[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[13:10] Good afternoon everyone. We're just waiting to get quorum, and then we'll get started.
[15:33] Good afternoon, everyone. It's great to be here with you all. I'm going to call today's joint housing and health environmental committee meeting to order. The call for today's meeting is to review and discuss policy order, 2020-25, number 137, which asks the community development department to draft zoning language to reduce the impact on solar energy systems.
[15:56] Based on the recommendations discussed in the September 16th, 2025 health and environmental environment committee meeting, the first or a business is a role hall of members present.
[16:08] From the housing committee, Councillor Zeeam President, Vice Mayor of the Government.
[16:13] Absent Councillor Siddiqui, President, President, Councillor Sabrina Wheeler, President, Councillor Wilson.
[16:19] Absent, that's three members present, two absent from Health and Environment, Councillor Zeeam.
[16:26] President, President Counselor Nolan, President Counselor City Key, President, President Counselor
[16:31] Sabrina Wheeler, President Counselor Wilson is absent, that's four members, President
[16:35] one absent.
[16:37] Per chapter two, the Acts of 2020, five adopted by the Massachusetts General
[16:40] Court and approved by the Governor, the city is authorized to use remote participation
[16:44] at meetings of the Cambridge City Council as committees.
[16:47] Please note that the city of Cambridge, audio and video records this meeting and makes it
[16:52] available to the public or future viewing.
[16:54] In addition, third parties may also be audio and video recording this meeting.
[16:59] In addition to having members of the council participate remotely,
[17:02] you've set up Zoom teleconference for public comment. Each speaker will have three minutes.
[17:06] If you'd like to provide public comment, please visit the city council section of the city's web page,
[17:12] instructions for how to sign up to speaker posted there. Once you've completed the sign up procedure,
[17:17] you'll receive a link to the Zoom meeting.
[17:19] And to watch the meeting, please tune in to channel 22 or visit the Open Meeting portal on the city's website.
[17:26] Any votes today will be by Rolkall.
[17:29] In our packet before us, we have a communication received from Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development,
[17:37] Transviting and presentation titled Zoning Protections for Rolkkape Solar.
[17:41] The order of business will be the presentation and then we'll go to public comment.
[17:47] I'm joined by my co-chair, Azim, on the Housing Committee, and then I'm joined by the chair of our Health and Environmental and Environment Committee.
[17:55] I will go to Councillor Nolan to make any opening remarks as well.
[18:01] Thank you very much, Chair Sediki.
[18:03] I'm co-chair Azim for being here from Housing and as chair of the Health and Environment Committee.
[18:08] I just thought I'd remind us all of the context for this presentation in this meeting.
[18:13] And it was during the discussions actually last fall, on December, January that the question came
[18:20] up about what would the impact on this multi-family zoning be for existing solar.
[18:25] So there's a policy order adopted on January 27th of 2025 before we finalized the passage
[18:31] based on a memo from the city that we had asked the city manager to work with relevant
[18:36] city departments to develop zoning regulations, including the use of solar energy systems
[18:41] and protecting solar access.
[18:43] And we did that knowing that there was some concerns
[18:45] being raised at that time.
[18:47] Then we got the word that we cannot in the current zoning.
[18:50] We couldn't amend it.
[18:51] So the idea was that the council's a whole decided we
[18:55] will move forward with the zoning, but we did want to not
[18:57] forget the solar question.
[19:00] And there was a meeting held in a policy order passed in April
[19:02] that has led to a couple of different meetings.
[19:04] So I just want to know that it's been a while.
[19:07] It we have really tackled this and want to honor both goals we have as a city.
[19:13] We want more housing and we also want to protect solar.
[19:16] It's critically important that for those individual solar systems across the city,
[19:20] which we have spent a decade asking people to put in.
[19:24] Obviously, recognizing it's not going to address all of our emission pollution across the city,
[19:27] but it's critically important part of our goals and it's the only way we can get to do a little decarbonization.
[19:33] So the context for this meeting is I'm really grateful that the council and the staff have continued to work on it.
[19:37] here today, the work to date, and then some recommendations from moving forward.
[19:40] So I think the staff and the public and also the council for continuing this thorny conversation.
[19:47] Thank you, Chair Nolan. So with that, we're joined also by Julie Wormser, our chief climate officer,
[19:53] our solicitor, as well, and Jeff and Emily from Zoning Team. So with that, Jeff, let's go to you.
[20:03] Thank you. Thank you to the chair to all the chairs and committee members
[20:09] It's great to be continuing this conversation just to reiterate I'm Jeff Roberts the director of zoning development Emily Hutchings is with me.
[20:17] She's a planner on my team and Julie is here. Megan Bayer is also joined us from the law department.
[20:24] She always makes me feel more comfortable and and Melissa Peters regrets that she couldn't be here for for this particular meeting.
[20:35] If you're on the next slide, unfortunately, I'll have to do the next slide thing.
[20:41] We've had a number of discussions.
[20:43] We've been at this for a while, primarily, with the Health and Environment Committee.
[20:48] I think it's helpful and important now to be bringing in the Housing Committee as part
[20:53] of this discussion, we'll be rehashing a lot of what we've already talked about over the
[21:02] new context that we've been able to provide since then and look forward to getting some guidance
[21:09] on next steps.
[21:11] I'm going to next slide, please.
[21:14] As noted, this is an issue that came out during the multi-family zoning amendment discussion.
[21:22] We talked about it.
[21:23] We heard a lot about it at the time.
[21:25] It really is a tricky issue.
[21:29] The main thrust of the multi-family zoning
[21:32] is to relax zoning requirements
[21:34] to enable more multi-family development.
[21:37] That has some inherent trade-offs,
[21:40] particularly when it comes to existing development,
[21:44] existing uses and what those impacts might be.
[21:48] Ultimately, it's a question, you know,
[21:51] come down to a question of policy trade-offs.
[21:53] I don't think that aspect of it has changed.
[21:55] But over the course of the past year, we've talked a lot about the issue and we've learned a lot about the issue.
[22:01] And so I think it's been a worthwhile exercise to go through this and get a better sense of where we are.
[22:09] Next slide.
[22:13] Councilor.
[22:17] I do hate to interrupt, but I recognize one of the members of the public who wanted to make public comment.
[22:23] Knowing it started at three has to leave very, very soon.
[22:26] and I'm wondering if we could either use
[22:28] to spend the particular agenda or at least let anybody
[22:30] list a leave before the presentations
[22:32] over make public comment.
[22:33] I think it would be, there's only a couple of people
[22:35] signed up if that would be appropriate.
[22:37] There's 15 people signed up.
[22:40] So there's 15 people signed up.
[22:43] I'm the folks who need early, need to leave early.
[22:48] We're welcome to speak at this time.
[22:56] If you could just give us one, if you could
[22:57] just give us one second, please.
[22:59] Yes.
[22:59] So, sorry,
[23:07] if you can please state your name for the record.
[23:09] My name is Liz Byron,
[23:11] LA at 21 Field Street Cambridge.
[23:12] I appreciate this.
[23:13] I have to go pick up my kids from school
[23:15] and we were told we'd start at three.
[23:16] Otherwise, I would have made other plans for a child care.
[23:20] I'm going to make five points.
[23:21] In July 2025, the CDD released a document titled,
[23:25] Shaping Our Citywide Urban Design Guidelines.
[23:27] This document clearly states,
[23:29] reduced the visual bulk of taller buildings,
[23:32] residential buildings by using step-backs.
[23:34] and quote, it says to use step-backs.
[23:38] This document also makes explicit recommendations
[23:40] about building heights and massing
[23:42] that naturally support a butter's access to sunlight.
[23:44] This was July 2025.
[23:46] There's even an image of step-backs.
[23:48] So if developers say this can't be done, it's not true.
[23:51] If the CDD has other recommendations,
[23:53] they're being hypocritical to their own resource guide.
[23:56] My second point.
[23:57] There are many issues within your slide deck
[23:59] that I appreciate you had just started with.
[24:01] We were just told three o'clock,
[24:02] which is why I'm rushing, sorry.
[24:03] Your slide deck falsely states rooftop solar does not change the city's carbon emissions. Yes, it does.
[24:08] If rooftop solar doesn't change carbon emissions, then why does the city incentivize residents to get solar?
[24:14] Why is the brand new Tobin School equipped with solar? If solar does not change carbon emissions, why is the city now contradicting itself?
[24:21] Remember, this solar does reduce emissions. Paying for solar paying for the sun from another part of the country is a solution for those who don't have solar.
[24:28] But it is not sustainable and it's irrational when the sun shines on Cambridge too.
[24:32] We already have 900 plus buildings with solar.
[24:35] My third point. In your slide deck, developer state that protecting solar will lower inclusionary housing
[24:40] because those are the units of the fifth and sixth floors. This argument is baseless.
[24:45] Zoning doesn't state that inclusionary has to be at the top. Zoning states it's 20% of the building,
[24:50] not 20% of the top floors. Who are these developers? Really? Who are they? We do want to know who they are.
[24:56] They're comical, that leads me to my fourth point.
[24:59] Counselor Zeme, milled this campaign material
[25:01] to the many residents in Cambridge.
[25:03] It's a drawing of a street in Cambridge.
[25:05] It appears to be a main corridor based
[25:06] on the width of the sidewalk and the existence
[25:09] of the bike and bus lanes
[25:11] and the ground floor commercial properties, all great.
[25:14] It also clearly depicts stepbacks
[25:17] at the fifth floor in two different buildings.
[25:19] In fact, the tallest buildings only five stories
[25:21] on this main corridor.
[25:22] So, we know Councillor Zeeam support step-backs.
[25:27] Thank you.
[25:29] There are six other council members who have told care housing this fall that they support
[25:33] protecting solar through zoning.
[25:35] Those are Councillors.
[25:36] So, Bruno Willer, Zusey, Nolan, Sediki, Wilson, and Toner in addition to Councillor
[25:41] Zeeam with his wonderful campaign materials we have seven.
[25:45] This is not a one or the other.
[25:46] It's a yes and build responsible and protect the environment and solar.
[25:51] many other cities already do this.
[25:54] Listen to your residents.
[25:58] For any one of the seven of you who go back
[26:00] on what you said in emails, conversations,
[26:03] or in your campaign materials.
[26:05] If you go back on that,
[26:07] it will simply make you untrustworthy
[26:09] and cause you to lose support.
[26:12] Thank you.
[26:13] And I'm so sorry I gotta go get my kids.
[26:15] I'll listen online.
[26:17] Thanks for your testimony.
[26:19] Are there any other hands raised?
[26:23] Nicole, no, not at this time.
[26:25] Sorry, no.
[26:26] We're going to continue with the presentation.
[26:28] I don't think it'll be too long.
[26:30] And then we'll go to public comment.
[26:37] I'm sorry.
[26:38] I was hearing two different things at once.
[26:39] Could you be that please?
[26:40] We're just going to continue the presentation.
[26:42] Okay, and actually I'm on the,
[26:44] I can actually take over the presentation at this point.
[26:47] If that's,
[26:50] I will send a request and do that.
[26:52] Because it'll make it a little bit speedier.
[26:55] Should be able to go ahead.
[26:57] I took my down.
[26:57] Let me
[27:06] try that one more time.
[27:08] There we go.
[27:13] It's waiting for it to come from space.
[27:15] There we go.
[27:17] OK, so I believe this is where we left off.
[27:25] And so we discussed where we started with this process
[27:29] as a result of the multi-family zoning amendment.
[27:33] One of the points that we made really from very early on
[27:36] is that if we want to take a zoning approach to this,
[27:40] to changing something, it's owning, just like the multi-family zoning,
[27:42] it has to be a uniform approach. So while some of the concern that was raised was about sort
[27:48] of individual site-specific impacts, we acknowledged that if we wanted to put a rule in place
[27:55] that would have to be a general rule, not just a rule that applied only where there's
[27:59] where there's existing solar. So that puts some constraints around what we can do and has some
[28:03] implications in terms of the impacts.
[28:08] We talked at that first meeting about some different approaches
[28:11] As we could take to addressing this issue, there's the more direct approach of dimensional
[28:17] limitations.
[28:19] So the ultimately the issue is that buildings that a certain height will impact solar radiation
[28:26] access.
[28:27] And so the way to resolve that, sort of having transparent buildings is to have stepbacks
[28:34] put in place to create some massing that would reduce shadow impacts.
[28:42] So that's something that we brought up that we could look at.
[28:46] Ultimately, that was what we were asked to look at just to kind of jump ahead.
[28:50] We did talk about other things that we might want to look at.
[28:53] You know, we might look more at some of the criteria.
[28:57] And some of the urban design guidelines that we apply.
[29:00] those would, in many cases, be sort of advisory, in nature, given the way the multi-family zoning
[29:07] really aims to promote as of right development, they might be more binding in cases where larger
[29:13] developments, where there might be more binding review. But the flip side is that there's more
[29:17] flexibility, so we could look at more of the site-by-site impacts rather than having to apply
[29:22] a general rule. We also talked a little bit but not too much about how do we encourage solar energy
[29:29] in new buildings, especially when there's larger buildings or larger rooftops, where there's
[29:33] the potential to generate more energy.
[29:39] This is just this sort of an illustration when we talk about dimensional limitations, mainly
[29:43] what we're talking about, are tools that we put in place that limit the building envelope,
[29:49] either through kind of angled planes, or stepbacks above certain stories, and there's pros
[29:55] and cons of doing the different, doing those kinds of different approaches.
[29:58] but ultimately
[30:00] You know, the impact of those is that there would be less building envelope in order to build housing and depending on how it's structured, it could, the requirement is structured, it could have other implications to, in terms of making buildings more difficult to build or making them more difficult to design and more costly.
[30:20] Back in April, we were asked to do some further study on particularly folks on the dimensional
[30:26] limitations.
[30:27] How could we apply a rule in zoning that would provide some protection, but at the same
[30:33] time not wanting to go too far in order to try to minimize the impact it would have on
[30:40] buildable volume and to think about what the different pros and cons would be of that kind
[30:47] approach. So that jumps us into the most recent meeting we had in September, where we presented
[30:54] some work that we did to really get our heads around this issue of what the actual impacts
[31:00] might be of taller buildings on solar access and how they could be addressed through zoning measures.
[31:10] And this was just a, we started kind of with a reminder of what we're looking at. We have previous
[31:15] zoning that had a 35-foot height limit.
[31:18] We have new zoning that has either a four-story or a six-story height limit under the old
[31:25] zoning.
[31:26] If someone had a building where they were installing solar and wanted to install it in
[31:31] a place where it would be minimally impacted by other 35-foot buildings, the expectation
[31:37] is those solar energy systems would be somewhere in kind of a 30 to 35-foot height range
[31:44] although people might install solar in other places too.
[31:48] But that was really the focus was on that difference
[31:50] between the previous zoning and the new zoning.
[31:55] We spent some time looking at this.
[31:57] I don't think going to too much detail on the methodology,
[32:00] but we worked with a consultant who's worked with the city
[32:03] in the past on these questions about solar access
[32:06] and how it gets impacted by site conditions.
[32:11] We really dug into this issue.
[32:14] It was a really interesting analysis.
[32:16] It's something that I don't think is certainly something.
[32:20] We hadn't really focused on particularly before,
[32:24] but in something I hadn't really seen in other places either.
[32:28] But it really was a helpful analysis to kind of look at what the aggregate impact,
[32:33] looking beyond just your basic shadow studies to say,
[32:36] how do we actually quantify the full impact year-round,
[32:40] sorry, of these kind of solar access from taller buildings?
[32:47] So, you know, we, some overall takeaways
[32:49] that we came up with, and I'll talk a little bit
[32:52] about the analysis is that when you're talking
[32:54] about the new zoning, allowing 45 feet,
[32:57] that's not really having much of a substantial impact.
[33:00] We looked at that a little bit
[33:01] and kind of moved on from that to look at really
[33:03] what the more substantial impact was,
[33:06] which would be a six-story building that's allowed up to 74 feet and what impact that might
[33:11] have on existing buildings that are in either the 30-foot range on the old zoning or even
[33:17] newer buildings that are 45 feet.
[33:21] We found that the impacts when you aggregate them throughout the year are actually fairly limited.
[33:28] There can be some substantial impact, but the impact is really when there's a greater difference
[33:33] and height, and when the buildings are very close to one another, and as buildings get
[33:38] for the report, that impact dissipates pretty quickly, just given the way that solar radiation
[33:45] works.
[33:47] Just a note that since we're looking at this from a zoning perspective, we looked at some fairly
[33:51] generic, high-level things, and we wanted to make sure people remember then, and remember
[33:57] So now that the actual impacts can be very site-specific,
[34:03] there can be lots of site conditions that will make a difference
[34:05] in terms of exactly where solar is located,
[34:08] exactly what the size is, exactly what the surrounding conditions are,
[34:12] if there's other things like trees that haven't impact.
[34:16] So there are lots of things that we couldn't really factor into this,
[34:20] but in a particular site might be relevant.
[34:22] And this is just kind of a picture, which is kind of gives an idea of the analysis.
[34:30] I won't try to get into it too much, but we did some modeling that looked at what if
[34:35] you had a 74-foot building and kind of a field of buildings that had 30-foot height that
[34:44] might have might or might not have solar installed on them, and then what is what's the impact
[34:49] on solar access. And the picture on the left gives kind of a good illustration of it where
[34:55] there's the darker orange. That's where you really have more substantial impacts. So that's
[35:00] sort of 10 feet away. They get a little bit less as you get to sort of 20 feet away. And then
[35:06] they really go down considerably when you get further away than that. And the chart on the
[35:19] You get that sense of, you know, it's an impact that never entirely goes away or takes a very long distance for it to entirely go away, but it really goes down pretty precipitously at first and then it gets a little bit more gradual as you go further away.
[35:40] When we looked at this analysis, we kind of just to kind of characterize it a little bit.
[35:46] You know, we looked at, well, where is the, where are the distances, where that reduction in annual solar radiation?
[35:53] Again, this is, we're talking about radiation across the entire year.
[35:56] Where is it, you know, less than 20%, where is it less than 10% in most cases?
[36:01] You don't have to be very far away for the impact to be less than 20%, but where that separation is the greatest, where it's 74 feet compared to a 30 feet, there is some more impact between 10 and 20 feet, and then for the impact to completely go away, it's sort of more between 20 and 30 feet of distance.
[36:29] So based on that, a suggestion that we made at the time in terms of, you know, following
[36:35] from that earlier question of can we construct a zoning, like a dimensional requirement
[36:42] that would provide the greatest sort of balance between solar protection and then, you
[36:48] know, but not have as much of an impact on the buildable envelope was to step back the fifth
[36:57] story by a little bit more, basically by five feet, extra from the five existing five-foot
[37:05] setback requirement and then the six-story back, another five feet, and this would be measured
[37:11] just from the north of the building, so it wouldn't be a total step back. It would just be
[37:16] where the impact is greatest, and this just a little illustration showing, you know, this is
[37:23] what we mean when we say step back from the north.
[37:26] So depending on where the building is oriented,
[37:28] it could be a step back just from one side
[37:29] or it could be from two sides if it's at an angle.
[37:33] If you look at it in the kind of an extreme,
[37:36] different kinds of extreme conditions,
[37:38] and you try to calculate how much of a floor area reduction
[37:41] that is, it could reduce the top floor area
[37:46] by said we calculated 9 to 19% and for the whole building,
[37:52] the floor area is reduced by 3 to 6% and we'll talk a little bit more about what the
[37:57] implications of that might be.
[38:01] And looking at the analysis again, looking at kind of an extreme example where you have
[38:07] two buildings, one taller building directly to the south of a shorter building.
[38:12] You see that by having that step back from the north, you bring down the overall impact
[38:18] from something just over 30% to something just under 20%.
[38:25] So that's really where we thought there would be the most impact
[38:29] in that orange kind of cone of impact.
[38:34] And that would be a way to try to mitigate it.
[38:40] So when we talked about it at the time,
[38:43] we noted that the impact on the total building envelope
[38:47] is relatively modest from doing something like that
[38:50] and it does provide protection in cases
[38:53] where there would be a significant impact.
[38:57] But again, we realize, kind of stepping out a little bit,
[39:01] there are some considerations here going back to the beginning,
[39:07] even if there's no solar there to be impacted.
[39:09] This is a rule that would have to apply,
[39:11] so it could have impacts even where there wouldn't be
[39:13] benefit, there are other issues that come into play when you talk about doing setbacks in terms
[39:20] of how the building needs to be engineered and how it has to be designed structurally. And
[39:25] we noted at the time that the way that the multifamily zoning is constructed, the fifth and
[39:32] sixth story that's allowed in residency one is the bonus, basically it's the benefit for
[39:39] or having an inclusionary housing development,
[39:43] which would have affordable units.
[39:46] So, in some cases, reducing the area,
[39:51] and therefore the value of those fifth and sixth stories
[39:54] could tilt the balance if property owners
[39:57] trying to choose between doing a non-inclusionary project
[40:01] at four stories and taking on a bigger project
[40:06] that's five or six stories.
[40:11] We were asked, and also I would note too that we did hear that at that hearing from the property owners who, and at the previous hearing too, from property owners who had solar and concerned about this and back through the entire process.
[40:28] We've been hearing those concerns which are relevant and we've had discussions with the representatives of the care group.
[40:36] So we talked about all of those issues.
[40:41] We at the end of that health environment committee
[40:43] were asked to look at going further to develop
[40:48] those requirements that we suggested,
[40:51] but with some discussion around things like the Affordable
[40:54] Housing Overlay not having it impact those developments.
[41:00] That report came back to the city council,
[41:03] which I think looked at some of the recommendations,
[41:05] and then asked, you know, instead of kind of moving ahead, decided it would be a good idea
[41:12] to have this be discussed, controlling it with the housing committee as well to bring
[41:15] in feedback from that end of things. So we were asked for some additional information, including
[41:21] talking with some developers to get some input on it, and then that brings us to where we are now.
[41:27] So just, here's what we did since the last time we spoke about this, and the purpose of what we've
[41:32] since then really was not to go any deeper in the analysis,
[41:35] but to step back a bit and try to put the issue
[41:38] in a little bit of broader context, again,
[41:40] before moving ahead.
[41:44] Just in terms of looking at what we've done
[41:47] and what we've seen so far, since the multifamily zoning
[41:49] amendment, we have to note there haven't been any building permits issued
[41:54] for the five or six story buildings in residency one,
[41:58] we do now have a handful of projects
[42:01] that have come to CDD, either they've gone through some level of review or about to go through
[42:08] some level of review,
[42:11] we've been mindful of this issue whenever there's zoning under consideration.
[42:17] When we talk to people about it, we always make sure that they're aware of it and that we're aware of it
[42:21] and we're looking at the proposals and the context of that. We haven't noted any buildings at that
[42:27] story level that would be impacted by the proposed requirement in a lot of cases, their buildings
[42:34] that face north. So if you had to step back, you know, to create that 20 foot distance from
[42:41] the north. And I probably should have put that on the slide that we're really talking about the
[42:45] 20 feet to the north of, uh, existing solar being 20 feet to the north of the proposed development.
[42:53] we haven't seen any projects, there are some that maybe across the street from a building that
[42:57] has solar, so that's something we're looking at a little bit, but in terms of the analysis
[43:02] that we did and where that sphere, that area of impact would be, we've not looked at any
[43:09] proposals at CDD that would sort of where that kind of step back would apply. And so with that limited
[43:21] It's kind of hard to tell what the future impacts might be, either way, of whether we
[43:26] would apply this or not apply it.
[43:30] But that's something we're going to continue to look at.
[43:33] We have had a lot of discussions with our urban design team about this throughout the process.
[43:37] We didn't really talk about it much the last time, but there are some potential concerns
[43:42] that we would want to keep in mind that urban design team has done a lot of work to
[43:47] to develop some design guidelines for multifamily development as a result of the zoning.
[43:55] They've noted that there's adding another prescriptive zoning requirement can make it more difficult
[44:02] to consider other issues sort of more holistically that are trying to balance different types
[44:08] of objectives.
[44:10] Some examples, if you say you have to have a step back on one side of the building, you might
[44:16] a force sort of an awkward result in terms of buildings that are sort of step back on one
[44:22] side and then kind of flat on the other side.
[44:26] It doesn't necessarily consider the context in the site conditions and that's reiterating
[44:33] what we've already talked about a little bit before.
[44:35] Those are things that we try to focus on when something gets through just the zoning compliance
[44:41] and gets to the review process.
[44:42] we try to look at, well, what are the context-specific issues that should be considered?
[44:48] And they noted, as we've noted before, that there can be structural complications with
[44:52] a residential building where step-axe are applied, and then that can result in.
[45:00] And some issues or impacts on just the interior of the building and how the building functions.
[45:09] We did pull together some information. We talked about this briefly before, but we didn't sort of show the data on where solar photovoltaic and how many solar photovoltaic systems are.
[45:21] are within the city. There's about 800 that are for, I think it's about 1,000 total, about 800
[45:27] are for single two or three family buildings.
[45:33] And it's a little, the data's a little bit
[45:35] confusing because there are sometimes multiple permits for one address. So, you know,
[45:40] they can have to be taken a little bit with a grain of salt. The data, we didn't show them
[45:45] app, but you can look at the map. It doesn't, doesn't tell us too much except that it tends
[45:49] to be sort of dispersed throughout the city.
[45:51] It's not necessarily concentrated in one place versus another,
[45:55] but it tends to be pretty spread out.
[46:02] Yeah, I'm gonna let Julie Worms sort of talk about this a little bit
[46:05] because we did engage with the sustainability team
[46:08] to talk a little bit more about these issues.
[46:11] So, I want to thank you, through you, Madam Chair.
[46:17] I want to slow down on this slide
[46:19] because I'm making a relatively nuanced point.
[46:24] The point is, why are we doing what we're doing?
[46:28] So the city is 100% supportive of solar of all type.
[46:35] I have rooftop solar as a small building.
[46:39] We are helping with free technical support for residents, for businesses, with big rooftop
[46:49] We work on both solar within Massachusetts and beyond our grid, so we're all in on renewables.
[47:00] The point that this makes is not that we are Andy Solar.
[47:03] The point that this makes is that our sustainability and energy work has multiple purposes.
[47:11] One is to get the entire city off of fossil fuels by 2050 as cheaply and quickly as possible.
[47:20] Second is help everyone make that transition.
[47:25] So we're getting all of our buildings to electricity.
[47:28] Some geothermal as well, but mostly through electrification.
[47:32] And the third is making sure nobody's left behind, so we're really helping on energy justice and lowering costs.
[47:41] For our city wide goals of getting the whole city off fossil fuels,
[47:46] small residential solar doesn't make a dent.
[47:50] That's the only point about this
[47:52] that we're looking at major solar farms in the Midwest
[47:56] to make a bigger difference.
[47:58] The key thing that's so important
[48:00] about residential, small residential solar
[48:03] is it makes a huge difference in the energy cost
[48:06] for that building owner, right?
[48:09] So that as you're going to electricity, and you're doing that initial capital investment in terms
[48:15] of electrification, solar, insulation, you are decreasing your net energy costs.
[48:22] So I just want to make the distinction between small residential rooftop solar makes a big
[48:30] difference to the building owner.
[48:33] But what I keep hearing is this is critical for the city wide energy goals.
[48:38] It doesn't make a big enough difference.
[48:41] It's a subtle point.
[48:42] It's not worth belaboring,
[48:45] but in terms of why are we doing what we're doing,
[48:49] it's really important to prioritize.
[48:51] So we're doing things the most cost effectively
[48:53] and quickly as possible.
[48:58] Thank you.
[48:59] And speaking of transitions,
[49:01] hard transition back to me talking about zoning.
[49:05] So we did, as requested,
[49:08] reach out to some developers that we have some interaction with and have experienced doing
[49:14] residential development in Cambridge to talk about this issue and what they think about
[49:18] it, you know, similar to the conversations we have with Urban Design, who I think are tuned
[49:23] to a lot of the same issues. There are a lot of standards that need to be met for developing
[49:29] housing. There's not just zoning. There's the building code, you know, we talk about things like
[49:33] of egress and windows and you know how unit design and how you kind of meet everything in order
[49:44] to in order to comply both with a building code and a zoning that's you know not to mention
[49:49] our resilience standards which are something that you know are I think especially with the
[49:54] multifamily zoning creating more flexible. Dimensional requirements we found that some of our
[49:58] The Zillion standards have become a much more important factor in site and building design.
[50:07] So, you know, everything has to be met, you know, ultimately all these requirements they don't stand on their own.
[50:12] They all have to be packaged together and every new standard that gets layered onto that, you know, adds to the challenge of trying to design something that is workable and feasible.
[50:25] One thing that's important, you know, and maybe speaks to some having sort of a, you know,
[50:32] form approaches that it can be helpful to have requirements known, you know, upfront at the
[50:38] very beginning, so if someone's buying land, they kind of can see clearly what the requirement is
[50:43] and can factor it into their pricing. On the other hand, you know, the step back in particular,
[50:48] as we've noted, does add a lot of complexity, it can add costs, the cost that it can add
[50:56] is, you know, as in many cases with something like this, a very context and site dependent
[51:01] about, you know, how, what are the other factors that have to come into play in order to fit
[51:06] a residential building on a particular site. As noted, you know, the fifth and sixth floors
[51:11] are the bonus for inclusionary for residents C1, developers have noted that the fifth and sixth
[51:22] floors tend to be the more valuable floors of the building, and so the higher floors
[51:26] tend to be more valuable, and so it's to be able to support inclusionary.
[51:31] Those floors are really critical.
[51:34] We did hear some feedback that developers might be more willing, and we've definitely
[51:42] We've seen some developers going in different directions when it comes to doing the six-story development
[51:47] versus just going ahead with the four-story development, which can be a lot simpler, but wouldn't be in many cases subject to inclusionary.
[51:57] And then again, as a final piece, you know, step-backs, there are some benefits to step-backs,
[52:02] where I don't think we heard that step-backs are just in principle our bad.
[52:08] We've seen some of the development we've seen have included step-backs just voluntarily, as a way to do better site design and provides, again,
[52:18] to provide some benefit, you know, developers have told us that if there's some usable open space on those upper floors,
[52:23] that can add to the value of the units. So it's sort of a mixed bag. I don't think, you know, we can say that this is step-backs in total or good or bad,
[52:32] but adding the requirement definitely has an impact on housing development and feasibility.
[52:43] So in terms of framing that in terms of unintended outcomes, just in addition to reducing the amount of space that would be in a project with the step back requirement,
[52:55] there's the increased difficulties with financing, there's the possibility of having more forestry buildings,
[53:02] you know, with sort of smaller projects with larger units and not as many projects in that inclusionary realm and, you know, the private and, you know, we, there's been a lot of discussion too on that issue of open space and private open space of, you know, whether there should be more of a preference to have the private open space at the ground level than upper floors and that's, that's kind of a consideration that we think about in, in site design.
[53:31] So, you know, with all that context, there are a couple of roads that we could go down at this point.
[53:40] There is the zoning amendment road, you know, based on the work that we had done previously,
[53:46] we could continue to kind of work on, you know, in amendment that could,
[53:50] that would have that effect of requiring the setbacks.
[53:54] It would have, it would impact, you know, any, maybe not any, but many housing developments that are, that are six stories.
[54:03] If they have a site adjacent to the north, and even if there isn't, you know, any solar existing, so that would have to be kind of factored into the broader way we think about it.
[54:16] The alternative, which we think at this stage may be a better alternative as we can continue
[54:24] to have this issue in a long, kind of factored along with the range of issues that we've
[54:33] been asked to continue monitoring as this zoning plays out.
[54:38] And as we see development proposals move forward, there are a number of issues that were
[54:43] up at the, you know, during the, the multi family housing discussion, you know, not just
[54:47] just solar access, but many other issues around landscaping trees, as well as the, you
[54:54] know, just housing production or we, what are we doing to serve our housing production goals
[54:57] and meet our housing production and affordable housing production goals. So, you know, we think
[55:03] it may be helpful to make this one of the issues that we're looking at holistically with other
[55:10] issues that are relevant and that we can think about and prioritize among, as we see how this
[55:20] plays out and get more information about it, we can use the work that we've done for
[55:27] sure and we can try to use it both as guidance when we look at projects and to have a general
[55:34] understanding of where the impacts might be more significant and to give that feedback to
[55:39] architects and developers, we could try to go a little bit further and say, how could we use
[55:43] this analysis a little bit more pointedly to look at impacts for particular sites and
[55:50] particular developments, that's something that, you know, would require a little bit more
[55:53] thought. We would certainly have this be an issue that we report on when we do the annual housing
[55:59] review, you know, we anticipate doing that sort of in the probably the first half or so of next year
[56:06] as we cross that February, check point of a year, since the adoption of the zoning.
[56:17] And when we, when and if we suggest improvements that we want to tackle through zoning,
[56:22] we'd want to make sure that we're considering not just the one issue of solar access,
[56:27] but other issues of urban design, environmental goals, housing goals in order to provide
[56:34] is more balanced view of measures that we end, and actions that we might want to take going
[56:42] forward. So that's the end of our presentation. Thank you.
[56:49] Thank you for the presentation. We'll now wrap up public comment. Naomi, I'll go to you.
[56:57] Our first speaker will be Patrick Britain, followed by Carol Lynn Alpert, then Marina Atlas
[57:04] Goro.
[57:10] Patrick, if you can unmute yourself.
[57:14] Patrick, if you can try now.
[57:18] Oh, can you hear me?
[57:18] We can.
[57:19] Please go ahead.
[57:21] Yes.
[57:21] So my name is Patrick Britain.
[57:22] I live at 500 green street in Cambridge and just speeding on behalf of support for some zoning
[57:29] protections for a Rooshop solar.
[57:32] I have a house that I'm told is a good candidate for it and I have a proposal, I've had it now for quite a while.
[57:39] Since the multifamily housing zoning past I've been hesitant to install that solar system as you know they're fairly expensive.
[57:49] And my lot is such that with the new zoning someone could do the 74 foot tall building approximately seven feet from my house.
[57:58] I know the analysis was done with 10 feet, but there are obviously existing houses that are closer to the lot lines than the five feet.
[58:07] So I worry that across the city that there may be other people more than a few I suspect in the situation where I could put the solar system up and nothing could happen, which would be obviously that would be great.
[58:20] But it's a pretty big deterrent to know that there is no protections in place to allow that system to continue to generate electricity.
[58:28] And I worry that that deterrent could prevent a lot of residents from putting in systems that they might otherwise put in.
[58:36] And in the slides that we were just showing, I noticed the page on discussions with developers.
[58:42] And I didn't notice any similar page on discussions with residents to see how the people that living Cambridge feel about protections for.
[58:51] I would, I guess that would be nice to see as well.
[58:56] That's, that's all I've got to say.
[58:59] Thank you.
[58:59] Our next speaker is Carol Lynn Alpert, followed by Marina Atlas.
[59:06] Hello, my name is Carol Lynn Alpert.
[59:08] I live at 99 Cushing Street in a two family town house.
[59:12] In 2016, I installed 19 solar panels with the help of Sunny Cambridge and the promise of a 20-year payback.
[59:23] But the 1870 home next door just sold to a developer.
[59:28] It's a 5,000 square foot lot.
[59:31] Without any input from me, my neighbors, the CHC, or the planning board,
[59:37] That developer will soon demolish that property and is planning to build seven luxury units.
[59:46] But they could also choose, buy right, to build just one single, four-story luxury home.
[59:54] That's not right.
[59:57] The CDD has given us a presentation.
[1:00:00] Claiming that our 35-foot homes with solar will be fine because they will only lose 26% of their solar access.
[1:00:11] Now, taking just 5-10% is the upper limit when solar access studies are done in cities that balance housing with solar protection, which, by the way, this state allows us to do.
[1:00:27] The CDD's shadow study also failed to take into account time of year, in fall and winter the low angle of the sun will shadow at least 50% of my roof.
[1:00:42] Likewise, the study neglected to account for the height of the inevitable rooftop mechanical stairway enclosures and roof decks.
[1:00:50] And as you've seen, the CDD has offered the possibility of north side setbacks on 5th and 6th floors to protect solar access.
[1:01:01] But they fail to show the much more common, this is what we saw.
[1:01:08] They fail to show the much more common 35 foot peaked house, which is where most solar panels in the city are installed.
[1:01:19] And how much sun do you think these panels will receive and fall and winter and look at what even a four-story building does to this home solar access.
[1:01:36] And yet you counselors are suggesting we proceed with no protection for four-story buildings.
[1:01:42] It was wrong to allow developers to build four or six stories by height in our neighborhoods without more balancing of the harms and benefits.
[1:01:54] Other cities have managed to allow for more housing, while protecting the community's solar and environmental resources.
[1:02:03] There are many solar protection ordinance models to choose from.
[1:02:09] There are many ways we could increase housing affordability in our neighborhoods and on
[1:02:15] the corridors and also grandfather in protection for Cambridge's 1000 green energy pioneers.
[1:02:23] Thank you, Carol.
[1:02:24] Your time has expired.
[1:02:25] Our next speaker will be Marina Atlas, followed by Nancy Sideman, then Lawrence Klein.
[1:02:31] Hi,
[1:02:38] everyone. I'm Marina Grow at lists. I'm a lifelong Cambridge resident. I grew up here for most of my life. I went through the schools here. I lived here after college.
[1:02:47] In 2013, I also became a legal homeowner. Marina, can you please speak directly into the mic?
[1:02:52] I'm sorry. In 2013, I became a homeowner helping my parents take care of their home as my father's a climate scientist and spend most of their traveling.
[1:03:00] currently he's being celebrated in Bali for protecting a whole coastal ecosystem and restoring
[1:03:06] their lives and livelihoods and environments. So he cannot be here today. So I'm here on my
[1:03:11] family's behalf. I'm a lifelong environmental health professional since I was six years old. I
[1:03:16] have 28 years experience. I've also worked for the federal government as well as local municipalities.
[1:03:22] I've served over 75 communities, over 70 of those in New England. However, I have not had the privilege
[1:03:27] to serve my own home community and Cambridge.
[1:03:30] And that's what I want to talk about.
[1:03:33] To what's going on, I say,
[1:03:35] at with 50 of my neighbors, nothing about us without us.
[1:03:38] That is the activist mantra.
[1:03:41] And we don't want our rights sold away without our input
[1:03:45] because I want to clarify
[1:03:47] that we've had these conversations with the developers
[1:03:50] and they have ignored us
[1:03:51] and they have misreported to you the lack of response
[1:03:55] and they have lied about conversations.
[1:03:57] We thought we were going to get neighbors of 45 families in support of affordable housing.
[1:04:02] It has ballooned to over 80 units and they have refused to respect building codes, federal safety standards,
[1:04:08] state regulations, and Cambridge's own environmental and health policies.
[1:04:12] This is a tax on homeowners and trying to take where our rights.
[1:04:16] And it isn't just rights about property values.
[1:04:19] It is our primary residences.
[1:04:20] It is my daughter's garden where she gardens with her grandfather and grows rare fruits and vegetables.
[1:04:25] and learns basic science. I am living my mother's dream. She grew up with dirt floors and
[1:04:30] without shoes. Cambridgees are only home and I still reside in the area. I moved to the other
[1:04:35] side of fresh pond. I live in the Belmont Watertown border in a small condo and I was still working
[1:04:40] Cambridge as my husband. I want to talk about the setbacks because we don't have 10 foot setbacks.
[1:04:46] We have four. I want to know why the tax is being passed when it could be a lot less impactful
[1:04:53] and our input hasn't been accounted for.
[1:04:56] There's a tax on 50% solar reductions in DC
[1:04:59] that is already codified, and there are solar zoning laws
[1:05:02] protected by the state.
[1:05:04] Sixth story, Shading, our three is not uniformity.
[1:05:06] And OSHA federal regulations are already specified
[1:05:09] that a top level is not a shelf or regular use areas.
[1:05:14] If it were to be green space,
[1:05:16] if it were to be private open space,
[1:05:17] that is also going to affect infiltration
[1:05:19] and other regulations such as our right
[1:05:22] to have stormwater mitigated and sunk into the ground,
[1:05:24] where it belongs to effect our environment.
[1:05:27] Small differences, small changes make a big difference.
[1:05:31] Every kilowatt hour affects my daughter's future
[1:05:33] as a generation alpha child.
[1:05:37] That's the alarm for her, she's not afraid of.
[1:05:40] I will submit comments and resources referenced
[1:05:42] through the chair, and I thank you all so much
[1:05:45] for hearing me out and continuing this conversation
[1:05:48] to actually get our needs, you've heard.
[1:05:50] Thanks very much. Your time has expired. Our next speaker. Thank you again. Nancy Seidman followed by Lawrence Klein, then see green wad. Nancy.
[1:06:03] Hello. My name is Nancy Seidman and I currently live at 9 Cleveland Street and have been a Cambridge residence since 1985. For over 20 years, I worked at mass DEP on air quality and climate programs and policies.
[1:06:18] I installed solar in May of this year and I was astounded to learn that the zoning amendments from February,
[1:06:25] and those being considered now did not include protection of existing solar or design considerations to protect solar going forward and encourage it on new developments.
[1:06:35] This is a huge oversight by the council and seems like residents' voices are not being heard and addressed by the council.
[1:06:42] I have one correction and three comments on the presentation.
[1:06:47] First, slide 19 says there are no current proposals affecting existing solar that is not true.
[1:06:53] 60 Lary will affect existing solar on the Swiss Council at the corner of Broadway and Lary.
[1:06:59] That design should be revised to avoid the impact and the council should be compensated by the developer
[1:07:04] and the developer should have to add solar elsewhere to compensate for loss generation.
[1:07:10] My comments. First, the presentation focuses on problems with demanding zoning, not on the positive impacts of solar, which is not balanced. For example, slide 22.
[1:07:21] I believe we are making meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 800 residential systems that three to four kilowatts means two and a half to three megawatts of generation and other systems are not included.
[1:07:33] If we wait to take action because our actions are small, then we'd never do anything.
[1:07:38] That is not the right lens for this discussion.
[1:07:41] Plus the slide seems to say that saving residents money is not important, which is offensive.
[1:07:47] In these times of increasing bill, utility bills, saving residents money should be a priority of this council and the city departments.
[1:07:54] Assisting with solar is important, it is a stated goal, and there are many benefits that
[1:08:00] were not listed on the presentation, such as resiliency and lowering the cost of further
[1:08:05] electrifying residences.
[1:08:07] These benefits are not gained with power purchase agreements for renewable energy and faraway
[1:08:12] places.
[1:08:14] So, I 23 notes discussions with developers, but there's not no discussions with residents
[1:08:18] why didn't that happen.
[1:08:20] And on 25, I support moving ahead with an amendment that would lower heights on upper floors
[1:08:26] to ensure solar is not blocked and continues to be encouraged.
[1:08:30] Delay is a bad outcome.
[1:08:32] If we wait, then projects will be built blocking existing solar and opportunities for
[1:08:37] new solar will be discouraged and lost as you already heard.
[1:08:41] In summary, I urge this committee and the council to move quickly with a zoning amendment
[1:08:46] to support existing and promote new solar across the city.
[1:08:51] As the staff suggest the overall impact on projects being considered is small and will mean
[1:08:56] there is more light available to residents with small decreases in building size and provide
[1:09:01] more opportunities for solar.
[1:09:03] The developers and their potential difficulties should not be our priority existing residents
[1:09:08] and businesses of Cambridge should be.
[1:09:11] Thank you, our next speaker is Lawrence Klein, followed by C Greenwood, then Sanra, I'm sorry, Sarah Nelson, Lawrence 3 minutes, please go ahead.
[1:09:23] Hi, my name is Larry Klein. I live in a 20 story apartment building in Strawberry Hill with over 200 rental units, I have no skin in this solar game.
[1:09:32] Almost 20 years ago now, I made a film about rooftop solar.
[1:09:38] I shot in several locations and interviewed a lovely couple in a small home.
[1:09:42] I can't remember if it was Cambridge or Summerville.
[1:09:45] They were not wealthy but made the upfront investment.
[1:09:49] Yes, with the hope of one day reaping the energy saving rewards.
[1:09:54] But more importantly, they felt they were doing something important to help their community reduce carbon emissions.
[1:10:00] They also bought an early model, Prius.
[1:10:05] It is amazing to me how people now forget that solar adopters,
[1:10:10] especially the early ones,
[1:10:12] actually had the environment and the health of their community as a priority.
[1:10:17] They wanted to be part of the solution,
[1:10:20] not the ever-growing problem of a carbon-heated atmosphere
[1:10:23] and they wanted their solar purchases to inspire others to do the same.
[1:10:28] For my couple in summerville or Cambridge, even a four-story building next to their tiny home would have blocked their solar and also blocked the light coming into their home, something we don't talk enough about.
[1:10:45] So what are we saying to our solar neighbors by reducing the impact of their decisions to try even in a small way to better our world?
[1:10:55] If you think the community impact of rooftop solar is negligible, just ask Los Angeles 20 years ago,
[1:11:05] the city was plagued by summertime brownouts and people died as a result.
[1:11:11] Now, primarily because rooftop solar is feeding the grid in Los Angeles at the hottest times of the year.
[1:11:19] We're not LA, but as we warm or build data centers and they're like without cheap renewables,
[1:11:29] like solar, like rooftop solar, electricity bills will certainly skyrocket,
[1:11:34] as grid managers have to purchase electricity on the spot market.
[1:11:40] To be sure, we need more housing, especially for people with average or modest incomes,
[1:11:45] like the renters in my building.
[1:11:47] But do you really think that four to six story buildings will be made affordable to them?
[1:11:53] In my neighborhood, in Philadelphia houses are $2 million and up because developers buy the property to make a profit,
[1:12:01] and they will build larger property properties if they can make a larger profit.
[1:12:08] I think you will soon hear that even current restrictions are too restrictive to them.
[1:12:13] Here's an ad by a developer named Mark Killerin.
[1:12:17] Taking a single family home and transforming it
[1:12:20] into seven luxury 2400 foot square units.
[1:12:26] When you move with intention, the city moves, oh, I'm sorry,
[1:12:31] projected sell out 16 million plus projected profit,
[1:12:35] nine million dollars.
[1:12:36] Mr. Klein, your time has expired, thank you.
[1:12:40] C. Greenland has not joined, we are going to go to Sarah Nelson. Sarah, you have three minutes.
[1:12:51] Hi, my name is Sarah Nelson. I live at 7. Down Rockwell Street.
[1:12:55] Thank you for the opportunity to speak on solar access protection. One of the things that many people noted to me about the CDD packet was a large amount of unnamed developer input and the total lack of citizen input.
[1:13:06] Packet seems to concentrate heavily on developer profit versus the importance of protecting solar panels.
[1:13:12] I want to make sure that we all understand the amount of developer profit that we are talking about.
[1:13:17] For example, one of the Columbia Street LLC projects, this is the group that is suing the city.
[1:13:23] Per the Harvard Cribbson, they are going to convert 20 units on an 18,000 square foot lot in Minskware,
[1:13:29] investing $57 million in sizing the property up to 89,500 gross square feet.
[1:13:34] If they sold all of the new units from market rate, they would receive $102 million in returns.
[1:13:42] Columbia Street could receive $45 million in profit if they win the lawsuits,
[1:13:47] and will only make $33.6 million if they lose the lawsuit.
[1:13:52] Still, millions of millions of dollars in profit, and a 59% return on investment even if they lose.
[1:13:59] I think a lot, the Canterbury Gens would be okay when the additional 3 to 6% reduction in their profit to protect solar.
[1:14:07] To be clear, a major reason, housing costs so much to build in the United States is because of the extreme profits that developers expect in demand.
[1:14:16] When we cater to their demands, we are complicit in increasing the price of housing in our city and the United States.
[1:14:23] There are other times in history that we had such rent being agreed, one of them was the industrial
[1:14:28] revolution when people including children were forced to work long hours in factories in order
[1:14:33] to survive. Other time many children started to suffer from bowing of the legs, the condition
[1:14:38] that we now call Ricketts. Initially it was blamed on air pollution, urban environment, lack of
[1:14:44] exercise, congenital syphilis, paternal tuberculosis, possibly adulteration of bread, who's
[1:14:50] Until the early 20th century, it was determined to be caused by vitamin D deficiency.
[1:14:55] On a pediatrician during the Industrial Resolute Revolution, we knew.
[1:15:00] This much, this much about medicine. Now, we know this much. This is how much we need to know about medicine to understand how much vitamin D is important to humans.
[1:15:12] We do know it is associated with skeletal conditions like rickets, immune and autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, cancer, infectious diseases, dementia and depression.
[1:15:23] Vitamin D deficiency is still common in Boston with studies showing 40% of local school children
[1:15:30] deficient or severely deficient and high rates in infants and older adults.
[1:15:34] Vitamin D deficiency in access to light is an equity issue as darker skin, obesity, and
[1:15:41] lack of supplements are key risk factors.
[1:15:44] When we protect our ability to have light for solar panels, we also protect the health
[1:15:48] citizens who also benefit from the solar access that we are protecting.
[1:15:54] Thank you.
[1:15:55] Thank you.
[1:15:56] Our next speaker is Thomas Goro, followed by James Zahl.
[1:16:04] Thomas has not joined.
[1:16:05] We will go to James followed by Catherine Bennett and Patrick Barrett.
[1:16:10] James, you have three minutes.
[1:16:11] Please go ahead.
[1:16:14] Thank you.
[1:16:15] This is James Zahl, two, all three,
[1:16:17] I'm sorry I was just able to join the call about 15, 20 minutes ago because I was on another meeting.
[1:16:26] I so far have heard people talk about balancing the rights of people who have stable housing,
[1:16:36] which probably includes most people who have or are concerned about solar panels on their home,
[1:16:43] with the rights of people who do not have stable housing, either because of the shortage or
[1:16:51] because of financial limitations on access to their housing.
[1:16:59] The city has been facing a housing crisis, housing shortage that's built up over the last 50 years.
[1:17:06] We have just, in the last several, been taking steps to do something about that.
[1:17:13] And I would not like to see this turned into an issue where we can't have solar energy without diminishing the need for and the rights that people should have for housing.
[1:17:34] The problem isn't so much that the city has not been supplying housing, which is how people often refer to it, but the fact that the city has been blocking housing, making it illegal to build more housing, and that is something that we are now stopping something that should have been done a long time ago.
[1:17:56] I've heard several people complain that or acknowledge that the overall benefits of solar
[1:18:06] rooftop panels are small, but arguing that even when it comes to solar, even small benefits
[1:18:13] cannot and should not be dismissed.
[1:18:17] But one way of deciding between one course of action and another is to look at the benefits
[1:18:22] that we derive from that, and if the, and I believe they are, the benefits of rooftop
[1:18:31] solar on some houses in one city, in Massachusetts, in the whole country, and in the
[1:18:40] world, if we look at it from that perspective, because that's the scope of our climate crisis.
[1:18:47] Most of that is something that the city of Cambridge can't affect, but the city of Cambridge
[1:18:54] has been affecting and adding to the limitations of housing here.
[1:19:00] More housing will produce much larger benefits for people who live here and who are having
[1:19:07] trouble surviving on the incomes that they have.
[1:19:13] I hope that you will keep housing in mind more than just an obstacle to more solar energy.
[1:19:20] Thank you.
[1:19:22] Thank you.
[1:19:23] The next person, Katherine Bennett, has not joined the Zoom.
[1:19:27] Patrick is not going to speak.
[1:19:29] We're going to go to David Halpern, followed by Ned Melanson, then Justin C.
[1:19:35] David, you have three minutes.
[1:19:36] Please go ahead.
[1:19:39] Good afternoon.
[1:19:39] David Hopren, 14 Valentine Street, Unit 3. I very strongly support rooftop solar. We need a lot more renewables as part of the climate crisis.
[1:19:51] We need to do a lot of things as part of the climate crisis. And the most impactful thing Cambridge, but we can do inside the city is just build more housing.
[1:20:00] People who live in Cambridge have much lower-carbon emissions than people who live in nearby suburbs.
[1:20:09] Multifamily housing is more energy efficient because of shared walls.
[1:20:15] People who live in Cambridge have much better transportation options.
[1:20:18] share our communities. And if we create more homes in Cambridge and give more people options
[1:20:27] like that, then that will reduce emissions a lot more than building solar panels in Cambridge
[1:20:32] World. So I think it's important to keep in mind that helping with the climate crisis and
[1:20:44] crisis. These are actually our very aligned things. Additionally, you know, we have our stretch
[1:20:49] energy code and all these new buildings will be built to a very high efficiency standard,
[1:20:56] which is also very important to the climate crisis and to electrifying all of our heating systems
[1:21:03] and getting off of our gas and all of those things. So this proposal seems like a very blunt instrument to
[1:21:12] I hope we can encourage people to build rooftop solar like in light of the fact someone
[1:21:18] might build a tall building. You're going to in some other way. I'm also like
[1:21:26] particular concerned that this would hurt inclusionary developments and that was
[1:21:31] one of the main motivations of the multi-family ordinance. This is not just, you know,
[1:21:38] necessarily that the step back is going to slightly reduce the amount of space
[1:21:42] And in building, but some buildings will be built to four stories and avoid inclusionary and some projects might decide that, you know, they just don't make financial sense at all, like given the reduction size and the additional engineering costs and so on and so forth.
[1:21:57] So, you know, I, I hope we can find a solution to this other than the zoning solution that can make all the different parties happy, but I don't think this, the zoning solution has
[1:22:12] presented balances, you know, our climate and housing needs, well, I think it actually,
[1:22:18] you know, ends up impacting both negatively on balance. Thank you.
[1:22:24] Thank you, our next speaker is Ned Mullinson, followed by Justin C. Ned, three minutes.
[1:22:30] Please go ahead.
[1:22:33] I know Mullinson wants to experience all some street.
[1:22:36] I do appreciate the presentation that's staff made today.
[1:22:40] I think there's a lot of great points in that and I just want to highlight a few of those
[1:22:45] just because I think they're so important. And so the first part is the deformity rule,
[1:22:51] so this proposal would affect, because the uniformity rule, this proposal would affect the entire
[1:22:56] city's housing stock, those current and potential. And therefore it would act as a partial
[1:23:01] rollback of historic multi-family housing opportunity, which passed the February 8th of won't yet.
[1:23:07] So we can't really take this lightly.
[1:23:10] Second, there's, you know, from the presentation,
[1:23:14] there's no proposed textory buildings within 20 feet of existing souls.
[1:23:18] So, I mean, maybe there's, you know, one of the speakers that there's potentially one,
[1:23:22] but basically I think every time the presentation,
[1:23:25] this issue is not quite right yet.
[1:23:27] It's hard to tell the future impacts.
[1:23:29] We would basically be rolling back multi-family housing upselling
[1:23:31] because of some potential future impacts that might happen
[1:23:35] on some rooftop solar installations in the same.
[1:23:39] Third, I question, who does this like benefit?
[1:23:43] You know, we know who it hurts.
[1:23:45] It hurts.
[1:23:46] Especially, it hurts people like renters.
[1:23:47] There are people looking to buy a home in Cambridge.
[1:23:50] It hurts the whole population, but who does it benefit?
[1:23:53] It benefits a few people who have solar installations
[1:23:56] that might be impacted by future developments.
[1:24:01] And I think we also saw that even with, you know, the potential shading, we've stopped solar
[1:24:06] and is still a net cause, which is, I don't even realize that.
[1:24:10] So clearly the problem is not so drastic that it requires a complete, you know, we're a personal
[1:24:16] rollback of multi-family housing up to them.
[1:24:19] You know, in terms of an environmental impact, small residential solar doesn't really make
[1:24:24] and our climate goals, you know, there's a lot of other things we can be doing.
[1:24:29] Cambridge is always seven square miles and, you know, there's plenty of places with solar
[1:24:32] farms that are, you know, probably bigger than that, that we could buy from.
[1:24:37] And then finally, you know, what, what is the actual benefit to the environment?
[1:24:41] So we're talking about a 10 to 20 percent reduction of solar efficiency in some percentage
[1:24:46] of buildings.
[1:24:48] And we know that rooftop solar is not more than a few percentage points of the entire energy
[1:24:52] to the city. So we're talking about a percentage of a percentage of a percentage. I don't even
[1:24:57] know how many zeros we're talking about here, but the potential cost of losing that small percentage
[1:25:01] of renewable energy generation are clearly not comparable to the potential loss of living space
[1:25:06] and affordable units. So, you know, I think as we saw in the presentations, you should have been right
[1:25:10] and yet, I don't think there's some urgent rush to pass this. You know, let's wait and see what the actual
[1:25:15] impacts are before we kind of do a massive rollback rollback here of multi-field and has an
[1:25:21] Thank you. Thank you, our next speaker is Justin St. followed by Heather Hopman.
[1:25:27] Hoffman, then, Barrel, Lipton. Justin, you have three minutes. Please go ahead.
[1:25:33] I just didn't say if 259, Hurley Street.
[1:25:38] I think this proposal is, you know, not actually a
[1:25:41] question of policy trade-offs just for all of the policy issues that were discussed. I mean,
[1:25:47] It's very clear that this zoning mandate approach is severely flawed.
[1:25:53] The city needs to start over here and go back to the drawing board to address the issue.
[1:25:59] Proposal may well increase overall carbon emissions.
[1:26:03] It's going to block acid house, multi-family construction, city-wide, many instances.
[1:26:10] That means less transit oriented development or exerving sprawl, more deforestation.
[1:26:18] We'll likely kill the inclusionary housing that would be produced in that auto-family zoning.
[1:26:25] I'm increasing the cost of construction and decreasing the amount of housing that can be built in each building.
[1:26:32] Drives of housing costs that reduces our supply of inclusionary affordable housing.
[1:26:42] And it also means killing one of the only currently viable sources of new growth.
[1:26:46] Billing new growth means your taxes for current residents.
[1:26:54] I know that there were many residents who were consulted and that was clear at the previous presentation.
[1:27:00] September that folks may have messed, but it was definitely resident feedback given.
[1:27:09] And I think President's actually gave the presentation of the previous meeting.
[1:27:17] And what's not present at that prior meeting was consultation with builders and other experts to determine the
[1:27:23] structural and financial viability of multi-family housing.
[1:27:27] The effects along the lines proposed here.
[1:27:29] That's the state of previously.
[1:27:31] Scott will have to eliminate stepbacks.
[1:27:33] The behest of just to start the nonprofit affordable home builder.
[1:27:39] From there, from some of those affordable housing overlay,
[1:27:42] because they were determined to be structurally and financially invisible.
[1:27:47] So again, I think we should reject this.
[1:27:50] Disguided approach today and started over from scratch on a way to address the small amount of impact.
[1:27:57] These new family, mother family buildings may have on existing rooftop solar panels.
[1:28:05] Thank you, our next speaker is Heather Hoffman, followed by Barrel Lipton. Heather, three minutes.
[1:28:12] Hello, Heather Hoffman, to 13-Hurley Street.
[1:28:16] Well, this has been a tremendous hoot to listen to all of these people who claim to be
[1:28:25] environmentalists finding ways to coup-coup solar energy.
[1:28:30] I've also enjoyed listening to Jeff Roberts,
[1:28:34] Just about all of the major objections that people like me made to the way the city has been going about zoning recently.
[1:28:45] So I want to thank all of these people for the entertainment.
[1:28:51] And perhaps someone can explain to me how so of farms in the Midwest make our energy in Cambridge.
[1:29:02] because we're still getting our energy from places around here.
[1:29:08] So, solar farms elsewhere are a lovely thing,
[1:29:12] but I don't think they're making our energy clean.
[1:29:16] And what I heard other than the entertainment
[1:29:19] was the same thing that I heard Monday night,
[1:29:24] fake and switch.
[1:29:25] The city told us to do all of these things
[1:29:29] And then they say, oh, just joking,
[1:29:32] because we really want to have tall buildings.
[1:29:35] And so, you know, here's Solus going to be blocked,
[1:29:38] but why would you dumb enough to buy it anyway?
[1:29:41] It was interesting to hear that we've had
[1:29:45] hero permits for six story buildings,
[1:29:48] and it just incorrectly, in my estimation,
[1:29:51] called the extra two stories, a bonus for inclusionary
[1:29:56] because it certainly was not described that way.
[1:30:01] And so I'm interested that light and air into being no longer goals, with especially interested to hear a doctor talk about the importance of light to the health of people living in the city.
[1:30:20] And I agree that if the sunlight isn't going to reach our roof, then it's probably not reaching our yards, the trees, the other plants, and our bodies, and that really does matter.
[1:30:41] All in all, what I think is that the city has reasonably refused to do anything that constitutes
[1:30:53] real planning and real balancing of priorities, discussion of the trade-offs or real
[1:31:03] instead of in platitudes and ideological screens.
[1:31:08] And we really ought to be able to do better.
[1:31:11] But at this point, I doubt that we want to or can.
[1:31:16] Thank you.
[1:31:17] Thank you, our next speaker.
[1:31:19] Her final speaker will be Barrel Lipden.
[1:31:22] Barrel, you have three minutes, please go ahead.
[1:31:26] Hello, and Barrel Lipden.
[1:31:28] I live on Oak Street.
[1:31:30] I have heard that you all may be here from the same people over and over again and that's
[1:31:36] becoming less effective in terms of expressing what is really going on and the sort of the
[1:31:43] emotions and feelings of the community. I personally don't own a house. I don't have solar.
[1:31:48] I am a human who enjoys the sun and I don't envy the hard work that the people in all of the
[1:31:55] that you all on the committee have to do all of the time.
[1:31:59] Everybody has a lot to do.
[1:32:00] You have a lot of demands.
[1:32:02] Things are moving really fast.
