5. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to appointment of the following persons as members of the Community Preservation Act Committee for 5-year terms effective June 1, 2015: Chandra Harrington, Thacher Tiffany

June 1, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointment of the following persons as members of the Community Preservation Act Committee for 5-year terms effective June 1, 2015:

Chandra Harrington (Historical Commission)
Chandra Harrington is a fourth generation Cantabrigian who grew up on Hancock Street. She is a retired museum executive, having most recently worked at the Museum of African American History.

Thacher Tiffany (Planning Board Representative)
Mr. Tiffany is an urban planner who holds a masters degree in City Planning with a certificate in Urban Design from MIT. Mr. Tiffany is a LEED Accredited Professional and works in the field of affordable housing. He is Director of Acquisitions for the Beacon Communities, where he manages acquisitions of affordable housing properties through public and private partnerships. He has lived in the Boston/Cambridge area for most of his life, and for the last three years in mid-Cambridge.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

7. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,300,000 from Free Cash to the Public Works Public Investment Fund Extraordinary Expenditures Account for the third phase of the LED street light conversion project.

June 1, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting an appropriation of $2,300,000 from Free Cash to the Public Works Public Investment Fund Extraordinary Expenditures Account for the third phase of the LED street light conversion project.

During the FY13 budget process, the total cost of the LED street light conversion project was estimated at $6 million. This project involves converting all neighborhood cobra-head street lights and retrofitting all decorative street lights and park fixtures. A master control system was also installed to report information on each street light, including failing lights, and enables the remote control of lighting levels.

The goal was to convert approximately 6,173 street lights and 848 park lights to LED over the next three years. It is estimated that the City will achieve over 40% of energy savings from current street light usage once the project is complete.

The City Council approved an appropriation of $2 million on Oct 12, 2012 for Phase 1 of the LED street light conversion project. Phase 1 included two pilot installations, the design of lighting levels for all streets, and procurement of the master control system.

The City Council approved a second appropriation of $2.2 million on Jan 27, 2014 for Phase 2 of the project for final procurement of the cobra-head fixtures, installation of the cobra-head fixtures and the master control system.

This appropriation will fund Phase 3 of the project which will include retrofitting decorative and park fixtures across the city.

In FY15, the City received an NStar rebate related to the LED conversion in the amount of $806.756. This rebate, in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, will fall to free cash in the next fiscal year.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

13. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a zoning petition to amend the provisions of the PUD-KS District set forth in Section 13.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of these proposed changes is to implement the zoning recommendations of the Kendall Square ("K2") Planning Study in order to facilitate future redevelopment of the John A. Volpe Transportation Systems Center site, which occupies the majority of the PUD-KS District, in accordance with the study.
Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board

June 1, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting a zoning petition to amend the provisions of the PUD-KS District set forth in Section 13.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of these proposed changes is to implement the zoning recommendations of the Kendall Square ("K2") Planning Study in order to facilitate future redevelopment of the John A. Volpe Transportation Systems Center site, which occupies the majority of the PUD-KS District, in accordance with the study.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     June 1, 2015
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: New residential developments such as Vox-on-Two in the Alewife area of Cambridge are primarily luxury one and two bedroom units; and
WHEREAS: These new developments may or may not have significant traffic impacts and may also have significant impact on school enrollment numbers, but the City Council does not have any information on what those impacts might be; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant City staff and the School Committee, who is requested to refer this matter to the Superintendent of Schools, and report back to the Council on:

1. CPS Enrollment information for all multi-unit buildings of over 10 units to include, to the extent that CPS can share this information, building address (or general area, such as North Point or Alewife) if specific addresses cannot be shared)

2. Car ownership, based on excise tax payments, and City parking sticker applications for this all multi-unit buildings of over 10 units to include, to the extent that CPS can share this information, building address (or general area, such as North Point or Alewife) if specific addresses cannot be shared)

3. Trip generation data for all multi-unit buildings of over 10 units to include, to the extent that CPS can share this information, building address (or general area, such as North Point or Alewife) if specific addresses cannot be shared)

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, to which was referred the GENERAL FUND BUDGET for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2016 in the amount of $510,570,005 held public hearings on this matter on May 7, 2015 and May 14, 2015 commencing at 9:00am and on May 13, 2015 commencing at 6:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

THE FINANCE COMMITTEE has referred the GENERAL FUND BUDGET for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2016 in the sum $510,570,005 to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

For the Committee,
Councillor Marc McGovern, Chair

Committee Report #2
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, to which was referred the WATER FUND for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2016 in the amount of $13,964,115 held a public hearing on this matter on May 14, 2015 commencing at 9:00am in the Sullivan Chamber.

THE FINANCE COMMITTEE has referred the WATER FUND for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2016 to the full City Council for the adoption of the enclosed order in the total amount of $13,964,115.

For the Committee,
Councillor Marc McGovern, Chair

Committee Report #3
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, to which was referred the PUBLIC INVESTMENT FUND for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2016 in the amount of $18,076,290 held a public hearing on this matter on May 14, 2015 commencing at 9:00am in the Sullivan Chamber.

THE FINANCE COMMITTEE has referred the PUBLIC INVESTMENT FUND for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2016 to the full City Council for the adoption of the enclosed order in the total amount of $18,076,290.

For the Committee,
Councillor Marc McGovern, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee held a hearing on May 21, 2015 beginning at 5:05pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to consider claims filed against the City.

Present at the meeting were Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Chair of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and Marybeth Cosgrove, Operations Manager, City Clerk's Office.

Councillor Toomey convened the meeting and explained the purpose. Councillor Toomey moved to Executive Session to discuss pending litigation and claims filed against the city. The motion carried on a voice vote. Thereupon the committee moved to the consideration of the following claims:

William J. Sarchioni, 44 Webster Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02141
Claimant struck a raised sewer cover on Cardinal Medeiros Avenue, Cambridge, MA
Approved

Brendan Mackoff, 863 Massachusetts Avenue #26, Cambridge, MA 02139
Claimants bicycle was damaged during snow removal on or near 847 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA
Approved

Thomas Hughes, 381 Broadway #5, Cambridge, MA 02139
Claimant struck a pothole on Flagg Street, Cambridge MA
Approved

Councillor Toomey thanked all present for their attendance.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:22pm.

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

Committee Report #4
June 1, 2015
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the City Council hereby approves payment of claims against the City of Cambridge in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the report of June 1, 2015 Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee in the total sum of $854.07.

Committee Report #5
The Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, May 21, 2015 beginning at 5:33pm in the Ackermann Room. Councillor Toomey announced that a quorum of the committee was present. He stated that the meeting is being privately audio recorded.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss development of a process for the evaluation of the City Manager and recap the procedure for the setting of City Council Goals for the upcoming Legislative Term and to consider a different format.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Chair of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Craig Kelley; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; and Robert Winters, 366 Broadway.

Councillor Toomey convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He began the discussion with the recap of the procedure for the setting of City Council Goals for the upcoming Legislative Term and to consider a different format.

Councillor Toomey asked City Manager Rossi to give input on the goal setting. Councillor Toomey stated that he wanted a different format. He is open to suggestion for a format change.

Councillor Simmons stated that the City went through the budget process and the budget is aligned with the goals and the budget. City Manager Rossi stated that in 2013 the goals where reaffirmed. Councillor Simmons stated that she thought for each term there could a review of the goals in the context of a fresh term/members. The goals should really be looked at so that goals are in the budget process. She wanted the goals to be measurable. She wanted goals evaluated for the benchmarks. She wanted more accountability in the goals statement.

Councillor McGovern stated that goals should be set earlier for the term for the new City Council. He stated that setting goals, adopting the rules and electing the mayor are the principal processes that the City Council does. He developed budget guidelines when he was at the School Committee. Being specific is important. He commented that the current goals look like value statements to him.

City Manager Rossi noted that the City Council is different from the School Committee. He stated that it is the responsibility of the City Manager to create budget guidelines. He would like the goals aligned with the budget development which is done in November. He stated that if the goals are not set in the spring it is out of whack with the budget process. The goals should be for 2 years and then be reassessed. There are benchmarks in the budget based on the goals. The City Council developed broad goals and the city administration would like to keep the goals this way.

Councillor Mazen stated that he agreed with the City Manager. He sees three things with the goals: the current goals are identify based on and are in service of a 20 year vision and a set of projects or milestones. He used the foundry as an example. He stated that goals should be a set of projects, outcomes and ideology.

Councillor Kelley disagreed with Mr. Rossi on the specifics. He wanted to look at the number of trees that are planted. Mr. Rossi stated that it is not productive with a list of 800 items as goals which are personal projects. This information is in the budget and should be pulled out as a goal statement.

Councillor Toomey stated that the goals have always been the same. He suggested sub-goals under the current goals. Mr. Rossi stated that he interpreted this as breaking things down more.

Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that it is a good idea and the way that the City Council has done this has included city staff. It is important to include the departments to set the benchmarks and the work. She stated that in the past projects were given priorities. She felt this was helpful.

Councillor Simmons stated that once the landscape was set through the goals it is a shared process. She wanted the City Council to identify what they want to achieve over a term to have a target. She wanted the City Council and the City Administration to work together to accomplish the target and then evaluate this.

Councillor Toomey suggested that each chair of a City Council committee outline three goals. He stated that he wanted committee chairs to direct the committee work.

City Manager Rossi commented that between now and October the City Council has to finalize their goals. He suggested starting with the City Council and staff or continuing this conversation to either expand the goals or have sub-categories under the goals.

Councillor McGovern noted that the current goals all agree with. City Manager Rossi stated that if this was working correctly the process would start now; end in September. Then he would tell City departments to put this into the budget in the December budget kickoff meeting. Mr. Rossi stated that this could be a rough draft to bring to the City Council.

Councillor Mazen spoke about a project management policy. He would like committee goals outlined for the committee work. Councillor McGovern commented on his work on homelessness. He stated that he had no knowledge that Councillor Cheung had done this work previously.

City Manager Rossi stated that he would work with Ms. Albano and Ms. Lopez and draft a plan to send to the City Council and include the committees. He spoke about including the mission statement.

Councillor Simmons stated that each City Councillor should look at the goals and send their comments to Councillor Toomey to be included as part of the discussion.

Councillor Toomey stated that the goals are too stale.

Councillor Toomey opened the hearing to public comment.

John Hawkinson stated that the Finance Committee should engage with departments to propose goals for the upcoming budget.

Councillor Toomey stated that this could be a joint hearing between the Finance and the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committees.

City Manager Rossi noted that in November City departments are charged with looking at goals and looking at budgetary spending. If the City Council goals were received prior to this they could be included in the budget. This is the cycle that the City Administration needs.

Councillor Toomey closed public comment on the goals at 6:01pm.

Councillor Kelley stated that when the City Council submits too many orders it confuses the City Manager. He suggested limiting orders to 3 per week. Ms. Albano commented that the Policy Orders could be tied to the goals.

Councillor Simmons suggested that Policy Orders should be more specific with their content; it could be more of a narrative.

The goals portion of the hearing closed at 6:04pm.

Councillor Toomey now moved to the discussion about the City Manager evaluation process.

Councillor Toomey stated that he is open to discussing this and establishing guidelines. Each City Councillor can meet with the City Manager to discuss this and have a frank conversation with the City Council. Mr. Rossi can speak honestly to each City Councillor. This is a different type of engagement.

Councillor Simmons stated that this does not qualify strength and weaknesses. She suggested a narrative provided by the Mayor and look at the performance of the City Manager under a number of indicators. Then she asked does the City Council want to share this information and speak as one voice. When there is an operating tool it is easier to frame your thoughts. She wanted a more formal, organized quantifiable way for the evaluation of the City Manager and going forward.

Councillor Toomey stated that he went on line for performance evaluation. It is good to use this type of a format. He does not like a format of ranking by the use of numbers. He wanted to have a discussion on the evaluation performances. It could be a definable or quantifiable method. The City Council talks with one voice.

Councillor Kelley likes a formal format for a discussion. He wants the conversation to be two-way. He would want the staff to tell the City Council what can be approved. Councillor Simmons disagreed that both groups should not be together. Evaluation and the City Council/City Manager relationship should be a two-step process. Councillor Kelley stated that evaluation is a weird word to use. He would approve Mr. Rossi today. He wants to make this team work better and this needs to find ways to work better. He stated that a one way evaluation process would not be as productive. Councillor Toomey stated that the City Manager could give his feedback as to what the City Council is doing right or is doing wrong.

Councillor Mazen noted that the more formal the process the better quantifiable. This should be disconnected. How often will this process be done. There is good in the public process. Instead of doing a nationwide search a conversation with the public may be a better process.

City Manager Rossi stated that in his contract it states that the City Council shall review the City Manager's performance and evaluate his performance and shall be done in accord with the open meeting law. Mr. Rossi stated that this is in the City Council purview on how they will select a city manager. His contact requires the City Council to evaluate his performance. He liked a list of issue that the City Manager will discuss with the City Council and make it a two way conversation. He is proud of his performance in running the City. He is ready to have this conversation. He stated that where Councillor Mazen is going is a much bigger conversation that the City Manager should not be involved in. He stated that City Council should get input from a larger population.

Councillor Toomey stated that it is the job of the City Council to evaluation and to hire a city manager. The citizens evaluate the City Council at election time. It is the responsibility of each City Council to hire five employees under their authority.

Councillor McGovern stated that he does not want to add the search process to this. This is about the performance of the city manager. The individual conversations between the City Council and the City Manager are important and they can happen at any time. He wanted the City Manager to feel comfortable to give his input about how he and his staff are being treated by the City Council. He stated that public meeting evaluations can be uncomfortable and he does not want people to come away with a bad taste. The City Manager contract discusses evaluation. In a numbered evaluation a 3 meets all expectations.

Councillor Simmons stated that when all the information is collected and is synthesized into a document then the City Council will discuss this document. The City Council needs to look at the same issues, questions and list. Mr. Rossi agreed. Councillor Toomey noted that after each discussion come up with a narrative or list of topics and discuss with the City Manager. Again Councillor Toomey asked each City Councillor to come up with topics and see if they overlap. Councillor Simmons stated that she wanted the same document for all City Councillors to see if there are commonalities, such as leadership etc.

Councillor Mazen suggested that the City Council start with the same list of questions including an "other" category. He wanted this to be compiled and grading marks are not included in the synthesized document. Then the City Council discuss the syntheses and further discuss the document. Councillor Toomey stated that he did not like the grading system. Councillor Mazen stated that feedback to the City Council is helpful. He stated that in this process he would like to have it one way. Mr. Rossi commented that the category on interaction with department heads - what does the City Council know about this? He stated that all observe his fiscal management, safe community, resolving issues. Councillor Mazen stated that this process should be special where it is assumed the other person is right, listen and come back with feedback. Mr. Rossi stated that he is open to conversation.

Councillor Toomey asked each City Councillor to send to him the commonalities of the categories.

Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that International City Manager's Association (ICMA) website has best practices on evaluation of City Managers. There is a lot of information.

Councillor Toomey noted that the City Council should be able to evaluate the City Manager on his performance. Councillor McGovern stated that this is a tool to evaluation this and the next City Manager.

Councillor Toomey opened this portion of the hearing to public comment.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that the position and the evaluation of the City Manager is important to the City. He stated that when the past city manager decided to retire there was an impression that there would be a city manager selection process. He suggested that the evaluation of the city manager's performance is related to who is the city manager and who it is going to be. Is this discussion general or is it whether the current city manager is going to remain? Is it a discussion as to who the city manager will be? It is important to clarify this.

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, stated that he was pleased that the focus remained on the evaluation of the city manager. He stated that it was problematic with the hiring the city manager and the visioning process made the process impossible.

On a motion of Councillor Toomey public comment closed at 6:47pm.

Councillor Cheung stated that he evaluates the City Manager every week. He stated that there are 360 evaluations that are easier.

Councillor Toomey thanked all for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 6:47pm on motion of Councillor Toomey.

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

Committee Report #6
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Apr 15, 2015 beginning at 5:34pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the C2 portion of the K2C2 Study.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Vice Mayor Benzan, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Craig Kelley; Mayor David P. Maher; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Iram Farooq, Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department (CDD); Stuart Dash, Director, Community Planning, CDD; Elaine Thorne, Project Planner, CDD; and Susanna Abigal, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Sarah Kennedy, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce and resident at 12 Inman Street; Abbey Tremer and Matt Brown, 10 Somerset Street, Boston; Marty Makol, 120 Reed Street; Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street; Robert Winters, 366 Broadway; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; Patrick Barrett, 234 Broadway; Mark Boyes-Watson, 100 Pacific Street; Jesse Kanson-Benanav, 26 Willow Street; Ming-Tai Tuh, 259 Washington Street; Hubert Murray, 204 Erie Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Loryn Sheffner, 73 Howard Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Patrick Rowe, MIT; Phyllis Bretholtz, 65 Antrim Street; Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street; Sherri Tucker, 854 Mass. Avenue; Charles Teague, 23 Edmonds Street; Marc Levy, 132 Oxford Street; and Torgun Austin, 28 Bristol St.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He made opening remarks. He thanked 21 members of the Central Square Advisory Committee and the consultant, Goody Clancy. There were over 20 meetings held. He acknowledged former Mayor Reeves and the Red Ribbon Commission. He noted what this discussion means for Central Square. There is a severe crisis of housing affordability. This is the # 1 issue for Cambridge residents. Cambridge is in a great development boom. The C2 Committee recommended parking underground and renovating city parking lots. Zoning requires parking above grade to count. Any planning efforts such as this are apt to have strength and weaknesses. He stated that he had issues with the process. Some people were left out of the process and the zoning needs to be tested. Councillor Carlone stated the City decided to sideline the C2 process and use a plot by plot zoning approach. He stated that the Planning Board and the City Council were told to expect the recommendations. He stated his concern with the Twining proposal. He asked how the vision of C2 are achieved.

Iram Farooq, Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development, spoke about the intention on how to implement the C2. It was never meant to be implemented piecemeal. It was the intention to bring the Central Square overlay as a proposal. Issues came up after it was presented to the Planning Board. There was a lot of interest in thinking about the city municipal parking lot. The C2 Report suggested a more detailed look at the municipal parking lots. The Planning Board's agenda got busy and hence the slow down.

Ms. Farooq gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT A). The advisory group gave consensus recommendations. The overarching theme is to allow Central Square to be what it is and accentuate the positive. It would help Central Square to have people living in Central Square and enhance the public realm to build community and create diversity.

She spoke about the goals and recommendations.

Increase the housing and the housing choices for all levels of income spectrum. She spoke about the tradeoff for height and bulk to support the financial benefits. She spoke about middle income and family housing. Mixed use housing was encouraged. The Twining development was considered a key location for housing as well as introducing housing into the Osborn Triangle. The scope of the study was Central Square and the Osborn Triangle which was studied in both the Central Square and Kendall Square studies as a connection between the two. She stated that Central Square is the heart and soul of the City and want to match up the public spaces with vitality and life in Central Square. Central Square is linear and is not a traditional square with crossroads. She spoke about the opportunities to create the public realm such as Jill Rhone Park or Carl Barron Plaza. She stated that traditionally life happens in cities on the streets. She asked how the City could continue to build on the great work of the l980's and 1990's. She spoke about the outdoor dining on Mass. Avenue and the need to be enhanced by making wider sidewalks for the active feel and the opportunity for people to gather. Municipal parking lots could be viewed as possible development opportunities but the advisory committee felt that municipal parking lots could have multiple functions. She spoke about the public realm framework as a public room where public art and play in the public realm occurs. Art pieces should be more whimsical and encourage engagement with the public. It is not feasible to have large trees on Mass. Avenue because the redline runs under Mass. Avenue. There are areas where there are raised planters such as at Carl Barron Plaza. She stated that greenery on Mass. Avenue may have to be on walls. Sun exposure and orientation need to be considered. She spoke about a public room concept that could be closed in the winter and opened in the summer. This could be a location for the farmer's market or where public meetings could be held or where weddings could occur. She spoke about performances in public spaces. Cambridge has worked with partners in recent years to do more in public spaces. She noted that CSBA has brought events to Central Square. It is important to have public events where the public can engage with each other and be outside.

An important priority for the City Council is retail that caters to a diverse retail population that is local, affordable and meets the day to day needs. She spoke about the important for residents to be able to purchase socks and underwear. There is an intercept study done by Community Development Department of what the retail needs are for Central Square. The business associations use the study as a snapshot of what the needs are. The diversity theme is heard throughout for services. She spoke about removing barriers such as the fast food cap in Central Square. When the cap was created it was to eliminate the number of chain stores in the square. One of the unintended consequences is that stores are classified as fast food because of the products they use or for the sale of takeout foods. She spoke of the barrier to retail in Central Square. Cafe fall under the fast food cap and this needs to be fixed. The chain stores need to be managed. The size of the floor plates are planned so that they are not favorable for the chain stores. Small stores are not appealing to chain stores.

Cultural and nonprofit space is about trying to retain the richness, help and support nonprofits. By exempting a small part of the floor area from being counted in the GFA that is used in small retail areas that could be used for child care and non-profits. Small areas could be used by nonprofits. She spoke about the necessity to keep the store fronts occupied and having pop-up stores. Central Square has done well under the stewardship of the CSBA which has been successful getting gaming stores and winter festivals in small vacant storefronts. She spoke about the connection for people and enhancing the walkability and the ability to bike in the City and the connection to the Central Square T. It is important to have a variety of transportation options available to people. The zoning building and the public realm connection and the scale of the buildings along transit corridors is key to have a human scale edge. The C2 report recommends lowering the height along Bishop Allen Drive to keep the neighborhood edge consistent with the scale and keep the scale walkable. Way finding is less an issue in Central Square than Kendall Square. There were ways to direct people to other public spaces such as the River and University Park Commons and to identify these spaces as public spaces.

Leveraging future development to achieve all the above objectives it is important in the planning and the zoning to include criteria and design guideline that reflect this desire. It is important that the municipal parking lots are viewed as an asset to think about what can happen through supplementing private development. There are not many areas in the City where there is a wealth of public ownership. Surface parking was not seen as the best use of these areas from a public service perspective. The committee felt that affordable housing, middle income housing, open space, affordable retail and enhancing the connection to the neighborhood could occur in the Osborn Triangle where there are no connections and new connections could be forged. She spoke about the sustainability to a LEED Gold standard. She explained that the Net Zero are recommending LEED Gold for the entire City. She stated that building a mix of uses near a transit stop has a strong sustainability component. People are walking and out of cars. Most of the Central Square Overlay District is within a half mile of Central Square which is a walkable distance to transit. With good urban design people are willing to walk an additional distance. Energy use tracking is occurring but does not need to be done because the City Council has ordained a Building Energy Disclosure Ordinance. Green and cool roofs are sustainability issues and need to be built into the zoning that new roofs should be green or cool. Net Zero requirements talks about solar ready. Storm water management and low impact development strategies are key in this area which is prone to flooding. She spoke about the design guidelines to shape development form to help development enhance the public realm and to make sure that the transitions work well for the neighborhood and public edge. She stated that it was important this this sensibility is translated through urban design. She distributed the Central Square Design Guidelines, a companion piece to the study (ATTACHMENT B).

She stated that the municipal parking lots are areas where the City Council has the most control and areas where change is likely to occur. Adding height and density lets you add more public space and affordable housing and retail space. As you go taller you can add additional non-profit space. The premise that the higher you go the more you can get has been challenged by some property owners. Where is change likely to happen in Central Square? She stated that the ownership pattern of property is fragmented. The City is one of the larger property owners. She stated that the purple area is the property owned by the Normandy Twining. MIT property is blue. She stated that existing as built FAR was reviewed. It was recommended to keep commercial density as is at 2.75 and to increase residential density to 4.0. FAR was shown in terms of property ownership. She spoke of transfer of development rights along the neighborhood edges and move them to the core of Central Square or to Osborn Triangle. She highlighted the historic resources property map and the FAR by property ownership within historic sites.

She spoke of development scenarios under the current zoning and proposed zoning. She stated that the Essex Housing has been permitted. It was looked at by maximizing residential and commercial.

Councillor Carlone asked if the City Council had any questions.

Councillor Kelley commented on parking having to be underground and the proposal should have parking underground. The current zoning does not require parking be underground and it is not part of the FAR except that a parking structure counts as part of the FAR if it goes over the maximum requirement. Ms. Farooq stated that surface or structured parking counts toward the FAR; this is a city-wide provision. Mr. Dash added that this was put into place during the 2000 citywide zoning. Councillor Kelley noted that C2 encouraged parking underground. Ms. Farooq stated that parking underground was also encouraged in the design guidelines. She spoke of all the potentials that could occur on the surface parking lots.

Councillor McGovern where do we stand with social and day time services in Central Square? Mr. Dash stated that the C2 committee has been tasked with working on the non-zoning recommendations in the Central Square report. Councillor McGovern asked about the timeline. Ms. Farooq stated that the non-zoning recommendations have been focused on place making and how to transform Central Square into the public space. The daytime services piece has not been discussed. Mr. Dash explained that the committee will be meeting to discuss the hierarchy of the recommendations. Councillor McGovern outlined the ongoing work such as the study on inclusionary zoning and the early childhood education task force that will have recommendations coming in June. He stated that the obstacles to bring universal pre-k to Cambridge are money and space and how will all these interrelated things be balanced. He asked is a density bonus offered in exchange for early childhood education. He asked how community benefits are maximized. Ms. Farooq stated that the zoning envision this as a range of items that could be selected. She stated that there is an exemption for FAR for ground floor retail and for social services. It is difficult for zoning to distinguish non-profit from for profit and the use category. She stated that when you think of successful retail you think of the Massachusetts Avenue corridor and retail is less attractive on the side streets. The social services are found on Green Street and Bishop Allen Drive. If the side streets are viewed for more of the social service, non-profit uses both may be accommodated. Councillor McGovern spoke about height. He stated that he is concerned with affordable housing. He stated that to get the needed housing you need you have to build higher. He stated that if Massachusetts Avenue were built to the existing zoning then there would be enough units generated. He asked how likely this is given the fact that the property is owned by many different owners. He stated that there are good ideas but they may not be realistic and lead to a solution. Ms. Farooq spoke about the sites that are very constrained and when you add a layer upon layer of constraint it is less attractive to build. The higher density is only allowed in one block of Mass. Avenue. Mr. Dash stated that it is unlikely to get a continuous strip of six story housing.

Mayor Maher asked how we get from the framework to the implementation of zoning. Ms. Farooq stated that CDD would work with Planning Board to frame a zoning petition based on the recommendations of the study and then the petition is submitted to the City Council. This process got convoluted and was dropped. The biggest challenges are the municipal parking lots and better understand of the incentives piece. What is the right incentive to achieve the goals articulated? This still lacks clarity. She stated that CDD has work to do before getting to the zoning petition. Mayor Maher asked Ms. Farooq if the City Council should endorse the work done before this goes to the Planning Board or should it go to the Planning Board and to the City Council. Ms. Farooq stated that the usual process is that the petition is submitted to the City Manager for the Agenda and it is referred to the Planning Board and the Ordinance Committee. There was draft language for consideration of the Planning Board that was prepared in June 2013; the baseline wok has been done. She stated that what remains is refinements and considering the Planning Board's docket. Mayor Maher noted that some of the efforts to enhance Central Square have been successful and some have not. It is a goal to have Central Square seen as destination and to increase accessibility for affordable housing. A gathering place in Central Square is a good idea and to have a central gathering spot that can be the center of Central Square is important but how to get there is the obstacle. He stated that in the future a jazz festival can be a great event in Central Square. There is a commitment to have a conversation on how to make the improvements to Central Square a reality. We should embrace this and not be afraid. Mayor Maher stated that the ownership map is an obstacle. He looks forward to the process and the input from the Planning Board.

Councillor Cheung thanked the members of C2 and red ribbon committee in an effort to improve Central Square. He would like to see some of the recommendations implemented. In the 2013 committee report to ensure how the recommendations were implemented it called for an ongoing committee to look at how this is going and whether guidelines needed to be modified. Ms. Farooq stated that there is a Central Square Advisory Committee that reviews development projects and provides advisory opinions to the Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeal. This committee are the stewards of the non-zoning recommendations of the C2 study. She stated that the CSBA has been the force that has been convening all the departments to move things forward. Mr. Dash added that the committee will meet to develop a hierarchy for the Central Square Advisory Committee to work on in the next year. More people are becoming involved. Councillor Cheung stated that he wanted to ensure that members of the C2 committee have room on the Central Square Advisory Committee. Ms. Farooq stated that it has been exciting to see more people getting engaged in this process. He wanted a list of non-zoning recommendations would be beneficial to the City Council. On zoning side there has been a push for middle income housing; he wanted low and transitional housing for the homeless to be included. The C2 height was lower before the middle income kicked in. He stated that the number was not right for Kendall Square and he wondered if the right number can be achieved for Central Square. Ms. Farooq stated that the challenged going through planning process we are trying to leverage how to get the do not want to give away the incentive and get the most public benefits. The city could be erring on the side of not giving enough. Approaches are tried and tested and some work and some do not. Stuart that financial data will be received on incentive and inclusionary. Councillor Cheung stated that he would be willing to look into start up relief (FAR) for arts and day care. We have to try to help our residents. He would love to see more housing and day care in Central Square. Twining is offering 20% and he wanted as much as the city can.

Vice Mayor Benzan thank all responsible for C2 study. We owe it to the residents to move this along. He wants to see action taken on this in an aggressive manner. He wanted to see language. Zoning along Central Square overlay district on Bishop Allen and Green Street he does not want heights to exceed 45 feet and the edge is within the neighborhood scale of Bishop Allen Drive and Green Street. He wanted to know what the build able lots in Central Square are Normandy Twining/ Middle East, Mass & Norfolk and 7/11 and mass and main are the only build able lots. He wanted to think about the heights on Mass. Ave. depending on what is good for the community. He would favor a bonus if a developer provided a space for day care. He would support housing increase. There is a need for low income housing. He stated that there is a need to incentivize housing for all the income components. He liked the idea of a pavilion. He stated that envisioning on what could happen on lot 5 & 6 is difficult. He wanted this included in the language. He wanted developer to design the open space and giving FAR relief for parking underground before any housing on Mass. Ave. Ms. Farooq stated that the complication of the municipal lots does not have to be built into the zoning and it will be included in the bid process. He wanted written into the design guidelines to use the historic designs in the future in the Central Square that enhance the historic character of Central Square. He spoke about the disrepair of the sidewalks and streets that are impacted by the developers. He wanted the street, sidewalks improved and that trees are planted. He x whether there would be a market place on lot 5 & 6. He wanted the arts improved in the square. He wanted this moved along. He is hopeful there will be language in the future.

Councillor Simmons stated that it is important to advance this discussion. She is looking for a timeline to keep the process moving forward. Central Square has to be a priority of the City. She asked if an endorsement of the C2 is needed by the City Council - then let us do this. This is coming together at a unique time. She stated that the Housing Committee is discussing linkage. She asked how the cultural designation fits into the process. She does not want to lose this designation. This is a cultural mecca in Central Square. The ground floor retail always worries her. As the retail spaces are studied how Central Square can be made a shopping mecca again. Economic diversity in the ground floor retail is a must in Central Square. She worries about how the square will look because of the fragmented ownership so that there is as much congruency. Carl Barron Plaza does not work as place making space. She spoke of a grand plaza and taking the traffic off of the streets in Central Square. She likes this idea. The Central Square library was supposed to be an anchor for Central Square -- what will be the anchor for Central Square. She wanted a check list of what needs to be done on this.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is a comprehensive look at Central Square. He felt that this will take several hearings similar to the budget process to do a thorough collaborative work on this to get it implemented and to get Central Square to be the square we want it to be.

Councillor Carlone stated that the ownership map is usual the same in downtown areas. There are a few key land owners and this is key. This is a positive aspect. He stated the contributing historic buildings are usually one stories buildings and there are usually soft parcels that can be bought and be converted from one story buildings into multiple story buildings. He stated that Charles Sullivan, Historical Director should come to discuss contributing buildings. He explained that contributing buildings get incorporated into major developments. He stated that there will be many buildings in Central Square that will see change. The building heights are not what is before the City Council on the Normandy Twining proposal. It is difficult to transfer this into working zoning and the Ordinance Committee will have to do much work. He asked if labs belong in Central Square. What has been heard repeatedly is that labs do not belong in residential areas. He hopes that this is discussed. He stated that thinking the private sector will maximize housing is ludicrous. He stated that the City is in a position to maximize more affordable housing. Translating work into zoning brings up economics, translating the preliminary zoning into an urban design plan, get a sense of what the build out is. He added that planning and zoning; the two come together. He stated it is known what makes successful public spaces. This involves the City with the private section in an integrated way.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked Ms. Farooq what is the timeline needed for Community Development to come back with zoning language. Ms. Farooq stated that she would have to look at the work plan because there are some big projects that are in process and then reprioritize items that can be moved forward because something will need to be put on the back burner. Vice Mayor Benzan can this be outsourced. Ms. Farooq stated that Community Development is at the stage of advancing work that is partially done and moving it through. Outsourcing is beneficial when there is no in-house expertise or capacity. The department has focused on having more on call assistance on development economics and urban design. This will help to build capacity. Mr. Dash stated that there has been learning by both the Community Development and the Planning Board on how to move things forward.

Councillor Cheung commented on the impact of the loss of Brian Murphy to the Community Development Department. He stated that in the interest of transparency and trying to give information to people who are interested in the zoning it would be good for Community Development to come back to the City Council with a timeline.

Councillor Cheung made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development to come back to the City Council with a timeline on the C2 zoning and non-zoning recommendations.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council be provided with back up information on the economics of the proposal and the zoning analysis to understand the zoning implications and economic realities.

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Carlone suggested that a Roundtable be scheduled with Community Development to discuss what their priority list is.

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing to public comment at 7:36pm.

Sarah Kennedy, Director of Government Affairs, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, and a resident of 12 Inman Street, stated that she is glad that the future of Central Square is being discussed. She stated that the business community has supported the mixed housing. Businesses have employees that want to live in Cambridge. To achieve the mixed use of housing, retail, lab and commercial space there must be flexibility. She stated that the City should be using the Final Report of the C2 Community and the continuing work of the Central Square Advisory Committee as guide posts to aid in the vision of Central Square. She spoke about the potential increase in height in certain locations. If the goal is to create more housing in Central Square there should be flexible for height and density. She looked forward to continuing process.

Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street, a member of C2 committee, stated that they worked hard to preserve the vision of the community. The goal was to increase vitality and to increase housing. She stated that 2 years have passed and no action has been taken on the recommendations. The housing crisis has increased. She stated that time is of the essence for housing which is needed now. She favored quick passage of linkage to help fund affordable housing and other community benefits. She looks forward as a member of the C2 committee to moving forward on the non-zoning recommendations. She submitted a communication (ATTACHMENT C).

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, served on Central Square Advisory Committee, stated that when C2 process started his vision of Central Square for the future was more along the lines of the restoration of the heights of the 4, 5 and 6 story buildings. He stated that he did not favor the taller buildings, but with things learned he asked himself why he objected to height. He does not care how tall the buildings are, but he cares about what the buildings look like and wanted the buildings to look great. He spoke about the importance of retail diversity. He urged keeping in mind that the side and back streets could be utilized for the small retail businesses and the nonprofits rather than loading zones. He stated that Brian Murphy never said that the City Administration favored parcel by parcel development in Central Square. Please correct this mistruth. It is not prudent for Community Development to rush to the City Council to present the C2 plan.

Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place, spoke for the Cambridge Residents Alliance (ATTACHMENT D). She stated that the CRA prepared a time line on the C2 process. She stated that the comment about parcel by parcel development appeared in Cambridge Day. She stated that a concern about the time line was a letter by Mr. Twining to the Planning Board in June 2013 stated that the draft of the C2 zoning was inadequate to build an 80 foot tower in Central Square. The Planning Board Chair stated and it would have to wait until after the 2013 election. There was concern about why there could not be public discussion about the C2 guidelines. She stated that CRA wanted to see a plan for Central Square before major up zoning. She supported modest increase in density and height to achieve a higher percent of affordable housing than is currently required. The CRA platform suggest 20% affordable moderate and 5% middle income. She supported the repurpose of the surface parking lots. The CRA wanted 100% affordable housing built on the municipal parking lot. She wanted labs eliminated in the Central Square Overlay district and the Osborn Triangle. She expressed a concern about the Twining petition which rezones the neighborhood edge, the north side of Bishop Allen Drive for parking. The City Council is going to have to show the impact of the Normandy Twining proposal and what the City Council has prioritized for Central Square. She wanted to look at what the C2 zoning build out would look like.

Patrick Barrett, 234 Broadway, member of the C2 Advisory Committee, stated he was nervous and did not want to spend time on the politicization of the process. It is not possible for an 18 story building lining Mass. Avenue. It is difficult to operate in this confines and to free up the gridlock. The area should be looked at a whole. There is not much controversy about the Twining process in his opinion. There is draft zoning language on the C2. He sent an email (ATTACHMENT E).

Mark Boyes-Watson, 100 Pacific Street, stated that in 2005 he felt that the Block Buster parking lot may be better used and it may be a site for affordable housing. He participated in the C2 process and are just now discussing forward steps for the development of Central Square, viable local retail, open space, leveraging the parking lot and creating affordable middle income housing. Many of the zoning recommendations that the City Council would have to act on are in the C2 recommendations. Reuse the green space. He urged that the Central Square plans be improved and then approved.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated that she is looking for the public conversation about the public tradeoffs in the public benefits. She stated that her concerns with the C2 draft recommendations were about the tradeoffs. She spoke about the municipal parking lot and suggested that the City maintain ownership such as using a 99 year lease methodology to develop them. She stated that City funding will be needed to get what is wanted for Central Square.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that Boston has moved from 4 to 3 as the most gentrified city to living in. A change in the zoning would bypass the process and result in a 19 story building in Central Square. He requested Twining to withdraw their petition for a reasonable time and if the City Council does not come up with a plan for Central Square then the petition could be reintroduced. It is important to have business and property owners invited to the C2 discussions. There was a huge unrepresented residential and minority population in the discussions for C2. He suggested transferring the land right from Central Square to Kendall Square. He stated that huge portion of property owned by MIT is left out of the conversation. MIT housing needs to be part of the discussion. He asked why MIT is not using their property to build housing for graduate students.

Phyllis Brezholtz, 65 Antrim Street, stated that she was encouraged by what she heard today. She stated that she is open for compromise and conversation. Her concern is for the vitality and community of the city. She stated that the development direction is cutting into her sense of community because many are moving out of Cambridge. She asked who defines "affordability." The highest building on Mass. Avenue is 9 stories, the Novartis. She stated that a sense of scale is important. She supported the C2 recommendations. She stated that no RFP has been issued for a comprehensive planning study. She submitted a communication (ATTACHMENT F).

Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, stated that the problem with C2 is that it never completed the transportation report or the traffic study and transit analysis. Planning must be done before zoning. Volpe and MIT have not done a traffic study. He spoke about the Alewife zoning. He stated the C2 Committee tried to do planning. The C2 Advisory Committee was appointed people to the second committee instead of combining. The C2 had no resident representative. The final C2 report was put together by Community Development Department with specific recommendations. In May of 2013 the C2 zoning was proposed. In June 2013 the Twining letter came in. He stated that a chronology is needed from Community Development Department to understand why the whole zoning or partial will be done. Transit Oriented Development is a farce. The MBTA does not space out their cars properly and the system is not run properly and it jams. An architectural survey of Central Square is needed for the ugliest buildings. He stated that he felt that 275 Massachusetts Avenue and the Green Street parking garage are among the ugliest. He stated that there must be a way to find good architecture that does not make the mistakes of the l960's and l970's.

Marilee Myer, 10 Dana Street, stated that Massachusetts Avenue being on the National Historical Register has to be part of the building blocks that we want to preserve. Good urban design and affordable housing are not mutually exclusive. There is a way to step back a building to keep the bulk in the back and not lose a sense of community. The Twining building is the cart before the horse. There has to be other ways to achieve the goals. There are other alternative that have not been looked at.

Sherry Tucker, 854 Mass Avenue, stated that there are few people speaking for low income people. She stated that it is difficult to find rental housing in Cambridge even with Section 8. She stated that Twining proposal will not help get more affordable housing. She wants to be able to go shopping in Central Square. New stores in new developments have higher rents. She does not want Central Square to be a destination square. Low income housing units are being taken by section 8 applicants. She stated that Harvard and MIT are putting pressure on the Cambridge housing market.

Charles Teague, 23 Edmond Street, agreed that the transit oriented housing is a myth. The Twining proposal asked for a twin tower. He was surprised that the C2 zoning language was not provided. He stated that there is missing and questionable data. We were told 40% of the red line was empty. The C2 report goes back to Yanow petition to plan the entire Central Square. He liked the transfer of development rights. Parking cannot be taken way. He did not like the height and density. The Twining FAR is over 6. He stated that Central Square will have a huge increase in buses because it is going to take years to fix the Redline. Everything needed is in Central Square and can be waived with a special permit.

Mark Levy stated that the comments he reported said by Brian Murphy are true and accurate. He was appalled that he was being accused that he would fabricate a comment made by a city official.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The following e-mails were received:
Stephen H. Adelson, in support of C2 recommendations being brought back (ATTACHMENT G).
Susan Weiler, in support of C2 recommendations being brought back (ATTACHMENT H).
Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street, regarding the report of the Central Square Advisory Committee (ATTACHMENT I).
John Ratliff, 218 Thorndike Street, urging the City Council to move the C2 planning to a conclusion (ATTACHMENT J).

The hearing adjourned at 8:37pm on a motion by Vice Mayor Benzan.

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

Committee Report #7
The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee held a public hearing on May 5, 2015 hearing on May 5, 2015 at 5:04pm at the Harvard Information Center, 1350 Massachusetts Avenue.

The purpose of the hearing was to receive a presentation by expert Christopher Mitchell on Municipal Broadband.

Present at the meeting were Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Councillor Leland Cheung; Christian Schlachte; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Dan Schwartz; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present at the hearing were Christopher Mitchell, Director, Community Broadband Networks, Institute for Local Self-Reliance; Kathy Watkins; David Himmel; Caroline Marshall; Tim Plenk; Susan Fleischmann; Jeff Listfield; Matt Cloyd; Saul Tannenbaum; Nancy Goldstein; Jay Leslie; Austen Hypher; Liz Rasweiler; Ross Benson; John Hawkinson; Fahim Sinha; and Denise Jillson, Harvard Square Business Association.

Councillor Mazen opened the hearing and thanked all present. He stated that this topic is near and dear to the hearts of many. He stated that municipal broadband is becoming an economic right. It is about economic mobility and in many ways access is basic to 21st century lifestyle. He stated that in Cambridge there is not competition and we know that in capitalist markets, lack of competition really hurts consumers. He stated that Cambridge has a contract with Comcast and it is not necessarily an anti-competitive contract-lack of competition has more to do with Internet Service Providers failing to deploy in Cambridge. He stated that there are important questions facing the city. He stated that the task force will be answering and posing the questions concerning the future of broadband. He stated that there will be opportunities for the task force and the City Council to work cooperatively in the future. He stated that the council does not control the task force. He stated that this meeting is not just a look backwards at what we've missed out on, but an opportunity to bring our data infrastructure into the 21st century. He stated that if the city doesn't undertake municipal broadband, we'll be paying through the nose as a city as we wire up "smart devices" during the upcoming era of "The Internet of Things." There will be cars communicating with each other, smart parking spots and parking meters, smart homes, pollution sensors, and other devices owned privately and owned by the city, which will be hungry for a data connection. If the city is paying dollars for a connection for each device, Comcast will have an even scarier stranglehold in the future than it does now. He stated that in the future, he is imagining that all people will be able to be connected. The city needs to ensure that it is not paying a pound of flesh to be connecting its smart devices to the data grid. Councillor Mazen then introduced broadband expert Chris Mitchell.

Mr. Mitchell stated that he was feeling very positive about so many people coming out on short notice. He noted that there are different levels of knowledge and stated that if he uses a term that anyone is not familiar with, to please raise a hand for clarification. He urged the attendees to ask questions and proceeded to a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment A).

Mr. Mitchell stated that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has done tremendous things to elevate what local governments can do to spur competition. The long-term hope for having a choice comes down to whether or not the public has some level of control over the infrastructure. He stated that he sees regulations as enabling local choice. He noted that there would not be enthusiasm without Chairman Wheeler's efforts. He stated that President Obama's first appointee was quite dreadful. Mr. Mitchell noted that there is no sense of what communications regulations will look like in the future.

Mr. Mitchell stated that local governments cannot tell Comcast to provide service at any given level. Local government cannot require Comcast to offer higher quality services. He stated that local governments can build their own network. He stated that when you have a cooperative or municipal ownership, the community can demand better service. They found that cable and telephone companies worked hard to discredit local efforts. He stated that gas is not allowed to be ten times higher in one community than another but when it comes to internet access, the range in cost is deeply concerning. He stated that we want enough capacity so that our devices aren't tripping over each other in the future. He stated that over the last few years we have seen that local governments have to develop a plan. He stated that even if there are multiple communities that settle on one goal or approach, they may have different ways of getting there. Mr. Mitchell stated that dealing with Comcast is different in a small community of Maryland than it would be in Seattle. He stated that in places like Cambridge you will see that you are not getting fast services and he noted that over time, problems will be compounded even further. He stated that local governments should figure out how to get conduit and fiber in the ground even though you may not use all that you bury. Mr. Mitchell noted that there is a lot of aerial conduit in Cambridge and when you don't own poles, it is more of a challenge.

Saul Tannenbaum stated that when the Department of Public Works was digging in West Cambridge he asked that fiber be dropped. He stated that the city's informal calculation of cost was approximately twenty million dollars.

Mr. Mitchell stated that he is not a consultant. He stated that he tries to give a sense of where to go for better answers. Next Century Cities is working to improve internet access and suggested that this would be the place to go to get a better sense of what other cities are doing. He noted that Next Century Cities works with cities and other public/private partnerships with a variety of approaches. He noted that 450 local governments have done something to make internet services available to businesses and residents. There are a variety of ways that local governments are jumping in on this. He stated that data is being tracked and noted that New England is in good shape.

Mr. Mitchell stated that the Coalition for local Internet Choice represents a wide range of public and private interests who support the authority of local communities to make the broadband internet choices that are essential for economic competitiveness, democratic discourse, and quality of life in the 21st century.

Mr. Mitchell stated that Chattanooga, Tennessee, Bristol, Virginia, and Lafayette, Louisiana are pioneering in the field of next generation municipal networks. He stated that while the pool of examples is small, the growth rate in the last three years is great. He noted that it is not about technology. He stated that there are different incentives for a municipal operator. He stated that if businesses choose to locate in Chattanooga, the utility will work with them and see that they get what they need. He talked about a small start-up in Chattanooga where the utility worked with the business to get them all the access that they needed. He stated that municipal prices have not increased in Chattanooga. Mr. Mitchell did assert that whoever owns the network has a big impact on the technology that is deployed.

Mr. Mitchell stated that Sandy, Oregon, is an example of local government stepping forward. He said that they have put fiber in the ground and have great staff that has been hired away from local cable companies. He added that local governments are afraid to compete. Mr. Mitchell stated that a Cambridge effort would be cutting edge and able to do things that the "big guys" don't do. He stated that certain municipalities are able to figure it out because they have made it a priority to do so.

Mr. Mitchell said that Martinsville, Virginia and Danville, Virginia, are communities with open access. He stated that this arrangement is going through changes. He stated that two initiatives have led to remarkable job growth. He stated that the challenge is that it is hard to build fiber if you are sharing revenue on that system with multiple operators rather than a single operator - whether municipal or commercial. If the priority is to build a network for everyone, with multiple competing operators on the same infrastructure, that is a difficult challenge. Another challenge is when the larger community is on a network. Networks are usually in smaller places with a smaller amount of subscribers. He stated that it is experimental and they are learning about this model as it develops.

Councillor Mazen stated that Verizon says "no, no, no...maybe" when it comes to coming into Cambridge to compete with Comcast. When speaking to them about potentially leasing city-owned fiber to provide competitive service, they showed some interest - where they have never been interested in competing in Cambridge before. Verizon sees any single-operator market as an enormous barrier to entry, but when something new is brought to the table like a city owned fiber infrastructure, suddenly the desire to compete and the cost to initiate competitive service changes. And the City could, in fact, make money leasing out the infrastructure, even if the City does not want to manage or provide the service.

Mr. Mitchell stated that they hear large service providers initially saying that they will not operate on other peoples' networks, to scuttle municipal fiber plans. He stated that under the right conditions, markets do incredible things. He stated that there is movement towards independent operators leasing municipal networks, and urged people to pay attention to it, despite what Comcast and others may say.

Mr. Mitchell stated that Longmont, Colorado is a municipal utility. Most cities that have done fiber to the home have had to offer digital cable services. Most cable companies that are smaller are losing money and offer cable services to keep internet companies from stealing customers. He stated that there is a feeling that cable video makes customers stay with a network. This project is still ongoing and they are learning more about it. Over time, more consumers are "unplugging" from cable service, which makes it even easier for municipalities to make money operating their networks by avoiding or minimizing cable tv packages.

Simpson College is an example of public/private partnerships. Mr. Mitchell stated that public/private partnerships tell little because they range tremendously in who bears the risks. They have seen some providers disappear and leave a community hanging and they have seen strong partnership such as in Des Moines, Iowa. He added that Ting does a tremendous job in Westminster, Maryland. Ting has the highest rating from Consumer Reports. They share both the risk and benefit, while also demonstrating excellent customer service. He commented that he is hoping to see Ting grow and develop. Mr. Mitchell noted that unfortunately there are far more communities that want to partner than there are good partners to work with.

Mr. Mitchell pointed to the unfortunate community model of Utopia. He stated that people in Utah said they were going to have other service providers come in. They made poor decisions and were ultimately tied up in Court. He stated that these communities are cumulatively 250 million dollars in debt. He stated that business strategies have changed enough that they can't move outside the Utopia footprint. Utopia is a warning flag. Mr. Mitchell stated that if the City of Cambridge considers doing something, it is probable that Comcast will be parading around the example of Utopia. He encouraged people to understand that most cities that have gotten into the business have done well. More than half of the cities have decided that it is not right for them now. He stated that Chattanooga evaluated the project for ten years. He said that it is important to look forward for a plan that is good for the city. Mr. Mitchell pointed out that none of the other cities made the mistakes that Utopia did. He stated that we don't face the same legislative problems of Utopia. He stated Burlington, Vermont made a number of bad decisions and then hid information from the public. He remarked that this is a black eye. They spent too much and did not acquire enough customers.

Mr. Mitchell stated that cities doing their homework will see tremendous benefit moving forward.

Liz Rasweiler stated from the audience that she has an iPhone but loves having a landline. She stated that could not use her landline when it rained. She stated that repair people eventually admitted that there was copper wire in the manhole and they would not repair copper wire. They said the city should be laying fiber optic infrastructure. They finally did some sort of repair and she currently has a landline. She stated that Verizon told her that the universities have fiber optics but not residents. Mr. Mitchell responded that if people in Cambridge want a landline reliable system then having a locally controlled system will be helpful to that. He stated that over the next 10 years there is no way to go back to the reliable phone system of the past. He stated, however, that we see a lot of people abandoning landlines mainly because they are costly. He encouraged people to check in with organizations such as Public Knowledge to ensure that we have benefits and make officials aware.

Councillor Mazen stated that over the next 10-15 years there will no longer be many landlines because of the eroding copper infrastructure. Instead there will be "Voice Over IP" or VOIP solutions over fiber. This also means that when the power goes out - so do the phone systems. He stated that when the city does invest it will be in fiber, not copper.

Susan Fleischman stated that if the city decided to go to a municipal fiber network tomorrow, what would be the deployment, impact, and adoption that we would see. Mr. Mitchell responded that if you wanted to build fiber out to everyone you would start construction next year with it being citywide in approximately 3-4 years. The services would almost certainly deliver the highest level of service, currently about 1 gigabit - or 100 times the typical speeds in Cambridge - at a price point of about $70. He stated that some municipalities have done it for less, including free tiers. Or tiers for 100 megabit service at a much lower price point than Comcast, but still 10 times faster than typical Comcast service. Mitchell noted that a goal of municipalities is to figure out a price point for low income and working poor people and for those who want high capacity. He stated that if the city is going to build a monopoly type network, his philosophy is that taxpayer dollars should not be used and need not be used. He stated that the fundamental question is if we going to subsidize the network and what is the benefit to everyone. He stated that there almost certainly would not be a video package. He stated that there will likely be a telephone service as enough people would want landline service. He stated that Comcast would likely invest more for higher speeds. He stated that Comcast would be engaging out of fear and trying to amplify that. They would be engaging in all kinds of misinformation to hurt the city's offering.

Councillor Carlone stated that at a previous committee meeting it was said that it costs nine times the amount to dig up a trench than when it is opened or other projects. Mr. Mitchell stated that it depends on the circumstances. Mr. Mitchell stated that Santa Monica would be the best comparison for Cambridge. Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Mitchell to speak on Santa Monica.

Mr. Mitchell stated that in Santa Monica people matter. He stated that the city was concerned with the change of telephone systems. This started off as the city saying that streets were going to be destroyed by telecommunications. They encourage companies to share the trench. They connected themselves, (college, libraries, schools) and they lease lines and connect facilities. They continued to fund the IT department at $1.3 million. Every year they have money to invest in the network. He stated that money was reinvested and they got grants for traffic light synchronization. He stated that there was a plan as to how everything would ultimately come together. 60% of town is served by FIOS. Councillor Carlone stated that he would love access to that. Mr. Mitchell stated that there were years that they put in $500,000. That was money that they would have spent regardless. He stated that they now have customers including companies that provide services that now operate in the city and they pay the city for access to it. It generated approximately $1 million dollars.

Fahim Sinha asked if Santa Monica would be a model that Cambridge could parallel. Mr. Mitchell responded that he could see how this model could fit to Cambridge and escalate from there. He stated that his concern is that he has been looking at organizations that have been working on bringing municipality costs down and their ability to move forward and the need to bring it into areas that are lower income so they can be caught up.

Mr. Mitchell stated that projected capital and operating costs can be high. The challenge of connecting homes is a one-time cost. The challenge of continuing to connect is the operating cost. Most of the cost is paying down the initial capital expenditure associated with laying fiber or connecting homes. The challenge is if you could get capital costs to be nothing, for some or all residents by having a city funded program, it is a lot easier to connect low income people. He stated that the economics of serving low-income housing make it remarkably doable. He stated that this cost can be mixed into the overall operating cost of the network. For some people, you figure out how to charge to get back capital costs. He stated that trying to figure out how to connect low income household is hard but it is all about a one-time cost. He stated that forever costs are hard to deal with and there aren't many involved in serving low socioeconomic status households. Mr. Mitchell stated that it is similar to healthcare in that the reasonable cost of service for most people in the network can bear the bulk of the burden for those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford a plan.

David Himmel stated that he has read many case studies. He stated that what struck him as a commonality is educational initiatives and community outreach to get the public on their side. Holding the public's hands has been important for a successful initiative. Mr. Mitchell stated that it is easy for Comcast and others to confuse and scare people and that is when they become opposed to the initiative. He encouraged reading of the Fiber to the Home Primer which is an explanation as to why this technology is important.

Councillor Mazen stated that he did tour of middle America looking at broadband. He stated that there is a way to mobilize other communities. He stated that for anyone who has not been following this issue, Comcast is abysmal - everywhere. He believes that we will have an easier time creating a municipal solution than getting a big player to improve infrastructure.

Kathy Watkins asked if it is less expensive to connect a whole apartment as opposed to individual homes. Mr. Mitchell responded that it has to do with nature of the apartment building. He stated that apartments carry a different revenue expectation. One of the biggest issues is how open is the landlord to work with you, as it is up to the landlord. He stated that there is no way that you can force competition into an apartment building. Councillor Mazen added that we are in era where Wifi is enough because we also need fiber infrastructure to power wifi.

Saul Tannenbaum stated that a number of people went to Broadband and one surprise is that there is in fact a business of providing high speed internet services to buildings. It is possible that Verizon has struck deal with a building because Verizon has enough fiber running through the city that it is worth it to them.

Kathy Watkins stated that in her building the management company has no idea about internet or anything like that. Mr. Mitchell stated that if you get 10% of the units interested you may get attention.

Ross Benson asked how much could be covered by Harvard or MIT. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would be surprised if they are covering residential homes. He stated that the IT staff would prefer not to be involved with consumers. He stated that likely all of the homes around the universities are served by Comcast and DSL.

Denise Jillson commented that if the intent of the city is to give people access to internet, why wouldn't you just do what is done in Harvard Square. She noted that the Harvard Square Business Association (HSBA) has been providing free wireless since 2007. She stated that HSBA has 8 transmitters on rooftops in Harvard Square and supports 6 high speed phone lines that they pay for every month. She noted that hundreds of people are using free Wifi at any given time. She questioned why this technology of this type could not be installed at low-income buildings and provide this service for next to nothing. Mr. Mitchell stated it is a different situation if you have households trying to share that bandwidth. There becomes too much contention. The cities that have tried citywide Wifi and have tried to penetrate homes is all but impossible. Access points need is so great that there is never enough revenue to pay for it. He stated that building materials are a problem for wireless systems. Denise Jillson stated that if it is going to take many years, there must be something that can be done on an interim basis to get people up and running.

Mr. Mitchell stated that he tends to focus on long-term investment rather than the short-term. Ms. Jillson commented that it is incumbent on the city to focus on both short-term and long-term.

Councillor Mazen commented that as a result of the participatory budget process there will be 6 Wifi spots added in the city. He stated that the Wifi bandwidth has to come from somewhere and said that there will be many buildings that the infrastructure will need to be built for fiber and then add Wifi, as Wifi technologies get better and better. Ms. Jillson stated that at one point she was paying invoices to different vendors because that was what was available.

Austen Hypher brought up the issue of wireless and cell phones. Mr. Mitchell stated that when talking about wireless it is a shared fiber connection. At T-Mobile if this proves effective, they do not have the infrastructure to build this out. The more popular it gets, the harder it is to provide. He stated that new wireless technologies will make this better in the next few years. As technology becomes available, you want to make sure they have low access fiber. There is no wireless on the horizon that would be commercially reasonable for high capacity.

Councillor Mazen stated that Verizon seems to be making a bet and are putting money that will start out with small access citywide access points for telephony and this will eventually have to go to data. He does not believe this will be competitive with fiber in the future, but there is always a chance. Mr. Mitchell stated that a lot of people are expecting a different use case for homes in Cambridge.

Tim Plank asked of examples of non-profit ISPs. Mr. Mitchell stated that the best example is Aurora, Illinois. The city has a lot of fiber and non-profit lights the fiber. They have been trying to do a case study on them. He stated that he would like to see this result in Baltimore.

Saul Tannenbaum stated that we have tremendous opportunity in Cambridge as it is unique in so many ways. We are wealthy community even though we have a digital divide. He stated that we could do internet access regardless of the ability to pay. He stated that social justice initiatives provide internet access to families that are struggling. He stated that this is a unique thing that Cambridge is capable of doing. He stated that you can find people in Cambridge (companies, institutions, etc.) where they would love to be able to give that access to their employees. He stated that people have tried to get one public housing development to be connected, yet it has been very difficult. He stated that it is time to stop nibbling at the edges. He stated that we should just build it.

Councillor Mazen agreed and stated that we need to find a way.

Councillor Mazen thanked those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 6:31pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen, Chair