Cambridge City Council meeting - April 22, 2019

CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the FY2020 submitted budget and appropriation orders.
Referred to Finance Committee

2. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $800,000 to provide funds for various Schools for repairs to entrance doors, upgrade of energy management software, replacement of analog phone system with the voice over internet protocol (VOIP), and the replacement of an emergency generator.
Passed to 2nd Reading

Apr 22, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $800,000 to provide funds for various Schools repairs to entrance doors, upgrade of energy management software, replacement of analog phone system with the voice over internet protocol (VOIP), and the replacement of an emergency generator. This order is being submitted for the April 22, 2019 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on May 20, 2019 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY20 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on April 22, 2019, the City will comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on May 20, 2019. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY20 Submitted Budget for additional information on this project. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY20 Public Investment Budget is scheduled for May 7, 2019.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Agenda Item Number 2 Apr 22, 2019

ORDERED: That $800,000 is appropriated, for the purpose of financing building renovations, including but not limited to, the following projects:

Replacement front entrance doors and framing at the Morse School

Phone system upgrade from analog system to voice over internet protocol

Energy Management software at the War Memorial

Replacement Emergency Generator for the Kennedy/Longfellow

and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $800,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority; and be it further

ORDERED: Any premium received by the City upon the sale of any bonds or notes approved by this vote, less the cost of preparing issuing and marketing them, and any accrued interest received upon the delivery of such bonds or notes, shall be applied to the payment of project costs approved by this vote, thereby reducing the amount authorized to be borrowed to pay such costs by a like amount.

3. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $22,000,000 to provide funds for the construction of improvements at the Fire Station Headquarters Building located at 491 Broadway.
Passed to 2nd Reading

Apr 22, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $22,000,000 to provide funds for the construction of improvements at the Fire Station Headquarters Building located at 491 Broadway. If approved, this appropriation will be included in the City’s FY20 bond issue.

This order is being submitted for the Apr 22, 2019 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on May 20, 2019 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY20 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on Apr 22, 2019, the City will comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on May 20, 2019. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY20 Submitted Budget for additional information on these projects. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY20 Public Investment Budget is scheduled for May 7, 2019.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Agenda Item Number 3 Apr 22, 2019

ORDERED: That $22,000,000 is appropriated, for the purpose of financing the construction of the Fire Station Headquarters building improvements; and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $22,000,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority.

ORDERED: Any premium received by the City upon the sale of any bonds or notes approved by this vote, less any such premium applied to the costs of issuance of such bonds or notes, may be applied to the payment of project costs approved by this vote in accordance with Chapter 44, Section 20, thereby reducing the amount authorized to be borrowed to pay such costs by a like amount.

4. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks.
Passed to 2nd Reading

Apr 22, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks.

This order is being submitted for the Apr 22, 2019 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on May 20, 2019 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY20 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on Apr 22, 2019, the City will comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on May 20, 2019. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY20 Submitted Budget for additional information on this project. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY20 Public Investment Budget is scheduled for May 7, 2019.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Agenda Item Number 4 Apr 22, 2019

ORDERED: That $4,000,000 is appropriated for the purpose of financing the repair and/or reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks; and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $4,000,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority; and be it further

ORDERED: Any premium received by the City upon the sale of any bonds or notes approved by this vote, less the cost of preparing issuing and marketing them, and any accrued interest received upon the delivery of such bonds or notes, shall be applied to the payment of project costs approved by this vote, thereby reducing the amount authorized to be borrowed to pay such costs by a like amount.

5. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $20,500,000 to provide funds for various water pollution abatement projects, including construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within the Alewife area.
Passed to 2nd Reading

Apr 22, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $20,500,000 to provide funds for various water pollution abatement projects, including construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within the Alewife area. Funding will also support the Sewer Capital Repairs Program and climate change preparedness efforts.

This order is being submitted for the Apr 22, 2019 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on May 20, 2019 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY20 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on Apr 22, 2019, the City will comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on May 20, 2019. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY20 Submitted Budget for additional information on this project. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY20 Public Investment Budget is scheduled for May 7, 2019.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Agenda Item Number 5 Apr 22, 2019

ORDERED: That $20,500,000 is appropriated, in addition to any amounts previously appropriated, for the purpose of financing the design and construction of various water pollution abatement projects, including but not limited to:

Construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within Alewife area as well as the Sewer Capital Repairs Program and climate change preparedness efforts.

including without limitation all costs thereof as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 29C of the General Laws; that to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $20,500,000 and issue bonds or notes therefore under G.L. c.44 and/or Chapter 29C of the General Laws or any other enabling authority; that such bonds or notes shall be general obligations of the City unless the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager determines that they should be issued as limited obligations and may be secured by local system revenues as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 29C; that the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow all or a portion of such amount from the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust established pursuant to Chapter 29C or the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority and in connection therewith to enter into a loan agreement and/or a security agreement and/or financial assistance agreement with the Trust or the Authority and otherwise to contract with the Trust and the Authority and the Department of Environmental Protection with respect to such loan and for any federal or state aid available for the projects or for the financing thereof; and that the City Manager or any other authorized City official is authorized to enter into a project regulatory agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection, to expend all funds available for the projects and to take any other action necessary to carry out the projects.

ORDERED: Any premium received by the City upon the sale of any bonds or notes approved by this vote, less the cost of preparing issuing and marketing them, and any accrued interest received upon the delivery of such bonds or notes, shall be applied to the payment of project costs approved by this vote, thereby reducing the amount authorized to be borrowed to pay such costs by a like amount.

6. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,000,000 to provide design and construction of Eliot Street between JFK St. and Brattle St. which is a continuation of the Harvard Square Kiosk and Plaza and Surface Enhancement project.
Passed to 2nd Reading

Apr 22, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,000,000 to provide design and construction of Eliot Street between JFK St. and Brattle St. which is a continuation of the Harvard Square Kiosk and Plaza and Surface Enhancement project. If approved, this appropriation will be included in the City’s FY20 bond issue.

This order is being submitted for the Apr 22, 2019 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on May 20, 2019 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY20 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on Apr 22, 2019, the City will comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on May 20, 2019. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY20 Submitted Budget for additional information on these projects. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY20 Public Investment Budget is scheduled for May 7, 2019.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Agenda Item Number 6 Apr 22, 2019

ORDERED: That $4,000,000 is appropriated, for the purpose of financing the design and construction of the Eliot Street between JFK St. and Brattle St.; and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $4,000,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority.

ORDERED: Any premium received by the City upon the sale of any bonds or notes approved by this vote, less the cost of preparing issuing and marketing them, and any accrued interest received upon the delivery of such bonds or notes, shall be applied to the payment of project costs approved by this vote, thereby reducing the amount authorized to be borrowed to pay such costs by a like amount.

7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $10,000,000 to provide funds for the construction of improvements at City Hall.
Passed to 2nd Reading

Apr 22, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $10,000,000 to provide funds for the construction of improvements at City Hall. If approved, this appropriation will be included in the City’s FY20 bond issue.

This order is being submitted for the Apr 22, 2019 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on May 20, 2019 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY20 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on Apr 22, 2019, the City will comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on May 20, 2019. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY20 Submitted Budget for additional information on these projects. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY20 Public Investment Budget is scheduled for May 7, 2019.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Agenda Item Number 7 Apr 22, 2019

ORDERED: That $10,000,000 is appropriated, for the purpose of financing the construction of the City Hall Improvements; and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $10,000,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority.

ORDERED: Any premium received by the City upon the sale of any bonds or notes approved by this vote, less any such premium applied to the payment of costs of issuance of such bonds or notes, may be applied to the payment of project costs approved by this vote in accordance with Chapter 44, Section 20, thereby reducing the amount authorized to be borrowed to pay such costs by a like amount.

8. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $3,000,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan.
Passed to 2nd Reading

Apr 22, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $3,000,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan. Funds will support improvements at the Department of Public Works (DPW) Complex including the Ryan Garage, and Simard and Frazier Administrative Buildings. These improvements include but are not limited to upgrades of HVAC, plumbing, lighting, electrical, and interior finish work.

This order is being submitted for the Apr 22, 2019 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on May 20, 2019 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY20 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on Apr 22, 2019, the City will comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on May 20, 2019. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY20 Submitted Budget for additional information on these projects. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY20 Public Investment Budget is scheduled for May 7, 2019.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Agenda Item Number 8 Apr 22, 2019

ORDERED: That $3,000,000 is appropriated, in addition to any amounts previously appropriated, for the purpose of planning and financing building renovations, including but not limited to the following projects in the municipal facilities improvement plan; Building improvements at the Department of Public Works (DPW) complex including the Ryan Garage, and Simard and Frazier Administrative Buildings. The improvements include but are not limited to accessibility, envelope – windows work, upgrades to the HVAC, plumbing-piping, electrical and lighting. and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $3,000,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority; and be it further

ORDERED: Any premium received by the City upon the sale of any bonds or notes approved by this vote, less the cost of preparing issuing and marketing them, and any accrued interest received upon the delivery of such bonds or notes, shall be applied to the payment of project costs approved by this vote, thereby reducing the amount authorized to be borrowed to pay such costs by a like amount.

9. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $10,000,000 to provide funds for the design and reconstruction of the Tobin School building. If approved, this appropriation will be included in the City’s FY20 bond issue.
Passed to 2nd Reading

Apr 22, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $10,000,000 to provide funds for the design and reconstruction of the Tobin School building. If approved, this appropriation will be included in the City’s FY20 bond issue. Additional construction funding for this project will be requested in the future. Funds are needed at this stage of the project to enter into a design contract with Perkins Eastman and continue with Licensed Site Professional (LSP), Geotechnical Services and Commissioning Services.

This order is being submitted for the Apr 22, 2019 City Council meeting to allow the City Council to vote on this order on May 20, 2019 which is the projected date for City Council adoption of the FY20 Budget. Approval of loan orders on budget adoption night has been the practice for several years.

If passed to a second reading on Apr 22, 2019, the City will comply with all legal requirements so that the order may be adopted on May 20, 2019. Please see the Public Investment Section in the FY20 Submitted Budget for additional information on these projects. The Finance Committee hearing on the FY20 Public Investment Budget is scheduled for May 7, 2019.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

Agenda Item Number 9 Apr 22, 2019

ORDERED: That $10,000,000 is appropriated, for the purpose of financing the design and reconstruction of the Tobin and Vassal Lane Upper School; and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $10,000,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority.

ORDERED: Any premium received by the City upon the sale of any bonds or notes approved by this vote, less any such premium applied to the costs of issuance of such bonds or notes, may be applied to the payment of project costs approved by this vote in accordance with Chapter 44, Section 20, thereby reducing the amount authorized to be borrowed to pay such costs by a like amount.

10. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the transfer of $480,000 from the General Fund Employee Benefits Salaries and Wages (Insurance) account to the General Fund Law Department Travel and Training (Judgment and Damages) account to cover costs associated with a worker’s compensation lump sum settlement.
Order Adopted 9-0

11. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the transfer of $10,000 from the General Fund Employee Benefits Salary and Wages account (Insurance) to the Travel and Training account (Judgments and Damages) to cover medical services and/or prescription reimbursement costs for personnel injured in performance of their duties.
Order Adopted 9-0

12. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of 2016 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) funding for $21,000 received pursuant to the MOA between the City of Boston and the City of Cambridge, under the Communications Interoperability Goal Area, to the Public Investment Emergency Communications Extraordinary Expenditures account ($21,000) which will be used for Radio Equipment relocations as well as the specifications contained within FEMA's Records of Environmental Consideration Report regarding Environmental and Historic Preservation.
Order Adopted 9-0

14. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-90, requesting that the City install a crosswalk across Western Avenue at Soden Street.
Placed on File

15. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-122, requesting Traffic, Parking, and Transportation explore the possibility of posting a "No Trucks" sign on Hancock Street south of Massachusetts Avenue.
Placed on File

16. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-9, requesting that the City determine what facilities, parking changes, and other improvements to the pavement conditions are possible to make Cambridge’s stretch of Webster Avenue a complete street.
Placed on File

CHARTER RIGHT
1. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a memorandum regarding the update on the search process to hire a new City Clerk to replace Donna Lopez when she retires. [Late Communications & Reports #2 of Apr 8, 2019]
Placed on File

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to proposed amendments to the following ordinance: and proposed amendments to Chapter 14.04 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the "Fair Housing Ordinance"). Fair Housing (passed to a 2nd reading) [AWAITING HOME RULE LEGISLATION-BEFORE PROPOSAL CAN BE ORDAINED]

3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-108, regarding a report on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee Elections. [PENDING RESPONSE FROM LEGISLATURE]

4. An application was received from Citizens Bank, requesting permission for a 1 illuminated projecting sign and 7 awnings at the premises numbered 822 Somerville Avenue, approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and no abutter response.

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the proposed Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance. [ON OR AFTER APR 22, 2019 THE QUESTION COMES ON PASSAGE TO BE ORDAINED]

6. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Mar 27, 2019 to discuss a zoning petition filed by Melissa and Christopher Grippo et al to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding at the end of section 5.30.11 a sentence that reads: “notwithstanding the foregoing, in Industry B District, a hotel use (Section 4.31.2) shall be governed by the section number (4.0) for purposes of determining the maximum ratio of floor area to lot area.” [ON OR AFTER APR 29, 2019 THE QUESTION COMES ON PASSAGE TO BE ORDAINED]

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. An application was received from Niall Hanley, requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises numbered 60 Porter Road; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. No response has been received from the neighborhood association.
Charter Right - Zondervan

2. A petition was filed by Kenneth S. Barron, 614 Massachusetts Avenue, et al property owners, pursuant to MGL Chapter 400, petitioning that a Business Improvement District (BID) be established for the Central Square Business Improvement District.
Punlic Hearing Scheduled for June 10, 2019 at 6:30pm

COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from Jon Kiparsky, regarding the Cycling Safety Ordinance.

2. A communication was received from Arthur Strang, regarding the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.

3. A communication was received from Ladan Khamsi, 29 Otis Street, expressing support for the redevelopment of the Courthouse building on 40 Thorndike Street by Leggat McCall Properties.

4. A communication was received from Suzanne Preston Blier, 5 Fuller Place, regarding Committee Report #3 on the Housing Committee meeting on the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay.

5. A communication was received from Gavin Lund, regarding several items from the April 8 City Council Agenda.

6. A communication was received from Nicolai Cauchy, regarding expropriating large real estate trusts and developers.

7. A communication was received from Kevin Guiney, regarding protected bike lanes in Porter and Mass. Ave.

8. A communication was received from Rosalie Anders, 154 Auburn Street, in support of the affordable housing overlay.

9. A communication was received from Hasson Rashid, regarding recognizing American Muslims' history and contributions to our Nation.

10. A communication was received from Hasson Rashid, regarding Ramadan & Eid in North America.

11. Sundry communications received expressing appreciation to the City Council for passing the Cycling Safety Ordinance.

12. A communication was received from Phil Rinehart, 17 Otis Street, regarding expression of support Middlesex County Courthouse redevelopment proposal.

13. A communication was received from George Sommer, 29 Otis Street, regarding Sullivan Courthouse development.

14. A communication was received from Carol Collura, Reservoir Street, regarding deep concern about the proposed Zoning Overlay.

15. A communication was received from Kevin Guiney, regarding request for bike lines in Porter and Massachusetts Ave.

16. A communication was received from George Sommer, 29 Otis Street, regarding Sullivan Courthouse development.

17. A communication was received from Phil Rinehart, 17 Otis Street, regarding support for Middlesex County Court house redevelopment proposal.

18. A communication was received from George Schneeloch, 81 School Street, Somerville regarding the City’s decision not to install protected bike lanes on Webster Avenue.

19. A communication was received from Alexander Frieden, 4 Lake Street, Somerville regarding cycling on Webster Avenue.

20. A communication was received from Colin McCarthy, 956 Cambridge Street, in support of any quick fix to make the street safer for pedestrians and cyclists including removing parking spaces to implement these changes on Webster Avenue.

21. A communication was received from Michael Monestime, 4 George Street, Executive Director of the Central Square Business Association in support of the petition to establish a Business Improvement District (BID) for Central Square.

22. A communication was received from Briana Pearson, 14 Ellsworth Avenue, co-owner and manager of the Harding House at 288 Harvard Street, in support of the petition to establish a Business Improvement District (BID) for Central Square.

23. A communication was received from Ken Barron, 614 Massachusetts Avenue, in support of the petition to establish a Business Improvement District (BID) for Central Square.

24. A communication was received from George Metzger, 90 Antrim Street, urging the City Council to support the petition for the establishment of a Business Improvement District (BID) in Central Square.

25. A communication was received from Skip Schloming, Vice President, Small Property Owners Association, 102 Inman Street, regarding the zoning petition for accessory dwelling units.

26. A communication was received from Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street, in support of bill H 692 and in opposition to the decision not to install protected bike lanes on Webster Avenue.

27. A communication was received from Hasson Rashid, 820 Massachusetts Avenue regarding the loan orders on the City Manager’s Agenda and any item related to homelessness.

28. A communication was received from Michael Latulippe, President, Justness, Inc., 33 Arch Street, Boston regarding the cannabis business permitting ordinance.

29. A communication was received from Nicole Snow, Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, regarding protecting the medical marijuana program following the roll out of the adult use program.

30. A communication was received from Matthew Connolly, 13 Cornelius Way, in support of Policy Orders regarding the proposed Eversource substation in East Cambridge.

31. Sundry communications received regarding protected bike lanes on Webster Avenue.

RESOLUTIONS
1. Congratulations to Terry and Lara Hayes on their newborn son, Brendan Kai Hayes. Councillor Simmons

2. Congratulations to the Event Horizon Telescope Collaborators on the occasion of their achievement of producing the first-ever image of a black hole. Councillor Zondervan

3. Congratulations to Sarah Mae Berman on the 50th Anniversary of her Marathon victory. Councillor Zondervan

4. Thanks to Metro Pedal Power for 11 Years of Service. Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan

5. Congratulations to Darlene Beckford Pearson on her induction into the Massachusetts State Track Coaches Association Hall of Fame. Councillor Simmons

6. Congratulations to Mona Gunn on being selected as the next President of the American Gold Star Mothers, Inc. organization. Councillor Simmons

7. Congratulations to Yessenia Gomez on being selected to serve as Interim President of the Massachusetts Latino Police Officers Association, Inc. Councillor Simmons

8. Retirement of Shirley Santos from the Human Services Department. Councillor Toomey

11. Congratulations to Denise Cosby on her upcoming event to launch her memoir. Councillor Simmons

12. Best wishes to the Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers for a successful Awards Gala on Apr 27, 2019. Councillor Toomey

14. Retirement of Joaquin “Ralphy” Lullanda from the Cambridge Housing Authority. Mayor McGovern

15. Retirement of Sean Tevlin from the Cambridge Housing Authority. Mayor McGovern

16. Congratulations to Reverend Monsignor Kevin K. O’Leary on being named a Chaplain of His Holiness by Pope Francis on Apr 16, 2019. Councillor Toomey

ORDERS
1. City Council support for H.692 extending voting rights to certain noncitizens. Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 8-1 (Kelley - NO)

2. That the City Manager is requested to provide an update from Eversource and any other relevant City departments regarding the finance, health and safety, building design and the long-term electricity needs that was requested by the City Council before the construction of a substation on Fulkerson Street in East Cambridge. Councillor Toomey, Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

3. That the City Council go on record in opposition to the site owned by Eversource on Fulkerson Street to have a substation and that the City Manager be and herby is requested to urge Eversource to reconsider its acquisition of the property. Councillor Toomey, Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (Devereux - PRESENT)

4. City Council support of UFCW Union Members in their negotiations with Stop & Shop. Mayor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Placed on File

5. City Council support of the EMPOWER Act (H.720/S.389: An Act ensuring municipal participation of the widest eligible range). Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 7-2 (Kelley, Toomey - NO)

6. City Council support of H.78: A proposal for a legislative amendment to the constitution to provide for no excuse absentee voting. Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 9-0

7. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department, the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, and the Department of Public Works to determine whether an all-way stop sign, a raised intersection or other safety improvements would be helpful at the Garden/Field/Alpine intersection. Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

8. That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request from Councillor Toomey for a street corner dedication in honor of William and Claire McGaffigan in the vicinity of Pemberton Street and Haskell Street. Councillor Toomey
Order Adopted 9-0

9. Appointment of Paula Crane as Interim City Clerk in the event that a City Clerk has not been named in time to begin service on June 1, 2019. Vice Mayor Devereux
Order Adopted 9-0

10. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to provide information to the City Council relating to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance. Councillor Kelley
Order Adopted 9-0

COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee, for a public hearing held on Mar 20, 2019 to discuss the implications of identity theft and cybercrime on local residents and businesses to include Cambridge Police Departmental responses to these events and possible proactive measures to help people protect against such crimes.
Report Accepted, Placed on File

2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Apr 2, 2019 to continue discussion on a petition filed by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge in section 4.22 to allow for a special permit for the alteration of a single, two-family or accessory structure in existence as of January 2019 to provide one accessory apartment, if appropriate conditions are met.
Report Accepted, Placed on File; Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended by Planning Board Text in Manager's Agenda #17

3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Apr 11, 2019 to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 5.50 entitled “Cannabis Business Permitting”.
Report Accepted, Placed on File; Order #10 Adopted

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM OTHER CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a memorandum regarding the School Department FY20 Budget.
Referred to Finance Committee

2. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Kelley, transmitting a memorandum regarding Cannabis Business Ordinance Follow Up Inquiry.
Referred to Unfinished Business #5

3. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Kelley, transmitting a memorandum regarding CPSD, the Achievement Gap, and a Review of 8th Grade Math MCAS Results.
Placed on File

4. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from the Assessors Department, transmitting certification regarding the petition from Kenneth S. Barron, 614 Massachusetts Avenue, et al property owners, pursuant to MGL Chapter 40O, petitioning that a Business Improvement District (BID) be established for the Central Square Business Improvement District.
Referred to Applications & Petitions #2

6. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Zondervan, transmitting a memorandum regarding proposed amendments to the Cannabis Business Ordinance.
Referred to Unfinished Business #5

7. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Zondervan, transmitting a memorandum regarding Cambridge Residential Parking Permits Analysis.
Placed on File

HEARING SCHEDULE
Mon, Apr 22
5:30pm City Council Meeting - Budget Submission (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Apr 23
3:00pm The Health and Environment Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the Zero Waster Master Plan and ways to reduce single use plastics in Cambridge. (Ackermann Room)

Thurs, Apr 25
6:00pm The Housing Committee will conduct a public hearing to continue discussion on the Affordable Housing Overlay District and other related matters. [TELEVISED] (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Apr 30
12:00pm The Economic Development & University Relations Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss a Cambridge vacant storefront registration ordinance. [TELEVISED] (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, May 1
9:00am Finance Committee hearing to discuss proposed FY20 City Budget. [TELEVISED] (Sullivan Chamber)
5:30pm The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss a petition to amend the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.16 entitled “Noise Control” by deleting sections 16.081 through 16.081.7 to prohibit the use of leaf blowers in the City of Cambridge. [TELEVISED] (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, May 7
9:00am Finance Committee hearing to discuss proposed FY20 City Budget. [TELEVISED] (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, May 8
6:00pm Finance Committee hearing to discuss FY20 School Department Budget. [TELEVISED] (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, May 9
9:00am Finance Committee hearing to discuss proposed FY20 City Budget (if necessary). [TELEVISED] (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 13
4:00pm 2019 City of Cambridge Scholarship Awards Ceremony. [TELEVISED] (Sullivan Chamber)
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 20
5:30pm City Council Meeting - Budget Adoption (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, May 21
1:00pm The Health and Environment Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the “City of Cambridge getting to Net Zero Action Plan: Fiscal year 2018 progress report “and to receive a general update on the Net Zero Action Plan. [TELEVISED] (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, May 22
12:00pm Civic Unity Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the Massachusetts Equal Pay Law that was enacted in 2018 - What employees, supervisors, and City Leadership should know, what are the best practices, and how metrics must be established to ensure compliance with this new law. (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, May 28
5:30pm The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on a petition received from Verizon New England, Inc. to amend the zoning map of the City of Cambridge by creating a new Overlay Zoning district entitled “Ware Street Innovation Space Overlay District” encompassing 10 Ware Street and to amend article 20.000 of the Zoning Ordinance by creating a section entitled “Ware Street Innovation Space Overlay District”. [TELEVISED] (Sullivan Chamber)

O-10 Apr 22, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to provide information to the City Council relating to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance to clarify the following issues:

and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Solicitor also respond to the thirteen questions included in Communication and Reports from Other City Officers #2 of April 22, 2019.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Mar 20, 2019 at 4:00pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the implications of identity theft and cybercrime on local residents and businesses to include Cambridge Police Departmental responses to these events and possible proactive measures to help people protect against such crimes.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Zondervan; Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs David Kale; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Police Commissioner Branville Bard; Superintendent of Police Steven DeMarco, Criminal Investigations and Administrative Services, Police Department; Deputy Superintendent of Police Leonard DiPietro, Commanding Officer, Criminal Investigation Unit, Police Department; Sergeant Joseph Murphy, Cybercrime Unit, Police Department; Mike Dugas, IT; District Attorney Marian Ryan; Mark Gutierrez; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Kevin Keegan; Stephen Maywalt; Nancy Ryan, 1 Ashburton Place; and Kathy Watkins, 10 Fawcett Street.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that this hearing was based on his aide having his identity stolen in addition to continuing the cybersecurity discussions from previous hearings. He stated that there is a learning experience. He spoke about cybercrime and identity theft is something people have to deal with and the response by individuals for this type of theft is daunting. He spoke about focusing more city resources on issues related to this.

Mr. Gutierrez explained that he was the victim of identity theft. He stated that he lives in Boston. He gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT A). He explained what identify theft is. He spoke about what can be done with your information when it is compromised. Identity theft happens in a variety of ways, including from unsecured websites, card skimmers, public wi-fi, phishing emails, and so forth, and it may be months before the breach is known. Identity theft is growing and only getting more complicated to detect and prevent as technology evolves. He provided statistics on identity theft. The stress over identity theft has proven to cause mental and physical health issues and has led to 7% of victims feeling suicidal. Mr. Gutierrez explained his experience with identity theft. He explained that in the recovery process, each credit bureau and company that had pulled his information required different documentation. He explained that he filed a police report. He stated than nothing successful was opened in his name and there was no financial burden because he was warned by a ping notice. He stated that the police report needed to be done in person and during business hours. He tried to file an FTC report, but the federal government shutdown prevented the website from working. He spoke about those who are victims of identity theft. He stated that he only found out about this because he has a financial app on his phone that alerted him. He noted that he was a relatively internet-savvy individual and that others may face greater risks and challenges in resolving risks and personal data breaches. He outlined the things individuals can do to be proactive. He had a fraud alert, but other credit companies can still get your credit report. He placed a credit freeze on his account. He noted how having your identity compromised could have bad impacts on all sorts of loans, to include college loans. He compared the police web pages for both Cambridge and Boston. He stated that what is lacking is a step by step procedure on how to respond to ID theft and that each company and bureau has their own requirements. He suggested what Cambridge/Boston could do to make this process better. He noted that three months later this was still not resolved, that he had to make the trip to BPD HQ five times during business hours to get reports and so forth and that phone calls with the relevant companies were very challenging.

Councillor Kelley asked if there were any questions from the members of the City Council. There were none at this point.

Commissioner Bard introduced Sergeant Murphy, Cybercrime expert at the Police Department.

Sergeant Murphy outlined what Cambridge does when identity theft is reported. They have a “stop the bleeding” response and do “direct assist’ to help particularly vulnerable people. Commissioner Bard stated that creditors try to make the victims feel that they are responsible for the crime. Councillor Kelley asked for a packet of information. Sergeant Murphy explained that the Police Department asks for an e-mail and that shows to the police the victim’s technical experience. He stated that an email with a list of online resources is sent out to victims and there is a different process if they do not have technical experience as evidenced by having an email address. He stated that the police try to work with a member of the family to help the victim if the victim cannot handle it themselves. Superintendent DeMarco stated that the police sometimes go out to the family and the home to provide assistance. He stated that the police engage in prevention programs at schools, senior centers, PTA meetings, and other locations where they give presentations. Sergeant Murphy stated that this is the prevention piece. He stated that the Public Information Officer gets the information out to the general public about trends, scams and frauds. Superintendent DeMarco stated that the police work with the Boston Regional Intelligence Center to get relevant information out. Sergeant Murphy explained the different places where a report can be filed given that the crime takes place on the internet. If the location of the crime cannot be determined, the residence of the victim is probably the first place to start. He stated that if it is a business in Cambridge he suggested filing the report in Cambridge. Commissioner Bard stated that if a fraudulent charge came up in Cambridge, the report could be filed in Cambridge. Councillor Kelley asked if this incident had occurred in Cambridge would Mr. Gutierrez have had to go to Police Department five times. Sergeant Murphy responded in the negative. He stated that an officer would be sent to Mr. Gutierrez’s location to take the report and the filing is digital. The police report is a statement of facts about an event and thus needs to be signed by the victim.

Councillor Kelley stated that if the police were called for a credit identity issue an officer would come to Councillor Kelley and he would have been sent interactive information via email. Sergeant Murphy spoke about a bust-out fraud - the police report is done under the pains and penalty of perjury, to ensure what is reported is true. Superintendent DeMarco stated that this is personal; the police provide the appropriate support needed. Councillor Kelley asked how many officers have the skills to handle this. Sergeant Murphy responded that this will go to criminal investigation where CPD will follow up on ‘threads,’ working with the Distract Attorney for subpoenas to identify IP addresses and phone numbers. Councillor Kelley asked about figuring out who did this and helping the victim close loose ends and is the criminal investigation officer the person helping the victim. Sergeant Murphy spoke about if the IP address is in China nothing can be done because it is international. He added that if the victim is elderly the Police will assist more. Commissioner Bard commented that the police will help and go through the process to make the victim whole.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there are private investigators to help prevent this. Sergeant Murphy noted that there are plenty of private services out there willing to take one’s money. And if you are “breached” you are eligible for a credit review and other things. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is a labor intense service as well as a life lesson for years for the victim. Sergeant Murphy stated that Mr. Gutierrez will have to continually check his financial situation. Commissioner Bard noted that many companies offer relevant support.

Councillor Zondervan suggested always using the two-step verification. Sergeant Murphy stated that the two-step verification has many aspects to it and one can set up amounts that trigger such verification. Councillor Kelley stated that if locked credit ahead of time one cannot be victim. Sergeant Murphy stated that this cannot be guarantee.

Councillor Kelley asked if police presentations are on line. Sergeant Murphy responded that there are lots of resources on line in various places; FTC collection information for identity fraud and publishes information. He stated that the Attorney General, the District Attorney and the Police Department all have resources on line.

At this time Councillor Kelley opened public comment.

Christopher Lucy, 107 South Street, Boston, asked about reported identity theft and if the police would share this information with local entities. Sergeant Murphy stated that he would call the Boston Police and do an identity theft report. Mr. Lucy stated that if this is done in China it cannot be traced. Sergeant Murphy stated that the local police could put the packet together for wherever the threads might lead.

Kathy Watkins, 10 Fawcett Street, asked should a credit freeze be put on credit reporting agency even if there is no identity theft. Sergeant Murphy stated that if you have a credit card you have probably been breached. He would lock it down with the three agencies. Ms. Watkins wanted the District Attorney to do a presentation at large. Sergeant Murphy explained that this is locked with the three credit agencies.

Councillor Kelley asked if locked, would it have to be unlocked for a loan. Mr. Dugas responded in the affirmative. Mr. Gutierrez stated that with the credit alert companies can still pull your credit report and you are called when someone want to use your credit for any purpose. A credit freeze needs to be done with all three agencies and prevents your report from ever being pulled in most circumstances. Councillor Kelley asked what information they got to let you know your credit was compromised.

Deputy Superintendent DiPietro stated that he was hacked by Russians and now he needs a PIN number every year mailed to him to be able to file his taxes. Commissioner Bard stated that cybercrime is harder to solve when they are transnational. Sergeant Murphy spoke about social engineering and fraud and how CPD works with banks, CVS employees, cryptocurrency bureaus and do so forth about being scammed. Fraud is not exactly identity theft, but it is similar.

Councillor Kelley stated that Mr. Gutierrez’s social security number was used to open an account and it was closed and he called the credit agency. Councillor Kelley asked if the police are proactively looking at who is stealing credit cards.

District Attorney Ryan spoke about the prevention work being done. The cases are divided up. She stated that if identity theft is committed locally, such as maybe by a local hospital worker, she works with police and partners, and this is the type of solvable and prosecutable crime with which they have pretty good success. The big international fraud cases with subpoena, such as something in Greece, are not going anywhere and are more difficult to track and often unprosecutable, so the goal shifts to making victims whole again and locking down the risk. She spoke about the new scams where individuals are told to mail large sums of money from FedEx. One woman had 4 boxes with money. She stated that she visits senior centers and Rotary Clubs regularly to educate individuals about scams. She explained how they work to train employees to ask questions in dubious circumstances: “One last minute, are you doing this voluntarily?” She explained the gift card scams. Individuals purchase gift cards for a dollar amount and victims are called and told to scratch the back of the gift card and give the number on the back of the card and the criminals get away with the card’s value and when purchasers go to use the gift cards they are worthless. She stated that game web sites and apps are made for little fingers and the children using their parents’ phone they think that they are purchasing with candy money, but they are using real money if the credit card information self-populates, for example. She stated that she educates kids at school. She spoke about the amount of prevention work. She stated that she is successful at prosecuting some local cases and some outside of Massachusetts, but there was no return of money stolen. In one six-week period $4 million disappeared. Sergeant Murphy stated that there is a lot of shame on behalf of the victims, so they often do not report these scams. District Attorney Ryan spoke about it being too late to prosecute and how, in a transient society, elders may be scammed more because their children are gone.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about adding a two-step verification process.

District Attorney Ryan spoke about supporting legislation to provide credit report for five years for credit period.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:58pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Apr 2, 2019 at 2:03pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue discussion on a petition filed by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge in section 4.22 to allow for a special permit for the alteration of a single, two-family or accessory structure in existence as of January 2019 to provide one accessory apartment, if appropriate conditions are met (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Jeff Roberts, Manager of Zoning and Development, Community Development Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Nels Frye, 40 Sherman Street; Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; and Patrick Barrett, 41 Pleasant Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing, petitioner, City staff, City Council clarification comments, public comment and comments by the committee and a conclusion may be made.

Councillor Kelley gave the background for the impetus of the petition. He stated that his friend did not have the appropriate lot size and other dimensional requirements to get an accessory dwelling unit, so he decided to seek a variance. He stated that the variance process required an attorney and delayed the project and had a financial implication. He stated that the existing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) zoning ordinance could be fixed relating to the requirement for a variance. He stated that it is hard to estimate how many people need to get a variance for an ADU. The way that the Board of Zoning Appeals cases are filed does not allow for an accurate data search. It is impossible to get the number for those who apply for a variance.

He gave a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT B). Councillor Kelly stated that the basic regulatory program already exists in section 4.22 of the Zoning Ordinance created in the l970s and updated within the last few years. The City wants people to have ADU, but the method does not work perfectly. The City wants to create more housing opportunities without creating new and bigger buildings. He stated that the basic theme of an ADU is it has the footprint and the size of an existing building and figure out how to turn it into another dwelling unit. He stated that pre-existing garages being used for an ADU is a sticking point. In this proposal pre-existing separate structures would only be a garage.

The Planning Board was concerned with. [Note: This can’t possibly be the sentenced intended in this report.] It seems arbitrary to pick a date and state that an ADU should be done before a specific date. He stated that Short Term Rental discussion is continuing and on a separate track rather than be lumped into this petition. He stated that the start date is irrelevant to operations.

He highlighted the intent of the proposed amendment is to allow individuals to create ADU. This is not to suggest houses get higher, but a basement apartment may end up changing the mean grade of the housing by putting in an egress for the basement. He stated that to allow existing unmodified free-standing structures like garages to be used as ADU, get rid of parking requirements and lot size requirements as they impact ADU and eliminate height requirement for basement egress and entrance. He noted that there may be setback concerns. He stated that the proposed amendment would eliminate these concerns. He stated that this may increase the value of property. The language was clarified for existing garages rather than a garage being built then used as an ADU. This would only be used for single- and two-family homes. He stated that detached ADUs might negatively impact the neighbor’s privacy.

He stated that there is still a need for Special Permits and the Planning Board can impose conditions to respect the look, feel, character and privacy of a neighborhood. He submitted a proposed amendment as a substitution in a memorandum dated Apr 1, 2019 (ATTACHMENT C). Councillor Kelley’s motion to amend by substitution was the document labeled ADU Language - Clean. He stated that this captures the concerns of the Planning Board. The question now came on the amendment by substitution of the previous zoning proposal - and on a voice vote the motion to amend by substitution carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Planning Board discussed this petition last week and there is no Planning Board report yet. He stated that in the future the Ordinance Committee would like to schedule hearings once there is a Planning Board written report to get a full representation of the hearing.

Mr. Roberts spoke about the timeline. He stated that Planning Board first hearing the petition on Jan 22, 2019 and a recommendation was sent to the City Council on Mar 4, 2019 (ATTACHMENT D). He stated that the following week the Ordinance Committee held a hearing and questions were raised and a substituted version was submitted. He stated that one of the key recommendations of the Planning Board at the first hearing was their interest in having City staff carefully review the language to make sure that it was clear what the intent was and how the intent would be manifested in the application of the zoning language. The members of the Planning Board expressed concerns whether it would be clear enough in stating what the different rights and requirements of an accessory apartment would be under the proposal. The Planning Board supported the petition at a substantive level but felt that staff should review it.

Mr. Roberts stated that after the Planning Board hearing the Community Development Department discussed the petition internally. He stated that one of the suggestions that was to have the Planning Board look at the revised version of the petition text, text reviewed by the Ordinance Committee on Feb 2, 2019, and decide if the Board wanted to make any adjustments to the Planning Board recommendations. This is what was reviewed by the Planning Board at its meeting on Tuesday along with additional material compiled by staff. He stated that at the last Planning Board hearing revisions were made to the Planning Board recommendations that will be communicated to the City Council in a report. He noted that many of the comments by the Planning Board were the same as the previous report.

He stated that the Planning Board felt that it is important that staff look at language carefully and make sure that it can be applied clearly for cases that go before the BZA for Special Permits. Councillor Carlone stated that no formal approval should occur until the Planning Board recommendations are received and discussed. He asked if this would go back to Planning Board or is it in the hands of the staff for review. Mr. Roberts responded that regarding the timing of the petition it may be difficult for this to go back to the Planning Board for review. He stated that when the Planning Board votes a recommendation generally it is left in the hands of staff, but it was important for the Planning Board to be clear about what version of the petition they were reviewing and that the language needed more careful review by staff before moving forward. Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board supported petition in content and had concerns with modifications to the petition.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the language that was just substituted. She asked Councillor Kelley if he made the redline changes after the hearing last week by the Planning Board. Councillor Kelley responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the language matching others portions of the zoning ordinance so that the same terms were being used consistently she was unclear about this.

Councillor Zondervan asked what it means to get rid of the lot size requirements that impact the ADU; what are the implications. Councillor Kelley stated that under the zoning code a specific lot size is needed to have a certain number of units. He stated that if a unit is added to a lot size that is too small to have that number of units more lot size would be needed for the ADU. He stated that the theme is that the ADU does not change the outside of a building significantly. He spoke about what would be covered by a Special Permit application. There is no relief needed for the lot size needed. Councillor Zondervan ask why there needs to be special rules for an ADU. If a certain level of density of dwelling units is good, then why not have this true across the board and why is there a need for special rules for adding a dwelling unit to an existing building if in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Councillor Kelley stated the ADU is for existing structures only. Councillor Zondervan asked why only get rid of parking requirement for ADU and not across the board. Councillor Kelley stated that they could be eliminated across the board, but this was intended to be a narrow fix to a small part of the zoning ordinance and has turned into a larger discussion on ADUs. He wanted to have the parking discussion at a different time than during this particular petition. He stated that zoning is a challenging tool and difficult to go through this process for a small change.

Councillor Mallon agreed with the Planning Board that staff needs to look at language to ensure that it conforms with the zoning ordinance. She is curious around the timing of this petition. She asked when the Community Development Department staff will come back to the Ordinance Committee with the language. Mr. Roberts stated that the staff can provide language and send it back to the City Council but that the petition expires in the beginning of May. He stated that within this time the staff can review the language and come back to the City Council with the language. There is no fixed time line. Councillor Mallon asked whether there be enough time to receive the language, hold another Ordinance Committee hearing and be able to ordain this amendment before the petition expires. Councillor Carlone responded that there is not enough time and will need to be discussed at the end of the hearing.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 2:37pm.

Nels Frye, 40 Sherman Street, stated that he would like to build an ADU and convert part of an existing structure into an ADU so that when he returns he does not have to live with his mother. There is a garden which was part of the Secret Garden tour in 2018 to benefit the public library that had 150 visitors in the garden. He stated that the carrying costs for the property are high, so it is rented. The goal would be to add an ADU for his mother to live in. This would allow increased housing by allowing ADU without going before BZA. He stated that the mortgage and property taxes are too expensive and to recover the cost building a studio would help the financing.

Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that she is not talking about substance; she is talking about process. She commented to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. She stated let the (near) perfect be the enemy of the good. The Planning Board, the Community Development Department and the Law Department are skilled employees and there is no reason for this “process.” She stated that process is important and the definitions are not tied down. There is no reason to make the zoning ordinance more complicated than it is now. There are four different versions floating around for this petition. She has lost track of this petition. She urged the Ordinance Committee to please fix this and let it fly when fixed.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk St., stated that she just saw redline version submitted by Councillor Kelley. She wanted Councillor Kelley to go through the changes and his reasons and therefore she has no comments on this. She does not have a basis to comment.

Patrick Barrett, 41 Pleasant Street, stated that he wrote the original ADU amendment to the ordinance based on feedback from community and from the state that outlined how they wanted ADU meted out across other municipalities. At the time of the first Planning Board hearing there was a question raised - is there is definition of basement in the ordinance. He stated that the answer is no, but in Article II where a definition does not exist you look to the Building Code, which does contain a robust definition. He stated that there is accessory building definition in the zoning, but no definition of accessory structure. The Building Code does contain a definition, and this is something that the Planning Board knows as well as the Law Department. He stated that when there are gaps understanding how these words are meted out and the ordinance is ripe with this. He stated that dwelling unit is categorized as different thing.

He added that there are inconsistencies throughout the ordinance. He stated that the height of a building is measured by the mean grade and this is altered when you add a window well and need a variance. This is what is going on at the Inspectional Services Department. He stated that ADUs lot size and lot per dwelling were confused. He stated that if the variance is removed it does not alter the requirement. This is zoning change - to make a small change to Article IV. He stated that the intent of this proposal was outlined by the first speaker. It is not easy to get a variance at the BZA. The small changes become a quality of life issue for people.

Councillor Carlone closed public committee at 2:52pm.

Councillor Carlone opened discussion on the issue. He does not question the substance of the changes made by Councillor Kelley but clearly city staff will review language and get back to the City Council.

Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted this kept in committee and reported out to the full City Council. He stated that from a process standpoint he tried to incorporate the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board changes. He is doing his best to get changes before the City Council before voting on it. The Planning Board had a less understanding of the goal of the proposal and these are better addressed in this version. He stated that there are a variety of inconsistencies in the existing zoning ordinance.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the memo from Community Development Department dated Mar 21, 2019 54.00 contained a chart that included the summaries of BZA accessory apartment cases between 2016-2018. The chart shows five cases and one applicant withdrew. She stated that three of the four that went through the process needed variances; two of which were for having a lot size less than 5,000 square feet. She asked Councillor Kelley about his comment that the Planning Board wanted to review and noted that the Special Permits will be granted by BZA not the Planning Board. She asked if there is a record of Special Permits that the BZA granted for ADU that did not require a variance.

Mr. Roberts stated that he did a quick scan of BZA agendas for the past two years for ADU, including ADU cases that came before the BZA and the majority of the cases did need a variance in addition to the Special Permit for the ADU. He stated that the chart contains the extent of the cases for ADU found on BZA agendas.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that only one of the five required no other relief and received a Special Permit. She commented that when the ADU zoning was approved it was thought that there would be 1,000 units created out of this. She added it is strange that no one did an ADU even without needing a variance. Councillor Carlone stated that having gone through the variance process - it requires significant work and he cannot image most people considering this. He spoke about this path being faster to add ADUs maybe the path is not an indication of the future.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that five people were interested and suggested doing an ADU 101 to let people know that ADU is available and what it can do. There needs more education on this. An outreach plan is needed.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is struggling with the bigger question and understands it is important to simplify this section. He asked why special zoning is needed to allow people to build a unit in their existing building if it is compliant with the Building Code. Why would the City get involved at all, he asked? This would allow higher density in existing structures than in new structures. He spoke about simplifying zoning overall. He stated that this seems to be making the problem worse by creating further inconsistencies. He spoke about simplifying the zoning overall so that there are not so many inconsistencies.

Councillor Carlone stated this is reusing existing structures in a more efficient way and if a person can add a second parking space in a single-family house, they will because they can charge for it. New unit sizes are smaller than older, existing structures. Councillor Zondervan stated that the zoning ordinance should be more consistent. There should not be different rules for existing structures that allow more units than for new structures. Councillor Carlone stated that this is looking at 1-2 family structures. He stated that this is looking at the reservoir of existing structures, many of which are large. He stated that broader zoning changes will literally take years for resolution.

Councillor Mallon stated that Councillor Kelley’s memo stated that this is not an attempt to address large inconsistencies in the zoning ordinance. She stated that having a conversation about the large zoning ordinance is not a good idea. She asked for clarification that this zoning amendment was to address accessory structures and the ability to build ADU in accessory structures, which was not allowed in the previous amendment. Councillor Kelley responded that currently this cannot be done, and the thought would be if one had an accessory structure, defined in the International Building Code, that would be if the other conditions are met it could be turned into an ADU. Councillor Mallon stated that she does not have 900 square feet in her house but does have an existing garage for an ADU. She added that this amendment may open the ability for more ADU to be built which is the goal.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that on the chart two of the examples were new construction of single-family homes. She asked can a single family be built with an ADU. Is this really saying that only existing structures can have an ADU. Councillor Carlone stated that new construction would need to go for a variance.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that over the last several years there has been an interest in defining certain accessory units, as being somehow distinct from what otherwise would be considered a two-family. A two-family does not relate typically to a traditional zoning context or in most zoning cases that talk about zoning ordinances, it does not matter whether it is the same size as the larger units, or whether it is a so-called in-law unit or an accessory unit. She stated that if Residence A allows for 2 families then you can have an in-law unit in your large house. She added that these definitions have been shifting over the last few years as people have been working to create exceptions for or allowances for re-use of some aspects of building to accommodate these various types of accessory uses as part of existing structure. So, the basement unit change was one of the changes to differentiate between ADU and a two-family. This is confusing and could use clarification. She stated that a dwelling unit is a dwelling unit and whether it is called an ADU you are allowing another dwelling unit in a structure or if allowing another dwelling unit on a parcel such as a garage on a parcel this also is another dwelling unit. She added that this needs to be reconciled to make it more understandable to people.

Councillor Zondervan said it is important to have this conversation in the context of the overall zoning ordinance. He stated that he is highlighting this issue and if the zoning gets finer in the weeds of certain sections it gets more confusing and at some point, it makes sense to go back and look at the whole thing. He stated that if it makes sense to allow higher density of dwelling units whether it is an existing or new structure then maybe the entire zoning ordinance needs to be reviewed to get the same level of density everywhere. He spoke again about enforcement and if it complies with Building Code why do we have to get involved. He stated that there are better ways to accomplish these goals.

Councillor Carlone stated that he has been involved with this City for 45 years and 45 years ago it was said that the zoning code needed to be simplified and updated. He stated that having the Building Code be the basis is insufficient. The Zoning Code and the Building Code work together to create a safe and sensible city of buildings.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that to make this clear she moved to amend 4.22.1 by adding after the words “alteration of” the words “”an existing” (ATTACHMENT E). Councillor Kelley stated that if this will make it read better to people and it is clearer it is a great idea.

Councillor Carlone stated that all zoning goes through Community Development and the Law Department and this is what is being asked for this petition. He stated that Mr. Roberts and Ms. Glowa have not had time to look at the current version and their input is needed.

Vice Mayor Devereux now moved her amendment- and on a voice vote of six members the amendment - Carried.

Councillor Carlone stated that given the timing of the petition this could be ordained by May 6th if submitted to the full City Council based on getting a refined and approved version from the City staff and the proposal could be moved to a second reading on Apr 22, 2019.

Councillor Carlone moved the petition as amended by substitution by Councillor Kelley and further amended by Vice Mayor Devereux be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation based on getting a refined text from City staff. The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 3:17pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Apr 11, 2019 at 6:33pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 5.50 entitled “Cannabis Business Permitting”.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Simmons; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; City Manager Louis DePasquale; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department Iram Farooq; Manager of Zoning and Development, CDD, Jeff Roberts; Police Commissioner Branville Bard; Director, Economic Development Division, CDD, Lisa Hemmerle; Commissioner of Inspectional Services Ranjit Singanayagam; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Planning, Cambridge Health Department; Nancy Rihan Porter, Cambridge Public Health Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Patrick Barrett, 41 Pleasant Street; Sieh Samura, 111 Wellington Hill Street; Michael Latulippe, 190 Bridge Street, Salem; Susanne Fuchs, 7 Orrin Street; Saskatchewan James, 251 Garden Street; Joe Gilmore, 6 Medway Street; Christian Palmon, 250 Main Street; Kosar Mohamed, 165 Cottage Street; Harry Jean Jacques, Boston; Michael Pires, Boston; Marius Johnson, Boston; Russell Harding, 189 Windsor Street; Richard Harding, 189 Windsor Street; Marvin Gilmore; Dawn Duncan, 67 Adams Street; Chauncy Spencer; W. Braun; Camilo Basto; Taba Moses, 75 School Street; and Will Justice.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format. He stated that the hearing would start with City Councillors asking questions of City staff. He explained that the ordinance has been passed to a second reading on Apr 1, 2019 (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that if this cannot be moved forward at the end of this hearing another hearing can be scheduled. He opened the hearing to questions or comments from City Councillors.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that the map entitled “Cannabis Establishments: Selected Base Zoning Districts and Buffers” shows the current permitted registered medical marijuana dispensaries (RMD). She stated that looking at the proposed ordinance we are saying that these applicants are priority B applicants. Ms. Hemmerle stated that the Group B as written now are the ones not permitted. Councillor Siddiqui asked Ms. Hemmerle to explain the proposal before the City Council that talks about priority applicant’s applicability. She wanted to know if the City is allowing currently registered RMD to become recreational would this number be six in the City. Ms. Hemmerle stated that currently there are either six permitted or in process. Mr. Roberts stated that there are six RMD that currently have a Special Permit from the Planning Board. Some are in operations and others are in various stages of the permitting process but as the zoning is not effective for non-medical or adult use cannabis all of these establishments are only permitted to be medical marijuana dispensaries and all would have to seek a Special Permit after the zoning is effective if they wish to seek a license and become also an adult use non-medical retailer. Councillor Siddiqui stated that for the first two years for the effective date in section 10 of section 5.50.050 it states that the City shall issue a permit pursuant to this chapter only to priority applicants. The City will only issue a cannabis permit to a Group B priority applicant, if after issuance there will be an equal or greater number of currently active cannabis business permits of that type held by Group A priority applicants which are economic or social equity program applicants or if the applicant is an RMD that has been granted a Special Permit from the Planning Board and a Provisional Certificate of Registration and this number is six. She spoke about how to make this industry equitable. Her concern is that first economic empowerment applicants face a lot of barriers such as capital and it is not legal federally. If there is this existing market how others will be successful. She stated that there is no cap but there is a minimum number. Ms. Hemmerle responded that the minimum allowed is eight. Councillor Siddiqui stated that the City Council has decided to have as many establishments as we want. She stated that during the first two years of business, businesses are likely to fail. If there is a hard time getting a business underway how is the City going to make it possible for the economic empowerment and social equity applicants to be successful. She wanted to talk about the implications and the two-year time limit. She wanted to eliminate the time limit altogether. Councillor Siddiqui spoke about legal questions as to what the City can and cannot do. She stated that a legal opinion will be needed on this. She wanted to expand women and minority owned businesses and she wanted to add residents who live in a neighborhood revitalization district. Ms. Hemmerle stated that for HUD funding the City uses neighborhood revitalization strategy area boundaries which are low- and moderate-income areas in the City of Cambridge for these programs and this is a way to say women and minority residents within these boundaries using Census tracks the areas are identified as low-moderate income areas. Councillor Siddiqui stated that it would be helpful to expand the definition.

Councillor Carlone spoke about permitting preference for priority applicants. This ordinance is based on state law which included the two years for Group A and he asked does the City Council have the right to extend the two years and change it to four or five years. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that if the City Council preferred the time limit to be different the Law Department will get back to the City Council with a firmer decision. He added that generally the state law allows local regulations as long as they are not in conflict or defeat the state regulations. He stated that there is a lot of leeway locally but this is a whole new area of law so there are unsettled issues. Councillor Carlone stated that he would advocate for the change. He spoke about larger companies buying up smaller companies around the country.

The City Council goal has been that those who have not been favored as others by this industry have the opportunity. He stated that he is in favor of expanding the time limit and that the next five or six licenses should be Priority A Applicants. He added that all dispensaries came in as medical and will be expanding to recreational business. This is big business and if the City wants to have a control over this a mixture of ownership and the type of owner is local.

Councillor Simmons agreed with Councillor Siddiqui to support priority A and B applicants. There are concerns that RMDs will be ahead of priority A candidates and how can the City watch this carefully. She spoke about the difficulty to access funds for business for minority owned women businesses to make the playing field level. She is interested in what can be done legally to make sure that there is a level playing field to promote, within legal means, to allow Priority A Applicants to get into the industry. She supports this going forward with equity which is the goal of the ordinance and to have parameters on how the cannabis industry should run and to promote the ability for Group A Priority Applicants which are minority owned and women owned businesses to be able to succeed.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the reason that the Zoning Ordinance was set up to have an 1800-foot buffer was so that Group A Applicants would have an opportunity that other applicants do not. He stated that from the map the RMDs have covered the area where cannabis retail would do business in the City. He stated that because of the 1800-foot buffer zone exceptions only equity applicants would have access to the same areas going forward. He stated that he did not think that the RMDs converting to adult use should be delayed. He noted that if RMDs are delayed it would delay the retail cannabis in the City and the equity applicants. The provision that there should be an equal number going forward is going to be protected once the RMDs are converted but ultimately the City would not expect 7-8 large non-equity businesses to be operating in the City because of the space constraints in terms of the zoning. He also wanted the time period eliminated. He suggested stating that the goal is always to obtain parity, if not a larger number of equity businesses operating in the City. He commented that we should not think about a larger business buying out an equity applicant as a bad thing because this is presumably a liquidity event for the small business and could benefit financially so this possibility must be maintained going forward because it is also an equity consideration. An equity applicant should be able to build up a business and sell it for a higher valuation and benefit financially. The ordinance protects against this because if the applying business does not met the requirements then they would not be able to take over the license from the equity business that they are buying and would still have to qualify as an equity business when they are buying another equity business unless there is space available for a non-equity business at that time of the purchase. Councillor Zondervan asked if these requirements could be legally imposed in section 5.50.050 a; on all applicants looking to obtain a cannabis business permit. This can be required of equity applicants because they are being given an advantage in return, but he is unsure that any business would be required that wants to operate in Cambridge to certify that it would hire at least 51% minority, women or veterans as employees. These are great goals, but can the City legally require every business to meet those goals is a question. This needs to be clarified. If these requirements are imposed regarding the Board of Directors, they could impose challenges on the existing RMDs as they convert to adult use. This needs to be clarified because we do not want to impede the existing RMDs from establishing their adult use retail operations. In section 5.50.080 (a) there is a provision that states that a cannabis business permit may be revoked or not renewed if the permit holder has sold a cannabis product to a person under the minimum legal sale age three times or more. He wanted to strike out “three times or more.” He stated that if this happens once that should be sufficient cause for the City to deny the license going forward.

Vice Mayor Devereux agreed with eliminating the time period. She asked has the state certified any economic empowerment and social equity applicants yet. Ms. Hemmerle responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Devereux asked does the applicant have to have this certification in hand when they schedule a community meeting to discuss opening. She stated that in the Cambridge Chronicle there were three different legal ads for public hearings for community meeting. Ms. Hemmerle stated that she has met one applicant that is coming in as a certified economic empowerment applicant and they let the City know this. She spoke of the state process which requires the applicant to be certified as an economic empowerment applicant before holding a community meeting. Vice Mayor Devereux if the City were to eliminate the ownership and the board of directors’ composition requirements for RMDs but keep the requirements for the priority applicants it could be applying a higher standard to the priority A applicants who we are trying to help. She stated that if you are an economic empowerment or social equity applicant, the state certification process may require some of the same things that this ordinance does. Ms. Hemmerle responded that the City tried to be thoughtful and did not want to create a conflict with state requirements with the City’s permitting requirements. She stated that in some cases these organizations may or may not have a board of directors; this depends on the organizational structure. She stated that some of these businesses are not meeting the 51% requirement at all and this may be an opportunity to push businesses to get them where they need to be for diversity, equity and inclusion within their board structure. This also gets to the issue discussed in the press about the ownership structures of these different businesses and when you have large conglomerates or companies coming in and having board control this may help alleviate this issue. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the state’s use of the categories and that the City has lumped them together in one priority A so that one is either social equity or economic empowerment, women or minority owned. This seems to be a big catch all. Mr. Goldberg stated that the Cannabis Control Commission has on their website the definition of economic empowerment applicants and there are six bullets and if the applicant meets any three of them they can qualify as an economic empowerment applicant and then the social equity program applicants have different eligibility requirements. Mr. Goldberg stated that documentation could be provided to the City Council if this would be helpful. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that seeing that they are referred to in the ordinance this might be helpful to be in the definition section of the ordinance. The minority and women owned business is distinct from the other two categories. She asked if the same group is being prioritized as one group. Ms. Farooq stated that the purpose of creating this criterion relating to the employee profile and who is on the board is to address that the pool has been broadened in the Group A category to allow the creation of a baseline requirement for each of the groups regardless of what part they took to get to the priority A category. She stated that there are different criteria to get to whether one is a social equity or an economic empowerment applicant. This is at the City level to make sure that the baseline that addresses the social equity goals that the City Council has spoken about in each of the businesses and the way that it is phrased it is broader. She noted that the Law Department will be checking what Councillor Zondervan has requested.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about an enforcement mechanism and who in the City is responsible to make sure the requirements are met. Ms. Farooq responded that because the permit is renewed annually this information will come to the Community Development Department’s Economic Development Division to review yearly and to certify that the requirements are being met. Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the number of retail stores that a single entity can own for the priority B applicant and asked if there is any limit in state law on the number of stores that a priority B applicant could own. Mr. Goldberg was unsure about the limits but thought it was three cannabis businesses but unsure if it was limited to retail stores.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about two businesses for one single entity. She asked about not having a cap but having a minimum number. She understood that the host community agreement is the final component of what is needed before opening. She stated that the City Manager is not obligated to continue to write community host agreements. Vice Mayor Devereux asked whether there is a reason needed to deny a license because condition have not been met. Mr. Goldberg stated that the zoning limits the number, but not the number of social equity and economic empowerment establishments. He explained that the Planning Board has some discretion to issue a Special Permit. In the Business Permitting Ordinance there is no discretion given and if the conditions are met to get a permit under this ordinance it would be issued. The City Council could consider putting a cap in the ordinance on the total number. He stated that as the ordinance is written there is no cap. Regarding the host community agreements, the City Manager would not be obligated to enter into an infinite number of host community agreements and there could be a limit on the agreements entered into. Vice Mayor Devereux asked in the Special Permit if conditions are met the Special Permit is granted. She stated that the ordinance as currently written functions as a Special Permit if these conditions are met a permit would be granted. Mr. Goldberg stated that with the Special Permit there is some discretion by the Planning Board, but in this ordinance as written if a social equity or economic empowerment applicant meets the conditions of the ordinance there is no discretion to deny the application.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about a communication received from Nichole Snow, President and Executive Director, Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance (ATTACHMENT B) and her comments asked if enough is being done in this ordinance to protect medical patients. She asked if it was possible to open a RMD only establishment and asked if the applicant would be subject to these conditions or only related to the adult use establishment. Mr. Goldberg responded that one would be subject to this ordinance but would be a Group B priority applicant. One would have priority to open another RMD. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the greater need for a RMD and asked if this would be a Group A because RMDs are operating in the major places and are assuming that all will become recreation and wanted to just open an exclusive RMD store but would not be able to be in the 1800-foot buffer unless you were a social equity or economic empowerment applicant. Mr. Goldberg stated that this is true under the zoning.

Mr. Roberts stated that under the zoning a cannabis establishment whether retail establishment to sell cannabis products or whether for medical or non-medical purposes is treated the same under the zoning ordinance. He stated that with the new zoning becoming effective a medical or a nonmedical or a combined retail establishment would be subject to the same zoning requirements. This means that it has to be in a permitted district, observe the 1800-foot separation, unless an economic empowerment or social equity applicant, and must observe the 300-foot buffer from schools and public parks and youth facilities unless waived by the Planning Board and would need a Special Permit from the Planning Board. Councillor Kelley asked does this Cannabis Business Permitting ordinance have any relevance and it does not because they are only selling medical cannabis. Mr. Goldberg stated that a new RMD would be subject to this ordinance and be a Group B applicant and would have some priority as a Group B priority applicant and the ordinance reflects previous City Council discussions about wanting to be sure that there is a sufficient number of medical dispensaries in the City and were continuing to encourage these entities.

Mayor McGovern stated that prioritizing the economic empowerment applicants and prioritizing Cambridge resident who wish to open a store would be good. He asked can this be done. Ms. Hemmerle stated that Somerville’s ordinance has priority for Somerville residents and Cambridge was trying to take into consideration the income levels of Cambridge residents to prioritize more the disenfranchised population. She suggested that the City Council might want to think about prioritizing Cambridge residents living in neighborhood revitalization areas as designated by HUD because this is something that has a boundary and can be recognized as a low- or moderate-income area. Mayor McGovern spoke about in 5.050.040 (a) if an applicant is an RMD that has been granted a Special Permit from the Planning Board and a Provisional Certificate of Registration from the Cannabis Control Commission before the effective date of this Chapter and is seeking licensure as a Cannabis Retail Store for retail cannabis sales means that the RMDs that are currently operating or have their Special Permits could move forward with adult use cannabis. Mr. Goldberg responded in the affirmative. Mayor McGovern stated that other communities are moving this forward and opening before Cambridge. He wanted to get this done. He spoke about the buffer zones and may be the biggest benefit is the fact that economic empowerment applicants can open within the zones. The zones were created when the RMD ordinance was written to limit the number of RMDs that could operate in the City. This will limit the number of RMD that can operate in Cambridge but the fact that economic empowerment applicants are not subject to this and there will be more opportunities to open where RMDs cannot. He spoke about an e-mail received from Sean Hope, Hope Legal Law Offices raising issues and concerns (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about the buffer zones and the unintended consequences. She spoke about twelve RMDs will be successful; she is worried about this and about the economic empowerment applicants that will not be successful in this market. She stated that her thinking has shifted given the on the ground realities. She spoke about the community impact fee and Revolutionary Clinics that is located on Fawcett Street and may be coming to Central Square. This is two retail shops. She wanted a cap because this is a monopoly and how this is inequitable. There should be a cap if there is going to be preference given to existing RMDs. She stated that regulating the Board of Directors is a noble goal and suggested a time period to achieve compliance and that the board should be diverse. She wanted to look at the market and how many shops are opening up in the community.

Councillor Carlone stated that the difference with this industry is that it is regulated and there is an ethical mandate to spread the wealth and benefits. There should be more Special Permit criteria in Cambridge and a limitation that you can only have one adult use permit in Cambridge. You want to move to another, you sell it. He stated that if the City wants to spread this and have reasonably balanced competition, the number needs to be limited. Large companies buying small operations tells us what to expect. He stated that Special Permit criteria could be expanded for Priority A applicants for recreational use. There is a serious possibility to have three establishments in one block. This is not what is wanted. A map of low-income areas designated by the federal government would be helpful to have for the City Council. He stated that it is not to the City’s benefit to have twenty to thirty of these operations. We only needed four to meet the needs of the City’s residents. He stated that 8-10 seems right. He spoke about the City Manager deciding which places receive a host community agreement with the City-- should be first in first served and should be a qualifying aspect including Priority A applicants.

Councillor Zondervan cautioned his colleagues not to over-regulate this because it is new, and it is unknown where it will go. He stated that equity is complicated because we may think we are protecting equity by keeping certain applicants out, but this is also reducing employment opportunities and is reducing the overall growth of the industry which limits opportunities for equity applicants and the unintended consequences are many. He stated that in terms of how many stores can operate in Cambridge this is what the market will tell us. He asked why the City Council should try to limit this because this impacts the economic equity applicants’ opportunities. He urged coming to closure on the ordinance; make tweaks to the ordinance. He stated that giving priority to Cambridge residents in low income areas is a noble idea but there are unintended consequences. He is still confused about the definition of the priority applicants. He stated that is unclear to him that an RMD could not qualify as a priority A applicant. He stated that the City should be explicit about making an exclusive distinction and stated that an RMD cannot also qualify as a Group A applicant. He expressed concern with the restrictions imposed in 5.50.050 (a) forcing all to be a priority Group A applicant which is not what the intent is. These restrictions in 5.50.050 (a) should apply only to priority applicants and then anyone who does not meet the requirement is not a priority applicant and does not get the benefits of being a priority applicant and this is how the City would incentivize meeting these requirements because there would be an incentive to become a priority applicant. He stated that if this is required of everyone then there is no distinction between a priority applicant and a nonpriority applicant.

Mayor McGovern asked about the employee piece. He stated that if a current RMD gets a license for adult use you already have staff working and he asked will they fire their employees to achieve the 51%. He suggested language that as people leave they need to get up to the 51%. He wanted a phase in period. He spoke about four RMDs meeting the need and this referred to medical use and there is crossover in clientele and there may be more need for recreational use. He stated that in regards to giving preference to Cambridge residents who are economic empowerment applicants and he stated that he does not know where the neighborhood revitalization zones are. He stated that there are two applicants who grew up in Cambridge and are ready to go and are economic empowerment applicants and have a space. They are from Strawberry Hill area and he does not know if this is a revitalization area and asked could someone bump them out. He stated that if there are two priority applicants and one is from Cambridge he wanted the Cambridge resident to be given priority. He stated the burden is financial for economic empowerment applicants and asked if there is a way to create a fund or use the revenue from cannabis businesses to support economic empowerment opportunity applicants to help these businesses get established. He wanted funding relief to be given to economic empowerment applicants in the host community agreements. Ms. Hemmerle stated that there is no mechanism to provide loans to businesses but there is technical assistance that is offered by Community Development and there is a store front improvement grant that can be provided and facade improvement is available for businesses. Mayor McGovern commented that Cambridge residents voted for adult use at 80% and the City needs to move on this.

Councillor Siddiqui asked if there is any consensus for a cap for RMDs and recreational retail and have a cap of one recreational establishment and asked if this is legally possible. Councillor Kelley read Section 16 of the state law which specifically states that no licensee shall be granted more than three marijuana retailer licenses through a medical marijuana treatment center license; three product manufacturing licenses or three marijuana cultivating licenses, provided however, that a licensee may hold three marijuana retail licenses, three medical marijuana treatment center licenses, three marijuana product manufacturer licenses and three marijuana cultivator licenses. He stated that the state says you may hold he does not think that the City can say you cannot. Mr. Goldberg stated that there is local discretion on the issuance of permits and that this does not necessarily restrict what the City can do. He stated that if the City Council wanted a more definite answer the Law Department will get back to the City Council on this.

Councillor Zondervan stated that there are provisions in the state law against preventing RMDs from converting to adult use cannabis. Councillor Siddiqui clarified not to convert but to get another shop. Councillor Zondervan commented that each shop is a separate conversion. He stated that the Law Department could investigate this. He spoke about the implications of doing this; the City does not want Revolutionary Clinics to have more than one adult use retail operation in Cambridge. This is forcing them to make different business decisions about one of the RMDs that they already operate and could adversely impact their employees. He urged caution in trying to prevent successful businesses from operating in an effort to allow new businesses to come in because the successful businesses operating within the framework that are being set up with this ordinance also benefits equity impacted residents and people. He gave an example that someone may be an employee at one of the RMDs that is converted, learn the business, and transition into owning their own business. He stated that if we are limiting these businesses we are also limiting opportunities for people to take advantage of this. We are not achieving equity if restricting Revolutionary Clinics operating one retail store in Cambridge when the state allows three. He suggested letting this play out. No more than three can be operated in the state. The distinction of priority and non-priority applicants with a buffer zone would create investment for an economic empowerment applicant’s business because it would be the only way for them to gain more access to the cannabis business in Cambridge.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that regarding consensus about the two-year period for priority applicant was not enough and the City Council wanted to extend it to at least five years or longer. She stated that if it were removed entirely then is there ever an opportunity for a nonpriority applicant to apply as a Group B. Ms. Hemmerle stated that a way to rectify the issue is to say that calling everyone a priority is confusing. She suggested using Group A and Group B are the RMDs not in existence yet; Group C are RMDs that have already been granted a Special Permit or have their Provisional and Group D are those not included in the other groups. She stated that Group D is anybody not included in the first groups. So, for Groups A, B and C in the first two years will be allowed to open in the manner laid out and after this period of time Group C which are retailers owned by bigger organizations which the City is trying to limit for a time period could come into the City. This may be helpful to level the playing field. She stated that giving Group A a chance to come into the market because otherwise they may not have this chance. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she heard Group A would be the social equity empowerment. Ms. Hemmerle stated that Group B would be the same definition but can only come in with equal measure to the Group A. Group C would be an RMD that has been granted a Special Permit from the Planning Board and a Provisional Certificate of Registration from the Cannabis Control Commission before the effective date of this ordinance. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that this would be the six that the City has. Ms. Hemmerle responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Devereux commented on the market telling what will survive and how cannabis consumers will make their choices and that geography, convenience, location, product, price are all indicators of the market. The more well financed companies will be able to keep prices low and gradually gain control of the market. She added that it may simply come down to price.

Councillor Zondervan offered a simpler solution which is there are priority and non- priority applicants and there always must be a balance between them. This means that initially that the non-priority applicants cannot come into the market and then within the priority applicants there must be a balance between Group A and Group B, to give the priority A applicants a chance to get going in the market. He noted that it is possible that the market will narrow this down to one operating business over time and if this happens this business will still have to comply with the ordinance and the zoning and would still benefit the people that we are trying to help. If a larger company buys a small company that qualifies under the equity applicant rules the larger company still has to meet the same qualification to continue to operate under that license. This would be a benefit to the acquired company and they would still be an economic empowerment or priority applicant. He wanted the staff to clarify Section 4 regarding the definition of priority Group A and Group B and then adjust this language to change or remove the two-year restrictions so that the balance is still maintained.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is unknown territory and after a period of time a schedule of review is needed and to evaluate and see if the predictions are coming true; and then trying to steer the ship more equitably if needed.

Councillor Siddiqui commented that whatever is decided needs to be evaluated on the implications of how this is equitable. There is nothing against RMDs and are doing a lot to help smaller businesses. She stated that there is so much uncertainty that she is uncomfortable about how the City proceeds, but it is the will of the voters to proceed. She stated that it is incumbent on the City Council to really think about this.

Councillor Kelley opened the hearing to public comment at 7:55pm.

Patrick Barrett, 41 Magazine Street, stated that he agreed that caps be put in place. He commented that it is interesting that the City Council is so concerned about the market. He stated that he owns a business in Central Square. He stated that currently there is one medical facility in Central Square and there was lots of community outreach and the store was modified so that it did not have the effect of failing the state guidelines of blocking out the windows so that there is an active streetscape. He stated that he is grateful for the interaction. He stated that he sees three new applicants all within twenty feet of each other coming to Central Square. You need to understand how this particular business works in the market, who these businesses are buying their products from and how the stores survive and in the City Council’s attempt to be pro-market that people may be set up for trouble. He stated that enforcement for public activities is somewhat difficult. He stated that in Central Square no one would image that marijuana was illegal at any point in time. This activity opens the door for other activities on the street that are not there currently and that the Central Square Business Association has worked very hard to mitigate and this is inviting this back again. He stated that he did not see what the rush is to pass this. He spoke about the previous caps in Central Square for fast food. This is a bad example with a disastrous consequence. He stated that this business is a different animal altogether. He stated that the buffer zone exists and has nothing to do with social equity but to space out the businesses. He stated that the City needs to look at how these social equities are being operated and why it is a good idea to have three stores within twenty feet of each other. He stated that Inman Square will be another area where these businesses will operate because the retail costs of the properties are much cheaper.

Sieh Samura stated that he and his wife are both certified economic empowerment applicants and look forward to opening a retail establishment in Cambridge if the regulations and the law allows. All the City Councillors are concerned and thoughtful and thanked the City Council for their acknowledgement of economic empowerment applicants in this process. He explained who economic empowerment applicants are. He stated that there are just over 120 certified economic empowerment applicants in the state of Massachusetts. These applicants are meeting stricter requirements for licensing. There are added requirements for these applicants including hiring. He stated that 75% of the hiring must be from harmed communities. He stated that for economic empowerment applicants’ licenses will only be granted to businesses that are mostly owned by people from harmed communities. He stated that the economic empowerment applicants and the license itself has been designed to really change the business culture of the emerging cannabis industry. He added that we have not seen economic empowerment applicants go through this licensing process yet, so the real benefit has not been seen for what the main engine for social equity in the laws is. He stated the economic empowerment applicants have been chosen as a class, by the voters and the Cannabis Control Commission, to lead this whole new industry towards social equity. He agreed that sometimes the economic empowerment applicants are lumped into other categories of social equity and other types of groups because we want to see everyone benefit from this new industry. He noted that economic empowerment applicants have been specifically chosen to create this new social equity economy that we all want to see. He spoke about the time and effort spent on this.

Michael Latulippe, 190 Bridge Street, Salem, stated that he is a state certified economic empowerment priority applicant. He stated that he is pleased with the latest draft of the ordinance especially with the clarity of the process to obtain a business permit from the Inspectional Services Department as well as obtaining priority status from the Director of Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department. He stated that what is not clear in the ordinance is where or how applicants obtain a host community agreement before they apply for a business permit. He suggested adding in clear language as to what City official or department certified priority applicants should go to in order to obtain a host community agreement. He stated that from his experience the host community agreement is the most challenging part of the process because after a location is secured an economic empowerment applicant has no clear process to obtain a host community agreement and it can be extremely disheartening. He stated that Cambridge should add into this proposal a transparent process to obtain host agreement similar to the process to become a priority applicant in the City. He stated that if economic empowerment applicants do not know how to obtain a host agreement they will likely not be able to move through the process. He requested that this be added to the text of the ordinance. He clarified that Group A applicants can be RMDs and referred to the letter sent by Ms. Snow and for more information on how the medical marijuana program is changing and how equity will play a key role in the medical marijuana program in the future. He stated that in permitting preferences for priority applicants he referred the Ordinance Committee to Chapter 94G, 3A1 that prevents a local ordinance from preventing RMDs to begin selling recreational marijuana in the same facility and prevents zoning from becoming unreasonably impractical. This was done to protect the viability of companies currently serving medical marijuana after the passage of adult use and is meant to protect medical marijuana patients’ safe access in cities. He suggested removing the time limit on priority applicants who are medical permit holders in the City as well as the equity applicants and come up with a solution that protects both patients’ safe access and social equity moving forward.

Saskia James, 251 Garden Street, expressed appreciation for the work done on the Cannabis Business Permitting ordinance. She stated that by bringing equity and social justice to the cannabis industry we chip away at the strength in the black market which helps prevent marijuana ending up in the hands of high school children. She stated that with six brief amendments to what has been proposed there will be agreement in establishing equity and restorative justice in the cannabis business in the City of Cambridge. She suggested amending Group A priority applicants to women and minority owned businesses as certified by the commonwealth that have lived in the City of Cambridge for a minimum of five years and earn less than $100,000. Secondly, she further requested that the two-year provision in the ordinance only to priority applicants to ten years with equal distribution among Group A and Group B priority applicants. She stated that the people demand no less than ten years because it is important to recognize the current federal administration as biased and use their power to affect the most marginalized individuals. She stated that anything less than ten years is not acceptable. Individuals need time to restore trust within our local government due to the war on drugs. She noted that there is extreme distrust. Third, amend Section 5.50.050 Permitting Requirements to add a new item 11. Requiring equal employment opportunities and free training for Group B applicants for citizens with marijuana convictions. She commented that the City should support economic empowerment for people who are punished by the law for being the first to understand the nature of this plant. Her fourth suggestion was shelf space for equity applicants and that retail dispensaries operating in the City of Cambridge should require 51% or more of products sourced from equity certified or Group A applicants. She stated that this will help to incentivize more accelerator and incubator programs to mentor equity applicants and reduce barriers to entry will getting local products in dispensaries. Her fifth suggestion was designating the use of public space allowing incubator programs for Group A equity applicants to exist and provide legal counseling, business resources, City funded loans and mentorship from cannabis industry experts. She stated that these hubs should be overseen by the Cambridge Economic Development Department and matched by Group B, C and D applicants and whoever else will be added. Lastly, she stated that cooperatively owned cannabis businesses within a minimum of 51% holding residency for a minimum of five years and income not in excess of $100,000 should be added as being able to qualify for Group A applicants, also known as equity applicants. She stated that Somerville recognizes the importance of cooperatively owned businesses to incentivize community and generational wealth. She stated that as an alternative option for local residents to acquire funding and access to ownership, incentives for community owned marijuana establishments should be a priority in Cambridge. She suggested envisioning a building where single parents are coming together and having a business on one floor and housing above. This would have a positive affect for the demand for housing in the City of Cambridge. She encouraged the City Council to work with the Massachusetts Recreational Consumer Council (MRCC) to create a social equity certification program. Her communication is attached (ATTACHMENT D).

Joe Gilmore, 6 Medway Street, Co-Founder of the Massachusetts Consumer Council, an organization that helps provide assistance to cities such as Boston and Somerville with their equity ordinance. He offered suggestions. He stated that there are 163 RMD priority applicants in the pipeline. He stated that there are 179 general applicants and only five are economic empowerment applicants who have submitted complete licenses. He commented that there is an argument to be made that there needs to be strong incentives to allow economic empowerment applicants to gain access. He explained that Boston is creating a 2-1 ratio and he suggested exploring the possibility to increase this number 2-1. He advocated for cooperatively owned cannabis businesses. He noted that Somerville has added this provision as a way for individuals to pool resources. He noted that the biggest barrier is financing and suggested thinking about alternative ways of financing. He spoke about cannabis businesses donating proceeds towards a social equity technical fund. He stated that in the regulations there are voluntary regulations that state if 1% of revenue is donated toward the social equity program the business would be considered a social justice leader. He spoke about the lack of equity and the lack of economic empowerment applicants this should be a mandatory requirement. For general applicants and multi-national companies, they should be donating so that this fund that is supposed to help economic empowerment and equity applicants is well resourced and funded and there can be grants that would help fund the businesses.

Harry Jean Jacques, Boston, stated that he has a felony on his record and he cannot touch the plant, so he has had to pursue a different avenue in terms of media. He stated that it is unfair that people with records should be able to enrich themselves. He stated that people in this market with felonies on their record should be first priority in terms of contracts. He stated that if you are an economic empowerment applicant restriction should not apply because the individual has already been disenfranchised. He stated that if this speaking about equity why are restrictions being put on those proven to be disenfranchised because of drug war and white supremacy.

Richard Harding, 189 Windsor Street, spoke about economic empowerment groups and making sure that this was an equitable opportunity to people in Cambridge. He stated that his group is Green Soul Organics. He is the president of the foundation side of the business. There is a profit and a non-profit side of the business. He stated that he looks to be the first seed to sow African American owned cannabis company on the east coast. He spoke about his experience as a vetted state economic empowerment license group. He stated that there are so many more barriers that individuals have to go through. He stated that in the proposed ordinance it needs to define social equity group because it is different than economic empowerment groups. It sets up competition in a different way. He spoke about the social equity group and if they partner with someone who has 49% of their business in a sense they can control the whole company if done in the right way. He stated that the City needs to be careful not to mix the two groups. He stated that many companies are preying on economic empowerment applicants to do this; this needs to be reviewed. He spoke about his concern about the natural roll overs of the RMDs. He stated that there is an injustice here because in the medical conversation there was never any conversation about equity. He added that black doctors never had an opportunity to jump into the medical business. He stated that Cambridge needs to tackle this in a different way because it mixes the playing field differently especially where Boston and Somerville have said no to this. He stated that as kids from Cambridge this is an opportunity of a life time and will change his life and his family by being part of this emerging industry by owning their own cannabis business. He noted that when Colorado rolled out this there were 750 licenses granted and one was a minority-controlled license. He spoke about who will benefit from this ordinance if this is not done right. It will be the big conglomerates and the big companies.

Marvin Gilmore, 26 Mt. Vernon Street, stated that he is 95 years old and has worked for freedom in life. He stated that Cambridge has been his home for ninety years. He outlined the events of his life beginning with World War II. He stated that he is an honored World War II veteran. He stated that despite is honorable service, at the end of the war when he planned to depart from Scotland to return home he was denied passage on the military ship with all white fellow soldiers. He came back home on a small tug boat. He began his work as a local pioneer in business. In 1960 he was the first African American to hold a beer and wine license in the City of Cambridge. In 1968 he became the first African American to hold a full liquor license in the City of Cambridge. In 1969 he opened and created the first full service black owned bank, the Unity Bank and Trust in Boston. In 1973 began his tenure as President and CEO and throughout the years worked tirelessly to bring economic development opportunity and jobs to Cambridge and Boston. He stated that in 1987 he was the key developer of the old Hyde Shoe Company at 432 Columbia Street. He spoke about a grant that established the Cambridge Business Center creating office incubator space. He stated that from the moment he landed in Boston he had a vision for his community, particularly communities of color. His vision if for greater economic opportunity for people of color and people of color taking responsibility for their community. In 2019 he stated that his community is still being left out of the opportunities. He stated that the emerging cannabis industry in Cambridge he finds himself as a crusader in a new fight. He stated that he is chairman of the Western Front LLC, a certified economic empowerment applicant under the Cannabis Control Commission. He stated that he is struggling to enter the emerging cannabis industry. He spoke about the cannabis industry being influenced by big companies. He explained that he was competing for a cannabis location on Church Street and was outbid by the “big boys.” He stated that this industry if off on the wrong foot. He stated that today there is an opportunity to bring equity and fairness to this process. He stated that including social equity applicants in the ordinance an additional barrier of competition is being added for economic empowerment applicants that already have a steep mountain to climb. He recommended that the barrier be removed, and that preference be given to local residents, women and minorities.

Dawn Duncan, 67 Adams Street, stated that she is the Co-Founder of the Marijuana Economic Empowerment Coalition. She stated that this is a group of economic empowerment, social equity and minority applicants in the cannabis industry that was formed to represent an alliance of people disproportional impacted by the war on drugs. The makeup of the coalition includes many individuals and small businesses that can continue to be impacted by major obstacles that are keeping individuals from launching their cannabis businesses. She stated that this is troubling because many of the members are economic empowerment applicants designated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and among the first businesses approved for priority review by the Cannabis Control Commission a year ago. She stated that the priority review status is in effect meaningless unless municipalities make a deliberate effort to priority equity in the cannabis industry. She had several recommendations to be considered (ATTACHMENT E).

Winter Brown stated that he is also prior military and an avid non-smoker and favored the economic empowerment groups. He spoke about the story of Mr. Gilmore and that we need to go in that same direction. Mr. Gilmore’s story and others are what modeled this country. He stated that is what he signed up to fight for the US. He stated that many immigrants came to this country with nothing and fought for this country. This is an opportunity to right the wrongs. We need to stick to what this country stands for; think about the war on drug and the families that were ripped apart. He spoke about empowering the families to be able to have more and bring all up to lead the way in the economic empowerment fight.

Camilo Basto, ABG Realty, 307 Cambridge Street, spoke about the landlord side if the cannabis businesses fail they have gotten a brand new building that has been completely demolished and rebuilt. There will be a better clientele into the location that will be rented at a higher rate. He stated that if these businesses fail there are other options; there will not be vacant stores. If you want to give empowerment to these individuals the City should consider removing RMDs from the process for a few years because this will force these players to then participate with the economic empowerment applicants and provide them with funding to go for the license. If RMD are given retail licenses they are the most connected businesses in the state. These economic empowerment applicants do not have the capital for the cultivation and the product will need to be sourced from somewhere and this will be from Revolutionary Clinics and the big companies have the funding to do the cultivation.

Taba Moses, 73 School Street, CEO, Green Soul Organics, spoke about all the small businesses in the City and all were not owned by minorities. He spoke about the gentrification of his neighborhoods and the destabilization of the community. He added that the Central Square used to be a walkthrough and the epitome of an empowerment zone when he was a kid. He stated that growing up the only access he had was to the YMCA. He stated that there was never access to Harvard or MIT. He stated that minorities have been denied access, opportunity to learn, to public accommodations and the right voting. He spoke about cannabis and revitalization of the community, workforce development for minorities and access to a quality public education that will give a chance to take advantage of all jobs and opportunities that this growing and emerging industry is going to bring. He stated that Kendall Square was a land fill and now is the most innovative space and no minorities from the neighborhood has a job in Kendall Square. He asked what the opportunity structure for minorities is attempting to enter the cannabis business, what is the community benefit behind allowing marijuana companies and RMDs entering into the recreational market in the City ahead of economic empowerment applicants. He asked how many minority owned businesses does Central Square currently have. He stated that he only knows of one, La Fabrica. He added that to allow RMDs to open in the best locations in Cambridge before economic empowerment applicants would be a disservice to the community. He stated that making it easier for RMD to quality as priority applicants after they have an advantage does not make sense. He cautioned about creating loopholes for social equity applicants that allow big business to circumvent the system. He added that an individual could be a social equity applicant that owns 51% of your company and still have no control of the board of directors based on the operating agreement.

Will Justice, stated that he is a convicted felon and he cannot own anything. He is left out of the process as a legality issue where the thieves get to run everything. The hypocrisy of this and residents are being pushed out of the neighborhood. He stated that he cannot enter this business because he has a record because of racism and many minorities take the deals because of the light at the end of the tunnel. He spoke about paying debt to society and cannot enter this opportunity and enter this market and benefit from this legally. He stated that this is a problem. He stated that there is no redemption for those who have committed a crime. The war on drugs was a war on his community. We are disrespected as a people and a blind eye is turned to what is being experienced.

Cosar Mohammed, stated that she is an economic empowerment applicant, and this means nothing more than priority review of your applicant. This is not equity and is not equal footing in the market. The criteria of economic empowerment are because we are minorities and affected by the war on drugs. She stated that because economic empowerment applicants lack financially behind and there is no loan. She stated that there is nothing tangible; no financial aid or loan. There are a lot of obstacles to jump through. The host agreement is another obstacle and is the most difficult to get. She spoke about the buffer zone and giving exceptions to economic empowerment applicants. She stated that she is glad that Cambridge is receptive. This opportunity, the green economy, is something that needs to be protected and we are not prepared and as able as others, so a timeline is needed. She stated that we cannot be bottom feeders again and do not need to be employed for a minimum wage.

Mayor McGovern announced that all who spoke in public comment were requested to stop at the three minutes except for Mr. Gilmore who deserved more time. He stated that the rules do not allow going back and giving people more time to speak in public comment.

A Misatook Native spoke that a public notice was put out in 1974 that a Medford’s first-born king was born. He stated that he is a direct descendant of Squaksakum. He stated that he is a Mikma Massachusetts. There is a treaty. Any regulations regarding us doing businesses with others like the town of Cambridge. His ancestors signed over a deed and he would like to do business with these individuals who need assistance and partnership. This is an opportunity to partner in a way as emerging native beings to come back to the table and have come a long way.

CL Spencer stated that it is important for economic empowerment applicants to have a timeline that is detailed and point of contact people that will help with fund raising to help construct a business plan. He wanted to put this out here. It is necessary to put economic empowerment applicants first and it will not hurt the RMDs at all.

On a motion by Mayor McGovern public comment was closed at 8:49pm.

Mayor McGovern stated that there are many interesting comments. He wanted to better understand what can be done legally. He spoke about those with a felony record and he does not know if the City has any power over this or if it is a state issue. He stated that RMDs cannot be denied by state law. Somerville put this in their ordinance and this will end up in court. He wanted guidance from the Law Department. He heard about support for economic empowerment applicants with loans and training and he does not know if this fits into zoning. He stated that the zoning is about where establishments can locate. He stated that support for these businesses needs to show up somewhere and if not in the ordinance it may be done other ways. He asked why loans could not be given to these businesses. Where will this appear, he does not know if it fits into the ordinance. He wanted the ordinance in place so that businesses can open. He stated that this needs to be moved along. He asked how we can support these businesses so that they can open.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that regulations need to be promulgated afterwards to support the applicants. She spoke about an alternating scheme. If one RMD opened who wants to convert be the establishment that got their license first and wait for economic empowerment applicant. She wanted to be creative to consider an alternating scheme. Mayor McGovern stated his concern with the alternating scheme and if it takes a year for economic empowerment applicant to open after the RMD opens then the RMD has a monopoly in the City of Cambridge. He hears what Somerville is doing is not legal and needs this information first.

Councillor Zondervan stated that we are here to address the concerns and are operating within the constraint of the law. He clarified some things. He stated that the buffer zone exemptions for economic empowerment applicants is the law in the zoning as of Apr 20, 2019 because the economic empowerment and social equity applicants are the only ones who can operate within the 1800 feet buffer zone. He spoke about not giving economic empowerment applicants and the social equity applicants equal preference. He read the eligibility criteria for social equity applicants. The social equity program created by state is intended to address some of the inequities that have been presented. He stated that the City Council is trying to balance all this in the ordinance. He stated that to exclude social equity applicants how would this be fairer. He wanted to stick with the definition of equity applicants in Group A. He stated that regarding RMDs it is unclear if the City Council can deny the conversion to adult retail cannabis. The Law Department will tell this. He stated that there needs to be a clear distinction in ordinance between equity and non-equity applicants to create a clear advantage for the equity applicants and create an incentive for other players in the industry who do not qualify to invest their money with equity applicants as the only way to do business in the City of Cambridge.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about the need for clarity on delaying existing RMDs from converting. There are only three currently open, (Harvard Square, between Harvard and Central Square and in Alewife) and serving medical patients and would these be the Priority B dispensary because they have been serving medical patients and those with a Special Permit and have not opened by the time this ordinance becomes law who have to get in line behind economic empowerment applicants. She asked if there is a way to achieve equity.

Councillor Carlone anything the City can do to help small businesses is what Cambridge is about. This is a new industry and new wealth. The licenses should be for the other side of the economic spectrum from the existing. This business will take off and big business goes after small business and how can this be limited.

Councillor Kelley captured the high points given an imperfect state law and struggling to make it work as best as possible. The points that need clarification from the Law Department or City staff are as follows:

Can the two-year time limit be eliminated, or can this be changed;
Can the City set aside shelf space for any type of applicant as part of the community host agreement;
What can community impact fees be used for such as legal assistance, low interest loans, help with lease agreements;
What happens if the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance is not passed.

Mr. Goldberg responded to this that the zoning will take effect; applicants will need a Special Permit and a host community agreement and will not be required to obtain a Cannabis Business Permit.

What is the role of the host community agreement and how much flexibility is needed to guide what companies do and how they are issued needs to the clarified;
If not all of the existing licenses are granted how are they chosen from those that already exist;
Can Group A be expanded to focus on women, minorities and residents in a neighborhood revitalization area;
Can there be residential time limits, can income limits be set for women, minorities and residents in a neighborhood revitalization area;
Can improper sales be dropped from three to one as a basis for permit revocation;
Can sections 2 and 3 in 5.50.050 be altered or eliminated relating to the board of directors and the employee make up, can there be a compliance time, and can this be phased in, is this legal;
How many establishments can one owner own; can this be limited in the City of Cambridge;
Clarify the amount of discretion the City Manager has with the host community agreement;
Can we avoid setting up economic empowerment and social equity applicants for competition between them;
Can the felony issue be eliminated or changed, need legal advice;
Review after a certain period of time, testing policy and evaluation;
Criteria and/or regulation on economic empowerment and social equity establishments so that there will not be three establishments in a block;
Can the City specify criteria for priority applicants and state that anyone who does not meet this criterion will not get a license?

Councillor Zondervan spoke about excluding non-priority applicants forever and if the definitions are clear as to who is and who is not a priority applicant and would include the existing RMDs and it is questionable whether the existing RMDs can be excluded and then include the other equity criteria that is in the law and discussed. May the City not provide a license to anyone who does not qualify as a priority applicant. The question to the Law Department is can we do this. If the City can, does this address some of the concerns heard tonight.

Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted to get the requested information from the Law Department for clarification on the items discussed. He requested that staff start on this as soon as possible as all members wanted answer to the questions.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is a challenging issue.

The following communication was received from Josia Gertz DeChiara in support of the six points made by Saskia James (ATTACHMENT F).

Councillor Kelley and Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 9:16pm.

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

AWAITING REPORT LIST
16-26. Report on the possibility of the City Council implementing a zoning change, on the permitting of all new restaurants where a wood-fired oven is used as a significant method of food preparation. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-5) from 4/4/2016

16-42. Report on plans for the former Riverside Community Health Center on Western Avenue, including transfer of ownership of the building to the City and the process for determining future usage. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Vice Mayor McGovern (O-1) from 5/2/2016

16-83. Report on drafting possible legislation and other recommendations for interim actions to identify and address the public health impacts of any commercial wood-fired ovens. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Mayor Simmons (Calendar Item #4) from 10/31/2016

16-101. Report on the potential of building below market rental housing on City-owned parking lots along Bishop Allen Drive. On a communication from Councillor McGovern requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons (O-4) from 12/12/2016

16-108. Report on whether people displaced and qualify for Emergency Status who are using Section 8 in other cities or towns can retain their resident preference for the purpose of Inclusionary Housing. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toomey (O-4) from 12/19/2016

17-22. Report on the potential growth of next-generation wireless technology in the City, to include: the expected footprint of citywide coverage from just one company and what market competition might produce; the integration of public and private infrastructure to support the network; what local standards the City might hope to maintain relative to aesthetics and safety; and how this new technology fits into our Broadband access plans. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Cheung, Councillor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-14) from 2/27/2017

17-87. Report on a schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates clearer wording and/or more clearly explains each section in less technical jargon and is more coherent in its entirety, with the goal of seeing such an Ordinance adopted by the end of this City Council term. On a communication from Councillor Kelley and Councillor Devereux requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Devereux (O-8) from 9/18/2017

18-6. Report on information regarding electronic device usage by City-elected officials.
Councillor Toomey (O-7) from 1/22/2018

18-15. Report on any other relevant City Department to gain a sense of who is purchasing buildings in Cambridge.
Councillor Simmons (O-3) from 2/5/2018

18-21. Report on the feasibility of initiating a formal transit study and action plan of the Alewife area in response to unanimous concerns of the Envision Alewife Working Group.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Siddiqui (O-7) from 2/26/2018

18-37. Report on the possibility of accepting the City of Boston's invitation to join their intergenerational housing pilot program. See Mgr #20
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey (O-1) from 3/26/2018

18-38. Report on inventory of all City-owned vacant buildings and lots and the City's plans for them, if any.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui (O-2) from 3/26/2018

18-44. Report on ensuring an additional commitment of $20 million from the City’s budget is devoted over the next five years toward the City’s efforts to preserve and create affordable housing units.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui (O-6) from 4/23/2018

18-53. Report on an updated schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates suggestions from the Light Cambridge Committee by June 11, 2018.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-1) from 5/14/2018

18-60. Report on a small business parking pilot that would allow temporary on-street employee parking during typical daytime operating hours.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #1) from 5/14/2018

18-66. Report on establishing a Young Adult Civic Unity Committee to be modeled after the Citizen Civic Unity Committee and to recruit applicants from all across the community and across all socio-economic backgrounds.
Councillor Simmons (O-7) from 6/18/2018

18-68. Report on determining the permitting and legality issues of Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing in the City of Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Zondervan (O-11) from 6/18/2018

18-73. Report on establishing and implementing a dynamic new initiative that will seek to place Port residents (ages 18 and over) on paths to jobs with family-sustaining wages.
Councillor Simmons (O-6) from 6/25/2018

18-83. Report on an action plan to work with the City’s Community-Based Organizations to create a network of summertime evening programming to reduce the threat of violence in the City’s public spaces in 2019 and beyond.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Mallon (O-9) from 7/30/2018

18-87. Report on the navigational editing capabilities of the City of Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-16) from 7/30/2018

18-90. Report on the feasibility of establishing a crosswalk at the intersection of Soden Street and Western Avenue. See Mgr #14
Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #3) from 9/24/2018

18-93. Report on the sale of The Constellation Center's Parcel C in Kendall Square.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Toomey (Calendar Item #7) from 9/24/2018

18-96. Report on how the City views internet-based platforms as opportunities for outreach and communication and what sort of guidelines have been, or are being, developed to help everyone understand how the City’s various departments do or do not utilize these communication resources and how any communications on these platforms are managed so that the messaging and information is kept up-to-date.
Councillor Kelley (Calendar Item #10) from 9/24/2018

18-100. Report on taking all possible immediate actions to preserve and restore Linear Park.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Kelley (O-3) from 9/24/2018

18-107. Report on prioritizing the Public Safety outreach measures in the FY20 budget.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Simmons (O-5) from 10/15/2018

18-108. Report on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee Elections.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui (O-1) from 10/29/2018

18-119. Report on evaluating the existing capacity of fire stations in the Kendall Square area and whether a new fire station is needed, and if so, determining the feasibility of locating a plot of land for this use.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-2) from 11/5/2018

18-122. Report on the possibility of posting a "no trucks" sign on Hancock Street. See Mgr #15
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui (O-3) from 11/19/2018

18-123. Report on ensuring funding for our municipal media services.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern (O-9) from 11/19/2018

18-127. Report on providing a timeline when the City Council can expect to receive the draft zoning and public health regulations for urban farming. See Mgr #19
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan (O-1) from 11/26/2018

18-129. Report on conducting a comprehensive, independent planning, and parking study of the neighborhood and use of the First Street Garage within 6months.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (Calendar Item #1) from 11/19/2018

18-130. Report on working with the Chair of the Civic Unity Committee, the Director of the Cambridge Library, the Director of 22-CityView, the Director of the Women’s Commission, and any other appropriate City personnel to begin planning for a public discussion in recognition of 100 Years of Women’s Suffrage.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-3) from 12/3/2018

18-132. Report on the negative traffic impact regarding the Davis Square Neighborhood Plan.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-5) from 12/3/2018

18-134. Report on creating a more inclusive city website, including an Open Meeting Portal registration form that does not require the use of gendered pronouns, salutations or titles.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon (O-11) from 12/3/2018

18-137. Report on reviewing the FCC Regulations on Small Cell Technology.
Vice Mayor Devereux (O-18) from 12/3/2018

18-138. Report on Improving Pedestrian Safety and all relevant traffic calming measures to reduce speeding, implementing different paving surfaces, narrowing traffic lanes, installing pedestrian crossing placards affixed to the ground and adding raised intersections.
Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-1) from 12/10/2018

18-139. Report on the possibility of planting a substantial-sized tree at the corner of Inman Street and Massachusetts Avenue, directly on the front lawn of City Hall.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-2) from 12/10/2018

18-140. Report on updating the Table of Uses and determining the frequency of regularly updating the Table of Uses.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui (O-1) from 12/17/2018

18-141. Report on safe way to bring power to the curb and across sidewalks to power electric vehicles.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-2) from 12/17/2018

18-143. Report on requiring a business entity's beneficial ownership and residential real estate beneficial ownership transactions be disclosed in all Cambridge real estate transactions.
Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-4) from 12/10/2018

18-144. Report on the process for obtaining and analyzing further detailed and specific eviction data. See Mgr #18
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone (O-6) from 12/17/2018

19-2. Report on allocating a percentage of hotel/motel tax revenue and adult use cannabis tax revenue to the arts in the FY20 budget.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-5) from 1/7/2019

19-3. Report on establishing a Central Square Improvement Fund and allocate no less than 25% of funds generated to the arts.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-6) from 1/7/2019

19-4. Report on the City's 1% for arts ordinance, which projects have met the threshold and which have fallen short, and whether it can be adjusted to account for ensuring that all mediums and disciplines of art, including live performance art, receive funding.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Simmons (O-7) from 1/7/2019

19-5. Report on how to provide public representation to the major project Selection Committees.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone (O-14) from 1/7/2019

19-7. Report on Boston’s Electric Vehicle Charging Station Home Rule Petition and propose similar language for the City Council to consider.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Carlone (O-2) from 1/14/2019

19-9. Report on determining what facilities, parking changes, and other improvements to the pavement conditions are possible to make Cambridge’s stretch of Webster Avenue a Complete Street. See Mgr #16
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui (O-4) from 1/14/2019

19-10. Report on establishing a system of information-sharing and/ or alternative method for making available that data which may be of beneficial use to the City in analyzing displacement. See Mgr #18
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Carlone (O-6) from 1/14/2019

19-11. Report on the feasibility of eliminating the use of plastic water bottles at City and School events.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Mallon (O-4) from 1/28/2019

19-13. Report on conferring with Eversource and the appropriate City departments to undertake a series of studies and analyses related to finance, health and safety, building design, and long-term electricity needs before the construction of a substation in East Cambridge.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toomey (O-3) from 2/4/2019

19-14. Report on conducting inventories of both local arts organizations and private foundations that may support them.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-4) from 2/4/2019

19-15. Report on the possibility of setting up an assistance fund/program to help low-income and/or elderly/disabled residents manage bed bug infestations.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan (O-9) from 2/4/2019

19-16. Report on the “Super Sunday” road race that was held on Feb 3, 2019 and if the proper procedures were followed in issuing permits and when/if the neighbors were notified.
Councillor Toomey (O-13) from 2/4/2019

19-18. Report on sharing regular project updates from the GSA and MITIMCO on the new Volpe Center.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-13) from 1/7/2019

19-20. Report on seeking additional funding for affordable housing concerns.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-6) from 2/11/2019

19-21. Report on the process for establishing a formal, thorough review of the City’s Affordable Home Ownership programs, incorporating a plan for obtaining and analyzing substantial quantitative data inclusive of all types of units.
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-3) from 2/25/2019

19-22. Report on the feasibility of allowing small businesses to host live acoustic music performances without a license, and if feasible, present the City Council with a proposal to allow such performances.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-5) from 2/25/2019

19-23. Report on amending the Zoning Ordinance “Table of Uses” to allow for lodging houses in Residential A1, A2, and B Zoning Districts and to determine what tax incentives could be utilized to assist in the conversion of single-family/multi-family houses into lodging houses.
Councillor Toomey, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor McGovern (O-7) from 2/25/2019

19-25. Report on information that is offered to limited equity condominium owners regarding the ability to recoup extraordinary repair and maintenance costs, the procedure that is in place to inform purchasers of existing or possible construction and maintenance issues that may result in higher-than expected condo fees, and the possibility of allowing roommates to cover unexpected expenses.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Simmons, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-10) from 2/25/2019

19-26. Report on communicating directly with the Volpe Center about the possibility of having their staff help the City set up a Micro-Mobility Pilot program in the Kendall Square area.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-11) from 2/25/2019

19-28. Report on expediting zoning based on the 2015 Commercial Land Use Classification Study and exploring the feasibility of hiring more zoning planners. See Mgr #19
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone (O-13) from 2/25/2019

19-29. Report on providing data on speed and vehicle counts on Garden Street between Concord Avenue and Linnaean Street and identify potential measures to improve its pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-2) from 3/4/2019

19-32. Report on the number of fines for failure to clear sidewalks issued from the winter of 2014-15 through the winter of 2018-19.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-4) from 3/18/2019

19-33. Report on updating the bike data count chart, along with other data tables and charts, in the Cambridge Bicycle Plan to reflect 2016 and 2018 data.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-9) from 3/18/2019

19-34. Report on how the data collected from the Broadway Eco-Display is used to inform the City’s transportation planning efforts and to address the possibility of installing additional Eco-Display counters at the highest trafficked bicycle locations to provide more comprehensive information about bike use and other vehicles such as scooters.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-10) from 3/18/2019

19-35. Report on the status of any micro-mobility pilot programs or partnerships in Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley (O-12) from 3/18/2019

19-36. Report on how the Parking and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance is being used anecdotally, what the participation rates and trends are, and how it’s administered.
Vice Mayor Devereux (O-17) from 3/18/2019

19-37. Report on moving a Transit Benefit Ordinance proposal to an action plan.
Vice Mayor Devereux (O-18) from 3/18/2019

19-38. Report on designating a staff member in the Economic Development Division as an "arts liaison."
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-2) from 3/25/2019

19-39. Report on creating a dedicated comprehensive "arts friendly" licensing web page.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-3) from 3/25/2019

19-40. Report on providing accessibility to the deaf community by hiring American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters and using apps such as Language Line Solutions to communicate with the deaf community in their first language.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Toomey (O-5) from 3/25/2019

19-41. Report on how Cambridge enforces moped registration requirements and the enforcement numbers.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Toomey (O-6) from 4/1/2019

19-42. Report on plans this construction season to install sidewalk markings that appropriately indicate what types of mobility devices are allowed on which sidewalks.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-7) from 4/1/2019

19-43. Report on the types of vendor reporting programs that the City uses and how they are used as well as the ability to modify these programs given the constraints of relevant state and federal laws and similar limitations.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui (O-8) from 4/1/2019

19-44. Report on installing more metered parking spots in business districts that do not currently have any.
Councillor Toomey (O-1) from 4/8/2019

19-45. Report on compiling a full accounting of streets, schools, and public buildings that may be named in honor of those who have ties to the American slave trade, and to work towards renaming all of these streets, schools, and buildings.
Councillor Simmons (O-4) from 4/8/2019

19-46. Report on reviewing whether the MBTA is out of compliance with the amended MBTA/BCIL settlement agreement through the delay in completion of the elevator replacement and concurrent hazardous condition of the stairwells related to Central Square.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon (O-9) from 4/8/2019

19-47. Report on increasing traffic monitoring resources at the intersection of Prospect and Broadway, especially during morning rush hour.
Councillor Mallon (O-12) from 4/8/2019

19-48. Report on working with the MBTA to do whatever is necessary to alleviate the Green Street bus idling and unhealthy situation.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-14) from 4/8/2019

19-49. Report on recommending restrictions on signage specific to retail establishments that sell e-cigarettes and other vaping devices.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-15) from 4/8/2019

19-50. Report on clarifying the policy around future installation of new LED street lights and replacement of failed 4000K LED street lights with warmer alternatives 3000K or less.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (O-17) from 4/8/2019