That the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding Comments on Citizen’s Petition to Amend Ch. 2.78, Article III, Neighborhood Conservation Districts and Landmarks and the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding the Proposed Friendly Amendments to Ch. 2.78, Art. III be forwarded to the full City Council with the recommendation to refer said memos to the Ordinance Committee for further discussion

CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION 831 Massachusetts Avenue, 2nd Fl., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Telephone: [phone removed] TTY: [phone removed] Fax: [phone removed] E-mail: histcomm@cambridgema.gov URL: http://www.cambridgema.gov/Historic Bruce A. Irving, Chair; Susannah Barton Tobin, Vice Chair; Charles Sullivan, Executive Director Joseph V. Ferrara, Chandra Harrington, Elizabeth Lyster, Jo M. Solet, Yuting Zhang, Members Gavin W. Kleespies, Paula A. Paris, Kyle Sheffield, Alternates October 17, 2022 To: Yi-An Huang, City Manager From: Charles Sullivan, Executive Director Re: Comments on a Citizens’ Petition to Amend Ch. 2.78, Article III, Neighborhood Conser- vation Districts and Landmarks A citizens’ petition to amend Chapter 2.78, Article III of the City Code will be heard by the Neighborhood Planning Committee of the City Council on October 25. I am submitting the fol- lowing comments for approval in advance of the hearing. A separate memo proposes friendly amendments to the Ordinance. These comments and proposed amendments have been updated since a similar submission to the Ordinance Committee in September 2021. Background The Neighborhood Conservation District and Landmarks ordinance was adopted in 1983 to counter a wave of development that targeted historically significant neighborhoods. The immedi- ate causes were the threat posed by commercial development to an area west of Harvard Square and the proliferation of townhouses in Mid Cambridge. These neighborhoods did not wish to be designated as historic districts under the Historic Districts statute, MGL Ch. 40C, so CHC staff and board members, working with City Councillor David Sullivan, devised a more flexible in- strument that allowed jurisdiction to be tailored to local conditions. Cambridge’s neighborhood conservation model has since been adopted by several other cities and towns in Massachusetts. Conservation districts in Cambridge now include Mid Cambridge (1983, about 2,200 buildings); Half Crown-Marsh (1984, 200 buildings); Avon Hill (1998, 220 buildings); and Harvard Square (2000, 230 buildings). A conservation district study for East Cambridge is now underway. Proposed Amendments by Citizens’ Petition The petitioners’ suggested amendments fall into several broad categories: 1. NCD membership requirements and member qualifications (2.78.160) NCD commissions consist of five members and three alternates allocated among homeowners, residents, property owners, and a member of the Cambridge Historical Commission. The pro- posed amendments would require appointment of two tenants and one business owner:

Current Citizens Proposal Members - 5 2 resident homeowners 1 resident (tenant optional) 1 other property owner 1 CHC member 1 homeowner 2 tenants 1 other property owner 1 business owner Alternates - 3 3 property owners No requirements Response: The Ordinance already allows for appointment of a tenant. The Mid Cambridge NCD Order requires a tenant representative, but over many years it has proved almost impossible to recruit a tenant for this slot. Avon Hill and Half Crown-Marsh are mostly single-family residen- tial districts with small numbers of tenants, where businesses are few or non-existent. The proposed amendments would strike the current requirement that members and alternates rep- resent the “the diverse viewpoints expressed in the creation of the district” and “have demon- strable knowledge and concern for improvement, conservation, and enhancement of the dis- trict.” Professional qualifications related to real estate, architecture, or historic preservation would also be deleted (2.78.160.B). Elimination of professional qualifications would degrade the ability of NCD commissions to deal with complex architectural and development issues. I recommend retaining the required profes- sional qualifications, at least in part (see Staff Recommendation #2 below). 2. Limiting jurisdiction by preventing review of affordable housing, climate resiliency, and renewable energy measures (2.78.170, 2.78.210) The proposed amendments would eliminate the authority of neighborhood conservation district commissions to review projects developed under the affordable housing overlay (2.78.170) or alterations that include climate resiliency or renewable energy features. Response: The Historical Commission and the various NCD commissions have a long history of constructively balancing community goals with their stated purpose of restraining adverse influ- ences on the city’s built environment. Over the last forty years complete denials have been ex- tremely rare, and no commission has ever denied an affordable housing project. Commissions typically view their role as mitigating adverse effects, not preventing projects entirely. This amendment seeks to address a hypothetical problem that has no basis in past experience. Projects that involve climate resiliency or renewable energy features can also be destructive of architectural character. No commission to date has ever denied an application for such features, but they occasionally request alterations to solar panel installations to protect historic features. The Historic Districts statute, which is incorporated by reference into Ch. 2.78, already priori- tizes solar power: When ruling on applications for certificates of appropriateness for solar energy systems … the commission shall also consider the policy of the commonwealth to encourage the use of solar energy systems and to protect solar access (MGL Ch. 40C, Sec. 7). 3. Limiting initiation of NCD studies (2.78.180) The proposed amendments would require City Council approval before an NCD study could be initiated.

Response: Eliminating the ten-citizen petition route to an NCD study would deny citizens an im- portant right currently allowed (and frequently used) to introduce amendments to the zoning code. The Historical Commission has the right to decline frivolous or inappropriate petitions and has done so on several occasions. Initiation of a study imposes sever burdens of staff and com- missioners, and is not a decision taken lightly. The temporary jurisdiction exercised by the Cambridge Historical Commission in NCD study ar- eas is acknowledged to be burdensome. Currently proposed friendly amendments would elimi- nate this jurisdiction. Requiring the Historical Commission to identify all the opponents of a proposed district would be an impossibility. The study process is already designed to elicit and respond to a range of views. 4. Establishing perpetual sunset reviews (2.78.180) The proposed amendments would require re-adoption of each existing NCD after ten years, be- ginning in 2022. Response: The amendments overlook the provisions of paragraph 2.180.J, which provides for in- clusion of a sunset clause in the Order establishing each district. Requiring a simultaneous de- cennial sunset review would be excessively burdensome. The Avon Hill, Mid Cambridge, and Harvard Square NCDs all had sunset reviews after establishment. The Harvard Square Order was readopted in 2021. 5. Limiting general authority (2.78.220) The proposed amendments eliminate the ability of an NCD commission to “impose dimensional and setback requirements in addition to those required by applicable provision of the zoning ordinance.” Response: Paragraph 2.78.220.A mirrors Section 7 of MGL Ch. 40C, the Historic Districts stat- ute. Although it has been rarely used in Cambridge, this provision is an important regulatory tool. Elimination would seriously weaken the authority of NCD commissions. 6. Expanding time limit for appeal (2.78.240) The proposed amendments would extend the time period for appeals from twenty to sixty days. Response: The twenty day window is based on the M.G.L. Ch. 40C, Section 12, which is incor- porated by reference. Extending the time period for appeals to sixty days would unfairly burden applicants by exposing them to legal jeopardy for an unreasonable length of time. 7. Preventing enforcement of decisions (2.78.270) The proposed amendments eliminate the authority of NCD commissions to enforce their deci- sions. Response: Eliminating the ability of NCD commissions to enforce their decisions in effect makes all decisions non-binding on the applicant.

Conclusion The stated goals of the petition are to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and access, but the ef- fect of the proposed amendments will be to diminish citizen access to the neighborhood conser- vation process and limit the ability of neighborhood conservation districts to “preserve, conserve and protect the beauty and heritage of the city [and to] resist and restrain environmental influ- ences adverse to this purpose” (2.78.140). I propose instead amendments that reflect current community goals, broaden representation on NCD study committees, and make the conservation district study process less burdensome. cc: Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor Bruce Irving, CHC Chair