CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the recommended appointment of Kathleen L. Born as a member of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority for a term of five years.
Referred to NLTP Etc. Committee

May 8, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby recommending the reappointment of Kathleen L. Born to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA) for a term of 5 years. Ms. Born was first appointed to the CRA Board in 2012.

Under Ms. Born’s leadership, the CRA has made a strong commitment to being a transparent public body that listens to its constituents and works in close collaboration with the City. As Chair, Ms. Born has insured that the Board provides thorough oversight of the organizations activities, undertakes strategic decision-making for redevelopment programs, and engages in thoughtful project review of development proposals.

As a long-time resident, who raised her four children in Cambridge, she provides great understanding of the unique characteristics of the City to the Board and staff. Ms. Born has been actively engaged in local development and city planning issues for years, both in her three terms as a City Councillor and throughout her career as an architect. She brings a technical perspective on urban design as well as a thoughtful community lens to project review and decision making regarding redevelopment programs.

Ms. Born’s leadership throughout her term has served the staff, the Board members and the CRA organization as a whole, in a positive and production direction.

Therefore, in accordance with Chapter 121B of the Massachusetts General Laws, I am submitting Ms. Born’s name for City Council confirmation as a member of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. I am further requesting that this recommendation be forwarded to the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee or other suitable committee for a public hearing as outlined in City Council Rule Number 32C.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a loan order requesting the authorization to refund prior bond issue(s).
Order Adopted 7-0-2

May 8, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a loan order requesting the authorization to refund prior bond issue(s). The purpose is to refinance existing General Obligation Bonds to acquire lower interest rates than those currently being paid.

Summary:
The City, in conjunction with its Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel, closely monitors the market for favorable conditions which would potentially allow for the City to reduce its debt service costs. The last time that the City was able to take advantage of market conditions was in 2015, when the City refinanced certain eligible bonds allowing it to realize savings of just over $2 million in debt service costs. This process of recalling bonds and reissuing them to achieve a lower interest rate is common practice. The ability to take advantage of lower interest costs, if market conditions permit, is received favorably by the rating agencies and demonstrates prudent debt management practices and is included in our debt policy, which is projected to result in a savings just under $2 million.

Timing:
The Refunding is to occur in late May or early June. If, between now and June, market conditions should deteriorate such that it no longer meets the required thresholds, the loan order allows for the City to take no further action, and not proceed with the sale.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

Agenda Item Number 3     May 8, 2017
ORDERED: That in order to reduce interest costs, the Treasurer, with the approval of the City Manager, is authorized to issue refunding bonds, at one time or from time to time, pursuant to Chapter 44, Section 21A of the General Laws, or pursuant to any other enabling authority, to refund all or any portion of the City’s general obligation bonds outstanding as of the date of adoption of this Order, and that the proceeds of any refunding bonds issued pursuant to this vote shall be used to pay the principal, redemption premium and interest on the bonds of the City to be refunded, and costs of issuance of the refunding bonds; and that the Treasurer is authorized to execute such documents as may be necessary or desirable to carry out this transaction, including one or more refunding trust agreements with a bank or trust company.

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. A communication was received from Richard Harding, et al., 189 Windsor Street, transmitting notification to withdraw their zoning petition.
Referred to Petition

April 28, 2017

Donna Lopez, City Clerk
Cambridge City Clerk's Office
795 Massachusetts Avenue, 1st Floor
Cambridge, MA 02139

RE: Withdrawal of Zoning Petition

Clerk Lopez;

On January 9, 2016 [should be 2017], a downzoning petition dated December 26, 2016 was filed regarding the Mass and Main Residential Mixed Income Sub District. This petition was filed by Richard Harding and twelve (12) other registered voters, as certified by the City Clerk's office. Please accept this correspondence as a withdrawal of the downzoning petition, which is no longer supported by the undersigned registered voters.

Signed	Address
Richard Harding	189 Windsor St.
Moses Moore	242 Western Ave. #2
Donald Harding	181 Windsor St.
Alexis Harding	189 Windsor St.
Cheryl Harding	189 Windsor St.

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Councillor Craig A. Kelley, apologizing to his Colleagues, City Manager and City Staff for not attending tonight's meeting in order to attend a conference on climate change adaptation and expressing his thoughts and apology for the events at the Budget Hearing.
Charter Right - Simmons

Craig A. Kelley
City Councillor

May 4, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Mr. Manager and City Staff:

I apologize for not attending tonight's meeting. I am at a conference on climate change adaptation this week and hope to bring home useful information to help all of us mitigate the challenges of the new normal posed by current and future climate change impacts.

I will repeat my thoughts in person at our next meeting, but I wanted to take this opportunity to apologize to everyone concerned for allowing last week's budget meeting to devolve as it did at least one point. Our City staff deserves to be treated better than what happened at that meeting. Councillors should not rely on last minute public submissions to drill questions home to a staff that is prepared for more general budget level questions and all of us should have the dignity and professionalism to hold each other to appropriate standards. I should have spoken out more forcefully in the moment that I thought the meeting had veered both off the more salient points of the budget and into something bordering, in my opinion, on personal attacks. I apologize for not being more proactive at the time.

I look forward to meeting with you all in the near future and working collaboratively to move our City into a daunting and uncharted future.

Sincerely,
Craig

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     May 8, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is committed to Vehicle Trip Reduction measures as a means to fight climate change, encourage sustainable forms of transportation, and lessen parking demand and traffic congestion; and
WHEREAS: MBTA bus service is not flexible or broad enough to meet the transit needs of all neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS: Bridj was an innovative startup that offered local on-demand bus service to fill gaps in needs; and
WHEREAS: Though well-received by riders, Bridj recently shut down due to lack of funding; and
WHEREAS: The Boston area was Bridj’s largest market, transporting thousands of customers each week including many commuting to Kendall Square; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City’s transportation planning staff to reach out to Bridj’s Founder and Chief Executive Matthew George to discuss whether there are opportunities for collaboration in meeting the needs of Cambridge residents for more flexible transit.

O-6     May 8, 2017  Amended by Substitution (see below)
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition and the City of Cambridge partnered to conduct a comprehensive Cambridge Needs Assessment, outlining a host of very deep fiscal and programmatic needs in the city; and
WHEREAS: The City Manager is currently appointing a Community Benefits Advisory Committee to establish criteria and guidelines for funding local non-profit organizations; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge currently lacks clear data on the annual carrying capacity of corporate, university, and individual charitable donors who are apt to contribute to local non-profits in service to the Needs Assessment goals; and
WHEREAS: Understanding the local landscape for charitable giving and developing a plan to nurture and increase giving is important to maintaining and fostering the growth of local non-profits; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Chronicle reported that the number of millionaires living in Cambridge has doubled over the last ten years to 471, and they are often more apt to make annual or landmark gifts in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: There are an unusually large number of technology, biotech, and other corporate entities regionally, nationally, or globally headquartered in Cambridge, often earning revenues of several billion dollars per year—entities interested in fostering the development of their home city; and
WHEREAS: $50M could be raised annually, if as few as 200 corporate entities or individuals participated in a collaborative annual giving commitment; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to create a permanent office or public-private initiative for the purpose of fostering charitable giving in Cambridge and to work with non-profits to study the local charitable giving landscape, measuring the estimated maximum charitable carrying capacity of the city; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work through this City office or public-private initiative with the Cambridge Community Foundation and Cambridge corporations, universities, and individuals to reach $50M per year in annual giving towards the Needs Assessment goals, within 5 years, beginning with $10M of additional charitable giving in the ‘17-’18 fiscal year; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back on this matter.

O-6     May 8, 2017  Amended Order - Tabled (Mazen)
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Community Foundation, the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition and the City of Cambridge partnered to conduct a comprehensive Cambridge Needs Assessment, outlining a host of very deep fiscal and programmatic needs in the city; and
WHEREAS: The City Manager is currently appointing a Community Benefits Advisory Committee to establish criteria and guidelines for funding Cambridge-focused projects and programs that address the needs identified in the Assessment; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge currently lacks clear data on the annual carrying capacity of corporate, university, and individual charitable donors who currently, or might in the future be apt to, contribute to local initiatives in service to the Needs Assessment priorities; and
WHEREAS: Understanding the local landscape for charitable giving/social philanthropy and developing a plan to nurture and increase giving to address the city’s most pressing social needs is important to maintaining the health and sustainability of our diverse community; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Chronicle reported that the number of millionaires living in Cambridge has doubled over the last ten years to 471, people who may be more apt to make annual or landmark gifts in Cambridge if they were informed about extant needs and city leadership’s commitment to problem solving; and
WHEREAS: There are an unusually large number of technology, biotech, and other corporate entities regionally, nationally, or globally headquartered in Cambridge, often earning revenues of several billion dollars per year—entities interested in fostering the development of their home city; and
WHEREAS: $50M could be raised annually, if as few as 200 corporate entities or individuals participated in a collaborative annual giving commitment; therefore let it be
ORDERED: That the City Manager is hereby requested to create a permanent office or publicprivate initiative for the purpose of transforming cross-sector engagement, generating resources for significant initiatives to create equity in Cambridge, and to work with non-profits and the Cambridge Community Foundation to study the local charitable giving landscape, measuring the estimated social philanthropic investment carrying capacity of the city; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager work through this City office or public-private initiative with the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition, the Cambridge Community Foundation and Cambridge corporations, universities, and individuals to reach $50M per year in annual giving towards the priorities addressed in the Needs Assessment, within 5 years, beginning with $10M of additional charitable giving in the ‘17-’18 fiscal year; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back on this matter.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:38pm in the Sophie Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the possibility of the City subsidizing the $30 unlimited monthly MBTA passes for low income CRLS students who participate in extracurricular activities.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Toomey, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Mazen; Councilor Devereux; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Jeana Franconi, Budget Director; Claire Spinner, CFO, School Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

No one appeared from the public.

Councillor Toomey convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that Councillor Kelley had submitted Policy Order # 5 on Mar 27, 2017 which was adopted by the City Council (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Kelley explained that this started out as a discussion about sport events being held in North and West Cambridge. He noted that some student had difficulty getting to sport events but the intent has expanded to include other extracurricular activities. He added that it has been proven that students who participate in these activities do better in school. Councillor Toomey stated that this is an important access issue.

David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs stated that the cost estimate is 875 passes at $30 per month x 10 months = $262,000. The number 875 is the number of free lunch students. There is no number of those who participate in these activities. He stated that he is not sure if the School Department has weighed in on this matter. The implementation of the program would be with the School Department. This is the cheapest program offered by the MBTA and it would allow students to use their S bus pass in the summer.

Claire Spinner, Chief Financial Officer, School Department, stated that the School Department does not track students who participate in extracurricular activities. There is no systematic database of these students. It is hard to say how many of the 875 students would be participating in the before/after school activities. Ms. Spinner stated that the Superintendent of Schools felt that this benefit should be offered to all students in free or reduced lunch program. She is unsure if this was discussed with the School Committee members. She would want to engage with the School Committee before implementing this.

Councillor Kelley stated that it is not clear how things are shared between the School Committee and the City Council. He is happy to extend this to all students in the free or reduced lunch program. Councillor Devereux questioned whose budget does this funding come from. Councillor Kelley stated that $30 a month is a lot for some families to afford. He commented that everyone should feel comfortable traveling across the City. Ms. Spinner noted that the School Department is not asking for this. She informed the committee members that the School Department administers a pass program and a list is maintained of the students who pay for the passes.

Mr. Kale stated that at a cost of $262,000 are there any other alternatives like late busses. Ms. Spinner responded that the only bus provided to students is for the sporting activities for away games. The cost of this is $150,000 per year. Mr. Kale asked could late busses be purchased to provide a shuttle service. Councillor Toomey stated that it is easier to create the pass program. Councillor Kelley stated that this is about equity in the City. This is a small amount of money for a big benefit.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the City could do this. Income insecurity shows that there are many families who do not qualify for services who are struggling. We need to think about these families. We need to expand this net to include those families who do not qualify for the free or reduced lunch program.

Councillor Devereux stated that she would support the equity issue. Cambridge is a City that does not have fields adjacent to the high school. It is hard to administer this and hard for the School Department to track those who are not in sports programs. She spoke about only some sport participants may need to take advantage of this service. She suggested a Hubway membership to provide access for students.

Councillor Carlone stated that knowing who buys the $30 pass would be informative. He suggested students pay $10 and the City contributes the rest. He suggested that if it were prorated those who need it would participate. He stated that this should be modified in the beginning.

Councillor Kelley noted that the original intent was about sports but it was expanded. He stated that the majority of white students get dropped off or bike to school. This should be accessible to everyone. The City can afford to do this and he does not know how this can be provided for students who are in need and do not qualify for free and reduced lunch. He did not see any reason not to go forward.

Councillor Mazen stated that when someone has the option to pay into something it is usually used. He wanted students to see the opportunity and to use it. This transit behavior starts before high school; he suggested beginning this in middle school. It is fine to notify the School Committee about this. Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about the cost benefit to the School Committee. The School Committee needs to be involved in this and the School Committee needs to be contacted.

Mr. Kale stated that implementation is in the details. He stated that this should be a communication between the Superintendent of Schools and the School Committee as to the timeline and how quickly this could be implemented. Councillor Toomey added that this will have a financial impact on the School Committee and the Superintendent of Schools. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that there is not a fluid relationship between School Committee and the City Council. Councillor Mazen stated that there are people in the room who do not want to spend this money. Councillor Toomey stated that this is important to all City Councillors, but the School Committee needed to be involved. Councillor Kelley noted that it is not the job of the City Council to tell the School Department how to implement this program.

At this time Councillor Kelley made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record supporting the expenditure of $262,000 per year to supplement a reduced MBTA pass program for students at CRLS and that Her Honor, the Mayor, be and hereby is requested to notify the Superintendent of Schools and the School Committee of this support and to report back to the City Council with a view in mind of implementing this supplemented MBTA pass program for the 2017-2018 school year.

The motion - Carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Mazen suggested contacting Boston for the MBTA bulk rate. Mr. Kale stated that the MBTA was contacted on this matter.

Councillor Toomey thanked all attendees for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 2:10pm on motion of Councillor Toomey.

For the Committee,
Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:33pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge by creating a new Section 11.900 Maintenance and Security of Vacant or Abandoned Buildings. The proposed zoning would require that any building that is deemed to be vacant or abandoned for longer than 90 days shall be registered with the Inspectional Services Department, shall be secured and maintained so that it does not exhibit any evidence of vacancy, and shall pay an annual registration fee.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Mazen; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Lisa Hemmerle, Director, Economic Development, CDD; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; McMillan I.G., 221A Walnut Avenue; Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place; and Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing. The petitioners will be heard first, staff, City Council questions of petitioner or staff and public comment. At the conclusion of the hearing a recommendation will be made by the committee.

Vice Mayor McGovern, petitioner, presented an overview of the petition. He stated that concerns from the community have been received about buildings in family dispute, commercial buildings purchased that remain vacant, and land is being land banked so that their value goes up. Leaving these buildings vacant are not good for the community. This petition is an attempt to try to address this issue. It deals with the length of time that buildings can be vacant and fines/penalties for violations and the condition of the buildings. He spoke about buildings in deplorable condition, the safety issues and the negative impact on the community. This is an effort to have property owners who are leaving properties vacant to do something with their property and while vacant the buildings need to be maintained so as to not be a blight on the community. He met with City staff on this petition. The City agreed that this is an important issue but did have concerns with the ordinance as drafted and its enforcement. The staff requested time to redraft the proposed ordinance and ways to better enforce the ordinance. He stated that it is his intention to leave this matter in committee while the staff has a chance to redraft the petition.

Ms. Farooq stated that the staff agreed with the intention and the goals of the zoning petition but City departments have some concerns with the recommendations. She stated that staff wanted time to think through this and refine the text and come back to the Ordinance Committee with recommendations. She questioned whether zoning was the right tool to achieve this end or whether a combination of municipal and zoning may be the right way to go. She noted the implication of having any ordinance provision that applies to all and how it would impact larger versus smaller properties or business owners. She stated that there could be a disproportionate effect to property owners, which is contrary to what the City Council is hoping to achieve. So there may need to be cutoffs or whether there is a way to have a more voluntary cutting off point, such as a registry to have enforcement more targeted. She stated that the staff wanted to explore the nuances.

Mr. Roberts spoke on the zoning issues. He stated that the petition raises interesting points worthy of discussion. He stated that this has to do mainly with maintenance of property rather than the use and development of land, which is outside the typical realm of zoning. He explained that zoning tools are more effective when land is being developed, where use is being changed rather than the condition of the property or how the property is being occupied. There are other mechanism that should be explored to accomplish the intent of the petition.

Lisa Hemmerle stated that she did research on other communities that have this type of regulations or ordinances. She explained that San Francisco and Chicago, Illinois have both commercial and storefront regulations. She noted that Arlington enacted a vacant storefront regulation, but it is a registry and there is a fine if not registered within ninety days. Her concern is land banking and these structures may be absorbed into their Profit & Loss to offset profits in other communities. Smaller property owners may have to triple rents to offset the costs which is what the City does not want to see. Phone stores may be installed to avoid the fines. She stated that some communities work with organizations such as No Longer Empty to help to activate the spaces. She stated that there are real opportunities to work those type of uses into the vacant spaces, with art and working with the institutions with pop-ups to allow the students to present their neat inventions. She suggested doing more research.

City Solicitor Glowa also spoke about whether zoning is the appropriate tool. She stated that the City does not have the authority to impose fees that are not reasonable related to the services provided. She noted that the fees could present legal problems but that fines could be imposed. She wanted to do more research and figure out the best structural approaches to do and to do legal research.

Commissioner Singanayagam stated that his department gets calls on abandoned buildings and they make sure that the space is safe and secure. His department does not get calls on commercial spaces. He spoke about the difference between an abandoned buildings and vacant property. He stated that usually abandoned properties receive complaints but his department gets no calls on vacant properties.

Councillor Mazen stated that it did not occur to him that large property owners may take a fine as a pass through. He stated that vacant properties will move forward if City staff consistently contacts the policy makers. He stated that the owners on the City Hall side of Prospect Street had no idea that as owners this has been going on for a long time. He noted that he does not know who owns the Walgreen’s block. He encouraged the City to be persistent. These property owners do not feel that they have felt the heat from the City. He stated that the City needed to do something more dynamic and then follow though.

Councillor Devereux requested clarification about the statement that it may be better to be a municipal ordinance rather than a zoning ordinance - does this relate to the fine or the ability to fine? City Solicitor Glowa stated that Chapter 40A regulates zoning ordinance. She stated that while some of the aspects of this ordinance may be addressed through zoning there are other aspects that are not appropriate for zoning. The City could adopt a municipal ordinance which could govern other aspects such as ownership or registration component. She explained that the fee is a different issue. She stated that there are restrictions on the fees that can be imposed by the municipality and there are other provisions for fines that can be imposed. The City must stay within these legal parameters.

Councillor Devereux asked where the 4.17 percent of assessed value come from? Vice Mayor McGovern stated that in two years they would be paying fines based on the assessed value of the property.

Public comment opened at 3:55pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place, spoke for the Cambridge Residents Alliance, supporting the City Council discussing this issue. She stated that her personal experience living off of Essex Street that there have been two of the properties, Carberry and Cambridge College School of Education that have been vacant for a long time. These vacant properties, which back up to the yards of residences and other properties, had rubbish and rats. She spoke to the real estate representative of Matt Carberry and there was no movement; he had his own notion of what he wanted to do with his property. She stated that she is pleased that the City is taking whatever is the appropriate way to deal with large landowners who are land banking and are brought to task in a meaningful way possibly including fines. She wanted the public to recognize that large property owners are doing the City a disservice when property is left vacant. She added that the community, residents and other commercial neighbors have a right for a respectable area whether a residential neighborhood or commercial area. She spoke about all the technicalities of this proposal it is hoped that this is taken to the highest degree to make it possible to bring accountability. She stated that the value of the land in Cambridge is so high monetarily that people can afford to hold, flip or just let it sit. This is not in the interest of the municipality to have this going on. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT A).

Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place, stated that this is a huge problem. She spoke about texture and difference. She stated that Harvard Square is unique from a commercial vantage point because it is mostly investor/real estate-company owned. She actively tried to find out who owned property in Harvard Square. She stated that there is an upcoming Harvard Square Conservation District working group and she felt that the City will want a commercial member on the group. She highlighted the property owners in Harvard Square and stated that the other entities in Harvard Square are leasing their space. She noted that American Apparel is going for $40,000 and Sweets is going for $300 a square foot. She stated that this is a major problem for Harvard Square.

Ms. Blier stated that she hoped that Harvard Square would be looked at differently from other areas because there are different factors in play. She stated that bring in art or adding projects from schools really does nothing to help the square. She suggested leases for local businesses for a certain period of time if the space was vacant and not maintained. This should be done in addition to the fines. She stated that planning is critical and Harvard Square was left out the Envision process. The grocery store at Church and Brattle Streets is insufficient. She noted that many feel that having a theatre in Harvard Square is critical to the vitality of the square moving forward. She spoke about what are the real needs for Harvard Square and to come up with actions that will benefit all.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated the idea behind the proposal is great. She likes the registry portion because is low tech and low intrusion and would provide the City with a way to track what is going on and a list to work off of and an easy metric. She suggested separating the parts of the ordinance and starting the registry sooner rather than later. She suggested separating the different uses: residential; commercial buildings and store fronts. She is concerned about vacant residential buildings. She stated that Vail Court is not the only vacant residential building; it is the most egregious. She stated that there are several buildings in North Cambridge that have been vacant for more than two years. She acknowledged that vacant storefronts are an entirely different issue than vacant residential buildings. The commercial buildings vacant on Prospect Street have debris in the parking lots. She commented that if there was a registry the Inspectional Services could do monthly inspections of entirely vacant buildings there might be a better outcome.

Public comment ended at 4:08pm on a motion by Councillor Carlone.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that more work needs to be done but this deserves attention. He spoke about the commercial buildings on Essex Street and in Harvard Square and in the neighborhoods. He noted that this is happening all over the City. He questioned how the City knows when a property owner is actively trying to do something with their property. The City must take a more aggressive stand on this. He added that more property is being consolidated by fewer people. Now investors are purchasing property in Central Square. He explained that the property owners were asked nicely to clean Vail Court and then when $300,000 in fines were issued the property was cleaned. So sometimes long-term violators need to be hit in the pocket book. He wanted to move on this in a timely manner.

Councillor Devereux stated that she supported the intent but wanted more research. She wanted to see the inventory of these buildings as well as more case studies on buildings such as the Tokyo which is a building that is not secured or maintained and is vacant because the property was overpaid for and the property owner cannot do anything with it. This property should be repurposed. She stated that there is a vacant residential property owned by MIT. If this property were put back on the tax roll it may provide movement. She spoke about property on Garden Street that is for sale at an unrealistic price and is falling apart. She spoke about the need for an exception when a property is part of an estate that has not been resolved. There needs to be provisions for property being sold. She questioned what would be done for a vacant condo unit in a 100 unit building. This is not a blight but an underutilized asset. She asked would this ordinance be applied to this situation. This has a social impact as it relates to housing. She supported the pop up program. She spoke about public/private partnership in New York that match vacant property with small business.

Councillor Carlone stated he fully supported the intent of the petition. He spoke about when a poorly maintained property drags down adjacent neighboring properties, there should be a tax premium on that abandoned property to compensate for the negative impacts. He asked at what point does a building owner lose the rights of an occupancy permit and what requirement were necessary to regain the occupancy? He spoke about the penalty being a social fine. He stated that if a property is not rented there is no income and one way of evaluating the property is looking at that lack income in the property’s evaluation for eminent domain.

Carlone spoke about Arnold Circle where the neighbors have complained for years about the property being vacant. If a property is vacant for a multi-year period of time the City should seriously consider taking it by eminent domain. He supported fines but there should be other ramifications. There should be stages similar to a new building. He spoke about a retail plan for Harvard Square, Central Square and Cambridge Street. He stated that Inman Square is suffering. He asked the City to push this because this affects all the squares and neighbors. He asked if anything could be done on an occupancy permit after a certain period of time.

Mr. Singanayagam stated that the building code only requires that an occupancy permit be issued once; unless there is major renovation. Councillor Carlone asked could the City require an occupancy permit if a property is vacant for a period of time. Mr. Singanayagam stated that this could be done through zoning or municipal ordinance.

Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about taking property and that the proposal does have language on this. He stated that the City wants to work with the property owners, but the welfare of the entire city is the primary focus. He spoke about the problem of buying property, leaving it vacant and not renting and then flipping it.

Councillor Carlone stated that he would provide a list of the issues raised for the City departments to look into. He stated that this issue will most likely get worse before it gets better.

Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review and to report back on the following issues:
• could a tax premium be placed on abandoned properties to compensate for their negative impacts on adjoining property values;
• could the city evaluate abandoned property value in part by their lack of income for eminent domain;
• if a property is vacant for a multi-year period of time could the City seriously consider taking it by eminent domain; and
• could the City require a re-occupancy permit if a property is vacant for a period of time.

The motion carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Carlone moved that this matter remain in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:27pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 3:02pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to receive an update on the City’s urban forestry programs, tree inventory and maintenance, planting programs, the role of the Committee on Public Planting, the impacts of the drought on the urban forest and any other matters relating to trees.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Toomey; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works; Kathy Watkins, City Engineer; John Nardone, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works; David Lefcourt, City Arborist; David Webster, Superintendent of Parks and Urban Forestry, Public Works Department; Sam Corda, Managing Director, Water Department; Maggie Booz, Co-Chair, Public Planting Committee; Florrie Wescoat, CoChair, Public Planting Committee; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Ian Seiferling, Research Associate at MIT Senseable City Lab; Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street; Minga Claggett Borne, 7 Pleasant Place; Elena Saporta, 102 Ellery Street; Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Susan Labandibar, 8 Brewer Street; Sarah Bell, 19 Muller Avenue; and John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. She stated that the hearing was being privately recorded. She outlined the Agenda as follows: a presentation from MIT, a presentation from City Staff, City Council comments and questions and public comment.

Councillor Devereux stated that trees are a topic that has been frequently discussed by the City Council recently. Now is an important time to discuss the City’s general policies, especially considering the ongoing drought and new measures being taken to protect trees. The DPW FY2018 budget also calls for an additional arborist to be hired to increase the amount of staff time that can be devoted to trees.

Mr. Seiferling gave a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT A). He explained the work of MIT’s Senseable City Lab and its background. He stated that Treepedia is a tool designed to measure and study the street tree canopy from the perspective of someone at street level, rather than from above as is done through aerial photography. It is based on image visualization, using Google Street View to analyze the amount of green in the images, which translates to a “green index”. Twenty cities have been analyzed to date and there are approximately 40 communities waiting to be analyzed. He wanted this to be a useful tool for residents and urban forestry staff. He displayed a detailed map of New York City and explained what the map shows in regards to canopy coverage. He showed the Cambridge data and stated that there is an extensive canopy with fairly even distribution of greenness throughout the City. The data also shows that Cambridge has a higher green index than Boston (25.3% vs. 18.2%).

Councillor Devereux stated that she and several others present had recently met with the Senseable City Lab and that she had requested that they analyze Cambridge’s green index.

Commissioner O'Riordon asked what the percentages mean in terms of coverage. Mr. Seiferling responded that the greenness index means the amount of canopy visible from the public way, which is then aggregated across the City.

Councillor Carlone asked if the 25% represents the coverage from the street. Mr. Seiferling stated that it is the tree coverage that is seen from the street. Councillor Devereux stated that this measure a person’s experience of greenness as they travel along the public way. Councillor Kelley asked what 100% would mean. Mr. Seiferling stated that it would mean that the scene is completely covered by green. The method accounts for the whole 360 panoramic street view captured by Google vehicles driving through the city. Councillor Mazen noted it is looking at 360 and it will not account for the streets themselves, which are not green.

Commissioner O'Riordan gave a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that the orange plastic buckets and hoses (on display at the hearing) were provided to the City Councillors to encourage trees to be watered in front of their property, and these buckets will continue to be distributed to residents. Fri, Apr 28th is Arbor Day and this past week has been celebrated by DPW as “Arbor Week” through various activities. He stated that posters were hung from street trees to explain the value of a tree in terms of its climate and environmental benefits. He spoke about the report on the creation of a tree task force. The expectation is that the upcoming tree master plan will build on the planning of tree plantings currently being done by the City. There have been a number of studies done to look at the overall health of street trees and gaps in the tree canopy. Earth Watch completed an earlier assessment of the Cambridge’s trees. He stated that the trees are in good condition. He stated that half of all the public trees in the city have been examined. Tree plantings have been dispersed evenly across the City. He stated the life expectancy of street trees is around 30 years and the half-life of trees is 20 years. He stated that in a 2012 study, the University of Vermont found that 30% of the city was covered by trees, excluding Fresh Pond. He stated that the properties built in the 1920s have the largest tree canopy. He stated that in 2014 the City’s tree stock was reviewed for potential disease from pests and fungi. He spoke about the impact of inclement weather, ice, and salt on the trees.

David Lefcourt, City Arborist, spoke about the city’s programs to protect and preserve trees. He stated that the tree planting specifications were recently upgraded with a visual aid to explain the best practices in planting a tree. For instance, the excess soil needs to be removed from the trunk flare of the tree to properly it. He oversees all of the trees planted, and now the City will be hiring a consultant to ensure that trees are planted according to the new specifications, which require watering for the first two years of the contract (DPW will continue watering new trees for the third year after planting.) Now, the contractors will be paid each time they come to the City to water a tree. He explained a new program in which residents and businesses are encouraged to adopt a young tree, water it and tend to it. This is also a way to collect the emails of people interested in tree issues so that the City can send them information about tree care and future droughts. He spoke about the planting standards. There are 130 different tree species in the City. He stated that there is always a pest or disease that affects specific species of trees, and by diversifying the urban forest, the number of trees impacted by a single disease at any time is diminished. Signs are put on the sidewalk to notify residents that a new tree will be planted when one is removed for various reasons.

Kathy Watkins spoke about the 5-Year Plan for Street and Sidewalk Reconstruction. She spoke about the City’s expectations of contractors and the sidewalk tree planting program. She spoke about the importance of maintaining ADA compliance while also protecting the trees. On Chilton Street there is a curb extension that allows for the planting of new street trees. She spoke about the Western Avenue reconstruction that included new trees, which are doing well. She spoke about the street tree plantings on Main Street. One challenge is that the T runs directly below Main Street’s sidewalks near Kendall Square, which limits the amount of space that the roots have to spread out.

Mr. Lefcourt stated that the watering frequency has been increased over the years, which is especially important as summers are hotter and drier. For the next two years, contractors will be required to water all new trees. Cambridge’s urban forest is divided into 6 pruning zones and there is a proactive tree pruning cycle. Minor tree issues are found during the pruning cycle and are addressed before they become major issues. He stated that Cambridge has a good urban forestry crew division. He spoke about the community partnerships with the Public Planting Committee. Developers are encouraged to improve the landscape with their projects. He stated that funding from the Participatory Budget process funded additional tree plantings. He stated an urban forest master plan is being created with goals established for the future. Cambridge will be receiving its 25th Tree City USA award this year.

Councillor Toomey stated that many existing sidewalk tree wells are empty. He asked for an update on planting trees in the empty wells. Mr. Lefcourt stated that interns have identified the empty tree wells. Trees will be planted in appropriate wells and the wells that are no longer suitable for planting will be closed.

Councillor Kelley asked when this tree well project will be done. Commissioner O'Riordan stated that the tree well issue will never be completely done. The majority of trees planned will be planted in the wells. He explained that 150 trees are lost annually. Councillor Kelley asked when the back log will be completed. Commissioner O'Riordan responded that this will not be completed this year. Councillor Kelley asked about stump removal. He wanted a notice to be placed on the stump itself explaining that the stump will be removed and when.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the effect gas leaks have on trees. He stated that the trees in front of City Hall have been missing for years and he asked if this is because of a gas leak. Mr. Lefcourt stated that there is no gas leaking at that location. He wanted to revisit the wells and plant trees. Councillor Carlone asked if it was the soil composition that is the problem. Mr. Lefcourt stated that it is unknown. Councillor Carlone stated that the first 3 years of watering is critical for trees. Commissioner O'Riordan stated that the next contract will include a 3-year watering requirement. Councillor Carlone noted that on Massachusetts Avenue, between Harvard and Porter Squares in the new sidewalk demonstration block, the trees look healthy and he questioned if this is the effect of extra watering and soil. Mr. Lefcourt stated that it is a combination of creating a better planting environment, trees being planted the correct way and the watering frequency. Councillor Carlone asked if there are species that are less affected by salt. Mr. Lefcourt responded in the affirmative and stated that he tries to plant trees that are more resilient to salt on major thoroughfares.

Councillor Devereux asked about the back-of-sidewalk program and if they are inventoried and tracked. Mr. Lefcourt stated that when residents find out they are responsible for their back-of-sidewalk tree they sometimes do not want to be part of the program. Councillor Devereux stated that she hopes that residents can be motivated to have a back-of-sidewalk tree on their property. She spoke about utility company pruning and asked how the City is working with utility companies to minimize the damage. Mr. Lefcourt stated that the City works with the utility companies to look at each tree and discuss what can or cannot be pruned. The utilities are in year 2 of their 4-year pruning program. Utility companies want to have the maximum clearance from their wires, but Cambridge does not allow the expansive space that the utility companies want. Councillor Devereux asked about the feasibility of moving trees to a different location that are in the way of development projects; such as could the large trees be moved when the Tobin School is renovated? Councillor Devereux stated that the trees on the Volpe property will be a big issue when MIT comes to the Council for zoning. Mr. Lefcourt explained that there are new techniques to move trees and that 80% of the trees thrive. Mr. Lefcourt stated it is possible to transplant trees but it depends how they were growing and that it is costly. Councillor Devereux stated that trees have a significant value to the broader community, which must be recognized such decisions.

Florrie Wescoat, Co-Chair of the Committee on Public Planting, discussed the role of CPP and the formation of a task force. The CPP has 17 members who meet monthly under the auspice of the City Arborist. Minutes are kept and posted on file. The CPP serves as a resource within the City. She highlighted the six core functions of the CPP. She stated that the formation of a tree task force will benefit the City and have positive impacts on the urban forest. Her communication is attached (ATTACHMENT C).

Maggie Booz, Co-chair, CPP, stated that the group supports the City’s urban forestry efforts. The task force was first suggested by the Green Cambridge advocacy group and put into a Council order sponsored by Councillor Devereux. She stated that there is a sense in Cambridge that trees are suffering. The CPP supports the task force; but it will be different from what CPP does. Climate change will be an increasing factor in the health of trees, especially street trees. Street trees are needed to shade the sidewalks and streets. She hopes the task force will bring experts together from various disciplines to be proactive about protecting trees as the climate changes. Parking often determines if trees can be planted in a specific location. People have an expectation of black asphalt streets in the winter, despite snow and ice, but the chemicals used to melt snow are harmful to trees. Public expectations needs to be addressed by the task force. Councillor Devereux stated that the reason for this hearing is because people are aware that the trees are suffering. A group with a larger vision will be needed to inform a tree master plan.

Councillor Devereux opened public comment at 4:33pm.

Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, stated that it is useful to have a survey of the number of trees to be used as a baseline. She spoke about trees in Kendall Square and at the Volpe site. She spoke about geothermal drilling and the removal of trees with the building of the Cambridge Street School. She questioned why the City would not maintain the current footprint of the Tobin School if changing it would result in tree removal. She spoke about greenwashing and about mourning the trees. Street trees removed Holyoke and Dunster Streets for the renovation of the Holyoke Center destroyed things in the center of the City. She wanted the City to rethink its policies. Minga Claggett-Borne, 7 Pleasant Place, stated that over-salting of the streets includes public buildings and that excessive salting occurs around the schools. She stated that she wanted to hear more about the diversity of trees. She adopted a tree 20 years ago that leads into the school where delivery trucks enter and often hit the tree. She explained that Rwanda has a law if you hit a tree there is a fine. Cambridge should consider this. She wanted to stop the gas leaks and the destruction of the trees.

Elena Saporta, 102 Ellery Street, spoke about salt and its liberal use around City properties. Once the snow melts she would like the City to sweep the salt. She spoke about combining beet juice with salt to melt ice (ATTACHMENT D). She spoke about snow plows running over tree pits. She suggested the City use narrow equipment on narrow streets. She provided pictures (ATTACHMENT E).

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that she sent the first letter about creating a program for residents to adopt a tree several years ago. She stated that if there are ambassadors who are enthusiastic about programs, people will respond. She stated that the back-of-sidewalk tree program is not well enough known. She wanted the City to promote this. She asked about a tree doctor to provide pruning advice. She asked if Public Works could better inform residents about street tree care. She spoke about the condition of tree roots on Green Street at Pearl Street and Magazine Street at Putnam Avenue.

Susan Labandibar, 8 Brewer Street, appreciated the support for the tree task force. She spoke about conceptualizing what the problem is. Trees need to be planted throughout Cambridge and the City must develop partnerships. She stated that tree longevity must be tracked and sufficient funding must be allocated.

Sarah Bell, 18 Muller Avenue, spoke about being in the 5-Year Street and Sidewalk Reconstruction plan. There must be a holistic approach including trees that must be part of the sidewalk plan. Empty tree wells have been a problem for 25 years. The trees on Massachusetts Avenue need to be big trees. She spoke about businesses are hesitant about trees being planted and the City must proactively encourage businesses to have trees. She noted that 3-4 trees have been cut down on the Minuteman bike path. She stated that the City sends mixed messages about the tree canopy.

John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, agreed that a holistic approach is needed. Citizens need to be educated about the tree canopy and the data on the private trees is need. This needs to be a wholehearted effort to educate all. The trees have great value. The task force needs to pay attention to the science and to understand what is being done to protect trees around the world.

Councillor Devereux closed public comment at 4:58pm.

Councillor Devereux wanted more information on the 659 trees that will be planted in FY17. She is concerned about the empty tree wells. At this time Councillor Devereux made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City Departments to provide the City Council with an account of empty trees wells and how quickly they will be replanted or the reason why trees will not be planted in the wells that are not suitable.

The motion carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Kelley acknowledged that great strides have been made. He stated that it is an ongoing challenged to educate the public on the importance of trees.

Councillor Carlone stated that those who have studied trees and mental health have noted that a lack of green and healthy trees affect people’s health. In a City that does not have a great number of parks, street trees and pocket parks become more important from a medical standpoint because they provide significant benefits.

Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:03pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair