Cambridge City Council meeting - January 28, 2019 - AGENDA

CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the transfer of $1,034,387 in the General Fund between School Department statutory accounts as follows: $1,034,387 from the Salary and Wages account to the School Other Ordinary Maintenance account $1,011,006 and to the School Travel and Training Account $23,381 which are used for school improvement and professional development plans for all schools; school and department operating transfers to expedite purchases; expenses for special education student transportation, which are greater than anticipated; and to cover the cost of air quality testing and mold remediation at 4 schools.
Order Adopted 9-0

2. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Cooperative Agreement grants received in the amount of $28,334 to the Grant Fund Human Rights Commission Salary and Wages account ($19,534) and to the Travel & Training Account ($8,800), which will be used for case processing of dual-filed housing discrimination complaints, administrative costs and staff training.
Order Adopted 9-0

3. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $175,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures account to fund a Climate Change Resilience Analysis which will focus on zoning recommendations.
Order Adopted 9-0

Jan 28, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting $175,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures account to fund a Climate Change Resilience Analysis which will focus on zoning recommendations.

The City Manager has appointed a Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force to develop recommendations to amend the Zoning Ordinance with provisions to create greater resilience to impacts from flooding and heat driven by climate change. The task force will take into consideration and draw on information and analyses that have been performed for the Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience Plan and Envision Cambridge. The task force will also coordinate with the City Council Health and Environment Committee throughout the process.

The task force is expected to start work immediately and for approximately one year. At the conclusion of the process, a detailed set of recommendations will be created which will be used to develop a formal zoning petition for consideration by the City Council.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request for approval to seek authorization from the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General (the “IG”) for the City to use the Construction Manager at Risk (“CMaR”) procurement and construction method (the CMaR Method”) in connection with the Multi-Department Relocation Plan.
Order Adopted 9-0

Agenda Item Number 4     Jan 28, 2019
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record authorizing the City Manager to seek approval from the Office of the Inspector General to use the “Construction Manager-at-Risk” procurement and construction method in connection with the Multi-Department Relocation Plan.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to proposed amendments to the following ordinance: and proposed amendments to Chapter 14.04 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the "Fair Housing Ordinance”). Fair Housing (passed to a 2nd Reading) [AWAITING HOME RULE LEGISLATION-BEFORE PROPOSAL CAN BE ORDAINED]

2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-108, regarding a report on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee Elections. [PENDING RESPONSE FROM LEGISLATURE]

3. Legal Opinion on Portland's Relocation Assistance Ordinance
Reconsideration filed By Mayor McGovern on motion to refer to Blue Ribbon Committee On Tenant Displacement by Councillor Zondervan

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. An application was received from MIT Visual Arts Center requesting permission for fifteen temporary banners on Ames Street, Memorial Drive to Maine Street, announcing the Center's upcoming exhibitions Kapwani Kiwanga and Kathleen Ryan.
Order Adopted

2. An application was received from Bank of America, requesting permission for an illuminating projecting sign at the premises numbered 92 Ames Street, approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and abutter.
Order Adopted

3. An application was received from Citizens Bank, requesting permission for a 1 illuminated projecting sign and 7 awnings at the premises numbered 822 Somerville Avenue, approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and no abutter response.
Charter Right - Devereux

4. A Zoning Petition has been received from Melissa Grippo and Christian Grippo, et al, requesting the City Council to vote to amend Section 5.30.11 of the Zoning Ordinance by adding the following sentence at the end of that section: “Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the Industry B District, a hotel use (Section 4.31.2), shall be governed by the second number (4.0) for purposes of determining the Maximum Ratio of Floor Area to Lot Area.”
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board

COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from Peter Valentine, regarding the history of the birth of Cambridge.

2. A communication was received from Robert J. La Tremouille, regarding further tree destruction on Grand Junction's former NECCO Spur, on MIT property.

3. A communication was received from Hasson Rashid, regarding violation of Constitutional First Amendment Rights ("Freedom of Religion").

4. A communication was received from Robert J. La Tremouille, regarding further tree destruction on Grand Junction's former NECCO Spur, on MIT property (SUPPLEMENTAL).

5. A communication was received from Mcnamara Buck, 18 Gold Star Road, regarding the Tree Ordinance.

6. A communication was received from John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, regarding letter on Appeal for Zoning Review of Inman Square Project.


7. A communication was received from Melissa Ludtke, 30 Buena Vista Park, on behalf of the Mothers Out Front Healthy Soils Group, urging Cambridge to protect trees on both private and public property and thereby enhance the urban forest.

8. A communication was received from Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street, in support of Policy Order #7 regarding trees.

9. Communications received from Shane Brodie, Master of Theological Studies, Harvard Divinity School, in opposition to the illegal removal of trees on public and private land.

10. A communication was received from Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, regarding the implications of Policy Order #6 on up zoning.

11. A communication was received from Rebecca Ramsay, 30 Churchill Avenue, urging the City to protect the tree canopy.

12. A communication was received from Ellen Mass, President of the Friends of Alewife Reservation, relative to actions of the 55 Wheeler Street developers.

13. A communication was received from Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street, in support of Policy Order #7 relating to cutting down trees.

14. A communication was received from Florrie Wescoat, 33 Market Street, Co-Chair of the Public Planting Committee, transmitting a communication from the Public Planting Committee, urging a temporary moratorium on cutting trees until the Tree Task Force and the Urban Forest Master Plan process is complete.

15. A communication was received from Jonathan M. Harris, 9 Marie Avenue, regarding the value of mature trees.

16. A communication was received from Judy Johnson, 55 Antrim Street, in support of Policy Order #7 regarding cutting down trees.

17. A communication was received from Sue Butler, 14 Clinton Street, urging the City to protect the trees and transmitting an essay entitled “Earth is a Person.”

18. A communication was received from Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, in support of Policy Order #6 and the need for reconciliation between the Urban Form Recommendations and the housing overlay.

19. Communications received from Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street, urging changes to Section 8.66.055 of Chapter 8 entitled Tree Protection and preserving trees on private property.

20. A communication was received from Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, transmitting the support of the Cambridge Residents Alliance to require a permit to cut a tree.

21. A communication was received from Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, 19 Trowbridge Street, in support of public financing for municipal elections.

22. A communication was received from Peter Kirby, 128 Oxford Street, in support of Policy Order #7 to ensure that no more trees are lost while the Tree Protection Ordinance is being developed by the task force.

23. A communication was received from Sylvia Parson, 22 Hancock Street, urging a moratorium on cutting trees until the Tree Task Force has completed its work and made recommendations.

24. A communication was received from Charles Teague, 23 Edmonds Street, in support of the tree cutting moratorium.

25. A communication was received from Steven Nutter, Executive Director, Green Cambridge, stating that Cambridge is in a tree emergency and needs the City Council’s leadership to create a better future.

26. A communication was received from Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street, transmitting her comments on flooding, up zoning, tree removal and urban form.

27. A communication was received from Anna Stothart, 25 Wood Street, urging the City Council to vote to protect the urban trees.

28. Sundry communications in support of Policy Order #7 regarding tree removal.


RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution Wishing Jimmy Smith a Swift Recovery.   Councillor Simmons

2. Resolution on the death of Joann Renita Dottin.   Councillor Simmons

3. Resolution on the death of Muriel Turk.   Councillor Simmons

4. Resolution on the death of Ronald R. Daniels.   Councillor Simmons

5. Congratulations to Ann Fleck-Henderson on the publication of Transition House 1976-2017.   Councillor Simmons

6. Congratulations to EHChocolatier on their Grand Opening at 145 Huron Avenue.   Vice Mayor Devereux

7. Congratulations to Lisa Drapkin and True Home Partners on their successful launch party to formally announce they have joined the ranks of the Compass company.   Councillor Simmons

8. Resolution on the death of Maria Cafua.   Councillor Toomey

9. Resolution on the death of Margaret Travassos.   Councillor Toomey

10. Resolution on the death of Peter Popovics.   Councillor Toomey

11. Resolution on the death of Patrick Clavette Jr.   Councillor Toomey

12. Resolution on the death of Leigh Litchfield.   Mayor McGovern, Councillor Simmons

13. Congratulations to the Data 4 Black Lives team on their recent 2019 Conference.   Councillor Siddiqui

ORDERS
1. That the City Manager is requested to review the City’s communications and emergency response policies and protocols related to flooding resulting from infrastructure failures.   Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Kelley
Order Adopted 9-0 as Amended

2. City Council support for I-90 Hybrid Plan with request for further review.   Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 9-0

3. That the City Manager is requested to make the necessary provisions to televise and record the Ordinance Committee hearing on the cycling safety proposed amendment on Feb 27, 2019.   Councillor Kelley
Order Adopted 9-0

4. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the appropriate departments on the feasibility of eliminating the use of plastic water bottles at City and School events.   Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Mallon
Order Adopted 8-1 [Toomey - NO]

5. City Council support of HD2395: An act to further provide a rental arrearage program.   Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

6. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City departments to conduct a formal and professional financial assessment of the additional value created for the owner/petitioner by up-zonings for developments of more than 50,000 square feet.   Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan
Charter Right - McGovern

7. That the tree protection ordinance amendment discussed at the Ordinance Committee hearing held on Wed, Jan 9, 2019 and referenced in Committee Report #3 of Jan 28, 2019 be further amended per additional language.   Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley
Referred to Ordinace Committee 5-4 on a motion by Mayor McGovern [Kelley, Mallon, Simmons, Toomey, McGovern - YES; Carlone, Devereux, Siddiqui, Zondervan - NO]

8. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Election Commission, to report back on the legality and constitutionality of the proposed “Cambridge Publicly Financed Municipal Election Program” and the “Cambridge Municipal Election People’s Pledge.”   Councillor Toomey, Councillor Kelley
Order Adopted 9-0 as Amended


9. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City departments to televise the Human Services and Veterans Committee hearing on February 26, 2019 from 10:00am-12:00pm.   Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0


COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. A communication was received from Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Carlone Co-Chair and Councillor Quinton Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebration Committee, for a public hearing held on Nov 29, 2018 to discuss Urban Form Recommendations from the Community Development Department.
Placed on File

2. A communication was received from Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councilor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair and Councilor Sumbul Siddiqui Co-Chair of the Housing Committee for a public hearing held on Nov 28, 2018 to discuss the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District and on the first annual Inclusionary Zoning report.
Placed on File

3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Jan 9, 2019 to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.66 entitled “Tree Protection” to amend section 8.66.40 entitled “Applicability” and by adding a new section 8.66.055 entitled “Procedure for other projects.”
Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended, Placed on File

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM OTHER CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Mallon, transmitting notes from the meeting of the Mayor's Arts Task Force from Jan 10, 2019.
Placed on File

Mayor’s Arts Task Force – Meeting Notes

Fourth Meeting of the Mayor’s Arts Task Force
Date: Jan 10th, 2019
Location: Community Art Center, 119 Windsor St.
Meeting Start: 5:36PM
Meeting Adjourned: 7:39pm

In attendance as members of the Task Force were: Alanna Mallon, Chair; Liana Ascolese, Aide to Councillor Mallon and Executive Assistant to the Task Force; Afiyah Harrigan, Mayor’s Office Liaison; Christopher Hope, Executive Director of The Loop Lab; Jero Nesson, Founder of Artspace, Inc.; Olivia D’Ambrosio, Director of Bridge Repertory Theater; Ellen Shakespear, Cofounder of Spaceus; Kelly Sherman, visual artist and consultant; Eryn Johnson, Executive Director of the Community Art Center; Kristina Latino, CEO of Cornerscape; Sarah Gallop, MIT government relations; Ben Simon, musician and Cambridge Arts Coalition; David De Celis, architect and member of the Public Arts Commission; Jason Week, Executive Director of the Cambridge Arts Council; Michael Monestime, Executive Director of the Central Square Business Association; Khalil Mogassabi, Deputy Director and Chief Planner, Community Development Department; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager.

Attending as a guest speaker was Lillian Hsu from the Cambridge Arts Council.

The meeting was audio & video recorded as well as photographed by students in the first cohort of The Loop Lab’s workforce training program.

Materials related to this meeting are attached.

Councillor Mallon called the meeting to order at 5:36pm. She thanked Eryn and the Community Art Center for hosting. As indicated by a raise of hands, many of the Task Force members had never been to the Community Art Center and this meeting was a good introduction. Councillor Mallon informed the group of some exciting news: students from the first cohort of The Loop Lab were present to record the meeting. She gave a shout out to Christopher Hope for bringing his students and putting together a video of tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Hope described the program at The Loop Lab as a social enterprise focused on workforce development and AV technology. The program runs for 6 months as young adults from The Port learn the basics of AV technology and receive hands on training. They attend the program 3 nights/week and can earn a paid internship. The first half of the program is learning the basics of work and editing. The second half of the program is more basics, but working with community partners, learning the basics like social media marketing, radio broadcasting, and programming. He introduced Matt Malikowski as the program manager, who had accompanied the cohort. The students with us tonight are young adults and are here to learn.

Councillor Mallon thanked Chris and the students for being a partner in this experience and for having a chance to show the public the work that the Task Force is doing. She updated the Task Force on the 3 policy orders regarding funding that passed at the last Council meeting. She thanked the people who came and wrote and advocated passionately for more funding, reimagining the 1% for arts ordinance, and establishing the Central Square Improvement Fund through the provision in the restoration petition and Zoning Ordinance. This is not the end of the process and there is more work to be done, she will keep everyone posted. Councillor Mallon stated that what’s important is that we’re not just waiting until the end of the Task Force to make recommendations in a document, but instead making these live and active meetings to push critical issues forward and get to work right away. She stated that for working artists, there is a lot of asking to donate time and volunteer. This Task Force is yet another example of that and she wants to make it worthwhile.

Councillor Mallon reminded the group that at the last meeting, they had a robust but truncated discussion about public art, so we wanted to keep that momentum going by moving it up to tonight’s meeting. We will be discussing studio space at the next meeting.

Councillor Mallon stated that tonight we will be defining what we mean by public art, setting goals, discussing equity in art, artists, outcomes, and disciplines, and discussing how we can support those goals. Additionally, she reminded everyone the public art topics discussed at the previous meeting, and that there were still some questions around both the public art process and the Community Art Center’s role in connecting different entities to the community.

The group did two warm up excises: each wrote down their favorite piece of public art in Cambridge, and then members were asked to write down their initial reactions to public art pieces that were displayed on cards passed around the group.

Councillor Mallon introduced Lillian Hsu from the Arts Council to speak to the process around public art.

Ms. Hsu thanked the group for having her and stated that she would give a brief overview in 10 minutes, but that anyone was invited to contact her or visit the Arts Council if they continued to have questions or want further explanation. Telling people “what we do” is hard because the Arts Council is constantly evolving and changing as they are working with a living organism that is the City and community. She listed the values that were part of their mission, including: bringing more art into the public domain, particularly for “everybody.” Ms. Hsu defined public art as something that doesn’t have operating hours, tickets, or barriers, and emphasized their social justice approach.

Ms. Hsu stated that another value the Arts Council has is expertise in the community and the field of art. The Arts Council relies on those areas of expertise.

Ms. Hsu outlined the overall public art process from project identification to completion, whatever that completion might be. She defined completion as a broad, multi-year process to be thought of as a running stream of activity. Communication with the community and other City departments is key.

Ms. Hsu outlined the main steps of the process: identifying the project, site selection, and budget discussion. The public art framework, such as whether the art itself is temporary or long term, is considered. The Arts Council asks how many projects are possible within these parameters.

Ms. Hsu clarified that the selection process is often for one or more artists. This is not always the same process every time, and there are several different ways the process has been carried out.

Ms. Hsu gave the example of Requests for Proposals (RFPs) vs. Requests for Qualifications (RFQs), which are both used as tools in the public art process. RFQs ask about the skills and experience that an artist brings to a project. They often need to turn in support material, images, or performance examples. She explained that calls for RFQs for a specific project can be put out nationally or locally, depending on what the site and scope of the project is. RFPs call for a more detailed project proposal from anyone who wants to submit one. Ms. Hsu gave the example of the MBTA, which recently had 400 proposals so far, and artists are still developing ideas and submitting. The Arts Council does not often take this path because if artists are developing entire projects and interacting with the site, they should be getting paid.

Ms. Hsu said that the arts Council gave out cards about the public art collection that belongs to everyone in the City, whether they live or work here.

Ms. Hsu went on to explain that after the RFQ process, they will select a group of artists from their submissions to further develop project proposals. When an artist is developing a proposal, they need to know more about the site, because all our art is catered and created specifically for each site. The Arts Council does not go out and buy existing art and relocate it to a site. Ms. Hsu emphasized that the site is not only its physical attributes, but also the social, historical, political, and other attributes. Artists can educate themselves or get educated about the site by going out and pursuing the information they’re interested in and connecting with the community and other organizations. Because of this extensive process, the Arts Council does not have the budget to do this with multiple artists on a single site.

Ms. Hsu explained that an art jury is the Arts Council’s way of using the expertise of arts professionals with a lot of experience and knowledge of art. They have seen hundreds of artists and are accustomed to evaluating artists on particular measures. The juries are made up of between 3 and 4 professionals who select finalists to develop proposals.

Ms. Hsu explained that a site committee is a larger group of 18-22 people composed of stakeholders specific to the site. She used the example of the King Open School which involved families, the principle, school liaison, businesses across the street, residents in the area, the Public Art Commission, the architect, and City departments. This group interviews finalists and looks at proposals, deliberates and shares feedback, and comes to a decision about selecting the artist.

Ms. Hsu used the example of The Port infrastructure project as a deviation from this typical process. The Arts Council worked closely with Eryn and the Community Art Center to create a series of values and rubric criteria to develop a one-time grant program called FLOW. They received 72 submissions and proposals and ended up funding 11 projects. She stated that models like this can be used to strengthen skills in the community such as grant writing, which is why FLOW sought first-time applicants. These applicants learned to ask important questions such as budgeting, putting together materials, and considering maintenance of art, especially in ice and snow.

Councillor Mallon stated that she thought some of these processes needed to be clearer on the website and to the public, and that this is some of the work that could come out of the Task Force in the Spring.

Ms. Hsu stated that educating the community is a broad topic and mentioned an initiative where the Arts Council partnered with teachers at the Tobin Montessouri school. David De Celis helped the Arts Council connect to the school community and took them to see the public art in their neighborhood. The Arts Council wants to further integrate public art into the school curriculum, because every discipline exists in the public space. Whatever subject is being taught, teachers can work in the City’s public art to their curriculum and the Arts Council wants to help do that. She stated that their website needs to be a lot more robust and they are always working on it because keeping up with a website and how information needs to be transmitted is a task in and of itself. She stated that the Arts Council would like the Task Force’s help and feedback.

Councillor Mallon introduced Eryn Johnson, the Executive Director of the Community Art Center.

Ms. Johnson stated that she was honored to follow Ms. Hsu’s presentation, as the Arts Council has been making public art for years, but the Community Art Center is recently breaking into this field, though the Center itself is not new. The mission of the Community Art Center is to engage youth in art to transform their neighborhood and their world. Ms. Johnson stated that the Center was crowded tonight, but hopefully as Task Force members walked through, they were able to gauge the energy and spirit as they observed the space while the kids were still here. She stated that many alumni still come back and send their kids here, because this place holds the cultural identity of this neighborhood, but also of Cambridge and how we imagine ourselves to be.

Ms. Johnson described the Community Art Center as an interdisciplinary art space with programs for ages 5-19, but they are now working with people in their early 20s. Although students come from all over the City, much of their work is focused on The Port. Programs focus on creative and active organizing, building skills in the arts and personal/career development, program development, and what’s called creative youth development. She stated that creative youth development is focused on taking arts skills and applying them to the world. The Center is a licensed after school program that also offers teen media and a public art program.

Ms. Johnson explained that in 2010, the Community Art Center wrote a strategic plan and interview a lot of young people and community members. She explained the result of this was people talking about opportunity, growth, and change. There is a lot of these things in the City, but people from The Port often feel they are not a part of it.

Ms. Johnson explained that the Community Art Center has always been a “place-based place”, so many people have never been here before, because it’s one of those places where if you know about it, you’re in the know. The Center realized they cannot just keep their art there anymore and needed to address the feelings of alienation from growth and opportunity around them. The Center has established relationships with corporations in Kendall Square and with MIT. Their teen program was started when the Center used to be a Polaroid Building through a collaboration with that company. The neighborhood has an amazing history around technology and AV, which is why it’s cool that The Loop Lab now exists. The Center has an archive of Port photography if people are interested.

Ms. Johnson explained the Center’s relationship with Novartis, when the company asked them to put up art on their construction site. The Art Center proposed a year-long project where kids would put up 4 murals and an outdoor gallery as the construction progressed. This initiative was meant to get ideas, faces, and people in the community “the other side of Mass Ave.” and to build positive relationships. Each mural had a connection between people from Novartis and the community, as the company helped the kids to make the murals.

Ms. Johnson stated that the Art Center knew a lot of artists but didn’t have the public art experience, so this project was a good first step to put their stake in the ground and get to know the public art process. They want to continue their positive relationships.

Ms. Johnson stated that another important piece to this program was funding. She stated that businesses are not always interested in art organizations, but this mural initiative was a way for people to explore common interests. She stated that developers think about space and what it looks and feels like, but that neighborhood organizations also think about space and who is represented and taking up that space. It’s important to ask who is here and why. She recognized the interesting affinity in these 2 worlds and began starting collaborations with new developing spaces. The Art Center has now done 6-7 temporary murals on the side of construction sites, and each one has gotten more involved in the way that the community is engaged.

Ms. Johnson spoke to why people sought out the Art Center. It has less to do with art than it does with community, because Cambridge is changing and a lot of the individuals who work in corporations understand this in their efforts to engage who is here, they come to the Community Art Center. Ms. Johnson stated that she is lucky to run an organization that is loved by the City, and that for developers, this is a way they show goodwill towards the City and community. The Art Center has really been able to grow their community program which allows them to make art in their own neighborhood. She explained that it had been hard to make art in their own neighborhood, and they received a National Endowment for the Arts grant for the Brown Mural, Port Mural, Port T Shirts, and Port Art Truck. They are thinking of ways to use art in public space. Ms. Johnson stated that one of the most exciting parts of more funding was hiring James Pierre full time, as he is an artist from the neighborhood. She stated there are currently two groups of young people doing projects: one group in the neighborhood, and one collaboration with MIT.

Mr. Pierre stated that after hearing the history, he realized he was part of the first public art project that the Art Center did after working for the City for a good amount of years. He stated that as a kid, he was not into sports like everyone else was, especially basketball. As he grew older, he often asked himself why so much attention and funding were put towards sports, but as someone who was in to art, wondered why the arts wasn’t given the same amount of attention. He stated that being part of the Art Center and an arts advocate is incredible and the partnerships are valuable. He stated that it’s important to prepare young people for the workforce and that this can be done through arts: you have a client with expectations just as if it was an intensive sports program. The values of punctuality, a team effort, and learning how to produce a finished product are all the same.

Ms. Johnson stated that the Art Center’s biggest struggle is their wanting to put up permanent work. She stated that they do have funding and will be putting up a sculpture called The Port Rose in the coming 6 months. She stated they are proud of the temporary work and it’s great for visibility and learning.

Ms. Johnson stated that the Art Center always has a visiting artist, and they do a lot of commission work now. When we allow young people to make their own art, installing it permanently signals that we are investing in a community and that creation will be there permanently. She stated that corporations have been trusting them temporarily for longer periods of time, but that permanent art is still a challenge.

Ms. Johnson stated that people go to the Arts Council when they are looking for art. People go to the Community Art Center when they are looking for community. We need to ask who we call for art, what community art is, and recognize the fact that we often use the term “community art” to refer to “art that’s not ours.”

Councillor Mallon thanked Ms. Johnson for tying that all together and stated that we are going to have a real discussion about goals, what art is, and diversity and equity. We have talked about arts workforce development tonight, which people never talk about, but we need to create these opportunities for our young people.

Councillor Mallon stated that she has been talking with Allyson Esposito at the Boston Foundation and one of the concerns is that artists don’t always have soft skills such as presentation, budgeting, etc. but that these skills can be taught. We can’t just say “local artists can’t do this.” Using local artists is also good for the City – it cuts down on travel time and costs, and we are bringing in people from our own community.

Councillor Mallon reminded everyone of Malia Lazu’s “rules” for discussion and asked everyone to reorient themselves to think about bias in art. She stated she will be moderating more and asking people to step up and step back. Please ask yourself why you are talking and if you are listening and listen to be changed. She stated that listening is the best thing we can do at this table so that we actually hear what people are saying – it’s important to understand and connect on this piece. She stated that we all come to the table to strengthen the systemic support for artists, and that people have a lot of feelings about art and public art and the way they experience it emotionally.

The group came up with the following words to describe public art:

• Accessible
• Statues
• Equity
• Driven by community
• Emotional
• Landmarks
• Symbolic
• Educational
• Placemaking
• Placekeeping
• Story-holding
• Free
• Identity
• Colorful
• Interactive
• Playful
• Inspirational
• Necessary
• Historical
• Grounding
• Confrontational
• Representative
• Expansive
• Dynamic
• Thought-provoking
• Sensory
• Functional
• Social
• Aesthetic
• Comfortable & uncomfortable
• In context
• Neighborhood
• Voiced
• Dialogue
• Inclusive
• Gathering spot
• Inscrutable


Councillor Mallon stated that she was reading through people’s comments on our City’s public art and pointed out the example of the Irish Famine Statue as one that doesn’t feel like it captures the time. She stated that the Queendom mural had hearts and flowers drawn on it. She stated that people expressed the rocks at Riverside Press Park being a wonderful place to sit and was art that brought the community together. She cited Mr. DiMuro as saying that this shouldn’t be just permanent visual art, but that celebrations, festivals, and performances are other ways to think about art.

Mr. DiMuro stated that art has the antithesis of everything. He stated he was just at a conference in New York City and they were discussing the Vietnam Wall, and how people were complaining about it because it was “too abstract.” We need to ask ourselves how humans engage with art because we know the story, but what about 20 years from now? We need to ask ourselves who keeps stories alive. He used an example of immigration, and what people are running to and from now as opposed to later, and that putting a lens on things from the current day can help people engage.

Ms. Sherman stated that even though there are drawbacks to temporary art, it creates room for risk that isn’t there in permanent art. We can use temporary art to start to push people and educate them through the in-person experience with art. Temporal can be valuable.

Councillor Mallon talked about the Greenway and the temporary mesh light-up. Some thought it was weird and others loved it, but now that it’s gone, everyone wants to know where it went. She asked the experts if this is where we’re headed in the art world, or if there was a balance.

Mr. Weeks stated that there is an increasing appetite for the temporary and we practice that in Cambridge too. The temporary gives artists an outlet for risks and can be nimble both physically and in definition. He stated that artist practice is not just one thing, there’s a host of issues that artists are trying to explore and find out about.

Ms. Sherman agreed that not all art is appropriate in a permanent capacity, but that doesn’t mean it’s not good art.

Mr. Monestime stated that his joy of graffiti alley is the “here today, gone tomorrow” effect. You have to value and enjoy everything that appears there in the moment.

Mr. Weeks stated that we have a permanent collection of art in the City, so artists can respond to an existing collection. People may pass physical artwork and respond to it, but not know what it is or its context. Artists also have these interactions, and it gives them and new audiences a chance to experience art in their own time.

Mr. De Celis stated that it is beneficial to look at history, but also the funding element and whether there’s a correlation between temporary and permanent. There is a perception that temporary pieces cost less in the short term, but many pieces that are supposed to be temporary end up staying long term. This speaks to the question of trends of temperance to deal with funding issues.

Mr. DiMuro asked if pieces for “gathering” are built into the budget to withstand 10-15 years of upkeep, and how people engaged with this art over time.

Ms. Sherman commented that MIT builds in a renovation/conservation reserve fund for every project as part of the budget over time, and this could be interesting to think about with more time-based mediums.

Mr. DiMuro spoke about a lesson he learned from the Gardener Museum, which is that performers can humanize the space. He spoke about the sidewalks of Central Square on parking day and the value of animating parking spaces in the Square. People walking down the street when they are no longer there will think about it when it was – the street becomes a greatly made place.

Ms. Johnson commented that the issues of time are interesting to play with, and that art that gets taken away may be invited back. However, she felt that art was not a place to play and can’t be taken for granted, like you can’t take your home for granted. She spoke about the growing trend in offices where people don’t have desks, and if you feel secure in the world, then temporal pieces may be good for you. But for people who feel as though they don’t belong, they need to be urgent and take a stand over the pieces of our history that we don’t want to lose. Ms. Johnson did not feel playful, because public art is activism and that is beautiful. She stated temporal is the opposite of what we’re trying to work for, because we’re here and this place is ours, which is not something that can or should be taken for granted.

Ms. Latino asked if activism could be added to the “what is public art?” list. She suggested instead of thinking of art as temporary, to think of it as living. Live performances, musicians, and dance all represent the people who are currently living in the community. Our collection will evolve to be representative of our history and help our story be told. She thought that old statues can be dead, but things like graffiti alley are the most living examples she could think of.

Councillor Mallon pointed out that when considering something like graffiti alley vs. statues that there are a lot of people who consider one of those things art, and the other not.

Mr. Simon asked if he could speak about the Cambridge Arts Coalition.

Councillor Mallon asked him to keep it in the context of public art.

Mr. Simon stated that the way this is curated keeps the Coalition perspective off the table. He stated that he is against using more money to fund public art, because this conversation is not fundamentally an arts issue, it is an issue about what we value as a society and as a City, which is messed up. Developers and corporate landlords have the de facto right to control buildings, demographics, and they decide who gets to live here and who doesn’t. He expressed frustrating with the fact that arts spaces are disappearing and so are cheap housing and cheap eateries, and that there is a difference between arts infrastructure and the arts community. We need to ask who is benefitting from the changes that we’re making, as it’s not always beneficial to ask how we protect art, because no everyone makes a lot of money. He stated the discussion should take into account the larger problem of not just the art itself but who has been contributing to art. There’s no way we can protect people without recognizing that there’s an enemy which is corporate landlords and developers. He stated that John DiGiovanni stated that people don’t have a right to live in their community, and longevity doesn’t matter. He asked what contributions to the community actually do matter. He stated that people are lining the pockets of developers.

Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Simon the role he thought that art-making and the presence of art could play or does play in activism. She asked in what ways can the production of art making and art as activism move us towards something better.

Mr. Simon stated that he is concerned that the status quo is morally bankrupt, and that if we just do these art things without addressing the larger issue, than beautifying the City without protecting people only expedites displacement. When property values go up, people won’t be able to stay, and people in a precarious situation will only be moved out faster. There can be an intent of activism and social justice behind art, but we need to look at the big picture of how Cambridge is changing and growing. Mr. Simon stated that he does not feel like he lives in a community, but that he lives in a luxury hotel with open-air hallways. He stated that art could have a role in transforming the City in a positive way, but he doesn’t see that happening without recognizing larger trends.

Councillor Mallon thanked Mr. Simon for giving a name to these problems and expressed that everyone is grappling with them in their own ways, and that everyone knows someone who has been displaced from the City and is dealing with that in their own way. She asked how we can use this group to bring that fact to the forefront and how we use public art to talk about what’s going on in the community. She mentioned a moment in the first Task Force meeting when Ms. Gallop was talking about art as a means of talking about displacement and asked if others had thoughts.

Mr. De Celis asked Mr. Simon to educate the group more about the EMF building and asked about the connections, activism, and outreached the building did in its heyday. He stated that he did not know a lot about EMF and that he would like to learn about this experience and brainstorm.

Mr. Simon responded that the building was primarily a rehearsal space and recording studios for local bands. About 4-5 bands would share each room or rehearsal space and compared the setup to a dance studio. It is completely necessary to have such a space if you are going to be a band, but they’re disappearing all over Boston and the private sector can’t provide this.

Mr. DiMuro expressed sympathy because he has been doing political work as a dance artist, advocating for dancers to be seen as “whole artists”, not just people who perform in tents at festivals. He expressed hope that the meeting on studio space would help us with this problem, because there’s a lot that we can do in investing in public art and we should be looking at the percentages. He stated there isn’t an either order of making public art or supporting the people who make public art.

Ms. Sherman had an idea about prioritization and was hearing a huge push for supporting the artists who live here, especially when it comes to space. She also thought that we’re not just going to stop funding public art, but knowing that protecting people is a challenge, asked how we can use the tool of public art funding to address these challenges. She brought up the idea of public art residencies, using the example of Novartis hosting a venue where once a quarter there are performances. We need to ask ourselves about the priorities across everything. It seems that our meetings are structured around the different tools and channels we can use, so we can look across and say what are our priorities and how can we use these tools.

Ms. D’Ambrosio stated that her and her wife have now moved to Worcester, so she is commuting from Worcester to Cambridge to make art. She stated that people think art is statues, open spaces, and other things that people can see. She stated that surely what she makes is not private art, and that her lowest ticket prices are fractions of what someone would normally pay to go to the theater. She asked if we have new sources of arts money, where is it going to? She asked if we can expand the definition of where public art money goes, or if public art needs to expand into five units of artist housing. We may need to ask ourselves if we need to do things that are not statues in public spaces, but instead recognize that art lives in this space that is both public and private at the same time, so we need to figure out how to negotiate that.

Mr. DiMuro stated that art can’t be separated from humans and humanity. Placemaking is new, but we have been doing community engagement in our world for 60-70 years, and this cannot be separated.

Mr. Monestime stated the connection between temporary/permanent art and places like the EMF, Community Art Center, and Dance Complex. Are all these places temporary? He asked if not, how we make sure that they are permanent. He mentioned Caleb Neelon having a mural on the EMF wall that says “the future of what we used to be.” He asked how we make these institutions more permanent.

Mr. Hope asked who the arbiter of what is considered public art in Cambridge is, who gets to make art, display art, and receive commission for art. He stated that he had to advocate for black and brown folks, particularly women of color who are critical in this space. He stated he is looking around the room and we need to ask ourselves who the gatekeepers are and if we have the courage to help others be represented.

Mr. Pierre referenced the warm-up exercise and said that his favorite public art piece in Cambridge is the Grease Pole Statue in Clement Morgan Park. He mentioned that he didn’t know what the piece was until Dennis Benzan told him the story of Dominican festivals being held in the area and the practice of greasing the poles. Years later, it’s valuable to know the story when looking at the Clement Morgan Statue. The Port and Columbia Street are often referred to as “that neighborhood” in Cambridge that people don’t go near. He stated that to have an activity like the grease pole memorialized is important. Other conversations have been stymied by gatekeepers, but bias isn’t always malicious. He stated that he comes from a certain background and studied at a certain school, and now that he’s a gatekeeper, he can call on people from his community who he is familiar with.

Ms. Johnson stated that Mr. Simon’s statement about not wanting to fund more public art is radical. She agreed that if we get more money, we shouldn’t just put it towards art without a goal. We need to ensure we have representation and can’t afford to have the City or private entities produce art that isn’t accounting for the future we want to see. There is a place for more diversity murals and it’s important to think together about the world we’d like to exist, like the practice of saying things until they’re true. She stated that she would not support more public art unless we have goals.

Councillor Mallon stated that we have systems of funding in place, but what she’s hearing is focused on the gatekeeper aspect. She asked if we need to look at an inventory of our practices, such as workforce development, diversity, and equity, to identify a process that we’ve all bought into and that we know is inclusive and equitable.

Mr. De Celis stated that he had been listening to Mr. Simon, Mr. Hope, and Ms. Johnson. He stated that there are two sides of the coin and to play devil’s advocate, we could stop funding public art, or we could be more expansive about what public art actually is and what it means. We can turn things inside out and tackle them simultaneously, being more expansive. We can explore funding policies that buy the opportunity for people like Ms. D’Ambrosio not to be commuting an hour and a half from Worcester to make her art.

Ms. Harrigan suggested that we move from thinking about public art to thinking of the public’s ability to enjoy art to honor what Mr. Simon said. Rather than thinking of art as just stationary and something to be looked at, we need to protect those that are creating the art. If we do this, we are not only preserving public art, but the public’s ability to enjoy it and the artists’ ability to create it.

Ms. Latino asked if there was a way to for the City to create a small, accessible fund for community members to purchase tickets to access art. She stated that she “stole” the tiered pricing model from the Bridge Repertory Theater and that the Dance Complex does it as well. She stated that perhaps a new way to enjoy public art is to get more people to be able to access it.

Ms. Sherman brought back the idea from a previous discussion of passes and access.

Ms. Johnson stated the problem of some people not feeling like they have permission to call themselves artists, practice art, or create their own art. Many people who are creators don’t feel invited into the club because their work has not been approved by an institution, and this feeling spans race and class lines.

Mr. DiMuro stated that the public should be more informed about what the artistic process is. The demystifying of art will make it more understandable, especially for people who don’t feel like they belong. We need to make artists feel like weird or like outsiders.

Ms. D’Ambrosio agreed with many of the concerns here. She expressed concerns that when the government or private individual finances art, it makes them a stakeholder in the outcome. She suggested that the role of Cambridge City government is not to be the arbiter or gatekeeper of art, artists, or tickets, but to promote arts consumption. We need to be less granular in picking which art to support, but instead take a City-wide branding exercise approach that is not so lazar focused and more on the consumer side.

Councillor Mallon asked Ms. Shakespear about her artist clients at Spaceus, and whether or not they had expressed any of these concerns to her.

Ms. Shakespear stated that performance artists are having a hard time because things in the City are changing and locating space is difficult. She stated that when she tells people they’re leaving a storefront, they are sad but have also come to expect it as a sign of the status of art in Cambridge: fleeting and temporary. She asked how we get institutions with more teeth. She stated that as an organization, Spaceus thinks that what’s great about cities is the ability to facilitate things quickly and the excitement of being fast and modular. However, they need to increasingly balance this with caretaking, because they want to be a place where people come to know and trust in their neighborhood. She stated this discussion has been helpful when grappling with these issues.

Ms. Gallop stated that she was not an artist and had no trouble asserting that, so this may be naïve, but asked whether it was possible to have a framework for art. She stated that spontaneity had tremendous value and can also disrupt spaces and people remember those experiences, even though they may be fleeting. She mentioned a memory of flash mobs and dance troupes in the City Council.

Councillor Mallon asked if we could bring those back.

Ms. Gallop stated that temporary art invites people into a dialogue, while permanent art is about belonging, history, and being a part of something. These things are all important, and we should recognize that in this effort. There are reasons for each of these kinds of art.

Mr. Weeks though that public art and funding for art were two things that stood side by side but aren’t necessarily valued in the same way. He observed what we spend on the process of caring vs. what we spend on individual artists and ideas, the second of which is sorely underfunded. He stated that many of our good ideas are just woefully underfunded, and that he did not disagree that how we think and organize with the community to make art is important, but that we needed more money available for those ideas to percolate and take hold. We need to think about putting money on the table to fund ideas, people, organization, and things we haven’t yet thought of that will draw us together. We need to be enormously positive, exciting, productive, and have an unrestricted outcome. The community can decide who is going to create, but the money being received is just too little.

Councillor Mallon stated that she would love to have more grant funding so that artists submitting work actually get money to do this. She mentioned going back to race and equity in our process.

Ms. Peterson stated she thought about Ms. D’Ambrosio’s comment about not wanting public art where the City gets veto power and used the example of CCTV vs. Cambridge Municipal Television. She cited CCTV as an example of complete free speech without any City integration, because they can say and air whatever they want. There’s always a push/pull between full freedom of expression from a public artist who is funded by the more conservative City side. She stated that maybe she was getting a little into the weeds, but that she would love additional funding as well as a nonprofit with a separate board that’s in no way accountable to the government. We need to think about this tool because there are times when you don’t want the government involved. She stated we need to take an expansive view about what is public.

Councillor Mallon reminded the group about Ms. Pradhan’s presentation of the Cambridge Community Foundation as a fiscal agent. She mentioned that she had the opportunity to talk to Alyson Esposito from the Boston Foundation, who helped the City spend 2 years revamping their processes from an equity lens. Because they’re a foundation they can put their money towards more controversial things.

Ms. Johnson stated that as a group, we should prioritize investing in cultural institutions that already exist, and that sometimes in Cambridge she wants to put a moratorium on new ideas. We are a City that prides itself on innovation and being a land of heroes and geniuses, but it breaks her heart to hear Ms. Shakespear’s struggles because it shouldn’t be this hard in a City with so much wealth. She stated that the government and Arts Council need to look at how they can help existing institutions, because the Art Center often does not get funded specifically because they are in Cambridge, and funders assume they are ok. She asked whether there was a process in which we could figure things out, because we don’t need new positions, systems, etc. She expressed her frustration that the Art Center was already competing with the Foundry for a grant, and the building isn’t even online yet.

Councillor Mallon stated that she is also in the nonprofit world and that it’s hard to get funding when you’re not constantly doing something new and cool. She agreed with Ms. Johnson that because her organization is in Cambridge, it’s hard to attract donors because people assume we have money pouring in the door.

Mr. DiMuro stated that when he was in New York City, someone asked him “how dare you ask for money when you’re in Cambridge.”

Councillor Mallon stated that one of the things Ms. Esposito did was take an inventory or arts organizations that exist vs. the number of organizations that are funding them. The Boston area has thousands of arts organizations that are only benefitting from 1-2 donors. We need to do an inventory like this in Cambridge because we know we have a problem, but we need data.

Councillor Mallon stated that there were only 5 minutes left in the meeting and asked if there was anything that she should bring to the Council.

Ms. D’Ambrosio heartily supported the action of supporting existing arts organizations.

Mr. De Celis would like to see the inventory of all existing arts organizations, because many of them are not visible to the naked eye, but we do have an amazing inventory. For example, if you walk by this building, you don’t get to see all the beautiful artwork inside.

Ms. Sherman would like to see a framework defining the diversity of art.

Mr. De Celis agreed with Ms. Peterson’s recommendation of a nonprofit or independent group to help with the expansive definition that is public art to guarantee independence and creativity of arts production.

Councillor Mallon asked Ms. Peterson to clarify.

Ms. Peterson clarified that we need governance and a separate decision-making process, and that this would benefit from more discussion. It’s a kernel of an idea we should continue to talk about.

Ms. Harrigan emphasized protecting the public’s ability to enjoy art, because it might help to solve some of the problems we currently have. This would also create and foster a respect for art that might encourage more funding down the line. It seems there’s a lot of fighting from the outside in, so we need more public support and to create community.

Mr. DiMuro stated in addition to thinking about equity, diversity, and inclusion, we need to think about artists as underpaid and overworked in a transactional world. We need to think about flattening these hierarchies and learn from other movements that are happening now.

Mr. Simon discussed the idea of killing two birds with one stone to address the bigger economic system that is causing the disappearance of arts and arts spaces. We need to ask who is driving displacement and tax them, using the revenue to build actual affordable housing like the Viennese model, which integrates mixed incomes all into one housing project. He stated that funding from the private sector has failed, and we are losing music venues and cheap eateries. He pointed out that Harvard is the 2nd wealthiest private institution in the world after the Vatican, and that they should pay property taxes. They can do more to benefit society instead of being concerned with their own ability to amass lots of wealth.

Mr. Hope agreed with Ms. Johnson on the cultural preservation of institutions which are a critical part of the fabric. We don’t need to think of an either/or between innovation and institutions, but instead as an and. He asked whether there were ways that innovation could help cultural centers. He stated that he could only speak for The Loop Lab, but that they would not exist if there wasn’t a need and desire from young adults in The Port who felt a gap. He stated that many people have never been to the Community Art Center, and that there needs to be more awareness, such as an arts awareness month that prompts actions among government and private organizations around specific events.

Ms. Johnson wanted to clarify that there was a lot of innovative things coming out of the Community Art Center.

Ms. Sherman wanted to move from thinking about public art to thinking about public artists.

Mr. Pierre asked when we were going to have enough permanent artworks or statues and what comes next. He asked if we should have more education in the school system. He asked whether this conversation would happen again in 50 years because we all moved on and don’t have advocates. He stated that most people in the City don’t have time to enjoy art when they’re working 2 jobs and taking care of 3 kids, and asked how we could get people like them to enjoy art.

Ms. Latino asked if the City has a definition of public art.

Mr. Weeks replied that there is a general definition, but it changes according to practice and needs to be revisited. In thinking about action items, we need to have a discussion or declaration of public art and what it is.

Mr. DiMuro added considering what we want art to be.

Ms. D’Ambrosio added now that we have new funding, the definition of art will be important because that’s what gets the money.

Ms. Peterson stated that there was a definition in the Ordinance, but it was broad.

Councillor Mallon stated that this is an important conversation and she was glad that everyone was here to engage honestly. The next meeting will be on artist live/work space and will be held at Workbar. She asked that everyone reach out after the meeting with thoughts and other things that weren’t covered. She thanked everyone for coming.

Meeting adjourned at 7:39pm.

2. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a memorandum from Councillor Kelley regarding Bed Bugs Overview.
Placed on File


3. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a memorandum from Mayor Marc C. McGovern, transmitting a communication regarding appointments to the Mayor’s Blue-Ribbon Task Force for Tenant Displacement.
Placed on File

Jan 28, 2019
Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk:
Please be advised that I plan on moving for suspension of the rules during tonight’s Regular City Council Meeting to introduce the attached list of community members appointed to serve on the Mayor’s Blue-Ribbon Task Force for Tenant Displacement. As has been previously communicated, the task force will be chaired by Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui. The first meeting of will be held on Tues, Jan 29, 2019, from 5:30-7:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber, City Hall. Please include the attached document in the minutes for this meeting on Mon, Jan 28, 2019 in Communications and Reports from City Officers.

Thanks,
Marc McGovern

Mayor’s Blue-Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement
Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, chair

January 28, 2019

The following community members have been appointed to serve on the Mayor’s Blue-Ribbon Task Force on Tenant Displacement:

▪ Teresa Cardosi
▪ Kuong Lee
▪ Jessica Drew
▪ Patrick Barrett
▪ Larry Field
▪ Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli
▪ Beth Huang
▪ Sean Hope
▪ Betsy Eichel
▪ Sonia Anjudar
▪ Alexandra Markiewicz
▪ Maura Pensak

HEARING SCHEDULE
Mon, Jan 28
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Jan 29
3:00pm   The Civic Unity Committee shall meet to receive an update from the City on its efforts toward establishing Pay Equity, and to receive an update on the City’s efforts around Diversity Training throughout the City’s workforce.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Jan 30
5:30pm   The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing discuss a petition filed by Joseph T. Maguire, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating the Grand Junction Pathway Overlay District adjacent to the Grand Junction Railroad right-of-way between Binney and Cambridge Streets. This hearing will be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Feb 4
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Feb 5
1:00pm   The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss a petition filed by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge in Article 5.000 as it relates to rainwater and flat roofs. This hearing will be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)
3:00pm   The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss a petition filed by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinances in section 4.22 to allow for a Special Permit for the alteration of a single, two-family or accessory structure in existence as of January 2019 to provide one accessory apartment if the appropriate conditions are met. This hearing will be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Feb 11
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Feb 12
5:30pm   Roundtable/Working Meeting between the City Council and School Committee to conduct a preliminary discussion on the Cambridge Public School Departmental budget for FY20. This meeting will be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Feb 13
12:00pm   Economic Development & University Relations Committee will conduct a public hearing to receive an update on the progress to date on the retail strategy plan and vacant storefront initiative.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Feb 25
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Feb 26
10:00am   Human Services and Veterans Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the lessons learned from the death of Laura Levis, and to discuss what measures are being enacted to instill a greater level of confidence in local Cambridge Health Alliance centers to prevent another occurrence of this nature.  (Sullivan Chamber)
5:30pm   Roundtable/ Working Meeting between the City Council and School Committee to discuss plans for the Tobin/VLUS school design and construction process. This meeting will be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Feb 27
5:30pm   The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Title 12 entitled “Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places” by adding a new chapter 12.22 entitled “Cycling Safety Ordinance”.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Mar 4
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Mar 5
6:00pm   Housing Committee  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Mar 6
1:00pm   The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss how Transit Benefits Ordinance are used in other cities to further sustainable transportation goals, and whether Cambridge could benefit from implementing a Transit Benefit Ordinance.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Mar 11
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Mar 18
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Mar 25
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 1
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 8
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 22
5:30pm   City Council Meeting - Budget Submission  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 29
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, May 1
9:00am   Finance Committee hearing to discuss proposed FY20 City Budget  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 6
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, May 7
9:00am   Finance Committee hearing to discuss proposed FY20 City Budget  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, May 8
6:00pm   Finance Committee hearing to discuss FY20 School Department Budget  (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, May 9
9:00am   Finance Committee hearing to discuss proposed FY20 City Budget (if necessary)  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 13
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 20
5:30pm   City Council Meeting - Budget Adoption  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, June 3
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, June 10
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, June 17
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, June 24
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Jan 28, 2019   Amended
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: The City is developing a Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency Plan, which includes emergency response protocols for flooding as a result of more severe weather events, with increased precipitation, sea level rise and storm surge as some of the anticipated effects of climate change; and
WHEREAS: Flooding that results from non-natural causes, such as a water main break or other public infrastructure failure, can cause significant damage to private property that exacts both a financial and emotional toll on the affected residents and business owners; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review the City’s communications and emergency response policies and protocols related to flooding resulting from infrastructure failures and to report back to the City Councill; and be it further
ORDERED: That this matter be referred to the Transportation and Public Utilities Committee.

O-2     Jan 28, 2019
MAYOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack has chosen the hybrid independent review team scheme for the redesign of the throat section of the I-90/multimodal project, an alternative favored by Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: There are outstanding issues regarding the impacts of this alternative that need to be urgently addressed, particularly regarding: 1) noise and its mitigation; and 2) visual impacts of this design alternative on Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Issues regarding access and egress to Cambridge in the area of River Street, Western Avenue, and Soldiers Field Road, an area referred to as the box and including a right turn off of Soldiers Field Road to the River Street bridge toward Cambridge, also remain to be fully addressed; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record thanking Secretary Pollack for her decision, and makes the following requests:

A. That the Secretary acquire sufficient noise consultation to include in the project the best possible mitigation of noise impacts on Cambridge, including Magazine Beach and nearby residential areas, the Charles River, and the Paul Dudley White pathway so that noise levels are reduced from their current excessive levels; and

B. That the Secretary develop for the final environmental impact report a careful design with attention to minimizing visual impact of the New Soldiers Field Road elevated structure and associated roadways as viewed from Cambridge, the Charles River, and the PDW pathway, integrating creative and sustainable landscape design of the resulting river-edge parklands; and

C. That the Secretary initiate as soon as possible a study and plan for improvement to the so-called box area, which has implications for reasonable travel times and mitigation of congestion on Cambridge neighborhood streets such as Putnam Avenue, River Street, and Western Avenue; and

D. That the Secretary direct that the I-90 project include measures to improve the pathways on the Cambridge side of the Charles River to accommodate the increased use of those pathways during construction; and

E. That the Secretary direct staff to develop all of the above features of the project with integral collaboration with the City of Cambridge during analysis for and preparation of the final environmental impact report; and be it further

ORDERED: That the City Council reaffirm its earlier resolution urging the retention of a right-hand turn off Soldiers Field Road to River Street toward Cambridge to assure equitable access for Cambridge residents from downtown destinations; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Council fully supports transit moving forward, including the Grand Junction, Malvern bus connection and model future commuter rail with 15-minute headways, consistent with Rail vision Task Force, to provide a realistic picture of what supportive transit can be; and be if further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk prepare a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution and transmit it with thanks for assistance to date and cooperation in this very important project to the Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack and to the Cambridge legislative delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-3     Jan 28, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate City departments to make the necessary provisions to televise and record the Ordinance Committee hearing on the cycling safety proposed Municipal Code amendment scheduled for 5:30pm on Wed, Feb 27, 2019, with no set ending time.

O-4     Jan 28, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR MALLON
WHEREAS: Encouraging decreased dependence on single-use plastics, including “convenience water” individual sized plastic bottles, will help the City achieve its Zero Waste goals; and
WHEREAS: City and School events often only offer water in individual-sized plastic bottles as a beverage option; and
WHEREAS: When a nearby water fountain is not available, refilling reusable water bottles is not a possibility for attendees; and
WHEREAS: A water keg could be made available that allows attendees to fill their own reusable bottles, and, if necessary, convenience water for those not carrying reusable bottles could be offered in non-plastic single-use coated paper containers (similar to milk cartons), instead of plastic bottles; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate departments on the feasibility of eliminating the use of plastic water bottles at City and School events, and instead offering a keg of water and non-plastic convenience water, as necessary; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

O-5     Jan 28, 2019
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: There are 299,505 extremely low income (ELI) renter households in Massachusetts that earn 30% or below of the Area Median Income (AMI), or $28,923 annually; and
WHEREAS: In Cambridge, the AMI is even higher at $107,897, and to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the market rate of $2,829/month, a family must make $101,844 annually; and
WHEREAS: ELI renters making only 30% of the AMI in Cambridge face an average gap of $2,020/month in paying market rate rent with no assistance, and according to a 2015 report by the Cambridge Community Foundation, just 4% of Cambridge housing that is two bedrooms or more is affordable to families making $75,000/year or under; and
WHEREAS: 60% of ELI renters are “severely cost burdened”, meaning that they spend more than 50% of their monthly incomes on rent, and are 50% more likely to face eviction due to nonpayment of rent; and
WHEREAS: For lowest income households, evictions are more likely to directly lead to homelessness; and
WHEREAS: On any given night, 20,068 people in Massachusetts experience homelessness, and it was recently reported that the number of homeless individuals in the State has risen 14% in the past year; and
WHEREAS: Housing stability is not only a goal of the City Council, but “affordable housing and housing stability” was cited as the top-tier need in the City of Cambridge Community Needs Assessment in 2017, and is also the most effective way of preventing homelessness among ELI families; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) operated a successful rent arrearage program until 2003 that provided low income families with cash assistance to pay back rent, helping 96% of those who received assistance remain in their homes; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in support of HD 2395: An act to further provide a rental arrearage program, sponsored by State Representative Marjorie Decker; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Cambridge legislative delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-6     Jan 28, 2019  Charter Right - McGovern
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: New up-zoning policies are being discussed and proposed in Cambridge neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS: Up-zoning is a change in underlying zoning that creates significantly higher value for the property owner through changes of use such as: from industrial to commercial, through increased density and by increasing allowable Floor Area Ratio and/or height; and
WHEREAS: The increased value per additional square foot of commercial development in Cambridge is estimated to range from $100 to $200+/per buildable square foot, depending on the site’s location; and
WHEREAS: Regulatory up-zoning of properties produces significant additional development impacts, including but not limited to: local traffic generation, street parking, shading, noise, increased demand for public transportation systems, increased water & sewer demand, increased school enrollment, increased public safety demand, open space needs and other public services and mitigations and altered general quality of life for residents; and
WHEREAS: The City has limited infrastructure capacity and a fiduciary duty to use that capacity to best serve the citizens of Cambridge and preserve and promote a good quality of life; and
WHEREAS: Any additional grant of development rights must be considered a grant of finite public realm assets; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City departments to conduct a formal and professional financial assessment of the additional value created for the owner/petitioner by up-zonings for developments of more than 50,000 square feet, along with recommendation of proportional contributions from said property owner/petitioner towards development impact mitigation, infrastructure improvements, community public benefits, and/or fulfilling City Council goals/projects.

O-7     Jan 28, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: There is an urgent need to stop tree canopy loss in Cambridge while the City Council awaits recommendations from the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force and then deliberates on implementation; and
WHEREAS: Public Comment at the Jan 9, 2019 Ordinance Committee meeting overwhelmingly called for a stronger amendment to the Tree Protection Ordinance that would protect trees beyond merely requiring a permit; and
WHEREAS: Temporarily withholding tree removal permits as proposed herein would not interfere with any subsidized affordable housing projects, nor any large projects requiring a special permit; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the tree protection ordinance amendment discussed at the Ordinance Committee hearing held on Wed, Jan 9, 2019 and referenced in Committee Report #3 of Jan 28, 2019 be further amended per the attached language.

Proposed amendment to §8.66.040

AMEND SECTION:

8.66.040 - Applicability

This Chapter shall apply to all trees located on lots specified in the following section §8.66.050 and 8.66.055. This Chapter shall not apply to any project of the Affordable Housing Trust or otherwise for the construction of low and moderate-income housing meeting the standards established pursuant to any City, State or Federal housing program designed to assist low and moderate-income households.

ADD SECTION:

8.66.055 - Procedure for Other Significant Tree Removals

a. For any significant tree removal not subject to 8.66.050, except for emergency circumstances, a permit request will first be submitted to the City Arborist. In all cases, the City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractor(s) involved, and the name and address of the property owner. No such permits will be issued for one year subsequent to ordination, except for dead, diseased, or dangerous trees. Any tree removed in violation of this section shall require a payment into the tree replacement fund as per section 8.66.060.

KEY

Italicized: Amended language in CRT #3

Underlined: New proposed amendment

Chapter 8.66 - TREE PROTECTION

Sections:

8.66.010 - Short Title

This Chapter may be cited as the Tree Protection Ordinance of the City of Cambridge.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.020 - Statement of Purpose

The City Council hereby finds that the preservation of existing trees and the promotion of new tree planting is a public purpose that protects the public health, welfare, environment and aesthetics of the City of Cambridge and its citizens.

The urban forest serves a wide variety of functions, which promote the health, safety and welfare of residents. These functions include:

(a) conserving energy, by providing shade and evaporative cooling through transpiration;

(b) improving local and global air quality by absorbing carbon dioxide and ozone, absorbing particulate matter, and producing oxygen;

(c) reducing wind speed and directing air flow;

(d) reducing noise pollution;

(e) providing habitat for birds, small mammals, and other wildlife;

(f) reducing storm runoff and the potential for soil erosion;

(g) increasing real property values; and

(h) enhancing visual and aesthetic qualities that attract visitors and businesses.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.030 - Definitions

Building. A structure enclosed within exterior walls or firewalls, built, erected and framed of a combination of any materials, whether portable or fixed, having a roof, to form a structure for the shelter or persons, animals or property.

Certified arborist. An arborist certified by the Massachusetts Arborists' Association or the International Society of Arboriculture, or any successor of either organization.

City Arborist. The City Arborist appointed by the City Manager, or any other Certified Arborist designated by the Commissioner of Public Works and approved by the City Manager to exercise any of the authority granted to the City Arborist pursuant to this Chapter.

DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The diameter of a tree trunk measured in inches at a height of four (4) feet above the ground.

Lot. A parcel of land in identical ownership throughout, bounded by other lots or streets, which is designated by its owner to be used, developed or built upon as a unit.

Mitigation Plan. A document to be included within any Tree Study submitted for a project where any Significant Trees are proposed to be removed from a lot, stating (i) why any Significant Trees are proposed to be removed from a lot, (ii) a description of the Replacement Trees proposed to replace the Significant Trees to be removed or the value of which is proposed to be paid to the City to be deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund, (iii) an estimate from a local nursery for the cost of purchasing, planting, watering and maintaining said Replacement Trees for a period of not less than five years or the value of which is proposed to be paid to the City to be deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund, and (iv) certification from a Certified Arborist that the proposed Replacement Trees and cost estimates for purchasing, planting, watering and maintaining said Trees are appropriate and reasonable.

Owner. For purposes of this Chapter, an owner shall be defined as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Cambridge Municipal Code.

Replacement Trees. A tree or trees to be planted on a lot to replace any Significant Trees to be removed from the lot, or whose equivalent value is proposed to be paid to the City to be deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund instead of planting Replacement Trees on the lot. The total DBH of Replacement Trees, or equivalent value, as applicable, shall be equal to or exceed the total DBH of the Significant Trees to be removed from the lot.

Significant Trees. Any tree or trees larger that 8" DBH which is on a lot or which has been removed from the lot within one year prior to the submission of a Tree Study to the City Arborist.

Tree Protection Plan. This plan may be either a separate drawing or part of a landscape plan, and shall include the following information:

a) Drawings of tree protection measures and (i) their location on the lot, including Tree Save Areas, and the location, height and DBH of Significant Trees and an indication of which Significant Trees would remain on the site, or (ii) in the event that any Significant Trees are proposed to be removed, the location of those Significant Trees, and the location, height and DBH of Replacement Trees which are proposed to be planted on the lot if feasible, or (iii) in the event that Replacement Trees are not proposed to be planted on the lot, the total sum, as identified in the Mitigation Plan, to be paid to the City to be deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund, shall be required to be submitted together with the Tree Protection Plan;

b) A schedule for planting the proposed Replacement Trees and a representation that such trees will be inspected and, if necessary, treated by a Certified Arborist once a year for five years; and

c) Such other information as is required by the City Arborist pursuant to applicable regulations.

Tree Save Area. The area surrounding a tree which must remain undisturbed so as to prevent damage to the tree.

Tree Study. The information submitted to the City Arborist, which shall include a Tree Survey, a Tree Protection Plan, and, if applicable, a Mitigation Plan.

Tree Survey. A plan showing the location, type, height and DBH of all trees on a lot.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.040 - Applicability

This Chapter shall apply to all trees located on lots specified in the following section §8.66.050 and §8.66.055. This Chapter shall not apply to any project of the Affordable Housing Trust or otherwise for the construction of low and moderate-income housing meeting the standards established pursuant to any City, State or Federal housing program designed to assist low and moderate-income households.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.050 - Procedure for Large Projects

a. In any project which requires a special permit under §§ 4.26.l - 4.26.3, §19.20, §11.12.1, §11.12.2, or §11.12.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the application for the special permit shall include a Tree Study, which shall first have been submitted to the City Arborist not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the submission of the application for a special permit. The Tree Study shall be reviewed by the City Arborist, who shall certify that he has reviewed it, indicating whether it is complete and complies with the applicable provisions of this Chapter and regulations promulgated thereunder. The City Arborist shall refer the Tree Study with his certification and recommendations to the Planning Board, to assist the Planning Board in establishing any conditions that may be required as a result of the findings of the Tree Study in connection with the issuance of a special permit.

b. Regarding any project which includes a building of 25,000 square feet or more and which is subject to the provisions of § 19.50 of the Zoning Ordinance, the materials submitted to the Inspectional Services Department with the application for a building permit shall include a Tree Study, together with a certification from the City Arborist that the applicant has submitted the Tree Study for review to the City Arborist not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the submission of the application for a building permit, and that the Tree Study is complete and complies with the applicable provisions of this Chapter and regulations promulgated thereunder. The owner of the lot shall be required to commit to comply with all provisions of the Tree Study and the applicable provisions of this Chapter and regulations promulgated hereunder in the application for a building permit.

8.66.055 - Procedure for Other Significant Tree Removals

a. For any significant tree removal not subject to 8.66.050, except for emergency circumstances, a permit request will first be submitted to the City Arborist. In all cases, the City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractor(s) involved, and the name and address of the property owner. No such permits will be issued for one year subsequent to ordination, except for dead, diseased, or dangerous trees. Any tree removed in violation of this section shall require a payment into the tree replacement fund as per section 8.66.060.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.060 - Tree Replacement

If Significant Trees are to be removed from a lot in connection with the development of a project subject to the provisions of this Chapter, upon approval of any project subject to the provisions of §8.66.050(a) of this Chapter by grant of a special permit from the Planning Board, or submission to the Inspectional Services Department of certification from the City Arborist under the provisions of §8.66.050(b) of this Chapter, the owner of the lot shall either plan Replacement Trees on the same lot in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Tree Study, or he shall pay the estimated cost of Replacement Trees and associated costs for the maintenance of said trees pursuant to the Mitigation Plan, if applicable, to the City to be deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund. In addition, the owner of the lot shall, prior to the issuance of a building permit, post and file a bond with the City Clerk in the amount of the total costs set forth in the Mitigation Plan, but in no event less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), with one or more sureties conditioned to the faithful observance of the conditions and specifications of the Tree Protection Plan and, if applicable, the Mitigation Plan.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.070 - Tree Replacement Fund

There is hereby established a Tree Replacement Fund which shall be held by the City Treasurer in an account and administered in accordance with applicable provisions of the General Laws. Any payments into the Tree Replacement Fund required by §8.66.060 shall be deposited in said Fund, and shall be used solely for the purpose of buying, planting and maintaining trees in the City.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.080 - Regulations

The Commissioner of Public Works shall have the authority to promulgate regulations to accomplish any of the provisions of this Chapter.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.090 - Enforcement

(a) Notice of Violations. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be notified by the City Arborist of the specific violation by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by hand delivery. The notice shall set forth the nature of the violation and a reasonable time period within which compliance must be had.

(b) Stop Work Order

(1) Upon notice from the City Arborist that work on any lot on which a Significant Tree is located is being performed contrary to any applicable Mitigation Plan or Tree Protection Plan or any provision of this Chapter, such work shall be immediately stopped by the Commissioner of Inspectional Services or his designee. The stop work order shall be in writing, and shall be given to the owner of the lot involved, or to the owner's agent, or to the person doing the work, and shall state the conditions under which work will be permitted to resume.

(2) Any person who shall continue any work in or about said lot after having been served with a stop work order, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be liable to a fine of not more than $300.00. Each day during which a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense.

(c) Injunctive Relief. Whenever there exists reasonable cause to believe that a person is violating any applicable Mitigation Plan or Tree Protection Plan or any provision of this Chapter, the City may institute a civil action for a mandatory or prohibiting injunction in a court of competent jurisdiction ordering the defendant to correct the unlawful condition upon or cease the unlawful use of the property.

(d) Failure to Replace Trees or Make Payment. Each failure to replace a Significant Tree or make a payment into the Tree Replacement Fund or to post and maintain a bond in accordance with §8.66.060 shall constitute a separate violation of this Chapter for which there shall be a fine in the amount of $300.00. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.

(e) Alternative Penalty. As an alternative to any fine stated in this §8.66.090, citations may be issued pursuant to G.L. c. 40, §21D, assessing a fine of $300.00 for each day the violation is committed or permitted to continue. The Commissioner of Public Works or his designee, the City Arborist, employees of the Department of Public Works and Police Officers shall be the authorized enforcement personnel.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.100 - Severability

The provisions of this Chapter are severable. If any section, provision or portion of this Chapter is determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Chapter shall continue to be valid.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

8.66.110 - Effective Date

This ordinance shall take effect only upon ordination of the companion zoning amendment and any other zoning amendments necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Tree Ordinance.
(1277, Added, 08/02/2004)

O-8     Jan 28, 2019   Amended
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: On Apr 30, 2018 the City Council voted to explore the possibility of creating the “Cambridge Publicly Financed Municipal Election Program” and the “Cambridge Municipal Election People’s Pledge” and it was referred to the Government Operations/Rules and Claims committee; and
WHEREAS: On Nov 14, 2018 during the Government Claims and Operations Committee meeting about the proposals, the following motion was passed: "That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Election Commission, to report back on the legality and constitutionality of the attached proposal submitted in the Apr 30, 2018, Policy Order; said proposal amended to read such candidates would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or outside of Cambridge, Massachusetts" which was adopted by the City Council on Dec 3, 2018 as Policy Order #15; and
WHEREAS: Policy Order #14 of December 3, 2018 requested the City Manager to form a committee or working group to assist the City Council with potential options for publicly financed elections; and
WHEREAS: To date, the City Council has not received the report back from the City Solicitor and the Election Commission; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Election Commission, to provide this report no later than the Feb 4, 2019 City Council meeting.


O-9     Jan 28, 2019
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the appropriate City departments to televise the Human Services and Veterans Committee hearing on Feb 26, 2019 from 10am-12:00pm, so that those interested but unable to attend can still view the discussion.


TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:07pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss Urban Form Recommendations from the Community Development Department.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Vice Mayor Devereux; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Melissa Peters, Director of Community Planning; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development; Erik Thorkildsen, Urban Designer, Community Development Department (CDD); Matt McLaughlin; Liz Walker; Wil Durbin, Chief of Staff, Mayor’s Office; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present was Bill Kane.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated that City staff will present update on guidelines and other related areas. He explained that there would be a question period followed by public comment and a greater in-depth discussion.

Melissa Peters gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the Urban Form Recommendations (ATTACHMENT A). Two handouts were also distributed at the hearing; Urban Form Draft Goals (ATTACHMENT B) and Urban Form Draft Indicators and Targets (ATTACHMENT C). She noted that the Envision Cambridge process is wrapping up and the last year has been spent fine-tuning recommendations across the 6 planning topics, one of which is Urban Form.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that Page 10 of the presentation is difficult to understand. Ms. Peters explained that the idea is to minimize curb cuts and interventions in the street wall. She said that the corridors are not uniform, thus different targets for different areas of the corridors. Councillor Carlone agreed with this comment. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there is a need to be concerned about other streets, such as Broadway and Concord. Ms. Peters advised that the corridors in the squares were an area of focus because larger growth may occur in these areas.

As it relates to proximity to parks, Vice Mayor Devereux asked why parks and adjacent municipalities would be factored in. She questioned where the adjacent municipalities help in the area. Ms. Peters said that it is important to look at this through a wider lens. Ms. Farooq added that one of the rationales behind this is that as a resident, life in the city it is not always confined by the municipal boundaries. She said that the point is that a resident’s personal experience is going to encompass multiple cities if you live close to a city line. She said that as long as there is consistency in how to measure this, it should not be an issue. She said that this is a more holistic understanding of how people live their lives. Vice Mayor Devereux said that she does not want this to be an excuse not to take care of the City’s own open space needs. She said that we could take care of our own needs and do better on this front.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that overall appearance and design quality is a difficult thing to assess in a survey. She said that there is disagreement about what quality design looks like.

Councillor Zondervan said that he liked the goals but noted that the word “trees” is not contained in the goals. He said that Cambridge did a study in 2015 of per capita open space and it came to 4 acres per 1,000 residents. He said that he would like to see a per capita green space indicator as well.

Councillor Carlone said that the Priority Urban Form Actions from the working group process indicates that they are trying to create a square (Alewife Square). He said that Cambridge squares are easily accessible and visible. He said that the square at University Park feels like an office park. He said that it is very much associated with the office/lab building and not as much part of the surrounding city. He said that if we need an area to become a true square, how do we shape that development around it so the defined open space becomes more significant and tied to the city.

Councillor Carlone said that the action to identify opportunities for increasing the amount of open space in or near growth areas makes reference to the Green Ribbon Report (2000). He said that he would like to see the Green Ribbon Report information added into the report. He said in the past, there have been discussions about moving the Department of Public Works facilities and making the existing DPW site in Wellington-Harrington a park. He said that by the map’s calculations, there are a number of areas that have only one or two parks, so those strategies will be more difficult. He said that he would like to talk about realistic potentials in the future. He said that on the map on page 13, a graphic scale of what a square mile is would be beneficial. He said that on page 10, it is important to think about a retail zone on baseline. He said that in most retail, the goal is to have almost 100% active frontage. He said that you do not want a blank or dead area or people will lose interest. He said that as it relates to Design Quality on page 14, most people think of their immediate neighborhood, so he suggested that in the next survey, it should have people list their neighborhoods and you will get a very different percentage. He said that design quality should be district-by-district, not citywide. He thanked CDD for its work.

Councillor Carlone said that CDD is responsible for the physical report but noted that if this becomes City policy, he would like the City Council to be able to refine the policy. He said that this is for the whole city so that it is very important.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that given the changes in retail and the difference with new buildings along corridors that have been identified as needing active retail, is there a plan for any types of subsidy? She said that unless we put teeth or money into it, we will end up with a lot of empty spaces. Councillor Carlone said that the price of the land should be valued on renting retail space at a rate ensuring a renter’s success and not at an equivalent rate and upper floor condominiums or office space, which relates to other retail concerns that have been discussed before.

Councillor Siddiqui said that looking from an aerial perspective, she has questions about rooftops. She asked if there are residential buildings that have roof space that encourages social interaction. She asked why rooftops are so challenging. Mr. Roberts said that there are a lot of things that can be done on a rooftop of a residential building. He said that one of the tricky things about the Zoning Ordinance is that we tend to count usable rooftop deck space as part of the total floor area of the building. He said that there are projects that have roof deck spaces and the developers choose to do that as an amenity of the building. He said that functional green roofs are different from roof decks. He noted that there are provisions that if there is some function of green roof space, you can also have some roof deck area that is not considered part of the total floor area of the building. He said that many times the heating and cooling systems of the building have equipment that can ventilate upwards so that can be something that competes with space that can be used for other things. He said that the City is interested in the possibility of having solar on rooftops. Councillor Siddiqui commented that she has been to other cities that are doing more and more of this. Councillor Carlone added that there is no reason why the City could not add that.

As it relates to green roofs, Councillor Zondervan said that he believes that the City is planning to have a solar acquired ordinance come forward at some point. He said that on a residential building you must choose – solar or something else. He said that as a building gets bigger, the ratio gets less favorable. Councillor Carlone said that it depends on the location because if there are not many opportunities for open space, you may want to reconsider priorities.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that when looking at aerial views on page 19 the scale of the proposed buildings in the quad are huge. She said that for reference, 3 Rindge Towers looks very small. She said that this area would not feel like any place in Cambridge with buildings of such a massive scale. She said that the contrast is very startling to her. She said that she couldn’t tell which are residential buildings and which are light industrial buildings with housing interspersed. She said that it does not appear to reflect what has already been built in some locations. Vice Mayor Devereux was shown buildings that she inquired about.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked whether there would be a green network behind the buildings. Ms. Peters stated that it is still a requirement in the residential and commercial areas. Vice Mayor Devereux said that it looks like the creation of a gigantic heat island. Ms. Peters said that this is a challenge of light industrial. She said that there is a need for truck access so certainly there are challenges. Vice Mayor Devereux said she has never been sold on the idea of putting an area that is going to demand a lot of truck traffic in the corner and add it to an area already impacted by heavy traffic. Councillor Zondervan asked why not return this area to a more natural area, which will resolve open space issues and some of the flood mitigation issues. Ms. Peters responded that with the overall citywide need for housing and jobs, they wanted to retain enough value in the area to encourage redevelopment. Councillor Zondervan said that he was referring to the industrial area. He said that he shares the concern of Vice Mayor Devereux as it relates to putting trucks into a designed heat island. He said that given the transit automation, he wonders how much would really happen. He said that in terms of changing it through subsidy, what is wrong with that?

Councillor Carlone said that he heard in the presentation that the lower right zone in the quad is mixed use. He said that he assumes that it is mixed use with a minimum 40% of the square footage being residential. Ms. Peters said that this is currently not a recommendation. Councillor Carlone said that it should be more residential. He said that early presentations showed 40/60 with 40 being the minimum on residential. He said pictures could convey wonderful images that never get implemented and not be a true urban design. He said that his goal is that the best part of this does get implemented. He said that he agrees with Vice Mayor Devereux about the size of the blocks. He said that wherever there are breaks (access points to mid-block parking/service), there should become actual streets. He said that the larger the blocks, the more people are disenfranchised. He also said that retail must be where people can see it; nothing else works.

Councillor Carlone said that on Page 20 there are three guidelines on built form. He asked if there would be more specific guidelines. Ms. Peters answered in the affirmative.

Councillor Carlone said that on page 23, the only place that he can think of that looks like the proposed Linear Park is the Fenway area. He said that for many years, no one would be caught in this area because there was no public overview. He stated that there must be at least a one-way road on one side or it becomes a privatized park that will be avoided at dusk.

Councillor Carlone said that on page 24 he was excited to see two little neighborhood parks but if it is not accurate, it is camouflage. He said that he would like to see detailed elements. He stated his hope that in the next phase we look at all the recommendation and resolve them through urban design examples. He explained that it is essential to take the community recommendations and have a solution that is a good balance of the conflicting recommendations. He said that you are not going to have all the trucks indicated for one-story industrial in these buildings. He said that you don’t need all that. He said that it is office space above.

Councillor Carlone said that the scale is right, and the street patterns are reasonable except in the super blocks. He said that this should be an area where all users integrate with each other easily.

Councillor Zondervan said that he likes the Urban Form Draft Goals, Strategies and Actions. He said that they conflict in some ways with some of the other ideas that are being put forward, particularly the Affordable Housing Overlay District. He asked how these conflicts would be resolved? As it relates to the development pattern goal, Councillor Zondervan asked if housing as a significant existing building is included. Ms. Peters said that any plan is an opportunity to set goals across a variety of topics. She said that there will be conflicts and synergies and they cannot be solved at such a high level. She said that this is a tool to take conflicting goals and see how they play out at the local level. She said that they have goals that talk about the need to increase affordable housing and equitable distribution of housing and maintaining character of neighborhoods. She said that specifically with regard to the overlay, the scale that this would play out would be modest. She said that there are conflicts and how the City Council wants to deal with those is part of the conversation. As it relates to the goal of growth in evolving areas, Councillor Zondervan said that he agrees with the goal but questioned how to make it real. He said that the Rindge Towers are surrounded by parking lots and what will happen to those parking lots when we no longer need them. He asked about the possibility of having strategies in the plan that will focus on the choices that need to be made.

Councillor Zondervan said that he is hearing from people in the neighborhoods that they are concerned about up-zoning. He said that in that transition, it is important to make sure that current retail and other uses are preserved. He noted the need for specific goals and strategies to maintain retail and other uses in those areas with up-zoning and taller buildings.

Councillor Zondervan stated that Urban Form Goal #4 talks about regional natural aspects and he would like more specificity to improve this goal.

Councillor Zondervan said that design process is a great goal, but he said that he feels that this conflicts with what is being seen in the overlay. He said that he recognizes that conflicts are inevitable, but he suggested that it is important that the goals are clear and have broad buy-in from the community. He said that people are afraid that the goals that promote development are always going to win. He said that if the other goals are not clear without strong buy-in, people feel threatened.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he supports the removal of parking minimums and he would like to see this throughout the city. He said that the City is seeing a lot of continued development that is imposing parking minimums that we will regret.

Councillor Zondervan asked if it is realistic to raise the roads in the Alewife area. He asked who would pay for the engineering. He questioned how these raised roads would interact with roads that are not raised. He said that without clear guidelines and requirements, it may not happen. He asked how to ensure that the raising of the roads will take place. Ms. Peters said that the sidewalks and the building frontage would be raised but the roads would remain the same. She said that new roads are part of the development. Councillor Zondervan said that we are turning the roads into canals in the event of a major flood. Mr. Thorkildsen said that the sidewalks will be raised by 4 feet due to the flood plan. He said that these are meant to be at the east-west streets and Smith Place as these are locations where quasi ground level establishments would be. He noted examples in the presentation. He explained that the guidelines require that they be 12 feet wide. Councillor Zondervan asked why not raise the road to match the sidewalk so that during flooding the road is still useable. Ms. Farooq said that elevating the roads would eliminate storm water storage. She said that in terms of being able to access sites, there would be disruption to existing buildings that will not change. Councillor Zondervan said that all the buildings are colored yellow on the map, which means that they do not exist currently. He asked why this is a problem. Ms. Farooq said that the sites are not owned by the same person and will be developed at different times. She said that there are many sites that will not change hands and may be there for 10-15 years but at some point, there will be an incentive to change them. Councillor Zondervan said that it is a little bit confusing to present this as a concept when we are not controlling the variables that would take place. He said that we should have a plan that will result in the outcome that we want. Ms. Farooq said that this is the challenge of planning in an urban context where the city does not own much of the land. She said that the city can only say what is permitted on the property. She said that one cannot make one person’s actions contingent on another person’s actions. Councillor Zondervan stated that the light industrial area is very fluid, there is some consolidation happening, and there are potential conversations that can be had with the owners. He asked how to exercise the maximum control to get the outcomes that we want. He said that he would like communication through the strategies and actions that give people comfort in the outcome. Ms. Farooq said that this sets the vision for conversations with future developers. She said that it is a diagram for the conversation with future developers.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there is parking underneath the light industrial buildings. Ms. Farooq responded in the affirmative.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that we are not creating housing, we are creating commercial that will bring in trucks and workers. She said that she is not on board with the plan at Alewife. Ms. Farooq said that the jobs will create the need for housing, but the light industrial jobs address the fact that we don’t have jobs that are easily accessible to residents of Cambridge who may not be able to access jobs in Kendall Square. She said that this was the driving force behind this particular land use in the quadrangle. Vice Mayor Devereux said that the first floor will be light industrial, but the higher floors will be regular office space. Therefore, housing will be needed. Councillor Carlone added that Vice Mayor Devereux is expressing the housing issue in a very good way. He said that he feels that there should be more housing.

Councillor Carlone said that there should be a school in the middle of the map. He asked what, if any, the public and social facilities are being planned. No answer was given. He said that this is what makes a neighborhood. He asked about trees on the street and the need for a well-designed planting/irrigation strip.

Councillor Carlone said that the plan must be something that will work for the long-term. He said that taxes on housing are undertaxed and that is part of the reason there is no housing. He said that this is not the place for commercial development and if so, it must be limited. He said that as beautiful as the drawing and urban design are, it is not enough if it doesn’t reflect Council goals. He said that there is not enough housing. He said that he would like to see 60% housing and 40% commercial. He said that the recommendations are good but are not specific enough in some cases. He said that he looks forward to follow-up with more detailed work in the near future.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:59pm.

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


Committee Report #2
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber to continue discussions on the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District and on the first annual Inclusionary Zoning report.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Simmons, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Carlone; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Donna Claudio, Asset Manager; Linda Prosnitz, Housing Project Planner; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Neal Alpert; Sarah Stillman; Liana Ascolese; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Mike Johnston, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Elaine DeRosa, CHA Board Member; Peter Daly, Executive Director, Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. (HRI); Bill Tibbs and Cheryl-Anne Pizza-Zeoli, Members of the Affordable Housing Trust; Marilee Meyer; Moana Bentin; Mike Turk; Ken Eisenberg; Suzanne Blier; Christopher Mackin; Lenny Solomon; Lee Farris; and Sally Benbassit.

Councillor Simmons convened the hearing and stated that the hearing is being audio/visually recorded. She read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT A) and noted the handout of questions and topics that she would like discussed (ATTACHMENT B) from the 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Siddiqui said that she looks forward to reviewing the 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report. She acknowledged that the committee received a handout of CDD’s presentation (ATTACHMENT D). She stated that it would be extremely helpful to members of the Committee to receive information from CDD before the start of the meeting in the future, rather than just as the meetings are getting underway. She noted that there are open questions that must be answered and there is a lot of information that must be clarified.

Councillor Siddiqui gave a brief overview of the questions and topics she hoped to touch upon, and she stated that she would like to address the role of the Inclusionary Housing Manager as well.

Linda Prosnitz gave an overview of the highlights of the 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that there are many applications to the Inclusionary program that are denied due to credit issues. She questioned if there is a way to determine if there are higher rates of denial in certain properties. Ms. Prosnitz answered in the affirmative. Councillor Siddiqui stated that she would like to see that data. Councillor Siddiqui asked if there is a resource sheet that is provided to applicants who need to clean up their credit. Ms. Prosnitz said that there is an information sheet that is given to applicants in this regard, and she will provide this information to the committee. Councillor Siddiqui noted that the trends show that there must be more middle-income and homeownership units, so it is important to do more to concentrate in the middle area.

Councillor Zondervan asked what are some of the main obstacles as to why there is not an increase in homeownership units. Ms. Prosnitz said that this is in response to the market. She said that this is reflected in the inclusionary numbers. Mr. Cotter said that after the recession of 2008-2009 homeownership development became more difficult and that obtaining financing for buyers became more challenging. He said that there is a lot of demand and CDD is excited to see the number of homeownership units begin to increase. Councillor Zondervan asked if there is anything that the City Council should think about to increase the homeownership piece. Mr. Cotter responded that it is difficult to make a big impact at the local level, and that most of the variables influencing homeownership would be national policies, such as those focusing on the Federal National Mortgage Association.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the 935 inclusionary units that are completed, and the fact that CDD had earlier stated there are 736 units occupied; she sought clarity as to how many of these units are actually occupied. Ms. Prosnitz said that the 935 number includes both the 736 rental units and the balance of those units are the homeownership units – and she did not mean to give the impression that there were nearly 200 vacant IZ units waiting to be leased up. That would be an incorrect impression. Vice Mayor Devereux thanked her for this clarification.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that her understanding is that when a developer constructs a buildings with a fractional unit, the developer must pay the City $397 per square foot for that fractional unit. She asked how figure is derived. She asked if this includes land cost. Mr. Cotter said that the $397 per square foot figure is determined under the terms of the new ordinance that was adopted in 2017 by looking at the subsidy needed to create that fractional unit. He explained that the CDD looks at the subsidy for a number of recent projects that received funding from the Affordable Housing Trust and analyze that to create the amount of subsidy needed to create that affordable floor area. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the overall figure would include land cost. Mr. Cotter answered in the affirmative.

Councillor Mallon said that with the number of Inclusionary units that the City has and the number of units coming online, the City is becoming a de facto housing authority. She asked if there has been any thought given to creating a tenant group for the inclusionary renters, as this could become a powerful group for advocacy. Mr. Cotter said that it is a great idea and CDD is thinking about how to assemble an advisory group of Inclusionary tenants. He said that having some type of association to give feedback would be helpful as the City looks at guidelines, requirements, programs, etc. Councillor Mallon asked about the timeline for establishing such a group. Mr. Cotter responded that currently there is no timeline. He said that when CDD conducted their survey regarding tenant satisfaction, the information that they received was extremely beneficial. He said that a more formalized mechanism to receive feedback from tenants would be very positive. Councillor Mallon asked who conducts the maintenance for the Inclusionary rentals. Ms. Prosnitz said that the building turns over the units and inspection is done by CDD for most units to ensure that the unit is in good shape. Councillor Mallon asked what percentage of inclusionary units are Section 8 voucher holder units. Ms. Prosnitz responded that 56% of the renters are Section 8 voucher holders. Councillor Mallon said that when Section 8 voucher holders attempt to rent a market-rate unit, they are often met with a sense of income discrimination which can ultimately prevent them from obtaining a unit. This also tends to drive these voucher holders toward the Inclusionary units, and she doesn’t want this to be lost in the conversations we are having. She noted the need to figure out how to better serve Section 8 voucher holders in the market, as this would have the added benefit of freeing up some of those Inclusionary to other applicants. She questioned how the City could better help market-rate landlords rent to Section 8 voucher holders so inclusionary units are opened up to everyone.

Mayor McGovern asked about the status of reviewing the preferences for Inclusionary units. Mr. Cotter responded that CDD is in the midst of the discussion with the Affordable Housing Trust. He said that they had discussed changes from the last term as it relates to preferences. He said that there is a set of recommendations before the Affordable Housing Trust which will then be brought before the Housing Committee. Mayor McGovern said that it is important to think about the Section 8 voucher holder who is forced to move out of their home because the voucher does not provide a suitable amount of rent acceptable for a landlord. He said that we must think about the people who have had this experience, have been priced out of the city, and who want to come back to Cambridge. He said that he sees the “proof of residency” requirement at CDD as a barrier to the applicant who is renting a room in Cambridge but is not listed on the lease, or does not have a utility in their name. He said that this is something CDD must figure out, as he believes the problem of proof of residency blocks far more people from the Inclusionary program than people realize. As it relates to Councillor Mallon’s comments on a tenant group, Mayor McGovern said that he and other Councillors hear from Inclusionary tenants that they are not treated well in their buildings by the management company, and that they often feel like once they’ve moved into a building, they feel like they are out there on their own. He noted that these tenants must be better supported.

Mayor McGovern asked if the waiting list is broken down any further as it relates to determining why people are on the waiting list. He asked if people are on a waiting list because there are not enough units, or because the City doesn’t have enough units of a particular bedroom size. Mr. Cotter responded that smaller households are typically served more quickly, given the limited availability of larger units. He said that CDD is hopeful that the waiting lists might move more quickly once larger units come online and the preferences have been adjusted. He said that they are trying to better determine who is being served and who is not, and they are trying to determine if there is a better way to direct the resources to those most in need. Mayor McGovern said that when looking at inclusionary zoning, Cambridge fares very well compared to other communities. He noted that Cambridge’s program is the envy of other communities.

Councillor Carlone stated that when looking at the 2018 Inclusionary Report, page 12 – which shows the amount of inclusionary units in a coded and sized way – that is much easier to understand as opposed to just showing the building site. He said that the beauty of this diagram is that one knows where the units are. As it relates to the applicant waiting list, Councillor Carlone said that there have been discussions about prior residency and he is curious if these numbers include people who were raised in Cambridge but had to move out. He said that it should be clear if applicants are existing residents, non-residents, or former residents. Mr. Cotter explained that the number includes applicants who are residents at the time of application.

Councillor Carlone said that at recent Planning Board meeting it was said that there will be 12,000 new units projected citywide up to 2030. He said that it would be great to have a sense of the projection beyond 2030. He said that in the past, the City has built more than projections in many cases. Lastly, Councillor Carlone said that when the 20% requirement came in, there were concerns that developers would not build. He said that he is sure that developers would rather only build 11.5% inclusionary but nevertheless, there is a steady flow of development. Ms. Prosnitz said that over time the City will better see the impact. Councillor Carlone said that housing supports retail much more than office, so in an odd way, it creates more of a Cambridge that we all love.

Councillor Simmons asked if CDD anticipates that in the next two years new inclusionary units will be created in neighborhoods that currently have very little or no inclusionary housing. Mr. Cotter responded that the larger developments continue to be at opposite ends of the city. Ms. Prosnitz noted that there are some smaller projects, but the major development areas are still Kendall Square, NorthPoint and Alewife.

Councillor Simmons asked if CDD tracks how long tenants remain on minimum rent. Ms. Prosnitz responded in the affirmative. She explained that when a tenant goes on minimum rent, CDD meets with the tenant to review how they will afford a set rent at 40% of AMI if their income is below that, and to help them assess what other resources they might access such as job training programs. She said that there are people who do run into trouble and they cannot meet the rent. She said that these tenants would then be referred to the Multiservice Center. Councillor Simmons questioned if there should be a one-time fund to help stabilize those tenants who otherwise might find their tenancy in jeopardy. She asked if a person does receive a one-time gift, would that gift factor into the gross income of the person (and therefore would this potentially count against them in terms of qualifying for subsidized housing). She said that this is something that we need to have a larger conversation about, and that the City needs to think more about how we stabilize those tenants who otherwise might be in danger of losing their subsidized housing. Mr. Cotter said that these are units that have expectations for rent and finding a balance is important. He said that they try to connect people with resources. He said that CDD is always open to see if there are things to look at to help support those people. Councillor Simmons asked if CDD provides a fact sheet to households regarding rental assistance. Mr. Cotter said that they will tailor advice specific to each household. Councillor Simmons noted the importance of making this information widely available.

Councillor Simmons asked how many applicants who met the criteria for emergency need remained in the rental applicant pool. Ms. Prosnitz responded that she does not have that number available but will work to provide this information. Mr. Cotter explained that with the way that the preferences work, there are unfortunately applicants with emergency need that are not considered because they do not have children. Councillor Carlone asked if the homeless receive units in this process and if so, how many? Mr. Cotter responded that 5 homeless applicants were housed in this reporting period. Councillor Carlone asked if this has been successful. Mr. Cotter noted that when homeless individuals are housed with access to support services, they tend to be successful, and the Inclusionary program isn’t always necessarily the best fit for those who may need additional support services beyond just affordable housing. He explained that CDD works with non-profits that deliver supportive services and they work with DHSP to ensure that how they are serving the homeless is being done in conjunction with their services to target groups in the homeless continuum.

Councillor Simmons asked if CDD knows how many households were housing cost-burdened in the private housing market. Mr. Cotter said we don’t know in every case, but that there is census and other information which at least estimates those who are cost-burdened in the city. He said that severe cost burden is the threshold that they would give an emergency preference for applicants.

Councillor Siddiqui said that when she thinks about this discussion, she thinks about social mobility. She said that it is important to think about whether and how we are moving people from public housing to higher-income housing through the inclusionary program. She noted that this is part of a larger discussion.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if CDD tracks applicants that are being displaced from buildings that are being converted and if so, do they get emergency preference. Mr. Cotter said that emergency preference would be tracked. He said that many of these people would be facing a no-fault eviction and the CDD would try to work with these people to find a landing spot. Vice Mayor Devereux said that the city did not put anything into the law that would help overcome that, and this may be something that should be revisited.

Councillor Simmons said that she did have several additional questions related to this conversation and she would be submitting these to CDD for a written response.

Councillor Simmons asked about the brand new Inclusionary Housing Manager position. Mr. Cotter said that the new position is being added because inclusionary housing has become a significant part of what the Housing Division does. He said that it will be a Senior Program Manager position. He said that this person will be introduced to the Housing Committee. He noted that Ms. Prosnitz will remain working with developers to ensure new buildings are approved consistent with the requirements of the inclusionary ordinance for the benefit to the community. Councillor Simmons stated her hope that this hire will be a person with a compassionate demeanor and a keen understanding of the population that they will be working with.

As it relates to displacement and tracking, Councillor Mallon said that the Affordable Housing Trust is meeting about the criteria and she wants to ensure that people who are in a court-ordered eviction and other evictions are included in this conversation. She said that she would like to ensure that this is carefully considered because this is a place where many get caught.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked how often the applicants on the waiting list are contacted to see if they still want to be on the list and if they still qualify. Mr. Cotter said that CDD is in touch more frequently with those in the pools that are more active. Councillor Simmons then invited the housing providers at the table to weigh in with their thoughts.

Ms. Pizza-Zeoli said that this program does not serve everybody. She said that the housing system sorts people out. She said that she welcomes the City Council working with the Affordable Housing Trust to share the housing preference recommendations. She said that the Trust has tried to make emergency status mean something through its discussion of changes, and that we can always go back and change things or tweak them if we find that what we have in place is just not working as intended. She said that they have discussed adding domestic violence as an emergency housing preference. She said that it is difficult to look at people who have been involuntarily displaced. She said if there was a better understanding of why people move and where they move to, it would be beneficial. She said that they are grappling with the base issues of not wanting homeless people to sleep outside. She noted the need for a discussion about the purpose of the homeownership program – is it intended to help people build assets? She said she has long been urging the CHA to conduct exit interviews with those who exit their programs. She said that it is important not to make assumptions about why people leave. She said that, overall, she is encouraged by this discussion.

Peter Daly said that as it relates to the growth of inclusionary chart, he would like to extend his congratulations to the City Council. He said that being bold was the right way to go. He said that his only regret is the opportunities lost to create more affordable housing, and how long it took to get to 20 percent.

Councillor Simmons then turned the conversation over to focusing upon the Affordable Housing Overlay. She said that at last meeting, there was discussion on the Affordable Citywide Overlay District, and that the City Council talked about wanting to know long it would take to vet this and what specific steps would be needed to bring it to a final vote before the full Council. She said that it is important to know what needs to be done and when. She said that this conversation has been taking place for a long time, and it started circa 2014 when Brian Murphy was heading the Community Development Department. She said that the Affordable Citywide Overlay District is only one of many ways in which to keep Cambridge diverse. She said that opportunity and access are very different. She said that we should be bold, and be expeditious without being insensitive.

Mr. Cotter gave an overview of document titled “100% Affordable Citywide Overlay District: Background, Concept, Considerations & Next Steps.” (ATTACHMENT E).

Councillor Simmons echoed the comments by Councillor Siddiqui at the top of the meeting regarding receiving reports and information from CDD at least 48 hours in advance of a hearing so questions can be prepared by members. She cited her frustrations that she and the other Committee members were laying their eyes on these materials for the first time at this meeting.

Councillor Siddiqui said that it would be helpful to talk about retail and any impact the Affordable Housing Overlay may have on retail. She said that the City Council has received e-mails from people who are concerned that this could potentially destroy retail, and she would like some clarity as to whether these concerns have any basis.

Councillor Toomey said that he is encouraged by the continuation of the topic of an Affordable Citywide Overlay District. He said that there have been a lot of lost opportunities to build affordable units over the years. He spoke about the Harvard Divinity site and the fact that this would have been an ideal location. He asked if it would have been easier to develop affordable units on that site if there was an Affordable Citywide Overlay District in place. Mr. Cotter responded in the affirmative. He noted that he was aware of an affordable housing developer that was looking at that site who felt there was risk that the amount of housing needed to make it a feasible development might not have been approved. Councillor Toomey asked if there would have been a legal challenge. Mr. Cotter said that this was a concern for the developer, as it could have resulted in a permitting process that might take several many years. Ultimately, the developer opted not to pursue a project in that area.

Councillor Zondervan said that he is interested in “lost opportunities”. He said that if the city is looking at 42 potential opportunities but only 4 went forward, would we be able to actually build those developable sites. Mr. Cotter said that it takes 40 opportunities to find 3 to move forward. He explained that if every opportunity was able to move forward, there would be less time searching and more housing produced more quickly. He said that there is a lot of time invested in analyzing opportunities, most of which do not go forward.

Councillor Zondervan said that this raises one of his concerns about this approach. He said that he wonders whether this approach is the right one. He questioned if this gives the City the bang for its buck as opposed to other approaches. He said that this acknowledges how difficult it is to compete in the private market. He questioned the assertion that the City needs to better distribute affordable housing. He asked why we feel that we need to force affordable housing construction in areas that are already developed. Ms. Farooq responded by saying that the solutions are not either/or. She said that making sure that the City is allowing affordable housing developers to be as competitive as possible in the open market across the city is a piece of the puzzle. She said that it is important not to think of this as a silver bullet, but instead to think of it as one of the tools that help to maximize the ability of the City and partners to work most effectively. In terms of distribution, she said that it is one of the important policy considerations for the City Council. She said that there is good in making sure that all parts of the city are as diverse as possible, but how that manifests itself in the context of other City Council priorities is something where they would like to receive additional guidance from the City Council.

Mayor McGovern said that the City Council has a long way to go on this matter and he would like to make something clear. He said that the vote on the Affordable Housing Overlay is not happening next week. He said that there will be numerous opportunities for the conversation to take place. He said that the City is talking about people and what kind of community we want Cambridge to be. He said that if we are okay with the idea that certain neighborhoods are going to be off-limits to people who cannot afford million-dollar homes, let’s just say it. He said that we must take action to disrupt the market that keeps affordable housing development from happening in certain places. He said that yes, there will be neighborhoods that will see change if this Overlay is passed. He asked what priorities should take preference over people having an affordable place to live. He said that he’s sat with hundreds of people begging for help to stay in this community, and he cannot prioritize parking, density, and height issues over the stories these people bring to him. He said that the potential negative impact on retail and lack of community input are issues that must be addressed. He said that, nevertheless, affordable housing developers need more opportunities to build that housing and that is what an Affordable Citywide Overlay District will do. He said that this is a question about what kind of city we want Cambridge to be.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that the City is proposing something that has confused and alarmed a lot of people because it has not been clear its presentation. She said that an overlay may not prevent the situation of a developer being outbid from other developers, as far as she can tell.

Councillor Mallon stated that the City Council has been fighting for more funding for the future to ensure more affordable housing. She said that as it relates to the idea that an overlay is social engineering, she said that this is an equity issue and she hopes that people are understanding that these are people and children in our community. She said that the devil is in the details, and many people are frightened by this conversation because the details haven’t been explained very well. She stated that she agrees with Mayor McGovern’s statement.

Councillor Carlone said that the City Council agrees that there needs to be an increase of funding for affordable housing. He said that if you look at City Council goals, affordable housing is the #1 priority. He stated that affordable housing is funded with only 2% of the budget. He said that we know how to build bigger buildings so that they fit in so having a general zoning does not have enough conditions. He said that it should be housing in every neighborhood, but not everywhere. He said that most of these people will not have cars and will need to walk to retail and mass transit. He said that these buildings are on main streets, usually at corner locations and that is what should be emulated. He said that in urban design there is a hard and soft analysis. He said that soft buildings are parking lots and one-story buildings. He said that these sites are the most likely to be torn down by private development in the next 20-30 years. He said that we must look at the total picture, not just an overlay, funding, or guidelines.

Councillor Simmons noted that that Housing Committee has received three communications and she asked that they be made part of the record (ATTACHMENTS F-H).

Councillor Simmons opened the hearing to Public Comment.

Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, stated that she is encouraged with the depth of the conversation. She said that she does not see this as a resolution and there has not been enough discussion on tenant rights. She said that social mobility is important to the discussion. She said that the city has affordable housing. She said that she has not heard about restrictions on developers and tracking what they will do. She asked how many household residents were displaced. She said that more information is needed. She said that conservation and historical districts have not been discussed. She said that affordable housing everywhere does not necessarily work.

Mike Turk questioned what else might be possible under inclusionary zoning. He said that an entry point would be to use some of the information available from the Mass + Main project because the financing is public. He said that if you track that, they are projecting a rate of return on their investment of 11.1%. He said that getting that kind of information is very helpful. He said that there is no reference to neighborhood amenities at Concord Turnpike. He asked what degree of isolation is being accepted. As it relates to types of households, he questioned how many will have cars because without cars, they are trapped in those sites.

Ken Eisenberg said that when he was last facing displacement he spent 1.5 years in an apartment search. He said that he found apartments across the city that he hoped to rent, and he could not access them due to income discrimination against him because of his Section 8 voucher. He said that subcultures could be integrated across the city if people with subsidies were not locked out. He said that we must fix the broken system, that the rents are going up faster than housing can be subsidized, and if you want to open the city to diversity, you must put a cap on rent increases and deal with the fact that people are being discriminated against.

Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place, said that Temple Place is in the commercial district so rather than being an example for West Cambridge, you must look at particular circumstances. She said that the Episcopal Divinity School sold for $25 million dollars so if the City was going to take two years of its allotment, she does not believe it would have been feasible. She said that the City Council should be commended for its work on affordable housing. She said that this speaks to the commitment of affordable housing. She said that it is clear that the up zone is not assumed to bring much new development from the vantage point of affordable housing. She said that neighborhood groups across the city are concerned about this, in part because those areas are going to be hit hardest. She said that those in West Cambridge support housing, but they want it done in a way that is equitable. She said that the racial diversity data for the city is wrong from the vantage point of West Cambridge.

Christopher Mackin, JFK Street, said that he wants to commend Councillor Zondervan for asking the City to pause and think about what it is doing by trying to play in a market stacked against it. He said that the City is a sidecar on a powerful motorcycle that engages in races around a very expensive track. He said that there are alternative approaches that can be taken that have to first be funded. He said that the overlay approach is not the best approach.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, member of the Envision Housing Working Group, recommends a substantial increase in annual funding to $20 million starting in the next budget possible. She said that this would make a lot of things possible. As it relates to the inclusionary report, she said that if a developer owes a partial unit to the city, instead of taking cash from the developer for that partial unit, could the City invest some money to get one more unit from the building. She said that when there is a situation where there is a gut rehab of a large apartment building, she would like the Inclusionary Ordinance changed and she asked CDD to bring a specific proposal to the committee to discuss that. She said that she is in support of the idea of affordable housing in all parts of the city. She said that open space and trees are a top priority.

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

The hearing adjourned at 2:31pm.

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


Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:33pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.66 entitled “Tree Protection” to amend section 8.66.40 entitled “Applicability” and by adding a new section 8.66.055 entitled “Procedure for other projects.” (ATTACHMENT A)

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Zondervan; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Public Works Commissioner Owen O’Riordan; Deputy Public Works Commissioner John Nardone; City Arborist David Lefcourt; Cathy Watkins, Project Planner, Urban Forestry Task Force; Deputy City Solicitor Arthur Goldberg; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Lucas James Gyrator, 225 Brookline Street; Christine Kuta, 7 Fairview Avenue; Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Gregg Moree, 25 Fairfield Street; Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street; Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue; Nancy Donohue, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce; Steven Nutter, Green Cambridge; Helen Kobek, 69R Gore Street; Sylvia Parsons, 22 Hancock Street; Marilyn and Phil Wellons, 651 Green Street; Jules Kobek, 69R Gore Street; Kelly Dolan, 233 Upland Road; Franzislea Amedeo, Trustee, Riverbend Park, 239 Mt. Auburn Street; Helen Snively, 1 Fayette Park; Pat Goudvis, 179 Harvey Street; Claire Schubert, 4 Thingvalla Avenue; John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street; Tom Roebes, 38 Sparks Street; Theodora Skeadas, 988 Memorial Drive; Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street; Maggie Booz, 27 Lawn Street; Elena Saporta, 102 Ellery Street; Florrie Wescoat, 33 Market Street; Paula Sharaga, 234 Columbia Street; Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street; Dick Clarey, 15 Brookford Street; Dillen Seger, 140 Foster Street; Jo Solet, Berkeley Street; Deborah Masterson, Foster Street; Charles Teague, 23 Edmonds Street; Rhonda Massie, 211 Charles Street; Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street; Kate Frank, 53 Crescent Street; Ellen Mass, 104A Inman Street; Bruce Grunebaum, 98 Montgomery Street; Peggy Barnes Lenart, 115 Fayerweather Street; Anita McClellan, 50 Stearns Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Share Brodie, 253 Pleasant Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Heather Barney, 3 Hammond Street; Ann MacAdam, 28 Union Street; and Catherine S. Alexander, 4 Crawford Street.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He highlighted the format of the hearing.

Councillor Zondervan gave a PowerPoint Presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that the current Tree Protection Ordinance was adopted in 2004 but it does not protect trees. It applies to a limited part of the canopy. It applies to large projects that need to undergo large project reviews. This is for 25,000 square feet or above projects and does not pertain to affordable housing projects. The current ordinance is retroactive to one year prior to a special permit application. If an individual were to cut down trees two years ago and then apply for a special permit on the property these trees would not be covered under the ordinance. Only trees cut down within one year of applying for a special permit are covered. This applies to trees over eight inches in diameter at chest height. He stated that the ordinance has a replacement plan which allows for a payment, based on a variety of conditions, to be made into the Tree Fund instead of replanting trees or not cutting them down in the first place. He stated that the ordinance does not cover any trees cut down outside of large project review projects, any tree cut down more than one year prior to a special permit application and affordable housing projects. He outlined the proposed amendment. He explained that the amendment would preserve the affordable housing exemption. The ordinance also exempts dangerous and emergency situations. He stated that the amendment does require a permit for significant trees more than eight inches that are removed and are not part of a large project review, in which case they would already be covered, or if removed more than one year ago. He stated that the permit would be issued by Public Works and would be discretionary and would document why the tree was cut down and the specifics pertaining to the tree being cut down. He commented that no one cuts down their own large trees. A contractor is hired. He stated that the City would inform the contractors that a permit is required and that would help compliance. Contractors can obtain permits on behalf of the property owner. He explained why this proposed amendment is needed now. He stated that 18% of the tree canopy has been lost in the last 9 years based on preliminary data. He stated that the current data shows that the loss is worse, and the task force analysis is showing that there will be more loss in the future. He stated that the two solutions to the problem are to stop cutting down trees and to plant more trees. He acknowledged the work of Urban Forest Tree Task Force and noted that the Task Force will be making recommendations in the future.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked why this did not include Wheeler Street. Councillor Zondervan responded because it has inclusionary housing units. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that to her affordable housing does not include inclusionary housing. This does not apply to Wheeler Street and does apply to Millers River.

Councillor Kelley stated that the copy of the ordinance he is looking at does not have a retroactive date of one year. Councillor Zondervan stated that this is in the current ordinance. Councillor Kelley stated that it would be a retroactive hearing for trees that have already been cut down. He stated that there would be a violation of cutting down trees within one year of the special permit application.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the existing ordinance applies to large projects and there is nothing at this time regarding tree removal private property in the City that is not associated with a large project. This does place a burden on the staff with this new amendment and he asked how this ordinance will be enforced and if a tree is removed without a permit how is this handled by the City. When legislation has been enacted such as plastic bags or polystyrene there has been significant outreach and education programs prior to promulgating the ordinance. He stated that it is custom that the City provides notice and educational documents before implementing a change in regulations. He stated that his concern is that this is going to take time for the City to do this. He stated that the Urban Forestry Masterplan has been ongoing for the last eight months and it will be a while before the report will be ready for consideration by the City Council. He stated that the integrity of this work needs to be maintained and shared thoughts about changes to existing ordinances while this work is on-going so that the City Council can be provided with a thorough analysis of what other communities are doing, how best the City can provide different ordinances and/or regulations so as to better protect the tree canopy. He wanted to make the City Council cognizant of the Task Force’s work as the Council considers changes to the existing ordinance.

Councillor Mallon asked has there been any preliminary discussion with the Urban Forestry Task Force on this issue. She stated that the draft recommendations will be done in May. She stated that the goal of this ordinance is to collect data and to have conversations around alternatives. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the first few months of the task force was providing background on the existing urban tree canopy, the loss and where the loss is most pronounced. He stated that the loss is most pronounced in residential areas in the City. He stated that the reason for the loss is uncertain at this time. He stated that that are reviewing closer the loss in residential areas and are looking at the degree to which pervious areas have been lost. He stated that this may be related to redevelopment or extended development on residential properties. He stated that the City is also looking at house sales and whether properties have been redeveloped where trees have been removed as a result of development. He stated that in terms of changing ordinance and regulations and a meeting held in December looked at changing the definition of significant tree. He stated that presently a significant tree is an eight-inch tree. He stated that they are looking at a six-inch tree being a significant tree, and this is consistent with what other communities are doing. He stated that they are looking at regulating tree loss across the entire City, looking at changing the way that mitigation costs are proposed and looking a mitigation when significant trees are cut down and diameter of trees at breast height and the area of a tree trunk at breast height. He stated that tree species are being reviewed. He stated that there is details that are been reviewed as to how to protect trees in the community. He stated that it is important to let this conversation continue. He spoke about the more significant protections for trees the more onerous it become for homeowners to take down trees. He added people may be less likely to plant trees in the future as well. He stated that there is a balance needed in incentivizing planting trees on private property. He spoke about protecting people’s ownership of property and rights of homeowners to protect their property. He noted that there are five more meetings scheduled.

Councillor Mallon stated that in May when the draft recommendations from Urban Forestry Task Force come out will there be something that the City Council can work with from that that addresses the issues outlined by the Commissioner of Public Works or does the City Council have to wait for the final recommendations in December. She asked if this ordinance does not get passed is there a way to have the data collected between now and May. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that all the presentations, minutes and correspondence from the public are on line on the Public Works page. He stated that the expectation is that the draft report will also be on line. The draft report may contain specific recommendations or may be more general. He stated that the report will be detailed. He is unsure about the successfulness of the data collection. He stated that the University of Vermont is working with the City on this and they did the 2009 and 2014 studies and they have been asked to look at the current 2018 study for consistency of the analysis.

Councillor Carlone stated that the proposed ordinance changes are benign. There is nothing in this proposal that is threatening. He suggested sending out postcards and noted that word of mouth travels fast. Awaiting the recommendations in May and what might be possibly ordained in September at the earliest, this proposal is not a terrible thing to have on the books and may not be enforced immediately, isn’t this a good start to let people know that there is a concern. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that it is benign from the perspective of the homeowner. He expressed his concern about enforcement and it is an onerous undertaking from the City’s perspective. The amendment speaks to emergency circumstances and this is not defined in this proposal and asked what is considered an emergency. He spoke about the one-year period of time is defined for significant trees, larger than eight inches. He stated that he does not think the proposed amendment is applicable for a special permit unless there is a change in the definition of a significant tree. Councillor Carlone spoke about making the language stronger and clearer. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that if one is to remove any reference to a period of time does this mean that a property that lost a tree ten years ago would have to have this mitigated to develop their property now.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about urgency and competing with a process and how is this balanced. There are policy strategies could be considered now or do we or can we wait. She stated that she is struggling with this with that data before the City, the tree canopy loss and climate change.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that we have already waited; this conversation began early last term. She stated that the City Council was prodded to start this Urban Forestry Task Force, and this took six months to get this going. She stated that there is no penalty in this ordinance. She spoke about the concern with enforcement and used the example of Airbnb which the City is having trouble enforcing. She stated that this interferes with the work of the Urban Forestry Task Force and that the City Council acknowledges the urgency of their works and want to support them. She added that all this is doing is gathering data and it is not imposing any fines and does no more than allow the arborist to have a conversation to suggest an alternative to the property owner. The longer before these conversations occur, the more trees will be cut down. She wanted this proposal approved.

Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the enforcement provisions existing in the ordinance would apply to this amended provision. He stated that the existing enforcement provisions mention a stop work order if tree are removed in violation of the chapter and there could be penalties imposed.

Councillor Zondervan agreed emergency circumstance are not defined and this is on purpose to give this discretion to the arborist to determine if an emergency exists. He would be fine adopting this as is and that this does not apply to any trees more than one year. He stated that he does not believe that this is retroactive from ordination and would not apply to trees cut down ten years ago.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked why this is worded makes trees not subject to the current ordinance and if included as proposed a permit request why the other enforcement mechanism apply. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that he is not sure that the tree replacement fund provisions would apply to the mitigation plan. He stated that the enforcement section, 8.66.090, applies to enforcement remedies, including a stop work order, fines of $300 per violation, the possibility of injunctive relief and alternative penalties for non-criminal penalty. Councillor Zondervan stated that subsection D does specifically reference the large project and it does not apply. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg agreed. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about Councillor Zondervan’s intent when drafting the proposed amendment. She stated that the City Council can state that enforcement does not apply to this other type of tree. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the ordinance could be written this way but if there is no enforcement provision there is no incentive to comply with the ordinance. If there is no compliance, there is no penalty for compliance. This is an ordinance without any teeth. The way the amendment is written and if this section is being added in it is being put in the context of the ordinance and it does have the enforcement provision. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that a different approach to enforcement could be suggested. She stated that a mechanism could be developed that would make the contractor responsible, such as leaf blower ordinance.

Councillor Kelley stated that if the concern is about retroactivity he suggested language at the end: This section is only applicable to trees standing as of enactment of this section. He stated that if someone is cutting down trees not related to a project this is not included in the ordinance. He asked if this is the intent. Councillor Zondervan stated that this states procedures for other projects and the language could be changed to all projects or significant trees. He stated that the intent is that this new section would apply everywhere where the current section does not.

At 6:16pm Councillor Kelley opened the hearing to public comment.

Lucas James Gyrator, 225 Brookline Street, spoke about the proposal by Councillor Zondervan for tree protection. He requested the inclusion and consideration of the following knowledge and guidelines. He requested that all trees in the City of Cambridge are completely protected by the City’s systematic processes of protection. He requested that the protection apply to all trees on public, private, commercial, state and City properties and preservations. He requested that the implementation of this protection be effective to all trees of any kind. He requested that trees be protected especially on private land. He stated that trees of this City are beings of this earth and are to be respected for their life and being. They provide oxygen and are the reason we are currently breathing. Trees filter the air and contribute to the eco-system of all planetary life. He noted that trees are not owned by the City or its people even though they may grow on illegally owned land or the land of private owners or in public space. He stated that the concept of the ownership of a tree is out of the hands of any one person and thus trees do not fall under the ownership of people at all. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT C).

Christine Kuta, 7 Fairview Avenue, stated that the permitting process is a burden on the private land owner. She stated that she has a tiny house on a small lot of land and it is difficult to maintain. She stated that going through what seems a benign process of a permit is another thing she has to deal with to get anything done on her land and it is also a burden on the arborist. She noted that when the street trees around her house needed to be trimmed it took a year to get this done. She stated that currently there is a public dead tree across the street and has not been taken down since last year. The Public Works Department is overburdened. She was not in favor of the permitting to add more work no matter how benign this is. She stated that she does care about the tree canopy of the City but disagrees with this new policy that is based on maintaining the status quo. Climate change is here, and the trees planted years ago were planted in a different climate and therefore they are dying. These trees need to be replaced with trees that are more resilient to the climate situation of today and the City should not waste resources trying to maintain trees that are not going to survive.

Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street, stated that the proposed ordinance is not nearly sufficient. She requested the entire City take a brief pause in cutting all trees on public and private land until the Urban Forestry Task Force can submit their recommendations and until the Tree Ordinance can be amended to actually give protection to mature trees. She spoke about a photograph on a news clipping shows residential land and those who cut the trees were not residents of the City; they were developers who purchased residential land and developed and sold it. She noted that this is the major problem with tree loss on residential land. She submitted a document showing the amount of carbon that a large tree takes out of the air is exponentially essential. She stated that the large trees are extremely valuable, and they need to be protected. She submitted two documents (ATTACHMENT D-1 AND D-2).

Carol O’Hare, 172, Magazine Street, supported getting a tally on tree removals but more importantly vigor and rigor are needed to effectively curtail tree removals. The ordinance needs to be corrected that would require simple tree removals, tree removals that are not associated with any project, to be covered by this ordinance, which it currently does not do. She gave the examples of someone who does not like shade or to rake leaves. This individual could remove the tree without doing anything. She stated that there should be a moratorium with specific exceptions and a waiver process. She stated that there are other cities that have done this. She stated that Public Works needs more personnel to monitor and enforcement this proposal. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street, stated that he supported the proposal submitted by Councillor Zondervan and some kind of a moratorium. He stated that with the rapid development that the City is facing it is a given that there would be tree removal without some type of a moratorium. He stated that the tree loss rate is accelerating. He stated that the Public Works Department needs more resources. There are 500 empty tree wells that need trees in them. This will provide information for the task force. He stated that over half of the trees removed are on private residential land. He stated that the City needs some type of tree regulation on private residential land. He noted that the accelerated tree loss is due to accelerated development. He stated that the City needs a tree replacement regulation in place as soon as possible to stop this.

Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue, stated that she supported the amendment. She stated that it should require public notice and permitting for the removal of all trees on private property for whatever the reason is. She added that there should be a justification for the removal and full mitigation of the negative impacts of any removal where it is shown that it is not essential. She commented that the City has a long history of restricting what property owners can do on their own property. She highlighted the benefits of trees. She gave an example of the private property issue. She used the dormer; she was unable to add a dormer to her roof to add a second bathroom. She noted that this application was denied. She stated that a large cooper beech tree was removed and cut down when the property changed ownership. She noted that this tree was a major asset to the neighborhood. She stated that she does not understand why this change was allowed when a small ascetic change is not. She acknowledged that there are good reasons to remove trees; she removed trees on her property but planted more replacement than removed. She stated that she wanted some aspects of this proposal strengthened. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT F).

Nancy Donohue, Director of Government Affairs, Chamber of Commerce, stated that members of the Chamber have expressed concern about certain aspects of the proposal and she spoke about unintended consequences. She requested that the Chamber be included in the discussions. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT G).

Steven Nutter, Executive Director, Green Cambridge, stated that Cambridge is in a tree emergency and need the leadership of the City Council to plan a better future. He stated that this urgency means that this cannot wait. He stated that with the good work of the task force, this amendment sends an immediate communication to all that Cambridge is serious about solving this problem. He stated that the tree canopy will continue to decrease and will decease to 10% by 2030. He noted that there are many actions that can be taken, but it is simple plant more trees and stop cutting down the existing trees. The City Council leadership is needed to make this change and without your leadership this change cannot occur. He noted that the proposed amendment is a great first step to fix an outdated regulation, but this is only a first step. He stated that Green Cambridge will help promote this change and educate residents. He commented that trees make Cambridge livable and is a social justice and equity issue.

Helen Kobek, 69R Gore Street, spoke about 100-year-old pin oak was destroyed. She wanted the strongest amendment to the ordinance. She wanted trees protected on private property and wanted a moratorium with adjustments as needed.

Sylvia Parsons, 22 Hancock Street, stated that she supported the amendment and is in favor of strengthening it and for some type of a moratorium on the cutting of trees in Cambridge with necessary exceptions. She noted that the timeline for climate change is unforgiving. She stated that the concept of replacing trees while planting new trees is a good thing, but a fully-grown tree cannot be replaced. She spoke about the benefits of trees in terms of carbon sequestration, mitigating heat wave and flood. She spoke about the life supporting element of trees with moss growth and supporting insects. She spoke about the complexities of the systems that are being destroyed.

Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, stated that feelings run high on this topic both pro and con. There are some that feel that trees are a danger, but others see the benefit of trees. She stated that this is a matter of life for both humans and mammals and also for plants. She wanted a moratorium. She stated that anything that the City Council does is necessarily part of the process. She commented that the need for action is now. She stated that she is concerned with the countervailing values at stake are embodied in the City’s development strategies. She stated that the tree loss in residential neighborhoods is infill development in the name of additional units. She stated that the development in Kendall Square has removed trees. She went to many tree removal hearings. She wanted enforceable action and protection of trees including invasive and non-native. All trees sequester carbon and provide benefits regardless of their pedigree.

Jules Kobek, 69R Gore Street, supported the amendment. She stated that it is more important to protect large healthy tree rather than replace it with small saplings. She noted that a new sapling may die, and it takes decades for a sapling to grow to a large tree. She stated that there needs to be protections for trees sooner rather than later and penalties with teeth.

Kelly Dolan, 233 Upland Road, stated that she supported the amendment to the tree ordinance. She urged that a moratorium be proposed on cutting down any more trees in Cambridge. She spoke about the importance of trees in mitigating climate change by cleaning the air, shading the City and managing flood waters. The tree canopy needs to be treated as a valued asset. She noted that limiting property rights for private property is a difficult discussion, but the collective well-being of the residents and the tree canopy needs to supersede the personal rights of individuals. She stated that having clean air and water is a social justice issue. She submitted written comments (ATTACHMENT H).

Franciscan Amedeo, 239 Mt. Auburn Street, trustee of Riverbend Park, stated that she wanted the City Council to include trees on public land. She stated that the Sycamore trees are in crisis along Riverbend Park. She supported the amendment as a first step. All possible things need to be done to mitigate climate change and trees have an important role. She encouraged the City Council to be more aggressive in addressing climate change. She wanted to see more funding for planting trees on public land.

Pat Goudvis, 179 Harvey Street, encouraged the City Council to approve the amendment. This is an emergency and we need something stronger than the amendment. She noted that all benefit from trees.

John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, member of the Friends of Inman Square, who are still working to preserve the trees in the plaza in Inman Square. He stated that he favored the proposed amendment. He noted that this would enable the City to acquire valuable information on tree removals from private property on an ongoing basis. This would also provide an opportunity to educate property owners in a critical moment on the life of a tree. The City needs to communicate in order to have an impact on property owners’ decisions to cut trees. He stated that our survival depends on trees; individuals cannot live without trees. He stated that trees are living beings that take a few hours to kill and a lifetime to regrow. There is no such thing as just one tree, whether public or private. These concepts are necessary for any voluntary measure to stop the loss of the tree canopy. He spoke about creating a culture of awareness and stewardship. He stated that a moratorium on the removal of trees from private land would be a beneficial measure when the task force makes their recommendations.

Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street, stated that he supported the proposal. He highlighted the importance of trees and the quality of life. He noted that the City does plant trees but has a hard time keeping them alive.

Maggie Booz, 27 Lawn Street, spoke about this amendment bringing the tree emergency to the public floor. She does not support the amendment as it is inadequate, ineffective and it is premature to make ordinance changes before the work of the Tree Task Force and the consultant have come to conclusions about how to solve the crisis. What is not premature and is called for is a complete moratorium on tree cutting in the City until the task force has completed its work. She spoke about issues introduced by Hildebrand to the monthly meetings of the tree task force. She stated that by 2030 with the current planting, 600 trees a year, there will only be 1/2 the tree canopy of what the City has now. She stated that by 2070 there will be 9% of what the City has now. She stated that this is a big problem.

Elaine Saporta, 102 Ellery Street, stated that she is a landscape architect and a member of tree task force. She noted that the tree task force is only halfway through the process and the news is not good. She stated that it is known what is killing the trees. She named development, oversalting, disease and the changing climate pressure and four years of successive drought as some of the reasons. She stated that this is a state of emergency. She supported a six-month moratorium on the cutting of all trees in the City.

Florrie Wescoat, 33 Market Street, stated that she is the Co-chair of the Committee on Public Planting, a member of the tree task force and a member of the Friends of Inman Square. She stated that currently there is no incentive for developers or property owners to preserve trees. Trees are being removed for development and housing infill. She noted that there is less permeable space for planting in the City. She stated that individuals want trees to shade them; to enhance the quality of life and to enjoy. She commented that this is an issue of equity and social justice. She stated that the notion of a pro-tree stance is anti-development or anti-housing is false. She stated that the City needs development that respects the trees and to plant more. The City needs to be leader to protect and preserve public trees. She appreciated the City’s commitment to an Urban Forest Master Plan but because of the rapid diminishment of the canopy in Cambridge she urged a moratorium on tree cutting while the Urban Forest Master Plan is being developed.

Paula Sharaga, 234 Columbia Street, stated that she has seen many trees planted which have died. She noted that Columbia Street is an area where there is a need for trees to be planted. She supported the amendment but wanted the proposal to have more teeth, enforceable and a moratorium until this can be figured out.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, stated that he magically intends to grow all the trees. He added that the money worshippers are killing the trees. They will be completely eliminated from the earth.

Dick Clarey, 15 Brookford Street, Chair, North Cambridge Stabilization Committee, and a board member of the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, stated that he favored a moratorium and the case for a moratorium has been overwhelmingly made. He spoke about how this issue developed for him. He stated that 130 years ago Charles Eliot stirred the people up over the destruction of the Waverly Oaks along the Belmont and Waltham line. He explained that the citizen involvement that this created ended up with the creation of the MDC. He noted that this is an example of what can happen when there is a sufficient outrage being perpetrated. He stated that the present-day Charles Eliot has put together a document, a newspaper, that contains an enormous amount of information.

Jo Solet, 15 Berkeley Street, spoke about enforcement and was disturbed that in some way the leaf blower ordinance was considered a model here. She stated that violating the ordinance is the cost of doing business for landscapers. She spoke about all the violations to the leaf blower ordinance by contractors hired by the City. She stated that homeowner need to be included in the enforcement.

Charles Teague, 23 Edmonds Street, distributed a list of 27 moratoriums passed by the City Council (ATTACHMENT I). He stated one moratorium that is not on the list is the bio lab moratorium and it has shaped Cambridge. He stated that this is not a big a deal and will not take as long. He stated that the task force has already presented. The consultants, the Conservation Law Foundation, have presented their nationwide review of tree laws on Oct 3, 2018 and in December guidelines were presented to change the laws. He stated that in 2002 the Supreme Court approved a moratorium for a short period of time, for less than a year. He urged the City Council to choose a moratorium.

Ronda Massie, 211 Charles Street, spoke about balancing open space with development. She stated that the City’s record on open space and trees is dismal. She acknowledged that it may be difficult to encourage homeowners and developers to retain trees, it is disheartening to witness the number of trees that have disappeared in the last several years. She spoke about the tree loss in the parking lot at the Charter School on Bent Street because of the difficulty of plowing around trees. She spoke about infill development and the $3 million condos built that made it imperative that the trees were cut down for these condos. She spoke about trees planted on both sides of Third Street from Kendall Square to Cambridge Street. She stated that the City planted trees and did not water and none of these trees survived. She spoke about the loss of open space and trees at the Volpe Center.

Kate Frank, 53 Crescent Street, stated that all neighborhoods will be affected by the tree problem. She stated that people are speaking about this because it is our civic responsibility. She spoke about the Japanese who planted fruit trees so that future generations will have fruit and wanted Cambridge to have a similar attitude about our trees. She asked the issue of private property be rethought. She spoke about the need for education and it could be as successful as the composting program. She stated that it may not move fast enough, but some movement is better than none.

Ellen Mass, President of the Friends of the Alewife Reservation, spoke about a moratorium and the awareness about trees were not in front of the public previously. She stated that this would have been a wonderful hearing to have had before the Silver Maple Forest was taken down. She stated that most of the discussion has been about the past, but she wants to discuss what is coming up. There is a situation in North Cambridge where there is a one-acre arboretum of sixty trees that were carefully planted forty years ago which is a crime waiting to happen because the two developers have misrepresented their building special permit to the Planning Board in December 2017 by leaving off the major canopy of these rare arboretum planted trees. There is a new design map, but it does not go along with what is in the tree ordinance. She stated that the tree ordinance states that a full display of the entire design must be given twenty-one days before the hearing by the Planning Board. This was not done. She stated that there was a major misrepresentation of the design which had a court yard with these arboretums. She noted that the Public Works Department is going to investigate this situation. She explained that the trees need to be removed to construct a garage underneath.

Erick Grunbaum, 98 Montgomery street, stated that he supports a moratorium; the tree canopy is in serious decline. He planted trees in The Port in the l990s where at the time it cost $125 to get a street tree. He stated that he sought and received a grant to subsidize this for those who could not afford to plant trees. There are massive opportunities to plant more trees. He spoke about counting the opportunities in the empty spaces in the sidewalks, not the empty tree wells, the spaces where trees can be planted. He stated that 2,500-3000 locations had been found in each of two quadrants of the City. This could yield 10,000-15,000 street trees which are the most important trees. This is what provides shade and greenery. He stated that the City needs to do a better job in investing in the canopy. He added that a short-term moratorium in reasonable. He supported more investment in the canopy, both in staffing and financing.

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 7:17pm.

Councillor Zondervan proposed and amendment and stated that Councillor Kelley wanted to capture the retroactive nature of the tree protection. His amendment was to change the title of section 8.66.055 to strike out the word “Procedure for Other Projects” and insert in place thereof the words “Procedure for Other Significant Tree Removals.” He further moved to amend the section by striking out the first sentence and inserting in place thereof a new sentence which reads as follows: For any significant tree removal not subject to 8.66.050, except for emergency circumstances, a permit request will first be submitted to the City Arborist.

He stated that a general moratorium on tree cutting cannot be considered because it is not part of this proposal. He stated that what the committee could consider is to not issue any permits proposed in this section until the ordinance is further amended based on the recommendations of the tree task force. He stated that he wanted the committee to consider this concept.

Councillor Kelley noted that the amendment offered by Councillor Zondervan was to bring all significant trees under this section, not just those trees associated with a project. The second suggestion was to prohibit the granting of any permits until after the tree task force finishes its work. Councillor Zondervan added that the ordinance could be amended based on their recommendations.

Councillor Kelley moved for a recess at 7:22pm.

Councillor Kelley reconvened the hearing at 7:24pm.

Councillor Kelley noted that there is a lot of public interest in a moratorium. He stated that another hearing can be scheduled to discuss the amendments by Councillor Zondervan and does the committee want to delay the granting of any permits which would be a defector moratorium or want to discuss a moratorium in some other fashion.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he wanted his clarifying amendments acted upon and can discuss a moratorium when the ordinance is adopted. He stated that he did not favor having another Ordinance Committee hearing and wanted this proposal to move forward to the full City Council.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she would vote in favor of the amendments offered by Councillor Zondervan and forward this to the full City Council.

Councillor Mallon stated that she was under the impression that regarding ordinance committee hearings that the committee could make something less restrictive and not more restrictive. She added that a moratorium seems more restrictive. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg responded that this applies to zoning provisions where there has been advertised zoning language and the City Council may be trying to make significant changes to this language and there may be restrictions based on the language. He stated that this is not a zoning ordinance and the issue of restrictions does not apply. The City Council can consider something that has been advertised. He stated that the issue of these amendments has been advertised.

Councillor Kelley stated that he is uncomfortable with passing a moratorium now and does not understand the implications. He added that the moratorium was not part of the call of the hearing. He stated that when this was advertised to the public it was if you care about trees and want public notice about cutting down trees come to this hearing. This was not advertised as if you care about a moratorium come to this hearing. He stated that he feels that this is a huge difference. He stated that there can be another hearing scheduled to specifically discuss a moratorium. He stated that this is a dangerous way to go. He would vote on the amendments but would not vote to move this out of committee.

Councillor Carlone stated that he supports a moratorium but agreed with Councillor Kelley’s interpretation.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the amendment he forwarded to the City Clerk does not reference a moratorium; it is just the clarifying language. He moved his amendments and stated that after amending he would move to refer to the full City Council. He stated that when the issue gets before the City Council a general moratorium could be discussed or not. Councillor Kelley stated that discussing a moratorium in the Ordinance Committee is a much better place for this discussion. He stated that he supported amending the language and keeping the matter in committee for another hearing and forwarding to the full City Council. He added that the subject of a moratorium should be the subject of a full hearing. Councillor Zondervan stated that a more general moratorium is a separate discussion and should not encumber the amendments. He is asking that the amendments be moved forward and then discuss a moratorium as part of a separate discussion.

The question now came on the amendments to change the title and the language of the first sentence in 8.66.055 submitted by Councillor Zondervan - and on a voice vote of six members the amendments - Carried.

Councillor Zondervan now moved that the amended proposal to the full City Council for further discussion.

Councillor Kelley stated that he thinks that this is a bad idea and would like to explore the idea of what a moratorium might look like.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked how the Ordinance Committee would discuss having a moratorium. She asked would there need to be language in front of the committee. Councillor Kelley noted that it always best to have language before the committee. He stated that Councillor Zondervan had an idea of making the permitting authority of the City Arborist start only when the City Council had some type of actionable things from the tree task force and if the committee met to discuss this Councillor Zondervan or anyone else could provide language for discussion.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is suggesting that a moratorium is a general conversation and may be enacted in the way he proposed or may not, but he would prefer this conversation with the full City Council and this conversation could always be brought back to the Ordinance Committee. He stated that he did not want to delay moving this forward since there is consensus around the clarifying language. The moratorium is a separate question on whether there should be a moratorium on significant tree removals or for all trees removals. He stated that the full City Council should be part of this conversation. He stated that rather than keeping this in committee he would prefer that this amendment be forwarded to the full City Council and then the City Council can decide whether it wants to have a further conversation about a moratorium or to adopt this amendment as is or enact a moratorium differently than through this proposal. He stated that these are broader questions than his amendment which did not include language for a moratorium.

Councillor Carlone stated that the only way that the City Council could discuss a moratorium if there is a petition submitted. He asked how this would be discussed at the City Council level. City Clerk Lopez stated that this is an amendment to the Municipal Code and amendments can be made at any time. She explained that the Ordinance Committee report would go before the full City Council who could accept the report and place it on file and pass to a second reading the original proposal as amended by Councillor Zondervan. Two weeks later the proposal would be before the City Council for ordination and at this point the proposal could be amended on the floor to add language regarding a moratorium. Then it is up to the full City Council if they wanted to pass the proposal to be ordained as amended.

Councillor Kelley commented that it is simpler and cleaner to figure what is wanted in the Ordinance Committee than at a City Council meeting.

Councillor Kelley moved that this be referred to the full City Council and on the motion the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui and Councillor Zondervan – 5
NAYS: Councillor Kelley – 1
ABSENT: Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Mayor McGovern – 3
and the matter was - Referred to the full City Council.

The following communications were received and made part of the report:
A communication from Gretchen Friesinger, 18 Orchard Street, in support of Councillor Zondervan’s proposal to gather more data and supporting a tree cutting moratorium (ATTACHMENT J).
A communication was received from Share Brodie, 253 Pleasant Street, in support of the proposed amendment to strengthen tree protection and in support of a moratorium (ATTACHMENT K).
A communication was received from Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street, in support of the proposed amendment and suggesting the phrase “significant tree” be used. (ATTACHMENT L).
A communication from Charles Studen, 98 Erie Street, urging the City to adopt a comprehensive plan to place all overhead utility lines underground within the next twenty years to help the trees (ATTACHMENT M).
A communication from Maria Ritz in support of the amendment to the Municipal Code on Tree Protection (ATTACHMENT N).
A communication from Martha Older noted that gas leaks and the urban heat island are killing the trees (ATTACHMENT O).
A communication from Andrea Simpson, 2 Hutchinson Street, in support of the proposed amendment to protect the trees (ATTACHMENT P).
A communication from Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, noting that trees should be considered as part of the topography for any zoning and transmitting pictures of the Broadway and Prospect street trees (ATTACHMENT Q).
A communication from Pamela Hart in support of a moratorium on cutting mature trees on private property (ATTACHMENT R).
A communication from Catherine Jaffa in opposition to cutting down any more trees in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT S).

Councillor Kelley and Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:38pm on motion of Vice Mayor Devereux.

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


AWAITING REPORT LIST
16-26. Report on the possibility of the City Council implementing a zoning change, on the permitting of all new restaurants where a wood-fired oven is used as a significant method of food preparation. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-5) from 4/4/2016

16-42. Report on plans for the former Riverside Community Health Center on Western Avenue, including transfer of ownership of the building to the City and the process for determining future usage. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Vice Mayor McGovern (O-1) from 5/2/2016

16-83. Report on drafting possible legislation and other recommendations for interim actions to identify and address the public health impacts of any commercial wood-fired ovens. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Mayor Simmons (Calendar Item #4) from 10/31/2016

16-101. Report on the potential of building below market rental housing on City-owned parking lots along Bishop Allen Drive. On a communication from Councillor McGovern requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons (O-4) from 12/12/2016

16-108. Report on whether people displaced and qualify for Emergency Status who are using Section 8 in other cities or towns can retain their resident preference for the purpose of Inclusionary Housing. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toomey (O-4) from 12/19/2016

17-22. Report on the potential growth of next-generation wireless technology in the City, to include: the expected footprint of citywide coverage from just one company and what market competition might produce; the integration of public and private infrastructure to support the network; what local standards the City might hope to maintain relative to aesthetics and safety; and how  this new technology fits into our Broadband access plans. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Cheung, Councillor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-14) from 2/27/2017

17-87. Report on a schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates clearer wording and/or more clearly explains each section in less technical jargon and is more coherent in its entirety, with the goal of seeing such an Ordinance adopted by the end of this City Council term. On a communication from Councillor Kelley and Councillor Devereux requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Devereux (O-8) from 9/18/2017

18-6. Report on information regarding electronic device usage by City-elected officials.
Councillor Toomey (O-7) from 1/22/2018

18-15. Report on any other relevant City Department to gain a sense of who is purchasing buildings in Cambridge.
Councillor Simmons (O-3) from 2/5/2018

18-21. Report on the feasibility of initiating a formal transit study and action plan of the Alewife area in response to unanimous concerns of the Envision Alewife Working Group.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Siddiqui (O-7) from 2/26/2018

18-37. Report on the possibility of accepting the City of Boston's invitation to join their intergenerational housing pilot program.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey (O-1) from 3/26/2018

18-38. Report on inventory of all City-owned vacant buildings and lots and the City's plans for them, if any.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui (O-2) from 3/26/2018

18-44. Report on ensuring an additional commitment of $20 million from the City’s budget is devoted over the next five years toward the City’s efforts to preserve and create affordable housing units.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui (O-6) from 4/23/2018

18-53. Report on an updated schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates suggestions from the Light Cambridge Committee by June 11, 2018.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-1) from 5/14/2018

18-60. Report on a small business parking pilot that would allow temporary on-street employee parking during typical daytime operating hours.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #1) from 5/14/2018

18-61. Report on commissioning a public art piece, statue, or memorial that would commemorate the dedication of women in Cambridge to passing the Nineteenth Amendment.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui (O-5) from 6/4/2018

18-65. Report on working with the Mayor’s Summer Youth Program and other appropriate City departments to organize a Town Hall Meeting for Cambridge youth.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-5) from 6/18/2018

18-66. Report on establishing a Young Adult Civic Unity Committee to be modeled after the Citizen Civic Unity Committee and to recruit applicants from all across the community and across all socio-economic backgrounds.
Councillor Simmons (O-7) from 6/18/2018

18-68. Report on determining the permitting and legality issues of Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing in the City of Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Zondervan (O-11) from 6/18/2018

18-73. Report on establishing and implementing a dynamic new initiative that will seek to place Port residents (ages 18 and over) on paths to jobs with family-sustaining wages.
Councillor Simmons (O-6) from 6/25/2018

18-83. Report on an action plan to work with the City’s Community-Based Organizations to create a network of summertime evening programming to reduce the threat of violence in the City’s public spaces in 2019 and beyond.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Mallon (O-9) from 7/30/2018

18-85. Report on the feasibility of appointing an advisory committee to work through resiliency elements raised during the Envision process and through the Brown petition.
Councillor Toomey (O-13) from 7/30/2018

18-86. Report on the feasibility of adopting a policy of replacing any failed 4000K LED streetlights with warmer alternatives as opportunities arise, and offering shielding/filtering upon request from nearby residents whenever possible.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-14) from 7/30/2018

18-87. Report on the navigational editing capabilities of the City of Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-16) from 7/30/2018

18-90. Report on the feasibility of establishing a crosswalk at the intersection of Soden Street and Western Avenue.
Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #3) from 9/24/2018

18-91. Report on drafting a plan that shall allow the Mayor’s Annual Harvard Senior Luncheon to be held regardless of the weather conditions.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui (Calendar Item #4) from 9/24/2018

18-93. Report on the sale of The Constellation Center's Parcel C in Kendall Square.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Toomey (Calendar Item #7) from 9/24/2018

18-94. Report on considering to work with consultants and other available resources to help incorporate data access and management concerns into discussions, permits and licenses for new mobility platforms.
Councillor Kelley (Calendar Item #8) from 9/24/2018

18-96. Report on how the City views internet-based platforms as opportunities for outreach and communication and what sort of guidelines have been, or are being, developed to help everyone understand how the City’s various departments do or do not utilize these communication resources and how any communications on these platforms are managed so that the messaging and information is kept up-to-date.
Councillor Kelley (Calendar Item #10) from 9/24/2018

18-99. Report on the creation and implementation of a survey or other feedback mechanism for individuals who have been in contact with the Human Rights Commission.
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon (O-2) from 9/24/2018

18-100. Report on taking all possible immediate actions to preserve and restore Linear Park.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Kelley (O-3) from 9/24/2018

18-101. Report on identifying ways to raise awareness about the prevalence of food allergies and decrease the level of risk posed by food remnants left in public parks and playgrounds.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Carlone (O-1) from 10/1/2018

18-103. Report on seeking a formal response from CVS as it relates to a racial profiling incident.
Councillor Simmons (O-6) from 10/1/2018

18-104. Report on a list of streets where it is recommended that the speed be reduced to 20 MPH.
Vice Mayor Devereux (O-10) from 10/1/2018

18-105. Report on the feasibility of placing a condition in the public bidding documents prohibiting municipal contractors from displaying any signage other than company markers and contact information on vehicles.
Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-1) from 10/15/2018

18-107. Report on prioritizing the Public Safety outreach measures in the FY20 budget.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Simmons (O-5) from 10/15/2018

18-108. Report on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee Elections.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui (O-1) from 10/29/2018

18-109. Report on the feasibility of fencing off an area on the North side of the Joan Lorentz park for a dog park or at another suitable location in Mid-Cambridge.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui (O-2) from 10/29/2018

18-110. Report on determining whether unisex bathrooms can be installed in City Hall, or whether existing bathrooms could be modified into unisex bathrooms.
Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui (O-3) from 10/29/2018

18-111. Report on addressing the increase of TNC-associated vehicles stopping in the middle of streets and bicycle lanes.
Councillor Simmons (O-7) from 10/29/2018

18-112. Report on determining what measures would best serve to prevent vehicles from blocking the Fresh Pond Mall's driveway onto Alewife Brook Parkway.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-8) from 10/29/2018

18-113. Report on coordinating a walk down Rindge Avenue, covering at least from Haskell Street to Sherman Street, to analyze the congestion and intersections with interested residents to try to find mitigating solutions or to explain why mitigation may not be possible.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-12) from 10/29/2018

18-114. Report on opportunities and plans to increase signage or other communication efforts to help ensure that all users of Brattle Street between Eliot and Mason Streets understand the cyclists may be using Brattle Street in the opposite direction of prevailing motor vehicle traffic.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-14) from 10/29/2018

18-115. Report on the current status of the Surveillance Technology Ordinance and a date the City Council can expect an updated version of the proposed Ordinance.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone (O-16) from 10/29/2018

18-116. Report on the current status of any City Hall renovation plans and a timeline of planned events.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Toomey (O-17) from 10/29/2018

18-118. Report on funding additional City summer food sites and collaborate on creative and innovative ways to engage participants in programming that will increase the use of open food sites.
Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui (O-1) from 11/5/2018

18-119. Report on evaluating the existing capacity of fire stations in the Kendall Square area and whether a new fire station is needed, and if so, determining the feasibility of locating a plot of land for this use.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-2) from 11/5/2018

18-122. Report on the possibility of posting a "no trucks" sign on Hancock Street.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui (O-3) from 11/19/2018

18-123. Report on ensuring funding for our municipal media services.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern (O-9) from 11/19/2018

18-124. Report on contacting the owners of Twin City Plaza about the leasing of parking spaces for construction vehicles instead of storing the vehicles on Gore Street.
Councillor Toomey (O-10) from 11/19/2018

18-127. Report on providing a timeline when the City Council can expect to receive the draft zoning and public health regulations for urban farming.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan (O-1) from 11/26/2018

18-129. Report on conducting a comprehensive, independent planning, and parking study of the neighborhood and use of the First Street Garage within 6months.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (Calendar Item #1) from 11/19/2018

18-130. Report on working with the Chair of the Civic Unity Committee, the Director of the Cambridge Library, the Director of 22-CityView, the Director of the Women’s Commission, and any other appropriate City personnel to begin planning for a public discussion in recognition of 100 Years of Women’s Suffrage.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-3) from 12/3/2018

18-131. Report on the use of the cigarette disposal box program, how they are functioning, how many the City has installed, how often they are emptied, if the program will be expanded, and any other relevant program details.
Councillor Kelley, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Mallon (O-4) from 12/3/2018

18-132. Report on the negative traffic impact regarding the Davis Square Neighborhood Plan.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-5) from 12/3/2018

18-133. Report on raising the fines for blocking both loading zones and bike lanes to a comparable rate to Boston for the 2020 fiscal year.
Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-9) from 12/3/2018

18-134. Report on creating a more inclusive city website, including an Open Meeting Portal registration form that does not require the use of gendered pronouns, salutations or titles.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon (O-11) from 12/3/2018

18-136. Report back on submitting a proposal that candidates would agree to not accept donations from person outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Councillor Toomey (O-15) from 12/3/2018

18-137. Report on reviewing the FCC Regulations on Small Cell Technology.
Vice Mayor Devereux (O-18) from 12/3/2018

18-138. Report on Improving Pedestrian Safety and all relevant traffic calming measures to reduce speeding, implementing different paving surfaces, narrowing traffic lanes, installing pedestrian crossing placards affixed to the ground and adding raised intersections.
Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-1) from 12/10/2018

18-139. Report on the possibility of planting a substantial-sized tree at the corner of Inman Street and Massachusetts Avenue, directly on the front lawn of City Hall.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-2) from 12/10/2018

18-140. Table of Uses.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui (O-1) from 12/17/2018

18-141. Safe way to bring power across sidewalks.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-2) from 12/17/2018

18-142. Targeting advertising efforts to education cyclists.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Toomey (O-3) from 12/17/2018

18-143. Business entity's beneficial ownership.
Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-4) from 12/10/2018

18-144. Process for obtaining and analyzing Eviction data.
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone (O-6) from 12/17/2018

19-1. Accessing revenue generated from new short-term rental legislation.
Mayor McGovern (O-4) from 1/7/2019

19-2. City Arts Funding Mechanisms.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-5) from 1/7/2019

19-3. Central Square Improvement Fund.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-6) from 1/7/2019

19-4. Percent for Art Ordinance.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Simmons (O-7) from 1/7/2019

19-5. Major Public Building Projects Selection Committee Representation.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone (O-14) from 1/7/2019

19-6. Information on How Government Shutdown May Impact Cambridge.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Siddiqui (O-1) from 1/14/2019

19-7. Request for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Home Rule Petition.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Carlone (O-2) from 1/14/2019

19-8. Update on water main breaks and whether the aged pipes are being monitored.
Councillor Toomey (O-3) from 1/14/2019

19-9. Webster Avenue Complete Street.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui (O-4) from 1/14/2019

19-10. Eviction Outcomes Data-Sharing with Legal Services Providers.
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Carlone (O-6) from 1/14/2019