5. Wishing Ken Reeves a Happy Birthday.   Councillor Toomey

R-5     Feb 13, 2017
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that Ken Reeves celebrated his birthday on Feb 8, 2017; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record wishing Ken Reeves a very Happy Birthday; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Ken Reeves on behalf of the entire City Council.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Feb 13, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The health of our urban trees and canopy continues to be threatened by the drought conditions that the region has been experiencing; and
WHEREAS: Street trees offer significant protection against the adverse impacts of climate change, but are also at risk from increasingly frequent and intense weather events, including droughts, high temperatures, and damaging storms; and
WHEREAS: Though efforts have been taken by the City to increase the frequency of tree watering, to plant trees that can withstand the stress of climate change in an urban setting, and to increase public awareness about tree care and stewardship, more aggressive efforts are needed; and
WHEREAS: An online petition has come to the City Council and the Department of Public Works, accompanied by over 100 signatures, to form a Tree Task Force to support the Department of Public Works in their efforts to better protect street trees; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Department of Public Works, the City Arborist, and any other appropriate City department to establish a Tree Task Force to better protect the urban forest and canopy; and be it further
ORDERED: That this Tree Task Force be comprised in such a way as to reflect the City’s diverse socio-economic, cultural and ethnic communities.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the Council on this in a timely manner.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Jan 12 beginning at 2:31pm in the Ackermann Room to review City Ordinance 12.08.010 regarding sandwich board and A-frame signs.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Devereux, Chair; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Cheung; Councillor Mazen; Councillor Kelley; Nora Bent; Dave Mattei; Jason Alves; Naseem Makiya; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department (ISD); Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner, Department of Public Works (DPW); Bill Dwyer, Superintendent of Streets and Sidewalks; Robert Linke, Permit Coordinator; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director; Christina DiLisio, Community Development Department; Mary Hart, Chief Information Officer; Eric Belford, Paul Creedon, Information Technology Department (ITD); Marybeth Cosgrove, Operations Manager, City Clerk’s Office; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present was Robert Winters, Carol O’Hare and John Hawkinson.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and stated that City Council has spent considerable time discussing sidewalk signs during this past term. She provided the Committee with an agenda for the hearing (Attachment A) and stated that four communications were submitted to the Committee for inclusion in the Committee Report (Attachments B-E).

Marybeth Cosgrove gave summary of the process that applicants used to get sign permits before EnerGov became the application system.

Mr. O’Riordan stated that the way that the EnerGov system operates is in conflict with the ordinance. He provided the Committee with a map and location list of permitted A-frame signs in the city (Attachment F) and gave overview of the Sidewalk Business Use Permit Process via PowerPoint presentation (Attachment G).

Councillor Devereux asked if it is possible to turn the map of permitted A-frame signs into a GIS map. Mr. O’Riordan stated that it is doable and stated that he will research the level of effort to accommodate this request.

Councillor Devereux asked if there is a bond requirement. Ms. Cosgrove responded in the affirmative and added that bonds are also required for awnings and banners. Councillor Devereux stated that the City Council is currently the granting authority. Mr. O’Riordan stated that it is appropriate for DPW to have a bigger role in the process. He stated that he is unsure if the present ordinance provides for this.

Councillor Devereux stated that the application form is on-line but she was not able to find it. Mr. Linke stated that every entity must apply via the on-line application. Councillor Devereux asked if this application is solely dedicated to sandwich board signs. Mr. Linke responded that the application is used for sandwich board signs and tables and chairs on the public way. Councillor Devereux asked if the City allows people to advertise tobacco and alcohol on sidewalk signs. Mr. O’Riordan responded in the negative.

Lisa Hemmerle stated that from a small business standpoint, sandwich board signs offer an inexpensive mechanism for small businesses to market their goods. She stated that this is a benefit to small business owners in neighborhoods such as Harvard Square, who have businesses located above the ground floor with limited visibility from the public way. Councillor Mazen stated that he feels that there are approximately four times more signs on the sidewalks than what is listed on the map. Mr. O’Riordan disagreed, stating that during the holiday period, fewer than those permitted were in place. Mr. Dwyer added that sometimes signs are included in the outside seating permit.

Stuart Dash stated that CDD works with DPW and the Economic Development Department from an urban design point of view to balance clutter on street as well as to watch what the streetscape looks like. He stated that they look at signs from a design point of view as well.

Mr. Singanayagam stated that the Inspections Services Department is only involved in permitting signs that are attached to buildings and not sandwich board signs.

Councillor Cheung said that he sees significant clustering of signs, which could add to the perception that there are more signs than reported by DPW. He questioned if the benefit of a sandwich board signs diminishes if there are too many located on a sidewalk. He stated that in general, he is more supportive of allowing these signs if they support local businesses. He stated that Capital One and Bank of America don’t need as much advertising support as the small businesses do. He stated that he would like to have sandwich board signs available only to locally-owned businesses and not larger stores.

Councillor Devereux asked if it was legal to restrict the content of the message on sandwich board signs.

Mr. Goldberg responded that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment but the general rule is that you can have regulations that are “content neutral” as long as it furthers a governmental interest. He said that this is the legal test in a nutshell. He stated that you cannot restrict the content of the message. Councillor Cheung stated that his governmental interest is supporting the local economy. Mr. Goldberg stated that if a regulation furthers that interest, it could be enough.

Councillor Carlone stated that a new business does often need a sign. He stated that these signs can be beneficial for a business if they are promoting a special menu or sale but other than that he does not think that anyone reads these signs and that they are clutter. He noted that he walked the streets with a blind man and the #1 issue that this man has when maneuvering around the city is sandwich board signs. Councillor Carlone explained that this man does not know where a sandwich board sign will be located on any given day. Councillor Carlone stated that he feels that after a year or two in business, an owner should be required to put up a blade sign instead of a sandwich board sign. He stated that once there is a permitted sign with a permitted connection, the next tenant has to pay for the sign without the process. He stated that it is almost impossible for a person walking with a child or bags to maneuver on JFK Street. He stated that he firmly thinks city sidewalks are the key to making a place desirable and where one wants to shop. He stated that these signs are not a necessity. He stated that the proliferation of signs is out of control and will get worse if the City does not cut back. He stated that he feels that there are only a few signs in the City that really work and they tend to be the ones with “Today’s Luncheon Special,” or similar changing messages listed on them. He stated that he feels that nobody in the streets see these signs and the stores would be better served with signs above the storefront.

Ms. Hemmerle stated that she is a proponent of blade signs for auto traffic and that marketing on sandwich board signs are positive for pedestrian and bike traffic, as they are easier to see. Councillor Cheung said that the City should think about limiting the time period for a sandwich board display. Mr. O’Riordan stated that they could potentially be banned during the winter months due to snow and wind events.

Councillor Mazen stated that the more we regulate, the more difficult to enforce. He said that the City should think about broad sweeping regulations rather than particulars. He said that in terms of Economic Development, there must be a win/win situation. He said that he thinks the denser areas are also the areas in desperate need of community conversations and other things that may or may not supplant A-frame signs. He stated that local advertising on digital message boards could be helpful. Councillor Devereux stated that at a recent East Cambridge Business Association meeting, City Council members were told that there are many regulations in place in Cambridge that make it hard for small businesses to operate.

She said that she is sensitive to what Ms. Hemmerle is saying. Councillor Devereux added that she does believe there are more than 57 sandwich board signs currently.

Councillor Kelley stated that he likes the sandwich board sign in front of the Central Square Florist that is interactive with the public. He stated that these signs have a role to play in a vibrant community. He noted that he has no idea what the standards of the application are. He stated that it would beneficial for the City Council to receive applications that can be clearly understood as he is concerned about the quality of the applications that appear before the City Council.

Mr. O’Riordan stated that they have been trying to have people provide reasonable photos and plans of their proposal. He stated that DPW does not have the authority to deny any application. Councillor Kelley stated that when a sign application comes before the City Council it has been approved by City departments. He stated that since the City Council has the authority to approve a sign, he would like to be able to understand what it is that is being approved by being presented with a clear and complete application. Mr. O’Riordan stated that DWP has tried to ensure that there are reasonable images associated with an application. Councillor Carlone asked about the requirement of 18 inches. Mr. O’Riordan stated that a sign can start at the 18th inch but they cannot occupy an amount of space that will limit pedestrian access to 4 feet.

Councillor Carlone added his concern regarding the quality of pictures or drawings and information included in the sign applications that have been problematic when being reviewed by the City Council.

Mr. O’Riordan agreed that these applications can be more precise.

Councillor Kelley stated that he would have no problem with DPW having permitting authority for these signs but added that as a City Councillor, he would like the ability to go back and revisit any signs if an issue arises. He stated that the transferring of this authority could be done by regulation, not by ordinance. Mr. O’Riordan responded that if such a change is done by regulation, the ordinance would need to reflect that.

Councillor Carlone stated his belief that clear space should be 6 feet on heavily pedestrian- traveled streets. Mr. O’Riordan stated that he is happy to forward such a proposal to the City Council.

Councillor Kelley stated that A-frame signs add some level of interest to the streetscape that makes it a place where people want to walk. He stated that is important to be careful about locations and appropriateness. He stated that he would like any proposed ordinance to give the City Council the ability to rescind a sign if deemed necessary. Mr. O’Riordan stated that if DPW has permitting authority, this can be done. Councillor Kelley emphasized that he would like to give permitting authority to DPW.

Councillor Mazen stated that the tradeoff of A-frame signs is that when it is located on a narrow way, the businesses are being benefitted by the certainty that someone has to avoid the sign. He stated that many people are not bothered by this but many are. He stated that when the issue of signs is revisited, he would like to see the breakdown and what is the value of the tradeoff such as monetarily or socially.

Councillor Cheung asked Ms. Hemmerle how many patrons will go into business because of a sign. Ms. Hemmerle stated that such information has not been surveyed.

Councillor Devereux suggested that the City require a whiteboard or chalkboard sandwich board sign surface so that a merchant would be required to update the message of the sign regularly, such as advertising daily specials. She said that this would force creativity.

Councillor Kelley asked if it is the desire of the Committee to create a regulation that would allow DPW to be the regulating authority while also allowing for the City Council to revisit and make necessary adjustments if needed. Councillor Devereux stated that it makes sense for limiting a sandwich board sign to one per store. She stated that she feels that Mr. O’Riordan’s stated dimensions of signs is big. She suggested adding a category “Sidewalk Obstruction” to Commonwealth Connect.

Councillor Devereux opened public comment.

Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that she is happy for this hearing. She stated that she is tired of trying to tame signs. She stated that she has a long investment in researching about signs and that she wants them to be fixed. She stated that these signs are in public ways and that she believes there are too many. She volunteered to work with CDD and DPW to regularize this so the City Council does not have this task on its hands. She stated that this is a topic that is inconsequential for the City Council to spend time on. She stated that she would like to regulate signs on the basis of content if it is constitutionally possible. She stated that it is impermissible as far as she knows. She stated that there could be other ways to regulate content. She stated that zoning laws on private property vs. public property is not overly rigorous. She said that it is ironic that a sign in the public way that obstructs public passage is permitted but that signs on private property are rigorously regulated is absurd. She said that if the Committee is going to go back to the City Council to change the permit fee and bonding requirement, why not go back and enact more rigorous regulations like Portland, Oregon or Beverly, MA. She stated that finding the forms that relate to the signs is overly complicated. She stated that she had to search for attachments with the help of City staff.

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, stated that he is in support of urban clutter. He said that he removed three-month old posters on Massachusetts Avenue and the irony is that regulatory signs, about where and when you can park is the single-most cluttered collection of signs. He said that he likes urban clutter and likes to see racks of clothing, the display of hardware store wares and dining on the public way. He said that A-frame signs can be fun and interesting but agrees that static signs are not interesting. He stated that he thinks that this is an area whereby the City Council sets good standards and is then regulated by DPW or another appropriate agency. He stated that the permitting and enforcement of signs should not be the responsibility of the City Council. He stated that the fees should not be used to make money. He stated that there will be some streets in which all A-framed signs should be prohibited. He said that these signs are what makes cities fun and interesting.

John Hawkinson, 84 Massachusetts Avenue, has concerns. He stated that he is concerned about the City Council’s discretion and the ability to decide based on what is on the sign. He stated that in light of Reed vs. the Town of Gilbert, it is shaky. He stated that beyond what DPW submits to the City Council, what is submitted electronically is not what appears in the City Council packet. He stated that the fine detail is unreadable. He noted that he reviews these applications at the Inspectional Services Department in advance of the City Council meeting. He stated that as it relates to regulatory language, DPW has more discretion than they realize. He stated that DPW has the ability to promulgate standards. He stated that rewriting the ordinance is probably unnecessary. He stated that an item could be placed on City Manager Agenda in order to rescind a sign. He stated that the language used sometimes seems to fly in the face of what is seen in the package. He stated that sometimes people wonder about this language. He said that he has seen A-frame signs that reference tobacco and vaping. He noted that the open data portal has sidewalk obstructions but not sidewalk business use permits. He said if these were added, they could be mapped. He asked if notice is sent to permitters that their sign is expiring. Mr. Linke responded in the negative.

Councillor Devereux made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Department of Public Works to report back to the City Council on the following:

• Review City Ordinance 12.08.010 Encroachments onto streets-Permit Required-Fee-Exception and make suggestions for proposed changes;
• Inform the Council on what action is necessary to grant DPW the authority to regulate sandwich board signs;
• Improve the accessibility and simplicity of the application form and require applicants to provide an email address to ensure that they can be reminded to renew their permit;
• Add a category to Commonwealth Connect allowing people to report sidewalk obstructions, including sandwich board signs;
• Review the dimensions of signs allowed, and consider only permitting signs of a smaller size on narrow sidewalks;
• Review bonding procedures;
• Review the fee charged for sandwich board sign permits;
• Consider the feasibility of requiring a seal of approval be included on any permitted sandwich board sign to show that it has a valid permit;
• Consider the feasibility of requiring or encouraging businesses to have a sign that is updated regularly with changing information, instead of simply a static message.

The motion passed.

Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 4:01pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Thurs, Feb 2, 2017, beginning at 3:12pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to conduct an additional public hearing to discuss the Central Square Restoration Zoning petition (ATTACHMENT A available on line only).

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

Also present were Greg Heidelberger, 188 Prospect Street; Jesse Kanson-Benanav, 26 Willow Street; Bob Woodbury, 133 River Street; Brad Moulton, 124 Amory Street; Marilee Myers, 10 Dana Street; Evan Fields, 15 Richdale Avenue; Said Abuzahra; John Hixon, 41 Norris Street; Amy Witherbee, 62 Tremont Street; Owen Kenneth, 472 Massachusetts Avenue; Michael Monestine, 20 Chestnut Street; Michael Simon, Central Property, LLC; Jeff Byrnes, 486 Green Street; Zachary Baum, 3 Franklin Place; Daniels Sheffield, 120D Auburn Street; Susan Fleischmann, 5 St. Mary's Road; Alexander Hagle, 5 Centre Street; Mark Boyes-Watson; Christopher Gully, 614 Massachusetts Avenue; Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Dan Anderson, 36 Walker Street; Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; David Day, 614 Massachusetts Avenue; Sheila Chadian, 58 Hinckley Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; Patrick Barrett, 41 Pleasant Street; Eugenia Schraa Huh, 259 Washington Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; and Robert Winters, 366 Broadway.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the format. He stated that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He stated that the petitioners would be heard first and the City staff will present new information on the petition. He noted that the City Council will ask clarifying questions. Public comment will be heard next. He stated that the committee seeks a resolution to move the petition forward. He stated that the petitioners sought out many for their point of view and refined the petition. He stated that many communication have been received.

There are two documents from Community Development, one that contained a legal opinion from the City Solicitor on Formula Business and the most recent is a massing study that showed how new buildings will fit into the site (ATTACHMENT B available on line only). He stated that on Jan 30, 2017 the City Council received other requested information that addressed issues that were contained in Policy Order # 6 of Dec 19, 2016 (ATTACHMENT C available on line only). He noted that an overview will be given on this material. This affects the whole square and positive refinements have been proposed. He stated that the Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, Councillors Carlone and Cheung, have made subtle changes to the existing petition (ATTACHMENT D). The goal is that these proposed points and modifications will then be incorporated into a petition with input from Community Development and the Law Department and this will be before the City Council. He requested the petitioner to come forward.

Patrick Barrett gave a brief overview on the petition. He stated that since the Dec 1, 2016 Ordinance Committee hearing he has done extensive outreach to the community and the petition has been refined and consensus has been reached. A communication was sent to the City Council with recommended changes that were agreed upon (ATTACHMENT E-1 AND E-2).

The Cambridge Residents Alliance (CResA) and others were concerned with the FAR of 4.0 extending beyond the Business B district. This concern comports with the C2 map and follows the recommendations of the Community Development Department. He stated that the maximum of a 4.0 FAR relates only to the BB District that includes a residential component.

Mr. Barrett stated that in reference to proposed roof top spaces, Ms. O'Hare has been assisting in drafting language that has been submitted. A possible amendment includes guidelines and directions for the Planning Board to consider items such as noise, light, nuisance and other anticipated effects on neighborhoods. He stated that he has submitted language that is a stronger version than what was originally submitted and he stated that he agrees with Ms. O'Hare. He stated that regarding bars and entertainment establishments on side streets there was a concern expressed by neighborhood groups including the CResA relating to the extension of bars in the overlay and the petitioners are requesting to redact the side street beyond the BB district in the overlay. He stated that this also comports to C2 and the recommendations of Community Development Department.

The Community Development Department memorandum on parking and loading requirements combined the recommendations of C2 along with the annual parking fee structure that was included in the petition. He recommended that the CDD guidelines and language be followed. The Cambridge Residents Alliance and the neighborhood groups agree with this.

Mr. Barrett stated that there are many things in this petition that are good for Central Square. He felt strongly that the fast food cap needs to go and in its place it was recommended a Formula Business ordinance. He asked the City Council to redact this portion from the petition and look at this as a separate issue and draft something over the next two-three months that the City Solicitor would support and that would be lawful. This issue is important to other business associations who are looking at Central Square as the example. This included reduction of banks and the removal of the fast food cap; both which are vital to Central Square.

Patrick Barrett stated that virtually all Central Square actors have come to a strong agreement and his presented amendments presented today make a stronger, better petition, which also reflects the hard work of city staff. He stated that he read through the Councillor Carlone/Councillor Cheung proposed amendments. He stated that the petitioners recommend that Section 4 be stricken because the FAR would only be for the BB district. He stated his issue with requiring one half of the calculated gross floor area being residential hotel is with complications with existing structures. He stated that there will be times that an existing building will be over 2.0 or 2.75 with commercial uses to remain and this would make it a nonconforming structure. He wanted to make things conforming.

Councillor Carlone stated that in any new zoning housing should be emphasized as per City policy to maximize residential production. Therefore, additional FAR (up to the proposed 4.0) is being proposed in any development, more than one half of the project square footage should be residential. A variance should not be required if, as Mr. Barrett as discussed, a proposed project incorporates an existing commercial building with more than a 2.0 FAR and desires to build new housing up to the remaining FAR of 4.0, it should be a special permit process overseen by the Planning Board to help facilitate the process.

Mr. Barrett stated that Section 5, residential balconies, from the Carlone/Cheung recommendations is a valid point and should be adopted. He stated that Section # 6 has been changed by him and Ms. O'Hare to include the recommendation. The Ground Floor exemption for retail spaces, Section # 7, Mr. Barrett did not agree. He explained that this provision was taken from the Mass + Main petition. It is included in this district to be more uniform. He stated that if a builder or developer were to use this provision any change to the space moving forward would be a variance. The law would already create the restriction sought. He does not disagree with the principal but felt it would be better enforced with a variance. Councillor Carlone noted that the City Solicitor would advise on this.

Mr. Barrett discussed the waiver setback requirements. He stated that 20.304.4 already exists in the zoning ordinance. If we want to amend this he would leave this to the City Council. All agree that it is time to do something in Central Square. Councillor Carlone stated that to many sidewalks on the side streets in Central Square are very and if there is an opportunity in the future to setback a building to give more space for the sidewalk in a very dense urban setting they should be met. This should be general city policy from a public safety point-of-view.

Councillor Carlone invited the City staff to come forward.

Mr. Roberts stated that Community Development Department submitted a report on Jan 30, 2017 and it contained the Planning Board recommendations. The Planning Board supported adoption of the petition with two modifications: to add lighting as a criteria for FAR exemption review of rooftop open spaces and parking/loading requirements. The Planning Board was supportive in concept but did feel that recommendations should follow the Central Square Study Parking Quantities. The report addresses the issues raised in Policy Order #6 of Dec 19, 2016. He noted that there were legal questions and the City Solicitor will address any issues raised. There was discussion about the overall planning for Central Square, the overall goals of the study. It was noted by the Planning Board that many of the provisions of this petition follow the recommendations of the Central Square Study in terms of the goals and development objectives and standards. He stated that height was approached differently in this petition. He stated that there non-zoning matters described in the Central Square study, such as the future use of the municipal parking lots in Central Square. The study looked at this issue but did not come to any specific conclusions. There was a list of considerations that could be thought about in looking at this issue. Since the completion of the plan this has been discussed at the City Council and will continue to be reviewed by Community Development.

Mr. Roberts spoke about the transportation recommendation to the Central Square Study of which some are being implemented and some are in the planning stages. He stated that the report also addresses laboratory zoning. He stated that laboratory use and technical office uses have been broadly looked at and while looking at different ways of classifying uses there is a different standard for laboratory uses. This could be on a future planning agenda. He stated that it would not be appropriate to insert this in this petition as it was not in the original scope of the petition to look at these types of changes. Mr. Roberts stated that the issues raised about Formula Business were legal issues. He noted that the City Solicitor provided a legal opinion on this. He stated that information on the in lieu of parking fee, which is proposed to be included in Central Square as it is in Harvard Square, was included. There have not been many projects that have sought this type of relief in lieu of payment. A review revealed that a total of $1.3 million has been raised through this program over a twenty year period. This funding has been used for historic preservation as well as improvements to streetscapes and sidewalks.

A chart was provided as requested comparing the current and proposed zoning provisions and comparing to what is in Harvard Square Overlay for development standards. Also provided was a summary of the design guidelines that were created as part of the Central Square planning process. In most cases these guidelines would be applicable with the petition that is before the City Council. There are areas where the guideline have a variation in height with what is being proposed while retaining the eighty feet. The variation in height may not be a guideline applicable if development played out under what is being proposed.

Mr. Roberts stated that the City Council requested that Community Development Department look at how the zoning provisions may play out and to provide illustration. He presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled Central Square Analysis done by the consultant, Over, Under (ATTACHMENT F). This is a baseline analysis based on a few assumptions and reviewed a broad set of standards. This is not a full urban design study. He stated that this gives an expectation based on reasonable assumptions. He stated that if the FAR were raised to 4.0 in the district it would result in the potential for a total FAR of 5.2 considering the Inclusionary Housing 30% bonus for a 100% residential project. The 80-foot maximum height would be retained. The study assumed residential was laid out with a standard double loaded corridor with residential units on both sides with a hallway in the center. These buildings would be 65-75 feet deep. Parking will be below the ground.

He showed graphic examples of the following alternatives. Scheme One would have frontage on Massachusetts Avenue and a side street and ground floor retail is assumed. The plan showed a seven story building of about 75 feet that utilizes the full size of the lot. The FAR is 5.2 and includes the step back provision at upper floors, with a required waiver of the yard setback as provided for in the Overlay District. He discussed the Scheme 1A Massing. It includes the same density and is a seven story building which is flush with the street line. Mr. Roberts explained that once a building goes beyond seventy feet there is a set of Building Code (Fire Safety) Requirements, which in essence makes buildings above 70 feet more expensive to build.

There is a high likelihood that buildings will max out at six stories and seventy feet. He stated that the additional height may allow for recreational space on the rooftop of the building. This is provided in the proposed zoning.

Mr. Roberts next explained an infill lot within the Business B district. The lot is smaller and not a corner lot, with retail and a small lobby. It has a required setback in the rear. This studied development fills the lot from one side to the other, like most building in Central Square. It is a seven story building with a step back to achieve the FAR up to the limit.

He further stated that the consultant was asked to look at an end lot in Business A. The lot with a height limit of forty-five feet so only a four story building would be achieved. The building would be constrained by the height more than the FAR and the FAR would not have any impact on what can be developed on the lot.

Councillor Kelley complained that there was a forest of paper on his desk about this proposal. He wanted the original petition with the modifications added. Councillor Carlone explained that the modifications are being discussed at this hearing. He noted that modification were received today from the petitioner. The Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee discussed recommendations, which are in the package and all are active files for this discussion.

Councillor Kelley stated that there are no clear criteria for deciding what type of roof tops would be allowed under what conditions. He further stated that the special permit authority is being given to the Planning Board and there is leeway within the permitting authority. He did not see any provisions for lighting or roof tops in the petition. Councillor Carlone responded that this is valid and will be worked on separately. Councillor Carlone noted that the lab discussion is not pertinent to this petition.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that lab will be separated out but this is an important conversation to have. He asked who will do the lab work. Ms. Farooq suggested in the memo that there is some analysis on this topic from the Commercial Land Use Classification Study commissioned by the Community Development Department in 2015. This is a city-wide issue and should be addressed in the Envision process underway and that there will be recommendation next year.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked how this zoning petition impacts the city owned lots on Bishop Allen Drive. Ms. Farooq responded that if this were adopted the bulk of lots are in Business B District and would increase the amount of residential development capacity on the lots. This is beneficial to maximize the number of affordable units. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that this does not change the height for owners. The Vice Mayor then asked what in this zoning will be an incentive to encourage property owners to build housing on top of their building? Ms. Farooq stated that if adopted there would be more development potential with a potentially more robust revenue stream. This would increase the development potential and this would create more of an incentive to redevelop.

Councillor Carlone commented on the petition’s overall goal to promote Central Square’s redevelopment after many years of stagnation. He stated a “verbal” plan can be interpreted in as many ways as there are readers of the plan. If the City, landowners and neighbors are serious in maximizing the potential of Central Square, it requires developing a true urban design plan, which incorporates the City’s existing “verbal” plan goals and rationale and translates it into a well-studied “physical” plan block by block. This “physical” plan literally maximizes the potential of each existing building and site taking into consideration all issues in a balanced, forward-looking manner. A public process during which key elements of the urban design plan leading up to the ideal plan would be presented and discussed with all interested parties and modified as needed. In essence, this real plan would balance all issues and maximize the public benefits for all citizens.

Councillor Carlone continued by stating that nothing major happens in redeveloping a significant part of a City without such a detailed “physical” plan. With such an approved plan in hand, the City needs to develop a strategy for implementation of related public improvements. This is the proven way to encourage new, private interest and investment. Investors and citizens need a vision to believe in and trust that the City will follow through in the process.

Councillor Devereux stated that waiting for Envision will be a long wait for those concerned with laboratories impacting residential neighborhoods in the near future. Is there anything that can be done in the interim, such as not allowing lab buildings in Central Square with large ventilation stacks? Ms. Farooq responded that this could be reviewed. She stated that Community Development Department takes priority guidance from the City Council and the City Manager. If this was prioritized this could be added to the work plan and could be put on a faster track.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that there may be Building Code issues. She stated that she believed that HVAC facilities are exempt from certain zoning requirement. She stated that she was not sure that these could be regulated by zoning or restricted altogether. Councillor Carlone stated there is a strong difference between general office use and many laboratory uses, and this must be considered from a zoning point-of-view.

Councillor Devereux also stated that she supported the Formula Business. This will not prohibit banks in Central Square. She added that in New York banks are limited on corners. Councillor Carlone stated that some banks may be restricted; this needs more research.

Councillor Cheung stated that in North Massachusetts Avenue there was a limitation on the frontage that a bank could have to encourage more diverse retail. There are three great local banks. He wanted to limit the overall number of banks. He wanted to limit the amount of large chain banks coming into the City through the Formula Business. Mr. Roberts stated that there are provisions in the petition to limit bank frontage to not occupy 25 feet of frontage facing Massachusetts Avenue or Main Street and occupy no more that 30% of the lots aggregate building frontage. This is a recommendation in the Central Square study and is included in this petition.

Councillor Devereux asked if there is an actual requirement for ground floor retail in the petition. Mr. Roberts responded that in the existing text of the Central Square Overlay district there are provisions for active ground floor retail. It strongly encourages ground floor retail. He stated that the most valuable use of ground floor in Central Square is retail.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 4:10pm.

Greg Heidelberger stated that the City is frustrated with the slow pace of positive change in the City. He stated that thanks to the petitioners the City Council has the opportunity for positive change. He stated that this should be moved forward.

Jesse Kanson-Benanav stated that Cambridge faces a serious housing crisis in Cambridge and across the region. The solution is to build more housing. He submitted a communication (ATTACHMENT G). This petition addresses creating more housing in transit rich Central Square. He stated that this creates 2000 more units of housing. He stated ABC supports the petition. He stated that from the beginning it was a compromise petition. He spoke about the concerns about height and FAR in areas beyond the Business B district. He was concerned about push back against height and FAR because these are tools that increase housing. He wanted a positive recommendation on the modified petition to the full City Council.

Bob Woodbury applauded the work and attention to detail by petitioners, staff and the City Council. He is heartened to see that this is going to cross finish line.

Brett Matthew supported the petition. He commented that all want to live, work and spend time in Central Square. He stated that to keep the area vibrant we need to meet the demand. He commented that when discussing housing the focus is on single developments across the City. He stated that the City also needs broader zoning reform in our neighborhoods. This petition provides this and is a first step to add more housing units.

Marilee Myers stated more housing is needed but some of the smaller details are important as well. She stated that height is an issue for her as well as design. Function and design are not mutually exclusive. She did not want to see Massachusetts Avenue lined just with glass buildings. If owners cannot afford good materials or talented architects, how will the City properly oversee the integration of designed projects? She asked is this not a National Historic Register District and what does all this new building do to this designation and how is this monitored. She stated that there are ways to get height with irregular mass and setbacks which would get more air, light and shadow. She asked is ground open space the same as deck open space. She did not want to see a horrible result without an overview of a strong urban design.

Evan Fields stated that he supported the petition. He urged the City Council to vote favorably on the petition. He stated that if people are moved closer to areas of interest, business and leisure results in moving few people to their job dramatically reduces traffic. He added that this petition would benefit not only Central Square but the broader area.

Said Abuzahra stated his support for the petition with an addition. There is a triangle at Prospect Street. He stated that this narrow strip looks suspicious to him. He alleged that this is spot zoning. He stated that when Cambridge hired a company years ago to recommend zoning in Central Square the final recommendation made by the company in 2013 the lot was included which was divided in half to add the other half and also to add l39 Bishop Allen Drive which is next to the lot. He wanted this half lot and 139 Bishop Allen Drive in the recommended zoning.

John Hixon supported the petition and the need for more affordable housing. He spoke about the homeless sleeping under bridges and on benches in Harvard Square. This petition needs to be moved forward.

Amy Witherbee spoke on behalf of Cambridge Local First. She stated that Cambridge Local First had supported the petition when filed and still supports the petition with the proposed changes. She focused her comments on the financial institution footage. She stated that this is slightly different from the Formula Business provision. She stated that the banks can stay with the Formula Business provisions. She explained that three of the founding members are banks. She wanted the financial footage to be left the way it is.

Ms. Witherbee stated that the Formula Business definition is already in place throughout the state and is used as a model in other states. She stated that there is a discussion about pulling out the Formula Business provision and doing more work on this so the City Solicitor will feel better about this provision. She stated that her organization is fine with this. She further stated that there are ways to reformulate this to continue to make Massachusetts a model with this zoning.

Michael Simons, Manager, Central Property Management, LLC, supported this petition; his tenants support this. He stated that more residential people are needed in the square. This is a great move forward.

Jeff Byrnes supported the petition and encouraged the City Council to move forward. This will enliven the square.

Susan Fleishmann served on the Central Square Advisory Committee which brought together people from very diverse backgrounds. She added that the process was collaborative. She stated that this petition was also collaborative and moving forward with the petition will be beneficial. The petition meets a lot of the goals of the Central Square Advisory report. She urged the City Council to move forward with this petition.

Mark Boyes Watson, 100 Pacific Street, stated that he is thrilled that this is moving forward. He stated that he is an advocate to do everything possible with zoning to increase housing production in the City so that the elderly, newcomers and current residents can be served. He wanted the petition to move forward.

Carol O'Hare suggested that lighting and noise be included as important criteria in determining appropriate rooftop spaces. There is no provisions that addresses rooftop noise and lighting. She stated that the noise ordinance is inadequate. There are no adequate standards on lighting except the low density residential areas. She stated that the proposed Municipal Light Ordinance as it now exists would not address the rooftop lighting on this building. She stated that approval of signage by the Planning Board is included. She stated that signage is important because there is a hotel involved and hotels do not have to comply with the law regarding signage. She stated that the Planning Board has an opportunity to review those components of roof top use.

Stephen Kaiser stated that he agreed with Councillor Kelley that there is confusion. This started with the original proposal and now different modifications are being proposed. It is hard to keep track of all of this. He stated that first there was the original petition. Now there is a letter from the petitioner and a new proposal from two City Councillors. He commented that it is the little thing that clarify things. He noted that the original petition did not have page numbers on it. The developer letter he has not seen and the City Council proposal has no names on it. Mr. Kaiser further stated that he welcomed the confusion because the process is open and there are new ideas. He spoke about just rezoning Business B and not the transition zone. He asked if there is a conflict about Mass + Main are. He replied yes and no. He explained that Mass + Main protected themselves by the words "notwithstanding." This gives Mass + Main the authority. If there is new zoning and it conflicts with Mass + Main they can say they run the show. He stated that the new proposal contains two "notwithstanding" comments. Both are stating they are the authority. He spoke about protecting existing historic buildings. He stated that the 3 examples that Community Development Department showed parking underground and he asked how parking is put underground a historical buildings and how does existing business remain in business with construction. He stated that the incentive for development for housing and under the existing FAR of 3.0 if housing it built the FAR is increased to 3.9. He stated that if the base zoning is increased to 4.0 the effect of the new zoning is 5.2. He stated this is the incentive - taking the FAR from 3.9 to 5.2. He stated that the implication of city owned lots is a good question because the C2 process did not identify what could be built should be built on the lots. He hopes that this is the end of rezoning Central Square.

David Day, a business owner, stated that he trains musicians. He holds a musical concert and brings musicians from all over the world and was pioneer in helping to establish the Cultural District in Harvard Square. He stated that he is in favor of this petition so more people can live here. He stated that businesses need customers and attendees to come to events. He stated that there are four people that want to move to Mass + Main. None have cars. The issue of traffic and parking is not a concern because people need transit and not a parking garage. He spoke about mitigating climate change is to build near transit and encourage people to take public transit.

Sheila Cadagen spoke about housing searches for this area and had to move to Boston. She moved to Hampshire Street until a fire in October 2013 and then moved to Somerville because she could not find apartments in Cambridge. She searched for an apartment - found one in Magoun Square. There is nothing available for housing in Cambridge. She stated that culture of the City will change if there is not more housing.

Lee Farris stated that Cambridge Residents Alliance has worked with Mr. Barrett and the Central Square Business Association and is pleased with the changes to the petition agreed to by the proponent. The density changes should only apply to Business B along Massachusetts Avenue. She urged the City Council to adopt the petition with the changes. She submitted a petition (ATTACHMENT H) request that the petition be limited to Business B. Regarding the parking she stated that parking should be reduced for residential uses only because the petition wants to encourage residential use. She wanted the petition to require between .5 to 7.5 spaces per residential unit and that non-residential parking minimums not be reduced. If a building is built smaller the FAR permits at 90% or less of the FAR then there is requirement for the in lieu of parking payment is required. She wanted this clarified. She stated that she wanted to prevent labs in Central Square. She was concerned that Envision needed to be finished before the question of labs can be addressed. She supported any agreement on light and noise that is agreed to. She stated that she was glad that there will be a memo coming from Community Development Department on the City owned lots. Her comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT H-1)

Nancy Ryan stated that she is grateful that the petitioner reached out to the CResA and engaged in exchanges that will provide critically needed housing while respecting the intimate relationship between the square and its abutting low-rise neighborhoods. While there are still differences there is significant agreement. She thanked the Sater family, George Metzger and Patrick Barrett for bringing the petition to the CResA in its earliest form and giving every opportunity to engage with the petitioners to look at this from both a neighborhood and business district perspective. She spoke about the height at fifty-five feet going to eighty feet with a special permit.

Eugenia Schraa Huh supported the petition and urged passage of the petition. This will impact the health, environment and economic equality. This cannot be watered down and enact something that makes a difference in housing, health and the environment.

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, thanked the petitioners and staff for the compromise. He stated that the one compromise that he wished would stay in or push hard to work on is the Formula Business portions. He wanted something that would work in Central Square and that would be legally defensible. This is needed for all the business districts in Cambridge and Cambridge can lead the way on this.

Public comment ended 4:54pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the process and trying to work this to completion. He agreed it is complicated but added that this was the correct process for getting a quality product.

Vice Mayor McGovern thanked all who worked on this for the compromise. He stated that the affordable housing is a priority. He stated that zoning in Central Square will incentivize owners building more housing. He spoke about people moving and living here.

Councillor Devereux acknowledged the collaboration. She agreed with more housing. She wanted to keep the Formula Business and wanted to try this in other areas.

Councillor Cheung spoke about Formula Businesses standing up to a challenge in court. He wanted the Formula Business to move forward even if not in this petition. This is a step in the right direction for Central Square. This is in line with C2.

Councillor Kelley stated that he has not problems with the suggested proposals, but looks forward to them being wrapped up in a final proposal. He further stated that if we are not having criteria for lighting and the roof decks then we are giving our trust to the Planning Board. He is good with this but we need to know what we are doing. He wanted to revisit parking. Parking can be lessened but 100% of the money saved will go to Central Square Improvement Fund and he is skeptical that no one will do this. He would prefer a 50/50 or a 75/25 split. He stated that the big buildings are nowhere near the .5 parking FAR. He is happy to move it on keep it here to get the final marked up version of the proposal and to explore the parking.

Councillor Toomey enthusiastically supported the petition. He supported moving this to full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

Councillor Carlone stated that he understood concerns raised from the public and City Councillors about the different forms of information coming in on the proposal from the petitioner, the Planning Board and from the Ordinance Committee. He explained that the Ordinance Committee Co-Chairs’ document he is referring to has amended text in red. He stated that he has discussed this with the petitioner. This version is a refinement. He suggested that the original petition be amended to include the modification of the Planning Board, the refinement submitted by Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung and the amendments offered by Mr. Barrett. Ms. Farooq stated that the new changes by the petitioner have not yet been processed by her department. She proposed taking all the documents and engage with the petitioners and the co-chairs of the Ordinance Committee to prepare a revised petition to be submitted back to the City Council for the Agenda for Feb 13, 2017. The City Council could pass the petition to a second reading at the meeting of Feb 13, 2017. Then it is ready for ordination for the Feb 27, 2017 where the petition could be amended before ordination.

Councillor Carlone wanted to keep the Formula Business portion of the petition if at all possible. He gave an overview of the Co-Chairs proposed changes. He stated that building a seventh floor is up to the developer. He stated that balconies should be 6 feet in size and the ideal terrace is eight feet back. He spoke of the waiver of setback requirements and his version added a narrow sidewalk restricts pedestrian movement on most side streets in the district and that minimal sidewalk width standards must be determined.

He asked whether or not the 90% parking paragraph has been removed. Mr. Roberts stated that 90 % for parking is in the petition. Councillor Carlone wanted clarity on this; he simply did not understand the rationale. Mr. Roberts stated that this is a provision that carries over to the Harvard Square Overlay District. The City Council could consider it be adjusted to a different figure if the FAR is at a lower percentage this could be set at a different level, or the provision could be removed and a waiver required in lieu of payment. In Harvard Square zoning the provision called for the in lieu of payment of 50% of the construction cost. This petition contains the full construction cost.

Councillor Carlone stated that in the Co-Chairs’ version it was added that the parking be below grade.

Councillor Carlone agreed that labs are a separate, future issue, and we do not want to wait for Envision. He stated that restricting labs to 20-25% of the City does not seem like a use restriction. He stated that an office and wet lab are entirely different uses with very different impacts. Regarding fast foods there are healthy and non-healthy fast foods and could this be defined in a more health-oriented way. Finally, the proposed Central Square Design Guidelines say virtually nothing about architecture and he wanted to work to be done on this.

Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the original Central Square Restoration Petition be amended to include the recommended changes by the Planning Board.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Councillor Toomey made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the original Central Square Restoration Petition, as modified by the Planning Board be further amended to include the amendments by the Ordinance Co-Chairs as outlined in ATTACHMENT D.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Vice Mayor McGovern made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the original Central Square Restoration Petition, as modified by the Planning Board and amended by the Ordinance Co-Chairs as outlined in Attachment D be further amendment to include amendments by the petitioner outlined in Attachment E-2.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

The following communication were received and made part of the report:

Communication from Emily Fletcher, 127 Thorndike Street, in support of the petition (ATTACHMENT I).

Communication from Andrea Nash and Peter Berry, 18 Worcester Street, stating that the petition should be revised to apply only to Business B zone along Massachusetts Avenue in the Central Square Overlay district, not change existing heights, prevent labs in Central Square near residential areas and should include lighting as a design aspect that may be restricted as a special permit (ATTACHMENT J).

Communication from Lynne Hall, supported the goals of the petition with changes that the petition should be revised to apply only to Business B zone along Massachusetts Avenue in the Central Square Overlay district, not change existing heights except for affordable housing (ATTACHMENT K).

Communication from Jacqueline King, 40 Essex Street, requesting that height limits, neighborhood edge, parking and labs be considered (ATTACHMENT L).

Communication from Richard Krushnic, in support of the Cambridge Residents Alliance position on the Central Square Restoration petition (ATTACHMENT M).

Communication from Jacquelyn Smith, 7 Ashburton Place in support of the Central Square Overlay district applying to only Business B zone along Massachusetts Avenue (ATTACHMENT N).

Communication from Nancy Ryan and Lee Farris, Executive Committee of the Cambridge Residents Alliance transmitting proposed changes to the Central Square Restoration petition (ATTACHMENT O).

Communication from Katie Carlone stating that the petition should be revised to apply only to Business B zone along Massachusetts Avenue in the Central Square Overlay district, not change existing heights, prevent labs in Central Square near residential areas and should include lighting as a design aspect that may be restricted as a special permit (ATTACHMENT P).

Communication from Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street, stating that the passage of this petition will go a long way toward helping to create a sustainable mixed use neighborhood where more people can walk, shop, live and work (ATTACHMENT Q).

Communication from Cary Eggerling supporting local business remaining in Central Square would be a sign that the City Council is moving in the right direction (ATTACHMENT R).

Communication from Judith Nathans in support of the Central Square petition (ATTACHMENT S).

Communication from Pam Matz requesting that height limits, neighborhood edge, parking and labs be considered (ATTACHMENT T)

Communication from Robinson Farrar in support of the Central Square petition (ATTACHMENT U).

Communication from Rosemary Booth and Jerry O'Leary, 303 Third Street, supported housing being added to Central Square only within the existing height limits unless all new housing is 100% affordable (ATTACHMENT V).

Communication fro Sam Valentine in support of the Central Square Restoration petition (ATTACHMENT W).

Communication from Jason Slavic, 35 Fairmont Avenue, in support of efforts to increase housing, especially affordable housing in Central Square as well as local and small businesses (ATTACHMENT X).

Communication from Lawrence Bluestone, 18 Centre Street, in support of the Central Square Restoration petition (ATTACHMENT Y).

Communication from Abraham Lateiner in support with the following changes: that the petition should be revised to apply only to Business B zone along Massachusetts Avenue, not change existing heights and that bar areas should be limited to Business B districts (ATTACHMENT Z).

Communication from Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street, in support of the Central Square Restoration Petition (ATTACHMENT AA).

Communication from Francesca Howe in support of the Central Square Restoration Petition (ATTACHMENT BB).

Communication from Alina Tomeh in support of the Central Square Restoration Petition (ATTACHMENT CC).

Communication from Sonali Duggal, 23 Murdock Street, in support of the Central Square Restoration Petition (ATTACHMENT DD).

Communication from Cindy Marsh in support of the Central Square Restoration Petition (ATTACHMENT EE).

Communication from Jean E. Jackson in support of the Central Square Restoration Petition with changes (ATTACHMENT FF).

Councillor Cheung moved that this matter be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation as amended. This motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance and participation.

The hearing adjourned at 5:28pm.

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