10. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $67,179.02 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures Account to support additional tree plantings in the Gore Street Neighborhood.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone ABSENT)

Oct 29, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting an appropriation $67,179.02 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures Account to support additional tree plantings in the Gore Street Neighborhood.

The funds were received from Eversource Gas and their contractor for damage to the city tree at 94-96 Gore Street that occurred on June 20, 2018. As a result of the extent and severity of the root damage to the tree caused by Eversource’s contractor, the tree was removed on June 21, 2018. Although the street tree and its canopy could not be replaced, the City did engage an independent arborist to appraise the value of the tree ($67,179.02).

As part of the upcoming Gore Street reconstruction project, these funds will be used to replant a tree at 94-96 Gore Street as well as to support additional tree plantings in the immediate neighborhood.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Oct 29, 2018
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The ability for all citizens to participate in elections is a fundamental civil right and a central principle of our democracy, where they can make their voices heard; and
WHEREAS: Government at all levels should take proactive steps to ensure that all eligible citizens are given the ability to exercise their right to vote; and
WHEREAS: Early voting can help ease access to the ballot for Cambridge voters, shorten lines at polling locations, and improve the voting experience overall; and
WHEREAS: Early voting was first offered in Cambridge during the 2016 general election, and more than a quarter of the 71,351 voters registered in Cambridge cast early ballots in that election; and
WHEREAS: Voter turnout was less than 45% during the 2017 Cambridge Municipal Elections, and since voter participation is typically lower for municipal elections than for general elections, the increased awareness brought on by providing early voting dates could be especially helpful in improving voter turnout and broadening the electorate in local elections; and
WHEREAS: Extending the available days and times for people to cast their ballots will allow more flexibility for Cambridge residents of all ages and backgrounds to participate in municipal elections; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee elections; and be it further
ORDERED: That a petition be submitted to the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, accompanied by a bill for a special law related to the City of Cambridge to be filed with a copy of this order, be, and hereby is, approved under Clause One (1) of Section Eight (8) of Article Two (2), as amended, of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the end that legislation be adopted precisely as follows, except for clerical or editorial changes of form only: PETITION FOR A SPECIAL LAW ENTITLED, AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO OFFER EARLY VOTING IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a copy of this attached petition to the Massachusetts legislative delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO OFFER EARLY VOTING IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1.
Beginning in the year 2019, notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the City of Cambridge’s Election Commission shall offer early voting for municipal elections.

The City of Cambridge’s Election Commission shall allow any qualified voter, as defined in section 1 of chapter 51 of the General Laws, to cast a ballot for any biennial municipal election during the early voting period.

The City of Cambridge’s Election Commission shall promulgate regulations to implement this act consistent with section 25B of chapter 54 of the General Laws. Such regulations shall include, but shall not be limited to, a process for establishing early voting locations, dates, staffing, and a process for applying for, receiving, separating, compiling, recording, and securing early voter ballots. Each early voting site shall be accessible to persons with disabilities.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE
This act shall take full effect upon its acceptance and appropriation by vote of the City Council of said City, but not otherwise.

---

Final Revised Version Adopted on Nov 5, 2018 including revisions suggested by City Solicitor:

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO OFFER EARLY VOTING IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1.
Beginning in the year 2019, notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the City of Cambridge may offer early voting for municipal elections.

The City of Cambridge may elect to allow any qualified voter, as defined in section 1 of chapter 51 of the General Laws, to cast a ballot for any biennial municipal election during the early voting period.

The City of Cambridge’s Election Commission may promulgate regulations to implement this act not inconsistent with section 25B of chapter 54 of the General Laws and with other election laws applicable in the City of Cambridge, including those governing proportional representation voting. Such regulations may include, but are not limited to, a process for establishing early voting locations, dates, staffing, and a process for applying for, receiving, separating, compiling, recording, and securing early voter ballots. Each early voting site shall be accessible to persons with disabilities.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE
This act shall take full effect upon its acceptance and appropriation by majority vote of the City Council of said City, but not otherwise.

---

O-9     Oct 29, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The Alewife Greenway Bike Path, as part of the Minuteman Bikeway, is one of the most heavily utilized and well-traveled bike paths in the Boston metro area; and
WHEREAS: The Alewife Path concludes at the Red Line’s Alewife T Station; and
WHEREAS: There have been discussions on extending the bike path from Alewife, along the railroad tracks, to Sherman Street and possibly further, but it is unclear where plans currently stand; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide an update on any current discussions or plans for extending the Alewife Greenway Bike Path from Alewife to Sherman Street.

O-13     Oct 29, 2018  Amended
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers and users of other mobility devices is an important goal for Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Street Bicycle Safety Demonstration Project was installed in August, 2017; and
WHEREAS: The City’s website information on the Project says that data collection and evaluation for this project would take place in the Fall of 2017 through the Spring of 2018 but no update on how this information has been collected or on the results of the evaluation is readily available on the project’s website; and
WHEREAS: Transparent, proactive and accurate communication about street safety projects is imperative to ensure proper expansion and, as appropriate, modification of these projects to help ensure safe streets for everyone; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with City staff and report back to the City Council on the status of the Cambridge Street Bicycle Safety Demonstration Project and on any efforts to assess how successful the project has been and what lessons the City may learn from the project that may help inform street allocation and design decisions elsewhere; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with City staff and report back to the City Council on other related bike infrastructure efforts, including an update on the progress of the Consensus Building Institute’s research.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to update the project website with current information on this project.

O-14     Oct 29, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers and users of other mobility devices is an important goal for Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The two-way bike lane on Brattle Street at the edge of Harvard Square has become a popular route for cyclists to access the Square from the West, both providing a more convenient route to the square and allowing them to avoid problematic traffic patterns and street layouts in the Square itself such as the “super crosswalk”; and
WHEREAS: The street layout for this section of Brattle Street, to include signage, provides clear guidance to traffic entering from side-streets that there may be traffic coming down Brattle Street away from the Square but generally does little to raise awareness that cyclists may be entering the square riding the opposite direction from motor vehicle traffic; and
WHEREAS: This lack of clarity about the possibility of inbound cyclists may create an avoidable safety hazard for cyclists, pedestrians and, to a lesser extent, drivers; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with City staff and report back to the City Council on opportunities and plans to increase signage or other communication efforts to help ensure that all users of Brattle Street between Eliot and Mason Streets understand the cyclists may be using Brattle Street in the opposite direction of prevailing motor vehicle traffic.

O-19     Oct 29, 2018  Charter Right - Simmons
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: River Street will undergo significant reconstruction in FY20 including both subsurface and surface work from Memorial Drive to Massachusetts Avenue as well as a redesign of Carl Barron Plaza; and
WHEREAS: The Bicycle Level of Comfort (BLC) analysis completed as part of the 2015 Cambridge Bicycle Plan assigned River Street a BLC score of 3 out of a possible 5 between Franklin Street and Putnam Avenue, and a 4 at either end between Putnam and Memorial Drive as well as Franklin Street to Massachusetts Avenue; and
WHEREAS: A BLC score of 3 indicates that a street will provide a low level of comfort to anyone who is not a routine cyclist, while a BLC score of 4 indicates that the street is likely to be an uncomfortable experience for all but the most experienced daily commuters; and
WHEREAS: The southbound cycle track on Western Avenue sets the gold standard for protected bicycle infrastructure in Cambridge, receiving a BLC score of 1, yet there remains no protected infrastructure on any of the northbound arteries in Cambridgeport from Memorial Drive towards Central Square; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has identified protected bicycle infrastructure as an essential component of street reconstruction projects as part of our Vision Zero initiative, particularly for our most dangerous streets; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to include protected bicycle infrastructure along the entire length of River Street as part of the FY20 River Street Redesign project; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on this matter by the end of the year.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Sept 27, 2018, at 3:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss stormwater management best practices and get an update on how Cambridge will be impacted by the EPA’s new Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, which took effect on July 1, 2018.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux and Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mallon; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works; John Nardone, Deputy Public Works Commissioner; Jim Wilcox, Director, Engineering Services, Public Works Department; Catherine Woodbury, Project Manager, Public Works Department; Yilkal Berkeley and Yaser Samerraei, Public Works Department; Sam Corda, Managing Director, Water Department; Lee Gianetti, Communications and Public Relations Director; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Vice Mayor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. She stated that the hearing is being audio recorded privately. She stated that there is information about stormwater management on the Public Works Department website going back to 2007. She looked forward to learning more about stormwater management and improving water quality in Cambridge.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that Cambridge has been working on adhering to the Clean Water Act and focusing on water discharged into the City’s three main bodies of water. The City is subject to a variety of permits, and the City applies the MS4 permitting process across all areas.

Ms. Woodbury gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT A). She stated that in l972 the Clean Water Act was passed, and before that there was a great deal of commercial discharge. She stated that in l991 Cambridge was first regulated under the MS4 Phase I standards; in 1999 Cambridge became subject to the MS4 Phase II standards. Cambridge has been operating under this set of regulations until July 2018. The new permit regulations, which are stricter than the previous phases, went into effect July 1, 2018. She stated that Cambridge has combined area and separated systems regulated under Phase II of the MS4 permit. There are two areas of storm water distributions. She stated that one-third of the City drains to the Mystic River watershed.

This discharge eventually goes to Boston Harbor. EPA has identified that 55% of waterways are currently impacted by stormwater discharge. She stated that Cambridge is in the high red concentration area shown on the map on page 6. In 1995 the Charles River Initiative was launched, and it has improved the water quality in the river. In 1995 the EPA created a report card for the Charles River and gave it a grade of D based on state bacterial standards. By 2013, the grade was an A-. She stated that there has also been a slow improvement in the report card for the Little River and Alewife Brook. She stated that 485 common manholes have so far been separated in the City.

Ms. Woodbury spoke about illicit sewer connections that have been removed in the City. She stated that there is a major pipe inspection system in place. She highlighted the stormwater sampling that is done. She spoke about the completed sewer separation capital projects in Cambridge. Ms. Woodbury highlighted the Alewife Reservation Stormwater Wetland project that was completed in 2013. She explained the three plans that are required for stormwater control permits. For all developments, at least 80% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and 65% Total Phosphorus (TP) must be removed from the site.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked what size project is subject to these regulations. Ms. Woodbury responded any project that affects 1 acre or more. Stormwater control permits are required for projects with at least 50,000 square feet, or 10 parking spaces. These projects also require a Planning Board Special Permit and, if a project is on a sensitive site, permission of the city engineer. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the City has captured private single home properties.

Ms. Woodbury explained the 2016 requirements and the changes in the permit. She spoke about public education and outreach. She distributed brochures (ATTACHMENT B). She stated that it is important to share resources with different communities. She explained that Cambridge has four household hazardous waste collection days each year. In the Envision Cambridge planning, quantity and quality of stormwater is discussed. She stated that IDDE prohibits illegal discharge. She stated that once illicit discharges are identified they are removed. Under IDDE, investigations of water quality are performed through sampling, and complaints are addressed. There have been 5 automatic water sampling stations constructed throughout Cambridge to monitor stormwater improvements. She spoke about managing runoff from construction sites. Inspections are done for working construction sites and warning tickets are issued for violations. Over the years 90 warning tickets have been issued, as a way to educate the construction industry. The 5th minimum control mechanism is post-construction stormwater management. She stated that the City practices need to be identical to what is required of private construction sites. She stated that there are 6,000 catch-basin in the City and one-third of the catch-basins are cleaned annually. There have been 300 tons of debris cleaned out of the catch-basins each year. A video inspection is performed on pipes that have been cleaned. Tree plantings are incorporated into projects to help absorb and filter stormwater. She added that 150 municipal facilities are cleaned.

Ms. Woodbury highlighted important capital projects. She spoke about the new requirements for the permit. The original six requirements will be maintained, some with changes. The new permit prescribes the requirements that need to be met. The stormwater plan is due October 2018. She addressed the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements for the Charles River in the new permit. This provides 20 years to incrementally reduce phosphorous discharge. The City has 5 years to come up with a plan and then a Phase II plan needs to be evaluated and implemented. She explained that the City is beginning to develop a phosphorus discharge plan. She explained why phosphorus is a problem and identified the sources of phosphorus. She commented that most fertilizers are not phosphorus-free. Another change in the permit requires enhancement programs to address the water quality of limited waterbodies. This affects the Charles River and the Alewife Brook. There are changes in the 6 minimum control measures under the new permit. One change was providing enhanced messaging to the public. She stated that the use of road salt must be documented. Anywhere vehicles are stored, the City needs to come up with a stormwater pollution prevention plan.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is more work and asked whether a need for more staff is anticipated. Commissioner O’Riordan stated the City’s plan has been to stay ahead of the permit requirement deadlines. The City has a Phosphorus Control plan in place. The permits will be all be reviewed and enforced by staff. He stated that Public Works has a highly professional staff and the City is ahead of where it needs to be.

Councillor Zondervan stated that stormwater pollution ends up in Boston Harbor and the sea grass is impacted by the pollutants. He stated that Cambridge’s effort is helping the sea grass. He stated that the City gets criticized for promoting trees, but these natural resources are vital to control pollutants and improve the quality of life. It is not good to trade off trees in favor of other priorities. It is important to keep the tree canopy. He is concerned about the Little River and Alewife. There is sediment in these bodies of water that contributes to pollution, and he asked what can be done. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that dams mitigate the impact of pollutants to water bodies, but damming the river makes it so that they cannot be flooded. Dams impact the Alewife and the Charles River. There was discussion by DCR ten years ago that went nowhere. There is no plan to do remedial work by the state to clean the Alewife. Councillor Zondervan asked about warning tickets to construction crews and inquired whether there is no other action available other than a warning. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that permits have been withdrawn in the past and their work has been stopped. Councillor Zondervan asked about street cleaning and whether driving diesel trucks around City causes more environmental damage than benefit, what with the number of cars towed to make space for street cleaning.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that Cambridge has the best street cleaning programs; the City cleans the streets for nine months per year and drivers announce street cleaning on loudspeakers. Cars are not towed unless it is absolutely necessary. He stated that the tow yards are disappearing in the City. Councillor Carlone stated that in Manhattan cars needed to move to alternate sides of the street every day because streets are cleaned three times a-week. Councillor Zondervan suggested looking at towing. He spoke about the catch basins and the odor. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that Councillor Zondervan lives in a combined sewer separation area. He stated that during dry periods the snout is exposed, so a smell is sometimes present. There is deodorizer in place that works to eliminate the smell. Councillor Zondervan asked if there is a plan to separate all combined sewers. Commissioner O’Riordan responded that the goal is to do this, but now there are areas in need of sewer separation where it will be challenging to achieve the necessary quantity and quality of water.

Councillor Carlone asked why the illicit connections that have been removed are concentrated in particular blocks and areas, referring to page 9 of the presentation. Are the connections old or current? Mr. Wilcox stated that most of the manhole system was part of the 1930 preservation act. Many illicit connections were removed in large batches, and there are fewer current ones to remove. Councillor Carlone asked whether the Alewife wetlands built by the City with MWRA is a prototype. Commissioner O’Riordan spoke about the North Point wetland, Discovery Park and the Strata Center. These examples should be considered by large developers. Councillor Carlone asked how TSS is reduced in stormwater control. Ms. Woodbury stated that (TSS) total suspended solids is reduced through measures such as the street sweeping program. Councillor Carlone noted that illicit detection is ongoing and asked whether it is worked on when it is found. Mr. Wilcox stated that illicit detection is a 20-year program and it is done manhole by manhole, through collecting debris. He explained that samples are taken and sent to a lab. Councillor Carlone asked about porous asphalt and how often it needs to be cleaned up. Mr. Wilcox spoke about quality control with asphalt. It should not be overly compacted when installed, so that water can penetrate it more easily. Then it is swept with a vacuum at the end of installation.

Councillor Mallon asked whether the City offers a rebate for a sump pump for work done by the City. Commissioner O’Riordan responded in the negative. She asked what the number one source of phosphorus contamination is. Commissioner O’Riordan responded that fertilizers are the primary source of phosphorus. Councillor Mallon asked whether post-construction inspections are done before occupancy. Mr. Wilcox stated that inspection is done before occupancy and there is a follow-up inspection to confirm that everything is installed properly, according to best management practices.

Councillor Kelley spoke about reviewing towing cars and fines. He spoke about the watershed and the complexity of the permitting process, which concerns multiple towns. Mr. Corda stated that the example is set in Cambridge and followed in Waltham, and current water management systems are improved. Councillor Kelley stated that the City only comments on the permit requests made by private entities. He stated that there must be a greater discussion on the use of salt and where it is used. As projects move forward in Alewife, he asked whether the City will get better stormwater infrastructure than what is there currently. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that prior to the sewer separation project in East Cambridge, water was discharged to Alewife, so since then there has been a profound reduction. This stormwater is cleaner and it will be monitored before and after storms to illuminate the improvements as part of the wetland plans. Councillor Kelley noted that there will be continued development in Alewife and the Quadrangle and it ends up being no net change in water quality. He asked whether we need to revisit these developments and what is the current system being built. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that all developments are required to meet requirements for stormwater quality and quantity. Phosphorus is required to be reduced and developers are required to look at sundry stormwater. Councillor Kelley asked about removing asphalt and replacing it with grass or gravel on private or public property. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that is part of the Preparedness Plan to see what the additional benefit is and then 50% repaving would be required. He stated that putting in proper drywall would achieve the same. He stated that the City will eventually be forced to look at private property as the permit moves toward the 20th year.

Vice Mayor Devereux suggested the parking lot at the Fresh Pond Mall could be a test site. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this water drains into the site itself. Vice Mayor Devereux asked will porous asphalt be used for the Watertown Greenway path. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the water will run off at that location. Vice Mayor Devereux asked what the education plans are to promote the use of phosphorus-free fertilizer. Ms. Woodbury stated that the EPA would like the public to be educated on the harmful nature of fertilizers with phosphorus as an ingredient and introducing some messaging would be a goal. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she supports reducing salt use. Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about Little River, which is not under the City’s control. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that there are 3 branches that feed the Little River, and the Watertown and Belmont systems leak, which is problematic.

Vice Mayor Devereux opened public comment at 4:48pm.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, spoke about hurricane Sandy and spoke about energy fields. Where is the population and how does this affect things?

At 4:49pm Vice Mayor closed public comment.

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

The hearing adjourned at 4:50pm.

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

Committee Report #2
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to receive an update on progress towards Zero Waste goals and to discuss successes and challenges of the citywide composting and recycling programs to date.

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

Also present were Erik Levy, Save That Stuff, Charlestown; Debra Darby, Organic Solutions, Gloucester; Kirstie Pecci and John Hite, Conservation Law Foundation; Jamie Guker, WM Organics; Hubert Murray, 204 Erie Street; Cheri Cousens, 240 Charles Street, North Andover; Lynne Hall, 154 Auburn Street; Debby Galef, 93 Hammond Street; Valerie Moore, 54 Madison Avenue; Laura Orlando, 1330 Beacon Street, Brookline; Lor Holmes, Cero Cooperative, Inc., Boston; Ned Beecher, Tamworth, NH; Judy Glaubman, 154 Auburn Street; D. Quayle, 16 Brown Street; Rob Gogan, Harvard University; Kathy and John Roberts, 321 Huron Avenue; Janet Domenitz, 22 Alpine Street; Judith Nathans, 511 Putnam Avenue; Elizabeth Dreisbach, Allston; Maddy Buck, 20 Gold Star Road; Adam Sankauskas, 66 Caravan Street; and Melissa Ludtke, 30 Buena Vista Park.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the letters have been received from EPA and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection in support of the waste program. (ATTACHMENT A AND ATTACHMENT B).

A presentation was given by the Public Works Department (ATTACHMENT C). Mr. Nardone spoke about how the City is working through zero waste and the progress on the zero-waste master plan, curbside recycling and composting. He gave a brief history of the Recycling Advisory Committee and their work.

Mr. Fitzgerald addressed zero waste and the zero-waste master plan (ZWMP). Zero waste does not mean zero trash. The trash is diverted. He stated that there is 22.8 per pound of trash per house and the goal is to reduce this, with an 80% reduction in 2050. He spoke about keeping the curbside recycling fresh to not lose users. He highlighted the purpose of the zero-waste master plan. He stated that waste manager is a vigorous job and the protection of the health of employees is essential. He stated that the initial ZWMP recommendations were expanded, evaluated and promoted. He stated that the curbside organics was began in 2014 and was expanded in October 2015 and again in April 2018. The second goal is to evaluate trash collection. He stated that of the eight landfills four will close soon. The remaining facilities are in high demand and this increase use and cost. With reduced options the costs increase. He stated that the City has gone from paying 0 to $35 and now pays $70 per ton due to contamination. He spoke about the compost cost of $59. He stated that residents rate the City’s trash and recycling program as excellent. He spoke about evaluating trash collection deals with fleet operations. The trash trucks were reduced from seven to six and a truck was added to the recycling division.

Mr. Orr stated that an audit was done about what is in the trash barrel. He stated that 70% of what is put into the trash can be diverted by Cambridge. The 41% was before the curbside composting but averages that 30% of trash is trash. There is a huge opportunity to improve on this. He spoke about bring your own bag and the polystyrene ordinance. He stated that with the bag ordinance there was an 80% reduction in trash. He stated that new recycling programs are being investigated. He spoke about looking at City policies such as a standard trash receptacle and he highlighted all the benefits of doing this. This sums up the ZWMP.

Mr. Orr spoke about the citywide curbside recycling. He spoke about the disposal options. More facilities were built for organics, but not in Massachusetts. He outlined the four-criterion needed for curbside organics. He spoke about the food recovery hierarchy. He stated that the City has a three-year contract with a Charlestown firm which produces an energy rich blend. He stated that 90% of food scraps go to make energy and some goes to make fertilizer. The EPA and MA Department of Environmental Protection supports Cambridge’s program.

Ms. Albenberg stated that 800 tons of compost has been collected in six months. Trash has decreased by 8% from last year. She stated that 6-8 tons are done per day. This was successful with the curbside compost collection. She stated that 93 % are satisfied with program; 650 comments were received from a survey sent. There were 1300 respondents to the survey sent out. She spoke about issues and concerns which stemmed around getting more compost bags and keeping them clean and whether the City is really composting. There is resilience being built into the program.

Mr. Orr spoke about the importance of the 8% decrease which is eight times more than what has been seen.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if this is per household. Mr. Orr stated that it is about the same number of households per year.

Curbside recycling was presented by Mr. Orr. He spoke about the cost to the City has increased from 0-$35 per ton. In 2018 the cost again increased to $70. He spoke about the increased monitoring done by the City on what can be recycled. He stated that the contamination is 10% and the goal is to get to 7% to reduce the cost. He gave an outcome of the recycling audit. He spoke about the contaminant, the largest being plastic bags, clothing, textile and other items.

Ms. Albenberg stated that on Nov 5, 2018 a small business recycling pilot is being launched. This will be geared to minority and women owned businesses, restaurant and first floor businesses. The collection will be twice a week. The bins will be delivered with stickers that state that this is a business recycling program. She stated that a mattresses recycling pilot will be done in the spring of 2019. Building types will be documented. This will be rolled out to the entire City in the fall.

Councillor Zondervan commented that trash is a popular subject.

Councillor Carlone asked about the methane to produce energy; what is the negative effects of methane for making electricity. Mr. Orr there is no methane released into the environment. Councillor Carlone asked if there no off gas. Councillor Zondervan explained that methane is converted to carbon dioxide.

Councillor Mallon stated that this is a great thing for Cambridge. She is glad it is working. She asked how many applications for small businesses were received. Mr. Orr responded that 180 were received and 120 are included in the pilot. It is for the entire City. Councillor Mallon spoke about plastic bags being a contaminant and stated that she did not realize that plastic bags are such a menace; what is being done to educate residents about this. Mr. Orr stated that there are videos. Councillor Mallon suggested a door hanger campaign. Mr. Orr stated that the postcards are sent to households with the bins.

The committee heard from Kirstie Pecci, lawyer at Confederation Law Foundation, applauded Cambridge’s work. She stated that it will cost Cambridge more than $3 million for tipping fees. Cambridge is a leader in the bag ban and collection of composting and recycling and the material sent to landfill is still being sent to a dangerous landfill in NH and stated that incinerators produce toxic gas and chemicals. She recommended an incentive program to reduce trash. If the receptacles are small there is less trash. She stated that vouchers could be provided for low income persons. She stated that Cambridge will not continue to see progress without this type of a program. Waste and plastic companies are all investing in each other. Plastic mixed products are not recyclable; do the best to figure out what is not recyclable. She stated that data, staff, enforcement should all be continued. Organics systems she has heard great things about it. Cambridge’s organics are clean, and this means that the City has options but will not be sustainable or feasible on the backs of taxpayers. Recyclables are shipped to Lawrence; processed for sewer sledge and it is not safe. She stated that the drive to Charlestown then to North Andover for processing and then is driven to another plant to dry. This is not a huge energy boom. She spoke about the toxicity. She spoke about all the tax payer’s dollars that subsidies for this process. She spoke about a local composting system or inner digestive system which can then be composted and used in the soil. Composting creates many local jobs. She spoke about looking at the sustainability of the system created. This is an opportunity for Cambridge to do everything well and keep composting without plastics. She recommended transfer stations will be needed for food waste. There are 575 tons in the pipeline. She suggested looking into other options. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT D).

Laura Orlando, Public Health Department, spoke about curbside composting by Cambridge. Diverting the food scraps away from landfills, but where the food scrapes go is important to the public health. Food scrapes are turned into sludge which are toxics and pollutants. Do not mix food scrapes with sludge. She spoke about sludge rules and regulations, the sewer treatment plant, the energy produced by the digestion of food scraps and the need for real composting. Her comments are attached (ATTACHMENT E).

Amy Perlmutter provided her written comments (ATTACHMENT F). She spoke about the recycling being on residential and commercial is not being considered. Enforce litter laws. People who work at the processing plants are not paid a living wage for doing dangerous work.

Lor Holmes, General Manager, CERO Cooperative, Inc., congratulated Cambridge for being ahead of other. She spoke about organics and stated that 50 tons are being collected per week. She stated that the 50 tons food waste are taken to two facilities in Needham and Hamilton. She noted that if contamination is seen education is done. She stated that $50 a ton in tipping fees in Hamilton in the beginning and now food waste brought to Needham and it is combined with yard waste and it increases the nutrient value of the compost. The solution will be multi-faceted. She stated that the whole country will be watching Cambridge. She stated that CERO is planning to build digesters and the gas can be turned into natural gas or electricity. She stated that they are looking for a host site in Cambridge/Somerville/Boston area. She did not want Cambridge to preclude other options and encouraged Cambridge to continue to do more pilots. Her comments are (ATTACHMENT G).

Councillor Zondervan opened public comment at 2:35pm.

Erik Levy stated that it will take a village to realize zero waste goals. He spoke about not taking perfectly clean compost and he wanted to target the front of the house which will come with contamination. He stated that he saw what happens when attempting to include composting to the front of the house.

Hubert Murray spoke as an employee of Healthcare and spoke about making hospitals more sustainable. He spoke about getting chemicals out of the food chain. He spoke about locally food and composting is only one strand. He spoke about collaboration. He spoke about the reporting issue, sharing information and accepting similar standards. He stated that this is a regional collaboration to get this done.

Ned Beecher, North East Biosolids, a non-profit, spoke about biosolids. He stated that most place where food is separated it is going to co-digestion. He stated that three million tons of food waste is processed through co-digestion. He spoke about the value to the soils of composting. All players should be in the market for this to work. He stated that biosolids are being recycled around the country. He provided information (ATTACHMENT H).

Judy Glaubman, 154 Auburn Street, stated that this was discussed at coop meetings. She spoke about the integrity of the meeting. She stated that the EPA and the Massachusetts Department of Environment Protection’s information is contradictory and confusing. She suggested using plain language. If it is not composting, do not call this composting. She suggested doing a survey on single stream. She favored living wages paid to workers. She encouraged using youth as ambassadors on recycling.

Rob Gogan thanked all for the work on ZWMP. He spoke about 1993 recycling ordinance and in 2008 when a pilot was done with Safe That Stuff and Harvard University was the first to use this. He stated that prevention is the goal, but we have to live in real world. He stated the single steam recycling is something we have to play the plan dealt. Charlestown takes food scraps and when trying to take it to a farm it was not accepted.

Kathy Roberts, 321 Huron Avenue, stated that the composting bags are too expensive, and people are not inclined to purchase them. She suggested using participatory budget system for the purchase of these bags. She spoke about developing an educational program at the elementary level to encourage families to recycle.

Maddy Buck, Mothers Out Front, supported an educational campaign. She stated that paying for trash makes a difference. She stated that composting brings carbon back to the soil and it cuts greenhouse gas.

Adam Sanlauskas, stated that he operates City Compost, a residential service. Customers like having clean containers. What is gathered is focused on the soil. He spoke about the composting stream and people like that it goes to the soil. He spoke about vegetables that are grown with composting material. Organic material in the soil increases water retention in the soil.

Melissa Ludtke, 30 Buena Vista Park, spoke about the farm in Hamilton where the composting was done. An audit was requested by students to do an energy audit. This is where composting started. She remembers the soil held by the students which was rich in nutrients, but students would be disappointed. It is no longer enough to just reduce greenhouse gas and the carbon needs to be captured and let Mother Nature do what she was meant to do, and this can be done by building a strong composting program. Do not call it composting it is not composting.

Councillor Zondervan closed public comment at 3:04pm.

Councillor Zondervan asked if the food waste diversion contract is exclusive. Mr. O’Riordan stated that he does not think it is exclusive. Councillor Zondervan stated that there are many options, that the City selected the best available option at the time, but we need to explore and find the best options going forward.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if this hearing would be continued to process this information.

Councillor Zondervan commented that the hearing today was an overview of the ZWMP and there is more to discuss, and he will schedule a follow up hearing.

The following communication was received from Jane Carbone. Director of Development, Homeowners Rehab, Inc., in support of the food waste recycling and the work of the Public Works Department (ATTACHMENT I).

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

The hearing adjourned at 3:07pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Quinton Zondervan, Co-Chair

Committee Report #3
The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Sept 20, 2018 at 5:31 p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the various events being planned for Indigenous Peoples’ Day 2019 and ways to observe the holiday in a manner that promotes the culture, history, and diversity of indigenous peoples during future years.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Dennis Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Vice Mayor Devereux; Taha Jennings, Acting Budget Director; Jason Weeks, Executive Director, Cambridge Arts Council; Nancy Schlacter, Executive Director, Human Rights Commission; Brian Corr, Executive Director, Peace Commission; Muna Kangsen, Chair, City of Cambridge Employees Committee on Diversity; Dan Totten; Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Raquel Halsey, North American Indian Center of Boston (NAICOB); Shelly Lowe, Harvard University Native American Program (HUNAP); Danielle DeLuca, Cultural Survival; Avexnim Cojti; and Ukumbwa Sauti.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and read the Call of the Meeting. He read from prepared written open remarks (ATTACHMENT A) which included reading Policy Order #17 that was adopted by the City Council on June 6, 2016 (ATTACHMENT B).

Introductions were made and Councillor Zondervan introduced Raquel Halsey. Ms. Halsey thanked the committee for this hearing and noted that NAICOB has worked closely with the United American Indians of New England, Harvard University, and UMass Boston to create programming for this year which include a cultural performance, a series of screenings of the PBS series at various locations throughout Boston, and an upcoming walk by Harvard students from the Longwood Campus to the Harvard Yard. She noted that they are also trying to coordinate with school groups and community organizations who are interested in celebrating the day. She said that she would love any discussion on how to make this a permanent celebration within the City. She noted that she had worked with former City Councillor Nadeem Mazen with the hope that the City will have a foundation to work from. She said that it is important to open the conversation in the school system around indigenous people and who they are.

Avexnim Cojti stated that there are many South Americans that are in Cambridge. She recommended the consideration of populations who speak languages other than Spanish and she asked the City to put forward a history of how the territory was colonized. She said that it is important to have that memory to learn about what really happened and how the nation was built. She congratulated the efforts of the City of Cambridge because this is a historical compensation to the past. She said that most nations that are the winners in history write their own history and place their own monuments of people who have spearheaded efforts.

Muna Kangsen stated that as Chair of the City of Cambridge Employees Committee on Diversity, his mission is to put together events that acknowledge differences. He explained that for Indigenous Peoples’ Day, they are working with a Native American artist named Robert Peters for an event in July. He said that there will be a traditional dancer who is a healing dancer. He said that an October 1st event will host a soloist from Puerto Rico who is the son of a prominent family in Puerto Rico. He said that there will be a Latino Heritage event on October 10th with an art exhibition on display.

Ukumbwa Sauti stated that he has been educator for over 20 years on cultural literacy. He read a prepared written statement from Mahtowin Munro, United American Indians of New England  (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Zondervan asked the Committee members if they have any thoughts on potential programs for the future.

Councillor Carlone stated that the obvious that the City must have a stronger educational program in the elementary schools. He said that some of the more progressive elementary schools already do some of this work. He said that he is part Cherokee and at the age of 14 he was very excited about it. He said that his mother explained that when she grew up, she would not share that information with anyone. He said that the Native American history is amazing. He spoke about the upcoming PBS series that will be shown. He said that the book titled “The Mayflower” talks about the first 35 years when indigenous people and the colonialists did work together in a supportive way and it is a beautiful story. He said that unfortunately, the next generation changed that. He said that he is excited about the upcoming events.

Councillor Siddiqui said that her law school did not have a clinic where law students worked on legal issues with the Native American community. She said that a lunch or panel discussion to engage students would be beneficial. She noted that she is interested in the legal issues that the Native American community is facing.

Shelley Lowe questioned who from the City will put events together and what is the goal and purpose. She asked if it is just to celebrate indigenous cultures, is it to educate the residents, and who is the City trying to reach in these efforts. She asked how many people will know about or attend events in City Hall. She said that these things must be prioritized and then have events that will meet those goals.

Councillor Zondervan read the second paragraph of Policy Order #17 and stated that his understanding is that this as celebration and education about the cultures that make up indigenous people. In terms of reach, he said that he would like to reach as many people as possible. He noted that having events at City Hall may not accomplish that goal and he looks forward to hearing ideas to broaden the reach. He asked if there is need for financial assistance as it relates to celebrations. Ms. Halsey said that it is difficult to raise money in the non-profit industry, especially when she is looking for funders to fund events for Native American populations. She said any type of financial commitment from the City would be greatly appreciated. She noted that the Mayor’s Office is sponsoring a banner and it took almost two months of conversation to find funding. She said that when a city commits to changing the name of this holiday, it should be prepared for that public position. She said that she has been referred to private businesses and business associations over the course of the summer. She said that the goal of coming before the Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee is to find a pathway to make this a long-term celebration with the Mayor using his discretionary budget with the possibility of pulling money from other pots.

Jason Weeks said that the primary work of the Arts Council is to present work and to help fund ideas. He said that there is a grant that would shed light on particular people with opportunities to bring communities together to celebrate. He said that this grant is a combination of State and City of Cambridge money. He stated that the Arts Council is more of an idea factory to help people find traction with information about how to navigate City processes. He said that he sits on the Special Events Committee of the City of Cambridge which streamlines processes and provides a one-stop opportunity. He stated that another area where the Arts Council is involved is in presentation. He stated that they organize the River Festival and Summer in the City events and they give residents and neighborhoods the opportunity to see their work reflected in public spaces. He stated that they have presented through storytelling, film, and puppetry to connect that work to audiences more broadly. He said that he would like people to consider the Arts Council as a collaborator.

Councillor Zondervan noted that Climate Resiliency Week may be another opportunity to form a partnership around celebrating Indigenous Peoples’ Day by connecting climate and environmental concerns to indigenous peoples’ concerns and justice. He said that this is another potential avenue.

Ms. Schlacter said that Cambridge Public Library will link a program to reading materials on a specific topic. She suggested that the Cambridge Public Library could be appropriate partner with performance space as well.

Mr. Sauti reminded the committee that there are robust numbers of indigenous writers, scholars, creators, and producers that many times go unseen. He said that from working in higher education, the systems are just not set up to find the people we want to find. He said that we must give ourselves more time to expand the mindset and networks to include indigenous people and raise the importance of validating that work and presence. He said that brining about that validation to the work and connecting it to books would be beneficial. He said that we must find people that bring the heart and soul to books and other media resources.

Mr. Kangsen said that the Cambridge Public Library offers a great amount of resources. He said that they will offer a book display to support programming. He said that the library has a great movie database that has over 300 movies and all you need is library card to access these films. He said Central Square has exhibition space to showcase cultures. He said that it is good to partner with the library and City departments.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there is a clear sense of where this work will be housed. Ms. Lowe said that part of the reason for this meeting was to explore this work being housed within the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee.

Danielle DeLuca stated that in one of the conversations with the Mayor’s Office it was clear that the Mayor’s Office could not be used as the instrument to plan activities. She said that she was told that this work must be done through partnerships with community organizations. She said that this work should fall under some group in the city that will ensure continuity.

Vice Mayor Devereux said a committee of the City Council is not where this type of work is housed. She said that commissions that already exist are involved. She said that we are talking about coordinating city efforts. She said that the City council has not authority over the School Department or its curriculum.

Mr. Jennings said that it is great that some things are happening this October. He noted that one challenge is figuring out what the celebration is exactly. He said that in many ways, it could be successful if it grows organically and focuses on an activity with the city supporting it. He said that partners will help to expand. He said that if there are activities that a group wants to see take place, the City can help in various ways, but it is not the City’s role to say what should happen for Indigenous Peoples’ Day. He explained that if a group of community members want to have an event, place a sign, etc., it is at that point that the City can determine how to support the effort.

Ms. Lowe asked how the Martin Luther King Day of Service is organized. Vice Mayor Devereux said that with many partners, this event has become a huge event at City Hall, the Senior Center, and other areas around Central Square. Ms. Lowe said that there may be an opportunity to tie in a focal community event that is tied in with climate justice. She said that maybe there is an event that can grow organically in the same way. She said that there is not one focal event and maybe that is where to start. Vice Mayor Devereux said that the Martin Luther King Day of Service is done by volunteers in the community with partners in the Family Policy Council and the Mayor’s Office. Ms. Lowe asked about funding. Vice Mayor Devereux said that she does not believe there is a large amount of funding. Mr. Jennings explained that he is not aware of funding set aside specifically for the Martin Luther King Day of Service event.

Brian Corr added that the Peace Commission does an MLK commemoration. He said that 8 years ago, the group started the Day of Service. He said that there is not dedicated staffing or funding for the MLK Day of Service.

Councillor Carlone said that the City Council sets policy and they are advocates. He said that he is Co- Chair of this committee and the committee would certainly work and brainstorm. He said that he would like to see recognition for indigenous people. He noted the need for representation of the culture at events.

Jason Weeks said that another avenue for possible financial support and partnership is the Cambridge Nonprofit Network. He said that they are a partner with the Cambridge Community Foundation (CCF) and said that this may be an opportunity as well. He said that he would be happy to find more information in this regard.

Nancy Schlacter said that the Cambridge Community Foundation is a funder for projects that take place in Cambridge, but she is unsure of their criteria. She said that CCF has a broader community grants program because it is a well-funded local organization.

Councillor Zondervan stated that this committee should take on the task of trying to find an answer as to where this work can be housed for organizing this celebration on an ongoing basis that is not dependent on specific people. He said that an immediate step is to have a follow-up meeting to begin planning events for the 2019 celebration.

He suggested that there should be a committee motion to find a permanent home as well as holding one more hearing in the beginning of 2019 to plan for celebrations.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked how the Peace Commission began taking on a public celebration for MLK. She asked if the Peace Commission would work with Native American to develop a similar program.

Brian Corr stated that there were two separate things that led to the MLK Day celebration. He explained that under previous director, during the second Gulf War there was the idea to use MLK Day to oppose the war. He said that when he came into the role, it seemed that there was a way to take the event and make it broadly about Dr. King and his legacy and those things came together, and the event has evolved. He said that he is happy to work with colleagues in the City, but it would be difficult to organize another event. He noted the need for more bandwidth. He said that he would like to contribute to a broader effort. Vice Mayor Devereux said that it is a good template to consider if the objective is to have a City program that acknowledges issues.

Mr. Kangsen said that the Cambridge Public Library has had MLK event for three years in the Central Square Branch. He said that as it relates to funding, his experience is that the speakers have spoken for no fee. He said that perhaps it is easier for the Cambridge Public Library to get people to offer their services for no fee.

Ms. Halsey asked where this work could be housed. Councillor Carlone that he feels that this could fall under the Cambridge Public Library. He said that the grounds are beneficial and ideally it could grow to an all-day event.

Ms. Lowe said that Harvard’s pow wow is a lot of work and is an all-day event. She said that to try to ask students to come back to campus and get a pow wow done in a month is too much. She asked if there is a database of organizations that give in Cambridge. She asked if there are heritage sites in the city that are marked, and if not, would that be a possibility. She asked about the process for adding a name to a street or changing the name of a street or creating a square. She said that it is nice to have recognition on one day but more effective for something to last throughout the year. Councillor Zondervan said that he will give answers to these questions outside of the hearing.

Jason Weeks said that there is not one sole database for funding. He commented that he would be happy to help around the arts and creativity aspects.

Councillor Carlone said that as far as historical sites, the Cambridge Historical Commission is one of the best in the country and they would have information. He said that the Historical Commission is internationally known for being amazingly thorough.

Nancy Schlacter said that Harvard University has an archaeological dig on campus and they may have some interest in partnering to bring attention to that work. Shelly Lowe said that there is an exhibit based on the dig but added that The Peabody Museum will not give free admission on Indigenous Peoples’ Day. She said that they may be able to have special tours for City residents that attend that day. She said that the dig is every 2-3 years.

Councillor Zondervan made the following Motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council with a recommendation of potential City departments that could house the work for Indigenous Peoples’ Day; and be it further
ORDERED: That the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee schedule a hearing in the beginning of 2019 to begin planning events for Indigenous Peoples’ Day 2019.

The motion – Passed.

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

The hearing adjourned at 6:44pm.

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

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Oct 2, 2018 at 3:02pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a petition filed by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinances in Articles 2.000, 4.000, 6.000 and 11.000 and to establish provisions for Cannabis Uses (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Zondervan; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development (CDD); Khalil Mogassabi, Deputy Director, Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development (CDD); Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Paul Overgaag, 70 Eliot Street; Nathaniel Avila, 30 Victorian Street; Michael Latulippe, 190 Bridge Street, Salem; Ashlyn Plunket, 1 Woodview Way, Hopkinson; Michael Dundas; Camilo Basto, 307 Cambridge Street; Neil Rohr, 106 Berkshire Street; G.W. Hightower, 289 Columbia Street; and Ross Bradshaw, Worcester.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the meeting. He stated that Community Development would be doing a presentation.

Mr. Roberts gave a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that there has been a large number of City departments that have been collaborating on cannabis. He stated that this is a topic that touches on many issues, but this zoning discussion will focus on land use specifically for establishments selling cannabis and cannabis products. He stated that there are other issues outside of zoning. He gave a history of medical marijuana and non-medical marijuana. He stated that there are 38 RMDs approved statewide with 4 in Cambridge (3 complete and one in development). He highlighted the differences in medical and non-medical marijuana systems. The medical is non-taxable and non-medical or recreational will have a 17% state tax with an up to 3% local tax which municipalities may impose. He stated that there are specific limitations in the non-medical marijuana establishments and if a cap is established it cannot be less than 20% of packaged licensed liquor stores. There are 40 licensed liquor stores in Cambridge so there cannot be less than 8 cannabis retail stores in Cambridge.

The state requires that every municipality establish a host community agreement for any cannabis retailer or production establishment. Cambridge did not do host agreements with medical marijuana. There is a change in the buffer zones. The medical marijuana system has been overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and non-medical will be overseen by the Cannabis Commission. Medical marijuana establishments may sell non-medical at the same time.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health regulation of medical marijuana establishments will transition to be under the control of the Cannabis Commission. The state regulations for cannabis establishments creates some designations and programs. He stated that one is an Economic Empowerment designation. An applicant for a license that has experience in promoting economic empowerment and meets certain criteria based on residence, racial and ethnic background, and hiring practices will receive a designation as an Economic Empowerment applicant and will receive a priority in the state licensing process that may receive waivers for fees.

Mr. Roberts stated that separate from this is a Social Equity program, which is a programmatic effort on the part of the Cannabis Control Commission to provide assistance to applicants meeting certain eligibility standards and as part of this program licensees can be recognized for making either funding or in-kind contributions that support other eligible applicants in the industry. He stated that there was a provision in the law for social consumption establishments. These are places where people can purchase and consume cannabis products. He stated that the state regulations do not allow delivery services but could be allowed in the future. He stated that the City Council has had discussions after the state regulations were promulgated in March. He stated that although the City Council has a desire to not be overly restrictive in zoning, it should be mindful that this is an unforeseen industry and there may be issues that are not anticipated.

Mr. Roberts provided an overview of the zoning approach. He stated that the state regulation creates many types of uses and therefore zoning establishes two categories: cannabis retail stores and cannabis production facilities. He stated that in either case the zoning would allow both. He stated that there are provisions for research and testing laboratories but would not be part of the industry. He spoke about location base standards which are broken down to three sets of provisions: one being the zoning districts where cannabis would be allowed, the second being the separation between establishments and third the buffer zone. He stated that the initial draft petition allows locations in all base districts that allow retail use. He stated that this seemed to be the best approach, because it is always easier to remove districts.

Production is only allowed in Industry B-2 district. The Industry B-2 district is the only industrial district that has not transitioned to a mixed-use district. There was a map of the district. He stated that there are special and overlay districts where the use regulations refer to the initial district. He stated that the current zoning has a requirement for an 1800 square foot between RMD’s and the same standard is included in the zoning petition for any cannabis retail stores. The Planning Board felt that this is an appropriate distance to use with the intent to promote distribution throughout the City. He stated that in some districts, such as Central, Harvard, Kendall and Porter Squares and Alewife there could be a provision that two retailers could be allowed within 1800 square feet of each other. He stated that this opens more flexibility and opportunities in these areas. He stated that there is a provision that Economic Empowerment applicants could waive this requirement. If there is a limit on cannabis establishments, retailers this would likely not leave room for economic empowerment applicants and businesses to let them get a foothold in the market. The proposal is to give the Economic Empowerment applicants this flexibility so that they can get a foothold in the market. A map showed the 4 RMD’s locations showing a circle showing the 1800 feet around them.

He spoke about the state buffer requirement of 500 feet from K-12 schools, but local municipalities can amend this distance. The Planning Board could reduce buffer zones on a case-by-case basis. The Planning Board felt that 300 feet seemed like an appropriate distance. There have been questions how the buffer distance is measured. The 300 feet would be measured from edge of properties. What are the issues that need to be controlled with the buffer distance and what is the buffer supposed to achieve. He stated that once districts are established with 1800 square feet distance and the 500-buffer zone where could a cannabis retail establishment be located. There are about 25 locations on map. He stated that the 300 and 500-foot buffer does not change the locations too much.

Mr. Roberts highlighted concerns from the Public Health Department relating to packaging and odor. There is a state provision that stores receive and sell only prepackaged products. The zoning states that this could be allowed in a stand along building. This requires a Special Permit by the Planning Board and there are criteria in the Special Permit process and under certain conditions the Planning Board could deny the Special Permit if it is not in the public good. He spoke about the access and egress is safe and loading is properly managed. A logistic plan is required in zoning and will be reviewed by the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and will replace the transportation analysis required for RMD’s. The most relevant criteria are that the overall design is compatible with the surrounding area and mitigates the esthetic impact of security requirements. He stated that the Planning Board would want an update on the status of the host community agreement with the City. He spoke about the design considerations of the 4 current medical marijuana establishments. The establishments were located behind other active retail, or as on Massachusetts Avenue, it is located below grade.

Mr. Roberts spoke about the Planning Board recommendation favoring adoption with modifications (ATTACHMENT C). A revised petition will be drafted after feedback from the City Council. He spoke about ground floor transparency for cannabis establishments. He stated that the Planning Board had concerns how the medical cannabis would be impacted and wanted guidance from the City Council. He spoke about the future considerations such as deliveries. The Planning Board wanted to know if this could this be considered as of right retail standards and whether mobile facilities would be possible which are currently prohibited. There was a question about whether the parking proposed is adequate. This could be looked at more closely. He spoke about the non-zoning considerations: host community agreement process, public health and safety, local social equity programs and local tax and whether the local option would be exercised.

Councillor Carlone announced the Economic Development and University Relations Committee hearing on the Social Equity program will be held on Oct 3, 2018 at 4pm. He stated that the number of medical or non-medical facilities should be discussed and how Economic Empowerment is prioritized and whether it should be a percentage of facilities. He stated that medical marijuana is not allowed in BA-1 through BA-3 districts (the small retail areas), the difference in reducing the buffer zones from 500 to 300 and how to continue to emphasize medical marijuana and design intent.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that Cannabis Control Commission will be discussing cannabis retail deliveries this month. On page seventeen of the presentation and the zoning in section 11.803.lB - is there a reason for Social Equity not being included. Mr. Roberts stated that the state regulation on Economic Empowerment and Social Equity have two different meanings in the state regulations. Economic Empowerment deals with businesses that exhibit certain characteristics and provides entrance in the market and to have these businesses thrive. The Social Equity program is a program established by the Cannabis Control Commission to provide additional support to these businesses and can participate in the program by providing educational or funding to business and may receive a Social Equity designation. This designation does not give businesses priority in the process. The regulations are trying to encourage Economic Empowerment applicants. Councillor Siddiqui outlined the requirements and sees the value. She wanted this included in the zoning. She stated that she is struggling with the 300 and 500 buffer zones. This is the most important issue for the City Council to discuss.

Mayor McGovern stated that he is trying to understand the concern about 300 and 500 feet buffer. The signage, marketing and advertising is restricted by the Cannabis Control Commission. He stated that there is fear of this new industry. He asked if there is a buffer zone for liquor stores. Mr. Roberts responded not in zoning; this is regulated by the License Commission. Councillor Carlone stated that it used to be 300 feet from church or synagogue. Mayor McGovern received e-mail from a reporter explaining that Belmont is about to issue a license to an establishment on the Cambridge border and asked how this buffer zone would be treated. Mr. Roberts stated that land use zoning regulations are within separate districts. Cambridge zoning does not cross over to Belmont. He stated that if an establishment is in Belmont and it conforms with Belmont zoning rules Cambridge’s buffer would not apply. Mayor McGovern asked how much flexibility does incentivizing Economic Empowerment establishments do we have or do all have to be treated the same for permitting. Mr. Roberts stated that this would require discussion with the Law Department. The zoning allows administrative decision to be made about whether an establishment would have to adhere to separation requirement based on a designation made at the state level. This allows a determination to be made on a non-discretionary basis and if the City were to include this a more discretionary item it would have to be determined whether this remains in the purview of what can be regulated by zoning. He stated that zoning is to address specific land use issues. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that Belmont zoning was near Blanchard Road. It would not overlap.

Councillor Zondervan asked about production allowed in the Industry B-2 district up to 5,000 square feet per establishment. This seems to be too small to work. Mr. Roberts stated that this is based on discussion about promoting micro businesses and one criteria for establishing as a micro business is that it be up to 5,000 square feet and this standard was applied. This standard could be adjusted by the City Council. Councillor Zondervan stated that two retailers within 1800 feet within the core area what is the thinking behind this and how does this affect the Social Equity objective. Mr. Roberts stated that this could be modified by the City Council; these are presently established in Harvard and Central Squares and additional establishments could be supported in these areas where there is generally more retail use. The limitations should be based on area, limitation on the number of establishments and this is a way to create more flexibility for more establishments into the market. Councillor Zondervan stated that this should be uniform across the City; only more Economic Empowerment applicants would be allowed. He asked if existing medical establishments could have a separate recreational marijuana business or is the assumption that all medical establishments will become non-medical establishments. He had concerns with 300 and 500 buffers. He has issues with stand-alone buildings and how separation would be determined and the location. It should be uniform. There should be active retail use and should not be dead space facing the street.

Councillor Mallon spoke about 300 and 500 buffer zones. She would prefer a 500 feet buffer. She stated that Weed maps stated that one marijuana retailer per 7,500 residents is optimal which equals fourteen in our city. She stated that twenty-four establishments are higher than the optimal number suggested by Weed maps which is a National Organization. Ms. Farooq commented that Economic Empowerment can be in any of the circles on the map. Councillor Mallon asked whether Belmont’s license was for a medical or recreational establishment. How close are adjacent communities to adult use zoning regulations? Mr. Roberts stated that Boston has adopted zoning that requires a larger distance separation between establishments. Somerville is still working on regulations. He does not know about Arlington, Belmont or Watertown. Councillor Mallon said whatever influence the City can have in affecting retail space opaque or blacked out windows are not wanted.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the City thinks that stores that are selling adult use products will be able to pay higher rents than local neighborhood services. Allowing these stores in the B-1 zoning district, which are small commercial districts that are meant to have services that are walkable to the neighborhood and generally do not have high rents are we putting small service businesses at a rental disadvantage. This needs to be thoroughly considered. She noted that these small retail districts with lower rents may be a more feasible place for an economic empowerment applicant to locate. There could be special consideration for these applicants. She commented that many retail stores are not generating as much traffic as they used to be because of on-line sales. She asked if the differences in rents and transportation patterns are being considered.

Councillor Kelley praised Mr. Roberts’ presentation. Councillor Kelley asked how much zoning language concerns opaque windows and security. How much is it the thinking that marijuana sales will destroy the youth of a city. He asked what is required per state law. Mr. Roberts stated that the City is not proposing to impose any additional requirements on opaque windows and creating the lack of visibility; it is just the opposite. He stated that the Planning Board preferred transparency at the ground floor and where it cannot be achieved because of the state regulations then other mitigating measures would need to be applied. Councillor Kelley stated that opaque windows and security concerns is state imposed; Cambridge is proposing to be as lenient as possible.

Mayor McGovern asked if in smaller business district are liquor store allowed. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative in all retail districts.

Ms. Farooq spoke about what 300 and 500 feet buffer means. She stated that a typical City retail block is 200 feet wide. She stated that in East Cambridge 300 feet is about 1.5 blocks and 500 feet would be about 2-2.5 blocks. She spoke about looking at yielding more stores than the formula of one per 7,500. She stated that it is improbable that every location identified will be a cannabis store because there are many uncertainties in this market. She stated that not everyone is willing to lease to an operation that they feel is not federally legal. She stated that there is some value to being more permissive and not be held to the exact number that it is thought would be ideal. The City Council can think about this being modified over time. She spoke about discretionary and non-discretionary permitting process and the Planning Board felt starting with a non-discretionary permit would be easier and then apply a discretionary permit if this was not working out. She spoke about being more cautious at the start and having the permit be a discretionary one and that this can be rolled back. She stated that the City Council could choose either one.

Councillor Carlone asked if there is the potential for the city to receive feedback from each retail location. Will they be reviewed or relicensed over time. Mr. Roberts stated that RMD currently registered that want to seek a license to sell adult use cannabis products would have to go to the Cannabis Commission for a license and have to meet all the requirements including a host community executed agreement with the municipality and a zoning requirement they would require a new Special Permit from the Planning Board. He explained that Planning Board Special Permits are explicitly only for RMDs and not Medical Cannabis. He stated that once established and operating there is no requirement for a Special Permit but would need to go through the license renewal process with the state. If a cannabis retail store moved from one location to another it would require a new Special Permit and if one cannabis retail store closed and a new operator wanted to sell it would require a new Special Permit.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 4:26pm.

Paul Overgaag, 22 Milton Street, Somerville commented on the zoning proposal. He explained why the zoning should be as-of-right, because Special Permits could be appealed. He stated that his Medicinal Cannabis Special Permit is subject to a law suit which has cost his business $.5 million to defend. He stated that the current zoning distance between establishments of 1,800 square feet is strong and will allow many marijuana dispensaries to open but not a tremendous amount. The host community agreement is a strong piece and the City can establish regulations that could eliminate the special permit process, which is intimidating and expensive. The viability of medical marijuana establishments should be helped with adult use cannabis establishments. He stated that there should be placement restrictions for the economic empowerment applicants and should have the same distance between establishments. He spoke about how that should be measured. He stated that 300 feet buffer distance should be measured as pedestrians walk. He comments are attached (ATTACHMENT D).

Michael Latulippe, 190 Bridge Street, Salem stated that he is the registered patient advisor to the Cannabis Control Commission and a certified economic empowerment priority applicant. He spoke about the definition in the ordinance for a cannabis production facility. He intends to apply for a production facility in Cambridge but does not want to abide by micro-business regulations, which he feels is overly limited. The micro-business concept was designed by the commission to be like eggs that eventually hatch into larger businesses. He spoke about the micro-business restriction placed on economic empowerment applicants that affects hiring of employees. He wanted the zoning amended to remove the micro-business from the production facilities or allow economic empowerment applicants to waive the micro-business maximum size requirement.

He noted that investors find economic empowerment a challenge. He stated that the retail operations are harder to start logistically for economic empowerment applicants and equity applicants. He spoke about tax issues. He stated that the ordinance is focused on retail instead of providing other avenues for these applicants to create a cannabis business beyond retail. He stated that it will be more challenging for equity entrepreneurs and economic empowerment applicants to start a business in Cambridge. He spoke about protecting medical marijuana patient access and stated that because of the fluid nature of these businesses they are often bought and sold to third parties. He stated that if this ordinance truly sought to protect patient access it would mandate that all retailers in Cambridge provide access to registered patients through the Virtual Gateway System. Cambridge should protect the medical patient access by mandating that all cannabis retailers in Cambridge provide access to registered patients and participate in the medical program.

Camilo Obasto, EBG Realty, 307 Cambridge Street, commented on the 25-potential location in Cambridge; actual locations are different. He spoke about existing leases. Many locations including those owned by universities and those having loans would exclude cannabis establishments. He spoke about the landlords able and willing to lease to a cannabis establishment in Cambridge. Many are unwilling and do not want to do this for fear of ruining their good name. The buffer zone is helpful for other landlords to participate. He spoke about finding landlords who want to bring cannabis to Cambridge and that the City may want to look at 261 Cambridge and 201 Monsignor O’Brien who are trying to do a town hall meeting. He suggested reviewing whether there are loans or mortgages on these properties the bank will pull the note and the proposed dispensary will fall apart.

Neil Rohr, 106 Berkshire Street, spoke about frustration of how long this process has taken. He spoke about buffer zones and the number of establishments are two very different issues. What makes more sense is the distance from a school and asked will it matter if this is 300 or 500 feet. He stated that there is not much difference. He noted that the security requirements for retail establishments are very severe. This would make it difficult for those underage to get marijuana or to resell marijuana close to the premises because of the state requirement. He spoke about the number of establishments. He stated let the market determine the number, but he felt that there should be the same number of marijuana establishments as there are liquor stores. He stated that there is a state requirement for liquor establishments to be 500 feet buffer from schools or churches but can be an exception if it does not have a negative effect.

George Hightower, 289 Columbia Street, spoke about the process in Cambridge is well reasoned with critical review. Both economic empowerment and social equity need to be done to promote small businesses as much as possible. He stated that a way to empower small businesses would be to reserve some of the smaller neighborhood business groups or zoning at different intersections along Hampshire and Cambridge Streets for these smaller businesses. He cautioned quoting Weed maps as a national organization as it is a Yelp service and may have some data that suggests that a certain number of dispensaries fit in different parts of the country might not be applicable to Cambridge. He stated that having the same number of liquor and cannabis establishments would be fair.

Ross Bradshaw, Worcester, stated that he is an economic empowerment applicant and a CPA working in the cannabis industry. He stated that Worcester has fifteen applicants. He shared his experience as an economic empowerment applicant. He stated that 25 parcels were identified, but the numbers are actually smaller in reality. He noted that many landlords do not want to get involved in the cannabis industry. He stated that businesses under lease are eliminated and what is left are landlords that have the option of cannabis companies which start a bidding war. In these instances, economic empowerment applicants do not stand a chance against a large well-funded company that have resources to outbid smaller companies. He thought there should be zoning regulations that addresses economic empowerment applicants getting a foothold in the industry. He noted that in Somerville, the first six months of the licensing process is exclusive to residents and economic empowerment applicants.

Public comment closed at 4:45pm on a motion by Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Carlone stated that there are several issues that need to be discussed. He stated that the buffer distance of 300 or 500 feet has come up because if you cannot smoke on sidewalks or in your apartment, smoking is likely done in parks and on other public land at night. Another issue that concerned neighbors bring up is the trash accumulation in playgrounds. He stated that the host community agreement is critical, but presently unclear. He wanted to guarantee economic empowerment is successful and one method is to establish a firm participation percentage. He stated that medical marijuana, except for economic empowerment, should be favored and connected with adult use. There needs to be firm architectural and urban design guidelines. He noted that the 300 and 500 feet buffer alternatives hardly alter the number of allowable sites. He stated that the number of potential sites (27 or 28 locations) is inconsequential, but the distance from the facility to schools is key. He stated that there are a lot of issues that still need to be discussed.

Councillor Zondervan asked for clarification on the two-location proposal and whether all locations have additional potential for economic empowerment. The Planning Board can modify the 300-500 buffer zone, and this can change the potential number of establishments. He stated that 200 feet will not affect behavior. He stated that the 5,000 square foot limitation for production establishments is troublesome; the 5,000 square feet is too small. This could be changed to 20,000 square feet. He favored eliminating micro- businesses designation. The as-of-right discussion - the concern for a law suit - is a concern but he wanted to start out with a Special Permit process. He stated that it is the first time he heard about the Virtual Gateway System and it is a way for adult use establishments to protect access for medical patients. This is a good idea to require this. He did not want 2 establishments in certain areas, but wanted to have one establishment everywhere and only economic empowerment in addition and to make the definition as broad as possible and include social equity if possible.

Mayor McGovern wanted this to be more ready to go but agrees it is not ready today. There are several issues. He stated that buffer zone from schools and public youth facilities and people smoking in parks has nothing to do with where these establishments will be located. Police respond to smoking in parks. He wanted this the least restrictive as possible and there are requirements being placed on these facilities by the state that are not required of liquor stores. He stated that since BA-1, 2 and 3 zoning districts allow liquor stores then adult use establishments should also be allowed.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the 300-500 buffer is more psychological than practical. She stated that leaving at 500 feet keeps this consistent with existing medical marijuana buffer zone. Mr. Roberts stated that standards would be normalized for medical and non-medical. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that there are inconsistencies in the base zoning. She spoke about the location of BA-1 districts. She spoke about a package stores and the differences in the entities and the analogy is not totally founded. She agreed with reviewing the 5,000 square foot limitation for production facilities and it is too small and micro business has not room for growth. She stated that this is an untested market and prudence is good.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about the reality of economic empowerment on the ground. She wanted more conversation on this. She wanted to prioritize these applicants through zoning. She spoke about using zoning as a tool to prevent barriers. This needs more discussion.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is going slower and is being made more complicated than it needs to be. This is a business that can grow, and we are slowing the process down. He stated that he wanted to move this forward as quickly as possible.

Councillor Carlone said this must to be done correctly. This is very different than regular retail. Councillor Kelley stated that this is not different than regular retail; the use made be different. The sale is not different. It is the use of the product that may be challenging. Councillor Carlone stated that this is the most complex zoning related to a use and a state law. He added that this is not taking too long and in fact, this is the first ordinance meeting on the subject. In answer to a question by Councillor Kelley, City Clerk Lopez stated that the petition expires Dec 31, 2018.

Vice Mayor Devereux questioned the need for a second permit for the Harvard Square dispensary. Would it be possible to have a different approval process for an existing medical dispensary and the co-mingling of uses? She spoke about Somerville giving the existing RMD a head start and then the economic empowerment applicants. Mr. Roberts stated that this issue would have to be reviewed. He stated that under the current zoning the City has issued Special Permits for RMD and it could be complicated to write zoning that is retroactively grant approval for something that was not being granted at the time. The Special Permit states explicitly that the applicants have to come back to the Planning Board. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that there are 4 RMDs that have Special Permits and the number is small enough that it could be included in zoning. Ms. Farooq stated that the Law Department will need to be consulted on this question. She stated that it is hard to supersede conditions in a Special Permit granted.

Councillor Mallon pushed back on going too slow on this. The most important part of this is the economic empowerment which is being heard tomorrow. It is wise to be prudent on this and go back to revisit once the impacts are known. This is a new industry.

Mayor McGovern asked how much of economic empowerment is related to zoning. Mr. Roberts stated that this would be separate from zoning. He stated that other communities handle this through other licensing or regulation processes other than zoning. He stated that it is important to consider if there are measures that the City wanted to take and may require an additional step in the licensing or permitting process - what are the tradeoffs, the benefits and the burden to applicant.

Mayor McGovern agreed people voted for this and want RMDs in their community.

Councillor Carlone stated that zoning enters this and has restrictions and limitations. Now the implementation phase gets into more detail.

Mayor McGovern moved the following amendment:
ORDERED: That the 500-foot buffer in the Cannabis proposed zoning amendment be reduced to 300 feet in relation to K-12 schools and public youth facilities.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about the economic opportunity discussion. He stated that it is his understanding requiring clarification, that what is being considered is relaxing the restriction of the 1,800 feet buffer as the only economic empowerment aspect to this zoning proposal. This is the only issue that can be resolved tonight.

The committee proceeded to vote on the motion made by Mayor McGovern. The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Mayor McGovern moved the following amendment:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct City staff to provide zoning language for the Cannabis proposed zoning amendment to allow adult use cannabis establishments in BA-1, BA-2 and BA-3 districts.

The motion carried on a voice vote of 6 members.

Councillor Zondervan moved to reconsider the 5,000 square feet limitation. He stated that he hoped that the staff could come back with a different proposal that increases this amount. He asked about the Virtual Gateway requirement - would this be included in the zoning or is it outside of zoning. Mr. Roberts responded that he would have to research this more thoroughly. Councillor Zondervan moved that the City staff investigate the Virtual Gateway System as a potential requirement.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that there is a question about the social equity aspect. Councillor Zondervan commented that Mayor McGovern asked about the economic empowerment, which is already in the zoning. He stated that in the zoning an establishment that qualifies as an economic empowerment establishment could open within the 1,800 square feet distance. If this is already in the zoning no motion is necessary. Councillor Zondervan stated that his understanding of the zoning language before the committee is that it would allow additional establishments if they meet the economic empowerment requirements.

He stated that what Councillor Siddiqui is suggesting is that there are additional requirements for social equity and that this can also be considered as qualifications for allowing a second establishment. Councillor Zondervan moved that the staff investigate this possibility and also what is proposed allows for two regular establishments in five specific areas and he is moving that this be removed so that it only allow one regular establishment in any 1,800-foot buffer with this relaxation for economic empowerment and potentially social equity.

Councillor Zondervan moved the following amendment:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct City staff to consider increasing the 5,000 square feet limitation for production facilities in the Cannabis proposed zoning amendment.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is not a good idea for a variety of reasons. He stated that marijuana cultivation is a massive energy hog and should tread careful about this intensive use. Councillor Zondervan explained that production facilities have been classified as a micro business which is imposing this limitation and need to address, specifically, the energy requirement.

Councillor Zondervan’s motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Zondervan made the following amendment:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct City staff to explore the possibility in the proposed Cannabis zoning amendment that adult use establishment explore the possibility of integrating medical use establishment patients and further that the staff review the possibility of including the Virtual Gateway System through zoning or other regulation.

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Zondervan moved the following amendment:
ORDERED: That 11.803.1(b) (i) provision of the Cannabis zoning proposed amendment be stricken; said amendment reads that a retail cannabis store shall not be permitted within 1,800 feet of another cannabis retail store, except under the provisions outlined in (i).

Vice Mayor Devereux suggested that this is to eliminate the 2 establishments in the five locations.

The amendment carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Zondervan moved to amend 11.803.l (b) (ii) as follows:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is directed to instruct City staff to review the possibility to include in section 11.803.1  (b) (ii) “social equity” to the Cannabis proposed zoning amendment.

The amendment carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Mr. Roberts stated that he would review this but stated that he was unsure if social equity works the same way as economic empowerment. He stated that this is not a designation for specific applicants; it is a larger program of activities that is overseen by the Cannabis Control Commission. He stated that he has to figure if there is a classification that can be applied to the types of businesses being contemplated.

Councillor Carlone asked Ms. Farooq if the Planning Board would discuss the comments made by the Ordinance Committee. Mr. Roberts stated that it is not the expectations that the Planning Board will review this.

The following communication was received from Mary-Ann Donofrio, 120 Gore Street, urged enforcement of the rules on this matter (ATTACHMENT E).

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

The hearing adjourned at 5:33pm.

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