CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-31, regarding a report on the status of the Community Garden program.
Placed on File

June 21, 2017
To: Louis DePasquale, City Manager
From: Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Re: Awaiting Report O-3, dated Apr 24, 2017

Community Garden Program

In response to the council order regarding Community Gardens, staff report the following:

The City Community Garden Program has 14 locations (11 on city-owned land) from Fresh Pond Reservation in the west to Costa Lopez Taylor Park in the east (see attached map). The Program is well-loved and highly utilized by residents. Over the last decade, the City has been able to increase the number of gardeners participating in the program by 20% to 535 gardeners annually, by adding additional gardens and redesigning existing gardens.

Over the last decade, city staff have collaborated to address the issue of garden plot supply and demand by creating new gardens (Maher Park at Neville Manor; Costa Lopez Taylor; Riverside Press Park; Hurley Street) and redesigning existing gardens (Squirrel Brand; Moore Street; Fresh Pond Parkway). When existing community gardens are redesigned, the gardens are made fully accessible (for example by adding raised beds) and additional plots have been added. The City also looks for future opportunities to add community gardens to the program, whether in new development areas (as included in the currently permitted North Point development plan) or older neighborhoods, as discussed with the Cambridgeport neighborhood for the former MIT-owned lot at Brookline and Watson.

The Cambridge Housing Authority is committed to providing gardening opportunities for their residents. There is currently garden space available for residents at the Lincoln Way Development and residents at Corcoran Park have access to lawn areas and patios that can be used for container gardens. As the CHA properties are renovated, CHA staff work collaboratively with residents to develop the design and programming for the open space. City staff have consulted with CHA staff during these processes to determine the best locations for community gardens; considering shade, access to water, etc. CHA will continue to evaluate community gardens in future projects; either for CHA residents only or as part of the city portfolio.

Since 2001, the garden policy has been a guidance document for creating rules and regulations for each individual garden. The policy is periodically evaluated and revised with a goal of clarifying garden operations, encouraging turnover of lots, and addressing accessibility needs.

The most recent policy, April 2015, is attached, and includes guidelines for facilitating turnover at gardens and distribution of plots. Priority for garden use is given the households with no alternative access to land on which to garden and residents with disabilities are given priority for accessible garden plots.

With the increased plots and the policy changes to encourage turnover at gardens, the average wait time has decreased to approximately 1 year. Four gardens no longer have waitlists; Costa Lopez Taylor, Sacramento, McMath, Brookline & Emily.

New or expanded community gardens are evaluated as part of park renovations and balanced with other open space needs around the City. The City is also actively promoting at home gardening, which is a great option for many residents. The City began providing annual container garden workshops in 2005 and now offers free monthly urban gardening seminars. In 2016 over 350 people attended the urban gardening seminars.

City of Cambridge Community Garden Program
Policy for City-Owned Property
April 2015

1. The City of Cambridge (hereinafter "City") reserves the right to revise this policy at any time. Only one community garden plot per household is permitted.

2. Cambridge Community Garden Program is for Cambridge Residents only. Residents interested in participating must submit a signed application.

3. Priority for garden use will be given to Cambridge households with no alternative access to land on which to garden. Cambridge residents with disabilities (where the disability results in the need for an accessible plot) will be given priority for accessible (e.g. raised bed) garden plots. If in any given year, no residents with disabilities apply for a given accessible plot, that plot may be assigned to a nondisabled applicant, with that applicant's explicit understanding that the applicant will relinquish that plot in subsequent year(s) to a resident with a disability.

4. The distribution of plots will be based on a lottery system for each new garden, conducted by the City. The lottery system will be random distribution in two tiers: first preference will be for households who do not have land on which to garden. All of these names will be grouped together, and a random draw will be conducted. If there are more plots available than new households interested, a second draw will be conducted from a pool of applicants that includes community gardeners whose term has expired and wish to continue, and Cambridge property owners who do have land on which to garden. In no case may current gardeners apply for a second plot.

5. Gardeners will be given a plot for three years, with the exception of the initial plot distribution for a new garden where one-third of the gardeners will be given a plot for a two year term. In no case shall a gardener have a plot for more than five years. After the initial lottery plots will be given to the waitlist applicants in order of application submission.

6. A minimum of one-third of the plots must turn-over annually for all new gardens (e.g. 10 out of 30 plots). This one-third turnover can be met during the course of a year in one or more of the following manners:
  • non-compliance with garden policy
  • voluntary departure
  • random distribution of garden plots from gardeners who have had their plots the longest.

Persons with plots for five years must give up their plots at the conclusion of the fifth summer gardening season. If the vacancies based on the above reasons do not total 1/3 of the plots, then additional plots will be randomly selected from gardeners with plots for four years. Again, if the vacancies based on the above reasons do not total 1/3 of the plots, then additional plots will be randomly selected from gardeners with plots for three years.

7. A Garden Coordinator must be elected annually by the community gardeners. A coordinator must be a community gardener in the garden for which s/he is the coordinator. Coordinators play a critical role in each garden, and in general, handle the following tasks: orient new gardeners to operating procedure, coordinate trash/yard waste being brought curbside, compost delivery, clean-up days, answer questions, and settle disputes.

8. The City will conduct a site assessment and preliminary tests for the presence of lead and petroleum in the soil, prior to a garden being initiated. Gardeners may request the City to retest the garden if there is a concern.

9. Garden operations must be conducted safely. Herbicides and Pesticides are prohibited. Fertilizers must be used per manufacturers’ instructions; and shall not be left on-site or unattended at any time. Tools must be stored off site, unless otherwise approved by the City; installation of a shed or any other structure must be in compliance with zoning and building requirements, and approved by the City.

10.Community gardens (plot layout) shall be designed with the assistance of the City. Pathways (and other common areas) and watering facilities (and other shared features) within community gardens shall be accessible, consistent with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) standards and shall follow universal design principles wherever possible. In newly established community gardens, a minimum of five percent (5%), but not less than one, of the garden plots shall have raised beds (minimum 18 inches above the ground). A three-foot high, black perimeter fence will be installed by the City, as will an appropriate water service. The City does not discriminate on the basis of disability, and will provide auxiliary aids and services, written materials in alternative formats, and reasonable modifications in policies and procedures to persons with disabilities upon request.

11. Gardeners must keep gardens clean and deter rodents. Initial Spring and final Fall clean-ups of the garden are required. During the season, gardens should be weeded and all fallen fruit/vegetables should be removed. At the end of the season, all material, including stakes, must be removed. Plantings should be limited to annuals and not perennials. Existing perennials must be cut-back to reduce and even eliminate harborage.

12.Applicants will only be contacted when a garden plot becomes available for their use. Typical wait is in excess of 2 years for a garden plot.

13.Under no circumstances will locks be installed at the gardens or individual plots.

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-6, regarding an analysis and evaluation of "pop up" bicycle lanes.
Placed on File

To: Louie DePasquale, City Manager
From: Joseph E. Barr, Director of Traffic, Parking, and Transportation
Date: June 21, 2017
Re: Awaiting Report 17-6 – Analysis and evaluation of “pop-up” bicycle lanes

This memo is in response to Order Number 9 from the Jan 23, 2017 City Council Meeting (Awaiting Report 17-6) to review how the success of “pop-up” lanes will be measured and what lessons we expect to learn from them to help implement safer bicycling facilities throughout the City.

The Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department (TPT), the Community Development Department (CDD), and Department of Public Works (DPW) are working closely together to conduct data analysis both before and after the implementation of the new separated bicycling facilities on Massachusetts Avenue (including the facilities installed last fall), Cambridge Street, and Brattle Street. The results of the data collection and analysis will help inform both potential changes (if needed) to the currently proposed facilities as well as future design standards for a network of separated facilities citywide.

The analyses fall into several categories:

• Safety: We will work with the Cambridge Police Department to review crash data on an ongoing basis to identify any potential safety concerns with the separated bike facilities. Full data analysis to determine before and after crash rates will not happen until sufficient time has passed to allow for a detailed review of crash history. Typically, crash analyses utilize a minimum of three years of before crash data and three years of after crash data in order to understand broader patterns. We will also review the crash data on an annual basis to determine if any significant patterns emerge more quickly

• Operations: We have conducted bicycle counts, pedestrian counts, parking utilization counts, and vehicle volume/speed counts for Cambridge Street during Spring 2017. Following the installation, we will conduct follow up counts during the Fall of 2017 and Spring of 2018 in order to determine changes in volumes and behavior. Potential changes in operations may include reduced vehicle speeds, increased bicycle volume, and increased pedestrian volume. CDD will also conduct surveys to understand how the proposed facilities impact the legibility of the street and the travel experience for users of all modes of transportation on Cambridge Street.

• Maintenance: TPT and DPW will continue to monitor the infrastructure in order to develop experience and techniques for operating and maintaining the separated bike facilities. DPW will be primarily concerned with maintenance issues related to sweeping and snow clearance, including the types of equipment that can be utilized in facilities of different widths and changes to schedules and maintenance routes. These considerations may result in modified layouts for vertical separation elements (i.e., flexible delineators) that improve the ability of crews to safely and efficiently maintain the roadway surface.

In addition to these specific measures, we will be looking for any other positive or negative issues that arise, so that we can integrate those into our evaluation, as well as our plans for future separated bike lanes. We have also initiated discussions with staff from the Boston Transportation Department and the Boston Public Works Department, to share experiences with the design, installation, and maintenance of separated bicycle facilities, so that we can jointly improve these facilities as we move forward.

7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the Street Performers Ordinance as well as Arts Council staffing and programming.
Referred to Ordinance Committee

June 26, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I write to provide the City Council with a summary of various actions taken by staff from the Arts Council in concert with staff from the License Commission and the Law Department in connection with the above-referenced Council Orders regarding amendments to the Street Performer Ordinance as well as Arts Council staffing and programming.

Council Order Nos. 48 and 52 of Sept 21, 2015

On Sept 21, 2015, the Council requested in Order No. 48 that the City Manager “Confer with the Arts Council and appropriate City departments to determine a decibel level that is measured in relation to ambient noise” in relation to Street Performer noise and in Order No. 52 of Sept 21, 2015, requested that the City Manager “confer with the City Solicitor with the view in mind of reviewing the Street Performers Ordinance and development of a plan wherein the Arts Council and the City work in conjunction with community artists to increase the number of street artists in the City.” Attached hereto is a redlined document showing proposed amendments to Chapter 12.16, Section 12.16.170 of the Municipal Code (the “Street Performers Ordinance” or the “Ordinance”), and a clean document reflecting said proposed amendments, which are the result of work done by City staff from the Arts Council, the Law Department, and the License Commission. The proposed amendments are based on feedback and input from community-based artists, buskers and street performers, Community Arts Advocates, Street Arts and Buskers Advocates, members of the local business community, and City residents.

The proposed amendments to the Ordinance include the following key components: students will pay a reduced permit application fee of $20 (reduced from $40) and the permit application fee will be waived in its entirety for indigent or homeless persons; performing groups consisting entirely of student performers will pay no more than $80 total for performing group permit application fees (reduced from $160 total); performances will be prohibited from interfering with park or special event permits or regular use of playgrounds; synagogues, temples, mosques and other houses of worship have been added to areas where performances are prohibited from taking place within 100 feet of when in session (currently the ordinance only prohibits performances within 100 feet of churches while in session, and there is no prohibition to perform within 100 feet of other houses of worship while in session); performers will be prohibited from using prerecorded music, except as backup accompaniment to a live performance, and all prerecorded music shall be turned off when the performer or group is not performing; performers will be prohibited from using public furniture, whether movable or immovable, as part of performance setup or storage area; Quincy Park has been removed as an excluded area, and Central Square “during reconstruction” has been removed as a temporarily excluded area; the Cambridge Fire Department’s rule prohibiting the use of fire in public assembly, issued under G. L. c. 148, § 28 and the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, has been referenced in the Ordinance (although the rule prohibiting use of fire in public assembly in Cambridge existed independent of the Ordinance, it was not previously referenced in the Ordinance); the Cambridge Fire Chief may prohibit a performer or group of performers from performing in a particular location in an emergency (currently, the Ordinance only gives that power to the Police Commissioner and Commissioner of Public Works); and the Arts Council shall have the authority to establish rules and regulations with the approval of the City Manager as may be appropriate or necessary to implement the Street Performers Ordinance (currently, the Ordinance does not give the Arts Council authority to establish rules and regulations).

We believe that these proposed amendments will ultimately make it easier for prospective street performers to obtain permits to busk or otherwise perform in public, by lowering the financial barrier in the case of students by fifty percent, or in the case of indigent and homeless persons, by waiving the permit application fee in its entirety. The Arts Council staff are also working with the Finance Department in order to develop an online application and payment system for permit application fees. In addition, it is the intention of the Arts Council staff to work with the License Commission staff in order to provide more training to Arts Council staff on measuring noise levels relative to background noise.

I therefore request that the attached proposed changes to the Street Performers Ordinance be referred to the Ordinance Committee for review and consideration.

Council Order No. 49 of Sept 21, 2015

Council Order No. 49 of Sept 21, 2015 requests that the City Manager “determine the feasibility of appropriating additional funding to the Arts Council to allow for the continuation of monitor work in the off-season.” The Arts Council has conducted a pilot program of keeping one of three seasonal employees in place to respond to performer inquiries and concerns, manage data entry and updating, and provide advocacy and outreach to artists and performers. I recommend placing this response on file.

Council Order No. 50 of Sept 21, 2015

Council Order No. 50 requests that the City Manager “confer with the appropriate City departments to discuss the costs and benefits of adding a Community Arts Coordinator with the view in mind of increasing the numbers of street performers in the City.” The Arts Council’s FY 2018 General Fund budget will be increased beginning July 1, 2017 to allow for the hiring of a permanent, full-time Community Arts Administrator who will work with the Director of Community Arts and increase the Arts Council’s capacity to provide advocacy, outreach, training, and oversight, in order to increase the number and range of artists and performers who street perform on the City’s sidewalks, plazas, parks, and other public areas. I recommend placing this response on file.

Council Order No. 51 of Sept 21, 2015

Council Order No. 51 of Sept 21, 2015 requests that the City Manager “investigate ways in which to garner business cooperation, along with messaging and training, to make public spaces friendlier and more proactive as it relates to public performances.” With increased department capacity as a result of the hiring of a full-time Community Arts Administrator in FY 2018, it will be possible to expand the Arts Council’s work in partnering with local business leadership and other members of the City’s local business community as well as Cambridge Local First to better understand potential needs and uses for public spaces and what impact that has on local businesses. I recommend placing this response on file.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

City Manager's Order
June 26, 2017
WHEREAS: Chapter 12.16, Section 12.16.170 (the “Street Performers Ordinance”) of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the “Municipal Code”) as revised by the Cambridge City Council on Apr 22, 1996 sets forth regulations for street performing or busking in the City of Cambridge (the “City”); and
WHEREAS: The City Council has requested that the City Manager confer with the Arts Council and the City Solicitor with the view in mind of reviewing the Street Performers Ordinance and to consider certain amendments thereto; and
WHEREAS: The City Manager has conferred with the Arts Council and City Solicitor to review the Street Performers Ordinance and identify appropriate amendments; now therefore, be it
ORDERED: That Chapter 12.16, Section 12.16.170 of the Municipal Code be amended by replacing Section 12.16.170 with the attached document containing several amendments thereto.

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 17-46, 17-47, 17-48 and 17-49, short term rentals.
Referred to Ordinance Committee (July 5 meeting)

June 26, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please see the attached responses from the Community Development Department, the Inspectional Services Department and the Law Department in connection with the City Council’s questions seeking further information about the proposed City Council Short Term Rental amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, proposed Chapter 4.60. The responses relate to:

Awaiting Report #17-46-Council Order O-16 of 6/12/17. Legal Opinion on the feasibility of grandfathering non-conforming use as it relates to existing short term rentals and to provide language, if feasible, to amend the proposed ordinance regulating short term rentals as amended by substitution, by no later than June 26, 2017.

Awaiting Report #17-47-Council Order O-17 of 6/12/17. Report on a more detailed breakdown of owner adjacent full unit statistic short term rentals, by no later than June 26, 2017.

Awaiting Report #17-48-Council Order O-18 of 6/12/17. Legal Opinion on the question of whether it is allowed for an owner occupied small two family home to be treated as an owner occupied single unit STR, by no later than June 26, 2017.

Awaiting Report #17-49-Council Order O-19 of 6/12/17. Report on a timetable on implementation details of the regulations by the Inspectional Services Department, by no later than June 26, 2017.

Information Request from Councilor Mazen on Short Term Rental of 6/12/17. Legal Opinion on the question of whether the Cockrill Petition, which received a recommendation from the Planning Board not to adopt and an unfavorable recommendation from the Ordinance Committee, would impact whether the City Council petition on short term rentals could be refiled if said petition were not ordained by the City Council prior to its expiration date of Aug 29, 2017.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an amendment to the City’s previous submission of a Home Rule Petition to the Legislature whereby I requested authorization to include in the planned reconstruction (the “Project”) of the King Open / Cambridge Street Upper School and Community Complex (“KOCSUS”) the area that is presently occupied by the public swimming pool known as the Gold Star Pool (the “Pool Site”) and to construct subsurface geothermal wells in a portion of Donnelly Field that lies directly along and adjacent to the current southerly boundary of the KOCSUS site.
Order Adopted 9-0

June 26, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am writing with regard to the City’s previous submission of a Home Rule Petition to the Legislature whereby I requested authorization to include in the planned reconstruction (the “Project”) of the King Open / Cambridge Street Upper School and Community Complex (“KOCSUS”) the area that is presently occupied by the public swimming pool known as the Gold Star Pool (the “Pool Site”) and to construct subsurface geothermal wells in a portion of Donnelly Field that lies directly along and adjacent to the current southerly boundary of the KOCSUS site. Both the area proposed for the construction of the subsurface geothermal wells and the Gold Star Pool are presently owned and held by the City for “public park and park” purposes and therefore are protected under Article 97 from any change in use absent legislation authorizing such a change in use.

In order to proceed with the design of the Project as planned, to construct the subsurface geothermal wells within a portion of Donnelly Field and to relocate the Gold Star Pool Site as part of the overall Project, I previously requested that the City Council vote in favor of filing a Home Rule Petition. As I previously informed you in my original submission to the Council with regard to the proposed home rule petition, the new location of the Gold Star Pool, which will be adjacent to Berkshire Street and Donnelly Field, will be beneficial to the City and the community because it allows for a larger pool and deck space, a new wading pool, and it faces south with a direct connection to Donnelly Field. The new location allows better visibility from Berkshire Street and Donnelly Field. The new pool house and changing rooms will be located on the first level of the three story building, and the school administrative offices will be located above the pool house and changing rooms.

On Aug 1, 2016, the City Council voted in favor of filing the proposed Home Rule Petition and the Home Rule Petition was duly filed. The Petition went through both the House and the Senate. However, the City was recently informed by a representative of the state’s Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (“EOEA”) that the City’s project description and plans, which appeared to reduce the amount of existing open space to a smaller amount of open space, were disfavored by the Legislature. EOEA also pointed out that the square footage of open space that the City referenced in its proposed legislation (11,733 sf) included only the relocated swimming pool, and that the relocated pool house structure, that will have two additional levels of school administration offices above it, is not included in the area to be protected as open space. We were informed that EOEA believes that the proposed Home Rule Petition would be more likely looked upon favorably by the Legislature if it were to include all of the relocated pool area as part of the open space area, including the pool house structure, even though the relocated pool house structure would be located at the ground level of a structure that would have two additional floors of school administration office space above it. By including all of the relocated pool area and pool house structure as part of the open space area, the new open space area including the pool house structure will be larger than the Pool Area at its existing location, and the overall open space area will be increased from the existing 17,892 square feet to the new 18,459 square feet.

Relief is also required from the Legislature to construct subsurface geothermal wells within a portion of Donnelly Field that lies directly along and adjacent to the southern edge of the School Site. All existing “public park and park” uses that are conducted in that part of Donnelly Field will continue to be conducted after the installation of the subsurface geothermal wells and reconstruction of the existing recreational facilities at that part of the site. This part of the original Home Rule Petition remains unchanged.

I am therefore requesting that you approve the submission of the attached amended Home Rule Petition to the Legislature. I have also attached for your information a plot plan showing (a) the existing swimming pool area, (b) the proposed swimming pool area, and (c) the proposed geothermal pool area, and site renderings showing the existing and proposed site conditions and calculations relating to the existing and proposed pool locations at the proposed Project Site.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     June 26, 2017
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Since the repeal of sections 20 and 32 of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and the subsequent financial crisis of 2007-2010, our country has been beholden to a financial regulatory system that places an undue level of risk upon local government; and
WHEREAS: Multinational financial service conglomerates that lack internal risk controls and reward short term profit making, and that operate within an interconnected banking system, pose a serious threat to the economy; and
WHEREAS: In addition to financial risks, these “too big to fail” banks often invest in companies that profit from weapons and firearms manufacturing, fossil fuels, and tobacco production, and are at odds with our city’s own value system; and
WHEREAS: One option, successfully executed in North Dakota and now seriously being explored in Oakland, CA, Santa Fe, NM, Philadelphia, PA, and Manchester, NH, is the formation of a public bank; and
WHEREAS: A public bank operates in the public interest and is owned by citizens through their representative government; and
WHEREAS: Public banks partner with existing community banks, credit unions, financial institutions and development agencies to provide affordable credit for low and moderate income housing, investment in infrastructure and public transportation, and for spurring overall economic growth; and
WHEREAS: A public bank can finance capital projects that serve the general public including schools, public services such as police, fire and health, public buildings, water facilities and waste management, climate change mitigation and adaptation, local roadways, bike paths, and pedestrian walkways; and
WHEREAS: The state of North Dakota, which created a state publicly-owned bank, The Bank of North Dakota (BND), in 1919, and which maintains relationships with local community banks throughout the state has experienced tremendous success; and
WHEREAS: The Bank of North Dakota, during the 2007-2010 financial crisis maintained budget surpluses with zero public debt, had the lowest foreclosure and unemployment rates in the nation, the lowest amount of credit default swaps, zero bank failures, experienced an increase of total assets seven fold over the last two decades, returned $385 million to that state’s General Fund over the same period, and avoided costly fees and unnecessary risks associated with other outsized banking institutions; and
WHEREAS: Recently, in Santa Fe, NM a comprehensive feasibility study found that a public bank is viable and would provide enhanced fiscal management, a more robust local lending climate, and would increase the currently available sources of infrastructure bond and loan financing to meet the economic development needs of the city by offering stable, competitive financing and improved transparency, thereby improving long term city planning; and
WHEREAS: Currently under consideration in the Massachusetts House of Representatives is bill H.3542, legislation to establish a Massachusetts Infrastructure Bank designed to encourage borrowing and facilitate growth for municipalities; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council enthusiastically support passage of state bill H.3542; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Massachusetts House of Representatives on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-2     June 26, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Numerous residents have expressed concern over the design and use of the recently completed Fern Street public artscape; and
WHEREAS: This project was presented to the public in 2014 as a colorful multi-use path to be constructed and funded as part of the ongoing Concord Avenue sewer separation and street construction project; and
WHEREAS: The project page on the Cambridge Arts Council’s website describes that project as, “a distinctive public art project for a shared bicycle and pedestrian path between Concord Avenue and Field Street, near Fresh Pond. The artwork shimmers with bold colors, glass pieces embedded in the concrete, wiggling lines, and playful topography”; and
WHEREAS: Fern street was selected as a priority “safe-passage link” between the Tobin/Vassal Lane Upper School, Danehy Park, and the neighborhood intended for use by all ages; and
WHEREAS: The path has recently been completed, and neighbors have notified the City Council of frequent use by skateboarders, which was not the original, stated intention of the path; and
WHEREAS: Frequent use of the path by skateboarders has already damaged and scuffed the topographical features of the project, intended for “touch-and-go” use for young children; and
WHEREAS: Other users of the path and surrounding streets, including motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, have expressed concern over their safety and access to using the path since it is frequently used by skateboards weaving at quick speeds and sometimes out onto Fern Street and Concord Avenue; and
WHEREAS: The path was not intended to function as a skateboard park, and its proximity to busy Concord Avenue may be unsafe for that use; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested work with the Department of Public Works and the Cambridge Arts Council to formally review the use of the Fern Street path as currently designed and consider options to ensure that the path functions as a safe shared bicycle and pedestrian path, as it was intended; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Department of Public Works to consider whether it is appropriate and feasible for a skateboarding feature to be included at Danehy Park, as the Fern Street project has demonstrated that there is a desire for such a use; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on these matters in a timely manner.

O-7     June 26, 2017
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Departments of Public Works (DPW) are taking an increasingly important role as first responders in terms of climate change, terrorist attacks, and other emerging public safety challenges; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge DPW already manages multiple construction projects, trash collection, recycling, snow plowing, urban forestry, and many more important City programs; and
WHEREAS: The current DPW site of less than two acres is relatively small and may make it challenging for DPW to most successfully carry out its current and future responsibilities; and
WHEREAS: All residents, workers, businesses, institutions, and visitors have a vested interest in having the most capable and best supported DPW possible; and
WHEREAS: There are multiple construction projects going on or being planned that may provide the opportunity to build a new DPW yard in Cambridge and possibly even a new fire safety training facilities if these options are explored early enough in the various project processes; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with Department of Public Works and Cambridge Fire Department (CFD) staff and other relevant City officials to determine if new facilities are needed by either DPW or CFD to best carry out their respective missions in the future and, if so, what type of facilities they would need and how much space that would require and where they might possibly be located; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this issue in a timely manner to allow the Council to consider any new infrastructure needs before opportunities to develop that infrastructure in conjunction with other ongoing or future projects disappear.

O-10     June 26, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Riding a bicycle is the one of the most affordable transportation options in the flat, dense city of Cambridge and therefore should be made safer for vulnerable communities who rely on bicycles as well as for those who would like to bicycle but are discouraged by unsafe conditions; and
WHEREAS: The 1992 Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance (VTRO) requires the city to "make more efficient use of mass transit, bicycling, walking, and other alternatives to drive-alone trips"; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has adopted a Complete Streets policy and has formally committed to Vision Zero, with goals of eliminating transportation fatalities and serious injuries, as well as continuing to reduce the crash rates for all modes; and
WHEREAS: It has been one year since the death of 27-year-old Amanda Phillips, killed as she was cycling on Cambridge Street just outside of Inman Square; and
WHEREAS: In October of 2016, a petition with over 3,000 signatures was submitted to the City Council calling for protected bicycle infrastructure on all major city thoroughfares and the Council has unanimously passed more than 15 policy orders calling for a protected network of protected bike lanes to be installed across major arterials; and
WHEREAS: The City has put in short pop-up demonstrations of protected bike lanes on Massachusetts Avenue and the public response has been overwhelmingly positive; and
WHEREAS: A protected bike lane on the western segment of Cambridge Street will be installed within the next month and was ushered in with overwhelming public support; and
WHEREAS: The City is installing two more short sections of protected bike lane demonstrations on Brattle Street and Massachusetts Avenue after winning public support via the Participatory Budgeting process; and
WHEREAS: The City has gained experience in installing protected bike lanes from both the Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street projects, including plowing during the winter months; and
WHEREAS: Pavement markings can only be done until November, and thousands of students will be returning to the City’s universities in September; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department, Fire Department, Police Department, Budget Department, and other relevant City departmentss, and all pertinent community stakeholders including the local business community and the local interfaith community in order to determine the best method of accelerating to accelerate the planning and installation of two or more protected bike lanes of significant length, similar to the current project on Cambridge Street, by September; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the aforementioned departments and community stakeholders to produce a plan and timeline by October 2017 for the roll-out on an expedited basis of protected bike lanes on all major city thoroughfares; and be it further
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the aforementioned departments and community stakeholders to ensure that Bike Plan recommendations are fully implemented on all road reconstruction and paving projects, and additional infrastructure changes not included in the Plan are implemented where they could ensure bicyclists are provide safe, convenient connections to a city-wide network; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the Council on all of these matters.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, June 7, 2017 beginning at 12:33pm in the Sullivan Chamber for the purpose of discussing the reappointment of Kathleen L. Born to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA) for a term of five years (Attachment A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair; Councillor Carlone; Councillor David Maher; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Kathleen L. Born, Chair; D. Margaret Drury, Vice Chair; Tom Evans, Executive Director, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority; and Robert Winters.

Councillor Mazen convened the hearing and welcomed members of the CRA. He spoke about the accomplishments of Kathleen Born as well as her commitment to the CRA which comports with the strategy of the CRA.

Ms. Born stated that it has been pleasure to serve as a member and Chair of CRA for the last five years. She stated that five years ago there were appointments of four of the City-appointed members of the CRA. She noted that it was an exciting process of re-creation. She said that the CRA is solidly established as a partner to the City and it has been her honor to serve. She introduced D. Margaret Drury and Tom Evans and stated that they look forward to moving forward as a partner with the City in several redevelopment ventures.

Councillor Maher commented that having served with Ms. Born on the City Council, he knows her deep commitment to the City of Cambridge as well as the commitment of the former City Clerk D. Margaret Drury. He stated that from his observation, this was a Board that had been somewhat neglected. He said that what we saw in the appointment of the four members was the creation of a dynamic board that has been extremely responsive to the public and to the mission of the CRA. He stated that the CRA has done a terrific job under the leadership of Ms. Born. He said that the CRA Board as it is today is an example of how to be transparent and involving of the community. He said that it is testament to the CRA leadership that the public will often state how pleased they are with the operation of the Board. He stated that this is a clever appointment and he has not been disappointed.

Councillor Carlone stated that he agrees with Councillor Maher and he thinks the quality of the CRA is to be applauded. He said that in particular, reaching out and listening to the community earns the CRA an A-rating in his opinion. He stated that this means a great deal. He stated that he appreciates that Ms. Born does not hold back on her opinion which is important because it is a perspective that isn’t necessarily also present at Board meetings. He said that Ms. Born wants things to be better and in many Boards, they become complacent over time. He said that the CRA is being made better which is very rare. He stated that Ms. Born is a dedicated person who believes in the end result as well as involving the community and its’ residents. He stated that as with any large development, issues arise but the CRA tries to solve these issues in a progressive, honest way. He endorsed the appointment of Ms. Born.

Councillor Mazen stated that he has worked with CRA and he has seen the best of grace under pressure. He stated that the information contained in Ms. Born’s Curriculum Vitae (Attachment B) and the CRA’s Sixtieth Annual Report that were provided to the Committee (Attachment C) is full of data and evidence of the success that his colleagues have referenced. He stated that there is a challenge when balancing a public and community interest with the necessity of partnering with real estate developers and others. He asked about aligning and balancing both the corporate interests and partners and moving beyond the way that that this has been done in the past. He questioned what the balance feels like. Ms. Born responded that she learned on the City Council that oftentimes when it seemed that there were conflicting goals, there was the ability to come up with common interests. She said that the most recent development in the City which is generally, but not always, undertaken by larger real estate interests may be more complex but are easier to deal with because the larger interests have learned from their history in urban development that making a good public space benefits both the development and the public. She stated that inexperience with smaller developers are more likely to have the impression that the bottom line is all that counts.

Councillor Mazen stated that it is important to understand who, on the real estate development side, struggles when reaching for the higher gains. Councillor Maher stated that the leadership that was exhibited during the original Alewife re-zoning when there was interest by the City and neighborhood groups to look at the environment impact was amazing. He noted that there were many buildings built 50 years before that time along the riverbanks and it took some real thinking about how to get rid of those buildings. He said that there was a long and protracted process with an experienced developer and an owner who wanted to make a profit. He stated that in the end, it was a win/win and noted that today, the site is vastly different. He explained that although a few of the buildings are slightly larger than some would like, much was accomplished via give and take. He said that in the end, the environment was brought back to wetlands and this was attainable under the leadership of Ms. Born.

Ms. Born stated that the CambridgeSide Galleria is another instance in which the private real estate interests came together with the City to create a spectacular urban space which benefited both the developer and the community.

Councillor Carlone said that at the Route 2/Discovery Park site he was the master planner that was brought in. He said that a master planner was necessary to get a PUD. He stated that even with great work, there must be follow through and added that environmentally, this project was a major step forward.

Councillor Carlone noted that when the new CRA appointments took place five years ago, there seemed to be more reaching out to the community and residents. He noted that there was a dramatic shift that helped the connection with the surrounding community which made a huge difference in that it wasn’t just numbers or square footage, it went beyond that. He added that connections are vitally important.

Councillor Mazen stated that one of the hardest things to achieve in projects is equity which is a combination of real community outreach and real job training as well as creation and placement. He asked Ms. Born about the CRA plans to include a deep, unwavering commitment to outreach and job training in view of how intrinsically difficult these things have been. Ms. Born responded that this is the #1 question facing the city in the future. She stated that we all know that many of the jobs that are being created are specialized jobs that require specialized training. She stated that the CRA has, as part of its mission and activities from the time of its founding, a job training element. She stated that currently, job training activities are coordinated with the Department of Human Services. She said that there are more educational institutions that can provide education for entry and mid-level jobs. Councillor Mazen said that pipelines get people there by degrees and he said that his hope is that the Community Benefit Fund will address this issue. Ms. Born stated that as part of development, there will be a requirement for a commitment of dollars and/or programs that will benefit the Cambridge young people. She said that there are people already in the Cambridge workforce whose current positions and jobs are not optimal for the Cambridge economy. Mr. Evans said that he has been doing a lot of work on this issue. He said that the CRA is now a partner with Just-A-Start. He stated that as an implementer of space and development, the CRA is in the best position to create physical capital improvements and that is a future that they continue to look at. He stated that they are working at upgrading innovation space in Kendall Square.

Councilor Carlone said that he has often thought that through PUDs, the City can set a standard where companies connect to the locals. He stated that this could be a standard condition wherein programs are set up in the neighborhoods with yearly check-ins. He stated that this can be easily done and suggested that this be a discussion for the future. Councillor Mazen stated that he was impressed with the work of Akamai in this area. He stated that the City, the Kendall Square Association, Akamai, businesses, and universities want to do the right thing. He said that a professional organization would be beneficial in order to align forces with the CRA. He stated the importance of being knowledgeable and being able to “hit the ground running.” He asked whether someone can do this groundwork to start a public conversation. He stated that monthly gatherings monthly gatherings could be the vehicle that drives this conversation forward. He said that someone has to begin this conversation and he hopes it will be the CRA. Ms. Born replied that if she hears a request for the CRA to be more involved in this area, it would be happy to do so.

Councillor Maher stated that solving this issue is complex and it is not just the job of the CRA- it is the job of the City, the School Department, and many others. He noted that when he spoke at Akamai at a Girls Who Code event, he was surprised that there was only one Cambridge student in attendance which is an embarrassment. He added that he is the product of a Cambridge working class family and noted that there were many people he knew that had ties to MIT and Harvard because their parents or family members worked for these institutions as groundskeepers or in support services. He stated that these types of jobs no longer exist as they are farmed out currently. He stated that this is a change that is happening in the City of Cambridge and something must be done to stop this from happening. He stated that the City should do more to force the hands of the larger institutions and companies to keep jobs in-house. He stated that this must be a community conversation. Councillor Maher added that the Cambridge Works program is a wonderful program but it is serving way too few people.

Councillor Mazen stated that whenever job training is done he would like to see metrics, even if they are disappointing. He stated that when we are honest about what is happening and which programs are doing well, we will have fodder for exactly the types of conversation that need to happen.

As it relates to the Foundry, Councillor Mazen stated that his hope is that somehow the CRA can find a partner who will pay Class-A and because they can make a Class-A use out of Class-B space, we can maximize the benefits and the portion of the community benefit space. He stated that there is a little worry that if we don’t start at maximum, it will only get more difficult.

Councillor Carlone stated that his private office is directly across from the Foundry. He noted that the Foundry can easily be hidden by the new building on Third Street. He said that there needs to be strong connection between park design, the sidewalk and the Foundry presence.

Councillor Carlone stated that there will be three times the amount of 90 degree days in the future and the big changes will be a dramatically larger amount of air conditioning required. He said that expensive glass buildings are being developed and it is ludicrous to him. He stated that all of these facades will have to be rebuilt.

He said that this issue should be part of design review and recommendations. He stated that there were some discussions on design review and he has heard very little design review comments. He asked Ms. Born her thoughts on design review capabilities. Ms. Born responded that design review responsibility lies with the Community Development Department and although she appreciates what is being said about climate and energy, there are LEED requirements that must be met. Councillor Carlone stated that he supports Ms. Born’s reappointment but added that the CRA is representing the public and the City has sustainable goals. He said that he questions whether these goals are being met.

Councillor Mazen asked Ms. Born about the needs of the CRA Board into the future as it relates to complimentary expertise. Ms. Born responded that she believes in timing for public officials and she would not be intending to seek another term on the CRA Board as she believes that turnover is a healthy thing. She stated that former City Manager Healy had wisdom when he appointed the CRA Board with staggering terms. She stated that the CRA is a good mix of expertise. Councillor Mazen asked if there is something new needed that perhaps has not been relevant in the past. Ms. Drury stated that the conversation suggests that job training and the ability to bring that sector closer would be a good skill.

Mr. Evans added that the CRA Board functions as a policy-setting body that then seeks out skill-sets. Ms. Born said that for this particular board, it is more a question of values that align with the Board’s mission of social equity more than specific skills. She noted that the current CRA Board has a real commitment for social justice and equity of opportunity.

Public comment began at 1:32pm.

Robert Winters stated that he has known Ms. Born for 25 years and he wholeheartedly supports this appointment. He stated that there is now a notion of trust with the CRA. He stated that one of the greatest luxuries that a citizen can have is the ability to trust that the CRA will do a great job on the City’s behalf. He said that he has a tremendous sense of trust that the CRA is acting on the City’s behalf.

Public comment closed at 1:33pm.

City Manager DePasquale stated that understands the importance of appointing good people to the Boards and Commissions. He stated that he has known Ms. Born for over forty years. He noted that she is a smart leader who listens and knows the City. He added that she is a people-person and is great to work with. He said that Ms. Born’s commitment and love for the city is second to none. He thanked the CRA for the important work that it has, and will continue, to do.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
WHEREAS: That the Neighborhood and & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee confirm the recommendation of City Manager Louis DePasquale to reappoint Kathleen L. Born to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority for a term of five years with a favorable recommendation.

The motion passed on a voice vote of three members.

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 1:35pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, June 7, 2017 at 3:11pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to have a general discussion to receive an update on the planning that has been going on for the Volpe Project.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Cheung and Councillor Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Maher; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning, CDD; Daniel Wolf, Neighborhood Planner, CDD; Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Steve Marsh, MITIMCO; Sarah Gallop, Co-Director, MIT Community Relations; Michael Owu, MIT, 28 Main Street; Anthony Galluccio; David Manfredi; Erik Thorkildsen; Torgun Austin, 28 Bristol Street; Hunter Kass; Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street; Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; Peter Crawley, 88 Thorndike Street; Robert Simha, 303 Third Street; and James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing and stated that the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being audio recorded by a private source. He outlined the format of the hearing. He stated that there is no petition before the City Council. He wanted to start the hearing with Community Development to get a historical context. The parking lots have been on the minds of the City Council for years. There has been a Volpe Working Group and he wanted an update on their work.

Ms. Farooq took the committee back in time regarding the Volpe Site and she provided a historical overview. A PowerPoint presentation was given (ATTACHMENT A). Some of the K2 study recommendation have been adopted by zoning. Now the focus is on the PUD-KS site. GSA wanted to redevelop the site. An exchange transaction process was begun. This concluded in 2017 with MIT as the designated developer of the site. There was a zoning petition to implement the K2 recommendations, but no action was taken on this petition. A working group of stakeholders was created that came up with principal points for discussion with the designated developer. The Volpe Working Group was appointed and have all brought expertise to the process.

Mr. Roberts stated that the group of volunteers were brought together to discuss the Volpe Site for a shared vision. He spoke about the Volpe Working Group background work. The Volpe Working Group wanted the City to look beyond what we know of Cambridge now and look to the future of Kendall Square. He stated that nine meetings have been held and at every meeting there is an agenda with a distinct topic. The conversation has been fluid. This was to be a 2-step process where the Volpe Working Group would develop the vision and then the developer the principles. The GSA announced the designated developer. The process is to develop the principles which come under the vision of a place that makes connections. The connections include social, business, academic, neighborhoods. Ms. Farooq stated that two things came up on the principles that had left out the connectivity. The place and the role of Kendall Square is taken for granted: being a place of innovation. This will be added with the Volpe Working Group. She spoke about the design guidelines and the City has learned the strengths and weaknesses in the design guidelines.

Mr. Thorkildsen stated that the vision is a place that brings together to make a place and connection. This area should be memorial even and should be the center of gravity. It should connect culture and play. He spoke about creating public places and the active ground level is the glue for the community. Open space for dining and open spaces. He spoke about paths and entry points to the site. Broadway, Binney and Third Streets should be zippers that bind the site. He stated that the Sixth Street walkway is important and should link to the path. The replacement Volpe building needs to go in a certain location because of the security. The new Volpe Site should be seamlessly connected with the open site. Barriers and walls will be done in a sensitive way. There are more than 8,000 working on the site. There is a growing demand for family housing and this should be part of the development. Volpe will be 60% commercial and 40% retail. The site should be safe and be a comfortable environment. He spoke about a covered public space. The buildings will be developed as sustainability. Building resiliency, storm water and sustainable transportation will all be considered. This should be a public realm. He spoke about the urban design and the density. The site will be divided into four zones: pedestrian, street, town and top. He spoke about facade transparency. The street wall creates the urban room. The tops of the buildings can contribute to the skyline and include mechanicals.

