5. Resolution on the retirement of Elaine Thorne.   Mayor Simmons

Resolution #5     Jan 11, 2016
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Elaine Thorne, neighborhood planner in the Community Development Department, has long been one of the true backbones of the City and the community; and
WHEREAS: A lifelong Cambridge resident, Elaine Thorne first came to work for the City in 1979, going on to join the Community Development Department in 1980; and
WHEREAS: Over her many years of service, Elaine Thorne has distinguished herself by participating in many important community-based planning efforts; and
WHEREAS: Early in her Community Development career, Elaine Thorne worked with the North Cambridge Stabilization Committee, she helped finalize the US Trust UDAG project, and she worked with contractors throughout the city on compliance with the Davis-Bacon wage regulations; and
WHEREAS: Elaine Thorne worked with business owners in Central Square in the City’s first façade improvement program in the 1980s, and she was again a key member of the Central Square revitalization team in the 1990s, which brought enhanced sidewalks, seating, tree planting, and lighting to Central Square, sparking its revitalization; and
WHEREAS: During this planning effort, Elaine Thorne was an important liaison to the local business community, working with business owners to build consensus about these important urban design changes, and as those physical changes were being completed, she worked with businesses and City departments to establish the new rules that have allowed the wonderful array of sidewalk tables outside many cafes and restaurants up and down the Square; and
WHEREAS: From the beginning of the East Cambridge waterfront improvements, Elaine Thorne worked to help bring about City parks that are now an integral part of the area, including Lechmere Canal, Charles Park, and Centanni Way, and for many years, she has worked closely with the Lechmere Canal Advisory Committee, working to improve and maintain this beautiful City park system; and
WHEREAS: In 1996, Elaine Thorne again brought her expertise in bridging private business and City procedures, helping to bring about the much-loved weekend farmers’ market to the Morse School, which is now a fixture in the Cambridgeport neighborhood; and
WHEREAS: In the last decade, Elaine Thorne’s work has touched nearly every corner of the city, from the Citywide Growth Management effort, to Riverside (where she contributed to the successful rezoning of the Mahoney’s site), to Strawberry Hill, Neighborhood 10 and Neighborhood 9, where she has led neighborhood study efforts; and
WHEREAS: In The Port, Elaine Thorne has been a key player, serving as liaison to the Area IV Coalition, and she has facilitated the UDAG community grant program; and
WHEREAS: Elaine Thorne has also led a new Community Development effort to address planning issues for aging in the community – a community that she has had a wonderful impact on throughout her career; and
WHEREAS: In the past few years, Elaine Thorne has continued taking on key challenges for Community Development, coordinating the review of the new energy efficient LEED buildings throughout the city, providing significant leadership in the transition to a new Department’s website, and leading a newly invigorated Central Square Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS: Truly, the City is fortunate to have the dedication and service of individuals like Elaine Thorne working every single day to make this community a better and more beautiful place to live and work; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record thanking Elaine Thorne for her many years of leadership and service to the Cambridge community, and in wishing her a very happy and well-deserved retirement; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Elaine Thorne on behalf of the entire City Council.

7. Congratulations Chip Norton and Henrietta Davis   Mayor Simmons

Resolution #7     Jan 11, 2016
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: On January 20, 2016, the 2016 Fresh Pond Stewardship Award will be presented to Chip Norton and to Henrietta Davis at a ceremony that recognizes and honors their long-standing commitment to, involvement with, and love for the Fresh Pond Reservation; and
WHEREAS: Chip Norton served as the Watershed Manager for the Cambridge Water Department for 22 years and 3 months, from October 15, 1991 through January 13, 2014, during which time he relentlessly pursued the restoration and preservation of the Fresh Pond Reservation; and
WHEREAS: During his tenure, Chip Norton significantly contributed to and affected the outcome of many major Fresh Pond Reservation projects, including Little Fresh Pond, the Northeast Sector Project (which included Lusitania Meadow, Neville Community Gardens, Maher Park and the Butterfly Meadow), Blacks Nook, Stream C, Glacken Slope, Kingsley Park and the Drainage and Community Garden Project (Sozio Rotary Area); and
WHEREAS: Chip Norton also made significant contributions to Watershed Protection, Fresh Pond Stewardship, the Fresh Pond Master Plan, Fresh Pond Signage, Pathway Improvements and Shared Use, and he pioneered the idea of developing a method to understand the usage of the Reservation by installing “Eco Counters” to count the visitors of Fresh Pond; and
WHEREAS: During his tenure, Chip Norton worked closely with the Cambridge Water Board, the Fresh Pond Master Plan Committee/Advisory Board and Friends of Fresh Pond, and most importantly, he made extraordinary efforts to educate and involve citizens in the stewardship of this precious reservation; and
WHEREAS: Former Mayor Henrietta Davis, who served on the City Council for 16 years, has been a major steward of the Fresh Pond Reservation throughout her many years of public service; and
WHEREAS: Henrietta Davis was brainchild behind establishing “Fresh Pond Day,” in order to help educate and inform the citizens of Cambridge about their water supply system, and to encourage them to visit and utilize Cambridge’s largest open space, and 2016 marks the 9th Annual Fresh Pond Day; and
WHEREAS: Henrietta Davis was a major advocate of educational programs for the Fresh Pond Reservation, including the removal of invasive species to promote native plants (an example is the use of “beetles” to remove “purple loosestrife”), and she supported the use of the Maynard Ecology Center, located in Neville Place, to educate Cambridge students about the benefits of nature, wildlife, plants and the water cycle, and this has become a permanent part of the science curriculum in our public schools; and
WHEREAS: Henrietta Davis has long championed the Cambridge Water System through operating and capital budgets and the use of CPA funding for wetland protection, the best example being the Northeast Sector Project, which protected Fresh Pond from overland flooding and thereby improved raw water quality; and
WHEREAS: Henrietta Davis has long championed the use of tap water instead of bottled water, citing its excellent quality, she has constantly promoted this at many events, and throughout the Cambridge School system, she supported the installation of the largest PV Solar System on the Water Department roof, saving over 200,000 kWh/year; and
WHEREAS: Most importantly, Henrietta Davis has made extraordinary efforts to educate and involve citizens in the stewardship of this precious reservation; and
WHEREAS: Chip Norton and Henrietta Davis are two exemplary individuals who have dedicated decades to preserving and protecting the environment, educating those around them about the need to preserve our resources, and they are truly deserving of recognition for their tremendous work; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in congratulating Chip Norton and Henrietta Davis for being named the recipients of the 2016 Fresh Pond Stewardship Award, and in thanking them for their dedication to the protection of our valuable water resource and the natural ecology of Fresh Pond; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Chip Norton and to Henrietta Davis on behalf of the entire City Council.

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Transmitting An Open Meeting Law Complaint filed by Kim Courtney and Xavier Dietrich, 955 Massachusetts Avenue #259, Cambridge, regarding the amended Minutes of the City Council meeting of Aug 10, 2015.

January 11, 2016
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The City Council is in receipt of an amended Open Meeting Law Complaint filed by Kim Courtney and Xavier Dietrich, 955 Massachusetts Avenue #259 which appears under Communications and Reports from City Officers Number One; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Clerk, in consultation with the City Solicitor, draft a response regarding the attached amended Open Meeting Law Complaint for the City Council’s consideration so that the draft response may be considered and voted on by the City Council at its regular business meeting of January 25, 2016.

Order #3     Jan 11, 2016 [O4-2016]
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Operators of bicycles, mopeds, motorcycles, and scooters often fasten their conveyance to public trees in the absence of available street signs or designated bicycle poles; and
WHEREAS: Fastening various conveyances to trees harms the City’s existing tree stock, particularly young trees, which have developing bark and are more easily damaged; and
WHEREAS: An existing Cambridge ordinance has long prohibited the fastening of horses to public trees for similar reasons; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council Ordinance Committee be and hereby is requested to review the attached proposed amendment to §12.16.030 Trees—Climbing, Signposting, Fastening horses.

12.16.030 – Trees—Climbing—Signposting—Fastening horses
No person shall climb a tree in any street or fasten or tie a horse or other animal, bicycle, moped, scooter, motorcycle, or any other form of conveyance to, or post a bill upon, any such tree, or allow any horse or other animal owned by him, or under his control to stand so near any such tree, that such tree may be gnawed or otherwise injured by such horse or other animal.

Order #4     Jan 11, 2016 [O5-2016]
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has long protected the rights of workers to a smoke-free environment; and
WHEREAS: Currently, this protection extends only to workers in “enclosed” areas, while employees who typically work in unenclosed spaces, such as construction workers, landscapers, and gardeners are not protected from second-hand smoke; and
WHEREAS: Smoking in workplace sites can cause fires that threaten life and destruction of property when smoking materials (i.e. tobacco products) are improperly disposed; and
WHEREAS: The National Fire Prevention Agency (NFPA) found that improper disposal of smoking materials caused an estimated 90,000 fires around the United States in 2011, resulting in an estimated 540 civilian deaths and $621 million in direct property damages; and
WHEREAS: Construction workers are twice as likely to smoke tobacco products than the average citizen according to a 2003 California Health Information Survey; and
WHEREAS: Buildings under construction or undergoing major renovation are unlikely to have functioning fire alerting and suppression systems; and
WHEREAS: A U.S. Fire Administration report on “Construction Site Fires” found that smoking was the third leading cause of construction site fires from 1996-98, and noted that “firefighters injured on construction sites are twice as likely to be hit or struck by debris and other objects than firefighters at other sites;” and
WHEREAS: Creating smoke free places of employment for workers engaged in unenclosed areas may be as simple as amended the existing Cambridge Municipal Code 8.28.050—Definitions for Prohibition of Smoking in Workplaces to expand to definition of “Workplace” to include open construction sites; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That this matter be referred to the Ordinance Committee for consideration of the amendments to Cambridge Code 8.28.050 in the attached file and the adoption of language that protects all workers in Cambridge.

8.28.050 - Definitions for Prohibition of Smoking in Workplaces.
For the purposes of this ordinance, in addition to the definitions in 8.28.020 above, the following words shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this paragraph:

Agent or Business Agent. An individual who has been designated by the owner or operator of any establishment to be the manager or otherwise in charge of said establishment.

Employee. Any individual person who performs services for an employer.

Employer. An individual person, partnership, association, corporation, trust, or other organized group of individuals, including the City of Cambridge or any agency thereof, which utilizes the services of one or more individual employees, with or without compensation.

Enclosed Area. A space bounded by walls (with or without windows) from the floor to the ceiling and enclosed by doors. An enclosed area may include, but is not limited to, offices, rooms, and halls.

Person. Any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind including, but not limited to an owner, operator, manager, proprietor or person in charge of any building, establishment, business, or restaurant or retail store, or the agents or designees of any of the foregoing.

Private Club. A not-for-profit establishment created and organized pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 180 as a  charitable corporation with a defined membership. A private club is not a place of public accommodation but rather distinctly private. Criteria used to determine whether a club is distinctly private include, but are not limited to, those factors identified in 204 CMR 10.02. If a private club holds an alcoholic beverage license, said license shall be a "club license" or a "war veterans club license" as defined by M.G.L. Ch. 138. Sec. 12 and by the Massachusetts Alcohol Beverage Control Commission. Said license is subject to the terms set forth by the local licensing authority.

Smoking. Inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe tobacco, nicotine delivery product, snuff or tobacco in any manner or in any form.

Workplace. Any enclosed area of a structure or portion thereof at which one or more employees perform services for their employer. Workplace includes hallways, stairwells, lobbies, elevators and restrooms.

Workplace. Any area or structure, whether enclosed or unenclosed, under the control of an employer at which one or more employees perform services for their employer. Workplace includes, but is not limited to, hallways, stairwells, lobbies elevators, restroom facilities, work areas, construction sites, temporary offices such as trailers, and vehicles. Workplace shall not include any space specifically and clearly designated by the employer as an outdoor smoking area for employees only.
(Ord. No. 1364, Repealed & Replaced, 01/29/2015)

8.28.060 - Prohibition of Smoking in Workplaces.
A. Smoking is prohibited in all workplaces, including private clubs.

B. It shall be unlawful for any employer or other person having control of premises upon which smoking is prohibited by this chapter, or the agent or designee of such person, to permit a violation of this chapter.

C. The Cambridge Public Health Department may promulgate reasonable rules and regulations for the implementation of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 1364, Repealed & Replaced, 01/29/2015)

8.28.070. - Prohibition of Smoking in Workplaces Enforcement and Penalties.
Attachment: Amendment to Workplace Smoking Ordinance (O #5 2016 : To Make all Workplaces Smoke-free)

A. Any establishment who violates this chapter shall be subject to a fine in an amount of one hundred dollars for a first offense, two hundred dollars for a second offense and three hundred dollars for a third or subsequent offense within a twenty-four month period from the first offense. Any private individual who violates this chapter shall be subject to a fine of one hundred dollars. Each day a violation occurs will be considered a separate offense.

B. As an alternative to initiating criminal proceedings, violations of this Section II. of this chapter may be enforced in the manner provided in MGL c.40, s.21D. Any fines imposed under the provisions of this chapter shall inure to the City of Cambridge. For the purposes of this chapter, the following shall be enforcing officers: Police Officers; and employees of the License Commission, the Public Health Department and Inspectional Services Department or their designees.

C. Any citizen who desires to register a complaint under this chapter may request that the Cambridge Public Health Department initiate an investigation.
(Ord. No. 1364, Repealed & Replaced, 01/29/2015)

Order #5     Jan 11, 2016 [O6-2016]
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is concerned with both improving the quality of its residents’ lives and environmental sustainability; and
WHEREAS: In 2015, the City Council adopted a “Net Zero” action plan, part of which included the City’s goal to reduce wasteful energy use in the pursuit of lower carbon emissions; and
WHEREAS: Installing solar panels provides an alternative source of energy that does not contribute to increasing levels of carbon in the atmosphere and falls in line with the City’s “Net Zero” goals; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Community Development Department and other relevant departments to draft a zoning ordinance that would see the installation of solar panels be as of right in all zoning districts in the City.

Order #6     Jan 11, 2016 [O7-2016]
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Construction on the first portions of the Grand Junction Multiuse Path have begun; and
WHEREAS: Support for the path has grown but there remain many design and land issues that need to be resolved along the corridor to ensure a future where the Grand Junction Multiuse Path is a safe and viable transportation option through all of Eastern Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Providing flexibility to property owners along the Grand Junction by creating a Grand Junction Overlay District could help to solve some of the conflicts that have been identified in various feasibility studies, preserve setbacks needed to create a viable path, and eliminate any conflicts with possible additional rails; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager of Community Development and report back to the City Council with language that could create a Grand Junction Overlay District that would help to create incentives and ensure the completion of the Grand Junction Multiuse Path.

Order #8     Jan 11, 2016 [O9-2016]
MAYOR SIMMONS
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record accepting the attached provisions of Chapter 162 of the Acts of 2015, the same being ‘AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE TAX STATUS OF CERTAIN LAND OWNED BY A HOUSING AUTHORITY WITHIN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.”

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee met on Tues, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss “Getting To Zero: Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)”.

ATTENDEES: Vice Mayor Benzan; Councillor Mazen; Dr. Bisola Ojikutu; Carl Sciortino; Mike Jeppis; Tom Evans.

DISCUSSION SUMMARY: Councillor Mazen thanked Dr. Ojikutu for her presentation on PrEP and welcomed Vice Mayor Benzan; from this point forward, the meeting is on the official record.

Councillor Mazen welcomes Carl Sciortino, who was presenting on the social and political context of PrEP. Mr. Sciortino explained that PrEP is a treatment, vaccine, and/or prophylaxis that many people are not familiar with. He further explained that other prophylaxis drugs--such as antimalarial drugs that are taken before going overseas--are commonplace in our communities.

Mr. Sciortino noted that the target audience of PrEP are people who are at high risk for HIV. Specifically, young and gay black and latino men, transwomen, and drug users. Historically, these populations are not treated equally in society and should be learning about PrEP in a medical setting but have not because of issues of access.

Mr. Sciortino displayed a banner ad found on the MBTA that is targeting a younger population. The ads will also appear online on gay dating sites such as “Grinder.” Further, he mentioned that TalkPrep.org is a great resource learning about and accessing PrEP.

Mr. Sciortino provided an anecdote about the limited access to PrEP: he was contacted by a person who’s friend went to their PCP to request PrEP but was denied because the PCP was not familiar enough with the drug to recommend it. Mr. Sciortino claimed that for this reason, it is very important to educate medical providers and help to empower them. Additionally, the community must feel empowered enough to have culturally competent conversations about risky sexual behavior.

Mr. Sciortino stated that the idea of bringing newly infected individuals down to zero percent is a radical idea. However, given the tools we have today (such as PrEP and HIV positive treatments) bringing new infections to zero percent is a possibility and that Massachusetts is in a position to lead this conversation nationally.

Mr. Sciortino further stated that while nationally there are 50,000 new infections every year, new infection in Massachusetts have dropped in large part because people living with HIV had access to treatment. In addition, despite the fact that many people in MA use injectable drugs such as heroin, there has been a reduction of HIV in the community because that state implemented a needle exchange program.

Mr. Sciortino concluded his presentation and turned the attention over to two active PrEP users to share their experience with PrEP, Mike Jeppis and Tom Evans. Mike Jeppis works at MGH and Fenway Health, and has been taking PrEP for seven months. Tom Evans has been taking PrEP since 2011. Also present was Christopher Brandon, the “Getting to Zero” coordinator at the Aids Action Committee of Massachusetts.

Mr. Jeppis started using PrEP because of an increase in sex positivity in the community. He described taking PrEP as a way of taking control of your own sexual health and ensuring there is an extra layer of protection.

Mr. Evans started PrEP trials in the 1980’s because of growing up at a time where being gay was often associated with an assumption that the person would become infected with HIV. He echoed similar feelings to Mr. Jeppis in that PrEP is a way to take control over your own sexual health and preventing HIV infection. Additionally, he noted the difficulty of admitting having unprotected sex with other gay men and the stigma that follows, but expects more honest conversation because of PrEP.

Mr. Jeppis noted that a cultural competency in treating the LGBT community is needed by healthcare providers. Further, intersectionality is closely tied with the PrEP and HIV conversation yet most people learning about PrEP are middle-class caucasian males, rather than the most at-risk communities.

Public Comment:
Emmanuel Lusardi asked if there was any PrEP outreach in the local public schools happening. Mr. Sciortino responded that currently the FDA approval for PrEP is for individuals 18 and over. He further responded that sex education is inconsistent and ineffective and that although schools are teaching general HIV awareness, PrEP is not included in the discussion. Mr. Sciortino also noted that this conversation is not happening in universities either, calling the lack of education a failure of morality.

Dr. Hannah Olivet, a resident doctor of the Cambridge Health Alliance, commented that she prescribes PrEP and is trying to set a model to work with the Aids Action Committee. In addition to regularly screening patients for high blood pressure and high cholesterol, she also screens for individuals who may want to take PrEP and noted that this could be a model used in all health facilities if people are educated about PrEP.

Claude Jacob, Cambridge Health Alliance Chief Public Health Officer, acknowledged Dr. Olivat and echoed that there is an opportunity to replicate this model in other locations in order to inform, educate, and empower communities.

Councillor Mazen thanked Vice Mayor Benzan and others who attended. He noted that this upcoming term will be one where he and his Legislative Aide will face outward to connect with people who wish to have committee meetings about a particular topic, or create a task force/group of their own and require help from the City. Further, he encouraged everyone in attendance to reach out for support and be in touch with ideas.

ADJOURNMENT: On motion of Councillor Mazen, the meeting adjourned at 7:40pm.

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Dec 9, 2015 beginning at 5:21pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition filed by the Friends of MAPOCO, to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance by a new sub-district of the Massachusetts Avenue Overlay District along Massachusetts Avenue between Porter Square and Cambridge Common.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; Stuart Dash, Director, Community Planning, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Charlotte Moore, 9 Rutland Street; Nicole Caplan, 16 Linnaean Street; Erika Johnson, 1350 Massachusetts Avenue; Ruth Ryals; Elaine Kistiakowsky; Mary Baine Campbell, 36 Linnaean Street; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Lauren Curry, 3 Concord Avenue; Ingrid Shuttleworth, 1572 Massachusetts Avenue; Dominick Jones, 6 Hurlbut Street; and Rosalind Mechahelles, 6 Hurlbut Street.

Vice Mayor Benzan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing.

