TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Dec 5, 2016
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The Hubway Bike Share system is a popular mode of transportation in the City of Cambridge that benefits the users as well as other travelers that experience less traffic on city streets; and
WHEREAS: The City Council and residents have expressed a desire to continue the expansion of the system within Cambridge, which currently operates year round; and
WHEREAS: Advertising revenue, currently embraced in other communities can help with maintaining and expanding the program within Cambridge; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council with suggested changes to Cambridge’s policy regarding advertising revenue that could help support the continuation and expansion of Hubway in the City of Cambridge.

O-3     Dec 5, 2016
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: In the past, the City of Cambridge has periodically conducted public discussions for the purposes of examining the roles and intersections of race, class, gender, and culture within our community; and
WHEREAS: These conversations have been viewed as opportunities to take a critical look and provide an accurate assessment of how the City deals with issues surrounding race, class, gender, and culture, and to determine whether there might be opportunities for the City to improve how it engages with these issues going forward; and
WHEREAS: As the first new president in eight years prepares to take office, the opening months of 2017 would be a timely window in which the City could hold the latest of these community race, class, gender, and culture discussions; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to make the appropriate staff available to assist the Mayor’s Office in facilitating a community conversation about the roles and intersection of race, class, gender, and culture in Cambridge within the first quarter of 2017.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:33pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss gradually increasing the parking permit fee and to consider other improvements to the program to help fund the City’s budget towards reducing vehicle miles traveled and to promote alternative forms of transportation. This matter was referred to the committee on Sept 12, 2016 by Policy Order # 17 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Toomey, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Cheung; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mazen; Councillor Devereux; Vice Mayor McGovern; Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Joseph Barr, Director, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Michelle Goldman, Parking Service Manager; Grady Laurent, Fiscal Administration, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Jeana Franconi, Budget Director; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Nora Bent; Jason Alves; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Arthur Strang, 60 Fresh Pond Parkway; Laura Krull, 378 Washington Street; Andrew McFarland, 100 Sidney Street; Xuenan Ni, 235 Albany Street; Robert Winters, 366 Broadway; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, and Becca Wolfson, Executive Director, Boston Cyclists Union.

Councillor Toomey convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being privately audio recorded. He stated that if anyone had written comments they would be made part of the committee report. He requested Director of Transportation, Traffic and Parking to come forward and explain the Resident Parking Program.

Mr. Barr stated that the Resident Parking Program has been around for years and was allowed by state authorization and city ordinance. The rate for the permit is outlined in the City Ordinance # 1336 (ATTACHMENT B) which was increased to $25.00 where it is today. The Resident Parking Program includes l Visitor Permit. All Resident Permits are citywide while the Visitor Permit can only be used in the designated area contained on the back of the permit. He explained the eligibility requirements to obtain a Resident Parking Permit that one must live in Cambridge, own a car that is garaged in Cambridge. All permits expire on January 31st. The chart (ATTACHMENT C) outlined the number of permits issued and the number has gone done in the last few year. He stated that 95% of the household have 1 Resident Parking Permit. He spoke about the revenue. The revenue is going down. Ticket fines is the significant source of revenue. He stated that the voluntary donations of $5,204.00 is a voluntary contribution to the City's climate change initiative.

Councillor Toomey stated that the Resident Permit chart from 2013 to now shows that there is a decrease in revenue and the permits issued. People are driving less.

Councillor Kelley stated the most interesting item is the decrease in number of permits issued. How many household have a car. He asked if there is data showing the number of people who do not have cars but get a Visitor Permit. Mr. Barr explained that there is a $25.00 fee for a Visitor Permit. Councillor Kelley questioned why the Resident Permit and the Visitor Permit were the same fee. Mr. Barr stated that it is in the ordinance. He noted that the service is the same to issue a Resident Permit as it is for a Visitor Permit.

Councillor Kelley asked what the fee can be used for. Fees are being used for transportation and you are saying that it is related to the cost of the service.

Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg explained that the law states that municipality cannot levy tax without state legislation. The City can assess a fee but it has to relate to the cost incurred for the service.

Councillor Kelley noted that the fee is either link to the cost of the permit or the service. He stated that some people would like to use the fee to incentivize car ownership or reflect the opportunity to use the street scape for pedestrian or bike facilities. He see this as part of the cost of fee.

Councillor Devereux commented about the cost. She noted that the fee for a sandwich board sign is $75 and one could argue about that the cost of a car being on the street as a means to increase the fee.

Councillor Kelley noted that this is not a good comparison. Mr. Barr spoke about the cost of providing the entire Resident Parking Program with the cost of implementation, enforcement and the installation of signs are all part of the cost. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the Law Department would have to get back to the committee on consideration of these costs these costs.

Councillor Mazen stated that the City has a broad latitude to construe the cost to issue the permits. He stated that it is clear that the City can do this. Councillor Kelley stated that this is not clear to him. He stated that there are costs associated with the program and a staff cost to administer the program. He stated that from a policy standpoint the City Council needs to understand what can be done with the revenue received. This department receives revenue for the city. Councillor Kelley commented that $25 is not a lot for a Resident Parking Permit and if we raise the fee we need to explain this to the residents.

Councillor Mazen noted that the City Council needs to talk about what the revenue will be spent on. He wanted to define what a respectable rate is. He feels $25 is too low and should figure out what the cost should be.

Councillor Toomey stated that he is not in favor of raising the permit fee. He is concerned with the impact on raising the permit fee will have on families who are struggling. He instituted the voluntary contribution. He wanted to keep the fee at $25 and felt that this fee is sufficient. The City has other resources that can be used for transportation issues.

Councillor Mazen stated that the voluntary donation has not incurred much for the City. He stated that his constituencies need a car and are treading water and he has not heard any outcry from low social economic families that an increase would be a burden. He stated that the impact should be backed up by data. He wanted to double the fee. He wanted to hear what other cities are charging.

City Manager DePasquale explained that the City looks at what is charged by other communities and this is done as part of the annual budget process. He stated that the revenue and expenses for the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department balance. He wanted an opportunity to survey other communities and come back to the City Council with a recommendation. This would be part of the next budgetary process. The parking fund is used for parking related expenses. Voluntary revenue is tied to projects specifically related to climate change projects. This will be done for all departments for their revenue.

Councillor Kelley noted that neither Boston nor New York charge for on-street parking. He stated that $25 frozen in time is not the right amount. We have to start the next discussion to know what can be done with the revenue received for the increased revenue. He wanted an intentional decision made in the future. City Manager DePasquale stated that as part of the budget process a list of revenue increases will be submitted and where the revenue will be applied. The revenue is generally applied in the next year's budget to record the increased revenue. Mr. Barr stated that this is one revenue stream defined in the ordinance and we have not taken this on because it requires an ordinance change.

Councillor Devereux stated that she renewed her Resident Permit yesterday and she did not agree to the voluntary contribution. She noted that if this did not appeal to her better instincts the city needs to better publicize this. She spoke about the possibility of additional fees being requested for a second car and if we wanted to gradually disincentivized the use of cars this may not be legal. Mr. Barr stated that no one knows the answer and that revenue needs to be treated as one source that goes to the parking fund. He stated that more research needs to be done. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that he did not know if there is an additional cost associated for a second Resident Parking permit. Councillor Devereux stated that she wanted to find creative ways to disincentivize cars on major streets for other uses such as bike parking. She asked who could the City encourage the use of other transportation modes.

Councillor Toomey asked if there is there any data of one person owning multiple cars or storing cars.

Mr. Barr stated that his department receives complaints for car storage; but it is not enforced if there is a Resident Permit. There is no violation for the storage of cars with Resident Parking permits. He explained that there are more complaints for those who use a Visitor Parking Permit when they do not have a Resident Parking Permit. He spoke about the relationship between on-going construction and that cars may be towed and motorist should be vigilant with their car. There are other policy objectives that could be used other than increasing the fee.

Councillor Toomey spoke about driveways and motorists parking on the street; have you considered requiring people to parking in their driveway. Mr. Barr stated that this is hard to enforce.

Councillor Devereux asked if the Permit Parking fee could be linked to economics. City Manager DePasquale stated that it is tricky to give a fee back. Councillor Devereux stated that the last time the ordinance was changed why was the ordinance not written with a graduate rate. Councillor Toomey responded that this was the decision of the City Council.

Councillor Kelley stated that garages are being used for storage and they are not used for parking which is illegal. What is the side effects of what the City Council is proposing regarding garages? We need to understand the impact of this.

Councillor Mazen stated that Somerville is charging $40 for parking permits. This seems reasonable; Cambridge could charge this. The second parking permit cost question could be creative by the use of a phone call or post card. This could be a regulation that is thought about. We have flexibility to do what we want to do. He stated that the question of what the money will be used for -- the money could be used as part of the participatory budget process. He is in favor of a built in graduated time fee increase.

Councillor Kelley stated that if Somerville can charge $40 why Cambridge can’t do this as a policy process. City Manager DePasquale stated that Somerville will be part of the survey. He will come back to the City Council with recommendations.

Councillor Toomey informed the committee that Somerville assessed a $65 water bill service fee without notice to residents.

At 4:20pm Councillor Toomey opened the hearing to public comment.

Arthur Strang stated that he is interested in the actual cost of parking. He stated that it is worth more than $25 for Resident Parking. He felt that the second permit fee should be raised for an actual physical parking space. He stated someone should create an app to show the bus services and the routes needed to get someone where they wanted to go.

Andrew McFarland stated that he worked as a non-profit advisory for better transportation and urged the City Council to look at parking reform. He stated that he wanted streets designed to have people moving and not for storage.

Robert Winters stated that the motivation is not to raise fee but to punish people for owning a motor vehicle. The fee should have been raised gradually. He wanted it to remain nominal for the first vehicle per household. This was a kindness for residents. He remembers when zones were considered for parking and he is glad it is city wide. He favored a slight increase. He does not share the view that all vehicles need to be taken off the street. He stated that excise taxes is another fee that residents pay to the City. This is not the sole vehicle fee source. He stated the fee should stay where it is or be raised nominally.

Becca Wolfson, stated that she was an advocate for bike safety. She spoke about her car parked in the snow that was stored on the street for 3 months because she could not shovel her car out. She wanted the City council to think about incentives for those not to own cars. She favored the increase of the Resident Parking fee. She stated that Boston does not charge for parking cars but will be rolling out fees soon. She spoke about multiple car ownership. She told of one car owner parking 14 cars on the streets. She advocated for bike and pedestrian amenities and suggested doing a parking study with the increased revenue. She stated that having a better understanding of how parking is used during the day would be beneficial. She suggested knowing how many parking spaces there are versus how many parking permits are issued. She spoke about the benefit to businesses for parking fees that would go back to the business district.

At this time Councillor Toomey made the following motion:

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to provide the following information to the City Council:
Legal constraints for the use of the fees;
Cost/fee difference for a Resident Parking permit when more than one vehicle is owned;
What elements go into the cost for the additional service and creativity to leverage additional fee for the use of a phone or postcard used to acquire information about multiple cars;
Cost for a Visitor Permit versus a Visitor Permit combined with a Resident Parking Permit;
Can the cost of parking in a public space be added to the parking registration sticker?
Number of parking spaces in the City and the annual cost to park, never exceed the cost of the parking spaces;
Legality of using garages for storage;
Zipcar policy for allowing parking on residential streets and
Can a different fee be charged for an electric vehicle?

The motion - Carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Devereux noted that Uber does not have enough curb space to pull over; curb space should be freed up to be used in the most efficient and sustainable way.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is not an anti-car mentality. The order was written and is not taken the wrong way. There are many reasons to increase the fee. This is a measurable reasonable approach. City Manager DePasquale stated that the excise tax rate is set by the state.

Councillor Toomey thanked all attendees for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 4:45pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Thurs, Oct 27, 2016 beginning at 3:09pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition by the City Council to amend four sections in Article 19.000 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge. The proposed changes are intended to complement the proposed new Municipal Code Outdoor Lighting Ordinance by strengthening the review of outdoor lighting in significant new development transmitted by the City Manager on Sept 26, 2016 as Agenda Item # 11 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Maher; Lisa Peterson, Acting City Manager; Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development (CDD); Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director, CDD; Steve Lenkauskas, City Electrician; Dave Byrnes, Inspector, Inspectional Services Department; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Jeffrey Berg, Consultant, Outdoor Lighting Task Force; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Carolyn Alpert, 99 Cushing Street; Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street; Pamela Hart, 18 Donnell Street; Candace Young, 15½ Shepard Street; Cristina Descoteaux, 336 Main Street; Amanda Strong, 238 Main Street; Megan Brook, 103 Inman Street; Kelley Brown, MIT; Erika Johnson, Harvard; Glenn Heinmiller, 35 Mt. Vernon Street; Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street; Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street; and Kenneth Taylor, 2 Craigie Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He stated that this hearing is on the zoning recommendations for the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. He stated that the format of the meeting would be that the petitioners will present the proposal, city staff and City Council will comment and then public comment will be heard. At the conclusion of the hearing the Ordinance Committee may make a recommendation. The topic is interesting. He began the hearing by hearing from the staff from Community Development.

Ms. Farooq gave some introduction on the two hearings. She stated that the Outdoor Lighting Task Force (ODLTF) met for 2+ years and came up with a Municipal Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (MOLO) that would control the amount of lighting that could be on the site, the nature and the location. Location and designs of the lighting concerns were heard. There is a design component for new construction and the zoning is a companion piece that can be addressed through zoning which triggers design review and the special permit process. A new concept of a light design component has been added that developers must file as part of the special permit process. Education and outreach was the third recommendation of the MOLO.

Mr. Roberts stated that he was asked to look at the provisions of the project review section, Article 19 in the Zoning Ordinance. It is important to realize these are development design standards, not light standards which come into play based on the size threshold of certain projects. He stated that the intent of the zoning changes is to strengthen some of the provisions that current exist for these projects that are related to lighting that was undergoing an adequate level of review. He summarized the four changes to the zoning ordinance in his presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He reviewed the current zoning in Article 19 and the requirements. He stated that under current zoning applications must contain a design narrative and specific language was added to the proposed ordinance to mitigate light pollution from outdoor lighting including facade, landscape and rooftop lighting. He stated that lighting is in the purview of the Planning Board. Building and site plan review for projects that do not have to come before the Planning Board there is a current specific list of requirements that must be met and it was added to the proposed ordinance that no exterior lighting shall be allowed above the roof of a building. He stated that under the current zoning an urban design objective is to provide minimum outdoor lighting necessary to insure adequate safety, night vision. And comfort while minimizing light pollution and it is proposed to add to be more specific landscape and rooftop lighting. He stated that under the Building and Site Plan Requirements it is added that outdoor lighting shall only be added to the minimum extent necessary to meet safety regulations. He noted that the lighting of mechanical equipment has been an area of concern.

Councillor Kelley stated that the challenges with special permit application is the lack of quantifiable data. Mr. Roberts stated that the more quantifiable standards were to be in the MOLO; the provisions related to development review are in the zoning are more qualitative and assessed through the review process. They would not conflict with the MOLO. Councillor Kelley stated that special permits standard is that they are generally granted. Mr. Roberts spoke on the standard for a special permit is explicitly in the zoning what the criteria is and if the criteria is met the special permit is granted.

Councillor Devereux asked what lighting above the roof versus lighting the facade means. Mr. Roberts stated that there is a definition in zoning for what is meant by the roof. He stated that there may be roof appurtenances, such as mechanicals or elevator head houses, which are considered above the roof under the zoning definition. Councillor Devereux asked when the Planning Board would waive this. Ms. Farooq stated that the concern named is why the zoning component was created. She stated that it was difficult in the MOLO to address the location specificity or call out conditions where specifics would apply. Penthouses would not be allowed to be lit. The staff would be able to determine whether lighting adds to the urban environment or detracts from it. Councillor Devereux noted that if the lighting being reviewed by Planning Board complied with the MOLO there would not be an issue. Ms. Farooq responded that the Planning Board has no authority to not comply with the MOLO. Every building would have to comply with the Lighting Ordinance. This component is an element of design. Councillor Devereux stated that safety regulations are for who, maintenance people or people on the roof. Mr. Roberts stated that for mechanical systems there is a minimal requirement for lighting for the service of the equipment. Under state and federal regulations this would be allowed in spite of the zoning ordinance. If there was electrical service needed there would have to be minimal lighting for the service needed.

Councillor Kelley stated that we want to minimize lighting in the City and this does not do this. Once lighting is up it is difficult to remove. He wanted the regulations curtailed for the lighting. He wanted a more sweeping constraint of all sorts of lighting rather than something that legitimize something that we already have and possibly expand it.

Councillor Carlone asked if urban design guidelines will be prepared for review by the Planning Board for the MOLO. He stated that historically some buildings that are lite up have glorious rooflines. These buildings are not built anymore. If we are going to consider lighting on a roof it should be the most attractive part of the building and not for the mechanical equipment. He stated urban design guidelines need to be expanded to include from a design standpoint for what makes sense.

Public comment began at 3:41pm on a motion by Councillor Carlone.

Carolyn Alpert, a Light Ordinance Task Force member, stated that the members in their recommendations wanted adjustments made to the zoning ordinance, especially roof top lighting and the special permitting process. She stated that she was disturbed about the suggestions being made because they are being made without any conversation with the people who dealt with the technical intricacies of this issue for three years and the amendments are broad sweeping and not very well designed. She asked if there is a definition for light pollution in the zoning ordinance; there is one in the draft MOLO. She addressed the presentation on proposed zoning relating to the Planning Board review by stating that there are measures made to mitigate light pollution from outdoor lighting, but does not include information about what is planned for the lighting, the facade or roof top. This is covered in more detail in the MOLO. She wanted included in the special permit process what the plans are for lighting. There is no definition of light pollution in the zoning. The MOLO does include the notion of light trespass across property boundaries that could negative affect neighboring people. The ordinance was not to oppose the notion of safety versus lighting. She stated that safety included having good lighting. The object was to have balanced lighting and to not cause glare for safety. There is a purpose for light that would highlight the historical characteristics of buildings without limiting light trespass and pollution. She stated her concern to the modification to section C which is a misappropriation of what lighting has to do with safety. She stated that this is about how light is used and where it is not a safety issue. She was opposed to the provision of no lighting for the rooftop. These modifications need to be reexamined.

Tom Stohlman stated that as an architect when he looks at zoning as much guidance as possible is appreciated. The zoning changes is just a placement into the MOLO. The meat to the MOLO should be referred to in the zoning ordinance. The wording proposed is harmless as long as you know that the MOLO will be ruling.

Pamela Hart stated that on behalf of the public given that Cambridge wants to be a green city, conserve energy and to care for people so that they get a good night’s sleep she would favor a minimum of new lighting. She did not want the focus on the aesthetics of buildings. She spoke about the dark sky and looking at the stars and not having bright lights interfering. She stated that many of her neighbors have complained about the new street lights which are supposed to be safety have not been adjusted for glare and they lights shine into the windows of residents. The need for light should be balanced with the need for the dark.

Kelley Brown, MIT Senior Campus Planner, the purpose of the MOLO and reflected in zoning is outlined in the both. When you reduce the measurement in LED fixtures you get less energy efficiency. He stated that LED street light have an adverse effect because of the contrast. Most regulations, Building Codes and Land Use Regulations are designed to ensure property owners that if they meet all the current standards that they can own and operate those buildings without new investments each time a regulation may be altered. This certainty is important to the business environment. In the task force report it states that there should be a periodic review of the impact and effectiveness of the ordinance. He stated that this suggests new standards and new retrofits which could be destabilizing to businesses and investments. The changes to the project review standards are in contrast to the MOLO. The focus is on new projects. For large projects subjects to this it is good to upgrade the standards by the City. We look forward to working on the adjustments to the project review process. He stated that the retroactive character of the ordinance is a serious problem. He stated that LEED certified buildings may not meet the standards of the ordinance. He stated that MOLO is highly technical and the public has not had a chance to review and understand the impact to property.

Glenn Heinmiller, stated that he is a lighting designer and has had a long time interest to improve the night time lighting in Cambridge by controlling light trespass and pollution. He spoke about the intent of the zoning ordinance and the need for improvement in the wording. He stated that the intent is to force the Planning Board to review the lighting on new buildings and force the applicant to provide detailed information on the lighting plan for the exterior lighting of the building. The Planning Board has the ability to put special conditions when they grant a special permit. The intent is great and if followed by the Planning Board the light of the Zinc building would not have gotten through.

Heather Hoffman stated that the Planning Board stated that there would be no rooftop lighting and is in the final development plan. She stated that this should not be a zoning amendment under consideration, but add it to the consideration of MOLO. There is a time limit on the zoning and it affects how this is thought about. The zoning and the MOLO should be passed together and therefore there should not be a clock running on one ordinance and not the other. Councillor Carlone noted that the clock on other zoning proposals have been extended.

Carol O'Hare stated that the clock may be restarted with zoning, but this makes the process ineffective. She stated that if the MOLO is not right the zoning is the cart before the horse. Put the zoning element secondary and needs to be written when the MOLO language is determined. She stated that there are between 10-12 50,000 or more square foot buildings that go through the special permit process yearly. She stated that very few of these buildings which have facade, roof and landscape light will even go before the Planning Board on lighting. The zoning amendments that she has forward to the City Council she displayed on a map of red zones in the city where rooftop lighting would be permitted to shine into more protected zones. She added that these zoning amendments would not trigger Planning Board review for any rooftop lighting in the red zone on existing building where there is no change of use. She stated that the Planning Board decisions are not challenged and if one wanted to appeal the decision it would be money down the drain. The two branches of CDD that dealt with this did not coordinate and there are major problems with this. The zoning and the MOLO are not in sync.

Marilyn Wellons stated that she attended all but one of the lighting task force meetings because her neighborhood abuts a commercial zone. She stated that the buildings could change their use below 25,000 square feet and not be subject to review by the Planning Board for a special permit and would be able to light their rooftop mechanicals. She stated that a building behind her of 25,000 square feet was converted as of right for lab use. She does not favor the draft proposal before the City Council. She spoke about having the burden be placed on the applicant that there are no adverse effect on an adjacent building, which language for wind turbines, but is not included in the proposal.

Ken Taylor, architect and planner stated that he wanted to understand what the zoning amendment was providing and how it relates to the MOLO. This needs to be clarified. The Planning Board review would never permit anything less restrictive than the MOLO. Does this apply to all buildings regardless of being 25,000 or 50,000 square feet? Under what circumstance is the Planning Board review less restrict than the MOLO? He stated that there was no definition in either the MOLO or zoning of what rooftop lighting is. He asked how do upper garages that have roof top lighting come under zoning review. He stated that under 19.24 if rooftop light is prohibited from all rooftop structures how is this mitigated. He stated that since the lighting prohibition for rooftop lighting is in 19.50.ll, the building and site plan requirement, does this apply to every buildings over 25,000 including those over 50,000 square feet?

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 4:14pm.

Councillor Kelley stated that his goal is to limit lighting. He wanted to change the zoning to limit comfort lighting above the rooftop. He does not agree with the Planning Board being given discretion. He stated that lighting cannot be quantifiable for a number of reasons and in many ways a blanket prohibition on certain things is the easiest way to mitigate the problem down. He wanted the City Council to work toward this.

Councillor Devereux stated that this makes her uncomfortable because there has been no discussion of the MOLO. Lighting above the top of the roof with a recreational facility how would this come under the zoning regulations because the MOLO has waivers or exemptions for sports facilities. She stated Ms. Alpert made good comments and suggestions which should be addressed. MIT does not want to retrofit all of their buildings, she wanted to understand this. She wanted a tour of existing building to determine which buildings are in compliance with what is being proposed. This would also help the City Council to understand the Planning Board discretion authority for new projects because without being a lighting designer it is difficult to understand. Councillor Devereux stated that this should remain in committee until the MOLO is ordained.

Councillor Carlone spoke about transitional period for new ordinances and extension of special requests. He stated that buildings get upgraded all the time.

Councillor Maher stated that this discussion is confusing and the public is confused. All are concerned about lighting. He stated that the historical buildings architecture could be emphasized better and where does this fall in the matter. He stated that predictability in the City is important. He asked how open/green space on a rooftop is covered. MIT's concerns are good as the upper level of a parking garages. He stated that there are locations where accent lighting could improve the look of a structure, without affecting residential neighbors. He would leave this in committee and stated that more field work is needed on how this feel and what the effect will be. Interior light and the effect on neighbors was not the task of the lighting task force. He needs to see more data before he can make a decision on this matter.

Councillor Cheung stated that he is least bothered by light but did not want Las Vegas style lighting. The City Council does not want to make things worse. The renewed interest in lighting is because of a few bad actors. He stated some building light is good to liven up the street. He did not want to make things worse.

Councillor Devereux spoke about a lighting commission be created and she questioned the Planning Board approval when there are no lighting experts on the Planning Board. Councillor Cheung noted that the Planning Board is a volunteer board and spoke about the amount of work that the City Council is giving them. He wanted the Planning Board to spend their time on issues that are under their authority.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is the implementation of an ordinance. There have been good suggestions. The substance is in the MOLO. What are we lighting, what is the reason and why, he asked. A handsome building or facade being light is good. He spoke of the building material and that glare could be caused by the material used. He stated that more lighting will be seen in the future.

Councillor Carlone stated that if the time runs out pursuant to Chapter 40A he would recommend that the zoning not be refiled until the MOLO is more through the ordination process.

Councillor Carlone moved that the matter be keep in committee.

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

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:30pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

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

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Thurs, Oct 27, 2016 beginning at 5:07pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Title 15 entitled “Buildings and Construction” by adding a new Chapter 15.22 entitled “Outdoor Lighting,” transmitted by the City Manager on June 20, 2016 as Agenda Item # 5 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Lisa Peterson, Acting City Manager; Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department (CDD); Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Planning and Development, CDD; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director, CDD; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Andrea Boyer, License Commission; Dave Byrne, Inspector, Inspectional Services Department; Steve Lenkauskas, City Electrician; Sarah Burks, Historical Commission; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Megan Brook, 103 Inman Street; Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street; Charlie Teague, 23 Edmonds Street; Carol L. Alpert, 99 Cushing Street; Sarah Gallop, Co-Chair, Government Affairs, MIT; Amanda Strong, 238 Main Street; Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street; Walter McDonald, 172 Magazine Street; Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Marie Saccoccio, 55 Otis Street; Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street; Susan Ringer, 82 Kinnaird Street; Harvey Bauman, 19 Bay Street; Bernice Buresh, 140 Upland Road; Glenn Heinmiller, 35 Mt. Auburn Street; Christine LeBlanc, 14 Tufts Street; Kristina Descoteaux, 336 Main Street; Gary Mello, 324 Franklin Street; Kenneth Taylor, 2 Craigie Street; Tim Larry, 47 Jay Street; Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street; John Pitkin 18 Fayette Street; Ed Abrams, 80 Wendell Street; John Sheff, 12 Inman Street; Sue Butler, 14 Clinton Street; and James Katz, 8 Museum Way.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing. Petitioner will present first (the City), a citizen presentation will be given, City staff and City Council will comment and then public comment.

Lisa Hemmerle gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT B). She gave the background of the Lighting Task Force which was to focus on outdoor lighting and mitigating light trespass, glare and reducing light pollution and the promotion of energy conservation. The work of the task force was the model lighting ordinance which was developed over a period of seven years by the International Dark Sky Association. The model lighting orders was used to as a template to build the MOLO. The ordinance as written is groundbreaking. She stated that no other city the size of Cambridge with the density and development has tried to do an ordinance such as this. She demonstrated glare. She spoke about light trespass and sky glow. She spoke about highlights of the draft ordinance. The Inspectional Services Department will oversee the enforcement. She read the applicability and color temperature standard. She explained that new light must comply with the ordinance after the effective date. She explained that the only exemption in the ordinance is to facade and landscaping lighting. She stated that there are two standards. The prescriptive standard is geared toward small residential and commercial properties and performance standard used by larger commercial property looking for more creative lighting design. She stated that there are four categories in the MOLO for the prescriptive standard. She explained the four categories. She stated that the Performance standard is based on the USGBC LEED light pollution reduction credit version 4. She stated that any plan over 10,000 square feet must have a lighting plan submitted by a licensed architect or engineer and must refer to the lighting zones as defined in the ordinance. There are two different lighting zones under the performance standard. She stated that there is proposed a 100 foot buffer around the lighting zone 2. The Performance standard has 2 option standards. She stated that the blue light is wasted light. The presentation had a bug rating example. Option 2 is the calculation method. She explained that CDD is overseeing the outdoor lighting plan but it will be moved to Inspectional Services Department. A lighting plan is required under the prescriptive plan for projects over 10,000 square feet. Under the performance standard all must file a lighting plan. There are administrative waivers issued by Inspectional Services Department. She explained that Inspectional Services Department will be handling complaints, resolution and enforcement. There was a list of exemptions to the MOLO. Zoning, MOLO and education and outreach is the model used for the ordinance. There is a good neighbor brochure which outlines what is acceptable.

Councillor Carlone stated that the ordinance is harder to grasp than the presentation.

Councillor Devereux asked if the administrative waiver could be for financial hardship. Ms. Hemmerle stated that this waiver considers those on a fixed income who cannot meet the standard. Councillor Devereux spoke about the concerns with retrofitting buildings because of the MOLO. Ms. Hemmerle noted that the waiver was designed for income restrictions.

Councillor Carlone stated that a public presentation (ATTACHMENT C) would be given by Charlie Teague and Heather Hoffman who submitted proposed amendments (ATTACHMENTS D). Heather Hoffman, spoke about the Zinc building and this is what is hoped will not be allowed. What this building does is legal under the MOLO. This will be an enforcement problem. She spoke about the illegal signs that only came down when the petitioners was before the BZA. Mr. Teague stated that in the special permit the HVAC equipment are not supposed to be seen above the rooftop. There were pictures of the Zinc building from different angles in the neighborhood. The Zinc lighting is different colors. She spoke about the map with the draft MOLO. She explained the red, yellow and green zones. She stated that there is housing in the red zone and the City is proposing more housing in this area. Mr. Teague stated that the red zone is supposed to be commercial but has Residence C3 in the red zone. He spoke about the zones. He stated there are boundary conditions and allows lighting trespass. Ms. Hoffman stated that the court house can be lite because it is in a red zone. She had a model of how the lighting envelope works. The light is measured from the boundary and not where it is hitting your eyes. Mr. Teague stated that Zinc lighting has reach into the neighborhood. The presentation had a picture of the Zinc light. He spoke about a model under the Performance standard. The standard is 2 LUX. He stated that Zinc was legal in any case. Ms. Hoffman asked why look at LEED or energy efficiency rather than the effect of lights on humans, plants and animals. The burden is being put on Inspectional Services about what was built qualifies. This is an unfair burden to place on Inspectional Services Department. Mr. Teague stated that under the Prescriptive standard there can be 1050 luminous, 12 feet high and 4 ' apart and under LEED unlimited lumens, 12 ' high 24' from the boundary. He stated that he did not want the Performance standard used in the yellow zone.

Councillor Kelley stated that he heard that anything can happen and asked if all limitations are eliminated under the processes in the MOLO. Ms. Hemmerle stated that under bug rating there is potential for an unlimited number of fixtures. A licensed engineer or an architect would be designing the lighting and the economics of the bug fixtures. The energy code limits the amount of power that can be generated. Lighting zones 2 and 3 were chosen because one needs to mitigate their light trespass and residential standards would be maintained. Councillor Kelley stated that he was not clear how light trespass is defined in the ordinance. Ms. Hemmerle stated that the prescriptive standard contains light trespass standards; this limits the lumens. Councillor Kelley stated that he has an issue with how in the performance standard that seems less quantifiable as light trespass is handled. Ms. Hemmerle stated that there are light trespass limits in the credits. The trespass exemption is a concern in zone 3. She read facade lighting definition from the ordinance. Zinc would not meet enhancement of its nighttime appearance.

Councillor Devereux stated that enhancement is in the eye of the beholder; there is no protection at all. She is concerned with the 100' foot buffer and no buffer for residential zones. The LEED version 4 was substituted for LEED version 3; it is important that this is restored to ensure that there is no unlimited lighting.

At 5:59pm Councillor Carlone opened the hearing to public comment.

Megan Brook, read a communication from Jo Solet regarding fighting the force of darkness. The value of light is in the balance with darkness. Health and wellness is affected.

Carol Lynn Alpert, thanked all who attended the light task force meetings. The City does not enforce the zoning protections contained in the ordinance. She stated that timing is crucial and with the change in technology for old incandescent lights are being replaced by LED which is cheaper and very bright. The ordinance was developed for 4 years for light trespass, light pollution, health and safety and she did not want to see the work go to waste over scrabbling. We need to come up with a way to prevent Zinc in the future. The ordinance is the best there is today. She stated that the performance standard it stated that even if LEED version 4 is capable and if the light deployed does not meet the intent of the ordinance to limit light trespass and pollution the light is subject to complaint and revision. She added that when the exemptions were developed it was unknown that the Historical Commission does not look at the light quality and only looks at the light fixture; there is a need for a form of review or a Lighting Commission who understand the technology and the needs of the community to understand the exemption provisions of the ordinance.

Sarah Gallop, MIT, stated that the language has been reviewed for the MIT campus of 163 acres. Some early observation 1200 pole mounted outdoor lighting fixtures on campus and as many building mounted fixtures on campus. We need to determine which are owned by MIT, City and DCR. So the impact of time and money is unknown now. There are 10 LEED buildings and 10 in the certification process now and do not know if the buildings lighting meets the LEED standards. She stated that analysis is needed to be done to ensure that the buildings meet the city standards. Academic and commercial fixtures are mounted higher than the 12-14 feet and the prescriptive standard does not apply. She stated that it is unknown if the prescriptive standard will be enough illumination on campus. She noted that this is a safety issue. She spoke about athletic campus may need more time to turn lights off. She stated that the MIT was recently relit after being turned off in World War II. The proposal is complaint driven and MIT tries to be a good neighbor. She stated that MIT would comply with the City ordinance. Councillor Carlone added that any new building should be the focus of the ordinance.

Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street, stated that he hoped that the City enforces the ordinance if passed. If there is a neighbor complaint about lighting trespass on their property this is when the ordinance should come into play. When MIT gets a complaint they will try to resolve the issue. He has concerns about the prescriptive standards. He suggested that the City Council should demand concrete examples. He stated that on page seven the word "minimize" should be changed to eliminate. Wherever minimize occurs on pages 7 - 9 it should be changed to eliminate. He stated that the original intent was to limit the number of fixtures not just the distance between them.

Walter McDonald, 172 Magazine Street, stated that the ordinance's goal is to reduce pollution and glare and to maintain public safety. The ordinance does not limit the negative impact on the city and its residents. Safety and security are the only reason for the need for outdoor lighting. He stated that rooftop lighting should only be those required by the FAA or emergency lights lit in power outages. The Planning Board should not be given discretion to approve rooftop lighting for purposes other than for safety or security. He stated that all other lights should be discouraged for light pollution. He stated that no developer should have outdoor lighting as a matter of right. The 100' buffer for residential areas is completely inadequate. Safety and secure is the only reason property owners should be able to appeal for new lighting. He stated that the authority for an administrative waiver to a single person in Inspectional Services will invite trouble. A lighting commission should be established to rule on the waivers with a majority of the members experienced in the field and include at least one member from the relevant engineering field.

Marie Saccoccio, Otis Street, stated that she is a distance from Zinc building and that the ordinance does not prohibit this type of light, after being confronted by Zinc, is not understandable. This is such an easy prohibition. The court house in East Cambridge is another wakeup call that this ordinance is inadequate. She stated that East Cambridge is in the worst position for the lighting ordinance. It is a mixed neighborhood. There is a reason to preserve what there is in East Cambridge and it will not be a place where people want to live. She attend the lighting task force meetings and made suggestions on indoor and architect lighting, waivers and the process and this ordinance is the result. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street, stated that she lived in the red zone and was in opposition to the MOLO. The ordinance does not offer enough protection. Those affected by bright and rooftop lights will have no effective way to oppose them. She stated that the City Council should be moving to maintain an urban environment. Cambridge should be leading the way for dramatic reduction in energy use needed for long term survival of the planet. She supported a lighting commission, a public process and public hearings. Communication from Rosemary Booth and Jerry O’Leary, 303 Third Street, in opposition to intensely bright lights and rooftop lights for Cambridge is attached (ATTACHMENT F).

Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street, stated that there are residents that have put a lot of work into this ordinance. She supported a lighting commission with authority to regulate lights with a public process and public hearings. It is unacceptable to have unlimited light. She spoke about the enforceability of something simple. There is a cumulative light effect. The ordinance needs amendments. Her communication is attached (ATTACHMENT G).

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that light is not being talked about for safety purposes - it is the look at "me" light. This ordinance will only be triggered after something like Zinc lighting is installed. There should only be one light zone. Those living in the red zone should not have to suffer from light intrusion. Enforcement is a huge problem; there is an issue with staffing and expert staffing is needed. There has been no mention of the health and environment consequence and effect because of this type of unnecessary lighting. She spoke about the effect of excessive LED lighting and the totally unnecessary LED lighting. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT H).

Bernice Buresh, 140 Upland Road, noted that the lighting ordinance in a city as dense as Cambridge this ordinance has never been tried around the country. She urged the City Council to take the necessary time to come up with a state of the art outdoor lighting ordinance. The draft proposal is flawed. It is inconsistent and lacks outdoor lighting standards. She stated nothing good will come from enacting a muddled ordinance and this would anger residents. Light pollution is a contemporary challenge. Cambridge has money, access to expertise, dedicated public employees, elected officials and residents, companies and Cambridge is in an ideal position to craft a clear ordinance. Her commented are attached (ATTACHMENT I).

Glenn Heinmiller, 35 Mt. Vernon Street, stated that he is a light designer. He stated that the ordinance will get rid of light trespass in the city. The ordinance was effective as written. He spoke about façade lighting and exemptions in zone 3 for facade and landscape lighting. This does not allow unlimited lighting. This only exempts facade and landscape light. He stated that the facade light means the Zinc building. There is a continuum between all or nothing. It is appropriate to have facade lighting. He stated that if exemption were removed in zone 3 for facade light this will ban all facade and landscape light. He stated that the lighting in One Kendall Square, under this ordinance would be prohibited and no one ever complained about this lighting. If the Zinc lighting were subtle and appropriate it would not have been a problem. Light pollution credit is written for light pollution control and has nothing to do with energy efficiency. He did not agree with changing minimize to eliminate. He added that the ordinance needs quantifiable, measurable standards.

Catherine Leblanc, 14 Tufts Street, stated that she is a physician assistant. She explained that light impairs cognitive function. She did not know how this would be measured for light fatigue. She stated that preventive medicine is cheaper. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT J).

Ken Taylor, 2 Craigie Street, shared an overview of light in Cambridge written in 1970. Thou shall not shine light in others eyes. The city landmarks are not appropriately lit. He spoke about the LED street lighting program. American cities are 20% brighter than other countries. Beacon Hill is not lit by LED and never heard that the level of lighting on Beacon Hill is unsafe. He stated that Harvard Square with the new LED lights looks less bright and he suggested the City to test what the right level of lighting is and then reduce the lighting to the lowest possible level that still feels safe and secure. He suggested readjusting the lighting, pass the ordinance, do not add unwanted lights, light important buildings and do a street lighting program.

Tim Largy, 47 Jay Street, spoke about street light lighting levels. Cambridge is bright and is getting brighter. Lighting technology is changing so quickly and he is happy that the ordinance is based on the International Dark Sky Association model ordinance. He spoke about speeding it up now to address functional lighting and address nonfunctional lighting later.

Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street, stated that the ordinance is inadequate. She attended most task force hearing. She spoke about public health issues at the hearings and this was ignored. She commented that Washington Elms is in the green zone next to the red zone in Kendall Square. This housing includes families with children and this effects school learning issues. She spoke about a single lighting zone would be suitable. She spoke on the Walden Park lighting and it gets five years to come into compliance. She stated that the buildings on Massachusetts Avenue about a residence C zone in Riverside and Mid-Cambridge. She stated that these buildings would not need a special permit if they converted to lab use and would be able to install facade and rooftop lighting. The lighting zone that would apply is zone 2. This would be adequate to bother us. She asked if it were possible for the City Council to use LEED version 3 standard for indoor light pollution.

Ed Abrams, 80 Wendell Street, stated that he does not have a problem with private light. He spoke about the LED lighting and the light trespass caused by the street light. He stated that the amount of light from LED is more intense than the previous light. Street lighting is causing light pollution. He spoke about the health effect of the LED light. He stated that it is hypocritical to exempt private lighting and then exempt itself from the blue rich lighting can cause harm. He urged the City to phase out the 4000K LED lighting in the neighborhoods and move to under 3000K. This needs to be done soon as it is affecting his health and sleep.

Dr. James Katz, 8 Museum Way, stated that he is board certified in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. He spoke about the blue light on the LED on telephones and computers. He spoke about artificial light at night. He explained that the third shift workers had more health issues due to their circadian rhythms being altered. The key word is adjustable to the light intensity and frequency. What is known now is that there is way too much light. The Zinc building reflects the pollution. He recommended to City that the ordinance outdoor light be adjustable and that it be simple enough to make solutions. He stated that in his neighborhood many of the large companies voluntarily reduced their outdoor lighting when they were made aware of health effects. He stated that too must light now will be way too much light in the future.

At 6:58pm Councillor Carlone closed public comment.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is the beginning of the process. He stated that examples would be good to understand the situation and the standards.

Councillor Devereux questioned if the DCR would be subject to the local ordinance. Ms. Farooq responded in the negative. Councillor Devereux stated that the red zone bordered the open space natural areas and she is concerned about the impact of light. The bright kelvin lights are brighter and more efficient and she wanted more information on how they affect the net zero goals. Ms. Farooq stated that LEED is not just about efficiency; it affects indoor air quality, energy, light and a broader sustainability.

Councillor Kelley asked if anything would be allowed and the measuring point seems to be Zinc. He wanted to know how the ordinance would prevent something like Zinc from happening again and the lights at Walden Square to be something more acceptable.

Councillor Carlone spoke about urban design concept and a plan that would outline what is relevant. These should be exceptions that enrich the City. He stated that Historical buildings are not glass. He stated that materials that temper the light does not work with modern construction. He stated that all learned a great deal and he will schedule another hearing to follow up with this important issue. He stated that the following e-mails were received and would be made part of the report:

Communication from Councillor Mazen transmitting his comments to the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (ATTACHMENT K).

Communication from Bjorn Poonen, 303 Third Street, in favor of a provision for stricter lighting restrictions after 11pm (ATTACHMENT L).

Communication from Hunter Aldrich in opposition to Las Vegas style lighting in the proposed Municipal Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (ATTACHMENT M).

Communication from Wendy McCluskey, 1 Cutler Avenue, in opposition to the proposed Municipal Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (ATTACHMENT N).

Communication from Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street, urging the City Council to reject the proposed Municipal Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (ATTACHMENT O).

Communication from Gene Dolgin, in opposition to the Municipal Lighting Ordinance (ATTACHMENT P).

Communication from Harriet Feinberg in opposition to the Municipal Lighting Ordinance (ATTACHMENT Q).

Communication from Sherri Tucker, 854 Massachusetts Avenue, regarding the Municipal Lighting Ordinance (ATTACHMENT R).

Communication from Bill Cullen regarding the destruction of neighborhoods in the name of improvements or development (ATTACHMENT S).

Communication from Robert Garrett, 638 Green Street, in opposition to the bright lights and rooftop lighting in the proposed ordinance (ATTACHMENT T).

Communication from Arthur Strang, Fresh Pond Parkway, in opposition to Las Vegas lighting for Cambridge (ATTACHMENT U).

Communication from Judy Kobek, 69R Gore Street, expressing her concern to the proposed changes to the Lighting Ordinance (ATTACHMENT V).

Communication from Eleanor Beram, 70 Putnam Avenue, in opposition to Las Vegas lighting for Cambridge (ATTACHMENT W).

Communication from Jai Wilson, 36 Jay Street, in opposition to bright lighting (ATTACHMENT X).

Communication from Helene Bank, 174 Putnam Avenue, in opposition to the "pay-to-play" provision in the Municipal Lighting Ordinance (ATTACHMENT Y).

Communication from Mary Ann Donofrio, 120 Gore Street in opposition to the Las Vegas Lighting for Cambridge (ATTACHMENT Z).

Communication from Rose Rappoport Moss in opposition to Las Vegas Lighting for Cambridge (ATTACHMENT AA).

Communication from Linley Gerber regarding light pollution (ATTACHMENT BB).

Communication from Rick Roth, 648 Green Street, in opposition to the proposed ordinance (ATTACHMENT CC).

Communication from Victoria Ruff, 30 Sciarappa Street, in opposition to Las Vegas Lighting for Cambridge (ATTACHMENT DD).

Communication from Douglas Okun, 156 Mt. Auburn Street, in support of controlling building lights (ATTACHMENT EE).

Communication from Robert Camacho, 24 Corporal Burns Road, in opposition to the new lighting law (ATTACHMENT FF).

Communication from Susan Donaldson, MD, 187 Harvey Street, in opposition to Las Vegas lighting for Cambridge (ATTACHMENT GG).

Communication from Michael D. Heath, II transmitting his concern with rooftop lighting (ATTACHMENT HH).

Communication from Genevieve Coyle, 230 Lakeview Avenue, opposed to super lights on the Zinc Building (ATTACHMENT II).

Communication from Alan Green, 82 Fifth Street, in opposition to bright lights on tall buildings (ATTACHMENT JJ).

Communication from Katherine Bennett and Richard Boudreau, 39 Pleasant Street in opposition to Las Vegas lighting for Cambridge (ATTACHMENT KK).

Communication from Susan Markowitz, 20 Oak Street, in opposition to Las Vegas lighting for Cambridge (ATTACHMENT LL).

Communication from Richard Morse, 11 Sciarappa Street in opposition to bright lighting in the skyline at night (ATTACHMENT MM).

Communication from Sara Willig in opposition to Las Vegas lighting for Cambridge (ATTACHMENT NN).

Communication from Don Lipsitt, 83 Cambridge Parkway, in opposition to rooftop lighting (ATTACHMENT OO).

Communication from Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, urging that changes be add to the proposed lighting ordinance (ATTACHMENT PP).

Communication from Susan H. Holcombe, 663 Green Street, in opposition to the Municipal Lighting Ordinance (ATTACHMENT QQ).

Communication from Thomas J. Lucey, Director of Government and Community Relations, Harvard University, expressing concerns about the proposed Municipal Lighting Ordinance relating to industry best practices, applicability and enforcement (ATTACHMENT RR).

Communication from Sue Butler, 14 Clinton Street, requesting that rational restrictions on nighttime lighting be adopted by Cambridge (ATTACHMENT SS).

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance. The issue is complex. An architect with lighting experience should be the person who sign off.

The hearing adjourned at 7:07pm on motion of Councillor Kelley.

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

Copies of the attachments mentioned above are on file in the City Clerk’s Office or can be found online.