5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-111, regarding the feasibility of implementing neighborways.
Placed on File

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Joseph E. Barr, Director of Traffic, Parking, and Transportation;
     Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development;
     Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works;
     Jason Weeks, Executive Director, Cambridge Arts Council
Date: Feb 7, 2018
Re: Awaiting Report 17-111 – Report on the Feasibility of Implementing Neighborways

This memo is in response to Order 7 from the Oct 16, 2017 City Council Meeting (Awaiting Report 17-111), which requests a report on the feasibility of implementing neighborways on streets in Cambridge. Based on discussions amongst staff from our four departments, we have the following information to report to the City Council.

Communities in different parts of the country have been trying new methods to engage the community and introduce public art into the streetscape, while also working to increase safety on smaller neighborhood streets. Broadly known as neighborways, these efforts fall into two categories, which can be used independently or in combination:

• Public art such as murals and geometric patterns that are painted on the street. Generally, these involve a significant amount of community engagement in developing the art installation, and can help with community building and raising the awareness of the need to improve traffic safety.

• More typical traffic control and traffic calming improvements aimed at trying to reduce speed and discourage cut-through traffic on local streets. These can range from simple painted curb extension/bulb-outs all the way to more significant infrastructure improvements such as traffic diverters, speed humps, and pedestrian crossing islands.

To better understand the potential for these neighborways, we have researched these efforts in other communities, specifically in Somerville (the most well-known local example), Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA. Each of these communities is taking a somewhat different approach, based on their specific needs and context, and the information from this research is summarized below:

• The Somerville Neighborways Program uses paint and signs to engage neighbors in a community process to put public art on their street with the aim of community building, lowering traffic speeds, and increasing pedestrian safety. These are low cost projects that use paint to create public art murals on the street as well as painted curb extensions. These include a fairly extensive process to involve residents of the street and are usually installed and maintained by neighborhood volunteers with the city paying for paint and supplies. So far, data have not shown reliable reductions in speeds, although some residents may perceive lower speeds given the new look of the street and community building involved with the project. More recently, Somerville has considered additional measures such as speed humps, planters, and trees. In 2017, Somerville began to implement projects that include more traditional pavement markings to implement changes such as contraflow cycling on one-way streets and longer-lasting painted curb extensions.

• The Portland (Oregon) Neighborhood Greenways Program is a capital construction program that uses traffic diverters, new pedestrian crossings, speed bumps, and stormwater infrastructure features to reduce vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic, provide safer bicycling and pedestrian connections, improve yielding to pedestrians at busier crossings, and encourage more biking and walking leading to greater safety. Follow-up data has shown mixed results, but often some reduction in speeds and diversion of traffic to other streets when diverters are used. Portland has also installed murals at intersections through their City Repair Project, but have found that any initial effect on driver behavior wears off over time.

• The Seattle Neighborhood Greenways Program is a capital program that uses speed humps, spot street and sidewalks changes, signs/pavement markings, and wayfinding to improve safety, discourage cut-through traffic, protect the residential character of neighborhoods, keep speeds low, improve yielding at crosswalk, and help people reach destinations such as parks, schools, shops and restaurants. No data on speeds/volume are publicly available, but the City of Seattle conducts a follow up study one year after implementation to determine if motorists’ speeds have increased, and will consider installing speed humps if an increase does occur.

In considering the potential for neighborways in Cambridge, it is also important to put it in context of existing City programs and activities.

• The Cambridge Traffic Calming Program is a capital program with many goals that are similar to the other localities cited above, but with some exceptions. Traffic calming requests are collected and matched with streets that are listed in upcoming years of the city’s Five Year Plan for Sidewalk and Street Reconstruction. A community process is conducted to listen to neighborhood concerns and find traffic calming tools that may be used to reduce vehicle speeds, improve pedestrian safety, encourage cycling, and protect the character of neighborhood streets. These projects are not designed to move traffic off of one street and place it on another street. Funds from the traffic calming program are allocated per the city’s Percent for Art public art program and used for art projects (as funds allow), which could be used for both permanent and temporary works of art. In the past, a public art mural was painted on the pavement at the intersection of Fayerweather Street and Vassal Lane, but was then removed after vandalism and complaints regarding its appearance and the perceptions of neighbors and those using the street.

• The Cambridge Arts Council formally implements a 40-year old Municipal Ordinance that requires and supports the development of public art as part of the City’s capital investment program. This includes projects that involve traffic calming; a good example is Jane Goldman's New England Oasis artwork at Sheridan Square off Rindge Avenue. The Arts Council is always interested in working with local communities that wish to use art as an opportunity for community building and neighborhood engagement, whether within the context of the street/sidewalk environment or elsewhere. This assistance can take the form of professional, technical, and financial support to residents, local organizations, and business districts to implement public art in both public and private locations. An upcoming example of this type of project within a street context is the Home Port Ground Mural and associated artwork that the Community Arts Center will implement on Windsor Street between School Street and Washington Street, as part of the overall Home Port Public Art program. The City has funded Home Port from inception via the Arts Council's Grant Program and this particular project will receive significant funding from the FLOW Grant Program related to The Port Infrastructure Project (www.cambridgema.gov/arts/publicart/flowgrants).

However, it is important to recognize that stand-alone art projects are not a traffic calming tool and have not been shown to reduce speeds or calm traffic, in the absence of other traffic control measures that are specifically targeted towards achieving those outcomes. In general, the existing traffic calming program provides an opportunity to address many of the same goals as the neighborways program in Somerville, including both civic engagement and enhancements aimed at calming traffic.

Based on these findings, City staff do not recommend relying on projects where paint alone is used to achieve traffic calming goals, and do not recommend the establishment of a standalone neighborways program, particularly given the significant resources that are already available through the traffic calming program and the Cambridge Arts Council. However, we are very open to having future traffic calming projects involve more significant community building art components, to complement the physical changes designed to slow vehicle speeds. Other, standalone public art and community building projects could also be introduced without needing to be connected to capital construction projects, but would require approval from the Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department prior to installation. As noted above, the Cambridge Arts Council is willing to work closely with community organizations that are interested in pursuing civic art opportunities in either context.

7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-01, regarding a report on possibility of a supermarket opening at 20 Sidney Street.
Placed on File

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Re: Policy Order O-1 – 20 Sidney Street Grocery
Date: Feb 7, 2018

Background
On Dec 29, 2017, Star Market announced that its store located at 20 Sidney Street would close on Feb 3, 2018. The 50,000 square foot grocery store is located in the University Park development that is operated by Forest City on land owned by MIT.

Food Access in Central Square
Within a half-mile walking radius of Central Station, there are three grocery stores (H-Mart, Harvest Co-op and Whole Foods). In addition, there are a variety of convenience stores and general merchandise stores, such as Target and CVS that sell produce and other grocery items. Central Square is also serviced by two farmers markets - Central Square Farmers Market that runs from May to November, and the Cambridge Winter Market that runs from January to April at the Cambridge Community Center in Riverside.

Zoning Requirements
20 Sidney Street is a part of the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District, regulated by Article 15.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. There are no zoning requirements for the 2nd story retail space to be a grocery store and no mention of it in the Forest City development commitment letter. However, Forest City staff have stated that they remain committed to exploring a variety of retail options for the space.

Current Status
Mayor McGovern organized a community meeting that was held on Jan 25, 2018 to address the future of the Star Market site. The meeting was well attended by city staff and members of the community. Forest City also attended the meeting and provided a status update on their work to seek a new tenant for the space. Community Development Department (CDD) staff have reached out to real estate representatives at several grocery chains, including Market Basket, Aldi, Trader Joes, and bFresh to inform them about the opportunity and connect them to Forest City. Several grocery store representatives mentioned that they do not have plans to expand at this time, or that the space is too small for their traditional size requirements. Regardless, CDD staff has relayed the grocery store chains contact information to Forest City staff. Staff will continue to explore options and communicate with Forest City about possible tenants.

42. Sundry e-mails received in opposition to the protected bike lanes.

Included among these "sundry e-mails" is the following:

From: Alice Wolf <alicekwolf@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 3:31 PM
To: City Council; Clerk; City Manager; Mayor
Subject: bike lanes and the public good

To the Honorable Mayor, Honorable members of the City Council, and Honorable City Manager,

I see that there will be discussion of protected bicycle lanes at the City Council meeting this evening. So I hope you will consider the following.

I am very much in favor of continuing the efforts to allow bicyclists to traverse our roadways safely and efficiently. In fact, when I was Mayor (eons ago), I established the bicycle task force that started the efforts to make Cambridge a more bicycle friendly community.

However, I would like to see revision of the Cambridge Street corridor. Here is why. Over a hundred parking spaces were removed for the changes. In some cases, that might be OK. But the corridor from Skendarian to Inman Square houses one medical or senior citizen facility after another. For people using these facilities or visiting these facilities, parking is critical. The possibility is now substantially contracted. So this particular revision does not reflect a solution for the public good. It is only for one sector of the public and detracts from all the others.

Since a bicycle solution for this mid cambridge neighborhood is important, I would suggest that other solutions be examined to replace the one that was chosen and that their consideration include the variety of interests in that community and around the City. One suggestion I have - though probably not popular with all - is that Cambridge Street house the protected bicycle lane in one direction and Broadway in the other direction. We all face slight inconveniences when streets are one way, but, when it is for the public good, that might be OK.

As a personal note, I faced a specific example of the problem just the other day. I went to a community evening meeting generously allowed at Spaulding Rehab. I have done this often before and never had a problem, but, in this case, there was no convenient parking space. I managed my way into the Spaulding patient visitor parking space and was told that it was only for those visiting patients. When I asked pretty please because of the lack of parking and ice conditions, the attendant was generous and let me stay. This is a small example of the impact of removing 100+ parking spaces. I use Skenderian, the Cambridge Health Alliance, and Cambridge Family Health- all essentially in that corridor- and parking is a different problem since the change.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,
Alice Wolf

O-2      Feb 12, 2018
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: After a detailed process and discussion, the City Council ordained a beekeeping zoning amendment and the Cambridge Public Health Department promulgated accompanying beekeeping regulations in December 2017; and
WHEREAS: In the general discussion of Urban Agriculture in Cambridge, the City Council has worked with staff on zoning language and public health regulations related to keeping hens and cultivating food; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Community Development Department and the Cambridge Public Health Department and report back to the City Council on the current status of zoning language and public health regulations regarding the keeping of hens and food cultivation, and proposed next steps to continue to advance the Urban Agriculture initiative in Cambridge.

O-3      Feb 12, 2018
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The City Council passed an amendment to the Municipal Code (Chapter 8.70), entitled “Prohibition on the use of Polystyrene Based Disposable Food containers” in October 2015; and
WHEREAS: Enforced by the Department of Public Works, the Polystyrene Ordinance took effect on Oct 20, 2016; and
WHEREAS: Polystyrene is a type of plastic that includes Styrofoam and is expensive to recycle and is not biodegradable, and has been shown to leach harmful chemicals into food and beverages; and
WHEREAS: The ordinance applies to all food and beverage establishments that serve food or drink in single-use disposable service-ware, which includes cups, plates, bowls, hinged or lidded containers, straws, cup lids and utensils; and
WHEREAS: The purpose of the Polystyrene Ordinance was to reduce waste and protect the health of our residents and consumers; and
WHEREAS: It has been over one year since the Polystyrene Ordinance took effect, and it will be useful to the Council to hear a report on implementation and enforcement, as well as remaining concerns and challenges facing the business community; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Department of Public Works to report back to the City Council on the success of the Polystyrene Ordinance, including implementation, enforcement, and remaining concerns among the business community.

O-4      Feb 12, 2018  Amended; Order Adopted 5-4 as Amended (Kelley, Mallon, McGovern, Simmons, Toomey - YES; Carlone, Devereux, Siddiqui, Zondervan - NO)
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: In October of 2015, the City of Cambridge outlined its plans for “complete streets” in its Bicycle Report with the goal of making our roadways friendly to all modes of transportation, be it cyclists, drivers, or pedestrians; and
WHEREAS: A key element of the Bicycle Report was the addition of separate bicycle facilities, namely protected bike lanes; and
WHEREAS: To meet this goal and expand the network of protected bike lanes, lanes were installed on Cambridge Street in the summer of 2017 as part of the Cambridge Street Bicycle Safety Demonstration Project; and
WHEREAS: During community meetings prior to their installation, the lanes were presented to residents as a pilot program that would be open to changes after the public had sufficient time to use and give feedback on the bike lanes; and
WHEREAS: The addition of the protected bike lanes caused significant changes to the design and traffic pattern of Cambridge Street; and
WHEREAS: These changes have generated a high level of discourse amongst neighbors, cyclists, drivers, business owners/their patrons, and pedestrians regarding their design and implementation; and
WHEREAS: The consistent feedback received by City Councillors from many of our residents since the start of the pilot has indicated that the Cambridge Street lanes have not yet met the City’s goal of increasing safety for all while many others have expressed that bike lanes make travel safer; and
WHEREAS: There previously existed a Cambridge Street Stakeholder Group made up of diverse interests that had input prior to the installation of the Cambridge Street bike lanes; and
WHEREAS: There exists a Cambridge Street Stakeholder Group made up of diverse interests that had input prior to the installation of the Cambridge Street bike lanes; and
WHEREAS: Now that the lanes have been in use for eight months, there is a strong desire from our residents to have an additional outlet for community conversation and input regarding the design and implementation of the Cambridge Street bike lanes; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge Street, as a major transit corridor, has the potential to be a model for other bike lanes in the City’s planned network; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager and the Mayor’s Office be and hereby are requested to establish a new working group consisting of a diverse set of stakeholders, including but not limited to cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, small business owners, EMS/first responders, and City Officials to discuss the results of the protected bike lane pilot using clear evaluation criteria, and how best to construct a cohesive network in the future; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager and the Mayor’s Office be and hereby are requested to consult with the Community Development Department and the Traffic and Parking Department to use the continued and constructive feedback received from our residents and the working group to re-evaluate the safety features of the Cambridge Street bike lanes, and ensure future bike lanes meet the City’s goal of “safe streets for all.”

O-5      Feb 12, 2018
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: There is broad agreement from all stakeholders that safety, quality of life, and alignment with the City’s Vision Zero goals should be of the utmost concern when it comes to the upcoming Inman Square construction; and
WHEREAS: Some confusion and discontent now exists in the community, in part because the design process did not fully communicate the trade-offs and challenges inherent to redesigning Inman Square; and
WHEREAS: Specific concerns include: last minute cancellation of smaller working groups at the 1/31 public meeting deprived people of achieving a deeper understanding; the “no left turn” option was dismissed on the spot without time to process the challenges of that option; critical details about the alternative design have not been made available to the public including other alternatives considered, reasons for particular design choices, and assumptions about behavioral choices people will make in traffic; and
WHEREAS: A recent University of Vermont study found that Cambridge’s tree canopy declined by 7% from 2009 to 2014; and
WHEREAS: The city’s own Climate Vulnerability study showed that Cambridge as a whole and Inman Square in particular is vulnerable to the Urban Heat Island Effect, which is exacerbated by any decline in tree canopy which occurs; and
WHEREAS: Citizen’s advocacy helped uncover additional opportunities to plant trees in Inman Square as part of the project, inside the Springfield parking lot; and
WHEREAS: Possibilities may remain to further refine and improve the plan through public input on areas of concern that are broadly shared among the community, including safety, transit improvements, climate protection, and other improvements; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to create additional opportunities for the community to evaluate and understand the plan and to provide input, including: walk-in clinics between now and the next community meeting and making more details available online including alternative designs considered but deemed unworkable, traffic simulations, and other relevant data or information; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to reach out broadly to members of the community to make them aware of these additional opportunities in an effort to be as inclusive as possible; 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-7      Feb 12, 2018  Amended and Referred to the NLTPPFAC Committee
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Digital access has become a necessity and one of the fundamental equity issues of our time; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has expressed a continuing desire for the City to work on digital access issues since 2005; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge school system has started to distribute Chromebooks, computers that are specifically designed to require internet access; and
WHEREAS: Many children in our community at all grade levels do not have access to affordable internet at the speeds required to complete assignments and take full advantage of the many online resources, including those provided by our schools; and
WHEREAS: A recent Stanford study indicates that internet access plays an important role in closing the achievement gap; and
WHEREAS: The city’s 2015 “Blue Ribbon Commission on Income Inequality” found that during focus groups, many residents cited “the cost of internet as an issue” and recommended looking at ways to improve digital access, particularly for low income residents; and
WHEREAS: Comcast offers an affordable option within Cambridge city limits (Internet Essentials) which at 15 MBPS does not meet the FCC’s official definition of broadband internet (25 MBPS); and
WHEREAS: Free internet options exist in Cambridge including WiFi hotspots in Kendall Square, near MIT, Harvard Square, and municipal libraries, though these options are not always available or convenient for students and working adults; and
WHEREAS: Recent changes at the federal level by the FCC including the repeal of net neutrality and the end of Lifeline, a policy which was designed to help low income families specifically, are likely to raise the cost of internet access even further for consumers over time; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report on progress and efforts made to date to provide greater access to internet services citywide for low income residents, including:
That the Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee schedule a public hearing to discuss the following:
  • any available data on uptake of Comcast’s Internet Essentials offering
  • plans for expanding free WiFi hotspots throughout the city
  • potential for wireless broadband options and their ability to help low income residents
  • The status and operational health of the WiFi system installed by the city in Newtowne Court in 2007
  • planned course of action based on the Cambridge Broadband Task Force recommendations and Tilson Report options 1, 2 and 3
  • Future actions to be taken which will improve digital access throughout the city and ensure that every Cantabrigian has internet access that is affordable, reliable, and secure.
and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on future actions to be taken which will improve digital access throughout the city and ensure that every Cantabrigian has internet access that is affordable, reliable, and secure.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to conduct an additional public hearing to discuss the Zoning Petition filed by Peter Kroon, et al, to amend Section 20.50 of the Zoning Ordinance in the “Harvard Square Overlay District” dated Sept 28, 2018 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were John Schall,19 Hilliard Street; Janet Cahaly, 29-33 Church Street; Sam Strebel, 1919 Gallows Road; Paul Lee, 1238 Massachusetts Avenue; Paul Overgaag, 10 Eliot Street; Denise Jillson, Executive Director, Harvard Square Business Association, 18 Brattle Street; David Chilinski, 1 Gray Street; Tim Shaw, 147 Mt. Auburn Street; John DiGiovanni, 50 Church Street; Robert Winters, 366 Broadway; Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place; Bertie Jean Chromberg, 13 Brattle Street; Dan Fraine, 1379 Massachusetts Avenue; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; Anthony Galluccio, 7 Trowbridge Place; Frank Kramer, 7 Avon Street; Ruth Ryals, 115 Upland Road; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Kenneth Taylor, 23 Berkeley Street; Kari Kuelzer, 19 Copley Street; Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street; James Rafferty, 675 Massachusetts Avenue; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street; Francis Donovan, 50 Church Street; and Edward Mack.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He stated that the public comment will be limited to three minutes and if there are written comments please leave them. He outlined the format of hearing: petitioner, City staff, public comment and then the Ordinance will focus on the petition and ask questions and make comments. The committee at the conclusion will make a recommendation. He stated that this petition expires on Feb 19, 2018 and this needs to be moved forward.

Councillor Carlone stated that during this process the petitioner and the City have modified the petition overtime. This needs to be updated with the most recent petition.

