3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as a members of the Harvard Square Kiosk Working Group, effective Mar 27, 2017: Abra Berkowitz, Robyn Culbertson, Ankita Deshpande, Timothy Hyde, Janet Si-Ming Lee, Sarah Rosenkrantz, Daniel Andrew Schofield-Bodt, Kenneth Taylor, John DiGiovanni, Bertil JeanChronberg, Frank Kramer, Peter Kroon, Sohail Nasir, Abhishek Syal, Thomas Lucey and Mary Flynn
Placed on File

Mar 27, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointment of the following persons as a members of the Harvard Square Kiosk Working Group, effective Mar 27, 2017:

Abra Berkowitz - Abra Berkowitz has expertise in developing and operating educational retail centers and programs.

Robyn Culbertson - Robyn is the Executive Director of the Cambridge Office for Tourism, which operates the Visitor Information Booth in the plaza.

Ankita Deshpande - Ankita is a Biotech business development strategist at Genocea Biosciences. Ms. Deshpande draws inspiration from interactive and diverse community spaces.

Timothy Hyde - Timothy is an Assistant Professor for Architectural History at MIT; a Board Member at the Society of Architectural Historians and the Henderson Foundation, which provides grants for the arts in Boston.

Janet Si-Ming Lee - Janet Si-Ming Lee is a user experience designer and e-commerce strategist at McGraw-Hill Education. Ms. Lee is also the founder of the Wellesley-MIT-Harvard alumni network, which focuses on arts, entrepreneurship, and innovative marketing.

Sarah Rosenkrantz - Sarah is a former student at Harvard University and staff member at the Harvard Square Homeless Shelter. Ms. Rosenkrantz co-founded of Y2Y Harvard Square, a student-run homeless shelter.

Daniel Andrew Schofield-Bodt - Daniel is owner of Trademark Tours, a company operating tours out of the plaza; he also created the Utility Box Art Project in Harvard Square.

Kenneth Taylor - Kenneth is an architect with an expertise in master planning. He is chair of the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission.

John DiGiovanni - John is President of Trinity Property Management; Chair of the Harvard Square Business Association and the Harvard Square Advisory Committee.

Bertil Jean-Chronberg - Bertil is owner of Beat Brasserie in Harvard Square and a Board member of the Harvard Square Business Association.

Frank Kramer - Frank owned and operated the Harvard Square Book Store for over 40 years. Mr. Kramer is a founder of Cambridge Local First; member of the Harvard Square Advisory Committee; and member of the Cambridge Historical Society Governing Council.

Peter Kroon - Peter is active in MAPOCO (Massachusetts Avenue from Porter Square to the Cambridge Common) rezoning process and a member of Mass Ave Improvement Committee.

Sohail Nasir - Sohail is a pharmaceutical commercialization strategist.

Abhishek Syal - Abhishek is a market strategist at Dell as well as Secretary-treasurer for OurHarvardSQ

Tom Lucey - Tom is Director of Government and Community Relations at Harvard University.

Mary Flynn - Mary currently serves as a Planning Board member. Ms. Flynn formerly served as Deputy Director of Cambridge’s Community Development Department and manager of Facilities Management at the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the requirements of the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) that the City Council adopt an order for the Statement of Interest Form to be submitted to MSBA no later than Apr 7, 2017 for the Tobin and Vassal Lane Upper School located at 197 Vassal Lane.
Adopted 8-0-1

Mar 27, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby recommending that in accordance with the requirements of the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), the Cambridge City Council adopt the attached order for the Statement of Interest Form to be submitted to the MSBA no later than Apr 7, 2017 for the Tobin and Vassal Lane Upper Schools located at 197 Vassal Lane, which describes and explains the deficiencies and the priority category(s) for which an application may be submitted to the Massachusetts School Building Authority in the future.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

AGENDA #4     Mar 27, 2017
WHEREAS: The Vassal Lane building currently houses the Tobin Pk-5 Montessori School and the Vassal Lane Upper 6-8 School. The Vassal Lane Building was built in 1971 and the existing building and building systems do not meet the educational needs of the building’s occupants, the Montessori Pk-5 Elementary School and the Vassal Lane Upper School (Middle School). The building is an old electric heat building resulting in high energy cost and consumption. Room windows are mostly all original and approximately 50 years of age. Building temperatures can become uncomfortable due to the age and condition of the distribution system. Roof and windows are all original and while the roof has been patched regularly the building and its exterior walls are subject to interior leaking during heavy rain and snow storms. In addition to building systems that are past normal life expectations, the building’s classrooms, cafeteria and gymnasium do not meet the educational needs of its occupants. Originally built as a K-8 elementary school the building now houses a Pk-5 elementary and 6-8 upper school (middle school) that both suffer from scheduling problems including the gym and cafeteria; and
WHEREAS: Funds are sought for the complete renovation or replacement of the building in order to provide a full range of programs consistent with the State and approved local requirements; and
WHEREAS: The School Committee of Cambridge, Massachusetts voted to authorize the Superintendent to submit the Statement of Interest Form to the MSBA at an open meeting held on Mar 21, 2017; now therefore be it
ORDERED: The Cambridge City Council hereby further specifically acknowledges that by submitting this Statement of Interest Form, the Massachusetts School Building Authority in no way guarantees the acceptance of the approval of an application, the awarding of a grant or any other funding commitment from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, or commits the City of Cambridge to filing an application for funding with the Massachusetts School Building Authority.

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 16-90, regarding requesting that the DCR continue Sunday closings on Memorial Drive.
Placed on File

Mar 27, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 16-90, regarding requesting that the DCR continue Sunday closings on Memorial Drive, please be advised of the following:

Joseph Barr, Director of Traffic, Parking, and Transportation, has consulted with Leo Roy, Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, regarding the possibility of expanding the Sunday closings of Memorial Drive, which currently extend from the late April to the mid-November. Although DCR is generally supportive of the concept of adding additional Sunday closures, they do not believe that it would be possible to do so at this point because of budget constraints. The Sunday closures require significant overtime resources for operations and public safety personnel to set up, maintain, and remove the closure, which extend from Western Avenue to Gerry’s Landing Road. In addition, DCR has concerns about the maintenance impacts on the park as well as the impact of winter weather on likely utilization of the closed-off areas for recreational purposes.

We also discussed whether it might be possible for Cambridge to implement an expanded closure on behalf of DCR. However, given that Cambridge has no jurisdiction over Memorial Drive, this approach would present a number of legal, operational, labor, and public safety issues, and we do not believe that it would be feasible.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 16-64 and 17-9, regarding trash and recycling pick up for small businesses.
Placed on File

Mar 27, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 16-64 and 17-9, regarding trash and recycling pick up for small businesses, Public Works Commissioner Owen O'Riordan reports the following:

Please be informed that the Department of Public Works (DPW) is proposing to expand the municipal recycling pick-up program on a trial basis to small businesses beginning in the spring/summer of 2018. It is proposed that this program will be made available to all small businesses throughout the City on a once per week basis, and will help reduce the cost to businesses in eliminating the need for them to contract with outside vendors as well as enabling the City to further increase the quantity of material diverted from the waste stream in the City. Funds are included in the FY18 budget to initiate the program.

DPW expects to begin a community process in the fall of 2018, talking with business associations and neighborhoods groups about the attractiveness, viability and logistics associated with the expansion of recycling pick-up by the City to include small businesses (1-50 employees or Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)) starting in the spring/summer of 2018. There are presently in excess of 7,000 small businesses in the City of which approximately 1,200 are retail establishments. As part of the outreach process associated with this proposed trial, the Department of Public Works is also proposing to survey all of the various small business across the City gathering information about recycling materials management as well as interest and preferences around recycling materials collection. The Department also proposes holding a number of listening sessions for these businesses over the fall and winter of 2017/2018 to better identify how best a recycling pick-up program would work to benefit everyone.

Finally, DPW will report back to City Council providing progress reports with regard to the proposed roll out and indicating any recalibration or reconsideration of the proposed program that may be necessary so as to ensure that an expanded recycling pick-up program, beyond household pick-up, for small businesses would be a success in the City.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

14. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the transfer of $1,000,000 from the Water Fund Other Ordinary Maintenance account to the Public Investment Fund Water Extraordinary Expenditures account to fund the replacement of water meters and meter transmitter units (MTUs).
Adopted 7-0-2 (Carlone, Simmons ABSENT)

Mar 27, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the transfer of $1,000,000 from the Water Fund Other Ordinary Maintenance account to the Public Investment Fund Water Extraordinary Expenditures account to fund the replacement of water meters and meter transmitter units (MTUs).

In October 2016, the Council approved an appropriation to use $3.6 million from the Water Fund’s Fund Balance to purchase water from the MWRA to ensure an adequate supply of water to meet the needs of the community. The severity of the drought has lessened and the usable capacity in our reservoir system has stabilized. The City has not had to use MWRA water since the beginning of December and has only expended $1.6 million.

This transfer will allow the Water Department to expand its efforts in replacing MTUs and aging meters to upgrade the Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) System. The replacement MTUs have a stronger transmission signal and will allow for remote programming. An additional $1 million for this purpose will also be included in the Submitted FY18 Capital Budget in April. An additional appropriation of $1,000,000 is anticipated for FY19.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

15. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2017 and ending Mar 31, 2018.
Adopted 7-0-2 (Carlone, Simmons ABSENT)

Mar 27, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached for your consideration, my recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2017 and ending Mar 31, 2018.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Mar 27, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

RECOMMENDATIONS
The City administration and City Council continue to recognize the importance of minimizing increases in water and sewer rates. I recommend that the City Council approve a 0% increase in the water consumption block rate and a 7.7% increase in the sewer use block rate, resulting in a 5.6% increase in the combined rate for the period beginning Apr 1, 2017 and ending Mar 31, 2018. This is the seventh consecutive year that the City has been able to produce a 0% increase in the water rate.

In last year’s recommendation, the projected FY18 rate increases for water, sewer, and combined were 4.0%, 7.5%, and 6.6%, respectively, based on March 2016 consumption rates and projected budgets. We have been able to produce a lower water rate than estimated primarily due to lower operating budget projections in the Water Budget. The sewer rate is slightly higher than anticipated due to a Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) assessment in the Sewer Budget that is 3.0% higher than the projection provided by the MWRA last year.

In March of each year, the City Council establishes water and sewer rates, which determine water and sewer revenues for the next fiscal year. Because of the timing requirements, water and sewer rates are set prior to the adoption of both the Cambridge budget and MWRA budget; therefore, revenue needs are based upon estimated expenditures. Historically, water and sewer rates have been established so that revenues generated by them, when combined with other related revenue sources, cover projected annual costs.

WATER
In FY17, due to extreme drought conditions in Massachusetts, the City appropriated $3,600,000 from the Water Fund Fund Balance to purchase water from the MWRA to ensure an adequate supply of water to meet the needs of residents, businesses, and universities. The Water Department is projecting to use only $1,600,000 of that amount since conditions have started to improve. We are also recommending a transfer of $1,000,000 from the remaining $2,000,000 to the Water Department Public Investment Fund for meter replacement. The Department continues to carefully monitor the city's water supply system and implement water conservation efforts. The FY18 water rate does not include additional funds to purchase MWRA water.

The planned FY18 capital allocation is $3,500,000 using pay-as-you-go capital funding based on current revenues. FY18 capital projects include waterworks construction, meter and meter transmission unit replacement, a drainage and community garden project, Fresh Pond Master Plan implementation, U.S. Geological Survey gauging stations, and reservoir facility improvements.

Two major factors determine the rate necessary to generate sufficient revenues: water consumption and the budget. The total FY18 Water Budget reflects a $1,494,040 decrease from the FY17 Budget. The Water Department is able to offset costs related to cost-of-living allowances, pensions, and health benefits in the salaries and wages portion of the operating budget with decreases in debt service payments and capital expenditures.

Water and sewer charges are directly linked to water consumption, with sewer costs comprising approximately 74.1% of total water and sewer expenditures. When consumption declines, revenues are negatively impacted. In the current fiscal year, water is being consumed at a slightly lower rate compared to the previous fiscal year due to the drought and water conservation efforts.

Table 4 on page 5 indicates the details of Water Fund projected revenues and expenditures for FY17-22. Table 7 on page 7 shows actual Water Fund balances for FY12-16 and the projected balance for FY17.

SEWER
The FY18 Sewer Budget reflects a $3,631,896 increase from the FY17 Budget. This includes the MWRA assessment, debt service payments, and the sewer component of the Public Works budget. Debt service on sewer bonds and the MWRA assessment account for 90.6% of the total FY18 Sewer Budget.

FY18 estimated sewer revenues will cover the FY18 estimated MWRA assessment, which is scheduled to increase by $1,206,845 from the FY17 final assessment. The MWRA rate increase projected for the City is subject to change based on the MWRA budget, which is adopted later in spring 2017. These changes have typically been minor in past years. Unlike the water budget, sewer revenues are credited to the general fund and not to a separate proprietary fund that can be drawn upon if the need arises.

Included in the sewer budget are debt service increases attributable to the $21,045,000 general obligation bonds issued in March 2017, which include sewer projects in Agassiz, Cambridgeport, Harvard Square, and the Port, as well as capital repairs.

The FY18 capital allotment of $1,000,000 in sewer revenues will continue to finance the remedial reconstruction program and development.

The City Council has authorized significant investments in the water and sewer systems to ensure Cambridge continues to benefit from a healthy and environmentally sound water and sewer system. In addition to the projects currently under way, the City’s five-year capital plan (FY18-22) calls for an additional investment of approximately $140,615,500 (primarily sewer, $118,615,500) in the water and sewer systems. The City carefully monitors the issuance of debt to fund authorized sewer projects and makes adjustments to ensure that debt service cost increases, which impact the sewer rate, are moderate.

Subsidies from the SRF loan program will cover only $44,307 or 0.2% of the total debt service of $22,344,311 for all FY18 sewer projects. The City will continue to receive state subsidies on existing debt. The FY19-22 capital plan includes other projects that may be eligible for subsidized loans from the state. As in past years, it is not certain that these projects will receive state subsidies and the debt service on these projects has been calculated based on funding through general obligation bonds. If state subsidies become available to the City, they will be used to lower the sewer rate in future years. Table 5 on page 6 shows the detail of sewer-related expenditures and revenues for FY17-22.

COMBINED WATER & SEWER
The table below reflects the projected combined water and sewer metered revenue requirements needed to cover water and sewer expenditures.

TABLE 1

	FY17 Projected	FY18 Budget	% Change
Water	$17,500,000	$17,492,975	0.0%
Sewer	$47,750,000	$51,432,184	7.7%
Combined Water/Sewer Revenue	$65,250,000	$68,925,159	5.6%

FY18 projected revenues are based on FY17 projected collections and reflect our practice of conservative revenue projections.

The table below reflects the FY17 actual and FY18 proposed water and sewer rates.

TABLE 2

	Annual Consumption*	FY17 Water Rate	FY18 Proposed Water Rate	FY17 Sewer Rate	FY18 Proposed Sewer Rate
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF	$3.02	$3.02	$9.50	$10.23
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF	$3.24	$3.24	$10.05	$10.82
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF	$3.44	$3.44	$10.79	$11.62
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF	$3.65	$3.65	$11.62	$12.51
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF	$3.96	$3.96	$12.35	$13.30

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons.

The table below reflects the average change to combined water and sewer residential bills.

TABLE 3

Residential Type	FY17 Average	FY18 Projected	Annual Variance	% Change
Single Family	$784	$828	$44	5.60%
Two Family	$1,096	$1,157	$61	5.60%
Three Family	$1,590	$1,679	$89	5.60%

SENIOR DISCOUNT PROGRAM
There are currently 2,657 homeowners who qualify for the age 65+ water/sewer 15% discount (not to exceed $90 annually), which is not tied to the homeowner’s income.

There are also 87 elderly homeowners who qualify for an income-based discount of 30% (not to exceed $180 annually). To qualify for the 30% discount, a homeowner must be 65 or older and must have been granted the Clause 41C elderly real estate exemption. For FY17, the income guidelines are as follows: single, income of $25,346 with assets of $50,689 or less; married, income of $38,019 with assets of $69,698 or less.

FUTURE OUTLOOK FOR RATES
Overall, the City has been extremely successful over the past five years in producing minimal water and sewer rate increases. The average annual increases for the FY13-17 period were as follows: water, 0.0%; sewer, 3.9%; and combined, 2.8%, which include both the water and sewer rates showing 0% increases in FY13.

Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 contain five-year forecasts for water, sewer, and combined revenue estimates as well as Water Fund balances for the past five years and the projected FY17 Fund Balance. Although the City currently does not project the use of Fund Balance in the out years, it will continue to review appropriate use of Fund Balance for a specific project, or to lower the rate.

As can be seen in Table 6, the annual combined water/sewer rate is projected to increase by an average of approximately 4.8% for FY18-22. The projected increase is the result of the City’s commitment to bonding sewer infrastructure improvement projects and increases in the MWRA assessment (based on estimates received from the MWRA). MWRA increases are projected to be 5.1% in FY18 and 3.7-3.8% in FY19-FY22. If increases in the MWRA assessment are more moderate, the rate increases that are shown will be lowered. If consumption increases and therefore revenues increase, rate increases will be affected positively. Conversely, if consumption decreases, there will be a negative effect on water and sewer revenues.

Our water and sewer program is structured to produce reasonable rate increases in the future. The goal of the City Administration and City Council is to minimize the effects of water and sewer rate increases on residents as much as possible, while continuing to invest in our infrastructure.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

AGENDA #15     Mar 27, 2017
ORDERED: That the following block rate for water consumption and sewer use in the City of Cambridge be in effect for the period beginning Apr 1, 2017 and ending Mar 31, 2018:

	Annual Consumption*	FY17 Water Rate	FY18 Proposed Water Rate	FY17 Sewer Rate	FY18 Proposed Sewer Rate
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF	$3.02	$3.02	$9.50	$10.23
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF	$3.24	$3.24	$10.05	$10.82
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF	$3.44	$3.44	$10.79	$11.62
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF	$3.65	$3.65	$11.62	$12.51
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF	$3.96	$3.96	$12.35	$13.30

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons; and be it further
ORDERED: That the Senior Citizens Discount Program gives either a 15 percent or 30 percent discount on water/sewer bills, depending upon certain qualifications. Any resident who owns and occupies his/her own home and who is 65 or older on July 1 qualifies for the 15 percent discount. This discount may not exceed $90 for the fiscal year.

To qualify for the 30 percent discount, a homeowner must be 65 years of age or older and must have been granted the Clause 41C Elderly Real Estate Exemption, which is based on the demonstrated financial need. This discount may not exceed $180 for the fiscal year.

16. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request for the City Council to authorize the Purchasing Agent to award an extension of up to three (3) months to the existing Hubway contract with Motivate.
Adopted 7-0-2 (Carlone, Simmons ABSENT)

Mar 27, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

On Apr 1, 2017, the City’s contract with Motivate, formerly ALTA, as operators of the Hubway bike share system will expire. Through a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) process, administered by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (“MAPC”), on behalf of the City as well as the Cities of Boston and Somerville and the Town of Brookline, Motivate was designated as the Successful Bidder. All city and town leaders have been working assiduously on negotiating a new contract with Motivate.

Due to the complex nature of the contract it is possible that the new contract will not be executed by the expiration date of the existing contract. We expect that this process will be completed by the end of April or beginning of May, 2017. Therefore, to avoid any lapse in the bike share system it is necessary to extend the current contract for up to three (3) months beyond the original term of the contract pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30(B).

I therefore hereby request that the City Council authorize the Purchasing Agent to award an extension to the existing contract with Motivate, for up to three (3) months, in order to allow the system to operate without interruption and to enable the City to secure an advantageous contract.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

AGENDA #16     Mar 27, 2017
ORDERED: That the City Council goes on record authorizing the Purchasing Agent to award an extension for up to three (3) months to the existing contract with Motivate (formerly Alta) as operator of the Hubway bike share system, in order to allow the Hubway bike share system to operate without interruption and to enable the City to negotiate and successfully execute a new contract.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Mar 27, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The Baker Administration has cautioned that there is a looming budget gap in FY2017-2018, and Governor Baker has stated that he will be required to make some difficult decisions in order to balance the budget; and
WHEREAS: Among the anticipated problem areas are the MBTA, with a reported $42 million gap in its $2 billion budget on the horizon; and
WHEREAS: Among the cost-saving measures being considered is a one-year suspension of "premium trips" (those not mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act and which can include journeys beyond the MBTA's core area) on The Ride, the MBTA's service for people with disabilities, which the Governor suggests would save $7 million; and
WHEREAS: The Ride is a critical lifeline for many seniors who subsist on a small, fixed income, and who do not have other means to move freely about the city, and even minimal cutbacks of this service could have outsized, negative impacts upon this most vulnerable community in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: It is recognized that the Commonwealth may well need to engage in difficult cutbacks in order to close anticipated budget gaps, yet it would be cruel and overly burdensome to balance the budget on the backs of our most vulnerable residents, and this is precisely what reducing The Ride’s service capacity would achieve; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council formally goes on record strongly urging Governor Baker to resist any measures that would reduce funding or service of the MBTA’s The Ride program as part of any cost-saving measures for FY2017-2018; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this Order to Governor Charles D. Baker and to the Cambridge Delegation to the State House on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-3     Mar 27, 2017  Amended
MAYOR SIMMONS
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: In the years since the Cambridge Police Department relocated its headquarters from 5 Western Avenue to the new facility at 125 Sixth Street in East Cambridge, there has been a growing public perception that Central Square suffers from an increased amount of crime and people engaging in undesirable behavior, particularly during the evening hours in and around Carl Barron Plaza; and
WHEREAS: Members of the community have repeatedly raised concerns with the City about this neighborhood, lamenting that many families and senior citizens steer clear of the area because they feel unsafe walking through Central Square due to the panhandling and other behaviors of many people who tend to congregate in Carl Barron Plaza; and
WHEREAS: In response to these community concerns, the Cambridge Police have provided repeated assurances that there is a steady police presence in Central Square, that officers in uniform are routinely covering this beat, and that Central Square is just as safe, and the police response there just as swift, as when the Cambridge Police Department was located on Western Avenue; and
WHEREAS: True as these repeated assurances may be, the public’s perception of Central Square as an unsafe neighborhood best to be avoided remains a steep and significant hurdle that must be effectively addressed if the City is truly serious about working to revitalize this most important district; and
WHEREAS: There remains a vocal public desire for a more robust, more visible police presence, and many residents and business owners have urged for the installation of a physical Cambridge Police outpost substation situated in Carl Barron Plaza, which would provide an unmistakable signal that the City is making an aggressive effort to revitalize Central Square and provide a greater sense of safety to all who would come to this area; and
WHEREAS: When this has been discussed in years past, Cambridge Police representatives had advised that such an outpost a substation would be both unnecessary and redundant to the police presence already operating in the Square, yet the psychological comfort such an outpost a substation could provide to business owners, business patrons, and pedestrians alike can no longer be overlooked or easily dismissed; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Acting Police Commissioner with a view toward piloting a Cambridge Police outpost substation located in Carl Barron Plaza, to be ready for operation by Summer 2017, and to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner; and be it further
ORDERED: That the subject matter be referred to the Public Safety Committee.

O-6     Mar 27, 2017
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) have introduced H.R. 482 and S. 103, proposed legislation intended to weaken the Fair Housing Act and interfere with its implementation and enforcement; and
WHEREAS: The proposed bills aim to prohibit diligent housing data collection tools that allow communities to affirmatively further fair housing and establish more equal and inclusive communities; and
WHEREAS: The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968 with the goal of ending discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin in any and all housing matters in the United States; and
WHEREAS: The Fair Housing Act has protected the rights of millions of vulnerable citizens since its enactment and led to landmark court victories for fair housing supporters across the United States; and
WHEREAS: The Department of Housing and Urban Development and its Office for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) have a mission to administer the Fair Housing Act and establish national policies that protect American citizens’ right to housing of their choice, including the rule to affirmatively further fair housing; and
WHEREAS: Affirmatively furthering fair housing means to address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws; and
WHEREAS: The right to live in the area and housing of one’s choice is fundamental to the free and equal order of American society and has an impact on the equality in the workplace and education that individuals and families can attain; and
WHEREAS: Such fairness is the foundation of the American system and reflects traditional American values; and
WHEREAS: Hindering the implementation of fair housing principles undermines the strength and vitality of America and its people; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge reaffirms its commitment to the goals of the Fair Housing Act: the principles of desegregation, access to the housing of one's choice irrespective of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin and equal protection under the law; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge opposes H.R. 482 and S. 103, and calls on its representatives in the House and Senate to vote against these bills, and to exert influence on other representatives to oppose these bills; and be it further
RESOLVED: That all persons who feel that they have been discriminated against in any housing or real estate purchase, conveyance or transaction because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin, will be assisted to seek equity under federal and state laws by filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of the City of Cambridge; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge will support the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in all efforts to affirmatively further fair housing and collect data to assess the progress of fair housing initiatives and inclusiveness of its communities; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this order be sent to all Cambridge representatives in Congress.

O-7     Mar 27, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: City Councillors are engaged in a variety of issues of interest to other Councillors and the general public; and
WHEREAS: There are a variety of constraints on how Councillors can interact and communicate about issues on which they are working; and
WHEREAS: This lack of communication and coordination amongst and between Councillors can make it difficult for them to be fully cognizant of ongoing civic and legislative efforts; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That to allow for more effective communication among Councillors without violating rules and regulations governing interaction between elected officials, the City Council agenda be altered to create a section in the agenda between public comment and the City Manager’s agenda entitled “General Council Discussion,” where Councillors would be able to bring their colleagues up-to-date on projects in which they are engaged or ask for updates about projects that other Councillors are working on, even if these issues do not appear on the Council’s agenda or have never been the subject of formal City Council attention; and be it further
ORDERED: That this matter be referred to Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Thurs, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:36pm in the Sullivan Chamber. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition filed by Richard Harding, et al., to amend the Mass + Main Residential sub district and the Central Square Overlay District by amending Sections 20.307.8.1 (a) and (b) and 20.307.6.2 (a).

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

Also present were Former Mayor Kenneth E. Reeves, 340 Harvard Street; McMillan I.G., 221 Walnut Avenue; Cole Albert, 115 Hemenway Street; Bob Flack, One Broadway, Twining Properties; and Ray Bartlett, 55 Bishop Allen Drive.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the meeting as follows: petitioners, City staff, questions by City Council and public comment. He stated that at the conclusion of the hearing the committee will make a recommendation.

Kenneth E. Reeves, former Mayor and City Councillor, stated that there are situations that require citizens to speak out and this petition affords an opportunity to have a necessary discussion about what should and should not occur in Central Square. The thrust of this petition is to say that the Mass + Main Project should never have been 195 feet but should have been more in line with 150 feet in keeping with character and context of Central Square. How was this developer able to get the City Council and the Planning Board to approve this project? He explained that an appeal has been filed in land court. He stated that it is hoped that a much reduced project continue or no project at all. This project threatens the character of Central Square without a significant benefit. He noted that everyone is supportive of affordable housing but it is not clear if a 200 foot tower is the best affordable housing for Central Square. He commented that buildings in Central Square are between two and five stories high. He stated that there are many places in Central Square to put affordable housing, such as the surface parking lots. He noted that the City is considering placing affordable housing on Bishop Allen Drive across the street from St. Paul's AME Church and the Elks. He spoke about how this large project was driven by the developer who overpaid for the parcel, not by the needs of the community. This project is not driven by the needs of the residents but by the economic impact of the developer. He asked where were the community benefits received for the air rights given away. He stated that 17% of affordable housing is not worth what was granted to the developer.

He added that the developer has ignored the concerns of abutters and the neighboring community groups. The project is too big and driven by the wrong engine. He wanted the City Council to reconsider the decision made about this. He stated that this project was changed from inception. Originally, the project was two significant parcels. A third parcel was purchased and another parcel on Bishop Allen Drive is back in play.

Former Mayor Reeves stated that Central Square's building ownership pattern is important to know. Property owners own many parcels and do not tend to sell. This is part of the continuity of Central Square. He stated that when the Bioran property was sold to a developer who then began to sell off some of the parcels, a new type of development pressure was introduced into Central Square. Property sold by developers generates a new value because there is the belief that higher zoning will follow to justify that price in Central Square. Mom and pop stores will be unable to remain in Central Square. He stated that residents do not want the character of Central Square changed and the reactions here are unknown or bad. What is planned by the developer for first floor retail is ridiculous. This process did not produce the best outcome. He stated this is a mistake by the City Council and Planning Board. Before there is groundbreaking he wanted to know what community benefits were received by giving away air rights.

Councillor Carlone asked City staff to explain the status of the Special Permit given to the land owner.

Mr. Roberts provided a brief background on the zoning for the area (see ATTACHMENT A).

Mr. Roberts stated that the area proposed to be changed is the Mass + Main sub district created by the City Council in May 2015. This was proposed by property owners in the area and the zoning creates provisions for a residential mixed income project which would allow increased height and density and would have additional requirements related to parking, car sharing, affordable and middle income housing, three bedroom units, local and independent ground floor retail with a restriction on banks and sustainable design requirement. In 2016 the property owner began the process of project development and review which per the Planning Board rules involves a community outreach component. He stated that application materials were prepared and the petitioner came to the Planning Board for the first hearing in November 2016.

In January 2017 a special permit was granted which was filed in February. An Appeal has been filed. If the appeal were denied the project would be allowed to proceed under the current zoning. He stated that the proposed amendments will apply going forward to anything that is not permitted. The proposed zoning would reduce the height for a residential mixed income project from 195 feet to 150 feet and increase the required affordable as a percentage of from 17% to 20% and middle income units from 3% to 5%. He stated that the Mass+ Main development is in the core section of the sub-district along Massachusetts Avenue bounded by Columbia and Douglass Streets. There is also a separate project that was permitted under a Special Permit for housing at 47 Bishop Allen Drive to replace an existing above grade parking structure, which was enabled by providing underground parking for the Mass + Main development.

Councillor Devereux stated that both the Mass + Main tower and 47 Bishop Allen Drive have received special permits. She asked if the new zoning were to pass will it only affect other potential developments within this sub-district regardless of what happens in land court. Mr. Roberts stated that this is his understanding. He stated that when an appeal has been filed the clock stops regarding any time related provisions of zoning until the appeal is resolved. Since the Special Permit was filed before the zoning petition was introduced and if the appeal is resolved the permit would still be valid. He clarified that 47 Bishop Allen Drive did require a separate Special Permit from the Planning Board.

Councillor Carlone asked was the Bishop Allen Drive Special Permit simultaneous with the first special permit. Mr. Roberts stated that both were heard at the same time but voted on separately by the Planning Board.

Councillor Kelley asked if the City Council passes this zoning petition and the appeal is held up then what is the impact on the Special Permit. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that because the application and the Special Permit been granted any zoning amendment that occurs at this point does not affect this project. He stated that if the permit is upheld in court any zoning enacted at this time would not apply to the special permit.

Councillor Kelley asked would this apply to a major or minor amendment. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that it would depend on the change and how significant it is. This would have to be analyzed at the time. Councillor Kelley noted that the City Council could pass the zoning amendment but it should not be passed with the understanding that this would impact the project. Councillor Kelley stated that his point is that the permit as is would not be impacted by this zoning amendment if approved, but and modifications may be impacted by the zoning if passed. The zoning could impact this project. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg agreed.

Councillor Carlone stated that the developer's intent is to fulfill the permit timing. If they do not then the question is which zoning is valid. This zoning petition is important if the legal case went against the developers’ wishes. If the permit is challenged does the time frame change given the legal period of time? Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg replied that the appeal does toll the time that the developer has to take action on its permit. Councillor Carlone stated that it extends the reasonable time period for the special permit. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that this particular zoning was enacted with mitigation offered by the developer which was made a part of the ordinance and to amend the zoning when the developer made commitments to the City is different than just amending a zoning ordinance where commitments have not been made. He did not want to support the zoning without looking at the commitments made by the developer more closely.

Councillor Devereux spoke about the appeal stopping the clock. She stated that the development on New Street came back to the Planning Board to request an extension of its special permit and this was handled as general business without any public hearing. Does the public have an opportunity to comment on this. She asked why type of changes would a developer seek and would this be handled administratively. Mr. Roberts did not want to answer the timing questions off of the top of his head. He spoke about the process to handle changes or refinements on a special permit. He stated that every Special Permit is granted by the Planning Board and subject to continuing design review. As designs are refined to the construction stage there is on-going review at the staff level to ensure compliance with the scheme reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. He stated that in some cases there are moderate design modifications that are made that do not affect the development and are reviewed by the staff and the Planning Board.

Councillor Kelley said if the Special Permit becomes invalid and the zoning petition goes forward what impact does the petition make on asking for 20% affordable units and 5 % middle-income units. He spoke about what is feasible in Cambridge and asked City staff to explain how the 20 + 5% fits in. Ms. Farooq stated that this zoning for this sub district predates the analysis that was done. The inclusionary requirement is higher than want is currently required and what was required at the time when the zoning was adopted. Part of the particular components that were negotiation by the City Council through this particular zoning process and so this project would not be subject in the current form for the new requirement. Councillor Kelley stated if the proposed zoning has a requirement of 20% affordable units plus 5% middle-income units at 150 feet is financially possible.

Ms. Farooq stated that the Inclusionary Housing report revealed that 20% low and moderate-income housing was the extent to what was financially feasible. She further stated that moving beyond the 20% was beginning to throw projects into the infeasible world. Large high rise and small projects are where the financial difficulties hit faster. She stated that this project would be more vulnerable if the percentage was increased; but she would look at the report and let Councillor Kelley know. Councillor Kelley said going up and down in size makes projects in inclusionary zoning infeasible. Ms. Farooq stated that the staff is not privy to know the tipping point. Councillor Kelley stated that the report states that 20% is sustainable and more difficult at the margins.

Councillor Carlone reminded everyone that the original rezoning increased FAR on the site, which was part of the Mass + Main developer benefit to go up to the 20%. Councillor Cheung stated that there are less affordable housing units the higher the building. Councillor Carlone noted that the FAR is not being changed and might affect the numbers. Councillor Cheung stated that there has been a disconnect between the developer and the community. The work with the community seems to have broken down. Is there anything CDD can do when disengagement is the issue?

Ms. Farooq stated that she would reconsider the role that CDD could play. She stated that the Planning Board changed their rules to require public engagement before a Special Permit request is brought forward and a report of the community engagement process needs to be provided. This report becomes part of the Planning Board public hearing. The developer went through extensive engagement with the community but the changes in the scope of ownership and changes to the development on the north side of Bishop Allen were not anticipated by the abutters and created more intense conversation.

Councillor Cheung asked how different the scope and design are. Ms. Farooq stated that the development on Mass + Main parcel has evolved from what the City Council saw but it is essentially the same. There are two special permits. The Bishop Allen project was something that the City Council had now seen because the developers were proposing surface parking and now are thinking about below grade parking under the Mass + Main project. She stated that this is a positive from their perspective. This meant the need for surface parking on the Bishop Allen Drive parcel was no longer needed. Mr. Roberts stated that the zoning established new parking requirement for the project. The original project proposal would serve the residential building with the existing Bishop Allen structured parking garage. Parking is now in a below grade parking garage, which freed up the Bishop Allen site for more housing.

Councillor Carlone stated that the City Council encouraged the building of housing along Bishop Allen Drive.

Councillor Devereux stated that had the zoning not been passed in 2015 the parcels would be subject to the Central Square zoning recently passed by the City Council with a height 80 feet, increased FAR and 20% affordable housing. Even reducing height from 195 to 150 feet it is substantially above the 80 feet. Mr. Roberts stated that the Central Square zoning increased the density (FAR) in the Business B district. Mass + Main is in the Business B district and subject to the overlay sub-district.

Councillor Kelley stated that this does not impact non-residential. Mr. Roberts responded that it only impacts the Mass + Main sub-district as it pertains to a residential mixed income project. Councillor Kelley spoke about the transfer of property on Bishop Allen Drive and asked if this is generally done through zoning language or letter of commitment. Mr. Roberts stated that the 2015 letter of commitment contains a provision for future transfer within certain circumstances related to surface parking. Councillor Kelley asked if a requirement could be put into zoning petition for property transfer. Mr. Roberts spoke about the uncertainty of how a change to a zoning amendment that was subject to agreement by the City and property owners and how this agreement would be affect by a future zoning change. This requires further study of what this means. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that this would be considered a taking of property and this cannot be done as part of zoning.

At 4:34pm Councillor Carlone opened public comment.

Kenneth Reeves stated that there is a process at issue here. He stated that the City Council was gracious in its advocacy for a former member and wanting that former member to succeed and this has overwhelmed the logic of the project. The project is too big and is not benefitting the community. Logic has been defied and involved in capitalism to help the developer get out of the hole. He spoke about the missing community component. This is a big project that will overwhelm two abutters and they have every reason to be concerned about what will happen to them. This will change the face of this neighborhood. If this project was never built Central Square would be fine.

Mr. Flack, Senior Vice President, Twining Properties, stated that he was head of the outreach effort and development process for Mass + Main. There is a possibility of setting an unfortunate precedent if this amendment were to proceed. Mass + Main was a four year process. He stated that he was highly engaged in a robust community outreach process for two years as part of the zoning process and this was continued for another 1.5-2 years with the Special Permit. In May 2015 there was strong support by Planning Board, community and individuals. He stated that the Ordinance Committee made a strong supportive statement and the City Council approved the zoning. This was a deliberate process. The project evolved and responded to concerns as they were raised. This process should be taken seriously and not frivolously undone by a late reconsideration by people who alleged that they were not engaged. This was followed by an intense 1.5 years at the Planning Board and the Planning Board confirmed unanimously that the petitioners had followed all the requirements required by and negotiated with the City Council. For the record if Mass + Main were subject to the provisions in the downzoning amendment the Mass + Main project would not be financially feasible. He requested the Ordinance Committee to issue a negative recommendation on this zoning proposal.

Mr. Ray Bartlett, Massasoit Lodge, 55 Bishop Allen Drive, expressed concern with the 47 Bishop Allen Drive project. The process began four years ago and then six months ago he heard that a building was being proposed for 47 Bishop Allen Drive. He explained that the members at the Massasoit Lodge are volunteers and the lodge does not have the resources to be able to handle these events on their own. He stated that there was a hearing on Jan 2, 2017 and no lodge members were in attendance and the members were not afforded any opportunity to express their concerns about this project. He stated that residents were not afforded time to express their concerns. He stated that the developer feels that there will be no disruption to his organization; the lodge and the church, but both have concerns with this project. In six months the developer was able to get a special permit for a building which was going to be parking lot. He spoke about the impact to his organization and the two abutters over the term of the project and after the completion of the project. He stated that he wanted a better opportunity to look at this. The scope of the project is too big. There is no community commitment from this project.

Councillor Carlone asked if it is the presence of the building, size of building or it not being a parking lot that concerned the Lodge. Mr. Bartlett stated that Bishop Allen Drive is a separate project and the original intent has changed without concern for the impact to the abutters. The direct impact is the concern. He stated that Massasoit is an organization with part-time volunteers who need more time. He stated that the process for 47 Bishop Allen Drive moved quickly. Councillor Carlone stated that the City Council encourages neighbors to talk to each other to find common ground. He stated that Mr. Flack would discuss this project with the abutters. Mr. Bartlett spoke about the disruption the project will cause his organization. The water table is high in this area. He wanted to discuss this project and to be heard.

Patrick Barrett, residing at 41 Pleasant Street, is also a direct abutter of Mass + Main project. He stated that he was a supporter of the Mass + Main project partly due to the failure of the C2 process. He spoke about the height in Central Square is not the same for Harvard Square. His biggest concern is that he has been staring at vacant lots for five years. What is relevant is that there was a process and the City Council supported this and there are commitments written into the zoning. Why are we going through this again - because the project was altered?

He still is in support of the Mass + Main project and the project was approved by City Council and they have a Special Permit and if changed then it has to go back to Planning Board and be subject to the zoning. He does not have a problem with the height. He wants to see Central Square move forward. This neighborhood will change over time. He is unsympathetic with this zoning petition. He urged that the City stand by its word.

At 4:58pm Councillor Carlone closed public comment.

Councillor Cheung stated that he is still in the same position. There are a number of ramifications if this zoning was adopted. There was an air of community support for this project originally and the togetherness has frayed. It is bad practice to pass zoning and then revisit it; this is not conducive to an environment of trust. He stated that the abutters and the developer need to come up with an equitable solution. This will have an impact on the community. He wanted the developer and the surrounding neighbors to talk and reach a negotiation.

Councillor Kelley stated that he is willing to sit on this as well. He stated that preexisting zoning should not be looked at. He stated that nothing concrete was done with C2 or other planning processes.

Councillor Carlone stated that there was never a representation of C2 from an urban design point of view so it was difficult to know what the true impacts would be.

Councillor Devereux stated that she remembers that there was vigorous opposition to this petition. The developer did expend energy on community outreach. The process was not ideal. There was a lot of last minute negotiations on the language. This was not transparent to the public. This sets a bad precedent to go back and look at zoning passed two years ago after a Special Permit was issued. She stated that the zoning petition and the appeal is too late in the process. She did attend the Planning Board hearing on the 47 Bishop Allen Drive and there was not much opposition. There might be real concerns with a conflict of uses between housing and the Massasoit Lodge directly next door. The use may not be compatible with the existing uses around it. She does not see reasons to move this forward.

Councillor Kelley stated that regarding the Barrett petition he supported the petition and he stated that as specific projects come up there will be angst gets expressed at the Planning Board.

Councillor Cheung spoke about the compatibility of uses. He would put the onus on the developer and they will be making money on this and they should making the surrounding community members and institutions feel whole.

Councillor Devereux spoke about community engagement and the presentation at the Margaret Fuller House on the updates on the Mass + Main. She stated that the developer did make a sincere effort to engage with the community. She does not know where the process broke down.

Councillor Carlone stated that he voted against the Mass + Main petition. He thought it was ridiculously high and dense. The zoning was passed and a Special Permit was issued. He stated that neighbors have the right to file a petition and this should be honored. He agreed this should be kept in committee so that neighbors can talk to each other. He believed that housing should be built on 47 Bishop Allen Drive. He stated that maybe the form of the housing may need to be altered.

Councilor Carlone moved that the matter be kept in committee and encouraged the neighbors to meet with each other.

The motion carried on a voice vote.

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

The hearing adjourned at 5:15pm.

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