[1:32:04] And I think, you know, in particular,
[1:32:06] what I'd like to say here is that it's not speed
[1:32:10] that I am concerned about,
[1:32:13] because I think that we do need to be reacting.
[1:32:16] We understand that we live in a time right now,
[1:32:18] where our city in particular is reacting to things
[1:32:21] that are happening very quickly in a way
[1:32:23] that is not taking into consideration
[1:32:25] the whole human scope and effects of decisions
[1:32:29] that are being made by people who are in power.
[1:32:32] And I know that all of you are our neighbors,
[1:32:34] but you are also in power in relation
[1:32:36] to everybody else who lives in this community.
[1:32:40] So I appreciate the work that has been done.
[1:32:43] I am hearing my neighbors and other community members talk
[1:32:46] about some of the concerns that they have,
[1:32:51] reasonably so and sort of the some of the promises or
[1:32:55] understandings that they felt that they had as constituents
[1:32:58] that they don't feel like are being respected right now.
[1:33:03] And I guess I, you know, personally when I think about
[1:33:06] something like Massav or Cambridge Street, the sun,
[1:33:11] I would challenge you to sort of consider where the sun goes
[1:33:15] and moves and to really think about how that affects people
[1:33:19] When certain buildings are in relation to each other,
[1:33:22] not just when it comes to solar,
[1:33:24] but just generally, right, another speaker,
[1:33:27] referenced a garden.
[1:33:29] We're in a moment where people don't have enough housing,
[1:33:31] and if you like a plant,
[1:33:34] and you would like to get some sunlight to that plant,
[1:33:37] you are being made to feel a little bit,
[1:33:39] like you're kind of being selfish.
[1:33:41] I've lived behind a very large building on Massav,
[1:33:44] could not grow a single plant in my apartment
[1:33:46] in the many years that I lived there.
[1:33:47] very frustrating, very bad for my mental health.
[1:33:51] I wanted to point out, you know, I've heard from other counselors, I think,
[1:33:57] something about Cambridge being 500th in permitting.
[1:34:00] And I just want to sort of unpack where that number is coming from.
[1:34:03] That was from a report that was based on an AI sort of generated analysis of permitting
[1:34:10] by something called the red tape index, backed by national priorities.
[1:34:14] the White House's AI action plan underscores the need to accelerate permitting
[1:34:18] LeBrenth, which is what, put out this report, aligns with this vision by providing
[1:34:22] builders and municipalities with transparent data. Transparency is used and
[1:34:28] leverage against people and I would challenge you not to align with some of the
[1:34:31] values that in other spaces you guys are fighting against. Thank you.
[1:34:37] Thank you, Madam Chair, that concludes all that we're signed up to speak. Thank you
[1:34:44] public comment today. It's about 423 p.m. and we have a little after 5 for the remainder of the
[1:34:51] hearing. With that said, we'll move on to committee questions and our mind folks. We, I think
[1:34:58] it's important to think about the package 27 here around next steps and try to get to consensus
[1:35:06] from both bodies on where we go from here. So I know Councillor Azim had your hand up please go ahead.
[1:35:15] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:35:18] I wanted to start off with saying that this is a very sympathetic conversation, right?
[1:35:23] I think it is absolutely true that the city has asked people to invest in solar.
[1:35:27] There's a lot of incentives that have been set up at the state level at the national level.
[1:35:31] People have bots at solar and that can be tens of thousands of dollars.
[1:35:35] It's right for people to make that level of investments and be anxious about returns and anxious about what happens in their
[1:35:41] neighborhood that will have an impact on that and you know that's a lot of money to be in debt and if you can't get it back
[1:35:46] That is a very very stressful situation. I think that I'm very sympathetic to finding a solution here
[1:35:53] And as I know are all of my colleagues. I know that we've had prep meetings and I would say that that's why you know other things get referred
[1:36:00] Or just like die in city council floor. This is not died, right?
[1:36:03] Like we are having hearings on this we're having conversations on it because it does touch a real pain point in the city and
[1:36:08] something where I feel like we should try to find a solution for people who are facing this problem.
[1:36:14] You know, there's a whole lot of
[1:36:18] details here that matter, right? On one hand, like I actually think it's a, I both understand how things
[1:36:24] are about solar gets mixed in with new residential development in general, fear of new residential
[1:36:28] development of height and density, and like when you see those numbers and you see how many buildings
[1:36:34] are getting, actually starting construction right now, it's almost been a year and it's
[1:36:38] a zero, right?
[1:36:39] And I think that's something we all know, where this kind of, in this paradox, where the
[1:36:44] potential high-losing development can be anywhere, but the actual housing development
[1:36:47] is rather small, right?
[1:36:49] And that's because it's hard for housing to pencil at this moment, right?
[1:36:52] So we see a lot of people try to come up with plans, but actually none of them are even close
[1:36:56] to penciling, right?
[1:36:58] The few developers who sent performers to the city because they've asked the city for funding
[1:37:02] or else it can be redevelopment authority for funding,
[1:37:04] so there are about as reliable as we can get.
[1:37:06] We know that people are not for a 60 unit project
[1:37:10] away, like a million dollars away.
[1:37:12] They're like 20 million dollars a debt, right?
[1:37:13] They're nowhere near-penseling.
[1:37:16] And that's a really, really hard situation.
[1:37:19] I would say that this is a difficult conversation,
[1:37:21] because we do want housing.
[1:37:23] I'll get to that in a moment.
[1:37:24] But also, we want actually housing that actually exists,
[1:37:28] and this would add one more restriction.
[1:37:30] you know. In my time in council, I think this is the first one actually passed before my
[1:37:35] time, which is the green roof ordinance, right? But I supported way to which had new
[1:37:38] restrictions, I supported climate resiliency zoning. We have a net zero stretch code that added,
[1:37:44] there's a lot of new things that we've added that have really high climate standards such that
[1:37:49] I would say that we have among the highest climate standards in the country. And that's a good thing.
[1:37:52] I supported those. And we also have all sorts of other requirements that we talk about all the time,
[1:37:58] right from our, you know, just the way that we do
[1:38:00] permitting in general to inclusion in the cost,
[1:38:03] there and everything else.
[1:38:04] And so we've kind of got into the situation
[1:38:06] where we took a scope at this term and said,
[1:38:09] like, hey, how do we keep all these really nice things
[1:38:11] that we want and actually make a building
[1:38:16] potentially pencil out with all of these really,
[1:38:19] really high requirements?
[1:38:20] And I think that's how we got to six stories,
[1:38:22] which is where the natural building code changes
[1:38:24] and all this height and density, right?
[1:38:26] And even then it's kind of hard
[1:38:27] because we have all these requirements, and it's a hard macro environment that nothing is really
[1:38:31] penciling right now. I would say, you know, I know my council, my colleague and I had a short
[1:38:36] description conversation beforehand where it's like, you know, like, Burhan would this be something
[1:38:40] you can support, like it's really hard, because you know, I know this is not exactly your priorities
[1:38:45] and stuff like that. And I would say that my priorities are to build housing. And if you, like, and I think
[1:38:52] what all of us suffer is that we represent, you know, 10-11% of the city, you've got to directly
[1:38:56] and they have their priorities, but in order to get something done, we need a majority.
[1:39:00] And so I would say that, you know, solar does matter to me.
[1:39:03] It's not my number one priority.
[1:39:05] But if there was a way to bundle in other things that make it easier for housing
[1:39:09] to pencil, then that goes from something that I'm, like,
[1:39:12] typically, like, we should think about, like, I really do feel like it's a harm,
[1:39:15] but I also get a lot of cross-pressure to also being, like,
[1:39:19] yeah, we should do this. This seems like a win-win solution, right?
[1:39:21] For example, things that we can talk about, and I know it's hard today,
[1:39:24] is like, well, you could do, you know,
[1:39:26] if your direct concern was about solar, particularly,
[1:39:29] you could think about doing a targeted solar buy-back program, right?
[1:39:31] If someone is actually impacted.
[1:39:33] If you're really in love with the idea of step backs,
[1:39:35] as I know some people in public comment suggested,
[1:39:39] I would say then, well, can you create an incentive, right?
[1:39:41] We think a lot about sticks, you could imagine a carrot, right?
[1:39:44] You get some sort of tax-revade that makes it easier
[1:39:47] for your building depends on if you have those step backs, right?
[1:39:50] Or even if that is a requirement to add a little bit of incentive,
[1:39:53] that actually makes housing pencil.
[1:39:54] I think that there's a lot of win-win solutions because this scenario right now, where we have housing potential everywhere,
[1:40:00] but we don't actually get any housing construction, is not a win for me, right? And I don't think it's a win for housing production in general.
[1:40:07] I know that this is not a question. I just want to give a statement and I'll be done in about 30 seconds.
[1:40:12] I finally wanted to say, I think that it's really important to remember that we do want a solution.
[1:40:18] Like I know the first person in public comment was not my biggest fan.
[1:40:21] Now, it's like, that's not fun either, right, for any of us to sit here and have people angry.
[1:40:25] And it's really helpful instead to say, like, what is a win-win solution to get you on board?
[1:40:30] Because none of us want to stay here and disappoint our neighbors.
[1:40:35] And then finally, I would add, like, you know, I think we heard a lot from people today who are being
[1:40:38] impacted by solar or worried about being impacted from solar, and the effect that has on them.
[1:40:43] And I will add, like, it's really hard because all of us speak to different communities,
[1:40:47] right, just because of the way that our electoral system works.
[1:40:51] I spent this weekend with some friends I made because I was at the Mass App diner and they were doing an eSports program at Northeastern.
[1:41:00] And this was a collection of guys who, you know, were living four roommates to a place that was four bedroom $6,000 apartment, right?
[1:41:07] So they're paying about, you know, $72,000 a year in rent.
[1:41:12] And the conversation there flowed onto like how, you know, when I was younger, I remember everyone who was young was a Democrat, right?
[1:41:19] like we were winning Democrats, like we're liberals by like 50 point margins.
[1:41:23] And now for the first time ever, like young men actually voted for Republicans.
[1:41:28] And even where I am in my social circle, you know, a lot of people either voted for Trump,
[1:41:32] but also like if I look at the MIT grad student union, a lot of those are, you know,
[1:41:37] further to the left and to say their PSL people, right?
[1:41:40] And you ask like why are everyone going focusing on like the hard left or hard right?
[1:41:43] It's because it's a system where you feel like, you know, if you make the median household income
[1:41:48] of 100,000 or four people on this, four bedroom of $200,000 a year. You're still paying
[1:41:53] not 30% of your money and rent, not 40%, but 55% of the money that you're making is going
[1:41:58] directly to rent. And that's a really hard problem. And there's all sorts of other problems being
[1:42:04] a word about, you know, the impact of housing on your community, being worried about parking,
[1:42:09] being worried about your garden, but that is a real source of pain and something that hopefully
[1:42:14] we can come to a consensus around addressing. I think there's a lot of solutions we can come to. Thank
[1:42:19] Thank you, Councillor Ziemann, just to bring it back, I think what the staff I think is looking for is direction on which next steps to take and
[1:42:28] Councillor Ziemann just correct me if I'm wrong, it seems from what you're saying, I think
[1:42:34] you're leading towards correct me if I'm wrong, kind of continuing the review with the broader set of issues, is that what you're saying?
[1:42:42] Yeah, absolutely. I know we had a pre-meeting where I'd suggest that to staff, so I'll apologize for skipping that now.
[1:42:46] No worries. So I'll go to Councillor Nolan.
[1:42:50] Thank you, Chair Sediki, I do have a couple of questions and also just a reaction to
[1:42:56] thanks for the staff and also everyone in public comment.
[1:43:01] Just to be clear, I think some of the concerned about well stepbacks make this awkward
[1:43:05] kind of thing.
[1:43:07] We're in a city where the Gary design for MIT is the weirdest flaguration of angles and
[1:43:15] has gotten millions of awards, and he was
[1:43:19] lotted when he just died for a quirky building.
[1:43:22] So I don't think we should be afraid of quirky buildings.
[1:43:24] I think the real question is, does it make it more difficult
[1:43:26] for people to build?
[1:43:28] And does it make it less valuable?
[1:43:30] Because sometimes the crookedness, as was noted
[1:43:32] at least one of the slides,
[1:43:34] hey, if you have a step back on the sixth floor
[1:43:35] that creates a balcony opportunity,
[1:43:37] because that's open space.
[1:43:38] So I'm not clear that it's always a bad thing.
[1:43:40] And I want to make sure we say that we shouldn't be
[1:43:42] afraid of urban design asymmetry.
[1:43:44] And to the idea that, yes, all these individual solors are not going to solve the climate crisis worldwide.
[1:43:51] That is totally true or a drop in the ocean, but that goes for housing.
[1:43:56] Even if we produce thousands of units of housing, it's not going to solve the worldwide or the state or even the region housing issue.
[1:44:03] That doesn't mean we don't try to produce housing because we're good doing what we can within our city.
[1:44:07] I've viewed exactly the same for sustainability that, as was pointed out, so also every single solar panel in the city of which there's more than a thousand
[1:44:17] is energy created in this city, all of the VPPAs and the solar panels in Illinois or wind farms in Texas, even if we use that electricity and claim it for ourselves, eventually it's basically a shell game because that means if we're claiming it, they can't claim it.
[1:44:35] So they are actually not using any kind of clean energy, even though it's being produced in
[1:44:39] their state.
[1:44:40] In other words, eventually we have to get to the point where all of our clean energy comes
[1:44:44] from either in the city or in ISO in England.
[1:44:47] We have to fund that.
[1:44:48] So let's remember that when people say, yes, our individual housing may be small, but for everyone
[1:44:54] saying, well, the best thing we can do is build more housing for a client, no, we have to
[1:44:57] do both.
[1:44:57] We have to build housing and we have to be produced.
[1:45:00] We're seeing more solar here. And just remember of those, there's 400 of the single family homes of solar. That's more than 10 percent. I think we've less than 4,000 single family homes in Cambridge. Right, of the, that's what the data show. So it's more than 10 percent, more than 1 in 10 of our single family homes already have solar. More than 1 in 10, also if I think our two or three family. That's, so I don't want to dismiss it. I know there was, it doesn't mean those people would solve our citywide emission pollution.
[1:45:30] but sure as heck, for Ms. Worms or Councilor Zuzzi, I don't have solar, so full of the
[1:45:35] disclosure, I don't. We've assisted about three times, but if I did, that means I would
[1:45:40] be able to cover a hundred percent of my emission pollution here and that's what we're all
[1:45:44] about in wanting to make sure we protect. So I think this is a both and we, yes, we need to
[1:45:51] produce housing, but we also have to remember we should be incentivizing solar across the city
[1:45:56] and protecting it where we can.
[1:45:58] I don't think there was outreach to the 1,000-plus people
[1:46:02] who have Seller on the Ruff.
[1:46:04] It's quite a visit about 800 for the single and two family.
[1:46:08] I think that the questions answered in the future through you,
[1:46:11] Chercia Diki, to the staff, are to address the question
[1:46:14] of was the time of year analysis done.
[1:46:16] I thought it was part of the analysis,
[1:46:17] but if it isn't, we need to make sure that's clear,
[1:46:20] because as Caroli Ron said in her testimony,
[1:46:22] know if the time of year it blocks 50% I believe was a blended rate of that 20% but let's make
[1:46:28] sure we have a clear answer to that question. I don't know if I'm speaking too quickly but
[1:46:35] the the question I do have is the building example which is in the packet page 16 I believe
[1:46:41] 14 which shows that that is about 3 to 6% overall effect on the building in 19% on the inclusionary
[1:46:52] I just want to make sure that's the worst case analysis is my understanding because it's on a 5,000 square foot lot.
[1:47:00] The bigger the lot, the lower the percentage impact, is that correct?
[1:47:06] I'm not through the chair for I guess to both chairs.
[1:47:09] Is should I take all those questions?
[1:47:12] It seemed like there was a list of questions.
[1:47:14] I'm going to go back to the beginning.
[1:47:15] I wasn't sure you can answer them here and just figure it next step.
[1:47:18] But I definitely think I want to point out that particularly that's the worst case because
[1:47:22] of the just in simple terms if it's a plot instead of being modeled with 5,000 square feet
[1:47:27] was 10,000 square feet. It might actually cut in half the percentage impact, meaning
[1:47:33] it was only about a 2% impact on the overall and only about a 5 to 10% on the inclusionaries
[1:47:40] that correct. More or less I think the thing to keep in mind with that kind of analysis when
[1:47:46] we give those kind of percentages and talk about this. We're really talking about the building
[1:47:50] envelope. So, you know, what that basically means is sort of like the imaginary shape within
[1:47:56] which you could build a building. So, it's another kind of question entirely to figure out,
[1:48:02] well, what if you actually have to build a building, you know, if you meet all the building,
[1:48:05] code requirements and all the other, you know, issues you have to account for, like, what is that
[1:48:08] actually result in? And that's, and that's much more site dependent. I can say that in terms of the
[1:48:13] the calculation that we did there on, that we showed the image for in the packet, we were looking at,
[1:48:19] And what if it were just a 5,000 square foot lot?
[1:48:21] So that would be the smallest example.
[1:48:23] And then of course, as the lock gets bigger,
[1:48:25] those linear setbacks from the edge
[1:48:27] have less of an overall impact.
[1:48:30] At the same time, that's once the lock gets bigger,
[1:48:33] that's where we have to start to factor in.
[1:48:35] You can't just fill up necessarily the entire lot
[1:48:38] with a building.
[1:48:39] Once it gets big enough, you have to kind of break it down
[1:48:41] in order to make sure you have habitable space within the building
[1:48:44] and windows into all the bedrooms and everything.
[1:48:47] So it becomes a little bit harder to calculate
[1:48:49] but we just we just looked at that as as an example of you have the smallest smallest size
[1:48:54] lot. Right. So that's the worst case though in terms of percentages it would have to go down
[1:48:58] from there by definition. And it was a 10,000 square foot lot. The livability wouldn't be a big deal.
[1:49:02] You just took bigger rooms or more throughput. Right. As long as long as the lot was once you get to
[1:49:08] sort of 100 feet by 100 feet that's where you're kind of just thinking about as maybe a single
[1:49:13] multi-family building footprint but once it gets bigger than that then other factors come into play.
[1:49:22] So I, here's just to your question chair, I do think it's an important to maybe model one of those larger ones because, again, this is a worst case and that just, so the whole council knows because I think my sense from the council was look if it's just a few percent, you know, less than 10% impact, we would might be willing, but this, since it ends up being more like a 10 to 20% impact, that's an issue.
[1:49:47] So if it turns out for most properties, it might be closer to that eight to 10%.
[1:49:50] It's just, I don't think it would take too much to model one or two larger properties.
[1:49:54] Because this is, this is, and again, I know it's all site specific, but this is all just a case of us trying to think through these things.
[1:50:03] I definitely think, I'm glad this staff is saying, there's some other creative things we may be able to do.
[1:50:08] So I think continuing the review to your question, Chair Sadiki, is makes sense to me.
[1:50:14] And again, what we've heard from this staff is that they could use their existing analysis.
[1:50:17] This isn't going to require another three to six month consultants come in.
[1:50:21] It really is thinking through now that they have the benefit of impact of these.
[1:50:25] First of all, our questions and also hopefully some questions from developers and also reaching out to homeowners.
[1:50:31] I was particularly struck by the resident Patrick Britain.
[1:50:35] I am concerned.
[1:50:36] I think we should all be concerned about residents saying,
[1:50:39] I'm not sure I'm going to put in solar because of this.
[1:50:41] So at least let's find out if there's a lot more in that category than, as Councillor
[1:50:46] Azim said, and I know Councillor Siddiqui has said, what are the ways that we can incentivize
[1:50:51] then?
[1:50:51] Is there something else we can do that's really creative, which I think needs to be part
[1:50:54] of the staff, because the staff presentation for this next round.
[1:50:59] So to answer the question, I definitely, this alternative of continuing the review, definitely
[1:51:04] not stopping it, seeing if there's creative ways to do this, answering a couple of this
[1:51:08] of questions about the time of year analysis about modeling at least one building that's not
[1:51:14] on the absolute smallest possible site. And bringing in and reaching out to the, I don't think
[1:51:19] the climate committee has reviewed this. With that's our body set up to review this. This should
[1:51:25] be brought to them to say what are some creative ideas you have and also they could be used to spread
[1:51:31] the word to the rest of the city because that's how we're supposed to be using our citizen committees.
[1:51:34] So I don't know if those are specific enough, and I think with that, Chair Sadiki, my notes are, I've done through my notes, so I'm yield.
[1:51:43] Thank you, Chair Nolan, and just to the team, do you have any clarifying questions about what Chair Nolan is proposing as potential questions?
[1:51:57] I think it makes sense, these are all things that we can look at more and again, the suggestion
[1:52:04] of let's really, as we start to see real examples, whether they end up getting built or not
[1:52:11] of development proposals, we can look at this in a more focused way on actual sites to see
[1:52:18] what kind of issues might come up issues that we maybe did or didn't anticipate and how
[1:52:23] they play out.
[1:52:24] Just to answer some of the questions now, the in terms of the analysis that we did with
[1:52:31] our consultant looked at total annual solar radiation access.
[1:52:37] So in some ways it kind of accounts for the issues that often come up with shadow studies
[1:52:42] where you're looking at a shadow, you're looking either at in the middle of summer or in
[1:52:47] the middle of winter or during the equinox and it becomes hard to kind of evaluate because there
[1:52:51] might be more impact in the winter, but at the same time, there's less solar exposure in general
[1:52:56] on the winter versus the summer where you might, the shadows aren't as, you know,
[1:53:01] sharp, but at the same time you have more solar exposure during the day.
[1:53:05] So it sort of looks at it in that way in order to do kind of an aggregate analysis.
[1:53:10] So that's how that analysis worked.
[1:53:13] In terms of the properties, I think you were about right.
[1:53:16] I think when usually the kind of back of the envelope that I tend to go by is for in the city
[1:53:25] of Cambridge is about 10,000 single family two family three family kind of small, you know,
[1:53:31] smaller home buildings.
[1:53:33] And so when you're talking about 800 of those, it's around 10% maybe a little under 10% in terms
[1:53:41] of how that breaks down between single family two and three.
[1:53:44] There's not that many single family for sure.
[1:53:48] But I think the numbers show that it probably
[1:53:51] skews a bit more toward in terms of the where you
[1:53:56] actually have solar installed skews a bit more
[1:53:59] towards single family homes than two or three.
[1:54:05] Thank you.
[1:54:06] We'll go to the councilor's office.
[1:54:10] Thank you, Chair Sedikki.
[1:54:13] I just wanted to start with a comment in a question,
[1:54:16] which is I understand that mass state zoning chapter
[1:54:20] to 40 section 14A encourages,
[1:54:25] allows cities to encourage solar and to commit
[1:54:30] to protecting solar.
[1:54:32] And I wonder, why didn't we do that?
[1:54:34] With the sunny solar, it seems like over between 800
[1:54:38] and 1,000 residential property owners
[1:54:42] were encouraged and chose to purchase solar.
[1:54:47] I just, I feel it so sad that we didn't do the other half,
[1:54:50] which was to protect it, because apparently we had that right.
[1:54:54] I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I do think it's actually a good question.
[1:54:59] Do you have any answer to that?
[1:55:05] Right, right, I can go back to it.
[1:55:06] Sure.
[1:55:07] Through the chairs, I can, I can look to Megan to see if there's any more detail,
[1:55:13] You know, in state law, there are certain provisions that I'm aware of that have been enacted over time that they sort of call themselves solar protection and usually it's in the context of ensuring that cities and towns don't have regulations that prevent solar from being built.
[1:55:34] I think statewide that has tended to be more of an issue where communities have adopted
[1:55:40] sort of restrictive zoning or regulations that make it more difficult for solar to be installed
[1:55:46] and so then their provisions in the law that are meant to kind of push the other way to
[1:55:50] say that you can't restrict the placement of solar. I'm looking to Megan to see if she has any
[1:55:58] or if we can tell me if I'm completely wrong.
[1:56:03] Thank you and through the chair.
[1:56:05] So we did go into this in greater detail
[1:56:08] in a past council order response,
[1:56:10] and I was just trying to pull it up,
[1:56:11] and I will rescind it to you once I get my hands on that,
[1:56:16] so you can refer to it.
[1:56:17] But as Jeff said, in the zoning act itself,
[1:56:21] chapter 48 section three, there is protection
[1:56:26] And so that we can't prohibit solar.
[1:56:30] And then in, I think it's in one of the section nine, one of the lettered section
[1:56:38] nine that are in the Zoning Act, there's also explicit authority that you can put in protections
[1:56:48] for solar, but there isn't anything mandating that certain steps be taken. It's really more
[1:57:00] of just acknowledging that you can't prohibit solar and you can put in zoning in place that
[1:57:06] would protect light and space in order to facilitate solar, which really isn't different
[1:57:16] But then just the overall zoning authority that municipalities have where one of the purposes
[1:57:24] for which you connect zoning is the protection of light in there.
[1:57:30] Thank you so much for you, Chair Siddiqui.
[1:57:34] Yeah, I think anyway, I think it's really important that we protect those installations
[1:57:42] that were inspired because of the city's sunny solar program. I think it's very important,
[1:57:49] not only because the city encouraged it, but also because it actually produces rail energy for
[1:57:56] the city apparently as much to operate a small university or a large hospital. So I think the number
[1:58:02] something like 10 kilobytes, or I didn't know what the number is, what is it, about 10
[1:58:10] megawatts, megawatts, okay. So big number. And so I know DC, I think maybe we can look
[1:58:15] in DC, so I'm hoping I'm really grateful to all of you for continuing to look for other
[1:58:21] solutions if this is not the right one, but DC has been protecting solar and again,
[1:58:28] and they feel like 5% disabled panels is a problem.
[1:58:34] They're not looking at 28% or 26% being a problem,
[1:58:37] but 5% is they're standard.
[1:58:40] They're bars much higher than ours.
[1:58:43] And I've also read just online that protections
[1:58:46] are enforced by FIDA that study or a written agreement
[1:58:50] allowing neighbors to request reimbursement from developers.
[1:58:56] But it just seems essential that we find some way to do this.
[1:59:01] I know I had talked to MIT's Jeff Levine about this last January or last spring.
[1:59:07] And he had said, there should be a site plan standard that a new development should avoid blocking
[1:59:13] existing solar on a budding properties.
[1:59:16] So maybe there's a different way to do it in DC, they did it by having rules that limit
[1:59:23] how much and how close in addition or structure can be built on a lot.
[1:59:29] So the solar protection was a byproduct that limited how much the building might,
[1:59:37] the height might block and neighbors property.
[1:59:41] So I just think I do think this is important to really figure out because it's a
[1:59:49] of ability issue, we all need sun and I agree with our speakers that it's not just about solar
[1:59:57] panels, it's about blocking neighbors.
[2:00:00] Access to light. And there are actually at Western Nav and Valerie Street, there will be solar panels blocked.
[2:00:07] If those buildings come to be, and my neighbors behind me were asking about how we got our solar panels.
[2:00:15] And I told them, don't put them up. I just feel like without regulations, without any protections, I think people would be really foolish to install solar at this time.
[2:00:27] And that's not the conclusion we want them to come to.
[2:00:31] We want to support solar installations.
[2:00:33] Thank you for giving me a chance to speak.
[2:00:35] I yield.
[2:00:37] Thank you, Councillor Susie.
[2:00:40] Isn't anyone on the Zoom with me to speak?
[2:00:43] OK.
[2:00:46] I had just a question that came up in a public comment
[2:00:51] around the discussions with developers
[2:00:53] and why you're talking to developers.
[2:00:55] I think this did come up in past meetings
[2:00:57] to talk to developers, but it do think it's an important point where homeowners on the
[2:01:02] conversation, I think there are a lot of people, but you can't talk to every single
[2:01:06] homeowner on this. I am curious just for transparency, six. How many developers did the team
[2:01:14] speak to and how did you choose who to speak to?
[2:01:25] Well, I personally reached out to a few developers, wasn't a large number, just like three, maybe, in addition to, and this is just kind of talking to people that I know had some experience doing project and Cambridge, maybe some of them may have had recent projects, some projects, you know, more in the past or nothing kind of currently before the city.
[2:01:47] I mean, that's in addition to the fact that we do meet with developers pretty regularly when they have an active development proposal
[2:01:55] before the city and we, you know, that we might use that opportunity to ask some questions or point out to them that, you know, this is an issue under discussion
[2:02:03] and, you know, give them some feedback on their proposals, as well as kind of get input from them.
[2:02:09] But in terms of just, you know, kind of, almost like cold calling and saying, hey,
[2:02:13] if you want to talk about this for a second, just abs and any other any development proposal or anything
[2:02:18] that that was, it was in a large number.
[2:02:24] Through you, Madam Chair. I, I'm going to take another crack at trying to understand or trying to
[2:02:33] walk through our conversations over the last multiple months. I'm trying to figure this out,
[2:02:39] because I think this conversation, there are two goods that we're trying to balance, right?
[2:02:46] I don't think anybody's against renewables, I don't think anybody's against affordable
[2:02:49] housing.
[2:02:50] And the question is like, what is that optimal balance, I think that's where we're trying
[2:02:56] to come down.
[2:02:57] And so when the new multifamily zoning past, we had these conversations, like counselors
[2:03:07] as you when you're saying, we got to figure it out, we looked at everything.
[2:03:11] Like, we're like, good.
[2:03:13] If you lose solar, could you move your solar to the new rooftop next door?
[2:03:20] Nope.
[2:03:21] It's private property.
[2:03:23] Good.
[2:03:25] We just compensate the folks who had existing solar, nope, because it's not uniform.
[2:03:33] Like we had, you know, in zoning, there are, like,
[2:03:36] gives and takes.
[2:03:37] Some zoning makes your property more valuable,
[2:03:40] some makes it less.
[2:03:40] So there's like, what we ended up coming down to that we could do legally
[2:03:46] was this idea of a setback, which is not super different from your
[2:03:49] talking about, for DC.
[2:03:52] Like, the stepback of higher buildings, where you are not
[2:03:55] blocking sun by doing those stepbacks.
[2:03:58] And I think the quick, so basically, of the whole city,
[2:04:03] what is at stake. So all of our new buildings and major retrofits have to be fossil fuel free
[2:04:10] likely to put solar on. We have our community electricity aggregation program, our 100% renewable
[2:04:22] option going forward as of January is going to be cheaper than ever source, which gives us 30%
[2:04:28] So, can I as a Cambridge homeowner do 100% renewables without solar, yes?
[2:04:37] And then it's a question of like, who does this?
[2:04:43] And it is net versus in Cambridge.
[2:04:48] But if we did all of our rooftop solar in Cambridge that had had Bible solar access, it's
[2:04:57] 2%, it's not patty, we've been going through these numbers all,
[2:05:05] I think the key is, the
[2:05:11] key is, I mean as a solar person, I'm like, this could cost me $3,000, you know, if I had
[2:05:20] giant buildings to myself, the south side of my house, it could cost me about $3,000 a year.
[2:05:30] That's all of my solar. That's roughly what my solar adds to our net energy bill as a revenue.
[2:05:41] On the other hand, because of all the other things that Cambridge has done, my housing
[2:05:44] value has tripled since I've been there, you know? And so like there's a given take. So I want
[2:05:50] to, that's why I keep going back to, this is a matter of economics for the folks who have solar.
[2:05:57] It's not a matter of can we do renewables in Cambridge, writ large.
[2:06:02] And I don't think it's affecting the new buildings. It's really, what is the impact on the people
[2:06:07] of solar today? And I think, you know, when you're saying, would I put solar on, as this is all
[2:06:14] I would, I would, my self as climate chief, buy into 100% green energy electricity through, you know, and see how it shakes out. And I think it's where we ended up as staff is like, can we look and see how this shakes out over the next couple of years? And then decide, is this keeping us from doing affordable housing? Is it really impacting people who have solar and based it on a bit more data than we have?
[2:06:42] Because these are not like 50% of the city's renewable energy or huge amount of, you know, like we're thinking that it's
[2:06:52] some manageable thing to think about for a few more years before we set the answer, because we are balancing two goods.
[2:07:00] That's where we came out of staff looking at all the different ways to do this.
[2:07:05] My favorite would have been to move the solar to the higher building and have that neighbor get the revenue
[2:07:11] It wasn't legal, but I thought that would be like a perfect thing to do, but
[2:07:16] So you know, we we did look at all the different ways you could do that and
[2:07:21] Came up with very limited options and really the step-back seemed to be the
[2:07:28] The key option that was was legal.
[2:07:32] Thank you chief climate officer
[2:07:34] you want to say anything?
[2:07:40] This is both the end.
[2:07:41] We can do both.
[2:07:43] And we should do all we can.
[2:07:47] And if I didn't know better,
[2:07:48] I would think you were saying,
[2:07:49] let's not even do anything here,
[2:07:50] which I know is not what you're saying.
[2:07:52] But that's what, just so you know,
[2:07:54] that's how it's coming across.
[2:07:55] I'm seeing some nods from the audience.
[2:07:56] And I know that's in your heart.
[2:07:58] You don't want that to be the message.
[2:08:00] I think what we all agree,
[2:08:02] I hope if Chairs of D.C.
[2:08:03] degrees two is that we should move forward with continued to study.
[2:08:07] The step backs may not be the only answer, so let's move forward.
[2:08:09] And that's the actual question before.
[2:08:10] It's not the larger question.
[2:08:15] Chief.
[2:08:16] I am super wicked, pro-solar.
[2:08:19] I mean, no, and as city staff, as city councilors,
[2:08:25] we are balancing goods.
[2:08:27] And so it's really like, what is the percent?
[2:08:30] I don't think we can do 100% of everything.
[2:08:33] So what is that balance? And that's where we came down.
[2:08:37] Thank you. And I think that is a good segue into some
[2:08:41] next steps. I think this is a really complex situation.
[2:08:46] There's a lot of feelings involved and I want to name that there's a lot of emotion in this because
[2:08:52] individuals I have solar actually.
[2:08:56] in my three stories where I live and so, you know, I think to a councilor Azim's point, you know,
[2:09:05] I hear the kind of the pain and the fear around this issue and I want to acknowledge that I think we've laid out,
[2:09:14] we've been asking staff to do the work on a lot of our questions.
[2:09:19] I don't think we're there yet. I think we have some options and I think ultimately we have to decide as committees
[2:09:25] and as counselors where we land this and not I think I think give a clear and transparent view
[2:09:37] on where we come down on this eventually after we get if we once we continue review and
[2:09:44] with the broader set of issues I think what I've heard from some of my colleagues is that
[2:09:49] there is an interest in getting some more information getting those questions answered
[2:09:53] and then making a decision, ultimately, and to your point, I think wherever we come back to,
[2:10:00] wherever we land this, you know, it's probably not going to make everyone satisfied, but I think
[2:10:08] our job as counselors is to try to come to a consensus here. And I don't think we're there yet,
[2:10:16] But I really want us to figure out a process as we're going to the next term on how to land this.
[2:10:26] And so that we can give our homeowners and developers everyone a clear message on where we stand on this issue.
[2:10:36] So, I think we'll continue, we'll keep this matter in committee as we go forward.
[2:10:44] I think the chairs will work with CDD on kind of process managing what continued review
[2:10:54] with broader set of issues looks like and go through each of these.
[2:10:58] know we have the February report but you know what does what does a timeline look like on
[2:11:09] you know considering all the other bullets that are laid out here. So we'll continue to do that.
[2:11:17] Councillor Nolan. Good point through you, Chair. Does the staff need us to, is it best to keep
[2:11:28] recommendation. I don't know. I'd say that I think from what I've heard from at least the
[2:11:34] four of us is that, you know, we're going to continue review with the proper set of issues,
[2:11:42] which may then lead to us still saying, look, the zoning amendment path is the only option we have
[2:11:49] with tweaks that could be something that ultimately we have to as a council decide, but I think
[2:11:58] There's at least a few. There's some questions that need to be answered. So I'd say we'd want to go to the recommended alternative that you've posted and then have
[2:12:10] future hearings and it could be joint meetings.
[2:12:15] Does that's more for you all?
[2:12:22] Great. Any final thoughts before we adjourn?
[2:12:27] I will, it's from the body, we're happy to talk to you afterwards, on a motion by Councillor
[2:12:36] Azim, to adjourn.
[2:12:38] We'll do a roll call.
[2:12:39] Councillor Azim.
[2:12:41] Yes.
[2:12:41] Yes.
[2:12:42] Vice President Montgomery is absent.
[2:12:43] Councillor Siddiqui.
[2:12:44] Yes.
[2:12:45] Councillor Willson is absent.
[2:12:49] Councillor Azim.
[2:12:51] Councillor Nolan.
[2:12:53] Yes.
[2:12:53] Councillor Siddiqui.
[2:12:54] Yes, councillors Reena Wheeler.
[2:12:57] Yes.
[2:12:58] Yes.
[2:12:58] And councillor Wilson is absent.
[2:13:00] That's three members voting.
[2:13:01] Yes and housing and four members voting.
[2:13:04] Yes and health and environment.
[2:13:07] We are adjourned.
[2:13:08] Thank you.
[2:13:08] Everyone.