At this time Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the revised text of the Harvard Square Overlay District dated Dec 14, 2017 that was discussed at the Planning Board hearing held on Jan 2, 2018 be substituted for the original text submitted by Peter Kroon, et al to amend the Harvard Square Overlay District.

He stated that as the text has evolved this is the updated version.

Councillor Zondervan requested clarification. He stated that there is a version dated Jan 24, 2018 as well (ATTACHMENT B). Councillor Carlone stated that this is complicated because there have been a number of updates that is not normally done this way. He stated that what the Planning Board focused on has to be brought forward dated Dec 14, 2017 (ATTACHMENT C). He stated that after the petitioner’s presentation to the Planning Board, he updated the text based on the Planning Board’s recommendations (ATTACHMENT D). He stated that what is being discussed is what the Planning Board heard and responded to and any changes are underlined in the latest version which tried to respond to the Planning Board and City staff comments.

Councillor Toomey requested a history of the petition and how we got to this point. He stated that in December an e-mail was received from the petitioner requesting that the petition be withdrawn. He stated that he did not recall a new petition coming forward. He asked if this petition was amended by an individual or were the signatories consulted and approved the amendment. He asked if this is properly before the Ordinance Committee. He further asked if it is possible to amend the petition without all the signatories.

Councillor Carlone explained that the petitioner thought he should withdraw the petition and was advised not to withdraw because of the time delay in submitting a new petition. He stated that there has been one Ordinance Committee hearing and two Planning Board hearings since that time. He stated that the process has continued and there was confusion in the beginning. The process was initiated as usual. He stated that this is the fourth public hearing on this petition. He noted that the text of any petition evolves overtime and gets better. He stated that he believes that this is the case.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the confusion lies with the communications. She stated that once a petition is signed by ten registered voters and filed with the City Clerk unless there is a substitution filed with the City Clerk or the Ordinance Committee, a committee of the whole, then that is the petition that is pending. She stated that one area of confusion is that a substituted proposal submitted by the petitioners was what the Planning Board considered at the January Planning Board hearing. She stated that the proper procedure is if someone wanted a newer version to be considered it should be submitted to the City Council through the City Clerk and it is clear that it is something that the City Council has voted to substitute for the original petition. She further stated that while the City Council can make motions to substitute in the Ordinance Committee as a committee of the whole or before the full City Council, there are substitutions that can take place up to ordination. She noted that in order to correct this to move forward in a procedural manner it was suggested that a motion be made as proposed by the Chair so that the Planning Board recommendation which was based on the December substitution is properly before the City Council at the onset together with the Planning Board recommendation.

Solicitor Glowa stated that to the extent that there may have been indications of withdrawing the petition and/or a new version the petition submitted to the Planning Board prior to substitution to the City Council are only communications and should be submitted to the City Council by the City Clerk through the normal course. There is only one petition ever pending before the City Council based upon votes of the City Council.

Councillor Toomey commented that he has been here for twenty-eight years and has never seen circumstances such as this. He wanted to make sure that this is legally before the Ordinance Committee and can move forward with this discussion. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the affirmative if the City Council moves to substitute the December petition for the petition that was filed and pending before the City Council it would be appropriate to take the recommendation from the Planning Board and consider it in relation to the December version as well as to consider any other versions that the City Council may wish to consider at any subsequent hearings.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the committee received another version dated Jan 24, 2018. He asked with this be considered tonight. Councillor Carlone noted that the petitioner has not spoken yet and he is assuming that if this is an update the petitioners will state this. He added that these are slight modification based on the Planning Board comments at their hearing. This is not the normal process but it is the refinement process and can be incorporated based on the motion that was made by the Chair earlier.

Councillor Kelley commented to City Solicitor Glowa that he is confused about how this got before the Planning Board and how the Planning Board had the authority to make a recommendation on anything other than the Sept 29, 2017 petition filed. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the Planning Board did have the authority to make a recommendation on the petition filed with the City Clerk in September that was forwarded to the Planning Board and the Ordinance Committee for a hearing. She stated that the changes are not atypical throughout the life of a petition and since they are clear in the Planning Board recommendation and it is clear from the substituted document that the Planning Board considered how those proposed changes relate to the original petition the City Council could vote to substitute the December document for the original filed petition and consider the Planning Board recommendation together with this. City Solicitor Glowa stated that if the City Council elected not to substitute the December document for the original filed petition there could be a problem with the Planning Board recommendation, which is based on a document that is not before the City Council.

Councillor Kelley asked if the City Council acts on something that was not properly before the Planning Board what does this do to the process. He spoke about a legal challenge. He stated that he did not want to have a discussion unless he is confident the City Solicitor that this is solid legally. He was confused by this process. He wanted to know that this is legally sound and that it cannot be peeled back to the January Planning Board hearing and point at it as a flaw. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the points raised were delicate. She stated that the Planning Board Jan 2, 2018 hearing notice was on the petition filed on Sept 28, 2017.

Mr. Roberts stated that the petition submitted on Sept 28, 2017 and heard by the Planning Board in November and then a revised version was submitted in December and considered by the Planning Board on Jan 2, 2018. The revision was transmitted as a communication to the Planning Board and was made available on the Community Development Department’s Webpage as is the practice for communication to the Planning Board. The substance of the revision were largely within the scope of the notice that was advertised. The Planning Board hearing notice contains a summary of the contents of the Zoning petition along with a reference to a link and contact information where the petition and other materials can be found. The revisions submitted to the Planning Board as a communication before the January hearing were within the scope of hearing advertisement.

Councillor Carlone stated that if the City Solicitor felt the committee should step back to the earlier version he had no problem with this. He stated that the Ordinance Committee process is to make improvements to any petition. He stated that the committee could go through all the revisions and bring the petition up to where it makes the most sense. He felt that this is a legitimate hearing and is in the regular realm of developing a petition’s text. He stated that if the committee wanted to go with the original petition and move up to this if this is what the committee wants to do.

Councillor Toomey stated that his concern is that this is on solid legal ground. He stated that it is embarrassing that we are in this position. If the original petition is before the committee he is fine with this. He wanted to move forward on solid legal ground and not waste the time of the petitioner, the staff and the public.

Councillor Carlone stated that he offered a motion that can be accepted and if not, the committee will start with the original petition and work from there.

Councillor Kelley stated if this is fine he is fine with that but if this opens this up to a decision that there is a fatal flaw. He wanted to start far enough back to prevent a fatal flaw and this is the opinion that he is looking for from the City Solicitor.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that she cannot guarantee that this is “fine”. She stated that there is a procedural deficiency. The question is how significant it is and whether it can be cured. She explained that the City Council can make amendments to a zoning petition pending before it even up to and including the night of ordination if it does not alter the fundamental character of the petition that was advertised.

She stated that the changes were submitted to the Planning Board were the basis for the Planning Board recommendations could be arguable viewed as within the ambit of the original petition filed and do not fundamentally alter the character of the petition. However, that is why she recommended, if the City Council felt comfortable, the City Council could move to substitute and proceed from there. She stated that she is not in any position to guarantee that there would not be a legal challenge and not be successful. She stated that if the city Council wanted to make sure that the process is followed properly it would have to go back to the Planning Board after the City Council has moved to substitute the later petition that was given as a communication to the Planning Board in December prior to the Planning Board’s January hearing. She could not give the assurance that this procedural deficiency could not be found to be fatal at the end of the day.

Councillor Carlone stated once again that further discussion would be avoided by going to the petition wording that the Planning Board met on. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she respectfully disagreed. It is not a question of what the City Council now discusses it is a question of what notice was provided to the community. Councillor Carlone stated that he was referring to the first Planning Board hearing. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is the petition that is pending before the Ordinance Committee at this time and was what was advertised.

Councillor Kelley stated that he is thoroughly confused by this whole thing. He asked which Planning Board report could the City Council work from. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there is no Planning Board recommendation on the petition as filed. Councillor Kelley asked if a Planning Board recommendation is needed to decide anything as a City

Council.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City Council does not technically need the Planning Board recommendation because the twenty-one days has passed since the Planning Board hearing. Councillor Kelley asked can we peel this back to a previous submission and Planning Board hearing and move from there which is what the Chair is suggesting. He is willing to do this if this will reasonable hold up to legal challenge. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the Chapter 40A, the Zoning Act, which gives authority for zoning ordinances to be amended, if there is no Planning Board recommendation and twenty-one days has passed since the Planning Board hearing the City Council could vote on the merits of the petition as filed. She stated that the City Council could proceed to discuss the petition as filed and any proposed amendments thereto tonight even if it was determined that you will not consider the Planning Board recommendation because it was not based upon the petition as filed.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is the Ordinance Committee and it is not approving the petition; it is making a recommendation. So, this hearing could occur and when the time is right the City Council would put into force what was stated after the twenty-one days. City Solicitor Glowa agreed. She stated that it would be a recommendation to the full City Council to substitute the December version and to accept the Planning Board recommendation or to ignore all of this and to proceed starting back at the beginning with the original petition as filed and changes that this committee wishes to make to the full City Council when it is referred back to the full City Council for consideration.

Councillor Carlone asked if this is the consensus of the committee to start with the Sept 28, 2017 original petition.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he would prefer to consider the Dec 14, 2017 version of the petition that was heard by the Planning Board and then proceed to hear the Planning Board recommendation based on this version.

At this time Councillor Carlone repeated his motion. Councillor Toomey requested that Councillor Carlone repeat his motion. The motion is as follows:
ORDERED: That the revised text of the Harvard Square Overlay District dated Dec 14, 2017 that was discussed at the Planning Board hearing held on Jan 2, 2018 be substituted for the original text submitted by Peter Kroon, et al to amend the Harvard Square Overlay District.

Councillor Carlone stated that this text built on the original petition; it was a further evolution.

Councillor Zondervan wanted to call the question. Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted to discuss this. He stated that he understood the City Solicitor to say that this action will open this to a procedural challenge. He stated that as he understands it the committee wants to do something to not be subjected to a procedural challenge the committee needs to go backwards. He stated for the committee to move forward properly we need to go back to some solid legal foundation and move from there. He does not want to do something now that is a fabulous idea but is subject to process challenge that could throw this out.

Councillor Carlone noted that he is willing to do this. He stated that there is a motion on the floor and he suggested that the committee vote on the motion. No action was taken on the motion at this time.

Councillor Mallon asked for a point of information. She wanted to hear Councillor Kelley’s idea for a substitute motion. She needed to know what the steps are to go backwards. Councillor Kelley stated that his understanding from the City Solicitor what that if the committee started with the original petition as submitted the committee could move forward, but starting with the petition discussed by the Planning Board we are opening ourselves to some potential process challenge. The chair had suggested that one option was to start with the original petition as submitted.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that if the committee goes back and starts with the original petition could a motion be made to substitute the text that the Planning Board heard and sent a memo about. Councillor Carlone noted that the committee will have to go through each item to discuss and to change the text to the most current this could be done. He acknowledged Councillor Kelley’s concern. He stated that the committee will go item by item and can refine as we go along. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she would refer to the redline version of December.

Councillor Zondervan asked for clarification of what the committee will be moving forward on. Councillor Carlone stated that the committee has been encouraged to discuss the original zoning petition.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that a lot of the public comments will be about later versions of the petition. She preferred to move to substitute. Councillor Carlone noted that the substance is the same; it is refinements from two new members to one new member.

At this time Councillor Carlone withdrew his motion.

Councillor Carlone moved that the original zoning petition, which has been modified and suggestions made at the Planning Board and this information will be updated as the committee goes along. This is the safest way to deal with this issue.

At this time Councillor Carlone requested the petitioner to come forward. He stated that Mr. Kroon has presented at a previous Ordinance Committee hearing the basic overall presentation had many images and facts. He stated that the changes to the petition will be reviewed and any updates to the text. He stated that he wanted to go item by item and then vote on them. He requested Mr. Kroon to give an overview of the process.

Peter Kroon gave an overview of the process. On Sept 28, 2017 the petition was submitted. Mr. Kroon stated that the original petition was an excerpt of the parts that changed. Mr. Roberts took this and prepared a memo dated Nov 8, 2017, which had his analysis and contained the entire section 20.50 with the changes shown. At the Nov 14, 2017 Planning Board hearing he was told not to withdraw the petition and that the City would re-advertise the petition. An Ordinance Committee hearing was held on Nov 21, 2017. The second Planning Board hearing was held on Jan 2, 2018. He stated that the Planning Board had a number of thoughtful comments. He stated that based on the comments he edited the text. He sent his edited draft to Mr. Roberts as a courtesy with the Planning Board recommendations and he added voluntary suggestions that the petitioners would support. He stated that last night he e-mailed the text of the petition to people. He noted that Mr. Roberts document is showing the edits in response to the Planning Board recommendation. This document is dated Jan 17, 2018. He stated that first report by Mr. Roberts is dated Nov 8, 2017. He stated that these two documents could be viewed next to each other.

Councillor Carlone stated that the committee does not have these documents. Councillor Carlone stated that just the petition language would be discussed and then Mr. Roberts can fill in where needed with the Nov 8, 2017 document.

Mr. Kroon stated that the changes are small. The original petition is dated Sept 28, 2017. This is the starting point. He stated that he has the document from Mr. Roberts dated Jan 24, 2018 which shows edits in response to the Planning Board recommendations.

Mr. Kroon stated that in the first section of the Sept 28, 2017 document to amend section 20.53.2 to add additional criteria for development consultation review and review of applications for special permits and variances. He stated that after a conversation with Mr. Sullivan at the Historical Commission, the petitioners concern was the retail ecological system. He stated that use is something that the Historical Commission does not talk about. The suggestion was to put in a criterion that would be in zoning apart from the development guidelines used by the Historical Commission. He stated that there is a study committee now that is working on the goals of development guidelines.

Councillor Carlone stated that it was his understanding that no changes are being proposed. Mr. Kroon stated that this is as proposed on the original petition. Councillor Carlone noted that the Planning Board discussed this and was enthusiastic about this.

Mr. Kroon stated that in their letter the Planning Board endorsed the goals and in their recommendations the Planning Board recommended adoption of the Review Criteria.

Vice Mayor Devereux wanted to move adoption but Councillor Carlone stated that he wanted to approve the petition as modified step by step. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City Council should be doing is taking the original document dated Sept 28, 2017 and if there are other changes to the zoning that members which to substitute different from the petition, then the motion would be to recommend substitution with the following additions or changes to the full City Council. This would be the recommendation sent by the Ordinance Committee to the City Council.

Mayor McGovern stated that the new version (1/24/18) does not make changes until 20.54.1 section 4, Membership and Terms. He is comfortable advancing some of the items now, but there are other items he is well comfortable advancing. He would vote to move forward some of this. Mayor McGovern stated that he had changes to 20.54.1 (4) under Membership and Terms.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that since this is a law and every word that is added, taken away or punctuated matters. She stated that in the Dec 14, 2017 document submitted by Mr. Kroon to the Planning Board as well as the language prepared by Community Development Department on Jan 17, 2018 based on Planning Board comments in section 20.53.2 at the end of the first paragraph the word “following:” has been added and at the beginning of the next language there has been added “l. The”. Then the language that was submitted in the September petition appears. She stated that if these suggested changes are wanted they need to be voted.

City Solicitor Glowa suggested taking the Dec 14, 2017 version in section 20.53.2 the bold wording be substituted for the original petition and then do this section by section and the committee could vote on the section changes.

Councillor Carlone moved the addition at the end of the first paragraph in 20.53.2 the word “following;” and “1. The” be adopted. Section 2 has been in the original petition. The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members. Councillor Toomey was recorded as “Present”.

Councillor Carlone now moved to section 20.54.1 entitled Harvard Square Advisory Committee.

Councillor Carlone stated that in 20.54.1 paragraph 1 entitled “Purpose” in 1b he added at the end the words “for the purpose of representing community input.” The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members. Councillor Toomey was recorded as “Present.”

The committee proceeded to discuss 20.54.1 section 4 entitled Membership and Terms.

Mayor McGovern stated that under 4 a. Membership to change twelve to thirteen. Number two is stricken and (3) - (8) need to be renumbered (2) - (7). He stated that the renumbered (6) calls for one member representing an institution. He stated that Lesley also owns institutional property in the Harvard Square Overlay district. Is there a reason why a representative of each of the universities would not be wanted?

Mr. Kroon responded that he tried to make as few changes as possible. It was suggested to him that the line be added “The Committee shall consist of thirteen (13) members, as follows:” He proposed decreasing the number to twelve, but the Planning Board suggested keeping it at thirteen. He stated that (1) called for an architect or landscape architect, which did not seem to be relevant in a Historical District. He stated that he suggested as a substitute “urban planner.” He stated that (2) was stricken in order to add to (3) Two members who operate a retail, restaurant or service businesses within the Harvard Square Overlay District. He stated that the petition filed on Sept 28, 2017, the only difference is the order that they appear. On the version of the petition dated Jan 17, 2018 in blue should be the same, except for the changes of landscaping architect would become urban planner, (2) is deleted, (3) could have three members who operate retail, restaurant or service businesses and (4) he proposed to drop the number of representatives of real estate, but the Planning Board wanted to keep the number at two and One owner or representative of a corporate owner of commercial property in the Harvard Square Overlay District was added.

Mayor McGovern stated that his question was about the institution. He stated that Lesley owns property at the Episcopal Church site and Harvard. There is only one university being represented. He stated that there are two universities that do business and own property in Harvard Square and only one is being included. He asked why is this. Mr. Roberts stated that the current language in the Harvard Square Overlay District specifies that one member representing an institution, owning institutional property in the Harvard Square Overlay District, would be a member of the committee. In the original version of the petition the language modified to state a representative of Harvard University. He stated that the revised version through the Planning Board process leaves the language as it currently reads that a member representing an institution, owning institutional property in the Harvard Square Overlay District. This could be Harvard, Lesley or another institution. He stated that a question for this committee or the City Council is whether there should be in the City Council view any additional institutional representation, but as it stands in the revised text version it would be and if the City Council substitute this for the original petition the language would remain as it is currently.

Councillor Mallon questioned clarity in the wording of # 4 in the Jan 24, 2018 version. Councillor Zondervan suggested language that reads “two owners or their representatives of commercial property”. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the intention was to distinguish corporate owners from institutional owners. Mr. Roberts stated that the term “corporate owner” does not have any definition in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that just stating “owners of commercial property” is adequate to distinguish from institutional owner. At this time Councillor Zondervan restated his amendment to read (4) Two owners or (their representatives) of commercial property within the Harvard Square Overlay District. On a voice vote of seven members the amendment Carried. Councillor Toomey was recorded as “Present”.

Councillor Kelley commented that as a process when the committee gets farther along there may be amendments being made to the petition, then the hearing is opened to public comment, and all should understand that whatever the committee has done is just a suggestion that may be altered by the City Council. He stated that he did not think that the committee could vote on the final amended proposal or whether to send it to the full City Council and in what form, before public comment is heard. He stated that after public comment there will be an opportunity to go back and pull out anything that seems different after hearing public comment.

The committee now proceeded to 20.54.1 (4) b Terms.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is a new section. Mr. Kroon stated that the Jan 17, 2018 version states that the members will be appointed for three years and maybe reappointed for a second consecutive three-year term then be required to step down and be eligible to reapply. He stated that the Planning Board stressed that they wanted a more flexible, less restrictive situation. He suggested making it up to three with a different approach and if the committee were collegial they would get support from their fellow members and be eligible to be reappointed. He stated that it could be kept as contained in the Jan 17, 2018 version.

Ms. Farooq suggested a comparison between the two various. Mr. Roberts could walk through the original petition and the suggested changes by the City Council. These could be done section by section.

Mr. Roberts suggested viewing the original petition filed on Sept 28, 2017 and moving the Jan 24, 2018 version, which incorporates the revised language with the Planning Board suggestions. He suggested looking at the section by section and make a determination if the Ordinance Committee wants to begin by considering the more up to date revised version and then discuss any additional changes that may be warranted. In stated that in the original petition under Membership and Terms there are sections (b), (c), (d) and (e) and the effect of the changes is that each seat shall be filled separately is a way to indicate that there would be a full appointment of members and would not be members chosen that would serve dual roles on the committee. He stated that the ex-officio member is a way of indicating that in some case, such as a university representative, it would be an appointed position rather than by the institution that the members would again serve for terms of three years with reappointment rules. The chair would be elected annually. He stated that the revised version the elements are contained but in a simplified way in the amendments to section (b) the terms are for three years with a reapplication after one-year gap. It outlines how vacancy would be treated. In the new section c specifies that the chair would be elected annually at the start of each year and would have a term not to exceed one year. The full committee is covered in the revised version in section (a).

Mayor McGovern stated that he had no problem with section 4 (b), but did have a problem with section 4 c with the board chair that he wanted to discuss.

Councillor Zondervan wanted to discuss section 4 (b) relating to the requirement that the members should obtain written support to be reappointed. He stated that this seems onerous to him and does not see any need for this. He heard concern from the Planning Board about the one-year gap. Mr. Kroon stated that he suggested to Mr. Roberts that there could be up to three gap years for a total of twelve years. Mr. Roberts stated that there was concern by the Planning Board members but was not included in the conclusion of their recommendation. He stated that the Ordinance Committee could consider alternatives or discuss alternative with the staff.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that gap was in the original September version and is in the January version. She further stated that this was not spelled out in the Planning Board’s recommendation. She is supporting the gap year.

Councillor Zondervan stated that we should consider whether the committee is considering the Jan 24, 2018 version language and disregarding the Sept 28, 2017 language and move forward with a discussion. He made the following motion:
That sections (a), (b) and c in the Jan 24, 2018 version be brought forward for discussion and be substituted for sections (b) and c and modification to section (a) in the original petition dated Sept 28, 2017. No action was taken on this motion.

Mayor McGovern stated that he thought it was decided that the Ordinance Committee would be looking at the Sept 28, 2017 version and this version would be amended section by section. Councillor Zondervan stated that the changes are more substantial in the Jan 24, 2018 version. He did not want to discuss the September language in this section going forward.

Councillor Kelley stated he concerns about referring to anything specifically that the Planning Board opined when they gave an opinion on something that should not have been before them this may be opened to some procedural challenge. He did not want to discuss the Jan 24, 2018 version because it may be problematic. City Solicitor Glowa stated that given the confusion this is causing she would recommend that the Ordinance Committee start with the original petition as filed and language can be substituted from the petitioners Dec 14, 2107 draft or the language submitted by Community Development Department based on Planning Board comments because it does not matter who made the suggestions as long as the committee is moving to substitute recommended new language for language which was in the original petition.

She stated that anyone can recommend any substituted language. She stated that there is a procedural deficiency with relying on the Planning Board report. She agreed that it may be better not to refer to it as a Planning Board report but rather as language that is sitting before the committee that can be moved by anyone to be substituted as a recommendation to the City Council is permissible. Councillor Carlone stated that the language, not the memo, is being discussed.

Councillor Carlone moved the motion made by Councillor Zondervan. He stated that when the text is substituted it could be modified as needed. He moved that section 4b be substituted for the language in the original petition. Councillor Toomey stated that he would be voting in the negative on this. He stated that he is very uncomfortable with this. He apologized to the petitioners.

Councillor Carlone moved that the language underlined in 4(b) be substituted and be used as the base for the original petition dated Sept 28, 2017. The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members. Councillor Toomey recorded in the negative.

Councillor Zondervan asked Mr. Kroon if he wanted to change the one-year gap to three terms instead. Mr. Kroon suggested removing the one-year gap and replacing one renewal term with up to three renewal terms and then the term would end. He stated that the proposal was an initial three-year term, with an additional three-year term, then a member would have to take a year off and then could come back. He stated that the Planning Board did not like one-year gap and suggested a longer term. He stated that he was fine with this. He suggested having one term, then up to three renewal terms. He stated that to simplify the language should be up to three renewal terms.

Councillor Zondervan moved to amend to amend 4 (b) based on Mr. Kroon language. He stated that section b would read: Committee members shall be appointed for terms of three years each. They may be reappointed for up to three consecutive three-year terms. In the event of a mid-term vacancy, a replacement member shall be approximated to serve the remainder of the term in order to maintain full representation as set forth above.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if Councillor Zondervan was suggesting that a member could serve twelve years. He responded in the affirmative.

Mayor McGovern stated that the City Manager makes appointments. He asked if the committee is allowed to put a term limit per the City Charter. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City Council could legislate in an ordinance how long a term is or how many terms a member can serve. He stated that the more conditions placed on this the harder it has been historically to fill the positions. She stated that it is not impermissible to legislate this language. Mayor expressed his concern about the terms. He stated that vacancies need to be reposted; these are volunteer positions. He did not want to see term limits that would cause a problem filing vacancies.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the Harvard Square Advisory Committee has met sporadically. This is a less arduous committee. She stated that twelve years is too long. She favored six years; take a break and reapply. Councillor Zondervan stated that the one-year gap makes no sense. The twelve years is the total maximum time one could serve on the committee. Mr. Kroon stated that the Planning Board pointed out that if the position was filled after a one-year gap someone would be in year two of their three-year term. So, this did not make sense. He suggested two consecutive three-year terms which would be a maximum of nine years.

Councillor Kelley stated that he would like to hear from the public. Councillor Carlone stated that he was going to continue with the process.

At this time the committee moved to vote on Councillor Zondervan’s amendment to section 4 (b) which reads as follows:
Committee members shall be appointed for terms of three years each. They may be reappointed for up to three consecutive three-year terms. In the event of a mid-term vacancy, a replacement member shall be approximated to serve the remainder of the term in order to maintain full representation as set forth above.

Councillor Kelley moved to amend section 4(b) to insert back in the one-year gap in this section. The question now came on the amendment - and on a voice vote the amendment- Failed.

The question now came on the amendment submitted by Councillor Zondervan and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS; Councillors Carlone, Kelley, Zondervan and Mayor McGovern – 4
NAYS: Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillors Mallon, Siddiqui and Toomey – 4
ABSENT: Councillor Simmons – 1
And the amendment - Failed.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved an amendment that there would be three-year terms with and reappointed for up to two consecutive three-year terms. She stated that the life-tie limit would be nine years rather than twelve years.

The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members. Councillor Toomey was recorded in the negative.

Councillor Toomey asked a clarification for 4 (a) # (5) where it reads five members representing residents of the five abutting Cambridge residential neighborhoods. He asked if the five abutting neighborhoods are identified and would it be mandatory that each neighborhood has one representative. Mr. Roberts identified the five abutting neighborhoods Agassiz, Mid-Cambridge, Neighborhood Nine and Neighborhood Ten and Riverside. He stated that it has been the practice to appoint a member of each neighborhood. He stated that the operative change suggested would be to insure that there would be a representative of each of those neighborhoods in addition to representatives filling the other qualifying categories. It may have been the case in the past where a member fit in one qualification and was also a resident of one of the abutting neighborhoods serving multiple roles. He stated that the intent of the petitioners is to clarify that these are distinct appointments.

Councillor Toomey wanted the language to stated that each of the five abutting neighborhoods has one representative for each neighborhood. Councillor Zondervan stated that the language was substituted and does to specify that it is to be one representative from each neighborhood. Councillor Carlone agreed the language could be clearer. He suggested “Five residents each representing one of the five abutting Cambridge residential neighborhoods.” The amendment carried on a voice vote of eight members.

The committee now proceeded to discuss section C Board Chair.

Mayor McGovern stated that C is too disruptive to change the chair each year. He stated that the chair should be for the term and after a three-year term a new chair can be elected. He stated that the chair would serve for the term of three years. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that this would make sense if all of the members start and appointed in the same year. She stated that if a chair is elected the chair serves their term of three years. At this time Mayor McGovern suggested language to amend the section as follows: The members shall elect a chairperson at the first meeting of each calendar year. The chairperson shall serve until replaced, not to exceed three years and thereafter would have to step down.

Councillor Zondervan wanted to change the one-year gap to three years. Mayor McGovern we are getting too restrictive for boards and commissions and too prescriptive. Councillor Carlone stated that the intent of the petition was for change and not to have one person continuously be the chair. He stated that the chair could not serve two consecutive terms. Mayor McGovern stated that if a chair is doing a good job let this person stay. Mr. Kroon stated that the Planning Board made the same point of not being overly prescriptive. He stated that as long as the chairperson is elected every year and that there is a provision for a mid-year vacancy is a way to go back to the way it is now. He stated that either you have turn over or not.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Planning Board goes out of its way to change the chair of the Planning Board. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that in the earlier motion it was suggested that there be a lifetime limit of three terms or nine years. A lifetime chair has been eliminated. She stated that there could be a limit on the years that one could serve as chairperson as two years of the three-year term. This would be a compromise. The term may or may not be consecutive. She stated that the committee is getting into the details and she thought it would approach getting a more up to date draft in front of the committee. We are deliberating.

Councillor Mallon suggested that the second sentence should read: The chairperson shall serve until their term ends.

Mayor McGovern submitted the following amendment: The members shall elect a chairperson at the first meeting of each calendar year. The chairperson shall serve until replaced. In the event of a mid-year vacancy, the members shall elect an interim Chairperson to serve for the remainder of the year. The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members. Councillor Toomey was recorded in the negative.

At 7:43pm Councillor Kelley moved that the committee go to public comment at this time and come back to petition. The motion carried on a voice vote of eight members.

John Schall, owner El Jefe’s Taqueira, stated that he resides at 19 Hilliard Street. He asked what is the overall impact of this petition on the businesses in Harvard Square. This is a petition to support small and local businesses but who are they who are trying to be supported by this. This petition is toxic to business development in Harvard Square. This will damage the ability for businesses to be effective and efficient in Harvard Square. What is the purpose of this petition. This petition is a long-standing attempt by a small group of people in Harvard Square to prevent businesses, small or large, local or national that bring more people into Harvard Square and is an attempt to support businesses that bring less people into Harvard Square. Our Harvard Square was supported by the Harvard Square Defense Fund who opposed his business because it was going to bring more people into Harvard Square. He urged the committee to not get lost in the specifics of the petition but to look at the overall intent of the petition, which is to hinder development in Harvard Square. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Sam Stiebel with Regency Centers, owner of Abbot Buildings in Harvard Square, 18 Brattle Street spoke about supporting a vibrant and vital Harvard Square with a diverse mix of uses. This petition will run counter to the goal of the petition to preserve and enhance the retail ecosystem. This will lead to more vacant storefronts. He spoke about the Formula Business language and the Special Permit process that can take eight months and small business cannot wait this long. He noted that empty storefronts are not wanted. He spoke about 1250-foot size requirement for small businesses. He asked where this number came from. Most business in Harvard Square are independent. He added that Harvard Square is too important to get this wrong. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT F).

Paul Lee, stated that the Hong Kong Restaurant was opened in Harvard Square in 1954. He noted that over the years he has seen trends, fashions and businesses come and go. He stated that the staying power of the Hong Kong rests with his family being nimble in business with the changing requirement of their customers. He stated that being nimble in business is vital and being nimble as a property owner is equally as important. He stated that the petition has two issues. He stated that the parking fund and the advisory committee are non-issues and do not require a zoning petition. He stated that the restrictions placed on his property by the Kroon petition moving forward is unacceptable. There are three sets of zoning standards in place. The base zoning, the overlay district and conservation district. These three sets of guidelines ensure plenty of oversight. He commented that review should be done in a thoughtful manner. He stated that it is his understanding that the recent Central Square rezoning and the Volpe petition both had over fifty public hearings with a year of study prior to passage. He urged the City Council to consider the policies in place are sufficient. He added that further restrictions are not needed. He asked for the continued investment in public spaces in Harvard Square to keep a safe and welcoming place for all.

Denise Jillson, Executive Director, Harvard Square Business Association, spoke against the Kroon Petition. She stated that based on a survey of 343 businesses in the Harvard Square Overlay District, 72 percent of the businesses are locally owned independent. The vacancy rate is less than five percent. She stated that Harvard Square welcomes between 8-10 million visitors a year, determined by credible sources. She stated that retailers are challenged by long-standing, competitive districts such as Newbury Street and Faneuil Hall and many soon to be developed districts. She spoke about the competitive aspects that Harvard Square has to deal with. She spoke about the increased purchasing on line. The square needs to fun, clean, viable, Instagrammable and exciting to be successful. She stated that the HSBA organizes between 70-80 events a year, which are free, family friendly and are located in the public space. She stated the top priority is to attract foot traffic and provide places that consumers want to shop. This petition does nothing to increase foot traffic for Harvard Square and hinders sustainable leasing opportunities, diminishes flexibility, restricts growth and hyper-regulates marketing efforts, the HSBA strongly objects to the petition. She asked the City Council to work with HSBA on the Policy Order adopted on Oct 1, 2017. She spoke about all the businesses that are leaving the square. She stated that formula businesses are leaving the square. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT G).

David Chilinski, 1 Gray Street, stated that he is a thirty-seven-year resident. He stated he has worked with the Historical Commission and the Harvard Square Advisory Committee who does great work in the square. He stated that in thirty-seven years he has never worked on a store that was 1250 square feet. He suggested that Community Development Department be asked to better understand the size of an average stores currently in Harvard Square and advise the City Council on what good retail is in Cambridge. He stated that 1250 square feet is unusually prescriptive and does not understand where this comes from. He stated that stated that half of all retail in these buildings is not diverse but is restrictive. He stated that having office space in mixed retail and residential is a good thing. He stated that currently the zoning encourages office and retail and this should be left this way to encourage daytime traffic flow during the week for retail businesses. He encouraged city agencies to help the City Council to become aware of the metrics.

Tim Shaw, 147 Mt. Auburn Street, supported the Kroon petition to revise Harvard Square zoning. He stated that he thinks of Harvard Square as his neighborhood. He stated that he has seen many changes over the years but none as destructive as what faces the square now. He supported the Kroon petition because it addresses many of the issues facing Harvard Square and addresses them in a constructive, practical way. The petition changes the structure of the Harvard Square Advisory Committee to make the body better able to represent the interests of the citizens of Cambridge. This is in the best interest of the entire Harvard Square community. He noted that all realize that massive change is inevitable and the square should not stand still but unrestricted and poorly regulated change will deal a severe blow to the very qualities that make the square so desirable. He stated that this petition would add several much needed pieces to the regulatory structure that will guide the coming change. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT H).

John DiGiovanni stated that the current Harvard Square Conservation District guidelines require that one cannot remove permanent structures of the building. This is the way to ensure that there is no large storefront. The way to deal with this is the physical structure, from the texture and the scale of the properties. He stated that you do have to be flexible to the type of businesses that need to come into the square and they need to be respectful of the built form. He stated that the facts are that chains are not dominant in the square. He wanted the metrics understood. He asked what is the most important feature or characteristic of Harvard Square and then when answered this should be how all should act as good stewards for the square. He stated that a list of critical features of the district are its human scale, mixed use, historic nature and that it is a complex district that has six sub-districts. All of these features are critically important and are described in the Harvard Square Conservation District guidelines. He stated that in his perspective the more important feature of the authentic urban place is that it is appealing and accessible to the largest cross section of the population and this is the most critical characteristic. This should guide for any changes to guidelines or zoning. There is a diverse set of retailers. This petition is micromanaging businesses based on their size, shape or ownership structure will have an adverse impact on Harvard Square’s ability to serve the diverse population. This petition attempts to alter the balance of Harvard Square, which will be harmful to Harvard Square’s long-term interest. This petition does not help Harvard Square to maintain its vibrancy and vitality.

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, stated that advisory committee is advisory and has no regulatory authority and the excessive focus on membership and terms is misplaced. He spoke about the formula business regulation. In principle this is a good thing because it would supplant previous things that are outdated. He asked what does the petition really want to regulate. He stated that the only thing that matter is the pedestrian experience and he did not know how to regulate this. He stated to find a way to shape a Harvard Square or any other square so that a pedestrian has the richest possible experience. He stated that what is not wanted is the retail “killers” - surface parking lots, vacant storefronts or passive frontage which may include banks. This is what formula business should be about. There needs to be more clarity for whatever is chosen to regulate about what triggers this. He does not want the retail frontages killed and make sure frontages do work.

Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place, stated that she strongly supports the Kroon petition. She stated that she is the president of the Harvard Square Neighborhood Committee founded a year ago to deal with the key problems in Harvard Square. She is not opposed to change but wanted a vibrant Harvard Square that is viable for residents, workers and others. She spoke about businesses that have recently gone out of business in the square. She stated that rents in Harvard Square are like Newbury Street and New York City. Local businesses are not being given a chance. She stated that on the frontage of banks and administrative buildings is central to Harvard Square vibrancy. She stated that existing bank frontage would be grandfathered in that are currently in Harvard Square. The point is to have small vibrant engaged storefronts consistent with the Overlay District. She stated that if projects go above FAR then residences are key for nighttime traffic. She stated that there is plenty daytime traffic; nighttime presence and activity are needed in Harvard Square. She spoke about the membership of the Harvard Square Advisory Committee. She stated that she is uncomfortable with an urban planner on the committee, this is too narrow. She would prefer a professional in the area of urban planning and architecture. There will be more options. She stated that two property owners on the committee does not make sense and with Harvard that makes three property owners. She wanted this to be rethought. She spoke about conflict of interest with leasee speaking on the petition.

Dan Fraine, Senior Vice-President, Cambridge Savings Bank, 1374 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that he was relieved that after 180 years in the square that the bank would be grandfathered. He stated that he is confused with the path of this petition. He stated that the petition was filed with the City Clerk on Sept 28, 2017 and a Planning Board hearing scheduled for Nov 14, 2017. He stated that on Nov 14, 2017 at 3:39 PM he received a notice from Mr. Kroon informing him that the petition was going to be withdrawn and that the petition would not be heard and that it would be revisited in early February due to holidays and the transition of City government. The petition was heard by the Planning Board on Nov 14, 2017 and again on Jan 2, 2018. This process has not been clear. He stated that the confusion over the process has been compounded over the language. He stated that the bank has mixed tenants, both national and local, and it is a big contributor to the square and how would this formula business affect this. He stated that Harvard Square would benefit if a step back were taken and a forum organized and learn what analysis has been done. He urged the committee not to pass the petition forward to the City Council.

Frank Kramer, 7 Avon Street, asked if the formerly submitted comments are read. Councillor Carlone responded in the negative and stated that this is a new hearing. He stated that he is the former owner of Harvard Square bookstore. He supports Kroon petition. He spoke about formula stores, which would conform their appearance to the recommendation of the sub-districts that are described in the guidelines. He wanted new buildings to include first floor spaces better suited to smaller store needs. He stated that a question was raised regarding the legality of zoning restrictions requiring formula stores to get a special permit. He said the Attorney General settled this issue on Aug 23, 2010 in favor of formula store restrictions. He submitted the Attorney General opinion (ATTACHMENT I-1). He asked why does the City have the Harvard Square Advisory Committee but the guidelines are not followed? He stated that he has been on the advisory committee for sixteen years and there have been many interpretations of the guidelines. He wanted businesses to remain in Harvard Square and Central Square. This does not prohibit formula stores but instead brand Harvard Square as unique. He submitted a letter of support for the Kroon petition signed by twelve storeowners on Brattle Street (ATTACHMENT I-2). He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT I-3).

Ruth Ryals, 115 Upland Road, President of the Porter Square Neighborhood Association, stated that she supported the Harvard Square zoning petition. She is offended that after following the procedure, she is now being told the process has not been followed. She stated that Harvard Square is unique. She asked if all are speaking about the same Harvard Square. All are worried about the health of the Square. She noted that those speaking tonight represent large real estate operations and that the Harvard Square Business Association has been captured by all them. She stated that she is speaking for the small guy and small businesses. She stated that all current businesses are grandfathered. She wanted a diverse streetscape. She urged the City Council to take serious the work done on this. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT J).

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, Vice Present, Cambridge Residents Alliance (CRA), stated that the CRA supports the goals of the Kroon petition for Harvard Square. She supported Kroon petition for residential uses within new development in Harvard Square including restricting the GFA above sixty feet in height to residential dwelling units. She stated that the CRA would be happy if the preference for increased housing resulted in affordable housing in Harvard Square through Inclusionary Zoning. She stated that for the life and health of Harvard Square more residents are needed, not more office space. She added that more full-time residents are needed in Harvard Square. She requested that hotels and student residences be excluded in the residential section. She stated that controlling development and restricting the appearance of formula businesses and the frontage of financial institutions is supported. She stated that the changes to the Harvard Square Advisory Committee are appropriate and are supported. She urged the Ordinance Committee to forward the petition to the full City Council. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT K).

James Rafferty, 675 Massachusetts Avenue, represented Regency Centers, owner of Abbott project. He stated that Regency Center has been the motivator of much that is contained in the petition. The petition is well-intended and established goals but the difficulty is coming up with language to achieve the goals. He stated that the zoning petition process is not the best forum to initiate the discussion around the goals. This process is too fast and you are not doing the process a service by trying to accelerate the process and not study the details. He stated that there are range of substitute motions and text changes that no one will see in writing and then take a vote to move this forward. There is no urgency to move this forward. There are elements of the petition where there could be consensus. He stated that things like formula business require a lot of attention and understanding the impact of the special permit process. He stated that Community Development should talk to landlords about what efforts are needed to get a retailer to commit to a space and understand a place like Harvard Square, under the rules of the Planning Board, where an early engagement meeting has to be held, appear before the advisory committee and then go through the special permit process with the Planning Board. He noted that this is at least a 6-month process to get a special permit for Harvard Square. He stated that vacant storefronts could be perpetuated by this if this is not carefully discussed. He asked where is the data to support the bank frontage of twenty-five feet. He commented that once this becomes an ordinance we live with this for a long time. He stated that he applauded the efforts of the committee to reach a resolution, but time is not on your side and this deserves more thoughtful consideration and a forum for people who love Harvard Square for more discussion.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street stated that he was going to confine his remarks to procedural issues, but he cannot say something nice it is best to say nothing at all.

Francis Donovan, 42 Irving Street, spoke about the timing. He stated that he doubts if anyone is happy with conditions today in Harvard Square. He stated that there will be a huge phase of development in Harvard Square over the next five to ten years, which will result in a significantly better or worse Harvard Square. He stated that what is heard is resistance to change. He stated that change cannot be stopped but it can be influenced in the most beneficial way. He stated that the Kroon petition seeks to encourage an aggressive united effort by property and business owners, residents, city officials and planners, architectural historians and conservationists to provide a thriving and colorful Harvard Square that will be the benefit of all. He urged passage of the key elements of the petition. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENTS L-1 and L-2).

Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street, stated that she is a business owner for 21 years and a member of CSBA and HSBA. She stated that she is pro-business. There are good changes in Harvard Square and stated that there is need for more change and improvement. She supported the petition because it is good for the City, neighborhood, small businesses, for the socioeconomic diversity, for more residents living in Harvard Square and this is healthy for our City. She stated that all could work together to make this happen. This is a good start; it is not perfect. She listed the Harvard Square businesses that supported this petition which are small businesses. She thinks there can be a resolution.

Ken Taylor, 23 Berkeley Street, spoke about his fifty-year experience in Harvard Square. He spoke about the evolution of Harvard Square has been under control but what is distressing now is that it looks like there are activities in the real estate market that will threaten to make things out of control. He stated that the only way to deal with this is for the City to take a proactive role in trying to guide Harvard Square development. This petition reflects many of the things he supports that need to be done. He urged the committee to act favorably on the petition.

Edward Bank, 1600 Massachusetts Avenue, spoke on behalf of University Common Real Estate that owns 1430 Massachusetts Avenue. He spoke about three issues. The homeless problem has fallen on the hands of real estate people and retailers, both landlord and tenant. He stated that nothing could be done about this because of Constitutional means that are unavailable to us. He stated that when talking to people who are interested in making Harvard Square better want an injection of residents. He stated that the petition is unworkable for the existing buildings in Harvard Square. All retailers in Harvard Square are small, large, middle and discount and can serve all people. He stated that his building’s facade is historical. There are items in petition that are workable and useful but spoke about a flexible Harvard Square. He noted that no one has talked about Harvard University, which owns 29% of the land area in Harvard Square.

At 8:48pm Mayor McGovern moved to close public comment.

At this time Councillor Carlone moved back to the petition to discuss for 20.54.2 Building Height Limitations.

Councillor Zondervan moved to substitute the language of Jan 17, 2018 for the text of the Sept 28, 2017 petition for discussion. He moved to replace 2 (a) with 20.54.2. Councillor Carlone stated that when this process is used it is so the petition can be discussed in the most up to date verbiage. He read the language from the Jan 17, 2018 version. No change to the existing language. Councillor Carlone stated that he thought that there was refined language, but it is crossed out. Mr. Roberts stated that there was a provision in the original petition which stated that all Gross Floor Area above sixty feet in height, which is the section of the building that is subject to the Special Permit under current zoning would be required to be residential in use. In the original language there were some provisions that were not exactly clear on what the meaning was. It stated that to make this feasible a residential FAR bonus of an additional 1.0 should be granted for such space. He stated that the revised language was reviewed by the Planning Board in January had slightly different language and left out the provision for the additional FAR bonus and additional consideration for the Planning Board when reviewing a Special Permit.

The Planning Board in their recommendation stated that the overall intention to provide incentives for residential use was something that the Planning Board could support but the language and the mechanism should be studied more rather than be adopted. He stated that at the last Planning Board hearing the types of incentives that were effective or appropriate to achieve the desired increase of residential use. Councillor Carlone asked what is the existing FAR in Harvard Square. Mr. Roberts stated that in the Business B base which is the central core of Harvard Square the FAR allowed for non-residential use is 4.0; the FAR allowed for residential use is 3.0. He added that it is unusual that it allows more nonresidential than residential. He added that a residential development would be entitled to the inclusionary housing bonus, which increases this by thirty percent.

Councillor Kelley said what does this do to the theatre project. Mr. Kroon stated that the two existing proposals would be exempt because it is not fair to them with a ruling change after they have purchased the property. He stated that the primary concern is the higher prices being paid for buildings that suggest that later people will come to try to justify much higher heights and the conservation district speaks to the maintain the human scale. He stated that there is nothing to limit the height and a bulk plain set back is required. He stated that the 4.0 FAR is going to be the limiting factor and many places will be unable to go higher that four or five stories. He stated that the Abbott building is taking out a floor and filling in basement space to put a rooftop restaurant on. He stated that an incentive is created to hold the line on height. He stated that this is the weakest plank but is the most powerful.

Councillor Kelley asked what does this do to the two proposals that do not yet have special permit. Mr. Roberts stated that the Church Street site, the former movie theatre, have ideas of what to do with this site, but no applications have been filed yet. It is unknown how it would be impacted but because this zoning amendment has been advertised and if adopted it would apply to any future developments that are not yet been permitted. Councillor Carlone stated that there have been instances in zoning where the zoning did not begin immediately. This is so that projects that are in process and provide a public benefit may move forward. He stated that on both projects it may only be the housing variant that could not be implemented. Perhaps 20% of any new project built in Harvard Square on main retail/office streets should become housing and 40% housing on the secondary streets. He stated that housing supports retail 3-4 times more than office space and requires significantly less parking. He stated that there is a strong logic to incorporating housing and this petition has done this as height regulation but could be translated into a percentage. He stated that he was going to propose that this be converted to a percentage.

Councillor Zondervan asked for clarification because it stated that buildings could exceed sixty feet, but the zoning states it may extend to eighty feet; is this the absolute limit. Councillor Carlone stated that this puts housing where you want it and where there is a setback. This petition was not to stop the two projects but to enhance them.

Mayor McGovern stated that he liked the idea of incentivizing housing throughout the City. He stated that part of the Central Square process when it was being developed the property owners were part of this conversation. He asked where did this come from and was there conversation with the property owners. If this does not work in Harvard Square then he does not want to pass this. Mr. Kroon responded in the negative about talking with property owners. Mayor McGovern stated his concern around the process. He stated that language can be substituted but is uncomfortable with this language on the floor without input to pass this with a favorable recommendation. He stated that most property owners have not seen the draft language and if this were a developer bringing this forward and these changes were made on the floor without any community input there would be a lot of opposition. He stated that this petition is not ready to move this forward. This is not a good process to amend on the floor.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is the original petition and has been the rational from the beginning. Mayor McGovern stated his concern that property owners in Harvard Square were not asked if this would work. He stated that he wants more housing in Harvard Square but this needs more time. Councillor Carlone stated that this is key to making Harvard Square more vibrant. Mayor McGovern stated that the best thing for Harvard Square is to get more people in Harvard Square and more living in Harvard Square. Councillor Carlone stated that this concept has been in the original petition since September.

Vice Mayor Devereux likes the suggestion; 20% more housing is desirable in Harvard Square. She stated that working with the developers in Central Square was helpful but there is a different dynamic in Central Square compared to Harvard Square. She stated that Central Square landlords and businesses were likely more cognizant that an intervention was needed. She stated that the major property owners in Harvard Square do not think there is a need for intervention because the property values are high. She stated that if housing is not required within the existing height limitation we could have this conversation. This could impact the theater project. She wanted to delay this portion of when it takes effect or find a work around. This is a much-needed project and is beneficial to get going now rather than later.

Councillor Mallon stated that there are two versions in front of the committee: the one dated Jan 24, 2018 and the original petition dated Sept 28, 2017. In the Jan 24, 2018 version the section is stricken. Is the amendment to insert the language from the Sept 28, 2017 version back in. Councillor Carlone explained that it was taken out because of the question about building heights. He stated that he was suggesting that it could be done as it was done in Central Square as a percentage. Councillor Mallon noted that the Planning Board wanted further study on this.

Mr. Roberts stated the Planning Board was supportive of using mechanics to try to incentivize housing developments in Harvard Square and was unsure if this was the approach that would achieve this and wanted this to be studied further for alternatives and what might be more effective. Councillor Mallon asked how many existing buildings would be non-conforming if this were passed and what is the impact to the property owners when they change ownership or do construction. She asked if this requires further study. Councillor Carlone said it would concern new construction from this date forward only. Mr. Roberts stated that he does not know how many buildings would become non-conforming. He explained that any existing building that is over sixty feet in height that contains non-residential use above this height would become non-conformity. He stated that the way non-conformity works in zoning is that building that were legally constructed or uses that were legally established that were conforming at the time they were established can remain in that form even if the zoning is changed. He stated that it may be complicated if there is a change of use or if there was an alteration must be brought into greater conformity with zoning. Councillor Mallon stated that the property owners need to be brought into the conversation to discuss the non-conformity issue.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the amendment was to remove the language and if the amendment is approved the committee can discuss alternative ways to incentivize housing. No action was taken on his amendment.

Councillor Kelley supporting limiting to sixty feet. He stated that he would stop after the first sentence. What happens if this is moved forward without this language. Councillor Carlone stated that there would be no influence on the new buildings. Much of what was proposed in the petition follows basic urban design policies. He proposes making housing a percentage above the retail floor to avoid a problem. There is new housing in Harvard Square now. He noted that all the things that the City wants to do is tied into land use. He stated that all the great public places having housing with commercial and retail.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that the trend is places like Assembly Square, Watertown is to add housing. She stated that having some residential would improve the square. She stated that more foot traffic is needed. She stated that she supported Councillor Carlone’s percentage idea.

Mayor McGovern stated that he wants this to work; the right incentives need to put in to make it work. He asked could the City Council exempt the two proposed projects for 20% and when the ordinance was posted. If this were passed and the theatre project has not received their permit can they be exempt. Mayor McGovern stated that if the change was made about housing being built above commercial the theater project has office above and they are saying that that needs this in order to make it work. He does not want to kill the theatre project but legally can this be exempted.

Councillor Carlone this could be implemented and zoning would begin when projects were permitted. City Solicitor Glowa responded that under Chapter 40A when zoning is passed is when it comes effected. The zoning cannot become effective several months later like you can with Municipal Ordinances. Zoning is governed by state law. Any project that does not already have a building permit or a special permit prior to the first advertisement of a new zoning amendment is subject to the provisions of that advertised zoning if it passes. Mayor McGovern stated that if the is passed it becomes effective immediately and this could threaten the Harvard Square theatre project.

Councillor Carlone asked if there could be a clause in the zoning that states a public amenity could be viewed by the Planning Board as a positive addition that would replace the housing. City Solicitor Glowa suggested to proceed with caution with respect to this question. She stated that the zoning ordinance is a complex document and does not want to comment on hypotheticals not before her. To add new provisions at this time may change the fundamental character of the petition. Councillor Carlone asked how long does one wait for the theatre project to move forward. Mayor McGovern stated that if they have to do residential rather than commercial the theatre will be lost. Councillor Carlone noted that all there is a rendering.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked City Solicitor Glowa when the inclusionary zoning was passed a date in the future was set for the 20% to become effective and could the height limitation have a date in the future when it could take effect. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she would have to look at the language. There is zoning for the entire district. Councillor Carlone asked if it was preferred to pull this item and make it a separate zoning petition to discuss this at a later time. Ms. Farooq commented that there are a number of complex questions raised and time is needed to prioritize this so that it does not get delayed too far. Councillor Carlone asked should we pull this now and file this in the future and rethink this. Councillor Kelley agreed. The bigger question is do we go further with anything. Councillor Zondervan stated that if this was removed from petition would a new zoning petition be filed that would require housing in Harvard Square. Mr. Roberts stated that a zoning petition can be refiled if not negatively acted upon. If the City Council removes this portion of the petition and move forward with the rest of the petition would this be construed a negative action - this needs to be considered. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she does not agreed with Mr. Roberts’ legal analysis and recommendation. She stated that she does not feel comfortable answering this legal question because it is a difficult question to answer whether this constitutes negative action. She further stated that if unfavorable action is taken this issue could not be submitted for two years. She stated that if a petition were filed with the City Clerk on the same issue it would be up to the City Solicitor to determine whether this is a repetitive petition. This depends on the language, the intent, impact, how it fits in with the zoning ordinance and what was the action that took place with respect to the previous language that is being compared to the new language. Mayor McGovern asked could this be seen as unfavorable action. What if the petition remained in committee and this piece is pulled out. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she needed to review the law on repetitive petition.

Mayor McGovern had confidence that Councillor Carlone would discuss this with the parties concerned to craft something that would work. Councillor Carlone stated that based on what he has heard all City squares should increase housing. City Solicitor Glowa recommended that the committee votes to move the provision 20.54.2 (b) as included in the original petition filed on Sept 28, 2017 forward to the City Council without recommendation and the City Clerk could advertise passage to second pursuant to Chapter 40A. This would give her time to come back to the City Council with an analysis and advice on what it might mean it if were voted up or down. This would give time to provide legal advice to the City Council.

Mayor McGovern asked what if this petition stayed in committee. City Solicitor Glowa stated that in terms of process the petition before the committee was filed on Sept 28, 2017 could be referred back to the City Council without a recommendation or could be kept in committee and forward and it would provide additional time for the issues raised.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked the City Solicitor to explain the process if the petition were to be refiled. City Solicitor Glowa stated that if the petition expires with no action being taken by the City Council it could be refiled.

Councillor Carlone moved that no changes be made to the building height limitations.

Councillor Carlone moved to the Parking and Loading Requirement 20.54.4.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the January document, which included the Planning Board recommendations does have changes regarding parking. He stated that there is a provision stating that the City of Cambridge publish an annual report stating the amounts assessed, collected and spent for the year together with the ending balance count. He stated that he likes this language.

At this time Vice Mayor Devereux stated that her ability to make sense is diminishing rapidly. She stated that we need to leave this in committee and refile. Mayor McGovern agreed with Vice Mayor Devereux. This needs more work. She asked if this can be passed and refile the petition. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she could not answer this.

Vice Mayor Devereux and Mayor McGovern stated we have done all we can.

Vice Mayor Devereux supported this petition wants this go to the full City Council but this is putting the City Council at a disadvantage.

Vice Mayor Devereux made a motion to leave it in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote of eight members.

Councillor Carlone stated that great ideas and concept have been discussed and need to be repackaged and do more research with property owners.

Mayor McGovern offered to use his office for working on this.

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

Communication from Thomas J. Lucey, Director of Government and Community Relations, Harvard University, transmitting comments regarding building height limitations, small store regulations and frontage limitations in the Kroon petition (ATTACHMENT M).

Communication from Charles Hinds in support of the Kroon petition (ATTACHMENT N).

Communication from Galluccio and Watson, LLP, 1498 Cambridge Street, transmitting an update on the 10 Church Street development project and the impact that the Kroon petition would have on the project (ATTACHMENT O).

Communication from Abra Berkowitz, 253 ½ Broadway, in support of the Kroon petition (ATTACHMENT P).

The following written protest to the Kroon petition were received:
Written protest received from Paula E. Turnbull, Manager of Alliara, LLC (ATTACHMENT Q).
Written protest received from Paula E. Turnbull, Manager of Belltree, LLC (ATTACHMENT R).
Written protest received from Paula E. Turnbull, Manager of Corliss, LLC (ATTACHMENT S).
Written protest received from Paula E. Turnbull, Manager of Kirche, LLC (ATTACHMENT T).
Written protest received from Paula E. Turnbull, Manager of Laurelwood, LLC (ATTACHMENT U).
Written protest received from Paula E. Turnbull, Manager of Mayhaw, LLC (ATTACHMENT V).
Written protest received from Paula E. Turnbull, Manager of Platin, LLC (ATTACHMENT W).
Written protest received from Paula E. Turnbull, Manager of Tamarillo, LLC (ATTACHMENT X).
Written protest received from Paula E. Turnbull, Manager of Tarragon, LLC (ATTACHMENT Y).
Written protest received from Paula E. Turnbull, Manager of Tartarian, LLC (ATTACHMENT Z).

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 10:07pm by Mayor McGovern.

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