CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as a members of the Affordable Housing Trust: Reappointments: Peter Daly (2-year term), Florrie Darwin (1-year term), Gwendolen Noyes (1-year term), Susan Schlesinger (3-year term), James Stockard, Jr. (3-year term), William Tibbs (2-year term). New Appointment: Elaine Thorne (3-year term)
Placed on File

Sept 26, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the following appointments of members to the Affordable Housing Trust, effective Sept 26, 2016:

REAPPOINTMENTS:
Peter Daly (2-year term)
Mr. Daly has extensive experience in developing affordable housing in Cambridge having served as the Executive Director of Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. For more than thirty years. He is recognized as a leader in the field of affordable housing, and serves on the Board of Directors of NeighborWorks Capital which provides funding to non-profit developers across the nation.

Florrie Darwin (1-year term)
Ms. Darwin is a Cambridge resident who has taught at Harvard Law School and other universities. Her expertise is in negotiation and dispute resolution. She is a former chair of the Planning Board.

Gwendolen G. Noyes (1-year term)
Ms. Noyes is a Cambridge resident who is a residential developer. She has extensive experience developing market-rate housing in Cambridge and other communities.

Susan Schlesinger (3-year term)
Ms. Schlesinger is a Cambridge resident with experience in affordable housing finance, development and planning. She is the President of The Life Initiative, a community investment fund which provides a flexible source of funding for affordable housing and other community facilities across the state.

James G. Stockard, Jr. (3-year term)
Mr. Stockard is a Cambridge resident who been a leader in the field of affordable housing for decades. Mr. Stockard’s experience working on affordable housing ranges from work public housing authorities, non-profit and private housing providers to policy work for local, state and the federal government. He has served on the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee and the Governor’s Commission for Public Housing Reform, and was a Commissioner of the Cambridge Housing Authority for more than forty years.

William Tibbs (2-year term)
Mr. Tibbs is a Cambridge resident with a background in planning and project management. He serves as the Director of Planning for Boston College and is a former chair of the Planning Board.

Elaine Thorne (3-year term)
Ms. Thorne is a lifelong Cambridge resident who for many years worked as a neighborhood planner in the Community Development Department where she worked with residents, neighborhood groups, and others impacted by changes in the community.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

2. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as a members of the Water Board for a term of 5-years, effective Sept 26, 2016: Kathleen Kelly, Jason Marshall
Placed on File

Sept 26, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Appointment of the following persons as members of the Water Board for a term of 5-years, effective Sept 26, 2016:

Kathleen Kelly
Ms. Kelly has lived in the Fresh Pond area of Cambridge for the last 9 years and is a frequent user of the Reservation area. She currently serves on the Cambridge Public Planting Committee and is a volunteer on the Friends of Fresh Pond. As a volunteer, she maintains the triangle space at Little Fresh Pond. Ms. Kelly is a Professor at Northeastern University.

Jason Marshall
Mr. Marshall is a Cambridge native and currently lives in the West Cambridge neighborhood. He currently serves as General Counsel for the New England State Committee for Electricity, giving him a detailed knowledge of electric utilities and the generation, transmission and distribution of energy. He previously worked for Mass DPU. Mr. Marshall graduated from CRLS, received his Bachelor of Arts, with honors from Boston College, and his Juris Doctor, with honors from the University of Connecticut School of Law.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

9. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the reappointment of the following persons as members of the Planning Board for a term of five years, effective Sept 26, 2016: Steven Cohen, Hugh Russell and Tom Sieniewicz
Placed on File

Sept 26, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the following reappointments of members to the Planning Board, for five-year terms effective Sept 26, 2016:

Steven Cohen
Mr. Cohen is a long-term Cambridge resident and the founder and president of CEA Group, Inc., developing commercial and residential projects in the Boston metropolitan area. Prior to his work as a developer, Mr. Cohen has practiced law at Fine & Ambrogne and at Widett, Slater & Goldman P.C. He is also president of Glycosyn Health Initiatives, Inc, a life sciences company, developing and distributing cutting-edge technologies for the treatment of infant diseases in the developing world. Mr. Cohen has served on the Planning Board since 2013.

Hugh Russell
Mr. Russell is a principal of the Harvard Square firm, Russell Scott Steedle & Capone Architects. He specializes in multifamily residential, and has designed about 40 projects with 9,000 housing units, most with some affordability component. Mr. Russell has a long history of service to the Cambridge community. He was one of the founders of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association, served on the Board of Zoning Appeals from 1975-85, and has been a Planning Board member since 1988. Over the years, he has served on numerous committees and task forces including the Scheme Z Citizens Design Review Committee, the New Charles River Basin Citizen Advisory Committee, the Citywide Growth Management Advisory Committee, and the Harvard Square Advisory Committee.

Tom Sieniewicz
Mr. Sieniewicz is currently a partner at NBBJ, an international firm of architects and urban designers. He practices as a city planning consultant, urban designer and as an architect, with a foundation in promoting good design for public spaces, and has an extensive background in permitting, design and construction. He is also an active volunteer in the Cambridge community. Mr. Sieniewicz was a member of the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal for ten years, serving as Chair for 7 years, and has been on the Planning Board since 2013. He also served as a member of the Getting to Net Zero Task Force.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

10. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the Steering Committee for the City’s Birth to Grade Three Partnership.
Placed on File

Sept 26, 2016

To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am pleased to announce the appointment of the Steering Committee for the City’s Birth to Grade Three Partnership. The Steering Committee, co-chaired by Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Education, Maryann MacDonald and Assistant City Manager for Human Services, Ellen Semonoff will help oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the City’s Early Childhood Task Force Report and the building of our early childhood system. As we discussed when we shared the Task Force Report with the City Council and School Committee, we are pleased to be able to build upon the work being done in the schools, in the city’s early childhood programs and in the community by a diverse array of providers.

The Steering Committee members are:

Maryann MacDonald	Assistant  Superintendent for Elementary Education	Co-Chair
Ellen Semonoff	Assistant City Manager for Human Services	Co-Chair
Patricia Beggy	Principal, Morse School
Katy Donovan	Director, Peabody Terrace Childcare Center
Michelle Farnum	Assistant Director, Children, Youth and Families
Victoria Greer	Assistant Superintendent for Student Services
Greg Hagan	Chief of Pediatrics, Cambridge Health Alliance
Michael Johnston	Deputy Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority
Kathryn Jones	Senior Director, Community Engagement, Boston Children’s Museum
Maria LaPage	Executive Director, Agassiz Baldwin Community School
Ben Mardell	Professor, Lesley University Graduate School of Education
Maria McCauley	Director of Cambridge Public Library
Kathy Modigliani	Principal Consultant, Family Childcare Project
Geeta Pradhan	Executive Director, Cambridge Community Foundation
Shannon Sorenson	Vice President, Child and Family Services, Riverside Community Care
Valora Washington	CEO, Council for Professional Recognition, CAYL Institute
Wayne Ysaguirre	President and CEO, Nurtury

 
We have begun the work recommended by the Early Childhood Task Force by hiring an Early Childhood Director, Lei-Anne Ellis, and by convening school, city and community representatives who worked this summer on helping to continue the development of the strategic plan. Recruitment is currently underway for the members of the subcommittees on access and quality, health, and family engagement and support.

In response to the City Council’s desire for some immediate expansion of early childhood programs, we were successful in expanding access to pre-school slots for 34 more three and four year olds on Sept 6 when, in conjunction with the Cambridge Housing Authority, a new city run pre-school opened at 119 Windsor Street. One-half of the new pre-school slots are filled by residents of public or subsidized housing and the other half are from the existing Human Services Department waitlist. We will be expanding our collaboration with the City’s Public Health Department, which is located in that building.

As recommended in the Task Force report, we are in the process of hiring a new quality specialist who will work with Lei-Anne to oversee the development of enhanced professional development and to support quality improvements across the system. This year we will also be working to assess current home visiting services within Cambridge as well as developing a new scholarship system to help support access for more families to existing high quality early childhood programs.

I am confident that the work begun in the Early Childhood Task Force will continue and that we will continue to invest for the benefit of our youngest residents and for the future of our community.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

13. A communication transmitted from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as a members of the Cambridge Arts Council Advisory Board for a term of 3 years effective Oct 1, 2016: Christine Lamas Weinberg, Katherine Shozawa and Olufolakemi Alalade
Placed on File

Sept 26, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointment of the following persons as members of the Cambridge Arts Council Advisory Board for a term of 3 years, effective Oct 1, 2016:

Christine Lamas Weinberg
Ms. Weinberg is an arts consultant, event planning and philanthropic professional who has extensive experience working with private and family foundations in the greater-Boston region whose work supports arts production, education and audience engagement. She has proven skills in strategic planning, grant-making and program administration and logistics. Currently, Ms. Weinberg works as a Stewardship and Donor Engagement Officer as part of the Harvard University Donor Relations team and is the mother of two children in the Cambridge Public Schools.

Katherine Shozawa
Ms. Shozawa is a professional in Curatorial Practice and Community Engagement who currently serves as the Director of Community Engagement for the Lesley University College of Art and Design. Working with the school’s Dean, Ms. Shozawa works to build and support productive partnerships between Lesley’s Lunder Arts Center and community arts and educational organizations and Cambridge Public Schools. Katherine has an educational background in American Studies and Fine Arts from Yale University, University of California, Berkeley and the Whitney Museum of American Art. Katherine also has strong connections to MIT where her husband is a professor at MIT in the Urban Studies and Planning Department.

Olufolakemi Alalade
Ms. Alalade is a practicing artist and founder and President of Matriarts, an organization that fosters and supports arts designed by African women from her native country of Lagos, Nigeria. As a highly engaged resident of East Cambridge, Ms. Alalade focuses her work and practice on African spirituality, Healing, Language and Ritual Practice. Ms. Alalade works to support and organize other artists in Cambridge and the region and to bring their work to audiences through markets and other venues that provide economic support to the makers. Currently, she is working with the Arts Council, MIT and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority to design and launch an ‘Creative Innovation’ market to further the support and audience development for artists and creatives in Cambridge and the region.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

O-5     Sept 26, 2016
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Hundreds of residents operate short-term rental units throughout the city, most prevalently on Airbnb, which had 1,610 unique listings this year as of July 31, 2016; and
WHEREAS: Current regulations and zoning ordinance do not permit the operation of short-term rental units;
WHEREAS: Residents should have a pathway to operate short-term rental units legally, safely, and in manner so as not to detract from the character and livability of surrounding residential neighborhoods; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to refer the attached short-term rental draft ordinance to the City Solicitor, Inspectional Services Department and any other relevant department for comment and review as components of a potential short-term rental ordinance; and be it further
ORDERED: That the attached short-term rental draft ordinance be referred to a joint hearing of the Housing and Public Safety Committees scheduled on Oct 26, 2016, at 5:30pm for discussion, and to hear back from the City on the proposed policies.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Aug 30, 2016 beginning at 5:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber to continue public discussion regarding the recent completed Inclusionary Housing Study and the Draft Recommendations of the Community Development Department.

Present at the hearing were Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair; Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, Co-Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor David Maher; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Craig Kelley; Richard C. Rossi, City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department; Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Peter Daly, Michael Haran, Gwendolen Noyes, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, members of the Affordable Housing Trust (AHT); Greg Russ, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Elaine DeRosa, Executive Director, Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee; Sarah Kennedy, Director of Government Affairs, Chamber of Commerce; Tom Sullivan; Eva Martin Blythe; Deborah Ruhe; Lee Farris; Renae Gray; Abra Berkowitz; and Esther Hanig.

Mayor Simmons convened the hearing and gave an opening statement. (Attachment A). The anonymous mailing referred to by Mayor Simmons is attached. (Attachment B).

Vice Mayor McGovern thanked Mayor Simmons for her statement. He stated that the anonymous mailings were cowardly and misleading. He noted that the Committee has tried very hard to make this an open and transparent process. He stated that he has very little tolerance for such actions. He stated that we all agree that Inclusionary Zoning is a fantastic program, but one that can be enhanced, as it has not been adjusted for some time. He stated that Inclusionary Zoning is one piece of the larger puzzle of trying to solve affordability in Cambridge. He stated that the City is purchasing property and partnering with HRI to create more affordable housing. He stated that although there are a lot of different opinions, he is confident that there will be a fruitful outcome.

Mayor Simmons asked for an update from CDD. Ms. Farooq stated that since the last Housing Committee hearing, the Co-Chairs and the committee members asked CDD to speak to speak with the Chamber of Commerce as the Land Wise team to get a better understanding of their analysis and next steps and also to touch base with various City Councillors because during the course of discussion, the framework was not discussed. She stated that CDD has done both of those things. She stated that CDD met with the Chamber of Commerce and Land Wise representative and had a productive discussion. She stated that it is the sense of CDD that they were comfortable with the methodology used and with the assumptions as of today. She stated that the big concern was what about the future, and what happens if there are changes in the future that result in a less robust housing market. She said that the key topics that they talked about were phasing-in of the requirements so that it does not result in unduly penalizing projects that are in the pipeline already. She spoke to the notion of establishing some kind of index so that if the economy cools down, would there be some way to have a reduction in the requirement. She said that they also discussed the idea of some incentives for family housing beyond what the Committee had discussed. She explained that in terms of CDD’s conversations with City Councillors, the simple summary is that it was the sense of CDD that in general, the City Councillors were comfortable with the various provisions contained in the framework that were not previously discussed. She said that the biggest element that remains to be discussed is the notion of phasing in the requirement and where to start, end, and how long does that take.

Mr. Rossi thanked the committee for continuing this important work. He said that Cambridge has become a world-class city and in many ways that success is attributed to the work of the commercial and development community that has contributed. He stated that people who need services receive them because we have been wisely supportive of growing our tax base. He stated that he has always been enthusiastic, yet realistic, about development in the city. He stated that City and the business community work to bridge the gap via various programs. He stated that he hopes that there will be a relatively quick conclusion to the gap in appropriate levels. Mr. Rossi noted that Cambridge is a very rare community and somewhat inflation-proof. He said that this is the time that the City as a whole should come together. He added that he is impressed and enthused about the level of detail that has been provided.

Public Comment at 5:46pm.

Sarah Kennedy, Director of Government Affairs, Chamber of Commerce, gave an update since the last Housing Committee hearing. She stated that they did attend a meeting with CDD to talk through specific areas of the ordinance where they have concerns. She said that early conversations about potential phase-in or stepped approach to an increase. She stated that they continue to work with landowner and developer members to refine a robust 3-bedroom incentive that could be included. She said that they look forward to continuing the conversations with the Housing Committee members and the City Council as well as City staff and administration. She said that there is a lot of opportunity to work towards shared goals. She said that they want the ordinance to be successful and she stated her appreciation for the fortitude of the Housing Committee and the willingness of all involved to work towards successful improvements to this ordinance. She stated that one of the main focus points regarding phase-in will be the guidelines and factors that are used to escalate the rate above 11.5%. She said that they would like to see that real data being used to show that an increase above whatever the number might be is viable and will get to the goals of further housing production.

Greg Russ, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority, read from a prepared statement. (Attachment C). He stated that part of his comments will be as the Executive Director while other parts will be his commentary as a resident.

Tom Sullivan, President of Development, Divco West, stated that if the proposed increase in Inclusionary Zoning were to apply to NorthPoint, it would be devastating to the project. He stated that it is important to remember that NorthPoint is a 60% residential plan and because they are required to build more residential than other projects, this increase would impact them much more severely than other projects that are more heavily-weighted toward commercial. He stated that a change from 11.5% to 20% would reduce the value of their residential land nearly 40%. He stated that more important from the City’s standpoint, this proposal has already slowed development of NorthPoint and to the extent that it applies to NorthPoint, it could severely impact buildout of the project. He stated that NorthPoint is a mixed-use project that is at a critical stage and it is critical that retail, commercial, and residential projects be built together going forward in order for this project to be successful so they can achieve the critical mass that is necessary for this place to attract tenants, both as a commercial and residential site. He stated that they have to build an entire neighborhood that includes the Complete Street network, utilities, power lines, water lines and an extension of the public sewer facilities off-site in addition to seven more acres of public parts and open space in addition to what is there currently. He stated that the cost of the community benefits is significantly in excess of $100 million dollars. He stated that they had recently made additional commitments toward public transportation. He said that they are committed to working on a continuing basis in partnership with the City and are also working with the Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Galluccio toward a comprehensive proposal that will increase the supply in affordable housing in Cambridge, especially family housing.

Elaine DeRosa stated that phase-in and delaying implementation is not productive to the issue. She stated that silly hysteria is not necessary. She said that the process has invited everyone to the table. She said that the report says that 20% is a viable solution and she implored the Housing Committee to take it to the finish line so we can continue to talk about it in a way that is productive. She said that the more we delay, the more that is being built in Kendall Square. She said that it is a housing crisis, not a development crisis. She stated that people are dying for homes. She would like to move this issue out of the Housing Committee and start talking about how the ordinance can be implemented.

Eva Martin Blythe, Director of YWCA Cambridge, read from a prepared statement. (Attachment D). She said that she makes no apologies for saying the things that she is saying tonight. She said that the YWCA provides housing because the community needs and wants them to do that. She stated that women, children, and families deserve adequate, affordable housing and we have to use every available means, including taking steps to ensure that the City’s Inclusionary Housing provisions, in fact are inclusionary, to ensure that we all meet that goal.

Lee Farris echoed the sentiments of the affordable housing advocates to move this proposal out of the committee and onto the Ordinance Committee. She said time is of the essence. She stated that she came across several people over the weekend who are being forced out of Cambridge. She said that we need more Inclusionary Housing units and we cannot afford to wait. She said that the report shows that the City of Cambridge could have 20% low and moderate income housing plus 5% middle income housing in the majority of the building types that the report looked at. She noted that she has been encouraging the City Councillors to go higher than the 20% recommendation. She said that she would prefer that phasing-in not happen but that it should be discussed in the Ordinance Committee hearing. She said that she is concerned that the Chamber of Commerce and CDD met to discuss a phase-in. She stated that she does not want to see the Housing Committee agree to a phase-in but if there is a phase-in, she prefers that all of the changes in the proposed ordinance get discussed together after they have been announced to the public so that they can have input. She does not want the Housing Committee to agree to a phase-in and yet more weakening of the proposal happen in the Ordinance Committee. She would like any potential changes to happen in the next stage.

Renae Gray stated that she feels old tonight. She stated that she remembers a time when there was a robust community investment process. She stated that social responsibility was part of the language and conversations. She noted that she has not heard those words in a long time. She commented that she appreciates Mr. Rossi’s sentiment and agreed that it can be a cooperative process where the City has favorably contributed to the development of Cambridge at a much slower rate than affordable housing. She said that she is asking for the full 20% as we will probably end up with 15%. She said that she is not hopeful and she is pleading for Inclusionary Zoning that can increase affordable housing in the City. She stated that she would like to see the advocacy and work that has gone on in her lifetime. She stated that the issue of housing is not new to her. She asked the City to take the lead so that some of the residents will not have to work as hard.

Adra Berkowitz, 253 ½ Broadway, Cambridge, stated that she is speaking on behalf of her peers who work in education and the service industry. She stated that she worked at Bertucci’s on Main Street from 2014-2015 and said that they actually had to close on several nights due to the closure of public transit during the severe winter storms during that period. She said that several employees had lived in Cambridge, but had to move out to Revere because they couldn’t afford to stay in Cambridge. She stated that she is hearing that we need more commercial areas, cafes, and restaurants but she wants to think about who is going to work in these establishments if they are living outside the city and need to take public transportation to do so. She said that these are concerns from her co-workers who had to move out. She said that she has heard similar stories from educators who used to live in Cambridge and cannot afford to anymore. She asked the Housing Committee to think about people providing with essential services.

Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street, Cambridge, stated that she is not an expert on this but she knows how desperately the City of Cambridge needs more affordable housing. She urged the Housing Committee to move this forward as soon as possible. She said she would like to see as much Inclusionary Zoning as possible.

Public comment closed at 6:12pm on the motion of Councillor Maher.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he agrees that everyone wants the ordinance to be successful. He stated that in response to the Chamber of Commerce’s request for wanting to see research regarding the phase in, the research is the consultant’s report. He stated that he thinks the negotiation piece does not come with a percentage. He said that the negotiation piece for him is asking what are some of the things that need to be done working with the developers to make that number work. He stated that any phase-in is a negotiation and a concession to the development community to give them more time to adapt. He stated that the Housing Committee members have been very upfront and flexible and have shown a willingness to be reasonable in trying to make this work for the development community. He asked that the development community do more than just plan on coming back to the table saying this increase cannot work. He stated that he has received answers to the questions that have been asked of the development community.

Mayor Simmons stated that the Housing Committee has received written communications from Patrick Barrett (Attachment E), Professor Randy Albelda, Professor of Economics, UMass Boston (Attachment F), Anthony Galluccio (Attachment G), and Elaine O’Reilly (Attachment H) which will be made part of the record.

Mayor Simmons stated that she has provided a grid of recommendations from the Community Development Department and has broken out the issues in a manageable way to address the recommendations. (Attachment I).

Councillor Carlone stated that this is a great issue whose time has come, but that should not minimize the fact that this is an important goal which will become an ordinance soon. He stated that as much as this needs to happen as soon as possible, the second part related to zoning is to refine mixed use districts. He said that it is pretty obvious that even with this ordinance, we are still not meeting the need. He stated that a plan for a budget increase yearly is also needed on top of this. He stated that there are cities around the world that have 25% of the units owned by the cities and they are subsidized. He said that we have to do much more than what we are looking at today.

Councillor Devereux stated that she missed the last meeting but she did watch the recorded version. She stated that she would like to see this issue forwarded to the full City Council and finally the Ordinance Committee where it could be hashed out. She stated that the women who spoke today have been working in this area for years. She said that they are the conscience in the community. She pointed to another strong woman, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. She stated that this is equivalent to a war effort in our community. She said we have a housing crisis, not a development crisis. She stated that this program has been in place and has not been increased. She stated that we do not know what tomorrow will bring. She stated that the intent of the original ordinance was 15% and it is netted out to 11.5%. She said that 15% was where the original aim was. She stated that she cannot put credence in concerns that the future may not be as robust as it is now, and we are condemning ourselves to a less rosy future if we don’t do this now.

Councillor Mazen stated that we have a clear opinion from the audience as well as the community in wanting to move quickly. He stated that he wants to move quickly, but we also need to get to 20%. He said that how we get to 20% is a matter for consideration up to the Housing Committee and the full City Council. He said that he puts his support and belief that this is a socially just outcome behind a wide variety of options that get the City there quickly. In response to a comment from a member of the public, he is not worried that if the Committee comes up with something that it will be batted down in the future. He said that the members have been honorable negotiators and he expects smooth sailing through the Ordinance Committee.

Mayor Simmons then moved to the grid of the Community Development Department recommendations. She asked what is the pleasure of the Committee as it relates to the set-aside ratio. She said that there are three options before the Committee and outlined each.

Councillor Maher strongly advocated that the shift to the 20% of floor area would help with the creation of larger units. He stated that this is a change that is long overdue and if we leave this up to the market, we will wind up with smaller units with very short waits for studios and one bedrooms, longer waits for 2 bedrooms and nearly impossible for family-sized units. He said that within the development community he believes that this would be a welcome change and one that, with the input of CDD and the Affordable Housing Trust, could be a good solution coming forward. He said that buildings are built in stacks. He said that entering into a good conversation with the development community about how we can realize this with square footage is a positive step forward.

Councillor Maher said that if the mirroring means that it is the exact like units that are in the building, he is not sure that we want that. Mayor Simmons stated that her belief regarding mirroring is that under the current Inclusionary Zoning, each unit has to be the same like, kind and quality. She asked Councillor Maher if he sees that as inconsistent. Councillor Maher stated that obviously the quality and placement in the building is something that needs to be equal, but if someone would give 3-bedroom units, we are talking square footage which then takes away the mirroring. Mr. Cotter stated that they are talking about two different approaches and Councillor Maher is correct, in that when they are talking about maintaining the mirroring in this case, they are talking about unit mix. This would pose the question: would it or would it not mirror the market mix. He said that as it is now, if a building is half one-bedroom units and half two-bedroom units, they would expect that the affordable units would be one-half ones and one-half twos. They have proposed that with the 20%, the standard compliance would remain an option for the developer to have the units mix mirror the market unit mix but that they would create an alternate option for the developer where is the developer were willing to produce a certain number of three-bedroom units, the three-bedrooms would be disproportionately affordable as compared to the building so that there would be an overall reduction in the number of units but the floor area would remain at 20%. He stated that they have crafted it as an incentive. Mayor Simmons asked if it was either/or. Mr. Cotter answered in the affirmative, stating that it would be the choice of the developer.

Councillor Carlone asked if there could be a requirement for 3- bedroom units with the Special Permit. He said that we set criteria to shoot for special permit approval, and asked if this could be one of the requirements. Ms. Farooq responded that she would defer to the City Solicitor as to whether we can require such a thing as part of a Special Permit. She stated that the Special Permit criteria is that we generally don’t create requirements but there are benchmarks to meet in terms of performance or urban design. She said that there is criteria that is creating requirements through the Special Permit process. She said that the square foot method will be an incentive to use that path to create family-sized units. She said that they have heard from some developers that family-sized units are more profitable than in the past. Councillor Carlone said that if we don’t ask for it, it will not happen. He asked that it be made as performance criteria as a way to evaluate if something is worthy or not.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that many of the things on the grid prepared by Mayor Simmons are interlocked. He has said that there is a huge need for 3-bedroom units. He said that he thinks that having something that encourages and incentivizes 3-bedroom units is better than not having that. He stated that if the Committee is hearing from the development community that 20% is not viable for them financially, they will figure out ways to get it done and one of those ways may be that it may not be as profitable to create 3-bedrooms versus smaller units if they have that choice and so we may not get the 3-bedrooms that we are hoping to get. He stated that if the Affordable Housing Trust and CDD feel that this is the best way to go then so be it but he stated that this makes him uncomfortable and we may want to revisit the issue if 3-bedrooms are not being built.

Councillor Maher stated that between now and the next meeting, he would like the City Solicitor to look at whether there can be language that could be part of the ordinance or within the Special Permit. He said that it seems to him that if it is the desire to have the creation of family units, the City Council could justify that is one of the methods it is adopting to achieve the goal of the City Council. He stated that he would like to find a way to have it included in the language. He stated that there can be incentives to making some developers choose to go the 3-bedroom route. He said that there are incentives that can be looked at.

Chris Cotter stated that CDD shares the desire of the City Council for more 3-bedroom units and they wanted to craft something that they think would work to increase the number of 3-bedrooms produced. He said that they wanted to be as creative as possible while recognizing that there is limit to what they can do. He stated that the other concern is that there building types where it may not be appropriate to have 3-bedrooms. He said that the need to think carefully as they craft the petition. He stated that they can discuss whether or not CDD can push a little further to provide incentives for the 3-bedroom units and whether or not it is possible to require them. He said that they have discussed this issue with the Chamber of Commerce and they have received positive feedback from developers in this area. Councillor Maher stated that the City is not paying for these units. He said that the cost is the effect on the community. He said that in looking at ways to promote the 3-bedroom units, this is example of when the City can give incentive to property owners to create 3-bedrooms whether it be via a tax break for 3-bedrooms that are created. He said that right now, one can see how a property owner can look at this as Big Brother imposing this on them and he is saying that there are ways that the City can step up and participate with private developers to ensure that it happens.

Iram Farooq stated that she will have more conversations with the City Assessor. She stated that CDD did have an initial conversation about the topic of tax relief and their initial feedback is that this is a very difficult thing in terms of how taxes are assessed. She said that the units are assessed at a lower value if they are Inclusionary units. She explained that they are based on their rental income that is yielded from them so there is already a lower assessment which means that the tax burden is lower already. Mr. Rossi stated that the City can invest trust money in some sort of subsidy to increase the number of 3-bedroom units. He stated that there is a way to effect some sort of benefit to the developer.

Councillor Devereux asked if there is any connection to a reduced need for parking if you have 3-bedroom units. She asked if it ripples down to the need to build slightly less parking. Ms. Farooq stated that she does not have data to be able to truly answer. She said that if there are fewer units, the parking requirements are lower. She said that she is less certain whether they can say that a family unit has a lower parking demand because parents are more likely to own cars. She said that she does not have data to say one way or the other.

Mayor Simmons stated that the Housing Committee is asking CDD to find a way to assure that 3-bedrooms are built. Ms. Farooq stated that they will investigate that issue. She said that one idea is that they have looked at the possibility of having an incentive for 3-bedroom units. For instance, if there is a 20 x 20 square foot requirement overall if a project is providing 30% or more 3-bedrooms could their requirement be a little less than 20%. She stated that this is a policy question. She stated that from CDD’s perspective, that could still be a very beneficial thing if it creates the incentive for a significant number of 3-bedrooms. She stated that CDD will look into this.

Councillor Mazen stated that as it relates to Affordable Housing Trust dollars being used, the cost of doing so is so high he wonders if that is even feasible. He stated that if we don’t mandate something specific and back it up either legally or through incentive, then it may not happen at all even if the AHT money is on the line. Mayor Simmons stated that the committee wants to see 3-bedroom units and that there is level of predictability around the 3-bedrooms she would like to language that assures the City Council that this will happen.

As it relates to the phasing-in requirements, Councillor Maher stated that he is a little confused by this because it seems different than what has been mentioned in the past. He asked for clarification in the instance where a project is in the Special Permitting process. Mayor Simmons stated that there are some developments that they are already in the process such that the change will not impact them at all. She stated that this talks about a change that goes from the date of ordination moving forward. Ms. Farooq stated that before the Housing Committee is a memo from the City Solicitor (Attachment J) that explains it in the most precise way. Ms. Glowa stated that if you already have a building permit or Special Permit that has been acted upon, you are safe from any zoning amendment, otherwise you would be subject to it once it has been advertised. She stated that there are some nuances where if you have a building permit today and we advertise an amendment one month from today, and then 5 months later you still haven’t acted upon your building permit and the amendment passes, you would then be subject to it if you had not acted upon your building permit because you have to act on a building permit or Special Permit within a certain amount of time for it to continue to be valid. She said that there are certain exceptions to that such as PUD Special Permits, whereby their very terms are different because they are typically for larger developments on larger parcels of land. She said that the general principle is that you have building permit or a Special Permit before the first advertisement of a zoning amendment then you are safe from the provisions if it passes.

Councillor Maher stated that there are a couple of different questions within this category. He stated that many of the larger development sites in the city have been under PUDs and so if we take the NorthPoint site as an example, they would not be subject in further building this change to the ordinance in future building that is done. Ms. Glowa replied that if they continue to build pursuant to their current Special Permit then they would not be subject to new provisions. She said that if they came in to seek an amendment to the Special Permit, any such amendment would be subject to the provisions. Ms. Glowa stated that a Special Permit in a PUD situation typically defines the property that is going to be developed pursuant to that PUD Special Permit and that is the area that comes under the terms. Councillor Maher stated that it is important to understand that many times with a PUD, there have been many other things that the City has negotiated in the PUD and so to go back and make that change at this time is a difficult change to make. He said in many cases there are street and roadway designs, and commitments have been made. He said that he is a little confused because if the change were to be in Northpoint, there are many different buildings scheduled to be built. He asked that if there were a change in one building, would it trigger a change to balance of the entire project. Ms. Glowa responded that it depends on the terms of the permit. She stated that assuming that the NorthPoint Special Permit covers their entire NorthPoint project area, as long as they build according to the plans that have already been approved by the Planning Board in the Special Permit. She said that if they want to come back to the Planning Board and state that they don’t want to build a certain building for a particular reason and remove from plans and put a different building in another corner that hasn’t been discussed before, that would not be part of the existing permit. She stated that this would be considered a new proposal that would be subject to whatever the zoning is in place at that time. Ms. Glowa explained that generally speaking the law is that details that were submitted to the Planning Board are made part of the Special Permit and the Special Permit is conditioned upon those requirements being met. She stated that the general law on Special Permits is that you have to build according to the plans that are approved. She stated that further refinements and details are different from changing an element of the project that was approved by the Planning Board. Councillor Maher stated that a change may be something that the community wants but it could have a detrimental effect of the property owner. He suggested that we do not want to adopt something that will ensure an outcome that we don’t want to see. He stated that a change to a Special Permit can result in a better project and you don’t want to see a potential beneficial change go by the wayside. Ms. Glowa stated that the appropriate way to go about something specific would be for the petitioner to seek a zoning amendment. She stated that there could be a special zoning amendment that addresses a specific issue. Councillor Maher stated that he would like to see this opinion in writing.

Mayor Simmons clarified that Councillor Maher is looking for additional clarity as to what is considered a substantial change to a Special Permit.

Mayor Simmons stated that she thought that if it wasn’t a minor change, it wouldn’t change the requirements and they would stay the same as when the Special Permit was issued.

Ms. Farooq stated that during the permitting process there are things that the City might want that are identified by the Planning Board and CDD staff and the developer. She said that they try to capture the decision in such a way that making changes would not trigger a major amendment. She stated that they are not locking off every good thing by this change because there is a large set of things that are thought of as positive such as more housing. She said that one could typically switch any building in most of the PUDs to more housing without any kind of penalty or major amendment. She said that in the process of trying to achieve a significant positive, more affordable housing, are there some avenues that we are closing off? She said that as a community, we may not be able to offer infinite variation.

Councillor Maher stated that he believes that Ms. Glowa is saying that there is an avenue to make the change through the City Council that will not trigger it. Ms. Glowa stated that when zoning is passed, it applies to anyone without a permit. Councillor Maher asked for further clarification because this answer is slightly different than he was given earlier in the week.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked how to maintain some flexibility regarding changes to permissions a landowner already has. He stated that the concern of the developers is that if they want to make significant changes to what has already been approved, they are no longer at 11.5%. He asked Ms. Glowa to confirm that there is an avenue for the developer to come to the City Council for a zoning amendment which would allow them to explain why a certain change would be beneficial to the community.

Ms. Glowa cautioned that zoning by negotiating every single project at the City Council with zoning amendments for every project is unusual and would not be advisable. She said that this avenue should be used for more unusual circumstances that you would consider a zoning amendment that would pertain to only one property for specific unusual circumstance. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that anyone can file a zoning amendment. Ms. Glowa agreed. Vice Mayor McGovern said that to get to the concern around this issue, much larger projects under a PUD do have an avenue to maintain flexibility if they so choose.

Councillor Carlone asked Ms. Glowa that if in a large PUD, if one building of 10 wants changes, it is just that one building that would then be brought up to code, it is not all 10 buildings. He asked if it would just be what is being altered? Ms. Glowa stated that if you have a Special Permit that encompasses all 10 buildings, it would be considered a change to the Special Permit.

Mayor Simmons stated that recommendation before the Committee from CDD is 15% at ordination and 6 months later it increases to 20%. She stated that she would like to talk about the phasing in question. Ms. Farooq stated that this is the topic on which they heard the greatest range of ideas and thoughts such as starting at 15% and going up by one percentage point per year, or start at 11.5% to get to 20% over a 2-3 year period. She said that this is a policy decision and the AHT has very strongly advised that they want this to happen in a shorter period of time. Mayor Simmons stated that she has heard that there is the desire from the AHT and others that the phasing-in process not go beyond a certain amount of time. She stated that 2-3 years is a non-starter. Ms. Glowa explained that once the proposed amendment is advertised, those who do not have permits are bound by it. Councillor Simmons asked the Committee members if they were comfortable with this or would they like to see changes to the recommendation. Councillor Maher stated that there is a fairly unanimous wish to see Inclusionary Zoning increase to 20%. He stated that it has taken too long to get to the point of action. He stated that he has been a strong advocate for the Inclusionary Zoning program. He said that in the early 2000’s, the City of Cambridge did not generate a lot of units from Inclusionary Zoning, adding that over the last 6-8 years the amount of units has increased dramatically. He stated that the market goes up and down and the success of the program is based on a successful and vibrant market. He said that he believes that there should be some kind of interim study to ensure that the avenue that the City has chosen is the right one. He stated that we have to pause midway to see if the intention that the City Council is something that was realized. He suggested some kind of review or study to ensure that the pretense of what the study was built on is what we are seeing happen. He said that part of doing business is predictability and we need to be predictable. Mayor Simmons reaffirmed that she does not like the idea of a phasing in process that goes past 1.5 years.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that as it relates to the process, changes to the proposed ordinance can be made throughout the process. He said that in terms of phasing in, the Committee has a study that says going to 20% right now is viable. He said that any kind of phasing in is to allow people to adjust. He indicated that he does not want to go beyond one-year for the phase-in. He stated that he is flexible while understanding that there may be further negotiation. He stated that maybe the City should look at conducting a study in year 3 as opposed to year 5. He stated that one of the suggestions from the development community is that we go to 13% on ordination, 15% at six months, and 20% at a year. He stated that he has not discussed this with CDD. He said that we cannot roll this out over a 2-3 year period.

Councillor Mazen stated his agreement with Vice Mayor McGovern. He stated that he feels that he needs a sense of a super majority of the City Council. He stated that to do this over that long of time to get to something that is long overdue would be a concession a bit further afield than he was prepared to make. He said that he cannot see a 2 or 3-year phase-in period.

Councillor Carlone stated that a transition for zoning is unusual. He said was disappointed with the plastic bag ban phase-in, but he realized it made all the sense in the world. He stated that it is a reasonable solution, and he agrees that it should not go over one-year phase-in. He noted that he would prefer it to be higher in the transition period but in the spirit of moving forward, he can work with that.

Councillor Devereux stated that she agrees with Councillors Mazen and Carlone, one year at the outside. She questioned how long this issue will take to get through the Ordinance Committee. She stated that best case scenario is that this can be ordained by the end of the calendar year, which sounds fast. She stated that she is impatient because she does not want there to be an incentive for the Ordinance Committee meetings to drag on. Mayor Simmons stated she believes that the City Council shares the same sense of urgency.

At this time, Mayor Simmons summarized the discussion that took place in the meeting. She said that a clear message needs to be sent to CDD. She stated that if the City Council does not want to take the recommendations of CDD, it must be clear that the parameters are one year. She stated that she would like to have something voted on before the present City Manager retires. She stated that it is the consensus of the Committee that the pashing-in would be one year from ordination. She asked the Committee what the phase-in number is. Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli asked: how are you going to evaluate the impact of making the changes. She said that it takes several years to see the effects. She stated the City Council needs to have in mind what they will look at to determine if this is successful. She said percentages do have to be based on something. She said that the phasing needs to be based on something. She said that she does not want the phasing to become the optics of 13% and 15% and 18%. She said that it needs to be based on something. Mayor Simmons stated the City should undertake an annual look at housing with a report every 3-5 years. Mayor Simmons stated that people are looking at phase-in over one year with a 13%, 15%, 20% model. She stated that if she hears no objection to that, she will ask CDD to go forward and put something together. With no objection, ask CDD to put something together.

Michael Haran stated that it now is almost 18 years since the City argued whether to go to 15%, and over those 18 years we are at 11.5% and by the time the City Council ordains and implements this it will be 20 years out. He stated that development didn’t happen back then because housing development just wasn’t happening. He said that the City needs to be at 20% as fast and reasonably as possible.

Peter Daly stated that the phase-in makes sense and a year is something that all can live with. He said that he would like to start 15% and then go up to 17% or 18% at six months and hit the 20% after that.

Mayor Simmons stated that it is important for the Committee to give a sense of direction to CDD. She stated that the Committee has strong feelings from the AHT.

Councillor Mazen stated that he is hearing from the majority of the elected officials that 13%, 15%, 20% is an overture and that the actual goal is more aggressive. He stated that we move this matter to the Ordinance Committee as quickly as possible. Mayor Simmons stated that the Housing Committee is the place to vet this topic and then the Committee makes a recommendation to the Ordinance Committee, and she worries that if the recommendations are not fully formed coming out of Housing, the process may stall out. She would like one more meeting to give something that is more intact to the Ordinance Committee. She said that this is not vetted thoroughly. Ms. Glowa stated that there is another legal issue which is that once a petition has been advertised, you cannot alter the fundamental character. She said that it is important to send to the Ordinance Committee and advertise a petition that is the petition that will be given to the public. Mayor Simmons stated that it is incumbent upon the Committee to have a fully vetted, ordainable petition that goes before the Ordinance Committee. She stated that her recommendation at this juncture is that the members of the Housing Committee review the grid and then come before the next Housing Committee with recommendations. She stated that we have to commit to a conclusion.

Councillor Devereux asked Mayor Simmons if the Ordinance Committee can have a meeting without the ordinance before it. Mayor Simmons responded in the negative.

Ms. Farooq stated that the Housing Committee has given CDD a lot of direction, and she concurred that it would be helpful to hone the perimeters of what is being asked.

Regarding Income Eligibility and Affordability Targeting, Councillor Maher stated that he agrees with the recommendations. Ms. Farooq said that she will look at this in conjunction with the 3-bedroom question.

Mayor Simmons stated that the recommendation is to reduce the income percentage paid toward studio units to 25%. Vice Mayor McGovern agreed that a studio unit should cost less than a 1-bedroom unit. Ms. Farooq stated that she believes that the Mayor’s question is: do we want another provision that says that we don’t want to take studios in the Inclusionary program. She suggested that if this is something that the Housing Committee wants CDD to investigate, while they are looking at the 3-bedrooms, they can look into that as well. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he feels good about the recommendations of the AHT as is. Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that her position is to disallow studios. Mayor Simmons asked CDD to look at issue.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked where the Committee stands on the density bonus issue? He stated that when we talk about offsets, is there some feeling about the density bonus with the development community. Ms. Farooq stated that CDD has not received anything further from the development community. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that if that comes back as a way of increasing the density bonus by a bit, we should entertain the idea.

A communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, was handed out at the hearing. (Attachment K).

Vice Mayor McGovern made a motion to adjourn the hearing.

Mayor Simmons thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 7:55pm.

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

Committee Report #2
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Sept 8, 2016 beginning at 2:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber to continue the public discussion regarding the recently completed Inclusionary Housing Study and Draft Recommendations of the Community Development Department.

Present at the hearing were Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair; Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, Co-Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor David Maher; Councillor Craig Kelley; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner; Jeff Roberts, Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor, Law Department; Peter Daly, Michael Haran, Gwendolen Noyes, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, James Stockard, Jr., and Susan Schlesinger, Members of the Affordable Housing Trust (AHT); Neal Alpert, Chief of Staff to Mayor Simmons; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Sarah Kennedy, Director of Government Affairs, Chamber of Commerce; Ellen Shachter; Alexandra Lee; Jon Trementozzi; Thomas O’Brien; Anthony Galluccio; Sam Seidel; Lee Farris; Susan Ringler; Elaine DeRosa; Shelly Reiman; Bolaji Ogunsola; Bill Wendall; Nancy Ryan; Lee Farris; Heather Hoffman; and Mari Gashaw.

Mayor Simmons convened the hearing and read from prepared opening remarks (Attachment A).

Following her remarks, she asked if her Co-Chair, Vice Mayor McGovern, had any opening remarks he would like to share.

Vice Mayor McGovern reiterated that, as the Mayor mentioned in terms of moving recommendations out of Housing and to the full City Council, there is a long way to go in the sense that what comes out of the Housing Committee are merely the recommendation of the voting members from this committee. This is not the end of the process, and there will still be plenty of opportunities for people to get involved and have a say before anything gets decided. He stated that he has received many questions via e-mail and phone, and some of the people he has heard from wondered why, at the last meeting, he offered a suggestion of phasing in the proposed increase of the Inclusionary Zoning percentage over a year. He said he wanted to be clear that he is firmly committed to raising the rate to 20%, and to getting there as quickly as possible. He said that some people on the City Council may feel the same way, some may feel a little different, and he said he put this out there as a suggestion to try and bring people together to secure the necessary votes to pass this. He said that he will not dig in his heels if it needs to be phased in, if that would be the difference between passing or not passing this ordinance.

Mayor Simmons asked if the Community Development Department had any opening remarks. Iram Farooq stated that the CDD has have been thinking about various questions that the Housing Committee had posed at the last meeting, and in regards to the family-sized units, she said she would defer to Nancy Glowa because there may be more leeway to require some percentage of these types of units. Nancy Glowa said that on the second page of the Mayor’s handout (Attachment B) in the box for creation of family units, it states that she had advised that a mandate for three bedroom units might not withstand legal challenges. She said that she may have miscommunicated or been misunderstood, and she wished to correct the record by saying that the City can require three-bedroom units. She said that where the difficulties or uncertainties come into play is when there are projects with only one type of unit, and it may run into issue if it is not appropriately mirroring the rest of the project. She clarified that this would not be absolutely impermissible.

Mayor Simmons invited Sarah Kennedy from the Chamber of Commerce to read into the record the text of the letter that the Chamber had forwarded to Mayor Simmons just prior to the start of the hearing. Ms. Kennedy read a prepared statement (Attachment C) and provided the Housing Committee with the Landwise Report (Attachment D). At the conclusion of her remarks, she asked that the proposals put forth in the Chamber of Commerce’s letter be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for further discussion and consideration, alongside whatever recommendations are forwarded by the Housing Committee.

Following Ms. Kennedy’s remarks, Mayor Simmons moved to open Public Comment at 2:53pm.

Ellen Shachter stated that she believes we need to act immediately to increase the Inclusionary Zoning percentage to 20%. She said that earlier in the day, she went to the Cambridge District Court and represented a 93-year-old woman who has lived in Cambridge for 53 years and is being evicted, and she will probably be unable to afford another unit in Cambridge. She said that the public housing wait lists are closed, and there are no 2-bedrooms available. She said this woman’s story is symbolic of the human impact of the city’s housing crisis. She said that she was disappointed to learn that there were now new proposals coming up about phasing in the Inclusionary Zoning percentage. She lamented that this has been going on for years. In regards to the developers who are asking for a slow phase-in, she said nobody should be surprised or unaware that these rates would be increasing, since the City Council has been talking about raising this for a long time. She said that in the choice between taking a risk in raising the rates too high and possibly stalling development, or being conservative and coming back with only a modest increase in the percentage, we should be willing to be bold and take the former. She stated that many cities have already raised the Inclusionary Zoning rate to 20%, in much less time than Cambridge is taking, and the world did not fall apart. She said that if developers need some time to factor in how to cope with the raising percentage rates, right now should be considered as the phase-in time. She said that before this increase is enacted, developers do have sufficient time to make whatever changes need to be made to their projects. She said that she would like to see more three-bedrooms. Under FAR, it should be under the control of CDD to say that yes, they want 2-3 bedrooms and not leave this to the discretion of what the developers decide. In regards to taking a risk, she said that if we move forward and it truly does stall development, the City has the power to tweak the rate. She said that it is not prudent to wait until negative evidence does or does not materialize.

Alexandra Lee, 99 Harlow Street, Arlington, Executive Director of the Kendall Square Association, stated that the KSA has been working with its members and supporting the work of the Chamber of Commerce as it has developed its series of recommendations. She stated that the KSA supports a 15% increase, with a potential pathway that could get the City to 20%. She said that an evaluation of how this increase is impacting development along the way is vital to determining whether further increases, beyond 15%, makes sense. She said that the KSA supports the creation of 3-bedroom housing stock, a phase-in approach that takes into account market factors, widening the net of income eligibility, and exemptions for special permits. She said that the KSA echoes the hopes of the Chamber of Commerce that their proposals are forwarded along to the Ordinance Committee for further review and consideration. (Attachment E).

Jon Trementozzi of Landwise Advisors stated that his organization was asked to flesh out in more detail key recommendations from their report. He said that they have done that over the past three weeks. He said that in the memo that Sarah Kennedy presented, they have outlined a proposal that is extremely thoughtful. He said these recommendations will help create more three-bedroom units, as well as ensure that projects already in the pipeline will be able to move forward. He stated that most importantly, the Landwise group has outlined a roadmap that can get the city to 20% and does not work against market conditions. He said that if we want more affordable units in the city, it’s not necessarily about the percentage, it’s more about the number of units that are coming online and being produced.

Thomas O’Brien, HYM Investment Group, 56 North Street, Lexington, MA, stated that he has an extensive history in creating affordable housing. He said that he has worked on NorthPoint since 2010, his company has worked with DIVCO, and that a large amount of his career has been devoted to creating affordable housing. He said he has been actively involved with the City of Boston as that city has tried to think about the right way to approach Inclusionary housing. He said that Boston’s approach was to leave the inclusionary number the same, and it has remained at approximately 13.5% there. He stated his support of the work of the Chamber of Commerce. He apologized for the late hour of the arrival of the Chamber’s proposal, just prior to the start of this hearing, and said that many people had to be consulted in order to create this proposal. He said that he hopes that it will be considered and that the goal is to create more units. He said that we should maximize the goal of creating units. He voiced support for widening the net of income eligibility, and HYM fully supports the provision of three-bedroom units, and they have opted to include three-bedroom units in some of their developments. He asked the Housing Committee to consider the Chamber’s proposal and to forward it along to the Ordinance Committee for further review and discussion.

Anthony Galluccio applauded Mayor Simmons and Vice Mayor McGovern for their comments and their leadership on this issue. He said that he didn’t think that the Chamber of Commerce was coming in with new ideas at the last minute, but rather were providing fleshed out versions of what they had previously presented, as they were asked to do. He stated that the Chamber of Commerce was previously asked to come up with real details as part of the Landwise proposal, and today they have done so. He said that the City has done a great job of trying to stay ahead of the curve, and that he voted for the original Inclusionary Zoning ordinance when he was serving on the City Council in the 1990s. He said that it is important to recognize that the City created a 30% density bonus and then rezoned areas of the city to create real incentives for developers to choose to create residential over office and lab space. It was a three-part action: a percentage requirement, an FAR bonus, and increasing density. He said that this program created over 800 units. He said that what didn’t work were the incentives to build three-bedroom units; this has been a failure. He also said that the income range did not work well either. He said that he agrees with the recent statement by the City Solicitor, that the City can require three-bedroom units. By offsetting the burden of that requirement, it will be made unchallengeable. He stated that this proposal supports going to 15% and provides a pathway to possibly getting to 20%, and it does not require additional height and density. He said that if housing creation is staggered, you would have to add height and density to get those numbers up. He said that he hopes that the Affordable Housing Trust and others stay at the table. He asked that the Chamber’s proposal be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for further review and discussion. He said there may good ideas in there.

Sam Seidel, 43 Harris Street, stated that housing is an issue that he cares about. He said he is a member of A Better Cambridge, and they have been talking a lot about this issue. He stated that his key point is that 20% where we are trying to get to. He suggested that the City should take a more aggressive approach and start at 20%, and then maybe move back down if necessary. He said that the percentage, at the end of a day, is a number – and a unit is where someone actually lives. He stated that it is important to remember to put people first. The math is just the math. He said that you only get Inclusionary Units when you create market rate units, and this implies that we must be willing to talk about the issues of height and density. He stated that this is the only way to build affordable units in the system. He said that the whole picture needs to be taken into account, but the only way to actually add affordable units is by also creating market rate units. He stated that maybe some relief is appropriate, so maybe we should look at dimensional requirements going forward. He stated that the environmental side of him questions if we can push cars out and focus on environmental transit. He also cautioned that this economy will not continue on this clip forever, and that A Better Cambridge will be strongly involved in this issue going forward.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated that she hopes that this will be the last meeting of the Housing Committee on this matter, and that recommendations can be moved forward to the City Council and the Ordinance Committee. She said that she is distressed that the Chamber of Commerce proposal arrived so late. She said that she does not see how people can deeply consider the proposal today, if it was just issued 90 minutes before the hearing started. She would like these recommendations to be considered in the format of the Ordinance Committee, rather than delay this process. She stated that she supports the suggestion that projects with special permits can opt into the ordinance with regard to three-bedroom units, once that is drafted. She said that the idea of including a provision so that developers can opt-in seems attractive to her. She said that developers have been on notice since the DRA report came out that the City would be looking to increase affordable housing via Inclusionary Zoning, and therefore we do not need a phase-in. She said that if we need a phase-in to get certain Councilors’ votes, she would like the Councilors to say that in public so that we know which Councilors are looking for that. She said that she thinks the ordinance must require affordable three-bedrooms. She said that she was interested to see the Chamber of Commerce saying that at least 20% of the Floor Area should be made three-bedrooms, as she had proposed it should be at least 10%, so she is happy to go higher. She stated that Inclusionary Studio Units should be allowed and the rent for studios should be set at 25%, rather than at 30% as with one-bedroom units. She said she does not think there should be additional zoning changes proposed unless those changes result in additional affordable housing beyond what is already being proposed. In regards to three-bedrooms: if a large amount of the affordable square footage is three-bedroom, perhaps the developer could be compensated by having a reduction in parking spaces as an incentive. She stated that if the City Council does include phase-ins, her hope is that specific dates will be listed for each step of the phase-in.

Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street, thanked Mayor Simmons for expressing her frustration at the lateness of the Chamber of Commerce proposal, and that she shares this frustration. She said that she supports the 20% affordable housing now. She agrees that we have waited far too long and the City is now in an affordable housing crisis. She said that she wants to keep the remaining diversity of Cambridge, as this makes Cambridge a better, more resilient, and more joyful place. She said that the developers can afford this increase. She said that there is good evidence that the profit margins for developers are huge. She asked the Housing Committee to act decisively and forward this matter to the Ordinance Committee.

Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place, Cambridge, Executive Director of CEOC, stated that Cambridge is unique, and as we are considering this matter, we cannot simply look to what communities like Boston and Somerville have done and apply it to our community. She said that the uniqueness of each city is why cities spend thousands of dollars on studies like the DRA study. She stated that this study was objective and thorough, and her feeling is that all of the last minute proposals we are now seeing are the wrenches in the machinery. She said that 10 months ago, if she were a developer and she was worried about her profit margins, she would have been at all of these hearings and participated. She stated that she heads up a non-profit, she cares about creating more affordable housing, and she has been at all these meetings over the months. In response to Mr. Galluccio saying earlier “It’s never too late for a good idea,” she stated that it is never too early for a good idea. She said that people should not be rewarded for coming in at the last minute and throwing a wrench in the process. She stated that it is silly that there is a new proposal this late in the process. She said that she relies upon the CDD and the Housing Committee to review the proposals, and that last minute proposals are not a serious negotiation.

Shelley Reiman, 201 Franklin Street, stated that the communications are well-written. She would like the City to push it to 25%. She said that this would keep the diversity of the City.

Bolaji Ogunsola, Campus Minister at Harvard, stated that last year she had two emergency surgeries out of the blue that put her $48,000 in debt. She said that if she was not a resident tutor, which enables her to live here for free, she would have had to leave the city. She said that the people who are most affected when housing changes is children. She stated that kids have to uproot their lives, and this type of instability can have traumatic, long-lasting consequences on children. She said that some of the developers today talked about market conditions and numbers, but she believes that numbers are subjective. She said that the developers can make the numbers work. She said that it lies in the developers’ profit margins. She asked if money is more important than the kids whose lives are uprooted. She stated that, regarding market conditions, Cambridge is in a bubble. The market is going to crash again at some point, so doing this incrementally just doesn’t make sense. She challenged the notion that you must go by market conditions. She stated that we can make the numbers this work, and it is worth it for the elderly and children who otherwise would be uprooted.

Bill Wendall, 97A Garden Street, stated that he was once an MIT student. He said he works as an IRA agent in Cambridge. He stated that if you look at the bidding wars and how other cities are responding to the globalization of real estate, there may be money to create more affordable housing. He mentioned buyer taxes in Singapore as a way of looking this matter.

Public comment closed at 3:31pm on a motion of Vice Mayor McGovern.

Mayor Simmons mentioned that her office had put together a two-sided hand out that outlined the various recommendations from the CDD, and she marked off the areas that this committee had reached agreement on at the last meeting. Before going further, she welcomed the Affordable Housing Trust to weigh in.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that, in regard to Mr. Galluccio’s earlier comments in which he stated that “affordable inclusionary units are our gift to the future diversity of the city,” who can argue with that – but we must acknowledge that market rate housing has an impact on income diversity, and we must recognize that this contributes to displacement. She said that we must acknowledge that creating new market rate units does add to a displacement effect. When you are producing high-end market units, there is displacement. She said that it is not as though this is a complete gift without a cost to the community. She said that she would be more willing to listen to the developer’s study if they had included that in their assessment, because that would be the honest thing. She said that the City’s DRA study was the real, unbiased study.

Mayor Simmons stated that she received twelve communications, which will be made part of the record. Referring to the handout her office prepared, Mayor Simmons said that she would just move straight to the items where the Housing Committee had not yet reached agreement. She asked if her colleagues wished to make any comments.

Councillor Carlone asked for clarification by the City Solicitor on the requirement for three-bedroom units. He said he understood that one issue might be that if a developer builds a building where it is one unit type, and most developers like building two-bedroom units – it seems to him that once a building is over a certain size, there is greater flexibility available to the building design. He asked if it was true that just one particular building type might present issues for this requirement. Ms. Glowa responded by affirming that it is legal for the City to require three-bedroom units. She said that we are in partially uncharted water, as far as project overall types. She said that if a developer were building a project that is all one-bedroom units and the City is requiring that even buildings like that must have a three-bedroom unit included, that might be problematic. You can’t ever be positive that someone would not try to challenge the ordinance, so she was trying to encourage some approaches that could be agreed upon. She said that the most important thing is that what is required be supported by the Nexus Study, which we have, and the need for affordable housing is prompted by development of market rate housing. She does not believe that there is anything that would prohibit the requirement of three-bedroom units if that is the will of the City Council. She said that she did not mean to suggest that it was not legal, merely that she wanted to advise that there are some complications that are worth considering.

Councilor Carlone stated that, in regards to a potential phase-in, he knows that CDD have spoken to members of the development community to get their input. He said that the original proposal that came through the Affordable Housing Trust and CDD was that the early phase might be 15% and the latter phase would be 20%. He said that some developers understood, and were planning on, the idea that this increase would start at 15%. He stated that he assumes that 13% is more beneficial from a pro forma point of view. The rationale for the 15% number was the Affordable Housing Trust and CDD notion that it makes sense, because people have been working on a project. He said that it seems that everybody wants to maximize housing and normally zoning is instantaneous. He would love to hear the Affordable Housing Trust’s point of view on a transition recommendation. He said that he questioned the 15% in the beginning, and he feels that there is no need to go lower than the original proposal. We all want to get to 20% ASAP, and he feels that we are stepping backwards if we were to go to less than what was originally proposed.

Iram Farooq stated that the notion of phasing in the requirement came about because the CDD wanted to be sure that this did not feel like a punitive ordinance, and that people who made real estate decisions before the DRA report was released would not be unfairly penalized. In discussions with the Affordable Housing Trust, the recommendation was for 15% at the start, followed by a short phase-in period of about six months, which would be about one year plus from the time that the report was issued. Ms. Farooq stated that this felt reasonable and fair. The CDD has since heard from the development community about specific projects where there was an expression of concern over how this increase would impact them, which is where the recommendation of 13% came about as a starting point. She said that there is no magic to 13% or 15%. She said that with the current requirement being at 15%, while all projects that utilize the full 30% density bonus net out to 11.5%, there are some instances where they may have a higher than 13% yield, and therefore, the average net across all projects is closer to 12.5 %.

Susan Schlesinger stated that the Affordable Housing Trust’s point of view is that they have not reconsidered their recommendation, and it is still 15% at the start. She said that if there were reason to change that in a non-substantive way, then that is something that the Trust would look at. She said that getting to 20% in a year’s time is a vital recommendation. She stated that it is important to be fair, but at some point you either believe that 20% is workable and reasonable or you don’t.

Peter Daly stated that this is the recommendation that the Trust spent the most time on, and they came together in recognizing that getting to 20% in a reasonable amount of time is most vital. He stated that six months was something that they knew would be equal to more than six months, since the clock started ticking once the DRA study was released.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the proposal for starting at 13% was suggested as a compromise. He stated that we should think about the Affordable Housing Trust’s recommendation, and starting at 15% or going straight to 20%.

Councilor Kelley asked what kind of information we have about people living in our family friendly units. He said he did not see an analysis, and it would be nice to have a solid idea of what we are getting. In regards to the phase-in: if we are not going to phase-in and projects don’t happen because a better deal comes along, we need to be willing to at least accept that risk. He stated that it is supportable in the parameters that the study shows us. He said that we should be clear that there are a lot of variables and this is not simple math.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that in the DRA study, there is some income information for three-bedroom units and larger sized units. She said that the great majority of the people in these units are either under 50% AMI or over 120% AMI. They are either living in subsidized housing or they are people that we do not have to worry about.

Chris Cotter stated that, regarding three-bedroom units and who resides in them, affordable units that are currently on-line are almost entirely occupied by families. They allocate clear preferences for families with children for two and three-bedroom units. Households with children under age six would get the greatest advantage for two and three-bedroom units. Councilor Kelley asked if people get moved out as their children get older, and Mr. Cotter stated that CDD would help these families transition to a more appropriate sized unit in the same building. They work with building managers in each case, while making sure that households are housed in appropriately sized units. Councilor Kelley stated that we should make sure that when talking about family-friendly housing, we are talking about family-friendly affordable housing and housing geared towards multiple, non-family roommates as well. Mr. Cotter said that the CDD is trying to reach out to get some objective information in that regard. He said that they are sending out a survey to building managers to obtain information and will report back.

Councilor Devereux stated that since talking about families and families with children, she wanted to acknowledge the comments from the campus minister about the impact this has on children. She said that we see that in the schools, and we will see long-term impact on the greater community. She said that there are a lot of signs that society is reaching a tipping point and to continue on the same path of putting profits ahead of people, it will be at our own peril. She stated that she is not comfortable with a long phase-in. She said that the phase-time has already happened. She said that the report was a major election issue last year, and it has been discussed with the development community last January. She said that it has been well-known that the City would be heading to 20%. She agrees that there should be dates written into the ordinance so that there is clarity as to when it will increase. She said she is not comfortable with those urging that the Chamber’s proposal be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee because this undermines the work of the Housing Committee. She said that this was received 90 minutes before the meeting started. She said that she wants this voted out of the Housing Committee today, and she wants to get to 20%. The latest she would be willing to wait for this to reach 20% would be June of 2017.

Councilor Mazen stated that he agrees with his colleagues with respect to timing. He stated that the public needs to know where each member stands on this matter. He stated that he is on board to increase the rate to 20% right away. He said that if he had to compromise, though, he would be willing to agree to up to a year phase-in, but certainly not longer. He wants to get this done quickly. In terms of issues at hand, he thinks most members of the Housing Committee agree. He said that the math seems favorable to allow for the three-bedroom requirement, and he said he is willing to take a deeper look at this proposal. He asked his colleagues to make sure that they have a position, even if that position is “I don’t know, and here’s what would help me know.”

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that once this conversation is moved out of the Housing Committee, there will be more discussion in the Ordinance Committee. The Ordinance Committee is a committee of the whole, and that is where people will be able to find out where the rest of the City Councilors stand on these issues. He stated that there will be a more robust conversation with the entire Council contributing.

Councilor Mazen stated that if he were to take the temperature to check people’s frustration with respect to housing, he does not believe that someone would be out of order in thinking that some members of the City Council are blocking this process. He said that he does not necessarily agree with this notion, but that is what some of the buzz in the community is. He said that when a process is this long, it is each Councilor’s responsibility to be at today’s meeting. For the Councilors that are not here, it is incumbent to weigh in prior to the Ordinance hearing so there is a not a lot of confusion and buzz hovering around them unfairly.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that on the three-bedroom notion, he feels strongly that a requirement is necessary. An incentive is better than nothing, but it is not as good as a requirement. He said that the people who need three-bedroom units are desperate for them. He stated that we need to require these types of units. In regards to the notion of a phase-in, he said that the Affordable Housing Trust’s recommendation was for this to kick in six months from the date of adoption. He pointed out that whether the Housing Committee votes in favor of this or not, nothing is written in stone yet. Until this is adopted by the Ordinance Committee, people must remain active in this process in order to help shape the final result.

Councilor Devereux added that we often hear that the development community likes predictability and certainty. She suggested that a six-month phase in from date of ordination or a specific date, whichever is the earlier, so that there is a measure of predictability. Mayor Simmons stated that she agreed, and that it is important that the Housing Committee report out as clear instruction to the City Council to forward this to the Ordinance Committee as possible. She said that we should leave the room, voting this out of committee, as concretely as possible. She implored the committee to be clear about what it will pass along to the full Council. She added that the Mayor’s Office is not a housing office, yet it has 48 housing cases currently, and they advocate for residents and help with finding housing, to the extent that this is possible. She said that if her office gets 48 housing cases, can we imagine what kind of caseload is being carried by the Multi Service Center or CEOC or the CHA. She said we cannot continue to kick the can down the road. She said she is willing to move the recommendations of CDD and the Affordable Housing Trust on to the Ordinance Committee.

Councilor Maher asked if we are referring this to the Ordinance Committee, or are we referring this to the CDD staff to draft the ordinance, which would then be referred to the City Council? Mayor Simmons responded that she would be prepared to ask CDD to send draft language to the City Council, which would then refer this to the Ordinance Committee. She said that it can then be teased out further. She said that she recommends sending these recommendations as written. She said that she would not be transparent if she said that she is pleased with the phase-in. She said if it were up to her, it might be 0% raise upon adoption, and then raised to 20% at the six-month mark. She said that she appreciates the Chamber of Commerce and their allies, but she is not pleased with their recommendations for an extended timeline for a phase-in. She said that this committee said during the linkage conversations that we would next look at Inclusionary Zoning. She said that it is incumbent upon the Housing Committee to make a decision. She said that this conversation was started back in April. There have been numerous public hearings for stakeholders alone, as well as five committee meetings and working groups. Her inclination is to follow the recommendation of the Affordable Housing Trust and CDD. She said that the last bullet regarding threshold project size is a huge change that is being lost in this conversation. It is important for all who sat through situations like what happened on Bishop Allen Drive, this is huge and it is unfortunate that such an important change in the ordinance is not getting any attention. She stated that it is also important to note that CDD and the Affordable Housing Trust heard that the City Council wanted 1,000 units in the pipeline, and they have been trying to work toward that goal. She also said that there should be a mid-point review of this ordinance (not a full nexus study), along with annual reports to the Housing Committee or the City Council on where we are in affordable housing in the city. She said that her recommendation is to adopt with favorable recommendations that CDD develop language based on the discussions that have been had. She reiterated that this does not mean it is the end of the process, but it does send something concrete to the City Council to then forward to Ordinance. She said she does not want to send something ambiguous to the City Council that will result in another working session.

Councilor Maher stated that he is confused. He thought that the proposal to change the income eligibility widened the net on both ends, and that this would help more people participate in the City’s affordable housing programs. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he believes Mayor Simmons wasn’t taking issue with lowering the income limit, but if we raise the limit, it is allowing more people to take advantage of the program, which would mean fewer units for people on the lower end of the program. Councilor Maher stated that he would support moving this forward as written, but that we should not shut doors on improving this. He suggested that all documents be referred to the Ordinance Committee. He does not see a problem with that. He said that there are some interesting Chamber of Commerce recommendations around the three-bedrooms in the Chamber’s report.

Mayor Simmons stated that she wanted to be clear that the Chamber’s suggestions would be made part of the record of this meeting, and therefore that leaves the door open for CDD to see if there are ideas in that report that should be considered.

Councilor Carlone stated that in fairness to the newest proposal, the Housing Committee should hold a hearing on it. The Housing Committee should make recommendation one way or the other. There is no reason why a good idea cannot be incorporated, but it should still be evaluated. He said that if they both go at the same level to the Ordinance Committee, it is unrealistic. It is two different proposals, and any good idea can be incorporated. He said it should still be evaluated in the Housing Committee.

Mayor Simmons responded by saying that she and her co-chair serve at the pleasure of the committee, and she asked the other members for their thoughts on this.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he is concerned that he does not want this proposal to be used to delay anything and moving this forward. He said he trusts that the CDD will look at and evaluate the Chamber’s proposal and will come back with comments to the Ordinance Committee if need be. He said he is fine with the CDD looking at this and determining what works. He said that he does not want people to miss the enormity of this: what we are doing is huge. He said it is almost doubling the amount of affordable housing that is required to be built going forward. He said that the days of letting this ordinance go for 10 or 15 years without a critical review of how it’s working and whether it needs adjustments are over, and that is important.

Mayor Simmons stated that she is looking at the timing of this process, and this likely takes us to December, and that makes her concerned. All of the documents go forward to Ordinance. The work that has been done to date is the work of all of the different stakeholders: the development/landowner community, the affordable housing advocates, and this committee. She said that she feels comfortable in asking the CDD to write the ordinance and present it to the Council. She said that she applauds the citizen participation, but she is incredulous that we have a totally separate proposal being presented today. Her concern is that if the Housing Committee vets this new proposal, it will take more time. She said she wants to pass this forward with a favorable recommendation and if pieces in the Landwise study that merit attention need to be discussed or reviewed, let it happen in the Ordinance Committee. She said her commitment remained in trying to get this done this year.

Ms. Farooq stated that the CDD’s approach would be to take recommendation from the Housing Committee as marching orders, and then work through the Chamber’s proposal and see if pieces that have some common ground could be reconciled. She said that they will see where the consistencies are and bring those forward in the draft ordinance. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he is not looking for a 5-year phase in, and this needs to move faster.

Councilor Devereux stated that by her calculation, it wouldn’t be until 2023 that we would reach 20% under the best circumstances under the Landwise plan. She said she wants to be certain that the CDD has enough information to draft an actual ordinance. Vice Mayor McGovern gave the outline of how this process will play out. Mayor Simmons stated that it goes from Housing Committee to the City Council to the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board, and then back to the City Council for final votes. Ms. Farooq confirmed this. Mayor Simmons suggested that having this timeline provided to the public would be helpful. On a motion from Co-Chairs Mayor Simmons and Vice Mayor McGovern:

ORDERED: That the Community Development Department recommendations for Inclusionary Zoning be forwarded to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

The motion carried on voice vote of five.

Councilor Devereux stated that she would like the CDD to consider when drafting the language inserting a date by which the 20% must be reached. Vice Mayor McGovern clarified that the Order to the CDD to begin drafting their recommendations is imbedded in the minutes for this meeting. He stated that we have said very realistically that we are looking at the end of the calendar year as the time when the City Council will take the votes to ordain this.

Ms. Farooq stated that the CDD can start drafting this language quickly, and need not wait for the official order to be passed by the City Council in order to begin this process. She said it will take about a month for the CDD to get the recommendations back to the City Council. Vice Mayor McGovern noted that Councilor Carlone has been active in this process and he is confident that he will move to schedule the Ordinance Committee meeting quickly. Ms. Farooq said that the bulk of the ordinance language will be based on the framework of the Affordable Housing Trust with changes from the mid-point reports, but she said it would be helpful if the Committee recommends a specific date by which the 20% is triggered.

Mayor Simmons said that the date for reaching 20% should be six months from the date of ordination. Councilor Devereux said that it would still be helpful to have a specific date. Vice Mayor McGovern said that if need be, the Council could schedule special meetings if they needed to get this ordained this year.

Councilor Mazen stated that it is common for us to be so busy that certain things take longer than the minimum viable time. It is also possible that things get stacked up until the end of the term. He said that it is reasonable to ask the minimum time it will take, and what is the additional window that we would allow ourselves on top of that point. Vice Mayor McGovern suggested that he and Mayor Simmons make the motion that the Inclusionary Zoning recommendations be ordained no later than Dec 31, 2016.

Councilor Mazen stated that he does not want there to be a situation in which members of the City Council are portrayed as being the bad guys for not meeting that date. He said he would like to get to Dec 31st on the terms that have already been discussed. Vice Mayor McGovern withdrew his proposed motion.

Councilor Devereux stated that she is trying to get to the certain date for 20%. She said that it will be important for developers to know that there is a specific date by which this goes into effect. Vice Mayor McGovern suggested that she make a motion for this.

Motion from Councilor Devereux:
ORDERED: That the Inclusionary Zoning be increased to 20% six months from the date of ordination, or on June 30, 2017, whichever comes first.

The motion is passed on a voice vote with Councilor Maher voting in the negative.

Mayor Simmons stated that the following communications were received by the Housing Committee:
A communication was received from Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor, regarding a summary of the law regarding contract zoning. Copies of said communication provided to hearing attendees. (Attachment F)
A communication from Norma Wassel regarding 25% regarding adoption of 25% requirement for affordable housing for developers. (Attachment G)
A communication was received from Laura Blacklow stating her support to 20% of new units be reserved for affordable housing. (Attachment H)
A communication was received from Kathy and John Roberts stating their support for 25% inclusionary units. (Attachment I)
A communication was received from Sheli Wortis stating her support of 25% inclusionary units. (Attachment J)
A communication was received from Gaylen Morgan stating his support of 25% inclusionary units. (Attachment K)
A communication was received from Jeanne Koopman in support of 25% inclusionary units. (Attachment L)
A communication was received from Tasha Coughlin in support of 25% inclusionary units. (Attachment M)
A communication was received from Jim Campen in support of a percentage increase as high as 25%. (Attachment N)
A communication was received from Scott and Wylie O’H. Doughty stating their support the inclusion of 20% of affordable units in new housing developments. (Attachment O)
A communication was received from Jack Boesen stating that an increase to a 20% affordable housing inclusionary requirement is a minimum for taking the corrective action that is needed. (Attachment P)
A communication was received from Lee Farris in support of the Inclusionary Housing proposal. (Attachment Q)
A communication was received from Patricia Polisar in support of the maximum of 25% inclusionary housing. (Attachment R)

Mayor Simmons thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 4:39pm.

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