6. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $50,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account for expenses associated with the introduction of commercial recycling expected in FY19.
Order Adopted 9-0

June 18, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $50,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account for expenses associated with the introduction of commercial recycling expected in FY19.

The funds will be used for the purchase of recycling bins and outreach efforts associated with the launch of the program. It is expected that the program will begin in the fall of 2019 and will service up to 150 small businesses.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

17. Retirement of Virginia "Ginnie" Kelley from the Election Commission.   Mayor McGovern

R-17     June 18, 2018
MAYOR MCGOVERN

WHEREAS: Virginia "Ginnie" Kelley, a lifelong Cambridge resident, served the City of Cambridge and its residents from 1979-2018; during this time she served as a crossing guard, and most recently as a Senior Clerk Typist with the Election Commission; and

WHEREAS: Ginnie used her skills to provide a wide variety of administrative functions for the Election Commission including processing thousands of absentee ballots applications, voter registration and census forms; and

WHEREAS: Ginnie supervised, trained and mentored new employees; she touched both employees and residents with her strong sense of dedication, commitment and care; and

WHEREAS: Ginnie worked hard and demonstrated a positive work ethic; she consistently went above and beyond her required job duties; and

WHEREAS: Ginnie was well-liked by her colleagues and Cambridge residents; she will be missed by the Board of Election members as well as the Election Commission staff; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record expressing its appreciation to Ginnie Kelley for her thirty-six years of dedicated service to the residents and to the City of Cambridge and wishes her much happiness in her 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 Ginnie Kelley on behalf of the entire City Council.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     June 18, 2018
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR MALLON
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The City’s current open top trash receptacles are frequently at capacity, and waste overflow causes problems like stray litter, the buildup of sludge, foul smells, and rodents; and
WHEREAS: There are more environmentally friendly and sanitary options, such as Big Belly Solar trashcans, which can hold five times the amount of waste as an open top trash receptacle, as they are equipped with a solar powered waste compactor; and
WHEREAS: The Big Belly trashcans with a higher capacity and less tendency to overflow have additional environmental benefits such as lowering the number of truck trips by the Department of Public Works (DPW) to pick up trash; and
WHEREAS: The City has recently allocated $25,000 for five new Big Belly trashcans, but the cost of installing additional receptacles can be offset by wrapping them in advertisements, a practice currently seen in other areas like Downtown Boston; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Department of Public Works and the Community Development Department on acquiring Big Belly Solar trashcans to replace the current open top trash receptacles, with an emphasis on the business districts; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Department of Public Works and the Community Development Department on issuing guidelines regarding advertisements on the Big Belly Solar trashcans, and to report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-4     June 18, 2018  Amended
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR MALLON
WHEREAS: In recent months, there have been a number of alarming violent incidents in the community – particularly in the Port and the Wellington-Harrington neighborhoods – that have left area residents feeling shaken, angry, and concerned for their safety; and
WHEREAS: These incidents have included (but are not limited to): a report of gunshots in the area of Elm Street and Cambridge Street on May 20, a shooting that occurred at Richie’s Shell station on May 30, and gunshots fired in the area of Clement Morgan Park on June 6; and
WHEREAS: At a meeting on May 30 to discuss public safety, the Cambridge Police Department revealed that shooting incidents have doubled over the past year, with five shootings reported just in May; and
WHEREAS: While the Cambridge Police have been working hard to identify and bring to justice those behind these violent acts, and while City officials have stressed that statistics show that violent crime has actually been decreasing in the City in recent years, these continued shootings are making area residents increasingly concerned about their safety, and increasingly angered by the sense that the City’s efforts to stem the violence and create truly safe neighborhoods have not been nearly as robust or as effective as they need to be; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Police Commissioner and other relevant City staff to appoint an internal Cambridge Police Department Taskforce that is focused upon the creation and implementation of a Peace and Safety plan for the Port and Wellington-Harrington neighborhoods; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Police Commissioner to establish an aggressive new strategy to reduce the violence in the Port and Wellington-Harrington neighborhoods, to utilize the framework of the continuing Safe Streets, Safe City stakeholder meeting group to assist with envisioning, executing, and promoting this plan, and to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner.

O-11     June 18, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has promoted car sharing transportation goals including “increasing mobility, reducing reliance on automobile ownership and use, and lessening the total demand for parking spaces”; and
WHEREAS: Peer to peer (P2P) car sharing and other models have a proven record of supporting these goals by reducing the demand for parking spaces, mitigating environmental impacts, creating a reduction in traffic, and providing an affordable alternative to car ownership, especially for low income households; and
WHEREAS: At the June 5, 2018 Transportation and Public Utilities Committee meeting on car sharing, City staff noted that P2P car sharing seems legal under Cambridge’s zoning and parking regulations but there was nonetheless some uncertainty among Committee members about the legality of P2P car sharing and whether it is explicitly legal to operate P2P car sharing in all public streets and private parking spaces and driveways; and
WHEREAS: There was concern that absent absolute clarity that P2P car sharing is a legal use in Cambridge, people who might otherwise offer their car on a P2P car sharing platform might not do so; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge should be clear in its support and promotion of P2P car sharing to encourage maximum participation in this sort of activity to lead to the benefits noted above; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the City Solicitor, the Director of the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department, and the Chair of the License Commission and any other relevant department to determine if P2P car sharing, in which vehicle owners rent out their personally-owned vehicles on a P2P platform:
  • is legal on all Cambridge public streets and parking lots
  • is allowed in privately owned parking spaces and driveways in Cambridge
  • requires any special permitting or licensing, from a Cambridge authority or from any other government authority, beyond a traditional vehicle registration;
and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter and other related matters City staff thinks relevant to this discussion.

O-12     June 18, 2018
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Opportunities exist in public parks and other city owned properties to plant additional trees, which would enhance our tree canopy, reduce expected heat and flooding impacts of climate change, and would generally beautify and enhance our city and benefit residents; and
WHEREAS: Areas of the city that are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and are currently underserved in terms of tree coverage, such as Green-Rose Heritage Park in the Port, would especially benefit from enhancing our tree canopy, and would result in the improved health and wellbeing of nearby residents; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to identify additional opportunities to plant trees in public spaces throughout the city, particularly in underserved areas of the city, and present a timeline in which this will happen including any necessary fiscal appropriations, as a part of the broader effort to rebuild our declining tree canopy; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager ensure that tree planting and maintenance have a higher priority in the FY20 budget; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter as soon as possible, and in time to plant the trees this fall at the latest.

O-13     June 18, 2018
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: The City Manager recently appointed 18 members to the Tree Task Force for a term of one year, to provide guidance and feedback to a project team charged with developing a comprehensive Urban Forest Master Plan for Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The University of Vermont (UVM) study completed in 2017 documented a 7% tree canopy loss between 2009 and 2014 in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Residents of Cambridge have documented significant tree canopy destruction in the last few years including over 50 trees in approximately 10 days in April 2018; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge’s trees are a precious resource that provide many essential public health benefits, including cleaner air, oxygen, carbon storage and protection against the urban heat island effect through shading and evaporative cooling; and
WHEREAS: Massachusetts General Law Chapter 87, Section 3 requires a hearing be scheduled prior to the removal of “public shade trees”, which by definition include only trees along “the highway”, i.e. street trees, but does not make any requirements related to other public trees such as e.g. park trees; and
WHEREAS: We cannot afford to continue losing trees at the current rate while we wait a year for the completion of Urban Forest Master Plan; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That, until the Urban Forest Master plan is completed and adopted, the City Manager be and hereby is requested to notify the City Council whenever a city owned public tree (not considered a “street tree” under 87.3) must be removed for reason other than disease or threat to public safety, and that a public hearing be scheduled prior to its removal, following the same procedures as set forth in 87.3; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to keep a record of every city owned public tree that is removed including species, height, location, reason for removal, date of removal, photographic documentation; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter no later than June 25, 2018.

O-14     June 18, 2018
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
ORDERED: That the proposed amendment to Chapter 8.66 entitled "Tree Protection" be amended in section 8.66.40 entitled "Applicability" and also by adding a new section 8.66.050 entitled "Procedure for Other Projects" be referred to the Ordinance Committee for a hearing to review and consider the attached proposed amendments.

Attachment (changes in red)

AMEND SECTION:
8.66.040 – Applicability
This Chapter shall apply to all trees located on lots specified in the following sections: §8.66.050 and 8.66.055. This Chapter shall not apply to any project of the Affordable Housing Trust or otherwise for the construction of low and moderate-income housing meeting the standards established pursuant to any City, State or Federal housing program designed to assist low and moderate-income households.

ADD SECTION:
8.66.055 - Procedure for Other Projects
a. For any project not subject to 8.66.050, which requires removal of a significant tree, except for emergency circumstances, a permit request will first be submitted to the City Arborist. In all cases, the City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractor(s) involved, and the name and address of the property owner.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Transportation & Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Tues, June 5, 2018, at 12:05pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss an overview on car sharing. An agenda was distributed (ATTACHMENT A). A communication was previously submitted by Councillor Kelley on this issue (ATTACHMENT B).

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Siddiqui; Susanne Rasmussen, Director, Transportation and Environmental Planning, CDD; Stephanie Groll, PTDM Officer, CDD; Joseph Barr, Director, Transportation, Traffic and Parking Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Maureen Glynn, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston; Adrian Tanner, 28 Cutter Avenue, Somerville; and Patrick Notti, 1 Beacon Street, Boston.

Vice Mayor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. She announced that the hearing would be privately audio recorded. She announced that there were two presentations: from CDD and Councillor Kelley, and that CDD would present first.

Ms. Rasmussen spoke about the presentation (ATTACHMENT C). She stated that the conversation about car sharing is being broadened by CDD. Car sharing is a rapidly-changing field. She noted that driverless vehicles are around the corner. She explained that car sharing began in Cambridge in 2000 when Zipcar was launched. This business reduced vehicle trips. She stated that the private property owners gave parking spaces for Zipcars. An RFP was done to run a car sharing program. City parking spaces were part of the launch. Cambridge has the highest density of car sharing spaces per population.

Ms. Groll spoke about shared use mobility. Car sharing gives access to a car without ownership. Carpool, ride sharing, bike sharing and dock-less bikes are also included as part of shared transportation options. Driverless vehicles are going to complicate the landscape. She explained the difference between “ride hailing” and “ride sharing.” Ride hailing is when you use a service such as a traditional taxi or a TNC service like Uber or Lyft. She stated that 40% of all Lyft rides are “Lyft Lines,” which are shared rides with other users. By comparison only 20% of Uber rides are shared rides. Ride sharing is used to maximize vehicle capacity by filling empty seats in another person’s car. Bay State Commute and Waze Carpool provide connections for people to form car pools. In general car-pooling is declining for commuters as they have other options. Carpooling also competes with transit use. Car sharing is sharing a vehicle but not necessarily at the same time. She listed the car sharing companies that operate in Cambridge, which include Zipcar as well as newer peer-to-peer services. She explained that ride hailing services have cut into car sharing; Zipcar spaces are down by half (from 330 to 154). Enterprise discontinued its car share service in Cambridge. Cambridge has the highest per capita for Uber and Lyft rides based on the new 10-cent fee per ride originating in the City, reflecting 6.8 million rides. She spoke about the shared use of our streets. Walkers and bikers are the most vulnerable and need the most protection. The City is looking to test designated locations for Uber and Lyft pick-up and drop-offs so they don’t block bike lanes and crosswalks. There are enforcement challenges to this. Cambridge is collaborating with Boston and Somerville on this problem.

She explained that 40 special permit projects have been required to reserve parking spaces for car share services. New zoning regulations were adopted in 2016 to allow for car sharing spaces in existing residential parking areas and garages. She outlined the changes that the 2016 zoning provided (up to 25% of the spaces can be used for car sharing). The car sharing zoning change has not prompted complaints from residents. Free-floating car sharing models (like Car2Go) were not addressed in that zoning; they would have to be addressed in traffic and parking regulations. She stated that Car2Go may not be a good model for Cambridge to encourage if it increases car use. She spoke about the Future of Mobility Study and the $50,000 in the FY19 Budget (another $50,000 will be recommended in the FY20 Budget). She stated that it is important for the City to plan for long and short-term mobility issues, shared use vehicles are included in the Shared Mobility Principals for Livable Cities.

Councillor Mallon asked about the 40% was Lyft Line rides in relation to the 20% for Uber Pool. Ms. Groll responded likely the difference was in the demographics and preferences of people who use Lyft rather than Uber. Councillor Siddiqui commented that many cars have had Uber and Lyft stickers, as the driver works for both companies.

Councillor Mallon asked of the 6.8 million rides that originated in Cambridge, how many were single or shared. Ms. Rasmussen stated that this is unknown (the percentages cited reflect all rides, not just those in Cambridge). Councillor Mallon stated that she wanted this information. Mr. Barr stated that this information is available from the companies. Ms. Rasmussen stated that she will follow up. Councillor Mallon stated that HSBA is interested in creating designated pickup and drop-off zones because it’s not a simple street grid to navigate. Mr. Barr stated they have been working on this for all the Squares. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the TNC’s are cooperating.

Councillor Kelley stated that the complaint with the ride hailing companies is that they access the curb everywhere regardless of whether it is legal or safe to stop there. They are regulated by the Department of Public Utilities and changing regulations for Cambridge would require a home rule petition. He wanted TNC’s to be more clearly marked, so that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians could better predict when a vehicle might pull over to the curb. Mr. Barr stated that the only Cambridge-imposed regulation is that they need to obey the traffic laws. He spoke about there being a collaboration with surrounding cities. He noted that the Department of Public Utilities has no intention of doing on-street enforcement; it is being left to local communities. He stated that the companies would be opposed to the changes that Councillor Kelley is suggesting.

Councillor Kelley spoke about changing the traffic citation form that the police use for the vehicles that they pull over from the Lyft and Uber. Councillor Mallon asked if New York City has different regulations for Uber and Lyft. Mr. Barr stated that with the market power of NYC they had more leverage in requiring data from the TNCs. Ms. Rasmussen stated that NYC laws are stronger in this regard. She stated that this speaks to being out front with the autonomous vehicles with neighboring communities and the state to make sure that there are shared rides. Mr. Barr stated that autonomous vehicles have money and lobbying behind them. Councillor Kelley asked if the 6.8 million rides are just for pick-ups in Cambridge. Ms. Rasmussen noted that this complicates the understanding of development and traffic in the City because there is incomplete information about origins and destinations of the trips.

Mark Gutierrez, Legislative Aide to Councillor Kelley, gave a PowerPoint Presentation (ATTACHMENT D). He spoke about the car sharing industry. Zipcar launched the car share model, and now there are one-way floating and peer-to-peer car share services like GetAround and Turo. He spoke about the different trip types. There were graphs to explain car sharing customer behavior and options for different types of trips.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about reducing traffic congestion by encouraging walking and biking and reducing car use. Mr. Gutierrez responded that people who participate in car share use cars less often. Ms. Rasmussen stated that there is data to show that car share reduces use of other cars. More car sharing also means more available parking spaces because fewer cars are owned and parked when not in use. Mr. Gutierrez spoke about the parking spaces being used by multi-users. Micro-transit is privately operated transit such as Bridj, which operated small buses on high-demand routes not well served by public transit (Bridj no longer operates). Walking and biking is 100% flexible. New options are developing at a faster rate. He spoke about peer-to-peer transportation.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the suggested recommendations. He stated that technology is allowing people to share their private vehicles with other people for a fee (peer-to-peer car sharing). He wanted the City to create rules to specifically allow peer-to-peer car sharing. He highlighted 6.24 in the Zoning Regulations. He suggested several changes to redefine car sharing organizations and the rules to include peer-to-peer services, registering the vehicles with the City and giving notice and contact information to neighbors.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the assumption is that the platform will have access to the resident information and if new neighbors move in there is no access. He asked would it require private vehicle owner to register with the City. Councillor Kelley stated that this could be done, but it need to be done to include Zipcar. Councillor Zondervan suggested putting this in the registration rather than in the zoning. The only change to the notification is to have the contact information for the private vehicle owner. Councillor Kelley stated that the definition could be expanded for contact information to include name, telephone number and contact. Councillor Zondervan asked if the Traffic Department could have a record of the fleet owners. Mr. Barr stated that there is no list and the City needs to be clear what is done with the information. Ms. Rasmussen stated that Zipcar spaces are identified. Councillor Zondervan stated that his concern was that the police would be able to contact the owner of the car. Councillor Kelley stated that the car would also be a registered car.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked is the owner of the vehicle would be required to be a resident of where the parking spaces are located. Councillor Kelley stated that cars need to be registered in Cambridge. Councillor Zondervan stated that it is not guaranteed that the police have the information of who owns the vehicles. Mr. Barr spoke about allowable access to the RMV information. Ms. Rasmussen stated that there are legal issues that need representation; these are private transactions.

Councillor Kelley stated that in 6.24.4 (b) he would like to add the words “commercially owned” car sharing and delete section 6.24.4 (c) relating to single family homes. Councillor Zondervan spoke about explicitly allowing single family homes with a cap and if a user went over the limit it would become a commercial entity and would be regulated differently. Councillor Kelley stated that this could be discussed per unit. Councillor Zondervan noted there is a difference between a car owner renting a car and renting spaces. Privately owned vehicles could be leased and rented out. Councillor Kelley stated that this could not be done to have one privately owned car; this is to allow peer-to-peer and not impact Zipcar.

Councillor Mallon stated that this is over-regulating. Councillor Kelley stated that this is illegal now. The zoning was changed for residential. He stated that people are doing this now; and he wants more people to do car sharing. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the Law Department would have to confirm that this is currently illegal. It is not mentioned in the zoning; not clear if it is simply absent (and legal) or illegal. It could be interpreted as operating a commercial business, which cannot be operated in a residential district. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is using technology for doing something that could have been done with a neighbor or friend borrowing a car and paying for gas. Councillor Kelley noted that the zoning defines Zipcar. It is not the business model; it is the parking spaces. The question is does the City want this as a use in Cambridge.

Councillor Kelley stated that for those who do not have a driveway the parking of such a vehicle would be covered by Traffic Regulations. He asked if one could park their privately-owned car on the street and rent it through peer-to-peer car sharing. He suggested changes to the Traffic Regulations. Councillor Zondervan stated that this seems to be excessive. Mr. Barr stated that state law requires that these vehicles be registered and most would have a resident parking permit from the City. Councillor Kelley asked if a private car parked on the street can be used for car sharing. Councillor Zondervan stated that this use does not need to be regulated. Mr. Barr stated that this use is already allowed. The issue with Zipcar is that the cars were not necessarily registered in Cambridge. Ms. Rasmussen stated that this would force people to apply for a residential parking sticker. Mr. Barr stated that as long as people meet the requirements for a parking sticker this use can be done now.

Ms. Rasmussen noted that the car share zoning language contemplates a fleet (like Zipcar); Councillor Kelley’s language for adding peer-to-peer car sharing does not. She stated that the current zoning is not meant to apply to an individual with a car that is shared. This language is about a business that operates a fleet. Ms. Rasmussen stated that more changes to the zoning may be needed to allow an individual to use peer-to-peer car sharing. Councillor Zondervan suggested not changing the fleet provision and be explicit to single car peers-to-peer car sharing. Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted this to be explicitly legal. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that there are questions about what, if anything, needs to be changed to allow this type of sharing. She wanted an opinion from the Law Department to accomplish this goal and the Future of the Mobility Study will be looking at multiple platforms. She did not know how much the lack of clarity about the regulations is holding back peer-to-peer sharing and how this ranks in urgency in the staff’s priorities. She expressed more concern about developing rules for dockless devices and creating designated pick-up/drop-off zones for TNCs.

At 1:34pm Vice Mayor Devereux opened public comment.

Attorney Maureen Glynn (100 Cambridge Street, Boston) stated that she represented Turo, Inc., a peer-to-peer car sharing company. Turo employs 18 people in Cambridge. In Cambridge she stated that there are 39 hosts listing one vehicle and 9 host listing two vehicles. Attorney Glynn stated that in Massachusetts Turo has 2,000 hosts. She added that Turo provides liability protection up to $1 million provided by Liberty Mutual. She spoke about unintended consequences about how regulation could work. She urged the committee to take a step back and do nothing to see how the new sharing economy develops. She suggested limiting the number of resident parking permits issued to residents. She characterizes Councillor Kelley’s suggestions for regulations as a “search for a solution to a problem that does not exist.” Attorney Glynn submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Patrick Notti, a representative of GetAround, said the company started up in Boston and Cambridge. The use of peer-to-peer car sharing in Cambridge and Boston is not having a significant impact and is not causing a problem. The need for resident parking permits limits the impact. They have over 10 markets and there is an interest in this market. He stated that he wanted to continue operating as they are.

John Hawkinson stated that the NYC model is about data reporting and whether it is achievable can be explored by the City. He suggested a word change in the proposed zoning.

Vice Mayor Devereux closed public comment at 1:44pm.

Councillor Zondervan commented that this does not need to be urgently addressed; clarifying the zoning, maybe. He stated that the City can live with the current situation.

Councillor Mallon thanked the public for their suggestions.

Councillor Kelley added that this is an opportunity for the City to make a decision and to proactively address the transportation issues. He stated that peer-to-peer car sharing is a good thing and that there is no negative effect to have the City state this is legal.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that what is in place seems to be working, but the City could limit the number of parking permits issued to a household to deter someone operating a de facto fleet. She noted that the Future of Mobility Study is underway and that Ms. Rasmussen has stated these questions are part of the study.

Vice Mayor Devereux requested that Councillor Kelley rewrite his recommendation in a less formal regulatory way. Councillor Kelley stated that his hope was to get interest in this.

Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 1:48pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Tues, May 15, 2018 at 1:08 p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the proposed Cambridge policy relating to the sale of adult-use cannabis.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Dennis Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Vice Mayor Devereux; Mayor McGovern; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, Community Development Department (CDD); Branville G. Bard, Jr., Police Commissioner; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, Cambridge Public Health Department (CPHD); Wil Durbin, Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern; Daniel Totten; Nora Bent; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Joseph Gilmore, Camilo Basto and Kamani Jefferson.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and stated that the committee would go through some questions to determine how to move forward with adult-use cannabis regulations. He said that the City of Cambridge must make local laws to ultimately implement these regulations.

Iram Farooq acknowledged that CDD has been working with a multi-department group consisting of the City Solicitor’s Office, the Department of Public Health, the Cambridge Police Department, the Weights and Measures Department and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to capture a whole range of issues. She said that Adult Use Cannabis Sales is not in the Zoning Use Table and noted that there is a series of questions related to that in terms of where these establishments will be located and separation between establishments. She said that there is a requirement in the State regulations for a Host Community Agreement and the city must give thought to what needs to be included in a Host Community Agreement as well as the zoning piece. She said that the City Council has had discussion around taxes but noted that this is issue was not fully resolved. She said that there could be some type of public health regulation as well. She highlighted that the document titled Zoning for Cannabis/Marijuana Establishments (ATTACHMENT A) would be helpful to use as a starting point for discussion.

Jeff Roberts said that at the prior Special City Council meeting there was discussion around zoning and non-zoning issues. He explained that he focused his work on some of the particular zoning questions that came up based on guidance from some of the discussion. He stated that he narrowed it down to a few key questions which will be a starting point. He referred to three sets of maps outlining three potential base zoning districts and buffers for consideration titled Zoning for Cannabis/Marijuana Establishments District Options (ATTACHMENT B). He said that based on the last discussion, CDD has put together three potential sets of districts. He explained that if the city decides to zone based on base district, there are other districts that could also be potential locations.

Mayor McGovern asked Mr. Roberts a question as it relates to the law requiring an 1800-foot separation between establishments and 500-foot buffer around schools and playgrounds and how many locations could be established with those buffers. Mr. Roberts said that it is tricky to show on map without confusion. He said that if you speculate where an establishment may be located, you can work from there. He said that when looking at the green circles on the map, if the 1800-foot buffer were to apply, you would not be able to have another establishment in this zone. He said that if the buffer applies, you could have around 8 potential locations or more. Mr. Roberts explained that the green crosses represent the locations of permitted medical marijuana dispensaries, noting that not all are open. He said that the distance could be reduced from 1800 to something else that would open up more locations and would still guarantee that the locations would be spread out.

Councillor Zondervan asked about the medical establishments that are currently allowed in Set #2. Jeff Roberts said that Industry B does not currently allow medical marijuana establishments, but otherwise permits a wide range of retail uses, and Special District 15 have base zoning that refers back to the Industry B district.

Councillor Carlone said that if one wanted to have cannabis in an active retail area, it is important to note that parts of Industrial B zones do not have active retail. He said that zoning allows it but it is a completely different kind of atmosphere. Mr. Roberts said that it is a different type of district but advised that there has been an evolution in the mix of uses which includes One Kendall Square. Councillor Carlone said that we want an active area, it may be beneficial to refine portions of Industrial B and say that this qualifies. He said that the Industry B-2 at Alewife is not active.

Mayor McGovern said that some of the City Councillors were not serving at the time when the original Medical Marijuana zoning was drafted. He said that one concern that resulted in redoing that zoning was that the city was so restrictive as to where Medical Marijuana dispensaries could be located that no one could find a location in the available zones. He said that too many limitations or restrictions will result in people asking for special considerations, similar to what happened with medical marijuana applications.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that when talking about Industry B, does it include IB-1 and IB-2? Mr. Roberts responded that IB-1 and IB-2 allow medical marijuana. Vice Mayor Devereux said that Alewife only has Industry B2. Councillor Carlone pointed out that according to the first map, it is included. Councillor Zondervan said the only area on Map #2 that is not allowed for medical marijuana is Industry B.

Mr. Roberts said that the Special Permit process would look at more site-specific characteristics of a proposal with a focus on urban design and transportation. He said that characteristics of the business and its practice would most likely have to be handled through another means. He said that the Special Permit can add more time or more uncertainty to the process for a potential operator. He said that as it relates to medical and non-medical establishments, the high-level question is if it makes sense to have different regulations or requirements for each. He said that there is some flexibility between those two distinctions at the state level. He said that if there is a distinction in the zoning, it is important to make sure that they align with policy goals which may require going back and looking at medical marijuana requirements.

Mr. Kamani Jefferson, 17 Cameron Avenue, said that he is curious about the 1800-foot buffer between marijuana establishments. He said that this buffer will make it more difficult to find locations that fit compliance. He said that not every establishment has to fit to comply. He said that there must be a minimum of 20% but there does not need to be a maximum so maybe the market could figure itself out.

Councillor Zondervan asked the City Councillors present for their thoughts. Mayor McGovern responded that he would like the least restrictive option to allow more opportunity for people to open dispensaries to reduce Special Permit requests. He said that the buffers are one way to keep from having too many. He said that if the goal is to try to find a way to not open a lot of establishments in Cambridge, we can use restrictive zoning and the market will not play itself out.

Councillor Siddiqui said that she is support of District Option Set #3. She said that it is already very difficult to open shops and she is concerned about from the work that is coming out of the Cannabis Commission as it relates to social justice issues.

Councillor Toomey said that he is in support of District Option Set #2.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that she is in support of District Option Set #2.

Councillor Carlone said that he thinks this is new and it is changing a culture and he is all for that. He said that he feels the committee could look at this in stages. He said that the city could begin with 8 or 10 establishments and then move onto more. He said that he is in support of District Option Set #1 but could go to District Option Set #2 and added that it is important to move cautiously so that it will not backfire.

Councillor Zondervan stated that his main reason for supporting District Option Set #3 is that it seems to be the only option that includes the northern part of Massachusetts Avenue. As it relates to buffer zones, he asked Mr. Roberts if he has a sense of what would be a reasonable buffer if reducing from 1,800 feet and the committee agrees on District Option Set #3, would the medical marijuana regulations be adjusted. Mr. Roberts said that if you look at the map, there are a couple of options to look at as it relates to opening up additional locations. He said that it is a question of balance between wanting to have establishments spread out from a maximum distribution between establishments or if the desire is to keep one area becoming overwhelmed. He said that 1,800 feet is a reasonable distance if you say one establishment per business area. He said that reducing it by itself doesn’t have much of an impact. He explained that if it is reduced to 1,000 feet, it would still only allow one in Harvard Square as it would have a similar effect to what the 1,800 buffer is currently.

Mr. Roberts said that zoning could be amended over time.

Councillor Zondervan asked if it would make sense to adjust the medical marijuana zoning if it was the will of the City Council to move forward with District Option Set #3. Mr. Roberts said that it is a question of the City Council’s intent with respect to medical marijuana. He said that this could be one approach.

Mayor McGovern said that as it relates to District Option Set #3, he likes that when compared to District Option Set #2, District Option Set #3 would allow for more distribution across the city. He said that this should be spread out across the city and not certain neighborhoods. He said that District Option Set #3 allows for more neighborhoods to part of the conversation and having facilities more spread out. He said that we allow the opportunity for people to find places to open. He said that the city can create its own incentive program. He said that if the buffer is kept to 1,800 feet, there could potentially be a second location that is allowed if it is an economic empowerment applicant. He said the city should develop its own program to encourage minority owned businesses to be included.

Councillor Siddiqui said that the buffer should be reduced. She said that there is no reason for Harvard Square to only have one dispensary. She said that it all begins with zoning. She said that it is not only about the ownership but about the ability to create employment opportunities for members of the community. She said that there are indirect ways that the city will benefit in getting to the social equity piece of the issue.

Councillor Carlone said that he does not know where the state came up with the 500-foot buffer zone. He said that it is worth discussing. He said that as it relates to an 1,800-foot buffer zone, one could make the case that there should be two dispensaries due to transit routes.

Councillor Zondervan asked city staff if they would like to comment on the possibility of reducing that buffer zone. Ms. Glowa advised that she would look into this possibility. Councillor Zondervan said that it is his understanding that the City Council can reduce it. Mayor McGovern asked if it makes more sense to have buffers around schools or playgrounds.

Councillor Carlone noted that if the City Council chose District Option #2, there are still many possible locations. He said that the amount of retail opportunity is what is driving this issue more than playgrounds and schools.

Commissioner Bard said that the standard buffer as it relates to illegal marijuana use or distribution around a school is 300 feet. Councillor Zondervan asked if there are greater penalties for distribution within 300 feet and Commissioner Bard responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Lipson added that the impact to children and families will be driven by social norms. He said that he is not sure that could be justified on the basis of impact on children and families. He said that playgrounds may be more appropriate to look at in terms of buffers. Councillor Zondervan said that he is hearing that maybe the buffer around schools should be reduced to 300 feet. Mayor McGovern said that if this can be controlled through signage, he is not as concerned about his child walking to school past such an establishment. He said that it gets to what is driving the restrictions and what are we trying to protect people from. Councillor Zondervan said that it doesn’t make much difference anyway as the City Council can reduce restrictions later but for the time being, it is an unfounded fear, but it is nonetheless real. Councillor Carlone added that it could be a Special Permit process.

Councillor Zondervan talked about District Option Set #3 and the possibility of a Special Permit requirement with the Board of Zoning Appeal or the Planning Board. Councillor Carlone said that public process has been productive and we have learned from it. He said that he would like to hear from CDD and the CDPH to see if it has been helpful in shaping what happens. He said that the idea of not having dispensaries on the main floor is productive. Ms. Farooq said that the greatest benefit of having the Special Permit process has been has been the ability to influence design and ensuring that there is an active front. She said that the challenge may have been greater with medical marijuana dispensaries because the security issues were more stringent due to regulations. She said that there may be a benefit similar to the thought of starting with one retail location with an 1,800 buffer and in the future reevaluating. She said that it may be better to start with a Special Permit and determine in the future if it is still needed or not.

Councillor Zondervan asked about how the process would interact with the Host Community Agreement. Ms. Farooq said that the hope would be to create a uniform set of elements that go into a Host Community Agreement that would go through the City Manager’s Office for the administrative procedure along with various other city departments. She said that when thinking about retailers and giving some sense of predictability, it would be good to lay out the components. Councillor Zondervan said that it is imperative to hold a community meeting as it relates to the process. He said that it could be similar to a Planning Board meeting. Mr. Roberts said that all Planning Board Special Permits come with the rule that all applicants have a community meeting. That is one opportunity to align the process.

Sam Lipson said that as it relates to a Host Community Agreement, a lot of the outcomes on the public health side could be part of a standard template. He said that there is no reason to make this process complicated.

Councillor Zondervan said that it makes sense to have a Special Permit process through the Planning Board and have the Host Community Agreement aligned with that. Mayor McGovern said that the Planning Board has been doing a fine job. He asked if there is an expiration date on Special Permits. Mr. Roberts indicated that a Special Permit is valid for two years but extensions can be requested.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that there is finally movement at the dispensary on Fawcett Street. She added that she would be open to allowing second stores in places where there are current dispensaries as a means of not handing those operators a head start. Councillor Zondervan asked if a restriction could be put in place based on the type of district that would accomplish what Vice Mayor Devereux suggested.

Councillor Zondervan said that unless there is a reduction in requirements for medical marijuana, there would be a higher burden on adult use marijuana. He asked about the city’s ability to reduce the requirements that are currently on medicinal marijuana so the same could be imposed on adult use marijuana. Mr. Roberts said that in terms of zoning, the City Council could amend the zoning for medical marijuana establishments so the zoning covers both medical, non-medical, either or both.

Mayor McGovern said that the requirements that are put on medical marijuana is not the issue. He said that if we are saying that adult use shops also must supply medical, the laws around security are very different. He said that this would require a higher burden on adult use shops. He said that he worries that to require adult use shops to comply with medical marijuana requirements would be an undue burden. Councillor Carlone said that through a Special Permit, you could give a preference to that. He said that establishments that currently sell medical marijuana will go to selling recreational marijuana. Councillor Zondervan said that the city could say that it would allow a second establishment within the 1,800-foot buffer if there is already a medical marijuana establishment which could address some of these concerns.

Mr. Roberts explained that the medical marijuana program at the state requires a totally different type of corporate entity to operate as opposed to a non-medical marijuana establishment. He said that medical marijuana is a not for profit business with vertical integration. He said that a medical marijuana dispensary could only be selling its own product and there could be complications. Councillor Carlone said that he has been told that once recreation marijuana comes out, medicinal marijuana will be lost. Councillor Zondervan said that the city could create a provision wherein there could not be an adult-use dispensary if there was not a medical marijuana dispensary, that could solve that issue.

Mr. Lipson explained that one of the obligations in the state guideline is to offer delivery service to customers. He noted that there is a benefit to having easy access by foot but there is a provision to provide delivery service. He added that he is unsure if this is restricted by municipal boundaries.

Councillor Siddiqui asked if the city could allow for a 30% supply dedicated to only to medical marijuana. Vice Mayor Devereux said that if the goal is to make sure that medical marijuana will survive, allowing another store that does not have to carry medicinal marijuana is not necessarily the way to do it.

Mr. Jefferson said that in terms of medical marijuana losing money, there are no taxes on medical marijuana. He said that medical patients spend more money because there is no tax. He said that the patient count is going down in Colorado. He said that the big difference is the tax.

Mr. Lipson said that there is no specific zoning for laboratories. He said that it is clear to him that the city would not want to impose anything that is more restrictive than what is currently in place.

Councillor Zondervan said that the city should allow for the cultivation and manufacturing but it is not likely that people could compete with that scale of manufacturing in Cambridge after his visit to a facility in Fitchburg. He said that he is concerned about the intense odor and allowing that in an urban environment would probably not work out. He said that we should focus on the retail at this point.

Mayor McGovern said that the odor is an issue and it is not a good use for a congested city to cultivate. Councillor Zondervan said that it is his sense that the committee focus on retail and not cultivation.

Councillor Zondervan opened the hearing to Public Comment at 2:45pm.

Joseph Gilmore, Dorchester, said that there will be a reduction in high school usage by creating more accessibility for adults. He said that he does not believe that buffer zones will mitigate the accessibility to minors. He said that education should be something that should be prioritized in the Community Host Agreements.

Camilo Basto said that he used to manage dispensaries in Colorado. He said that it is important not to tie medical marijuana to adult use marijuana because of lawsuits and litigation as it relates to licensing. He said that the spirit of the licensing in Massachusetts is to give opportunities to low income and minorities. He said that if the two are tied, it would go against the spirit of including minorities. He said that he represents dispensaries who specifically want to be in Cambridge. He noted the difficulty of finding space and he said that many landlords do not want to lease to a dispensary. He said that the 1,800-foot buffer has made it difficult for him to find opportunities for locations for his clients.

Public comment closed at 2:51pm.

Ms. Farooq said that given that the Planning Board receives one project at a time, it is not as if there is an opportunity to compare multiple possibilities. She said that noting the desire to having dispensaries spread throughout the city is a good thing for the Planning Board to keep in mind.

Councillor Zondervan said that it is his understanding the committee generally prefers District Option Set #2 or District Option Set #3 in terms of where to allow retail cannabis. He summarized that it is the mindset of the committee to keep the buffer zones and increase the number of establishments allowed over time. He said that his sense is the committee feels that the Special Permit process should go through the Planning Board as well as being aligned with the Host Community Agreement as much as possible.

Mayor McGovern stated that if the buffer zones are kept, it makes a stronger case for him to go along with District Option Set #3. He said that this would allow for more districts to be included. He asked about the possibility of an additional establishment being added to a district if a business qualified as an Economic Empowerment Applicant. Councillor Zondervan said that he is supportive of this idea and added that it could broadened to include women and minority-owned businesses.

Councillor Siddiqui notified the members that there will be an Economic Development and University Relations hearing on this topic in the future.

Mr. Jefferson said that there is nothing stopping some sort of equity program.

Councillor Zondervan asked about an expected schedule moving forward. Mr. Farooq said that this hearing has been helpful for CDD staff to go systematically through the list of questions. She said that CDD will now draft zoning. She said that in terms of expected time of arrival of said draft, Ms. Farooq said that CDD understands that this is a City Council priority and will get it back to the committee as fast as possible.

DC said that distributing an overview to the City Council would be helpful as to what is reasonable and what is beyond the call. Councillor Zondervan stated the further possibility of condensing issues based on this day’s meeting so there is a shared understanding of the direction that the city is moving.

Councillor Zondervan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 3:01pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Wed, June 6, 2018 at 1:02pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the role and duties of the police officer assigned to City Hall.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor McGovern; City Manager Louis DePasquale; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Police Commissioner Branville Bard; Officer Kathrine McCarthy; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk; John Hawkinson; and Will Durbin, Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being privately audio recorded. This is not a policy setting meeting. There was a hearing held on this on May 30, 2017. He stated that this is a discussion about the position, not the person in the position. He gave a PowerPoint Presentation (ATTACHMENT A). He highlighted the points of his PowerPoint. He posed questions that were in the presentation that he was hoping would be answered. He wanted to ensure that the City is not overly policing public involvement in civic governance.

Mayor McGovern stated he feels that this assignment has worked out well. There is a petition of employees who are in support of this. In the beginning he was not for this but overall it has gone well. It is good to have a regular officer. He appreciates how this has worked out and wanted this to continue.

City Manager DePasquale stated that when he became the City Manager in November 2016 Mayor Simmons brought concerns to him about having a police officer assigned to City Hall. He stated that employees were feeling uncomfortable so he wanted to have employees feeling comfortable. He stated that police initially filled this position as overtime. He wanted it to be a person in City Hall who was a police officer, not the other way around. The position was posted and a police officer has been permanently assigned. He stated that as soon as an officer was assigned to City Hall he heard from employees how happy they were about this. He stated that the position has regular hours reflecting City Hall hours and he wanted this position to be part of the city hall community. He does not want the police officer in an office; he wants the officer visible, going into various offices and talking with people and so forth. There is paper work that needs to be done and the officer does have an office for doing this. People have the officer’s cell phone number.

Mr. Kale stated that from a historical stand point there was a police officer assigned to City Hall who accompanied the treasurer to the bank. He stated that there are people who come into City Hall who are excitable and the officer can defuse the situation. Employees really like having an officer stationed at City Hall. There is a level of respect and politeness that is expected and this is a safety net for the employees. City Manager DePasquale stated that the employees in this building do a great job dealing with customers who may be upset and the employees will continue their respectful treatment of customers. This position is not to quell dissent.

Commissioner Bard explained that the previously position assigned to City Hall the officer retired and it was not filled. He explained the job posting for this position as looking for a person who is visible, is responsible for the interior and exterior of the building, helping with service as people come and go and so forth. The officer is in City Hall to augment the services provided by the employees. While the position was not posted it was filled through overtime. He stated that the posted position would be regular City Hall hours. If overtime is required the officer assigned has the right of first refusal and then it will be filled with patrol officers as a typical detail. Not all after-hours events at City Hall require a police presence, it depends on the event. He stated that his interaction with staff, customers and visitors has been positive.

Councillor Kelley asked hypothetically if he had a meeting on noise he does not need to have a police officer present. Commissioner Bard responded in the negative.

Commissioner Bard commented that it is a posted position and the officer selected was the best candidate for the job. There has been communication to City Hall staff about the officer and position.

Councillor Kelley asked if there is special training needed. Commissioner Bard responded that there is no special training; crisis intervention training is provided to all officer. Officer McCarthy, the officer assigned to City Hall, has not undergone crisis intervention training yet. Councillor Kelley noted that as time goes on training may be required in first amendment rights. He stated that if more training is necessary would he support this. Commissioner Bard stated that any special training is incorporated into the regular training provided to the police officer as with all officers. Councillor Kelley stated that this is foundational difference for policing in Cambridge City Hall as opposed to regular patrol. Commissioner Bard stated that if something was identified as a unique skill it would be put into its regular training. City Manager DePasquale commented that Commissioner Bard feels that training for the police should be across the board.

Councillor Kelley stated that he has heard no complaints about interaction with the public. Councillor Kelley asked about expectation of employees about the officer assigned to City Hall. He asked if any communication was sent to employees notifying them that a permanent police officer would be assigned to City Hall. City Manager DePasquale stated that a communication was sent to employees. This is an employee who is a police officer. He is happy with Officer McCarthy.

Councillor Kelley asked what are the expectations for Officer McCarthy for the exterior of the building such as smoking marijuana, etc. Commissioner Bard responded Officer McCarthy is a police officer and will take the necessary action, given an officer’s wide range of discretion, to enforce the prohibition of marijuana. He stated that Officer McCarthy wants to be in this position, she specifically applied for it. He further stated that Officer McCarthy has provided her cell phone numbers to employees. The panic buttons when pushed goes to ECC and then the police. Commissioner Bard stated that backup officers are paid overtime. Councillor Kelley spoke about events in City Hall that are awkward to the public and when authority may be exercised by Officer McCarthy. Commissioner Bard stated that this needs to be looked at on a case by case basis for the officer.

Officer McCarthy thanked all for welcoming her. She explained that she applied for this position, it was not forced on her. She stated that she has been a police officer for 13 years; 8 years in Cambridge. She stated that she has a customer service background before becoming a police officer and that comes in useful when dealing with both employees and visitors to the building. She stated that the most visible employees are the cashiers. She stated that she has been asked questions from the public who have been coming into her office, giving them directions and so forth. She does not feel her position is threatening. She stated that her presence alone is enough to deescalate a situation and for the 1% that this does not escalate she would depend on her training as an officer.

Councillor Zondervan asked about the protocol to respond to someone who is not necessarily a threat. Officer McCarthy stated that she has responded on a case-by-case basis. She has been approached about drug use in the basement. She asked the person to leave the building and that person has not returned to the building. She stated that the employees in the Mayor’s office had a difficult customer and she asked them to leave. So far, the situation has been smooth and the people have left the building or quiet down without an incident. She has a radio and can call for assistance if necessary but has not had to do so thus far.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is concerned about an individual who is not a threat and some employees knows them. Officer McCarthy stated that she would ask them what is their business and if she can assist them. This is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. She handles problems at City Hall just as she would were she stationed elsewhere and was called into City Hall to handle the problem rather than being stationed there. Commissioner Bard noted that the officer will react based on her assessment of the situation and a person’s behavior rather than appearance.

City Manager DePasquale stated that the first concern dealing with a customer by employees is not to call a police officer. This is not the intent that he would be comfortable about. City employees first choice is always to be professional and helpful.

Councillor Toomey stated that he was thrilled that the City Manager has assigned the officer at City Hall. The job is to serve, not to intimidate. He noted that for years there was a police officer in this building. He stated that the public has verbally assaulted employees, especially women employees, and made them feel uncomfortable. He stated that he has heard from employees and the public that they like seeing the officer at City Hall. He spoke about living in a different age and the security issue. He spoke about graduation at MIT with ugly concrete barriers to protect the public from any vehicle attacks but we keep people safe without ugly barriers. He stated that he was glad Officer McCarthy was here at City Hall.

Councillor Siddiqui said that in her legal services experience there are often panic buttons and she asked City Manager DePasquale if this position will be evaluated. City Manager DePasquale responded in the affirmative, there will be a review.

Will Durbin stated that seven employees of the Mayor’s Office were asked about the police officer assigned to City Hall and there was unanimous support for Officer McCarthy’s presence in City Hall. This is a valuable service to have. He asked if there could be an accessible telephone number for calling the officer. City Manager DePasquale stated that he would look into a direct dial for the officer’s office or cell phone number with Mr. Gianetti.

Councillor Kelley noted that these issues are not new, the only difference is Officer McCarthy’s presence.

At 1:48pm Councillor Kelley opened the meeting to public comment.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, stated that he feels very intimidated by the presence of a police officer in City Hall, although personally Officer McCarthy has been great. He stated that he was speaking for the non-employee sector. He spoke about the two attachments. He stated that the court issued an injunction about the content of public comment. He stated that the City Council has affected the public comment and is worried it is being overly constrained. If someone is afraid to speak because of the presence of the officer, it cannot be evaluated. He stated that he is intimidated by Councillor Toomey. He stated that the power of authority is awesome and needs to be tempered with caution. He stated that he has an adversarial position with many City staff by virtue of his job as a reporter. He understands his rights in a way that others often do not. He spoke of a situation of being asked to leave the building by a police officer while he was awaiting the end of an Executive Session. He stated that he does not want to live in a police state and we are close to this.

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 1:54pm.

Councillor Kelley stated that he shares Mr. Hawkinson’s concerns. He stated that the mere presents of the officer may quell public comment in various formats and fashions.

The following documents were submitted at the hearing:
A petition signed by City Hall employees in support of the police officer assigned to City Hall (ATTACHMENT B).
A communication from Sandra Albano in favor of a uniformed police officer needed at City Hall (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 1:55pm by Councillor Toomey.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair