3. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the transfer of $2,000 from the General Fund Reserves Other Ordinary Maintenance Account to the General Fund Women’s Commission Department Other Ordinary Maintenance which will be used to cover the cost of the first phase of the Mapping Feminist Cambridge Project which will focus on Inman Square.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 [Kelley ABSENT]

June 3, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the transfer of $2,000 from the General Fund Reserves Other Ordinary Maintenance Account to the General Fund Women’s Commission Department Other Ordinary Maintenance.

The funds will be used to cover the cost of the first phase of the Mapping Feminist Cambridge Project which will focus on Inman Square. The goal is to have the maps printed in time for a summer launch, which is typically quieter for businesses, and because walking tours typically peak in the summer. The printing costs of these maps were not budgeted as part of the FY2019 adopted budget.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $20,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Public Celebrations Other Ordinary Maintenance account, to be used to help support the annual Cambridge Arts River Festival.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 [Kelley ABSENT]

June 3, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $20,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Public Celebrations Other Ordinary Maintenance account, to be used to help support the annual Cambridge Arts River Festival, specifically in the areas of sound reinforcement and stage and tenting rentals. Both expenditures are critical to the success of the festival production infrastructure as well as to the experience of both the approximately 400 participants, and over 175,000 attendees.

These two costs are typically the largest single costs associated with the festival related to external vendors. In addition, they are the most difficult to fundraise for given event sponsors are most eager to support participating artists and local organizations rather than the logistical expenses for the event. Historically, there have been major event sponsors who would contribute $10,000 - $25,000 for the opportunity to have a presence at the event and connect with audiences. More recently, we have attracted festival sponsors, but in a much lower financial range of between $2,500 - $5,000.

This amount is built into the FY20 budget to support the River Festival.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

2. Retirement of Mark McCabe from the Animal Commission.   Councillor Toomey, Councillor Kelley

R-2     June 3, 2019
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR KELLEY

WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of this City Council that Mark McCabe will be retiring as the Director of the Animal Commission after thirty-three years of dedicated service;

WHEREAS: Mark grew up in Cambridge on Cedar Street and is the distinguished graduate of Cambridge High and Latin; and

WHEREAS: Mark went on to study at the University of Massachusetts at Boston and earned his Bachelor of Science degree in biology; and

WHEREAS: Mark began his career working for W.R. Grace in Cambridge; and

WHEREAS: Mark was hired by the City on Mar 31, 1986, as the Director of the Animal Commission; and

WHEREAS: Mark has received numerous accolades for his exemplary work including the City of Cambridge Outstanding Employee Award in 1996; and

WHEREAS: Mark is a valued and knowledgeable collaborator who has worked closely with State and local officials on the “Animals in Hot Cars Bill” S.2369 which gives pets more protections from extreme heat and weather which was signed into law on Aug 25, 2016; and

WHEREAS: Mark holds the distinction of being in the first graduating class of the Animal Control Officers Association of Massachusetts (A.C.O.A.M) run by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council in 1988; and

WHEREAS: Mark has always handled his job with a great sense of professionalism and care; and

WHEREAS: Throughout his tenure, Mark has been a friend and mentor to current and past City staff, and will be dearly missed by his colleagues; and

WHEREAS: Over and above all his public works, Mark is a devoted family man, and is the loving husband of Deborah and the proud father of Marc, Rose and Laura; and

WHEREAS: The citizens and animals of Cambridge have benefited deeply from the hard work, commitment, and compassion of Mark McCabe; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record expressing its appreciation to Mark McCabe for his thirty-three years of dedicated service to the residents and to the City of Cambridge and wishing him much happiness in his retirement; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Mark McCabe on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-3     June 3, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Increasing the availability of affordable housing units is a major community need and a primary goal of the City Council; and
WHEREAS: As part of this goal, the City wishes to promote the creation of new affordable housing, and to support the efforts of affordable housing developers; and
WHEREAS: In the financing of an affordable housing construction project, there is typically a significant gap between a project’s building and operating costs and its available capital, which results from a number of factors, including lower anticipated rents or mortgage payments, limited ability to support loan payments, and scarcity of subsidies; and
WHEREAS: In order to help narrow that gap, costs such as building permitting fees and real estate taxes must be reduced for these projects; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge’s primary Building Permit Fee is higher than corresponding fees in neighboring municipalities, including Boston, which charges roughly half what Cambridge does; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City Solicitor, Inspectional Services Department and the Community Development Department to determine whether it is possible to reduce or eliminate Building Permit Fees for 100% affordable housing development projects, through an exemption or other means; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with City staff to determine what types of real estate tax abatements are possible for 100% affordable projects moving forward; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

O-5     June 3, 2019
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The Taxi industry is a crucial part of Cambridge’s transportation system; and
WHEREAS: Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) operate in Cambridge under a set of rules that unfairly advantage them over the local taxi industry; and
WHEREAS: TNCs create unique hazards to other road users in Cambridge because of their ubiquity, inconsistent driving patterns, the uncertainty of insurance coverage between trips, and similar challenges that present themselves in a more intense way in Cambridge than in the vast majority of the state; and
WHEREAS: TNCs are regulated through the State at the Department of Public Utilities, giving local jurisdictions little ability to manage these drivers, mitigate their negative safety impacts, and ensure appropriate insurance coverage; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to work with the local taxi industry and other interested parties to prepare a Home Rule Petition, using the attached language as guidance, for the City Council to submit to the State Legislature that would address these Cambridge-specific issues and give the City Council the ability to ensure TNCs operate in a safe and responsible manner; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter by the summer meeting July 29, 2019.

Note: The following language was provided by the Cambridge Taxi Drivers Owner Association

The number of TNC vehicles continues to overwhelm the City of Cambridge where congestion and safety have become major issues. The approval of the proposed Home Rule Petition will provide the authority to City of Cambridge to regulate and enforce regulations over TNC drivers/vehicles to address issues that are specific to Cambridge.

Summary of Proposed Home Rule Petition

Current law to be amended for Cambridge’s Home Rule Petition. Amendments are related to safety and liability:

1) Chapter 159A ½ Section 2 (b)
All vehicles picking up and dropping off riders in Cambridge are required to have additional vehicle markings (ie. bumper sticker with designated number and mounting of distinct rooftop light to be visible from all sides).

2) Chapter 159A ½ Section 2 (f)
As of Apr 1, 2019, all TNC vehicles require a TNC inspection to be performed at the same time as the MA annual emissions testing. Only vehicles that have completed this TNC inspection will be allowed to pick up in the City of Cambridge. A separate inspection sticker to be provided by the Inspection Station through the Registry of Motor Vehicles. This sticker is to be placed in the front windshield above the MA annual emissions inspection sticker.

3) Chapter 159A ½ Section 4 (b) (ii)
All vehicles picking up riders in Cambridge are required to be registered in the Commonwealth of MA (out of state vehicles will not be allowed to pick up).

4) Chapter 159A ½ Section 4 (b) (iv) and Chapter 175 Section 228
All vehicles picking up riders in Cambridge are required to provide to TNC proof of rideshare insurance endorsement to their personal auto policy on an annual basis (there is a gap in insurance coverage while the app is turned on and waiting for a ride request. Rideshare endorsement covers this gap and can be secured with personal auto policy).

Detail Amendments related to Home Rule Petition

1. Chapter 159A ½ Section 2 (b)
The intent for this amendment is to allow the City of Cambridge to require all vehicles picking up and dropping off riders in the City of Cambridge additional vehicle markings to be provided by the City of Cambridge or DPU in order to protect unsuspecting riders from fake TNC vehicles/drivers and bicyclists from TNC vehicle doors immediately opening after stopped in bike lanes. Additional vehicle markings will include a bumper sign with a designated number (to be placed on back passenger side bumper) In addition, a top light is required for all vehicles picking up and dropping off within the city limits.

Proposed Chapter 159A ½ Section 2 (b) for Home Rule Petition-
(b) In consultation with the registry of motor vehicles, the division shall provide for the establishment of removable decals to be issued by transportation network companies, in a form and manner prescribed by the division, to transportation network drivers to designate a vehicle as a transportation network vehicle for law enforcement and public safety purposes. The decal shall be applied to both the front and back panels of a vehicle at all times while the vehicle is providing transportation network services. A transportation network driver who provides transportation network services using the digital network of more than 1 transportation network company shall display the respective decals for each transportation network company while the vehicle is providing transportation network services. A transportation network driver who ceases to be certified to provide transportation network services for any reason shall return the decal within 14 days of that cessation to the respective transportation network company in the manner and form prescribed by the division. All vehicles picking up and dropping off riders in the City of Cambridge require additional vehicle markings (back passenger side bumper with designated number and rooftop light to be visible from all sides)

2. Chapter 159A ½ Section 2 (f)
The intent for this amendment is to allow the City of Cambridge to require all TNC vehicles registered in MA to obtain a TNC vehicle inspection at the driver’s next annual emissions testing or within one month of obtaining transportation network driver certificate, whichever comes first.

Proposed Chapter 159A ½ Section 2 (f) for Home Rule Petition-
(f) In consultation with state police, local law enforcement and the registry of motor vehicles, the division shall ensure the safety and annual inspection of transportation network vehicles, including a transportation network vehicle inspection pursuant to section 7A of chapter 90. A transportation network driver shall obtain a transportation network vehicle inspection at the driver's next annual emissions testing or within 12 months of obtaining a transportation network driver certificate, whichever comes first. For vehicles picking up riders in the City of Cambridge, Transportation network driver shall obtain a transportation network vehicle inspection at the driver's next annual emissions testing or within one month of obtaining a transportation network driver certificate, whichever comes first.

3. Chapter 159A ½ Section 4 (b) (ii)
The intent for this amendment to Section 4 (b) (ii) is to allow the City of Cambridge to require all vehicles picking up passengers in the City of Cambridge to be registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts only.

Proposed Chapter 159A ½ Section 4 (b) (ii) for Home Rule Petition-
(ii) has access to a vehicle that has been registered in the commonwealth and inspected pursuant to section 7A of chapter 90 and regulations promulgated under said section 7A of said section 90 at a facility licensed by the registry of motor vehicles; or has access to a vehicle that has been registered in another state, and the vehicle complies with the inspection requirement of the state where the vehicle is registered, except for all vehicles picking up riders in the City of Cambridge where vehicles registered in another state are not allowed to pick up riders.

4. Chapter 159A ½ Section 4 (b) (iv) and Chapter 175 Section 228
The intent for this amendment to Section 4 (b) (iv) is to allow the City of Cambridge to require all TNC drivers that want to pick up riders in the City of Cambridge to provide proof of a rideshare endorsement to their personal auto policy. Typically, TNCs, like Uber and Lyft, offer insurance protection once a driver logs into the app, but coverage is limited until a ride request has been accepted. A driver’s personal policy will usually have coverage exclusions during this period 1 as well. Rideshare insurance can fill these gaps in coverage.

Proposed Chapter 159A ½ Section 4 (b) (iv) for Home Rule Petition-
(iv) provides notice to all insurers of the vehicle that the applicant intends to use the vehicle to provide transportation network services, except in the City of Cambridge where drivers are required to provide proof of a ride share endorsement to their personal auto policy for the vehicle to be used to provide transportation network services; and such endorsement will cover the TNC driver and vehicle during Period 1 (TNC app is turned on and the driver is waiting for a ride request).

Proposed Amendment Chapter 175 Section 228 for Home Rule Petition-
(c) A transportation network driver who is logged onto the transportation network company's digital network and is available to receive transportation requests, but is not engaged in a pre-arranged ride shall have automobile liability insurance that provides per occurrence, per vehicle coverage amounting to at least $50,000 of coverage per individual for bodily injury, $100,000 of total coverage for bodily injury, $30,000 of coverage for property damage, uninsured motorist coverage, to the extent required by said section 113L, and personal injury protection, to the extent required by section 34A of chapter 90. The insurance may be held by the transportation network driver, the transportation network company or a combination thereof. In the City of Cambridge, drivers are required to provide proof of a ride share endorsement to their personal auto policy for the vehicle to be used to provide transportation network services;

---

CURRENT LEGISLATION FOR REFERENCE
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter159A1~2

Chapter 159A ½ Section 2: Jurisdiction of division; decals; insurance policy requirements; fare policies; safety inspections; accommodations for special needs riders; provision of driver identification to riders; electronic toll transponders; suspension or revocation of background check clearance certificate; judicial review

[Text of section added by 2016, 187, Sec. 4 effective Nov 3, 2016.]

Section 2. (a) The division shall have jurisdiction over transportation network companies to ensure the safety and convenience of the public, as expressly set forth in this chapter.

(b) In consultation with the registry of motor vehicles, the division shall provide for the establishment of removable decals to be issued by transportation network companies, in a form and manner prescribed by the division, to transportation network drivers to designate a vehicle as a transportation network vehicle for law enforcement and public safety purposes. The decal shall be applied to both the front and back panels of a vehicle at all times while the vehicle is providing transportation network services. A transportation network driver who provides transportation network services using the digital network of more than 1 transportation network company shall display the respective decals for each transportation network company while the vehicle is providing transportation network services. A transportation network driver who ceases to be certified to provide transportation network services for any reason shall return the decal within 14 days of that cessation to the respective transportation network company in the manner and form prescribed by the division.

(c) In consultation with the commissioner of insurance, the division shall implement the insurance policy requirements established in section 228 of chapter 175.

(d) A transportation network company shall provide clear and conspicuous transportation fare estimates to riders at all times, including during surge pricing, high volume and high demand times. Fare estimates shall include a clear rate estimate or the amount of the price increase resulting from surge pricing or increased demand.

(e) A transportation network company and driver shall not raise base fares during a federal or a governor-declared state of emergency.

(f) In consultation with state police, local law enforcement and the registry of motor vehicles, the division shall ensure the safety and annual inspection of transportation network vehicles, including a transportation network vehicle inspection pursuant to section 7A of chapter 90. A transportation network driver shall obtain a transportation network vehicle inspection at the driver's next annual emissions testing or within 12 months of obtaining a transportation network driver certificate, whichever comes first.

(g) The division shall ensure the accommodation of riders with special needs. A transportation network company shall not impose additional charges or increase fares when providing services to persons with disabilities and all transportation network drivers shall comply with applicable laws, rules and regulations relating to the accommodation of service animals.

(h) A transportation network company shall not be subject to the department's rate or common carrier requirements pursuant to chapters 159, 159A or 159B.

(i) A transportation network company shall provide a driver's name, picture and the license plate number of the vehicle in use to a rider on any digital network used to facilitate a pre-arranged ride.

(j) In consultation with the division, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation's highway division shall provide for the issuance of electronic toll transponders set at the commercial vehicle rate to be issued by transportation network companies to transportation network drivers. The electronic toll transponders shall be used each time a transportation network driver provides transportation network services on a toll road, bridge or tunnel; provided, however, that the issuance of an electronic toll transponder pursuant to this subsection shall not prohibit a transportation network driver from establishing or maintaining an electronic toll transponder account for personal use.

(k) In consultation with the division, a transportation network company shall provide its ride data to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and the department shall cross-reference that data with its toll data to ensure that tolls incurred by a driver providing transportation network services through a digital network are paid at the commercial rate through the pay by plate system and through the electronic transponder system.

(l) A transportation network company shall notify the division upon receipt of information that a driver utilizing its network has violated a law or rule or regulation related to the provision of transportation network services or that the driver is not suitable to provide transportation network services.

(m) If, after the division issued a background check clearance certificate, the division is notified by a transportation network company, law enforcement or government entity that a driver is unsuitable and the division verifies the unsuitability, the division shall immediately revoke or suspend the background check clearance certificate and shall notify the driver and each transportation network company who issued the driver a driver certificate that the background check clearance certificate has been revoked or suspended. The division shall issue rules and regulations to establish a process for a driver to appeal a revocation or suspension. The rules or regulations shall include an opportunity for a hearing.

A driver aggrieved by a final order or decision of the division pursuant to this subsection or subsection (d) of section 3 may institute proceedings for judicial review in the superior court within 30 days after receipt of such order or decision. Any proceedings in the superior court shall, insofar as applicable, be governed by section 14 of chapter 30A, and may be instituted in the superior court for the county: (i) where the parties or any of them reside or have their principal place of business within the commonwealth; (ii) where the division has its principal place of business; or (iii) of Suffolk. The commencement of such proceedings shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the division's order or decision.

Chapter 159A ½ Section 4: Transportation network driver certificates; posting in vehicle location visible to riders; driver qualifications; background checks; suspension of certificate; quarterly audit of transportation network company's driver certification and background check processes

[Text of section added by 2016, 187, Sec. 4 effective Nov 3, 2016.]

Section 4. (a) A driver who seeks to utilize the digital network of a transportation network company to provide prearranged rides shall apply to a transportation network company for a transportation network driver certificate. A person shall not provide transportation network services in the commonwealth without a valid background check clearance certificate and a transportation network driver certificate. The transportation network driver certificate shall be in a form prescribed by the division which shall include the name, picture of the driver and the license plate number of the vehicle in use and shall post a certificate for each transportation network company that has certified the driver in a location in the vehicle that is visible to the rider while transportation network services are being provided. A transportation network company shall not issue a transportation network driver certificate to a driver applicant unless the transportation network company has verified that the driver has received a background check clearance certificate from the division.

(b) At a minimum, and subject to such other requirements as the division may establish by regulation, a transportation network company shall only issue a transportation network driver certificate to a driver who:

(i) is at least 21 years of age;

(ii) has access to a vehicle that has been registered in the commonwealth and inspected pursuant to section 7A of chapter 90 and regulations promulgated under said section 7A of said section 90 at a facility licensed by the registry of motor vehicles; or has access to a vehicle that has been registered in another state, and the vehicle complies with the inspection requirement of the state where the vehicle is registered;

(iii) complies with insurance requirements established in this chapter or in section 228 of chapter 175;

(iv) provides notice to all insurers of the vehicle that the applicant intends to use the vehicle to provide transportation network services;

(v) is determined to be suitable to perform transportation network services pursuant to subsections (c) and (d);

(vi) does not appear on the National Sex Offender Registry;

(vii) has not had a conviction in the past 7 years for: (1) a sex offense or violent crime as defined in section 133E of chapter 127; (2) a crime under section 24 of chapter 90 or been assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court; (3) leaving the scene of property damage or personal injury caused by a motor vehicle; (4) felony robbery; or (5) felony fraud; and

(viii) has a driving record that does not include more than 4 traffic violations or any major traffic violation, as defined by the division of insurance, in the preceding 3 year period.

(c) Prior to providing transportation network services, a driver applicant shall be subject to a 2-part background check process to determine if the driver applicant is suitable. The transportation network company shall: (i) conduct a background check and disqualify applicants on the basis of a suitability standard to be determined in regulations promulgated by the division; and (ii) submit identifying information regarding an applicant to the division, which shall refer that information to the department of criminal justice information services, which shall obtain all available criminal offender record information, as defined in section 167 of chapter 6, and pursuant to section 172 of said chapter 6 and sex offender registry information.

(d) Not less than 2 times per year, the transportation network company shall conduct a background check pursuant to clause (i) of subsection (c) and shall immediately remove a driver from its digital network if the driver is found not suitable pursuant to the suitability standards to be determined in regulations promulgated by the division.

(e) The transportation network company shall immediately suspend a transportation network driver's certificate, and notify the division of the suspension, upon learning of and verifying a driver's arrest for a crime or a driver's citation for a driving infraction that would render the driver unsuitable to provide transportation network services. A transportation network company shall report such suspension, in a form and manner prescribed by the division, to the division, which shall ensure all transportation network companies that certified that driver take appropriate action. Any such suspension may be limited to the period of time necessary to determine whether continued provision of transportation network services by the driver is consistent with the public interest.

(f) In accordance with this section, the division shall quarterly audit the driver certification and criminal background check processes of a transportation network company. Non-compliance with this section shall constitute cause for the division to suspend or revoke a transportation network company permit pursuant to section 6.

Chapter 159A ½ Section 10: Taxation or additional requirements on transportation network companies by entities other than Massachusetts Port Authority prohibited

Section 10. Except where expressly set forth in this chapter, no municipality or other local or state entity, except the Massachusetts Port Authority, may: (i) impose a tax on or require any additional license for a transportation network company, a transportation network driver or a vehicle used by a transportation network driver where the tax or licenses relate to facilitating or providing pre-arranged rides; (ii) require any additional license for a transportation network company or transportation network driver; or (iii) subject a transportation network company to the municipality's or other local or state entity's rates or other requirements, including but not limited to entry or operational requirements; provided, however, that a municipality or other local or state entity may regulate traffic flow and traffic patterns to ensure public safety and convenience.

Chapter 175 Section 228: Transportation network drivers; insurance requirements

Section 228. (a) As used in this section, the words ''digital network'', ''division'', ''pre-arranged ride'' and ''transportation network company'' shall have the same definitions as set forth in section 1 of chapter 159A1/2 unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

(b) The insurance requirements in this section shall constitute adequate insurance for transportation network drivers and shall satisfy the financial responsibility requirement for a motor vehicle established by section 34A of chapter 90 and section 113L; provided, however, that the insurance requirements in this section shall only satisfy the financial responsibility requirements for a motor vehicle established by said section 34A of said chapter 90 and said section 113L with respect to the provision of transportation network services in a vehicle operated by a transportation network driver. A transportation network driver shall also comply with said section 34A of said chapter 90 and said section 113L and maintain insurance coverage for the vehicle during those periods of time when the vehicle is being operated, but is not providing transportation network services.

(c) A transportation network driver who is logged onto the transportation network company's digital network and is available to receive transportation requests, but is not engaged in a pre-arranged ride shall have automobile liability insurance that provides per occurrence, per vehicle coverage amounting to at least $50,000 of coverage per individual for bodily injury, $100,000 of total coverage for bodily injury, $30,000 of coverage for property damage, uninsured motorist coverage, to the extent required by said section 113L, and personal injury protection, to the extent required by section 34A of chapter 90. The insurance may be held by the transportation network driver, the transportation network company or a combination thereof.

(d) When a transportation network driver is engaged in a pre-arranged ride, the driver shall have automobile liability insurance that provides at least $1,000,000 in per occurrence, per vehicle coverage for death, bodily injury and property damage, uninsured motorist coverage, to the extent required by section 113L, and personal injury protection, to the extent required by section 34A of chapter 90. The insurance may be held by the transportation network driver, the transportation network company, or a combination thereof.

(e) In every instance where insurance maintained by a transportation network driver to fulfill the insurance requirements in subsections (c) and (d) has lapsed, failed to provide the required coverage, denied a claim for the required coverage or otherwise ceased to exist, insurance maintained by a transportation network company shall provide the coverage required by said subsections (c) and (d), beginning with the first dollar of a claim, and shall have the duty to investigate and defend that claim.

(f) Coverage under an automobile insurance policy maintained by the transportation network company shall not be dependent on a personal automobile insurer first denying a claim nor shall a personal automobile insurer be required to first deny a claim.

(g) Insurance required by this section shall be placed with an insurer authorized to do business in the commonwealth or, if such coverage is not available, from any admitted carrier, then with a surplus lines insurer eligible pursuant to section 168.

(h) Insurers that write automobile insurance may exclude any and all coverage afforded under the policy issued to an owner or operator of a vehicle for any loss or injury that occurs while a driver is providing transportation network services or while a driver provides a pre-arranged ride. This right to exclude all coverage may apply to any coverage included in an automobile insurance policy including, but not limited to: (i) liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage; (ii) personal injury protection coverage as defined in section 34A of chapter 90; (iii) uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage; (iv) medical payments coverage; (v) comprehensive physical damage coverage; and (vi) collision physical damage coverage.

Such exclusions shall apply notwithstanding any requirement of said section 34A of said chapter 90 and section 113L. Nothing in this section implies or requires that a personal automobile insurance policy provide coverage while the transportation network driver is logged on to the transportation network company's digital network, while the transportation network driver is engaged in a pre-arranged ride or while the transportation network driver otherwise uses a vehicle to transport riders for compensation.

Nothing shall preclude an insurer from providing coverage for the transportation network driver's vehicle if the insurer so chooses to do so by contract or endorsement.

Automobile insurers that exclude the coverage described in this section shall not have a duty to defend or indemnify any claim expressly excluded by a policy. Nothing in this section shall invalidate or limit an exclusion contained in a policy, including any policy in use or approved for use in the commonwealth before the enactment of this section that excludes coverage for vehicles used to carry persons or property for a charge or available for hire by the public.

An automobile insurer that defends or indemnifies a claim against a transportation network driver that is excluded under the terms of its policy shall have a right of contribution against other insurers that provide automobile insurance to the same transportation network driver in satisfaction of the coverage requirements of this section at the time of loss.

(i) The commissioner of insurance, in consultation with the division of transportation network companies established in section 23 of chapter 25, shall issue an annual report concerning the coverage minimums required for transportation network vehicles during the period of time where the transportation network driver is logged onto the digital network but is not engaged in a pre-arranged ride. The report shall include, at a minimum: (i) an examination, based on actuarial data, of whether the existing coverage requirements provide adequate protection for riders, transportation network drivers and the general public; (ii) whether it is presently feasible for a transportation network company to obtain an insurance policy providing coverage of $1,000,000 per occurrence, per vehicle during the relevant time period; (iii) if such a policy is available, whether the coverage minimums should be raised so that all transportation network vehicles carry $1,000,000 of coverage per occurrence, per vehicle, at all times while operating as a transportation network company; (iv) whether a strategy can be developed to raise the coverage requirements during this period through the use of admitted motor vehicle insurance carriers, the surplus lines market and technological innovations in the insurance industry such as the use of telematics to improve risk assessment; and (v) any recommended action by the division of insurance, the division of transportation network companies established in said section 23 of said chapter 25, the legislature or other government entity that would encourage the insurance market to provide policies with higher insurance limits while transportation network companies are not engaged in a pre-arranged ride.

The commissioner of insurance shall file an annual report detailing any recommendations together with actuarial analysis with the clerks of the senate and house of representatives, the chairs of the house and senate committees on ways and means and the chairs of the joint committee on financial services not later than February 15.

O-6     June 3, 2019
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The Housing Committee began holding hearings on the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal in March of 2019; and
WHEREAS: The Overlay was the topic of 5 Housing Committee hearings, which spanned until mid-April of 2019; and
WHEREAS: Although two of the Housing Committee hearings were focused exclusively on public comment and were valuable for resident feedback, committee hearings do not provide a platform for dialogue between residents with questions and concerns to get responses directly from Community Development Department staff; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has received emails from hundreds of residents who have questions about the Overlay, and many are looking for a reliable source for additional information about the proposal; and
WHEREAS: The City should be providing a venue outside of committee hearings and Council meetings for residents to directly interact with Community Development Department staff, and content area experts who should be available to hear residents’ concerns and answer their questions directly; and
WHEREAS: Receiving well-informed citizen feedback on the Overlay proposal is critical for the Ordinance Committee in its work to potentially implement a proposal that is the best fit for Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The meetings would be scheduled to happen in tandem with the Ordinance Committee hearings to get immediate feedback; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Community Development Department to set up a series of informational and interactive community engagement meetings on the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal with the goals of: presenting accurate and up-to-date information to residents, fostering a dialogue between residents and City Staff, answering residents’ questions, and gathering resident feedback to strengthen the proposal; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager work with the Community Development Department to ensure that these meetings are hosted in a variety of Cambridge neighborhoods, include local content area experts, and that sufficient community outreach is conducted prior to each event; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager work with the Department of Human Services to ensure that childcare is provided at each meeting; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council on this matter as soon as possible.

O-8     June 3, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Cambridge’s Net Zero Action Plan calls for a stakeholder review every five years; and
WHEREAS: The plan was adopted in 2015, and hence the first review process should take place in 2020; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on the timeline and process for the creation of a stakeholder group to conduct the review, as well as any other details on the process by which the quinquennial review will be conducted in 2020; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter by Sept 16, 2019.

O-9     June 3, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MALLON
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: At the May 21, 2019 City Council Health and Environment committee hearing on the FY18 Net Zero Action Plan progress report, several long-anticipated policy proposals were discussed; and
WHEREAS: These proposals include amendments to Article 22 of the zoning code to raise the highest required design standard to LEED Gold (plus energy points) and to create more generous exemptions when retrofitting existing buildings with additional exterior insulation; and
WHEREAS: Also discussed was a framework proposal for amendments to the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance (BEUDO) and a rooftop solar requirement; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to present available draft amendments to Article 22 to the City Council for discussion in committee immediately, in anticipation of an ordination process this summer; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the draft framework proposal and timeline for amendments to BEUDO, as well as the draft language for rooftop solar by Sept 2, 2019 for discussion in committee, in anticipation of an ordination process next year.

O-10     June 3, 2019  Amended
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: Jerry’s Pond is a historically and culturally significant body of water to North Cambridge residents and the wider Cambridge community; and
WHEREAS: Jerry’s Pond’s restoration continues to be an issue of health equity, social equity and environmental justice in Cambridge, as it is the closest green space to approximately 3,500 - 4,000 Cambridge residents living in affordable housing along Rindge Avenue, including at the three Rindge Towers and Jefferson Park, and is perceived to be an environmentally unsafe and contaminated area; and
WHEREAS: Although the topic of restoring the site itself continues to be highly-scrutinized, and residents and community organizations have disagreed on what intervention approach should be taken, if any, the City has an obligation at minimum to maintain the area around Jerry’s Pond, including the Russell Field and Park; and
WHEREAS: This should include taking steps to improve the surrounding landscape, and ultimately revitalize the area so that it may once again be a community asset for the thousands of Cambridge residents who live nearby, as well as those daily commuters experiencing the area via the adjacent Red Line, Minuteman Bikeway, Rindge Avenue and Alewife Brook Parkway; and
WHEREAS: Such achievable steps identified by residents and community advocates might be inclusive of, but not limited to, the following:

• Installing such fixtures as a sign identifying “Jerry's Pond”, to be located at the parking lot near the Rindge Avenue Bus Stop, a kiosk describing the history and key aspects of Jerry's Pond, to be either co-located or perhaps combined with the sign noted above [see attached Photo A], as well as two or three benches overlooking the pond, also located by the Rindge Avenue Bus Stop and parking lot;

• Repairing the detention pond, located near the parking lot and native planting bed;

• Tree planting along the paths surrounding Jerry’s Pond [see attached Photos CI, identifying spaces for ~15-20 additional trees in the Jerry’s Pond perimeter area], on the islands located in the parking lot and next to the Field House, as well as along the path to the Russell T. Field;

• Assisting in urging the MBTA to replace the three dead sycamore trees located in the Russell T. Plaza [see attached Photo B];

now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Department of Public Works, the Community Development Department, and the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the feasibility of implementing the above suggested restoration projects in the area surrounding Jerry’s Pond, in order to make the Pond more accessible and inviting to the community, in line with requests noted in Policy Order #5, Nov 5, 2018; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the MBTA and investigate the removal of three dead sycamore trees located in the Russell T. Plaza; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

O-11     June 3, 2019  Amended
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Eversource has proposed expansions at 2 power transfer stations, Putnam Avenue and Alewife Substation, as well as a new transfer station on Fulkerson Street in East Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: These expansions will have significant impacts on residents including noise, roadwork disruption, and potential health and quality of life impacts; and
WHEREAS: The proposed expansions are necessary largely due to commercial development growth within the city; and
WHEREAS: The recently released IPCC report says we must reduce emissions by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 in order to avoid potentially civilization-ending climate impacts; and
WHEREAS: In 2017, the Cambridge City Council adopted a goal of achieving 100% renewable energy consumption by 2035; and
WHEREAS: The renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in Massachusetts ensures that currently only 14% of grid-supplied electricity is derived from renewable sources (primarily wind, solar and hydro), and is mandated to reach only about 35% by 2030, which means that continuing to increase our grid electricity consumption in Cambridge will continue to increase our greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them; and
WHEREAS: The city’s Net Zero Action Plan includes a variety of methods to reduce grid electricity consumption, including proposed updates to the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance (BEUDO) to mandate energy use reductions, strengthening green building requirements for large new construction, requiring rooftop solar PV for large new construction where applicable, and proposed new accommodations for retrofitting existing buildings with additional external insulation, among other things; and
WHEREAS: The King Open/Cambridge Street Upper School complex being constructed by the City will have no on-site fossil fuel combustion, achieving significant energy consumption reductions primarily through the use of geothermal heat pumps and solar PV; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge has achieved only 2% of our estimated solar PV potential thus far; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to obtain data from Eversource on electrical demand projections by year until at least 2030, including a breakdown of commercial vs residential demand growth, as well as a ten-year historical look back; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to work with Eversource to develop alternative strategies for accommodating growth that do not involve adding to our grid electricity consumption, and to evaluate additional ways to reduce electric demand, including quantifying the demand reduction potential of a rapid, full-scale deployment of local solar (PV/thermal) and geothermal potential, aggressive electricity demand management, rapid energy use reductions, widespread deep energy retrofits, and anticipated net zero building construction under the city’s Net Zero Action Plan; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter by September 2019.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Apr 23, 2019 at 3:00pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the Zero Waste Master Plan and ways to reduce single use plastics in Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux and Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Public Works Commissioner Owen O’Riordan; Deputy Public Works Commissioner John Nardone; Recycling Director Michael Orr; Rebecca Fuentes; Deb Albenberg, Waste Reduction Program, Public Works; John Fitzgerald, Environmental Services Manager, Public Works; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Cesar Navichoque and Robert Reich, 10 Buick Street, Boston; Judith Nathans, 177 River Street; Meera Singh, 8 Acacia Street; and Clint Richmond, Mass Sierra Club; Kirstie Pesci, Conservation Law Foundation.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and explained the purpose.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the City has worked on the Zero Waste Masterplan. Mike Orr gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT A). He gave an update on trash reduction. In 2018 there was 16.36 pounds per household per week reduction in trash. The Zero Waste Masterplan began in 2017. The Recycling Advisory Committee has provided input on the Zero Waste Masterplan. They are seeking input from the City Council. He spoke about the recommendations. The first is recommendation is organics and this will expand city recycling to 12,000 households. The next recommendation was trash and will continue to support reduction.

In 2019 mattress recycling began with the help of a grant. He stated that regarding curbside recycling the City will try to get more individuals to recycle the right materials. Close attention is being paid to textile recycling. Mr. Orr stated that the small recycling will be expanded in 2021. On Apr 11, 2019 the mattress recycling began, and 200 mattresses were collected, and 5 tons of waste has been diverted.

Ms. Albenberg stated that the one-year compost anniversary was celebrated. She provided an update. She stated that 7 tons were collected for an average daily collection and that 1800 tons has been collected and diverted since 2018. There has been 7.3% trash reduction. There are 25,000 individual households are eligible for the program in multi-family buildings. This will be increased to 13+ buildings and will begin in the fall of 2020. She spoke about the roll-out challenges and the needs. She stated that one community meeting will be held for each route. She stated that 8-10 tons are expected to be collected daily. She stated that the program will be evaluated before program is expanded.

Mr. Orr stated that the food disposal sites were reviewed to accommodate the amount of food collected. In the future for the organics roll-out the additional tonnage will make it challenging. He spoke about the Recycle Right Campaign and a 7% contamination goal for 2019 and he explained the steps taken to get to this goal. He highlighted all the ways that the information about the program was disseminated. Cartons and aseptic containers have been an issue and the state developed a universal recycling list. The bundle being rejected could cost $20,000 to send back to US from Indonesia. The aseptic containers and cartons are not considered a contamination under the current contract with Casella.

The small business recycling program launched in November 2018 with 123 business in the program. Mr. Orr spoke about single use plastic laws in other communities and highlighted the Brookline and the Berkeley, CA ordinances which become effective in 2020.

John Fitzgerald spoke about the market conditions in the recycling industry. The highest value is the smallest quantity items. He stated that since the Chinese markets closed to US recycling has no recycling value. This might force countries and industries to process these materials locally. There is a Chinese company that has purchased paper companies and these plants will accept, process and recycle mixed paper. He stated that there is a new plant in New Jersey that accepts glass. Someone is investing in recycling glass. This is the glass half full view. This will take 4-5 years to equal out. He stated that Boston is renegotiating its contract with Casella.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the City is paying $70 and Boston is paying $115.

Councillor Carlone asked if the most paper is made outside the country. Mr. Fitzgerald responded that recycled paper has been made in China but there is a renewed focus to perform these functions domestically.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about the outreach to CHA properties and asked if this information is in multiple languages. Mr. Orr stated that this is in one language but can be in other languages.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that this will make this more accessible. Councillor Siddiqui thanked Commissioner O’Riordan for the partnership with UTEC. Commissioner O’Riordan commented that this is an extraordinary organization.

Councillor Zondervan asked what accounts for the reductions seen. There is a sharp reduction in 2012 and it is increasing. Mr. Orr from duly to single stream recycling. Commissioner O’Riordan spoke about the increased contamination. Councillor Zondervan asked what will get to the goal. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that mattress, textiles and organics and various efforts need to be well established in the community before moving to the next.

Councillor Zondervan asked about the right sized containers. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that a survey was done to get the appropriate size and 32 gallons is the appropriate size, but many households need larger. There are incentives to use organics and recycling containers. He stated that the Public Works employees have an issue with lifting trash and tippers, so the size is being used to protect the health of employees. Councillor Zondervan asked how this relates to the blue totes. The blue totes come in 65-, 48- or 32-gallon sizes. Mr. Nardone stated that the Rubbermaid are about 50 gallons.

Councillor Kelley asked how does this work with the bargaining units. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that it is more about the routes and the traffic and this is not a game changer for union negotiation. Councillor Kelley stated that trash pickup cannot be changed without conversation with bargaining units. Mr. Nardone responded that trash and compost pickup is in-house, on the table and within the contract. Commissioner O’Riordan state that this is in the contract and does not take into consideration the material.

Councillor Zondervan asked what the holdup is. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that it is about establishing the program and the ordinances also need to be reviewed and the City is driving towards organics.

To a request from Councillor Mallon Commissioner O’Riordan stated that all residents are required to recycle 150 gallons of trash per the ordinance. The ordinance needs to be updated.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the biggest issue is the recycling center location is unsafe and he is looking into a mobile site.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the New Street storage. Mr. Nardone stated that the city plows and park equipment are located at New Street.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is pushing for a masterplan for the City. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the City will continue to look into alternative sites.

Councillor Mallon spoke about the 2021-2022 small business compost pilot and wanted a small pilot. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this is huge undertaking in terms of capacity. It would have to be done by a private contractor. He wants to expand the recycling. He noted that survey work needs to be done for volume and an extra truck is $400,000. He stated that commercial recycling is important, but it is important to get to the residential households (12,000) additional households. Councillor Mallon stated that she wanted a report back on this.

Councillor Zondervan stated that more food waste is waste, and can the City assist the small businesses. Mr. Nardone stated that the City solicited a bid for recycling for small businesses, but it was big undertaking. He suggested using the business associations to see if there can be a better price.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked do we still have Save That Stuff bins. She asked can a small business use these. Mr. Nardone stated that they can bring items to the drop off center. Vice Mayor Devereux asked do small businesses know this. Mr. Nardone stated that he does not know.

Councillor Zondervan asked about sending part of the food waste to these facilities. Mr. Orr stated that it is an operational issue and there are complicated parts to this. Mr. Fitzgerald noted that there needs to be tolerance for the contamination and the smaller facilities cannot accept the contamination. Mr. Orr stated that Cambridge is the first city to enter into food waste. He spoke about strengthening the law for composting. Councillor Mallon spoke about the 2014 food waste ban. Mr. Orr stated that currently it is one ton per building.

Councillor Zondervan stated that banning single use plastic would reduce contamination. Mr. Orr stated that plastic bags and are used to bag waste. Councillor Zondervan stated that there is more trash reduction than the recycling side. Councillor Mallon asks what happens to plastic bags. Mr. Orr responded that they are bagged and sent to Casella and then sent to the recycling center.

Councillor Zondervan asked about the cartons and now they cannot be recycled. He added that changing the rules is confusing to all. How can we do this better. Mr. Fitzgerald responded that the City does not have control over this; it is the industry.

Councillor Zondervan asked about single use plastic and stated that the Berkeley law is a good model. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that there was task force 1.5 years before this was enacted. He suggested working with the Recycling Advisory Committee and engage the business community. Councillor Zondervan asked what time frame is and suggested discussing this and having a Policy Order requesting that the response be sent back to City Council.

Councillor Zondervan opened public comment at 3:56pm.

Judith Nathans, 177 River Street, stated that she is on the Recycling Advisory Committee and it is confusing with gallons versus pounds. This is 150 lbs. She stated that 50-gallon totters can hold 150 lbs. She stated that Somerville gave out 65-pound totters. She spoke about disposable food compost. It is biodegradable and will be thrown out in trash and burned in land fill. She added that #1-2 plastic is highly recyclable. She suggested getting to what is possible. We do not live in a world where there will never be any plastic.

Clint Richmond stated that he worked on plastic bag ban and represented the Sierra Club and it is harsher on single plastic. He urged banning altogether. He stated that the Berkeley Ordinance is a model and the City should be working towards this and upgrade bag and polystyrene. He stated that produce bags are important and are used the same as shopping bags. Retail sales of polystyrene should be banned. All replaceable should have a cycle of life. He stated that he likes the fee on cups in Berkeley. He stated that bottle water should be banned. He noted that soda bottles are banned in Martha’s Vineyard and nip bottles.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, stated keep an eye on endless inventions. He spoke about permanence. There are more important things to do. He urged figuring out the basic products and then move on.

Kirstie Pesci, Conservation Law Foundation, stated that Cambridge is a leader and has accomplished a lot. She stated that when one ordinance is enacted in other municipalities then this is how they become state laws. She stated that it is important to save money and the environment, but reduction is always at the top. She suggested incentivizing by going to a smaller bin and give a break on taxes. The last 20% would go away. She suggested dual stream and working with the haulers. Look at what is working and emulate this. Municipalities should not pay for this and producers and consumers should be paying for this. She commended Public Works.

Richard Nurse stated that for 45 years he has been a chemist, a plastics man. He admires what the City is doing and favored getting rid of plastic bags. He stated that there are 6 different bags and there are consequences for making each choice. He spoke about overcoming the negative impact of making cotton. He recommended a type of bag. He stated that NPR did an article on the unintended consequences of plastic bags.

Emmett Malik asked why Berkeley focused on food and Cambridge does not. He spoke about the number of events and restaurants and that this plastic goes into the waste stream.

Jason Toway stated that San Francisco can eliminate a large amount of compost waste. He suggested permitting and exploring work with different programs. As a consumer he stated that it is troublesome to be uncertain about what can and cannot be recycled.

Public comment was closed at 4:14pm.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked what about bottled water. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this response will be forthcoming. Vice Mayor Devereux asked how big an issue are Nips. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this is a litter issue. Councillor Kelley stated that this is a public health issue and a good idea to ban. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that it is good to ban produce bags. Consumers can be encouraged to use cloth bags and suggested doing this promotion to get this on consumers’ radar. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that paper bags have a fee and do not want to encourage plastic bags; strength was not good. He stated that the City will look into providing net bags for produce. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if produce bags should be banned at farmers markets. The City bags are recycled plastic.

Councillor Zondervan stated that reviewing the progress the City will exceed its goal in 2020 and where do we go from there; what is the plan. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that right sizing in the ordinance is the way to go. Councillor Zondervan asked if there is any incentive program to allow people to choose the size trash container they prefer because right sizing and the appropriate ordinance drives down trash considerably. He added that if only generating a little amount of trash he would only need a small container. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the City provided standardized trash containers is a deterrent on rodents. Mr. Orr stated that 70% of trash is not trash.

Councillor Carlone asked what can be advocated on the state level. He stated that in Germany there is an industrial approach. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the state’s goal is 30% by 2020 and it is not mandated.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that all goals are residential goals and if there is an ordinance or policy applied to commercial trash producers. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that recycling facilities in Boston handles construction debris. Mr. Fitzgerald commented that commercial cardboard is brought to the back end of the Casella plant. Mr. Orr stated that it is mandatory in the state to recycle. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that Public Works works with ISD so that recycling is done properly.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there is a minimum level to require commercial recycling. Mr. Orr responded 5% of recycling.

Councillor Carlone stated that special permits are required for new buildings and there should be a focus on this. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that moving forward this is provided for.

Councillor Mallon commented that with the household composing program and when food ban went into effect the behavior for food waste was changed and she suggested to use this as a learning moment. Food waste on residential and commercial side is a big thing. She did not want to lose the opportunity to educate the best way to throw food away.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the plastic soda and water ban in Martha’s Vineyard. He asked should Cambridge explore this because it will have an impact on recycling or a health impact.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the impact on building and then move on the next steps. This is an interesting item to explore. Councillor Zondervan stated that he wanted to look at the whole picture. He wanted to ban all the single plastic including bottles.

Councillor Zondervan and Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:33pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Co-Chair
Councillor Quinton Zondervan, Co-Chair

Committee Report #2
The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Mar 26, 2019 at 1:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss Cambridge’s Memorial Tree Program and ways to revitalize the program in order to increase participation citywide.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Vice Mayor Devereux; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner; John Nardone, Assistant Commissioner of Operations; Catherine Woodbury, Project Manager; Andrew Putnam, Superintendent of Forestry and Landscapes; David Webster, Superintendent of Parks, Department of Public Works (DPW); Dan Totten; Liz Walker; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present was Joan Krizack.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and read the Call of the Meeting.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the Committee received one communication from Catherine LeBlanc to be made part of the record (ATTACHMENT A).

Mr. O’Riordan gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation on the Memorial Tree Program (ATTACHMENT B).

Mr. O’Riordan stated that the City Arborist has managed this program. He said that he has found that people have an association with a particular location and there is generally a lot of conversation as it relates to the type of tree. He noted that in past, this has been a way of increasing trees as well as a way for people to dedicate something to a family member or loved one. He noted that unfortunately, there are only about 30 locations that have memorial trees.

Councillor Carlone asked Mr. O’Riordan about the cost of the corner signs that are dedicated to individuals throughout the city. Mr. O’Riordan responded that a street dedication sign costs about $1,000 if a DPW staff person does not do the work. Councillor Carlone asked if the family pays for this service. Mr. O’Riordan responded in the negative.

Councillor Carlone stated that in Vancouver, the city will not dedicate a tress unless it is at least two years old. He questioned if that is the case in Cambridge. Mr. O’Riordan responded that it is typical to lose 10% of the trees that are planted. He noted that the practice in the City is that a new tree is dedicated. Councillor Carlone asked Mr. O’Riordan if most of the dedicated trees are in a park setting or are they street trees. Mr. O’Riordan responded that most are street trees.

Councillor Siddiqui commented that she knew about this program before being on the City Council. She asked about other methods of informational outreach is undertaken, other than the City’s website. She asked if there are any direct outreach policies for this program. Mr. O’Riordan answered that outreach for this program has not been undertaken in the last five years.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that when a City Councillor requests a dedication for someone to have a bench as opposed to a corner, the initial response is that there is a cost for the dedication of a bench. She stated that there is not a cost for a street dedication sign. She said that when residents would like to memorialize a person, they have the option to have a no cost dedication or a dedication that does cost. She asked what the cost is to a resident who would like a commemorative plaque to be placed on an existing bench. Mr. O’Riordan responded that he cannot recall the cost of a plaque. He noted that there have been occasions in the past where the family wants a bench placed on a given street. He noted that there would be a charge for the bench.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that we must look at opportunities to get people to help meet the goals of the City. She asked if the goal is to help fund planting more trees with memorialization.

She said that this is a simple way to memorialize a person. Vice Mayor Devereux said that it does not appear that this program is well known or well subscribed to. Vice Mayor Devereux said that she had a friend who passed away in 1994 and there is supposedly a tree in his memory at Fresh Pond with no plaque. Mr. O’Riordan stated that other surrounding communities also have been challenged to get a program of this type off the ground. He noted that since the inception of the program there has not been an uptick in trees. He said that benches have been more successful.

Joan Krizack stated that while the Public Planting Committee has not had extensive discussion on this topic. She said that Commemorative Tree Program is underutilized, and every effort should be made to increase participation in this program. She said that funds in the City’s tree fund can cover the cost of these trees. She explained that the issue of publicizing the program has been discussed previously and the Tree Moratorium postcard was effective and could be used to emphasize this program. She noted that new tree wells should be made wherever possible and a fee could be charged to residents if a new well was needed. These commemorative trees, if in close proximity to where the purchasers of the trees are located, could be cared for by the purchaser or family member to eliminate work on the part of the DPW.

Councillor Zondervan read the communication from Ms. LeBlanc. He said that her letter details a personal experience and he believes the DPW waived the fee. Mr. O’Riordan responded in the affirmative. Councillor Zondervan asked if this can be means tested so that if someone is low income they could get aid. He stated that seeing this as a way of tree planting may not be productive, but it could be a very useful program to engage with the public and establish personal connections.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that she is open to a means tested fee if the program were to continue in its existing form. She noted that there is a chance that some people would pay more than $200.00 for a tree dedication. She suggested the possibility of people being able to make a charitable donation that would help trees in general. She said that people who feel passionately about trees may donate to a tree fund in someone’s memory and that would be a nice way to honor one’s interest. Mr. O’Riordan said that that the idea of prepared City Council resolutions to further celebrate a person’s life may be helpful. He noted that it would be easy to create a field in the GIS system to track donations. Councillor Zondervan said that it makes sense to him that people could view online which tree they adopted. In terms of the plaque being placed on a tree, Councillor Zondervan said that the City could charge for that. He noted that another idea is the consideration of a plaque that is made of a more natural material such as wood. He said that this would be a nice touch. Mr. O’Riordan said that he is concerned about the number of things that are put on City streets. He said that plaques and dedication signs become burdensome at some point.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that her goal is to see more trees planted. She noted that when a person passes on, there is the desire to see a loved one’s name in public which is something that she understands. She said that she is weary of making this type of program the focus on getting people to invest in the tree canopy. She said that it is great if a loved one loved tree but claiming a street tree may not be the way to go about it.

Councillor Siddiqui said that in Chicago there was a community center that had a wall in the back with leaves from trees and people had written loved one’s names. She said that if people want to memorialize a person, there are other ways to do so. Mr. O’Riordan said that one of the ideas is scattering gardens and walls with names to memorialize those buried in those areas. He said that one could think about a park where there could be names memorialized on walls. He said that this may be a more democratic way to celebrate trees in peoples’ memories. Councillor Zondervan said that he likes the idea. He said that he does not expect that the City could use the tree program to generate new tree plantings. He noted that it seems that it is more about creating that connection which can be created without having to be a specific tree and can be done with a leaf on a wall.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the MSPCA Angel Memorial Hospital has a wall display of paw prints that reflect the people that have donated to their annual fund. She said that it would be beneficial if there was a way of allowing a person to donate to the tree fund and being recognized in some way.

Councillor Carlone said that a plaque on a tree is an individual effort. He said that the notion of a tree, especially in a park setting, really hits home for him. He said that if the plaque said the name of the tree, the year it was planted, etc., it adds to the richness of a site. As it relates to dedications signs on corners of streets, he said that they are a total waste of money.

Councillor Zondervan asked if the policy should be changed as it relates to the dedication of an existing tree or the dedication of a newly planted tree. Mr. O’Riordan said that if the purpose is to allow the memorialization of a person, that is fine. He noted that there is a cost to the memorials. He said that square dedications are absorbed by city. He said that there is the aspect that trees are owned by everyone and there can be an impression that “this is my tree” and he is concerned about that. Councillor Carlone said that it is okay if a person feels an affinity to a living element. He said that it is a good thing, not a bad thing. He said that tree donation is to the greater good of Cambridge. Councillor Zondervan said that there is an equity issue if payment is required and this should be something to think about.

Councillor Carlone said that the City requires property owners to clear snow in front of their properties. He questioned why in the Special Permit process there is not a situation that an owner takes care of the street trees. Mr. O’Riordan said that by ordinance, an owner is required to maintain their property. He said that nothing regarding the care of trees is in the present ordinance. Councillor Carlone said that this is the biggest question about the tree canopy on sidewalks in the city.

Councillor Zondervan asked what DPW would like to see in terms of the Memorial Tree Program. Mr. O’Riordan said that he would like to see more people adopting trees in the City. He said that more we can encourage people to take part in the program and the more we can encourage people to care for trees, the better off the City is. He said that there are challenges from the perspective of sustaining the existing canopy and growing it, which has preoccupied DPW minds. He said that the idea of getting people and neighborhoods involved is a hugely important aspect. He said that this is where DPW is concentrating. He noted that it is great if a tree program can enhance the tree canopy but said that he does not want to distract from the larger goal of planting and sustaining the tree canopy.

Councillor Zondervan suggested adding a community field in the adopt a tree program. Mr. O’Riordan stated his agreement.

Councillors Zondervan and Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 1:47pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Apr 16, 2019 at 6:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber to continue discussion on the Affordable Housing Overlay District, and this hearing shall be devoted entirely to Public Comment.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Simmons, Co-Chair; Councillor Siddiqui, Co-Chair; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Carlone; Mayor McGovern; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Neal Alpert; Wil Durbin, Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Peter Daly, Executive Director, Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. (HRI); Susan Schlesinger, Affordable Housing Trust (AHT); Liz Zhong; Patrick Braga; Alex Boccon-Gibod; Rahul Gupta; Alena Culbertson; Robert Master; Cristian Rias; Ilan Levy; Edward Gathurie; Carol O’Hare; Alicia Weng; Vikram Srinivas; Nicholas Brown; Suzanne Blier; Marilee Meyer; Andrea Wilder; Trudi Goodman; Levin Li; Walter McDonald; Sasha Rickard; Noam Tanner; Esther Hanig; Patrick Barrett; Ted Pyne; Zoe Hopkins; Burham Azeem; David Sullivan; Ellen Shachter; Siri Sana Belle; Jamie Ciocco; Mary Jo Clark; Amanda Powers; Jessica Drew; Lenny Solomon; Elizabeth Gombosi; Fritz Donovan; Fred Meyer; Stephen Kaiser; Theresa Hamacher; Weiyi Cao; Jennifer Storozum; Nupear Monahani; Tina Alu; Nicola Williams; Jessica Baas; Mr. Wornhaus; Shaw Warren; Carolyn Shipley; John Pitkin; Derek Kopan; Sean Hope; Becca Schofield; Mr. Sury; Roger Filmyer; Karen Davis; Adam Goldstein; Adrienne Musgrave; Henna Mahoop; and Robert O’Neal.

Councillor Simmons and Councillor Siddiqui convened the hearing. Councillor Simmons read from prepared opening remarks (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Simmons opened the hearing to Public Comment at 6:05pm.

Trudi Goodman, 1221 Cambridge Street, stated that the City of Cambridge needs affordable housing. She said that the city needs decent affordable housing and she has concerns with the Affordable Housing Overlay District. She said that it is imperative that the developer be vetted.

Liz Zhong, 31 Sacramento Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding her support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT B).

Patrick Braga, 11 Everett Street, read from a prepared written statement in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT C).

Rahul Gupta, 199 North Harvard Street, Allston, read from a prepared written statement regarding his support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT D).

Alena Culbertson, 471 Memorial Drive, read from a prepared written statement regarding her support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT E).

Robert Master, 8 Brewer Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding his concern about the As of Right issue and full exploration of a way to create meaningful sustainable subsidies to promote affordable home ownership and rental.

Cristian Rias, 3 Ames Street, stated that he grew up in public housing in rural Florida. He said that he interns at Harvard Law Legal Services Center with the Housing Clinic. He said that he goes to Boston Housing Court each Tuesday and he pulls 60-70 files of people who are being kicked out of their homes. He said that over 90% of those are for nonpayment of rent. He said that the data shows that entire areas of the Greater Boston area are being evicted one by one. He said that everyone should have a place to live. He stated his support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, stated that his main concern with the overlay is the fact that it is 100% affordable when the latest studies show that diversity in housing is the same and brings a better outcome than when we stick all social incomes together. He said that we have not talked about equity or good distribution of the services that will be in affordable housing. He said that he has a problem with the idea of 100% affordable. He said that we must be open-minded and consider other options that have not been discussed at all. He said that he does not think that we are discussing enough of other options. He said that everyone supports affordable housing.

Edward Gathurie, 471 Memorial Drive, stated that he is an undergraduate student and has benefitted so much of what the City of Cambridge has to offer. He said that he has lived in a number of places growing up. He said that he is worried about the challenges of high rents in the future. He said that as a City, we must commit ourselves to supply affordable housing. He said that the Affordable Housing Overlay will do that. He said that Cambridge is about equity and diversity.

Carol O’Hare, 172 Magazine Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding her concern that this zoning is being fast-tracked which will result in high summer, pre-election season public hearing when people are away or not paying attention, or both (ATTACHMENT G).

Alicia Weng, 100 Memorial Drive, read from a prepared written statement regarding her support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT H).

Vikram Srinivas, 20 Arlington Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding his support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT I).

Nicholas Brown, Grays Hall, read from a prepared written statement regarding his support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT J).

Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place, stated that she is committed to affordable housing, equity and sustainability. She said that she recently began looking at the statistical data on demographics for the city and housing that CDD has recently made available. She said that it is clear to her that this data indicates that we are in the middle of a deeply problematic market-based situation of gentrification. She said that with more houses being turned over to wealthier individuals, we are losing a key part of the housing stock. She said that African-Americans are particularly being hard hit. She said that until we deal with this data, we are no better off. She said that these are things that the universities need to address. She commented that the universities need to provide housing for staff and students. She said that we need to look at the City’s 10.8% vacancy rates and what is causing this. She said that design is of critical importance and she has concerns about the proposed transition from FAR to As of Right. Ms. Blier submitted written comments (ATTACHMENT K).

Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding her concerns with the Affordable Housing Overlay District proposal (ATTACHMENT L).

Andrea Wilder, 12 Arlington Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding her concerns that the Tree Committee be merged with the Overlay Plan (ATTACHMENT M).

Kevin Li, 3 Ames Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding his support for the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT N).

Walter McDonald, 172 Magazine Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding the lack of a comprehensive plan from the Envision process (ATTACHMENT O). He noted that before moving forward, it is important to know what other problems and issues have been identified by the Envision process besides housing.

Sasha Rickard, 14 Lawrence Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding her support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT P).

Noam Tanner, 47 Sacramento Street, submitted his written comment (ATTACHMENT Q) regarding his support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street, read from a prepared written statement in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT R).

Patrick Barrett, 41 Pleasant Street, stated that he is not for the Affordable Housing Overlay District and he is not against it. He said that it is interesting thing is that in the zoning, a lot has been identified as problematic citywide. He said that the appeal process is arduous. He stated that form zoning is interesting, but it requires robust design guidelines which are not part of this package. He said that setbacks and dimensional requirements are things that everyone deals with in Cambridge and it is a pain to have to go to the Planning Board and go through the process. He said that the 21-day waiting period to allow someone to appeal a project is a pain. He said that this is democracy and it should not be taken away from residents. He said that this is a time to get it right and keep this Affordable Housing Overlay in committee.

Ted Pyne, Harvard student, said that he grew up in a town that used high housing prices to keep lower-income people out of its public-school system. He said that at public meetings for 40B projects, he watched lines of people go to the microphone and say that they support affordable housing – but. He said that he has seen the real harm of high housing prices. He said that from administrative staff forced to move far away and endure a long commute, to brilliant graduate students who wince when told about the price of housing. He said that from the standpoint of equity and to maintain a vibrant economy, it is important for Cambridge to lower the cost of housing. He said that failing to pass this overlay would indicate a lack of commitment to affordable housing by the City Council.

Zoe Hopkins, Harvard Student Labor Action Movement (SLAM), read from a prepared written statement in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT S).

Burhan Azeem, 471 Memorial Drive, stated that he was born in Pakistan. He said that his family got the opportunity to come to the United States. He said that his father worked from 7:00am – 7:00pm every day, seven days a week and his mother did the same. He said that they were still not able to afford a home for years. He said that a family of 7 took his family in because they were not able to afford an apartment. He said that there were twelve people living in the house and because of the zoning, he was afraid, and he would hide in the closet when the land owner or inspectors came by. He said that when he saw the Affordable Housing Overlay come into play, he was very happy. He asked for City Council support of this overlay proposal.

David Sullivan, 16 Notre Dame Avenue, stated that there has been adequate consideration of this proposal. He thanked the inspiring testimony of the students present today. He said that he came to Cambridge as an MIT student and it has been a wonderful home for him and his family and he hopes that the students will have a similar experience. He said that there will be approximately 100 units per year built that will not destroy the neighborhoods. He said that they will be beautiful developments.

Ellen Shachter, 346 Concord Avenue, stated that she spent the last three decades working with people facing displacement. She said that she has thought on how to increase affordable housing and that the City needs multiple strategies. She said that the Affordable Housing Overlay District, in combination with increased municipal funding, is a critical piece of an important puzzle. She said that she is happy to hear about other ideas to increase affordable housing. She said that the Affordable Housing Overlay District is not the only tool. She said that public comment was allowed at all meetings of the Envision process.

Suri Belle, 177 Erie Street, stated that she is in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay District. She said that her friend could not make the meeting but asked her to say that the Affordable Housing Overlay District is an exciting opportunity. She said that open space and the historical aspect can all co-exist. She said that she is dealing with housing stability.

Jamie Ciocco, 12 Rindge Avenue, stated that he has lived in or close to Cambridge for the last 29 years and is a homeowner for the last nine years. He stated his support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District. He said that as it relates to the parking issue, we must think about a lot of people who currently drive into the city and would be able to get housing in the city which would be fewer cars on the road.

Mary Jo Clark, 32 Crescent Street, stated that she has been a Cambridge resident for 40+ years. She stated her support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District. She said that last year her landlord told her that she wanted to renovate and sell. She was not able to find a place and will be moving in June. She said that the city can work with all neighborhoods to provide affordable housing. She asked that that city be sensitive to the families that have made Cambridge their home and can no longer live here.

Jessica Drew, 88 Ames Street, stated that she serves low income tenants in the City of Cambridge. She said that as a previous speaker said, thoughtful and intelligent minds have debated this proposal. She said that moving forward is critical. She said that the Cambridge Housing Authority came out with their proposed annual report and stated that 26,201 are currently on the wait list. She noted that these are individuals who will wait years to get into housing.

Susan Schlesinger, 34 Glenwood Avenue, urged the committee to vote affirmative on the Affordable Housing Overlay District and pass it along to the Ordinance Committee. She said that it is time that it takes the next step. She said that the Ordinance Committee will be a thoughtful place to look at the issues. She said that the As of Right aspect did not come out of nowhere. She said that she would like to see a way of not having discretionary permits so affordable housing developers can move forward.

Elizabeth Gombosi, 42 Irving Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding her opposition to the Affordable Housing Overlay District without consideration infrastructure in any plan for housing (ATTACHMENT T).

Fritz Donovan, 42 Irving Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding his opposition to this proposal and his desire for a well though-out plan that increases affordable housing and enhancement of the quality of life in the City of Cambridge (ATTACHMENT U).

Fred Meyer, 83 Hammond Street, asked how people sign up for the waiting list and the criteria used. He asked about income limits. He asked if buildings can be designated for worthy categories. He asked if there are models for street level views for each neighborhood, so residents can see what a proposal would look like. He asked why there is the elimination of the Board of Zoning Appeal.

Stephen Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, stated that two weeks ago, draft zoning language was released to the public for the first time. He said that he has heard very little mention of this from the speakers this evening. He said that he is unhappy that there is no release of the Envision plan. He asked how the City can do a review of zoning if there is not a plan in front of it. He said that this report should be made available before the next hearing. He stated that the draft zoning is very disappointing, and he believes the text was drafted by real estate lawyers. He said that we must do better. He submitted written materials (ATTACHMENT V).

Theresa Hamacher, 95 Raymond Street, stated that as a homeowner she is concerned about the broad As of Right rights being granted to developers. She asked the City Council to look at whether those rights could be narrowed or tailored to reflect the needs of specific neighborhoods. She stated that she does not understand how this will interact with the historic districts. She noted that she wonders if there has been thought in how some of these things will interact.

Weiyi Cao, 29 Garden Street, student at Harvard said that the Affordable Housing Overlay District is an inclusive opportunity for the city and she stated her support.

Jennifer Storozum, 275 Summer Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding her support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT W).

Nupear Manahani, 20 Allston Street, stated that there are tools within the professional realm to resolve some of these issues. She urged the committee to forward this proposal to the Ordinance Committee to go through the legislative process.

Tina Alu, 113½ Pleasant Street, Executive Director, CEOC, read from a prepared written statement in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay District (ATTACHMENT X).

Nicola Williams, 8 Brewer Street, stated that she is in support of affordable housing for residents. She asked how many people will actually benefit from this proposal. She asked if it is only 100 units from this overlay. She said that she is unsure if the low-income residents will qualify. She said that 19,000 people are on the subsidy list. She asked how the overlay process will be accountable to these subsidized residents. She asked the city to be responsible and transparent to these residents. She asked why the city cannot fix the existing zoning to respond to the priority of building non-profit housing.

Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street, stated that she is for affordable housing, but she is opposed to the proposed legislation that will take away her right to appeal a design on her street that she does not like. She said that there could be review but it is a waste of breath, time and energy because the developer has the right. She said that the definition of as-of right is not to be found in the two documents. She said that it is not on the city’s website. She said that this provision takes away the First Amendment of a citizens right to free speech. She said that the working draft talks about setbacks and open space. She submitted written statements (ATTACHMENT Y).

John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, stated that Cambridge was affordable when he settled here. He said that we are in a crisis of affordability. He said that this is a self-inflicted problem. He said that this problem will not be solved just in Cambridge, but we must lead. He said that he is concerned that we will not see this emulated in surrounding cities and towns. He is concerned about the amount of increase in development in many instances is so great that some degree of review is required at the upper limits. He said that in his neighborhood, 7 stories on Cambridge Street might not be appropriate. He stated the affordability crisis will not be solved only in Cambridge and if we overdo it, we will not help the larger solution.

Derek Kopon, Wright Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding his opposition to this proposal (ATTACHMENT Z).

Sean Hope, 22 Fairmont Avenue, stated his support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District and applauded the City Council for taking on this work. He said that he has heard that this overlay seeks to deprive residents of trees and open space. He said that we can have more affordable housing and be environmentally responsible. He said this is a question of choice. He said that we want to give affordable residents a choice, and build housing that is close to transit, the same way the market rate residents have. He said that we must create a diversity of housing.

Becca Schofield, 35 Norris Street, asked the City Council to imagine the housing that the city could have. She said that it is a question of priorities. She said that this is one tool is a step in the right direction. She said that there has been evidence about how affordable housing creation is challenging. She urged the committee to support the Affordable Housing Overlay District. She thanked the committee for the inclusive process.

Karen Davis, 15 Walker Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding her concerns about the practical application of the As of Right 100 percent affordable overlay proposal (ATTACHMENT AA).

Adam Goldstein, 120 Henry Street, stated that the success of the overlay will lie in the understanding of the system. He said that to build 100% affordable housing is expensive and relies heavily on subsidy from the state. He said that this subsidy is extremely competitive and historically neighborhoods, communities and cities do not receive more than a few grants of the subsidy from the state annually. He said that this overlay will not spur dozens of developments and thousands of affordable units. He said that it will allow non-profits in Cambridge to have at least one project in the state’s subsidy pipeline annually, allowing them not to miss out on this valuable funding as they did in the past round of subsidy. He said that we are realistically talking about 1-3 developments of 40-60 units a year and it is important that it is at no additional tax to the taxpayer.

Chris Mack, 48 JFK Street, stated that this issue is more complex than what has been presented. He said that the moral center does not belong on one side than the other. He said that he believes that the Affordable Housing Overlay District relies on an indirect approach of incentivizing developers who have plenty of other ways of making money and we need not add to that a more direct approach like building on city properties and parking garages. He said that the East Cambridge Courthouse is a much more direct and productive way of achieving affordable housing.

Adriane Musgrave, 48 Haskell Street, thanked the Housing Committee for allowing people to make comments. She said that she has learned a lot through the process. She said that she would like to encourage the same kind of pace and move this proposal to the Ordinance Committee for the next step.

Henna Mahmood, student at Harvard, stated her support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District. She said that she grew up in an affordable unit in Queens, New York. She said that she is living meaningfully because of affordable housing and she noted her support for the Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Robert O’Neil, 175 Holworthy Street, stated that his neighborhood is fairly dense. He said that he does not support the Affordable Housing Overlay District because it allows As of Right development standards. He said that he is familiar with the zoning standards because he and his wife recently applied to the BZA for a variance to renovate their home. He said that they put considerable effort and resources into the design to meet the zoning standards and to fit the roofline to the neighborhood. He said that they involved their neighbors in the review and design in the process and solicited comments which were incorporated them into their designs. He said that they attended many Board of Zoning Appeal hearings to assess the concerns of the board and testifying neighbors. He said that before applying for the variance, they spent years deciding whether to stay in their house and renovate or to move out of the neighborhood. He said that they chose to stay with the expectation that the Cambridge zoning standards and Board of Zoning Appeal approval process would provide a mechanism by which they would have input into the changes in their neighborhood. He said that the proposed overlay would take that opportunity out of the owners’ hands.

Public Comment closed at 7:48pm.

Councillor Simmons and Councillor Siddiqui thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:49pm.

NOTE: Additional written comments were received by the City Clerk’s Office in this matter (ATTACHMENTS BB1 – BB27).

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair
Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Co-Chair

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on May 9, 2019 at 5:41pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue discussion on a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code by adding a new Chapter 5.50 entitled “Cannabis Business Permitting” Ordinance.

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; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq; Director of Zoning and Development, CDD, Jeff Roberts; Director of Economic Development Division, CDD, Lisa Hemmerle; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Ori Porat, 24 Myrtle Avenue; Shane Lindsay, Brighton; Michael Latulippe, 190 Bridge Street, Salem; Nichole Snow, MPAA, 1 Beacon Street, Boston; Jessica Pelletier, 663 East Fifth Street, Boston; Eve Gerber, 30 Francis Avenue; Kjersti Rosen, 41 Magnolia Avenue; Damond Hughes, 1916 Hyde Park Avenue; Amine Benari, 38 Franklin Street, Holliston; Emanuel Villalobos, 369 Columbia Road; Gianni Mazzotta, 84 Monroe Street; Taba Moses; and Lily Lee, 14 Myrtle Avenue.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He stated that this is the second Ordinance Committee hearing on this topic.

Councillor Kelley opened the hearing to City staff.

Ms. Farooq stated that the new content provided is in the response to the City Council from the City Solicitor dated May 6, 2019 (ATTACHMENT A). She stated that Community Development had not proposed any changes to the ordinance. She wanted to hear from the City Council related to the responses.

Councillor Kelley stated that all should have the response from the City Solicitor, a communication from Councillor Mallon dated May 9, 2019 (ATTACHMENT B), a communication from Councillor Zondervan dated May 2, 2019 (ATTACHMENT C) and the proposed draft ordinance (ATTACHMENT D).

Mayor McGovern stated that he has a hard time understanding 5.50.040 regarding permitting preference for priority applicants. He stated that in paragraph a in the second sentence it states “The City will only issue a Cannabis business permit to a Group B Priority Applicant (group B are the RMDs), 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. He asked is this saying that the RMDs that are currently in operation in the City can they go ahead and get a license regardless of the equity applicants or do they have to wait until there is a certain number of equity applicants. He wanted this paragraph simpler and more direct. He wanted a third group where the current RMDs permitted and operating in the City and then there are future RMDs. He asked if the current RMD have to wait until there are equity applicants. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City cannot prohibit individuals meeting certain criteria who have RMDs from converting to or adding an adult use retail store. She stated that the language is important, and the Law Department is still analyzing what it means. She stated that it definitely means that if there is an RMD that is operating now and in business the City cannot prohibit that RMD from applying for and obtaining a Special Permit to open an adult use retail store. Mayor McGovern asked if any of the RMDs wanted to pursue adult use they can be allowed to do this, and they do not have to wait for two or three years. City Solicitor Glowa responded that the answer to this particular question is not necessarily because they need to meet the state criteria and there is at least one business that has an RMD where there has been a change in ownership.

The state and the City have been notified of this change. This is being reviewed by the Law Department and being discussed with the state as to what this means regarding the language that gives this grandfather protections. She stated that if there is an RMD that had a license as of July 2017 and has been in business and is currently in business and in good standing without any other problems with their state registration or the Special Permit from the City those individuals have grandfathered rights to open an adult use retail store.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the current language would prevent RMDs from converting until there is an equal number of equity empowerment applicants have been permitted. He stated that one of his proposed amendments would remove the ambiguity.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that operating means open for business and the change of ownership which is temporarily closed while this is sorted out is not operating. She stated that in the memo from the City Solicitor there are six establishments that have Special Permits; three of which were operational at one point and one is suspended. She noted that of the six, three have been open for business and the other three have Special Permits and are in various stages of certification. None have a final certification; two have provisional certification and one has neither. There could potentially be five with Special Permits and meet the July 2017 deadline.

Ms. Hemmerle stated that the state states in their guidelines to municipalities that RMDs that has received its provisional or final registration no later than July 1, 2017 is grandfathered against zoning bylaws or ordinances that would prevent it from conducting the same type of activities for adult use marijuana that is engaged in for medical use marijuana. She stated that five of the six current RMDs have either their provisional or final certification prior to July 1, 2017. City Solicitor Glowa stated that some of these issues have just been brought to her attention with respect to changes in ownership and are reviewing this and will get more information to the City Council on this shortly. She stated that one or more of these would meet the criteria, but it is unknown how many at this time. Vice Mayor Devereux questioned the zoning aspect. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this does have to follow the zoning. She stated that the guidance language talks about the authority of the City to promulgate its zoning ordinances that affect these businesses under the state scheme. This does not mean that something could be done in conflict with the zoning laws or the states edicts on the zoning. She stated that the business permit, as long as it is not inconsistent with the Cannabis Control Regulations and state law is a separate matter. She stated that for example the City could not have a business that currently has a permit in a particular district to be able to have an RMD; unless the City amends the zoning to allow adult use cannabis store to allow that use in that district.

Councillor Carlone stated that the state law limits any entity from owning more than three and the City Council feels that no one entity should own more than one. This is to spread the industry rather than to focus on these businesses buying up all. He asked because one entity owns two and there are Special Permits and the state only allows three and can a case be made why two in a City of 110,000. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the limit is three statewide for any type of the cannabis businesses or cultivators. She stated that if there were two RMDs that met the criteria in Cambridge the City could not be able to prohibit both from adding an adult use retail business so long as they met all the criteria. She commented that this is the state law and the City cannot deviate from the state law.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that it is important to discuss if five are allowed and the minimum is eight and there is no cap. She stated that the question keeps coming up as to how many does the City want because of the competition. She would be comfortable adhering to the state law and allowing converting than being in a priority and then focus on only the economic empowerment applicants for a period of time and then opening this up to social equity applicants that meet the residency requirement. She suggested placing a cap on establishments because the City Council needs to think about long term municipal planning. This is a billion-dollar industry and the City is 6.2 miles and she worries about how many will be in particular squares with the buffer zone rules. She stated that this is opening this up to some uncertainties that can be problematic down the line. She stated that when thinking about on page two who are priority applicants making sure to further delineate by giving priority to economic empowerment applicants for a period and then open it up to some others. She wanted to know what her colleagues thought about having a cap.

Councillor Zondervan asked if it would it be appropriate to manage the proximity of stores, particularly in the squares, through regulation rather than through the ordinance. He suggested a regulation that stated that the City would prefer having only two stores in each of the five major squares until the City achieves the minimum of eight. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she would have to research and any of the RMDs that are entitled to open could do so. She stated that she could look into whether this type of provision could apply as to other retail applicants.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that question four was can the City require an RMD to continue to supply medical products while converting to adult use. She noted that she wished that this had been either a yes or no answer. She stated that the intent of giving RMDs a priority to open sooner is because they have supplied the medical product and will continue to supply the medical product and can this be required as a condition of the host community agreement in exchange for offering this priority. She added that she wanted the supply to be maintained for medical patients. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she did not think that there was a clear yes or no answer and this is still evolving. She stated that she would have to review the criteria for the special permit and the state guidelines to see if this can be made a requirement of the retail store to continue having the RMD business. She would look into this and get back to the City Council.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 6:04pm.

Ori Porat, 24 Myrtle Avenue, stated that he is here to express concerns and he has two young children and cannot stay for the duration of the hearing and is speaking as a resident of Myrtle Avenue. He stated that a marijuana establishment has been proposed at the beginning of Myrtle Avenue at the intersection of Kirkland Street and Roberts Road and caused concern for a number of reasons. He stated that the former businesses, a dry cleaner, was logistically light as possible and when equipment have to be repaired the van parked in such a way that was dangerous to motorists and pedestrians. He stated that the increase in flow of motor vehicles and the increase in the traffic pattern is a challenge in this residential area. He stated that marijuana businesses are a cash only business and a priority target for violent crime. This is a residential neighborhood thickly settled with children and this is not a good place for this type of establishment. He spoke about second hand smoke, trespassing, sale to minors and the proximity to daycare and other such considerations are areas of concern. He noted that this area is under patrolled by both Cambridge and Somerville police. He stated that he does not know why this type of business is needed in this location when there are alternatives and there is an ample parking at malls or industrial areas.

Shanel Lindsay, an attorney, a long-time medical marijuana advocate, founder and President of Ardent, a medical marijuana device company. She stated that she is also a member of the MA Cannabis Advisory Board. She stated that it has been a long hard journey to bring an equitable cannabis industry to Massachusetts to try to lay the legal groundwork to create a level playing field and to correct some of the far reaching and unique harms stem from cannabis prohibition.

She did not want Massachusetts to leave behind the families that have been most impacted by the war on drugs. She applauded Cambridge’s work on ensuring the economic empowerment applicants get the opportunity to be part of this industry. She stated that she is part of the executive team of Evasa and is working on their application to bring a women-owned cannabis business to Cambridge; one that is run by professionals that have vast retail and product development experience. She stated that Evasa is an economic empowerment applicant. She stated that as the City discusses priorities around economic empowerment she urged the City Council to keep in mind the statistics that less than three percent of pending and approved license applications are women-owned businesses and the same amount for minority-owned businesses.

She stated that she hopes that communities like Cambridge will work to grow these numbers.

She stated that she was excited when she heard that Cambridge and Somerville were working to create an equity program and without aggressive measures this will not happen in Massachusetts and all around the state are looking toward Cambridge as a leader and what is done in Cambridge will have an impact. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Michael Latulippe, 190 Bridge Street, Salem, stated that he is a certified economic empowerment applicant and one of the twenty-five advisors to the Cannabis Control Commission. He supported the ordinance with the changes and is pleased to see the clarification to the process to obtain a host community agreement with the City Manager and how clear the process is to become prioritized by the City. He requested that any remaining ambiguity be removed from the ordinance around permitting preferences for priority applicants so that there is solid legal understanding so that any applicant can understand the process going forward. He stated that if priority applicants are going to be tiered put economic empowerment applicants on top because they have the most experience in debating and helping those harmed by the war on drugs. He stated that in terms of limiting these businesses located in one area he would avoid this limitation at this time because it can cause the real estate to become even more expensive than it is currently. He stated that equity and economic empowerment applicants could face bidding wars if properties are limited and will impact how realtors work with these applicants. He stated that once ambiguity around permitting priorities is resolved this ordinance is a great step forward for Cambridge ensuring that the cannabis industry is equitable and is a strong starting point that considers those most harmed by the war on drugs. He further stated that more work needs to be done to ensure a diverse equitable industry, but this ordinance is a model for what municipalities can do when participating in this process. He stated that this still considers the importance of medical access to marijuana while also considering equity and economic empowerment applicants. He stated that much needs to be done in terms of the state social equity and the medical marijuana programs. He stated that this ordinance with the revisions is a good step forward for Cambridge to take.

Nicole Snow, President and Executive Director of the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, 190 Bridge Street, Salem stated her support for the ordinance. She stated that the revisions are easy to understand and a good foundation to start and move forward. She advised clearing up any ambiguities so that it is clear when beginning to move forward as to who has priority in the medical RMD sphere. She thanked all for their work on this matter and making sure that medical patients are considered throughout the process because they brought forward the 2012 ballot initiative.

Jessica Pelletier, 663 East Fifth Street, South Boston, stated that she is the co-founder and CEO of Evasa, MA, a state certified economic empowerment applicant and a women-owned and operated cannabis business. She stated that although a smaller cannabis company, they have a long-standing track record of successful cannabis business operations throughout the country as well as success in running economic empowerment incubation and job training programs in the US and Jamaica. She stated her support for the ordinance and would like a decision soon. She stated that as an economic empowerment applicant they do not have endless amounts of financial capital.

Eve Gerber, 30 Francis Avenue, Cambridge spoke on behalf of her three-year-old son who goes to the Cambridge Ellis Preschool which is less than 1,000 feet from 86 Kirkland Street, the proposed location of a recreational marijuana shop. She stated that six store fronts in a dense residential area have been designated as a place to locate one of these shops and is across the street from a daycare. She added that Kirkland Street is a hazardous crossing area and will not allow her older sons to cross the street if this type of business is in the area because of anticipated increased drunk driving. She spoke about an increase in mental health visits associated with the opening of recreational cannabis facilities in Colorado. She spoke about increased crime rates in areas that had new recreational marijuana shops opening. She stated that there is a safety concern and mental health issues. This is a dense residential area and it is absurd to classify as commercial. She stated that if a marijuana gummy is left on the street a child will pick it up and ingest it. She wanted the City Council to consider the community as well as the social justice issues.

Kjersti Rosen, 41 Magnolia Avenue, applauded the City for applying social justice rules to rectify some of the mistakes made under the war on drugs. She spoke about the buffers zone. She requested that daycares be included in the buffer zone. She stated that it was her understanding that daycare facilities were included in the zoning for the medical marijuana dispensaries and it is surprising that it would not be included in buffer zones for recreational use because there are more adverse risks with recreational use than medical use. She stated that this current zoning proposal would allow for cannabis stores in all business and industrial districts.

She commented that not all business districts are created equal. She spoke about the squares as large commercial, destination areas where individuals drive or take the train. These places usually have parking, large roads to accommodate traffic and parking and less people live here. She stated that by contrast there are few pockets of business zoning. She stated that there is one on Rindge Avenue, some on Broadway and a small are on Kirkland Street. She stated that the stores around Kirkland Street are not commercial destinations for outside individuals. These are walk to neighborhood stores that are isolated islands located in a residential area. These are not places where individuals drive to and there is no parking. Kirkland Street is already congested and is a different place. She acknowledged that it is zoned business, but it is not a commercial destination; it is where people live. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT F).

Damond Hughes, stated that he is an economic empowerment applicant and a realtor. He stated that as a realtor this process has been a challenge. It took him a year to find a location in Boston. He urged Cambridge to give economic empowerment applicants priority and time to get established. He stated that as it is now the RMD will come in, roll out and economic empowerment applicants will not have equal footing that the RMDs already have in the City. He stated that the City should consider the buffers for retail because there is not a lot of space in Cambridge. He stated that allowing economic empowerment and social equity applicants to break the buffer zone should be considered. He urged Cambridge to take its time with this ordinance and get this right but also wants inclusion. He stated that economic empowerment applicants do not want handouts. He stated that big companies and corporations have come to him and offered him things, but it is another local economic empowerment group that helped him to secure his location; it was not a big company or an RMD. He stated that economic empowerment applicants need assistance and want to be on equal footing in this process.

Amine Benair, 38 Franklin Street, Holliston stated that he is a professor of social finance at Northeastern University and works to support businesses owned by minorities, persons of color, women, immigrants and other disadvantaged population. He is also advising economic empowerment applicants in Cambridge. The opportunity presented by the adult use retail industry is a rare opportunity to transform the lives of individuals, households of families and the communities that have suffered the consequence of the war on drugs. Entrepreneurs from these communities have to navigate and clear the complex hurtles of the industry, that go beyond being a startup business, operations, procurements, branding and capital acquisition. He stated that established RMD have a significant advantage in these areas and have acquired years of experience. He stated that treating that at par with economic empowerment applicants gives the RMD an advantage and erects a legislative wall that will prevent the economic empowerment applicants from fully participating in the economics of this industry.

Emanuel Villalobos stated that he lives on 369 Columbia Road. He stated that Cambridge is a community of different demographics, different energies, different colors of the human race and he feels that through history not every single human being on the planet has been recognized for what can be offered as unity of African American and Latino community. He stated that big businesses do not bring opportunity to the Cambridge community. He stated that the community is what is making marijuana famous. He stated that back in the day people went to jail for smoking weed and this is in the past. He stated that we should be able to bring equality and unity for all to have the opportunity to be part of this new generation economy. He stated that he did not the same as has happened in other states where only one person of color has a marijuana dispensary or cultivation farming. He stated that big companies should hire Cambridge residents.

Lily Lee, 14 Myrtle Avenue, stated that she lives close to Kirkland Village area. She stated that she loves the diversity in Cambridge and applauds Cambridge for requiring diversity for cannabis establishments. She stated that these establishments will bring a significant large customer base to Cambridge and wanted them in areas that can support these large amounts of traffic going into the establishments. She stated that the environment she lives in is a small business district. She spoke about the possibility of a marijuana product being left on the street in an area with a day care and the product being picked up by children is significantly higher. She stated that there is no place for parking for the customers to line up. She supported the revision suggested by Councillor Mallon for a childcare buffer zones for these businesses. She wanted these establishments to be located in commercial districts, such as Harvard and Central Square.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, stated that Cambridge has existed intelligently without marijuana for years. He stated that marijuana causes people and youth to become subtlety drunk and you deserve everything you get if you allow this into our City.

Taba Moses stated that Cambridge has a chance to work aggressively with the community while creating a fair and equitable cannabis industry within the City limits. He stated that following the state’s social equity guidelines falls short of creating an environment that will give those who grow up in this area disproportionate impact Cambridge’s chance to open up business that can help revitalize the community. He shared facts from the Cannabis Control Commission. He spoke about not have the right to stop RMDs from converting to adult use. He stated that as a community Cambridge can control how RMD are rolled out. He stated that Somerville and Boston are implementing a one for one process and he does not understand what is stopping Cambridge from doing the same. He stated that adult use is allowed in Boston and Somerville. In Needham, he stated that this is not allowed; they made a choice. He stated that regarding state approved licenses there are 149 approved licenses; 3 are minority applicants. He stated that the path that the state is currently on shows that 143 applications have been received; 10 are minority-owned businesses. He stated that of the 143 applicants today there are 6 economic empowerment applicants. He asked how many applicants have applied in Cambridge and how many are economic empowerment applicants. He asked what the City is doing to ensure that those who grew up in the neighborhoods and have been long-standing citizens get a chance to participate.

Richard Harding spoke about things that should be considered as the City Council contemplates voting on this ordinance. He stated this is a chance in a life time to create generational wealth for those who grew up in Cambridge at a chance in this entity. He stated that the law is clear that they shall not be prevented from flipping as it relates to the RMDs. He stated that the law does not state that RMDs be prioritized. He stated that this is where there is bone of contention with economic empowerment applicants. He stated that the City Council should think about the advantages of the RMDs if they are allowed to flip without giving priority to economic empowerment applicants. He stated that this is about making sure that economic empowerment applicants are the most highly prioritized group and pass legislation that would help them more than any other group particularly because the process has been arduous. He stated that there have been many conversations about equity and in the Cambridge way many want equity to rule.

He stated that the City Council has complete control over this on how these businesses are rolled out in the City. He stated that Cambridge is ripe for setting the tone as has been done in Somerville and Boston. He noted that the conflicting nature of the arguments are set on false pretense. He stated that local municipalities can control how they roll out any business including the cannabis business. He stated that representing Green Soul Community Foundation he wanted Cambridge to show leadership such as Somerville and Boston. If this is not done correct Cambridge could have the same situation that existed in Colorado; one operational functional license for cannabis.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that this was discussed at the Central Square Advisory Committee because applicants were bringing their proposals before the advisory committee. He stated that there ought to be a way to have a preference for those who live in Cambridge and are interested in participating in this opportunity. He spoke about individuals how can demonstrate that they are the people in fact who are in fact in need of opportunity. He spoke about qualifying the appearance of being disadvantaged. He spoke about protecting the ground floor retail as it is in Central Square in relation to this and he spoke about the cost of the product and buying this off the street because it is cheaper.

Cary Milner stated that he is a Cambridge resident and spoke about the concept of equity. Cambridge is moving toward those that have access and those who do not. He spoke about a level playing field which is tilted. Those having difficulty for workforce, careers and homeownership could have this playing field tilted toward those who grew up in the City with an opportunity for access. This is a specific opportunity and is about equitable access to the 21st century economy.

At 6:44pm Councillor Kelley closed public comment.

Mayor McGovern stated that the City Solicitor stated that the City Council cannot stop current RMD from getting adult use permits. He is assuming the legal opinion is correct. He stated that if the five RMDs want to do adult use could the City say that the next five establishments need to be economic empowerment applicants and no other establishments can open until there is an equal number. He stated that if there is a two-three-year cap placed on this and there are only two economic empowerment applicants open he would not want to open this back up to larger entities. There should be an equal number of economic empowerment applicants allowed to open. He noted that the concerns raised by the public were issues with the zoning and not this ordinance. Not all commercial districts are the same, but when the move is to put these establishments in the squares there are people who live in the squares also. He supported the broader zoning recommendation and more flexibility is needed where establishments can open. He stated that if this is limited the cost of rent for equity applicants could rise.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that all the research and outcomes in Oakland and Denver makes her want to prioritize economic empowerment applicants but there is not the political will among the City Council to do this. She stated that is because of the state law mandating that the RMDs may do their thing. It is hard to find a niche in this industry and she would like to focus on the economic empowerment applicants. She would not be against this to get it right. She stated that there is a good number of economic empowerment applicants who could be ready to go. She stated that there are so many different interpretations and it is so complex that she felt that the City still does not have clear answers.

Councillor Carlone agreed with Councillor Siddiqui that the priority should be economic empowerment and social equity applicants or RMDs adding recreational use. He stated that there should be a benefit for any Special Permit that is not difficult to obtain. He stated that the comments from Councillor Mallon contained in her memo were that the Planning Board discussed the buffer zone for the economic empowerment and social equity applicants so that they would not be in the same block. The Planning Board discussed the buffer being 300 feet, but it was not in the zoning. He stated that the zoning needs to be amended to include the buffer zone and the concerns mentioned about daycare facilities. He stated that regarding site analysis he hoped that this is in the Planning Board’s review of Special Permits and if there is not frequent bus service and not a location within walking distance to the T station that the location does not make sense. He stated that a healthy retail district can handle this and absorb this business. He asked if there is any way to prioritize over time RMD or economic empowerment social equity applicants instead of just recreational retail that is not social equity. He stated that recreational marijuana by itself should be economic empowerment or social equity. He does not want big business to come in and overwhelm this. He stated that RMDs are at least providing medical services. One gives medical access and the other gives benefit to social equity. He asked is there any way to limit this to those two choices or can anyone come in and open a recreational facility. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City is permitted to limit the types of applicants. She recommended a period of 2-5 years and it could be limit in this period for existing RMDs entitled to convert to adult use and economic empowerment or social equity applicants. Councillor Carlone stated that after the first round he feels the City will get inundated with these applicants. He wanted this done in a socially minded way. He spoke about having social equity locations and there should be rules.

Vice Mayor Devereux said all want to do the right things and are potentially overthinking this because there are so many unknowns in the market and leases. It is important to balance the interests of neighborhoods, applicants of all types and the residents. She stated that speaking about equity is about economic empowerment applicants and she wants the equity for medical patients. She noted that when referring to RMDs converting; there are two terms: converting and co-locating. She stated that converting means to sell medical and now sell adult use. She wanted to co-locate and not convert and there is a legal understanding that the intent is that the City Council wants in a community host agreement that if one of the five currently licensed RMDs is given a priority it would continue to serve the equity of medical patients. She noted that another issue of confusion has been several community meetings by applicants that are not the current RMDs and her initial thought was that they were economic empowerment applicants but only three meet the state definition of economic empowerment applicants and the other are women-owned or minority-owned businesses. Ms. Hemmerle stated that she has met with three self-identified economic empowerment applicants and have met with nineteen applicants overall and some have identified themselves as women-owned or minority-owned businesses under priority A status. Vice Mayor Devereux wanted priority given to economic empowerment applicants, being women and minority-owned in this first tier with the RMDs that meet the July 1, 2017 deadlines continuing to serve. She stated that she is willing to consider a one-to-one ratio. There are five RMDs with five economic empowerment applicants and then opening up to social equity applicants with residency but not opening this up beyond this to license or permit others. This would get to ten and then the market will tell what the right amount is. She stated that if there are tons of stores this will reduce individual anxiety about traffic because there will be more choices of places to go. This also reduces the stores from making a profit if there are too many stores.

Councillor Zondervan asked for clarification from the City Solicitor on the issue of conversion versus co-location. If an RMD is opening an adult facility co-located can this be limited or regulated in any way and a concern is that this may push the conversion and may cause the RMD to eliminate medical business. City Solicitor Glowa stated that in response to question number four she stated that the guidance from state makes it clear that in the state’s opinion the City cannot prevent an existing RMD that meets the criteria from either converting or co-locating and the City does not have the authority to prohibit them from converting entirely. She stated that the City does not have the authority to require them to continue having an RMD component of their business. Councillor Zondervan commented that the City Council is doing everything possible to maximize the equity. He stated that his amendments allow only existing RMDs to convert and then economic empowerment, social equity, women, minority and Cambridge residents. He spoke about the 1800-foot buffer added in the zoning specifically so that the City Council could exclude non-economic empowerment equity applicants from operating within the zones. He stated that the RMDs will convert and will create the 1800-foot zones but within the zone only economic empowerment social equity applicants would be able to operate within the areas. He stated that with this ordinance the City Council is trying to make sure that the stores will continue to meet the requirements so that there is not a situation where somebody meets the criteria and establishes a business and then transfers the ownership to a business that no longer meets the criteria and if they have their Special Permit the City would not be able to prevent this with the ordinance because there is an annual license and would be required to continue to meet the requirements in the ordinance in order to renew their license every year. He stated that he is proposing to simplify the ordinance to prevent unintended consequences.

He wanted to keep this simple while maximizing the equity component. He stated that the discussion can be deferred for the moment as to who will be in priority A. He stated that priority A are the economic empowerment and social equity applicants. He stated that priority B would be the RMDs. He stated that he has added language that clarifies and limits to the five RMD if the City is required by the state to permit. He added that no other RMDs would be permitted and if future RMDs came into the City they would not be allowed to convert to adult use. He stated that in the Permitting Preference section (5.50.040) to only allow priority applicants. He stated that if the exclusion period is more than two years it is essentially indefinite because any time period beyond two years is a new City Council who can come back and change the ordinance, but he preferred it to be indefinite and fixed in the future by the City Council. He commented on the City Solicitor’s concern that if the period is indefinite the City could be in a situation in the future where there may be less than eight adult use establishments operating in the City and other entities could challenge the ordinance on the basis that it is a moratorium. He stated that he agrees with the concern and felt that this can be addressed when it occurs. He stated that now that there are five RMDs eligible to convert to adult use and there are several economic empowerment applicants that are trying to license an establishment in our City the likelihood of reaching the eight minimum is possible. He stated that his amendments go together to define the group A and B and section 5.50.040 he is proposing that it be simplified down to “The City shall issue a cannabis business permit pursuant to the Chapter only to Priority Applicants”.

Councillor Kelley stated that his understanding is that the Zoning Code allows the economic empowerment, social equity, women and minority owned businesses only in BA1. He stated that in addition to the 1800-foot buffer they are the only individuals allowed to open up retail establishments in BA1. Mr. Roberts stated that within Business A-1 zoning districts, which includes several smaller business districts around the City, only economic empowerment and social equity applicants are allowed. A Special Permit from the Planning Board is still required. He stated that within those districts other types of cannabis businesses are not allowed, only social equity and economic empowerment applicants. Councillor Kelley questioned if women and minority-owned businesses are allowed. Mr. Roberts stated that in the Zoning Ordinance there is no designation for women and minority-owned businesses, specifically. It is only social equity ad economic empowerment applicants as determined by the Cannabis Control Commission. Councillor Kelley commented that there are five BA1 districts covered by buffer zones throughout the City. Mr. Roberts stated that this is a scattering in various parts of West Cambridge, parts of The Port and a few others within neighborhoods throughout the City.

Councillor Kelley stated that when discussing the equity in addition to the buffer zones access for those specific groups there are a number of other places where they could set up shop under the current zoning now.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that the City should prioritize economic empowerment applicants for a period of time. She stated that she would offer an amendment for this. She stated that there are social equity applicants, but the economic empowerment applicants have gone through a different fight in a different way. She stated that the City laid out an option and it is a good option. She wanted the priority to be just for economic empowerment applicants. She stated that in the City’s memo Revolutionary Clinics at the 110 Fawcett Street location intends to apply for both medical and adult use retail marijuana establishment and the location at 541 Massachusetts Avenue plan to do the same. She asked if it is permissible to state that they are not allowed to have a third establishment. She spoke about language that no establishment holding more than two permits in a City. She stated that this is fair. She noted that the City cannot prevent Revolutionary Clinics from having the two establishments. She worries about entities holding more than one direct or indirect license.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is sympathetic to prioritizing economic empowerment applicants within priority A and a way to do this is to limit priority A to just economic empowerment applicants or that economic empowerment applicants are only priority A for the first two years and after this the other categories are allowed. He stated that this could be addressed in the priority A definition which he felt needed more discussion beyond what he has proposed. He spoke about the limitation of now allowing a third ownership and for the RMDs if only priority B and A are allowed then it is just the five RMDs. He stated that if any other entity opened an RMD this RMD would not be eligible under the ordinance for operating in Cambridge. He stated that if there was a transfer of ownership between RMDs, it is a question for the City Solicitor whether the ordinance will cover this situation. He stated that if one RMD converts or co-locates an adult use and then it is purchased by another entity that already has two RMDs that were allowed to convert does the change of ownership make them ineligible under the ordinance unless they are also priority A and, in this case, would not want to exclude them.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that if some of the currently proposed amendments were adopted to make only economic empowerment or social equity entities eligible for Permit other than the existing RMDs that are eligible then no third entity could be established unless it is also an economic empowerment or social equity applicant. She stated that the transfer of owner requires a new Special Permit and if the business permitting ordinance were amended to say that going forward other than the existing RMDs permitted if they meet all the eligibility requirements depending on the final interpretation as to the language in the state law and the situation that each has but these are the only ones that could be converting or adding retail use. She stated that you could amend the business permitting ordinance to say that aside from the RMD conversions or additions then the only individuals that would be getting new permits for some period of time or indefinitely would be the economic empowerment or social equity applicants.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is also proposing to amend the priority B definitions so that priority B applicants cannot also be priority A. This would further clarify that the priority B would only be limited to the five entities and any other entities would have to qualify separately as priority A in order to operate in Cambridge.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there is a definition for what a social equity applicant is.

Councillor Zondervan responded that this is defined by the state as someone from an impact area of which there are none in Cambridge, or someone who has a conviction under the drug laws or is married to or the child of someone who has a conviction.

At this time Councillor Zondervan outlined his proposed amendments in the May 2, 2019 document.

The first amendment (5.50.020 Definitions) is a clerical error in the Cannabis Retail Store to strike out “applicate” and insert in place thereof the word “applicable” in the last sentence. NO VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THIS CLERICAL ERROR.

The second amendment (5.50.020 Definitions) is in the Group A Priority Applicant to add after the word “Commonwealth” the words “or a Cambridge resident earning less than 50% AMI in the tax year prior to application”. He stated that he is open to alternatives to capture individuals who are Cambridge residents and are economically disadvantaged. He stated that it worth considering changing the social equity in the first sentence to read “or Social Equity Program Applicant certified as such by the Commonwealth’s Cannabis Control Commission who is also a Cambridge resident.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked would the residency requirement apply to economic empowerment applicants or only to social equity applicants. Councillor Zondervan stated that this is his intent.

Councillor Simmons said this is difficult to understand especially when being further amended. She wanted to ensure that minority women are not pushed out. She stated that it is harder for them to get access to capital because of all the impediments that come into play. She suggested that the City Council have a Roundtable to discuss this. Councillor Zondervan commented that women or minority owned businesses are part of the definition and are being captured.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the Ordinance Committee should go through the proposal and try to give the staff a sense of what direction the City Council wants them to go to and maybe by the next Ordinance Committee there may be a draft that reflected these things. She commented on the amendment of a resident earning less than 50% AMI in a tax year prior to application. She commented that hypothetically this could be a college student. She asked if this is the intent.

Councillor Zondervan stated that this particular phrase is the weakest of the requirements that he is proposing. This was to have the City Council consider a qualification for a low income resident who does not qualify under the other provisions that are being put in. He stated that he is not attached to the 50% AMI and is open to other ideas. City Solicitor Glowa raised concerns. She stated that the Priority Applicant definition reads “A person, corporation, or other legal entity” and although a corporation is considered a person, legally it is not a real person and does not have residency. She stated that it would be helpful if the City Council wishes to talk about residency requirements to understand what this would mean in the context of a corporation or other legal entity aside from a natural person, does this mean a corporation or legal entity whose shareholders reside in the City, and this is one of the things that the City is getting into with the RMDs being bought up by giant companies from other countries. This can get very complicated in terms of corporate layers so by trying to bring in a residency requirement when referring to corporations seems like it would create a potentially significant tangle of knots. She added that if the City Council wanted to go to residency it would be helpful to state that they would need to be a resident for some period of time to qualify for that status because it could be someone who moved into Cambridge yesterday. She also noted that the tax return does not state that it needs to be for some period of residency in Cambridge. She stated that this raises a number of issues. She stated one of the things that was tried in the drafting of the ordinance was to include some of the standards where people are already meeting the state registration and certification standards so we are not creating new ambiguities. This could be creating ambiguities, therefore there are issues that should be further explored.

Councillor Zondervan stated that it is his understanding that the state definition of social equity applicant limits it to a natural person and attaching a residency requirement there should be relatively straight forward. He stated that the new requirement that he is proposing is intended to apply to an individual and not a corporation. He agreed that there is ambiguity here and it needs to be resolved if the City introduces this requirement. He commented that the main reason to consider this is the economic empowerment window is closed. He stated that social equity applies to those who have a conviction in Cambridge and women and minority-owned businesses. He stated that it is possible that there is a Cambridge resident who has been severely impacted by prohibition of low income who would be excluded by this criterion and therefore he is suggesting that it be added. He explained that his intent is to exclude everyone else. He stated that RMDs have to be allowed and then priority A and the City needs to carefully consider who is in priority A because anyone not in priority A is excluded effectively from doing business in Cambridge.

The third amendment (5.50.020 Definitions) is to Group B Priority Applicant to add after the word “City” the words “licensed or permitted no later than July 1, 2017”. He stated that his intent was to clarify which RMDs would qualify per the requirement under state law. This pertains to only the five RMDs that have received a license or provisional license before July 1, 2017. City Solicitor Glowa recommended that if the City Council wishes to consider this addition that the statute language be used because it is different than this and may have different legal implications. Councillor Zondervan agreed.

The fourth amendment (5.50.040 Permitted Preferences for Priority Applicants) is to delete the entire section and insert in place thereof the following: “The City shall issue a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter only to Priority Applicants.” Carried See vote below. Councillor Zondervan stated that the effect of this would be that only priority A or priority B applicants would be permitted to operate an adult use cannabis retail.

The fifth amendment (5.50.050 Permitting Requirements) is to strike out paragraph 2. Councillor Zondervan stated that the idea is to not impose further restrictions on priority A applicants. This could be considered for priority B applicants, but this may create other issues in terms of fairness under the law. He stated that the priority A applicants are economic empowerment applicants who are largely minority-owned and there is a provision for women and minority-owned businesses. If this additional restriction were applied, it would further restrict those businesses and could impede their operations. So, rather than imposing hiring requirements it would be left up to them as to how they want to structure their workforce. He stated that the business would certify that they meet these requirements. He stated that there are unintended consequences in imposing restrictions on the very business that in fact the City is trying to help. He stated that it would be better not to impose this requirement and that minority applicants and women-owned businesses are being advantaged through the priority A definition.

Councillor Siddiqui asked if there can be one set of rules for priority B versus priority A and not have it be consistent. She has concerns about being consistent. She noted that many of the applicants submit diversity plans to even get their license. She stated that she does not view this as being restrictive even for economic empowerment applicants who are committed to these ideals and this is being certified so there is time. She stated that it does to back to delineating between the two groups. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this question was raised but stated that she has not had an opportunity to develop a response yet and will do so shortly.

Councillor Carlone stated that this states that this should reflect the population at hand. If added up the minority, women and veterans this is seventy percent of the population. He stated that he does not mind this because it states the goals and it is not unreasonable. He stated that maybe this should be over a certain number for smaller businesses. He noted that fifty-one percent is women and minority and veterans are very broad. Councillor Zondervan spoke about the states hiring discrimination law that exempts businesses under fifteen employees. He stated that this could be another modification that could be made. By stating that this only applies to businesses of certain size. He added that this feels like overregulation. He stated that he agrees with the intent, but does it really need to be imposed as a requirement because the business has to meet this every year to obtain their license. This is potentially creating a situation where a minority-owned business that has a majority workforce that is not minority no longer meets the qualification.

Councillor Kelley stated that when he was a consultant for the Army Reserves all of his companies were minority or women-owned and all the employees were white, and most were men. He stated that he did not know why this should not be kept.

The sixth amendment (5.50.050 Permitting Requirements) is to strike out paragraph 3. Failed see vote below.

Councillor Zondervan stated that this is a more stringent concern for the priority B, for the RMDs because they have existing board of directors. He stated that if the City were to impose this kind of requirement there would need to be a phase in period, but the language would need to be amended and clarified how it would be phased in for an existing business. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she is assuming that the board of directors are unpaid. She stated that she felt stronger about keep section 2 in than she does about the board of directors. She stated that companies have struggled with having twenty percent women on boards which has been a goal that has not been met. Ms. Hemmerle stated that a point of clarification. She stated that these board of directors if they are not a non-profit they are equity shareholders in the organization and do make a profit from the corporation. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is a consideration, and this would need to be phased in if there are already equity shareholders. Councillor Zondervan stated that this is often the case, but not required. He added that an individual could be on the board but not be a shareholder, could be paid or unpaid. He stated that there are ways to get around these things. He suggested regulations that the City Manager could require some preference or consideration for companies that met some of the requirements rather than being an annual requirement. Councillor Siddiqui stated that there is a communication from Revolutionary Clinics stating that their recommendation would be to create a community advisory board comprised of what the City would like to see. She noted that this is what is done in Somerville. This could be considered if it is unreasonably impractical with the phasing in. The goal of diversifying is a goal and if this cannot be achieved then there should be an advisory board that is made up of minority and local residents that has a voice. Councillor Zondervan compared the RDNA ordinance requirement to have a biosafety committee which has to have at least two community members on the committee. He spoke about how difficult it is to find two community members to serve on this board. He stated that the intent is wonderful but meeting the requirement is onerous on businesses because it is challenging to find residents who are willing to serve. Councillor Siddiqui stated that they are different industries and she disagrees.

The seventh amendment (5.50.050 Permitting Requirements) is to add in section 10 at the end the words “through the City Manager’s Office.” Carried see vote below.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the remaining amendments are clarifications on how a community host agreement is obtained. This was in response to comments made in public comment about this not being entirely clear.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is where items could be added, and he stated that he would like to add shelf space. He noted that there is a comment from the City Solicitor about how shelf space could be added in. He stated that shelf space is a way for individuals that cannot secure the money to actually run their own store to get into the cannabis business. He spoke about meeting regulatory requirements. He stated that if there is a will of the body to add shelf space as an additional requirement it can be determined later. Councillor Zondervan has concerns with regulating this and meeting the requirements. He stated that these requirements are being applied to all the businesses including economic empowerment and these may be smaller operations and may not have the means to meet these requirements. He stated that the City Council is in danger of micromanaging how these businesses are run. He stated that the intent of his amendment is to limit the businesses to economic empowerment and social equity applicants as well as the five RMDs and all these restrictions are also making life for these businesses more difficult and the City is trying to benefit these businesses ultimately. He stated that there is a balance trying to impose requirements on smaller businesses that would have challenges meeting them. Councillor Kelley stated that he did not disagree with the challenges, but the ordinance is to force the challenges to be met. He commented that as a way for individuals who are never going to run their own store, raise money for the rent and to be able to break into this new economy there is no other way to do this other than shelf space. He stated that if the City wants this to happen it needs to be added to the ordinance. Councillor Zondervan stated that the City is trying to establish this new market and there are unknowns and one argument would be to keep it as simple as possible and get businesses going and keeping large business out. If this is accomplished let this run for a while and then go back and change the ordinance. He spoke about a size limitation on these requirements because it is difficult to set aside shelf space if the operation is small. He urged keeping in mind that if too many restrictions are imposed and the business is unable to meet the restrictions, the business cannot renew their license, the City may fall under the provision of not having eight stores operating and if there is a shelf space requirement and there are no other businesses that are qualified to meet the shelf space requirement there are challenges that are difficult to anticipate. He suggested keeping the ideas in mind and phase them in or only them to larger businesses and void imposing on all including the economic empowerment, social equity and minority and women owned businesses that the City is trying to advantage.

Councillor Carlone said within 2 years this is expected. He stated that when an individual comes forth for a license renewal and this is an issue they can explain the situation and if it is a reasonable response and trying to meet the requirements it gets approved. He stated that the aspiration is 50/50 with economic empowerment with RMDs. It may be difficult in the beginning, but within the two-year period this is expected. He stated that he agreed with Councillor Kelley on this.

Councillor Simmons suggested that this be discussed and if this does not work take it out of the ordinance. How does one determine who a social equity is, and the burden is being put on this entity to figure out what is a social equity and what does shelf space mean? She wanted City Solicitor Glowa to offer language for the ordinance and operationally. She noted that ordinances do not do operational things necessarily but if there are no clear instructions on how to do this it gets murky and people start asking for waivers because they cannot comply.

Vice Mayor Devereux questioned where the products are coming from. She asked if an individual is an economic empowerment and they have a store in Somerville and decide that they want shelf space in Cambridge. She commented that this feels like if a store wants to have its brand identity that they are helping other small businesses and they can offer shelf space voluntarily and use this as marketing tool to differentiate themselves from other stores. She stated that based on the memo from the City Solicitor there are all kinds of logistical questions. She wants to support economic empowerment and social equity businesses who may not be able to sell their product in a bricks and mortar store but this does not prevent an individual who has a brick and mortar store somewhere else from coming in. She stated that she is trying to understand how great a demand there will be for this. Councillor Kelley commented that if this is not a requirement it will not happen. He added that if someone does not have serious financial backing they are not going to get into the cannabis business without some small way to go. He stated that the Cannabis Control Commission has a broader equitable involvement. He stated that he sees this as something the Cannabis Control Commission has not explored.

Councillor Zondervan noted that there are more opportunities coming in terms of delivering businesses and small production facility and the Council should not think about the retail stores as the only business that individuals can get into. He stated that the City Council is in danger of micromanaging how these businesses operate and, in the process, potentially disadvantaging some of the businesses they are trying to advantage. He suggested keeping this simple and ensuring blocking out large businesses because this is the main concern.

Councillor Carlone stated that he assumed that the ten percent shelf space was for small minority production facilities and small businesses only survive with shelf space and there is a price to be paid to have shelf space. He stated that the ten percent ensures that companies will be helping smaller companies begin. Vice Mayor Devereux asked who monitors the ten percent. Is this a day, a ten percent of the value of the inventory or ten percent of the square footage of the linear shelf? She commented that this is incredibly complicated to be getting into. Councillor Kelley spoke about coming up with a theory because this is being received as positive.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that the state requires that positive impact plans be submitted. In these impact plans there is mentoring, technical services and incubator programs. She stated that Revolutionary Clinics and Sira Naturals have these programs and they are not requirements. She stated that she did not want to add further requirements that make it harder for economic empowerment applicants to be in business but is not opposed to thinking of ways for those who have been in business longer and will be in business before the economic empowerment applicants the existing RMDs who are co-locating or converting to make sure that those in business are required to have the incubator programs. There is a way, perhaps, to have some of these requirements that are already being done and these requirements are not in the ordinance. She stated that there are requirements that may not be in the ordinance or in the community host agreement because they will be standardized. She stated that she is not against the shelf space but is thinking about the state’s definition as amazingly impractical and the ownership on the economic empowerment applicants and what is required of them. She asked again could there be a different set of rules for the five and the ones that the City decides to prioritize. She stated that this would further inform what is put on the list of ten. Councillor Zondervan spoke about establishing regulatory guidance to the City Manager to state that the City Council would like to give preference to businesses who meet these other requirements or guidelines. These may work better than trying to figure out details in the ordinance. Councillor Siddiqui stated that this a question posed to the City Solicitor as to whether another set of regulations are permissible because the City Council is giving power to the City Manager to execute. Councillor Zondervan commented that the City Manager does have discretion to negotiate the community host agreements and the City Council would be providing some guidance as to how they would like to see these requirements considered as part of the community host agreement.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that regulatory guidelines could include offering medical product and the willingness to honor the discount programs that state licensed medical patients qualify for when they visit an RMD. She noted it is not the product but the pricing. Councillor Kelley commented that his understanding of the medical issue is that it tends to become unavailable when adult use marijuana is sold. He stated that it is not clear whether the City can prevent this. He stated that regarding shelf space there is a definition of craft marijuana cooperative that specifically delivers to marijuana establishments. He stated that the law has something, but it does not specifically state economic empowerment and social equity under craft marijuana cooperative but is a logical model to look at.

Councillor Zondervan agreed with the intent and the challenges are if a store opened tomorrow and there is no craft marijuana cooperative that can supply the products the store would be unable to meet the requirements. The more complicated this is made and the longer we delay approving an ordinance the more economic empowerment applicants are disadvantaged who are waiting for the City to put this in place so that they can get to work. He urged keeping this simple as long as the City Council feels comfortable that it will accomplish most of the large equity goals to give economic empowerment and social equity applicants and women and minorities-owned businesses an opportunity to get going and there will be opportunities in the future to further regulate if necessary.

Mayor McGovern stated that we want to get it right, but we may never get it perfect because there are a lot of unanswered questions. He stated that we could have more meetings but at some point, the City Council is going to have to take votes and something is decided. He noted that getting ten percent shelf space is not going to make it for economic empowerment applicants. He does not want to delay a community host agreement and be able to operate. There is an endless amount of questions and there are economic empowerment applicants waiting to open and cannot because they are waiting for this to be voted so they can get a community host agreement. He stated that the biggest questions are around priority and how to ensure that economic empowerment businesses, women and minority-owned businesses get priority so that they do not get monopolized out of the market.

Councillor Carlone stated that his feeling is that the aspirations should be true and there can be a review in two years. He stated that it could be required that within two years they have to meet this requirement. He stated that some economic distressed groups are going to develop a supply chain and there is where the ten percent shelf space comes in. He stated that for super markets it is ten percent of linear shelf.

Councillor Kelley went back to the amendments offered by Councillor Zondervan.

The eighth amendment (Section 5.50.060 Permitting Procedure) is to add a new sentence at the end that reads as follows: a Host Community Agreement shall be negotiated with the City Manager. Carried see vote below.

The ninth amendment (Section 5.50.080 Enforcement) is to strike out after the word “age” the words “three times or more.” Failed see vote below.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if it could be written into the ordinance that it would be reviewed within three years. Councillor Kelley commented that an ordinance can be reviewed at any time by the City Council. He stated that there is a difference between a sunset and a review. He stated that stating that it would be reviewed does not give something that does not already exist.

Mayor McGovern stated that regarding shelf space and if the City Council cannot come to a consensus. He stated that if the City Council voted for ten percent shelf space and then after a period of time reviewed this and there was a huge number of small providers that could provide more than the ten percent and if it is working well the percentage of the shelf space may increase of the ten percent shelf space cannot be filled. He urged adding in that the ordinance would be reviewed. He agreed with the three-year review.

Councillor Toomey questioned if the existing RMDs would automagically receive a recreational use. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there is some language in state law that needs to be analyzed more closely as to how to apply it to existing RMD businesses in Cambridge and will get back to City Council by next meeting. Councillor Toomey stated that this is a very complicated issue and huge money is involved and who will monitor that these entities are complying with the regulations, especially the social equity part. He asked if the City would have to establish a separate Cannabis Commission. He stated that the discussion has been around how this will work but who is in charge of monitoring the safeguards. He stated that this is his main concern and this needs to be considered. He wants to know how the City is going to be responsible for monitoring this. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that she will get back to City Council in more detail. She stated that between the licensing by the state, the review by CCD and Inspectional Services and the oversight of the financial is an important question. The City is working through how the money will flow through the state and how to confirm through the community host agreement what the actual three percent is and will get back with more detail on the oversight of the finances.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the exclusionary period for three years unless the City achieves the eight-store minimum in the time frame the exclusion would expire. This would force a review of this ordinance in the future.

Councillor Carlone requested that the City Solicitor review co-locating versus converting an RMD and could convert solely to recreational. He stated that this seems to be a huge bait and switch. He stated that converting could mean converting to do both. He requested clarification on this. It is still the goal of providing the needs of the community with medicinal needs. City Solicitor Glowa will look into this and report back.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that there is some consensus on the amendments that relate to clarifying details. She requested the City Council vote on the amendments.

Councillor Kelley stated that incentive zoning was instituted by the City; not the City Council.

Councillor Kelley stated that regarding the co-locating the Special Permit can say no.

Councillor Zondervan asked City Solicitor Glowa to provide a percentage number for hiring minority, women and veterans if the provision is kept in the ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa asked if this was for # 2 in section 5.50.050 Permitting Requirements are you looking to Law Department to provide the best percentage for that requirement. Councillor Zondervan responded that regarding the hiring discrimination law and the exempt provision for the number of employees hired. He stated that he is looking for a similar exemption. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she would get back to the City Council on this.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that regarding the amendment to strike # 3 in Section 5.50.050 she felt that if the Board of Directors is stricken she would suggest an amendment for an advisory board in the future.

Councillor Zondervan moved to strike out paragraph 3 in Section 5.50.050 Permitting Requirements. On this question the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillors Kelley and Zondervan and Mayor McGovern – 3
NAYS: Councillors Carlone, Siddiqui and Toomey – 3
ABSENT: Councillors Mallon and Simmons – 2
PRESENT: Vice Mayor Devereux – 1
and the amendment - Failed.

Councillor Kelley now moved that in 5.50.050 Permitting Requirements in paragraph 10 to add at the end the words “through the City Manager’s Office.”
The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Kelley now moved that Section 5.50.060 Permitting Procedure be amended to add a new sentence at the end that reads as follows: a Host Community Agreement shall be negotiated with the City Manager.
The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Kelley moved that Section 5.50.080 Enforcement be amended to strike out after the word “age” the words “three times or more.”

City Solicitor Glowa stated that she had suggested a recommendation to add the word “knowingly” but is not something that would be required. Mayor McGovern commented that if liquor is sold to minor the liquor license is not revoked and the business is not closed. There is a hearing before the License Commission and there may be a fine. He spoke about unintended consequences. He stated that if he were an employee at an economic empowerment establishment and I get angry at the boss and sell a product to an individual underage on purpose the owner loses their license he questioned. Councillor Zondervan explained that the language states that the permit may be revoked or not renewed. Mayor McGovern responded that “knowingly” or “unknowingly” is hard to define. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this would be Inspectional Services and not the License Commission. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the state cares whether the establishment is selling to minors. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she has not looked at this provision and she would look into this, but she stated that if the state license is revoked the City license would also be revoked. Councillor Zondervan stated that the language without this amendment reads is that the City would only be able to revoke a license if they sold to someone under the minimum legal age three times or more. He stated that this is worse in his opinion. This is a clarification that removes the three times or more. Mayor McGovern stated that he would like the three times or more to remain.

The question now came on the amendment and the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Devereux and Councillor Zondervan – 2
NAYS: Councillors Carlone, Kelley, Siddiqui, Toomey and Mayor McGovern – 5
ABSENT: Councillors Mallon and Simmons – 2
and the amendment - Failed.

Mayor McGovern asked if there is an issue that requires that these establishments pay the City’s Living Wage.

Councillor Kelley now proceeded to the amendment in Section 5.50.010 Definitions in Group A Priority Applicant to add after the word “Commission” the words “who is also a Cambridge Resident” and to add after the word “Commonwealth” the words “or a Cambridge resident earning less than 50% AMI in the tax year prior to application.”

Also, in Group B Priority Applicant by adding after the word “City” the words “licensed or permitted no later than July 1, 2017.”

Councillor Zondervan requested that the City Solicitor advise the City Council on the three proposed amendments for the Group A Priority Applicant and the Group B Priority Applicant as to how to properly word the language so that it reads social equity and Cambridge resident and how to best specify an income restriction and how to best specify the RMDs that were licensed no later than July 1, 2017.

Councillor Kelley asked the City Council if they felt supportive of the language.

Councillor Siddiqui state that with Group A Priority Applicant she wanted to give economic empowerment applicants priority over social equity applicants for a certain amount of years; making both priority but having some delineation. She stated that she felt that the economic empowerment applicants have had to adhere to a host of things that other businesses have not. She could be open to doing economic empowerment or social equity applicants who have a Cambridge residency.

Councillor Zondervan stated that if a motion is voted on tonight that does not amend the language but asks the Solicitor to advise the City Council on how to amend the language in this general direction the City Council could vote at a subsequent meeting on whether to amend the language in this way.

Councillor Kelley made the following motion:
ORDERED: That Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Siddiqui meet independently with the City Solicitor to discuss proposed language to amend the Cannabis Business Permitting proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Section 5.50.020 Definitions as it relates to Group A Priority Applicant.
The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Zondervan made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Solicitor be and hereby is requested to provide language for the Cannabis Business Permitting proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Section 5.50.020 Definitions to amend Group B Priority Applicant in keeping with state language.
The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Zondervan moved to amend Section 5.50.020 Definitions by adding at the end of Group B Priority Applicant a new sentence that reads as follows: “Those who quality as Group B priority applicants cannot also qualify for Group A.”
The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Vice Mayor Devereux moved to amend Section 5.50.040 by striking out the entire section and substituting in place thereof the following: The City shall issue a Cannabis Business Permit pursuant to this Chapter only to Priority Applicants.
The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there can be a requirement in the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance to prevent an RMD from converting to adult use retail unless it is required to sell medical cannabis. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the state guidelines state that the City cannot. She stated that Councillor Carlone raised the question about colocation versus conversion and she thought the City Council wanted the Law Department to dig deeper into this question and report back. She stated that the current guidelines from the state indicate that the City cannot require the RMDs converting or co-location to be required to keep having an RMD as part of their business. She stated that she would review further to see if she could provide more information to the City Council.

Councillor Kelley made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Solicitor provide further information to the City Council on whether RMDs converting or co-locating to adult cannabis use can be required to have RMD as part of their business.
The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Kelley stated that he will prepare a Policy Order regarding the shelf space.

Councillor Kelley moved to keep the matter in committee and get a revised draft of the ordinance including the proposed amendments. The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

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

The following communications were received and made part of the report:

A communication from David Whelan, Licensed Psychologist, 1679 Massachusetts Avenue expressing concern about two marijuana retailers on Massachusetts Avenue (ATTACHMENT G).

A communication from Sieh Samura, a veteran and an economic empowerment applicant and does not support the Cambridge Social Equity Plan (ATTACHMENT H).

The hearing adjourned at 9:07pm.

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

(ATTACHMENT I) REVISED TEXT INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS FROM THIS REPORT

REVISED TEXT
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN'S AMENDMENT

FIRST PUBLICATION NO. 3488
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE
In the Year Two Thousand Nineteen

AN ORDINANCE

In amendment to the Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Cambridge as follows:

That the Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge be amended in Title 5 entitled "Business Licenses and Regulations" by adding a new Chapter 5.50 entitled "Cannabis Business Permitting" which reads as follows:

Chapter 5.50 Cannabis Business Permitting

5.50.010 Purpose
This ordinance is intended to create a separate local permitting requirement for Cannabis Retail Store, Cannabis Cultivator, Cannabis Product Manufacturer and/or Cannabis Transporter (collectively "Cannabis Business") applicants to certify compliance with certain conditions in the public interest prior to being permitted to operate a Cannabis Business in the City. The City deems it to be in the public interest to give initial permitting preferences for Cannabis Businesses to Priority Applicants, as defined herein.

5.50.020 Definitions
Cannabis Business. A Cannabis Retail Store, Cannabis Cultivator, Cannabis Product Manufacturer and/or Cannabis Transporter.

Cannabis Cultivator. An entity licensed by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission as a Marijuana Cultivator to cultivate, process and package cannabis or marijuana, and to transfer cannabis or marijuana to other cannabis or marijuana establishments, but not to consumers. A craft marijuana cooperative as defined by state regulation is a type of Cannabis Cultivator.

Cannabis Product Manufacturer. An entity licensed by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission as a Marijuana Product Manufacturer to obtain, manufacture, process and package cannabis or marijuana products and to transfer these products to other cannabis or marijuana establishments, but not to consumers.

Cannabis Retail Store. An establishment authorized to sell or otherwise transfer cannabis or marijuana products to consumers for use off the premises, but not to cultivate, manufacture, process, or package cannabis or marijuana products, in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations. A Cannabis Retail Store may be licensed to operate as a Cannabis or Marijuana Retailer or registered as a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center, also known as a Registered Marijuana Dispensary (hereafter "RMD"), or both, in accordance with applicate applicable state laws and regulations. (NOTE NO VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THIS CLERICIAL ERROR)

Cannabis Transporter. An entity, not otherwise licensed by the Cannabis Control Commission, that is licensed to purchase, obtain, and possess cannabis or marijuana, or cannabis or marijuana products, solely for the purpose of transporting, temporarily storing, selling and distributing them to cannabis establishments, not for selling to consumers.

Priority Applicant. A person, corporation, or other legal entity applying for a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter to operate in the City who is:

a. Group A Priority Applicant. An Economic Empowerment or Social Equity Program Applicant certified as such by the Commonwealth's Cannabis Control Commission; or a Women or Minority Owned business as certified by the Commonwealth-- to be known as Group A Priority Applicants.

b. Group B Priority Applicant. An RMD within the City that will sell cannabis products in a Cannabis Retail Store pursuant to the Commonwealth's medical use of marijuana laws, either alone or in addition to operating as a licensed marijuana retailer pursuant to the Commonwealth's adult use of marijuana laws - to be known as Group B Priority Applicants. Those who qualify as Group B priority applicants cannot also qualify for Group A.

5.50.030 Applicability
This Chapter shall apply to any proposed Cannabis Cultivator, Cannabis Product Manufacturer, Cannabis Retail Store, or Cannabis Transporter that is seeking licensure from the Cannabis Control Commission on or after the effective date of this Chapter. This Chapter shall not apply to RMDs that have already been permitted in the City and are not seeking licensure as a Cannabis Retail Store for retail cannabis sales prior to the effective date of this ordinance ("Existing RMD").

5.50.040 Permitting Preferences for Priority Applicants
The City shall issue a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter only to Priority Applicants.

5.50.050 Permitting Requirements
a. In order to obtain a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter, an applicant must certify that:

1. It will comply with employee pay standards set out in the City's Living Wage Ordinance;

2. It will hire at least 51% of minority, women and/or veterans as employees;

3. If applicant' has a Board of Directors, the board makeup will be at least 51% minority, women and/or veterans;

4. It consents to unannounced, periodic compliance inspections by City officials of its Cannabis Business, including any Cannabis Business activities it conducts off-site;

5. It will comply with all State and local laws and regulations regarding its Cannabis Business operations;

6. No person under the minimum legal sales age shall be permitted to enter the Cannabis Business site unless such person possesses a state-issued registration card demonstrating that the person is a registered qualifying medical marijuana (cannabis) patient and the Cannabis Business site is, or is co-located with, an RMD;

7. It will work with the Cambridge Public Health Department to create and distribute educational materials to its customers as directed by the Cambridge Public Health Department;

8. It will sell only cannabis and cannabis accessories, and no other products, including tobacco products or alcoholic beverages of any kind;

9. It will comply with directives of the Police Commissioner and of the Director of Traffic Parking and Transportation, or their designees, regarding traffic measures to be taken at and near the Cannabis Business site; and

10. It has received a special permit from the Planning Board for its Cannabis Business and has entered into a Host Community Agreement with the City through the City Manager's Office.

b. No discretionary permit conditions may be imposed by the permit issuing authority pursuant to this Chapter.

c. A Cannabis Business permit shall be valid only for the applicant to which the Cannabis Business permit was issued, and only for the use and for the site approved in the permit. A proposed change of controlling ownership, change of use, or change of site shall require a new Cannabis Business permit.

5.50.060 Permitting Procedure
This Chapter shall be administered by the City's Inspectional Services Department, except that Priority Applicant status shall be certified by the Director of the Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department. Applications for Cannabis Business permits shall be obtained from and submitted to the Inspectional Services Department. If permit applications are properly completed and certified, and the conditions of this Chapter are met, the Commissioner of lnspectional Services (the "Commissioner") shall issue a Cannabis Business permit to the applicant. No public hearing process on individual applications shall be conducted. A Host Community Agreement shall be negotiated with the City Manager.

5.50.070 Permit Expiration and Renewal
The Cannabis Business permit issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be subject to renewal annually. If the applicant fails to timely renew or fails to meet the requirements of this Chapter at the time of each renewal, including the Permitting Requirements in section 5 above, the Cannabis Business permit issued hereunder shall expire. A Cannabis Business permit will not be renewed if the permit holder has failed to pay all fines issued pursuant to this Chapter.

5.50.080 Enforcement
a. Failure to comply with this Chapter, including a failure to maintain the status of a Priority Applicant, failure to obtain or to comply with the provisions of a Planning Board special permit or State license to operate a Cannabis Business, or failure to comply with any applicable laws, may result in revocation by the City, through the Commissioner, of the Cannabis Business permit granted pursuant to this Chapter. Failure to meet the annual Cannabis Business permit renewal requirements will result in the expiration of the Cannabis Business permit. If a permit holder's State license is revoked, then the Cannabis Business permit issued by the City shall be revoked. 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 sales age three times or more, or if the permit holder has failed to pay to the City all outstanding fines issued pursuant to this Chapter.

b. An applicant must cease to operate if it does not hold and maintain a valid Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter. Prior to revoking a Cannabis Business permit issued hereunder, the Commissioner will notify the Cannabis Business permit holder in writing and allow the Cannabis Business permit holder at least fourteen (14) days to submit written information to the Commissioner establishing that the Cannabis Business permit holder is in compliance with the terms of this Chapter. The Commissioner shall make a final determination on the Cannabis Business permit expiration or revocation thereafter. If a permit holder requests, the Commissioner in his discretion may hold a hearing before deciding whether to revoke a Cannabis Business permit.

c. Any violation of this Chapter by a permit holder shall be subject to a fine of up to $300 for each violation. Each day a violation exists shall constitute a separate violation.

d. Fines pursuant to this Chapter may be issued pursuant to the non-criminal ticketing procedure in G.L.c.40, §21D. The Commissioner of lnspectional Services, the Police Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Public Health, or their designees shall be the enforcement officials for this Chapter.

5.50.090 Regulations
The Commissioner of Inspectional Services, as well as the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, with the approval of the City Manager, are authorized to promulgate regulations and to create the necessary application and permit forms, to implement this Chapter with respect to their respective responsibilities pursuant to this Chapter. Regulatory requirements implementing this ordinance may differ for Priority Applicants and non-Priority applicants, such that the regulatory burden for Priority Applicants is less burdensome.

5.50.100 Effective Date
This Chapter shall take effect on _____ , 2019.

5.50.110 Severability
The provisions of this Chapter are severable, and if any part of this Chapter should be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remainder of the Chapter, and the remainder of the Chapter shall remain in full force and effect.