The presentation of the petition (ATTACHMENT A) was delivered by Peter B. Kroon, 16 Linnaean Street, who stated that MAPOCO stands for Massachusetts Avenue from Porter Square to Cambridge Common. In his presentation he outlined a 10 point plan to advance the process to improve this stretch of the Massachusetts Avenue. He stated that there is a proven and strategic partnership with the City, Harvard and Lesley as well as residents who are committed to make good things happen to this stretch of Massachusetts Avenue. He gave an overview of development in the area. He stated that the new Harvard Law School fits in the neighborhood.

He spoke about the modern and historical repurposed Art and Design building at Lesley which is contextually compatible with the neighborhood. Lesley admissions office also fits into the area. He stated that there are pre-war apartment buildings with ground floor retail that fit into the neighborhood. He spoke about the one store retail buildings with detail as highlight at the Nomad and The Abbey. Parking is needed for many reasons. He spoke about the most unappealing buildings in the neighborhood. A large apartment building next to a Victorian home makes the Victorian look small and puny. He spoke about contextual compatibility meaning that it fits in with what is next to it. Mr. Kroon stated that it is possible to design new modern buildings that are contextually compatible with the neighborhood. The building proposed at 1718 Mass Avenue raised issues with the neighborhood. He stated that four hundred people voted against the building because of parking and retail issues. He outlined the 10 points of the petition. He does not want to change the scale of the neighborhood with the zoning. Pedestrian friendly avenue, ground floor friendly retail - this is existing sub-district north of Porter Square. The south of Porter Square was asked to be part of it, but it was not organized properly. This opportunity was missed and now realize that they should participate in this. The petitioners are fine with the creation of a new sub-district, but the simplest approach would be to extend the sub-district further south. The Northern Massachusetts Avenue sub-district requires ground level non-residential for 75% of frontage, does not allow ground level labs or manufacturing retail and limits banks to 25 feet wide. Retail depth is increased from 25 feet to 40 feet before parking can begin and there are incentives for more gracious retail space.

2. Mr. Kroon stated that better design guidance should be given. In 1986 there was handbook entitled the North Massachusetts Avenue Urban Design Handbook should be brought back, but it needs to be updated. He stated that developers need to be shown buildings that are liked and disliked and that are successful and unsuccessful. The goal is to save time, money and aggravation for all.

3. Mr. Kroon spoke about re-widening the sidewalks from 11 ft. to 16 ft. as the avenue gets redeveloped. He stated that there will be a lot of development happening and as this happens the sidewalks can be pushed back five feet as required by zoning. A wider sidewalk will create a more comfortable area for bus stops, benches, trees and outdoor seating.

4. Mr. Kroon stated that a technical point is to avoid new buildings towering over homes behind them. He stated that when the developer came to do the building at 1718 Massachusetts Avenue the parcel is actually two parcels. The front is zoned Business A-2 and the back is zoned Residential B. This parcel was treated as a single parcel but when the setback calculations were done it was started from the zoning transition line. This resulted in a 25 foot set back in the back of the parcel. He noted that the neighboring house in the back only has a six foot setback. Some of the houses were built long before there was zoning. He stated that the setback should be 35 feet because of the actual depth of the proposed building lot. He wanted clarification of the transition line.

5. Mr. Kroon stated that petition included parking for merchants and to protect side streets from more compaction. The area has many apartment buildings, multi-family buildings and institutions which leads to a dense parking. He stated that as the developer come into the area he wants to ensure that parking is not given away. He noted that there are 24 parking spaces proposed at 1718 Massachusetts Avenue. He stated that the site's existing parking spaces are used by nearby businesses. There may be parts of Central and Kendall Squares that make sense not to have l to parking, but he stated in this district parking is needed for 1 to l because there is no parking facility. He asked if there could be an enclosed parking facility.

6. No stilt buildings. He wanted no ground level parking, structured or unstructured, unless behind 40 feet of retail.

7. Mr. Kroon stated that the existing variance requirement for fast food and business uses be retained. He stated that fast order food requires a variance and MAPOCO wants to keep the status quo. He stated that the neighborhood is dense and there are houses that are next to restaurants and there are issues such as noise, smells, garbage, litter, deliveries and in and out traffic.

8. Mr. Kroon stated that MAPOCO wants to promote Cambridge Local First type businesses versus the chain stores. He stated that Cambridge is unique in that there are many small family type businesses. He stated that the language North of Porter Square requires a variance over 5,000 square feet in total. He stated that there are many little shops that do not need 5,000 square feet to operate. The petition proposes to change the language to 2,000 square feet by right for the ground level.

9. The petition seeks to ensure that the identified historical structures are not canyoned by new construction. He stated that historical buildings can be lost by new modern buildings. He wanted to require appropriate setbacks and transitions.

10. The petition seeks to preserve the scale of the neighborhood and encourage more gracious retail spaces. The current zoning of height and density is being kept. Above Porter Square there is language that allows for building height of 50 feet. The petition suggests that the language be written to allow the overall building height can increase above the 45 feet allowed in Business A-2 when the first floor to the second floor elevation exceeds 15 feet but only up to a maximum of 50 feet for the total building height.

Mr. Kroon spoke about the priorities which as a stop gap situation. He spoke about the Masterplan taking three years. He stated that the neighborhood is a bit panicked and does not want an inappropriate development to come during those three years. He stated that at a minimum the petitioners wanted to bring the North Massachusetts Avenue language to extend the boundary south to Chauncy and Everett Streets, a distance of six blocks. He read the priorities in his presentation.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened the hearing to City staff.

Jeff Roberts stated that the staff did a report with an overview of some of the specifics of what is being proposed (ATTACHMENT B). The Planning Board held their hearing last night. The Planning Board kept the hearing open and continue it at later date. The concerns expressed by the Planning Board were that the petition did not contain specific zoning language and created uncertainty in some of the zoning provisions. The Planning Board noted the content and aspirations represented in the petition. The points in the petition were discussed. It was considered to take some of the provision of the petition and incorporate them in the area south of Porter Square. Some parts of the petition needed further study, clarification and discussion before adoption as part of the City-wide planning effort of a single planning effort. Mr. Dash stated that the Planning Board considered whether this should be an interim measure while being studied further.

Councillor Carlone stated that the discussion was good at the Planning Board. This is a neighborhood aspirational petition that relates to zoning. The conclusion of the hearing by the Planning Board was right on. He stated that sidewalks used to be 17 - 18 feet wide and this was reduced by six feet on each side of Massachusetts Avenue in the l950's to provide more space for cars.

Now restaurants come out to the sidewalk with street furniture. This requires a 7 foot clearance. Street lights and parking meters require 2 feet. This leaves the present sized sidewalks too narrow for pedestrians. He stated that given that the zoning requires a five foot set back the petition states that the exemption should not apply. He stated that almost all the historical and apartment buildings are set back more than five feet. He further stated that only one building is at the property line. The residential apartment without ground floor retail have 5-8 feet of plantings.

The one-story 1920's retail buildings have not done this. The neighborhood has many of this type of buildings. He stated that every parking lot in the City will be developed in the next few years. It makes no sense that a one-story building, that in most cases will be removed in the future, can trigger a new building be built without a setback. He stated that in the long run there may be a 5 feet pedestrian walkway even with outdoor seating and a bus shelter.

Carlone also stated that fast food is a problem. The large fast food companies can pay double what neighborhood retail can pay for space.

The Planning Board saw the merits of the principles of the petition. The petitioners in the end asked that this become a special district. He stated that Changsho Restaurant has sold their parking lot which will be housing with ground floor retail. He spoke about another developer who wants to knock down one-story building with seven store fronts. The latter has been prevented because of leasing.

Public comment opened at 5:56pm by Vice Mayor Benzan.

Charlotte Moore of 9 Rutland Street read a letter from Frank Kramer, 7 Avon Street, founder of Local First, written to the Planning Board (ATTACHMENT C). He supported the MAPOCO petition.

Ms. Moore stated that issues of keeping the avenue viable and livable have been ongoing for a long time. This is an ecological system for the neighborhood and the businesses in the area. She asked for protection for the businesses that the neighborhood depends on. She compared Harvard Street in Coolidge Corner to Massachusetts Avenue. In 2006 Coolidge Corner put in a sub-district interim plan to protect the area until a final plan could be formulated. In the final plan contained wording that it was the residents who make a decision to live in a certain area should be protected from dramatic changes in character to their neighborhood. She stated that she has chosen to live here so she can utilize the things and businesses in the area. The MAPOCO area needs a quality plan and she wanted the Massachusetts Avenue ecosystem maintained. She requested support of the petition. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT D).

Nicole Caplan, 16 Linnaean Street, stated her support of the petition.

Ruth Ryals, 115 Upland Road, stated that she is a Massachusetts Avenue Improvement Committee and an Art Committee Member and a signer of the petition. She wanted to keep small locally owned family businesses and restaurants. This is better for the Cambridge economy and better for the soul of the City. She wanted to save the existing parking because parking is tight as is. Two surface parking lots are the first to go. There will be a lot of parking that will be displaced when these new buildings are built. She noted that the side streets in this area are already congested. She wanted the City Council and Community Development Department to work with residents to find parking solutions. She wanted to save the lively streetscape, art and architecture. Neighbors behind the commercial lots need to be taken into consideration of the setbacks. She wanted the existing businesses saved or moved to new locations when the one-story buildings are removed. She asked if there are tax incentives and ways to provide replacement parking.

Elaine Kistiakowsky, Hudson Street, supported the proposal. She is proud of the process she has observed. The CDD and the Planning Board have been helpful, thorough and professional. This petition has brought out new leadership in the community.

Mary Blaine Campbell, 36 Linnaean Street, stated that small businesses are afraid and concerned. She supported the protection of the neighborhood. She stated that as an intermittently disable person she is concerned about the issue of parking. With the end of Rent Control she hoped that there was more diversity in the make-up of the people involved in this petition. She wanted more identity of various classes in the neighborhood involved with the petition.

Lauren Curry, 3 Concord Avenue, stated that she is part of the housing development unit of Just-A-Start. She stated that what has been identified as a priority for poor people in the City is affordable housing and affordability for all people. She stated that part of the problem with affordable is the lack of production of housing and the restrictive zoning provisions. She reviewed some aspect of the proposal and its impact on housing. There is little attention to housing in the petition. If this major corridor is expect to be used for multi-family it is well served by transportation and well served by retail and commercial and is kept alive because of the housing in the area. This is an area that is characterized with 5-6 story residential buildings as well as one story retail. In the 1920's the 5-6 story residential buildings were shocking to the neighborhood but has provided a residential essential resource for decades. To prevent this type of development would be a shame. This area should share some of the burden that has been borne by other areas to provide residential capacity. Every ground floor should provide retail and that it be 40 feet deep and if you provided housing that did not have first floor retail you would have an FAR of l. She stated that the building she lives in has a FAR of 4.5. The rooms that are built are 4.5 times the size of the lot. To reduce this to l means that a two story structure could be built on one-half of the lot; this is not a way to provide multi-family housing. This is a pedestrian area and the most densely served by public transportation. This is a good place for people not to have cars and not have a structure dedicated to parking space. New people are coming to Cambridge and they need a place to live. There will always be tension of what there is now and change to allow new people to come to Cambridge. She stated that preserving a neighborhood that is discouraging multi-family housing is not consistent with the overall goals stated by members of the City Council.

Dominick Jones, 6 Hurlbut Street, stated that he is affected by what happens on Massachusetts Avenue and by parking. His observation is that probably the death of the American downtowns in the l950-l960's was due to the shift in transportation and if parking is not provided for business to operate the same death will occur as in the l950.

Monica Hass, 4 Newport Road, praised CDD and the Planning Board. She stated that a lot of these proposals added to the North overlay are things she can support. She expressed her concern about the amount of community input into this proposal. This proposal is being hurried.

The Planning Board had concerns also. It was her understanding from the Planning Board hearing that this was going to be studied further and assistance provided. She is concerned with rushing this process and she wanted more people to look at this. The North Massachusetts Avenue Overlay has to be looked at. She supported the action taken by the Planning Board.

Public comment closed at 6:25pm on motion of Councillor McGovern.

Mr. Kroon stated that there will lots of housing built along Massachusetts Avenue. He stated that the building at the corner of Upland Road and Massachusetts Avenue has been approved for 27 apartments and ground floor retail. He stated that 1 to 1 underground parking is required by zoning. He stated that the proposal for the former Changsho parking lot will have 21 underground parking spaces, ground floor retail and 21 housing units. The former Bob Slate location will have 1 to 1 parking below grade, ground floor retail and housing units on the 2-4 floors. He stated that having parking does not diminish residential. He stated that the zoning is designed to encourage residential above ground floor retail. There will also be 15% inclusionary units. The transportation corridor all leads to Harvard Square; this is not like Government Center.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened the hearing to comments by the City Council.

Councillor Kelley stated that he liked promoting ground floor retail over residential. This idea can be seen north of Porter Square. He stated that ground floor residential is not an interesting streetscape. He is confused about the sidewalk and increasing the setbacks automatically turn into pedestrian’s path. Mr. Roberts stated that there is a provision in the zoning that requires 5 foot set back that can be used as an extension of paved area or landscape elements. This does not become part of the public realm but does provide for a wider pedestrian corridor. He stated that the 5 foot set back is required in the current zoning but there is a special provision where this can be waived if the building next door to a new building is not 5 feet from the property line. The new building can be built to match what is there. This petition would not allow this waiver and in all cases the 5 foot set back would apply.

Councillor Carlone stated that if a restaurant space was within the 5 foot this would clear up 5 feet on the sidewalk. He stated that outdoor restaurant seating needs 7 feet. This could be part of the 5 feet set back. Carlone stated that in zoning you can say that this is widening of the walkway. This was done in East Cambridge and is being done on Mass + Main. This neighborhood wants more restaurants. With the restaurants and street furniture the walkway is only 3 feet. The goal is to return the sidewalk to the width it was. Every pre-war building is set back. This will end up to a grander boulevard.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not understand the automatic increase in sidewalk width. Councillor Carlone stated that there is nothing in the zoning yet that states that the width will be provided for the sidewalks. In the long term this will create what feels like a wider sidewalks. The zoning allows for 5 feet. We are saying get rid of the building at the zero lot line.

Councillor Kelley stated that if we want this to be required to be sidewalks is there something that needs to be done. What language would be needed to accomplish this? Mr. Roberts read the requirement in the Overlay District from the zoning in Section 20.105. The setback would have to be for pedestrians or pedestrian usable area at grade with the sidewalk.

Councillor Carlone stated that if 75% is retail and 25% is building entrance and for egress it would be pavement; this is want is expect on the retail entry frontage. The plantings would be limited.

Councillor Kelley stated that the City is being terrorized by parking. More thought on parking is needed in general. He stated that 1 to 1 parking is not the City of the future. He does not like how parking is looked at.

Councillor McGovern questioned the housing piece. He spoke about the city-wide perspective. He stated that housing in this area could be better. Mr. Roberts stated that zoning allows housing at a 4 story multi-family dwelling and commercial uses. The base zoning is changed independent of the overlay zoning. When the overlay was first put into place there was a higher height limit in the base zoning. The overlay zoning brought the height limit down and then there was a subsequent zoning that brought the base zoning height down below the overlay district zoning height. There is a 45 foot limit. Councillor McGovern stated that he would like more housing especially on major corridors close to the T. This is an area where there could be more height.

Councillor McGovern questioned Councillor Carlone if this would disincentivize less housing to be built. Councillor Carlone stated that in Porter Square there is greater height. The price of land is valued on what can be built. This is the reason why parking lots are being sold. A four story building is still a good size development with houses behind. Councillor McGovern stated that this neighborhood is engaged and willing to work with the City and there will be many more opportunities for conversation. He noted that this petition does not expire until March and there is more opportunity for conversation to be held on the petition.

Councillor Simmons moved to leave the matter in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Vice Mayor Benzan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the record.

Communication from Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that the zoning ordinance needs to be precise, measurable and enforceable. She commented on the 5 foot set back, incentivize parking and fast food. (ATTACHMENT E).

Communication from Sarah E. Kennedy, Director of Government Affairs, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, transmitting the concerns of the Chamber on new design requirements and increased parking spaces. The Chamber feels that that petition should be withdrawn (ATTACHMENT F).

The hearing adjourned at 6:46pm motion of Councillor Simmons.

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

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Dec 17, 2015 beginning at 5:03pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the refiled Elizabeth M. Stern, et al. petition to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map by changing the current zoning designation of Lot 84 (2551 Massachusetts Avenue) and Lot 65 (7 Richard Avenue) on Assessors Block Map 186 from Business A-2 to Residence B and remove both from the MAOD and the NMAS, redraw the zoning district boundary lines so the two lots are in the Resident B zone and not in the MAOD or the NMAS and revise Article 20, Sections 100-111.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Michael Brandon, 27 Seven Pines Avenue; Elizabeth Stern, 7 Richard Avenue; and Jan Devereux, 255 Lakeview Avenue.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated the meeting is being audio and video recorded.

Elizabeth Stern, 20 Cambridge Terrace and 7 Richard Avenue, the petitioner, gave an update on the petition. She stated the developers have presented a plan to the Planning Board. The neighborhood and the Planning Board did not act favorably on the plan presented. She explained that it was suggested to the neighborhood and the developer to go back and work towards a resolution. This petition is still being worked on and has come a long way. She requested that the petition remain as it is and, when the agreement is worked out, the petition may be amended.

Councillor Carlone stated that he spoke with the legal representative for the developer and he agreed with the request made by Ms. Stern. He spoke about the wording for a possible zoning change. The petitioner and developer have asked for more time to work out the wording for the rezoning. Councillor Carlone stated that the lawyer for the developer has talked about how he may word the zoning change if the Planning Board agrees. He stated that the way to approach this may be by retail viability. He asked if there has been thoughts on ways to resolve this issue.

Jeff Roberts attended meetings with neighborhood, developer and the property owner and the main issue is whether or not it is appropriate to require retail in this part of the district. In 2012 it was required to for all business A-2, the area north of Porter Square. A simple resolution would be to pull back the North Massachusetts Avenue retail requirement to Richard Avenue with the rationale being that on closer examination it does not seem appropriate for the retail exemption.

He stated that another solution would be additional criteria waived or modified for retail if there was no viable retail or no pre-existing retail uses on the site. This area did have retail so this criterion fails in this particular case. The uses allowed are broad to have retail at the street level. If the criterion to be waived is subjective in nature it requires going through the discretionary review process and this would be left to the Planning Board to make a determination on whether retail is viable at this location because it could not be judged objectively by the Inspectional Services Commissioner.

Councillor Carlone noted that generally retail wants to be continuous, but it is not here. He further stated that generally retail is on both sides of the street, but that is not this situation. For successful retail a minimum requirement is 40 feet but this site does not have this. He stated that just evaluating retail viability based on the above three points would establish objective criteria.

Mr. Roberts stated that if the City Council looked at this portion of the district with the rationale outlined by Councillor Carlone and if this location was not suitable to extend the retail requirements then the simplest thing would be to pull back the requirements rather than extend up to the district boundary as they currently exist the requirement could end at Richard Avenue or at another location. This is the cleanest approach to put limitations in place that would be easy to determine objectively. The other consideration is that under the current North Massachusetts Avenue requirements it does have a provision that does allow the Planning Board to waive the requirements and also adjusts the density limitations for projects that do not include mixed uses. Mr. Roberts stated that this would be something to consider if the desired outcome is to have residential development that is consistent with Business A-2 limitations that did not provide ground floor retail this would suggest one approach.

Councillor Simmons stated that there is a desire to keep this matter in committee due for additional study. Councillor Carlone stated that the petition will expire in mid-March. There is interest in reaching a satisfactory resolution.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 5:20pm.

Michael Brandon, 27 Seven Pines Avenue, thanked the City Council for refiling the petition to allow the opponents and proponents to meet to try to work something out. He stated that progress is being made as to what the development on one of these lots would look like. With the previous proposal representing what is currently allowed by zoning was totally inappropriate for the neighborhood. Other options are being considered. He stated that retail on this particular site as reconfigured as required by zoning will not work. This will only create another empty store front. The zoning issues are complex and there are ways to come up with less restrictive designation than Residence B. He agreed that the petition be kept in committee while the ongoing work proceeds. He stated that residents of North Cambridge look forward to having a lively streetscape and ground floor retail in this area.

Public comment ended at 5:24pm on motion of Councillor Simmons.

Councillor Carlone moved that the subject matter be kept in committee and encouraged the developer and the proponent to work towards a resolution.

The motion - carried on a voice vote of three members.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:25pm.

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