11. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Karen Kosko as a member of the Cambridge Library Board of Trustees effective Aug 1, 2015 for a term of three years.

Aug 10, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointment of Karen Kosko as a member of the Cambridge Library Board of Trustees effective Aug 1, 2015 for a term of three years.

Ms. Kosko has worked with the Cambridge Public Library (CPL) for most of her professional career as a Librarian. She was recently elected to the Cambridge Club and is currently a member of the steering committee. She also served on the Board of Friends for the CPL as the first Vice President and later Treasurer, which was involved in producing two published books as fund raisers for the CPL, " Secret Gardens of Cambridge" in 2004 and" Cambridge Voices" in 2009.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

12. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Gary Dmytryk as a member of the Commission for Persons with Disabilities for a term of three years, effective July 1, 2015.

Aug 10, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointment of the following person as a member of the Commission for Persons with Disabilities for a term of three years, effective July 1, 2015:

Gary Dmytryk
Gary is active in the North Cambridge neighborhood and has served as President of the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods for 2 years. He also has 10 years of experience in community mental health and social work.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

13. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appointments of the following persons as members of the Kids' Council effective Aug 10, 2015:
Bridget Rodriguez, University Representative (3 year term)
Rabeya Akther, Specific Area Representative (1 year term)
Michelle Lower, Business Representative (3 year term)
Ron Benham, State Agency Representative (3 year term)
Neal Michaels, Community-at-Large Representative (3 year term)
Liz Hill, Community-at-Large Representative (3 year term)
Claude Jacob, Commissioner of Health & Hospitals Representative
Geeta Pradhan, Philanthropic Representative (3 year term)

Aug 10, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the appointments of the following persons as members of the Kids' Council effective Aug 10, 2015:

Bridget Rodriguez: University Representative (3 year term)
Bridget started her career in education with Teach for America, and then she returned to Cambridge to teach at the Amigos school. She then went into administration at the Fletcher and Morse schools. Bridget also served as the Education Liaison to Mayor Simmons and Mayor Maher before she started working for the Executive Office of Education for the state of Massachusetts. Now she is working with Paul Reville at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She is leading national fieldwork projects, advocacy and convenings associated with the Education Redesign Lab. Bridget lives in Cambridge with her husband and 2 daughters.

Rabeya Akther: Specific Area Representative (1 year term)
Rabeya was born in Bangladesh and is still very connected to the Bangladesh Community. She has lived in the United States for 14 years. Rabeya currently works as a Community Engagement Team Outreach Worker, and she is also an Agenda for Children Literacy Ambassador and a Playgroup Leader for the Center for Families. Her work focuses on reaching out to underserved immigrant families, introducing then to different resources, educating them about the school system and all the other resources available in Cambridge.

Michelle Lower: Business Representative (3 year term)
Michelle is the Director of Development and Asset Services at Alexandria Real Estate. She and her husband and their two children live in North Cambridge. Michelle's oldest son is about to start Kindergarten at the Baldwin School and her daughter will start at the King Open Special Start program this fall. Michelle is committed to working within the City of Cambridge and she has been a wonderful community partner in her role at Alexandria as well as in her personal life.

Ron Benham: State Agency Representative (3 year term)
Ron is a long time Cambridge resident who has worked for the state Department of Public Health for the past 33 years as an administrator overseeing programs for young children and youth with disabilities as well as WIC, the state/federal child nutrition programs. During the mid-80's, he chaired the Cambridge Human Services Commission and moderated the Block Grant hearing for the Commission. Both his wife, Elaine O'Reilly and their daughters graduated from CRLS. His children also participated in many city programs over the years.

Neal Michaels: Community-at-Large Representative (3 year term)
Neal was the first Executive Director of the Kids' Council, and he has been the State Agency representative for the Kids' Council since 1998, and he has been the Co-chair of the Kids' Council since 2013. Now that Neal has retired, the Executive Committee recommends that Neal become a Community-at-Large representative so that he can continue serving on the Kids' Council and remain the Co-chair.

Liz Hill: Community-at-Large Representative (3 year term)
Liz has been a resident of Cambridge for 15 years, and she is a parent of 2 children in the Martin Luther King Jr. school, and she is currently employed as a Junior Kindergarten/Kindergarten teacher in the Chinese Immersion Program at the Martin Luther King Jr. school. Liz has volunteered for many programs in Cambridge; including, Cambridge Girls Softball, Haggerty Preschool, and the Cambridge Public Schools. She recently received her Masters of Education from Lesley University.

Claude Jacob: Commissioner of Health and Hospitals Representative
According to the Kids' Council ordinance, the "Commissioner of Health and Hospitals" is an appointed member of the Kids' Council, along with the Mayor; a member of the City Council; a member of the School Committee; the City Manager or a designee of the City Manager; the Superintendent of Schools; the Assistant City Manager for Human Services; the Police Commissioner; and the Director of the Cambridge Public Library. Since there is technically no one serving as the Commissioner of Health and Hospitals, the Executive Committee requests that Claude become an official voting member of the Kids' Council. Since he became the Chief Public Health Officer in Cambridge, he has attended almost every meeting and has played an active role on the Council.

Geeta Pradhan: Philanthropic Representative (3 years)
Geeta is the new Executive Director of the Cambridge Community Foundation (CCF), and has a great deal of experience in philanthropy, urban planning and economic development to bring to the Kids' Council. Most recently, she worked as the Associate Vice President for Programs at The Boston Foundation where she oversaw community impact and grant making in Education, Health, Jobs, Housing & Neighborhoods and the Arts. Geeta also has experience working on projects aimed at improving low income neighborhoods by improving transit access as well as housing and community economic development through the arts, entrepreneurship, and family asset development.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

24. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, requesting approval of the discontinuance of an approximately twenty (20) foot wide, 8,660 square foot parcel of City owned land along the eastern edge of Ames Street between Broadway and Main Street (the Ames Street Parcel) in connection with the disposition of this parcel that the City Council previously approved. [Map Plan]
Order Adopted

Aug 10, 2015
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am requesting that you approve the discontinuance of an approximately twenty (20) foot wide, 8,660 square foot parcel of City owned land along the eastern edge of Ames Street between Broadway and Main Street (the Ames Street Parcel) in connection with the disposition of this parcel that the City Council previously approved.

By way of background, on Apr 12, 2013 Boston Properties Limited Partnership / subsequently Boston Properties Cambridge Center Residential LLC (together "Boston Properties"), which controls land adjacent to the Ames Street Parcel, submitted a letter to the City indicating its desire to develop a new 200,000 square foot multi-family residential project with up to 20,000 square feet of ground floor retail, which would be partially located on a portion of Ames Street within the MXD Zoning District (the "Project").

On Apr 22, 2013, the City Council declared the Ames Street Parcel available for disposition.

On Sept 13, 2013, Boston Properties submitted a zoning petition to the City Council proposing further modifications to the zoning requirements that would relax some of the lot density, open space and parking requirements within the MXD district to enable the Project to be constructed as proposed. The zoning amendment was ordained on Dec 9, 2013.

In compliance with G.L. Chapter 30B (Chapter 30B), the City issued a request for proposals (the "RFP") soliciting proposals to acquire the Ames Street Parcel, and on Nov 8, 2013, Boston Properties was selected as the successful bidder.

Pursuant to Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the "Disposition Ordinance"), a full disposition process was held which included obtaining two appraisals of the Parcel and my submission of a report to the City Council, Planning Board and City Clerk on Nov 18, 2013 in which I set forth, among other things, considerations including the public benefits to selling the Ames Street Parcel for the proposed uses. Under my direction, two public meetings were held. In addition, public meetings were held by myself as well as the Planning Board and the City Council.

On Dec 3, 2013, the Planning Board issued a report recommending that the land disposition proceed in accordance with the terms outlined in my letter of Nov 18, 2013 to the City Council.

On Dec 9, 2013 the City Council voted to approve the disposition of the Ames Street Parcel and authorized me to sell the Ames Street Parcel to Boston Properties for Two Million Ten thousand dollars ($2,010,000), and to execute a Land Disposition Agreement on behalf of the City outlining the terms of the sale (the "Agreement"). In connection with the disposition, Boston Properties agreed to relocate the City's utilities that are presently located under the Ames Street Parcel and to reconstruct the sidewalk improvements that are presently on the parcel after the utility relocation, all of which work would be done in accordance with plans approved by the City. The Agreement also provided that the portion of Ames Street being sold to Boston Properties would be discontinued as part of the disposition.

On Mar 27, 2015, Boston Properties was issued an Article 19 Project Review Special Permit for the Project by the Planning Board and since then has been engaged in ongoing design review with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. Boston Properties has been working to further the design of both the proposed residential building as well as the Ames Street reconstruction work contemplated by the Agreement and has been working with the Department of Public Works on the design and implementation of the utility relocations that will be done as part of the Ames Street reconstruction work.

The discontinuance of the Ames Street parcel is a necessary pre-condition to the conveyance by the City of the Ames Street Parcel to Boston Properties. After the conveyance the sidewalk and utilities will remain on the Parcel until the relocated sidewalk and utilities are ready for use.

I enclose for your information a copy of a plan entitled "Discontinuance Plan Ames Street Cambridge" prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin dated July 20, 2014, depicting the area of the proposed discontinuance.

In connection with this request, I am also enclosing for your review and approval a proposed Order of Discontinuance.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

---

Agenda Item No. 24A     Aug 10, 2015
WHEREAS: By Section 21 of Chapter 82 of the General Laws, as amended, it is provided that the Cambridge City Council may discontinue a public way; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has previously approved and authorized the City to dispose of an 8,660 square foot portion of Ames Street, Cambridge, MA in order to facilitate the development of a new 200,000 square foot multi-family residential project with ground floor retail on adjacent land; and
WHEREAS: In order to dispose of the portion of Ames Street described herein, it is necessary for the City Council to discontinue that portion of Ames Street; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That by virtue of and in pursuance of the authority conferred by said Chapter of the General Laws and by every other power and authority it thereto enabling, the City of Cambridge by its City Council does hereby discontinue a portion of Ames Street hereinafter described:
A parcel of land situated in the City of Cambridge, Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
A certain area of land being a portion of Ames Street and located northerly of Main Street and southerly of Broadway in the City of Cambridge in the County of Middlesex and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the northerly line of Main Street at the northeasterly intersection of Ames Street and Main Street; thence
N 84°29'07" W a distance of Ten and Nine Hundredths feet (10.09') to a point; thence
Northwesterly and curving to the right along the arc of a curve having a radius of Ten and No Hundredths feet (10.00'), a length of Fifteen and Seventy One Hundredths feet (15.71') to a point; thence
N 05°30'53" E a distance of One Hundred Thirteen and Eighty Four Hundredths feet (113.84') to a point; thence
Northerly and curving to the right along the arc of a curve having a radius of Forty and No Hundredths feet (40.00'), a length of Sixteen and Seventy Four Hundredths feet (16.74') to a point; thence
N 29°29'42" E a distance of Two Hundred Ninety One and One Hundredths feet (291.01') to a point; thence
Easterly and curving to the right along the arc of a curve having a radius of Fifteen and No Hundredths feet (15.00'), a length of Twenty Three and Fifty Six Hundredths feet (23.56') to a point; thence
S 60°30'18" E a distance of Twenty and Nine Hundredths feet (20.09') to a point; thence
Westerly and curving to the left along the arc of a curve having a radius of Fifteen and No Hundredths feet (15.00'), a length of Twenty Three and Fifty Six Hundredths feet (23.56') to a point; thence
S 29°29'42" W a distance of Two Hundred Seventy Seven and Twenty One Hundredths feet (277.21') to a point; thence
Southerly and curving to the left along the arc of a curve having a radius of Eighty Five and No Hundredths feet (85.00'), a length of Thirty Five and Fifty Eight Hundredths feet (35.58') to a point; thence
S 05°30'53" W a distance of Twenty Five and Fifty Hundredths feet (25.50') to a point; thence
N 84°29'07" W a distance of Four and Zero Hundredths feet (4.00') to a point; thence
S 05°30'53" W a distance of Fifty Seven and Zero Hundredths feet (57.00') to a point; thence
S 84°29'07" E a distance of Four and Zero Hundredths feet (4.00') to a point; thence
S 05°30'53" W a distance of Twenty Seven and Fifty Hundredths feet (27.50'), the last eight (8) courses by the existing easterly sideline of Ames Street, to the point of beginning.
Said Discontinuance Area contains 8,660 square feet more or less; now therefore be it further
ORDERED: The discontinuance of a portion of Ames Street, Cambridge, MA, as described herein is hereby authorized in accordance with General Laws, Chapter 82, Section 21, as amended.

Said land is described above.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Order #11 attached was adopted by the City Council on June 22, 2015; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council amend something previously adopted by amending the fourth paragraph in Order #11 to read as follows:
WHEREAS: While the scene of this horrific murder is hundreds of miles and several states away from the City of Cambridge, we recognize that hatred and ignorance know no boundaries, and the people of Cambridge must continually be vigilant in working to foster the bonds of tolerance and community amongst us, and to help each member of this City understand that all lives matter and all lives are precious, and we must take actions to affirm that Black Lives Matter; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That Order #11 of June 22, 2015 be amended in the fourth paragraph.

O-2     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Vehicles that obstruct street cleaning in Cambridge are subject to being ticketed, towed, and impounded, and the total cost to vehicle owners can often approach or exceed $200; and
WHEREAS: Nearby communities, such as Somerville, have enacted less punitive policies in discouraging street cleaning obstruction, issuing hefty fines to illegally parked vehicles without resorting to the towing and impounding vehicles; and
ORDERED: It is important that Cambridge has policies in place that allow for the proper maintenance of our public streets, yet it is also important that we have a sense of fairness and proportion in the penalties meted out to street cleaning obstructionists; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate City personnel to determine the effectiveness of the policy of ticketing and towing vehicles that obstruct street cleaning, to determine whether modifying this policy to exclude towing vehicles would have a negative impact on the City's ability to maintain clean streets, and to report these findings back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-4     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: A number of seniors living in private market apartments have recently raised concerns about the gradually increasing rents in the City, which, in the coming years, can and likely will outstrip the fixed incomes these retired individuals survive off of, threatening their ability to remain in their homes; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has devoted significant resources to creating opportunities for low and moderate income people seeking to live in this community, and the City should commit to creating similar opportunities to allow our seniors to remain housed in their homes, in the community they have helped create; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Community Development Department and other appropriate City personnel to compile a report of the housing and financial assistance options the City and its community partners offer to seniors living on fixed incomes in order to help them remain housed in their current units; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate City personnel to estimate how many seniors on fixed incomes are in danger of being priced out of their units in the coming half-decade, to determine whether additional City resources are needed to assist these seniors, and to report back to the City Council and the public in a timely manner.

O-7     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge, similar to much of the Greater Boston Area, is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis, with rents across the area steadily increasing even as many renters' incomes have largely remained stagnant; and
WHEREAS: This alarming trend increases the likelihood that ever greater numbers of tenants - many of whom have lived here for years - will be displaced from their homes and possibly pushed out of the community due to their inability to pay increasingly higher rents; and
WHEREAS: The City is continually exploring ways to mitigate the full brunt of this crisis, including increasing the linkage fees that developers must pay towards the creation and preservation of affordable housing, seeking opportunities to build new affordable units on City-owned property, entering into public-private partnerships to help fund new affordable developments, and aggressively working to identify and preserve as many expiring use units as possible; and
WHEREAS: As part of this multi-pronged approach, the City should also be examining whether it is possible to offer any sort of incentives to those landlords who refrain from regularly increasing the rents they charge, as such selfless gestures could go a long way toward protecting their tenants from the economic squeeze too many renters are falling victim to; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Community Development Department and other appropriate City personnel to determine what kinds of incentives could be provided to landlords who choose to refrain from increasing the rents on their tenants, and to report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-8     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge greatly respects the contributions of all its citizens, and recognizes that every day the members of our vibrantly diverse community make important contributions to our City; and
WHEREAS: One of the stated goals of the City Council is to "value and support the racial, socio-economic, cultural, and religious diversity of our City," and the City of Cambridge should strive to reflect this goal and the diversity of its citizenry in its employment practices; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on the diversity of his direct reports and the steps he has taken to reflect Cambridge's diversity in his hiring practices, specifically in management positions, during his term.

O-10     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is concerned with both improving the quality of its residents' lives and environmental sustainability; and
WHEREAS: The City Council recently adopted a "Net Zero" action plan, part of which included the City's goal to reduce wasteful energy use in the pursuit of lower carbon emissions; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to develop a program to offer home electricity monitors to residents at cost, in a program similar to the distribution of rain barrels through the Department of Public Works.

O-15     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
VICE MAYOR BENZAN
WHEREAS: A number of taxi drivers recently conducted a one-day work stoppage as a means of calling attention to the need for regulation of "ride-sharing" companies like Uber and Lyft, and the need to create a level playing field for any locally-operating businesses that provide personal transportation services for a fee; and
WHEREAS: In recent years, the rise of companies like Uber and Lyft, which are hailed via smartphone apps and easily paid for electronically, has disrupted the generations-old taxi business model not only in Cambridge and Massachusetts, but across the globe; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has explored the question of how to best regulate companies like Uber and Lyft while also ensuring that those who make a living by providing rides to others will be able to do so in a safe and fair environment, and the City concluded that this is an issue that must be decided by the Commonwealth, in order to ensure that these companies are all governed under a universal set of standards and guidelines, regardless of where they are interacting with the consumers; and
WHEREAS: As Cambridge and other municipalities wait for the Commonwealth to act on this, those who own taxi medallions have seen their livelihoods threatened, the medallions they have invested their life's savings into have been plummeting in value, and many of these individuals are rightfully upset that the government has not been quick enough in working to ensure that all personal transportation companies are operating under the same set of rules and guidelines; and
WHEREAS: The City has a vested interest in ensuring that local consumers are able to access those businesses that wish to cater to their needs and vie for their patronage, and that all local businesses are governed by a standard set of rules and regulations that keep the services safe and the competition fair; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby goes on the record urging Governor Baker and the State Legislature to move expeditiously in issuing guidelines and regulations that will ensure that taxi services and ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft are able to operate on a fair and even plane throughout the Commonwealth; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to Governor Baker and to the members of the Cambridge Delegation to the State House on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-16     Aug 10, 2015
VICE MAYOR BENZAN
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Opioids are pain relieving medication that reduce the intensity of pain signals reaching the brain and affect areas in the brain controlling emotion; medications that fall within this class include hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, codeine, heroin and related drugs;
WHEREAS: Opioids can also produce drowsiness, mental confusion, nausea, constipation, and depending upon the amount taken, Opioids depress respiration; and
WHEREAS: Taken as prescribed, opioids can be used to manage pain safely and effectively; however, when abused, just a single large dose can cause severe respiratory depression and death; depressed respiration can affect the amount of oxygen that reaches the brain, which can have short- and long-term psychological and neurological effects, including coma and permanent brain damage; and
WHEREAS: The Department of Public Health's Statistics show that the growth in opiate abuse and related deaths from heroin and prescription drugs began in the late 1990s and has grown at an alarming rate over the years; and
WHEREAS: Learn to Cope, a non-profit statewide support group, as well as other addiction experts blame the rise in addiction rates and deaths on the an increase in the ability of prescription pain relievers, such as OxyCotin and Vicodon, which began in the mid-1990s; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts Prescription Monitoring Program found that the number of prescriptions for Schedule 2 opioids, including OxyCotin, steadily increased from about half a million in 1992 to about 4.5 million in 2012; and
WHEREAS: In the United States, Opiate overdose continues to be major health problem that has increased to almost 17,000 deaths per year among those who use, misuse, or opioid drugs; and
WHEREAS: Massachusetts is experiencing an opioid epidemic where the number of unintentional fatal opioid overdoses increased by 90 percent from 2000 to 2012; and according to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's June 10, 2014 Opioid Task Force Report, in 2012, there were 668 opioid related deaths and in 2014, there were 1,256 opioid-related deaths in Massachusetts; and these alarming opioid related deaths in Massachusetts surpassed the number of people in the State killed by car accidents and guns combined; and
WHEREAS: Since the early 2000s, the age group reporting the highest level of heroin use in the annual U.S. Department of Health and Human services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's 2011-2012 survey has shifted from the 35-to-49 cohort to those between 26 and 34 according to the annual U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2011-2012 survey; and
WHEREAS: The flood of prescription drugs introduced teens and college-aged people to opiates, eventually leading some to try heroin when they can no longer get prescription drugs; while a pill of OxyCotin can cost between 80 to 100 dollars, a bag of heroin, which provides the same effect, is 10 or 15 dollars; and heroin use leads to deterioration of the brain's white matter, affecting decision-making abilities and responses to stressful situations; and
WHEREAS: This is biggest public health epidemic that our state and region is faced with right now; and
WHEREAS: It is self-evident from simply walking through the Public Squares, such as Central Square, that our city is not immune to this epidemic; and given the risks for public safety, our City must address this issue aggressively; and
WHEREAS: Our City is fortunate to have the Department of Public Health and numerous nonprofits and support groups that have been working tirelessly to address this issue but perhaps without the benefit of all the resources that could be made available by assessing this community in crisis; this epidemic impacts everyone in everyone in our City and region; and
WHEREAS: The City must work towards increasing its capacity to deal with this crisis; it requires all stakeholders, government officials, and community members to stem the dramatic increase in opioid deaths, drug abuse, and homelessness in the city; and
WHEREAS: The City must examine the need for more treatment beds; provide education on addiction for professionals to care about women and pregnant mothers; and work towards making Naloxone, commercially known as Narcan, more widely available; and look at feasibility of making treatment of opioid dependence more available and a publ health policy priority; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the appropriate City departments in conjunction with other stakeholders, such as the Salvation Army, Cambridge Overcoming Addiction, and other non-profits that they conduct a survey of opioid-related deaths and persons struggling with the epidemic that are frequenting our squares, particularly Central Square; and be it further
ORDERED: That the appropriate City departments conduct a survey of residents located around Central Square about any concerns that they might have about this crisis as evidence by them; and be it further
ORDERED: That his honor the Mayor be and here by is requested to schedule a roundtable discussion with the public, persons in recovery, victims, family of victims, Middlesex District Attorney, civic or retired Drug Court judges, local non-profits, City staff from appropriate departments, and other stakeholders to examine implementation strategies and appropriate additional funding to ensure that we have the capacity to treat growing numbers of persons dealing with opioid drug abuse, mental health- related issues and homelessness; and be it further
ORDERED: The appropriate City departments report back the results of the survey to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-17     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that parcels of land in East Cambridge presently Metropolitan Pipe and an abutting garage are for sale or have been sold; and
WHEREAS: These parcels, or portions of them, have been central to conceptual plans to expand Ahern Field on Fulkerson Street; and
WHEREAS: The idea to expand Ahern Field has been discussed in many neighborhood studies dating back to Green Ribbon Open Space Committee (2000), and more recently included by a presenter in the Connect Kendall Design Competitions; and
WHEREAS: An expansion of Ahern could increase open space options and complement the series of uses already examined in the design competition; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development with a mind towards informing new property owners of the desire, based on planning studies, to expand Ahern Field and for planning staff to keep these desires in mind as a vision for this site is developed by the owners, and report back to the City Council.

O-18     Aug 10, 2015
VICE MAYOR BENZAN
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has a long history of supporting local businesses, such as taxicabs, which are motor vehicles licensed by the City of Cambridge to provide safe transportation; and
WHEREAS: Such vehicles are expected to meet all standards established by the City of Cambridge License Commission Taxicab Rules and Regulations; and
WHEREAS: According to Article II, Rule 1 of the City of Cambridge License Commission's Taxicab Rules and Regulations, "Every party, whether an individual, corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship, intending to do business as a taxicab for hire in the City of Cambridge shall obtain a medallion issued and authorized by the License Commission;" and
WHEREAS: Article I, Rule 1 of the City of Cambridge License Commission's Taxicab Rules states that, "Only the driver of a licensed Cambridge taxicab may pick up passengers for hire in Cambridge taxicabs stands designated by the Cambridge Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation or those private stands designated by the License Commission; only the driver of a licensed Cambridge taxicab may pick up a passenger on the public way who has hailed said taxicab; an out-of-town taxicab shall not respond to a street hail (unless it is a public safety situation) or park in a Cambridge taxi stand, but may respond to a telephone call or other pre-arrangement;" and
WHEREAS: Prior to being a licensed taxicab driver in Cambridge, all applicants are required to attend the Cambridge Taxi School and pass the written hackney exam; applicants are issued a probationary taxicab driver's license for a 60-day period upon completion of both training and exam; after the probationary period, a hackney driver may apply for a 1-year license; following said one-year period, the taxicab driver may renew his or her license either for another one-year period or a three-year period with a new background check conducted during the license renewal period at the taxicab driver's personal expense; and
WHEREAS: For many years, Cambridge Taxicabs have supported fees, trainings and regulations to ensure the highest levels of public safety; and
WHEREAS: The attitude towards the taxicab industry has begun to shift both locally and globally in favor of what are currently city-fee-exempted and training-exempted ridesharing services such as, Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar; and
WHEREAS: State Government currently is in the process of reviewing several proposals to regulate hail ride or ridesharing services; however, there is not a definite timeline for implementation or enactment of regulations; and
WHEREAS: The recent strike by Cambridge taxicabs has highlighted the economic struggle of Taxicab Drivers and their families; and
WHEREAS: It is imperative to begin the process of leveling the playing field with hail ride or ridesharing services by immediately helping to ease the financial burden faced by Taxicab Drivers struggling to compete with a societal shift to smart technology transportation services;
WHEREAS: Cambridge Taxicab Drivers are subject to fees and fines that are not imposed upon or required of hail riding service providers; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby confer with the appropriate City Departments about the feasibility of placing an immediate moratorium on any fees paid by the Taxicab industry to the City of Cambridge until: 1) the State has enacted ridesharing regulations; and/or 2) action is taken by the City to deregulate the Taxicab industry following the Mayor's Roundtable on this matter; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager and Mayor be and hereby are requested to report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-19     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
ORDERED: That the City Council goes on record refiling as of Sept 16, 2015, the attached proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to amend Article 6.000 of the zoning ordinance to create a new section 6.24 Carsharing Provisions which will create a definition and general provisions for carsharing and allow limited use of parking spaces for carsharing as a means to provide mobility options for Cambridge residents, employees and visitors; be it further
ORDERED: That said refiled petition be referred to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committees for hearing and report.

O-22     Aug 10, 2015  Amended
VICE MAYOR BENZAN
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments with an update for plans for the creation of the Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) coordinating office, including any financial pledges from the City to implement the STEAM working groups recommendations; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-23     Aug 10, 2015
VICE MAYOR BENZAN
WHEREAS: In 1940, the Cambridge Planning Board decided to divide the City into thirteen planning districts, Area 1 through Area 13, as a way of better analyzing data for the upcoming census; and
WHEREAS: Over the years, the majority of these districts in Cambridge adopted more formal and welcoming neighborhood names, such as, East Cambridge, MIT Campus, Cambridgeport, Mid Cambridge, Riverside, Agassiz (North Harvard), Neighborhood Nine (Radcliffe), West Cambridge, North Cambridge, Cambridge Highland, and Strawberry Hill; and
WHEREAS: Prior to the creation of the planning districts, Cambridgeport was composed by what later became Area III, Area IV, and Area V; and after the district division, Area V was the only to maintain the name Cambridgeport; and
WHEREAS: Most neighborhoods continue to have a district designation, they are mainly referred to as their formal name; and Area IV is the only neighborhood in the City known strictly by its police or district name; and
WHEREAS: For many years, the majority of Area IV residents have expressed a desire to rename the neighborhood to something more fitting; and
WHEREAS: Many neighbors have expressed that being only identified by their police district name automatically presents perspective buyers and current residents with a negative perception of the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS: The City Council Order 27, from Feb 23, 2014, asked for the creation of a process to determine the new name for Area IV that would on Wed, Sept 12, 2015 during the Area IV Pride Day through a community vote; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments to setup the most effective voting method that maximizes community participation for the renaming of Area IV; and further be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to engage the Fletcher-Maynard School, Margaret Fuller House, Area IV Coalition, Area IV Youth Center, and any other interested community members to plan the renaming vote during Area IV Pride Day on Wed, Sept 12, 2015; and further be it
ORDERED: That the name chosen on Area IV Pride Day not be binding without a majority vote of City Council.

O-24     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: Disruptive technologies and innovations in the transit sector have given way to new forms of unregulated passenger transit throughout the City of Cambridge and Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and
WHEREAS: Massachusetts State Legislature has sought to provide clarity by creating comprehensive law and corresponding state regulations, with potential opportunities for additional municipal regulation; and
WHEREAS: Widely varying proposals for this legislation have been advanced, including H.3702 (Representatives Moran and Forry - available at https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H3702), H.931 (Representative Pignatelli - https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H931), and H.3351 (Governor Baker - http://www.mass.gov/governor/legislationexecorder/legislation/oversight-of-transportation-network-companies.html); and
WHEREAS: Taxi Cab drivers have approached Cambridge City Council with concerns about the vitality of their industry, the protection of their livelihoods, and the enforcement of their rights; and
WHEREAS: Taxi Cab drivers consider themselves long-term investors into the infrastructure and vitality of Cambridge, with large sunk costs committed towards the public good of the city, and with transit as their primary, full-time vocation; and
WHEREAS: All three bills attempt to create parity between the Taxi industry and Transit Network Companies (TNC's) by regulating the latter, with Taxi Cab drivers wishing to emphasize their support of H.3702 in particular; and
WHEREAS: Any successful bill or compromise legislation must achieve parity between Taxi industry regulations and TNC regulations in order to achieve both fairness and safety for all, including: background checks for TNC operators similar to the Taxi industry, insurance solutions for TNC operator vehicles or operator trips similar to the coverage mandated for the Taxi industry, ADA-equipped TNC vehicles at a reasonable level, regular inspections, fair licensing or similar permitting of TNC operators through the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, and clear markings for TNC vehicles; and
WHEREAS: Municipal and State regulations must assure TNC pricing transparency if there is to be some measure of pricing parity between Taxi trips and TNC operator trips; and
WHEREAS: The Boston Taxi Drivers Association seeks a return to dignity and respect for taxi drivers within the industry, through employee status for taxicab drivers-and an end to the "pay to work" model dominating the industry today; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council go on record urging the Massachusetts House and Baker administration to move swiftly in clarifying new law and associated regulation, taking into account the needs of municipalities in flux, and ultimately act with the intention of achieving parity and safety amongst transit operators of all kinds; and further be it
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Cambridge's State Delegation.

O-25     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: Cambridge prides itself on its inclusion of immigrant communities, and celebrates their contributions to the city; and
WHEREAS: The bureaucratic nature of the naturalization process can take well over a decade to fully enfranchise immigrants who have taken the necessary steps to apply for full citizenship; and
WHEREAS: According to the Census, 60% of our foreign-born residents are not yet citizens; and
WHEREAS: Their aforementioned disenfranchisement does not help foster political involvement in the other 40% of immigrants who can vote, nor does it set an example for their domestically-born children who will one day vote; and
WHEREAS: Many of the important discussions and debates in our city often disproportionately affect members of immigrant groups who cannot vote, but who still pay taxes, enroll their children in our schools, and contribute to our community on a daily basis; and
WHEREAS: Pre-citizens, after submitting their naturalization applications and thereby declaring their intent to be citizens, should have a voice in municipal politics if they have been Cambridge residents for over three years, indicating their familiarity with and investment in our city; therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record petitioning the Massachusetts General Court to enact the attached Home Rule Petition entitled "AN ACT TO ENABLE CERTAIN NON-CITIZEN RESIDENTS OF CAMBRIDGE TO VOTE IN SCHOOL COMMITTEE AND CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS".

O-26     Aug 10, 2015
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to report back to the Housing Committee on any legal protections the City can enact, either through Ordinance, Home Rule Petition or additional avenues, to protect tenants from dramatic rent increases and/or unfair evictions.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Tues, June 30, 2015 beginning at 5:30pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss with the License Commission how it works, the permitting and shared economy.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Dennis J. Carlone; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Councillor Marc McGovern; Mayor David P. Maher; Vice Mayor Dennis Benzan; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Robert Haas, Police Commissioner; Gerald Reardon, Fire Chief; Andrea Jackson, License Commissioner; Elizabeth Lint, Executive Officer, License Commission; Ranjit Singanayagam, Inspectional Services Commissioner; Martha Flynn, Assistant Inspectional Services Commissioner; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Kim Courtney and Xavier Dietrich; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; and John DiGiovanni.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being privately audio and visually recorded.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 5:31pm.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that he did not know what the topics are and what has been said. He suggested that public comment should be after the discussion.

John DiGiovanni, stated that he was involved with the CAP policy with the License Commission. He stated that the cap policy was an open policy. The Harvard Square Business Association is pleased with the policy and its administration.

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 5:33pm.

Councillor Kelley noted that this is a general discussion on licensing and zoning issues. He distributed a BZA hearing notice. He stated that it is worth visiting this for technology and Airbnb. He asked how you have a regulatory environment that is affected with technology changes. Councillor Kelley questioned what the licensing policy is. He asked for an overview by the License Commission of their licensing policy. He wanted to know what is under the purview of the License Commission.

Ms. Elizabeth Lint stated that License Commission has 27 different licenses under their jurisdiction, she listed them. Councillor Kelley asked if there is a trend as to who licenses what. Ms. Lint responded that it is pursuant to Mass. General Laws. Councillor Kelley commented that there are many things that are not overseen in Cambridge. How does the process work? Ms. Lint stated that a member of the public comes to License Commission and the staff or she assists them from the beginning to the end of the process. Councillor Kelley spoke about an allowed use. Ms. Lint explained that if an existing business is zoned appropriately then the use is allowed. Mr. Singanayagam stated that Inspectional Services Department signs off on zoning.

Councillor Kelley asked how the City can help to prevent residents from getting into a zoning issue related to a business. Mr. Singanayagam stated that if it is appropriately zoned Inspectional Services Department signs off. Ms. Lint stated that the customer is given a packet of information and is instructed to go to Inspectional Services Department to check the zoning. Mr. Singanayagam stated that the applicant is asked what activity will be done on the site and zoning and parking issued are reviewed. He further explained the process if someone wanted to open up a restaurant and it is checked for zoning and parking. Councillor Kelley noted that the public may not express what they want to do. He asked if there is a check list that is given to the public. Mr. Singanayagam stated that the public is asked to put their request in writing. The fast food definition is explained to the applicant. After the License Commission signs off then Inspectional Services Department inspects. Councillor Kelley reaffirmed that before a restaurant opens they are inspected. Mr. Singanayagam responded in the affirmative and stated that they are inspected for health, fire, electrical, food handlers etc. An occupancy permit is issued. Ms. Flynn stated that a food handler license is applied for on line and must meet certain certifications. Ms. Lint commented that this is if the applicant comes to the License Commission first. She suggests to the applicant that they do not sign a lease when it comes to ABC License. If the ABC does not approve your application then you are stuck with the lease. The Peddlers License is granted by the state.

Councillor Carlone stated that many applications are needed and require approval. He asked how many months does this take and whether this can be done without a specific space. Ms. Lint stated that it is a 2-3 month process. The process is longer if a complete buildout is done. She explained that Inspectional Services Department would state that the space is fine; not the License Commission. She stated that she would have a letter of intent before the process begins. She stated that the ABC will accept a letter of intent.

Councillor Kelley asked about outdoor seating and when the City Council is in recess how much of a hurtle is this. Chief Reardon explained that it makes a difference if it is private or public outdoor seating. Ms. Lint explained that there is a cap on establishments. Councillor Kelley stated that outdoor seating may be affected by zoning and may affect their capacity cap. Ms. Lint explained that there are 15 zones in the City.

Councillor Kelley questioned whether there are any city policies that could be changed to make things easier. Mr. Singanayagam stated that staff helps applicants with the forms.

Councillor Simmons stated that when one wants to start a business the applicant should find out what is needed. She applauded City staff for doing a yeoman's work helping the general public. In general, she stated that City departments are poised to be proactive but it is hard to figure out what people need if they do not know. It is hard to be clairvoyant. She has found that the City staff has the Cambridge way and go the extra mile.

Councillor Mazen commented that in many cases cities are caught in the 19th century versus 21st century mind set. He wanted staff to be a shepherd and lead the applicant through the process. He spoke about the business community and asked why it is so hard to do business in Cambridge. People need to be wealthy to start a business. There are people who are willing to create jobs and the City needs to figure out how to bring these people into the process. Councillor Toomey asked Councillor Mazen to cite an example. Councillor Mazen stated that he wants to install a yogurt machine and this makes it a fast food business and it is against the cap. This may require a variance. He believes that he is not a fast food establishment. Councillor Simmons stated that if the business is non-conforming you cannot make it conforming. Councillor Mazen stated that he feels he is right in this matter.

Councillor Kelley spoke about new ideas for businesses and how technology is changing the business environment. Some changes cannot happened per state law or zoning. He spoke about sharing space for new opportunities. Using Airbnb as an example is constraining housing and changing values. This is not being regulated.

Councillor Toomey stated that the state is looking into regulating this type of business. Councillor Simmons stated that there are new and budding businesses and then there are the standard businesses. She noted that thinking you are right does not make it right nor does being a bully. She stated that one issue is the interpretation of the law. She stated that car sharing is new and the regulations have not kept up with this activity.

City Manager Rossi stated that Uber and LIFT need to be regulated. There was a conflict. He stated that meetings were held with surrounding communities and a proposal was sent to the Governor. The Governor put the regulation through to DPU to regulate the industry. Insurance, background checks and inspections were some of the issues.

Councillor Simmons asked where the City on Bed and Breakfast establishments is. Transient accommodation is being used as lodging housing. Bed and Breakfasts are being used for this. Councillor Simmons stated that the Bed and Breakfast establishments are not being regulated. Councillor Toomey noted that these are not being inspected and the motel tax is not being realized. Some type of regulation is needed. Chief Reardon spoke about sub-let rooms and these are caught when there is a need to inspect. Mr. Singanayagam explained when this is brought to the attention of Inspectional Services Department then a cease and desist letter is sent out.

Councillor Kelley spoke about the impact of new businesses; the economy is changing so quickly. What can be done to use zoning tools, going on line, etc.? What are the rules on renting spaces?

Councillor Mazen spoke about moderate income housing and the fact that he was able to use a rented bed in an Airbnb. He stated that this has no effect on crime and is a service to the community and to people. He stated that this is a special type of tool and if used well will be a good move. Mr. Singanayagam explained that over three rooms rented out is considered a lodging house. Two rooms can be rented out for 30 days and can have 2 long term lodgers but you cannot have short term lodgers. Having roommates defrays costs.

Councillor Mazen stated that regarding Airbnb that if an extra room were put online one could receive financial justification. This also provides a public service. He spoke about the difference in the cost of housing and equity in his father's generation and his generation. City Manager Rossi stated that this is a policy decision. He suggested adoption and rules promulgated.

Councillor Carlone stated that in Europe similar Airbnb establishments are rated. He wanted to ask questions about the percentage of votes taken and licenses approved by the License Commission.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked where the City Council begins these discussion and promulgating new rules. Mr. Rossi stated that the state law does provide for this; a Home Rule petition needs to be filed with the Legislature. Vice Mayor Benzan asked what if the City wanted to prohibit tenants from participating in an Airbnb and only property owners could participate in an Airbnb and there is no state law. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that there is no state law on Airbnb. He further stated that in the zoning law these are not allowed locally. The City Council can change this by filing special legislation at the state. The License Commission has authority over lodging houses.

Councillor Kelley noted that we do not know what the requirements are for the City. Airbnb is a destabilizing nature for having a different family across the hall. He asked if Cambridge could regulate that it is fire safe and that there is parking. Cambridge needs to regulate this type of use. Councillor Mazen stated that a fee for a license and inspection he would approve. Airbnb's would help renters just to live.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that properties used should have a certificate of occupancy and should not participate in Airbnb’s and there should be smoke detectors installed. There is a difference between roommates and renters that turn over every night. He stated that Uber is not regulated; the taxi industry is.

Councillor Toomey suggested waiting for the state to establish regulations. He has not heard of any abuse in Cambridge with the Airbnb. Elderly who have large empty houses rent out rooms. The State would not act on a Home Rule if this issue is being discussed in a committee at the state. The chair of the revenue committee will create a sub-committee to look at this issue. There could be two public hearings on this. Councillor Kelley stated that this is antidotal because it is destabilizing an issue and is changing housing. Councillor Toomey commented that the homeowner is living in the Airbnb. Councillor Toomey stated that this could be restricted to owner-occupied, multi family dwelling units. Councillor Kelley stated that he would wait for state to regulate this.

Councillor Kelley stated that rooms are not the only things shared. If a table saw were shared how this use can be encouraged.

Councillor Mazen stated that zoning needs to allow co-working especially around equipment. This needs to be discussed in a committee or a working group meeting. Councillor Kelley stated that this is a challenging issue and can transform how things are done in Cambridge.

Councillor Carlone asked what the percentages are for restaurant applications before the License Commission for approval. Ms. Jackson stated that a high percentage are approved. Chief Reardon stated that about 95 percent are approved. Councillor Carlone asked if there is an appeal process and does the information have to be new. Ms. Jackson responded that if an application is disapproved for alcohol it would be appealed to ABC. Only one was denied and more information is included in the decision letter regarding the decision.

Councillor Kelley noted that the shared economy will need more information because this is changing things. Mr. Rossi stated that if there were policy scenarios the City Council could review the laws and analyze what can be done and a recommendations would be issued. Councillor Kelley one policy decision would be more business start-ups.

Mr. Rossi stated that the appropriate way to do this is to have a policy discussion, go through the committee, then the staff can analyze.

Councillor Mazen spoke about an e-mail from Kim Courtney and Xavier Dietrich (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that there are issues that he does not know about. He does not know how to answer these questions. He stated that there are procedural opportunities for change. Where do we want to be in the future to be able to answer the questions? Mr. Rossi informed the committee that there is funding for the License Commission for a position of a business analysis to create automation. This is a position just for the License Commission.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:07pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on July 9, 2015 beginning at 3:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss whether there are measures the City and local housing agencies and advocates can take to assist the soon to be displaced tenants of 295 Harvard Street.

Present at the hearing were Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Marc McGovern; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor Craig Kelley; Vice Mayor Dennis Benzan; Lisa Peterson, Assistant City Manager; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Michelle McCarthy, Planner/Contract Manager, Department of Human Services Programs; Iram Farooq, Acting Assistant City Manager; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner; Linda Proznitz, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Mike Connolly; Neal Alpert; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Mike Johnston, Deputy Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Elaine DeRosa, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, Alliance of Cambridge Tenants (ACT); Bozeira Antoiru; Ferreira Todd; Jan Devereux; Khushi Chandiramani; Leah Ewing; W.J. Rhone; Leah Strauss; Nancy Ryan; Julianna Braun; Kathy Watkins; Jerome K. Saunders; Tom Pastor; David Abruzzere; Jean Hannon; Michael McIntosh; Ti-Grace Atkinson; Ellen Shachter; Hasson Rashid; Chava Hassan; Denise Ghartey; Bae Wang; Gregory Grays-Thomas; and Mary Platt.

Councillor Simmons convened the hearing and read an opening statement (Attachment A) and gave a brief overview of the agenda for the meeting. (Attachment B)

Councillor Simmons opened the meeting to public comment at 3:06pm.

Jan Devereaux, 255 Lakeview Avenue, stated that she would like to lend her support to the tenants of Harvard Street. She stated her hope that this will spur the committee to look seriously at policies via Home Rule legislation to add tenant protections. She asked if there could potentially be a general fund established by the City to aid people in need of assistance with moving expenses.

Khushi Chandiramani, 295 Harvard Street, read from a prepared statement. (Attachment C). He stated that he is 77 years old and has been retired since 2011. He said that he has spent 55 of his 77 years in Cambridge and the last 48 years has been as a tenant at Harvard Towers. He stated that he likes living at Harvard Towers because of the convenient location, quiet neighbors, pleasant neighborhood and reasonable rent. He stated that he planned on staying for as long as his health permits. He stated that he has a long history of illness and because of his vitiligo he is very sensitive to direct sunlight and mainly stays indoors during daylight hours. He noted that the prospect of the quick and sudden relocation, coupled with family-related commitments to travel out of town for a good part of June, has subjected him to a great deal of stress. He stated that he is currently involved in securing a rental place in the neighborhood at a much higher rent. He wondered whether, in light of his long stay as a tenant at Harvard Towers, it would be too much to expect some extra consideration from the property management in the form of a few months' rent. He stated that he would appreciate access to assistance in ensuring affordable housing so that he can continue to live in Cambridge.

WJ Rhone stated that she is a resident of the Harvard Towers and she has found a place in Cambridge. She noted that her move date is August 1st. She stated that she received a letter from the management stating that she is expected to stay and pay until August 31st. She stated that she scurried to find a place to live and she does not think that it is fair that she has to pay rent at 295 Harvard Street for August when she will be moving August 1st.

Leah Strauss stated that she has lived at Harvard Towers for ten years. She explained that one year ago there was a steep rent increase. She noted that her rent was increased by $350. She stated that she had to scramble to find a new place that is suitable, and she had to pull together funds for first and last months' rent, security deposit, and realtor fee. She added that this is thousands of dollars that have piled up that she was not planning to spend. She stated that she is going to leave a month before her lease ends and would like to receive her security deposit back.

Julianna Braun stated that she has questions about the City of Cambridge's affordable housing programs, as she is in a situation due to a restraining order against her roommate and that, due to this situation, she needs to move out of her apartment. She noted that she qualifies for emergency status but she would like information about income eligibility requirements as it appears that she does not qualify. She stated that she has lived in Cambridge for seven years and would like more information to how best to utilize the services Cambridge offers.

Kathy Watkins, 80 Fawcett Street, spoke in support of residents at the Harvard Towers. She stated that she sees many buildings around the city that are being rehabbed and wonders what happens to the residents of these developments. She stated that she would like to see a committee to see if Cambridge could pass municipal rights to tenants. She stated that she is an advocate for the City to use some of its own money, beyond and separate from CPA funds, to build affordable housing. She stated that there is also the need to look at the quality of the housing that is being built. She stated that shortcuts are being undertaken that make some units inhabitable.

Jerome Saunders, resident of Harvard Towers, stated that he would like to update the committee. He stated that the tenants received a communication from Mr. Slomiak, who is the Property Manager at Harvard Towers. He noted that he also received a phone call from Mr. Slomiak and he confirmed to Mr. Slomiak that he spoke before the City Council. He stated that Mr. Slomiak asked him what he was looking for. Mr. Saunders stated that he told Mr. Slomiak that it is about being humane, and at the very least Mr. Slomiak should guarantee that deposits are given back and that he should give the last month of rent free of charge. He stated that at the very least, the owner could coordinate with moving companies in the area to help tenants receive a discount. He stated that there is plenty of space for tenants to be able to leave their unwanted items for disposal, but that the building management is so far not allowing this to take place. He asked that the residents not be interrupted by walkthroughs and renovations until they leave, and he added that the elevator is filthy.

David Abruzzere stated that he has been tenant at Harvard Towers for close to 10 years. He feels that the tenants are being treated unacceptably. He stated his agreement with the suggestions of Mr. Saunders. He stated that he has to leave early to move into his new unit on August 1st. He added that it is preposterous to be forced to pay the final month's rent. He would like that the committee ask the landlord to excuse people from paying their full lease, at the very least.

Michael McIntosh stated that he lives at 33 Harding Street. He thanked the committee for convening the hearing and giving residents a chance to share their concerns. He stated that he has been a resident for 30 years. He stated that Cambridge has always been a place for everyone, both the affluent and those who are not as well off. He stated that he does not want to live anywhere but Cambridge. He stated that he has been in his apartment for 15 years, which is the longest he has lived anywhere. He noted that he is a working artist who has a weekly television program and is a parishioner and reader of St. Anthony's parish. He said that it has been important for him to be part of this community. He stated that on June 15th three buildings totaling 13 units were sold to a luxury apartment developer. He stated that there were two days' warning before the buildings had their first walkthrough by the new owners. He stated that he pays $900 per month and noted that the landlord asked him to propose a new rent. He stated that the larger complaint is what is happening to his neighborhood. He stated that he loves public transportation, but the expansion of our mass transit system seems to be bringing a lot of changes to Cambridge neighborhoods. He questioned how much longer festivals and cultural parades will continue, as those who hold these events are getting pushed out of the city. He stated that he is troubled mostly by the fact that it is legal for buyers to come into the City and conduct this type of activity. He commented that it is wrong to bust the community that has been so tightly knit. He asked what the City can do to help the tenants. He stated that he would like tenants who are able to be given the opportunity to stay. He asked what the future holds for the communities running from Lechmere, Union Square and Medford that are being dramatically changed because of the Green Line extension.

Ti-Grace Atkinson read from a prepared statement (Attachment D). She stated that she is in the same group of buildings as Mr. McIntosh, which is 33-42 Harding Street. She stated that it is reported that the buildings were sold on June 15th. She noted that she has lived at this address for 18 years and is 76 years old. She stated that she has a limited income and that she is living off of her writing and limited Social Security since 2005. She added that as a hobby, she breeds show cats but stopped in 2005 because she physically was not able to do the work. She noted that she currently has six cats and that they are her family. She said that the bond is very deep and she cannot abandon her cats. She stated that she organized a tenants group and she was thrilled to see how excited the tenants were to come together and share information with each other. She stated that when she distributed flyers about these tenant meetings, it was clear to her that the landlord would see them. She said that the landlord mentioned to her neighbor that he knew about the meeting that took place on July 1, 2015 and she explained that she is the only tenant that has received an Eviction Notice since that meeting took place. She stated that she wants to bring a human face to the displacement. She stated her neighbor has two disabled sons and he received a notice that he should be out of his apartment by the end of the month. She said that this neighbor has applied for housing for his sons and noted that he would find a room for himself. She asked what sort of people would throw these people out. She stated that half of the tenants will try to be forced out. She stated that the owners blame it on the bank and the mortgage terms to which they agreed. She stated that people are coming into the City to snap up properties and charge exorbitant rents.

Elaine DeRosa, CEOC, stated that if ever there was a speculative deal, this is the one. She stated that Harding Street is an old, East Cambridge property. She stated that if there was ever a time that the City said enough is enough, this would be it. She stated that these residents are wonderful Cambridge people who stick together. She stated that the people cannot fight the battle alone. She stated that the City should consider offering the property owners money. She stated that there should be a way to make it difficult to continue what they are doing. She stated that they have been negotiating with other tenants as it relates to rent, but T-Grace Atkinson received an Eviction Notice, which shows the basic thinking of the building owners.

Ellen Shachter, Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services, stated that she has brought with her some information regarding services that can be beneficial for some of the residents. She stated that as it relates to Harvard Towers, there was a master deed filed in 1980 with some individual condo sales. She stated the City should push to get in writing that these units are not going to be sold as condos. She stated that there are rumors that the utilities will be turned off in September, and she clarified that this would not be legal. She stated that her office is available to help if the tenants pull together a tenant meeting. She stated that as it relates to Harding Street, this is an incredible group of tenants. She added that there has to be a way to make this work for a majority of tenants. She noted that the attorney that is representing the developer is well-known to some of the attendees of the meeting. She stated that she is hopeful that tenants that might be eligible for Section 8 will be able to stay. She stated her hope that the Housing Committee communicate with the landlord to urge that those tenants who might obtain Section 8 vouchers be given the opportunity to remain in the community, without a fixed end date. She stated that this is the most important thing to say. She stated that now is the time to stand up and communicate with the landlord because things are moving quickly. Ms. Shachter concluded that she is hopeful that there will be some resolution with the CHA, if there are residents that are Section 8 eligible. She thanked CEOC and ACT for their offering their assistance in organizing to protect tenants.

Hasson Rashid stated his support for the residents. He stated that he does not believe that there is nothing legally that can be done. He stated that the unfair eviction of hundreds of people is an unfair ethical business practice. He stated that that there are federal, state and local laws regarding unethical business practices. He added that consumer groups can deal successfully with this issue.

Chava Hassan, 36 Harding Street, stated that she lived in Cambridge for 10 years. She commented that her apartment is not in the best shape, but that is likely what kept it within her price range. She explained that she works at a small non-profit organization in Inman Square and wants to be part of the Cambridge community. She stated that it is amazing to be faced with the same challenge in which she had previously worked with others. She stated that she got an e-mail from the landlord saying that they wanted her unit vacated by the end of month unless she could pay the market rate of $2,200. She stated that the landlord has come down to a 60% rent increase, which is an extra $600 beyond what she currently pays for rent. She stated that she wants time. She noted that she was told the prior day that she is to be out by the end of the month. She echoed the request for help and support. She asked for support from the Housing Committee.

Denise Ghartey, Home Start, stated that there are funds available for assistance with moving costs and noted that her organization is willing to help those in need. She encouraged everyone to call her if they need help as they are willing to look at the big picture. She added that she was born in Cambridge and it makes her emotional because the City is now very different from when she grew up here. She stated that it is important to preserve the feeling of what Cambridge is all about.

Mary Platt stated that she is not originally from Cambridge. She stated that the Sullivan Chamber is gorgeous and has symbolic meaning as a place where people can come to express their needs. She wished that the City would have leaders to measure up to the beauty and symbolism of City Hall. She stated that the CDD does not fit the title, adding that it seems to her that development is the important word, not community. She stated that there must be a greater interest in what all people need and want to make it a viable community. She stated that at the present time, it seems that developers have the greatest say. She stated that the City Council, among other departments in the City, need to ensure that all of the people who live here can be creative members of the community. She stated that there should be more activity to prevent the types of problems wherein a landlord can take a property and change to condos. She told of the Columbia Point Housing Project wherein the tenants play a major role. She stated that this development is comprised of 1/3 market rate units, 1/3 moderate rate units, and 1/3 subsidized units. She asserted that this was a new concept and it has worked. She added that Cambridge would do well to think about incorporating this sort of plan as it is important for the government to represent all of its people.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that Boston Investments specialize in high end rental housing. He noted that if one looks at the managing partners' webpage, you will see that the firm states that it specializes in high end condo conversion within walking distance of the most coveted Red Line stops. He said that he learned of the situation at the Harvard Towers via a recent Policy Order, and he walked by the building on a weekend day. He stated that he spoke to Mr. Saunders and was pleased to see him at the City Council meeting at which the Policy Order was introduced. He stated that public housing conducts major renovations and relocates tenants. Mr. Williamson stated that what is happening at Harvard Towers is an example of the owners being disingenuous when stating that everyone must be out of building during renovation. He stated that united, we are strong, and he is encouraged by the testimony that he has heard. He stated that he was horrified with the hearing the name of Mr. Turk in the conversation and suggested that the CHA consider no longer having someone such as Mr. Turk working for them.

Bae Wang, 295 Harvard Street, stated that she recently became aware of the Housing Committee meeting and stated that she wondered whether there was any way to battle with the owner. She stated that a large number of people are not as up to fighting as they may have been in the past. She stated that she suggested to the owner that, due to the size of the building and having only two days for moving with only two elevators to utilize, it would be good to be given extra time in order to pace out the moving schedule. She remarked that she envisions a logistical nightmare. She stated that she has not received any feedback on her suggestion. She stated that there should be consideration for accommodative actions as it relates to the last month's rent. She echoed that it is not just about economics, it is about treating people humanely. She noted that this is what she would like relayed to the property owners and developers. She stated that she is unsure how residents will hear about next steps and would like to remain in contact with the Housing Committee.

Public comment closed at 4:09pm on motion by Councillor McGovern.

Councillor Simmons stated that she has already written a letter to the owner of 295 Harvard Street stating that the treatment of tenants has been improper and inhumane. She stated that another letter should be written that urges that the deposits be returned to tenants, the last month's rent should be waived, there should be coordination for removal of property not taken by the tenants, and that tenants should be excused from paying the full lease. She stated that she believes she can say that the City Council stands with the residents. She stated that she is happy to host a meeting wherein both parties can be present at the table. She stated that there are many questions to be answered, such as the possibility of the City purchasing properties, legal actions that can be undertaken by the City, and confirmation in writing any terms of commitment. Councillor Simmons noted that it would be valuable to learn if there are ways in which to legislate behavior.

Councillor Simmons then read the letter from the owners of Harvard Towers to the tenants dated July 7, 2015. (Attachment E).

Councillor Simmons then asked that a communication received by the Housing Committee from an anonymous author be made part of the record of the meeting. (Attachment F). She explained that there will be an exception to the protocol that communications cannot be accepted without the author's name, due to the fact that this person is in fear of potential retaliation.

Councillor Simmons asked Ms. Shachter to reiterate some of the protections that tenants have. Ms. Shachter responded that the sale at Harding Street has taken place. She stated that when looking at a potential long-term solution, a question that could be asked is if there is a way to include rehab projects into Inclusionary Zoning. She stated that there are possible monetary claims that individual tenants can request. She added that tenants should know that if there is eviction for no-fault reasons, there is usually a right to stay in units for up to 6 months or even 12 months, although there is not a guarantee. She stated that it is important to add that tenants should not feel that they must make decisions out of panic or fear. She stated that her office can provide legal representation for eligible residents. Ms. Shachter stated that no one can make a tenant leave their unit without a Court Order.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is one of the most urgent human issues that he has been part of. He stated that one of the public commenters mentioned an attorney had remarked of this situation that this is capitalist America, not Soviet Russia. Councillor Mazen said that we are actually quite a long way from being in the capitalist America that his parents grew up in, since capitalism is predicated upon service to the consumer and efficiency. He stated that we should say to developers that we have the regulation of businesses, and it may be smart to investigate ways in which to restrict Certificate of Occupancy to comply with good practices of aiding residents with reasonable time constraints where people are bound to move. He noted that there must be a commitment to socioeconomic equity. He stated that there may be quick ordinance changes around permitting that will make it difficult to conduct renovation and service the building owner's loan without appearing to want to shut down their operation. He stated that they have breached the planning of boundaries and the moral boundaries, and in doing so have invited tougher regulations in the City Council's power.

Councillor McGovern stated that this is outrageous. He noted the difference between what building owners are legally allowed to do versus what they are morally obligated to do. He stated the owners are clearly not living up to their moral obligations. He stated that the City Council spends a lot of time on the subject of development and that this type of situation is a bigger threat to the City losing affordable units. He said that 4,000 rental units were lost to condo conversion since the end of rent control, and this continues to occur. He stated that this is what is causing the change in the city. He stated that the other piece is the unacceptable way in which the tenants are being treated. He stated that some developers are scooping other run-down properties in the city, and the buildings that have been discussed are not the only buildings that will be affected by these practices. Councillor McGovern asserted that he does not believe the owners of 295 Harvard Street decided just in May that they were going to renovate the building - rather, he believes that they merely waited until May to notify the tenants of this decision. He stated that it is a terrible way to treat people. He stated that it is frustrating for him to figure out what the City really can do. He stated that the City Council does not have the power to force an owner to do anything. He stated that a speaker at Public Comment stated that they do not want to ask for financial compensation, and he countered that the tenants should, in fact, ask for compensation because the owners are going to make a lot of money from this deal. He stated that residents should ask for everything they need.

Councillor Carlone stated that he lives in a condo and is unsure if he may be asked to leave in the future, and that he was aware of that going into this situation, which is very different than the situations the tenants at this meeting have brought to the committee's attention. He stated that rents are going up, and have gone up 7-8 times since he moved to Cambridge 41 years ago. He stated that the city is increasing zoning which feeds speculation. He stated that this is direct byproduct of policy and it is an unplanned gentrification. He stated that Boston announced that they are going to build many moderate and low income units, which came about because the leadership said that if developers want to build downtown, they must also build in neighborhoods. He stated that the city needs a strong housing plan that currently does not exist. He stated that tenant rights in Cambridge are weak compared to other places. He stated that the City Council and administrators should go to developers and have "man to man" and "woman to woman" discussions. He stated that we must sit down and ask how to make this more humane. Councillor Simmons added that it is of benefit to have any meeting that were to take place on the public record.

Councillor Simmons asked Mr. Johnston about Section 8 options. Mr. Johnston stated that for Section 8, the CHA has a program called the Housing Choice Voucher Program which is a voucher that can be used by a household. As it relates to 295 Harvard Street, Mr. Johnston stated that he does not think that the Section 8 Voucher will work in this building because vouchers will not pay enough to cover a market rate unit. Mr. Johnston noted that 50% of people using vouchers ultimately have to take them outside of Cambridge to find an apartment they can afford. He stated that HUD controls the federal voucher program and gives the CHA a certain amount of cash to support a certain amount of voucher. He stated that the CHA is not able to ask for additional money for the voucher program. He stated that level funding is not entirely accurate because the cost of the program increases every year and if given the same money this year as last year, it is not level funding. He stated that the problem in this building is that the voucher will not support what the owner is going to want for rent. Mr. Johnston stated that tenants in the building can apply for emergency status which would give one access, if income eligible, to a voucher. He stated that there is a 4-month window in which this voucher can be used to find housing. He noted the importance of not exhausting that timeframe by looking only within Cambridge. Mr. Johnston stated that another concern that he has regarding this building is that the building has been market rate, so he is not sure that many tenants would qualify based on the income guidelines. He stated that the guidelines are: Household of 1 - $47,000; Household of 2 - $54,000; Household of 3 - $61,000 per year. He stated that if tenants are below those amounts they can be screened for emergency status and if they are above those amounts a tenant would not be eligible for CHA programs.

Ellen Semonoff stated that the City offers assistance in two areas for eligible tenants. She stated that the Multi Service Center is available to help people assess whether they are eligible for a variety of services, and there is some funding for income-eligible people for assistance in moving costs and paying first and last month's rent. She also stated that, thanks to the wisdom of the City Council and the City administration, the continued availability of Ellen Shachter and Susan Hegel from the Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services is an invaluable resource to the tenants who are dealing with this impending displacement.

Councillor Simmons asked if tenants as a group are able to be represented. Ms. Shachter responded that half of the tenants must be elderly or low income. Ms. Semonoff stated that she would be willing to attend an initial tenant meeting and would answer questions as they arise, regardless of income. Councillor Simmons stated that it must be the tenants who initiate such a meeting and that representatives from Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services must be invited to this meeting. Ms. Shachter stated that she would be happy to discuss the pros and cons about tenants not leaving their units.

Cassie Arnaud stated that her work focuses on creating new and preserving existing affordable housing. She stated that CDD administers the Inclusionary Housing program. She stated she would be willing to set up individualized information sessions with CEOC and ACT to assist tenants and offer information regarding housing programs.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated the more you keep your head down, as a tenant, the more vulnerable you are. She stated that ACT, CEOC and legal services can help. She stated that they will be there to support tenants that want to come together. She added that there is no need for tenant association by-laws or anything formal in order for these tenants to be supported by these organizations. She stated that tenants have advocates on their side who want to help. Ms. Pizza-Zeoli stated that in Maryland, there is strong condo conversion law, and that there are a lot of interesting policy ideas the City Council could look at. She added that the City Council does have leverage even if they don't have legal force. She said that the City Council can stand with tenants to ensure that landlords understand that, regardless of what the owners do, there will be eyes watching them. She spoke of the moral hazard wherein the tenants have to pay for an owner's actions. She stated that CEOC and ACT could help with a petition for the items that the tenants are hoping for, in terms of treatment and tenant rights, which would raise greater awareness of this situation.

Councillor Simmons stated that the tenants at 295 Harvard Street do not stand alone. She urged the tenants to notify the City Council if there are meetings that will be taking place, so that councilors can try to attend. Councillor Simmons stated that she wants income eligible tenants to stay in their buildings, but it is important for them to look at all options. Councillor Simmons asked to what degree CPA funds can be used to purchase or subsidize Section 8 vouchers. Ms. Shachter stated that CPA money can be used to purchase property and assist in vouchers.

Councillor Simmons stated that that another Housing Committee hearing should be scheduled to talk about other properties in similar circumstances, and suggested that owners of the property be invited to City Hall so the dialogue can be placed on the City's record. She stated that it is important to speak on the record in order to hold owners accountable. Councillor Simmons stated that she will forward a letter to the owner of 295 Harvard Street as Chair of the Housing Committee stating that the Housing Committee is following the events that are taking place at that location, as well as a second letter of support to the owner of 295 Harvard Street stating the will and demands of the tenants.

Councillor Simmons added that as the Chair of the Housing Committee she will work on scheduling a hearing regarding the property at 33 Harding Street.

Councillor Simmons and Councillor McGovern made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to report back to the Housing Committee on any legal protections the City can enact, either through Ordinance, Home Rule Petition or additional avenues, to protect tenants from dramatic rent increases and/or unfair evictions.

The motion carried.

Councillor McGovern stressed that it is important to figure out a way to protect tenants and expressed his desire that the response from the City Solicitor be proactive in nature. He stated that he is not interested in hearing the things that the City cannot do to help tenants.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments to determine the feasibility of additions to the building permit process such that, when large amounts of displacement will be entailed due to renovation, the renovating agent be made to comply with a new inclusionary ordinance and be made to comply with further regulations as the City or City Council may see fit to promulgate an order to protect prospective displaced residents.

The motion carried.

Councillor Carlone stated the importance of expanding inclusionary zoning to include renovation.

David Downs, Homeowners Rehab, Inc. (HRI) stated that HRI has a variety of market, moderate and low-income units and stated that the contact person regarding available units is Mr. Andrew Leichtman at Winn Residential. He encouraged tenants to contact Mr. Leichtman via e-mail at aleichtman@winnco.com.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City Solicitor to determine if the City can create a policy whereby the City of Cambridge is notified of any large transition of property that will affect a large number of people.

The motion passed.

Councillor Simmons made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Affordable Housing Trust to discuss the feasibility of having the City purchase the buildings on Harvard Street and Harding Street that have recently become the focus of concern before the City Council and report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

The motion passed.

Councillor Carlone stated that it would be useful to know the particulars of the housing plan and the existing tenant rights as they are in place today. The research he has done is that it does not seem strong, and he said that a succinct one-page summary on each would be helpful. Councillor Simmons said that she would ask the City Manager if these could be provided to the City Council.

Councillor Simmons stated that, as Chair of the Housing Committee and in agreeance with the Housing Committee members, she would be a sending letter to Jackson Slomiak to ascertain if they are willing to sell their property to the City, to clarify the intent for the building by its owners, and to communicate the requests that the tenants have brought forth at this committee meeting. Councillor Simmons also stated that she would send a similar letter to the owners of other buildings that may be experiencing similar events.

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

The hearing was adjourned at 5:25pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair

Committee Report #3
A joint public hearing was held on Mon, June 29, 2015 between the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board in the Sullivan Chamber beginning at 6:06pm.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a petition by the Planning Board to amend Section 13.10 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance so as to change the development controls applicable in the Planned Unit Development at Kendall Square (PUD-KS) Overlay Zoning District. The majority of the PUD-KS District is occupied by the Volpe Transportation Systems Research Center operated by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Craig Kelley; Mayor David P. Maher; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Iram Farooq, Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department (CDD); Stuart Dash, Director, Community Planning, CDD; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; Liza Paden, Project Planner, CDD; Suzannah Bigolin, Project Planner, CDD; Jefferson Smith, Chief of Staff for Mayor Maher; Sandra Albano, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Members of the Planning Board present were H. Theodore Cohen, Chair of the Planning Board; Catherine Preston Connolly, Vice-Chair of the Planning Board; Louis J. Bacci, Jr.; Steven A. Cohen; and Hugh Russell.

Members of the CRA present were Kathy Born, Chair, CRA; D. Margaret Drury, Vice Chair; Barry Zevin; and Tom Evans, Executive Director.

Also present were David Ishihara, Deputy Director, Volpe Center; Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street; Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Gerald O'Leary, 303 Third Street; Carole Bellew, 257 Charles Street; Jan Devereux 255 Lakeview Avenue; Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street; Jane Stabile, 303 Third Street; Andy Gorn, 46 Shepard Street; Holly Jacobson, Linnaean Solutions, Porter Square; Robyn Reed, 1572 Mass. Ave.; Ben Kou, 269 Harvard Street; Ian Gasco-Wiggin, One Broadway; Hasson Rashid, 820 Mass. Ave.; Gregg Moree, 25 Fairfield Street; Mark Jaquith, 213 Hurley Street; John Sanzone, 540 Memorial Drive; Elaine DeRosa, 4 Pleasant Place; Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Elie Yarden, 143 Pleasant Street; Cathy Hoffman, 67 Pleasant Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Ron Paden, 25 Aberdeen Street; and Bethany Stevens, 100 Spring Street.

Vice Mayor Benzan and Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. The materials provided for this hearing are as follows:
1. CDD memo on the PUD-KS (Volpe Site) Rezoning Proposal;
2. Conceptual Massing Studies;
3. Kendall Square Design Guidelines (2013, referenced in the zoning and CDD memo;
4. Supplemental PUD-KS Site Planning and Design Guidelines; and
5. GSA's Volpe Fact Sheet.

These materials are available at http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/Zoning/Amendments.

The text of the petition is available at http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/Amendments/2015/PUDKS/zngamend_pudks_petition.pdf.

Vice Mayor Benzan outlined the process that would be followed during the hearing. Public comment would be three minutes. No audio or visual displays will be allowed by the public during public comment. The Chair announced that if the hearing did not get through public comment tonight there will be additional opportunities for the public to make their comments. Vice Mayor Benzan welcomed the Chair of the Planning Board to the joint hearing.

Chairman Cohen gave an opening statement. This joint hearing is a mechanism to make it more convenient for the public to be in one location and provide public comment. This is a Planning Board petition to amend the Volpe parcel in the Kendall Square PUD. The presentation will be provided by CDD. This is a conceptual framework of what can be built on this Volpe parcel. The DOT/GSA/Volpe is proposing a land swap. The land swap will be 14 acres of land in Kendall Square for a new facility of approximately 400,000 square feet. The remainder of the land will be turned over to a developer. The federal government/Volpe will not be subject to Cambridge zoning ordinance, but the remainder of the land in private ownership will be subject to the zoning. He stated that this proposal is to set forth the zoning for the private development. There is no proposal before us today where we are looking at a particular building or a set of buildings. The Planning Board is proposing zoning for this area that is hoped will be adopted by the City Council that would set the framework of what can be built. There is no developer at this time. Even though there may be an enormous wish list of what the City would like to see at this location, we are mindful of the economic concerns that must be taken into consideration. He stated that there are major issues raised regarding the zoning proposal. He hoped that the public hearing will be concluded tonight. The Planning Board will further discuss this petition on July 14, take a vote and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Ordinance Committee will also make a recommendation. If the public hearing cannot be concluded tonight it will be continued to a date to be determined. There will be an additional public input and a subsequent hearing by the Planning Board to discuss and make a recommendation. He turned the hearing over to CDD.

Iram Farooq, Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department, stated that the hearing is to discuss the zoning for the Volpe parcel. She gave an overview on the process. This is the start of the process and this is the first public hearing on this project. She stated that the files relating to this petition and the 3D mapping studies are on file on the CDD website. The parcel is home to the Department of Transportation Volpe Transportation Center which houses about 1200 worker. There are several buildings on the site with close to 400,000 square feet. No improvements have been made since the building was built. To address the need for a modern facility the DOT and the GSA have received congressional approval to do a federal exchange process whereby the GSA puts out a Request for Qualifications (REQ) and then a Request for Proposal (RFP) to try to get an exchange partner, which is essentially a developer or a development team. The developer will be in charge of constructing a building to house a new Volpe Center which would occupy about 3 acres with the remaining 11 acres of the 14 acre site being transferred over to the developer. She stated that there are no federal appropriations to support the Volpe project. This will only work if the value in the 11 acres of parcel, the remaining area, is appropriate to offset the construction cost of the Volpe Center. She stated that the zoning is based upon the recommendation of the Kendall Square Planning Study and a companion piece sponsored by the East Cambridge Planning Team. The recommendations of both were similar and this formed the basis of the zoning. She spoke about the vision for Kendall Square which is to create a great place that includes housing, ground floor retail, public open space and promotes environmental sustainability. This proposal requires that a minimum of 40% of the square footage, consisting of 1,000 units be devoted to housing. The proposal requests that 10% be affordable housing for low and moderate income households with another 5% be affordable to middle income households. She stated that this equals 150 affordable units. There is a requirement that 5% of the residential units be three bedroom units. There will be 53 three bedroom units. She stated that the commercial side would support approximately $20 million in payments to the Affordable Housing Trust through the incentive zoning. This calculation is based on $12 per square foot payment currently being considered by the Planning Board and the City Council. There are incentives and requirements to create active ground floor that is engaging and interesting. Public open space is a reoccurring theme. The winning proposal of the Kendall Square competition was received from Richard Burke and Associates. She stated that this site can accommodate significant public open space. The recommendation is that 25% of the site be dedicated to public open space. This is different from the standard open space definition; it does not include roadways and loading docks. There is a recommendation that 5% of commercial space be devoted to innovation space and is targeting start-ups and mid-tier companies. She stated that there is a FAR incentive to ask that 50% of that would count toward the FAR. There are sustainability incentives which will be contemplated separately from the Net Zero recommendations. There are provisions such as requirements for green roofs. The Volpe site offers a potential for district level energy solutions. On the transportation side there is a recommendation to enhance PTDM that will create a maximum parking requirement and limits instead of limited parking requirements and will greatly encourage shared parking. There is a recommendation for a community fund contribution of $10 per square foot for commercial development. This is approximately $16 million for the parcel equally divided between open space programming, transit improvement and workforce readiness projects. The PUD formula allows for a detailed urban design review of the site plan and there is a companion guidelines that were created in the K2 process. There are additional guidelines that are still being developed. She stated that this is a unique opportunity to develop the site.

Mr. Roberts spoke about the zoning. He stated that a PUD sets the overall zoning for an allowed zoning by setting the maximum limits for the total development height and also sets the baseline for public improvements and public benefits. When the zoning framework is in place a developer would come to the City with a development plan that fits within the zoning framework. The plan would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Board. The Planning Board would consider a number of different design considerations and would decide on whether to issue a special permit which would regulate how the development plan would proceed over time. The PUD special permit process also would require public hearings. He gave the comparison for the development controls for the current and proposed zoning including housing, affordable housing, public open space, ground floor retail, innovation space, parking, sustainability, community funds and government uses. He stated that the current FAR is 3 for the overall site but can be increased with the inclusionary housing bonus. Under the proposed zoning the FAR would be 4.5 without an inclusionary housing bonus. The 40% housing requirement remains. The current inclusionary housing requirements have the requirement of 15% affordable with a compensating bonus resulting in 11.5% of housing being affordable. In this proposal there is a requirement for a full 15% of the total housing to be affordable. This is split into 10% of housing for low to moderate income households and 5% for middle income households. Mr. Roberts stated that the open space requirement is confusing. The proposal states that it is 42% of the parcel, but there is a requirement for a 7.5 acre park and this turns out to be more than 42%. The proposal changes the percentage to be at least 25% of the parcel to be public open space. This would be a space that is publicly owned by a public agency and accessible to the public. This is a minimum requirement, but it is still the highest open space requirement in a PUD zoning district. This is comparable to other projects in the area. He stated that PUD projects do provide open space that exceeds the minimum in most cases. It is important to have flexibility because it is difficult to predetermine the outcome. This proposal is setting a cap on the minimum parking to be provided to discourage shared parking and to reduce the use of cars. Ground floor retail would be required along major streets and is to continue to be incentivized for small scale spaces. Innovation space will be introduced into the zoning and requires a minimum of 5% and incentivizing up to 10%. He states that sustainability requirements were discussed, such as going from LEED Silver to LEED gold. He stated that the zoning cannot regulate federal government uses on the site, but can encourage a federal facility to be integrated into the planning and the design of the site. He stated that while the current zoning has some provisions to allow the Planning Board to waive certain requirements in order to allow for including a government use on the site, the proposed zoning is more specific about how it would treat a federal government facility and is meant to encourage that to be included as part of the PUD review for the whole site. Another key component is the changes to the height limits. The height go from 65 feet along Binney Street up to a maximum of 250 feet along Broadway. The proposed zoning keeps the stepped up height ban and retains an 85 foot height around where existing lower scale housing is in the area. The side closest to the commercial development continues a graduated stepping up of height of up to 250 feet. There are provisions to allow for some buildings to go to a height of 350 feet and for possibly one building to be 500 feet. Under the proposed zoning for the Volpe site the housing increases over one million feet. This may be the largest housing development in Kendall Square. The office, lab and general commercial component increased to about 1.6 million square feet. The potential retail increases to about 140,000 square feet based on the incentives in the proposed zoning. At a minimum the innovation space would be 84,000 square feet. He stated that total development would be close to 3 million square feet, the scale that was envisioned in the K2 plan. He noted that this is not the only outcome.

Susanne Bigolin spoke about the design guidelines and that they will be used during the PUD special permit project. She spoke about the 2013 Kendall Square Design Guidelines. She highlighted the main principles which will be used during the primarily during the project review process at the time of a special permit for the PUD. She stated that the emphasis in the design guidelines is to manage the scale and the bulk of new buildings. Unnecessary environmental impacts are also reviewed. Another key factor of the guidelines is to focus on bringing life and vitality to Kendall Square and to create a high quality public place. The supplementary designs focus on the connectivity of the Volpe site with Kendall Square and the neighborhoods. The open space looks at parks, plazas and streets. The focus is on providing ground floor activity on major streets. The Connect Kendall Competition captures the guidelines. Different scenarios were reviewed for the conceptual massing studies; the zoning was requirements were tested through these studies. She stated that different open space configurations and connections, including sizing and massing, were looked at to see how they might play out on the site. She explained that the studies are helpful to calibrate the zoning and to ensure that the design guidelines are effective and the zoning is workable. Some of the key principles in these studies were looking at breaking up the site to increase permeability and walkability and to break down the block to an urban size. The physical and visual connections through the site would be the extension of the Broad Canal and through Fifth Street and also looking at what the streetscape experience would be on Broadway. She spoke about the pedestrian experience and the need to activate that side of Broadway because it is opposite the dead zone of the Marriott. The intention of the guidelines is to look at overall massing and the possibilities of the site layout. The massing studies show the Volpe building with a 400,000 square feet with a 50 foot buffer.

The conceptual massing # 1 has 2 slender residential towers of 350 and 500 feet. There are two commercial towers at 350 feet. Binney Street was unchanged in the study and was kept at the midrise scale. The buildings are different heights and widths and allow for the creation of a mixed use district. There is a variety of open space and an opportunity for different experiences and programming on the site.

The Massing # 2 contained one large residential tower of up to 500 feet and one large commercial tower. This study has larger floor plates. There is more open space and an opportunity to provide an active edge on Broadway. There are considerable shadows on this study.

The Massing # 3 included 3 commercial towers along Broadway. These are large towers with large floor plates. There is significant shadowing over the central open space. The street wall on Broadway creates a significant wall.

The Massing # 4 included one large commercial tower with a height of 1,000 feet located at the intersection of Broadway and Third Street. She explained that this is the only location for the tower because of the FAA height restrictions. This significantly impacts the open space which is larger but lacks the human scale and Broadway lacks activation. The shadows extend into the neighborhood and they are not contained on the site.

She concluded that these are some of the potential urban design possibilities for the site. There are a multitude of different scenarios that could be created and developed that will be part of the PUD process as the project advances.

Ms. Farooq stated that this is not the final opportunity for discussion on this. There is a need to have more discussion in a less formal setting. She stated that CDD will be holding discussions in area parks in Kendall Square and Area Four. This information will be posted on the website so that all the materials is available for the public to review.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked the members of the Planning Board if they wanted to make a comment.

Chairman Cohen stated that this petition is on a fast track because the GSA and DOT wanted to move quickly and they wanted the RFQ and RFP process to be complete by the spring of 2016 and enter an agreement before the end of 2016. He explained that the zoning must be in place so that the developers who will be bidding on this will know what is being expected of them by the City. There will be more time to discuss but needs to move quickly in order to comply with what the government wants to do.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened the hearing to the City Council for questions.

Councillor McGovern stated that this an opportunity for the City. The City has not had control over the 14 acres of land in Kendall Square. There is no community benefit for this space, but this petition provides an opportunity for the City to have some input on ten acres of the land on the site. He asked how was the 40% housing decided and could this be increased. Ms. Farooq stated that 40% is one of the highest percentage for housing required in any PUD districts except North Point has a sliding scale of FAR which is a higher percentage of housing. The 40% is the highest housing number in the City's economic engine and it is important to have housing in this area and to transform Kendall Square to feel like a place. Councillor McGovern stated that the feedback that he is getting from people in the community is that they want a higher housing number. Ms. Farooq stated that in zoning there is no magic scientific number that we can determine what the exact number is. She stated that once you zoom in on a number it starts to impact what are the other items that the City can influence. With higher residential there is less commercial and commercial has a larger value than residential particularly in Kendall Square. So when commercial is reduced this reduces community benefit and financial contributions to the City. Councillor McGovern questioned the 50 three bedrooms. Mr. Roberts stated that it is 50 across all levels, market and affordable. Under the proposed zoning the City can negotiate with the developer to get more 3 bedroom units. Councillor McGovern asked how the City can ensure that the maximum number of affordable family sized units are provided. Mr. Roberts stated that the flexibility in zoning and the public review process that the development plan would go through and under the proposed zoning, a developer would be require to prepare a housing plan that would be part of their submission. Through the review process the Planning Board would be reviewing what the developer is planning for affordable housing. With input from City staff a judgement would be made on what would be the best outcomes. Councillor McGovern stated that he did not support 15% affordable housing and thought that the City should aim for 20-25%. Ms. Connolly stated that the Planning Board arrived at this number rather than the staff. This is reflected in the fact that the low and moderate income housing is at 10% which is lower than the current requirement with 5% for moderate income. She stated that this was discussed by the Planning Board at length. In principle it was agreed that everyone wanted as much affordable housing as possible, but did not want to prevent the project going forward. The concern was the cost of building a 400,000 square foot state of the art research facility for free first pushing too far could prevent nothing from happening. She stated that the timing of this project was worth noting. The federal government requires that the new building be built and move in ready before the current building is torn down and before the developer could proceed. The developer has to do this and have all of the carrying costs associated with the building first before they can start any of the new development before they can start to earn any money. So due to the economics of this site the board felt like 15% was as high as we could push overall. She noted that there was dissent on the board about this. There was more of a push for a significant amount of moderate housing because it would be more affordable for the developer than the lower income housing. She stated that this was the Planning Board's recommendation, not the staff.

Councillor Simmons stated that Housing committee will be discussing inclusionary housing. If the Planning Board is recommending 15% and if the Ordinance Committee adopted 20-25% would this impact Volpe site because the City Council has changed its inclusionary requirements or does the Planning Board recommendation stand. Chairman Cohen responded that the zoning requires 15% but if the City adopted a larger percentage of inclusionary zoning the larger number would prevail. He stated that going to 20% was seen as a policy decision for the City Council to make. The 15% is a minimum for now.

Councillor McGovern spoke about the open space, suggesting a Kendall Commons, open to the general public. He asked how the open space works. Mr. Russell stated that the 40% requirement was before the City Council negotiated with Alexandria to get major open space on Roger Street. The conceptual massing plan showed that there are significant public open space and connections. He stated that 25% open space is a big number. Ms. Connolly spoke about the difference between 40% being publicly accessible open space and 25% public open space. Publicly accessible open space could be streets and sidewalks, roof gardens open to the public and 25% public open space would reflect upon what the public is expecting. Councillor McGovern stated that Kendall Square is changing from being a financial hub to a residential neighborhood. He wants the open space, housing and retail to be family friendly and affordable space. He commented that there are no kid friendly restaurant in Cambridge. He suggested discussing with the School Department the amount of additional students that may affect the public schools.

Chairman Cohen stated that the Planning Board is concerned with the type of retail in Kendall Square and that it is for all types of citizens in the City. The whole proposal is a balancing act. Increased housing may increase the height and density. He stated that the zoning could be amended to push one particular area rather than another. Councillor McGovern wanted to push until the developer does not scream and goes away.

Councillor Carlone stated that if the Volpe building is included in bulk the square footage is 5.5 FAR. He was surprise that some parking above grade might not count as square footage. He did not understand this. This needs clarification. The buildings are very dense, whether tall or not. The urban design diagrams generally define public open space. The public space and ways need to be really special. He stated that the architecture is not defined and must be defined. He stated that there will be diversity because it is Kendall Square. There needs to be a composition where buildings respect each other and build character especially at the lower part of the buildings. He asked about the floor plates sizes. Ms. Bigolin stated that the design guidelines contain the maximum floor plate. Councillor Carlone stated that the towers have 2 setbacks, not just one major setback in a tower. He was relieved to hear that the publicly owned open space would be up to 3 acres. He appreciated the shadows shown in reality. A goal should be to maximize sunlight and livability of the public spaces. Architectural quality needs to be defined in the next three months for the development team. He stated that the open spaces need to be fairly contiguous. A developer could considered this a series of fragmented open space.

Councillor Simmons stated that the housing is important to the City Council. She wanted the most affordable, moderate and middle family housing on the site as possible. She stated that she is hopeful that the inclusionary zoning will have gone through its process and will have an impact on Volpe and other projects. If the City is committed to economic diversity it has to start somewhere. She spoke about ground floor retail. The retail is left to the developer and the City has to do better and she wanted it more predictable by the City and not in the hands of the developer. There is a feeling that Kendall Square is for the intelligentsia and that Central Square is for those who do not have nine degrees. She stated that ground floor retail needs to be affordable and diverse. The retail issue needs to be in the zoning so that it is a natural process. Public open space and public accessible open space sends the message that both are accessible to the public. She wants assurance around the open space that the public can use it. She wants workforce training strengthened. She wanted this to actually happen. She does not know how this is going to be executed because there is no program in place to be the recipient of these workforce funding. She wanted the Affordable Housing Trust to be more active on this site. She had concerns about the height of the building and did not like the mapping that walled off the design. She has trepidations because this process is different. She wants affordable and moderate housing maximized, the open space is clearly open to public, and retail is affordable and diverse.

Ms. Connolly stated that the Planning Board shares the concerns of Councillor Simmons. The private developer needs to recoup their investment and cannot do this until they do what the city wants. She explained why the open space was changed. Councillor Simmons spoke about the traffic impact on this area that is already burden.

Councillor Toomey stated that this petition is the most challenging and complex. He is skeptical that this will happen. The time frame is short and much needs to be done on this site. The site is 14 acres what is the exact square footage that Volpe Center will need - has this been determined? What percentage of the 14 acres does Volpe need right away and with the new federal security measures in mind and whether the Volpe open space be open space and would it be accessible to the public and will it count as part of the 25% open space. Ms. Farooq stated that the fact sheet was developed by GSA and are looking at 3 acres would be retained by the federal government. The GSA has a strong commitment to make the public space around their building to feel more public. There is a goal to have designs and criteria that encourage activation. The Volpe Center wants to be more open to the public and have a public space in the building open to the public to connect with what is happening inside the building. This can be included in the public open space category. She further stated that since the public space will be owned by a public entity it is anticipated that this could be included in the public open space category. Councillor Toomey asked has the GSA made a commitment that the space will be accessible public open space and not walled off.

David Ishihara, Deputy Director of Operations, Volpe Center, stated that the conditions seen at Volpe is due to incidents that occurred on 9ll. He stated that GSA showed examples of security measures used around the country that are more aesthetically pleasing. He stated that there will be security measure around the building but not like a fortress. Councillor Toomey stated that the corner of Third and Broadway is the prime location, has the Planning Board looked at maximizing space as public open space. He suggested looking at Third and Binney Streets. Ms. Farooq stated that this remains to be determined. What is cared about is what is in the principles. The connection to Broad Canal was an important visual connection. She stated that a connection to Point Park is important to retain. Councillor Toomey stated that height is needed to make the housing happen; he is not supportive of the 1,000 foot height. He spoke about the cost and the market and the challenge for this site. He wanted a workable resolution.

Councillor Mazen stated that he supports the 15% affordable housing with 5% moderate and wanted the open space facing the street at a 33% minimum. He wanted a community conversation about how these affect the maximum height. If there is a need for tradeoffs with the 350 feet height limit then the community needs to be engaged in the conversation. He wanted innovation space to be incubator space and not just working space. He wanted to bring retail back to the middle class. He wanted a 40% commercial maximum and residential maximized. He wanted traffic discussed now and he wanted to know if the GSA or Volpe had conversation with the MBTA to improve redline service to Kendall Station. He noted that it is important to know the costs involved and the size needed by the GSA and the Volpe Center to understand which structure is viable.

Councillor Cheung stated that he is comfortable with a tall building. He wanted the 30,000 square foot plate to be kept residential and to keep what has been achieved with Normandy Twining at 20% affordable. He stated that you can see how much more open space is achieved if the building is tall. He stated that if the City is trying to achieve what was in the latest Kendall Square Design competition and trying to connect Broad Canal and the open space the only way is with a taller building. He spoke about the lobby being transparent and open to the public. He is not willing to go back to 15% for housing and cannot understanding going back to 5% innovation when MIT committed to 10%. He stated that the parking needs to be reviewed. He noted that it seems like a lot of parking given the fact that we are trying to reduce the parking throughout the area. He stated that it is important to have locally owned retail. He preferred having a 99 ground lease and having the land go to the CRA and if the CRA is not the developer he would rather do less in terms of the zoning. He commented that he would prefer that the CRA is in the mix. He wanted the developers to have a strong community process to include the community.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not think it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. If the land is truly as valuable as we think it is and this proposal is not passed in time to make this work for Volpe, someone else will make this land work. He stated that if the City is not happy about this it should not be done. He feels rushed. He wanted part of this discussion to be about the Boston Property site to be included in the presentation which was not included. This does not do justice to the conversation. There is a lot that can happen in this area. He is dubious that this proposal will occur.

Councillor Simmons wanted the conversation in context to include Volpe with MIT and Boston Properties. She stated that that she wanted all this development to be congruent and that it all ties together. She wanted the conversation to the neighborhoods by CDD to be more robust than what was stated.

Mayor Maher stated that this a great conversation and he does not feel pressured. If the petition needs to be refiled - it will be refiled. The City has tried to have Volpe and federal government at the table and now we have them both at the table. This is an opportunity to do planning. He stated that many City Councils have tried to correct what happened in Kendall Square. He stated that Kendall Square is in a much better place today than it has ever been. There is more housing, open space and blocks that make sense is an opportunity to create and to make this a place making space. He may not support a project that will result in less affordable housing that the current zoning has. This needs to be looked at. He wanted open space and questioned who will create this open space - the City or a private developer? This will be one of the most important votes made by the City Council. He noted that all can talk about the success of Kendall Square, but there is still no grocery or drug store in Kendall Square. He stated that improvement is still needed in Kendall Square and this zoning will help to facilitate this.

Councillor Mazen stated that he feels rushed and that there is more community engagement needed.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that the collaboration between the City Council and the Planning Board has improved. The developer missing from the table is making this difficult. When will the RFQ go out? Mr. Ishihara stated that the RFQ will go out in July and RFP in spring 2016. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that the zoning for this area has not been determined. He was hoping that this range would be narrowed by the City Council. He asked after one more meeting should the City Council meet with the developers and ask the hard questions. He asked if the City Council could meet with the developers before finalizing the zoning in the fall. Ms. Farooq stated that with the RFQ in July a short list of developers will be received in October. It is good to continue to refine the City's collective goals. She agreed that it would be good to discuss this with the short list of developers and they can be invited to be part of the conversation. Vice Mayor Benzan spoke about 140,000 square feet of ground floor retail and is 25% being allocated to local independent retail. Mr. Roberts stated that zoning regulates use such as food stores and what is desired in the neighborhood. The owner of development can work with City about how the space will be developed and marketed. Retail is two way street - it is the choices of where business owners want to be located. Being too constraint can limit the opportunities for the right kinds of connections to take place resulting in spaces being vacant for long periods of time. Mr. Russell stated that the Volpe guidelines do not include retail. This can be discussed when the PUD special permit is before the Planning Board. Councillor Kelley stated that guidelines are just that guidelines. The City Council needs to be specific in what it wants in specificity.

Vice Mayor Benzan spoke about the 3D models. He spoke about the retail space and the affordability for mom and pop stores. He wanted the retail space sizes to be specific and affordable and how these retail spaces integrated into the public realm. He stated that none of the 3D models attract people to Kendall Square. Businesses are struggling to survive. Spaces need to be developed that are like plaza, ground floor retail that invites families and seniors and knits civic, corporate and family life together. He noted that the arts are missing from the models. Extending the Broad Canal could assist the City in times of flooding and being resilient. He wanted retail developed around the Broad Canal. The conversation is highlighting height and density. The drawings do not show how the space will be attractive. He felt that not less than 17.5% should be for housing. He suggested a density bonus for day care. This brings this space to life seeing children run around. He wanted the inclusionary range lowered and wanted more discussion on height to lower the range.

Councillor McGovern stated that there is no indoor play space in Kendall Square that is engaging and safe. The needs are changing and this needs to be taken into consideration.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened public comment at 8:14pm.

Kathy Born, CRA Chair, 3 Walnut Avenue, had a letter of support to the GSA from CRA (ATTACHMENT A). The CRA was pleased that the project was moving forward after so many years. She stated that the Volpe site was part of the original Kendall Square Urban Renewal Plan and the CRA was the original developer of the site under the urban renewal plan. She stated that the CRA would like to help in the process as a catalyst, advisor or partner. This is a terrific format for the joint hearing between the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee. She explained that a petition will be forthcoming from the CRA, not Boston Properties, and will include property that was part of the urban renewal planned district and is now referred to as the MXD District. She stated that there have been four or five public meetings and a public forum on this already. She stated that the CRA has made an initial filing to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection that assesses the transportation and traffic impacts of the project.

D. Margaret Drury, 1 Dudley Court, spoke as a resident. She stated that the Volpe site is a complicated site. The City Council and Planning Board are supportive of affordable housing and she urged finding a balance for as much affordable housing as possible and to think about the implications of setting a percentage goal for affordable housing lower than the current zoning ordinance requires (ATTACHMENT B).

Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street, stated that this is not and cannot be the zoning that we would like to see on the Volpe Parcel. This is the first time that the public has been engaged in the process. He stated that the federal government will not be paying the full freight for their renovation. This is not representative to what people in Cambridge want to see. He stated that the proposed FAR are enormous. If the Volpe 3 acres are taken out the FAR is 6.26. He stated that if extra FAR is granted then more housing should be required. If more height is granted then more open space should be required. The public transportation system in Kendall Square is broken. This should be fixed before more commercial space is given. He stated that at street level there is very little difference between lost daylight and there is a lost connection between the occupants up high and the people below. A 1,000 foot tower will be visible on Mount Monadnock. He stated making neighborhoods is like making lemonade. He stated that Kendall Square needs more housing; let's put it on the Volpe site. His comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT C).

Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, stated that the hearing is not sufficient for the public. This area is going to get 10 million square feet of development. This is equivalent to 8 prudential centers. The traffic is a mess. There has been no transportation study done. This is the Volpe Transportation Center they should have done a traffic study. The EIS includes transit and traffic analysis, but this is not being done. This is a major flaw in the Planning Board process. He asked where the solutions are. He noted that the K2 process never finished their traffic study. He suggested an alternative proposal, the ECAP plan. The ECAP plan proposed 75% residential. He stated that transit and parking elements can be added to the plan. He stated that zoning has already been written. He suggested using this proposal.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, spoke about process. He stated that he requested permission to show a video and did not hear about being denied visual presentation until today. He commended the CDD for the 3 D models. He displayed a video of the four scenarios presented by CDD as you go around the Volpe parcel. See https://youtu.be/5byy0cfqCak for the flyover video tour (ATTACHMENT D). He stated that this provided a feel for the height and the density. He stated that 3D models are critical. The process was hurt by the CDD not issuing the 3D models to the public. It is import that video presentations be allowed by the members of the public. This is about the process. He also displayed views from Boston of the site.

Gerald O'Leary, 303 Third Street, submitted a communication (ATTACHMENT E). A landmark park on the Volpe site is needed. He stated that a park is critical and will help the identity of the site. The park needs to be large. He stated that two of the design competition studies allocated the entire area bounded by Broadway, Third, Porter and the line to Fifth Street for a park. This open space will affect Kendall Square more than any tall building. The site is large enough and is centrally located by the T. He stated that under the zoning petition the total open space for the entire development would be fixed. He stated that the Department of Transportation open space on the lot would reduce the non-DOT open space while the developer would be guaranteed with a fixed amount for his development. He suggested that the Planning Board and the City Council modify the zoning proposal to require at least four acres of open space on the non DOT portion of the development.

Barry Zevin, CRA Board, stated that the City Council understands this issue. He stated that he is concerned with the 25% for the open space. This is cutting the open space very thin. He gave examples of references to compare the open space with. The retail consultant from ECAP and K2 stated that the retail needs to be supported by the neighborhood. The residential number has to be enough to support the retail and all the zoning in the world will not make this happen. He stated that what has changed is that supermarkets are not compelled to build super Stop & Shop size stores. He stated that the elephant in the room is the transit capacity and sea level rise. He stated that these issues cannot be ignored. He spoke about height and the fact that this is place where people will be; this needs to be remembered.

Jan Devereux, 255 Lakeview Avenue, stated that the conceptual mapping should have included all the other developments in the pipeline. She stated that 88 Ames Street was not mentioned. She stated that the MIT towers and the CRA proposal are 1 million square feet as is the MXD district. She stated that the shadow, wind and traffic studies should be produced from a cumulative development. She spoke about the community benefits that would be incorporated into the planning process if this was done first and not the zoning. She supported indoor child care center, a library, media center, an indoor recreation facility with an indoor pool and an all season's public marketplace. She stated that height is overpowering the conversation. She did not agree with a 1,000 foot tower. This would disrupt the skyline for miles around. She stated that she felt that the public is being set up to accept an eyesore in order to have sunlight and open space that was promised. She stated that the lack of workforce housing has been the downside of the Kendall Square growth engine from the beginning. She further stated that Kendall Square is already operating with a housing deficit. She stated that 50 - 3 bedroom units is low out of 1,000. She hoped one of the questions that will be addressed in the master planning process is how large a City can become without losing its human scale character and livability.

Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, stated that she would encourage CDD to release information that will help the public conceptionalize the model sooner than 2 business days before the hearing. The public needs the models more. The 1,000 foot building - she wanted it taken off the table and the discussion. This is not even being proposed and is making the 500 feet building sound reasonable. If the 1,000 is not being proposed why is it being discussed? Her communication is attached (ATTACHMENT F).

Chairman Cohen stated that the current proposal does not have a 1,000 feet building; there is 500; 350 and a 250 foot building. Councillor Cheung suggested the 1,000 and was discussed by the Planning Board.

Jane Stabile, 303 Third Street, stated that her building is surrounded on 3 sides by the Volpe property. This proposal is allowing for the federal government to get a new free building even if it means giving away half of the open space required by zoning. She noted that the 7.5 acres required in the current zoning is for public open space, not just publicly accessible open space. She urged the City Council to consider what is best for the residents and not the federal government. She urged that a large part of the open space remains on the corner of Point Park and the Clock Tower. She is in favor of middle income housing but not at the expense of low and moderate housing. Her comments about the proposed zoning amendment affecting the future of the Volpe Center are attached (ATTACHMENT G).

Hasson Rashid, 820 Mass. Ave., spoke about exclusion of the homeless is disappearing before our eyes with the Volpe Center. When the property is no longer needed it should be declared surplus property. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENT H).

Greg Moree supported job sites, more affordable housing. He stated that the City Council has the right to see the legal language for the job sites. He supports Boston Properties.

Mark Jaquith, 213 Hurley Street, represented the East Cambridge Planning Team as President and himself. He has 2 letters of the ECPT (ATTACHMENTS I AND J). He stated that the ECPT took a vote to support the letter submitted to the Planning Board by Bjorn Poonen relating to the Volpe development. Mr. Jaquith urged the City Council to take this letter into consideration; this is the conversation that is needed. He stated that neighborhood association in which this development is located was never consulted or asked their opinion. He read portions of Mr. Poonen letter (ATTACHMENT K). His conclusion was that the amount of open space required on the non-federal portion of the development parcel would be zero. This conversation needs to happen. He stated that the other letter from the Planning Board states that on June 24th the East Cambridge Planning Team met and discussed the revised zoning proposal for the Volpe Transportation site. We learned that the CDD had filed significant changes to the proposed zoning from an ECPT member, not as we had referred to CDD. This highlights the need for better communication between CDD and ECPT. He urged the City Council not to vote until a formal presentation is made to the ECPT and feedback sessions are held with the ECPT and the residents because there are many unanswered questions. He spoke about the important points that the ECPT members wanted conveyed. He stated that the revised zoning proposal reduces open space and the requirement for a significant public park. The ECPT members have objections to these changes. He stated that ECPT felt with the increase in height open space should not be reduced and that open space on the federal site should not be counted as total open space as the City would have no control over the use of the space especially due to security concerns. He stated that a majority of the open space should become an accessible park. The density in Kendall Square requires a major park to provide an adequate environmental urban planning and public benefits. He stated that the ECPT membership voted that under no circumstances should the amount of total public open space excluding open space controlled by the federal government be less than four acres. He further stated that the ECPT requests that the Kendall Connect Open Space Competition be integrated into the zoning and that the principles of the ECHO district, such as storm water management be referenced in the zoning. He stated that the ECPT asks the City to commit to an independent study for road and sidewalk capacity, storm water open space and resiliency features.

After suspension of the rules to allow Mr. Jaquith to speak for himself. He stated that it is unconscionable to reduce the affordable housing to 10% with Cambridge experiencing skyrocketing land values and increased rents and the affordability conversation has all been about raising the requirement to preserve some socioeconomic equity. He stated that with regard to public open space it is unconscionable to reduce public open space requirements which were promised for fifteen years as part of the mitigation for the massive development that is occurring. He spoke about the process and stated that during the drafting of this proposal residents had no input. He noted that having a proposal already written before public input makes it far more difficult and less likely to have the public having any meaningful input.

Elaine DeRosa, CEOC Director, 4 Pleasant Place, spoke in favor of raising affordable housing. Anything less than 20% for affordable is not acceptable. Moderate income housing should be an add on. The three bedroom units should be targeted to low and moderate income. She stated that families are finding it harder to stay in Cambridge. Units are turning over quickly and long term residents will have no place to go.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that the City Council said things that needed to be said. She has felt that Cambridge generally views us, the great unwashed, as a nuisance. She stated that information is not provided to the public and then you are amazed when we show up and we are unhappy. She asked why is was not important to talk to the residents before this zoning was written. This creates unnecessary opposition. Anything that the federal government gets should count. She suggested the MXD district. More affordable housing is needed. This proposal does not need to be rushed because a much better idea than this is needed.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, Cambridge Residents Alliance, stated that residential needs to be increased over commercial. The maximum of commercial should be 40% instead of 60 %. She stated that any increase in the current level of FAR of 3 should go largely to housing. It is unacceptable for the low to moderate affordable housing should be reduced. She stated that 20% of the affordable housing should be for low to moderate income that is below 80% of median income. She stated that 5% of affordable should be for moderate income and that 5% of all residential units should be three bedroom units. The open space should remain at 40%. The zoning language should require a large public park and should be a contiguous public park. She further stated that none of the federal open space should count as part of the requirement. This hearing needs to be continued because many people have left this hearing tonight. The public needs more copies of the information distributed tonight, please make them available and clearer for the public to understand. It is not the City job to make this work for DOT. It is the City's job to get a good plan for what we want on this land. The public conversation by CDD should not be held in park, they should be held in serious venue. She stated that Kendall Square will remain the City's economic engine even if there is a 60% requirement for housing.

Eli Yarden, 143 Pleasant Street, stated that his testimony is addressed to the Planning Board. The Planning Board has ignored the issues of climate change and poverty. Their recommendations do nothing to help the issues in Cambridge. He asked who said that this is a time for growth. He wanted this demonstrated to him that growth is good for Cambridge. City's make decision about their public transportation infrastructure. He stated that the politic of growth in a limited area, surrounded by other urban centers, is a prescription for defeat. He spoke about diversity. His comments are attached as (ATTACHMENT L).

Cathy Hoffman, 67 Pleasant Street, stated that she hopes that the comments by the City Council can be digested to guide the process as it unfolds. She noted that Volpe is so different from when a developer actually owns the building and the developer has the leverage. She stated that the City Council has the leverage here to design a zoning process that you want and then to have develops take it or not. She stated that Olympic sized building should not be built especially since the City Council has voted against the Olympics coming to Cambridge. She urged taking the time needed on this proposal; this does not have to be rushed. She suggested that the City Council think about a process where organizations like the ECPT or people like John Hawkinson have time to come before the City Council and share larger ideas. She wanted to pause and breathe on this.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that if you walk on the grass of the Volpe you will be asked to leave the property. There is no public access. He wanted to see the East Cambridge Open Space framework for East Cambridge as an overlay and how this fits into the massing studies. He would like to see 75% housing and 10% low and moderate affordable housing is a joke. He stated that any number is fine when you do not know what the numbers are. He suggested a public pro-forma. He stated that the open space and the housing stay the same when the others are inflatable.

Bethany Stephens, 100 Spring Street, this is important to the East Cambridge neighborhood. She stated that she was impressed with the public engagement and hoped that the City Council will take the comments to heart. She spoke about the building boom in Kendall Square. She spoke about the recognition of the value of the land and the leverage that the City has on this project. She spoke about housing and the fact that there needs to be a focus on middle income and family housing. The infrastructure needs to be able to handle the development that is occurring.

Vice Mayor Benzan closed public comment at 9:34pm on a motion by Councillor Simmons.

Councillor Simmons suggested going over where do we go from this point. Mr. Roberts explained that the Planning Board will be continuing deliberation on the petition on July 14, 2015.

Councillor McGovern requested the Ordinance Co-Chairs to work on scheduling another hearing in the summer with the Planning Board in this forum.

Councillor Carlone stated that this was a productive hearing. The City Councils points were supported by neighbors and residents and encouraged the City Council to take a look at the particulars. He stated that it would be helpful to have some economic input before the next hearing. He supported holding another hearing.

Vice Mayor Benzan moved to refer the petition to the full City Council without recommendation and leave the subject matter in committee and determine whether another joint hearing is wanted with the Planning Board or just an Ordinance Committee hearing.

Councillor Mazen stated that he will not be voting to refer this to the full City Council. He stated that the City Council did not have the appropriate amount of data. He stated that he wanted more discussion in this committee before the petition is referred back to the City Council with any type of recommendation. He wanted data from Volpe and GSA about the cost per square foot and the type of amenities they would like to see on the site so that the City Council can more appropriately deem and evaluate the offset that will be appropriate to grant the developer as well as the height, bulk and other requirements and seeking to begin, not finish a community discussion that has not happened yet. Councillor Mazen moved that the meeting be adjourned and that another Ordinance Committee hearing be held.

Councillor McGovern moved that another joint hearing with Planning Board be scheduled and further that the City Council get a full picture of all the proposed development in Kendall Square for the next hearing.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he would schedule an additional hearing.

Mr. Cohen noted that the Planning Board has not closed their hearing. He asked the Planning Board members whether it should be closed and if the Planning Board wishes to have a continuation of the hearing. Ms. Farooq stated that the Planning Board docket is full and the July 14th hearing must be held. Mr. Roberts explained that the practice has been that for public hearings held between the Planning Board and the Ordinance Committee that the recommendations be sent back from both bodies separately to the City Council. There needs to be separate deliberation and report by the two bodies after this joint hearing.

Mayor Maher suggested that this be left in committee and let the Planning Board go forward. He noted that the Planning Board recommendation gets forwarded to the City Council for review. The Ordinance Committee can have another hearing and if there is a need to have both bodies meet jointly that can be scheduled.

Councillor Simmons informed the Ordinance Committee Co-Chairs and the Planning Board that more discussion is needed to vet this issue. She supported allowing the Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee to look at the schedule and schedule more hearings and discussion on this issue.

Councillor McGovern made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the Planning Board petition to amend Section 13.10 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to change the development controls in the Planned Unit Development at Kendall Square (PYD-KS) Overlay Zoning District be kept in committee and that the Co-chairs of the Ordinance Committee meet to schedule another hearing with Planning Board to further discuss the petition.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not see this happening. He stated that he does not think there are the votes to pass this petition. Councillor Simmons added then the petition could be re-filed. This petition needs more discussion.

Councillor Carlone moved to amend the aforementioned motion by Councillor McGovern to read as follows:
ORDERED: That the Planning Board petition to amend Section 13.10 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to change the development controls in the Planned Unit Development at Kendall Square (PYD-KS) Overlay Zoning District be kept in committee and that the Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee schedule another hearing in August and that the Planning Board be requested to prepare a memo on the issues that have been made at this hearing.

The motion as amended - Carried on an affirmative vote of nine members.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked Ms. Farooq if she could produce a memo on the issues raised prior to a mid-August Ordinance Committee hearing. Ms. Farooq responded in the affirmative but stated that the challenging part will be the financial piece; but CDD can do this. She stated that CDD would work with Volpe to try to resolve this.

Councillor McGovern stated that he wanted to hear how the housing can be made to work to get 25% affordable housing.

Chairman Cohen asked the Planning Board if the hearing could be closed and proceed to a discussion and make recommendations to the City Council.

Mr. Steven Cohen stated that the Planning Board does not have the financial knowledge that the City Council has requested relating to the financial assumptions. He stated that the best that the Planning Board can do is to make reasonable assumptions or guesses. He stated that their recommendations were not perfect, but the perfect cannot get in way of the good. He stated that the time constraint is not the zoning but rather the timing of the GSA. The urgency is to get the zoning in place so that the GSA may proceed with their bidding process. If their bidding process be meaningful at all the rules of the game need to be in place. Mr. Cohen noted that the Planning Board does not have access to the required financial information. He spoke about the acquisition price for the developer. He stated that then the zoning needs to be provided to give the developer enough opportunity to earn the acquisition price plus a reasonable profit. He stated that the burden is on the Planning Board to get the best information and the most reasonable assumptions that can be made by the Board will be made. Ultimately the City Council has to decide whether it wants to do the best it can with this opportunity or risk losing the opportunity.

Mr. Russell stated that the issues should be deliberated by the Planning Board on July 14, 2015. He did not want to close taking more public testimony. The Planning Board may be able to make a recommendation after its deliberation. He stated that the joint hearings are not helpful to the Planning Board to deliberate subjects, but are valuable to understand the concerns of the City Council. He stated that the job of the Planning Board is to advise the City Council on zoning matters and the Planning Board needs to do their job and process and will come back to the City Council.

Chairman Cohen this was an opportunity to hear from the City Council and public comments on the petition. He wanted to continue public comment and then deliberate on July 14, 2015 and possibly make a recommendation that would then go back to City Council for further discussion.

Ms. Farooq stated that CDD can discuss with Volpe if there is any information that Volpe can share on the financial aspect. She further stated that CDD can try to find someone in the development community that understands development and financing that is not planning to be part of a team on the Volpe Center to invite them to come to the next hearing to help shed some light on the issues in question.

Ms. Connolly agreed that the hearing should be held open to take additional testimony.

Mr. Steven Cohen commented that more financial information available prior to the meeting that could be discussed at the next meeting the better.

Mr. Bacci spoke about the urgency of this matter. He stated that there is not a lot of information on this; the package is not complete. He stated that the hearing should be continued and a recommendation made.

At this time Mr. Russell moved that the hearing on the petition be continued to July 14, 2015 for public comment and that the hearing may be closed at that time for deliberation or it may be continued. The motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote.

The following communications or e-mails were received by either the Ordinance Committee or the Planning Board and were made part of the record as follows:

Rosemary Booth, 303 Third Street, objecting to portions of the petition to amend the PUD-KS District (ATTACHMENT M).

Marilee Boyd Meyer, 10 Dana Street, in opposition to the public hearings being combined and fast tracking the Volpe Center project (ATTACHMENT N).

Vice Mayor Benzan and Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 10:04pm on motion of Councillor Simmons.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on June 17, 2015 beginning at 5:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a City Council petition to amend Article 6.000 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge to create a new section 6.24 Car sharing Provisions (ATTACHMENT A). This new section will create a definition and general provisions for car sharing and will allow the limited use of parking spaces for car sharing as a means to provide mobility options for Cambridge residents, employees and visitors who may not possess a private automobile, thereby promoting City goals by increasing mobility, reducing reliance on automobile ownership and use, and lessening the total demand for parking spaces.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environment and Transportation Planning, CDD; Stephanie Groll, Transportation Demand Management Officer, CDD; Joseph Barr, Director, Traffic, Parking and Transportation; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Margaret McMahon, 14 Highland Avenue; Joan Pickett, 59 Ellery Street; Justin Holmes, Zipcar; Mark Chase, 13 Belmont Street, Somerville; Daniel Myers, 660 Cambridge Street; Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street; Janie Katz-Christy, 166A Elm Street; Kris Mayjapra, 130 Hamilton Street; Viola Angustin, 1 Traymore Street; Paula Lovejoy, 9 Clinton Street; Matt Cloyd, 54 Fayette Street; Alice LoCicero, 119 Dudley Street; Sarah Aspinwall, 107 Norfolk Street; Barbara Martin, 34 Soden Street; John Pitkin; John Sanzone; and Christie Bryden, 48 JFK Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being audio and visually recorded. He noted that numerous e-mails have been received and will be made part of the Committee report. He outlined the meeting format. The committee would hear from the petitioners, Jeff Roberts and Stephanie Groll, PTDM Manager from Community Development Department and Joseph Barr from Transportation, Traffic and Parking Department. The City Council will comment and ask questions for the staff and then the meeting will be opened to public comment.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is an interesting topic and relevant issues have been raised and will be addressed. He stated that most of the e-mails that have been received have been in support.

Mr. Roberts noted that this petition is a City Council petition. He stated that Stephanie Groll has done the core amount of the work on this. He turned the presentation over to Ms. Groll.

Ms. Groll explained what car sharing is. She explained that car sharing gives one access to a car without having to own a car. She noted that Zipcar was founded in Cambridge in 2000. There are currently three car sharing companies operating in the City. They are Zipcar, Enterprise Car Share and Relay Rides. She stated that Zipcar is the major player. People sign up to become members and then they can make reservations by phone or online. A card is used by the member to tap on the car to unlock the doors and the ignition. Rental is done by the hour and by the day. The rental fee includes gas and insurance. She stated that based on research and the experience in Cambridge the habits of car-share members are known. She stated that members do not take cars to work; they walk, bike, or use public transit. Once a member of a car sharing company the member increases their walking, biking and transit trips. Members delay purchasing a car because service is available.

Ms. Groll began her PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT B). Ms. Groll commented that the most compelling reason why car sharing is important to Cambridge is that car sharing makes it possible to live in Cambridge without owning a car. The more car sharing there is, the more parking spaces will be available on residential streets. She noted that research shows that every car-share vehicle in the system takes 9-13 private owned vehicles off the road. There has been an 8% decrease in Resident Parking Stickers during the period 2000 - 2014 and during this period there was a 4% increase in households, she said. She stated that a survey question asked how car sharing has affected car ownership. She noted that 46% either did not buy a car or got rid of their car because they joined a car sharing service. She stated that 40% remained car free after joining. She further stated that less car ownership leads to less driving. Over time there has been a shift in travel modes. There is a 6% drop in drive alone rates. Drive alone modes have been replaced with more sustainable commutes. She explained that the drop in resident parking stickers occurred at the same time in Cambridge as car sharing began. She displayed a map where car sharing locations are available. On the map it shows that the western part of the City is well covered with car sharing location, but the eastern side is underserved. She stated that Car sharing is a way to service the 31% of Cambridge residents who do not own a car, but this service is not equally available to all Cambridge residents.

Ms. Groll then explained the average use of car sharing: the average reservation turnover for a Zipcar is 1.7 reservations per day. The vehicles are used 9-11 hours a day. The majority of reservations are made between 6 AM and 10 PM. She informed the committee that there have been no complaints filed with Inspectional Services for car sharing vehicles.

Ms. Groll explained the community process and the results of a survey that ran for three months. It revealed that 88% were car share members. She informed the committee that 85% of respondents to the survey would like car share vehicles to be located in private off-street parking spaces in residential areas. People who are not car share members are not willing to walk as far as people who are car share members to reach a car share car. She stated that this could suggested that to get people to make the leap to be car-free car share locations needed to be located closer to their homes.

Mr. Roberts then explained that the current zoning ordinance does not contain a car sharing provision. He stated that the lack of clarity has restrained the ability for car sharing services to grow and adapt to serve the Cambridge community. The key zoning issues are there are two ways of classifying this type of activity and car sharing does not fit into one or the other. One way to classify the land use is parking which is intended for serving residential and commercial lot use. It is meant for active use so people who drive get the car and drive the car in and out and does not include other types of activity with a car such as sales, storage or repairs. The current zoning has many requirements for parking spaces such as dimension, signage, lighting and striping, covered in Article 6. He stated that the assumption is that parking serves residents, employees, and visitors with their own car. There are over 30% of household who do not fall into this category and are not being served if parking is looked at this way. He stated that the other parts of the zoning ordinance reference auto sales and rentals, which includes many other activities that are not part of the car sharing and is limited to very few zoning districts.

Mr. Roberts stated that the intent of the parking regulations in Article 6 were reviewed. There are a lot of ways that the intent aligns with the benefits of car sharing. Other modes of transit are encouraged. He stated that car sharing offers a larger mode of transportation. The intent of the parking is also to allow some flexibility and ways to accommodate a car in less disruptive ways. The zoning petition approach is to make parking - parking. Parking is still the main use that is defined in the zoning ordinance and to be specific that parking can be used for car sharing (but there are places where limitations can be required).

Mr. Roberts reviewed the details of the petition in sections 6.24.l and 6.24.2. The car sharing definition is meant to align with Chapter 90 MGL; a definition of car sharing was introduced to this chapter in 2010. This was done to distinguish car sharing from traditional rental cars. This language has been used to define car sharing in the zoning ordinance. He stated that there are general limitations. The parking facility must be lawful; vehicles must be registered; no sales or repairs are allowed; there will be no on-site personnel conducting business with customers, and where there are multi-ownership interests, all owners must agree.

Mr. Roberts stated that in the Planning Board report (ATTACHMENT C), the Planning Board suggested recommendations with changes to register the spaces with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department. This would allow the City to keep track of where car sharing spaces are located and monitor their use. Only full size spaces are allowed. This will accommodate all users. There must be a ten foot buffer from a residential building in a lower-density residential district.

Mr. Roberts stated that limitations also have to do with the principal use of the lot. He explained that there are different types of parking lots. There are no car sharing limitations in lots where the principal use is parking. He stated that for an office building a certain number of spaces would be used for employees. He stated that a key concern was residential parking because of the impact of car sharing vehicles in a place where residents who have a car have an option to park either on- or off-street.

Mr. Roberts stated that car sharing will have a positive impact on making parking spaces available by allowing more people not to own cars. He stated that the limitations offered by the Planning Board are different from the original petition. One limitation is to limit car sharing in residential lots with four or more spaces. Another limitation is to limit car sharing above 75% of the number required by zoning or special permit. A diagram was provided in the presentation to help understand this limitation. The Planning Board recommended that existing spaces would be grandfathered if they are registered with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department. Another proposal by the Planning Board was to allow other modifications be granted by special permit after a hearing and notification. He stated that the Planning Board asked the Community Development Department to look at the car sharing locations. The locations were compared with the limitations. He stated that the majority of car sharing locations are on university, or commercial properties, and on residential lots with ten or more units. He stated that of the total 91 car sharing locations, four locations were in residential sites with fewer than four parking spaces; four locations were residential sites where less than 75% of the required parking is provided, and seven sites where the parking space may be within ten feet of a residential building in a A-1, A-2, B, C or C-1 district.

Councillor Carlone asked the City Council to make comments or to ask questions.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he uses Zipcar and Enterprise. He asked if the demand for car sharing will increase in the future as a result of this zoning change. Ms. Groll responded in the affirmative, but there is no sense of the scale of the demand. Vice Mayor Benzan asked if the City is encouraging strategies for people to use alternative modes of transit. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative and stated that car sharing is part of the strategies that encourage less auto use. For projects that come before the Planning Board it is becoming typical for projects to be required to provide car sharing services to their residents and encourage a car-fee lifestyle. Vice Mayor Benzan asked how the neighborhoods can be heard about the car sharing proposal. Mr. Roberts stated that the spaces need to be registered with the City, and if the City has this information, then locations could be passed on the neighborhood. He stated that the zoning has a special permit review process and this process requires a public hearing and if the zoning regarding car sharing required a special permit it would require a public hearing and notification. This would be a lengthy process and may discourage the creation of car sharing. The limitations suggested by the Planning Board on the buffer distance will provide protection.

Councillor Simmons stated that car sharing has been done in Cambridge for a long time. She has friends who use car sharing and refuse to buy a car. This zoning is codifying past practices and clarifying the process. This is sending the message that Cambridge wants to be car free. She is pleased that this is before the committee. She supports passage to a second reading. It is important that the City has something that is clear for those who want to participate in car sharing.

Councillor Mazen commented on the Planning Board recommendations; there is a value to have more Zipcars in more convenient locations; the more the better, he stated. He did not agree with the recommendation for the 75% parking spaces provisions. He commented that this threshold is not a useful provision and that the number of car share spaces should be up to the owner or residents of the area rather than the lot size. He did not understand why a car sharing space had to be larger than the state regulation. He does not understand the merit of it being further away. Mr. Roberts stated that the parking requirement and zoning ordinance have set back requirements. The zoning provision is meant to deal with existing conditions in neighborhood. New construction would need to meet the requirements of Article 6 and would have suitable buffers from neighborhoods. This would allow for car sharing and also provide some protections in situations where the space may be very close to a residence. Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board recommendations are looking to the future for car sharing. The intent was to clarify the regulations. Zipcar began in Cambridge in 2000 when not much was known about Zipcar and now that Zipcar is understood it makes sense to have clear regulations and limitations. Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted specifics addressed, as long as it does not upset the neighborhood. He does not think that the distance should be arbitrarily changed.

Councillor Cheung stated that he supported the petition as a whole. He stated that there has been one complaint about Zipcar and the problem was fixed. He stated that when he looks at what would not conform to this new zoning he is more concerned with making sure that what is out there conforms. He agrees with the ten foot and agrees that parking is parking. He thinks that it creates confusion if the ten foot is in this section and the set backs are defined in another section. He likes the registration of parking spaces by the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department. He wants to make sure that this permitting is easy. He agreed with the grandfathering of spaces but felt that the spaces should fit as is in the zoning. He stated that he can see a day when Zipcar is continued to expand. He noted that the developers are being asked to put Zipcar in because it is proven that it takes cars off the road to reduce the number of parked cars. He hopes that car ownership will decrease over time. He stated that instead of limiting the number of spots he would rather go back to what we had before about lots and not driveways. He asked Mr. Roberts to explain.

Mr. Roberts commented that the zoning ordinances specifies what is a driveway and what is a parking space; they are two different things. He stated that Car sharing would not be allowed if there was only one parking space. He further stated that Car sharing would only be allowed in residential areas with four or more spaces. He stated that a driveway can be made clearer. It is clear that Car sharing can only use parking space and driveways are not parking spaces even if used for parking on an informal basis.

Councillor Cheung made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Council accept the Planning Board recommendations concerning registration of the car sharing spaces, grandfathering existing car sharing spaces and the recommendations of the Planning Board not be accepted regarding the setback and the spot limit and further to request Community Development Department to provide language to explain the difference between driveways and parking lots.

No action was taken on this motion.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that the intent of the Planning Board regarding setbacks is to help neighborhoods deal with issues such as noise and people going in and out of a particular lot who utilize a Zipcar. He noted that he wanted to hear from the public about this particular issue. He stated that he is not prepared to vote on this petition one way or the other. He did want to hear how the public is feeling about the impact of unknown people coming onto a particular lot.

Councillor Carlone stated that the ten foot buffer does make sense and he would vote in favor of this recommendation. He stated that on the issue of unknown users, the user of the car sharing is a registered user. He questioned if car share users tend to use the same location. Ms. Groll responded that people tend to get into a habit of which spaces they use; they tend to use cars they like and if the car is not available the user will use concentric circles to find the car at another location. Councillor Carlone asked about the process to apply at Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department. Mr. Barr responded that there is already a parking registration process for non-residential parking. The same type of process will be used, and he appreciated Councillor Cheung's comment that the process should be as easy as possible. He added that where the setback was active his department would request a site plan. This will be reviewed to ensure that it meets the requirements. Councillor Carlone commented about the thought from the Planning Board that there should be signage, but the neighbors are not in favor of signage. Mr. Roberts stated that there are not specific requirement allowance for signs in the car sharing proposal. He added that there is a sign ordinance in Cambridge that would apply and allows for informational or directional signage. He added that the cars are online and users would get directional information as to where the cars are located online. Councillor Carlone stated that ideally a space in public view would be what is wanted. He stated that the space would be the first in a parking lot and closest to the street. Mr. Barr stated that the City would not want to prescribe a specific location or category of location. The City may provide suggestions. If there was an issue one would be able to find out who registered to use the car.

Councillor Cheung stated that he is a Zipcar member and uses the location nearest his house. He felt that people who are using them are neighbors. A representative from Zipcar was in the audience and the Chair asked him to come forward and give information about Zipcar.

Justin Holmes, Corporate Communications and Public Policy Director, Zipcar, 35 Thomson Place, Boston, stated that there are 16,000 members of Zipcar in Cambridge who generally make reservations within one-half mile from their homes. Zipcar is a membership based organization and if there are members whose actions are less than ideal, then action is taken by the company. He submitted a document explaining Zipcar (ATTACHMENT D).

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing for public comment at 6:43pm.

Margaret McMahon, 14 Highland Avenue, stated that her major concern with the proposal is the commercial enterprises in residential areas. She stated that this is a dangerous precedent and would encroach on the traditional zoning peculiarities around residential neighborhoods. The proposal would allow a property owner, without consulting their neighbors, to turn his parking area into a commercial car rental space, probably with signage. In addition it would allow strangers at any time into a traditional zoned safety area for residents. This ordinance would be a serious intrusion, if enacted.

Joan Pickett, 59 Ellery Street, stated her concerns about how this proposal is developing. She questioned whether an amendment to the zoning ordinances is the appropriate way to allow for the expansion of car sharing. She stated that she is not opposed to the expansion of car sharing, but there are other approaches. She spoke about Boston's approach to this issue. Boston puts cars on the street in well-lit places, not on residential property. In Cambridge, parking often times is not visible from the street. She stated that signage on the street is not an intrusion. In Boston it is clear who the beneficiary is. In Boston it is the City of Boston who benefits. The Boston approach will not have the unintended consequences of displacing residents from current off street parking onto the streets so that Zipcar and other car sharing entities can be accommodated on private property. She feels that this is a risk in the zoning approach. She hopes that zoning is not the only approach looked at. She disagrees with staff who feel that this is like having a private person come onto one's property to get a parking space and a car. She commented that there are small lots and the experience of car sharing in these lots is small so she questioned the conclusion that there are no problems with Zipcars based on the information provided because the numbers seem to be in the large category not the smaller residential lots. She stated that she would like to see the provision "as of right" be removed and the special permit process be considered for all additions of car sharing. She does not agree with the stated length of time for a special permit. A special permit process would give neighbors comfort because they will be informed and will understand the impact to them. She is concerned with the implementation of car sharing and the consequences of using zoning as the tool for advancing expansion. (ATTACHMENT E).

Justin Holmes, 9 West Broadway, South Boston, representing Zipcar, stated that the City of Cambridge benefits by developing services such as car sharing. Car sharing has proven to reduce personal car ownership and increase sustainability and offer innovative access to transportation in places that have transit gaps. Mr. Holmes stated that Zipcar as a company was founded in Cambridge in 2000. Zipcar has grown to be the largest car sharing network and is a startup success story. He stated that Zipcar's intention is to grow, expand and to operate as usually. There are over 300 vehicles in Cambridge. The company grows based on demand.

Mark Chase, 13 Belmont Street, Somerville, a transportation planner who teaches at Tufts, stated that he has hosted two Zipcars. He informed the committee that he worked at Zipcar from 2000 - 2006 and he has no financial interest in the company. He is speaking because he feels that Cambridge is his business district. He stated that he has been a Zipcar member for fifteen years and because of the cost to use Zipcar he started to plan his trips carefully. He uses Zipcar four times a year now. He stated that members learn how to shop locally and do things locally that does not require a car. He stated that his driving has decreased to 500 miles a year at most. He commented on the parking and personal benefits and the fact that car sharing makes living in this area affordable. He spoke about equity, the cost of a car and the inability of some people to own a car. Car sharing provides access to a car when needed. He stated that the ambient noise with Zipcar is minuscule. He stated that this comes down to a fear of strangers. Zipcar users are mostly neighbors and if there is a problem Zipcar will know who exactly was in a particular car. He stated that there are other commercial uses in residential neighborhoods and this is what Zipcar is, but it is less intrusive compared to UPS when making a delivery.

Daniel Myers, 660 Cambridge Street, stated he is a Zipcar member for four years. He stated that what was not mentioned as benefits are traffic reduction, promotion of business use and promotion of the use of public transportation. He did not agree with the buffer zone. He agreed that this is addressing a problem that does not exist. This does not create clear transparency in the zoning language. This buffer zone would eliminate some of the Zipcar spaces that exist now that have not been a problem. This is displacing these Zipcar spaces. He did agree that this should be written into the zoning laws because Zipcar has been around for a long time. He does not think the special permit process would work for this. He stated that the special permit process is long, arduous and expensive.

Steve Kaiser, 191 Hamilton Street, stated that while he was listening he did a survey. There are 66 comments in favor; 53 mention Zipcars; 1 in opposition and 1 neutral. He stated that he supports Car sharing; but is opposed to the petition because it is defective. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT F). He stated that Section 20.307.7D refers to Car sharing in the Normandy Twining petition was clear and concise and better than the current Car sharing petition. He noted that the new petition does not include incentives to reduce the total amount of parking. The Normandy Twining petition had a specific five-to-one incentive. He stated that with very wordy zoning the City Council should have the courage to say "no." He urged that the petition should be sent back to be rewritten. He further suggested that the language contained in Section 20.307.7D be used instead. It is a better starting point and has higher quality. He stated that zoning is getting confusing because of spiraling additions to zoning. He stated that 6.24 and 20.307 are in conflict. He stated that egos are vying for their position in zoning. He stated that this is not good zoning. He stated that there is a need to distinguish which Car sharing provision applies.

Janie Katz-Christy, 166A Elm Street, stated that she is a Car share member. She was a car owner for 30 years. In 2007 her family realized that their car was used little and repaired frequently. Her children encouraged her to get rid of her car. She became a Zipcar member and user. She typically uses four Zipcar locations where the cheapest Zipcars are. She spoke about the savings realized by not having a car and how the savings are used. She would like information included about recourse for those who were banned from having a Zipcar space on their property.

Viola Augustin, 1 Traymore Street, stated that she does not own a car and is a Zipcar member. The use of Zipcar has eliminated a parking issue on her street. She wants the City of Cambridge to support Car sharing. She did not agree with the ten foot setback. This should be encouraged in residential and commercial settings. She stated that the ten foot buffer will not make a difference with noise. If there is another car allowed other than Zipcar she did not understand the noise issue. She felt that Zipcar promotes neighborly interaction rather than private car ownership.

Paula Lovejoy, 9 Clinton Street, stated that the noise issue is a fact of her life. Her neighbor's driveway come up to her house and her bedrooms is close to the parked cars. Users of car sharing are going in and out all day. She noted that Zipcars are used a lot. She further stated that there is no history to go by for car rentals in residential areas because it was not allowed. She stated her support for the recommendations made by the Planning Board.

Matt Cloyd, 54 Fayette Street, stated that he does not own a car and is a Zipcar member. He questioned the Planning Board recommendation on the four or more spaces. He noted that Zipcar is not the only Car sharing company. He stated that another company Relay Rides allows residents to use their own car Zipcar style, but the cars are not owned by a company but by individuals. He assumes that these cars are in driveways or in places with less than four spaces. Relay Rides cars seem to fall under 6.24.2b but if the four space minimum is required these Car share vehicles would be made illegal. He wanted other Car sharing models represented in this amendment to not stifle other Car sharing models. He commented on the concern over strangers. He is not interested in loitering; he is interested in the use of the car only.

Alice LoCicero, 119 Dudley Street, expressed her concern that this was inclusive and not a big ad for Zipcar. She spoke about a fear of strangers and a decrease in property values. She spoke about climate change and this is a tiny step towards sustainability. She endorsed this as a step toward sustainability. She is in the process of selling her car; car sharing is making this possible. She spoke the need for more car sharing locations in her neighborhood.

Sarah Aspinwall, 107 Norfolk Street, stated that she has relied solely on Zipcar. She further stated that the proximity of a Zipcar location was an added benefit when her parents purchased a condo in Neighborhood Nine. She stated that with the recent winter storms she was required to be at work and the only way she was able to get to work was by the use of a Zipcar that was shoveled out. She stated the Zipcar would be an asset for the City of Cambridge.

Barbara Martin, 34 Soden Street, stated that she is a Zipcar member. She stated that the benefits outweigh any of the disadvantages. She stated that Zipcars dwell inconspicuously in her neighborhood.

John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, stated that this proposal needs to be reworked. He stated that his concern is climate change and he has looked at the data and it is highly speculative that there are any benefits to reducing emissions in Cambridge. He stated that the data from CDD points in the opposite direction. He stated that Zipcar is not the answer and will not help climate change. It is a benefit to provide mobility to people. He does recognize that this is part of the City's transportation system. He stated that putting this in zoning is not the way to do this. He suggested leasing spaces on streets like Boston is doing. Mr. Pitkin suggested having the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation oversee the public benefit as to the operation. He stated that Car sharing is essentially short-term car rental by companies who are encouraging people to drive.

John Sanzone stated that this is a means to reduce automobiles in the City. He stated his concern was for the physical space in the City. He stated that acres are encapsulated in asphalt for storing and parking vehicles. He stated that the data shows that Car sharing has a dramatic impact to decrease the amount of space needed for parking and cars. He stated that it is the repurposing of our active space that we should be encouraging on a small scale. He commented on the Planning Board recommendations. He stated that the recommendations are confusing and have competing philosophies and language for Car sharing. He stated that single family homes are more apt to have the highest number of parking spaces than anyone else. He felt that curbside should be looked at. It should be encourage to have shared parking on private space.

Christie Brydan, 48 JFK Street, stated that she is a Zipcar member. She relies solely on Zipcar. She stated that one Zipcar replaces 9-13 privately owned vehicles and more should be done to get privately owned vehicles off the streets in Cambridge and encourage the use of public transportation. She supports Zipcar.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 7:32pm.

Councillor Carlone stated that a question was asked about who pays whom for the parking spaces. Ms. Groll responded that whoever is renting the space through the Car share company receives the income. It is a private agreement between the two entities. She stated that if the City rents City space then the City will receive the revenue. Mr. Roberts stated that this is the same for employee parking and resident parking in off street lots where people would rent spaces from the owner and pay a fee for the use of the space.

Councillor Toomey asked if the fee is set or is it negotiated. Mr. Roberts stated that in cases where it is on private property would be whatever lease arrangement was made between the owner of the Car sharing and the owner of the property. Councillor Carlone asked what fee the City receives. Mr. Barr stated that the fee initially was an escalating fee but the average is about $200 per month.

Councillor Carlone stated that this was a productive hearing. People feel good about Car sharing. He explained that this petition expires on Sept 15, 2015 pursuant to Chapter 40A. He explained that there is a likelihood that this petition may need to be refiled.

The following e-mails were received regarding this petition:
Clemencia Herrera supported Zipcar (ATTACHMENT G).
Dan Harrington supported Zipcar services in residential areas of the City (ATTACHMENT H).
David Block Schachter supported the zoning proposal to expand access to car share services throughout Cambridge (ATTACHMENT I).
Christine Cooper, 124 Oxford Street, in support of Zipcar and its convenience in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT J).
Susan Donaldson, MD, 187 Harvey Street, in support of changing the zoning to allow car share in private driveways (ATTACHMENT K).
Jan Devereux, 255 Lakeview Avenue, in support of petition on car sharing (ATTACHMENT L).
Lisa Hayles in support of Zipcar services (ATTACHMENT M).
Jessica Kuh, 161 Raymond Street, in support of the petition for car sharing (ATTACHMENT N).
Macky Buck, 20 Gold Star Road, in support of car sharing in multifamily homes (ATTACHMENT O).
Kathryn Carlson, 71 Spring Street, in support of car sharing the zoning proposal (ATTACHMENT P).
Gloria Korsman, 91 Montgomery Street, supported the zoning proposal to allow other car sharing enterprises to lease spaces in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT Q).
John MacDougall, 175 Richdale Avenue, in support of expanding car sharing (ATTACHMENT R).
Melissa Gonzalez, 189 Walden Street, in support of car sharing in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT S).
Mohit Kansal, in support of car sharing services in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT T).
Adam Dingle, 267 Allston Street, in support of Zipcar continuing in operation in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT U).
Melissa Choyce, in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT V).
Jen Strickland, 225 Walden Street, in support of car sharing in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT W).
Saugato Datta, 130 Hamilton Street, in support of car sharing in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT X).
Alaina Schraufnagel in support of Zipcar and car sharing in her neighborhood (ATTACHMENT Y).
Matheus C. Fernandes, 24 Peabody Terrace, in support of car sharing in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT Z).
Kelly Goss, 304 Washington Street, in support of car sharing in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT AA).
Theodore Medrek, 1 Dana Street, in support of car sharing services in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT BB).
Michael Gallivan in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT CC).
Michael Monestime, in support of car sharing in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT DD).
Paul J. Keplin and Rhonda Massie, 211 Charles Street, in opposition to the zoning proposal (ATTACHMENT EE).
Juliette Senesi requesting more car sharing options in her neighborhood (ATTACHMENT FF).
Eliza Kosoy in support of car sharing in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT GG).
Krishna Patel in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT HH).
KR Viveksagar in support of car sharing in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT II).
Seth Rakoff-Nahoum, in support of keeping Zipcar in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT JJ).
W. M. Thackston, 43 Linnaean Street, in support of car sharing (ATTACHMENT KK).
Chris Danielewski in support of all forms of car sharing (ATTACHMENT LL).
Dawn Erickson in support of car sharing in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT MM).
Maximilien S. Baas-Thomas in support of car sharing (ATTACHMENT NN).
Emma Jeffries, 27 Fainwood Circle, in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT OO).
Laura Brennan in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT PP).
Tricia Norkunas in support of car sharing (ATTACHMENT QQ).
Bridget Wall in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT RR).
Felipe Rodriguez in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT SS).
Louisa Carman in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT TT).
Moriel Levy, in support of Zipcar service (ATTACHMENT UU).
Danny Cohen in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT VV).
Robert McCarthy, 1697 Cambridge Street, in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT WW).
Allison Geuder in support of car sharing (ATTACHMENT XX).
Diana Caracino in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT YY).
Gonzalo Michanie, 334 Harvard Street, in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT ZZ).
Amy Linne, Traymore Street, in support of car sharing (ATTACHMENT AAA.)
Aubrey Colter, in support of Zipcar in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT BBB).
Sudheer Poluru in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT CCC).
James Stiles, 3 Norfolk Place, in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT DDD).
Ariel Smolik-Valles in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT EEE).
Sheryl Kluberg in support of car sharing in Cambridge (ATTACHMENT FFF).
Jessica Schneider in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT GGG).
Dimitry Shevchenko in support of car sharing (ATTACHMENT HHH).
Audrey Gehring in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT III).
Cindy Carpenter, 175 Richdale Avenue, in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT JJJ).
Reid J. Leonard, 10 Rogers Street, in support of car sharing (ATTACHMENT KKK).
Mila Korobkova, East Cambridge resident in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT LLL).
Pauline Ryan in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT MMM).
Pinar Akcayoz DeNeve in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT NNN).
Margaret Aranyoni in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT OOO).
Sai Kuklarni in support of car sharing (ATTACHMENT PPP).
David White in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT QQQ).
Emily Holman, 7 Gladstone Street in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT RRR).
Josiah Seale in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT SSS).
Greg Johnson in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT TTT).
Roy Russell, 40 Cottage Street, in support of car sharing (ATTACHMENT UUU).
Carl Wunsch in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT VVV).
Jennifer St. Gabriel in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT WWW).
Christopher Cassa in support of car sharing (ATTACHMENT XXX).
Kris Ellis-Levy, 148 Spring Street, in support of Zipcar (ATTACHMENT YYY).
Charles Redmon stating that the amendment did not address whether or not individuals could share their car with another (ATTACHMENT ZZZ).

Councillor Simmons moved that the petition be referred to the full City Council without recommendation subject to further discussion.

The motion carried on a voice vote of four members.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:41pm.

For the Committee
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair

Committee Report #5
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Tues, July 14, 2015, beginning at 5:37pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss proposed amendments to Section 11.200 entitled Incentive Zoning Provisions and Inclusionary Housing Provisions.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Mayor David P. Maher; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; Chris Cotter, Housing Director, CDD; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Richard Goldberg, 170 Harvard Street; Michael Haran, Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and CASCAP; Peter Daly, Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and HRI; Tom Lucey, Harvard University; Jan Devereux, 255 Lakeview Ave., Elaine DeRosa, CEOC; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; John Sanzone; Theresa Tirella; Rachel Wyon, 283 Sidney Street; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street; Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street; and Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the meeting. He stated that at the end of the hearing it is hoped that a recommendation may be made. A presentation will be made by CDD.

Iram Farooq, Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development, stated that the Incentive Zoning Ordinance which is being looked at to update in this petition is one of the pillars of the housing program in Cambridge. This helps to generate funding from commercial development to support the development of affordable housing. The money generated goes to the Affordable Housing Trust who then allocates the funds for various projects that are mostly built by non-profits. With the creation of new housing this also helps with the preservation of expiring use projects. The twin to this program is the inclusionary zoning that is the provision in which when new residential development happens a portion is required to be affordable for low and moderate income families. She stated that both programs are under discussion. Incentive zoning is what is being discussed now and the inclusionary housing will be coming by the end of the fall for discussion at the Housing Committee. She stated that this particular Nexus Study which talks about the connection between commercial development and the need for housing was completed earlier this year. She turned the hearing over to Chris Cotter, Housing Director.

Mr. Cotter gave a quick overview of the background. The Incentive Zoning requirements were adopted in l988 and have been adjusted by the consumer price index by the Affordable Housing Trust. This is the first time that a petition has been presented to make significant changes to the requirements. He stated that the Nexus Study was completed in January. He stated that a consultant has looked at projected employment growth and its effect on housing market from anticipated development and jobs for new employees who want to live in Cambridge. He stated that the impact on the demand on low, moderate and middle income housing was reviewed. Through this study a series of recommendations was proposed. He noted that this is the first time that middle income housing was considered. He stated that there have been a series of discussions with the Housing Committee on the recommendations. The recommendations included an increase in the contribution rate in the range of $10-$12 per square foot for new development. The study also recommended removal of the special permit trigger. He stated that to date the incentive requirements apply to projects receiving a certain number of special permits in the ordinance and not a universal requirement to all non-residential projects. The study recommended expanding the requirement to new uses and making it universal to all projects 30,000 square feet or more. There was a recommendation from the Housing Committee to take the recommendations from the study and to put this into a zoning petition. He highlighted the specific recommendations:
• remove the special permit trigger so that it applies to all non-residential projects;
• expand the applicable uses to include hotel/motel, radio/TV studios, institutional uses, health care, educational, social service, light industry, wholesale and heavy industry;
• increase the contribution rate to $12 a square foot (current contribution rate is $4.58);
• eliminate the current exemption of 25,000 square feet per project; and to look at a mechanism to update the requirements every 3-5 years.

He stated that a petition was prepared and is before the Ordinance Committee which has the recommendations incorporated along with some technical changes. A recommendation has also been included from the Affordable Housing Trust that the rate be increased by $1 per year for the first three years before reexamination of the requirements in the third year. The zoning was now discussed.

Mr. Roberts stated that the presentation is a summary of the requirements (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that in the first set of changes the incentive projects are defined as including new development that falls in certain categories of land use. He listed the categories under the current zoning. Under the proposed zoning the categories include office, retail, non-commercial research, hotel/motel, university, health care, social service, industry and radio/TV. The incentive threshold will be unchanged. Under the proposed zoning the special permit trigger is eliminated. This is a significant change. He spoke about how the requirement is applied. It is a housing contribution payment required per square foot of the project. Under the current zoning there is a deduction of the first 2,500 square feet; this deduction is eliminated in the proposed zoning. In the proposed zoning if an incentive project is enlarged additional payments would be required over time for the enlargements. The contribution rate has been set at $12 initially with CPI adjustments plus there will be a $1 increase over the next three years. He stated that changes were made in the payment timing. To clarify and simplify the process the calculation of the requirement is made when the building permit is issued and the payment must be made before the certificate of occupancy. This streamlines the enforcement. He stated that the final change is to clarify that the study would be initiated at an interval of three years after the last rate increase with the study being completed and a new rate implemented within a total of a five year period.

Mr. Roberts stated that last set of changes apply to incentive zoning requirements. He stated that under the current zoning the requirements can be met by providing affordable housing. An alternative approach may be to eliminate the special permit provision and clarify as the contribution is required it be made to the Affordable Housing Trust. The Affordable Housing Trust has the ability to leverage its funds to aid in the creation or subsidizing the affordability of private housing units. This could be a mechanism where the City could use the incentive zoning provisions to create affordable housing but using the trust as a direct mechanism rather than the special permit provision. In section ll.200 where it describes the uses of the funds of the Affordable Housing Trust clarifying one of the ways it can be used for the creation of affordable units could be used for low, moderate and middle incomes. The language is not clear that middle income housing is included. The Affordable Housing Trust funds are used for preserving existing affordable units that have expiring affordability provisions. He concluded the summary of the changes.

Ms. Farooq stated that there was discussion at the Housing Committee about the larger components of the ordinance but the summary included many small refinements in the language. As these discussions occur with the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board further refinements are expected.

Councillor Carlone stated that the presentation was understandable. He opened the hearing to comments by the City Council.

Councillor McGovern stated that the summary should be provided to the public. Ms. Farooq stated that this will be posted on the CDD website.

Councillor McGovern asked what the estimate amount that this increase will generate. Mr. Cotter responded that the study revealed that 4.6 million square feet will be develop in the next ten years at $12 a foot it is about $50 million, but will depend on development. Councillor McGovern stated that it will also depend on when the development happens because of the additional $1 increase. Mr. Cotter stated that this funding will realize a signification amount of revenue for the Affordable Housing Trust.

Councillor McGovern stated that he favored the process of automatically generating another study. He further stated that now a new study will start in 3 years and be completed in 4 years. He suggested $1 plus the CPI continue until the new study is completed because there will be 1-2 year lag. He stated that there is concern in the community that the amount is not high enough. He stated that have automatic increases is important. He spoke about the amount of $24 being cited in the report. In order to pay for the new affordable housing that this commercial development is going to create a case could be made to go to $24. He asked what the other revenue stream are for affordable housing which is separate from this. Mr. Cotter responded that the most significant funding for the Affordable Housing Trust is the Community Preservation Act fund has generated $115 million of City revenue for the Affordable Housing Trust. He stated that the annual range has been $10-$12 million per year. He hopes that the allocation will continue at 80% to Affordable Housing Trust. He stated that the City received federal Block Grant funds, HOME and a significant increase in the incentive rate would give the City significant revenue for Affordable Housing. Councillor McGovern asked why not set the contribution at $24. Mr. Cotter stated that the consultant recommended that the range be set at $10-12 and the Housing Committee recommended that the petition be drafted with the rate at $12. He stated that the consultant recommendations took into concerns that the surrounding communities have lower rate. He stated that when you get to the upper contribution range it could impact development decisions and push development to other communities. Cambridge could still feel the housing impact with development going to other communities. Councillor McGovern stated that a Nexus Study will look at the possibility of linking the living wage ordinance with jobs and to linkage. Ms. Farooq stated that there is no timing on this study but it is being discussed. This interfaces with the work of other department and this is being worked on by CDD.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he was pleased on how this was vetted in the Housing Committee. He thanked the Affordable Housing Trust, CEOC, the non-profit housing sector and the housing entities for their work. He stated that out of 150 cities and towns Cambridge spends 82% of CPA on affordable housing; more than any other community. He stated that the CPA funds, this increased contribution, linkage fees and the inclusionary zoning program, all are working to get more affordable housing in the City. He commented on the fact that there are not a mix of income families living in the Seaport District in Boston. He stated that the linkage in Boston creates housing Roxbury, Mattapan and Dorchester which creates segregation and apartheid in Boston. He stated that linkage fees allows more housing to be built in Cambridge where we are running out of land. He stated that there are five institutions of higher learning in Cambridge and asked if any of these institutions are exempt by statute. Mr. Roberts stated that the way that the uses are folded into the incentive zoning requirements is based on how classed by the current use table. The Use Table has a category that states that colleges and universities not exempt by statute. This is language in the Zoning Ordinances which is meant to distinguish this from public educational uses and there is a footnote that refers to a further description of uses which were generally studied in the Nexus Study. This is a catch all for all college, university buildings.

Councillor Simmons stated that the Housing, CDD and others came together to get this before the Ordinance Committee now so that it will be before the City Council for the August City Council meeting. She spoke about the numerous meetings that the public attended to tease out the material at the Housing Committee. She spoke about inclusionary zoning and the criteria and the expiring use building and the linkage requirement legality and tying the living wage to wage to the linkage. She was pleased to see the added nuances to the document, the size of the project, including the timing of the project, the change of the contribution rate and the review of the recalculations. She stated that there is an automatic trigger installed which is important. She further stated that removing the special permit trigger and changing the uses were important and will make linkage ordinance better. She noted that not only was the fee increased, but the ordinance was also improved. She stated that surrounding communities are not doing anything near to this. She stated that she looks forward to pass this onto the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

Mayor Maher thanked Councillor Simmons, the staff and the community that worked on this proposal. The automatic trigger for the Nexus Study was the right way to do this. Predictability is important. This is sending a message to developers and to the business community to state that there is predictability. This is a good day for the City and its housing partners. It reaffirms the City's commitment to affordable housing. He spoke about the City's value around affordable housing and its importance. He stated that moderate housing has been an emerging need that is being addressed.

Councillor Mazen spoke about the good intentions to maximize affordable housing in the midst of a housing crisis. He stated that he does not think that this is good enough. He stated that this rate could be $24.20 today without affecting the housing. He stated that there is a fear of economic stagnation versus the reality of the housing crisis. He stated that we are talking about something that might happen based on something that has never happened. He stated that economic stagnation has never occurred based on a single charge. Will $24.20 slow down growth and net us less affordable housing. He commented that there is nothing preventing the fee being rolled back. So why not go to $24.20. Let us see if commercial building is stopped because of the fee. When extra burden is put on developers they get creative and asked for height and bulk. He stated that $24.20 is not a major increase. He stated that we could do better. If every opportunity were chased every time down to its natural conclusion we would have more units and why does not every unit count here. He stated that he does not understand why the City is going to $12. He stated that he really wanted the $24.

Councillor Carlone stated that this has been an interesting process, a long overdue study and the conclusions may not satisfy all when the need is $24 per square foot. This is for new construction. This does not affect existing buildings. He stated his concern because the City or non-profits cannot afford to buy land. The City needs to find another way to buy land in order to get land. This is through a PUD overview. He stated that with the CPA and increased funding from this it will be 34 more units of housing. As the zoning is written is renovation work included. Is this only new construction or just construction. Ms. Farooq stated that as you are thinking about the creation of new jobs they are for new construction and not just the rehabilitation of existing buildings. She stated that the existing square footage does not tie to the Nexus Study for new job creation and its impact on housing needs. She further stated that this is one of the aspects that may need refinement because if someone is fixing up a building to make sure that it stays in good shape they should not be penalized, but if there is a renovation is done to the Necco building to house Novartis that this needs to be captured. This will be discussed with the Planning Board to capture things that would go through a loophole and not impacting things that would be better rehabilitated. Councillor Carlone noted that if a building is empty and dramatic investment made this is an opportunity for greater funds to be realized. He stated that CPA was an additional 2% tax and the City budget does not have funds that go directly to the affordable housing and this is where the difference needs to be made up. Cambridge does more because the need is greater in Cambridge. More needs to be done. This is not the solution.

Councillor Carlone opened the hearing to public comment at 6:32pm.

Richard Goldberg, 170 Harvard Street, read a prepare statement (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that long-term residents are being forced to vacant units because landlords are emptying whole buildings seeking to meet the demand for high end market rate units.

Michael Haran, member of Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust spoke about the amount of money that is being discussed. He stated that the AHT had a discussion about this and looked at the Nexus Study and yes according to the study the contribution fee could increase to $24 but if one looks at the surrounding communities the $12 is adequate and still puts Cambridge ahead. He stated that when the CPA was enacted Cambridge did not qualify for the CPA funds because the Department of Revenue stated that Cambridge already had a housing fund. The state was not going to allow Cambridge to participate in the CPA program. This was resolved and Cambridge has greatly benefited from the CPA funds. He noted that the surrounding communities did nothing to participate in the program. He stated that Boston refused to enact CPA due to pressure from the Chamber of Commerce. The Cambridge Chamber of Commerce supported CPA because it was net neutral to the base. He stated that with all that is done to develop housing in Cambridge there is still a need to do more on housing. He suggested $1 per year until the next Nexus study is completed. If it is delayed the higher rate will be built in when the next Nexus Study is completed. He stated that this is his suggestion, not that of the AHT.

Peter Daly, HRI and member of the AFT, spoke about the process and it is a reasoned and measured zoning approach that is needed now. He stated that he is supportive that it includes more types of uses and the increase in fees will help. He asked that the process keep moving and that it be implemented as soon as possible.

John Sanzone stated that the City can be as aggressive as possible. He stated that the $24 is a benchmark that we should work toward. Adding funding along does not yield results. He suggested better communication about all the housing programs in Cambridge and more inclusion in the process. If affordable housing is the biggest issue in the City and the crisis in the City the urgency is in achieving affordable housing first and funding is but a tool. He spoke about a time when Cambridge may not have a development boom. He stated that most people would support the $24 increase. He stated that the old style of housing projects is a known failure. He noted that affordable housing units must be preserved and expanded. Creativity is needed in tandem with funding. This is a tool for affordable housing. He stated that the attention needs to be comprehensive and must go beyond zoning language.

Elaine DeRosa, CEOC Director, 4 Pleasant Place, we got here quickly and she supported the recommendations. There are a host of other pieces of affordable housing policies that are yet to be determined. She hoped that this is moved forward.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, focused on competitiveness in the Executive Summary. If Cambridge were less competitive for office and lab would it be a bad thing. He stated that he felt it would not be bad because Cambridge already has too much of commercial and lab development in the City. This incentive payment should be re-conceived as not just about generating additional revenue for affordable housing but that it would also slow down the speed of the intensity of real estate commercial development. Cambridge is doing better than Somerville so why would we worry that Somerville would get more money. He stated that there needs to be a way to rethink this. He stated that $1,780 per year has been generated from this. This will generate $5 million a year; it is significant but not near what is needed. He supported going to $20 and see what happens and if it slows down commercial real estate development so be it. If affordable housing is being opened up to middle income housing, between 80% - 120%, should this be a specified proportion.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, suggested possible changes. She stated that large renovation should be included in this linkage rate, at a different rate. She liked the suggestion of an automatic increase in the rate if new study were not conducted and a new rate not passed. She wanted the new study done within three years which meant starting in 2 years so that the new rate could be passed by the City Council no later than 4 years out. She felt that the next study will show that the rate can be higher than $15. She wanted the study done quicker but this does mean that legislation needs to be passed quicker. She suggested a fee schedule whereby once the rate is $15 it be increased to $2; at $17 it be increased to $3. There needs to be a ratio of the amount of these funds for middle income housing. She suggested that 3% of the revenue stream go to middle income. She stated that housing and commercial development need to be balanced in Cambridge. She stated that the $24 is a good rate to start with. She wanted to acknowledge that Councillor Carlone started talking about increasing the linkage fee early on and the Cambridge Residents Alliance also started talking about increasing the fee over 2 years ago.

Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street, supported have a formula for middle income housing versus low and moderate. He stated that it is important to protect low and moderate housing. It is important to consider rehabilitated property and that it be included in the formula. It would make sense to include this at 30,000 square feet for the upgrade. He stated that certain classes of use might be exempted. He stated that rehabilitated 250,000 square feet should be considered like new construction. This would contribute significant money.

Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place, stated that the comparison charts shown by CDD on the current and proposed zoning, she stated that no study was required for the previous zoning. She stated that studies take longer in Cambridge. She stated that the time frame in this proposal takes up to 5 years for the next Nexus Study and this should be triggered in 2 years. She supported an automatic increase until the next Nexus Study is conducted. She stated that the new zoning language states substantial renovation; she does not know what the definition is for substantial renovations. She preferred a higher rate because this has taken 13 years to raise the rate. She commented that there was an opportunity to make a dent in the housing crisis.

The Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust submitted a communication in support of the amendments to the Incentive Zoning provisions before the City Council (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 7:03pm.

Councillor Toomey thanked all who worked hard on this proposal. This is a responsible step to be taken and good for low and moderate income families. He stated that he has listened to comments about the housing crisis but there was much opposition recently to provide 50 units of affordable housing at Mass + Main Street. He spoke about the opposition for the Forest City and the MIT proposals which also provided affordable housing units that are coming on line. He stated that the record shows that there is opposition to affordable housing units. He stated that there is talk about affordable housing crisis but the affordable units are being voted against. This makes no sense. He stated that he hopes that this will move forward so that the City Council will vote to provide affordable housing for the residents who are in need.

Councillor Carlone stated that with the Mass + Main project have many broader issues. This was a complex project and part of it was affordable housing. He stated that there were other issues that made argument broader than just affordable housing.

Councillor Carlone suggested that Councillor Simmons move her recommendation. He noted that this is a start but the need is much greater than what is being addressed in Cambridge. Cambridge is doing more than anyplace else.

Councillor McGovern stated that no City Council has every said there is only one answer to this problem. He stated that displacement is being caused by property owners who are displacing tenants. He stated that many things are being done. He stated that if we went to $24 it will never be rolled back. We need to be honest about this; to be bold and responsive about this. He will not take the risk to hurt those who need the affordable housing the most.

Councillor Simmons stated that any policy, legislation or ordinance is a living document and should be reviewed overtime so that it is doing what was intended.

Mayor Maher noted that CDD would look at this and would be fine tuning the language.

Councillor Simmons moved that this be forwarded to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation and that Community Development Department be and hereby is requested to report back on the following recommendations:
• automatic rate increase of $ 1 + CPI for three years and that the increase continue while the next Nexus Study is conducted;
• large renovation projects be included;
• percentage ratio be considered for middle income housing.

A roll call was requested and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillors Carlone, Mazen, McGovern, Simmons, Toomey and Mayor Maher - 7
NAYS: None - 0
ABSENT: Councillors Cheung and Kelley - 2
and the matter was - Referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendations to include the items listed above.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:16pm on motion of Councillor Carlone.

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair

Committee Report #6
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, July 15, 2015 beginning at 5:43pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code by adding a new Chapter 2.126 entitled "Open Data Ordinance." (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Leland Cheung; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Lee Gianetti, Director, Communications and Community Relations; Mary Hart, IT Director; Amy Witts, Purchasing Agent; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street; Kent Johnson, 18 Harrington Road; Gile Beye, 18 Harrington Road; Harlan Weber, 14 Centre Street; Matt Cloyd, 54 Fayette Street; Curt Savoie, 70 Chester Street, Boston; and Nasim Menon, MIT.

Vice Mayor Benzan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being privately recorded. He stated that there will be brief presentation by the staff, representatives from Code for America and then public comment.

Deputy City Manager Peterson gave a brief overview. She stated that the draft Open Data ordinance before the City Council is to ensure that in an increasingly technological age the City remains committed to providing the public accessibility to and transparency of information owned by the City. The data will be provided through the City's open data initiative (ODI). The City's open data initiatives will foster engagement and collaboration with the citizenry. The City has provided GIS data to the public for years. The potential outcomes of the ODI are providing greater access to City data, creating greater transparency, improving the delivery City services and realizing social and commercial value. She stated that through the ODI the City can be a resource in creating innovative business and services solutions that deliver social and commercial value.

She spoke about what information will be on the Open Data Portal (ODP) and also listed types of information that will not be on the ODP, such as: information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Mass. Laws; information that reflects the internal deliberative or administrative processes of the City; information that is subjected to privacy laws; student records laws or copyright; information that is proprietary; or information that raises privacy, confidentiality or security concerns that could jeopardize public health, safety or welfare. Ms. Peterson stated that a number of City departments have worked on the ODP and it was formally launched in January after a six month public pilot. She stated that a full-time Open Data Manager will be hired. This initiative represents a culture change for the city. She noted that City staff is in charge of the data and they need to be on board for this effort to be successful. She stated that City staff is invested in this ordinance. This will initiative will evolve over time, if the City Council adopted this as a policy.

Mr. Gianetti spoke about the culture shift raised by the Deputy City Manager and stated that is ordinance is an important step in the process. The ODP was launched last year and the City is coming at this process from a different angle than most communities. While a number of communities have enacted local legislation, most have enacted open data ordinances by executive order. Many of the best practices and principles from larger cities' open data legislation have been included in Cambridge's ordinance. He stated that City departments have been putting data in the ODP since last July. During that time, the staff posting data sets has been committed to ensuring that the all metadata is human readable and accessible, and that each data set has an explanation regarding the data and what the datasets mean. Updates are being added on regular basis and the schedule is posted for each dataset. He noted that a new budget visualization app will be added this week. The ordinance is important to have as it provides guidelines for moving forward. He spoke about the Open Data Review Board (ODRB) and stated that his research did not find any other community that has an Open Data Review Board in their ordinance.

Councillor Mazen thanked the City and all involved. There is a lot of data. He applauded the City for the data being posted. When data is shared people learn how to evaluate the data. He commented that there is still more work to be done. He stated that he wanted the ordinance. Improved. He spoke about the right attitude to share data. He stated that he hopes that the City embarks on the best possible journey on open data.

Councillor Carlone stated that other communities evolved and is there anything dramatic about Cambridge's ordinance. Mr. Gianetti stated that Boston's open data ordinance was done by executive order; it is not codified through the City Council. Councillor Carlone explained that he meant the scope. Mr. Gianetti responded that Cambridge's scope is in line with other communities. He stated that other communities are more mature in their data programs than Cambridge's one year old program. Councillor Carlone questioned is Cambridge's software different. Mr. Gianetti stated that Socrata is the software that Cambridge is using. Councillor Carlone stated that a timetable would be helpful for when graphics etc. would be added. Councillor Carlone noted that "textual data" is not in Cambridge's ordinance. Mr. Gianetti explained that "narrative" was excluded from the ordinance. Councillor Carlone asked if this could be decided by the City council to expand the ordinance to include "textual data." Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that datasets are being defined in the ordinance; this is about the ODP and machine readable text. She spoke about the ordinance evolving overtime. She stated that the City Council could amend the ordinance. Councillor Carlone stated that if the City Council felt something was important they could seek advice. Councillor Carlone asked why the terms are for the community member and the staff on the ODRB different; why is the community member term for one year. Ms. Peterson stated that this is reasonable feedback.

Vice Mayor Benzan commented that this is a culture shift. He stated that if the ordinance proceeds as submitted what would not be accessible. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the ordinance defines protected data and is exempt from public laws and would keep the City from sharing this information with the public. Vice Mayor Benzan asked is a City department required to release data. Mr. Gianetti stated that ODP data is added by an open data steward, which is at the department level. City staff is working with ITD and each department owns their own data set, understands the data, and are responsible for maintaining the data. There was internal and external training when the ODP was launched. He stated that the city wants the public to use the ODP.

Councillor Cheung stated that this has been a long time coming. He stated that the hardest part has been training the City staff and interacting with data. He stated that this ordinance is a good compromise. He stated that he would like the definitions to be expanded and asked what the next steps are. He wanted the open data ordinance on the books and start using and adding data.

Councillor Simmons commented that this is an important piece of work. She stated that Councillor Cheung started this and Councillor Maze added to the process. She is on the edge of innovation, but she is worried. It is important to have the ODRB to monitor the project, but the challenge will be in making it accessible to everyone. She spoke about changing and manipulating information. She wanted measures to make the information safe. She asked if there will be training to roll it out to the community that do not come to City Hall. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that in January when ODP was launch the City partnered with CCTV and had training. She informed the committee that an open data manager will be hired and additional training will be conducted. Councillor Simmons spoke about the interfaith community and wanted them to have access to the ODP. She wanted the general community to know that the ODP is available to the public. Mr. Gianetti stated that ODP is a community engagement tool. He stated that the City wants to proceed cautiously to learn from our experiences. Data helps the City understand more about itself. He stated that the ODRB will help to set the standards. Councillor Simmons questioned why there is only one public member of the ODRB. Ms. Peterson stated that it could be more than one public member. She stated that the City wants data stewards. She informed the committee that Mr. Gianetti will be on this committee. This decision as to the other members has not been made yet. This is important feedback to the City Manager. Councillor Simmons noted that the City Council does not make appointments. Data is exciting. She stated that she hopes it rolls out smoothly.

Councillor Mazen spoke about the "narrative" data. The composition of the ODRB is important. He wanted it independent like the Planning Board. He wanted more people from the public; more than two on the ODRB. He would love a majority of the public on the ODRB. This is a start and he wants to be part of the team going forward.

The Chair opened the meeting to a presentation by the Code for America Representatives.

Harlan Weber, Code for Boston, stated that Code for America is a volunteer company. He stated that he wanted to move forward with Cambridge and has worked with Cambridge on the open data ordinance for 2 years. As users of open data he is invested in this matter. He stated that open data needs to be accessible, free and readable and not a PDF. He listed all the data that can be added to the ODP.

Matt Cloyd, Web Developer, Code for America, explained initial data collection and the transcription APP. He stated that go cambridge.com was turned into a one click application. This was to help voter turnout. Pantry Pick up lets you see all the pantries near you and their hours of operation. He stated from economic development business standpoint open data was used to build services. MAPBOX is an APP that lets you build maps.

Mr. Weber spoke about the value when municipalities make data open. He stated that the ordinance is a great first step. He stated that he liked the ODRB as involving the public in open data process. He stated that having metadata included is important. He stated that the lack of license in the ordinance is an issue. There are options to licenses and he would like it in the ordinance. He spoke about the last section of the ordinance, 2.126.070 Open Data Legal Policy. He stated that this section allows the City to have cart Blanche with the data. He stated that open data ordinance may be impacted by what is being restricted.

Curt Savoie stated that he has run Boston's Open Data for 7 years. He spoke about the work done by Code for Boston. He spoke about the quality of access to open data. He stated that open data allows power to tell the story and to use the data. He stated that power given to people will be done through open data. He stated that working with City staff and the community you have an engaged community. He noted that the information must be kept active and updated. This is an active process. He spoke about crating the infrastructure in municipal government to move the information forward. He stated that open data should be an active living document. He suggested keeping "narrative" in the ordinance. It is active approach and keep it moving. He stated that Mr. Weber wanted Cambridge to take an active role in open data that that Code of America will help.

At 6:52pm Vice Mayor Benzan opened the hearing to public comment.

Kent Johnson, 18 Harrington Road, stated that he was pleased to see the draft open data ordinance and the information on the ODP is helpful. He stated that the ordinance should state that data should be open by default and should only be limited by statute. He stated that he wanted a strong statement added to the ordinance. He read his suggested change to section 2.126.20 entitled Definitions in F (l) (ATTACHMENT B). He added that one purpose of the open data ordinance is to foster innovation.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, expressed his concern about the policy statement. He read the policy statement from a former draft which stated that "it shall be the policy of the City of Cambridge that subject to the definitions and limitations enumerated below, all public government data shall be open and accessible to the public." He stated that this section was removed and now the policy statement in 2.126.030 (B) states that the open data will be available in a schedule to be determined by the City Manager. He wanted this section moved up and strengthened to what it was previously. He noted that the current draft spends a lot of time defining what can and cannot be open data and what is protected. He commented that the state laws makes it clear about what data is and is not open to the public. He stated that the open data ordinance is not going to force anything to be public that is not already public. He stated that it is important to have flexible open data; this should not be ruled out of the ordinance. He wanted the exclusion left out of the ordinance. He spoke about an instance in February where the City Council asked for a report on the use of variances in the City. He stated that this information is available electronically and he attempted to get this information. It is online, but not available to public. He explained that he was charged $864 and that the cost went down to $77, it included narrative data about why they want a variance and the hardship. He requested information for all of the fields and he was told that this is confidential. The City should not have signed that this information is confidential. If he asked for label names he could get the column names. He is missing the reason for the variance. This data was originally requested on the ODP in June 2014 and nothing has happened. He stated that this indicates that the City needs the ordinance to have transparency and what information is available. He urged passage of the ordinance and to remove the restriction on metadata. He favored having more than one public member on the ODRB. His comments are attached (ATTACHMENTS C-1 & C-2).

Saul Tannenbaum sent written comments (ATTACHMENT D). He thanked the City for its efforts and stated that there has been a vast culture change. The conversation is not about whether we should do this and that this is a culture change. He supported the suggested changes to the ordinance. He stated that the ordinance can be made better. He stated that textual and narrative data ODP provides a mechanism to take text and PDF and turn it into data. This process is dynamic.

Gile Beye, 18 Harrington Road, stated that she wanted the ordinance to be kept flexible so that the ODRB does not have to go through a long process.

On motion of Councillor Cheung public comment closed at 7:09pm.

Councillor Cheung stated that there should be a license requirement to prevent misconduct by the City. He stated that the ODRB should look at the ordinance and report back on license requirement and section 2.126.070 (F). He stated that the wanted more technology in the City Clerk's office and he wanted the documentation to be readable. Image text is coming. He recommended that the ordinance be adopted and that the ODRB be created and address the issues.

At this time Councillor Cheung made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the Open Data Ordinance be referred back to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation and that the Open Data Review Board (ODRB) contain more than three members of the public selected by the City Manager.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Mazen stated that it was important for the City Council to understand the venues and frequency. He stated that he wanted more meetings going forward and implementation of the ordinance. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that the ordinance will be enacted within 120 days from ordination.

The following e-mail was received and made part of the committee report:
Communication from Seamus Kraft, OpenGov Foundation, regarding changes made to the draft ordinance significantly undermine the City's commitment to true transparency, engagement and collaboration (ATTACHMENT E).

Vice Mayor Benzan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:18pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair

Committee Report #7  Amended
The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee held a public hearing on July 15, 2015 at 3:06pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss how emergent out of school time programs recruit underserved youth in innovative ways, how programs engage youth in advanced research or professional skills building, and how these programs may present exciting models for other organizations seeking to impact socio-economic and educational equity in Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Mazen, Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Benzan; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Councillor Craig Kelley; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager for Human Services; Sue Walsh, Assistant Director of Adult Services; Michelle Farnum, Assistant Director of Children, Youth and Families; Jen Lawrence, Mercedes Soto, Alice Cohen, Roslyn Shoy, Alyson Allen, Department of Human Service Programs (DHSP); Susan Richards, Co-Director, Cambridge Agenda for Children Out of School Time (AFCOST) Coordinator; Patty Nolan, School Committee Member; Dan Schwartz; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present at the hearing were Rebekah Ravgiala and Krista Licata, BioBuilder Teacher and Ambassador; Jon Feinman, Executive Director & Founder, InnerCity Weightlifting (ICW); Jacob Crutchfield, community organizer for Councillor Mazen; Nancy Tauber; Romaine Waite; Lonsdale Koester; Joe Beckmann; Ben Clark; Pamela Phipps; Sarah Block; Laura Chadwell; Jennifer Fries; Khari Milner; Karen Feinberg; Ryan Kangas; Vicky Wu Davis; Joanna Maunder; Afrah Farah; David Himmel; Rossette M. Lyons; Elijah Childs; Chris Wisdo; Caitlin Rufo-McCormick; Sarah Hoffman; Kathryn Fenneman; Patrick Tai; Doris Sommer; Meera Singh; Sheila Wright; John Papadonis; Monica Velgos; Natalie Kuldell; Shauna Sullivan; Emily Dexter; David Day; Nasim Memon; Shawna Sullivan; Martina Salander; Beverly Sealey; Patty Allen; and Joan Abrams.

Councillor Mazen opened the hearing gave a brief outline of the agenda for the meeting (Attachment A). He stated that he has been impressed by the upcoming presenters. He stated that these individuals do community outreach. He suggested that attendees feel free to share their thoughts and ideas as reflections and best practices will be crucial to the conversation. He stated that his belief is that when talking about the embarrassment of riches and a city that is dedicated to education, we are living in the shadow of potential. He stated that outreach and connective tissue is the strongest part of the programming. He noted the need to create pipelines for learners to traverse. He asserted that although there is a great system currently in place, a vast improvement would be to get people involved in the programs and getting organizations to talk to each other.

Councillor Mazen introduced Rebekah Ravgiala, BioBuilder Teacher and Ambassador, and Krista Licata from Lab Central. Councillor Mazen states that Ms. Ravgiala is a person who taught him lab biology and basics which allowed him to go on to do cool things and work on pressing issues in biology. He stated that he is impressed by the way she brings enthusiasm to children and learners.

Ms. Ravgiala thanked Councillor Mazen for inviting her into the conversation. Ms. Ravgiala gave an overview of her PowerPoint presentation (Attachment B.) She stated that she is a high school teacher at Tyngsborough High School and is pleased to talk about BioBuilder. She said that summer is the time for teachers to produce new and innovative techniques that will help make then better teachers in the fall. She remarked that professional development has to be interesting and relevant yet must be easy to add to an existing curriculum. She stated that in 2011 she heard about the BioBuilder workshop for teachers to encourage students to learn about engineering through a biology perspective. She stated that synthetic biology is an emerging field that uses the tools of biology and the principles of engineering to fabricate material, provide foot and enhance human health.

Ms. Ravgiala explained that the BioBuilder was developed in 2007 at MIT by Dr. Natalie Kuldell in partnership with teachers to address the need for more teaching by inquiry, applying content, emphasizing problem-solving, student-directed learning and engagement and less teaching by recipes, weak connections, memorization of facts, and teacher-directed instruction. She noted that the objectives of BioBuilder are to convert current scientific research questions into teachable modules by bringing what is exciting about science to the teaching of science, engage students in the process of what real scientists do and inspire them to be the problem solvers of the next generation to empower educators as agents of educational reform by reconnecting them with their love of teaching and their own love of learning.

Ms. Ravgiala stated that BioBuilder emphasized and engineering paradigm with repeated iterations of the Design, Build, Test Cycle in each BioBuilder module. She stated that there are 4 modules on the Curriculum: Eau That Smell which compares competing designs to smell/look at science of microbiology from an engineering perspective, What a Colorful World simplifies assumptions about the behavior of devices in different chassises, Picture This! examines and models a two component sensing system that is engineered to produce bacterial photographs and iTune Device which focuses on testing in engineering paradigm. She stated that all of the learning leads to the introduction to Biodesign and applies that knowledge to an identified problem with proposal of a solution to that problem. She noted that this curriculum is very adaptable to what is currently being taught and is highly accessible to teachers and students. She stated that students become autonomous with BioBuilder. Students who want to be engineers have second thoughts because there are other options out there. She stated the BioBuilder outcomes for students include BioDesign Club, participation in outreach for elementary/middle school, presentations to parents, peers and community, academic enrichment and Capstone Projects. She stated that outcomes for teachers include reinvigorating science teaching, local, state and national presentation opportunities, improved collegiality and peer and community recognition.

Krista Licata stated that LabCentral is the hub of biotechnology innovation in Cambridge. She stated that it is home to 30 high impact early-stage companies which have raised over $200 million in 2014, much of which is being spent in Cambridge for research and staffing. She stated that LabCentral is being used as an international model, changing the way bio-technologies and companies are being built around the world. Ms. Licata stated that BioBuilder @ LabCentral is a partnership that offers students and teachers the access to the latest life-science technologies and a unique opportunity to interact with the world's most promising scientists and entrepreneurs. Ms. Licata stated that LabCentral has already built and hosted STEAM programming with YouthCities, the Whitehead Institute, independent and public schools, international and domestic university innovation tours and the Cambridge Community Art Center.

Councillor Mazen stated that he would like the conversation to be interactive and urged the attendees to join in the conversation.

Joan Abrams stated that this is an amazing opportunity and she is looking forward to learning more about the programs.

Mercedes Soto asked if the term "teachers" applies to out of school time (OST) providers. Mr. Licata responded that currently it only applies to school teachers. She stated that this year is the year in which the program is being defined. She stated that if there is interest, opportunity and it makes sense to include OST providers, it could be a possibility.

Emily Dexter stated that a lot of students are below grade level. She asked if there is a way into the curriculum for students that are not at grade level. Ms. Ravgiala stated that there is a junior program for middle-aged students and added that there is a lot of wiggle room to meet students that may not be at that level.

Councillor Mazen then introduced Jon Feinman.

Mr. Feinman stated that ICW is a 501(c)(3) who works with young people who are at the highest risk of violence. He stated that ICW provides economic mobility and social inclusion to the participants so that it is no longer about disparity in income. He stated that the idea of ICW came about in 2005/2006. He stated that he started working with the MS13 gang members who drove violence in a specific area. He stated that he got to see three things that shifted his perception: the level of segregation that these young men faced, their confusion between the lack of care and the lack of hope, and decisions that were based on the logic of the circumstances that they were in.

Mr. Feinman stated that the vision of ICW is to significantly reduce/end widespread coordinated youth violence by serving as a model in every major city affected by youth violence. He stated that the various sites will have a synergistic affect as together they will have the largest impact on community perception and the hesitation to work with target students.

Mr. Feinman stated that the mission of ICW is to work with young people at the highest risk for violence in order to reduce youth violence by getting these young people off the streets and into the gym where they are empowered with the confidence and positive support needed to say "no" to violence and "yes" to opportunity. He added that 1% of youth are responsible for 70% of gun violence and more than 50% of homicides. He stated that there are approximately 300 young people identified who are driving this violence. He stated that in most cities affected by violence there is a very small percentage of young people responsible for a disproportionate percentage of gun violence and homicides.

Mr. Feinman stated that students are involved in gangs and are committing or likely to commit acts of gun violence. He stated that there are four risk factors for criminal behavior: antisocial personality, antisocial attitude, antisocial peers and antisocial behavior. He stated that society writes students off and oftentimes the students won't give alternatives a try. He stated that too often students are written off because of their past decisions or the way they appear and too often the students are not willing to try something assuming that they will be judged or that there is nothing there for them.

Mr. Feinman stated that ICW has two main strategies: direct work with its students and the shift in community perception through personal training clients, corporate clients and breakfast events.

Mr. Feinman stated that ICW works to develop positive lifelong relationships. They then leverage those relationships to build positive networks helping the students to overcome their greatest barriers while facilitating positive long-lasting relationships among people of various socio-economic backgrounds and significantly reduce youth violence, breakdown stereotypes, and facilitate better understanding among its students and society.

He stated that the major goals of ICW is sustainability, increase of program staff, reduction in youth violence and impact on young people at the highest risk. Mr. Feinman stated that ICW cares more about students than any outcome achieved. He stated that retention and relationships are ICW's only change at making a difference and is most important. He stated that creating a safe and welcoming environment for everyone, it enables the breakdown of barriers and stereotypes.

Mr. Feinman stated that ICW has two locations, Dorchester and Kendall Square. He stated that ICW gets students certified in personal training. Mr. Feinman added that the social inclusion is more important as it is more impactful. He stated that this is how the model has become refined. He stated that ICW is creating an inclusive network and community and the final stage of the program is when students are empowered for their future. He stated that they see students are more and more committed and believe there can be another path. He said that the student service team helps the students to find the right connections.

Councillor Mazen stated that this is a "simple in the best way" model. Mr. Feinman responded that they began ICW with a bootstrap model. He stated that ICW initially began with a couple of gyms that gave them two hours per day. He added that most funding currently comes from foundations and noted that the 501C3 status gives ICW a competitive status. He stated that clients spend $25 for personal training and noted that this money goes directly to the students. He stated that the clients get to be a part of the impact and also receive a service.

Susan Richards asked Mr. Feinman the age of the youngest student. Mr. Feinman responded that the youngest student is 12 years old. He added that some of the students have children.

Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Feinman if he is hoping for support from the Kendall Square community. Mr. Feinman explained that Kendall Square is an entirely different world than the one in which the students have grown up in. He stated that his theory is that if they can set up in zones with areas of extreme wealth that surround areas of violence, the networks can merge. He stated that people from different backgrounds can cross the street and meet each other which can be a catalyst for changing the outcome for future generations.

Councillor Carlone asked if any schools have referred students to the ICW. Mr. Feinman responded that ICW works with people who are in the high risk category. He added that it is the goal of ICW to find a more suitable connection for people who are not as high risk. He stated that ICW tries to direct students who are not in the high risk category to the appropriate service agencies that can better meet their needs.

Alice Cohen asked Mr. Feinman if ICW offers clinical support. Mr. Feinman responded in the negative and stated that ICW will connect students with appropriate service providers.

Mercedes Soto asked if there are challenges around people coming into ICW who are under the influence of a substance or alcohol and if so, how does ICW handle this type of situation. Mr. Feinman stated that while ICW in no way agrees to attending the gym under the influence, if that is what a student needs to do, ICU will still make them feel welcome and use the situation as an opportunity to determine the concerns of its students. He stated that ICW plays a supportive role.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated based on the conversation, it appears that the ages of students at ICW range from 12-36. Mr. Feinman stated that the bulk of the work that ICW does is about creating hope. He said that it is important to build the program around life circumstances, not age. Vice Mayor Benzan asked if the CORI check is an impediment to ICW. Mr. Feinman responded that some of its students have spent time in federal institutions but explained that he has found is that when people gain understanding they no longer see a person based on a piece of paper. He added that ICW has had partners hire students of ICW and do not care about the CORI. He noted that it is an area that can be tricky and he stated that ICW is looking for assistance as well as partnering in that area. This is a major roadblock for a lot of students.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that one of the biggest issues that he has seen is people looking for work. He stated that many youth touch different programs and his concern is that before talking about programming and needs, there must be a clear understanding of the goal. He stated that he would like to hear what the City is doing. He stated that he and Councillor Mazen are working on STEAM related issues with the goal of identifying programs to create pathways. He stated that he would like a system that would track the children of Cambridge. He stated that Cambridge is a wealthy city in many respects but noted the importance of determining what we would like the outcome to look like. He noted the importance of determining the efficacy of the organizations and a way to streamline and roll out programs in an organized fashion.

Ellen Semonoff stated that Mr. Feinman and DHSP have discussed the possibility of working together. She noted that the population that Mr. Feinman works with is not the same population that is discussed when speaking about out of school time opportunities. She stated that Susan Richards will talk about outreach at middle school level. She remarked about the importance of thinking about outreach is being conducted in each age category and the most engaging activities that will potentially guide participants in a positive direction.

Councillor Mazen stated that alignment and community engagement is extremely important. He stated that he feels that a key component is the street work aspect of what Mr. Feinman is doing. He stated that the best systems have a strong bottom up commitment as these are the most underserved and ignored segment. He asserted that Mr. Feinman brings great hope for future models. He asked Mr. Feinman if there is any sense of whether he feels that his model of recruitment can be exported. Mr. Feinman replied that it comes down to using opportunities. He stated that it is imperative to care about the students and listen to the students. He noted the importance of patience and consistency. He added that the key is to find people that are comfortable being uncomfortable. He stated he believes that his model can certainly being replicated.

Alyson Allen, DHSP, asked how long program has been running and data collection. She asked how much gym time there is in relation to time spent on social work and case management. Mr. Feinman responded that ICW launched in 2010. As it relates to data, Mr. Feinman stated that it is currently a primary focus but added that that data collection is in its infancy. He remarked that 90% of ICW students report an increased sense of hope for the future. Ms. Allen asked if gym time and conversations are tracked. Mr. Feinman responded that the starting metric for success at ICW is how often participants are proactively reaching out to ICW, either via phone calls, texts, etc.

Ms. Allen asked if there are any women in the ICW program. Mr. Feinman stated that although there are some sisters and daughters of students who are involved in the program, more often it is young men that are taken into the program.

Councillor Mazen stated that the main thing that he is hearing from Mr. Feinman is the respect and patience that Mr. Feinman has for each student.

Councillor Mazen then introduced Jacob Crutchfield who works with him as a community organizer and is a substitute teacher and after school teacher with the Cambridge Public Schools.

Mr. Crutchfield stated that in his capacity as a community organizer with Councillor Mazen, he and Councillor Mazen discussed what they wanted to accomplish with his work was to work on a model to help connect more Cambridge students and families to OST opportunities. He stated that the focus would be on families that have the least amount of access and have not been part of the system before. He stated that in addition, after connecting families, it was important that part of his work included follow through and staying in touch with the families in case any new needs arise.

He stated that his work began with researching the current OST environment in Cambridge. He said that this process involved interviewing numerous stakeholders in the Cambridge community including OST Program Directors, OST youth workers, employees of the DHSP, members of the Agenda for Children, and CPSD teachers, parents and students. He stated that from his research he found that there was a great deal of work already being done to address the OST needs of middle and high school students. He added that there also seemed to be high enrollment of students in kindergarten to third grade in most OST programs in the city. He said that the one notably age group that was lacking proper attention and had significantly lower enrollment numbers was fourth and fifth grade students. He stated that across the city, programs had low numbers of fourth and fifth grade students involved.

Mr. Crutchfield stated that after identifying the age group where his work would be most beneficial, he worked on a plan to reach out to these students. He stated that he contacted fifth grade teachers at three schools in Cambridge (The Tobin Montessori School, the Cambridgeport School and the Kennedy Longfellow School) who then checked with the principals at the respective schools about working together. He stated that working one on one with teachers, they would go through their roster of students to see how many students they knew were in OST programs. He stated that after finding that most teachers were unsure about some students, they decided it would be best to create a survey for their students to take. This survey included questions about what they did after school each day, and what kind of programs they would be interested in doing. He stated that there were three gals of the surveys: to clearly identify which students were not involved with OST opportunities, finding better ways to match students to programs of interest and to use this information to inform local programs so that they might be able to tailor their offerings to fit the needs of the students who are not involved. He stated that they found that 32% of these students were not involved in OST programs.

Mr. Crutchfield explained that after completing the surveys, he and the teachers worked on creating an e-mail to send to parents that informed them of his work and which would serve as an introduction for parents to contact him. He stated that some parents contacted him directly while others reached out to teachers first who then connected him to the parents. He added that teachers also called the families that they thought might benefit most from his work so they would have the best chance for engagement.

Mr. Crutchfield explained that once he was connected with parents he would meet with them in a neutral location and he would begin by explaining why his position was created and how he might be able to help them connect to OST opportunities. He stated that he would create a list of potential programs that their children might be interested in attending. He stated that he and the parents would go through their options and decide on one or two programs that they thought would be the best fit for the student. He then would reach out to the programs on behalf of the parents to inquire about potential spots as well as what paperwork was required for applying to the program. He then gathered the paperwork and met with the families to guide them through the process of filling out the required paperwork. Mr. Crutchfield stated that he stayed connected with families through a combination of home visits, phone calls, texts and e-mails.

Mr. Crutchfield explained that he connected with four families at two different schools and was able to connect three families to programs while a fourth is still waiting on vouchers to enroll in a program. He stated that he learned that parents have lack of access to citywide knowledge; many parents only thought that there were OST offerings at their children's school but had no knowledge of the wide range of options available. He stated that parents complained of receiving too many handouts but not having a specific person to help explain the handouts. He stated that the current system of applying for OST programs includes an ample amount of paperwork which is difficult for families where English is not their first language. He added that transportation is also an issue. He stated that teachers care about this issue but realistically have very little time to devote to this issue.

Mr. Crutchfield explained that the timing of connecting with these families is crucial. He stated that his process started later in the school year which probably hurt some of the outreach attempts. He noted that it would be beneficial to start outreach at the beginning of the school year. He said that it can be difficult to find the appropriate medium of information. He noted the importance of having "in-person" help which is necessary to get these types of families involved as the process can seem quite daunting.

As he looks forward, Mr. Crutchfield stated that his summer work will include maintaining relationship with the families and continue check-ins, working with teachers to talk about their approach and how it could be better, spend more time working in the street and visiting basketball courts throughout the city to find out why students may not be connected. He noted that in the fall he will continue working with the three classes that he has been involved with so that he can work on perfecting this model.

Councillor Mazen stated that a position such as Mr. Crutchfield's is necessary so that there could be a marriage of data collection and innovation with street work and getting people into the pipeline. He stated that reaching out to people is vastly more important and effective than the attempt at flyers, etc. He stated that the need for this type of work.

Councillor Mazen asked Mr. Crutchfield about the scale of his work. Mr. Crutchfield stated that there are ways to get creative via ways of current positions or finding businesses that could help carry the work. He stated that he broached his work on a part-time basis and if given the ability to work full-time on this work he felt that he could have done a lot more. He guessed that if a person was doing this work on a full-time basis, they could potentially work with 15 families.

Councillor Mazen stated that Mr. Crutchfield did a tremendous amount of work from the outside. He stated his point that someone on the outside was able to get this type of work done faster than it is being done currently. He stated that understanding the scale question is a good one but we would need people doing this work full-time to understand the question.

Mercedes Soto, DHSP, stated that she has 7 year old. She stated that she is curious about Mr. Crutchfield's connections with the schools. She asked if he connected with the Family Engagement Team at the schools or other parents. Mr. Crutchfield responded that the parents that he spoke with that were connected stated that they were connected only due to parent-to-parent communication. He noted that he reached out to each of the Family Liaisons about the process and they were supportive of his method. He added that one problem with the parent-to parent connection is that parents who are not involved within the schools are not connecting to other parents.

Susan Richards stated that AFCOST was established in 2001. She stated that AFCOST is co-located, by design, in the DHSP and the CPSD. She stated that the mission of the Agenda for Children is to convene, catalyze and support the youth serving community in Cambridge for the shared purpose of increasing equity, access and innovation and sustaining the highest quality of OST opportunities and experiences for all children, youth and families. She stated that two AFCOST beliefs that are related to the discussion today are that all young people have the desire and capacity to succeed and contribute to their communities if provided with access to appropriate resources and supports and that for all young people to succeed, barriers to equity and access need to be directly addressed.

Ms. Richards stated that there are approximately 30 member organizations including the DHSP divisions, Office of Workforce Development/Mayor's Program, Cambridge Youth Programs and, in part, the Community Schools, who all provide programming for middle school youth and are critical members of the Middle School Network (MSN) along with many other community based nonprofit organization's OST programs.

Ms. Richards explained that since 2008 the AFCOST has been working diligently assessing need and designing, building and managing a comprehensive system to support middle school youth in OST. She stated that Khari Milner's leadership, Daniel Weinstock's legacy coordination and a group of part-time liaisons are funded by CPSD, DHSP Cambridge Community Foundation (CCF) and the Massachusetts Service Alliance's Commonwealth Corps, who supported the critical work of some of their school-based liaisons for three years and that funded has just ended.

Ms. Richards stated that many youth and families are still not accessing opportunities in Cambridge which is a city that is resource rich. She stated that their focus through the Middle School Network (MSN) is to go where students are - school - and take a multi-faceted approach that moves from general awareness to targeted case management to support actual participation and engagement. She stated that OST Point People (MSN Liaisons and OST Placement Coordinators) try to ensure that all students are aware of OST opportunities through publications, presentations, presence at family events, dissemination of program flyers, bringing in OST providers and through the Summer Opportunities Planning and Placement initiative. Ms. Richards noted that priority youth are identified by way of the youth themselves, periodic surveys of students, discussions with and surveying of school faculty to elicit students that they think would most benefit from participation. She stated that moving from awareness to actual participation starts with identifying student interests and assembling a menu of possible opportunities based on student interest and then working with the student and family to identify other possible considerations such as siblings, cost, location, transportation, peers, family obligations, etc. She stated that for the VIP youth this entails frequent and persistent outreach to and follow up with the student (and sometimes parent) to get the application completed. She stated that with VIP middle schoolers, persistence and availability is key. She stated that once they get a VIPer connected, point people follow-up to ensure that the placement is a good fit and support continued engagement throughout the year.

Ms. Richards stated that the overview and data regarding outcomes of the planning and placement initiative for 2014 summer are that there were approximately 1,000 upper school students and they met with each one of them briefly in the spring months to develop a summer plan. She noted that approximately 238 of the students were identified as VIP/Priority students to whom they provided case management support. She noted that of those students, approximately 50% landed successfully in a summer opportunity and they are expecting that the number will increase for the summer 2015 VIP/Priority students.

Ms. Richards stated that the Middle School Network's mission promotes access to, participation in, and coordination among middle school serving OST programs with the goal of ensuring broad participation of middle school youth in quality OST experiences that foster both their present and future learning and life success. She stated that this year, for the first time after years of planning and building, all upper school students will have , included in their on-line CPS student profile, their OST participation data for the 2014-2015 year. She stated that efforts also include attention to the fifth graders transitioning.

Ms. Richards stated that Daniel Weinstock, MSN Coordinator, will be leaving his position at the end of the summer and noted that the job posting will be listed shortly. She stated that the two full-time MSN school-based liaisons funded by the Mass Service Alliance for the past three years ended in June and they are looking for ways to fund this work for the coming 2015-2016 school year. She stated that the CPS faculty school-based liaisons are continuous at 5-10 hours a month per school. She stated that new resources are needed to continue to support the school-based MSN Liaisons and to expand the reach.

In sum, Ms. Richards stated that much of the work of The Agenda for Children is to convene practitioners to share each other's work. She stated that this is a city-run entity that works closely with city, private and non-profit organizations so they can help kids. Ms. Richards submitted handouts including information about the Middle School Network, data from the Summer Opportunities Initiative and other valuable information regarding the work of The Agenda for Children (Attachment C). She added that information is also available on The Agenda for Children's website.

Councillor Mazen thanked Ms. Richards for her comments and stated that the work of The Agenda for Children exemplifies "boots on the ground" work and more. He stated that it is the right time of the year to have conversations about budget-related issues. He asked Ms. Richards her thoughts as to how to advice the City Council that more resources are needed to address the findings of the work of The Agenda for Children. Ms. Richards responded that resources are always important. She noted that positions have been funded by state grants and are now adopted and included in the CPS budget. She stated that the city has historically adopted funding to sustain this important work. She stated that The Agenda for Children has a small budget because the strength of the agenda in on catalyzing. She stated that additional resources would allow for the exploration of other models. She stated that it easier to have those in the system taking on additional roles with training provided by The Agenda for Children. She noted the need to be creative. Councillor stated that there are a lot of moving pieces that must be aligned but noted that he is hopeful for future progress.

Councillor Carlone asked Ms. Richards if there are programs in the summer. Ms. Richards responded that the OST programs kick in for the summer. She stated that they are always working on increasing the quality of programs but it was really about looking at the data. She stated that since the data is now available, it is easier to target the students that are not engaged in programming opportunities.

Councillor Kelley stated that these discussions should be more about visual and performing arts.

Chris Basler stated that these are great opportunities. He asked Mr. Feinman about employment opportunities associated with the program. Mr. Feinman stated that part of the organizational work is to find the right connections for the students.

Alice Cohen stated that sustainability of relationships help to link people to resources that they may not have imagined were available to them and to create opportunities that are not available. She stated that it will take a lot of money.

Michelle Farnum stated that she is happy to discuss this topic further at upcoming meetings. She stated that DHSP uses ongoing door-to-door campaigns. She noted that DHSP partners with the Cambridge Police Department and have been doing so for the past five years. She stated that each year they visit each of the public housing developments and go door-to-door to share information and resources about programs for children and families. She noted that this initiative has been successful. She added that there has been an increase in the enrollment of people who have not previously been enrolled in programs.

Ellen Semonoff added that she would like to thank the City Council and City administration for the additional $40,000 that the DHSP received for scholarship money.

Roslyn Shoy added that registration forms were also distributed at Corcoran Park and families were able to register for programs at that site. She stated that because of this effort there was a large increase in registration to some camps.

David Day stated that it is important to engage with children and noted the benefit of technology and computers. He stated that when talking about STEM and STEAM, the "A" is digital arts. He noted that Cambridge has the opportunity to train students in digital arts.

Councillor Mazen commented that the Together Festival is a great example of what connective tissue is.

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their attendance and input.

The meeting adjourned at 5:03pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #8
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Wed, July 1, 2015, beginning at 5:35pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss policing and public safety, community policing and police training. Councillor Kelley announced that the meeting is being privately audio recorded.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Councillor Leland Cheung; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Robert Haas, Police Commissioner; Christine Elow, Deputy Superintendent of Police; Jacquelyn Rose, Cambridge Police; Brian Corr, Director, Cambridge Peace Commission; William Chase, Chief, Public Safety Department, Cambridge Health Alliance; Robert Lenehan, MBTA Police; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Hasson Rashid, 820 Mass. Ave.; James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place; and Wilford Durbin, 78 Pearson Avenue, Somerville.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that this is a general discussion and there are many different expectations. This meeting is not aimed at any situation. It is a general meeting on police related issues. There are numerous public safety challenges we face and it is very important to constantly discuss them so that we all have a better understanding of what is going on and to help avoid surprises. Councillor Kelley stated that the report submitted by Councillor Cheung entitled "Select Evaluations of Community Policing Programs and Strategies in Cambridge, MA will be discussed.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment opened at 5:37pm.

Hasson Rashid, 820 Mass. Ave., spoke about harm of a homeless man while he was asleep. He wanted to propose that this commission assist him to have assaults on homeless people dealt with as hate crimes. He will attend a conference in Washington, D.C. on the Alliance for Homeless. He wanted confirmation that this will be worked on. He spoke about drive by shootings in Cambridge. He wanted a Muslim chaplain added to the police chaplain board. He wanted the police to help him get a bill filed on hate crimes.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that this is an important subject for any community. He wanted public comment at the end of the discussion and have material available ahead of time. He stated that he has not seen community policing in the neighborhoods. He wanted to discuss the report submitted by Councillor Cheung by the person who wrote it. He noted that details enhance officers' salaries but wondered if details enhance the performance of the police or is it a distraction. He stated it was surprising to see police officers jogging. His image of a police officer is of one driving by in a car. He complained about bike riders who almost run down pedestrians. He wants cyclists to slow down on path at Russell Field. He spoke about noise in the City.

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 5:46pm.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is not about a specific issue. He stated that discussion is needed about policing between the public, staff and elected officials. He does not understand what police officers do in their jobs. He spoke of an overview in Baltimore and an incidence in Waco, Texas that involved police. How these incidents are addressed and how police officers are trained is important. He spoke about crafting the proper support for the police in terms of training, psychological assistance and so forth.

Commissioner Haas noted that there are many facets about police work. Police are expected to protect and be social workers. He commented that policing in Cambridge is unique and Cambridge has established a new list of constructs around community policing. Police talk about law enforcement, it Cambridge it is a Guardian model, not a warrior model; Cambridge Police Department (CPD) also looks at the social well-being of the City. There are many partnerships with many departments. He stated that CPD responds, assesses a call and then starts an internal process to address problems. Collaboration and outreach is done door-to-door with their partners with fair and impartial treatment and 3,500 doors have been knocked on in past five years. These issues are measured. Cambridge has a different policing model. Commissioner Haas spoke about the collaboration with the Public Health Department, Transit, Harvard University and MIT police departments.

City Manager Rossi stated that he has worked in Cambridge for 44 years and worked closely with command staff and the police commissioner and their staff. Cambridge is in a special place as a community. CPD is a community partner and is interested in the social well-being of the community. He spoke about the training done in the department. He commented about the way that the police handled a recent tragic incident. He is proud of how police react to demonstrations. He spoke about letting the community be heard, trying to make sure that lawful events happen safely rather than arresting people, and how CPD works to help youth from going to the wrong side and the partnerships they have with youth centers. The police have built bridges with Human Rights Commission, Disabilities Commission, GLBT and the Peace Commission. He has great confidence in the Police Department. People trust Cambridge police officers and are willing to talk with them. Police look at data and analyze it for patterns and work to prevent any actions of discrimination.

Councillor Kelley asked if traffic stops were still analyzed for racial makeup. Commissioner Haas said that most departments do not track this data. But Cambridge does. CPD assesses disorderly arrests as well, using data to help officers review their judgement about issuing citations and disparities. The officer is made aware of disparities and making sure they use discretionary. He spoke about directed patrols based on information from the crime analysis unit. The patrols are directed and the officers are deployed where needed.

Councillor Kelley stated it does not matter who the police department is from a public perspective. MIT, Harvard, CPD and other departments all look the same on a YouTube video.

Robert Lenehan, Transit Police, noted that the transit police is a regional police department. He stated that his jurisdiction is north of the Charles River to NH and communities may have very different ideas on what policing should be. The CPD's homeless police officers have been an asset to Transit police. The calls have decreased because of the work of the Cambridge homeless police officers. He stated that younger homeless came to Cambridge during the winter. He spoke about the effort to help the youth. He stated that Boston Police Officer Dana Nigh is also an asset to the Transit police. He stated that Cambridge and Somerville have the same expectations for the homeless. He stated that core problems such as drinking are not addressed. The MBTA has five officers patrolling the north side of the Charles River.

William Chase explained the jurisdiction of the Cambridge Health Alliance. Issues are dealt with that happen on the CHA health care facilities by Public Safety Department. He has 26 sworn police officers, they are special state police officers who can make arrests when appropriate. Larceny, disturbances, mental health patients are watched in the emergency departments of the hospitals under their jurisdiction. He stated that his officers are not armed with offensive weapons (firearms) but do carry defensive ones. An associate's degree is required of the officers. He stated that arrests are discouraged. Training is done for response as they arrive to help officers handle patients' psychiatric issues.

Councillor Toomey asked if CHA officers go through full training. Mr. Chase responded that officers have 350 hours of training and go to a part time academy. Councillor Toomey asked if mental health incidents decreased. Mr. Chase stated that new personnel have been added and significant progress has been made. Commissioner Haas has offered Mental Health First Aid training to CHA officers. Councillor Toomey questioned if there has been more in house training to deal with mental health patients. Mr. Chase critical incident training has been done by the police department.

Commissioner Haas explained that it is 40 hours course with NAMEE. This is a joint venture with Somerville so classrooms are split. Techniques are trained about how to deal with incidents and to get the situation under control with the person feeling threatened. First Aid training has also be given; 8 hours; and conflict de-escalation is outside the 40 hour training. Procedural justice training is giving people a voice and treating people respectful. People who are given tickets and a survey note a 75% approval rate of how CPD handled the situation. They review detectives as well, focusing on the victim, and that approval rating is 92%, up from around 50%. In a criminal case, the last contact with the people is the police department and CPD stays in touch with the victim. "Fair and impartial" police training - all people have implicit bias and CPD officers are trained on how to deal with this. Police are trained to analyze and mediate a situation and this has changed the behavior of officers. It is important how officers are treated internally.

Deputy Superintendent Elow stated that the department culture has changed dramatically in the last five years, with lots of emphasis on legitimacy. Social policing is about outreach and identifying service providers. Gaps are identified in the community and making and developing relationships with the young people. She noted that the anniversary of the shooting of Kensley David will be this weekend. All police officers will be out in the street. She stated that procedural justice is in every aspect of the work of the department.

Mr. Lenehen stated that the Transit Police engage with many departments. He spoke of a Friday program where police play volleyball with 14 year olds. Summer camp officers are involved with a Stop Watch program based in Boston. He stated that police, minister, school staff, probation officers are all involved. 12,000 teens ride the T within 90 minutes and the point is to manage the rowdy behavior proactively. He stated that 7-8 grade students will be riding the T who are acting like teenagers. This reduces the amenity. He stated that when students act up on the T they are subjected to the discipline of the school and can avoid becoming part of the judicial system. The larger issue is being dealt with a code of conduct at schools. It is reflective of programs, schools and parents. On Sherman Street students use the train tracks to access Fresh Pond Mall. This problem was addressed by putting kids into an "Operation Lifesaver" diversion program. He commented that there are more people who are willing to help than you realize.

Councillor Toomey asked if there is a greater sense of trust with the youth and the police because of the involvement of the police. He asked how our officers can be used as mentors to help groom the next generation for police officers. City Manager Rossi stated that the Police Department personnel have tried to do outreach to students to make them more interested in becoming CPD officers. He stated that legislation was filed for preference for the hiring of Cambridge based kids. Commissioner Haas stated that only lateral appointments will be used when the civil service list is exhausted. There are about 10-12 vacancies per year. Commissioner Haas stated that he would like residency to be retained for students for 10 years to catch kids who leave after high school but grew up here and want to come back. He stated that the Police Department numbers are diverse, but they are shrinking. Only 24 people took the last exam. He spoke about the skills that are needed to be a police officer in Cambridge, things like social policing that go beyond what the Academy teaches. He stated that the focus has changed for the personnel hired that have a skill that deal well with youth, to include School Resource Officers and the ability to act as case managers. Much younger kids are what is being seen and the department tries to get services for youth that are in need. Deputy Superintendent Elow spoke about engaging youth. She spoke about the increased demand from the youth to work in the department. Officers are being seen as mentors and coaches. The Safety Net was established seven years ago and the dividends are being seen.

Mr. Chase stated that there are several Cambridge police officers who were CHA public safety department officers. Commissioner Haas noted that managing of aggressive behaviors started with the CHA. Deputy Superintendent Elow stated that a home visit is made within 24 hours when a youth has an issue with the police. Barriers were seen at the front door but changes have been made as people could be reticent to get involved when officers showed up at the door. Social workers accompany the police when they go on a home visit and the police uniform has changed; this has been beneficial. Commissioner Haas stated that this has been an evolution. There needs to be ways to be more effective to change behaviors, break cycles of things like opiate use. His officers have been remarkable and have embraced change for the quality of life in Cambridge.

Mr. Rossi spoke about police details and the policy. The City is harnessed by collective bargaining and it is hard to change. The primary purpose of details is for public safety. He does not like to use police officers from other communities. This does involve the safety of citizens and businesses. There are many times that details are not filled. Councillor Toomey noted that there is so much development in the City and it necessitates the need for details. Mr. Rossi stated that the safety of the citizens should be the primary concerns. He wanted to discuss this with the police. There are details done that are not done by trained police officer; many details must be done by police officers and this will not affect the economic status of officers. Councillor Kelley stated that he disagrees with the safety aspect of police details and argued that police officers would be better off being paid to get additional training and support rather than standing around construction sites where they are of little to no use.

Councillor Kelley stated that policing is a complex job. Bikes, ISIS and mental health are just some of the issues that police deal with. He wanted to acknowledge what policing is today. A complex, demanding, dangerous and stressful profession. Councillor Kelley asked how police officers are protected from psychological trauma in their jobs. Commissioner Haas stated that there has been a peer officers groups in the department for 15 years. The information is confidential. This is more critical today because of the things that are on the job today. He emphasized the important of the family and work life. He spoke about the importance of emotional wellness of the officers.

Brian Corr, Peace Commission Director and Police Review Board, stated that he sees what is going on around the country. Three recommendations from the Presidents Commission Task Force, were for more oversight, more money and embrace a guardian mindset. The police are members of community and are given a special task to protect community. There is a wellness program for police officers, emphasizing mindfulness and protecting oneself emotionally. The clergy are involved and bring a different prospective. There is a lot done in Cambridge that keeps Cambridge above the curve but we still look at how we can do more about legitimacy and procedure. He tries to make sure everyone is heard, look at new ways of doing things, where we can do better to include review of National reports for their relevance to policing in Cambridge.

Mr. Chase spoke about CHA officer's assistance for their well-being. A critical incident debriefing is done after traumatic events and issues are discussed. He stated that as new officers are hired a psychological profile is done on them.

Councillor Cheung spoke about how much the police are doing in Cambridge. He was surprised with the recent depth of change in the police and the legitimacy of community policing and our intentional efforts in that area. More people will benefit to hear how the Cambridge police model is different than other communities. Commissioner Haas stated that Cambridge looks at events nationwide and tries to analyze the situation and learn from the incidents. Cambridge does not want to reach equilibrium. The profession can be outpaced. How do we change by look at things differently?

Mr. Rossi suggested improving the promotional process. Commissioner Haas spoke about Civil Service and how it works against the department. The test does not predict who will be a good supervisor. The test is expense and it takes too long and studies are forgotten. He stated that he wants performance based measures. The process needs to change and he is working with unions to find a way to use things like internal documents and skill sets to guide promotions more.

Councillor Cheung stated there is a trust issue because of what is seen on the news, what has become the national narrative and the need for a critical mass in the public to get people to trust the police. Community outreach is done. Mr. Corr stated that this is something that needs to be done in the community. He spoke about meeting at a youth center with police and youth and youth had questions for the police. This process starts young and these relationships need to be built.

Councillor Kelley stated that we all speak a different language. Confusion can lead to bad things; especially around police. Commissioner Haas stated that the context is what needs to be considered and the context to use the tools and the City's value and the resources are necessary. Cambridge needs to be prepared and trained for situations that may never be considered. Councillor Kelley stated that semantic are huge and the more the same words are used the better. He stated that more discussion is needed on this matter.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:17pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair