CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $5,250,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account to facilitate the complete renovation of the building located at 859 Massachusetts Avenue.
Adopted 9-0

Apr 3, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $5,250,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account to facilitate the complete renovation of the building located at 859 Massachusetts Avenue.

The building will be completely gutted inside. All exterior siding, windows, and doors will be replaced.

This project is being designed to meet the requirements of the City’s Net Zero standards as outlined by the Net Zero Task force “Proposed Actions” adopted by the City Council in 2015.

There will be a geothermal well(s) installed on site. There will also be photovoltaic (PV) panels primarily installed on the roof of the building. The building mechanical systems will be designed for maximum efficiency, and the building walls and roof will be efficiently insulated. Construction is estimated to be completed by the end of the year.

The family shelter, formerly located at 3 Bigelow Street will move into this location. The family shelter, which is managed by the YWCA, consists of 10 bedroom units with common kitchens and play areas for children. The YWCA will have staff on site 24/7 when in operation. The tenants are typically single mothers and their children.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

2. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,875,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,940,000) and to the Public Works Public Investment Fund ($935,000) to cover winter 2016-2017 snowstorm expenses associated with snow plowing contracts, salt, other material, repair costs and equipment.
Adopted 9-0 (McGovern ABSENT)

Apr 3, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $2,875,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,940,000) and to the Public Works Public Investment Fund Extraordinary Expenditures account ($935,000) to cover winter 2016-2017 snowstorm expenses associated with snow plowing contracts, salt, other material, repair costs and equipment.

Cambridge received approximately 43 inches of snow this winter. Public Works responded by snow plowing, salting, and clearing pedestrian areas, bus stops and crosswalks during these various events. Included in the Public Investment Fund appropriation is $410,000 for road restoration projects necessitated due to the winter weather deterioration together with $525,000 for equipment needs so as to continue to address our various maintenance obligations on sidewalks and bike facilities.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Betsy Allen as the new Director of Equity and Inclusion (formerly known as Director of Affirmative Action) for the City of Cambridge, effective Apr 10, 2017.
Placed on File

Apr 3, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am pleased to inform you of the appointment of Betsy Allen as the new Director of Equity and Inclusion (formerly known as Director of Affirmative Action) for the City of Cambridge. Ms. Allen currently serves as the Manager of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion for the City of Somerville where she has been involved in a wide range of compliance and training programs, and strategic planning activities around diversity and inclusion. Prior to her work in Somerville, Ms. Allen served as a Compliance Officer at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and as a Legal Assistant at the US Social Security Administration in the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. Ms. Allen is a lawyer and a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and American Immigration Lawyers Association. She is also fluent in French and Haitian Creole. Ms. Allen will begin her work with the City of Cambridge on Apr 10.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as a members of the Vision Zero Advisory Committee, effective Apr 3, 2017 for a term of two years: Nicholas Dard, Anne Kreider, Jennifer Quick, Peter Kuhlmann, Stephen Varrichio, Becca Wolfson, Nathanael Fillmore, Stacy Thompson, Richard Fries, Wendy Landman, Amy Flax, Sean Peirce, Jim Gascoigne, Michael Muehe, Diane Gray, Todd Robinson, Michele Trifiro and Steve Crossley
Placed on File

Apr 3, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointment of the following persons as members of the Vision Zero Advisory Committee, effective Apr 3, 2017 for a term of two years. In keeping with the discussion during last week’s City Council meeting, the at-large members of the Vision Zero Advisory Committee are Cambridge residents who have not been previously engaged in serving on a City advisory committee and will provide a fresh perspective on how we pursue our Vision Zero commitment.

Nicholas Dard, of Green Street, is a product manager at a tech company with a background in engineering. He is deeply interested in complex systems, particularly related to transportation. As a pedestrian, cyclist, driver and transit user, Nicholas is looking forward to sharing his perspective and ideas on the committee.

Anne Kreider is a resident of the Agassiz neighborhood and avid walker. Retired after a career in nursing and healthcare administration, Anne is looking forward to bringing her experience working on quality improvement initiatives in large, complex, and resistant systems to the Vision Zero advisory committee.

Jennifer Quick received her PhD in the History of Art at Harvard and now works as a curator at the Harvard Art Museums. An 8 year resident of Cambridge, Jennifer is an avid walker and runner who is concerned about aggressive driving and wants to ensure that all Cambridge residents can walk, run and bike safely.

Peter Kuhlmann, a resident of Franklin Street, is eager to bring his experiences as a former Army aviator and real estate developer to the table as a member of the committee. Peter chooses to live in Cambridge in part due to the great variety of transportation options available here, but sees great opportunities to increase safety and quality of life through the Vision Zero initiative.

Stephen Varrichio is father and small business owner. He travels around Cambridge with his wife, two children, and dog by car, by bicycle and on foot. Stephen has seen the City’s streets become more and more congested, and wants to work with his neighbors to make Cambridge a safer place for everyone.

The Boston Cyclists Union has designated Becca Wolfson, Executive Director, as their representative on the committee.

Cambridge Bicycle Safety has designated Nathanael Fillmore as their representative on the committee.

The Livable Streets Alliance has designated Stacy Thompson, Executive Director, as their representative on the committee.

The Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition has designated Richard Fries, Executive Director, as their representative on the committee.

WalkBoston has designated Wendy Landman, Executive Director, as their representative on the committee.

The Cambridge Bicycle Committee has designated Amy Flax as their representative on the committee.

The Cambridge Pedestrian Committee has designated Sean Peirce as their representative on the committee.

The Cambridge Transit Advisory Committee has designated Jim Gascoigne as their representative on the committee.

The Cambridge Commission for Persons with Disabilities has designated Michael Muehe as their representative on the committee.

Harvard University has designated Diane Gray, Senior Campus Planner, as their representative on the committee.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has designated Todd Robinson, Campus Planner, as their representative on the committee.

Leslie University has designated Michele Trifiro, Director of Campus Services, as their representative on the committee.

The Cambridge Chamber of Commerce has designated Steve Crossley, Health, Safety, and Environment Manager at Novartis as their representative on the committee.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation to adopt with suggested modifications, the Zoning Petition to Amend Section 8.23 - Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structure or Use Following Fire, Explosion or Other Catastrophe.
Referred to Committee Report #2

Apr 3, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting for your consideration a Planning Board recommendation to adopt with suggested modifications, the Zoning Petition to Amend Section 8.23 - Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structure or Use Following Fire, Explosion or Other Catastrophe.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

Date: Mar 28, 2017
Subject: Zoning Petition to Amend Section 8.23 – Reconstruction of Nonconforming Structure or Use Following Fire, Explosion or Other Catastrophe
Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends ADOPTION, with suggested modifications.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On Mar 21, 2017, the Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the City Council petition to amend Section 8.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, relating to the restoration or reconstruction of nonconforming structures that have been damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion or other catastrophe. The current provisions of Section 8.23 allow nonconforming uses or buildings to be restored as they were prior to such damage when the cost of restoration would be less than fifty (50%) percent of the replacement value of the structure, while the proposed provisions would allow non-conforming uses or buildings to be restored as they were regardless of the amount of damage, even if the building is completely destroyed. The Board heard from representatives of the City Manager's office, interested members of the public, and CDD staff.

The Board supports the intent of the proposal and appreciates the sense of urgency to provide relief to property owners and residents whose buildings have been impacted by fire. Ultimately, the Board believes it is within the policy-making purview of the City Council to determine whether nonconforming structures that have been destroyed should be allowed to be rebuilt to their pre-existing condition without a variance or special permit.

The Board does have suggestions for improvements to the zoning text as listed below. The Board recommends that these modifications be incorporated prior to adoption of the proposed amendment, provided they would not require the petition to be re-advertised. If a suggested modification is found to require re-advertisement, it might be considered as part of a future zoning petition.

• Clarify that the intentional destruction of a structure would not disqualify a property owner from the benefit of these provisions if the owner was not responsible for the damage. Consider replacing the parenthetical “(except one that has been determined by the Cambridge Fire Department to have been caused intentionally or by arson)” with “(except one that has been determined by the Cambridge Fire Department to have been caused intentionally by or on behalf of the owner).”
• Revise the text to use defined terms used elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance such as gross floor area, open space, and height, and clarify that buildings must be reconstructed within their existing footprint if that is the intent of the provisions. Also, the proposed zoning text uses both terms “building” and “structure;” if they are meant interchangeably, one consistent term should be used. Consider defining “other catastrophe.”
• Consider replacing “Such …” at the start of the second-to-last sentence with the phrase “In such case, …” and clarify that neither a special permit nor a variance would be required.
• Given the potential difficulty in completing a major restoration project within 24 months due to insurance and other concerns, consider restating the timing provision so that construction must commence within 24 months of the fire/catastrophe, then proceed continuously to completion.
• The Board is sympathetic to allowing those certain alterations to the reconstruction of a pre-existing structure that would have been allowed for an existing nonconforming use or structure, either as-of-right or by special permit, pursuant to Section 8.22. For instance, in some cases design alterations might be necessary in order to conform to current building code standards. If it is found that the proposed amended provisions of Section 8.23 would not allow the types of alterations currently allowed in Section 8.22, then the Board suggests that the Council consider proposing the allowance of such change by special permit as a future separate zoning petition, so as not to delay the adoption of the current petition.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H Theodore Cohen, Chair

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to amendments to Title 6 of the Municipal Code entitled "Animals" to include a new Chapter 6.20 entitled "Restrictions on the Sale of Animals in Pet Shops".
Referred to Ordinance Committee

Apr 3, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting for your consideration, as requested in Council Order No. 10 of June 27, 2016, amendments to Title 6 of the Municipal Code entitled "Animals" to include a new Chapter 6.20 entitled "Restrictions on the Sale of Animals in Pet Shops".

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

City of Cambridge
In the Year Two Thousand and Seventeen
AN ORDINANCE

In amendment to the Ordinance entitled “Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge”

Be it ordained that in Title 6 entitled “Animals” a new Chapter 6.20 be added entitled “Restrictions on the Sale of Animals in Pet Shops” which reads as follows:

Chapter 6.20 RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF ANIMALS IN PET SHOPS

6.20.010. Definitions

As used in this chapter:

A. “Amphibian” means a member of the Amphibia class, subclass Lissamphibia

B. “Animal care facility” means an animal control center or animal shelter, maintained by or under contract with any state, county, or municipality, whose mission or practice is, in whole, or significant part, protecting the welfare of animals and the placement of animals in permanent homes or with animal rescue organizations.

C. “Animal rescue organization” means any not-for-profit organization which has tax- exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, whose mission and practice is, in whole or in significant part, the rescue of animals and the placement of those animals in permanent homes, and which does not obtain birds, mammals, amphibians, or reptiles from a breeder or broker for payment or compensation.

D. “Bird” means a member of the Aves class.

E. “Breeder” means a person who maintains birds, mammals, amphibians, or reptiles for the purpose of breeding and selling their offspring.

F. “Broker” means a person who transfers birds, mammals, amphibians, or reptiles at wholesale for resale by another.

G. “Mammal” means a member of the class mammalia.

H. “Offer for sale” means to sell, offer for sale or adoption, barter, auction, give away or otherwise transfer a bird, mammal, amphibian, or reptile.

I. “Pet shop” means a retail establishment where mammals, birds, amphibians, or reptiles, are sold, exchanged, bartered or offered for sale as pet animals to the general public at retail. Such definition shall not include an animal care facility or animal rescue organization, as defined.

J. “Reptile” means a member of the Reptilia class.

6.20.020. Prohibition on Retail Sales

A. A pet shop may offer for sale only those birds, mammals, amphibians, or reptiles that the pet shop has obtained from or displays in cooperation with:

1. An animal care facility, as defined in section 6.20.010 of this chapter; or

2. An animal rescue organization, as defined in section 6.20.010 of this chapter.

B. Each pet shop shall maintain records sufficient to document the source of each bird, mammal, amphibian, or reptile the pet shop acquires, for at least one year following the date of acquisition. Such records shall be made available, immediately upon request, to the Director of the Animal Commission, any Animal Control Officer, Police Officer and/or Sanitation Inspector or Code Enforcement Inspector detailed with the Public Health and Inspectional Services Departments.

C. Each pet shop offering birds, mammals, amphibians, or reptiles for sale shall post, in a conspicuous location on the cage or enclosure of each animal, a sign listing the name of the animal care facility or animal rescue organization from which each bird, mammal, amphibian, or reptile in the cage or enclosure was acquired.

6.20.030. Prohibition on Sales in Public Places

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer for sale, sell, exchange, trade, barter, lease or display for a commercial purpose any bird, mammal, amphibian, or reptile on any roadside, public right-of-way, parkway, median, park, other recreation area, flea market or other outdoor market, or commercial or retail parking lot regardless of whether such access is authorized by the property owner.

B. This section shall not apply to the following:

1. The display for adoption of birds, mammals, amphibians, or reptiles by an animal care facility or an animal rescue organization, as defined in section 6.20.010 of this chapter; or

2. The display of birds, mammals, amphibians, or reptiles as part of a state or county fair exhibition, 4-H program, or similar exhibitions or educational programs.

6.20.040. Enforcement Officials Designated

The Director of the Animal Commission, Animal Control Officers, Police Officers and Sanitation Inspectors and Code Enforcement Inspectors detailed with the Public Health and Inspectional Services Departments shall have the authority of enforcing all sections of this chapter. All fines and penalties assessed and collected under this chapter may be enforced by issuance of non-criminal tickets pursuant to G.L. c. 40, § 21D, or as otherwise authorized by law.

6.20.050. Violation - Penalty

Any person who sells a bird, mammal, amphibian, or reptile in violation of section 6.20.020 or 6.20.030 of this chapter shall be fined three hundred ($300.00) dollars. Each animal sold or offered for sale in violation of these sections shall constitute a separate offense.

6.20.060. Implementation

An advisory committee will be created by the City Manager to assist Cambridge pet shops to comply with Chapter 6.20. The committee will include a representative of the Cambridge Animal Commission. The committee will also include at least one representative from Cambridge pet shops, and one representative each from the Humane Society of the United States, the Animal Rescue League of Boston, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The committee will be chaired by a designee of the City Manager; will remain in effect for eighteen months after passage of the ordinance; and will issue an implementation status report to the City Council before the end of its eighteen month term.

6.20.070. Severability

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall for any reason be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter and the application thereof shall not be affected and shall continue to be in full force and effect.

6.20.080. Effective Date

The provisions of these sections shall be effective one year after passage.

O-2     Apr 3, 2017
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: Many businesses receive, and streams of income include, emoluments from foreign governments, states of the United States, or the United States itself; and
WHEREAS: Leading constitutional scholars and government ethics experts warned Donald J. Trump shortly after the November 2016 election that, unless he fully divested his businesses and invested the money in conflict-free assets or a blind trust, he would violate the Constitution from the moment he took office; and
WHEREAS: On Jan 11, 2017, nine days before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump announced a plan that would, if carried out, remove him from day-to-day operations of his businesses, but not eliminate any of the ongoing flow of emoluments from foreign governments, state governments, or the United States government; and
WHEREAS: On Jan 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump took the oath of office and became President of the United States; and
WHEREAS: From the moment he took office, President Trump was in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS: These violations undermine the integrity of the Presidency, corruptly advance the personal wealth of the President, and violate the public trust; and
WHEREAS: Our democracy is premised on the bedrock principle that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States; now therefor be it
RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council call upon the United States House of Representatives to support a resolution authorizing and directing the House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist for the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, including but not limited to the violations listed herein; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Cambridge Members of the United States House of Representatives on behalf of the entire City Council.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Feb 15, 2017 beginning at 5:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss next steps on bike and transit safety in Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Mayor E. Denise Simmons; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Joseph Barr, Executive Director; Patrick Baxter, Engineering Manager, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager; Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environment and Transportation Planning; Cara Seiderman, Transportation Planner; Bill Deignan, Transportation Planner, Environmental and Transportation Planning Division, Community Development Department (CDD); Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner; Kathy Watkins, City Engineer, Department of Public works (DPW); Jack Albert, Deputy Superintendent; Lieutenant Rick Riley, Traffic Enforcement Unit; Lieutenant Dan Wagner, Crime Analysis Unit; Devon Bracher, Crash Analyst; Matt Nelson, Community and Strategic Partnerships Coordinator, Cambridge Police Department; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Nate Fillmore, Mark Boswell, Dick Plumb, McMillan Gaither, Jada Bailey, Ted Feldman, Karl Alexander, Fahim Sinha, Abdul Sinha and Elena Saporta.

Councillor Mazen convened the hearing and thanked all for their attendance. He stated that the City has made a great commitment to looking at the bicycle master plan in relation to the 5-year construction plan. He noted that there has been great communication to proactively reach out to leaders of all modes of transportation. He stated that there is a lot of commitment, potential and obligations but it is not clear how these will fit together. He stated that there is a lot of potential for consensus and agreement. He asked Mr. DePasquale for an update.

Mr. DePasquale thanked the City Council, the bike community and residents for their hard work in elevating this process. He stated that the City’s team has been working extremely hard to get these projects moving, including installing the demonstration locations on Massachusetts Avenue, starting the planning and design for the additional locations to be installed in the spring, and working closely with the City’s bicycle committee, bicycle advocacy organizations, and the local communities to prioritize future improvements. He noted that the City has also received the notes from Councillor Mazen concerning the questions that he and others have about the progress that is being made and has tried to provide as many answers as possible in this evening’s presentation.

Mr. DePasquale explained that the City is pursuing two parallel tracks to improve its bicycle network. He said that the first track is focused on continuing to develop additional capital projects that improve bicycle infrastructure with significant adjustments to the five-year plan for street and sidewalk reconstruction. He noted that this includes more funding to ensure continued major progress on implementation of the bicycle plan. He stated that at the same time, there is the addition of a second track that is focused on making short-term, operational improvements to expand the separated bicycle lane network, using markings, signs, flexible posts, and other tools that can be deployed more quickly and at a lower cost. Mr. DePasquale explained that the overall goal is to have a strong pipeline of projects that truly create a safe and comfortable network of bicycle connections all over the city, using a combination of separated bike lanes, off-road paths, and neighborhood streets. Mr. DePasquale stated that it is important to ensure that these improvements are a win for everyone. He explained that there is a very solid plan for the deployment of this network based on the locations of existing problems with crashes, missing links in the network, and where there is a high demand for cycling, particularly by vulnerable users.

Mr. DePasquale introduced Joseph Barr who gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT A).

Owen O’Riordan stated that the last few weeks have been interesting in terms of how better to maintain the Separated Bike Lane (SBL) facilities. He stated that these facilities are a little more challenging and great effort is being made to maintain these lanes. He stated that it is important to recognize that currently there have been 3-4 snow events and the DPW has not been in a snow removal process which will present more significant problems. He stated that in the fall when there is debris such as leaves on the street, it will be difficult to sweep and get into these spaces so they are looking at other options. He stated that this will pose a challenge but there are resources that will be required to properly address these issues. He noted that staff is gaining the experience in the installation process as the City begins to think about further installations. He noted that it is important to be careful about how necessary resources will be identified so that DPW can maintain and protect the facilities. He stated that while there will be a need for investment of more resources, it is important to understand the nature and scale of the operation.

Lieutenant Riley stated that officers assigned as full-time traffic officers are charged with checking the length of the bike lanes in their area, issuing citations, towing (particularly at CambridgePark Drive) and they are sending a strong message with the amount of tagging and towing that is taking place. He stated that bicycle lane violations have been increasing dramatically between the CPD and the Parking Control Officers. He stated that they are reinforcing the importance of taking action when bicycle lane violations are observed.

Joe Barr stated that one of the big questions that was posed in Councillor Mazen’s note to his office was where the City is in terms of SBL lane network. He stated that recently they have implemented operational improvements on CambridgePark Drive, Lafayette Square and Harvard Law School. He stated that the plan for the spring and summer is to implement along Massachusetts Avenue between Sullivan Square and Quincy Square as well as the other segment that was contemplated in the Participatory Budgeting Process that was approved last year on Brattle Street from Eliot Street to Mason Street as well as the segment on Cambridge Street from Quincy Street up to Inman Square. He stated that they have looked at additional locations such as the other half of Cambridge Street, Hampshire Street, Broadway, and Massachusetts Avenue in Central Square. He stated that the next step is to figure out how to prioritize these additional locations.

Kathy Watkins stated that traditionally, each year in April, they have met with the bicycle, pedestrian and transmit committees to review the 5-year plan. She stated that this year they took a step back and listened to feedback in terms of wanting to have a more collaborative process earlier in the update stage. She stated that it is good to have this discussion with the pedestrian, bicycle and transit committees in the same room. She stated that one of the big changes that have taken place is that there have always been “high priority locations” such as schools, major arterials, transit routes, senior housing, parks, playgrounds, and squares. She stated that this year they pulled in the bicycle network vision into the high priority locations so that they could consider where those high priority locations are early in the process. She stated that this was a good discussion. She stated that what was gleaned from the discussion is the streets that overlap between what is funded in the 5-year plan, both for the SBLs as well as the lower speed streets that are also critical connections for the bike plan.

Councillor Carlone asked if the lower speed of 20 mph is because there is not a bike lane width on that street. Ms. Watkins stated that when the bike plan talks about lower speed residential streets it is about lower volume residential street connections. She said that it is more of a shared street but it could be a 20 mph. She explained that this is a separate discussion.

Councillor Carlone asked about handicap parking that is lost. He stated that this parking needs to be on a main street because it doesn’t get cleaned of snow on a side street. He spoke about the handicap parking space that was formerly located in front of the Harvard Law School. He recommended putting a handicap parking spot behind the bus stop at this location.

Councillor Kelley stated that his wife has not been able to bike since December after having a bike accident where she broke her clavicle and ribs. He stated that he uses this example to illustrate that bicycling is dangerous. He said that he appreciates that the City is working on this and noted that he has heard the City Manager talk about capital projects. He said that he wants to move away from capital projects. He stated that he does not feel safe on Western or Concord Avenue. He stated that he loves the separated lanes on Massachusetts Avenue and would like to see more. He noted that we must aggressively figure out whether they are working or not by way of some level metrics. He stated that he is willing to accept that some things cannot be done. He stated that the conversation should be about urban mobility and where Cambridge is going in the future. He stated that the City of the future will not have as many cars as the city of today. He said that all things fit into an urban mobility concept and he would like everyone to think more about what urban mobility will look like in 20 years and how will we get there. He stated that intersections are where collisions usually happen so it is important not to lose sight of how to make people safe. Councillor Kelley said that he appreciates what DPW is doing with the snow but he is willing to accept other priorities come first. He said that we need to think about where bicycles fit. He stated that the standard for lane width is 9-12 feet and we are doing 10.5 feet. He said that if narrow streets give more room to cyclists and as a result, drivers need to pay more attention to driving, he is good with that. He noted that this is a challenging discussion but we must meet a lot of conflicting interests and he said that he is very appreciative of the efforts being made.

Regarding Councillor Kelley’s statement that he does not feel safe bicycling on Western Avenue, Councillor Toomey asked Councillor Kelley if he feels that there is something glaring or not right at that location. Councillor Kelley responded that cyclists have different levels of comfort. He said that he is worried on Western and Concord Avenue where there are curb separated streets that he will go off the edge, he is worried about sight lines and cross streets. He stated that he loves the ones on Massachusetts Avenue and on Beacon Street in Somerville where there are bump outs made with the stanchions as well that allow a cyclist to ride right through them without having to merge into traffic. He stated that he feels safer. He stated that there are many different types of cyclists and level of safety as there are numbers of cyclists and finding the sweet spot is difficult and none are wrong, just different.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is curious about what enhanced enforcement means. He said that the comments he gets via e-mail are heavily in this vein. He stated that one can almost expect to see bicyclists go through red lights when riding through the city. He stated that it seems that we must do something about this because the end result is a disaster. Deputy Superintendent Albert stated that one of the issues that the CPD hired a Crash Analyst is to provide good information and data for planning. He said that enhanced enforcement is intelligence-based and the CPD will now have true picture of what they are looking at. Mr. Barr stated that they have recently added a category for bike lane blockage in Commonwealth Connect. He stated that this gives a sense of where to target resources. He stated that regarding parking enforcement, he has asked all Parking Control Officers to focus on bike lanes for violations while on their route. He stated that between better data and the focus on enforcement, they are hoping to see improvements. Councillor Carlone stated that short-term solutions to maximize bicycle ways make all the sense in the world but as someone interested in urban design, the esthetics of a plastic tube sticking up in the city may make sense in the short-term but it is his hope that this is not the end solution. He stated that the bike path should be at road elevation with a curve and island separating it. He said that this is a more permanent and a safer solution. He stated that it is not pretty and he thinks it is preventative but he does not feel it is safer. Councillor Carlone said that pedestrians are speaking up and saying that they want attention as well so getting to pedestrian safety is going to be critical. He stated that he is hearing concurrent crossing at traffic lights is a problem which affects almost all elderly people and people with young children. He noted that he would like this issue to be looked at. Mr. DePasquale updated the committee and stated that he hopes to have the City Manager Citizens Advisory Committee selected soon and one of the first priorities that will be asked of this committee is how to make transit work for all. Councillor Carlone stated that he hopes that there will be a survey will be a result of the work that will be done by the City Manager Citizens Advisory Committee.

Councillor Mazen stated that Mr. Barr stated that street clearance of snow for anything less than 9 feet in width would need special equipment. He asked if this is just a matter of procuring that equipment or are there other factors that need to be problem solved. Mr. O’Riordan responded that in terms of snow clearing equipment, DPW has retrofitted a couple of vehicles this winter which have been successful in snow clearing thus far. He said that the bigger issue will be if there is a larger snow event and then having to remove snow. He said that this will be a challenge. He said that in terms of street sweeping, street sweepers are 9 feet in width and require 9+ feet to operate. He stated that DPW has sidewalk sweepers that have containers which need to be emptied regularly and are less powerful. He said that this means that there will need to be operated more frequently. He stated this means there will need to be an operator and a machine on these streets on a daily basis early in the morning. He said his bigger concern is that he wants to have proper resources in place to ensure that these facilities are a success. He said it is important, from the City’s perspective, to get some experience with those challenges. Mr. DePasquale followed up by stating that he has spent a lot of time with the Deputy City Manager and Mr. O’Riordan discussing this exact issue. He stated that this is pre-planning to determine what is needed such as more staff or equipment. He said that as we grow, current staffing and equipment cannot keep up to make it successful. Councillor Carlone asked how New York and other cities conduct this work. Mr. O’Riordan responded that in New York it is a much wider corridor that is available. He said that narrow corridors challenging. He stated that moving forward we must have the right resources in place to be successful.

Councillor Mazen talked about the Vision Zero/crash data perspective. He stated that while it is valuable to improve enforcement and make it data driven so that enforcement leads to safe outcomes, there is also a value in how deliberate enforcement interventions can impact the culture of safety for people who bicycle, walk and drive. He said that he wants conversations with people that walk, drive or bicycle because there is no end to small interventions to move people into a safe behavior. He stated that if we choose the wrong red lights, we lose the cultural impact. He said that he would like that conversation to become more concrete. He stated that public safety has ramped up the deliberate nature of the enforcement but it is still disconnected to the policy makers. He stated that we are closer to a time where the process is more open. Lieutenant Riley stated that he has directed officers not to pay attention to intersections that CPD knows are not an issue (in terms of the number of crashes) and to focus on high volume crash areas. He said that in 2016, 7% of the citation total was to bicyclists which is well below what they estimate bicyclist represent as total roadway users. He said that they are mostly writing tickets for egregious red light running. He said that failure to yield to pedestrians is a big issue, whether it be via motorists or cyclists. He said that they are changing the culture of the CPD and having conversations on regular basis. Councillor Mazen stated that his hope is that the good work that is being done is made available and exposed to communities if there is an open house in April. He said that people have strong opinions on this issue and he believes that the CPD can accrue extra data and good will in trying to achieve these cultural goals if there are more opportunities to engage conversation in a more proactive format. Mr. Barr stated that from the engineering side, they are trying to ensure that the infrastructure is better matched to what the actual needs are. He stated that they are looking at locations to better match the infrastructure to what the user experience is. Mr. Barr stated that they took out a signal at Putnam and Pearl Streets within the last month.

Councillor Kelley stated that as a recipient of a number of tickets, whether he agrees with them or not, it makes him a safer cyclist. He stated that he would like the City to expand its efforts in issuing tickets for cyclists who don’t have lights at night. He stated that cyclists need to realize that they have obligations. He stated that the basic problem that we are facing is that we have not looked at cyclists as part of the true transportation system of the urban mobility world. He stated that we have general counts and it would be great to tell local businesses who is going by. He stated that we need to think about how we look at cyclists as a body, get good data and share data publicly. Susanne Rasmussen stated that through the Envision Cambridge process they are just about to bring on board a working group to come up with input into the overall process and to look at the overall mobility strategy for the long-term. She said that there is a lot that they do know. She said that there is a lot of data that is purely not just numbers. She said that they have engaged with schools to get information about how students and parents get to school, why they are making those choices, etc. She stated that the number one concern that people raise is parking but when you delve deeper into the conversation it is not actually what they care about the most. She stated that trying to understand how people move around, what are their concerns and why they make choices is something that they do collect data through Safe Routes to School intercept surveys and from employees through the City’s Employee Commute Survey and all the PTDM surveys. She stated that they are building up that level of understanding while simultaneously driving toward a carbon neutral future. She said that the end goal is clearly in sight.

Councillor Kelley stated that now that there is a Data Analyst, he would like to come back in six months look at numbers and see what has changed. He stated the progress is necessary. Mr. DePasquale stated that there will be data in budget which will continue to grow. Councillor Mazen stated that the committee will check back on enforcement, conversation and culture, night riding, and data in general and will be brought into the next committee meeting or a conversation via an open house or other venue.

Councillor Mazen stated that Councillor Kelley talked about capital projects and above grade sidewalk affiliated protected bike infrastructure. He stated that bicyclists love the pop-up infrastructure as win/win solution. He stated that he would choose protected bike infrastructure. He stated that he believes that this attitude has begun to sweep through the City Council. He said that these pop-up projects are important to test out various things but we should begin a discussion on how the pop-up infrastructure will relate to the long-term infrastructure.

Kathy Watkins stated that many people find Western Avenue quite successful. She stated that feedback shows that there are a number of things that are successful on Western Avenue such as the bike facility, the pedestrian experience, the urban design perspective, landscape areas and seating blocks which are all elements that work together. She stated that Western Avenue also involved looking at pedestrian crossings and their locations, curb extensions, and better bus stops. She stated that when you look at the fuller infrastructure you can get a lot of benefits. She stated that protected bike lanes have a lot of benefits but it is not either/or. She stated that if all of these pieces are at one level it makes maintenance issues much more straightforward because you are working with a wider plane. She stated that when looking at Concord Avenue example on the reservation side where the sidewalk and bike facility at all one level, it makes the snow clearance and street sweeping much more straightforward. Councillor Carlone stated that the difference between the two locations are night and day. He stated that he believes that Concord Avenue looks like a mistake visually. He stated that he has been on Vassar Street and to have separation makes a difference. He said that Vassar works because it is much broader but Concord feels very squeezed to him.

Councillor Kelley stated that if you ever go over the plaza in Kendall Square and go off the edge you might feel differently about the 8 inch drop off the curb. He stated that he does not like them. He stated that when he bikes in Manhattan he sees on some streets a bike lane that is maybe 4 inches above street level with a slanted curve to the street so if you go over the edge a little bit, it is not a precipitous drop off. He said that Western Avenue does this. He said that he feels unsafe on Concord Avenue.

Councillor Mazen stated that the data shows that people are happy with this type of infrastructure. He said that there are other design and experiential points of view that without undermining this approach can inform it.

Councillor Mazen asked about timing and the 5-year plan. He said that we have pilot infrastructure for the spring and fall and it is not clear in addition to Cambridge Street which of the low-hanging fruit options will be added into that. He said that it would be great for representatives of the bike community and other modes of transportation to be drawn into that discussion before final decisions are made. Mr. Barr responded stated that currently it has not been determined if another meeting is needed or if the gathering of opinions is something that can be done on-line but they will try to get back to the City Council and make a recommendation to the City Manager in terms of what they believe is the right way to develop these priorities. He stated that they want to hear from the community to find out what they feed is the most need. Councillor Mazen asked when he should check in with regards to the larger plan for the fall. Ms. Peterson responded that they want to learn through the Cambridge Street experience. She said that the City wants to learn through both the community process the impacts on parking and the maintenance and installation so it is difficult to answer that question. She noted that it is a very significant stretch and could be 100 parking spots that could be impacted. She stated that there is concern that if the City moves too abruptly without learning there will be a huge backlash from a lot of people. She stated that it is reasonable by fall to have thoughts on where to continue with significant stretches and we are getting to the low-hanging fruit. She said that it is important to get right. Mr. Barr stated that they are trying to figure out what kind of resources will be needed. He said that it is important to line up the right resources to move forward. Mr. DePasquale stated that they are asking for the City Council and bike community to trust the City. He noted that the City does not have all the answers but there will not be a plan in the short-term that addresses every issue. He said that the City needs time to do it right. Councillor Mazen stated that maybe the committee can check in June or July and maybe key parts will fit together more clearly. He asked what the low-hanging fruit would continue to be in the fall.

Mr. DePasquale stated that he is happy to provide updates.

Councillor Mazen asked if there is some plan that helps policy makers merge in their mind any potential eventuality for the next five years. He asked how it fits together in year 3 to impact other streets and what type of impact are we talking about (permanent or temporary). He stated that it is upon the City to put out some possibilities for what bike infrastructure outcomes could look like in 5 or 7 years. Ms. Watkins stated that they are in the process of updating the five-year plan. She said that there will be more language and overlapping of the map. In terms of the bike network, Ms. Seiderman stated that there is so much going on and they are working hard to match all the goals to show where the overlap is. They are looking at opportunities when streets are getting done. She stated that they are working on trying to get things together to give a better picture of what is going on. In terms of updating, they have another Wikimap up where people can comment and give feedback and potentially make necessary adjustments. Ms. Rasmussen stated that one of the most challenging problems they are trying to solve is how to accommodate busses and bikes equally well and how to get busses to advance in traffic because it has the capacity to move many people on a single street. She added that experts from Montreal and San Francisco will be brought in to work on a good design. Councillor Carlone said that he would love to hear these presentations. Councillor Mazen asked if the next meeting can have an open and imaginative look at any aspect of making this concrete. He said that when he looks at the 5-year plan there is a lot that can be happening in the imagination. Mr. DePasquale stated that there are financial limitations and as we develop, that factor must come into the conversation. Councillor Mazen encouraged Mr. DePasquale to provide a view of 2022. He said that some semblance of data or timeline for people to hang on to, even if nebulous, is something. Ms. Watkins said that CDD is working on a map to show the connectivity of the system.

Councillor Mazen opened the meeting to Public comment at 7:09pm.

Nate Fillmore thanked everyone for their work. He stated that everyone was thrilled to see the installation and implementation of the SBLs. He stated that the addition of Brattle Street to the short-term is a fantastic thing to see, especially if it is 2-way. He stated that it is also great to see some of the longer stretches. He asked about an earlier presentation in a previous Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee hearing there was a presentation stating the Cambridge Street pop-up was being installed in the early spring. He is curious about internal obstacles that have caused the timeline to slip. He said that slippage of the schedule is a key consideration if the schedule is not what people want to see in the first place. He stated that regarding flex posts, when these things were first conceived it made sense to use traffic cones or flexible delineators. He asked if there has been any thought given to materials that would be more esthetically pleasing. He stated thinking about the longer-term plan, people have been disappointed that a street was supposed to be a calm street and improvements unveiled are not ambitious and don’t do everything it could do. He asked about the process for choosing traffic-calming measures.

Mark Boswell stated that he is encouraged by the information. He stated that he depends on infrastructure to move around the city. He stated that he appreciates the transparency and would like a concrete timeline. He asked what he can do to advance the cause and focus energy. He said that he is more than willing to dedicate time and energy to move this forward.

Ted Feldman, Harvard University Cycling Association, thanked all present for their work. He stated that as part of their cycling advocacy effort, they have received funding for a safety education platform. He stated that analyzing survey data, collecting it and figuring out what to do with it is what he gets paid to do. He said that they would like to use some of the data that is being collected to shape their educational efforts. He stated that if there is way to share the data with the wider community it would help further communication between the public and the city.

Karl Alexander stated that he likes the idea of doing Brattle Street and low impact improvements. He asked if there is a way to create a process to identify many other of these types of opportunities.

Public comment closed at 7:20pm.

Mr. Barr stated that in terms of the schedule, part of the reason for the change in timeline is being overly ambitious on when the City could begin installation. He stated that as the City moves through developing the outreach process, they want to be deliberate. He stated that there is a limit to how much can be done at any one time so they felt more time should be spent on Cambridge Street in order to be ready in the spring. In terms of materials, he stated that no decision has been made if what is being used is a temporary solution or whether in some corridors the City will use these type of materials. He said that unfortunately, there are not nicer versions currently. Mr. DePasquale added that the timeline is serious and it is how the budget is developed. He added that this has been unchartered waters for the City. Councillor Mazen stated that the City would generate good will if it was in the habit of celebrating and publicizing failures that are a low-stake nature because this is an advanced type of learning organization.

Councillor Carlone stated that PVC vertical pipes have nothing to do with urban design in the long-term. He said that they are used in trucking docks and may be short-term bicycle solutions but that this cannot be the final solution. He said that it is an esthetically benign solution. Ms. Seiderman stated that regarding challenges and timelines, buses are part of the conversation that need to be addressed. She said that you need to have accessibility at all bus stops so you must have a raised curb and you cannot stop busses in the middle of the travel lane. She said that either the buses must be brought into the curb or you must bring the curb out to the buses. She noted that it is complicated to figure out how to do bus stops on important routes. She said that she would like to connect with Ted Feldman to talk about outreach materials that would be helpful.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not share Councillor Carlone’s concerns about the PVC vertical pipes. He stated that we can make at-grade bike lanes in a variety of different ways. He stated that he likes them at-grade and he wouldn’t want them raised similar to Western Avenue or Concord Avenue.

Bill Deignan stated that regarding low speed streets and how they relate to traffic-calming and other improvements when those are on the 5-year plan to be developed, those streets are recognized as low speed streets in the bicycle plan and they don’t necessarily need a separate facility but need traffic calming or slower speeds. He stated that all of the processes are done via a community process. He stated that data on speed is collected before they start the process and then they have a conversation with the community to hear concerns and then they discuss options while thinking about emergency response constraints and physical constraints. They then bring options back to the neighborhood.

Councillor Mazen asked what advocates can do to advance cause. He said that there will be some very interesting and detail-oriented and personal conversations coming up in the neighborhoods and he encouraged those who live on these streets to come out and engage those conversations and those who traffic those streets to bring people out. He stated that bikers living on Broadway and non-bikers will have a big huge impact on this discussion. He said that advocates help the process which should lead to a more sustainable conversation.

As it relates to survey analysis education and closer involvement, he stated that he will leave it to experts to engage closely with advocates. His hope is that experts throughout the city will create a network of advocacy and mutual benefit.

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 7:36pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Mar 22, 2017, at 3:05pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to receive an update from City Staff on recent changes regarding leaf blowers made since a hearing held in June 2016, including enforcement, the purchase and pilot of green landscaping equipment, plans for a pilot program in spring 2017 to use green equipment in two parks, and any other updates on efforts the City is taking in regards to leaf blowers, and any other changes to the existing leaf blower ordinance that the City Council may wish to consider.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Mazen; Councillor Toomey; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works; John Nardone, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works; David Webster, Superintendent of Parks and Urban Forestry, Public Works Department; Nicole Murati Ferrer, Chair, License Commission; Andrea Boyer, Chief Licensing Investigator, License Commission; Sam Corda, Managing Director, Water Department; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, Cambridge Health Department; Nora Bent; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Jamie Banks, Quiet Communities, Lincoln; Brian Logee; Katie Camero, 277 Babcock Street; Megan Brook, 103 Inman Street; Carol O'Hare 172 Magazine Street; Virginia Coleman, 2 Berkeley Place; Elizabeth Van Ranst, 120 Foster Street; Jo Solet, 15 Berkeley Street; Chris Young, 56 Concord Avenue; Ed Abrams, 80 Wendell Street; and John Hawkinson.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. She announced that the hearing was being privately audio recorded. There has been a leaf blower ordinance with seasonal restrictions since 2007. Last June, additional goals were set for the License Commission and the Department of Public Works to strengthen enforcement and training and to pilot the use of battery powered equipment for municipal landscaping. An agenda was distributed for the meeting as follows:

Updates from City Staff

City Manager’s Office, Department of Public Works, License Commission, Public Health Department, Water Department, Law Department.

• Updates since June 2016 hearing
• Progress on enforcement
• Purchase and pilot of green landscape equipment
• Spring 2017 Pilot Program
• Additional Updates

Public Comment

Discussion

Adjournment

Commissioner O'Riordan presented a PowerPoint presentation on changes to municipal leaf blower practices. (ATTACHMENT A).

Deputy Commissioner Nardone stated that the discussion at the June 2016 committee hearing focused on ways to improve compliance with the leaf blower ordinance and effectively train DPW employees and municipal contractors on the best practices. He stated that pilot programs began in the fall of 2016 and more will begin in the spring 2017. Best practices for mitigating negative impacts on the environment, residents and workers were discussed. He stated that DPW employees are provided adequate ear protection, but the best practices are not always followed by private contractors. City employees were told to be aware of their surroundings and be considerate of passersby when they are operating leaf blowers. Because the City is committed to reducing its fossil fuel use, electric leaf blowers were purchased by the City for use by many departments. The battery operated leaf blowers were comparable in efficiency to gas powered leaf blowers, but the battery life averaged less (30-40 minutes per charge). Extra batteries and chargers were purchased. Staff will research new leaf blower models to see if they have a longer battery life. He spoke about expanding the use of these leaf blowers to private contractors. He spoke about modification to the City operations, including additional seasonal restrictions. He stated that this spring, leaf blowing will began on March 15 and will end June 15, and the fall season will go from Sept 15 to Dec 31. There will be use restrictions around flower beds and ground cover areas. He spoke about the upcoming pilot to use all electric equipment at two city parks, likely Green Rose and Glacken. He stated that the concern is the limited battery life and the need for frequent re-charging. The mowers have a significant size battery. He explained that the golf course has been using green equipment since 2012.

Ms. Murati Ferrer spoke about the enforcement. She noted that a Commonwealth Connect category to report leaf blower violations was added to the web and mobile app. Commercial users who violate the ordinance for the first time are given a warning by the License Commission. If there is no response from the owners of the companies, they are asked to come before the License Commission for a hearing, and they are issued a $300 fine if found to have violated the ordinance. The new leaf blower regulations (ATTACHMENT B) are more stringent than the ordinance. She explained that Rules 22 - 24 contain the requirements for ear, respiratory and eye protection. She stated that an advisory on the ordinance and new regulations will be published in the newspaper. Ms. Murati Ferrer informed the committee that thirty-four companies have been permitted by the License Commission so far this year. Renewal applications have been sent to companies that were permitted last year. She stated that a part-time investigator position has been posted, which will help with enforcement.

Mr. Nardone stated that DPW will issue a report on the effectiveness of battery operated leaf blowers.

At the time Councillor Devereux asked if the City Council had any questions on the presentation.

Councillor Kelley asked if there are restrictions on the use of leaf blowers on vegetation. Mr. Nardone stated that there is no restriction; they can be used on hard surfaces. It can be an issue at playgrounds with sand. He stated that leaf blowers are the best piece of equipment to use on sand, because it can be hard to clean up all of the sand with just brooms. He stated that leaf blowers should not be used where there is salt, and that best practices for leaf blowers are not always used. He commented that it is not an appropriate use of a leaf blower to chase a single leaf on a lawn. He spoke about educating employees about the proper use and best practices. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that best practices were stressed at the training given for employees and contractors last fall. Councillor Kelley stated that the contractors are a relatively small portion of the people using leaf blowers. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that there has also been internal training. Councillor Kelley said that a complete ban on leaf blowers may be the only way to solve the problems they pose.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he is more worried about the private landscaping companies properly using leaf blowers than City contractors; these are where the most complaints stem from. He asked if the city will require private landscaping companies to use battery equipment. Commissioner O'Riordan stated that battery equipment is advantageous in certain situations. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that most complaints are about commercial leaf blowers. She stated that when the first complaint was received last year, education, enforcement and fines were issued by the License Commission. Now the companies are seeking to comply with the regulations and ordinance. The proactive actions, the regulations and the notice shows that the City is on a better trajectory. Vice Mayor McGovern supported revoking the permit if companies are not following the rules and regulations

Councillor Carlone spoke about the harm caused by blowing sand around playgrounds. He spoke about the noise issue. On the battery life, he feels workers can maximize battery life by properly using the equipment; and he asked if this was this part of training. Mr. Nardone spoke about using the equipment more judiciously. Because the battery life is shorter, workers are more likely to only use leaf blowers when necessary. This will be part of the training going forward. Councillor Devereux asked if a vacuum could be useful for sand. Mr. Nardone noted that the Cambridge Common tot lot has a significant amount of sand. The contractors were instructed that tot lots should be maintained without the use of leaf blowers. He responded that vacuums could be worse to use. Councillor Devereux spoke about the training done in the fall and asked if employees hired since then will be given the training. Mr. Nardone responded in the affirmative. Councillor Devereux asked if the supervisors or employees are being trained. Mr. Nardone stated that it is the supervisor who was trained, and they are expected to report back to their employees. Councillor Devereux asked if training could be video-taped so that employees can also be trained. She asked if two-stroke gas engines being used. Mr. Nardone responded in the affirmative and they need to be below 65 decibels. The two-stroke engine is not the most efficient. Ms. Boyer explained that two-stroke engines must comply with the noise and emissions standards.

Public comment began at 3:48pm on a motion by Councillor Devereux.

Jamie Banks, Executive Director, Quiet Communities, spoke about five communities that have transitioned to using only electric equipment and manual tools. She commended Cambridge for becoming a leader in the transition away from the use of gas-powered tools. She suggested that Cambridge look at the experience of other communities who use electric equipment. The American Green Zone Alliance has a training program on the efficient use of battery-operated equipment. She spoke about the brands and the battery capacity. An update on the recent developments in science, medical, and landscaping industries is attached (ATTACHMENT C).

Megan Brook, 103 Inman Street, agreed that there is a problem with leaf blowers. She said that the new rules are an improvement. She stated that adding personnel and strategies on enforcement are positive, but the focus is on City staff, even though private contractors are often the subject of complaints. This is a complaint-driven system. She asked about contractors who are sending out-of-town employees into Cambridge to work, who are less familiar with the City’s rules. She supported an outright ban on leaf blowers. She spoke about the noise caused by battery powered equipment, which is harmful. The noise and dust cannot be avoided. She stated that subsequent fines should be increased after the first $300 fine. She suggested revoking a license when there are repeated violations.

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, applauded the work of Ms. Boyer. The City and contractors will do the best they can to work and train. She feels that the independent landscape companies are the issue. She suggested that it be required that landscape companies attend a training in order to obtain a license. She suggested we publicize the regulations and information about the Commonwealth Connect category. She said that many contractors are unaware of the regulations. She added that leaf blowers are not necessary to clean sidewalks or driveways.

Virginia Coleman, 2 Berkeley Place, stated that she appreciated the increased enforcement efforts. She disagreed that the City's needs must dictate what the City allows for all. The ordinance in its present form cannot be enforced. She stated that it is impossible to know if contractors are violating the 10,000 foot rule and noise decibel limits. The battery equipment noise is not as bad as gas powered equipment, but it is still intolerable. She stated that people are using leaf blowers on the sidewalks. She said that she is in favor of a complete ban. She added that leaf blowers are totally unnecessary.

Elizabeth Van Ranst, 120 Foster Street, stated that she appreciated the progress. She is concerned about residential leaf blowing and noise. She collected signatures for no smoking in restaurants when smoking was still allowed in restaurants. It has become clear that most people are happy not to have smoking in restaurants. She stated that the leaf blower situation is similar and needs to change. She suggested shortening the time to March 15 - May 31st and Sept 15 - Dec 1, and using quieter machines. She spoke about the misuse of leaf blowers. She suggested encouraging people to use rakes and brooms and to provide training in many languages. She stated that she does not know how to tell if a leaf blower is above 65 decibels. She suggested also fining the homeowner when the companies are violating the ordinance.

Jo Solet, 15 Berkeley Street, stated that she appreciated the update from the hearing last year. She wanted a list of offenders and the violations. She spoke about the frequency of the violations. It should not be up to the residents to get this issue under control. She read a prepared statement (ATTACHMENT D). She stated that leaf blower ordinance is ineffective and she listed the health effects of leaf blowers. She presented a CDC report on hearing loss caused by two hours of leaf blower use. She spoke about the OCA on a hierarchy of control (ATTACHMENT E). She spoke about the harm of the pollutants and airborne particulates. She stated that the use of leaf blowers should not be privileged over the lives of residents or owners of private property. She spoke about the invitation to the Earth Hour to fight climate change. She stated that banning residential leaf blowers will fight climate change.

Chris Young, 56 Concord Avenue, stated that noise is a killer with great cruelty. He complained that he is being kept up all night with leaf blowers and aircraft noise. He will never catch up on sleep and his blood pressure is high. The cumulative effect of noise is a killer. He stated that 30% of the fuel from leaf blowers goes into the air.

Ed Abrams, 80 Wendell Street, stated that this shows that the regulations are not working if these hearings are held yearly. There is overwhelming public support for a ban, so why doesn't the City enforce a ban. He spoke about 100 decibels equipment he has witnessed being used by the Water Department at Fresh Pond. He stated Radcliffe and Sancta Maria often violate the ordinance. Harvard and other institutions use whatever equipment they want. He wanted stronger regulations by the City on the golf course. He supported a total ban.

John Hawkinson commented that in #9 and #10 of the Leaf Blower Regulations that the License Commission shares with contractors it says square feet, but should instead be linear feet.

Public comment closed at 4:24pm on motion of Councillor Devereux.

Councillor Devereux stated that it is clear that the people who spoke at this hearing want a total ban, but she has not done a poll of the general public and there are people who feel it necessary to use leaf blowers. There have been good suggestions made regarding training for employees and private contractors. She asked if this can this be extended. She wanted stronger regulations on hard surfaces. Fining the homeowner is one way to give enforcement more teeth. She wanted to the City Council to discuss a leaf blower ban for on non-municipal property. She applauded the City's use of electric equipment.

Councillor Carlone agreed about banning the equipment. He commented on the City using electric equipment and that the City was going to look at efforts to reduce noise and emissions. He sees no reason why leaf blowers are used on residential sites; this is a health and nuisance issue. He believes that leaf blowers should not be allowed. He believes that all employees, not just the supervisor should attend the trainings. He stated that Flagstaff Park personnel were using leaf blowers to clean the paths and the dust was going into the cars and the employee yelled to the motorists "close your window."

Councillor Mazen asked how much faster a leaf blower on a residential lot is than raking. Commissioner O'Riordan stated that supervisors believe that the use of leaf blowers for the parks is efficient. Mr. Webster stated that backpack are more efficient in a large area. Many people feel raking a large area is very taxing. Councilor Mazen wanted to find a way to create a ban for residential areas.

Councillor Kelley noted that something was used for landscaping before leaf blowers existed. He does not see the need for leaf blowers. He stated that tennis and basketball courts will not be as clean without leaf blowers, and that might be acceptable. Commissioner O'Riordan stated that injury has been caused by slipping on leaves and sand. There are benefits to looking into more battery or electric equipment and training. He stated that the City can reach out to Harvard and MIT to work with the City on this. He spoke about the need for regulations for residential areas. Councillor Kelley stated that he did not think about the safety issues. He spoke about leaf blowers that affects the flower beds. He suggested rethinking what a ban might be.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that there is a difference between public and private property and responsibility. All have to sacrifice for the greater good to ensure that the parks are safe and clean. An individual house is the responsibility of the homeowner. He spoke about a partial ban. More can be done to limit leaf blower use on private property.

Councillor Carlone spoke about using decomposing leaves as food for plants and grass. Mr. Webster spoke about mulch - it would have to be removed it cannot all be mulched. He stated that impacted land on the fields and use of the fields and mulching would be difficult on athletic fields.

Councillor Devereux proposed the Council consider instituting a ban on leaf blowers on private property. This would not eliminate the need for enforcement, and compliance will always be a challenge. She wanted to hold another hearing to let the public comment on this proposal. She spoke on the issues of sand in the Cambridge Common tot lot. She suggested that brooms be placed in the tot lot with a sign to ask for help to clean up the sand. Councillor Kelley wanted to discuss leaf blower use on large parcels. He wanted leaf blowers to be used on surfaces where lack of use would cause safety issue and not be used on any vegetated surfaces.

Vice Mayor McGovern suggested scheduling another Health and Environment Committee hearing and ask the City to come back with possibilities. He wanted to hear from the City about an entire ban and what it means for public and private property and have a discussion on the pros and cons to the City.

Councillor Devereux stated that it could be detrimental to the City to maintain its properties with no leaf blowers, but that they could use electric equipment. She stated that she did not believe that residents need to use leaf blowers on their smaller plots of land.

Deputy City Manager Peterson asked that this matter be kept in committee. She spoke about the costs, impacts, education and training on this matter and said that this needed additional discussion.

Councillor Carlone stated that on large parcel, both municipal and institutional, there should be buffer zones. Even on large parcels — we need to be more considerate of neighbors.

Councillor Devereux noted that Deputy City Manager Peterson would work on the scenarios. She moved that the matter remain in committee and the motion carried on a voice vote Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the report:
Communication from Florrie and Jim Wescoat, 33 Market Street, urging the City to develop an environmental approach to landscape maintenance as part of its goal of sustainability and to ultimately phase out all leaf blowers (ATTACHMENT F).
Communication from Lawrence Hartmann, M.D., 147 Brattle Street, urging a ban on all leaf blowers (ATTACHMENT G).
Communication from Nan M. Laird, 156 Hancock Street, supporting a stronger ban on leaf blowers (ATTACHMENT H).
Communication from Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, urging that leaf blowers be banned (ATTACHMENT I).

The hearing adjourned at 4:58pm on motion of Councillor Devereux.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 3:39pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to strikeout Section 8.23 entitled “Non-conformity” and substitute in place thereof a new Section 8.23.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Cheung, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Mazen; Taha Jennings, Assistant to the City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Joe Boswell, 27 Berkeley Street; and McMillan I.G., 221 Walnut Avenue.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing, stated the purpose and announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the meeting. He thanked the staff for getting this zoning amendment back so quickly.

Mr. Jennings stated that this is a City Council petition and the petition contains text changes to Section 8.23 which deals with non-conforming structures. The text changes are in response to a Policy Order adopted by the City Council relating to a major fire in East Cambridge on Dec 3, 2016. He stated that eighteen properties were affected by the fire and some of the buildings cannot be rebuilt as they existed under the current zoning because they are nonconforming. The language change allows a 24 month period after the catastrophe to rebuild in the same foot print. This will allow the residents to rebuild. There was a sense of urgency and minimal text changes were made to move the process forward.

Mr. Roberts updated the City Council on the Planning Board hearing held on Mar 21, 2017. He stated that a positive recommendation was made. This change is in the purview of the City Council to address the question whether nonconforming structures that have been destroyed should be allowed to be rebuilt to their pre-existing condition without a variance or special permit. The Planning Board suggested that if the City Council wished to move forward to do it expeditiously. He spoke about arson and damaged caused intentionally be clarified and this would only nullify the provision if the damage was caused by or on behalf of the property owner. He stated that on the timing for reconstruction the Planning Board recommended that the timing provision be restated that reconstruction must commence within 24 months of fire or catastrophe and proceed continuously to completion. Other changes were clarification of wording. Alterations of a non-conforming building are allowed as of right or by special permit. Mr. Roberts explained that the City Council should receive the Planning Board report on Apr 3, 2017.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the staff is supportive of the suggested changes. She explained that if Section 8.23 would not allow the types of alterations allowed in Section 8.22 a future separate zoning petition would be required to allow the change by special permit. A future petition would require being advertised. Inspectional Services Commissioner Singanayagam expressed his concern with the time frame for completion of construction. City Solicitor stated that the construction must commence within 24 months of the fire or catastrophe then proceed continuously to completion.

Councillor Devereux asked if the Inspectional Services Commissioner was concerned with the 24 month time frame or the fire or the continuous to completion. Mr. Singanayagam stated his concern is whether the construction would proceed continuously to completion. He feared complaints from the neighbors about the construction. He stated that his concern is that construction may be slow to completion. Councillor Devereux asked if the wording changes made by the Planning Board contained Carol O'Hare's comments. Mr. Roberts stated that the comments were included.

Councillor Cheung suggested that the committee could forward the report to the City Council today and the Planning Board recommendation will be on the agenda on Apr 3, 2017 and their modifications can be incorporated into the petition. He suggested language that construction commence within 24 months and be completed within 36 months. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that there should be some type of standard.

Councillor Mazen noted that "continuous until completion" language could be amended. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the recommended language could be prepared for the next meeting.

Councillor Cheung opened the hearing to public comment at 3:54pm.

Joe Buswell, 27 Berkshire Street, stated that his property was one of the houses destroyed. He stated that at the Planning Board hearing the Planning Board suggested extending the timeframe to 36 months. He stated that 4 months have already passed since the fire and there will be many buildings being built at the same time. He stated that this will tie up a large section of the city. This needs to be considered and looked at. He wants to build within the same foot print and build a 3 story building. There are condos across the street that want to demolition and cannot do this until this ordinance is passed.

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that this language and the arson language should have been vetted before the petition was presented. She stated that haste makes waste. The rush to get this passed prevented it being passed expeditiously. She stated that she previously submitted copies of ordinances from Newton and Wellesley relating to rebuilding and a variance is not required. She stated that as long as building commences within 24 months and proceeds expeditiously she suggested also adopting the Newton or Wellesley ordinance. She added that Inspectional Services should be given discretion. There are definition in the zoning code why use other words. She was disappointed that CDD did not recommend her recommendations because they are practical. She would like CDD to go back and look at this. She asked why the City Manager's Office did not confer before submitting.

Councillor Mazen moved to close public comment at 4:02pm.

Councillor Cheung commented that this is forcing the entire block to be under construction at the same time. The construction should be staggered.

Councillor Devereux stated that there may not be enough time for the reconstruction. She noted that this ordinance is not about this one fire only. She asked how would this be done if there was just one house broke down.

Councillor Cheung spoke about an administrative extension. The petition could be worded as 24 months upon passage of the ordinance or from the event. He asked for language relating to administrative extension and that the Inspectional Services Department review the construction. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the language provided by the Planning Board provides for the Inspectional Services Department to go on site and determine that construction is proceeding continuously to completion. She explained that a building permit can be extended 6 month.

Councillor Mazen moved that the petition be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:07pm on a motion by Councillor Mazen.

For the Committee,
Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chair