Cambridge City Council meeting - Dec 2, 2013 - AGENDA
Vice Mayor Simmons was ABSENT
CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the transfer of $13,000 from the Reserve Other Ordinary Maintenance account to the General Fund Community Development Travel and Training account which will be used to pay for the membership with the Massachusetts Biotechnology Organization (MassBio) and for travel to the 2014 BIO International Life Sciences conference (BIO) held in San Diego, California from June 23-26, 2014.
2. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the Morse Afterschool Bake Sale donations in the amount of $421.00 to Grant Fund Human Service Programs Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will be used to offset the cost of field trips for families that their programs serve.
3. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Council Order No. 28, dated Sept 9, 2013, regarding establishing a committee to monitor the progress of the non-zoning recommendations of the C2 Committee.
Dec 2, 2013
To the Honorable, the City Council:In response to Council Order No. 28, dated Sept 9, 2013, regarding establishing a committee to monitor the progress of the non-zoning recommendations of the C2 Committee, please be advised of the following:
The Central Square Advisory Committee is appointed by the City Manager to undertake all large project reviews as required by the Zoning Ordinance and to receive all applications for variances and special permits for activities within the Central Square Overlay District. The Committee includes residents from Cambridgeport, Riverside, Area IV, Mid-Cambridge and the Central Square business community and currently meets on an as needed basis.
It is our recommendation that the charge of the Central Square Advisory Committee be expanded to include monitoring of the progress of the non-zoning recommendations of the C2 Committee. Attached is the call for new members, which will be issued on Fri, Nov 29 and is available on the City website.
Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager
City of Cambridge Seeks Members for the Central Square Advisory Committee
The City of Cambridge is currently seeking letters of interest from Cambridgeport, Riverside, Area IV, Mid-Cambridge residents and the Central Square business community who would like to serve on the Central Square Advisory Committee.Committee Charge
Zoning: Undertake all Large Project Reviews as required by the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and receives all applications for variances and special permits for activities within the Central Square Overlay District for review and comment.Non-Zoning: Monitor the progress of the non-zoning recommendations of the K2C2 study.
Time Commitment
The Committee will meet every two months. Additional meetings will be scheduled as required based on project review needs.Participation in previous Central Square planning activities and understanding of development and design issues are desirable. Final selection of Advisory Committee members will be made by City Manager Richard Rossi.
To apply, please send a letter by Fri, Dec 20, describing your interest in the the Central Square Advisory Committee and any experience you have working on similar issues to:
Elaine Thorne
Cambridge Community Development Department,
344 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139
ethorne@cambridgema.gov
4. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, regarding the creation of a short term task force that will consider drafting a municipal ordinance related to outdoor lighting.
Dec 2, 2013
To the Honorable, the City Council:Regarding creating a short term task force that will consider drafting a municipal ordinance related to outdoor lighting, the following members have been appointed to a task force to work with City staff and a lighting consultant to evaluate existing standards, offer guidance for the creation of a new ordinance, propose new regulatory approaches if needed, and develop enforcement mechanisms. The proposed task force is comprised of representatives from City departments, along with Cambridge residents, property owners, and business representatives.
Carol Lynn Alpert, Resident
Gavin Kleespies, Resident
Charles Teague, Resident
Bob Woodbury, Resident
Peter Calkins, Business - Forest City
David Chilinski, Business - PCA
Denise Jillson, Business - Harvard Square Business Association
Tom Saidnawey, Business - Pemberton Farms
Chris Basler, Community Development
Andrea Boyer, License Commission
Steve Lenkauskas, City Electrician
Ranjit Singanayagam, ISD CommissionerThe task force will consider existing Cambridge lighting standards, as well as concerns raised in the Teague Zoning Petition. In connection with the consultant's efforts, the task force will review industry standards and technology innovations that can address environmental, safety, and economic concerns. Finally, proposed enhancements to Cambridge lighting standards will be evaluated from a legislative and compliance perspective to recommend best practices for implementation in both existing and future fixtures and developments.
It is our goal that the task force and consultant will endeavor to finalize recommendations in the spring of 2014.
Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager
ON THE TABLE
1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-09, regarding a report on the use of coal and on Cambridge becoming coal-free. [City Manager Agenda Number One of Mar 5, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Vice Mayor Simmons on Mar 5, 2012.]
2. Urge greater cooperation from the Cambridge Housing Authority to better serve the people of Cambridge. [Order Number Two of Apr 9, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Vice Mayor Simmons on Apr 9, 2012.]
3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and other relevant departments in order to present to the City Council a map of Cambridge that shows, by location and by date, all of the areas where construction is and will be taking place over the coming decade. [Order Number Four of Apr 9, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Toomey on Apr 9, 2012.]
4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item No. 12-28, regarding temporary ramps and obstructions in construction zones. [City Manager Agenda Number Eight of Apr 23, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Kelley on Apr 23, 2012.]
5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-35, which requests a report on whether there were any public safety officers that falsified their emergency medical training re-certification while employed by the City of Cambridge. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Toomey on City Manager Agenda Number Two of May 21, 2012. Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Toomey on June 4, 2012.]
6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-63 regarding a report on safety issues at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Vassar Street. [City Manager Number Twenty-three of July 30, 2012 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Kelley on July 30, 2012.]
7. That the City Manager is requested to work together with the appropriate city officials including the City Solicitor and report back to the City Council regarding modification of the ordinance (10.12.030) that links the awarding of a one yearlong Visitor Parking Permit per household to the purchase of a $25 Cambridge Resident Parking Permit. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Decker on Order Number Eight of Jan 28, 2013. Order Number Eight of Jan 28, 2013 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor vanBeuzekom on Feb 11, 2013.]
8. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation to determine the feasibility of implementing a pay-by-phone parking meter program in Cambridge, and report back to the City Council with recommendations as soon as possible. [Order Number Two of Mar 18, 2013 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Kelley on Mar 18, 2013.]
9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-29, regarding a report on the feasibility of not allowing residents of new buildings to obtain on-street resident parking stickers. [City Manager Agenda Number Two of Apr 1, 2013 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Kelley on Apr 1, 2013.]
10. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-22, regarding a report on safety issues at the intersection of Cedar Street and Mass Avenue. [City Manager Agenda Number Five of Sept 30, 2013 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Kelley on Sept 30, 2013.]
11. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee, for a public meeting held on Sept 4, 2013 to discuss the future of public safety efforts and investments in the City of Cambridge. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Kelley on Committee Report Number Two of Oct 21, 2013. Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Kelley on Nov 4, 2012.]
12. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee, for a public meeting held on Oct 1, 2013 to discuss safety associated with tour bus parking, traveling and touring through Cambridge. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Kelley on Committee Report Number One of Nov 4, 2013. Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Kelley on Nov 18, 2012.]
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
13. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Nov 7, 2013 on the petition received from Boston Properties to amend the Zoning Ordinances and Zoning Map in the Ames Street area. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Dec 2, 2013. Planning Board hearing held Nov 12, 2013. Petition expires Feb 5, 2014.
APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. An application was received from Clover Fast Food, Inc. requesting permission for a sandwich board sign in front of the premises numbered 5 Cambridge Center.
COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from Carol O'Hare regarding the Ames Street District.
2. A communication was received from Kathleen Born, Chair, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board transmitting the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Support for Boston Properties Ames Street Zoning Petition including a response to a request from the Ordinance Committee regarding fast food permits for the MXD District together with a Letter of Intent for the Ames Street Housing Project between the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority and Boston Properties Limited Partnership.
3. A communication was received from Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street relating to the Ames Street Zoning Petition and the Disposition of City Property on Ames Street between Main Street and Broadway in Kendall Square.
