CITY MANAGER’S AGENDA
1. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the Coolidge Place Land Disposition Report, pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code.
Orders Adopted

Agenda Item No. 1A     Nov 23, 2015
WHEREAS: Section 2.110.010(G) of the Cambridge Municipal Code allows for the City Manager to request of the City Council a diminution of the full process otherwise required by the ordinance for "disposition of city property that is of such little significance that the [full] process would be unduly burdensome"; and
WHEREAS: The Ordinance requires, inter alia, two independently prepared impartial appraisals of City owned property to be disposed of, and further requires that the Planning Board hold a hearing not sooner than two weeks after receipt of a report on the proposed disposition from the City Manager; and
WHEREAS: The City Manager has recommend that the City Council approve diminution of the above two requirements in the City's Disposition Ordinance, as permitted in Section 2.110.010 (G): given the limited value of the property and the end of the year schedules, he is requesting approval of the use of a single independently prepared impartial appraisal of the Property and approval of the Planning Board's receipt of the City Manager's report less than 14 days in advance of their hearing. All other requirements of the ordinance have been met; and
WHEREAS: Limiting the scope of review for the requested disposition would be consistent with the expressed objective of the procedure required by the Chapter: to render "a fair analysis of how the greatest public benefit can be obtained from the City property in question"; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That pursuant to Section 2.110.010(g) of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the City Council by a two-thirds affirmative vote hereby orders that the City Council shall utilize a diminished process for the disposition of 1,042 square feet of City owned land known as Coolidge Place to Normandy Real Estate Partners and Twining Properties.

Agenda Item No. 1B     Nov 23, 2015
WHEREAS: The City Council on Sept 21, 2015 declared available for disposition approximately 1,042 square feet of City owned land known as Coolidge Place, which is an eight foot (8') wide public way that connects the City owned Municipal Parking Lot Number 6 on Bishop Allen Drive to Massachusetts Avenue (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS: The City Council action followed receipt of a letter to the City Manager dated Sept 17, 2015 from Normandy Real Estate Partners and Twining Properties ("Normandy/Twining"), which controls land adjacent to the Property, indicating its desire to acquire the Property in order to facilitate the development of a 200,000+ square foot residential project with ground floor retail in a new multi-family residential building that will include a minimum of 17% housing units affordable to low and moderate income families and 3% middle income units, to be constructed on land that includes the City Property in combination with adjacent land controlled by Twining/Normandy (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS: Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B ("Chapter 30B") requires that when land owned by a public entity is disposed of, a Request for Proposals must first be advertised and issued. The City issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") that was duly advertised and which publicly solicited proposals from any interested buyer to acquire the Property, and the City received one proposal, from Normandy/Twining (the "Proposal"); and
WHEREAS: An Evaluation Committee convened at the City Manager's direction reviewed and evaluated the Proposal according to the price offered and the other evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, and recommended that the City Manager find the Proposal to be a responsive and responsible proposal and advantageous to the City and that he submit a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the disposition of the Property to Normandy/Twining; and
WHEREAS: The City Manager reviewed an independent, confidential appraisal for the Property that was obtained by the City Solicitor to determine the value of the Property to a prospective buyer, and found the offered price of three hundred twenty five thousand dollars ($325,000), together with the cost of up to three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for the construction of drain and sewer force mains, and the construction of and conveyance to the City in fee and easements acceptable to the City of two Pedestrian Pathway Connections as well as the other conditions set forth in the RFP, to be within an acceptable range, and further found that the amount offered is a responsive and responsible offer that appropriately reflects the value of the Property and is advantageous to the City; and
WHEREAS: In addition to Chapter 30B, Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the "Disposition Ordinance") requires that the City Manager prepare a report to be submitted to the City Council, Planning Board and City Clerk for public dissemination, providing information on a specific set of considerations in connection with the evaluation of any proposal to dispose of City-owned property; and
WHEREAS: Pursuant to the Disposition Ordinance, which requires at least one community meeting to be held in connection with the evaluation process and the preparation of the City Manager's Disposition Report, a community meeting was held on Oct 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS: Pursuant to Chapter 30B and the Disposition Ordinance, the City Manager's Disposition Report provided an analysis of alternative uses for the Property, potential public and/or private uses of the Property and the potential public benefits relative thereto, the current and proposed uses of the Property, the existing zoning status and requirements of the Property, the development potential of the Property, the potential discontinuance of Coolidge Place as a public way, the traffic and parking and other impacts of the proposed disposition and subsequent development on the neighborhood and the City as a whole, and noted in his report that the new residential building Project described in the Normandy/Twining proposal would be subject to review by the Planning Board in accordance with the Project Review Special Permit requirements of Article 19.000 of the Zoning Ordinance, including consideration of urban design and traffic impacts of the proposed Project in detail; and
WHEREAS: The City Manager forwarded the Proposal to the City Council together with his Disposition Report on Nov 23, 2015 and made a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the disposition of the Property; and
WHEREAS: The proposed disposition will be contingent on Normandy/Twining constructing approximately two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet of residential space and ten thousand (10,000) square feet of ground floor retail space in a new multifamily residential building to be constructed on land that includes the City Property in combination with adjacent land controlled by Normandy/Twining and providing two hundred and thirty-two (232) housing units which will include a minimum of 17% affordable units for low and moderate income households meeting the requirements of Section 11.200 of the Zoning Ordinance and 3% middle income units (as defined in Section 20.307 of the Zoning Ordinance), all in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Mass and Main Residential Mixed Income Subdistrict of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS: The proposed disposition will also be contingent upon Normandy/Twining undertaking the following infrastructure improvements concurrently with the construction of the Project: (1) design and construct two (2) pedestrian pathway connections between Massachusetts Avenue and the City owned Municipal Parking Lot 6 ("Lot 6") as shown on Exhibits C-1 and C-2 attached to the Proposal and as further described in the Proposal (the "Pedestrian Pathway Connections"), at Normandy/Twining's sole cost and expense, each such connection to be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide on property to be conveyed in fee and/or easement to the City on terms acceptable to the City; (2) construct and install drain and sewer force mains under and within the boundaries of one or both of the Pedestrian Pathway Connections in locations determined by the City in cooperation with Normandy/Twining that will support the City's construction of stormwater management tanks in Lot 6 and Clement Morgan Park, pursuant to plans to be developed by the Cambridge Department of Public Works (DPW") in cooperation with Normandy/Twining, and on such further terms and conditions set forth in the Proposal; assume all costs associated with the construction and installation of the drain and sewer force mains up to a maximum cost of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000); relinquish its rights under certain easements over Lot 6 and other easements over City property in exchange for the establishment by the City of a general access easement on terms and in a location to be determined by the City; and be responsible for all soil disposal and any associated environmental contamination or remediation required as a consequence of any construction that takes place on the City Property; and
WHEREAS: The Planning Board held a public hearing to consider this report on Nov 17, 2015 and submitted a positive recommendation for the disposition of the Property to the City Council; and
WHEREAS: The City Council held a public hearing prior to final action, on Nov 23, 2015; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has determined that the conveyance of the Property to Normandy/Twining for the purpose of constructing the above described multifamily residential building Project on land that includes the City Property in combination with adjacent land controlled by Normandy/Twining together with all of the benefits outlined above would not derogate from the public interest or the public purposes for the areas now in question; and
WHEREAS: The disposition may be approved on a two-thirds affirmative vote of the City Council; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council, pursuant to Sec. 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, and other applicable laws, hereby authorizes the City Manager to convey, on behalf of the City of Cambridge, 1,042 square feet of City owned land known as Coolidge Place to Normandy Real Estate Partners and Twining Properties, and to execute and deliver a deed conveying said Property to be disposed of in such form and substance as the City Manager determines is necessary or advisable.

Agenda Item No. 1C     Nov 23, 2015
WHEREAS: By Section 21 of Chapter 82 of the General Laws, as amended, it is provided that the Cambridge City Council may discontinue a public way; and
WHEREAS: The City Manager of Cambridge and the City Council, in order to provide and promote public health, well-being and safety, have approved and authorized that the City should, under the provisions of the aforesaid Chapter of the General Laws, discontinue Coolidge Place, a public way between the City-owned Parking Lot 6 and Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA in order to facilitate the disposition of the parcel that comprises Coolidge Place and subsequent development of a 200,000+ square foot residential project with ground floor retail in a new multi-family residential building to be constructed on land that includes Coolidge Place in combination with adjacent land controlled by the purchaser of Coolidge Place; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That by virtue of and in pursuance of the authority conferred by said Chapters of the General Laws and by every other power and authority it thereto enabling, the City of Cambridge by its City Council does hereby authorize the discontinuance of Coolidge Place as hereinafter described at such time as the City Manager determines following review and approval of the discontinuance by affected City departments:

A parcel of land situated in the City of Cambridge, Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts being more particularly bounded and described as follows:

Beginning at a point in the northeasterly line of Massachusetts Avenue, said point being distant one hundred (100.0) feet southeasterly from the southeasterly line of Douglass Street:

Thence northeasterly by the southeasterly line of Coolidge Place, one hundred thirty and two tenths (130.2) feet to a point;

Thence northeasterly eight (8.0) feet to a point;

Thence southwesterly one hundred thirty and two tenths (130.2) feet to a point in the northeasterly line of Massachusetts Avenue;

Thence southeasterly by Massachusetts Avenue eight (8.0) feet to the point of beginning.

The above described parcel contains an area of 1,042 plus or minus square feet (1,042 ± sq. ft.), and is more particularly shown on a plan entitled: "Plan of Land in Cambridge, Mass., part of Nos.-1-2-3-4 Coolidge Pl. Lot F", scale 1" = 20', dated June 18, 1957, prepared by: Edward Smith, City Engineer, 147 Hampshire Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and be it further
ORDERED: The discontinuance of Coolidge Place, Cambridge, MA, as described herein is hereby authorized in accordance with General Laws, Chapter 82, Section 21, as amended.

Said land is described above.

5. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the purchase of the premises numbered 0 Winter Street, Assessor's parcel #165-21-1, in the Town of Lincoln ("the Property") consisting of 54.35 acres of undeveloped land for the purposes of protecting the City's drinking water supply and for land conservation.
Orders Adopted

Nov 23, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

The City of Cambridge has the opportunity to purchase from Jean Stankard, Lucy Cotoia, and Josephine K. Shaw as they are Trustees of Jerodel Realty Trust the premises numbered 0 Winter Street, Assessor's parcel #165-21-1, in the Town of Lincoln ("the Property") consisting of 54.35 acres of undeveloped land for the purposes of protecting the City's drinking water supply and for land conservation. The Lincoln Rural Land Foundation and the Town of Lincoln through its Conservation Commission are proposing to participate in this acquisition with the City. Of the $325,000 appraised value of the Property, the current owners are donating funds toward the purchase price and the Town of Lincoln is contributing funds so that the City will pay only $75,000 for the fee interest in the Property. The City's payment will be made from funds previously appropriated to the Cambridge Water Department for such purposes. As a condition of the contributions by the current owners and the Town of Lincoln, the Property will be permanently protected by a conservation restriction as provided by G.L.c.184, §§31-33.

The Cambridge Water Board voted unanimously on Sept 9, 2015 to recommend that the City purchase the Property for purposes of water supply protection and conservation. A copy of the Water Board's vote is attached.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, after hearing, approved on Sept 16, 2015 the City's acquisition of the Property for water supply protection and conservation purposes. A copy of the DEP's approval letter is attached.

