and someone would need to code each job. She said that the audit can all happen from central HR, and then discussed with the various department heads. She said that having these initial reviews with department heads is important because sometimes things are not what they seem at first blush, and some jobs might seem similar at first because of similar job titles, but as HR digs down during an audit, it may become clear that these are actually quite different roles. She said that once you look across all the employees, you may get a better sense of how jobs are similar and how they are different, and you also get a chance to start seeing patterns and trends. We may see that women of a certain age have a drop-off rate, or there seems to be a higher compensation rate for one group of workers, and we can start to ask why and whether that is fair or not. She said that this process is not just about the numbers, but interpreting what that story tells us about a company and its culture, and whether workers are getting fair and equal opportunities and compensation.

Councillor Simmons then turned her attention to the City’s Dashboard, asking those in the room if they were aware of its existence and whether they have tried to navigate it. She said that the more we look at this tool and the more familiar with it we become, the easier it will be to use and the more useful it shall become. Prior to launching into an overview about the Dashboard, Councillor Simmons asked the City’s Personnel Director, Sheila Keady Rawson, about the progress being made on the City’s own internal audit of its workforce.

Ms. Keady Rawson responded by stating that the City is finalizing the scope of services that will be requested of a third party to conduct an audit. She said that her office is working with the City Solicitor, the Boston Women’s Workforce Commission, and with EDGE to get a sense of what the best practices are for this type of audit. Councillor Simmons inquired if the City has been conducting trainings around the Dashboard, and Ms. Keady Rawson stated that the City has given some information sessions, and the City updates the Dashboard twice a year. She said that the City has updated all job applications to remove salary history as a question, and interviewers are being given updates as to what is and is not appropriate to ask of applicants during an interview. Councillor Simmons then returned her focus to the City’s Dashboard and Lee Gianetti from the City Manager’s Office provided a quick overview of the Dashboard, which he stated can be found by visiting http://www.cambridgema.gov/equitydashboard.

Mr. Gianetti stated that the City has two Dashboards, one for the City staff and one for the School’s workforce. He said that the Dashboard has an FAQ on how to use the tool, and a YouTube link that explains how to use it. He said that the other tool is the Pay Equity tool, which goes down to a more granular level than the Dashboard itself.

Ms. Budson stated that it is excellent that the City has built this, most cities do not have a tool like this, and it’s wonderful to have this information in real time. She said the City should be very proud of this, and she looks forward to using this as a model for other cities to emulate.

Betsy Allen inquired if Ms. Budson has looked at system-wide societal factors that have been put in place to disadvantage certain categories of workers, such as mothers in the workforce or certain ethnicities, and she also asked what we can do to address these disparities on a system-wide level. Ms. Budson responded by stating that we can start by giving organizations tools, but the organizations actually need to use those tools to do the work. Organizations need to look at their issues from a systemic level. She said the research shows us that there are several specific points at which organizations can look to see where they’re sourcing their employees from, to see if they are a serious and inclusive employer, and to see what sort of coded messages they may be putting in their help wanted ads. She said that there may be certain language used in help wanted ads that suggest a subtle bias, and she used the example of a company putting out an ad with a headline that says “Coding Ninja Needed.” She said that language like that might signal that this is geared towards a man, and that women might see that language and think that this position is not tailored to a woman, and therefore they do not bother to apply for the job. She said that if the job focuses more on the actual work that is needed, and what the work entails, that would likely encourage a wider swath of people to apply. And if a company conducts more outreach and actively recruits for jobs in unorthodox places, it demonstrates that the company is serious about being an inclusive employer. She also stated that it is important that companies work to democratize the “office housework” of taking notes in meetings, or ordering food and office supplies, as these tasks end to be assigned to women but they should be shared more evenly.

Ms. Budson stated that companies can and should do more to promote from within their ranks, by sending out internal job listings to their entire staff, as that subtly communicates that these roles are open to whomever is capable of doing the work, and the opportunities for advancement are not just saved for a select department or select group of people. By sending these job listings company-wide, and listing the necessary skills and qualifications, this can also signal to those looking to advance what skills and qualifications they may need to acquire if they do wish to advance in the company, and that can ultimately benefit them professionally.

Councillor Toomey stated that on many job postings, he notices that the language might say something like “five years experience preferred but not required,” and he asked whether that type of language may discourage some people who, perhaps, have only two or three years of experience for applying for a job. He wondered if perhaps the job posting should just list the skills needed and what the role would require.

Ms. Budson responded by stating that this is an excellent question, and the answer depends upon how flexible or rigid an employer is, which also is tied into an employer’s goals. She said that this goes back to the concept of blinding out names on resumes, so that employers are looking at resumes just based on skills and experience. If an employer wants to diversify its workforce, this may be a priority. But there may be times where an employer may genuinely think that a person could not successfully do a job without that five years’ worth of experience, and in that case they may feel like that is something that is important to have in their job posting. She said that balancing a company’s goals of finding talented people and creating a diverse workforce are questions each organization must work through, and figure out how these goals can complement one another. She said that even her organization often has to start their conversations by asking themselves, “What are we trying to solve, is it equity, is it competitiveness, is it negotiations?” And having those initial questions is important for all the work that then follows. She said that we must be mindful that none of this is easy work. We often talk about diversifying our workforce shouldn’t be hard, but in all truthfulness, this can be hard work, and we should acknowledge that. We must remember that it is worth it, though.

Councillor Simmons stated that this process isn’t about finding fault with companies and organizations, it’s about finding out ways in which they can improve and do better. She said that this is important to keep in mind, and particularly in the hopes that people will let down their guard and not feel as if they are being called to task for past wrongs.

Councillor Mallon stated that she had a follow-up to Councillor Toomey’s remarks, citing that she has read that the typical female applicant feels that she must have at least 80 percent of the qualifications listed on a job posting before they feel comfortable applying for the job, whereas male applicants tend to have a much lower threshold and will tend to apply for jobs even if they recognize that, on paper, they may not entirely meet the listed requirements. She asked whether the City could be taking specific steps to rephrase their job descriptions so that they are more female-friendly. Ms. Budson responded by stating that this is not an issue where women lack confidence, it is more that women understand who is likely to get picked for these roles based on past history. She said that yes, there are ways that the City could make its job listings more female-friendly. She said that the low-hanging fruit would be for the City to add language to job postings stating that we are an equal-opportunity employer, that we want a diverse workforce, and please send your application in even if you don’t think you’re a perfect fit for this job, because we still may have a place for you here and this is the best way for us to become aware of you and what you may bring to us.

Ms. Budson stated that even after women are hired for a job, there are traditionally not that many internal supports for them once they’re in the role. She said that women may have less social support, a smaller budget, a smaller staff, and less overall support than their male counterparts. She said that we need to be more mindful of how we support women once they work in our organizations, and we must be mindful of the “glass cliff” roles we often give to women.

Councillor Simmons thanked Ms. Budson for sharing her time and insights with this committee, and she suggested that all materials that were referred to today be digitized and made available to all City staff during staff trainings, and she suggested that part of the scope of work for the consultant the City hires might involve staff training, and Ms. Keady Rawson acknowledged that this would be a good idea.

Councillor Simmons stated that she would like to make the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to provide to the City Council a timeline and expected scope of work by the outside consultant that shall be hired to conduct an audit on the City’s workforce.

The motion carried.

Councillor Simmons thanked all for attending today’s hearing.

The hearing was adjourned at 1:50pm on a motion by Councillor Siddiqui.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair

Committee Report #9
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Tues, June 25, 2019 at 1:03pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the Affordable Housing Trust’s recommendations for the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program’s preferences on selecting residents for available units.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Simmons, Co-Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner; Justine Cabrera, Senior Manager for Inclusionary Housing; Donna Claudio, Asset Manager, Community Development Department (CDD); Sarah Stillman; Neal Alpert; Dan Totten; and Paula M. Crane, Interim City Clerk.

Also present were Mike Johnston, Executive Director; Hannah Lodi, Director of Leased Housing, Cambridge Housing Authority; Peter Daly, Executive Director, Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc.; Jim Stockard, Affordable Housing Trust Member; Tina Alu, Executive Director, CEOC; Elaine DeRosa; Bill Cunningham; Risa Mednick; and Lee Farris.

Councillor Siddiqui convened the hearing and read the Call of the Meeting and gave an overview of the hearing’s agenda (ATTACHMENT A). She welcomed her colleagues and all participants and thanked CDD staff and the Affordable Housing Trust for the Memorandum dated June 21, 2019 regarding recommended changes for preferences in resident selection policies (ATTACHMENT B). She noted that this is a preliminary discussion and as the Memorandum indicates, the City will offer opportunities for the community to provide comments for consideration before anything is finalized. She introduced Ms. Farooq.

Ms. Farooq stated that after the adoption by the City Council of the changes to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, one of the things that the CDD said it would work on, both as staff and with the Affordable Housing Trust, was to take a look at the resident selection system and the preferences that guide this system work. She said that there are certain issues that CDD has been hearing over time, principle amongst them being how the CDD thinks about residency and how to support both current Cambridge residents as well as those former residents that had to move out of the city because of their housing situation. She said those were the principal ones that the CDD heard, but there were others as well which Mr. Cotter will discuss. Ms. Farooq said she first wanted to introduce the housing staff who have been working most closely on this from the rental side, and for whom these issues are most pertinent—Justine Cabrera, Senior Inclusionary Housing Rental Manager and Housing Planners Donna Claudio and Linda Prosnitz. Ms. Farooq then introduced Housing Director Mr. Chris Cotter.

Mr. Cotter stated that CDD and the Affordable Housing Trust have been working on recommended changes. He gave an overview of the PowerPoint titled “Inclusionary Housing Resident Selection Preferences dated June 25, 2019 (ATTACHMENT C).

Ms. Farooq said that she is grateful to the Affordable Housing Trust members who helped the CDD think through this work. She said that it has been a challenging set of issues because every time that you think about how to make it more effective and you think that this advantage could be made greater but ideally you would want to put everybody into a high preference category and be able to have housing. She said that if you are really trying to work with the limited pool of units, especially when talking about where a preference is reduced, those recommendations were incredibly challenging to come up with. She said that the staff and members of the Affordable Housing Trust grappled with what that recommendation ought to be for many hours. She said that they are looking for guidance from the committee and City Council, that this is really where they want to end up, but anticipate this it be a challenging conversation today as well.

At this time Councillor Siddiqui paused to welcome Mayor McGovern and Councillor Kelley, and said that her co-chair, Councillor Simmons, would also be joining shortly. She said that because the City Council was not involved in the lengthy discussions at the Affordable Housing Trust, the City Council has expressed interest in right to return policies and preference policies. She said we have to spend some meaningful time on this, that there are innovative policies with mixed results, for example from the cities of Portland and Austin. She said that there is a lot of material that can be studied as it relates to preference policies, and she hopes that the committee can give some direction here today, and also have some follow-up conversations because of the complexity of the issue.

Mayor McGovern said he wanted to first touch on some of the things Mr. Cotter said in his presentation. He confirmed that Mr. Cotter had stated that if a person is a resident when they applied and then had to leave Cambridge, their residency status on the application would be maintained, that is “as long as the applications stays active.” Mayor McGovern said that he got a call from someone who lived in Cambridge 20 years ago, moved out and was upset that they weren’t receiving resident status. He said to him, 20 years is a long time, he thought. He said if someone has a section-8 voucher, and they can’t find housing in Cambridge, but don’t want to lose their voucher so they move just outside, to Revere or somewhere nearby, and it’s been one, two years, that’s one thing. But if they grew up here, then went away to college, moved somewhere else, had kids, and now wants to come back twenty years later, that’s a little different in his opinion. So, he asked, how long does an application stay active, and what kind of time frame are we talking about?

Mr. Cotter responded that an application can be active for a wide range of time. He said that when looking at applicants who when they apply are residents, they would consider that applicant a resident for so long as they have an application from them that they are considering. He said that up until the point that the application is closed, either because the applicant is housed, or they withdraw the application, or it was denied at several properties. He said that in some cases it could be years, given the demand and supply, but they also have applicants who will have applied more recently that they will get to because there are advantages for households facing an emergency need or households with children. He said that one thing that they are considering is that for so long as an application is active in the system, they would be treated as a resident. As it relates to the emergency need, Mayor McGovern said that he has an issue with the “one and done” offer. He said that to say to a homeless person or a person leaving a domestic violence situation, you must take what we show you and you do not have a choice does not feel right to him. Mayor McGovern asked how often those that don’t live or work in Cambridge get units. Mr. Cotter responded that they do not get to non-residents quickly, if at all. He said that they have housed some nonresident applicants in studio units. He said that it is an exception to get to the non-residents. Mayor McGovern concluded by stating that he is pleased that CDD is looking at the documentation policy because it is a huge stumbling block.

Councillor Mallon echoed Mayor McGovern’s comments around the “one and done.” She said that she has significant concerns around this issue for several reasons. She said that we do not do it for people who don’t have emergency need and she does not know why they are changing the program there. She said that she has some specific cases that she is thinking of. She said that there is a family that is in a smoking building and her son has asthma and it is a significant challenge. She said that if we go forward with a senior domestic violence victim and your abuser is in the same building, and you are a “one and done” then this is a problem. She asked if we are making exceptions for health or safety reasons. She said that she is unsure why there is a distinction around children under 6 versus children under 18. She asked what the difference is. She said that the older the children, the more important it is to keep them in the community. She asked why we are going to the new rating system. She said that the number of people on the list that have children under 6 has flip-flopped in terms of percentages of what is being proposed. She said that the numbers look funny to her. Chris Cotter said that as it relates to emergencies, they would certainly structure that in a way to allow for exceptions for cases where there are health or safety reasons. He said that those are things that CDD wants to maintain the ability to deal with. He said that they are thinking about the cases where there is a person with an emergency need status who turns down three different units because they are waiting for a particular building. He said that the discussion that has been is that if you are waiting for a particular building, you may not have as significant an emergency as the other applicants who are also waiting. He said that if you are trying to limit the emergencies of those cases where there the need to put you ahead of hundreds of other applicants, there is a hope that you are ready to move when a unit is available. He said that they have seen cases where people want a particular area or neighborhood, and that the thinking is that may be best considered as part of the regular course. He said that they will look at this issue.

As it relates to families with children, Mr. Cotter said that the history of this preference goes back almost twenty years. He explained that they had a preference for families with children under the age of 10. He said that this was modified to split it between households with children under 18 and families with children under 6. He explained that the 6 was selected at a time when lead issues in public housing were more pervasive. He said that by doing this, they were able to get families into houses that were lead-free. He said that at the time there was another rationale to try to get to the families with younger kids to get children settled and enrolled into school. He said that there is still a strong interest in keeping a preference for children under 6 by the Affordable Housing Trust. He said that they see families with older children facing a lot of the same challenges and in some cases, they are more dire when you look at people with older children and the options that they have. He said that they came to the place to split it in a way that really opens the door to see how this would work and to give some options to people who are not currently considered until they get through all the applicants with young children. He said that is the reason for the difference in the numbers. He explained that they are able to serve households with younger children more quickly whereas it is unusual under the current system to get families with the children that are 6 and older. He said that this is a way to test this to see how it works and they could revisit in one year to reevaluate the impact. Councillor Mallon said that she does not want to make this decision and try it out and six years later there is a disproportionate amount of families that are on the list number who children are over the age of 6. She advocated that the cycle be maintained at 3 units. She noted that she appreciates looking at the court ordered eviction process and making it feel less scary for the residents. She said that she has spent a majority of time working with residents who have been displaced with none of them being court-ordered evictions. She said that it is because the building has sold, and they must leave at the end of their lease. She advocated for trying to figure out a way to caption this type of displacement in a different way. Mr. Cotter said that if they were to set the threshold earlier, that would be the best outcome for the household because they would have the preference sooner, but that would also result in more emergency applicants. He said that they are trying to balance the emergency status with the units coming forward to be able to get those units to those households most in need.

Councillor Toomey thanked CDD and the Affordable Housing Trust for their work. He said that he does not envy the people who have to make the selections. He said that the need is great, and it is difficult to be in the position to determine who stays and who does not. He said that he is disappointed that he has not seen any preferences for veterans or disabled veterans.

Councillor Zondervan said that a lot of the changes that are proposed are good and will make things better. He echoed the concerns about the “one and done” as there must be a more just way to deal with that situation. He said that the residency documentation is a huge issue and he is constantly surprised by how difficult this is. He said that the City has a ton of records so why should the burden of proof be on the individual versus being able to search through these records and determine whether someone is a resident. He said that as it relates to the cost burden, he would like some clarification. He asked if we are saying that they have to have been cost burdened for one year or are we saying that they just have to have been living there for one year. Mr. Cotter said that it would not be a year-long residency requirement, but would say that they have to be living in their unit for more than a year and present as cost burdened. He said that we do not want to create a situation where people might put themselves into untenable situations in order to get this preference. He said that they want it to be targeted to people who, through a rent increase or reduction of income, find themselves in their housing in a way that has become unsustainable and to try to then give them that preference at that time. Councillor Zondervan said that it makes sense to him to try to do that, but he feels that this kind of blanket one-year requirement makes it difficult when encountering unique situations. He said that he had a constituent who did not have a lease and how do we prove that they have been there for one year. He said that we want to avoid situations where someone is deliberately putting themselves in a untenable situation, so they can get a preference but at the same time, having a blanket requirement may disadvantage other people who have a legitimate issue. He urged CDD to investigate this. Mr. Cotter said that one of the goals in these changes is to come up with a system that is clear and objective and can be implemented in an equitable way. He said that this conversation will help CDD understand that the City Council understands how they are allocating this resource. He said that it is helpful to have the conversation.

Councillor Zondervan asked about code violations and how they are being addressed. Mr. Cotter said that they want people to work with the Inspectional Services Department (ISD) to get the violation cited and then work with the ISD as needed to follow-up. He said that if it gets to the point where ISD says it is past the point of where someone should be living there, then it would become an emergency priority. He said that given what they are recommending to get to emergency applicants more quickly, but the more emergency applicants there are, the more time it will take to get to each applicant. He said that they want to get the applicants that are most in need to best meet the goals and stabilizing housing of residents. He said that they are in the position, when dealing with emergency applicants, of knowing that there are people behind them in the queue. He said that it is a tricky calculus. Councillor Zondervan said that everyone feels the frustration. He said that part of the problem is that they are operating with a scarcity mindset. He said that it is up to the City Council to solve that problem. He said that he does not want the City Council to create policies that are rooted in that mentality. He said that the City Council should make policies that are as just as possible. He said that in terms of code violations, maybe some elaboration on that to say that if there are persistent code violations for over one year then it becomes an emergency status rather than saying it is only if ISD determines that a tenant must vacate because there is a lot of problematic situations in between those two conditions. He said that the as it relates to the domestic violence provision, he thinks that it is great that this is explicit. He said that he does have concerns about the documentation requirements because a lot of domestic violence takes place that does not get reported to the police. He said if there are ways to make it easier for people to cross that burden of proof, it would be beneficial. He said that as it relates to overcrowding, more than two people per bedroom is overcrowding. He asked how to deal with unsafe housing conditions. He told of a case where there were two families with children who were living in a two-bedroom unit. He said that is not a safe housing situation and asked how the City would deal with that. Mr. Cotter said that they could look at the Sanitary Code to see what the code would provide for the number of occupants. He said that it is more permissive than they might realize but it gets to the point of looking at families that are doubled up. He said that this is another area that is difficult to look at in an equitable and consistent way. He said that they could not come up with a good and equitable way to look at this.

Councillor Zondervan said that if someone is under an emergency status because they were served a Notice of Eviction and they get evicted and must move out and begin to live with a friend. He asked if the emergency status continues. Mr. Cotter said that in that case they would draft regulations to be clear that the emergency status and residency status would continue.

Councillor Zondervan said that we are looking at some kind of right of return and he asked if there is anything that makes sense to us. He said that if someone was evicted two years ago and ended up in another city or town but they wanted to be in Cambridge and had clear documentation that they were a resident before, is there any version that makes sense to consider besides the scarcity issue. Mr. Cotter said that it is something that can be looked at to determine what the options might be. He said that it can be challenging confirming past residency and it was a concern and in the discussions with the AHT about giving that advantage to former residents which could disadvantage current residents, but if it is approached with the mindset that there will be more housing brought on line, it is something that they could look at.

Councillor Simmons said that she is pleased to have this discussion. She said that she and Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli spoke the regulations and preferences many times. She said that she and Brian Murphy also talked at length about preference criteria. She said that when a person has lived in Cambridge for a long period and are forced to move out of the city, they still feel that Cambridge is in their DNA. She said that maybe they moved out of the city because they could not use their voucher in the city or maybe they moved out to take care of a parent. She said that if a person has moved out for three years and they want to return. She asked if there is any provision for a person who lived in the city for over a decade and had to move out for a valid reason and would like to return. She asked if there is any such provision in the criteria for this person to get preference. She said that 46% of voucher residents go out of Cambridge because they cannot find housing and having the ability to come back is imperative. She asked what happens when someone is renting a room of sofa surfing. She said that they are not listed on a lease, they have no utility bills or any other credentials. She asked how they would get credentials or have the ability to authenticate that they lived in Cambridge. She talked about domestic violence victims whose addresses are embargoed. She asked about veteran status. She said that it is odd to her that with Inclusionary Zoning, a person will be sent a notice to ask if a person would like to move to another unit. She said that the process seems convoluted. Mr. Cotter said that they are looking at the documentation criteria. He noted that they are working to develop a broader range of material that people can use to substantiate that a person is living in the city. He said that they are developing a broader matrix of choices for documentation. Councillor Simmons asked if CDD notifies applicants that they will look at their applications if they do not have the typical forms of address authentication. Mr. Cotter stated that CDD is coming with changes that they will then review with the City Manager and then implement to look at residency with different criteria. He said that this will be more flexible and will better capture cases in these types of situations. Councillor Simmons said that longtime sofa surfers are not in shelters because there are not enough shelters or there is no room. She said that this wears on a person and to the extent that they would rather sleep on a loveseat than trot to the few family housing shelters to be turned down. She said that it is important to figure out a way for more bandwidth. Mr. Cotter said that this is the challenge given the limits of the state shelter system. He noted that it is challenging if they are looking to confirm the emergency because there is really not any documentation to look at to validate the situation. He said that it becomes a self-certification. Ms. Farooq added that when looking at the homeless applicants, residency preference is determined by looking at the last known permanent address and when broadening the scope of document, they could include things such as where children are registered for school, do they have a voucher from the CHA as opposed to another city/town. They are looking at things that are indirectly connected.

Councillor Siddiqui opened the hearing to Public Comment.

Bill Cunningham, Newtowne Court, asked if rent is defined to include simply the money paid to a landlord or are utilities included. He said as it related to weighted priorities for people to enter into housing, he wondered if the weighting is done in such a way that any one or two factors can outweigh another factor or are they in absolute 123 order. As it relates to overcrowding, he wondered whether CDD would ever apply the kind of criteria that the state and federal government used to apply such as siblings of opposite gender of a certain age should not be sharing the same bedroom. He said that there are people who are evicted because they are unable to obtain proper counsel. He wondered if there is any administrative way in which this could be dealt with.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, thanked all for their work. As it relates to right of return, she said that a fourth category could be created which is a former Cambridge resident. If this category were created, many of the criteria questions would be answered such as more of a priority for former Cambridge residents than a person who works in Cambridge. She asked about what process of discussion has taken place with current tenants of Inclusionary or Affordable Housing. She said that tenants have a great deal of knowledge as well. She encouraged focus groups as soon as possible before the City Council gets too far down the road on making its recommendations. She said that over one year ago, it was approved that there be a Housing Liaison position created. She said that she does not believe that it has been filled but that person would have a lot of good suggestions and recommendations had it been filled. She would like this put back into consideration.

Public Comment closed on the motion of Councillor Simmons.

Councillor Carlone said that the presentation was excellent. He said that the snapshot on households is very helpful. He said that it would be more helpful to know the numbers of homeless, evictions, cost burdened, or domestic violence victims. He said that this would help to educate everyone. He said that it would also be helpful to get a digital copy of the PowerPoint presentation sent to the City Council. As it relates to Inclusionary rentals, he agrees that one choice is not fair but if that choice is in a new neighborhood without social services, library, school, etc., it is not the same as near Central Square. He thinks that this is how CDD could classify first and second choice. As it relates to ages of children, he stated that there are studies that indicate that children between the ages of 3-5, they are affected emotionally and intellectually if they do not have a steady home and good environment. He said that is when the brain is dramatically growing. He said that he agrees that there is a difference between 6 and up to 18. He said that as it relates to veterans, he agrees with Councillor Toomey that if we are going to have a list, there should be a list for veterans. Councillor Carlone asked how criteria is qualified. Is it in order or are they all equal. Mr. Cotter said that within the emergency criteria, if a person meets any of those criteria, you get that preference. He said that a person would get additional preference if you are a resident with an emergency or a resident with children. Councillor Carlone added that public comment is helpful.

Councillor Kelley said that he appreciates the work. He said that he disagrees with Councillor Zondervan’s comment that we should not approach this issue from a scarcity problem. He said that is foundationally exactly where we are having this discussion and if there were not a scarcity problem, we would be doing something else right now.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that this is difficult work. She said that as a guiding principle, to stabilize the housing of current or very recently non-current residents should be the thing that CDD should keep going back to. She said that everyone is in the pool because they have an income qualification. She said that when looking at the percentage of Cambridge residents that are cost burdened, almost everyone is cost burdened. She said that the city is in a scarcity situation. She asked if child under 6 distinction is at the time of the application or when your application comes up for review. As it relates to the snapshot, she asked if there is any overlap in the numbers. Mr. Cotter said that families with children under 6 are not double counted in the preference for families. As it relates to cost burden, Vice Mayor Devereux asked if a year of residency is long enough for that. She said that there should be some triggering event such as a substantial rent increase, loss of job, that suddenly tips a person over into cost burden. She said that she assumes that natural disaster and fire is an emergency. Mr. Cotter responded in the affirmative. As it relates to the question of a person working in Cambridge, Vice Mayor Devereux asked if a person loses this qualification if they get a job in another city. Mr. Cotter responded in the affirmative. She asked about a timeline for the completion of the preference work. She said that it is better to get the changes that are right and overdue done rather than prolonging this for another City Council term.

Mike Johnston said that CDD did a good job and it is a hard job. He has been doing this work for 28 years and no matter what preferences or criteria, is put together, someone will be disadvantaged and unhappy. He said that it is a scarcity issue. He said that there is not enough affordable housing to go around. He noted that there are 19,000 on the CHA waiting list, of which approximately 5,000 are residents or people who work in Cambridge. He said that the CHA has its changed preferences through the years and even today, they are hearing about new issues. He questioned if an Uber driver who picks up in Cambridge someone who works in Cambridge? He said that this is a question. He said that they used to have a preference as it relates to significant ties in Cambridge. He asked how do you define significant ties? He said that this was eliminated. He said that it is important work. He said that in the past year, the CHA has done 75 emergency placements because of emergency status. He said that this is a great presentation and it is a discussion that must take place.

Peter Daly said that the committee that worked on this issue was great. He said that each member had a different perspective. He said that it was a process that ended toward a synthesis of what is seen in the memo. He noted that there are some holes, but he welcomes the comments which will give food for thought to come up with better solutions.

Jim Stockard, AHT, said that when he served on the Board of Housing Authority he served on an Appeal Panel that would deal with unusual cases. He asked what kind of Appeals Panel the city could have that would take a case where the answer seems to be no, and they think it should be yes. The panel he served on included two tenants, two representatives of the staff or board of the Housing Authority and one independent outside individual with no relationship who serves as Chair. He said that this may be the best way to deal with the real complications that don’t quite fit a specific scenario. He said that it is easy to think of housing as a mechanical thing but noted that we are talking about homes. He said that a sensitive Appeals Panel would be beneficial.

Councillor Simmons said that she knows that the CHA has an Appeals Board. She said that going forward, this should be on the list of topics for conversation. She told CDD to do what it can now. She said that the category of former tenants is important to look at. She said that it is imperative to talk to the inclusionary zoning tenants on a regular basis. She said that every three years there could be a town meeting or questionnaire to hear from the tenants on an ongoing basis.

Councillor Siddiqui reiterated that she heard consensus among the members and City Councillors that the emergency need and the “one-and-done” pieces should be revised and that three of the Councillors noted the addition of a veteran’s preference. She mentioned the discussion on the notion of residency. She said that she knows CDD has said it is working on an update on that matrix and emphasized that it would be helpful to receive this update to inform the ‘former residency’ question, among others, before moving this forward. She noted questions raised by Councillor Zondervan on some details around cost burden and code violations. Councillor Siddiqui commented on CDD’s definition of domestic violence, noting that it says “etc.”; she suggested adding to this definition and specifically, looking to Cambridge Housing Authority’s policy for wording on this. She said it is a very lengthy definition, but that having ours comport slightly would be very helpful. She emphasized the importance of providing for verification/documentation to come from third-party individuals such as social workers.

Mr. Cotter clarified that what CDD meant by “etc.” was in line with what Councillor Siddiqui raised, that they were thinking to include service providers, but weren’t ready to define that. He said that he agrees that it makes sense and appreciates that Councillor Siddiqui brought this up.

Councillor Siddiqui said that she knows Mr. Cunningham had questions and she wants to get those concerns answered. She said that Councillor Mallon had brought up a point that’s come up in meetings of the Tenant Displacement Task Force as well--the issue of how we are managing and dealing with cases that are not at the point eviction. She said we have a Housing Liaison position--and she’s heard that the City is making very good progress with regard to its hiring for this role and that it will have news soon--and that talking with whomever is hired for this role will be helpful in seeing how the City can measure this and target policies, because these types of cases come up more often than not. She noted that some of the Councillors mentioned “right to return”, and that there are some pending Policy Orders that have requested the City be looking in to the “right to return” as it pertains to preferences. She said that even just a synopsis on that, showing that the City has considered this, would be helpful. She said that for timeline purposes, she knows that Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services (CASLS) and De Novo Center for Justice and Healing do want to weigh in on these preferences, and as they are service providers working with our tenants on this, they should have that opportunity.

As for timeline, Councillor Siddiqui said she knows how busy the CDD team is, but that this has been a priority for many many years, and that it had been discussed that this would happen in the Fall. She said she could see CDD coming back to the City Council with some of these answers and having one more discussion. She said that in the meantime, CDD should be reaching out, doing some informal focus groups, and getting input from the service providers. She added that this should also include a formal community outreach process, as CDD mentioned in its memo for today’s hearing. She said that she and Councillor Simmons, as the Co-Chairs, should sit down with CDD staff and think about a timeline for this because we do not want to wait until 2020, 2021.

Councillor Siddiqui closed by reiterating the urgent need for a timeline and a transparent process in order to move forward on the great work of the Affordable Housing Trust members and CDD staff. She thanked all for their work and time today.

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

The hearing adjourned at 2:59pm on the motion of Councillor Mallon.

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