RESOLUTIONS
1. Congratulations to Tavern in the Square for hosting its annual free Thanksgiving Dinner for the past nine years. Vice Mayor Simmons
2. Resolution on the death of Barbara Maloney. Councillor Maher
3. The City Council encourages residents to participate in the annual book drive and thank the Cambridge Public Library and Porter Square Books for their efforts this holiday season Councillor Toomey
4. Wishing the Mount Olivet Lodge a Happy 150th Anniversary. Councillor Toomey
5. Congratulations to Bobby Tynes and Tracy Rose on being recognized by Ebony magazine. Mayor Davis
6. Congratulating Jennifer Grout on her performance on Arabs got talent. Mayor Davis
7. Thanking Dan Riviello as he leaves his position as Director of Communications & Media Relations for the Cambridge Police Department and wishing him well in all his future endeavors. Mayor Davis
8. Resolution on the death of James Ford. Councillor Maher
9. Resolution on the death Joseph DiNatale. Councillor Toomey
10. Wishing Agnes Darlington a speedy recovery. Vice Mayor Simmons
COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Nov 20, 2013 to discuss a petition by the City Manager to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge to define and list Registered Marijuana Dispensary, delete Section 11.700 and create a new Section 20.700 entitled Medical Marijuana Overlay Districts.
Passed to 2nd Reading
2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Nov 21, 2013 to conduct a public hearing on a zoning petition filed by Christopher H. Lutz, et al requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by rezoning an area on the northern border of Richdale Avenue from Upland Road to Walden Street from its C1-A designation to residential C-1.
Referred to Petition
COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Councillor Craig Kelley regarding Chapter 8 amendments for tobacco 21 and e-cigarettes.
HEARING SCHEDULE
Mon, Dec 2
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Wed, Dec 4
4:00pm The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on an amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.28 relating to smoking in public parks. (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Dec 9
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
6:30pm The City Council will conduct a public hearing on a proposal by the City of Cambridge to sell a 20-foot wide strip of public land along the eastern edge of Ames Street between Main Street and Broadway in Kendall Square. The land would be sold to a private owner with the condition that it would be combined with adjacent land to enable the construction of a residential building with ground floor retail. The public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, regarding Disposition of City Property. (Sullivan Chamber)
Wed, Dec 11
10:45am The University Relations Committee will conduct a public meeting to tour Longy School. The meeting will convene in the Sullivan Chamber and proceed to the Longy School of Music, 27 Garden Street. (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Dec 16
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Dec 23
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Dec 30
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Jan 6
10:00am CITY COUNCIL INAUGURAL MEETING (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Jan 13
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Jan 27
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Feb 3
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Feb 10
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Feb 24
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Mar 3
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Mar 10
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Mar 17
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Mar 24
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Mar 31
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Apr 7
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, Apr 28
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)
TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
ORDINANCE COMMITTEE
MEETING TYPE - Public hearing
MEETING PURPOSE - To discuss a petition by the City Manager to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge to define and list Registered Marijuana Dispensary, delete Section 11.700 and create a new Section 20.700 entitled Medical Marijuana Overlay Districts.
MEETING DETAILS
Date and Time: Nov 20, 2013 at 4:08pm
Location: Sullivan Chamber
ATTENDEES
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair; Councillor Leland Cheung; Mayor Henrietta Davis; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Minka vanBeuzekom; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Brian Murphy, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department (CDD); Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning, CDD; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.
OTHER ATTENDEES
Allen Chen, 12-16 Ellery Street; Avirvdh Raiachenar, 18 St. Paul Street; Cate Mingoya, 9 Clinton Street; Callahan Seltzer, 26 Suffolk Street; Ethan Lay-Sleeper, 54 Mondnock Street, Boston; and Michael Castgiola, 56 Market Street.
MINUTES
Councillor Maher opened the meeting and stated the purpose. He announced that this meeting is being televised and recorded. He gave a history of the proposal. The City Council enacted a moratorium several months ago as the state looked at developing regulations around the voter initiative that was passed by voters in the Commonwealth. The regulations have been issued by the state. The Community Development Department has looked at the regulations and has developed a policy change based on the regulations. Some of the regulations have to do with the placement of marijuana dispensaries and its proximity to parks, schools, day care centers and any place where children would congregate. A presentation would be made by Community Development Department.
Assistant City Manager for Community Development Brian Murphy spoke about the planning principals that led to the two suggestions for the marijuana overlay zoning districts. The state has stated that there will only be 5 medical marijuana dispensaries per county in this go round regardless of the size of the county. The dispensary will have a regional service area. Applicants have gone through round one with the state. Licensing is done through the State Department of Public Health. Round two applicants are being submitted now. The state will select applicants to be licensed marijuana dispensaries starting in January 2014.
Mr. Roberts made a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT A). He explained the background of the proposal. This proposal was referred to the City Council and the Planning Board. The Planning Board held a public hearing on this proposal in October and issued a positive recommendation on the Zoning proposal with a few changes. The state regulation is lengthy and one of the more strict medical marijuana regulations of any state. The state regulation is comprehensive. One of the challenges of the zoning is to determine how the City's regulations and requirements fit into the overall state regulation. The regulation defines a registered marijuana dispensary (RMD). Any operation that deals with medical marijuana from the cultivation, to processing of food products or other medicinal products that includes marijuana as described in the regulation as marijuana infused products (MIP's) to the dispensing of medical marijuana to patients is all included in this corporate entity which is referred to as an RMD. It is important to note that a RMD follows a seed to sale model. A single entity has to perform all aspects up to the sale of the product to the patient. A patient is defined in the regulation and must be registered at state level and have a doctor's recommendation and the patient must have an ongoing relationship with the doctor who gives the recommendation. Personal care giver is someone who can obtain medical marijuana for a patient. It is a one-to-one relationship between a personal care giver and the patient. The personal care giver cannot act as a secondary marijuana dispensing agent serving a large number of patients. There is a provision in the state regulation for hardship cultivation. A patient could apply to the state department of public health to cultivate and process their own marijuana. The standards for granting the hardship are financial, physical, lack of transportation hardship or the lack of an RMD within a reasonable distance to serve the patients need. Looking at the regulations within the state framework and from a local standpoint of how an RMD would operate within the corporate entity. He stated that MIP are dispensed to the registered qualifying patients. The state law allows up to a 60 day supply or up to 10 ounces of marijuana. This is the cap in the state regulation. An RMD can dispense the product either on site on home delivery. There are transportation requirements in the state regulations. An RMD can have separate sites and cultivate or dispense can be done at different sites. The expectation in Cambridge is that an RMD would be a dispensary site. A cultivation site would require more space and would be located in a less populated site. In the first year of registration of RMD there may be up to 35 registered in the state and up to 5 per county. Per the law there will be at least l and no more than 5 RMD per county. Counties in MA vary dramatically in size. One might assume that there may be a higher number of RMD in Middlesex County, which is the state's largest county as opposed to a smaller county like Nantucket County - but that is not the case with the state proposal. An RMD will serve multiple communities based on the distribution characteristics. It will not be a neighborhood serving business; it will be a regional serving business. It could serve a general population of 200,000 - 300,000 people. The range of service will depend on how the RMD's are distributed around the state. The state estimates that up to 1% of general population would be registered patient. This is the standard that the state has applied. It is estimated that patients would generate approximately 6 trips to an RMD per year based on the 60 day supply. Traffic generated by and RMD's is estimated to result in approximately 50 vehicle trips per day, but could be more if patients make more frequent visits. It is estimated that these trips will come from a wide geographic area.
Mr. Roberts stated that taking the state regulations and looking at how they define what a dispensing facility RMD would look like. The RMD would have a secure area for product storage. The area would be limited to a registered number of employees and the employees would be required to have background checks and other state requirements. The area would be under 24 hour video surveillance. The products as they are loaded and unloaded would have to be transported in an armored truck. Two attendants must remain with the vehicle at all times. For the dispensing area only registered qualifying patients can enter the RMD. There would be a controlled patient entry and exit. If you are not a registered patient you would not be allowed to enter the RMD. Patients must present their registration to enter the facility.
Councillor vanBeuzekom asked Mr. Roberts if these are the best practices or are they state regulation. Mr. Roberts stated that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health promulgated a set of regulations in May and they dictate how the RMD will be selected and also the operational requirements, which the RMD is allowed to do business with, products and requirements for the principals of the organization. He stated that RMD must be registered non-profit organizations. There is a complex set of regulations on how the RMD is operated.
Mr. Roberts stated that that this presentation is a picture of how RMD would operate in Cambridge and what would be regulated through zoning. Consumption of IMP's is not allowed on the premises of RMD. The only use of the product that can occur at the RMD is for the purpose of demonstration or education to a patient as to how to take the product. A preferred way to administer medical marijuana is through a vaporizer. Per the state regulation the RMD are required to make vaporizers available and can demonstrate to patients the proper way to use the vaporizer with the product. On the outside of the RMD the signage can only included the company name and logo. No information can be included about product information, pricing or promotional information. The parking and patient entering and exiting must be video monitored. On an RMD there can be no use of the word marijuana, no images of marijuana, no products, no visibility of products from the outside and no consumption of marijuana on the premises.
Mr. Roberts spoke about the process of how the 35 RMD's would be selected. It is a two phase process. In Phase I application process has been completed. During this phase information was provided about the principals of the organization and their capital assets. The Phase II process is underway and in this phase more information is provided about the business plan and staffing. Important to the City is the identification of cultivation, processing and dispensing sites. Evidence must be provided showing local support or opposition. Phase II application deadline is Nov 22, 2013. There are 159 applicants across the state are in Phase II. There are 40 applicants who have expressed an interest to operate in Middlesex County. Some of these applicants in the Phase I process expressed an interest to operate in Cambridge. After the applications are submitted in Phase II the Mass. Department of Public Health will go through the review process. It is anticipated that decisions will be made by the end of January, 2014.
The state regulations specifically allow local regulations and zoning requirements as long as they do not conflict with the state law or regulation. The Attorney General has determined that a ban cannot be imposed on RMD's by towns; it did allow that cities and towns could establish temporary moratoria. Cambridge as well as other cities and towns imposed moratoriums. Some moratoriums extend until 2014 unlike Cambridge's which is ready to expire. Some cities and towns have adopted zoning regulations. The theme has been that the zoning has been in industrial areas or in adult oriented districts. The state regulation states that an RMD must follow local requirements provided that if no local requirement exists an RMD shall not be cited in a radius of 500 feet of a school, day care or any facility where children congregate. This is the standard that the Department of Public Health will apply. An alternate standard by local authorities can be allowed.
Mr. Roberts addressed the Cambridge zoning proposal. There are four major parts to the petition; the first three deal with setting up the base definitions and the Article IV use and other requirements to set a reference where the new regulations would be. The regulations would be only in a new overlay district section of the Zoning Ordinances. There are changes that need to take place in the zoning ordinances, but the changes are in the overlay district. The overlay district would be the controlling regulation for the RMD's. He outlined the proposed Section 20.700; the overlay district. The purpose of the zoning is to follow the state regulations and create a local framework to fit within the overall statewide framework. Local planning issues need to be considered such as access, transportation, public safety, ability for law enforcement monitoring and looking at the character of residential neighborhoods and the districts within Cambridge and that any conflicts can be mitigated with existing patterns of development. He spoke about the establishment of districts. The purpose lays out the consideration of proposing the overlay districts.
He used maps to explain the process which is included in ATTACHMENT A. The zoning map of Cambridge showed the residential and commercial districts. The first criteria looked at only office and business districts leaving a limited number of zoning districts. Transportation was the next issue looked at. Given that RMDs would be serving region wide patient populations the regional public transportation networks were reviewed for areas with the best access, not just for regional transportation access but for regional roadway access. The public safety aspect was looked at and many departments were consulted, including the police department were consulted on public safety issues. The police responded that there are areas in Cambridge, particularly the Acorn Park Drive on Route 2 is not accessible via Cambridge roads therefore it is difficult for the police to respond to calls. So this was eliminated as a possible site for RMD's. Urban character is an important consideration. The transportation criteria causes you to look some major commercial squares (Porter, Harvard, Central and Kendall Squares), as potential areas. All these areas have businesses and urban design goals, including supporting mixed use development, residential, office and retail uses often mixed together in mixed use buildings and given the security requirements for an RMD and the requirement to not have visible interiors there is a conflict with the City's urban design objectives. These areas were viewed as not preferable locations for RMD's.
Councillor Cheung asked if there was a consideration that RMD's not be on the ground floor. If located on a third floor of an office building it would not impinge on the urban character. Mr. Roberts responded in the negative. This could be discussed and if there was desire to look more closely at these districts to allow RMD's this would require an additional set of requirements to resolve the urban design issues. Areas inside and outside of the 500 feet buffer from schools or other child oriented uses were carefully looked at. Where children can congregate is a difficult standard to interpret exactly. There are very few areas in Cambridge that are outside the 500 buffer area. There are business areas in the City where there are a number of sites that could fall within these criteria of being away from these uses.
The two districts that were chosen were chosen due to access to both public transportation and the roadway network, urban character, the ability for police to monitor and respond to calls and there distance from schools or where children congregate. No more than 1 RMD would be located in Cambridge. Cambridge had to provide a range of areas to allow for the location of one RMD. The question came up at the Planning Board what if we wanted to look at other areas to locate RMD's. The Planning Board felt the proposed zoning set an overall frame work and establishes a limited number of RMD's would be cited. With this framework, if the City Council wished, there could be future zoning proposed to add districts. If other RMD were located in Cambridge other locations could be added to the overall set.
Mr. Roberts stated that the zoning requirements are meant to make sure that what is being proposed is consistent with what was approved by state. There are simple requirements: RMD's must be in a building, must meet dimensional and signage requirement of the base zoning. The Planning Board is responsible to set parking requirement due to difficulty in determining how many trips would be made based on the location of the RMD's. As part of the application process an analysis must be provided about how large an area would be served and how transporting and delivery would be done. The Planning Board recommended a comprehensive security plan and not requiring a secure loading area as long as all other security requirements were met. The Planning Board suggested that they have discretion to approving whatever loading arrangements deemed necessary for the RMD. This would be a change in the zoning proposal by striking the requirement to have at least on secure loading bay. This would be approved by the Planning Board Special Permit process. The special permit application would be required to have information on the operation of the facility, the service area, where trips would be coming from and how trips would be made to and from the site, context and uses surrounding the location, plan of the site, plans, elevations and the state registration requirements. The Planning Board would evaluate the proposal based on need for the service, determined at the state level and distant from schools, day care sites and where children congregate. The Planning Board would apply the same 500 foot standard, but it has been proposed that the Planning Board have the ability to reduce or modify this requirement if the Planning Board determines that there are other circumstances that result in the facility being suitably buffered, such as being across from a railroad track or highway. The 500 foot buffer may not be required to ensure that the operation of the RMD is suitably buffered from the operation of any child oriented uses. The Planning Board would look at for a site proposal whether the site is safe, access and egress, the traffic impact, service operation, loading impacts and how the building and facility fits within the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Roberts noted that if a permanent regulation is adopted the moratorium must be deleted. If the permanent regulation is not adopted the moratorium must be modified so that it is extended for an additional period of time to allow for future study. The Public Health Department, may through their processes, imposes regulations under their public health authority. The types of issues that the public health may look at are inspections, hours of operation, interaction with the community and educational materials. The Public Health Department would discuss a draft regulation from their advisory board and to determine whether these would be promulgated 2014.
Councillor Kelley questioned does Cambridge have the ability to modify what type of marijuana infused products. Can this definition be changed or must the state definition remain. Mr. Roberts stated that under zoning it could not be changed. Assistant City Manager for Community Development Murphy stated that it would not be able to be done because the state has spoken about the mixture of deliveries and was specific about vaporizers. A local public health regulation would be unlikely that would be further restrictive. Councillor Kelley stated that he is not concerned with being more restrictive. He is asking if the type of product can be regulated. He used the example of smoking verses ingesting marijuana.
Councillor Kelley asked if this could be answered by the state. Councillor Kelley asked if the local approval is the Planning Board or the neighborhood. Mr. Roberts stated that local approval refers to the city or town where it would be located. Local support or non-opposition is all that is stated in the state regulations. The state regulation does state that local zoning regulations are permitted. If the City Council adopted the zoning regulation it would indicate where and how RMD are permitted in the city and would indicate to the state the city's position. Councillor Kelley asked what happens if a child care moves into 500 feet of already permitted RMD. Mr. Roberts stated that he does not know the answer at the state level. At the local level a standard could be established in zoning. If approved and a certificate of occupancy is issued and the facility continues to operate under the approved proposal through zoning enforcement action a certificate of occupancy would not be revoked. If an RMD registration is revoked by state authority it would not be continued to be allowed due to nonconformity; he does not know what the state regulation would be. Councillor Kelley asked if an RMD is located a childcare could be established. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative. Councillor Kelley stated that if this proposal passes he would like clear language that lets the RMD owner know that if the RMD is approved they do not have to worry about another uses coming in afterwards. Assistant City Manager for Community Development Murphy stated that he did not know how this will play out at the federal level. It is a classic problem of a non-conforming use after it has been grandfathered. Councillor Kelley stated that special permits are meant to be granted. If this zoning is passed it should be expected that a special permit would be applied for and the Planning Board will review the design guidelines and are expected to approve the special permit. He does not know what the design guidelines are for the overlay district this is not a barrier to getting the marijuana dispensaries.
Mayor Davis asked whether a dispensary can be a use that has to be relicensed periodically. If a district changed its character and the dispensary was not in character of the neighborhood. Would the dispensary prevent the use being changed? Do these licenses have to be granted in perpetuity as in zoning or can zoning be written that the ability to operate is limited with a sunset provision. Mr. Roberts stated that in zoning there are ways to allow a use as a provisional allowance with the caveat that it has to be recertified. The occupancy permit would apply for a fixed amount of time and would have to be reissued. A clear standard must be established as to the reason for the withdrawal. When this has happened it is because the use changed in certain ways over time and the City would to have an opportunity to make sure that the use remains consistent with the use that was approved. Another method would be through local public health regulation is a way to monitor this. Through some other mechanism other than zoning this license could not be renewed.
Mr. Murphy stated that the state regulations state that the certificate of registration shall expire one year after the issuance date and maybe renewed, unless action has been taken as set forth in the regulations. No later than sixty days prior to the expiration date the RMD shall submit a renewal application and the RMD shall update as needed the accuracy of all the information on the submitted application for a certificate of registration given local support. If the city wished to change an area because the area change because of its character the zoning could be amended at which point the RMD would not be able to state that it had local support. This is a way that the potential future problem could be addressed.
Mayor Davis stated that in Colorado the licenses are now moving to recreational marijuana facilities and it is anticipated that most RMD may transfer to recreational marijuana use. Looking forward would the City be happy if the locations selected moved from medical to recreational marijuana facilities. We should be looking to the future and what may be expected to happen. This is why she wanted the sunset clause.
Councillor Cheung asked why an overlay was chosen as opposed to just having regulations. Mr. Roberts stated that due to the small number of RMD that would be located in Cambridge it was to select the most preferable location. When you have a special regulation intended to apply to specific areas the overlay provisions provide a useful tool because the base zoning does not have to be rewritten. A particular area is carved and regulations are established for the area. Councillor Cheung asked what the issue with McGrath Highway and Star Market was. He stated that there also looks like there is space near MIT. Mr. Roberts responded that the north side of McGrath Highway is included in the MD2 proposed overlay district; the south side is residential in character and it was chosen to use the highway as a boundary dividing line. The zoning for the Star Market, Mount Auburn Street, is zoned Business A-1 which is a neighborhood based retail character. It is surrounded by a residential neighborhood. It is distant, but does have bus lines. It allows business use, but did not meeting the criteria that were being applied.
Councillor Cheung commented that the interim regulations expire today and he asked what the City is doing. Mr. Roberts stated that the key fact is that the zoning proposal has been advertised prior to the expiration of moratorium and under the zoning statute, if zoning is adopted it is effective since advertisement. If this proposal is not acted upon favorable by City Council it may be preferable to delete only the expiration date of the moratorium and continue the moratorium until June 2014. Councillor Cheung asked if CDD has spoken with anyone who wants to set up RMD in Cambridge. Mr. Murphy responded that he has met with several potential dispensers. It will only be one site if sited in Cambridge. Some have complained about the challenges of finding a site. There has been feedback; it is hard to find a site.
Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that she does not want to preclude the possibility of having a second or third floor location. Mr. Roberts stated that the proposed zoning does not preclude location on an upper floor. Councillor vanBeuzekom asked if every property owner in these districts were notified of this proposal. Mr. Roberts stated that all property owners were notified and this included condo owners. Mr. Murphy stated that every RMD permit expires in a year and can be renewed. The Planning Board could make additional restrictions on the special permit would be a way to address this issue. Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that the city did vote to have medical marijuana in Cambridge and she wants to make sure that the city is not making it difficult to continue to conduct this business. She does not want the RMD shut out if a day care locates in the area where an RMD is located.
Councillor Kelley stated that people voted for this. We do not want to make this overly restrictive, but it does not have to be made super permissive. We need to make sure that the dispensaries are head shops. If we put these dispensaries in locations we need to expect them to stay.
Councillor Maher appreciated the effort and the presentation. He asked if it is possible for one applicant to have more than one dispensary in the Commonwealth. Mr. Murphy responded in the affirmative. Mr. Roberts stated that one organization can operate up to three RDM's. Councillor Maher asked if the non- profit, which is what the RMD is required to be under the state regulations, would they be subject to property taxes. City Manager Rossi stated that he will look into this. Councillor Maher stated that if a development were going into Kendall Square, we would suggest the developer go talk to the neighborhood. The Neighborhood Associations should be notified of the proposal. He specifically wanted the North Cambridge Neighborhood, the Cambridge Highlands and the East Cambridge Planning Team to be notified and made aware of this proposal. Councillor Maher stated that the question about the day care or a school moving into the district how does this change the situation. He stated that the Alewife/ Concord Avenue site is across from a soccer field which is within 500 feet. He stated that he is concerned with the parkland that is n the developing NorthPoint site and what this means for that and other gathering spots.
In response to a question by Councillor Maher, Mr. Murphy suggested recommending the proposal be forwarded to the full City Council and work on it in this matter, especially because of the timeline. Mr. Roberts stated that the petition expires on Jan 20, 2014. Councillor Maher suggested recommending that the proposal be referred without recommendation and that the subject matter remain in committee. Mr. Murphy stated that the moratorium would expire, but the petition was advertised and anyone would be subject to the petition. It the petition expired on Jan 20, 2014 the RMD's would not be permitted in the City because there is no explicit provision for the RMD's, but it is less clear with the guidance going forward. It would be easier to get this resolved with the petition in this form.
Councillor vanBeuzekom questioned the rational about districts verses dispensaries. Mr. Roberts stated that there are two alternatives. One is to take a base zoning approach and say that in certain base zoning districts it would be an allowed use by special permit. The base districts would have to be chosen. This would open the potential for many different sites across the city and would not be able to evaluate on the specifics of the actual location and where situated in the City. Looking at the state regulations and how many RMD would be approved it was decided that location and proximity to transit were important characteristics to consider and based on this it made more sense to actually select specific districts in order to have it as a permitted use rather than taking an approach that would have made it a permitted use in multiple districts in many different parts of the city. Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that the MMD1 district on either side of Fresh Pond Parkway this is right next to Danehy Park. Why was decision made to go across Fresh Pond Parkway? Mr. Roberts stated that although the district is near Danehy Parking there is a rail line separating Danehy Park from that particular district. Another consideration is that even though some portions of that district is within 500 feet of Danehy Park, if something were located closer to Fresh Pond Parkway it could be outside the 500 foot radius. The idea was that not every single site within the districts would necessarily be a suitable site but rather within those districts that exist in zoning there is the potential for some sites that would meet all the criteria. Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that the language states that just because you found a site in the district that the Planning Board will permit the building. It must be in the district but every part of the district might not be applicable. Mr. Roberts stated that in addition to being in the district it also must meet the Planning Board criteria.
Councillor Maher questioned, at which point, does the Planning Board weigh in on the matter. The applicant has their application before the Commonwealth, approved and selected by state and then come to the Planning Board? Mr. Roberts stated that this is the expectation. An RMD would not be able to operate until they had the state permit. The order is anticipated as the state process would have to know it is an allowed use and then would have to come to the Planning Board for approval to operate. Councillor Maher stated that if the state picks the 5 dispensaries applicants for Middlesex County and if local authorities deny two of the applicants, and then the applicants go back to the Commonwealth. Mr. Murphy stated that there is a provision where the state can change the locations. They can go back to the Planning Board for the new location. Councillor Maher questioned that if an application was approved for Somerville could that location be changed to Cambridge. Mr. Murphy stated that the locations are based on counties not on municipalities.
Councillor vanBeuzekom questioned could these dispensaries follow regulations similar to ABCC where the ABCC approves a license and then the applicant has to find a suitable site. Mr. Murphy responded that any additional regulation would be from the public health.
At 5:31pm Councillor Maher opened the meeting to public comment.
Callahan Seltzer, 26 Suffolk Street, asked where can these been dispensaries be located in other cities and towns in the county and have there been discussions with other communities and whether this is public.
Michael Castagiola, 56 Market Street, what method of communities was used to reach out to community where the districts are. Councillor Maher explained the legal notice and property owner was send notice. The legal notice was in the newspaper and posted on line. He felt more outreach should be done to the neighborhood groups, especially the East Cambridge Planning Team, North Cambridge and Cambridge highlands should be sent the notice. A presentation should be made to the community groups which then will get the message out. Councillor Maher asked Mr. Roberts about neighboring communities. Mr. Roberts stated that each community has its own zoning authority. Cambridge zoning regulations apply to Cambridge border and Somerville zoning applies to Somerville. Other communities have established moratoriums. Each community is different. The regional aspect does becoming important. Councillor Maher stated that the Mass. Municipal Association has also advised communities on this matter.
Councillor Cheung stated that Somerville wanted the RMD's in an office district and on the ground floor. Somerville has more applicants than Cambridge.
Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that as a member of the Policy Committee of the Mass. Municipal Association the MMA wanted marijuana to be dispensed by mail order and not have dispensaries at all.
A communication was received from Xiaobang and Yuan in opposition to having a registered medical marijuana dispensary in the Fresh Pond (ATTACHMENT B).
A communication was received from Charles J. Mabardy, 50 Mooney Street, requesting that 61 Mooney Street be included in the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Overlay District in the City of Cambridge (ATTACHMENT C).
Councillor vanBeuzekom made a motion that the matter be referred to the City Council without recommendation and that matter be kept in committee.
The motion carried on a voice vote.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Councillor vanBeuzekom the meeting adjourned at 5:40pm.
For the Committee,
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair
Committee Report #2
ORDINANCE COMMITTEE
MEETING TYPE - Public hearing
MEETING PURPOSE - To conduct a public hearing on a zoning petition filed by Christopher H. Lutz, et al requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by rezoning an area on the northern border of Richdale Avenue from Upland Road to Walden Street from its C1-A designation to residential C-1.
MEETING DETAILS
Date and Time: Nov 21, 2013 at 3:38pm
Location: Sullivan Chamber
ATTENDEES
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair; Councillor Leland Cheung; Mayor Henrietta Davis; Councillor Marjorie C. Decker; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Councillor Minka vanBeuzekom; Brian Murphy, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Stuart Dash, Director of Community Planning, CDD; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.
OTHER ATTENDEES
Moore Moriarty, 75 Richdale Avenue; Marion Foster, 75 Richdale Avenue; Ellen C. Wolfe, 75 Richdale Avenue; Daniel Fanger, 75 Richdale Avenue; Arlen Miller, 75 Richdale Avenue; Tabitha Vevers, 75 Richdale Avenue; Stephen Perry, 24 Cambridge Terrace; Oliver Radford, 24 Cambridge Terrace; Sally Lutz, 75 Richdale Avenue; Karen Hull, 75 Richdale Avenue; Elizabeth Edwards, 10 Buena Vista Park; Evan Gerber, 34 Cambridge Terrace; Bailey Bishop, 10 Buena Vista Park; Rick Levy, 64 Richdale Avenue; Sam Wolff, 15 Richdale Avenue; Baundauna Bose, 9 Cambridge Terrace; Rob Wolff, 15 Richdale Avenue; David Giangrande, DCI, 120 Middlesex Avenue, Somerville; Liz Vandermolk, 33 Cambridge Terrace; Attorney Sean D. Hope, Hope Legal Law Office; Lindsey Pollard, 4 Cambridge Terrace; Elaine Spatz-Rabinowitz and Morris Rabinowitz, 75 Richdale Avenue; Chris Lutz, 75 Richdale Avenue; Ann Jenkins, 56 Regent Street; Carol Cohen, 40 Porter Road; J. Millman, 7 Berkeley Place; Ron Alexrod, 26 Shepard Street; Eric Hoagland, 17-19 Upland Road; Charlotte More, 9 Rutland Street; Deborah Whitney, 75 Richdale Avenue; Elizabeth and Menachem Stern, 20 Cambridge Terrace; and Dennis Carlone, 9 Washington Avenue.
MINUTES
Councillor Maher opened the meeting and stated the purpose. The meeting will begin with a presentation by the petitioners. At the conclusion of the presentation the affected property owners will be given an opportunity to present their side and then the meeting will be open to public comment.
He announced that the meeting is being recorded and televised. He summarized this petition. The change from C-1A to C-1 would result in lower heights and FAR and other changes that could be made.
Olivier Radford and Stephen C. Perry, 24 Cambridge Terrace, who have been residents for twenty-seven years. He stated that they are architects, have a business and have rented space at 33 Richdale Avenue. Mr. Radford stated that he was speaking on behalf of neighbors of Richdale Avenue advocating the Lutz petition. He proceeded with the presentation (ATTACHMENT A). He introduced his neighborhood - a quiet enclave near Porter Square. The RR tracks form an impermeable line and there is not a lot of access into the neighborhood. Cambridge Terrace is a one way street and we must drive by Richdale Avenue. He outlined the difference in the current zoning and the proposed petition. Under the current zoning, C-1A, the height allowed is 45 feet. The proposed C-1 would allow 35 feet height. When the Inclusionary zoning bonuses are factored in the C-1A it results in a density of 769 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit and the proposed C-1 brings the density up to l,153 square feet per dwelling unit. The FAR is lowered under C-1. He read the six topics his presentation would cover.
The neighborhood character was established in 1908 when the three-deckers along Cambridge Terrace were originally built. In 1910 the Hathaway Bakery was constructed. The 1903 map shows Richdale Avenue and the Cambridge Terrace undeveloped and by 1916 the neighborhood was fully developed. He spoke about the density and scale of the buildings in the neighborhood has been consistent since 1910 with few changes. He spoke about the City's Growth Policy Document made up of 60 policies. Policy Number One states that existing residential neighborhoods, or any portions of a neighborhood having an identifiable and consistent built character, should be maintained at their prevailing pattern of development and built density and scale. The current C-1A allows development in our neighborhood that would not be consistent with the City's Growth Policy. Cambridge Terrace is a street densely lined with three-deckers on both sides of the street. The Hathaway Bakery was built in 1910 and is at the bottom of the street and the One Richdale complex is 30 feet high and is behind the bakery and set back from Richdale Avenue. On the north side of Richdale Avenue looking east there is a series of industrial brick buildings that give character and historical significance to the neighborhood. The buildings are brick and were probably made in the brickyards in North Cambridge. Herbert Street is a short street in the neighborhood which connects Richdale Avenue up to Cambridge Terrace. Buena Vista Parking has a combination of three-deckers, two family homes and one single family home. He spoke about the development on Richdale Avenue which would include properties at 93-95 and 99 Richdale Avenue. He provided information on the existing development along Richdale Avenue. He stated that One Richdale was a 16 unit condo complex developed in 1980. The heights range from 30-35 feet and the density is 1,686 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. He stated that 75 Richdale Avenue was rehabbed in 1995 and converted to eighteen units of artist lofts, working and residential space. The heights range from 20-36 feet and the density is 1,769 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. At 85 Richdale Avenue is zoned C-1A and is a 9 unit building with a small footprint in the neighborhood. It has a penthouse which is higher than 35 feet. The density of this building is 1,013 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. The three-deckers on Cambridge Terrace have a density on average of 1,200 square feet of lot per dwelling unit. The height range is 30-33 feet high. He discussed the maps detailing the heights of existing buildings and the density of existing residential uses. The north side of Richdale Avenue is where the potential development will occur. The former Hathaway Bakery building at 33 Richdale Avenue is a lot of 42,043 square feet. This is the largest building in the neighborhood. The building's low height gives the neighborhood views of the sky, trees and open space. There are no amenities such as parks nearby in this dense neighborhood. The heights range from 22-33 feet. Adjacent to this site there is 45 Richdale Avenue which is an auto body shop. The height is 22 feet. A tower along the railroad is 45 feet high.
He stated that the current zoning is C-1A. The neighborhood is zoned C-1. Massachusetts Avenue is a narrow strip of higher-density commercial and residential development that is flanked by low density residential neighborhoods. The area is flanked by B districts which are two family homes. Most of his neighborhood is in the C-1 district. The Richdale Avenue neighborhood for 100 years has been the densest greenest neighborhood. The C-1A is an intrusion into the neighborhood with the potential for greater density. It is felt that this is inappropriate. The current zoning allows a building height of 45 feet by 292 feet long. The existing building is 280 feet long with a height of 22 feet at one end and 33 feet at the other end. The zoning ordinance does not take into account that the railroad is eight feet lower and does not factor in roof top mechanicals.
The petition seeks to change the zoning on the north side of Richdale Avenue from Residence C-1A to Residence C-l because this is the designation on the south side of Richdale Avenue, is more consistent with the height in the neighborhood, the density in the neighborhood is consistent with the C-1 requirement and changing the zoning to C-1 is consistent with Policy Number One of the Growth Policy Document of the City of Cambridge. He further stated that there have been petitions signed by 250 residents that have been sent to the Historical Commission and the Planning Board. A request has been submitted to the Historical Commission for a landmark designation study for the neighborhood. This is an opportunity to do something good for the neighborhood. He asked for the audience who were in support of the petition to stand. The majority of the audience stood.
Councillor Maher now asked for the affected property owners to come forward. They are being represented by legal counsel.
Attorney Sean Hope, Hope Legal Law Office, on behalf of Hathaway Partners, LLC, the owners of 15-33 Richdale Avenue. He introduced Robert Wolff and Sam Wolff. He stated the strong opposition to the downzoning petition known as the Lutz petition. His clients own 40% of the property affected and written opposition has been filed with the City Clerk's Office. This would require seven votes if the City Council were to ordain the petition. The petition as written would represent an arbitrary and invalid use of the City Council's zoning powers. The petition as written is not based on any comprehensive study and adopting this petition would be substantially adverse to the property and business interests of his clients. This would be a marked disincentive to do housing at this location. The C-1 district for Richdale Avenue was based on a three year study by the Community Development Department staff, the Planning Board and the City Council in 2001 as part of the city-wide zoning. The goal as applied to Richdale Avenue was to incentivize warehouses abutting railroad tracks into high quality residential building. This proposal has worked. This property is within 800 feet of a major transit node including the Redline, Commuter Rail and the bus station. This proposal is consistent with smart growth principals in terms of putting density in close proximity to public transportation. There are green initiatives that would be further by development at this site. There have been allegations about the petition about traffic and how neighborhood cannot accommodate density on the site. As part of the Planning Board's special permit process traffic study was commissioned. The results were approved by the Department of Traffic, Parking and Transportation. The results revealed that they were not consistent with the allegations. There have been allegations that this size project under the allowed C-1 would have safety, congestion and traffic issues. Attorney Hope requested the members of the committee to review the traffic impact study because it is significant. When the C-1 was created it had incentives for density, but it also took into account that the property abutted a railroad track. On the elements that the C-1 does not have is relief for the setbacks. The C-1 more reflects that if this property were in the middles of a neighborhood as opposed to being adjacent to a railroad. He discussed the sewer and storm water issue. There were claims that the infrastructure is already overloaded and could not handle this additional density. The site as shown is covered by surface parking and there is no permeable space on the site. The proposal will add 22% permeable space as well as a large cistern will be located above ground to handle the storm water. Because of the grade going from Richdale Avenue to Walden Street water from rain will come down and cause flooding. His clients own 40% of the property in the area. So if this 40% is adding 22% permeable area that will significantly mitigate any flooding that would be occurring and will be able to handle any additional water created by itself. Sewer and storm water issue will be improved by development on this site. As part of the Planning Board's special permit process his clients had to meet with Public Works because the development of this size is going to have to adhere to the most current standards for storm water retention. So in terms of the building being able to handle storm water the storm water situation will be improved on the site rather than be exacerbated. He spoke about the timing of this down zoning petition. The development is in the early stages of the permitting process and his clients have been to the historical commission twice. The City has a robust permitting process. The Historical Commission and the Planning Board have the charge of balancing neighborhood issues with the property owners. This down zoning has stalled this process. At the two Historical Commission meetings the developer received feedback and responded with significant changes. A Dec 5, 2013 hearing has been scheduled and there have been changes made. Changes were submitted to Historical Commission. A change made was to keep the front façade and lowered the building. No feedback has been received from Planning Board. The proposal presented will provide a significant number of 3 bedroom units. He stated that 30% of the units will be three bedrooms and 70% will be two and three bedroom units. The City has cited a need for larger family units and will put these units in an area near public transportation in line with smart growth principals. He stated that this down zoning petition is premature and substantial adverse to the property interests and it adopted as written would foreclose an opportunity for the City to create family style units this close to public transportation.
Rob Wolff stated that he has a company in Harvard Square called The Cambridge Company. He buys large older buildings and restores them. The property on 15-33 Richdale Avenue is three blocks from where he lives. He has been studying ways to restore this building. He wanted to convert this commercial site to residential. Through numerous studies it was discovered that reasonable residential units could not be building as it exists. It is too deep and too dark. An Atrium could not be built. He stated that he tried to make the building as it exists into residential space. But it did not work. He has followed the historical and zoning process. He wanted to open a dialogue with neighborhoods to come to common ground.
Sam Wolff stated that he wanted to clarify that the cistern for storm water will be put underground. The street is residential on one side and industrial on the other. There are two different uses that are meeting. He stated that 75 Richdale Avenue had a nice restoration done. The number of units for this site was based on the number of parking spaces that could be accommodated on the site with the existing building. It is a good layout for residential conversion; our building is not. The FAR for 75 Richdale Avenue is 1.3 which is significantly higher than allowed in C-1. This is important. He stated that the zoning change to C-1 could do unintended harm to the neighborhood. If you go from C-1A to C-1 you go to 4 residential units on the site as opposed to seven under the current zoning. He stated that regarding One Richdale Avenue half of this property is in a Business C zone and half is in a C-1A zone. One Richdale has an FAR of 1.35 this is what the base zone would allow under C-1A without the inclusionary bonus. We are trying to mirror the FAR on the other side of the street. It is important to note that one side of the street is industrial and the other side of the street is residential and we are trying to make both residential. It would be nice to have an opportunity to sit down with the neighbors to come to an agreement and make both sides satisfied.
Councillor Maher asked Jeff Roberts to come forward and discuss the 2001 zoning that incentivize a change in these properties along the railroad tracks to convert from commercial uses to housing. Mr. Roberts stated that in 2001 there was a citywide rezoning. The Project Review in Article 19 was one of the changes in the proposal. A major change was to change certain commercial districts where there was a desire to transition into residential. In 2001 this area along the railroad tracks which was previously zoned Industry A-1 which was a district that was created in 1978 to allow transition of former industrial district where the industrial uses were leaving the area to allow these sites to be developed as residential. Between 1978 and 2001 there were a number of residential projects built within the industrial district. By 2001 the prevailing character of the area along the railroad tracks had the balance tipping from commercial to residential. This was consistent with the City's Growth Policy to take the district and to zone it from industrial to residential. The zoning change kept the same FAR in place and the same 45 foot height requirement, but removed the allowance of commercial uses. Councillor Maher asked where the C-1A districts are primarily. Mr. Roberts responded that the C-1A districts are primarily in this area of North Cambridge and from Porter Square out to Danehy Park and Alewife. The area along the railroad tracks is a key area with some small C-1A district along Bay State Road. Councillor Maher asked if the J.C. Adams site is a C-1A district. Mr. Roberts responded in the negative; this is Industry A-1.
Councillor Maher opened the meeting to questions from the City Council.
Councillor vanBeuzekom stated that Attorney Hope mentioned that their new proposal has a lower height, but did not state what that is. Attorney Hope stated that the new height is 40 feet.
Councillor Decker stated that the concern of the neighborhood is to make sure that the zoning respects the integrity of the neighborhood about density, height and design. The neighborhood has not been invited by any developer to have meaningful dialogue. No developers have reached out to the neighborhood. She wants the integrity of this neighborhood to be protected. The goal of the down zoning is to make the zoning consistent. The history of the neighborhood and the development has tried to keep the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood should not be burdened with what has already been developed. Cost was an issue with preserving the integrity of the neighborhood and this is the responsibility of the developer.
Councillor Maher opened public comment at 4:23pm.
Arlene Miller, 75 Richdale Avenue, stated her appreciation for the City Council presence. She owns a condo and lives in the neighborhood. She cares about the neighborhood. Cambridge is a great city. It is a city of a collection of neighborhoods each with its own character. This neighborhood has been a mix of residential and industrial. She is not looking for beautification. She likes seeing people working and the character of the neighborhood has to do with people, heights of buildings, density and the architecture in general. This is an opportunity to revitalize an old building, the Hathaway Bakery. This is the one remaining industrial building founded by Benjamin Fox. The plans seen to date do not preserve the neighborhood. If done properly there would be fewer units than intended by the developer. The density character of the neighborhood should be preserved. There are 168 units of housing on Richdale Avenue, Cambridge Terrace, Buena Vista Park and Herbert Street. The proposed building will add 54 units on top of 168 existing units. The density would be increased by 33%. Downzone the entire street to preserve the character of the neighborhood for the future so that it will be compatible with what exists. She favored responsible development. Her fear is if the city leadership does not stand up for the neighborhood that will.
Karen Hull, 75 Richdale Avenue # 5, stated that as a new resident this process is frightening. In this process there have been meetings and the neighbors have attended these meetings to express our position. Neighbors have been available to talk and the developer has not made any attempt to talk to the neighbors. The neighbors want to find a way to develop this property. The neighbors do not want 54 units. Richdale Avenue is a friendly neighborhood and this development is a terrible addition.
Evan Gerber 34 Cambridge Terrace, stated that in her opinion one of the presentations was factual and one was much more procedural. He stated that if you compared what is there with what is proposed it is significantly different. He looked at the parking study and questioned the methodology. He stated that winter should be taken into consideration and that the parking will not work. There is an issue of respect and goodwill because there is no outreach. He stated that the modifications are not substantial. There is an intimacy that he would not like to see this lost with more units. Change in zoning will protect the neighborhood.
Chris Lutz, 75 Richdale Avenue, stated that he was impressed with his neighbors. The neighborhood was different in 1990's. It was considered a dangerous place. There was crack house across the street. The police wanted a look out in their building. The neighbors worked with the police to make the neighborhood safe. Also worked on flooding, ethanol trains and cleaning up AZ's stacks so that they do not pollute the neighborhood. The quality of life in the neighborhood has improved because of this cooperation. The neighbors are a cohesive group. A reasonable, attractive project would be good for the neighborhood. He would like to see something more moderate. He welcomes dialogue with developer.
Ron Axelrod, stated that he is an architect and urban designer and that he does not know the petition or the developer. He understands that height is an issue and that there are historical considerations; he is focused on the FAR of the petition. He is opposed to a 33% down zoning of potential housing in one area of Richdale Avenue because it goes against Cambridge and Massachusetts need for more housing to support young workers in our city. Its proximity to multi modal transportation hub in Porter Square is ideal for housing. Cambridge rents and housing costs have made it unaffordable for those working in the city. More housing should be encourage within transit hubs of Porter Square which is 800 feet from this development that the petitioners are trying to downzone. The area within 1200 feet or a quarter mile radius of any multimodal transit hub should be up zoned to allow for more housing. Smaller units proposed for 15-33 Richdale Avenue will be more affordable than the larger units. Cambridge has also been thought of as an inclusive city and having smaller units allows for a larger amount of individuals. The allegation that traffic on Richdale Avenue will not support the additional 54 units, but the traffic report states that the traffic will have minimal impact on traffic on the adjacent streets. The petition covers part of the C-1A zone along the railroad tracks from Upland Road to Walden Street and not the entire C-1A zone. Down zoning reduces the value of real estate and the property tax. Mr. Axelrod submitted a written statement (ATTACHMENT B).
Eric Hoagland is an abutter to abutter at 17-19 Upland Road. He encouraged dialogue between the developer and petitioners. He supported the project. There are important things to think about - down zoning an area could have an adverse effect in the future and this uncertainty worries him. He wants more people in the neighborhood, but understands the will to preserve the building. He suggested open mindedness and not the "us" against "them" mentality. He spoke about people not being able to live in Cambridge because there is not enough housing. More housing and less industrial space is needed. With more housing more people can live here. He wanted all to come to a common ground. Cambridge has a robust process. He would hate to see because people cannot get to the common ground that the property will go down in value because of the zoning.
Elizabeth Stern spoke about there being a precedent for down zoning. In 2001 the City Council in an effort to stimulate the development of new housing units which would take advantage of the subway extension did some social engineering and changed the zoning along the railroad tracks that runs on the north side of Richdale Avenue to C-1A. This social engineering had unintended consequences to the neighborhood. This was brought to light when the neighbors at Bellis Circle, also along the railroad track, discovered a proposal to develop a building with 52 units at a height of 45 feet. This conformed to the new C-1A zoning, but was denser than the existing neighborhood. The neighbors were successful in down zoning Bellis Circle. The Bellis Circle situation is the same as Richdale Avenue. Now there is a precedent for down zoning. She stated that it does not seem possible that Bellis Circle should be downzone and not Richdale Avenue. She spoke about Porter Square being a transportation hub for North Cambridge. Less use of cars and more use of public transportation are good for Cambridge. This creates a temptation to pack people into housing and this is destroying what makes the area so livable, moderate density and tranquility. Careful attention is needed to what is built. She spoke about open space in the neighborhood of Cambridge Terrace, Richdale Avenue, Buena Vista Park, Herbert Street and Porter Road. This neighborhood has a railroad running through it. The neighbors do not notice the noise from the railroad but rather the visual skyway which will be obscured by this building.
Dennis Carlone, 9 Washington Avenue, stated that he is an architect urban designer. He stated that he toured the area but it was enlightening walking around with the neighbors. The City's Growth Policy was a guide for the Planning Department and the Planning Board to develop what is mirrored around you in a healthy way or you develop at a higher density but still create the image and the feeling that it fits in. This project has not done the latter. The representative for the developer stated that in 2001 the intent was to convert warehouse building, not take most buildings down. Areas are studied when they are under construction. When rezoning is done as a city it rarely shows what the rezoning will be. The incentive was not needed in 2001. He has done studies of what zoning means for different cities, including Cambridge. This should be a mandatory requirement. Rezoning sometimes vastly improves the value of property. The size of the building seems to be the biggest issue. He would like to the see the most recent design. When you have a lot that allows a 280 foot long building at one height is a wall. He stated that he felt that the larger the building the more beautiful and more broken down into human scale it must be. He stated that the issues are to save as much of a historic building as possible, break down the 285 feet wall and the issue of the 40-45 foot height. He suggested that a second story be added to the building to fit in better. Neighborhood character is multifaceted it is industrial, three-deckers and two family homes. He stated that to incorporate this character into the building the number one policy of the City is the Master Plan. This is the overriding policy that is why it is the number one policy.
Councillor Decker stated that this is not a neighborhood that is against development or housing. She suggested finding out what the proposed rental prices for these units. This is a zoning proposal that will affect the neighborhood. She lost her view when a development was done across from her. She understands the need for housing near transportation. In 2001 when the zoning was done there was a need for incentive to convert industrial to residential. Bellis Circle was an unintended consequence. A developer can build to the maximum allowed, but it is the wrong approach. The developer brings a heavy hand when they do not engage the residents in the proposal. She has been stumped by the silence from the developer to engage the neighborhood. Increasing inclusionary zoning has not been on the table. The most successful developments in the city are those that engage community. She wants more housing in her neighborhood and more people.
Councillor Cheung stated that this has been the most thoughtful, conscientious neighborhood group bringing in a zoning petition. The developer's proposal woke up the neighbors about what was being proposed for Richdale Avenue. He walked the site. He cautioned the C-1 that could be built and not address the neighbors’ concerns. He urged residents and developers to meet to bridge the gap with the developer to build something you want to see in the neighborhood.
Councillor Toomey spoke as a City Councillor that voted on the zoning in 2001. The limits are set and the developer can build to the limit. There was an overwhelming sentiment from residents to convert these sites to residential. He will tour the site next week. He requested that the City Council be provided a list of the development that has taken place in last 30 years so he can compare this. Maybe it needs to be relooked at. He gets calls every day for affordable housing. He would support appropriate affordable housing in the city.
Councillor Maher made a motion that this matter be kept in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote.
Councillor Toomey made a motion that the property owners meet with a representative group of residents in order to discuss the petition. The motion carried on a voice vote.
At this time Councillor vanBeuzekom assumed the Chair. She thanked the neighborhood for their concern. She wanted to know what the impact has been with the C-1A district since 2001 in a table format.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Councillor vanBeuzekom the meeting adjourned at 5:20pm.
For the Committee,
Councillor David P. Maher, Chair
AWAITING REPORT LIST
13-03. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on including a participatory budgeting portion in the 2015 budget.
Councillor Cheung 07/29/13 (O-5)
13-09. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on traffic, licensing and zoning violation concerns of the residents of Bowdoin Street.
Councillor Cheung 07/29/13 (O-13)
13-13. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of establishing a open door while air conditioning prohibition.
Councillor vanBeuzekom 07/29/13 (O-19)
13-16. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on ways to improve effective communications with members of the community including the use of closed captioning.
Councillor Cheung 09/09/13 (O-1)
13-21. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of establishing an emergency City telephone hotline that residents can contact in times of emergency for timely and accurate information.
Vice Mayor Simmons 09/09/13 (O-13)
13-26. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on reviewing the policy relating to the sale of goods within the public ways.
Councillor Cheung 09/09/13 (O-27)
13-27. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on steps needed to do a Nexus Study and whether there is a way to expand who and what is covered by linkage, whether there is potential for additional revenue for community benefits from linkage, specifically if linkage was increased and the amount changed for housing could the difference be used for community benefits.
Councillor Maher 09/09/13 (O-33)
13-28. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on rationale and thought process of the proposed increase of liquor fees prior to the change taking effect.
Councillor Cheung 07/29/13 (O-20)
13-33. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on solutions that will remedy the extreme temperatures at the King Open School.
Councillor vanBeuzekom 09/16/13 (O-6)
13-36. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on traffic count on Roberts Road to assess truck traffic.
Councillor Cheung 09/30/13 (O-3)
13-39. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on appointing a task force to recommend an approach to four year old education in Cambridge.
Mayor Davis 09/30/13 (O-7)
13-41. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on evaluating new methods of communicating street sweeping to resident with a specific request that an "opt-in" text alert be send to residents who own parking passes by linking geo-coded phone numbers with locations to be swept.
Councillor vanBeuzekom 09/30/13 (O-13)
13-43. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of bringing free wireless internet access to Central Square.
Vice Mayor Simmons 10/07/13 (O-1)
13-45. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on short and long-term use for the newly acquired lot at the corner of School and Cherry Streets.
Councillor Reeves 10/07/13 (O-3)
13-46. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of new zoning language for stormwater separation.
Councillor vanBeuzekom 10/07/13 (O-7)
13-47. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of granting small commercial properties a modest exemption on their real estate property taxes.
Councillor vanBeuzekom 10/07/13 (O-8)
13-48. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on how the City planning team supports and encourages safe bicycle lane travel citywide, including best design practices; enforcement; informational pamphlets; and promoting safe bicycling in schools.
Councillor vanBeuzekom 10/07/13 (O-9)
13-49. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report that the City Manager, the Police Commissioner and their designees shall not activate or cause to be activated any security cameras, surveillance cameras, or any other video or audio recording, watching or listening devices or implement any policy relating to such cameras unless in either case there shall be held a prior affirmative vote of the majority of the City Council specifically authorizing the contemplated activation or implementation.
Councillor Decker 10/07/13 (O-10)
13-50. Report from the City Manager:
RE: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide a formal report that addresses the issues of temperature at the King Open School as well as the concerns and general input of parents and teachers, and propose a short-term plan.
Councillor Decker 09/16/13 (O-9)
13-51. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on a review of permitting process, any zoning and building code barriers to greater adoption of solar energy.
Councillor vanBeuzekom 09/30/13 (O-15)
13-52. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on potential solutions for community members that are having difficulty parking in Area IV for work purposes.
Vice Mayor Simmons 10/21/13 (O-1)
13-53. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of the MBTA posting weather-proof signage at eliminated and moved stops in the months following route adjustments.
Councillor Cheung 10/21/13 (O-4)
13-54. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on enacting a moratorium or other mechanism including a possible ordinance change restricting new cell phone towers until there is a clear policy on placement of such towers in residential neighborhoods.
Councillor Maher 10/21/13 (O-8)
13-55. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the causes of and potential remedies to the pooling of water at Reed Street Court.
Vice Mayor Simmons 11/04/13 (O-1)
13-57. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on evaluating the traffic backups at the intersection of Binney and Broadway.
Councillor Toomey 11/04/13 (O-5)
13-58. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of installing railroad crossing traffic barriers at the train track along Mass Avenue and along Broadway and on the quiet zone application to the federal government.
Vice Mayor Simmons 11/04/13 (O-6)
13-59. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on evaluating the traffic patterns and accidents on Third Street and consider reversing the direction of the one way on Spring Street between Second and Third Streets.
Councillor Toomey 11/04/13 (O-7)
13-60. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on recommendations that would make the process easier for seniors to put their trash and recycling curbside before 6:00 pm and on how seniors can have easier access and learn more about this program.
Councillor Decker 11/04/13 (O-9)
13-61. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of installing a crosswalk and a sign warning motorists to slow down at the corner of Norfolk and Suffolk Streets.
Vice Mayor Simmons 11/04/13 (O-3)
13-62. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on how current rules and regulations governing bicycle riding is enforced, establish the requirements for all bicycles to have mounted white lights on the front and establish an effect way of collecting data on injuries resulting from cyclist-pedestrian conflicts.
Vice Mayor Simmons 11/04/13 (O-2)
13-63. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on ensuring Cambridge homeowners and businesses are getting the most competitive flood insurance rates.
Councillor vanBeuzekom 11/25/13 (O-2)
13-64. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on incorporating the use of the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission's Recycling Participation App to improve recycling rates in Cambridge.
Councillor vanBeuzekom 11/25/13 (O-6)
13-65. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report from the Senior Policy Group on Homelessness on progress in reaching the goals outlined in the ten year plan to end homelessness.
Councillor Cheung 11/25/13 (O-7)