CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Report for the Jones and Hall Houses at 66-68 Otis Street, received from the Historical Commission. [Report]
Adopted 8-0-1 (Cheung ABSENT)

Agenda Item Number 1    Aug 7, 2017
ORDERED: That the Jones-Hall houses, at 66 and 68 Otis Street, be designated as a protected landmark pursuant to Chapter 2.78, Article III, Section 2.78.180 of the Code of the City of Cambridge, as recommended by vote of the Cambridge Historical Commission on July 6, 2017. The premises so designated is the land defined as parcels 129 and 130 on assessor’s map 24 and the structures thereon and the premises described in deeds recorded in Book 66187, Page 301 and Book 66187, Page 434 at the South Middlesex Registry of Deeds; and be it further
ORDERED: That this designation is justified by the high level of historical and architectural significance exhibited by the structure which is an important example of its type and the Greek Revival style and a contributing building in the larger East Cambridge National Register District; and be it further
ORDERED: That the effect of this designation shall be that review by the Cambridge Historical Commission and the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, Hardship or Non-Applicability shall be required before any construction activity can take place within the designated premises or any action can be taken affecting the appearance of the premises, that would in either case be visible from a public way. In making determinations, the Commission shall be guided by the terms of the Final Landmark Designation Report, dated July 6, 2017 with respect to the designated premises, by Section VII, Standards and Criteria of said report, and by the applicable sections of Chapter 2.78, Article III, of the Cambridge Municipal Code.

8. Congratulations to Superintendents Steven DeMarco and Christine Elow.   Councillor Maher, Councillor Toomey, Mayor Simmons

Resolution #8     Aug 7, 2017
COUNCILLOR MAHER
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of this City Council that Cambridge Police Department Deputy Superintendent Steven DeMarco and Deputy Superintendent Christine Elow have been promoted to the rank of Superintendent; and
WHEREAS: Deputy Superintendent DeMarco will be promoted to the position of Superintendent of Support Services and Deputy Superintendent Elow will be promoted to the position of Superintendent of Operations of the Cambridge Police Department; and
WHEREAS: Both Deputy Superintendent Steven DeMarco and Deputy Superintendent Christine Elow bring to their respective positions their many fine qualities, skills and achievements, as well as their continued commitment to advancing the mission and values of the Cambridge Police Department within the Cambridge community; and
WHEREAS: The promotional ceremony for Superintendents DeMarco and Elow took place on Mon, July 24, 2017 at 2:00pm at Cambridge Police Headquarters; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record extending its congratulations and best wishes to Deputy Superintendent Steven DeMarco and Deputy Superintendent Christine Elow on the occasion of their respective promotions to the rank of Superintendent; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Superintendent Steven DeMarco and Superintendent Christine Elow on behalf of the entire City Council.

3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a Non-Binding Public Opinion Advisory Question Petition filed with the Election Commission on July 14, 2017.
Charter Right - Cheung

TO: THE HONORABLE, THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DONNA P. LOPEZ, CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 31, 2017
RE: NON-BINDING PUBLIC OPINION ADVISORY QUESTION PETITION

Attached you will find a Non-Binding Public Opinion Advisory Question Petition filed with the Election Commission on July 14, 2017. The petition must be presented to the City Council at least ninety (90) days before the Municipal Election on Nov 7, 2017.

This petition requires a vote of the City Council approving this Non-Binding Public Opinion Advisory Question to be placed on the ballot.

Your kind attention in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

---

To: Donna Lopez, City Clerk
From: Tanya L. Ford, Executive Director
Date: July21, 2017
Re: Non-Binding Public Opinion Advisory Question

Please find enclosed a non-binding public opinion advisory question petition filed with the Election Commission office on Fri, July 14, 2017. Twenty-two (22) signatures were certified as qualified voters of the City of Cambridge by the Board of Election Commissioners at a meeting held on Thurs, July 20, 2017. The petition must be presented to the City Council at least ninety (90) days before the Municipal Election, Tues, Nov 7, 2017. The question may be placed on the ballot by vote of the City Council. If the City Council does not vote to approve the question may be placed on the ballot by the petitioners obtaining additional signatures. The petition must be signed by at least 10% of the voters of Cambridge and submitted to the Board of Registrars at least 43 days before the election. (MGL Chapter 53 Section 18A)

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

---

Part I - ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
Title VIII – ELECTIONS
Chapter 53 - NOMINATIONS, QUESTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS, PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES
Section l8A - NONBINDING PUBLIC OPINION ADVISORY QUESTIONS ON LOCAL BALLOTS

Section 18A. As used· in this section "governing body" shall mean, in a city, the city council acting with the approval of the mayor subject to the provisions of the charter of said city, in a town having a town council, the town council, and in every other town the board of selectmen.

A nonbinding public opinion advisory question may be placed on the ballot for a regular municipal election in any city or town no later than the thirty-fifth day preceding such election: by vote of the city council of such city, with approval of its mayor where so required by the city charter; by vote of the board of selectmen of a town or by vote of the town council of a town having a town council or by vote of the annual town meeting; or in conformity with the following provision of this section:

A proposal to place a nonbinding public opinion advisory question on the ballot for a regular municipal election in any city or town may be presented to the governing body thereof on a petition signed by at least ten registered voters of the city or town. If such governing body shall not approve said petition at least ninety days before said election, then the question may be so placed on said ballot when a petition signed by at least ten per cent of the registered voters of the city or town, but in no case less than twenty such voters, requesting such action is filed with the registrars, who shall have seven days after receipt of such a petition to certify the signatures. Upon certification of the signatures, the city or town clerk shall cause the question to be placed on the ballot at the next regular municipal election held more than thirty-five days after such certification.

The procedures established by this section shall be available to any city or town; provided, however, that if an alternative procedure is prescribed by a home rule charter, optional plan of government, or special act applying to such city or town, relative to the placing of public opinion questions upon the local ballot, then such alternative procedure shall apply.

---

FILER:
Name: Adam Strich
Address: 1200 Massachusetts Ave. Apt 54-E

We, the undersigned registered voters of Cambridge, Massachusetts, hereby petition the Cambridge City Council to include the following nonbinding public policy advisory question on the November 2017 ballot:

Many Cantabrigians have expressed concern over what they perceive to be the undue influence of a few wealthy donors and special interest groups on municipal elections. Such concerns have the potential to erode the people's confidence in their elected officials and reduce civic engagement, thereby undermining the objectives of responsible government. In response to similar concerns, cities as diverse as Los Angeles, New York City, Portland (OR), Seattle, and New Haven have provided for the complete or partial funding of electoral campaigns. Although they typically require only a tiny fraction of a city's budget, these public-financing programs have nevertheless been shown to result ·in a more vibrant and democratic process. Would you be in favor of the City of Cambridge adopting such a program for elections to the City Council?

Romaine Waite, 60 Lawn St. #5, Cambridge, MA 02138

Thomas McKenzie, 3 Ballord Pl., Cambridge, MA 02139

Kimberley Irene Haines, 6 Florence St., Cambridge, MA 02139

Derrick Nash, 3 Putnam Gardens, Apt. 38, Cambridge, MA 02139

Laura Nelson, 60 Linnaean St., Cambridge, MA 02138 [Not a registered voter]

Mary Anne Carlson, 270 Norfolk St. #4, Cambridge, MA 02139

Alex Loud, 18½ Tremont St., Cambridge, MA 02139

Philip Sego, 221 Norfolk St., Cambridge, MA 02139

Susan Yanow, 221 Norfolk St., Cambridge, MA 02139

Elisabeth Shainker, 22 Tremont St., Cambridge, MA 02139

Adam Strich, 1200 Massachusetts Ave., Apt 54-E, Cambridge, MA 02138

Daisy Shetterly, 4 Reed St. Terrace, Cambridge, MA 02140

Emmanuel Lusardi, 15 Lambert St. #406, Cambridge, MA 02141

Sylvie de Marrais, 39 Sherman St., Cambridge, MA 02140

Daniel Waldinger, 95 Moore St. #3, Cambridge, MA 02139

Ross Fredenberg, 1 Gardner Road, Cambridge, MA 02139

Jeffrey Purcell, 20 Tremont St., Cambridge, MA 02139

Nanette Simenas, 24 Tremont St., Cambridge, MA 02139

Albe Simenas, 24 Tremont St., Cambridge, MA 02139

Beth Pendery, 14 Tremont. St., Cambridge, MA 02139

Anne Taylor, 66 Thorndike St., Cambridge, MA 02141

Richard Taylor, 66 Thorndike St., Cambridge, MA 02141

Richard Fiorentino, 80 Otis St., Apt. 4, Cambridge, MA 02141

Aidan Richards, 136 Fayerweather St., Cambridge, MA 02138 [Not a registered voter]

Nyatha Weinberg, 82 Hammond St., Cambridge, MA 02138 [Not a registered voter]

O-3     Aug 7, 2017  Charter Right - Devereux
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City Solicitor and the City Arborist with the view in mind of drafting appropriate language for an ordinance that would require a public hearing before the Ordinance Committee or any other appropriate department before the removal of 4 or more trees from private property; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter at the Sept 18, 2017 City Council meeting.

O-13     Aug 7, 2017  Amended
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has historically been a proud supporter of Immigrants, including Undocumented Immigrants and their Rights; and
WHEREAS: Since 1985 Cambridge has been a Sanctuary City; becoming one of the first communities in the Nation to enact such important legislation; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts' highest court has recently ruled that local law enforcement officials do not have the authority, under state law, to detain a person based solely on a request from federal immigration authorities; and
WHEREAS: The recent landmark decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was hailed by immigrant activists and state Attorney General Maura Healey, who called it, "a victory for the rule of law"; and
WHEREAS: The Ruling (http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/newopinions/12276.pdf) Lunn v. Commonwealth case, the court concluded that Massachusetts State Law, "provides no authority for Massachusetts court officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a Federal civil immigration detainer, beyond the time that the individual would otherwise be entitled to be released from State custody"; and
WHEREAS: Governor Charlie Baker and his administration has reported they are exploring "legislative options" that would allow Massachusetts State Police to cooperate with federal immigration officials on some detainer requests, in an attempt to circumvent the rulings by the Massachusetts Supreme Court; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The Cambridge City Council is calling on Governor Charles Baker and his administration to cease any efforts in enacting any Massachusetts legislation that would be used to detain, hold or jail anyone that has met any requirements to be released under Massachusetts Criminal Statutes; and be it further
RESOLVED: The City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Attorney General Maura Healey and Governor Charles Baker on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-14     Aug 7, 2017  Amended
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR MAHER
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Throughout this term, the City has been making strident efforts to increase the safety on our streets for bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians, and one major component of this effort has been the establishment of pop-up bicycle lanes on major thoroughfares; and
WHEREAS: The push for the City to amplify and accelerate its efforts to create a network of separated bicycle lanes picked up momentum with a series of policy orders that were passed during the Oct 17, 2016 City Council meeting, and the implementation of these bicycle lanes has continued throughout the first half of 2017; and
WHEREAS: While the establishment of separated bicycle lanes has been widely hailed, a community must be both mindful and methodical in how it seeks to achieve its goals, and there are a growing number of voices suggesting that the City has not devoted the necessary forethought toward sensibly erecting the new pop-up bicycle lanes to avoid creating negative, potentially dangerous unintended consequences; and
WHEREAS: The roll-out of this process has led some residents to voice concerns that the pop-up lanes were erected prior to proper signage being posted, before adequate outreach to neighborhood residents had been conducted, and before the City could adequately educate the community about new traffic patterns, and this has contributed to confusion amongst motorists and an increased risk of accidents along some roadways; and
WHEREAS: Additionally, local business owners who do favor bicycle-safety measures have nevertheless voiced concerns that the method in which the City has been erecting the bicycle lanes has made it increasingly difficult for their vendors to make deliveries, and some businesses have reported losing vendors who have cited difficulties navigating our increasingly narrow streets, and finding fewer loading zones from which to operate, as reasons to withdraw their services from Cambridge businesses; and
WHEREAS: The City must be committed to ensuring that our streets are as safe as possible to all who utilize them, be they bicyclists, motorists, or pedestrians, but the City must also be mindful of how it implements new safety measures and street modifications, to ensure that these are being done with all due care and deliberation, and to ensure that these are not inadvertently creating new problems in the process; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Director of the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department, the Director of the Community Development Department, and all other relevant personnel to review the concerns that have been raised about the implementation of the pop-up bicycle lanes, to reach out to and meet with representatives of the neighborhoods in which these bicycle lanes have been erected and to meet with representatives of each of the city’s neighborhood business associations to learn of any specific concerns, to withhold further implementation of new pop-up lanes until these meetings have taken place, and to report back to the City Council within 30 days on possible remedies to any concerns that have been raised.
ORDERED: That the Mayor be and hereby is requested to invite the Director of the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department, the Director of the Community Development Department, representatives of the Interfaith community, representatives of the neighborhood business associations, representatives of any other pertinent neighborhood association to discuss how to expeditiously communicate the accelerated efforts to establish additional bike lanes in greater depth at a meeting to take place within the next ten days.

O-15     Aug 7, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: In February 2016, Marcie Mitler was hit by a car and killed while walking at the intersection of Somerville Avenue and White Street in Porter Square; and
WHEREAS: In October 2016, Dr. Bernard “Joe” Lavins was killed as he was cycling through the Porter Square intersection and was hit by a 18-wheeler truck; and
WHEREAS: Improvements to the dangerous Porter Square intersection are in process; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Director of the Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department to report back to the Council with an update on infrastructure changes being made to the Porter Square intersection, including a schedule of work and details on the community process.

O-16     Aug 7, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: The Grand Junction path continues to be a great opportunity to create a safe bike infrastructure and to connect our neighborhoods to the river in Eastern parts of the city; and
WHEREAS: MIT is currently in the rezoning process of the Volpe site and are major land owners across the path; and
WHEREAS: The path’s success depends on the cooperation and willingness of property owners along the trail line to recognize its importance to the community and its importance as a transportation project; and
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager of Community Development and report back to the City Council with language to continue to pursue a Grand Junction Overlay District and to confer with MIT about incorporating plans for the Grand Junction Path into the design process for the Volpe Site and report back to the City Council by Sept 18th, 2017.

O-18     Aug 7, 2017
MAYOR SIMMONS
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The Trump Administration continues threatening to punish cities that, like Cambridge, have declared themselves to be “Sanctuary Cities” by withholding federal funds from them, and while the courts have thus far successfully blocked these actions, it would be wise for Cambridge to have contingency plans in place in the event that the Administration is ultimately able to carry out these actions; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to establish a public fund that can be utilized in the event that the Trump Administration withholds federal funds from Cambridge as a Sanctuary City, and to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner.

O-22     Aug 7, 2017
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: Having access to high-speed internet is increasingly a necessary part of personal, professional, and civic life; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge has a variety of private internet providers providing a mix of access to the internet at different speeds; and
WHEREAS: The City’s Broadband Municipal Broadband Task Force recently reviewed the potential for the City to create its own municipal broadband program and to offer high speed internet access to private parties within the City; and
WHEREAS: It is not clear what the City is planning to do for next steps in analyzing and, potentially, operationalizing municipal Broadband; and
WHEREAS: A city without comprehensive and widespread access to high speed internet will lose competitiveness in the knowledge economy; now be it therefore
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant City departments and report back to the City Council on the status of the City’s plans to review and possibly implement a municipal Broadband system; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide this report to the City Council at its first meeting in September.

O-24     Aug 7, 2017  Amended
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge played a part in incorrectly advising landlords business owners on the approach to liquor licenses they needed as well as the types available; and
WHEREAS: The City will require additional legal help and perspective in balancing the legal and customer service aspects of this issue, in addition to finding a pathway to suspend and/or refund renewal charges; and
WHEREAS: Suspending the revocation of licenses until this issue is resolved will also need to take place; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide an update to the City Council, at the first meeting in September, as to the progress and plan to address the concerns regarding the sale of liquor licenses.

O-25     Aug 7, 2017
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: Municipal broadband is a project undertaken by local governments to provide higher speed internet wired into the homes and business establishments of the city, through an investment in city-owned fiber infrastructure; and
WHEREAS: Gigabit broadband is now a necessity for Americans as a matter of competitive innovation, education, economic opportunity, and communication; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is behind, suffers a lack of internet provider competition, and has unusually low speeds and service; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge and America are not keeping up when it comes to investments in fiber infrastructure compared to benchmark countries South Korea and Singapore or Sweden and the Netherlands; and
WHEREAS: The Broadband Task Force was established to look at stakeholder perspectives, social equity, cost and logistics, and many other factors around municipal broadband; and
WHEREAS: The cost of Phase II analysis, which would generate a plan for municipal fiber in Cambridge, is expected to be high, but has not apparently been competitively bid; and
WHEREAS: A Cambridge fiber project would be expensive to build out but could be a net revenue generator; and
WHEREAS: This is one of the most popular issues Cantabrigians of all stripes ask policy-makers about; and
WHEREAS: The Broadband Task Force was recently disbanded without consultation of the City Council and despite the Broadband Task Force appearing to insist on a Phase II process; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Municipal Broadband Task Force be reconstituted; and be it further
ORDERED: That the reconstituted group run Phase II as a competitive bid; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on successful cost-effective procurement for phase II by the end of calendar year.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, June 21, 2017 at 3:41pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue discussion on the zoning petition filed by Mark Lechmere, LLC, Owner and Amadan Management, LLC, Manager of the property at 207 and 227 Cambridge Street to amend the existing zoning at said location to authorize the construction of a 45 unit residential building with small scale retail on the ground floor and parking below grade.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Attorney James Rafferty; Damian Chadians; Robert Korff; Marie E. Saccoccio and Betty Lee Saccoccio, 55 Otis Street; Audrey Anninola, 49 Gore Street; Kathleen Ranelli, 58½ Spring Street; Dennis Ferrick, 25 Gore Street; Rose Marie Rosenberger, 225 Hurley Street; and Bill Dines 69 Otis Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being privately recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing.

Councillor Carlone reported that at the conclusion of the Ordinance Committee hearing held on May 3, 2017 Councillor Toomey and he agreed to meet with the neighbors and developers. This meeting was held this week. He explained that Councillor Toomey is out of town attending a conference. He stated that there is no resolution on this petition at this time. The meeting was continued because there might be issues for the City to consider along Cambridge Street through the Envision Cambridge process.

Attorney Rafferty, 675 Mass. Avenue, stated he represented the petitioner. He expressed thanks to Councillor Carlone for the meeting and the willingness to explore a possible compromise. He thanked the representatives on both sides. The residents that live close to the project on Gore and Second Streets are opposed to the project. This petition could be modified to be a smaller project, but it is not being received well by the residents. There is no consensus.

Robert Korff stated that he came to the neighborhood committee with a specific proposal for a CVS and was directed to a more mixed use approach. It is apparent that the immediate abutters are opposed to mixed use concept and are in support of the original CVS concept. The good and bad news is there are choices.

Councillor Carlone asked the members of the City Council if they had questions.

Councillor Kelley noted that nothing is different than what was presented last time.

At 3:49pm Councillor Carlone opened public comment.

Marie Saccoccio, 55 Otis Street, stated that she is an abutter and an attorney representing Ms. Dattero. At the last meeting it was stated that there would be a working group chaired by Councilor Toomey and Councillor Carlone. Councillor Toomey was out of the town and not at the meeting. She stated that she was instructed not to bring other people. She stated that three abutters met at Ms. Dattero’s home with Mr. Korff. She stated that she is representing Ms. Dattero whose property is the most affected by this petition. Mr. Korff met Ms. Dattero and presented the CVS proposal and Ms. Dattero was pleased with this. She spoke about all of the businesses that the area is lacking. CVS would draw customers and would be a welcomed addition to the neighborhood. She stated that the residents want the CVS and not the mixed use with 45 housing units.

Councillor Carlone read the motion in the previous Ordinance Committee report relating to the meeting to be held by Councillor Carlone and Councillor Toomey. When this motion was made it was unknown that Councillor Toomey was going to be out of town. The petition is going to expire. The discussion was fair; there were three people from each side invited to meeting Audrey Anninola, noted that the ECPT working group did not include residents from Gore or Second Street. It is disgraceful that the City Council is more concerned with strangers than residents. The residents want a CVS and the CVS can be made to look attractive. She wanted Cambridge to be a Sanctuary City for the residents. Residents do not want this housing complex in the area; it is the residents who vote for you. We want our neighborhood to be what we want.

Councillor Carlone commented that the existing zoning allows a 40-unit building.

Kathleen Ranelli does not want the zoning to have a part in this. She wants the zoning kept the way it is. She was not notified about the CVS project. She supported having a CVS in the area.

Betty Lee Saccoccio, stated that she is an abutter to the property. She questioned the fair and equitable aspect to the residents. The Planning Board heard the residents. She was not invited to the meeting held yesterday. She stated that the ECPT working group never had representatives from their neighborhood. She wanted the CVS. This working group designed an architectural plan that no one voted for. This was not a fair and equitable process. She wanted Councillor Toomey to be part of this meeting to hear our concerns.

Councillor Carlone explained that anyone has a right to submit a zoning petition if they own their land. The City Council has to go through the process. Fair and equitable is provided through public comment.

Bill Dines 69 Otis Street, stated that he was appalled that the notice for this meeting was received 45 minutes before the meeting. He stated that he was opposed to the petition.

Dennis Ferrick, 25 Gore Street, spoke about the meeting held yesterday and those who were opposed to the petition. He stated that he would show his support if this was reversed for other resident. He stated that 45 units cannot go on the property. He added that residents wanted the CVS on this property. He stated that residents assumed that this was going to be a CVS. He spoke about all the development that is happening in East Cambridge. East Cambridge needs support. He requested the City Council not to consider the petition Councillor Cheung asked if there was a deal to put a CVS at this location. Mr. Korff stated that when he first approached the community the plan was for a CVS; but was not set in stone. East Cambridge Planning Team wanted mixed use. Councillor Cheung noted that there is CVS in the mall. He asked why CVS would not want to be on the ground floor of the mixed use site. Mr. Korff stated that the proposal was 12,000 and 16 surface parking. Councillor Cheung questioned why there could not be a CVS and housing. Mr. Korff stated that he would discuss this with CVS but that this would not resolve the current issue.

Councillor Kelley commented that this conversation shows the challenge of what something will look like in the future and make everyone happy. No one knows what the future of retail will look like with on-line shopping. He wanted more information on retail; we do not want a building for retail that is widely volatile. He spoke about flexibility for the emerging economy.

Councillor Devereux spoke about the two buildings and land marking; the bank building was to be preserved would this be the same for the CVS concept. Attorney Rafferty spoke about demolition request presented to the Historical Commission and wanted 2 buildings preserved. With the mixed use concept the bank was preserved. A landmark study was begun on the bank. The bank structure is staying; it cannot be removed. The study period is ongoing. Councillor Devereux asked what the intent to proceed with the project is - how soon will the decisions need to be made. Attorney Rafferty stated that this landmark was initiated by the Historical Commission; not by a citizens group. Mr. Korff is proceeding with the likelihood that the building will be landmarked. Attorney Rafferty spoke about the density sought with this project was to include below grade parking and would not provide retail parking. Most uses would require parking.

Councillor Kelley commented that the bank structure is staying and future modifications can be made if landmarked. Attorney Rafferty stated that a landmark structure requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for changes. There will be an additional structure and it may be attached to the bank. The Historical Commission will have full authority to approve any additions. Councillor Kelley stated that land marking is thought to be more restrictive but there is a leeway for change.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 4:23pm.

Councillor Carlone asked what could be built as of right. Attorney Rafferty stated that 45 units would be allowed and that the current zoning set back requirements would likely reduce the units to 35 units.

Councillor Carlone read from the findings in the Planning Board recommendation. The Envision Cambridge process will soon focus on the major corridors such as Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street. The district proposed could be bigger. There will be a major study by Envision Cambridge for this area.

Councillor Cheung asked why this petition would be different for the Planning Board.

Councillor Carlone responded that the Planning Board wanted to study this area in totality.

Councillor Devereux noted that the end result could be a mixed use project with 35 unit with parking on the site can be built.

Attorney Rafferty stated that Mr. Korff has not made a decision. There may not be any housing. There is no determination that there will be housing. Councillor Devereux stated this could be one story CVS with surface parking.

Councillor Carlone suggested that this matter remain in committee. This is a contentious issue.

Councillor Cheung stated that he would prefer to move the petition back to the full City Council. We should follow through with housing as a goal.

Councillor Carlone noted that the neighbors are in opposition to the petition. He has been accused of favoring this project mainly because it is a well-designed project.

Councillor Kelley stated that he would be happy to move this forward. He stated that Envision Cambridge will not solve what is perceived as a challenge of what is allowed by zoning on a site; if the petitioner still wished to rezone.

Councillor Cheung stated that he would like to refer this to the full City Council. The petitioner was asked for more housing and they came back with what was asked. There is a housing crisis. CVS with parking versus residential he would like residential.

Councillor Carlone stated that this should remain in committee and the likelihood of a special meeting and getting the required votes needed are slim. He regrets that this could not be worked out. The intent was to work this out. He stated that Community Development Department and the Planning Board will review this area in the future. There are perceived density problems with Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street that will need to be clarified.

Councillor Cheung moved that the petition be referred to the full City Council, but later withdrew his motions because of concerns expressed by Attorney Rafferty. Attorney Rafferty stated that the petition may benefit with no action taken and letting it expire.

Councillor Cheung moved that the matter remain in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote of four members.

The following communications were received:
Communication from George Thomas, 67 Winter Street, in opposition to additional housing in the neighborhood (ATTACHMENT A).
Communication from Candace Maddalo, owner of 255 - 261 Cambridge Street, in opposition to the proposed 45 housing units to be built at the corner of Third and Cambridge Street (ATTACHMENT B).
Communication from Charles Hinds, 207 1/2 Charles Street, in opposition to rezoning 207-227 Cambridge Street (ATTACHMENT C).
Communication from Andrew Q. Oldman, Trustee of 247 Cambridge Street Trust, stating that traffic congestion problems at Third and Cambridge Streets need to be resolved before any new project is approved (ATTACHMENT D),
Communication from John Longhurst, in opposition to the proposed 45 housing units at the intersection of Cambridge and Third Streets (ATTACHMENT E).

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at. 4:41pm.

At the conclusion of the hearing Dennis Ferrick submitted a petition signed by residents in opposition to the rezoning of Third and Cambridge Streets (ATTACHMENT F).

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

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, July 5, 2017 at 4:01pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue the discussion on the City Council petition on short-term rentals and will potentially discuss the feasibility of grandfathering non-conforming uses related to STR, breakdown of owner adjacent full unit STR statistics, clarification of whether a small two family can be treated as an operator occupied single STR unit and implementation by Inspectional Services Department.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mazen; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Toomey; Mayor Simmons; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Cliff Cook, Senior Planning Information Manager, CDD; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner of Inspectional Services Department; Robert Reardon, Director of Assessing; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Kristina Nies, 105 Second Street; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; Monta Lertpadin, 14 Lee Street; Ellen Aronson, 121 Fayerweather Street; Kathryn Anderson, 51 Ellery Street; Judith Nathans, 511 Putnam Avenue; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; John Hawkinson; and Tamar Haber-Schain, 7 Garden Court.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being audio recorded by a private individual. He outlined the format of the hearing. He requested that written comments be submitted. There are minor changes and new information that will be shared. The petitioner, Councillor Kelley will be heard first.

Councillor Kelley made a public statement (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that if by the end of this hearing there is not a clear understanding of the petition as it goes to the Aug 7th City Council meeting, there may be a chance that this will not be passed.

Iram Farooq stated that the suggested revisions, (ATTACHMENT B), come from staff, and are a product of working collaboratively. The changes treat STR as accessory uses to residential uses. Since zoning applies it relates to property and property owners are responsible. She spoke about notification. Owner consent is important because if there is a violation the owner will be held responsible. Deputy City Solicitor Arthur Goldberg noted that the notification provision is written into the ordinance in 4.67. Ms. Farooq commented that the neighborhood character clause is problematic from a zoning perspective because it is not enforceable. She stated that other City ordinances would be relied upon for enforcement. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that 4.65 (5) has been deleted.

Ms. Farooq noted that co-habitation has been removed from the ordinance. This relates to family and tenancy definitions. It has been dealt with in the current version, no more than 3 bedrooms be rented separately. In the definition section 4.62 (i) of the red lined version operator occupied added all code requirements must be met. The dollar amount of liability was eliminated and needs to be in the regulation rather than the ordinance. In the inspection section the thirty day time limit was eliminated. It is problematic that a place that is unsafe is approved in the ordinance. The effective date of ordinance has been modified to Apr 1, 2018; inspection will begin six months previously.

Councillor Kelley expressed concern that inspections would be done before the zoning is effective. Inspectors will not go out until effective. By getting units inspected the owners will not open themselves to enforcement. He stated that he did not want to change the use in place relating to Owner-adjacent having an impact on transient housing accommodation.

Vice Mayor McGovern commented about changing the effective date from Oct 1, 2017 to Apr 1, 2018 will give the Inspectional Services Department time to inspect. He asked can existing STRs operate now. Inspectional Services Commissioner Singanayagam responded in the affirmative. He further stated that he felt that the Inspectional Services Department can do this within the allotted six months. The use will be approved and standards met. Mr. Reardon explained that the City Manager has hired additional staff to do the inspections. Councillor Carlone asked if online registration has been considered. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that registration can be done on line.

Councillor Devereux questioned whether inspections will be done in order as submitted. Commissioner Singanayagam responded in the affirmative. Mr. Reardon stated that there is hope that platform will be up and running before October 2017. It will not be the lack of staff; it will be that applications have not been filed.

Councillor Mazen asked who is responsible for reconciling who is doing business. Mr. Reardon stated that there is a push to have a state-wide registration available and Cambridge will get a master list. The platform will be statewide. He further stated that there are companies that do data-scraping for the City.

Councillor Carlone spoke about Awaiting Report Responses that were on the City Manager’s Agenda on the June 26, 2017 City Council meeting (ATTACHMENT C).

Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that regarding the question of grandfathering, the opinion is that if a use is lawful in existence prior to ordination of the ordinance it could be grandfathered. Councillor Kelley asked if running a transient lodging houses will not be affected by the ordinance. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that if the ordinance does not apply they would not be grandfathered. Councillor Kelley stated this does not apply if the use is a lodging house. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the state legislation is complicated and one section makes exemptions for bed and breakfast establishments. Councillor Devereux asked about illegal Airbnb operations. Councillor Kelley commented that the current legal uses do not get impacted by the new legislation.

Councillor Carlone raised the question about existing Airbnb units if they could be grandfathered. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that related to Awaiting Report on owner-occupied small two family question the Law Department wanted more direction on this before they could do an opinion. Councillor Carlone explained his question. Mr. Reardon explained that if there is a second kitchen it would be listed as a two family unless there is an exemption from Inspectional Services as a one family. He added that the intent of ordinance is that a two family could rent out three bedrooms. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the ordinance as proposed would allow this use as an owner-adjacent use.

A discussion ensued about the analysis in Awaiting Report #17-47. Ms. Farooq stated that 1, 2, 3, 4 unit buildings were reviewed that have a residential exemption. Each building would be allowed up to one Owner-Adjacent unit, a maximum of up to 2,481 Owner-Adjacent STR rentals might be allowed. This represent 4.7% of the total housing stock in the City. Mr. Reardon noted that condos are not included in this analysis. Councillor Carlone stated that when considering the number of rental units, the 2,481 potential Owner-Adjacent STR units are actually 7.1 percent or 1 in 14 of all rental units.

Councillor Cheung questioned how many of these going are going to be used as Airbnb. Ms. Farooq responded that 1880 units are in homes and are owner-occupied units. Councillor Carlone noted that there is no limit on this. Councillor Cheung asked if the owners can be matched up with the Owner-Adjacent units. Mr. Cook stated that this does not include the addresses. The points were not put on the parcel. It is difficult to associate the list with the parcel.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the units in existing two unit buildings of 1729 owned by one person. Councillor Devereux commented that the chart is multi-family houses owned by property owner.

Councillor Cheung questioned how many own one unit and own other non-adjacent units. Mr. Reardon responded that this is not in the data. It would be more labor intensive work.

Commissioner Singanayagam spoke about enforcement. Another inspector will be hired and the current staff will help with inspections. Mr. Reardon stated that the Fire Department will also do inspections.

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing to public comment at 4:49pm.

Kristina Nies, 105 Second Street, stated that her lease is not being renewed. She cannot afford to live in Cambridge. She stated that the City Council is slow to address the housing crisis. She requested the City Council to ban STR. The rising cost of housing is causing resident to move. She submitted her written comments (ATTACHMENT D).

Nancy Ryan, Cambridge Residential Alliance, stated that the Owner-Adjacent should be eliminated. She stated that STR is about renting property. She spoke on the grandfathering cause. She explained about a three bedroom, three unit building that has been converted to nine units. She wanted to ensure that this cannot be grandfathered and be legally. She noted that her stated position has support in the community.

Ellen Aronson stated that the first STR property looked reasonable. She has a 2 family and rents a downstairs apartment. She feels that taking adjacent units changes the spirit of Airbnb. Airbnb does not necessarily change the character of the neighborhood. It is great to have the Airbnb options. She has stayed at various Airbnb. The nicer units were the Owner-Adjacent ones. Airbnb contributes to the City spirit. There is a positive side; travel is more affordable and experience more neighborhoods.

Kathryn Anderson stated that Owner-Adjacent should not be allowed. Airbnb is to rent a portion of your house. She stated that banning STRs would reduce the housing crisis.

Judith Nathans spoke about putting it into a lease that Airbnb is not allowed. She explained that Toronto does not allow Owner-Adjacent. She further stated that other issues allow whole apartment rented.

James Williamson stated that with Airbnb one can rent a room and receives income. What is being seen is that something else is happening. He wanted stricter regulations and no absent landlords. Property owners have advantage in this country. People who rent are lower on economic scale. He stated that this is an issue of social economic justice. Property owners are favored over renters. If a renter rents regularly through Airbnb the property owner may not know what is going on. There is a social right not to have turbulence in your community. He spoke about neighborhood stability.

John Hawkinson submitted his comment (ATTACHMENT E) about three technical points in the drafting. His comments concerned residential use and barring commercial uses, the term “across the street” in 4.65(3) (b) not being defined and confusion about the enactment date and the possible ordination date.

Tamara Harber-Schaine stated that her complaints has to do with renting by month. She spoke about residential exemption and no penalty. Mr. Reardon stated that if it is reported to the Assessing Department of a violation the exemption is removed. Ms. Harber-Schaine stated that the monthly renters are problematic because the renter has no knowledge of trash collection etc. This property owner is not living in the building but is renting units by the month.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 5:09pm. He opened the hearing to the City Council discussion.

Councillor Mazen stated that he was in the same position as Ms. Haber-Schaine. He could not afford to live in Cambridge without renting a room. This legislation protects the property owner, not the renter. The renter that is struggling to stay in Cambridge will use Airbnb. If the Owner-Adjacent is allowed the city is protecting the property owner. The renter must seek the permission of the property owner that they will not get. He wanted the renter to be able to use Airbnb. He does not understand what is being done here. This is disheartening if this is the best that Cambridge can do. This is working against a middle class rather than for it.

Councillor Carlone asked if something happened in an apartment is the tenant or the property owner responsible. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that typically it is the property owner.

Councillor Mazen asked is the property owner liable for a trip and fall. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor McGovern commented that some property owners are seniors. Mayor Simmons commented that not all property owners are created equal.

Councillor Mazen questioned if is it reasonable to discuss the difficulty that renters face. Councillor Carlone noted that this is a specific interpretation of how the state law is set up. Councillor Kelley stated that he likes the notification to the property owner or he would leave this as it is. His approach has been to focus the Airbnb with the unit. The owner adjacent unit should not be rented and the conversation regarding multifamily homes should continue and should not be allowed. He spoke about the Cambridge’s uniqueness where people come to Cambridge for travel, medical treatment and school. He did not want this viewed as a property owner protected statute.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he is on the fence with the owner-adjacent units. Cambridge needs every housing unit it can get. This conversation has been ongoing for a year. He did not want to eliminate this at the summer meeting. This is a process and fairness issue. The intent of the ordinance from beginning was to make short term rentals safe, legal and regulate. This does this with the owner-adjacent in the ordinance. He stated that for those who are house rich and cash poor if short term rental is taken away does that hurt those staying in Cambridge. He did not want unintended consequence. Councillor Carlone stated that apartments can still be rented, but make less money and rooms can still be rented in the owner’s personal apartment.

Councilor Cheung did not like the owner adjacent proposal from the beginning. This only gives advantage to certain property owners. Councillor Kelley stated that this is tying local residents to the units. An ability to rent out space allows people to stay in Cambridge. He stated the ordinance is great, but does not think taking out owner adjacent is good. Councillor Toomey stated that he did not hear any good reason to eliminate owner adjacent.

Councillor Devereux stated that she supported owner adjacent all along and it is not unduly commercial and is not taking units off the market. This ordinance cannot solve all the housing questions. Owner adjacent has been discussed over months and eliminating it now would cause concern. The total pool of STR rental could be 7% but she does not think it will be this many. Short term rentals will not be furnished and it is a lot of work with the turnover of tenants. This is adding to the additional work. At the end of the day there will not be a high percentage of housing stock used for short-term rentals.

Councillor Carlone noted that the proposed ordinance would raise the value of housing. He stated that Airbnb like rentals have increased in NY dramatically. The argument that almost 2,500 units will not eventually become Airbnb is false because of the significantly extra income potential, which will increase those units value. Councillor Carlone stated that if the Council repeatedly says affordable housing is the number one issue in the City, all these things hurt this. He noted that other progressive cities including Denver, San Francisco, Vancouver, and Toronto ban owner adjacent units and Seattle is proposing to do the same thing. He is convinced sanctioned owner adjacent units will significantly raise the cost of housing in the City and remove a significant number of units off the rental market. Cambridge cannot afford to have owner adjacent STR units.

Councillor Kelley spoke about continuing the conversation about whether owner adjacent units should be allowed. He stated that owner adjacent units will only be allowed in its entirety is different than room rented. Councillor Carlone noted that if housing rental income is higher for STR’s compared to yearly rental units, the value of the property is higher.

Councillor Devereux stated that by allowing renters to do this is increasing rents. Owner adjacent units may put pressure on housing prices. She spoke about foreign buyers that do not live here. She stated that allowing renters to be able to rent units so that they can pay for a larger unit at a high amount with money made from the renter. She stated that owner occupied is in the ordinance and is one unit compared to two units.

Councillor Mazen commented that owner adjacent units are in an economic status. The conversation happens in phases. A renter could be forced to charge more rent to make back the rent. In NY it is in the lease that the renter can only make a certain amount of money. It is not as complicated in Cambridge as it is in Brooklyn. Councillor Kelley stated that if we want to keep the rental housing down we cannot allow Airbnb for renters; this will drive up prices. The ability to rent space provides the ability to pay more rent. Councillor Mazen stated that he disagreed that Airbnb has become socially acceptable to ask more than market rate because of Airbnb in a lease agreement. This is coming in the future.

Vice Mayor McGovern questioned should a tenant have to get permission from the property owner even when the property owner is legally responsible. Is there something in insurance regarding rental units? Mayor Simmons stated that the use of the apartment is being changed and if a property owner does not stipulate renters insurance the property owners is responsible.

Councillor Mazen stated that Airbnb is one million per unit per claim. Mayor Simmons stated that she struggles with the renter’s ability to do Airbnb with or without the property owner’s permission.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the property owners protecting themselves and if affirmative approval from the property owner is required it will not be obtained. He wanted the landlord affirmative approval to be put in the ordinance. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg referred to 4.67 (1) the registration section in clean version. Mayor Simmons expressed concern with “shall” versus “must” in first sentence of 4.67. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg explained that shall is more restrictive.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the momentum on this matter and suggested another ordinance hearing or to move to full City Council and have a discussion with the full City Council.

Councillor Kelley stated that we are not imposing this on transient accommodations in the City where currently allowed. He stated that if the ordinance is passed he did not want to lose the ability to run a lodging home. He stated that transient accommodations are plowed in is Residential C District. Deputy City Solicitor stated that the ordinance does not apply to lodging houses or bed breakfast currently allowed. Councillor Kelley stated that he did not want the ordinance to impact an existing use.

Councillor Kelley noted that the hang up is on owner adjacent and he wanted to bring this up at the Aug 7th meeting and discuss it. There are concerns on notification and landlord approval. There is no resolution on owner adjacent, notification and landlord approval.

Councillor Cheung spoke about the need for another hearing to try to resolve the issue before the Aug 7, 2017 meeting.

Mayor Simmons suggested suspending the rule at the Aug 7th meeting to bring this forward to discuss this at the beginning of the meeting. Councillor Kelley noted that there are three friction points. Councillor Toomey asked where the concerns are.

Councillor Kelley outlined the concerns as in Section 4.67 “Registration” in the fifth sentence, Section 4.62 (e) Owner-adjacent short-term rental and 4.65 (3) regarding notification.

Councillor Toomey noted that the notification needs to be tightened up. He wanted new tenant notification tightened.

Councillor Cheung stated that he does not know how the notification is enforceable. Councillor Devereux stated that an online registry could be searched. Councillor Cheung stated that this is more enforcement. Mayor Simmons noted that only for those who register.

Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted short-term rentals legal and safe. Councillor Carlone stated that a new tenant likely means a new registration. Councillor Kelley does not see the online registry in this proposal. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that he wanted registration to be on line. He further stated that the registration form has all the information. Mr. Reardon noted that creating a map will be the second step. Councillor Kelley noted that the Inspectional Services Department does not have to do anything.

At this time Councillor Kelley moved that 4.65 (3) be deleted.

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Kelley moved that in 4.67 Registration that the words “and document that the required notification requirements have been met” be stricken after the words “Section 4.60” in the fourth sentence.

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Vice Mayor McGovern commented about the position of the landlord. Councillor Mazen stated that this would let down the good will of this legislation.

Councillor Carlone suggested that Airbnb can be done unless the lease specifically prohibits this.

Councillor Toomey commented that if this is not in the lease it is not a violation. Councillor Toomey stated that he would not vote on this. Councillor Devereux stated that if condo documents prohibit short-term rental it will have to change the condo documents.

At this time Councillor Carlone moved that the revisions dated 7/3/17 be referred to the full City Council as amended (ATTACHMENT F).

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

The following e-mails were received and made part of the report as follows:
Communication from Lee Farris regarding Section 4.66. She felt that the primary leaseholder tenant should have to do more than notify their landlord that they are renting a room out on Airbnb (ATTACHMENT G).
Communication from Carol O’Hare transmitting suggested amendments to Sections 4.64 and 4.676 (ATTACHMENT H).

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

The hearing adjourned at 6:24pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on Wed, June 14, 2017 beginning at 2:06pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the current opioid crisis on the state and local level, and what programs and plans exist to combat this epidemic.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor McGovern, Chair; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Steven DeMarco, Deputy Superintendent; Christine Elow, Deputy Superintendent; Sergeant Louis Cherubino, Cambridge Police Department; Claude Jacob, Chief Public Health Officer; Jose Wendel, Director of Population Health Initiatives; Mary Kowalczuk, Manager, Substance Abuse Prevention Programs; Tali Schiller, Substance Abuse Prevention Coordinator; Kristin Ward, Cambridge Public Health Department (CPHD); Kathy Betts, Senior Director of Community Health Improvement; Mark McGovern, Mary Cassesso, Dr. Christopher Fischer, Cambridge Health Alliance; Wil Durbin; Nora Bent; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Shane Blundell, Assistant Attorney General, Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office; Dana Bernson, MPH, Epidemiologist III, Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Bill Mergandahl, Chief Executive Officer, Pro EMS; Kristin Doneski, Outreach Coordinator, Needle Exchange Program; Andrew Musgrave, Director of Legal Services, Aids Action Committee; Mary Shannon Thomas, Ronnie Springer, Bay Cove; and Jim Stewart, First Church.

Vice Mayor McGovern convened the hearing and stated that the agenda for today will be to receive information from representatives of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and the Cambridge Public Health Department and to continue with discussion and comments. He stated that we know that in 2015 there were 13 deaths in Cambridge due to overdose and he noted that this number is increasing. He said that Cambridge is not immune to opioid-related issues. He introduced Shane Blundell from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office to begin the presentations.

Shane Blondell, AG’s Office, member of the AG’s Opiate Task Force Gave overview of a PowerPoint (ATTACHMENT A). He noted that over 60% of deaths in 2016 involve Fentanyl. He stated that in 2015, the Governor signed a new law that criminalizes the trafficking of Fentanyl. He stated that first responders have stated that the price for Narcan is increasing and as a result, an agreement was reached with the legislature and $325,000 was received from the manufacturer intended to help save lives. He stated that need to talk about trying to change prescribing behaviors. He noted that they spoke with the Massachusetts Medical Society and asked for Safe Prescribing Guidelines which limits opioid prescriptions to no more than 5 days. He said that a coalition was formed of State and Federal agencies to investigate and prosecute those who contribute to the epidemic. He stated that there is a medical hotline in the Governor’s Office to address issues with insurers. On the policy side, annual reports are issued that look at trends in the health care market along with barriers to access. He stated that they have a Community Outreach Team to talk about the work that is being done. He spoke about the Make the Right Call campaign to raise awareness and encourage people to call 911 and let them know that they will not be prosecuted for drug possession. He spoke about the Youth Opioid Prevention Grant Program.

Claude Jacob, CPHD, stated that he is accompanied by the staff who addresses this public health dilemma and introduced same. He noted that the CPHD has strong ties with many service agencies including the Department of Human Services and the Cambridge Police Department. He introduced Dana Bernson, MPH.

Ms. Bernson gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment B). She spoke about Chapter 55 which provides the legal basis for cross-agency collaboration to study the alarming trends in opioid-related deaths. She explained that Chapter 55 was signed into law by Governor Baker in August of 2015. She said that this required the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to examine data related to opioid overdose deaths and to submit a report by June of 2016. She said that the new Chapter 55 law was extended and expanded to include analysis of nonfatal opioid-related overdoses through June of 2017 which is Phase 2 of Chapter 55. She explained that another hallmark of this project is the collaboration between the Academic, Hospitals & Private Industry, and the State and Federal Government agencies.

Ms. Bernson gave a summary of the 13 Largest Cities Project and noted that the first meeting was held in June of 2017 with a focus on precision public health and the role of data in maintaining a robust public health system.

Claude Jacob thanked Ms. Bernson for her informative presentation and acknowledged the work of all the service providers. He said that it is important to share what is happening statewide.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated he likes to have the different groups of people at the table who are working on this issue in different ways such as the policy makers, the people in the trenches and the people on the ground. He asked Mr. Jacob to talk about what is being done in Cambridge to combat this epidemic. Mr. Jacob responded that the issue of the opioid epidemic has been a focus as it relates to primary prevention strategies.

Mary Kowalczuk gave an overview of the CPHD response to the opioid crisis (Attachment C). She stated that the CPHD works closely with City and community partners to raise awareness about the disease of addiction and to develop strategies for preventing opioid misuse and abuse, as well as preventing opioid-related overdoses and deaths. She detailed the many organizations and groups that are involved in the local opioid crisis response and noted that City and community partners offer a comprehensive range of services across the continuum of substance abuse care including prevention, intervention, treatment and recovery support. Ms. Kowalczuk also shared upcoming events and activities surrounding this issue.

Andrew Musgrave stated that the Cambridge Needle Exchange is aimed at improving the health and wellness of those who inject drugs while they are still actively using. He stated that they provide people with clean needles and education to use needles correctly and safely so they are not developing abscesses or spreading HIV or Hepatitis. He noted that they offer full prevention for HIV and Hepatitis C and provide health navigation for individuals who do test positive. He said that they work with clients who are interested in substance abuse treatment. He noted that there were over 100 referrals last year for treatment services. He said that over 1,000 individuals receive services. He explained that they conduct outreach work in the community. Kristen Doneski added that they are also covering the areas of Somerville, Malden, Everett, Medford, Arlington and Watertown. She expressed that the outreach being conducted on the streets everyday does not feel like it is enough. She stated that there is always something new coming to the street that puts people at risk. She stated that users put themselves at high risk when not using safe supplies. She stated that she would like to see more trainings in the community for Narcan. Ms. Doneski explained that they go to many recovery houses and treatment centers to train staff and individuals and how to use Narcan. She added that they also train public school nurses. She stated that more people are needed on the street. She stated that outreach is the way to get Narcan into the hands of the people that need it most. She stated that there is a huge amount of people who will not come to the Needle Exchange. She said that outreach allows them the ability to visit different locations and reach people that will not come to the Exchange.

Councillor Devereux asked Mr. Blundell about the Substance Abuse Prevention Curriculum. Mr. Blundell responded that they are in conversations about the outlines of what the curriculum will look like. He noted that there will be an advisory group that will help develop the curriculum with more information forthcoming in the fall.

Councillor Mazen stated that he wishes we could put more City resources into relationship- building and outreach. He stated that we must work in a regional way. He stated that we must engage in true regionalism. He said that he does not think that the first steps need to be that complex. He said that he is not sure what it will take to do the things that are obvious.

Councillor Kelley echoed Councillor Mazen’s statements. He said that this is an insoluble problem once started. He remarked that he is enthusiastic about the work being done with middle-schoolers as it is important to ensure that the schools are part of these discussions. He stated that there is a gap. He said that he attended a Narcan training at the Pearl Street Library where the librarians are frontline workers. He stated that the regional part is great, but we need more control over the Cambridge part of it.

Mr. Jacob explained that school nurses do carry Narcan because they have a lot of facetime and contact with students. He explained that they work closely with the School Department. He advised that they have been working with partners around the City for those who have expressed interest in being trained to administer Narcan. Councillor Kelley stated that his point is that much of it doesn’t sit with the school nurses. He said that it is also up to teachers to recognize certain types of behaviors. He said that bargaining issues and contracts need to be addressed.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that when he was on the School Committee, he was part of two negotiating teams and both times they tried to require that all school staff be trained in CPR but it was a major contract issue that never came to fruition. He noted the need for more intentional conversations surrounding this issue. He stated that it is important to get as many frontline people trained as possible.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he likes to think of things in short-term and long-term goals. He asked what we are doing for people right now. He stated that Narcan is great but it does not solve the problem. He stated that he hears that there are a lot of resources and great outreach programs, but there are not enough treatment capabilities. He asked what we should be talking about as it relates to funding. He questioned whether in-patient treatment is the most successful way to help someone overcome their addiction. He stated that it is one thing to connect with people but if it takes 6 months to get treatment, what good is that?

Mark McGovern, CHA Health Care for the Homeless, stated that the City of Cambridge can advocate at the State for treatment beds. He stated that in the meantime, no one knows the ways of these people as much as the Needle Exchange workers. He agreed that outreach is a way to meet more people. He stated that many don’t want to visit the Needle Exchange. He stated that more impact could be made by lobbying at the State level and funding more money to the Needle Exchange.

Dr. Chris Fischer stated that they work within their institution to connect people to services but it is incredibility difficult due to the availability of getting beds. He explained that they conduct evaluations for any patient that presents to the Emergency Department with opiate-related events. He stated that it is difficult to navigate a very complex system. He said that they try to use resources that are available in the institution and also try to look beyond what is available. He said that this is a challenge that they face every day.

Bill Mergandahl stated that they continually find that there is an almost irreparably broken system. He said that there are not enough beds. He explained that the requirements that it takes to make these connections are difficult and it would be impossible for someone to do it without real advocates. He stated that one of the biggest treatment centers where they have been successful in finding available beds is having issues.

Mary Cassesso added that the Recovery Center is being supported by ten communities. She stated that many of the community members felt that this was the most important piece of the continuum. She said that this is one commitment that communities are making. She stated that Kathy Betts wrote a grant for additional funding for work integrating behavior health and primary care. She stated additional funding helps to treat more people.

Ronnie Springer stated that at Bay Cove, they have a full continuum of services. She stated that they were able to find a location in Stoughton with a 64-bed program that is half full. She noted that it is difficult to get people there from Cambridge. She stated that they wanted a site in Boston that that did not happen. She stated that it is almost impossible to open a space for new beds. She stated that no one wants these people in their neighborhood. She stated that we must figure out how to work within the structure that we have. She stated that Bay Cove is trying to work with as many community partners to make the beds in Stoughton available. She noted that there is a smaller program at the Shattuck Hospital which has 32 beds for men only. She stated that in working with the DPH as part of the Governor’s Plan around opiate addiction, there has been great emphasis on holding people in treatment for as long as possible. She said that changing discharge rules with longer stays has raised the completion rate to 58%.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that there has been a lot of conversation around safe injection sites. He asked if this is something that the City of Cambridge should pursue. Mr. Jacob responded that this is not a new concept to people in Massachusetts. He stated that there is a working group looking at this issue. He noted that there is interest and they are trying to figure out the reach of the statewide coalition. He noted that there are 100 certified sites around the globe but added that it is illegal in the continental US. He said that they are currently working on low-hanging fruit interventions.

Mark McGovern stated that as it relates to safe injection facilities or supervised injection facilities, we need to turn to harm reduction until we can get people into recovery. He said that these facilities present a large harm-reduction model. He stated that the fact that Cambridge and the Cambridge DPH are considering this is a great thing to be doing. He stated that there are many barriers but it is very important to consider.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked Mark McGovern if there are any cities that fund their own in-patient treatment facilities. Mr. McGovern responded that he does not know the answer to that question. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would like to start thinking outside the box. Mark McGovern stated that it is a reimbursement issue. He added that if any healthcare facility cannot get reimbursed at a rate that will cover the cost they will lose money for other services they are providing. Ronnie Springer stated that is why hospitals are not providing detox. She said that they are doing it for $280 per day. Vice Mayor McGovern asked if there are partnerships that can be created. Ms. Springer responded that the licensing goes through the DPH which has regulations for anyone who would open a facility. She said that the rate is much lower than any for-profit or municipal hospital would be able to accept.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that on the State level, we have a Governor who talks about the importance but he hears that this is not being backed up with a whole lot of budget support. He questioned what the City of Cambridge should be advocating for as a municipality at the State level. Mr. Jacob acknowledged what has changed for the CPHD programmatically in that they serve as lead for efforts around the city, He said that grants that have been made available have at least doubled in the last few years.

Deputy Superintendent Steve DeMarco stated that as far as the State goes, the CPD would like to see a quicker turnaround as it relates to drug identifications and what the City is dealing with. He explained that with fatal overdoses, they need a report from the Medical Examiner’s Office to know what they are dealing with. He said that the turnaround time on that information is too long. Sergeant Cherubino stated that as part of the collaborative, there is great work that is being done. He explained that as a Police Department, Cambridge looks at initiatives across the state and country and then tweak programs to add the human approach. He stated that the Police Department is fortunate to have social worker on staff. He explained that the CPD is also reaction in that every case where there is an overdose situation there is a follow-up to assess the person in crisis. He stated that part of addiction is relapse. He stated that he feels that the biggest success story is the gains that have been made as it relates to the stigma of the addiction. He stated that Cambridge is a resource-rich community and when looking at the 2016 breakdown of overdoses, 35% were residents of the City, 29% were non-residents and the rest consist of the transient population. That is something that must be considered. He stated that a lot of the numbers comes with the turf.

Bill Mergandahl stated that he feels that one of the most successful programs that is ongoing, is the weekly “boots on the ground” to connect with people in the different squares. He noted that one of the newest things that is happening is the appearance of Fentanyl and the potency that they are confronting. He stated that they will have to double the amount of Narcan that all ambulances are carrying because there is not enough Narcan in the truck to deal with those affected by more potent drugs. Deputy Superintendent DeMarco stated that we must also think about the safety of first responders and bystanders that are being asked to help out. Councillor Kelley stated the need for a focused discussion on how first responders keep themselves safe as well. He said that he would like to discuss this issue in the near future.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the City Council needs guidance and a game plan. He noted that while it is the job of the City Council to figure out policy and budget, they are not the ones to decide what will and will not work.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he is considering making a motion to request that the City Manager create an Opioid Task Force to create short-term and long-term goals to address the issue of the opioid epidemic.

Councillor Kelley stated that he would like any potential motion to include the issue of protection of first responders and the public. Vice Mayor McGovern responded that the issue of safety of first responders and others is an immediate issue so he suggested another hearing within the next month to talk about first this issue.

Councillor Mazen stated that there is low-hanging fruit that can be knit together quickly. He said that the first 80% of the work can be done in 20% of the time. Councillor Mazen stated that he is up to date as to where we are but he would hate to rearticulate the state of the problem. He would like to see a group of folks that are not City personnel to create a plan to move forward. Vice Mayor McGovern said that he, also, would like to have some guidance for necessary decision-making.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would not submit a motion asking for the creation of an Opioid Task Force but would instead coordinate a meeting for further conversation.

Councillor Devereux stated that people are doing a lot and know what is effective. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the problem is getting that information to the policy makers who put the budget together.

Public Comment began at 3:52pm.

Jim Stewart, First Church, stated that we cannot afford to have a charrette because it seemed to take an unusual length of time. He stated that if this group were to commence a process, there could be results by the end of this month. He stated that he is 100% behind the Needle Exchange Program but they do not have the resources that they need. He stated that the CPD cannot be social service providers. He stated that 6 people die every day and they are lives lost because we haven’t got past the paralysis of analysis.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he is committed to convene City staff and first line responders to come up with some recommendations for the City Council to improve the services that are provided. He stated that it is easy to get caught up in the data that is collected.

Mary Shannon asked Mr. Blundell about the legal standing that is being used to hold people in the Emergency Department. Mr. Blundell stated that he cannot address this issue but is pleased to have a follow-up conversation. Mary asked how many of the 5% of people being evaluated under the mandated evaluation after administration of Narcan are connecting to treatment. Ms. Bernson stated that this is unknown.

Vice Mayor McGovern thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 4:00pm.

For the Committee,

Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, June 14, 2017 beginning at 4:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the final recommendations from Larisa Ortiz Associates in regards to the Retail Strategic Plan, as well as policy and programmatic opportunities related to the retail environment in Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Vice Mayor Marc McGovern; Councillor Craig Kelley; Mayor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Leland Cheung; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director; Pardis Saffari, Senior Economic Development Specialist; Christina DiLisio, Economic Development Department; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner, Department of Public Works; Becky Fuentes, Assistant Commissioner/Administration, Department of Public Works; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department; Nora Bent; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Sarah Kennedy, Director of Government Affairs, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce; Jason Alves, Executive Director, East Cambridge Business Association; Denise Jillson, Executive Director, Harvard Square Business Association; John DiGiovanni, President, Harvard Square Business Association; Frank Kramer, Cambridge Local First; David Downing; Laura Donohue; Carol Weinhaus; Kristin Mahon; Susan Corcoran; Jull Jaracz; Kim Wilson; and James Williamson.

Councillor Devereux convened the hearing and stated that this was the third Economic Development and University Relations Committee Hearing on this topic. This first was in February, and the second was in May. She stated that in terms of consultant studies, this has been a quick and timely endeavor, which she appreciated. She said that she is excited to hear the final presentation. She introduced Lisa Hemmerle.

Lisa Hemmerle thanked all present. She stated that it is clear that the retail environment is changing dramatically and the City of Cambridge wants to be responsive and provide concrete steps and actions to help retailers stay in the City and expand opportunities in Cambridge. She introduced Larisa Ortiz from Larisa Ortiz Associates, who conducted the study.

Ms. Ortiz gave an overview of a PowerPoint Presentation titled “Retail Strategy for the City of Cambridge” (Attachment A). She stated that based on feedback received at the two previous committee hearings, they dug deeply into the issues and now are presenting best practices and guidance that the City can better use to support the retail environment.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked what more the City can do for businesses in locations where there is construction activity. Ms. Ortiz responded that this may require mailings and changes to sales tactics. She noted that the only way this is done well is in a collective manner. She noted that it is important to support the business associations so they can support businesses via marketing. She noted that the City of Cambridge does not financially support the business associations.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked if there is demographic information regarding how many restaurant and retail workers live in Cambridge. He questioned if there is a danger that we will not have a workforce for certain jobs because the region is too expensive. Ms. Ortiz replied that anecdotally she has heard this concern. She stated that this is one of the reasons that she is recommending the use of shift-sharing services to businesses. She stated that it is a worthwhile line of inquiry for businesses.

Councillor Maher noted the recent Envision Cambridge and Envision Alewife presentation and asked Ms. Ortiz if she is coordinating with this group to ascertain how this study plays into the larger plan. Ms. Hemmerle stated that they recently had an internal update meeting to discuss what types of business will thrive in the Alewife area. She stated that this would most likely be neighborhood-supported retail. She stated that the focus of the original conversation was Concord Avenue and the area around Fawcett Street.

Councillor Carlone stated that he greatly appreciates the fact that Larisa Ortiz Associates addressed the issues raised at previous hearings. He stated that when he moved from New York 45 years ago, the frequency of one-story retail buildings in Cambridge struck him. He stated that because of high real estate values, these one-story retail buildings are in jeopardy. He stated that this is a problem on Massachusetts Avenue. He said that if a developer understands that neighbors and the City want neighborhood retail that should inform the price of the land. He added that when we have large development in the city, we say that we want a percentage of small, local businesses via the Special Permit process. He explained that his concern is that the neighborhood character changes and then the whole neighborhood changes.

Ms. Ortiz stated that it is a very challenging issue. She noted that in the report, they tried to share current thinking on whether land value can be affected, and if there is a way in which we can address this issue so that we can get the outcomes that are desired. She stated that there are a number of recommendations that could result in the desired outcomes. She stated that on Washington Street in Boston, the Boston Redevelopment Authority has pursued policies that support small businesses on the ground floor. She stated that a very successful small business can pay a high rent if they are getting enough people to come through the door. She said that there are very few effective policies that try to affect land value.

Councillor Carlone said that he sees neighborhood after neighborhood changing and not in a good way.

Lisa Hemmerle stated that this conversation lends support to the Commercial Needs Assessment and if we can pull in intercept data it would be helpful. She stated that a business has its costs and revenues and although they may be struggling with rent, there are other costs that the City can help with, such as the Storefront Improvement Program. She said that there are other things that can be done to reduce cost. She stated that this is the strategy that they are pursuing.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is impressed with the idea of limiting frontage to 25 feet. He said that there are many studies that show the stimulation of having a variety in storefronts promotes connection and enthusiasm. He said that active entry points and displays are key.

Councillor Carlone stated that everyone agrees about the issue of having too many banks. He asked what some of the other uses, other than a drugstore, that are the “killers.”

Ms. Ortiz stated that drugstores are retooling their format so that you can see into the store. She noted the difference between active and non-active retail. She stated the importance of striking a balance.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is happening all over the world, and asked about creative solutions that allow us to help bolster smaller and medium-sized businesses. He said that we ought to think about how we can create a higher level of traction for business owners.

Councillor Devereux asked when the Cambridge New Food Truck Program is going to be announced and launched.

Councillor Devereux stated that the presentation mentions the 2015 Commercial Land Classification Study and she asked if this study has been shared with the City Council. Ms. Farooq responded that the City Council was provided this study but she would be happy to provide it again. She noted that the City has not acted upon these recommendations, thinking it might be better to do so in coordination with the recommendations from the Envision Cambridge process and the Retail Strategic Plan process. She said that they might do well to tackle some issues now, rather than waiting until all processes are complete. She stated that Envision Cambridge is not likely going to result in a complete overhaul of the zoning code, so it isn’t necessary to wait for that process to be finished. She noted that the Envision Cambridge recommendations will be much more targeted. She said that the intention is to start to look at the Table of Uses recommendations and address this in the next year when they have a new staff person. She said that the hiring process will take time but she expects this person to be hired by next year.

Councillor Devereux said that based on examples by Larisa Ortiz Associates, there is some urgency in tackling the low-hanging fruit. Councillor Devereux reiterated Ms. Ortiz’s point that cities don’t want to be on hook by helping business stem losses due to construction. She asked about the situation that will be facing Harvard Square where multiple properties might be redeveloped at the same time. She asked if there is a precedent for businesses to contribute to a fund for business associations that can aid retail during such difficult times. She asked if this could be made part of the Planning Board process.

Ms. Hemmerle stated that this is something that could be researched. She said that if a business wants to move to new location, the city may be able to help do that. She explained that MIT has been working with businesses on Main Street and in some cases, they have offered retailers to come back. She said that this is a best practice that they could see as a recommendation.

Councillor Devereux stated that Harvard did the same thing with Holyoke Center.

Councillor Devereux said that it helps when the entity doing the development has other developments in the area. She asked if there is any precedent for creating a mitigation fund that would help the rest of the businesses districts.

Councillor Devereux noted that much of the retail also serves the daytime workforce. She said that with the MIT and Volpe project, we are looking at potentially doubling the daytime workforce in that area. As it relates to the problem of the labor workforce and late night MBTA transportation, Councillor Devereux stated that she is not optimistic that the MBTA will reinstate its late-night service. She questioned what type of service the city or business associations could offer.

Councillor Devereux asked if the Commercial Needs Assessment is a process that is ongoing. Ms. Ortiz responded that the City of New York has provided a deeper assessment at the business level. She explained that they conduct merchant surveys, customer surveys, pool market data, and assess and identify where there is consensus for action. She said that this helps to inform where the city will invest public improvements and resources. She stated that 12 neighborhoods are going through this process.

Councillor Devereux stated that Inman Square will be in need of a good deal of support and intervention while its main intersection is being reconstructed. She stated that Inman Square is the last vestige of what Cambridge used to be and that the intersection project is long overdue.

Councillor Devereux opened the meeting to public comment at 5:52pm. She noted that an e-mail communication was received from Linda Given of Joie De Vivre and asked that this communication be made part of the record. (Attachment B).

Laura Donahue stated that she has owned Bob Slate Stationer for 6 years. She stated that Frank Kramer was scheduled to speak but was unable to and offered thanks for the report on his behalf. She said that one thing that small businesses have a great need for is access to professional skills. She stated that it is difficult to get credit from a large vendor. She stated that her ability to keep up with accounting and financial reports is very important. She stated that small businesses must act like a big business when it comes to proper accounting records. She said that connections to financial and legal services would be quite beneficial to small businesses. She stated that small businesses need to run POS systems and there is enormous risk for inaccurate records. She stated that connections to tech companies would be beneficial. She stated that access to capital is hard for small businesses. She said that any way to link local small businesses to State resources would be helpful.

Ms. Donahue stated that in regards to providing a tax benefit to the developers in conjunction with promoting small businesses, she wants the Council to be clear on what taxes the tenants are paying. She supported Vice Mayor McGovern and Councillor Devereux’s statements regarding finding a way for mitigation with large developments.

Ms. Donahue said that linkage between rent and volume should be a natural relationship. She said that if volumes are down, rents should be adjusted. She stated that in terms of mechanisms, she is not a fan of rent control as a mechanism. She stated that the key for her in her business is being a regional destination. She said that regional travel to the city makes up an important customer base.

Denise Jillson stated that there is one key piece that she did not see mentioned, which is education. She said that it is important to educate the consumer about their purchasing habits and about the means through which they purchase-be it online, local, or chain--impacts their local business district. She said that the guiding force behind the HSBA has been experiential marketing. She stated that we must think about bringing people into an event that is free and fun and hope that they stay in the square and spend retail dollars. She cautioned on the idea of food trucks and stated that she would be delighted with an ice skating rink. She said that as it relates to construction mitigation, Deputy Superintendent DeMarco and Steve LaRosa recently walked Harvard Square with her to understand what is going on relative to parking and construction. She noted that it is critical that whenever permits are issued, part of the plan must include where these vehicles park in order not to harm the business district by taking spaces away from customers. She stated that the City just received a check for $160,000 from a construction project in Harvard Square who bought up all the parking. She stated that the idea of mitigation that goes directly to impacted businesses is something to consider.

Denise Jillson also stated as an example that Pressed Juicery did not use a local attorney for their permitting. She explained that they went in front of the Harvard Square Advisory Committee and received an affirmative recommendation. She said that they were in business in April and a City inspector realized that they did not have the right permit for a frozen concoction. She explained that Press Juicery recently went before BZA to get the correct permit and it will now be another 10 weeks before they are able to serve the frozen concoction which makes up 40% of their business plan. She said that they have been set up for failure because of administrative oversight which is wrong. She stated that the BZA Guidelines should be reviewed.

John DiGiovanni stated that this report is helpful and worthy of more discussion. He said that the roles and responsibility portion is very helpful. He stated that there are good things that are happening and that is where the City can have immediate impacts in the squares. Regarding parking requirements, he said that because of Uber and Lyft, people are not parking as much as in the past. He said that the world is changing fast and it is worth diving deep into these issues.

James Williamson stated that it is important to understand the distinction between business associations and the community. He stated that people tried to be considerate in suggesting another location for a sixth pizza place in Harvard Square. He stated that this location is not welcoming to a corporate pizza chain. He said that the changing character of the permitting works both ways. He stated that downzoning or controlling the zoning must have some potential impact on rents.

Councillor Devereux thanked Larisa Ortiz and Associates for their excellent work. She stated that the conversation will continue.

Councillor Devereux thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 6:24pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair