9. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 16-43, regarding publishing a Cambridge Voter's Guide to be distributed to each household in Cambridge a month before the 2017 municipal election.

Aug 1, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 16-43, regarding a report on publishing a Cambridge Voter’s Guide and Council Order No. 6, dated June 13, 2016, regarding voter reward system options, I respectfully request that a Roundtable meeting be scheduled to discuss issues and concerns identified by the Board of Election Commissioners.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

15. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to authorizing the Purchasing Agent to award a five (5) year, two (2) month contract to the successful proposer on the Metropolitan Area Planning Council Bike Share System RFP.
Adopted 8-0-1 [Simmons ABSENT]

Aug 1, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In 2017, the City’s contract with Motivate, formerly ALTA, as operators of the Hubway bike share system will expire. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (“MAPC”) is putting this contract out through a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) process on behalf of the City as well as the Cities of Boston and Somerville and the Town of Brookline. All city and town leaders met last month and agreed that it is most beneficial for the communities to be able to award a contract to the successful proposer for a five (5) year term with two (2), two (2) year options to renew the contract. Where this procurement will follow public bidding laws, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30(b) requires a majority vote of the City Council authorizing the award of a contract for a duration longer than three (3) years.

Having a contract of this longer duration in place will hopefully entice more vendors and will hopefully allow for more consistency in service and, in most cases, a better price.

I hereby request that the City Council authorize the Purchasing Agent to award a five (5) year, two (2) month contract to the successful proposer on the MAPC Bike Share System RFP.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

---

Agenda Item 15     Aug 1, 2016
ORDERED: That the City Council goes on record authorizing the Purchasing Agent to award a five (5) year, two (2) month contract to the successful proposer on the MAPC Bike Share System RFP.

29. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to pursuing the planning and development of a multi-use, bicycle and pedestrian pathway along the Grand Junction corridor that links East Cambridge, Kendall Square, MIT, and Cambridgeport, with potential connections into Boston and Somerville.

Aug 1, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

For a number of years, the City of Cambridge has been pursuing the planning and development of a multi-use, bicycle and pedestrian pathway along the Grand Junction corridor that links East Cambridge, Kendall Square, MIT, and Cambridgeport, with potential connections into Boston and Somerville.

Through the hard work of the City, the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, and MIT, the first segment of the Grand Junction Greenway recently opened between Main Street and Broadway in Kendall Square.

As the primary owner of the right-of-way along which this pathway would run, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is a key partner in making this vision a reality. I am therefore pleased to transmit a letter recently received from Stephanie Pollack, MassDOT Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, signaling MassDOT’s willingness and commitment to work with us productively on the development of the Grand Junction Greenway along this corridor.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

30. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Items Number 16-46 and 16-59, regarding the Grand Junction Greenway, including the status of construction, developer contributions, and the zoning overlay.
Referred to Transportation & Public Utilities Committee - Toomey

Aug 1, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Items Number 16-46 and 16-59, regarding the Grand Junction Greenway, including the status of construction, developer contributions, and the zoning overlay, please see the attached response from the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, Iram Farooq.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

33. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 16-54, regarding finding a long term solution to adding a dog park in East Cambridge by the end of 2016 and fencing in a temporary location for off leash use by the end of Summer, 2016.

Aug 1, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 16-54, regarding finding a long term solution to adding a dog park in East Cambridge by the end of 2016 and fencing in a temporary location for off leash use by the end of Summer, 2016, please see the attached response from the Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

36. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the submission of the attached Home Rule Petition that would authorize the City of Cambridge to include in the planned reconstruction (the “Project”) of the King Open / Cambridge Street Upper School and Community Complex (“KOCSUS”) the area that is presently occupied by the public swimming pool known as the Gold Star Pool (the “Gold Star Pool Site”) and to construct subsurface geothermal wells in a portion of Donnelly Field that lies directly along and adjacent to the current southerly boundary of the KOCSUS site (the “School Site”).
Adopted 9-0

Aug 1, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am writing to request that you approve the submission of the attached Home Rule Petition that would authorize the City of Cambridge to include in the planned reconstruction (the “Project”) of the King Open / Cambridge Street Upper School and Community Complex (“KOCSUS”) the area that is presently occupied by the public swimming pool known as the Gold Star Pool (the “Gold Star Pool Site”) and to construct subsurface geothermal wells in a portion of Donnelly Field that lies directly along and adjacent to the current southerly boundary of the KOCSUS site (the “School Site”).

Specifically, relief is required from the Legislature to construct a portion of the KOCSUS Project on the existing Gold Star Pool Site, which occupies a small portion of the currently existing School Site that was not included in Chapter 49 of the Acts of 1955 (the “1955 Legislation”) by which a portion of the original Donnelly Field site (that had comprised the entire block stretching easterly from Cambridge Street to Berkshire Street, south along Berkshire to York Street, west along York to Willow and then north along Willow to Cambridge Street (“Original Donnelly Field Site”)) was authorized to be changed from its then “public park and park purposes” and reused “for the erection of a public school building, and for other school purposes, and for all purposes incidental thereto”. When the 1955 Legislation was passed, the portion of what was to become the School Site remained part of the Original Donnelly Field Site to continue to be used for “public park and park” purposes because it was used and occupied by the Gold Star Pool prior to 1955. It continues to be used and occupied by the Gold Star Pool today.

Relief is also required from the Legislature to construct subsurface geothermal wells within a portion of Donnelly Field that lies directly along and adjacent to the southern edge of the School Site. All existing “public park and park” uses that are conducted in that part of Donnelly Field will continue to be conducted after the installation of the subsurface geothermal wells.

Pursuant to Article 97 of the Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“Article 97”), land that is held and dedicated for parkland uses may only be re-used for another use with the consent of two thirds of both houses of the Legislature.

BACKGROUND
1. The Gold Star Pool
The City’s architect has completed the Schematic Design phase for the KOCSUS Project. The design for the KOCSUS Project includes reconstruction of the Gold Star Pool and moving the pool south of the existing location. The new location of the Gold Star Pool, which will be adjacent to Berkshire Street and Donnelly Field, will be beneficial to the City and the community because it allows for a larger pool and deck space, a new wading pool, and it faces south with a direct connection to Donnelly Field. The proposed new location allows better visibility from Berkshire Street and Donnelly Field. The new location is smaller than the existing location (11,773 sf verses 17,890 sf); however, it will provide a more optimized and efficient building layout for the overall Project. The new pool house and changing rooms will be located on the first level of the three story building, and the school administrative offices will be located above the pool house and changing rooms.

2. Geothermal Wells
The KOCSUS Project is being designed as a Net Zero Emissions (“NZE”) project. The two main systems helping to facilitate that goal are photovoltaic panels (“PV”) which produce electricity, and the subsurface geothermal wells that provide tempered water for heating and cooling the building. The PVs are primarily on the roof and the geothermal wells will be below grade. The subsurface geothermal wells will be installed in areas that will not have any building structures above them. The new building and site design will significantly increase the green space around the Project buildings at the School Site.

The Project design requires 190 wells. They are spaced 20’ apart, and even with the additional green space on the Project Site, the 190 wells cannot all fit within the existing School Site. The area outside of the School Site that is proposed for the balance of the subsurface geothermal wells is the strip of land along the northern edge of Donnelly Field between Willow and Berkshire Streets that is presently used for a seating area, basketball courts, and the Frisoli play area. In the final constructed condition, the subsurface geothermal wells and piping will reside underground and remain unseen while the disturbed surface will be restored and replaced with a new park, basketball courts and seating area.

HOME RULE LEGISLATION
Both the area proposed for the construction of the subsurface geothermal wells and the Gold Star Pool are presently located in parts of the Original Donnelly Field Site, which is owned and held by the City for “public park and park” purposes and therefore is protected under Article 97 from any change in use absent legislation authorizing such a change in use. In order to proceed with the design of the Project as planned, to construct the subsurface geothermal wells within a portion of Donnelly Field and to use the Gold Star Pool Site as part of the overall site for the Project, I ask that the City Council vote in favor of filing the attached Home Rule Petition.

I have attached for your information a site plan and plan attachment sheets depicting the restrictions on the existing Original Donnelly Field Site, the description of the requests and benefits of the proposed changes that are requested, site renderings showing the existing and proposed site conditions, and calculations relating to the existing and proposed pool locations at the proposed Project Site.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

37. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the request that the City Council move to Executive Session.
Moved to Executive Session 9-0

Aug 1, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting that the City Council move to Executive Session to consider the purchase of two parcels of real property from the B&M Corporation for the purpose of creating a future multi-use path and greenway, because an open meeting in my opinion may have a detrimental effect on the City’s negotiating position and I request that the Mayor so declare.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

38. Transmitting Communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the transfer of $42,655 within statutory accounts of the Public Investment Fund Community Development Extraordinary Expenditure account to complete the purchase of two parcels from the B&M Corporation for the purpose of creating a future multi-use path and greenway.
Order Adopted 9-0, Suspension of the Rules Carried, Reconsideration Failed 0-9

Aug 1, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the transfer of $42,655 within statutory accounts of the Public Investment Fund Community Development Extraordinary Expenditure account to complete the purchase of two parcels from the B&M Corporation for the purpose of creating a future multi-use path and greenway.

On June 20, 2016, City Council approved the transfer of $860,000 for this acquisition. At the time of the appropriation, an estimate was used. In order to complete the purchase, an additional $42,655 is required.

BACKGROUND: The 2005 Concord-Alewife Plan identified the acquisition of the remaining Watertown Branch parcels and creation of a path as a priority for the area in order to create additional off-road connections to Danehy Park, Fresh Pond Mall and to create the possible future connection to a multiuse path along the Fitchburg Line to Porter Square. At that time a zoning overlay district was created to encourage the preservation of the rail line as open space and conversion to a greenway and multi-use path.

FUTURE PLAN: This path will be an extension of the existing path along Fresh Pond Parkway that is also currently being extended into Watertown through a partnership between the City of Cambridge and the state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) known as the Watertown Cambridge Greenway. Funds would also be used to complete a conceptual design needed to identify opportunities, constraints and an approximate cost to construct the path in the future.

Alewife is a busy area with many transportation needs and opportunities. A robust and expanding off-road, multi-use path network is part of those facilities, and is needed to encourage sustainable trips in the Alewife area to reduce existing congestion. Paths through the area make many regional connections into Arlington (Minuteman Bikeway), Belmont (Alewife Greenway Extension), and Somerville (Alewife Greenway). The extended Watertown-Cambridge Greenway will complete the connection between Cambridge and Watertown as well as the regional link between the Minuteman Bikeway and the Charles River path system.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

6. Congratulations to Patrick and Norma Jean Barrett on the birth of their daughter Gemma Evelyn Barrett.   Councillor Toomey

R-6     Aug 1, 2016
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that Patrick and Norma Jean Barrett welcomed a new baby girl to their family; and
WHEREAS: Gemma Evelyn Barrett was born on July 11, 2016 weighing 8 pounds 9 ounces; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record welcoming Gemma Evelyn Barrett to the world and congratulating Patrick and Norma Jean on the new addition to their family; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Barrett family on behalf of the entire City Council.

8. Congratulations to Jada Simmons and Toju Ononeme on their nuptials.   Councillor Toomey

R-8     Aug 1, 2016
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: On July 31, 2016, Jada Simmons, daughter of Mayor E. Denise Simmons, will marry Toju Ononeme in Cambridge; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record congratulating Jada Simmons and Toju Ononeme on their nuptials, and wishing them a truly happy, healthy, and wonderful life together; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Jada Simmons and Toju Ononeme on behalf of the entire City Council.

11. Resolution on the retirement of James Cullinane from the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department.   Mayor Simmons

R-11     Aug 1, 2016
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that James “Jim” Cullinane is retiring from his position as Assistant Parking Services Manager after 10 years of outstanding public service and commitment to the residents of and visitors to the City of Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Jim began his career spending seventeen years in the retail banking industry, focusing on staff supervision and management, followed by fourteen years as a systems administrator; and
WHEREAS: Jim began working for the City of Cambridge in 2006, as Assistant Parking Services Coordinator in the Department of Traffic, Parking and Transportation, bringing with him those decades of experience; and
WHEREAS: Jim quickly became an integral part of the successful operation of the Department, including performing staff management, fiscal and information technology roles within the Parking Services Unit; and
WHEREAS: Jim ultimately took the lead for the Department in successfully revamping Resident Parking Permit applications to allow for online services, making the process more streamlined and efficient for City residents; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record congratulating James Cullinane on the occasion of his retirement from the Department of Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and wish him all the best in his future endeavors; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and is hereby requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to James Cullinane on behalf of the entire City Council.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Housing Committee held a public meeting on May 31, 2016 beginning at 6:05pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the meeting was to continue discussion regarding the recently completed Inclusionary Housing Study with community feedback from the May 18, 2016 hearing being shared and discussed with consultant David Paul Rosen & Associates. This hearing was televised.

Present at the meeting were Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Marc McGovern, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Dennis Carlone; City Manager Richard C. Rossi; Assistant City Manager Iram Farooq; Housing Director Chris Cotter; Housing Project Planner Linda Prosnitz; Assistant City Manager for Human Services Ellen Semonoff; and Neal Alpert, Chief of Staff to Mayor Simmons.

Also present were Nora Lake-Brown of David Paul Rosen and Associates; Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, Alliance of Cambridge Tenants and CEOC; Peter Daly of Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc.; Susan Schlesinger of the Affordable Housing Trust; Stephanie Crayton; Jennifer James; Reeva Meyer; Rev. Ellen Frith; Wayne Welke; Esther Hanig; Jon Trementozzi; Kathy Watkins; Jerome Saunders; Jackie King; Elaine O’Reilly; Hassan Rashid; Jean Hannon; Ellen Shachter; Rev. Dan Smith; and James Williamson.

Mayor Simmons called the meeting to order at 6:05pm and explained the purpose of the meeting. She advised attendees that this meeting was being broadcast and videotaped for archival purposes. Mayor Simmons read from a prepared opening statement [Attachment A], and noted that her chief of staff would be taking the meeting minutes in lieu of staff from the City Clerk’s office, who could not be present. She then invited Vice Mayor McGovern to share his thoughts.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that this is a very important conversation. He said that there are three major items in front of the City Council at the moment, including the search for the next City Manager, the Envision Cambridge process, and the Inclusionary Zoning conversation. He thanked everyone for coming to this meeting, and he thanked the Community Development Department for helping with this report on Inclusionary Zoning. He said that for him, this is a question of how we maximize the number of affordable units, without raising the number so high that we stifle development and end up with nothing.

He said that the City Council could easily raise the percentage of required affordable units to the highest in the country and then feel proud of themselves, but if doing this would then chill development and we end up with nothing, what have we truly accomplished? He said we need to have a realistic conversation and find the “sweet spot.”

Mayor Simmons then invited the City Manager to share his opening thoughts. Mr. Rossi stated that as his office has looked at the questions that had been submitted in advance of this meeting, many of those questions are being explored by the Affordable Housing Trust, and some questions are being discussed with the City Solicitor’s office. He said he wanted to remind people that there are many complex questions they are trying to deal with, and they are working hard to do that.

Ms. Farooq stated that she wished to introduce Nora Lake-Brown, who was here to discuss the inclusionary study report. She said that at the previous Housing Committee hearing, we heard several questions from the public, and CDD staff have been meeting with several groups in the interim taking their questions, which range the gamut from the Inclusionary program, policy questions, and a large number had to do with understanding the components and complexity of the study itself. She said there are two handouts today, one of which is a FAQ that was compiled by CDD staff and the City staff working with the Assessing Department, the Finance Department, and the Law Department, and that the CDD will continue working with them. Ms. Farooq said that the second document is a set of questions that were relayed to Ms. Lake-Brown, and she will try to address those at this meeting. She suggested that if there are further questions and the need for elaboration, we should try to get to those while the consultant is in town. Ms. Farooq said that if there are additional questions, we can continue to address those in the future.

Ms. Lake-Brown thanked the Housing Committee for having her. She introduced herself and stated that she would be giving a brief PowerPoint overview of the Inclusionary Zoning study. She stated that this study was conducted in 2015 by David Paul Rosen & Associates, or DRA. She then walked the committee through the PowerPoint [Attachment B].

Mayor Simmons opened the meeting to Public Comment at 6:40pm.

Stephanie Crayton, 70 Matignon Road, Waltham, said that she was here to represent those who don't currently qualify for low income housing. She said that she makes too much money for some of the city’s affordable housing programs, and she would like Cambridge to do something about the income guidelines. She said that there are a lot of people who are in the similar situation who make just a little bit too much money, get priced out of affordable housing, and since rent keeps going up, they are forced to move.

Jennifer James, 32 Bacon Street, Waltham, said that she was here with the previous speaker. She said that she was forced to move out of Cambridge several years ago because she couldn't afford rents here. She said that she considered herself to be a successful single mom, but she couldn't afford the rents and keep up with them. She said that she shares custody of her son, who was able to attend the Morse School up until this year, and she lamented that her son is no longer able to take advantage of the many great educational resources that aren't offered in places like Waltham. She pleaded with the committee to “make Cambridge Cambridge” again, and to pass policies that would allow families to return to their homes.

Rev. Ellen Frith, homeless, stated that she has been displaced from Cambridge because she hasn’t been able to afford an apartment here. She said she is not the only person this is happening to. She advocated for pushing the percentage of affordable units to 20-25 percent. She said that we should make sure that everyone has the right and the opportunity to live in Cambridge if they wish to. She said that she is currently living at the Rosie's Place shelter. She said that she went to school in Cambridge, and that she works with many homeless people in Harvard Square and Porter, and she tries to give them hope, but it is hard for her to feel hope. She said she went through a training to buy affordable housing, and she wasn’t able to do that. She said that disabled people don't get many opportunities because of lack of accessibility. She said she’d like to see an increase in vouchers in Cambridge for those with disabilities, as well as the right to live on the top floor. She said she was offered a unit some time ago which was on the third floor, and then she was relocated to the first floor, where she was looking out her window at a wall. She said she feels like she has a right to live in a penthouse if it is affordable via her voucher.

Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street, said that she agrees that studio apartments should not be used for Inclusionary Zoning units. She said that people in Inclusionary units are the people that stay in place the longest, and they deserve to have one bedroom units. In regards to Recommendation #7, she asked what projects would actually feel the impact of a potential zoning change if developments that are already in the pipeline are grandfathered in? Ms. Watkins further stated that she feels strongly that Inclusionary units should be distributed evenly throughout the building, even on the higher floors.

Hassan Rashid, 820 Massachusetts Avenue, said that he wonders if the Inclusionary Program is a flexibility zoning tool. He asked how the program might be used to provide benefits to the extremely low income residents. He said that this program has been brought up to scale at the expense of and excluding those with the greatest need.

Ellen Shachter, 346 Concord Ave, said that she is an attorney and she has many thoughts. First, in regards to income targeting issues, the possibility of 15 percent affordable units. She said she thinks it’s important that this 20 percent be targeted towards those hovering at under 80 percent AMI. She said that if you look at the rental housing applications, there are 28 families applying for the 12 available units; this is in relation to the hundreds of applications that come in for the lower-income units. For the middle income people, the City should consider changing the program so that it focuses on home ownership. She said that she hopes we go forward with this. She said that in terms of the threshold at which the program starts, she thinks 10 units or perhaps 8 units would work. She said that there’s money coming in to the Affordable Housing Trust fund. In terms of amenities, and in terms of what floor the units are located on, the people that should be answering this question should be those on the wait lists for Inclusionary housing; if trading off some amenities might allow for the creation of additional units, she said that she suspects that many families would make those trade-offs. She also said that one thing not on this list is how the priority system works for Inclusionary Housing. She said that right now, the City has many different priorities that give points to different applications, she cannot get people an emergency housing voucher because of all the restrictions, and we cannot protect real life families. She said that she also would like to know what the City’s CAP rate has been historically.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, said that he starts with the premise that the need for this type of affordable housing is enormous in Cambridge. He said that if the City Council were willing to go to 20 percent, it still wouldn't go near the extent that we need. He said that he is grappling with the economic analysis, and that he doesn’t yet understand it. He said the idea that 25 percent might be feasible appeals to him. He said that major projects in other cities, like Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, had net a 50 percent rate of affordability. He said he is wondering why Cambridge cannot get a higher percentage. He said that there was a study from MIT where investors would agree to make a slightly lower profit, and at what point are we willing to tell investors they can get a little less for their investments?

Sarah Gallop from the Kendall Square Association said that the KSA has had good discussions with CDD staff, and those conversations will continue tomorrow. It's very complex and everyone recognizes that. She said that, in anticipation of this hearing, the KSA thought it would be helpful to send in some comments and that they have done so, and they have some suggestions around further analysis that they would be happy to help with. She said that the KSA looks forward to continuing the conversation.

Rev. Dan Smith, 44 Garden Street, said that he leads the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, which recently had 900 people gather at the Old South Church in Boston, as well as Mayor Walsh’s chief housing advisor. He said that the organization has noted that affordable housing is a major concern in this region. He said that Cambridge comes up again and again as a model of how to do it, and that Boston has been looking to Cambridge’s Community Preservation Act as something worth emulating. He said that the City has already done so much in terms of affordable housing, and following the recommendations from this study would be another step in that direction. Rev. Smith said that he hopes the City raises the percentage as high as possible.

Sarah E. Kennedy, Chamber of Commerce, said that as we are thinking through City priorities, there are many priorities that impact development costs and that impact the choice made by developers to build housing or to build commercial space. She said that, according to what the Chamber has heard from their developer members, there is a tipping point of costs at which developers may decide to go commercial instead of creating housing. She said that we all know how important finding this balance is, and that the hope is that the City will be mindful of maintaining this balance. She said that she wished to underscore that the Chamber is more than willing to be helpful with extra analysis if need be.

Mayor Simmons closed Public Comment at 7:03pm.

Mayor Simmons asked if her colleagues had any questions for the consultant. Councilor Mazen thanked Ms. Lake-Brown for coming. He said that many people here have been trying to get this kind of information for a long time. He said that when we have asked developers for some of this information, the question has been framed in terms of asking what the time frame is for making money on a building, and we have been told it would be 20 years. He said that these numbers are helpful as a sign post for developers, and that these types of numbers are not seen in other industries. He said that developers are inherently very profitable, and he is glad to have a better idea of where the housing market is. He said that going to the 20 percent number seems very doable, and that it is helpful to know just how profitable developers can be expected to be. He said that he is supportive of the conclusions the consultant has reached.

Councilor Carlone thanked Ms. Lake-Brown for her presentation and the report. He thanked the Community Development Department and the City Manager for the quality and the thinking that went into this. He said that a lot of the strategies that are being proposed make all the sense in the world. No one strategy will be approved by everyone in the room. He said that the City’s memo for the report alludes to the fact that the potential imbalance of housing versus office space is something to be mindful of. He said that a certain percent of AFI needs to be housing. He said that to maintain building housing, we need to look at mixed use sites where a certain amount needs to be housing. He asked how small must these places be, and Ms. Lake-Brown replied that requiring mixed use is important, but she does not know where the number is. She said that an acre might be too small.

Councilor Carlone stated that we know height is an issue. He said that over six stories, the height goes up dramatically, and that Cambridge is a relatively low-rise city. He said that he advocates going up to sixty feet and maximizing the development in that scenario. He said that his tie-in point is that he believes that, for a number of reasons, the option of building larger units in the lower sections of a building are important because more families want larger space, and they generally like to be nearer to the ground level. He said that he thinks this is an interesting question, and there will be interesting points of view.

Vice Mayor McGovern said that he thinks it is an interesting point and ties it to what Ms. Shachter said earlier. He said that he talks to people four or five times a week looking for units, and if he said to them that they could wait a year for a 10th floor unit, or they could take a 5th floor unit tomorrow, they’d likely take the 5th floor. He said he agreed with one of the people who gave public comment stating the concern that this could be a slippery slope, and that we do not want “poor doors” and so forth. On the other hand, he mused that if we maybe suggested that the top four or five floors might be excluded from housing Inclusionary units, do we have a sense of how many additional units that might generate? Ms. Lake-Brown replied that we do not have a general sense of that, and that it would be based upon the specific project. In terms of encouraging larger sized units, without requiring them, would build in some flexibility. She said that you trade off the number of units, possibly, for the prospect of larger units that could support larger families. This could, however, add cost to developers.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that sometimes people accuse him of being too nice to developers, but he said that he knows exactly who he’s dealing with. He said that if he tells them to make less money and simply “do good” for the community, that is unlikely to fly. He said that if building commercial buildings makes developers more money, or not building in Cambridge and going elsewhere makes them money, then that is what they are most likely to do. He said that he wants to get them to point where they scream but don't run away. Ms. Lake-Brown responded by stating that sometimes incentives can work, but that the Vice Mayor is correct that there are no guarantees. Vice Mayor McGovern said that raising the percentage as high as we can get it, and creating more three bedroom units, is his highest priority. He said that when he speaks with someone with kids that needs a three or four bedroom unit, he is frustrated because they are forced to leave the city and look elsewhere. He said the he wants this to be a much more predictable number for us to get, and not leave it to the developers. Lastly, he said that he would like to have a better idea of the many other requirements we put on developers. He asked if the study looked at these other requirements and whether there are other things the City might consider loosening up on to help the financial picture?

Ms. Lake-Brown stated that DRA didn’t analyze those additional costs and requirements in this study, but they have done so elsewhere. She said that density and parking requirements and restrictions are two of the biggest factors for developers. She said that DRA looked at whether allowing for slightly lower quality finishes in Inclusionary units might make these projects more enticing to developers, but the determination has been that these smaller items are at the margins of the cost process. She said that predictability is one of the most valuable things to a developer.

Councilor Mazen thanked his colleagues and said that he agreed with the Vice Mayor on pragmatism versus equity. He said the question is “what do we do to get more units, and how many units would that yield?” He said that we need a benchmark, we need to look at the average price of the top four floors, and we need to have a better sense of what the levels are. He said that once we open that discussion, we're opening the slippery slope, and that we need to be very exact in this. He said that he would push back on the “make the developers scream but not run away” concept; he said that we are in a place where developers might appear to hold all the cards, because they can always just walk away from the table, but the City actually holds the cards because there is an almost infinite demand to build here, not just for the developers in front of us, but those who may yet come before us. He said that we should push them to the extreme, we need to find out where the line is.

Councilor Carlone said that developers want what every business person wants, which is the element of fairness and predictability. He said that when you talk about guidelines and don't show a developer guidelines, it's meaningless. He said we try to get more units in the larger projects, and have succeeded recently, but he thinks urban design guidelines are needed. He said that what he has learned is that developers love knowing rules. He said that they will fight on some things, but just knowing the rules is very helpful. He said that we’ve heard people say that they want 25 percent or 50 percent affordable units, because the city has grown so expensive. He said that even his own kids cannot afford to live in Cambridge. He said that the City needs to approach this issue from a number of different perspectives, not just this one, to make a true difference. He said that as thrilled as he is with these recommendations, we still have got a ways to go. He noted that people may say that Cambridge does more than everywhere else, but the situation here is crazier than almost everywhere else. He stated that we had a developer saying he'd go up to 20 percent affordable if he’d be allowed to double the height of his building, and now that seems ridiculous.

Vice Mayor McGovern said that perhaps it is a question for the CDD, but some of the things being discussed are vouchers, and the ways people with Section 8 vouchers can possibly stay in the community. He said that we have this great report, and there is so much to think about, but he wonders if there are ways to think beyond items like vouchers, property tax, and are there other methods the CDD could recommend to increase this percentage? He said that this program is a good one, but by itself, it won’t do as much as we want it to do.

Bob Reardon stated that the City is always looking at different things we can do, but it is difficult because all our power to tax comes from the State government, and we do not have the authority to do a lot of changes at the local level. The Commonwealth is reluctant to allow the city to do Home Rule petitions that would change that formula. The City could look into this, but it would be difficult.

Councilor Carlone asked if the City could collect the taxes and then set up a program that we would then put back into a unit to help subsidize the cost. He said he understands that the Commonwealth limits the City in many ways, but he questioned if there isn’t a way to make this work. Mr. Reardon replied that it would be difficult, and there may be other ways worth looking into.

Ms. Farooq said that the City has the ability to purchase additional units in a building and put a covenant ourselves to make it affordable. The question would be: could the City ensure that it purchases these units at a reasonable price? She said that the City often finds out that some of the units being looked at for purchase are being offered at a very steep price. She said that pursuing this strategy at this moment is difficult, but at a different time this may be more feasible. She said that the City has flexibility to do that over and above the Inclusionary program. She said that, in terms of vouchers, the Inclusionary Program is set up in such a way that it can serve those with vouchers already, and it serves a significant portion of voucher holders.

Chris Cotter stated that according to the CDD’s most recent analysis, the voucher utilization over the past six to eight months shows a great demand. He said that there are many voucher holders who are very challenged in finding places in the current market. He said that about 60 percent of current lease-ups in Inclusionary units are by voucher holders. He said that this has been surprising to the CDD, and in looking at that data, the City has been talking with the CHA to find out who these voucher holders are because we would like to have a better idea. He said that the CDD will continue these discussions, and that they are doing their best to make resources available to voucher holders.

Mayor Simmons said that the use of vouchers in the program is significant. She said that she is always seeking ways to better work with the CHA when they issue mobile vouchers, so that these people can find their way into the Inclusionary program. She relayed a story about a woman who would have met the program’s eligibility requirements and who had a voucher, but she was forced to leave the community and once someone leaves, they lose their local preference and they lose that standing. She said that the City needs to review its eligibility requirements. She said that Ms. Shachter spoke to it during her public testimony – how might we help people stay here? Because if people leave, they go to the bottom of the list and never make it off.

Vice Mayor McGovern said that this conversation goes back to who gets priority and are we doing any preventative things? He said that you could have a family facing eviction, we know they're going to be homeless in a week, and they get no preference. Under the current system, this family actually has to go to a shelter and that maybe is off topic for this study, but it is something to think about. He said that the City should also look more closely at purchasing units as something that is necessary. He said that we know land is at a premium, we know the City is often unable to pivot and act as quickly as a private developer can, and by the time the City tries to act, someone has already swooped in. He said one of the few ways we get more units is to pay for them in these buildings. He said that, to Councilor Mazen’s point, the City knows that it is in a good position right now, but that may not always be the case. He said that in the future, no city councilor will want to roll back the amount that the percentage gets raised to now, that this will be the new floor going forward. He said that the City needs to be careful in how they proceed. He said that we cannot compare Cambridge to Boston and other communities, because those are very different communities with different financial scenarios.

Mayor Simmons stated that she is interested in one of the questions that was posed to the consultant, which is that she wondered if the consultant’s recommendations might be changed due to the fact that Boston and Somerville have recently adopted new standards. Ms. Lake-Brown stated that Boston has a threshold of 10 units or more, and 13 percent of the units must be affordable. She said that offsite development is also allowed. She said that Boston allows developers to rezone, but she cautioned that Boston is a city that has much more variation across the markets, and across the city, than does Cambridge. She said that a zoned approach would not make sense in Cambridge. She said that in Somerville, the on-site requirement is 17.5 units that must be affordable, and that they have a tiered system. She said that it is difficult to compare Somerville to Cambridge.

Mayor Simmons said that it would be interesting for us to study, but she returned her attention to the idea of whether it’s possible to get more units if they were placed lower in the building. She said that some buildings have fewer amenities, like common rooms or pools, and if there were fewer required amenities of that nature, would that reduce construction costs and therefore provide more flexibility? Ms. Lake-Brown stated that she wasn’t sure that would be the case. She advised that many amenities increase the marketability of the building, and therefore they increase the rent that can be charged. If the overall rents are lower, the building is less profitable, which makes it less likely for developers to agree to include more affordable units in the project.

Councilor Mazen asked the City staff present whether there has been any consideration of a property tax abatement, and could people perhaps get a tax exempt status for a number of years if they were to agree to a certain level of affordability? Mr. Reardon responded that this would be difficult to implement, due to State regulations. He said that it would need to be a State program. He said one thing to keep in mind is that the residential exemption program currently in place is great for homeowners, who are saving on taxes. He said this is skewed to benefit those with lower value properties.

Councilor Mazen stated that he was thinking in terms of larger apartment complexes. He asked whether there might be any reason this hasn’t been considered before.

Mayor Simmons said that she could not speak directly to that question, but she knows that it is easy to convince the majority of one’s colleagues on the City Council to support a position, but it is very difficult to convince a majority of the State Legislature to support a position. She said that she often hears rhetorical questions like, “If we let this one community do this, then what does this imply for other communities?” She said that Cambridge is like an outlier, in many ways, and if there wasn’t such a “what if?” concern attached to the City’s actions, they might have an easier time at the State level. She said that there are a couple of items the City is working to get achieved at the State level, and that this is the kind of pushback that is encountered.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that this gets into the whole regional conversation where we know that there are some municipalities that don’t necessarily want to make it easier to build affordable housing, because they don’t want more affordable housing in their communities.

Mayor Simmons asked the consultant if there are communities where inclusionary provisions could be applied to buildings undergoing substantial rehabs. Ms. Lake-Brown stated that she is not aware of any such communities, but that doesn’t mean there are not any. Mayor Simmons stated that it would be interesting to know more. She said that we are aware of at least one major building that has undergone substantial rehabbing, and it would be good to know whether this is something the City could explore in the future, and to get out in front of potential opportunities.

Councilor Carlone returned to the idea that the City is considering buying units in addition to the required Inclusionary units, and he believes that Somerville does that in a small way. He asked whether there are other communities that engage in this practice. Ms. Lake-Brown stated that she does not know of other communities that do this specifically in conjunction with their Inclusionary program, but yes, there are other communities that purchase units to utilize as affordable.

Mayor Simmons asked if her colleagues had any further questions at this time. Hearing none, she reiterated that this will not be the last Housing Committee hearing on this report. She said that she is interested in getting more thoughts from people, and she asked that the City work to make the written responses to previously submitted questions available online. Vice Mayor McGovern suggested that the City establish a dedicated page on its website for documents and information pertaining to this conversation. Mayor Simmons advised that this needn’t be a formal motion, but that the request has duly been made of City staff. She thanked Ms. Lake-Brown for presenting at the meeting, and adjourned the meeting at 7:52pm.

For the Committee,
Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, Co-Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on June 22, 2016 beginning at 3:16pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a petition by Peter B. Kroon, et al, also known as Friends of MAPOCO, to expand the requirements of the North Massachusetts Avenue Subdistrict (Section 20.110) applicable generally within the portions of the Massachusetts Avenue Overlay District (MAOD) zoned Business A-2 (BA-2). In summary, Section 20.110 requires retail or active office use at the ground floor of any new building otherwise containing residential uses, with relief available under limited circumstances, and allows a total maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.75 and height of 50 feet for such mixed-use buildings.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Jeff Roberts, Zoning and Land Use Planner, Community Development Department; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor, Law Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Peter Kroon, the petitioner, 16 Linnaean Street; Erika Johnson, 1350 Mass. Avenue; Bill King, 25 Hurlbut Street; John Hayes, 3A Day Street; Ruth Ryals, 115 Upland Road; Dominick Jones, 6 Hurlbut Street; and Rosalind Michahelles, 6 Hurlbut Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated that he would relinquish the chair when Councillor Cheung arrives who will chair the meeting. He read the call of the meeting and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the meeting as: petitioners, City staff represented by Jeff Roberts and Vali Buland, public comment and comments from the City Council. At the conclusion the committee may make a recommendation as to the status of the petition.

Councillor Cheung assumed the Chair at 3:20pm.

Peter Kroon, 16 Linnaean Street, the petitioner explained the petition. He stated that 400 responses to a survey were received and he held two community meetings in the neighborhood. He stated that the petition submitted to the City Council was signed by twenty leading individuals from both sides of Massachusetts Avenue. He stated that there were three Planning Board hearings and the most recent held last night June 21, 2016 which re-approved the petition subject to Mr. Roberts drafting language containing modifications to the Apr 15th petition filed.

The proposal is to expand the Massachusetts Avenue sub-district to include the Business A-2 zone south of Porter Square. He stated that continuous ground floor non-residential retail and service outlets, new ground floor level spaces that are more attractive and functional, to widen the sidewalks by five feet without exemption since the buildings cannot be moved and to prevent stilt buildings and ground level parking that is visible from the street is what is being requested. The sub-district was created in 2012, omitting the other side of Massachusetts petition was refiled with refinements due to expiration of the time limit in April. The Planning Board suggested further refinements on June 21, 2016.

Mr. Kroon summarized the changes in the petition as outlined in (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Kelley stated that the fundamental question is how this will impact future housing developments. He wanted this answered. Mr. Kroon stated that development is welcomed. The petition is not intended to block development but is trying to shape the development so that it is more fitting for the neighborhood. The FAR is raised to l.75. He stated that the tradeoffs are the retail, and that affordable housing is a city wide percentage and bonuses are calculated separately and does not impinge upon this.

Councillor Carlone explained that this petition was filed because the owner of the property wanted to build apartments and have parking on the entire ground floor. He stated that the retail may only be forty feet deep on the ground floor to allow the maximum amount of parking at that grade level. He noted that the parking at grade is less expensive than below grade, and that the parking should be below grade. Instead of building retail, two additional housing units could be built. He stated that this mixed-use district makes Massachusetts Avenue unique. He added that housing units are not wanted at grade level on Massachusetts Avenue. The older residential buildings on this street, although not designed for retail on the first floor, have become a retail district over time.

Mr. Roberts discussed the Planning Board hearing held on June 21, 2016. The Planning Board concluded with a positive recommendation into which suggested changes are to be incorporated. He acknowledged that the petitioner did a good job describing the changes. This detail will be written into the Planning Board report that will be sent to the City Council. The Planning Board viewed this as an interim measure and modest changes were made. This does not change the amount of development or any of the significant base zoning requirements but does change the dimension requirement to create mixed use buildings with retail at the ground floor. He stated that the appropriate amount and scale of housing on Massachusetts Avenue questions were best left to the Envision Cambridge city-wide planning process. This proposed petition would ensure that if there are projects in the intervening time it will keep the projects in character of the neighborhood. A summary of the current and proposed requirements and the Planning Board's recommendation on the prior petition was distributed (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Kelley noted that the area of Massachusetts Avenue at the gas station was clunky, and that he is having trouble visualizing what is being requested. He noted that the last time this zoning was changed it went with a pre-existing zoning requirement, and now this area is being changed again.

Councillor Carlone stated that the difference in North Cambridge versus this petition is that the North Cambridge Overlay district ended in 1-2 family houses with lower density and non-retail. Furthermore it was sequel because one side of the street went up two blocks further than the other side. He stated that the difference in this district is that this is Massachusetts Avenue between Porter Square and the Cambridge Common and Massachusetts Avenue abuts this and allows extensive retail. He added that at the other end it abuts a high density residential C-2A use. This abuts in a straight line and retail is across from retail. This is offset in the northern end of North Cambridge and does not have the density and the retail is not as viable. This is different: on the southern part of Porter Square is a jog[RY5] at a free standing former house which may become affordable housing with high density without ground floor retail. The key is the density of housing and having a T station at both ends makes a difference for its retail viability. This will not have the refining of zoning as there is at Richard Avenue.

Councillor Devereux stated she loves the retail of Massachusetts Avenue; it is unique and vibrant. She appreciates wanting to preserve this and looking to zoning to do this. This would not come up for discussion if it were not for a developer creating a stilt building which is all about parking. She stated that the opposition to this petition is because of our parking and housing policies on Massachusetts Avenue between two Redline T stations. The Envision process is about gathering information from residents. This would be an ideal section that could support more housing and retail with less parking. This interim measure will result in a pause in development in this area because of the Envision process which may be different. She has concerns about a stop gap measure when there is a longer plan in the works. The big issues of parking and transportation are not being discussed. The bay windows were discussed at the Planning Board.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that it is discussed that the City needs broader planning, as planning is discussed lot by lot. He asked if housing would be prohibited above the retail by the petition. Are there unintended consequences that would be problematic to building residential housing along this area?

Mr. Kroon stated that the Changsho parking lot has an approved plan with twenty-one parking spaces underground, two 16 foot ground floor retail and apartments units behind and above. This is well-supported by the neighborhood. The Lesley dormitory development has fourteen parking spaces behind sixty-one dormitory rooms. He stated that at the corner of Upland Road is being developed and will have forty-two underground parking spaces, twenty-seven apartment units (including fifteen for Lesley), and will have ground floor retail. He stated that the two parking lots that face the Sears Building will be developed with ground floor retail. He stated that the Bob Slate building has underground parking one for one ground floor retail and above grade housing unit. He stated that this is viable.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked about a structure that is existing and building above and adding parking underneath. He stated that the information provided by Mr. Kroon was for empty lots. He is specifically asking about building on top of existing structures.

Councillor Carlone stated that this has been explored at the Mexican restaurant block and the conclusion is that the height of building, structure, and parking that most of the one-story structures will be coming down in the future. It would make sense to keep one story buildings and keep the uses and if build on top the ground floor uses will be moved during the construction. It is feared that this retail will be lost. The developer raised the neighborhood to mandate that retail be kept. However, what type of retail will return is unknown.

Councillor Cheung stated that on the North section of Mass. Avenue there is a limit on bank frontage, and asks if this limit is part of this petition. Mr. Roberts stated that the same language provision is being carried south of Porter Square. Councilor Cheung wanted to strengthen the language to curtail the limit on banks and cell phone stores.

Councillor Devereux stated that projects that have successfully integrated mixed use with parking are dealing with a lower inclusionary percentage which will change the economics to make it less feasible to develop housing. Problematic lots, means less units, increase the inclusionary percentage and require underground parking could have unintended consequences because it may be more expensive to build. She supported this petition.

Vice Mayor McGovern wanted the retail on the ground floor. He spoke about the restrictions and requirements make it impossible to have anything built on the site because of the cost increase. The only way we can get more housing is to down zone. He wanted to see housing production in this area.

Mr. Roberts commented on the underlying thinking of the Planning Board on this topic. This particular area and this particular petition there are certain big pieces in the zoning having to do with the number of units allowed on a lot, the density, height and parking requirements and are established in the base zoning. He explained that the Massachusetts Avenue Overlay deals more with the form of the development. He stated that it is a concern about how requirements can add up. This was also a concern with North Massachusetts Avenue was discussed years ago. This zoning introduces new requirements such as ground floor retail and the forty foot frontage setback, it allows additional height, flexibility on the front setback plain, bulk control plain requirements to make the four story mixed use development more feasible. He further stated that if there are sites in the portion of Massachusetts Avenue that are being reviewed for redevelopment under the current zoning, this zoning proposal will not render these completely unfeasible. The questions are more based in the base zoning requirements. The Planning Board felt that this discussion should be held within a larger context and not in this particular discussion.

Councillor Cheung opened the hearing to public comment at 4:06pm.

William King, 25 Hurlbut Street, stated that in the neighborhood on both sides of Mass. Avenue most of the existing houses are around 130 years old. The advantage of the mature neighborhood is the commercial sector of Massachusetts Avenue. He worries about the retail. He questioned whether the retail could be replicated in a new development. The Planning Board took this under consideration. He spoke about the character of the neighborhood. The conversation by the City Council has focused on the future of the City and housing needs. He asked that the city please not ignore the needs of what and who is already there.

Rosalind Michahelles, 6 Hurlbut Street, stated that the idea that less parking will be needed is naive. She walks daily but needs her car. If people in Cambridge can afford a car they want a car.

Ruth Ryals 115 Upland Road, spoke about the ability to build extra housing. She stated the single story buildings will go and what will be allowed with be retail and four story housing above. They will maintain the overall look and height of the area. An inclusionary provision may increase the cost of housing. Why anyone would want to preserve the Rite Aid building, she asked.

Vice Mayor McGovern moved to close public comment at 4:14pm.

Councillor Cheung stated that the City Council needs to get the report from the Planning Board on this petition. He stated that there is agreement that more retail is wanted for this area. He encouraged community oriented development. He did not want dead zones along Mass. Avenue. He stated that there is consensus but uncertainty about how to proceed in order to avoid any ancillary effects. He stated that there are questions on the implementation details.

Councillor Carlone stated that of all development sites in the City this stretch is prime. The developer of the building already approved across from Changsho, should they come back to go under the new proposed zoning. All the regulations add burdens and time but lowers the cost of the land as to what can be done. This will all come into balance. This does not preclude density, but adding density will also increase the cost. He stated that the Ordinance Committee is contemplating whether to give a recommendation, keep the matter in committee, or forward this to the City Council, pending the final detailed report of the Planning Board. Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Roberts for his recommendation.

Mr. Roberts stated that this is at the discretion of the Ordinance Committee and that the committee has kept subject matter in committee previously to process additional recommended changes. Councillor Carlone was informed that the petition expires on Sept 20, 2016. This could be reported to the full City Council and passed to a second reading in its current form.

It was explained that there is a requirement that the Planning Board be given twenty-one days to submit a report to the City Council. If the Planning Board report contained modified language the petition then could be passed to be ordained as amended to include the modified language. Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board report will contain the recommended changes to the petition.

Vice Mayor McGovern wanted to give the opportunity for the petitioners to be heard on the revisions submitted by the Planning Board. He wanted to preserve the petitioner’s rights to be heard on the modified language.

Councillor Cheung wanted to refer to the City Council and leave the subject matter in committee awaiting revisions from the Planning Board and the impact on building housing. He stated that another hearing could be held.

Councillor Carlone moved to refer to the full City Council and to leave the subject matter in committee. The issue of housing is a concern. No action was taken on this motion.

Mr. Roberts explained that if Rite Aid wanted to redevelop they wanted to preserve the right to have a Rite Aid in this site. Councillor Devereux stated that with a Special Permit Rite Aid could requalify for this site.

Councillor Devereux spoke about parking and the ability of parking and individually owned cars and there may be a different way that cars are parked in the future and there may be an excess of parking spaces.

Councillor Cheung commented that with the advent of self-driving cars there may soon be less of a dependence on cars and this would have an impact on parking.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the report as follows:

Communication from Sally Eaton Arnold expressing her opposition to the proposed modifications because it will have the effect of prohibiting new projects along the Mass. Avenue corridor (ATTACHMENT C).

Communication from Maurice F. Lesses, 18 Gray Street, stating that the second MAPOCO petition and the Planning Board's recommendation to the first petition, if adopted, would hurt efforts to provide needed affordable and market rate housing on Massachusetts Avenue (ATTACHMENT D).

Communication from Frank Kramer, 7 Avon Street, a petitioner and co-chair and secretary of Cambridge Local First, comprised of 400 locally owned independent businesses. He stated support for one of the goals of the petition is to strengthen the urban character of the Massachusetts Avenue corridor (ATTACHMENT E).

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:32pm on motion by Councillor Devereux.

For the Committee,
Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chair

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on June 28, 2016 beginning at 3:09pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the parameters for a potential zoning proposal that includes the Volpe Transportation System Center pursuant to Policy Order # 5 of Feb 22, 2016 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mazen; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department (CDD); Stuart Dash, Director, Community Planner, CDD; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Planner, CDD; Suzannah Bigolin, Urban Designer, CDD; Susanne Rasmussen, Director, Environmental and Transportation Division, CDD; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Michael Dennis, and Erik Thorkildsen, Michael Dennis & Associates (MDA), Urban Design Consultants; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Larry Stabile, 303 Third Street; Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; and Gerald O'Leary, 303 Third Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being privately recorded. An agenda was submitted by Community Development Department (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Carlone asked Ms. Farooq to introduce the City staff. Ms.. Farooq introduce the Urban Design Consultant Michael Dennis Associates (MDA). She stated that an urban design framework was being developed with the Volpe site. MDA will do this work and work with the Volpe Task Force. The response to the Policy Order # 5 was attached as (ATTACHMENT C).

It is a two-step process. The Task Force will be formulated from the Kendall Square business community and residents from Wellington-Harrington, the Port and East Cambridge. The City Council needs to create civic goals and a framework to guide developer plans through new zoning. She stated that Step 2 is on hold until the GSA has a development team and then the task force will work with the development team and will discuss community benefits with the City Council. This is a phased format due to GSA’s planned format. The GSA has put out the RFP, the RFI and RFQ and there is a short list. The City does know who is on the short list. The GSA is proceeding with a two-phase process. They are not asking for how the 14-acre site will be developed. They are asking for financial proposals. Two building designs have been requested from each development team. The developer will select the designer for the Volpe building and will not be selecting a developer for the remainder of the site. This is helpful for the City to develop the framework so that it can serve as a guide for the developer. Development team submissions are due in October with the developer selection by the end of the 2016. She stated that Mr. Robertson will next remind the committee of where we left off with the zoning.

Councillor Carlone asked how could the developer design the building without an overall development strategy that integrates the Volpe site with Kendall Square? Ms. Farooq stated that at the designer selection will be a conceptual design. She wanted the framework developed this summer to have it ready for the developer.

Mr. Roberts briefly outlined the work previously done on Volpe (ATTACHMENT D). He stated that the K2 study was done by CDD and Goody Clancy in 2011. This included Kendall Square and MIT. The Planning Board approved the master plan for MIT. Kendall Center will come before the Planning Board soon. The scale, mix of uses, transportation impact and measures to mitigate were discussed. In 2015 the Planning Board and staff developed a zoning proposal that was forwarded to City Council in May 2015. The Ordinance Committee held a hearing in June 2015. There were community meetings and Charrettes to get input from the community for the area. He stated that there are proposed 1000 units of housing with 200 affordable units, and ground floor retail space. There would be 3.5 acres of open space. The community process highlighted a need for at least one civic space in Kendall Square. Eighty-four thousand square space for innovation space with flexible lease arrangements. There are caps for parking and sustainable design. As a result of the proposed development, city policy would generate twenty million dollars would be given to the Affordable Housing Trust, open space and future transit in the area.

Mr. Michael Dennis, Urban Design Consultant, stated that he lived in Cambridge for many years and was married in the Sullivan Chamber. He has worked with Mr. Thorkildsen for 30 years, both are architect/urban designers with the same civic values.

Mr. Thorkildsen stated that he has reviewed previous studies and plans. The site is crucial to Cambridge and has the potential to transform Kendall Square and all the neighborhoods around it. He stated that they put together a list of priorities. Open space should be desirable, meaningful and walkable. The overall urban design plan should balance the interest of residents, developers and the GSA. The scheme should be part of a shared vision. The City can make something good on this site. He spoke about the MDA (Michael Dennis Associates) understanding of the site (ATTACHMENT E). He stated that this is what MDA understands what the main issues are.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 3:38pm.

Larry Stabile, 303 Third Street, stated that he is an abutter to Volpe. The last time he attended a hearing about this topic there was an economic analysis of the cost for building the Volpe building. He stated that a large project is undesirable to the abutters. He stated that an increase in density would have to be granted to achieve this. The GSA has not previously succeeded in any similar land swaps with developers. He does not see the need to rush this through.

Steven Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, spoke about the City Council priorities. He stated that the Square’s “green” open space is on Volpe’s land. He asked if the urban design would build a concept around the existing green spaces? The transportation aspect he stated that no one spoke in favor of this proposal by CDD. There was no public input. The Planning Board zoning proposal failed in the Council. The Planning Board kept editing the proposal and the last proposal had a transportation capacity. There is a need for a greater transit infrastructure. He suggested working with Volpe for their transportation skills as it relates to mass transit. He added that the CRA did a transit analysis. There was information on transit capacity. The challenge is to add a capacity person to the MDA team for public transit. He suggested getting rider information from MIT.

Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street, stated the GSA process is unsettling. She spoke about scale and uncertainty of the project. Mobility, density and open space are her concerns. Her statements are attached as (ATTACHMENT F).

Gerald O'Leary, 303 Third Street, ECPT member, addressed parameters for having an intelligent design. He spoke about Gross Floor Area on the non-Federal site and the open space on this parcel. His concern was allowing FAR on the Federal site be allowed to transfer to the nonfederal site. If this were not allowed, it would limit the developer on the amount of land claimed by DOT. The second parameter is the amount of open space on the non-Federal land; this is under the control of the zoning and should be independent land. He suggested that the zoning specify two open space categories. The first would be open space reserved as a signature park.

The second category is the open space on the developed portion of the parcel. Roads, walkways, etc. and the remainder of open space should be part of the design process. His comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT G).

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, spoke about the importance of transportation, which was entered at the end of the list of importance. This is the key research center for transportation, can we not get people from Volpe to address the transportation issues, he asked. Cambridge has a transportation mess. MIT is adding five new buildings. The CRA is planning to change the MXD district. This needs to be thought about holistically. He stated that regarding the open space, there are people unhappy about 3.5 acres. The discussion should be about open space and clarity and reasonableness. He spoke about 20% housing - we need to get to 50% affordable or 1/3-1/3-1/3. The Volpe opportunity should be for the entire community. He stated that the outline tonight could be a model for the Kiosk in Harvard Square, including an economic analysis and the importance of whether this happens or not. It is important for Volpe to be in Kendall Square. It is an important goal but should not trump everything. He wanted the latest information from the GSA.

Councillor Carlone noted that this is a citywide opportunity and should be a citywide place.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 4:02pm.

Councillor Kelley stated that until the Federal requirements are known it is unclear what can be done for the non-Federal site. He stated that the land swap is not a new idea.

Councillor Mazen stated that the Community Development wrap-up is the understanding of where the City Council is at. Ms. Farooq stated that the conceptual sense of the City Council and we are hoping to get to greater specifics. One theme is to maximize public benefits from the site such as affordable housing, open space, retail, connections to the site, and sustainability. There is no prioritization that has been heard from the City Council and what are the most important components to the City Council. She stated that she wanted guidance from the City Council on the priorities as a whole. The second theme is the frustration with the process. The process is not typical and difficult with what can be achieved from this site. The risk of not engaging could be detrimental to the City. Community Development Department has tried to grapple with the problem as much as possible. The specifics will not be laid out until there is a developer.

The co-chairs of the Ordinance Committee are responsible to come up with a document. Urban design and planning seeks to balance all needs. Having a 3.5 acre park with affordable housing and retail is a given.

Councillor Mazen wanted to do his best to prioritize. His personal priorities are different. Given issues should be at the bottom of the priorities because they are a given. He wanted to engage in conversation as a City Council for a placeholder.

Councillor Carlone asked about the Volpe task force status and the schedule to select the group and when will the task force be up and running. Ms. Farooq stated that the goal is to identify a group in 2-3 weeks and have the task force thereafter. The GSA needs nothing from City; but it would be good to have a draft to give to the GSA. She wanted to meet on an aggressive schedule. She wanted a group of people for the task force. There are business people who want to serve. She wanted to carve out the bidders. Councillor Carlone asked if there is a firm scope of work for MDA. Ms. Farooq stated that two urban designers have been hired to be on call.

The scope is being formulated for MDA. She wanted a better sense of guidance from the City Council. She spoke about staffing the working group. She will come back to City Council in the fall. Councillor Carlone commented that the GSA/Volpe could legally cut down their open space trees in 20 years time. It really is not a permanent park. Ms. Farooq responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing to the comments by the City Council.

Councillor Mazen stated his priorities as:
Innovation space - flexible space should not be for wealthy companies but for start-ups; continue subsidy for retail and innovation space;
Federal land may not be restricted; this is problematic;
Landmark tower;
Listing the CAP for building;
Retail diversity, vibrancy and protecting local businesses; subsidy means testing
Research labs - issues of lighting, up lighting properly, architectural feature;
Mechanical noise;
Next to MXD - how does it all fit together;
Engage MBTA early, regional transportation;
Community and economic development impact;
Community engagement;
Net Zero and affordable housing;
Vibrancy connectivity
Open space

Ms. Farooq stated that the Kendal Square plan was to have a square foot fee for open space, transit and workforce training these are a zoning connection and are high priorities.

Councillor Mazen wanted to collect fee and measure lifetime value. He wanted a sustainable community impact and earmark funds for each of the three items that Ms. Farooq noted above. He stated that workforce development is non-existent in this region.

Councillor Devereux stated that the $10 square foot fee and workforce development are separate. She noted that $30 million one-time fee is not much for the large site. She spoke about community and citywide benefits; this area does have a deficit. There needs to be a reason to go to Kendall Square. There is one type of housing and not a lot of reason to go to Kendall Square.

She explained the right kind of civic space, park and/or inside space would draw a large amount of people to Kendall Square. She stated that the reason should not be that there is the tallest building. She stated Cambridge does not have a great in-door recreation space.

Councillor Cheung stated he and Councillor Carlone are working to drive this proposal to consensus. His goal is to get through the process where the City Council agrees on general principals. He asked who is responding to the RFP for Volpe. This is important for the City Council to know to frame parameters. He stated that Volpe is a national leader for transportation and technology. He wanted to build on the economic diversity from Volpe for the entire city.

