Cambridge City Council meeting - Sept 9, 2019

4. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the Children’s Trust Fund grant for the Center for Families program in the amount of $31,200.00 to the Department of Human Service Programs Salary and Wages account ($31,000.00) and to the Department of Human Service Programs Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($200.00) which will be used by the Center for Families to support family programs targeting parents of children up to eight years, which include a variety of family support and parent education programs and resources.
Order Adopted 9-0

5. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the Family Shelter grant received from the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) in the amount of $663,400.33 to the Grant Fund Human Service Programs Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will be subcontracted to the Cambridge YWCA to be used to operate its family shelter from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, including the provision of case management and housing search and stabilization services for up to ten homeless families referred by the DHCD.
Order Adopted 9-0

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report with no positive or negative recommendations on the Alexandria Grand Junction Overlay District Zoning Petition.
Referred to Unfinished Business

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Planning Board to approve the disposition of a leasehold interest in 420 parking spaces and approximately 9,000 square feet of ground floor retail in the First Street Garage.
Referred to Manager's Agenda #9

9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the proposed disposition of a leasehold interest in the First Street Garage.
Referred to Reconvened Public Hearing on Sept 18 at 3:00pm

Sept 9, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

As set forth herein, I am writing this letter to request that the City Council authorize the disposition of 420 unassigned parking spaces and approximately 9,000 square feet of ground floor retail area (the “Leasehold Interest”) in the City’s First Street Garage located at 55 First Street in East Cambridge (the “Garage”), pursuant to both M.G.L. Chapter 30B and Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the “Disposition Ordinance”). Under the Disposition Ordinance, which governs the disposition of City-owned property, approval of this request requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council.

I. Background
This report follows my earlier submission on June 26, 2019 to the City Council, the Planning Board and the City Clerk of a disposition report regarding the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest (the “Disposition Report”). In the Disposition Report, I described in detail the steps that have been taken pursuant to both M. G. L. Chapter 30B as well as the Disposition Ordinance regarding the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest. Here are the significant steps that have been taken to date:

• The City Council’s unanimous vote on Oct 7, 2013 to declare the Leasehold Interest available for disposition, following receipt by the City Manager of a letter in September, 2013 requesting the disposition of the Leasehold Interest from Leggat McCall Properties (“LMP”), which has entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the Commonwealth of the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (“DCAMM”) to purchase the former Sullivan Courthouse building located at 40 Thorndike Street in East Cambridge (the “Courthouse”);

• The Planning Board’s grant of special permit PB No. 288 to LMP in October 2014 for the redevelopment of the Courthouse (the “Courthouse Project”) with conditions, including a requirement to provide a certain number of parking spaces, some of which could be provided in the Garage, if available (the “Special Permit”). The Special Permit was upheld after appeal in November 2017;

• The City’s advertisement of a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) on Oct 17, 2018, pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 30B; on Nov 19, 2018, when the bids were opened, the City received only one proposal, from LMP (the “Proposal”). Based upon a thorough review by the City’s RFP Evaluation Committee, the Proposal was determined to be responsive, responsible and advantageous to the City as it would provide substantial benefits to the City. Based upon the Evaluation Committee’s review and recommendation, in January 2019 LMP was conditionally awarded the disposition of the Leasehold Interest pursuant to Chapter 30B subject to final approval by the City Council pursuant to the Disposition Ordinance;

• Pursuant to Section 2.110.010 of the Disposition Ordinance, the City Manager’s submission on June 26, 2019 of the Disposition Report to the City Council, the Planning Board and the City Clerk for public dissemination, which included information on a specific set of considerations in connection with the evaluation of the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest. I have attached for your information the Disposition Report with its attachments;

• Submission to the City Manager by Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation Joseph E. Barr of the First Street Area Parking Planning Study on June 14, 2019, which was prepared by the independent traffic engineering consulting team of Kleinfelder and McMahon Associates, a cover memo and summary of which was included in the Disposition Report;

• Three community meetings held by the City on Oct 30, 2018, Mar 26, 2019 and June 19, 2019 (which included a discussion of the Parking Study summary) in connection with the evaluation process for the Proposal and the preparation of the Disposition Report. A summary of issues discussed at the community meetings was included in the Disposition Report;

• The Planning Board’s public hearing on Aug 13, 2019 to consider the Disposition Report and submit a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Board voted unanimously pursuant to the Disposition Ordinance to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed leasehold disposition “based on the proposal’s consistency with plans that were previously approved by the Planning Board, the adequacy of the First Street Garage to accommodate the proposed Leasehold Interest without adversely impacting other uses, and the substantial compensation that is proposed in exchange for the Leasehold Interest.” The Planning Board’s recommendation has been submitted to the City Council on tonight’s City Council agenda under separate cover; and

• The City Council’s public hearing on Sept 9, 2019 prior to final action. The disposition may then be approved on a two-thirds affirmative vote of the City Council.

II. Favorable Recommendation for Disposition of the Leasehold Interest
As stated in my June 26, 2019 letter to the City Council and the Planning Board, I recommend that the City Council approve the disposition of the Leasehold Interest and authorize me to enter into a Disposition Agreement with LMP for the disposition of the Leasehold Interest.

The City’s public process to engage the community regarding the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest in the First Street Garage has been vigorous and transparent, and I believe that the City has made every effort to address East Cambridge neighbors' concerns. I am committed to the East Cambridge community, and I will continue to support the neighborhood as this project moves forward.

By voting to approve the disposition of the proposed Leasehold Interest, the City Council will allow residents and the East Cambridge community to recognize the generous economic and community benefits related to the Garage and the proposed remediation and redevelopment of the blighted Courthouse. Additionally, the proposed commitments by LMP to affordable housing initiatives will significantly contribute to our efforts to address the City Council’s top priority - affordable housing.

I believe that the benefits offered in connection with this Leasehold Interest will produce the most significant public benefit that can be obtained from the proposed disposition, specifically in the context of the already permitted Courthouse project. The community benefits and amenities that will be provided to the East Cambridge neighborhood by the disposition of the Leasehold Interest at the Garage, as well as by the redevelopment of the Courthouse by LMP, will positively impact the community for years.

Specifically, the City and the East Cambridge community will realize benefits such as:

• $77.4 million in total economic benefits through disposition of the Leasehold Interest, including:

o Twenty-four fully affordable housing units at the Courthouse building and a contribution of $4.5 million for the City’s Affordable Housing Trust;

o Guaranteed parking fees and retail lease payments of $52.7 million over 30 years;

o Contributions to community workforce development programs totaling $1.45 million over ten years with Cambridge Pathways to Apprentice Program, Just-a-Start, Cambridge Housing Authority and the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund;

o Result in activation of the first-floor retail area and capital improvements for the Garage equaling $5.28 million;

o Contributions to facilitate updating the Garage to accommodate charging stations for about 40 electric vehicles and a solar array supporting the City Council’s goals of sustainable energy and environmental resilience valued at $5.65 million; and

o Creating and supporting new community space for seniors valued at $750,000 and senior parking subsidies at the Garage valued at up to $1.08 million.

In addition, the Courthouse Project will result in the following benefits:

• Estimated annual new property tax revenues of $3.8 million;

• An additional $7 million in Incentive Zoning payments to the City that will be used to create additional affordable housing pursuant to the requirements of the Special Permit; and

• Will allow remediation of the environmental contamination at the Courthouse and the redevelopment of a blighted building in the East Cambridge neighborhood.

As mentioned in the Disposition Report of June 26, 2019, the Garage was originally constructed by the City with the intent of serving users of various buildings in the neighborhood, including the adjacent former Courthouse building at 40 Thorndike Street, as well as providing additional parking opportunities to neighborhood residents and the general public. The approval of the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest aligns with the Garage’s intended purpose and would allow for the remediation of the environmental conditions at the Courthouse. Further, the badly needed redevelopment of the Courthouse would significantly improve the East Cambridge neighborhood where it is located.

By approving the disposition of the Leasehold Interest, East Cambridge businesses - particularly our small businesses and independently owned restaurants - will recognize economic benefits that have been absent since the Courthouse closed and the employees and other users of the former Courthouse stopped spending money in the local area. The resulting activation of the first-floor retail area, the demonstration kitchen and the capital improvements at the Garage will positively impact area businesses. The independent Parking Planning Study conducted by Kleinfelder and McMahon Associates, two highly respected independent transportation planning and engineering consulting firms, shows that there is adequate space to accommodate the parking needs for both the proposed Leasehold Interest and Cambridge residents who park in the Garage.

Since 2013, the residents of East Cambridge have patiently waited for the various processes needed to allow the remediation and redevelopment of the Courthouse building to play out. I want to thank the community for being involved in this process. The public has clearly expressed that they have concerns regarding the health and safety of the vacant Courthouse building and the economic impacts this unoccupied building has had on local East Cambridge businesses. The time has come to conclude the disposition process and to allow the redevelopment of the Courthouse building to proceed.

III. Conclusion
I want to thank the City Council for its leadership during this multi-year process. Based upon the review and evaluation of LMP’s proposal, which I have determined to be a responsive, responsible offer and advantageous to the City, I recommend that the City Council approve the disposition of the Leasehold Interest and authorize me to enter into a disposition agreement in such form and substance as I determine is necessary or advisable in order to dispose of the Leasehold Interest to LMP, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP and any conditions and limitations the City Council may deem necessary and appropriate after full consideration of the Proposal, the Disposition Report, and the Planning Board recommendation.

In addition to my Letter to the City Council of June 26, 2019 with the accompanying Disposition Report with its attachments, I have attached for your information a letter from DCAMM to me of July 23, 2019, and the slide presentation prepared for the Sept 9, 2019 City Council public hearing to be held in connection with the proposed disposition.

I urge the City Council to concur with my strong recommendation and the favorable recommendation of the Planning Board to approve this proposed disposition, and for all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that you vote affirmatively by a two-thirds majority of the Council in favor of the proposed disposition and authorize me to enter into a Disposition Agreement with LMP for the disposition of the Leasehold Interest.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

June 26, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council, and Members of the Planning Board:

I am pleased to transmit to the City Council, the Planning Board and the City Clerk the attached Disposition Report pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code regarding the proposed disposition of a leasehold interest in 420 unassigned parking spaces (Parking Spaces) and approximately 9,000 square feet of ground floor retail area (Retail Area) (together the Leasehold Interest) in the City s First Street Garage (Garage). I want to thank City staff, the City Council, the Planning Board, and members of the public, especially the residents of East Cambridge, for their active and robust engagement during the proposed disposition process that commenced on Oct 7, 2013, when the City Council unanimously voted to declare the Leasehold Interest in the Garage available for disposition (the Council Vote.)

Because there may be some conflicting information as to what property is being considered for disposition and indeed, even what property the City owns, I would like to emphasize that only the Parking Spaces and the Retail Area in the Garage are available for disposition pursuant to the Council Vote, and as such, the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest in the Garage was the only alternative considered in the Disposition Report. The City does not own the former Edward J. Sullivan Courthouse (Courthouse); it is owned and managed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Division of Capital and Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) and is under a binding purchase and sale agreement to be sold to the developer Leggat McCall Properties (LMP) who has already obtained a Planning Board Special Permit for the redevelopment of the Courthouse (the Courthouse Project.) Also, it is important to note that the Garage was funded in part by a 1984 Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) the City received from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of redeveloping a portion of East Cambridge. Under the UDAG, the City committed to making a number of parking spaces in the Garage available for long term leases by nearby property owners and members of the public, as well as for employee and visitor parking at the Courthouse.

As outlined in the Disposition Report, I believe the disposition of the Leasehold Interest will produce the most significant public benefit that can be obtained from the proposed disposition, specifically in the context of the already-permitted Courthouse Project. The community benefits and amenities that will be provided to East Cambridge by the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest at the Garage as well as by the redevelopment of the Courthouse by LMP will positively impact the community for years.

There are several points I would like to emphasize in particular regarding this proposal:

(1) The proposed lease of the Parking Spaces in the Garage will not inhibit the City's ability to provide monthly parking passes to Cambridge residents, nor will it limit the spaces available to Cambridge residents within the Garage during declared snow emergencies. Kleinfelder and McMahon Associates, the two highly respected independent transportation planning and engineering consulting firms that performed the First Street Area Parking Planning Study (Parking Planning Study) commissioned by Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation (TPT) Joseph Barr, made the following specific conclusions based upon their review:

• There is ample parking within the study area to accommodate the anticipated 336 new daily parkers (based on 80% utilization of the 420 parking passes) at all times of day;

• The proposed lease will not inhibit the City's ability to provide monthly parking passes and parking spaces during declared snow emergencies to Cambridge residents;

• Parking supply within the study area is significantly higher than parking demand, even if parking capacity at the CambridgeSide Mall is reduced in the future; and

• The proposed lease should not impact the availability of residential parking within the neighborhood, since non-resident customers parking within the garage will not be able to access on-street resident permit parking.

Based upon his review of the consultants' Parking Planning Study and its conclusions, TPT Director Barr believes the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest would be beneficial to the City and can be accommodated within the Garage, and therefore has recommended that I move forward with the disposition process.

(2) In total, the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest in the Garage will result in $77,426,200 in economic benefits. The benefits will be derived not only from the leasing of the Parking Spaces and Retail Area but also from capital improvements/funds for the Garage and activation of the Retail Area and First Street with programs that directly benefit the East Cambridge neighborhood. As part of these benefits, LMP will provide significant contributions to the Community Benefits Fund, Affordable Housing, sustainability initiatives, and workforce development.

(3) Approval of the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest in the Garage will not only result in the City obtaining the generous community benefits offered by LMP related to the Garage but will also result in additional benefits associated with and required by LMP's 2013 Special Permit PB-288 approved by the Planning Board for the Courthouse Project. If the Courthouse Project is allowed to move forward using the Garage for a large portion of its parking needs, which was the preferred parking option of the Planning Board, the Courthouse Project will result in the environmental remediation of the Courthouse, a decrease in the overall height of the Courthouse, the creation of 24 new units of fully affordable housing at the Courthouse, the design of new public open space, and the realization of tens of millions of dollars in community benefits, including an estimated $7M in Incentive Zoning payments to the Affordable Housing Trust and annual estimated new property tax revenues of $3.8M.

(4) The Courthouse, which is owned and managed by DCAMM and has been vacant since 2014, has a number of deteriorating conditions, is unsuitable for habitation, and is a blight on the East Cambridge neighborhood. Many neighbors have expressed concern that if the Courthouse's deteriorating condition is not remediated, it will pose a direct threat to their health and well-being. The City does not own, control, or have the authority to remediate or maintain the Courthouse. Currently the Courthouse has no power, heat, or water and there is reportedly asbestos containing material throughout the building. In fact, there are two security guards at the building 24/7/365 who have been briefed on how to contact the Fire Department in an emergency, and since December 2017, there have been four major incidents requiring immediate emergency response.

(5) I have communicated with DCAMM representatives on several occasions regarding both the condition of the Courthouse and to inquire whether DCAMM would have any interest in transferring the Courthouse to the City at no or little cost, as some have suggested. DCAMM has reiterated repeatedly that the Courthouse is a valuable asset and that it expects to obtain fair market value in any disposition of this property. DCAMM believes the fair market value of the Courthouse exceeds $30M prior to any costs associated with remediation and redevelopment. DCAMM is committed to LMP's redevelopment of the Courthouse and is in support of the municipal actions that are required to complete the transaction and to begin the redevelopment of the Courthouse.

(6) I firmly believe that the proposal by LMP is the most beneficial economic proposal the City will receive, not only related to the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest at the Garage, but related to the redevelopment of the Courthouse, as well. It is highly unlikely that the Courthouse will ever be torn down, that it will ever be financially developable as 100% affordable housing or will ever be turned over to the City at little or no cost. Because of the high baseline costs of the Courthouse Project, including the acquisition cost of at least $30M and the remediation costs estimated by LMP to be at least $50M, public funding for affordable housing from other sources would not likely be available. Therefore, the construction of 100% affordable housing in this facility is neither economically feasible nor is it realistic to suggest that the City would ever be in a position to acquire, remediate and renovate the Courthouse for 100% affordable housing.

The public process to engage the community regarding the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest in the Garage has been robust and transparent, and I believe that the City has made every effort to address East Cambridge neighbors' concerns. I am committed to the East Cambridge community and will continue to support the neighborhood as these projects move forward.

I hope that the Planning Board issues a favorable recommendation, and I recommend that the City Council authorize me to enter into a disposition agreement with LMP for the Leasehold Interest. By doing so, the City will recognize the generous economic and community benefits related to the Garage, and the proposed remediation and redevelopment of the blighted Courthouse can finally move forward.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

June 26, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am writing you to recommend that the City Council approve the disposition of a leasehold interest in 420 unassigned parking spaces (the "Leasehold Parking Spaces ) and approximately 9,000 square feet (SF) of ground floor retail (the "Leasehold Ground Floor Retail Area") (together the "Leasehold Interest") in the First Street Garage, located at 55 First Street and owned by the City of Cambridge (the "Garage" or the "Property"). This report is submitted pursuant to Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 2.110 (the "Disposition Ordinance") and outlines steps the City has taken to meet the legal requirements for disposing of the Leasehold Interest. I have also included a breakdown of the benefits to the community proposed by the developer Leggat McCall Properties ( LMP" or the "Developer"), who was the successful bidder in response to a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the Leasehold Interest that was issued by the City pursuant to state law requirements under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B ("Chapter 30B"). The bid that was awarded to the Developer was conditioned upon and subject to the final approval by the City Council of the disposition of the Leasehold Interest pursuant to the Disposition Ordinance. Detailed information about the proposed disposition can be found on the City's website at https://www.cambridgema.gov/firststreetgarage.

I. Executive Summary

The proposal submitted by LMP for the disposition of the Leasehold Interest provides significant financial benefits and other important amenities to the City with commitments that advance the City's transportation, housing, and environmental goals.

Significantly, the proposal submitted by LMP for the Leasehold Interest provides for a total of $77,426,200 in financial benefits to the City. This sum represents a substantial increase in revenue generated by the Leasehold Parking Spaces ($49,291,200) and the Leasehold Ground Floor Retail Area ($3,375,000) through the proposed 30-year lease term. This sum also includes contributions for capital and fit-out improvements to the Ground Floor Retail Area ($4,000,000) as well as a lump sum payment of $500,000 plus annual contributions towards capital improvements to the Garage ($26,000 annually).

LMP has also committed to providing financial contributions to support affordable housing in the City, specifically providing a contribution to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust in the amount of $4,500,000 as well as committing to increase the number of affordable housing units at its project to remediate and redevelop and complete the transformation of the long-abandoned, previously tax-exempt former Edward J. Sullivan Courthouse (the "Courthouse") project (the "Courthouse Project"), from eight (8) affordable units to twenty-four (24) affordable units (resulting in $5-6 million in an additional estimated value to the City).

The proposal also provides significant contributions to community workforce development programs totaling an investment of $950,000 over ten (10) years, with commitments to the Cambridge Pathways to Apprentice Program ($20,000 annually), Just-a-Start, Inc. ($50,000 annually), and the Cambridge Housing Authority ($25,000 annually).

LMP has also committed to making annual contributions of $50,000 to the City's Community Benefits Stabilization Fund over the course often (10) years, totaling $500,000 to be distributed through the City's Community Benefits Stabilization Fund.

At the Garage, LMP proposes to activate the Ground Floor Retail Space with a program comprised of 1) a community / senior space (with an added financial commitment of $25,000 over the 30-year lease term to fund programming for a total of $750,000); 2) a cafe; 3) a demonstration kitchen for public educational use; and 4) an indoor, year-round farmers market. LMP has also committed to funding a senior parking program contribution of up to $36,000 annually to the City to provide senior parking subsidies at the Garage.

Additionally, LMP has committed to green initiatives totaling up to $5,650,000, which includes $1,500,000 towards the acquisition of a solar array at the Garage with annual contributions of $10,000 for the projected 25 years of useful life of the solar array ($250,000). The total value of electricity produced by the solar array over its useful life for the City is estimated to be in excess of $3,500,000. LMP has also committed to providing up to $400,000 for twenty (20) electric vehicle charging stations to service forty (40) vehicles at the Garage as well as contributing $50,000 towards the City's installation of additional bike sharing accommodations in the vicinity of the Garage.

The following Table 1 is an overview of the commitments made by LMP in its Proposal relative to each of the criteria set forth in the RFP:

Economic Benefits of Proposal - TABLE 1
Lease Payment for 420 Unassigned Parking Spaces		$49,291,200	Year One Lease Payment ($326 per space x 420 x 12 months). Equals $1,643,040 Annually. (Estimate assumes 30 Years of payments without CPI adjustment which would be required.)1
Lease Payment for Ground Floor Retail		$3,375,000	Year One Lease Payment - $112,500. (Estimate assumes 30 years of payments without CPI adjustment which would be required.)
Ground Floor Retail Improvements		$2,500,000	Estimated core and shell improvements.
Ground Floor Retail Improvements		$1,500,000	Estimated fit-out and ancillary soft costs.
Support for Capital Projects/Annual Basis	Garage Improvements	$1,280,000	Annual payment of $26,000 for 30 years plus $500,000 lump sum payment.
Support for Capital Projects/Annual Basis	Retail Space	TBD	Ongoing improvements linked to retail space for 30 years.
Support for Community Enhancement	Additional Affordable Housing Units at Courthouse Project	$6,000,000	Modification of Affordable Unit Mix from 8 Affordable, 8 Moderate Income and 8 Market Rate Units to 24 Affordable Units. Estimated contribution value: $5-6 million.
	Affordable Housing Trust Contribution	$4,500,000 2	Above any other Incentive Zoning requirements.
	Community Pathways	$200,000	$20,000 annually for 10 years.
	Just-a-Start	$500,000	$50,000 annually for 10 years.
	Cambridge Housing Authority	$250,000	$25,000 annually for 10 years.
	Community Benefits Stabilization Fund Contribution	$500,000	$50,000 annually for 10 years.
	Contribution for Lease of Community / Senior Space and Demonstration Kitchen	$750,000	$25,000 annually for 30-year lease term.
	East Cambridge Seniors (65+) Subsidy Vouchers	$1,080,000	Up to $36,000 annually for 30-year lease term.
PTDM Strategies		$50,000	Contribution toward City's installation of additional bike sharing accommodations in the vicinity of the Garage.
Green Initiatives	Solar Array	$1,500,000	Up to $1.5 million for the installation of a solar array.
	Value of Annual Maintenance of Solar Array	$250,000	Up to $10,000 annually based upon the projected 25-year useful life of the solar array.
	Annual Energy Savings	$3,500,000	Annual estimated energy savings of $140,000 for 25 years.
	Electric Charging Stations	$400,000	Up to $400,000 toward installation of an estimated 20 electric vehicle charging stations.
TOTAL		$77,426,200 3

1 Does not include potential losses of revenue due to any decrease of non-residential parkers.

2 This amount is in addition to the estimated $7,000,000 payment to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust pursuant to the City's Incentive Zoning requirements and required by the Special Permit for the Courthouse Project.

3. This total does not include estimated new annual property tax revenue of $3,800,000, which assumes lost property tax revenue for six (6) years if the Courthouse Project does not move forward until a new project might be approved of approximately $22,800,000. The total property tax revenue for 30 years with no assumed annual increase would be $114,000,000. Ground Floor Retail Area property tax revenue for 30 years with no assumed annual increase is estimated to be $750,000 (at least $25,000 per year for 30 years.) This total does not include estimated new property tax revenue of approximately $150,000 for the Ground Floor Retail Area and assumes lost property tax revenue for six (6) years if the Courthouse Project does not move forward until a new project may be approved.

The proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest would not only provide the above-described significant benefits but would facilitate and enable the redevelopment and complete the transformation of the Courthouse into an asset for the East Cambridge neighborhood and the City at large.

Based on these commitments, I believe that the proposed disposition provides substantial benefits to the City and its residents and recommend that it be approved by the City Council.

II. Background

The Garage is bordered by First Street to the east, Second Street to the west, Thomdike Street to the north and Spring Street to the south. Garage entrances are located on Spring Street with exits on Thomdike Street. The CambridgeSide Mali, (formally known as the CambridgeSide Galleria shopping mall) is located at Cambridgeside Place, which is located nearby on the east side of First Street; the Courthouse is located at 40 Thomdike Street and is situated across the street from the Property on the west side of Second Street. The Middlesex Probate and Family Court and the Middlesex Registry of Deeds buildings are located northwest of the Property. The adjacent blocks include commercial and residential uses in buildings that reflect both the industrial and historic character of the area. (See Exhibits 1-3, Context and Site Zoning Plans and Aerial Photograph of Garage.)

The urban design framework of the East Cambridge Riverfront Plan of 1978 (the "1978 Plan ) proposed a public parking garage in the East Cambridge neighborhood to accommodate the anticipated parking demand for development pursuant to the 1978 Plan, which was also projected to increase due to anticipated future development. Implementation of the 1978 Plan required seeking and obtaining state and federal funding, including from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), in the form of an Urban Development Action Grant ("UDAG") to develop the Property as a parking garage with ground retail space fronting First Street. The Property was acquired by eminent domain in 1982 to be developed specifically as a municipal parking facility to serve the community and adjacent developments in the area.4 The proposed development for the Property received a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Special Permit from the Cambridge Planning Board in 1983.

The Garage was built in two phases beginning in 1983 and 1986 pursuant to the UDAG awarded to the City as part of the overall redevelopment of East Cambridge. Phase I was a six-level precast concrete and steel frame structure built in 1983 accommodating roughly 558 parking spaces and 12,000 SF of ground retail space. Phase II was a six-level precast concrete frame expansion that added approximately 532 parking spaces and was completed in 1986. Phase I and II were referred to together as the 55 First Street Parking Garage with a total floor area of approximately 340,000 SF. The building occupies almost the entire city block and provides approximately 1,100 parking spaces including at the roof level. As part of the financing for the construction of the Garage, the UDAG required that the City enter into binding long-term leases with nearby developments. The owners of the Davenport Building have binding rights to continue to lease up to 250 parking spaces at the Garage until Nov 17, 2075 and the owners of the Bulfinch Square Building have binding rights to continue to lease at least 90 parking spaces at the Garage until Dec 31, 2079. In addition, the UDAG requires the City 4 Planning Board, Case No. PB-29, Final Development Plan PUD Special Permit Decision (1983).

to maintain 130 parking spaces to be available to the public and for employee and visitor parking at the Courthouse.

While the overall condition of the Garage was categorized as "fair to good" in a 2015 Condition Appraisal Report Update,5 the Garage structure is now four years older than it was in 2015,and it requires multi-year capital improvements to maintain its full use. The 2015 Condition Appraisal Report Update identified structural maintenance issues related to the Garage, including concrete deteriorations, corrosion to the steel reinforcement and differential settlement at the north exit from the Garage to Thorndike Street, that require significant repair and/or monitoring.

In 2011 and again in 2012, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting through its Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance ("DCAMM") issued a Request for Proposals for the sale and redevelopment of the Courthouse. LMP, as the successful bidder, entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the Commonwealth for the purchase of the Courthouse.

In Sept 2013, LMP in association with the proposed redevelopment of the Courthouse, sent a letter to former City Manager Richard C. Rossi requesting that the City make available for a long-term lease the Leasehold Parking Spaces and the Leasehold Ground Floor Retail Area at the Garage. In October 2013, former City Manager Rossi submitted this request to the City Council and requested that the City Council declare available for disposition, pursuant to Chapter SOB, the Leasehold Parking Spaces and the Leasehold Ground Floor Retail Area at the Garage.

(See Exhibits 4-5, Garage Site Land Use Plan and Garage Site Retail Area Plan.) On Oct 7, 2013, following a public meeting, the City Council voted unanimously to declare the Leasehold Interest in the Garage available for disposition. (See Exhibit 6, Council Order No. 8A of 10/7/13) ("the City Council declares that the 420 parking spaces and the first-floor retail space [are] available for disposition by lease on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City....")

In December 2013, LMP submitted an application to the Planning Board seeking a special permit to develop the Courthouse Project and following a public hearing, in October 2014, the Planning Board granted special permit PB No. 288 for the Courthouse Project with conditions ("Special Permit 288 ), including a requirement to provide a certain number of parking spaces, some of which could be provided in the City's Garage if available. It was also stated that "the original proposal to provide parking in the municipal garage remains the preferred option of both the Applicant and the Planning Board, given its closer proximity to the [Courthouse] building and its opportunities for mutually beneficial public-private partnerships." (See Exhibit 7, Summary of Benefits of LMP's Courthouse Project.)

Neighbors of the Courthouse Project filed a lawsuit challenging the Planning Board's issuance of Special Permit 288, which was subsequently upheld after appeal in November 2017. In December 2017, LMP requested that the City re-engage in the disposition process and in a Dec 18, 2017 communication to the City Council, I provided the City Council with notice of the resumption of the disposition process.

5 Condition Appraisal Report Update by Walker Restoration Consultants (2015).

III. Disposition Process for the Leasehold Interest

As set forth below, the disposition of City-owned property, whether by lease or transfer of title, is subject to the legal requirements of Chapter SOB and the City's Disposition Ordinance, Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code as more fully set forth below.

A. Chapter SOB Requirements

Below in Table 2 is an overview of the process required by Chapter SOB:

Chapter SOB - TABLE 2
Steps Required		Status
i)	That the governmental body shall declare the property available for disposition and specify any restrictions it wishes to place on the subsequent re-use of the property	The City Council declared the Leasehold Interest available for disposition in 2013.
ii)	and that the government body determines the property s value;	The City has determined the property value of the Leasehold Interest through two professional appraisals.
iii)	and solicit proposals (Requests for Proposals; "RFPs") prior to moving forward with the process	The City advertised the RFP in the Central Register on Oct 17, 2018 and advertised for a second time in Oct 25, 2018. One proposal (from LMP) was received on Nov 19,2018.
iv)	and that proposals shall be opened publicly as advertised	LMP's proposal was opened publicly and posted on the First Street Garage Project Page on the City's website in November 2018.

On Oct 17, 2018, in order to comply with the requirements of Chapter 30B, the City issued the RFP for the Leasehold Interest and received a proposal submitted by LMP ("LMP's Proposal" or the "Proposal".) Based upon a thorough review by the City's Evaluation Committee, the Proposal was determined to be responsive, responsible and advantageous to the City. The Evaluation Committee determined there would be substantial benefits to the City as a result of the Proposal. Based on the Evaluation Committee's review and recommendation, in January 2019, LMP was conditionally awarded the disposition of the Leasehold Interest pursuant to Chapter 308 subject to final approval by the City Council pursuant to the Disposition Ordinance.

B. Disposition Ordinance, Chapter2.110.010 of Municipal Code Requirements

The City must also comply with the Disposition Ordinance, as outlined in Table 3 below. The purpose ofChapter2.110.010 is "to protect the citizens of Cambridge and to achieve land uses that best serve the City's public purpose. In addition, when the public purpose is found to be best served by the disposition for a private development, the City's objective will be to receive the fair market value for such property, to protect real estate values, and to dispose of each property without favoritism." See Exhibit 8, Disposition Ordinance, Chapter 2.110.010 of Municipal Code.)

Below in Table 3 is an overview of the process required by the Disposition Ordinance:

Disposition Ordinance, Chapter 2.110 - TABLE 3
Steps Required		Status
i)	The City Manager shall hold a community meeting to hear community concerns.	• The first community meeting about the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest was held on Oct 30,2018. • A second community meeting (open house) was held on Mar 26,2019 to hear input and comments on the progress of the Parking Planning Study. • A third community meeting was held on June 19, 2019.
ii)	The City Manager shall issue a detailed report to the Planning Board, City Council and the City Clerk for public dissemination regarding the proposed disposition.	The City Manager's Report is set forth herein, which includes details of how each criterion in the Disposition Ordinance is evaluated.
iii)	The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing not sooner than two weeks after receipt of the City Manager's Report.	A public hearing regarding the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest and LMP's Proposal is scheduled to be held by the Planning Board on July 16,2019.
iv)	After study, the Planning Board shall submit its recommendation to the City Manager for submission to the City Council.	The recommendation of the Planning Board is scheduled to be submitted to the City Manager for transmission to the Council for its July 29, 2019 Meeting.
v)	The City Council shall hold a public hearing within six weeks of receipt of the City Manager's Report and the Planning Board Recommendation.	The City Council public hearing is scheduled to be held on July 29,2019. Disposition requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council to pass.
vi)	At least (14) fourteen days prior to the public hearings by the Planning Board and the City Council, the City Clerk shall post notice of the hearings at various conspicuous locations upon the City property, giving the purpose of the hearing, and shall send written notice to the owners of property and renters, listed on the annual street list or on the assessor s records, within 300 feet of the City property.	Planning Board Notice to be advertised on June 27, 2019. City Council Notice to be advertised on June 27, 2019.

Under the Disposition Ordinance, the City Manager shall be responsible for engaging in a process that will result in a fair analysis of how the greatest public benefit can be obtained from the City property in question. This City Manager's Report constitutes the report that is required by Section2.110.010 B of the Disposition Ordinance and is based upon careful consideration of the issues enumerated in the Disposition Ordinance, including holding at least one community meeting to discuss the issues and community concerns and addressing them in the City Manager's Report. The City Manager's Report must also include the information set forth in c.2.110.010 B, which will be discussed below.

The following provides an analysis, criteria and considerations of issues enumerated and set forth in the Disposition Ordinance.

1. Community Engagement - c. 2.110.010 B

On Oct 30, 2018, the first of three (3) community meetings was convened by the City Manager for City staff to hear from the community on the proposal to lease 420 unassigned parking spaces and 9,000 SF of ground floor retail space in the Garage (the "First Community Meeting") and for City staff to present information about the historical utilization of the Garage and the lease commitments under the UDAG. Comments expressed at the First Community Meeting included concerns about the lack of parking in East Cambridge and the need for further study of the parking issues; the importance of gathering input from residents before making a decision about disposition; perceived bias by the City towards developers; that the Garage is under-used as a public amenity due to poor communication by the City; access to the Garage's parking spaces during snow emergencies; affordability of Garage monthly parking passes; traffic effects due to increased development around Third and First Streets; and the impacts to the neighborhood of three to five million SF of proposed additional development from Kendall Square and Cambridge Crossing.

Public comments at the City Council meetings of Nov 5 and 19, 2018 reiterated many of the comments expressed at the First Community Meeting.

The City Manager and the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation ("TPT") Joseph Barr commissioned the First Street Area Parking Planning Study of the area around the Courthouse and Garage (the "Parking Planning Study".)

On Mar 26, 2019, the second of three community meetings was convened by the Director of TPT and other City staff as an "open house" to present the scope of the Parking Planning Study and preliminary data results from it with members of the public (the "Second Community Meeting"), Members of the public provided comments on the Parking Planning Study which included suggested revisions to the scope of the study area to expand the scope of the Parking Planning Study to encompass the area bounded by Fifth Street to the west, Otis Street to the north. Third Street to the west, and Hurley Street to the south, as well as increasing the number of days of data collection for the Parking Planning Study, comments that data collected regarding the use of parking spaces on Thorndike and Third Streets did not appear to accurately represent the parking usage on those streets, and questions as to whether it was possible to know how frequently the parking passes are used for the Garage. Other comments and questions included whether the City had considered providing shuttle bus service for Cambridge Health Alliance (the "CHA") employees to provide more parking in the Garage; whether the City might consider ending the lease arrangement with the CHA; whether it was possible to designate Third Street and other surrounding streets as snow emergency routes so plows could remove all the snow from the streets to provide for the maximum amount of parking spaces; whether the Parking Planning Study would be considering future demand; and whether the City has considered implementing "zoned parking" in East Cambridge to prohibit non-East Cambridge vehicles from parking in the area, as it appears most people park in the area during the weekday to be closer to Boston. Some residents commented that they support moving the Courthouse Project forward because it will increase tax revenue; that since the Courthouse ceased operations and relocated, residents have since utilized the Garage parking spaces formerly used by Courthouse employees and have not perceived an issue; that Garage parking rates are much lower than in other parking garages; that the City should investigate raising parking rates in the Garage; and concerns over the exterior appearance of the Garage.

The Parking Planning Study was amended to include an increased scope of the study area pursuant to suggestions made by members of the public at the Second Community Meeting and was completed on June 14, 2019. The key results are set forth in a summary, which together with a cover memo from Joseph Barr, Director of TPT, is attached hereto. (See Exhibit 9, Cover Memo and Summary of Parking Planning Study.)

The City held a third community meeting on June 19, 2019 at the Kennedy-Longfellow School (the "Third Community Meeting") to update the community on the status of the proposed disposition, including a summary of LMP's proposal and an update on the Parking Planning Study. Approximately 160 people attended the Third Community Meeting. Public comment began at approximately 7:15 pm and about 5 5 people spoke. Each person was allotted two minutes for comment to ensure that everyone had a chance to be heard. The speakers were a mix of residents who live in East Cambridge and residents from around Cambridge. The opinions of the speakers were split between people who support the Courthouse Project and people who do not support the Courthouse Project. The majority of the closest neighbors to the Courthouse who were in attendance at the Third Community Meeting expressed support for the Courthouse Project and the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest, while many of the people in attendance at the meeting who spoke in opposition to the proposed disposition did not live in the immediate vicinity of the Courthouse. While some commenters focused specifically on the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest and the Parking Planning Study, many people spoke about the Courthouse Project as a whole and their support for or opposition to it.

The need for affordable housing in Cambridge was a frequent theme in the comments, with some residents supporting the 24 units of affordable housing the Courthouse Project will provide, and other residents calling for the City to look for alternative ways of using the Courthouse Project site to provide a larger number of affordable units.

The most common themes heard from residents who support the proposed disposition and the Courthouse Project was that the Courthouse has stood empty and deteriorating for too long, and that it is time to "move on" with the remediation. Multiple neighbors expressed concerns about the potential health impacts of the Courthouse building and the possibility of fire or other public safety issues although other residents indicated their support of LMP's planned remediation and redevelopment of the Courthouse. Residents also spoke in favor of the community benefits included in the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest, such as the senior center and the farmer's market.

In voicing their opposition to the Courthouse Project and the proposed disposition, some speakers stated that there should have been more consideration given for possible "alternative uses" of the Courthouse and the Garage, while others questioned whether it is appropriate for the Courthouse as a "public building" to be sold to a private developer for its own profit. A number of commenters suggested that the City or the State should find a way to remediate the Courthouse site without putting it in private hands. A few speakers also questioned whether the process set forth in the City s Disposition Ordinance was being properly followed, and others stated that there should have been a public process involving the community in the State's determination to sell the Courthouse property to the developer and the future use of the Courthouse site.

Specifically related to the disposition of the parking spaces in the First Street Garage, people in opposition to the disposition stated that if the 420 spaces are leased, community parking needs will not be met which will negatively impact residents, employees, and visitors. There were also specific concerns expressed over the methodology, comprehensiveness, and conclusions of the Parking Planning Study. Supporters of the Courthouse Project and the proposed disposition repeatedly expressed the perception that the parking issue is a red herring" being used to stop the development of the Courthouse Project, and that the spaces in question have never been available to the general public, having previously been used by Courthouse users. Others expressed significant concerns about whether residents would be able to continue to use the Garage for their monthly, daily and snow emergency parking needs. Residents in support of the proposed disposition stated that they accepted the results and conclusions of the Parking Planning Study and indicated that the benefits of the proposed disposition overall far outweigh the impacts of the reduction in parking available to the public in the Garage.

2. Description and Analysis of Alternative Uses for the Leasehold Interest c.2.110.010 B (1)

a. Garage Parking Spaces

The City received only one (1) proposal in response to the RFP and so the only alternative use for the Leasehold Interest that was considered by the City under the City Council's declaration of the 420 parking spaces and 9,000 SF of ground floor retail area available for disposition is the City's continuing to make the use of the Leasehold Parking Spaces available as part of the City's operation of the Garage as a municipal parking facility. Currently, there are several long-term leases for parking at the Garage totaling 513 unassigned spaces. The spaces are provided to those lease holders in the form of garage access cards. Other entities including area businesses and Cambridge residents have also been issued garage access cards, though not pursuant to long-term leases. There are approximately 260-380 spaces currently used with daily passes. One hundred thirty (130) spaces of these are available to the public pursuant to the UDAG Agreement. The Garage also serves as a designated parking location for Cambridge residents during City-declared snow emergency parking bans.

b. Ground Floor Retail Space

The City received only one (1) proposal in response to the RFP and so the only alternative use for the proposed Leasehold Ground Floor Retail Area that was considered under the City Council's declaration of the parking spaces and ground floor retail area available for disposition is the City s continuing to use the proposed Leasehold of the Ground Floor Retail Area for either storage or potential retail leasing in the future. The 9,000 SF of the proposed Leasehold of the Ground Floor Retail Area is currently vacant but is intermittently used by the City for storage and was used by the City in the past for other ground floor retail uses. The City has previously leased the ground floor space to retail entities with limited success.

3. Existing Zoning Status of the Property and Other Applicable Legal Requirements c.2.110,010 B (3-4)

a. ' Zoning Status

The current base zoning for the Garage is Business A ("BA"). Most residential dwellings, institutional uses, office and laboratories, and retail are permitted within the base district, along with some transportation, communication, and utility uses (see Section 4.30 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.) For non-residential uses, the maximum Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") is 1.00 and the maximum height is 35 feet. For residential uses, the maximum FAR is 1.75, and the maximum height is 45 feet. (See Article 5.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.)

The base district is modified by the PUD-4B overlay zoning district with the intention to provide the opportunity to create active, medium density commercial and residential with a mix of retail, office and residential land uses. The PUD-4B district was established in 2001 following the Eastern Cambridge Area Planning Study ("ECaPS"). This overlay zoning district specifically encourages a substantial housing component, where possible, located within the development parcel and adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood. The provisions of the PUD-4B district allow the approval of mixed-use PUD projects with greater height and density and more flexible dimensional limitations, subject to a special permit from the Planning Board (Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, Article 12.000 and Article 13.000, Section 13.50.) In granting a special permit, the Planning Board considers overall conformance with the plans for the area and public benefits that outweigh the impacts of the additional allowed development.

The following Table 4 is a summary of the applicable zoning requirements. See the referenced provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for more details:

First Street Garage Site Zoning Requirements - TABLE 4
Zoning	BA (base zoning)	PUD-4B (subject to special permit)
Max. FAR (non-residential)	1.0	1.0
Max. FAR (residential)	1.75	2.0 (combined residential and non-residentlal)
Max. Height (non-residential)	35 feet	65 feet
Max. Height (residential)	45 feet	65 feet
Min. lot area/Dwelling Unit	600 SF	450 SF
Min. Open Space (nonresidential)	No minimum	20% (all types)
Min. Open Space (residential)	15% (private)	20% (all types)
Min. Setback (non-residential)	No minimum	Determined by special permit
Min. Setback (residential-Front Yard)	10 feet + formula setback	Determined by special permit
Min. Setback (residential-Side Yard)	Formula setback	Determined by special permit
Min. Setback (residential-Rear Yard)	20 feet + formula setback	Determined by special permit
Inclusionary Housing Bonus (see Section 11.203 of Cambridge Zoning Ordinance)	30% increase Gross Floor Area ("GFA") and dwelling units	30% increase in GFA and dwelling units

At the time that the Planning Board approved Special Permit 29 for the Garage, the site was in the PUD-4 overlay zoning district, which was established pursuant to the East Cambridge Riverfront Plan. Also, above-grade structured parking was not included in the calculation of Gross Floor Area or Floor Area Ratio limitations for a lot. Per Section 5.25.2 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, new above-grade parking is included in GFA and FAR calculations for a lot, with some exceptions.

4. Development Potential of the Leasehold Interest - c.2.110.010 B (5)

The following Table 5 is a summary of the applicable zoning requirements relative to the development potential of the Garage.

a. Existing Garage Information

First Street Garage Existing Conditions (estimated) - TABLE 5
Land uses	Parking, retail/office (some vacant or used for storage)
Zoning District	Base zoning BA/PUD-4
Land Area-Parcel Area	75,738 SF (1.73 acre)
Garage Area	Approximately 340,000 SF
Height	Approximately 66 feet
Open Space	3/738 SF
Garage footprint	Approximately 68,900 SF
Retail/office Gross Floor Area	Approximately 12,000 SF

b. Alternative Development Potential of the Leasehold Interest c.2.110.010 B f5)

There is no alternative development potential for the proposed Leasehold Parking Spaces or the proposed Leasehold Ground Floor Retail Area as the entirety of the proposed Leasehold Interest is wholly contained within the Garage, which functions and will continue to function as a municipal parking garage whether the Leasehold Interest is approved for disposition or not.

5. Development Plans Proposed for the Leasehold Interest c.2.110.010 B (6)

LMP proposes to make certain financial and programmatic commitments in exchange for the City granting the Developer the Leasehold Interest. Specifically, LMP proposes the following:

a. Community/Economic Benefits

i. Garage Public Use: The remainder of the parking spaces other than the Leasehold Parking Spaces in the Garage will continue to be used as part of the Garage's functioning as a municipal parking facility, and neighborhood residents will continue to be able to use the Garage for snow emergencies and parking within proximity to their residences.

ii. Retail Programming: Retail uses will include approximately 9,000 SF of rehabilitated retail space on First Street. The proposed retail programming includes:

a. Farmer's Market: Fills a gap in area grocery offerings and increases security by activating retail frontage on First Street.

b. Community Center/Senior Space: Dedicated community space for community events.

c. Demonstration Kitchen: Serves public educational use and as a test kitchen.

d. Cafe: Activates the west side of First Street.

e. Contribution of $750K over the 30-year lease term dedicated to fund programming for the community center/senior space. Retail would activate First Street, and a dedicated community center/senior space would provide a venue to serve East Cambridge residents.

iii. Housing Development - Courthouse Project: Modification of Affordable Unit Mix from 8 Affordable, 8 Moderate Income and 8 Market Rate Units to 24 Affordable Units. This is an estimated contribution value of$5-6M.

iv. Affordable Housing Trust: Contribution of $4.5M will be made to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust.

v. Green Initiatives: An upfront contribution of$5.65M toward green initiatives such as a solar array and electric charging stations, at the City's sole discretion.

a. Solar Array Investment, Maintenance & Value: Contribution of up to $1.5M toward the solar array installation. Contribution of $1 OK annually for solar array maintenance ($250K). The estimated total value of electricity produced over the life of the solar array is $3.5M. The annual value of electricity produced, estimated at $140K initially, is to be retained by the City. LMP has committed to provide these funds to the City for other green initiatives" in the event that it is determined by the City that the Garage is not optimal for such an installation.

b. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: Contribution of $400K toward 20 electric vehicle charging stations to service 40 vehicles at the Garage.

LMP has committed to provide these funds to the City for other "green initiatives" in the event that it is determined by the City that the Garage is not optimal for such an installation.

vi. Bike Sharing Accommodations: Contributing $50,000 towards the City's installation of additional bike sharing accommodations in the vicinity of the Garage.

vii. Senior Parking Program: Contribution of up to $1.08M. This is a contribution of up to $36K annually over the 30-year term to the City to provide senior parking subsidies at the Garage.

viii. City of Cambridge Community Benefits Stabilization Fund:

Contribution of$500K over 10 years. This is a contribution of$50K annually to be distributed pursuant to the City's Community Benefits Ordinance, Chapter 2.127 of the Cambridge Municipal Code.

ix. Workforce Development: Contribution of$950K over 10 years will be committed to workforce development programs including Cambridge Housing Authority ($25K annually/$250K total), Cambridge Pathways to Apprentice Program ($20K annually/$200K total), and Just-a-Start ($50K/$500K total.)

x. Union Labor: LMP pledges to carry out Garage improvements for any interior and/or fit-out work using major trade unions and to support an educational program for Cambridge students to learn from construction related to Garage improvements.

6. Financial/Capital Improvement Benefits c.2.110.010 B m

a. Lease Revenue - Parking: Lease payments are estimated to be $49.3M (before indexing using the CPI) over the 30-year lease term. This would result in a rate of revenue of$326/space/month for the use of the 420 unassigned parking spaces, which is 45% higher than the current rate of $225/space/month.

b. Lease Revenue - Retail: Lease payments are estimated at $3.375M over the 30-year lease term. This breaks down to $12.50/SF for approximately 9,000 SF. This is an additional $112,500 annually of revenue to the City.

c. Garage Capital Improvements: Contribution for Garage improvements totals $1.28M. This includes a lump sum payment of$500K, and a payment of $26K annually for a total of$780K over the 30-year lease term. This will fund a multi-year capital improvement, repair and maintenance program.

d. Retail/Facade Improvements: Contribution of$4M toward façade improvements and retail fit-out proposed for the First Street rehabilitated retail space. This breaks down to $2.5M estimated for improvements to the core and shell and $1.5M estimated for fit-out and soft costs.

7. Parking Planning Study c. 2.110.010 (6}

The City commissioned the Parking Planning Study of the area near the Garage to determine the viability of leasing the proposed Leasehold Parking Spaces to a private developer. The Parking Planning Study took into account all current development and permitted development as well as concerns expressed at the First Community Meeting and at the two City Council hearings of Nov 5 and 19, 2018 relating to the proposed disposition. The study analyzed the impacts of the proposed Leasehold Interest both directly on the Garage and on parking in the surrounding neighborhood.

The summary and a cover memo from the Director of TPT is attached hereto as Exhibit 9, as noted on page 10 above. The full report and its data can be found online at https://www.cambridgema.gov/firststreetgarage. As noted in the cover memo, the key conclusions of the Parking Planning Study are as follows:

a. There is ample parking within the study area to accommodate the anticipated 336 new daily parkers (based on 80% utilization of the 420 parking passes) at all times of the day.

b. The potential lease will not inhibit the City's ability to provide monthly parking passes to Cambridge residents, or to make space available within the Garage during declared snow emergencies.

c. Parking supply within the study area is significantly higher than parking demand, even if parking capacity at the CambridgeSide Mail is reduced in the future.

d. The City will be able to continue to meet its obligations under the UDAG that helped finance construction of the Garage. This includes monthly parking that must be available to specified local buildings, as well as space for daily parkers.

e. The proposed parking lease should not impact the availability of residential parking within the neighborhood, since non-resident customers parking within the

f. There are management and financial benefits associated with leasing parking to a single large customer, as opposed to large group of individual customers.

One ongoing source of uncertainty regarding parking supply and demand in the surrounding area is the possible redevelopment of the CambridgeSide Mall. New England Development (the owner of the Mali) has proposed a significant redevelopment of the site, though it seems likely that changes will be made to the zoning petition that is currently before the City Council and the Planning Board. The types of changes that have been suggested include reducing the proposed density and/or increasing the amount of housing. Both of these changes would likely reduce parking demand from the CambridgeSide Mali and increase the likelihood that parking would continue to be available for outside customers, including monthly and daily parkers who cannot find space at the Garage. It is also important to note that any redevelopment at the Mail would likely take a decade or more, during which time parking demand would be significantly reduced, creating additional space for unaffiliated parkers.

Should there be additional demand for commercial parking in the future, the data collection completed for the Parking Planning Study indicates that there are a number of underused office and residential parking garages in the study area that could potentially serve some of these users if they were to obtain commercial parking space permits. Although this would require property owners to take multiple steps—including obtaining commercial parking permits and seeking zoning approval for principal use parking—the City has heard informally that some of these garages may be looking for opportunities to lease out their excess parking.

Based on this study, the management plan for the Garage, and the status of parking facilities in the neighborhood surrounding the Garage, the Director of TPT has concluded that the Garage can successfully accommodate the lease of 420 unassigned parking spaces. As a result, the Director of TPT has indicated to the City Manager that based on the anticipated parking impacts, the City Manager can move forward with the disposition process.

8. Impacts on the Neighboring Area and the City as a Whole c. 2.110.010 (6)

For the area around the Garage, traffic on Third Street is congested at peak travel times. It is expected that additional traffic from the Garage will be diverted to First Street and away from Third Street especially when First Street is extended across Cambridge Street as part of the Cambridge Crossing redevelopment in the Northpoint area. Any additional traffic to the Garage that will be generated as a result of LMP s redevelopment of the Courthouse and the traffic impacts of that project have been thoroughly analyzed and reviewed as part of the Planning Board review undertaken in connection with its consideration of the application of LMP's Special Permit.

9. Recommended Financial Arrangements - Appraisals - c. 2.110.010_(7)

As required pursuant to the Disposition Ordinance, the City Solicitor received two independent, confidential appraisals for the Property. The purpose of the appraisals was to determine the value of the Property to a prospective buyer. City staff and I have reviewed the appraisals and I find that the offered price of$326/space/month for the Leasehold Parking Spaces and $12.50/SF/year for the Leasehold Ground Floor Retail Area, together with the proposed capital improvements and other financial benefits, are within an acceptable range. I find that the lease payments offered by LMP, combined with the other overall financial benefits outlined above together constitute a responsive and responsible offer, that it appropriately reflects the value of the Property, and that it is advantageous and would be highly beneficial to the City.

IV. Conclusion

Based upon a thorough analysis by the Evaluation Committee of the Proposal provided by LMP in connection with the redevelopment of the Courthouse, LMP's Proposal was determined to be responsive, responsible and advantageous to the City pursuant to the requirements of Chapter SOB. In its decision of Special Permit 288 for the Courthouse Project, which was granted by the Planning Board with conditions in October 2014, it was determined by the Planning Board that the Leasehold Interest for the Garage's Leasehold Parking Spaces and Leasehold Ground Floor Retail Area would bring much needed community benefits and amenities to East Cambridge. It is believed that the Proposal would reactivate First Street and generate revenue to fund the necessary capital improvements to maintain and extend the life cycle of the Garage, while maintaining parking availability for residents. I believe the disposition of the Leasehold Interest would produce the greatest public benefit that can be obtained for the proposed use of the Leasehold Parking Spaces and proposed use of the Leasehold Ground Floor Retail Area in the Garage at this time. The public process to engage the community regarding the proposed disposition of the Leasehold Interest has been robust and transparent, and I believe that the City has made and will continue to make appropriate efforts to address neighborhood concerns.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, I recommend that the City Council authorize me to enter into a disposition agreement for the aforementioned Leasehold Interest in the Garage with LMP on such terms and conditions as I consider necessary and appropriate after consideration of this Report, the Planning Board recommendation, and a public hearing on the proposed disposition before the full City Council.

Respectfully submitted
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

CHARTER RIGHT
1. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the License Commission and City Solicitor’s office to drop all charges against UpperWest and its owners, to reconsider UpperWest’s package store application, and to issue a public apology to UpperWest and its owners.
Referred to Sept 16 meeting

2. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to obtain a legal opinion from the City Solicitor regarding the License Commission's authority with regard to the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of liquor licenses in the City of Cambridge.
Referred to Sept 16 meeting

3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-39, regarding the creation of an arts friendly page highlighting the key licenses and permits available to support artists, arts organization, and creative enterprises in developing and producing their work for the benefit of local and regional audiences.
Referred to Sept 16 meeting

4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-14, regarding a survey of local arts organizations and private foundations that may support their work.
Referred to Sept 16 meeting

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to proposed amendments to the following ordinance: and proposed amendments to Chapter 14.04 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the "Fair Housing Ordinance"). Fair Housing (passed to a 2nd reading) AWAITING HOME RULE LEGISLATION-BEFORE PROPOSAL CAN BE ORDAINED

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-108, regarding a report on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee Elections. PENDING RESPONSE FROM LEGISLATURE

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

8. A communication was received from Anthony Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone Co-Chair and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on June 26, 2019 to discuss a petition received from Self Storage Group, LLC to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating a New Street Overlay District.

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. A Zoning Petition has been received from Ben LoVemere regarding that the City Council ordain the Zoning language set forth relative the Alewife Quadrangle Northwest Overlay District.
Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board

2. An application was received from MIT Museum requesting permission for 59 temporary banners along Massachusetts Avenue, from Memorial Drive to Sidney Street announcing Polaroid Project on Oct 9, 2019 thru Apr 1, 2020.
Order Adopted

COMMUNICATIONS
1. Communications were received from Loren Crowe, Cambridge, regarding Sullivan Courthouse and Displacement

2. A communication was received from Samuel Sandeen, Walden Street, regarding recent actions in Boston

3. A communication was received from Deborah Belle, Myrtle Avenue, re: Proposed day of appreciation for city sanitation workers

4. A communication was received from David Forrest, Esq., Museum Way, regarding New St. Overlay Petition.

5. A communication was received from Christopher Young, re12 Years to Act Climate Change

7. A communication was received from Joanna Lin, Spring Street, re: Approve the Courthouse Parking Lease.

8. A communication was received from Loren Crowe, re: Sullivan Courthouse - Lab Test Confirms Asbestos

9. A communication was received from Janis Kaas, Cambridge Street, re: Leggat McCall and 40 Thorndike.

10. A communication was received from Lata Ramanathan , Otis Street, re: 'Please Approve Courthouse Parking Lease'

11. A communication was received from Chantae Maynard, re: Cambridge Carnival Cancellation.

12. A communication was received from Alice Lin, Spring Street, re: Courthouse Parking Lease.

13. A communication was received from Olga Sokolova, Spring Street, re: Courthouse Parking Lease.

14. A communication was received from Russell Jampol, Spring Street, re: Courthouse Redev Leggat McCall

15. A communication was received from Winta Scantlebury, re Carnival Cancellation.

16. A communication was received from Dennis Ferrick, Hurley Street, re: First Street Garage.

19. A communication was received from George Sommer, Otis Street, re: Sullivan Courthouse Asbestos.

20. A communication was received from Robert Comacho, Corporal Burns Rd re: Affordable Housing Overlay.

21. A communication was received from Ellen Huang, re Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

22. A communication was received from George Sommer, Otis Street, re: Quarantine the Courthouse.

23. A communication was received from Tim Shaw, Mount Auburn Street, re: 100% Affordable Overlay Proposal (oppose).

24. A communication was received from Mike Connolly, re: MassDEP's emergency response to asbestos complaint at the Sullivan Courthouse.

25. A communication was received from Mary Ellen Doran, Spring Street, re: Sullivan Courthouse.

26. A communication was received from Ruthie Woods, regarding Cambridge Carnival.

28. A communication was received from Peter Crawley, re: Asbestos Courthouse + Leggat McCall.

29. A communication was received from Tara Greco re: Resident onto site of former Courthouse.

30. A communication was received from Lawrence Cetrulo re: City Council News + Events.

31. A communication was received from Barbara Currier, Lexington Ave. re: Affordable Housing Overlay.

32. A communication was received from Chris Matthews, re: Confirmed Asbestos Courthouse + Leggat McCall.

33. Communications were received from Marc Truant, re: Confirmed Asbestos at Courthouse + Leggat McCall.

34. A communication was received from Gabriela Romanow, Memorial Dr., re: Against the Overlay.

35. A communication was received from Rob Strauss, Berkeley Street, re: Affordable Housing Overlay.

36. A communication was received from Mahamed Mohamed, re: Leggat McCall bid to lease 420 Parking Spaces (support).

37. A communication was received from Shugri Ibrahim re: Leggat McCall (support) Parking Lease.

38. A communication was received from Ayesha Bisharo re: Leggat McCall Parking Lease (support).

39. A communication was received from Geraldine Quinzio, re: Courthouse Parking Lease (support).

40. A communication was received from Joyce Gerber, Fairfield Street, re: Recreational Dispensary Licenses.

41. A communication was received from Ladan Khamsi, Otis Street, re: Sullivan Courthouse (oppose).

42. A communication was received from Saul Tannenbaum, re: CPD involvement in violence against parade protesters.

43. A communication was received from Colin McCarthy, Cambridge St., re: Cambridge St. Crash - smashed bus shelter.

44. Communications were received from Priscilla McMillan, Hilliard St., re: Overlay (oppose).

45. A communication was received from Aileen O. Erickson, re: Affordable Housing Overlay (oppose).

46. A communication was received from Shelagh Hadley, re: Affordable Housing Overlay (oppose).

47. A communication was received from Anne Labadie, Mt Auburn St., re: "No Brainer Compromise".

48. A communication was received from James Hutchison, Sparks Street, re: "Stop Citywide Upzoning Overlay".

49. A communication was received from Michael Hawley, re: Asbestos (Sullivan Courthouse).

50. A communication was received from Hilary Bracken, re: Affordable Housing Overlay (opposed).

51. A communication was received from Eric Krauter, Churchill Ave, re: Mailer (attached).

52. A communication was received from Elizabeth Gombosi, Irving Street, re: Affordable Housing Overlay (oppose).

53. A communication was received from Catalina Arboleda, Mass Ave, re: Affordable Housing Overlay (oppose).

54. A communication was received from Doug + Rebecca Castoldi, Otis Street, re: Sullivan Courthouse (support).

55. A communication was received from Tom + Sue Owen, Mass Ave., re: AHO Petition (oppose).

56. A communication was received from Suzanne Blier, Fuller Place, re: AHO - going forward.

57. A communication was received from Virginia Coleman, 2 Berkeley Place, re: AHO (oppose).

58. A communication was received from Ruth Plaut Weinreb, re: Pedestrians in danger.

59. A communication was received from Rosalind Gorin, 114 Brattle Street, re: AHO (oppose).

60. Communications were received from Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine St., re: AHO comments.

61. A communication was received from Julie Vargas, 11 Old Dee Rd., re: AHO (oppose).

62. A communication was received from Karen Falb, 245 Brattle St., re: AHO (oppose).

63. Communications were received from Skip Schloming, 102-R Inman Street, re: AHO vs. "for profit real estate.

64. A communication was received from John Moukad, 34 Royal Avenue, re: AHO (support).

66. A communication was received from Sandra Dunbar, 325 Huron Avenue, re: AHO (concerns about plan).

67. A communication was received from Annette LaMond, 7 Riesdel Ave., re: AHO (oppose).

68. A communication was received from Joy Allen-McNeil, re: Housing and Educational Crisis.

69. A communication was received from Lawrence Cetrulo, Grozier Rd., re: AHO (objections).

70. A communication was received from Joyce Klein, 112 Lake View Ave, re: AHO (support views of Craig Kelley).

71. A communication was received from Rosemary Booth, Third Street, re: AHO (oppose).

73. A communication was received from Marilee Meyer, re: AHO Ordinance Overlay Letter

75. A communication was received from Andrea Simpson, 2 Hutchinson St., re: AHO (oppose).

76. A communication was received from Jonathan P Schwartz, re: Courthouse Project.

77. A communication was received from Elie Yarden, re: The Great Solar Storm of 1859.

78. A communication was received from Junjie + Yoshie Morokuma, 29 Otis St., re: Support Leggat McCall Parking Lease.

79. A communication was received from Catherine Wright, 17 Otis Street, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

80. A communication was received from Joe Hardwick, 170 Gore Street, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

81. A communication was received from Judy Kamm, 21 Otis Street, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

82. A communication was received from Jody Schindelheim, 2 Hutchinson Street, re: AHO (oppose).

83. A communication was received from Richard Vendetti, 24 Winter Street, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Leases.

84. A communication was received from Ron Ebert, 6 Canal Park, re: Approve Parking Lease (Courthouse).

85. A communication was received from Rhonda Massie, re: Opposed to Leggat McCall Development Project.

86. A communication was received from Lee Pedro, 14 Roosevelt Towers, re: Approve Leggat McCall Parking Lease.

87. A communication was received from Elizabeth Seelman, 25 Richard Ave, re: Economic Enpowerment (mailer card).

88. A communication was received from Sonja Cantu, 115 Second Street, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

89. A communication was received from Clare W Leslie, 76 Garfield Street, re: Support redevelopment of former Sullivan Courthouse.

90. A communication was received from Noro Kopco, 34 Jefferson Street, re: Support lease of First Street Garage.

91. A communication was received from Michael O'Shea, Walden St., re: AHO - Actual Charts.

92. A communication was received from George Sommer, 29 Otis Street, re: First St. Garage Lease (approve).

93. A communication was received from Dawna Carrette re: AHO Skyscrapers and Shadows.

94. A communication was received from Roger Dale Kamm, 21 Otis St., re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

95. A communication was received from Natalie Tarbet, 191 Boylston St., Watertown, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

96. A communication was received from Rebecca Coleman, re: Support Sullivan Courthouse Redevelopment.

97. A communication was received from Joanne Musto Pacheco, 61 Gore Street, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

98. A communication was received from Levi Tofias, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

99. A communication was received from Maryann Quinn, 39 Otis Street, re: Support redevelopment of Sullivan Courthouse.

100. A communication was received from Ana P. Camayd, 78 Spring Street, re: Support Leggat McCall 40 Spring St.

101. A communication was received from Greg Zaff, 115 Second Street, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

102. A communication was received from Mary Ellen Doran, 48 Spring Street, regarding Support for Courthouse and Garage Lease.

103. A communication was received from Ryan Grams, 48 Magazine Street, regarding Sullivan Courthouse Garage Leasing.

104. A communication was received from Zachary Goldberg, 118-120 Aberdeen Avenue, regarding Opposition to AHO.

105. A communication was received from Justin Saif, regarding the truth of what will happen if the municipal parking disposition is approved.

106. A communication was received from Angelo Pedro, Roosevelt Towers, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

107. A communication was received from David Woodrow, 2 Earhart Street, regarding the future of the Sullivan Courthouse.

108. A communication was received from Hormoz Goodarzy, 55 Fresh Pond Pkwy, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

109. A communication was received from James Simpson, 12 Quincy Street, regarding force to defer voting on the AHO.

111. A communication was received from Abigail Lewis-Bowen, Thorndike Street, re: Oppose Courthouse Parking Lease.

112. A communication was received from Fabrizio, re: First Street Parking Dispo.

113. A communication was received from Gvido Cebers, 100 Erie Street, regarding Affordable Housing Overlay.

114. A communication was received from Leidy Valdez, 364 Rindge Avenue, regarding support of the Leggat McCall bid.

115. A communication was received from Sheli Wortis, 106 Berkshire St., re: Oppose Leggat McCall proposed redevelopment.

116. A communication was received from Michael Delia, regarding support from East End House regarding Leggat McCall Properties.

117. A communication was received from Bonny Saintelot, 364 Rindge Avenue, regarding support of the Leggat McCall bid.

118. A communication was received from Carolyn White, 10 Rogers Street, regarding Sullivan Courthouse Parking.

120. A communication was received from Barbara Sanon, 402 Rindge Avenue, regarding support of the Leggat McCall bid.

121. A communication was received from Larry Cetrulo, 46 Grozier Road, regarding opposition to the AHO.

122. A communication was received from John Racine, 3 Jefferson Street, regarding Courthouse Construction.

123. A communication was received from Erika Eurkus, 103 Otis St., re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

124. A communication was received from Robert Camacho, 24 Corporal Burns Road, regarding Affordable Housing Overlay.

125. A communication was received from Louis Felix, 364 Rindge Avenue, regarding support of the Leggat McCall bid.

126. A communication was received from Dean Traweek, 12 Brattle Circle, regarding opposition to the Affordable Housing Overlay.

127. A communication was received from David Lannetta, 147 Hamilton St., re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

128. A communication was received from Helen Snively, Fayette Park, regarding against AHO.

129. A communication was received from Lidia Aristy, 364 Rindge Avenue, regarding support for the Leggat McCall bid.

130. A communication was received from Marie Elena Saccoccio, 55 Otis St., State Online Database (asbestos).

131. A communication was received from Carolyn Magid, 71 Reed Street, regarding voting against the lease of parking spaces to Lagatt McCall.

132. A communication was received from Eric Louderback, 170 Gore Street, regarding support for Leggat McCall.

133. A communication was received from Frederick Noyes, 551 Green St. #6, re: AHO (oppose).

134. A communication was received from Imtiyaz Shaikiy, 364 Rindge Avenue, regarding support for the Leggat McCall bid.

135. A communication was received from Abigal Lewis-Brown, regarding municipal parking disposition.

136. A communication was received from Lourdes Villar, 362 Rindge Avenue, regarding support of the Leggat McCall bid.

137. A communication was received from Mary Lonshteyn, 118-120 Aberdeen Avenue, regarding against the AHO.

138. A communication was received from Efrain Navarro, 362 Rindge Avenue, regarding support of the Leggat McCall bid.

139. A communication was received from Vivek Sikri, Allston St., re: Courthouse Redevelopment (oppose).

140. A communication was received from Ali Malihi, 17 Otis Street, regarding support for Courthouse and Garage Lease.

141. A communication was received from Carlos Aquino-Navarro, 362 Rindge Avenue, regarding support of the Leggat McCall bid.

142. A communication was received from Fred Pretorius, 103 Otis Street, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

143. A communication was received from Michael Melford, 12 Brattle Circle, re: Oppose AHO.

144. A communication was received from Richard Shader, 10 Rogers St., re: Oppose AHO.

145. A communication was received from Caroline Bruzelius, 24C Bradbury St., re: Oppose AHO.

146. A communication was received from Ann Porter, 6 Mercer Circle, re: Oppose AHO.

147. A communication was received from Mia Mccarthy, 160 Cambridgepark Dr., re: New St. Overlay (Support).

148. A communication was received from Joyce Klein + Mal Slavin, 112 Lakeview Ave, re: Oppose AHO.

149. A communication was received from Amy Rippy, re: Support Sullivan Courthouse redevelopment + Parking Lease.

150. A communication was received from Kesing Singleton, Jr., 362 Rindge Avenue, regarding support for the Leggat McCall bid.

151. A communication was received from Sean Dillon, re: support Courthouse Redevelopment.

153. A communication was received from Mahamed Mohamud, 362 Rindge Avenue, regarding support for the Leggat McCall bid.

154. A communication was received from Katie Zuna, 362 Rindge Ave #19K, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease

155. A communication was received from Alison Field-Juma, re: New Street Rezoning Petition.

156. A communication was received from Anya Slavin, 17 Otis St., re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

157. A communication was received from Robert J. La Tremouille, regarding Charles River: Govt. Poisons, Algae Blight related to poisons, persist.

158. A communication was received from Aaron Moskowitz, regarding Leasing Parking Spots at First Street Garage.

159. A communication was received from Elizabeth Stern, 20 Cambridge Terrace, re: Oppose AHO.

160. A communication was received from Alan Greene, 82 Fifth Street, regarding oppose Leggat McCall's request for Parking in the First Street Garage.

161. A communication was received from Guangwen Tang, 143-145 Third Street, re: Approve Courthouse Parking Lease.

162. A communication was received from Fatima Shields, regarding Sullivan Courthouse Development.

163. A communication was received from Heather Hoffman, regarding parking disposition.

164. A communication was received from Jay Wasserman, 34 Second Street, regarding First Street Garage Deposition.

165. A communication was received from Justin Saif, regarding Municipal Parking Disposition.

166. A communication was received from Mark P Rogers, 390 Cambridge St., re: Support Parking Lease.

167. A communication was received from Elena Numova, 150 Cambridge St., re: Support Courthouse Parking Lease.

168. A communication was received from Dan Eisner, re: Support Courthouse Parking Lease.

169. A communication was received from Lynn Cetrulo, regarding removing parking places in Harvard Square.

170. A communication was received from Janet Reckman, 4 Newport Rd., re: Oppose AHO.

171. A communication was received from Michelle Medal, 17 Otis St., re: Support Courthouse Parking Lease.

172. A communication was received from Ascend, LLC, regarding their Community Outreach Meeting.

173. A communication was received from Dawn Williams, 30 Cambridge Park Drive, regarding support of the parking lease to support the redevelopment and clean-up of the Sullivan Courthouse.

174. A communication was received from Kent Elliott, requesting that the City Council vote no on the First Street Garage Lease.

175. A communication was received from Nancy Ryan, President, The Cambridge Residents Alliance, 4 Ashburton Place, regarding rejecting the leasing of public garage spaces to a private developer.

176. A communication was received from Lois Flaherty, 20 Second Street, regarding Support for Courthouse and Garage Leasing.

177. A communication was received from Louise Parker, 1 Warwick Park, regarding vote no on leasing of parking spaces to Leggat McCall.

178. A communication was received from Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, regarding the proposed lease of the First Street Garage.

179. A communication was received from Stuart McMuldroch, regarding Sullivan Courthouse Development.

180. A communication was received from Jodie Cohen-Tanugi, regarding brick sidewalks.

181. A communication was received from Dr. Kenneth Halpern, 98 Allston Street, regarding public comment on AHO Proposal.

182. A communication was received from Adalino Cabral, regarding: In the U.S.A., are the Portuguese really Hispanics?.

183. A communication was received from Carolyn Gaebler, regarding supporting proposed amendments to Article 19 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.

184. A communication was received from Robert J. La Tremouille, regarding Order 24, July 30, 2019, supporting more massive environmental destruction on Charles River.

185. A communication was received from Megan Brook, regarding East Cambridge Courthouse.

186. A communication was received from Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, encouraging the Councillors to pace themselves.

187. A communication was received from Ed Abrams, regarding reusable plastic bags.

189. A communication was received from Donald Williams, 901 Massachusetts Avenue, regarding support of the Leggat McCall bid.

191. A communication was received from Robert J. La Tremouille, regarding State Agency admitting to poisoning the Charles River.

193. A communication was received from Min Zeng, in opposition to the Affordable Housing Overlay.

194. Sundry communications were received, regarding Laggett McCall Sullivan Courthouse.

195. A communication was received from Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, regarding Cannabis Business Permitting.

196. A communication was received from Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, regarding AHO.

197. A communication was received from Elizabeth Gilmore, 47 Reservoir Street, regarding AHO.

198. A communication was received from John Gilmore, 47 Reservoir Street, regarding AHO.

200. A communication was received from Tim Shaw, 147 Mount Auburn Street, regarding AHO.

201. A communication was received from James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, regarding Parking Utilization.

RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution on the death of Morgan Dix Wheelock. Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone

3. Resolution on the death of Helen Travers. Councillor Toomey, Councillor Simmons

4. Congratulations and thanks to all participants for a successful Monarch Butterfly Release at Fresh Pond Reservation. Vice Mayor Devereux

5. Congratulations to Christie Getto Young on being the 2019 recipient of the National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL) Legislative Staff Achievement Award. Councillor Simmons

11. Congratulations to Mohammed Missouri on being named Executive Director of JetPac. Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor McGovern

16. Congratulations to Crosby and Marc Najarian, owners of Fresh Pond Market, and staff on their many years of service to the Cambridge community and best wishes for a happy and restful retirement. Vice Mayor Devereux

17. Congratulations to the players and the coaches from the Cambridge Police Department on winning the 11th Annual Shannon Grant Basketball Tournament. Councillor Toomey

20. Congratulations to Philips on being ranked as the #1 "Sustainability All Star" by Fortune Magazine. Councillor Toomey

21. Retirement of Gary Edwards from the Cambridge Police Department. Mayor McGovern

22. Retirement of Calvin Kantor Jr. from the Cambridge Police Department. Mayor McGovern

23. Retirement of Cathleen Lawson from the Cambridge Police Department. Mayor McGovern

24. Retirement of Leann Warren from the Cambridge Police Department. Mayor McGovern

25. Retirement of Debre Foxx from the Department of Human Services Programs. Mayor McGovern

26. Retirement of Diane Zylicz from the Department of Human Services Programs. Mayor McGovern

27. Congratulations to UpperWest on their Third Anniversary. Councillor Zondervan

28. Congratulations on Jesse Kanson-Benanav and Rachel Weidenfeld on the birth of Micah BenanavWeidenfeld. Mayor McGovern

ORDERS
1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the relevant departments and the US Census Bureau to ensure that everyone in Cambridge is counted during the 2020 Census, and to demonstrate strategic outreach plans to increase participation among seniors, non-native speakers, persons experiencing homelessness, students, and people of color. Mayor McGovern
Order Adopted

2. That the City Manager is requested to work with all relevant City Departments to help facilitate the activities associated with Climate Preparedness Week 2019. Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Kelley
Order Adopted

3. That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider a request from Councillor Siddiqui for a plaque on a bench in East Cambridge’s Silva Park in honor of Victoria “Vicki” Jane Lewis, for her significant work on behalf of the City of Cambridge’s Participatory Budget process, as a board member of the East Cambridge Scholarship Fund, and for her contributions to the Cambridge community. Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toomey, Mayor McGovern
Order Adopted

4. City Council support of H.3012 and S.2061 An Act Relative to Work and Family Mobility and ask the Cambridge elected delegation to continue their advocacy to pass it out of committee and on to law. Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted

5. That the City Manager, without delay to the current First Street Garage lease process, is requested to confer with all relevant City departments and public health officials to conduct City directed environmental testing on the Sullivan Courthouse building and water in basement, to determine the risk posed to the public, and provide a timeline of completion. Councillor Toomey, Councillor Mallon
Order Adopted

6. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an update on the Danehy Park homicide investigation and the status of overall park safety efforts and reviews to include the lighting of pathways within the park. Councillor Kelley, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted

7. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on efforts to keep bus stops appropriately accessible for buses, to include relevant pavement markings and enforcement activity. Councillor Kelley, Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Toomey
Order Adopted

8. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City staff to provide an update on the current condition and future repairs and rebuilding of the Alewife Garage. Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toomey
Order Adopted

9. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Director of the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and any other relevant City departments to review speeds on Raymond Street, sign Raymond Street and adjacent streets at 20 MPH as soon as possible and provide a schedule of 20 MPH sign installations citywide. Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux
Order Adopted

10. That the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee is requested to hold a public hearing to review the Envision Cambridge plan and recommendations. Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted

11. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Traffic and Parking Department to install additional safety measures at the intersection of Fayette and Cambridge Streets to decrease conflict between pedestrians and vehicles as they are turning. Councillor Mallon
Order Adopted

12. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City staff to add links on the Inspectional Services Department website for archived and pending permit records on the appropriate platform. Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted

13. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City staff on the feasibility of allowing taxicabs to use dedicated bus lanes throughout the City while executing service for fare-paying passengers. Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted

14. That the proposed amendments to Title IV, Chapter 5.20, Article 1 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, to allow the use of e-hail applications by taxis, be referred to the Ordinance Committee for further review, Taxicab Use of E-Hail Applications for Fares. Councillor Kelley, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Toomey
Order Adopted

15. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Police Commissioner, the Cambridge Carnival Committee, and the community to organize an alternative event to take place in Cambridge on the Carnival’s rain date, that will allow vendors to sell their products and potentially recover at least some of the costs. Councillor Zondervan
Referred to Unfinished Business

16. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City staff to determine whether Boston's Airbnb registration requirements, to include public display of the unit's registration number on the rental platform, could be utilized to maximize compliance and enforcement efforts in Cambridge. Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toomey
Order Adopted

17. Displacement of tenants under the AHOD. Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted

18. Cost implications and the definition of net zero ready buildings. Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted

19. Use of public facilities for future meetings related to the AHOD process. Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted

20. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Community Development Department to review both the density and height under the AHO for the BA-4 district and make a recommendation to the Ordinance Committee. Vice Mayor Devereux
Order Adopted

21. City Hall lighting in observance of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon
Order Adopted

22. Contact DCAM to test and to provide definitive answers re: Sullivan Courthouse. Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted

COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair of the Transportation & Public Utilities Committee, for a public hearing held on July 24, 2019 to receive information about the draft Policy and Regulations for Small Cell Wireless Installations on Public Ways under consideration by the Pole & Conduit Commission and the Historical Commission.
Report Accepted; Placed on File

2. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair of the Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee, for a public hearing held on July 8, 2019 to discuss a report from the City Manager and City Solicitor on proposals for a “Cambridge Publicly Financed Municipal Election Program,” a “Cambridge Municipal Election People’s Pledge,” and to discuss the feasibility of convening a task force or working group to discuss publicly funded elections in Cambridge.
Report Accepted; Placed on File

3. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair of the Transportation & Public Utilities Committee, for a public hearing held on June 25, 2019 to discuss the future electricity needs of the Kendall Square area and progress toward identifying an alternate, viable location for a new substation other than the proposed site on Fulkerson Street.
Report Accepted; Placed on File

4. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair of the Transportation & Public Utilities Committee, for a public hearing held on July 15, 2019 to discuss a pilot program for regulating and permitting shared electric scooters to operate in Cambridge.
Report Accepted; Placed on File

5. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting Part 1 of the report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Aug 1, 2019 to discuss a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create an Affordable Housing Overlay District.
Report Accepted; Referred to Reconvened Hearing on Aug 8, 2019

6. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting Part 2 of the report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a reconvened public hearing held on Aug 8, 2019 to continue discussions on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create an Affordable Housing Overlay District.
Report Accepted; Referred to Reconvened Hearing on Aug 13, 2019; Order #17 Adopted

7. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting Part 3 of the report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a reconvened public hearing held on Aug 13, 2019 to continue discussions on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create an Affordable Housing Overlay District.
Report Accepted; Referred to Reconvened Hearing on Sept 3, 2019; Order #18 and Order #19 Adopted

8. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting Part 4 of the report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a reconvened public hearing held on Sept 3, 2019 to continue discussions on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create an Affordable Housing Overlay District.
Tabled 9-0

9. A communication was received from Anthony Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair of the Transportation & Public Utilities Committee, for a public hearing held on Aug 21, 2019 to discuss the future electricity needs of the Kendall Square area and progress toward identifying an alternate, viable location for a new substation other than the proposed site on Fulkerson Street.
Report Accepted; Placed on File

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM OTHER CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Mayor Marc C. McGovern, transmitting Report on Findings from January Supervised Injection Services (SIS) Fact-Finding Mission to Montreal, Canada. Mayor McGovern
Placed on File

2. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a memorandum from Councillor Simmons, regarding follow-up information to my previously proposed amendments submitted at the Aug 14th Ordinance Committee Meeting to the Cannabis Business Permitting discussion that shall be part of the City Council’s agenda on Sept 9th, 2019.
Referred to Calendar #7

3. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a memorandum from Vice Mayor Devereux, regarding proposed amendments to the New Street Overlay District zoning petition.
Placed on Unfinished Business

HEARING SCHEDULE
Mon, Sept 9
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber-televised)
6:30pm The City Council will hold a public hearing on the disposition of a leasehold interest in 420 parking spaces and approximately 9,000 square feet of ground floor retail (together the “Leasehold Interest”) in the First Street Garage, located at 55 First Street and owned by the City of Cambridge, to the developer Leggat McCall Properties, which was conditionally awarded the bid pursuant to G.L. Chapter 30B subject to the review and approval of the disposition of the Leasehold Interest by the City Council pursuant to the City’s Municipal Disposition Ordinance, Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the “disposition Ordinance”). This hearing will be held pursuant to the Disposition Ordinance As part of the legal requirements for disposing of the Leasehold Interest. (Sullivan Chamber-televised) [Hearing Recessed - to reconvene Sept 18, 2019 at 3:00pm]

Tues, Sept 10
12:00pm The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the zoning petition from Alexandria Real Equities, Inc. et al proposing a Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District. (Sullivan Chamber-televised)

Wed, Sept 11
5:30pm The Health and Environmental Committee will conduct a joint public hearing with the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force to receive an update on the Task Force’s progress to date and to receive input and feedback. (Sullivan Chamber-televised)

Tues, Sept 17
12:00pm The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebration Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the preserved Inman Square tree trunks and receive input from the public on possible future uses of the wood, which is a public resource. (Sullivan Chamber-televised)

Tues, Sept 24
12:00pm The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebration Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the City policy on sidewalk surface treatments as discussed in Policy Order #16 of July 30. 2019. (Sullivan Chamber-televised)

Wed, Sept 25
3:00pm The Transportation & Public Utilities Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the future electricity needs of the Kendall Square area and progress toward identifying an alternate, viable location for a new substation other that the proposed site on Fulkerson Street. (Sullivan Chamber-televised)

Thurs, Sept 26
2:00pm The Ordinance Committee will hold a public hearing to discuss the petition by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by creating new sections in Section 19.20 - Project Review Special Permit. (Sullivan Chamber-televised)
5:30pm The Ordinance Committee will hold a public hearing to discuss the petition by Stephen R. Karp, Trustee of Cambridgeside Galleria Associates Trust, to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by adding a Section 13.100 that creates a new PUD-8 District and to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge by adding the new PUD-8 District, which District would include the property located at 100 Cambridgeside Place (currently zoned in the Business A and PUD-4 Districts). (Sullivan Chamber-televised)

Mon, Oct 7
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber-televised)
6:30pm Tax Rate Hearing (Sullivan Chamber-televised)

Tues, Oct 15
3:30pm The Transportation & Public Utilities Committee will conduct a public hearing to review the Vision Zero Year One Report and information on upcoming Vision Zero projects for 2019/2020. (Sullivan Chamber-televised)

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1 Sept 9, 2019
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: On Census Day, Apr 1, 2020, residents around the country will receive their 2020 US Census and be invited to respond either online, by phone, or through the mail; and
WHEREAS: This is the first year responding to the US Census online will be offered; and
WHEREAS: Ensuring that every resident is counted during the US Census is vital to the health and operation of our Constitutional form of government, and contributes to congressional districting decisions, allocations of federal funds and grants, informs local policy decisions, and ensures fair representation; and
WHEREAS: Confusion caused by the Trump administration regarding questions on the US Census along with other factors may deter people from participating in the 2020 Census, particularly among vulnerable populations such as non-native speakers, seniors, and persons experiencing homelessness, as well as transient students who will also be counted in Cambridge; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the relevant departments and the US Census Bureau to ensure that everyone in Cambridge is counted during the 2020 Census, and to demonstrate strategic outreach plans to increase participation among seniors, non-native speakers, persons experiencing homelessness, students, and people of color; and to report back to the Council on this matter by the final meeting of 2019.

O-2 Sept 9, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: Cambridge is vulnerable to many of the risks associated with climate change, including extreme heat and precipitation, rapid ecological and epidemiological changes, and sea level rise; and
WHEREAS: Communities Responding to Extreme Weather (CREW), a network of local leaders building climate resilience through grassroots organizing, community planning, and policy advocacy, has designated Sept 24-30 each year as “Climate Preparedness Week”; and
WHEREAS: 2019 marks the second annual Climate Preparedness Week, which will feature a variety of events to create change and raise consciousness, in Cambridge and throughout Massachusetts; and
WHEREAS: Through education, service, planning, and other activities, Climate Preparedness Week will serve as an entry point for residents to engage with these issues on a long-term basis, and will empower residents to help their families, friends, and fellow community members better prepare for climate change; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with all relevant City Departments to help facilitate the activities associated with Climate Preparedness Week 2019; and be it further
ORDERED: That the week of Sept 24-30 be permanently designated as “Climate Preparedness Week” in the City of Cambridge.

O-3 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
MAYOR MCGOVERN
ORDERED: That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider a request from Councillor Siddiqui for a plaque on a bench in East Cambridge’s Silva Park in honor of Victoria “Vicki” Jane Lewis, for her significant work on behalf of the City of Cambridge’s Participatory Budget process, as a board member of the East Cambridge Scholarship Fund, and for her contributions to the Cambridge community as a whole; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward this order to the Dedication Committee for review and approval.

O-4 Sept 9, 2019
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: States that have made it permissible for a person to obtain a driver’s license regardless of documentation status have seen safety increase, revenues increase, and a positive impact on the economy; and
WHEREAS: Undocumented persons are vital members of our economy and community; it is estimated that they contribute $8.8 billion to the Massachusetts economy and pay $185 million in taxes; and
WHEREAS: As our cities become more and expensive and lower-income earners are pushed further and further away from their jobs, public transportation, economic centers, childcare, places of worship, health care facilities, and public amenities, many undocumented persons have no other choice but to drive—without a license, which is also a prerequisite to obtaining car insurance—jeopardizing their very livelihood and that of their dependents; and
WHEREAS: Supporting H.3012 and S.2061 An Act Relative to Work and Family Mobility will make our roads safer, strengthen our economy, and most importantly, will not force our hardworking friends and neighbors into illegal activities just to support their families; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in support of H.3012 and S.2061 An Act Relative to Work and Family Mobility and ask the Cambridge elected delegation to continue their advocacy to pass it out of committee and on to law; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the entire Cambridge State Delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-6 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: Concerns remain regarding the overall safety in Danehy Park and lighting of the park's pathways, especially regarding an unsolved homicide; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council with an update on the Danehy Park homicide investigation and the status of overall park safety efforts and reviews to include the lighting of pathways within the park.

O-7 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR MALLON
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It is fairly common for motor vehicle operators to illegally stop or park at a bus stop while, for example, running nearby errands, waiting for passengers, or checking directions; and
WHEREAS: Motor vehicles stopped or parked in a bus stop for any length of time may keep a bus from accessing the curb, therefore blocking vehicle and bicycle traffic and making accessibility difficult for onboarding and offboarding passengers, especially for those with disabilities and mobility constraints, such as strollers and luggage; and
WHEREAS: A real time review of motor vehicles stopped or parked at bus stops indicated that enforcement efforts are not commensurate with the scope of violations; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge uses street markings to identify appropriate street and curb use for many activities, such as bicycle riding, and it is possible that more appropriately marking bus stops as “no stopping and/or parking” may decrease illegal stopping and parking at bus stops and improve both traffic and passenger safety as well as passenger onboarding and offboarding accessibility and convenience; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on efforts to keep bus stops appropriately accessible for buses, to include relevant pavement markings and enforcement activity.

O-8 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The MBTA Alewife Garage is a crucial element in Cambridge’s transportation system and related commercial and residential activity; and
WHEREAS: This garage has been in a state of disrepair in recent years, with multiple closures, emergency repairs and removal of scores of parking spots to provide space of temporary support columns; and
WHEREAS: More temporary repair work began in September 2018 after a $5.7 million contract was awarded; and
WHEREAS: These repairs will not materially impact the long-term viability of this structure, work that may cost an estimated $40,000,000 or more; and
WHEREAS: Updates have not been consistently provided as to the status of the repairs; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City staff to provide an update on the current condition and future repairs and rebuilding of the Alewife Garage.

O-9 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: A recent roll-over crash on Raymond Street illustrates the dangerously high speeds at which cars are moving on that street; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge is implementing a 20 MPH speed limit through much of the City on an incremental basis as streets get marked with appropriate signs; and
WHEREAS: Raymond Street is a significant street for app-guided traffic that ends near a K-5 School, has related school-oriented cyclists, pedestrians and drivers, and is a major route for cyclists seeking to avoid Massachusetts Avenue or Sherman Street, all of which create a special danger for a speeding driver; and
WHEREAS: Raymond Street has been designated a safe alternate route for cyclists on the Bike Vision Plan (page 90); now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Director of the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and any other relevant City departments to:
1. Review speeds on Raymond Street
2. Sign Raymond Street and adjacent streets at 20 MPH as soon as possible
3. Provide a schedule of 20 MPH sign installations, citywide and report back to the City Council on these issues.

O-11 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR MALLON
WHEREAS: The intersection of Fayette Street and Cambridge Street is highly trafficked by both vehicles and pedestrians; and
WHEREAS: Vehicles turning on to a congested Cambridge Street from Fayette Street often do not see pedestrians that are mid-way through the crosswalk, as they are navigating the oncoming traffic; and
WHEREAS: The lack of visibility and congestion in this intersection leads to dangerous conflicts between pedestrians and drivers; and
WHEREAS: Construction from the Inman Square redesign will contribute to the danger of this intersection, and additional safety measures should be taken to mitigate this; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Traffic and Parking Department to install additional safety measures at the intersection of Fayette and Cambridge Streets to decrease conflict between pedestrians and vehicles as they are turning; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-12 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The Inspectional Services Department (ISD) has worked hard to transition the online permitting system for all departments from EnerGov to ViewPoint, the new online platform that streamlines the process for applicants; and
WHEREAS: EnerGov previously stored historical permit records but that record retrieval system has been removed, and records on the Open Data Portal are incomplete or difficult to access and read; and
WHEREAS: Requesting permit records in person commonly takes two weeks, a process that used to be done instantly online and is now slower, less convenient, and more impractical than in years past; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City staff to add links on the ISD website for archived and pending permit records on the appropriate platform (ViewPoint and/or EnerGov); and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this issue.

O-14 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Taxis are an important part of Cambridge’s transportation system; and
WHEREAS: Platform-based ride services such as Uber or Lyft provide price predictability and ease of payment and reimbursement compared to traditional taxi fares; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge ordinances do not allow taxis to conduct business without using the meter, excluding their use of a platform-based application such as WAAVE (now in operation in NYC), further excluding them from equitably competing with TNCs; and
WHEREAS: Taxis should be allowed to participate in the 21st Century internet-based economy on a competitive basis with upfront pricing; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the attached proposed amendments to Title IV, Chapter 5.20, Article 1 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, to allow the use of e-hail applications by taxis, be referred to the Ordinance Committee for further review.

O-15 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that the Cambridge Carnival International that was scheduled to take place on Sept 8, 2019 has been canceled by the City Manager due to security concerns; and
WHEREAS: Carnival is the largest festival in Cambridge and has been a cherished institution for 26 years, with thousands of attendees every year, and remains one of the only celebrations specifically focused on uplifting black and brown culture in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Carnival is rooted in the history of enslaved African and colored people and indentured servants in Trinidad and Tobago, born out of these communities of color celebrating their freedom after slavery ended in the 1800s, and as this historical connection is very important to the Afro-Caribbean community in Cambridge, the cancellation has been felt as a direct affront to their culture, tradition and freedom; and
WHEREAS: Countless vendors and artists, many of whom are Cambridge residents themselves, stand to lose considerable amounts of money due to the last-minute nature of this cancellation, including through food supplies that have already been purchased, and others have spent all year preparing for a performance that now will not happen; and
WHEREAS: At a recent community discussion, it became clear that the emotional and financial impacts of this decision on the African-American and Caribbean communities in Cambridge, as well as the community as a whole, have not been sufficiently addressed; and
WHEREAS: Many members of the community do not feel they were sufficiently informed, consulted and included in the decision to cancel Carnival, which is unprecedented in both the long history of the event in Cambridge as well as in the more than 50-year tradition of Carnival in the United States; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Police Commissioner, the Carnival Committee, and the community to organize an alternative event to take place in Cambridge on the Carnival’s rain date, that will allow vendors to sell their products and potentially recover at least some of the costs; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Police Commissioner, Carnival Committee, and community members to ensure that future Carnivals in 2020 and beyond happen as anticipated; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to bring any necessary appropriations before the City Council to ensure that future Carnivals will take place safely; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter as soon as possible.

O-16 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The City of Boston and the short-term rental operator Airbnb have recently reached an agreement that will, by Dec 1, 2019, require all listings to display a city-formatted registration number or face removal from the Airbnb platform; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge was a leader in creating a regulatory program governing short-term rentals like Airbnb, but has been less successful in reaching compliance; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has previously requested that City staff create a public facing registration program that would appear on short-term rental listings; and
WHEREAS: The City of Boston's agreement with Airbnb appears to be a more promising way of insuring compliance with short-term rentals in Cambridge, thus insuring greater housing stability and safety for Cambridge residents and visitors; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City staff to determine whether Boston's registration requirements, to include public display of the unit's registration number on the rental platform, could be utilized to maximize compliance and enforcement efforts in Cambridge; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on this issue and the current status of short-term rental registration and enforcement efforts in Cambridge, to include the possibility of sting operations that would both identify illegal short-term rental operators and possibly provide appropriate evidence of financial transactions to support legal action.

O-17 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor and the Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department to provide the City Council with information on how best to prevent displacement of tenants under the AHOD; and be it further
ORDERED: That said information is provided for displacement for all tenants across the board.

O-18 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the staff of the Community Development Department to provide information regarding the cost implications and the definition for net zero buildings as it relates to the AHOD ordinance and that said information to include the issues encountered by affordable housing developers when doing renovations or reconstruction around current utilities and to report back to the City Council with this information so that it can be incorporated into the AHOD petition.

O-19 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council with information regarding whether public facilities can be used for future meetings related to the AHOD process.

O-20 Sept 9, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Community Development Department to review both the density and height under the AHO for the BA-4 district and make a recommendation to the Ordinance Committee.

O-21 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MALLON
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the appropriate City personnel to light the exterior of City Hall in teal from Sept 17-18, 2019 in observance of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month.

O-22 Sept 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to contact DCAM to test and to provide definitive answers regarding the Sullivan Courthouse emitting any material of risk and how it will be remediated; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on July 24, 2019, at 2:06pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to receive information about the draft Policy and Regulations for Small Cell Wireless Installations on Public Ways under consideration by the Pole & Conduit Commission and the Historical Commission.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Zondervan; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; Deputy City Solicitor Paul Kawai; City Electrician Steven Lenkauskas; Executive Director of the Historical Commission Charles Sullivan; Preservation Planner for the Historical Commission Sarah Burks; and Liz Walker.

Also present were Stanley Usovicz, Regional Director of External Affairs, Verizon Wireless; Paula Foley, Network Real Estate and Regulatory Consultant, Verizon Wireless; William August, 875 Massachusetts Avenue; Dan Grunberg, 22 Centre Street; Isabel Praeger, 73A Magazine Street; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place #2; Hadassa Fleishon, 100 Landsdowne Street; and John Hawkinson.

Vice Mayor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. She stated that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. An agenda was distributed (ATTACHMENT A).

A copy of the Small Cell Policy and Regulations, adopted as an interim policy on June 10, 2019, was also distributed (ATTACHMENT B). Vice Mayor Devereux noted that communications had been received via email from Gene Dolgin (ATTACHMENT C).

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the last time this committee discussed small cell wireless technology was in November 2018. The FCC had issued an order that was to take effect in January 2019, and the City Council was trying to catch up on what the order would mean for Cambridge, as the City was already receiving an increased number of requests for this type of installation at that time. She noted that the City Council is not the permit-granting authority and thus does not have direct control over this policy. However, the City Council must be knowledgeable about it, as residents frequently contact City Councillors with questions about installations near their homes.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that at the hearing last November, the City Council discussed what the City is allowed to regulate under this FCC law. The concept of preemption may apply here, where the Federal law greatly restricts what a local government can and cannot do, so the City Council made a motion to the Solicitor in Committee Report #9 of Dec 3, 2018, to advise on what control the Pole and Conduit Commission and Historical Commission have to regulate small cell installations throughout the city. That opinion came as a response (dated July 29, 2019), which the City Solicitor distributed to the members of the Committee (ATTACHMENT D). These regulations have been adopted as the City’s interim regulations and are the guidelines that are currently being followed for small cell installations in the City. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that in reading through the regulations, it seems that many of the questions posed by the City Council at the last hearing, of aesthetics, notice to residents and abutters, and noise, for example, have been addressed in these regulations. City Electrician Steven Lenkauskas, who is a member of the Pole and Conduit Commission, will be the primary person to discuss the details of this policy and how it was developed.

Vice Mayor Devereux invited City Solicitor Nancy Glowa to make comments on the Interim Policy and Regulations first.

Ms. Glowa stated that the Law Department worked with a number of staff members from different City departments to draft this policy language, which was then submitted to the full Pole and Conduit Commission and Historical Commission. This version of the Policy and Regulations was adopted at the Pole and Conduit Commission meeting on June 10, 2019 as an interim policy. There is not yet consensus between the City and providers in the industry as to what the bounds of City authority are. This is still a matter of debate, and it is not a completely settled area of the law. It is a matter of litigation in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals right now.

By City Ordinance, the Pole and Conduit Commission was established as the grant-making authority for installations on conduits on, over or under public ways in the city, and it reviews and grants or denies applications at regularly scheduled hearings. Mr. Lenkauskas, Nicole Murati Ferrer, and Terence James Shea, Superintendent of Streets, are the members of the Pole and Conduit Commission. Only one of the members could be present at this hearing of the Transportation and Public Utilities Committee due to the Open Meeting Law. The regulations are fairly comprehensive. Applicants must submit materials in advance about types of equipment, where pieces of equipment will be situated and how far apart. Those materials are all submitted to the Pole and Conduit Commission and heard at their public hearings. Ms. Glowa invited Mr. Lenkauskas to share further information about the policy and regulations.

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that small cell devices are not something new to the City. These installations began 11 years ago with approximately 35 or 40 installations. Over the last three or four years, the number of current installations has increased to a total of approximately 130 throughout the city. Previously, these devices were only allowed on the wooden utility poles, because they were considered a utility. A lot of this increased demand for small cell installations has resulted from an expanded need for cellular device service and the ever-expanding Internet of Things.

Mr. Lenkauskas emphasized that these installations are not yet for 5G wireless technology, but he assumes at some point the devices being installed now could be converted to 5G. 5G is not deployed in this region as of yet.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that formerly these installations were only allowed on wooden utility poles, and asked whether now the installations will be permitted on any pole, for example a City-owned street lamp or light pole.

Mr. Lenkauskas responded affirmatively and stated that the installations are now being allowed on the City’s metal light poles because there is an increased need for coverage. The goal of the providers is to install devices on any City-owned pole.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if it was possible to put these installations underground.

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that controls or other non-mounted equipment could be put underground. However, there will always be an antenna above ground. He stated that it is the Pole and Conduit Commission’s goal to put as much equipment below grade as possible.

Ms. Glowa stated that a significant aspect of the ruling is that the FCC has held that street poles are to be made available to these providers by the City not as an owner of the pole, but as a utility or service amenity. Although the City has the authority to regulate certain aspects of the installations’ placement, the City cannot simply dictate that this is our property and we will give you a license agreement with unlimited stipulations that we choose to make. There will be various issues that can or cannot be considered as part of the grant of approval for placing these infrastructure elements on city-owned poles. These installations were not previously put on city-owned poles, only on the wooden poles, but now we are in a different regulatory environment.

Vice Mayor Devereux welcomed Councillor Kelley and Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson to the hearing.

Councillor Carlone asked whether only antennas will be visible. He stated he did not think installations should be allowed to go on ornamental lampposts.

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that the language in the policy is that this would be the case “if it’s feasibly possible.”

Councillor Carlone stated that the boxes on wooden poles have already created a nuisance. He recalled a gentleman at the Nov 8, 2018 hearing who discussed sizable boxes on the street grade in Boston, or cases where they enlarged the column of the Acorn-style light fixture. But this theoretically might allow it, or are we encouraging them to use what we already have?

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that the City is trying to avoid having these installations on its Acorn-style poles. To do that we limit the size and type of the antenna that may be installed on those poles. As far as the larger boxes that one sees on the ground, as in Boston, that is one method of their installation. Councillor Carlone stated that how installations would look on the ‘1907 Teardrop’ style poles is not mentioned. We specifically call out the Acorn for balance so the antenna can come up, but the 1907 is not mentioned at all. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the ‘1907 Teardrop’ is mentioned bottom of page 6 of the Policy and Regulations. Councillor Carlone stated that it does not discuss how to deal with its design treatment, and there must be a preference as to how that should be treated.

Ms. Glowa stated that the regulations are what they are. They have been carefully reviewed by the Law Department. There is not consensus about how these installations should be dealt with among all community members, and all providers, nor with the FCC. The City believes these elements should be put underground, but one reason it’s delicate to talk about this is that the City feels confident in its position, but the providers would respond in a different fashion. Councillor Carlone stated that the effort to put these elements underground is right on target. Sidewalks cannot handle yet another box, except in very few locations. Councillor Carlone asked that any available graphics be provided in the record to illustrate what types of installations will be allowed on which types of poles.

Councillor Zondervan stated that it is a bit frustrating to be put in this position by the FCC. He asked the City Solicitor to say a bit more about what aspects of the FCC regulation are being adjudicated in the 9th Circuit and what the City might expect from that proceeding.

Ms. Glowa stated that it’s a very difficult question to answer. Essentially the authority of the municipality to regulate these poles in the public way is at the heart of the issue. The lawsuit is very dense and technical, but the heart of the issue has to do with who has the authority to control the use of the public ways; the municipalities or these providers. FCC believes that it has a mandate, which is probably understood too by the legislature, that this communication technology is necessary in the modern world, and it’s recognized that people need to have connectivity. This has resulted in tensions between these conflicting priorities. This issue is being vigorously argued at the highest levels, and it might go to the Supreme Court.

Councillor Zondervan stated that on page 7, Section V.B.x it states installations shall not be placed within six feet of windows or balconies. He asked whether the City has any wiggle room for that six feet, because it seems very close.

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that he believes that dimension may be in relation to a sidewalk width from front to back. With most poles being located front of the sidewalk, there’s only so much space where providers could locate these installations.

Councillor Zondervan responded that it would be excellent if we can ask in the regulations for installations to leave more space. Six feet is very close. Councillor Zondervan also noted that Section V.B.xi says installations shall not be placed where it would limit the City’s ability to plant future street trees based on the existing city plan for planting street trees. He asked where is that existing document or city plan, so that we can be clear on that limitation. Councillor Zondervan noted that in Section V.B.xiv it states that installations should not be placed directly in front of a building. He wondered if the City could use stronger language and say that installations “will not be placed in front of a building.” As the policy and regulations pertain to cooling fans and the Noise Ordinance, Councillor Zondervan stated that he is concerned because the City Council has heard some complaints that while the initial installation meets the specifications, wear and tear means that the fans get louder over time. He asked if it would be possible to add something to the end of that paragraph to clarify that any installation will be subject to the full provisions of the Noise Ordinance.

Ms. Glowa stated that this is a policy of the Pole and Conduit Commission, so it may not technically be in the position to mandate that these regulations be subject to other municipal codes. We could suggest that the Pole and Conduit Commission add something indicating installations must comply with all existing codes and ordinances. She stated that perhaps a general reference could be made to the Noise Ordinance.

Councillor Zondervan noted that perhaps it’s redundant to mention the Noise Ordinance, since it would automatically apply, but he was simply flagging the issue to make sure it’s being enforced and to give residents the peace of mind about that.

Councillor Kelley stated that it’s his understanding that the City is not able to say no to Internet Service Providers but is able negotiate what we say yes to. The City can’t say no, unless the courts decide otherwise, waiting on court action, but what does our yes look like. Councillor Kelley stated that he agrees with Councillor Zondervan that noise is likely to be a challenge for residents. He acknowledged that this is a complex issue and appreciated being kept up to date about it. He noted that he would be willing to help change other City ordinances if there are areas that could strengthen the City’s position. He asked whether he had presented an accurate characterization of the City’s power in relation to the FCC’s order and the companies’ power to put up devices.

Ms. Glowa responded in the affirmative. She stated that the transmission of these signals is required to be permitted in Cambridge and elsewhere. It is now a question of how the City can regulate how it is done. The Law Department is determining that scope and advising the city departments on what they can do. It is the goal of the Pole and Conduit Commission to regulate as much as they possibly can. She noted that the Historical Commission can speak to their concerns and desire to ensure installations comply with regard to aesthetic and historic considerations and historic districts. These are all considerations and concerns that City Staff has been made aware of by the City Council and by others and City Staff are sensitive to those concerns in trying to move forward in protecting the City’s rights to the extent that they can. The legal parameters are still somewhat in flux.

Councillor Kelley confirmed that this is not draft policy any longer, as he read in the initial call of the meeting.

Ms. Glowa stated that this is now an interim policy that has been adopted and is in place as of June 10, 2019. The call of the meeting went out when it was still a draft policy and regulations.

Councillor Kelley noted that in the regulations there is guidance provided but no teeth, which he understands is how it has to be now, but he wanted the public to understand that the City may not be able to deal with a lot of these installations in the way it wishes at this point.

Charles Sullivan, Executive Director of the Historical Commission, stated that it is his view that this is part of the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction. In the historic districts, in this case around Cambridge Common and Brattle Street westward to Fresh Pond Parkway, the Historical Commission has authority over publicly visible features and structures, including street furniture such as light poles and utility poles. The Commission has actively exercised this authority for more than 50 years. The Historical Commission has not yet reviewed this type of antenna installations in a Historic District, but they have done so in a Conservation District, in Harvard Square.

Mr. Sullivan stated that there is one unique wooden utility pole on South Street that now bears a small cell antenna and one of those ventilated boxes. This case came before the Commission for some alterations recently and at a public hearing the Commission granted a certificate to allow the proposed installation. The Historical Commission has reviewed and adopted the same policy that the Pole and Conduit Commission has adopted and wants to speak with the same voice, but the CHC’s review of applications would speak to the installation’s appropriateness for the historical context.

Mr. Sullivan noted that in residential neighborhoods where most wires are buried, the Commission would be very concerned about new poles being installed just for the purpose of providing antennas in the residential neighborhood west of Harvard Square. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if a pole were not available in a place that suited a provider, they hypothetically would be allowed to add their own pole.

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that yes, as a utility they could petition the Pole and Conduit Commission to add a pole.

Mr. Sullivan noted that there are large areas in Cambridge where previously overhead wires were buried at the utility’s expense as part of a state allowance in the 1920s and 1930s. When that allowance window closed, those underground corridors were in place and have been ever since. This new round of installations where a utility would be allowed to install new poles would be a major disruption to those corridors.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there is a current map of those utility corridors.

Mr. Sullivan answered that he is unsure if there is a specific map, but currently included are Massachusetts Avenue, Broadway, Brattle Street and Main Street. In the 1920s, the City Council designated those corridors as ones where utilities should be put underground. There are historical photos showing the chaotic mass of wires in the early 20th Century. It was seen as a major blight on the city during that period, and it was a major City Beautiful objective to get rid of those unsightly wires and put them under ground.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked the City Solicitor if she could provide information on who brought the suit currently in the 9th Circuit. What is the name of the case and where does it stand? Paul Kawai, Deputy City Solicitor, answered that the suit was brought by a conglomerate of cities and towns challenging an FCC order. The FCC interpreted a congressional statute to say cities and towns cannot materially inhibit wireless services, and the local governments object to the standards. On the other hand, a conglomerate of wireless carriers also brought a challenge, saying the order did not go far enough. It’s a dual appeal brought in multiple districts, but is being litigated in the 9th Circuit, since it is a multi-district court of appeals. If a City wrongfully denies one of these applications, it will have to pay for the wireless carriers’ attorney fees should they win in federal court.

Mr. Kawai noted the Solicitor’s Office is hoping the case will be determined in favor of the cities, but as of now, the City must operate under the FCC’s order, so the City has a very difficult time denying any of these applications, unless they are out of compliance with the City’s published regulations.

Vice Mayor Devereux observed that now we do have published regulations, which she hopes gives the City some additional control. She asked if the City expressed a preference for multiple companies to co-locate on the same pole, if possible?

Mr. Lenkauskas responded in the affirmative. He stated that the majority of providers serve multiple wireless carriers, so sometimes those boxes get larger because a new carrier customer is being added to a provider’s equipment. The goal of most providers is to have single sites, as it is less expensive, but the City encourages co-locating with others. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if two installations were co-located, does that mean there are two different boxes on one pole?

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that it would typically be just one box, but for each carrier, the box itself would increase in size. He stated that if companies did not co-locate, they would petition for a pole close to that location anyway, in order to fulfill service requirements in that area. Where there are a lot of people, more service must be provided, and they would look to the spot closest to locations where people are hungry for that data service.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that in another part of the regulations, there is a request to have a minimum of 150 feet between installations, so the space between two poles would need to be at least 150 feet.

Councillor Carlone noted that if the requirement is 150 feet, and there are, for example, five carriers, it means just about every fixture will have one of these. The more carriers, the more antennas and boxes.

Mr. Lenkauskas agreed, and noted that if you look around other municipalities in the Boston region, you will see many pieces of equipment.

Councillor Carlone stated that he sees it’s a goal to put equipment below grade, but ventilating equipment does not work below grade, so a ventilation box would still be somewhere on the street. He noted that there are boxes on the tops of buildings for other types of cellular service. He asked why the tops of buildings cannot be used in this case. He asked whether it is an issue of access.

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that with this type of technology, there is a need for densification, which you can’t necessarily get with one large cellular site on top of a building.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he shares the same concerns. As a software engineer, he knows there are better ways to do this. He states that there is not necessarily a need for different carriers to have their own boxes. He understood that the City does not have the authority now to regulate it, but that case can at least be made. He also stated that he did not necessarily agree with the mandate that we need to provide wireless data. He stated that it’s over the top and the City and residents are being forced to put up with a lot more than is really necessary. He encouraged the City to push back as much as it can. He stated that we don’t actually need to go as far as these carriers are trying to push us.

Councillor Kelley noted there is a difference between providing guidance in the policy and regulations and giving them a dispositive nature: “should,” “shall,” and “must” are legal terms with different weight than “may.” Someone can petition for a new pole and the City cannot say no without a feasible or reasonable alternative. Is that correct that these are not quite as discretionary as we might think from our position as elected officials?

Ms. Glowa stated that these are applications for a grant, which are governed by laws. If an applicant meets the criteria, she is not in a position to say whether it will definitely be granted or not. She stated that the guidance from the FCC has been that if a city has regulations, they can be used in denying applications that don’t meet the regulations. With respect to the “should” versus “shall” or “must,” it is more directive, and gives guidance to the commissioners, the applicants and the public as to what is the goal, yet it gives some discretion to the commissioners as to how to achieve that goal. While there is some guidance from the FCC, the Pole and Conduit Commission is trying to give itself the widest discretion possible to fashion decisions that will be legally upheld.

Councillor Kelley stated he is not faulting anyone, he’s just noting that sometimes people think we have more power to say no than we do. There are many moving pieces that guide whether we might or might not say no. The protection against adding extra poles or equipment being too close to houses is in the regulations, but the protection is not absolute.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the City has any understanding from these providers as to what the ultimate coverage plan is. Is it purely reactive where we wait to receive applications, or are the carriers and the City coordinating on coverage plans in advance?

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that in the past, the carriers in operation now have come to the City with a plan when they added approximately 80 sites. They performed an analysis and presented the areas where they were asking for coverage.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that we do have closer relationships with our other utilities, and DPW does coordinate closely with the utilities, because they know and take advantage of when we will be reconstructing a street, and we know when they will need to add service. Sometimes it all works out and construction is all done at the same time, sometimes not. If these entities are being regulated as utilities, and they are digging up our streets or installing poles or boxes, to what extent can we work with them in advance to coordinate when streets are being dug up or elements are being installed.

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that companies are made aware if we are re-doing a street. Once a street is reconstructed, a five-year moratorium exists on digging up that street again, unless there’s an exception granted. Other than coming to us with a plan ahead of time, often the utility coming to us doesn’t know very far in advance when new buildings and customers are coming to their door. Vice Mayor Devereux clarified that providers are an entity like Crown Castle, versus a carriers, which are cell phone companies.

Mr. Lenkauskas responded that “provider” is short for Internet Service Provider, whether it’s Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint. Crown Castle contracts with providers, companies like Sprint or TMobile, to perform the installation for them rather than install it themselves.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if installations are not allowed on double poles, which are typically wood. The City has been eager to get rid of the double poles. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if we could use these installations to advance our goal of getting rid of double poles by negotiating for a new replacement pole for any proposed installations on double poles.

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that the Pole and Conduit Commission has already been requiring that as part of the condition of the ground location, so if someone plans to attach to a double pole, they are required to remove the double pole before any equipment is attached to it. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if this could help us eliminate our double poles, as we don’t want more double pole situations.

Mr. Lenkauskas stated that unfortunately it’s often the case that the equipment cannot fit on a single pole, so it ends up creating another double pole. We could potentially make it a condition that no equipment be attached unless it becomes a single pole.

Vice Mayor Devereux opened public comment at 3:01pm.

Isabel Praeger, 73A Magazine Street, asked about the safety standards in the regulations. She asked how to get information on safety standards. She asked whether this technology is going to require that trees be removed from Cambridge streets. She has questions and her major concern is the amount of radiation that is going to be put forward. Cambridge residents are concerned about radiation and noise levels, as well as how this affects the environment and ecosystems. A test was performed in Holland of 5G technology and 335 birds fell dead out of the trees. Her concern comes down to how much radiation we will be exposed to from this, how much noise there will be and how this will interfere with our lives. California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have given more power to telecom companies and less power to cities and towns in blocking the installation of 5G antennas. 5G deployment has been banned in Mill Valley, California and in two other California towns. Brussels and Geneva have also banned 5G deployment for health reasons. Its deployment violates international laws. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place, stated that at the last hearing about small cell installations, on Nov 8, 2018, she made a complaint about a very loud piece of this equipment near 40 Essex Street. She stated that this equipment is still very loud and buzzing away. She got the impression at the last hearing that Crown Castle would be upgrading their equipment. She did not have much confidence in how serious the companies are about lessening noise and upgrading their equipment. She wondered what happens when more than one service provider needs the space on a pole. On the Cambridgeport listserv, a resident on Acorn Street provided before and after photos of old installations and the replacement, which is much larger because another service provider was added. (ATTACHMENT C) She is concerned about it. She lives in Area 4, the Port, where there are above ground wires everywhere. She states that there are poles two feet in front of her house with dozens of attachments. She noted that with all these wires and equipment, the City often has to cut through street trees to make sure they are not interfering with equipment. Thinking about allowing even bigger, louder equipment is disturbing. She hopes there is a way to put pressure on Crown Castle and other installation companies to have a maximum decibel certification.

Hadassa Fleishon, 100 Landsdowne Street, stated that she is totally opposed to these installations. Electromagnetic radiation is deadly. She believes it will kill the environment, insects, birds, and make us all very sick. She stated that we won’t be able to maintain any quality of life. She could not understand how the City is even considering this, and is very upset. She noted she was submitting articles with information about 5G technology. (ATTACHMENT F) She was concerned about the fact that there is nowhere people can avoid being radiated and surveilled. She stated that this is about greed, it’s not about technology that is going to make our lives any better.

Stanley Usovicz, Regional Director of External Affairs for Verizon Wireless, submitted a communication. (ATTACHMENT G)

Vice Mayor Devereux closed public comment at 3:15pm.

Vice Mayor Devereux welcomed Councillor Mallon to the hearing.

Vice Mayor Devereux clarified that these are not the City’s laws, these are federal communications laws that obligate us to do this. We are not the instigators of allowing these installations, but we are trying to navigate what is required of us.

Councillor Zondervan suggested that as we’re thinking about how this issue evolves going forward, it is yet another reason for the City to consider getting into this business ourselves and having some sort of municipal broadband that could offer high speed wireless technology ourselves. In terms of long-term thinking, we don’t necessarily have to react to what the industry or the FCC is throwing at us, we can get ahead of it and provide our own system in a way that’s a bit less disturbing and unknown to our residents.

Councillor Kelley stated that he disagrees with Councillor Zondervan, he does not necessarily agree that City broadband is a solution, because small cell technology is arguably one of the things that would replace broadband. He does not want the City to invest in municipal broadband only to have it be replaced by emerging technology.

Vice Mayor Devereux responded to Councillor Kelley’s prior point about whether or not the policy and regulations are currently in effect. She noted that at the time the call of the meeting was drafted, which was quite a while ago, they were still draft regulations, but in the meantime they were adopted. The City is continuing to receive applications and to permit installations using these interim rules as the framework. And at the moment that will continue until there’s clarification from the appeals court.

Ms. Glowa stated that there may be other reasons to amend the policy in the meantime.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked whether there is still a comment period for amendments to the interim policy. She wondered what would cause the Pole and Conduit Commission to amend these rules.

Ms. Glowa stated that there was a public comment period prior to the June 10, 2019, hearing. A notice was posted on May 10. The Commission gave at least three weeks for public comment, made some amendments and then adopted the regulations. There was an interest in having the regulations promulgated as soon as possible. She did not anticipate that there would be a formal public comment period again.

Vice Mayor Devereux clarified that for now, this is the policy and regulations that the City is operating under. Sometimes when the terminology is “interim,” it’s not clear when the interim period is ending, if ever.

Mr. Lenkauskas responded that this is the policy the Pole and Conduit Commission will follow indefinitely.

Councillor Zondervan stated that there is no future scenario where wireless will replace fiber. Wireless does not replace broadband to the home, nor to the building. Data still has to move around on a broadband network. Wireless is the leaves on the tree, not the trunk. Fiber is the trunk.

Vice Mayor said it’s fitting to end on a tree metaphor, with the concerns raised over trees interacting with poles and wires.

Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 3:21pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Transportation & Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Tues, June 25, 2019, at 3:30pm in the Ackermann Room to discuss the future electricity needs of the Kendall Square area and progress toward identifying an alternate, viable location for a new substation other than the proposed site on Fulkerson Street.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Zondervan; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner, Department of Public Works; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Nikhil Nadkarni; Seth Federspiel; Meghan Shaw, Community Development Department (CDD); Steve Lenkauskas, City Electrician; Liz Walker; Allison Daley; and Interim City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were John Zicko, Director of Substation Design; Todd Lanham, Senior Project Manager, Siting & Construction Services; Joseph Mayall, Project Manager; Bill Zamparelli, Community Relations Representative; Annemarie Walsh, Community Relations, Eversource Energy; Ryan Earle; Chris Detwiller; Bob Daylor; Sean Shortell; Charles Eck; Jim Gray; Harvey Michaels; Michelle Lower; Michael Owu; Kathryn Brown; Heather Hoffman; Robert Travers; and Charles Hinds.

Vice Mayor Devereux convened the hearing and stated that the Committee last met on May 22, 2019, where it was made clear that the City Council and members of the community were not satisfied with going forward with the plan to site a substation on Fulkerson Street. Members of the community would like to find another viable location. Introductions were made and Vice Mayor Devereux invited the group from Eversource to give a presentation, “Eversource Update” (ATTACHMENT A).

Mr. Zicko spoke about projected system growth and the reduced ability to continue to serve the Kendall Square area load pocket reliably. He stated that it would not be possible to continue without adding a substation. Eversource typically tries to meet increased demand by making improvements and small upgrades first. If those measures don’t work, Eversource sees if they can fit a larger transformer in place of a small existing transformer. This is a simplified, high level view of how the decision process works.

Mr. Mayall discussed the system planning criteria, and Eversource’s emphasis on energy conservation. He stated that Eversource New England is ranked #1 in energy conservation in the country. Eversource is trying to add an additional transformer at the existing Putnam Avenue substation, but even that won’t serve all the projected load demand. The Putnam Ave station expansion was discussed last month at the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). This effort is being made due to the upcoming increased load. Now, because the BZA hearing was continued, Eversource is looking at starting the permitting process in September, which delays their whole plan of progress. Eversource is therefore planning for contingencies, which they will look at if the permit gets appealed in September. If in a worst case scenario one transformer is lost during summer 2020, Eversource would have to supplement its energy transmission with diesel generators. The utility will be surveying sites in the city within the next six to eight weeks to determine which locations will facilitate connections for mobile generators to supplement energy production in heavy usage periods.

Mr. Zicko confirmed that they would need to deploy mobile generators throughout the city. Eversource estimates they would need 25-30 locations. They have identified a total of 65 locations and there will be process to winnow out the final selected locations. At the end of the day, there will be 25-30 generator locations in the street. Mr. Lanham said that that their job is to make sure that the safe reliable delivery of power happens. This is purely a contingency plan should the delays in the Putnam permitting process be such that they will not have the new transformer operational and they hit a peak load. Mr. Zicko said that he is not aware that Eversource has been put into a position where they have had to do this before. Vice Mayor Devereux asked whether Eversource thinks this will happen in summer 2020. Mr. Zicko responded in the affirmative, but emphasized that this is only a contingency plan. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if generators are put on streets or sidewalks? Mr. Mayall said Eversource would try to put them on easements or property they own before using the public way. As evaluation continues, they will see if there is any shortage.

Councillor Zondervan asked if this contingency would happen solely without demand management and users being asked to decrease usage for a period of time. Mr. O’Riordan answered that the City performs demand management already at these heavy load times. Councillor Zondervan said that generators were deployed 2.5 years ago where there was a big fire. The power was out for an extended period of time and a generator was placed next to his driveway. He stated that he is hearing that power outages may occur when we hit peak loads on a hot day in July – will Eversource be ready to deploy generators? Mr. Mayall said that they will pre-stage the machines so if they get in a contingency situation, they can be started immediately. Mr. Zicko stated that Eversource does not own enough generators to cover this worst-case scenario, however, so they would have to rent some.

Mr. Zicko said that conversations tend to focus on the substation, but Eversource is in a position where they must build a system that consists partly of power generation facilities that Eversource does not own. The transmission system is only one part of that full system. Transmission gets power to the load centers, which requires a substation to distribute. Once Eversource has determined that a new substation is needed, the question becomes how to adequately transmit supply to the substation and how to serve the distribution load. It is a balancing act.

Mr. Mayall said that the Fulkerson Street lot is a wedge shape. The land mass meets the size requirements and when they looked at this site originally, they considered immediate needs and future needs. It took a considerable amount of time to find land in Cambridge. Given the growth of development in Cambridge, they needed a parcel of substantial size. They had to look for a site in the load pocket that they are trying to serve. He said that a façade can be custom-designed to fit the community and to blend in. He said that it takes Eversource approximately three to five years to start a project and go through DPU, get land and engineer it. A developer, on the other hand, can put up a high rise in a short time, meaning the competition for land often has an advantage.

Councillor Carlone said any large building takes at least three years to design and construct. He referenced the site plan on page four and asked what the dark spots in the lower left corner represent. He thought it looked like exposed transformers or other equipment. Would it be open to the air or enclosed?

Mr. Zamparelli said it is a preliminary concept depiction of the parcel. Mr. Zicko said that the stepped area represents the enclosed building where the transformers and switch gears would be. To the left are current limiters. The intention in the design is to have the current limiters open to the air at the top with some sort of decorative screen. He said that the open circles are exhaust fans. In the middle there will be rooftop units. The four blocks that say “CT” are cooling towers. They are not huge cooling towers, but more similar to what you would see on a grocery store building.

Councillor Zondervan asked about egress and entry. Mr. Zicko said that there is a stair bulkhead and elevator bulkhead. There are open spaces in the station where vehicles can be parked. Councillor Zondervan asked if there are any setbacks. Mr. Zicko answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lanham said that it is not a definitive plan and is simply a high-level concept.

Mr. Mayall said that they are still working out issues. He said that on page five they tried to give a comparable example. He said that the community and City Council have stated that they do not want to see a big building, so this example shows what sizes we would be looking at if the substation were split into two sites and/or two buildings. In the picture to the right, the distance is 110 feet from the parapet to the sidewalk. This is a major distribution and transmission substation. He said that this is basically what Fulkerson needs to be. He said that this is what the levels of infrastructure and distribution needs of Cambridge are. He said that they do not want to build a substation and then have to come back again in two years and build another. He said that this is the volume needed, and with that information they tried to provide a visualization. Eversource has been asked, “What if you build it in two parts?” The photo on the left is Seafood Way, a distribution station. Basically, they would look at something around this size, multiplied by two. He said that this building is close to Boston Harbor and they elevated the station 15 feet off the ground to account for sea level rise. He said that when they split any station up, there are a lot of underground utilities in the street. They would have to run three additional transmission lines through the city streets if Fulkerson is split up.

Councillor Zondervan asked for a sense of how long this additional load capacity would last the City. Is this just catching us up to the development we already have? Mr. Mayall said that they try to look ahead and project for future needs as well. He said that they don’t control what developers come to town and build. They cannot control the development, they can only react to market conditions and plan as best they can. According to their regulator, DPU, they can only build that for which they can demonstrate a need, and cannot build more. Mr. Mayall said that they talk to the developers and look at their projections. He said that they do have a ten-year planning forecast. Councillor Zondervan said that he is trying to get a sense, supposing this gets built and then five years from now, or ten years, we are back in the room talking about the next one. Mr. Zicko said that they plan for a ten-year horizon. He said that it can also depend on spot growth. He said that regarding the licensing process, the DPU or siting board will only give permission for that which they can demonstrate a need. There are constraints.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the photos in the presentation. She wanted to know the parcel size and the street address. Mr. Zicko said the location is 84 Bedford Street at Avenue De Lafayette. Vice Mayor Devereux said that the building in the Seaport looks like an entire city block. Mr. Zicko said that Seafood Way is about 26,000 square feet. Vice Mayor Devereux asked whether 44,000 square feet is what’s needed on Fulkerson? Mr. Zicko said yes.

Mr. Lanham said that the facades are very customizable. He said that there is design flexibility. Vice Mayor Devereux asked for a comparison in terms of scale. What is the parcel size of High Street? Mr. Zicko said High Street is smaller than the Kingston Street parcel. He said that the height is in the range of approximately 60-70 feet high.

Mr. Zicko said safety is of the utmost importance. He said that Eversource operates in a safety culture. He has been involved in the engineering of substations for the last 35 years. He is constantly learning. The proposed substation in East Cambridge would be in an enclosed building. There would be fire dampers that could contain any fire within. Equipment has two redundant protection systems. They have fire suppression systems. They use a conventional sprinkler with an interlock system. Infrared cameras will send an e-mail message and alarm if a temperature exception develops on a piece of machinery.

Councillor Carlone said that explosions happen with energy transmission. How do you insulate the explosive qualities? Mr. Zicko said that they have two high speed systems to protect transformers, remove the source of ignition as soon as possible, and then transformers are equipped with pressure relief devices and operate to relieve the pressure. The building will contain the explosion. Mr. Zicko said that substantial masonry walls surround the facility. Councillor Carlone asked whether the glass on the building in Boston is dead glass? Mr. Zicko said that they are glass blocks that will not shatter, but they do let light in.

Mr. Zicko stated that the square footage of Kingston is half an acre. High Street is a little over a quarter acre. Vice Mayor Devereux said that both of those lots are smaller than Fulkerson. Fulkerson would be a larger massing than either of those illustrations. Mr. Lanham said there is engineering still to be done. He said that they hear the concerns of Councillors and they will try to create avenues to get where the City wants to be.

Councillor Zondervan said that in terms of the capacity of the substation, how does that translate into square footage? Mr. Zicko said that there is the distribution portion of the building. The other component of the station is the transmission switching capability. This station is almost like a cross between the two that the committee saw on the presentation. Councillor Zondervan asked in terms of distribution capacity being added, how many feet of commercial buildings does this support? Mr. Zicko said that the station as proposed would have 150-180 megawatts.

Mr. Lanham said that after they have vetted a site and completed engineering, they will file a petition with the siting board. The regulatory hearings take 12-18 months, during which time the State Department of Public Utilities (DPU) would hold public comment hearings. He said that they must seek project approval from the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) and DPU. That approval is contingent on a project providing a reliable energy supply with a minimum impact on the environment at the lowest possible cost (see page 8 of the presentation).

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the City process as it interacts with the DPU and EFSB process. Mr. O’Riordan said that they could submit requests to DPU but it would be contingent upon them getting their siting process approval.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the criteria for considering environmental impact. Maija Benjamins said that Eversource considers a two-pronged approach: both impacts on the natural environment and the developed environment. She said that they also look at traffic, noise, Electric Magnetic Field (EMF) exposure, potential soil pollution. Councillor Carlone said that there is a concern in the neighborhood that this is a terrible location because of the school. Mr. Zicko said that he has not noticed a correlation between proximity to a schoolyard or playing field and negative incidents. He said that the Colburn Street substation is in the Mission Hill neighborhood. It is near a school and the Judge Baker Center which is a facility geared to children and adolescents. Mr. Zicko said that the Colburn Street substation did not require that they go to the EFSB. They did have 52 community meetings with many questions around safety and proximity to the Judge Baker Center. He said that they are in the process of permitting another station and that station is going through the EFSB process now. It is across the street from a ballfield. As part of the process, they were asked to provide data on proximity of the facilities near ballfields, schoolyards, etc. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if that’s a standard question asked by the EFSB. He said that the question was borne out of some of the public comments that were made.

Councillor Mallon said that the City Council has had this concern as well. She wants to be sure it will come up in the EFSB process. Mr. Zicko said that as part of the siting board process, they do look at what the EMF exposure would be from the facility and those questions are asked by the siting board.

Councillor Zondervan asked about thresholds that Eversource considers safe and asked what Eversource is doing to achieve stay below those thresholds. Mr. Zicko said that the World Health Organization’s thresholds for safety are what they use as guidelines, it’s 2000 milligauss. He stated that Eversource facilities are typically under 20 milligauss of EMF radiation. Mr. Zicko said that the electric field exposure level will be zero because everything is shielded or in a building. The magnetic field exposure level is more difficult to manage. Ms. Benjamins said that they bring a health expert into the process to testify on what the EMF analysis has been, and what levels will be.

Councillor Carlone said that Cambridgeport and East Cambridge and Wellington-Harrington residents wonder why these substations are located in their neighborhoods and not in the business districts. He said that it seems like short-term planning at its extreme. Mr. Zicko said that the system consists of a transmission supply, a substation and distribution. He said that Boston Edison bought the Colburn property and there were two transmission lines in the street. He said that they worked with the neighborhood to get the input and develop the lot size and they widened Colburn Street and they reconfigured the layout to a more linear fashion. He said that they redesigned everything to give the neighborhood what they wanted. Councillor Carlone said that this is three times the allowable height in this district. If approved it has to be the most beautiful building in Cambridge, to be acceptable. Mr. Zicko said that how to humanize the building is something that is on a case by case basis.

Councillor Mallon asked about the EFSB review and if a project has ever been rejected. Ms. Benjamins said that they have been in situations where they have partially redesigned projects but have not had a project rejected. She stated that Eversource takes balancing environmental concerns very seriously. Councillor Zondervan asked if Eversource has identified alternative sites. Mr. Lanham said that staff pulled together an area developer meeting that will occur on July 9th. This, in addition to consideration of alternate City-owned parcels (i.e. Pork Chop Park) is something that they will investigate. Vice Mayor Devereux asked what the developer meeting on July 9th will consist of? Mr. Lanham said it will include area developers in a discussion of what options are in the marketplace.

Mr. O’Riordan said that the City Manager asked DPW to work with Eversource and property owners to see if there are alternative sites. They met with Eversource last Friday to review a number of options and they organized the July 9th meeting with property owners in the area. He said that this is a preliminary discussion. Beyond, that, they have investigated the Pork Chop parcel as an alternative to consider. He said that there are significant challenges that exist relative to that site. In total, the maximum area that could be made available if a suitable site would be about 0.65 acres. It is less land area than the space on Fulkerson. Eversource indicated that they will go back and look to see if this is a viable site. Mr. O’Riordan said utility infrastructure in East Cambridge is dense, and underground utility connection infrastructure becomes a more significant challenge, in terms of splitting the substation into multiple sites. Mr. Mayall added that there will be a need to connect the two sites, which means more transmission lines. Councillor Kelley asked how high will the building have to be? Mr. Mayall said that the station would likely be 110 feet high if it’s on the existing Fulkerson Street site. He said that they are not ready to commit to that exact number, but it would be in that range. He said that they are hoping to condense it as much as possible, but they do not know if they can. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the height of the Alexandria Fulkerson building has been a concern, and this proposed substation would be the neighbor. It will be a major problem in the neighborhood. Councillor Kelley asked how much the City has the ability to constrain what Eversource does with their building. Can the city cover this with zoning or is it trumped by DPU regulations? Mr. Lanham said that the state agency would reign supreme. Mr. Lanham said that City of Cambridge and its community are major stakeholders here and they have a vast amount of influence at DPU. Ms. Farooq said that City zoning says a Special Permit is needed to place transformer in the city. The City could attach a negative comment to the project. EFSB takes host community input very seriously. However, the DPU can trump the city’s zoning. Ms. Benjamins said that the EFSP takes input of the host community very seriously. The city can intervene in the case or be a participant in the case to bring its concerns forward. She said that they have worked very hard with all communities to address concerns. There are ways to participate but Chapter 40A process does cover the zoning for the project. Councillor Carlone said that he feels that it is the developers’ problem. All this added energy infrastructure is being added to accommodate new development. He said that the City Council recently approved three major developments in the Kendall Square area and he is frustrated that the City Council did not know about this before it approved them. He said that the City Council can make special conditions in zoning and we have now lost those windows of opportunity. He suggested that Eversource plan out farther than 10 years, as it relates to acquisition of new sites.

Councillor Kelley said that he is looking at the Eversource substation in East Boston. He said that he is reading an article that says that the residents were not necessarily happy with the process and what has been put forth. He said that when push comes to shove, it’s his opinion that Eversource will shove and the city will be pushed.

A communication was received from Shelly Wortis, which will be made part of the record.

Vice Mayor Devereux opened public comment at 4:51pm.

Jim Gray, 2 Michael Way, said that several in the room will get together later to come up with creative solutions to the problems and inspire something bigger. He said that he hopes that there will be another layer to inspire ourselves. He said that regarding the volumetric issues, there is another substation in Cambridge on Main Street and Broadway that powers the Red Line. He said that the Denny Substation in Seattle was made educational so it’s almost like a museum. He asked if there are other non-wire solutions.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that she was hoping to have more education on this topic. She said that she has heard that the East Cambridge area is at 98% of energy capacity usage, but very few people in the room understand why and what that means. She wants Eversource to explain what we are talking about in a way that people who are not engineers can understand. She said that she is disappointed in Eversource as an institution. Every person working for Eversource who has come to testify has been very nice but as an institution, Eversource does not give off a vibe of caring about anyone. She said that this could be the opportunity to change that reputation for being impossible to deal with, which is well-earned.

Charles Hinds, 207 Charles Street, stated that the East Cambridge Planning Team is opposed to this site. He said that he does not see a compromise here. He stated that too many studies show a link between childhood leukemia and substations, not even considering the impacts from lines run through the ground. He said that he does not want to see the Kennedy-Longfellow School being a case study for those impacts. He would like this substation relocated, and noted that he would not be surprised if there were legal action to try to block this substation moving forward.

Vice Mayor Devereux closed public comment at 4:57pm.

Councillor Zondervan said that this substation is “not happening.” He said that if it does happen, he is prepared to take extreme action, because it is not acceptable. He said that there has been a severe lack of planning. He said that the only plan into the future that makes sense is zero growth in electricity demand and emissions because of climate change. He stated that there is an accidental symmetry here: we are at 98% capacity, yet solar deployment is only at 2% of rooftop capacity. There should be no next substation; the answer is to reduce energy demand, and deploy energy production locally. He said that this is an opportunity to begin to confront the climate crisis.

Councillor Mallon said that on the topic of the development meeting on July 9th, Alexandria has stated that they would be willing to buy Eversource’s Fulkerson site and so Eversource could make a swap with other land like Pork Chop Park. She wanted this possibility to be discussed at the development meeting.

Mr. Mayall said that they spent the majority of 2018 surveying city streets in Cambridge. Binney Street is a solid wall of utilities around Pork Chop Park. The lot itself is encumbered with AT& T, Verizon, and a lot of infrastructure in that site. It is not a clean site. He said that this site is very encumbered. Mr. Lanham said that they will run everything down.

Councillor Carlone said that the city has also made a promise that there will be a park there. A bio-lab built a building next to it because it was meant to be a park. That park is planned there because the CRA reneged on a park above a garage. He said that it was always going to be a park. He said that from an urban design point of view, it makes sense for it to be a public space or community facility. He said that for this and other reasons, using public land is out of the question. He states that it’s the developers’ problem. The City Council greatly respects them, but it's not the City’s problem. The City is not asking for the development. We don’t want it on Fulkerson or in Pork Chop. It must end up on developers’ land.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that it is legitimate to look at options and alternatives. She said that at this point there is a need to find a solution by September. We will put pressure on the development community to look around and give a third option.

Councillor Zondervan asked about the fact that the DPU evaluates a proposal based on which option costs the least. Mr. Lanham answered that it’s based on all three impact criteria, not just the monetary cost. Councillor Zondervan asked about the alternative of not building a substation. Mr. Mayall said that Eversource does conservation work, but does not have the option of not building the station. They cannot do what Councillor Zondervan is asking him to do. Eversource cannot sit back and say, “well developers didn’t put in the LED lightbulbs they committed to, and so we will have to have blackouts in the city.” He said that is not in the business charter.

Councillor Zondervan asked how much the substation will cost to build? Mr. Mayall said about $200 million to $300 million. Councillor Zondervan asked if Eversource could use those funds instead to reduce demand by 150 megawatts. Mr. Mayall said this is about a capacity for demand and transmission capabilities. Councillor Zondervan said that they are not costing out demand. Councillor Zondervan said that they are choosing to spend this money on building the substation.

Mr. Zicko said that the situation that Councillor Zondervan proposed would be part of the vetting process.

Councillor Zondervan said that he would like to see what that looks like. He said that the Committee does not have a sense of a no-build alternative. Mr. Lanham said that he has heard a desire for a non-transmission alternative solution, he does not know that they will be in a position to present that in one month’s time. He suggested these two topics for future committee hearings: a non-transmission alternative solutions study, and a planning discussion. He proposed that planning be discussed first, and then the non-transmission alternative team can perform an analysis. He said that there have been a lot of questions about the planning but that could be one topic of discussion. He said that the non-transmission alternative solutions group would render a study on the non-transmission alternative. He said that he is not in a position to say when they will talk about that.

Councillor Mallon asked whether capacity and percentages and clarifying numbers could be addressed in the planning meeting. Mr. Lanham answered yes.

Councillor Kelley asked about the 2% rooftop solar figure. How much capacity do we have that we are not using? Ms. Farooq said that she does not have the answer, but she will pull the information. Mr. Federspiel responded that there is a big gap in the solar availability and what has been installed in the city. The conversation about distributed generation is important: solar, geo-thermal, and district energy are all part of it. And thinking creatively about how they can play a role together in reducing demand. He stated that it would be a helpful exercise for the City to collectively do with developers in the area. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the discussion about distributed generation is an important one.

Councillor Kelley said that if the point is to give people electricity, maybe there are other ways to spend the money. He asked why build an obsolete, backward-looking transmission and supply infrastructure?

Mr. Mayall said that they have to submit evidence that the system will be workable in the filing to the DPU. He said that if you put in solar, they still have to back some portion of it up. Councillor Kelley said that he worries that Eversource is looking backwards. He said that it would be great to understand why.

Mr. Zamparelli said that Eversource has counted 34 permitted projects that will need to be online by the end of the year, and the developments will be looking for power. This situation will come to a head in the summer of 2020. The mission of the public utility is to bring power to the properties. That is their duty. He said that in terms of building a resilient power grid, that is the piece that Eversource is prepared to do. Councillor Zondervan said that we knew 11 years ago that we didn’t want to be at this table having this conversation.

Councillor Carlone said that the City has to seriously consider how many buildings they approve in the future. We could have avoided this if we had known about this potential for shortfalls in load capacity earlier. He said that this seems like a total lack of planning by the city. It is the antithesis of city planning in a sustainable way.

Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing was adjourned at 5:26pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Transportation & Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on July 15, 2019, at 4:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss a pilot program for regulating and permitting shared electric scooters to operate in Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Siddiqui; Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environment and Transportation Planning; Stephanie Groll, Parking and Transportation Demand Management Officer; Cara Seiderman, Transportation Planner, Environmental and Transportation Planning Division, Community Development Department (CDD); John Nardone, Assistant Commissioner of Operations, Department of Public Works (DPW); Brooke McKenna, Assistant Director for Street Management, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Liz Walker; Dan Totten; and Paula M. Crane, Interim City Clerk.

Also present were Christopher Lucy, Natasha George, Representative Jonathan Hecht, Sarah Steinberg, Sebastian Gredsinsky, Dave Reed, Ashley Brown, Hannah Smith, Scott Mullen, Jose Gomez-Ibanez and Natsuko Yamazaki.

Vice Mayor Devereux convened the hearing at 4:05pm and read the Call of the Meeting. She noted that the hearing was being audio and visually recorded. She said that almost one year ago, Bird launched its scooters in Cambridge without permission and caused quite a stir. A few days later, following meetings with city officials, the company withdrew. She said that since that time, shared scooter programs have been permitted in many cities throughout the country and the world, and there is a lot of interest in them as well as a lot of questions and concerns. She said that Cambridge has taken the opportunity over the past year to learn from the experiences of other cities implementing this type of shared mobility. She said that compared to one year ago, the City has a better grasp of the benefits and challenges of scooters. She said that if the City does implement a shared scooter rental pilot, it must be safe because that is a priority adopted under Vision Zero. She gave an overview of the agenda for the hearing (ATTACHMENT A).

She noted that the City Clerk’s Office received two written statements that will be made part of the record of the hearing (ATTACHMENTS B & C).

Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environment and Transportation Planning, gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation titled Options for Implementing a Scooter-Share Pilot (ATTACHMENT D).

She spoke about the New Mobility Blueprint process, which will help the City implement new mobility options in a way that aligns with existing environmental and transportation goals and policies. She said that Cambridge is working with surrounding cities and towns to focus on key areas of overlapping interest, including changes to state level legislation, a Memorandum of Understanding and model program guidelines to be adopted by each community. A City of Cambridge interdepartmental scooter working group meets every two weeks to develop local requirements for a pilot program. She said that a proposed scooter permitting process in Cambridge in Year One would include an application for a permit to operate in the City, a license agreement with vendors and updated traffic regulations that align with state law. Year Two would use lessons learned from the pilot to develop a new municipal ordinance to permit scooter-share and potentially other future shared mobility programs.

Vice Mayor Devereux thanked Ms. Rasmussen for the presentation.

Councillor Carlone asked if the provision that “scooters on sidewalks must operate at pedestrian speed,” means around three mph? Ms. Rasmussen said that it varies. Councillor Carlone suggested that it is best to pin down the allowable speed. He said that when rules are vague, it is up to interpretation. He said that pedestrians don’t want to share sidewalks with faster-moving vehicles and worry that it makes sidewalks less safe.

Councillor Zondervan said that he has similar concerns to those of Councillor Carlone. He said that he does not want scooters on sidewalks, and he feels that scooters should not be allowed on sidewalks at all even outside of business districts where bikes moving at pedestrian speed are allowed on sidewalks. He said that there is a high scooter equipment turnover and it is very concerning to him if these are being billed as an environmental transportation solution. Ms. Rasmussen said that the article that she shared was focused on the fact that this is a problem for the companies as well. She said scooters have a short life span, so the investment is lost after a short period of time and there have also been other issues around safety because the quality was not adequate for the amount of usage that a scooter was getting. She said that companies are trying to find ways to make more durable equipment that lasts longer. She said that the City has noted that this is an issue that has come up.

Councillor Zondervan asked about the cost of the display of merchandise permit for scooters. Ms. Rasmussen said that there is a rate of $75.00 in the permit and it’s currently under discussion how many times that $75.00 could be applied. She said that the fee must be a multiple of $75.00. John Nardone said that this is an issue that must still be worked out.

Councillor Kelley said that he understands that this proposed program would be different from the current bike sharing program in that various companies would not have different authorities to operate in different communities. Ms. Rasmussen said that this program proposes that it would be the same companies that operated in all the surrounding communities. She explained that there would be a screening process where any company can apply and if the company meets the minimum requirements, it gets entered into a lottery. From the lottery, three companies would be randomly selected, in order to limit the number of scooter operators that are operating in the program. Councillor Kelley asked if it would possible that Arlington would have scooters that could not operate in Cambridge and vice versa. Ms. McKenna said that the goal is that all the cities and towns end up with the same group of vendors operating. She said that the group of cities are trying to come up with one set of criteria that will be a prequalification for the vendors. She said that if there were more than three vendors that meet those qualifications, a lottery would be conducted. She said that those chosen would be the vendors that could go to every city and go through their permitting processes.

Councillor Siddiqui noted that the first New Mobility Blueprint working group meeting was held very recently. She asked if this is a one-year task force? Ms. Rasmussen said that the current plan is to have the task force meet four times overall, so there will be three more meetings. She added that the task force will also discuss a further community engagement process. Councillor Siddiqui said that even if scooter users are told that they cannot ride on sidewalks, enforcement of that rule will be an issue. She asked if the scooters currently operating in Brookline and elsewhere have directional indicator lights? Ms. Rasmussen responded that they do not have directional lights, to her knowledge. Councillor Siddiqui asked whether what Brookline is doing could be legally challenged? Mr. Goldberg said that in Cambridge, there is a motorized scooter regulation that exists in the traffic regulations which includes a provision that states that a motorized scooter that is not in compliance with State law cannot operate in the city.

As it relates to the interdepartmental working group, Vice Mayor Devereux asked if representatives from the Police Department will be included. Ms. Rasmussen responded that they will not be included in the bi-weekly meetings, but it is the intention that they will weigh in once the City is closer to a final proposal. Vice Mayor Devereux said that there will inevitably be questions about enforcement. She asked if devices with larger wheels or a sturdier frame are included in the minimum standards that are being discussed for prospective operators. Ms. Rasmussen responded not at this point.

As it relates to the three different versions of enabling state scooter bills, Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there are significant differences among those approaches. Representative Hecht explained that in the legislature, the month of August is the period of informal sessions and no formal actions will take place. He said that they had an early hearing on the second set of bills taken up by the Joint Transportation Committee and from his conversations with the House Chair, the Chairs want to see these move forward as quickly as possible. He said that there is another major traffic bill, the Hands-Free bill, that the Chairs are prioritizing, however. He said that there are a lot of issues on the plate of the Transportation Committee, but scooters and micromobility are a high priority. As it relates to the multiple bills, Representative Hecht explained that this is a new area of mobility, so everyone is learning as they go. He said that he does not think that there are enormous differences between the bills but there are some differences such as requirements for directional signals, maximum speeds, and helmet requirements for people under the age of 16. He noted that this hearing will help inform what will be a collaborative process to arrive at a common bill. He added that he does not see the differences as an obstacle to finding an agreement.

Councillor Mallon said that Salem is deploying a scooter share with Zagster this week. She asked if the City has information about other Massachusetts pilot programs. Ms. Rasmussen said that she has not heard of other communities launching this type of scooter pilot. Councillor Mallon said that she has the inside scoop that they are launching a program in Salem this week, as she knows someone who works for a scooter company involved. Councillor Mallon’s husband is an employee of Zagster.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there are any important notes that Ms. Rasmussen can share as it relates to the experiences of users and community members in Brookline. Ms. Rasmussen said that Brookline is mainly hearing complaints from people who are not riding the scooters. She said that they have heavy usage with 60,000 trips since the pilot began last spring. She said that they are very popular with users. She said that Brookline is hearing a lot from non-users and the senior community who are feeling concerned about safety. She explained that one issue that came up was the desire to have people under 18 be able to ride the scooters. She said that there have been issues around enforcement and difficulty figuring out how to conduct effective enforcement of regulations governing scooters. She said that there has been pushback around where and how scooters are parked. She said that one of the companies has had to replace 100% of their scooters since the pilot began due to heavy usage.

Vice Mayor Devereux opened public comment at 4:59pm.

Christopher Lucy, 107 South Street, Boston, stated that environmental and affordability issues aside, there is a primary problem in our urban landscape, which is congestion. He said that he does not own a car and has not owned one for over twenty years. He said that he uses public transit. He said that it would be better for scooters to have a more robust construction. He said that he would like a higher speed so scooters can stay in the traffic flow. He said that the management concerns can be addressed but he feels that everyone should wear a helmet and stay off the sidewalk. He said that there should be consideration of on-street parking for scooters which will keep scooters off the sidewalk.

Natasha George, 72 Line Street, Somerville, Co-Founder, Somerville Electric Vehicle Co., which is a local, woman-owned, veteran, and minority owned business. They believe in the future of mobility if done correctly, taking everything into account. She said that her business provides batteries as a service for companies in the micromobility space using battery swap kiosks that can charge, store, and monitor batteries. She said that cities like Cambridge are forward thinking and supportive of adopting new technologies. She said that she looks forward to being part of the discussion.

Ilya Sinelnikov, stated that they he is a Product Lead at Superpedestrian, a Cambridge-based company, and a member of Cambridge New Mobility Blueprint Advisory Group. He stated that Superpedestrian supports a pilot in Cambridge and neighboring cities. He stated that he has two big concerns. The first is about insufficient safety requirements for operators and the company selection process for the pilot. He said that a random choice of operators does not serve the community best. He said that the city should select the safest companies that meet the minimum requirements.

Dave Reed, Zagster, Boston, echoed the sentiments by Mr. Sinelnikov. He said that a random selection of three companies would not be a conducive way to select companies. He said that a more precise selection process should be suggested so that a single vendor could operate an entire system across the region.

Vice Mayor Devereux closed public comment at 5:08pm.

Councillor Carlone said that the more he thinks about scooters on sidewalks, he appreciates Councillor Zondervan’s comments. He said that he took a fall walking on the sidewalk at dusk a few weeks ago. He said that he was probably going 3 mph. He noted that someone going faster on a sidewalk could seriously hurt themselves. He said that this is an issue and he has no doubt that pedestrians will have a lot to contribute to the conversation. He said that people riding scooters would prefer to be on asphalt.

Councillor Mallon pointed out that there is already a tremendous number of scooter riders on the street who are not using ride share and she does not see them on the sidewalks. She asked if the City has weight around the selection process. She asked why we are not picking the three best options for vendors as opposed to vendors who meet minimum requirements. She said that she would not be in favor of a single vendor across the region. She said that if the City were to use a single vendor, it does not give the City a lot of latitude for other companies to come in with different technology or products. Ms. Rasmussen said that this is a joint process, and nothing is concrete. She explained that the minimum standards are expected to be very high and that is the basis rather than trying to come up with a process that would lead to the vendor that met the highest standard in every category. She said that it was decided that the minimum set of high standards is a good process for selecting. She said that it was never discussed that one vendor would run the whole system. She said that allowing three vendors is not a magic number, but it would allow for some diversity without being overwhelming. Ms. Rasmussen explained that page nine of the presentation notes key elements of a pilot program, but they are not the only elements. She said that they are looking to acquire additional technical quality of scooters.

Councillor Mallon asked for confirmation on the statement that Brookline replaced 100% of their scooters. Ms. Rasmussen said that she was told that 100% of Bird scooters were replaced but she does not have a percentage for Lime.

Councillor Kelley said that this is a dynamic field. He said that scooters will be replaced by other things quickly. He noted that he is not supportive of capping the number of people who can get into this business. He said that by limiting it to scooters and a certain number of companies, there is a prejudice against innovation. He said that if we are locked into a small number of vendors, others are being locked out. As it relates to zoning, he said that he understands that the City’s zoning must be changed to allow bike share throughout the city, and he anticipates that the City will have to do the same for scooters. He said that the City should be doing this work now. He questioned why the Cambridge Police Department has not been involved in the conversation. He said that scooters are all over the city and we must start thinking about enforcement. He noted that he would like the Police Department to be involved in meetings. He said that we are undervaluing the possibility that this new type of transportation can change the way we move around Cambridge. He said that we must think about more than scooters because regardless of ownership, there are new things on the road. He said that shared stuff will be parked someplace on shared public space, which will affect parking. He stressed that the City must rethink travel rules and bicycle parking regulations. He said that we must look at what the future of non-car transportation will look like in Cambridge.

Ms. Rasmussen noted that the City is aware that the Zoning Ordinance will need to be amended as it pertains to shared mobility devices on private property. She said that this is felt to be a technical fix that will not be difficult to undertake. She noted that they are trying to do a focused intervention around making it possible for scooter share programs to operate. She said that the New Mobility Blueprint is intended to be much broader and will look at all new mobility. She said that discussions in the advisory committee have included many other mobility forms.

Councillor Kelley indicated that he believes that the magnitude of the change to the Zoning Ordinance is being underestimated. He said that the issue is that if we have a residential district, you cannot rent things in a residential district. He said that he will be submitting something for the July City Council meeting as it relates to this issue. He said that this is a great time to look at other mobility forms. He said that Ms. Rasmussen caught the complexity of drone delivery and these things are happening currently. He said that a task force meeting will not be enough to address this issue. He suggested that the City re-think the task force and create a longstanding committee of expertise.

Councillor Zondervan said that he is trying very hard to hear a reason to be supportive of a scooter sharing program, but he is not hearing it. He said that we are putting additional safety requirements in place, but he asked how this is different from a bikeshare that we already have. He does not understand why the City should accommodate it. He noted that he has concerns about the environmental impacts. He commented that if scooters are being replaced regularly, is it really better? He said that the dockless bikes are a mess and he sees them being dropped off next to the BlueBikes stations. He said that with Uber and Lyft and Airbnb, the City has seen negative externalities and while he understands the positive benefits, we are often rushing into innovations and new ideas while ignoring the downsides. He said that in this case, there is an opportunity to look carefully at how it will all work. He said that scooters are a fad that will not last very long. He said that he worries that we are spending time to come up with how to do this one particular thing and the City may be better off focusing on bike and pedestrian safety and making sure that we have a functioning transportation system.

Councillor Kelley said that we are not rushing into anything. He said that this is a great opportunity. He said that something will be the future, even if it is not shared scooters. He said that this is a great opportunity to figure out the muscle memory that we need to have and how, as a city, to be more proactive. He said that it is difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. He said that this is an opportunity to figure out the way to move with new innovation. As it relates to users, Councillor Kelley said that he believes that the people riding scooters are disproportionately people who are not already bicycling. He said that if this is the case, we are providing a service to people who wouldn’t otherwise be bicycling. He asked if we know who is riding scooters and what they may otherwise be doing. Ms. Rasmussen responded that that there is a group of riders that are attracted to scooters who do not ride bicycles. She said that a greater percentage of scooter users are women.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that it is important to be clear about what problem we are trying to solve. She said that by setting minimum standards, it would be better to set high standards that are non-negotiable, which should include rigorous technical requirements, so we are getting equipment that is safer and more durable. She said that in setting those standards, it might make it harder for all the companies to be able to enter the selection process, but it also incentivizes the companies to help solve the real mobility issues of the city. She said that the companies should be incentivized to solve problems rather than the city solving the companies’ problems. She asked about scooter use on state-owned off-road recreational paths. She said that having different regulations for different paths will be a challenge with scooter users knowing who owns particular paths. She said that this is an important thing to clarify. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the City needs to change the zoning for the pilot or will it be part of a new municipal ordinance or regulations in the future. She said that she does not want anything in the Ordinance Committee that poses an obstacle or unnecessary delay to doing this. Mr. Goldberg said that the City Solicitor’s Office will look closely at the zoning requirements. He said that the overall view is that if this is happening on the public way, zoning relief is not needed. To the extent that it is happening on private property, zoning would need to be in place. Vice Mayor Devereux said that private property is private but there are some sidewalks and paths that are private but publicly accessible. She said that the average person may not know this distinction. She said that on MIT’s campus, there are many kinds of paths.

She asked if those paths would be considered private property. Mr. Goldberg said that there would be a lot of complicated issues that could become enforcement issues. He explained that if someone is on their scooter and they go onto private property and leave it, that could become an enforcement issue as then that scooter is being offered for the next person from that private property. He noted that there are a lot of tricky issues to think about. Vice Mayor Devereux said that one of the benefits of having scooter companies is that the fees that they pay for the privilege of operating can help with various road improvement projects or maintaining bike lanes. She asked if this is what the City is thinking about when considering the fees. Ms. Rasmussen said that the fees have not entered into the conversation. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if it can be more of a Host Community Agreement fee or similar to a Resident Parking program fee. Ms. Rasmussen said that it cannot be a tax, but they have been focused on the fees as it pertains to the pilot. She said that if the City decides after the pilot period to create an ordinance that would regulate shared mobility systems, there would be implementation of a new fee structure.

Ms. Rasmussen said that she was recently looking at a survey that was done in Denver (ATTACHMENT E) of 2,000 users. She said that 43% of the scooter trips replaced a walk trip, 22% replaced a rideshare trip, 14% replaced a bike trip and 10% replaced a vehicle trip. She said that there is a wide range of use cases for scooters.

Councillor Kelley said that he believes that the City Council asked for a legal analysis of whether mobility devices can operate on the public way given that they are a private rental. He said that if that is correct, he hopes that the City Council will get an answer shortly.

Councillor Mallon said that looking at the Denver statistics, that is one-third of trips that are getting cars off the road. She said that she does not share her colleagues’ feeling that this is not worth doing. She said that there are plenty of people on the streets that are using scooters. She said that by not providing scooter share, we are not providing transportation equity. She said that she shares Councillor Kelley’s opinion that we are looking at this in a narrow way, but it is important to think about the future of mobility and micromobility. She said that there are tremendous numbers of TNCs on City roads and the City needs to do something to provide other options for people.

Councillor Zondervan agreed that the City should be looking at micromobility. He said that he does not see the current iterations of scooter share as a real solution to the problem. He said that it is another attempt at making profits. He asked why BlueBikes does not provide scooters for rent that are safe with proper equipment. He said that they do not have to be docked and could provide a safe and accessible option to residents. He said that the BlueBikes model is a very good one, even if limited. He said that it is built on 100-year-old technology that has served us well. He said that rushing into this particular system does not feel safe to him. He said that if the City is going to move forward with a pilot, it should require vendors that are selected to operate in surrounding communities. He said that he is concerned about the data protection requirements. He does not see any reason to allow things that can accelerate rapidly onto a sidewalk. He said that he does not see any reason to allow scooters to operate on sidewalks. He said that we must look at equitable distribution across the city. He agrees that there should not be caps and the City should look into the fee after the pilot is complete and what makes sense in terms of a licensing fee. He said that the City should have requirements on the labor force for these companies, and they should be paid a living wage. He is concerned about having lots of apps. He said that if every company has their own app, it is not a user-friendly approach. He said that the City should require that all the companies share an app. He said that he fully understands the micromobility space, but he does not see a lot of future in the scooters as currently presented.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that she heard that electric bikes are coming to BlueBikes. She said that maybe once there are more electric bike shares available, people may be more inclined to use those as opposed to a scooter. Cara Seiderman said that the company that is operating BlueBikes is introducing e-bikes in other markets. She said it is possible for the City to purchase within the contract. She said that the City is also looking at having dockless bikes that would be a hybrid to be run as a pilot. She explained that the City is looking at results and will discuss options to try out. Vice Mayor Devereux said that this is evidence that the whole market is fluid.

Councillor Carlone said that an object that lasts for 26 days is a bad toy. He asserted that quality of scooters is essential. He noted that the City is responsible to ensure that quality is in place. As it relates to sidewalk use, he noted that the sidewalks have been cut back in size historically. He said that having scooters using or parking on the sidewalk is outrageous. He said that he will vote against anything that rides or can be parked on a sidewalk.

Councillor Kelley said that the City could be having the scooters on sidewalks or one-wheels on sidewalks or the electric skateboards on sidewalks discussion and the City should be having it independent of the shared fleet scooter part. He said that this is not one discussion. He said that he agrees that these devices do not belong on sidewalks. He said that they need to be put somewhere else which likely means taking spots away from parked cars.

Vice Mayor Devereux agreed that it is a big landscape and fleet shared scooters are only one portion of the micromobility ecosystem, which is in flux and changing. She said that in the context of trying to think through a pilot program once the State law changes, it does not sound to her very likely that there will be action at the State level in the next few weeks. She said that leads us to the fall, so this pilot may not happen until next spring. She said that things could change by then since it is a dynamic market. She said that she is glad that the City did not rush into this last summer because we now know more. She said that the City can look at best practices of other cities and adapt those practices to the needs of Cambridge. She said that she is comfortable trying to continue to be thoughtful and deliberate. Vice Mayor Devereux said that she appreciates the time, effort and comments.

Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The Interim City Clerk received two additional written public comments after the hearing adjourned which were made part of the permanent record (ATTACHMENTS F AND G).

The hearing adjourned at 6:00pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #5
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Aug 1, 2019 at 5:35pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue discussion on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create an Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department Iram Farooq; Deputy Director, Chief of Planning, CDD, Khalil Mogassabi; Director of Zoning and Development, CDD, Jeff Roberts; Urban Designer, CDD, Erik Thorkildsen; Director of Housing, CDD, Chris Cotter; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk’s Office.

Also present were Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street; Steven Sands, 4 Buckingham Street; Susan Schlesinger, 34 Glenwood Street; Elizabeth Houghteling, 132 Brattle Street; Sally and Stuart Lesser, 115 Lexington Avenue; Patty Nolan, 184 Huron Avenue; Susanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place; Richard and Lisa Camacho, 26 Corporal Burns Road; Wendy Woodfield, 395 Broadway; Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street; Tim Shaw, 147 Mt. Auburn Street; Helen Snively, 1 Fayette Park; Becca Schofield, 280 Franklin Street; Young Kim, 17 Norris Street; Richard Klibaner, 54 Western Avenue; Skip Schloming, 102R Inman Street; Branka Whisnant, 61 Otis Street; John M. Reynolds, 61 Otis Street; Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street; Julia Randall, 37 Lee Street; Catalina Arboleda, 850 Massachusetts Avenue; Alexandra Markiewicz, 6 Laurel Street; Carol Weinhaus, 271 Concord Avenue; Larry Bluestone, 18 Centre Street; Virginia Coleman, 2 Berkeley Place; Zack Goldberg, 118-120 Aberdeen Avenue; Alice Nabweteme, formerly of 51 Fifth Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Tina Alu, 113½ Pleasant Street; Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place; Bill McAvinney and Carolyn Fuller, 12 Douglass Street; Cathleen Higgins, 345 Norfolk Street; Eugenia Schraa, 259 Washington Street; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Chris Schmidt, 17 Laurel Street; Peter Falb, 245 Brattle Street; Gerald Zuriff, 120 Foster Street; Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street; Liz Werby, 7 Wright Street; David Sullivan, 16 Norte Dame Street; Kyle Lozano, 48 Haskell Street; Sarah Farmington, 18 Frost Street; Janet Reckman, 4 Newport Road; James Zall, 203 Pemberton Street; Adam Travis, 260 Sidney Street; Nathalie Janson, 38 Maple Street; Margaret Moran, Cambridge Housing Authority; Noam Tanner, 47 Sacramento Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Adrian Servetnick, 9 Kinnaird Street; Edwidge L. Hercules, 514 Windsor Street; Tapan K. Saha, 362 Rindge Avenue; Rebecca Pries, 10 Longfellow Road; Kyra Montage, 104 Lakeview Avenue; JoAnne Cooper, 358 Huron Avenue; James Schaele, 7 Centre Street; Lauren Curry, 3 Concord Avenue; Eva Martin Blythe, YWCA, 7 Temple Street; Robert MacArthur, 1839 Washington Street, Auburndale, Just-A-Start; Clara Wellons, 651 Green Street; Derek Kopon, 8 Wright Street; Jessica Sheehan, 99 Norfolk Street; Martha Zirgel, 175 Holworthy Street; Patrick Braga, 11 Everett Street; Suryani Dewa Ayu, 102 Trowbridge Street; Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street; Jessie English, 27 Corporal Burns Road; Marty Mauzy, 52 Garden Street; Fred Meyer, 83 Hammond Street; Ted Pyne, Linnaean Street; Tom T. Hyde, 11 Wendell Street; Risa Mednick, 20 Maple Street; and Brad Bellows, 8 Howard Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He announced that there will be another Ordinance Committee on this topic. The petition expires on Sept 30, 2019. At the next meeting public comment may not occur so that a working meeting of the City Council can take place to bring this petition to the full City Council. He outlined the format of the hearing. He stated that this was referred to the Ordinance Committee from the Housing Committee. He stated that there will be a presentation. He spoke about the design guidelines.

Ms. Farooq AHOD proposal emerged from work that the City and the Housing Committee has been done for years and earlier this year formulated into a zoning petition. She stated that the most significant part of the proposal is it only applies to buildings that are 100% affordable housing. All the housing units are deed restricted and would be permanently affordable to individuals who earn up to 100% of Area Median Income (AMI). The greatest focus is on less than 80% of AMI. These are the individuals who are least able to compete in the market to rent or buy housing in Cambridge. This development would be allowed as of right, without a special permit or a comprehensive permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or the Planning Board. This would be allowed as- -of-right, with an advisory design review from the Planning Board at a scale that is larger than what would be allowed for other market rate housing development. This means that the buildings could be taller and larger in size. She spoke about guidance that the City could provide to developers of such buildings to ensure that they would be good neighbors to the surrounding development. She stated that she will present a series of urban design guidelines that would guide both the developer as well as residents. She explained that this is guidance that the Planning Board would need as the framework to guide the discussion through the design review to ensure that buildings would be compatible with neighbors.

The Planning Board had their public hearing on the overhaul but have not finalized their decision. They will meet again on Sept 3, 2019 for their continued hearing. The goal is to finalize the petition. She stated that the City Council requested that information be provided to the public that this proposal was under discussion and invite the public to participate. She acknowledged that this is a complex proposal. She noted that the Community Development Department held a series of open houses for the general public to discuss this proposal. She stated that this proposal is one piece of the City’s housing policy which needs to work in tandem with other housing proposals. Five open houses were held to date. Open houses are scheduled for Aug 5 and Sept 7th.

Councillor Carlone read the list of the documents distributed for the hearing. They were the text of the AHOD petition, comments by Councillor Carlone, amendments submitted by Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern, amendments submitted by Councillor Zondervan, a legal opinion from the City Solicitor, amendments by Vice Mayor Devereux. A communication from Councillor Simmons stated that she was unable to attend the hearing and communications from the general public (ATTACHMENTS 1-7). He stated that there is a master document that tries to bring all the amendments together. He stated that some of his comments did not get into this document so he will not be using this.

Ms. Farooq stated that this is a quick presentation of the draft of the Design Guidelines (ATTACHMENT 8).

Mr. Thorkildsen stated that the design guidelines are a draft and comments and suggestions are welcome. He stated that the presentation is divided into four sections: Introduction, Site Design, Building Design and Sustainability. He stated that the guidelines are qualitative guidance for new construction, rehabilitation and additions to existing building.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the process. She asked if the Planning Board will review comment and discuss the design guidelines in public. Ms. Farooq stated that the design guidelines will be shared with the Planning Board and then will see how they impact their recommendations. Vice Mayor Devereux wanted more attention to the verbs in the presentation. She noted that the presentation does not reflect the language in the design guidelines.

Councillor Zondervan asked for more information on sustainability. He asked why it is not more extensive. He noted that these are recommendations but not requirements and what the point is if they are not binding. Ms. Farooq stated that the requirements will remain the same as in the ordinance for all other market rate construction and need to meet the LEED standards. She stated that any modification would apply to any building built under the AHOD. She added that the CDD is working on a resilience zoning task force and any recommendations that would emerge from this would apply to all development in the City, including the AHOD. She spoke about what the City is asking developers to do when they design a building. She stated that passive survivability is not given enough due in the building and architecture in this country. She stated that in terms of having the best building envelope and using every surface of the building in a way that is most efficient and effective way. Councillor Zondervan agreed that these are good things to do for all buildings and he did not understand why they are not required in the guidelines.

Councillor Kelley stated that the guidelines are not a must and in the end the Planning Board is only an advisory board and may or may not be acted upon. Ms. Farooq stated that all guidelines are advisory and not a requirement. She added that no building could meet all the guidelines. She stated that a set of good principles serves as a framework and provides guidance to the Planning Board and developers. She stated that currently the Planning Board is advisory in the comprehensive permit process. When projects come to the Planning Board the design review currently is advisory per the state statute and then the permit is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeal. She explained that continued design review work is done by CDD staff with developers. This is the framework that the Planning Board could continue to utilize.

Councillor Kelley noted that the guidelines are advisory and making them as of right and taking BZA out of decision-making authority the guidelines remain advisory and this will change. Councillor Kelley commented that the number of additional units that would be produced from the AHOD would be 30-40 units per year. Ms. Farooq stated that this is what is expected additional over and above what is being produced now. He stated that this is based on the same funding stream as in the past. Ms. Farooq stated that this is based on the total of $20 million in this year’s budget with an increase in the amount discussed by the City Manager at the budget hearings. Councillor Kelley asked why someone wouldn’t access Mass development bonds to find new revenue streams. He stated that clarifying what is and is not allowed and making it not subject to legal appeal and these developments are being made more attractive for individuals who have funds to invest or funds to award in the case of bonds. Ms. Farooq stated that none of the affordable housing developments are solely financed by the City. Mr. Cotter spoke about fund source. He stated that it is expected that housing providers would take advantage of other available funding to partially fund developments in addition to requesting funds from the City through the Affordable Housing Trust. He explained that all the sources will have a match requirement. He stated that a developer building 100% affordable housing could also look, in addition to the Affordable Housing Trust, for funding through the state or Mass Housing. He does not know if bond financing funding would work because there is no full requirement for the affordability at 100%. There would be a limit based on the availability of units to service mortgage this and these are buildings that would require subsidy funds such as those available through the Trust or state through the Department of Housing and Community Development. Councillor Kelley stated that if other sources of funding became available development would be able to be financed through this and under the $20 million that is anticipated. Mr. Cotter respond in affirmative. He stated that the numbers forecasted based on the goal the City makes assumptions about the amount of City funds that would be needed to produce a unit of housing, assuming the funds would be leveraged with commitment from other subsidy sources.

Mayor McGovern asked about $20 million this year for affordable housing and said not all this funding goes to producing new units. Some funding goes to the preservation of units. Mr. Cotter stated that funding from the Affordable Housing Trust is used in a variety of ways. He added that the top priority is the preservation of 500 affordable rental units at Fresh Pond Apartments that will require significant funding from the Trust. He explained that the Trust funds are also used for creating housing in other ways, in addition to new development that may be seen with the overlay and through the 40B process. He stated that housing providers are also looking to purchase existing multi-family buildings. He stated that the Home Bridge Program is funded where funding is offered to first-time home buyers. Mr. Cotter stated that it is difficult to forecast with precision what the number of units produced with be with the funding. He stated that with more resources more units can be produced. He spoke about preserving the Fresh Pond Apartments, which is nearing the end of this process. He stated that $20 million will allow creation of 100 units through various means. Mayor McGovern spoke about the number of units between 60-100 units. Ms. Farooq explained that this would allow the City to do 30-40 more units than what is currently built. Mayor McGovern stated that as a result of the overlay 30 units would be created and 60-70 come from inclusionary or other efforts. Ms. Farooq stated that the 100 units would be the number of new units that would be produced, and this does not include inclusionary units. It could include home buyer units but the bulk of this would be either through the overlay or some new construction. Mayor McGovern stated that it is important to get a sense of what the AHOD will produce. He added that this needs clarification. He said regarding the guidelines it may be difficult to have a requirement and spoke of the need for flexibility. He added that the City should require as much as it can so that there is a better sense of what could be coming. He wanted more put into the guidelines that are clear and that are requirements. He wanted the guidelines stronger. Ms. Farooq stated that the City can take a closer look of the guidelines to see if some aspects can be moved into the zoning requirements. She stated that the guidelines are not intended to be a requirement. She noted that there are requirement design elements that are already in the zoning. It is hard to be overly-prescriptive for a city-wide overlay. She stated that an analysis of the street and the surrounding area could be required and use this data when designing a building. Mr. Roberts stated that the City Council can put other requirements in the zoning. He stated that zoning requirements are either met or not. The purpose of guidelines is to articulate some outcomes and objectives that could be met in different ways on different sites. He stated that a concern is that projects under AHOD would be designed to be in character with the surrounding area. He noted that having zoning that is too prescriptive can work against this. The zoning and guidelines are intended to complement and counterbalance each other. He spoke about the risk of being too prescriptive would result in a cookie-cutter development repeated throughout the City. Mayor McGovern noted that the public does not understand what an overlay is. Mr. Roberts stated that an overlay is a set of zoning provisions that modifies the underlying base zoning. Mayor McGovern stated that this is for those who want to take advantage of the overlay. Mr. Roberts explained that the new overlay zoning requirements would apply in exchange for meeting the limitations having to do with affordability. Councillor Carlone stated that the guidelines are only as good as the process that oversees them. He stated that design objectives need to be in the zoning because there is no strong design review process. He stated that he included language from Article 19 and included it in the zoning.

Councillor Mallon asked for the design guidelines for Central Square. She agreed that verbs matter. She stated that aspects of the guidelines have been incorporated in the Manning Apartment renovations. She noted that $2.2 million are being saved by the CHA because of the sustainability renovations. She asked if the affordable housing developers already follow these guidelines. Ms. Farooq responded they are following the guidelines and she does not expect this to change in the future. Councillor Mallon asked why affordable housing developers work closer with the City at the beginning of the process. Ms. Farooq stated that the affordable housing developers come to the City sooner in the project than market rate developers. Affordable housing developers tend to own their project and want the most efficient projects over all and has access to funding sources for sustainability aspects. Councillor Mallon stated that City funding provides oversight which is a reason to come to the City earlier. Market rate units are sold when finished,’ so there is no incentive for market rate developers to put in the long-term sustainability measures that will save them money.

Councillor Siddiqui questioned how design guidelines are incorporated into zoning. Is there a way to further make sure that design guidelines are reviewed with developers early on by City staff? She commented that the guidelines should have more teeth.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the Planning Board is applying the design guidelines in Article 19. She said it is important that the Planning Board look at this zoning, the proposed and existing guidelines and make the guidelines explicit and put into zoning regarding historic buildings and sustainability. She stated that this was pitch as form-based zoning and was to get this down to street level. She wanted this. She asked has this been analyzed. Mr. Cotter explained that the number of units produced is based on funding. This scenario has not been reviewed. If there are owners willing to set aside units to add to the stock the city would discuss this. This cannot be done under this proposal. A deed restriction is needed, and the City process needs to be followed and there is a mix of income levels. This would be a highly unlikely situation because the units are not paying for themselves. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that if the overlay is too prescriptive it will result in cookie cutter buildings. Many of the residential streets appreciated were at one-point developments and all the housing has the same look.

Councillor Zondervan said form-based zoning is a tradeoff between carefully reviewing each project but it has clear regulations for projects as to what can be built. He stated that individual projects do not have to be reviewed with discretionary review because it is known ahead of time what they will look like and how they will function. He asked if this is this the intent of the guidelines and if not, what is the intent and where and how would the requirements be codified? Mr. Roberts stated that it is difficult to discuss this in the context of comprehensive form-based code as they tend to regulate development buildings by building type and the AHOD is focused on one type of building. Affordable housing buildings are subject to concrete set of requirements based on scale, setbacks and other dimensional characteristics of the building. This is where the building type is defined as allowed by the overlay. He noted that this is not intended to be a comprehensive form-based code because it focused on one kind of building that would be allowed under these parameters in different parts of the City. Councillor Zondervan stated that he is confused because this is talking about different types of buildings. He stated that the use is the same, but some would be small and some larger. Why wouldn’t the City go to full way to form based zoning and give individuals the guarantee that they are giving up the right to challenge the design in exchange for knowing exactly what is going to be built? He asked why variation is a problem. There could be form based requirements.

Councillor Carlone asked for summary of the Planning Board hearing. Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board’s first hearing was on June 25, 2019 and the continuation hearing was on July 9, 2019 and recommendations were not voted on and there was a range of different views and opinions. At the July 9th discussions the Planning Board wanted to see if there were areas of consensus. There was consensus on this being citywide in scope and revisiting the petition and what form it would take was discussed such as sunsets or a look back provision to re-evaluate. The Planning Board agreed that the use should be considered as of right use, but the challenge was how best to address the issue of design.

Councillor Carlone asked when the City Council will get the final report. Mr. Roberts explained that the continued hearing will be held on Sept 3, 2019 and if the Planning Board comes to a clear decision it may be forwarded to City Council on Sept 9th. Councillor Carlone spoke about the expanded density on the sight; form-based zoning limits what can be built. He stated that City Council needs to know what the FAR per each district is; this information is needed at the next hearing. He asked for the economics to be presented today. He stated that it is imperative that this information is needed for the next hearing. He was surprised that there was no Planning Board report on AHOD.

Councillor Kelley stated that as currently written the AHOD would not allow dormitory use. Mr. Roberts stated that this is correct because dormitory use is a separate use in the zoning and the AHOD is considered family housing. Councillor Kelley spoke about Harvard University graduate student housing which are only available to Harvard students. He stated that as he reads the petition any housing built under the AHOD would only be available through the eligibility systems. Ms. Farooq stated that this is correct because they would have to respect the City’s covenant and utilize the City’s process for selection of tenants which could not be limited to students of a particular university and would have to be open to everyone.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 7:09pm.

Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, happy to see the amendments proposed. He spoke about 5.2.2 which specifies FAR. He stated that he supports a FAR increase to allow more density for affordable housing. He stated that he insists that financial feasibility must be demonstrated. He supports a density cap to be set at a maximum FAR for 40-foot-high limits. He supports and FAR limit of 1.5; not 3.0. He stated that he owns a 3 family and if he converted his building to a maximum of affordable housing. He spoke about converting his three units to 7 units and put units in basement. He stated that this give him a FAR of 1.5. He stated that 3.0 is off the chart. There is no land cost because he owns the land and it is paid for. He stated that it is the modification that would have to be made to existing structure which may cost $80,000-$90,000 per unit. He stated compare this with $600,000 for new units. He stated he could get $400 for rent for the basement units; $550 on the first and second floors. He stated that the cost differentials are a concern for the petition. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT 9).

Steven Sands, 4 Buckingham Street, stated that there are two principles that conflict with the AHOD: the creation of affordable housing and the need to preserves the special historic character Cambridge. He stated that the addition of affordable housing in principle would add to a neighborhood vitality and diversity if it is done in ways that are consistent with the existing esthetic quality of the neighborhoods. This means that existing zoning regulations regarding limits on height especially should be followed. He commented that they are there for good reasons and should not be giving away the authority of zoning. He stated that the current affordable housing is often a scale that is too massive. He added that four stories are worse than three stories. He stated that good architectural design cannot be counted on and the recently built four stories in Cambridge is often ugly. He stated that limited height would conform to its surroundings even with the design is not beautiful there will be less of it. He stated that charming neighborhoods in Cambridge have developed organically over time need protection. He commented that if affordable housing is uncoupled from the overlay, which is another word for override, the City will get affordable housing without being destructive to a City that is beautiful and visited by tourists for its charm. This should not be a gift to developers.

Susan Schlesinger, Affordable Housing Trust member, spoke about funding affordable housing and urged all to look at the affordable housing buildings that have been funded by the Trust. She stated that the principles that are laid out in the design guidelines in the zoning are reflected in the buildings. She stated that they are reflected because the affordable housing developers in this City care about what kind of housing is being created for people. Ms. Schlesinger suggested looking at the reality of the situation. She stated that all are here because of the housing crisis. She stated that regionally one housing unit is created for every 2.5 jobs as reflected in the newspaper today. She commented that this is the key affordable housing initiative before this City Council this term. She stated that something needs to be done to stop our neighbors from being thrown out of the City because rents are so high. She stated that everyday individuals leave the City and are pushed out and lose access to schools, parks and all the things that are valued in Cambridge such as the tree canopy. She noted that there are reasons that the City needs to move quickly on this. This is no more complicated than much that the City Council has dealt with. This is very important. She stated that some of the comments in the amendments make sense. There is a point where feasibility is impacted, and this is the point where the intent of the Affordable Housing Overlay to create more housing quickly gets lost.

Elizabeth Houghteling, 132 Brattle Street, stated her support for creating 100 units of subsidized housing each year. She stated that however, blowing up one hundred years of zoning is not the way to go. The AHOD was first presented to the public in April and this week design guidelines were issued. She noted that all the good examples of affordable housing were built under the current rules. She commented that the new guidelines use the wording “consider” continuously. If a developer decides not to consider these guidelines the City, the neighborhood and the abutters have no recourse; mature trees and green space are history. She urged going back to the drawing board in good faith. She noted that the stated goal of this proposal is achievable without tearing Cambridge apart. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 10).

Sally Lesser, 115 Lexington Avenue, stated that her comments were based on the comments made by the Planning Board at their hearings. She explained that a clear majority of the Planning Board members favored a sunset clause in the ordinance, and this indicates that these professionals are in doubt about the success of the overlay and would like to see the expiration or a solid review after a period of time or a number of units built. If the Planning Board has concerns about effect of this ordinance; shouldn’t the City pause to listen. She commented that the overlay removes design review in cases of 100% affordable housing development. This radical experiment is the reason why the permitting oversight that the Planning Board exercises is needed now. The word that the Planning Board members repeated about this ordinance was abdication. With no effective oversight by the Planning Board and no option for citizen appeal this up zoning overlay is unnecessarily risky. The urgency for the need for affordable housing in Cambridge requires bold action, but bold action requires thoughtful planning and review. She stated that the ordinance as it is currently written proposes the bold idea without the oversight that might make it a plan that will work. She stated that she believes that it is a mistake to approve the ordinance in its current form. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 11).

Stuart Lesser spoke about design issues. An hour ago, there were no specific design guidelines and there is no real oversight. He commented that he was pleased to see that a draft set of guidelines has been established. He stated that regarding the sketches presented by the City he has not seen one example of a design that fits the scale of most neighborhoods. He noted that to establish different guidelines for varying conditions such as corridors, transitional areas in different neighborhoods will require additional work on the part of the City. He urged taking the necessary time to review the guidelines and make them requirements, determine their applicability to each neighborhood of the City. He stated that this is the work the City could and should do before the AHOD becomes law. To eliminate City approvals without appeal is to abrogate all responsibility of the appointed and elected officials. He noted that if these guidelines are adopted it is important that the City enforce them. He believed that there can be both good design and real oversight in building affordable housing. To settle for less is to admit that the City’s leadership has failed.

Susanne Blier read Patty Nolan comments (ATTACHMENT 12). Ms. Blier stated that Ms. Nolan has gone through earlier documents on the AHOD and it is clear no new units will be built under this AHOD because 100% of AHOD does not change the number of units produced because affordable housing production is based on the availability of funding. She stated that in Ms. Nolan’s view the additional units is based on the additional funding for affordable housing units. Ms. Blier stated that she has heard from developers that this could be extraordinarily high because under 40B there are strict profit requirements, none above 20%. She added that there are concerns about costs and benefits associated with this. The comprehensive permit plan has works well and gets projects through effectively without the current design system. She stated that overall both neighbors and planning teams in the projects are happy with the results. She suggested sticking with this plan and figure out a way to build more affordable housing throughout the City. She stated that there are better ways to accomplish this. She stated that it is important to have this in the corridors because there is transit and amenities. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 13).

Robert Camacho, 24 Corporal Burns Road, stated his opposition to the overlay because it is undemocratic. He commented that current Cambridge residents have purchased or improved their property knowing the zoning and the context of their neighborhood. Now, affordable housing overlay proponents want Cambridge residents to agree to a plan that is completely different and will create a housing crisis for those who already live in Cambridge. He noted that affordable housing developers wrote this overlay plan based on their needs; this plan has nothing to do with the needs of current home owners. He commented that A Better Cambridge uses these concepts to steal the rights of current property owners and the property protection under current zoning laws and desires to give these rights away to work in the service of others; the affordable housing developers. He stated that citizens’ rights are being redistributed away from property owners and given to affordable housing developers. The AHOD usurps the rights of affordable housing developers to take protections of zoning laws from property owners for themselves, the developers. In this scenario the people of Cambridge become exiles in our own City, denied access to or control of our own neighborhood. He stated that the City Council members were elected as a government of the people, by the people and for the people and not a government of the affordable housing developer, by the affordable housing developer and certainly not for the affordable housing developer. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT 14).

Lisa Camacho, 24 Corporal Burns Road, clarified her comment on down payment assistance. She spoke about Home bridge and down payment assistance program. She stated that the houses available for this program, the single-family homes, condominiums, two and three family homes are disappearing in the City and soon there will not be many homes eligibility for people to own these homes. She urged the City to increase the amount available for those to own homes while the stock still exists. She spoke about the definition of urban resilience from the 100 Cities Resilience Project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation has committed an additional $8 million to help cities that participate in the project. She read the definition. This requires looking at a city holistically, understanding the systems that make up the City and the interdependencies that arise that they may face. She urged looking at the Envision Cambridge. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 15).

Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, who is determining the “right fit” for our community. She stated that no other options have been presented. She stated that there is still debate on open/green/public and private space is still being debated. She asked if there will be shadow studies. She stated that a setback for a 6-7 story building is not the same for a pre-existing two-story building setback. She stated that taller buildings closer to the street create canyons. She spoke about bay windows and architectural elements which can project up to ten feet beyond the foundation into side yards; why have dimensions and try to save trees. She questioned how historical properties will be protected. She stated that CDD decides what architectural elements create visual interest, providing the economically viable for the developer who does not follow recommendations. She questioned the density ratio between FAR of 3.0 versus formbased standards and what does a forty-foot-high FAR 3.0 building look like. She urged that there should be models and be shown what a 3.0 building looks like. She stated that a sunset provision is needed. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 16).

Tim Shaw, 147 Mt. Auburn Street, spoke about the cost of living has skyrocketed in Cambridge. He opposed the AHOD and this is not the right answer and will do harm to the City and will continue to put stress on the tree canopy. He stated that this proposal, while trying to address a real problem, would have unintentional side effects and would be potentially catastrophic. This disagrees with the City’s own growth practices. The AHOD was created in close partnership with the developers for their benefit and has the potential for loopholes with no review or other provisions to address them. He urged the Ordinance Committee reject this deeply flawed proposal and find a better way to address this real problem. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT 17).

Helen Snively, 1 Fayette Park, stated that she cannot make heads or tails of the petition and there are so many things that the public does not understand. She stated that she did not hear much about protecting the tree canopy, open space and a sunset clause which is needed. This is not the solution. She urged spending time on this to get it right. She spoke of alternatives such as cooperative apartments, infill and a regional approach.

Wendy Woodfield stated that there is so much detail, but it is not the issue. She spoke about the whether the Planning Board recommendations are binding. The Planning Board represents the people and it is the institutional framework in Cambridge and by throwing this out it is opening Cambridge to enormous change. She agrees that more housing is needed. The issue is who is making the decision. The City is not ready to give up public policy.

Rebecca Schofield, Project Manager, HRI, stated her support for the 100% AHOD which will be a tool to support building more housing building more housing equity in the City. She urged passage and moving this forward without amendment that would limit its efficacy and without delay. She stated that preventing displacement and investing in sustainable development will take work and political will and urged getting the overlay passed so that more ideas can be advanced for equity for renters, families and low-income residents. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 18).

Young Kim, 17 Norris Street, supports affordable housing and reasonable development and gradual increase over the City and changing the fabric of the neighborhood rather than destroying it by squeezing the in massive development in neighborhoods in the City. This proposal is based on the close relationship between CDD and the non-profit organizations. He stated that they do a good job working with the City but by the restricted deed the for-profit developers will not use this overlay. He spoke about small developers and rental property owners will find a way to misuse this. He urged the City to come up with all the required procedures and funding.

Richard Klibaner, 54 Western Avenue, noted that all know that there is an affordable housing crisis. He stated that a crisis requires a response. He urged the City Council to approve the proposal and approve it quickly.

Branka Whisnant, 61 Otis Street, stated that she is opposed to the AHOD and stated that this creates a whole new category of housing which is not public or private housing. She stated that the East Cambridge Planning Team has worked with developers who build big projects and have always achieved a concession from the developers who offer affordable housing units. The East Cambridge Planning Team kept control of the process. She stated that giving someone the as of right to build units is bound to degrade the housing stock of Cambridge.

John Reynolds, 61 Otis Street, agreed with Sally and Stuart lesser. He stated that guidelines are soft and weak and will be entirely ignored by developers. He noted that the Planning Board review is advisory and has no impact. He stated that in this context he cannot support the proposal in its current form is a blizzard of amendments. This is not an ordinance that the City Council should vote on.

Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street, supported passing the AHOD in September. She spoke about the urgency for the need of housing. She urged acting with the same speed and dedication on this ordinance as done on the tree ordinance. If not enacted by September this will cause great delay and people will not have housing as housing will not be built. She urged the City Council to find workable compromises on the outstanding issues of density, open space and design and bring this proposal to a successful vote. She stated that she is bewildered by the sense of calamity caused by the opponents to the overlay proposal. She spoke about the many attractive housing projects across Cambridge previously referred to. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 19).

Catalina Arboleda, 950 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that there was no mentioned about the environment impact of the overlay. She stated that this needs more study. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 20).

Alexandra Markiewicz, 6 Laurel Street, stated her support for the AHOD and urged the City Council to move forward on this as soon as possible. She spoke about the controversy about this proposal. She noted that if the City is going to make headway on the affordability crisis faced, prevent the amount of displacement seen and build a stronger City to ensure that people have a place to call home the City is going to have to do serious soul searching as a community about what it takes to build this kind of City. She commented that the overlay is just the first step. It will make it more feasible to build more housing in the City. This is asking the City to allow bigger buildings than what is allowed under current zoning to match the buildings the City has. She stated that more will be needed to keep people and make the City equitable. She supports amendments that do not reduce the effectiveness of the ordinance. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 21).

Carol Weinhaus spoke against the amendments to the AHOD. She stated that the amendments are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. She stated that this whole process failed to let those who live and work in the City what zoning does. The City uses affordable housing as a cover to its plans to double the density of the City. She highlighted failure of the zoning and the amendments. She stated that the only legal notification of the zoning was a postcard sent out Citywide. She spoke about the term as of right and that is the zoning is passed it cannot be changed for two years. She stated that the proposal is unreadable. The information does not show impact on next door buildings. There is no way for the public to keep up with the changes. She stated that developers have more rights than citizen. She stated that this plan is risky, deeply flawed and opens the flood gates for large scale development Citywide. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 22).

Larry Bluestone, 18 Centre Street, supported the overlay and urged swift passage. The time has arrived to act on this. He added that every day that the City Council delays, existing residents and City workers, teachers and families are losing their homes due to rising rents and costs and any delay is devastating to these people. All know that the overlay is not the perfect solution nor will it solve all the affordable housing needs, but it is a critical first step. Losing a home is devastating. The overlay when completed must maintain financial affordability for affordable housing developers, the overlay must apply Citywide to correct the historic wrong of redlining and discriminatory zoning which still determines the City’s current housing pattern. He stated that every neighborhood must provide its fair share and look to the future. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT 23).

Virginia Coleman, 2 Berkeley Place, stated that she was in opposition to the overlay. It would achieve its stated purpose to increase affordable housing. She stated that if taken away the limits that are applicable to zoning and allow no right of appeal what is not to like. She stated that if there is an opportunity to make money it will be seen and take advantage of the as of right provisions. She stated that this will increase affordable housing at what costs to increased density, traffic, loss of open space and rational much less optimal urban design. She noted that this trade off was described as Cambridge looking a little different. She stated that no one understands what is being leashed on the City but subjecting all the City to a one size fits all and as long as it is affordable housing and the minimalist requirements of the overlay are met it is unstoppable regardless of its appropriateness or effect on the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood. She commented that the guidelines will not get the City where it wants to be. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 24).

Zack Goldberg, 118 Aberdeen Avenue, stated that he is opposed to the overlay and stated that certain City Councillors are misrepresenting the overlay and its potential negative repercussions. He stated that there is no recognition for the potential for development money flooding into Cambridge and development spiraling out of control. He stated that by the time that the City Council recognized that too much was happening in Alewife too quickly the City was powerless to stop it. There is no safeguards or limits for the proposal in place. He stated that a review in five years is useless. He commented that certain City Councillors are trying to rush this through for a September vote, a time when people are away. If rushed through in September and developments start occurring on streets that do not have the building heights and density as minimal setbacks and more old growth trees are cut down in the name of further development the City Council should prepare itself for a major backlash. This does not help the middle class. The City is exceedingly dense and with the cost per unit is a gross misuse of public funds. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT 25).

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that all are entitled to know where people live who are speaking on this issue. This is a regional problem but not a regional solution and Cambridge is being asked to solve a regional problem. He stated that affordable housing developers could be encouraged and supported to build affordable housing in surrounding communities because they have a lesser percentage of affordable housing than Cambridge. He stated that the City has neglected and avoided opportunities for building affordable housing for decades. He added that the incentive payments were neglected for ten years and inclusionary languished for ten years. He stated that sites that were zoned residential on Massachusetts Avenue were converted to labs and office so that the biggest drug company could locate to Cambridge. He stated that the Alexandria in Kendall Square in an area of residential proposing to change this from residential to lab/office. He stated how can the City discuss this proposal while allowing changes in zoning from residential sites to lab and office which drives up the cost of housing for all in the City.

Elena Sokolow-Kaufman, Managing Director, Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition, stated that she lives in 64 Thorndike Street in Arlington. She stated the support for the AHOD on behalf of the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition and communication the support of more than 36 affordable housing developers. She stated that not moving forward on the AHOD negatively impacts Cambridge’s ability to address its affordable housing crisis. She stated that without the overlay non-profit developers will continue to be priced out of the market as well as many low and moderate-income tenants on waiting list for affordable rent. She commented that the overlay is a reasonable solution that the City has the authority to implement without having to wait for home rule petitions to pass at the state house. The overlay proposes low density development, community input for the design review and Citywide access for affordable housing. The AHOD is an important addition in the affordable housing tool box and is not intended to solve Cambridge’s housing crisis but does address the current major zoning barrier that negatively impacts the ability to build affordable housing in Cambridge. She urged the City Council to move forward on the overlay so that it can be approved this year. She submitted a communication from the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition (ATTACHMENT 26).

Tina Alu, Director of CEOC, 113 1/2 Pleasant Street, stated her support for AHOD. She stated that more information has been provided on this issue as well as input from the community on the overlay than any issue she has seen in her 32 years and still comments are being made that this process should be slowed down and take more time before moving forward. The City cannot wait on this. She explained that in a recent survey of CEOC participants, 89% of the respondents indicated that increasing affordable housing and preventing homelessness were the most important issues that the City needed to address. She noted that these results mirror other surveys and needs assessments conducted in the City. She spoke about displacement due to increased housing costs and the lack of affordable options. She stated that other moderate-income families struggle to remain in the City as the costs continue to rise. She noted that homeownership is out of the reach of many Cambridge residents and passing the overlay can stem displacement and provide more families with an opportunity to stay or move back to Cambridge. She stated that the if the City wants to keep the families and maintain the diversity that is celebrated in Cambridge the time is up and the City Council needs to vote on the AHOD and refrain from adding any amendments that will negatively impact the overlay’s ability to produce more affordable housing that is so critical for the City. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 27).

Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place, stated that she supports affordable housing and the AHOD. She noted that the City has declared an affordable housing crisis. She stated that the overlay will not create skyscrapers and destroy historical buildings, kill the tree canopy, eliminate open space, destroy neighborhood character, increase traffic and parking and support for profit developers. The overlay will provide affordable housing for the thousands of residents to move back to the City. She stated that the overlay needs to be moved in its legal time frame so that it will be in place for the upcoming years. She stated that without implementation of the overlay, precious time is lost and lose the opportunity to build affordable homes for those who are waiting. She stated that any amendments that seek to limit the ability to build affordable housing laid out in the overlay should be rejected. She stated that the as of right clause is critical to changing what is now a privilege process of a limited number of property owners deciding what is good the rest of the City. She suggested that the sunset clause not be included. A review process after several years of development should serve a true purpose of evaluating the successes and what can be improved, and a sunset clause sets out an arbitrary end to the overlay to build housing. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 28).

Bill McAvinney, 12 Douglass Street, stated that ten years ago he became concerned at the path that Cambridge was taking. He commented that he has enjoyed Cambridge being an economically and racially diverse City; this is being lost at an increasing speed. He stated that if there are no changes the City Council is accepting the degradation of the social fabric of the City. He urged passage of the AHOD proposal because it maintains Cambridge’s identity as a diverse City. He spoke about those losing their homes and the AHOD is a step in the right direction. He spoke about the effect of building affordable housing on the environment; the denser things are built the better it is for the environment.

Carolyn Fuller, 12 Douglass Street, stated that she is a strong proponent of a richly diverse population throughout the entire City. She stated that she supports AHOD and hoped that zoning will no longer be the tool used to bifurcate the City into the haves and have nots. She stated that any one person’s personal concerns often conflict with wider community goals. She stated that restrictive zoning is hampering the ability to reach the stated affordable housing goals. It is time to loosen the restrictions for 100% affordable housing so that affordable housing will have some chance to compete with market rate development. She urged given AHOD a chance. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 29).

Cathleen Higgins, 345 Norfolk Street, stated that she strongly supports affordable housing overlay. She spoke about the history of zoning and why it was implemented and the racial and economic injustices it continues to preserve. She spoke about a book written in 1962 entitled “But Not Next Door.” She read a proclamation from 1973 to support zoning in East Cambridge and the Planning Board hearing on the rezoning of Inman Square which zoning did not prevail. This created the Inman Square apartments; a building of over 90 affordable studio and one-bedroom apartments. She asked who are the opposed and spoke about the taller buildings being unwelcome or undesirable. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 30).

Eugenia Schraa, 259 Washington Street, supported one and only major housing proposal before the City Council this term. She stated that if the City is concerned about massive development, she suggested looking up the height and density limits in the overlay and look up the style guides; it will not cause massive development. She requested that the City Council consider why this proposal is before them. She stated that the need is great and turning people away from Cambridge makes Cambridge a gated community. This impoverishes the City’s diversity. Turning people away exacerbates income equality and has real harm and keeps people in poverty. An article today stated that new jobs in the greater Boston area outstrips new housing by a factor of 2.5. She stated that doing nothing this term is unacceptable.

Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that it is obvious that overlay is not ready for prime time. She endorsed Vice Mayor Devereux’s amendments 1-9 and 11. She stated that the AHOD is not good and trying to patch with amendments is not good zoning or good planning. She suggested that the City Council let the AHOD lapse and start over when there has been a more holistic analysis and the public understands what the intent of the AHOD is. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 31).

Chris Schmidt, 17 Laurel Street, requested that those who are in support of affordable housing to show it; show that you are willing to give up some leverage of control for those who do not have it. He stated that the current zoning makes it impossible to building the housing that is needed in the City to respond to the Citywide housing crisis. He stated that zoning code should not be used as a tool to protect minority of homeowners in this City and if used as a tool should be to protect the lives of the low- income community. He spoke about all the work that is needed to be done regarding housing. This cannot be discussed for another year. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT 32).

Peter Falb, 245 Brattle Street, stated that an issue not mentioned about the citywide petition is the effect of the AHOD on property values. It is his opinion that a citywide overlay will in fact reduce substantially the value of single-family homes. There are other ways to deal with affordable housing. He spoke about increasing the budget or taxes. He stated all are entitled to livable housing, but no one is entitled to live in the City of Cambridge and adding 30 units will not do this and spoke about possible ligation.

Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street, stated that he has been a supporter of the AHOD and found objections to be reasonable. There is overlap on the suggested amendments that addresses height, transitional zones, setbacks, open space and parking. There is a lot going on here and there is potential to make compromises and to merge with incentivize affordable housing. He expressed his concerns about the trees and should be included in the tree protection ordinance.

Elizabeth Werby, 7 Wright Street, agreed that this ordinance is not ready for prime time. She stated that there is no economic analysis are FAR and there is no clear answer about how many incremental units will be produced under this plan and the cost; no 3D models and the guidelines are not robust. She noted that other cities have promulgated robust guidelines and standards. Zoning is a legal process and binds us and the City needs to live with this. She commented that a Citywide zoning proposal is particularly complicated. She stated that the Planning Board has not opined on this petition. She stated that the process is dismaying and stated that the City can do better.

David Sullivan, 16 Norte Dame Avenue, supported the AHOD. He spoke about the importance of turning guidelines into requirements. He stated that if requirements are made too specific innovation is prevented and tailoring buildings to their neighborhoods is supported and if requirements are too general it leads to litigation. He urged caution about turning guidelines into requirements. He further spoke about the importance of acting on the current proposal within the time line that is fixed by the state law. He stated that the petition expires on Sept 30, 2019 and the need to stay on schedule and that the Ordinance Committee report needs to be on Sept 9th agenda.

Kyle Lozano spoke for Adrian Musgrave, 48 Haskell Street. He read a statement on her behalf. Passing the overlay will keep Cambridge being a leader. There has been deep community engagement. Urged the City Council to pass the proposal.

Sarah Farmington, 18 Frost Street, stated that she and Ms. Reckman worked with affordable housing developers for the project at 1791 Massachusetts Avenue which is the Frost Street project and this interaction made an impact on quality of this project. She stated that the Planning Board’s input was critical, and the Planning Board made developers go back to the neighborhood because it did not match the neighborhood on the back side of the project. She stated that working with developers produced a good outcome. She submitted a communication from Janet Reckman, 4 Newport Street (ATTACHMENT 33).

James Zall, 203 Pemberton Street, stated that the shortage of affordable housing has been made worse by the restrictions embedded in the zoning laws. He stated that the overlay proposes to use the zoning in the opposite direction to promote the production of lower cost housing. He stated that the only legitimate use of zoning is to keep property values high and protect the interests of homeowners. In the last election all City Councillors spoke about the high cost of housing in Cambridge as an important issue. He stated that in addressing this issue the City Council should represent the interest of all residents not just homeowners. He stated that the AHOD should be moved along for passage by the City Council. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT 34).

Nathalie Janson, 38 Maple Avenue, stated that she works as a project manager for the CHA. She stated her support for the AHOD and stated that the rising costs of housing in Cambridge is one of the biggest challenges that the City faces today. Any solution to this problem needs to include building more affordable housing and this process will streamline the process for building affordable housing and making it less risky and open more opportunities to build affordable housing across the City. She stated that the City Council needs to act on this now because the gap on affordability grows larger every day. She stated that these units are homes and real people live in them. The zoning needs to encourage production of affordable housing. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 35).

Margaret Moran, Director of Planning and Development, CHA, stated support for the AHOD. She urged the City Council to move expeditiously with the adopted of the AHOD. She noted that the suggestions that this petition has been rush are red herrings. She urged City to continue any and all options that would assist in adding affordable housing in Cambridge’s high cost market. She noted that more than one solution is needed to address housing crisis. She stated that the time for action is now before more opportunities for affordable housing are lost. She explained that in the past month CHA looked at a parcel near Inman Square where as of right a developer could construct three units and possibly a fourth unit. The property owner was holding out for $2 million for the parcel or $500,000 per unit for land cost. The housing was not worth salvaging. She noted that the cost was not viable for affordable housing development, but under the overlay CHA estimated that 8 units could be produced, cutting the land costs in half, making the land costs viable. This opportunity is not commonplace for the CHA. She stated that the AHOD would allow some of these options to be feasible for the CHA to add attractive, quality housing in Cambridge. She informed the City Council that no City funding was involved in the Manning Apartment renovations. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 36).

Noam Tanner, 47 Sacramento Street, stated his support for the AHOD. He compared the discussion to an old parable. He stated that Cambridge stands as the gatekeeper and the traveler. He stated that as the gatekeeper, the overlay determines who can enter and thrive in the community. He stated that as the traveler are there more challenges with following the passage of the ordinance. Cambridge is not equipped to tackle this challenge alone but is uniquely positioned to challenge this. Cambridge can be the first City to stand up to offer opportunities of equality and admit more people despite its challenges.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated her support for the goal of AHOD and needs changes to balance all the goals. She agrees that AHOD should not be exempt from the tree protection ordinance. She stated the AHOD should provide 30% open space and no reduction for parking. She supported the three height zones and reduced heights near smaller buildings and supports the setbacks from adjacent buildings. She commented that there still needs to be a minimum of 0.2 parking spaces per unit even near public transit. She added that there needs to be a guiding document with goals for the overlay and does not need to be in the ordinance. An annual progress report and not waiting for a five-year City Council and Planning Board review; this should be every three years. There needs to be detailed contextual design guidelines agreed to by the City Council and the Planning Board and should be stronger. There should be no dwelling unit below grade and that the affordable housing overlay buildings be built net zero ready. She suggested the creation of a Citywide Affordable Housing Overlay Project Review Commission to make funding recommendations so that there will be broad buy-in.

Adrian Servetnick, 9 Kinnaird Street, stated that Cambridge has been in a housing crisis since 2000 and incomes have not kept up. He advocated for the as of right provision of the overlay. He spoke about housing studies and stated that one out of every layer of permitting and review adds a new layer at 4% of construction cost. He noted that the process should be streamlined and making it easier and faster to build affordable housing. He urged moving this ordinance forward quickly. The delays continue the trends for rent increases that continues the displacement.

Lauren Curry, 3 Concord Avenue, stated that she works with Just-A-Start, a non-profit affordable housing developer in Cambridge. She submitted a communication from the new Executive Director (ATTACHMENT 37). Ms. Curry spoke about affordable housing being identified by residents in surveys as the highest priority and greatest need for City action and in a year when every City Councillors has supported increasing affordable housing. She urged enactment of the AHOD as soon as possible as a way of opening all neighborhoods to affordable housing and creating a clear path to a modest number of new housing units each year without the added costs and obstacles that current zoning imposes. She stated that the AHOD has wide spread support from many Cambridge residents who are aware of the need to keep an economic, racial mix of neighbors as part of the Cambridge community. She urged moving this forward as soon as possible with no amendments and no subjective guidelines into mandatory guidelines that would restrict the Inspectional Services Commissioner from approving overlay projects without the continued threat of litigation.

Eva Martin Blythe, Executive Director of YWCA stated that she lives in Watertown because she could not afford to live in Cambridge. She asked how many here look like me who have testified. She spoke about affordable housing and the preservation of the CPA funds for affordable housing. She is asking the City Council to vote to alleviate the affordable housing crisis. She stated that when there is a proposal on the table such as the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay that offers a reasonable solution to the housing crisis the YWCA will support it. The AHOD offers a reasonable, manageable solution to the problem and while continuing to micromanage and amend the proposal that will weigh it down and adversely affect its ability to help to produce more affordable housing it feels like this is being fiddled with while Rome burns at the same. time when more individuals leave Cambridge because they cannot afford the cost to live in the City and this is running the risk of becoming a one-dimensional community of haves lacking economic, racial and other forms of diversity. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT 38).

Robert McArthur, Just-A-Start Real Estate Project Manager, 1839 Washington Street, Auburndale spoke about the project being scaled down because of litigation and was built as-of-right and without any of the improvements to the impact on the abutters. This building has been well received by the neighborhood but was built at a great deal of expense, time and reduced number of affordable units. He stated that since that time Just-A-Start has only succeeded in developing 2 additional new production of affordable housing projects on land that was acquired. One of these projects was a four-year process with litigation. He stated that Just-A-Start has been able to preserve expiring use properties that would have gone to market and make major necessary improvements to existing housing but in spite of the fact that Just-A-Start is always looking aggressively for new production projects and have only succeeded in 3 in the last 10 years. The attention has been turned to adding new building sites on existing buildings sites that are owned by Just-A-Start and there are currently 5 buildings of new production of housing on various properties owned in various stages of the development process but there are no more opportunities on existing sites. He explained that Just-A-Start has not been able to compete on sites because they are too expensive, do not have the time to put together the funds to effectively bid on the land. He stated that this is the problem that the AHOD will help to solve. He noted that the affordable housing developers have a strong track record of constructing highly efficient, handsome, contextual buildings. He stated that this is a high priority to maintain this reputation. He urges the City Council to move forward with the AHOD as soon as possible and to keep the visions of the proposal, including the as-of-right provision intact.

Clara Wellons, 651 Green Street, stated her support for the AHOD and will need it to rent a place in Cambridge which is more expensive than NY where she lives as a graduate student. She stated that she opposes the AHOD in its present form because it provides too few units for the demand, too few units for the cost of $500,000 for each unit, ignores its impact on the environment, encourages developers to cut down mature trees, stifles the voice of residents, prevents abutter from using the law to protect themselves and it allows historical interest buildings to be torn down. She commented that the City can do better. There is tension between the two sides, and it is important that people who oppose this are being vilified. She commented that the elimination of Rent Control and the development in Kendall Square has changed Cambridge. This has further stratified Cambridge and caused this crisis. The burden is being placed on the citizens and residents to solve this. She urged coming up with a better solution.

Derek Kopon, 8 Wright Street, stated that attaching amendments to this proposal to make it more palatable and then vote to pass this ordinance this will be bestowing legitimacy about this proposal and a process that have been fundamentally illegitimate from the beginning. He stated that in his previous comments he stated that if the City Council wished to pass a policy that is as large and complex as the AHOD which will have an unpredictable impact on individuals’ homes, lives and neighborhoods. He urged the City Council to use every measure possible to build consensus in the community and those pushing this policy have done the opposite. He stated that these proceedings have been a mess from the beginning. He stated that passing this proposal is engaging in reckless, irresponsible, unethical and sloppy behavior. He suggested that the petition be withdrawn. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT 39).

Jessica Sheehan, 99 Norfolk Street, stated that she supports the AHOD. She stated that the comments that the AHOD is being rushed through is laughable. She noted that it is difficult for those who work or have small children to attend all the meetings on the AHOD. She stated that it is important to pass the AHOD. She urged the City Council to pass the AHOD without watering it down. It is good policy and the right thing to do.

Martha Zirbel stated that she has lived in the Strawberry Hill neighborhood for 29 years. She stated that she does not support the AHOD because of the as of right standards which that substantially relax the zoning ordinance in Article V, development standards regarding building height, FAR, density, yard setbacks, parking and open space and because it is exempt from the tree protection ordinance. She stated that the increased building height and the mass that are her concerns. She further stated that parking will have an impact on her small street.

Patrick Braga, 11 Everett Street, stated his support for the AHOD. He spoke about the exclusive attitude heard from the opposition. He supported mandatory periodic review. He stated that there is no misinformation. The AHOD does not reduce detached housing value especially in a market as strong as Cambridge. He stated that the AHOD expands property rights. He stated that the City has continuously posted illustrations of the AHOD. He urged the City to reach out to more demographically represented areas of the City. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT 40).

Suryani Dewa Ayu, 102 Trowbridge Street, stated that she grew up in Cambridge and has rented all her life. She noted that about 2/3 of population of the City are renters. She suggested looking at race, class, gender and age. This overlay is an opportunity to be created. She stated that Cambridge can create an emerald necklace with protecting the trees.

Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street, stated that she supports housing that is affordable for all Cambridge residents. The AHOD is a poor plan with good intention. She commented that it is irresponsible to rush this up zoning proposal without adequate preparation. She stated that no other alternatives have been considered and they have been suggested. She stated no research has been done on the financial impact or economic analysis. She stated that there has been no analysis on the impact of the aging infrastructure with this plan and the failing tree canopy will be diminished. She spoke about the notice to residents at the tail end of the process and many homeowners do not understand the AHOD. She asked where the rush was to introduce housing solutions to the housing crisis with the end of Rent Control 25 years ago when over 60% of residents needed help from the City to explore viable housing options such as pathways to home ownership, development of housing cooperatives and shared housing. She stated that the problems today are because the leadership did not do their job. She stated that it looks like developers and the coffers matter more than sound public policy.

Fred Meyer, 83 Hammond Street, stated that displacement is a huge problem in Cambridge. His problem with the AHOD is not the goal but that there are other methods including zoning methods that would work much better. He spoke about the too big house problem and the inability to add doors at the back of a house for an extra unit and asked why not do this via zoning. There are better zoning approaches before adopting AHOD.

Ted Pyne, Linnaean Street, spoke in support of the AHOD. He stated that the worst-case scenario is that so much of affordable housing gets built and the cost of new housing becomes so low that a substantial change in the built form of Cambridge occurs. This implies that hundreds of additional low-income families will be able to live in the City. This would be a fantastic outcome, and this is preferable to the projected effect of a few dozen units per year. This is a small first step to allowing many more people to have access to housing in Cambridge. This proposal should be passed.

Toby Hyde, 11 Wendell Street, stated that what is heard is that one cannot mess with zoning and yet the reality is that most buildings in Cambridge today do not conform with the current zoning code. The City cannot lose sight of this fact. He stated that for decades the City has been down zoned, and the current City today could not be built under the current zoning code that is seen today. He stated that by allowing more small increases in height for 100% affordable housing this is respecting and embracing the City’s building heritage of diverse building stock. He supports the AHOD. He stated that Citywide and byright and appreciates the amendments offered by Mayor McGovern and Councillor Mallon and encourage support for them by the committee. He urged passage so that the AHOD becomes law in September.

Risa Mednick, 20 Maple Avenue, stated that no one disputes that there is an affordable housing crisis. Cambridge shares this with many cities nationally and globally as well. She spoke about the long waiting list at the Cambridge Housing Authority and the inclusionary units. She noted that there is no such thing as perfect public policy. The AHOD is a small means of creating more affordable housing throughout the City and making inroads towards a more inclusive community. This is a small measure that drives the City more incrementally towards equity.

Brad Bellows, 87 Howard Street, stated that economic diversity has always been central to Cambridge’s identity and to keep diversity more needs to be done. On closer inspection of AHOD the limitations, drawbacks and unintended consequences come into sharp belief. He stated that limiting zoning relief to projects that are 100% income segregated it betrays the ideals it seeks to advance. The City would be far better served by building on or expanding the inclusionary mixed income zoning policies that have helped Cambridge to exceed state guidelines for affordable housing while staying true to the City’s values. He stated that mixed income buildings are better to live in than one that is income segregated. He stated that by providing blanket zoning for one particular building type is a breach of trust for all the other citizens and abutters who have been faithfully conforming to the zoning ordinances for decades. He stated that the burden of this petition is falling on one random person and this is not fair. Form based zoning seems to be a license to violate the scale of neighborhoods and this is breaking down the continuity of neighborhoods. This has not been addressed in the diagrams thus far. More choices should have been provided on how to solve this problem. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT 41).

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 9:27pm.

Mayor McGovern moved to recess this hearing and to reconvene the Ordinance Committee hearing next week and discuss the amendments. The committee agreed to reconvene on Thurs, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:00pm.

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

The hearing recessed at 9:39pm until Aug 8, 2019 at 2pm.

Committee Report #6
[RECONVENED ORDINANCE COMMITTEE HEARING OF AUG 8, 2019]

Councillor Carlone called the reconvened hearing to order on Aug 8, 2019 at 2:07pm.

Present were: Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor McGovern; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department Iram Farooq; Director of Zoning and Planning Jeff Roberts; Housing Director Chris Cotter; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; Chief of Staff to the Mayor Will Durbin; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk’s Office.

Also present were Young Kim, 17 Norris Street; Deborah Gevalt, 55 Reservoir Street; Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place; Tina Alu, 113½ Pleasant Street; Derek Kopon, 8 Wright Street; John Kuehnle, 4 Hurlbut Street; Will MacArthur, 18 Shea Road; James Zall, 203 Pemberton Street; Aboma Dirbaka; Margaret Drury, 1 Dudley Court; Claudia Majetich, 329 Concord Avenue; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Suzanne Blier; Fred Meyer, 83 Hammond Street; Dominick Jones, 6 Hurlbut Street; Rosalind Michahelles, 6 Hurlbut Street; Robert Winters, 366 Broadway; Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Tom and Sue Owen; Robin Bonner; Douglass Payne, 24 Sherman Street; and Lauren Curry, 3 Concord Avenue.

Councillor Carlone reconvened the Ordinance Committee hearing on Aug 8, 2019 at 2:07pm that was recessed hearing on Aug 1, 2019 to discuss submitted amendments submitted by various City Councillors. The goal is to go through each amendment to see if there is agreement. If there is no agreement the committee will pass on the particular amendment and proceed to other amendments and come back to the amendments that there was no agreement on for further discussion. He stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded.

Councillor Carlone proceeded to the latest compilation of amendments (ATTACHMENT 42). He stated that at the end of the hearing the City Council will state their position and what is important to them. There will be another hearing before the Ordinance Committee on Sept 3. He stated that he distributed a document about the Cambridge Housing Overlay from an Urban Design Approach (ATTACHMENT 43). The committee proceeded to the amendments.

DEFINITIONS

Councillor Carlone stated that he was proposing to strike the word “limited” in the definition Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) because the height was increased by as much as 56% in the Business A zone. This is a minor change.

Vice Mayor Devereux commented height should be limited and the height ratios should be changed rather than changing the language to match height provisions that were not necessarily satisfied. She noted that later in the ordinance there are suggested changes in the purpose. She stated that she felt that the height increases should be limited, and that language should reflect the goal. Councillor Carlone noted that he is proposing taking ten feet off the BA district.

Councillor Carlone moved that Amendment #1 be placed on HOLD.

Councillor Zondervan’s amendment was in the definition of Affordable Housing Overlay AHOD Eligible Household. This was intended to protect existing tenants in any building that was rebuilt or refurbished under the AHO so that they would remain eligible to live in the new building. The intent was that they not pay a lower rent necessarily but that no one will be displaced due to the construction of affordable housing. This provides the tenant an option to continue living in the unit after the building has been refurbished.

Councillor Carlone asked about income being in the range of the overlay. Councillor Zondervan responded that regardless of income there should be no increase in rent, and this would allow the tenant to continue living in the building.

Councillor Simmons asked if what Councillor Zondervan is proposing is that the 2 former market rate tenants remain at market rate and the other additional units would be affordable housing.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she would support this so that there would not be any displacement. She stated that these tenants could be referred to as tenants in naturally occurring affordable housing units that are paying modest rents and these tenants should not be displaced.

Councillor Zondervan noted that whatever rent is paid would go to support affordable housing by the developer.

Councillor Carlone stated that if tenants leave these units would these units go to affordable housing tenants and in this case the units would be redesigned.

Mr. Cotter stated that this has not been done in this way. He stated that affordable housing developers have transitioned units to affordable overtime and/or look at relocation options for household that would be unable to come back to the unit. He stated that in addition to the zoning requirements in place there may be other requirements including hard income limits from other funding sources. He spoke about looking into zoning flexibility but if a building was financed with low-income housing tax credit there is little flexibility in having households that are ineligible based on income limits living in the units when the project is first established. This most likely would mean reduction in other sources used to create the housing. Mr. Cotter noted that this adds a complexity and would work on the intent to work with households that would be in a building, but requiring tenants to remain long term could be detrimental to the developer’s ability to get additional resources that may be needed to convert the building to affordable housing. He stated that there are many instances where buildings transition to affordable housing and they help tenants identify their options. If households are under the income limit for funding, there is no issue. Higher income households that have more options in the market.

Councillor Zondervan stated this is in the definitions and is creating an exemption in the income limits and specifies that if the household does not meet the income limits but were previously living in the building, they would be eligible to continue to live in the building. He stated that this is the eligibility piece. Mr. Cotter explained that when speaking about income, this includes households in the middle-income range up to 100% median income and any household under the median income would be eligible based on their income and this exception would only be for households that would have incomes higher than the median income.

Amendment #2 was amended to insert the omitted language of “rebuilt or” after the word “is”.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about cost burden to live in Cambridge. She spoke about site selections and maybe this is a building with a lot of existing tenants of modest income but may not be eligible under this definition that is a site that should not be selected. She stated that this discussion could bew moot because a developer would not displace ten middle-income tenants in order to do this. These should be vacant or underutilized sites to house more people rather than moving tenants around. Councillor Zondervan suggested considering alternative proposals.

Councillor Carlone requested that City staff work on the intent of this. Amendment #2 was placed on HOLD.

Net Zero Ready Building amendment by Councillor Zondervan. Councillor Zondervan said the goal of the amendment is to ensure that as additional affordable housing is added this does not counteract another goal to reduce climate change causing emissions. He stated that the City has the technology to build highly efficient buildings that do not consume onsite fossil fuels and maximize energy production on site. He noted that the affordable housing developers have testified that they are capable of this. This amendment provides a definition for a net zero ready building. There are further amendments later in the document that would require all buildings built under the overlay to be net zero ready per this definition. He added that if there is a cost increase associated with this then the language anticipates that the Affordable Housing Trust would pay for the difference to ensure that the City is not getting fewer affordable housing unit and that the City meet both goals to maximize affordable housing production and reducing emissions.

Councillor Carlone asked if there are additional grants available for such improvements would the state consider the total price of the units or does it revert to the total price of the units being affected. Mr. Cotter said these costs are likely part of the development and a challenge for the funding sources. He stated that the City would want builders to continue to do this.

Mayor McGovern said he appreciated the amendments. His concerns with some of the amendments is that the goal of the ordinance is to make it more financially viable for affordable housing developers to purchase land to build affordable housing. If an affordable housing developer has to go back to Affordable Housing Trust for additional funding this prevents units from being built. He stated that the Affordable Housing Trust should not be the funding mechanism for this. He added that affordable housing developers have done a good job making buildings efficient. These amendments are not required for other housing developers or for-profit developers and now the affordable housing developers are being required to do this. He questioned the legality of this. The affordable housing developers do not have deep pockets, and this may be a financial burden which undermines the ultimate goal of this. He stated that there are other ways to accomplish this and that the Affordable Housing Trust should not be the funding mechanism for this.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she agreed with Mayor McGovern. This is a finite resource which is the most important part of this. All have pushed for more funding allocations but there is a restriction. A principle funder cannot do everything, but this would make it harder for anything to be built. Councillor Mallon stated that placing a different financial burden on affordable housing developers than on commercial development builders is not a good thing. She spoke about the affordable housing developers going above and beyond what is asked of them. These buildings are kept in the affordable housing developer's portfolio forever. Commercial development or market rate developers sell the developments and have no commitment that these buildings are energy efficient and that the affordable housing developers create efficient buildings because they have a vested interest in the building.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the definition can be agreed upon without agreeing about the funding which does not need to come from the Affordable Housing Trust. She noted that funding is finite, but it is a choice. She agreed that affordable housing developers have built to a greater level of efficiency because it helps their bottom line. She stated that regarding the legality between affordable housing and market rate this is a different use and a different set of zoning. Then the legal underpinning of the ordinance is in question.

Councillor Carlone said net zero ready means that the building is wired for solar and that can be a separate contract with a non-profit vendor. Councillor Zondervan stated that the definition of net zero talks about the operation of the build which is the energy that the building is consuming should not produce emissions. He stated that net zero ready is a design provision of how the building is built so that it is easy to make the operations net zero. He stated that he will be proposing that all new construction in Cambridge be net zero ready. He stated that the cost of solar panels would not have to be included in the cost of the project.

Mayor McGovern did not want to move forward with this at this time.

Councillor Carlone asked for the City’s staff response.

Amendment #3 was placed on HOLD.

Councillor Carlone spoke about adding a definition for permeable parking. No definition has been provided yet. He stated that since permeability will be an issue with the existing overlay it makes sense to add a definition.

Amendment #4 was placed on HOLD.

PURPOSE AND INTENT

Councillor Carlone stated that the Ordinance Committee’s goal is to evaluate the petition and to edit the petition. He stated that the Affordable Housing Trust is responsible because they grant the funds for the City to the affordable housing developers. This is to clarify who is responsible.

Councillor Carlone spoke about his amendments. The amendments were:

To add after the word “objectives” the words “Article 19.30”;

To add after the words “consultation procedures” the words “and the results of the design review process shall inform funding decisions by the principal public funder, the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust”; and

To add after the word “housing” the words “and related support services”.

Councillor Mallon moved to amend by striking out the words from Councillor Carlone’s amendment “principal public funder.” Mayor McGovern suggested keeping in the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust.

Councillor Simmons wanted to delete “Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust.” No action was taken on this.

Vice Mayor Devereux suggested using the word “municipal” to clarify that this is municipal funding and not all public funding. She spoke about the potential involvement of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. She suggested the wording “municipal public funder.” No action was taken on this. Councillor Carlone explained that the only entity with review powers now is the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust as the overlay is laid out.

Councillor Carlone moved the amendment offered by Councillor Mallon to delete the words “principal public funder”. The amendment carried on a voice vote of nine members.

Councillor Carlone now moved his amendments to insertion of the words “Article 19.30” and the words “and the results of the design review process hall inform funding decisions by the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust” and adding the words “and related support services”. The amendments carried on a voice vote of nine members.

Amendment #5 was adopted as amended on an affirmative vote of nine members.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that her amendment, Amendment #5A, was to add the word “incremental” after the word “allow”;

To add the words “to follow all design guidelines set forth within this Ordinance” after the word “procedures”; and

To add the words “as appropriate to the neighborhood context” after the word “City”.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that incremental is to discuss the increases in density.

She stated that underscore the importance of the design guidelines she spoke of her amendments.

McGovern questioned who defines incremental and neighborhood context. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this will be decided in other parts of this zoning such as FAR. She agreed there are subjective things in zoning. She stated that incremental zoning is a term that is used a lot with planners, and this is in keeping with the next level of growth. Neighborhoods are not looking for extreme changes.

Councillor Mallon stated that she was fine with incremental and likes following design guidelines and outlining this in the statement of purpose. She noted that there is overkill with the neighborhood context and is covered under the design guidelines. Councillor Carlone noted that the design guidelines are not in this ordinance. Vice Mayor Devereux commented that she was referring to Councillor Carlone’s new section entitled “Design Guidelines Consultation Objectives.”

Councillor Kelley commented that the focus is on the Guidelines and they are not enforceable.

Councillor Carlone stated that his is design objectives that are enforceable and are in the zoning.

Mayor McGovern questioned if Councillor Mallon was offering an amendment to strike out “as appropriate to the neighborhood context”. Councillor Mallon responded that this would be her preference.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved to amend her amendment by striking out the word “guidelines” and inserting in place thereof the word “objectives”. The amendment carried on a voice vote of nine members.

Councillor Mallon moved to strike out the words “as appropriate to the neighborhood context” from the amendment offered by Vice Mayor Devereux. The question now came on the amendment and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 5
NAYS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Zondervan - 4
ABSENT: None - 0
and the amendment - Carried.

Ms. Farooq stated that design objectives will be challenging to enforce in an as of right provision. She stated that the recommendation would be to move this to design guidelines because these are subjective items. She stated that in an as of right regime all the elements that a development or project has to meet before it can be approved have to be things that the Inspectional Services Department would be able to say yes or no on. Most of these have a level of subjectivity that will only work in a discretionary regime.

Councillor Carlone stated that there is no design overview that is binding. He added that if there was this would not be an issue.

The question now came on the amendment to add incremental and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui and Councillor Zondervan - 6
NAYS: Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 3
ABSENT: None - 0
and the amendment - Carried.

Amendment #5A was approved as amended by the affirmative vote of nine members.

APPLICABILITY

Councillor Kelley moved to amend by adding a new (c) which reads as follows:

“The Affordable Housing Overlay shall only be used to create a Certificate of Occupancy for up to 40 units a year”.

Mayor McGovern stated that on Concord Avenue HRI built 94 units and if this were capped at 40 units at the overlay. Councillor Kelley stated that the CDD has stated this. There is a fear that there will be a large input of funding that has not been recognized. This is being thought of as a limited Housing Trust financial system. There may be other places for funding for where development may occur when the development changes.

Mr. Cotter stated that the 40 units that have been referred to is the incremental units in the number of annual units that the City is hoping to create with the Affordable Housing Trust funding. He stated that with the funding that the trust is receiving this fiscal year the hope is to use this funding to create 100 units. This is 40 more units than would have been created with the funding based on the last few years. He further stated that with the additional funds in the budget the goal has been raised where there will be 100 units created if there are sites that work and feasible development with the affordable housing provider. The goal is to create 100 units through the overlay and other methods.

Councillor Carlone stated that this mechanism is needed to get the first 60 units and will be increasing over time. Mr. Cotter stated that the overlay is needed to maintain the current level of production and to expand with the additional funding.

Mayor McGovern commented that he never thought Cambridge would limit the amount of affordable housing. He will not support putting a cap on affordable housing.

Councillor Simmons stated that the 40 units came out as a number in general. This is not for one particular area of the community and there is a concern that a particular area may be overdeveloped. The 40 units is capping the entire City. This is for citywide affordable housing built throughout the City. This number is being held on to.

Councillor Mallon concerned with the cap in zoning because year to year things are different. A cap should not be put in zoning. She added that this is not the way to address the concerns.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he has many concerns about the AHOD but too much affordable housing being built is not one of them. The overall goal is to create 1,000 units over the next decade. He did not support a cap.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the last amendment that suggests a sunset provision on page 28. This is only for the AHO and does not prevent developers from using 40B to build housing. There will be 40 units incremental under this zoning giving additional density and height.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the word “created” is hard to measure. She suggested other wording.

Councillor Kelley changed the word created to provided.

Councillor Kelley moved to amend by adding a new (c) which reads as follows:

“The Affordable Housing Overlay shall only be used to provide Certificates of Occupancy for up to 40 units a year. The question now came on the amendment and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Kelley - 1
NAYS: Councillor Carlone, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan and Mayor McGovern - 7
ABSENT: None - 0
PRESENT: Vice Mayor Devereux - 1
and the amendment - Failed.

STANDARDS FOR ELIGIBILITY, RENT, AND INITIAL SALE PRICE FOR AHO DWELLING UNITS

Councillor Zondervan’s outlined his amendments. The first amendment adds to the eligibility requirements. It is in 3(b) (i) to add after the word “residents” the words “and recent Cambridge residents who experienced a no-fault eviction in the last 12 months,”.

Mr. Cotter spoke about the word “recent” which could be interrupted to mean residents who were Cambridge residents in the last twelve months. This is how recent would be defined in this case. Councillor Zondervan suggested striking out the word “recent” and inserting in place thereof the word “former”. He commented that the point is that the individual has to be a Cambridge resident before being evicted.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved to amend this section (3 (b) (i)) by striking out the word “recent” and insert in place thereof the word “former”.

The amendment carried on a voice vote of eight members. Councillor Simmons was recorded as “present”.

Vice Mayor Devereux further amended this section (3 (b) (i)) by adding after the word “eviction” and inserting in place the words “in Cambridge”.

The amendment carried on a voice vote of eight members. Councillor Simmons recorded as “present”.

Councillor Simmons spoke about changing the criteria in the inclusionary and whether these conflicts. She likes the intent of this. She stated that if the criterion is changed for the inclusionary program and then spreading this to the overlay as opposed to the overlay driving this.

Councillor Carlone commented that this is pending now and inclusionary is being worked on. He stated that the AHOD could be updated or this could be left out. Councillor Simmons wanted this left out because it is not consistent with what the City is trying to do. She added that there should be consistencies in the Housing Policy for the City.

Councillor Siddiqui announced that at the inclusionary hearing it was determined that this needs more work. Inclusionary preferences will not be voted on because there are questions about prioritizing. Councillor Carlone asked should this be included or left out.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this should be included because this is not inclusionary zoning; this is an entirely new set of zoning that only affects housing overlay built projects. She noted that this is not bound by inclusionary and that the Cambridge Housing Authority has different priorities with inclusionary and the affordable housing developers may also have a different process.

Councillor Zondervan stated that regarding alignment in the language that in this case this can vote to capture the intent and staff can propose alternative language.

Councillor Toomey stated that he supported the intent and will vote on this to keep this in and to keep the discussion alive.

Councillor Mallon point of information - who has overall authority for a no-fault eviction in the City. Mr. Cotter this would be criteria that would have to be provided of evidence of no-fault eviction. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is established within the court proceeding and would be readily apparent in the court documents.

Councillor Mallon spoke about no-fault evictions that do not go through the court. She stated that she is fine with putting this in here.

Mr. Cotter stated that the housing division would determine a court eviction giving the owner right to possession of that unit through no-fault of the tenant. This is a precise legal status that differs from what Councillor Mallon has described. There are a limited number of tenants that would be evicted through no fault compared to the number of tenants who may be risk after a building is sold. He explained that there is no way to objectively quantify this.

Councillor Zondervan stated that no-fault evictions could be verified by staff.

Councillor Simmons understands the intent and will vote present; this needs more work and City Council does not have enough information.

The question now came on 3 (b) (i) as amended. The motion carried on a voice vote of eight members. Councillor Simmons was recorded as “present”.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about his next amendment to add a next section in 3 (b) as (iii). He stated that any project over ten units there would be a 20% set aside of the units for owner occupancy to give more people an opportunity to participate in home ownership as part of the AHOD.

Mr. Cotter commented that he appreciates the intention but that this requirement would make it more difficult to create more affordable housing units for affordable housing developers. Councillor Carlone asked if homeownership projects tend to be a project unto themselves. Mr. Cotter responded that the City would view homeownership projects as separate projects to themselves and are currently looking at ideas and opportunity brought forth by the affordable housing providers. He stated that through the overlay if the City is able to do small infill development projects in different parts of the City there may be some small homeownership projects come through. But looking at this requirement that homeownership has be to part of a larger rental it would difficult from a feasibility standpoint to do this.

Councillor Carlone noted that 10% of the units are homeownership. Mr. Cotter stated that in the overall homeownership stock there are 500 limited-equity homeownerships units in the City out of 8,000.

Councillor Zondervan asked is it better to have a requirement that projects less than ten units to be homeownership. He stated that the goal is to create as many opportunities as possible. Mr. Cotter explained that in the market smaller developments are seen, but cycles and priorities change over time. He noted that ten years ago there was more funding to create homeownership. He stated that the issue is flexibility and the idea when looking at opportunities with the providers homeownership is also being looked at as a prime goal when discussing with the Affordable Housing Trust and trying to balance the need. He explained that there is more demand for rental units than homeownership. The requirement like this in zoning would limit flexibility and could impact the ability to see certain development in certain areas go forward.

Councillor Zondervan stated could there be an overall goal of 1,000 units of which 200 units be homeownership. Mr. Cotter stated it is better for this to be expressed in a goal.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she supports the goal of homeownership. She wanted to increase funding to the Home Bridge program. Households between 100-120% AMI are not eligible for Home Bridge. She stated that this is her suggestion in lieu of this amendment.

Councillor Simmons stated that this is not financially feasible; the City does rental well but not homeownership. She did not want to put this here. She noted that Community Development does a great job seeking and finding ways for home opportunities. She would not vote for this.

Councillor Mallon stated she supported more homeownership opportunity; increasing funding for Home Bridge is better. She stated that she will not vote for this.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked where Home Bridge come from. Mr. Cotter responded it comes from the Affordable Housing Trust. Vice Mayor Devereux suggested setting a goal for the Affordable Housing Trust to fund more homeownership; if this is the policy direction of the City Council.

Councillor Zondervan requested unanimous consent to withdraw his proposed amendment to paragraph (b) (iii). The amendment was withdrawn with unanimous consent.

Councillor Zondervan read his proposed amendment to (b) (iv): In any project that replaces or renovates an existing building, all the tenants/owners living in the building shall be given the option to rent/purchase a comparable AHO Dwelling Unit in the new/renovated building, at an affordable rate, regardless of income.

Mayor McGovern stated that he wanted clarification relating to income.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the intent is that if 30% of income is affordable this criterion would still be applied.

Mayor McGovern spoke about federal and state regulations for tenant relocation when a building is renovated. Mr. Cotter explained that there are uniform relocation acts that apply. He stated that when affordable housing developers look to convert a building to affordable housing, they have complied with the relocation regulations. There may be a need to permanently relocate a tenant that may not be eligible for housing because of income. He spoke about the possible impact to other funding sources. Ms. Farooq stated that this may be creating an internal inconsistency with the entire purpose of this proposal. In order to be able to access the provisions of greater density, bigger buildings and taller heights, the City wants affordable housing covenants to be accepted on each of the units. She stated that if there are individuals who are making above the median income this may be creating a loophole for creating buildings that have a component of market rate in addition to the affordable units; this may be a mixed-use building and may not achieve the goal or the purpose that framed this ordinance.

Mr. Roberts expressed concerns with a relaxation on the zoning standards, but this is conditioned on this notion that all the units are subject to permanent affordability which has an effect in terms of the economics of a project. By suggesting market rates under the AHOD creates uncertainty about how someone may try to take advantage of this.

City Solicitor Glowa commented that this could create a significant legal issue. There is an inconsistency with using public support by giving the relaxation of the requirements in order to provide for 100% affordability would be diluted by having it be 100% affordable. She stated that she would have to carefully review this based on the previous legal opinion provide and whether this would be legally permissible.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the intent of this amendment. If an individual is paying a modest rent and is forced out what can the City do for these individuals.

Councillor Zondervan suggested a provision that the developer under AHOD would always follow the uniform relocation act, regardless of the funding source. Vice Mayor Devereux asked does the uniform relocation act apply to income eligibility for the tenant for affordable housing. Mr. Cotter stated that he will bring back information about the uniform relocation act for the next hearing.

Councillor Zondervan suggested a definition could be added to explore ways to prevent displacement of existing tenants and have staff look at this.

Mayor McGovern stated that this is about financial viability for projects. He stated that the AHOD will not solve the homeownership, tree canopy and the achievement gap issues; these conversations need to continue. This is about building more affordable housing and the more this is made difficult the more this is being undermined. He stated that protecting tenants does not have to be in the overlay ordinance.

Councillor Siddiqui noted that the report on tenant displacement will be out in September.

Councillor Carlone suggested removing this.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the City always needs to keep in mind all the goals and have holistic solutions. This is to ensure that this zoning will not make current problems worse.

Councillor Zondervan moved to strike (iv) and insert a statement that the City explore ways to prevent displacement.

Councillor Mallon suggested getting information on the uniform relocation act for the Sept 3rd hearing and get more information and if it is something that the City Council wants to move forward that it be put into the zoning.

Councillor Simmons suggested withdrawing the amendment and do more work.

At this time Councillor Zondervan requested unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment to paragraph (b) (iv). The amendment was withdrawn with unanimous consent.

Councillor Zondervan moved to get information from the City Solicitor and Community Development Department on how best to prevent displacement under the AHOD. Mayor McGovern wanted information on displacement of tenants across the board.

Councillor Zondervan made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor and the Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department to provide the City Council with information on how best to prevent displacement of tenants under the AHOD; and be it further
ORDERED: That said information is provided for displacement for all tenants across the board.
The motion carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Simmons stated that this is not housing policy; this is about AHOD - this amendment is not germane.

USE

Councillor Carlone stated that his amendment to 4 (b) be put on HOLD (Amendment #7).

Councillor Mallon requested that the committee look at the proposed amendment submitted by Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern on page 20 regarding ground floor active uses. Councillor Carlone stated that his amendment removed the word “that” and made this specific to the rest of the overlay text states. Councillor Mallon expressed concern with the wording “shall provide services to the general public.

Amendment #32 on page 20 was put on HOLD.

Councillor Zondervan proceeded to explain his amendment (Amendment #8) to 4 (a). He stated that this adds the minimum lot area per dwelling unit restrictions in Table 5-1 shall not apply. He stated that his concern was if the AHOD is going to permit multi-family dwellings as of right then the minimum lot area per dwelling unit restriction that is in the zoning would counteract this and for this to work the restriction needs to be removed.

Mr. Roberts stated that the way that the zoning is currently written in 5.1 (c) specifies that the project would not be subject to lot area per dwelling unit standards. This is a development standard and they are contained in section 5. Councillor Carlone stated that this is covered later and is not needed here. Mr. Roberts stated that the insertion is consistent with the intent of the petition as written and the language is currently in 5.1 (c) on page six.

Councillor Zondervan requested unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment 4 (a). The amendment was withdrawn with unanimous consent.

Councillor Zondervan proceeded to the amendment in 4 (b). He stated that the current language states that the AHO project may contain active non-residential uses on the ground floor as admitted in the base zoning district and the intent of this amendment was for this to be permitted anywhere and if affordable housing is being built and there is an opportunity that provides services to the residents in this building this should be allowed and not limit this to only what is currently allowed in the zoning.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if this is saying that one could be on a side street in Residential B area and suddenly next door to a day care. She stated that these uses are in areas typically zoned for day cares. She stated that the table of uses needs to be updated. She stated that she is concerned to say that something could be allowed as of right with the base zoning does not allow it even though the Table of Uses needs updated and certain uses are not mentioned in it. She did not want to introduce another level of uncertainty.

Mr. Roberts stated that the intent is to provide provisions for affordable housing development not to introduce new non-residential uses that are otherwise allowed under zoning. He spoke about the complicated system of determining what is and is not allowed in some district. This provision was tied to what is allowed in the base zoning district and if the City Council wanted more non-residential uses allowed this could be looked at as part of the base zoning regulations.

Councillor Kelley agreed that this adds another level of uncertainty and does not promote goal of providing more affordable housing units. He commented that at some point the entire Table of Uses will be reviewed. He stated that this is where this discussion should go. He would not support this amendment.

Councillor Toomey moved the amendment offered by Councillor Zondervan to strike in Section 4 Use paragraph (b) the words “as they may be permitted” and “in the base zoning district or the overlay district(s) that are applicable to a lot”. The question now came on the amendment and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Zondervan - 1
NAYS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 8
ABSENT: None - 0
And the amendment - Failed.

Councillor Zondervan addressed his amendment to add in the Use section 4 (b) a new (i) on page 6. He stated that the intent of this provision is to protect existing retail. If there is a project there could be single store retail on the main corridors these are excellent opportunities for putting affordable housing on top but did not want to lose the small local business. This provision is to protect the retail and creates an opportunity for the building to be renovated or rebuilt with affordable housing on top while protecting the retailer. He noted that if there are provisions that protect the retail and it creates more opportunities, they may be agreeable to sell and continue with the opportunity to rent space at an affordable rate.

Councillor Carlone spoke about adding on top of one-story building there is no way that the retail could be in operation during construction and if a person owns this there may be a condition to sell the air rights and any rights necessary to be at the ground floor. This would be for someone who does not own and is a small local retail.

Mayor McGovern appreciates the intent, but it is problematic. He does not want to ask affordable housing developers to relocate a private business at the cost of 2-4 units of housing. This is cost prohibitive and this would also apply to chain establishments. He stated that this would be a deal breaker to get anything built. He stated that he would not support this amendment.

Vice Mayor Devereux would not support doing this for chain establishments. She stated that this goes to site selection and will not kill affordable housing. There are many vacant retail sites throughout the City. From a guiding principle the City wants developments to occur where they are compatible with other goals such as maintaining neighborhood business districts and viable local retail operations. She suggested putting something in the ordinance that is a deterrent to picking these sites first.

Mayor McGovern commented that some want to deter affordable housing developments from being built. He added that he does not want to deter site selection. The point of this is to open more possibilities and if there is ground floor retail there are provisions that would allow for retail to go back. His concern was the cost of this. He stated that he is not looking to limit choices but to expand choices.

Councillor Simmons stated that this conversation assumes that the community-based organizations have not done this before. She stated that this is done all the time. She spoke of buildings built by the community-based housing developers who have gone to great lengths to work to keep ground floor retail use or encourage one to come. She stated that this is being overthought. She will not be voting for this amendment because community-based housing developers already do this. This should be removed.

Councillor Kelley stated that there is not a final goal and there are funds in free cash and could increase the tax levy capacity, but the City is choosing neither be used to their capacity while trying to achieve some unstated new miracle goal through a zoning event. He noted that there are three ways that affordable housing can be created: provide land, provide density and provide money. The City is choosing to provide density. He will support this. We are trying to do this on the cheap as tax dollars go and ultimately this will be a failure.

Councillor Carlone agreed. He spoke about condominiumizing the site so that the ground floor nonresidential can be separate. All the City’s resources are not used by the City. He spoke about implementation beyond zoning. He is concerned about small local retail and there is a way to incorporate this without taking away from the affordable housing responsibilities.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about this zoning is being written for all and it is unknown who will be using the zoning.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the project was cost prohibitive to begin with and are not trying to solve all the problems with this zoning but are trying to solve the affordable housing problem without affecting other aspects of the City. He stated that the City does not want to get more affordable housing while driving out of the City small local retail. This is a protection for local businesses already located on a site; it is not preconditioned for every site because not every site will have an existing local retail. He stated that it is important to keep the local services. He stated that there needs to be a way to add affordable housing while protecting local retail while affordable housing is being built.

Councillor Carlone suggested put (i) on hold and get more information. Councillor Carlone spoke about buildings integrating into the neighborhood in a positive way.

Mayor McGovern spoke about for-profit developers are more stable than the non-profit developers and he will not support this if this is for retail other than small local businesses. He further stated that he will not support this if the funding has to come from the non-profit housing developers. If more is added to the affordable housing it will increase the cost and will prevent building affordable housing. He will not do this for Bank of America.

Amendment 4 (b) (i) was placed on HOLD.

Councillor Kelley moved to amend 5.1 General Provisions by adding a new (d). He stated that combination of parcels being built together could result in a much bigger development. He wanted to prohibit combining parcels together and using the AHO to be built on them. Ms. Farooq stated that at Frost Terrace there would have been a suboptimal outcome if only looking at the one parcel. She stated that the consolidation of three small parcels was able to yield a better site plan and was more responsive to the concerns of the neighborhood. She noted that there are instances where this flexibility is helpful. She spoke about the consolidation concern. This could go both ways.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the concerns as being accumulated sites; setbacks are not respected between the sites because it is now one site that becomes a bigger site and becomes as of right. Councillor Kelley if the zoning allows bundling of parcels and here is not limit to the amount of affordable housing units to be built and should not say that this cannot happen. He stated that Harvard University used straw-buyers to hide purchases of small property. He would prefer that this is not allowed in the zoning. Councillor Zondervan does not understand. A combination of parcels can happen now and does not understand why the zoning makes this worse. Councillor Kelley stated he does not understand what can happen in the future and if this is make more financially attractive to put parcels together and build larger developments under the AHO this is where the market will go, and the City should be aware of this.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the grain of development is kept by a site by site basis and no a combined site.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that with the Frost Terrace project she agreed that it benefit the project with the acquisition of the two parcels and they are part of Frost Terrace. She stated that in trying to prevent monolithic, large buildings dropped into the middle of a context there is a rational that if one starts with two parcels and if combined and build an affordable housing project on it the parcels should look like two separate buildings.

Councillor Kelley stated that parcels can be combined, and then are eligible for affordable housing overlay density subject to a Special Permit, but the whole point of this was to move this out of the Special Permit realm.

Councillor Zondervan stated that his concerns to prevent large type of building being build this can happen now on a site that is that large. The zoning, no matter the size of the parcel, should produce the outcome wanted. He stated that he did not want to restrict parcel combinations because this does not address other situations where the parcel is big enough.

Mayor McGovern stated that a professional developer could buy parcels next to one another and build luxury housing but does not apply to the AHOD. This does not seem right this is only being applied to affordable housing developers. He will not vote for this. Mayor McGovern called the question.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that for-profit developers are doing this as of right and there are provisions in-zoning that will override this. This is what design objectives are meant to do to prevent an unintended consequence of someone purchasing a bunch of smaller parcels and combining them into one large building that does not have the right balance for the context.

The question now came to close debate and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan and Mayor McGovern – 5
NAYS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Siddiqui - 4
ABSENT: None - 0
And the motion to close debate - Failed.

Councillor Kelley moved to amend by adding in 5.1 General Provisions a new paragraph (d) which reads as follows:

(d) An AHO project may only be built on parcels as they existed at the time of ordination of the AHO.

The question now came on the amendment and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Devereux and Councillor Kelley - 2
NAYS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan and Mayor McGovern - 6
ABSENT: None - 0
PRESENT: Councillor Carlone - 1
And the amendment - Failed.

Councillor Kelley moved to further amend 5.1 to add a new section (d) that reads as follows:

(d) The Cambridge Tree Ordinance shall apply to AHO projects.

Councillor Simmons asked if there was a similar amendment about the Tree Protection Ordinance.

Councillor Zondervan explained that this appears on page 22 in the Environmental Design Standards section 7.6 (c). Councillor Simmons stated that if it is in the draft how is this amendment different.

Councillor Kelley moved to withdraw his amendment. The amendment was withdrawn with unanimous consent.

Councillor Mallon spoke about the amendment #9 submitted by Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern and a similar amendment submitted by Councillor Carlone in 5.2.1 (b). She spoke about the need for some progressive transitional zone in certain neighborhoods. She stated that the BA and BA2 zones and 80 feet in those particular zones that are next to residential neighborhoods is going to be too large a differential and there is needed progressive transitional zoning height. She stated that her amendment suggests 60 feet as a transitional height that would be better integrated into the neighborhood while also giving the affordable housing builders a little more FAR and height density to create the affordable housing that this ordinance is seeking to do. She suggested taking the two amendments, (#9 and #10), together and come to some resolution.

Mayor McGovern suggested striking out 60 feet and inserting 65 feet in amendment #9 because not all stories in residential are exactly ten feet and this provides a little more breathing room. He stated that in amendment #10 offered by Councillor Carlone in (b) this would change to 55 feet and 65 feet.

Councillor Carlone stated that his amendment is different because it is l floor, and this is the reason that the heights in his amendment are less. He added that he lowered a floor on the transition piece. He stated that in existing zoning 50 feet is from the property line one needs to be 35 feet next to a residential zone. He stated that the zoning states 35 feet and not 50 feet in and need to be a lower height. He stated that the proposal as originally written was 55 feet in height and he believes it should be 1 story higher. This worked out to 47 feet which is an odd number in zoning, and this includes ground floor active use, and this should be carried through so that the second floor is the same height all the way through. He stated that these amendments are different. He agreed that the 65 feet is better than the 80 feet next to a 35-foot building. He noted that the transition changes dramatically. He stated that he will vote for his amendment which also has a transition zone and does incorporate extra heights, floor-to-floor for today’s type of construction. He commented that builders build what they are allowed to build and if density is being increased and reducing setbacks transitions should not be lost.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that 60 feet is the cut off for stick build. She asked if people would really make use of an extra 5 feet.

Mr. Roberts stated that the starting point for this was to think about the number of stories in a building that is strived for. He stated that the rule of thumb that has been used is based on what is seen in a typical construction method and accounting for Building Code standards is that given the number of stories in a building there is a tendency to account for 10 feet per story plus an additional 5 feet if the building is all residential because there is often wiggle room between floors. There may be ground floor above grade and if the ground floor is retail instead of adding 5 feet 10 feet is added because generally the ground floor is going to be significantly higher than 10 feet. He stated a typical project seen that is a residential stick build project would be 6 stories at a maximum of 70 feet with retail at the ground floor. In the current Building Code when above 70 feet there are ways that stick build construction can be done above 70 feet but there are Building Code standards category of building and there are additional requirements that can add costs to the project. This is the reason most project top off at 70 feet, but this is not a hard and fast rule. He stated that 70 feet is the typical cut off and this results in 6 story buildings. Councillor Carlone commented that the cost above 70 feet does significantly increase.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about difference between 70 feet and 65 feet building. Mr. Roberts stated that an 80-foot building would mean that a 7-story building could be built within 80 feet but enters a different category under the Building Code that would require additional systems be installed in the building. He stated that because of additional instrumental costs under the current code projects tend not to do this.

Councillor Zondervan questioned the Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern amendment that applies to only BA and BA-2 zones but Councillor Carlone’s amendment applies citywide. Councillor Carlone responded that this is only for zones between 40 and 45 which are some of the same zones. He stated that his amendment this translates to small business districts. Councillor Zondervan stated that it seems safer with Councillor Carlone’s amendment because it is in line with the rest of the ordinance and if there are other changes this would not be affected. He asked if there is a way to combine the amendments.

Councillor Carlone explained that his amendment is 1 story lower. He explained that the members of the Affordable Housing Trust have stated that they are analyzing these changes and may not get the density that they need, but this information is not before the committee.

Councillor Mallon stated that the 65 feet the Affordable Housing Trust came up with this number. She stated that in these two zones include parts of Inman Square and Kirkland Street is a BA zone and to put 80 feet in this area. She asked what district dimensional standards zones are covered by Councillor Carlone’s amendment.

Councillor Carlone stated that if retail is put in it will be 70 feet. He added that in his neighborhood there are three 60-foot tall buildings on Massachusetts Avenue with houses being these buildings and should not go higher than this.

Mayor McGovern stated that this number was suggested by the Affordable Housing Trust. Councillor Carlone stated again that with retail it is 70 feet.

Mr. Roberts stated that projects at 6 stories are under 70 feet and have a taller first floor. He stated that it could be feasible to have a 6-story building in 65 feet may be somewhat more constraining either on the floors throughout the building or at the retail ground floor. He stated that he was categorizing the types of construction methods seen. He explained that the map that was part of the zoning petition labels the zoning district and the heights limits under current zoning. He stated that it would be helpful to clarify because one version of the amendment refers to BA and BA2 and the other amendment refers to all other districts which includes some residential districts and some industrial districts that have a 45 foot height limit and in some cases there is cross-referencing within the base zoning where the commercial district refers back to the residential district. He stated that he wanted to make sure that there is no ambiguity in what the intent is for what districts this is supposed to apply to.

Councillor Carlone explained that his perspective is what fits in and is a story difference in the transition which is 1-2 stories more than what transition now is. This is where there will be push back. He stated that density should fit in in an overall strategy and taking the tallest buildings on Massachusetts Avenue at 60 feet and tend to be older buildings with character. The 65 feet without retail and with retail it is 70 feet in the Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern amendment.

Mayor McGovern moved his amendment to strike 60 feet and insert 65 feet. The amendment carried on a voice vote of nine members.

The question now came on adoption of Amendment #9 as amended and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern – 5
NAYS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Zondervan - 4
ABSENT: None - 0
and Amendment #9 as amended Carried.

Vice Mayor Devereux wanted a revised map before the next meeting showing what was voted on and a drawing of what is being discussed.

The committee now proceeded to act on the amendment #10 offered by Councillor Carlone in section (b) and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Zondervan - 4
NAYS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 5
ABSENT: None - 0
and the amendment – Failed.

Councillor Carlone moved amendment #10 to add to section 5.2.1 (b) a new section (i) which reads as follows:

(i) Portions of building that are within 35 feet of a district whose District Dimensional standards allow a maximum building height of 35 feet or less shall be reduced to a maximum of four Stories Above Grade and a maximum height of 47 feet, as measured from existing Grade, except where the building abuts a non-residential use.

On this amendment the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan and Mayor McGovern - 9
NAYS: None - 0
ABSENT: None - 0
And the amendment – Carried.

Councillor Carlone spoke about his amendment to 5.2.1 in (c), (Amendment #11) and moved to withdraw this amendment. The amendment was withdrawn with unanimous consent.

Councillor Mallon spoke about Amendment #12 to add in 5.2.1 a new section (e) that reads as follows: (e) No dwelling units shall be located below grade.

Councillor Kelley asked if this is dwelling unit or habitable space that is reflected by a Certificate of Occupancy. He stated that the number of units would this keep people from using below grade used for livable space.

Mr. Roberts stated that the City may want to look at the detail and make sure that the language is consistent with the intent. He stated that if the intent is not to have bedrooms and bathrooms and other types of dwelling unit living spaces below grade and that any stories of the building that are not considered stories above grade and stories considered below grade would be restricted. He stated that for living and storage units could be allowed and needs to be clear in the language as to what could be located above and below grade because ultimately these buildings have a basement story and need to be used for something and would not want to be overly restrictive. He added that this needs to be clear if the intent is not to have bedrooms, bathrooms and other things that are thought of as conventionally part of a dwelling unit.

Vice Mayor Devereux supports storage in basements because of the acute need for storage space because there is no closet space in the housing that is being built. She asked if the intent is to prevent more units on a given lot because this could be a unit in the basement and instead of a 4-floor building this could be a 5-floor building. This would be more units and would a bigger multiple lot area per dwelling unit in the existing zoning. She stated that she does not think that basements in general should be used to pump up the amount of housing that any given lot supports. She noted that staff had concerns with allowing accessory dwelling units in basements because of flooding. She stated that she is not against basement space being useable by people living upstairs.

Councillor Mallon explained that dwelling units was put into the language was to specify residential units. She stated that the intent was not to make nothing in the basement but that no one would be living in a basement. She stated that the dwelling unit language is specific.

Councillor Carlone commented that all text will be reviewed by the staff and made into language that is appropriate.

Mayor McGovern stated that the amendments filed are concerns heard from the public. He stated that the point is that he does not want people living below grade.

Councillor Kelley stated Mr. Roberts will clarify the language as needed under the code.

On an affirmative vote of nine members Amendment #12 was adopted.

Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern Amendment #13 in 5.2.2 FAR Limitations in Residential Units in (a). Councillor Mallon spoke about FAR limitations. This amendment is to address concerns heard from residents that are concerned with the FAR that will be built in a residential neighborhood. She stated that this is to figure out what is the FAR residential cap in neighborhoods that would give the affordable housing that is needed while ensuring that it is not the worst-case scenario in terms of FAR. This has a FAR cap of 3.0 and Councillor Carlone has an amendment of 2.5 in existing higher density districts and 4.0 in existing lower density districts in Amendment #14. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that amendments #13 and #14 are two different amendments.

Councillor Zondervan stated that there is a third amendment regarding FAR and density on page 22, Amendment #36, in Section 7.6 Environmental Design Standards by amending (d). He suggested acting on all three amendments at the same time.

Mayor McGovern stated that Amendment #13 is based on trying to address concerns heard in the community about getting a building that too dense than what currently exists. He stated that the 3.0 comes from affordable housing developers; this is a maximum. This is an effort to cap the FAR for what the ultimate limit could be. This was also an amendment from the Cambridge Residence Alliance. This is a way to limit the amount of density but still allow enough density that does not affect the financial feasibility.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that 3.0 in these zones where the maximum height is 40 feet which is Res A1, A-2, B, C, C-1, BA-1, BA-3, Office 1 and IB-2. She stated that in some of these zones the 3.0 FAR would never be reached. This is not a limit. She stated that in Res B the existing FAR is .5. She stated that a 3.0 is out of the ball park. In the 40-foot districts and AHO development would be looking at a FAR of 1.5 or 2.0. She commented that calling 3.0 a limit is not a limit; this is a cap. She stated that rather than trying to come up with a citywide limit we need to be talking about multiples because this is what has the public worried is the high large multiples. She would not be supporting this.

Mayor McGovern stated that the 3.0 is in district that are 40-feet or less; this is not for every district in the City. Councillor Carlone commented that these are all low-density residential zones which Vice Mayor Devereux was highlighting.

Councillor Kelley commented that this does not do anything. This is trying to subsidize affordable housing with density and not tax dollars. He stated that this is the wrong decision.

Councillor Zondervan read his amendment on page 22 stated that this address density. He stated that he put his amendment in the Environmental Standards to allow enough green space, but it is addressing the same concern of massive density increases in low-density residential areas. He stated that the residential zoning table and in Res A it is .5; Res B .5; Res C .6; .75, 1.25; Res C-2 .75 and this is where 3.0 starts being the limit, but in the other residential districts going to double is reasonable and achieves the goal of density bonus and gives predictability to the residents who are concerned about massive increases.

Councillor Carlone stated that that his proposal states that the City needs a table with existing zoning, affordable housing and FAR instead of the generality. He stated that so much specificity is required in up-zoning and the same needs to be done here. He stated that the City heard that double density was needed to make projects work and now we are hearing three times the density is needed. He stated that he does not think you can get three times the density on sites. He asked for and will continue to ask that every zone comparable FAR in both, the AHO FAR and the existing FAR. He noted that a 3.0 maximum is six times the increased density for many single-family houses. He stated that retail and pre-K space should not be count as part of density. He stated that a written statement of the economics is also needed. This is the basis to understand this.

Mayor McGovern suggested that Amendments #13, #14 and #36 (d) be referred to Community Development Department to come back with a recommendation as to how best to address this concern. Councillor Carlone requested specificity for every district.

Councillor Carlone now proceeded to Amendment #15, 5.2.3 Yard Setbacks to amend (b).

He stated that instead of viewing each site individually because setbacks are being reduced you need to look at what is around it. He stated that some residential sites have houses that are 3-feet away from the northern boundary and 25-feet away from the southern boundary to get light into the house. He added that if a house is only 3-feet away on one side and a 7-feet away structure is built this does not make sense. He stated that he broadened this so that on the front yard if your neighbors are a certain distance back this is respected. There will be less side yard and more density. He proposed to strike out the last sentence in paragraph (b). He spoke about corner lots and are unique. He stated that this amendment is respecting the nature of the street.

Councillor Kelley noted that this amendment states that if the average of two buildings on either side is a 7-foot setback then the building can be moved up to 3-feet irrespective of the 10-foot setback requirement.

Mayor McGovern asked the staff if this is economically feasible and does this cause more complications.

Mr. Roberts stated that in those districts where the current version proposes a 10-foot front yard setback, Res A and B districts, this would have the setback being in Res B, 15-feet per the base zoning and Res A2 is 20-feet; Res A-1 is 25-feet or could be brought to a line with the average of the two buildings on either side. In the Res A and B districts, based on the existing conditions, would have a more restrictive setback that what is in the current proposal.

Mr. Cotter spoke about the feasibility and to the extent it is restrictive it could have an impact on the number of opportunities a provider could find a feasible development to the extent that there would be less building area.

Mayor McGovern asked for a setback cap that could make it less restrictive.

Councillor Carlone stated that the idea is to mesh in as much as possible so that this will not end up in court. He stated that large lots have space in the backyard and would rather see development in the backyard rather than in the front of an existing house.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is a form-based approach with the public realm forms being compatible even if the density is not compatible with the public realm and this is certainly the front yard. She pointed out that corner lots have 2 front yards. Councillor Carlone stated that he views corner lots differently because they are usually apartment buildings. Vice Mayor Devereux agreed that this is a prudent way of balancing interests.

Councillor Mallon stated that her concern is that this is a narrow approach to the 2 on either side of the parcel. Councillor Carlone stated that this was meant to be 2 on each side. Councillor Mallon stated that in terms of a street-by-street and the neighborhood asked if CDD could address this. Councillor Carlone stated that the more varied the street the easier to fit in something new. The more consistent the street is the harder it is, so what are the rules worked with.

Mr. Roberts stated that the caution exercised is that the more complicated the equation gets and the more the variability when trying to calculate the setback requirement the more the chance there is of unexpected results. There may be a street where everything is uniform at 10-foot, but one lot is at the zero-lot line and the project being done rather than it being aligned it may need to be pushed back a foot or two that does not seem to make sense. If the project is based on what is immediately around it, it does create a better and more predictable outcome. He stated that the approach of being clear and specific and for all to know what is being counted is a good approach.

Mayor McGovern stated that he would support this but may have following up question later. Councillor Carlone read 5.2.3 (b) with the additional language and on a voice vote of seven the amendment – Carried.

Councillor Toomey was recorded in the negative.

Councillor Simmons was recorded as present.

Councillor Carlone moved to strike out the last sentence in Amendment #15.

Mr. Roberts stated that the sentence is obviated by what was just adopted.

The amendment to strike out the last sentence carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillors Toomey and Simmons were recorded in the negative.

Councillor Carlone moved to amendment #16 by amending (c) in the Yard Setbacks. He stated that where he lived there was a window 4 feet from the property line, so the adjacent building needs to be considered. He stated that this should add up to a minimum of 20 feet. This is about a newer, bigger building 3-6 times bigger than the building is existing and at least one story taller and how close do we want this to be.

Councillor Simmons asked if this would be taken up in Design Guidelines. Councillor Carlone stated that this is a setback and is taken up under this area. He added that this is about setback and is not a guideline.

Councillor Kelley stated that this highlights the challenges. He stated that the City wants people to come in and bid as of right and need to be clear that the design guidelines are not enforceable and what will work without enforceable guidelines. He noted that the Planning Board review is gone and are struggling with what sort of requirements can be added that would suffice for the Planning Board review while removing a discretionary and appealable decision. He supported this amendment.

Mayor McGovern expressed concerns with limiting the sides, dropping density and height. He stated that he comes back to the financial feasibility aspect.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that it is acceptable to be prescriptive here. She spoke about the implementation and what is in place that is too restrictive. She supports this but wanted staff to review the language to figure out if there is leeway.

Councillor Carlone stated that in larger sites with residential houses on them this is not an issue. This is about the rear house on the north edge having a large setback on the other side. He added that meeting the combined 20 feet in most cases will not be a problem but where this is a problem it is a severe problem.

Mayor McGovern asked about a non-conforming building built up to the line and now needs to be 20 feet back a new building could significantly reduce the size of the building. He asked is there another way to address this. Councillor Carlone stated that business districts do not have a side yard setback. This is not an issue for business districts. This only applies to occupied residential units with windows looking out. He stated that Article 19 specifically speaks about privacy and locating windows that does not look into adjacent housing. This is to avoid this issue because nothing will raise the anger of a neighbor if this is not addressed.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this amendment is stating that there should be a minimum of 20 feet between buildings. She supports this amendment.

The question now came on amendment #16 and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Zondervan - 4
NAYS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 5
ABSENT: None - 0
and Amendment #16 – Failed.

Councillor Carlone now moved to Amendment #17 to amend (d) by adding after the words “20 feet” the words “but the sum of the new project setback and the existing adjacent residential property setback shall add up to a minimum of 40 feet.” He stated that this is protecting privacy in an area, given the increased size and shadow, this is the only green area of any substance.

Councillor Carlone moved Amendment #17 and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Zondervan - 4
NAYS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 5
ABSENT: None - 0
and Amendment #17 – Failed.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved amendment 17A by amending (f). She stated that the potential for houses to located close to setbacks she suggested adding at the end thereof the words “but no closer than 7.5 feet of an existing residential structure that abuts.” She stated that if her house is located close to the lot line, she is not in favor of these appurtenant structures very close to her living space.

Vice Mayor Devereux amended her amendment by striking out the word “of” and inserting in place thereof the word “from”. On a voice vote of nine members the amendment – Carried.

The question now came on Amendment #17A as amended and on a voice vote of nine members Amendment #17A was adopted.

Councillor Carlone proceeded to Amendment #18 proposed by Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern and Councillor Zondervan to strike out in 5.2.4 Open Space subsection (i).

Councillor Mallon explained that this was submitted because there was consternation about the minimum percentage of open space for a lot area for an affordable housing project should be 30% but that it could be reduced to no less than 15% if for parking spaces. She spoke about envisioning open space for a residential property be parking.

On a voice vote of nine members Amendment #18 to strike (i) in 5.2.4 was adopted.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about his amendment, Amendment #19, in subsection (ii) in 5.2.4 to add at the end thereof the words “and the site cannot accommodate 30% open space.”

Councillor Zondervan stated that this is regarding an exception to the 30% open space for an historical building and this exception should only apply if the site cannot accommodate the 30% open space. He stated that if the building is historic and it has enough open space there should not be an exception.

Mayor McGovern stated that if an historical building there will be potential added costs for preserving a historical building; this is more expensive. He asked the staff if this is problematic.

Ms. Farooq stated that the intention of this provision was to provide an incentive to preserve historical buildings because in earlier discussions there was a concern expressed that an individual might purchase a site that is older and historic but not necessarily protected under historic resources and there could be an incentive to demolition and build a new building. She stated that in this case the goal is to provide an incentive so that the building can be preserved and create an addition even if there is at present a larger site and addition may want to be accommodated on the site thereby creating a feasible project and reducing the incentive to get rid of the historic building.

Mayor McGovern stated that there is misinformation that if the AHO passes that historic buildings will be in jeopardy and will be demolished. He noted that there are protections for historic building in this ordinance. He asked how much this amendment would affect the finances of a project; it is more expensive to build with a historic building.

Mr. Roberts stated that he is unsure how a standard like this would be applied. He stated that saying that this cannot do that is something that could be subject to interpret. He stated that presumably any site could accommodate 30% open space; mathematically it is possible but exactly how this would be applied needs to be thought about carefully about what the intention is of this amendment. He stated that the intention is to relax something such as some of the limitation in place in order to encourage preservation of historic buildings where this is a feasible option. He stated that if the City Council is not interested in having an incentive approach then it could be stated differently. He expressed concern that it would be a provision that would be very difficult to interpret.

Mr. Cotter stated that affordable housing developers have dealt with historical buildings that need a wide range of renovations from moderate rehab to gut rehab. He stated that it can be very expensive dealing with historic building. It is hard to address the financial feasibility regarding the 30% requirement because the costs will vary greatly with renovation of historic structures and needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis to see what would be feasible and financially possible.

Ms. Farooq stated that the significance of projects or sites that includes an historic building is that there is an expensive component if that historic building is to be renovated. She commented that to add further constraints on historical sites might be more challenging than on virgin or demolished sites because it is further constraining the ability to accommodate a building the size of what the overlay might otherwise allow.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the State Register of Historical Places and what properties in Cambridge are registered as historical places. She stated that historic places do not include every historic or significant buildings, but it does include houses on the National Register of Historic Places, landmarks and property with preservation restrictions and does not include Neighborhood Conservation Districts. She commented that this is a narrow set of buildings that would be considered significant in the broader term the way that the Historical Commission uses it. She wants the zoning to incentivize preservation of all significant historic structures and not only the limited set that is already and would be under the review of the Historical Commission. The Historical Commission will have jurisdiction of AHO historical buildings.

Mr. Roberts noted that the comments from Vice Mayor Devereux are correct. He stated that he consulted with the Historical Commission to develop this. He stated that the attempt was to ask the question if there is a pre-designed list of sites that could be identified as worthy of some incentive. He added that there are other layers to this such as mission review under the demolition ordinance, Neighborhood Conservation and Historic Districts are all still applicable. He stated that there are standards for existing buildings regardless of their historic value.

Ms. Farooq stated that the City wants this to be as effective and expansive as possible. She will go back and ask this question again of the Historical Commission. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is about an exemption to the open space requirement and does not want some perverse incentive that makes these historic places more attractive because the open space can be reduced.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is confused about the concern here because in terms of interpretation the point is that the building is preserved. He noted that the building with the lot can either accommodate 30% open space or it cannot and if it cannot then it could be exempt. If it can then there should not be created an incentive to take up all the open space to build on.

Councillor Carlone suggested that this be studied more and discuss later.

Ms. Farooq stated that more cannot be studied beyond this and the staff will not be able to provide additional analysis on this. She stated that she would discuss with Councillor Zondervan the motivation behind this amendment. Councillor Carlone stated with the AHO the site would have to be deeper for it not to qualify. Ms. Farooq stated that the intention here is to allow some flexibility so an affordable housing project can achieve the full amount that is permitted under the ordinance without having to demolish any existing historic structure on the site. This most likely would be an historic building plus an addition which would take up some of the land on the site and constraining this further would remove the incentive or flexibility to preserve the building and if there are not strict protections there may be an easier decision to decide to demolish the building and build afresh.

Councillor Zondervan stated that if this is an historic building it cannot be torn down. Ms. Farooq responded that there are certain conditions where the building could not be torn down but there are many buildings that are older than fifty years that may be historic buildings and want to preserve but they do not have the protections and could be a demolition delay but there is no prohibition. Councillor Zondervan stated that if the goal is to not have these buildings torn down this should be stated in the zoning but to create this complicated incentive to not tear down the building because you can take up the open space by building more does not make sense.

Councillor Simmons stated that this makes perfect sense. She stated that CDD knows the concern and intentionality about preserving historical buildings and she would vote for this to stay as it is. She wants this section kept in the ordinance.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not understand why affordable housing developers are the only entities who will decided to build on historical buildings when the rules are changed. He added that by changing the rules this type of development is make more attractive to individuals with more money. He commented that this is downplaying what else may go on and who might do it. He stated that if this is passed and the zoning allows this then this is what likely will happen.

Councillor Simmons stated that when it comes to historical buildings there are so many benchmarks that need to be met. She stated that she disagrees with Councillor Kelley.

Councillor Kelley stated that the National Register is different from the State register.

Mayor McGovern stated that there is a difference between a historic building that is on the state registry versus an old building that is not a registered historic building. He agreed that there is a chance that some old houses may be torn down, but they are not historic by the definition. He explained that if a building is historic and is on the Registry there are protections for it and these buildings will not be torn down.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that looking at what is on the State Register of Historic Places it encompasses the National Registry of Historic Places. She noted that the Historical Commission would not allow the demolition of these buildings. She questioned the statement made by Ms. Farooq that historic buildings could be demolished. She stated that if the City is going to preserve significant buildings this should not only state the State Register of Historical Places; it should also include other structures that the Historical Commission has designated as significant.

Ms. Farooq stated that the state historic regulations provide different levels of protection to different kinds of buildings. She explained that there are certain buildings that actually cannot be demolished and there are other buildings that could be but with a demolition delayed. Ms. Farooq stated that CDD will consult with the Historical Commission again and will fine tune the reference and get a better sense of what the protections are for any type of building that has a historic designation.

Councillor Siddiqui suggested in the definition section to define a historic building, if possible.

Councillor Zondervan stated that when he filed the amendment was that the reason for the exemption is if the building is preserved the building may not accommodate 30% open space. He wanted to vote on this amendment because there should not be any perverse incentive to take up open space just because it is an historic building.

Councillor Carlone moved that debate be closed and on a voice vote the motion carried.

The committee proceeded to vote on Amendment #19, an amendment to 5.2.4 Open Space to amendment subsection (ii) and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Zondervan - 4
NAYS: Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 4
ABSENT: None - 0
PRESENT: Councillor Mallon - 1
and the amendment – Failed.

On a motion of Councillor Carlone the Ordinance Committee hearing recessed at 6:43pm.

On a motion of Councillor Carlone the Ordinance Committee hearing reconvened at 7:00pm.

Councillor Zondervan proceeded to Amendment #20 to amend language in 5.2.4 Open Space paragraph (c). He stated that this is a minor text edit but has major implications. He stated that all the open space should be permeable rather than just half. He does not want to see one-half of the lot covered in asphalt.

Councillor Mallon spoke about this discussion at the Health and Environment Committee and that the Public Works Commissioner expressed concern about having a provision that it had to be all permeable. She wanted to revisit the concerns expressed by the Commissioner of Public Works before moving forward with this amendment.

Councillor Zondervan wanted this clarified and to have default be that it is permeable.

Mayor McGovern stated that before he could vote for this amendment this needs to be defined.

Ms. Farooq read the zoning definition of private open space which is what this is. She read “The part or parts of a lot or structure which are reserved for the use occupants of a building which is used wholly or in part for residential purposes, this space shall have minimum dimensions prescribed in the ordinance, shall exclude parking areas, driveways and walkways and shall be open and unobstructed to the sky. Trees, plantings, arbors, fences, flagpoles, sculpture, fountains and recreational and drawing apparatus and similar objects shall not be considered obstructions when located in a private open space. Objects or structures intended exclusively for bike parking designed and located in according with section 6.100 which may be uncovered, partially covered or fully enclosed shall not be considered obstructions, provided that such objects or structures are not used for motor vehicle parking, general storage or any other use and further provided that any such structure exceeding six feet in height conforms to the requirements for an accessory building in section 4.21. To the extent permitted in this ordinance balconies and roof areas may also be considered as private open space.” She stated that there is a small component that is allowed. She stated that virtually all, except for bike parking, is permitted and is meant to be open space the way that most think of open space but not all of it is always permeable which is why there is a permeable open space requirement in the Alewife area, which is referenced in the Alewife zoning, and in this instance it was important to create this requirement because of the particular concerns related to flooding in this area.

Mayor McGovern asked what the requirement is for the permeable in Alewife. Ms. Farooq responded that it is 25% permeable requirement.

Councillor Mallon asked why this was originally written as half and not all and if it is financially feasible.

Ms. Farooq stated that the reason for this was less about financial feasibility and more about practical consideration when building on the site because there is a certain component such as balconies and roof that allowed to be counted and it is only a percentage that is counted. She stated that all have to be atgrade and this is to encourage individuals to provide outdoor, private space that can be useable by residents. She stated that this is intended to be an incentive in the ordinance for all residential development.

Councillor Zondervan moved to amend Amendment #20 to add “at grade level” after “open space.” Ms. Farooq commented that all these amendments will be reviewed with the City Solicitor and Mr. Roberts and will inform the City Council of any concerns raised relating to the amendments.

The question now came on Councillor Zondervan’s amendment – and on a voice vote of nine the amendment – Carried

The question now came on Amendment #20 as amended which reads as follows:

All of the required open space at grade level shall meet the definition of Permeable Open Space as set forth in this Zoning Ordinance.

The question now came on adoption of Amendment #20 as amended – and on a voice vote of 8 members the amendment was adopted. Councillor Simmons was recorded in the negative.

Mayor McGovern spoke on Amendment #21 in 5.2.4 subsection (d) which is an amendment to strike out language in (d) as follows “but shall not count toward meeting the required Private Open Space for the purpose of this Affordable Housing Overlay” and add a new section (i). He stated that the section (i) reads as follows:

(i) Shared above grade spaces, such as roof decks or balconies accessible to all tenants may count towards the percentage of required private open space.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that having open space requirement is to have space on the actual grade level where it can be permeable, and trees can be planted is important. This offers open space that is a buffer between abutting properties and is the open space requirement is counted and it is put on a roof there not much room on the actual land to do things such as planting trees or have a yard that provides more sun and space for the people around you. She stated that she did not support meeting the open space requirement by putting it on the roof.

Councillor Kelley stated that having this flexibility may make the buildings more exciting, interesting and more self-reliant. He commented that this is how open space is viewed generally. He stated that this amendment is reasonable.

Councillor Mallon the intent of the amendment was to think about how people gather as a community and have a social connection. She stated that open space is not about open space at grade and trees not at the expense of all other things. This is for a place where people and residents can gather and get to know one another and to have a social connection. She stated that it is a good idea to give flexibility to the builders to have a means to connect with one another in the building.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he shares his colleagues desire to have these interesting spaces, but this is not being precluded and should not come at the expense of at grade open space. He noted that there is inconsistency in the wording of this amendment. compromise open space. Open space at higher level is not a requirement. He noted inconsistency in the wording. Regarding the current wording he stated that it states that there can be open space at higher levels, but it is not part of the requirement and the modification states that it can be part of the requirement. He stated that there is inconsistency in the wording.

Councillor Mallon moved to amend Amendment #21 to delete (d) in its entirety and renumber (i) to d which is the red language.

Councillor Carlone spoke about a roof deck and would count toward permeable space at ground floor.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the open space requirement can be met above grade and fill up more of the land area with building as long as within the setbacks. If the land area is being filled up with bike parking and appurtenant structures reduces the ability to have any permeable green space that is useable. She noted that in this zoning the open space requirement that is in other zoning of 15 x 15 feet is being eliminated in the AHO. She stated that she supports social spaces but if roof decks are created; she is not comfortable with taking space from the ground and filling it with more structures.

Mayor McGovern asked Vice Mayor Devereux if she has any suggested language.

Ms. Farooq stated that zoning allows a maximum of 25% of the open space requirement to be met through balconies or roof decks. She further stated that there is a percentage in the ordinance and a different percentage could be chosen.

Mayor McGovern suggested language of “no more than 25% of shared about grade space should be counted.”

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the wording should be “no more that 25% of the open space requirement”.

Councillor Carlone read the amended (d) to read:

(d) Shared above grade spaces such as roof decks or balconies accessible to all tenants may count towards no more than 25% of required private open space.

Mayor McGovern moved the amended language and on a voice vote the amendment - Carried.

Mayor McGovern now moved the amendment to delete section (d) and to renumber (i) as (d) – and on a voice vote the amendment – Carried.

Amendment #21 was adopted as amended by a voice vote of nine members.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about Amendment #22 in 5.2.4 Open Space in subsection (e). He wants to strike the words at the end as follows “but shall not be considered Permeable Open Space.” He stated that this is effectively permeable because it is not going to cover a large part of the lot and is a small area that may be impermeable but any water that falls on it would run off into the permeable area.

Councillor Carlone commented that Councillor Zondervan is broadly interpreting what this should be. Councillor Zondervan stated that the covered bike parking should not be penalized because it is not strictly permeable this does not affect the permeability of the site.

On a voice vote of nine members Amendment #22 was adopted.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved to Amendment #22A, an amendment to 5.3 Standards for Existing Buildings to amend section (e). She stated that she had questions on the original language in section (e). She asked staff to explain that the open space will be reestablished elsewhere on the site to the extent possible, what this will accomplish.

Ms. Farooq stated that this provision is intended for instances where there is an existing building on site that is being rehabbed. This is stated that if there is less than the required open space then this would be considered the amount of open space. The next section is stated that if open space has to be reduced by 100 square feet or 5% or more, is intended to be whichever is greater. She explained that the things trying to be accomplished with the reduction are things that are legally required or would want to see happen to serve a different goal of the City. This generally a marginal reduction but depending on the size of the original building it could be larger.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about less than the open space in an ideal world and wanted ADA accessibility and would want to reduce the remaining open space at the least amount possible. Ms. Farooq responded that this is zoning. She explained that she would discuss with Mr. Roberts to rephase the language in the affirmative. This is providing the maximum amount that open space can be reduced in order to accommodate these elements.

Amendment #22A was withdrawn with unanimous consent.

Councillor Zondervan moved Amendment #23 to amend 6 Parking and Bicycle Parking in section (a) and (b). He stated that this is eliminating the parking requirement and adding a requirement to comply with the ADA and to have space for pick up, drop off, loading zones and short-term parking. He stated that there no parking ratio requirement and the strike out is to make this clearer because there was an exception of being within a certain distance of transit and this will be moot if this amendment is adopted. Councillor Carlone stated that any developer could add .4. Councillor Zondervan stated that there is no requirement, but the developer can build as much parking as necessary.

Mr. Cotter adds flexibility and will allow affordable housing to build the amount of parking needed to comply with the ADA or parking needed for the intended use. He stated that the .4 was derived by looking at the utilization in a range of affordable housing buildings to match the supply with the expected utilization. He stated that having the ability to build no parking will add to the builder’s flexibility.

Ms. Farooq commented that words such as “sufficient” make it difficult for Inspectional Services Department to interpret. She wanted references to other zoning provisions to add more specificity and relate to other City standards.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about accommodate moving van could only be accommodated on large sites and did not large vans on residential sites. She requested that this wording be reviewed.

Mayor McGovern suggested in (b) for it to stop after “compliance with the ADA.” Councillor Zondervan stated that this did not included pick-up and drop-off activities. Ms. Farooq stated that smaller projects may not be able to accommodate a loading zone. She added that staff will review this language.

Ms. Farooq suggested deleting (a). On a voice vote of nine (a) was deleted.

Councillor Carlone read the suggested additional text in (b) which reads as follows:

(b) Off-street parking shall not be required for an AHO project “except to ensure compliance with the ADA. In addition to providing ADA compliant parking, sufficient parking and driveway infrastructure shall be included to accommodate pick-up and drop-off activities by motor vehicles, as well as short-term parking and loading zones for moving vans and delivery trucks”.

Councillor Zondervan requested that staff looking at this wording.

Language to be deleted in section (b) reads as follows: on a lot that is located, in whole or in part, within one half mile of a public rapid transit station or within one quarter mile of a bus stop with a scheduled peak hour frequency of at least six buses per hour during 7:00 to 9:00am and 4:00 to 6:30pm on weekdays.

On the language to be deleted in section (b) – on a voice vote of nine members the amendment – Carried.

Ms. Farooq suggested to strike sections (c) and (d).

On a motion by Mayor McGovern to strike sections (c) and (d) and on a voice vote of nine members the sections were deleted.

On Amendment #23 – Vice Mayor Devereux moved to withdraw the amendment.

The amendment was withdrawn with unanimous consent.

Amendment #23B was an amendment offered by Vice Mayor Devereux in 6.3 Modifications to Design and Layout Standards for Off-Street parking in sections (c) and (d).

Vice Mayor Devereux moved to strike 5 feet and insert 7.5 feet in section (c). She stated that her concerns are the proximity to adjacent lots the structures on them. She further moved to amend to add the word “evergreen” in front of the word “plantings.”

Ms. Farooq suggested that since the five feet was for the same building walls for the same lot as well as the adjacent lot, she suggested leaving 5 feet from a building wall on the same lot and making it 7.5 from adjacent lots and this retains a little of the flexibility.

Vice Mayor Devereux amended her amendment to read 5 feet from a building wall on the same lot or 7.5 feet from the adjacent lot. On a voice vote of nine members this amendment –Carried.

Councillor Mallon asked does evergreen exist in any other part of the zoning. She commented that this is prescriptive. Ms. Farooq stated that she does not have the answer on this on whether the City gets this specific.

Councillor Carlone commented that he finds that plantings are rarely maintained, and all have holes in the plantings. He noted that if one is trying to buffer a view of something, buffer it and know that it is going to be maintained. Ms. Farooq stated that there is reference in Section 5 Yard Requirements where the is a reference to a year-round visual screen and does not get into whether it is a fence or an evergreen but does speak to something that works all year round.

Councillor Simmons likes the language that Ms. Farooq used. She suggested changing the language to reflect language given by Ms. Farooq. Councillor Carlone suggested using language such as reflected in the zoning. Vice Mayor Devereux is looking for ways to not only rely on a fence and encourage plantings as much as possible. Vice Mayor Devereux moved to amend in section (c) to strike out the words “a fence or dense evergreen planting” and add the words “a year-round visual screen” and to strike out in section (d) the words “a fence or dense evergreen plantings” and add the words “a year-round visual screen”. Vice Mayor Devereux was further amending section (d) to add after the word “line” the words “or within 7.5 of an abutting residential structure”.

On a voice vote of nine members to amend sections (c) and (d) to strike out the words “a fence or dense evergreen planting” and insert the words “a year-round visual screen”- and the additional language in (d) – the amendments - Carried.

The question now came on Amendment 23B, sections (c) and (d) as amended – and on a voice vote of nine Amendment #23B as amended was – Adopted.

Amendment 23C Vice Mayor Devereux encouraged the use of transit. She asked should income eligible tenants be offered a discount bus pass and bike sharing membership. She stated that the original zoning states that the bus pass is offered for three months or an equivalent value. She stated that she is suggesting that these memberships be permanent. Mr. Cotter stated that this was discussed with the Parking Transit Demand Management staff who were asked how to structure this. He explained that the three months was the length to develop a habit to use transit. He spoke about the cost for a combination subway pass to tenants of affordable housing this represents a significant cost to the operating budget and leads to the need for additional funding from the Trust or subsidy sources. He stated that the annual cost for a pass is $600 or more.

Councillor Simmons stated that AHO resident will be subject to income requirements will the benefit of a T-Pass has an impact on income because this is a benefit. How does this influence their income and affect the rent and childcare? This needs to be reviewed to make sure how this would impact income.

Mr. Cotter stated that in terms of income this would not affect the City but might affect other funding sources, such as the Section 8 funding. Ms. Farooq stated that CDD could investigate this. Mayor McGovern stated that he would like to make this work, but tenants could lose other benefits. He would like to see this benefit provided for more than three months without hurting tenants.

Amendment #23C placed on HOLD. The Community Development Department will investigate.

Amendment #24 Councillor Carlone stated that this is adding a new section 7 Site Selection. He stated that this is prioritizing types of sites. He stated that all sites are not equal, and angst will be relieved if sites are outlined. This is urban design.

Vice Mayor Devereux commented that there is overlap in Priority 1,2 and 3. Councillor Carlone stated that these can be evaluated differently. He stated that he is trying to setup a system where sites are evaluated and to help tenants. The priorities expand an area. He stated that if the City is not going to use its own sites that the City controls this makes the argument.

Councillor Mallon stated that this goes in the opposite direction of the priority of where a tenant may want to live in the City. She expressed concern about this amendment and what it says to applicants who are on the waiting list and people who are waiting for affordable housing in the City. She noted that the intent of the amendment was to inform affordable housing buildings of where to build to maximize units; but this feels exclusionary. Councillor Carlone stated that in urban designs there are both soft and hard parcels. He stated that soft parcels are where change will occur, and a hard parcel is where change is not likely to occur. He is thinking about where more units could be built. He stated that parking lots and one-story buildings and buildings in poor shape are Priority 1 and 2 sites where bigger buildings can be built. He stated that change is going to occur. He stated that the other sites there is less likely to be a legal challenge.

Councillor Zondervan asked what is the intent of this amendment as it impacts the zoning because it does not impose any requirements. He stated that it lists the Priorities without any requirement. Councillor Carlone stated that there will be less legal opposition on Priority 1 and 2. Councillor Zondervan asked how this changes what the City is trying to do. Councillor Carlone it can suggest that development look at Priority 1 and 2 sites primarily.

Mayor McGovern did not want to limit opportunities and if an individual has an opportunity to purchase property in a Priority 3 area and not to be able to purchase property because they are not a priority area. He stated that the AHOD allows creating affordable housing in areas in the City where it does not exist. He stated that prioritizing areas where there is already affordable housing. He cannot vote on this until he knows what will come next. He asked if this is appropriate to zoning versus design guidelines. Councillor Carlone stated that he is trying to see if within the AHOD if there is a priority area that should be tested.

Mayor McGovern stated that it is the developers who will be looking, and he does not want to handcuff the developers. Councillor Carlone stated that this is unusual and the more it is made broad the more unlikely it will happen. Mayor McGovern stated that he does not want this to be designed because there is a fear that individuals in certain neighborhoods will sue the City. He asked staff if this would be problematic.

Ms. Farooq stated that the initial charge from the Housing Committee was for staff to come up with a provision that was Citywide, and the Planning Board felt the provision should be Citywide from an equity perspective. If there were to be different priority areas, they would need to be defined with more specificity because it is as of right provision and when mapped out the Inspectional Services Department would need to be able to state which area it applied to and it cannot be ambiguous. Ms. Farooq stated that the remainder is a policy decision.

Councillor Toomey stated that he is uncomfortable with the priorities and affordable housing will be created where it already is. He expressed his concern with this. He stated that he wanted to more research to see exactly where the BA, BA1 BA2 district are. He stated that this is prioritizing affordable housing developers in neighborhoods that already have affordable housing.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is Massachusetts Avenue from Harvard Square up to North Cambridge, Cambridge Street, Porter, Kendall, Harvard and Central Squares. This is an urbanistic perspective that people want to be part of the community so you want them in the community, near services if they will not have cars and near mass transit. He added that currently this is no priority, and this is not how zoning should be done, especially without review. Councillor Toomey stated that this was what he was trying to do when Harvard Divinity School was selling its property.

Councillor Simmons stated that site selection feels like it should be in the guidelines. She stated that the AHOD gives and the priorities take away. She stated that by prioritizing and then making them numeric it ranks one priority area of the other. She would have preferred the ranking in alpha order. She expressed her concern with the site selection and leads one to look at one area of the City over another. Councillor Carlone stated this is a priority for a user point of view. He is suggesting that affordable housing be put where the most can be built and where there is more services and transit. Councillor Simmons stated that this seems like putting poor people without cars and the implications that she is walking away with is because she lives in The Port and move somewhere else that she needs services to get through the day. Councillor Carlone responded that services to him means retail, pre-k, mass transit and everything one needs to live in convenience. Councillor Simmons stated that there is a tinge of classism in this.

Councillor Siddiqui announced that she has a personal commitment and will have to leave around 9pm.

Councillor Simmons suggested having a specific time for the end of this hearing.

Councillor Kelley stated that that this amendment brings us back to why we are here in the first place. He will not vote for this.

Vice Mayor Devereux favored stopping at 9 PM. She stated that the language could be redrafted. She stated that rather than having ranked priorities she suggested a triangle with top being the things that would make the most attractive aspect for where an individual would want to live. She stated that services to her are a dry cleaner and proximity to open space. She would like to live in a corridor next to transit and near shopping. This language could be better at describing the type of guidance the City wants to give to developers in selecting site but will select the sites that are available for sale.

Councillor Zondervan stated that it is unclear what priorities are supposed to accomplish. He suggested deferring this discussion until the additional language is provided to have understand the discussion.

Mayor McGovern stated that if this goes into zoning it is definite or if put into the guidelines this is guidance. He noted that this will be decided based on what becomes available. He stated that this may have unintended consequence. He asked where in the City is there no access to transit or retail. He added everywhere in Cambridge is accessible.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that priority 2 brings up that non-profit affordable housing developers have tried to build on the City lots that could be made more feasible if prioritized.

Mayor McGovern stated that he did not want to lose out on any opportunity that will arise by prioritizing only 1 and 2 for the first two years.

Councillor Carlone stated that without specificity the overlay is hurt.

The question now came on Amendment #24 and the amendment failed on a voice vote of seven in the negative; Councillor Carlone voting in the affirmative and Vice Mayor Devereux recorded as Present.

Amendment #25 Councillor Carlone stated that this amendment is to add a new (c) 7.1 General Provisions. This is an element that is considered during building and site design and looks at the character of the street.

Mayor McGovern stated that this can this be enforced or should be in guidelines as recommendations.

Ms. Farooq stated that this would be better in the design guidelines. She stated that Inspectional Services could not objectively make a determination of the final clause. The question must be a yes or no answer. She stated that this would not be a workable component in the zoning text.

Mayor McGovern expressed concern if this is too vague does this leave the City open to challenge.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is further away from any character being required relating to surroundings and guidelines are advisory. This is a formula disaster. He stated that he has put into this what he thinks this needs to work.

Vice Mayor Devereux bound by Inspectional Services Department binary yes or no and this has been the role of the Planning Board in design review because they do have guidelines which has been taken out of equation.

Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board will be involved in the design review and this clause will be useful to the Planning Board. She stated that CDD will take a closer look at 7.1 (a) which introduces some ambiguity in a way that will not be able to be evaluated by Inspectional Services Department. Councillor Simmons moved that Amendment #25 be moved to the guidelines. On a voice vote of nine Amendment #25 was moved to the guidelines.

There were three clerical amendments that were voted on.

7.5 Mechanical Equipment, Refuse Storage, and Loading Areas in (b) to strike out the words “densely planted and maintained evergreen” and insert the words “year-round visual screen,”.

The amendment carried on a voice vote of nine members.

7.5 Mechanical Equipment, Refuse Storage, and Loading Areas in (b) to add at the end the words “with adjacent planting. The amendment carried on a voice vote of nine members.

7.5 Mechanical Equipment, Refuse Storage, and Loading Areas in (e) to leave in the words “or screened”. The amendment carried on a voice vote of nine members.

At 9:00pm Councillor Carlone moved to recess the hearing.

Committee Report #7
[RECONVENED ORDINANCE COMMITTEE HEARING ON AUG 13, 2019 FROM THURS, AUG 8, 2018]

Councillor Carlone called the reconvened hearing to order at 12:07pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

Present were: Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor McGovern; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department Iram Farooq; Housing Planner, CDD, Cassie Arnaud; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk’s Office.

Councillor Carlone read the call of the reconvened hearing. He announced that the hearing is being audio and video recorded and there will be no public comment. He announced that there will be a recess in two hours. There are two documents an update of the results of the amendments for clarity of the amendments prepared by staff from the City Clerk’s Office (ATTACHMENT 44) and an update from the Mayor’s office on the amendments (ATTACHMENT 45)

Councillor Carlone proceeded with Amendment #26, in 7.2 Site Design and Arrangement to amend section (a). He stated that whatever the setback the treatment of the front yard should match the street context. He stated that he is deleting the words “of any combination”. On a voice vote the amendment was adopted. Councillor Simmons was absent. A discussion ensued after this vote as described below. At the end of the discussion Councillor Carlone moved to withdraw and the motion failed due to not having unanimous consent.

Councillor Mallon questioned the wording “shall match its street context.” She stated that Mr. Roberts stated at the last meeting that zoning has to be a yes or no question and cannot be subjective. She asked the staff if this is requiring subjective authority for street context.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the issue here is that this is a review process only without any body making any determination on a subjective basis as to what will meet certain standards. Since there is no other person who will determine whether this standard is met then the applicant other than comments during the review process means that this is not enforceable. To the extent that the City Council is interested in trying to avoid litigation where possible by having a subjective standard that no one is evaluating, such as the Planning Board in a special permit context, it is subjective if the applicant feels that the standard has been met but an opponent disagrees then there could still be some potential for the building permit that issues to be appealed on the basis that it did not comply with the zoning requirements. She noted that this is tricky trying to achieve a non-appealable process but has the best chance to enforce this provision if they are clear and unambiguous to the best extent possible and not

Councillor Carlone commented that the City Solicitor’s conclusion is that this is not valid what he is proposing. City Solicitor Glowa stated that it is difficult to have a subjective standard where there is no reviewing body making the determination as to whether the standard has been met.

Ms. Farooq stated that this is the sort of statement that might be better as guidance for the Planning Board and the developer as part of Urban Design Guidelines rather than in the zoning text because it introduces the subjective ambiguity that the City Solicitor is referring to and this might lead to challenging situations as it is implemented.

Councillor Carlone asked what the staff recommended. Ms. Farooq responded to move to the guidelines.

Councillor Carlone stated that guidelines without teeth might not mean anything. He stated that he is trying to make the zoning work in a way to guide individuals. Ms. Farooq stated that a statement like this might provide guidance will create challenging situations for enforcement and appealability and Inspectional Services Department will not have a way to make a determination about whether something matches street context or not because this is a discretionary judgement that they are not in a position to make.

Councillor Zondervan asked for clarification on the difference between design guidelines and zoning because his understanding is that they are both discretionary. Ms. Farooq responded that zoning is not discretionary. She stated that zoning in an as of right situation all requirement in the zoning must be met for an individual to be able to get their building permit. She explained that the Design Guidelines guides the Planning Board, the developer and the community in terms of what will be the character of a new or assemblage of buildings. She stated that there is no discretionary permit associated with this zoning; it is all whether the conditions are met or not. Councillor Zondervan stated that his understanding is that the Planning Board does not get to say that the zoning was met or not so what difference does it make if this is in the zoning or the guidelines. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the difference is if it is in guidelines you are relying on applicants and interested parties to all make best efforts to go through process and to voluntarily come to some conclusion that it is hoped will meet the objectives of the ordinance through the language in the guidelines that helps to channel the conversation in the right direction, but to the extent that there are subjective standards such as matching street context is a matter of opinion as to whether this matches or not. If this is in the zoning ordinance it is difficult for the Commissioner of Inspectional Services to determine if this standard has been met. She explained that if a neighbor complained that the standard has not been met and it does not match the street context it is difficult for the Commissioner of Inspectional Services to make this determination. She suggested having more black and white standards in the zoning that can either be met or not and if met a building permit is issued and avoids the prospect of an appeal process tying things down. She stated that one does not necessarily have teeth in design guidelines but if there is no binding review process there is no teeth. She stated that having the guidelines be prescriptive for the dialogue to take place setting forth the goals that should be achieve is a reasonable approach that the City hopes that all applicants and others will participate in.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this could be left in both the ordinance and the guidelines to reinforce its importance. She commented that this is describing the Inspectional Service Department as robots if they can only make yes and no decisions. She spoke about with the existing zoning that there are numerous instances where Inspectional Services is called to use the powers of subjective judgement. She noted that the zoning ordinance is complicated to read and interpret and there have been law suits based on their interpretation of the zoning ordinance. It is important to tell Inspectional Services that this is important by putting this into the zoning. She stated that this is about matching the street context. This whole petition is premised on the concept of form-based zoning and anything new added adds to the harmony of the street. This is the context. She stated that she is struggling with the resistance to putting in language that would get to this.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that under both the Municipal Code and the provisions of Chapter 40A the Inspectional Services Department and the commissioner is not a permit granting authority and does not make discretionary determinations. She stated that when the commissioner’s determinations are challenged the City’s success rate in effectively defending the determinations is between 90-99%; this is an objective analysis. She explained that staff meet regularly to interpret the zoning to ensure that the correct interpretations are being made to make sure that the ordinance is followed.

Mayor McGovern stated that a lot of time is being spent on eliminating the ability to appeal through the Planning Board, but this would be another place for a potential appeal. He asked how this works. If the Inspectional Services Department believes that this matches the street context and an individual does not will this lead to an appeal and a court case. He added that if the ability to appeal is being put in other places we should just let the Planning Board do this. What happens when an Inspectional Services decision is appealed? City Solicitor Glowa stated that the State Building Code governs the actions of the Inspectional Services Department in issuing building permits and they are appealable as a matter of right under state law and this cannot be taken away. She noted that zoning appeals take longer and are more complex. She stated that there is still a benefit in avoiding appeals from the Planning Board. In addition to the fact that the Planning Board process itself is longer. She added that an individual’s right to appeal will never be taken away.

Councillor Carlone stated that he will take this out and comes up later in Advisory Design Consultation Procedure where it states that the applicant shall prepare an analysis and make a statement of how it fits in.

Mayor McGovern moved suspension of the rules in order to go back to Amendment #26 because it has been voted on already.

Councillor Kelley asked what is it worth to grant something that is an unappealable right to do?

The rules were suspended on a voice vote of eight members.

Councillor Carlone moved to withdraw Amendment #26 failed on a voice vote as it required unanimous consent.

Amendment #27 in 7.2 Site Design and Arrangement to amend section (c). Councillor Carlone stated that stated that this his experience in walking around the City and looking at courtyard buildings. He noted that a courtyard is an entry courtyard and entry is usually setback from the façade. His proposal is to strike out “250” and insert “150”, to strike out the word “portions” and insert the words “entry courtyards” and to strike out “40” and insert “30”. Amendment #27 was adopted on a voice vote of nine members.

Amendment #28 in 7.3 Building Facades to amend section (a). Councillor Carlone stated that this limits the amount of glass in a building. He explained his amendment. He stated that Affordable Housing Trust stated that in their buildings glass is at 23% and he raised the percentage from 15% to 20%. He stated that in the second sentence he is striking out 25% and inserting at the end the words “30% residential, and 70% retail/active use on the first floor.” He noted that this came from Article 19 of the zoning. He commented that retail can be up to as much as 85% glass. He stated that it is ironic that it is stated that office buildings need to be full glass buildings. He stated that the engineers state no more than 40% except at retail locations. He recommends 20% and noted that this is public presentation.

Ms. Farooq stated that there are instances where this may be difficult to achieve. She wanted to ensure that 70% relates only to the retail and not entryways. She spoke about clarifying the language in the text. She noted this amendment as well as Amendment #26 maybe hard to achieve but this amendment is clear. She stated that she would want to do word edits to make it clear that lobbies and entry ways are not counted within the 70%. Councillor Carlone noted that looking at the City retail is always almost 70% and in some cases 100%. He explained that entryways are always fully glass for security reasons. Ms. Farooq stated that regarding the 20% it may be a reach but may not be completely unachievable. Some existing properties are less than this. Councillor Carlone stated that it would be good to have some guidance and glass is the eyes of a building. He added that the Urban Design study had panels in lieu of windows. Ms. Farooq stated that the 20% is fine from the staff perspective.

Vice Mayor Devereux commented that the wording states that it will not only the front façade but would also be the façade facing a public street. She stated that the building that has panels where you would expect to see windows is the hotel in Porter Square. She commented that the red panels look stupid and she hoped that this is not done for one of these projects. Councillor Carlone explained that this is called a blind window. On a voice vote of eight members the 20% was adopted. Councillor Simmons was absent. The amendment to add language at the end that reads “30% residential, and 70% retail/active use on the first floor.” was placed on HOLD pending feedback from CDD.

Amendment #29 has been moved to Amendment #41.

Amendment #30 is an amendment to 7.4 Ground Floors in section (b). Councillor Carlone stated that he added after the word “parking” the words “and/or bicycle storage” in the first line; after the word “parking” “/bicycle storage” and striking out the “50%” and inserting “75%” and to add at the end thereof the words “or on the principal street if on a corner site.” He stated that he added bicycle storage in case there is bicycle storage in the building and not parking.

Councillor Kelley spoke about bike storage. He stated that reading this amendment it seems what might happen is that bikes may be put someplace and then to access the street an individual would walk the length of the bike storage and come out through an access point or portal. He noted that this can be difficult because bikes come in and back out straight and when access is constrained it makes it more challenging to use. Councillor Carlone moved to remove bike storage.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if it is imagined that these projects will have parking under the building. She spoke of carport style parking on Concord Avenue. Councillor Carlone stated that this is not his sense of Concord Avenue. Vice Mayor Devereux what will parking look like and how much will be visible from the street.

Ms. Farooq stated that 75% on some parcels may be a lot she suggested including an allowed minimum driveway. She stated that the committee can vote on this with the understanding that CDD will come back with a number. Councillor Carlone agreed that a driveway would have to fit in. Councillor Carlone moved to remove from his amendment the words “and/or bicycle storage” and “/bike storage”. On a voice vote of eight members the amendment to remove bicycle storage carried. Councillor Simmons was absent.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the 75% and allowing for a two-way driveway with enough space on either side for safety. This will be modified by CDD and returned to the committee. Regarding the 75% and the wording “or on the principal street if on a corner site on a voice vote of eight members the amendment carried with the understanding that there will be an additional information from City staff relating to the minimum dimension for a two-way driveway. Councillor Simmons was absent.

Amendment #31 is an amendment to 7.4 Ground Floors in section (d) (ii). Councillor Carlone stated that this is about active non-residential use. He stated that the original was 35 feet and he is proposing 40 feet. He noted that the City felt that 35 feet is appropriate. He amended his amendment to remove the 40 feet. On a voice vote of nine members removing 40 feet carried.

The next amendment was to 7.4 Ground Floors in section (d) (iii). Councillor Carlone stated that he was adding after 50% the words “(office/service) to 70% (retail). He commented that retail frontage is different on a main or secondary street. Ms. Farooq asked if this is a corner lot would he imagine the 70% being just on Massachusetts Avenue. She suggested adding language such as principal façade on the principal street.

Councillor Kelley asked if service is a defined term in the zoning ordinance. He stated that if service is not defined an amendment can be submitted in 2.0 to define service. Councillor Carlone explained that he uses the word service for everything else that is not retail that is active such as a library, pre-k or a real estate agent which are not retail.

Councillor Zondervan suggested the wording non-retail be used to read 50% non-retail and 70% retail.

Ms. Farooq suggested the wording of 50% office/institutional to 70% retail.

City Solicitor Glowa announced that there is no definition in the Definition section of the zoning ordinance for service Councillor Carlone now moved to amend his amendment to substitute in place the words “(office/institutional to 70% (retail). The question now came on the amendment and on a voice vote of nine members the amendment carried.

Councillor Carlone now moved to further amend this section to add at the end thereof the words “on the principal street.” On a voice vote of nine members the amendment carried.

Amendment #32 is an amendment to 7.4 Ground Floors in section in section (e). There are three proposed amendments to section (e). The first amendment was proposed by Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern.

Councillor Mallon stated that this amendment was to provide flexibility to the affordable housing builders because they have other non-retail uses that support the community. This would provide flexibility to either do retail or do something that would support the residents that live in and around the developed building. The intention of this amendment was to provide flexibility for ground floor retail space to make it active.

Councillor Toomey stated that he cannot support this. He stated his concern about the lack of retail space and that this could curtail much needed retail space. He stated that he will vote no on this amendment.

Councillor Carlone stated that all business districts allow office and asked if these would be considered office or considered instruction as written workforce development and job connectors. Ms. Farooq stated that this could be classroom and could be interpreted in different ways. Councillor Carlone stated that without this clause you may not be able to do this because classrooms are not allowed in many business districts. Ms. Farooq stated that if the City Council can decide on the spirit of this, CDD and the City Solicitor can work on this to make it work zoning wise. Councillor Zondervan questioned if this is necessary. Councillor Carlone noted that it is relevant.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that at Jefferson Park there is space for classes on first floor and the CHA has space for their workforce development; it is important to have these areas for residents to gather. The text states “may” and it should be “shall”. Councillor Carlone stated he is unsure if Jefferson Park is business zoned and this is good.

Mayor McGovern spoke about a daycare that would support residents living in a building was the spirit of this amendment. This is allowing flexibility is important for creating these opportunities.

Councillor Mallon spoke about the many issues with the table of uses. She explained that Yoga Studios are considered instructional space because they offer classes and are allowed in business districts.

Vice Mayor Devereux sees the spirt of this amendment but is confused because the original language drafted by CDD has a different thrust. She asked why the original language has retail and consumer service. She stated that this has been lost in this discussion. This may be too much of a constraint for affordable developers to include this, but it is an important way to ensure that existing business districts remain and do not become entirely institutional type uses that only serve the residents of the building.

Ms. Farooq this language was drafted in response to concerns from the City Council and public comment to ensure that affordable housing buildings would not eliminate retail in a particular location. A new building will still accommodate retail space that will service the neighborhood. Both desires could be accomplished is some of the language was revived. She added that it would be hard to say 50% each because the size of parcels is unknown. She suggested going to the original text and instead of at least one space active non-residential use which is a broad category and could be defined as retail or one of the other uses that serves a non-profit mission. Councillor Carlone stated that more specificity is needed that Inspectional Services Department could measure; this is strict dimensions. He stated that therefore the complexity of an existing street is critical in evaluating what should happen there, especially on the first floor.

Councillor Zondervan proposed amendments to amended text in paragraph (e). He suggested to not do the strike out and accept text as guidance to staff to accommodate this consideration. He stated that this is an important reminder why it is important to protect retail because if this is not done and this becomes another loop hole for excluding potential retail sites in the future or changing them from current retail to something else but there is no guarantee the amendment will be used in the way intended and without protection of existing retail on the site this could have the negative effect of push out existing businesses from affordable housing sites. Do not do strike out.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted there are competing amendments to section (e) and Councillor Zondervan’s amendment is changing and to or and adding additional language at the end.

Amendment #33 was a proposal by Councillor Zondervan in section (e) and to add a new section (i) and changing and to or is significant. The additional text was to guarantee affordability of the site to retail.

Mayor McGovern noted that 4 (b) was put on HOLD and if this is referring back to 4 (b) (i) and expressed concerns if this does not pass. He stated that this needs to be dealt with first.

Councillor Carlone spoke about his amendment of 50% of existing frontage. He stated that a building site could be 60 feet across or 200 feet and how can it be said that one space is sufficient, and this is the reason for the percentage. He spoke of the additional sentence he is adding as “Each proposed project’s non-residential frontage length and its context shall be separately evaluated.” He spoke about who would be evaluating. He stated that in the spirit of the other discussions he can see removing this sentence.

Mayor McGovern asked will this have an impact the finances of a project if required to do 50%.

Councillor Carlone stated that they will have to look for another source of funding for this. This needs to be solved. Mayor McGovern has this been done with funded affordable housing projects. Councillor Carlone responded that other communities do this. If we are expanding what the zoning allows and how do you not hurt the retail on the street. Mayor McGovern stated that he does not want to hamper an affordable housing project going forward.

Councillor Simmons stated that she appreciates the intention of amendment and the original language, but her concern is how is this paid for. She asked CDD if the City has a provision that supports small community-based service businesses. She stated that there is competition for pre-K mom and pop store fronts opening. She is concerned with the financial feasibility and the language states shall so that there is no wiggle room for the community-based builder. She stated that if a space is built and it does not get rented it does not achieve the purpose. She spoke about the vacant store fronts in the commercial districts. She had concerns with wording “shall” and “may”. There is no structure for this.

Councillor Carlone stated that the City has the money to make this a holistic project. He stated that local retail could be subsidized but is the space provided for retail and to keep a street retail strong knowing that retail is changing. Councillor Simmons stated that there is no provision to subsidize retail and then there are services. She wanted conflating services and retail to stop and that there is no funding mechanism for the retail. She supports the idea but does not see the feasibility as written or the funding and separate retail from services. She expressed concern tying housing to retail when the problem of vacant store fronts has not been solved is troublesome.

Councillor Mallon stated that market rate retail rents funds the project. Ms. Arnaud stated that the City has not done a lot of project with ground-floor retail, but the focus is on sustainability and is self-supporting. She stated that the focus is not to have the housing support the retail and have the housing operating revenue be syphoned off to help struggling retail. Lenders including the Affordable Housing Trust would want to see that there is a plan to access the funding necessary for the retail and a plan to sustain it over time. This would cause anxiety to anticipate a budget that would have a cap that could generate. Councillor Mallon questioned housing offsetting the retail because there is a percentage of units that go from 30% to 80% and would not want to offset the number of lower percentage units to offset the ground-floor retail. Ms. Arnaud stated that the way the City would look to make sure there is a sustainable operating budget is that there is operating revenue on the housing side to support the housing portion of the building. This would be condos to include both a retail and residential condo and the operations related to the commercial condo would need to pay for itself. She stated that what is not wanted is the revenue from the low rents would be necessary to keep the overall building live because the commercial would not be able to support itself.

Councillor Mallon would want CDD to look at language on these amendments. She could not move forward with Councillor Zondervan suggested amendment on affordable rents. She stated that she does not know that this is the right place for this conversation in the AHOD conversation. She stated that she would be amenable to move this to CDD to work on the spirit and intention of these amendments and bring something back that the City Council could vote on.

Ms. Farooq clarified what is being consolidated into text by CDD is Amendment #32 and #34 and not including the final sentence.

Councillor Zondervan stated that retail would provide revenues to help offset the retail cost of the project. The internal funder of the Affordable Housing Trust has experience to build out retail project and should be able to work out some kind of loan mechanism so that retail build out can be funded ahead of time and can be repaid through the revenues from renting the space. The vacant store front issue is significant and is caused by excessive rents charged. This is why it is important for the retail spaces to be offered at an affordable retail rent to have the type of retail needed in the community that cannot afford the high rents. He used food stores as an example of lost retail because of the rent increases. He commented that this is the type of retail that can be accommodated in these buildings at an affordable rent. He spoke about not subsidizing retail from housing but there is no concern about subsidizing the housing from the retail. He stated that the problem with the AHOD is not being approached in a holistic way. This is an opportunity to address environment, urban design, transportation and small retail concerns and why not look at these to have a holistic solution rather than a narrowly tailored approach that ignores or worsens other problems that the City then has to spend time to address. He added that this is a great opportunity to incentivize and protect retail and to provide services to the community that are needed. Councillor Kelley stated that this is a wider discussion about what the retail will look like. He likes the idea of setting aside space whether for retail or community space and if not set aside the City cannot go back and get it later.

Mayor McGovern stated that the overlay applies to only those who build 100% affordable housing and trying to put too much into this to solve these other issues is solving this on the backs of a specific group of people. To say that solving retail and tree canopy issues in the overlay and the affordable housing developers are going to be the individuals to solve these issues. He added that what is making the AHOD complicated is putting too much into this. He believed that the Affordable Housing Trust cannot subsidize retail. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the Affordable Housing Trust cannot. He stated that Star Market left Central Square because it was failing and not because of high rents and the H-Mart put a damper on Harvest. He stated that the City can make affordable space, and this does not mean it will be a grocery store. He noted that Councillor Zondervan’s amendment #33 refers back to amendment #8 which has not been acted upon. He questioned the 5% in amendment #8 and stated that the affordable housing developers are not subsidizing retail because this impacts their ability to provide housing units.

Clerk Lopez suggested taking the original (e) and amend it with the amendments offered by Councillor Carlone and Councillor Zondervan and refer the proposed (i) by Councillor Zondervan to amendment #8 and then dispose of the amendment offered by Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern may be the easiest way to proceed.

Vice Mayor Devereux the way it was originally worded was carefully worded to try to address legitimate concerns of the community that the City would inadvertently displace local retail for these projects. She agreed the suggested changes by Councillor Zondervan. The market is going to take away retail because the current business districts do not require ground floor retail. Ms. Farooq confirmed this. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this has been considered a problem because if the City has business districts retail should be included to allow the market to dictate what the highest and best use of space is does not always get the desired result. Councillor Carlone stated that Massachusetts Avenue north of Harvard Square does require active ground floor. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is the result of a previous overlay; this has been identified as a problem and addressed piecemeal.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he understands that AHOD will not solve all the problems. He gave a transportation analogy and stated that housing should not make other problems worse or ignores them. This is why tree canopy protection, climate mitigation and protect retail not so that these issues can be solved through the AHOD but when the housing problem is being solved through the overlay that the City is addressing these other problems or at least not making them worse.

Councillor Simmons stated that these amendments are taking a market rate retail use and subsidizing it to have it available for services for low, middle, and moderate-income individuals. She noted that we are trying to do this by lowering the cost of housing so that it can be built but are adding a series of amendments that add more expense. She commented that there is no program in place to support ground floor retail. She noted that ground floor retail is struggling, and this is more of a liability than a benefit for low, middle and moderate retail because there is no program or infrastructure. She asked if this present a problem for low, middle- and moderate-income housing developers to building housing for a stipulation for below market rate retail uses on the ground floor.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she wished the City had commercial rent control. She stated that this is in fact unreasonably impractical. This does not fit, and she does not support this.

Councillor Carlone commented that all support the goal but there is no way to do this. He added that the City Council is the vehicle to support a Cambridge plan to help retail in specifically affordable housing developments. He reiterated that Cambridge has the funds, the goal but do we have the will. He added that if funds are obtained the City then needs to ensure that funds are available.

Mayor McGovern stated that Amendment #33 in section (i) refers back to 4 (b) (i) and 4 (b) (i) has more in it than just subsidized rent for retail. He stated that he cannot support 4 (b) (i). He repeated the comment of Ms Arnaud that the margin on affordable housing projects is slim and to expect an affordable housing entity to relocate retail and incur this expense this is financially impossible to do. He stated that if this refers back to 4 (b) (i) then this should be voted on.

Councillor Carlone stated that he would like to take the original section (e) and amend to strike out “and” and insert the word “or” which is part of Amendment #33 submitted by Councillor Zondervan.

On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Councillor Carlone proceeded to Amendment #34 and his proposal was to add in section (e) after the word “space” the words “50% of existing frontage.”

On an affirmative vote of 8 members the amendment was adopted. Councillor Simmons was recorded in the negative.

Councillor Carlone moved to delete his amendment to add a new sentence at the end of section (e). On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment to delete the amendment offered by Councillor Carlone to add at the end a new sentence was adopted.

Ms. Farooq noted that the language may need to be cleaned up. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that if the existing (e) as revised through amendment by Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Carlone then the amendment proposed by Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern should be renumbered as section (f). It addresses the ability to provide non-residential uses that may fall between the cracks in the table of uses and the vague support services related to their mission. Ms. Farooq wanted clarification if the existing (e) is retained with the amendments and add the language submitted by Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern or was this language being added as new section (f). The question now came on Amendment #32 and the amendment was changed from (e) to (f). On an affirmative vote of 8 members the amendment was adopted. Councillor Toomey was recorded in the negative.

Councillor Carlone now moved the Amendment #33 submitted by Councillor Zondervan in section (e) by adding a new (i) was referred to Amendment #8 which was placed on HOLD. On an affirmative vote of 8 members this was referred to Amendment #8. Councillor Simmons voted present.

Mayor McGovern stated that regarding the original language in section (e) in the last sentence. He asked if the two years from ordination or permitting of the building. Ms. Farooq stated that it was CDD’s intention to have this within the two years prior to the issuance of a building permit application. She added that CDD will insert this language.

On a motion by Councillor Carlone the committee recessed at 2:10pm.

Councillor Carlone reconvened the hearing at 2:21pm.

Amendment #35 in 7.5 Mechanical Equipment, Refuse Storage, and Loading Areas to amend section (c). Councillor Carlone explained that most housing has minimum mechanical equipment on the roof, and it is viewed that office and labs have huge machinery. This addresses the permitted screening and it is setback from the façade. He stated that there is no reason why the mechanical equipment and the screen have to be in the same plane and if it is back, even five feet, is more appealing and lessens the height of the building. He noted that he did not give a dimension he is just proposing that it is setback from the façade. He is proposing the screening to be 75% opaque.

Councillor Mallon what is the standard for both residential and commercial screening in the zoning.

Councillor Carlone responded that he does not think that there is anything in the zoning. Ms. Farooq stated that she would have to look in the zoning to confirm but believes that there is nothing in the zoning ordinance. She stated that this has been introduced because it can be quantified, and this would typically be in design guidelines. She stated that this is a design aspect that the Planning Board carefully looks at when doing design review. She stated that this does impact the feel of a building and it does conceal the mechanical equipment and would not be a big financial difference to the developer but would impact the choices of materials used for the screening. Councillor Mallon commented that this can be quantified by either a yes or a no. She stated that she does not understand the difference between 50% and 75%. Ms. Farooq used the Porter Square hotel as an example. The mechanical equipment is 50% which means that it cannot be seen and if it were 75% opaque it would feel more solid but would better conceal the equipment behind. She added that some individuals prefer the lighter feel of 50% because it looks less like a building structure and if one does not prefer the clutter of the mechanicals it is better to have the solid screening.

Councillor Mallon asked if the first part is subjective or is a quantitative measure needed. Ms. Farooq responded that it would be helpful to have a minimum dimensional requirement. City Solicitor Glowa agreed it would be preferable.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that having a dimension for the setback is appropriate. She stated that screening and opaqueness are important. She spoke about the visual annoyance of looking at HVAC on the roof of the Briston Arms from Danehy Park. She spoke about the important of all the angles that mechanicals can be seen from. She spoke about allowing common roof decks to serve as part of the open space requirement. She asked if a penthouse would need to be built to get to a common roof deck; would a stairway be required. Councillor Carlone responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that this adds a structure on the roof.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is changing the zoning ordinance and there may not be screening for a Res. B district and if the AHOD passes, the density, height and setback disappear. It is relevant if this is the sort of thing that the City wants attached to the developments that are being proposed to be built under the AHOD.

Councillor Carlone spoke about distance back and a building being typically 60 feet thick and stated that this is the problem not being able to evaluate a situation. He stated that a 15-foot setback maybe wanted on a 60-foot building for the mechanicals. He noted that distance is tough; 15 feet is a good setback.

Councillor Zondervan commented that this will not come up often. He suggested a minimum building where the mechanicals are on the roof and base this on the size. He suggested a percentage or the size of a building for which this minimum façade would apply and a different provision for smaller buildings.

Councillor Carlone stated that a percentage of the dimension makes sense. He suggested 20% of the width of building and the distance of the building is the setback. Ms. Farooq responded that she does not feel equipped to answer this question. She stated that she would prefer to come back to the City Council with a number and review the recent examples as well as residential buildings that have gone through design review and review the setbacks.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the 75% opaque do more to screen the noise. Councillor Carlone stated somewhat.

Amendment #35 to vote on in 7.5 section (c) to add the words “setback from the façade and” after the word “be”. He stated that CDD will provide feedback on the percentage. On an affirmative vote of 8 members the amendment was adopted. Councillor Simmons was recorded in the negative.

Councillor Carlone moved the Amendment #35 in 7.5 section (c) to change 50% to 75% opaque. On an affirmative vote of 8 members the amendment was adopted. Councillor Simmons was recorded in the negative.

Amendment #36 is to amendment 7.6 Environmental Design Standards in sections (b) and (c).

Councillor Zondervan stated that the first amendment is the net zero ready requirement and the definition of net zero ready was deferred in a previous hearing. He stated that he is not trying to solve climate change through the AHOD. He stated that as more affordable housing is built, he wanted to ensure that the City is not adding to the climate change emissions. He stated that regarding the Net Zero Action Plan that would impact these developments in the future smaller developments would have to be net zero in 2022 and larger projects would have to be net zero by 2025. He noted that most of the units built would be in larger projects and a significant number of units could be built in the next five years without being net zero. He stated that the net zero ready requirement does not require the building to operate at net zero but ensures that it is ready to do so by making sure that it is energy efficient and is using renewable energy and not consuming fossil fuels on site. He spoke about the cost and the language of the amendment. He stated that it may be more expensive in some cases then this should be paid for by the City. He stated that the City is committed to doing this for all of its municipal construction. He highlighted the city schools and other municipal projects completed or near completion. He commented that he does not see why this same logic is not applied here. He stated that emissions need to be reduced everywhere to respond to climate change. He stated that this is an opportunity to go first and are proposing that non-profit partners build affordable housing should have some advantages in the market place so that they can more expediently build affordable housing then why wouldn’t the City require them to advance our climate mitigation goals by ensuring that those buildings are constructed net zero ready and if this costs more this should be paid for from any additional funds if needed. He noted that this is not a net cost but an upfront cost potentially in some cases and down the road it means savings on the utility bills for the residents and the common areas paid for by the non-profit owner of the building. He stated that this is a reasonable request in exchange for the many zoning advantages that the City is providing to the non-profit partners and with the promise that any difference in the cost will be paid for and in return they build everything net zero ready.

Councillor Kelley stated that this should be done everywhere such as having a net zero affordable housing and commercial overlay and it should be called a City overlay.

Councillor Mallon commented on Councillor Zondervan’s statement in exchange for the zoning advantage for affordable housing builders the City is getting more affordable housing built. She stated that there is a Health and Environment Committee hearing on resiliency task force and the outcomes and asked if there will be recommendations on net zero ready buildings. Ms. Farooq stated that this task force is more focused on climate change resilience rather than on the mitigation. The net zero and the net zero ready time frame is laid out by the Net Zero Action Plan which was adopted by the City Council and the net zero requirement for residential for 4 or more units is triggered in 2025. This is a net zero requirement, not a net zero ready requirement. Councillor Mallon asked about funding from the Affordable Housing Trust to offset the full cost differential. She asked can the Affordable Housing Trust pay for this. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this provision cannot be put into the zoning ordinance because it is not a zoning provision. She further stated that this would conflict with the Affordable Housing Trust ordinance as well as the legislation that authorizes the City to have the fund. She would advise against this because it is not permissible legally. Councillor Mallon asked about if there is another funding source in the City would this be acceptable to put into the zoning. City Solicitor Glowa stated that it is not appropriate to put information about funding sources in the zoning ordinance and the Affordable Housing Trust cannot be used by putting a mandatory provisions in zoning ordinance that supersedes the role of the Trust in determining what projects to fund that is provided to the Trust in the ordinance and the enabling legislation that goes hand-in-hand with the ordinance.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is asking for net zero ready, not net zero operation. She stated that the requirement that smaller buildings be net zero operationally is the higher bar and come within 2 years. She stated that it is being stated that only non-profit developers will be using this zoning and there is no guarantee of this. She stated that she is not sure how significant the additional cost would be. She suggested Councillor Zondervan explain what choice a developer may make such as deciding to have entirely electric heating system rather than connecting to an existing gas line. She asked what type of choices developers would be making to be net zero ready.

Councillor Zondervan stated that there are choices during design and construction of a building that allow it to be net zero ready. He stated that if an air source heat pump were installed versus a gas fire boiler system there may be an increased cost for additional insulation for the air source heat pump can effectively heat the building. He added that buildings should be insulated in an effort to not waste energy and the cost to heat a building. He commented that there may be up-front costs but there are savings down the road. He stated what makes the affordable housing situation different is that the building is owned and operated by the developer and there would be on-going operating costs and there would be ongoing cost savings. He spoke about net zero operations being a 3% up-front cost. In terms of renewable energy, it can be financed separate from the construction of the project. This is a tradeoff of most cost upfront with savings down the road.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that from a zoning perspective the second sentence in b and c should be stricken in its entirety.

Councillor Carlone moved to strike out the second sentence in section (b) of 7.6 Environmental Design Standards. On an affirmative vote of 8 members the amendment was adopted. Councillor Simmons was recorded in the negative.

Councillor Carlone requested feedback from the Affordable Housing Trust on (b) which reads:

Notwithstanding any other requirement, any building permitted through the AHO shall be a Net Zero Ready Building. Ms. Farooq stated that she would speak with the Affordable Housing Trust on this matter to understand the differential. She noted that it is easier in smaller buildings to achieve this.

Councillor Carlone noted that the definition of Net Zero has been put on HOLD. Councillor Zondervan stated that this can be voted on and if the outcome is positive the committee can discuss how to define it.

Councillor Zondervan wanted to vote on whether to pursue Net Zero Ready. Ms. Farooq stated that the City is working on a net zero ready definition as part of Article 22 amendments to be forwarded to the City Council in September. Zero Building changes to the zoning ordinance will be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee City Solicitor Glowa suggested leaving this on the table and stated that the Article 22 Net in September and it does contain a definition of a Net Zero Ready Building. This provision could be placed on HOLD until this amendment is brought forward and move to pull this definition out of the draft and use it in this amendment or the definition could be provided to the City Council. The definition could be provided earlier but she is hesitant because it is a complex amendment and its complex technical information. She suggested placing this on HOLD until the next hearing and the definition could be provided.

Councillor Simmons stated that it is important to vote on this fully developed. She suggested waiting to get the definition. She stated that she would not vote for this now because she felt that the committee should wait.

Mayor McGovern stated that he wanted to get a better sense of the cost and the financial implications for net zero ready.

Vice Mayor Devereux commented that votes have been taken on this petition without having definitions and trusted the staff to change language or come back with additional information understanding the spirit of what the committee is voting on. She spoke about the complexities of the definition in Article 22 and stated that the definition offered by Councillor Zondervan is twenty-five words. She commented on how much detail the definition here needs to be to convey what net zero ready is.

At this time Councillor Zondervan submitted the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the staff of the Community Development Department to provide information regarding the cost implications and the definition for net zero ready buildings as it relates to the AHOD ordinance and that said information to include the issues encountered by affordable housing developers when doing renovations or reconstruction around current utilities and to report back to the City Council with this information so that it can be incorporated into the AHOD petition.

The motion was adopted on the affirmative vote of nine members.

Mayor McGovern stated that labs are the largest percentage of emissions and putting this in a very specific, tight circumstances and wanted to do this done across the board for a bigger impact.

Councillor Zondervan spoke on his amendment to add a new section (c). He stated that on the advice of the City Solicitor the second sentence is being deleted. The first sentence reads: Notwithstanding the language of the Tree Protection Ordinance (TPO), any project permitted under the AHO shall be fully compliant with the TPO. He stated that in this case the tree protection ordinance has a specific exemption for affordable housing construction where this construction does not have to comply. He announced his intention to submit amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance what would change this. He stated that the AHOD should not perpetuate this exemption because one of the unintended consequences of this exemption in the Tree Protection Ordinance is an environmental injustice where affordable housing tenants potentially have less tree canopy protection than other residents of the City. He stated that the fair way to deal with this is to have the same requirements for everyone. He spoke about the health, safety and environmental benefits of trees. He stated that regarding costs may be expensive to provide tree protection and have the intention of paying for additional costs associated with making sure that adequate tree canopy is provided in the affordable housing construction.

Mayor McGovern commented on the Tree Protection Ordinance. Councillor Zondervan stated that the current Tree Protection Ordinance that is in effect now stipulates that for large construction projects any trees removed have to be replaced or if not replaced then payment into a tree fund is required which is used to plant trees in the City. He stated that this provision would remove the exemption for affordable housing from the ordinance and then the Tree Protection Ordinance can be amended in the future so that it removes the exemption for all affordable housing projects. He added that this is separate from the zoning and this is why he is proposing in the zoning that it would fully comply. Mayor McGovern asked if there was an exemption was put in for the overlay and this would remove the exemption and he asked why this was put into the original petition and what is the impact of removing this. Ms. Farooq stated that ordinance predates her. The Tree Protection Ordinance is the ordinance that has the exemption. She explained that the exemption is in the Tree Protection Ordinance. This would put less of a burden on affordable housing developments. She noted that those who are building affordable housing tend to be sensitive to tree removal and in instances where trees had to be removed in recent projects the CDD has received extensive study and justification as to why this had to happen. This is not taken lightly by the staff either. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she was involved in the development of the Tree Protection Ordinance and the reason for the exemption for affordable housing project was the recognition at the time that many significant trees often are removed for construction of new development and the result of this is to pay money into the Tree Protection Fund. This was a financial issue to relieve the affordable housing developer from having to pay into the Tree Protection Fund. She added that the City has been moving toward the other provisions of the Tree Protection Ordinance to not remove tree unless it is absolutely necessary. She stated that if this language is adopted by the City Council is notwithstanding, meaning aside from the applicability that would otherwise be there for affordable housing projects in the Tree Protection Ordinance under this zoning ordinance if this language is approved then affordable housing developers building pursuant to this overlay would have to comply with the provision of the Tree Protection Ordinance and does not necessarily mean that the Tree Protection Ordinance has to be amended at this time.

Mayor McGovern stated that the second sentence in (c) would need to be deleted. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is her recommendation. Mayor McGovern noted that barring a funding source this could be problematic.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the Tree Protection Fund is a public fund and the money in that fund goes to plant other trees that can be beneficial to the residents of these building. She acknowledged that affordable housing developers do care about trees and have worked on projects to preserve trees, but this is under the current conditions where there is binding review. This is a good goal to strive for and she would support this.

Councillor Mallon stated that she supports this particular amendment, not for the environmental justice aspect but rather because the City is trying to replace the tree canopy. This is a goal and the subject of a lot discussion. She asked can public funds from the Tree Protection Ordinance be used to fund affordable housing landscaping and trees. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she does know the answer to this. Ms. Farooq stated that Tree Protection Fund is principally used for planting street trees and also currently used for some back of sidewalk trees within a certain distance of the public sidewalk. She explained what is currently being discussed as part of the Urban Forestry Master Plan is how this might be modified going forward but does not interface with what Cambridge as a City are allowed to do to support private property or not and this includes the retail discussions. She stated that once this recommendation is made it requires being researched and resolved. She stated that currently it can support trees within an affordable housing building but would have to be close to sidewalk. Councillor Zondervan stated that back of the sidewalk is 20 feet from the sidewalk. Councillor Mallon spoke about defraying some of the costs for affordable housing builders. She stated that the Tree Protection Ordinance should not have an exemption for affordable housing.

Councillor Simmons stated that these modifications are being made to the AHOD and the costs are not cost neutral. She wanted to hear from the community-based housing builders as to what costs they are currently incurring when they replace trees. She stated that this is pushing the project to be more unaffordable. She wanted to know what the financial impact is before voting for this amendment. Councillor Carlone stated that it is his opinion that the City can help affordable housing developers by paying for the sidewalks and trees. This is a wise way to use funding to make development work better and to get a better product in the end. He will support this.

Councillor Simmons expressed concern about all the items that the committee is asking the City to fund. She expressed concerns that this good thing (AHOD) will be killed off because of all the additions and deletions and not knowing what the financial impact will be. She acknowledged that the City Manager added additional funding to the Affordable Housing Trust.

Councillor Zondervan moved to strike out the second sentence in section (b) of 7.6 Environmental Design Standards. On an affirmative vote of 8 members the amendment was adopted. Councillor Simmons was recorded in the negative.

Councillor Zondervan explained his amendment in section (d).

Councillor Mallon noted that this amendment was referred to CCD with #13 and 14 on Aug 8, 2019.

Amendment #36A submitted by Vice Mayor Devereux to add at the end “and the public way.” (She changed the word “or” to “and”). She spoke about the unsuccessful attempt to pass an Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. She spoke about lighting affecting more than abutters. She used the example of an obnoxious light fixture on the Tobin School for years.

Councillor Simmons stated that she thinks of lighting on the public way she thinks of it as adding to safety. Her concern is that she does view the public way in the same way. She stated that she understands the sentiment of light intrusion but in the public way it is fine. She wanted additional lighting in the public way for safety and obstructions in the public way that may not be seen.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there is an existing definition in the zoning for light trespass. She stated that AHOD projects or any buildings should be lite in order to specifically correct defects of street lighting; this is the job of street lighting. She commented that if streets are poorly lit or a tipping hazard then she would not look to a building to do this. She stated that she was trying to point out that it is not only adjacent properties that can have light trespass. Councillor Carlone stated that the Tobin School was the direction and glare of the light. He agreed that supplemental lighting on a building is helpful at entry or egress points. Ms. Farooq stated that this provision could be challenging for access to entry way because the public way is one of the few places that the City worries less about light trespass. She noted that in the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance the goal was to protect abutters and residential neighbors but there was less concern in terms of the public right of way. If there is a little trespass, there is less problematic, and this is the section already lit and any additional light is typically not much of a problem. She spoke about having the light fixtures fully shielded and directed to prevent light trespass. She stated that the trespass component could be problematic. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she does not want to eliminate the provision to prevent light trespass on adjacent residential lots. She stated that lighting can be done in a way that is shielded and that lights the things that need to be lit on the property and does not light the public way that do not need to be lit. She added that she did not think that this was such a high bar to set to not spill needless light out onto the street and the sidewalk. She stated that light is annoying when it is not necessary.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the zoning ordinance already regulates to require screening from light trespass into abutters property but does not address the street. She noted that the provision here about shielding from neighbors is already addressed in the zoning.

Councillor Mallon spoke about picking up her children every day for the last eleven years at the Tobin School there was an unsafe environment without having the light at the Tobin School. It was very dark, particularly in the winter time. She did not want to hamper some of the builders to trade off safety for light trespass. She agreed that someone living across the street from the Tobin should not be annoyed by the light but there is a way to accomplish this in a thoughtful way but did not want residents unsafe.

Councillor Simmons stated that if the Tobin School had a light that was egregious which was under the City’s control and she is glad that it was taken care of. She stated that the City Solicitor has stated that light trespass has been addressed. She stated that she did not want to ignore the quality and the ability of the community-based housing builders because they would be extraordinarily cognizant; this is overkill. She stated that for every low-moderate income housing development that she has gone by has not seen where their light was overly abrasive. She stated that at some point there should be some trust with the community-based affordable housing developers or for any developer that may seek to use the AHOD language to build in a way that is courteous to our neighbors. She added that safety is not the job of a housing developer. She stated that she would be voting present on this amendment.

City Solicitor Glowa corrected what she stated previously. She stated that in Article 7.20 there is a section entitled “Illumination” and it only applies in Residences A, B, C and C-1 Districts but it does require that permanent lighting to be continuous, indirect and installed in a manner that would prevent direct light from shining onto any street or adjacent properties. She stated that the concept exists but not in every district. Councillor Carlone stated that this only applies low-density residential zones. He stated that both can easily be done with a down light. He added that old apartment buildings do this best.

Councillor Zondervan suggested adopting the language provided by the City Solicitor for any project that is adjacent to any residence. City Solicitor will provide the language that is appropriate for the AHOD. Amendment #36A vote to seek language similar to what is provided in Article 7.20 which will be provided by the City Solicitor. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted. Amendment #37 in 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure section (a) submitted by Councillor Carlone. He stated that he modified this to add a meeting before the one community meeting showing what is being proposed. This is to gather other information. He noted that Vice Mayor Devereux added at the beginning of his amendment the words “At least.” Councillor Carlone read his amendment to (a) as follows:

(a) At least one preliminary planning meeting shall be scheduled at a time and location that is convenient to residents in proximity to the project site. The purpose of this meeting is to share the development team’s site and street context analysis with the community and other interested parties and gain feedback from the neighborhood.

He stated that since there is no design review getting feedback makes sense.

Councillor Simmons stated that she agrees with this. She questioned the proximity to the project site and stated that for some project sites may have to go outside of the project site. Councillor Carlone responded that he used the next existing City wording; he stated that he repeated the language from a different section. Councillor Carlone stated that this amendment would be new section (a). He stated that the existing sections (a) and (b) will be renumbered as (b) and (c).

Vice Mayor Devereux commented that the second sentence in the original (a) is about notification and should be parallel. Ms. Farooq commented on the issue raised by Councillor Simmons and agree that the way that this is phrased is not as clear as it could be. She stated that the CDD could work on clarifying the language or suggested the wording “within the neighborhood of the project site”. Councillor Carlone stated clarify the language. She further suggested that in the amendment to add “prior to building design.” Vice Mayor Devereux commented on the difficulty of scheduling these meetings and finding venues for the meetings. If this is made a requirement then City buildings should be made available and would not want to place a burden on the affordable housing developer to find a space. City Solicitor Glowa commented there is a lot of demand on City buildings in which the City Manager has to contend with. She further stated that a lot of projects and issues that involve the community need to find space. She suggested asking the City Manager before putting this requirement in the petition.

Councillor Carlone submitted the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council with information regarding whether public facilities can be used for future meetings related to the AHOD process.

On an affirmative vote of 9 members the motion was adopted.

Amendment #37 as amended section (a) reads as follows:
(a)At least one preliminary planning meeting shall be scheduled at a time and location that is convenient to residents in proximity to the project site. The purpose of this meeting is to share the development team’s site and street context analysis prior to building design phase with the community and other interested parties and gain feedback from the neighborhood.

On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendments offered by Vice Mayor Devereux and Councillor Carlone were adopted.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved to amend section (a) further by adding the second sentence in the original section (a) to the amended section (a) as follows:

The Community Development Department (CDD) shall be notified of the time and location of such meeting and shall give notification to each abutting property owner and to any individual or organization who each year files with CDD a written request for such notification, or to any other individual or organization that CDD may wish to notify. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

In the end the amended (a) in Amendment #37 reads as follows:
(a) At least one preliminary planning meeting shall be scheduled at a time and location that is convenient to residents in proximity to the project site. The purpose of this meeting is to share the development team’s site and street context analysis prior to building design phase with the community and other interested parties and gain feedback from the neighborhood. The Community Development Department (CDD) shall be notified of the time and location of such meeting and shall give notification to each abutting property owner and to any individual or organization who each year files with CDD a written request for such notification, or to any other individual or organization that CDD may wish to notify.

Amendment #38 in 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure by adding in the renumbered section (c) a new #2 proposed by Councillor Carlone that reads:
2. A context analysis discussed with CDD staff including existing front yard setbacks, architectural character, unique features that shall or shall not influence the AHO design.

On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Amendment #38A in 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure in 3 (which is renumbered as 4 due to the addition of 2 above) proposed by Councillor Carlone to add after the word “floor” the words “and possible building roof deck.” On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Amendment #39 in 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure proposed by Councillor Carlone would add a new 4 (renumbered as 5) that reads:
5. A design statement on how proposed project attempts to reinforce existing street/context qualities and mitigates the planned project’s greater massing, height, density, etc.

On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Amendment #39.1 in 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure proposed by Councillor Carlone to add additional language to 8 (renumbered as 9) at the end that reads “Chosen points of view to be decided in concert with CDD urban design staff.

On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Amendment #39A in 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure proposed by Vice Mayor Devereux stated that all these numerated items are things that will be made available to the Planning Board for review. She is adding a new 13 (which will be renumbered 15) is adding a requirement for shadow studies showing the impact on neighboring properties with existing solar installation. She stated that there have been concerns if solar is installed and there is a taller building built next to them it could impact their solar. She was also proposing a new 14 (which will be renumbered 16) which is requesting developers to submit a financial pro-forma that shows the AHO developer’s profit does not exceed the maximum allowed under Chapter 40B of state law.

Ms. Farooq suggested just stating that they have to provide the pro-forma without the financial limit would give the City the information it is seeking. She stated that all the financial aspects are reviewed by the Trust. She stated that the Trust will not fund a lot of additional profit on a project. She added that this is putting in a constraint in the form of a documentation requirement. She suggested the wording of providing the pro-forma and show what is the developer’s profit or return. Vice Mayor Devereux asked what if the developer is not seeking funding from the Trust which is the leverage. Ms. Farooq stated that it is hard to conceive of a project that has all the covenants that will be able to build without funding from the state or any source. She stated that she does not think that the developers are making a huge profit. She is concerned because this is being asked as a documentation requirement and putting in a restriction as part of a document requirement seems unusual. Councillor Carlone commented that in the past the Planning Board has requested pro-forma on difficult projects. He noted that the Trust reviews this and it is the responsibility of the Trust. Ms. Farooq suggested not taking away the requirement but simply to state that a financial pro-forma shows the affordable housing developer’s profit. This will get the proforma and show the profit but not add a limitation as part of a documentation requirement. Her concern is the language that the profit does not exceed the maximum allowed under Chapter 40Bof state law.

Councillor Kelley stated that one whole idea of this proposal is to access new funding streams. He stated that there is no reason why Harvard could not participate in this proposal as a new opportunity. He stated that he would feel more confident if individuals had the imagination to think what this is likely to do rather than looking backwards at what has happened. He stated that what has always happened will not be what happens in the future and that is the intent of this. He stated that he is disappointed that this is where we are now thinking about where funding will come from.

Ms. Farooq stated that if this is stating that if a developer’s profit should not exceed the maximum allowed under Chapter 40B of state law then it should be stated somewhere other than where this is asking for documents.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about what non-profit’s budget covers. She stated that non-profit budgets cover salaries, the cost of operating the organization, operating incomes go back into the project, residential services and developer fees for these affordable housing developments that are funded by the state are capped and highly regulated. This will be useful information but may show information that the funding is going to vital places that keep these organizations running.

Vice Mayor Devereux suggested moved the language in 14 (16) that the “profit does not exceed the maximum allowed under Chapter 40B of state law” to another place later in the ordinance.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that regarding #13 (15) on the shadow studies. She stated that this should also include “view shed” illustrations which would apply to larger buildings in places such as Harvard and Central Squares. Vice Mayor Devereux moved to amend her amendment to add at the beginning of #13 (15) the words “View shed analysis and.” On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment as amended was adopted.

On #14 amendment Vice Mayor Devereux amended her amendment by striking out the words “does not exceed the maximum allowed under Chapter 40B of state law.” On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment as amended was adopted.

Amendment #39B in 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure in section (c) proposed by Vice Mayor Devereux. She stated that this speaks to the Planning Board scheduling a design consultation as a general business matter at a public meeting. She stated that her understanding of the Planning Board operates is that general business does not permit any public comment. She stated that she is proposing to strike this because she feels that public comment should be allowed. She spoke about the written comments coming from abutters, City staff and the general public. She stated that she was amending her amendment to add “or oral comments during the meeting.” She noted that this should be a typical Planning Board meeting where there should be written and oral public comment. On an affirmative vote of nine members the amendment was adopted.

City Solicitor Glowa suggested that prior to the meeting should be written comments because it is important for zoning to have a written record of things that occur and to have that documented for posterity. She further requested that oral comments be not in advance of the meeting.

Vice Mayor Devereux agreed that this needs to be worded that it is written comments prior to the meeting or oral comments during the meeting.

Councillor Mallon questioned if the legal term for abutters is being used as 300 feet as generally accepted or will a definition be added to the zoning. City Solicitor Glowa responded that under Chapter 40A which governs the zoning ordinance and there may be language in the zoning ordinance as well. She stated that it actually would state: abutters and abutters to abutters within 300 feet and property owners directly across the subject property. She stated that the statutory definition could be added. Councillor Mallon stated that this is a good idea. Vice Mayor Devereux suggested the wording “abutters as defined in Chapter 40A or the zoning ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she will see whether abutters are defined in the zoning ordinance or under Chapter 40A and refer to where it is codified and provide the language.

Section (c) as amended reads as follows:
(c) Within 65 days of receipt of a complete set of materials by CDD, the Planning Board shall schedule a design consultation at a public meeting. The materials shall be made available to the public in advance, and the Planning Board may receive written comments prior to the meeting or oral comments during the meeting from City staff, abutters and from the general public.

On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment as amended was adopted.

Amendment #40 in 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure in section (g) proposed by Councillor Carlone to add after the word “developer” the words “or the principal funder, Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Trust.”

Ms. Farooq suggested deleting the words “the principle funder.”

Councillor Mallon stated that there was a similar situation previously where Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Trust was deleted, and the words principal funder was retained in Amendment #5. She suggested being consistent. The Clerk explained that the result of Amendment #5 was to strike the words “principal funder” and leave in “Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Trust.”

On an affirmative vote of 9 members to strike out the words “principal funder” the amendment was adopted.

On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment as amended was adopted.

Amendment #41 was a proposed amendment by Councillor Carlone to add a new section 10 entitled Overlay Design Consultation Objectives.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is proposing something in the zoning that is clarifying what is being sought relating to buildings attempting to fit in, including character of the street. He stated that some of these are elements from Article 19. He commented that the City Solicitor has stated that these should be informal guidelines that are not required. He stated that these could serve as a guide to the Planning Board. He noted that he added that a project need not meet all the objectives of this section; said language is from Article 19.

Ms. Farooq stated that the language in Article 19 are in fact the guidelines that the Planning Board is asked to utilize as part of the Article 19 review. These are design consultation objectives and to clarify this here in a sentence such as these objectives will be used by the Planning Board in their review is fine. She explained that they could not be enforced by the Inspectional Service Department as part of the building permit.

Councillor Carlone stated that he welcomed the CDD modification. He stated that the goal was to have stronger guidance so that smart developers will follow in principal.

Councillor Carlone read the proposed new sections.

Councillor Siddiqui stated there should be consistency with the use of the words shall or should.

Councillor Zondervan suggested going to smaller amendments first and come back to this.

Councillor Simmons agreed with the use should and shall and City policy and asked if this would this be moved to the design guidelines of the AHO. Councillor Carlone stated that this would be called out as guidance objectives for the Planning Board to use in their informal evaluation of the project and would stay in the zoning as objectives for the Planning Board.

Councillor Mallon asked how this fit into zoning as a yes/no concept. Councillor Carlone stated that is for the Planning Board evaluation and to give the Planning Board guidance. Councillor Mallon asked why this would not go into design guidelines.

Ms. Farooq stated that in Article 19 sets out the procedures for review and then there is some design objectives. She stated this could go both ways. They could be moved to design guidelines or could be retained in the zoning with some introductory language that these objectives are intended for the Planning Board’s design review of these projects. She stated that it would be important to modify the usage of shall statements to should statements because they will not all be met that would imply that certain ones are more critical than others. She stated that the statements should all be should.

Amendment #41 was placed on HOLD.

Amendment #41A proposed by Vice Mayor Devereux in 9 Implementation of Affordable Housing Overlay in section (a) is to change 30 to 60-day review period. She stated that this period was tight seeing that there are regulations to deal with as to how this is actually implemented.

Ms. Farooq stated that there are no regulations anticipated but wanted to leave this space to create regulations if the need arises. She stated that the 60 days makes sense. On an affirmative vote of 9 the amendment was adopted.

Amendment #42 proposed by Councillor Mallon and Mayor McGovern would create a new section 11 entitled Review of Affordable Housing Overlay.

Mayor McGovern stated that there were concerns heard about having some sort of review to see how things are working, need to be changed or adjusted. This suggests a review period of five years. He commented that time needs to be given to let things develop before doing a review. He stated that projects take multiple years to come to light. This is also to review every five years and suggestions as to what should be included in the review report.

Councillor Carlone spoke about his amendment #43 which proposes a new section 13 entitled Five Year Affordable Housing Overlay Progress Report and Review. He stated that his proposal includes evaluation with neighborhood consultation all built and approved projects. The report will include site specific outcomes to meet City goals. It shall be completed by the end of the 5th year of the Ordinance. Upon receipt, the Ordinance Committee will hold public hearings to discuss the report’s findings and recommendations. He noted that this is an evaluation of built projects as well as what is produced. He stated that because there is no firm design review it is critical to re-evaluate this.

Mayor McGovern suggested merging Amendment #42 and #43.

Amendment #43A proposed by Vice Mayor Devereux (Annual Review Required) stated that she is not against what is being asked for in Amendment #42 and #43 but this needs to be done annually and needs to be presented. She stated that she realizes that it may take time for the data to be presented. She stated that she is suggesting that this would not start until 18 months after ordination. She stated that she wanted an annual progress report to be presented in public at meetings of both the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board. This is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Housing Overlay in balancing the goals of the ordinance to increase affordable units throughout the City while meeting environmental and mobility goals and measures the success of neighborhood consultation and engagement with the design review process. She wanted to know sooner than five years if this is going as planned and future elected officials can decide if the progress seen has red flags that may trigger changes to the ordinance, and she wanted this information sooner than five years. She stated that she wanted to know if the ordinance is working for affordable developers, working for neighborhoods and the holistic planning being done as a City.

Councillor Zondervan agreed with all amendments but feels that this should be an annual review and reporting. He stated that he would support combining all these amendments with annual review that requests the information in the amendments.

Mayor McGovern spoke about his concern about an annual review. He asked if one year is enough time to give this an evaluation? He spoke the terminology and to get a yearly update as is done for inclusionary housing. This needs an in-depth review.

Councillor Simmons likes a report rather than a review. She supported five years and wanted to strike out review and insert report.

Councillor Mallon spoke about an annual report 18 months after ordination suggested by Vice Mayor Devereux. She agrees with this doing an annual report staring 18 months after ordination and doing a 5- year comprehensive review. She stated that this is so that the residents have a clear understanding of what this ordinance is doing. She likes what Councillor Carlone put in his amendment that upon receipt the Ordinance Committee shall hold public hearings to discuss the report’s findings and recommendations. She suggested that taking the spirit of these amendments and combining them would be the best way forward.

Councillor Kelley stated that the AHO is to drastically change how the City approaches the building of affordable housing in Cambridge. We keep looking backwards to do the same thing with different tools. He stated that this is supposed to be a dramatically different tool. He stated that the City needs to be intentional about how this is reviewed. We need to be clear that a review is just a review. He commented that Alewife is about a zoning change that not all are excited about and it has gone faster than anticipated and that it should be slowed down. It might be difficult to slow down. This may be the same case here. If this passes the review is just that a review and this needs to be made clear.

Vice Mayor Devereux state that she is amenable to come up with a way to have annual progress reports and have a more extensive evaluation at the 5-year mark. She noted that review can tell the City if it is on the right track.

Councillor Carlone asked how all three pieces are put together.

Councillor Zondervan moved that all three amendments (#42, 43 and 43A) be forwarded the staff to come back with language. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendments were referred to CDD.

Councillor Mallon asked about the proposed amendment by the Vice Mayor Devereux and whether it is germane to discuss a sunset clause.

Vice Mayor Devereux proposed an amendment #43A to create a new section 12 entitled Sunset Provision. She stated that the Planning Board members stated that there should be a Sunset provision but did not specify the terms of the provision. She stated that it is unknown if the Planning Board will make a specific recommendation for a Sunset Provision because their report has not been received yet.

Mayor McGovern stated that he does not support a Sunset Provision.

Councillor Mallon stated that an annual review will negate having a Sunset Provision. She stated that she will not support having an annual review 18 months after ordination, a 5-year comprehensive report and a Sunset Clause. This is overkill.

Councillor Carlone proposed waiting until the amended language comes back to the Ordinance Committee and this will be discussed again as to how to move forward.

On motion of Councillor Carlone the Ordinance Committee recessed at 4:59pm on an affirmative vote of 9 members.

Committee Report #8
[RECONVENED ORDINANCE HEARING FROM AUG 13, 2019 ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT]

On Sept 3, 2019 Councillor Carlone reconvened the Ordinance Committee hearing from Aug 13, 2019 at 12:06pm in the Sullivan Chamber to continue discussions on proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay District petition. He announced that there will be no public comment. He announced that the hearing was being televised.

Present were: Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Siddiqui; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Toomey; Erik Thorkildsen, Urban Designer, CDD; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; Chris Cotter, Director of Housing, CDD; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager of Zoning and Development, CDD; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Planning, CDD; City Clerk Anthony Wilson; Will Durbin, Chief of Staff for Mayor McGovern; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk’s Office.

Also present were Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place; Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street; Skip Schloming, 102R Inman Street; Young Kim, 17 Norris Street; James Zall, 203 Pemberton Street; Elizabeth Gombosi, 42 Irving street; Fritz Donovan, 42 Irving Street; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Lynn Cetnito, 46 Grozier Road; Douglass Payne, 24 Sherman Street; and John Pitkin 18 Fayette Street.

Councillor Carlone outlined the format of the meeting. He noted that the City is the petitioner and there are handouts distributed by Community Development Department including an Affordable Housing Zoning proposal, comparison charts dated Aug 29, 2019 (ATTACHMENT 46), a memo from Community Development dated Aug 29, 2019, additions to the Affordable Housing Overlay petition are highlighted in blue and Design Guidelines for 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Draft dated Aug 29, 2019. He stated that is also a handout compiled by the Mayor’s Office as of Sept 3, 2019 with the amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay and this will be used as a guide (ATTACHMENT 47). There is also a handout that outlines which amendments are on hold, pending language from City Solicitor and the items that were referred to Community Development Department (ATTACHMENT 48).

Mr. Roberts gave an overview of the material submitted to the Ordinance Committee by e-mail last Thursday. The main document is a revised version of the zoning text (ATTACHMENT 49). There were changes to the proposal that were voted on by the Ordinance Committee and they have been incorporated into the zoning text and made some clarifying changes based on comments by the Planning Board that needed clarification. He spoke about clarifying edits which have also been incorporated into the revised text and includes commentary on the right side to be able to identify the substantive changes. He stated that there is a memo on CDD letter head transmitting supplemental information on questions that were asked at the previous Ordinance Committee hearings (ATTACHMENT 50). This memo includes commentary information relating to Net Zero Ready Buildings, Displacement/Relocation Assistance, Transportation Demand Management Requirements, Density Limits/FAR Caps, Applicability and Import of the Tree Ordinance and Historic Preservation and greater clarification about language in the zoning related to the State Register of Historic Places. He stated that another document was an updated comparison charts and maps that illustrate the provision of the Affordable Housing Overlay compared to the base zoning limitations across the base zoning districts in the zoning ordinance (ATTACHMENT 51). He noted that this was presented with the original proposal and this has been updated based on the recent set of changes voted by the Ordinance Committee. He stated that there is an updated set of Design Guidelines incorporating comments made by the Ordinance Committee (ATTACHMENT 52). Mr. Thorkildsen will provide a summary of the changes.

Councillor Carlone asked if the key points be reviewed by the staff in the presentation. Mr. Roberts stated that he will go through the substantive changes to the zoning text. Councillor Carlone noted that the FAR is different. Mr. Roberts stated that in response to a change to FAR staff looked at. He stated that there was a report that went to the City Council that was prepared with assistance from the Assessing Department. The basis for AHO proposal is the notation for site to be acquired and for the ability to do affordable housing developments in a way where sites could be feasible acquired and develop would require greater density in order to spread the acquisition costs for sites over a greater number of units. The conclusion depending on the site and acquisition costs of site there could a lot of variation but as an approximate mid-point in lower density residential districts an affordable housing project would need to have a FAR of 2 in order to come up with a feasible acquisition per unit. He stated that a FAR of 2 was seen in those districts as a reasonable limitation that would allow affordable housing developments to be feasible on sites in the lower density areas. He stated that as the analysis that was done shows that there are some sites that this would not be feasible and some it would be depending on the character and nature of the site. This was seen to be a reasonable limitation on density.

Mr. Cotter stated that there were several amendments that introduced the idea of FAR and the City Council asked CDD staff to review this and come back with comments as to what would be an appropriate FAR. He stated that building from the analysis recently done with the Assessors and the market to see what level of density might be needed in order to make more sites possible for affordable housing development. He stated that he feels comfortable with the FAR of 2.0 even before discussing the form-based approach that was discussed is deriving from a FAR of 2.0. He stated that with the interest in having a cap on density in the neighbor districts this was taken as a good reason to bring up the 2.0 again. This has been put into the petition and was noted in the memo. Councillor Carlone commented that the non-applicable on the higher density zones means that there is no change in the high-density zones. Mr. Cotter responded in the affirmative and stated that there is no cap on FAR that would apply in the neighborhood districts where the FAR is under 1 there would be a cap set at 2. There is no theorical cap in the corridors or the areas expected to see development, but there is a cap based on the size of the building envisioned based on the number of stories and height. Councillor Carlone asked if the lower density districts being affected and was there any studies done on A2, B, C and C1. Mr. Roberts stated that site study models were previously presented; there were several site development alternatives that modeled a building outcome that would be at a FAR of 2. He explained that when the models were done, they were not shown in specific locations. It was decided that it was preferable to show more generic context rather than picking specific sites. The examples are shown in a context with a range of different buildings that may be typical in Res. A, B, or C or lower density districts. There were 2 alternatives shown. One alternative had more units and less parking with a FAR of 2.4. This would exceed the limitation. The second alternative, referred to as Site 3 Alternative B, shows parking on the site with a FAR of 2. Councillor Carlone asked that the alternatives be resubmitted and reworded and that it be based on the submission of today.

Mr. Thorkildsen provided a summary of the changes to the Design Guidelines. The change is in the way that the Guidelines are presented, and the language was simplified. The introduction was revised. The text was cleaned up and included principals and objectives and included Historical Guidelines and included illustrations. Councillor Carlone commented that these are still suggestions. Mr. Thorkildsen stated that these are recommended guidelines and not directives.

City Solicitor Glowa commented on the definitions of abutters and public way. Ms. Glowa stated that the abutter language is included in the revised text. She stated that on page 23 language has been incorporated from the zoning ordinance and Chapter 40A regarding notice and to whom notice is sent. She stated that she is unclear on what she was to provide committee and welcomes further guidance to provide the information. She stated that received a document that refers to 36A amendment and does not appear to be related to public ways. Councillor Carlone noted that there was some concern about how the public way is defined. He noted that there is an amendment to 36A which adds “and the public way.”

City Clerk Wilson referred to section 7.6 in the ordinance there are four subsections and there is a proposal to amend subsection (d) that reads New outdoor light fixtures installed in an AHO project shall be fully shielded and directed to prevent light trespass onto adjacent residential lots and the public way. He noted that a question at the last Ordinance Committee hearing was how to appropriately define public way. Councillor Carlone stated that there was not a definitive definition on public way and informed the City Solicitor that she could get back to the Ordinance Committee on this. City Solicitor Glowa stated that it is unclear what guidance is sought. She stated that there is some light on public ways, and it is not clear whether the committee is looking for language that would keep all light from being shed onto any public way. She stated that she could provide suggested language at the next meeting. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that in the revised Design Guidelines there is now a reference to following some of the suggestion in the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance which was never adopted. She stated that the example that she used was the light at the Tobin School that was not shielded and was intended to be a security light for the school which went well beyond the school grounds and blinded pedestrians who were passing. This was a precaution to acknowledge that lighting that is on a property can spill out into the public way and not be pleasant to pedestrians and not provide security. She did not know how to put this into zoning language. City Solicitor Glowa wanted to figure out how best to address this issue. Councillor Carlone stated that this maybe shielded from the public but letting some indirect light go forward. This is about is glare that the Vice Mayor is referring to. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there is a difference between being shielded and not shedding any light. She stated that there are other places in the zoning ordinance that talks about shielding from direct light trespass onto neighboring properties. She stated that she would work on a proposal that is more refined to get to what the committee is getting at.

Councillor Carlone proceeded to the amendments that were placed on hold.

Amendment #1. Councillor Carlone moved to modify his amendment to remove striking out the word “limited.” He stated the question is, is 4 times the increase in zoning worthy of the word limited being removed. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the word limited in this sentence refers to height. This is limited increases in height. She noted that a previous amendment she offered was to add the word incremental. She noted that the increases in height are somewhat limited. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment carried. City Solicitor noted that the word “incremental” was adopted by the Ordinance Committee on Aug 8th. Councillor Carlone noted that the word “incremental” was approved on Amendment #5. Councillor Carlone Councillor Carlone moved to modify his amendment to add after the word “allow” the word “incremental” and leave in the word limited. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment carried.

Amendment #2. Councillor Carlone noted that this was an amendment by Councillor Zondervan to include in the Affordable Housing Overlay Eligible Households by adding at the end the words “or a household that was living in a building that is built or refurbished under the AHO.”

Councillor Simmons stated that she finds this restrictive and will not support it. She noted that this throws off the AMI configurations. She stated that this is more troublesome and requested that it be removed.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked Councillor Zondervan if the household that was living in a building that was either rebuilt or refurbished through the AHO met the guidelines for being an AHO tenant is this the intent. Councillor Zondervan responded that this would already be covered by the existing language. The amendment was to address a situation where tenants are above the income limits and are displaced from their home and would not be allowed to return.

Councillor Simmons spoke about the funding that AHO projects would have. She noted that this is addressed in the memo by CDD. She stated that if an individual is at market rate and moves out and this will bring the tenant back in. She stated that this is not the purpose of the AHO; the AHO is for individuals under a certain percentage of AMI. Mr. Cotter noted that displacement relocation was addressed in the CDD memo. He stated that the goal is not to displace household and work with households to the extent where relocation may be needed whether it is temporary. In the case where households may be eligible for AHO housing that may be created or permitted where a housing provider will work to help someone identify options either within their other affordable housing stock or within the market. This is problematic to have this type of definition in the zoning because it could conflict with requirements of funding sources as well as present logistical issues where a family may need to be moved to create a housing for seniors and to offer them the right to return would be challenging in terms of compatibility if a building is designed for a certain population it may not be appropriate to have tenants move back and they may have been options in a different type of housing. He added that from a policy perspective this is supported and would want to work through this with the housing providers but to have that element of the definition could be challenging from a practical standpoint as to how AHO housing projects would be financed. On a voice vote amendment #2 failed.

Amendment #3. Councillor Carlone stated that this is the definition of a Net Zero Ready Building.

Councillor Carlone read the proposed definition. He stated that affordable housing developments are more efficient than market rate housing because of costs and eliminating long-term heating and cooling costs. He stated that this definition connects with a later amendment on making buildings meet this standard. He favors doing as much as possible to be efficient.

Mr. Cotter this was addressed in the memo and recommended in the memo requiring a narrative for affordable housing projects to show a path to net zero at some point in the future recognizing that getting to net zero at this point can be prohibitively expensive and could undermine efforts to create affordable housing if this requirement were set. He stated that affordable housing is seen as performing better and advancing sustainability for using renewables and making the efforts to create housing that will be better for residents, the community and to operate over time. This is challenging to have this requirement if this were to be a prescriptive requirement. He stated that this definition is challenging as it refers to maximizing without setting standards. He stated that if there were such a definition it was recommended that there are clear standards so that an affordable housing provider would know what the baseline is to meet that definition. He noted that the goal and intention is appreciated but recommends approaching this in a different way. Councillor Carlone stated that the recommendation is to treat this as part of the overall Net Zero Action Plan as far as phasing and not penalize prospective affordable housing. Mr. Cotter stated that the intent in this concept for the AHO petition which was to look at affordable housing providers and not require anything more of them than is now required in the market but trying to give them the advantages to better compete in the market recognizing that the challenges to do that now.

Councillor Simmons suggested striking out this language based on the recommendations from CDD. She acknowledged that the affordable housing developers built to the highest efficient standards. She noted that this encumbers that process.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the City cannot allow emissions to increase and causing climate change to continue to worsen and causing death. In 2013 a petition was filed that asked the City to increase energy efficiency requirements and to require new construction be net zero and nothing has been done to date. The City builds net zero with the King Open School Complex and leads by example and cannot ask affordable housing developers to build net zero. He stated that this is not prohibitively expensive, and it is inappropriate to use this term. He added that there is a health and safety issue as well where burning gas in buildings pollutes the indoor air and is unhealthy for the occupants. This does not maximize energy efficiency and are burdening the tenants with unnecessary high utility bills. He stated that from a climate change perspective for the City to say that it needs to continue to build buildings that continue to add to emissions, continue to make climate change worse and continue to kill people is not acceptable to him. Councillor Carlone stated that in the Net Zero Plan what are the projected dates for housing to be Net Zero. Councillor Zondervan responded it is 2022 for small residential construction and 2025 for large residential and commercial buildings. He added that many of the affordable housing projects would not fall under the Net Zero requirements until 2025.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the CDD memo and asked why there would be a different way to do this through a net zero narrative and if adopted this requirement would apply to affordable housing projects subject to Green Building Requirements, generally projects of 25,000 square feet or more. When will the Green Building Requirements be adopted? She stated that a project of 25,000 square feet is a 25- unit building. She stated that it is not clear to her how many smaller AHO projects there will be and asked if there will be AHO projects that will be less than 25,000 square feet. Mr. Cotter spoke about the types of affordable housing this would affect. He stated that it is expected to see a range of project types and a way to think about this is the number of units and more units are expected in larger buildings along the corridors. One of the goals of the petition is to create opportunities in areas of the City where there is no affordable housing. He spoke about the types of projects expected with a cap of 2.0 is expected to be on smaller sites in the City. He stated that goal to create sustainable buildings is shared and is in the housing priorities. He stated that this is to create affordable housing and the more that the affordable housing providers are asked to do other things the more the intent is undermined. When this was reviewed with the housing providers the reaction was that it would be more challenging to meet the requirement. He stated that if the zoning has this type of requirement of a narrative for buildings that are 25,000 square feet it would become a fundamental eligibility criterion for the AHO.

Mr. Roberts addressed the question about the updates to Green Building Requirement. He stated that they are currently being worked on and will be forwarded to the City Council shortly. This is complex and the roll out of the NZAP. He stated that part of the complexity is that it does not fall entirely within the realm of zoning. This needs to work with the energy code requirements which are not regulated by zoning. He stated that finding the right way to balance zoning along with other standards and requirements and figuring out what can and cannot be regulated is part of the challenge. He stated the roll out complexity of the standards will be worked on by various departments.

Councillor Kelley appreciates the sentiment and the language that the City is continuing to build buildings that are killing people is super extreme and not super helpful. He stated that the City has passed a plan but is still waiting on a variety of ordinance suggestions to include things like modifying the zoning to allow for different types of insulation that would otherwise bring the building into non-compliance. He noted that there are no zoning requirements that push to Net Zero, there is a plan. Mr. Roberts stated that the AHO zoning proposal refers to the Green Building requirements. He stated that as part of the NZAP there are changes to Green Building Requirements that track the recommendations of the NZAP and includes moving from a baseline standard from LEED Silver to LEED Gold. There are other association improvements. She stated that there are other changes coming with this package, such as flexibility in some zoning standards that are meant to enable adding insulation to an existing building which may be non-conforming and may encounter issues with zoning if trying to add insulation to the exterior of a building. He stated that in the AHO included some flexibility in the zoning that would enable these types of improvements. He stated that there are increases in requirements that need to be met but there are also changes meant to create more flexibility in the zoning that would enable improvements that might otherwise not be able to be made. Councillor Kelley stated that he is confused about what is required at this point and the down the line requirements for creating this plan. He is under the impression that it is being done but not part of the zoning yet. He stated that this proposed amendment seems to leapfrog over current City efforts to change the zoning and other rules to bring people into Net Zero. He added at some point the current efforts will come to the City Council in the form of similar zoning changes. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative and further stated that the approach with this proposal as initially conceived is for projects being built under the AHO to continue to track the same environmental standards that would apply to comparable residential developments and as they change in the future then affordable housing projects over this AHO as well as all other residential projects would be subject to the same uniform set of standards.

Councillor Mallon stated that there are extensive efforts that are being put into place, and this does leapfrog. She spoke about the memo from CDD regarding requiring AHO projects to build to Net Zero standards sooner than otherwise required for all development would put affordable housing builders at a disadvantage relative to the developers of market rate housing. She stated that it is important not see any more stunting of affordable housing and does not want this to stop affordable housing from being built. She stated that she will not support this because of leapfrogging.

At this time Councillor Carlone called for the vote on amendment #3. On this motion the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Zondervan - 4
NAYS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 5
ABSENT: None - 0
and amendment #3 – Failed.

Amendment #4. Councillor Carlone moved to remove this amendment to add a definition for Permeable Parking. On an affirmative vote of 9 member the amendment was adopted.

Amendment #7. Councillor Carlone amendment was to add after Section 4.35. the words “All such ground floor uses shall”. He stated that in the revised text on page 5 contains language. He stated that his amendment was services shall be provided to the general public.

Councillor Mallon stated that in her notes from Aug 8th she has that this amendment would be discussed with amendment #32 which was around retail space and whether it could be a use that was non-retail but active related to abutters. Councillor Carlone noted that this is what the zoning specificity calls out. This is active uses. She stated that on page 19 of the revised text in (e) it appears that CDD took the spirit and intention of #7 and #32 and put them together in (e). Councillor Carlone noted that question is the word “may” or “shall.”

Mr. Roberts spoke about section 11.207.4 entitle “Use.” This sets forth what uses are allowed. It is important to establish clearly what uses are allowed. He explained that the AHO only applies to residential uses but there is an exception in an affordable housing overlay project can have some nonresidential uses at the ground floor and it is important to clarify what those uses are. In the revised text the reason for the addition is has to do with section 4.34 includes both office and lab uses and there was a question if this meant to include labs and that it would be helpful to clarify that it is only office. This is the reason for the text Paragraphs a. through e. This just states what uses are allowed and this is the intent. He stated that if the City wants to be expansive and encourage active ground floor use it is helpful to be as expansive as is reasonable so that there are different options for what that space can be used for.

Councillor Carlone noted that some districts require active ground floor, but this would negate that. Mr. Roberts stated that this section of the zoning is meant to establish that in any zone in districts that allows non-residential uses and could be districts that allow institutional uses, such as community centers, libraries or social services and could include business districts that allow retail use or office districts that allow office uses that in those districts if an affordable housing development is being built under the AHO it can have one of these allowed uses at the ground floor. He stated that this zoning can be utilized for a project that is all affordable housing plus one of these listed non-residential uses that are otherwise allowed in the base zoning at the ground floor. This is not restrictive.

Councillor Kelley is confused about stories at ground, above and below grade which is found on page 18 of the revised text in paragraph (f) and what is allowed at ground stories. Councillor Carlone stated that this will be addressed later.

Councillor Carlone stated that based on the explanation of Mr. Roberts he moved to remove his amendment. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was removed.

Amendment #8. Councillor Carlone stated that this is an amendment submitted by Councillor Zondervan to insert in Section 4 Use a new (b) (i).

Councillor Zondervan stated that the idea is to protect existing retail or other services being provided on ground floor in a building that is potentially being redeveloped under the AHO. He stated that the motivation behind this is that there are a lot of single-story buildings along the transit corridors that should have housing on the top. This overlay attempts to create these incentives that will allow this to happen. He stated that without protection for these existing businesses or small business this would make it less likely that those sites would get developed. He spoke about Mayor McGovern’s concern about formula businesses but those can and often are owned by local small business owners who are operating a franchise under a formula business brand. He stated that this underscores the tension and the challenge with this approach because the City is trying to achieve many of the goals at the same time and cannot simply prioritize one goal at the expense of others. He stated that there needs to be some way to protect these existing buildings and using this protection as a way to unlock those development opportunities so that both goals of producing more affordable housing and promoting small local businesses and maintaining vitality on the street. Councillor Carlone stated that he agreed but the amendment is very specific in a rental amount of 5% of the annual gross income. Councillor Zondervan commented that he meant to state no greater than 5%. He stated that this was provided as the right amount to limit so that the business would be able to operate in that space. He spoke about the vacant storefront across the City because of the high rents and further stated that it is important to put a limit on the rent so that these businesses are not being displaced.

Mayor McGovern stated that he is opposed to this because affordable housing developer would have to relocate a major business and does not want to do this on the back of affordable housing developers; this is not required of for-profit developers. He is open to any amendment that does not undermine the financial viability of affordable housing. This would be impossible for an affordable housing developer to do. He stated that the City needs to look at how to better support, particularly small businesses but putting this on the backs of affordable housing developers is not right.

Councillor Siddiqui agreed with the Mayor. She stated that legally this is not tenable. This amendment is unreasonably impractical. There is one goal from the beginning which is to figure out how to make affordable housing more cost effective and this gets in the way of this goal. She commented that the City is trying to figure out what can be done to help the City’s retailers. This does not make sense.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is an important issue and it needs to be resolved.

Councillor Simmons understands the idea behind the amendment but it is putting a burden on something that we are trying to correct through an economic development perspective on the AHO. She added that the AHO is not the place for a cure all. This is prohibitive. She stated that the community-based builders have stated that because of so many restrictions and financial burdens it is hard to build affordable housing. She stated that this amendment may be well-intended it is a putting a strain on building affordable housing and making it prohibitive. She requested Councillor Zondervan to withdraw his amendment or she would have to vote against it.

Councillor Kelley asked when a Special Permit is issued outside of the Massachusetts Avenue Overlay District it requires some amount of retail at the ground floor could the Planning Board require absent the base zoning that there be retail set aside for a project. City Solicitor Glowa responded that the only way that the Planning Board can impose such a requirement is if it exists somewhere within the ordinance provisions that relate to that Special Permit. Councillor Kelley spoke about Huron Village which does not have a ground floor retail requirement and if an individual purchased property today and developed it per the zoning ordinance they would not be required, and the Planning Board could not require them to put in ground floor retail. Mr. Roberts stated that if zoning does not require it, it cannot be specifically required. The Planning Board as part of a more holistic project review takes into account the character of the area, what the planning for the area dictates and the desirable outcome. He stated that there are instances where the Planning Board reviews a project for the first time and comments that the project would be approved if there were retail at some place in the project on the ground floor and this is something that evolves through project review. He stated that in the context of this proposal it would not be appropriate for the Planning Board to require a particular retailer be brought back or put provisions in place regarding the commercial rents that could be charged. Councillor Kelley stated that the lack of a Special Permit process which is proposed for a variety of reasons and this changes the discussion for whatever projects might come. He stated that if the AHO gets passed the rules change dramatically and it is difficult to compare the new rules with current rules. He stated that there is some ability for the Planning Board to push a project to have ground floor retail where the underlining zoning does not require it but is not codified and cannot push overly hard. Mr. Roberts stated that much that is in the AHO proposal does acknowledge that in many areas of the City projects do not require review by the Planning Board. But the acknowledgement of the AHO is meant to create a permitting path that would not require a Special Permit or Variance where they may otherwise might be required. He noted that the AHO does impose specific requirements. He noted that the committee was currently discussing an amendment on relocation and rent for existing retailers. He stated that elsewhere in the AHO there is a requirement that in certain business districts where retail uses are allowed if there is an existing retail use then the AHO must produce an active ground floor space that was intended to continue and support the street front character of the area.

Mayor McGovern stated that it would be helpful to stick with the amendment that is in front of the committee. He announced that these changes only apply under a very strict set of rules. This is not about all development or all zoning. He stated that if a 100% affordable housing development is not being built the extra height and the streamline permitting process does not apply. It is important to note that under very specific projects only do these changes apply. This is for a 100% affordable housing projects only.

Councillor Carlone stated that one of the prime areas for redevelopment is one-story retail districts and will have an impact with retail that is struggling.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that there is a place mentioned later where it states that if there is existing retail in a business district and refers to the AHO. She asked where this appears in the revised text. Mr. Cotter stated that this on page 18 in the revised text in paragraph (e). The Ordinance Committee amended the text from and to or. These would require an AHO project to include ground floor retail in projects that are built on site that had a former retail site or abut another parcel that has a retail use. Mayor McGovern stated that (e) on page 18 of the revised text is not the amendment being discussed. He added that the amendment before the committee is an amendment submitted by Councillor Zondervan about relocation fees and bringing retail back.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that on Aug 13th the Ordinance Committee voted on this. She added that it is important to remember that the committee did vote on a provision for maintaining retail. She stated that she understands that the amendment by Councillor Zondervan is different but wanted the committee to have the conversation about relocation also remembering that there was a vote to keep the local retail.

She added that clearly there is a great deal of confusion about what this zoning actually states.

Councillor Zondervan commented that this amendment is being characterized as creating an obstacle to affordable housing development and most of these sites will not be developed if there is not some provision to protect the existing retailer in the building. He stated that by not having this provision this is excluding good sites for affordable housing development and this is to unlock more opportunities for affordable housing and if the associated costs are not paid for them the affordable housing will not be built. He stated that this whole zoning is built on the fact that the City is funding, to a large extent, this affordable housing construction. He stated that if the zoning is only addressed and these other obstacles are not the goals may not be achieved of unlocking more affordable housing opportunities. There is a need for something to protect existing businesses in sites that really should have 2-4 stories of affordable housing above the retail.

Councillor Simmons stated that she did not agree with this in this context. She commented that the zoning is a living document. She recommended vote the amendments the body can and then come back to the other amendments. She urged Councillor Zondervan to withdraw this amendment or let the Ordinance Committee vote on this.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is an important issue and this needs to be solved. There are other communities that builds affordable housing above retail.

The question now came on the amendment and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Zondervan - 3
NAYS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 5
ABSENT: None - 0
PRESENT: Vice Mayor Devereux - 1
and amendment #8 – Failed.

Amendment #13 and #14. Councillor Carlone stated that this has been modified in the presentation by CDD. It was FAR in any district.

Mayor McGovern moved adoption of the recommendations by CDD appearing in the revised text as 11.207.5.2.2 Residential Density sections (a) and (b).

Mr. Roberts stated that his understanding from the last hearing is that there were some different amendments proposed that would have set different standards for density limitation and were discussed by the Ordinance Committee. The Ordinance Committee asked CDD to review the matter further and came forth with a suggestion.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he believed that he also had an amendment in a different location. The amendment was part of Amendment #36 in subsection (d) as follows: Notwithstanding any other requirements, any building permitted through the AHO shall be limited to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.0 or double the base zoning, whichever is less, to ensure sufficient land area for green space to mitigate heat and flooding considerations of climate change. Mayor McGovern stated that there were three amendments that dealt with FAR.

Mayor McGovern moved to strike amendment #13. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Councillor Carlone moved to strike amendment #14. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Vice Mayor Devereux questioned the BA-4 district created on Walden and Sherman Streets relating to the Masse Development. She stated that it would not be included in 2.0 cap; this is a small district. She asked if this was an oversight by CDD not to because it allows height taller than the Masse Building which is under 45 feet.

Mr. Roberts stated that the overarching principal here is to apply the same variations in height and density for affordable housing development under overlay within districts that are roughly comparable to each other. The BA-4 district was modified to allow a specific development on a specific site, in terms of the overall density and height limitations it is comparable to a Business A or a Business A-2 district. He stated that adjustments were made to make the height lower and density higher but in most respects the density and height are very comparable to Business A. He stated that under this AHO we wanted to treat those districts in roughly comparable ways. Across all these districts, under the most recent height amendment adopted by the Ordinance Committee where it currently allows 44-45 feet the AHO would allow six story buildings. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she does not think this should be because the Sherman Street district was created specifically to be financially feasible for this development to put parking underground. This density was increased; the height was not increased. She stated that putting a 6-7 story building on Walden Street near Sherman Street is not the outcome wanted. This makes it equivalent to what is allowed on North Massachusetts Avenue in a BA-2 district. This district cannot support a 60-70-foot high building with an unlimited FAR. Councillor Carlone comment that this is an unusual district in that there is very little business in this location. Vice Mayor Devereux does not think that the BA-4 district extends across Walden Street to include Paddy’s. She stated that the zoning for this section should be looked at more closely to see what the City wants to see there. Councillor Kelley asked if Vice Mayor Devereux was submitting amendment of not. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this came up because she was looking at where the 2.0 FAR does not apply and prompted her to look at why it does not apply and it is because the cut off for capping at 2.0 was to say which ones under the current zoning have a 1.0 FAR or less and because this one was up zoned to help the developer to create to 27 units of housing on the corner lot it was up zoned to 1.75 or 2.0 FAR if it has ground floor retail. This was zoning to enable one project.

Vice Mayor Devereux made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Community Development Department to review both the density and height under the AHO for the BA-4 district and make a recommendation to the Ordinance Committee.

The motion was adopted on an affirmative vote of 8 members. Councillor Simmons was recorded as present.

Mayor McGovern stated that he had previously made a motion to accept the recommendation of CDD for 2.0 and suggested voting on this amendment together with the amendment offered by Councillor Zondervan.

The recommendation by CDD was in the revised text in section 11.207.5.2.2 Residential Density in subsection (a).

Councillor Carlone questioned that the only place the AHO will work is in areas with a FAR of less than 1.00. Mr. Roberts stated that the proposal is to establish a limit on the FAR in districts where the current district standards would limit it to 1.0 or less. In other districts there would be no maximum FAR. This would be as originally proposed where the development density would be limited by the overall height and the other dimensional controls that are in place and there would not be a numerical limit on FAR. Councillor Zondervan stated that the comparison chart has a table that shows each district FAR and the proposed limit. He stated that his understanding of the language is that it only applies if the FAR is less than 1.0. Mr. Roberts stated that there is no district that is 1.0.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is trying to make these projects more financially attainable for affordable developers and the ones in .5 districts have higher land values and is the 2.0 a rough guess and how this will work as land values continue to increase. She noted that no districts are being referenced and only referencing where the FAR is less than 1.0 assuming that the zoning passes and lasts for a decade or two there is a possibility that the base zoning districts could change and asked if the committee wanted a reference to the 1.0 or call out which districts this is about. Councillor Carlone stated that every district should have a FAR and be honest about the FAR.

Mayor McGovern moved suspension of the rules in order to bring forward Councillor Zondervan’s amendment #36 (d).

Councillor Zondervan moved to amend the recommendation by CDD by substitution with the language in 36 (d) for (a) in section 11.207.5.2.2. The question came on the motion to amend by substitution and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Zondervan - 4
NAYS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 4
ABSENT: None - 0
PRESENT: Councillor Siddiqui - 1
And the amendment – Failed.

Mayor McGovern proceeded to move adoption of 11.207.5.2.2 residential density (a). On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Mr. Roberts clarified the language in 11.207.5.2.2. (b). He stated that in the original version of the petition there was language to the effect that there would be no limitation FAR or lot area per dwelling unit. He explained because now there is a limit on FAR there was the need to move the sentence.

Councillor Carlone moved adoption of 11.207.5.2.2 (b). On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Amendment #23. An amendment by Councillor Zondervan to amend (a) in Section 6 Parking and Bicycle Parking.

Councillor Zondervan noted that this was referred to CDD to review the language.

Mr. Roberts stated that on page 12 of the revised text there is new language suggested to the effect of what the Ordinance Committee voted on. He read the revised text in 11.207.6.1 (a). He stated that the language was cleaner. He stated that language was added to 11.207.6.1 (b). He stated that in zoning the standards only apply to parking spaces or loading bays. There are no specific standards for pick up and drop off and deliveries. It was important to establish that the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department would have a role in certifying that such facilities are being provided in a way that is reasonably suited to accommodate that activity in a way that would not cause significant hazard or congestion and there would be the ability for Traffic and Parking to promulgate regulations so that overtime there could be clearer standards put into place for what would constitute appropriate pick up, drop off and delivery facilities.

Vice Mayor Devereux questioned why there would be either on or off-street deliveries because most of this activity is wanted to be off-street. By removing the obligation to provide actual parking spaces does not mean that there will not be any parking in these projects, but this is a broad thing to say. Mr. Roberts stated that after consultation with Traffic, Parking and Transportation stated that things can vary by scale and by existing conditions and if it is a small site or small number of units the concern is having the ability for a small moving van which is routinely handled by Traffic and Parking by issuing permits to allow for this on a temporary basis.

Councillor Zondervan moved to amend his amendment by substituting in the language suggested by CDD in 11.207.6.1 (a) and (b). On the motion to amend by substitution on an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted. The question now came on adoption of the substituted language in 11.207.6.1 (a) and (b). On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amended language was adopted.

Amendment #23C. An amendment by Vice Mayor Devereux. She stated that this was covered in the memo from CDD on the cost of providing a TPass for a full year.

Mr. Roberts stated that there is commentary in the CDD memo under the Transportation Demand Management section but is no change to the zoning text. He spoke about the issue of on-going commitments.

Mr. Cotter spoke about the perspective of on-going costs and understanding the impact of offering a TPass subsidy would mean to a project in terms of the subsidy and it was found to be significant. He stated that issue as to whether or not such a subsidy on an on-going basis might be considered as income was reviewed. He stated that under a strict definition of income it would be. He stated that at the bottom of page 4 in the memo offered a recommendation to modify the petition text to change the provision of discounted TPasses for three-month duration in the original petition to increase it to six-months.

Vice Mayor Devereux commented that what is in the memo did not migrate to the revised text. She moved to amend section 11.207.6.5 Transportation Demand Management in (a) by striking out three- months and substituting in place six-months. She announced that this only applies to AHO projects that are not providing off-street parking at a ratio of .4 space per dwelling unit or more.

Councillor Simmons spoke about the impact of the TPass. She asked if the TPass would impact income. Mr. Cotter stated that the definition of income under HUD regulations which are applicable to CHA and other housing providers would likely suggest that providing on-going subsidies for a transit pass would be considered income but do not think that it would rise to be considered income if it were provided on a limited or short-term basis.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved to amend 11.207.6.5 Transportation Demand Management in (a) by striking out three-months. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved to amend 11.207.6.5 Transportation Demand Management in (a) by inserting six-months. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Councillor Carlone now moved that acceptance of 11.207.6.5 Transportation Demand Management in (a) as amended. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Councillor Carlone moved a Recess at 2:56pm.

On a motion by Councillor Carlone the hearing reconvened at 3:15pm.

Amendment #28. To amend 7.3 Building Façade. This amendment appears in the revised text in 11.207.7.3 (a) and incorporates the recommendations made by Councillor Carlone on the amount of glass in facades going from 15% to 20 % on building facades facing a public street. He stated that the average affordable housing is 23% and market rate housing is 28-30%. He stated that for buildings located in a Business A, Business A-2, Business B or Business C district this figure shall be increased to 30% from 25%.

Councillor Carlone moved the amendment to 11.207.7.3 (a) by striking out 15% and inserting 20%.

On an affirmative vote of 8 members the amendment was adopted. Councillor Simmons was recorded as present.

Councillor Carlone moved to amend in the business districts by striking out 25% and inserting in place 30%.

Councillor Mallon questioned if this was a recommendation by CDD or was this a change made based on the discussion at the Ordinance Committee. Mr. Roberts stated that these were changes voted by the Ordinance Committee. Councillor Carlone stated that these were not voted on by the Ordinance Committee but were referred to CDD. He noted that he had written 30% residential and 70% active use on the first floor. There is no comment on this.

Mr. Roberts stated that transparent window standards are in the zoning districts throughout the City to try to promote a street friendly character building. He spoke about the overall there is a variation of the windows across the City. He spoke about historic building having a friendly historic character the percentage of windows may be 20-25% and is compatible with surrounding area and create a decent streetscape. He stated that the more requirements in place the more limiting it is on design. He stated another concern is if buildings are being expected to be meeting strong energy efficiency standards in some cases requiring a large amount of clear windows could work counter to this and may have a negative effect.

Mr. Thorkildsen stated that in looking at some example facades there were nice facades with a low percentage of glass but had other architectural details. He stated the question about higher percentage ratio on street facades in Business B etc. districts are a good idea but should check some examples. It is not unreasonable to ask for more. Councillor Carlone asked about retail frontage. Mr. Thorkildsen stated that 70% is a reasonable number.

Councillor Carlone commented that 15% is low and in older buildings the more there is vertical glass windows per people is a friendlier building. He stated that 70% solid is a lot of solid in any room.

Mr. Roberts stated that the revised text on page 18 in section (iii) contained a requirement that the portion containing active non-residential uses would be at least 50% transparent glass and based on the Ordinance Committee amendment language was incorporated stating that if it is retail or consumer service it be 70% along one street in case of a corner lot. The language was put in for greater clarity. Councillor Carlone stated that the 30% should not include the ground floor in the calculation; this should be excluded and separate.

Councillor Carlone moved adoption of the language in the revised text in 11.207.7.3 (a) by striking out 25% and inserting 30%. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Councillor Carlone questioned the clarifying revisions by CDD and asked if they need to be adopted. Mr. Roberts stated that in the revised text there are suggested changes made by CDD. There are also clarifying revisions made by CDD.

City Solicitor stated that the intent was to strike the language in 11.207.7.3 (c) and in addition to recommend adding this language into the Design Guidelines. She stated that a vote is required to strike out the language. Councillor Carlone asked if this was added to the Guidelines. Mr. Thorkildsen responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Carlone moved to strike out in 11.207.7.3 (c) and move this to the Guidelines. On an affirmative vote of 9 members this amendment was adopted.

City Solicitor Glowa, in response to a question by Councillor Carlone, stated that the committee needed to move to substitute the entire document submitted by CDD with its various amendments or to vote each clarifying amendment separately.

Councillor Carlone moved to substitute and replace existing language with the amended language proposed or distributed by CDD to the entire City Council. No action taken.

Mayor McGovern suggested that the committee go through the document with the amendments and vote on these amendments and then act on the revised text by CDD.

Amendment #30. Councillor Carlone noted that CDD was to provide the minimum dimensions for a two-way driveway.

Mr. Roberts stated that the width of driveways is regulated in Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the minimum width each way for a one-way driveway is 10 feet and a two-way driveway would be 20 feet. Councillor Carlone asked if there is a need for a walkway on the side of the driveway. This is contained in the revised text in 11.207.7.4 (b).

Mr. Roberts stated that there was discussion at the last Ordinance Committee hearing about the amount of space needed for a driveway or a curb cut and is in the zoning in Article 6, so this does not need to be specified in the zoning. He stated that the maximum in residential districts is 20 feet for residential streets and in other districts the maximum is 30 feet.

City Solicitor Glowa noted that any contextual change needs to be voted upon by the Ordinance Committee. The multicolored document has been what has been worked on. The language in the revised text does contain additional language changes and if the City Council wishes to consider the additional changes it should be voted upon at this time while discussing this section or if there is interest by the committee to move all the changes in this document it would be a different option.

Councillor Carlone noted that it could be more specific. He remembers it being principal street on a corner lot. He asked could this be the longer street.

Mr. Roberts stated that the one change that was not voted on in this motion. He stated that the request was for CDD to provide the minimum dimension for a two-way driveway. His understanding of the intent of the 75% of the length of the façade to exclude the driveway access and that is why this additional language is there and would need to be voted on. He stated that his recommendation would be to leave this as it is in the revised text.

Councillor Carlone moved to accept the language provided by CDD in 11.207.7.4 (b). On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

City Solicitor Glowa informed the City Council that any textual changes will need to be voted on by the committee. will this undue any of the changes previously made. She added that the committee has been going through the multicolored document which listed a number of changes that were either voted upon from the original time that document was made. The revised text, the blue document is the text of the actual petition with the changes that CDD and with the assistance of the Law Department has reviewed and provided the changes that were explicitly voted upon by the committee or changes that were requested by the committee. The staff was working from the actual petition language and this other document is confusing.

Councillor Simmons asked the City Solicitor if the committee took a vote on the textual changes would this undue or change anything that was not voted on up to this point.

Mr. Roberts stated that the only change that the committee has voted on today that is not reflected in the revised text is the change regarding the TPass subsidy from three months to six months. The changes that the Ordinance Committee has voted on were changes that were incorporated into the revised text and other clarifying text changes.

City Solicitor Glowa there is no question of undoing any votes taken. She stated that if committee wishes to it could move to adopt all of the proposed changes in the revised text and any changes in the multicolor document that were voted upon today that are not in the revised text these changes can be inserted into the revised text so that moving forward there would be one integrated document with changes voted upon. Councillor Simmons moved to adopt all the proposed changes in the revised text and any changes in the multicolored document that were voted upon today that are not in the revised text and that they be inserted into the revised text. Councillor Carlone suggested that this motion be made at the end of the amendments.

Mayor McGovern noted that there are only a few more amendments to go and when completed CDDs amendment can be moved to be accepted. If this is moved out of committee today, CDD will produce a clean document of the text.

Amendment #36B. Councillor Zondervan stated that B is about the Net Zero Ready which was placed on hold pending Article 22 amendments to be submitted to the City Council in September which has a definition of Net Zero Ready. He added that this can be kept on hold or vote to strike this amendment.

Mayor McGovern moved to strike in 7.6 (b). The question now came on the amendment and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 7
NAYS: Councillor Zondervan - 1
ABSENT: None - 0
PRESENT: Vice Mayor Devereux - 1
and the amendment to strike out 36B was - Adopted.

Amendment #36 (c). Councillor Mallon question that the language in the revised text was what was voted on by the committee.

Mr. Roberts stated that in the CDD memo there was a request at the last Ordinance Committee to study the cost implications which are incorporated into a section of the CDD memo on tree protection. The language has been incorporated on page 20 in 11.207.7.6 (c) intended to be cleaner. He stated that it is funny to state in zoning that the zoning states that these requirements apply from another ordinance is the one that might exempt projects under this overlay from being subject. This is what was incorporated into the draft. Councillor Mallon wanted to ensure that the committee was voting on the CDD language rather than what was presented in the multicolored document.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that in the CDD language it states it shall comply with the requirements of such ordinance to the extent that it would be required to comply if not an AHO project. Vice Mayor Devereux asked what other projects do not have to comply with the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Roberts stated that under the zoning ordinance only some projects are required to comply with the provisions of the Tree Protection Ordinance as set forth in the zoning and also in the Tree Protection Ordinance.

Councillor Simmons commented on the CDD memo on page 5 that states making AHO project subject to the requirements of the Tree Ordinance it will make some cost complications. She noted that the whole idea of the AHO was to make it easier or facilitate the building of affordable housing units. She will vote present because it may complicate the AHO and adds a small obstacle in this process. The intent was to clear or make easier the path and this does not do this.

Councillor Zondervan suggested amendment the CDD language by striking out AHO and inserting in place affordable housing project because it may make it clearer.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the Tree Protection Ordinance does not apply to afford housing projects and this language was intended to make it clear that AHO projects would be exempt from the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance.

Councillor Simmons asked does this make it more difficult for developers under the AHO.

Mr. Cotter stated that it does make it more complicated to comply with the Tree Protection Ordinance. He stated that adding any requirement does make things more complicated from the standpoint of a housing development provider. This amendment would eliminate the exemption.

Councillor Simmons stated that this provides a restriction even though well intended and she would be inclined not to support this amendment.

Councillor Zondervan moved his amendment to strike out AHO and insert affordable housing project and then substitute the revised text language for his original amendment. On a voice vote of 8 members the amendment was adopted. Councillor Simmons was recorded as present.

The question now came on the motion to substitute the amended revised text for his amendment to the original petition. On this question the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan and Mayor McGovern - 7
NAYS: Councillor Simmons - 1
ABSENT: None - 0
PRESENT: Councillor Toomey - 1
and the amendment was – Adopted.

Councillor Carlone now moved that the 11.207.7.6 (c) be amended to strike out AHO an insert the words affordable housing project. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Amendment #36A. Councillor Mallon asked is ISD able to decide based on whether this is fully shielded.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that shielded may be more appropriate than fully-shielded. She stated that she will look at existing language, confer with the Commissioner of Inspectional Services and report back to the committee at the next meeting.

Councillor Mallon wanted fully shielded kept.

Amendment #41 Overlay Design Consultation Objectives.

Councillor Carlone wanted to state the objectives clearly.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that one of the sensitivities here is the appealability of any. In this case this case the requirement for a Special Permit has been removed but a developer of an AHO project would still need a building permit and building permits are appealable. By having language that is more subjective or qualitative as opposed to quantitative requirements there is the possibility that this could open the City or developer up to having a building permit appealed on the basis that there are some unclear standards here in the zoning ordinance. An opponent of the project could state that they did not meet the requirements. So, the recommendation was to move these into the Design Guidelines so that they are guiding the process for the consultation that will occur with the Planning Board of Design Review but not be mandatory requirements that would need to be met in order to obtain a building permit because this could create some additional legal hurtles.

Councillor Carlone stated that he does not see why this cannot be a guide to the Planning Board in their evaluations. He has concern with non-binding review by the City.

Mayor McGovern stated that there is vagueness and leaves it open to interpretation. He likes the guidance and if it goes in the zoning it is harder to assess. This should be in the guidelines and not in zoning.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Planning Board would use this as an evaluation of whether or not it meets the intent. He noted that the Guidelines mean nothing.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked how the Design Guidelines get promulgated or voted upon. Councillor Carlone stated that he feels that guidelines should be voted upon. Vice Mayor Devereux commented that CDD does not want to put guideline in zoning and how is guidelines implemented.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that in the revised text in 11.207.9 the City Manager has authority to promulgate regulations and Design Guidelines was added to CDD.

Councillor Mallon spoke about changes to the Guidelines, one of which was a pre-designed analysis of the character of the street was a change in the design guidelines. Mr. Thorkildsen stated that Pre-design analysis of the character of the street was incorporated in a section in the guideline includes the language on page 7 and page 10. Councillor Mallon stated that CDD will have input based on the design guidelines as set forth in this document and intended to be complied with.

Councillor Carlone asked who is responsible for doing the analysis of the context of the street. Mr. Thorkildsen responded the proponent. Councillor Carlone asked who will review this. Mr. Thorkildsen stated that it is the basis of the community meetings and the Planning Board’s review and the Affordable Housing Trust’s review.

Mr. Roberts stated that one of the changes made in the CDD text to add an additional required community meeting to the process to share the site and street context analysis with the residents and other interested parties prior to building design and to receive feedback.

Councillor Carlone asked what binds the developer to follow this. Mr. Cotter stated that given the economics of this builders will be building with subsidy funds or coming to the Affordable Housing Trust. He stated that having a report from the Planning Board and staff to the Affordable Housing Trust on the design advisory review and the process that the project went through with the neighbors. With this it is expected that the objectives will be achieved.

On a motion to move Amendment #41 to the guidelines on an affirmative vote of 9 members the motion was adopted.

Amendments #42-43 and 43A. Councillor Mallon stated that in the revised text CDD has taken the essence of the conversation of the three amendments together. Councillor Carlone moved that the three proposed amendments #42, 43 and 43A be removed. On a voice vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Councillor Carlone moved to substitute the text from CDD in 11.207.11 (a) and (b) Review of Affordable Housing Overlay.

Vice Mayor Devereux commented on the Five-Year Progress Review. She asked should the Planning Board be involved in a five-year review. Mr. Roberts stated that if it is the will of the committee to add this language it could be added. Vice Mayor Devereux moved to amend section (b) to add after Council, the Planning Board.

Councillor Simmons asked Mr. Cotter if the Planning Board reviews housing policy. Mr. Cotter responded that the Planning Board will review housing policies that intersect with zoning. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that this is zoning. Councillor Carlone noted that CDD is staff to the Planning Board. Mr. Cotter stated that he would like to share the report with the Planning Board and the Affordable Housing Trust. Councillor Simmons moved to amend to add the Affordable Housing Trust.

Mayor McGovern stated that there is a difference between sharing a report or being part of the evaluation. This should be done after CDD does evaluation. He will vote to share the evaluation with the Planning Board and the Affordable Housing Trist and not be part of the evaluation.

On the motion to amend by Vice Mayor Devereux to add the Planning Board. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

On the motion to amend by Councillor Simmons to add the Affordable Housing Trust. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

Vice Mayor Devereux further amended this section to add words “for its review” after the word “provide”. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the amendment was adopted.

On adoption of the entire 11.207.11 and (b) as amended. On an affirmative vote of 9 members the section as amended was adopted.

Councillor Kelley moved to amend section 11.207.2 to add a new (c) that reads:

He explained his amendment. The housing project are not under 1.0 FAR and limited to a 2.0 FAR and may never be redeveloped.

Councillor Zondervan stated is this stating that this should not apply to those already providing affordable housing.

Councillor Carlone stated that Councillor Kelley’s amendment is to consider not allowing this to happen where there is existing reasonable density, low-moderate income housing.

Councillor Kelley stated that if the AHO passes as currently written there may be incentives such as redeveloping existing affordable housing developments because this may be the most cost-effective way to get more affordable housing.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she is not comfortable voting on the substantive amendment. At Roosevelt towers is undergoing renovations and it is not to increase units. She will not support this amendment.

Councillor Simmons stated that this would prevent an existing affordable housing developer from increasing density. Councillor Kelley stated that the AHO as proposed may provide incentives that are difficult to ignore; this may not happen, but it is a possibility. Councillor Simmons stated that she would not support this amendment.

Councillor Toomey stated that he would not vote in favor of this amendment.

The question now came on the amendment offered by Councillor Kelley the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Kelley - 1
NAYS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan and Mayor McGovern - 8
ABSENT: None - 0
and the amendment – Failed.

Vice Mayor Devereux commented on Open space in 11.207.5.2.4 (a). She stated that the open space can be reduced to 15% regarding historic preservation. She asked how necessary this is and why cut the open space in half in exchange for protecting historic projects. She noted that when this was originally drafted all of the open space had to be at ground level and subsequently the committee voted to allow 25% of the open space to be above ground if a common roof deck or balcony. She noted that this is not a good idea. She stated that in section (b) exempting AHO projects from the requirement that is in the rest of the zoning which some of the open space has to be in a configuration of a 15 X 15 space which is eliminated and without this it means that the open space can be met. She wanted to see a site plan to see how this works and not eliminating so much usable open space that we have no place to plant trees.

Councillor Zondervan questioned why just completely exempt an historical building or reduce by 50% because it is a historic building.

Councillor Carlone stated that the rationale is the historic buildings 2.5 stories high and the rest is 4 stories the units above are missing or you cannot build right up to the historic building on the side.

Mayor McGovern commented that there is no formal amendment.

Mayor McGovern moved to substitute the entirety of the AHO language as introduced with amendments offered by CDD except as they might conflict with actions taken on Sept 3, 2019.

On an affirmative vote of 9 members the motion carried.

Mayor McGovern moved to forward the AHO ordinance as amended to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. On this motion the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern - 5
NAYS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Zondervan - 4
ABSENT: None - 0
And the motion – Carried.

The following communications relating to the AHOD were received and made part of the record. Communication from Sharon Stichter, Walden Street, urging the City Council not to pass this ordinance (ATTACHMENT 53).

Communication from Nelly LaRosa-waters, 54 Crescent Street, in agreement with all the opposition to this petition (ATTACHMENT 54).

Communication from Lynn Cetrulo against the AHO plan as it stands (ATTACHMENT 55).

Communication from Eleanor Marsh, 609 Green Street, requesting that affordable housing is clearly defined for low, moderate and middle income households (ATTACHMENT 56).

Communication from Ron Jackson, 14 Camp Street, expressed concern with density, parking, larger construction projects, traffic, green/open space and maintenance regarding the AHOD (ATTACHMENT 57).

Communication from Dean Traweek, 12 Brattle Circle, in opposition to the AHOD proposal (ATTACHMENT 58).

Communication from James Simpson, 24307 Concord Avenue, expressing strong disapproval with the petition (ATTACHMENT 59).

Communication from Tom and Sue Owen, 950 Massachusetts Avenue, in opposition to the current AHO plan (ATTACHMENT 60).

Communication from Bill Skocpol, 66 Huron Avenue, stating that “as of right” abandonment of all zoning regulations will destroy the City (ATTACHMENT 61).

Communication from Richard Tremaglio, 36 Tierney Street, commenting that the current proposal is not sensitive to the unique urban fabric of Cambridge (ATTACHMENT 62).

Communication from Jacqueline Landau, Ph.D., 950 Massachusetts Avenue, commenting that this petition has not been done democratically and urging the City Council not to rush through this (ATTACHMENT 63).

Communication from Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street, commenting that much is wrong with this proposed zoning (ATTACHMENT 64).

Communication from George Mouradian, 32 Bowdoin Street, stated that he supports affordable housing but finds that the AHO is deeply flawed (ATTACHMENT 65).

Communication from Sharon Black, 49 Maple Avenue, urging the City Council not to vote for the AHO zoning proposal (ATTACHMENT 66).

Communication from Dominick Jones, 6 Hurlbut Street, commenting that the AHO is a dangerous one-sided shamble being currently proposed (ATTACHMENT 67).

Communication from Kate Canfield expressing deep concerns over the AHO proposal (ATTACHMENT 68).

Communication from William and Miriam Truslow, 4 Hawthorn Street, commenting that the AHO is a blunt instrument that will irreparably damage the City (ATTACHMENT 69).

Communication from John and Hilary Hopkins, 30 Winslow Street, in opposition to the zoning proposal (ATTACHMENT 70).

Communication from Lucy Patton, 333 Walden Street, commenting that the AHO as currently written is not a good idea (ATTACHMENT 71).

Communication highlighting comments made by Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli in strong support of the Affordable Housing Overlay (ATTACHMENT 72)

Communication from Annie Hoffman, Hampshire Street, in opposition to the AHO zoning proposal (ATTACHMENT 73).

Communication from Lenore G. Martin, Ph.D., expressing serious concern with the Affordable Housing Overlay (ATTACHMENT 74).

Communication from Helen Abraham, 34 Winslow Street, expressing concern about the Affordable Housing proposal under consideration (ATTACHMENT 75).

Communication from Jean Hanson, 7 Woodrow Wilson Court, in support of the AHO proposal (ATTACHMENT 76).

Communication from Chris Jeffrey, 29 Chauncey Street, urging the City Council to reject the Overlay zoning proposal (ATTACHMENT 77).

Communication from Pawel Latawiec, 2 Earhart Street, in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay without amendments (ATTACHMENT 78).

Communication from Margaret Drury, 1 Dudley Court, urging the Ordinance Committee to pass this proposed amendment as soon as possible (ATTACHMENT 79).

Communication from Jason Alves, Executive Director, East Cambridge Business Association, requesting that that the Affordable Housing Overlay not be adopted (ATTACHMENT 80).

Communication from Harriet Feinberg, 639 Green Street, in opposition to the proposed AHO zoning overlay (ATTACHMENT 81).

Communication from Charles Hinds, 2017 Charles Street, commenting that he is not in favor of an Affordable Housing Overlay and expressing concern with the oversight and setbacks in the current proposal (ATTACHMENT 82).

Communication from David Owens, 7 Cleveland Street, in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay (ATTACHMENT 83).

Communication from Weldon Pries, 10 Longfellow Road, urging the City Council not to vote for the proposed AHO (ATTACHMENT 84).

Communication from Robin Bonner, 15 Corporal Burns Road, in opposition to the current version of the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal (ATTACHMENT 85).

Communication from Gerald Zurich, 120 Foster Street, urging the City Council to delay voting on the AHO (ATTACHMENT 86).

Communication from Jean G. Krulic, 41 Bowdoin Street, in opposition to the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay (ATTACHMENT 87).

Communication from Phil Miller, urging the City Council not to vote on the current AHO (ATTACHMENT 88).

Communication from Deborah Gevalt, 55 Reservoir Street, in opposition to the AHO (ATTACHMENT 89).

Communication from Pat McCarthy, 23 Chauncy Street, urging the City Council not to vote on the AHO (ATTACHMENT 90).

Communication from Pattie Maes, in opposition to the AHO (ATTACHMENT 91).

Communication from Julie S. Vargas, 11 Old Dee Road, in opposition to AHO (ATTACHMENT 92).

Communication from Rolf Erickson, 10 Avon Street, in opposition to the AHO (ATTACHMENT 93).

Communication from Kelly Dolan, Upland Road, urging the withdrawal of the Affordable Housing Overlay petition (ATTACHMENT 94).

Communication from Fritz Donovan, Esquire, urging the City Council to let this proposed ordinance die without a favorable vote (ATTACHMENT 95).

Communication from Rosemary Booth and Jerry O’Leary, 303 Third Street, in opposition to the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay (ATTACHMENT 96).

Communication from Elizabeth Shostak, 51 Standish Street, urging the City Council not to vote for the AHO as presently written (ATTACHMENT 97).

Communication from Patricia McGrath, Mt. Vernon Street, commenting that the current plan is flawed and not ready for passage (ATTACHMENT 98).

Communication from Lisa Glover, 10 Avon Street, urging the City Council not to vote for the AHO (ATTACHMENT 99).

Communication from Andrea Williams, 176 Appleton Street, urging the City Council to let the current AHO proposal to expire (ATTACHMENT 100).

Communication from Edward Kerslake, MBA, Ph. D, 102 Appleton Street, urging the City Council to reconsider the AHO proposal (ATTACHMENT 101).

Communication from Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, transmitting proposed priority amendments to the AHO (ATTACHMENT 102).

Communication from Harriet H. Ahouse commenting that the AHO is not ready for prime time (ATTACHMENT 103).

Communication from Peggy J. Simms commenting that she would like a common-sense approach to the proposed zoning overlay (ATTACHMENT 104).

Communication from Nancy E. Phillips, 36A Rice Street, in support of the AHO (ATTACHMENT 105).

Communication from Arthur Strang, Fresh Pond Parkway, in opposition to AHO (ATTACHMENT 106).

Communication from Susan Hockfield in opposition to the AHO (ATTACHMENT 107).

Communication from Clarice McDonald in opposition to the AHO (ATTACHMENT 108).

Communication from Susan McNally urging the City Council to vote against this zoning proposal (ATTACHMENT 109).

Communication from Young Kim, 17 Norris Street, urging the City Council to take the time to get this zoning proposal correct for the whole City (ATTACHMENT 110).

Communication from Doug Hanna in opposition to the AHO (ATTACHMENT 111).

The hearing adjourned at 5:10pm.

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

AWAITING REPORT LIST
16-26. Report on the possibility of the City Council implementing a zoning change, on the permitting of all new restaurants where a wood-fired oven is used as a significant method of food preparation. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-5) from 4/4/2016

16-42. Report on plans for the former Riverside Community Health Center on Western Avenue, including transfer of ownership of the building to the City and the process for determining future usage. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Vice Mayor McGovern (O-1) from 5/2/2016

16-83. Report on drafting possible legislation and other recommendations for interim actions to identify and address the public health impacts of any commercial wood-fired ovens. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Mayor Simmons (Calendar Item #4) from 10/31/2016

16-101. Report on the potential of building below market rental housing on City-owned parking lots along Bishop Allen Drive. On a communication from Councillor McGovern requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons (O-4) from 12/12/2016

16-108. Report on whether people displaced and qualify for Emergency Status who are using Section 8 in other cities or towns can retain their resident preference for the purpose of Inclusionary Housing. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toomey (O-4) from 12/19/2016

17-22. Report on the potential growth of next-generation wireless technology in the City, to include: the expected footprint of citywide coverage from just one company and what market competition might produce; the integration of public and private infrastructure to support the network; what local standards the City might hope to maintain relative to aesthetics and safety; and how this new technology fits into our Broadband access plans. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Cheung, Councillor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-14) from 2/27/2017

17-87. Report on a schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates clearer wording and/or more clearly explains each section in less technical jargon and is more coherent in its entirety, with the goal of seeing such an Ordinance adopted by the end of this City Council term. On a communication from Councillor Kelley and Councillor Devereux requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Devereux (O-8) from 9/18/2017

18-6. Report on information regarding electronic device usage by City-elected officials.
Councillor Toomey (O-7) from 1/22/2018

18-21. Report on the feasibility of initiating a formal transit study and action plan of the Alewife area in response to unanimous concerns of the Envision Alewife Working Group.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Siddiqui (O-7) from 2/26/2018

18-38. Report on inventory of all City-owned vacant buildings and lots and the City's plans for them, if any.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui (O-2) from 3/26/2018

18-53. Report on an updated schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates suggestions from the Light Cambridge Committee by June 11, 2018.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-1) from 5/14/2018

18-66. Report on establishing a Young Adult Civic Unity Committee to be modeled after the Citizen Civic Unity Committee and to recruit applicants from all across the community and across all socio-economic backgrounds.
Councillor Simmons (O-7) from 6/18/2018

18-68. Report on determining the permitting and legality issues of Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing in the City of Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Zondervan (O-11) from 6/18/2018

18-73. Report on establishing and implementing a dynamic new initiative that will seek to place Port residents (ages 18 and over) on paths to jobs with family-sustaining wages.
Councillor Simmons (O-6) from 6/25/2018

18-96. Report on how the City views internet-based platforms as opportunities for outreach and communication and what sort of guidelines have been, or are being, developed to help everyone understand how the City’s various departments do or do not utilize these communication resources and how any communications on these platforms are managed so that the messaging and information is kept up-to-date.
Councillor Kelley (Calendar Item #10) from 9/24/2018

18-108. Report on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee Elections.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui (O-1) from 10/29/2018

18-119. Report on evaluating the existing capacity of fire stations in the Kendall Square area and whether a new fire station is needed, and if so, determining the feasibility of locating a plot of land for this use.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-2) from 11/5/2018

18-129. Report on conducting a comprehensive, independent planning, and parking study of the neighborhood and use of the First Street Garage within 6months.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (Calendar Item #1) from 11/19/2018

18-137. Report on reviewing the FCC Regulations on Small Cell Technology.
Vice Mayor Devereux (O-18) from 12/3/2018

19-3. Report on establishing a Central Square Improvement Fund and allocate no less than 25% of funds generated to the arts.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-6) from 1/7/2019

19-5. Report on how to provide public representation to the major project Selection Committees.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone (O-14) from 1/7/2019

19-21. Report on the process for establishing a formal, thorough review of the City’s Affordable Home Ownership programs, incorporating a plan for obtaining and analyzing substantial quantitative data inclusive of all types of units.
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-3) from 2/25/2019

19-22. Report on the feasibility of allowing small businesses to host live acoustic music performances without a license, and if feasible, present the City Council with a proposal to allow such performances.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-5) from 2/25/2019

19-25. Report on information that is offered to limited equity condominium owners regarding the ability to recoup extraordinary repair and maintenance costs, the procedure that is in place to inform purchasers of existing or possible construction and maintenance issues that may result in higher-than expected condo fees, and the possibility of allowing roommates to cover unexpected expenses.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Simmons, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-10) from 2/25/2019

19-26. Report on communicating directly with the Volpe Center about the possibility of having their staff help the City set up a Micro-Mobility Pilot program in the Kendall Square area.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-11) from 2/25/2019

19-35. Report on the status of any micro-mobility pilot programs or partnerships in Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley (O-12) from 3/18/2019

19-37. Report on moving a Transit Benefit Ordinance proposal to an action plan.
Vice Mayor Devereux (O-18) from 3/18/2019

19-40. Report on providing accessibility to the deaf community by hiring American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters and using apps such as Language Line Solutions to communicate with the deaf community in their first language.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Toomey (O-5) from 3/25/2019

19-42. Report on plans this construction season to install sidewalk markings that appropriately indicate what types of mobility devices are allowed on which sidewalks.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-7) from 4/1/2019

19-43. Report on the types of vendor reporting programs that the City uses and how they are used as well as the ability to modify these programs given the constraints of relevant state and federal laws and similar limitations.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui (O-8) from 4/1/2019

19-45. Report on compiling a full accounting of streets, schools, and public buildings that may be named in honor of those who have ties to the American slave trade, and to work towards renaming all of these streets, schools, and buildings.
Councillor Simmons (O-4) from 4/8/2019

19-46. Report on reviewing whether the MBTA is out of compliance with the amended MBTA/BCIL settlement agreement through the delay in completion of the elevator replacement and concurrent hazardous condition of the stairwells related to Central Square.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon (O-9) from 4/8/2019

19-49. Report on recommending restrictions on signage specific to retail establishments that sell e-cigarettes and other vaping devices.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-15) from 4/8/2019

19-50. Report on clarifying the policy around future installation of new LED street lights and replacement of failed 4000K LED street lights with warmer alternatives 3000K or less.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (O-17) from 4/8/2019

19-55. Report on working with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and the License Commission to establish a "play streets" permit.
Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui (O-7) from 5/6/2019

19-56. Report on determining what facilities, parking changes, and other improvements to the pavement conditions would be necessary and feasible to make Massachusetts Avenue a quick-build Complete Street between Sidney Street and Putnam Avenue.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (O-2) from 5/13/2019

19-58. Report on working with the Recycling Advisory Committee and other stakeholders to draft an ordinance banning single-use plastic items in Cambridge.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (O-6) from 5/13/2019

19-62. Report on drafting a formal Anti-bias /Cultural Competency Strategic Plan for eventual adoption and implementation.
Councillor Simmons (O-2) from 5/20/2019

19-64. Report on adding $20 Million to the budget for Affordable Housing.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor McGovern (O-6) from 5/20/2019

19-66. Report on whether it is possible to reduce or eliminate Building Permit Fees for 100% affordable housing development projects, through an exemption or other means and investigate what types of real estate tax abatements are possible for 100% affordable housing moving forward.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Mayor McGovern (O-3) from 6/3/2019

19-69. Report on the timeline and process for the creation of a stakeholder group to conduct the Cambridge Net Zero Action Plan review, as well as any other details on the process by which the quinquennial review will be conducted in 2020.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-8) from 6/3/2019

19-70. Report on the feasibility of implementing suggested restoration projects in the area surrounding Jerry’s Pond, in order to make the Pond more accessible and inviting to the community.
Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-10) from 6/3/2019

19-73. Report on reviewing safety issues at City buildings and provide the City Council with relevant recommendations designed to maximize the safety of municipal employees and members of the public while ensuring that City buildings and services remain open and accessible to all.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Kelley (O-1) from 6/10/2019

19-74. Report on establishing a working committee to review the monuments, memorials, and markers throughout Cambridge to determine whether any of these commemorate those who were linked to the slave trade or engaged in other similarly shameful acts and to determine which individuals should be newly recognized with a monument, memorial, or marker.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon (O-2) from 6/10/2019

19-75. Report on exploring the feasibility of partnering with a local research institution to conduct a study that determines how many ridehail vehicles are on the roads during both on and off-peak times and their impacts on congestion and safety.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-4) from 6/10/2019

19-76. Report on identifying additional traffic-calming and safety features and to discuss with the Fresh Pond mall owner the potential for creating a formal street connection between Terminal Road and New Street.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (O-5) from 6/10/2019

19-77. Report on determining a suitable, publicly available and recognizable space to install more bike racks adjacent to the Smith Center.
Councillor Kelley (O-7) from 6/10/2019

19-83. Report on considering the cost and feasibility of improvements to the Danehy Dog Park.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon (O-2) from 6/24/2019

19-84. Report on drafting a zoning amendment that will count a portion of a new or substantially renovated building's rooftop mechanicals (excluding solar installations) toward its allowed height and/or FAR.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-3) from 6/24/2019

19-86. Report on developing a Vacant Storefront Registration Policy.
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-5) from 6/24/2019

19-88. Report on conferring with the MBTA with the view in mind of increasing the bus service along Concord Avenue.
Mayor McGovern, Councillor Mallon (O-7) from 6/24/2019

19-89. Report on making publicly available, any existing data on Cambridge’s total greenhouse gas emissions between 2012 and 2018.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-9) from 6/24/2019

19-90. Report on options for incorporating additional line items in the FY20 Budget to allocate supplemental funds for legal aid services, housing stabilization and tenant education and organizing to prevent displacement and address its ramifications on Cambridge residents and families.
Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon (O-12) from 6/24/2019

19-91. Report on paying additional attention to the cleaning and maintenance of Greene-Rose Heritage Park for the balance of the summer season and going forward.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan (O-1) from 7/30/2019

19-92. Report on coordinating with Somerville in initiating more robust and regional public outreach on the dangers of black swallow-wort and measures that can be taken to eliminate this invasive species.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Siddiqui (O-3) from 7/30/2019

19-93. Report on a plan to restore the fountain dedicated to President John F. Kennedy.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Kelley (O-4) from 7/30/2019

19-94. Report on how DPW prioritizes streets that need repaving but are not in the five-year street and sidewalk reconstruction plan, a report on how streets are selected for interim paving improvements to address bicycle travel conditions, and a list of streets that received paving improvements as a result of this allocation during the past five years, as well as a list of streets that will be prioritized as part of PB 5 “Smoother Cycling.”
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Kelley (O-5) from 7/30/2019

19-95. Report on whether idling vehicles may be added as a complaint category in SeeClickFix, or whether a non-emergency text hotline could be set up to transmit photographic or video evidence of truck idling and blocked bike lanes to the Police Department or a other department that can enforce the idling laws.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-8) from 7/30/2019

19-96. Report on providing the supporting documentation as it relates to the claim of a decrease in cyclists’ running red lights.
Councillor Kelley (O-9) from 7/30/2019

19-97. Report on posting information about safe needle disposal in city parks and public buildings and to direct the Police Commissioner to establish stricter enforcement of city park hours and direct the Commissioner of Public Works Department to increase the level of hand-sweepers cleaning the city parks and to share what safety precautions the workers are using when cleaning the parks.
Councillor Toomey, Councillor Kelley (O-10) from 7/30/2019

19-98. Report on taking measures to landscape and clean up Rindge Avenue and Alewife Brook Parkway area.
Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Mallon (O-12) from 7/30/2019

19-99. Report on increasing the amount of funding assistance provided to the Multi-Service Center by the City of Cambridge.
Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey (O-13) from 7/30/2019

19-100. Report on the feasibility of implementing an additional regulatory requirement for listing a registration/license number for Short-Term Rentals.
Councillor Kelley, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons (O-19) from 7/30/2019

19-101. Report on collecting data on how many households have taken advantage of Cambridge Energy Alliance services.
Councillor Mallon (O-23) from 7/30/2019

19-102. Report on the legality of providing funding to non-profits related to the cannabis establishments and how this funding can be used for economic empowerment entrepreneurs.
Councillor Carlone (O-27) from 7/30/2019

19-103. Report on the cost and feasibility of installing a full traffic signal or a pedestrian-activated HAWK signal at the intersection of Garfield Street and Massachusetts Avenue.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-33) from 7/30/2019

19-104. Report on the possibility of having Sacramento Field Off-Leash Dog Pilot Update.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-36) from 7/30/2019