CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to new appointments and reappointments of members of the Council on Aging Board, effective Nov 8, 2021.
Placed on File 9-0

Nov 8, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of new appointments and reappointments of members of the Council on Aging Board, effective Nov 8, 2021:

New Appointments:

Provider Representatives (2-year terms)

Kathy L. Dalton
Ms. Dalton is the current director of the Living Well Network-LWN (formerly known as the Agassiz Baldwin Community). The COA and LWN have similar missions and we have worked well together. Ensuring that older residents of the City have access to high quality enrichment programs, activities, and services. Ms. Dalton has 25+ years of experience working for nonprofit organizations and boards. She is community oriented and is interested in better coordination between programs serving the City’s older residents. She will be an asset to the COA Board.

Mary DeCourcey
Ms. DeCourcey is the Director of Community Benefits at Mt. Auburn Hospital. Having her would be an excellent opportunity for the hospital to stay informed about the needs of the older population and help to respond to those needs. Ms. DeCourcey has been coordinating various health seminars with various providers, assisting the COA to enrich its programming offerings. She has experience on other non-profit boards. She will work with the COA to keep the older community informed on the health and social needs and provide resources when available.

Stephanie Becker-Stone
Ms. Becker-Stone is the current Director of Clinical Services at Somerville Cambridge Elder Services (SCES). She is a licensed social worker and previously held the position of Protective Services Director at SCES. She has been a helpful community partner in supporting and advocating on behalf of older adults. She has an interest in addressing housing insecurity and addressing behavioral health needs of older adults, which often intersects with housing concerns. She will be an asset to the COA Board.

Community Representatives: (3-year term)

James M. Bennett
Mr. Bennett has recently moved to Cambridge from New York. He has a long and diverse background including university teaching; customer relations; and consulting. He is interested in being involved in his new community. His interests are centered around heath related issues that older adults encounter and most especially assistance in navigating the maze of health care.

Reappointment:

Community Representatives (3-year terms):

Lois Carra
Ms. Carra has been a long serving Board member. She has expressed interest in renewing her position on the Board. Especially during this time of new membership appointments. She has been an active Board member and active participant in various classes and program offerings. She is a retired psychotherapist, and her insight and advocacy regarding mental health disorders in older adults is an asset.

Pearl Hines
Ms. Hines is a resident homeowner and passionate on the issue of seniors aging in place. She has served on the Board and continues to be interested and wishes to be reappointed. She is an active participant of the Senior Center and her priorities are on health and wellness programs and affordable housing. She is also a current member of Councillor Simmons’ Senior Advisory Council.

Lily Owyang
Ms. Owyang has served on the Board for the past 6 years and is the current Board President. She has been an active participant at the Senior Center and an advocate for senior issues. During her professional career, Ms. Owyang served in a variety of teaching and administrative positions in colleges and universities. In her retirement, she continues to write, teach, and serve as a consultant to higher education institutions. She is very interested in continuing her work on the Board, especially during this time of member transition.

Eva J. Paddock
Ms. Paddock has completed one term on the COA Board and has expressed interest in being reappointed. She is a long-term Cambridge resident who has worked as a teacher and principal in the Cambridge Public Schools. Ms. Paddock has an interest around the issues of elder mental health and elder homelessness.

Beverly Sealey, PhD MSW
Dr. Sealey has expressed interest on continuing to serve on the COA Board. A long time Cambridge resident, she has a strong desire to “give back” to her community. She is a clinical social worker, and has provided casework/counseling services to children, adolescence, and family. She recently retired as an Associate Professor, teaching social welfare policy and advocacy and social action courses at Simmons College, School of Social Work. She earned a Doctorate of Philosophy. Her dissertation focused on Race and Disparities in Sentencing in the Criminal Justice System in Massachusetts, Among Black and White Men. Dr. Sealey has expressed interest in advocating for the protection of older adults, specifically regarding abuse and self-neglect. She will be a strong advocate for older adults and therefore an asset to the Board.

Provider Representative (2-year terms):

Jennifer Chisholm
Ms. Chisholm is employed at CASCAP, Inc. since 2008. She and other staff of CASCAP are now under the employment of the Cambridge Housing Authority. She is a service coordinator in the Cambridge senior housing buildings and is an advocate for seniors. Ms. Chisholm works with seniors and tenants with disabilities and assists with various issues such as counseling, housing related issues, and access to benefits. She is very interested in continuing her work on the Board.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of new members of the Biosafety Committee for a term of 5 years, effective Nov 8, 2021.
Placed on File 9-0

Nov 8, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the new appointments to the Cambridge Biosafety Committee, for a term of 5 years, effective Nov 8, 2021:

Cara Conway
Ms. Conway has been a Cambridge resident for 15-years and has worked in the biotech sector as a bench scientist responsible for compliance with many of the practices the Biosafety Committee review and require of permit holders, including biological and hazardous material safety. She brings practical scientific training and experience to the work of the Committee.

Mary Corrigan
Mr. Corrigan is a long-term Cambridge resident and have been actively attending Cambridge Biosafety Committee meetings for the past few years. Through her work, she is familiar with the Cambridge Lab Biosafety Ordinances, fire prevention regulations, and environmental and safety regulations affecting biotechnology research and labs. As a Certified Industrial Hygienist, Mr. Corrigan has decades of experience performing hazard assessments and controls. She also holds a Master of Science in Environmental Science/Environmental Health Management from Harvard School of Public Health.

Dr. Susan Woskie, PhD
Dr. Woskie is a Professor Emeritus at UMass Lowell, Department of Public Health where she has taught since 1990. She has been a member of the American Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene since 2004 and has published hundreds of Journal Articles in biosafety related matters. Dr. Woskie has a strong research interest in Occupational and Environmental Exposure Assessment and Exposure Science: Methods for estimating personal exposures in occupational and environmental settings; Methods for sampling and analysis of personal exposures to chemicals and noise; Biomarkers and dose modeling; Statistical analysis of exposure data and evaluation of environmental and process factors for predicting and controlling workplace exposures; Exposure assessments for epidemiologic studies. Her experience and expertise will be welcomed by the Committee.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-84 regarding BEUDO (Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance) proposed amendments. [CDD Memo] [current draft] [City Solicitor opinion]
Referred to Health & Environment Committee 9-0

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. Ordinance #2021-24 (Oct 25, 2021 Order #3) That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor and the appropriate staff to review the language of this proposed ordinance amendment (gas pump labeling) and to report back to the City Council in advance of the next City Council meeting. [Passed to a 2nd Reading Oct 25, 2021; To Be Ordained on or after Nov 8, 2021]
Ordained as Amended 8-0-1 (Carlone - ABSENT)

ORDINANCE #2021-24 - FINAL PUBLICATION
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE
In the Year Two Thousand and Twenty-One
AN ORDINANCE
In amendment to the Ordinance entitled “Cambridge Municipal Code.”

That Chapter 8.12.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code be amended to delete section 8.12.010(B).

That Chapter 8.12 of the Cambridge Municipal Code be amended to insert a new section 8.12.030 - Fuel Dispensing System Warning Labels to read as follows:

Each fuel dispensing system shall display a clear warning label explaining that burning gasoline, diesel and ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment, including contributing to climate change. The text, image, or graphics of this warning label shall be approved by the City Manager.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Nov 8, 2021  Amended; Charter Right Sobrinho-Wheeler
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: On Saturday, Nov 13, 2021, the City plans to open a brand new, 20,000 square foot Universal Design Playground located in Danehy Park; and
WHEREAS: Efforts to design the new Universal Design Playground began in November 2018 with City Manager Louis A. DePasquale announcing an initial allocation of $500,000 for the venture, followed by the appointment of a focus group and community meetings where the design proposals were shared with the public; and
WHEREAS: Universal Design playgrounds, also known as inclusive playgrounds, are “…sensory-rich environment[s] that enable children to develop physically, socially and emotionally,” and the new playground in Cambridge has been inspired by similar playgrounds, such as the one located in Charlestown named after the late Boston Mayor Thomas Menino; and
WHEREAS: The City has now invested $5.8 million to transform what was previously an underutilized grassy area in Danehy Park into a place where all children, including those in wheelchairs, can come from across our City to play, to enjoy the fresh air and each other’s company, and to experience the very best that Cambridge has to offer; and
WHEREAS: City Manager Louis A. DePasquale has been committed to bringing this new Universal Design Playground to fruition, and to ensuring community involvement and engagement throughout the process; and
WHEREAS: The Universal Playground is being officially opened mere months before Mr. DePasquale is scheduled to conclude his term as City Manager, capping off an over 45-year career with the City; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record requesting that the forthcoming new Universal Design Playground located in Danehy Park be named the Louis A. DePasquale Universal Design Playground.

O-2     Nov 8, 2021  Amended
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: Cambridge is in the process of constructing a universal playground at Danehy Park; and
WHEREAS: This playground will provide accessible equipment and space for children with sensory and physical challenges; and
WHEREAS: This playground will be a tremendous asset to all children, those with sensory and physical challenges and those without; and
WHEREAS: This playground, as great as it will be, is only in one location in the city; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge is home to dozens of playgrounds throughout the city, many of which do not have accessible equipment; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the appropriate City departments, as well as the Commission of Persons with Disabilities and the Special Education Parents Advisory Council, to develop a plan to install fully accessible equipment in every playground throughout the city; and be it further
ORDERED: That as playgrounds are being renovated or newly built, the needs of children with sensory and physical challenges be taken into consideration in the design of these playgrounds so that every child has the opportunity to enjoy these play spaces.

O-3     Nov 8, 2021
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Americans lost nearly $30 billion to phone scams last year and the number of scam attempts is steadily increasing; and
WHEREAS: Many seniors in Cambridge have been the victim of successful scam calls and have expressed concern about the number of calls increasing; and
WHEREAS: Theft from seniors in this form is preventable if the proper training and resources are provided; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with relevant departments and housing agencies to ensure all seniors have access to scam prevention materials and training; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council in  timely manner.

O-4     Nov 8, 2021  Charter Right - Toomey
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey - PRESENT) on Nov 15, 2021
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: In 1979, the City of Cambridge Community Development Department created the Alewife Revitalization plan, intended to fill the Fresh Pond - Alewife area with a mix of residential, business, and industrial structures (as shown in the attached graphic); and
WHEREAS: Forty years later, the 2019 Envision Alewife plan still visualizes Alewife as a mixed-use district, with development promoting the creation of good-paying, low barrier-to-entry jobs, and additional housing with no lab uses (as shown in the attached graphic); and
WHEREAS: Over two years the City Council debated an upzoning petition for part of the Quad area that included some housing, some retail, and some office/lab space which was voted down out of concerns that it was not aligned fully with the areawide vision as articulated in the plans, and a commitment to connections was uncertain; and
WHEREAS: The climate resiliency issues in this district are important, and this area is the subject of discussions by various departments, committees and task forces, with increasing urgency due to the rapid changes in climate leading to a need for more urgent and aggressive actions in this flood prone area with the visions consistently showing the need for a pond or water retention system/green corridor; and
WHEREAS: In the past two months, Denver real estate investment firm Healthpeak Properties has spent close to $400 million in this part of Cambridge, purchasing to date 19 separate parcels as outlined in the attached chart; and
WHEREAS: All of these purchases are located in the Alewife “Quad” area, where Cambridge has planned a variety of different developments. Future purchases from HealthPeak Properties are expected since an additional LLC, LS Alewife IV, was created and has not yet acquired property, while LS Alewife V has; and
WHEREAS: HealthPeak is known for owning and developing real estate mostly in the healthcare industry, including medical offices and labs; and
WHEREAS: The original plan for Alewife included some office space and labs, though expected a wide variety of development; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge continues to struggle with housing affordability and availability, and therefore housing must be an integral part of all future development; and
WHEREAS: Long-needed public infrastructure, including pedestrian and bicycle connections through and across the district, a rail stop for those commuting to and from the area, publicly accessible open spaces, and urgent municipal needs such as DPW and Fire Department facilities, remains lacking; and
WHEREAS: City staff has not produced new zoning for the district in line with the plans, including the recent Alewife Envision Plan; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That Article 20.90 - Alewife Overlay Districts 1-6 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance be amended to insert a new section entitled Section 20.94.3 - Temporarily prohibited uses to read as follows:

“No Office or Laboratory Uses as listed in Table 4.34 - Office and Laboratory Use shall be permitted within Alewife Overlay Districts 1-6 until December 31, 2023, or until such time as new Alewife District zoning is ordained by the Cambridge City Council, whichever shall be sooner.

“Such new district zoning shall be created in consultation with neighborhood residents from throughout the Alewife District and from each bordering district, including Cambridge Highlands, North Cambridge, Neighborhood Nine, and West Cambridge.

“Specifically, such new district zoning shall be guided by the vision, goals, existing studies, and recommendations contained in the City publications Alewife District Plan:

A report of the Alewife Planning Study Fall 2019 and Alewife Design Guidelines Fall 2020, and shall address the following areas identified in those reports:

• Land Use

• Open Space

• Urban Form

• Mobility

• Climate and Environment

• Housing

• Economy

In addition, such new district zoning shall also reflect any recent reports and planning recommendations developed by other relevant citizen committees, task forces, and working groups, including but not limited to the following:

• Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Advisory Committees (City of Cambridge Bike Plan 2020, City of Cambridge Pedestrian Plan)

• Climate Protection Action Committee (City of Cambridge Climate Protection Plan)

• Net Zero Task Force (City of Cambridge Net Zero Action Plan)

• Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force (City of Cambridge Urban Forest Report: Healthy Forest Healthy City)

• Climate Change Working Group (final report pending)

• Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force (final report pending)”

1979 Alewife Plan

Envision Alewife

Name/Corporation	Total Cost of Acquisitions	Date of Last Acquisition
LS Alewife I LLC	$180 million	9/9/2021
LS Alewife II LLC	$73 million	10/4/2021
LS Alewife III LLC	$120 million	10/27/2021
LS Alewife IV LLC	$0 to date	N/A
LS Alewife V LLC	$17.8 million	11/1/2021

O-5     Nov 8, 2021  Amended 7-2 (DS,TT - NO); Charter Right - Simmons
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
WHEREAS: The bike lane plan on Massachusetts Avenue from Dudley Street to Alewife Brook Parkway is slated to begin construction within the next few weeks; and
WHEREAS: As detailed in Chapter 12.22 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the Cycling Safety Ordinance, construction on this stretch of Massachusetts Avenue must be completed by no later than May 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS: The construction of protected bike lanes is crucial for cyclist safety and greenhouse gas emission mitigation; and
WHEREAS: Many residents have raised relevant concerns regarding the removal of the approximately 80 parking spots on Massachusetts Avenue; and
WHEREAS: The plan does not designate any handicapped parking spaces on this segment of Massachusetts Avenue since currently there are not designated spots, yet with the reduction of parking residents are concerned no accessible spots will be added; and
WHEREAS: Residents with limited mobility deserve the option to access services and businesses along this stretch of Massachusetts Avenue, and for some, using a car is the only option; and
WHEREAS: Small businesses have communicated concerns about their long-term viability with the loss of parking; and
WHEREAS: One idea to address these concerns is to use the bus lanes currently proposed for 15-minute loading zones during off peak hours to allow for 2-hour parking, which Boston has implemented on streets, marking bus lanes with time-limited parking, although not on streets with medians; and
WHEREAS: The Fire Department has expressed concerns about using the bus lanes during off-rush hours due to the perceived need for more than one lane in case of fire requiring a ladder utilizing side stabilizers; and
WHEREAS: Most Cambridge streets are narrower than Massachusetts Avenue, and further that section of Massachusetts Avenue has few buildings that appear to require a ladder truck in case of fire, and parked cars can still be moved quickly in case of emergency and eventually the median may be eliminated; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager work with the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department and any other relevant departments to deliver a report on how people with limited mobility can access services on Massachusetts Avenue with the current proposed bike lane plan; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager work with the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department and the Fire Department to report on the number of fires in the last ten years on that section of Mass. Avenue requiring a ladder truck, in order to determine the feasibility of allowing two-hour parking including some handicapped spots in bus lanes during off-rush hours to ease the burden on those who rely on cars for transportation out of necessity; and be it further
ORDERED: That these reports will still allow for implementation of the Cycling Safety ordinance in line with existing timelines.
ORDERED: That the request of these reports does not impede the implementation of the project planned on Massachusetts Avenue between Dudley Street and Alewife Brook Parkway, scheduled to begin this week.

O-6     Nov 8, 2021
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to provide a legal opinion regarding the effect of the proposed Ordinance to Limit and monitor campaign donations on the petitioners of a Citizens’ Petition and the Owners, Board members and employees of an organization seeking financial assistance from the city of Cambridge; and to draft enforcement language and to draft language exempting labor unions from the Ordinance and to provide an opinion about whether Somerville’s Ordinance regarding campaign donations would survive a legal challenge.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council by the December 6, 2021.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
Call: The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the Alewife Envision Plan
Date: Wed, June 2, 2021, 2:00pm, Remote
Present: Nolan, Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Zondervan, Siddiqui

A communication was received from Assistant City Manager for Community Development, Iram Farooq, transmitting a presentation on Alewife Envision Plan.

A presentation regarding Current Conditions.

A communication was received from Ann Stewart, regarding Envision Plan.

A communication was received from John Chun, regarding Envision to Zoning.

A communication was received from Hannah Chun and Kristen Chun, regarding Pedestrian Railroad Crossing at Rindge Towers.

The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, June 2, 2021 at 2:00pm to discuss the Alewife Envision Plan.

Present at the hearing via Zoom were Councillor Nolan; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor Siddiqui; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development; Melissa Peters, Director of Community Planning; Drew Kane, Land Use Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Robert Reardon; Michael Scarlett, Aide to Councillor Nolan; Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present via Zoom were Doug Brown, David Bass, James W. Wilberforce, Lee Farris, Noah Sawyer, Mike Nakagawa, Marc Levy, Michael Brandon, Ann Stewart, James Zall, Diane Martin and John Chun.

Councillor Nolan convened the hearing and read the Call of the Meeting and the Governor’s Executive Order regarding remote participation. She asked for a Roll Call to indicate a quorum for the hearing.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, and Councillor Zondervan -5
ABSENT: -0
and a quorum was present, and the hearing was clearly audible to all participants.

Councillor Nolan read prepared written Opening Remarks (ATTACHMENT A).

Iram Farooq introduced the CDD team who led the Envision Cambridge process. She stated that the team has been central to the Alewife planning process but also working with the Ordinance Committee and City Council on implementation and looking at evaluating zoning that has come forward subsequently that was impacting a large section of the quadrangle area which is the area with perhaps the largest amount of remaining development potential in this district.

Melissa Peters gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT B) of the Alewife District Plan including background and process and existing conditions to set the foundation for the plan’s vision and recommendations.

Noah Sawyer, Just-A-Start, stated that first as a developer and implementer, they are applying the recommendations of Envision Alewife to two sites: Rindge Commons and 52 New Street. He stated that the plan has been great to work with and provides a great template to consider as they develop site-specific approaches it gives good guidance to help add units and affordable housing to this district. He said that the Envision Alewife study area does not include some of the land that Just-A-Start owns. He appreciates the outreach to the Fresh Pond Towers and 402 Rindge Avenue as part of the planning process but they were not included in the Alewife study. He recommended that we as we think about Alewife holistically, it is important to find ways to engage more closely with those residents in those communities. He said that Just-A-Start owns and manages and is a steward to the 402 Rindge community. He said that when talking with their managers and site team, one thing that was consistent from everyone who lives and works with the community at 402 Rindge Avenue is that residents rely on pedestrian and bicycle access. He said that anything that improves safe, pedestrian access would be helpful. He said that one of the things that the residents value is the privacy and security that comes from being in the towers. He said that if there is discussion about trying to split up these sites or think about ways to add accessibility through them, it is important that it balance the concern about safety and privacy with the concerns about access. He said those two pieces really do go together. He said that they appreciate the big thinking around connecting the north side of the tracks with the rest of the Alewife area. In regards to creative options, he suggested creative thinking about how the existing resources may be better used. He said that the existing bridge and overpass is not especially inviting to the residents. He said that the current plan with the DCR is that biking occurs in Alewife Brook Parkway and he feels that many would not choose not to do. He spoke about the pedestrian ramp and access that exists on DCR land next to 402 Rindge Avenue that is poorly designed and underutilized. He said that making the best use of the existing infrastructure would make huge steps forward in connectivity and accessibility.

Mike Nakagawa gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT C) regarding the current conditions and connectivity problems in the Alewife area along with demographics regarding population, housing units and jobs by census block.

Doug Brown encouraged the City and the City Council to pursue a document, plan and set of urban design guidelines that go with it and update the zoning. He said that was always assumed to be part of the working group’s effort. He encouraged the City Council to pursue holistic zoning for this area. He said that this area is facing an onslaught of individual zoning proposals by individual owners and developers. He encouraged all to look for the easy wins, such as in areas of connectivity. He said that historically, there was an underpass that was used by the brickyard. He stated that it is important to think about how the City wants to use the Route 2 bridge which is proposed to be redeveloped and rebuilt in 2025. He said that another easy win is around Terminal Road and how it can enable connectivity on the other side of the tracks in the same way as an underpass would on the north side. He said that we need to think about rebuilding Smith Place in the same way that New Street was built. He said that behind Whole Foods, the City already owns the railroad Right of Way and the City has set aside money via the CPA to design a path there. He asked for completion of this design. He talked about a rail stop and he said that is not beyond us to come up with a solution to crack that issue. Mr. Brown pointed out that the City owns a number of easements, right of ways and pieces of land throughout this district and we have negotiated $1.7 million dollars in contributions from developers for the design of a bridge. He asked what is being done with that money.

Councillor Nolan said that by focusing on the zoning and public spaces, the City cannot control totally what a developer will build but the City can control the zoning throughout the area and make decisions around the public spaces and connectivity.

Councillor Nolan opened the hearing to Public Comment.

Ann Steward, 31, Wheeler Street, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT D) regarding the need for an Implementation Plan and zoning guidelines and proposed three infrastructure improvements.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that he is tired of being ignored. He said that he initiated the process for a Tenant Council. He said that he has put a tremendous amount of time and effort in advocating for things that are important and matter. He said that regarding transit, the only bus that services this area is the 83 bus. He said that it cannot make it around the rotary next to the baseball field. He said that somebody decided to put fake boulders in the rotary. He said that is not a solution to the problem. He said that another issue is that the bus goes over the raised sidewalk and on the Rindge Avenue side there is a divot. He said that bus is nearly tipping over. He said that he has advocated for restoring the duration of the opening of the DCR owned and managed pool.

John Chun, 48 Loomis Street, stated that he did submit written comment to the City Council and City Clerk for consideration (ATTACHMENT E). He said that there are very good elements that he would like to see be enforced by zoning and the City. He said that one example is a recent development proposal by Cabot, Cabot & Forbes to build lab buildings along Mooney Street. He said that they picked up some elements of the Alewife District Plan but cherrypicked what would give them advantage while hiding things they did not want to share. He said that clear guidance on the strategic development of the area, the plans need to be made into zoning.

Lee Farris asked City Councillors to ask CDD staff why the City has not prepared zoning for Alewife. She asked if there have been impediments to doing so. She said that it would be good if there was a list and map of all current development proposals so that they could be compared with Envision. She strongly agrees that we need actual zoning because otherwise developers will pick and choose which elements of Envision they want to follow. She said that it looks like we will be getting $25 million back from the MBTA for the Green Line. She asked if this money could be used to build a bridge at Alewife that we want.

Vice Mayor Mallon made a motion to close Public Comment.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, and Councillor Zondervan -5
ABSENT: -0
and Public Comment was closed.

Councillor Carlone stated that in the mapping that the CC& F site had two different codes, one purple and one yellow. He asked which it is – or is it both? Melissa Peters responded that the map she showed was a land use map that showed the predominant or likely or desirable land use for that area. It shows that the northwest part of the quad would allow residential near the highlands which was preferential from the community perspective. Councillor Carlone stated that regarding mode share, Ms. Peters stated less than 40%. He asked 40% of what? Ms. Peters stated 40% car trips from developments. Councillor Carlone said that this has to be highly reviewed by Planning Board and staff on each project. Councillor Carlone said that he knows why the City Manager’s administration wants a high percentage of commercial development but he feels that you will find that a vast majority want residential development. He said that this will be a big issue for the rest of his lifetime in Cambridge. He said that regarding connections, he agrees that they are critical. He asked how a very large block will be prioritized when only a portion of the block is being developed at one time. He asked how that will be done. He said that if we don’t look at property lines and don’t show where it should be, you will never have the two connecting. He asked how this will be done if only part of a block is being developed at a time. Ms. Farooq said that she agrees that the ultimate urban fabric that we want to see in the area is not one that appears like superblocks. She said that one of priorities that emerged through this process was a desire to see light industrial in this area. She said that this would help with economic empowerment and help provide good jobs that have low barrier to entry. Ms. Farooq said that from a planning perspective, we would not want blocks to be superblocks. She said that regarding how to make that happen if only part of the block is being developed, none of those intermediate block connections are prescriptive that they must be in an exact place but they would want to see this happen. She said that on the eastern part of the quadrangle in the past, even it is a smaller building or part of a block that is being developed, they have, through the Special Permit process, asked developers to build in connections or retain space for connections. This happened on Fawcett and New Street. She added that the existing zoning creates an incentive to make that happen. There is bonus GFA that a developer would get if they build in desired connections as referenced in the plan. That means that there is an incentive for developers to do what the plan asks them to do and it is easier for the Planning Board then to require that through the Special Permit conditions.

As it relates to open space, Councillor Carlone stated that he feels that the plan is very deficient. He said that he has heard from two commercial land owners that the City proposed open space is for sale and has been for over two months. He said that the City has not moved on this. He asked how can we be confident that that that purchase is going to happen. He said that the whole project is based on that spine working as an urban design element. He said that we know that the city is less than 1/2 of the average city. He said that this neighborhood community will be less than half of that, about 1/3 of what an average city is. He asked when we are going to move on this. He said that we do not have an implementation process going on that counts. He said that what is proposed is absolutely not sufficient and Fresh Pond is not going to balance it given that it is primarily pedestrians walking the length. He said that it is absolutely key. Councillor Carlone talked about access. He said that this is miserable from a car point of view and with 40% being car oriented, he does not believe that it can work. He said that he would love to see a traffic study that says that it will. He added that the bridge at the future commuter station will not happen until there is a commuter station. Councillor Carlone said that you have to test the zoning before you do the zoning.

Mr. Nakagawa stated that regarding the residential area in the northwest corner of the quad, it is an isolated place that takes away from the industrial use. He said that it was not part of the original discussions and just showed up initially the day CC& F presented at the Planning Board. He said that we should not shortchange light industrial and use the definition that is in the plan. He said that there have been 4,000 new units of housing developed in the area or permitted who have come on board since 2010.

Councillor McGovern stated that he agrees with the need for the rail station. He said that there will be a need for multiple bridges. He said that all things being equal, we would love it if someone else paid for these bridges. He said that the City should pay for it if we want it. He said that we need to step up on this issue as soon as possible. He said that in terms of zoning changes and clarification of zoning, he cautioned that whatever zoning that is passed, it will not do away with individual petitions being filed. He said that developers will always try to improve their situation. He said that he is pleased to see the focus on light industrial. He said that he would like to see some sort of Station Landing model as we are building more residential housing. He asked if there have been discussions with Economic Development to attract businesses to this location. Ms. Farooq said that the Economic Development team was a big part of working on this plan. She said that light industrial, while challenging, with enough critical mass, would be able to draw folks. She said that the neighborhood serving retail is a lot more challenging. She said that is why the plan talks about aligning that along the main streets than further in the back. She said that it has been said that retail is the most delicate flower in the garden and it is true. She said that retail will always follow the population and it needs people to support it. She explained that the margins are very narrow. She explained that they have to think through where it is most likely for it to be successful.

Councillor McGovern asked if there is any talk around City functions such as a fire station, library, schools. He said that a fire station is vital in his opinion. Melissa Peters responded that they did not preclude the siting of public facilities but they also did not identify locations for them. She said that certainly if there is a need for a public facility, that is an opportunity for a city investment and they would defer to the City Council and the City Manager. Councillor McGovern said that the City needs to accumulate property if it is available so that we have control over what goes at that location. Lastly, Councillor McGovern asked what are the next steps? Ms. Farooq responded that this conversation is helpful because in prior conversations, CDD has not felt a clear sense of whether it has the City Council’s endorsement on this plan. She said that zoning is hard because it is so detailed. She said that in some ways the easiest part is to write the zoning and the harder part is knowing what you are trying to make happened through the zoning. She said that CDD would want the blessing of the City Council before they embark on the large task like translating the plan into zoning. She said that CDD is ready but they want to know if it is a priority for the City Council because it will take up a lot of the Zoning and Development staff time in terms of what they are able to focus on in terms of the zoning tasks that the City Council would like them to focus on. Councillor McGovern said that the City Council cannot begin to discuss the zoning until CDD writes it. He said that there is a great starting point. He said that CDD has a lot on its plate and if help is needed, please ask for it.

Councillor Nolan looked to CDD for guidance in how to move forward. Ms. Farooq stated that it would be helpful to know that the City Council feels that this is a good starting point because it will take a lot of work. She said that if the City Council feels that some basic concept doesn’t make sense, it would be good to know before the team spends weeks putting together the zoning.

Councillor Zondervan stated that while he feels that the plan is well-intentioned and he likes the idea that we would have light industrial at this location, he does not understand how to make these things happen. He asked how to do we get what we want. He said that the pull that we have that we are refusing to use is that the City build these things. He said that doesn’t seem to be an option. He said that he is frustrated. He said that he does not understand how zoning would lead to the outcome that is desired. Ms. Farooq stated that zoning is not an ideal tool to develop infrastructure. She said that we have found a way to make it happen but it is a slow tool. She said that it takes time to manifest itself. She said that in terms of the land uses, that is something that zoning can influence more strongly. She said that when framing the zoning they are always trying to tilt the incentives in such a way that they are in favor of the outcome that is desired the most. Councillor Zondervan said that the only conclusion that he can draw is that we are using the wrong tool. He said to get what we want, we need to build it ourselves.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that she is agnostic to the idea of light industrial use and the amount that we have envisioned in this district because there was a zoning petition before the City Council that used the light industrial to force a lab use. She said that to keep the two uses that they wanted as light industrial, they used it as a level to build labs in the Alewife district. She said that you can zone for what you want but there will be developers who ask for different things. She said that the City Council needs to prioritize this and the City Council needs language before it. She said that we need to think about a 5-year connectivity plan. She said that she is curious about the easements that the City has along the railroad tracks. In terms of open space, Vice Mayor Mallon said that she is curious about the opportunity to purchase the open space in the district. She said that there are parcels of land that the City could think about to prioritize for a fire station, library, or community space so that we are not reliant on giving away larger amounts of FAR to get a library. She said that the one thing that has frustrated her with the Alewife process is that the City was about to give away the store to maybe get a bridge. Vice Mayor Mallon then asked how the City is reaching out to property owners who are selling to do land transfers so that we can start building what we really want to see in this district. Ms. Farooq said that it would be easier to create a map of where the easements are located. She said that CDD does not have the full accounting of that and they would need to consult with the City Solicitor and DPW to ensure that they have a comprehensive list. She said that just because the City does have an easement does not mean that it is something that can be made into a connection because sometimes the easements are very specific and for a specific purpose. She stated that CDD can research this topic. In terms of acquiring land for open space and other amenities, Ms. Farooq said that that is a question that is best directed to the City Manager. Vice Mayor Mallon said that this is where some type of plan that comes along with this zoning is important so that it doesn’t feel like it is happening in a vacuum. She said that some kind of accounting of easements and what they are purposed for could be part of a connectivity plan. She said that it is clear that a path forward is needed. She said that we should move forward with the zoning and work out the case in details through the Ordinance Committee process.

Robert Reardon, consultant to the City Manager, stated that one of the things that he has been tasked with is to find available open space. He said that the City is always on the look out but the opportunities are not very forthcoming. He noted that the City did purchase a BBN site earlier in the year.

