CITY MANAGER’S AGENDA
1. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following members of the Foundry Advisory Committee:
Deborah Rue - 3-year term
Folakemi Alalade - 2-year term
Jamie Sabino - 1-year term
Jason Slavick - 3-year term
Mark Tang - 2-year term
Mariam Bucheli - 1-year term
Richard Thal - 3-year term

September 28, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am pleased to inform you that I have made the following appointments to the newly formed Foundry Advisory Committee. The role of the Committee will include working closely with the City, and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA), to evaluate potential uses, programs, and space configurations in the Foundry building, in the context of the vision and objectives that were created through a robust community process.

Collectively, the group represents a range of backgrounds and perspectives including arts, theater, science, nonprofit operation, real estate development, and law. They also bring relevant skills and experience that will help provide valuable insight at this stage in the redevelopment of the building. Advisory Committee meetings are anticipated to occur approximately quarterly beginning this fall.

Deborah Rue
Deborah Rue was appointed to a three-year term. Deborah is the Executive Director of Just-A-Start Corporation, and has extensive experience in both managing non-profit organizations as well as developing properties. She has served on the boards of several non-profit organizations.

Folakemi Alalade
Folakemi Alalade was appointed to a two-year term. She is a resident of the Area IV neighborhood. Folakemi is a member of the Port Arts Council and the founder of MatriArts, an organization that fosters and promotes African women's art. She has also served on the Kendall Square Advisory Committee.

Jamie Sabino
Jamie Sabino was appointed to a one-year term. Jamie has a background in law, as well as extensive volunteer work throughout the community, including with Cambridge Public Schools, and several non-profit organizations. She has also worked with the CRLS Arts Council and Beyond the Fourth Wall (a theater company that works with Cambridge students).

Jason Slavick
Jason Slavick was appointed to a three-year term. He is a high school teacher, as well as the Artistic Director of Liars and Believers, a non-profit theater company based in Cambridge. Jason is a strong advocate for the arts, with an appreciation for the impact it can have on the quality of life.

Mark Tang
Mark Tang was appointed to a two-year term. Mark is a resident of East Cambridge and has professional training and experience in law and engineering, and currently works as a real estate attorney. He has also volunteered as part of the Sullivan Courthouse Working Group.

Miriam Bucheli
Miriam Bucheli was appointed to a one-year term. She resides in the Kendall Square/ East Cambridge area and has a passion for both science and art and the potential to combine the two fields. She has a professional background in molecular genetics, is the author of a children's book, and also recently developed a start-up.

Richard Thal
Richard Thal was appointed to a three-year term and brings thirty years of experience in leadership roles with prominent non-profit community development organizations including Inquilinos Boricuas in Action and the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development Corporation. His experience includes work on adaptive re-use of industrial buildings, schools and churches.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

7. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the votes necessary to seek approval from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue of the tax rate for FY2016:
All Orders Adopted 9-0

A. Authorize the use of Free Cash of $11,450,000 to reduce the FY16 tax rate;

B. Authorize $2,000,000 in overlay surplus/reserves to be used for reducing the FY16 tax rate;

C. Authorize $1,300,000 from the City Debt Stabilization Fund to be used as a revenue source to the General Fund Budget

D. Authorize $540,865 from the School Debt Stabilization Fund to be used as a revenue source to the General Fund Budget;

E. Appropriate $8,000,000 from Free Cash to the City Debt Stabilization Fund;

F. Classify property into five classes;

G. Adopt the minimum residential factor of 55.5325%;

H. Approve the maximum residential exemption factor of 30% for owner-occupied homes;

I. Vote to double the normal value of the statutory exemptions;

J. Vote the FY16 exemption of $307 allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17D;

K. Vote the FY16 asset limits of $60,938 allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17E;

L. Vote the FY16 income and asset limits allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41D as follows: Income limits of $25,197 for single and $37,796 for married; and asset limits of $50,392 for single and $69,289 for married;

M. Vote the income limit for deferral of real estate taxes by elderly persons as determined by the Commissioner of Revenue for the purposes of MGL Chapter 62, Section 6, subsection (k) for a single person ($56,000) and for married ($84,000).

O-2     Sept 28, 2015  Amended
MAYOR MAHER
WHEREAS: The City Council is in receipt of an amended Open Meeting Law Complaint filed by Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street which appears under Communications and Reports from City Officers Number One; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Clerk, in consultation with the City Solicitor, draft a response regarding the attached amended Open Meeting Law complaint for the City Council's consideration, and that the City Solicitor request an extension from the Attorney General's Division of Open Government so that the draft response may be considered and voted on by the City Council at its next regular business meeting of Oct 19, 2015.

O-7     Sept 28, 2015
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge piloted limitations on the street level retail presence of big banks in the recent rezoning for North Massachusetts Ave and Kendall Square; and
WHEREAS: Residents have repeatedly voiced a strong preference for shopping at locally owned retail in our squares, which is proven to contribute more to the local community and economy than non-locally owned; and
WHEREAS: Citibank recently announced closure of its branches in the Boston area, four of which are in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Storefronts for big banks are more about their marketing than our community's needs, and do little to enhance the vibrant streetscape desired in City squares; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to draft an ordinance extending Cambridge's big bank retail storefront limitations to the rest of Porter, Harvard, Central, and Kendall Square; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council in a timely fashion.

O-13     Sept 28, 2015
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
VICE MAYOR BENZAN
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has an interest in promoting affordable housing in the City; and
WHEREAS: In order to accomplish affordable housing increases, it is necessary to investigate alternative streams of revenue; and
ORDERED: Given the need for additional affordable housing in the City, it would be desirable to increase funding to support additional housing units either through tax-supported levy increases or one time free cash appropriations; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on the ability to increase funding for affordable housing in a manner which would not adversely impact real estate taxes on existing housing units or cause a shift in taxes from commercial, industrial and personal property taxes to the residential class and given the limitation upon the tax classification, any recommendation must not jeopardize the current tax distribution by shifting a greater burden on the residential taxpayers which would result in making existing housing less affordable for current residents.

O-15     Sept 28, 2015
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: Cambridge, alongside other municipalities in the Greater Boston Area, is facing a housing crisis and it is imperative that the City preserves its affordable housing market; and
WHEREAS: Throughout Cambridge there exist "expiring use" properties which have federally mandated affordability requirements due to below market loans, loan guarantees, and other programs which aided in project financing; and
WHEREAS: Expiring use units are privately owned units with affordability restrictions that terminate at a future date, and which without proper intervention, could potentially become market rate housing displacing thousands of low-income and disabling residents who might not otherwise be able to afford to live in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The City Council seeks to maintain the status of affordability in our housing to mitigate the current housing crisis; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That a Home Rule Petition "AN ACT TO ADOPT PROTECTIONS FOR CAMBRIDGE'S GOVERNMENTALLY-INVOLVED HOUSING STOCK" be submitted to the General Court for a special law relating to the City of Cambridge to be filed with an attested copy of this order which is hereby approved under Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article II, as amended, of the Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the end that legislation be adopted precisely as follows, except for clerical or editorial changes of form only.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Aug 5, 2015 beginning at 3:41pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal code in Chapter 1.121 entitled "Living Wage Ordinance."

Present at the hearing were Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Sheila Keady Rawson, Personnel Director; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were: Katie Belgard, Political Director, SEIU 32 BJ; Amy Sugimori, Director of Policy and Legislation, SEIU 32 BJ; Roxana Rivera, Vice President, SEIU 32 BJ, 26 West Street, Boston, MA; Michael Haran, CASCAP, 231 Somerville Avenue, Somerville; Carlos Chacon; Adelaida Coloni, 20 Gardiner Street, Lynn; and Will Durbin.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He explained the format of the meeting.

Councillor Simmons gave some opening remarks. She stated that the City is outsourcing janitorial services and it became apparent that contractors were using loopholes in the ordinance to underpay workers. She stated that the City Council has strongly stood together with unions for fair wages. It is important to close the loopholes. The SEIU BJ District 615 and the City Council worked to close the loopholes in the City ordinance. She stated several states across the country have done this. Cambridge has supported wage equity. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee voted favorably to forward the suggested changes to Chapter 2.121 "Living Wage Ordinance" to the Ordinance Committee (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Carlone requested the presenters to come forward.

Amy Sugimori, Director of Policy and Legislation for the SEIU BJ stated that the SEIU represent women and men that provide building maintenance services. She spoke about the goals of the proposal (ATTACHMENT B). She complimented Cambridge for providing a minimum wage. She stated that workers have organized to get better wages and benefits. She spoke about janitorial workers. She spoke about disadvantages for responsible contractors who are competing with contractors who are not offering a living wage to their workers. The goal was that the living wage should be the higher floor standard. This approach has been adopted throughout the region. This legislation builds off of the ordinance for a higher standard. The higher standard would be the standard. When there is a turnover in the contractor the current employees should be retained at the level of staffing required. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Cheung stated that he looks forward to supporting this. This is so obvious that these amendments should be updated in the code. He stated that the Cambridge community standards are what the standards should be for all who work in the City.

Councillor Mazen stated that a $15 minimum wage is needed in Cambridge and he wanted a commitment from his colleagues to establish a $15 minimum wage for all. He stated that this will establish economic justice and equity.

Councillor McGovern stated that in colonial times cities gave responsibility to the state. He supports the $15 minimum wage across the board. Ms. Sugimori spoke about a density bonus versus an across the board rate relating to the Nexus Study. Councillor McGovern commented that a vast number of employees are over the minimum wage. He asked where the universities fit into this. The City does not contract with the universities; can they be included. Ms. Sugimori responded only if they were receiving assistance. She spoke about the PILOT agreements and establishing a responsible contractor agreement.

Councillor Simmons stated that what matters is that Cambridge has begun to outsource its services. The City Council wanted all employees to be paid a fair living wage. If a bid changes the contractor workers should be paid a living wage. This is incredible legislation and is building on what exists in Cambridge already. She is pleased that this is before the City Council. She is prepared to keep this moving forward and hoped that by October that there will be something that can be voted on. She commented that some employees came forward to speak on this at their own peril.

Councillor Mazen stated that he thought that with the living wage discussion that the minimum wage could be discussed. He was informed that the call of the meeting was to discuss amendments to the Living Wage Ordinance. Councillor Simmons stated that the City Council needs to have the proper announcement so that people can stand behind this and attend the hearing to speak.

City Manager Rossi stated that at this point he believes that he needs more time to discuss the proposal. He does not see a rate of pay, but does see how it is derived. He is concerned with legal liability when there is a dispute. He wanted information on the benefits package. He is not opposed to fair wages for fair work. He wants to discuss this with the proponents. He stated that he has a fiduciary responsibility for the entire City. He wanted to discuss this with City Solicitor and the Purchasing Agent.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not see the monetary part as being an issue. Mr. Rossi stated that from a manager's point of view it may be better to hire custodians from Public Works. This contract makes good sense to the City. Councillor Kelley stated that if this were passed it may make more sense to use overtime. City Manager Rossi stated that this is looked at during budget time and if City employees can do a job cheaper it can be an issue. Councillor Kelley asked how often the contract bid is. Mr. Rossi responded up to 3 years. Councillor Kelley questioned if a new company gets hired would they have to take on the employees from the prior contract. Mr. Rossi stated that he needs to understand this. Councillor Kelley noted that he does not like the idea of new contractors undercutting at cheaper wage rates. Mr. Rossi explained that these things need to be discussed.

Councillor Simmons noted that Ms. Sugimori would answer wage questions. She stated that the City decided to go to outsourcing and that the City Council did not vote on this. She stated that if it costs more for janitorial help and the contractor cannot pay the wage required then it should be done in house. She does not want to see City workers and contract workers doing the same job for different wages. She wanted contractors paying a wage equal to or greater than what the City pays.

Councillor McGovern stated that there are times when things need to stay in committee because more work is needed, but there are times when action is needed. He asked Mr. Rossi how much time he would need. He wanted to see this moved out of committee.

Councillor Simmons stated that this should be moved out of committee. Councillor McGovern stated that he wanted this issue finalized while he is a member of the City Council. Councillor Simmons stated that she favored this being moved out of committee. She did not want to bind the new City Council.

Councillor Mazen suggested just doing this and give the City Manager the time needed.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 4:25pm.

Michael Haran, CASCAP, stated that the real issue is the minimum wage. This needs thought because there are consequences. This goes beyond City services. CASCAP had the wage increase passed on to them. Neville Manor experienced a $1M cut and workers are paid union wages. He noted that all non-profit funding comes from the federal and state government and if wages increase the non-profits have a deficit. It will affect all the sub categories and additional reimbursements will not be received. He stated that to comply with City ordinance wage cuts would be required. This affects all non-profits in the City.

Roxana Rivera, Vice President SEIU District 615, stated that she knows that Cambridge has a standard of fair wages. She stated that SEIU 32BJ represents 145,000 members. In Boston members maintain and clean buildings. In Cambridge SEIU 32BJ represents 2,500 members that maintain buildings and schools. In Cambridge high road employers are at a disadvantage for City contracts. She stated that workers in City buildings are receiving lower wages than City wage rates and have treated their employees as subcontractors and vendors. By leveling the playing field through the living wage the City can contract with successive contractors. She urged the City Council to vote to support with the living wage. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT D).

Carlos Chacon, through an interpreter stated that he represented the voice of the workers. He has worked in Cambridge for years. He spoke about Cambridge welcoming immigrants and Cambridge being a Sanctuary City making it possible to have good jobs. He is currently working on a project of SEIU 32BJ. He has discussed with workers their working conditions including workers contracted by the City. The City is contracting with companies in cleaning who are lowering the standards, not paying benefits, lower wages and not paying the taxes required by law. He wanted the City administration to ensure that the companies are offering good wages and benefits to their workers to meet their needs and to support their families with dignity. He wanted the City to continue to create good jobs. Immigrants do not live in Cambridge, but clean the buildings, universities and schools. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT E).

At 4:43pm public comment closed on a motion made by Councillor Simmons.

Councillor Carlone stated that the conversation was interesting and all members of the City Council feel that there is merit in the proposal. He stated that the City Administration has asked for time to meet with the petitioners and understand the proposal.

Councillor Kelley stated that he understands that the City would spend more money and this could have consequences. He further stated that the City Manager has the ability to grant exemptions and this may need to be quantified because this may have consequences for the Neville Manor.

Councillor Simmons moved that this be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation subject to meetings between the City Administration and the petitioner.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:48pm on motion of Councillor Simmons.

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

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Aug 18, 2015 beginning at 5:42pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss amendments to the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance for the area along Walden Street near the intersection of Garden Street and extending through the intersection of Sherman Street currently zoned Business A be rezoned to a newly created zoning district entitled Business A-4 and to add a new Business A-4 line to Section 5.33 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Vice Mayor Benzan, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Cheung; Councillor Mazen; Councillor Simmons; Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning, Community Development Department; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Eric Hoagland, property owner; Peter Quinn, Architect; Attorney James J. Rafferty, 675 Mass. Ave.; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Andy Zucker, 35 Winslow Street; Steve Bardige, 55 Stearns Street; Arriel Bowers, 43 Electric Avenue, Somerville; and Gregg Moree, 25 Fairfield Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being televised and audio recorded. He outlined the format of meeting: the petitioners, City staff, City Council comments and then public comment.

Councillor Carlone asked the petitioners to come forward. Attorney Rafferty noted that the petition was a City Council petition.

Councillor Cheung stated that all the groups have merged on this petition. He stated that he submitted the zoning petition. It was heard by the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board previously and that the neighbors were urged to meet with the property owner and the developer to come to an agreement. The neighbors have reached consensus and there is modified language to come before the City Council. This revised language can be referred back to the City Council. This is a good procedures to look at zoning on corners lots and this can be a model for other locations and how all parties can work together.

Attorney Rafferty stated that he represented Mr. Hoagland, the property owner. This petition was filed by Councillor Cheung but has been the work of many months of dialogue between the property owner, the architect and the neighbors. He stated that a working group was formed, aided by Councillor Carlone, Ordinance Co-Chair, Councillors Cheung and McGovern. He acknowledged that none of this would have been possible without the cooperation of committed residents. He stated that there is support for the petition. He stated that this is a rather discreet zoning district and the zoning only encompasses a handful of lots. He stated that the lot on Walden Street is the only lot likely to be developed in this zoning district. It is only one side of the street. He stated that a consensus has been reached with some key development designs. He stated that features of the building were proposed by the group, one aspect is below ground parking. He stated that he has submitted a memo with three proposed amendments (ATTACHMENT B). He requested the Ordinance Committee to approve the amendments. He stated that adjustments are needed for the below grade parking. He stated that in order for the building to be built within these dimensions he stated that adjustments are needed for the height, the FAR and the setbacks. The proposed amendments seek to ensure that the below grade parking occur. He stated that another amendment requires that this building be brought into the design consultation process within the ordinance. He stated that the neighborhood would have active participation in design consultation. It includes design consultation criteria for buildings in this district of over 20,000 square feet. It would contain neighborhood oriented retail uses of less than 2,000 square feet.

Mr. Quinn, Peter Quinn Architects, outlined the design of the building. He stated that through this neighborhood process a new building design was generated. He stated that the building is the same size but contains improvements approved by both the neighborhood and the development team. He stated that all parking will be placed underground which is expensive at the location because of the high water table and the need to extend the basement out to the property line. He stated that other features that were unable to accomplish under the current zoning have been built into the project is to have a neighborhood retail space built into the building at the corner. The current zoning has a lower FAR and this disincentivizes a developer to build neighborhood retail. This had to be addressed in order to accomplish this. This is addressed with the new zoning. He stated that balconies cannot be projected on any building over 35 feet high. An exception was built in to create bay features seen in the community. He stated that the units are suitable for families; there are 5 independent units on the ground level. There are 3 in the front facing Walden Street are duplex units. He stated that at least one is a three bedroom unit. He stated that height issues were addressed with satisfactory setbacks. The retail is 1500 square foot space and could be used as a cafe. There is an extensive patio space facing Sherman Street. It was placed on Sherman Street because Sherman Street is a major walkway. A brick facade is used on the front of the building and in the residential side clapboard is used. The 3 units on the front set up a townhouse feel to the building.

Councillor Carlone noted that the top floor was chiseled back and this make it fit into the neighborhood better.

Attorney Rafferty wanted the Ordinance Committee to recommend adoption of the three amendments in the attachment. This new district would be added where design consultation will take place. He spoke about a MOU being worked on with abutters. There is close agreement and language is being worked on around parking issues. He stated that residents can park in the building to the greatest extent possible and there is no fee to motivate tenants to park on the street. He spoke about the cooperative process between the property owner, the architect and the residents. He stated that there are lessons that can be used from this project.

Mr. Hoagland stated that there have been many meetings with the residents. He cares about how this building comes out. He is a Cambridge resident and lives in the City and wants the neighborhood to be a better place. He spoke about the retail for the building and the parking. This process has made a stronger building. He is happy with the process; it has been a positive learning experience

Councillor Carlone invited Mr. Zucker and Mr. Bardige, the neighborhood representatives to come forward.

Andy Zucker, 35 Winslow Street, stated that they represented residents that have been involved with a dozen of meetings with the neighborhood. The process began with the concern of the residents for the building that could be built as of right under the existing zoning but did not meet the concerns of the neighbors to fit into the neighborhood. He is advocating for zoning change with the amendments described. He stated that unless the zoning changes are made this new proposed building cannot be built. He stated the underground parking which is desirable would not be possible under the current zoning. He wanted the zoning changed to protect the neighborhood, satisfy the developer and the neighbors. He spoke about the push and meeting with the developer to come to consensus. He submitted a communication on behalf of residents in support of the zoning incorporating the amended changes (ATTACHMENT C).

Mr. Bardige, 55 Stearns Street, spoke about the consensus process. It was difficult for the neighbors to come to consensus. He stated that compromises and tradeoffs were made. He stated that it was critical to the neighborhood that the parking is entirely underground. He wanted the word "ENTIRELY" included with the parking underground. The tradeoff was that the neighbors would allow for a larger building to pay for the underground parking. He stated that setbacks and retail were discussed. He stated that the willingness of the architect to change the design gained the trust of the neighborhood. He urged the City Council to adopt the zoning petition. The Planning Board suggested clarifying that the FAR of 2.0 is for residential buildings.

Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Dash to address the issues by the Planning Board. Mr. Dash stated that the Planning Board recognized the work of the neighbors, architect, property owner, and the City Council. The Planning Board had two comments. This is not the usual situation. The Planning Board wanted that the special permit be maintained for this area. The Planning Board support mixed use and not just residential. He stated that it was recommended that a FAR of 1.0 for commercial; essentially for ground floor retail with the 2.0 filling out the residential. He stated that the Planning Board felt good about proposed changes.

Vice Mayor Benzan questioned Mr. Quinn and Attorney Rafferty. Vice Mayor Benzan commended Mr. Quinn on the great design. Vice Mayor Benzan asked how many units will there be. Mr. Quinn 27 and 3 inclusionary units. Unit sizes are still in negotiation.

Mr. Hoagland stated that the whole floor plate has not been completed. The needs are still being worked on. There is a strong request to get a 3-bedroom unit. He stated that the floor plate is 8,000 square feet with four floors. The units are smaller in nature. Studio units are approximately 450 square feet. Vice Mayor Benzan what is likely of getting 1-3 bedroom unit. Mr. Hoagland stated that he is working on this. Vice Mayor Benzan spoke about tenants opting out to pay for parking and end up parking on the street. He asked Attorney Rafferty how you can ensure that the tenants will not pay for parking. Attorney Rafferty stated that this is addressed in the MOU. He stated that each unit will have access to a parking space and it will be included in the rent and rents with more than one vehicle may be able to rent more than one parking space. Vice Mayor Benzan what will be done to prevent flooding. Mr. Quinn stated that there is expensive water resistant system; the entire basement is waterproofed.

Councillor Simmons applauded Mr. Hoagland for his effort put into the community meetings. She commented that the neighborhood is behind this project. She asked where the affordable units would be in this building. Attorney Rafferty stated that the floor plate will be submitted to the affordable housing department and they will go through a process and come up with parity. He stated that the number of units is known. One of the units will be a 3 bedroom unit. He stated that the affordable units will be a percentage of the ratio. Councillor Simmons did not want the affordable units to be in the back of the building. Mr. Dash stated that the City looks at this for types of units. She would not be stressed if one of the studios was an affordable unit.

Attorney Rafferty stated that the hardware store site is being converted into dwelling units. The hardware building will be in the district. Mr. Quinn stated that a special permit was received for this building and for the restoration of the building to be residential. Mr. Dash stated that the old Masse site is included in the proposed new district. Councillor Simmons spoke about the need for a ground floor master-plan for retail. She asked what is planned for the ground floor retail. Mr. Hoagland stated that the retail has to be below market rent for economic reasons. He stated that he preferred a cafe or bakery that will serve the community. He would seek this type of tenancy. The retail will be at Walden and Sherman with the entrance to the retail on Walden Street. The ventilation for a cafe or restaurant has been incorporated into the building. There are 3 studios in the rear of the building on the ground level. Councillor Simmons asked Mr. Dash if this new district would be utilized in other areas. Mr. Dash stated that the Planning Board would like to see how this works.

Councillor Mazen noted that it is rare and laudable that this type of agreement is reached with limited arbitration. This is exactly what should happen more often.

Councillor Cheung applauded the process. He had faith that the neighbors could work together to come to an agreement. He spoke about getting parking tied to housing units. The retail is important to him. This will keep the corner active. The big change is parking underground and it is a better building for the neighborhood. He wanted CDD to think about creating more of these opportunities going forward.

Councillor Cheung asked Mr. Dash if the language submitted by Attorney Rafferty is an amendment or a substitution to the petition. Mr. Dash stated that it would be a substitution, which will be forwarded and be written up by the Planning Board. He noted also that the normal mixed-use formula would not be used. The maximum FAR would be 2.0 allowable for nonresidential of a maximum of 1.0. This would allow this project to go forward under this formula.

Councillor Carlone stated that Mr. Roberts will integrated the amendments into the text and the text will come back to the City Council.

Attorney Rafferty hoped that the Ordinance Committee will adopt the amendments. The Planning Board wanted the language altered slightly. He spoke about the three proposed amendments before the committee and whether the committee was prepared to incorporate the amendments in a recommendation to the City Council. He stated that when it is before the full City Council the comments of the Planning Board would be included. He stated is was important to include the concepts of the three amendments into the process now and having the amended petition appear in all future publications around the petition. It will allow all to understand the petition.

Mr. Dash stated that the Planning Board recommendation to the City Manager would be adding the special permit requirement.

At this time Councillor Carlone amended the language submitted by Attorney Rafferty by adding the word "entirely" below grade in the *** of the first sentence of Section 5.33.

The motion - Carried on a voice vote of four members.

Councillor Cheung moved that the matter be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation together with the suggested amendments submitted by Attorney Rafferty and amended by Councillor Carlone to add the word "entirely" in *** of the first sentence of Section 5.33.

The motion - Carried on a voice vote of four members.

At 6:44pm Councillor Carlone opened the meeting to public comment. No one appeared and public comment was closed.

Vice Mayor Benzan read comments from Councillor McGovern who could not attend the meeting. He supported the proposal and applauded all parties for their willingness to work together toward a compromise.

Councillor Carlone stated that he favored units at grade for families because kids playing outside have direct and easy access to their homes. This building is fits in with an understandable "Cambridge" character.

Councillor Carlone thanked all present for their attendance

The hearing adjourned at 6:47pm.

For the Committee
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair

Committee Report #3
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Sept 22, 2015 beginning at 12:12pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to further discuss the petition to amend the incentive zoning requirements that is currently under consideration by the City Council.

Present at the hearing were Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Marc McGovern; Vice Mayor Dennis Benzan; Councillor Craig Kelley; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Planner; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Neal Alpert; Dan Schwartz; Christian Schlachte; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Sarah Kennedy, Chamber of Commerce; Peter Daly, HRI; Elaine DeRosa, CEOC; Nancy Ryan; Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, ACT and member of the Affordable Housing Trust; Sarah Gallop, Co-Director, Office of Government and Community Relations, MIT; Lee Farris; John Hawkinson; Tom Lucey, Director of Community Relations, Harvard University; Denise Jillson, Executive Director, Harvard Square Business Association; and Jean Hannon.

Councillor Simmons gave an overview of the agenda for the hearing (Attachment A) and stated that she called this hearing to discuss the final language for the recommendations on raising the incentive zoning rate, which the Community Development Department is going to walk the committee members through. She stated that the City is on the precipice of voting these recommendations into ordination, which will translate into millions of additional dollars for the creation and preservation of affordable units in the community. She stated that this will be a huge boost for the city and for those trying to stay in the city. She stated that the City Council could have taken its final vote of the recommendations at the City Council meeting of Sept 21, 2015, but she wanted to be certain that the Councillors have a clear understanding of the language before doing so. She stated that she would like to give CDD the opportunity to tease out the language and explain any changes that have been made.

Iram Farooq stated that the proposed changes to the zoning text before the committee (Attachment B) reflect some issues raised at the Ordinance Committee hearing and the Planning Board recommendations. She introduced Jeff Roberts, Zoning Planner in the Community Development Department, to walk the committee through the changes.

Jeff Roberts stated that on the first page, there are changes that reflect questions about the applicability of the requirement of rehab projects. There was some discussion around rehabilitation and the language suggested clarifies that new development would include new construction and rehab that had the effect of taking a building made for one type of use and converting it for a different type of use, i.e., converting a building that originally housed a factory into one that is now going to be used for office or lab space. The CDD wanted to be cautious about not including projects that involve upgrades to a building that would be maintaining the same type of use, as the City would not want to discourage that kind of upkeep and renovation.

He said that some other changes suggested are on page 4 which make specific the Consumer Price Index (CPI) series to be used and specify that the adjustments in the rate would only escalate based on CPI, and the rate would not decrease if the CPI were to decrease over the course of a year.

Mr. Roberts said that the other changes are mainly clarifying changes.

Mr. Roberts stated that some additional language on page 3 simply clarifies the types of college and university uses, and those types would not include dormitories but would include auditoriums, athletic facilities, laboratories, administrative and faculty offices and other such uses. This is not a substantive change but a question was raised at a prior hearing.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not have questions about this revised proposal, and that he likes the way it reads. He said his main sticking point is what rate the City Council ultimately votes on raising the linkage fee to. He stated that from a safety standpoint, the City obviously does not want to stretch too far to the maximum number. He stated that he understands that we don't want to increase the number too much, so as not to invite legal challenges, but at the same time, this is a hot real estate market and asking for more money is not unreasonable. He stated that he wants to raise the rate beyond $12 per square foot, absent something in writing explaining why doing so would be unwise.

Councillor Mazen asked whether raising the linkage rate to $24.30, the maximum rate reached in the Nexus Study, would be beyond legal reproach. City Solicitor Nancy Glowa stated that the housing contribution range that was suggested by the Nexus Study as constitutionally meeting muster falls between $10 and $24.30. She said that this means the Nexus Study found there is an essential nexus between development in the city and the impact, as well as a rough proportionality between the condition and development impact. That is a legal standard that has been set forth in a number of Supreme Court cases. When CDD hired a consultant and they make a recommendation that this range is supported, the question of where the City Council chooses to fall on that range is a question of policy. She said that the common sense implications are that the higher you go, someone might be more likely to choose to challenge the ordinance. Thus far, the ordinance has not been challenged. The question is what is acceptable to the development community without wanting to challenge the rate. She said that the analysis is beyond reproach, but the question of whether someone might challenge this condition or the rate of $24.30 is not something that she can predict.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is question of precepts of what the study is intended to do. He stated $24.30 would be required to meet the technical need. It is implicit in being named by the study and is reasonably defensible. Ms. Glowa stated that what is unknown is that the validity of the consultant's study has not been tested judicially. Assuming the methodology is supportable by the courts, she believes the range would be upheld.

Councillor Mazen stated that he is assuming that this is an accurate study. He thinks that any costs that we apply as a legal matter to developers will be passed on to the lessors, who will bear that burden happily. He stated that the amount that the initial fee amortized over thirty years is tantamount to pennies per month per square foot. He said that setting the linkage rate at $12 would turn this into a missed opportunity at the very least, and a grave misunderstanding of market economics at most, and that the City Council should raise this to the maximum rate.

Councillor McGovern stated that the legal piece is not the most important part of this to him. He stated that it is about the impact. Other communities actively pursue businesses in Cambridge and offer incentives to come to their city. It is a question of comfort level. He stated that the Affordable Housing Trust has concerns about the $24.30 rate as well. He stated that if we are going to go to $12 and in 3 years phase in to $15, plus CPI increases, and that another Nexus Study is mandated within that time frame and this can all be done in a responsible way, then he is comfortable with that. He stated that the idea the City Council could raise the rate to $24 and then later on lower the rate if it had negative consequences is silly thinking. He said that the City Council would be given a difficult time trying to lower the linkage rates in that scenario, and that some people would likely just accuse them of trying to give breaks to the developers. He said that he would rather do this in a thoughtful, responsible way, which will allow us all to feel confident and safe in our decisions. He noted that this revenue is only one avenue for addressing the affordable housing challenge, and much more work needs to be done. Raising the linkage rate alone will not solve the problem. He said that we should move forward with what is a bold, responsible position. The increase is significant and people are confident that it is a safe increase. Councillor McGovern then turned his attention to page one of the CDD handout and asked about the concerns regarding continuing the annual $1 increase beyond the third year mark.

Chris Cotter stated that looking at a continuing annual increase, some concerns are that a continuing increase could result in development projects moving ahead more quickly, to capture the lower rates afforded by doing so. This could lead to more rapid development all at once. Councillor McGovern said that he was not entirely sold on this concern. He also said that how one views affordable housing would probably color how one views the prospect of increasing the incentive contributions, and how one views the development community. One could view the developers as the bad guys, or one could view them as collaborators. He said that it is interesting how some people seem to cherry pick the facts out of the consultants' Nexus Study that they already agree with, and discard other parts that they don't already agree with. Councillor McGovern said that ultimately, he would defer to the information provided by the experts.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is not that the report is good on the one hand and not good on the other. He said that the report is good on the data, but that the rest is just speculation. He stated that he does not want to know the report maker's personal preference, or even the preferences of the Affordable Housing Trust members on an appropriate rate. He said that those who are afraid to set a rate above $12 are relying upon a demonstrably poor understanding of how the real estate market works. He stated the developer does not absorb this type of cost, and they are not legally required to do so. Because this is being passed on to the end user, it will not register a difference to the developer, and it will not make any difference in terms of the amount of development. He said the fact that this body is even entertaining the idea of going below the maximum out of fear that it will impede development is totally counter to everything we know. He said the committee should make policy decisions based on math and on what they'd like to see. He said that we should not pretend just because a group of people want a low and conservative number that this number is somehow backed up by the data.

Councillor McGovern stated that this is not a fair assessment, and that this is not being done on a whim. He stated that there is a lot of thought that went into this number. He questioned the point of conducting studies and engaging experts if City Councillors simply know better? He stated that he is not willing to take the risk in going to $24.30.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is a mathematical discussion. He stated this is a discussion about only the math. He stated that he does not think there is a choice but to go to $24.30.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he has had the opportunity to hear about the linkage fee for quite some time. Oftentimes, we rely on experts to talk about increasing the fee. He said he is confident in this recommendation. He stated that since 2010, the city attempted to pursue 55 properties and were only able to purchase three, and this was a sobering number. The linkage fee is only one avenue to pursue affordable housing. He stated that there has been much speculation on the impact. He said that this committee has in front of it a sound recommendation, a recommendation which is three times more than the current linkage rate. He stated that progress is being made, and we need to move forward and look at other ways to solve the affordable housing crisis.

Iram Farooq stated that, in regards to the notion of the math vs. the judgment, she clarified that the math is based upon judgment. It is built upon market assumptions looking at the history of development in the city and projecting outwards. There is judgment at both levels. The trend of growth in the city continues along a trajectory. She stated that the likelihood is that the trend may flatten, which means the amount of money that is raised may not increase in the proportion that one may want. She said that the City could theoretically double the linkage fee, from $12 to $24, but we would not necessarily get double the money because this might also mean that fewer projects are developed, bringing in roughly the same amount of linkage money, regardless. She said this this is important to keep in mind.

Ms. Farooq stated that in terms of the dollar a year increase, she suspects that most in the development community are not thinking of this as a $12 rate with a $1 year increase, but rather are thinking of this as a $15 linkage with a three year phase-in period. She said that as long as you have predictability, you can behave in rational ways, and that is one of the items that the CDD has kept in mind throughout this process.

Ms. Farooq stated that the housing needs and concerns are not just contained within Cambridge, they are regional. If it turns out that it is expensive to build here and we are not getting the amount of linkage money because commercial development moves elsewhere, there would still be an impact on the residential side as well. She stated that the notion of costs being passed onto lessors is true, but that has implications as well, and the more that market starts to require a higher amount of money to commercial development, it hurts start-up companies who are less likely to be able to pay higher rents.

Councillor Mazen stated that, regarding the Nexus Study, he understands that certain assumptions are necessary in order to create the study. He stated that the assumptions and the study are sound. The window that appears in the study's editorial is not as sound as the first two stages. That editorial is not appropriate or borne out by the data. He does not think that the change in price due to a $24.30 linkage fee will have any market effect. The fluctuation in the cost of steel, and other elements that are out of our control, will have a much greater effect. Changes projected in Cambridge will have to do with regional building and competition. The $12 vs $24.30 distinction has nothing to do with the demand that we will see in future years. He stated that he does not know why this body would look at $50 million over the coming decade and say that this is not the answer. He asked why we are talking about throwing away money. He stated that he does not want to throw money away, and he is truly baffled as to why others do not share this view.

Councillor Kelley stated that it is important to find the right dollar amount. He stated that he understands that the City Solicitor suggested that, at some point, a certain add-on becomes more targetable from a developer's standpoint. He suggested increasing the rate, but not going too high. He said that he agrees that this is not the pot of money that will solve all of the city's problems, but that nonetheless, he would like it to be higher.

Ms. Glowa stated that she is not predicting what the tipping point would be or what the policy considerations are. She stated that she defers to CDD on these issues. She stated that the conclusion in the Nexus Study is that the impacts of development would support a contribution of between $10 and $24. She cannot predict whether someone would challenge this or not. She stated that if the rate is set high enough, perhaps that may be an incentive for someone to challenge it in court. She said that she is unsure what a court would do in terms of the constitutional framework, and in how that might impact development as the case was being deliberated. She said that there is not a specific number that is more defensible or not.

Councillor Kelley stated we have a Nexus Study that says we are justified in setting a rate of $24.30. That may or may not be true in the eyes of the law. Someone could look at the facts, studies, and assumptions and out it goes to court. He stated that finding the right number is the challenge, finding a number that brings in revenue and doesn't scare off developers. He said that he would like the rate set higher, and he knows there are differing views on this. He said that we may have different ideas of the risks and results.

Councillor McGovern stated that no one can know anything for certain. He asked if the city went to $15 off the bat and abandoned the phase-in, and then had a study five years from now, would that be a possible compromise to which the City Council could agree.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked what kind of revenue the City would expect to see if we set the linkage fees to $12. Chris Cotter stated that the study is based on projections. One of the things they looked at when reviewing the recommendation was setting a range that would not change the level of development. He said that the Affordable Housing Trust is certainly interested in maximizing the amount of financial support they receive. There is no way to accurately predict development. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he would like to see a forecast of what these numbers will generate five years in the future. He stated that to compare this to the cost of steel is different because he has not heard that from developers.

Chris Cotter stated that the $50 million number is looking at the amount of development projected in the study over the next 10 years. At the $12 rate, he believes it would yield $55 million in incentive contributions. The question is: at what rate does the rate start to impact development and reduce the amount of funds received by the Trust. He added that, regarding the improvement in this resource as a way to fund Affordable Housing Trust efforts, another big piece is the expansion of the applicability, which will be about four-fold. There will be significant impact on the amount of funds raised from that change in the ordinance.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked if the City has looked at the scenario of raising the rate to $24, and would this mean that it would be $34 within the Mixed Use District? Chris Cotter stated yes, this would be true and it has been considered. Iram Farooq stated that it would apply to the Mixed Use District and Volpe in Kendall Square. She stated that the City is also concerned about obtaining support for transit and green buildings, and while it is presently difficult, if we put all our eggs in one basket and set the fees too high, it will be increasingly difficult to go to developers to ask for them to pitch in even more money for these other concerns.

Councillor Simmons stated Ms. Farooq hit upon an important point, and that it is important to look at the overall impact and look at the context this linkage fee discussion is part of. She said that these recommendations will remove the special permit trigger, will expand the scope of applicability, will eliminate the 2,500 sq. foot exemption, and will initiate an automatic study in three years. Councillor Simmons stated that we have to put it all in context. Coming immediately down the line, the City Council will be looking at Inclusionary Zoning, condo conversion laws, the tax rate, and increasing the levy limit, and the linkage fee discussion is a small aspect of the conversation. You have to look at this in context.

Councillor Simmons opened the meeting to Public Comment at 1:14pm.

Peter Daly, Executive Director of Homeowner's Rehab, Inc., thanked the committee for their efforts. He stated that he thinks that we are paying a price for having not engaged in this process for such a long time. He said that he is happy that this is mandated to start again within three years, which will allow adjustments to be quickly made if that is found to be necessary.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli mentioned that Councillor Kelley had hit upon something when he recently suggested that some people may have ideological reasons for bringing a legal challenge. She stated that she appreciates the committee's work and she believes that this committee and the CDD have come up with meaningful changes to the ordinance. She stated that we need to continue to move forward.

Lee Farris thanked the committee and the City staff. She referred to an earlier comment that perhaps raising the linkage rate to $24 might cause a reduction in construction, leading to a net loss in linkage. She then said her question is that if the Nexus Study suggested that $24.30 would be needed to support housing in the coming years, and the City Council only raises the rate to $12, then where is the other half of the money needed to support this new housing coming from? She asked what the City's plan is to make up the difference. She asked if that then means that the City would then have to use other income streams. She also asked the committee to consider that - referring to the Vice Mayor's earlier comments - perhaps if the linkage fee were raised to $24, rather than being able to buy those three buildings of affordable housing out of 55, the City would have had the funds to purchase six or more buildings. Ms. Farris also stated that she thinks a study of every three years needs to remain a requirement. She would like the extra dollar to continue until the City Council makes its decision. She stated that regarding middle income, she understands that the Affordable Housing Trust would like flexibility in spending, but she is concerned that the need for affordable housing money is the greatest priority. Since there is not another clear source of funds for middle income, a great deal of this money could be put to this specific use. She said that she would like a guideline or parameter that is in the discussion.

Elaine DeRosa, Executive Director of CEOC, stated that no one is necessarily afraid of getting sued, but when it takes five years to build a property, there is a huge escalation. She stated that if this proposal can fly at $12, and it will be $15 before we blink, bringing in the money and we won't price ourselves out of the market, then we should move forward on this. She stated that we need the money, we need the inventory, and we must stay out of court. She stated that going forward, once passed the Affordable Housing Trust will be reviewing this, and the Affordable Housing Trust will be reporting about the impact of what the ordinance will do as well as what can be the impact of balancing low, moderate and middle income to the City Council on a regular basis. She stated that parameters are very important for future studies.

Jeanne Hannon congratulated the policy makers who are taking on this issue. She stated that it has to be taken in context. It is not a silver bullet, but it is an important piece. She stated that it is a whole pattern that needs to be changed.

John Hawkinson stated that it would be wise to ask the City Solicitor what would happen if this ordinance were challenged, because when a building development is challenged, it stops the permit, but when an ordinance is challenged it does not necessarily stop development while it is considered by the courts. He also stated that if people are going to challenge the fee anyway, for ideological reasons, then the City Council should just go ahead and raise it to the maximum rate since the legal challenge would be anticipated either way. He stated that if prior comments that there are ideological reasons for people to bring a challenge cuts both ways. He stated that there are people who get up in the morning looking for venues to file lawsuits which suggests that a challenge may be forthcoming regardless and the City might as well go to the highest defensible rate. He stated that if we have to look at fees in the context of other numbers, it is easy for the $10 sq. foot fee in Kendall Square but much harder to understand in the context of the tax rate.

Sarah Gallop, Co-Director, MIT Government and Community Relations, stated that it is important for the City Council to ensure a level playing field across the region. She stated that the subject of affordable housing is a complex matter than can be addressed through a variety of mechanisms. Good information and analysis, good public process and a willingness to compromise are elements that are very important and necessary to successfully addressing this.

Tom Lucey from Harvard University stated that Harvard views itself as a partner with the City Council in the affordable housing realm. He stated that together, they have worked to preserve more than 600 affordable housing units across the city. He urged the City Council to take a strong look at the expertise that has been brought to the table. He asked the committee to consider the context of the other regulatory environments being discussed in the city. Harvard is working hard on net zero, transportation, and resiliency. He added that he would like consideration of the economy, and that the local economy must be looked upon as an ecosystem. When talking about rents, as ideas come about start-ups pop up, and we need to look at the impact of what the economy will look like. We must think about what economy is created, and how raising the linkage rates can impact the ability of small start-up companies to take root in Cambridge.

Public comment closed at 1:37pm.

Councillor McGovern stated that, in regards to the timeline for the nexus studies in the future, the recommendation originally called for a new study every five years. He said that he is aware that there must be enough time after a rate is set for the City to see the impact of that change. He stated that the consultant felt if the study was done within two years, there would not be enough data to fully determine the impact. That is why they compromised on mandating a new study every three years. In regards to the projected $50 million that we would allegedly be leaving on the table, that is over a 10 year period, which would average out to $5 million per year. For $5 million per year, do we risk legal challenges, loss of development, and unpredictability? He said that it is not prudent to make decisions by being emotional, and that we must be rational and responsible. He stated that he looks forward to hearing from the full City Council regarding their ideas. He again asked if it is better to go to $15 immediately or to $12 with a dollar a year increase.

Councillor Simmons stated that she wants a vote on this matter to take place on Mon, Sept 28. The legislation may not be perfect, and we may not all get everything that we want. But she stressed that we are building reliability and predictability, which is important. She also stated that the Housing Committee seems to be broadly ok with the language brought forward by the CDD, and the only real bone of contention is around the rate. She stated that the committee previously agreed on the $12 rate with the dollar per year increase to $15, plus CPI, and this will likely be the rate that is voted on by the full Council.

Councillor Kelley asked the City Solicitor that in the event the City were challenged, is it possible to charge the existing linkage fee without the proposed increases. Ms. Glowa stated that she does not believe so. In order to keep the ordinance from being effective while challenged in a lawsuit, a party would need to seek an injunction or a stay. She stated that it would not slow down the effectiveness. She does not believe there will be a retroactive impact. She suspected that the fees would go into effect and the City would litigate. She stated that she could not state if this would have an impact on development, and that she would like to do more research.

Councillor Kelley stated that we can go higher than $12. He stated that people go to court for things that are a lot less consequential than this. He stated that we must approach this trying to get the best we can for the city. He does not see this as being a development number.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that we talk a lot about the development of things, but not the development of people. He stated that large numbers of people leave the city every day. He stated that young people want to stay in Cambridge, but cannot because they don't qualify for programs and they cannot get jobs in many of the companies that are located here. He asked how to get developers to adopt young people, to ensure they are given the skills to get into the local economy in a meaningful way.

Councillor Simmons stated that she feels very confident that for the most part, the Housing Committee and others are comfortable with the language submitted by the CDD. She stated that the City Council will move on Monday to adopt the recommendations and vote. She does not believe the rate will be more than $12. She believes this will stay the same, as it has been fully vetted and people generally seem willing to accept this compromise.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he will not be at Monday evening's meeting. He said that he very much wants to see this move forward. He does not want to delay this any longer. He suggested that we agree to $12 and revisit in 1-2 years if necessary.

Councillor Kelley stated that he would prefer setting the rate higher, to $15 or $16. But he also said that he does not want to see the number go up and not reach the six votes it needs to pass. He would like something passed and he would not like to see it die.

Councillor Simmons made a motion to forward the CDD's proposed amendments to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

The motion passed.

Councillor Simmons thanked all those present for their attendance and participation.

The hearing was adjourned at 2:05pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair

Committee Report #4
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Sept 23, 2015 at 2:03pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the recommendation of the Cambridge Off Leash Working Group on dogs (ATTACHMENT A) and the steps that have been taken to implement the group recommendations in the City.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Leland Cheung, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Dennis J. Carlone; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor Craig Kelley; Taha Jennings, Assistant to the City Manager; Mark McCabe, Animal Control Director; John Nardone, Assistant Commissioner of Operations, Public Works Department; Paul Ryder, Recreation Director; Sam Corda, Managing Director, Water Department; Ellen Kokinda, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department; Gary Chan, Associate Planner, Community Development Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Sarah Capinga, Kathryn Hencir and Heidi Mitchell.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the City has a presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that the recommendations will be reviewed together with the proposed amendment to Chapter 6.04, the Animal Control Regulations, submitted by the City Manager on July 28, 2015 (ATTACHMENT C). Councillor Cheung announced that the hearing is being audio recorded.

Mr. Jennings began with a presentation on the Dog Working Group recommendations. He stated that the City has been involved in the off leash opportunities for many years and is involved in coming up with solutions. This off leash process began in 2005 to provide legal definitions for off leash areas. In 2009 new off leash areas were dedicated. He explained what shared use locations are. He stated that shared use times are times when dogs are allowed off leash. Dogs are allowed off leash generally from 6-9am. Enforcement at this time could be more targeted. He stated that there an off leash brochure was created. He stated that the efforts have been successful, but there is still pressure to provide more spaces for off leash areas for dogs. He stated that the demand on open space is high. In 2013 an off leash group was formed and a draft set of recommendations was created. He stated that the final recommendations are before the committee. He highlighted the recommendations. He stated that during discussions the issue of evening hours came up. Evening hours for dogs has proven to be more challenging. This will continue to be discussed. Certain parks for dog owners proved attractive because of the interaction with other dog owners and the creation of a dog owner community. He stated that the recommendations will work within the resources of the City including enforcement. He displayed a map location of where shared uses were located before the working group began. He stated that three additional locations were added, Joan Lorentz Park, Hoyt Field and Greene rose Heritage Park. The brochure was updated. He stated that efforts are still ongoing. It is important to continue reviewing the off leash areas. He spoke about the next steps. He stated that enforcement is an important tool. City staff will continue to evaluate the recommendations. Overall, he stated, that a positive approach was taken on this issue without pitting one group against another. The recommendations are important and the right step moving in the right direction on this issue. He thanked the dog working group for their work.

At 2:18pm Councillor Cheung opened the hearing to public comment.

Katherine Hencir stated that she was part of the pilot group and has enjoyed the process.

Heidi Mitchell stated that this was a collaborative effort. The last time this was addressed was 2009. She stated that there was a request for interactive community focus around dogs.

Councillor Cheung closed public comment at 2:20pm.

Councillor Cheung was pleased with the trajectory of off leash laws. He stated that dogs are everywhere in the City. He stated that Fresh Pond and Pacific Street seem to be working well. He wanted to know where this goes from here. He wanted to see an overlap of opportunities throughout the City for dog areas. He spoke about the self-policing by dog owners for dog waste removal. The recommendation to revisit this is appropriate. He wanted to know where the map can be expanded. He stated that there is a request to continue dog hours at Gold Star Park. He noted that East Cambridge needs more off leash areas. He spoke about increasing the signage for off leash hours.

Mr. Jennings stated that the map needs to be expanded, but it cannot be expanded without being incorporated into the overall park planning process. The community needs to be involved. Sacramento Field will be part of the open space process. The recommendations are to ensure that the opportunities are not being missed. It is too early to tell how the new off leash areas are working.

John Nardone stated that the off leash parks are really shared used area. Three of the new areas are passive areas. As these parks will be reviewed and in a year there may be a better understanding.

Ellen Kokinda stated that the majority of Cambridge residents have licensed dogs at Joan Lorentz Park. There are new residents which were given information about the shared use. At Joan Lorentz Park the issue is about the hours; there is still a request for evening hours.

Councillor Cheung asked if evening hours work for off leashed areas. Mr. Jennings stated that the competing uses need to be reviewed, location by location. There was no easy solution. He noted that parks are open from dawn to dusk.

Councillor Cheung stated that after dusk could be an opportunity. He asked about signage opportunities. Mr. Jennings stated that signage is the next step. Signage was discussed and needs to be friendly and will be the next implementation steps. Ideas for new signage will be discussed.

Councillor Kelley stated that he is amazed at the progress made. He wants dog parks and off leash areas expanded. He spoke about dogs being a connection to the community. He stated that conflicts can be resolved with ongoing discussions. How are better conversations held on issues such as this? He spoke about off leash dog behavior. He stated that there are negatives and the City needs to be up front on the negative issues. He did not want the dog officers viewed as the "bad guys." He suggested that the conversation needs to keep going and expand off leash areas. He stated that people need to be engaged in volunteer ways.

Councillor Cheung noted that Mr. McCabe and other animal control officers engage people in a friendly way.

Councillor McGovern spoke about the dedicated off leash areas, how big do they need to be. There are mostly small parks in the City and could smaller spaces be dedicated dog parks. Mr. Jennings stated that for an off leash space the area needed is 10,000 square feet. He noted that regardless of the size the process needs to be followed and the community needs to be involved. Councillor McGovern stated that he has heard concerns about the Fresh Pond off leash area. He spoke about the possibility of conflict.

Mr. McCabe stated that there have not been many complaints at Fresh Pond; there has been a decrease since the ranger is at Fresh Pond. Mr. Corda stated that there are few complaints and when they occur they are dealt with. Councillor McGovern asked about Kingsley Park. Mr. Corda stated that a portion of Kingsley was renovated and the intent is to have the lower Kingsley Park be a shared use in the summer but a leashed area in the winter because of winter sports.

Paul Ryder noted that there are days where the play fields area unusable for sports. Mr. Corda stated that spring and fall are questionable use time. Councillor McGovern asked if the private land owners were asked for partnerships to use fenced in space by members of the community. He asked when dog owners could realize more tangible use and benefit. Mr. Jennings stated that new shared use is for hours in the AM; it is hard to put a time limit on this. He stated that the City wants to be proactive about education. He stated that the majority of dog owners are responsible and police themselves. There are limits to what can be done in a short time frame, but want all to feel welcome at the parks and keep having the discussions. Councillor McGovern asked if the brochures were distributed when dogs are licensed. Mr. McCabe stated that the brochures were sent out to 4,000 residents and they are given out in the office. He stated that if a dog runs at a person or another dog a dog officer or ranger can issue a citation because the dog is supposed to be under control of the owner. A dog must be in control at all times.

Councillor Carlone commented that the report is well organized and broad. He noted that near the golf course at Fresh Pond seems to be a place where people gather and asked why not have a dedicated area for dogs at Fresh Pond? He commented about incorporating an area in Kendall Square. Councillor Carlone stated that Rogers Park should easily be incorporated as a dog area. He commented about open space. He stated that the bigger issue is getting to Fresh Pond and the Riverfront with a dog. He stated that there are few legal places to cross a system of crosswalks is needed.

Councillor Kelley questioned how the city is improving spaces such as Danehy Park and the budgeting impact. Mr. Jennings stated that some areas will need to be improved and updated. Funding is reviewed as an open space need. Mr. Nardone spoke about Pacific Street and informed the committee that $225,000 was received from CPA funding and was set aside for improvements to Pacific Street Park. The surfacing at Pacific will be changed, shade and a water park for the dogs will be created. He spoke about the needed surface that can stand up to dogs. Mr. Ryder spoke about more shade areas for dogs and he also spoke about investigating a better surface material. Councillor Kelley noted that dog parks create a sense of community.

Councillor Cheung asked Mr. McCabe to explain the changes contained in the ordinance amendment. Mr. McCabe outlined the changes in Attachment C.

Councillor Kelley asked what the difference is between a dog officer and animal control officer. Mr. McCabe explained that an animal control officer has more training provided by the animal control officers association. An Animal Control Officer handles all types of animals not just dogs.

Councillor Cheung submitted the following motions:
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record thanking the City staff and the Off Leash Working Group for all their work on this issue.
The motion carried on a voice vote of three members.

ORDERED: That the City Council go on record endorsing the Off Leash Working Group Recommendations with a favorable recommendation.
The motion carried on a voice vote of three members.

ORDERED: That the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to Chapter 6.04 entitled "Animal Control Regulations" be removed from the table and passed to a second reading with a favorable recommendation.
The motion carried on a voice vote of three members.

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 3:19pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Leland Cheung, Chair