Mr. Roberts spoke about the next steps for the Volpe Working Group. The Volpe Working Group has been engaging with MIT. As the finalization of the principles the Volpe Working Group will help guide the zoning.

Councillor Cheung asked what anticipated timeline is - will design guidelines be included into the design principles. Ms. Farooq stated that the principles will be finalized at the next meeting and sent to the City Manager who will forward to the City Council. MIT will file zoning and Volpe Working Group will become an advisory group. Once principals are finalized the design guidelines can be worked on. Councillor Cheung stated that he wanted a memo on the DOT site regarding the barriers and how this will fit into the neighborhood.

Vice Mayor McGovern wanted to know the percentage of the housing. This is a major project, he wanted to see options. He understands the financial implications. The reality is that there is financing involved. The three areas that he is interested in is housing how much; how much affordable and open space. We are building a place for people who are not here yet. What is the square going to be down the road? He spoke about the retail to be accessible for all; what type of retail and restaurants that are affordable. This is an incredible opportunity.

Councillor Mazen stated that the City Council has heard from the public who did not want a 1,000 foot tower. He wanted renderings that show items stated by Vice Mayor McGovern but within the bounds. He did not want to see renderings of 1,000 foot tower. There is differing opinions of where the public has weighed in.

The committee now heard from representatives from MIT.

Ms. Gallop thanked the co-chairs of the Ordinance Committee for this invitation to discuss the Volpe site and share it with the public. She stated that the specific work will be shared. Mr. Marsh will share the engagement and Mr. Man Fred I will walk through the renderings. She acknowledged the many residents for the engagement and the Volpe Working Group. In January when exchange agreement was announced between GSA and MIT they did outreach and has gone out to discuss this with the different neighborhood groups, civic associations and abutters. Something new is always learned. MIT was invited to join the Volpe Working Group when MIT was announced as the developer. Volpe has a working group. MIT has been at 39 working group meetings.

Mr. Marsh stated that co-chairs have encouraged the development of design guidelines. Mr. Thorkildsen has included site plans. He stated that GSA controls the process and MIT has met with GSA. There is a great interest to create a good site; but the Volpe is a research facility. Volume, type of open space, retail and who it will serve, preservation of trees, creating connectivity, protecting the Sixth Street path has been expressed, protection the East Cambridge neighborhood from cars entering the site, affordable housing, student housing, open space activation and make it a family friendly open space. Type and location of open space, type and location of retail and type of open space are the three principal areas and will work with the community on this.

Mr. Manfredi stated that site plans have been created. He walked through the illustration options (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that there are 4 different schemes and all are based on the same square footage. All of the schemes conform to the discussed zoning and the design guidelines. There is information that will be shown to the City Council and the public has not seen. The Volpe will occupy the northwest corner of the site for four acres. The Sixth Street path is outside the site and will be protected, including the trees. He stated that fir the last 40 years the Volpe site has not been accessible to the public. He spoke about the pedestrian and bicycle connection. He spoke about the real connections with the path. There are eight buildings; four residential and four commercial buildings. The commercial buildings are pink; residential are yellow and red are possible retail. MIT and the One Broadway block will be building out for retail. All scheme represent 3 acres of open space on MIT parcels and does not include the open space on Volpe. He stated that height and footprint of the Volpe is unknown. Three commercial buildings on Broadway and the commercial buildings are 250 feet and 275 and 175. The residential area 250 feet. One building is 500 feet; the tallest building and will have the least impact on open space. He spoke about design guidelines. The three residential buildings have a base of six stories. He showed street views along the Broadway Canal. This can be closed to cars at certain times of the day with retail on both sides. There are two acres of green space. This was scheme 1.

Mr. Manfredi stated that in Scheme 2 there are two open spaces created. Third Street is opened. The open space is the same amount but a different configuration. This can accommodate different types of events but the opportunity for the retail to be successful is jeopardized. Third and Broadway continue to the Broad Canal. There is transparency opportunity on the ground floor. This is a vibrant active space.

Scheme 2A is similar to Scheme 2 but the residential building was moved and the green space is bigger in the middle. Third and Broadway still have green space. The connectivity east to west and north to south is maintained.

Scheme 3 is the most different and combines elements of all. The Broadway and Third corner is opened. There are 3 open space areas. The northwest corner has the highest building of 500 feet. He stated that 303 Third Street has the 1 story building which could be retail. He stated that the 4 different schemes have open space and square footage in common. There are positive and negatives aspects for all schemes. The presentation concluded.

Councillor Mazen stated that an infrastructural connection would be interesting and may make this dramatic. He suggested going underground with retail. How real is the community permeable space of the Volpe site? The image and renderings he felt it was right with the contiguous space. He stated that he liked the areas closed to cars. The renderings seem warm. He spoke about equity and graduate student housing and the need for this housing. He stated that the rent for graduate student housing is still high.

Councillor Cheung opened public comment at 4:45pm.

Peter Crawley stated that he was a member of the Volpe Working Group and that the Volpe site reminds him of the symbol of crisis or opportunity. This is an opportunity to draw neighborhood residents into Kendall Square to achieve the principles of Volpe Working Group. He discussed 3 things to achieve the principle of a community use building needs to be core to the development and incorporated into zoning at the beginning. The use needs to be community recreational center such as the Y. The space needs to be funded up front and endowed over time. The open space needs to be space that is inclusive, comfortable and that Third and Broadway feels most welcoming to residents and feels like an urban room. This location puts the square in Kendall Square. The 3 item are transportation; infrastructure first then development. He spoke about a mobility plan. He suggested connecting the path. The civic space, the Foundry, the recreational space at Kendall Square should be complimentary with the Foundry.

Stephen Kaiser stated that the only handout is the CDD handout; MIT did not have a copy of their presentation. There is a better comparison of Harvard and MIT. He stated that Harvard is developing in Allston. He suggested requesting a transit plan. There is the transit plan, trip generation by MIT. He stated that this is a replay of the Olympics. No one spoke in favor of the CDD zoning previously submitted. He commented about fixing the T. The Kendall Square Mobility Task Force has failed; they did the homework for this meeting. He is in favor of 50 foot buildings.

Bob Simha stated that he is a direct abutter to the Volpe property. He had 3 issues: the Volpe site needs to be thought about relative to the population. There are 45,000 that work, live and play in Kendall Square. This population will double. This entire neighborhood will have a population that is the total population of City. The absence of transportation capacity in the area needs to be developed. The open space must serve the entire district, not just the Volpe site. There are 400 children that live in this area and with the proposed housing there will be 800 and there are no open space facilities to serve these children.

Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street, spoke about the FAR of 6.4. The heights proposed are doubled and open space is half of what was proposed. This is radically denser than what is in Kendall Square. What will make Kendall Square successful is the open space. He hoped for large contiguous open space and not to divide it. Please place open space at the heart of Kendall Square at Third and Broadway. The location and open space will drive the proposal.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that working groups are formed and then they go into a bunker. He suggested that before a decision is made on the scenarios and to take this out to the communities in Cambridge, the Port and the broader community. The four scenarios are not in the hand out. Transportation issues are important and is not in the handout. Housing should be a category he wanted more specificity and it has to be affordable. He stated that this is a missed opportunity to get graduate housing.

Public moment closed at 5:07pm on a motion by Councillor Carlone.

Vice Mayor McGovern noted that this can do better than 20 % for housing. He asked how the number of 1400 units reached was determined and heights of building. Mr. Marsh stated that the work is based on previous work on Volpe site. He stated that they tried to find the appropriate mix, innovation, vibrancy aspect, and housing and balance four commercial site to finance the housing affordability, the retail and the community benefits. Vice Mayor McGovern asked about adding more height to get more housing. He stated that he likes the large section scheme of open space. He suggested having Kendall Commons. He spoke about the possibility of a moderately priced supermarket and how this connects. He wanted a better sense of amenities for Kendall Square. This is an opportunity to have something great, not a guarantee.

Councillor Carlone asked MIT to develop a representation of open space and housing so that the City Council can have an idea of what this is. Graduate housing is an issue and a strategy needs to be developed on this issue. He spoke about preliminary guidelines, a starting base that give direction to have something fit into Cambridge. The zoning petition has not been submitted. MIT is graciously presenting this introduction. This is the intent of the chair.

Councillor Maher is excited about this and the prospect of what can be on this site. It is not accessible; it is the missing tooth of Kendall Square. This is an opportunity to connect Kendall Square to East Cambridge and to get the retail right. If the area is not vibrant people will not shop here. He stated that there would not be consensus with the scheme. This is an opportunity to secure housing and to see Volpe grow, prosper and open space that is a gathering place.

Councillor Mazen stated that relating to the transportation how can we all lobby on this. He questioned whether the square should still be called Kendall Square or should it be called MIT square?

Councillor Cheung stated that Kendall Square has been discussed many years. Kendall Square was industrial. The housing and the activation of the streets in Kendall Square shows that Kendall Square has come a long way. He wanted entrepreneurial, housing, interconnectivity, graduate student housing, innovative space to all be part of the discussion. He stated that he liked Scheme 3. He spoke about a 1,000 foot building for housing; what is the maximum height that could be built. He would like to see this. He stated that vehicle trips have been reduced and this needs to be front and center. He suggested T upgrades to Kendall Station.

Ms. Gallop stated that there is a web site volpe.mit.edu and the presentation is available on line.

Mr. Manfredi spoke about the 1,000 foot height building. The tower is 1,000 foot residential building; a small footprint. The FAA restricts the placement of the building at the corner of Third and Broadway. Mr. Marsh stated that the amenities for KS are being worked on. They are working on an urban grocery store and a drug store. He stated that MIT is committed to building the critical mass.

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at. 5:29pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

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

[attached materials]

Committee Report #3
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on May 17, 2017 beginning at 3:34pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss updates and data collected thus far for the Retail Strategic Plan, and other matters pertaining to the Study.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Vice Mayor Marc McGovern; Mayor Simmons; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Department (CDD); Lisa Hemmerle, Director of Economic Development, Community Development Department (CDD); David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner, Department of Public Works (DPW); Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department; Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; Elizabeth Lint, Executive Director, License Commission; Tony Clark, Education Liaison, Mayor’s Office; Nora Bent; Dave Mattei; Naseem Makiya; Wilford Durbin; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Larisa Ortiz, Larisa Ortiz Associates; Sarah Gallop, Co-Director, MIT Office of Government and Community Relations; Alexandra Lee, Director, Kendall Square Association; Denise Jillson, Executive Director, Harvard Square Business Association; Robyn Culbertson, Executive Director, Cambridge Office for Tourism; Chuck Honnet; Jessica Allison; Liz Tavares; Kristin Mahon; Carol Weinhaus; Joseph Greenberg; Carlos Peralta; Jason Zogg; Carol O’Hare; Marge Amster; Susan Labandibar; Judith Nathans; and James Williamson.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and introduced Larisa Ortiz from Larisa Ortiz Associates and Lisa Hemmerle from the Community Development Department’s Economic Development division.

Lisa Hemmerle stated that the City has engaged Larisa Ortiz Associates to take a look at best practices, policies, and programs to help retail businesses survive and thrive in Cambridge. She stated that the Committee will examine the market analysis that Larisa Ortiz Associates has conducted over the last several months to see where opportunities and weaknesses might be. She said that a final presentation and recommendations will be forthcoming in mid-June.

Larisa Ortiz gave an oral summary of a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment A). She stated that this is a picture of a particular moment in time and the goal is to share guiding principles that will inform citywide policy to help businesses.

Councillor Devereux thanked Ms. Ortiz for her presentation and asked the City Councillors for their comments.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked if neighborhood businesses are supporting each other. He asked if consumers tend to shop at only one store or if they are shopping at multiple locations. Ms. Ortiz responded that businesses co-locate because they share customers. She stated that one of the opportunities in Cambridge is to make shopping experiences more robust and fill in the gaps by rounding out options. She noted that it is the hope that this is a shortcut for entrepreneurial decisions to help people shop locally.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that businesses that use social media seem to have an uptick in business. He asked if there is support for small businesses that do not have a staff person to handle social media presence. . Lisa Hemmerle responded that consultants can help with point of sale. She said that consultants are being sent to businesses to help them work through developing these types of techniques. She noted that over 30 workshops are currently underway as well as on-line classes with translation services that people can view at their leisure. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he thinks that this is a great service.

In response to a question by Vice Mayor McGovern regarding a review and revamping of the Table of Uses, Ms. Farooq stated that it is on the Community Development Department’s list of things to do. She noted that it is the goal to have that updated with the next year. She noted that one of the resources in the FY18 budget is a new staff person who will help move this work forward more quickly.

Councillor Carlone noted that he especially appreciated the focus on creating an experience that the consultant presented. He stated that in urban design, you need the design of a space to allow for experiences that will take place in a public space. He stated that it is up to the individual businesses, the business associations, and city to work on a strategy to upgrade public places where events occur. He stated that Harvard Square is unique given the street pattern. Ms. Ortiz stated that there are many ways to address these principles. She said that in order to create these events, we must have great public spaces. She stated that this must be done in all of the business areas. Councillor Carlone stated that Ms. Ortiz talked about how important the business associations are as it relates to the success of the businesses. He said that there are both strong and weak business associations in the city. He said that the city should help financially sponsor the early years of the smaller associations to help them get established and thrive. He asked if other cities get involved in sponsoring and fostering neighborhood associations. Ms. Hemmerle stated that the City has to look at each district individually. She explained that they are reaching out to South of Porter Square people to help make them successful. She said that if a neighborhood would like to create a formal business association, CDD will assist them in the process.

Ms. Ortiz stated that over the past decade, the City of New York has supported merchant organizations and created commercial corridor programs. She said that there are a variety of ways to strengthen a business association. She stated that New York is probably the most engaged with their programs. She stated that there are examples of larger business organizations supporting smaller ones. She noted that in Brooklyn there is umbrella organization that supports three smaller districts. She explained that Denver has a similar situation in their downtown. She stated that in Brooklyn, each district conducts its own board meeting.

Councillor Carlone asked about retail continuity and retail killers such as too many banks in an area. He asked how the city can help guide a mix of uses to maximize the impact on a given street or square. Ms. Ortiz stated that one of the things that we are likely to see is that in this time of transition there will be more vacancies, and it is important to have a pop-up program on a temporary basis to fill temporarily vacant spaces. She stated that we have seen a softening of rents in a number of markets. She said that when there are a lot of vacancies, property owners eventually realize that they need to do something to fill their spaces, and they lower the rents. She stated that this is a nationwide trend. As it relates to leakage, it is important to remember that different businesses have different requirements for sales. She stated that some neighborhoods have no grocery store leakage at all and others have some leakage, but not enough to support a new store.

Councillor Mazen stated that the idea of pop-up is great if there is some sort of inclusionary aspect. He stated that this would require a great deal of cooperation from CDD and the City Solicitor. Lisa Hemmerle responded that staff are looking into implementing pop-ups. She stated that when looking at vacant storefronts, it is important to implement something that is continuing street level activity. Councillor Mazen stated that saying 1.3 times the tax if you are vacant over 5 months and .75 if you are engaged in a three month project could be an incentive.

Mayor Simmons asked about the impact of on-line shopping. She stated that other cities and towns have petitioned the State legislature to require on-line buyers to pay the sales tax to the city. She said that the city should seek to find ways to collect the sales tax. Mr. Ortiz stated that the brick and mortar retail industry is very much of similar mind. She stated that because there are issues at the national level, states are taking it upon themselves. She said that the retail industry does not want a state-by-state solution.

Mayor Simmons stated she and Councillor Devereux could fashion a Policy Order supporting the idea that the State take whatever steps possible to ensure that all online buying is subject to a sales tax. Ms. Ortiz stated that Cambridge would not be alone in wanting this. She stated that we want to encourage people to go into stores but we also do not want to leave money on the table if a person shops online.

Councillor Devereux asked what is considered to be Lower Mass Avenue. Ms. Ortiz responded that Lower Mass Avenue is between Harvard and Porter Squares.

Councillor Devereux asked about the current storefront vacancy rate. Ms. Hemmerle responded that it is 2.9% citywide but varies district to district. Councillor Devereux asked if there are small business enhancement areas currently. Ms. Hemmerle responded that it can only be utilized by residents or business owners that have business in that area. Councillor Devereux asked if we have any business improvement districts and what is the process for designation. Ms. Hemmerle stated that it is a difficult legislative process. Ms. Farooq stated that there needs to be interest amongst the property owners and businesses in the area. She stated that it takes a vote of property owners and businesses in the area because they are taking on the responsibility to manage the space. Ms. Ortiz stated that they explored this concept early on and found that it is unclear what would be the positive benefits or returns of benefits.

Councillor Devereux asked what the status was of reviewing the Table of Uses. Ms. Farooq responded that a study had been completed but staff need to have an internal discussion to decide if it is better to wait for the Envision process or to proceed with the review of the Table of Uses ahead of that. She stated that unless Envision Cambridge will be a complete zoning overhaul, it may not make sense to wait. She stated that they will have a better sense soon of whether Envision Cambridge will recommend a complete overhaul or if it will be more strategic changes. Councillor Devereux stated that parking requirements and combining uses are in the Table of Uses. She stated that there is a very high percentage of business owners that will be renegotiating leases in the next two years. She said that she feels a sense of urgency on this issue.

Councillor Devereux stated that the lack of usable public space or the lack of a business association does make it difficult for some businesses.

Mayor Simmons stated that better communications between the Economic Development Department and the City Council is crucial. She stated that she feels that we all must look at impact of ground floor retail in particular. She noted the importance of the implementation of new programs. She stated that strengthening the communication with local retailers and gathering their feedback is imperative.

Councillor Devereux gave the example that when the “Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance” was implemented, she did not feel that it was a big issue but the business owners that she met with felt quite differently.

Councillor Devereux asked about the fast food cap. Ms. Ortiz stated that they looked at the cap and the definition of fast food came up in discussions with some of the businesses. She suggested widening the definition. She stated that she has some familiarity with formula ordinances and stated that it would be best to wait and see and determine the impact. She stated that there are unintended consequences to small businesses. She noted that no additional analysis was conducted on this issue.

Councillor Devereux opened the hearing to Public Comment at 4:58pm.

Carol Weinhaus stated that she is part of an informal group of local businesses in the Observatory Hill neighborhood. She suggested that these businesses be spoken to in order to find out what their needs are. Ms. Ortiz stated that they did visit some of these businesses and had one-on-one conversations with at least two business owners. She noted that the outreach effort included surveys but did note that they did not visit every business. Councillor Devereux stated that there were 12 respondents from the Huron Village/Observatory Hill area. Lisa Hemmerle added that the surveys were anonymous.

Denise Jillson stated that many businesses between Harvard and Porter Squares are members of the Harvard Square Business Association (HSBA). She explained that the difficulty is that the mission of the HSBA is to promote commerce in Harvard Square. She stated that they try to help promote these other businesses but it is antithetical to the mission of the HSBA. She stated that when you have the Overlay District and that is where the funds are coming from to support the programs that are being done, it goes against the mission. She said that consolidating efforts makes sense in some ways but there must be a way to organize this.

Carol O’Hare stated that she has never bought a book online. She stated that if there was a way to inspire people to buy local it would be great. She suggested that when the City purchases supplies such as paper, gardening supplies, etc. that local businesses be given preference. She stated that she was pleased that Target came to Central Square but was disappointed that they are competing with the grocery and hardware stores and that people shopping in Target will be enticed to do one-stop shopping. She stated that the City should encourage Target to change its inventory so as to provide items that aren’t available in abundance in the neighborhood. She stated that in the Economic Development Department’s efforts to advertise local businesses, she would like to ensure that we don’t clutter up the streets with sandwich board and projecting signs. Ms. Hemmerle stated that the Economic Development Department does host a local purchasing workshop to help local businesses become vendors through the state vendor list.

Mayor Simmons stated that the Minority and Women in Business Directory is a wonderful guide. She noted that Cambridge Local First does an extraordinary job as well. She noted that there have been a number of City initiatives related to this idea and Cambridge continuously tries to encourage City departments to purchase locally.

Marge Amster, McTiernan Street, asked if Cambridge allows street performers on public sidewalks and if not, has it ever been considered. Ms. Farooq stated that street performers are able to apply for such a permit.

Susan Labandibar, Brewer Street, asked if the city has looked at the bigger picture. She said that the character of Harvard Square has gone in a direction that many are uncomfortable with and there are largescale market forces that are causing small businesses to struggle. She asked what can be done as a city to get in front of some of these large-scale issues that are confronting small businesses. She asked if there is any kind of forecast on what is actually going to happen and what measures are needed to reverse this major trend. She added that as it relates to on-line presence for local retailers, Amazon Prime shoppers only go to outside websites less than 1% of the time when shopping online. She stated that they are not competing on a level playing field with online shopping.

Chuck Honnet stated that it was great presentation and asked what additional information is beneath it. He said that he hopes to see the deescalating of rents in some areas of retail commerce which will make it affordable for small business owners to afford their rent. He stated that there is unprecedented construction in the city and there will be massive construction in Harvard Square. He questioned how small retail will survive. As it relates to trends, he said that he hopes that the City will look at trends on how many parking spaces have been eliminated, time of meters, and how this affects businesses when there is no place to park. He would also like to determine the impact of tour buses.

Judith Nathans, Putnam Avenue, reminded people that the polystyrene ordinance came from the City Council and was pushed by DPW. She stated that representatives from the business community were not present in the discussion. She stated that aspirational recycling and wishful thinking do not work in the real world. She cautioned that the City Council should be careful of what is generated as an ordinance.

Joseph Greenberg, millennial and trendsetter, questioned to what extent minority and women-owned businesses have declined or thrived.

James Williamson stated that merchants don’t want to talk because they are worried about negotiating their new lease. He said that gathering information from these people would be quite helpful. He stated that real estate is getting pricey and people with deep pockets want to convert to a different kind of retail. He stated that we must get to the details to support the larger question. He asked if we want the retail environment to turn over to the tourist-oriented approach. He said that the City overlooks the tools that we have that we could be using better. He stated that there are guidelines that are meant to protect the character of an area.

Jessica Allison stated that her concern is how information gets distributed to all City departments to help provide support to the small businesses. Councillor Devereux responded that the City is working to create a more streamlined process.

Owen O’Riordan stated that they are about to begin a new effort in streamlining processes for small businesses and retailers who need to do business with the City.

Councillor Carlone asked Ms. Ortiz is information is still be gathered and potential recommendations. Ms. Ortiz responded that a final report and summary will be submitted to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee at its next hearing in June.

Vice Mayor McGovern said he hopes the City go further to help small businesses during construction. He stated that he is unsure of the solution but said that the City needs to be more creative in helping businesses during and after construction.

Councillor Devereux talked about the suggestion by business owners regarding a mitigation fund. She said that she is unsure how feasible this would be but noted that there may be some mechanism by which this could happen.

Councillor Mazen stated that the polystyrene ban was difficult but added that the City Council does these things because they are necessary. He said that while he understands that it is cost passed onto the consumer, it is 20 years overdue. He stated that the City wants businesses to be successful but we cannot relax our drive when it comes to urgent and necessary matters.

Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 5:33pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair

[attached materials]

Committee Report #4
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Tues, June 13, 2017 beginning at 4:07pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss various forms and mediums of communication between residents and the City, to include Commonwealth Connects, and how the City Council may prioritize critical issues for data collection and reporting, also the Committee will discuss Order # 11 of Oct 31, 2106 regarding the creation of a Commonwealth Connects category for residents negatively impacted by short-term rental activity; Order # 8 of Apr 24, 2017 regarding creating a report system for mosquito harborage; and also bicycle-safety related incidents that would not generate a crash report.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Devereux; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services; Anthony Tuccinardi, Operations Manager of Inspectional Services, Inspectional Services; Mary Hart, Chief Information Officer; Eric Belford, Assistant Director of IT; Justin Handfield, Web Manager, IT; Rob Wolff, IT; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner, Public Works Department; John Nardone, Assistant Commissioner of Public Works Department; Rebecca Fuentes, Assistant Commissioner of Public Works Department; Dan Riviello, Community Relations, Public Works Department; Brent Larrabee, Commissioner of Police; Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; Joseph Barr, Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Claude Jacob, Chief Public Health Officer, Cambridge Health Department; K. Sasportas and A. Wielgosz, Cambridge Health Alliance; Brooke McKenna, Assistant Director for Street Management, Traffic, Parking & Transportation; and Wil Durbin.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing, thanked everyone for their attendance, and stated the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being privately recorded.

Councillor Kelley stated that he appreciated the turn out, and thought that it illustrates where the City stands as a functioning government. Big data is here to stay, he stated, and the City needs to incorporate it in a number of ways. He said there are all sorts of ways to collect data, but turning it into function was important.

Councillor Kelley said that the city switched to Commonwealth Connect a few years ago, and while it is not quite state wide, it can be used on one’s phone or computer to enter variety of issues from rodents to an abandoned bike in any community that goes through that vendor. He stated that there are seasonal complaints as well that get removed at the end of the season. If there are too many categories it becomes unwieldly, and if not enough, information does not come in. He said that people have been encouraged to use the category of “Other,” and all sorts of things have been reported through that category. He said he wants an explanation from the Department of Public Works on how Commonwealth Connect changes to meet demands, and also that they answer specific questions raised in policy orders from the Council.

Mr. Riviello stated that currently Commonwealth Connect has 28 issue types reported in Cambridge, and that they started with the 18 with same reports from iReport. He said they were trying to fine tune the process behind the categories. The iReport had just one tree category, he said. In Commonwealth Connect, that one tree issue has been broken down into various tree issues like pruning and stump removal. The “other” category is a catch all, he stated, and he was responsible for assigning all reports that come into other to the relevant department. DPW is always watching for emerging patterns, he said, and have created a pavement remarking category, as well as a roadkill category because people were reporting those type of issues. The iReport had a rodent sighting report, but the City started to get dead animals reports, so it was broadened to include roadkill as well. He stated that in winter months the Department adds three additional categories, icy or un-shoveled sidewalk, bike lane, and street?

Councillor Kelley asked if there were any other seasonal categories.

Mr. Riviello responded in the affirmative, and stated that a yard waste category is created during that season.

Councillor Kelley invited his fellow Councillors to join in the discussion. Right now the conversation was concentrated on Commonwealth Connect, he said, but generally he wanted to know how the City wants to use data derived from Commonwealth Connect. How easy it was to create new categories, he asked.

Mr. Riviello responded that it was very easy, and that he creates those type of complaint avenues.

Councillor Kelley asked if short-term rentals were included in the categories.

Commissioner O’Riordan responded that part of the reason short-term rentals did not go on Commonwealth Connect is that the intention for reporting was unclear. And for standing water, another Council request, to become an public health issue, he stated, it must become stagnate, and that required it to be there for 24 hours or more. He said the DPW does not want to be chasing water if it will disappear.

Councillor Kelley said that if a resident were to complain about a dumpster, he assumes that the response has something to do with Inspectional Services. He asked if a complaint is regarding standing water, and knowing the damages posed by mosquitoes and how that threat will increase in the future, how can the Council say that it wants to see something that should be addressed by Commonwealth Connect and have it not be addressed? He asked what the process is that brings new issues into the system, and further how does the Council work through the thought that a new or emerging issue is something Commonwealth Connect should specifically address to through the creation of a new issue category.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that they need to go back to what was said earlier about mucking up the system. With the dumpster issue, perhaps it can just be a call for an inspector to handle it. The Council should be mindful not to put so many categories in the system that it doesn’t work. If we added every potential problem, he said, Commonwealth Connect could have hundreds of items. In terms of ways for the Council to figure out ways to report, he said, they are responsive to complaints from residents. He asked what major issues the City would like to include.

Councillor Devereux stated that she uses “Other” frequently, and perhaps it is good to judge the patterns for determining new categories.

Mr. Riviello stated that “Other” can really be anything. In the year-and-a-half that Commonwealth Connect has been active, no one has reported standing water. If they did, the Department could create that issue. He noted that the current system works pretty well, and that they receive 6-12 reports to “Other” each day. Sometimes complaints come in misfiled, he said, and they refile them. The Department has added trees and road kill. For people that wrote in wanting to have a tree planted, they created an issue category for that. DPW added an “A-Frame” sign issue.

Councillor Kelley asked how the City manages the data on rodent sightings.

Mr. Riviello stated it is difficult to distinguish if such complaints come in the “Other” category from a user perspective.

Councillor Kelley returned the conversation to how people complain. He stated that his office was receiving a number of complaints on short-term rentals. He said it seems like something the City could put into Commonwealth Connect, and then Inspectional Services would have a location, person, etc. He said it would also be useful to see how many people are complaining over time.

Mr. Riviello responded that Commonwealth Connect works best when there is an established workflow. Commonwealth Connect is not monitored 24/7, and would be a poor tool to respond to double parked vehicles. There is no way to get police to respond through Police Department with the existing system, he said. When the Department creates a category, he said, people expect that they have a way to respond, and that’s not always the case as with short term rentals.

Mr. Jacobs stated that in regards to the standing water conversation, his Department was not anchored to the Commonwealth Connect system and does not receive complaints through that system. They have responded to standing water issues, he said, whether on public or private property, and they touch many other areas. When you are looking for the definition of standing water constituting a public concern, he said, there is another way to address those concerns.

Councillor Kelley asked him to confirm that the Cambridge Health Alliance is not connected to Commonwealth Connect?

Mr. Jacobs responded in the negative, but stated that his department has its own communication system.

Ms. Sasportas stated that the department does respond to complaints about standing water on private property for mosquito borne diseases. When they receive such reports they transmit them to the Inspectional Services Department. She state that her Department also receives reports about dead animals, and calls the Department of Public Works.

Councillor Kelley stated that he was trying to figure out how people can go straight to the appropriate department. Standing water is a problem, he reiterated. Maybe they could come out of this meeting with a better understanding of how to communicate complaints to the City. Returning to short-term rentals, which was addressed in another specific policy order, he stated that in his perfect world someone enters a complaint at such address, and it goes directly to the Inspectional Service Department. That Department then deals with short-term rentals, acknowledge receipt of the complaint, and establish a workflow, just like a rodent complaint, he said.

Councillor Devereux stated that such complaint system was their intent. She asked, however, if it was the fact that short-term rentals are not legal in this instance that the Council wanted people to report, or is it problems going forward. She asked what nuisance they were trying to address.

Councillor Kelley responded that it would be in the eyes of the reporter, but short-term rentals were illegal at this point. He said that in an information age, data should flow seamlessly.

Vice Mayor McGovern responded that with Commonwealth Connect, it is not just data, it’s a work flow. He said that whether the complaint was a short-term rental, or just a neighbor throwing a party, the person complaining should still place a call to the police. The expectation is something will be done after a complaint. He said he would not want to put short-term rentals on Commonwealth Connect at this time as the Council was currently working on an ordinance. If it is more of a complaint about what is going on in that unit, there can be other mediums, he said. If it is sidewalk shoveling, there is already a system to complain about that. Adding short-term rentals doesn’t make sense because the Council is working on an ordinance.

Councillor Kelley stated that they would like to pass the short-term rental ordinance, but it isn’t law yet. He said that the way he views Commonwealth Connect is that it provides an opportunity for people who use it to go straight to the enforcement source. Maybe short-term rentals are the wrong issue for this medium. With rodents, it became clear that broadening the category was necessary. He stated that at another meeting it was discussed that “Other” was an appropriate place to complain about double parked cars. He did not want to flood the system, he said, but no one can be sure that it would happen. Of the two policy orders discussed, he said he didn’t understand what the problem with standing water would be and both orders were passed unanimously.

Councillor Devereux stated that Commonwealth Connect does not have a category for illegal signs.

Mr. Riviello said that they receive those as well.

Mr. Kale stated that at the end of the day, if the list is so long, then persons filing complaints will just default to using “Other.”

Councillor Devereux stated that she would like to keep on the focus for Commonwealth Connect on priority issues.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the city is never going to be able to capture everything through Commonwealth Connects.

Vice Mayor McGovern said that the discussion goes back to expectations. If one reports a problem, then it goes to the appropriate department and then there is a process. With double parked cars, there is no follow up, he said. One can shoot oneself in the foot if the City doesn’t appear to be responding to complaints. He asked if the purpose was just to collect data, or to create an actionable item.

Councillor Devereux stated that one aspect where data would be beneficial is figuring out how much work and man hours each issue needs.

Commissioner O’Riordan said that from the Department of Public Work’s perspective, complaints may skew priorities. They may have infrastructure problems, he said, and they need to look at the more fundamental issues. The entire data collection issue needs to be thought through for better outcomes.

Councillor Kelley stated that if people are concerned about ponding in front of their house, they deserve an explanation from the City even if it’s just that the street is not level. He said that he thought there should be a reasonable expectation that a response come in that there isn’t going to be action if that is the case.

Mr. Kale asked whether the point of the program is that the City be able to fix complaints.

Mr. Riviello added that the vendor is called Click, See, Fix, and that’s just what’s intended.

Councillor Kelley stated that he would want to know if the City is going to fix the puddle in front of his house, the public should be able to see that someone has acknowledged their complaints.

Commissioner O’Riordan said that sometimes it’s the most ephemeral issues that are hardest to work on. If a DPW employee responds to ponding, they will go out with all of their equipment to try to address the issue. They want to be responsive and fix things brought to the Department’s attention, but sometimes the complaints raised are insignificant compared to other issues. He added that the costs associated with investigated issue may far outweigh the benefits.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked if a resident calls ISD and the City responds but nothing is found, is that reported back to the resident. Not everything needs to be fixed, but often it does need to get reported back.

Councillor Kelley said such responses were included in the communication via Commonwealth Connect, but necessarily by emails. Commonwealth Connect can create a one stop place for communications.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked if one is concerned about ponding, and they report the issue, how the City closes the issue. He suggested that maybe the City can better explain results.

Councillor Kelley said Commonwealth Connect offers something that emails don’t. Residents could use “Other” to better effect if the City figures out how to educate them to use it appropriately.

Councillor Devereux said that there are further issues that are fixable but aren’t a category. She stated that she doesn’t know if the intent was to absolve City Councillors from being the go-to person when a random complaint comes in, but sometimes her office will generate a Commonwealth Connect complaint when an email comes in. If a problem is persistent, then it isn’t something that the Council can handle. She stated that in part, Councillors need to mitigate their constituents’ complaints. She stated that in her perfect world, she would not stop getting emails from residents. She said she appreciates knowing what’s going on.

Mr. Kale repeated earlier comment that if the Department of Public Works receives a lot of “Other” category complaints regarding a particular issue, they change the categories. It’s an evolving system, he said, and responsive.

Councillor Kelley stated that from a Commonwealth Connect policy standpoint, looking for trends is an appropriate way to manage issues.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would be concerned about policy orders directing the City on what should be put in Commonwealth Connect. It would become problematic, he said. Such policy orders might be driven by politics, and not the issues. He said that he received an email this weekend about the keys to a library bathroom, but that isn’t a Commonwealth Connect issue. He didn’t send them to Commonwealth Connect, but instead responded to the issue.

Councillor Kelley said the outlined example presented a very different situation.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he wouldn’t want people to stop writing in, and that he wants to stay connected. People should still feel that their needs are being met, he said. He asked what demographic information is collected with Commonwealth Connect. In this age of advanced technology everyone seems to be connected, even the severely disadvantaged. He asked how the City makes sure the use of the program spreads to underrepresented populations, especially if a resident is not comfortable communicating to City Hall.

Councillor Kelley stated that he thought everyone was settled on how issues come onto the Commonwealth Connect platform. The next issue is what happens with this data, he said, and asked how the City allocates resources. Who ends up using this data, he asked.

Mr. Riviello responded that the Department can do a lot with the data. They can track the average time between when an issue is opened until it is closed. A new feature of having escalation contact is useful. He gave the example where if they program a rule for graffiti clean-up in 6 days following a complaint, a supervisor receives notice on day 5 that it needs to be addressed. They can also use the data to create heat maps for bicycle obstruction and double parking complaints. They have put up a heat map for bike lane obstruction because they received a number of reports and wanted to organize that data.

Councillor Devereux asked what happens with such complaints.

Mr. Riviello responded that they go to the Police Department, and they try to get to the location as soon as possible. This works because his constituency has a very strong interest in a tool for generating data rather than just resolving the issue.

Ms. Wielgosz stated that if they tried this model with other issues, it may not work as well.

Councillor Kelley asked if there were any other questions on Commonwealth Connect in terms of generating new categories or how to use it.

Ms. Sasportas said that the Health Department is not on Commonwealth Connect, but they do get comments and calls on nuisances and track data which might be useful for other departments. Comments may come in by phone call, in person, or email, but mostly they are phone calls.

Commissioner Singanayagam stated that his Department receives a lot of complaints through the “Other” category as well. He added that if they go out for a rodent problem and see stagnate water, they cite that too.

Mr. Tuccinardi added that they are working with other groups to track rodents.

Mr. Riviello said that the DPW uses data with icy and snowy bike lanes to generate work and focus reports.

Councillor Kelley stated that another point of this meetings is to understand how the City reports data collection. He said that some departments don’t respond to requests for data or complaints.

Ms. Fuentes stated that there were 33,000 calls to DPW last year, in addition to Commonwealth Connect and emails. They try to enter calls into the same structure as Commonwealth Connect, she said, but residents want to know that the City is responsive, and the phone has not gone away.

Ms. Wielgosz stated that it was the same for the Traffic Department, which is very heavy with phone calls.

Mr. Riviello added that they also receive a lot of complaints via social media, including Twitter. He said that those are entered into Commonwealth Connect when appropriate to create data.

Commissioner O’Riordan said that the Department’s division heads are looking at Commonwealth Connect and related data all the time.

Councillor Kelley asked how the city might use its various webpages to move information around. If people have questions, he said, the City might cultivate a space for this back and forth on certain issues. He asked how conversations are pulled together on the city’s websites, like a FAQ section.

Ms. Fuentes stated that there is a list of FAQs for DPW.

Ms. Farooq stated that CDD also has a FAQ page.

Mr. Riviello said that additionally there is a tab on the City’s website for “I Want To” which may be useful when people are looking for specific information.

Mr. Kale stated that the website has been redesigned to be more responsive and help people get to the appropriate department, but it is still evolving and it will continued to be improved and enhanced. Clearly there is an attempt to help people get to where they want to go, he said, but he said he doesn’t have a sense about what is being asked in tracking trends across departments or other Councillors.

Ms. Fuentes stated that she understood the Director of Communications and the City Manager to be looking into those type of technologies, which the City website currently doesn’t have.

Councillor Kelley stated that not everything should be on Commonwealth Connect, but the City should still be able to track patterns. He said that ideally the City would need to see emerging issues before they become an issue.

Mr. Kale responded that such tracking happens daily, or often at least. He said that it was clear that the department heads are skilled at identifying issues. Information gathering and sharing happens often, he stated, and if there is a trend they are seeing, it gets talked about often. There are clearly initiatives that get done due to collaboration, he added. City staff is not operating in a vacuum, he said, and they are sharing information constantly.

Councillor Kelley asked if the City is vacuuming information off the internet.

Mr. Kale responded that the City is somewhat doing that already across all the forms of communication that people have to get in contact with the City.

Ms. Hart said that it was mostly social media issues trending on the City’s website.

Mr. Kale stated that he thought residents are very savvy about communicating with the City.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment.

John Hawkinson stated that he had one question which regarded the volume of complaints that come into the CHA.

Ms. Sasportas responded that they have a number of regulatory programs and depends on how they come in. The department 600-1200 calls a year, from tanning beds to mosquitos, etc.

Mr. Hawkinson asked for confirmation that they receive at least a couple a day. He stated that the “Other” category is not prominent enough.

Mr. Riviello responded that the list is in alphabetical order.

Mr. Hawkinson stated that the vendor may have a limited number of categories to make it easy for the customer, but that doesn’t justify why the categories exist as they are, and the department could potentially handle more. Adding a category allows people to pay attention to an issue, he stated and that could be a psychological boost to actually notifying the City about that issue that may lead to misleading statistics about what people are actually concerned about. He noted that the “Other” category was not all that prominent. He was struck by how the conversation seemed to be dependent on certain issues. He said Mr. Kale made a comment about complaining about unfixable things, but that didn’t seem reasonable. One could prepare a one-page response to paste in every time a complaint comes in that doesn’t have a clear outcome, and that doesn’t constitute a burden.

Councillor Kelley closed Public Comment. He said he was not satisfied with where the conversation is at the moment. He stated that the City had thousands of people living and working in Cambridge that could use their smart phones and other devices to inform City action and help make our city more responsive, and they communicate through emails and Commonwealth Connect but maximizing that input seems like a very useful thing.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

Vice Mayor McGovern moved to adjourn. The hearing adjourned at 5:08pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair