CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. Transmitting Communication from Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $3,600,000 from the Water Fund Retained Earnings account to the Water Fund Other Ordinary Maintenance account to fund the purchase of water from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) for approximately three months.
Adopted 9-0

Oct 17, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $3,600,000 from the Water Fund Retained Earnings account to the Water Fund Other Ordinary Maintenance account to fund the purchase of water from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) for approximately three months.

The Cambridge Water Department (CWD) carefully monitors the City’s water supply system on a weekly basis to ensure an adequate supply of water is available to meet the needs of our residents, businesses, and universities. As the severity of the drought in Massachusetts continues, the usable capacity remaining in our reservoir system has been declining due to insufficient rainfall. However, Cambridge is not at risk of running out of water because in addition to our own water supply, we are a member of the MWRA system, which is operating at normal conditions for this time of year.

Based on the current reservoir levels and the need to maintain the operability of the water treatment plant, the CWD initiated the use of MWRA water the second week of October. This approach will allow CWD to maintain enough water in our reservoirs to allow the water treatment plant to continue operating at a minimum of 10 MG per week through the fall of 2017 when the current weather predictions indicate that the drought will end.

In addition to purchasing water, CWD has expanded our conservation efforts with top users and universities and will continue to strongly encourage the practice of indoor and outdoor water conservation wherever possible. While additional conservation efforts are an important tool for all users of our water system to participate in, Cambridge’s robust water conservation/water efficiency programs over the past two decades have resulted in Cambridge users using significantly less water per user than other communities in the Commonwealth and will make this more challenging to find significant water usage savings.

At the plant output of ~10MG per week the cost of MWRA water is estimated to be $1.2M per month. Our plan, if necessary, is to appropriate funding on a quarterly basis with this being our first appropriation from the water fund balance.

Because of the significant cost increases that the CWD will incur by purchasing water from the MWRA, there will be future financial impacts to the City. The CWD will continuously monitor the drought and precipitation status and modify our operational plan to minimize MWRA water usage while maintaining plant operations and a “healthy” reservoir system. This will also have an effect on the FY18 water rate and impact the FY18 operating and capital budgets.

Very truly yours, Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager

3. Transmitting Communication from Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $93,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Election Other Ordinary Maintenance account to pay for costs associated with early voting for the State/Presidential election.
Adopted 9-0

Oct 17, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $93,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Election Other Ordinary Maintenance account to pay for costs associated with early voting for the State/Presidential election.

This year, Massachusetts will be offering registered voters the chance to cast their ballots prior to Election Day, Nov 8, 2016. Early voting will be available at five (5) locations in the City of Cambridge. This alternative voting option will be available from Oct 24th to Nov 4th, for all registered voters of the City of Cambridge.

Very truly yours, Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager

4. Transmitting Communication from Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager, relative to the transfer of $33,500 from the General Fund Employee Benefits (salary adjustment) Salary and Wages account to the General Fund Election Salary and Wages account to pay for wages associated with early voting for the State/Presidential election.
Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons ABSENT)

Oct 17, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the transfer of $33,500 from the General Fund Employee Benefits (salary adjustment) Salary and Wages account to the General Fund Election Salary and Wages account to pay for wages associated with early voting for the State/Presidential election.

This year, Massachusetts will be offering registered voters the chance to cast their ballots prior to Election Day, Nov 8, 2016. Early voting will be available at five (5) locations in the City of Cambridge. This alternative voting option will be available from Oct 24th to Nov 4th, for all registered voters of the City of Cambridge.

Very truly yours, Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager

6. Transmitting Communication from Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $120,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance account to execute a Zero Waste Plan for the City.
Adopted 9-0

Oct 17, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $120,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance account to execute a Zero Waste Plan for the City.

These funds will be used to pay for consultancy assistance in developing a plan that will allow the City to further its ambition of significantly reducing waste generation in the City and meeting the 2020 and 2050 goals of 30% and 80% waste reduction from households.

The first phase of this plan is to ready the City for the expansion Citywide of the curb-side organics collection program. It is presently expected that such will occur in the fall of 2017. Beyond that, the City then needs to consider how to further improve organics collection numbers both in terms of participation and the amount of material diverted away from the landfill/incinerator waste stream.

In executing this ambitious program, we also need to be cognizant of how best to manage rubbish, recycling, yard waste and organics collection, transportation and the availability of production facilities in the metropolitan area that can best manage these resources. This appropriation will assist in addressing these issues.

Very truly yours, Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager

7. Transmitting Communication from Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $190,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Community Development Other Ordinary Maintenance account to complete a Low Carbon Energy Supply Study.
Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons ABSENT)

Oct 17, 2016

To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $190,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Community Development Other Ordinary account to complete a Low Carbon Energy Supply Study.

The City Council adopted the Cambridge Net Zero Action Plan in June 2015. To achieve net zero and improve community resilience for Cambridge buildings, it will require a significant shift in the supply of energy away from fossil fuel based sources and toward low- or zero-carbon sources. This will include realizing a significant portion of the city’s solar potential, taking advantage of all opportunities to harvest waste heat, and expanding and developing additional district energy capacity. The Low Carbon Energy Supply Strategy, Action 3.1 of the Net Zero Action Plan, aims to define for the City of Cambridge how it will support the broad implementation and development of renewable and low carbon energy in Cambridge.

The Environmental and Transportation Planning Division will hire and manage a consultant to complete the following tasks:

• Map low carbon energy resources that could be developed into district energy (either new district energy systems and/or tied into existing systems);

• Identify opportunities based on both technical and business case analysis to develop district cooling - this will include the mapping of current and future heating demand and the capacity of the current building stock to adapt to district scale solutions;

• Identify opportunities based on both technical and business case analysis to either develop and/or expand combined heat and power at the block or district scale for micro-grids;

• In partnership with Eversource, map and provide technical analysis, with accompanying recommendations, on the constraints and opportunities posed by the current electrical grid with regards to its ability to integrate electricity from solar PV and co-generation;

• Perform a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis of the various roles that the City can to promote and proliferate low carbon renewable energy. These could include but not be limited to owning and operating systems or infrastructure, public private partnerships, franchise areas, and other enabling legislation;

• Policy options to support the development of low carbon and renewable energy;

• A review of City of Cambridge capital assets that could either support or integrate energy generation within them;

• Develop a solar road map, based on Cambridge’s estimated solar potential and the incremental actions outlined in the evolution of a solar ready requirement.

• Prioritizing areas of investment for either generation, distribution or storage of energy;

• Review investment vehicles that can be used to support the development of low carbon or renewable district energy;

• Review how the market for technologies (solar, batteries, grid infrastructure etc.) is projected to change over the life of the strategy.

Very truly yours, Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager

8. Transmitting Communication from Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $47,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Community Development Other Ordinary Maintenance account to complete a community-wide Greenhouse gas inventory.
Adopted 9-0

Oct 17, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $47,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Community Development Other Ordinance Maintenance account to complete a community-wide Greenhouse gas inventory.

As a signatory to the Compact of Mayors, the City has committed to completing an inventory of community wide greenhouse gas emissions using the Global Protocol for Community Wide Emissions. The Compact of Mayors is the world’s largest coalition of city leaders addressing climate change by pledging to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, tracking their progress and preparing for the impacts of climate change.

The community wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory will advance the City’s efforts to reduce and manage climate change impacts in addition to fulfilling the commitments the City has made as a signatory of the Compact of Mayors. The inventory provides the necessary foundation and baseline that enables setting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, engaging specific sectors in actions to reduce emissions, developing a plan to reduce emissions, and tracking the community’s progress towards the emission reduction targets.

The Environmental and Transportation Planning Division will hire and manage a consultant to complete the following tasks by the end of 2016:

Develop a methodology for Cambridge’s community-wide greenhouse gas inventory.

The inventory methodology should meet both the Global Protocol for Community Wide Emissions and the City’s criteria for internal planning purposes.

Set a baseline year and identify the most robust, reliable and accurate activity data available to the City for the purpose of calculating emissions.

Where City specific data is not available, develop scaling factors to account for the City’s portion of emissions.

Complete a community-wide greenhouse gas inventory.

The inventory will include all stationary energy use, transportation emissions occurring within the boundaries of the City, and emissions from waste (including wastewater) disposed of outside City boundaries.

The inventory will be completed for a baseline year and one interim year, providing a trend line for greenhouse gas emissions.

Forecast future emissions for a target year

Future greenhouse gas emissions using a business as usual scenario will be forecast to provide another point of reference for GHG reductions.

Create a community-wide inventory report.

The report will meet the requirements of the Global Protocol for Community Wide Protocol, reporting emissions by Scope, Sector, Sub-Sector and Fuel Type. It will use text and graphics to describe the methodology and findings of the analysis. The report will identify top-priority sources of GHG emissions for which reductions strategies will be developed in later phases of Cambridge’s climate change planning process.

Very truly yours, Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager

9. Transmitting Communication from Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $38,300 from Free Cash to the General Fund Community Development Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will be used to procure consultant services to augment Cambridge’s core environmental goals.
Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons ABSENT)

Oct 17, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $38,300 from Free Cash to the General Fund Community Development Other Ordinary Maintenance account.

This appropriation will be used to procure consultant services to augment Cambridge’s core environmental goals including, but not limited to:

• Perform citizen outreach and engagement around residential and small business energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE), including a multi-family pilot with Eversource Energy.

• Coordinate, train and engage youth in community engagement on sustainability issues through the Mayor’s Summer Youth Employment Program (MYSEP) and K-12 school programs.

• Update, maintain and enhance community access to EE and RE information through cambridgeenergyalliance.org website.

• Provide underserved populations directly with EE devices to reduce their home energy bills.

Very truly yours, Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager

10. A communication transmitted from Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Planning Board not to adopt the Urban Agriculture Zoning Petition to allow for the completion of the work of the Urban Agriculture Task Force.
Referred to Petition

Oct 11, 2016
Subject: Urban Agriculture Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption in order to allow for the completion of the work of the Urban Agriculture Task Force.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On Aug 23, 2016, the Board held a hearing on this City Council zoning petition, which would create a new Section 22.80 in the Zoning Ordinance to establish zoning regulations for the operation and establishment of urban agriculture activities with necessary public safety measures to reduce the impacts of such activities on city residents.

There was no presentation from the petitioner at the hearing and no other members of the public appeared to testify. The Board did hear a presentation from the city’s Community Development Department (CDD) regarding the ongoing efforts by the Urban Agriculture Task Force (which includes representatives from CDD, the Public Health Department, other City departments, and community members and neighborhood associations) to develop a comprehensive urban agriculture policy for the city.

At this time, the Board finds merit in the progress made by the Urban Agriculture Task Force. The Board supports the Task Force’s plan to develop public regulations, a permitting process and best management practices prior to amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow specific urban agriculture activities such as the keeping of chickens, beekeeping, and growing produce for sale.

While the current petition has a similar intent to that of the Urban Agriculture Task Force, the Board believes there needs to be further review of how agriculture uses are classified and regulated from a public health standpoint before designating the districts in which they may be established through zoning.

In addition, Board members recommend creating more public awareness about the anticipated permitting process, operation and maintenance requirements and best management practices for urban agriculture. The Board understands the need to assign to the appropriate City agencies specific regulatory authority for agricultural uses with regard to permit review, inspection, and enforcement.

In conclusion, while the Board is generally supportive of allowing urban agriculture uses in the city, Board members believe that more consideration is needed to determine the specific regulatory framework for permitting, guidance on establishment and operation, and enforcement mechanisms. The Board strongly supports the continued development of the urban agriculture policy by the Urban Agriculture Task Force with guidance from the City Council.

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

11. A communication transmitted from Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation to adopt the William Noyes Webster Foundation, Inc, Zoning Petition (expansion of Medical Marijuana Overlay District 1 in Alewife).
Referred to Petition

Oct 11, 2016
Subject: William Noyes Webster Foundation, Inc., Zoning Petition (expansion of Medical Marijuana Overlay District 1 in Alewife)
Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends ADOPTION.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

The Planning Board held a public hearing on this zoning petition on Sept 6, 2016. The Board heard testimony from representatives of the William Noyes Webster Foundation, Inc., Community Development Department (CDD) staff, and interested members of the public. The proposal would expand the current Medical Marijuana Overlay District 1 (MMD-1) within the Alewife area to include the district zoned Industry B-2 (IB-2) and Alewife Overlay District 1 (AOD-1). Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMDs) would be allowed within that overlay district subject to special permit approval by the Planning Board. No changes to the regulations or special permit review criteria in that district are proposed. The special permit process would consider factors such as transportation, urban design and potential impacts of a RMD on surrounding uses, and would also consider whether the proposed RMD would be providing needed service to the area. The William Noyes Webster Foundation, Inc., is a state-approved RMD operator seeking to establish a dispensary at 29 Smith Place.

The Board believes that the proposed expanded district in Alewife would be suitable for RMDs. It is an area with a unique character, containing a broad mix of commercial and industrial use types. While there are some residential and institutional uses (including a private school), the fragmented street pattern allows the operation of nearby uses to remain separated. The Board notes that many signers of the petition are residents of the nearby Highlands neighborhood, and that the required distance of 500 feet from schools and other facilities where children commonly congregate would be maintained unless specifically modified by the Planning Board. Many sites in the district, such as the identified site at 29 Smith Place, have available parking that would be a benefit to some clients of RMDs. On the other hand, the area is not as well served by public transportation, which is an issue that could be considered during the Planning Board’s review of a special permit application for a particular RMD proposal.

Regarding medical marijuana zoning in general, the Board continues to support the City’s broader consideration of whether RMDs should be allowed in other areas of Cambridge (but still subject to special permit review and approval by the Planning Board), as remarked in the Board’s prior recommendation in favor of establishing a Medical Marijuana Overlay District in Harvard Square. A particular issue worthy of consideration by the Council is how many RMDs are needed to serve Cambridge, given that there are currently five or possibly six RMD operators in the approval process (at the state and/or local level) seeking to locate a dispensary within Cambridge.

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

20. Transmitting Communication from Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $25,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund City Council Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($21,500) and to the City Council Travel & Training account ($3,500) to fund expenditures related to the City Manager search process.
Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons ABSENT)

Oct 17, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $25,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund City Council Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($21,500) and to the General Fund City Council Travel & Training account ($3,500). This appropriation will fund expenditures related to the City Manager search process.

Costs include interviews held offsite with the preliminary screening committee, a public “Town Hall” meeting, various interviews with City Councillors, and legal counsel for contract negotiations.

Very truly yours, Lisa C. Peterson, Acting City Manager

O-2     Oct 17, 2016
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: On Oct 5, 2016, the City witnessed another tragic incident in which a 60-year old bicyclist collided with a vehicle and the bicyclist lost his life; and
WHEREAS: This is the second bicycle fatality that has taken place in Cambridge in just the past half year, and there have also been numerous non-fatal collisions and near-collisions in the city throughout this same period; and
WHEREAS: In response to this latest fatality, residents from across Cambridge have been reaching out to their elected officials demanding a more concerted effort in making this city safer for bicyclists; and
WHEREAS: Many of the actions residents have been calling for may already be under various stages of consideration or implementation, but without a centralized source for information about these efforts, it remains difficult for those looking on the City’s website to fully and easily ascertain what the City’s actions and plans are; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate City personnel in order to create a new page on the City’s website that is specifically devoted to providing timely and thorough information about what efforts have been and are being taken to increase bicycle safety, detailing what efforts are currently under consideration to decrease the likelihood of future bicycle-related fatalities, and detailing precisely how residents who wish to can continually receive up-to-date information on these matters; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Community Development Department and the Cambridge Police Commissioner, and to report back to the City Council on what specific recommendations and measures the City should consider in order to prevent future bicycle accidents and fatalities from occurring, and to make our streets safer for bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians.

O-3     Oct 17, 2016
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: Cambridge continues to experience collisions between cyclists, pedestrians, cars and trucks, some of which result in injury or death; and
WHEREAS: Designated bike lanes, most of which are only designated only by a set of painted lines and stencils on the road, provide no physical protection for people who bike from motorized vehicles trucks or jaywalkers that park in or cross through the designated bike lane, often putting cyclists in danger; and
WHEREAS: The majority of serious collisions in Cambridge and elsewhere involved turning movements and dooring; and
WHEREAS: There are a variety of methods to separate and clearly designate bike lanes and/or constrain dangerous turning movements at intersections and along rights of way to include installing flex-post bollards, and plastic curbing; and
WHEREAS: It is possible that installation of flex-post bollards and/or plastic curbing along bike lanes and or at intersections could improve traffic safety, especially for people who bike, quickly and with minimal investment; therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the appropriate City Departments to design a pilot system of flex-post separated bike lanes and intersections, along Massachusetts Avenue, Hampshire Street, and Cambridge Street to determine how installation of flex-posts might be used as either interim or permanent bike safety solutions while other infrastructure improvements can be designed and analyzed for safety and implemented as appropriate; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council no later than the second meeting in November regarding the City's plan for implementation of this pilot program and initial thoughts on how installation of flexpost bollards might be expanded and a timeline for implementation.

O-4     Oct 17, 2016
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
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: Pearl Street is in the midst of reconstruction associated with the Street and Sidewalk Reconstruction Program that includes new crosswalks, side street raised crossings, pedestrian ramps, and new street tree plantings; and
WHEREAS: Several recent bike fatalities in Cambridge have been attributed to the lack of separation and protected bike lanes; and
WHEREAS: The 2015 Cambridge Bicycle Plan calls for a separated bike facility on Pearl Street; and
WHEREAS: The City Council discussed the Pearl Street reconstruction in 2015 and was presented with options to have either a dedicated bike lane that would have required a loss of parking on one side of the street or a daytime bike lane that would have been open to bikes and with no parking from 8am to 6pm on one side of the street, but the Council voted not to include a bike lane; and
WHEREAS: At the time, the City Staff assured the Council that the installation of a bike lane would still be possible after construction was complete and that the decision could be reconsidered, as only additional paint and signage would be needed to create a bike lane; and
WHEREAS: The construction project has left Pearl Street and nearby streets frequently without parking, serving as an informal pilot program of having fewer parking spaces on the street; and
WHEREAS: The City estimates that the construction will be complete in June of 2018; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has commissioned a professional parking consultant’s report which has indicated that the Pearl Street corridor can absorb the loss of parking spaces due to addition of a protected bike lane; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee be and hereby is requested to hold a committee hearing to discuss the possibility of adding a bike-bus lane to Pearl Street and any measures that can be taken to accommodate on-street parking preferences of residents.

O-5     Oct 17, 2016
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
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: Dana Laird was doored and subsequently killed in 2009 by an MBTA bus on Massachusetts Avenue in Central Square; and
WHEREAS: Phyo Kyaw was killed in 2011 by a tanker truck on Massachusetts Avenue in Central Square; and
WHEREAS: Anita Kurmann was killed in 2015 by a semi-trailer truck on Massachusetts Avenue after leaving Central Square; and
WHEREAS: Dr. Bernard “Joe” Lavins was killed last week by a truck on Massachusetts Avenue while commuting to work via the Minuteman trail and Massachusetts Avenue, through Porter Square; and
WHEREAS: Massachusetts Avenue is wide enough north of Harvard Square to add parking protected bike lanes while retaining parking on both sides of the street; and
WHEREAS: Massachusetts Avenue is a key route through the city for cyclists, as well as for pedestrians, transit users, and motorists; and
WHEREAS: According to data summarized by the City of Cambridge in the Cambridge Bicycle Plan, Massachusetts Avenue has more cyclist-motorist crashes than any other street owned by the City of Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The 2015 Cambridge Bicycle Plan calls for either a separated bike facility or an adjacent off-street path along the entire length of Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to include separated bicycle facilities or adjacent off-street paths in any plans for reconstructing all or part of Massachusetts Avenue, along the entire length of the reconstructed segment; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to give first priority to the safety and convenience of the most vulnerable road users – pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users – with second priority to the safety and convenience of motor vehicles in any plans for reconstructing all or part of Massachusetts Avenue.

O-6     Oct 17, 2016
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
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: Dr. Bernard “Joe” Lavins was killed last week by a semi-trailer truck on Massachusetts Avenue while commuting to work via the Minuteman trail and Massachusetts Avenue, through Porter Square; and
WHEREAS: Amanda Phillips was killed in June by a landscaping truck after being doored on Cambridge Street near Inman Square; and
WHEREAS: More than 200 high school students commute to school, many of them on Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street and Broadway, even though there are no bike lanes on either Cambridge Street or Broadway near Cambridge Rindge and Latin School; 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 departments to install pilot program protected bike lanes on Massachusetts Avenue between Cedar Street and Harvard Square for the period of at least one month, starting on Nov 1, 2016; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with aforementioned departments to install pilot program protected bike lanes on Cambridge Street between Inman Square and Quincy Street for the period of at least one month, starting on Nov 1, 2016; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with aforementioned departments to install pilot program protected bike lanes on Broadway between Prospect Street and Quincy Street for the period of at least one month, starting on Nov 1, 2016.

O-7     Oct 17, 2016
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
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: Huron Avenue is a major through-street and bus transit corridor, which serves to connect residential side streets, schools and neighborhood shopping areas in West Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Huron Avenue is approximately 50’ wide for much or all of its length, not including sidewalks, which could provide room for two 10’ travel lanes (one in each direction), two 7’ parking lanes (one on each side of the street), and two 8’ protected bike lanes (one in each direction); and
WHEREAS: Based on a design developed in 2012, Huron Ave is presently being reconstructed to provide two 10.5' travel lanes, two 5' painted bike lanes, each with a 3' buffer to the left of the 7' parking lanes on both sides of the street, still placing cyclists between moving vehicles and the driver’s side door zone; and
WHEREAS: The 2015 Cambridge Bicycle Plan calls for a separated bike facility on Huron Avenue but the final design described above does not meet the definition of separated bike lanes, as defined in the Bicycle Plan; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to include protected bike lanes on both sides of Huron Avenue for the full length of its reconstruction, per the Cambridge Bicycle Plan.

O-8     Oct 17, 2016
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: In March 2016, the Cambridge City Council unanimously passed resolutions put forth by the City Manager to formally adopt Vision Zero and Complete Streets policies, showing that the City of Cambridge is committed to achieving these goals; and
WHEREAS: Since then, two people on bikes have died on Cambridge streets as a result of crashes at heavily congested intersections already known to have high crash rates; and
WHEREAS: A resident trying to cross one of the same dangerous intersections on foot was killed in February this year, just before Vision Zero was adopted; and
WHEREAS: Following these three tragic crashes and other recent road fatalities in Boston, there has been heightened public interest in rapidly redesigning our public ways to prioritize safe, pleasant, and sustainable movement for all modes and especially that of people who walk, bike and use transit; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to form a Vision Zero Working Group comprised of staff from the relevant City departments and residents to collaboratively develop and review traffic safety plans, street designs, public education initiatives, traffic enforcement and related policies with the shared goal of eliminating crashes that result in serious injuries and deaths as quickly as possible.

O-9     Oct 17, 2016  Charter Right - Kelley
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge contains a 115 rare adaptation center and urban wild state park along the Upper Alewife Basin in northwest Cambridge owned by the Department of Conservation and Recreation, called Alewife Reservation, with ponds, streams and a river and surrounding wetlands, meadows, scrub-shrub and three groves along linear protected floodplain strips of biodiversity for one linear mile; and
WHEREAS: These rare natural Mystic River Watershed resources, to include both public and privately owned land, are a great benefit to the city and region, to include wildlife habitat as wells as both marsh and water resources that are beneficial in this time of unusual drought, and well stewarded and educated with the human and labor resources of Friends of Alewife Reservation; and
WHEREAS: The Alewife area in Cambridge was studied by a large state-wide Science Committee appointed by the City which presented a Vulnerability Assessment Climate Study at MIT in 2014 for the public which showed Alewife as a very vulnerable flood zone; and
WHEREAS: Governor Baker has recently issued a climate bill to the Legislature which includes developing adaptation strategies to conserve natural resources which are employed to sustain resources which build resilience to impacts of climate change; and
WHEREAS: The remaining acreage in and around the Alewife Reservation provides habitat for 20 mammal species, over 90 bird species, and flora to include possible endangered species with, FAR discovered, Gentiana Andrewsii registered with the state as one, and there are surrounding development threats to this plant, habitat and functioning of these wetlands; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in opposition to any pathway or other intrusion which might be developed through the woods, marshes, or Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF) or other natural resource habitat to create a pedestrian trail to the Alewife T stop from areas west and north of Little River; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in opposition to any other development which could in any way impact the 100-year flood plain which is predicted to experience such flooding every 30 years, and wetlands, BLSF, or bordering vegetated wetlands (BVW), associated with the Alewife Reservation; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Cambridge Conservation Commission for consideration in any development permitting proceedings under the Wetlands Protection Act regarding the Alewife Reservation or nearby lands that might come before that Commission.

O-11     Oct 17, 2016
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
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: During the week of Oct 3, 2016, very large trucks were involved in two collisions with cyclists, one resulting in serious injury, the other a fatality; and
WHEREAS: Oversized trucks such a semi-trailers, tractor trailers and “18-wheelers” are designed for interstate highways and have blind spots and wide turning radii that make them unsafe to travel on congested urban streets shared with vulnerable users such as cyclists and pedestrians; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with staff on what authority the City has to further restrict the routes of travel and delivery hours of such oversized trucks on our streets, and report back to the Council with all feasible options as soon as possible.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Thurs, Sept 15, 2016 beginning at 3:02pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Title 6 entitled “Animals” by adding a new chapter 6.20 entitled “Restrictions on the Sale of Animals in Pet Shops” (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Alison Price, Animal Control Officer; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Michael Orrico, 36 River Street, Hudson; McMillan I. Gaither, 221A Walnut Avenue, Boston; Curt Rogers, 8 Austin Park; Patricia Tucker, 80 Lincoln Road, Sudbury; Annie Kreider, 58B Hammond Street; Carol Youngclaus, 2 Park Drive, Woburn; Linda S. Rubin, 31 Brookside Avenue, Dedham; Lee Greenwood, 40 River Street; Michael Prusak, 8 Austin Park; Elizabeth Maglio, 115 Glenrose Avenue, Braintree; Linda Murphy, 16 Spaulding Avenue, Scituate; Edwin Sayres, Sarasota, Florida; Joan Gallagher, 10 Eleanor Avenue, Beverly; Laura Hagen, 350 South Huntington Avenue; Antonia Longo, 840 Broadway, Revere; Susan Labandibar, 8 Brewster Street; Alyssa Krieger, 350 South Huntington Avenue; Cheryl Pongratz, 55 Chester Street, Winchester; and Simon Starkey, 19601 North 27th Avenue, Phoenix.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being privately audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the meeting and asked that written comments be submitted for the record.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he has worked with MSPCA on this petition. He invited Laura Hagen, Deputy Director of Advocacy with MSPCA, Stephanie Harris, Massachusetts Director of the Human Society and Delcianna Winders, Animal Law and Policy Fellow, Harvard Law School to come forward.

Ms. Hagen stated that she supported the proposed ordinance. She told of her childhood experience with animals that were purchased by her family. Where these animals came from were never asked. She spoke about what the animal trade industry and the impact on the animals. She gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT B). She spoke about the Us Global Exotics case where 26,000 animals were confiscated and 4,000 had to be euthanized because there were in such poor health. She state that "stock turnover" is the industry standard. She stated that Massachusetts pet shops stock their stores from puppy mills. This system victimizes both animals and consumers. The State law leaves animal owners no recourse. This ordinance creates humane alternatives without hurting businesses. This requires business to update their operating process. Her written statement is attached (ATTACHMENT C).

Ms. Harris spoke about the puppy mill industry. She stated that the humane society supports the ordinance. She stated that the Jackson Mills have provided pets to Massachusetts pet stores. She stated that hidden camera surveillances have occurred. She noted that responsible breeders do not sell to pet stores because they want to know where their puppies end up. She explained the reason that puppies become ill is due to the deplorable conditions they are kept in. These ordinances do not affect responsible breeders. Pet shops sell to impulse buyers. Pet shop ordinances are educational tools. She encouraged passage of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Winders stated that the Animal Welfare Act is inadequate. The enforcement of the act is ineffective. She cited three areas where the Animal Welfare Ace is inadequate; inadequate or total lack of penalties, automatic breeder license renewal regardless of the violations and the failure to regulate many species of animals. She stated that enforcement is infrequent and most cases are closed with a warning and no repercussions. She stated that 28% of cases are closed with nothing more than a warning even when there is grave violations where some of the animals have died. There is an automatic renewal of licenses for breeders by the USDA regardless of violations. The agency has not changed the policy when it was required to do so over a quarter of a century ago. She stated that many animal breeds for the wholesale pet trade are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. Birds are not regulated even though they are required to be regulated by the Animal Welfare Act. Ms. Harris spoke about the impact on animals from small breeders. She noted that Holmes Farms provides animals to Petco and Petsmart. She spoke about the poor care of the animal provided by Holmes Farm. While these violation was ongoing, Petco visited Holmes Farm and continues to purchase animals from Holmes Farms. She spoke about the documented violations of Reptiles by Mack, a Petsmart provider. Petsmart visited Reptiles by Mack while the violations where on-going. She stated that animals die every day at US Global Exotics. She stressed that these conditions are standard. The severe lack of federal regulation is causing harm to animals. She supported the ordinance.

At this time Councillor Carlone asked the City staff to come forward.

Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor, stated that the draft ordinance amendment has not been reviewed by the Law Department. Councillor Carlone stated that it makes sense to have the Law Department review ordinances before the Ordinance Committee hearing is held.

Alison Price, Animal Control Officer, thanked the Humane Society and MSPCA and stated her concern about the statement that pets can be purchased from responsible breeders. Who determines who is a responsible breeder, she asked. There is no oversight on this and the Animal Commission has no oversight and wanted the ISD to work with the Animal Commission on this matter.

Councillor Devereux stated that breeders are required to be licensed by the ISDA if there are five or more dogs. Ms. Price stated that there is an Ordinance that a license is required to breed dogs. She stated that the Animal Commission knows who breeds and sells puppies in unsatisfactory condition. She wanted to be able to clearly enforce the Ordinance. Councillor Devereux asked if the code needs to be looked at. Ms. Price stated that this needs to be discussed as to how the Animal Commission can enforce breeding and selling animals. She wanted a clear idea of what they can do.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that many of the zoning rules need to be updated. He stated that the ordinance before us today is to sell pets. He wanted to add as many protections as possible for the animals.

Councillor Kelley asked about the state definition of pet shops. Mr. Goldberg stated that there is state law and pet shop are regulated by the state in Chapter 129.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the Law Department was not asked to review this proposed ordinance. He wished he was told that the Law Department should review proposed amendments to the Municipal Code prior to the Ordinance Committee hearing. Councillor Carlone stated that this was unknown to him as well. Mr. Goldberg stated that the Ordinance Committee should request the City Manager to have the Law Department review all draft ordinance amendments.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 3:42pm.

Curt Rogers, 8 Austin Park, stated his mother was a champion dog breeder. He supported the Ordinance. He stated that animals are taken prematurely from their mothers from the puppy mills. Female dogs are bred as often as possible. He started that Cambridge must pass its own Ordinance and stand up against the cruelty to animals. He finds breeding mills deplorable.

Councillor Kelley stated that the definition in the state law in Chapter 129 defines pet shops. He submitted the language in Chapter 129 (ATTACHMENT D). He wanted to be clear as to how this applies to the ordinance. This regulation applies to everyone. Mr. Goldberg stated that the City Council can make the definition as broad as they like and how they want the ordinance applied.

Councillor Carlone stated that this ordinance will not be approved today and will be an ongoing discussion.

Patricia Tucker, 80 Lincoln Rd, Sudbury, President of Society of Parrots and Exhibitors stated that she cares about the proper breeding of parrots and has a standard of excellence. She stated that you cannot educate someone if you criticize them. She stated that there are breeding academy awards and breeders are encouraged to breed small and well and to sell to pet shops. This ordinance changes pet shops in Cambridge so that they cannot get the birds her society provides. She stated that many breeders in Massachusetts breed birds to their standards. She did not want to prevent the pet industry in Cambridge from selling quality birds to residents. She stated that her birds are therapeutic to her. She did not support the Ordinance. She submitted information on her society. (ATTACHMENT E).

Annie Kreider, 8 B Hammond Street, stated that she is a volunteer at the Charles River Alley Cat and other organizations. She supported the Ordinance. This gives animal lovers a time to evaluate their view on animals. This allows people to slow down and do the best for animals. She stated that responsible breeders have a take back clause without incident. She noted that 100% of the animals in sanctuaries were well kept.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is a different approach, but long overdue. He stated that Petsmart will continue to fail on their audit. It is important to get the definition correct and stressed the importance of a retail definition. He spoke about all the different practices across the animal industry. He stated that we will wade through the legal aspect to come to the best moral aspect. He wanted the right thing done by the animals.

Linda Rubin, 31 Brookside Avenue, Dedham, stated that she has authored books about birds and has received the seal of approval from the Society of Parrot Breeders and Exhibitors. She is a bird breeder expert. She answers questions on birds on the Internet. She is an expert avian. She stated that this ordinance is encouraging a black market. She spoke about the proper medicine for a bird disease. She stated that the breeders socialize their birds and if they cannot buy birds from pet stores there will be a shortage of birds. She noted that the Animal Welfare Act does not apply to birds.

Lee Greenwood, Legislative Attorney, Best Friends Animal Society, which protects the lives of the animals impacted by the Ordinance and animal owners. His family supports the Ordinance and urged the City Council to pass it. There is a gaping hole that leaves animals unprotected from state law. The breeders and transporters are not regulated; the pet shops are regulated. This is an industry wide problem and there is an urgent need for this ordinance. He is an animal lover, advocate and lawyer. It is about the animals from where they are born and how they get to the pet shop. The Animal Welfare Act does not regulate birds. This Ordinance will not stop pets from being sold from pet shops. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT F).

Michael Prusak, 8 Austin Park, stated that he supported the ordinance as proposed. He is against breeding mills. There is no state law regulating breeding mills. We need to stand up for the protection of animals. He wanted it to cover all animals.

Elizabeth Maglio, 115 Glenrose Avenue, Braintree, stated that she supported banning puppy mills. It is intentional that the information about purchasing a puppy is confusing. When a dog is at a pet store anyone 18 years older with a credit card can purchase a pet. Most puppies purchased by pet stores have a compromised health system. Returning the puppy to the pet shop is not possible and the pet shops do not refund for the health cost. She spoke about the relationship of supposedly reputable agencies, such as the AKC, and the Hunt Corp and PIJAC and the financial connection. Federal laws are not protecting animals or consumers. She stated that this ban would protect consumers and animals.

Linda Murphy, 16 Spaulding Avenue, Scituate, stated that she was a founding member of the Mass. Coalition to End Puppy Mills and has worked to raise awareness about the puppy mills. Pet stores mislead consumers about the animals. Pet stores do no offer the truth. She went into 3 pet stores and was given false information by the employees. Employees in the pet stores are told that the pets come from reputable breeders who are humane. This is a business model that consumers must be protected from. She submitted her comments and information from the Mass. Coalition to End Puppy Mills (ATTACHMENTS G AND H).

Edwin Sayres, Senior Advisor, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), 9393 Midnight Road, Sarasota, Florida, stated that he has worked for the welfare of animals and has worked for the last 3 years for the pet industry. He stated that Petsmart and Petco have placed animals that would have been homeless. Stereotyping consumers and employees of pet stores is unfair. He stated that he visits commercial breeders and that the pet industry is on the right side of the animals. Pet sale bans are unfortunate because this does not impact or close the puppy mills. Bans are for chronic violators and there are bad actors. He stated that there are not enough birds and reptiles for the demand and the ban will have an impact on these species. He advocates adoption as the first method for obtaining animals. His written comments are attached (ATTACHMENT I).

Antonia Longo, 840 Broadway, Revere stated that she is a domestic rabbit owner and an animal lover. She volunteers with House Rabbits Network. She noted that when one purchases a rabbit they are given minimal information on how to care for the rabbit and domestic rabbits cannot survive in the wild. Domestic rabbits have a different bone structure from wild rabbits which hinders their running. She explained how easily and quickly rabbits can multiple (ATTACHMENT J).

Susan Labandibar, 8 Brewer Street, a volunteer for the French Bulldog Village, spoke about Cambridge limiting her choice as a consumer. She supported the ordinance. She spoke about the impact on the family with a modest income and struggle for 18 months of caring for Pebbles. (ATTACHMENT K).

Alyssa Krieger, 40 Summit Avenue, Roslindale, spoke about animals after being purchased from pet stores. She spoke about the animals brought to shelters. These animals usually are purchased and then the kids lost interest and the pets are turned over to the shelter, which has to expand its space by 100% due to the amount of animals. She stated that the largest population in the shelters are animals purchased from pet stores. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT L).

Michael Orrico, Hudson, MA stated his concern with the proposed Ordinance. He stated that eliminating the sale of animals will negatively impact small businesses. This is a negative impact on kids. This will eliminate people's rights and hurt the animals. He submitted a communication from Jeff San Souci, Director of Marketing, Rolf C. Hagen Corp., 305 Forbes Boulevard, a manufacturer and distributor of pet supplies, in opposition to the Ordinance (ATTACHMENT M).

Cheryl Pongratz, 55 Chester Street, Winchester, Sweet Rescue, Kansas, MO. noted her experience in the mid-west. She spoke about the moms of these puppies being in captivity of the puppy mills. She spoke about the trauma experienced by the mothers of the puppies. She had her dog at the meeting and she has to be carried around. Puppy mill moms do not bond. Her dog was diagnosed with learned helplessness.

Simon Starkey, spoke about FDA ban on turtles and that Petsmart sells them. He stated that rabbits are not sold. He stated that this will lead to a black market for the animals. He questioned the integrity of those taking pictures of the animals.

Joan Gallagher, Beverly Ma, stated that this Ordinance is not what the city needs. It needs to be revised. She stated that this will lead to black market and good breeders are being penalized. The rights of local citizens are being taken away with this ban.

Public comment was closed at 4:56pm.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that this will not prevent pet ownership. This will not stop Petco and Petsmart from selling animals, but will affect the way they get animals. He has no issue with the care that Petsmart and Petco provide. He does think impulse buying is an issue. It is important to make this change for future stores. When the state and federal government fall short it is up to the municipality to step up. He spoke about the many times Cambridge has been the first on issues such as smoking, plastic bans. All the opposition has come from outside Cambridge and outside the state. Cambridge residents are in support of this Ordinance. This is an important issue. He acknowledged that the Law Department needed to review the Ordinance and that it cannot be moved forward today. He favors the ban.

Councillor Devereux stated that Cambridge residents favored the restrictions. It must be hard for people from the industry but cannot say that all want the same thing. This will put the industry in a position to stop the bad practices and the breeders. She had birds and felt bad that they were in a cage. The birds were impulse purchases. Boston adopted this and Cambridge can do the same. She asked if Cambridge could look at Boston's definition of pet shop. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that Cambridge expanded the definition to include small animals and birds. Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted the definition straightened out. He has had terrible experiences with rescue animals. The animal’s response was to bite. This is a ban on any animals that was pre-owned in Cambridge. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he does not interpret the Ordinance this way.

Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted a common definition that all are comfortable with. The lobbyists of the big stores will have to concentrate on another revenue stream. He spoke about animals used in medical research that are lifesaving but are not treated humanely.

Councillor Carlone stated that he wanted to know what makes a responsible breeder. He questioned the degree to which shelters evaluate animals. He moved that this matter stay in committee. He stated that everyone cares about animals. How can this be worked on for the betterment for animals?

Vice Mayor McGovern made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be requested to forward the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 6.20 entitled "Restrictions on the Sale of Animals in Pet Shops" to the Law Department for review and clarification on the definition of pet shop pursuant to Chapter 129.

The motion - Carried on a voice vote of five members.

An unidentified individual stated that rescues do not make money. There is an adoption fee but is not required.

The following communications were received and made part of the record:
Virginia Coleman, 2 Berkeley Place in support of the proposed ordinance (ATTACHMENT N).
Mayor E. Denise Simmons requesting that the Ordinance Committee convene at least one additional informal hearing to discuss the pros and cons of the issue (ATTACHMENT O).
Denise Cabral, 77 Walnut Street, West Bridgewater, in opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment (ATTACHMENT P).
Walter J. Sullivan, Jr. transmitting information on the impact of pet ownership and transmitting a proposed language change from Petsmart and Petco (ATTACHMENT Q).
Laura Fratoni in opposition to the proposed Ordinance change and that this infringes on the Constitutional Rights of individuals (ATTACHMENT R).

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at. 5:17pm.

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

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Thurs, Sept 22, 2016 beginning at 3:11pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the zoning petition filed by Jane W. Heatley, President of the William Noyes Webster Foundation, Inc. to amend Section 20.700, Medical Marijuana Overlay Districts by extending the district (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Vice Mayor McGovern; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, Community Development Department; Vali Buland, Assistant City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Attorney Walter Sullivan, 60 State Street, Boston; Jane Heatley, 46 Stonehedge, Barnstable; Fred Green, 66 Calamint Road, Princeton; Elizabeth G. Dost, 100 Solitude Drive, Taunton; McMillan Gailler, 221A Walnut Avenue; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, and Nicole Snow.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being audio and video recorded. He asked that any written comments be submitted to the City Clerk for the record. He outlined that format of the hearing.

The committee heard from the petitioners. Walter Sullivan spoke on behalf of petitioners, Jane Heatley and Fred Green, Head of Cultivation. He explained the request for an extension. He stated that for two years the petitioners have been trying to find a location for the facility. The two existing zones were looked at. He stated that no areas were available in East Cambridge because it is all for the NorthPoint development and the extension of the Green line. Areas in the MMDI were looked at from Concord Lane up to the right side of Smith Place over to Alewife Brook station. There was only one property owned by a developer in Cambridge and was ready to sign a deal but bank would not allow a medical marijuana dispensary in the building because it is a violation of federal law. The lease was not signed. Another location, 29 Smith Place was found. Mr. Sullivan stated that he would later explain the location of 29 Smith Place.

Jane Heatley, President, William Noyes Webster Foundation, stated that the foundation was issued a provisional license by the Department of Public Health in the first round. The license was for a dispensary in Dennis and a growth facility in Plymouth. She gave a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT B). She stated that the facility is under construction in Dennis and Plymouth and hope to open in the spring of 2017. She stated that it is hoped that a third location will be in Cambridge. She described the executive management team of the company.

Ms. Heatley stated that Fred Green is the agricultural specialist. Mr. Sullivan stated that if there are any questions about cultivation Mr. Green is here to answer questions.

Mr. Sullivan explained the reason for looking at 29 Smith Place. He stated that the location meets the intent of the medical marijuana ordinance. The site is off a regional road (off of Concord Avenue) and has access to bus routes. The presentation showed the pathway to get to the building. He stated that the location is 1,000 feet from bus stop and the police substation and Professional Ambulance is located in the building. This facility is 500 feet away from the Fayerweather School, 600 feet away from a gymnastic facility on Fawcett Street and 1,000 feet away from William Maher Park on Concord Avenue. This facility also provides parking as well as public transportation. A shuttle service will run from the facility to the Alewife T station. This location meets the original intent of the ordinance, access to public transportation, provides parking but it is not in the zone. It is across the street from the zone. He requested City Council to approve the petition.

Councillor Devereux asked about the arrangement for parking. Mr. Sullivan stated that the parking is located in front of the Davis building. He stated that the parking lot runs from Adley Road to behind Mt. Auburn Hospital. Valet parking will be provided also. An agreement has been made with Professional Ambulance to utilize all the parking spaces. Mr. Sullivan stated that either Adley or the road behind Mt. Auburn Street will be a throughway per a plan by Community Development.

Councillor Cheung asked if this is a dispensary or for cultivation. Mr. Sullivan responded that this is a dispensary; the cultivation facility is located in Plymouth. Councillor Cheung stated that it would good to have a map that showed the old and new proposed boundary lines. Mr. Sullivan stated that looking at the map the yellow area would extend from the orange lines this is where the petitioner is requested to the extend the MMDI zone. Councillor Devereux asked who drew the yellow line. She noted that the orange line is on Smith Place, but not on the side that the petitioner is requesting. Mr. Sullivan responded that under the zoning ordinance a line is split into the middle street. Councillor Devereux noted that this looks like the yellow line does not included the Davis company parking lot. Mr. Sullivan stated that it was easier to look at the current zoning map and incorporate IB2 into the zone. A sub-zone was taken from Alewife and it was included.

Councillor Cheung asked city staff to come forward.

Mr. Roberts stated that a report was provided on zoning for medical marijuana last month. He informed the committee that the Planning Board's hearing on this petition was held on Sept 6, 2016 and issued a positive recommendation will be coming to the City Council. He stated that there were no recommended modification to the petition. There was a recommendation to adopt based on that the board felt that the district is appropriate. He added that it is appropriate for the City Council and the Planning Board to look at additional area in the City where medical marijuana may be allowed under the special permit provisions that are already in place.

Public comment began at 3:29pm.

Elizabeth Dost, Mass. Patients Advocacy and introduced herself as the clinical director. The location and the expansion of the program are good for the patients and she supported. The location is unique and it provides parking for the patients.

Public comment closed at 3:31pm.

Councillor Cheung asked when the ballot initiative comes up and for the legalization of marijuana. He believes that there was a regulation that any place designated for medical marijuana is allowed for non-recreational marijuana. Mr. Roberts explained that medical marijuana is regulated by the Department of Public Health and recreational marijuana will be regulated by a different set of rules and his is unaware of any language in the ballot initiative that would link recreational to medical marijuana. He stated that he would have to consult with the Law Department on this.

Councillor Devereux stated that looking at the ballot language and suggested the legal department give a legal opinion on this. She spoke about the language in the ballot ties dispensaries to stores that would sell marijuana products which will become marijuana establishments. She stated that there is language in the ballot imitative that states that the local authority shall not prohibit the placing of marijuana establishment in an area where a medical marijuana treatment center engages. To change this a vote of voters is required. This limits the number of any type of marijuana establishments and it cannot be limited to fewer than the number of dispensaries; this ties the medical and recreational facilities together in this respect. She added that the License Commission needs to look at this because it connects the number of marijuana retailers to the number of licenses issued for the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises. The number of marijuana retailers cannot be fewer than twenty percent of the number of alcohol retailers. She stated that the City Council needs to be better informed when making decisions for dispensaries which could be constrained by this. She noted that there is a draft ordinance that will make this a city-wide use. She stated that she was unclear with the ballot language if the Planning Board would still have the authority to issue a special permit. She suggested a motion that the Law Department advise the City Council about this.

Assistant City Solicitor Buland stated that she has not seen the ballot initiative language and that it will have to be analyzed by the Law Department.

Nicole Snow, Executive Director, Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, and a drafter of ballot initiative coming up in November. She added that her organization is neutral on the issue, but advocate for patients and medical marijuana only. The focus is 100% on the implementation of medical marijuana, advocating for patients and safe access. She stated that ballot initiative does involved dispensing facilities and will allow them to cross over into recreational aspect. The regulations will be promulgated in 2018 and do not know how this will happen and whether the ballot initiative will pass. The question today is on zoning for medical marijuana facilities. She stated that the facilities considered today will not be forced to dispense recreational marijuana. She added that as long as the applicant, City and community understands that the focus is on patients it is hoped that the businesses will keep to their mission statement of being a non-profit and move forward to dispense medical marijuana.

Councillor Cheung stated that he thought there was an issue siting a specific address for a medical marijuana dispensary which came up previously with the Sage petition. The Law Department issued a legal opinion that an address could not be listed and that the petition needed to be redone without an address. This current petition lists 29 Smith Place. Mr. Roberts stated that the said petition was seeking to rezone a particular address as a medical marijuana overlay district and the petition expired and later a new petition was filed that defined the district that would be covered by the zoning rather than a street location because the district needs boundaries on all sides.

Councillor Cheung spoke about keeping medical marijuana dispensaries removed from residential areas. The proposed location of the business comports to the guidance but the rest of the IB2 district comes close to the residential area and the IB2 is another issue. He asked if the Planning Board discussed this. Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board noted that the petition had signers who lived in the neighborhood. He stated that there was communication between the petitioners and the neighborhood group. This was a concern. There are other medical marijuana districts existing or proposed that are adjacent to residential districts and it is difficult to find commercial districts that are not adjacent to residential areas. He noted that when the original districts were created the reason this site was left out was that it was more distant from transportation service areas. This could be mitigated by shuttle service. There is parking in the area and this was noted by the Planning Board and lead to support of the petition.

Councillor Carlone asked how long the lease arrangement is for the space. Mr. Sullivan stated that the lease is not finalized and the property owner, Trinity Properties, tends not to do long term leases. The lease tend to be for five years with obligation to renew.

Councillor Cheung asked what the outreach process was. Mr. Sullivan stated that they went to Fawcett Street, containing thirty units, and spoke to the manager and there seemed to be no issue. The property manager was unaware that there would be a medical marijuana dispensary next door. He stated that they met with the neighbors in the Cambridge Highlands area and discussed the proposal with the residents who are also the signers on the petition. This is the community that would be most impacted by this. There is a buffer from the neighborhood and the only concern is there is a path on Mooney Street that brings you to open space that leads to the neighborhood. There is no way to get into the neighborhood other than Mooney Street.

Councillor Devereux noted that HRI has plans to build 100 units of housing on Concord Avenue. She asked Mr. Sullivan if they talked with HRI. Mr. Sullivan responded in the affirmative. He stated that this is the reason, the condominium complex and a sewer retention system planned, that the petitioner stayed away from Fawcett Street. He stated that the focus for the dispensary was on Moulton and Wilson Streets and on the right side of Smith Place and ended up looking on the other side of Smith Place after finding only one piece of property. Councillor Cheung asked if there was a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Sullivan further stated that he met with Ann Tennis on the Cambridge Highlands Neighborhood Association and will have a community meeting with the residents moving forward with the special permit. He stated that he was informed by Ms. Tennis that it was not worth having a full community meeting until the City Council adopts the zoning.

Councillor Cheung spoke about the letters of non-opposition. Mr. Sullivan stated that a letter of non-opposition has been received from the City Manager when looking to go to Moulton Street, which fell apart because the bank would not allow the medical marijuana dispensary to be located here. He added that the Police Commissioner conducted background checks on the personnel.

Councillor Cheung stated that he is supportive of medical marijuana facilities but is concerned that this location is larger. There is no analysis for every point in the district. Mr. Sullivan stated that this is left to the Planning Board to determine whether to issue a special permit. The ordinance was written to give authority to the Planning Board to determine if a special permit should be issued. He further stated that the Planning Board has the authority to determine how many dispensaries that they want in an area. He stated that the City Council was ready to extend the zoning three years ago to include the right side of Mooney Street and to move forward. This petitioner was rejected by the Department of Public Health. Councillor Cheung stated that he voted for the ordinance to give the Planning Board discretion in the areas decided by the City Council. He explained that he still retains the decision making ability to the areas to give them the discretion. He noted that he wants to know the proximity to schools before he decides to give the discretion of the zoning. Mr. Sullivan responded that this site is 500 feet away from any protected business. Councillor Cheung stated that previously this was seen from the entire boundaries of the zone. He stated that there was an overlay map that showed the locations of the schools. Mr. Sullivan stated that the overlay map was included with the Healthy Farms petition provided by the Community Development Department. Councillor Cheung stated that with prior petitions there were letters of support from surrounding neighborhood associations, community meetings were held by the petitioners to ensure that the residents know that a medical marijuana dispensary is coming. He wanted to ensure that this outreach is done in the adjacent neighborhoods by the petitioners so all know that a medical marijuana dispensary is coming to their neighborhood.

Vice Mayor McGovern questioned the notification process Mr. Sullivan stated that the Planning Board publishes the notice in the newspaper and the abutters are notified and the same is done for the City Council hearing. Councillor Devereux asked who the abutters were in this case. Mr. Sullivan responded that they are all businesses. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that there is a legal requirement versus a moral requirement. He wanted the petitioners to commit to do more. Mr. Sullivan stated that he was advised by Ms. Tennis to wait to do this at the special permit process. This process is required by the Planning Board prior to filing the special permit. Vice Mayor McGovern commented that there are other medical marijuana dispensaries outside of the approved zones and favorable action was taken by the City Council and now this is within the zones and meets the requirements established by the City Council. He stated that this would fit in the proposed city-wide zoning filed recently, the current zone and the current requirements. He did not know why this is not moved forward.

Councillor Cheung stated that this zone goes up to the backyards of residential homes. The way that the lines were drawn is his concern. Mr. Sullivan commented that the original Sage application was considered spot zoning. The petition was rewritten and picked a zone that abuts residential properties and residential properties are located in the zone. He stated that this is a sub-zone within the Alewife Brook Overlay District and is included in the medical marijuana district. The ordinance established covers the issue of being near residential areas. He stated that comparing this to MMD3 this is further away from residential areas and residential areas are located in the MMD3. Councillor Cheung commented that his concern is that other petitioners contacted adjacent neighborhoods affected where this petitioner contacted residents impacted within the zone. Mr. Sullivan stated that he met with residents in apartments on Fawcett Street, and walked the area of Griswold and Loomis Street. The petitioner will go further and will work with the residents. He spoke about the professional security persons to ensure that the location is safe.

Councillor Carlone stated that there is a rationale to include the whole of IB2. Mr. Sullivan responded in the affirmative and it does not include the Fayerweather School. He stated that the buffer issue can be addressed. He stated that his concern is that the city is in the process of an Envision Plan and this area may be rezoned and may have implications down the road. He asked if the non-profit status would the facility be allowed to sell legal marijuana. Mr. Sullivan stated that anyone who applied for a license prior to October 2015 for a medical marijuana dispensary and has received a provisional license become first in line to receive a retail license. A retail license can be for profit. A dispensary for medical marijuana has to stay a non-profit. Councillor Carlone stated that a recreational marijuana takes on a different character. The input from the Law Department will be important. This location will change in 20 years. Mr. Sullivan in locating a facility in MMD1 the whole plan was looked at for the whole area. This is why Moulton and Wilson Streets was looked at and most likely will stay the same as it is today. Councillor Carlone stated that location wise this does meet the spirit of what the City Council set up previously. He further stated that if the previous proposal was looked at favorably, this should too with the buffer along the residential edge.

Councillor Devereux made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to contact the City Manager, in writing, to request that the City Solicitor prepare a legal opinion on Ballot Question # 4 and report back to the City Council on the legality of the marijuana ballot question on its potential impact on how medical marijuana dispensaries are zoned, as it relates to there being shared medical and recreational facilities and whether there is a relationship to the number of dispensaries, recreational stores and liquor stores allowed and how this may impact the number of liquor stores licensed by the City.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Councillor Kelley suggested pausing on all this until after election.

Councillor Cheung asked about the boundary lines. He wanted petition modified away from the residential area. He did not want to be accused of doing something that the residents did not know about. He wanted more outreach done. He wanted this scaled back and the footprint reduced. He needed to feel more comfortable about this that outreach is being done. He wanted the zoned tightened around the proposed facility.

Councillor Cheung moved that this matter be kept in committee.

The motion carried on a voice vote of four members. Vice Mayor McGovern recorded in the negative on keeping the matter in committee because the petition meets the requirement of the ordinance.

Councillor Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:19pm on motion of Councillor Cheung.

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

Committee Report #3
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Sept 14, 2016, beginning at 5:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the evolving technologies with which the public and municipality interact regarding public works issues and emergency events. The Committee examined the use of new and emerging technologies, focusing on Commonwealth Connect and RapidSOS, compared to traditional communications to better understand how the City uses these programs, what residents should expect when interacting with the City through the programs, and how they can effectively serve the public good.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Devereux; Joseph Wilson, Police Superintendent; Jeremy Warnick, Director of Communications, Police Department; Christina Giacobbe, Director, Emergency Communication Center; Lee Gianetti, Communications and Public Relations Director; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Young Kim, 17 Norris Street; Gary Dmytryk, Chair, Disabilities Commission; and John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being privately recorded. He stated that he wanted to have a discussion on privacy data.

Councillor Kelley noted that the CRS system was replaced by the Commonwealth Connect system. Mr. Gianetti gave an overview of the Commonwealth Connect. He stated that Commonwealth Connect replaced CRS IReport program in January 2016. Many, but not all, municipalities in the state are using Commonwealth, which is designed by “See, Click, Fix” and allows people to enter requests in any jurisdiction that uses the system. He explained that 5,900 requests have come in of which 5,100 have been closed. A request is open when it is first added and the issue is acknowledged and the request is looked at. When resolved the request is listed as closed even though the actual issue may not have been fixed. The system can have a trail of all the actions and communications that have been taken on the request. Private communication of city staff on an issue can also be recorded.

Councillor Kelley stated that he is overwhelmed by Commonwealth Connect updates for reported issues.

Mr. Gianetti spoke about using an off the shelf product which is different from a custom app and how an individual user has limited ability to modify the program. The information can be sorted by status, area, data analysis and a dashboard will be built. He spoke about creating high level dashboards to see how things are being fixed which would allow Councilors and others to review trends and similar issues.

Councillor Devereux spoke about sorting by issue or date. All of this information from Commonwealth Connect is in the open data portal. Mr. Gianetti stated that the open data information is updated daily. He spoke about the maps, how the City was thinking about trying to create them and how transparency was an overarching concern. Councillor Devereux asked if there is a systematic way for staff to report data.

Mr. Gianetti explained that when complaints in all 28 categories come in all are put into the system. He explained the system and how complaints are entered based on information obtained from social media such as Twitter with different City staff members looking at different social media and making entries based on what they read. Eventually the program will fit into a larger ecosystem.

Young Kim, 17 Norris Street, commented that the Commonwealth Connect is better than the IReport despite its limitations. He spoke about the city's policy and that he reported a complaint about parking and related street striping on Norris Street. He stated that complaint was acknowledged within one day. The system stated that the complaint would be put into the annual maintenance program and it was closed. But it is not clear at all when the work will actually be done. He stated that complaints should be closed when the work is done. He stated that this complaint had to be opened by him three times because the work was now done. He noted that when a complaint is taking a long time it should be looked at. He questioned the appropriateness of entering complaints by citizens.

Councillor Kelley asked what this tool is and is not used for. Mr. Gianetti noted that residents’ can reopen a request if they think it has not been properly resolved. He added that the more complicated requests that interact, for example, with the City’s Five Year Street Maintenance Plan fit into the Commonwealth Connect system in an unclear way and that that, and other, policy issues are being looked at and the employee buy in is impressive. The City is working on setting up formal expectations for complaints to be moved through the process. Complaints are being acknowledged within two days. Longer requests are being reviewed for what are the operational issues and the work plans by the departments. The City is still working through this. Mr. Kim spoke about the necessity of a safety issue needing to be addressed right away. Mr. Kim spoke about where the app stops being a useful tool, in particular when it comes to communication issues. Mr. Gianetti explained that requests get automatically assigned to the right department and can be transmitted to the appropriate department if the request is sent to the wrong department or submitted via the general “Other” category. He stated that this is being looked at to ensure that the categories are useful or whether categories should be added. He noted that the biggest success is getting the internal buy in and some departments have already asked for specific categories to be included as reporting options.

Mr. Hawkinson spoke about the five year work plan as it relates to reality. He stated that people are incentivized to close tickets because there are comments made about how fast tickets are closed and he noted that it is important to distinguish between the system’s work flow versus the actual project work flow. He asked about the comparison for the past years with the IReport. Mr. Gianetti stated that he did not know.

Councilor Devereux noted that other places, such as Everett, have different issues (categories) and asked if ISD issues are included in Commonwealth Connect. Mr. Gianetti responded that when the app was launched the existing categories in IReport were installed and while that list has been extended with new categories, it was important to find the balance of having enough categories without overwhelming the user with options. He stated that success to him is when a request is entered and the resident has a good experience - the citizen’s satisfaction is crucial.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked who is not participating in this. Mr. Gianetti stated that nine departments are using the Commonwealth Connect.

Councillor Kelley asked what this is supposed to be used for. It is not for 911 or for Russell Field needing renovation. How do residents communicate with their government effectively? Mr. Gianetti stated that this is a component of a 311 system that it is for public facing interactions for simple, non-emergency issues with a reasonably easy fix. How do you simplify how residents communicate with their government? He stated that he is hoping by the end of the month the website will be launched.

Councillor Devereux commented that trash is large request. It is a great tool for the city to see where and what needs attention.

Councillor Kelley asked about where does leaf blowers fit in. Mr. Gianetti stated that requests are entered and it leads to a trail. Some requests are resolved before they are entered.

Mr. Warnick explained that the system can be used other category such as bike lane obstruction and that, while when the request is investigated the complaint no longer exists, simply entering the issue helps to deploy relevant resources in the future. Police Superintendent Wilson spoke about CPD’s response when there numerous complaints at the same location and how that impacts future deployment at that location.

Councillor Kelley noted that noise, speeding and public drunkenness can be complaints; he wanted to know what the limit is on how the system should be used. Councillor Devereux noted that this can be used for issues other than quick fixes. Councillor Kelley questioned if there is a way to catch the fleeting issues. He spoke about whether this is a way to capture information rather than service issues. Mr. Gianetti stated that categories, such as unshovelled sidewalk, maybe could be turned off as the seasons change. He stated that the problem with the IReport was that the reports could not be run. This being on the open data portal is information that is looked at in real time and reports can be run more easily.

Councillor Kelley asked if there are any thought of bringing the School Department in on this app? Mr. Gianetti stated that internal categories can be included in Commonwealth Connect.

Councillor Kelley spoke about using this system to capture trends. Mr. Gianetti noted that the School Department is not on this system.

Councillor Kelley asked how is it handled when a complaint is entered that does not pertain to Cambridge. Mr. Gianetti explained that the request is sent to DCR and an acknowledgement is sent that the complaint was received and has been forwarded to DCR and the contact person information is also sent to the person who entered the issue and then the request is closed.

Mr. Kim asked about the flexibility and hierarchy of the system. Mr. Gianetti stated that he would find out about this. New features are being rolled out and there will be improvements on the user side.

Councillor Kelley asked who owns the data and what the privacy issues are. SeeClickFix is part of the open meeting law. He stated that a disclaimer is on the app, though perhaps it is not as intuitive as it could be, and that the City owns the data. Councillor Kelley questioned if SeeClickFix reviews the data to see what the trends are and get access to the information and move the data around. Mr. Gianetti said all entries are entered on the open meeting portal, on the website there is a username. The moment a request is entered anyone can see. Councillor Kelley asked if City staff has the ability to pull data beyond what the public can see. Mr. Hawkinson stated that if the complaint was sent to Mass DOT he would have to contact Mass DOT for more information and that when he entered a complaint about a DCR issue he did not get any contact information in response. He asked if there is a difference between Mass DOT and DCR. Mr. Gianetti responded that he did not know if the complaints are treated differently.

The discussion now was on RapidSOS, the Haven app.

Councillor Kelley noted that he had the same privacy concerns and asked what the vendor can provide specifically for the City.

Ms. Giacobbe stated that this app provides direct access to 911. She stated that when the app is downloaded four categories come up- medical, police, fire and car crash. This app was created by MIT people who were frustrated with traditional 911 limitations. If a request is entered via smart phone it will go directly to Cambridge ECC rather than to the state police; it lists the address and location for the call based on your smart phone’s location. This app provides better GPS location than the state provides the City. This is quicker direct access to your community if you are in a community that uses it. If not, the call would still go to the State Police. This is a direct call for city access. It is free for ten years if people sign up with the first two and the City is paying nothing for it. Cambridge is the first community to partner with RapidSOS. If emergency services are needed and a person is unable to talk you can text and the text will be sent to ECC. The ECC treats calls with no talking or texting as a 911 hang up and they try calling back and then send response units to the best known location for the device. The operation center can communicate with the person while services are sent.

Mr. Kim asked if a medical emergency button was pushed from anywhere will services come. Mr. Warnick explained that if RapidSOS cannot talk to the person it will be viewed as an emergency situation and services will be sent to where the phone is located. Ms. Giacobbe stated that this is a new app and they are building on it. A map could be launched. There are about 2000 subscribers. Mr. Hawkinson added that GPS is accurate within 100 feet, which makes it difficult to find precise living or working quarters in most of the City unless the caller provides more information.

Mr. Dmytryk asked whether medical issues can be added to the app. Ms. Giacobbe stated that additional information can be added to a person's profile and ECC can see the additional information. She spoke about RAVE Mobility, an addition to the RapidSOS. Mr. Dmytryk spoke about entering sensitive information. Ms. Giacobbe stated that the company owns the data and the City has a contract that states they want access to the data all the time. The company will not sell the information. This data is handled the same as ECC data. There have had only ten calls and some were miscalls. Privacy concerns will be the same as ECC. She has reached out to the Disability Commission and the vendor. She stated that the Haven app has a disclaimer and explains what the services are used for. Councillor Kelley commented that this is not a social media platform. He spoke about the safeguards so that the public can make an informed decision. Ms. Giacobbe stated that this is a great tool and hoped that many will sign up for this service. Councillor Kelley commented that the vendor could compile information about trends of who is calling and for what reason, but not by name.

Mr. Kim spoke about turning off GPS on a phone and wondered what using the RapidSOS app would do to that. Ms. Giacobbe stated that the GPS has to be turned on for certain apps. Mr. Warnick stated that GPS is an app by app choice to be turned on by the user.

Councillor Kelley asked which smart phone operator supports RapidSOS. Ms. Giacobbe responded that it supports both platforms- Apple and Android. Mr. Kim asked if the charge for the City or the user. Ms. Giacobbe explained that once signed up it is free for ten years and after that the fee will be charged to the user.

Mr. Dmytryk asked if out of Cambridge the system would notify a relative of a medical condition. Ms. Giacobbe stated that this will be treated as 911 call. Mr. Hawkinson asked if it is data, voice call or 3-4g services. Ms. Giacobbe responded it is voice call and 3 and 4g services. The address is shown and taken from the state system.

Mr. Kim spoke about data from RapidSOS coming to Cambridge. Ms. Giacobbe stated that this is connected to the 911 State system and it signals the dispatcher that it is Haven information and that staff is specifically trained to handle Haven calls in addition to traditional 911 calls. The 911 call information comes up from state 911 system; it is launched as a Rapid SOS call. The response time is 2-3 minutes. Ms. Giacobbe stated that she would provide clarification on the process. Mr. Kim spoke about the concurrent data from the Haven system Councillor Kelley asked about Rave Mobility. Ms. Giacobbe stated that Smart 911 residents create a profile that you want first responders to know and this information can be provided to first responders when there is a call and that it is tagged to your house first, but a variety of information can be entered by users of the service. Smart 911 is broader than Haven and is completely independent. Testing will be done on the system.

Police Chief Wilson stated that Ms. Giacobbe has been getting all land or cell phones to the ECC center.

Councillor Kelley commented that he is impressed and he has learned much.

He stated that the following communication will be made part of the report:
Communication from Susan Farist Butler, Co-Principal Investigator, Laboratory for Probabilistic Reasoning, Psychology Department, Tufts University, 490 Boston Ave, Medford, MA. (ATTACHMENT A)

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:04pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Sept 28, 2016 beginning at 6:04 p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber for the purpose of discussing the redesign of the Out of Town News Kiosk.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair, Councillor Dennis Carlone, Councillor Jan Devereux, Vice Mayor Marc McGovern, Councillor Craig Kelley, Councillor David Maher, Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager, Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development, Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning, Community Development Department, Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner, Kathy Watkins, Senior Engineer, Department of Public Works, Charles Sullivan, Director, Historical Commission, Robyn Culbertson, Executive Director, Cambridge Office for Tourism, Dan Schwartz, Aide to Councillor Mazen, and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were John Hawkinson, Robert Winters, Michael Medeiros, Jessica Liss, Matt Schreiber, Edward Lamson, James Williamson, Costanza Eggers, Max Kuo, R. Gakenheimer, Ruth Ryals and Suzanne Blier.

Councillor Mazen convened the hearing and gave an overview of the agenda for the hearing (Attachment A). He stated that he would like to acknowledge that a lot of people felt left out of the process. He stated that it is reasonable that people are nervous and the City has a great interest in leveraging public input and collaboration for the ultimate benefit of Harvard Square. He noted that the City has allocated $4 million dollars toward redesign of this site.

Councillor Mazen welcomed and introduced Suzanne Blier, professor in Architecture at Harvard University. Ms. Blier gave an overview of her PowerPoint presentation (Attachment B). She stated that it is an important opportunity to think about where we are and how we are going to go forward. She said that one hour ago, a group called “Our Harvard Square” submitted a petition to the Historical Commission to give the kiosk landmark status. She gave a summary of Clarence Blackall, the architect who designed the kiosk. She stated that some of the proposed changes to the kiosk are disturbing to her. She stated that she admires the vision plan that was put forward after many discussions but argued that as we are thinking about this, the most flexible kind of structure is one that contains and holds key historic elements of the structure itself. She stated that it is important to think about security, water, heating and air conditioning. She concluded by stating that the community is appreciative of the opportunity to get involved in the process. She stated that the more voices, the stronger the structure will be. She stated that process in Cambridge is complex and we often end up in good places. She stated that more public engagement is critical. She stated that there are challenges to this project and the complexities around the Cambridge governmental system is difficult. She thanked the Committee for the opportunity and asked that the members think about the history of the kiosk when thinking about the future of the kiosk.

Councillor Mazen asserted that he wants these meetings to take place so that the City can learn about the public’s expertise, which can be better leveraged by the City. He stated that he hopes that this is an opportunity to convey to the City what the residents are feeling.

Councillor Mazen invited a representative from the Community Development Department (CDD) to give a presentation about the process to date.

Mr. Dash stated that in 2013, the City had the opportunity to work with Harvard University and the Harvard Square Business Association (HSBA) to take a look at the Harvard Square plazas. He noted that the focus was not on the kiosk at that point in time. He said that they engaged the services of Project for Public Spaces and Fred Kent worked with them over a period of meetings for the public to look at Harvard Square. He said that the meetings were advertised and neighborhood organizations were invited to send representatives to the meeting. He stated that 75 people attended the first meeting that included vigorous discussion with an outside exercise to think about what the area could be. He explained that they walked through every area around the plaza. He explained that the kiosk formed an edge to the plaza but was not central to the conversation at that point. He said that they came away from meeting with recommendations for the short-term and the long-term. He stated that, as a direct result, they put up tables and chairs in the plaza. Mr. Dash said that at the second meeting, a closer look was taken at the kiosk and spoke about the possibility of the kiosk operating in a different way. He explained that the discussion included a range of possibilities for the kiosk. Mr. Dash said that at the second and third meetings, the kiosk was also discussed and those who attended seemed excited about the idea. He noted that it was at this point that the Historical Commission engaged the Department of Public Works and other appropriate City departments, whom they asked if some infrastructure could come into the kiosk, such as water utilities and/or potential food services. He explained that the next steps looked at key recommendations going forward. He explained that they look towards an activated and exciting public realm and then began to look at the fiscal possibilities.

Mr. Sullivan gave an overview of his PowerPoint presentation describing the history and significance of the kiosk. (Attachment C). He stated that in his role as Executive Director of the Historical Commission he participated in discussion and explained that the original fabric of the kiosk must be retained. He stated that the building would be a flexible space for future uses. Mr. Sullivan explained that the design was released and became public but emphasized that this is not the final design, only a continuation and exploration of ideas of what could happen to the kiosk. He stated that he insists on having the masonry maintained and preserved. He stated that the original roof will be maintained. Mr. Sullivan added that the discussion about potential use at this site has not caught up with the discussion of the design. He stated that this scheme reflects goals at creating a flexible space that can be used for many things. He stated that his interest is in protecting landmarks and ensuring that the design of the kiosk preserves the historic fabric of the building.

Kathy Watkins gave an overview of her PowerPoint presentation (Attachment D). She spoke about additional details and ADA issues as well as the guiding principles that were discussed when looking at the both the plaza and the kiosk. She explained that in Fiscal Year 16 there was $600,000 appropriated for the design of the kiosk and plaza. She added that in Fiscal Year 17, $4 million dollars was appropriated for construction. She gave a summary of the existing Out of Town News kiosk and the concept as it relates to the historic restoration of the site. She stated that they plan on maintaining the brick on the side of building entering from the Porter Square area. She talked about the images of roofline as well as damage and structural issues that must be addressed. She stated that test pits have been done and they continue to conduct exploration. She explained that there is space under the building for utilities only. She explained that at this point they have 90% confidence in the ability to address utility needs. Ms. Watkins explained that the plaza is really not ADA accessible. She said that much time was spent looking at pedestrian movement and the grading and accessibility issues. She stated that the emphasis has been on creating the space and continuing to work on programming and how said space will be used.

Ms. Peterson asked Mr. Sullivan to talk about existing protections of the building that currently exist. Mr. Sullivan said that the kiosk has been on the National Registry since 1978 and has been placed in the Harvard Square Conservation District. He noted that a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historical Commission (which necessitates a public hearing) is required to be part of the historical district. He explained that his role is to set boundaries and protect the original fabric of the building. Mr. Sullivan added that ultimately, the final design must be approved by the Historical Commission. He stated that the Historical Commission did in fact receive a petition from OurHarvardSQ signed by residents which requires confirmation of ten registered voters. After the confirmation of ten registered voters, the Historical Commission will hold a hearing on Nov 3, 2016.

Iram Farooq stated that before the City can firm up some of the designs that have been discussed, it is important to note that it is not in the City’s competency to run an operation such as the kiosk. She explained that this would be something that another entity must operate. She noted the importance of the operator running the facility in a way that retains the City’s goal of this site being a public space. She said that all of the goals of the site need to be accommodated. She explained that in order to do that, a task force will be formed with all stakeholders to determine the vision of the site and to come up with a government structure that makes sense. She said that the vision will articulate the nature of the kiosk and a range of programming ideas. She said that it is important to find the sweet spot so that the vision and goals can be accomplished. Ms. Farooq advised that the task force must think about financial models that may be workable so that it is not a large operating cost to the City on a regular basis. She stated that there are many different versions of such a site around the world that it would be necessary to hire a consultant. She explained that the next task would be the RFP to secure consultant services with the goal that by mid-October this process could begin in order to get someone on board by the end of the year. She anticipated that it would be about 6-7 months of concentrated work before the consultant could produce guiding principles. She explained that after the RFP process, a call will be put out to community members for the task force. She noted that an 8-12-member committee is a good working committee and small enough to be manageable within a reasonable timeframe. She noted that the task force will be comprised of residents, business representatives, 2-3 subject matter experts, a member of the Planning Board and a university representative which would be 10-12 members but added that this number is flexible. She stated that the hope is that once the call is out, everyone present will think about participating and also let others know about the opportunity. She stated that the desire is to have the committee represent a wide array of people.

Public comment at 7:03pm.

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, stated that he is happy with everything that has been done to date. He said that he appreciates the notion that the space has been cluttered and will be brought out into the open. He stated that a lot of great memories all around Harvard Square but especially the noises coming from the wooden escalator as well as the fact that there were places late-night where ordinary people could drop in, such as the Tastee. He stated that he would love to have a counter where one could buy food from a menu. He said that he loved the front of Cardullo’s where people gathered around the televisions to watch the Red Sox games and gathered in a communal event. He stated that to have chairs on the plaza where you could cheer on Boston sporting events would be wonderful.

Robyn Culbertson stated that she likes the process and enjoyed the historical piece of the presentation. She stated that with potential plans, the Information Booth will be lost and she stated the need for a Welcome or Visitor Center in Harvard Square as a place of advocacy for all parts of Cambridge. She added that she would love to be a member of the task force.

James Williamson stated that he was impressed with Suzanne Blier’s presentation. He stated that he thinks there is problem in Cambridge which is reflected in the way we use the phrase “The City”. He said that it means the City administration, not the residents of the city. He stated that there is often process and decision making by “the city” which is not fully encompassing of all who live here. He stated that this is an important public space and building. He said that if we have a landmark designation procedure, he cannot think of any building in the city that deserves to be a landmark more than this building. He stated that there has been shortsightedness on how having this kiosk be landmarked would be benefit the community. He stated that he thinks it is important to get everyone in the city involved and have a broad working group look at the issues. He stated that one goal of the committee should be to involve public participation in the process. He stated that there is a whole city of engaged constituents and that these are our best consultants. He stated that the guidelines are not sufficient to protect what is important in the city. He said we need a better understanding of the word flexible. He stated that regarding the bricks on the kiosk, he said there is some confusion as to what brickwork is and is not important. He said it is important to have a landmark designation where the public is inserted into the process.

Ruth Ryals, 115 Upland Road, stated that there cannot be a better spot for an interactive area which would be a great place for people to learn of what is going within Cambridge. She said that it will also encompass the tourism aspect.

Caroline James and Adra Berkowitz gave a summary of their written communication (Attachment E). Ms. James stated that she is happy to be at this meeting. She stated that Cambridge cares a lot. She said that this caring is why the process of developing the kiosk has seemed contentious at times. She stated that she believes that if we work together and collaborate then greatness will be achieved. She stated that the way that we approach architecture is part of the holistic and looking deeply. She reviewed the main points of their written communication.

John Hawkinson stated that he understood that there was confusion about whether the current tenant did or did not want to leave. He said that this issue is relevant.

Mark Duchay, former architectural draftsman, stated that he has always been aware that Out of Town News speaks to its subway headhouse beginnings. He stated that it was always in the tradition of what Harvard Square is about. He stated that looking at the new, more pristine design concept, he does not feel that it fits in with Harvard Square and what he would like to see. He said that he would like to see something similar to the current building. He stated that he hopes the tenant will remain, even in a reconfigured building. He stated that having a visible newsstand which reminds people of the tradition of newspapers is something that should be preserved.

Dan Kontoff stated that Cambridge has the kiosk which he considers similar to the CITGO sign. He stated that it is something that we need to save. He stated that this building should be worked around in order to keep it part of the Harvard Square culture for years to come.

Ronald Benjamin stated that he is not hearing the possibility of the kiosk as a place where the community can connect. He stated that it appears that people are fragmented. He stated that it should be a place where the community can hang out. He said that it is the heart of Harvard Square and should be a place where the community can connect or re-connect.

Public comment closed at 7:30pm.

Councillor Carlone stated that the presentations were very helpful and informative. He said that we are talking about a 500 square foot space. He stated that this is a very small area and it cannot be a major gathering space, but it can be an intimate gathering space. He stated that programming is key. He said that he feels the notion that an information center for all should be a main component. He stated that the notion of maintaining and enhancing the structure is something that we all agree on. He stated that this will be a public facility, either directly or indirectly. He stated that he would be willing to support some public money coming into this as it will represent who the City is and what is going on. He said that he views this as a public facility. Councillor Carlone noted that the make-up of the task force members is something that he likes. He noted the need for diverse opinions. He stated that part of the problem in the plaza is that the MBTA entry pavilion was requested to be lowered into the ground. He said that nowadays, it would not be allowed. He stated that the design is a clean, simple and logical design that makes it usable for pedestrians and groups. He stated that he would like a subtle richness to the brick. He stated that he is thrilled that we are 90% confident in getting water to the building. Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Sullivan how long the landmark process will take. Mr. Sullivan responded that the process usually takes up to a year while the Historical Commission put together a recommendation to the City Council. He stated that the kiosk is 500 square feet and there are not many things that can work in this space that serve a larger crowd than 35 people. He indicated that it is important to understand that the scale of the kiosk will affect what happens inside.

Councillor Devereux stated that the presentations were spectacular. She stated that she is impressed with the extent of the work that was done regarding the logistics of the kiosk. She stated that she does not understand how a bathroom could be installed with all of the transparency of the kiosk. Ms. Watkins responded that none of the plans include a bathroom. She stated that the water going in and out of the kiosk could be used for potential kitchen preparation. Councilor Devereux noted that a place that is dedicated to information, communication and connection would be beneficial. She stated that she is not a fan of preserving printed material in that space. She stated that she understands the reason for the glass on the side that faces the Coop. She stated that she does not understand the LED roof illumination and she would like to see roof and lighting that is more historically oriented. She stated that the idea of using this limited space for a large screen is not something that she supports. She stated that the task force is the right approach and asked if the meetings of the task force would be public in order to allow people attend and participate. Ms. Farooq responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Kelley asked whether the tenant if the kiosk wants to stay or not. He stated that most of his experience in Harvard Square is by bike and he is trying to envision what a bright, shiny building might feel like at that location. He stated that it may be distracting and he would like it to be dull with no lights nor anything distracting and he envisions this space as relatively quiet.

Councillor Mazen stated that he agrees with Councillor Carlone who has talked about human to human engagement in the square and who has said that a central food use is the best way to create that atmosphere. He said that he can see this having a huge impact for anchoring tourism and information.

He stated his hope that the square would have longer hours. He said that he is happy to see the structural crawl space and he hopes that the water lines this allows should facilitate a food use. Ms. Watkins replied that the conversations have not focused on food use but more conversation is necessary. Councillor Carlone added that there are many restaurant-related codes and that certain types of food prep would be more difficult.

Councillor Mazen said that he envisions something closer to the form factor of a food truck. He stated that the open side of it could be a permeable membrane. He said that something like that is fair game to have information and tourism mixing around and within the building envelope in an organic way. He noted that prior public commenters described the need for a food use and the need for a use that may hawk food, present information externally, and engage people socially. He stated that a food truck or hole-in-the-wall feel would also potentially allow for certain information or sports events to be broadcast on screen, but that screens are more controversial. Councillor Mazen said that a screen would only be possible from the inside of the kiosk or food prep space, with customers and onlookers enjoying any broadcasts, the social scene, and the wares from the outside.

He stated that as it relates to the process, many people fear that task forces are mostly an opportunity for a majority on the task force to feel their way through a limited set of options. He noted that his hope is that you put great talent in with a truly open mandate, with policy makers and resident members learning from their adventure. He stated that as long as the process is catalogued and open, he cannot imagine a bad outcome. He said there should be no penalty for the openness he is describing and that selecting truly open, unbiased members for any task force is extremely difficult, but worth it.

Lisa Peterson stated that extraordinary work has been done. She said that this is an important public space. She stated that the use is not determined currently. She said that as it relates to the existing tenant, they are at will at this point on a month by month lease. She explained that they are willing to stay under those terms but the City has not asked if they will continue to stay, so the current tenant has not indicating whether they want to leave. She said that the city is committed to having an open and public task force.

Councillor Mazen stated that he heard buzz that the City expects the tenant to leave. Ms. Peterson asserted that the lease did not lapse and is currently a month by month lease. She noted that the tenants understand the terms and will be given at least six months’ notice.

Making reference to Councillor Kelley’s comments, Councillor Mazen stated that he does not want the kiosk to be dull but said that it should pay special attention to the issue Councillor Kelley brings up. It should not be a slick, overly glass facade with screens or advertisements. Instead he asserted that the kiosk described by all Councillors present seems to be one with warm, historically oriented lighting, some glass to preserve sight lines through the structure as described by Charlie Sullivan, and a vibrant public use that anchors social activity around the structure. He said that he would like to see a warm, historical, vibrant and organic kiosk.

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation.

The meeting adjourned at 7:59pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #5
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, Oct 5, 2016 beginning at 5:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the refiled petition to amend the Zoning Map in the Riverside Neighborhood from the existing Residence C-1 to Residence C within the area bounded by Franklin Street, River Street and Putnam Avenue. The most significant changes would be that the allowed Floor Area Ratio would decrease from 0.75 to 0.60, the required lot area per dwelling unit would increase from 1,500 to 1,800 square feet, and the open space requirement would increase from 30% to 36% of a lot.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Vice Mayor McGovern; Swaathi Joseph, Associate Zoning Planner, Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, Community Development Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Maggie Compher, 31 Kinnaird Street; David A. Cohen, 37 Kinnaird Street; Angela Carini, 27 Kinnaird Street; Rob Speer, 527 Franklin Street; Chris Marstall, 1 Jay Street Place; Kathleen Walcott, 169 Western Avenue; David Ring, 67 Jay Street; Mike Langlois, 67 Jay Street; Nancy Carpenter, 27 Kinnaird Street; Karen Turley, 38 Kinnaird Street; Tom Carpenter, 27 Kinnaird Street; Margo Sulmont, 24 Magazine Street; Robert MacArthur, 1035 Cambridge Street; Shelburne Thurber, 32 Hancock Street; Scott Schlissel, 27 Kinnaird Street; Velmer Brooks, 155 Western Avenue; Brad Bellows, 87 Harvard Street; Matt Murphy, 27 Kinnaird Street; Hillary Bush, 38 Kinnaird Street; and Ryan Wittig, 33 Kinnaird Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. The hearing is being audio and video recorded. He explained the format of the hearing. He stated that if one has written comments to leave a copy for inclusion into the report.

Councillor Carlone requested that the petitioners come forward. Maggie Compher and David A. Cohen presented the petition on behalf of the petitioners (ATTACHMENT A).

Ms. Compher stated that the issue is important in the Riverside area. Mr. Cohen stated that theme of the presentation is to preserve the core of Riverside. He stated that the key focus of the preservation is on open and green space. He outlined the goals to preserve the residential core open space in Riverside, preserve the core neighborhood character, reduce the loss of permeable surfaces and to maintain water drainage in the low lying Riverside neighborhood.

Mr. Cohen gave examples of projects recently built in the area that were instrumental in the petition being filed. Examples given were structures that were built at 11 Kinnaird Street, 51-53 Jay Street, 590 Franklin Street, 33 Kinnaird Street and 136-140 Banks Street as well as their sold prices. He spoke about the issues of multiple structures being built on small lots, the loss of open and green space in Riverside. He spoke about infrastructures being eroded by this construction. Mr. Cohen stated that Riverside is the densest area in the City (63 people per acre) and has experienced an increased growth of 75% since 1960, many times higher than any other neighborhood in Cambridge. There is no room for expansion in Riverside. He stated that the core area of Riverside has open space worth preserving. He highlighted the lots that are not affected, which are greater than 36%. He is looking for Riverside to be rezoned Residence C. The Community Development Department memo states that the best way to evaluate such a change would be through a holistic study of all zoning requirements, which is beyond the scope of this analysis. He stated that the Community Development Department was tasked by the Ordinance Committee to investigate alternative solutions. The memo included a possible exception option for small lots (less than 2,000 square feet in size) that could be maintained at Residence C-1.

Ms. Compher stated that this would help homeowners who want to add to their family homes because the size of the family has increased. Mr. Cohen stated that the proposed FAR changes would impact 22% of the lots. He added most of the parcels are presently non-conforming in other ways. The petition would result in the loss 26 units additional units being built or 2% of the neighborhood. He stated that the Planning Board memo regarding the Neighborhood Conservation District proposal is not a substitute for zoning. Ms. Compher stated that help is needed now to protect the neighborhood and the remaining backyard open space. There are zoning limitations to the Neighborhood Conservation District proposal.

Mr. Cohen spoke about the clarification of concerns with the proposal. Mr. Cohen stated that sustainable growth is a good goal. This petition does not exacerbate the shortage of affordable housing, since virtually all new units are a market prices. He spoke about other factors. A map was presented for the area for change. He stated that the petition is the best option. The proposal provides parity with the immediately abutting Cambridgeport zoning. He stated that open space approach is one option that is best, but there are negative issues with implementing this approach. At the conclusion of the presentation Councillor Carlone asked if this presentation was presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Cohen responded in the negative and stated that this is a newer, more informative presentation.

Councillor Carlone requested that the City Staff come forward. Mr. Roberts and Ms. Joseph came forward. Councillor Carlone stated that the Community Development Department report was a very in-depth analysis in response to the Ordinance Committee request to evaluate the petition. Mr. Roberts explained that the Planning Board will hear this petition on Oct 25th. He updated the work done. There were a number of items that required further study by the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board. These are summarized in the Community Development Department memo (ATTACHMENT B). He spoke about the Planning Board recommendation regarding the Neighborhood Conservation District approach. He stated that the Historical Commissioner relies on neighborhood support to consider this district which does not seem likely on this petition. When Riverside was reviewed previously most lots are nonconforming and exceed the allowed density in the zoning district and if the zone is changed it would exceed the limits of the Residence C district. He stated that most lots in Cambridgeport are non-conforming within the Residence C district. He stated that the degree of non-conformity in Cambridgeport is not as high as the degree of non-conformity as those in Riverside. He stated that over half of the units in Cambridgeport exceeds the dwelling unit density and 70% exceed the FAR limitations. He stated that the conclusion is that while there is a similar issue Riverside is built to a higher density than Cambridgeport.

Mr. Roberts stated that this committee suggested Community Development look at the zoning boundaries. He stated that the entire C-1 neighborhood was broken down into individual blocks and for each block the average build out density was reviewed by FAR in terms of dwelling units and found that there is some variation throughout the neighborhood. The central core of the neighborhood around Kinnaird, Jay and Howard Streets tend to be lower density but still around the level of Residence C-1. There could potentially be a different boundary line, which would mean a zoning change would have a reduced neighborhood impact.

He spoke about both the unit density and open space approaches. This would take specific parts of the proposed petition and just adopt the lot dwelling unit limitation which would limit the units that could be built on lot while keeping the amount of FAR that could be built constant, or taking the Residence C requirements for open space and require a higher percentage of open space on a lot but keep the allowed building density the same. He spoke about the 2 approaches. In 1999 there was a significant change to Residence C-1 requirements across the entire city, through the backyard rezoning. It took the approach that the allowed FAR in the C-l districts would remain the same but the lot area dwelling unit would be increased and the open space requirement would increase. This was to limit the infill dwelling units or infill development unit in these residential districts. He stated that the two approaches are the most useful.

Mr. Roberts stated that the setback approach and the multiple structure approach is a more form based approach to limiting rear yard infill development. These can get more complicated. The setback approach is tricky because of the complicated set back requirements in all residential zoning districts. He stated that there is a diagram on page eight of the memo. He stated that there is a building envelope that pushes back from both the front and back of the lot. He stated that expanding from the rear of the lot tends to be one of the more conforming ways to do this.

Mr. Roberts added that the City could look at the setback requirement to see if they could be adjusted to make addition development work in a way that is more consistent with the prevailing pattern of development in the neighborhood could be looked at. He stated that changing any one specific requirement in the zoning could be hard to predict the ripple effect if one aspect of the zoning is changed. He stated that the zoning requirements need to be looked at as a whole to understand what a home owner or developer is allowed to do. He stated that the multiple structure approach would be similar but there would be more restrictions in a rear multiple buildings proposed. This may be more restrictive in the rear and more alterations could be made to the front of the lot which may have negative effects. This could result in large single structures built. The Planning Board must approve multiple dwellings on a lot in a Residence B district. In summary, Mr. Roberts stated that these different approaches could be creatively combining for a solution.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the Planning Board will comment on the four possibilities highlighted in the Community Development Department memo. He stated that 70-80% of the residences become non-conforming if the zoning is changed. What does this mean to someone in a non-conforming house and they want to do something to their property? Mr. Roberts stated that the way zoning works is an existing building legally built and following rules in place when built has a legal protection and has legal non-conforming status. This means that the property can continue to be used as originally built, but any new addition must conform with zoning. Any alterations seeking to expand the building in size would not be allowed, but the property owner could seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeal by showing that there is a hardship that is not typical of other lots in the district. This hardship justifies relief from the zoning requirement. This process plays out often in Cambridge. When zoning becomes more restrictive it does not stop alterations to one's property. The Board of Zoning Appeal becomes the arbitrator.

Councillor Devereux asked about a large number of non-conforming properties in Riverside that became non-conforming with the backyard zoning was passed in 1997. She stated that the demonstration of hardship is easily defined. Her observation is that Community Development Department would not have embarked on this if it was not for the petition. She wanted to know if the staff was thinking about this independently as it relates to permeability and flooding. Accessory dwelling units would not be affected by the zoning but she is unsure of that. She spoke making it less restrictive for lots under 2,000 square feet and the City memo breaks the lots down by 1,500 and 3,000 square feet. Mr. Roberts stated that infill development has been an issue in many neighborhoods and it has been a concern. There are lots that can expand. Zoning is always an effort to find the proper balance of what the zoning is, what is allowed and what the preferred pattern of development is on the lots, while not being restrictive and protecting property owners from over development.

Mr. Roberts said the neighborhood’s permeability has been an issue for a long time and related zoning requirements have been part of the zoning for a long time. This is looked at in large development areas in an effort to create more permeable area. The Climate Vulnerability Assessment looked at this area and Riverside will have increased vulnerability to flooding in the future. He stated that the city is not at the level of implementing recommendations into neighborhood level zoning. Lot sizes of specifically 2,000 square foot is something the staff has not had a chance to study as of yet.

Councillor Carlone asked how zoning changes to Residence B districts to preserve back yards has worked out? Mr. Roberts stated that there are a number of cases before the Planning Board that have been reviewed and require a special permit based on criteria that basically assesses whether a proposed development with two structures on a lot is more in character with the neighborhood than development that would be as of right in a single structure, which in Residence B could be attached townhouses. If a lot is large enough to build two dwelling units there is a development option of building two separate dwelling units or two attached townhouses. The Planning Board has denied the special permit because the second structure proposed was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In Residence B for a lot larger than 5,000 square feet the allowed development would be a two family structure of 2,500 square feet is allowed and if the lot doubled in size only one additional unit would be allowed to be built. Councillor Carlone asked if the lot could be pro-rated down for the lots in Riverside?

Mr. Roberts stated that this could be looked at and this is what the petitioners are suggesting. Councillor Carlone stated that setback formula can be somewhat complicated, but a more appropriate minimum rear yard setback requirement is very simple.

Councillor Carlone summarized his thoughts on the petition. He reminded everyone that Cambridge is already the 8th densest city in the country and Riverside is, by far, the densest neighborhood in Cambridge, which makes this neighborhood one of the densest in the United States. The petition is basically asking do we need to increase this neighborhood high density further or do we preserve the little backyard open space that remains? Given the planned addition of over 6,000 units in other developing areas (North Point, Kendall Square and Alewife), do we really believe that the loss of 26 units in Riverside is going to have a meaningful impact on Cambridge’s housing count. Given climate change and existing soil conditions, any logical planning/urban design study of the neighborhood would go well beyond just recommending preservation of permeable open space by proposing open space expansion.

Public comment opened at 6:30pm.

Angela Carini, 27 Kinnaird Street, supported the change in the zoning petition. She is a homeowner in Cambridge and wants the green space preserved and supported the residential neighbors who want to alter their homes through variances and to protect the larger lots.

Rob Speers, 527 Franklin Street, stated that he is a ten year renter in Riverside. It is harder every day to own property. He spoke about his friends that own a condo and wanted to build a shed and the neighbors complained. He stated that the zoning law pits neighbor against neighbor. He spoke about the living space shortage being exacerbated. All are fortunate to live in Cambridge and this resource should not be hoarded by land owners. He added that rents in Cambridge are high and are getting higher. He supported green space that all can share but this proposal is about open space on private property. He requested that the City not make zoning laws more restrictive.

Chris Marstall, 1 Jay Street Place, explained how this petition impacted him. He tried to create more space in his home due to his family increasing. Under Residence C-1 it would allow them to add 200 square feet to his home, which is a room. He stated that in Residence C he would not be able to add additional area. He wanted to build dormers and he would have to seek a variance. As part of the 22% affected by the petition - he would like to expand up to 1200 square feet without a variance requirement. The appeal of going to Residence C was its simplicity.

David Ring, 67 Jay Street, supported the petition to downzone the neighborhood. As someone who expanded their house and had to get a variance he stated that the variance process was simple and they are generally approved unless there is a lot of neighborhood opposition. He spoke about loss of open space. His house flooded and he had to rebuild the foundation and had to put in French drains and installed a leaching field and during the rainy season the yard is flooded with water. He stated that the loss of open space impacts all. He spoke about implementation of the zoning and having it fair and the goals achieved. He stated that lowering the FAR is the best way to achieve what the petitioners are seeking.

Nancy Carpenter, 27 Kinnaird Street, supported the petition. She spoke about the speed of the back yard infill, the impact and the fact that the neighborhood has no handle on this. She spoke about green and open space and the permeability. She wanted her neighbors to be protected to be able to build correctly.

Karen Turley, 38 Kinnaird Street, supported the petition. She stated that twenty years ago the Head of the Charles was cancelled because of the amount of rain that fell and her house flooded (her neighbor had his sump pump empty next to her foundation). She spoke about her neighbors applied for a variance to provide light and to expand. The condo association had to do a lot of work with the Planning Board to reduce the variance down. She spoke about snow and the big property owners plow their driveway and dump the snow into the street.

Tom Carpenter, 27 Kinnaird Street, supported the petition because there is no room in Riverside. A 1,000 square foot house was moved to the front of the lot and four units were added behind this house. He spoke about what is considered affordable housing in Riverside; is it based on the prices that are very high. He supports the zoning petition.

Margo Sulmont, 24 Magazine Street, spoke about her concern on the petition. She is in opposition to the proposal. She was opposed to restricting residential development in the City. These zoning policies make it difficult to stay in Cambridge.

Shelburne Thurber, 32 Hancock Street, stated that she is in favor of the downzoning. She is concerned with the loss of green space as it affects permeability. She and her neighbors have been flooded many time. She stated that Riverside is too dense and she wanted it zoned like all the other neighborhoods in Cambridge.

Scott Schlissel, 27 Kinnaird Street, supported the petition and asked what type of city people want. This is a reasonable approach to deal with the balance of zoning, open space, permeability, water and drainage issues and the balancing of all these issues.

Velmer Brooks, 155 Western Avenue, stated that Riverside has changed drastically. She supported the downzoning.

Brad Bellows, 87 Howard Street, stated that he has raised three children in Riverside and now lives in a small single house that is non-conforming. He is a skeptic about the proposal. Density, proximate to public transportation and the Mass. Pike are the positive issues of Riverside. He stated that the non-conformity works for the benefit of the neighborhood. He stated that the issue of flooding is real but the ground is full of clay which the water cannot penetrate. The city does need to address where the water goes and cutting back construction will not significantly help. He stated that the FAR although simple will impact a lot of people. He does not support the proposal in its current form.

Hilary Bush, 38 Kinnaird Street, supported the petition.

Matt Murphy, 27 Kinnaird Street, spoke about the permeability issue and if a hurricane hits he will experience flooding. Big storms will be more frequent. He spoke about green space and habitability and that Riverside should not be required to become denser.

Ryan Wittig, 33 Kinnaird Street, owns a 1,000 square foot single home and the lot is challenging because it is narrow. He spoke about his experience applying for a variance and his neighbors were against this. He was requesting front and side setbacks and his variance was rejected. If this downzoning is passed it would only be approved as a single family home and would be out of compliance with the zoning and would require a variance. The downzoning is too broad a brush. He is opposed to a complete zoning but would consider refining the zoning. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT C).

At 7:03pm Councillor Carlone closed public comment.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he thinks that density is a good thing and all types of housing is needed. When an up-zoning comes in and the room is full of people in opposition with too much development and the same situation occurs with downzoning. He commented that this should not be this polarizing. Density does work in some places. This is the densest area in the city and about filling in backyards with additional structures. He wished these conversation were not polarizing. He spoke about the variance process. He supported the petitioners. He hopes that those who apply for a variance to increase their living space because their family is increasing that the neighbors support them. He stated that allowing more density in this neighborhood does not make sense. This needs more work and he awaits seeing the report from the Planning Board. He stated that we should be careful about density and should limit the density in this area.

Councillor Devereux stated that the Ordinance Committee is a committee of the whole but there are only three voices here today. She is wrestling with the density issue. She spoke about the issue of the variances and the process. She stated that one of the options is to do nothing. The backyard zoning in 1997 was a very different era and it is not a comparable era. If nothing was done and if lots are owned in the petition area were developed to the maximum of the current zoning how much open space would be left; could this be looked at? The 26 units are not going to be affordable housing. Riverside will not be affordable, but it is located in a central area. She spoke about the calculation for open space and the permeable spaces. She asked about parking in the area. Mr. Roberts stated that open space under zoning does not include parking and driveways. As property is altered or developed parking is required. She does not think she can support the petition in its current form. She wanted the Community Development Department to continue to review this and suggested relaxing the parking requirements. How would this affect the accessory dwelling unit as a way to get more housing? Does this downzoning have a detrimental effect on accessory dwelling units?

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that in Alewife, on a flood plain, near transportation and retail there cannot have more density but Riverside is in the same situation. The City Council has protected certain neighborhoods in terms of density, but it is fine to put more density in Riverside and Cambridgeport. All density goes into Central Square and when tried to add density to other neighborhoods there is resistance. The Riverside area gets flooded. He spoke about fairness and spreading the density around.

Councillor Carlone stated that this can be looked at many ways. He stated that the e-mails received are 3/4 against and 1/4 in support of the petition. This is a dense community and Cambridge is the 6th dense community in the country. He asked what happens when a $1 million unit is built in your neighbor’s back yard and then you decide to build neighbors a similar unit in your backyard? So we have two new units blocking each other’s view of a missing yard. The value of the $1 million house will go down significantly. He spoke about 9,000 units are in process or completed since 2012. He stated that since the area has dramatic flooding and open space issues perhaps existing should be altered to better reflect those issues.

He thanked all who attended tonight and was grateful for the excellent discussion. It clearly is an open space and rear yard setback focus.

Councillor Carlone stated that this needs to remain in committee pending the report from the Planning Board. He stated that there are issues that need to be addressed.

Councillor Carlone stated that numerous e-mails were received and would be made part of the Committee Report as follows:
Communication from Jeff Byrnes in opposition to the downzoning of Riverside (ATTACHMENT D).
Communication from Brendan Hickey in opposition to downzoning his neighborhood (ATTACHMENT E).
Communication from Starchild stating that this zoning would be a big mistake (ATTACHMENT F).
Communication from Justin Montgomery regarding the Planning Board's decisions to reintroduce a plan for downzoning in the Riverside area (ATTACHMENT G).
Communication from Camilla Elvis stating that it is important to preserve the neighborhood character but efforts to limit density are misguided (ATTACHMENT H).
Communication from Herbert Murray, 204 Erie Street, stated that it is possible to maintain and enhance the densities necessary to provide for more housing while at the same time honoring the issues of scale, historic fabric and open space (ATTACHMENT I).
Communication from Estelle Discharge, 528 Franklin Street, supporting the rezoning of Riverside (ATTACHMENT J).
Communication from Nell Beram and Joe Klompus, 70 Putnam Avenue, supporting the Riverside rezoning petition (ATTACHMENT K).
Communication from Lee Montgomery, 108 1/2 Kinnaird Street, supporting the Riverside rezoning petition (ATTACHMENT L).
Communication from Amy Markham, 55 Magee Street, in opposition to the rezoning petition for Riverside (ATTACHMENT M).
Communication from Parker Heckner, 105 Norfolk Street, in opposition to the reasoning petition for Riverside (ATTACHMENT N).
Communication from Bob and Mary Woodbury, 133 River Street, urging that the Riverside petition be voted down (ATTACHMENT O).
Communication from Zachary Baum, 3 Franklin Place, in opposition to the Riverside downzoning petition (ATTACHMENT P).
Communication from Martin Elvis, 28 Linnaean Street, in opposition to the Riverside downzoning petition (ATTACHMENT Q).
Communication from Sarah Hill, 595 Franklin Street, in support of the Riverside petition to create a more aggressive green space requirement (ATTACHMENT R).
Communication from Jesse Kanson-Benanav, President, A Better Cambridge, in opposition to the Riverside petition (ATTACHMENT S).

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:25pm on motion of Vice Mayor McGovern.

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