ON THE TABLE
1. An application was received from CareWell Urgent Care, requesting permission for a sandwich board sign in front of the premises numbered 601 Concord Avenue. [Tabled on a motion by Councillor Devereux on Apr 25, 2016.]

2. An application was received from Esmeralda, requesting permission for a sandwich board sign in front of the premises numbered 54 Church Street. [Tabled on a motion by Councillor Devereux on Apr 25, 2016.]
Placed on File

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. A resubmitted application was received from Esmeralda, requesting permission for a sandwich board sign in front of the premises numbered 54 Church Street.
Referred to City Manager with Power (Carlone - NO)

2. An application was received from Honeycomb Creamery, requesting permission for a sandwich board sign in front of the premises numbered 1702 Massachusetts Avenue.
Referred to City Manager with Power

3. An application was received from Darwin's Ltd., requesting permission for a sandwich board sign in front of the premises numbered 313 Massachusetts Avenue.
Referred to City Manager with Power

4. An application was received from Marimekko, requesting permission for a sandwich board sign in front of the premises numbered 350 Huron Avenue.
Referred to City Manager with Power w/conditions (5-4 vote)

5. An application was received from Waypoint, requesting permission for a projecting blade sign at the premises numbered 1030 Massachusetts Avenue. Approval Has Been Received From Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and abutter.
Adopted

6. An application was received from Mundo/Lux, requesting permission for a sandwich board sign in front of the premises numbered 2 Bow Street.
Charter Right - Cheung

COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from the family of John J. Fallon, transmitting thanks for your kind expression of sympathy.

2. A communication was received from Ann Tennis, Chair, Cambridge Highlands Neighborhood Association, in opposition to a Medical Marijuana Dispensary being located at 61 Mooney Street.

3. A communication was received from Ann Fleck-Henderson, 113 Richdale Avenue, regarding affordable housing on city lots.

4. A communication was received from Mary Cate Curley, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

5. A communication was received from Amy Volz, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

6. A communication was received from Josh Brosnan, regarding affordable housing.

7. A communication was received from Jackson Davidow, 72 Kirkland Street, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

8. A communication was received from Sheli Wortis, 106 Berkshire Street, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

9. A communication was received from Debra Shapiro, 404A Broadway, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

10. A communication was received from Jeanne Koopman, 248 River Street, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

11. A communication was received from Judy Kobek, 69R Gore Street, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

12. A communication was received from Sally Yi, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

13. A communication was received from Leslie Cohen, 237 Norfolk Street, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

14. A communication was received from Andy Nash and Peter Berry, 18 Worcester Street, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

15. A communication was received from Ali Rice, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

16. A communication was received from Anna Rowe Dennis, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

17. A communication was received from Hope Turner, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

18. A communication was received from Mary Jane Kornacki, 103 Avon Hill Street, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

19. A communication was received from Kathy Watkins, 90 Fawcett Street, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

20. A communication was received from Alice Carter, 45 Market Street, transmitting support for building affordable housing on the city parking lots in Central Square on Bishop Allen Drive.

21. A communication was received from Sarah G. Vincent, 11 Cogswell Avenue, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

22. A communication was received from Olivia Orta, MPH, Doctoral Candidate, Epidemiology Department, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

23. A communication was received from Jerome K. Saunders, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

24. A communication was received from Jinane Abounadi and Munther Dahleh, transmitting support for decreasing the speed limit on residential Fresh Pond Parkway to 25 mph.

25. A communication was received from Jinane Abounadi, 72 Fresh Pond Parkway, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

26. A communication was received from Jon Christopher Summerfield, 153 Lexington Avenue, oppose the changes in traffic flow on Appleton Street.

27. A communication was received from Jackie and Jonathan King, 40 Essex Street, regarding affordable housing on city-owned lots.

28. A communication was received from Justin Crane, 220 Harvard Street, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

29. A communication was received from Robert J. La Tremouille, regarding severe harm proposed to River Street Bridge access for Cambridge residents.

30. A communication was received from Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

31. A communication was received from Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, regarding a thought about abortion.

32. A communication was received from Jack Boesen, 25 Suffolk Street, regarding the issue of affordable housing in our city.

33. A communication was received from Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, transmitting support for the policy order which would reduce Memorial Drive's speed limit to 25 mph.

34. A communication was received from Abraham Lateiner, 286 Windsor Street, transmitting support for building 100% affordable housing on the city parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive.

---

35. A communication was received from Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, in support of a landmark designation for the Abbott Building.

36. A communication was received from Hasson Rashid, 820 Massachusetts Avenue, relating to issues of homelessness.

---

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Dec 19, 2016  Amended
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: A special bond develops between a police officer and their canine partner; and
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that Officer Peter Neal of the Cambridge Police Department is retiring in January 2017 and is unable to keep his partner Rumba; and
WHEREAS: It is common practice in other cities and towns for officers to purchase their canine partner when they retire; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Police Department and other relevant City departments to allow Officer Peter Neal to purchase Rumba upon his retirement; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on the options available.

O-2     Dec 19, 2016  Charter Right - Toomey
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The Abbott Building, located at 5 John F. Kennedy Street in Harvard Square, is one of the most significant and recognizable buildings in Harvard Square, representing the spirit of the Square’s history, architecture, local retail, and culture; and
WHEREAS: Built in 1909, the building’s triangular shape, with the Curious George store facing the main intersection of Harvard Square and the MBTA station, serves as the center of the Square; and
WHEREAS: The Abbott Building was built by Edwin Hale Abbott (1834-1927), a Cambridge resident, attorney, and railroad executive who also helped to build the Phillips Brooks House in Harvard Yard; and
WHEREAS: The Abbott Building was designed by the local architectural firm Newhall & Bevins, who designed at least 37 additional buildings in Cambridge in the early 20th century; and
WHEREAS: The building’s structure and architectural details were centered around the look, proportions, and materials most consistent with Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The Abbott Building lies within the boundaries of the Harvard Square Neighborhood Conservation District; and
WHEREAS: A redevelopment proposal is under consideration that would allow the alteration of some of the Abbott Building's most prominent and distinctive historic architectural features, prompting public concern that the proposed gutting and reconfiguration of the entry and upper level interior spaces will be visible from the public way; and
WHEREAS: A citizen petition to initiate a Landmark Designation study was delivered to the Cambridge Historical Commission on Nov 23, 2016 with 13 signatures, and a Change.org petition was signed by over 5,000 people with the goal to protect the Abbott Building and neighboring spaces; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby go on record in support of asking the Cambridge Historical Commission to initiate a landmark designation study process on the Abbott Building in Harvard Square.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Oct 18, 2016 beginning at 6:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the work of the first phase of the Broadband Taskforce.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Marc McGovern; Lisa Peterson, Acting City Manager; Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Finance; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Mary Hart, Chief Information Officer, Information Technology; Steve Lenkauskas, City Electrician; Kathy Watkins, Senior Engineer, Department of Public Works; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Jerrold Grochow, Ming-Tai Huh, Jason Liss, Ben Compaine, Ed Naef, Susan Fleischman, Saul Tannenbaum, Members of the Broadband Task Force; Asher Barth; K. Kini; Antoni Abella; Polly Carpenter; Chris Danielewski; Mr. Kenney; Theodora Skeadas; Steve Harris; Charles Franklin; Matt Caplan; Ellen Kramer; Evan Moulson; Hadassa; and Susan P. Crawford.

Councillor Mazen convened the hearing and gave a brief overview of the agenda for the hearing (Attachment A). He stated that this is an issue near and dear to his heart. He stated that most businesses in Cambridge as well as the residents have complained about the monopoly on internet access. He stated that in many cases, we see how Comcast’s low income program makes it difficult for people to get the product. He stated that task force has done much work and research along with options. He said that he looks forward to the findings of the task force. He stated that he wants to learn from the audience and neighborhoods to secure more opinions as every neighborhood will be interested to see what we do for social equity reasons and neighborhood access.

Councillor Mazen asked Lee Gianetti for background on the work of the task force. Mr. Gianetti introduced the members of the task force and stated that he, too, is a member. He said that he will be giving an overview of the process and some key highlights and then the task force will talk about their recommendation. He explained that in early 2014, the City Council approved two Policy Orders related to the Broadband Task Force. He said that the first Policy Order asked about determining the feasibility of developing a public/private partnership and pilot program to expand municipal broadband access to some Cambridge Housing properties. The second Policy Order asked for the appointment of a task force composed of experts, residents, the Cambridge Housing Authority and representatives from the local universities charged with developing a municipal broadband proposal for Cambridge, potentially including extension of city fiber into public housing properties. He said that Tilson was hired and began work for the task force in June 2015. He said that during the fall of 2015, two interactive outreach meetings were held and a randomized telephone survey was conducted. The first outreach meeting with a resident audience of just under 30 participants. The second outreach meeting was for small business/tech/Top 25 employers and universities which had 15 people in attendance. He said that in late 2015/2016, Tilson was completing technical work and high level designs. He said that after 15 public task force meetings, their recommendations along with the Tilson report was transmitted to the City Manager.

Mr. Gianetti said that the charge of the was to examine broadband service in Cambridge and evaluate the City’s internet infrastructure, examine options to increase competition, reduce pricing, and improve speed, reliability and customer service for residents and businesses, and investigate scenarios for leveraging the City’s current or future fiber assets to expand access to broadband services such as serve to Cambridge Housing Authority properties. He explained that the intent from the beginning was for the final report of the committee to assist the City in planning for the future and setting realistic expectations with the public, as creating alternative solutions to single provider internet service can take years to fully implement.

Mr. Gianetti encouraged the attendees to read the report as there is a lot of great information included in the report. He stated that a few key items that the task force members noted as “lessons learned” were:

• About two-thirds of households surveyed felt that their internet service was of average or better value;

• More residents considered “reliability” of greater importance than the cost or the speed of the service;

• Motivation for municipally-finances systems include the need to wire areas that private providers have neglected, to create better services in order to attract business to the area, and to offer services at lower prices than existing providers; and

• In the overwhelming number of cases where local government has been successful in creating a municipally-owned broadband entity, the municipality had already owned the electric utility, providing ready access to conduits as well as operating experience and efficiencies in financing, billing, and account management for the add-on broadband service.

Mr. Gianetti commented that based on the information gathered during the early part of the process, the task force synthesized goals based on community input, task force discussions and survey results. He noted that goals that the task force set were affordability and equity, choice and competition, supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses, innovation and excellence and local control.

Mr. Gianetti said that Tilson spent a lot of time with City staff reviewing internet fiber in the City. He said that they touched on a few various business models, noting that some of these were not relevant to Cambridge but are worth checking out. He said that Tilson looked at 3 designs.

• The first design is a targeted build connecting only 22 properties owned by CHA and providing these facilities with connectivity as an extension of the City’s existing fiber optic network. At $5.5 million, this is the lowest cost solution that represents the lease departure for “business as usual” for Cambridge but does not address all of the task force’s goals;

• The second design is a partial build consisting of a dark fiber platform routing fiber to all neighborhoods in the City but relying on third party Internet Service Providers (ISP) to provide services to end users. This is the medium cost option at $7 million dollars whose satisfaction of the task force’s goals would depend on the City’s ability to negotiate agreements that satisfy the goals, and on the response of service providers;

• The third design is a full fiber to the Home Network where fiber is run to substantially all premises in the City and services are provided by either the City itself or its designated ISP. This is the highest cost option at $130-$187 million dollars, depending on the percentage of premises along the route which are connected. He said that this represents the greatest operating responsibility.

Mr. Gianetti advised that these are just capital costs and do not include monthly operational and maintenance costs for each design.

Mr. Gianetti stated that the Tilson recommendation is that the City has limited experience and we can take the approach of a limited but expandable option. He explained that this would be a partial build. He stated that they feel that this is the venue that the City could take and by keeping it small, the City is minimizing capital risks. It was designed that Cambridge would iterate on its success and would minimize risk to the City. He stated that as the task force was reviewing the final Tilson report, they asked good and focused questions which led to the Broadband Task Force’s recommendation to the City Manager.

Ming-Tai Huh walked through the Tilson recommendations and gave an overview of the PowerPoint presentation (Attachment B). He stated that this was an educational process and the task force is very far along from where it began. He stated that the Phase 1 conclusions are that partial dark fiber network does not address all the goals, a deeper analysis on the costs to build and operate a network are needed, City-owned municipal broadband system is the best way to meet all the goals, and alternatives could also achieve a similar result with less risk and cost.

Mr. Huh stated that a Municipal Broadband Feasibility Study would meet the task force’s goals. He said that a private option would potentially eliminate local control and weaken Cambridge’s ability to address other goals. He said that evaluating the feasibility of the full build option would give a detailed perspective on balancing scope and risk. He said that less comprehensive build options could arise as alternatives if risks are found excessive.

Mr. Huh said that Phase II key questions with regard to building the fiber network which must be answered are:

• How much will it cost on a street-by-street basis?

• Over what timeframe would the project run?

• How is the project funded over the timeframe?

• Are there other technologies to consider on top of the fiber network?

Mr. Huh said that Phase II key questions with regard to operating the fiber network are:

• How much revenue will it potentially generate?

• How much are the ongoing costs and maintenance?

• How long does it take to pay back with the revenues?

• Which City department is responsible for the network operation and customer support?

Mr. Huh stated that it comes down to dollars and cents.

Public Comment began at 6:35pm.

Chris Danielewski asked how it came to pass that the City only has only one internet service provider. He stated that Somerville has 3 or 4 residential service providers.

Antonio Vera stated that it is wonderful to see a task force such as this. He stated that it should be a right to be able to access communications. He said that he would like this project to move forward and was curious about a plan for revenue.

Mr. Kenney asked if there are any impediments on executing phase II or phase III.

Theodora Skeadas asked to what extent have other cities implemented something as extensive as this or is it unprecedented.

Steve Harris, Malcolm Road, stated that he believes that not all of the recommendations were unanimous by the task force. He stated that he would like the different options expanded upon.

Charles Franklin asked if technology such as the one used by JetBlazer has been considered for supplementing this project.

Matt Caplan asked if Comcast was involved.

Ellen Kramer asked where is the money coming from.

Evan Moulson asked that if the decision of the Committee is not to adopt any of the recommendations of the task force, could it lead to a reduced initiative to innovate in terms of ISP technology by the current Broadband providers and what powers does the City of Cambridge have to regulate those private providers while maintaining local control and to promote the values of competition that were mentioned in the presentation.

Councillor Carlone stated that Cambridge approached things at a good pace and the notion that Mr. Gianetti mentioned that we start small and build is probably the way that Cambridge will proceed at almost anything. He stated that as it relates to equity, the City Council strongly believes that everyone should have a quality system. He stated that we missed the boat on putting conduit in the ground with all the road construction. He stated that at a previous presentation in 2014, it was stated that 90% of the cost of laying the system is digging up the road. He asked why the City is not currently doing this. He stated that some contracts were underway but we should be laying conduit where possible.

Councillor Devereux stated that it is only equitable if you are getting the same level of service. She feels that we have responsibility in that regard. She said that she is trying to understand the dig once policy in light of Councillor Carlone’s comments. She stated that there will be sewer separation work being done in The Port. She asked if this will present an opportunity to install fiber.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he sometimes takes the devil’s advocate position. His said that he is concerned about the money aspect. He asked how the City would finance such a project and how will this project impact other things that the City is trying to do. He stated that it is very important to make sure that there is equity but he would like to know the trade-offs from the City’s perspective. He said that he would like to know how such a project would fit into the scheme of things and what would the City be giving up to undergo such a project. He stated that he has heard other cities have had local control and it has not worked out. He said that he would like to know the facts. He stated that as it relates to a pricing and equity issue, would there be some type of sliding scale which could be beneficial. He stated that he does not know if competition will get the City to where it wants to be. He said that he would like to know how it worked in other cities.

Saul Tannenbaum stated that it is important to note that even those who are the strongest advocates for municipal broadband do not think that the City is ready to move forward. He stated that it is a lot of money but there is income associated with it and there are things besides just internet subscriptions that come from this. He stated that if the City is going to build out sensor networks, it will have to have the capacity to connect them or use its own network. He stated that policy failures that led to the Comcast monopoly and market failure. He stated that we are responding to the market failure and it does not look as if that will change. He stated that when there are investments in high speed networking either by the city or other private entities, there is a swarming effect with other companies trying to be competitive.

Councillor Mazen stated that he has spent a lot of time talking to RCN and Comcast. He explained that when you meet with them, it is frustrating because the representatives have no power from a national policy perspective. He said that if they have the monopoly, they will not increase service until you make them. He stated that there is a mutually assured monopoly language. He stated that this also has a bearing on when a City creates its own network. He stated that if we don’t do something, Comcast will never get better.

Councillor Mazen asked how comprehensive is the dark fiber partial buildout and how much infrastructure is needed for “the last mile.”

Ben Compaine stated that they did not get to that level of granularity. He stated that if the City does a municipal system, what would Comcast’s response be? He noted that this will be looked at in the second phase. He stated that there are some places that have tried municipal broadband and it has been very discouraging. He said that Cambridge has to find its own path and cannot expect too much from the existing cases. He stated that he agrees with the goals but he thinks that the business case has to be made. He stated that he thinks it is important not to get stuck in today’s technology when there may be other possibilities. He spoke about the next generation of high speed wireless. He said that if it works out, it will provide the bandwidth, will be inexpensive and there is high probability that it will start coming out in 2021. He stated that the argument about not jumping in with both feet seems to respond to the type of risk that would be very substantial given the uncertainties that he sees. He said that the Phase II Study will provide some meat.

Mr. Gianetti stated that 148 miles of fiber would have to be installed. He stated that Tilson worked closely with DPW and that all costs associated with their assumptions are Cambridge costs. He said that the assumptions do have drops for 100% at 52,000.

Hadassa stated that there is strength in numbers. She stated that it may be of value to consider aligning with other cities in the area. She said that a bigger alliance may prove to gain more optic.

Mr. Gianetti stated that the Committee must keep in mind that these monies are just for the capital cost. He said that it is important to know how to fund the operational cost and how does this speak to larger priorities. He explained that this will be discussed in Phase II. He said that there were two outreach sessions during the first phase and moving forward, Phase II will narrow down the scope of the questions.

Saul Tannenbaum stated that it is about finding ways to engage institutions and receiving money to provide services to them. He noted that other cities are not able to access such institutions. He stated that we have the industry that is information intensive so there are possibilities. He stated that the basic lesson is that cities have been way too optimistic about revenues.

Councillor Mazen spoke about fiber and ADSL. He stated that when we moved from 56K to Broadband speeds, costs will increase and it is important to know what is the new normal for the future.

Charles Franklin stated that Comcast service is not necessarily reliable even though it is faster.

Councillor Mazen replied that they will start getting faster and more expensive and questioned what the City is going to do about it.

Councillor Mazen stated that the common understanding is to bring in fiber or cable. He said that the only real sources of the data in this type of arrangement is an on-shore hub. He stated that this needs to be piped in via the fastest and most reliable way and that is not usually done by air.

Jerrold Grochow stated that in terms of recommendations, it is not just about the financing. He said that five goals were laid out and these are important goals. He stated that it is important that the community is in agreement. As it relates to other communities, Mr. Grochow asked about the success in long-term and are they able to service aging populations. He stated that the Tilson report did not address these issues.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked if there is some responsibility to pass some of the cost onto the companies in the city. He said that if the City is going to pay for all this infrastructure, what is the responsibility of the business owners to pay back the City in some way.

Councillor Mazen stated that we could pass some of the “last mile” cost onto the consumer. He said that perhaps the start-up and business communities could also pay something back to the City. He asked if there is a way to pass on a cost that is fair and could potentially include a sliding scale.

Jason Liss stated that his impression of the survey is that in day-to-day life, many don’t give much though on how their service compares to what they could have or other countries. He stated that the fact that people are satisfied does not speak to how much better what they could have would be. Councillor Mazen noted that he cannot find a lot of people with that opinion.

Councillor Mazen asked who will be consulting for Phase II. Mr. Gianetti responded that it is yet to be determined.

Councillor Mazen asked how to minimize the disagreement between the consultant and the task force moving into Phase II. Mr. Gianetti responded that there was not a huge amount of disagreement. He stated that the task force stated that they need more information. He stated that Tilson provided the scope of the work that was charged to them. He stated that he does not believe that everyone would agree with every element that the consultant would come back with.

Councillor Mazen asked if there will be some kind of regional discussion. Mr. Gianetti answered in the affirmative. He stated that some of those discussions have already taken place.

Councillor Mazen stated that he gets complaints that the infrastructure in public housing is not comprehensive. He stated that there is a divide in access across socioeconomic status. He stated that it falls in the last mile conversation. He would like to make sure that the primary drivers are the right ones. He asked how we will engage the community equitably. Mr. Gianetti encouraged all to examine the Tilson report which speaks to many of these issues.

Councillor Devereux stated that if you talk about administering something that is equitably shared, priced and well-supported, Cambridge will do it better than a third party who does not honor our values or needs. Councillor Mazen added that it starts with local control which then allows us to do other things.

Councillor Mazen introduced special guest Susan P. Crawford. He stated that Ms. Crawford is a Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a Professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. He explained that Ms. Crawford has served as President Obama’s Special Assistant for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy.

Professor Crawford stated that she is the daughter of parents that moved from Santa Monica to Cambridge. She stated that she has done a lot of policy work around the world. She stated that she talks to people about the nature of internet access. She said that the only time she has been embarrassed to be American was when she was in Seoul. She said that people there think that America is so unconnected. She stated that the Mayor of Stockholm asked her if there is anything that she can to do help us. Ms. Crawford explained that her theory is that Americans have values that will be well-serviced by having high capacity connectivity. She stated that Cambridge, with its interesting population, can serve as a model for the country. She spoke about interesting models. She said the models that make sense involve the City acting as a street grid to ensure that every resident is reached by a wholesale utility but that the City itself is not selling services. She said that she would rather see a lot of competition in private market over that grid. She stated that wireless access is a compliment to the fiber in the ground. She emphasized the idea of having the City really understand its assets. She stated that conduit access in some places has turned out to be cheaper than using poles. She stated that Comcast told her, as a customer, that they have Cambridge “locked up.” She stated that the students at Harvard don’t recognize how bad connectivity is in the rest of Cambridge and this signals to her that we need to get the universities to the table. She stated understanding assets is vital. She stated that where there is competition, higher speeds emerge, prices will go down and more people will get served.

Susan Fleischman asked Professor Crawford to talk about local content. Professor Crawford stated that historically local content was funded by the cable franchise. She stated that local cable television providers have lost their support. She stated that there is an opportunity in arrangements that are made for tiny slivers of money to go to public content. She said that this is the only way that local content is going to be funded. She stated that carriage is no longer as relevant as it was 20 years ago. For example, meetings would be more accessible if they were available online.

Ben Compaine stated that if you go to Comcast and want to drop internet and keep television, you will save $20 dollars per month because they have joint costs and put video and data over the same plan. He asked if Cambridge would have to provide video service to have the same economics. Professor Crawford stated that this is a long-term decision for Cambridge. She stated that there will be some that say that it will cost more but over time it is changing year to year.

Ming-Tai Huh asked about direct TV. Professor Crawford stated that she is present to talk about infrastructure in Cambridge. She stated that what is relevant is shipping around a lot of data. She stated that a current provider is selling a bundle while AT&T has no plans to bring fiber to Cambridge.

Councillor Mazen stated that the FCC is in the process of deciding the over the top apps issue. Professor Crawford stated that if you do not enable competition, Comcast will be selling home security, telemedicine, etc. She said that they are a profit-making company but they have different incentives than the City does. Councillor Mazen stated that when multiple people talk about bad service, there is some level of disreputability.

Jason Liss asked Professor Crawford to speak about how to maximize the possibility of achieving competition through signing on. Professor Crawford stated that we have learned that it is important for the City to be in strong conversations with ISPs.

Professor Crawford stated her belief that the dark air model is quite attractive because you really understand your assets.

In response to a question that arose in the conversation, Professor Crawford stated that fiber has no theoretical limit to the amount of information that it can carry and will be around for the next 40 years. She stated that all of the new wireless things will require the presence of fiber in the streets because they create the tsunami of data that needs to be carried. She noted that while there is a lot of change, the constant is that you need to have the basics in place.

Professor Crawford stated that Stockholm made back their money in a couple of years and currently makes $10 million per year leasing out access. She explained that they do have control over the poles if they need them. She said that Stockholm went right into the wholesale business themselves, not the dark air.

Councillor Mazen thanked Professor Crawford, members of the Broadband Task Force, City officials, and Mr. Gianetti for their work. He said that it will be challenging and a lot of discussion and research is needed but we must look toward the international comparison and the opportunity cost.

Councillor Mazen stated that a communication was received from Jim Recht regarding municipal broadband. (Attachment C).

Ming-Tai Huh stated that the conversations are great that are taking place.

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 8:03pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Oct 19, 2016 beginning at 5:02pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the Cambridge Housing Authority’s (CHA) re-opening of the Section 8 waiting list, the CHA’s issuance of vouchers to public housing applicants and the CHA’s preference policies.

Present at the hearing were Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Chris Cotter, Housing Director, Community Development Department; Neal Alpert, Chief of Staff to Mayor Simmons; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Greg Russ, Executive Director; Mike Johnston, Deputy Executive Director; Tara Aubuchon, Senior Program Manager; and Hannah Lodi, Director of Leased Housing, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, Member of the Affordable Housing Trust; Elaine DeRosa, Executive Director, CEOC; and Marcia Hams.

Mayor Simmons convened the hearing and stated that Vice Mayor McGovern would not be in attendance; at this meeting. Mayor Simmons gave an overview of the agenda for the hearing (Attachment A) and read her prepared opening remarks (Attachment B).

Mayor Simmons asked if anyone wished to participate in Public Comment. Hearing no one come forward, there was no Public Comment at this time. Mayor Simmons then stated that the representatives of the CHA were welcome to begin their remarks.

Mr. Russ stated that the CHA received questions from the Housing Committee regarding the issuance of Housing Choice Vouchers and the Housing Choice Wait List and they have provided a detailed summary in response to the questions.

Hannah Lodi gave a brief overview of the handout supplied by the CHA regarding questions on the opening of the CHA Housing Choice Voucher Wait List. (Attachment C). She stated that the CHA is still in a lottery period. She explained that the data in the update is through the first two weeks of the opening of the list. She stated that once the lottery period has ended, there will be more information available. She noted that the chart on page shows the breakdown of lists to which people have applied. She noted that 34% of pre-applications have had one or more preferences listed. Ms. Lodi explained that preference categories have not changed. Mayor Simmons asked if an applicant is allowed to change their mind regarding requested locations. Ms. Lodi responded that you can request to remove yourself from any list but the date and time would change accordingly on the list.

Mike Johnston stated with the CHA has a local preference which is applied if an applicant lives or works in Cambridge or a veteran. He explained that the list is like a 2-layer cake where the applicants that have preference bubble to the top tier, and the non-preference people are below. He said that preference is the ability to get to the higher level on the waiting list. He said that this year they moved from one list and when the list opened they created 13 lists, 12 site based and one mobile. He stated that not only can an applicant get preference but they can say that they don’t want a mobile voucher. He stated that an applicant can now choose the list that they want to go on.

Mayor Simmons stated that her understanding is that an applicant applies for Section 8, gets a voucher, and then their number will bubble to the top of the list. Mr. Johnston stated that the CHA has heard from tenant advocates that people want transparency and a one-stop shop to apply for the units in Cambridge. He said that not every affordable unit comes through the CHA but the wait list encompasses all the Section 8 and mobile lists, and the constituents have the ability to apply to all of the lists in one place rather than have to go to each specific agency.

Hannah Lodi stated that regarding question #5, the CHA has not gotten many requests for reasonable accommodations for assistant in completing a pre-application. She explained that drop-in hours (6 sessions per week) have served several hundred people. She said that only 5 paper applications have been requested. She said that once people realize they can apply on-line, they utilize this service. Ms. Lodi reviewed the number of pre-applications that have been submitted at the drop-in sessions. She explained that they partnered with the MultiService Center to get people in and out quickly and were able to accommodate any language barriers. She added that 23 drop-in sessions have taken place.

Ms. Lodi explained that the chart on page 5 shows a breakout by bedroom size. She said that the majority are 1 and 2 bedrooms. She stated that when the lottery period is over, the data will be put into the system which will tell them what people are best suited for. She noted that they have created fact sheets for each of the site based wait lists (SBWLs) so that people can see what bedroom sizes are available and any other relevant information about the property. She said that this will allow people to be more informed about what they are selecting.

Regarding SBWLs, Ms. Lodi stated that moving forward, once data is received they will have better idea about average wait time and bedroom size availability. She explained that if an applicant refuses an offer of an available unit from one of the SBWLs, they will be removed from that particular SBWL while remaining on other SBWLs to which they previously applied.

Ms. Lodi said that beginning Nov 15, 2016, they will open an Applicant Portal which will allow applicants to make any changes or updates to their application. There will also be an option available for people who have trouble with the portal and an applicant can allow notify the CHA in writing. She stated that 92% of the applications listed have an e-mail address.

Ms. Lodi said that the CHA does not track information regarding voucher and public housing assistance wait list in Boston and other surrounding communities.

Regarding question #16, Ms. Lodi said that according to the Community Development Department, as of Sept 26, 2016, of the 598 occupied inclusionary housing rental units, 318 were occupied by voucher holders and 250 were CHA voucher holders.

Councillor Mazen asked how many people will be placed immediately when they come off the wait list, and is their application is applied to the stock of available vouchers? Mr. Russ responded that there are very few mobile vouchers immediately. Ms. Lodi stated that the SBWL will have vacancies. She said that it is approximately 7 vacancies per month. In response to a question from Councillor Mazen, Mr. Russ stated that by the end of the year, every mobile voucher will be in use. He stated that there is a slim possibility that the formula may be adjusted by HUD which will give them something new to look at and beyond that, we are at maximum.

Mayor Simmons asked how many of the 5,369 applicant households were Cambridge residents. Ms. Lodi explained that 1,048 reported that they are residents. Mr. Russ added that this is the information given by the applicants, but has not yet been verified. Mayor Simmons said that it would be interesting to know how many of those applicants were displaced Cambridge residents. Mr. Johnston stated that project based units would have to be filled off this list. Mayor Simmons asked for confirmation that the Auburn Court list has been wiped clean and will now be utilizing this list. Mr. Johnston answered in the affirmative but added that there could be other subsidies in the building that are not CHA units. He said that the timeframes were given to the CHA by the owners. Mayor Simmons asked if RAD properties are one separate housing stock and these are something different. Mr. Johnson answered in the affirmative. Mr. Russ added that a person could be on both lists. He said that in a RAD property the first 2 groups into the property would be anyone with a right of return or a resident stayed and will now be moving doorways or floors. He said that once they have satisfied that they met the promise to fill the unit, they will reach out to voucher holders outside of Cambridge that are interested in coming back. He said that the notion is that if we can get former Cambridge residents who have left the city to move back into the city, their tenant based voucher would be moved back into the stock pile. He noted that the CHA has heard from the Affordable Housing Trust, the City Council, and housing advocates that people should have the ability to come back to Cambridge if so desired. Mayor Simmons said that it is a problem if people cannot come back to the city and she noted that she is pleased that inroads are being made in that respect.

Hannah Lodi gave a brief overview of the handout supplied by the CHA regarding the issuance of Housing Choice Vouchers to applicant households on the CHA’s Family and Elderly/Disabled Public Housing Wait List and related policy issues. (Attachment D).

Ms. Lodi stated that these questions relate to the CHA goal of leasing 250 public housing applicants with a voucher as a remedy for not making placements from the public housing wait list for at least two years due to the need to hold vacant units for RAD relocations. Mr. Johnston explained that when they started down path of RAD, they closed their waiting list and stopped making placements which had deep impact for people on the list. He stated that the CHA tried to figure out how to serve some of these families so they made a pledge of 250 vouchers. He went through the placement rate and in the categories of Elderly/Disable and Family they averaged 190 placements per year. They pledged to use 250 vouchers from this pool of applicants.

Councillor Devereux spoke about the timeframe when looking for a 1-bedroom unit as opposed to a larger unit. Ms. Lodi explained that because more people are searching for 1-bedroom units so there is more competition.

Mr. Johnston said that the Community Development Department has shared a list of the inclusionary addresses which will be loaded into the system so that the CHA can keep track of how many of their people are getting into inclusionary zoning units. He stated that when you look at the big picture, very few people are finding units in Cambridge. He stated that the units above 30% income are really free market units. He stated that the rent rates in Cambridge are astronomical but overall, the rent rates are going through the roof. He stated that payment standards outside of Cambridge is 100% of FMI.

Councillor Devereux asked if any of the site based buildings that we accepted applications for are expiring use buildings. Mr. Johnston responded that there are expiring use buildings that are not on this list.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that there are about 600 affordable units that are at risk of expiring by 2020 if no action is taken.

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone, Mr. Johnston explained the process for emergency applications. He stated that since the inception of Rad, with emergency status they give the first available resource. He said that with RAD underway, they do not have units readily available so instead they supply a voucher. He stated that this is why it is important to invest in hard units in the city.

Mr. Johnston stated that particularly on the Elderly/Disabled side, preserving the housing we currently have is particularly important. He stated that of all the data, that is the most telling. He said that on the Family side, very few people are leasing with a voucher that is affordable and now people are leaving the city because we don’t have the units. He added that while there is often criticism regarding the 120-day life span of a voucher, most of the people who are successful with a voucher usually find a place well before the 120-day mark. He stated that the voucher does not work for everybody. He stated that the problem is if they give a longer period of time for people (who have already been unsuccessful in finding a unit) to look for a unit, this means another person on the list who might have more luck with that voucher is unable to obtain it.

Mayor Simmons asked about the importance of credit scores in this process. Mr. Johnston stated that public housing units do not look at credit scores while the voucher program goes out to the free market so the landlord can screen any way that they want. Mayor Simmons asked if we can come up with some buffer system that can be put in place to aid this population. Mr. Russ stated that they run a budget counseling program for existing voucher families and they do focus on budget and credit building. He explained that they are thinking about the idea of extracting the credit portion. Mayor Simmons explained that there are people who, on paper, may look like risks to a potential landlord, but if there were mitigating factors that placed these risks upon them, and if these people are actively working to get their feet on stable ground, the City should try to create a program that strengthens their chances of landing an apartment.

Councillor Carlone stated that he has worked on affordable housing projects from a design point of view but never by the numbers. He asked if the maximum amount for a 2-bedroom unit is $2,114 per month.

Mr. Russ stated that it is the maximum subsidized amount. Councillor Carlone asked if the tenant pays a portion of that rent. Mr. Russ responded in the affirmative. He stated that these numbers are CHA payment standards. Councillor Carlone stated that when a building owner says no to the tenant, they are saying no primarily because of economic reasons. Mr. Russ agreed with this statement. Councillor Carlone asked if there are any other related conditions that a building owner must take into consideration. Mr. Russ stated that the unit has to meet CHA housing quality standards and if does not meet the standards, at that point the owner would have the change to bring the unit up to CHA standards. Mr. Johnson added that the CHA is not asking for anything more than what the law requires in Massachusetts. He said that the criteria are price, condition and ability to enter into a one-year lease.

Councillor Devereux asked about the drop off in landlord participation in the tenant based program in 2011. Mr. Johnston stated that the fluctuation is really not a big fluctuation but he would be happy to look deeper into this issue. Councillor Devereux asked how many Cambridge landlords participate in the program. Mr. Johnston replied that after further research he will forward this information to the Committee. He said that the city has lost a lot of the mom and pop landlords in Cambridge. Hannah Lodi added that they do allow landlords to go a little above these numbers if they will waive the last month’s rent, offer a multi-year lease or reduce the security deposit.

As it relates to the 118 no-shows who were eligible for and received a voucher, Mayor Simmons asked if they are dropped. Mr. Johnston stated that they have 6-month window of opportunity to contact the CHA in order for it to be re-opened. Mr. Russ added that these households do not lose anything when they come back within the 6-month window.

Mayor Simmons asked about the CORI check. Mr. Johnson stated that for Section 8 vouchers a CORI is performed but explained that only violent criminal offenders or drug related offenders are eliminated from the program.

Councillor Mazen questioned what would happen if the City Council appropriated more money toward projects that are trending toward a high degree of affordable housing. He stated that if there has traditionally been a commitment to a 30-year bond plan, then how has that gone. He said that if not, should we have a long-term view to add to housing. Councillor Mazen stated that his understanding is that if we are contributing when a developer is paying planning costs, how can we go in and pay some chunk of money that will go further because other costs have been taken care off with an offset or incentive to the developer. Mr. Russ said that this is an interesting point. He said that if any preservation deal may be hanging by one last piece of financing, there is merit in looking at what amounts to one of the best credit ratings in the country and determining if there is some bonding capacity that would go to the save the building. He stated that interest paid on these things is cheap by today’s standards. He noted that it is worth a conversation with the City and other providers for low-income housing and potential purchasers of buildings.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Affordable Housing Trust is interested in this approach and this makes sense. He said that the interest rate is not always going to be this low so if we could grab it while it is low, it makes all the sense in the world. He said that some of the small apartment buildings have 10 or 12 different forms of financing and for a city that uses 2 ½ percent of the budget for affordable housing and says that it is the #1 issue, something is not right.

Councillor Carlone stated that most people do want to live in a typical Cambridge structure, especially families. He agrees with focusing on those types of acquisitions as this is what makes a neighborhood. Mr. Russ stated that in many cases it is impossible or difficult to compete with private money. He stated that only way to get the resources would be some type of bonding if the City was interested. There are bonding options in the state of Washington. There are models to look at if the City felt it was worth exploring.

Chris Cotter stated that bonding is a good idea but the underlying theme that CDD sees in looking at how funds are used is the resource and access to funds. He said that they have been fortunate over the last 15 years but when looking at a dramatic increase in production of all affordable housing in a competitive market while continuing an aggressive preservation plan means that resources are something that will need to be looked at. He said that CDD has been doing that. He noted that CDD did take goal of 1,000 units very seriously and are trying to make that happen through changes to the linkage ordinance, changes to inclusionary zoning and a much more aggressive approach on bringing new units into the pipeline. He stated that the cost and leverage is up dramatically compared to 5 or 10 years ago.

Mayor Simmons talked about a gap voucher. She said that it would be interesting to put that conversation back on the table. She stated that this would not be in perpetuity but it is something to think about in the short-term. She stated that during the last City Council term there was a conversation with housing stakeholders regarding a 5-10 year plan down the road.

Mr. Russ stated that there are two things to consider: they are topped out with vouchers so it will be important to project base for quite some time and without project based voucher, you will not be able to reach deeply affordable units. He said that the competition in Massachusetts for any type of tax credit is at a fever pitch. He said that Massachusetts has tapped its private activity bond cap. It is extremely contracted in the past year alone for housing. He stated that without relief, it means the number of tax credits is going to be extremely limited.

Mayor Simmons stated that she was pleased with the discussion. She said that going forward it is important to have a conversation with stakeholders about the long-term affordability mission. She said that if the tax incentive program is winnowing away, what can we do presently to be poised to be reasonably affordable in the out years.

Mayor Simmons asked Mr. Cotter for an update on the Inclusionary Rental pool.

Councillor Mazen stated that whenever he runs into Congress and Senate members, he talks about housing before other issues. He noted that for the most part, all of the members say that there has been no affordable housing related activity since Barney Frank left Congress. He said that it is important that we band together to do work when in Washington, D.C. at the National League of Cities conference, and it is important to publish educational and informational guidelines that we can send to Congress and the Senate via staff. He said that they have almost no reference points in their everyday work from the City of Cambridge. He stated that this must continue to spread to other cities and urban environments as it will not get better or easier unless we equip them with information sooner rather than later.

Mayor Simmons thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 6:58pm on the motion of Councillor Carlone.

For the Committee,
Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, Co-Chair

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Thurs, Dec 1, 2016 beginning at 3:12pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the zoning petition submitted by Nabil Sater, et al to amend the Zoning Ordinances in the Central Square Overlay District, Section 20.300.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor, Law Department; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Patrick Barrett and George Metzger, representing the petitioners; Said and Jehad AbuZahnal, 29 MacKenzie Lane, Wakefield; Bob Woodbury, 133 River Street; Shelley Rieman, 201 Franklin Street; Jackie King, 40 Essex Street; Marilyn Wellons, 651 Green Street; Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; David Choi, 201 Prospect Street; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street; and Robert Winters, 366 Broadway.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He outlined the format of the hearing. He announced that the hearing is being audio and video recorded.

He stated that there has been an interest to make Central Square the best square it can be. Councillor Carlone stated that the committee will hear from the petitioners. The petitioners were represented by George Metzger and Patrick Barrett.

George Metzger spoke on behalf of the petitioners of the Central Square Restoration Petition. He stated that the purpose of the petition is an effort to amend the Central Square Overlay District to incorporate the non-controversial recommendation of the Central Square study of 1995, and the 2013 recommendations of Central Square visioning effort. This is to encourage residential development in Central Square by increasing the residential Floor Area Ratio in the base business district from 3 to 4. He stated that this means a given plot of land can build four stories versus three stories on the said plot of land. Other changes in the district are allowed by special permit. This petition is also to provide incentive and flexibility for small business and property owners in Central Square to redevelop their buildings if they wish to do so and to reduce the need or pressure to sell their parcels to larger developers. This is to encourage and to continue the investment of long-term property owners to make residential development more preferable over office development. This will foster independent retail business.

Mr. Metzger stated that the petition does increase the FAR for residential development preferentially over other types of development within the district. It provides an exemption from the FAR limitation for balconies of certain size and rooftop open space use as of right. It provides an FAR exemption for ground floor retail spaces of 1,500 square feet or smaller with the presumption that this is generally more favorable for smaller, local and independent businesses. It has an allowance for extending entertainment establishment locations throughout the square. It includes a limitation of street frontages in new developments for financial institutions limiting them to a small proportion of any property frontage. It does include a requirement for formula businesses and other businesses that represent state, national or global businesses that seek to locate in Central Square. This is an encouragement for them to adapt to the look and feel of Central Square.

The petition includes a reduction of setbacks for residential development to match those for office development in the district or non-residential development. He stated that currently the upper floors of commercial and non-residential development have no setbacks along Massachusetts Avenue. The requirement setbacks for residential developments are being relaxed so that they can compete with non-residential development. He stated that open space is being allowed other than at grade. He stated that reduction in parking requirements and the ability for landlocked parcels that want to develop that have no practical way to include parking are allow on other sites or payment into a betterment fund.

Mr. Metzger outlined what this petition does not do. It does not increase building heights in the overlay district. He stated that the Central Square Overlay district has a height on the avenue of 55 feet and 80 feet with a special permit and a sloping facade for the buildings that are higher. The height limitation is not being extended or modified in the district. The 45 foot limit is retained along the neighborhood edge on Green Street and Bishop Allen Drive. This also does not undermine the Envision Cambridge process. This does not allow the removal of existing required parking areas and does not encourage laboratory occupancy in upper floors or anywhere in the district. This does not alter the face of Central Square with new development. This petition maintains building heights to their original position as built prior to the 20th century. The proposed inclusionary zoning requirement is not changed or excluded for residential affordable housing. He added that this petition may encourage property owners to embark on small scale redevelopment rather than rely on large scale redevelopment for whole or section of blocks or aggregated parcels. It may encourage the expansion of one or two story buildings and may increase the amount of housing in Central Square which is necessary to increase the viability and livability in Central Square and meeting the housing crisis. This petition may do nothing. This is an effort to encourage redevelopment in Central Square. A more livable neighborhood scale Central Square is possible. He spoke about the work that has gone into preparing this petition. Previous Central Square plans are included in this petition and may include the Envision Cambridge plan. He added that there are businesses that are struggling and that there is pressure for development and a housing need. Central Square is the place where much of this can happen in such a way that is constructive, human-scaled and become the community that is wanted. He had a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT A). Much of Central Square has been de-densified over the years. This petition looks for opportunities to rebuild some of the small parcels in Central Square. He stated that Central Square has many independent parcels of property, which is different from other areas of the City. He had a map of the Central Square Overlay District. He spoke about development of city owned parcels which are not being discussed with this petition. He stated that the petition does not significantly change what is existing. In the Middle East and other parcels there are opportunities to add floors. Nothing in the petition is to encourage high-rise development. Currently, there is 2.1 million square feet of building area within this district and could develop into 3 million square feet. There is 900,000 square feet of undeveloped potential development in the zoning. The current zoning would add 1 million square feet. He stated that questions and suggestions are welcome by the petitioners.

Councillor Carlone asked the City Staff to come forward. The Community Development Department was represented by Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development and Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development.

Ms. Farooq stated that this petition has many recommendations of the C2 plan and they are supported. The committee was in receipt of a communication from the Community Development Department to the Planning Board dated Nov 22, 2016 on the Central Square Restoration petition as follows:
http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/Amendments/2016/CentralSquareRestoration/zngamend_csqrestoration_cddmemo_20161122.pdf

She stated that the Planning Board held their hearing on this petition and made a positive recommendation with some suggestions. Ms. Farooq spoke about how the petition affects Envision Cambridge and whether this petition should wait. She stated that when there are good ideas we need to keep moving forward with that zoning. Envision Cambridge is a three year process and it is not a good idea to put this petition on hold to wait for Envision. The K2C2 study contained support of the stakeholders. Even though Envision Cambridge process is treating all of the previous planning as input it is taking time. She stated that thinking through design guidelines and the street scape and Envision Cambridge will address these issues. The zoning should move forward separate from this.

Councillor Carlone questioned how the petition would affect larger sites, such as the City and privately owned parking lots. This urban design analysis must be done. This needs to be shown that the petition works. He suggested picking three varied sites to show how proposed zoning works and then fully review the petition.

Mr. Roberts reviewed the comments in the memo from Community Development Department. This takes recommendations from the C2 study. By taking parts of the C2 study there are ways that the whole may not come together as anticipated. He stated the one of the difference is between density and height. He stated that the petition does not allow increase in height and aggregation of parcels in the way that the C2 zoning recommended. The density allowed will have to be accommodated on individual sites. The purpose of C2 to allow the flexibility of additional height and moving development rights across properties was to preserve some existing historic buildings. There is a tradeoff. The petition’s priority was to retain the height across the district. Addition density could not be achieve on every site in the same manner and this needs to be addressed. The lower height areas create a partial “form-based” zoning approach because the height is the limiting factor rather than density and the special permit process would come into play to resolve setback and private open space issues. This is a key issue. He stated that the Planning Board gave this petition a position recommendation. He spoke about the C2 zone recommendations relating to parking regulations proposed establishing maximum limitations on parking to reduce traffic impacts from new development and the maximum ratios were based on the analysis on the demand on residential and commercial uses. This petition recommendations maximum parking ratios that are higher for commercial uses than recommended in the C2 study and sets a lower maximum than recommended in the C2 study. By making parking ratio different the Planning Board felt that the recommendations in the C2 should be retained and that parking ratios should not be used as a mechanism for encouraging or discouraging a particular use. This should be set on the anticipated demand and uses. This needs to be reviewed more and should be more in keeping with the C2 recommendation.

Councillor Carlone questioned if the Planning Board approved this recommendation. Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board recommended approval with modifications and the report will be coming to City Council.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked Mr. Metzger about the Planning Board recommendations and whether the petition will be changed based on those recommendations. Mr. Barrett stated that the Planning Board recommendations followed more the C2 parking recommendations and the petitioners agree with this. He stated that the petitioners agree with the Planning Board recommendation and all recommendations should be incorporated into the final language of the petition. Mr. Metzger stated that modification to the petition are expected. Mr. Barrett stated that if the formula business ordinance is looked at there are exemption for FAR for small retail.

Public comment began at 3:52pm.

Said AbuZahnal stated that the petition for zoning in Central Square is a step in the right direction and spoke about the area 120 feet of Prospect Street. He stated that a lot is divided in half and spoke about the possibility of being spot zoning. The City hired zoning experts and town planners. He spoke about the experts including 139 Bishop Allen Drive in the rectangle and increasing the district width to include 139 Bishop Allen Drive. He supported included 139 Bishop Allen Drive in this petition. He requested that 139 Bishop Allen Drive be included in this petition. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT B).

Jackie King, representing the Cambridge Resident Alliance, acknowledged that the petition does not include increase in building heights of 55 feet or 80 feet with a special permit. There are separate indications that the height limit may be revisited by the Planning Board in the future. The residents support increased density and increased residential construction. She stated that the memo from CDD noted that height limit was not unreasonable to manage development and urban character in the square. The concern was for property owners if additional density was allowed on paper than could be achieved. She stated that to address this concern it is proposed that a provision be added to the petition: on lots where increased FAR allowed by this petition can only be achieved by heights beyond the existing 55 feet or 80 feet with a special permit, the existing height limit shall prevail. This approach to development of the square the Cambridge Resident Alliance wanted City to retain ownership of the public parking lots and that 100% affordable housing be built on the lots, where possible. She stated that the ratio of affordable to luxury housing needs to be increased in Central Square. This does not protect the affordability and prevent displacement. She stated that she wanted the City to pursue creative funding mechanism and partnerships.

Marilyn Wellons spoke about the neighborhood edge concerning noise and light pollution from laboratory uses. The proposed, more intense use of rooftops could mean greater noise and light for adjacent residences. She asked if the balconies are exempt from FAR, if they are enclosed and lite and how this is affected by the proposed lighting ordinance. She spoke about façade lighting and translucent lighting. These are problems that the City needs to address. She wished that the presentation showed the Mass/Main project and what it would look like. Does this petition privilege labs use over office space, she questioned.

Stephen Kaiser expressed his concern about statement of contempt of the master planning process. It should not be in the petition and adds nothing to it. He suggested that the first page be deleted. He also commented that the petition has no page numbers and there is no map. The public had no benefit of the presentation by Mr. Metzger. He noted that this does not help the public understand the benefits of the petition. He further stated that restoration needs to be defined more clearly. What about the parking lots in Central Square and how are they restored. What is done about poorly designed buildings in Central Square such as the Green Street Parking Garage and 675 Massachusetts Avenue? He stated that more work needs to be done on the restoration petition. More discussion needs to be on parking, on car sharing and Central Square improvement for transportation needs more work. He stated that he has a concern about the delays caused by citizens or government action. He stated that in Central Square the delays have been caused by developers. The C2 zoning was before Planning Board and stopped because the development community wanted the heights higher. We need comfort to know that this is going to be the zoning. He wanted commitment on the height for development and change the loopholes. He stated his primary concern was # 4 on Page 2, additional FAR, for the whole overlay. This should be for Business B only.

James Williamson suggested revitalization of Central Square should be the title of the petition. The open space proposed and the ambiguity should be clarified in the memo from CDD with the publicly enjoyed rooftop spaces. He favored that the rooftop spaces be limited and not counted in FAR and restricted for residential uses. He spoke about the alcohol uses and the Planning Board memo stated that this was controversial. There should be more entrances other than the main streets for these uses. He spoke about transferrable development rights from a place where less height is wanted to a place where it may be more useful for affordable housing.

Lee Farris, spoke about height limits not changing being included in the text of the petition. She stated that she was submitting draft language (ATTACHMENT C). She spoke about not applying the density to the neighborhood edges. She noted that the petition was not using all that was discussed in C2. She noted that C2 specifically talked about the neighborhood edges on Bishop Allen Drive and Green Street. This petition does not address this. There is no discussion about what are the consequences of the petition for the neighborhood edge. She also had a concern about the vacant parking lots owned by Intercontinental on either side of Prospect Street. These are the largest vacant lots within the Central Square district. She stated that it is unknown what would be possible on these vacant lots under this zoning. It is unknown whether the increases in density will produce impact that will be detrimental to the residences. She wanted a definition of "neighborhood edge" and until that is done this zoning should only apply to the Business B district of Central Square. Labs are still an allowed use in Central Square; she does not think they should be an allowed use because it is a residential area either way one block of Massachusetts Avenue. Affordable housing is not part of this petition. She stated that the City should be planning redevelopment of parking lot 6 because there is an opportunity here. More affordable housing is needed in Central Square.

David Choi, Architect, stated that he is working on a project for Islamic Society of Boston, 204 Prospect Street and they owns property on 140 Prospect Street and 21-25 Tremont Street. He asked where the line is drawn for increasing density for housing and residential. If the FAR is increased in the overlay district where is the line drawn for other members of the Cambridge community. There is a concern about the FAR; is the FAR concentrated to one area in Cambridge. He stated that Islamic Society of Boston is not in the overlay district, but very close to it. He stated that there are other stakeholders outside of the edge.

Nancy Ryan spoke on behalf of the Cambridge Residence Alliance. She commented on the formula businesses or chain stores. She wanted to limit the total amount of the street frontage to 10% on the petition passage or 30% for total street frontage in the square, whichever is greater. She supported local small businesses. She spoke about developers pooling their open space to have larger potential open spaces available. She stated that the parking has been the most contentious discussion with the CRA members. There is a feeling that the neighborhood will be squeezed as it relates to the lack of parking. She stated that the affordable housing is important. We want to see an increase in residential development, but do not want to see 80% luxury housing. She wanted the city owned property to produce affordable housing. This is the substantial future of Central Square and not a temporary solution.

Jehad Abu-Zahnal spoke about making 139 Bishop Allen Drive a parking area. She stated that having a parking area will help the residents and businesses of Cambridge.

Carolyn Shipley spoke about the change of local businesses in Central Square. This petition has great potential. She wanted the height to be tight and not go above the 50-80 feet. She spoke about open space and a street level park. There is room for little green areas in Central Square and if on the rooftops it would be great that it be accessible. She wanted more local stores. She spoke about parking and biking. She hopes that this results for more affordable housing and more low income housing. She spoke about the loss of rent control and the loss of residents that has changed the character of the neighborhood.

Shelley Reiman, Cambridge Residence Alliance, stated that she was pleased with more affordable housing coming to Cambridge. She hopes that the interests of the residents drive the businesses. She is concerned at the homeless population that is growing. She stated that the C2 had a recommendation for a roving and stationary social worker and she hopes that the homeless issue is addressed.

Robert Winters stated that the petition is modest and adopts the least controversial C2 recommendations. He loved the exemption of ground floor retail but if the ground floor remains unaffordable this needs to be considered. He does not know how this can be addressed. He supported the petition.

Vice Mayor McGovern closed public comment at 4:36pm.

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing for comments by the City Council.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the petition is great and long overdue for Central Square. He agreed with the comments made regarding the first page, but this needs to remain in the petition. He stated that in terms of securing the height the City Council cannot stop a petition for greater height. There is no way to guarantee this. This is sending a message to developers that this is what is wanted for Central Square. He favors making the language clearer.

Mr. Barrett stated that this petition is for property owners and business for Central Square; not for developers. He stated that in the BB zone is the only place by right that the FAR can go to 4 and other areas remain as they currently are and can be only altered by a special permit. He would look to City Council for guidance for strengthening the language. Mr. Metzger stated that the height in Central Square remains as is and only increases the FAR in the BB district. Zoning is always flexible because cities are flexibility. He did not want to exclude things that have public purpose because of size or height.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the exclusion of laboratories in Central Square should be thought about going forward. He spoke about chain restaurants/stores not wanted in Central Square; which tend to be cheaper and more affordable for residents. Mr. Barrett stated that businesses cannot be zoned for ownership; we cannot legally state what businesses cannot be in Central Square. He is trying to remove the fast food CAP which is no longer applicable. We are trying to balance the chains with local retail shops. He stated that the chains can come but must go through the special permit process which can only regulate the design of their facade.

Vice Mayor McGovern agreed to get moving on the city owned parking lots - he wanted an update on this. He further stated that the issue of homelessness will be discussed on Dec 5, 2016.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is a well formed petition. He fears that the good points made by the community will not be integrated. He wanted laboratories use reduced. Mr. Barrett stated that people are excited about the petition but they owners do not see labs as an issue. He stated that the Table of Uses in the zoning is antiquated and needs to be revised. The comments on height and density are already in the petition. The Envision process is on-going and deals with larger global issues. The only issue not included is the lab. Mr. Metzger stated that the best effort has been made to incorporate a reasonable scope of modifications for the Central Square district. It is in the City Council purview to ask Community Development Department and Law Department to make sure the petition is legal and to make modifications to the petition. He stated that the petitioners will support everything that is in the spirit of what the petition is doing and does not make it controversial to the point to once again end up with nothing.

Councillor Carlone noted that the petition is now a city document. It is in the hands of City Council and with City and legal input it can be modified. Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted the support of the petitioners. He wanted the integration into the platform.

Councillor Mazen stated that these issues will make this petition for him and make it work to ensure that Central Square is a square for the future. He wanted to know by the next meeting how to advance this. Mr. Barrett stated that regarding the City lots the current zoning is more restrictive - and a proposal to put something on these lots needs to come from the City Council and the City. There is only so much that can be done by a zoning petition.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Planning Board is looking to change things in the City with zoning, including height. All of this could be a condition of approving a city-wide proposal. The proposal can be changed. Councillor Mazen questioned who would be doing the formative work, before the next meeting, to get this moving.

Councillor Devereux stated that the City Council can get to a place where the petitioners do not feel that the petition is violated. Councillor Devereux asked if there is a consultant hired for Table of Use work. Mr. Roberts stated that a the study was done and the conclusion was that there were a limited number of things that could be done in the short term but that it may be more beneficial to have the Envision process look at establishing use regulations in the zoning ordinance. He commented that we do not want to alter a zoning definition just for one area. There may be other approaches that could be used to put limitations on the specific type of lab use. Councillor Devereux noted that if you wanted to build a lab in Central Square what is existing would have to be demolished. She asked if there was adaptive reuse of a building in this petition. She wanted to keep the fabric of what is at street level. She spoke about the displacement of small business on the upper floors.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Petition goals and recommendations are to be applauded. However, there are areas that need to be looked at. He is amazed that the Planning Board approved this draft as is. He stated that certain side streets have minimal sidewalk widths and if new construction does not have any setbacks, the city is making a big mistake. He stated that balconies are moneymakers for developers and questioned what kind of balconies will be built and how to make sure they are positive additions residents and street façade architecture. He stated that the petition’s impact on varied parcels must be analyzed. Since this is not being limited to existing buildings, large parcels need to be looked at. In housing a 4.0 FAR, with ground floor retail is exempted, with 30% bonus for inclusionary zoning - this is a 5.2 FAR is the highest FAR in the city.

He stated that we need to make sure that this can work at a maximum 80 foot height. He spoke about his concern with the Planning Board looking to increase heights in the City. He stated that we do not want a lab in Harvard Square, then why do we want to put one in Central Square. Now is the time to say no to labs adjacent to residential areas. Pooling open space money to maintain Massachusetts Avenue where sidewalks and relate open spaces are not repaired or patched. He stated that the retail and the business formula is exemplary; retail should be affordable. He spoke about the urban design guidelines need to be revised. He stated that if adding on top of historic structure one gets an FAR bonus then maybe the historic structures should be restored. He stated that since everyone agrees that Central Square should have more housing, then at least half of what gets built should be housing. He agreed with rooftop spaces but details need to be planned with planting and the noise issue. Set back requirement needs urban design analysis and this is where setbacks need to be reviewed as to where they make sense. He wanted to support the goals and make sure it works for the broader picture as quickly as possible.

Councillor Carlone moved that the petition be kept in committee and at the next meeting we will go over the above-mentioned issues.

Councillor Mazen and Councillor Carlone submitted the following motion.

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Community Development Department and the Law Department to report back to the City Council on the Central Square Restoration Zoning petition as it relates to the following:

• the legality of the petition as initially submitted;

• the city’s overall plan for Central Square including, but not limited to

- the future use of City and private parking lots;

- opportunities for mixed-use, affordable housing, below  market rate retail and/or office space;

- bike, pedestrian and parking systems

• “laboratory” zoning definition that includes pharmaceutical and wet lab uses, and its potential impact on an area that intends to expand housing opportunities and where none exists at this time;

• what other ways can lab use be limited as stated in Dec 1 Ordinance hearing?

• how a formula business model can be achieved;

• include existing Central Square zoning in chart form (FAR, Height, Setbacks, etc.) comparing Petition and Harvard Square BB

• how does Harvard Square’s “in lieu of parking/open space” payment system work and what improvements have been financed to date?

• a study of three vacant sites to ensure that this zoning can work on larger sites

• expand on Ms. Farooq’s comments that other factors will influence the Board’s Special Permit decisions related to Central Square, including updated guidelines, site conditions, etc.

• submit current urban design guidelines.

This motion carried on a voice vote of four members.

Mr. Barrett explained that he has done a study on city owned parking lots and would provide this.

The following e-mail was received and made part of the report.

A communication from Jack Boesen, 25 Suffolk Street, in support of the 80 foot height limit on development and wanted this to be a permanent part of the zoning (ATTACHMENT D).

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:21pm.

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