Councillor Carlone asked if the City is still pursing the site that was drawn on the City’s Master Plan. Mr. Reardon stated that they are always looking for available sites and they are trying to make as many inroads as possible. Councillor Carlone stated that CDD cannot study every part of the whole area to understand how each district is zoned but he would like CDD to look at one of the blocks and study it so that the City Council can see what the new zoning would mean.

Councillor Nolan stated her hope that the City staff is getting the sense that the City Council is united with the idea that they are ready to stand poised to support you as you approach the next area of the city in a broad thinking way to bring together this part of the city with a range of uses that are knitted together in a more comprehensive fashion that is currently on the table. She reminded all that this is the entire area. Regarding the Alewife Plan, she supports many elements of it but it is anticipated that there might be some public use but it is important that that be clear. She said that as it relates to the location of a school in that area, if we look at our anticipated population, it is clear that we will need infrastructure. She noted that it is important to ensure that there is a water retention infrastructure. She said that she supports the plan as long as it does include attention to public spaces because climate mitigation is just as important as planning for a school, library or community center. Councillor Nolan asked if there is a better way than an underpass to connect the whole section on the east side of the parkway from Rindge Towers and Jefferson Park to the Tobin/Vassal Lane school to knit large green spaces together. She called attention to the report that was done for the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority on connectivity. She urged all to take a look at this report.

Councillor McGovern stated that during the course of this evening’s meeting, he did receive an e-mail from Mike Johnston about the underpass and specifically about some concerns that he has about that. He said that moving forward it is important to ensure that there are no adverse effects to the development of affordable housing. Councillor Nolan stated that when she spoke with Mr. Johnston a month ago that the CHA would not pay for it and it is important for it to fit in line with existing plans that the CHA has. She said that the CHA has reserved some space for a multi-modal path along the railroad tracks but this needs to be worked out and now is the time to do it.

Councillor Nolan stated that next steps are to communicate with CDD about this plan. She stated that it is important for the City Council to know what CDD needs. She stated that her understanding is that Ms. Farooq needs to know that the City Council wants this to happen and that the City Council is endorsing the plan. She said that there is definite interest in this plan yet there is some question about what the balance is. She said that part of the issue is that the zoning does not have a category for labs, only light industrial, manufacturing or office.

Ms. Farooq stated it is always beneficial to receive from the City Council a Policy Order asking CDD to embark on translating this plan into zoning. She said that this would be helpful. Councillor Nolan stated that a Policy Order will be worked on after the hearing.

The Deputy City Clerk received one electronic communication (ATTACHMENT F) from Hannah and Kristen Chun to be made part of the permanent record of the hearing.

Vice Mayor Mallon made a motion to adjourn the hearing.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, and Councillor Zondervan -5
ABSENT: -0
And the hearing was adjourned at 4:00pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Patricia Nolan, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on Wed, June 30, 2021 at 11:00am to discuss afterschool programming for the fall.
Present: McGovern, Mallon, Nolan, Toomey
Absent: Simmons
Also Present: Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan

A presentation for June 30, 2021 Human Services and Veterans Committee.

Present via Zoom were Councillor McGovern, Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor Nolan; Councillor Toomey; Mayor Siddiqui; Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler; Councillor Zondervan; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; James Maloney, Chief Operating Office, Cambridge Public Schools (CPS); Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager; Michelle Farnum, Assistant Director of Children, Youth and Families; Khari Milner, Co-Director for the Agenda for Children; Mercedes Soto, Department of Human Service Programs (DHSP); Rebecca Sparks, Aide to Vice Mayor Mallon; Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present via Zoom were Vanessa Azzone, Aaron Shakow, Barb McEachern, Derek Etkin, Elsie Huang, Ernie Michaud Weinstock, Gal Kober, Joel Lamason, John Hawkinson, Maya Gonzalez, Niko Emack, Pamela Pecchio, Rachel Grashow, Sarah Sikowitz, Sheli Wortis, Matthew Livianu, and Maya Gonzalez.

Councillor McGovern convened the hearing and read the Call of the Meeting and the Governor’s Executive Order regarding remote participation. He requested a Roll Call to indicate a quorum for the hearing.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey
ABSENT: Councillor Simmons
A quorum was present.

Councillor McGovern stated that the Committee did receive an e-mail from the non-profit coalition asking about our out-of-school time partners and non-profit providers who are integral to out-of-school time opportunities in the City of Cambridge and why they are not here at the table. He said that this meeting was called due to questions and concerns that were raised in the community, specifically about DHSP. He said that it was not meant to be a slight to those programs, but this was specific to issues around the City to which people have asked for more information.

Ellen Semonoff introduced Michelle Farnum who is that Assistant Director of Children, Youth and Families and oversees all of the City’s child and youth serving programs. She stated that both she and Farnum will give an overview of the PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT A). Ms. Semonoff noted that she does wish that more information could have been provided to families. She said that she appreciates all of the wonderful things that were said by the families who signed on to the petition and other communications to the City Council and School Committee about their experiences in DHSP programs and the commitment of staff to their children. She said this year has been challenging for all of the families, children and the people who work with children. She said that she wishes DHSP could have provided more information earlier to families. She said that DHSP does understand that as families need to return to work the uncertainties about whether families would have access to an afterschool program is a consuming concern. She said that she will give all the information that DHSP has at the moment and will also let the committee know when there is additional information. She said that this is a year in which staff created and recreated programs all year long. She said that when the schools closed in March, most of the programs continued to reach out and work with children and youth. They created a virtual and on-field program for the summer for elementary and middle-school students. They created virtual internship programs for teens and served over 700 teens in virtual programming through the Mayor’s Summer Youth Employment Program. Pre-schools were re-opened in August to meet the needs of families that wanted their children in-person. During the fall and winter, many of DHSP staff worked with the schools in supporting children during the day and before and after school. New virtual programs were created for elementary school students and an internship program for middle school students. She said that she would like to ensure that no one thinks that the staff of DHSP has not been working non-stop to try to meet the needs of children and youth. She said that she understands that many families are not happy with some of the choices that were made and what was and was not done. She said that she also understands that getting information in a timely fashion is really important. She said that 12 different summer camps are being operated, some in partnership with the schools and some DHSP. DHSP heard, via the City Council and the School Committee, about concerns that families had about not being able to attend the programs that they had attended in the past because of the new partnership programs. She said that it was hard for families not to have information about the summer programs earlier. She said that she is confident that there are ways that communication could have been better. She also would like people to understand that the same people who were running programs across the year were the same people planning and creating new programs and creating new partnerships with the schools that are of great service to children and families. She said that all of that impacted their ability to communicate that information to the City Council in a timely fashion. She said that DHSP understands that they failed in some ways, but she is certain that they were hampered in their ability to do that.

Ms. Semonoff addressed other questions that came from families last evening that were not addressed in the PowerPoint presentation. She said that regarding cost being a barrier to families, the sliding fee scale is the way to ensure that cost is not a barrier for families. She said that there was a question about a health and safety manual, and she shared the question with Mr. Maloney who would be able to address that. Regarding the question of whether the City would be able to use state and federal covid funds, she noted that she is not aware of any state covid funds that the City received that are possibly used for this purpose. With respect to the federal funds, the City Council and the City Manager have been engaged in conversations about what are some of the possible uses of the new federal funds. She said that they will certainly explore the area of whether it is possible to make use of those funds to ensure better access for families. She said that there was a question about whether it is possible to create a more unified experience, both in capacity and cost structure, across all Cambridge schools. She responded that the available space in each school is different. The goal is to have a more unified system but the issue about capacity in different schools is part of the longer planning conversation that we have with the schools, community programs, city programs and with families so that over time we can expand capacity of all the programs. Finally, there was a criticism of lack of transparency and request to be more transparent and to engage with families in planning. She said that planning moving forward, it is critically important to engage with families. She said that if people don’t contact you and tell you of their concerns, then you have to look at why they are not contacting you. She said that families communicate with the School Committee and the City Council and she hopes that as we move forward there are conversations that could take place with DHSP staff and then if a person is not satisfied with the answer, use every vehicle that you have to try to get answers that you want.

Mayor McGovern then moved to Public Comment.

Gal Kober, 4 Newton Street, Cambridgeport parent, read a letter from CAPI parents. They requested that DHSP support address the crisis in afterschool care at the Cambridgeport School. She said that as a direct result of financial pressures associated with the Covid 19 epidemic, the CAPI program is closing. She said the CAPI program was started in 1993 to provide families with on-site afterschool care from September through June without gaps. It has been an indispensable resource for working families. CAPI enrolled over 50 children each year and regularly had a wait list. She said that dozens of families need new afterschool childcare options on short notice. She said that they expect that the Cambridgeport Community School will continuing offering enrichment programming for children next fall but also has historically been oversubscribed. She said that the Cambridgeport Community School cannot meet the needs of families in the community. She said that through a survey, they have identified JK-5 th grade children who need afterschool care for next fall. She said that the closure of CAPI on short notice, along with decreased capacity at other independently run afterschool programs across the city that might otherwise pick up the slack justifies emergency intervention by DHSP.

Elsie Huang, 4 Dickinson Street, thanked the City Council and people in DHSP offices for working closely with the Cambridgeport principal on this matter.

Aaron Shakow, 4 Newton Street, stated that he is a Cambridgeport parent. He said that he heard about the closure of CAPI on May 30. For the last month he has been trying to address a crisis that will hit in September. He said that the closure presents three questions: Specifics about what the prospects for having afterschool programming for the school community in September are going to be, what the long-term prospects for replacing the CAPI program are going to be, and what are the prospects of increasing capacity of the existing programs in the long-term.

Sarah Sinkowitz,177 Pemberton Street, thanked the Committee for participating in the hearing. She said that she is part of the group of families that submitted questions and she is thankful for the questions that have been answered. She is also grateful for what has been offered this year. She said that it is great to hear that DHSP will be able to offer afterschool care programming at pre-pandemic levels this fall. She said that she is also hopeful that DHSP and the Cambridge Public Schools will be able to use this re-start as an opportunity to partner with families to understand and address the barriers that have existed in the past to work towards out of school programming. She thanked Ms. Semonoff and Ms. Farnum for their open communication and transparency in this matter.

Emie Michaud Weinstock stated that as it relates to transparency, it continues to be an issue for all municipal departments and DHSP is not unique. She said that there are issues about DHSP offering what their summer programs are, but this is a larger issue. She said that it is reflected on who is here to make these statement and which caregivers know about what is offered and how to gain access. She said that the track system is a mess. The process is misleading and disempowering to the marginalized. She asked what the committee is going to do to change that. She said that the committee needs to create policy that either makes changes to that system with a priority of access for black and brown families and families experiencing poverty. She said that information needs to go out to black and brown families first. She said that for every privileged caregiver at the table there should be high priority caregivers of color that are gaining access to ask questions. She asked why families who experience poverty need to have a sliding scale. She said that when we change the dynamic to one with an anti-racist lens, we say that black, brown, and families experiencing poverty are lifted first and we stop systems that have benefitted those who benefit from white privilege through racism and classism. She said that there must be courage to change these policies. She said that if programs are going to be expanded, pay staff more.

Vice Mayor Mallon made a motion to grant one additional minute to Ms. Weinstock’ public comment.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey – 4
ABSENT: Councillor Simmons -1
and the motion carried.

Ms. Weinstock said that if you are going to make promises to creating programming, make promises to pay staff more. She said to ask her if other caregivers of color that had barriers to access knew that they had to stand in line and provide their forms, ask her how many black and brown families were able to access those programs, how many of the 50 parents were high priority and families of color. She said that this program has been in crisis for black and brown families. She asked what will be done to address the already existing and continued crisis for black and brown families experiencing poverty.

Matthew Livianu, 260 Brookline Street, stated that his is a new family to Cambridge. They have only experienced King Open through the lens of Covid but he was disappointed when he found out about the afterschool program through another parent. He said that it seems that there was priority given to previous families. He did not see anything about having open spaces for new families. He stated his hope that the organizers would consider reserving a few spaces for new students who were not in the Cambridge system before and did not have prior access to the afterschool program.

Derek Etkin, 109 Clay Street, echoed some of the prior statements regarding the hearing and the effort in answering questions. He said that he is hopeful that engagement with families will happen in a more regular way in the future. He suggested that talking with some of the more successful community schools and staff as to what has worked. He said that as he is hearing about the experiences of families and others that are served by their community schools, he is realizing what an exceptional program has been built by some of the leaders and staff at the Fitzgerald School. He said that he has watched the staff there make an extra effort to connect with black and brown families in particular.

Maya Gonzalez, 17 Seventh Street, stated that she has spoken with Michelle Farnum about her concerns. She said that her granddaughter is 14 and for the last three years has been in as ASD classroom. She stated that her granddaughter is social and thrives when she can participate in out of school and afterschool activities. She said having those opportunities positively impact her overall development. She said that her granddaughter has not been able to participate in any afterschool or OST program for the last four years because there is a long waiting list for inclusion facilitators. She said that since these supports are only provided until age 14, she has aged out. She said that in September her granddaughter will begin high school at CRLS and will continue there for the next 8 years until age 22. She said that unless equitable OST options are made available, her granddaughter will not be able to benefit from the recreational and social activities that other CRLS students enjoy.

Vanessa Azzone, 36 William Street, stated that she is the mother of a rising first grader. She said that she is new to the system although she has been a resident of Cambridge for over twenty years. She said that its has been hard to find an after-school program for her daughter. She said that if you are not in the system and there is no information on how to get into the system and get a spot, it is very hard. She said that she would welcome an online system but there should be more information about what is available and how to enroll. She said that she would appreciate more information and access.

Rachel Grashow, 107 Rindge Avenue, stated that she acknowledges the strain that DHSP has been under. She stated that she has learned a lot throughout this process. She said that one of the toughest things to wrap her mind around is the variability of programs from school to school. She said that is one of the things she would like to see addressed. She said that there is a critical need for some sort of caregiver/parent committee. She said that she would be happy to work with DHSP and she supports the idea of parent/caregiver/DSHP committee that works together that overrepresents marginalized families. She said that there are benefits to working together. She said that we could be community minded to address some problems that were there before Covid but Covid has unearthed.

Vice Mayor Mallon made the motion to close Public Comment.
The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey
ABSENT: Councillor Simmons
and Public Comment was closed.

Vice Mayor Mallon thanked City staff for providing a lot of information that was requested and for being open and receptive to the issues at CAPI. As it relates to DHSP afterschool programs, she noted that it is her understanding that families that were enrolled in March of 2019 have been informed that they have a space and that they will be enrolling for any openings that are not taken in August. She asked how families will be chosen for an open spot. Ms. Farnum said that they have had a waitlist for afterschool programs. She explained that DHSP has identified who will be continuing on in their spots from year to year, they enroll DHSP preschool children who are moving up and then they work from the waitlist to fill the remaining spots. This will be continued for this year’s enrollment. Vice Mayor Mallon said that her second point is a theme that has been coming up in recent conversations is around the Community Schools and afterschools and their origin and genesis of being an enrichment type program. She said that is not the way that she used the afterschool programs at the Community Schools. She said that there needs to be a rediscovery of how people are using Community Schools. She said that she used the programs Monday through Friday from 2:00pm-5:30pm and her concern was that her children were in a safe space and being taken care of. She said that we need to figure out if that program model is working for working families. She said that another recurring topic is the need for some kind of parent advisory group to DHSP to talk about the different programs across the city and if they are working for families in the way they were originally intended. She said that she thinks that this is a good idea. Vice Mayor Mallon said that she went online to the job postings for DHSP and the job postings that are online are summer postings. She asked when DHSP job postings would go live in order to hire for community schools in September to ensure that we have that bulk capacity. Ms. Semonoff stated that this is a capacity related issue at the moment, but she believes that the jobs need to be up now because if DHSP is going to fill those positions and recruit for those positions, it needs to be now. Vice Mayor Mallon said that she knows that there is a huge capacity issue, and she thinks that if the job postings are up, the staffing can go up and we can serve the community members that we need to serve. She said that she looks forward to the resolution on the CAPI program and whether or not DHSP can serve some of those families and what alternatives could be in place for families that will not be served.

Councillor Nolan stated that she does appreciate the staff who has worked tirelessly on every level and the parents who have reminded us all of the importance of this issue. She said that we know that we need eventually a seamless system that is comprehensive with capacity across the board for every child who needs it. She stated that we are working on that, but we are not quite there yet. She said that this meeting was very specific to DHSP, however, we also recognize that there are other out of school time programs that end up filling in for some parents. She asked how the communication will ensure that people who may have access to those other programs now may need support from the City to ensure that students across the City, regardless of what program they were initially scheduled to be in, are going to be able to receive the care, coverage, and support that parents and families need to ensure that their children have a safe place to go after school beginning in the fall. She said that she is curious about the coordination to make sure that even though this is a DHSP program, there may be a need for additional capacity as people’s lives have changed a lot over the past year. Ms. Semonoff said that in regard to the general planning, there is now an elementary network under the umbrella of the Agenda for Children and one of the exciting things about the elementary school network is that it is a place for all of the community programs and families and City programs to take a look at our overarching system. She said that the elementary network will play a big role in that discussion. She said that if the question is how DHSP going to provide additional programming for families who were intending to be part of another program, DHSP is doing what it can to hold the capacity that it had. She noted that DHSP is working with the principal at the Cambridgeport School to think about and support what are opportunities for families who were previously enrolled in the CAPI Program. She said that it would be wrong for her to say today that she believes that DHSP will be able to significantly expand its programs. She said that she believes that there are some opportunities, particularly where there are resources at issue, where the problem is programs and with the support of the City Council and City Manager, the City provided direct funding of over a quarter of a million dollars to winter and spring to community programs that were serving families that were identified via the excellent work of Khari Milner and his team and Robin Harris and her team and with principals. Children that were in 4th and 5th grade who needed support at a time in which schools were not open to them, the City funded those programs to ensure that those children can be served. She said that whether or not it is possible to use resources to help support programs that are struggling is certainly something that can be explored but she does not want to hold out false hope that DHSP has the capacity for September to significantly expand. She said that DHSP is doing everything to meet the same numbers that were served before. Councillor Nolan said that she appreciates Ms. Semonoff’s honesty in her opening remarks. She said that there are ways that communication could have been better. She noted that the role of community schools has evolved over time as some people use it for enrichment where others use it to ensure a safe place after school. Councillor Nolan said that there may be spots that open up because some people who intended to be in DHSP programs may have found other avenues for their needs to be met. She said that parents mentioned outreach to new parents who entered the system. She said that we must ensure that non-English speakers are getting the same information as others. She asked Ms. Semonoff how DHSP is ensuring that that level of communication is happening so that we are not at risk of leaving some of those parents behind. Ms. Semonoff said that DHSP has a successful model for the preschools when they went from a program of signing your child up when they are 1 year old and even then, you did not have a guarantee to get a slot. She noted that it took a while because they ran the wait list that they had. They did outreach through all of the housing developments in the City, they used the Community Engagement team outreach workers, they worked with the Community Liaisons in the schools, they placed flyers and it changed dramatically the families who applied to the programs. She said that DHSP has that model to build on as well as the work that is being done with the family support people from the Cambridge Public Schools. She said that it is important how outreach is done.

Councillor Zondervan added his voice asking for more capacity and for the parent representative body to help ensure that the programs move in the right direction. He said that his children went through the King Open Extended Day and had a great experience, and he has always wondered why that is not made available for all families across all schools. He said that he hopes that this crisis is a precipitating event for us to fully fund this program. He said that there are American Rescue funds and other sources of funds that can be used to expand these programs to ensure that every family in the city have access to great programs.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler stated that regarding the communication piece, he would like to figure out how the City can get more feedback and get more communication to be proactive and get ahead of things. He said that as a City Councillor he has regular check-ins with different community groups and some of those check-ins are scheduled every month. He asked if DHSP does check-ins with parent groups or community groups. He asked DHSP to talk about what the community engagement looks like. Michelle Farnum stated that there is not a parent advisory group and it is something that has been considered. She that one thing that did happen because of the pandemic is increased communication and relationship building with the Family Liaisons at the public schools as a new way to connect many of the new families. She said that the pattern has been that the communication happens with the people who are enrolled from the program leaders to those families. She said that making sure that DHSP is elevating the voices of families that are not traditionally at the table. She said that DHSP is committed to this. She said that successes with outreach to preschools was built on a model led by the Youth Centers in partnership with the Cambridge Police Department. She said that twice per year for ten years they hold a door-knocking campaign in public housing to ensure that families who may not be seeking information get the information.

Councillor McGovern said that it was stated that there is about capacity for 40% of elementary students. He asked Ms. Semonoff if there is a sense of how many Cambridge children are in some type of program and is there a breakdown of that percentage in terms of race, income, and other demographics. Ms. Semonoff stated that some attendees are people who have worked hard on that issue such as the Agenda for Children in collecting data from programs and are now beginning to collect data from families. She said that 40% is a somewhat rough number. She explained that there are many programs, such as City Sprouts, in which enrollment was not counted. She said that she gave numbers from the Community Programs and City programs about how many slots there were a day for families who were looking for roughly all-day programming. She said that there is some information about the breakdowns around income and race, but it is not complete. She said that it varies significantly across different programs and the data that they have is somewhat imperfect. She said that at another time, DHSP with the Agenda for Children partners could give information about that. She did state that in the system as a whole, there are more higher-income families than there are lower-income families. She said that varies by program and grade level in the school stem cells. Councillor McGovern said that having that data is important.

Councillor McGovern said that as it relates to Community Schools, because they are somewhat independent and have different fee structures, that is also something to think about. He said that if you are a lower-income caregiver whose child goes to a school where that Community School charges more money for their classes than another school, that is an inequity that we must think about. He said that some Community Schools were more expensive than others. He said that is the way that it used to be, and he asked for clarification. Michelle Farnum said that for the last two years, the fees have been the same. For example, a drumming class at Tobin and a drumming class at Kennedy Longfellow costs the same. The prices have not been widely different over the last two years. She said that the idea that the cost for the enrichment program is really an ala carte model where depending on the class you choose would significantly impact what your tuition is. This is something that is being looked at. She said that they are moving toward a sliding fee scale which means that what would dictate your tuition is your income and the family size, not the classes that are chosen. She said that all of DHSP camps are sharing the same fee and tuition structure. She said that they are looking to do that for all of the programs in the fall as well. Councillor McGovern said that in terms for families or caregivers in that sliding scale that receive a low or free status, what is that income level and how do families know about that. He asked how we are getting that information to people. Ms. Farnum stated that this summer, that information was posted on the website when people were looking to sign up. Ms. Semonoff said that for a family of 3, what is 100% of the Area Median Income it is $107,000.00. She said that for preschools, and they expect to have a related version for all of the afterschool programs, DHSP was already a relatively inexpensive preschool. When they redid the numbers, they did not increase the rate for families below 100% of median income. They deeply discounted the rate for everybody much lower and they increased the rates for families that were above $250,000.00 for a family of 3. She said that she expects to do a modified version of what was done for the preschool to apply to the afterschool.

Councillor McGovern said that when the City was doing the Envision outreach, tables were set up in the schools with staff giving information and answering questions is something that we should look into. He said that the first week of school, a table could be set up in every school assisting people who want to sign up for afterschool programs. He said this could be a way to be more proactive.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that she was very surprised that the Cambridgeport had a private afterschool within it that was outside of the Community School. She asked if there are other programs like CAPI in the City and if so, where are they and how do we ensure that an afterschool program that serves 50 families really well disappears overnight. Ms. Semonoff responded that to her knowledge, there are two privately run licensed afterschool programs in the schools: Dragonfly at the Graham and Parks and CAPI. She noted that Dragonfly is very connected to the Agenda for Children and the program is deeply rooted. She said that CAPI was actually disconnected from any of the City and community-related professional development. She said that DHSP was aware of its existence, but it was not part of the network of afterschool programs. She said that as far as she knows, there are no others in the school She said that we all have some information about the community afterschool programs and the tenuous nature for many of those programs during the pandemic and there is no information currently that suggests that any programs are going to close but it is also true that since many, but not all, of those programs focus predominantly on low-income families to the extent that they are state funding changes over time, there are significant challenges that they face. She said that it is important to have an understanding of how programs are doing. She said that the Not For Profit Coalition has a group of those programs which is deeply connected with the Agenda for Children so the information about programs is much more shared. Vice Mayor Mallon said that she it sounds like only Dragonfly is in a similar situation but unlike CAPI, they are more deeply connected to DHSP and we would have more of a warning sign to be able to jump in and help. She said that understanding the landscape does make her feel a little bit better. She said that she is not slighting the Director or the people who worked in CAPI, it was a hard decision that was made.

Councillor Nolan stated that the long-term vision should or could be that when a parent in the City fills out the packet that is required to enroll your child in a Cambridge Public School, the question of what is being done for afterschool hours could be included. She said that it would be great to have the seamless coordination between the school district and DHSP. She stated that DHSP program information should be included to allow for more connections to be made. Ms. Semonoff said that the Agenda for Children has been in forefront of creating with the School Department the Partner Portal in helping to provide information about young people and what programs they are involved in. Councillor Nolan said that she has heard that this is a work in progress, and it should be seamless that you sign up for school and know all the options available.

Councillor McGovern thanked all those present and for the hard work that is being done. He said that his four children utilized the great programs at DHSP. He noted that there is some work to do, and people are on board to do that work. He said that as a parent he appreciates and respects the anxiety around planning and parents want these things locked in as soon as possible. He said that he understands the urgency while DHSP is multitasking at many different things. He asked parents to please try to be patient. He said that he is always happy to hold additional meetings if there is interest in talking about out of school time partners and equity in programs.

Vice Mayor Mallon made a motion to adjourn the hearing. The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey – 4
ABSENT: Councillor Simmons -1
And the hearing was adjourned at 12:43pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Marc McGovern, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee and the Housing Committee will conduct a joint follow-up hearing to continue the discussion on the elimination of single and two-family only zoning and restrictions on the type of housing that can be built city-wide on Tues, Aug 24, 2021 from 1:00pm to 3:00pm.

Present: Nolan, Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Zondervan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Simmons, Siddiqui

A communication was received from Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager, Community Development, transmitting a presentation regarding Neighborhood Zoning.

A communication was received from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, transmitting prepared Opening Remarks.

A communication was received from Allan Sadun, regarding technical input for NLTP + Housing hearing on zoning.

Present at the hearing via Zoom were Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler; Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chairs of the Housing Committee; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Nolan, Chair of the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee; Councillor Carlone; Mayor Siddiqui; Iram Farooq, Deputy City Manager; Melissa Peters, Director of Community Planning; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, Community Development Department (CDD); Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department (ISD); Daniel Totten, Aide to Councillor Zondervan; Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present via Zoom were Suzanne Blier, Heather Hoffman, Drew Kane, Allan Sudan, Christopher Schmidt, Marie Elena Saccoccio, Marilee Meyer, Sophie, Daniel Messplay, David Halperin, Nicholas Mazzeo, Bill Boehm, Daniel Hidalgo, Jessica Sheehan, Jonathan Behrens and Lee Farris.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler convened the hearing and read the Call of the Meeting and the Governor’s Executive Order regarding remote participation. He asked for a Roll Call to indicate a quorum for the hearing.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan -6
ABSENT: Councillor Carlone -1
and a quorum was present, and the hearing was clearly audible to all participants.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler opened the hearing and read from prepared Opening Remarks (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Simmons stated that as she reviewed the maps and includes very interesting information. She said that it is important to remember that zoning is a means to and end. She said that past zoning has led to some of the racial and economic lack of diversity that we have, and we must unravel those issues and try to look at it with new eyes with the idea of inclusion because the City’s zoning has pushed us in a direction that we are separated out by income. She said that she would like to see some correlation between what was in the Envision report and how that plays into this.

Councillor Nolan said that she is excited to continue the continuing the conversation about eliminating single and two-family only zones. She said that it is a critically important conversation to have to understand how we can match the needs of the City with the Zoning Ordinances to ensure that the exclusionary policies of the past which prevented building in different parts of the city. She thanked all of her colleagues for working on this issue and we are now in a position that we can start to move it forward and make changes that are substantive and meaningful and understand the unintended consequences of actions so that as we move forward, we can be assured that whatever changes are put in place will have the intended impact.

Iram Farooq introduced City staff and asked Jeff Roberts to give an overview of the PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He said that CDD put together information about zoning in neighborhood resident areas of the city that include the districts that are zoned only for single family and two-family dwellings as well as other lower scale residential districts. He said that this will be helpful as a starting point for this discussion. He stated that they did try to keep this high-level and talk mainly about what the City’s current zoning does and he hopes that that gives shape to some of the City Council’s discussion about what will be desired for the future.

Councillor Zondervan thanked Mr. Roberts for the presentation and opened the meeting to questions for the Law Department and clarifying questions for CDD. He noted that he asked people to submit questions ahead of time and he has a few that he is going to start with. He said that Councillor Carlone and Councillor Zondervan did submit questions and if other Councillors have questions, please free to ask them.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said that Cambridge currently has a minimum lot size per unit in its zoning. He asked if there is anything in the law that would prevent us from implementing a maximum lot size per unit. Ms. Glowa responded that there is not a legal prohibition against imposing a maximum lot area dwelling unit. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said that Cambridge currently has areas that are zoned only for single family homes. He asked if there is anything in the law that would prevent us from creating areas zoned only for multi-family housing. Ms. Glowa said that there is not. She said that there are a couple of complications. The first is that existing structures throughout the city, even if zoning changes, would still be permitted to remain standing if they remain in their current condition or have the kinds of minor changes that are allowed either as-of right or by Special Permit under the ordinance unless they were removed, and redevelopment occurred, or new development occurred on other parcels you would still have a lot of the remaining inventory that has been built up until now. Secondly, people do have the right under the Zoning Act upon which our Zoning Ordinance is based and the authority for it derives from the Zoning Act. She said that people can apply for a Variance to be free from the restrictions or limitations under the Zoning Ordinance so someone could seek a Variance if you had every single district be multifamily only, somebody could seek a variance to build a single or two-family home.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler asked is the City can prohibit down conversions through Cambridge’s zoning code. For example, if someone had an apartment building or triple decker and wanted to tear it down and build a single unit house. He asked if there was anything in the law that would prohibit the City from preventing such action. Ms. Glowa responded that we cannot explicitly do that in that way. She said that we can create either minimum or maximum lot area per dwelling unit requirements. She explained that if the maximum lot area of the dwelling unit resulted in a unit being able to be no more than 1,500 square feet, you could remove the triple decker, but you can only erect a unit that was 1,500 square feet unless you received a variance from that requirement. She said that if single-family were not permitted in that district, you would need an additional variance to do that. She said that conditions have to be met to get a variance, but it is something that people can seek to do.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler asked Ms. Glowa to talk about the legal rationale for requiring affordability in new housing and what the city needs to do to justify changes to those requirements. Ms. Farooq said that any provision that links an affordability requirement would be most similar to our Inclusionary Ordinance in the zoning. She said that the way that it works is that the City has to establish a basis for the requirements that are put into place. Before the initial provision was adopted and each time that changes are made to it, the City does a study to provide the justification for the specifics of what the ordinance is going to require. She said that would be the percentage requirement for the affordable set aside. She said that the study looks at both the housing situation in the City and demographic changes since the time of the prior analysis. She said that it also includes an economic analysis to look at the effect of the modifications to the inclusionary standards or set aside, financial feasibility and land values in Cambridge. She said that she is happy to share the last inclusionary study that was done in 2016. She noted that the people that the City hires to do this are people who are well-versed in inclusionary zoning so there is also a scan of best practices across the country. She said that the study looks at both market trends across the city. She said that if you look back to Rent Control, the initial inclusionary zoning tried to figure out what was the proportion of affordability across the City and tried to set the threshold of approximately 20% of the target. She said that the way that the ordinance was structured, the City was trending down and so in the last study the City revamped the way that the formula worked to create a 20% requirement but also at the same time, the financial piece of the analysis speaks to what is required in order to offset the responsibility that is placed on a developer to provide the affordable housing. She said that in the Inclusionary Ordinance, there is currently a 30% density bonus. She said that is the framework of how that justification study works and if there were to be any changes to that, the City would need an updated similar study to come up with what are the right balances on both the proportionality as well as on any bonus that would be required to offset it. Ms. Glowa added that the nexus study is required under the constitutional legal framework pertaining to opposing such requirements and in addition, what the courts look at is whether the requirements are so burdensome as to constitute an uncompensated taking of private property which would be considered unconstitutional. She said that is one of the reasons why there is the need to provide a density bonus or some other benefit to the property owner to offset the burden to the property owner from having to provide the affordable unit. She said that there are two aspects: one is that there needs to be shown that there is a proportionality between the impacts of the new development on affordable housing in the city and in addition you have to show that it is being done in such a way that it is not unduly burdensome on the property owner and fits within the constitutional framework so as to avoid being unconstitutional in the taking.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said that his understanding is that the affordability requirement is to be structured as a density bonus and that the City can do other things as a density bonus as well. He asked if there are limits to what can be offered as a density bonus. Are there legal or policy limits around that? Ms. Glowa said that you can provide incentives to do certain things by giving additional leeway so you can get some additional height by Special Permit if there are other benefits that are provided. That would be done by the Special Permit granting authority. She said that she does not believe that it can be tied to a right of first refusal to the city as that is not the kind of thing that is governed by zoning. She said that she is not sure that that particular provision would be permissible. Iram Farooq added that the density bonus is an incentive to do something that the City wants people to do when they are constructing a building. That incentive could be framed around anything. She said that this has been discussed in the context of enhanced sustainability or for even more affordability than what it is required by inclusionary. She said that they did find as they took a broad-brush look is that for other things you might be able to make that offset balance out more easily but for additional affordable units, it tends to be a much larger bonus typically that is required than one would imagine. She said that in her mind the logic is if we are asking them to build one more affordable unit, maybe the same of amount of bonus would equalize everything. She said that it turns out that as you dive into the financial piece of it, the construction and then the long-term carrying costs of that unit are a much greater burden so the offset is much greater than the benefit you are getting. She said that at some point if you are just doing that, it starts to become a very big building. She said that the more things that we offer density bonuses for, we have to start to think about what else we need to provide as relief at the same time so that the density bonus can be accommodated on the site. She said that at some point you hit against dimensional requirements. She said that it gets complicated quickly, but it is certainly is something that can be contemplated for things beyond just affordability.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said that when we talk about zoning, we often focus on the City Council’s role in it but there are other bodies such as the Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeal that have a big role in zoning and in terms of what can get built. He clarified that under State law, those bodies have to exist, and the City Council could not perform those roles even if they wanted to take that work on. Ms. Glowa clarified that under State law, the Board of Zoning Appeal is required to exist, but the Planning Board has been designated by the City Council as a Special Permit granting authority for many Special Permits. She said that the City Council could claim that role for itself. The City Council could take that back from the Planning Board and issue Special Permits as the Special Permit granting authority, but you cannot eliminate the BZA or the ability of people to apply for a Variance and certain other functions that the Board of Zoning Appeal has under State law.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the purpose of the proposal is to add an inclusionary requirement for smaller buildings below 10,000 square feet or 10 units and related to that there was discussion about compensating for that requirement and in his earlier proposal the thought was that the City would purchase the unit. He said that it is his understanding from this discussion is now that it has to be a density bonus. Ms. Glowa responded that she did look at the questions that were sent and she was not at the meeting where there was some discussion about these various discussions. She said that she would like to make sure that she understood that in the chart it appears that if the total new dwelling unit that is being constructed is one unit, that that one unit must be affordable. If that is true, then it is her belief that it would be an unconstitutional taking. She said that the City does not have the right to take people’s property unless it compensates people for the taking. She said that if the City intends to take a piece of every property in the City, then all of those pieces of property would have to be paid for by the City. She said that otherwise, the framework that allows for an inclusionary ordinance is that if you can show through a nexus study that has been prepared that there are negative impacts on the provision of affordable units by the construction of market rate units in the City and you can establish that those impacts have adverse impact on the affordability, you can impose a requirement to provide some affordable units to offset those negative impacts. She said that would establish the rough proportionality of why we are imposing the requirement to provide the extra unit. However, in order to avoid it being a taking, it is also important to avoid a constitutional takings challenge to provide a density bonus to offset the expense to the owners so it would not be viewed as a taking. She said that is the balance that we have tried to strike when the inclusionary ordinance was created and when it was modified. She said that if you leave a property owner no ability to develop anything other than affordable housing, you are not creating a category of allowable uses that a property owner can make of their property, you are requiring them to create affordable housing whether they want to or not. She said that in all of the studies that have been done, the two nexus studies that have been referred to in creating the original inclusionary ordinance and then the 2017 changes, there would not be sufficient basis in those studies to support the requirements that Councillor Zondervan has set forth in his chart and would be vulnerable to a challenge that constituted an unconstitutional taking.

Councillor Zondervan said that he is hearing two things and trying to distinguish them in his mind. One is to avoid it being taken and then the other one is to base it on the nexus study in terms of impact of the construction. He said that if we hone in on the avoiding and being taken, what if we acknowledge that it was taken and compensate for it. Ms. Glowa said that that would be extremely complicated as it is merging our taking authority as a governmental entity but there is a clear, established process by which we can do that. She said that she does not think it can be done through zoning. She said if the City were to take someone’s property by eminent domain, there is a formula that the eminent domain statute provides for the so-called pro tonto payment which is the statutorily presumed value of the taking and then the owner has the right to challenge that pro tonto. She said that many owners do challenge the value of a pro tonto payment and often results in lengthy litigation that can go on for years. The idea of taking by eminent domain one or more units of property at each site that is developing new housing across the city and the resultant potential for litigation with respect to any or some or most of those units would be chaotic and extremely expensive. She said that she does not believe that the City can demand the taking through the zoning laws. Ms. Glowa stated that the City can not require the owner to sell the City the units. She said that there is a concept of private property rights that is well-established in the laws of the country and she does not think that can be abrogated by the City taking it upon itself to demand that every developer of new construction sell units to the City. She said that with respect to the density bonus, the reason that that is used as the formula that has been challenged in Court and upheld by the Supreme Court with some parameters and limitations. she said that it would be a very extreme approach under the City’s eminent domain powers, and she is not sure it would be upheld as constitutional.

Councillor Carlone stated that he has two questions. If the zoning stated that one of the purposes was to expand affordable housing in areas that are historically not open to affordable housing, couldn’t that be a condition of the Special Permit. He said that a certain number could be part of the Special Permit goals and if it is the same 20% that we have in bigger buildings, you could build up to 4 or maybe 3 without this but once you go to 4, we are expecting the 5th unit to be affordable. Ms. Glowa said that if she understands the question correctly, three units would be as-of-right but if you wanted to seek a Special Permit you could get a Special Permit to build something that had 4 units and the condition for getting that additional unit is that it would be affordable. Ms. Glowa said that that would probably fall under the general rubric of the Court’s analysis of inclusionary zoning types of provisions. She said that we would have to look, through a study, at whether there is a basis to be requiring that of people. She said that she feels that that would require a nexus study establishing the rough proportionality for the need and it would raise the question of whether sufficient compensation to an owner for doing that by merely saying only 3 are allowed as-of-right but if you go to 4 you can do it only if you make that 1 affordable. She said that she needs to conduct more legal research and analysis. Councillor Carlone said that 1 or 2 are as-of-right and anything above that is a Special Permit and within that Special Permit, 1 needs to be affordable. Ms. Farooq added that if the purpose is to actually have more units on the sites, then a Special Permit for a lot of people is a deterrent. It creates a hurdle and additional time and supporting an affordable unit may not be a sufficient incentive to go for a Special Permit. Councillor Carlone stated that the City Council goals are to create affordable housing at all levels. He said that there are many places where the City can add housing if we reduce commercial development FARs. He said that if we are not going to create a range of housing, he will be voting against it. He said that there is no reason to do this if there will not be a range of housing.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that regarding the problem that we are trying to solve, we are trying to do two things: when we think about single-family zoning only, we are thinking about the racist origins of zoning and redlining and when we are thinking about creating multi-family housing even in zones that it is currently allowed, because of the dimensional requirements and the non-conformity of the lots in the city, it requires a lot of variances. She said that we need less instances of people going for these variances. She said that we have all seen some cases that have gone before the BZA where whole units need to be reduced due to parking requirements. This is what we are trying to avoid when thinking about dimensional standards and what we need to do to our zoning to allow for multi-family to be built across the city and downzoning of lots sizes where it is easier to build a single family on a lot that used to be a 2 or 3-family. She said that it sounds like the City Solicitor is saying that the current nexus study that we originally had in place and was revised in 2017, it would cover the affordability in the instance if we were to be adding a density bonus to get that affordability. She said that she would like clarification if the current nexus study covers that if we were to proceed in that way or would we have to undergo a whole new nexus study to think about this topic today. Ms. Glowa said that she does not think that is correct, she believes that a new nexus study would be required.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that her other question is for CDD. She said that when the City Council was looking at the Missing Middle Petition and having the conversation in the Ordinance Committee and at the Planning Board, she seems to remember that the Planning Board expressed an interest in some kind of study or strategy that they were involved in around the issue of eliminating single family zoning and dimensional requirements. She said that she is curious how that would happen if the Planning Board wanted to more involved in the study. She asked how that would work. Jeff Roberts responded that the Planning Board did bring that up and he was hoping that the discussion that the City Council moved forward with would give guidance as to how staff, and the Planning Board might proceed to think about this issue. He said that the Planning Board’s schedule is fairly occupied so that can be an issue, but it is not unusual to bring topics of broad planning interest to the Planning Board to have a discussion and CDD welcomes the City Council’s input into what kinds of questions and information that it would like to receive from the Planning Board. Vice Mayor Mallon said that it is her understanding that the hope is that we have this conversation and we come up with broad strokes about what the staff would like to bring to the Planning Board for that larger and broader conversation around single family zoning and dimensional requirements. Mr. Roberts stated that is a way to do it. He said that he will not presume to tell the committee how to proceed but if that is the way that the group wanted to go, that would be helpful to CDD in framing the discussion with the Planning Board. Ms. Glowa added that the presentation was worked on by CDD and the Law Department. She said that the reason that the Law Department put in the provisions relating to the origins of the zoning act and the general principles that are set forth in the State law are to lay out some of the parameters of areas that zoning can and cannot cover. She said that it is helpful to look back at the broad principles which would help inform the City to some of the more specific areas that the committee is trying to address through any particular zoning amendment. Vice Mayor Mallon said that when we think about the parameters and the objectives, she would like to think about the reason and purpose and what we are trying to accomplish.

Councillor McGovern thanked all for their comments and presentations. He said that if we look at the Call of the Meeting it goes to what the Vice Mayor was saying. She said that everyone agrees that having sections of the City that only single-family housing is not something that anyone wants. He does not want to lose sight of what brought us to the conversation which is dismantling the systemic racism of zoning. He said that we can take steps to change zoning, dimensional standards, etc. but how do we put things in place that we get what we want. He said that we want to make sure that anything that is done is not just symbolic in nature and actually helps to achieve the goals of creating more multi-family housing throughout the City. He said that he appreciates the conversation and he cautioned that there should not be “too much in the stew.”

Councillor Nolan said that the City Council unanimously adopted a Policy Order which explicitly stated that the City Council is addressing the question of whether to eliminate single and two-family only zones and move forward. She said that is the genesis of this issue. She asked if it would make sense that the Planning Board have a joint meeting with the City Council. She said that she will speak with the Co-Chairs of the Housing Committee about a meeting about the possibility of inviting the Planning Board to a meeting. Ms. Farooq said that in the past there have been instances where the City Council has had a joint Roundtable meeting with the Planning Board.

Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place, stated that this meeting has been incredibly informative. She talked about the issue of consequences. She said that she learned that the value of a property if one has a parking space on it increases by about $150,000. She asked how we can address the financial part so that we are not setting up areas of the city with an equity disequilibrium based on that financial piece. She said that there is huge amount of investment money going into Cambridge. She asked if there a way that we can track where the money is coming from. She asked if there is a way that the City could legally do what some of the west coast areas are doing and do an area-wide approach for employers who are housed in the city in terms of how we approach housing, parking, transportation, and infrastructure.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that we may be expending a ton on energy for very little benefit and casting aspersions on people that are underserved. She said that one of the things that this city rarely does is figure out where we want to get to and then figure out how to get there. She noted that her neighborhood is the subject of a lot of attacks by various people. She said that East Cambridge was redlined and not on the downzoned list the Mr. Roberts provided. She said it was redlined because it was full of immigrants. She stated her hope that we can stop throwing stones and instead figure out what the goal is, how we can get there and how we can look at really important things.

Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, asked if the city knows how many “illegal units” are in attics and basements that could be made legitimate with no FAR in the basement and in-law apartments, etc. She said that it was said that existing structures were permitted to remain standing but if a significant building burns down or a single-family burns down and it is in a zoned area, can that single-family be rebuilt if the zoning changes. Regarding the 30% density bonus to a developer, she asked if that means that if they wanted to build a 6-story building and they had a certain amount of inclusionary, would that allow them to build a 9-story building to compensate for those units. She said that it was said that the City Council could take over the work of the Planning Board. She said that she does not believe the City Council is qualified to do that work.

Lee Farris spoke to the question of the goal. She said that to her, the goal of ending single-family and two-family zoning is not a sufficient goal. She said that she would like the City Council to change that goal to be ending single-family and two-family zoning in a way that is equitable and inclusive and does not make current problems worse. She said that if we do not add a requirement for affordability into the change, we will get a large increase in value of land and that will result in more multi-million dollars units being built and no additional affordable units being built. She said that changes in zoning need to be aimed at advantaging or benefitting the people who have been the most affected by the negative aspects of the zoning.

Bill Boehm stated that he supports Lee Farris’ suggestion that we be more explicit about what we are trying to do by undoing sing-family zoning in the city. He said that we should try to increase modest multi-family housing production and that can be done through density bonuses, discourage large single-family construction behind existing homes and decrease paving in the city by undoing the requirement of parking on private property.

Jonathan Behrens stated that this conversation has been going on for almost a year at this point. He said that responsibility of the City Council is to avoid taking action that will do harm. He said that every month that goes by with our current inclusionary zoning does harm. He said that he hopes that the City Council will address this injustice.

Marie Elena Saccoccio, 55 Otis Street, stated that she is third generation in her homestead. She said that lifting single-family zoning and allowing for multi-units on the same plot will increase the land value. She said that regarding zoning and its history, there was already a very dense environment in East Cambridge so if the City widely adopted setback and height restrictions that were not previously adopted, it was for a reason. She said that most zoning was based on health and welfare. She encouraged the City Council to stay in close proximity to the City Solicitor. She said that zoning is one of the most sacrosanct areas of the law. She said that property law precedes this country.

Christopher Schmidt, 17 Laurel Street, stated that while every year that the rent goes up 7%, we will continue losing more neighbors and friends. She said that we are losing friends to conversion of houses. He said that he lost his home because the owner wanted to turn his unit into an Air BNB. He said that these are ongoing situations where we are creating buildings that will last 100 years that do not match the values that we believe in. He said that we are incentivizing those choices when we are incentivizing people to build 1 or 2 unit building instead of more.

Councillor Carlone said that he agrees with Councillor Nolan about having a meeting with the Planning Board.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler suggested that this be done via Policy Order for the next regular City Council meeting.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is personally fine with limiting single-family only construction in the few districts where that is clearly the case but without somehow encouraging multi-family construction, he does not believe that it will do anything.

Councillor Nolan said that there were questions that the committee needs to answer as a group to move to the next steps. She asked if what we need is to answer those questions about what the goals are, what are the general criteria for items that the committee agrees on and wants to move forward on. She said that she thinks that just eliminating single and two-family only zones would at least allow for the possibility of a greater number of units in places. She said that we need to get specific and move forward with zoning language. She asked what is needed from the committee to move to the next phase. Ms. Farooq said that having the answers to the questions so they can understand what the will of the committees which represents a fair number of Councillors so that CDD knows that when they are drafting the zoning it is actually going to have a chance of being what the City Council is looking for. More specificity is essential for CDD to get started. Mr. Roberts said that one of the important questions for CDD is that they need a place to start. The first part of the presentation was focusing on the general issue of how is it that the City decides what areas to zone differently from other areas. He said that in the Missing Middle housing petition, it was suggested was that maybe residential neighborhoods across the City should be zoned the same. He said that as a starting point, it is helpful to know if we are looking at changing dimensional requirements within the single and two-family zoning districts that we already have or are we looking at the broader question of looking across the entire City and determining whether some areas should be zoned more similar to one another in some way. Ms. Glowa added that there are two fairly significant themes that are not necessarily related and do not necessarily have to be treated at the same time. She said that she sees the elimination of zones that only allow for single or two-family houses as one fairly simple problem that would be fairly easy to come up with zoning changes to address that. She said that if there are other additional districts that you would want to look at it would be helpful to understand that as well whether dimensional changes will be made to any or all of those districts. She said that she also sees the modifications to the Inclusionary Ordinance or requirements to add affordability to new development as being a somewhat discreet different, albeit very large, topic with a very complex set of issues which would take longer to develop and may require a nexus study. She said that if the City Council’s goal is primarily to move forward with the elimination of single and two-family only districts, perhaps with some of those issues she touched on, it could be done more quickly and readily.

The City Clerk’s Office received one written communication from Allan Sadun to be made part of the record (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler thanked all those present for their attendance.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the hearing.
The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan -6
ABSENT: Councillor McGovern -1
and the hearing was adjourned at 3:01pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, Co-Chair (Housing)
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair (Housing)
Councillor Patricia Nolan, Chair (NLTP)

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee will meet to conduct a hearing on an ordinance amendment to reduce or limit campaign donations.
Date: Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 11:00am, Sullivan Chamber
Present: Carlone, McGovern (late), Mallon, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Absent: Nolan, Toomey

Councillor Carlone called the meeting to order. He stated that there are some other communities, including Somerville, that basically says that anybody doing business with the city cannot give the maximum amount of money to any candidate.

Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor, described two of the amendments suggested by the law department at the July 26, 2021 Ordinance Committee meeting. There was an exclusion added for volunteer campaign volunteer services. The other amendment indexed the $200 limit to inflation.

Councillor Carlone moved to approve amendments to the ordinance proposed by the law department as submitted on July 26, 2021.
Yea: Mallon, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan, Siddiqui, Carlone
Nay: –
Absent: McGovern, Nolan, Toomey

Councillor Carlone moved to forward the amended ordinance to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Yea: Mallon, McGovern, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan, Siddiqui, Carlone
Nay: –
Absent: Nolan, Toomey

Arthur Goldberg stated that it is the opinion of the Law Department that this ordinance should have a special act authorizing it in order to enable it to better withstand legal challenges. Proposed language was submitted to the July 26 ordinance committee meeting as well.

Councillor Carlone supported this recommendation.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that she was frustrated that a neighboring community enacted a similar law by Cambridge is advised to submit a home rule petition.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler stated that he strongly preferred to enact the ordinance as opposed to a Home Rule petition.

Councillor Zondervan stated that it is critical that the council adopt this ordinance and reduce the flow of developer money into campaigns. He stated that the council could adopt the ordinance and the home rule petition.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about unions, Arthur Goldberg stated that to the extent there's any lack of clarity on that the council could add a provision into the ordinance that excludes unions from its effect.

Councillor McGovern stated that he did not want to harm the unions.

Councillor Carlone stated that anybody can give up to $1,000 if they're not seeking financial gain with the city.

Councillor McGovern moved to suspend the rules to be recorded as a "yes" on the prior motion.
Yea: Mallon, McGovern, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan, Siddiqui, Carlone
Nay: –
Absent: Nolan, Toomey

Councillor Carlone moved to refer the Home Rule petition from the Law Department to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Yea: Mallon, McGovern, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan, Siddiqui, Carlone
Nay: –
Absent: Nolan, Toomey

Councillor Carlone moved to adjourn.
Yea: Mallon, McGovern, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan, Siddiqui, Carlone
Nay: –
Absent: Nolan, Toomey

That the City Council adopt a municipal ordinance to reduce or limit campaign donations from donors seeking to enter into a contract, seeking approval for a special permit or up-zoning, seeking to acquire real estate from the city, or seeking financial assistance from the city. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Simmons In Council Oct 26, 2020]

A communication was received from Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor, transmitting a communication for the July 26, 2021 Ordinance Committee.

[Oct 26, 2020 Order #4]

Proposed Order     Nov 8, 2021  Tabled 9-0
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The Ordinance Committee met on Oct 20, 2021 to discuss the “Pay-to-Play” Campaign donation ordinance; and
WHEREAS: The Law Department suggested that the City Council submit a Home Rule petition to the state legislature regarding campaign donation regulations; and
WHEREAS: The Ordinance committee forwarded the attached Campaign donation Home Rule Petition to the City Council; Now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the attached Home Petition titled “Petition For An Act Authorizing The City Of Cambridge To Enact An Ordinance To Limit And Monitor Campaign Donations In Local Elections By Individuals Seeking Financial Reward From The City Of Cambridge” be forwarded to the General Court for adoption.   Councillor Carlone

Petition For An Act Authorizing The City Of Cambridge To Enact An Ordinance To Limit And Monitor Campaign Donations In Local Elections By Individuals Seeking Financial Reward From The City Of Cambridge

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the City of Cambridge is hereby authorized to enact an ordinance to limit and monitor campaign donations in local elections by individuals seeking financial reward from the City of Cambridge, as provided in the attached Ordinance, and as such Ordinance may be amended in the future as long as such amendments are of the type that are within the City’s home rule powers to adopt.

SECTION 2. Individuals subject to the Ordinance shall be those persons and entities defined in the Ordinance.

SECTION 3. This Act shall be effective after its enactment and after acceptance by affirmative vote of a majority of the Cambridge City Council.