I recommend that the City Council vote to diminish the process pursuant to Cambridge City Code §2.110.010(g) for the disposition of the property interest to be granted by the City through the conservation restriction to the Lincoln Conservation Commission. I recommend that the City Council vote to grant the permanent conservation restriction for the purpose of protecting the Property from development and from other uses that might be detrimental to the City's water supply, and that the City Council authorize the City Manager to purchase the Property on behalf of the City of Cambridge for water supply protection and conservation purposes from previously appropriated funds, and to execute any and all necessary documents on behalf of the City to effectuate this purchase in such form and substance as the City Manager determines is necessary or advisable. A copy of the draft conservation restriction to be granted by the City (after it obtains title to the property) to the Lincoln Conservation Commission is attached.

A copy of a plan showing the location of the parcel is also attached.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

Agenda Item No. 5A     Nov 23, 2015
WHEREAS: Section 2.110.010(G) of the Cambridge Municipal Code allows for the City Manager to request of the City Council a diminution of the full process otherwise required by the ordinance for "disposition of city property that is of such little significance that the [full] process would be unduly burdensome"; and
WHEREAS: Limiting the scope of review for the requested disposition would be consistent with the expressed objective of the procedure required by the Chapter: to render "a fair analysis of how the greatest public benefit can be obtained from the City property in question"; now therefore be it
ORDERED: Pursuant to Section 2.110.010(g) of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the City Council by a two-thirds vote hereby orders that the City Council shall utilize a diminished process for the disposition of a Conservation Restriction to the Lincoln Conservation Commission that will protect approximately 54.35 acres of land in the City's watershed to be acquired by the City in the Town of Lincoln located at 0 Winter Street (Lincoln Assessors' parcel #165-21-1).

Agenda Item No. 5B     Nov 23, 2015
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge desires to purchase from Jean Stankard, Lucy Cotoia, and Josephine K. Shaw as they are Trustees of Jerodel Realty Trust the premises numbered 0 Winter Street, Assessor's parcel #165-21-1, in the Town of Lincoln ("the Property") consisting of 54.35 acres of undeveloped land for the purposes of drinking water supply protection and land conservation; and
WHEREAS: Of the $325,000 appraised value of the Property, the current owners are donating funds toward the purchase price and the Town of Lincoln is contributing funds so that the City will pay $75,000 for the fee interest in the Property; the City's payment will be made from funds previously appropriated to the Cambridge Water Department for such purposes; and as a condition of the contributions by the current owners and the Town of Lincoln, the Property must be permanently protected by a conservation restriction as provided by G.L.c.184, §§31-33; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Water Board voted unanimously on Sept 9, 2015 to recommend that the City purchase the Property for purposes of water supply protection and conservation; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, after hearing, approved on Sept 16, 2015 the City's acquisition of the Property for water supply protection and conservation purposes; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has determined that the granting of a permanent conservation restriction for the purpose of protecting the Property from development and from other uses that might be detrimental to the City's water supply is in the public interest and for public purposes; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to purchase the Property on behalf of the City of Cambridge for water supply protection and conservation purposes from previously appropriated funds, and to execute any and all necessary documents on behalf of the City to effectuate this purchase in such form and substance as the City Manager determines is necessary or advisable; and
ORDERED: That the City Council, pursuant to Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, and other applicable laws, hereby authorizes the City Manager to grant, on behalf of the City of Cambridge, a permanent conservation restriction to the Lincoln Conservation Commission as provided by G.L.c.184, §§31-33 for the purposes of water supply protection and conservation, and to execute and deliver such conservation restriction in substantially the form attached hereto or in such similar form and substance as the City Manager determines is necessary or advisable.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Nov 23, 2015  Amended
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Affordable housing in Cambridge is an area of great concern for the city; and
WHEREAS: As we embark on the Citywide Master Plan it is important to make sure that affordable housing remains a primary focus; now therefore be it and
WHEREAS: The Housing Committee has been rigorously working throughout this term to begin creating the framework of a comprehensive housing plan, and this work should form the basis of the City's planning going into the next term; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on the feasibility of making a comprehensive housing plan an early action item of the pending citywide planning process.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to make available the staffing and resources necessary to enable the fleshing out and implementation of a comprehensive housing plan as part of an early action item of the pending citywide planning process; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner.

O-3     Nov 23, 2015
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: Graduate employees are an integral part of the success of Harvard University in that their research and teaching is essential to the function of the university bringing roughly $819 million in grants and contract to the University each year; and
WHEREAS: Despite their dedication to their institution, they are met with job insecurity, late payments, termination without just cause, lack of dental coverage, lack of access to affordable childcare, and arbitrary scheduling; and
WHEREAS: In order to address these issues, graduate employees at Harvard are organizing for union representation with the Harvard Graduate Student Union - UAW; and
WHEREAS: Graduate workers at public institutions of higher education in Massachusetts have had the right to bargain legally recognized for years but graduate employees at private universities do not have their rights enforced by law; and
WHEREAS: The Harvard Graduate Student Union - UAW has reached out for support in urging the Harvard administration to recognize the right of graduate employees to collectively bargain; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record supporting the efforts of the Harvard Graduate Student Union and urging the Harvard administration to commit to refrain from legal or other action that would delay graduate employees' right to choose collective bargaining, to refrain from efforts to influence research assistants and teaching assistants in their decision to vote on HGSU-UAW, and to commit to commence good-faith negotiations for a contract immediately upon confirmation of a majority vote by research assistants and teaching assistance in favor of HGSU-UAW as their union.

O-7     Nov 23, 2015
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It has been a longstanding position that the City of Cambridge would seek opportunities to relocate the Public Works Department Facilities to the Alewife area; and
WHEREAS: The relocation of DPW operation would create Open Space opportunities in the Wellington Harrington neighborhood, one of the most densely populated in the City; and
WHEREAS: The Alewife area will be the first area examined in the Master Planning process; and
WHEREAS: Increasing land costs complicate a potential relocation within the City; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager of Community Development with the vision of including within the Master Plan and Alewife Study a plan for the relocation of the DPW facilities and to report back to the City Council.

O-14     Nov 23, 2015
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: The right to vote is of fundamental importance to the formation and continuation of American government, and is the cornerstone of our democracy; and
WHEREAS: Voter turnout in previous elections is low, with 36.6% of eligible voters nationwide casting ballots in the 2014 General Election, and roughly 18% of Cambridge residents casting a vote in the 2015 municipal election; and
WHEREAS: Increasing voter turnout will ensure a government that better represents the voters; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts General Court pursuant to Chapter 111, (Section 12) of the Acts of 2014, has provided for 11 days of early voting, beginning with the 2016 election; and
WHEREAS: Within that eleven day period municipalities are only required to keep open one polling location by law, but can make the choice to open additional locations; and
WHEREAS: Common Cause Massachusetts, the state chapter of a national citizen advocacy group, recommend opening at least 1 polling place per 35,000 voters in their report "Early Voting: What Other States Can Teach Massachusetts;" and
WHEREAS: The United States Presidential Commission on Election Administration has stated, "[early voting] must be administered in an equitable manner so all voters can have equal opportunity to vote.;" and
WHEREAS: Evenings and weekends will be the most convenient time for a large number of Cantabrigians - such as low-income workers, full-time employees, and parents with young children - to vote; and
WHEREAS: The Common Cause report has estimated the additional cost of operating early voting locations at only "$362.84 per location per full day;" now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to coordinate with the Election Commission in order to operate at least 5 early polling locations, for the entire day, for the entirety of the 11 day early voting period and that the City Manager and Election Commission confer further as to the feasibility of operating a greater number of early polling locations, and issue a report detailing their findings; and be it further
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is requested to coordinate with the appropriate departments to develop and launch an awareness campaign that will educate Cambridge residents about early voting opportunities and procedures; and be it further
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is requested to coordinate with the Election Commission to operate the polling locations as non-precinct based, "Vote Centers", thereby allowing anyone desiring to vote early to do so at the center most convenient for them; and be it further
ORDERED: The City Manager be and hereby is requested to coordinate with the Election Commission to make every attempt to accomplish this goal in time for the 2016 election; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:41pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss Sustainable Transportation and the Cambridge Bike Plan. http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Transportation/bikesincambridge/bicyclenetworkplan

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone, Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Susanne Rasmussen, Director, Environment and Transportation Planning, CDD; Cara Seiderman, Transportation Planner, Environmental and Transportation Planning Division, CDD; Jennifer Lawrence, Sustainability Planner, CDD; Joseph Barr, Director, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Joseph Wilson, Superintendent of Police; Jack Albert, Deputy Superintendent of Police; Rick Riley, Traffic Unit, Police Department; Matt Nelson, Police Department; Owen O'Riordan, Public Works Commissioner; Kathy Watkins, City Engineer; Nick Jackson, Vice President, Tooledesign Consultant Group; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Anne Lusk, 18 Hart Street, Brookline; Jan Devereux, 255 Lakeview Avenue; Ruthann Rudel, 205 Rindge Avenue; Owen Rence; Nicholas Scherer; Ian Klepener, 166A Elm Street; Steven Bercu, 132 Fayerweather Street; Debby Galef, 93 Hammond Street; Megan Ramey, 28 Vineyard Street; John Sanzone, 540 Memorial Drive; Elizabeth Bierer, 5 Follen Street; John Goodman, 8 Fairmont Avenue; Chris Summerfield, 153 Lexington Avenue; Allison Quach, 2552 Massachusetts Avenue; Michael Hudson, Howard Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; and Mark Stewart.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the Bike Plan was put on the website and that the report is very well written. He stated that he has looked forward to this presentation for some time. There will be a pedestrian plan meeting in the future. This meeting is being privately recorded. He outlined the agenda for the meeting (ATTACHMENT A). A presentation will be given by the Community Development Department staff, then public comment and the City Council comments.

Cara Seiderman presented the Bike Plan and stated that the City Council has also adopted goals relating to the policies. Ms. Seiderman states several benefits to biking including that it is more efficient than walking and provides health benefits. Children who walk or bike to school do better in school and are healthier. There are economic benefits for sustainable transportation; more money is spent at local businesses. Cycling is also more affordable at all income levels. She stated that most people want to ride. She spoke about the comfort of cyclist as it relates to biking facilities. Cambridge is among the highest rates of people walking and cycling. She spoke about the vision, goals and targets of the Bike Plan. She highlighted the goals. There are detailed targets that measure how the City is doing. She stated that there have been years with zero fatalities. She spoke about the data that is collected by the City. She noted that even minor crashes are recorded. Bike crash rates have decreased in Cambridge. She spoke about the bike parking program, the Hubway program, markings, outreach and education. She noted that seven schools participate in the Safe Routes to School. She explained how the Bike Plan was developed which included community involvement and a community survey. More cyclists feel safer in separated bike facilities. The more protected facility the more people cycle.

Nick Jackson, Vice President, Tooledesign Group, Consultant for the City, focused on the facilities types. He stated that there are three major visions for the Bike Plan. He explained the definition of separated bike lanes; separate bike lanes are becoming common in this country and separate bike lanes increases cycling. He stated that motorist and women prefer separated bike lanes. Separated bike lanes increase safety rates and are supported by local, state and federal policies. Design guidelines have been issued by the federal government on separated bike lanes. He highlighted the separated bike lane toolbox. An important part of the Bike Plan are off-street (shared) paths. He spoke about the importance of way-finding as a tool for cyclists. He spoke about the bike comfort analysis. There a five comfort levels. He displayed a map with the comfort level for the entire City. Comfort level 1 and 2 do not provide a traverse lane around the City. He spoke about the vision of the Bike Network. He spoke about the importance of access to shopping, employment centers, universities, open space and schools. He presented the completed Bike Network vision.

Cara Seiderman stated that achieving this vision will be done over a period of years and that the Bike Plan will be a living document that will adapt to the needs of the community. She stated that from this document projects will be prioritized and street improvements made.

Councillor Carlone stated that there are e-mails received and they will be made part of the committee report:

Communication from Jeremy Shur, MD, 300 Walden Street, noted the importance of creating a network of separated bikeways for the safety of cyclists (ATTACHMENT B).

Communication from Steven Miller, 92 Henry Street, praising the Bike Plan as comprehensive and sophisticated than any similar document for any municipality in the country (ATTACHMENT C).

Communication from Matthew P. Cashman, 276 Windsor Street, in support of the Cambridge Bicycle Plan (ATTACHMENT D).

Communication from Gloria Korsman, 91 Montgomery Street, in support of the Cambridge Bicycle Plan and the proposed separated paths (ATTACHMENT E).

Communication from Michael Forden Walker, 284 Sidney Street, in support of the Cambridge Bicycle Plan (ATTACHMENT F).

Communication from Kate Mytty excited about the new Bike Plan (ATTACHMENT G).

Communication from Jeffrey Engler in support of bike lanes on Massachusetts Avenue, Hampshire and Cambridge Streets (ATTACHMENT H).

Communication from Peggy Gelin requesting bike lanes on Kirkland Street be included in the plan (ATTACHMENT I).

Communication from Carol Lee Rawn, 59 Larchwood Drive in support of the Bike Plan (ATTACHMENT J).

Communication from David and Caroline de Sola suggesting that Copenhagen's infrastructure could be implemented in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT K).

Communication from Russ Haddleton, 322 Walden Street in support of the Bike Plan and the cycle tracks in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT L).

Communication from Jessica Fosbrook urging support for the Bike Plan (ATTACHMENT M).

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 4:25 PM.

Ann Lusk, Ph.D, Harvard T. H. Cham School of Public Health addressed 4 points. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT N). She stated that bike lanes, while safer for pedestrians and motorists, are less safe for cyclists. Cycle tracks are safer and preferred. She encouraged bike parking in homes and residential buildings, in offices with elevators and at schools. She spoke about charging for parking permits. She looked at car parking in 1905 when the streets were clogged with parked cars because no one had planned where the cars would go when they were not being driven. Cities are facing the same problem today. Car parking through incentive zoning is encouraging car parking.

Ruthann Rudel, member of Bike Committee, stated that the vision is key to progress and that the Bike Plan creates the vision. She stated that biking is stressful and dangerous in the City. Some of the changes are easier to implement and some are harder and create conflict. She urged the City Council to see how other cities have made themselves sustainable. Buses are unreliable because of congestion on the streets. She suggested that the City invest in parking lots in residential areas and suggested building parking lots at the entry ways of the City where motorists can switch to a different mode of transportation.

Ian Klepener suggested creating a bicycle benefits program. He likes the Bike Plan. He stated that increasing parking rates is the best thing that the City could do and increase the revenue plan. Bollards are a way to limit car access.

Steve Bercu, 132 Fayerweather Street, Boston Bicycle Union, commended the city staff for the Bike Plan and the process that went into creating the plan. This plan will make a big different for the City. The benefits include health, environment and sustainability. Bike traffic is increasing rapidly and increases the access for this population. Social cohesion is a value to the City where people can get to know their neighbors. This is a plan that speaks to what people need. He wanted to see rapid implementation of the plan.

Debby Galef, 93 Hammond Street, stated that she wanted quick implementation. She stated that Somerville is moving ahead faster. She stated that she wanted the markings done.

Megan Ramey, 28 Vineyard Street, stated her support for the plan. She inspires people to explore cities by bike. She spoke about other states with a network of safe bike structures. She spoke about goals of other states to create protected bike lanes. She stated that she wanted Cambridge to challenge these goals. She stated that Somerville will be installing the Beacon Street Cycle Track and when you get to Cambridge this stops -- think about this. She stated that we need Vision 0 with no deaths on our streets, i.e. bikes or cars. She has a child that bikes to school every day, off road. This Bike Plan crates schools and think about the pickup and drop off at schools without the use of cars.

John Sanzone, spoke about street construction where the focus is - do no harm to parking and driving. He spoke about the 5 protected bike lanes in Cambridge. There are no protected intersections. It is not about biking; it is about the design of the streets. It is about the social interaction, equity of access and sociability. He wanted a benchmark to be a standard for a separated bike lane. He stated that Bike Plan now should attempt to capture every opportunity. Capture ever street reconstruction opportunity and rapid implementation of bollards.

Elizabeth Bierer, 5 Follen Street, stated that she has ridden her bike since 1990 but would like to feel safe. She wanted more protected bike lanes especially on Huron Avenue which is not stripped and the lane could be moved. She spoke about the fact that the streets need better design.

John Goodman, 8 Fairmont Avenue, stated that cycling is his primary mode of travel. He likes the connection of travel throughout the City.

Chris Summerfield, 153 Lexington Avenue, commended the work. He wanted two-way bike lanes on one-way streets especially in Harvard Square. It is great to have a plan and wanted things done today like painting the lanes. He stated that on Brattle Street he cannot see the lanes and requested that the bike lanes be cleaned. He wanted more bike facilities with street reconstruction and he stated that more should be done.

Allison Quach is a participant of Participatory Budget process and there have been projects proposed such as cycle tracks. She wanted better markings and bollards. She wanted Cambridge Streets to be more comfortable for biking. She stated that way-finding signage could be better in Cambridge and it would help visitors to navigate around the City. She wanted the City to adopted Vision 0. She wanted a bike/pedestrian path at Alewife connecting Alewife Station.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that he did not hear about the comfort of pedestrians, including seniors or parents pushing carriages. He stated that the city staff is not listening to residents and this is put together to promote cycling without a robust community input. He did not hear about the survey. Councillor Carlone stated that the pedestrian plan will be heard in the future. Mr. Williamson stated that the Bike Plan has to integrate pedestrians. Nothing has been done about cyclists who are violating laws and rules. He spoke about pedestrian hit by cyclist. He wanted accurate, robust data. As long as cyclists do not hit pedestrians it is okay. He wanted bike lanes moved to Bishop Allen Drive. How does Russell Field fit into this plan, he asked? Will there be a segregated path planned. How effective is the enforcement. He wanted bikes registered. He stated that the cycle track on Western Avenue is wide versus the pedestrian path.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, stated he is a strong, fearless cyclist. No one was willing to raise the question of the allocation of resources for street and raising the fee for parking permits. He makes rules for himself when biking because the lanes are not in the safest place. He cited cab stations and bus stops. He stated that in Harvard Square, at the bus stop, if you push to the right you take your life in your hands. It would be better to shift the lane to the left. He supported the Bike Plan. He spoke about the separate bike lane on Massachusetts Avenue.

Mark Stewart, stated that he is a cyclist, motorist and pedestrian. He stated that he does not feel safe as a pedestrian. He stated that Massachusetts cyclists lack a mutual respect. Cyclists need to become more considerate. In other countries the road is shared. Education is needed. Protected bike lanes would provide safety. He wanted to know if the plan is adopted and what are the implementation steps and is there a timetable.

Ms. Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development explained that this was referred to the City Council and to this committee. Ms. Rasmussen, Director, Transportation and Environmental Planning, CDD, stated that the plan will be used as a guide. She stated that the five year street/sidewalk plan will be followed. Ms. Seiderman stated that there are smaller projects that can make a difference. These will be done without waiting for larger projects. Mr. Steward asked if there will be a report from the team that went to the Netherlands. Mr. Barr, Director, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, stated that there will be a detailed report transmitted about what was learned on the trip.

Ms. Farooq corrected her statement and stated that the Bike Plan has not been officially transmitted to the City Council. Ms. Seiderman explained that the Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance was passed in 1992 created the plan. She stated that there was direction to create the plan.

Public comment closed at 5:24pm.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he has many question to ask. How will the Bike Plan be incorporated into the Master Plan process? He spoke about implementing stripping the streets. Ms. Farooq explained the integration of this plan will be put into the Master Plan. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that the Green Street Garage needs to be reconstructed and could be the first bike/car parking facility. Now is the time to redevelop this garage. He also stated that dedicated bus lanes are critical for the City. The bus lanes may also act as a bike lane. He stated that in Netherland they wanted people to bike to live health lives and not focus on reducing the carbon foot print. He stressed the importance of education. He stated that The Port could be a pilot program to connect streets to the Grand Junction. He wanted this to be the first bike superhighway. This will be costly for the City when there are other areas that require attention. This has to work in conjunction with other communities. He spoke about the importance of driver education. He felt more questions and more deliberation is needed.

Councillor Mazen stated that the Bike Plan is well received by the biking community. This plan has to be taken in context with other plans going on in the City. He spoke about problems that are being attributed to bikers and that all sides in the argument tend to be right. Protected bike lanes and Vision 0 must be taken seriously. He stated that he can see the accident before it happens and he has been doored. The way that trucks and buses are handled on Massachusetts Avenue are disasters waiting to happen. He wanted to be biking safer street quickly.

Councillor Carlone stated that he was impressed with the scope, details and the next steps of the report. This is a positive movement in the City. These improvements are minor with construction.

Councillor Carlone thanked all attendees for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 5:43pm on motion of Vice Mayor Benzan.

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone Chair

Committee Report #2
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Oct 13, 2015 beginning at 3:31pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss issues of bike safety on City streets, including traffic enforcement, street maintenance and traffic signal devices including lights and signs.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Dennis J. Carlone; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Joseph Wilson, Superintendent of Police; Rick Riley, Traffic Enforcement, Police Department; Joseph Barr, Director, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Jeff Parenti, Electrical Engineer, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department (CDD); Susanne Rasmussen, Director, Environmental and Transportation Planning, CDD; Cara Seiderman, CDD; Owen O'Riordan, Public Works Commissioner; John Nardone, Assistant Commissioner of Operations; Jim Wilcox, Director, Engineering Services, Public Works Department; Steve Lenkauskas, City Electrician; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Rozann Kraus; Anne Lusk, PhD, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health; and Allison Quack, 2552 Massachusetts Avenue.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being privately audio recorded. He stated there was an agenda (ATTACHMENT A) and commented generally that Cambridge is a place where biking is important and traffic and biking are dangerous. He stated that there are electric scooters on the road and we need to plan for them.

Councillor Kelley announced that there are 3 e-mails that will be made part of the record. They are as follows:

Communication from Wilford O. Durbin regarding the consistency lacking in enforcement of biking-prohibited sidewalks, use of "No Biking" stencils (ATTACHMENT B).

Communication received from David Chase suggesting strong public education to yield to pedestrians, need for lighting, enforcement and an Idaho stop (ATTACHMENT C).

Communication from Leila Haery, Ph.D., 872 Massachusetts Avenue, transmitting her comments that the cycling infrastructure in Cambridge needs to be vastly improved. She stated that both motorists and pedestrians break the rules; not just cyclists. She did not feel more enforcement for cyclists was needed but did feel that major enforcement was needed for delivery trucks and double parked cars. (ATTACHMENT D).

Councillor Kelley stated that he is colorblind and cannot see what is in the road the same way that others see them so attempts by DPW to mark street hazards do not work for him. He stated that on Massachusetts Avenue at Route 16 in Arlington there was a bump where pavement grinding had not yet been completed and that a friend and he did not see the rise soon enough to break. He hit the bump and stayed on his bicycle but his friend went down, damaged her bicycle and was badly bruised. He stated that Item # 1 on the agenda will be heard by the Ordinance Committee.

Commissioner O'Riordan stated that there are a variety of circumstances around construction and the prescriptive change suggested by Councillor Kelley's proposed ordinance change would be difficult; this is not the best mechanism for public safety. The City is better served in using regulations or specifications rather than an ordinance. Councillor Kelley stated he didn't really care how the hazards were marked, just that they be marked or otherwise mitigated in a much more effective way than done currently and that he wanted to professionalize biking, but when the streets are unsafe it is difficult for everyone to take higher standards seriously. He stated bikes on sidewalks is an issue; seniors do not like this. Sometimes the streets are more dangerous so cyclists move to the sidewalk and this makes people upset with cyclists. He spoke about markings on the sidewalks where cyclist are and are not allowed.

Ms. Kraus stated that there are places on the street where there is no place for bikes. She stated that she has carried her bike in her neighborhood more this year than she rode it.

Councillor Carlone stated the elderly and people with kids complain about bikes on the sidewalk - and if pedestrians are on the sidewalk - cyclists should walk their bike because they are in a pedestrian zone. If it is for a lengthy distance that is different.

Officer Riley stated that the state law allows bikes on sidewalks unless it is not allowed; Cambridge does not allow bike riding on the sidewalk in specified business areas.

Councillor Carlone asked who is the weakest on the sidewalk and how are they protected.

Ms. Rasmussen explained that this discussion occurred in 1990 and stakeholders were engaged and this is how we established these rules. In a business district one is not allowed to ride on the sidewalk and this is where stencils are to be placed. She stated that outside of business district there are rules if you ride on sidewalk you must ride at a slow speed and make an audible signal prior to passing pedestrians. Councillor Carlone stated that outside restaurants and bus stops, street furniture and shelters often make the sidewalks narrower. Mr. Barr stated that there is a gap between Harvard Square and Porter Square where biking on the sidewalk is allowed. He stated that stencils will be done in the spring. Councillor Carlone suggested plaques put into the sidewalk for long term. Mr. Barr stated that there is a variety of signage. There is a mix of stencil and signs used now. Councillor Kelley stated that this is a pressing priority and that, out of fairness, cyclists cannot be told to get off of sidewalks until they are clearly marked and cyclists are given safe streets to ride in.

Ms. Kraus suggested stencils that change overtime so that it will not be so common that it is not seen. The major issue is that travelers, motorists, cyclists & pedestrians, all have a sense of entitlement when they travel; this is a cultural change. Councillor Carlone stated sidewalks should be widened.

Mr. Hawkinson stated that fading stencils are not a problem. The stencils do not get replaced when there is street/sidewalk work. Police can enforce with a warning even if it is marked. Cyclists know the rules and it is their obligation to know. There is no enforcement on the sidewalks. Councillor Kelley stated that more clear public knowledge about constrains on riding bikes on sidewalks is needed before an enforcement program should begin.

Councillor Kelley asked about enforcement. Lieutenant Riley stated that officers work Central Square and Harvard Square and more enforcement could be done in this area. He gave statistics about the number of parking tickets issued in 2015. He stated that specific tickets are issued for blocking the bike lanes and can be measured as such now by the City.

Councillor Toomey asked what a delivery truck does if there is a bike lane. Lieutenant Riley said the less egregious option is to go to a street without a bike lane. Police Superintendent Wilson stated that deliveries are doubled up and large trucks are being used. He stated that the Police go to the business and try to figure out a good time for the delivery to make it the same for all but a national chain like CVS may not bend to the concerns of a local municipality, though they generally pay their parking tickets as a price of doing business.

Councillor Kelley stated that bike lane enforcement was being done for a while. He stated that the armored truck that delivers to the bank blocks the bike lane in Harvard Square and that there didn't seem to be a reasonable option for them. Mr. Barr stated that the tickets are appealed all the time; but this is a legitimate offense. There are increased issues on loading zone and size of trucks and are trying to be more fluid about the space.

Councillor Carlone asked if the state regulates the size of the truck or can the City regulate this. Mr. Barr stated that this is at the state or federal regulation. Councillor Carlone stated that in Boston you do not see 65 foot trucks, but on Massachusetts Avenue they are seen. Councillor Kelley asked can the trucks be towed. Mr. Barr responded in the affirmative. Police Superintendent Wilson stated that a ticket to CVS means nothing; by the time a big enough tow truck for a truck is found, the truck is gone. Councillor Kelley added that buses block Mt. Auburn Street's bike lane by Mass Ave regularly and he has seen a police officer give at least one ticket. Lieutenant Riley stated that police is aggressively ticketing on Mt. Auburn Street and now there are more busses on Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Barr stated that there are limited options for parking for tour buses and thus a limited ability to change how they act since ticketing really is not that big a problem for them and the City cannot "boot" a vehicle simply for being in the wrong place.

Councillor Mazen stated that comprehensive network of protected bike lanes would alleviate this problem. Councillor Kelley noted that he was of a different opinion. Mr. Hawkinson suggested booting the trucks. Mr. Barr stated that there is rules to be followed before a boot is used. Councillor Carlone asked can the longer trucks be fined more. Mr. Barr would like to check this with the Law Department.

General Bike Enforcement
Ann Lucks, Harvard School of Public Health, stated that she has done bike research for 34 years. She distributed information (ATTACHMENT E). She stated that research showed that 11% of drivers saw cyclist before impact and 68% of cyclists saw the drivers. Cyclists do not pollute nor add to congestion. In (ATTACHMENTS F-1A - F-l-C) the safety of the motorists has been increased with greater risk of the bicyclist. In ATTACHMENT G) asks if women are in more danger than males -- Yes. There is a greater chance of death if the cyclist waits until the light is green. She had a picture of a tent over the cycle track in China (ATTACHMENT H). There is less red light running if there is a tent. This is a different form enforcement. She spoke about a bike signal for bikes (ATTACHMENT I). This is information for drivers and cyclist without ticketing the cyclists. She stated that Cambridge can test the railing (ATTACHMENT J). She stated that chocolate can be issued for good behavior (ATTACHMENT K). She stated that dark chocolate is healthy. She stated that Cambridge could try as a test to give out chocolates as a model for the nation to behave properly. She suggested police issue the chocolates. She stated that car parking is where the cycle tracks should be. She suggested more money charged for the parking.

Councillor Kelley stated that to encourage cyclist to stop at red lights he suggested the railing. Councillor Carlone stated that the curb is to protect and a railing could be a liability. Councillor Kelley stated that this could be reviewed as an alternative.

Councillor Kelley questioned what is done for bike enforcement.

Officer Riley stated that there have been 14,708 moving violation; 8% went to cyclist with 635 being written warning. The ticket for a bike does not impact their insurance as it does for a motorists. Councillor Kelley stated that not much is done for bike lights at night. Officer Riley agreed. The majority of tickets are issued for the most egregious locations. There is room to do a better job. Police Superintendent Wilson stated that bike safety campaign is done every May. In addition to enforcement there is education. There is more compliance. Cyclists are policing other cyclists. He stated that if a police officer chases a cyclist it could cause a worse accident so if a cyclists flees from an officer that is generally where it ends. A community that is looking out for each other is being created. Lieutenant Riley stated that internally the data needs to be recorded for what the violation is and that this input put into the computer. Massachusetts uniform ticket and payment defaults are being issued by the district court. Ms. Lutz suggested new police codes be established. Superintendent Wilson commented that this is a state form.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the Garden Street and Sherman Street traffic light. Mr. Parenti explained the normal working of these traffic lights, which do not react to bicycles. This is on a loop that recognizes the presence of a car and changes the light accordingly; Cambridge has eliminated some loops. The loop sensitivity can be turned up to identify the bikes or install a loop more sensitive to bikes. Councillor Kelley stated if the traffic lights do not recognize his right to be on the road it makes it difficult to think Cambridge takes bicycling seriously as a transportation option. Mr. Parenti explained that a dipole loop can be installed and will pick up bikes. Mass DOT has a bike sign to tell bikers where to wait but it is not effective way to address this issue. He stated that there are more things that can be tried. He stated that the problem needs to be identified. Councillor Kelley asked for map with this info on it. Mr. Parenti stated that he would provide a copy of the map.

Signage to Allow Bicycles
Councillor Kelley asked if "except bicycles" can be added to "Do Not Enter" signs such as at Cogswell and Mass Ave or for the "No Left Turn" at the locations of Waterhouse and Massachusetts Avenue. Mr. Barr stated that this needs to be done on a case by case basis. Mr. Barr stated that this needs a staff level discussion. Councillor Kelley suggested implementing and if more complicated than originally thought come back to the City Council. Lieutenant Riley added that Waterhouse would require more thought.

Councillor Kelley commented on cyclists that are sharing the road with skateboards, wheelchairs and other electric-assisted personal mobility devices that operate very differently from bicycles. Ms. Seiderman outlined who is allowed to be on the road. Pedestrians are not allowed to be on the road if there is a sidewalk. This is the accepted standard. There is a definition of bike lanes for the exclusive use of bikes. Massachusetts Legislation allows motor scooters to be in the bike lanes. Electric assisted bikes versus a motorized scooter definition is being worked on for the regulations. She stated that each state will be required to adopt the definition. Officer Riley stated that scooter versus moped is regulated by the size of the motor and that it is very tough to figure out, just by looking, which is which from an enforcement standpoint. Mopeds are required to have registration plate and do not require insurance. Councillor Kelley stated that these electric vehicles are going to challenge us- where do they belong in our transportation hierarchy. That needs to be a foundational question as we move forward with our various planning processes. Ms. Seiderman stated that wheelchairs are considered pedestrians as to where they can go. Councillor Carlone asked if there is a speed limit on sidewalks. Officer Riley stated that bikes are not to exceed walking speed. Councillor Kelley how do we get local regulations on this. Ms. Seiderman stated that there are things that were added to the city traffic regulations that confirms pedestrians have the right of way and are banned in business districts. Ms. Seiderman stated that she would send a link to add to report.

Councillor Carlone asked about the Cambridge Common. Commissioner O'Riordan stated that it is considered a multi-use path. He is not sure how it is regulated.

John Hawkinson thanked Councillor Kelley for posting his agenda and would like additional information posted before meeting.

Councillor Carlone commented that stenciling should be seriously done.

Allison Quack spoke about double parked cars in bike lanes. She preferred them to be double parked in bike lane rather than travel lanes. She stated that motorists need to use their signals. She suggested driver education.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:09pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Nov 12, 2015 beginning at 5:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a petition by the Planning Board to amend Section 13.10 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance so as to change the development controls applicable in the planned Unit Development at Kendall Square (PUD-KS) Overlay Zoning District. The majority of the PUD-KS District is occupied by the Volpe Transportation Systems Research Center operated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. To view the full text of the petition see Policy Order #26 of Sept 21, 2015.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Craig Kelley; Mayor David P. Maher; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department (CDD); Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; Susannah Bigolin, Urban Designer, CDD; Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; John Hawkinson; Alan Greene, 82 Fifth Street; Jane Stabile, 303 Third Street; Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street; Charles Hinds, 207 Charles Street; Bob Dorer, 55 Broadway; Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street; Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street; Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street; Patrick Tedesco, 9 Florence Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Jerry O'Leary, 303 Third Street; Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street; and James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place.

Vice Mayor Benzan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being audio and visually recorded. He stated that City staff will be heard first, then public comment and then City Council comments.

Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department gave a Power Point presentation (ATTACHMENT A). She stated that the PUD-KS, a majority is on the Volpe site. This is the refiled petition. The Volpe site has been a critical site in the heart of Kendall Square. This block constrains the flow through Kendal Square and feels like an impediment for the movement of people from the T, the neighborhood and the business area in Kendall Square. She outlined the PUD area. She stated that this area has been thought about for decades and there have been efforts since the 1970's to transform this site to make it part of the City's fabric. Ms. Farooq spoke about the timeline for this site. This site has been looked at through the K2 process which began in 2011 and the vision for Kendall Square was to continue to enhance the district to create a mixed use district and to support the innovation economy. Increased housing and ground floor retail was important to the transformation as well as sustainability and attempts to make it a dynamic area including night time and weekends. As part of the zoning proposal there are a set of formidable public benefits that include affordable housing for low, moderate and middle-income housing. She stated that based on the comments from the City Council this petition recommends increasing the percentage of affordable housing, active ground floors, public open space, innovation space and financial contribution of $10 a square foot which totals $16 million for this project that is suggested to go to open space programming, transit improvements and workforce readiness to connect Cambridge residents to the jobs that are being created in Kendall Square. As part of the suggestions made by the City Council and the Planning Board an urban design framework has also been created for the site. She discussed the timeline for the site. The K2 study occurred in 2011-2012 and the report was dated 2013. She stated that the ECPT worked with CBT to create a neighborhood vision for this site. There was a Connect Kendall Square design competition for this site. Somerville consultants won the competition and will create a frame work and has been included in the urban design framework. From the K2 recommendations the zoning language was developed. She stated that the MIT rezoning was adopted in 2013. She explained that in 2014 the land transfer deal was announced by the federal government who is seeking a developer who will develop the Volpe Transportation site with the developer being able to develop the remainder of the parcel. She stated that this makes this a timely matter to consider and a unique opportunity to consider at this time which has not occurred in the past. She stated that the federal government is interested in redeveloping this parcel which makes this more of a reality. She stated that Requests for Information and Requests for Qualifications have been done and will seek a development partner who will build a building for the rights to develop the remainder of the site. She stated that the PUD-KS petition was filed and there was a joint public hearing between the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board. The City Council asked the Planning Board to go back to the neighborhood and ensure that community input is in the petition and that the all parties concerned were provided with the information on this. She noted that the original petition was not acted upon and that the petition has been refiled to allow for the outreach. As part of the community outreach there were seven drop-in sessions held this summer. They also went out the neighborhood associations. There are goals from the joint hearing between the City Council and Planning Board. She spoke about what was heard from the community from the drop-in sessions. A model has been created for the site. The buildings on the model can be moved around on the site and this was very useful for the community. Ms. Farooq stated that Mr. Roberts will walk through the changes.

Jeff Roberts stated that PUD-KS was identified as one of 4 components in Kendall Square study recommendations. The other sites are the MXD district proposed by the CRA and MIT area whose zoning was adopted in 2013. He explained that MIT is before the Planning Board for a special permit for their zoning development. The zoning district is required for the entire site. He focused on the modification have been made to the refiled PUD-KS zoning proposal (ATTACHMENT B). There are five modifications. They are affordable housing, open space, height, active uses and urban design. The recommendation on the affordable housing is to require 15% for low-moderate and 5% for middle income housing for a total of 120 median income are being proposed. This revision would increase the low-moderate housing to 200 affordable units. He stated that there was a lot of discussion on open space. He stated that as part of the public open space a total of 25% would be required of a development parcel and all the space must be created for public space. A major gathering space was identified as a need such as a public plaza space. It would be required to be an element of the system and would have to be connected to other open space in the district and also connected to other open space around the district. The role of the federal site if the GSA plan proceeds it would result in the reconstruction of a federal Volpe facility that would remain under federal control. He stated that in the initial zoning the theory was that even though the City did not have direct control and the ability to regulate what the federal government does with its site the City would want to provide incentives to encourage the open space created on the site to be integrated into the overall system. He stated at the last hearing there was a concern if the federal space took up all the required open space. This was a good point raised so the proposed modification requires that no more than 1/2 of the open space be on the federal site. This provides that the federal open space be incorporated into the open space system but also provides protection that all of the public open space does not end up as part of the federal site.

Mr. Roberts stated that the third element is the height limit. He stated that the height limits in the original proposal allowed 250 feet with limited possibilities for heights to reach up to 350 feet and one building rising up to 500 feet. The moving around of the model the plan would benefit with more flexibility. He stated that amount of density remains the same. The revised proposal allows some of the height would be in the middle of the site providing more options and better ways to mitigate the impacts of heights. Above 250 feet the revised proposal would limit individual floor plate area to 15,000 square feet or less and the total floor plate to 10% of the development parcel. Another recommendation is the criteria for allowing a single building to potentially go to 500 feet. He stated that one of the zoning changes is to make it clear that a proposal of 500 feet is meeting the objectives and that the Planning Board has the right to reject the building and approve a plan that would have building heights up to a maximum of 350 feet.

Mr. Roberts stated that under the original proposal active ground floor which took the Kendall Square recommendation there would be a requirement that 75% of ground floor frontage be retail spaces with 5,000 square feet or more. He stated that further elaborations have been added to the active uses requirement. A grocery, market or general store would be a requirement providing a variety of goods to the community on a convenience level. He stated that there would also be a requirement for smaller spaces for independent operators which would 2,500 square feet or less. From the discussions there was a requirement for the types of the uses that do not require retail. Childcare, recreation uses and cultural uses fall outside of the retail category but their uses that have been expressed as desired uses and these have been included in the active use definitions. A further clarification has been made that along office lobbies and banks are not included in the active uses. He stated that the same overall development breakdown has not changed from the original petition. The Volpe site would be in addition to this and would be a replacement to what is existing which is 375,000 square feet. He outlined the community benefits of the PUD-KS zoning proposal as modified.

26:56 Susannah Bigolin outlined the urban design. She stated that a draft design framework has been prepared which links to the K2 Study and the Connect Kendall work. This urban design is a working draft that continues to be worked on. It is designed to be the City's Design Guideline processes. She stated that part of the urban design framework contains a vision for the Volpe site. It focuses on how the site can become part of the residential neighborhoods and the Kendall Square community as well as sustaining high quality architecture, urban design and open space. She stated that the urban design framework articulates contain key urban design and planning recommendations and it is based on four key elements. They are connections, open space, active ground floors and family housing. She stated that the connections describes the connectivity to establish a highly circulation network. The surrounding streets of the site were looked at and the importance to the extension of Fifth Street and connection of Sixth Street walkway. Other pedestrian connections were looked at from Broad Canal Way. The block size would be broken down to encourage different types of connections. This is to get a more neighborhood feel rather than a large corporate canvas.

Ms. Bigolin stated that the open space objective is to provide a high quality of contiguous open spaces that provide opportunities to relax, play and to meet and creating a neighborhood character throughout the site. She spoke about the importance of the open space is to provide a balance of natural and passive open space with a plaza for community activities surrounded by buildings that offers opportunities for community events. She stated that the active ground floors were looked at to clarify where the priority connections are. The preferred locations for active spaces are on primary and secondary streets. There has also been an identification where a concentration of attractions or destination type activities would occur. This would draw the community into the Volpe space with cultural and community uses. She stated that elements of safety have been enhanced along the Sixth Street walkway. She stated that the built form element seeks to ensure the massing and location of building response to the site and establishes a high quality public realm. The focus is on identifying areas that are sensitive transition and where built form should respond appropriately. She stated that a cluster has been identified for a cluster of taller buildings in terms of the height being more flexible. If the taller building were in the middle of the site it would have less of an impact on the sensitive and residential areas and would allow more sunlight into the site from Broadway. Design features for housing for families are included as an element in the framework for the site. There was a map that showed the open space and built form that may be developed on the site. These included the MIT special permit project, the CRA MXD site and the Ames Street site. Maximizing sunlight to the open space areas have been reviewed. The two areas on Broadway do have access to sunlight. She further stated that the sensitive transitions have been looked at as well. The spacing between towers and the need to ensure that there is a smaller floor plate above the 250 height limit which is the existing height limit in Kendall Square.

Ms. Farooq spoke about this being a rare and unique opportunity to transform this central site in Kendall Square. She noted that this is an opportunity through the zoning for the City to provide guidance to future developers on the site of what the City's priorities. This is the opportunity before the RFP are submitted to the GSA that this is the expectation of the City and this is what is needed to be delivered for the City of Cambridge. She stated that due to the tight time line it is hoped that the Ordinance Committee refers this matter to the full City Council and the subject matter could be kept in committee and that an additional hearing is being scheduled.

At 6:11pm Vice Mayor Benzan opened public comment.

Steve Kaiser applauded the CRA process that included a zoning and environmental plan and community feedback. He stated that this process is exactly the opposite. There is no transportation element in this proposal. This is a revamped petition. He was upset with the revised petition with substantial revisions that is dated Nov 9, 2015 and three days later at a hearing the public is expected to give testimony on the revised petition. This is outrageous. This is the first time he has seen the urban design framework that is attached to the zoning. This should be the final framework and not just a draft. He asked how the committee can do this work when the process is so fouled up. He applauded the language in Section 13.13.41 in the old version which defined exceptional architectural quality in Kendall Square. The new version changes the language to read distinctive architectural landmark. He commented that the East Cambridge Courthouse is a distinctive architectural landmark. This is not an improvement in the language. He urged eliminating the Nov 9th version and putting a plan together first and then do zoning. He urged not going forward with this bad process.

Alan Greene, 82 Fifth Street, spoke about the statistics from the ECAP study from 2001 and the K2 study from 2013 and the revision of the petition from the Planning Board from May of 2015. This last zoning petition has involved very little public process input and is a significant up-zoning from the K2 study. He stated that a 500 feet tower he is not happy about this. He stated his main concern is about the public space. The public park has been reduced from a 7.5 acres to 3.5 acres and if 1/2 of this open space goes to federal space the public will be left with 1.75 acres; he is concerned about this. He stated that if Fifth Street is opened it will be bad for residents. No traffic study has been done and one needs to be done. He noted that major time is needed to study this. He stated that there seems to be an urgency from the City's position when there really does not need one. There needs to be a public process and no need to rush through this.

Jane Stabile, 303 Third Street, owns a condo and she will be living in the dark when the 250 foot building is built on this site. She stated that the driving force behind this plan is to build enough on this property to provide a big profit for a developer and a free building for the Department of Transportation. The proposal is good for the federal government, the developer; it is bad for the City. She noted that without the free building the site would be developed with lower density and green space would be preserved. The open space is reduced in this proposal. She stated that the density is required to make it profitable for the developer. She added that giving the federal government a new building is not the city's problem. More housing could be gained by negotiating with a developer and with a real plan. She urged keeping the existing rules especially the open space. This does not serve the needs of the City. She urged the City Council to vote the proposal down. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT C-1 and C-2).

Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street, spoke about the public process. He stated that the site density is being increased less than what is proposed, open space was more than what is being proposed, the ratio for housing to commercial property was more and there is some improvement but it is substantially the same proposals as before. He suggested lowering the commercial maximum be lowered from 60 to 40 % and keep the urban space requirement at 45%. He added that it should more than 45% if taller buildings are being considered. He disagreed with the heights. He stated that to allow larger heights he suggested demanding more open space. He likes more affordable housing and the new wording for active ground floor. If you do not have the transportation impact understood before it will be a mess in Kendall Square. He hopes that there are more changes. He added that there has been more public education; but not more public input. He stated that this is not a plan for Cambridge.

Charles Hines, 207 Charles Street, past president of ECPT, stated that this process has made him angry and it is driven by Volpe to get a new building. This, he said, is not an urban design principle. He stated that there has been no study of traffic, winds and if a plane crashed into this building what would be the impact. He stated that this process is moving too fast. Studies should be done on the impact. The population in East Cambridge would be increased by 10% with the increased units of housing. He spoke about the current traffic congestion before this proceeds. He urged looking at alternatives before doing this. The green space by the Sixth Street connector should be preserved for green space.

Bjorn Poonam, Third Street, appreciated some of the changes made to the May version. He stated that the K2 plan recommended increasing the FAR from 3 to 4. The new proposal increases the FAR to 5.4. He asked if there has been any quantitative economic analyst explaining why the 5.4 FAR. What is the reason for this number? He is pleased that the open space calls for a large civic space. He asked why only ask for 1.75 acres of open space on the non-federal space and why not asked for more open space. This is a small amount for the open space. He stated that the new proposal permits all possible retail uses including a marijuana distribution center. He asked if Kendall Square is the right place for this. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT D).

Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street, is in opposition to the Planning Board proposal, the intense pace and the lack of full or modest transparency. She is in favor of improving the Volpe site, but not at the cost of the federal government dictating zoning in the 14 acres. There is zoning for this with the ECAP and the K2. This proposal overrides the K2 study and reduces the opens space, doubles the allowable building height. This proposal is too little for the affordable housing. She stated that she has spoken at three hearings and has written detailed letters stating her objections but nothing substantial has changed. What is in the Planning Board's proposal is what was there in May. She stated that the modification by CDD dated Nov 9th contains 23 pages of changes and a 9 page summary. This does not make it easy for the public to participate. We need to be consistent with zoning for the right plan at the right pace. She stated that Cambridge will be the first for a federal land swap transaction. She wanted this turned down; relax the timeline to get data from the City-wide zoning and get information on transportation. She urged do not let GSA and DOT be the principal definers for this vital area of the City.

Marilee Meyers, 10 Dana Street, stated that she has not reviewed the new material. She outlined the problem with the development of Kendall Square from the beginning. She stated an employee in the Kendall Square area felt that there is nothing warm about Kendall Square. She stated that the language of distinctive architectural landmark - this should be what is being striven for every day with the amount of development that is occurring in Cambridge and Boston. She has a problem with the heights of the buildings and where they are arranged. Broadway is the pathway to Cambridge why would you want to put the taller buildings along Broadway which reduces the open space and trees across from the hotel. These broad vistas should invite people into the space. She stated that a distinctive architectural landmark does not mean that it is good; it can stick out like a sore thumb, like the courthouse.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, spoke about the public process. She commented on the number of people who attended a forum should not be the basis for massing and where buildings should be placed. She thought that it was agreed through the process that when a major rezoning is proposed that stated that the City or the developer should meet with the residents and resident groups before developing the zoning. This was not done; the reverse was done. The petition was refiled with no changes and then on Nov 9th this complex document was dropped on the residents. She noted that there was a list notifying people about the community forums. She noted that this notification list was not used to notify interested parties about this up-zoning revision. She acknowledged that the presentation tonight by CDD explained the differences in the two proposals but this was not posted on CDD's website. This would help people participate. She supported the change made to the below market housing, but she does not think that the 20% is enough. She submitted a communication from the Cambridge Residents Alliance (ATTACHMENT E). The K2 study does outline that the new stuff should be 40% housing. This is not going to meet what is outlined in ECPT and K2 to make Kendall Square a real place. This whole process should be folding into the master planning process. If the whole ratio for housing is not figured out she requested that Volpe be 60% residential and make the 3 bedroom units below market rate so that they will be occupied by families and not by high-tech roommates.

Jerry O'Leary, 303 Third Street, stated that this is an opportunity to improve Kendall Square. He favors developing the Volpe site, but the process needs to be slowed. He stated that too much development is being proposed for the site. He stated that the City should be able to say "NO". He stated that the DOT wants this building as badly as the City wants this site. He supports the large park as part of the open space. He stated that the way the open space is being calculated may make it difficult to find the open space. The open space on the non-governmental space should be specified and leave it to the developer to deal with Volpe for what is right for this property.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, spoke about the failure of public process. She stated that the Planning Board had several meeting where this was discussed with no public comment. So the exactly same petition was filed. She stated that this process should be scrapped; this process is so tainted by poor handling. This whole thing is so wrong. She suggested having an economic analysis and starting over. She stated that Kendall Square is soulless. The distinctive architecture language - she stated that faceless boxes will not be accepted anymore. She spoke about the placement of tall buildings and she felt that the rooftop garden in Kendall Square may be in shadows from this building and it may destroy the garden. A good job can be done here and we owe to ourselves to make Kendall Square something other than a squished urban office park with housing.

On a motion from Councillor McGovern public comment was closed at 6:58pm on a voice vote.

The City Council began its discussion.

Councillor Mazen stated that the significant feedback should be taken seriously by CCD. He spoke of the lack of engagement and the ECPT letter are issues. The City is taken this on as design priority internally and should listening to the comments being made. He asked where the rationale and the public benefit is. Which of the mix is due from the federal part of the project and the dispensation given to the developer. He stated that the 60/40 split was significant and the lack of transit infrastructure is important to think about. The luxury verses low, moderate housing mix which ECPT letter declares is painfully low. The benefit on this site should be more significant. Open space needs to be more significant. He stated that the language change of distinctive architectural landmark he wanted to know who is responsible for this change. This change is bizarre. All of these are substantive to the plan. Greater community input was requested.

Councillor McGovern spoke about the process being rushed. The City Council is not rushing this process. Volpe may want to push this through. This is a great opportunity that could be squandered. Volpe owns this land - the City is not giving anything away because it is not our property. He stated that financial viability is a reality to this process. This is the City's opportunity to shape this development and get what the City wants. He does not want to give anything away this early in the game. He likes 15% for low, moderate housing, but he thinks it is too low; it should be a minimum of 20% for low and 5% for middle income housing. He thinks the 1.75% open space needs to being increased and it needs to be a minimum of 3.75 of community usable open space. The grocery store needs to be affordable. This will benefit Area Four and East Cambridge. He stated that he is not ready to move ahead on this. He is not satisfied with this yet with maximizing the community benefits. He wants this to be revised again. More work needs to be done.

Councillor Carlone stated that he appreciates the update and the draft for more definitive guidelines and analysis for the site. The benefit to this is that this leads to a better idea. The built form guidelines say nothing about the criteria. He stated that there is nothing about imagery or materials. This needs to be flushed out. He stated that the Kendall Square architecture is nothing special. The ground floor is becoming more special. A series of 10 buildings with different expressions to add to the diversity is the answer. He questioned the FAR transfer; is this transfer within the fourteen acres. Mr. Roberts stated that the existing zoning for this area includes Eastern Cambridge transfer donating and receiving districts. This is a receiving district for development transfer rights. Ms. Farooq stated that this provision predates the Alexandria rezoning and would only benefit the non-Alexandria sites if they were to develop. Councillor Carlone stated that the calculations need to be on a level playing field. Parking above grade was not counted as FAR. Mr. Roberts stated that the above grade parking does count as FAR. Councillor Carlone commented on there being no economic analysis has been done by CDD but has hired an analysis. Ms. Farooq stated that CDD is working in partnership with the CRA who have development economic consultants on contract to do the financial analysis. She stated that she is hoping to have some preliminary numbers in a couple of weeks. Councillor Carlone stated that the Planning Board has discussed economic numbers. Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board asked CDD to do the economic analysis. Councillor Carlone suggested that it may be a good idea to discuss projected taxes and the affordable units. He spoke about a public facility for this area, such as a library, pool, etc. that the public can use. He stated that the City Council will get an update on the flooding issue and he assumes that this will be updated over time. He asked if this would be tied into the major study that the City is doing. Ms. Farooq explained the climate change vulnerable study phases. The next phase will be a preparedness phase which will look at how building and site design needs to adapt. The second will be how the storm water regulations on site need to evolve. The current regulations are higher than the state requirements and she anticipates them becoming more robust. She explained that even if the zoning were adopted today no development would occur for 2-3 years. She stated that the GSA outlined in their RFQ what the City's expectation is. The Cambridge Compact building and energy group and the Kendall Square Eco district have been working with CDD staff and preparing their own preparedness plan. Ms. Farooq stated that the Fifth Street connection was discussed in the ECAP and K2 process and neither felt it was a good idea to remove the median strip. These are pedestrian and bike connections. Councillor Carlone stated that 50% of the open space on federal site is scary. He stated that every developer will need the financial objectives or they would not go through this process. He suggested that GSA share their design with the City. He wanted a more detail design study.

Mayor Maher asked if there is a way that the City Council could meet with the finalist; could this be a condition. Ms. Farooq stated that it could be suggested that the developer meet with the City Council. Mayor Maher stated that he wanted a lot of community process before any changes to Fifth Street are made. What is the opportunity for the public to have input into this process? He asked is there an opportunity that CDD could go to the neighborhood and discuss the new changes. Ms. Farooq noted that CCD is scheduled to speak with ECPT on Nov 16, 2015. She stated that CDD will also reach out to the Area Four Coalition. She wanted to keep the energy of the discussion between the City Council and the Planning Board. Mayor Maher spoke about the issue of home ownership; he wanted this to see a percentage of these units be homeownership. This would get more of a buy in by the community. He stated that mixed use development should contain homeownership. Ms. Farooq stated that zoning is not a good tool for this. Mayor Maher stated that we are redefining what this will look like. He wants to make sure that we are getting what it is we are looking for from this. He stated that who rents the supermarket cannot be dictated. He wanted to take Kendall Square into the next generation and connect Kendall Square to The Port and East Cambridge and a place where people want to spend time in. He does not see this as an us versus them mentality. All the comments are helping to shape this area. He wanted the feedback to help shape this area.

Councillor Cheung stated that he has heard from his colleagues that more work is needed. This is not being rush through. The housing is critical. He stated that the supermarket needs to be planned for when who is living there is in place. He wanted to make sure that the open space is pedestrian friendly. This is not ready for passage or referral. More work is still needed to be done. He stated that the biggest thing is the recurrent theme of public benefit. He spoke about the overall cost to the federal government to build this building. He added that the federal government is part of the public benefit and they are taking a huge piece off of the table. He stated that the public benefit is not tangible.

Councillor Kelley stated that he is in no hurry to move this forward on this. He wanted data on cars that are registered and how many people in these relevant buildings have children that need 3 bedrooms, and if rental or ownership what the turnover is. This is needed before a decision is made.

Councillor Simmons stated that she is late to the party of getting on board on Volpe. She asked if nothing is done what would this mean to the City. This is important to know. She stated that information on zoning proposals she wanted the information sent to the City Council 48 hours before the presentation so that questions could be given to the staff. She agreed with the housing and wanted more housing. She supported the 25% housing. She spoke about retail on page 2 is referred to as active uses. It is difficult to mandate who comes into ground floor retail. She wanted a comprehensive look at ground floor retail that will not repel people. Kendall Square is not inviting to all people; it is beginning to draw people in. She wanted to make sure that this is paid attention to about Volpe. She wanted comprehensive guidelines. The organizations named do not speak for all people. Volpe is an important development. She wanted to encourage voices that have not been heard. She suggested having a meeting at the Pisani Center where the Area Four Coalition meet. She encouraged reaching out to The Port, Washington Elms and Wellington Harrington residents. Councillor Simmons asked about the timeline in years. She wanted to know when the development on the Volpe Center will begin and when the dividend start to come to the City. She wanted the dividends collected throughout the process. She wanted to know how the Volpe development timeline fits into the MIT development timeline and wanted to see the time lines side by side. She stated that this is a lot of construction going on at the same time in the same area of the City. She wanted the City Council and the public to meet with the developers. She supported home ownership. She wanted a more diverse representation engaged in this process and keep the community informed.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that this hearing would be continued to Dec 1, 2015. With regard to the Master Plan attention has being given to Alewife and now you may be to focus on Volpe. He asked how this affects resources and costs. Ms. Farooq stated that there was not detailed analysis as part of the scope of the work that was asked of the consultant on Volpe. This would be an expansion of the scope if the consultant were asked to look at the Volpe site. She stated that time wise the more things that are early action the less is early because there is only so much that can be done first. The consultants could be asked to do a peer review of what is before us on Volpe and provide their advice. This could be a way to get early input. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that this on 14 acre site we can add 203 housing units and he wanted more on the site, but he understands the constraint. There is not another site in the City where this number of affordable housing can be added. He asked what the possibility of the City is acquiring the site. Ms. Farooq stated that the site is not for sale except for this land swap. The project would be more expensive the more parties involved. Vice Mayor Benzan asked how do you limit heights and seek the benefits and make it economic viable. Why are we entertaining something that cannot be achieved? The City is asking for a lot on a parcel that the City does not own. He stated that the layout of the buildings does not achieve the spaces that the young people want. Placement of the buildings on Broadway could affect the sunlight. He stated that there is no senior center in Kendall Square and no retirement community and he wanted to see this in Kendall Square. Vice Mayor Benzan asked about the bike facility and if they would be more modern. He asked if the City is rethinking the bike facilities around the City. Ms. Farooq responded in the affirmative. She stated that the project development team works with the developers on the bike facilities. The City has not found any two tier bike racks that are comfortable for people to use.

The following e-mails were received:
Peter Crawley, President, ECPT, requesting that the Volpe site be included in the City-wide Master Plan process, serious transportation infrastructure improvements be made, exclude the federal land from the site and the open space on the Volpe land be 5 acres (ATTACHMENT F).
Ovadia Simha transmitting a memo on the Volpe Zoning proposal comparisons (ATTACHMENT G).
Rosemary Booth and Jerry O'Leary, 303 Third Street, in opposition to the Volpe proposal and the process (ATTACHMENT H).

Vice Mayor Benzan thanked all those present for their attendance.

Councillor Cheung moved that the matter be held in committee and on a voice vote of six the motion - Carried.

Vice Mayor Benzan announced that the next Ordinance Committee hearing on this petition has been scheduled for Dec 1, 2015 at 5:30pm.

The hearing adjourned at 8:11pm on a motion of Councillor Kelley.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair

Committee Report #4

The Human Services and Veterans Committee conducted a public hearing on Oct 21, 2015, beginning at 3:12pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to receive a report from the Department of Human Services regarding the plan to move forward with the recommendations brought forth by the Charrette on Homelessness.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Marc C. McGovern, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Craig Kelley; Richard C. Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Robert Haas, Commissioner; Christine Elow, Deputy Superintendent; Fred Cabral, Sergeant; Officer Eric Helberg, Cambridge Police Department; Cathy Pemberton, Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker; Matt Nelson, Community and Strategic Partnerships Coordinator, Cambridge Police Department (CPD); Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Shelly Chevalier, Planning & Development Manager; Liz Mengers, Homeless Services Planner; Mike Payack, Planner/Contracts Manager, Department of Human Services Programs; Annie Nagle; Wil Durbin; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Mike Johnson, Deputy Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Elaine DeRosa, CEOC; Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli; Paula Kusher; Mary Shannon Thomas, Clinical Director; Eliot; Larry Gottlieb; Caitrin Thornhill; Jamie Goulart; Peter Daly, HRI; Ronit Barkai, Transition House; and Joseph Carparco.

Councillor McGovern opened the hearing and thanked all present for their attendance. He stated that the purpose of the meeting was to update on what is happening regarding homelessness and what can be done to better support the homeless as well as next steps moving forward in areas where more work is needed. He thanked those present for their work with this group. He stated that the homeless are part of the community and are part of what makes Cambridge the City it is. He stated that many homeless come to Cambridge because of the services that are provided as well as the respect that they feel from the people who work with this population. He stated that he is glad that people who don't feel safe in other places feel safe in Cambridge.

Ellen Semonoff stated that many people in attendance at the hearing are key providers in the city who are conducting critical work and are deeply engaged. She stated that it was in a January 2015 meeting of this committee in which there was discussion about the current state of the City regarding homelessness and the need for further planning processes that would bring us to what can be done next. She stated that with the support of the steering committee she expects to be able to say more about what needs to happen by year end. She stated that although the urgency is great, planning takes a long time. Ms. Semonoff introduced Shelly Chevalier who gave an overview of the Strategic Action Plan on Homelessness (Attachment A).

Ms. Chevalier stated that the Planning and Development Division of the Cambridge Department of Human Service Programs and the Cambridge CoC began working in early 2015 to implement a community engaged process to address homelessness in Cambridge. She stated the objective was to conduct a thorough, thoughtful, and intentional review of potential implementation strategies and do it in an open and authentic manner. She stated that an intensive planning process was chosen that is intended to propose tangible action steps in a relatively short period of time.

Ms. Chevalier stated that as winter approaches it is certainly an appropriate time of year to reflect on this topic. She stated winter is an especially difficult time for those without homes. She stated that in 2005 the City of Cambridge published the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in Cambridge. She noted that the plan outlined a framework for housing and services to prevent and end homelessness in the city. She noted that the plan also identified obstacles to achieving success, including the regional nature of homelessness, the high cost of housing, a lack of subsidies and other funding, and the needs of the people the system serves. She said that since the plan's release ten years ago, the number of individuals experiencing homelessness has remained relatively stable despite the work that has been undertaken to overcome these barriers.

Ms. Chevalier stated that there is an important connection between homelessness and housing. She stated that it was not going to be enough to merely engage in a conventional planning process and they needed to approach the issue differently.

The conclusion was that the conversation needed to be broader and engagement of more people in the conversation so they looked at potential models and became acquainted with the Corp for Supportive Housing who has an intensive process called Charrette.

She stated that the process began by gathering a Steering Committee. She stated the importance of gathering a cross sectional and diverse group with different types of expertise and were committed to the idea that half of the committee would be homeless service providers and comprised of representatives of government services, health fields, City departments, the faith-based community and the Department of Public Health. She noted that the Steering Committee spent five months, alongside CSH and Continuum of Care staff, providing local context, identifying issue areas, conducting community meetings to gain community input, outreaching to involve others in the community and coordinate Charrette logistics.

The work of the Steering Committee also included the formation of six issue areas that have become the conversation of the focus during Charrette week. She explained that the Steering Committee met every two weeks with the goal of determining 6-8 areas that would become the focus of the Charrette. She said that the Steering came up with 8 areas and then held two meetings and presented themes and got feedback. She explained that based on feedback, they refined some of the ideas. She said that the concept of a Charrette is to create an environment where you are bringing local expertise, national expertise, and having members of the community to be engaged in the conversation. This is called a fishbowl model.

Ms. Chevalier noted that Charrette Week kicked off on Sept 15, 2015 with two full days of intense dialogue. She noted that the conversation focused on six identified issue areas with draft recommendations for each of the six areas: Serving Frequent Users of Emergency Services, The Housing First Model, Strategies for Increasing Investment, Increasing Housing Supply for People who are Homeless, Services and Policies to Prevent Homelessness and Service Navigation and Systems Coordination. She added that these six issues are only ideas that have not been vetted or analyzed for feasibility.

Ms. Chevalier explained the Charrette process. She stated that to condense planning time while involving a broad range of stakeholders, Cambridge engaged the Corporation for Support Housing (VSH) to facilitate this work using the CSH Charrette process. She said that the CSH Charrette is designed to help communities address key issues in ending homelessness at the local level. She stated that the CSH Charrette provides a fast-paced but thorough exploration of the critical aspects of developing plans and action steps and added that the CSH Charrettes capitalize on local and external expertise as well as the community organizing principle of engaging stakeholders in a dynamic process. Ms. Chevalier stated that the goal of the Charrette was to produce a feasible set of recommendations to inform the Cambridge Strategic Plan on Homelessness and noted that after the Charrette process, the project begins the process of developing an action plan leading to implementation.

Ms. Chevalier stated that the staff of the Human Services Department will be reviewing various forms of input from the Charrette process and will work with the Steering Committee to draft the Cambridge Action Plan on Homelessness. She added that the draft plan will be available near the end of the year and available on the City and City of Cambridge websites and include a public comment period.

Fred Cabral stated that in June of this year, the CPD had its first stakeholders meeting. He stated that this was an opportunity for organizations and providers including the CHA, Caspar, Elliot, and Riverside to speak generally about how the CPD is serving the homeless population in the city. He stated that they are working on fostering better partnerships with providers. He stated that these meetings are beneficial and stated that next year these meetings will occur on a quarterly basis.

Shelley Chevalier asked Sergeant Cabral about the outreach effort for the meeting. Sergeant Cabral stated that Cambridge had 1 or 2 homeless deaths almost a year ago. He noted that these individuals had significant mental health issues. He noted that he attended a meeting in June at the Cambridge Health Alliance and explained that from that meeting the idea of multi-disciplinary outreach endeavor was borne. He explained that different organizations reach people in different ways. He noted that the organizations have different skill sets. He stated that two police officers are dedicated daily to working with the homeless population. He noted that on Sept 2, 2015, small groups worked together to visit certain parts of the city to reach out to people who may be falling through the cracks. He stated that the plan is to continue this outreach on a weekly basis. Kathy Pemberton added that this has been successful, yet difficult work. She added that they reach out through the squares, down the river, on train tracks and throughout Central Square.

Shelley Chevalier stated that there was identification of a group of 20 individuals who are high utilizers. She noted that they have made commitment to house and provide services to this group of individuals. She then told about an initiative through the San Francisco Mayor's Office called The Navigation Center. She explained that this community had the issue of people camping in certain issues. She stated that one of the things that they have done is that they were able to obtain a location and specifically invite this group of individuals who were camping out and invite them to come to The Navigation Center which was different than a shelter. She stated that the homeless were allowed to bring partners and pets and were able to store their belongings. She stated that this created some infrastructure for those that would not reach out to conventional services. She stated that this model is a work in progress but is a very interesting concept.

Ms. Chevalier stated that in most urban communities a small number of people with complex, unmet needs who experience homelessness are frequently involved in the criminal justice system, and also frequently use shelters and emergency health care. She stated that they often have long histories of homelessness and untreated or poorly managed mental illnesses and addictions. She stated that their frequent stays in county or city jails, shelters, hospital, and sobering centers result in extraordinarily high costs in multiple public systems but fail to improve the outcomes for the individuals or their communities.

Ms. Chevalier spoke about the Housing First Model. She stated that this is a well-evidenced practice for vulnerable populations who experience long-term homelessness as well as other homeless household who experience homelessness primarily due to economic reasons. She stated that this model is particularly effective for chronically homeless individuals and frequent users.

Ms. Chevalier stated that many issues discussed throughout the Charrette were dependent on the addition of new resources or repurposing of existing resources. She noted that Cambridge has a base of wealth that remains untapped for the homeless response system. She stated that the participants explored innovative investment strategies and models, some through new methods and new investors. She stated that they heard over and over during the Charrette that it doesn't make sense that Cambridge is a community with so much resource yet we cannot do more than we are doing from a resource point of view. She added that at this point a majority of the funding for homeless service system comes from federal sources. She explained that there is a renewal process in which HUD will be creating a tier system. She said that programs in the secondary tier are at far greater risk for being funded. She explained that in the second tear are programs in the amount of over $500,000.00. She said that if we are going to do what we need to do, we need to be thoughtful of diversifying our resources. She said that it cannot be all federal, municipal, or philanthropic resources. She stressed the importance of figuring out how to combine those types of resources.

Ms. Chevalier stated that addressing the issue of affordable housing is difficult in a community with a market as tight as Cambridge. She explained that without an adequate supply of deeply affordable and supportive housing, ending and preventing homelessness will be an ongoing struggle for providers and the homeless. She spoke about the model at the CHA that is based on contracting with non-profits in the sponsor-based model and stated that possibility of expanding this program.

Ms. Chevalier stated that prevention of homelessness in Cambridge is two-fold: 1. Preventing individuals and families from ever entering the homeless response systems; and 2. Preventing future episodes of homelessness for formerly homeless individuals and families placed in stable housing.

Shelly noted that Cambridge recognizes that successful strategies and outcomes are dependent on other systems of care participating in the effort to prevent and end homelessness. She said that a coordinated access approach can improve the targeting of the appropriate level of services and housing to people in need. She stated that HUD requires the City to be developing a coordinated access system that makes it easier for people to navigate services and prioritizes people with the highest needs. She stated that they have begun the process to figure out how to make modifications to make it easier for those who need access to service.

Ms. Chevalier stated that the objective is to have a very action-oriented roadmap for the next 1-3 years. The timing works well so there is opportunity for that work to flow into the citywide planning process. She stated that they are going to resource gaps so part of the real work is figuring out what to prioritize and how to address gaps that exist.

Councillor McGovern asked how the City can lends it support to tackle larger issues of transitional housing, job training, substance abuse, with the immediate needs. He stated that in December he spoke with a woman about transitional housing and she stated that she just wanted blankets. He noted the need to have a long planning process to talk about complicated issues but said that we must still address immediate needs.

Mary Shannon Thomas stated that there is a great need for public toilet in Harvard Square. She stated that this is part of her concern when talking about planning processes. She stated that people will die before housing is built. She stated that although the city is making the commitment that it is going to move quickly and decisively on a timeframe that will work for people who are suffering, some of their clients will not last that long.

Councillor McGovern stated that the education piece is very important. He stated that sadly, sometimes the people that we work with are not always easy to work with. He said that there is a stigma that can be attached to people. He said the importance of sharing stories to help people understand that these are real people who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. He stated that it is easier to make a political case for seniors or low income. He asked how best to educate the general population about stories of the people that they are trying to allocate resources to. He said that this is a missing piece. He stated that he does not want this population shortchanged when the City Council makes choices about housing and what the criteria is.

Mr. Rossi stated that the issue of homelessness must not rely solely on the shoulders of the city. He stated that unfortunately this is not the city's only problem. He noted that there are problems in many areas that require money and funding. He said that the Cambridge is doing good work and has never shied away from important issues. In response to Ms. Thomas' comment regarding a toilet in Harvard Square, Mr. Rossi stated that there have been construction problems but the City is making good on its commitments. He added that the federal and state governments are not present at the table. He stated that as City Manager it is his obligation to maintain balance in terms of all the needs of the community.

Councillor McGovern stated that the City of Cambridge does incredible things and the expectation is that because Cambridge has resources, we should be doing more. He asked about more immediate gaps as winter approaches.

Paula Kushner, NP, stated that the most immediate needs are emergency shelter beds in Cambridge for the homeless. She said that with the closing of the Long Island Shelter, there are many more people on the street. There is already shortage even though it is not tremendously cold. She said that what is needed is a clear plan.

Ms. Semonoff stated that the data from the shelters is that there are currently empty beds. She stated that the data provided suggests that shelters are not at maximum numbers. She said if it is the case that there are no beds, it is something that must be discussed.

Cathy Pemberton asked if the data is received weekly by DHSP. Ms. Chevalier responded that there is some time delay in reporting. Cathy Pemberton stated that she learned at a recent meeting that Boston shelters have been full and Fr. Bill's in Quincy has been full as well. She noted the need to start looking at hospitals.

Mr. Rossi asked the cost of funding one bed. Larry _____________ responded that Pine Street has 100 homeless individuals on the floor right now. He stated that shelters are chock full. He explained that while every shelter has a different rate of reimbursement, there is a standard of $25 per night per bed. He added that because shelters have variety of services, the amount of the resources in each facility is different.

Larry _________stated that the faith-based communities are great and they have a lot of space. He said that some of these organizations coming together could think about some type of temporary arrangement which could be staffed by volunteers or paid staff. He said that there is a lot of unused space during the nighttime hours. He stated that homelessness is like unemployment - it goes up, it goes down but it does not go away.

Mary Shannon Thomas stated that warehousing is cheap. She stated that it is much easier for clients to sleep outside if they do not have the coping mechanisms to stay in a shelter. She stated that there is more success if the environment is smaller in size.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is an unsolvable problem and it must be emotionally draining for providers. He said that he is a member of Christ Church Cambridge where they had bathrooms utilized by the homeless for years. He stated that after increased undesirable activity they had to make the choice to close the bathrooms. He stated that this is not something that can be solved with volunteers or "on the cheap." He stated that the homeless need to be supported by people who know what they are doing. He stated that in the planning process a number could be picked to provide beds somewhere. He noted that this is not a problem that the City Manager can just solve as he and his staff need to be given specifics. Councillor Kelley encouraged planning and stated that putting people in housing without associated support services is a recipe for disaster. He added that he is eager to work on the issue moving forward and thanked the providers for their mental stamina.

Mr. Rossi stated that stated that homelessness is a topic that is being discussed all the time. He stated that ideas must be vetted thoroughly and then determine a plan of action.

Marc McGovern stated that he refuses to accept that homelessness is an unsolvable problem. He stated that it is fixable, though difficult. He asked how many shelter beds are available for single persons. Ms. Mengers responded 220-225 without seasonal shelters. He stated that it should not always be the churches stepping up. He stated that we cannot count on volunteerism and doing this "on the cheap." He stated that the Harvard Square shelter is run by Harvard students and it does not have the feel of the "us" vs. "them." He stated that the restriction list at Albany Street can be between 20-45. This winter we will find that we need more emergency shelter beds. He stated that if you are looking at Albany Street to take more, they are understaffed and under prepared. He stated that some shelters feel like the guests are being treated with dignity and respect. He said that he feels that at the Harvard Square Shelter. He stated that there is a punitive culture that is taking place at some shelters.

Eric Helberg talked about possibility of developing a database so shelters could give notice of availability. He noted that generally the CPD only calls CASPAR as they don't have access to faith-based shelters. He stated that the CPD would be happy to work with shelter providers to work together in the event a person needs a bed.

Liz Mengers stated that the idea of a database of available beds is the vision that was discussed. She noted that many of the challenges are tied back to some of the strings attached to federal money. She stated that all shelters are required to enter utilization data yet the technology is not nimble enough to utilize it in such ways as they would like. She stated that there are workarounds that they are starting to explore. She noted that the shelters are willing to be at the table and there is commitment to work towards that goal.

Eric Helberg stated that what they do need is commitment from the shelters. They work with CASPAR and in the past they have been very accommodating. If they need something, they make it happen. He stated that he does not know the names of person running faith-based shelters. A commitment via formal request as part of winter emergency program that says consideration will be appreciated when contacted by service provider. MM asked if the city can facilitate a conversation in planning better for the winter.

Councillor McGovern stated that it is ludicrous to think that outreach officers don't have contact information of shelters. Commissioner Haas stated that clients that Officers Helberg and ____________ deal with are clients who won't qualify for any shelters other than CASPAR. Councillor McGovern stated that it is important to make sure that those on front line have all information available to them.

Liz Mengers stated that they maintain resource guide that is updated with all resources available. It is web-based anyone can go on website and get information from every shelter in the city.

Councillor McGovern questioned how information is being disseminated. He noted that the War Memorial has opened during the winter when there were bad storms. He stated that he received an e-mail from the City explaining that this was taking place. He asked if this option is only available for people who lose power or could it be utilized by the homeless as well. Ms. Semonoff stated that the War Memorial was utilized by some homeless persons and elderly. She explained that when the City has used a City building as a shelter it was because an emergency occurred during non-school time. She stated that she does not think that the City has any city buildings that could be utilized unless school is closed and not in session. She did note, however, that youth centers have been used during overnight hours to house people while looking for where they could be placed. She stated that they had to be out of the youth center by 10:00am.

Commissioner Haas added that most people that utilize shelters during an emergency have a home to return to but the homeless do not. He stated that there is a more complicated set of plans that must be put in place.

Councillor McGovern stated that he would like Ms. Semonoff to set up an informal meeting with shelter providers. Ms. Semonoff responded that there are a group of people on the street on a weekly basis and she suggested that a good first step would be to meet with these people.

Joseph Caparco stated that he is concerned about the homeless. He said that he attended many of the charrette meetings. He stated that he wants to see more action. He said that a lot of good things have been said and solutions proposed. He stated that the Harvard Square Shelter is considered one of the better shelters. He stated that we need to have a volunteer group that will be committed to the homeless. We cannot look at them as "those people with so many problems." He stated that we do need to think of the winter and temporary places such as schools as well as staff or volunteers who would clean the area after use.

Councillor McGovern thanked all attendees.

The hearing adjourned at 5:00pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Marc C. McGovern, Chair