2. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $160,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Executive Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will fund an expansion of free food programming for Cambridge youth.
Order Adopted 9-0

Oct 15, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $160,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Executive Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account. This appropriation will fund an expansion of free food programming for Cambridge youth.

As noted in the attached letter from Mayor Marc McGovern to the School Committee, funding will be used to eliminate the reduced lunch category and establish a free breakfast program in all elementary and upper school buildings, thus providing the opportunity for free breakfast for up to an additional 3,100 Cambridge Public School students grades JK through 8, that will now qualify for the free breakfast program.

In addition, in recognizing that hunger is an impediment to learning and development, these funds will also be used to offer free breakfast to approximately 119 children who attend the preschool programs in Cambridge Public School buildings through the Department of Human Services Programs.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

Aug 29, 2018
To the Honorable, Members of the School Committee:

I am writing to share an update on the status of free food service programming for youth across Cambridge enrolled in both CPS as well as DHSP preschools.

Background
As Vice Mayor I lead an initiative that evaluated the cost of living in conjunction with food needs seen across Cambridge. This analysis took a close look at food insecurity, federal income standards and CPS’ free/reduced lunch programs. In Cambridge we have a sizable number of people living in poverty within an overall environment of affluence.

Cambridge currently has a poverty rate hovering around 18%, with 30% of our Black and Latino families living below the Federal Poverty Guideline (FPG). As we know, the FPG does little to tell the true story of income insecurity in Cambridge, as our cost of living is so much higher than the majority of the country. For example, the FPG for a family of four is $24,500 per year. In Cambridge, for a family of four to meet their basic needs (housing, utilities and food), or what we defined in the Income Insecurity Report (2015) as the “Cambridge Security Standard,” they must earn $108,800 annually. This demonstrates that there is a significant gap between those who are defined as “in poverty” and those who can barely get by in Cambridge.

In March of 2017, I collaborated with School Committee Member Kathleen Kelly, and then Food For Free Program Director Alanna Mallon on the Free and Reduced Lunch Program Report, which looked at food insecurity, the impact of hunger on learning, and the current CPS Free/Reduced lunch program.

The report made three recommendations:

1) That the Cambridge Public Schools begin using the income guidelines outlined in the City’s Income Insecurity Report of 2015 as the guidelines for determining which families qualify for free breakfast and lunch;

2) Eliminate the reduced lunch category; and

3) That the City of Cambridge add additional funding to the Cambridge Public School 2018 budget to be allocated for providing free breakfast and lunch to all students who qualify under the new income guidelines.

Current Status
As Mayor, I’ve continued to bring this conversation forward and have met repeatedly with the Superintendent, CPS Administration, DHSP, and the City Manager’s Office to address the three recommendations issued in the 2017 report. Given the complexities in both cost and administration of the first recommendation, we made the decision to focus on the recommendations addressing student meals and nutrition.

Thanks to the support of the City Manager and the School Administration, we are moving forward with an effective and sustainable course of action.

In October, the City Manager will be submitting an appropriation recommendation to the City Council for their approval for $160,000 from Free Cash for an expansion of free food programming for Cambridge youth. Funding will be used to eliminate the Reduced Lunch Category in the Cambridge Public Schools and to establish a free breakfast program in all elementary and upper school buildings, thus providing free breakfast and lunch to hundreds of Cambridge Public School students whose families now earn too much to qualify for Free Lunch but who are still below the Cambridge Security Standard. As noted above, the appropriation recommendation will be made to the City Council in October after the tax rate is set, which is scheduled for Oct 1, 2018.

This appropriation will not result in a reduction or reallocation of funds from the current Cambridge Public School budget or any subsequent CPS budgets.

In addition, in recognizing that hunger is an impediment to learning and development, these funds will also be used to offer free breakfast to all children who attend the preschool programs through the Department of Human Services Programs.

I would like to thank Vice-Chair Kathleen Kelly, Councillor Alanna Mallon, City Manager Louie DePasquale, City of Cambridge Finance Director David Kale, Superintendent Kenneth Salim, CPS Chief Operating Office Jim Maloney, CPS Food Service Director Melissa Honeywood, Business Manager for Food Services Anthony Grein, CPS Chief Financial Officer Claire Spinner, and Educational Liaison to the Mayor Elizabeth Liss for all their hard work addressing this very basic need.

Consistent healthy nutrition can and will have an impact on the wellbeing of children and families in our community. I hope that you join me in thanking CPS and City Staff for their positive collaboration in service of Cambridge youth.

Respectfully, Mayor Marc McGovern

7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $5,000,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures Account to support the completion of the Inman Square Intersection Improvements Project.
Order Adopted 6-3 [Carlone, Devereux, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Zondervan - YES; Kelley, Simmons, Toomey - NO]

Oct 15, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am requesting the appropriation of $5,000,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures Account to support the completion of the Inman Square Intersection Improvements Project. The funds will be used in addition to $2,000,000 in previously appropriated funds.

In 2015, the City began a process of studying the intersection in order to develop safety improvements. Several design options were developed and analyzed, and five public meetings, plus additional stakeholder engagement opportunities, have been held. The design addresses the safety and operational issues of Inman Square, and meets other project goals including improving transit operations and experience, maximizing the quality and experience of pedestrian plaza space, and providing necessary parking and loading functions.

The project is currently at the 75% level of design, and includes additional features based on community input. These include landscaping and urban heat-island improvements to the Springfield Street parking lot; and the commitment of $50,000 for additional tree plantings in the immediate neighborhood beyond the construction area. In addition to this funding for tree plantings in Inman Square, I will be requesting a future appropriation of $100,000 from free cash to support additional trees in open space and public parks.

The current cost estimate ($6M construction / $7M total project), is higher than the previous estimate, and represents the best available information and has been updated over the last few weeks to include increases associated with extended design process, additional tree plantings, additional improvements to the Springfield St parking lot, and increased costs associated with traffic management and business coordination (additional events, phasing of project, additional police details, additional signage, etc.). The cost estimate has also been updated to reflect the less than competitive bidding environment. The risk of any future cost increases is linked to changes in the bidding environment, unforeseen conditions, and expanded scope.

Next steps in the process will include:

• Community meeting #6 in October 2018 to obtain feedback on plaza design and public arts components;

• Continued engagement with local businesses and business association to develop construction mitigation measures;

• Completion of the final design documents and advertising the contract for construction bids in December 2018;

• Coordination with private utility companies to upgrade their infrastructure in conjunction with our project;

• A construction kick-off community meeting in spring 2019;

Construction is anticipated to begin in spring 2019, and take 18 to 24 months to complete.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

10. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-76, regarding a report on Linkage fee as part of the Incentive Zoning Nexus Study.
Placed on File

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Date: Oct 11, 2018
Re: Policy Order O-11 dated June 25, 2018 regarding evaluating a Jobs Linkage fee as part of the Incentive Zoning Nexus Study

The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the incentive zoning nexus study on Sept 27, 2018. As requested by the above-mentioned policy order, we expanded the scope to include a jobs linkage component. The RFP seeks proposals to conduct a new nexus study to analyze the impacts of nonresidential development on
1. the cost and supply of housing to meet increased demand, and
2. employment opportunities for residents

The City is seeking a consultant or team with expertise in the areas of housing and employment impact analysis; real estate analysis; and housing, employment, and economic development policy.

This study will reevaluate the incentive zoning provisions, last studied in 2015, through which funding is generated for affordable housing programs. The study will also, for the first time, analyze the impact of new development on access to jobs and training needed to assist residents in accessing new employment opportunities in the city. In addition to recommending changes in the incentive zoning provisions and housing contribution rate, the study will also recommend whether a jobs linkage approach would be advisable to help residents access new employment opportunities, and, if so, what type and size of contribution would be appropriate.

Responses to the RFP are due on Oct 18. Staff will then work to review all responses and identify a consultant to carry out the study. The study is expected to take several months to complete; we will have a better idea of the anticipated schedule after we have selected a consultant to complete the study.

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM OTHER CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Kelley, transmitting memorandum regarding Inman Square Redesign Project.
Placed on File

To: Cambridge City Council
From: Craig A. Kelley, City Councillor
Date: Oct 11, 2018
Subject: Inman Square Redesign Project

Dear Mr. Manager and fellow City Councilors:

I write asking that each of you, on your own without guidance or input from advocates one way or the other, review the planned Inman Square intersection design and come to your own decision about whether this plan makes the intersection safer or not. City leaders cannot punt the responsibility for ensuring public safety to third parties, whether self-appointed experts, consultants or City staff. As you know, I will not support any funding requests for this redesign and I hope that the major safety deficiencies in the project convince you to do the same.

Independent of the negative impact this multi-year, six-million-dollar project is sure to have on fragile local business and the current layout of Vellucci Park, the new convoluted, multilayered, confusing intersection would create more bicycle/vehicle conflicts than it reduces. For the left turn conflicts that currently exist, although in limited number, the City could achieve mitigation through better signage, striping, editing of internet-based navigation systems and a more consistent police presence. Sadly, we are now talking about spending millions of dollars to build a more dangerous intersection than exists now without even having seriously tried less destructive safety interventions. That makes no sense.

In particular, the conflicts between in-bound cyclists and cars coming through the intersection from Porter Square will pose significant dangers. While City staff said they did not expect, for example, an increase in the number of cars going down Antrim Street- across the travel lines of through cyclists!!- it is not at all clear that drivers who currently make a right onto Inman Street will not, instead, choose to go straight onto Antrim. Again, these cars would go directly across the routes of through cyclists who would share the same light cycle. That is not good traffic safety planning.

Additionally, the conflicts of cyclists with pedestrians of all sorts- runners, families with young children, people doing errands- in the bike lane/plaza/sidewalk is going to make a lot of cyclists, to include myself, uneasy and put us in danger. It is far too easy to get knocked over by a runner or to have to swerve suddenly to avoid a wandering infant. Instead, many cyclists will stay on Hampshire Street, which will remain perfectly legal, and they will now have less space between them and drivers in this new intersection. Again, that is not good traffic safety planning.

The City has a disturbing history of creating street infrastructure that is dangerous, or even deadly, for cyclists and before we move forward with this redesign, each of us must be able to explain to the public why we, not some self-proclaimed group of experts or even City staff, think this project will make things safer.

Bike safety is too important to me as an individual concern and to all of us as a matter of policy and transportation equity to do any less.

Sincerely, Craig Kelley

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Oct 15, 2018
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
MAYOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Cambridge constituents have consistently expressed concerns about political slogans and logos displayed prominently on work vehicles of private contractors hired for municipal contracts; and
WHEREAS: The First Amendment requires generally that government regulation of speech, including speech on signs, must be content neutral; and
WHEREAS: A question exists of whether it is legally permissible for the City to regulate the display of political slogans and logos on the vehicles of such contractors engaged in work for the City; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City Solicitor’s Office on the above legal question and the feasibility of placing a condition in public bidding documents prohibiting such municipal contractors from displaying any signage—other than company markers and contact information—on vehicles; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter by November.

O-4     Oct 15, 2018  Charter Right - Simmons
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: Preliminary results from the April 2018 LiDAR flyover show a staggering 18% relative tree canopy loss in Cambridge since 2009; and
WHEREAS: While all land uses (including public open space) showed a net loss in terms of acres covered, the most significant canopy loss occurred in residential areas; and
WHEREAS: Policy Order #14 from the June 18, 2018 regular meeting of the City Council proposed an amendment to the tree protection ordinance which would better protect trees on private property in a development situation than is currently the case, and the Council voted 5-4 to refer that Order to the Ordinance Committee for a hearing; and
WHEREAS: To date, the Ordinance Committee has not yet scheduled a hearing on this proposed ordinance amendment; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Ordinance Committee schedule a meeting on this proposal as soon as possible and report back to the Council no later than the Nov 19, 2018 meeting; and be it further
ORDERED: That an additional Health and Environment Committee hearing be scheduled as soon as possible to discuss these concerning preliminary results and what can be done to protect our residents from the dangers presented by a swiftly declining canopy cover in our city.

O-6     Oct 15, 2018
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The Economic and University Relations Committee held a hearing on Oct 4, 2018 to continue its investigation of a City-Based Cannabis Social Equity Program; and
WHEREAS: The goal of said hearing was to address continued ambiguities, gain input from the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (MACCC), Massachusetts Recreational Consumer Council (MRCC), Marijuana Policy Trust and the Cambridge Community Development Department, and gather first-hand experience of barriers faced by social equity and economic empowerment applicants for the ultimate purpose of advancing a more thoroughly informed, equity-centered plan, with lucid understanding of the steps and process required for execution; and
WHEREAS: The following questions remained:

• Could the City be required to grant a minimum percentage of licenses to social equity applicants? If yes, what else might be needed to support an efficient and effective City licensing and application process?

• What processes would applicants follow, and what would be the timeline for that process?

• Could the City’s zoning provisions and buffer zones be revised to include businesses owned by women, minorities, veterans and other underrepresented populations, in addition to businesses fitting the current MACCC social equity criteria?

• What sorts of fee waivers and exemptions would be permissible for the City to provide to these applicants?

• Could the City limit the number of licenses granted to medical dispensaries, given the inequity already present in this area of the industry, unless they otherwise meet equity criteria [established by the City per above]?

• What steps could the City take to ensure a sustainable social equity program, and longevity of equitable ownership in the industry within its jurisdiction?

• How will the City and the individual Host Agreements it establishes hold social equity partners accountable to their promised diversity & equity plans?

• Are certain types of regulations and penalties possible; is there existing precedence?

Given that these questions need further scrutiny and clarification; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge is and will continue to be an example of a progressive, innovative City with robust economic opportunity and the resources to support the development and implementation of a well-informed Cannabis Social Equity Program that will, to the best of its ability, seek to promote sustainable equity in the Cambridge Cannabis industry; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and the City Solicitor to investigate the feasibility of the aforementioned queries posed by the Committee; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to include, as part of this investigation, further reference to existing research and the examples of municipal Community Host Agreements since provided by Commissioner Shaleen Title, and result in the construction of a draft template Community Host Agreement for the City of Cambridge for review by the Committee, accommodating wherever possible the suggestions of the Committee and the public; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the Committee on this matter by the date of the next Economic Development and University Relations Committee hearing in November.

O-8     Oct 15, 2018  Charter Right - Devereux
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide a written timeline of what specific steps must take place in order to take a final vote on the Affordable Housing Overlay legislation, and to report back to the City Council on this matter within fourteen business days.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Sept 27, 2018 at 5:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber to receive an update from the Community Development Department on the Affordable Housing Overlay District, an update on the annual Inclusionary Zoning report, and to meet the City Manager’s candidate for the open Cambridge Housing Authority Board position.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chairs of the Housing Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor McGovern; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Khalil Mogassabi, Deputy Director and Chief Planner; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Melissa Peters, Director of Community Planning; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Neal Alpert; Liana Ascolese; Dan Totten; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Mike Johnston, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Peter Daly, Executive Director, Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. (HRI); Deborah Ruhe, Executive Director, Just-A-Start (JAS); Elaine DeRosa; Tina Alu; Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli; Susan Schlesinger; Ken Eisenberg; Andrea Reimer; Jean Hannon; Lee Pedro; James Williamson; Lee Farris; James Wreh; and Chris Wreh.

Councillor Simmons convened the hearing and read from prepared opening remarks. (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Siddiqui stated that ultimately this is about social, racial and economic justice. She stated that this is what motivates the Housing Committee. She noted that it is important to figure out way to make affordable housing more equitable throughout the city. She thanked City staff for their diligent work. She noted that the data is great, and she looks forward to the discussion.

Councillor Simmons introduced Mr. DePasquale. Mr. DePasquale noted that he takes appointments to boards and commissions very seriously. He said that to add Ms. DeRosa’s knowledge, ability and commitment to the City to the Cambridge Housing Authority Board is an incredible asset to the city. He said that he is very pleased to recommend Ms. DeRosa as a candidate for the CHA Board and to forward same to the City Council for its approval.

Mr. Johnston stated that he has worked at CHA for 27 years with a stable board and senior staff. He stated that when Ms. DeRosa put her name into the mix, he was excited because she will make the CHA Board think about what they are doing and why. He said that together with other advocates, there have been some really great programs put together. He said that Ms. DeRosa thinks outside the box and he is honored to have her on the CHA Board.

Elaine DeRosa thanked Ms. DePasquale for his support for this appointment. She said that this opportunity is a wonderful one for her because it is a continuation of the work that CEOC has done. She said that if we cannot stabilize low-income people in the City then they cannot stay in the City. She said that the resources that Cambridge has offered for years to low-income people are critical for people to be able to stabilize and move forward. She said that this will prevent poverty in the next generation. She said that other communities do not have the same approach to housing. She said that it is humbling for her to transition her work from CEOC to the CHA Board.

Mayor McGovern stated that Ms. DeRosa will be a great asset to the CHA Board.

Councillor Zondervan asked how board members are selected and to what extent tenants have any say in this process or other decision-making processes. Mr. Johnston explained that there are 5 board members, with one being appointed by the Governor. He said that the remaining 4 members are recommended by the City Manager to the City Council after being vetted by the Housing Committee. He said that they had a first look at the resumes and they ranked people in the order where they thought they should be. He said that when they saw Ms. DeRosa’s name, she was automatically #1. He noted that this is an open seat. On the board there is a resident commissioner, Victoria Bergland, a commissioner that represents labor, Tony Pini, long-serving member Gerry Clark, and Elaine would be the final member. He said that the City Manager has the final say before submittal of the recommendation to the City Council.

Councillor Toomey stated that this is a great appointment and Ms. DeRosa will do a great job. He is thrilled that she will join the board and he is pleased by this recommendation of the City Manager.

Councillor Simmons asked Ms. DeRosa about strategies that she would enact to try to promote a fairer sense of distribution of affordable housing the community and what actions she might want to take to fight against NIMBYism. Ms. DeRosa said that challenge to the city is NIMBYism. She said that part of the challenges that she has seen is who comes to hearings and whose voices are heard. She said that we must educate the Boards that run the approval process and how they treat speakers in support of projects. She said that sometimes if people show up to a meeting and they are not an abutter then they may be treated as if what you have to say doesn’t matter. She said that if the City only built affordable housing based on who lived next door to it, we wouldn’t have many units at all. She said that we don’t challenge people enough by asking why affordable housing shouldn’t be built in their neighborhood. She said we need to be a united community and bring out other voices that do care about affordable housing. She said that her goal is to work with the CHA Board. She stated that the tenants that live in affordable housing need to feel that they have a place to talk about what is happening. She said that tenants in affordable housing have stories to tell about how their housing has maintained them and have helped some of them gradually move out of poverty. She stated that we must value that perspective. She said that we lost some 3-bedroom units at Jefferson Park because somebody decided those voices urging for 15 feet of grass were deemed more important than those voices urging for additional family-sized units. She said that the original drawings of this site were amazing, but three people came to a hearing, the Zoning Board acted badly, and they took the development plan and turned it upside down and the plan had to change. She said that cannot happen. She said that when tenants stood up they were not valued. She said the neighbors who were opposed to this housing were valued more, and this must stop.

Councillor Simmons asked Ms. DeRosa what she believes are the greatest challenges facing the Cambridge Housing Authority as an organization and the CHA Board, in particular. Ms. DeRosa answered money. She noted that the will of the CHA to get every dime and pump it back into a development is there. She said that we have seen the government walking away from funding. She said that we must look internally for options to help make the CHA and non-profits more able to build.

Mayor McGovern made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager’s recommendation of Elaine DeRosa to the Cambridge Housing Authority Board be forwarded to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

The motion – Passed.

Councillor Simmons invited Ms. Farooq and CDD staff to give their presentation.

Ms. Farooq stated that as the City is nearing the conclusion of the Envision Cambridge process, during the last year there have been several working groups delving into a group of topic areas including housing, mobility, climate, urban form, economy and community well-being. She said that through that process they have developed approximately 150 recommendations that straddle the full spectrum of those topic areas. She said that as the City is starting to flesh out some of the action items, they are looking at implementation of the 150 items to be spread out over the next 5 to 10 years. She said that it is a long-term vision.

She said that the City Council has discussed the notion of an affordable housing overlay district and that is clearly among one of the early action items. She said that Melissa Peters, Project Manager for Envision Cambridge and Director of Community Planning, and the Envision team have been going around the city via community meetings, Danehy Park Day, and a variety of forums to talk about the 3 different zoning strategies analyzed by the Envision team. She said that they are discussing these because they have implications on density and urban form and hence, traffic generation. They are not just about one specific area. These ideas are an overlay district for affordable housing, a super-inclusionary option – which would be a voluntary increase to inclusionary with density incentives – and an incentive for very high environmental performance.

She said that this meeting would focus on the overlay district. Some of the key drivers for the overlay district are to help affordable housing developers be competitive in the Cambridge real estate market, which is increasingly difficult. She said that they are looking at the spread of affordable housing projects throughout the city to create a way to balance the playing field, with the hope that affordable housing developers would not just competitive in certain neighborhoods. She noted that they hope that this proposal will allow for new opportunities in areas where creating new affordable housing is not currently feasible. She noted that a map has been distributed to the committee and public (ATTACHMENT B) that shows where affordable housing currently is located. She explained that the orange side shows the spread of absolute number of units and the pink is the proportion of affordable housing units to the entire housing stock in that area. She said that the dark areas indicate larger number of units and white indicates low percentage and number of units. She said that the final component of this idea is to streamline the permitting process so there is a way for 100% affordable housing projects to proceed more quickly and to avoid lengthy delays that sometimes follow the permitting process. She introduced Melissa Peters.

Melissa Peters gave an overview of the PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Zondervan thanked CDD for the excellent presentation. He made it clear that he came to this country as an immigrant and experienced poverty and housing instability. He said that he has lived in dense areas in Somerville, Arlington, and currently the Wellington-Harrington area which is quite dense and has a lot of affordable housing. He said that he lives a stone’s throw from Newtowne Court and across the street from a major commercial development that he has supported, and which adds to affordable housing funding. He said that he has significant questions about this proposal. He said that he is concerned about the hypothesis that this kind of incentive would actually lead to more diverse placement of affordable housing. He said that his neighborhood is a very diverse neighborhood and he supports and welcomes this notion but he questions if this approach would achieve this because if the commercial corridors and residential neighborhoods at the same time are upzoned to add density and affordable housing, then the opportunity cost of not developing in the commercial area would be so high that most of the development would still occur there. He said that if an affordable housing developer has an opportunity to spend $1 million dollars to build housing, they would get more bang for their buck in the commercial area as opposed to a residential area where they would be competing with high property values. He asked how many units of affordable housing you would expect to end up being developed under this zoning and why would that calculus work out.

Mr. Cotter said that the idea behind this concept is that projects that would rely on public subsidy, which is limited both in terms of resources that the City has and, even more so in the case of the projects that would be expected in the corridors as state resources, would be needed to develop larger buildings in those areas. He said that the City is lucky if they get 1-2 developments funded by the state each year. He said that over the years, smaller projects have advanced in areas across the city, sometimes with only City funding. He said that the idea that the funding is what will be the driver helps to ensure that some of the opportunities in those districts are pursued. He said that they have not been able to fund a feasible homeownership development in about 10 years given the land cost and zoning relief that would be needed. Ms. Farooq added that there have been instances where they have looked at acquisition of property in some of the lower density districts and they have not been able to find a way to make those projects viable. She talked about the Episcopal Divinity School site and said that had there been an overlay at that point, that site may have been feasible, but for that site the density needed was well beyond what was allowed by zoning. She said that it will not open the flood gates but even a few projects will be significant progress toward the goals. She said that the charge from the City Council was a way to look at the whole city and incentivize these projects everywhere. She said that as discussions take place, the final policy choice resides with the City Council. Mr. Cotter added that in terms of projects in the corridors, they are continuing to assess properties and they have looked at roughly 50 different opportunities in the past five years. He said that 3 or 4 have moved forward. He said that in a lot of cases in the corridors, there is competition from private developers. He noted that the sites moving forward are sites that were identified outside of the market.

Councillor Zondervan said that he believes that we should be looking at mandating property for 100% affordable housing development rather than relying on the market and incentives. Regarding land use, Councillor Zondervan said that areas, particularly in West Cambridge, have more tree coverage. He said that the tree canopy is declining in major cities in the United States and part of the reason is because we are trading trees for buildings. He said that if we are looking for a numerical goal, there are other sites to develop that are one-story buildings on Massachusetts Avenue that could be 20-story buildings without decimating the tree canopy. He said that trees benefit all of us. He said that he has trouble with the tradeoff of saying that we are going to deliberately densify areas of the city that are currently providing other ecological services. He said that there are other considerations which are also important for the city that must be factored into decisions.

Mayor McGovern said that if this overlay district would not open the flood gates to new affordable housing development, then he would like to know what would achieve that? He said that he agrees that dispersing affordable housing across the city has many benefits, but this may not result in any additional units than we think we are already going to get. Ms. Schlesinger stated that the Overlay District is a piece in the larger puzzle of providing more affordable units. She said that it is money that will open the floodgates. She said that if you want to build more in the city, and we need $250,000 of public subsidy to build a unit, we need more money from the state and federal government. They are looking for sources of money from Cambridge. She said that without more money, there will not be more units.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that the same presentation was presented to the Planning Board on Tuesday and she asked about the Planning Board’s opinion. Ms. Peters stated that a range of opinions were heard. She said that a majority was concerned with the design review process, and there were some that were concerned with the preservation of the character of the neighborhoods. She said that they also heard from others that they are okay with a change in neighborhood character to address the crisis. Vice Mayor Devereux said that Ms. Farooq alluded to the fact that although the drawings were showing essentially new boxes, existing buildings could be added on. She said that she did not think that it was realistic to think that someone would try to build a separate structure. She said that she does not how this reconciles with areas that have historic conservation district protections. Ms. Farooq said that the additions to existing buildings would be most likely in the larger lots. She said that they are not suggesting that historic review not occur, and that the Historical Commission has in many cases approved development of affordable projects where they are adding onto existing buildings. She said that there have been workable examples but it is more work involved and more complicated. She is confident that non-profit developers are sensitive to the context. She said that the City will have the ability to work with entities to come up with good designs. Vice Mayor Devereux said that she tends to agree with the Planning Board.

Councillor Siddiqui said that when looking back at the goals of the City Council, we are in a crisis and we must make the commitment of affordable housing being the #1 goal of the City Council. She said that at the Planning Board meeting there was a question posed about the fact that the City has a comprehensive permit process and Mr. Cotter said that it does exist, but we have evidence of added cost, lost opportunities, loss of funding commitments, litigation, and she thinks the non-profit developers can also speak to that. She said that this was a good response.

Councillor Mallon thanked the CDD for its diligent work. She said that when thinking about commercial corridors on Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street, she is reminded of the two projects on Massachusetts Avenue currently in development that will be 100% Affordable units. She said that she looks forward to hearing from affordable housing developers to talk about how their processes may have been different if the Affordable Housing Overlay was in existence when these properties were purchased. She said that if we can save money while building more affordable housing then that is the goal. Councillor Mallon asked Ms. Peters about the second bullet under the Design Considerations on Page 29. Ms. Peters explained that cities across the country are facing similar affordability crises. She said that they have some images of modern infill in cities such as Seattle and Portland. She explained that through building technology and design, we can think about how to help maintain the financial viability of the project as well as address other concerns. Councillor Mallon said that there will be fear around this idea and if there is anything innovative that can be done to allay fears, we should do it. She suggested looking to Boston’s Office of New Urban Mechanics Housing Division and how they are bringing information to neighborhoods, particularly with the use of building scale models of the proposed developments and units, which helps people get a much better sense of what potential construction could be coming to their neighborhood.

Councillor Toomey thanked CDD for the presentation. He talked about the affordable housing map that was distributed. He said that all areas and neighborhoods should provide affordable housing. He said that the Cambridge Street corridor holds over 1,000 units and he wants to ensure that affordable housing is spread across the city. He said that there are certain areas that the City should be looking at that have extremely large houses. He asked why the City cannot come up with a program to reach out to the owners of these properties to see if they would consider deeding these residencies to the City for affordable housing. He said that these buildings are well-maintained. He said that we must look at existing buildings and re-adapt the use and number of people who live in these homes. He noted that these properties could house veterans or victims of domestic violence. He said that the purpose is that we must make sure that every neighborhood provides affordable housing. He said that there may be a mechanism where there could be significant tax write-offs for these larger homes. He said he would like more information on this topic.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli said that she hopes that the Housing Committee will recommend that CDD begin drafting zoning language for the Housing Committee to look at. She said that in terms of resources, she stated that the lack of federal funding isn’t the only impediment – she referred to an article she just read that stated that housing legislation simply does not get discussed or debated at the Congressional level, and this is very discouraging. As it relates to homeownership opportunities in the residential neighborhoods, she asked if anyone knows the homeownership rates for people of color in Cambridge. She said that it is 18%. She said that the homeownership rate for Latinos is 13% compared to 40% for whites. She asked what do people really mean when they say that “affordable housing could change neighborhood character”? She stated that she is looking at a study regarding who participates in local government (ATTACHMENT D). She asked if opposition to building affordable housing in neighborhoods is really about the fear of socioeconomic and racial diversity. She said that we must be very direct in talking about concerns and priorities. She said that 80% of Cambridge residents who voted on the 40B ballot question were supportive of keeping 40B. She said that when it comes to comments at the Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeal meetings, only 40% of Cambridge residents lent support to affordable housing projects. She said that at Frost Terrace, the developer spent more than a year with abutters to address their concerns.

Debra Ruhe, Executive Director, Just-A-Start, said that Just-A-Start would like to see this Affordable Housing Overlay plan move forward. She said that Just-A-Start spends a lot of time doing an analysis of properties and trying to make offers. She said that in the past year they attempted to buy properties that they ultimately could not. She said that if they could have done their pro-forma knowing they could create more units by right than in the zoning, it would have been economically viable, but they couldn’t go forward because they did not have that assurance. She said that they are often beat out by the market. She said that over and over it happens to JAS and this would allow more flexibility and ease to find properties. She stated that she lives very close to the corridor on Massachusetts Avenue in North Cambridge. She stated that as a homeowner, she was initially worried about the Trolley Square project when it was proposed as it relates to parking and traffic in the neighborhood. She said that she was pleased to learn that is has turned out fine in that regard. She said that she welcomes the prospect of more density if the alternative is the struggling storefronts of local businesses that failed in that area.

Peter Daly stated that the Affordable Housing Overlay is a very important initiative. He said that this is not going to be the tsunami of affordable housing that some hope for because it is the money that is the limiting factor. He said that, nevertheless, this is another tool in the tool kit. He noted that if we can reduce acquisition cost, that will make organizations like his more competitive in the market. This approach makes sense. As it relates to design review, the non-profits take this very seriously. He stated that they want community support. He said that every funding source also has their own design review that they must go through. Everyone is looking at design review because everyone wants something that the residents will be proud of.

Mayor McGovern thanked CDD for their presentation. He said that Councillor Siddiqui spoke about affordable housing being consistently talked about as a top concern of the City Council. He said that he expects that there will be a lot of tweaking in the proposal. He said that as it relates to the Planning Board, there was concern about preserving the character of West Cambridge. He said that the neighborhoods that have affordable housing also have character. He stated that the City has been reluctant to have conversations because it is ok to do things to certain neighborhoods but not others. He said that this must stop. He said that this conversation will be one of the most important decisions that the City Council will make because it will set the tone on who we want to live in the city. He said that if we do not move forward with a plan to incentivize affordable housing, what are we saying about who we want to be. He said that change can be anxiety-provoking, but it does not have to be bad. He said that instead of thinking about negative things that will impact our lives, we should think about what it will mean to live in a vibrant, diverse and inclusive neighborhood. He said that he looks forward to the conversation. He said that he is not in total agreement with everything in the plan, but it needs to be done.

Councillor Simmons said that for planning future committee hearings, it would be helpful for CDD to provide a general timeline of when CDD’s work on the overlay legislation will be completed and what specific steps are needed to pass it to a final vote by the City Council. She said that this would help the committee better understand how much time it has to work with. She noted that this response can be in memo form.

Councillor Siddiqui made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide a written timeline of what specific steps must take place in order to take a final vote on the Affordable Housing Overlay legislation, and to report back to the City Council on this matter within fourteen business days.

The motion - passed.

Councillor Simmons stated that she and Councillor Siddiqui will work with the Deputy City Clerk to schedule a hearing to continue this conversation.

Councillor Simmons invited Ms. Farooq to introduce the 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report (ATTACHMENT E).

Ms. Farooq introduced the 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report. She said that in this CDD has enhanced the focus on the “people” side of the report. She noted that page 15 of the report reflects that request. She said that they added more information about residents in the inclusionary units, where people were before entering the program, denials and information about the homeownership part of the program.

Councillor Simmons said that she and Co-Chair Siddiqui will work with the Deputy City Clerk to schedule another hearing so that the Committee can read through the 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report and, if possible, gather questions for CDD in advance.

Councillor Simmons said that regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay, she thought it was solely in the purview of CDD and she wondered how Utile was instead chosen to work on this concern. Ms. Farooq responded that CDD realized that this is a significant citywide change and with any citywide change, there must be a significant amount of public process around it. She noted that Utile was already conducting that public process through the Envision Cambridge process and the notion that the Overlay was also coming up (through the work of Envision Cambridge’s Housing Working Group) led to the idea that it would be prudent to combine the two. She said that as the CDD had tried previously to flesh out what an Affordable Housing Overlay would look like, there were two pieces that they were struggling with in terms of capacity; one was the need for expertise related to development economics, and the other was the need to have a sense of what the dimensional changes would look like in order to meet the higher density the City Council had discussed. Since the Envision Cambridge team includes a respected development consultant, it was felt that this was a great opportunity to take their knowledge to help get the answers to these two pieces, and it seemed like a logical connection to work with Utile as they could help consider and demonstrate the form of additional density and how it would look in neighborhood contexts. Councillor Simmons questioned if the process was slowed down because it was now intertwined with the Envision Cambridge process, and she also lamented that the City Council was not consulted about the outsourcing of this work.

Councillor Simmons asked what impact, if any, would there be on the Affordable Housing Overlay District from the various other Overlay districts, such as the Flood Plains Overlay District and the Central Square Arts Overlay District. She questioned if work can be done on these items without impeding the work toward completing the Affordable Housing Overlay District. She asked about the potential impact on the City’s ability to create new housing if all the overlay districts are enacted. She questioned if there would be a cumulative effect that would essentially create impossible conditions for new development. She questioned if the various overlay districts can co-exist without imposing undue and untenable constraints on the City’s ability to consider new development. She stated that she would like a response to these questions at the next Housing Committee meeting.

Councillor Simmons opened Public Comment at 7:14pm.

Ken Eisenberg stated that he has heard so much about NIMBY. He threw out the word YIMBY – He said that said that he went to Roxbury First Church that put on an event called the Peoples Housing Assembly. He said that one of the three goals are 50% Affordable, 50% Market for new construction. He said that we must consider this because if we can find a way to satisfy the various points of view, it will be by changing the market dynamics. He said that if you lower the market, you can raise the possibility of more affordable units. He said that the Baker Housing Choice Bill they are projecting 136,000 units by 2025. He said that their projection is 90% market and 10% affordable.

Lee Farris submitted written comments (ATTACHMENT F) and stated that she is on the Envision Housing working group. She said that the idea for a citywide affordable housing overlay was something that was discussed in that group. She said that she generally she supports the idea, but she has several concerns. She said that the units that would result in areas would be a different size and type of affordable housing than is currently happening in the city. That variety becoming accessible to tenants that need affordable housing would be more economically and racially fair to that group of people. She said that this might result in more affordable home ownership. She said that the maps and breakout by neighborhood in the Housing Distribution analysis (ATTACHMENT G) are good arguments for the overlay. She said that many of these neighborhoods, before the increase in housing prices, used to be more diverse. She said that the racial and economic diversity that could result from the overlay would get neighborhoods back where they used to be. She said that she does not want to see the overlay result in tearing down older buildings. She said that the City should focus on adding to and modifying existing buildings. She noted that she would love the report to show examples of that. She said that under current zoning, a large house can be redeveloped as luxury condos. She said that with an affordable housing overlay, that a big house could be redeveloped as a higher number of affordable units that current residents could afford. She does not want to see mature trees destroyed. We would like proposal to state prioritization of trees as it relates to housing. We need to protect trees one year before a property is sold. She said that she would like the overlay to require some percent of family sized units.

Lee Pedro stated that she lives in affordable housing. She said that she represents low-income people that do not understand the intricacies of this work. She said that she represents people that barely make their rent and who also are an important part of this community. She asked for more large units for families, and that voices like hers be given more consideration and respect in these discussions.

Public Comment closed at 7:26pm on the motion of Mayor McGovern.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that it is absolutely a priority of the City Council to figure out how to get more affordable housing and have it be better distributed across the city. She suggested that if the discussion is to be productive, it is important not to characterize anyone with labels such as some of the people at tonight’s meeting have done, however well-intentioned they may have been. She said that making assumptions will not be helpful to bring people together over a shared mission.

Councillor Simmons talked about the diversity training that was recently undertaken. She reminded all present about the old saying that advises, “diversity is being invited to the party, but inclusion is being asked to dance.” She said that housing is asking people to dance. She said that we are all working towards one goal. She said that as we think about housing, we must look through the lens of diversity and inclusion.

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

The hearing adjourned at 7:31pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair
Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Co-Chair

Committee Report #2
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Sept 12, 2018 at 4:03pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the Storefront Vacancies Best Practices report recommendations, and any other updates from the Retail Strategy Report.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Siddiqui, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Carlone; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Khalil Mogassabi, Deputy Director of Community Planning and Chief Planner; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director; Pardis Saffari, Senior Economic Development Specialist; Christina DiLisio, Economic Development Department, Community Development Department (CDD); David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; Jason Weeks, Executive Director, Cambridge Arts Council; Wil Durbin, Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern; Liana Ascolese; Sarah Stillman; Matt McLaughlin; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Jason Alves, Executive Director, East Cambridge Business Association (ECBA); Tim Stein; Alex Rosala; Laura Donohue; Sai Boddupalli; Syed Ali; Robert Winters; Adriane Musgrave, Cambridge Local First; Faye Mittleman; Ned Hinkle; and Judith Nathans.

Councillor Siddiqui convened the hearing and read call of the meeting. She then read from a prepared written Opening Statement (ATTACHMENT A) which was followed by an overview of the hearing’s agenda (ATTACHMENT B).

Ms. Farooq stated that she is proud of the work that has been done on the retail strategy implementation. She said Ms. Saffari will give an update on basic principles of what has been done currently as well as what will be done in the future. She noted that the Senior Manager position has been posted and whose principle role will be to continue forward the work of the retail strategy implementation. She introduced Ms. Saffari.

Ms. Saffari gave an overview of the PowerPoint presentation titled Retail Strategic Plan Update Storefront Vacancies Best Practices (ATTACHMENT C).

Lisa Hemmerle said that Cambridge’s article on the Retail Strategic Plan is on the front cover of the Massachusetts Chapter of American Planning Association. She said that the Economic Development Department is being awarded as a Community Partner of the Year by the Center for Women and Enterprise. She noted that the Storefront Improvement Program has been recognized two years in a row in the Top 25 programs of Ash Center for Innovation in Government. She added that another award will be received in the near future for the Retail Strategic Plan for Planning Excellence on Oct 25, 2018. She noted that a lot of work that is being done by the Economic Development Department is being recognized. Ms. Hemmerle then continued the PowerPoint presentation by giving an overview of the Storefront Vacancies Best Practices (ATTACHMENT D). Ms. Hemmerle closed the presentation portion of the hearing by giving a brief overview of the July/August 2018 Cambridge Ground Floor Vacancy Database (ATTACHMENT E).

Councillor Siddiqui said that she has received questions about the legal issue and the trouble with triple net leases. She said that she is happy to hear that we are using CDBG money to provide support. She asked if the city is working with a firm. Pardis Saffari explained that the program is CDBG funded and they work with different consultants to provide assistance. Specifically, they also work with NewLeaf Legal, LLC. Councillor Siddiqui added that the Harvard Transactional Legal Aid Clinic wants to do more in Cambridge. She said that this partnership would be great as this could be a great resource. She said that she would like a list of service providers as a resource.

Councillor Siddiqui asked what some of the barriers have been for pop-ups. Ms. Hemmerle responded that the biggest issues has been insurance. She said that if you want to put artwork in a vacant storefront, the property owner has to ensure that this artwork is insured. She said that this is usually a private transaction between the property owner and the pop-up artist.

Councillor Carlone said that district assessments are a fabulous idea. He asked what the expansion of the Storefront Improvement program will look like. Ms. Hemmerle responded that it will be and expansion from a budgetary standpoint. She said that they are continuing to find that this program is fully subscribed. Councillor Carlone affirmed that the transformation of one storefront or façade can be amazing. Ms. Peterson noted that Senator DiDomenico was able to get in the Economic Development Bond Bill a large amount of money for the storefront improvements on Cambridge Street. She said that when the money is issued, it will be a great opportunity for the small businesses on Cambridge Street. Ms. Farooq asserted that in the FY19 budget there will be a larger allocation than has been seen in past years. Ms. Farooq said that they have begun to make inroads at the city level but the two are connected, the funding as well as the number of storefronts that can be improved. She said that when the Storefront Improvement program was started in the late 90’s, it was a Cambridge Street focused program and it was incredible to see how it was initially a few storefronts and then eventually the whole street was transformed. As it relates to the barriers for pop-ups, she noted the importance of digging deeper to understand what the barriers at the next level are and then see if any of those things are controlled by the city and can be eliminated. She noted that a good parallel is the Food Truck program wherein when the city embarked upon this program, there were many conversations to figure out how to solve issues that would be barriers to entry. She said that streamlining that process has shown to be successful.

Councillor Carlone said that on site specific and district level causes for vacancies, nine different items were mentioned. He said that it would be great to understand the percentage. He said that if there is one primary cause for each, if it is possible, it may help to understand where to go. He said that regarding fees and fines not likely to work on large property owners, he said that we can get the money and put it into storefronts or into the block of buildings of the neighbors that are impacted by the empty storefront. He said that he has no problem with that. Councillor Siddiqui said the report says that any fee that we enact can only be used to cover administration costs and could not go towards revenue. Ms. Farooq said that it is not just that it would not impact the large and medium size property owners, it would impact the small property owners who are the ones that you might not want to hurt. She said that this is something to keep in mind as we think about this. Ms. Hemmerle said that the other issue is that if a property owner feels pressured and does not want to deal with the bureaucratic process, they may be more inclined to pick a formula-based business and pick the credit-worthy tenant instead of remaining vacant and waiting for the local tenant. She said that we must be thoughtful on how to institute something like that. Mr. Goldberg said that under state law, any fee charged by a municipality can only cover actual costs of the municipality incurred at offering whatever the services it is being charged for. He said that the city can also fine so there are fees and fines, which are separate. He said that fines do not have to be related to the city’s actual cost.

Councillor Siddiqui said that it irks her that there are institutional investors who are making money. She said that there is a difference between investors and small business owners. She said that the City Council has asked about fines and fees in the past, but it would be great to know who the “culprits” are. She said that property that has been vacant for 6-10 years is different from a property that has been vacant for one year.

Councillor Mallon asked what percentage of the 4% are institutional investors that are using the tax write off. She thanked CDD for putting this presentation together. She said that she is excited about these strategies and things that can be done moving forward to help the small businesses. She asked if it is correct that there are 33 total vacancies. Ms. Saffari said that as of July/August, there were ground floor vacancy at 33 spaces. Councillor Mallon asked if this encompasses the entire city or specific regional areas. Ms. Saffari said that they concentrated on major commercial districts and went into some of the smaller districts, but they are trying to keep list of all vacancies as much as possible. Councillor Mallon said that in terms of the building wrap idea, she said she is very excited. She said that &Pizza has a building wrap and it now has a different feel compared to when it did not have a building wrap. She asked if artists are getting paid for this service. Ms. Hemmerle said that the call for artists is in draft form and they do have a fee that will be paid to the artists for their art and copyright privileges to be able to have them replicated on a regular basis by a lot of the property owners around the city.

Councillor Mallon asked about licensing and permitting. She said that it is a big hurdle for small business owners. She said that they talk about the lack of capacity in the Inspectional Services Department and she asked if one of the recommendations will be adding capacity and staff to the Inspectional Services Department. Ms. Hemmerle said that she cannot speak to direct capacity at the Inspectional Services Department. She did state, however, that when working with the food trucks, they realized that they were running into very specific hurdles and they were able to work with the License Commission to move a process from a public hearing to an administrative hearing to smooth out the process. She said that as they are running into specific issues with businesses, they can make recommendations to colleagues to adjust and streamline processes. She said that they work with other departments to streamline processes. Ms. Farooq said that as the specific issues become evident, a conversation will take place amongst department heads if it is due to a staffing issue. Mr. DePasquale stated that there have been numerous meetings to figure out how to do a better job and if more staff is needed he is committed to make it work.

Councillor Mallon asked if there is a target end date for the Table of Uses. Ms. Farooq responded that the Economic Development team and the Zoning team have started work on this as well as working with the City Solicitor’s Office. She said that they are actively working on the Table of Uses and it is a priority. She said that it is her hope to bring the City Council something in the next few months.

Councillor Mallon stated that she supports two specific strategies: a small business liaison and a tool such as Boston’s ZoningCheck.com that was referenced that is a tool that Boston uses and could be used in Cambridge.

As it relates to the ground floor vacancy database, Councillor Zondervan asked if the duration of the vacancy will be tracked. Pardis Saffari said that they do not always have that information available. She said that because it could be inaccurate, it has not been advertised. Councillor Zondervan said that it would be helpful to include this information in the report. He said that in conclusion of the report it speaks to an expansive toolkit of strategies and he asked if that includes a vacant storefront ordinance or not. Ms. Hemmerle responded that they are trying to stay with the direction that is being taken is that based on the report, there are no actual metrics to say that the ordinance will move the needle on reducing vacancies. She said that a lot of the vacant storefront or property ordinances were a knee-jerk reaction to the mortgage crisis and they were really directed toward housing. She said that the ones specifically directed at storefronts have not been great about collecting their metrics to see if they are having an impact on vacancy reductions. She said that the City of Cambridge is hoping to take a few months to attempt these strategies and take an internal look at internal barriers to pop-ups and then see if through these processes the City has moved the needle.

Councillor Siddiqui said it would be great to have a further discussion on how to minimize the 33 vacancies and how to get this number lower. She said that it is a good idea to wait and see but in the interim, gather as much data about the institutional investors.

Mr. Reardon said that 5% is a healthy vacancy. He said that there are reasons that vacancies exist such as a business is transitioning, waiting for another store next door to vacate so they can be added together, etc. He said that some of it is healthy vacancy in creating a better and more vibrant Cambridge by changing over some of these retail spots.

In response to a question regarding high asking rents that are passed onto the tenant, Mr. Reardon stated that the City has met with the Department of Revenue (DOR) on an idea that the City has come up with and the DOR considered it a very unique idea. He said that in the beginning they were favorable, but the winds have changed and they are less favorable currently. He said that this could be something that could potentially be done via Home Rule. He said that he was more hopeful than he is currently on a statewide initiative so he believes it will be necessary to accomplish via Home Rule legislation.

Mr. Riordan said that the City came up with potentially allowing that if a landlord and a tenant had a long-term relationship or entered into a relationship with below-market rents, the Assessing Department could somehow use the below-market rent as the assessed value rent. He said that currently the Assessing Department currently uses market rents. He said that they would set up what is basically an exemption form that the tenant and landlord would enter, and it could be policed in this way.

Councillor Siddiqui asked if there is a way to inform people what is coming into a vacant property. Ms. Saffari said that the business association often tell her what is coming into a vacant location. She said that oftentimes if the City is able to develop a relationship with a leasing agent or property owner, if the lease is not fully under agreement, they may share that information. She said when a new tenant is going to the License Department, it is usually a good sign that someone is coming to a neighborhood. She said that otherwise, it is very rare that a property owner will share that information.

Councillor Carlone asked if all of the districts will be in the quarterly report as they are not in this report. Ms. Farooq responded that that they are just realizing that they missed some information and they will fully update the presentation on the website and forward the revised link to the members. Councillor Siddiqui added that she has seen this information and they specifically talked about it at the Porter Square Neighborhood Association meeting over the summer.

Jason Alves stated that as it relates to the small business challenge, the ECBA has some success and they geared applications and tackled the challenge with pop-ups. He said that landlords are reluctant to get involved with a lease with a pop-up because they are trying to find long-term tenants. He said that this is one of the challenges, so they tried to make it less complicated where they had local businesses create art installations that were intended to be temporary, so they could go and talk to the landlords to open a dialogue regarding hosting one of the art installations. He said that so far they have landed two installations with a third going up by the end of the month. He said that part of this was improving storefronts, part was opening a dialogue with landlords to find out what their challenges are and to promote the good things that are happening in Inman Square. He added that another challenge with popups is insurance. He said other concerns are the legalities when entering agreements. He questioned if there is a way that the city can help in a use agreement.

Public Comment opened at 5:08pm.

Adriane Musgrave stated that Cambridge Local First (CLF) is excited about the potential changing of assessment structures which would help small business owners tremendously. She said that they are excited about the small business liaison position. She said that she is pleased to see the work that has been undertaken as it relates to vacant storefronts. She said that in looking at the solutions that have been presented, CLC is a little concerned that they may not be sustainable over the long run. She said that CLC would like to learn more about policies, processes, structures and how they will be built in. She said that the vacancies make a big impression on the neighborhoods where they are located. She noted that a targeted plan would help business owners understand the reason that something that is not going in is a good reason. She said that having a vacancy for 1+ years is moving to an unacceptable range.

Robert Winters said that he lives on a mixed-use residential commercial walk, and not long ago almost every single storefront was vacant except for the coffee shop. He said that he is curious about how many vacant storefronts are only viable to Rock and Roll Daycares type businesses which are basically the only thing that is economically viable under this environment. He said that there is one potential unintended consequence of addressing the problem of vacant storefronts with pop-ups. He said that if the pop-up retail duplicates a brick and mortar establishment who is paying a significant rent, this could be competition for an existing business which could potentially create another vacancy. He said that great care should be taken to ensure that a pop-up does not end up doing harm.

Laura Donahue, owner of Bob Slate Stationer, stated that she would appreciate an analysis that the City links its efforts to the process of approving developments, particularly large developments. She said that Bob Slate Stationer used to be the residents of 1975 Massachusetts Avenue and it is now four vacant storefronts. She said that this development has been completed for some time. She said that she is unsure what was promised to those developers. She said that permits must be issued with a more detailed understanding of the financial viability of the retail storefront that they are promising. She said that at some point, as we look at vacant storefronts we should also look at dead storefronts which are storefronts of banks that are not retail and become dark at 4:00pm or 5:00pm and appear dead.

Fay Mittleman stated that she is concerned about the amount of businesses that are closing. She asked who permits owners of businesses to have a tax write-off. She asked if this can be stopped. She questioned what part, if any, that banks play in this. She said that if there has been thought to when an owner tends to raise the rent that they would have to register with the city. She asked what the City can do to prevent this from happening because we do not want to be a ghost town in terms of businesses.

Ned Hinkle, Brattle Theater, stated that he would be more than happy to be involved with pop-up situations as they are excited about the idea of pop-ups, both cultural and retail. He said that it is his hope that the materials that are being worked on will include a way to register that says that arts organizations or individual vendors could be involved as well as some way to register to be contacted in the future.

Fay Mittleman said that she is concerned about how Harvard can help and not hinder what is happening.

Sai Boddupalli, Central Square Business Association, stated that he thinks that people tend to forget what a pop-up location is. He said that if we draw the right type of pop-ups to vacant storefronts, they can go on to have successful businesses in the area.

Public comment closed at 5:22pm.

Robert Reardon stated that during Public Comment a question was asked about what effect pop-ups would have on surrounding stores. He stated that the city is very aware of this issue. He said that any pop-up has to work in conjunction with the business community to ensure that it is a good fit and not taking anything away from the existing storefronts. He said that they are looking at pop-ups that would help the surrounding retail businesses.

Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Reardon if it would make sense to grab surrounding communities and reach out as a region when the City potentially promotes a differential assessment and considers going to the state for Home Rule legislation. Mr. Reardon said that it is more difficult because each community would have to file their own Home Rule legislation. Councillor Carlone said that he was told that the State has never given Home Rule on taxes. Mr. Reardon said that the State looks unfavorably on it, but the City is hoping that this is a unique exemption that might gain favor.

Councillor Siddiqui said that during Public Comment, it was mentioned about the fact that the labor involved in engaging property owners and she was reminded of a Policy Order that the City Council saw in the spring that asked about the feasibility of requiring property owners to inform the City of vacant property. She asked if this is sustainable. Ms. Hemmerle responded that this has been an evaluation period and they are approaching this as opening the door to say to owners that the City wants to work together to activate your property. Ms. Saffari added that one thing that has been effective is that people are now calling her. She said that they can start building relationships. Ms. Farooq added that the database is not just punitive, it is helpful for the work the Economic Development Department does on a daily basis.

Councillor Mallon said that she was excited about hoodstarter.com where people in the neighborhood could suggest stores that they would like to see in vacant locations. Ms. Hemmerle. said that it is a great tool and as they work through the database and are able to include zoning for the area, it would be a neat intersection and will be explored over the next coming months.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she looks forward to additional discussions and updates.

Councillor Siddiqui thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:33pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Chair