He spoke about the cost and affordability of drugs. This may have an effect on pharmaceutical companies. He suggested getting other transportation companies into Kendall Square. Regarding housing, he stated that he is not interested in middle-income housing; he wanted the focus on low income. He asked for a financial development analysis. He stated that BRA has a staff person doing pro forma work; Cambridge needs this professional also. He stated that he wanted the ordinance process to be an information-gathering forum. He emphasized entrepreneur space, green space, connectiveness, locally owned independent retail, the MBTA and Net Zero. He will push back on the height. He does not think it is realistic that there will be a 1,000 feet building. He stated that more housing and open space would be achieved if the allowed height were higher. He would rather start with the 1,000 height and back out rather than start with less height and work up. This will require significant engagement with the City Council and the staff. This is important to the neighborhood for the growth of Kendall Square.

Councillor Kelley stated that we do not know what the Feds need to build their building so what is being done by the City Council is hypothetical. Drawing lines without the numbers is unrealistic.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Federal government has the highest expectations for their new building and value of their property. The dialogue has worked for GSA, but not for the city at this point. He spoke about the need for quality place making and humanistic architecture. Although Cambridge is unique, most new construction in our city has little to nothing to do with Cambridge’s culture. Quality urban design can mitigate density. Open space and allowed square footage for non-federal land can work with quality urban design and architecture, but without it, the project could be a disaster.

Carlone added that although it is difficult to relocate large trees (preservation of trees might be 50%) that should be investigated. The greater open space should be facing Binney Street. It is a citywide site and a place to be. An open space system should form the spine for new development. New housing should frame the main open space and integrate 303 Third Street. Local retail is needed. He stated that a local retail ordinance will be proposed. There are connections north and south on the site. He spoke about the park and that the residential edge should be around the park. Research and development building should not face the park but orient toward Broadway. Development and building images tell a story and many built recently create an isolated, unwelcoming sensation. It is all about people and what brings people to Kendall Square. He suggested an active water structure in the open space. He was pleased with the urban design team.

Councillor Mazen stated that the civic space is important. A true landmark is about creating a great space; not a tall building. He stated that there are examples of buildings that did not create meaningful places. He stated that he is not precluding creativity with the list of priorities. We need to get more concrete so that all will agree with the magic and the right thing.

Councillor Cheung stated that the City Council asked the working group to have discussion and to come back to the City Council. He wanted a list that the Ordinance Committee is working on so that the public can give feedback. This is being kept in committee to flesh out the different areas. He wanted a list ongoing to gain clarity and pass back to the City Council that is more specific. He wanted it to be as detailed as possible to pass back to the City Council.

Councillor Carlone stated that the City Council and the public will understand the eventual zoning more clearly with an accurate visual portrayal and then can better discuss the potential development’s implications.

Councillor Kelley stated that all want something and each has a cost. Some of the wants will kill the project. The discussions are taking us places where no one has given the City Council information on.

Councillor Devereux stated that she is confused about the working group, its function and City Council and staff. Councillor Carlone stated that the City Council has input and must approve the process. Ms. Farooq stated that the working group is charged to dive more deeply into the topics and working with CDD staff and MDA. This will support and enrich the discussion with the City Council. This process is unusual. Some items are being developed in tandem in this process. She spoke about the financial piece. It is hard to hang our hat on this because the only information that was known, which is minimum, can be sent to the consultant. Volpe is looking for the same size building and the cost for the project. It is unsure what amount of space that the GSA wants for retail. There is flexibility on the amount of open space that GSA wants. Some of the demands from the GSA are being changed because of the recognition of reality. Fully understanding the financial aspect cannot be done until the developer is selected. Ms. Farooq is hesitant to speak in an open meeting about the private short list.

Councillor Cheung wanted the short list developers to reach out to the co-chairs of the Ordinance Committee. Councillor Carlone asked if the consultants and CDD will meet with the short list.

Ms. Farooq stated that they are unknown at this time. Only Boston Property, Alexandria and Skansa have reached out to CDD. Councillor Cheung stated that he wanted a more public process.

Councillor Kelley stated that discussing specific things we are losing the time. He stated that CDD and the consultants need to prune the discussions to make them fruitful.

Ms. Farooq stated that Cambridge is not tied to a timeline. GSA will make their selection and the developer can work with the City Council for the zoning.

Michael Dennis stated that for full disclosure he taught at MIT and retired in 2015. He noted that he is interested in establishing a Center for a Carbon City.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:19pm on a motion by Councillor Carlone.

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

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on June 29, 2016 beginning at 3:19pm in the Ballroom at the Senior Center, 806 Massachusetts Avenue. (To allow equal access for all to the hearing the location was changed to the Senior Center because the elevator was inoperable).

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss an amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.28 entitled “Restrictions on Youth Access to Tobacco Products and on Smoking in Workplaces and Public Places by amending Section 8.28.050 entitled “Definitions for Prohibition of Smoking in Workplaces” to expand the definition of “Workplace” to include construction sites. The attached Policy Order # 4 from Jan 11, 2016 was referred to the Ordinance Committee (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Mazen; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Claude-Alix Jacob, Chief Public Health Officer, Cambridge Health Alliance; Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, Department of Public Health; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner of Inspectional Services; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Stephen Helfer, Crawford Street; Vito Janares, Merrill Street; David Ajemian, 1716 Cambridge Street; Paul Neff, 18 Ware Street; Reverend Philip Mitza, 5 Auburn Street, Somerville.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing is not being audio or video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing. He stated that the petitioner was called out of town. This matter will remain in committee until the petitioner can be heard. He stated that written comment maybe submitted for the report.

Will Durbin, Aide for Councillor Kelley, presented the proposal. A PowerPoint Presentation was submitted (ATTACHMENT B).

Will Durbin stated that this is an amendment to the Municipal Code in section 8.28.050 to expand the definition of workplace to include non-enclosed areas. He outlined the impact. He stated that workplace ban reduces the average daily consumption of smoking by 10 %. He outlined the relationship with smoking and peer cue triggers. Second hand smoke affects both worker and passerby. He stated that there currently does not exist the same protection for blue collar workers as there is for white collar workers. Cigarettes also cause construction fires. The improper disposal of cigarette materials caused an estimated 90,000 fires, resulting in 540 civilian deaths and $621 million in property damage. He read the proposed wording of workplace that the amendment to the Municipal Code would change.

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing for input from City staff.

Sam Lipson, offered observations on the proposal. He explained that much work was done to amend the tobacco ordinance to strengthen the provisions. The definition was carefully defined. Open areas were not included. He wanted more work on this definition; it is not clear what is included. Boston considers the sidewalk included. Boston considers patio areas as a workplace. He was concerned with the lack of clarity and enforcement. He noted that Boston has five full time employees enforcing the violations. Cambridge has less than a full time employee doing enforcement. Cambridge is part of the six city partnership and enforcement is done for six communities. He spoke about the resources. He stated that there is a Community Health Improvement Plan that the Health Department is working on and tobacco is included. He wanted to see a good plan.

Councillor Devereux stated that she would support the proposal. Second hand smoke is recognized for parks. She questioned the wording in the definition “under the control of their employers” what about sub-contractors working under a contractor working outside how this would be included. How will this apply to Public Work employees working outside and smoking, and how are E-cigarettes included.

Mr. Lipson stated that regulating smoking in parks in certain circumstances could create the same situation outside as indoor environments. Small parks are surrounded by residents who have no control over what happens in the park. He questioned if a residential construction site is subject to this change. Boston makes no distinction between cigarettes or E-cigarettes. Cambridge has a difference between E-cigarettes and tobacco. He commented that expanding distinction would be good. He explained that the City is subject to same provision as any private employer but it comes back to the definition. Boston enforces if there is an adjacent trailer to the worksite.

Mr. Jacob clarified the effective date was June 1, 2015. He noted that a lot of work was done to amend the 2003 ordinance. This gives an opportunity to revisit any proposed changes.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 3:43pm.

Stephen Helfer commented that Councillor Kelley may have had the best intentions with this amendment but it is affecting the divine rights of adults. He stated that the scientific results caused by second hand smoke outside effects are controversial. He suggested leaving well enough alone. He stated that the Cambridge Fire Department makes 30,000 responses of which 35 have little to do with fire. He noted that there are few responses to construction sites because the city works with the construction companies beforehand to ensure that there is protection against fire. There is no need for this. The order states that smoking was the third leading cause of construction site fires. In 1998 fire safe cigarettes began and cigarettes go out before it ignites. He stated that the fire departments give a cause of fires and is intended to give a cause when there is none. Aired on the side of liberty he suggested and not make things complicated and do not establish a law where it is not needed. Smoking helps keep workers awake, calms nerves and keeps people alert. His comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT C).

Paul Neff stated that he has attended smoking ban hearings since 2002. The bans are never submitted by those who they affect. The bans are becoming less popular and people do not like bans. He stated that those who smoke are nicer than non-smokers.

David Ajemian, 1716 Cambridge Street, spoke on a philosophical level regarding smoking. This is bullying smokers’ rights and is a form of political correctness. This can wipe out the rights of smokers. Smoking is calming and is a form of alertness. There is a controversy about the scientific evidence about the harm; the science is not settled. This is an adult right; this is not about children. The elite population in America want to eliminate smoking altogether. This needs to be addressed and there is a population that thinks differently.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 3:56pm.

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing to comments by the City Council.

Councillor Carlone noted the health portrayal by Health Department on smoking issues. He stated that City officials look to the Health Department for their expertise on all health related issues. The Health Department’s solution is to take into consideration both sides of the issue. We are not going to vote on this this today. This discussion will continue. The Health Department will do more research on this.

Councillor Devereux stated that she is married to a smoker and she does not deny his right. She wanted to ask Councillor Kelley the overarching goal of this amendment. She is sensitive to the fire safety which could be accomplished with education and cooperation with the Fire Department. She noted that if marijuana is legalize it could be smoked anywhere. Mr. Lipson spoke about due process. He spoke about minimum pricing for cigars and has been passed by many other communities. Multi packs of cigars are not taxed as single packages are. He stated that marijuana smoking is not part of the tobacco ordinance. If the definition were expanded to include marijuana there are conflicts with the current ordinance.

Councillor Mazen stated that he respects the rights of smoking advocates, but he disagrees. Secondhand smoke, as a scientific issue, is still an issue and causes non-threatened health issues. There is research that smoking is related to breast cancer. Mr. Lipson stated that smoking in indoor environments is not controversial. Councillor Mazen commented that this is about inhaling and expelling poison. He stated that cigarettes would not be allowed to be on the shelf today if they were introduced today. He does not think that cigarettes are a fair product. Tobacco is a stimulant, but it causes an arrhythmia. He would not trade alertness for other health issues. It has decreased by 5% yearly and in 50 years there will be no cigarette smokers. This is a culture in its last epoch. FDA would never approve cigarettes today. You cannot market something that hurts people. He apologized for the impoliteness of non-smokers.

Councillor Carlone stated that he worked in construction beginning at the age of sixteen. He stated that he is allergic to smoke. City officials look to the health professional for advice and try to make intelligent decisions. He stated that intelligent comments are listened to and he wants to be fair.

At this time Councillor Carlone moved that the matter remain in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote of three members.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:11pm.

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

Committee Report #5
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on June 23, 2016 beginning at 5:38pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the formation of a special working group that will be tasked with developing a framework for the continued stewardship, curatorship and oversight of the Out of Town News Kiosk in Harvard Square.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Craig Kelley; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager; Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning; Ellen Kokinda, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department; Kathy Watkins, Senior Engineer, Department of Public Works; Charles Sullivan, Executive Director, Cambridge Historical Commission; Jason Weeks, Executive Director, Cambridge Arts Council; Robin Culbertson, Executive Director, Cambridge Office For Tourism; Muna Kangsen, Mayor’s Office; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Eric Howeler; Sophia Blanco Santos; Denise Jillson, Executive Director, Harvard Square Business Association (HSBA); Ben Friedman; Carl Rothenhaus; S.A. Abakwue; Ken Taylor; Jane Hirschi; Paul Overgaag; James Williamson; Jim Wooster; Alexandra Offiong; Marilee Meyer; Kari Kuelzer; Scott Geiger; Dan Andrew; Will Eifler; Laura Donohue; Mary-Catherine Deibel; Scott Aquilinan; Ruth Ryals; Priscilla McMillan; Steve Stepak; Ted Galante; Caroline James; Sarah Kantrowitz; Pebble Gifford; Saul Tannenbaum; Don Blair; Becky Michelson; Michael Brandon; Robert Smith; Mark Mulligan; Dan Fraine; Cameron Wu; and Emily Grandstaff-Rice.

Councillor Mazen stated that last year there was meeting about public performances. He stated that some consider Harvard Square as a great space but noted that it used to be a world capital for the arts, busking and many other cultural distinctions. He stated that Harvard Square has not achieved the primacy across cultural, tourist and other potential achievements that would make it world-class on par with Boston or New York in the global view. He gave an overview of the agenda (ATTACHMENT A) and explained that there will be an opportunity for public comment at the beginning of the hearing as well as at the end of the hearing.

Carl Rothenhaus, 75 Lawn Street, suggested a water feature such as the one at the Rose Kennedy Greenway. He stated that one downside is that it would not be a year-round feature but added that there is a plethora of different opportunities in which this could be utilized. He suggested that during the month of December, a Christmas tree could be placed in the space, similar to Rockefeller Center.

Jane Hirschi, Director of City Sprouts, stated that she is on the Harvard Square Board of Directors. She stated that she is also resident of 39 Rindge Avenue. She stated that City Sprouts is broadly an advocate for children’s’ well-being and an advocate for children being engaged in their community. She stated that she sees a community center in the heart of Harvard Square. She noted that the heart of Harvard Square is important and is a spot that is iconic. She said that this space would reflect the square and how it is used changes the nature of how people see the square. She stated that this square could be a welcomed balance to the commerce of the square. She noted that while she is a full participant in commerce, she also really loves to think about Harvard Square as a place that would provide a respite and a source of information that is welcoming to families.

Paul Overgaag, 10 Elliot Street, stated that he has been a member of HSBA for 20 years. He noted that over the last ten years, the HSBA has made a substantial difference in Harvard Square. He said that because they take ownership and pride in what they do, the HSBA would be a great candidate to run events in Harvard Square. He stated that the HSBA is capable to run the Out of Town News Kiosk. He said that the businesses are willing to make this kiosk a beautiful icon. He said that the HSBA should be given serious consideration to hold stewardship of the kiosk.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that he thinks it is important to start with understanding that this is a public space and a publicly-owned building and should be managed as a public resource. He said that the public should be in the driver’s seat in terms of envisioning what the space should be. He said that the public has not really been involved up until now. He stated that he thinks that this meeting is the public participation piece. He stated that the City Council should foster public participation and interest as there has been the tendency to have the City staff steer a process and have advisory committees playing the advisory role. He said that he would to see a more grassroots-based process. He said that this is a 2-stage process: crafting of a structure that would be tasked with managing the overview of what the residents want to see for the future and then soliciting ideas. He said that once this process is complete, the City Council would then backstop the various steps along the process. He suggested that there should be information about what is in place currently in regards to managing the plaza and kiosk.

Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, stated that she is an architectural historian and is interested in Harvard Square. She stated that in the trend in general of what she sees as homogenizing some of the historical details in Cambridge, most people think that Kendall Square did not quite reach its potential and it is a problem. She stated that in Harvard Square, she worries about the distillation of the design of Out of Town News Kiosk. She stated that she is worried about homogenizing and the streamlining of the square. She stated that she just went through Forbes Plaza which is the continuation of this kind of planning and flavor of the decade of glass and clean lines will probably be regretful. She stated that a lot of the traffic and interaction and pedestrian involvement is keyed on the plethora of banks, chain stores, etc. She challenged the HSBA to get better businesses in Harvard Square and not sterilize it with open floor concepts from HGTV.

Kari Kuelzer, 19 Copley Street, stated that she is the owner of Grendel’s Den and a member of the HSBA. She stated that she has been involved with the HSBA for 15 years and has been involved in the place making meetings. She said that the process that was engaged to devise the design of Harvard Square was reaching out to people who use the space to try to make things work in the short-term, medium-term and long-term timeframes. She stated that in terms of programming, the HSBA has a 100-year history of working with businesses and has the capability to put in programming to make the space engaging to the community. She stated that the HSBA has been functioning seamlessly with the City. She noted that there is a plan that is ready to go which has addressed a number of concerns that she has heard. She advocated to let the work get underway. She stated that she does not want to see Harvard Square changed into another world class city space.

Dan Andrew, owner of Trademark Tours, stated that in 2009 his company submitted a proposal for curating the kiosk as a souvenir store. He noted that his company finished second in the process. He stated that the HSBA has pushed the envelope in regards to what is happening in Harvard Square. He stated that the space changes a lot over time. He stated that the HSBA has always looked out for the community and the public has been engaged in the process. He stated that his business serves over 100,000 tourists per year and he is excited about the future in Harvard Square.

Councillor Mazen stated that he agrees with Ms. Meyer that Kendall Square has not reached its full potential. He stated that when he speaking about a world-class city or square, it is not to saying that the HSBA is not well-appreciated or that Cambridge does not have great squares. He said that it is just not the best that it can be. He stated that while the three public meetings that have taken place were well-attended, there are dozens of angry e-mails from people who say that they were not tapped for comment, as experts in the area. He stated that he does not feel that modern municipalities are great about tapping into expert resources nor community interest. He said that the City must engage the dozens of people who took the time to write in and are willing to add their energy. He said that there are lots of people who have been left out of the process. He stated that a world-class city is a world-class destination. He stated that he thinks it is meaningful to talk about stewardship and how we will hear all of the voices.

Iram Farooq stated that historically, the places where streets intersect are the places of the greatest energy. She stated that this particular space and kiosk has a rich history and is a dynamic space. The kiosk has evolved and changed. She stated that the plaza (formerly known as The Pit) is a great asset. She stated that the process has been a collective effort which has brought forth a lot of expertise in addition to the community process.

Stuart Dash gave a brief overview of the PowerPoint presentation titled “Harvard Square Placemaking” (ATTACHMENT B) and provided the committee with a copy of the “Harvard Square Vision Plan” from May 2014 (ATTACHMENT C). He stated that the City of Cambridge along with the HSBA and Harvard University has been engaged in a public process to develop recommendations for the public open spaces in the heart of Harvard Square. He stated that in the fall of 2013, the City hosted the first of three community workshops with initial consulting support from the Project for Public Spaces, a public place making practice based in New York City. He noted that a broad representation of community members attended the workshop including residents, area business owners, neighborhood organization representatives, local interest groups, elected officials, and City staff. He stated that the discussion addressed ideas for short and long-term improvements, programming, and also included discussion about the restoration and repurposing of the Out of Town News Kiosk.

Charles Sullivan stated that the kiosk structure was the second head house for the subway. He stated that the HSBA replaced the building in 1927. He stated that it was meant to be transparent to converging traffic. He stated where the magazines are currently where the steps leading to the station. He noted that the structure was configured so all could see through it. He stated that the current lease requires the Historical Commission to approve all exterior work. He explained that they are working to come up with guidelines for adaptable use of the structure.

Eric Howeler, Howeler + Yoon Architecture, gave a brief overview of his PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT D). He stated that stated that Harvard Square is a place of convergence. He stated that from the earliest days, Harvard Square has the quality of a place where people gather. He stated that in the 1980’s, construction of the Red Line produced new ground. He stated that it seems as if Cambridge wants to preserve what Harvard Square is known for. Mr. Howeler stated that public space is not only about architecture, it is about people. He stated that this is a site of a lot of history. He stated that designers think of the public realm as a space that needs to be actively designed. He stated that we know that the public realm is navigated through devices. He stated that to make a public ground active, you provide amenities. He shared examples of some of his work, including but not limited to a sculpture in Dudley Square that could give off different light displays based on community input, and the swings at The Lawn on D. He shared how people use the swings in a variety of different ways.

Sophia Blanco Santos stated that she would like to share ideas and methodology that looked at relationship of buildings of the smaller scale with larger buildings. She stated that this project was interesting in the context due to its nature as a landmark and what goes on such as a subway system, businesses and pedestrian traffic. She gave an overview of projects that have been developed.

Caroline James, recent graduate of the Harvard Graduate School of Design, gave a brief overview of her PowerPoint presentation and written comments (ATTACHMENTS E & F). She stated that when she learned about this initiative she was very excited. She stated that her Graduate School of Design project was to design a kiosk for Out of Town News area. She stated that her concept was Kiosk: Wall of Care. She stated that components that are important is that it is welcoming, informational about local services, and the sharing of knowledge. She stated that that it could be a place where one can contribute to the City. She showed a mock-up of her kiosk. She noted that the kiosk could be in a place of high visibility which would be the Out Of Town Kiosk or a wall or area nearby. She stated that the principle of the kiosk is that it would provide an interactive place where people can go to learn about what is going on in Cambridge and, to an even greater extent, what services are available for the underserved around Harvard. She stated that the Harvard Square region is an amazing crossroads of empathy, creativity and intelligence. She said that the more people included in the process, the richer the outcomes.

Councillor Mazen thanked the presenters and stated that the presentations have been precise, empathetic with many engagement-oriented possibilities.

Councillor Carlone stated that the City presentation was very useful. He stated that a speaker said that public spaces are about people. He stated that Harvard Square needs more activities and programming. He stated that this is a great project. He stated that whatever is done in that location does not have to be modern. He stated that it can mitigate between all of the ages of the square and it can be done in a way with color and brightness without being shocking. He stated that the notion that even though people are looking at their phone for news, to have a place to know that you can go and be around other people and know about current events that are happening is the thing that breaks down barriers. He stated that the chess players are a mainstay of Harvard Square. He asked if there will be a place for the chess players Ms. Watkins responded in the affirmative. She stated that the City is committed to making sure that Harvard Square is a place that supports a lot of activity. She stated that they have looked at details of the building and tested the elements of the building to determine what modifications might need to be made.

Councillor Carlone asked if the plan is still evolving. Ms. Watkins responded that this is the early stages of looking at infrastructure issues.

Councillor Mazen stated that one thing that spoke to him in Ms. James’ presentation was the pictures of the people holding placards. He said that a vibrant place or process cannot be escaped. He stated that we have a lot of trouble bringing people into the process much earlier. He stated that there are tons of people who think that that this project is for them. He stated that he has been fielding frustration from experts in and around the community. He stated that great work has been brought forward but we must challenge ourselves to do better in outreach and engagement.

Stuart Dash stated that the initial community workshop pertaining to Harvard Square took place in a space above a Starbucks. He explained that a broad representation of community members was invited. He explained that flyers were also put up to inform residents and interested parties of the workshop. He stated that there has been broad outreach. Councillor Carlone stated that because the conversation is still open and nothing has been pinned down 100%, people are more than welcome to send ideas and sketches to Ellen Kokinda. He stated that it is common that when the nitty gritty work begins there will be people who feel that they have not been part of the process. Councillor Carlone stated that he heard some good ideas that could enrich the programming. Ms. Farooq stated that there is not a consultant on board for programming but noted her hope that someone will be on board in next fiscal year. Councillor Carlone asked if there will be additional public meetings. Ms. Farooq responded in the affirmative. Ms. Farooq stated that e-mail addresses can be used from the meeting sign-up sheet to notify interested parties. She urged City Councillors to forward any other contact information as well.

Councillor Kelley stated that whatever it is that is done, it is important to be able to pay for the out years. He stated that this is a central spot and if we invent something that doesn’t work, we need to be able to respond quickly. He stated that we have to do a better job of getting people involved and answering questions in sufficient detail so that even if they don’t like the answer, it isn’t because it wasn’t responded to. He stressed the need to better address specific concerns.

Will Eifler, 135 Western Avenue, stated that he is a part of the HSBA. He stated that he saw the model of the plans about three months ago. He said that as a resident he got excited. He offered his support of the HSBA being the steward of the space. He added that he feels that a great job has been done in incorporating a lot of voices into the planning discussion.

Laura Donahue, 90 Putnam Avenue, Bob Slate Stationary, stated that she is a Board Member of HSBA. She stated that she is excited by the pictures that she has seen. She stated that when we think about events that are hosted there, they are all connected again. She stated that using scenario planning could be great way to submit input. She said that when thinking about usage, that is part of the preeminence of the programming. She said that everyone can get their perspective heard.

Dan Fraine, Cambridge Savings Bank, offered support to the HSBA as stewards to the kiosk. He stated that the CSBA is able to keep the space relevant.

Mary-Catherine Deibel, owner of a business in Harvard Square, stated that she has been at several of the planning sessions and she is excited. She stated that Longy has an initiative called Longy in the City. She explained that people learn how to navigate the world such that they can earn a living. She stated that the possibility in terms of accessibility for arts organizations is fabulous. She stated that it seems like a no-brainer to have the HSBA manage the space. She stated that programming is a big job and the HSBA has its finger on the pulse of the square. She stated that she feels that this would be a sensible way to operate this. She added that she would love to see a center for the arts.

Ruth Ryles, Upland Road, stated that she is Chair of the Committee for Art on Massachusetts Avenue. She stated that one artist proposed a free standing kiosk. She added that this could be interactive and could give demonstrations of all the things that were happening in the area. She stated that this would be a great promotor for programming. She stated that it could be turned into an in-town visitors’ center. She stated that if we have chosen the architect, designer and team we may not be as open as we say.

Ken Taylor, Berkley Street, stated that he participated in three of the place making sessions. He stated that it will result in something spectacular. He said that the environment of Harvard Square at night has not been given enough attention. He stated that we have an opportunity to use LED light fixtures which are adjustable and he encouraged the design team to take on a lighting consultant and use this as a test for what environmental night lighting is safe and comfortable. He stated that Harvard Square should be looked at as a theatrical stage set and the lighting of the kiosk is very important.

Steve Stepak, 40 Norris Street, suggested that the project currently occupying Holyoke Plaza will last 3 summers which will lock out people who want to recreate in the summer. He stated the need for more tables and chairs in the pit. He noted that people need a place to sit and a place to recreate. He said that umbrellas are needed on a sunny day. He stated that someone needs to be responsible to clean the premises and wash down the tables every night.

Pebble Gifford stated that she took a quick tour through Wikipedia in other communities under similar situations and found information regarding visitor centers (ATTACHMENT G). She asked if it is true that the architect and landscaper have already been chosen. Councillor Mazen answered in the affirmative. She stated that as it relates to visitor centers and programming, Gallagher and Associates has done 50 visitor centers all across the country. She stated that the biggest problem with the kiosk is that the structure is not that big. She stated the prioritizing what the place will be is of utmost important.

Saul Tannenbaum stated that he is member of Public Transportation Advisory Committee. He stated that public transportation should not be an afterthought. He stated that the Harvard square Station is the third busiest station on the MBTA. He noted that public transportation brings more people to the square on a daily basis.

Michael Brandon, 27 Seven Pines Avenue, echoed Mr. Williamson’s comments in terms of keeping the focus on the fact that this is a public amenity. He stated that although he appreciates the initial work of the HSBA, he emphasized outreach. He stated that he hopes a better job can be done. He stated that the Cambridge Common planning did not have enough outreach and spread over too long a period of time. He asked that the scope of the planning project be more clearly defined. He advocated that substantial trees be planted where they can be planted. He said that some sort of a mature tree or lush plantings would make more sense than the tables that are out there. He stated that he likes the idea of a visitor information booth and he would like to see the saltshaker structure be incorporated in the kiosk. He added that a comfort station would be good. He stated that he hopes that the City Council will keep control of who appoints the working group.

Robert Smith stated that California is very dry and so he thinks in terms of residential fireproof housing. He stated that fire, wind, water and earth are important elements to keep in mind. He stated that Harvard Square seems to represent the area where the spearhead of the intellectual community is in the country. He stated that perhaps in Cambridge, we could focus on what the country needs. He said that it would be great if, while addressing all of the issues for the rest of the country, we take a look at what we are facing here. He stated that reserving the kiosk dome would be a cover for winter. He noted that he would like to see a pavilion outside and the set up a structure that can be closed during winter to provide shelter.

A communication was received from Dan Borelli regarding the process of the redesign of a space as important as Harvard Square (ATTACHMENT H).
A communication was received from Justin Crane regarding the design process and a robust public component (ATTACHMENT I).
A communication was received from Barbara Epstein regarding the Harvard Square redesign process and the importance of a community-driven process or a design competition (ATTACHMENT J).
A communication was received from Charles W. Harris regarding the Harvard Square redesign process and his willingness to support the effort and offer initial comments and ideas (ATTACHMENT K).
A communication was received from Jeannette Kuo regarding a public competition process with a jury of design professionals. (ATTACHMENT L).
A communication was received from Robert Silman regarding the redesign of Harvard Square and his firm of structural engineers with experience in this type of work (ATTACHMENT M).
A communication was received from Abhishek Syal regarding the redesign of Harvard Square and a community-driven process (ATTACHMENT N).
A communication was received from Marni Berliner regarding the redesign of Harvard Square and the importance of hearing from every perspective (ATTACHMENT O).
A communication was received from Gareth Doherty regarding the redesign of the Out of Town News Kiosk and the importance of an international design competition and a comprehensive community-driven process (ATTACHMENT P).
A communication was received from Carl Rothenhaus regarding a water feature at the Out of Town News Kiosk location (ATTACHMENT Q).

Councillor Mazen extended his appreciation to the City staff and attendees of the meeting.

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 7:37pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #6
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Tues, June 21, 2016, at 2:07pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the City’s Leaf Blower Ordinance, new research since its passage and other issues related to leaf blowers.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Mazen; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works; John Nardone, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works; David Webster, Superintendent of Parks and Urban Forestry, Public Works Department; Nicole Murati Ferrer, Chair of the Cambridge License Commission; Andrea Boyer, Chief Licensing Investigator, Cambridge License Commissioner; Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, Cambridge Health Department; Sam Corda, Managing Director, Water Department; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Virginia Coleman, 2 Berkeley Place; Jo Solet, Berkeley Street; Elizabeth Westling, 33 Foch Street; Larry Tribe, Fresh Pond Parkway; Susan Cooke, 30 Westland Road, Watertown; Janet Burns, 57 Frost Street; Megan Brook, 103 Inman Street; Ed Abrams, 80 Wendell Street; Lizzie DeRham, 20 Middlesex Street; Steve Wineman, 26 McTernan Street; Sallie Adams, 986 Memorial Drive; Chris Young, 56 Concord Avenue; John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street; G. Simmers, 8 Alpine Street; Ted Live, 17 Wendell Street; Dr. Jamie Banks, Executive Director of Quiet Communities; Quinton Zondervan, President, Green Cambridge; David Sites; and George Carrette, Landscape Consultant.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. She stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. An agenda was distributed (ATTACHMENT A). She outlined the city’s leaf blower ordinance. Leaf Blowers can only be used during certain seasons and at certain times of day. The ordinance has proven difficult to enforce and enforcement is largely complaint-driven. (ATTACHMENT B). Since the ordinance was enacted in 2007 there is new information about leaf blowers so it is time to reexamine the ordinance. This hearing is to start the conversation and bring forward new scientific evidence on leaf blowers since the ordinance’s original passage.

Ms. Murati Ferrer, Chair of License Commission, spoke about changes to enforcement. The permitting and enforcing is done at the License Commission and the License Commission has recently begun taking a more proactive and stricter approach to enforcing this ordinance. Letters were sent out to the approved commercial landscape companies, both current and past, explaining the permitting process. A cease and desist order was sent out to bring unapproved commercial operators into compliance. Landscaping companies were also notified about the enforcement compliance and permitting. Those not in compliance are coming before the License Commission for violation hearings. A press release was distributed by the License Commission (ATTACHMENT C).

City Manager Rossi stated his support for the statements made by Ms. Murati Ferrer. When the ordinance was adopted the goal was to regulate commercial users. This is a complaint driven ordinance, which is not a good approach to achieve full compliance. He suggested seasonal staff to assist the License Commission with enforcement and compliance. Leaf blowers are used by the Water and Public Works Departments and at the Golf Course. He stated that supervisors in departments should take better ownership to do better jobs. This can be done more effectively by the City. This is a time to look at the current equipment, which is different from the equipment available in 2007 and to tweak the ordinance. The ordinance needs to be tightened and residents should not feel that they are the leaf blower police. It is not realistic to hire people to rake the City’s parks. The City will do a better job.

Andrea Boyer, Chief License Investigator, spoke about enforcement. She stated that there are 37 commercial landscaping companies who have gone through the approval process to operate leaf blowers in the City and there were 27 complaints as of Mar 3, 2016, with 2 pending hearings before the License Commission. Ms. Boyer stated that she welcomed changes to the ordinance.

Ms. Murati Ferrer explained that these complaints were at the beginning of the season which begins on Mar 15, 2016, because the use of leaf blowers were started before the Mar 15th date. Complaints were for previously permitted companies who were not aware that the permits needed to be renewed yearly. Also some of the companies had changes in ownership. She explained that letters were mailed to the companies to remind them that the permits needed to be renewed yearly. Ms. Boyer explained that the 27 were complaints from companies who were operating multiple leaf blowers. All complaints are documented; some are anonymous. Mr. Zondervan asked if the 27 complaints were from Mar 3, 2016. Ms. Boyer responded in the affirmative.

Commissioner O'Riordan explained that Public Works is responsible for the maintenance of 80 city parks; 50% are maintained by employees of Public Works and the remainder are maintained by contractors. He stated that eliminating the use of leaf blowers as a tool would increase the expense by 25%. He stated that Public Works uses leaf blower and if further restriction were placed on the use of leaf blowers the ability to get playing fields ready for sports would be difficult, as there is a short window of time between winter and the spring season. There is a cost concern as well as maintaining the facilities. He stated that Public Works will be looking at their major vehicles in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas. He further stated that small equipment engines which can provide the same level of work will be reviewed by Public Works. Public Works maintains a website containing best practices for leaf blowers. Municipal contractors are required to get permits from the License Commission and are subject to the same constraints as other landscape contractors.

John Nardone stated that every year at the beginning of the season Public Works meets with supervisors and contractors to discuss environmental concerns. He stated that the City can do a better job. He added that there have been changes to leaf blower equipment since 2007, which have a three-year life cycle. He stated that leaf blower equipment has changed in this time period to keep up with EPA standards and decibel levels. He spoke about the necessity for education to ensure that leaf blowers are used when allowed. Councillor Devereux asked what leaf blower equipment the City is currently using. Mr. Nardone responded that the City recently purchased a Stihl battery operated leaf blower and is trying it out. Mr. Webster, Supervisor of Parks and Forestry, Public Works Department, spoke about the equipment that the city uses. He stated that Stihl makes a low decibel leaf blower. He stated that the City is trying out battery operated leaf blowers. Mr. Nardone stated that hand held leaf blowers are being tested by Public Works.

Councillor Carlone stated that in 2007 it appeared it would cost about 25% more not to use leaf blowers.

In answer to a question by Councillor Carlone Mr. O'Riordan stated that the maintenance cost for the parks is $800,000.

Sam Corda, Managing Director, Water Department, stated that leaf blowers are used at the Fresh Pond Reservation, which has 12.5 acres of maintained lawns, 1.8 acres of planting beds and six miles of pathways. The majority of the work is done by contractors who use a Stihl 500 reduced decibel back pack model and a rechargeable handheld blower. As areas of the reservation are renovated it is imperative to do this work in a cost effective way. He stated that the Water Department is striving to do better. He stated that it is in the contract for low noise, low emissions and battery devices. It is important to do proper maintenance at the Fresh Pond Reservation.

Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that the City is improving education, enforcement and to make the ordinance more effective. She added that it is important to have leaf blowers in the City's tool chest. The use can be limited but it is important to have leaf blowers available.

Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, stated that he is here to answer questions regarding the current ordinance enacted in 2007. He stated that he would offer background information if questions arise.

Councillor Devereux introduced Dr. Jamie Banks, who had a PowerPoint presentation entitled Leaf Blowers and Public Health: Time for Change (ATTACHMENT D-1). Dr. Banks stated she would be discussing the work of Quiet Communities, (ATTACHMENT D-2) the noise problem, health and environmental issues, and how this can be addressed. She stated that there are other positive approaches that the City might consider to lead by example. She stated that she has spent most of her life in health care research. She stated that it is not easy to change behavior and it takes a multi-faceted approach. The industry is entrenched in fossil fuel consumption and machine-based practices. She stated that Quiet Communities is a 501c3 organization started in 2013 that centers on the need for education in this area, new technologies and practices. She stated that leaf blowers are noisy, expel exhaust and particulate matter. She stated that over the last twenty years there has been total dependence on this tool and other gas-powered tools for work that was once done by hand. There are 11-12 million gas-powered tools being used in the United States. She spoke about the dangers associated with leaf blower use, including fuel consumption, emissions, noise, toxic waste and toxic solid parts that go into landfills and health effects, such as respiratory and auditory consequences. She spoke about the emissions as of 2011. Handheld equipment is the biggest producer of the 2.5 emissions particulates. The danger is the equipment and also there is non-compliance chronic behavior. She spoke about leaf blowers being used for purposes other than what they were intended for. Children, seniors, those with respiratory problems and the workers who use the leaf blowers are at risk from the equipment. She stated that the adverse health effect by using this equipment is hazardous and serious. This does not take long term exposure for the health impacts. She spoke about the noise created by leaf blowers and the chronic buzz from the equipment which has a strong low frequency which can go through walls and windows. There is an education component for those who use this equipment consistently because there is a safety issue with the equipment being louder than 85 decibels, which is the level that causes hearing loss. She explained that the gas powered leaf blowers can be as high as 105- 115 decibels. This is a tremendous hazard for workers who do not use protective equipment. She stated that it has been corrected that a 70 decibel level over the course of a day is the maximum noise exposure to prevent hearing loss. She highlighted some health effects caused by the noise. Dr. Banks stated that with the pollutants, particulates and the noise there is a growing concern over gas powered leaf blowers.

Dr. Banks stated that there are different solutions and alternative technologies. She spoke about leaf mulching for fields, which increases soil health and extends the life of fields. She spoke about the advance of electronic technology. Some communities have used electric equipment. Electric trucks are clean and odorless. She stated manual tools are still useful. She defined a certified Green Zone as a defined area of land that is maintained entirely with emissions-free equipment, certified by the American Green Zone Alliance. There is a ten-step program and workers are trained on certified equipment. Maintenance on electric equipment is less than gas-powered equipment. She stated that Cambridge should create a Green Zone. The idea is for Cambridge to lead by example. Quiet Communities is the licensing agency for the American Green Zone Alliance.

George Carrette, Landscape Consultant, Founder of Eco Quiet Lawn Care, stated that he put $40,000 into electric equipment and has since made a net profit. He maintains 30 properties using electric equipment which relates to 500 kilowatt hours. He was able to expand rapidly and it would be beneficial to Public Works to do the same. He stated that his work quality is better with the electric equipment. He spoke about examples where the equipment is so quiet his customers are not aware he is working. He has received no complaints about his equipment. He cited the benefit of electric leaf blower use for Cambridge, there are smaller walkways, dust and refuse should not be poured into the street and inhaled by people. This is where manual tools are effective to clean up leaves. He uses a shovel to pick up soil debris so he does not inhale this matter. He stated that he would be willing to show the equipment that he uses to Public Works.

Quinton Zondervan, President, Green Cambridge, had a presentation entitled Leaf Blowers (ATTACHMENT E). He stated that the ban is not working and the equipment is loud. He noted the health hazard to the workers. The Cambridge police have better things to do than to enforce the leaf blower ordinance. He stated that the contractors are not aware that they should not be using leaf blowers. The only pros to using leaf blowers is that the job can be done faster. He spoke about soil that is sequestering carbon, which is hastening climate change. The American Lung Association suggests using a rake. He explained that the leaf blowers are banned in 20 cities in California. Cambridge has restricted use of leaf blowers, but he stated that the fossil fuel versions of leaf blowers should be banned in Cambridge. He stated that the technology is available for electric leaf blowers so why not use them. The limitations are not understood by contractors and the general public. He only uses manual equipment on his yard.

Councillor Devereux stated that there is interest in this in other communities, including locations in California and communities in Massachusetts, including Newton. She held up the brochure produced by the City which are available at the License Commission, Public Works, and a PDF version is available on line (ATTACHMENT F).

Councillor Devereux opened public comment at 3:17pm.

Virginia Coleman, 2 Berkeley Place, stated that upon her retirement in 2014 as a lawyer she has been besieged by noise from leaf blowers. She did not know that there was an ordinance that restricted leaf blowers. She stated that the ordinance is totally ineffective. She stated that commercial leaf blower users need to be approved. She explained that she had the application and that it was insufficient. The approval is a pro forma process. She stated that compliance is something different. She stated that she has not seen a leaf blower used for what it was built for. The operator often does not use hearing protection. The limitation period restrictions should be reviewed as there are times when it does not make sense and there is no compliance. She stated there is no need to use leaf blowers in the spring. She added all the leaves are down by December 15th. She stated that that to speak to the user you must flag him down because he cannot hear you over the leaf blower and if he can hear he may not understand because he may not speak English. The workers have no control over the circumstances in which they work. She stated that Cambridge should be ashamed that this situation exists. She spoke about restrictions. She stated that when users on the sidewalk the leaf blowers only move the stuff around. The noise level of 65 decibels per the manufactures rating is based on 50 feet measurement, which is not how it is used. She stated that she has no way of knowing if the equipment is meeting the manufacturers rating. How can she measure noise? She stated that the only sensible noise restriction would be based on the actual noise level emitted by the equipment at any given time. Cambridge can and must do a better job. She e-mailed her comments which are attached as (ATTACHMENT G).

Jo Solet, stated that she is a scientist, educator and clinician and has been invited to speak on the impacts of noise as far away as Paris, but today she is speaking as a citizen. She held up a picture of her granddaughters, herself and her husband preparing their yard for the winter. She stated that “mow, blow and go” is not the way to go; this is marketing hype. She stated that leaves are a part of the natural cycle and noise blasting, dust blowing machines are not necessary for this work. Leaf blower workers are not protected from their use and they deserve better. She submitted her comments together with two articles from William J. Murphy from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (ATTACHMENTS H-1 - H-3). She spoke about clouds of particulates that cannot be contained. She compared banning leaf blowers with banning cigarettes and how it was felt it would have bad economic consequences. She stated that this is no different. She distributed pictures of a mulch shooter and leave blowers being used on roofs where it blows debris onto others’ property (ATTACHMENT H-4). She stated that she did not feel that she should have to take pictures of these violations and ask the workers to stop; workers who cannot hear her or may not understand what she is saying. She concluded that the leaf blower ordinance is inadequate and unenforceable despite the efforts of Ms. Boyer. She stated that Cambridge is identified with innovation and sustainable practices, pedestrians and cyclists; how can leaf blowers be privileged over all other activities. This must end - stop it please.

Susan Cook, 30 Westland Road, Watertown, thanked Cambridge for being a leader. She hopes more will be done. She stated that she is a researcher on stress in cities. She stated that all sources of unwanted noise are causing such widespread mental and physical health problems that the World Health Organization calls noise pollution is a worldwide health emergency. She spoke about all the aspects of noise that touch everyone's lives. Living in major cities causes higher rates of mental illness. She stated that one of the worst things is to not get out in nature and take walks and to go to places where we met our neighbors. Noise effects increases anxiety, anger, depression, addiction, high blood pressure and changes related to alarming increases in heart disease, slower learning in children and aggression. She suggested public service announcements about the effects of noise and more noise limits at all times of the day.

Communication from Susan Cooke transmitting suggestions to consider to reduce noise pollution and the severe stress to City dwellers caused by noise pollution. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENTS I-1-I-2).

Megan Brook, 103 Inman Street, stated that she supported a total ban or far better restrictions and enforcement. She noted that the City should not be expecting residents to do the enforcement. She asked why the landscaping standards are so high all the time. Over landscaping is bad for the soil, plants and wildlife and it is driven by the contractor. Soon the air will be dirtier that the ground we walk on. She hates the noise, fumes and the dust. She stated that today she observed a leaf blower being used to blow dust into the street. This action is illegal. She requested taking this burden off the shoulders of people. She stated that there was no need for the leaf blower before it was invented. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT J).

Ed Abrams, 80 Wendell Street, stated that this is an ongoing problem and has not gotten better since the ordinance was enacted. The landscapers ignore the ordinance and there are many who are unaware of the ordinance. He explained that in October it is impossible to have a peaceful day. The leaf blowing begins at 7 AM. The City uses leaf blowers and it is counterproductive with the City's policy on climate change. He noted that the level of pollution from leaf blowers is incredible. It is hard to have a peaceful day at the Fresh Pond Reservation because of the noise from leaf blowers. He wanted a total ban of leaf blowers.

Lizzie DeRham, Middlesex Street stated that without Ms. Boyer she would have gone berserk. A violation occurred on Lakeview Avenue and the neighbor did not want to complain so as to not start a war. She suggested to give inspectors the authority to fine at $300 per day. This was effective to curtail usage. She had her house painted and in 2 months it was dirty due to leaf blowers. She stated that there are a lot of diesel particulates from leaf blowers. She noted that this is stressful. High school students need exercise and need to have a future and this could be an educational tool. She stated that enforcement is impossible. Tweaking the ordinance will do nothing. She suggested just banning leaf blowers and converting to electric equipment.

Steve Wineman, 26 McTernan Street, lives across street from Dana Park. He stated that since retiring leaf blowers have been a significant source of stress in his life. He hears that having the window open can be hazardous of to his health because of the leaf blowers. He wanted the City to inform residents of the health hazard of leaf blowers. This is an obligation of the City to its citizens to notify residents each time that the City is using leaf blowers. He struggles to understand the benefit of using leaf blowers. He stated that leaf blowers are used to blow grass clippings off of walkways. Children are not able to make and play in leaf piles and using leaves is beneficial for composting. He favors a total ban.

Chris Young stated that using electric leaf blowers eliminates carcinogenic emissions, but not the dust or particulates. He commented that tuberculosis was caused from coal dust. Dog feces on sidewalks are blown into the air. He favors a total ban or ban two stroke engines which produces more carcinogenic matter than anything else on the planet.

John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, stated that the city needs to use its regulatory powers. A ban on leaf blowers is called for, including electric models. Leaf blowers are environmentally harmful by degrading the soil. He spoke about cloud dust destroying the soil that is being eroded.

Ted Live, spoke about impact of leaf blowers as noise polluters. He praised Ms. Boyer on her enforcement of the ordinance. Restricting use to only electric leaf blowers may be a benefit. He spoke about avoiding using leaf blowers to clean off a surface which seems to be a much used method of using leaf blowers. He suggested restricting the improper use of leaf blowers. He spoke about leaf blower vacuum; it mulches the leaves and he questioned if this would also be banned.

Public comment closed at 3:55pm.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is intrigued about Green Zones and using electric equipment as an alternative. He stated that he hates the noise and the dust. The reality is that if there is a major step that can be taken it should be considered. The ecological concerns with the electric equipment is still valid and needs to be addressed.

Ms. Brook asked why leaf blowers are used instead of street cleaning equipment to clean parking lots. Councillor Devereux stated that the City acknowledged it can do better and wants to do a better job.

Councillor Devereux stated that this matter will be kept in committee to give the City time to look at improvements to equipment, piloting a Green Zone and upgrading the City fleet and equipment. There is a need for improvements in communication, enforcement and a communication on the health impacts. She stated that improvement in training is needed for City employees and contractors that the City hires so that the equipment is being used appropriately and to ensure that employees are wearing protective gear, including face masks. She wanted to have another conversation in early September on this matter to come up with a plan. She did not want a total ban taken off of the table. The testimony is compelling that leaf blowers do not need to be used as much and used more efficiently.

City Manager Rossi stated that the City can report prior to September on what steps the City can take.

Councillor Devereux stated that Councillor Kelley, a member of the committee, sent in a written statement (ATTACHMENT K). One of his suggestion was whether the Commonwealth Connect System could be used to report leaf blowers complaints and this will help raise awareness that complaints can be made and enforcement done.

Dr. Banks stated that this is not a consistent problem because people are at work so it is hard to generate broad based support. She suggested a broad-based campaign that would expose the City to what people are experiencing in their homes could generate support.

Ms. Solet wanted the use of leaf blowers around the schools to be on the agenda. Councillor Devereux also noted that how the equipment is used around the schools and proper use of leaf blowers by city contractors would be discussed.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the record:
Communication from Michael Richard, 25 Highland Avenue, stating that the issue is noise and the ordinance is worthless (ATTACHMENT L).
Communication from Lawrence Hartmann, MD, 147 Brattle Street, urging that leaf blowers be banned totally (ATTACHMENT M).
Florrie and Jim Wescoat, 33 Market Street, urging a ban on gasoline powered landscaping maintenance equipment (ATTACHMENT N).
Communication from Maggie Booz, Co-Chair, Committee on Public Planting, urging limiting or preventing the use of leaf blowers in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT O).
Communication from Tori Hiney, Environmental Horticulturist, commenting on the impacts of leaf blowers on plants, soil health and wildlife (ATTACHMENT P).
Communication from Nan M. Laird, Harvey V. Fineberg Research Professor of Biostatistics, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, resident of 156 Hancock Street, commenting that gas powered leaf blowers are a health risk for air and noise pollution (ATTACHMENT Q).
Communication from Mike Solet, urging the complete ban on leaf blowers (ATTACHMENT R).
Communication from Genevieve and Joseph T. Coyle, MD, 230 Lakeview Avenue, requesting restricting the use of leaf blowers and strengthening the enforcement (ATTACHMENT S).
Communication from Elizabeth Bohlen, 111 Chestnut Street, in opposition to leaf blowers (ATTACHMENT T).
Communication from Sallie B. Adams, 986 Memorial Drive, commenting on the negative impact of leaf blowers (noise and air pollution, user health effects, ineffectiveness of leaf blowers and use outside of what is allowed) outweighing the positive aspects (ATTACHMENT U).
Communication from Barbara S. Baker, Coldwell Banker, Huron Avenue, opposed to leaf blowers as an unnecessary form of pollution (ATTACHMENT V).

Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:06pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #7
The Public Safety Committee and the Housing Committee held a joint public hearing on July 19, 2016, beginning at 3:03pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the presence and impact of short-term rental units (Airbnb, FlipKey, VRBO, etc.) in Cambridge, and to hear suggestions from community members and operators on how best to address the challenges of this emerging market.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair of the Housing Committee; Vice Mayor Marc McGovern, Co-Chair of the Housing Committee; Councillor Jan Devereux; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Chris Burke, Acting Commissioner, Cambridge Police Department; Gerald Reardon, Chief, Cambridge Fire Department; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department; Nicole Murati Ferrer, Chair, License Commission; Kari Sasportas, Environmental Health Specialist, Cambridge Public Health Department; Jason Alves; Wil Durbin; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Charles Redmon, Barbara Taggart, Ray Ahlberg, Kevin O’Keefe, Alan Fincke, Leslie Cohen, Jon Steiman, Stacy Minicucci, Ed LeMay, Elizabeth Bohlen, MaryAnn Hart, Jim Shea, Rachael Solom, Robert Green, Deborah Valianti, Ken Goodwin, Jean Pascoe, Susan Foster, David Pincus, Diana Gordon, Craig Appel, Nancy Ryan, Jaenia Mikulka, Lisa Case, Ying Zhao, Carolyn Fuller, Bill McAvinney, Robert Winters, Marilee Meyer, Kathleen Gilroy, Bertha Pantosa, Will Burns, John Bechard, Laquiesha Rainey, Kaushal Dhungana, Sam Heller, Monica Raymond, Nicholas Panagakos, Derek Yeung, Monika Gandhis, James Williamson, Bob Boudreau, John Vrakas, Denise Jillson, Pam Pacelli and Pooran Ramkissoon.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and read the Call of the Meeting and gave an overview of the agenda (Attachment A). He stated that it is important to figure out how short-term rentals can work best in Cambridge. He stated that there are a number of questions to set framework and asked Mr. Roberts to explain the difference between short-term and regular rentals.

Jeff Roberts stated that from land use planning and zoning perspective there is distinction between what we typically think of housing for extended occupancy. He stated that transient accommodations include hotels/motels, bed & breakfasts and tourist housing. He noted that these are intended for a stay of a specific duration and usually less than one month. He explained that within transient accommodations there are a few different ways in which that works. He said that if you have a housing unit that is owner occupied residential but also rents rooms within the residential unit for transient occupancy, it is referred to as a tourist house in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that these are allowed is some residential districts and not others. He said that if you have a building in which rooms are being rented for transient occupancy that would fall under the land use policy.

Councillor Kelley asked about inspection, licensing, and the complaint process for short-term rentals.

Ranjit Singanayagam stated that hotels/motels are inspected yearly but tourist homes are not. He explained that if the Inspectional Services Department receives a complaint, the owner is sent a violation notice. Councillor Kelley questioned if a license is required if someone is operating a tourist home that is zoned appropriately. Councillor Kelley asked about the following scenario: If someone is operating an Airbnb in a residential district, is that a zoning violation? Mr. Singanayagam answered in the affirmative. He said that an Occupancy Permit would be required. Councillor Kelley asked about the requirements of an Occupancy Permit for a tourist home. Mr. Singanayagam responded that they must comply with the State Building Code. Councillor Kelley asked who is responsible to inspect Airbnbs to assure compliance with the State Building Code. Mr. Singanayagam responded that it would be Inspectional Service Department inspectors but only if there is a complaint. Councillor Kelley asked if there are any other regulations that apply to short-term rentals in terms of fees, taxes, licenses for food prep, etc. Mr. Singanayagam responded that if food is being provided then a Food Handlers License would be required.

Nicole Murati Ferrer explained that the License Commission only has authority over hotels/motels and lodging houses in terms of licensure, not tourist homes or Airbnbs. She said that there is not a current process of licensing for that kind of establishment because they do not have authority under State Law or Special Acts. She affirmed that the Inspection Services Department would issue a Food Handlers License and added that the License Commission does not factor in at all.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that most of the people providing Airbnb rentals do not have a Food Handlers License or Certificate of Occupancy. He asked about penalties and fines. Mr. Singanayagam stated that zoning fine is $300 per day. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he feels that this information is something that Airbnb should provide to their hosts. He stated that people don’t understand that they are running the risk of a $300 fine. Mr. Singanayagam responded that hosts should consult with the Inspectional Services Department in order to comply with the Zoning Code and Building Code.

Mayor Simmons stated that there is no information available currently to let a host know that they must go to the Inspectional Services Department before becoming a host. She stated that she does not believe that there is a clear pathway to that information. She stated that we must inform property owners of the criteria before becoming tourist housing.

Councillor Mazen stated that he thinks that the purpose of the hearing is to learn what the rules are and how best to help people into compliance. He said that this should be a policy conversation. He said that Airbnb is great way to afford to stay in Cambridge. He stated that some people cannot afford to live here if they are not able to rent out one unit. He stated that we want to carefully consider the topics of food, safety, and inspection. He suggested that a simple website and the availability of a one-click information place would be great.

Councillor Devereux inquired as to how many complaints have been received by the Inspectional Services Department. Mr. Singanayagam responded 3-4 complaints per week. Councillor Devereux said that the City does have ordinance and it is not well known. She said that on the Airbnb site it does inform hosts that they should ensure conformity with the city or town regarding boarding regulations. She stated that a large majority of people are probably not in compliance. She noted the need for clear and current laws and stated that potentially there will be changes to the ordinance to accommodate Airbnb and deter uses that are crossing the line into being commercial operators.

Councillor Toomey asked about the nature of the complaints that are received. Mr. Singanayagam responded that they are typically about cars and people coming and going into all hours of the night. Councillor Mazen stated that it is important to differentiate how many unique complaints are attributable to a new host who is having a problem and also to threshold complaints. He stated that in his experience, he finds it irregular that the type of use by Airbnb would meet his threshold for a reasonable complaint.

Mr. Singanayagam stated that the neighbors complain about car traffic in and out of residential neighborhoods and added that he receives these complaints via e-mail and telephone calls. He did add that he has not received any complaints about loud parties.

Rich Rossi stated that he looks at this situation similar to how he looks at Uber. He stated that the State was unclear about regulations as was the City. He stated that this is the same parallel in that it is difficult for a City department to either not respond to complaints or to downplay them. He said that the City needs to state policy and hold a series of meetings to determine what that policy is. He stated that next steps after the policy making would be to amend the zoning. He stated that after the zoning is amended we could be effective in communicating information to residents. He stated that the policy discussion is the most important piece that need to be undertaken.

Councillor Toomey stated that cars are coming and going from all areas in the city all day long. He stated that he does not see this as a justifiable complaint. He stated that the State is looking at this but the majority of people that he talks to are pleased with the income that it generates. He noted that he has never received a complaint from anyone. He said that he does not want to see over-regulating. He stated that we have to keep the diversity and opportunities for all to stay in the city. He said that senior citizens renting out a room should not be a problem. Mr. Rossi explained that no one from the Inspectional Services Department is conducting enforcement relative to Airbnb’s, they are only responding to complaints. He stated that some citizens who complain will not stop until an inspection is made which puts inspectors in a difficult position. He stated that there is no effort by the Inspectional Services Department to do anything dramatic. He stressed the need for regulations so that there is clear understanding.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that when people hear the word “regulations,” they become concerned. He stated that clarity and getting rules in place is a way to protect the operators. He stated that there is no desire to stop Airbnb in Cambridge but there are questions. He stated that he does not want people buying a condo and using it 365 days a year as a Bed & Breakfast. He stated that we need to get a sense of this industry so that customers and providers are protected.

Iram Farooq stated that there is another category in the mix which is the instance where person is not living in the unit in which case it is not a tourist house, it would be considered more motel/hotel. She said that it would be beneficial if the City clarified what is desirable and what is not. She stated that there is clearly a need for Airbnb so it is incumbent upon us to frame a workable system. She stated that once the City Council determines the policy guidelines, it would be logical for the Community Development Department to put informational materials together for operators. She said that it would be relatively simple if Airbnb could put a tag on their website and the City could create a link to necessary information.

Councillor Toomey asked if the City has regulations for people who sublease their units to others. Ms. Farooq responded that subleasing is not regulated through the Community Development Department but through a person’s lease. She said that short-term rentals are currently regulated through zoning.

Wil Durbin gave a brief overview of a PowerPoint presentation. (Attachment B).

Councillor Kelley stated that he has met with many people and groups including the Cambridgeport Neighbors Association, the Harvard Square Business Association, the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, the Mass Lodging Association and Local 26 workers. He explained that he sent short-term rental providers Airbnb, Inc. and FlipKey a set of questions in advance of today’s hearing (Attachment C). He stated that the City Council wants to ensure that it understands this issue so there will be a lot of process moving forward. He said that if we can learn how to work through this territory, we will be able to take what the economy throws at us in the future.

Dr. Giorgos Zervas, Boston University, gave a brief overview of a PowerPoint presentation. (Attachment D).

Councillor Mazen questioned if the budget hotels are being put of business by these short-term rentals. Dr. Zervas responded that while he believes this is a strong statement, it is too early to tell.

Will Burns, Airbnb, Inc., stated that he is Senior Advisor and Midwest Director of Policy for Airbnb, Inc., and that Airbnb greatly appreciates the interest of policymakers in Cambridge to tackle short term rental policy in fair and open process, and your commitment to finding the right balance to conflicting interests and public policy priorities. He said that Airbnb wants to be a collaborative partner in this process. Mr. Burns stated that last fall Airbnb announced its strong support for paying the same taxes as hotels which is why we fully support S. 2423 that passed the Massachusetts Senate last week and is pending before conference committee. He said that Airbnb has also announced it’s for support reasonable regulations on short-term rentals, especially in cities where community leaders have identified a shortage of long-term rental housing as a critical issue. He explained that there are 1,065 Airbnb active hosts in Cambridge. He said that the typical host earns $5,600 a year. He commented that 86% of Cambridge hosts rent out their primary residence. Mr. Burns explained that key elements of an STR Ordinance are:

1. Given that most Airbnb hosts are exclusively renting out their primary residence we believe that those hosts should not be limited in the number of nights that they can rent out either a room or their entire house.

2. Hosts who rent out their primary residence should register with the City of Cambridge, and the registration process should be designed to facilitate compliance.

3. Create a different regulatory framework for STR operators who list multiple properties on STR platforms.

4. Hold bad hosts accountable for violations of nuisance laws, municipal code.

Mr. Burns stated that he looks forward to answering any questions that the committee may have. (Attachment E).

Councillor Mazen asked Mr. Burns asked about institutional or market racism and how Airbnb has tackled this issue. Mr. Burns stated that Airbnb is conducting a thorough review of all processes of Airbnb to ensure that they avoid discrimination on the platform. He stated that the Airbnb’s motto is “Belong Anywhere.” He stated that they are in the middle of a 90-day review which will culminate with a set of recommendations.

Mayor Simmons asked about the process for joining Airbnb as a host. Mr. Burns explained the process. He stated that his mother is an Airbnb Superhost. He explained that one of the fastest growing set of hosts as well as highest ranking hosts are women over 60 who are using Airbnb funds to make extra income. He said that a typical host makes approximately $5,600 per year. Mayor Simmons asked what Airbnb provides to the hosts. Mr. Burns responded that Airbnb offers liability insurance for hosts on actions committed by guests.

Councillor Devereux asked for clarification regarding insurance. Mr. Burns stated that the insurance is for property damage, not personal injury. He stated that he will be pleased to provide the committee with information on this issue.

Mr. Burns stated that while there are operators that are listing more than one unit, the vast majority are listing one unit. He stated that he is happy to work with staff to provide additional data. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that his main concern is that he wants to make sure hosts are protected from being in violation as well as not losing rental units. Mr. Burns stated that one thing to consider is that there are a number of hosts who use income from unit rentals to avoid foreclosure. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that one benefit to this service is that it supplements income. He stated that he does have a problem with this the idea that one person is buying five condos and charging $600 per night and running a commercial industry.

Councillor Toomey stated that this is a big market. He stated that he was struck by the amount of units available in the Mid-Cambridge area. He said that it is interesting to see that a majority of the operators are women over the age of 65.

Public Comment began at 4:16pm.

Charles Redmon stated that he is host for Airbnb. He noted that the shower in the bedroom unit takes a lot of wear and tear and the money earned from being an operator has allowed him the ability to afford necessary repairs. He stated that he and his wife are ambassadors of the city. He said that this opportunity allows him a fantastic way to see, meet and talk to people from different backgrounds.

Barbara Taggart, 2 Cottage Court, stated that she has been an Airbnb operator since 2013. She said that she offers two rooms on her second floor for $85 per night. She stated that the price includes breakfast. She stated that she is inspired by hearing stories from all age groups. She stated that she has been treated equally well as a guest in France. She stated that this has been a positive personal experience. She stated that while she has seen her neighborhood become one of the hottest real estate markets in the US, the larger issue is how to preserve diversity. She said that Airbnb is contributing to the loss of affordable rentals. She stated that she has seen buildings sold and converted to all Airbnb use in her neighborhood. She stated that she hopes that the discussion can be continued which recognized not only the rights of people to rent out their apartments, but also the rights of neighbors, the rights of tenants who lose their apartments to Airbnb or are thrown out by landlords for having Airbnb guests and the rights of communities to preserve their distinct character. She stated that Airbnb not only helps her pay the bills but helps tourists find cheaper accommodations.

Ray Ahlberg stated that he and his wife have lived in Cambridge for 40 years. He stated that they use Airbnb in their travels and have great experiences. He stated that they have a vacant room with a bathroom which they rent out. He explained that it has been a wonderful experience and have had 40-50 guests in the last 2 ½ years. He stated that they purchase liability insurance for their home because his Homeowners Insurance did not cover rental units. He pointed out that guests are not tourists and are here for special events. He stated that they have hosted people who have not been able to find an affordable hotel in the area. He stated that the businesses and community profit from visiting guests. He said that universities profit from this because students can get housing on a short-term basis. He stated that he is glad that the City Council is considering looking at owner occupied units versus businesses. He asked the City Council to think outside of the box on this issue.

Kevin O’Keefe, 12 Tremont Street, stated that he has been in the City for 60 years and Airbnb operator for 5. He stated that it has been great. He stated that one of his concerns is that there are people buying 3-family homes and turning them into Airbnb rentals. He stated that he has heard that public housing has been used as Airbnb units.

Alan Fincke stated that he moved to Cambridge in 1966 to attend Harvard and has never left. He said that he owns a 3-family home in Cambridge and he started renting out rooms to visiting scholars. He specializes in renting between 2-3 months at a time. He said that the average price per night is just over $40. He said that guests really become part of his household. He stated that he provides a service that does not compete with any other service in Cambridge at a price that can’t be beat.

Leslie Cohen, 237 Norfolk Street, stated that she lives in a single family home and she rents out one room via Airbnb. She stated that she is happy that the meeting is taking place because there does need to be some regulations in place. She said that she would be happy to pay taxes if that is what is decided by the City. She noted her concern for multiple unit rentals. She said that there is also concern about whether or not hotel workers have lost jobs with hotels cutting back. She stated her support for regulations.

John Steiman stated that he and his wife have been Airbnb hosts for three years. He stated that it is good to be part of a great company. He stated that he hosts many people. He challenged committee members to be forward thinking in designing these policies. He stated that he hears that Boston is not as innovative as it used to be. He noted that it will be important to recognize the innovation in the area when designing policies. He stated that as it relates to discrimination, he sets standards for his guests and if they meet the criteria, the room is theirs.

Elizabeth Bowen stated that she does not run an Airbnb. She explained that she is not speaking against people who are renting rooms in their own homes. She said that it is important to limit the percentage of dwelling that is rented out in this way. She advised that as a neighbor to an Airbnb, the property owner misrepresented himself to her and the building is occupied by entirely short-term renters. She stated that she has a problem with making residents in charge of reporting infractions. She pointed out that the people who have rented the unit next to her home have taken photographs of her with cell phones. She stated that there have been parties. She said that liability insurance is definitely as issue. Ms. Brown said that it is not a pleasure to live next door to this building. She stated that it is easy to fly under the radar if you represent yourself as a resident. She stated that it is a good idea for the city to make some money off of this but she does not like the idea that the city is being bribed for unlimited use of housing to make a buck. She stated that it is a pity that there is so much economic pressure on the residents.

Mary Ann Hart and her husband started working with Airbnb with their summer cottage on the Cape. She stated that their experience with Airbnb has been extraordinarily positive. She explained that the reason is because they access the social network platform where people tell you something about themselves. She stated that it operates as a social network. She stated that this is not the case with FlipKey. She added that when their first floor unit tenants moved out, they began to take in academics who were visiting Cambridge for about 2-4 months. She stated that she would love to rent room on the third floor and asked the committee to think about owner-occupied two-family homes. She stated that there is a gap in time where she would love to do a short-term rental. She suggested that if any tax is imposed, she would be happy to commit the revenue to some kind of affordable housing trust or homelessness service.

Jim Shea stated that he lives in multi-family unit and over the past year the owners have moved out and has had illegal short-term renters. He explained that this has caused problems for people in his building. He said that this behavior causes a lack of safety. He stated that he had to report his neighbor and they got a Cease and Desist notice. He stated that the City of Cambridge needs to tell people what the regulations are.

Rachel Solom stated that she is the President of the Cambridge Hotel Association. She stated that she is happy to hear about regulations. She stated that Massachusetts Laws for Lodging Houses indicate that 4 units or more should be licensed as tourist houses. The Commonwealth laws makes the threshold at 4 and she suggested that the City of Cambridge use this as a threshold as well. She commented that she is happy to see that there is a robust collection of owner-occupied Airbnb units. She stated that the hosting that occurs around the city is robust and necessary. She stated that hospitality matters. She stated that it is her understanding that when you have insurance from Airbnb, it is insurance for damage that is done to your house. She urged operators to check their own Homeowners Insurance policy. She stated that she is concerned with HB 4236 which is specifically focused on taxation (Attachment F).

Debra Valliante, stated that over 30 years ago she lived in a boarding house on Pearl Street. She stated that she has been an Airbnb host for over one year and before that she was doing Homestay for international students. She remarked that she started this when her husband unexpectedly died. She stated that she will lose her home to foreclosure if she cannot rent out her two rooms. She stated that she often gets requests for 7 days or a month and they cannot find anything in Cambridge. She stated that it is important to have that capacity. She stated that this brings so much business into the neighborhood.

Ken Doolan, Winthrop, stated that Winthrop is the only community in that State that was able to incorporate Airbnb into its town ordinance. He stated that he has been a host for 5 years. He stated that he is passionate and it is his goal to work on the State level to get a bill passed for all communities to receive tax benefits from Airbnb units. He encouraged the City Council to roll up its sleeves and do the work to come up with a plan and strike a balance that will be a fit for the community. He stated that Airbnb is completely committed to owner-occupied units. He stated that small hotels can list on Airbnb to expand their outreach.

Jean Pascoe stated that she lives in Mid-Cambridge and is not an Airbnb operator. She stated that she lives in 6-unit condo. She explained that 2 years ago an owner frequently rented out her apartment during her absences. She said that it was disruptive and disturbing to have random strangers in her building. She stated that this stopped when the owner realized that her rentals were prohibited by zoning. She requested that zoning rules not be weakened.

David Pincus stated that he owns a three-family home. He stated that he has been up front with all neighbors about renting 2 units in his building. He stated that he likes to rent his units as a whole unit and has strict rules. He stated that it is important for him to have happy neighbors and he is very clear with them that if they have problems he should be immediately notified. He stated that he has been able to meet wonderful people. He stated that he has had wonderful experiences. He noted that he finds it repugnant if people choose guests based on color.

Carolyn Fuller, 12 Douglas Street, stated that the vacation rental market needs to be regulated. She said that she rents out her first floor apartment fully furnished during the academic year to visiting professors and scholars. She said that she uses Airbnb and VRBO to fill in the gaps between the longer-term rentals. She stated that it is important for the City Council to regulate this industry such that Cambridge does not lose long-term rental properties. She would like to see something in place that protects Cambridge’s long-term rental properties and is enforceable. She stated her hope that any new regulations will meet the needs of visiting professors and scholars. She said that her primary concern is with Cambridge’s long-term housing needs and her secondary concerns is with the needs of visiting professors and scholars.

Bill McIvinney stated that people buying buildings is taking away from the housing market. He stated that as it relates to enforcement, San Francisco has made regulations but they are ignored because they don’t have an enforcement policy. He said that it would be beneficial to require people to have Occupancy Permits prior to their signing up for the service. He noted that when an Occupancy Permit is issued, the property is visited by the Inspectional Services Department. He stated that he is not sure that he pays less to his service people as a short-term rental person than hotels do. He suspects that he pays more.

Marilee Meyer stated that she has no problem with owner-occupied houses and people on-site in their private homes. She stated that she is a trustee of a large building with 58 units that has had problems with Airbnb. She explained that unit owners are not aware that their leasers are renting out to Airbnb without their knowledge. She stated that it costs more money for the manager to separate recycling. She stated that parking is an issue. She stated that keys are left in open mailboxes so they do not know who is in the building.

Kathleen Gilroy stated that she owns large single-family home and rents out two extra rooms. She said that she came to City Hall and was told that if she was not renting four rooms she would not have to do anything. She stated that Airbnb has turned out to be a wonderful experience for her. She stated that she has had visitors from all over the world. She stated that she charges $99 per room and offers people the use of her garden. She noted that she is LGBT friendly and that all people are welcome. She stated that there are companies that cover Airbnb. She stated that this does not impose on her neighbor’s privacy or security.

Councillor Kelley stated that there will be upcoming opportunities to discuss this matter further.

Councillor Kelley, Mayor Simmons and Vice Mayor McGovern thanked all those present for their attendance.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the report as follows:
Communication from Rachael Solem (Attachment F)
Communication from Carolyn A. Fuller (Attachment G)
Communication from Shelley Rieman (Attachment H)
Communication from Lucia Huntington (Attachment I)
Communication from Athena Desai (Attachment J)
Communication from Rick Roth (Attachment K)
Communication from Nadine Berenguier and Bernd Widdig (Attachment L)
Communication from Richard Gonci and Joanna Fink (Attachment M)
Communication from Eric Huenneke (Attachment N)
Communication from Sarah Block (Attachment O)
Communication from Susan Goldhor (Attachment P)
Communication from Jonathan Steiman (Attachment Q)
Communication from Kristina Nies (Attachment R)
Communication from Matt Mincieli (Attachment S)
Communication from Gene Dolgin (Attachment T)
Communication from Ellen D. Herman (Attachment U)
Communication from Meghan Shaw (Attachment V)
Communciation from Rachel Wyon (Attachment W)
Communication from Raffi Mardirosian (Attachment X)

The hearing adjourned at 5:07pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair, Public Safety Committee
Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair, Housing Committee
Vice Mayor Marc McGovern, Co-Chair, Housing Committee

Committee Report #8
The Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee held a public hearing on June 29, 2016 beginning at 5:04pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to receive an update regarding the City Manager's Search in the Focus Groups that took place and the development of the draft profile.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Maher, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Mazen; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Devereux; Mayor Simmons; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Sheila Keady Rawson, Personnel Director; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Maryellen Carvello, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager; Sandra Albano, Executive Assistant to the City Council; Fran Cronin; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Michael Brandon, 27 Seven Pines Avenue; Robert Winters, 366 Broadway; Nancy Ryan, One Ashburton Place; Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; and James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place.

Councillor Maher convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being audio and visually recorded. After focus groups interviews took place GovHR USA has worked to develop the leadership profile. He stated that a draft profile is available (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that Joellen C. Earl, CEO, GovHR USA will be remotely joining the hearing via teleconferencing. The following procedure was followed for the remote participation for the consultant at the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee hearing.

Councillor Maher announced the following:

That due to the important nature of the hearing the Chair of the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee has decided to follow the procedures for remote participation as follows:

That Joellen Earl, the consultant from GovHR USA, is in attendance at this meeting via teleconferencing due to geographical distance with permission of the Chair.

Councillor Maher requested Ms. Earl to state that she can hear the proceedings. Ms. Earl responded in the affirmative Councillor Maher announced that Ms. Earl is audible to both the City Council and the public.

Councillor Maher requested Ms. Earl to give an overview of focus groups and how the information was used to develop the leadership profile. Ms. Earl responded that as a result of the meetings there were emerging themes and they were captured in the profile. She stated that the profile begins with the position announcement and goes into the background of the community and includes the organization structure. In the end the profile goes into specifics as to the person you are looking for. She stated that on page seven of the profile the opportunities and challenges are listed which is a culmination of all that was heard from the consultants when they were on site.

Councillor Carlone stated that he was impressed with the interview he was given and his points are incorporated in a respective way. He stated that he felt that the write up was accurate and he congratulated Ms. Earl.

Councillor Devereux stated that she enjoyed talking with the consultants and appreciated the effort. She read the job description and has some comments and edits that she will send to Ms. Keady Rawson. She explained that she has a background as an editor and writer and tends to view documents through this lens. She added that the brief history is not rich enough. The City Council had a process where Columbus Day was replaced with Indigenous People's Day and requested that the Historical Commission rewrite the history in order to not have the history come from the traditional history bias. She suggested edits on this issue. The housing cost statistics are focused on homeownership when 2/3 of residents are renters. She wanted rental and income statistics included. She stated that there is a widening of the income equality gap, people are living in poverty and there is food insecurity. The City Council goals are old goals and will be revised in the fall and she wondered if it could be made clear that the goals are influx and will be changed. Regarding the schools, the size of the School Department budget and metrics about School spending the second highest in the state and the substantial capital investment being made in school construction need to be included. She noted that in the At a Glance Section the only statistic list is the cost of living homeownership for a single family home there needs to be included an average rental statistic and the percentage living below the 50% AMI. She suggested mentioning the percentage of municipal workforce that is union. She stated that in the opportunities it should be mentioned that the City Manager will hire the Fire Chief and the Police Commissioner. She had suggestions on data section. She added that the transportation bullet does not acknowledge the increased emphasis placed on multimodal transportation. She suggested adding transit and the state MBTA that has requested the City contribute to the Green line Extension. Photos should be included in this document. Ms. Earl stated that she has been given photos to use, but this is just a text at this point. She stated that before this goes live if there any specific photos you do not want in the brochure let Ms. Carvello know. She explained generally eight photos are included in the brochure. Ms. Earl stated that the Organizational Chart needs to be added to the profile (ATTACHMENT B). She stated that the final product can be seen once it is fully edited.

Councillor Mazen stated the necessity to have strong municipal experience is not necessary because of the professional staff. He stated that the person at the top is taking a municipal machine and leading the leadership team. He spoke about political savvy. He stated that he sees advantages looking across other municipal applicants for a wider set. Ms. Earl stated that in the qualifications for the job it is general but there is the equivalent to have a combination. This would not be limited to applicants who only had municipal experience. Ms. Earl stated that they will be included. Councillor Mazen stated what stuck out was ten years of municipal experience. Ms. Earl commented or any other form of educational experience with the ability to perform the work. She stated that there may be seasoned municipal managers who apply but there could be applicants who would be successful who do not have the traditional background. He suggested the language include work experience including municipal, commercial or executive experience. Councillor Mazen spoke about the economic development can be challenging in this community. He spoke about financial and educational equity difficulties here where three times the national average is spent on the schools and have bad educational outcomes. This may lead to extra leadership planning for schools. He stated that outreach deserves a paragraph. In the demographics he wanted added East African and South Asian population. He spoke about cutting cost latitude for the new City Manager. He wanted this added as an opportunity. There is a very communicative City Council and City Administration and the new City Manager could be a bridge between the policy and implementation. He stated that there should be a stronger mention about the universities and provide the opportunity to give universities the stability from a policy level which is not felt from the City Council and get more public benefit and economic development value from university partners. Councillor Mazen stated that regional efforts needs greater consistency from the City Manager. He stated that the section on transit plan does not mention how arduous it is to engage with the state and the nonexistent planning with the federal government. He noted that Cambridge is the heart of a major node of the region and Cambridge does not get access to the changes or improvements that are needed. He spoke about evaluation/performance review and that accountability needs to be tightened. He acknowledged the strong text statement made in the profile and stated that the startup Eco system is missing which has almost disappeared from Cambridge. He stated that the future of the industry has moved to the Seaport.

He noted that constant availability and workaholic hard work attitude performed by Mr. Rossi is a must for the new City Manager. He wanted a commitment from the City Manager to have city staff accessible to the City Council; and to have a good rapport with the City Manager and the City Council.

Councillor Maher questioned Ms. Earl if the suggestions should be funneled to Ms. Keady Rawson who will send them back to Ms. Earl. He noted that this document is to give a flavor of the City and not a full-fledged in-depth document of the City. He stated that local candidates know what Cambridge is about; but for outside candidate this profile will provide a flavor of the City. He asked Ms. Earl about the August 1st deadline. Ms. Earl stated that she will be in Cambridge on July 25th we could not go much past this date in order for her to review and vet the resumes. She explained that she needs to do the background checks and she has to initially SKYPE with everyone. She needs to review that the criteria is being met and this takes time. She explained that if you go past the August 1st date it will not give enough time for the advertisement to be out for four weeks. Councillor Maher asked if an ideal candidate surfaced on August 7th will the August 1st deadline stop this person from applying or is there flexibility.

Ms. Earl responded that the hard deadline is when she presents the candidates to the City Council. She explained that once the candidates are presented to the City Council no one else will be considered. It would not be problematic to add one or two candidates; more than this it would be a problem.

Ms. Earl commented that the language that the residency is highly encouraged this should remain in the advertisement. The candidate needs to know that the expectation is to move to the community. She also recommended that the document contain a salary range because the expectation will be that the salary is the City Manager's current salary.

Councillor Maher had suggested to take salary out of the document. He explained his reasoning. He stated that when Mr. Rossi was appointed City Manager there was a strong desire of the City Council to get the administrative salaries under control. The salary at the time was higher than what Mr. Rossi's salary is today. Mr. Rossi was given a three year contract with the salary frozen for three years. He explained that the expectation at that time was when the City hired a new City Manager at the end of the three years that the salary will be reduced again. He stated that with the new City Council this may not be the desire of the current City Council. He noted that the City Council had not discussed a salary range. He commented that salary needs to be higher than the proposed candidate is not receiving. The Superintendent of School's salary was competitive and that the expectation is that the current individual will receive less. He stated that this can be done as a range or give leeway to search firm to stated that the current salary will be a 10-15 percent less that the current City Manager's salary.

Councillor Toomey asked what the salary of in-coming Superintendent of Schools is. Councillor Maher responded that the current Superintendent was making $265,000 and the in-coming Superintendent's salary is $232,000. He added that someone new does not have the same life experience. Councillor Toomey stated that he did not agree with reducing the salary for the City Manager. He added that this is a challenging City and a great job. He stated that he would keep the salary consistent to where it is now.

Councillor Carlone asked what the City Manager salary range is. Councillor Maher responded $250,000-$280,000. Councillor Carlone stated that it could be the expected range dependent on the qualification. He stated that an approximate $30,000 range is reasonable. He agreed with Councillor Toomey to keep salary as is. Councillor Mazen stated that $250,000-$280,000; $250,000 is generous for hard work. He spoke about poaching someone from their current job. The pool for applicants for this job is very large. He stated that this salary is about magnetizing the applicant. He asked if $250,000-$280,000 the top tier attractive level for this job.

Ms. Earl stated that City Managers who are highly respected are paid over $300,000 but are in larger urban cities, with full services. She stated that if the starting salary is $250,000-$280,000 the City Council has the flexibility to increase the salary dependent on the qualification. This is the expected range; it is not the range. Other municipal candidates are making less than $250,000-$280,000. This range recognizes the complexities of the job and are still leaving on the table the ability to increase the salary if the right person comes along.

Councillor Toomey asked if the City Council can legally or ethically pay a candidate more than the posted salary range. Councillor Maher stated that if range is $250,000-$280,000+ it is fine. Ms. Earl stated that she would not advise the wording to be that the salary is $250,000-$280,000 because there is no room for flexibility. She stated that if it is worded as expected salary to be within $250,000-$280,000 depending on qualification the City Council has flexibility. She further stated that it could be worded $250,000-$280,000 or the City would consider a higher salary for the right candidate. She stated that the wording can be open so as to not be restrictive. Councillor Devereux agreed with this and wanted access to talented candidate. She questioned the residency requirement and stated that Mr. Rossi is not resident but grew up in Cambridge. It is more about being simpatico with the Cambridge community philosophically rather than living geographically in Cambridge. Councillor Maher stated it has been heard from the public that the City Manager should live in Cambridge.

Councillor Mazen disagreed with Councillor Devereux. He stated that the City Manager should live in Cambridge. He supported the phrasing on the brochure. He stated that regarding the salary he could go higher. A salary over $350,000-$400,000 is crazy. His comment about the document is that the more little bullets it may resonate with candidate both the opportunities and challenges.

Councillor Maher asked what is helpful for the search firm. Ms. Earl stated that the wording could be that the current City Manager's salary is X and salary will be set depending on the qualifications. She is hearing that the City Council is fine with the range as long as it is flexible. Councillor Maher stated that he believes the salary should not be more than $300,000. He would go to $270,000-$300,000. Ms. Earl stated that the wording could be the expected salary range is X and a higher salary will be considered for the right candidate dependent on the qualifications. Councillor Maher stated that this committee is not setting the salary. It is only setting a range for the search document. The City Council will negotiate the salary.

Councillor Mazen stated that he would be comfortable with $250,000-$280,000+ or $250,000-$300,000.

Councillor Toomey stated that he was not comfortable with the $250,000-$300,000+ salary range. He stated that the City needs stability and has been blessed with great leadership. He stated that we need the best of the best candidates to come here. A downturn and how it can impact the City is important.

Councillor Toomey informed the committee that the state is $1 billion in the red starting new fiscal year. He wanted to ensure that the financial stability of the City continues. Councillor Toomey supported a salary range of $290,000-$320,000; with a cap at $320,000.

Councillor Mazen what is the salary that gives the City the access to the best candidate. Ms. Earl responded that if someone was brought in from Texas this candidate currently makes over $300,000; a candidate from California is in the high $200,000 range. She stated that if a range is set that is expected and you have the ability to increase the salary for the right candidate depending on qualifications then you are not being limited and have the flexibility to go higher for the right candidate. She suggested keeping the wording broad to keep the flexibility. Councillor Maher suggested $270,000-$300,000+ for the right candidate.

Councillor Maher opened the hearing to public comment at 5:59pm.

Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, spoke about citizen’s turnout for the focus groups. He attended 5-6 meetings and they worked out well. There was group of 18 that had advocacy groups attended and this too worked well. He commented that citizens had a responsibility to be relevant and to do their homework. He stated that the former City Manager in the end was bad communicating with residents and that Mr. Rossi is a great communicator. His comment on the history was not informative and should include information on the Inner Belt. He suggested that the language on page eight read that the next City Manager be ideally technologically astute. Do not make this a binding requirement. He stated that the information about transportation is lacking substance and does not mention transit or traffic. He suggested that the increase in salary for the City Manager should be considered if the candidate shows technical initiative to advance transit in the City; this is worth $50,000 annually. In the group he attend he asked what the biggest mistake is made by Mr. Rossi. The response was Alewife which is the biggest traffic mistake in the City and the answer is transit because nothing can be done about the traffic. He spoke on the education qualifications and suggested it should read "ideally should have." He favored the salary range of $250,000-$280,000+ to increase with transit expertise.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place agreed with keeping the salary at $300,000. He spoke about getting the best candidate and providing compensation. He spoke about the perspective of a resident for an employee being paid $300,000. He stated that information should appear earlier in the document under professional announcement regarding the mix of cultural, social and economic diversity under stress in the City. This is not contained in this document as it should be. He wanted the feeling of beleaguered, under stress stability in the City should be captured in the document. He suggested Cambridge College be added to the universities. He wanted positive visibility emphasized. He spoke about the tension between commercial real estate development and revenues versus the community concerns. He wanted to add community organizer as a qualification and to add language that women and minority candidates are encouraged to apply. He wanted it captured in the demographics about how much housing in the City is affordable housing. Ms. Earl stated that it is listed as 14.9% in the document.

Mr. Williamson suggested mentioning companies such as Novartis and other big biotech companies. He noted that the Master Plan will be new to the new City Manager and this will be a debate in the City and this needs to be added and acknowledged. He stated that the Plan E charter reform has been something to look at. He spoke about the challenges with transit, bicyclist, parking, public transportation and traffic congestion. He suggested a breakdown of the student and graduate population should be included in At a Glance.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, stated that Ms. Earl is excellent, but the conversation in the Chamber is unclear.

Michael Brandon, 27 Seven Pines Avenue, thanked the participants and the comments made about the document. His concerns are procedural. The document was not posted on line and there was no opportunity for the public to read it and provide detailed comments. He hopes it will be posted on line and a revised draft posted before finalized. He noted that the process is on step 5 on the process. He questioned the On-line survey. Ms. Earl responded that the survey was done and was for city employees.

Councillor Maher stated that there was an on-line survey available to all employees and an open invitation through e-mail offered to anyone to offer their opinion or for those who attended the focus groups. This was transmitted to GovHR. He asked if the opportunity for this open survey is still active. Ms. Earl responded in the affirmative. Councillor Maher stated that the survey for the city employees is closed.

Mr. Brandon stated that the salary and benefits should be included and be negotiated. He preferred that the salary be kept on the low side and negotiate it higher. He suggested $225,000-$275,000. He wanted the City Council to look at the entire salary structure. He stated that the City should hire a salary consultant. Parity is needed. The added that the new City Manager needs to be paid more than the Deputy City Manager. He stated PILOT should be included in the document and should be renegotiated with the universities. He spoke about the need for controlled development. He suggested that 859 Massachusetts Avenue recently acquired should be made the City Manager's mansion.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, challenged Councillor Mazen on the residency requirement. He spoke about the argument against the City Manager living in the City is that the City Manager cannot take a break from their work. He wanted to hear from the City Council why residency is important in Cambridge rather than a nearby community.

Public comment was closed at 6:22pm on motion of Councillor Maher.

Councillor Mazen commented that high level department heads work hard until they reach burn out and then they quit. In an ideal situation city employees should not be accosted during the off work time and there should be reflection. This is a good point. He noted that it is different to live in Cambridge than over the border. The right person can strike a work/life balance.

Councillor Mazen commented that there may be consensus around the salary range of $270,000-$300,000+ to have this printed in the brochure. Councillor Toomey expressed his concern with paying the Superintendent of Schools $232,000 because the City Manager's responsibility is greater. He supported $280,000-$300,000+.

Councillor Mazen moved that the salary range be $275,000 - $300,000+ expected.

The motion carried on a voice vote of four members.

Councillor Maher stated that Ms. Earl wants to start recruitment and needs the document. Changes will be sent to Ms. Keady Rawson. The photos will be reviewed and make sure that they are diverse and representative of the City.

In July and August the next phase will be around recruitment efforts and forming the search team will be the subject of the next hearings.

Mr. Brandon asked if the committee will meet to approve final document. Councillor Maher responded in the negative. He explained that the committee has given their input and Ms. Keady Rawson will send the updates to Ms. Earl so as to not delay the recruitment effort.

The following e-mail was received and made part of the report:

Communication from Colin Durrant, 31 Cameron Avenue, requesting that the candidate for City Manager have a strong track record building multi-modal infrastructure, with an emphasis on proactively implementing protected infrastructure for. Pedestrians and cyclists (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Maher thanked all present for their attendance.

The hearing was adjourned at 6:28pm on a motion by Councillor Toomey.

For the Committee,
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair

Committee Report #9
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on June 23, 2016, 2016 beginning at 1:25pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the proposed changes to the current liquor license regulations and the City Council policy goals on liquor licenses, economic development, the impact on neighborhoods and local businesses.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Mazen; Councillor Devereux; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Nicole Murati Ferrer, Chair, License Commission; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Lisa Hemmerlee, Director, Economic Development Division, CDD; Christopher Burke, Police Commissioner; Gerry Reardon, Fire Chief; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Robert Winters, 366 Broadway; Denise Jillson, HSBA, 2203 Massachusetts Avenue; Sarah Kennedy, CSBA; Kim Courtney and Xavier Dietrich; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Michael Brandon, 27 Seven Pines Avenue; and Marc Levy, 132 Oxford Street.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being privately audio and video recorded. He asked Ms. Murati Ferrer, License Commission Chair, to explain the background for the proposed changes.

Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that when she came on board at the License Commission she looked at all of the processes and rules. They have been working on this for a year. With the assistance of the City Solicitor the rules have been brought in compliance with the state law. The proposed changes have received comments and public hearings have been held and there are substantive changes.

Councillor Kelley requested Ms. Murati Ferrer to highlight the changes to the rules. A summary of the proposed rules is attached (ATTACHMENT A).

Ms. Murati Ferrer spoke about the deletion of the addendum and to take it out so that License Commission would no longer issue licenses for patios. She explained that this is a City Manager process and this is not in the License Commission rule book. This is giving the public confusing information and the rulebook needs to be consistent across procedures. This has been put on the License Commission website as advisory information.

Councillor Kelley asked Mr. Rossi how the City Council reviews the rules.

Mr. Rossi stated that when Ms. Murati Ferrer was hired he felt that this was a good time to review the rules and regulations and bring them into compliance. Ms. Murati Ferrer shared this work with the City Solicitor and it was reviewed by outside counsel. This is the document that was shared with the public about the changes and when they would occur. There have been many ABCC changes and this will yield clarity around this matter.

Councillor Kelley requested City Solicitor Glowa to explain the authority of the City Council on this issue. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the alcoholic liquors law, Chapter 138, gives the License Commission the right to promulgate rules and issue liquor licenses.

Councillor Kelley asked about limiting the CAP he wanted more information about this.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the License Commission has to follow state law and that the License Commission has the authority in Cambridge given by state statue Chapter 138. Councillor Kelley asked what power the City Council has. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City Council may have powers in other matters, but the License Commission issues the liquor licenses and the City Council can regulate zoning which may affect the licenses in terms of allowable uses and so forth.

Councillor Kelley inquired as to where the cap authority came from. Fire Chief Reardon explained that the cap policy came into existence because there were neighborhoods who wanted to limit the number of bars in areas because of noise, disturbances and fights. The cap was to control liquor licenses. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that under Section 6 of Chapter 138 it states that the license authority can limit cap areas. She stated that caps can be exempted and broken. If there is public need for an additional license or more seats, the License Commission can break the cap and allow that. A liquor license can only be issued for a public good and this is in the law. As a ‘no quota’ City, Cambridge can issue as many licenses as it wishes.

Councillor Kelley asked for an explanation that if one had a license it could be sold to another establishment in a different cap area. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that the regulations will eliminate the caps entirely and make Cambridge not subject to the cap Section 23 of Chapter 138 which states that licenses can be transferred and pledged. She stated that courts and the DOR state that licenses can be pledged.

Councillor Kelley stated that if the cap is eliminated then the value of the license would be reduced. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that if the cap is broken there is another license out there. In Section 15 package store licenses were sold for the name. She stated that some license values will go down.

Councillor Kelley asked if he bought a license would he be buying the name also. Ms. Murati Ferrer commented that someone could come to the License Commission and get a liquor license now. There will be some deflation; the value is set by brokers, and businesses.

Councillor Devereux asked if the cap is eliminated and the License Commission stops issuing “no value” licenses all will be on the same footing in the market, is this correct? Ms. Murati Ferrer responded that if no value and non-transferable licenses currently in effect will remain and will die with the business and will not be issued again. The purpose of this license would be to phase these license out for current licenses. There are currently 45 no value licenses out of about 250 licenses.

Councillor Mazen thanked Ms. Murati Ferrer for the clarification on this matter. He assumes that with the Grandfather Clause that there is a cost to keep the licenses grandfathered because this is double work in phasing out the licenses. Ms. Murati Ferrer noted that all licenses are treated the same and the only cost and backlash to the licensee is when transferred to EnerGov to show they are transferred. From an operational standpoint, the License Commission treats all licenses the same.

Councillor Devereux stated that if the cost of license is a public need what is to stop anyone holding a no value license from applying for a general one. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that there is a draw back to the business. The business will be shut down awaiting a new liquor license that also needs ABCC approval so it could take a while, though an existing license would show existing public need so the only new requirement would be to show good moral character by person who is applying. It is a risk that the License Commission may not issue a new liquor license. The ABCC will not issue a new license if one exists. This may have a revenue implication.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the value of any license and the transfer value and why would anyone apply for a new liquor license. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that all liquor licenses need to be applied for. If there are licenses available in the City the existing licenses maybe sold for less.

Mr. DiGiovanni stated that the business association letter was submitted supporting the work of the License Commission. He stated that the Cambridge cap was self-imposed and not subject to state rules; Cambridge imposed its own cap. Small spaces and small businesses were having a hard time securing a license and had an advantage; any license submitted by the City would have no value. There are only two communities not subject to the state's quota. If a city can issue the licenses this way the cap is irrelevant now. The new class would make licenses transferable. The issue of doing licenses in a different way needs to ensure it does not have an adverse effect to the City. He stated that the License Commission is less likely to issue a no value license when there is a value license out there.

Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that only if the license is kept at the same location there is an assumption of public need. If the location is new a public need or common good must be shown. If you buy a license from someone and present your case before the License Commission and you are approved as a license holder it cannot operate until the ABCC gives approval. Ms. Murati Ferrer was asked if there is a situation where an establishment may never have its doors close. She responded in the affirmative, but you cannot have two licenses at the same location.

Councillor Devereux commented about that creating a separate category to let new owners enter the market; the existing 45 licenses will stay a secondary category. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that the ABCC does recognize that licenses are transferable. She stated that the cap does conform to state law, Chapter 138. The cap was set and then an exception was set breaking the cap, this is how the cap became superficial. She stated that elimination of the cap does not mean that there will be a free-for-all for liquor licenses. This is not a third category of licenses; there are only two categories.

Councillor Mazen asked if there is a way to work with ABCC to bridge these licenses and move the no value licenses into the regular pool. Ms. Murati Ferrer explained that this was not done this way due to the public comments from "for value" licenses. This is within the License Commission purview to do this and considered the economic impact to the City.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is an issue of fairness for "for value" versus "no value" licenses. This is similar to the taxi medallion license process. This exacerbates the bubble. Chief Reardon stated that for the “for value" license you need to take into account the number of seats in the establishment. Councillor Mazen stated that engineering these 45 licenses in may be a good thing. A "no value" license holder may want to transfer to a "value" license and may be a held hostage in this type of a situation where the new tenant is at odds with a former tenant who also holds a license. Ms. Murati Ferrer explained a pocket license is a license that is active and not in use. Under Section 77 of Chapter 138 when licenses are not used the license ceases to exist. She stated that there is a need for the License Commission to make sure that these licenses are not being used to hold people hostage (because the same property cannot have two licenses). Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that licenses are issued attached to an address. There is provision in the law to move or transfer these liquor licenses. A non-use informational hearing is held by License Commission and the licensee is given a reasonable amount of time to use, move or transfer the license. The License Commission has the authority to revoke a licenses if this process drags on too long.

Councillor Kelley asked what a reasonable amount of time is. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that there is case law for six months, but it is on a case-by-case basis. Chief Reardon stated that this only happens for value licenses where someone wants to recoup money. The ABCC may send the issue back to the License Commission.

Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that regarding the regulation changes all are important changes. There has not been much public comment on this.

Councillor Kelley stated that to recap the City Council has no authority over the License Commission in setting the cap. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the affirmative. Councillor Kelley stated that the City Council has authority over bars and restaurant through zoning. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the affirmative; this is a use change. Councillor Kelley commented that the patio seating policy comes up in zoning relating to parking. The patio policy is an agreement between the City Manager. City Solicitor Glowa stated that every establishment has seats for liquor use and are governed by the License Commission and zoning. Some businesses have private patios and are subject to license and zoning requirements. The use of City ways for patios the authority was given by the City Council to the City Manager to use public way for restaurant use on public ways. These licenses are issued by City Manager after approval by the License Commission and ABCC. Public Works has to approve free passage on public ways via a sidewalk obstruction permit.

Councillor Devereux questioned the fees. Ms. Murati Ferrer responded that all licensee pay an annual fee to the License Commission. The no value - nontransferable licenses were given a higher fee and there are differences impacted by closing times. There is a $3,000 difference for the no value license. The focus of the License Commissioners was on the rules; the fees will be reviewed which have been in effect since 2009. The license renewal period is November and then after this the fee structure will be reviewed.

Councillor Mazen stated that the License Commission does not have the authority to make its own law is this case. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the License Commission does have the authority to promulgate regulations. The no value-transferrable licenses will continue until the business goes away. All licenses expire on December 31, and must be renewed annually. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that the procedures are contained in Chapter 138, including proof of insurance. The license application process is the busiest in November.

Councillor Devereux noted that if all licenses expire at the end of the year there will be no new non-value transferrable licenses issued. The License Commission is still considering this.

Councillor Mazen stated that the value licenses are making money and he has no sympathy for the value decreasing. This is not the biggest factor for him as licenses were not supposed to be a speculative financial instrument.

At 2:37pm Councillor Kelley opened the hearing to public comment.

Denise Jillson, Harvard Square Business Association, suggested keeping the conversation going. The big issue is the no value transferrable licenses that give local independent business the ability to serve beer and wine and they need to be able to do that to compete. All the little restaurants have a competitive advantage; do no spoil this for the 45 licenses issued. The dining scene in Harvard Square is hopping and we do not want to screw that up. Is it possible that these licenses remain in effect as long as the business is in existence and cannot be transferred and the value is money? A purchased nontransferable license now cannot be transferred and now has value. This does not make sense. Sell licenses that were never paid for does not make sense.

Michael Brandon, 27 Seven Pines Avenue, stated he was a bit confused by some of this discussion and that the mistake was made long ago to have liquor license have value. Chapter 138 is a privilege. Licenses having value never made sense. He questioned the authority and stated that there is overlap. The City Council has no authority over alcohol licenses. The sidewalk permit policy was not adopted by the City Council and the fee and inspection was determined and it still comes back to the License Commission for approval, but it does not seem to come back to the City Council for approval. Citizens don’t always agree with what the City decides. He suggested that this City Council approval could be a final step as a fail-safe measure.

Kim Courtney asked under what state law the License Commission can make regulations. She asked about the consultant and under what state law this was done. She submitted a communication which is attached as (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 2:47pm.

Councillor Mazen spoke about profitable institution and the inequality that exists in the broken system now. He noted that the proposed changes were unlikely to increase inequities. He wanted it made fair and equitable - this is the time to do this now. The irregularities in the purchase price is not going to be mitigated or preserved.

Councillor Kelley noted that the License Commissioners have looked at the regulatory changes. This matter was referred to the Public Safety Committee for a hearing pursuant to a Policy Order adopted by the City Council. He encouraged the License Commission to make the system as equitable as possible.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at. 2:52pm on motion of Councillor Kelley.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #10
The Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee and the Public Safety Committee conducted a joint public hearing on July 19, 2016 at 5:33pm in the Sullivan Chamber. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee did not meet due to a lack of quorum.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss safety issues as it relates to cyclist and pedestrians in Inman Square, and to hear suggestions from community members and on how best to address the safety challenges of this intersection.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Toomey, Chair of the Transportation & Public Utilities Committee; Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee; Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee; Councillor Jan Devereux; Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern; Richard C. Rossi, City Manager; Joseph Barr, Director; Patrick Baxter, Engineering Manager, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner; Kathy Watkins, Senior Engineer, Department of Public Works; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager; Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environment and Transportation Planning, Community Development Department (CDD); Jack Albert, Deputy Superintendent; Matt Nelson, Community and Strategic Partnerships Coordinator, Cambridge Police Department (CPD); Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Dan Schwartz; Neal Alpert, Chief of Staff to Mayor E. Denise Simmons; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Laura Borelli, Trudi Goodman, Sarah Heintz, Matt Carty, Robert Winters, Judy Johnson, Margaret Walsh, Brad Bellows, Kate Mills, Colin Gallagher, Felix Arroyo, Carl Rothenhaus, Jamie Gottschale, Ben Friedman, Frankie Mullett, Jessi Flynn, Nathaniel Fillmore, Terri Xiao, Adrianne Abrebul, Andy Greenspon, Michael Cuthbert, Elina Hamilton, Steven Bercu, Jonathan Adams, Allen Speight, Phillip Mirmov, Rachel Burckardt, Virginia Trufan, Ken Carlson, Mark Boswell, Ilya Shlyaichter, Mary Jane Rupert, Melissa Tonachel, Susan Scheiner, Madge Kaplan, Zie Amador, Stacy Thompson, Caroline Jaffe, Colin Durrant, Ken Shulman, Jo Ann Haas, Anne Lusk, Anne Biernachi, James Williamson, Becca Wolfson, Julia Sharpe, Steve Miller, Diana Monteith, Sharon DeVas, Lynn Simpson, Ezra Rudel, Tim Stein, David Hermann, Elinor Karlsson, Hernan Romero, Matt Cloyd, Amy Meltzer, Dan Flynn, Ryan Christman, and Mika Cheng.

Councillor Mazen read the Call of the Meeting and gave an overview of the agenda for this hearing. (Attachment A). He stated that it is unfortunate that this hearing has been precipitated by a bicycle death. He said that there are a number of people in the audience who are irate due to the fact that they have been saying that someone is going to die at this intersection. He stated that we will discuss how deep-seated transit instincts and proactive planning can bring about safer squares across the city and safer modes of transportation.

Councillor Kelley gave an overview of a PowerPoint Presentation. (Attachment B). He stated that he does not think that there are easy answers as there are a lot of conflicting needs and concerns. He said that bike lanes are frequently both in the door zone and partially or largely occupied by vehicles of all types. He said that on-street graphics are one possible solution to remind cyclists and drivers of the door zone danger. He cited some examples of some Cambridge bike facilities that are often dubiously constructed such as one by Fresh Pond which is at sidewalk level and is bordered by a traditional straight curb at the street. He showed an example of a separated bike lane in New York City that has a safer slanted curb to the street and is at a different level than the adjacent sidewalk. He said that a bike lane on Concord Avenue is pierced by many street and driveways which sends a confusing and dangerous message with the white traffic lane near the solid curb which encourages people who guide on that line to avoid doors to bike too close to the edge. He said cyclists come in all different types and go at all different speeds. He said that finding a way to accommodate all of that in one lane is a challenge. He stated that we put bike lanes next to cars and there are people who use these lanes for all manner of uses. He stated that simple solutions might include a more active campaign.

Joseph Barr gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation. (Attachment C). He stated that safety for all modes of transportation is paramount. He explained some of the policies and strategies currently in place such as the Bicycle Plan, Pedestrian Plan, Safe Routes to School, Five-Year Sidewalk and Street Reconstruction Plan and VisionZeroNetwork. He explained that the Inman Square Traffic Study began in the Summer of 2015. He then turned the presentation over to Patrick Baxter, who explained that the study collected data from 2008-2012 with 69 total crashes in five years. He noted that this intersection exceeds MassDOT Statewide Average Crash Rate. He said that there were 15 bicycle involved crashes with 5 pedestrian involved crashes. He added that there were 21 injury crashes. Mr. Baxter explained desired outcomes of the study to include improvement of sidewalks, expansion of open space, providing more crossing opportunities, reducing the length of crosswalks, reducing exposure through more compact intersection design, minimizing conflicts with turning vehicles, reducing unnecessary delays, providing clear guidance and lane controls and increasing efficiency through more compact intersection design. He explained that the traffic study idea is to bend streets and create two separate and simplified intersections. He stated that next steps to the Inman Square Traffic Study is to engage the local community, businesses, and bicycle, pedestrian and transit committees. He said that ongoing coordination will take place with the City of Somerville, the Cambridge Fire Department and the MBTA. He said that in the short term, “Green-backed” sharrows, intersection bike lane markings, signage, education and engagement, and outreach will take place.

Mr. Baxter added that the goals are to improve safety for all users, improve/simplify operations for all modes, continue to support the local and residential and business communities and develop improvements that can be implemented in the short to medium term. He stated that the map shows that Cambridge Street carries 19,000 vehicles per day. He stated that Inman Square has a total of 7 lights coming into a very large intersection.

Councillor Kelley asked the definition of an angle crash. Mr. Baxter responded that this is any vehicle crash that involves one user ignoring a traffic signal. Councillor Kelley asked if it is possible to break up turning movement crashes versus those going straight at this intersection. Mr. Baxter responded in the affirmative. Mr. Baxter spoke about the desired outcomes at this location. He stated that they quickly found that it is just simply not possible to work within the existing constraints. He explained that the idea was to create two separate intersections. He explained that the first idea is to bend Hampshire Street because compact intersections reduce exposure time for bikes. This intersection would allow for the creation of new open space and involves construction of two new traffic signals, creates crossing opportunities, reduce exposure time for bikes, as well as signal control that will provide continuous movement on Hampshire Street and left turn movements for bikes that need additional consideration. Mr. Baxter then explained the second alternative of bending Cambridge Street. He stated that the compact intersections would reduce exposure time, provide more crossing opportunities, reduction of length of crosswalks, and construction of new traffic signals. He explained that through bikes on Hampshire Street would not need to turn. He said it is the hope that construction would begin next year.

Susanne Rasmussen stated that in addition to establishing a safe environment that is supportive of biking, they are engaging in activities to promote safe travel. Education efforts relate to the rules of the road and how to operate a motor vehicle safely. She stated that the team is at Citywide events to create maximum exposure of the message. She stated that they work very intensely with Harvard, MIT and Lesley to push out these messages to students. She stated that they also really try to broaden the reach of the message. She explained that there has been a focus on reaching women, elderly and different ethnic groups. She encouraged people to look at Chapter 6 of the Bike Plan to learn about engagement. She stated that one reason that it is important for the City to offer this education because the State is failing to focus on bike safety. She added that there are no bike-related questions on a Driver’s License test. She stated that the City is offering bicycle education classes which have been increasing in numbers. She explained that classes are focused on rules of the road, bike maintenance and safety. She said that classes are aimed at the general public but they also tailor classes to youth, women and elderly cyclists. She noted that they are reaching out through surveys as the #1 interest is urban cycling followed by bike maintenance. She said that they are running 8-10 classes per season with 50 participants in each class. She stated that they are trying to simplify the message. She noted that the information is very targeted with images or icons that can be taken in quickly. She said that posters went onto bus shelter around the city. She stated that the Watch For Bike Decals can be placed on side mirrors and they have previously pushed those out with the Resident Parking Permit. She noted that these are always available at the City events. She added that as it relates to truck sideguards, large vehicles are a large percentage of crashes that have occurred. She said that in addition to reaching out to our own drivers, they intend to voluntarily work with any company that will put sideguards on their large trucks. She noted that they Bike Plan looks at everything from current conditions, crashes, education and long-term vision for a high quality bike network.

Cambridge Police Deputy Superintendent Jack Albert spoke about Safety Education and Direct Engagement that took place during the 2015 and 2014 Bike Safety Months. He explained this chart shows the locations of educational tables. He explained that the Cambridge Police Department offered useful information as well as educational cards which explained rules of road. He said that handouts were given and questions were answered. He explained that the Police Department has 3 large message boards that were placed in locations where there have been dooring issues such as Inman Square, Central Square Hampshire Street and Broadway. He then gave an overview of enforcement. He explained that these total citations are a combination of the Police Department and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department. He said that in Calendar Year 2016, there have been 6,223 moving violations issued by the Police Department. He said that there have been 381 total violations issued to cyclists to date. He said that there have been 370 crosswalk violations and 484 parking violations for blocking a bicycle lane.

Deputy Superintendent Albert explained that the Cambridge Police Department received a Sustained Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Grant for fiscal year 2015 and 2016 for $40,000. He noted that focused locations include Inman Square, Mass Avenue/Vassar Street, Mass Avenue and Albany Street, Central Square, Broadway corridor, Hampshire Street corridor and the River Street corridor with infractions focusing on crosswalks, speeding, red light/stop sign, distracted driving, and bicyclists.

Councillor Toomey thanked all of the City departments for preparing the report. He stated that last year there was an order to look at safety in the square. He stated it is clear to him the conflict among all of the users. He stated that he had a visibility during the last election season in Inman Square and the timing of the lights seemed off and was causing a lot of congestion. He stated that it was not a safe situation and he asked his volunteers to leave the site due to safety issues. He added that this is a very complex situation and he appreciates the time that has gone into the report. He stated that as it relates to bending Cambridge Street, he is concerned that Antrim Street will become a parking lot. Mr. Barr responded that his department has heard the concerns of the residents and they will look at ways to prevent people from using Antrim Street as a positive option.

Councillor Devereux stated that she does not know that there has been an effort to look at a network plan and prioritize streets. She stated that while the bending of streets in Inman Square may be great, she does not see plan for protected bike lanes. She said that we must have a real conversation about protected bike lanes. As it relates to sideguards, she asked if the City has control over contractors that work for the City. She questioned the possibility of writing a sideguard requirement into contracts. Regarding Police citations, she said that she would like to see actual violations outnumber the warnings. She added that she would like to see a more explicit path for right turns from Hampshire onto Cambridge Street.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he agreed with Councillor Devereux regarding separated bike lanes on Hampshire and Cambridge Streets. He stated that in the terms of the process and reconstruction going forward, three years to a city is not a lot of time but it is an eternity to those that live and work in the area. He stated that he would like the process to move much quicker. He said that he feels that enforcement needs to be stepped up. He stated that when Police see a violation, he would like every effort made to enforce the violation.

Councillor Kelley stated that he always likes more enforcement of all types. He stated that he is not sure what the data is telling him pertaining to the plan. He said that the miserable turn for him when he bikes is when you are trying to go left on Hampshire to go into Boston. He stated that the going straight part is probably not a problem. He stated that left turn lanes and the modified rotaries that we see in places help define where traffic is supposed to go. He said that there is a lot of confusion at this site and added that he does not feel that Antrim Street will work.

Councillor Mazen asked Councillor Toomey if he feels that the intersection is better in one of the two new plans or if he feels that just additional marking in the current state is better. Councillor Toomey stated that he wants to hear from the designers but his point is that Antrim Street, if it is the preferred route, cannot accommodate both cars and bikes without taking away parking. He asked if the City should look at putting in red light cameras. He stated that the current design is not working. He said that he will listen to the experts but the people need to give input. He asserted that he is open to whatever it takes to make Inman Square safer.

Councillor Mazen asked if either proposal will deliver more traffic to Antrim Street. Mr. Barr stated that it is difficult to answer. He noted that one of the bending designs, bu not the other, makes Antrim seem like a more attractive route. He stated that one additional source of complexity is that Antrim Street is not signal controlled. He explained that one goal is to figure out a way to resolve that. He stated that under the bending of Cambridge Street, it will be more difficult to access Antrim Street. He stated that there are trade-offs associated with either option. Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted to make the preference of the committee clear to Community Development and that, unless there was any objection, it seemed that the councillors were in favor of one of the bending options, with protected bicycle infrastructure, rather than no change.

Joe Barr stated that the intent is to try to figure out ways to integrate protected facilities. He stated that they fully intend to move this forward as quickly as possible. He said that the hope is that construction will begin in one year or less. He said that short-term improvements are not intended to give anyone the impression that this is not an urgent matter.

Councillor Mazen stated that he would love it if the behaviors related to safety were prioritized in enforcement. He stated that people who bike can be a threat to people who walk when they do very specific things and that people who bike need to be cited for these things in particular. He stated that he feels that people who are biking do not have a relationship with the violations because they feel arbitrary. He stated that we can go out of our way to find the things that are the most urgent and dangerous in order to prioritize enforcement. Jack Albert stated that they look at where they want to concentrate enforcement. He said that data is used to determine where the problems are. Councillor Mazen stated that data will take us so far but the wisdom of the crowd can take us further. He said that it is important to marshal the community understanding of where additional attention is needed.

Councillor Kelley stated that we need to move bikes out of the door zone. He stated that when his kids bike in the door zone he wonders how he is failing them. He said he would like the “Green GreenBacked” sharrows installed in the meantime. Councillor Mazen agreed and said that he prefers the parking protected bike lane with infrastructure points which will protect walkers and bikers. Iram Farooq explained that this is difficult in a city that is built out already. She stated that it is a balancing act. Joe Barr stated that they are looking at what was done on Ames Street, in terms of parking-protected bike infrastructure, but it is important to have the required space.

Susanne Rasmussen added that not every street is equal. She stated that there is a hierarchy of streets and different types of facilities that are appropriate.

Councillor Mazen stated that in order to create facilities for all on as many streets as possible, there will be conflict in the planning. He said that this conflict will be healthy. He stated that in some cases we will have to pick one way or the other. He stated that one side will not get what they want. He noted that all are aiming at a safer community and we need to process conflict in a constructive way. He stated that we are here to have more discussions and we should not shy away from the tension.

Councillor Mazen stated that woonerfs are a type of intersection that is unplanned. He wondered if it has entered the City’s planning vocabulary. Kathy Watkins stated that we use the term “shared streets.” She noted that the earliest shared streets were in Harvard Square. She stated that any time we are having a community process, particularly on a small residential street, you want to make sure that the numbers are right so there is not a street where drivers predominantly dominate. She stated that there is a point where they can do higher traffic volume streets but the ones that have been done have worked well. She stated that it is important for pedestrians and bicyclists to have high visibility.

Councillor Mazen asked about Truck Routes and Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets (MMLOS). Deputy Superintendent Albert responded that there are 42 restricted roads in Cambridge. He  stated that they have to allow trucks to get where they are going legally. Councillor Kelley asked about bus enforcement. Jack Albert said that the neighbors keep the CPD involved. He stated that the CPD reaches out to the bus companies. Joe Barr stated that the concept of making sure that we fully analyze the impacts is very important. He stated that the MMLOS tool is probably not a great one from his experience. He said that it applies a data intensive tool that spits out a result that is hard to interpret. He stated that California is eliminating the use of vehicular LOS. Mr. Barr noted the need to look at different modes and making smart decisions.

Councillor Mazen said that if MMLOS is not the framework, how swiftly will we move into the thinking that prioritizes safety above all other concerns, including traffic? Joe Barr responded that he does not have an answer. He said that there is great control over the development process and they want to understand the level of service and ask how to make this the safest and best place possible. Susanne Rasmussen stated that Western Avenue was designed to be part of regional network for drivers and part of the city circulation network for all modes. She said that it is the front yard of the residents of Western Avenue. She stated that it was designed to meet all of the needs.

Joe Barr stated that every single decision is not perfect but they have been taking safety as a primary concern for many years. He stated that we have to be clear in the goals and be willing to make difficult decisions even if certain things are sacrificed.

Councillor Devereux stated that the level of service analysis has not served the City well in the Alewife area.

Public comment opened at 7:01pm.

Laura Borelli stated that she leads a group of student bike advocates. She stated that the number of car citations is not enough. She stated that she tried to report someone who almost doored her and the CPD did not seem to care. She asked if there will be green ways extending all the way through. She stated that this is a good message for drivers. She asked when the lanes will be painted. She said that every day that an improvement is not made it remains unsafe. She suggested bike only traffic lights.

Trudy Goodman, 1221 Cambridge Street, stated that almost three years ago she asked for a traffic study. She stated that someone said they assumed that the traffic going down Cambridge Street is not problematic. She said that Antrim Street is already used as a pass through street. She stated that her building has 125 units. She stated that she is representing them. She stated that they have symbols on the sidewalk that need to be re-painted. She stated that bikes can be ridden on the sidewalk in Somerville. She asked why bells were taken out of the traffic lights and asked that they be returned. She urged bicyclists to follow the rules of the road. She stated that we should issue licenses to bicyclists. She said that she would like the study extended to Prospect Street.

Matt Carty stated that for a single route such as Hampshire Street or Cambridge Street, and Cambridge, there are no alternatives. He said that aggressively moving forward with temporary safety measures is important. He stated that this is not a bike only issue. He suggested that transit routes are important to look at. He stated that it is important to look at routes with transit and prioritize them. He stated that bikes are good for business. He suggested that the Cambridge Street bend is better than the Hampshire Street bend. He encouraged more bike patrols by the CPD on roads with sharrows.

Robert Winters stated that he is not fan of cycle tracks as he prefers to be in the road. He stated that Inman Square is a horrible intersection. He stated that a lot of progress has been made. He stated that the three examples of locations that are horrible are the intersection of Fresh Pond and Mount Auburn Street, McGrath & O’Brien Highway and Inman Square. He stated that it is insane for cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles. He said that the elongated X is the biggest problem with too much exposure for too long a period of time. He stated that he is thankful for the two alternatives and both are good ideas. He said that traffic volumes can decide which alternative is best.

Judy Johnson stated that she lives on Antrim Street. She stated that she thinks there is a slower speed limit in front of the school. She stated that there are a lot of bikes on the street. She stated that the violations should be at least 1,000 per month.

Brad Bellows thanked all for coming out. He stated that he appreciated what Councillor Kelley said about the danger of bike lanes in the door zone. He stated that as it relates to dooring, we will be stuck with that hazard for some years to come. He said that the penalty of dooring should be increased, possibly $500.00. He stated that footage from helmet bikes should be used.

Nathaniel Filmore stated that the bike lanes should be fully protected.

Becca Wolfson, Executive Director, Boston Cyclists Union, stated that she is hoping that we can move the best plan forward as quickly as possible. She stated that the short-term measures do not go far enough in protecting cyclists. She said that she would like to urge the City to ban left hand turns from Hampshire to Cambridge Street in both directions. She stated that the bending of Cambridge Street is an option that makes much more sense. She stated that bike traffic is much heavier on Beacon and Hampshire than Cambridge Street. She encouraged protected bike lanes.

Jonathan Adams thanked the committee for its efforts. He stated that CDD has worked hard. He stated that he was doored so the corridor means a lot to him. He stated that it is a serious matter in Cambridge that people do not take seriously. He stated that drivers do not understand that bicyclists also have responsibilities on the road. He said that the Bike Plan needs to be utilized and we must look at Complete Streets. He said that we should not have meetings because a death occurred.

Rachel Burckardt stated that she appreciates protected facilities. She said that she does like idea of taking away the left turn for cars but not for bicycles. She stated that she does not think that the interim plan deals with her situation. She stated that the chaos that happens is the left turns. She stated that as a resident who has access to a vehicle, she is all for giving up a certain amount of parking. She said we cannot forget the importance of lights.

Alan Spate is a cyclist, pedestrian, motorist and father. He suggested that if it is decided to go with the Hampshire Street bend, it is important to consider redirecting traffic northbound rather than southbound. He stated that the Lafayette location worked.

Ilya Schlacter urged that bike only lights be strongly considered.

Stacey, Global Street Alliance, thanked the staff. She stated that we have talked about users and modes and traffic but the issue is people. She asked how to conduct a more rapid respond to these situations. She said that she would love a scenario where this project happens within a week. She asked what resources are needed and what support from the City Council is required to ramp up rapid response. She echoed the need for a stronger plan. She pushed the City Council to ask where is the vision and what is your goal in prioritizing and not getting in the way of safety.

Public comment closed at 7:29pm.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That Traffic and Planning suggest an ideal time to Neighborhood Long Term Planning Committee to schedule a meeting in the early fall to process any outstanding discussion on cycle infrastructure.

The motion passed.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City departments to paint green the Inman Square bike lanes through the Inman Square intersection immediately and to extend the intersection corners further into the street for the safety of those bicycling where possible at the discretion of the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department.

The motion passed.

Mr. Barr stated that there will be the need to examine impeding the flow of busses in that area. Ms. Watkins concurred with Mr. Barr and stated that there is not as much extra space as the examples shown in New York City.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That public design charrettes for people who bicycle be scheduled in the city’s design and outreach process around new or revised infrastructure, whenever bicycle infrastructure is at play.

The motion passed.

Councillor Devereux made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to conduct an analysis on the feasibility and potential impact of banning left hand turns in Inman Square.

The motion passed.

A written communication was received from Mark Boswell regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment D).
A written communication was received from Megan Brook regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment E).
A written communication was received from Matt Carty regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment F).
A written communication was received from Sarah Chapple-Sokol regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment G).
A written communication was received from Veasey Conway regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment H).
A written communication was received from Lumina Gershfield Cordova regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment I).
A written communication was received from Colin Durrant regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment J).
A written communication was received from Ben Ewen-Campen regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment K).
A written communication was received from Ilham Khuri-Makdisi regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment L).
A written communication was received from Kristin Johnson Kulash regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment M).
A written communication was received from Katherine Kurelja regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment N).
A written communication was received from Anne Lush regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment O).
A written communication was received by Tom Meek regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment P).
A written communication was received from George Metzger regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment Q).
A written communication was received from Kate Peterson regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment R).
A written communication was received from Alex Reisman regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment S).
A written communication was received from Mary Jane Rupert regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment T).
A written communication was received from Nate Sharpe regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment U).
A written communication was received from Lilli Smith regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment V).
A written communication was received from Robert Stickgold regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment W).
A written communication was received from Lindsey Collins Sudbury regarding safety in Inman Square. (Attachment X).

Councillors Mazen and Kelley thanked all attendees for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 7:39pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair, Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair, Public Safety Committee

Committee Report #11
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Mon, July 11, 2016, beginning at 5:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber to continue the discussion regarding the recently completed Inclusionary Housing Study and the Affordable Housing Trust’s recommendations to the City Council. This hearing was televised.

Present at the hearing were Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair; Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, CoChair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Leland Cheung; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Planner; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Peter Daly, Michael Haran, Gwendolen Noyes, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, and Susan Schlesinger, Members of the Affordable Housing Trust (AHT); Neal Alpert, Chief of Staff to Mayor Simmons; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Elaine DeRosa, Nancy Ryan, Lee Farris, Heather Hoffman, Margaret Drury, Ellen Shachter, Sara Kennedy and Jesse Kanson-Benanav.

Mayor Simmons read from a prepared opening statement. She stated that the Housing Committee is holding the third of at least three meetings to discuss the recently completed Inclusionary Zoning Study (Attachment A). She stated that the full report is available on the City’s website and noted that the meeting will also focus on the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Trust that were drafted in response to this study. She stated that we must continually be cognizant of why this study was commissioned. She stated that the recommendations of the AHT are based on exhaustive, deliberate analysis of the conditions that exist in Cambridge and have been tailored to best fit our community in such a way as to not chill development which would lead to no new housing. She stated that in the last City Council term, the Housing Committee spent the majority of its time focusing on the best way to raise the incentive zoning rate. She stated that the discussion went through an exhaustive vetting process by the CDD, the Housing Committee, the Ordinance Committee and the City Council. She said that there were many opportunities for the public to give their input. She stated that, at the end of that process, she then announced that the next item that the Housing Committee would look at would be the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. She stated that this has been thoroughly investigated by the consultant, the consultant’s report was vetted by the AHT, and the Housing Committee is now holding its third hearing on the issue. (Attachment B). She then invited the Affordable Housing Trust members to summarize the recommendations of the AHT.

Mayor Simmons stated that a communication was received from Sarah Kennedy, Director of Government Affairs, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce (Attachment C).

Susan Schlesinger thanked Mayor Simmons for taking on this important issue. She stated that the Inclusionary Zoning provisions have become more and more an important part of the affordable housing development program that they have going forward. She stated that the Inclusionary Zoning program is so important because it provides affordable housing in a way that compliments other city programs. She stated that one of the most important ways has been creating or rehabbing or preserving existing housing or building new tax credit units. She stated that it has become harder to access sites in order to build 100% affordable development around the city. She stated that the Inclusionary Housing Study lays out the fact that the housing cost has risen dramatically and at a much faster pace than people’s incomes. She stated that the competition for sites is very intense. She said that affordable housing developers will continue to compete for the sites but in order to try to meet the goal of creating 1,000 new affordable units that the City Council has laid out, that inclusionary zoning has become and needs to remain a very important tool. She stated that the program has created more than 900 units to date, both rental and homeownership. She stated that these are units in mixed-income properties around the city. She stated that the Trust is happy to be part of the discussion in looking at how potentially raising the set aside percentage could achieve the goals of creating more affordable housing but not negatively impact the development of new housing in the city. She said that inclusionary zoning has not been revised in almost 20 years, so in some sense the City is behind the curve in terms of percentages. She stated that it must be a deliberative process but added that we are losing opportunities. She said that she would hate to see the process slow down and she urged the City Council to expeditiously move on this.

Ms. Schlesinger and members of the AHT gave an overview of the recommendations of the AHT (Attachment D). She stated that they agree with the recommendation of a 20% set-aside ratio for low and moderate income people. She stated that this is where we see the hollowing out of the population in terms of stability. She stated that if there are districts or projects where rezoning occurs to allow additional development, there should be a possibility of an additional percentage of affordable housing in the 5% range.

Cheryl-Anne Pizza-Zeoli read from a prepared statement (Attachment E). She stated that the AHT is recommending an increase in the income eligibility limit for inclusionary homeownership to 100% of area median income (AMI). She stated that they are also recommending that the income limit for the inclusionary rental housing program be kept at 80% of AMI.

Ms. Schlesinger stated that the AHT supports the recommendation to maintain the current 30% density bonus. She stated that because of height, setback and parking requirements, many developments are not accessing the full amount of the available density bonus. She said that the AHT recommends that the City Council consider ideas received from the development community regarding other zoning changes which would make the full 30% density bonus more attainable and recommend flexibility in these areas within reasonable limits be available to help developers access the full density bonus.

Peter Daly talked about the creation of family units. He stated that increasing the number of two and three bedroom units is a major goal of the AHT. He stated that the AHT supports looking at the inclusionary housing compliance by building area rather than by unit count in order to increase the number of two-bedroom and three-bedroom units in certain circumstances. He explained that this approach would allow for trading square footage associated with smaller units and result in fewer, yet larger, units. He stated that the AHT recommends that the City develop clear criteria for how this flexibility would work as the AHT does not think the creation of family units is appropriate in every building. He stated that developing clear regulations for when and how this option might be utilized will help both developers and CDD staff create more units for families while maintaining the consistency and predictability of the inclusionary provisions and compliance process. He said that the AHT recommends that these standards be adopted through regulations promulgated by the Trust, rather than within the ordinance so that these regulations can be revisited from time to time.

Mr. Daly stated that the AHT agrees that it would be best if fewer studio units were created and larger affordable units were created instead. He explained that for new studio units, the AHT strongly supports setting a separate pricing methodology for new studio units so that households would pay less in a studio than in a one-bedroom unit. He said that pricing studios at 25% of household income rather than the standard 30% of income would better serve many households and reduce turnover that is now seen, as studios are priced at the same rent as one-bedroom units. He stated that the AHT recommends that the project size threshold of 10 units or 10,000 square feet be maintained.

Mr. Daly stated that the AHT supports the recommendation that in cases where the application of the inclusionary ratio results in more than one unit with an additional fractional unit, that rather than rounding the number of inclusionary units up or down as is currently done, a contribution to the AHT be sought for any remaining fractional unit. He said that this contribution could be based upon the cost of producing a new affordable unit as determined by the AHT from time to time.

Michael Haran stated that the AHT does not feel that it has enough information to make a determination of whether or not to recommend the option of accepting less premium units in exchange for additional units. He stated that with more information this can be better evaluated. He stated that the current mirroring provisions have worked well with affordable units indistinguishable from market units and located throughout buildings. He stated that the city should be cautious in considering changes which significantly alter this approach.

As it relates to phasing in new provisions, Mr. Haran explained that the AHT has discussed and acknowledged concerns about projects commenced under the current inclusionary provisions and understand the impact this change could have in those cases. He stated that implementation of changes to the inclusionary provisions must be done in a thoughtful manner. He said that it is best to clearly identify a date after which changes would apply to developments that have not reached an identified milestone by that date.

Susan Schlesinger concluded by stating that the AHT is committed to working through issues and offered to answer any questions.

Public comment opened at 5:55pm.

Elaine DeRosa, Director, CEOC, stated that she saw the copy of developers’ comments and a copy of letter from the Chamber of Commerce. She reinforced a lot of the recommendations that were made by the AHT in terms of supporting the 20%, keeping the eligibility for the rental below 80% AMI, homeownership at 100%, and family units. She stated that the studios are a real challenge. She said that the timing is crucial. She stated that a lot of the questions developers have are included in the study. She stated that there is so much data about the profit that can be made from building housing but the big scary thing is what if the market drops so much that people don’t want to build here, what would we do? She stated that in that scenario, we might just build it ourselves because it would be a lot cheaper if the value of the land were to begin to level off. She stated that the reality is that it is okay for Cambridge to set rules about what is good for its people. She stated that the developers need to realize that we are trying to level playing field for citizens.

Nancy Ryan, Cambridge Residents Alliance (CRA), stated that it is important to remember that developers have had the last 20 years to have the 11.5% inclusionary, as well as the last 4-5 years which are not included in the DRA study, where there has been enormous, explosive growth of “luxury housing.” She said that she is not feeling too bad for the developers. She stated that the CRA has suggested some tiers for rental unit income levels and for sale income levels (Attachment F). She said that she is curious about the studios. She stated that the developer recommends that studios not be included in the inclusionary units. She said that she is quite interested in why there is a thought that they ought to be since they seem to be hard to market. She said that perhaps the 25% for income contribution would help that, but they just don’t seem that desirable so they have supported not including inclusionary. She stated that they are very interested in how to incentivize the creation of three-bedroom units. She stated that this has been so long in coming and the CRA is hoping that some zoning proposals might be made before the  City Council summer meeting. She stated that the CRA thinks the threshold for the number of inclusionary units should be set at 6 units as opposed to 10 units.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated that the comments from the AHT are helpful and she agrees with many. She stated that the idea of reducing what the tenant is paying for a studio is an interesting idea. She stated that in addition to the document that has been received from the CRA regarding specific proposals, she would like to bring up other ideas as well. Regarding the concern that developers may want to build commercial instead of housing if the requirements are too onerous, there are other ways to re-balance that. She stated that there have been proposals to have some parts of the city primarily focused on having housing built instead of commercial. She stated that there can also be restrictions on types of commercial development. She stated that there was conversation about parking at the last meeting. She stated that if the Planning Board or in a zoning proposal there is a reduction, let’s put something in the ordinance that provides guidelines about what the tradeoff is for how many additional affordable units or bedrooms would be added. She stated that it would not be difficult to figure out what the right ratio is. She stated that she would like to get hear what applicants and inclusionary unit residents feel about trading floors for more units. She stated that there could be dialogue between people waiting for units and those who already have units. She said that the CRA would like to see more than 20% of the units be required to be below market. She noted that she takes seriously the points that were made about the demand for middle income rental. She stated that she feels that part of the reason that there is less demand is because people don’t know about it.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that it is good to see this becoming real. She stated that there have been at least two policy orders that the Mayor introduced and now Cambridge can get to it. She stated that in the AHT memo there was something that isn’t true. She said that it says that all inclusionary units have been approved without absolutely no subsidy, and she feels that this contention is ridiculous. She said that they get bonus units and bonus gross floor area. She stated that these are both subsidies that are borne by the people who live around. She said that she is not saying that they are not good subsidies, but they are clearly extensive subsidies. She stated that people claimed that the existing set up is very clear in the developers’ suggestions and yet we are told over and over that this is incredibly complicated. She said that her response is that if you read it, it makes sense but we don’t, and we don’t follow it. She stated her hope is that this will be passed and it will be written in clear, easy to understand language. She said that if there are subsidies we will make it clear what they are. If there is a percentage, it will be a percentage of the total, not a percentage of some number that is never mentioned in the ordinance. She stated that for the developers that have been unable to use their entire subsidy, she questioned if they honestly didn’t factor that in when they bought the land. She said that it is not as though the land had changed. She does not think that people have been going broke building housing in Cambridge, and we should therefore be bold. She stated that we think of ourselves as slightly more attractive than Somerville. She stated that low taxes are a subsidy that makes a huge difference in how much it costs people to own in the city.

D. Margaret Drury, 1 Dudley Court, Board Member of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, spoke in support of the City Council adopting an amendment to the ordinance to require 20% of housing be affordable to low income people and that, where appropriate, 5% of the units be reserved for middle income people. She said that the development of new, affordable housing becomes more challenging due to market competition for sites and the declining federal and state funding, and the inclusionary program is contributing an increasing proportion of new affordable units in the city. She urged the Housing Committee to conclude its deliberations as expeditiously as possible and to refer the matter to the City Council to amend the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance in accord with the recommendations in the very comprehensive report.

Ellen Shachter, 346 Concord Avenue, thanked the AHT for their thoughtful and comprehensive response to the Inclusionary Zoning proposal. She stated that she strongly favors the recommendation to provide 20% affordable housing to those below 80% AMI. She stated that as it relates to family housing and using square floor ratio to determine the size and amount of affordable units that would be created under a new inclusionary zoning formula, she urged a slightly different approach. She said that she is not opposed to using square foot area but she is aware of the loss that we get if we get significantly fewer units as a result. She proposed that for buildings with over a certain number of units, a strict percentage would have to be three-bedroom. She stated that this approach was used at Mass and Main. She stated that she was surprised to see the recommendation of the threshold to remain at 10 units as the minimum. She said that her research shows that 10 is around the middle of the pack in terms of where cities and towns have had their threshold. She supported lowering of that threshold to some degree. She noted that in Somerville it was 8 and now is lowered to 6. She stated that a lower threshold has not been an impediment to the development of affordable housing. As it relates to the grandfathering provision, Ms. Shachter stated that she believes that it should require a permit in Cambridge. She stated that if there is no actual permit at the time that the inclusionary zoning law changes, she does not think a development should be grandfathered in. She stated that developers are now on notice and she encouraged the committee to not be expansive in deciding how a project gets grandfathered. She stated that she does support the recommendation to increase the homeownership AMI to 100%.

Jesse Kanson-Benanav, 26 Willow Street, Chair, A Better Cambridge, stated that A Better Cambridge supports an increase in inclusionary zoning in Cambridge. He stated that there is good data behind increasing the threshold to 20%. He stated that he supports a 20% increase and there are other changes that need to be considered in zoning at large in the City of Cambridge. He stated that there is a severe housing crisis at the low end and middle income levels and it is important to continue to produce housing at all income levels. He stated that A Better Cambridge wants to raise inclusionary zoning to a level that does not discourage more housing development. He stated that there needs to continue to be discussions about substantial density and height increases for residential development in certain areas of the city. He stated that we need to maximize both market rate and affordable housing. He stated that he is concerned with keeping the density bonus at the current level. He stated that we need to create various opportunities for more units to be created and there may be areas with additional density bonus with a higher inclusionary threshold. He stated that he understands that there are developers that have said that they have not been able to utilize the density bonus and there are ways to deal with that. He said that he was interested in the recommendation requiring additional affordable housing percentages when developers come to the City Council and Planning Board for upzonings. He said that his personal take on that would be that instead of creating a bit of uncertainty in the various developments that may arise, we take initiative to consider increasing heights and densities. He agrees with incentivizing family size units by using floor area but is also concerned about not reducing the number of units too much.

Sarah Kennedy stated that the Cambridge Business Coalition includes the Alewife Business Association, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, Cambridge Local First, Central Square Business Association, East Cambridge Business Association, Harvard Square Business Association, Inman Square Business Association and the Kendall Square Business Association. She stated that they have worked closely with the other business associations to gain insight from the private development community on this issue, especially from the developers who have created many units of housing in Cambridge. She stated that finding the intersection of the City Council’s goals of production, specifically family-sized units, and what will make sense business-wise to developers is imperative. She stated that this intersection is where you will find the most opportunity.

Public comment closed at 6:25pm.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that his goal is to maximize the number of affordable units to raise the percentage to as high as possible, but not so high as to stop development from happening. He stated that one of the concerns that he has heard from the development community is that the consultant based their recommendation on a financial picture that is quite perfect and a financial climate that is strong. He questioned what will happen if there is a downturn in the economy. He stated that once a percentage is set, he does not see future City Councils voting to lower that percentage. He questioned if it is better to start off at 20% and then go higher in a few years depending on what is going on. He asked if there has been any thought given to tying the percentage into what is happening in the economy, for example, a drop in the market. Iram Farooq responded that the challenge is that there are not really good indicators that are absolute. She stated that the best thing to do is to monitor the production and see if it is changing over time. She stated that the development market will adjust to changing conditions. She stated that in recent years, Cambridge has weathered changes in the economy with much less fluctuation than other parts of the country. She stated that the flip side is that there may be more opportunities for the City and affordable housing developers to be able to do 100% affordable developments if the market were to soften.

Ms. Schlesinger stated that another way is to look at the model with incentive zoning. She stated that there has been discussion about a 5-year period to assess and make necessary modifications. She stated that predictability and consistency are both important. Chris Cotter stated that with the complexity of identifying, even if there were a benchmark, it adds a certain sense of risk as to how the ratio may change. He stated that developers want predictability and if they know what the ratio is when they go into a project, they know it is going to be there when they are ready to pull their permits and are not subject to change in some indices. This also gets into a transparency issue. He stated the concern that it would create a situation where there isn’t an actual ratio and is just something that could vary between projects as the ratio changed.

In terms of three-bedroom units, Vice Mayor McGovern referred to Mr. Daly’s earlier statement that we cannot mandate a certain percent, and he asked for clarification as to why. He stated that he gets the idea of trying to be creative with square footage but he would like to be able to say to the community that we will guarantee a number of three-bedrooms in developments and not leave it up to developers to decide for themselves whether or not it is advantageous. Mr. Daly responded by explaining that there are some legal issues that could be difficult and that is something that the AHT wanted to be very careful about.

Susan Schlesinger stated that she shares Vice Mayor McGovern’s concern and interest in a mandated three-bedroom and that the AHT started to look at it. She said that they talked to the consultant regarding any examples mandating three-bedrooms in an inclusionary zoning project in the country and they were not able to find any. She stated that this is something that would take a lot of attention. She stated that just because you mandate three-bedroom units does not mean a family will live in it. She stated that it is a complicated issue that needs more research.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked if an inclusionary three-bedroom unit has to be occupied by a family. Iram Farooq stated that in the inclusionary program, the three-bedrooms will typically go to a family. She said that it is very rare that it would be something different. She added that there is a strong desire to see three-bedrooms but stated questioned whether every building is the appropriate place for family housing. She stated that there are a number of buildings that have predominantly studios and one-bedrooms, and that there may be a specific type of population that gravitates to living in those buildings. She said that we must be mindful when thinking about the aspect of the comfort level of a family being inserted into a building that is 80%-90% young professionals, or who may have a different schedule or lifestyle than a typical family may have.

Ms. Farooq stated that when the CDD hears of friction in existing buildings, it is often when differing lifestyles coexist in the same building. Vice Mayor McGovern countered by saying that he can name several families that are being forces out of the city who would love a three-bedroom on the 20th floor if it meant staying in Cambridge and keeping their children in the Cambridge Public Schools. He stated that the income piece around middle income is that a lot of middle income families are looking for homeownership. He said that if units were more available, he believes they would be filled.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that if we were to lower threshold, what is the reasoning, or was there thought given to the inclusionary percentage being different based on the number of units asking for 20% affordable in a six-unit project might be more cost prohibitive than 15% but 20% in a larger project. He asked if there was thought to different percentages based on the size of the projects? Susan Schlesinger responded that you will find that a strength of the ordinance is that it is 20% across the city. She said that CDD looked at what would have happened over the last 5 years if the threshold had been lower and in that there have been only a 6 developments built with between 6-9 units resulting in a total of 46 units. She stated that for smaller property owners there are different sets of pressures and financial issues and it seemed like a de minimis benefit for something that would broaden the provisions to properties not currently subject to inclusionary. She stated that smaller units are not a core area of development in the city. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he heard from smaller developers that it will make it difficult for them to do their projects and will make the big developers the ones who can build the 19-story buildings. He stated that he is concerned about that. Susan Schlesinger stated that is why the Trust recommended to stay with the 10 threshold rather than reduce.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is excited about the proposal. He stated that he concurs with Vice Mayor McGovern on the three-bedrooms. He stated that if we are a city of families and we are losing families, it seems that the priority should be three-bedrooms. He stated that it could be a condition to get the extra bonus is that you build three-bedroom units. He stated that creative zoning and special permits could incorporate that. He stated that it seems to have a direct public benefit. He stated that he was pleased to hear that maybe larger units at the ground floor is something that we could ask for. He said that he is big advocate for families having their own entry or shared entry townhouse version. He stated that when transitioning with an existing neighborhood, neighbors would rather see multiple townhouse entry at the ground floor across from their house than one entry in a completely dead wall facing the neighborhood. He stated that it is a win/win from that perspective. He said that is where the three-bedrooms should be and most families prefer to have ground floor access, especially with small children.

He stated the mentioning of 20% (which he totally agrees with) but perhaps if there is an upzoning, we ask for additional. He said that he does not know where that would apply as most upzonings have already happened. He stated that he assumes that this would not apply to the MXD nor MIT although he wishes it would. He stated that if this could be based on a permit, then he would say absolutely, it is fair game. He stated that that if you think about what has been rezoned over the years, all the big ones have been done except for Volpe. Ms. Farooq stated that 10 years ago they would not have anticipated the upzoning requests in Kendall Square. Councillor Carlone stated that there is a proposal for Central Square currently being worked on and there is an increase in the FAR. As it relates to the grandfathering issue, if zoning is done there is immediate benefit. He stated that there will be many in the works in the next few months. He stated that we have to really be definitive if something is in the works. He noted that he is all for respecting people but some make a fortune with upzoning. Ms. Farooq responded that their hope is that it does not hinge upon having had a conversation with CDD or having a plan in the works. She said that it would really hinge upon who has a Special Permit by the particular date. Councillor Carlone said that as far as lowering the threshold, if the typical is 8 units it should be 8 units, and that Cambridge should not be atypical. Regarding counting micro units and studios he stated that he will leave that up to the experts. He added that he does not know anyone who would prefer to living in a studio or micro unit unless they are a single person. Regarding the developers’ suggestion about tax incentives for inclusionary units, he said that he is not against this, especially if it promotes more units. He stated that he knows that the city is hesitant but it seems to him that this is an ongoing incentive that should be considered. He stated that he is totally against changing TDR requirements and allowances, specifically in Kendall. As far as competition with labs, Councillor Carlone stated that labs do not belong anywhere near residences. He stated that we have to get rid of the lab threat that destroys adjacent houses. He said that he is tired of seeing developers threaten to build labs instead of housing. He added that he is excited but there are things that can be refined to make it stronger. He said that everybody in the city says that we need housing and yet it is too balanced with office and labs, that the priority should be zoning FAR and the decisions that are being made should favor housing.

Councillor Devereux thanked the members of the AHT. She stated that she agrees with all of their recommendations. She stated that she is puzzled by the memo dated July 7, 2016 regarding developer suggestions, comments and questions (Attachment G). She asked if this memo was from CDD. Chris Cotter responded in the affirmative and explained that it is a summary of meetings and discussions that they have had with developers over the last couple of months in response to the study. He stated that this is the report back to the Committee. Councillor Devereux stated that it would have been helpful to look at this communication before the meeting. She stated that it would be easy to anticipate all the ways that for-profit development could say that this is not a good idea. She stated that there is an outside chance that the City could increase the percentage so much that people don’t want to build but she believes that the chances for that are tiny based on what she has seen in the housing market. She said that the demand is steady and the profit is there. She stated that the process is moving slowly to her. She stated that she is unable to attend the Aug 15, 2016 Housing Committee hearing and added that she would like to get the process to Ordinance in the fall and ordained by year’s end.

Mayor Simmons stated that as it relates to the developers’ comments, she had encouraged CDD to reach out to the development community and they could bring forward comments right up until today. She stated that she thinks it is important to bring everything to the table at once. She said that this was an opportunity to have information available. She stated that in August she would like the committee to come back much closer to voting on this issue. She said that her hope is that this is done before next year.

Councillor Mazen stated that he was happy to hear the public comments. He said that when we can agree on the goal and direction and outcome it feels good. He said that collaboration has been productive. He stated that he is excited that we are transitioning from a conversation on volume and talking more about fairness. He said that as we begin to get into the low 20% range now, we are entering a territory of an equitable and fair outcome. He stated that the real goal is an equitable distribution of units. He stated that 20% still isn’t an equitable proportionality. He stated that we are going to need government intervention over the next several decades. He stated that as we imagine the language, he hopes that there are carve-outs for deed-restricted and land trust and co-op implementations so that we can work with credit making institutions, non-profit partners or even with individuals and collectives so that they are able to do this kind of supplemental work that he is talking about. He stated that banks have changed how and why they lend. As it relates to specific comments in the developers’ suggestions, comments and questions, he said that overall these questions and comments are too vague to be useable or believable in some cases. He stated that he wants developers to bring forward at best a pro forma and a very clear demonstration of their evidence and of their needs which we can then juggle and mitigate together. He stated that as it relates to grandfathering, he agrees with his colleagues that we have to institute it. He stated that we were already worried about what happens if we relax the equitable distribution of units within a market development factor and we want more units for relaxed placement. He stated that he believes that he is hearing that they are coming back and saying throughout many of these comments that they won’t do more units but they will do larger units. He said that is probably not what was asked for. He said that relaxation will probably not materialize. Chris Cotter stated that is pretty clear to the extent that they have talked with developers about the idea of more flexibly locating units or taking fewer of the premium units in exchange for more, but most developers who had an interest in that expressed that it wouldn’t be more units but maybe a bigger unit elsewhere in the building. Councillor Mazen said that is not sufficient. He stated that if developers are concerned that the process is moving too quickly, they should be here in person to state that. He said that if they are worried about housing slowing and stopping, it would have the unintended consequence of lowering land values for the types of co-ops and deed restricted solutions that he talked about.

Cheryl-Anne Pizza Zeoli stated that in the letter from the Cambridge Business Coalition they referred to a Peer Review. She said that it would be great that the City Council press them to come up with this sooner rather than later. Mayor Simmons stated that she will reach out to them via Ms. Kennedy to get a better sense of their meaning and get better sense of what this looks like. She stated that, to the development community, she poses the question: “This is going to pass, and given that fact, how do you want to impact this?” Ms. Schlesinger stated that 20% was not pulled out of the air. She explained that it was based on the work of a consultant with a lot of experience in this type of study. She stated that one of the things that they looked carefully at was to make sure that the recommendation of 20% was not going to chill development because that would be counterproductive. She reminded all that there is a strong basis for that number.

Vice Mayor McGovern added that we have had three Housing Committee meetings on this study and he has not received a lot of feedback from the development community. He stated that we need more than “I don’t think this can work.” He said that everyone wants this done by the end of the calendar year so he is not looking to drag out the process while waiting for a peer review. He stated that if they want to put something forward with data, he is happy to review it and take it into consideration.

Ms. Glowa stated that she is confused about some things that are being said. She said that she did not have chance to see the developers’ comments. She pointed out that the legal analysis and constitutional framework that has to be looked at is that there could be an argument that an unjust taking is being made of someone’s property if you are not basing the extraction or contribution of the developer upon the impacts that the new development of housing will be having upon the affordable housing stock within the city. She said that one of the concepts that the Court has looked at in terms of analyzing whether there is an appropriate contribution that is being asked of developers is the concept of whether it is an adjudicatory or legislative approach to what it is that you are asking of people and the further you go in the direction of the so-called adjudicatory method, she is concerned because it is not something that can be negotiated on a case by case basis. She stated that the scenarios and variables in the document seem to lack a certain clarity and detail. She said that there cannot be uncertainty and a case by case application without clearly defined standards without the greater risk of this ordinance subject to being subject to a challenge. Mayor Simmons stated that if we look at the process through which the city came to its linkage decision, the idea of the consultant was to have a verifiable, credible basis from which we could say we were going to do this so that we would not expose ourselves to any legal challenges. She stated that this process in terms of the study that was contracted came through that process which is important to remember. She said that it was done this way so that it would hold up to legal muster should someone want to challenge us. Ms. Glowa stated that the City Solicitor’s Office as well as outside counsel did review carefully the study as it was being worked upon and they were in discussions with CDD throughout the process and it was very important to have these conversations to ensure that whatever is voted on can pass legal muster. Mayor Simmons stated that very early on there was a public process with a wide opportunity for people to give their comments. She stated that she feels that the City has met its requirement in terms of the vetting process.

Iram Farooq stated that CDD does share the concern about needing greater specificity in terms of the comments from the development community. She stated that the CDD has conveyed this sentiment to the developers. She stated that it is difficult to translate this into changes so it is the hope that CDD will receive more specific information in terms of what would be desirable changes.

Chris Cotter stated that they reached out to approximately 30 developers and offered them a chance to look at the study. He said that they met with several developers and business associations and arranged to have the consultant meet with a business group of developers to hear feedback and get comments and discuss the study. He stated that the communication transmitting comments and ideas from developers was just finalized today as they sent a draft out last week to the developers to ensure that that CDD was fairly representing what they heard and to get any final feedback. He noted that some final comments were added this afternoon. Mr. Cotter gave a brief overview of document.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the Housing Committee has the consultant’s report, the AHT recommendations, they have heard from various community groups, developers, individual citizens and the Housing Committee members’ comments. He asked if the Housing Committee will get some sort of document wherein the CDD will take all of that feedback into account and present it to the Housing Committee to vote on. He asked how this will move forward. Mayor Simmons stated that she would like to use the AHT document as the baseline and asked members to use the two-week window before the next meeting to offer any changes that they would like to see. Mayor Simmons said that the final recommendations can then be discharged to the full City Council for action. She reiterated that she would like the members to come to the Aug 15, 2016 Housing Committee hearing with potential changes. She stated that she would like the final recommendation to leave the Housing Committee and go before the full City Council in September.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Ordinance Committee will discuss this and refine it. He stated that we should start putting this into zoning and maybe there are three alternatives to something or maybe you list other options that you feel good about that have been discussed but the sooner we do that the sooner we will get to something. He stated that he does not see why we can’t get there at the next meeting. Mayor Simmons asked the committee members are comfortable allowing CDD to start working on zoning recommendations which will be brought back to the Housing Committee. The members answered in the affirmative. Councillor Carlone stated that there will be question marks and it may not be resolved on Aug 15, 2016, but we will be a lot closer doing this. He said that when it gets to the Ordinance Committee it can be refined. Mayor Simmons asked for thoughts about accepting less premium units in exchange for the additional. Councillor Carlone stated that for families to be more in a townhouse setting, even in a larger building, that is a win/win for everybody. Mayor Simmons stated that it is very important to ensure the same quality in inclusionary units as market units.

Councillor Carlone stated that Mr. Cotter mentioned that developers have not been able to use the full 30% and he asked Mr. Cotter if any projects have been built where they have not built the full 30%. Mr. Cotter stated that the full 30% is not always accessed. He stated that in some cases it is dimensional limitations and in other cases unit size limit the number of units in the building and in other cases it may be concerns of the community and the desire for less density. Councillor Carlone stated that as far as zoning goes, he imagines that the percentage that haven’t been able to meet the full 30% is relatively low. He said that that comment needs to be supported with why it hasn’t, what percentage, and maybe we do have to re-think things. Mr. Cotter stated that it is another question that CDD has put to developers to help CDD understand what specific changes are preventing them from accessing the full 30%.

Mayor Simmons asked Iram Farooq if CDD will be able to have a potential zoning proposal/recommendation by the Aug 15, 2016 Housing Committee meeting. Ms. Farooq responded that it is highly difficult, if not impossible, to have a zoning petition ready in that timeframe. She stated that there are several questions still open. For instance, the question about family size dwelling units and what is the approach is open. She stated that drafting many approaches in zoning is difficult, as opposed to discussing them as conceptual approaches and then drafting them once a decision is made in terms of what path is the preferred approach. She stated that drafting is not the incredibly time-consuming piece if they know what the conceptual approaches are to each of the questions.

Councillor Devereux clarified that CDD was not asked for actual zoning language, just more decisive language that is similar to the AHT recommendations. Ms. Farooq responded that this is possible.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that there will be ample opportunity for more discussion and reiterated that he would like this subject to be forwarded to the full City Council at the conclusion of the Aug 15, 2016 Housing Committee hearing.

Councillor Mazen stated that regarding the unit numbers under 10 or a certain number of square feet, he was thinking that we should taper that so that no one strategically places themselves at 9. He stated that the safest thing it to make it so that it is a grading as it comes down from 10 to 6 or 10 to 4 and remove the moral hazard of people positioning themselves at the precipice.

Chris Cotter stated that they took a look at the smaller projects for the last 5-6 years and found there were a total of about 45 units in those developments between 6 and 9 units so in that timeframe we would be talking about roughly 6 or 8 units had the requirement been at 6 units over the last 6 years.

Mayor Simmons thanked all those present for their participation.

Nancy Glowa added that the only litigation or threatened litigation in this area has been in developments with a smaller number of units.

The hearing adjourned at 7:38pm on motion of Vice Mayor McGovern

For the Committee,
Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, Co-Chair

Committee Report #12
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Wed, May 18, 2016 beginning at 6:33pm at the Citywide Senior Center to discuss the recently completed Inclusionary Housing Study and will focus on receiving feedback from the community.

Present at the hearing were Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair; Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, CoChair; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Cheung; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; Dave Mattei; Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk; and Neal Alpert, Chief of Staff to Mayor Simmons.

Also present were Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, Elaine DeRosa, Sarah Kennedy, Sam Seidel, Nancy Ryan, Mary Platt, Denise Haynes, Marilyn Garlington, Renae Gray, Kathy Watkins, Becca Schofield, Brendan Hickey, Sonia Andujon, Bill Cunningham, Tergun Austin, Jermoe Saunders, Peter Day, Jacquelyn Smith, Susan Schlessinger, Lee Farris, Bob Flack, Hasson Rashid, Sherri Tucker, Peter Graham, James Williamson and Phyllis Bretholtz.

Mayor Simmons convened the hearing and stated that the Housing Committee is holding the first of at least three meetings to discuss the recently-completed Inclusionary Zoning Study which was undertaken by David Paul Rosen & Associates (DRA). She stated that the full report from the consultant is available on the City’s website and the meeting this evening is to allow members of the community to weigh in with any questions they may have for the consultants and to place those questions on the record. She stated that the Housing Committee will forward these questions to David Paul Rosen & Associates before the next meeting, which will be on May 31, 2016. She noted that a representative from David Paul Rosen & Associates will be present at that meeting to begin answering questions and there will be an additional meeting scheduled for some time in June to continue the discussion. Mayor Simmons stated that she asked the Community Development Department to give a brief overview of the Inclusionary Zoning Study, explain why this was commissioned, explain how and why it was conducted, and what its preliminary findings suggest. She stressed that the hearing was about asking questions and getting those on record so that they can be presented to the consultant. She stated that this is just the first meeting and the committee can expect to start getting some answers to the questions at the next meeting.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance is not going to solve the affordable housing crisis in Cambridge alone, but it is a huge piece of the puzzle. He stated that this is an incredibly important discussion. He urged those present to read the study as there is important information enclosed.

Mayor Simmons added that this hearing is being recorded and the video will be replayed and archived for future reference.

Mr. Cotter gave a brief overview of the Inclusionary Housing Program and DRA Inclusionary Housing Study. (Attachment A). He also noted that that there are handouts and a glossary of terms to have for reference (Attachment B). He stated that the lead consultant will be present at the Housing Committee hearing of May 31, 2016. He stated that questions derived from this hearing will be given to the consultant in advance so she can readily answer said questions at the upcoming hearing.

Mr. Cotter stated that Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1998 after the end of rent control. He explained that this ordinance applies to projects of at least 10 units or 10,000 square feet. He stated that the provisions state that 15% of units are affordable, however that after the application of the inclusionary density bonus the ratio of affordable units in most buildings is typically 11.5%. He stated that the density bonus is a 30% increase in unit count and floor area. He said that affordability is targeted to households at 65% AMI and eligibility is up to 80% AMI. He explained that affordable units are provided on-site with permanent affordability through a long-term deed restriction.

Mr. Cotter explained that there are over 920 affordable units created or now under construction under the inclusionary provision with approximately 200 ownership and over 720 rental with about 815 completed and 100 under construction or permitted. He stated that it is important to note that the provisions have become successful. It is a significant way in which new affordable housing is now created. He added that there now more than 7,600 affordable housing units in the city.

Mr. Cotter stated that when looking at the stock of inclusionary units created to date, it is predominantly comprised of studio and one bedroom units. He stated there are ideas in the study about increasing family units. He said that with recent production many more households are now being served through the program. He explained that affordable units are accessed through the Community Development Department and added that there is a dramatic increase in the number of households served which will likely be 180 this year due in large part to new development in the City. Mr. Cotter then explained 2016 income limits.

Mr. Cotter indicated that in late 2014 the City commissioned David Paul Rosen & Associates to conduct this study. He noted that David Paul Rosen & Associates has done similar studies in more than 40 communities around the country. He stated that the study approach consisted of: Review of Cambridge’s current inclusionary housing standards, Review of changes in Cambridge’s socioeconomic profile, income diversity, and housing affordability since 1998, Comparison to other inclusionary programs for best practices, Economic analysis of current and alternative set aside percentages on typical residential developments and recommendations and policy options. He stated that the key piece was the socioeconomic analysis so the City could look at how the community has changed while looking comparatively at the income profile. DRA was asked to look at available HUD data. Mr. Cotter noted that that they found an increase in higher income households in Cambridge and a corresponding decline in households in the moderate and middle range. He said it was interesting to note that the proportion of households with incomes less than 50% was relatively stable in this comparison.

Mr. Cotter stated that in comparison to other inclusionary programs, Cambridge’s inclusionary standards are predictable. He said that approximately half of the communities surveyed offer a density bonus, with Cambridge’s bonus higher than all but one. He said that the set aside percentages range from 5%-27% and that percentages over 20% are for typically for off-site units or targeted to higher income levels. He said that the Cambridge inclusionary standards have been highly successful in creating inclusionary units on-site and these units are equal in quality, location and size to market rate units.

Mr. Cotter stated that DRA was asked to look at economic impact. DRA analyzed 7 prototypes ranging from 6-300 units and modelled of 4 different inclusionary scenarios including the current scenario to help us understand the magnitude impacts. To do this modelling DRA interviewed local development experts in Cambridge to help put together a system to understand the impact of changes. DRA then used information from the socio-economic analysis, review of similar standards in other communities, and the results of the economic modelling to make recommendations for changes.

He stated that the DRA study recommendations include:
20% of total built units to be affordable;
Maintain eligibility of up to 80% AMI or expand eligibility to include 15% under 80% AMI, and 5% of units under 100% AMI for rental units;
Increase eligibility up to 100% AMI for ownership units;
Maintain a 30% density bonus;
Consider seeking additional affordable units beyond inclusionary standards when warranted based on zoning ordinance changes for specific projects;
Creation of Family-Sized Units;
Consider lowering the unit or square foot threshold for inclusionary units below 10 units or 10,000 square feet;
Consider contribution equivalent to value of the fractional unit when calculation of inclusionary units results in a fractional unit;
Consider whether flexibility in designating the most premium affordable units with could be used to create more affordable units;
Balance impacts on future commercial and residential land uses; and
Apply changes to only new projects.

Mr. Cotter explained that the community review and discussion of the study and recommendations is now underway. He said that after the public process is completed and the Housing Committee makes its recommendations, a zoning amendment would be drafted based on the desired set of policy changes.

Mayor Simmons opened the meeting to public comment at 7:05pm.

Renee Gray, 84 Columbia Street, stated that the presentation was great and she liked the simplicity of it. She stated her questions:
When talking about affordable housing, whether moderate of low income, what is the range of rents in those three categories?
How many units are open and available to citizens currently?
Does the City have an overall housing goal and if so, will it be done by neighborhood or by regions of the city?
How is affordable housing being distributed throughout the City?
What about community benefits? She would like some proposals come out of the city on communities that have been impacted by development; she loves The Port and she does not know how long she can stay there due to the constant construction around her;
What are the alternatives for seniors? She asked if there can be set asides for seniors such as first floor units.

Mayor Simmons stated that some of Ms. Gray’s questions are not specific to the DRA Inclusionary Housing Study but there will be an attempt to get answers to all questions. She stated that questions can also be e-mailed to her directly. She stated that Boston recently adopted inclusionary zoning as did Somerville. She stated that it would be interesting to see how this report compares.

Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street, stated that considering flexibility to accept less-premium units to get more affordable units is a slippery slope. She explained that it is already difficult to live in a building with people who have way more than you. She stated that this goes against what Cambridge speaks for. She stated that the number of units that we will get is worth having inclusionary zoning apartment dwellers feeling secondary to others. She stated that there are some apartments in buildings that are not as good. She discouraged this.

She asked: Why does the consultant think it is more important for a few extra units?

She stated that alternatives for seniors is a great idea. She stated that she has a lot of concerns and questions since she is living in an inclusionary zoning unit. She stated that she feels that there is a breakdown in communications with the various departments. She said that she would like to see support and benefits to the inclusionary zoning residents.

Jerome Saunders stated that he has three questions:
What is the relationship of the study to existing residential units in Cambridge?
Have the consultants talked to the average rental citizen to understand their experience?
How will the study address the current unit losses?

Jacquelyn Smith asked:
Why does the Inclusionary part start at 50% of AMI? What about those that are making less than that?
She stated that the AMI for a single mom and her child is $40,000. What is being done for people who are less than 50% of AMI?

Lee Farris stated that as the Vice President of the Cambridge Residents Alliance, she has couple of questions. She stated that the Cambridge Residents Alliance looked at the study and the hard work of the City and the consultant is appreciated. She stated that there are a number of points where the consultant recommends things to be discussed without specific recommendations. She gave an overview of her written communication (Attachment C) which she asked to be made part of the record of the hearing.

Cheryl-Anne Pizza-Zeoli, 1221 Cambridge Street, gave an overview of her written comments (Attachment D) and stated that she will submit additional questions in writing. She said that in Maryland, they grant the local housing authority the right of first refusal for purchasing inclusionary units. She stated that in Somerville, they have the right of first refusal for special permit granting authority. She asked if there is language that allows CDD to purchase affordable units. She noted that she is interested in how substantial rehab is defined? Lastly, she said that she is interested in DRA’s suggestions regarding how we evaluate the program. She noted that she is aware that Cambridge has adopted the HomeKeeper tracking system which includes an annual social impact report that summarized program performance and includes an overview of the type and location of units produced and the demographic and income characteristics of residents. She stated that this information is important to look at. She submitted comments and additional questions from Marilyn Garlington (Attachment E).

Nancy Ryan asked:
How much time is reasonable to get this done?
Is there a timeline in mind so that we can be on track and move forward?
She stated that the consultant recommends a review of the changes made after five years. She stated that it should be more like three years.

Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place, Cambridge, asked the following questions: (Attachment F)
Is there any evidence that by developing inclusionary units or supporting the building of affordable housing increases the cost of all housing?
What is the percentage of mobile vouchers used in inclusionary units in other selected cities that were studied?
What are the definitions of substantial rehabilitation that are used in other cities?
What is the projection of how many developments will become exempt from the process because they will have received special permits?
How long is the reach back period once the ordinance is passed?
Is issuing of the special permit the dividing line?
Is there evidence that with the increase of inclusionary requirements in a city, that land values decline over time?

Hasson Rashid stated that the inclusionary housing program and this study verifies the fact that there is an imbalance in addressing the housing needs of the whole community. He stated that he feels that inclusionary housing reflects the locking out of the lower areas of the trajectory of poor people in the City. He stated that it reflects and imbalance of low and middle income. He said that there is nothing that reflects that the study considered low income people. It locks these people out totally. He stated that this is an element of discrimination.

Sherri Tucker, 854 Massachusetts Avenue, asked about the less than 50% AMI stable, what would be division of people living in regular apartments that are not subsidized. She wants to know if the 30% density bonus has been too high and maybe they need less in order to do these inclusionary units because in a recent case once the building was almost full they sold it for a profit, so maybe more affordability could have been included. She stated that regarding the 50% AMI – can anyone with income less than that live in one of those units unless they have a subsidy? Even a rent at 50% of AMI is unaffordable. She is concerned about Inclusionary residents receiving less desirable units, and that it is a slippery slope. She also advised that we keep away from creating the micro units.

Peter Graham, JAS, asked if there are there any examples of communities where the inclusionary requirement resulted in more commercial development and/or communities where an increase went beyond what was feasible and limiting residential development.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that on page 5 of the study, there appears to be a shift in the generation of housing based on market conditions. He asked:
Is it prudent to have such a high bonus?
He noted that on page 14, he does not see something on the order of 40-50 units for rental. He stated that the main question is:
Is there another way to do affordable housing that does not tie creation of affordable housing in Cambridge to more density and bigger development? He stated that it has pitted people against each other.

Phyllis Bretholtz, Antrim Street, asked:
Has there been any effort to have developers consider as they design, creation of mixed use housing which would enable people within the complex to have public spaces so people can interact?
She stated that there is discomfort over the idea that they are in a building with people of a different socioeconomic level. Her concern for development as she goes through Kendall area, there are no supermarkets, drug stores or stores where one can buy simple household items. She noted that she would like to see such things that bring the neighborhood together as a community.

Mary Platt, 62 Norfolk Street, asked why the City Council and the housing planners do not consider the need to force MIT to provide graduate school housing. She said that she does not understand why the City government should not try to force the university to build graduate school housing.

Jerome Saunders stated that the study does not speak to international investors and the change in housing market. He said that he is not hearing the City Council engage the business community in the conversation. He stated that because the business community has interest in this issue, there is an opportunity there.

Renae Gray stated that Newtowne Variety closed after 55 years. She stated that this is a huge gap in the community because this business was an affordable alternative for a quick pick-up for food in the neighborhood. She stated that grocery stores that are not boutiques are needed. She stated that we are feeling the effects of the displacement of the Mom and Pop stores.

Public comment closed at 7:49pm on motion of Vice Mayor McGovern.

Councillor Carlone stated that regarding the discussion of mixed use projects, the City Council has discussed sites where perhaps there should be office or lab or housing and he fully believes that we have to look at sites, especially when parcels are more than an acre, to say that a percentage should be housing. He stated that we know that we need housing but the office and lab market is so huge in Cambridge that it could keep expanding. He asked what other cities are looking at this requiring a percentage to be housing. He asked if we should be looking at it in smaller sizes in historic squares. He stated that in some cities, during the construction phase you can buy units at a lower cost and he questioned whether this should be part of the process. As to premium units on upper floors, he stated that studies have shown that families are better served at the base of a building. He stated that we also know that streets are safer with the more entries a building has. He stated that there are studies that people in the lower 6 floors of a building tend to use community facilities and are more active in the lobby floor. He stated that in the end it is going to come down to the City playing a larger part. He said that if the City has funds to do things, we should do them.

Councillor Devereux stated that the study was amazing. She thanked Mr. Cotter for his presentation. She stated that given that we are seeing a decline in the 50-80 and 80-100, she is inclined to focus efforts on these groups. She said that she likes the idea of exploring applying this to buildings that are undergoing substantial renovation or rehabilitation. She wondered if we would have to have a consultant model the financial impact of that. Would a different percentage be applied to that project? She likes the idea of exploring the rights of first refusal to purchase affordability of additional units.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the production piece is an important part of the conversation. He stated that this is about finding the right number to get the maximum number of units without making it so burdensome on the developers that they decide it’s not worth building in Cambridge. It is about finding the “sweet spot.” He stated that the City has to look at how to best incentivize the creation of three bedroom units, as the current wait for three bedroom units can be years. He would like the consultant to look at cities that offer gap vouchers. He asked if there are other communities that find ways to subsidize for residents. He stated that we are seeing smaller developments. He stated that looking at going lower than 50% is something we must think about. He also stated that we cannot lose sight of the moderate and middle-income. This is one piece of the puzzle, but an important one.

Mr. Rossi stated that he agrees with the comments of Vice Mayor McGovern. He stated that the real question is how to get the maximum number of affordable units. He stated that the key is finding the right number that makes sense. He stated that the intelligence that we can bring to the process is important. Mr. Rossi noted that there is a slight dilemma for developers who are going to produce housing who are in various stages of the planning and permitting and may have done their financial projections based on the current 11.5%. We need to be thoughtful about phasing in changes.

Mayor Simmons stated that she is pleased that we are having the conversation. She stated that the focus is pushing out questions that pertain directly to the consultant’s report and asked for any additional questions to be submitted by May 25th to be considered at the next hearing. She thanked all those present for their attendance. She stated that she also wants to ensure that there is a timeline in order to make a reasonable, sound decision, but she will not commit to a timeline at this point. She stated that it would be interesting to see what the City of Boston and City of Somerville are doing parallel to what we are doing in Cambridge. She stated that people in inclusionary zoning units feel as though they are treated differently, and that we do have to weigh creating “one more unit” versus the feeling of being excluded. She stated that we must look at eligibility for people that are in inclusionary units. She asked if something can be done internally in terms of vouchers so that people can stay in affordable units and can have a genuine shot of being placed in inclusionary units. She indicated that the next Housing Committee hearing will take place on May 31, 2016 and asked that any questions be forwarded to the Mayor’s Office.

Mayor Simmons thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 8:11pm on the motion by Vice Mayor McGovern.

For the Committee,
Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Marc McGovern, Co-Chair