Ordinance Committee meeting – August 19, 2020 - MINUTES

Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:00pm  (Sullivan Chamber)

Present at the hearing: Councillor McGovern (co-chair), Councillor Carlone (co-chair), Councillor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Members Absent: Councillor Simmons

The Ordinance Committee will meet to reconvene a public hearing on a petition to add an Affordable Housing Ordinance to the City’s Zoning Ordinances

Councillor Dennis Carlone called the meeting to order and explained that this is a reconvened public hearing on a petition to add an affordable housing ordinance to the city's zoning ordinances.

Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager of Community Development, described the various documents prepared by the Community Development department in preparation for this meeting. She explained that the Planning Board held public hearing on this zoning petition on August 4, there were eight members present and they voted seven to one to recommend adoption of the petition as filed. The written report from that meeting will be submitted to the city council at a future date. The majority of board members expressed their view that the zoning would be an important step, both in addressing the challenge of affordable housing in this city and in advancing social equity goals. They agreed with the need for the approach to be city wide and on the significance of the “as of right” permitting processes. Some board members had questions about specific numbers on height and so forth, but they felt comfortable with the mechanism for review and evaluation that is included in the petition.

In response to a question from Councillor Patricia Nolan, Iram Farooq stated that the Planning Board did not recommend any amendments. In response to a question from Councillor Patricia Nolan about changing the facade requirement from 150 feet to 250 feet and bike parking requirements, Iram Farooq explained that that was a changed proposed by the petitioner after speaking with affordable housing builders and advocates about the challenges related to creating these projects.

Councillor Marc McGovern stated that the change was made in part to create more flexibility in projects. It's not to say that that there won't be times when there can be courtyards or breakups under the 250 feet, but to require it, builders felt would hamstring them.

Councillor Dennis Carlone stated that studies have shown that a small percentage of affordable housing below grade parking is actually rented. He stated that problem with the city-wide overlay is that it does not relate to low density districts any differently than to high density districts. Councillor Carlone stated that he shared Councillor Nolan's concern about the façade requirements.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development , explained that unlike with motor vehicle parking, the bicycle parking requirements are not waived under the Affordable Housing overlay. There are some modifications in the proposal that try to allow some flexibility in how the requirements are met. There are some cases where if a very small amount of bicycle parking is required, it can be waived.

In response to a question from Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler about a statement in the submitted materials stating that the savings from using city owned land will be offset by other costs; Iram Farooq explained that the cost differential, if the site is actually being used, which it is in most cases, then that adds to site acquisition costs.

In response to a question by Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler about the average land acquisition cost by neighborhood, Iram Farooq explained that the averages were created with the help of data from the Assessing Department. She states that the Assessing Department felt pretty strongly that analysis should not go too far back in terms of number of years because the prices in Cambridge change so rapidly.

Christopher Cotter, Housing Director, explained that the chart shows that costs for site acquisition are out of reach for a feasible project. The takeaway is that if the city wants to have feasible development opportunities for affordable housing builders across the city, the city needs to look at a way that to help them understand what is feasible and to give them the advantage. The underlying idea of the overlay is that if they can build denser projects, they can then spread those land costs over more units to a point where projects are financially feasible.

In response to a question from Councillor Quinton Zondervan about the relationship between parking and the cost of an Affordable Housing project; Iram Farooq explained that existing parking that is currently on the surface would need to be accommodated, below grade, if deemed to be necessary. The revenue generated by public parking, at current pricing, would not offset the cost of underground construction.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he did want to build on city owned parking garages.

In response to a question from Councillor Patricia Nolan about why the average land acquisition costs did not factor in the cost of the building, Christopher Cotter explained that whether there is a building on the site or not, the analysis is based on the price per buildable unit under the zoning to determine if the site is feasible opportunity.

Iram Farooq added that an existing building may not need to be removed but there would be significant renovations costs.

In response to a question from Councillor Dennis Carlone, Jeffrey Roberts explained that within 35 feet of the rear property line, the building would need to step down from a maximum of six stories to a maximum of four stories. If the building were fully within the taller height districts, then the building could be six stories.

Councillor Dennis Carlone asked that next time the city show the existing zoning condition for the district a pretty.

Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, stated that there is not a general rule about the step down in the city, there are some transition requirements in certain zoning districts.

Councillor Dennis Carlone stated that in a low-density zone, there could be facades that have windows in them that could have wall 10 and a half feet away. He felt that there should be a limit on the size of outdoor storage structures that could be in the back yard. He expressed concern about the lack of implementation language for design guidelines in the proposed ordinance.

Iram Farooq explained that all of these projects work with the Affordable Housing Trust from as a financing entity. There is also accountability for each of these projects through the housing staff who work with developers from design through construction. She also explained that AHO is not removing any teeth that the design review for affordable housing buildings currently.

Councillor Dennis Carlone stated that it is odd that city guidelines for retail glass is 70 percent but under the proposed ordinance the guideline goes from 70 percent to 30 percent.

Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon moved to amend the petition with language that is attached to the minutes as a communication.

Councillor Timothy Toomey stated that he supported the proposed amendment based on the positive impact that is will have on East Cambridge in terms of having commercial development on the first floor and residential development on the higher floors.

Councillor Patricia Nolan stated that, if passed that, the Overlay will bring more people to the neighborhoods and those people will be interested in these ground floor retail establishments. She stated that she would support a larger percentage of ground floor retail.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon explained that 50 percent was the number that the council came to last term in agreement with the affordable housing builders and advocates. She was not opposed to increasing the percentage.

Councillor Zondervan expressed concern that the 50 percent first-floor retail space requirement is not clearly defined.

Councillor McGovern stated that he supported the amendment. He stated that there have been several discussion with stakeholders to get to 50 percent. He stated that he could not support increasing the percentage.

Councillor Dennis Carlone stated that may be the city could provide additional fund to help developers provide ground floor retail.

Mayor Siddiqui stated that she was generally favorable of Vice Mayor Mallon’s amendment. She did not believe that the percentage needed to be higher than 50 percent.

Councillor Marc McGovern stated that the City could provide funding, but it should not be in the zoning.

Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler stated that he supports the proposed amendment as presented.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that the city could provide additional funds in a concurrent process. She stated that many Affordable Housing developers have built retail space in prior projects, so they are familiar with this construction. She wanted to vote on the amendment as presented.

In response to a question from Councillor Dennis Carlone, Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, explained that frontage typically refers to the frontage along the entire lot.

In response to questions from Councillor Carlone and Vice Mayor Mallon, Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development explained that the intent of the languages was to provide for retail on a site that had retail or has or has contained retail at any point within the past two years. If the space were simply vacant, because six months ago, business moved out, and there might have been another business moving in, that would count under this provision. But if a space were completely vacant for two years preceding the development that would not necessarily be counted.

He further explained that where there is maybe one space that's taken in a building that has a row of retail establishments, then the provision would still apply. If there is some retail existing on the site, then this provision would still apply. It would not be one vacancy that would cause it not to apply. Two years tends to be the standard time period for what is known as abandonment.

Councillor Carlone moved to suspend the rules to extend meeting to 7:30 PM
Roll Call: 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)

In response to a question from Councillor Toomey, Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, explained that under current zoning, for any development, there would not be a requirement to build new retail or replace retail in that district, under the Affordable Housing overlay, if the building permit were sought within two years of the discontinuation of the previous retail use, then this requirement would kick in and there would have to be some retail or other non-residential active space provided.

Vice Mayor Mallon moved to amend her proposed amendment by replacing it with the following language:

(e) Ground Stories shall be designed to accommodate at least one space, with a total frontage equaling at least fifty percent (50%) of the existing retail frontage, for an active non-residential use, which may include retail or consumer establishments as well as social service facilities supporting the mission of the owner of the AHO Project, on sites that are located in a Business base zoning district, and where the project site contains or has contained a retail and or consumer service use at any point within the past two years prior to application for a building permit for an AHO Project.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the council should be very precise and say that it's 50% of the existing retail frontage of the site.

Councillor McGovern that the proposed amendment to amend is clear.

Vice Mayor Mallon motion to amend her prior amendment passed by the following roll call vote.
Roll Call: 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)

Vice Mayor Mallon’s motion to amend the petition with the amended language passed by the following roll call vote
Roll Call: 8-0-1 (Simmons Absent)

Councillor Carlone motion to suspend the rules to extend the meeting to 8:00 PM
Roll Call: 7-1-1 (Zondervan - NO; Simmons ABSENT)

Councillor Nolan moved two amendments to the petition with language that is attached to the minutes as a communication. With regard to the amendment to section 11.207.3, she explained that right now there is a possibility that up to twenty percent of units could be for households making more than eighty percent of the area median income. He amendment would reserve some of those units for people making between eighty and one hundred of the area median income. The amendment would also allow individuals who do not meet those requirements to fill units are empty, were there is no waitlist.

Christopher Cotter explained that funding middle-income units is a challenge and the demand for those units is also challenging. Low- and moderate-income applicants vastly outnumber the middle-income applicants for the units that are available. Typical funding sources that affordable housing builders to access for the low- and moderate-income housing, are not available on an ongoing basis to fund middle income housing. That could prevent creating housing through the overlay in a situation where the developer is up against a required 20% ratio. He is concerned about the challenge of financing middle-income units.

Councillor McGovern stated that he understood the financial predicament of middle-income households but that this zoning overlay was not the place to address this issue. He stated that he would not support this amendment.

Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler stated that he could not support the proposed amendment from Councillor Nolan.

Councillor Zondervan stated that appreciated that intent but could not support the proposed amendment.

Councillor Nolan’s motion to amend section 11.207.3 failed by the following roll call vote:
Roll Call: 1-7-1 (Nolan - YES; Simmons ABSENT)

With regard to the amendment to section 11.207.11(b), Councillor Nolan explained that the amendment adds specific measurable targets to the ordinance. The goals of the Overlay are several but the main two are to increase the number of affordable units and to have greater geographic just dispersity around the city. The amendment set a goal of 15 to 20 units more than what was estimated by Community Development. She stated that the review should be conducted every four years.

Councillor McGovern stated that he agreed with having some goals, but he did not want to set this up for failure if the goals are not met. He wanted Councillor Nolan to clarify the number of units expected in her proposed goals.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that it felt unusual to have these goals in a zoning documents. She felt the language in the proposed amendment should be codified in some other document.

Iram Farooq stated that having a numerical target for production in zoning is a really challenging. She explained that the city cannot predict market conditions in the future, so it is hard to put hard numbers on the amount of new buildings in the zoning ordinance. She stated these numbers could be put in the Housing Trust’s goals or the city council goals.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler moved to amend Councillor Nolan's proposed amendment to section 11.207.11(b) to read as follows:

(b) Four-Year Progress Review. Four (4) years after ordination, CDD shall provide to the City Council, Planning Board and the Affordable Housing Trust, for its review, a report that assesses the effectiveness of the Affordable Housing Overlay in increasing the number of affordable housing units in the city, unless funding increases or decreases, and recognizing that progress toward affordable housing goals are also influenced by other factors such as economic conditions and state and federal policy changes, this number shall include a non-binding goal of at least 15-20 units per year built on average distributing affordable housing across City neighborhoods with at least 20% of units built under this ordinance in areas of the city with the lowest percent of current affordable units, and serving the housing needs of residents. The report shall also assess the effectiveness of the Advisory Design Consultation Procedure in gathering meaningful input from community members and the Planning Board and shaping AHO Projects to be consistent with the stated Design Objectives. The report shall evaluate the success of the Affordable Housing Overlay in balancing the goal of increasing affordable housing with other City planning considerations such as urban form, neighborhood character, environment, and mobility. The report shall discuss citywide outcomes as well as site-specific outcomes.

Councillor Carlone agreed that these goals would be better placed in the City Council goals.

Councillor Zondervan agreed that the goals should be included in the zoning document. He stated that he was not in favor of the amendment.

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone, Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, stated that he was not aware of zoning that specified a numerical goal for units created.

Councillor Carlone moved to suspend rules to extend meeting to 8:30 PM.
Roll Call: 7-1-1 (Zondervan - NO; Simmons - ABSENT)

Mayor Siddiqui stated that she did not support the proposed amendment. She believed that the goals should be placed in a separate document.

Councillor Nolan reiterated that she felt that it was appropriate to add specific numerical goals into the ordinance.

Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler withdrew his amendment to the amendment.

Councillor Nolan’s motion to amend section 11.207.11(b) failed by the following roll call vote
Roll Call: 2-6-1 (Nolan, Carlone - YES; Simmons - ABSENT)

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that she supported stay in session as late as possible to finish as much of the deliberation as possible.

Councillor Carlone’s motion to suspend rules to extend meeting to 9:00 PM passed by the following roll call vote.
Roll Call: 7-1-1 (Zondervan - NO; Simmons - ABSENT)

Councillor Carlone’s motion to request that Community Development create a sketch of section 11.207.5.2.1(b)(i) passed by the following roll call vote
Roll Call: 8-0-1 (Simmons - ABSENT)

Councillor Carlone’s motion to amend 11.207.7.2(c) to delete "two hundred and fifty (250)" and replace with "one hundred and fifty (150)" failed by the following roll call vote (3-5-1)
YES - Nolan, Zondervan, Carlone
NO - Mallon, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Siddiqui
ABSENT - Simmons

Councillor McGovern’s motion to refer petition to the full city council with a favorable recommendation passed by the following roll call vote
YES - Mallon, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Siddiqui, Zondervan
NO - Carlone
ABSENT - Simmons
PRESENT - Nolan

Councillor Toomey’s moved to adjourn
YES - Mallon, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Siddiqui, Zondervan
NO - Carlone
ABSENT - Simmons
PRESENT - Nolan

100% Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition 2020.
RESULT: REFERRED TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION [6 TO 1] Next: 9/14/2020 5:30 PM
YEAS: Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Zondervan
NAYS: Carlone
ABSENT: Simmons
PRESENT: Nolan

A. Communications and Reports from Other City Officers (all Placed on File)
1. A communication was received from Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager / Community Development, regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay.

2. A communication was received from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone regarding the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay

3. A communication was received from Vice-Mayor Alanna Mallon transmitting a proposed amendment to the Affordable Housing Overlay

4. A communication was received from Councillor Patricia Nolan, transmitting proposed Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay

B. Communications (all Placed on File)
1. A communication was received from James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay

2. A communication was received from Nancy E. Phillips, 36A Rice Street, regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay

3. A communication was received from Harriet H. Ahouse, Travel Consultant, regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay

4. A communication was received from Ruthann Rudel, Cambridge Bicycle Committee, regarding the Affordable Housing Ordinance

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

6. A communication was received from Lee Farris, Cambridge Residents Alliance, regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay

7. A communication was received from Debra Wise, Underground Railway, regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay

8. A communication was received from Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay