9. Resolution on the death of Cleo Stoughton.   Councillor Devereux

R-9     Sept 18, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Cleo Stoughton, a transportation planner at the Community Development Department, recently passed away at the age of 28 following a courageous battle with cancer; and
WHEREAS: Cleo began her career with the City as an intern in CDD’s Environmental and Transportation Planning Division; and
WHEREAS: Cleo later became a full-time Assistant Transportation Planner in 2016, working to create a safer and better-designed transportation system in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Cleo focused her work on improving transit, especially bus service, and transit amenities such as bus shelters and benches; and
WHEREAS: Cleo was a dedicated and kind employee who worked incredibly hard in her capacity at CDD; and
WHEREAS: Cleo will be deeply missed by her colleagues; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record extending its deepest condolences to the family of Cleo Stoughton on their recent loss; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the family of Cleo Stoughton, on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-2     Sept 18, 2017
COUNCILLOR MAHER
WHEREAS: In 2016, pursuant to a City Council Order of Oct 19, 2015, The Light Cambridge Working Group recommended the formation of a City-appointed expert review panel known as the Light Cambridge Committee; and
WHEREAS: The City Council authorized the Light Cambridge Committee to promote appropriate architectural lighting of culturally or historically significant sites in the City; and
WHEREAS: The Light Cambridge Working Group also recommended that the most expeditious way to launch a Light Cambridge initiative, and demonstrate its value, would be to form a partnership of leading institutions, including the City, Harvard, and MIT to identify projects that could be completed in the short term; and
WHEREAS: These demonstration projects could be used as examples for private property owners and smaller local institutions - such as religious, educational, and charitable organizations - to lead the way in promoting good architectural lighting for important structures; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide an update to the City Council on the status of the Light Cambridge Committee and anticipated next steps.

O-4     Sept 18, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: In continuing to seek ways to adequately address the City’s ongoing affordable housing crisis, the City Council would be well-served to have a guiding set of principles to follow as it considers all future actions in this regard; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Co-Chairs of the Housing Committee be and hereby are requested to schedule hearings to take up the attached proposed Comprehensive Housing Plan for review and consideration in the near future.

A Comprehensive Housing Plan for Cambridge

The City of Cambridge, which is home to 45,569 households, is facing a housing affordability emergency. In January 2015, the Cambridge City Council unanimously approved an order setting a goal of creating 1,000 new affordable homes by the end of this decade. Since 1997, the City has maintained a ratio of roughly 15 % of the overall housing stock as affordable, despite the loss of 15,700 rent controlled units (rent controlled units represented 40 % of Cambridge’s total rental housing stock in 1995), the market conversion of 349 low and moderate income rental housing units in expiring-use properties, and the conversion of thousands of housing units into condominiums.

Given the present conditions of one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, and the federal government’s retrenchment of its role in providing housing assistance to lower income renters, it is clear that the City’s existing policies and programs will not produce the number of affordable units and the diversity of housing types to meet the housing needs of our community. Even if the council’s vision of building 1,000 new affordable units was realized, which according to the Community Development Department, would be a “significant increase to the City’s historic rates of affordable housing creation,” it would not counteract the other major influence on the housing market generating the affordability problem, the dramatic increase in income inequality in this “high opportunity” city.

The change in incomes in Cambridge over the past three decades is one of the consequences of ever rising housing prices. During the period of 1990 to 2011, the number of households in Cambridge earning 50-80 % of Area Median Income (low and moderate income households) declined by 49 %, while the number of households earning over 120 % increased by 60 %. Developing a comprehensive local housing plan that would expand the supply and affordability of housing in Cambridge, and ensure greater housing security for low and moderate income renters and homeowners, would serve to protect those people who are most at risk of displacement, and maintain socioeconomic diversity in our community.

The 2017 City of Cambridge Community Needs Assessment Report identified affordable housing and homelessness as top tier community needs. But have we made the City’s commitment to affordable housing a top priority? A comprehensive local housing plan that is not merely another housing report would shift our thinking about what the City’s role should be in creating an affordable Cambridge. Local decisions would be framed within the question, “How will this affect housing affordability in Cambridge?” To this end, City Departments would be required to produce impact statements that look at how affordable housing would be affected when ordinances, policies, regulations, and fees are enacted or changed. Beyond considering whether the city’s goal of expanding the supply and affordability of housing would be undermined by an action or decision, every City Department would be charged with developing ideas and practices that would promote affordable housing. There would be a process for measuring and reporting on the changes that occur as a result of this new approach to community planning.

The demand for housing in Cambridge seems to have no limits, but what kind of community do we want to be? A comprehensive local housing plan would describe the specific actions that we can take to make Cambridge the kind of place that develops inclusively.

What are the dimensions of Cambridge’s affordable housing emergency? What are the consequences?

______________________________________________________________________________

Escalating rents

______________________________________________________________________________

Between 2000 and 2015, median asking rents for a one-bedroom apartment in Cambridge increased 90 % from $1,268 to $2,403. For a two-bedroom apartment, median asking rents increased 70 % from $1,691 to $2,882; and for a three-bedroom apartment, 64 % from $2,050 to $3,368. (City of Cambridge Housing Profile 2016)

______________________________________________________________________________

Housing cost burdens

______________________________________________________________________________

In 2013, 65.6 % of extremely low income (at or below 30 % of Area Median Income or AMI) renter households in Cambridge were housing cost-burdened (paying more than 30 % of their gross income on rent); 55.8 % were severely cost-burdened (paying more than 50 % of gross income on rent). (HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data, 2000 and 2009 – 2013)

Seventy-eight % of very low income (31 – 50 % of AMI) renter households in Cambridge were cost-burdened; 49.9 % were severely cost-burdened.

Seventy-four % of low income (51 – 80 % of AMI) renter households in Cambridge were cost-burdened; 22.1 % were severely cost-burdened.

Twenty % of renter households in Cambridge with incomes above 80 % of AMI were cost-burdened; 1.6 % were severely cost-burdened.

______________________________________________________________________________

Changing incomes in Cambridge

______________________________________________________________________________

The number of households in Cambridge earning 50 – 80 % of AMI has declined by 49 % since 1990, while the number of households earning over 120 % of AMI has increased by 60 %. (Memo to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, Analysis of incomes in Cambridge since 1990, CDD Staff, 28 August, 2014)

______________________________________________________________________________

Voucher usage inside/outside Cambridge

______________________________________________________________________________

Forty-three % of Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) Moving to Work tenant-based (mobile) voucher households live outside Cambridge. This represents an 11 % increase since 2011. (CHA, 11 May, 2017) Over half of recent lease-ups who located outside Cambridge are paying more than 30 % of their income on rent.

The success rate of recent CHA voucher holders was 59 %. Forty-eight % of elderly/disabled households were able to use their voucher compared to 63 % of family households. (This was a group of preference applicant households on the CHA’s public housing waitlist who were issued vouchers during the period of spring 2015 through April 2017 when the public housing wait list was closed, and vacancies were held for current CHA tenants who were relocated due to construction.)

______________________________________________________________________________

Waiting lists for housing assistance

______________________________________________________________________________

CHA Waitlists

All applications: 13,700 (CHA, 18 May, 2017)

Total applications for public housing/RAD/former public housing: 4,909

Applications for elderly/disabled developments: 797

(Preference applicants: 264 No preference: 533)

Applications for family developments: 4,112

(Preference applicants: 754 No Preference: 3,358)

Total applications for the Housing Choice Voucher program: 8,791

(Preference applicants: 3,214 No preference: 5,577)

The great majority of applicant households on the CHA’s waitlists are extremely low income (income at or below 30 % of AMI).

(Note: The CHA’s public housing waitlists were closed Jan 1, 2015. The CHA’s voucher waitlist was re-opened Oct 1, 2016 after being closed for eight years.)

Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Waitlist

All applications: 1,235 (CHA, 18 May, 2017)

There was a 23 % increase in applications for SRO units in 2015, and a 147 % increase in 2016.

Inclusionary Housing Rental Applicant Pool

All applications: 2,250 (Community Development Department, 16 May, 2017)

Between Mar 31, 2016 and Oct 17, 2016, there was a 26 % increase in applications from 1,623 to 2,037.

101 households were served during the period of Apr 1, 2016 and Mar 31, 2017. Thirty-nine % of these households had emergency needs (i.e., living in an overcrowded situation; homeless).

As of Apr 1, 2017, 56 % of all inclusionary rental housing units were occupied by voucher holders.

Displacement; evictions from affordable housing

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Cases filed and evictions of CHA public housing households:

- In 2016, CHA filed 141 cases in court for non-payment of rent and 12 cases for cause. There were five evictions.

- Between January and April of 2017, there were 32 cases filed in court for non-payment of rent and 15 for cause. There were five evictions. (CHA Director of Operations Dean Petruzzi)

Terminations of CHA voucher households:

- During 2016, CHA commenced the termination of 83 voucher households. Thirty households were terminated.

- Two terminations were upheld in conference panel. 20 households that filed an appeal failed to appear for the conference panel.

- Fifty-one households resolved the matter which had caused CHA to commence a termination. One household was reinstated in conference panel.

- There were 37 informal hearings; six of which resulted in repayment agreements. Fourteen households resolved the matter which had caused CHA to commence their termination prior to an informal hearing.

- There is one termination that is still pending (as of June 27, 2017).

- The reasons for terminations: Twenty-seven were for failure to recertify or provide the necessary documents to complete recertification. Eleven were for other program violations. Six were for unreported income. The remainder were for other reasons or a combination of reasons, including failure to show up for a scheduled appointment and failed inspection. (CHA Director of Leased Housing Hannah Lodi)

______________________________________________________________________________

Homelessness

______________________________________________________________________________

Cambridge counted 517 persons who were experiencing homelessness on the night between January 27 and January 28, 2016, the annual Point-in-Time census of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons. There was an increase of 53 persons from 2015, which was related to an increase in shelter beds. (City of Cambridge: 2016 Census of Persons Experiencing Homelessness)

Seventy-seven % of persons experiencing homelessness in the 2016 Point-in-Time count were single individuals and 23 % were members of households with children.

The average bed utilization rate in Cambridge emergency shelters which serve individuals is 90 % compared to 97 % for emergency shelters which serve families. (City of Cambridge, “2016 Cambridge Homeless Housing Inventory Count”)

The average bed utilization rate in transitional housing is 91 % compared to a 95 % utilization rate in permanent supportive housing.

Fifty % of families in Cambridge emergency shelters stayed for longer than six months during the period of Oct 2014 – Sept 2015. (2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report)

Cambridge residents who are Black disproportionately experience homelessness. Though Black residents constitute only 11 % of the city’s population, they are 29 % of the total homeless population. (2016 Census)

Current residents at six Single Room Occupancy (SRO) sites in Cambridge have annual average earned incomes in the range of $153 - $4,278. Annual median total incomes of these SRO residents fall in the range of $9,797 - $10,193. (Memo to CHA Board of Commissioners, Amendments to the Administrative Plan (Parts 1-3) and ACOP regarding Single Room Occupancy Waitlist Policy and Program

Description Updates, Martha Tai, 18 May, 2017)

The Cambridge City Council Housing Committee will consider a range of strategies to address Cambridge’s housing needs.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Goal: Create and preserve affordable housing for low and moderate income households

_____________________________________________________________________________

1. Increase local and state resources for affordable housing.

- Commit additional funds in the City’s budget.

- Issue affordable housing minibonds.

- Establish dedicated streams of city revenue to be used for affordable housing development such as parking fees, building permit fees, short-term rental taxes, and a local transfer tax.

- Support a state real estate transfer tax which is dedicated to affordable housing.

2. Maximize the use of zoning to increase the supply of affordable housing.

- Review the incentive zoning and inclusionary housing ordinance on a regular basis.

- Create a city-wide affordable housing overlay district.

- Make the permitting process for affordable housing projects expeditious and predictable.

- Reduce or remove motor vehicle and bicycle parking requirements for 100 % affordable housing projects based on data on actual usage and distance from public transit.

- Reduce motor vehicle parking requirements for transit-accessible residential developments in exchange for additional affordable units.

- Require that large commercial development projects include a residential component.

3. Coordinate all of the local government roles and departments that affect housing affordability.

- Local affordable housing providers will meet on an ongoing basis to update one another on projects, and discuss possible solutions to the challenges to affordable housing preservation and development.

- The City Council will hold quarterly Roundtable/Working Meetings to discuss how to expand housing affordability in Cambridge, and educate local officials and the public on policy, planning, and funding issues.

- Produce a guidebook to all of the City departments, boards and commissions, housing agencies, and community organizations that make up Cambridge’s housing system.

- Require every City department to produce affordable housing impact statements when ordinances, policies, regulations, and fees are enacted or changed. Provide training to key staff on how to do an affordable housing impact analysis.

- Require every City department to develop an action plan that will identify what they can do to promote (or at least not impede) affordable housing development. Provide training to key staff on how to develop an affordable housing action plan for their department.

4. Remove barriers to new development by understanding and challenging NIMBY (not in my backyard) and LULU (locally unwanted land uses) responses to affordable housing projects.

5. Recognize that higher density allows for a greater number of affordable housing units to be built, and make the case that an anti-growth sentiment can serve to thwart one of the core values of Cambridge, equality. Bring attention to the social and economic consequences of exclusionary zoning.

6. Create a more inclusive planning process.

- Increase the participation of underrepresented communities, including lower income tenants, individuals and families who have experienced homelessness, and people for whom English is not their first language.

- Collect demographic information about the membership of City boards and commissions, particularly, those bodies that make decisions that affect housing affordability, with the goal of increasing the diversity of experiences and perspectives that inform the City’s housing policy.

7. Prioritize the preservation of existing low and moderate income housing that is at risk of losing affordability restrictions and/or is in need of major capital improvements

- Continue to commit 80 % of Community Preservation Act funds to affordable housing.

- Strengthen state law 40T notice requirements for expiring-use housing by enacting a home rule petition.

- Project-base tenant protection vouchers at Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) Former Public Housing (FPH) developments.

- Support adding units at CHA Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) and FPH developments.

- Support adding units at other affordable developments that are being preserved.

- Eliminate the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to the City for CHA RAD and FPH developments.

- Reduce the building permit fee for affordable housing projects

8. Reduce the competition for private market rental housing, particularly, for family-sized apartments, by requiring universities to build more student housing

9. Require the Cambridge Community Development Department to produce an Annual Housing Report for the City of Cambridge that would include data on the number of new market rate and affordable housing units that were created, and the number of affordable housing units that were preserved and lost by neighborhood; and an overview of the households served by affordable housing programs in Cambridge.

____________________________________________________________________________

Goal: Strengthen tenant protections

_____________________________________________________________________________

1. Enact just cause eviction legislation through a home rule petition.

2. Establish and fund the right to counsel in certain housing cases. (House No. 3589. An Act establishing a right to counsel in certain eviction cases.)

3. Adopt a local condo conversion law. (Acts, 1983 – Chap. 527. An Act enabling cities and towns to regulate the conversion of residential property to the condominium forms of ownership.)

4. Create the position of Housing Ombudsman/Advocate for the City of Cambridge.

5. Develop a Tenant Harassment Prevention Program.

6. Create an online Landlord Watchlist to share information about buildings with multiple serious violations of City laws and codes relating to housing quality and safety

7. Provide information on landlord-tenant laws on the City website which would include the obligations of landlords, the obligations of tenants, and city ordinances that affect tenants and landlords.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Goal: Promote housing stability

_____________________________________________________________________________

1. Enhance the enforcement of Cambridge’s source of income discrimination ordinance.

2. Offer tenant education programs to test whether requiring participants to successfully complete a series of workshops dealing with topics such as budgeting and credit, housing search basics, maintaining stable housing, tenant rights and responsibilities, and CORI mitigation, before they are issued a tenant-based voucher would improve the rate of voucher takers who are able to use their voucher.

3. Establish a Landlord Liaison Program. Provide benefits and guarantees to landlords who agree to use an alternative screening/application process to reduce barriers to housing (e.g., waive credit history screening, not screen out applicants for non-payment eviction history, individualized assessments of applicants with a criminal record history).

4. Expand tenant outreach to track and analyze the causes of displacement, including physical evictions and forced moves; develop targeted solutions for vulnerable subpopulations of tenants; incorporate displacement risk in planning decisions.

5. Create an inventory of the stock of affordable accessible housing in Cambridge.

6. Increase the housing choices of CHA tenant-based voucher (TBV) households. Offer CHA TBV households who are located outside Cambridge the opportunity to apply for a transfer to a newly renovated apartment at a RAD/FPH development. Interview and survey CHA TBV households to find out the reasons for their locational choices.

7. Increase the housing choices of CHA ceiling rent (so-called over income or above 80 % of Area Median Income) public housing/RAD/FPH households who are interested in transitioning out of CHA housing by creating a time-limited right of return subsidy; establish a set-aside program for these households in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program or change the inclusionary tenant selection policies to preference these households.

8. Expand the preference for Cambridge residents to include former residents who have been displaced due to the high cost of housing.

9. Include an evaluation process in the City’s homeownership program HomeBridge for moderate- and middle income households to see which types of households (i.e., household size and composition, income level, resident or employed in Cambridge, and type of housing they moved from) choose to apply for the program, and which ones are successful.

10. Establish a state income tax credit for owners who charge below market rents.

11. Provide assistance for lower income households who move; the cost of moving, including first month’s rent, last month’s rent, security deposit, and realtor’s fee, has been estimated by CHA to be $7,200.

O-5     Sept 18, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Executive Director to the Election Commission and the Election Commissioners with the view in mind of adding a link direct links to each candidate to the for the City Council's Office of Campaign and Political Finance report page on the Election Commission website rather than just a link to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance homepage.

O-8     Sept 18, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: Over the past three years, City staff from multiple departments, members of the Outdoor Lighting Task Force, and other community members have invested significant time and resources in drafting an Outdoor Lighting Ordinance to "permit an amount of outdoor lighting that is appropriate to allow for the safe use and enjoyment of outdoor areas, while also mitigating light trespass and glare to abutters and the public at large, reducing light pollution, and promoting energy conservation"; and
WHEREAS: A draft Outdoor Lighting Ordinance was heard this term by the Planning Board and the City Council's Ordinance Committee; and
WHEREAS: Both bodies were generally supportive, but returned the draft to the Community Development Department for further refinement especially in relation to rooftop and facade lighting; and
WHEREAS: Light pollution and excessive glare from outdoor lighting continue to be a significant nuisance to many residents, and are a known health risk and a waste of energy; and
WHEREAS: Without any regulations in place there is no protection for members of the public seeking relief from existing and new sources of light trespass and intrusion; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council by September 25 with 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.

O-10     Sept 18, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Office of Workforce Development and other appropriate City personnel to establish a comprehensive and robust skilled labor trades program, with a view toward increasing the number of Cambridge residents working in the skilled labor trades, and to report back to the City Council on the progress towards achieving this in a timely manner.

O-11     Sept 18, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: Animals previously considered wildlife are finding new habitats in Cambridge’s urban environments, a pattern experienced by cities around North America, and in some cases these cities are struggling with management of species that thrive in dense neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS: In addition to native species, climate change and globalization are making it possible for non-native fauna to become established in our urban ecosystem, and these species may require separate mitigation plans; and
WHEREAS: Residents lack guidance on how to respond to some of the unique challenges these animals pose to urban life, and are unclear about what responsibilities the City has in management of certain populations and mitigating nuisances; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Director of the Animal Commission to review its policies and state laws regarding urban wildlife management, to develop a plan that is responsive to the reintroduction of native animals to the urban ecosystem, and to provide guidance to residents unsure of how to mitigate the nuisance from certain species; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager is requested to report back to the Council on the constraints and options regarding management of native and non-native species introduced to the urban ecosystem, and to make suggestions to the Council regarding how the City might develop its own policies and/or work with state government to develop a more responsive regulatory framework for emerging and expanding urban wildlife management issues.

O-13     Sept 18, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The City is continually seeking ways to address the local affordable housing crisis, and one possible approach would be to reach out to property owners and inquire whether they would be willing, whenever they are ready to sell their homes, to give the City the right of first refusal so that the City can potentially convert these homes into affordable low and moderate income housing; and
WHEREAS: There are currently a number of senior citizens living in large family homes that are looking or will be looking to sell these homes, and these homes could potentially represent excellent opportunities for the City to create new units of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS: If the City were to formally establish an aggressive outreach program to all property owners, this would enable the City to better learn about opportunities to acquire properties that could potentially be converted to affordable housing for low and moderate income families, and it could also protect against land speculators purchasing these homes and then converting them into luxury housing that is out of reach for many people in this community; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate City personnel to establish an aggressive outreach program to all property owners, with a view towards purchasing any properties possible and converting these properties into affordable housing; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on progress made toward establishing this program in a timely manner.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Tues, May 16, 2017 beginning at 3:31pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss tenant protections, anti-displacement policies, and Inclusionary Housing tenant selection policies; the Committee will also discuss any updates received from the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA), including a report on the issuance of CHA Choice Vouchers to public housing applicants.

Present at the hearing were Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair; Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, CoChair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor Maher; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner; Donna Claudio, Community Development Department; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Sue Walsh, Assistant Director of Adult and Family Services, Human Service Department; Nora Bent; Wil Durbin; Neal Alpert, Chief of Staff to Mayor Simmons; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Mike Johnston, Executive Director; Hannah Lodi, Director of Leased Housing; Dillon C. Harvey, Community Relations Coordinator, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli; Elaine DeRosa; Ellen Shachter; Theresa Tirella; Nancy Ryan; Peter Daly; Ti-Grace Atkinson; Leptune Paul; Lee Farris; Abra Berkowitz; Skip Schloming; and Kathy Watkins.

Mayor Simmons convened the hearing and gave an opening statement (Attachment A).

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the Housing Committee has done a lot of great things to keep Cambridge somewhat affordable. He noted that Incentive Zoning and Inclusionary Zoning are two important pieces of this uphill battle. He stated that there is a lot of work to be done for people in the City and he is honored to be part of this work. He stated that some issues were brought up during the Inclusionary Zoning conversation and he noted that he moved to put them into the ordinance. He thanked all of the housing partners and advocates for their tireless efforts.

Mayor Simmons noted that a communication from Abra Berkowitz was received via e-mail and will be made part of the record. (Attachment B).

Public comment began at 3:42pm.

Nancy Ryan stated that she did have questions and she assumed that they would be answered in the context of the meeting. She stated that there are thirteen 2-bedroom units with 1 person in them. She said that there are huge number of non-Cambridge residents in all bedroom sizes. She stated that only 637 Cambridge residents have applied for Inclusionary Zoning, which is shocking. She noted that she is eager to find out why there are so many non-residents in Inclusionary Zoning units and so few Cambridge residents. She stated that there are some Cambridge residents who are on the 3-bedroom unit waiting lists and have been on waiting lists from as far back as 2010. She said that she is pleased about the discussion so far, and the Cambridge Residents Alliance has a larger set of policy ideas that she would like the Committee to consider.

Lee Farris stated that she has submitted policy and tenant protection ideas to the City Council and provided the Committee with a written communication of same. (Attachment C). She concluded by stating that the City Council and staff will pick the best ones to start working on.

Abra Berkowitz reiterated that tenant protections need to be part of a larger strategy. She stated that she hopes that the City will implement better tenant protections.

Skip Schloming, Small Property Owners in Boston, stated that an element of what the Committee is considering is Just Cause eviction. He stated that there was a working session of his committee in which a compromise was being suggested and it was not vigorously opposed by tenant advocates. He stated that there are a lot of problems with Just Cause eviction. He reminded the Committee that in 2002 there was a referendum to bring Rent Control back to Cambridge. He stated that problem is that you cannot evict very bad tenants. He stated that the problem is that the people involved in these require evidence in court if it is a Just Cause eviction.

Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street, stated that she lives in low-income housing. She stated the need to pass policies that will protect tenants. She stated that she feels that there should be a transfer policy in Inclusionary Zoning. She noted that some of the issues she encounters at her building is paying double for water, flickering electricity, and security issues pertaining to the front door lock in the building. She said that there is no one she can go to help her with these things. She commented that she wants to transfer out of this building but said that she is stuck there with no options. She questioned why there are so many non-residents in 2-3 bedroom apartments. Ms. Watkins concluded by stating that she would not like to see studios as part of the Inclusionary Zoning program.

Public Comment closed at 4:03pm.

Mike Johnston provided the Committee with a Memorandum regarding an update on the CHA’s issuance of Housing Choice Vouchers to Public Housing Applicants dated Apr 26

(Attachment D). Mr. Johnston stated that in order to give a full update, he would like to touch upon a couple of items. He stated that the CHA has recognized the fact that public housing is not something that the federal government is looking to continue to fund. He stated that RAD Phase I is progressing through construction, which consists of 1,150 units. He said that Woodrow Wilson Court is now complete into permanent financing. Mr. Johnston explained that Newtowne Court, Washington Elms, Manning, and Putnam Gardens will be on-line in the next 6 to 18 months.

Mr. Johnston explained that RAD Phase II is almost 1,000 units and is the balance of the portfolio. He explained that these 1,000 units are in a holding pattern because they have been unable to get access to private activity bonds with the State. He stated that because of this holding pattern, it has been difficult on residents. He explained that the CHA knows what it wants to do to the buildings and has worked diligently to keep residents engaged. He stated that it does look like the Russell Apartments will go through the process and be placed in the queue. He explained that if they are able to successfully wok on this building, all of the residents would need to be relocated. He advised that the reason for relocation of residents would be due to periods of the lack of electricity, water, and elevator service. He said that construction will be undertaken in a 12-month period and will be conducted by the same contractor that worked on the Manning Apartments. He added that this contractor stays on schedule.

Mr. Johnston explained that as it relates to the budget, the CHA dodged a bullet with FY17 funding. He said that they were expecting the worst, but the voucher program received a little extra money; however, he added that it was still not enough to keep up with the cost of the program. He explained that there is a $1.6 million loss for the program. He stated that the Trump Administration and Congress has no desire to maintain public housing. He stated that the CHA is getting 80 cents to the dollar. He stated that 50% of their stock has already been pulled out of the public housing program and he is concerned about what will come for FY18.

Mr. Johnston said that Jefferson Park State has been under major construction of what used to be State public housing. He noted that this is a Section 8 project-based development, and that this project will come on-line in two stages, the first in September and the second in November.

Mr. Johnston explained that CHA also administers a large voucher program. He said that there are 4,700 units of vouchers. He said that these vouchers are split 50/50 with half being utilized in Cambridge and half being utilized outside of Cambridge. He stated that two years ago, the CHA embarked on the RAD process. He said that the Family and Elderly/Disabled waiting lists were closed as of November 2014, and that the CHA then moved residents out of buildings that were being renovated into units that would otherwise have been populated with people from the waiting lists. He explained that, in order to mitigate the fact that this process would severely delay the housing of applicants from the waiting lists, the CHA made 250 vouchers available per year. These would be offered to people on the waiting lists, in an attempt to offer them opportunities to find housing outside of the CHA system. The CHA looked at the normal yearly placements for 2012-2014 and determined an average yearly placement of 190. Mr. Johnston said that the CHA then agreed to issue enough vouchers to those on the public housing list and they felt that 250 vouchers would be a reasonable number. He said that they ultimately issued 569 vouchers; of these, 330 voucher holders were able to find units. He noted that in an average year, the CHA places 116 Elderly/Disabled into housing. He stated that of the 72 total Elderly/Disabled applicants, only 32 elders were able to find housing. He explained that the average number for Family placements per year was 74, but 258 families were able to find units, which is 184 more families that were placed. He said that the average search time for vouchers was 106 days. He stated that of 330 successful lease-ups, 41% were in Cambridge. He stated that 120 applicants leased a unit where they paid 30% or less of their income. He said that 194 applicants took the voucher outside of Cambridge and 88 of those households found units where they paid 30% or less. He said that 106 are paying more than 30% of income.

Mr. Johnston explained the current Wait List numbers: 797 Elderly/Disabled applicants, 4,112 Family applicants, and 8,791 vouchers. He pointed out that 8,791 have currently utilized the on-line application portal. He said that 40% of the voucher applicants are Cambridge residents. He noted that local preference is defined by someone that lives or works in the City of Cambridge or is a veteran. Mr. Johnston said that because of RAD and Jefferson Park State, they have many units coming online. He noted that there will be approximately 50 units at Jefferson Park State coming on-line in September and November. He said that last week they proposed to the Cambridge Housing Authority Board to market the bulk of the units to Cambridge voucher holders that are outside of the City of Cambridge, noting that there are 751 Cambridge voucher holders currently outside of Cambridge. These voucher holders have been sent a letter saying that they have these units available and can put their name into consideration for one of these units – but that if they accept the unit, they must give up their mobile voucher. Mr. Johnston said that this addresses the concern that they put a lot of money into units but there is no way for Cambridge residents to come back to the city. He added that this addresses the fact that residents have fled the City of Cambridge because they could not find a unit in Cambridge.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that getting rid of mobility is not an option. She asked Mr. Johnston what type of policy change he would make based on what he has learned so far. Mr. Johnston responded that he feels that most people that receive vouchers do not really know how to use them. He said that if you put resources aside, most people don’t know what to do once they obtain a voucher. He stated that he would invest time in educating the voucher holder in areas such as housing search, managing of credit, etc. He stated that many who come in for a voucher are not eligible for such reasons as a bad credit report, an eviction from years ago, or income that is not high enough. He noted that these applicants need to know how to overcome a blemish. Ms. Pizza-Zeoli asserted that these voucher holders should be targeted with educational programs in order to maximize their chances of success.

Ellen Shachter stated that she works as an attorney in Cambridge and Somerville and noted that there are no housing services for the non-homeless. She stated that she does not think that information alone is helpful, and grant programs should be expanded for a one-month incentive program.

Mayor Simmons thanked Mr. Johnston for his presentation.

Ms. Farooq stated that the memorandum to City Manager DePasquale dated May 15

is an overview of tenants and applicants for Inclusionary Rental Units and has been submitted to the Committee (Attachment E). Mr. Cotter gave an overview of the memorandum.

Mayor Simmons stated that many vouchers are leaving the City. She stated that when thinking about preferences, we must look at selection criteria. She stated that there is clearly a problem with voucher holders getting back into the City. She asked what percentage of the Inclusionary Zoning units are held by voucher holders. Mr. Cotter responded close to 60%. Mayor Simmons stated that the Inclusionary Zoning program is one way to get people back into the city.

Ms. Pizza-Zeoli asked how many have come to the top of the list and were weeded as it relates to screening barriers. Mr. Cotter responded that he does not have this information readily available.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that comments made by the public related to 13 people in 1-bedroom or 2-bedroom units and he questioned if this was due to just circumstance or is there a systemic reason. Mr. Cotter stated that the policy is that when a household size changes such that someone is over housed, they will ask that they be moved into an appropriate sized unit, when available, in the same building.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that when he speaks with people, few know about the Inclusionary Zoning program. He stated that the City Council did raise the percentage to 20% yet new units will not be produced overnight. He asked that once these units are produced, how can we do a better job to get the necessary information out to the public? He stated that it is an important program. Mr. Cotter responded that they did lot of outreach when there were a significant number of units coming online. He noted that they worked with community groups and others and they saw a significant increase. He stated that there are a variety of housing options and resources available. He stated that Inclusionary Zoning may not be the best solution for all people. He noted that CDD is always happy to help people understand how to apply and they dispense this information at community events and outreach sessions.

Councillor Carlone stated that he worked on a project at the Mystic View Apartments in Somerville and noted that all of the tenants had to leave for renovations. He said that all of the tenants had the option of returning once the units were completed. Mr. Johnston stated that all residents that are relocated for modernization have the right to return but they must be eligible for continued occupancy. He stated that additionally, all of the buildings under construction have non tax credit units available for returning residents over 60% of AMI, except Jefferson Park State, which is not RAD and is a 100% project based Section 8 and 100% tax credit. He noted that residents know up front that they would need to be income eligible to return to this particular project. He added that this is in the relocation agreement. He noted that with all of the RAD buildings, every property has a relocation plan. He stated that at the Jefferson Park State site, some people went to Lincoln Way and Jackson Gardens and are happy in those locations and therefore do not want to return. He explained that the Russell Apartment residents will have a relocation agreement with an absolute right of return. This is to do work and get residents back in.

Councillor Carlone stated that if a person is granted an out of town voucher and then decide to come back, will they still need a voucher to pay for rent? Mr. Johnston stated that they would gain the voucher back. He said that RAD combines the operating subsidy and the capital fund into one number. CHA voucher is valued at 100% of FMR. He stated that if they have mobile voucher, the CHA will take the voucher back. Councillor Carlone asked if this will help the CHA budget. Mr. Johnston stated that the CHA works best when they are at 95%-96% utilized and currently they are 101% utilized. Councillor Carlone stated that if some mobile vouchers do not want to come back, theoretically there will be openings for people on waiting list so it is a win/win.

Councillor Carlone stated that as stated in the memo from CDD, it is listed that 622 units have been completed but they have 2,037 applicants which is a 30% success rate. He stated that it would be great to see what the percentages are for who got the unit. He stated that the percentages may be similar. Mr. Cotter stated that stated that as residents are being served, they are coming out of the pool. He stated that the number of applications by preference category will show how preferences work in terms of the tiers. He stated that if we are looking at who was housed, it is really only applicants at the top of each preference pool by bedroom size. Mr. Cotter said that they would like the Housing Committee and the City Council to provide input on selection preferences which will be addressed when setting new regulations for inclusionary housing.

Councillor Carlone stated with CHA putting RAD units back on, theoretically, it is more than 100 units with maybe another 300-400 in a couple of years. Mr. Johnston stated that it is difficult to track people who have used mobile vouchers. He explained that they are looking to survey all the voucher holders outside of Cambridge because they want to know why they went outside of Cambridge and what is keeping them outside of Cambridge.

Ellen Shachter thanked CDD for the report. She stated that there will be the temptation to expand on who can get access to Inclusionary Units. She stated that there isn’t a top priority for people on the verge of displacement. She stated that it is important to make sure that placement is possible if there is an emergency before they are rendered homeless.

Mayor Simmons added that there is currently not a mechanism in place to house a victim of Domestic Violence into a unit. Mr. Cotter explained that the system needs to evolve and develop. He said that there are some gaps and input is welcome. He stated that CDD has also provided information on how the preferences interact (Attachment F). He noted that CDD would like to expand on emergency housing needs and what changes need to be made.

Councillor Devereux asked why domestic violence victims are not considered under an emergency status.

Mr. Cotter responded this is not a specific preference. He noted that people in these situations often meet other criteria and can be considered as emergency as there are other ways that domestic violence may affect an application. Mayor Simmons stated that she would like CDD to be more explicit in this area.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that it is very important to think about the value of mobility. Mayor Simmons stated that mobile vouchers are the golden ticket. She stated that transfers are something that should be available.

Peter Daly added that Inclusionary Zoning units are good for those with moderate income. It is a great resource such people.

Mayor Simmons stated that there are many more issues to discuss in the future.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he had a meeting with Ellen Shachter and CDD to talk about tenant protection around Inclusionary Zoning as this is an incredibly important piece of the puzzle. Vice Mayor McGovern submitted the following motions:

WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has recently amended its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and policies including changes in minimum rent policies; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is aware that, on occasion, tenants living in affordable dwelling units created under its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (“Affordable Dwelling Units”) may experience an unanticipated loss of income rendering their dwelling units unaffordable; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge wishes to provide assistance to these tenants who are experiencing such loss of income so that they may pay their rent and remain in their homes for at least a temporary period of time while seeking longer term solutions to their housing; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge shall ensure that homeless prevention funds are available on a temporary basis to those households who rent Affordable Dwelling Units but who have lost income since first occupying such rental unit such that the rent plus utilities determined by the Community Development Department is in excess of 40% of the tenant’s income (at or in between annual recertifications) and more specifically that such funds will:
   a. Pay the owner the balance of the ongoing rent each month for at least 6 months with the tenant paying rent of no more than 40% of the tenant’s income minus the applicable allowance for tenant-paid utilities.
   b. Not impose any requirements of a notice to quit or summary process complaint or evidence of sustainability of tenancy beyond that the tenant is actively looking to increase employment income and/or seeking disability or other benefits to pay their living expenses.

WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has recently amended its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City of Cambridge that tenants with Section 8 vouchers or similar rental subsidies seeking admission to affordable rental dwelling units created under the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (“Affordable Dwelling Units”) are in some cases denied such units because of their poor credit score and/or lack of credit history; and
WHEREAS: The City Council seeks to eliminate barriers to low income tenants with rental subsidies to obtain Affordable Dwelling Units; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge shall (through regulations, policies, covenants, voluntary agreements, or other methods) encourage or require that owners of Affordable Dwelling Units do not deny admission to tenants with rental subsidies due to lack of credit history and/or poor credit history but may deny admission if the tenant has a history of nonpayment of rent in an affordable apartment.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that we are not talking about a lot of people or a lot of money. He said that these motions are something that can be done and must be worked out legally and operationally. He said that in terms of the value, we must do these things.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would like these motions to remain in committee for further discussion and vetting.

The motions remained in Committee on a voice vote of four members.

Mayor Simmons and Vice Mayor McGovern thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 5:35pm.

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

Committee Report #2
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, July 26, 2017 at beginning at 5:37pm in the Henriettta Attles Meeting Room at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, for the purpose of discussing the next steps for the Foundry Building including: financing, community benefit, non-profit ecosystem, and community engagement.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Craig Kelley; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Planner, Community Development Department; Kathy Watkins, Senior Engineer, Department of Public Works; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Charles Sullivan, Director, Historical Commission; Taha Jennings, Assistant to the City Manager; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Tom Evans, Executive Director; Kathryn Madden, Strategic Planner, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA); Suma Greenwald; Jake Crutchfield; Monica Velgos; Jared Cosulich; and Diane Quinn.

Councillor Mazen stated that he looks forward to hearing more about the process moving forward and gave an overview of the agenda for the meeting (ATTACHMENT A). He invited City Manager DePasquale to update the Committee on the Foundry.

Mr. DePasquale stated that he is pleased with the Foundry redevelopment process, especially considering how far the City has come and the amount of work that has put into the process. He noted that today’s hearing is a continuation of the community process that began in 2012 when the City first acquired the building. He stated that the process has not been simple or easy, but is on the way to being successful through a lot of community input, as well as guidance and leadership from the City Council.

Mr. DePasquale noted that there are some key items that he would like to highlight. He said that the cost to redevelop the building is projected to be $25 – $30M dollars. He explained that a lot of time has been spent listening to the community during this process, which is why he is pleased to announce that the City and CRA are proposing to fund that entire amount. He said that the public’s input has helped to shape the direction of this project. He stated that the cost to operate the building is estimated to be $1.2 -$1.4M annually and this project will need to be self-sustaining operationally, with costs supported through rents paid by the building tenants. He commented that this approach will allow 60% of the building’s programming space to be dedicated to affordable community and public uses and programming.

Mr. DePasquale explained that he believes that the approach that is being taken will achieve the vision for the building, and strike the right balance between building design, uses, programming, and operational sustainability. He said that there are going to be more opportunities for public input as we go through a designer selection process, apply for necessary permits, and select a building operator. He added that the Foundry Advisory Committee will also continue to play an important role monitoring progress in achieving the vision. He stated that this project is currently at the point where it is important to ensure that it continues to move forward.

Mr. DePasquale thanked the City Council, City staff, CRA Board and staff, the Foundry Advisory Committee, Mr. Evans, Deputy City Manager Peterson and Mr. Jennings and community residents for their dedicated work to this project. He introduced Mr. Evans to speak in more detail about strategy and next steps.

Mr. Evans thanked Mr. DePasquale for his comments and gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation. Tom Evans echoed LD remarks. It has been team effort. He gave overview of PP presentation (Attachment B).

Councillor Mazen stated he invited Mr. Matt Boyes-Watson to talk about a project that he is undertaking in Somerville. He stated that Mr. Boyes-Watson is doing a cool project, and although not relevant to the Foundry, it is at the nexus of retail, potential opportunities for training subsidy, job opportunities and small business entrepreneurship.

Mr. Boyes-Watson stated that born and raised in Cambridge. He stated that he is working on a public market in Somerville by taking an old, vacant, storage building with no frontage and turning it into a public market with food vendors and art vendors and a pedestrian courtyard. He stated that they have a 120-person black box theatre as well as a small commissary kitchen. He stated that there will pop-up retail as well. Mr. Boyes-Watson explained the building is a strange pentagon shape which previously held 20 garage bays on the first floor. He explained that there will be a storefront in each bay. He said that there are also 20 garage bays on the second floor that will face the courtyard. He said that his building is under half the size of the Foundry. He said that they have learned that the aspiration of the space is to bridge the gap between what the markets and the commissary kitchens are doing to allow the average vendor to take advantage of that opportunity with less than $500.00. He explained that they are hoping to cluster shops with similar issues so that the spaces are less than 1,000 per month to rent. He noted that the plan is to open the space in January and added that over 80% of the building is occupied. He explained that it is important to create a destination and the combination of many uses is a great way to accomplish that goal.

Councillor Mazen asked about Mr. Boyes-Watson about the cost of rent. Mr. Boyes-Watson responded that rent for the downstairs is $960.00 and upstairs rent is 890.00. He added that the leases in the building run from 6 to 19 months.

Councillor Carlone stated that he has visited this site. He said that finding lost space and giving it a purpose will make it come alive. He stated that Mr. Boyes-Watson is making destination of a space that is dead and that is very impressive.

Ms. Peterson commented that Mr. Boyes-Watson’s project sound wonderful and inquired about the total design and construction costs. Mr. Boyes-Watson responded that he is happy to provide this information but noted that he did not bring this information with him to the hearing.

Mr. DePasquale stated that the expectation for the opening of the Foundry is 2021. He stated that he would like to try to move this project forward in the best way possible and added that we are now in a position to move forward.

Councillor Mazen stated that he does not sense a lot of conflict about the uses of the building from the community. He said that it is important that we are prophylactically reaching out and engaging the community. He added that design and costs studies are a new area for the City Council and he would not like to merely gloss over these figures.

Councillor Devereux asked why it will take 3 years for completion. Mr. Evans responded that it is 1-18 months for the design process and 6 months to one year for construction. He explained that rehab of a building is a slower than the actual construction of a building from scratch. He explained that it may take 2.5 years but it is important not to set unrealistic goals. He said that there is a lot of technical work that must be undertaken in order to get a 100-year old building up to standards. He stated that there are structural challenges as well and completion in 3 years is a realistic analysis.

Councillor Carlone asked about the cost for the rental of office space. Mr. Evans responded that $50 is what the market can bear but added that there is a greater expectation for the tenants in the building. He explained that the tenants are being asked to be participants in the building and added that this is a downgrade from premium.

Councillor Carlone stated that from a programming point of view, the team has come forward with a compelling package. He stated that the Multicultural Arts Center (MCAC) has had a difficult time programming and ideally, the Foundry would not compete. He said that the programming presented seems a good fit with the MCAC. He stated that the Foundry will compliment other non-profits. Mr. Evans stated that the idea is to create something that is filling a void in the East Cambridge neighborhood and the arts and performance space. He stated that there is concern about the loss of small theatre space throughout the Boston area. He said that the idea of creating a raw space for performing and visual arts is the role that they are seeing the Foundry can fill. He said that the Foundry will complement the more formal offerings in the area.

As it relates to urban design, Councillor Carlone asked how will the neighborhood affect the building potential and the connection to Third Street and the future park. He stated that he hopes that there will be an interface. Mr. Evans stated that nothing can be done about the shape of the building. He stated that they want to collaborate on the Third and Roger corner. He stated that there may be the opportunity for synergy. He stated that they are looking at how to make Rogers Street a continuation of open space. He stated that they are thinking about how to design an addition to the building. He explained that they are exploring a way to create a signature entrance to the building which can create a link using Rogers Street.

Councillor Carlone suggested that a kiosk be installed that will announce what is happening at the Foundry.

Councillor Devereux asked how the height of the building next door to the Foundry. Mr. Evans responded that it is 4 floors on a portion with a stepdown to 3 floors. Mr. Evans confirmed that from a light and air perspective, both buildings are sharing yard space which will allow the yard to flourish as a space.

Councillor Devereux asked about the strip of land through the center of the buildings. Mr. Evans explained that it is a grassy strip that will be used as a landscaping opportunity to open the historic windows and entry loading bays so that activities in the Foundry can pour out into yard space.

Councillor Mazen stated that there is need for outreach to the neighborhood to keep the project dynamic and the neighborhood at the heart of the program. He said he would like to begin a conversation about how these uses fit together. He stated that he would like to talk about outreach or synergy aspects in relation to the project.

Mr. Evans stated that the next critical step is to ask these questions and more of people who do this work all the time. He asserted that a Request for Information (RFI) has been prepared. He stated that they have been visiting other facilities and talking about issues. He stated that they want to ask questions to as many as possible. He explained that in the in the RFI, they asked how others would propose to conduct outreach to meet the goals of the City Manager. He said that the RFI asks about the relationships between tenants and artists and shared space. The RFI makes a public ask for ideas with a follow-up of a series of conversations with those that respond. He stated that they do not expect the respondents to answer all of the questions. He stated that the RFI stage is key in order to ensure that anyone that has input to share has the opportunity to do so. He said that they have been thinking about how workforce development and arts and education merge together. He said that through the advisory committee and City staff, other conversations are taking place in collaboration.

Councillor Mazen stated that he is excited to see what people come back with. He stated that it is important that the community be given the opportunity to engage with those submissions. He stated that a lot of people have an acute awareness of what will not work. Mr. DePasquale stated that this is too big of an investment for the community not to be a vital part of discussions. Mr. Evans stated that there needs to be expectations for program providers to do outreach and be dynamic to ensure that we just don’t wait for people to show up. He said that workforce development is tough work with a lot of challenges. He said that there will be adaptive management throughout the process. Councillor Mazen said that whoever is submitting proposals for the construction design needs to understand this going in with both eyes open. Mr. Evans stated that they have ability to pose questions on site and seek responses. He stated that brainstorming sessions can be hosted throughout the process.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is important to think about the anchor tenants. He said that it is a good opportunity to have a clear and concrete way about putting new entrepreneurs into hands-on learning and entrepreneurial opportunities. He stated that we want to think about learners. Mr. Evans stated that while there may be a series of office spaces, there will be shared resources of classrooms and other flexible space that could be utilized by educational opportunities. He stated that there needs to be a way to prioritize the anchor tenants in the building so they can utilize the shared space.

Councillor Mazen stated that as it relates to design and cost studies, he has serious trepidations when a full floor is taken away or when talking about 50,000 feet when an applicant was talking about 80,000 feet. He stated that he would like discussion surrounding why there is no basement floor and why we are discussing different variations rather than a broader set of options. Mr. Evans stated that these are studies and in no way are we married to these variations. He stated that there would be disappointment if there were artists working in dark spaces or a small theatre space. He said that as they opened up core elements of the building, they kept in mind other opportunities to carve away to create space that people want to be in. He said that they are focused on quality of space as opposed to quantity of space. He said that CIC used every square foot of space but as they looked at challenges, they saw limitations in some spaces in the CIC design. He stated that they wanted to research basement options to gain space. They do have lot line challenges that create a difficult space as far as windows and construction options. He explained that even building on the wings runs into practical setbacks of the space. He said that they will have a conversation with designers to determine what can be added in to expand the square footage. He stated that they are trying to be very open about what the limitations are. He highlighted that when we look at this program, what is being built is comparable to many community facilities that they are aware of. He said a 50,000 square foot building is comparable to some of these facilities. He said that they will explore options of expanding the envelope but added that they want to be realistic. Councillor Mazen said that he would like to shoot for as much value as we can get. He said that it is important to have a couple variations that can maximize square footage. He said that he wants to be cognizant of fact that we should at least consider design variations. Mr. Evans stated that they have been working programmatically with setting expectations at a reasonable level. He recognized that adding space adds cost, not only cost for capital, but also cost for operating.

Councillor Mazen stated that if a building or parcel were demolished and built from new, how much would it cost to build 50,000 square feet. Ms. Peterson responded that at the King Open School, the cost is about $470.00 dollars per square foot.

Councillor Devereux asked about the landmarking process. She stated that when talking about adding square footage to the side, how does this play into what is being considered regarding the landmarking.

Mr. Sullivan said the architectural significance is the shape that signifies the original function as a foundry. He stated that there is vacant space on the southwest corner where there are presently loading docks that could be possible for new construction. He stated that they want to support the program to the extent that it would be consistent with preserving and possibly restoring the historic shell of the building. He noted that there are interior features that could be enhanced but noted that the Historical Commission does not have jurisdiction over those features. Mr. Sullivan said that framing of the building is made up of heavy wood but noted that if this building had been built five years later, it would have been constructed with iron girders. He said that this building is quite an extraordinary survivor of that industrial period.

Councillor Devereux asked about the status of the construction to the building next door to the Foundry.

Mr. Evans responded that the building next door is actively under construction as of this week.

Councillor Mazen stated that he would like for there to be a community meeting or other meeting regarding the design and cost and variations as well as other opportunities. He noted that having a variation or two that provides for more space would be helpful to add to the variation list.

Councillor Mazen noted that a communication has been received by Olivia D’Ambrosio that will be made part of the record. (Attachment C).

Councillor Mazen stated that it is important to engage the community wholeheartedly and to get the difficult conversations out of the way. He stated that the input by the East Cambridge Planning Team is very important. Mr. Evans responded that the East Cambridge Planning Team was shown the presentation three weeks prior. He noted that the attendees were generally happy with the presentation and the conversations will continue. He mentioned that they are putting together a package of alternatives for distribution when they become available.

Ms. Peterson stated that they are hoping a revised demonstration plan will be before the City Council in September with the designer selection process to follow. She noted the need for a significant public component to the process.

Councillor Mazen opened Public Comment at 7:08pm.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that he loves theater and knows Ms. D’Ambrosio. As it relates to theatre and community space at the Volpe Center, he wondered how the decision will be made as to how much of these things the space should have. He asked how the City will look at the need for another theater space and how to make such an assessment and judgment. He stated that if we are going to have a community-oriented space as a component at the Foundry, how does that go to the argument for a significant community space at another site two blocks away.

Diane Quinn, 369 Franklin Street, Cambridge, Executive Director of the American Repertory Theatre, stated that having an additional space is extremely welcome. She stated that it is apparent in Greater Boston that there is a lack of rehearsal space. She said that this space would be utilized in a significant way.

Public comment ended at 7:13pm.

Councillor Devereux thanked all who have worked so hard on this project. She said that it is still difficult for her to wrap her mind around how the synergy will happen. She stated that the RFI will make it a vibrant place that will attract a lot of people.

Councillor Carlone stated that he was happy to hear Mr. Evans mention that they will be looking into Rogers Street and what can be done with it. He stated that the street treatment from Third to the entry of the Foundry could be more special, more like a muse. He asked Mr. Sullivan if the loss of the space in the corner of the Foundry was due equipment. Mr. Sullivan responded in the affirmative. He stated that the Verizon building wanted to double its height but that did not happen. He stated that he remains excited about this project and the notion of working out what community spaces are in which buildings makes sense. He stressed the need to work collaboratively as this opportunity is very unique.

Councillor Devereux asked if there is a way to use Bent Street to get people into The Foundry. Mr. Evans responded that there is entrance on Bent Street that has been modified. He stated that Bent Street is a public street which limits the ability. He said that Rogers Street is private which gives a lot of flexibility from a design standpoint. He stated that Rogers Street is owned by several property owners and if you could reserve space along the fence, it would be great to have the ability to use those spaces for parking.

Councillor Mazen thanked everyone who has made this project possible. He stated that there are a few more opportunities for planning and brainstorming as the RFIs come in. He stated that his hope that is that there will be opportunities for more conversation in the fall.

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 7:21pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Sept 6, 2017 at 3:31pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the recently published “City of Cambridge Getting to Net Zero Action Plan: Fiscal Year 2016 Progress Report” and to receive a general update on the Net Zero Action Plan. Councillor Devereux stated that there is information in the report explaining how the City originally adopted the Net Zero Policy. It began with a citizen petition, and was later adopted by the City Council. The Community Development Department will be producing yearly progress reports to track movements on the way towards the ultimate Net Zero goal. This hearing is to discuss the first progress report.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Mazen; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for the Community Development Department; Susanne Rasmussen, Director, Environmental and Transportation Planning, CCD; Seth Federspiel, Net Zero Energy Planner, CDD; Henrietta Davis, former Mayor and Net Zero Task Force member; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Jacqueline Royce, 780 Boylston Street, Boston; Lee Humphrey, 169 Commonwealth Avenue; Quinton Zondervan, 235 Cardinal Mederios Avenue; John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street; Ginger Ryan, 35 Crescent Street; and Peggy Barnes-Lenart, 115 Fayerweather Street.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose.

Ms. Rasmussen stated that her division oversees energy planning in the Community Development Department. She chaired the Net Zero Task Force (NZTF). She gave an introduction to the Net Zero Action Plan (NZAP) in the presentation (ATTACHMENT A). The impetus for the NZAP was a petition filed by Mike Connolly. All new large buildings were required to be net zero or to purchase offset certificates. The intent of the proposed ordinance was to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions from new construction. The process to do this was complicated. A task force was created with a large group of stakeholders and was charged with developing a plan within twelve months. The NZTF contained 15 members representing all stakeholders. The NZAP was adopted by the City Council on June 22, 2015. She stated that four working groups were formed from the NZTF to create an action plan based off of the goals.

She stated that numerous meetings were held with the Chamber of Commerce, the universities and others and strategies were developed and presented to the City Council. She explained that the Net Zero Action Plan falls into 5 areas. They are: energy efficiency in existing buildings, Net Zero building in new construction, local carbon fund, renewable energy supply and engagement, and capacity building. A model was created and most change will come from energy. The goal is carbon neutrality by 2040. She stated the strategy was important as well as the timeline. The strategy and timeline will be reviewed every five years. There is also a requirement for an annual status report, which is what is being presented today. Ms. Rasmussen introduced Mr. Federspiel, New Zero Energy Planner (CDD).

Mr. Federspiel presented the progress report of the NZAP. He stated that FY16 was the first year of NZAP implementation. The review process was being developed, which is the reason why the first report took so long to produce. There are many actions being taken to achieve net zero. The annual report provides qualitative and quantitative action updates, outputs and project outcomes. He focused on the qualitative updates. The FY16 report focused on the targeted achievements and progress, barriers and next steps. This report was finalized in December 2016. He highlighted Action l. He spoke on the Action l.1.1, the custom retrofit program and how to tailor it to Cambridge buildings. The FY16 goal was to look at the feasibility of a multi-family energy retrofit program pilot. The multi-energy building program pilot program was launched. Energy assessment and solar assessments are included.

Action 2 focused on Net Zero new construction. Councillor Carlone asked about height and FAR bonuses. Mr. Federspiel stated that these complement market based incentive programs. This study looked at a range of options. He explained that Harvard University and MIT have collaborated in the feasibility stage. This fall, a fellowship will be done with the universities to develop literature on the program. He stated that height and FAR bonus changes were slated to be part of the Envision Cambridge process.

Action 2.3 dealt with increasing green building requirements in the zoning and the goal was to increase to the LEED Gold standard or better. This required 6 optimized energy performance points. He stated that the State Energy Code and the Stretch Code were updated. The NZ goal is being achieved per the state requirement for now. He stated that the Cambridge goals will achieve more than what is required by the state code. A performance standard is set and the developer needs to meet the standard. He explained the definition of net zero ready as “buildings that must be designed to optimum energy efficiency standards such that all or a high percentage of energy loads could be met by renewable sources.” This is the standard for new municipal buildings. The King Open School is a fossil free and a net zero building. He spoke about retrofitting municipal buildings. There is plan to improve municipal buildings with targets and timelines. This action is on track.

Action 2.5 is the removal of barriers to increase insulation in existing buildings and to improve insulation on the outside of the buildings. There are issues with thickening the walls through insulation and affecting the setbacks. In FY16 this problem was studied to achieve NZ, however it is behind. This was put out to bid twice. He noted that currently an intern is working on this. This study of the impacts is being completed and will provide zoning amendment options.

Ms. Rasmussen stated that low carbon emission will be achieved over time. Mr. Federspiel stated that a draft low carbon energy supply strategy study will be completed in the fall 2017 and will then be implemented. He stated that the rooftop solar ready requirement is on hold because it may require zoning amendments. This provides a baseline for 3 stories or less. He explained that local utilities have an important place in the mix. The City has been working on developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Eversource and Veolia. It is hoped that the MOU will be signed this year.

Mr. Federspiel stated that there was no movement on Action 4 this year. He explained that Action 4 consists of investigating the feasibility of developing a local carbon fund to achieve net zero emissions. There was no intended movement on this action in FY16.

Action 5 was to build engagement, capacity and communication strategy. He explained that the communication strategies were in development and would begin implementation. A goal is to update the NZAP website. He stated that a Net Zero Energy Planner had been hired. The last action item in the FY16 goals was building capacity for labs. This called for an energy group created to develop standards for labs. Ms. Rasmussen stated that this is combined with the Green Ribbon Commission’s work. There are baselines of labs and how they perform. Cambridge and Boston are leading the conversation on sustainable lab work.

Mr. Federspiel explained the next steps. He highlighted work in FY17. He stated that the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance was passed in 2014. A consultant was hired to do technical work on disclosure buildings. In FY18 a stakeholder process will be developed. He explained that Action 4 is to investigate the feasibility of developing a local carbon fund to achieve net zero emission. They can buy into the fund. Ms. Rasmussen commented on whether Cambridge can come up with doing local offset that are viable and that stakeholders will buy them and whether this will work financially on a local level. This is a feasibility study, but the goal is to make this work, and examine the cost. She stated that she is hopeful that this will be feasible.

Councillor Devereux asked if there are any other cities doing this. Ms. Rasmussen stated that there is great variety on the viability of the offsets. She stated that Harvard University is an excellent partner interested in purchasing offsets.

Mr. Federspiel spoke about the FY18 key projects and looking toward zoning amendments. He stated that nine cities are participating in the Zero Cities Project. This is a three-year project that is just beginning.

Councillor Carlone stated that he does not see why the Special Permit process before the Planning Board cannot be tied into this. This is a natural extension. He stated that from an urban design perspective the bigger the project the bigger the impact. The energy standards need to go up as the buildings get taller. He noted that for Action 2.22, there need to be height and FAR bonus recommendations. He stated that in 2.5 the removal of barriers to increase insulation - this is a problem for old houses. To add brick or clapboard is difficult. Triple pane glass was not as beneficial. Insulation on the outside will only work for some buildings. The architecture and scale will be lost. Insulting walls will not benefit what is being lost. Regarding the local carbon fund he stated that there may be a European example.

At 4:35pm Councillor Devereux opened the hearing to Public Comment.

Quinton Zondervan, President of Green Cambridge and a member of the NZ Task Force, praised city staff on bringing the plan to life. He stated the Mike Connolly wrote this zoning petition, which was filed in 2014. He stressed the need for more progress. The 70% of reduction before 2050 is not the speed limit and the City needs to go faster. Other communities are looking toward Cambridge for progress on this. The solar ready provision in State Building Code and how the preemption issue can be dealt with needs to be addressed. He stated that Eversource is trying to increase their energy rates. He stated that he is attracted to the carbon fund idea. He suggested broadening the area to the Boston Metro area. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the City is looking at this because offsets will not be in Cambridge. He favored reducing, producing energy and purchasing the remainder. He favored this model. He stated that the City should be able to predict energy production on site. An operating standard could be created.

Henrietta Davis, who led the Net Zero initiative when she was Mayor, thanked the City for taking on this ambitious goal to be the first city to go to net zero. She stated that the stakeholder process and the funding process for net zero should be achieved. She was excited about the lab standards. Other communities are interested in what Cambridge is doing on NZ. Cambridge can explain this well so that other communities can adapt to their own needs. No one else is trying to establish a low carbon fund. Ms. Rasmussen commented that other cities are not doing it in the way that Cambridge is. Ms. Davis stated that building emissions are important; Cambridge’s emissions are 80% of all GHG emissions. She stated that there are great opportunities for a carbon fund. She suggested promoting energy audits for residential housing, which is low hanging fruit.

John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, stated that it the public is largely not aware about what they can do in regards to energy efficiency in their own home. He asked if there is any public outreach being done. He asked if there are granular processes. Could developers learn from each other?

Ms. Rasmussen stated that the City has talked about building infiltration systems and to set up a Roundtable so that the design community knows about this. She stated that passive house success examples have been presented to the developing communities. Cost effective energy measures are not done because the funding is not the issue. Councillor Devereux suggested using successful case studies. Ms. Rasmussen stated that in the area of solar the City works with an online marketplace for online bids for solar. Councillor Carlone commented that a non-profit could supply this information to residents. Councillor Devereux noted that the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment will make recommendations to residents and questioned if energy efficiency should be discussed at that time. The average person does not understand what NZ is.

Mr. Pitkin spoke about trees and asked if they are part of NZ. This should be considered because they make such a difference in lessening urban heat island effects. He stated that he wanted this tied to NZ.

Ginger Ryan, 35 Crescent Street, member of Mothers Out Front, asked if there are funds to make homes more efficient if residents cannot afford to do so on their own. She looks forward to the next report. We need to get to100% renewables by 2030.

Peggy Barnes-Lenart, 115 Fayerweather Street, spoke about moving this forward and favored the relationship between labs and the universities. She commented about the roof top ready solar and asked what the height requirements are. Mr. Federspiel stated that the state requirement only applies to 3 floors or fewer. The recommendation was to require a hoist or elevator to get panels to roof. Mr. Federspiel said that NZAP calls for buildings to become more efficient over time and LEED is a tool. The energy efficiency should be achieved outside LEED. Ms. Farooq spoke about not having the authority to regulate beyond the state building code. Councillor Carlone asked why this couldn’t be tied into the Special Permits process. Ms. Farooq stated that it will be more productive to learn what passive housing principles work. Councillor Carlone stated that passive housing is not on the southern side but this cannot be done in a City. Ms. Lenart asked about the granular level of what can be done and noted that Harvard University is retrofitting a house built in 1920. Geothermal heat is where they will go. She asked how you see solar ready actually moving to the next step and if it is feasible. Mr. Federspiel stated that rooftop capacity is a consideration and needs to be marked on the engineering documents. The City is moving to implement the solar ready requirement now and a solar installation requirement in 2020. Ms. Farooq spoke about utilizing the permitting process to bring forward these ideas. She stated that staff pushes for these advances without having a regulation in place.

Councillor Mazen stated that processes are difficult and when the staff take these on there are mitigating factors that make it less achievable. Stakeholders need to be part of the process. He stated that the City can do better to include those invested in the effort. This is being forwarded with good faith.

Councillor Devereux stated that she wanted to ensure that there is sufficient funding or staff resources for implementing the Net Zero Action Plan on schedule.

Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:22pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair