Cambridge City Council meeting -- June 26, 2006 -- AGENDA

CITY MANAGER’S AGENDA
1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-52, regarding sewer separation on North Massachusetts Avenue and sewer capacity issues on Edmund Street.

Excerpt:
"The court parties associated with the Boston Harbor federal court case have reached agreement concerning the level of combined sewer overflow (CSO) control required for those systems draining to the Boston Harbor to include the Alewife Brook/Mystic River. This plan includes sewer separation in the Fresh Pond/Concord Ave/Huron Avenue area, the Whittemore/Seagrave/Magoun area as well as floatable control and system efficiency improvement measures along and adjacent to the Alewife Brook itself. This plan will result in an 84% reduction in CSO volumes to the Alewife and a reduction in activation frequencies from 63 to 7 per average year. The plan does not include sewer separation along North Massachusetts Avenue. At this time the city does not propose any further sewer separation along North Massachusetts Avenue. However, as has been the practice over the last number of years, the Department of Public Works looks to upgrade drain and sewer lines in advance of surface enhancement projects throughout the city. This practice has resulted in upgrading and separation of numerous side street systems off North Massachusetts Avenue to include Edmund Street where two common manholes were eliminated and an additional catch basin was added to improve drainage."

2. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of private donations to the Council on Aging in the amount of $1,607.00 to the Grant Fund of Human Services Other Ordinary Maintenance account to be used to provide a variety of services for Cambridge Seniors, including the purchase of fans for low-income seniors, transportation for seniors to special events planned by either Senior Center or entertainment for senior events.

3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the Massachusetts Formula Grant for $71,232.00 funded by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs to the Grant Fund Human Service Salary and Wages account ($22,631.00), Grant Fund Human Service Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($47,476.00) and to the Grant Fund Human Service Programs Travel and Training account ($1,125.00) to be used to provide substance abuse prevention services for Cambridge seniors and transportation to medical appointments and weekly food shopping trips. Funds will also support one part-time weekend coordinator position and several instructors who provide services at the Citywide Senior Center.

4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Woodford, et al Zoning Petition to amend the zoning map of the City of Cambridge in the area of Concord Avenue bounded by Concord Avenue, New Street, Fern Street, and Field Street and including properties on Bay State Road, from Residence C-1A, Residence B and Industry A-1 to Residence C.

Recommendation: The Planning Board does not recommend adoption of the Petition. The Board finds that the proposed zoning change does not meet the objectives of the current ordinance provisions (to encourage housing over time in the area while allowing existing and new businesses to operate unencumbered), nor would it be an effective way to address the issues raised by the petitioners (adequate transition between the existing neighborhood and new development, improved pedestrian safety, retention of existing businesses). It is the Board’s view that the best outcome, for the neighborhood and for property owners, can be found through the careful review of proposed developments via the Article 19.000 Project Review Special Permit process already in place, after comprehensive dialogue and discussion between neighbors and property owners.

Discussion: The Petition proposes to amend the Zoning Ordinance by changing the existing Residence C-1A, Residence B, and Industry A-1 zones in the area described above to Residence C. This change would decrease the allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 1.25 in the Residence C-1A district and 1.50 in the Industry A-1 district to 0.6; increase the required Lot Area per Dwelling Unit from 1,000 square feet and 700 square feet respectively to 1,800 square feet; decrease the allowed height from 45 feet to 35 feet and increase the open space requirement from 15% to 36%. Only residential and institutional uses would be allowed in the rezoned area.

The Petition area and adjacent commercial streets were reviewed during consideration of the citywide rezoning petition that was adopted by the City Council in 2001. At that time the block bounded by Concord Avenue and Fern, Field and Birch Streets (occupied by the Cambridge Self Storage facility) was rezoned to Residence C-1A from its previous Industry A-1 designation. The objective of that change was to encourage the conversion of a light industrial activity immediately abutting the neighborhood to housing at a critical point of transition from the existing neighborhood to the more intense commercial activity at Alewife and Fresh Pond.

At the same time consideration was given to similarly rezoning the entire Industry A-1 zone centered along New Street and Bay State Road to Residence C-1A, for similar reasons. At that time, however, it was the Council’s view that a rezoning to a residential district would unnecessarily complicate life for the myriad retail, office, and light industrial activities that dominated the area then and still do today.

It is the Board’s view today that the choices made in 2001 were good ones, balancing the desire for more housing near to the neighborhood with some protection for the useful commercial activities centered on Bay State Road and New Street, while allowing lot by lot conversion of those activities to housing as individual property owners make that choice in the future.

The general objectives of the Petitioners, as outlined in the Petition, include the desire to preserve the social, multi-generational, and recreational qualities of the neighborhood; to encourage development that attracts families, and supports and enhances the livability of Cambridge; and to create a transition between the Residence B zoning district (which predominates in the existing neighborhood) and the Industry A-1 district nearer to Fresh Pond and Alewife.

The proposed zoning change is an attempt to address a number of concerns of residents related to potential impacts resulting from potential development in the existing Residence C-1A zone in particular (the self storage site): the safety of pedestrians and bicyclers as they move through the neighborhood to nearby parks and other amenities; additional automobile traffic; air and noise pollution and emissions from dense new housing; parking competition particularly on existing neighborhood streets; loss of light and air from excessively tall buildings; and general concern for quality of life.

The Board shares the view of the petitioners that the neighborhood is a desirable place to live, with many amenities such as parks and recreational facilities and access to transit and retail services, that certainly deserves protection and strengthening. The Planning Board views new residential development in the area, through the conversion of existing non-residential activity to housing, as a good idea and one way to enhance the qualities that already exist in the neighborhood. Such housing conversion is also an objective embodied in the existing zoning provisions (most especially those applicable at the self storage facility site). This type of conversion, however, from non-residential uses to housing, often requires some amount of additional density or other incentives. The current C-1A district on the self storage site provides that incentive. The Residence C district proposed in the Petition would probably encourage the existing business to stay because the amount of development now on the site is greater than the Residence C district would allow (see information in attached appendices).

Many times such a change in use will lead to different building forms not characterized by development on existing neighborhood streets. That certainly could be possible in the Residence C-1A district where density, height and setbacks could result in buildings quite different from those found in the neighborhood. Residents are right to be concerned about that possibility, but it is the Board‘s view that a careful public review of new development, through the Article 19.000 special permit process, can adequately address those essentially urban design issues while still maintaining the necessary incentives to get housing built in the first place.

Areas such as this one, which many times are on the fringe of older neighborhoods, have special characteristics that tend to make them more affordable; therefore, they often serve as good business incubator districts and are sometimes the last refuge for the low intensity service activities that have difficulty finding a home elsewhere. The petitioners have indicated that they appreciate the small enterprises that inhabit the areas along New Street and Bay State Road. Such areas are declining throughout the City and are a valuable resource where they do occur. The existing IA-1 zoning, which the Petition proposal would replace with a Residence C district, seems to function well already as a transition zone between the higher density zoning districts in commercial Alewife (such as the Fresh Pond Shopping Center) and the lower density B zoning district that protects the residential neighborhood, while giving some breathing room to small enterprises that continue to do well here.

The Board is concerned that the proposed zoning change would essentially freeze existing buildings and current uses in place, and that the change to Residence C would be counter to the objectives of the petitioners themselves. Certainly, at the self storage site, a future as housing would provide the best physical transition to the existing neighborhood. The petition proposal might discourage that outcome. Moreover, some of the concerns of petitioners, like improvements to traffic and pedestrian safety, might be most easily accomplished as part of mitigation required from a new housing development.

Elsewhere in the petition area, housing is likely to be a common future, if not predominant, use. But in the years it will take to see that transition happen, the existing businesses, which the residents acknowledge are good and useful neighbors, will need to change, grow and adapt. It is the Board’s view that the existing IA-1 district best allows for that long-term transition to housing while not interfering with the lives of the commercial enterprises that dominate now.

The Board is confident that the design review process, and in particular the requirements under Article 19.000 of the zoning ordinance, can ensure an acceptable outcome, particularly on the self storage site, meeting all of the objectives that have served as an inspiration of the Petition. This design review will be key to ensuring that new development does not unduly impact surrounding properties, is of an appropriate scale and character, and also addresses traffic concerns and other impacts. In this particular circumstance, a good dialogue and communication between the affected and interested parties will be more effective in meeting objectives outlined in the Petition than the proposed zoning change would be. The issues of concern expressed by neighbors during the hearing process, as well as the objectives outlined in the Petition documents, are appropriate ones, reflect community sentiment, and should be acknowledged and respected by all parties involved in new development in the area and should guide its final physical manifestation.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
Barbara Shaw, Chair

5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following person as Constable With Power for a term of three years, effective the first day of January, 2006: Michael K. Rowan

6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-61, regarding a report on outdoor drinking fountains in public areas.

7. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-56, regarding a report on the status of changes to the City's Ordinance concerning the Noise Affidavit.

8. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-80, regarding a report on the responsibility of cleaning snow and ice from MBTA bus stops, street intersections and Cambridge Housing Authority pathways.

9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-34, regarding a report on amendments to the Municipal Code to ban leaf blowers.

10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-109, regarding a report on preventing foul balls at Russell Field and issue of cars parking illegally in the MBTA bus turn-around.

11. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-93, regarding a report on the status of the 2006 Mayor's Summer Jobs for Youth program.

12. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Marsha Weinerman as the Executive Director of the Cambridge Election Commission effective July 1, 2006.

13. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-99, regarding a report on the outcome of the traffic calming "test" along Harvey Street.

14. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative the appropriation of $2,221,885.60 to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Extraordinary Expenditures account from funds received as a result of early repayment of a federal Housing Development Action Grant (HoDAG) loan made by the City to Winn Development in 1987 for the Church Corner housing project.

CHARTER RIGHT
1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 06-40, regarding a report on Police Department enforcement statistics. Charter Right exercised by Councillor Kelley on City Manager Agenda Number Four of June 19, 2006.

2. Request for extermination plan, capital improvement plan and the possibility of computer rooms at 362 and 364 Rindge Avenue. Charter Right exercised by Councillor Galluccio on Order Number Four of June 19, 2006.

ON THE TABLE
3. Placed on Table on the motion of Councillor Kelley on February 27, 2006 on Awaiting Report Item Number 06-06 of February 27, 2006, regarding a report on the legality of the banners in front of the Dunkin' Donuts at 2480 Massachusetts Avenue and at other location in the City.

4. An application was received from Slater Anderson, requesting a curb cut at the premises numbered 12 Hollis Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical, and Public Works. Disapproval has been received from the neighborhood association. Charter Right exercised by Councillor Decker on Applications and Petitions Number One of June 5, 2006. Placed on Table on the motion of Councillor Sullivan on June 12, 2006.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on November 18, 2004 for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to Chapter 2.74 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the Police Review and Advisory Board Ordinance. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after February 14, 2005. [Four sections of the proposed amendment were passed to be ordained as amended. Ordinance #1284. The remaining proposed amendments to chapter 2.74 remain on unfinished business.]

6. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Brian Murphy and Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on April 26, 2006 for the purpose of considering a petition to rezone the Concord/Alewife area, which was re-filed by the City Council. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after May 29, 2006. Petition expires July 25, 2006.

7. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Brian Murphy and Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on May 31, 2006 for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge in Article 20.80 - Memorial Drive Overlay District by inserting the following sentence at the end of paragraph c. of Section 20.810: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of computing lot area per dwelling unit, the provisions of Article 5.14 shall not apply." The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after June 26, 2006. Petition expires August 29, 2006.

8. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Brian Murphy and Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on May 17, 2006 for the purpose of considering a petition filed by Eileen Woodford et al. to amend the zoning map in the area of Concord Avenue bounded by New Street, Fern Street, Field Street and properties along Bay State Road to change the present zoning of Residence C-1A and B and Industry A-1 to Residence C. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after July 3, 2006. Petition expires August 15, 2006.

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. An application was received from Didrik's-Elements of Life, requesting permission for two signs at the premises numbered 190 Concord Avenue. Approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and abutters.

2. An application was received from Plum Blossom Clinic, requesting permission for a sign at the premises numbered 126 Inman Street. Approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and abutters.

3. An application was received from Pandemonium Books & Games Inc., requesting permission for two signs and one awning at the premises numbered 4 Pleasant Street. Approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and abutters.

COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from the family of Constance Scaccia, transmitting thanks for the beautiful resolution.

2. A communication was received from Sue Butler et al., urging the City Council to adopt the 20% clean energy by 2010.

3. A communication was received from William Welch, Clerk of the Massachusetts Senate, transmitting a copy of a resolution adopted by the Massachusetts Senate on May 4, 2006 affirming the civil rights and liberties of the people of Massachusetts.

4. A communication was received from Kathy Podgers, regarding disability issues.

5. A communication was received from Roy Bercaw, regarding rewarding discrimination.

6. A communication was received from Roy Bercaw, regarding what is the point.

RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution on the death of Rose M. Filoso.   Councillor Sullivan

2. Resolution on the death of Rita G. (Connolly) O'Connell.   Councillor Sullivan

3. Resolution on the death of Robert Kuehn Jr.   Councillor Sullivan, Councillor Davis

4. Resolution on the death of Alan Chapman.   Councillor Sullivan

5. Resolution on the death of Thomas A. Burns.   Councillor Sullivan

6. Resolution on the death of John A. Ponte.   Councillor Sullivan

7. Congratulations to Lizzy's Homemade Ice Cream on the occasion of the opening of their store in Harvard Square.   Councillor Sullivan

8. Appreciation to the organizations that participated in the donation of large appliances to agencies which serve Cambridge residents.   Councillor Sullivan

9. Congratulations to the Honorable Joseph Curtatone and his wife Nancy on the birth of their third son.   Councillor Sullivan

10. Get well wishes to Mrs. Bradshaw.   Councillor Simmons

11. Congratulations to City Manager Robert W. Healy on the occasion on his 25th Anniversary as City Manager of the City of Cambridge on July 1, 2006.   Mayor Reeves

12. Resolution on the death of Joseph S. Loughman Sr.   Councillor Sullivan

ORDERS
1. That the City Manager is requested to provide the City Council with an update on Area Four Community Day at MIT.   Councillor Simmons

2. That the City Manager is requested to provide the City Council with an update on Lafayette Square and the impact on traffic congestion on the Area Four community.   Councillor Simmons

3. That in hiring the energy consultant the City Manager look for a person who, in addition to other skills, can work with the public before a final report is issued.   Councillor Davis

4. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments and to prepare a report on effectiveness of the City's newly instituted trash policy including the amount of citations issued and to report back to the City Council at the August City Council meeting.   Vice Mayor Toomey

5. City Council support all of the individuals from SEIU 509.   Councillor Sullivan

6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant Department heads about the possibility of using car stacking lifts as a means of maximizing off-street parking spaces at parking garages, private residences and business parking lots.   Councillor Kelley

7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant Department heads about the possibility of providing City and School employees who work at multiple locations with passes that allow them to park on residential streets near their places of employment during working hours.   Councillor Kelley

8. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant Department heads on the propriety of charging rent for parking spaces that developments are required to provide.   Councillor Kelley

COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Brian Murphy and Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on June 13, 2006 for the purpose of continued discussion of the Concord/Alewife proposed zoning amendment, in particular, the shopping center area, environmental and infrastructure issues.

2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee and Councillor Henrietta Davis, Chair of the Cable TV, Telecommunications and Public Utilities Committee, for a meeting held on June 13, 2006 to discuss why there are so many NSTAR outages in the Area Four Neighborhood.

3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Brian Murphy and Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on June 14, 2006 to conduct a working meeting on the Concord/Alewife rezoning petition.

4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee, for a meeting held on June 6, 2006 to discuss pedestrian issues relating to sidewalks, specifically material used for sidewalks, tree roots and sidewalk maintenance and repair and the report on provisions for parking for motorcycles, scooters and mopeds.

5. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Brian Murphy and Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on May 17, 2006 to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to substitute the phrase "Private Open Space" for the phrase "Useable Open Space" throughout the Zoning Ordinance.

6. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee, for a meeting held on May 30, 2006 to discuss the issue of the anti-idling regulation and a follow up to the traffic enforcement management plan.

7. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Michael A. Sullivan and Vice Mayor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a meeting held on June 6, 2006 to discuss the schedule and process for the City Council to set goals for FY 08-09.

8. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Anthony D. Galluccio, Chair of the Housing, for a meeting held on May 2, 2006 for the purpose of receiving an update on Trolley Square and other affordable housing projects in the pipeline, to discuss the selection process for residents for affordable housing and to discuss the agenda for the Housing Committee for this term.

HEARING SCHEDULE
Mon, June 26
4:00pm   The Ordinance Committee will hold an informal public working meeting with Community Development Department staff on the Concord/Alewife rezoning petition. No public comment.  (Ackermann Room)
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, June 27
5:30pm   The Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee will conduct a public meeting to discuss the petition received from residents requesting that Howard Street be a one way, between River Street and Howard Street.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, June 28
3:00pm   Special City Council Meeting to consider the Concord/Alewife rezoning petition, if the City Council does not take final action on said petition at the June 26, 2006 City Council Meeting. If the City Council takes final action on June 26, 2006, this Special Meeting will be cancelled.  (Sullivan Chamber)
4:00pm   The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing relative to the Parking and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Recertification.  (Sullivan Chamber)
4:30pm   The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public meeting to discuss with the City Solicitor and Community Development Department staff possible components of a draft amendment to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to limit use conversion allowances to projects in which at least 65% of the original structure is to remain intact. This meeting to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, July 11
5:30pm   The Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee will conduct a public meeting to discuss with the MBTA the issues of bus shelters, and advertising in bus shelters, bus and subway service.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, July 18
5:30pm   The Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee will conduct a public meeting with the members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committees to discuss issues concerning pedestrian safety, bicycle safety and traffic enforcement.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, July 25
5:30pm   The Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee will conduct a public meeting to discuss jitneys, to receive an update from the License Commission about complaints on the LMA jitney and to discuss responses to Awaiting Reports 06-38 and 06-100 regarding unauthorized bus lines using neighborhood streets.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Aug 7
5:30pm   Special City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Sept 11
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Sept 18
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Sept 25
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Oct 16
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Sat, Oct 21
10:00am-2:00pm   Senior Fall Fair  (Sullivan Chamber, City Hall & Senior Center, 806 Mass. Ave.)
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee and the Human Services Department are planning to hold a Senior Fall Fair. More details will be forthcoming as they are finalized closer to the date of this event.

Mon, Oct 23
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Oct 30
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Nov 6
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Nov 13
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Nov 20
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Nov 27
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Dec 4
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Dec 11
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Dec 18
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     June 26, 2006
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council with an update on Area Four Community Day at MIT.

O-2     June 26, 2006
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council with an update on Lafayette Square and the impact on traffic congestion on the Area Four community.

O-3     June 26, 2006
COUNCILLOR DAVIS
WHEREAS: The City will be hiring a consultant to reach the goal of 20% renewable energy by 2010; and
WHEREAS: Achieving goals in energy requires the cooperation and assistance of the public; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That in hiring the energy consultant the City Manager look for a person who, in addition to other skills, can work with the public before a final report is issued:
  1. To present a broad range of technology options and brainstorm with the public a wide gamut of possible solutions.
  2. To present (possibly in a second meeting) the costs and benefits and financial constraints of solutions.
  3. To implement solutions.
  and be it further
ORDERED: That the consultant should take a long-range view of the challenges ahead and be creative in formulating recommendations, taking into account new opportunities, changing technology, the City's Climate Protection Plan and the role of the public in implementing said plan.

O-4     June 26, 2006
VICE MAYOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: There are continuing complaints from citizens about the presence of rats throughout the City; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate departments and to prepare a report on effectiveness of the City's newly instituted trash policy including the amount of citations issued and to report back to the City Council at the August City Council meeting.

O-5     June 26, 2006
COUNCILLOR SULLIVAN
WHEREAS: SEIU Local 509 is currently in negotiations with the Walnut Street Center; and
WHEREAS: Local 509 is fighting for a fair raise and economic package, fair distribution of overtime and extra shifts, rights for relief workers, a contract expiration date that allows them to join their fellow union members and gives them their best chance of influencing the state, seniority rights, reasonable work rules; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council does hereby commend and support all of the individuals from SEIU 509; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to SEIU Local 509 on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-6     June 26, 2006
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant Department heads about the possibility of using car stacking lifts as a means of maximizing off-street parking spaces at parking garages, private residences and business parking lots; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this issue.

O-7     June 26, 2006
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant Department heads about the possibility of providing City and School employees who work at multiple locations with passes that allow them to park on residential streets near their places of employment during working hours; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this issue.

O-8     June 26, 2006
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: On-street parking is a tight neighborhood resource; and
WHEREAS: Residents of Cambridge must share on-street parking spaces; and
WHEREAS: New residential and commercial construction required a specified number of parking spaces depending on the size of the construction; and
WHEREAS: If people need to pay rent for work or residential parking spots they may be more likely to use on-street parking rather than parking spaces provided as part of the development; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant Department heads on the propriety of charging rent for parking spaces that developments are required to provide; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this issue.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee held a public meeting on June 13, 2006, beginning at four o’clock and fifteen minutes in the Sullivan Chamber. The meeting was held for the purpose of continued discussion of the Concord/Alewife proposed zoning amendment, in particular, the shopping center area, environmental and infrastructure issues.

Present at the meeting were Councillor Michael Sullivan and Councillor Brian Murphy, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Henrietta Davis; Councillor Anthony D. Galluccio; and City Clerk D. Margaret Drury. Also present were Susan Glazer, Deputy Director of the Community Development Department (CDD); Lester Barber, Director of Zoning and Land Use, CDD; Stuart Dash, Director of Community and Neighborhood Planning; Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environmental and Transportation Planning, CDD; Iram Farooq, Planner, CDD; Owen O’Riordan, City Engineer.

Councillor Sullivan convened the meeting and explained the purpose. He recognized William Brownsberger, Belmont Selectman, and welcomed him to the meeting. Councillor Sullivan then invited the CDD staff to begin with information on traffic issues raised at previous meetings.

Ms. Rasmussen stated that the estimated future traffic under the proposed zoning is expected to be less than the estimated future traffic would be under the existing zoning if the area were fully build out. Since the area is in the center of a regional transportation network in which two thirds of the traffic is passing-through traffic, they do not expect this zoning to resolve the traffic issues.

Ms. Rasmussen noted the need for alternative transportation strategies to improve the situation. The City of Cambridge is working on this issue. CDD has a grant for the State to study origin/destination of the traffic and to survey license plates for cars parked at the Alewife T Station.

Ms. Rasmussen also stated that increased residential density is associated with decreased vehicle trips. She also noted that the Parking and Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) Ordinance requires traffic mitigation and vehicle trip reduction plans for all developments.

Councillor Sullivan informed the committee that there is a proposal currently before the State Legislature Conference Committee for additional study funds for improved transit access points.

Councillor Sullivan then moved for public comment.

Mike Nakagawa, 51 Madison Avenue, stated that the issue of regional traffic must be more fully addressed. There will be increased neighborhood cut-through traffic. Most of the residential impact of traffic will be outside the boundaries of the study area. With regard to the issue of flooding, he noted that there have been five 25-year event storms in the last 15 years. Flooding is a big issue. In addition, there are earthquake issues. The whole area is fill, because the area was filled because of the mosquito issues. Fill is not stable. He would like to see a large water retention storage are a to make up for past failures to provide adequate flood storage water retention.

Carolyn Mieth, Brookford Street, thanked the co-chairs for holding additional meetings, but stated that the community had hoped for smaller meetings with groups of constituents. She recommended addressing all of the issues raised by Steve Kaiser in his letter. She urged the elimination of all transfer of development rights (TDR). With regard to the shopping center, she urged the City Council to not zone for a particular proposal. That is backwards. Ms. Mieth also said it is not fair to include TDR rights for Cambridgeport in this proposal. She suggests re-filing the petition again. The Citywide Rezoning was put off for over two years, and then portions of the City were removed from the proposed rezoning for individual consideration later.

Sue Bass, Belmont Citizens Forum, stated that they do not oppose all zoning in this area, but this zoning is not the right zoning the area. It is not possible to say that the increased permeability that has been discussed will happen. The bridge over the railroad tracks is not going to get the use that is hoped. The traffic numbers that the project has been using are misleading. The comparison should be with current use, not projected traffic if the area were to be built out at current zoning. There will be gridlock all day long. She urged the City Council to look carefully at the Mystic Valley Watershed Association’s earlier comments on flooding.

John Moot, 44 Coolidge Hill Road, stated that he needs clarification regarding the traffic study figures. He knows the area well enough to know there cannot be any more traffic. Mr. Moot also raised questions about the future plans for the Alewife T garage. Will it be enlarged or not? One way or the other, it is a major factor for future traffic and it should be discussed. It does not make much sense to say we can build anything we want since only 20 percent of the traffic is local. This also needs serious attention.

Will Brownsberger, Belmont Selectman, stated that the issue of traffic is foremost in his mind. The Town of Belmont wants to work with Cambridge to put in place a regional traffic plan.

Councillor Sullivan asked Mr. Brownsberger if he had any comment on the flooding issue. Mr. Brownsberger said that the flooding issue is complicated. He does not see this zoning as something that will make the flooding less; he hopes that Cambridge will take the opportunity to make it better.

Steve Kaiser, Hamilton Street, submitted two letters for the record, "Concord Alewife Zoning Loopholes" (Attachment A) and "Development Potential of the Shopping Center" (Attachment B). He said that he believes the TDR proposal is too bad to be fixed. He said that inclusion of TDR affecting Cambridgeport is simply wrong. Mr. Kaiser also submitted additional written material (Attachment C). He said that there is a serious threat to drinking water and sewage pollution relative to flooding. The zoning must get tough on the issue.

Sylvia Barnes, Harvey Street, stated that she uses the Fresh Pond Shopping Center all the time. She is glad to hear that it will be redesigned because the parking lot is very dangerous. She hopes that the parking lot as redesigned will not be like the parking lot at the Porter Square Shopping Center in which the spaces are too small for anything but the smaller cars.

Richard Bland, stated that his is the attorney for Eckles Industries Inc., owner of property at Faucet Street since the 1960’s. They previously submitted a letter objecting to the zoning. One of the plans shows a proposed road that bisects Eckles property, rendering it useless. They object to that plan. Another plan shows developing a passive park and storm water collection pond on an adjacent property that currently holds a building. He also said that having experience previous flood evils, he can assure the City

Council that using that area for flood storage would not help to stop flooding in the area. He submitted a letter for the record (Attachment D).

Councillor Sullivan and Councillor Murphy requested that staff comment on the questions that have been raised regarding changes to the Cambridgeport TDS provisions contained in this petition. Councillor Murphy asked if it is true that there are no changes to what is already in place in the zoning for Cambridgeport TDS. Ms. Glazer answered in the affirmative.

Councillor Sullivan asked for further clarification. Mr. Barber said that over the last couple of decades, there have been zoning amendments that created transfer of development rights in various parts of the City. For example, Pacific Park was created by MIT using TDR. In another section of the Zoning Ordinance, regulations encourage transfer of development rights north of Binney Street. When the Alewife Zoning contemplated transfer of development rights, CDD staff decided that there should be a consolidation of existing regulations in East Cambridge and Cambridgeport along with any new TDR regulations. There are absolutely no changes to the Cambridgeport and East Cambridge regulations. Mr. Barber noted that despite the elaborate regulations, there has only been one use of TDR in 20 years, the Pacific Park example.

Councillor Sullivan requested that Mr. O’Riordan describe the storm water and flood retention regulations. Mr. O’Riordan said that the regulations require that a development have the capacity to store the amount of excess storm water between a 2-year storm event pre-development and a 25-year storm event post development. He informed the committee that 60 percent of the triangle area lies within a 100 year flood plain along with a small parts of quadrangle. Compensating storage is required. Mr. O’Riordan said that at this time FEMA is revising its flood maps, but he doubts that the 100-year flood plain would extend to Concord Avenue. If there were ever to be such a flood, there are water mechanisms to bypass Fresh Pond and utilize MWRA flow transfer.

Mr. O’Riordan said that he believes the permeability requirements incorporated in the proposed zoning will improve storm water management capacity. Currently 88 percent of the surface is impervious. The new requirement will assist storm water management by improving permeability.

Councillor Murphy asked why the 25-year event status is used as the baseline. Mr. Riordan said that the 25-year event has been used for a long period of time as the standard for protection of property. It is seen as reasonable because the statistical probability of exceeding this event in any particular year is four percent.

Councillor Sullivan asked whether there are plans to take private property to create the roads shown or whether the maps are more "visionary tools." Ms. Glazer said that this study committee process was an envisioning process; there are alternatives. The map is meant to suggest the connections that could improve the environment overall.

Councillor Sullivan asked for a description of the limitations on the transfer and development rights.

Ms. Glazer said there is a specified "donating" area from which development rights can be transferred and there is a limited "receiving" area to which the rights can be transferred. TDR requires two willing partners, and both must go through a special permit process. CDD does not expect TDR to be used very often. They see it as one more zoning tool that can be used to move development away from the residential edge and closer to the MBTA.

Mr. Dash said that Mr. O’Riordan has suggested a small change that will improve the storm water retention regulations. Councillor Sullivan requested that this proposal be submitted at the next meeting.

Councillor Sullivan then requested a presentation from the CDD staff about the potential for the shopping area. Ms. Glazer said that what is envisioned is a transformation into a mixed-use village. Councillor Sullivan asked how the design of large box stores would be prevented. Ms. Glazer said that limitations of about 40,000-50,000 square feed would prevent this.

Councillor Davis said that the Whole Food Grocery Store at River Street is trying to expand; they have about 40,000 square feet and they believe they need more room. Councillor Davis said that there should be more definite figures for what amount of space grocery stores need. She does not believe that 40,000 is the right number. Mr. Dash said that there would be language that would allow more by special permit.

Councillor Davis said that of all the zoning changes discussed, the shopping center part is the most transformational. She asked how it would work. Mr. Dash said that the Study Committee envisioned that there would be a small street network, with better connections to Danehy Park. The Planning Board would look for proposals from developers that achieve the goals of the vision. Councillor Davis asked about the edge by Danehy Park. Mr. Dash said there could be residential buildings that face the park.

Councillor Davis asked what height these residential buildings could be. Mr. Dash said building height could be up to 85 feet, Councillor Davis said that is half the height of Rindge Towers. Mr. Dash said yes, but the regulations would not allow such residences to be built as a continuous wall. Councillor Davis asked how many towers could be there. Mr. Dash said perhaps three or four, and they would have to be separated by 50 feet.

Ms. Glazer said some of the buildings in the center could be mixed use buildings. She added that the type of redevelopment contemplated is not a new notion; it happens around the country in situations where old shopping centers are converted to mixed use developments.

Councillor Davis asked for examples of what the development would look like and what the overall FAR would be. Ms. Glazer said the overall FAR would be approximately 2.0 for residential uses and 1.25 for commercial uses. She said that the idea would be to have a mixture of different use and different FAR. The goal would be to make it a mixed-use area and a place that people can go and gather, not just drive to and from. Mr. Dash said that much of Central Square and University Park are of comparable density.

Councillor Davis asked how many square feet of development potential exist under this proposal. Mr. Dash said that over 20 years, development could be expected to amount to about 1/3 of what could be built overall, based on experience with other development in Cambridge. That would mean 821,000 square feet over 20 years and 2.4 million square feet when totally built out.

Councillor Davis asked how many residential units could be built. Mr. Dash said that estimate is 350 for the 20-year project and roughly 1,000 for the full build out, which is half the potential for North Point.

Councillor Sullivan noted that development has to be phased, as a practical matter.

Councillor Davis asked whether the City would be considering any kind of green building requirements. She added that this is a important opportunity for the City to think futuristically. She asked if there had been any discussion of this and what possibilities there might be for giving this proposal a "green cast."

Ms. Glazer said that making this a green building area per se was not discussed at the committee discussions. However, throughout the City there are specific requirements to make developers look at the potential for green improvements.

Ms. Rasmussen said that the City is looking at requiring energy efficiency improvements throughout the City, so perhaps particular requirements for an individual area may not be appropriate. To reach the City’s energy goals will require citywide participation.

Councillor Davis expressed some concern about whether more of the infrastructure goals should be made mandatory requirements.

Councillor Murphy requested information regarding the acreage of North Point compared with that the Fresh Pond Shopping Center. Ms. Glazer said that she believes that North Point is about 45 acres with 38-40 of those acres in Cambridge and the shopping center on the mall side is about 19 acres.

Councillor Davis asked about the vision for the other side, where CVS is located. Ms Glazer said the acreage is much smaller and half of the area is the NSTAR acreage. In response to a question from Councillor Murphy, she said that NSTAR could not use TDR to transfer excess development rights from that district to another because it is located in a receiving district.

Councillor Davis said that she does not like the idea of tall buildings within sight of Fresh Pond, which is supposed to be bucolic. Ms. Glazer said that the height limit is 55 feet across from the Fresh Pond Reservation. Councillor Davis asked how close to Danehy Park the 100-foot buildings could be. Ms. Glazer said that there would be a significant setback from Danehy Park.

Councillor Davis said that there is a problem with the setbacks at University Park on Sidney Street. There is a "canyon" problem. Another is issue is layout. It is important to have a sun/shadow analysis so that there are not huge shadows on the park like the shadows created on Pacific Park by the MIT dormitory on Pacific Street. Mr. Dash said that the notion of breaking up the mass and providing sky sight planes will be helpful with regard to the shadow issue.

Councillor Sullivan and Councillors Murphy thanked all those present for their participation. The meeting was adjourned at six o’clock and three minutes P. M.

For the Committee,
Councillor Brian Murphy, Co-Chair
Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chair


Committee Report #2
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee and the Cable TV, Telecommunications and Public Utilities conducted a joint public meeting on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 beginning at six o’clock and forty-five minutes P.M. in the Auditorium of the Fletcher-Maynard Academy, 225 Windsor Street, Cambridge, MA.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss why there are so many NSTAR outages in the Area Four Neighborhood.

Present at the meeting were Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee; Councillor Henrietta Davis, Chair of the Cable TV, Telecommunications and Public Utilities Committee; George Fernandes, City Electrician; and personnel from NSTAR Bill Zamparelli, Community Relations and Economic Development Representative; Bob Masci, Manager, Maintenance and Construction, Electrical Operations; Bill Hayes, Senior Arborist; Betty Leonard, Manager, Technical Engineer; Fernando Martins, Lead Engineer, System Engineering North; Sheila Whitaker, Director, Customer Interaction Center; Becky Mattson and Dana Teague; Shashi Parekh, DTE.; Ghehre, Daniel, DTE.; and Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk. Also present were David P. Kelleher, 11 Worcester Street and Nisha Thompson, 22 Columbia Street.

Councillor Simmons opened the meeting and explained the purpose. She thanked Robin Harris for the use of the school auditorium. This meeting is to discuss outages in Area Four. These outages became a concern to the neighborhood and this meeting is being held in the neighborhood to bring it close to the persons most affected.

Councillor Davis thanked all attendees. There have been complaints about the outages in Area Four and outages in the Wendell Street area. She stated areas of concern were the surprise of off line service, and the amount of notice. She wanted the City, NSTAR and DTE to work through this problem.

Councillor Simmons stated all the information would be made part of the public record. She stated she wanted a palm card to include who to call for information and what to do if the lights go out. Mr. Zamparelli gave the telephone number of 1-800-592-2000, which is the point of contact for the gas and the electric company. This will be redesigned to deliver information in the most efficient manner. He stated that he had attended the monthly meeting of the Area Four Coalition. He distributed the attached information (Attachment A) and made a presentation.

Mr. Zamparelli, NSTAR, stated that NSTAR has made a significant investment in the City and will continue to upgrade its services. He spoke of the incident that impacted Area Four:

  1. The vault fire in Central Square in June 2005 was an outage requested by the Fire Department. There were a number of lines that needed to be repaired. No notice was done because of the emergency nature of the work.
  2. Switching lines needed to be de-energized and there were outages.
  3. Trees are an issue in Cambridge. In 2005 six circuits were trimmed to improve reliability.
  4. April 18, 2006 a scheduled maintenance for preventative maintenance at the Amory Street sub station was planned. Notification of the outage was sent to 6,000 customers. The service was to be restored on April 19, 2006. Twenty hours into the repair a cable fault required additional repairs, which created additional outages.

Mr. Zamparelli next discussed non-planned outages. He spoke about the non-planned outages and the outage times. Councillor Davis asked how do these outages compare with the rest of the City. The outages were more than average responded Mr. Zamparelli.

Councillor Simmons questioned the situation that occurred on April 18 and 19, 2006. Mr. Zamparelli outlined the situation. At 1 A.M. on April 18, 2006 the scheduled outages occurred. The outages were monitored. Ten hours after the work began a cable fault occurred. This work was unplanned and has caused other outages on other circuits. The cable fault caused additional outages. There were complaints that there was no notification.

Councillor Simmons informed Mr. Zamparelli that Worcester Street residents were told that NSTAR did not want to decapitalize. Is this true? When a line is de-energized it is shut down to switch the line and then it is shut down to switch the line and then it is brought back on line explained Mr. Zamparelli. NSTAR established a task force to discuss notification to customers about outages and when outages get cancelled. The system is subject to weather conditions. Councillor Davis questioned the twenty-six hour notice for Wendell Street. The notice procedure tries to address all possibilities that could happen with the system stated Mr. Zamparelli. Momentary and duration letters are sent out. The letters are not clear. NSTAR needs to better communicate with customers. Councillor Davis spoke about outages in any twenty-six hour period. Mr. Masci explained that switching is short-term duration and is usually done at 1:00 A. M. He would review the letters sent out and try to clarify. One letter would be sent to notify the customers of switching; another letter would be sent to customers to return from the switching so that customers would not be confused. Is there more than one department at NSTAR sending out these letters asked Councillor Simmons? Mr. Zamparelli and Mr. Masci both responded in affirmative. Mr. Masci stated that the issue is the permit structure. The process is
  1. Permit;
  2. Letter; and
  3. When work is changed another letter will be sent.

Mr. Zamparelli informed the committee that there is an issue with the notification and database. NSTAR is working on this issue in an effort to standardize the procedure. There will be a new telephone number for planned outages and it has a permit number. The telephone number is for the customer to call to see if the planned outages will still take place. When there would be planned outages in Cambridge this information should be made available commented Councillor Davis. Ms. Whitaker stated that customers should call 1-800-592-2000. An NSTAR customer service representative would reach out to the planning committee to get the information. If no notice is sent customers do not know if the outage is planned. Councillor Simmons applauded NSTAR for reviewing the procedure, but she wanted NSTAR to put itself in the place of the customer. Planned and unplanned outages procedures need to be made easy for the customer. Customers want to know why, when and for how long about outages. She spoke about food spoilage and baby formulas. NSTAR needs to help the City get this information out to the customers. Notification procedure is on the way, but NSTAR is not there yet stated Councillor Simmons. Ms. Whitaker stated that she would take this information back to the planning committee. She wants to be more proactive to get information to the customer when planned outages are postponed. NSTAR will use a system similar to the system used to call in for jury duty.

Councillor Davis asked about the status of the infrastructure. Ms. Whitaker spoke about 1VR, Integrated Voice Response System, which is for general inquiries. Currently there are seven menus. However best practices are 3-4 menus. NSTAR will simplify the menu. The 1VR system gets to the troubled system quicker. The outage reporting information will be updated on 1VR. The benefit of the partnership is that 20,000 calls can be handled during a storm. More resources are applied when outages are more extensive. Next discussed was the tree vegetation impact.

Mr. Zamparelli stated that meetings were held with the City to address tree trimming to address outage issues. Trees were an issue in Area Four. Mr. Hayes, NSTAR Arborist, stated that poor tree clearance affects the electrical system, extends restoration time and increases damage during severe weather conditions. This is one part of the mainstream system. In 2006 he met with Mr. Fernandes and the City Arborist. NSTAR’s past practices in the City has been poor pruning. From November-December six circuits were trimmed with no effect on the system. The general pruning policy is not appropriate for all trees. Mr. Hayes and the City Arborist meet to agree on tree removal and planting of new trees. There are 11 circuits out of 64 planned for pruning in 2006. Some trees are involved in the wires. Preview of circuits are done for tree removal. Councillor Davis suggested a tree removal hearing before trees are removed. Mr. Hayes responded that Mass General Law Chapter 87 prohibits trees removed and requires a hearing. Councillor Davis suggested that NSTAR should go to Area Four Neighborhood to inform the community of their intent. There are three trees in the entire circuit that may require removal commented Mr. Hayes. NSTAR is profiling trees for pruning versus removal. Councillor Davis commented that the last tree hearing was held about a tree on Fayerweather Street. The notice was posted and the public protested the removal. She asked if NSTAR does something different in Arlington about pruning. Mr. Hayes responded that more work is done in Cambridge; a different protocol is used in Cambridge.

Mr. Masci outlined the 2006 Action Plan for NSTAR. When old switching devices fail, of which there are many in Cambridge, they will be replaced. NSTAR is being very aggressive with the replacements especially when there are outages. Underground cable is being replaced. NSTAR is putting capital in Cambridge. When the Kendall Substation 875 is complete there will be 18 new cables. A back up line will be installed. An aggressive maintenance program is done on breakers and station transformers. He spoke of new technology VFI that is an improvement over the oil switches. Infrared survey is being done to determine the hot spots. Councillor Davis asked Mr. Fernandes if this is what Cambridge is looking to have done. Mr. Fernandes responded in the affirmative, but it is a planned outage. Mr. Masci stated that in 2006 nine transformers would be replaced.

Councillor Davis asked if NSTAR products and efficiency are being integrated. Mr. Zamparelli responded that the energy efficient program is a big part of the Climate Protection Program. Councillor Davis commented that she cannot find this information of the Website. Mr. Zamparelli stated that account executives are the energy efficiency experts and are well versed in the program. Billing information has nothing to do with energy efficiency stated Councillor Davis. She suggested streamlining the system. Ms. Whitaker stated that she would bring information about poor web design back to the committee.

At eight o’clock Councillor Simmons opened the meeting to public comment.

Nisha Thompson, Area Four Coalition, approved of the action of NSTAR about notification and the telephone number. She inquired about residents receiving a refund or rebate for food spoilage due to outages. Mr. Zamparelli suggested residents should identify the date and time of the event and the damage. An NSTAR representative sends a report and a decision is made on restitution. Ms. Thompson inquired if this information is made available to the public. Ms. Whitaker responded that customer service representatives are instructed to give this information to customers when there are outages. Ms. Thompson stated that she wanted a more distinct time frame for work being done. If is difficult and frustrating when outages occur in the winter. Mr. Masci stated that to fix the Cambridge system it will take both planned and unplanned outages and it will take years. His issue is the safety of the employees. Long outages are caused by underground work. Ms. Thompson asked who is the task force contact. Mr. Zamparelli stated he is the contact person.

Councillor Davis asked if NSTAR is ready to install traffic lights in the Cambridgeport Roadway and in Porter Square. Mr. Zamparelli responded that the contractors will install the lights in Porter Square. He has no authority to install the lights. Waverly Street requires notification from Inspectional Service that NSTAR can proceed.

Councillor Davis asked the representatives from DTE what is the role of DTE.

Shashi Parekh, electrical engineer, DTE, stated that his job is to look for service quality for NSTAR and all companies in Massachusetts. Information on ongoing and completed work was prepared by NSTAR because DTE is at this meeting. He views these issues as less communication about planned and unplanned outages, customer notification and redesign of communications process. Cambridge is an old underground system with a problem with trimming trees. It is a fine balance between NSTAR and the customers. DTE’s job is to maintain the balance. DTE is in constant communication with NSTAR. DTE does not micro manage NSTAR; we listen to all parties.

Councillor Davis and Councillor Simmons thanked the representatives from DTE, the members of NSTAR, George Fernandes and the public for their attendance.

The meeting was adjourned at eight o’clock and sixteen minutes P.M.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair, Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee
Councillor Henrietta Davis, Chair, Cable TV, Telecommunications and Public Utilities Committee


Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee held a public meeting on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 at five o’clock and forty-five minutes P. M. in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a working meeting on the Concord-Alewife rezoning petition.

Present at the meeting were Councillor Michael A. Sullivan and Councillor Brian Murphy, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Henrietta Davis; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Beth Rubenstein, Assistant City Manager for Community Development (CDD); Susan Glaser, Deputy Director CDD; Stuart Dash, Director, Community and Neighborhood Planning, CDD; Susanne Rasmussen, Director, Environmental and Transportation Planning, CDD; Les Barber, Director, Land Use, Planning and Zoning, CDD; Iram Farooq, Project Planner, CDD; Owen O’Riordon, City Engineer; and Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk.

Councillor Sullivan opened the meeting and stated the purpose. This is the final meeting before going to the full City Council. This petition has been filed three times. Site visits have been conducted. This meeting will be for technical amendments and material from the City Engineer. The committee now proceeded to review the Memo from CDD dated June 14, 2006 regarding text changes to the Concord Alewife zoning petition (ATTACHMENT A).

Ms. Glaser reviewed the points in the memo. Amendments have been made based on the comments at the meetings. The text may need tweaking.

SECTION 20.95.1 FAR would go back to what it is today in the Quadrangle (1.25 back to 1.5 with special permit)

No changes to FAR in shopping center and triangle

Councillor Sullivan stated that to go to 1.5 FAR there is an increased bonus incentive. Special permit will achieve improvements to the roadway. This may be the impetus to get incentives.

SECTION 20.95.1 (4) Would limit square footage of individual stores except grocery stores.

Square footage was discussed. Ms. Rubenstein stated that square footage could go as high as 50,000 but does not need to be this big. Mr. Dash commented that the size of other stores like TJ MAXX and Toys R US are 50,000 square feet or under. Minimum and maximum language was suggested for the amount of commercial use for lots exceeding 100,000 square feet gross floor area.

A discussion arose about language to dedicate the vision of retail as a reality. If retail disappears there may be no need to the build the bridge. Ms. Rubenstein stated that the vision of the owners of the shopping center is a replacement of retail. It is important to touch base with the owners of the shopping center. Councillor Davis supported minimum – maximum language. She spoke about ground floor percentage of retail. This site has worked for retail commented Councillor Murphy.

Councillor Davis stated that Cambridgepark Drive is not a friendly region. The original design was supposed to be retail; there was no push for a retail vision stated Councillor Sullivan. No retail was allowed stated Mr. Barber. This was changed in 2001. He added that retail is the last component to come in because it depends on the customers. Councillor Davis stated that she did not want the retail piece to be eliminated.

SECTION 20.95.ll (1) suggested language expanding the area eligible for bonus to get the bridge built.

SECTION 20.95.2 provides incentives to get the roadway and pathways built.

Councillor Davis asked how would the roadway get built when there are many owners. Mr. Dash responded that connections are made for roadways by the owners over time. As developments are built the owners would build the roadway. The city may build the roadways stated Ms. Rubenstein. Owners would build or contribute to the building of roadways commented Ms. Rasmussen. Councillor Davis asked where are the conditions for building the roadways. Ms. Rubenstein responded in the special permit.

Councillor Sullivan stated his concerns with the transfer of development rights (TDR). Mr. Dash stated that limits could be put on TDR on any site. Councillor Murphy asked if it would be desirable to have NSTAR use their TDR on a one to one FAR basis. It is not bonus TDR stated Councillor Sullivan. TDR could be sold but NSTAR would not get a bonus because it is in a receiving district. NSTAR situation would not be applied to anyone else. Transfer is not automatic. The Planning Board has criteria on TDR.

SECTION 20.95.4 would allow additional housing units within GFA of development including bonus GFA. Councillor Davis stated that larger bedroom units are becoming scarcer. There is no language about units with a larger number of bedrooms stated Ms. Rubenstein. The Affordable Housing Trust is building two and three bedroom units. If the goal is families this may not be accomplished. The units may be occupied by empty nesters. This is a supply and demand issue stated Councillor Davis. If three bedroom units are scarce people may leave the city. If these units are rare they will be harder to purchase. Councillor Murphy stated that he would like a more transparent process. Ms. Farooq stated that the area would be residential and industrial. Design guidelines could include mixed size units. The Planning Board looks favorably on mixed residential units stated Ms. Rubenstein. However, there may be a pushback on this request. Councillor Sullivan stated that affordable units could not all be studios. This issue needs to be figured out citywide.

SECTION 20.96 addresses water quality issues. These changes were drafted by CDD based on comments at meetings.

Councillor Sullivan stated that his intent is to forward language to the full City Council. If there are any additional issues an informational meeting will be held for the City Council. This has been built into the timeline. The goal is adoption on June 26, 2006. A special City Council meeting may be called during the week of June 26-30, 2006.

Councillor Davis questioned the traffic issues. Will the infrastructure bear the traffic. The project will be subject to Article Nineteen Traffic Review Process. If the infrastructure cannot accommodate the project it will not go forward. There is a tool in place to show the impact. Mitigation and PTDM must be done. At Northpoint the mitigation was tied to the permitting process, stated Ms. Rubenstein. Could this be done with the housing piece asked Councillor Davis. Ms. Rubenstein responded in the affirmative.

In conclusion Councillor Murphy listed the action. The petition with amendments will be forwarded to the City Council for June 26, 2006 meeting. There will be an opportunity for the City Council to discuss this petition with the staff. Preparation for a fall back special meeting will be done. The amendments discussed were:
Minimum and ground retail;
Mixed unit size including three bedroom units;
TDR; and
NSTAR and MBTA issue

Councillors Murphy thanked all those present for their attendance.

The meeting adjourned at six o’clock and fifty-five minutes p.m.

For the Committee,
Councillor Brian Murphy, Co-Chair
Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chair


Committee Report #4
The Transportation, Traffic and Parking. Committee held a public meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, beginning at five o’clock and thirty-two minutes P.M. in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss pedestrian issues relating to sidewalks, specifically material used for sidewalks, tree roots and sidewalk maintenance and repair and the report on provisions for parking for motorcycles, scooters and mopeds.

Present at the meeting were Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Henrietta Davis; Councillor Murphy; Lisa Peterson, Public Works Commissioner; Owen O’Riordan, City Engineer; Bill Dwyer, Superintendent of Streets; John Nardone, Assistant Commissioner for Operations; Kathy Watkins, Transportation Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Rosalie Anders, Project Administrator, Environmental and Transportation Planning Division, CDD; Michael Muehe, Director, Commission for Persons with Disabilities; and Donna Lopez, Deputy City Clerk.

Councillor Kelley opened the meeting and stated the purpose. The format of the meeting would be public comment followed by a presentation by Public Works.

At five o’clock and thirty-five minutes Councillor Kelley opened the meeting to public comment.

Estelle Disch, 528 Franklin Street, stated her concerns with the condition of the sidewalks. She felt humiliated living in the city after a situation where she helped a handicapped person to her car. She cited problems with curb cuts, sunken bricks and pedestrian cross lights where there is no pedestrian count light.

Carolyn Simon , Mt. Vernon Street, informed the committee that she is blind and that there is confusion for pedestrians at cross lights and there should be a better indication of how long the signals are. Bus stop signs should be placed before hydrants not after because people walk into the hydrants. The new ramp in Porter Square is not in compliance with American Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. There are supposed to be no obstacles at the end of the ramp. She spoke about the handicapped ramp being on private property at White Hen Pantry, illegally parked cars in handicapped ramps and delivery trucks blocking the ramp. Handicapped ramps and handicapped parking spaces should be protected for those who use these facilities. When she brings the issue to the Police they say it is not their affair.

John Kelley, Boston Neighborhood Access Group, informed the committee that he fights for street level access and has filed a complaint against the City of Boston for sidewalk accessibility. The City of Boston is hostile to handicapped persons. He opposed the use of brick. He stated that he does not feel welcome in Cambridge because the sidewalks are not accessible. When sidewalks are curved he can run into people with his wheel chair. People might like the ambiance like the gentrification, but bricks are not the future. He spoke about missing bricks and the inability of brick sidewalks to bear the load. Bricks, he said, do not provide access; the future is accessibility for all. It is not respectable to handicapped persons when bricks are used for sidewalk material. Wheelchairs do not function well on brick sidewalks, as cars don’t function well on cobblestones.

Kathy Podgers, 148 Pearl Street, founder of Citizens for Feasible Compliance, stated that she filed a complaint against the Massachusetts Architectural Board. The Hancock ramp doesn’t work because it does not have the width of 48" to wing rollers and dogs. She wants sidewalks accessible for handicapped persons. She cited problems with curb ramps and the height of crosswalks. She spoke about her service dog’s inability to help her because of the ingredients used on sidewalks bothering his paws. The curb cut landings are too short. Curb cuts and sidewalks are not meeting ADA requirements. She feels dizzy when she walks on a crooked sidewalk. She stated that she wants to work with the city to find a solution. Police Commissioner says disabled people are in the street because they want to be there, but they’re really there because they don’t have ready access to sidewalks. ADA sys systemic violations are a civil rights issue.

At five o’clock and fifty-three minutes P.M. public comment was closed. At this time Councillor Kelley requested that the Public Works Department proceed with their presentation.

Commissioner Peterson spoke about sidewalk maintenance and reconstruction. The goal of the sidewalk maintenance program is to provide pedestrian safety and improve accessibility. She also spoke about preserving significant trees. Sidewalk reconstruction is funded through different programs and financial streams. Larger projects are funded through bonds. Some of these projects are Cambridge Street, Harvard Square, Porter Square and South Massachusetts Avenue. Surface enhancements are addressed when a project is completed. Street reconstruction is done with Chapter 90 funds. There are funds allocated annually that provide for miscellaneous repairs for sidewalks. This fiscal year the allocation is $400,000. At this time Commissioner Peterson turned the presentation over to Owen O’Riordan, the City Engineer, to discuss the sidewalk and pedestrian ramp survey. City policy is to replace sidewalks that are there for free, downgrade from brick to concrete for free or upgrade for difference in cost. $50 square yard for concrete, $150- $165 square yard for brick, so that the city can do 3 times as much concrete as brick.

Mr. O’Riordan stated that in 2004-2005, Public Works with help from co-op students looked at the condition of sidewalks and pedestrian ramps throughout the city to help assess budgetary requirements and to prioritize. There were 147 miles of sidewalks surveyed (ATTACHMENT A). The entire city has 200 miles of sidewalks of which 48 miles are brick; 139 miles are concrete and the remaining 12 miles are asphalt, plus some bluestone. The north, west and east Cambridge areas contain little amounts of brick sidewalks. The conditions of the sidewalks were broadly assessed in the survey. Overall the condition of sidewalks were used as follows:
  25% excellent
  50% good
  30% poor

Of the 139 miles of concrete sidewalks the survey revealed 102 miles were in excellent to good condition. Of the 48 miles of brick sidewalk, 33 miles were rated as excellent to good condition and 11 miles of asphalt sidewalks rated 0.7 miles in excellent to good condition. A higher proportion of brick sidewalks were in poor condition.

Pedestrian ramps were next discussed. Mr. O’Riordan stated that there are eight ramps that have four defects. There are 91 ramps that have either noncompliance slopes or poor structural condition. Councillor Kelley asked if ramp landings were included in the survey. Mr. O’Riordan responded in the negative. This survey helps to estimate the cost for repairs. It would cost $14.5 million to bring sidewalks into compliance that are in poor or fair condition. Without that money they’re using their GPS mapping of sidewalks to prioritize around public buildings, senior centers, housing, etc. The most critical sidewalks were reviewed with a 150 radius around these areas. These areas were then prioritized as Harvard, Porter, Kendall, Central and Lafayette Squares. This is a draft document. This is where the city is on this issue, he said.

Councillor Kelley asked if the city has a lot of gravel sidewalks like the sidewalk at Dana Park. Mr. O’Riordan responded that only walkways are gravel. Mr. Muehe stated that the material is stabilized aggregate compound. Another example of this walkway is Corporal Burns. These walkways need to be swept to remove the loose gravel for a period of one to three years after installation, then this walkway becomes a smooth surface like asphalt.

Next Mr. Dwyer, Superintendent of Streets, discussed maintenance of sidewalks. Public Works has a sidewalk inspection and minor repair program (ATTACHMENT B). Sidewalks are identified and observed by Public Works staff. Inspections are done by:
  Street Cleaning Division
  Public works supervisors and inspectors;
  Forestry and Parks Division; and the general public

The pothole hotline is (617) 349-4854. Reports are entered into the inspection program. A Public Works supervisor reports on the condition of the defect and the defect is prioritized. There are three categories for areas needing repairs or improvements to vertical displacement. They are:
  minimal displacement – displacement less than ¾ of an inch
  small displacement – displacement between ¾ to 1 ½ inches; and
  moderate to significant displacement – displacement greater than 1½ inches.

Bus stops and senior centers get top priority. He commented on the temporary repair program. If the repair is in a sensitive area, it is given top priority. The response goal for small displacement is to repair the defect within 10-30 days. Councillor Kelley asked Mr. Dwyer how long the repairs were expected to last. Mr. Dwyer responded, as long as possible. The repair areas are monitored. If an additional repair is needed, it is repaired. Asphalt is used for temporary repairs. On raised tree wells the Public Works staff works with the City Arborist to get an opinion as to what can be done about tree roots. The life and the health of the tree are considered. Tree roots that are a problem are usually major roots of trees. Councillor Kelley asked when bridge repairs are done are they graded. The area is made accessible as soon as possible, stated Mr. Dwyer. Commissioner Peterson stated that the city has a goal to preserve significant trees but this creates a conflict with accessibility on sidewalks, sometimes a 100% conflict. Tree roots are always an issue, commented Mr. Nardone. Areas that have tree root issues will not be bricked because of the tree roots. The permanent fix is asphalt. Small canopy trees are used so that the roots will not cause this problem. In new construction root barren process is used. Roots grow down and out to the side. Mr. O’Riordan stated that bricks are installed on a concrete base. Tree roots and water can’t move through concrete sub-base. Asphalt is used as a mastic base to which bricks adhere. Wire-cut bricks are now used, however in historical areas molded bricks are used. Commissioner Peterson informed the committee that the policy is that whatever material exists on sidewalks this is what is used as a small-scale replacement or repair. The goal is to use wire-cut brick. In response to a question from Councillor Kelley about replacement sidewalk on Hollis Street, Mr. O’Riordan stated that a four-inch base of concrete is used, then ¼ inch of stone dust and then the brick are laid. The concrete stabilizes the bricks. Councillor Kelley asked if there is less displacement with this practice. Mr. O’Riordan responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Kelley inquired as to what is done to ensure that sidewalks are cleared of snow, especially for accessibility and the mobility of strollers. The sidewalk clearance program is aggressive, stated Commissioner Peterson. The city clears 18 miles of sidewalk of snow, including bus stops, parks, public buildings and schools. The Parking Control Officers issue tickets to property owners who do not clear their sidewalk. In the fall of last year letters were sent to violators and large property owners to remind them of their responsibility. Literature was mailed with the resident parking sticker renewal notice. Commissioner Peterson would provide data about snow tickets issued. Work would continue to get private property owners to comply. Councillor Kelley was informed that citations were mailed to property owners from information received from the Assessors database. Commissioner Peterson explained the appeal process.

Councillor Kelley asked about the snow clearance exemption list. Commissioner Peterson stated that it is a list including income-eligible seniors and persons with disabilities. There is a list of 65-68 households. This list exempts these households from the city ordinance for snow clearance on sidewalks. The city clears the sidewalks in front of these homes. The Danehy Park staff helps with this task. There is also a list of high school students who will shovel the sidewalk for a fee, but it is an inconsistent program. The City clears about 18 miles of sidewalks, high-volume bus stops, etc. On private property Parking Control Officers (PCO) and some DPW staff give tickets. Last year a follow up letter was sent to violators, problems areas and larger property owners. The city sent out literature with residential parking sticker. Ms. Peterson did not have enforcement statistics, can’t get 100% compliance but could do better. Parking Control Officers record the violation. A letter is sent to the Assessor’s office’s owner of record. The city has even gone to the Court Magistrate on some cases.

Mr. O’Riordan, in response to a concern expressed by Councillor Kelley, stated that ramps and landing areas would be assessed to see the significance and to prioritize. Councillor Kelley asked what is the cost to do a ramp. Commissioner Peterson stated that ramps are done in concrete and could cost $1,000 - $4,000.

A discussion ensued about sidewalks on Hollis Street. They would not have been repaired if the roadwork were not being done.

The $400,000 of brickwork will go about a mile at $200 a square yard, so the money is used for smaller level repairs.

Councillor Kelley spoke of the North Massachusetts Avenue median strip. There are no curb cuts for pedestrians crossing Massachusetts Avenue. He asked how complicated it is to put a break in the median strip. Mr. O’Riordan could quantify this for him.

Councillor Kelley asked what is the city’s sidewalk accessibility requirement under ADA. Mr. Muehe responded that the ADA does not require that every sidewalk be accessible; ADA requires that there be program accessibility when viewed in the entirety. The question is can a disabled person move from point A to point B in the city roughly as easily as a non-disabled person. The GIS system can answer this question. Councillor Kelley asked whether ADA gives Cambridge any flexibility for being an old city. Mr. Muehe responded that the flexibility is the accessibility in the entirety standard. Sidewalk review isn’t systematic but relies on what people report more in an ad hoc fashion.

Councilor Kelley wondered if the Mayor’s Summer Youth could be used to report defects. Defect reporting is independent work, stated Commissioner Peterson; participants in the Mayor’s Summer Job Program are in a supervisory environment. Ms. Anders informed Councillor Kelley that the Pedestrian Committee is graphically representative of the city and they do report the defect. Churches and volunteer groups provide service to the city. Maybe a system could be developed like this, she said. Councillor Kelley stated that the meeting schedule for July 18, 2006 would be with the Pedestrian and Bike Committees. He will ask these committees then how they can help. Commissioner Peterson again stated that the city needed to make reasonable effort to address the issue of accessibility.

Councillor Kelley asked if the sidewalks and ramps needed to be in compliance in 30 days. Commissioner Peterson responded that public safety and accessibility is a high priority of Public Works. There is no standard that compliance be made in 30 days but when the city is on notice of a defect the DPW must make a reasonable attempt to fix it and that there is a need to prioritize the survey for doing and funding work. The programmatic approach is the key.

Councillor Kelley questioned with regard to installing the sidewalk ramp on Hollis Street. Mr. O’Riordan stated that if sidewalks are reconstructed, it is the responsibility of the city to install the ramps.

Again at seven o’clock and seventeen minutes P.M. Councillor Kelley opened the meeting to public comment.

Ms. Simon spoke of the inability to walk on the left side of Rindge Avenue because of trees. She asked when trees and boxed will be removed. More emphasis on pedestrian safety at night is needed at Alewife Station. She asked if there is a charge to the homeowner if Public Works installs sidewalks in front of her home. Mr. Dwyer responded that there is no change to replace what exists. Commissioner Peterson stated that she will review the location. Councillor Kelley commented that sidewalks will be replaced in kind as needed.

John Kelley stated that all sidewalks should be accessible and meet architectural code standards because they are a part of the city. Non-compliant new construction requires a variance from the Massachusetts Architectural Board. He asked where the money for construction of sidewalks comes from. He stated that there was a First Circuit Court decision that states surface-to-surface sidewalks be brought into compliance.

Ms. Podgers requested that a committee be developed to respond to the issues raised. If sidewalks are not fixed for accessibility for a person with disability, it is discrimination and that widespread violations are a civil rights violation.

Councillor Kelley asked if the city loses operational and planning control for the Mass. Highway Project. Mr. O’Riordan stated that the city has an agreement with the Mass. Highway Department (MHD). The city has a project manager on the property. The project work is done by MHD. Ms. Podgers commented that the Mass. Architectural Board and the ADA states that she has a right to file a grievance. She asked what internal mechanism does Public Works have about complaints. She asked why couldn’t she file a complaint with Public Works and get a response. She suggested that there should be a process. Ms. Peterson said that DPW does not have a formal in-house review procedure.

Councillor Kelley stated that the committee was in receipt of a response to an Awaiting Report on the provisions of parking for motorcycles and moped from the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Kelley thanked all attendees.

The meeting was adjourned at seven o’clock and thirty-five minutes.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair


Committee Report #5
The Ordinance Committee held a public meeting on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at five o’clock and seventeen minutes P. M. in the Sullivan Chamber. The purpose of the meeting was to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to substitute the phrase "Private Open Space" for the phrase "Useable Open Space" throughout the Zoning Ordinance.

Present at the meeting were Councillor Michael A. Sullivan and Councillor Brian Murphy, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Henrietta Davis; Susan Glazer, Deputy Director, CDD; Stuart Dash, Director of Community and Neighborhood Planning, CDD; Les Barber, Director of Zoning and Land Use Planning, CDD; Taha Jennings, Planner, CDD; Attorney Arthur Goldberg, City Solicitor’s Office; and D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk.

Councillor Sullivan opened the meeting and stated the purpose. He invited Mr. Barber to describe the petition. Mr. Barber said the that the proposed change from "Useable Open Space" to "Private Residential Open Space" would alter the title of a set of regulations in the Zoning Ordinance that impose open space requirements for most residential development in the city. The change would make it clear that the current requirements, which would not be altered in any way by the change in title, are intended to provide light and air for the private enjoyment and benefit of residents of new housing development; the requirements do not require that the open space be available or accessible to the general public. It is the kind of open space that homeowners are required to maintain in their backyards.

Councillor Sullivan then invited public comment.

Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, stated that she would like the City Council to be sure that there will not be any unintended consequences from this change.

Councillor Davis moved that the proposed amendment be forwarded to the full City Council with a positive recommendation. The motion passed on a voice vote without objection.

Councillors Murphy and Sullivan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The meeting was adjourned at five o’clock and twenty-one minutes p.m.

For the Committee,
Councillor Brian Murphy, Co-Chair
Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chair


Committee Report #6
The Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee held a public meeting on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 at five o’clock and thirty minutes P.M. in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the issue of the anti-idling regulation and a follow up to the traffic enforcement management plan.

Present at the meeting were Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Ronnie Watson, Police Commissioner; Dave Degou, Superintendent of Police; Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environment and Transportation Planning, Community Development Department; and Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk. Also present was Bette Davis, Kathy Podgers, Lawrence Adkins and Sheila Headley.

Councillor Kelley opened the meeting and stated the purpose. He did not want to have monthly meetings on the issue of traffic enforcement. His planning idea is more specific. Commissioner Watson stated that there is a whole host of work done on traffic. Traffic and data is reviewed to establish an enforcement plan. It is difficult to state that specific times each day will be set aside for traffic because of the nature of police work. Locations and times can be identified, but there is a need for flexibility in the department.

Councillor Kelley explained a situation at an intersection on Garfield Street where northbound cars stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, but southbound cars do not, leaving even the most visible of pedestrians stuck in the middle of the road with cars passing on both sides. This happens on a regular basis. What can be done to make this more effective, he asked. He stated that he would like more tickets issued. Commissioner Watson stated that problem locations are identified and patrol officers are assigned to the problem areas in an effort to eliminate problems. Sometimes the problem is the traffic pattern rather than enforcement. Enforcement is not the only answer to the traffic enforcement plan. Councillor Kelley stated that he would like to see what could be done differently to make traffic work better. Commissioner Watson stated that traffic enforcement does not center on one or two locations. People who are committing violations are people who are traveling through the city during the morning and evening rush hours. As soon as assigned officers leave the problem locations the violations occur, commented Councilor Kelley. Massachusetts does not have a culture of abiding the traffic laws. He gets complaints about this on a regular basis. Superintendent Degou stated that he took over the traffic and patrol division. He assigns officers to enforcement during certain times of the day. Officers can be diverted from traffic enforcement to perform other duties. He gives the officers the option of performing five hours of traffic enforcement. This plan has worked out better. He favored flexibility for the department. He stated his willingness to work with Councillor Kelley on this issue. Commissioner Watson stated that the officers have a better effort with enforcement when they are allowed flexibility when violations occur. In the past most citation written were warnings. He requested his department to do balanced enforcement of 50% warnings and 50% tickets. Allegations of racial profiling must also be considered.

Councillor Kelley stated that the streets now are not what he would like to see. It would be helpful if the public and the police department worked together to set expectations for traffic enforcement. Commissioner Watson responded that his department is happy to meet with the public, bike committee, pedestrian committee and Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to discuss what is the best approach. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the bike and pedestrian committees have a strong involvement with the police department and that these committees consist of members of the public. Some situations require a traffic solution rather than an enforcement solution. These committees are in place to look at these issues. This is a committee that is in existence and may not like the establishment of another committee. Councillor Kelley stated that the bike and pedestrian committees are good but that the streets are not as good as the streets could be. The pedestrian committee looks at all locations that are difficult to cross. Police then does enforcement or Traffic, Parking and Transportation does engineering review. The bike committee does the same work as it relates to bike issues i.e. bike lanes, obstacles, etc. She suggested that Councillor Kelley have a meeting with the bike and pedestrian committees and the police department. Do not leave these people out of the solution.

Councillor Kelley stated that potholes are not being fixed. More focus on traffic enforcement by the police department on their web page and budget submission information is needed. He would like traffic enforcement effort be as important an effort as crime prevention. The most important aspect of traffic enforcement in the city is cars, pedestrians, bikes and trucks stated Commissioner Watson. A large amount of time is spent on traffic enforcement. Traffic enforcement is the primary function of the police department when the officers are not working on crime related issues. The website cannot be changed until a technical person is allocated to the police department. This will be provided by IT department and the data will be put on the website.

Councillor Kelly stated that it is not wise to meet this way. Commissioner Watson agreed stating that nothing is being solved. He suggested letting the pedestrian and bike committees and the police department get together to review traffic issues and see what has been done and what could be done better. It will take time to compile this information and this takes officers off the streets to do research.

Councillor Kelley discussed sidewalk bike violations. Superintendent Degou informed the committee that 1,059 violations for bikes on sidewalks were issued in 2005. Councillor Kelley stated that he keeps getting complaints. He wanted to change the status quo or make things different. Enforcement is done on banned sidewalks and riding bikes on sidewalks stated Commissioner Watson. Officers have a multi-faceted job. Councillor Kelley stated that he understands that the issues are complex. The residents may need to decide whether they want to fund a larger police department. He asked what is the cost of financing five more officers. Commissioner Watson stated each additional officers costs $60,000 - $70,000. The job of his officers is to make people aware of behavior. The enforcement effort is compliance. The bike stencils will be painted on the sidewalk next month.

At six o’clock and five minutes p. m. Councillor Kelley opened the meeting up to public comment.

Kathy Podgers stated that she has noticed that there is improved enforcement on banning bicyclists from riding on the sidewalk. She spoke about valet parking in Harvard Square on Winthrop Street. How are people dealt with who park on the sidewalk on Winthrop Street who treat this as their own private parking space and Police don’t do anything about it. The problem with valet parking is that people cannot walk on the sidewalk. This makes it difficult for people with disabilities. There are always bikes in Harvard Square. She stated that she had photographs. The California Appeals Court stated that people with blogs do not have to name their sources. She suggested that there should be a drop-in group that meets every two weeks to have conversations about issues such as these. She stated that she worried about handicapped people being discriminated against to the point of a civil rights violation. She spoke about steep curb cuts which are detrimental to persons with disabilities. The police officer in Central Square has allowed bicyclists on sidewalks in handicapped ramps. Commissioner Watson stated that the police department does not deal with ramps. He is not prepared to discuss valet parking. The police will investigate illegal parking on sidewalks. Vigorous enforcement will be done on bike riding on sidewalks where stenciled.

Bette Davis, a long-time former member of the pedestrian committee, stated that these issues keep coming up with no change. She has reported idling and has not seen enforcement. She thinks the pedestrian committee should be notified better about these meetings. She thinks there is no enforcement of idling laws. Bicyclists on the sidewalks are a constant problem and the bicyclists are driving on the wrong side of the sidewalk. Photo enforcement is the solution and has not been instituted because it requires state legislation. The City Council was an obstacle with photo enforcement, she said. She stated that she was not in favor of hiring more police officers. Photo enforcement works. She commented on the fact that there is no system to check on warnings issued. She wanted the pedestrian committee to receive statistics on warnings and citations. She said that the pedestrian committee had often asked for statistics and still did not get them on a regular basis. Commissioner Watson stated that police department is working on photo enforcement. The City of Lawrence is proposing passing an ordinance to enable photo enforcement. The drawback, however, is that the Registry of Motor Vehicles collects the fine. Problems exist in Massachusetts with photo enforcement. The police department works with the MBTA on compliance with idling. Busses are turned off. Idling enforcement is something they do, but not as much as they should. Sergeants from the Traffic Division and Bike patrol attend the pedestrian committee meetings to coordinate getting necessary information. Enforcement of bikes on sidewalks is slowed until stencils are painted on the sidewalk. It is hard to do enforcement when people do not know about the ban. Ms. Davis spoke about campus enforcement of the anti-idling regulation. Ms. Davis talked of big MIT-related buses lined up and idling on Vassar Street and asked if the MIT police enforce in that case. Commissioner Watson stated that he would bring this enforcement to the attention of the universities.

Lawrence Atkins spoke on busses on Putnam Avenue at the King School. He has spoken to Mr. Lucey about the busses that load and unload Harvard students on Putnam Avenue. Harvard has been experimenting with a new bus service and the King School community was left out of the notification process for the jitney license. He wanted the tour bus route amended because this is a detriment to the area. Harvard only services their clientele and not the residents of the city. He submitted a proposed petition that would be signed by residents of the area (ATTACHMENT A). He noted that these are big buses and asked why they could not be smaller. He also submitted a communication from the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation regarding the petition of residents to make Howard Street a one-way (ATTACHMENT B). He expressed concern that it is not an open, clear process and he wants this one-way process to work better than the last one.

Deputy City Clerk Donna Lopez suggested a direct complaint on the Jitney issue.

Sheila Headley said that she has been working on the Jitney issue for a while and has had some positive and some negative experiences and that busses on Putnam Ave have become a huge problem, that they are tour busses but they’re not touring, they’re shortcutting. She stated that she filed a complaint with the License Commission because the busses on Putnam Avenue have escalated. Lieutenant Jack Albert has contacted Peter Pan and Harvard University and requested that they refrain from using Putnam Avenue for busses. Harvard busses, carrying 57-60 passengers, are being parked across from the King School where they wait for Harvard passengers. This goes on from 7:00 AM to 12:30 PM. Harvard has a shuttle permit for four busses and the license does not allow the operation after 9:00 PM. She wanted the police department to ticket these busses. She also wanted signs placed on Putnam Avenue that read "NO BUSSES". Commissioner Watson expressed his concern about the time the busses were in use. A 45-person shuttle was granted as a pilot. Citations have been issued to the bus companies. Ms. Headley stated that if there is a violation of the jitney license the permit should be revoked. The children are breathing the exhaust from the busses. Paul Revere was granted a jitney license for four trips. She wanted the LMA jitney route to be reviewed to determine if the permit allowed the company to use the streets traveled. She wanted to see if the company had the right to use the city streets. Commissioner Watson also expressed his concern about the weight limit. Mr. Atkins stated that Putnam Avenue was not to be added as an access street. He suggested that Harvard University’s transportation company be invited to a meeting before this committee, saying that the bus issue is big and requires a lot of people in the room. Ms. Headley stated that she wanted the busses ticketed if they do not belong on city streets. Commissioner Watson stated that he wanted it clear as to who can use the city streets. He and Ms. Headley noted that it was not clear who was in on the setting up of the routes. Mr. Watson said that Lieutenant Albert would do enforcement. He also suggested working with Harvard University to encourage the use of low emission busses. Ms. Headley said that there was lots to the Jitney issue that should happen that is not and that shouldn’t happen that is. She stated that she gives Lt. Alpert a lot of credit. Mr. Watson stated that at the next meeting, maybe sort out restriction in place, the restrictions that are needed, signage and so forth.

Deputy City Clerk Lopez noted that the route in all of these cases is spelled out and that the City Council can amend routes.

Kathy Podgers commented that curb ramps were designed for people who have mobility issues; they are not for bicyclists. She suggested a handicap stencil, possible a wheelchair instead of a bike. She spoke about handicapped persons being pushed out of the way by persons using carriages. She complained about ramps being too steep because it forces people into the street. She wanted a more relaxed conversation on these issues. Commissioner Watson responded that it has never been reported that motorized wheelchairs cannot use the ramps and that CPD does not have an attitude problem vis a vis PWDs. He cited the safety issue of persons traveling on the street.

Sarah Smith spoke about Crystal busses idling for three hours on Blackstone Street. What should she do about this situation? Commissioner Watson informed Ms. Smith to call Emergency Communications and cite the complaint of the idling busses on Blackstone Street. If the busses are not turned off a citation will be issued. Ms. Smith asked if a vehicle contained a refrigeration unit would this violation be covered by the Noise Ordinance? Commissioner Watson informed Ms. Smith to call the police department at 349-3300 and they will respond. Ms. Smith noted that she had been woken up twice during the current week by idling construction equipment.

At six o’clock and fifty-five minutes p.m. Councillor Kelley closed public comment.

Councillor Kelley stated that statistics would give an idea of what is going on with enforcement. It would be helpful to know what the public expects from police officers.

Commissioner Watson stated again that the police have a multi-faceted job, he doesn’t want to second guess what officers are doing. Officers responding to crime, break-ins, theft and assaults are not doing traffic enforcement. If a citizen wants to find out the duties of a police officer there is a Citizens Police Academy conducted through the Community Relations Division. His responsibility as Police Commissioner is to ensure that city is getting the most out of a police officer on any given day. There are college-educated police officers that make a decision based on the situation.

Councillor Kelley informed the committee that he would schedule meetings to discuss jitney licenses and a meeting with the Bike and Pedestrian Committees, Police and Traffic, Parking and Transportation Departments to discuss what can be done better on traffic enforcement.

At this time the committee proceeded to discuss anti-idling regulation.

Commissioner Watson stated that the License Commission enforces the anti-idling regulation when a taxicab is in violation. The violation is reported to the Police and his department will follow up on the violation.

Councillor Kelley questioned reports about bus idling. Superintendent Degou stated that there is a five-minute anti-idling regulation. The police must observe the violation. Then ask the operator to shut the bus off. The officer returns in fifteen minutes and if the violation reoccurs a citation is issued. There is cooperation with the MBTA on idling busses. Councillor Kelley stated that the public should feel comfortable to complain. Commissioner Watson commented that with the first complaint a warning is issued. If another complaint is received a citation is issued. Every complaint received is answered, he said.

Councillor Kelley stated that he would like to see how photo enforcement fits in with traffic enforcement. The police never stop looking at photo enforcement stated Commissioner Watson. The issue is how it is treated. In Lawrence it is treated as a traffic violation with the Registry of Motor Vehicles collecting the fines. The city manager has a committee reviewing photo enforcement. Councillor Kelley inquired if there was anyway to develop a different citation system without fines that would gain people attention. Enforcement is an education tool. Commissioner Watson stated that every violation is a surcharge to auto insurance which is a hurdle but there was no professional talk that he knew of about changing the surcharge issue. Cambridge is trying to change behavior. He explained the review process by his department of every violation. Ms. Podgers stated that New Jersey has photo enforcement of illegal use of handicapped parking spaces. Commissioner Watson stated that he would like to do photo enforcement on restricted truck routes and illegal left turns. This would gain compliance and would alleviate police officers that can be used for other duties. Despite its great compliance, safety and convenience record, there is a lot of opposition to photo enforcement.

Councillor Kelley thanked those present for their attendance.

The meeting adjourned at seven o’clock and twenty-two minutes p.m.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair


Committee Report #7
The Government Operations and Rules Committee held a public hearing on June 6, 2006, beginning at four o’clock and fifteen minutes p.m. in the Ackermann Room for the purpose of the schedule and process for the City Council to set goals for FY 08-09.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chair of the Committee, Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Councillor Anthony D. Galluccio, Councillor Brian Murphy, Councillor Henrietta Davis, Councillor Craig Kelley, City Clerk D. Margaret Drury, Deputy City Clerk Donna P. Lopez and Assistant to the City Council Sandra Albano. Present from the city administrative staff were Robert W. Healy, City Manager; Richard Rossi, Deputy City Manager; and Nancy Schlacter, Assistant to the City Manager.

Councillor Sullivan convened the meeting and explained the purpose. He distributed a draft schedule for the goal-setting process (Attachment A) that he and Vice Toomey, as Co-Chairs, had prepared and a proposed scope of work for a trainer/facilitator (Attachment B). Mr. Rossi distributed copies of the survey used by the City Manager in the statistically valid telephone survey of citizen satisfaction at the time of the last City Council goal-setting process.

It was agreed that the survey would be circulated to all members of the City Council with the request that they make any comments or suggestions by Monday, June 12, 2006 at the close of the City Council meeting. Councillor Sullivan stated that the members of the City Council should also receive a letter reminding them that the firm that designed the survey, Opinion Dynamics, has emphasized that in order to be statistically useful over time the questions must stay the same, although one or two new questions could be added.*

Councillor Sullivan then invited comment from any members of the public who could not testify at the end of the meeting.

Kathy Podgers, Pearl Street, stated that the satisfaction level of senior citizens in Cambridge is significantly lower that that of other Cambridge populations. Seniors and their concerns need to be addressed. Ms. Podgers also recommend that the City Council make ADA quality compliance a goal and that there be questions relating to access and services for disabled persons on the survey. She submitted written material (Attachment C).

At this time the proposed schedule was reviewed. It was agreed that there would be more extensive outreach to encourage more public participation in the public meeting for members of the public to prioritize their goals for the city in a facilitated process. The outreach would include outreach at the Danehy Park Family Day in mid-September. The possibility of putting surveys online and making them available to the public was discussed.

Councillor Sullivan discussed the importance of keeping to a schedule that will result in the Council having adopted goals before the City Manager begins his budget process with the City departments. It was agreed that the proposed schedule would be recommended to the full City Council, along with the scope of work for a trainer/facilitator.

Councillor Decker stated that she has been meeting with people who facilitate community processes. She would like to have an opportunity to introduce a new way of setting goals. The enterprise is a nonprofit, not a business, and one of the people involved is a former City Manager.

In response to a question about the usefulness of the goals to the City Manager, Mr. Healy said that that he and the City departments do use the goals in setting budget goals. His problem is that the goals are very broad, there is not any piece of work that a City Councillor could come up with that wouldn’t fall under one goal or another. In previous years, the goals included sub-goals and/or items that the City Council wanted to emphasize over the next fiscal year, and that was more helpful. The budget goals are supposed to set the work plan for the City. This is much easier when the goals are clear, specific and shared by the City Council members.

Councillor Galluccio said that in listening to the City Manager’s comments, he believes that the City Council should give more thought to narrowing the goals and setting limited priorities under each goal.

Councillor Decker said that if the goals have a correlation to what goals the City Council sets, it is coincidental. She would like to know from the department heads’ point of view, how the City Council can reflect the values of the City in a meaningful way. She does not want to just create busy work for already busy departments.

Mr. Healy said that he would like very much to have this conversation at a future meeting of the Government Operations Committee. He said that he and the City’s department heads are becoming increasingly frustrated about the requests for information contained in City Council orders. At the last meeting, administrative staff reported on eight items on the awaiting report list, only to end up with 18 new items at the end of the night. He showed the committee the amount of paper generated by one awaiting report response and told the committee that its preparation had taken almost the entire workday of one lieutenant for three weeks.

Councillor Decker expressed her agreement. She said that it is hard for her to decide not to support another City Councillor’s order without a framework.

Councillor Sullivan said that as a rule of thumb, the City Council has always tried to support requests for information. However, he believes that a few years ago, in the joint staff and council task force to improve City Council effectiveness established by former Mayor Sheila Russell, there had been consideration of treating council orders that called for costly staff work differently from other requests for information.

Mr. Healy said that additionally, the committees have become a bigger problem than the problem that they were designed to solve.

Councillor Galluccio agreed that this issue should be the subject of a committee meeting. The repetitiveness of committees has become absurd. The subject matter of many committee meetings bears little or no relation to the scope of the committee. With respect to the lack of clarity of City Council goals, Councillor Galluccio said that administrative staff seems to be afraid to take any action, because every City Councillor wants something different.

Councillor Decker said that this discussion is valuable but it does not get to the heart of the problem of all of the City Council orders and awaiting reports.

Councillor Murphy said that it is worth exploring the number of standing committees. His view is that there should be half as many as there are now. Perhaps there should also be a steering and policy committee that acts as a gatekeeper and gets orders to the right committees and deals with how much a particular order requesting a report will cost, for a cost/benefit analysis.

Councillor Kelley said that he does not know how else to get his policy point across.

Councillor Galluccio said that perhaps another way is to build consensus about priorities so that the City Council can say that a particular item, especially one that requires a lot of staff work, is a City Council priority and not just the priority of an individual councillor, and so that the City Council can work together to decide what information is required to support these priorities.

Councillor Sullivan said that the Government Operations and Rules Committee will be scheduling a follow-up meeting on the topic of Council functioning and effectiveness. He urged members of the City Council to put some thought into this topic and noted that it will take the participation of the entire City Council to make improvements.

Councillor Sullivan thanked all those present for their participation. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15pm on motion of Councillor Murphy.

For the Committee,
Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Timothy J. Toomey, Co-Chair

Proposed Time Line for City Council FY 08-9 Goal setting
Early September 2006 -- Statistically-valid telephone survey of citizen satisfaction and opinion.
Late September, 2006 -- Facilitated goal setting opportunity for members of the public to express their priorities for City goals.
Early October 2006 -- Government Operation Committee receives presentation on citizen satisfaction survey
Mid October 2006 -- Government Operations Committee conducts facilitated working meeting for the City Council to set FY 08-9 priorities.
Early November 2006 -- Government Operations Committee meets to finalize the wording of the goals for presentation to the City Council.
Mid November 2006 -- Final version of goals go to City Council for adoption.

[* The Co-Chairs received one request for an addition to the survey and will meet with Opinion Dynamics about the feasibility of making the change.]


Committee Report #8
The Housing Committee held a public meeting on May 2, 2006 beginning at ten o’clock and fifteen minutes A.M. in the Ackermann Room. The meeting was held for the purpose of receiving an update on Trolley Square and other affordable housing projects in the pipeline, to discuss the selection process for residents for affordable housing and to discuss the agenda for the Housing Committee for this term.

Present at the meeting were Councillor Anthony D. Galluccio, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Henrietta Davis; Councillor Marjorie C. Decker; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Brian Murphy; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Michael A. Sullivan; and City Clerk Margaret Drury. Also present were Robert W. Healy, City Manager; Beth Rubenstein, Assistant City Manager of Community Development; Christopher Cotter, Housing Director, Community Development (CDD); Peter Daly, Executive Director of Homeowners Rehab, Inc. (HRI); and Jane Jones, HRI. The attendance of members of the public who participated in the meeting is noted below with their remarks.

Councillor Galluccio convened the meeting and explained the purpose. He then invited public comment.

John Serwecinski, 175-4 Harvey Street, stated that he is the owner of an affordable homeownership condominium and discussed issues of affordable housing. He thanked Councillor Galluccio and the City Council and Ms. Rubenstein, Christopher Cotter and the CDD for their help with the issue of increases in condominium fees. He said that in the course of resolving this issue they have had many hours of discussion. He noted the issue of condo fee, which by law can be apportioned two ways, by square footage and by sales price. He recommends avoiding the allocation by square foot. The other issue is the incomes for occupants of affordable units. Over time, as incomes go up, other residents grumble about whether the owners of the affordable units still deserve their units.

Ken Thompson, 195 Harvey Street, Cornerstone Co-Housing, submitted written material and summarized the issues in the letter (Attachment):
* Payments made by affordable unit owners
* Annual review by the City of condo expenditures by the City
* Financial assistance for owners of affordable condominiums if their housing cost exceeds 1/3 of their income.
* Inheritance issue. Right now the unit goes back to the City.

Councillor Davis said that she has heard about these issues over time and is very happy that they will be taken up at the committee. She asked if they would be forwarded to CDD Housing Division for policy recommendations and Councillor Galluccio answered in the affirmative. Councillor Davis submitted the following order:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Assistant Director of Community Development to report back to the Housing Committee on what progress has been made to address the issues that have been raised with regard to affordable condominium units.

The motion passed on a voice vote without objection.

Councillor Galluccio then moved to an update on current affordable housing projects in the pipeline, including Trolley Square.

Ms. Rubenstein began with a general overview. She noted the following acquisitions for affordable housing development by the City’s housing nonprofits:
1. Harvey Street print shop
2. Columbia Street/Webster Avenue
3. Harvard Street

Ms. Rubenstein reported that this has been a very good year on the middle income housing front, which provides low interest loans of up to $130,000. Through this program, the City has assisted more than 25 families.

Councillor Galluccio asked if CDD is still looking for new opportunities. Ms. Rubenstein replied in the affirmative. She described the partnership with the Cambridge Housing Authority. The City provides funds to the CHA for scattered site acquisition.

Councillor Simmons expressed her interest in addressing the issue of the people who are just below the income level needed for affordable homeownership. Mr. Cotter said the housing staff is also interested in this issue.

Mr. Cotter then provided an up date on Trolley Square, which includes 32 affordable rental units and eight three bedroom homeownership units. The development also includes both retail and community space near the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Cameron Avenue. The final piece is the open space that the City will construct at the corner. He expects that the homeowner units will be completed by the end of the summer and retail units a little before that.

Councillor Simmons asked what the criteria would be for who gets the retail space. Mr. Daly said that first of all, they hope for a tenant, because most prospective businesses do not see this site as yet being a strong area for siting a business.

Councillor Simmons suggested marketing to the minority and women’s business owner list.

Councillor Kelley asked who would receive the rental payment from the retail space. Mr. Daly said the development would get the money and use it to defray operating expenses for the development.

Councillor Davis noted the problems with the Putnam Café, a retail space that Whole Foods constructed as community-based retail space when Whole Foods was permitted and built. HRI is not in a position to market retail space and should turn it over to a broker. Mr. Daly said they have done this. The broker is Diamond Brokerage.

Councillor Galluccio agreed with Councillor Davis, and noted that this is a difficult area with respect to marketing; however, that does not mean that it cannot go to a nontraditional business. He urged Mr. Daly to look at nonprofits.

Councillor Kelley asked if it will be fit out. Mr. Daly said not until there is a tenant, and then there can be adjustments particular to that tenant’s needs.

Mr. Daly said that the community space will be on the second floor, the same size as the retail downstairs, with about 200 square feet reserved for an office for an office for this on site manager. Mr. Daly said that he expects it will be ready for use by the end of the summer. Regarding us of that space, HRI will be surveying the North Cambridge neighborhood. Once HRI has received the needs assessment and established community usage, there will be an opportunity to make minor modifications to address the community users’ needs.

Ms. Jones, HRI, said that they have met with a few nonprofits that have the most interest. She said that there are modifications that can be accommodated, for example, the North Cambridge Art Association (NOCA) wants special traps in the sink..

Councillor Kelley asked who will be in charge of the space.

Ms. Jones said that HRI’s resident services coordinator will be in charge overall. HRI will oversee public space and scheduling.

Laura Booth, CEOC, asked what the income requirements would be for the home ownership units. Mr. Daly said that five units will be targeted for persons with incomes up to 80 percent of median income and three for persons with incomes of up to 100 percent of median income. The renal units will be affordable to families with incomes within the Section 8 limits.

Councillor Galluccio said his idea would be for affordable housing that allows for transition from public housing to subsidized rental to affordable housing ownership. With regard to Section 8 holders, they have some good opportunities to find rentals in the private market because rents have come down. Mr. Cotter said that CDD staff does see these transitions being made from CHA and affordable rental units to affordable homeownership units. Councillor Galluccio asked if the CHA is cooperating. Mr. Cotter answered in the affirmative.

Councillor Galluccio said that the more neighbors see people from their neighborhoods moving into those units, the better it is for the neighborhood and the residents. Councillor Simmons said that she would like to see people who have been forced out of Cambridge have an opportunity to live in affordable units in Cambridge. Councillor Davis noted that at the roundtable meeting there was discussion about allowing eligibility based on "Cambridge ties". Councillor Galluccio said that the bottom line is that if you are not a Cambridge resident, you are not getting one of these units.

Councillor Davis asked why families with children under the age of six are awarded an extra point in the application process. Mr. Cotter said that these families have kids who will spend the most time in the school system and they are families with young children who need lead free units. Mr. Rubenstein said that the City has added more affordable units, and, as a result, there are more opportunities for families who do not have children under the age of six.

Councillor Galluccio stressed his hope that CDD is keeping track of interested applicants who have applied in the past. Mr. Cotter assured him that CDD is doing this. He also noted that for the Financial Assistance Program, which provides up to $130,000 for acquisition, there is no lottery. There is a limited equity restriction. People find their own units. Ms. Rubenstein said that several people who have not succeeded in the lottery have been able to take advantage of this program to purchase homes. Mr. Cotter said that the program has helped a lot of families with incomes under 80 percent of median; most have incomes of just under 80 percent. Councillor Davis noted that these units have the same issue as the inclusionary units with regard to increases in condominium fees, etc.

Councillor Galluccio said they face that issue even more than with the inclusionary units because the inclusionary units are new, while units purchased in the $130,000 program may have significant capital needs. Ms. Rubenstein said that when an affordable unit is being resold, the City steps in to make sure the capital needs of the unit are dealt with.

Councillor Kelley asked about whether the affordable housing programs are restricted to Cambridge residents. Mr. Cotter said that state and federal regulations require that 30% of the affordable units be non-restricted, so 30% could potentially be occupied by non-residents. However, CDD has been very successful in getting all Cambridge residents for all the units.

Councillor Galluccio moved the discussion to follow-up from the City Council round table discussion with the Affordable Housing Trust. Ms. Rubenstein said that members of the CDD staff have met with trust members about the issues raised. They want to digest the material and then send their follow-up report and recommendations back to City Council in the fall.

Councillor Galluccio said that the meeting led to consensus on the concerns. He does not believe that there consensus on the City Council with regard to solutions. For example, in his opinion, zoning is the big picture. That is where the City Council must insist on provisions that will result in family-sized units. Inclusionary zoning should mandate that three bedroom units be built. He understands that the City’s nonprofits are building family-sized units, but it is the private market that is producing the most units.

Councillor Davis said perhaps this committee should deal with the elderly units and CHA needs. The City Council is very good at the advocacy with the state. Ms. Rubenstein said that the Affordable Housing Trust members feel very strongly that the City should work hard in the advocacy role.

Councillor Davis said that the City Council needs the demographic data. Councillor Galluccio agreed.

Ms Rubenstein said it is important to see demographic data on what the population looks like now, what are the present projections, and what do we really want to see for the future of Cambridge.

Councillor Davis said that the universities should be housing more of their middle-income workers. Councillor Murphy said that the universities are operating in a time warp. They are slowly coming around to the point of offering housing to their students; the next issue is housing their workers.

Councillor Galluccio said that much more would be achieved if Cambridge could speak with one strong voice to the universities, for example, "if you want a law school, build housing for your workers and you will get it."

Councillor Murphy said that there seems to be some more support for that kind of thinking.

Councillor Galluccio said that in the end it would come to a negotiated deal density. He then invited discussion regarding the Housing Committee’s agenda for this council term. He noted his interest in
1. CHA issues
2. University housing their middle-income workers such as support staff, janitors and administrators.

Mr. Healy said that he has been talking to MIT about some kind of partnership at the former California Paint site, which MIT owns.

Councillor Galluccio said that he would like to see efforts to get the university to agree that anytime they build housing for students they will commit to voluntarily abiding by the guidelines for inclusionary units, and not make that part of other negotiations for particular projects.

Councillor Galluccio clarified that the CHA issues he wants the committee to deal with are the senior housing, state funding issues, and issues regarding the reconfiguration and renovations of the LBJ project.

Mr. Healy said that the Committee should also review the CHA waiting list data regarding where the demand is.

Councillor Kelley noted that no one from the Housing Authority was in attendance and said that it is important to make sure the CHA is invited. He expressed his hope that the housing people can learn to build housing that helps kids succeed in schools. Councillor Davis said involving CHA in discussions is a good idea. Councillor Galluccio agreed their customer base is so impacted by housing issue, he will send a letter to the chair. He also noted the importance of listening to developers.

Councillor Davis stated that she has also found that the realtors are very involved.

Councillor Kelley asked if there are any artist units. He also expressed interest in information about a way to build affordable housing while minimizing the on street parking impacts.

Councillor Galluccio said that this is a big issue for affordable and market development.

Councillor Davis said there is no agreement on the issue of how you count the available street parking. Councillor Davis said that it would be useful to have some agreement on how to determine whether there is on street parking available.

Councillor Galluccio thanked all those in attendance for their participation, and said that this discussion would be helpful in setting the future agenda for the Housing Committee.

The meeting was adjourned at eleven o’clock and fifty minutes A. M.

For the Committee,
Councillor Anthony D. Galluccio, Chair


AWAITING REPORT
03-46. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on property taxes paid and not paid by the universities.
Remains on per Councillor Sullivan
Councillor Decker, Councillor Reeves, Councillor Toomey and Full Membership 03/31/03 (O-6)

03-63. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on progress of open space acquisition in East Cambridge.
Remains on per Councillor Sullivan
Councillor Toomey and Full Membership 06/02/03 (O-14)

03-82. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on preparing a proposed ordinance creating a Department of Public Safety. Remains on per Councillor Sullivan
Mayor Sullivan and Full Membership 08/04/03 (O-4)

03-111. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on efforts to coordinate with Harvard for the development of a shuttle service from the new Harvard/Pleasant Street housing area to Harvard Square. Remains on per Councillor Sullivan
Vice Mayor Davis and Full Membership 10/20/03 (O-16)

05-146. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on NSTARS's investment and infrastructure and its relation to the blackouts and power outages in Cambridge. Remains on per Councillors Kelley & Sullivan
Councillor Davis, Councillor Simmons and Full Membership 06/20/05 (O-5)

05-147. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the impact that energy conservation measures could have in preventing blackouts and power outages. Remains on per Councillor Kelley
Councillor Davis, Councillor Simmons and Full Membership 06/20/05 (O-6)

05-170. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on an update on negotiations to implement a nighttime truck ban. Remains on per Councillors Kelley & Sullivan
Councillor Murphy and Full Membership 08/01/05 (O-58)

05-207. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on options for sidewalks that are more practical than brick and more attractive than plain concrete.
Remains on per Councillors Kelley & Sullivan
Vice Mayor Decker and Full Membership 11/14/05 (O-6)

06-14. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on creating a database that details how many residential parking stickers are associated with residential units broken down by number of bedrooms, affordability class, location and proximity to a Mass Transit nexus.
Councillor Kelley and Full Membership 01/30/06 (O-3)

06-26. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the availability/cost/procedures for meeting places used by neighborhood organizations.
Councillor Davis, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sullivan and Full Membership 02/27/06 (O-50)

06-34. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on amendments to the Municipal Code to ban leaf blowers.
Councillor Davis, Vice Mayor Toomey, Councillor Decker, Councillor Galluccio, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Simmons & Councillor Sullivan 03/20/06 (O-12)

06-40. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on Police Department enforcement statistics, accident information and jurisdiction.
Councillor Kelley and Full Membership 04/03/06 (O-13)

06-44. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on process to form a citizens groups focusing on public street trees.
Councillor Davis, Councillor Galluccio, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Murphy, Mayor Reeves, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sullivan & Vice Mayor Toomey 04/24/06 (O-4)

06-52. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the storm water sewer separation and sewer capacity issues in the North Mass Avenue area with emphasis on Edmunds and Mass Avenue.
Councillor Sullivan & Councillor Kelley 04/24/06 (O-38)

06-56. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the status of requested changes to the City's ordinances concerning the Noise Affidavit required of building contractors.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Davis and Full Membership 05/01/06 (O-6)

06-61. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on outdoor drinking fountains in public areas.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Simmons and Full Membership 05/01/06 (O-15)

06-67. Report from the City Manager:
RE: draft changes to ordinance to allow residents using designated car-share automobiles to take advantage of all parking privileges available to residents who own their own cars.
Councillor Kelley and Full Membership 05/08/06 (O-17)

06-71. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on financial support to Homeowners Rehab, Inc to subsidize the creation and fitting out of retail and community space at Trolley Square.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Sullivan and Full Membership 05/15/06 (O-5)

06-77. Report from the City Manager:
RE: weekly inspections by bicycle of potholes and other defects on the main bicycle routes.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Simmons and Full Membership 05/22/06 (O-1)

06-79. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the appropriate limits of the CPD's involvement in CHA buildings.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Sullivan and Full Membership 05/22/06 (O-6)

06-80. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the responsibility of cleaning snow and ice from MBTA bus stops, street intersections and CHA pathways.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Sullivan and Full Membership 05/22/06 (O-8)

06-83. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on plans to ensure a safe summer without an increase in crime and violence.
Councillor Simmons and Full Membership 05/22/06 (O-14)

06-87. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on putting the City's self-evaluation under the ADA on the website.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Sullivan, Councillor Simmons and Full Membership 06/05/06 (O-10)

06-89. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the impact of MBTA staffing cuts.
Councillor Kelley and Full Membership 06/05/06 (O-17)

06-91. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the status of the placement of defibrillators in all public buildings.
Vice Mayor Toomey and Full Membership 06/05/06 (O-18)

06-92. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the City's policy on idling construction vehicles at construction sites.
Councillor Decker and Full Membership 06/05/06 (O-21)

06-93. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the status of the 2006 Mayor's Summer Jobs for Youth program.
Councillor Galluccio and Full Membership 06/05/06 (O-22)

06-94. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the details of the job fair held by DHSP.
Councillor Galluccio and Full Membership 06/05/06 (O-23)

06-95. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on what existing laws regulate the use of cranes and other heavy construction related equipment
Councillor Decker and Full Membership 06/05/06 (O-28)

06-97. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on considering a similar crime alert system as to mirror the one Boston is launching.
Councillor Sullivan 06/05/06 (O-32)

06-98. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on dressing up the North Massachusetts Avenue median strip with flower boxes or planters.
Councillor Sullivan 06/05/06 (O-35)

06-99. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the outcome of the traffic calming "test" along Harvey Street.
Councillor Galluccio & Councillor Sullivan 06/05/06 (O-37)

06-106. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the status of reappointing the special committee to address the needs and condition of Cambridge Housing Authority state funded housing units.
Councillor Galluccio, Councillor Davis, Councillor Decker, Councillor Murphy, Councillor Simmons & Vice Mayor Toomey 06/12/06 (O-6)

06-107. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on a one-year long visioning plan for the City's youth centers.
Councillor Galluccio, Councillor Decker, Councillor Davis, Councillor Murphy, Councillor Simmons & Vice Mayor Toomey 06/12/06 (O-7)

06-108. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the status of recommendations of the special committee on property tax.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Murphy, Councillor Sullivan, Councillor Davis, Councillor Decker & Vice Mayor Toomey 06/12/06 (O-11)

06-109. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on preventing foul balls at Russell Field and issue of cars parking illegally in the MBTA bus turn-around.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Davis, Councillor Galluccio, Councillor Murphy, Mayor Reeves, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sullivan & Vice Mayor Toomey 06/19/06 (O-8)

06-110. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on formal plan for implementing safe cycling habits in Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Davis, Councillor Galluccio, Councillor Murphy, Mayor Reeves, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sullivan & Vice Mayor Toomey 06/19/06 (O-10)

06-111. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on plans to relocate the Haggerty Preschool Program.
Councillor Galluccio, Councillor Davis, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Murphy, Mayor Reeves, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sullivan & Vice Mayor Toomey 06/19/06 (O-12)

06-112. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on filing an Amicus brief in support of the employees and clients of the Middlesex Superior Courthouse.
Councillor Sullivan 06/19/06 (O-14)