3. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $120,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Executive Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account to support the cable television license renewal process.
Order Adopted 7-0-2 [Simmons, Toomey - ABSENT]

Dec 3, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $120,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Executive Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account to support the cable television license renewal process.

The City has a cable television license agreement with Comcast that commenced on July 1, 2011 and which will expire on June 30, 2021. Since Massachusetts law limits the term of a license, the City must periodically review and renew its license or licenses. The licensing renewal process has been established under federal law, and is supplemented by Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable regulations.

The City will be seeking a consultant to provide a range of specialized services to support this process. These services shall include: develop a plan for license renewal and strategies to implement the plan; conduct a technical evaluation of the cable system in the City; evaluate the past performance of Comcast, to include a review of its license fee payments; conduct Ascertainment of community cable-related needs and interests; assist in drafting a renewal license agreement; and, participate in preparation for informal or formal license renewal process.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

4. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) Clean Energy Resiliency Initiative grant in the amount of $78,300 to the Public Investment Fund Water Extraordinary Expenditures account which will support Phase I of the Cambridge Water Supply Resilience project.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 [Simmons - ABSENT]

Dec 3, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) Clean Energy Resiliency Initiative grant in the amount of $78,300 to the Public Investment Fund Water Extraordinary Expenditures account.

The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources has awarded these funds to the Water Department for Phase I of the Cambridge Water Supply Resilience project. During Phase I, the Water Department will conduct a feasibility study for the construction and maintenance of solar battery storage at the Sullivan Water Treatment plant. This storage will enhance the resiliency of the public water system and the City's emergency capacity by enabling the treatment plant to operate independently of the regional electric grid in an outage event. DOER has made up to $773,568.00 available for Phase II construction and installation.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

18. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an agreement with the Cambridge Housing Authority to take an easement and accepting the conveyance of a 2nd easement for the purpose of constructing a multi-use path along the Grand Junction Railway and to provide grant funding to assist in closing the funding gap for the Millers River Redevelopment Project by paying for part of the demolition of the community center building, reconstruction of a new community building, renovation of 15 housing units and the creation of permanent affordability restrictions for these units.
Order Adopted 9-0

Dec 3, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Development and preservation of affordable housing for a wide spectrum of the population is a top priority of the City Council. So is making it easy for people to move safely through the City, especially by sustainable modes of transportation. Over the past six months, the City and the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) have been working collaboratively to develop a plan at the Miller’s River Apartments site that would allow us to achieve both of these important community goals.

I am pleased to report that we have agreed upon a plan that would allow the CHA’s redevelopment and modernization of 300 units of housing for elderly and disabled residents at Miller’s River Apartments to include the creation of a brand new building that will house a community room (the Project), while allowing the City to acquire and maintain a 10-foot wide easement of 4,820 square feet to accommodate a public multi-use path for the Grand Junction Greenway.

• CHA will provide the City with 10-foot wide easement areas totaling 4,820 square feet adjacent to the Grand Junction Railway Line in order to construct and maintain a public multi-use path for the Grand Junction Greenway. The 10-foot wide easement areas will provide the minimum width required for a public multi-use path. These easement areas will consist of an easement of 4,600 square feet that will be taken from the CHA in an eminent domain proceeding by the City as a “friendly” taking for which the CHA has agreed that the City will pay only the statutory pro tanto amount of damages (“Easement A”), and an easement of 220 square feet that will be conveyed by the CHA to the City for no compensation (“Easement B”) (collectively the “Easements”). While the easement width of 10-foot is less than initially requested, it reduces the impact to current plans and future development potential on the Millers River site. The City will continue to work with MassDOT and attempt to acquire additional easements in the right-of-way on state property to create a more generous pathway cross-section and buffers.

• The City will provide a total of $5,000,000 to CHA which will 1) provide grant funds in order to demolish the existing community building and assist in funding renovations on 15 affordable housing units and allow CHA to close the funding gap that currently would prevent the CHA from completing the Project as planned, and 2) to allow the City to acquire the Easement at the Millers River parcel for future construction and maintenance of a public multi-use path.

• The existing Miller’s River community building, which blocks the Greenway, will be demolished and a new building housing the community room will be created. The new building housing the community room would be closer to the residential building, and more convenient for residents. Receipt of City funding for demolition is critical for this element of the plan to proceed. In addition, the provision of these grant funds will allow the CHA to fully fund planned renovations and will be used to ensure permanent affordability for 15 housing units.

• CHA can immediately proceed with its highest priority at the site -- the renovations of Millers River Apartments, allowing it to close with funders on schedule keeping in place the project’s tax credit and Section 8 funding commitments.

The CHA has committed to accepting the pro tanto damage award in the amount of One Million Four Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Dollars and Seventy Cents ($1,424,350.70) (the Damage Award”) from the City of Cambridge (the “City”) for the taking by eminent domain of Easement A. In connection with the taking of Easement A, the CHA (including its affiliated entities) has signed a release indicating that it will not seek additional monetary damages related to the taking of Easement A and has also confirmed in writing that the CHA will waive the statutory requirement that the City obtain and file an appraisal for the value of Easement A prior to the taking of Easement A. The CHA has also committed to granting Easement B to the City for no compensation whatsoever.

In addition to agreeing to the City’s payment of the pro tanto damage award to the CHA for the acquisition of Easement A and agreeing not to seek any additional damages for that taking and to granting Easement B for no compensation, the CHA has confirmed that the grant funds provided by the City shall be used exclusively for the purpose of facilitating the development and rehabilitation of the affordable housing units at Millers River, specifically, for the demolition of the building that currently houses the community room and the renovations of fifteen units at Millers River that will be permanently maintained as affordable housing units.

I have attached a letter from the CHA confirming the above commitments in support of this project.

I therefore recommend that the City Council take Easement A pursuant to its eminent domain powers and accept the conveyance of Easement B for the purpose of creating a public multi-use path.

Accordingly, I attach for the City Council’s consideration and request that the City Council take the following actions on the below items:

1. An Order of Taking to acquire Easement A by eminent domain;

2. An appropriation of $1,424,350.70 from Free Cash to the General Fund Law Department Travel & Training (Judgment & Damages) Account in order to fund the acquisition of Easement A by eminent domain;

3. An appropriation of $3,575,649.30 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures Account to provide Grant Funds to be used pursuant to a Grant agreement to be executed between the City and the CHA to support the CHA’s demolition of the building that currently houses the Millers River community room and rehabilitation of and commitment to the permanent affordability of fifteen housing units within the Miller’s River Apartments; and

4. Vote by simple majority to accept the granting of Easement B by the CHA to the City for no compensation.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have about this matter.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

O-5     Dec 3, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: The City of Somerville released a public review draft of the Davis Square Neighborhood Plan this year; and
WHEREAS: The plan includes squaring off the six-way intersection to establish a four-way intersection with two-way traffic in each direction, closing down the first block of Dover Street (a one-way that leads from Davis Square to Mass Ave in Cambridge), and tripling public space in the process; and
WHEREAS: The plan looks like a great improvement to neighborhood use and safety, but roadway changes may considerably alter traffic flow into and out of Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge would benefit from participating in the redevelopment planning process or from taking proactive measures to mitigate any negative impacts on City streets that may result from this plan; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with relevant City staff and report back to the City Council on any review process and level of City staff have had with the City of Somerville on the Davis Square Neighborhood Plan and on any City plans to mitigate potential negative traffic impacts in Cambridge.

O-6     Dec 3, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Recreational adult-use cannabis is legal in Massachusetts, but under State law, consumption in any form (smoking, vaping, edibles, oils, etc.) is prohibited in all public places and where tobacco is also prohibited, including parks, sidewalks, streets, workplaces, restaurants, bars, state and federal land, etc.; and
WHEREAS: Cannabis consumption is only allowed on private property so property owners have a broad ability to consume cannabis products, but residents who do not own private property, which is the vast majority of residents in Cambridge, are at the discretion of their landlords, building management, or housing authorities (including HUD, which follows Federal policy and will not recognize Massachusetts’ statutes); and
WHEREAS: Marijuana arrests have always disproportionately and negatively affected minority and low-income communities (black and white Americans have traditionally used and sold marijuana at similar rates, but blacks have been more than three and a half times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites); and
WHEREAS: This law inherently perpetuates such discrimination as minority and low-income communities are less likely to be homeowners than their counterparts, and therefore are much more likely to be prohibited from ever consuming marijuana in their homes while also being unable to consume it in public; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Public Safety Committee be and hereby is requested to hold appropriate public hearings to discuss the attached possible Home Rule petition that would, if eventually passed by the State Legislature, allow Cambridge to allow public consumption of cannabis, subject to state smoking laws, on City-owned property at the City’s discretion; and be it further
ORDERED: That the Public Safety Committee report back to the City Council with its opinion about whether such a Home Rule petition, as submitted here or as modified, should be submitted to the Ordinance Committee for further review of the Council’s and City’s desire to allow the City this option.

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW PUBLIC CONSUMPTION UNDER MGL 94G, SECTION 13 (C) ON CITY PROPERTY FOR BOTH COMBUSTIONABLE AND NON-COMBUSTIONABLE MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS

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 July, 2019, notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the City of Cambridge will have the authority to allow public consumption of marijuana and marijuana-related places on City Property subject to existing laws on smoking tobacco.

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

---

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW PUBLIC CONSUMPTION UNDER MGL 94G, SECTION 13 (C) ON CITY PROPERTY FOR BOTH COMBUSTIONABLE AND NON-COMBUSTIONABLE MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS

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 July, 2019, notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the City of Cambridge will have the authority to allow public consumption of marijuana and marijuana-related places on City Property subject to existing laws on smoking tobacco.

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

O-7     Dec 3, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: Flat roofs and associated central drains on residential three-story homes can lead to more storm water entering Cambridge’s sanitary sewer; and
WHEREAS: These flat roofs may be on homes that have been insulated or otherwise improved for energy efficiency with the result that snow and/or ice during the winter may build up amounts unanticipated by the original building designers; and
WHEREAS: Climate change appears to be bringing more episodes of heavy snow and rainfall during winter months, as experienced during the winter of 2014-2015 and again in 2017-2018, and with clogged drains this results in more buildup of snow, ice, and water on flat roofs than may be safe, especially with an energy-efficient building which helps keep rooftop ice and snow from melting away; and
WHEREAS: Retrofitting flat roofs to allow angled drainage to the side of residential three-story houses would alleviate snow, ice, and water buildup safety concerns and would decrease the amount of storm water going into Cambridge’s sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS: The expensive alteration of putting a pitched roof on a flat roof could be offset by the added value of increasing interior space in the existing home and possible improving other options for room use; and
WHEREAS: The extra height and living space created as a result of installing a pitched roof may negatively impact neighbors; and
WHEREAS: The Special Permit process used for other challenging zoning situations may be appropriate in this case; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council refer to the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board, for hearing and report, the proposed amendments to Article 5.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance:

Proposal for converting flat concave roofs to a kind of greenhouse/glass porch

Z.O. 5.55

In an effort to enhance the City’s commitment to mitigating environmental impacts of certain older types of residential buildings, namely so-called “triple-deckers”, while improving the City’s storm-water management, modifications to the applicable dimensional requirements of this Article 5.000, in particular regarding FAR and height limitations, may be authorized under the following circumstances:

Residential buildings with a flat (concave) roof which may have poor upper-level thermal insulation and/or contribute to important heat island effects, or may suffer from the secondary effects of over- insulation, and on which a drain pipe collects water from the roof and combines it with household waste-water, discharging into a single outflow pipe to the municipal sewer line

Provided that the resulting construction will:

significantly increase the thermal efficiency of the building

entirely eliminate rain water entry from the concerned roof into the sewer system, and that

said rain water is harvested on the property at the rate of 1/8 gallon per square foot of roof area, with the remainder dispersed at the ground to follow its natural path without direct encumbrance onto abutting properties,

the construction of a partial structure relieved from the applicable FAR and height limit may be permitted within the following limits:

Additional height not to exceed 10 ft. above the existing roof line of the building

Footprint to be no closer than 3 feet from either long edge or rear side of the building, no less than 6 feet from front/street-side of building, and

Additional FAR not to exceed 20% of the existing FAR of the building.

Furthermore, in enhancing alternative energy sources (Article 22), additional positive consideration will be given to projects that improve the:

installation of solar panels (impractical on residential flat roofs)

use of passive solar heating, convective cooling, seasonal shading with natural plants,

using rainwater at the roof level or floors below,

planting flowering bushes and vegetation attractive to pollinating insects at the roof level, and

harmonization of the new roof profile with the neighborhood architecture.

O-8     Dec 3, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: Recognizing the need to maximize opportunities for increasing residential units in Cambridge, the Cambridge City Council recently changed its zoning to allow easier creation of accessory dwelling units; and
WHEREAS: The creation of these new units is still not completely allowed in many cases per the City’s existing zoning laws and may still require zoning relief to allow construction; now be it therefore
ORDERED: That the amendment to the zoning ordinance in section 4.22 be forwarded to the Planning Board and the Ordinance Committee for a hearing and report; said amendment to be viewed as a zoning solution to the challenges posed by current zoning constraints regarding accessory dwelling units; which reads as follows:

4.22.1 In all districts, the Board of Zoning Appeal may grant a Special Permit for alteration of a single family, two-family or accessory structure in existence as of 1 January, 2019 to provide one accessory apartment if the following conditions are met:

1. Only one accessory dwelling unit is allowed on any lot.

2. The dwelling has not been substantially enlarged since built. The addition in the aggregate of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or more of gross floor area or six (6) inches of height shall be considered a substantial enlargement.

3. Prior to alteration, the principal dwelling contains at least one thousand eight hundred (1800) square feet of gross floor area.

4. Such accessory apartment shall not occupy more than nine hundred (900) square feet or thirty- five (35) percent of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less.

5. The owner(s) of the residence in conjunction with which the accessory dwelling unit is created must continue to occupy at least one of the dwelling units as their primary residence. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner(s) must submit a notarized letter stating that the owner will occupy one of the dwelling units on the premises as the owner’s primary residence. Subsequent changes in ownership does not remove the requirement for the owner(s) of the accessory dwelling unit to live in one of the dwelling units as their primary unit.

6. Any existing two-family home may be converted to a single-family home with an accessory unit by right, without need for a Special Permit.

7. Parking requirements are not applicable to accessory dwelling units.

8. The accessory apartment does not count towards determination of lot area per dwelling unit.

9. The Board will consider flooding concerns when reviewing basement accessory units.

In granting a Special Permit, the Board may impose such conditions, including limitations on other accessory uses of the premises, as it may deem appropriate to avoid detriment to the neighborhood or to nearby persons or property. The Board of Zoning Appeal shall evaluate each Special Permit application which involves exterior changes with consideration of the appearance and character of the neighborhood and may require that there be no change or minimal change to any face of a building oriented toward a public way or visible from a public way.

4.22.12 Accessory Structure Apartment. An accessory apartment in an accessory structure on the same lot may be allowed by Special Permit if the following criteria are met:

1. The gross floor area of the apartment does not exceed one thousand (1000) square feet.

2. The Special Permit Granting Authority determines that the exterior appearance of the accessory structure is compatible with the principal dwelling on the same lot and with dwellings and accessory structures on adjoining lots

Article 2.000 Definitions

Accessory Apartment. An accessory use with one or more rooms with separate kitchen and bathroom facilities, constituting a dwelling unit, located with and under the same ownership as the primary dwelling per Section 4.22.1 and designated for the occupancy of a single family.

O-11     Dec 3, 2018
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR MALLON
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that making an account on the City’s Open Meeting Portal requires choosing a gendered salutation, either “Mr.”, “Mrs.”, or “Ms.”; and
WHEREAS: Most registration forms on the City website are designed to be accommodating and welcoming to all users, including those who are non-binary or who are not comfortable assigning themselves gendered salutations or pronouns, and the issue seems to be limited specifically to the Open Meeting Portal or any other page powered by Granicus; and
WHEREAS: Making an account within the Granicus system is required to access important city services including email notifications of additions to the Open Meeting Portal and announcements of public hearings; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge reaffirmed its deep commitment to being an inclusive and welcoming city for all in November 2018 when 90% of residents voted yes on Ballot Question 3, among the highest percentage of any municipality in the Commonwealth; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the IT Department and Granicus to create a more inclusive city website, including an Open Meeting Portal registration form that does not require the use of gendered pronouns, salutations or titles; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter by the end of 2018.

O-12     Dec 3, 2018
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The City Council of Portland, Oregon recently passed a groundbreaking ordinance designed to protect tenants from sudden evictions or burdensome rent increases; and
WHEREAS: The ordinance mandates that within city limits, a landlord must provide “renter relocation assistance” to any tenant facing a no-fault eviction or a rent increase of 10% or more within a 12-month period; and
WHEREAS: The amount of assistance provided varies based on unit size, ranging anywhere from $2,900 for a studio to $4,500 for a three-bedroom unit; and
WHEREAS: The ordinance allows several notable exemptions, including owner-occupied units, accessory dwelling units, instances in which the landlord is terminating the lease in order to rent to an immediate family member, or instances where the unit is rendered uninhabitable not due to the action or inaction of either landlord or tenant, among other exemptions; and
WHEREAS: The ordinance also mandates tenants are to be given written notice at least 90 days in advance of the effective date of the no-fault eviction or significant rent increase; and
WHEREAS: While the particulars of the ordinance may need to be customized to work for Cambridge, including by specifying the assistance amounts in terms of monthly rent being paid as opposed to fixed amounts based on unit type, or adjusting the definition of a burdensome rent increase, this pioneering approach could serve as a blueprint for communities struggling with displacement crises throughout the country, including Cambridge; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to determine if a home rule petition would be required in order to enact such an ordinance; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to determine which aspects of such an ordinance specifically would trigger a home rule requirement; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to provide the City Council with a formal legal opinion on this matter as soon as possible.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Oct 24, 2018 at 1:01pm in the Ackermann Room.

The purpose of the hearing was to conduct a follow up to the June 19, 2018 hearing on licensing and permitting to review the progress since the last hearing and a walk through of the Viewpoint Cloud Platform, the program being implemented across departments to process licenses and permits.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Deputy City Manager Lisa Peterson; Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs David Kale; Mary Hart, IT CEO; Paul Creedon, Project Manager, IT; License Commissioner Nicole Murati Ferrer; Melissa Young, Business Analyst, License Commission; Executive Director Arts Council Jason Weeks; Commissioner Inspectional Services Ranjit Singanayagam; Sisia Daglian, Deputy Commissioner, Inspectional Services; Anthony Tuccinardi, Operations Manager, Inspectional Services; David Byrne, Senior Building Inspector, Inspectional Services; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Denise Jillson, Harvard Square Business Association; Adrian Musgrave, Cambridge Local First; John Hawkinson; Jiacheng Lin; Jingyi Lin; I-jung Shen; Siaqi, Zhang; Yidan Wang; Lening Wang; and Dongliag Feng.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being privately audio recorded. He requested a brief outline of Viewpoint.

Mr. Kale stated that today there are examples and a presentation on Viewpoint. He stated that Inspectional Services Department and the License Commission are mostly done except for some public facing permits. It is a user-friendly system; it is intuitive. He stated that there are examples of the workflow such as for building permits. This eliminates confusion. Filing out the permits is logical. He noted that as the system has been implemented the client base has provided input. He stated that a survey will be given to customers to receive feedback to improve the system concerning conditional logic, training and so forth to help people navigate the system. They have videos and will decide on future training City-wide. This will be a seamless transition to the Viewpoint. He stated that the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and the Public Works Department are the next departments to go to Viewpoint. Traffic, Parking and Transportation should be using Viewpoint in the winter and the Department of Public Works in the spring and Open Data review by the end of the year.

Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that in November the alcohol was implemented with licenses and permits. She stated that there were 37 types of licenses and permits issued by the License Commission. They have issued 1500 of them since 2017. There are a few licenses that will be added at the end of the year such as Hackney and Tour Guide. This was rolled out during the renewal period. She noted that the system works well. She stated that the fact that there is an interdepartmental review has made the process quicker, especially during things like One Day permits.

Commissioner Singanayagam explained that the Inspectional Services Department started on Viewpoint in March. The permit can be printed out by the applicant. He stated that there are 13 permits in the Viewpoint system, plus curb cuts. There has been good review from the public about the system. Status can be viewed on-line and it is easier to see which Department holds the permit authority.

Mr. Creedon gave a presentation on the Viewpoint system (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that you go to the department to select the required permit. The search feature has a drop down that lists all the permits. There is a description of the permit. You click apply online. Mr. Kale stated that there are 60 Massachusetts users of Viewpoint and the process is the same for all users and relevant information is updated automatically across all applications. It is like TurboTax in that question prompts get answers that move the process along. The address pulls from the GIS data base, is linked to assessment and property databases. Attachments can be added to Viewpoint either as options or as a requirement. The last step is to review the submission. Then the applicant confirms and submits. The applicant is taken through the workflow which does not reflect unneeded signoffs. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that for one-day alcohol permits there needs to be a police officer sign off and can be done when applying. Payment can be made online with a credit card or e-check. There are fewer foot trips to City offices now. Mr. Creedon explained the conditional logic of Viewpoint. This process asks questions of the applicant that must be filled out before continuing so that the application is as complete as possible but without having applicant fill out irrelevant fields. There are have been 108 applications for both building permits and dumpster permits. Two permits can be applied for under one application. He spoke about useful information aspect that is available on the Viewpoint and how inspectors can use it to see what is required. He stated that when the Traffic, Parking and Transportation and the Public Works Departments go live the hope is that one application will be required. Community Development Department permit is already switched in. There is a comment section which can be utilized by the applicant or the City departments so that there can be a back-and-forth about an application. Appropriate contact information is available on each workflow step. He spoke about the transparency for the public and City departments in Viewpoint and how multiple issues can be live and tweaked simultaneously. He stated that the survey has been completed and will be sent while an applicant is applying for a license or permit. He stated that data sets will be added to the Open Data Portal as each data set is approved as part of the City’s Open Data Review Process. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that feedback has been received from users and IT has made improvements necessary or questions have been redrafted. Mr. Creedon stated that all implementation for Viewpoint is done in-house so making changes and testing is easy. He noted that there are many terminals available at 831 Massachusetts Avenue for customer use but as a browser-based system it is available from anywhere. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that staff assists the public filling out the application. Mr. Kale spoke about information available for the users to find out at what stage their permit is at.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the Open Data Portal having relevant data. Mr. Creedon stated that would be the case, but data must be reviewed first and maybe redacted Not all data sets are available on the Open Data Portal and additional data sets made be added weekly. He stated that the data sets are spread sheets that list the information. This allows looking at one permit. Attachments will not be on the Open Data Portal. The building plans have sensitive data and need to be reviewed to ensure that there is no public safety concern and are not on the data sets. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that inspectors use I Pads and all the information is loaded into the system and that the Homeland Security Act limits what is online.

Councillor Kelley asked if a neighbor wanted to do a project he will be able to see the building permit application and as approved it will be on the Open Data Portal and not available until approved. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that the public can see that a building permit has been pulled. The next piece of public information would be the Occupancy Permit.

Mr. Creedon displayed asbestos data sets on the Open Data Portal. This information can be downloaded to excel.

Councillor Kelley asked can the public review the plans at Inspectional Services Department. Commissioner Singanayagam responded that plans can be seen if they are public plans but will not necessary be on the Portal. Mr. Creedon explained that a public records request could be submitted. No sensitive data is sent to the Open Data Portal.

Councillor Siddiqui wanted City departmental web sites updated with better links to relevant information and forms. Mr. Creedon stated that they are reviewing this issue and that the web team has pulled information from Energov. He stated that Energov is still being used by various City departments such as the Fire Department, but the general shift is away from the City-owned Energov and Citizen Access Point (CAP). Eventually that program will be disabled though the old data will still be available and searchable.

Councillor Kelley asked where the permitting authority comes from the City or state statues. Ms. Murati Ferrer responded from the state and the Municipal Code. Commissioner Singanayagam stated Inspectional Services permitting authority comes from state statute. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that Pole and Conduit Commission went live recently. The application was put on Viewpoint and it is available on I Pads and Surface computers which makes field work easier. Next month the applications will be online.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked where the locations are for small cell; is there a data sets for this? Ms. Young stated that the old data has not been added to Viewpoint. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that her understanding is that the companies are intending to make the installations larger. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that she has asked for maps for all small cell applications. Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that a better time to ask about small cell is at the Transportation and Public Utilities hearing scheduled to discuss this topic.

Councillor Kelley stated that inspectors use Ipads and have plans that will not be on the Open Data Portal. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that records can be researched by location or permit number and can see all the data available on the site. Councillor Kelley noted that non-privileged information can only be viewed by going to the department for the information.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 1:50pm.

John Hawkinson expressed concern about what the public can see. He is interested in building permits and the fact that they are not on the Open Data Portal is a concern. This should have been available on day one when the system went live. A report cannot be run on Viewpoint. There are still permits being issued in Energov. He had concerns about pending permits. He noted that the back and forth is part of the permit. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the fact that it has been applied for is important. He stated the historic permits are in Energov and that public access to the old permits should not be turned off. He is disappointed in staff. This is about Inspectional Service permits on the screen display and how it is different from the viewer system being built. He wanted it BETA.

Adrian Musgrave, Cambridge Local First, stated that it is a great system and she is excited to have all departments on it. She spoke about local business owners having the information for things such as “If I wanted to open a business, what is needed what are the fees?” in a PDF. It is hard to plan an official onsite inspector without having easy communications about the inspector being on their way and the result can be expensive contractors waiting unnecessarily long times for City inspectors to show up. Having a local business liaison for this process would be good. This is a great process standpoint and make sure comments are taken into consideration.

Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street, just be ready for everything. Is there an office someone can go to speak to a person to get information about a licensing permit? He wanted the address and the telephone number publicly available.

Public comment closed at 1:58pm.

Councillor Kelley stated that he was excited about this and acknowledged that it is not perfect and how comments are included to make this better. He asked about reports run by staff at Inspectional Services Department. Mr. Creedon stated that reports in Viewpoint are extensive, if it is needed a training it can be done. The perimeters of the report need to be known. The building permits are not on the Open Data Portal because they need scrutiny by City Departments before entering. Public Safety, for example, may not want everything online. There is a programing aspect to convert data into Viewpoint. Councillor Kelley asked when this will be online. Mr. Creedon stated that he can work with the Open Data team and provide a schedule.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked will old building permit be converted to Viewpoint. She stated that she cannot go to CAP to apply because it is on Viewpoint. Mr. Creedon spoke about the viewer that is being built but he is not involved in the development of this. This will be tested.

Councillor Kelley spoke about concern of an inspector’s availability can this be used. Mr. Creedon stated that Viewpoint scheduler provides access to look at where the inspector is and the inspector’s timing. Councillor Kelley will suggest Ms. Musgrave discuss this with Commissioner Singanayagam.

Mr. Creedon stated that Viewpoint has a feature to organize a project into project type and it expedites the permitting process but has not been utilized and will be discussed with Inspectional Services Commissioner and Ms. Murati Ferrer and work with CDD. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that IT has been helpful with the department by listing the required steps for each license. It will be revisited as more departments come online. This has been very deliberate. There is a fee listed on the license commission site. Commissioner Singanayagam stated that any e-mails come directly to the department. His department has a permit flowchart.

Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that the License Commission helps customers and walks them through the system as a personal, human-based experience. Mr. Creedon stated that paperwork can be submitted verbally and can be entered by employees and transferred to the relevant applicants.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 2:11pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Nov 13, 2018 at 3:04pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss draft recommendations from the Envision Cambridge Climate and Environment working group and any other related matter.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux and Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Khalil Mogassabi, Deputy Director of CDD; Susanne Rasmussen, Director, Transportation and Environmental Planning, CDD; Melissa Peters, Project Planner, CDD; John Nardone, Deputy Public Works Commissioner; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Cynthia and Todd Hubbard, Julie Stone, Henry Vandermark, Steve Nutter, Maggie Boaz.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being privately recorded. He stated that he wanted to focus on the Climate and Environment Goals. He provided written comments (ATTACHMENT A). He spoke about the massive tree canopy loss and the species decline. He stated that he has been learning about the concept of holistic planning, which starts with a set of goals that everyone agrees to. Most of the Envision goals are good.

However, there is new information about climate change and environmental degradation that is quite troubling, including a recent IPCC Report, Cambridge canopy study, reports of global species decline, and plastic pollution. There is a lot of damage being done to the environment. The Envision goals need to be ambitious and commensurate with this overwhelming scientific evidence of environmental destruction. This is an opportunity to set strong goals for Cambridge to get out of this spiral. He stated that he objects to increasing or reducing in a goal statement because it sets a direction; not a goal. The goal should be either a specific percentage or if it is 0% or 100%, something that is not strictly possible, then it should be phrased as minimizing or maximizing instead of increasing or reducing. He stated that it is critical that these goals be vetted by as many people as possible to create widespread buy-in.

Ms. Farooq stated that the goals have been developed through the working group process of the Envision process. She noted that the world is changing fast. The City has tried to keep the actions as pragmatic as possible. She noted that comments have been received from some City Councillors and the changes have not been made.

Ms. Peters stated that the 6 Climate and Environmental goals include strategies and actions (ATTACHMENT B). There are new indicators to reach the goals and the proposed targets (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Zondervan stated that he wanted to go through the six climate and environment goals.

Goal 1 Climate Change Preparedness. Protect the lives and livelihoods of Cambridge community members, particularly those who are at greater risk of climate change and environmental impacts.

Councillor Carlone stated that this aspect needs operational funding and is slow to get the funding. He asked where the money comes from. The City Council needs to know the approximate estimates. He asked how progress is measured. The City has a long way to go and he wanted to have a sense of the priorities.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about holistic planning and key resources. He wanted to know what the resources are and then the resources can be allocated towards achieving the goals. He felt this was the most important goal. He wanted to state more clearly who is being protected. He wanted this to be specific as to what are the threats and to minimize the damages. We are already protecting people in various ways from various things, so arguably we are accomplishing this goal. A more potent phrasing might be: “Protect members of the Cambridge community from the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation and injustice, including minimizing their exposure to flooding and heat stress, air pollution and chemical exposure, and maximizing their access to healthy food, healthy air and clean water”.

Ms. Rasmussen stated that air quality is anticipated to worsen if nothing is done. She noted that the areas are for other than just preparedness.

Councillor Mallon stated that the goals need to be consistent with the document submitted to the City Council other than what was outlined in Attachment B.

Councillor Kelley noted that absent specific due dates that the actions will not get done.

Ms. Farooq stated that the actions will need more discussion with the City Council and the City Manager and will need to be put into the CDD work plans and will have to be part of the budgetary process. This framework gives a foundation as part of the budget process for a conversation every year. Councillor Zondervan commented that this is in the strategies and actions.

Goal 2 Community Engagement. Meaningfully engage and share the benefits of strengthening the City’s climate and environment initiatives with the. Entire Cambridge community (residents, institutions and businesses).

Councillor Zondervan stated that this could use stronger language and include inclusion by all member of the community on the City’s outcome on climate change with a view towards benefitting the most vulnerable population. His suggested phrasing of this goal would be: “Ensure that ALL members of the Cambridge community (residents, institutions and businesses) are included in the decision-making process around the City’s climate and environment initiatives, informed of the outcomes, and considered in the choices being made, with a preference towards benefitting the most vulnerable at all times”.

Councillor Carlone stated that he thinks about this as supporting the public good. The public good is essential in everything and should be throughout the document.

Goal 3 Environmental Protection. Preserve and enhance Cambridge’s natural environment, including the preservation of open space habitats and vegetation and the reduction of air, light, nose and toxic pollution.

Councillor Zondervan noted that the intention is great and important. He spoke about a focus on biodiversity because there is a significant loss the City is facing preserving and enhancing Cambridge’s biodiversity through the creation of open space. He wanted this minimized and as close to zero as possible. He suggested specific goals on open space; the open space per capita is declining. His suggested phrasing would be: “Preserve and enhance Cambridge’s biodiversity, through preservation, creation and enhancement of open space, habitats and vegetation while minimizing air, light, noise and chemical/material pollution.”

Councillor Carlone noted that Cambridge has the lowest open space per capita. This is essential and is key. The City has attempted to get open space in all the new developments. Councillor Zondervan suggested the idea of exploring setting aside open space as the land is developed overtime.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that open space is a medium priority and capital funding is needed and the cost of public land will be higher in 10 years. Open space will aid in protect the City from flooding.

Goal 4 Climate Action. Achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

Councillor Zondervan stated that this goal does not state much. More should be written in the goal statement. He suggested banning fossil fuel combustion by 2040 and affirming the City Council’s goal of 100% renewable energy by 2035. He stated that the goal should state sourcing a percentage of food from the local region, or Cambridge. He spoke about carbon offsets. He noted that there is richness buried in this goal.

Councillor Carlone spoke about setting intermediate goals and without this will not reach the long-range goal. Councillor Zondervan stated that the goal is different from a plan of action and if goal is not specific it is a challenge.

Ms. Farooq spoke about the framework. The goals are high level and the strategies and actions provide the specificity. She spoke about the comments about the measurements. The indicators are a key mechanism to monitor and measure success and will be done on a regular basis. These need to be reviewed together.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the challenge is with the goal statement being so general and so far into the future and there is no clear definition of carbon neutrality. He wanted this refined or stated differently.

Ms. Rasmussen stated that this goal is short and is specific and embodies a target. This has to do with buildings and transportation and can be added to. There are closer tracking mechanisms other than at five-year increments.

Councillor Carlone asked what the progress on greenhouse gas emissions is. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the City needs a baseline because the data is not available. This cannot be reported annually but it is hoped that it can be reported every five years. The 2012 is the most recent data set available.

Councillor Zondervan gave two specific considerations. He wanted more clarity as part of the goal of carbon neutrality and more intermediate goals to help guide the City toward 2050.

Goal 5 Water Quality and Management. Maintain sustainable water resources by taking action to reduce water usage, manage stormwater runoff and improve the quality of surface water and groundwater.

Councillor Zondervan stated that this goal is specific which other goals do not contain. He stated that stormwater management is not a goal; it is a mandate. He provided specific language to be added to make it more specific. He suggested the language: achieve a sustainable water supply by minimizing water consumption, minimizing stormwater runoff and maximizing rainwater capture, while maximizing surface and groundwater quality through minimizing chemical application and impermeable surfaces.

Councillor Mallon asked does this belong in the strategy section rather than the goal. Councillor Zondervan stated that these maybe strategies towards the first goal which can reference clean water.

Mayor McGovern questioned are the suggestions from the City Council being taken back to the working group. He stated that we should not be dictating changes to those who did this work. Ms. Farooq stated that if there are significant differences they would be going back to the working group for additional work. She stated that there was not a biodiversity goal. CDD will go back to working group with feedback and work through the substantial changes. Councillor Zondervan stated that he is expressing his suggestions, not dictating changes. He wanted buy in by the community.

Councillor Carlone stated that he wanted to know when the follow-up meeting with working group is held; the City Council would love to attend.

Goal 6 Waste Management. Minimize waste generation and eliminate landfill waste.

Councillor Zondervan stated that this goal is almost perfectly stated, and he suggested specificity such as recycling and composting: “Minimize waste generation and eliminate landfill waste by recycling and composting everything that is not reusable and banning all other materials from our waste stream.”

Next the indicators and targets were discussed. Councillor Zondervan stated that canopy baseline used is 2009 and there is more recent data. How are you dealing with this? Ms. Peters responded that there is 2009 and 2014 data. Trend only was included. Councillor Zondervan noted that the 2030 target may not be able to get back to the 2018 baseline. Ms. Farooq explained that the Urban Forestry Master Plan committee will come up with the target. The data from 2009 gives a picture that is important to the City.

Councillor Mallon stated that the tree canopy issue will require capital funding. On the capital and resources there is no capital funding noted. It would be helpful to see where there will be capital funding.

Councillor Zondervan noted that most of tree canopy is not on public land and how will this issue be dealt with.

Councillor Carlone stated that 80% of carbon is related to buildings and only green roofs are mentioned. He stated that the major problem with buildings is their facade. The amount of glass effects heat/cool loss. The facade insulation and design are key. There should only be 40% of glass in buildings; state law states 50%. This omission is missing the point. Ms. Farooq stated that on page 5 has a strategy to reduce building energy consumption under the on-going actions of the Net Zero Action Plan. The indicators are intended to measure performance. Councillor Zondervan stated that building energy consumption should be in the indicators. Ms. Rasmussen stated that there are a limited number of indicators on each goal. Community Development Department has the data for buildings and the Net Zero Action Plan targets. Councillor Carlone stated that 80% of the problem would be more indicators under buildings. Glass lets the heat bleed out. Glass from high rise buildings heats the winter sky and cool the summer sky. This is about reducing consumption and the cost.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he would expect building energy consumption as a baseline and to make it clear what is the expected progress. Ms. Farooq stated that for building, water and trash indicators will figure out a way to streamline. Councillor Zondervan stated that twelve years is a long time for targets; he wanted to see it for five years. He spoke about the interaction with the goals. He noted that there is no indicator for resources for these goals; where are the resources coming from. The budget being primarily funded with property taxes indicates that we will be building more buildings. He spoke about minimizing conflicts and to minimize the conflicts between the goals. He noted that to maximize building, other community well-being issues are pushed to the side. He noted the conflicts between economic activities; what kinds of jobs are being created. When there is agreement on the goals we need to have discussion on minimizing the conflicts.

Councillor Kelley spoke about food production in Cambridge would not be done in a meaningful amount. Councillor Zondervan stated that in World War II, 40% of vegetables were produced in victory gardens across the US. He stated that the act of producing food locally has a benefit in itself by educating citizens and keeping us connected to the land. We could come up with building strategies and food production that work together. These questions need to be analyzed.

Mayor McGovern spoke about the open space issue is directly related to height. He stated that Vale Court abutters want open space but do not want buildings higher than what was there. There lies the conflict. Height may be sacrificed and creates the conflict. This work has been with the working group and now the City Council committees are discussing in their various committee how will this all be molded together, or will it be sectioned off. Ms. Farooq stated that through the process each working group worked separately to develop goals, actions and strategies. All groups were then brought together to discuss conflicts and similarities. The solutions are on a granular or a city-wide scale may result in a diminished set of goals. She explained the example of the Volpe as it relates to all the goals.

Councillor Carlone stated that open space is a buffer and it is not visual open space. Most of the open space in the City since World War 2 has been city-owned land. He stated that part of the strategy is where the open space is needed. He stated that an urban design study needs to look at all that is in this document, and that was what the original Policy Order requested. He noted that neighborhood areas and the squares need further study.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the most important point is to surface the conflicts and make an analysis. He stated that the open space on Vale Court was parking and the same amount could be turned into green space instead. He stated that the Volpe development has negative consequences and this needs to be surfaced.

Councillor Mallon spoke about working forward on this document. She wanted something showing all the intersects with other goals and what is the status, additional resources, zoning and the department responsible should all be on this document as this is discussed in each committee.

Councillor Zondervan opened public comment at 4:09pm.

Steve Nutter, Executive Director, Green Cambridge, stated that he is a member on the Envision Climate Energy Committee. He stressed annual goals and highlights. Green Cambridge engages with 2000 individuals and getting buy-in is important. The goals are a good beginning and could be better done together. He stated that culture change is needed. Trees, food and energy is the focus of Green Cambridge. Land in Cambridge is not used well. He wanted to see specific goals for canopy and local cultivation.

Councillor Zondervan closed public comment at 4:12pm.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the remainder of the hearing with be on the strategies and actions.

Councillor Carlone stated that funding sense is needed; a general range. We cannot budget without knowing this. He spoke about interior lighting and that it will be an issue. He spoke about getting City buildings on clean energy and is listed as 5-10 years away and operating funding is required. The City Council never received an update since 2014-2015 on this. He asked why now it is 5-10 years when 3-4 years ago it was thought it would be less; is this purely funding.

Ms. Rasmussen stated that the first issue is that the City has changed its view on buying renewal energy. This just cost money. How do you buy renewal energy in a reasonable way? How can the City procure renewable energy? The procurement strategies are being worked on and it is hoped that next year this will be a reality. Councillor Carlone asked about a phasing-in process. Ms. Rasmussen stated that this is under Aggregation and is the only way to allow individuals to purchase renewable energy. This would be a new facility. Councillor Carlone stated that he wants to see this come to fruition. Councillor Zondervan agreed the goal of 100% is good and there can be intermediate goals which are an estimate. He stated that a level of specificity going forward would be helpful.

Councillor Zondervan spoke on strategies and actions. The he brought up “Strategy: Develop preparedness and resilience plans at the neighborhood and citywide levels.” He supported the existing strategy as listed. He stated that he did not see any actions about new construction through zoning and that the provisions of the Brown petition should be mentioned in the goals to address climate preparedness through zoning. Councillor Zondervan commented on communicating the City’s initiatives to the community (“Strategy: Communicate the City’s climate and environment initiatives to the community”); he wanted to dig deep into this. He stated that the outreach done on Envision is receiving feedback from the community. Ms. Rasmussen noted that climate change and environment communication is disjointed and is not integrated into a framework that is connected. The strategy was to make this integrated. Ms. Farooq stated that there was a climate change pilot in Alewife and there was not a strong network for the neighborhood groups. There was more ground to be covered. The next area is The Port and who are the right humans to include in the process. The focus will be more on people side and to have a better communication strategy. This will be institutionalized and evaluated.

Councillor Kelley stated that it is not good for individuals being surprised about Envision. The City and the consultant did what was expected. There are things that could be learned. Councillor Zondervan asked what it will take to get individuals engaged in this conversation.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about the strategy to expand the tree canopy (“Strategy: Expand the city’s tree canopy and promote native plantings and biodiversity”). This is a complex system and what will make a difference is hard to predict. He spoke about conducting experiments that are expected to fail, but we can learn from them. There is not an easy answer about the tree canopy. Can we experiment to learn and institutionalize this approach of conducting safe-to-fail experiments and think out of the box. This needs to be encoded in the goals to be innovated. He spoke about purchasing land for open space. He spoke about two parking lots in Central Sq. and without taking action quickly the City has no opportunity to direct their development.

Councillor Zondervan stated that about reducing air, light and noise pollution (“Strategy: Reduce air, light, and noise pollution”) the City is doing a poor job on this. He stated that regarding reducing building energy consumption (“Strategy: Reduce Building Energy Consumption”) he wanted to explore how this could be tied to affordable housing activities. He suggested a funding mechanism for energy efficiency and other improvements to existing properties in exchange for accepting only affordable housing (section 8) tenants for a specified amount of time. He spoke about the strategy away from fossil fuel “Strategy: Transition away from fossil fuels”). He asked what the costs for the Aggregation program are. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the City is working on determining if instead of investing in solar certificates (SRECs) the City can legally undertake a direct investment approach in a renewable energy project. Alternatively, the City would have to purchase non-solar renewable energy certificates, because new SRECs are no longer available. The standard offering, and the 100% renewable option will both be affordable. It will either be investing in direct energy projects or buying renewable energy certificates.

Councillor Zondervan urged exploring using street lights to charge electric vehicles. This requires a special charger. This is new technology and is an experiment. Ms. Rasmussen stated that this is beyond experiment as it is already being done in other cities. This would be a Participatory Budget item to include charging stations and the street lights.

Councillor Kelley likes using street lights for charging electric vehicles but wants it to be for charging all types of mobility devices. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the question for the City is how much it should be involved in charging mobility vehicles. The move to autonomous vehicles will have a different mechanism on how they are charged. This is being figured out and will be decided over the next few years. Councillor Kelley noted that massive amounts of roadways are given to cars; it is appropriate for city to pay to help put electric power into their vehicles, but not for cars. He is concerned with the electric scooters. Councillor Zondervan spoke about this as a revenue aspect to the City. He stated that another approach is to do experiments to see how this is evolving. Ms. Farooq stated that it is highly unlikely to come up with a plan for mobility that is fixed at a place in time. She stated that framework and strategy need to be nimble and proactive.

Councillor Carlone commented on the focus on preserving and growing green space. He stated the state did a Charles River Master Plan ten years ago and dropped the implementation. Ms. Rasmussen announced that the DCR has funding from the BU bridge to the Eliot Bridge. In 2019 a community process will start. FY 20-21 construction will be done on this stretch. Councillor Carlone open space and recommendation seven-year action plan. He does not recall seeing this. Ms. Farooq stated that a plan is done on a rolling basis and sent to the state. Councillor Carlone requested a summary of this. He stated that the City Council needs to know what the infrastructure are needs and where are the pressures and the priorities. This should be a part of Envision.

Councillor Zondervan emphasized the importance of getting community buy in on goals. He is not hearing how this will be done and how goals are disseminated going forward. He stated that clear articulation of what the resources are for the goals and how do goals interact with each other and the conflicts are needed. Cambridge needs to become nimble in technology and disseminating this knowledge.

Councillor Zondervan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:52pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Nov 20, 2018 at 1:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to review the current status of the Short-Term Rentals (STRs) registration and enforcement efforts in Cambridge, include any legal proceedings, the exploration of possible new legal proceedings against illegal STR operators or platforms and will assess the City’s need to implement new policies or contracts given the state’s inability to create a master registration of any sort and to discuss opportunities to work with the state to create a funding stream for STRs.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Zondervan; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs David Kale; Acting Budget Director Taha Jennings; Mike Dugas, Assistant IT Director; Chris Cotter, Housing Director, Community Development Department; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Assistant City Solicitor Megan Bayer; Deputy Inspectional Services Sisia Daglian; Operations Manager, Inspectional Services, Anthony Tuccinardi; David Byrne, Senior Inspector; Dave Powers, Housing Inspector; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present was Elizabeth Bohlen, 111 Chestnut Street.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. The hearing was privately audio recorded. He stated that the hearing would cover an update on if there are conflicts with condo association bylaw documents, update on data scraping possibilities, update on the legal challenges on enforcement of the City ordinance from a non-conforming use stand point, update on the number of registrations, inspections and short-term rental compliance.

Mr. Kale stated that the state legislature had been expected to adopt the legislation, but the Governor had proposed amendments on exempting some coverage and data reporting requirements. These amendments need to be adopted unanimously by the legislature in order to be taken up before the new session starts. The legislature and the governor may agree on changes and if this does not happen it will be taken up in formal session in January and sent back to governor. He spoke about how data scraping tools seemed unlikely to meet the City’s regulatory needs.

Mr. Dugas stated that there was data from scraping tools and the City did a pilot, but the data is randomized over an area. The City cannot get behind the STR operator’s wall, so they cannot identify the exact address and apartment number. These data points were all over the map. Councillor Kelley noted that the research on the data sets shows that there is no way to hire a firm to find out the address of a short-term rental. He stated that private vendors are marketing to Airbnb owners to rent their units, so they can get an idea of what they can get for rent. Mr. Kale stated that other options are still be reviewed and that City staff would be happy to talk to specific vendors as appropriate to see what other options might be. Mr. Kale stated that Ms. Daglian will provide demographic information.

Ms. Daglian stated that 294 applications have been filed of which 201 are licensed and 27 are in process. She stated that 66 applications have been rejected for things like no condo association approval or inappropriate residential space. Actions have been taken on 57 cases. She stated that 8 cases have been referred to the Law Department and 4 are pending to be referred to the Law Department.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is 15-20% of properties, but there are a lot more listing. Ms. Daglian noted that there may be 3 listings for the same unit, so it is hard to know the exact number of offerings, but it is probably much higher than 294 but may be lower than the 1800-2000 some people claim exist.

City Solicitor Glowa spoke about the enforcement process. She explained that the Law Department is working with ISD to have some properties in compliance. There have been two cease and desist letters prepared; 2 cease and desist letters pending and l case in court. The case in court is contending the owner has a grandfathered non-conforming use. Councillor Kelley spoke about one case the City lost. City Solicitor explained that this is a different procedure, it was the challenge of a ticket. Cases in District Court are difficult to enforce and difficult to get successful resolution. The Law Department takes its cases to either Superior or Housing Court.

Councillor Kelley noted that there are two ways for enforcement: one in District Court with ISD under the ticketing process and the second with the Law Department with Superior Court and the Housing Court for cease and desist issues and so forth. Councillor Kelley asked how many times has ISD gone to the District Court. There was one ticketing case at District Court that was unsuccessful. The tickets were dismissed because the City could not prove that money had changed hands. Mr. Kale stated that regarding violations they will be consolidated to the Law Department. He stated that ISD has been in communication with the Law Department and there will be a singular route going forward for enforcement procedures. City Solicitor Glowa stated that ISD is not saying they will not issue tickets. But the best way is to file for injunctive relief in the Law Department. ISD investigates a STR concern and issues a ticket and it is then referred to the Law Department for injunctive relief. Councillor Kelley asked is the only relief that the Law Department can get is injunctive relief. ISD issued a violation, it was appealed to the BZA, the BZA upheld the decision of the Commissioner and then went to court. Councillor Kelley noted that the Law Department is defending an appeal of a non-conforming use decision.

Ms. Daglian stated ISD will investigate and send an enforcement letter if appropriate and then a cease and desist letter. If there is no response in three days and the unit is still in violation ISD can issue a ticket and refer the issue to the Law Department. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the Law Department will file in housing, land or superior court. Ms. Daglian stated that tickets are $300 per day per violation. Mr. Kale stated that people who get tickets appeal them. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the District Court is resultant to address these matters and feel they are relatively minor. There are 57 enforcement actions from ISD; 23 were resolved; 8 were referred to the Law Department. City Solicitor Glowa explained that 8 were referred to the Law Department and 2 cease and desist letters were sent and 2 cease and desist letters are pending to be sent and 4 more were referred to the Law Department which is still working on them. She spoke about the appeal to the BZA and explained that the Law Department defends this.

Councillor Kelley stated that there are 20 enforcement actions not accounted for. Where are they? Ms. Daglian stated that they are in the investigative stage or been given more time for compliance and the Housing Inspectors are investigating as appropriate. Councillor Kelley stated that the non-conforming use is in litigation.

Councillor Kelley asked about the 180 days residency requirement on the ISD website as it is not directly in the zoning code. City Solicitor Glowa explained that the Inspectional Services Commissioner was tasked with implementing the zoning code and he has determined that the 180 days is a reasonable amount of time. More regulations are being promulgated and will be distributed soon.

Councillor Kelley asked if one is a permanent resident and lives in their unit for 100 days a year they would not be able to short term rent their unit. City Solicitor Glowa there are other laws, such as IRS, to determine the use of a primary residence. The 180-day requirement is probably defensible on a variety of fronts. The ordinance was intended to ensure units were essentially owner-operated, with an owner living in or adjacent to a STR unit and not vacant units rented out by an absentee landlord.

Councillor Kelley asked about potential Condo by-law conflicts. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there is no conflict. She stated that if a condo association finds it is permissible for an owner to offer their unit as a STR, a letter can be secured to be given to ISD as part of the application. The Condo association must approve a STR because common spaces are owned by the association as a whole so any use of, for example, a common hallway by renters of a STR would have to be approved by the condo trustees or Association.

Councillor Carlone stated that this is a lot of work for City; did ISD get additional staff. Ms. Daglian stated that this work is being done with the current workforce. He stated that the concerns he has heard is from condo owners; particularly on Garden Street where the owner rented the condo out continuously. He wanted ISD to get involved in condo STR rentals and protect people that do not want condos rented. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City cannot do this; these are private laws between the condo owners and the association and private remedies for this relationship. Trustees speak for the condo owners. If there is a dispute it needs to be dealt with within the association. She stated that the City cannot get involved in this.

Councillor Zondervan requested explanation of the 180 days. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is the determination of the Inspectional Services Commissioner as to the length of time to be characterized as primary residence to rent as a STR. Councillor Zondervan asked how this is determined. Ms. Daglian responded through rental receipts, communications, tax exemption status and so forth one can prove residence. Councillor Zondervan stated that a resident contacted him, and he was going away for 6 months can they rent this out for less than 30 days. Ms. Daglian stated that they can rent unit to different parties for different lengths of time but if it is less than 30 days it becomes subject to the STR laws. She stated that there is information on the ISD website on this matter. Councillor Zondervan commented that this needs to be clarified. City Solicitor Glowa stated that they can rent for a period for more than 30 days without worrying about STR. Councillor Kelley responded in the affirmative as longs as it meets habitation standards concerning fire compliance and so forth. If this is rented for more than 31 days, it is not a STR. Councillor Zondervan noted that it is only subject to STR if rented less than 30 days.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about residence requirement. Do we ask STR operators about that? Ms. Daglian explained that an affidavit about that issue is required in the application. She stated that inspections are done and ISD may require additional information. There are a variety of indicators they use to judge residency. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that 201 people have followed the rules. How can we incentivize such good behavior? How to create behavioral norms may be making sure those in compliance should are acknowledged and using registration help to market the STR unit better. She stated she had seen such a thing in Brooklyn and though it added some value. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there is a certificate issued and the ordinance requires owners to post on the property and this is advertising that they are in compliance with the City’s ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the ordinance states it needs to be posted in prominent place. Vice Mayor Devereux asked has there been any social media bliss to acknowledge compliance. Mr. Kale stated that STR provider platforms can provide information to renters that this is a unit in compliance and that that option would be the best and that hopefully state legislation will help with this. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the platforms don’t seem to want to past that information and that Airbnb sued Boston because Airbnb was asked to police their people. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the City of Boston was asking for more. ISD has met with Airbnb and Airbnb has committed to putting information from the ordinance on their website but, having been asked to put the registration number on their platform, Airbnb has not committed to putting the registration number the on their website. A similar situation exists for other vendors. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the consumer could ask the property owner for this information. Councillor Kelley this could be discussed with tourism and the hotel association.

Councillor Siddiqui asked what is the ISD goal by the end of the year for STR registered and enforcement. What does success look like? If there is more staff would this increase registration and enforcement. Mr. Kale noted that he hoped the state would pass legislation which would create a push point for this issue. He spoke about getting the word out about the STR ordinance and get more compliance and enforcement. He stated that the work can be done with the current workforce but if deluged the City will look at other solutions such as overtime or additional staff. He stated that having Airbnb let their people know that there is an STR ordinance in Cambridge will increase the numbers and the inspections.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 1:49pm.

Elizabeth Bohlen, 111 Chestnut Street, asked how a business can want to have this type of business without following the law. She was unaware that the legislation has not been adopted. She is opposed to this across the board. She objected to reporting her neighbors and her condo for STRs. She noted that reporting may cause danger to the reporter. She stated that this is not being used by mom/pop type businesses and that some users are very problematic. The City is setting itself up for fires where inspections were not done. She asked why she cannot decide to have a brothel in her home. Her concerns were what is the status of the legislation, the court system and enforcement and where is the fight back. She does not trust the process in place and does not want to go to the police. You are changing the characteristics of the City.

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 1:54pm.

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

Communication from David Levitt, 14 Norte Dame Avenue, stating that if hotels need to meet minimal standards for public service so should STR units (ATTACHMENT A).

Communication from Louise Briggs, 56 Dana Street, suggesting that STRs file proof of insurance which limits the number of weeks that property can be rented as a STR and transmitting an article from Provincetown Banner supporting the need for reducing STRs. (ATTACHMENT B).

Communication from Joan Pickett, 59 Ellery Street, stated that the presence of short-term rentals exacerbates the feeling of a “temporary” neighborhood and suggesting a STR Directory by neighborhoods (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 1:54pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:02pm in the Sullivan Chamber to further discuss a City-based Cannabis Social Equity Program and Policy Order #10 from June 25, 2018.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Siddiqui, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mallon; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director (EDD), Community Development Department (CDD); Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Steven DeMarco, Superintendent; Louis Cherubino, Sergeant, Cambridge Police Department; Sarah Stillman; Liana Ascolese; Dan Totten; Wil Durbin, Chief of Staff, Mayor’s Office; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Shaleen Title, Commissioner, Cannabis Control Commission (CCC); Khadijah Tribble, Marijuana Policy Trust; Sonia Espinosa, Co-Founder, Massachusetts Recreational Consumer Council; Michael Latulippe; Peter Valentine; Paul Overgang; Ross Bradshaw; G. W. Hightower; M. Kowalczuk; Ethan Vogt; Yuuki Nishida; Nancy Rihan Porter; Robert Winters; Kirby Mastrangelo; and Becca Rutenberg.

Councillor Siddiqui convened the hearing and stated that the meeting was being recorded and livestreamed. She read the Call of the Meeting and said that she would like to walk away from this hearing with a better understanding of what can be done at the local level. She said that the last meeting covered the historical context of why this issue is important. She noted that the CCC has been busy and has released more information on a Social Equity Program. She said that the more intentional in what we mean by social equity and what the goals are, the better. She noted that on the previous evening there was an Ordinance Committee meeting where the City Council reviewed the zoning along with a presentation by CDD. She said that feedback was given to CDD. Introductions were made.

Councillor Siddiqui gave an overview of the PowerPoint presentation titled “Shaping a Local Social Equity Program” (ATTACHMENT A) as well Policy Order #10 of June 25, 2018 (ATTACHMENT B). She stated that she has incorporated some of the recommendations from the Cannabis Control Commission (ATTACHMENT C) into her presentation.

Councillor Carlone asked Ms. Glowa and the zoning experts as to whether we could include empowerment percentages, that a certain percentage need to be people of color, etc. He said that if this is one of the goals of the City of Cambridge and the state, it could be a way to clarify what type of numbers we are talking about. Ms. Glowa responded that generally, quantity cutoffs such as percentages are less favorably looked upon than having criteria laid out that people would or would not meet. She said that she would investigate this and get back to the Committee with a response. Councillor Carlone said that the big concern is having criteria and the big companies win. He said that they put teams together that appear to be something and aren’t, over time, what they said. He said that we would like to maximize medicinal marijuana and let them expand into adult use marijuana to maximize the amount. He said that perhaps the people who not be in that realm can just go after recreational. He asked how to ensure that we get a fair representation. He said that in zoning we say 20% affordable housing and we do have percentages. He said that this is a big issue. Mr. Roberts said that in terms of zoning proposal that is before the City Council, there is not a cap on the number of licenses and if there is no cap, it is difficult to establish a percentage because it is not a limited number. He said that it is limited by the location in terms of having to require separation between establishments but the economic empowerment applicants would not be subject to that requirement. He said that it is hard to translate that into a percentage because there is not a fixed number. He said that if the City were to create a percentage, it would imply that the City would need some kind of total number which has its own set of downsides. Councillor Carlone said that he agrees with the fixed number, however, once could say at any time that 25% would be dedicated. He said that he believes in a fixed number. He said if it is not a fixed number, the big money places will win and the small guy will get crushed. He noted that he is favor of starting out with eight. He said that endless competition is good for the consumer but not necessarily good for the small, poorly financed undertaking.

Councillor Zondervan said that it is important to focus on ownership. He said that there can be requirements that one could promise to fulfill but if you don’t, it is difficult to come back and say that you didn’t fulfill these promises. He said that if there is an ownership requirement, it is much harder to get around that. He said that it can be an internal regulation. He said that it may happen that there is no economic empowerment applicant for a year and it is more important to have a different applicant go through. There could be a general rule that it could be alternating and as part of that we could have requirements about minority-owned, women-owned so that we would effectively end up with 50% of minority or women owned businesses in an ideal situation. He asked if the City needs to require its own license. He said that if there is not a license, it is difficult to look back to see if requirements are being met. He said that if there was an enforcement mechanism, we would not have to have a license. He asked if the City can impose a preference to say that if we are going to do this alternate signing of Host Community Agreements, one of the requirements could be women or minority-owned as a preference. He asked if this is legal or acceptable.

Councillor Mallon said that she agrees that the alternate signing of Host Community Agreements is a way to get to the 50% of economic empowerment applicants. She said that she thinks it is about creating generational wealth that does not exist currently. She said that she is worried about how to future-proof an economic empowerment place. She said that in Oakland there have been lessons learned around economic empowerment opportunities that have been purchased by wealthy white people and we must think about future-proofing and ways to support through EDD or CDD to ensure that people don’t go out of business or get into a situation where they must sell to someone else. She asked if it is possible to waive fees for economic empowerment applicants. She asked if there are ways to look at the fee structure to assist economic empowerment applicants.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the Host Community Agreements expire or are they time limited. She said that if things are put into a Community Host Agreement, what leverage will the City have for the conditions to continue past five years? She asked if there are any examples of reasonable Host Community Agreements. She asked if there is a template to aid municipalities in drafting such agreements. Ms. Glowa responded that there are some templates and guidance and the City Solicitor will provide samples that the City Council could look at. Vice Mayor Devereux said that samples would be beneficial. As it relates to alternate signing of Host Community Agreements, Vice Mayor Devereux said that the idea is interesting although her understanding is that the existing four registered medical marijuana facilities would be the first four. Mr. Roberts responded that the CCC has established a priority system for existing medical marijuana dispensaries. He said that Cambridge does not have a local ordinance or policy that has been developed that medical marijuana dispensaries would have priority. Sonia Espinosa said that the CCC set up a priority period where RMDs and economic empowerment applicants would have the ability to apply. She said that so far, 38 medical dispensaries are currently open which have the ability to apply for priority licensing. She said that there are 20-30 economic empowerment applicants but so far, only three are going through the application process. She said that they are alternating licensing so they allow for one RMD and one economic empowerment applicants but there have not been enough economic empowerment applicants to apply. She said that there were only two weeks where applicants could apply for economic empowerment applicants. She said that it would be vital for Cambridge to accept social equity applicants in the same importance as economic empowerment applicants because the window to apply was very small. She said that it is wise to create the same system as the CCC. She said that currently, the only people that have been approved for provisional licensing are Registered Medical Dispensaries which is a big problem.

Regarding Vice Mayor Devereux’s question on the expiration of the Host Community Agreement, Ms. Farooq said that the last time the CCC was here, City Councillors posed that question and she does not believe that they had any guidance in terms of whether cities would be allowed to renew a Host Community Agreement. She said that it was not clear from their perspective that was something that they would sanction or not. She said that if that is where a lot of desires live, what happens when that expires. Ms. Glowa added that Special Permits can be limited in time and they are granted to an applicant and do not need to be made available to be transferred or provided to a subsequent owner so there is some control that the Planning Board would have to issue permits only for five years and only to this entity. She explained that if the entity changed or at the end of the five years, they would be required to come back and seek a Special Permit so there is some control.

Councillor Kelley said that when he looks at guidance from the CCC on Host Community Agreements it says that we can expect that there would some sort of equity in hiring but nothing to keep establishment from hiring the best qualified person. He said that he cannot find anything about how we can allocate licenses and permits and he feels that we are drifting into places where we don’t have judicial ability or jurisdiction to limit some things. He said that clear guidance from the City Solicitor on where the City does and does not have authority would be beneficial.

Councillor Zondervan said that he concurs with Councillor Kelley that the City Council could use clear guidance on what the City can and cannot do. He said that in his experience when applying for grants from the federal government, there were benefits to being a woman-owned or minority-owned business. He said that there are ways to structure the process so that we can grant some of those advantages. He asked for clarity on the sequence in terms of applying. Jeff Roberts responded that there is no determined order of operations. He said that in the zoning proposal, there is the inclusion of a section in the application that would provide a status of the Host Community Agreement process but they are governed under two different types of authority. He said that an applicant would need both in order to proceed but they could occur simultaneously. Nancy Glowa added that it is also permissible to have a Host Community Agreement that is conditioned upon the grant of a Special Permit so it could be worked out with the City prior to the Special Permit. Councillor Zondervan said that we have to assume that the Special Permit and Host Community Agreement could occur in any order. He asked if they would then apply to the state? Ms. Glowa said that the state license is first. She explained that one would need a state license to apply for a Special Permit. She suggested that the City probably has more leverage over an applicant if the City were to negotiate a Host Community Agreement prior to getting the Special Permit because once someone has a Special Permit, there is less of a need on their part to come to a bargaining table. Ms. Farooq said that for the state license to be issued, they do require a Host Community Agreement to be signed.

Sonia Espinosa gave provided a handout to the Committee titled Massachusetts Cannabis Licenses + Application Process (ATTACHMENT D). She explained that there are five packages of required material that do not have to be submitted in any particular order: The Application of Intent, the Background Check, the Management and Operations Profile, the Application Payment and review by the Commission, and the License Payment. She said if that is all passed, the CCC grants approval. She said that the Host Community Agreement must be signed by the municipality before the state issues the license. Councillor Zondervan said that that it seems to him that an applicant would want to get the Special Permit first which means that they would need to get the Host Agreement fist and then apply to the state. Ms. Espinosa said that you can apply to say that you want a license but until a Host Community Agreement is signed, the CCC will not approve the license. Councillor Zondervan said that it feels to him as if they would come to the Planning Board to get a Special Permit first. He said that he understands that the Special Permit has an expiration date but once they are occupying and operating at the property, the Special Permit remains valid until ownership changes. He said that if we want ongoing leverage, we may need some kind of annual license if they do not meet agreements. He said that the City may need to consider something like this to ensure that the business is complying with the City’s requirements.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that there are a lot of questions and the City needs clarity on the process and what can be included in a Host Community Agreement. She said that the City trying to develop a framework to shaping this policy. She introduced Commissioner Title.

Commissioner Title said that the CCC is about to issue the first final license. She said that they have issued 30 provisional licenses and not one has gone to an economic empowerment applicant, a woman-owned business, a minority-owned business, a veteran-owned business or a farmer, even though all of those groups are groups that the CCC is charged with including in the industry under the law. She said that the CCC is considering exclusivity for certain types of licenses. She said that delivery and social consumption licenses haven’t been approved by the CCC yet, but they made a decision that once those licenses are issued, they will only go social equity program participants, micro-businesses and co-ops so those that are not represented so far have something that they can own that is just for them. She mentioned that the City of Boston is considering issuing waivers to people who meet certain equity criteria from the buffer zones.

Councillor Kelley asked is there is some sort of master “cheat sheet” that gives the variability that local jurisdictions have and here is what they do not have so that we focus on things that the City can impact. Commissioner Title said that there is no limit on the discretion of cities and towns. Councillor Kelley said in the guidance from the CCC regarding Host Community Agreements (ATTACHMENT E) it states that “The Company agrees that jobs created at the facility will be made available to [Name of Municipality] residents. [Municipality] residency will be one of several positive factors in hiring decisions at the facility but shall not be determinative and shall not prevent the Company from hiring the most qualified candidates and complying will all Massachusetts anti-discrimination and employment laws.” He said that he reads this as putting a limit as to what we can have. He wants to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Commissioner Title said there are limits in the law as to what Host Community Agreements can contain. She stated that the agreement can last for five years with renegotiation at the end. She said that costs that are paid by the business to the municipality must be documented and reasonably related to the costs imposed on the municipality by the business being there and they cannot exceed 3% of annual gross revenue of the business. Councillor Kelley said that he is confused.

Mr. Roberts said that in the regulations there is a designation of economic empowerment applicants and also the description of a social equity program. He asked if the CCC makes a determination or assigns a certification as to whether a particular applicant is eligible to participate in the social equity program. Ms. Title responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Farooq asked about the distinction between the economic empowerment applicant and a social equity participant. Commissioner Title said that her agency must ensure that communities that are disproportionately harmed by prohibition are included in the industry. They defined communities as living within a certain radius or having a drug conviction. She said that if you meet that criteria, you are part of that program. She said that in a different part of the law it addressed priority as to what applicant gets looked at first. She said that the rationale was that existing medical dispensaries will get to go first because they are already operating and it is more efficient. She said that given the lack of diversity in that group, they gave priority to companies that could show, through their business practices, that they promote economic empowerment in those disproportionately harmed communities. She said that in April they held an application process where an applicant could show that through ownership or hiring or various other ways that you promoted economic empowerment, you can be certified as getting priority. She said that there are 123 applicants throughout Massachusetts and none have gone through the state process. She explained that the primary reasons were lack of capital, waiting for business plan or having difficulty navigating the local approval process.

Councillor Zondervan asked City staff what the best way for the City would be to establish clarity on the process and then the kinds of preferences that are being contemplated. He questioned if the City is thinking about an ordinance or is it an internal regulation established by a department. Ms. Farooq responded that said that it will be a couple of different things that may be able to move in parallel or series. She said that there is a zoning track that would determine whether physically they can be in a certain place or not and what are the criteria related to their permit and there will be Host Community Agreement process through the City Manager. She said that she does not believe that this necessarily requires any kind of regulation. She would like to see a relatively standardized Host Community Agreement template that could be used a starting point. She said that they have gone back and forth about whether there should be a City licensing process in addition to the state licensing process. She noted that her inclination is that this is not the way to go. She explained that there have also been questions about the need for a public health regulation. At this point it is felt that this is not necessary. Unless something emerges from discussions today, the two real pieces that the City would work with are the are the zoning and the Host Community Agreement.

Councillor Zondervan asked whether all of that should be part of an ordinance. He asked what the process is for an applicant. Ms. Farooq said that we don’t need an ordinance or regulation but once this is resolved, guidance documents can be put together for an applicant. Councillor Zondervan said that said that if the City was going to do the alternate Host Agreement approach, where is this captured as a policy? Is it an internal regulation or within an ordinance? Ms. Glowa said that the City can give guidance to the sequence of the state license, the Host Community Agreement and the Special Permit process. She said that as far as policy issues, it is helpful to hear that this is what the City Council is asking for. She said that in staff discussions, it was not believed that an additional municipal ordinance or health regulation was helpful in this regard. She said that they can certainly look at available options and make recommendations that the City Council could consider.

Vice Mayor Devereux talked about the difference between economic empowerment and social equity. She said that social equity is a big umbrella and economic empowerment is one preferred subset of how you try to develop a business that is equitable for those who have been disproportionally impacted by the prior laws. She said that in the zoning, we are only mentioning the specific class of economic empowerment. Councillor Zondervan said that social equity is ownership based and allows people to qualify for training and benefits and economic empowerment is based on business practices and is to give priority to certain applicants.

Khadija Tribble said that she is continuously struck by, when talking about equity in cannabis, we enter into the door of ownership but as she has talked with individuals who have been disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of marijuana, some want nothing to do with marijuana but they should have a seat at the table. She encouraged the City to think broadly about how equity can show up in Cambridge for individuals and communities who have disproportionately impacted by criminalization of marijuana.

Ms. Farooq asked if there could be an economic empowerment applicant who is not a social equity applicant. Commissioner Tribble responded that there is overlap but you could be one and not the other. She said that she would add the equity program participants.

Councillor Mallon asked if a social equity applicant can be somebody that was not disproportionately affected but has a social equity program built into their business plan. Commissioner Tribble said that licensee must have plan to give back to communities. Councillor Mallon asked if the Committee can see some examples of other Host Community Agreements. Commissioner Tribble stated that she will forward examples to the City Council.

Councillor Carlone asked if social equity or empowerment zone people can be successful in competition with highly financed recreational or medicinal marijuana. He said that one notion on this issue is to mandate a certain percentage that must be for economic empowerment or social equity participants. He asked Commissioner Title what advice she has to ensure that the City maintains the empowerment groups so that they can thrive. Commissioner Title said that as a City, Cambridge has full control. She noted that she likes the idea of setting a percentage for economic empowerment applicants. Councillor Carlone said that some businesses that are already established have been brought to court for the validity of the Special Permit or their Special Permit has been challenged. He asked Commissioner Title to speak with an attendee of the meeting to discuss this matter.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that she is confused but it would be helpful to create a diagram that would show areas of overlap. Ms. Espinosa said that she would forward information on the Social Equity Program (ATTACHMENT F) that will explain the qualifications.

Councillor Zondervan asked if the state regulations also define women, minority-owned, veteran businesses and is that it part of the social equity qualifications. Commissioner Title responded that under the law, they are defined the same way as they are under the disadvantaged business enterprise designation that is run by the Supplier Diversity Office.

Councillor Zondervan said if the City were to grant preferences to disadvantaged businesses, we would reference the state definition but would have to make our own regulations about the preferences that they could qualify for. Commissioner Title said that the City could make its’ own, but it would be easier to reference the state process. Commissioner Title said that the more straightforward, the better, so she likes the percentage idea.

Ms. Espinosa said that as it relates to creating good licensing and not doing it with a percentage, she suggested the alternate licensing, one general and one social equity or economic empowerment license. She said that the difficult with that will be time. Currently there are only three economic empowerment applicants have applied but none have completed the process Ms. Glowa said that the City of Cambridge sometimes has a number of businesses expressing interest in getting a Letter of No Opposition at the same time and also applying for a Special Permit which takes several months to go through the process. She asked how one would handle issuing one regular Special Permit and then one economic empowerment related to the timing of when these businesses are getting their provisional licenses from the state. Commissioner Title said that adult use only program, they do not require those letters. They required a signed statement that a Host Community Agreement has been signed. Once the state application has been received, they check with the municipality that has 60 days to raise an objection. She said that these are the only that that is needed.

Public Comment opened at 5:21pm.

Michael Latulippe, 190 Bridge Street, Salem, said that he is a certified economic empowerment applicant looking to locate in Cambridge. He said that the main issue is the focus on retail and the lack of avenues for economic empowerment and equity applicants to successfully acquire a license. He said that the group that he represents is seeking to locate a small manufacturing facility in Cambridge but when they looked at the proposal, there was a requirement for all production facilities to be a microbusiness. He said that economic empowerment applicants already must abide by different rules including restrictions on who they can hire and how they can operate their business. He said that the microbusiness requirement for production facilities is unneeded. He said that the microbusiness is a way to push out smaller operators like himself.

Peter Valentine, Brookline Street, stated that his specialty is defense. He said that this will lead to the degradation of life in Cambridge. He asked who will control a situation when it is being used too much. He said that the majority of the citizens who have no need for marijuana should not pay the cost of increased security. He said that the businesses that sell marijuana should pay for the increased cost of security.

Ross Bradshaw, Worcester, said that he works with Equitable Opportunities Now. He said that he is one of the economic empowerment applicants and he went through this process in Worcester just a few weeks ago. He said that he went through the process with limited funds and he took the bootstrap approach. He said that one of the biggest barriers is zoning and real estate. He said that restrictive zoning limits the property and opportunity to secure a suitable location for a retail establishment. He said that big competition is here. He said that out of state companies come in and identify properties and create a monopoly on properties. He said that when thinking about how to create equity, how do we deter big business. He said that in Somerville, they looked at an exclusive period of six months for applicants to apply. He said that creating this type of atmosphere would encourage applicants to apply.

G.W. Hightower, 289 Columbia, said that he has experience with cannabis retail, particularly working on applications in the San Francisco Bay area. He said that it is great to seek guidance from Oakland. He said that Commissioner Title’s work is groundbreaking nationwide. He said that it is important to have a level playing field. He said that the software company that he represents hopes to be part of the training program. He said that there are large Canadian and New York State based businesses that are trying to get into this area. He said that it is worth remembering that this is a new industry and it comes down to a matter of economics. He said that the City Council has the opportunity to create a general wealth capacity of communities that have not been able to participate at this level. He asked for honest tries at making this a fair industry. He said that if there is a way for the smaller zoned businesses areas that could be given priority status for social equity or equity empowerment could help to create a level playing field.

Kirby Mastrangelo, economic priority applicant, urged the City to issue a Host Community Agreement on a one-to-one basis to ensure a diverse market. She said that the window to certify economic priority applicants is small. She stated that one of the suggestions was to hire 50% local employment. She said that to put that in there may make someone fall short of their economic empowerment criteria. She said that the less regulations on an economic empowerment or social equity applicant, the more likely you will find them in the market in Cambridge. She said that it would be most beneficial for economic empowerment applicants and equity applicants to be able to obtain a Host Community Agreement prior to the Special Permit zoning process.

Public comment closed at 5:39pm.

Ms. Title thanked the economic empowerment applicants for their comments about the challenges that they face and their experiences. She said that they are right about the hiring criteria and she suggested that City waiving that requirement.

Councillor Mallon asked Commissioner Title about the end date for the Host Community Agreement. Ms. Title stated that under the law it can only last five years, however, several applicants have come to the CCC that have signed agreements that say they would last five years or after five years that they will attempt to re-negotiate. She said that if they cannot re-negotiate it will continue indefinitely. She said that provisions like that have still gotten licenses but under the law they should not go further than five years.

Ms. Tribble said that in the Host Community Agreement conversation, is there consideration for incentivizing applicants who are looking into putting something in the community benefits agreement with the City who will use the community benefit agreement to as a way to speak to equity in Cambridge. Councillor Siddiqui responded that the City can incorporate this.

Councillor Zondervan said that he appreciates the public comments and they are very helpful. He said that he is concerned that we want to do this quickly but if done too fast, it will be difficult to box out the big players. He noted the need to be intentional and careful. He said that in particular, it comes back to two key areas: ownership and annual licensing to have control of the business once it is operating. He noted that he likes Councillor Carlone’s suggestion that there is some type of percentage. He said that this may have to be a goal as opposed to a hard requirement. He said that we may want to require unique ownership so there is not a single powerful entity owning these businesses. He said that the City should define what businesses it is trying to advantage and protect. He said that if done right, the City will get outcome where disadvantaged businesses will be able to attract investors because they have that priority.

Councillor Kelley said that the City Council passed a Policy Order to sign off on a Host Community Agreement that provided for maximum taxation and other things. He said that perhaps the City Council may want to ask the City Manager to hold off on signing a Host Community Agreement until the committee has a better understanding of what can and cannot be included in that agreement.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she will be submitting a Policy Order to the City Council based on this hearing’s discussion.

Councillor Siddiqui thanked all those present for their attendance and the diligent work on this issue. She said that it is vital to be intentional.

The hearing adjourned at 5:50pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Chair

Committee Report #5
The Government Operations/Rules and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Nov 14, 2018, at 3:03pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the Policy Order adopted regarding Cambridge publicly financed Municipal Election Program and the Cambridge Municipal People’s Pledge Program; said Policy Order #3 of Oct 1, 2018, is attached as (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Tanya Ford, Executive Director, Election Commission; Charlie Marquardt, Election Commissioner; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Gary Mello, 324 Franklin Street; and Nella LaRosa-Waters, 54 Crescent Street.

Vice Mayor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. She announced that the hearing was being audio and visually recorded. She gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT B) to outline the history of conversations about publicly financed municipal elections for City Council and School Committee. She gave an overview of what has been proposed in the past. In May 2014, a proposal by Councillor Mazen and Councillor Carlone asked the Law Department to explore the feasibility of public financing. This order was adopted on June 2, 2014, and was referred to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee, which was Chaired by Councillor Toomey. In Oct 15, 2014, a memo from City Manager Richard Rossi explained various concerns: First Amendment challenges, oversight, auditing and enforcement issues. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that there was no follow-up committee hearing during the 2014-2015 City Council term.

In 2015 a new legislative body was elected, with one new Councillor. Another Policy Order submitted by Councillor Mazen, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Cheung and Councillor Devereux was adopted on June 20, 2016, and was referred to the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee, chaired by Councillor Mazen. In August 2016, the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee held a hearing. A group of residents had formed a grass-roots organization called the Independent Working Group for Campaign Finance Reform, which presented ideas for how to offer publicly funded matching grants to candidates, through candidates’ collecting signatures and a qualifying number of small donations. Invited guests from New Haven Democracy Fund discussed their public-private audit and a matching funds group in the New Haven mayoral race, guests from Common Cause spoke in support of limits on spending, and guests from Free Speech for People/Represent US spoke in support of matching grants as a way to amplify diverse voices. The committee discussed the various challenges Cambridge’s municipal election system presents, such as the amount of spending in city-wide versus district races, low turnout because elections are held in off years, the need to cap spending and the possibility of limiting non-resident donations.

There was no consensus reached by the committee about what problem they were trying to solve. A Policy Order came out of the committee hearing asking the Law Department to review what public financing options might be legal for Cambridge.

In the summer of 2017, the Independent Working Group for Campaign Finance Reform circulated a petition for a non-binding question to be placed on the ballot for the November 2017 election to support a public financing program funded by tax revenue. This question never made it to the ballot due to a charter right exercised by Councillor Cheung on a Policy Order submitted on Aug 7, 2017, meaning that it effectively missed the ballot deadline. Although Councillor Cheung was in support of having a question about public financing on the election ballot, he did not like the wording of the question.

At the next City Council meeting, on Sept 11, 2017, there were two Policy Orders on the Agenda, one submitted by Councillor Toomey and one by Councillor Cheung. Councillor Toomey’s order expressed his concern over increasing campaign spending and an unlevel playing field. It introduced his idea for a “People’s Pledge” and requested that the City Solicitor draft a home rule petition. Councillor Cheung’s order requested that the City Manager form a committee and report on the options for public financing. No committee was ever appointed.

On Nov 13, 2017, City Manager Rossi stated that the legal landscape had not changed since the previous response regarding the legality of public finance for elections. The memo reiterated that a home rule petition was required, but that there were policy questions to be decided by the City Council before any home rule would be drafted. A new City Council was elected in November 2017 with three new City Councillors. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the amounts of money spent on the 2017 campaign did not seem to correlate with which candidates were elected, referencing the detailed statistics compiled by Robert Winters on the Cambridge Civic Journal website (http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=5428).

On Apr 30, 2018, Councillor Toomey filed a policy order similar to the November 2017 “People’s Pledge” order, which was adopted (ATTACHMENT C). The Policy Order highlighted that more donations came from the zip code 02138 than other zip codes. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that it seemed that the program aimed to amplify the voices of those who did not have the capability to donate large amounts, but that the funding program does not align well with that goal, because the public financing would only be available to a certain category of candidates, as opposed to a voucher system where the funding would go to voters to direct toward the candidates of their choice. The Nov 14, 2018, hearing was being held in response to Policy Order # 1 of Oct 1, 2018, also submitted by Councillor Toomey. This order included School Committee elections and asked the City Solicitor to draft a home rule petition. The order was referred to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee.

Vice Mayor Devereux highlighted the three most common types of public financing programs used in most cases:

1) Full funding, which aims to create candidate parity and encourage less time spent funding raising. After meeting some popularity measure, every candidate would get a lump sum of funds and agree to not fundraise any further. If a candidate declines to participate, however, they could potentially out-spend the candidates participating;

2) Small donor matching. This funding model aims to diversify the donor base and help involve those who do not normally give donations to political candidates because they do not have the capacity or are not engaged. Candidates would again spend less time fundraising and it would amplify the voices of small donors and increase political engagement by providing small funds for them to invest in candidates that they want to see in the race. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that a robust match ratio is needed to make this an attractive option for more established candidates to participate in. The addition of a total overall spending limit would be necessary to reduce campaign spending;

3) Vouchers. This funding model aims to increase and diversify voter engagement by giving all registered voters vouchers to spend on any candidate they wish. Seattle began doing this in 2017 by distributing $25 vouchers. There isn’t much data yet available on how that is going, but it’s a model to potentially study. Voucher donations can help to reduce the amount of time a candidate spends fundraising.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the City Council still at this point needs to reach consensus on what problem they are trying to solve, and then evaluate which program would solve these problems best. She stated that everyone would like to see greater voter engagement, participation and turnout. She asked: are we unhappy with the types of candidates running? Are we unhappy with the types of donors? Which set of restrictions would best address the perception of influence by special interests or non-residents with business ties, which is a concern that has been expressed and is a major issue at the national level. She stated that she has a series of questions that could be discussed after hearing from Councillor Toomey to explain the model he is proposing. She asked Councillor Toomey to explain his model.

Councillor Toomey thanked Vice Mayor Devereux for this hearing. This topic has been discussed for years and he hopes that this City Council can implement some type of campaign finance reform for Cambridge. He read a prepared statement (ATTACHMENT D). He stated that City Council campaigns have become too expensive and too professional. He stated that he is proposing two programs that will need to work in tandem: A “Cambridge Publicly Financed Election Program,” which will provide funds for candidates of lesser means and control costs, and a “Cambridge Municipal Election People’s Pledge,” which would voluntarily reduce costs and donations by capping expenses. The public funds could not be used to pay campaign staff. He outlined each program in his presentation (ATTACHMENT E). He stated that he has been concerned about potential abuse of public funds candidates hiring family members with political funds, and essentially pocketing the public funds. He stated that he believes these programs will reduce the amount spent on municipal elections and reduce the need for campaign financing. He said he cannot support any campaign financing reform that does not provide these safeguards. He stated that candidates should rely on a volunteer campaign manager and rely on all volunteers for their campaign. He wants to level the election playing field for the socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods of Cambridge. He expressed concern that time is running out to continue these discussions and implement reforms before the next municipal campaign season.

Vice Mayor Devereux opened the hearing to comments by the City Council.

Councillor Kelley stated that he did not see anything in Councillor Toomey’s proposals that would regulate outside funds being spent during campaigns. He asked whether those provisions are included in Councillor Toomey’s proposal. Councillor Toomey stated that this idea could be added to the discussion. Vice Mayor Devereux confirmed with Councillor Toomey that in the current form of the proposals, outside donations could be accepted, as long as an individual donation does not exceed $200 over two years. Councillor Toomey stated that people cannot compete with fundraising that is on-going in non-election years, and that there could be a regulation to prevent fundraising in between election cycles.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about the statistic that Councillor Toomey had mentioned about the zip code of 02138 having the highest spending statewide. He noted that this spending is not necessarily all spent on City Council elections. Councillor Toomey stated that these statistics were from the prior statewide elections but argued that the same expenditure holds for the same zip codes in the municipal elections. He stated that he would provide this information.

Councillor Carlone added that he thinks the dollar amounts in Councillor Toomey’s proposals is what was previously discussed, but that was four years ago. He questioned the notion of not having a campaign manager be paid by public funds, though he recognized they could be paid by other funds. He stated that it could be an issue to have only volunteers working on a campaign, and that it may not be ideal to have a volunteer as campaign manager. He asked why limit donation of funds to residents of the state only; it should be limited to the City or region. Why not limit funds further to those who live or work here in the city, as opposed to limiting it somewhat arbitrarily to the state. He did not understand the logic. Councillor Toomey stated that by confining it to Massachusetts it will eliminate outside money being donated to the City election. Councillor Carlone stated that some of his family is out of state and so he receives a large amount of his campaign funds from out of state donations. He wanted this limited to those who elect us to serve or to a region. Councillor Toomey suggested a cap for family members who live out of state. He wanted to get something done. He stated that he would have an issue with lobbyists donating from out of state.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she lives here, but went to college out of state, and if it was not for her college professors she would not have raised enough money. She stated that she spent $14.29 per vote. She supported being flexible. She stated that she agreed with the intent of Councillor Toomey’s proposals; but said “the devil is in the details.” She was surprised by the length of the historical conversation on this. She asked whether the City Council have the will to do this. She stated that she is uncertain about this will. She wanted to know what is and is not permissible. She noted that the circumstances here are so unique. This will be thought about in the next 2-5 years.

Vice Mayor Devereux added that it is likely not feasible to have a plan in place for the 2019 election campaign season. She resumed her presentation, which outlined 11 questions she had prepared.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked whether giving public funds to one category of candidate based solely on income is actually legal to do with tax funds. She asked is this a grant that could be made? She noted that only 100 registered voter signatures are needed to get on the municipal ballot. Is this much of a barrier to candidates getting on the ballot? City Solicitor Glowa stated that these are complex legal questions and would require legal research to get back to the committee on this question.

Councillor Zondervan asked to review all the questions and then discuss them.

Vice Mayor Devereux proceeded with discussing her list of questions.

Regarding Question # 3, Vice Mayor Devereux stated that money is not the sole barrier to running for political office. Time is a barrier because it takes a lot of time to campaign, particularly if one is not hiring a campaign manager and relying solely on volunteers. She stated that managing volunteers is a job in itself. She spoke about a requirement for interest and personal considerations if one really wants to do this job.

Regarding Question # 4, Vice Mayor Devereux stated that running citywide is more expensive and more time consuming than running for a single district. If the City wanted more candidates from diverse backgrounds and to create more manageable campaign territory, it might be wise to consider changing our charter to have district representation such as in Boston. This is a structural impediment to some people running for office.

Regarding Question # 5, Vice Mayor Devereux stated that $30,000 seems low for a spending cap over a two-year period. She noted that the intent is to make campaigns less professional, but she does not know if this serves the goal of connecting with the electorate. She spoke about it being hard to make voter contact and the need to rely on mailing literature, which is costly citywide.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that regarding Question # 6, Cambridge does not have term limits and when there are open seats there are generally more candidates drawn into the race. She stated that incumbents do raise significant funds in off-year elections and that is an advantage for incumbents.

Regarding Questions #8, #9, #10 and #11 and running every four years, Vice Mayor Devereux commented that one would not raise more money because you would not be campaigning nearly as often. She spoke about whether it would be allowed for candidates to loan their own campaigns money. She spoke about the less professional, lower spending campaigns mentioned by Councillor Toomey, and noted that that may have been in an era when there were stronger civic organizations that vetted and supported candidates and ran them as slates. The low turnout for recent elections is because candidates are running in odd/off years and thus it is more expensive getting voters to the polls than if elections were in the same year as general elections.

Vice Mayor Devereux suggested that a special committee could be appointed by the City Manager to determine which problems need to be addressed, how to address them, and whether public financing is indeed something members of the public would like to support. She suggested that maybe a framework that governs the behavior of everyone sitting on City Council should not be determined by City Council. There is a need for outside perspectives and more impartial opinions. She equated it to debating your own salary; each Councillor has their own interests and cannot be as objective as other residents. A recommendation could be made by the special committee and a ballot question could be placed on the Nov. 2019 ballot. The committee will have to be formed quickly and do its work quickly to meet this deadline and determine whether there is broad enough support for a model. She stated that she went through the history to remind herself and other newer councillors how long this has been discussed, not to criticize prior Councils for not having acted on it—it is complicated, and she agrees that “the devil is in the details.” She stated that people are generally well intentioned on the Council about this, and have the will to make changes, but want to make sure there are not unintended consequences. She stated that more progress could come with the work of the committee in addition to the discussions of the Councillors.

Vice Mayor Devereux opened public comment at 3:57pm.

Nella LaRosa-Waters, 54 Crescent Street, suggested limiting the time one can campaign. She suggested limited campaigning to two months before an election. She said it is done in Europe and it’s effective.

Gary Mello, 324 Franklin Street, stated that he does not like the idea of municipally funded elections. He stated that if you impose a $15,000 cap, the highest funded campaigns are simply going to raise more money during key campaigns. He stated that if the intent is to sincerely level the field in Cambridge the City Councillors should dismiss their legislative aides between July and November in election years. He spoke about alleged campaigning of the aides. He asked why the release of tax returns by candidates would have any benefit. Councillor Toomey responded, “transparency.”

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she takes issue with the derogatory comments about the City Council aides.

Vice Mayor Devereux closed public comment and opened the hearing to comments by the City Councillors.

Councillor Zondervan commented that this is an important topic; it is easy to get lost in the details, and there’s no obvious answer to get the results we are looking for, and we’re not even in agreement over what those results are. He asked why campaigns being too professional is an issue. He raised $40,000 and spent $60,000 because he insisted on paying a living wage to all his campaign workers. He does not think that is a bad thing. He wanted the election process to be all-inclusive and this may end up making the process more exclusive than we are intending. Restrictions put on where money is raised (within Massachusetts versus outside Massachusetts) and how much money is raised are all potentially exclusive because they end up discriminating against people who are from different places or have different networks or resources. He stated that if the Council is not careful, it could become less inclusive. He stated that given the complexity of the questions, he suggested doing experiments to provide answers to the questions. He spoke about an existing program that allows taxpayers to make donations to the scholarship fund for high school students and we could do an experiment to see if taxpayers want to donate money towards publicly financed campaigns or giving qualified candidates a stipend to campaign and see whether it makes any difference. He encouraged doing experiments and learning from them. He noted that setting a specific amount of money is problematic because it will be affected by inflation. What do we want to accomplish and what are the problems we want to address and what solutions do we want to experiment with?

Councillor Toomey stated that what we are trying to accomplish is campaign financing reform. This can is being kicked down the road and if there is no will to do this, why are we wasting everyone’s time. The voters will look at us and ask if we are sincere about campaign finance. This can be done to level the playing field for raising resources and using them to get a candidate’s message out to people. This is disenfranchising those who do not have an equal access. He is disappointed, but not surprised as the status quo rules.

Councillor Siddiqui stated that she liked Councillor Zondervan’s suggestion. She stated that this is not realistic to do in a year, but it will be possible to think about a plan and have deadlines and a timeline. What is the first step and what does success look like? We need to narrow down the question and make a motion to have a special committee with a timeline. She noted that previously there has been no follow up.

Councillor Carlone spoke in support of the strategy laid out by Councillor Toomey, but he wanted to modify it. He stated that time limit for campaign spending is right on target. He is supportive of this. You can run a campaign for $30,000. He had to stop working to run for office. He spoke about the need for income while running. He supports term limits. Two-year terms are ridiculous. He supported this in 2014 and it was shut down. New candidates are at a disadvantage and he felt should be more generous with funding for new candidates. He suggested starting now, set time table and come to a reasonable solution. He agreed $200 is the right amount for the maximum per person.

Councillor Kelley stated that he works harder, and he does not raise this amount of money. He would support a proposal close to the one submitted by Councillor Toomey. It allows others without funding to opt in. He would not limit where funding comes from geographically. He supported having an extra $5,000 for those who are not incumbents. He stated that he is hearing that there are a lot of ways to say no.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she is unfamiliar with European countries that limit the time campaigning. She stated that those in office have a way to campaign without spending money. She spoke about using tax money for campaigning. The question on the 2017 ballot was to explore this question. She spoke about the sources of funding and the concern in the community about the large donations coming from people outside community who have a financial interest in certain policies. This needs to be acknowledged. She stated that limiting the total amount of donations from these entities is a start. She suggested a having a municipal registry of lobbyists similar to that at the state level. She asked can additional public funding be given to new candidates; that is a legal question. Limiting the amount of time to campaign would benefit the incumbents. She agreed with setting a deadline and timeline is important. The City Council or a committee is not the best framework to establish this. She suggested asking the City Manager to form a working group or committee, with interested residents who could objectively review the programs from other cities and recommend a program for Cambridge and this could be placed on a future ballot in 2019. The deadline for the ballot submission is August. She went through the history to see how long that has been discussed; this is a difficult complicated discussion. This is well intentioned, but restrictions could have unintended consequences and be more exclusive.

Councillor Zondervan wanted to reach consensus on what we are trying to achieve. We can ask: are we trying to increase candidate participation, trying to increase voter participation, trying to limit sources of funding or trying to limit spending? These are all goals and which of these goals are we trying to achieve? He stated that there are operational questions such as what the appropriate amount is to spend from the budget. What are the sources of funding: taxpayer or donations? Do we want to place restrictions on spending? He stated that forming a committee will not be helpful without clarity on what we are trying to achieve.

Councillor Toomey stated that adopting his programs would answer most of the questions. Do we want more level playing field or more grass roots candidates running? Councillor Zondervan said there are partial answers in the specific proposal to some of the questions. We do not know if doing this will increase candidate participation; there are many other factors that discourage or prevent people from choosing to run for office. It is worthwhile to examine questions and agree on the goals before getting into specific proposals. Councillor Zondervan stated that he did not run on this platform. Councillor Toomey said this is to provide access to those who would love to run for public office but does not have the funding. This is an opportunity to get greater diversity into the public realm.

Ms. Ford asked who would oversee the program. Councillor Toomey stated that it would be under domain of the Cambridge Election Commission. Ms. Ford asked would the City Council continue to report to Office of Campaign Public Financing (OCPF). She asked if there is any conflict with this proposal and the OCPF laws. Councillor Toomey stated that this needs to be reviewed legally. He wanted safeguards and addressed that in his proposal. He hoped that the Law Department and the Election Commission will look at the questions raised and will advise if not legal or constitutional.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that we still have not discussed what would qualify a candidate to get a substantial amount of funds, other than low-income status. She stated that City Council would want all candidates to be serious candidates with some measure of public support in their community. We haven’t determined how many candidates could have access to these grants of public funds. The City Council is not a representative sample of the public when it comes to willingness to run for office. She stated that many people do not want to run a campaign, particularly without a campaign manager. Incumbents might spend time campaigning without doing the city job they were elected to do. She stated that one could be supportive of a measure of campaign reform without thinking this particular very prescriptive program is the right way to approach this. If we are trying to help encourage more diverse voter participation or a more diverse selection of candidates, a voucher or matching program may be better suited and are worth exploring. A committee to research this would be a better approach.

Councillor Siddiqui asked where the response to the Oct 1, 2018, Policy Order is. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this asks for a home rule petition, not a legal opinion. She stated that previously a legal opinion was provided. This conversation confirms the challenge of what the City Council wants to do. Solicitor Glowa needs guidance from the City Council. A petition to the legislature could be drafted, but needs language clarified by the City Council. She could draft a petition with options that the committee is considering and wants to be included in the home rule petition. There are questions that the City Council must answer before this work is done.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this Policy Order is asking the City Solicitor to draft a home rule petition based on Councillor Toomey’s proposal. But the details have not been agreed upon and have not been discussed thoroughly. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this is not the right committee to set limits and restrictions on their own elections, and therefore she suggested forming a separate committee to help the City Council to decide this.

Vice Mayor Devereux also asked the City Solicitor to review the proposal on whether grants can be issued on an income basis.

Councillor Toomey made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Election Commission, to report back on the legality and constitutionality of drafting a home rule petition based on the proposal submitted in the Apr 30, 2018 Policy Order.

Carlone moved to amend the proposal submitted on Apr 30, 2018, in Item # 6 to read:
6. Such candidates would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or outside of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The amendment carried on a voice vote of three members. Councillor Zondervan voted in the negative on this matter.

Councillor Zondervan stated that climate change and injustice is more relevant than campaign finance. He asked what we are trying to achieve, what are the goals. He is not in favor of burdening the Law Department at this time.

The question now came on the motion as amended, which reads as follows:

Councillor Toomey made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Election Commission, to report back on the legality and constitutionality of drafting a home rule petition based on the attached proposal submitted in the Apr 30, 2018 Policy Order; said proposal amended to read such candidates would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or outside of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Councillor Toomey moved to amend the motion to strike out “drafting a home rule petition based on” to allow this discussion to continue.

The question now came on the amendment - and on a voice vote of four members the amendment - Carried.

The question now came on the motion as amended which reads as follows:

Councillor Toomey made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Election Commission, to report back on the legality and constitutionality of the attached proposal submitted in the Apr 30, 2018 Policy Order; said proposal amended to read such candidates would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or outside of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The motion as amended carried on an affirmative vote of three members. Councillor Zondervan was recorded in the negative.

Vice Mayor Devereux made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to form a committee or working group to help the City Council work through the goals and potential options of publicly financed election before the summer recess with a view in mind of place a non-binding question on the ballot.

The motion carried on a voice vote of three members. Councillor Zondervan voted in the negative on this matter.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the elephant in the room is what does the City Council want to do. He is skeptical going through this process Vice Mayor Devereux stated that they may come back with how much tax revenue money may be necessary under certain scenarios. The committee, broadly representative to participate in this process, may have a more objective perception of where the goals should be and which aspect of the playing field most needs leveling.

A communication was received from Pallavi Yennapu stating that campaign finance reform is something that Cambridge needed to work on (ATTACHMENT F).

Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:56pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair

Committee Report #6
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Nov 7, 2018 at 1:02pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the safety of natural gas infrastructure in Cambridge, the use of contractors, including Feeney Brothers, and any related matter.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux and Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Mallon; Public Works Commissioner Owen O’Riordan; Deputy Public Works Commissioner John Nardone; City Engineer Kathy Watkins; Jim Wilcox, Director, Engineering Services, Public Works Department; Anthony Tuccinardi, Operations Manager, Inspectional Services; Gerard Mahoney, Acting Fire Chief; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Audrey Shulman, HEET; Matthew Knowles, Manager Construction Mass East; Jenna Defilippo, Manager, Damage prevention, Connecticut and Massachusetts; Dean Moran, Supervisor, Damage Prevention Massachusetts; Scott LaPlante, Manager, Pressure Management, Connecticut and Massachusetts; Bill Zamparelli, Community Relations Specialist; and Michael Needham, Manager, Maintenance Somerville and Hyde Park, all from Eversource; Stephanie Garnier, Alexandria, Virginia; Bjoern Stengel, 60 Crescent Avenue, Boston; Steven Nutter, Green Cambridge; Joe Kirylo, 59 Thorndike Street; Ginger Ryan, 35 Crescent Street; Mina Reddy, 103 Auburn Street;and Sharon DeVos, 118 Antrim Street.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He stated that there are representatives from Eversource present at the hearing, Mothers Out Front and the Home Energy Efficiency Team (HEET). He stated that in September there were major gas explosions in Merrimack Valley resulting in property damage to 80 homes, 70 fires 25 injuries and the loss of life. Columbia Gas was employing the same contractor, Feeney Brothers, that has done work in Cambridge. He stated that in addition there is a union lock out with National Grid that is leading to additional work being done by contractors. He stated that over the summer the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) received over 100 alleged safety violations from worksites around the Commonwealth, including several where Feeney Brothers were doing the work. He further stated that in June there was an incident in Cambridge where a Feeney Brothers worker accidentally damaged a 42-inch oak tree on Gore Street which needed to be taken down. The City is being compensated over $67,000 for the tree. He noted that this is all happening in the context of climate change. He explained that gas leaks are a major contributor to global warming. There are concerns about the safety of the City’s gas infrastructure. Today we will hear from the Utilities and the Department of Public Works and the activists about how the City is doing and what can be done better. Councillor Zondervan turned the hearing over to the Department of Public Works.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that there will be a brief presentation and then it will be turned over to Eversource. He noted that Eversource is the primary gas utility company in Cambridge. He stated that National Grid does have mains that run through Cambridge, but the City is served on a day to day basis by Eversource Gas formerly known as NStar Gas.

Ms. Watkins gave an overview of work done in the public way and the coordination with Eversource. She gave a PowerPoint Presentation (ATTTACHMENT A). She spoke about the five-year sidewalk and street reconstruction plan and the scope of the work. She explained that the reasons that the five-year plan was created was to focus on accessibility, and was broadened to include street trees, bike facilities and the Vision Zero commitment. The key goal was to improve the coordination with the utility companies. She noted that the City meets monthly with the utility companies with a goal in mind of both the City and the utility companies improving their infrastructure. She noted that infrastructure needs are addressed with projects. There was a map of the planned construction for five years outlined the streets and sidewalks that will be reconstructed in the next five years which can change based on priorities and schedules. She stated that Public Works issues under 2,000 construction permits per year. The Dig Safe permits are higher in number because they are only good for a certain period of time. Over the last 18 years Eversource has replaced over 250,000 linear feet of gas infrastructure. A 2014 study from HEET showed there were 45% less leaks per mile in Cambridge than in Boston.

Michael Needham, Manager, Maintenance Somerville and Hyde Park, Eversource Gas, stated that there is no better relationship with the gas utility and the Department of Public Works than in Cambridge. There are weekly meetings between the entities and there are sidebar meetings on certain projects and certain locations. He stated that the bottom line is public safety, environment and customer service. He stated that Eversource is responsive to the Department Public Works. He stated that he works for Ms. Watkins, Commissioner O’Riordan and Mr. Wilcox when it comes to what needs to be done in Cambridge. He read Eversource’s commitment to safety. He explained that Cambridge and Somerville are one of six work centers of Eversource.

Mr. Needham spoke about the quantity of leaks. He stated that the data is generic of footage that has been replaced by Eversource. He explained that there is a twenty-five-year plan to replace all leak-prone pipes in Massachusetts. He stated that at the end of 2017 the total gas mains replaced was 148 miles; 58% plastic pipe or plastic coated protected. He stated that typically Eversource in Cambridge is going after is unprotected bare steal (minimal occurrence in Cambridge) and cast iron; this is what is determined as a leak-prone pipe. He spoke about the outstanding leaks for Cambridge and Somerville. The graph on page five shows the impact to public safety and the environment based on replacements. He noted that emergencies are not addressed in the graph. He stated that the goal is to get ahead of replacing leak-prone pipes before there are leaks. He explained that Class 2 are deemed non-hazardous but there is a 12-month mandate by the state to repair; Eversource’s goal is nine months or no later than 12 months for Class 2 leaks. He stated in Cambridge currently there are 39 outstanding Class 2 leaks and will be down to 10 before the end of the year. He spoke about the effect of the weather on the pipes and leaks. There was a graph of leaks repaired in Cambridge from 2004-2017. He commented on the cold winters of 2004, 2009 and 2015 and the emergency spikes. He explained Class 1 are emergency leaks; that need to be repaired and are monitored until repaired. Class 2 are deemed non-hazardous at the time and not as urgent. The biggest concern is where the odor is coming from; Class 3 are non-hazardous and would remain non-hazardous if not repaired. The current way Class 3 are addressed is that the infrastructure is replaced. There were 12 Class 3 leaks repaired. Looking forward to 2018 Eversource has partnered with a company, Multi-Sensor, that has a methane imaging tool and there will be a 6-month pilot in Cambridge and Somerville. He spoke about finding the leak, identifying what is hazardous and where the most methane is being emitted into the atmosphere.

Ms. Defilippo gave an overview of Eversource’s damage prevention system. There are two major function of this group, one being response to Dig Safe tickets. In Cambridge to date there have been 4,300 tickets and last year there were 5,300. She stated that second function is public awareness around digging within the range of gas facilities. She spoke about the presentations done by Eversource on this. She stated that in Massachusetts there have been 24 presentations done this year. She spoke about the education and the Dig Safe rules, Eversource’s markings and what steps to take if damages occur. She spoke about Managing Underground Safety and Training (MUST) group which meets quarterly. An Eversource brochure is constantly being provided to contractors. She spoke about in-house prevention and third-party contractors. She stated that random audits are performed on the locators. She stated that new technology is explored.

Councillor Carlone asked if on the five-year plan all streets that are being reconstructed are listed. Ms. Watkins responded in the affirmative. Councillor Carlone suggested listing the street and to have a history of the last five years. He asked is slide 9 Cambridge only. Ms. Watkin responded in the affirmative. Councillor Carlone is there a thing such as non-cast iron pipe leak and is this included. Mr. Needham responded that any pipe replacement is included.

Audrey Shulman, HEET, gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT B). She stated that Massachusetts is the second oldest gas infrastructure in the country. Old pipes are leak prone because they are at the point of failure. Natural gas when unburned gas is methane, a potent greenhouse gas. She explained that the small amount released is equivalent to 10% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory according to Harvard University. In Cambridge in 2017 according to Eversource there are 262 unrepaired leaks. She stated that between 10-14% of the unrepaired leaks are not reported in the new year’s data. She noted that Eversource is working with HEET and Mothers Out Front to fix large volume leaks which the DPU has not regulated yet. She stated that one large volume leak is being fixed in Cambridge. She stated that old pipes can crack in frost heaves and the gas can go to homes through conduits and pipes. She stated that Eversource does daily checks of pipes during frost heaves. There was a map of the new five-year utility replacement plan in Cambridge. Regarding the incident in the Merrimack Valley, a sensor was left on inside of the pipe being replaced and when the pressure was turned on and increased because the sensor did not show the level of gas. She stated that the appliances broke, and gas poured out everywhere. She addressed the question - who is to blame. She noted that Columbia Gas from her experience is they do their work well. She thought that this was due to the Feeney Brothers, but the NTSB stated that it was the fault of Columbia Gas because the sensor was not removed from the pipe. We should think about whether there should be gas in homes. She suggested that all contractors be thoroughly trained about Dig Safe and that the City bans them working in Cambridge if there are violations. Ms. Shulman’s third suggestion was that we need to rethink gas usage. She used a tree as an analogy: the street segments are the tree branches. She stated that all the segments on the map could be capped at the main and allow the heat to be distributed through hot water or other methods. She spoke about transitioning homes to another form of heating or renewable clean energy. It costs $330 per linear foot to replace a gas main. She spoke about Cambridge and Eversource partnering on a micro-district.

Councillor Zondervan opened public comment at 1:45pm.

Steven Nutter, Executive Director, Green Cambridge, is working with Mothers Out Front on a clean energy future in Cambridge. Natural gas is a part of life and all homes are hooked up to gas across the state. He stated that this silent fossil fuel is everywhere. When temperatures are cold we heat our homes and cook with natural gas. We have moved away from coal and oil to natural gas. He stated that natural gas is a dirty fossil fuel and is not safe for everyday use and climate change. There are 60-70 Class 1 leaks happening yearly in Cambridge that must be repaired. He stated that there have been no solar energy leaks and no departments, contractors or hearings needed to address wind energy safety. We need a new clean energy future to provide clean jobs and safety for residents. He stated that natural gas lines still leak and kill trees while silently poisoning the air. He stated that trees are damaged and that Eversource’s damage prevention does not include tree roots. He urged the City to continue to move away from natural gas and limit its expansion in new construction while investing in local solar and regional projects. He stated that people and trees must be a priority. He stated that moving away from natural gas in everything the City does is important.

Joseph Kirylo, President of Boston Gas Local 12003, United Steel Workers, stated that there are 1,250 workers that are locked out and 5,000 employees do not have health insurance because it was cut off. He spoke about the safety of the infrastructure. He stated that damage prevention is extremely important part to keeping all citizens in the Commonwealth safe. He stated that he did not hear anything about damage prevention with regards to encroachments on cast-iron mains. He commented that if there is an excavation near a cast-iron main it has the possibility of being encroached. He stated that inspectors inspect to make sure it does not fall in the angle of influence which would make it encroached. He stated that before being locked out, National Grid made sure that the gas main was monitored to ensure that it was not leaking until the pipe was cut out and replaced. He asked if Eversource is having inspectors going out to excavate any hole that is for water, sewer or drain. He stated that any excavation near a cast-iron main needed to be checked in the winter so that these mains do not break under frost conditions and cause a gas leak and explosion. He stated that DPU and the gas industry are broken. There are 2 pipeline inspectors for the state which formerly had 10. Inside (the home) piping is important and needs to be inspected and if needed replaced. He questioned why undersized pipes are not being replaced. Blasting is to be surveyed before and after each blast to ensure there are no gas leaks. He stated that National Grid has turned in 60 Grade 1 leaks. Grade 1 leaks should be monitored continuously until the repair is made. He stated that the gas companies themselves need to be looked at extremely closely. He noted that he has personally written many letters to the CEO’s and to Presidents of National Grid, US operations. He commented that the first letter written was in 2011. After the hearing Mr. Kirylo, transmitted a copy of a letter, with fourteen exhibits that were sent to National Grid from the union regarding public safety issues. (THE ORIGINALS ARE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AND CAN BE VIEWED BY THE PUBLIC).

Debbie New, 14 Cambridge Terrace, stated that children need to be considered in this topic. The man killed in the Lawrence was 18 and was somebody’s child. She stated that as a member of Mothers Out Front she coordinates the statewide gas leak campaign. She stated that three years ago she tagged 271 gas leaks in Cambridge. She measured a big gas leak. It is not enough to measure the leaks. She spoke about fracking pads in Pennsylvania. Gas is toxic and endangers civil liberties, property and the human right to clean air and safe water. She stated that many did not need the accident in the Merrimack Valley to know that gas is unsafe. This could happen anywhere and anytime with any gas company. She stated that in Brooklyn a manhole cover blew and there were three gas workers injured and burned. She noted that not many people heard about this, including her daughter who lives three blocks away. She stated that she is scared and worried for the people in Lawrence that do not have heat or the ability to cook for their families. She spoke about the solid relationship with the Department of Public Works and the utility companies. She spoke about all the action that is being taken in Cambridge around gas leaks. She stated that there needs to be detailed questions asked about safety. She stated that the City Council need to get answers, who are the contractors working on the streets in Cambridge, how trained are they and who is overseeing the work and overseeing Eversource. Where is the DPU. She spoke about the lack of state inspectors. We need to ask if we want to have gas in the City and what renewable clean energy system can the City have instead of gas. She stated that Mothers Out Front are working to get the state government to hold utility companies accountable, to ensure safety, to repair the public trust and to transition off gas.

Councillor Zondervan closed public comment at 2:01pm.

Councillor Mallon asked about the contractors used by Eversource and who is monitoring and overseeing them and how much are the workers being paid.

Mr. Needham stated that Eversource Gas has multiple pipeline contractors that work for them. Feeney Brothers is one of many; they are monitored by Feeney Brothers and Eversource employees, Eversource construction supervision and Eversource management. Eversource employees follow their own engineering policies and procedures. Eversource has its own operational qualification plan and it is tested by an independent tester, Prometric. New employees are hired and are not qualified, and they are trained to receive their qualification. He stated that Eversource has the #1 internal QA/QC qualification program of all utilities. There are in-house personnel doing inspections of sites, both internal and external, and inspect above ground; then the next inspection is excavation for internal and external crews to ensure that pipes are installed correctly. He stated that the state does not fine if Eversource is open, honest and reports what it finds. Councillor Mallon spoke about the Feeney Brothers being on a job, finish and cover it up and Eversource inspects above ground. She asked if an inspection is done before the work is covered up. Mr. Knowles stated that the work is done by Feeney and then an inspector does a sketch of the work and this is the first line of defense to ensure the installation is done correctly. There is a QA/QC group that spot checks the contractor on the installation of the main servers is done correctly. The contractor has multiple layers of inspection.

Councillor Zondervan how does Feeney Brothers dig a trench that kills a 40-year-old oak tree. Mr. Knowles stated that they dug too close to the root system of the tree. Training was done for Feeney Brothers crew on how to work around trees and how to protect trees. He understands that this was unacceptable, but it is lessons learned. He stated that all the Feeney crews were trained. Councillor Zondervan asked was an Eversource inspector on sight supervising the work. Mr. Knowles stated that it was both. He stated that sometimes there are trees on the sidewalk and there are ways to work around the root system without damage the tree which did not happen in this case. Ms. Watkins stated that this was a violation of the City’s permit. She stated that the permits have clear requirements about not excavating within a certain distance of a tree without contacting the City arborist. She noted that the crew that did the excavation is no longer working on Gore Street. She spoke about training with the arborist and Eversource staff to emphasize this point. She spoke about the restitution that the contractor had to pay to the City is a clear message to the contractor and all other contractors about working in the City. Councillor Zondervan asked is the crew working in Cambridge. Ms. Watkins responded that the crew is not working in Cambridge; Feeney Brothers is still working in Cambridge.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the 24 presentations on damage prevention seems to be low. Ms. Defilippo stated that in addition to the formal presentations there are other site visits to locations where there is digging and there is outreach to companies. The 24 is a more robust training. Ms. Watkins spoke about Dig Safe has a robust outreach program and does presentations on digging safely.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he was aware of incidents where Dig Safe was called, and proper procedures were followed, an old, unmarked pipe is found, mechanical digging resumes because it is assumed the old pipe is the one on the drawings, and an active pipe is damaged as a result; how is this prevented. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that previously there was not as good record keeping of underground utility infrastructure as it is done today. Dig Safe has records from City departments which are sometimes inaccurate. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that moving forward with city infrastructure and the level of detail is exceptional. Contractors can look at record of underground is more accurate. Councillor Zondervan is there technology that can be used. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that there is an equivalent of the LiDar technology and other geothermal technologies can provide a greater level of detail and are used by the utilities.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about DPU not regulated large volume leaks and there is one in Cambridge. She asked for specifics. Ms. Watkins stated that Class 1-3 focus is on safety. The size of the leaks is important, not just the severity and safety issue, and DPU is discussing regulating these super leaks. Vice Mayor Devereux where is the large volume leak in Cambridge. Mr. Needham responded that the Class 3 leak was at Broadway and Ellery Streets and was repaired. This was detected on a manual survey by our survey companies that surveys the gas mains. He noted that this was brought to his attention by the Vice President of Eversource. Vice Mayor Devereux wanted encroachment explained. Mr. Needham spoke about how effective Eversource handles its cast iron program in Cambridge. Cambridge is number one for cast iron pipes. This is initiated by a Dig Safe ticket and the location is identified and there are three questions asked. Is this cast iron, will it be affected or cannot be determined at this time? If it is determined that this will be affected, then this site is leak surveyed daily until it is replaced. The oldest cast iron site is Montgomery Street. There are 38 locations that are being monitoring in Cambridge and Somerville. He stated that cannot be determined at this time sites they are monitored. Ms. Watkins explained how the coordination is done where there is excavation in an area of cast iron. Vice Mayor Devereux is it optional to replace the line from street to house. Ms. Watkins stated that the entire line is replaced to the meter. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that Willard Street is being reconstructed and the decision for installing a gas line for 3 homes and asked how a district energy approach would work in this instance. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the trimming the tree approach is where the gas service is eliminated to cul-du-sacs and the cost associated with putting in that new service and then that money is given to an alternative green source of energy for those properties. Ms. Shulman could be done with air source heat pumps or through water based geothermal pipes. She noted that there are a lot of different options. She preferred water-based pipe system because people in the gas industry can continue to work delivering heat through pipes. Worcester has a cooperative patching program with Eversource to create synergy to allows Eversource to reduce its personnel hours as well as for the City to stretch its paving dollars. She asked could this be done with street segments sharing here. Mr. Needham stated that he is not familiar with the current Worcester program.

Councillor Carlone asked when the annual review is done. Mr. Needham stated that the leak survey is done continuously throughout the year and is increased during the winter months. Councillor Carlone asked are there plastic pipe leaks. Mr. Needham responded in the affirmative, but the frequency is less than cast iron. Cambridge is a cast iron City that is being replaced with plastic. Councillor Carlone stated that he assumed a large tree, or a difficult intersection needs to be heavily marked and contractors know that they have to be careful around these conditions. He asked if there is a record kept on poor contractor work; does city/Eversource keep this record. Ms. Watkins noted that the City looks ta minimal qualification and it is not just the low bid and whether the contractors are qualified to do the work. She stated that if work is not up to standards, workers and contractors have been removed from projects. Mr. Knowles stated that there is a quarterly review with contractors and they review any violations. Councillor Carlone spoke about there are gas leaks and small leaks have an effect. He encouraged Eversource to consider creating a tree fund to compensate for the on-going leaks. Councillor Carlone asked when will all leak-prone pipes be replaced. Mr. Needham stated that 25 years and is in progress and began 3 years ago. Ms. Watkins stated that to address the infrastructure sooner the City tries to facilitate the construction and to make it easier and quicker for Eversource do their work before the City does construction. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that there is no value to chase leaks; it is about replacing and renewing the infrastructure. The City leverages the gas company to do more work in Cambridge. The challenge is how much more construction can the City handle. This is about balancing this on a constant basis. Councillor Carlone stated that he wanted to minimize the damage. He asked about indoor gas line safety. This should be added to the review process.

Councillor Kelley discussing gas line safety, the gas line impact on trees, getting rid of gas completely and discussing how much authority does the City have. He noted that attempting to discuss all of these topics we will get struck. He asked how much authority City has. He would pick gas safety to work on and long term what does a gas free city look like and how would this be managed.

Councillor Zondervan when do we get to zero leaks. Mr. Needham responded that to get to zero leaks by continue to replace infrastructure and address any leaks that are deemed necessary for public safety and for the environment. This is the goal for all; public safety is the number one goal and employees are training on this. Councillor Zondervan asked why in slide 10 is the trend increasing. Mr. Needham wanted to investigate the breakdown of the leaks. There is a spike of non-hazardous leaks after a cold winter. Councillor Zondervan asked about exploring other technologies and spoke about sensors built into pipes that pre-detected leaks. He wanted information about the new technology being explored for leak protection. Mr. Needham explained the equipment used to detect leaks. An imaging tool will be utilized in 2019 is a new tool. He stated that there is a standards and tools committee that discusses these issues and a pilot area is chosen.

Mr. Nutter stated that if all the gas lines are being replaced by 2040 you are building a fossil fuel infrastructure across the City with several million dollars in investments. He commented that no one has cost this out over twenty-five years. There is a Net Zero Action Plan and removing fossil fuel from City entirely by 2040 and will be spending this money when we are supposed to be getting clean energy. He questioned the message being sent to the public, the resources being used in the City and doing two very competing things at once. Councillor Kelley this is the ultimate question to switch from gas heating to non-gas heating without having heat in the interim period. The next step for him it to better understand what power lies in the City to require things and how a future non-gas City looks like and how to get there.

Councillor Zondervan explained what he is doing at his home. There are Net Zero schools being built. It is a question of how fast this can be done and how to pay for this. The utility companies are not losing money. He stated that there is some possibility of using methane capturing (from landfills and food/agricultural waste) and for new buildings we should be aggressively moving away from fracked gas. Ms. Shulman stated that home owners cannot afford air source heat pumps; utilities need to provide clean renewable energy. Cambridge can do this.

Councillor Mallon stated that she is interested in microgrids and district energy; would like more information.

Ms. New stated that whatever Cambridge can do to pressure Governor Baker and the Department of Public Utilities to be a functioning department with adequate funding and more competent leaders and with more inspectors. All need to do better with the gas we have and to move off gas more quickly.

Councillor Zondervan wanted a clear answer to how a tree was taken down if this is being done safely in Cambridge. He stated that 25 years is too long to address the infrastructure. He stated a gas leak across the street from him took a long time to fix.

A communication was received from Kristine Jelstrup, 120 Pleasant Street, urging the City to move away from the use of gas fed boilers and furnaces. Her statement is attached (ATTACHMENT C).

Councillor Zondervan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 2:55pm.

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

Committee Report #7
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Nov 15, 2018 at 1:06pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to continue discussions on the petition filed by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to cannabis uses.

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

Also present was Jeremy Thompson, 418 Massachusetts Avenue; and Marcus Johnson Smith, 1536 Tremont Street, Boston.

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 hearing. He stated that this is the second Ordinance hearing and further stated that the petition has been modified.

Mr. Roberts outlined the changes to the petition by Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board. The modified language is attached (ATTACHMENT A). The changes are as follows:

On page 12 is where the changes begin. Under licenses and registration “and local” has been added. He noted that it has not been determined at this time whether there will be a local licensing or registration process, but if there is it is reflected in the zoning.

On page 13 corrections and clarification that were in the Planning Board recommendations were made. Home deliveries were clarified. They are currently allowed only for medical marijuana dispensaries and not allowed under the state regulations for adult use cannabis.

On page 14 the number of proposed districts where cannabis retail stores would be allowed was not changed.

On the bottom of page 14 and on page 15 a portion of the text was deleted based on the Ordinance Committee recommendations of keeping the standard that all retail stores would have to be separated at least 1,800 feet apart and that there would not be districts where there could be two retail stores within the area. He stated that the only exception is the economic empowerment applicants. He stated that by the recommendation of the Ordinance Committee it was added “applicants certified as eligible to participate in the social equity program.” This was clarified by a previous hearing of the Economic Development Committee that the Cannabis Control Commission would make a determination as to whether or not applicants were eligible for this program.

He stated that as voted by the Ordinance Committee, the allowed size for cannabis production facility was increased to 10,000 square feet and the buffer zones from schools and playgrounds and other public youth facilities was changed from 500 to 300 feet.

On page 18 changes were made as recommended by the Planning Board. It was suggested that some additional revised language clarification was made in relation to the special permit criteria.

He stated that in section (e) there was discussion at the Ordinance Committee that if there was a proposed establishment that would not be serving medical marijuana patients, that they provide information, such as an on-line system to obtain registration under this program and find opportunities to obtain marijuana for medical use. Language has been added that indicates that non-medical establishments would still have some obligation, whether or not reviewed as part of the special permit process to assist patients in obtain the kinds of services that they might be seeking under this program. He stated that a clean version of section 11.800 that incorporates the changes is attached.

Councillor Carlone asked if the City Councillors had any clarifying questions on the changes outlined by Mr. Roberts.

Councillor Zondervan questioned reducing district from 500 to 300 feet. What is the impact of the reduction on potential sites. Mr. Roberts stated that in areas where part of the zoning districts would have been difficult to locate an establishment due to proximity to one of these spaces it becomes more flexible. There are not many districts unavailable before that are now completely available. He stated the area that changed the most by this reduction is along Massachusetts Avenue south of Porter Square, a portion of this district where a large part is within 500 feet of Sacramento Field but there are larger portions that are not within 300 feet of Sacramento Field. He stated that if there are areas shown on the current version of the map that seem to be areas of concern he would look at these more closely. Councillor Carlone said that the previous presentation was for 27 zones and reducing yielded 28 zones. This is relative small change with the distance change. Councillor Zondervan stated that this does matter with the shape and size of the zones. He stated that areas would shrink under 500 feet and the size of the areas are impacted. Mr. Roberts stated that there are some areas in North Cambridge, there are small districts that are commercial and were covered more by 500-foot distance and are not covered as much by the 300-foot distance. With the additional restriction of 1,800 between establishments this does not create the opportunity for a greater number of establishments. This just means that there is more flexibility in the availability of sites.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that in North Cambridge in the BA1 district might have become available by changing the distance between the buffer. Mr. Roberts responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she has reservations about including BA1 districts in the allowed zones. She stated that Mt. Auburn Street by Star Market is a BA1 district and is a dissimilar location compared to those in North Cambridge and Cambridgeport. She could live without BA1 districts being included because there is an adequate number to site stores.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the implementation process and what the next steps are.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 1:22pm.

Jeremiah Thompson, 418 Mass Avenue, Boston spoke about the proposed zoning and what it would mean to equity applicants. He stated that now there is a provision for 1,800 feet between dispensary locations, except if there are equity applicants. This allows the economic gap to be closed because it creates the opportunity for residents, such as him, to connect with business owners and people with money to forge a relationship and build opportunities in the community. He commented on disadvantaged communities and the wage gap and that this is an untapped economic stimulus that will close the gap and the provisions will help people like him to leverage services in this industry. He noted that equity applicants are in high demand now. He stated that big institutions are meeting with these applicants to get to the front of the line. This is the first time this leverage has been created for disadvantage communities. The surplus of funding from this industry can help equity applicants.

He stated that the Cannabis Control Commission has leveraged these industries to bring groups together and work in this unique form. He noted that what Cambridge is doing is allowing people such as himself to find a way into the industry. He thanked the City Council for inserting these provisions to help people like him. He wanted to include equity into his business plan so that employees will have ownership into the business. He expressed concern around zoning as it relates to monopolies that are being created. He stated that CERA Naturals was sold in Cambridge to a Canadian company. He stated that Massachusetts has been in the forefront to make sure that small businesses will be part of this industry. He stated that no one wants a big business outside of the country to come in and start taking over what was meant for the local economy. He wanted to ensure that with the zoning that monopolies for large conglomerates are not being created.

Marcus Johnson Smith, 1536 Tremont Street, Boston commented on the zoning recommendations that were made. He is interested in actively negotiating for property in one of BA1 locations and was aware of the concern for opening non-medical cannabis use in these locations. He spoke about his experience in this process and by creating more opportunity to open this business. He stated that he and his partner are experiencing instances where they are being asked to pay more for retail locations because of the proposed type of business. He added that if the BA1 districts are limited the price gouging will only increase. He stated that it is important to free up these zones and if not, rents will increase and limit the opportunity for people like him to get into the industry.

Councillor Carlone stated that currently all retail districts are being proposed.

Councillor Carlone closed public comment at 1:31pm.

Councillor Siddiqui spoke about economic empowerment applicants and stated that she wanted to discuss equity in cannabis and what it looks like. She submitted memo regarding recommendations for a separate local equity ordinance (ATTACHMENT B) and Policy Order #6 adopted on Oct 15, 2018 (ATTACHMENT C). She stated that the zoning states that a cannabis store shall not be within 1,800 feet, except if the applicant has been designated as an economic empowerment application or certified as eligible to participate in a social equity program. This does not state that host agreements are being signed with economic empowerment applicants and alternating them with non-empowerment groups nor is it setting up some type of cap nor is it being prescriptive of who the City wants to be doing business with. She stated that there is an important element here to discuss and what cannot go into zoning and why the City may have to dictate further something different and what would it look like. She stated that Somerville just passed a separate ordinance to address the equity aspect (ATTACHMENT D). She wanted to discuss what cannot be in zoning and if there should be a separate ordinance.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about Mr. Thompson’s concern as it relates to the zoning language. He stated that based on the zoning language, his fear is that an applicant that qualifies for the zoning and as soon as the applicant has its permits, the company is bought out or the company is sold. At that point the City has lost control because the zoning only addresses getting the initial license or the permit to establish a store but it does not continue to regulate who operates the store under what conditions. Does this require a separate ordinance to continue to monitor the situation to ensure that the equity applicants are continuing to benefit from the business? Councillor Siddiqui stated that if the host community agreement is finite, shouldn’t a separate ordinance be more permanent for the future.

City Solicitor Glowa spoke about the basic question of what zoning can do. She explained that zoning is about regulating the use of land and does not regulate construction activities within structures, but it can regulate uses. She stated that the inside of construction property is not regulated. She stated that one can have a special permit under zoning be given to an owner or operator of a business and it can be conditioned to be for a period of time. There are some controls available in zoning to tie the granted special permit to a particular owner or operator and for a limited period of time. This is a mechanism of keeping the local business interest ensured for a longer time to have a condition in the special permit that would require an applicant to go back for a new special permit if there was to be a change in ownership and at this point the criteria could be reviewed. As far as regulating the social equity interest, this would not typically be handled in a zoning ordinance. She stated that she recommended that the City Council consider other options, such as a stand-alone ordinance, similar to what Somerville has done or there could be a regulation or policy. She noted that there is room to consider various legal options but felt that some separate scheme would give the City greater control over the types of criteria that the City Council is interested in regulating with respect to the social equity concerns.

Councillor Carlone stated that the special permit criteria can get into details, but the City Solicitor is suggesting those related to physical not ownership or other similar issues. City Solicitor Glowa stated that a special permit under zoning can be conditioned upon who the applicant is and be limited to that applicant. She stated that the Cambridge Planning Board typically issues special permits that stay with the property even if the property changes ownership and there are explicit provisions for this in the Planning Board special permits. The smaller special permits issued by the Board of Zoning Appeal sometimes are conditioned upon the particular operator or owner of the business or for a limited period of time. If it is a new business in a small residential area, the Board of Zoning Appeals has conditioned the issuance of a special permit to be for a number of years or for the particular operator if there are concerns about the impact on the community and how the business will be operated. She stated other details such as a business plan or types of employees employed would not typically be covered in a zoning ordinance which is why it is being recommended that a different type of approach be used for this.

Mayor McGovern stated that he is in favor of keeping BA1 location for these businesses; he wanted the least restrictive map to provide the greatest flexibility for businesses to open. He asked how will some of the issues that the Council is concerned about around the economic opportunity be discussed and when - does the zoning and the selection process have to be done together. He wanted a mechanism that ensures if an economic empowerment applicant sells that this establishment remains and does not get sold to a major international company. This protection should be kept forever and not allow the establishment to be turned over to large businesses.

He spoke about where does the 3% tax fit into this discussion and when is this coming forward. He asked who will be putting this together; is this coming from CDD or the City Council – it does not fit into zoning but needs to be part of this discussion. Ms. Farooq stated that the Law Department and Community Development Department will put together the tax and the additional fee that the City can charge above the 3% tax. She noted that this could also be an area that could help social equity applicants over larger corporate entities.

Mayor McGovern asked if the City Council voted for the additional tax is this across the board or could it be stated that the economic equity applicants do not have to pay this which would give an advantage to these applicants. City Solicitor responded that this needs to be researched.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that on page 13 in section 11.802.3 entitled Limitation of Approval. She read that once the special permit was issued if there was a change in registration or license, the new potential owner would have to reapply. Mr. Roberts responded that the cases for medical marijuana dispensaries that have come before the Planning Board in the zoning for establishments going forward these are special permits that are particular to the applicant. He spoke about Board of Zoning Appeal conditional use special permits than other types of Planning Board special permits. This means that if an operator started a retail establishment and received a special permit and then decided to sell that permitted business, the new operator would need to get a new special permit. If a future successful economic empowerment business has success, and decides to sell a stake to a larger company, this is still considered the same business. This cannot be controlled through zoning.

In this circumstance Councillor Carlone would still want a requirement that an approved economic empowerment business must have (at a minimum) 51% ownership with an economic empowerment group since relief is being granted based on the empowerment. Mr. Roberts agreed and stated that it would still have to comply with zoning and zoning states that only economic empowerment applicants are able to do this. However, how this is enforced through a special permit process still needs to be discussed. City Solicitor Glowa stated that an explicit requirement of the special permit would be it remains an economic empowerment applicant. She stated that regarding enforcement this would be a zoning violation and is enforced by Inspectional Services Department.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked whether under zoning would the City be allowed to state that only an economic empowerment applicant be allowed to operate in a BA1 to give an opportunity that others do not have. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this needed to be researched. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that on page 15 under (c) it is her understanding that products in stores are prepackaged and arrive in the store prepackaged and is sold prepackaged. Mr. Roberts stated that concerns were raised in internal discussion to control odor nuisances. He stated that if this were a retail store and approximate to some other uses then the odor nuisance could be a concern. He stated that the State Cannabis Control Commission has taken a harder line in stating that retail establishments can only sell prepackaged products. He stated that he is unsure if this is spelled out this clearly in the regulations. The City can be more restrictive or look at the state application and make a determination based on their review along with what is in the zoning. He stated that the cases would be rare where a retail establishment wanted to provide repackaging the product on site. This leaves flexibility for a standalone establishment if separated from other types of uses. He noted that all this is subject to special permit review. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that CERA Natural stated that all products would be prepackaged or wrapped.

Ms. Farooq spoke about using an example of a Medical dispensary in Alewife, which is in a standalone building. She noted that there are not many opportunities for this format in Cambridge. This provides more flexibility for this type of location.

Councillor Mallon spoke about the economic empowerment aspect to bring adult use to Cambridge and being mindful about those who have been disproportionally affected by the war on drugs. She wanted this to be moved forward quickly. She noted that the Commissioner stated that there have been 30 provisional licenses that have been given out and not one was issued to a minority, veteran or women organization at this time. She stated that in order to make this a successful program the City needs to be thoughtful and leverage the economic empowerment from the beginning. She spoke about making sure that the economic empowerment stores remain under economic empowerment ownership. She said that there may not be another economic empowerment applicant in line to take over an economic empowerment applicant’s business. She commented that the Economic Development Division may be helpful providing technical assistance. She supported the document submitted by Councillor Siddiqui and Councillor Carlone to put together an ordinance for economic empowerment and social equity aspect of this. This is critical to the success for Cambridge to be a leader in this area. She asked what the time line of is putting something together to tie this up quickly.

Councillor Mallon commented that she was hoping that the questions posed in the Oct 15th Policy Order would be answered at this hearing. City Solicitor Glowa stated that a municipal ordinance does not take as long as a zoning ordinance to go through the process. She will try to fast track this and will make it a priority. Councillor Carlone stated that if the zoning is approved nothing can happen until the second ordinance is approved, which would hold up the opening of marijuana retail establishments. Ms. Farooq stated that there is a requirement for a host community agreement and the City could hold off on issuing any host community agreement that would prevent anything going forward. Councillor Mallon asked whether you need anything from the City Council to get this done.

Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that if the City Council wanted an ordinance similar to the Somerville model it would be helpful to look at the text of the ordinance to see which parts of the ordinance that you agree with and which should be different for Cambridge and whether this should be an ordinance, regulation or policy and having some of these answers would be helpful. She suggested that it be done as a committee seeking a consensus. Councillor Mallon asked where is the City on drafting the community host agreements and how soon will a community host agreement be before the City Council. City Solicitor Glowa explained that the City has not yet entered into community host agreements for the medical marijuana dispensaries. They would be signed by the City Manager and may require approval by City Council. It would not take significant time to draft a host community agreement when there is a need to have one ready.

Councillor Zondervan supported the development of a municipal ordinance during the zoning process. It is important to work on them in parallel. He spoke about the issue of the change of business ownership. He stated that on page 13 if the applicant is designated an economic empowerment applicant the language implies that only another economic empowerment applicant could take over the business. He wanted the language more explicit. He stated his concern with the language in the zoning there are ways that businesses can skirt around this provision. He wanted the zoning more explicit than the stated limitation of approval. He wanted explicit language that stated that special permits are not transferrable to a new ownership and that a new buyer will need to reapply.

The City Solicitor stated that zoning has a different presumption than licensing. She explained when it states “shall be valid only for the license and registered entity to which the special permit was issued and only for the site on which the retail store production facility has been authorized” means that it cannot be used by anyone else. She stated that special permits are not typically transferred like some licenses may be. Ms. Glowa stated that this language is binding but she will look at whether there is a need for more specific language. She agreed that in a licensing context that if there is a separate ordinance with a licensing procedure, the City would want to put in language, which states that it is non-transferrable.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about the need to alternate the signing of community host agreements with non-empowerment and empowerment owners. He spoke about prepackaged or onsite packaging and asked if it would be better to have two permits required. Mr. Roberts stated that this is all within a special permit process and adding another permit would not change anything about the process. He stated that if the City Council has a different intent or sought to clarify language he would be happy to clarify the language. If packaging could be part of a production facility and only allowed in a more limited area, it would still subject to special permit review. If made separate it would be limited to one area or a potentially different set of areas where packaging would be allowed but no other types of processing. He stated that it may difficult to separate a packaging retail operation versus a production packaging operation. This is providing a clean separation between establishments that focus on retail and establishments that are forced to have industrial type operations. Councillor Zondervan stated that another way to get at it is that in order to do packaging you need to meet the criteria for a production facility and in order to do packaging in a retail facility you would have to meet both sets of criteria.

Councillor Kelley noted that a lot of the City Council’s concerns are not zoning. He listed the true zoning issues as packaging, whether BA1 is appropriate, 300 feet versus 500 feet buffer and the equity empowerment issue whether or not it merges into zoning or a separate municipal code ordinance. So, no community host agreement will be issued for recreational sales until the City Council has approved a separate municipal ordinance for equity empowerment applicants. He stated that there are no models for community host agreements for recreational sales. He stated that if the zoning were pushed forward it would be a long time before anyone can directly sell direct recreational. Councillor Carlone added to the issue of properly screening retail facilities with active uses and fully understanding what the special permit criteria used by the Planning Board would be.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that for the Dec 3rd City Council meeting the City Solicitor will report back with a proposed timeline and answer some of the questions. She noted that there are a number of models for the community host agreements. Ms. Farooq explained that the zoning expires on Dec 31, 2018 and if the City Council wants this zoning petition to pass, it needs to be passed to a second reading on Dec 3, 2018. If the petition is not passed to a second reading on Dec 3, 2018 the petition may need to be refiled. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there could be a requirement that the zoning would be effective at a later date. Councillor Zondervan suggested language or upon passage of the municipal ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she would like to report back on this on Dec 3, 2018.

Councillor Siddiqui suggested another municipal ordinance. She stated that in order to be most efficient there should be another Ordinance Committee hearing. She moved to have the City Solicitor draft a municipal ordinance or another regulation to effectuate these provisions similar to Somerville’s for economic empowerment. City Solicitor stated that if a draft ordinance is recommended it would not be ready for Dec 3, 2018.

Mayor McGovern stated that he only saw the Somerville ordinance ten minutes before this hearing. He stated that there are already established dispensaries that are ready to go, and medical dispensaries want to move to adult marijuana use. He stated that there are some economic empowerment applicants ready to go. There are businesses that want to get up and running or expand. He suggested passing the zoning before the other pieces. He wanted the zoning completed and then work on the other ordinance. He stated that there is one year left in this term and there are issues that need to be moved along. He wanted licenses issued sooner. Mayor McGovern asked Councillor Siddiqui if she felt better for staff to come forward with an ordinance rather than for the City Council to draft an ordinance. He wanted the work of the Economic Development Committee incorporated into the ordinance. Councillor Siddiqui said that she would be happy to draft a municipal ordinance. It would be important to have the License Commission here.

Councillor Carlone agreed that the zoning will proceed and meet the upcoming deadline. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she would prepare a draft municipal ordinance for consideration by the City Council.

Councillor Siddiqui made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to draft a proposed Municipal Code Ordinance, similar to Somerville’s, or another regulation or policy to effectuate the economic empowerment applicant provision for cannabis uses.

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Carlone stated that on page 18 section (d) he moved to amend by adding after the word “active” the word “business.” He further amended this section in the last line after the word “include” add the word “changing” public art.

The motions carried on a voice vote of seven members.

Councillor Carlone stated that there were zoning questions on BA1, equity empowerment, packaging, and 300 feet versus 500 feet are the issues. Mr. Roberts stated that applicants have made commitments of not having packaging on site, which is preferred by the Cannabis Control Commission, but he does not believe that this is a firm requirement. There are provisions that could be put in place that would limit packaging on retail establishments. However, there is flexibility in a standalone; the City Council can restrict packaging in a retail establishment and could still allow it in a processing and cultivation facility.

Councillor Zondervan expressed concerns about ownership transferability and limitation of the approval process. He stated that on page 15 in the section under cannabis retail stores that this language should be made tighter if the ownership entity changes, it invalidates the permit. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she will propose clarifying language.

Councillor Carlone asked Mr. Roberts to verify that if zoning relief is granted and the business is sold to a non-empowerment equity, it would then not meet zoning. Mr. Roberts stated that economic empowerment could be an on-going condition of the special permit and if it is written into the special permit that it is only for the proposed operator and needs to continue to meet the economic empowerment requirement.

Councillor Carlone moved to refer the modified petition with a favorable recommendation to the full City Council.

The motion carried on a voice vote of seven members.

A communication was received from Pamela Blau, 15 Sherman Street, requesting that the City Council consider creating restricted zoning for the sale of recreational cannabis (ATTACHMENT E).

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

The hearing adjourned at 2:56pm.

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

Committee Report #8
The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Sept 12, 2018 at 6:31pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the upcoming Inman Square redesign project.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Kelley; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager, City Manager’s Office; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner; Kathy Watkins, Senior Engineer; Jerry Friedman, Supervising Engineer, Department of Public Works (DPW); Joseph Barr, Director; Brooke McKenna, Assistant Director for Street Management, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Khalil Mogassabi, Deputy Director of Community Planning and Chief Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communications and Community Relations; Mark Gutierrez; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Jason Alves, Executive Director, East Cambridge Business Association; Mark Boswell, Cambridge Bicycle Safety; Becca Wilson, Executive Director, Boston Cyclists Union; John Pitkin; Fritz Donovan; Gary Mitchell; Mike Reppucci; George Metzger; Cate LeBlanc; Charles Franklin; Sara Mae Berman; Ed Woll; Marie Saccoccio; Andrew McFarland; Sharon DeVos; Charlie Katz; Debra Mandel; Itamar Turner-Trauring; Phyllis Bretholtz; Alice Wiseberg; Cara Presseau; Judy Ryan; Richard Krushnic; John Ellersick; Andrea Williams; George Schneeloch; Ruthann Rudel; and Elena Saporta.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing, read the Call of the Meeting and made introductions.

Mr. DePasquale thanked everyone that has been involved in this process. He said that the discussion began in the summer of 2016 and a lot of planning has gone into this project with much community process. He thanked the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, the Department of Public Works and the Law Department for their dedicated work. He thanked the City Council for its input in the process. He said that the City appreciated all the residents that have attended the meeting and presentations as it is important to have this input and feedback. He said that the City Council will be asked to adopt the Home Rule Petition that was submitted by the City Council to the legislature on the Inman Square Intersection Improvement Plan and that has now been enacted by the legislature and signed by the Governor. He thanked Senator Sal DiDominico, Representative Mike Connolly and Governor Baker for their support of this important project.

Joseph Barr gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation titled Inman Square Intersection Safety Improvements Project (ATTACHMENT A).

Kathy Watkins noted that the goals are to create spaces that are unique and interesting. She said that they heard concerns about trees and locations where larger tree plantings can be done. She said that they are working on refining designs and a design plan for an upcoming October meeting. She said that they are looking at relocating the Hubway to the parking lot on Springfield Street. She said that they are excited about artist Mark Regelman who will work on the project to make it a unique and memorable space. She gave an overview of next steps and explained that they are working with the local business association on construction mitigation. Together with CDD and their Economic Development Division, they are discussing a pilot program with businesses to start talking about activities that help business during construction work.

Councillor Zondervan asked if a vote by the City Council to accept the Home Rule Petition must be a majority vote. Ms. Glowa responded in the affirmative.

John Pitkin read from prepared written remarks (ATTACHMENT B) urging the City Council, Staff and other members of the community to give serious consideration to the modified plan put forward by the Friends of Inman Square at the City Council in June. Additionally, he submitted a map of the modified plan (ATTACHMENT C) and an Updated Design Option Summary (ATTACHMENT D).

Mike Reppucci, Inman Pharmacy, stated that he appreciates the efforts of the City but he feels that in this process it has become an issue that if you don’t like the proposed project, you are putting the bicyclists at risk. He said that this should be a discussion about how to make this the best possible plan. He said that his business has been at the same location for quite some time and this is a big deal to him. He said that given the amount of impacts that will take place, he requested a little more time to consider other options.

Gary Mitchell, S&S, stated that he took the plans to his family. He said that his mother suggested that he talk to the City Manager and suggested that we go back in time when Inman Square was a better place. She feels that a police person in the middle of Inman Square would give Inman Square the feel of an urban village. She said that she does not want Inman Square to be like Leverett Circle or Union Square. She offered to pay to have the police person as a detail police from 6-10am and 4-11pm Mr. Mitchell said that he is not in favor of the current plan. He stated that many of the business owners are not in favor of the plan. He said that the disruption to Inman Square will be negative. He concluded that the S&S loves serving the city.

Becca Wilson, Executive Director of the Boston Cyclists Union, stated that they serve residents in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and Brookline. She noted that she is a resident of Union Square. She said that she bikes through Inman Square daily. She said that her membership has been awaiting this project to move forward. She said that this has been a 2-year process. She explained that the Boston Cyclists Union wants to move forward for safe and connected bike facilities. She said that the Inman Square intersection is one of the most heavily trafficked bike connections in the region. She said that safe bike routes allow businesses to thrive. She said that a safer Inman Square would help Inman Square as a destination. She said that bikes mean business. She said that they would happy to work with the businesses to help promote their businesses. She questioned if the City can potentially fast track the project even more. She said that the design elements are appropriate and mandated through the City’s adoption of Vision Zero. She concluded that she would like the project to move forward without delay.

Mark Boswell, Cambridge Bicycle Safety, submitted a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT E) stated that his organization is an all-volunteer bicycle advocacy group. He said that they raise awareness and safety issues and celebrate new installations. He said that 3,500 members fully support the current Inman Square as proposed. He said that they want this to move forward for three reasons: safety, comfort and the benefit this plan will have for all. He stated that this is one of the longest processes that he has ever seen. He said that the Home Rule Petition has made it through the legislature and his organization is committed to supporting this project.

George Metzger, Inman Square Neighborhood Association (ISNA), stated that everybody understands that Inman Square is a challenge. He said that it is a challenge as an economic small business district and it is a challenge to the neighbors. He said that the process has divided the neighborhood. He said that there is no perfect plan but all the changes proposed will require a lot of adjustments. He said that the ISNA wants to support a solution to Inman Square. He said that a no-build to Inman Square will not be a solution. He said that he is speaking on behalf of group that will not second-guess those with expertise in traffic planning. He said that they want to turn the focus of the community to many of the issues that have been spoken about. They are concerned with the economic vitality. They want to ensure the mitigation of impact of this type of construction on a fragile business structure. He said that part of sustaining Inman Square is dealing with the traffic impact. He concluded that the ISNA wants a square that is safer and easier to use and a square that people want to come to and live in and works for transit. He said that in addition to a focus on supporting businesses, it is important to ensure that the schedules are as compact as possible, impacts are mitigated, and businesses are supported. He urged that these details must be discussed before work is begun.

Councillor Kelley stated that everyone is eager to see a safer Inman Square. He said that this proposal will make his life and his family’s life much more dangerous. He said that this is a horrible and dangerous project. He said that initially, the first documents stated a $3 million-dollar budget and it is currently a $6 million-dollar number. He asked the reason for the increase. Kathy Watkins explained that it is a significant construction project with a current estimate of $6 million dollars. She said that it is the City’s intention to come before the City Council in October with an appropriation for this project. Councillor Kelley responded that $6 million dollars do a lot and he would take some of that money to make Vellucci Plaza a more vibrant place.

Councillor Kelley asked if there is Police Report related to the cyclist fatality of June 2016. Mr. Barr responded that the District Attorney has not released that information. Mr. Repucci said that he saw the accident and he has recordings. He said that Councillor Kelley should ask to see these tapes. Mr. Barr reiterated that this information is not currently available. Councillor Kelley said that it is important to draw the right lessons about bike safety after tragic events. He asked what was done to make the plaza as safe as possible after the accident. Mr. Barr stated that they were focused on improving the safety of cyclists and they did not perceive that biking through the plaza was a significant issue so they did nothing specific in response to that.

Councillor Kelley said that enhanced pavement markings were done in 2016. He stated that this was poorly designed. He said that he would be happy to go through the intersection and try to see how clear it is. He asked Mr. Barr if the intersection is as well marked as possible to ensure safety. Mr. Barr stated that the intersection, as currently laid out, limits how much can be done so that is why they pursued a design like the proposed design concept. Councillor Kelley said that angled crashes are a concern of safety. He said that if left hand turns are mitigated, it would address that crash concern. Mr. Barr stated that it would address one concern but there would not be separated bike lanes or pedestrian crossings. He said that the overall conclusion is that they cannot come close to achieving maximum safety benefits without major changes in Inman Square. Councillor Kelley said that based on his research, he feels that 18 cars out of 1,000 making illegal left-hand turns is not a huge amount. He said that he sees people coming down Hampshire Street feeling that the bike lane does not work for them and they will go into the street and be challenged by the cars. He said that on the open data portal it is difficult to figure out where a collision took place and why. He said that if we get rid of the turning movements, we get rid of the angle crashes. He said that he feels that there will be many more opportunities for turning crashes with this concept.

Mr. Barr said that there are two ways to manage conflicts with separated bike lanes: physical separation of time and separation with signals. He said that there are movements that look like conflicts but when operating on the streets there will be protection through use of signals. He said that they do not expect to see cars going from Hampshire to Antrim Street. He said that this would be designed at a slow speed. He said that the current situation from Hampshire Street towards Cambridge Street is a significant safety issue. He said that there is a fundamental disagreement with Councillor Kelley on certain aspects of the design, but all the evidence that he and the consultants have seen is that this type of design for cycling facilities does increase safety.

Councillor Kelley said that he does not want this project to bring the City backwards as it relates to safety. He said that we can do a better. He said that his opinion is that this is a bad decision.

Councillor Toomey stated that in 2016 he introduced a City Council order to look at the design of Inman Square. He said that he did not sign up for this plan and he does not feel that this is the right solution. He said that he feels, in terms of safety of every mode of transportation, that this plan is not positive. He said that he hopes to be proven wrong. He said that the $6 million-dollar budget and the 2-year plan will not stand, and the reality is that he is concerned about how the businesses will survive. He said that during the construction period, all people will be put at risk. He said that he does not feel that this is the right plan.

Public Comment began at 7:57pm.

Catz LeBlanc, 14 Tufts Street, stated that she frequents the shops at Inman Square. She said that she would like to revisit the concept of separating bikes from vehicular traffic. She said that she wants as many trees planted as possible.

Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street, submitted written comment (ATTACHMENT F) and stated that there has been misinformation circulating about this design. He said that illegal left turns are epidemic. He said that the intersection is so long that the light can be green at one end and red by the time you get to the other side. He said that he heard that some think the new design is complicated. He said that intersection does looks complicated but with proper signage it will be safer. He said that the plan may not make everyone happy, but it is the best plan of the ones reviewed. He said that he chooses safety and efficiency.

John Goodson stated that the foremost responsibility is to public safety. He said that we all know how quickly fires spread and he thinks that the #1 priority is to preserve the safety as it stands. He said that this intersection should serve the needs of pedestrians. He said that bikers violate the rules constantly and it terrifies him. He said that Inman Square is lucky to have two extraordinary pharmacies. He said that if you direct traffic into the window of Inman Pharmacy you will impair the viability of this business.

Ed Woll read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT G). He stated that once it was decided that moving Vellucci Plaza was okay, the design options broadened considerably and have resulted in a design that effectively has eliminated a neighborhood friendly Vellucci Plaza. He said that the modified plan needs a full-blown analysis to determine whether it is at least equal to or better than the City plan.

Marie Saccocio, 55 Otis Street, stated that as a taxpayer she is opposed to this project. She talked about Article 97 and the legislative review. She said that it is purely about parkland. She said that the legislature approval is not an approval of the current plan. She said that this project is aimed at safety and convenience and completely disregards the safety and convenience of senior citizens. She said that Cambridge is making decisions on a young, transient population. She said that there is no way to protect the Inman Square businesses with a 2-3-year plan.

Itamar Turner-Trauring, 139 Oxford Street, stated that he and his family bike through Inman Square. He stated that the current design impedes the flow of people trying to get around. He said that this design will make things better for everyone.

Sharon deVos, 118 Antrim Street, submitted a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT H) and stated that she was distressed to hear that this hearing was not going to allow people to look at the modified plan and she is pleased to have that opportunity. She said that it has been enlightening to hear people express their concerns about safety. She said that there is a petition of 15 people saying that they want the modified plan. She said that she cares about safety and the environment. She said that she has always talked about safety and she has pointed out that the City has a list of five longstanding safety issues in Inman Square that are very serious. She said that she has discussed the issue of left-hand turns onto Springfield Street with Mr. Barr. She said that she does not know why there are three No Left Turn signs that remain in Inman Square as they are a source of confusion. She questioned if it is legal to take the left onto Springfield Street. Councillor Zondervan responded in the affirmative. Ms. deVos asked that the No Left Turn signs be taken down. She said that cyclists have every right to want protected bike lanes and they deserve a better, safer plan.

Debra Mandel read from a prepared written statement.

Phyllis Bretholtz, 65 Antrim Street, stated that this process has been painful in terms of divisions that it has created in the community. She stated her support for Mr. Metzger’s comments. She said that as a member of the community, her major concern is for mitigating the impact on the businesses. She said that a small group created some suggestions to have the City consider mitigating the impact on the businesses such as a shuttle that picks up employees and customers from a parking lot, working with the construction company for project phasing that has the least impact on businesses, the creation of a tax abatement for businesses impacted by construction, reaching out to owners of nearby parking lots to ask if the lots can be used outside of business hours or leased out during the day, regular meetings with local businesses to plan and promote weekly and monthly special events, and parking matchmaker to offer space for specific hours during the day.

Richard Krushnic, 20 Oak Street, Inman Square Neighborhood Association, stated that the primary concern is seeing a way that the project could help the business district. He said that they ended up liking this plan because of the creation of the new plaza on the side of the street where the businesses are. He said that everyone estimated the feeling of the business community during the construction period. He said that he is in favor of reducing the length of the construction period.

Eleven additional written public comments were received by the City Clerk’s Office (ATTACHMENTS I – S).

Councillor Zondervan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 8:30pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Chair

Committee Report #9
The Transportation & Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Nov 8, 2018 at 2:04pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the Federal Communications Commission’s new policy on regulating small cell technology and the City’s response and policies.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Devereux, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Zondervan; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; Assistant City Solicitor Paul Kawai; Executive Director, Historical Commission Charles Sullivan; Preservation Planner, Historical Commission Sarah Burks; City Electrician Stephen Lenkauskas; Director, Communications and Public Relations, Lee Gianetti; License Commissioner Nicole Murati-Ferrer; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were John David Bowers, Berkman Klein Center; Haran C. Rashes, Director of External Relations, Extenet Systems; Nancy Ryan; Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street; and Attorney James Rafferty.

Vice Mayor Devereux convened the hearing and explained the purpose. She announced that the hearing is being privately audio recorded. Small cell 5G technology is an area that is rapidly changing. Her goal is to discuss City policies and procedures for how this technology is deployed. She stated that she attended recent Pole and Conduit hearings. Now there is a proliferation for requests for the installation of small cell technology. Cambridge is not alone in this, it is happening in cities and towns nationwide. There is an action guide from the National League of Cities (NLC) (ATTACHMENT A). There are case studies of how other communities have installed this technology. There is also a memo with an introduction and summary from John David Bowers attached (ATTACHMENT B).

Mr. Lenkauskas gave a presentation on the functions of the Pole and Conduit Commission (ATTACHMENT C). He gave a background of the Pole and Conduit Commission. Petitions are received from utilities that want to occupy the public way. He explained the types of the permits that the commission oversees. He explained that a small cell is similar to both a macro cell sited on a building or a standalone cell tower, and it transmits wireless service signals. Big towers can travel farther and store more data. Over the 11 years the small cells have. been at street level and picks up ground level and transmit up to the macro cell and out to the world. He explained the current process for small cell installations. If there is opposition the petition is continued until they obtain permission from the pole owner. There are times that the small cell need to install conduit. He gave examples of small cells installed in Cambridge. There are 121 small cells in Cambridge installed by Crown Castle. He stated that there is a concentration of cells in East Cambridge because of the universities. The presentation listed locations where small cells have been installed. He spoke about the appearance and configuration of a typical utility pole. He spoke about and showed examples of small cells installed in Boston. There could be 4 small cells on one pole because of vendor competition. Antennas are located at the top of the poles.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that there has been a recent ruling from the FCC in September that will go into effect in January 2019 that will impose new restrictions on municipalities. She highlighted some of the basic requirements of the new FCC order. The City has not allowed any carriers to use any city owned poles. Under this new ruling the City cannot prevent this. Large cells are regulated under zoning as they are located on buildings. She stated that the FCC puts a 60-day time limit on processing applications from companies looking to install small cells, and notes that this is also difficult to address. She stated that zoning will be provided to make this permissible. There have been challenges to meet the time constraints of processing this through the Pole and Conduit Commission. She spoke about the regulation of aesthetics of the installations. Traffic signal poles could be used instead of light poles. The quantity of small cell installation requests will make it difficult to preserve the historic areas of the city. There is no recognition of the City owning the poles. The FCC presumes a $500 one-time fee is reasonable for companies to pay to access space on City poles. She stated that the regulation is 160 pages long. The Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) and NLC and other municipalities are looking at ways to address this new regulation. The City is researching how to move forward on this.

Councillor Kelley asked is this a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) regulation. City Solicitor Glowa stated that it is in the federal register; it is a declaratory ruling. It is on the FCC website. The letter from the General Court of Mass - Somerville delegation (ATTACHMENT D) lists the dockets.

Councillor Carlone asked whether this goes into effect in January. City Solicitor Glowa responded it goes into effect on Jan 19, 2019. Councillor Carlone noted it is unrealistic to do what needs to be done in 2 months. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there are some communities that have embarked on regulations.

Vice Mayor Devereux opened public comment at 2:30pm.

Haran Rashes, Exenet, Inc., stated that Exenet builds and leases small cell technology. He has been trying to reach an agreement with the City to attach to a city property. In the packet he provided (ATTACHMENT E) he listed the changes the FCC has made. He spoke about the maximum radiation output from a small cell. He stated that Exenet will honor existing prices and fees. He stated that the City cannot impose a defacto moratorium on small cell applications, however. He responded to the CFR question. The FCC regulations are a declaratory order and do not go into the CFR. The 60-day shot clock for new installations will be codified in the CFR.

Joe Shannon, Crown Castle, Government Relations, explained Crown Castle’s work and equipment. They are in educational stage for Somerville and Cambridge. He spoke about the technology being the technology of tomorrow, with increased demands for access and higher speeds. In Cambridge, Crown Castle has an extensive fiber footprint. There are 100 small cells on light poles. They are trying to upgrade 50 existing nodes. On Mass. Avenue, Cambridge Street, in Harvard Square and Central Square there are no light poles for the deployment of small cells. He urged support for this technology and changing policies so that small cells can be installed.

Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street, stated that transcripts of the Pole and Conduit hearings should be more transparent and explanatory. He urged giving notice to neighbors when installing small cells. He is surprised that the City does not have aesthetic regulations for small cells in place. He stated that there are examples where small cells blend into the neighborhood appearance. If there is opposition to the aesthetics of small cell installations, who does one complain to? He does not see public policies in existence; this is about public access and the public way to telecommunications access. Why is there no feedback into the process about how bad access is in certain areas of the city?

John Hawkinson questioned making services available if it’s not using public property. Is the City liable to make light poles accessible in all instances? How is this intended to apply. He wanted clarity on this.

Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place, stated that there was a small cell installation on Essex Street and none of the neighbors knew about the installation before it occurred. The equipment is loud and disruptive. Will there be any benefit from 5G of narrowing the gap between those who have internet and those who do not have internet, or could companies make an additional contribution to the City, as it is hosting the companies’ obnoxious equipment.

At 2:46pm Vice Mayor Devereux closed public comment.

Charles Sullivan stated that the Historical Commission has regulated cell antennas in historical districts. He stated that for properties on the National Register antennas are federally regulated and the FCC has notified the Historical Commission of the installation of cell phone antennas on these properties. The Historical Commission has not denied the installation. The Historical Commission has worked on meeting the 60-day clock window. One small cell antenna was approved in Harvard Square. He urged the Community Development Department and Pole and Conduit Commission to come up with aesthetic standards and stated that the Historical Commission wanted standards for installation and would retain authority.

John David Bowers explained that all carriers and the FCC see small cells as essential in the 5G rollout. He spoke about locations where internet access and speed are inadequate. There needs to be a decision at the municipal level to address this.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about relationships between 5G and digital broadband.

Mr. Gianetti spoke about the digital equity study, 5G and how small cell could play a role. He asked whether carriers are offering incentives to municipalities to leverage this technology.

Mr. Bowers stated that small cells are being deployed in cities where there is already good digital coverage. This will not necessarily extend coverage to rural areas. If small cells are being used to spread 5G, there will be competition for the same spaces by many companies, but maybe not as much competition for spaces that have less coverage. He spoke about addressing the core issue of not having the digital divide.

Vice Mayor Devereux commented we are all on a huge learning curve.

Councillor Zondervan asked do the FCC regulations obligate the City to make light poles available for small cell installations. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she was providing a broad outline of the FCC regulations. This is not a simple question, and she is not in a position to offer an opinion at this time. Councillor Zondervan stated that we are going on the assumption that the City is not obligated. He spoke about organizations such as Community Phone that give wireless access at a reduced cost. It divides the data and sells it to customers, which provides more access. This does not provide funding for digital access. He spoke about the noise of the small cells. Ms. Murati-Ferrer stated that the Crown Castle installations are often an old model with a fan and that Crown is changing them. The License Commission has received noise complaints and last year there was a spike in the noise complaints and a change to the fans was made remotely. To date the process has worked well and the issue has been resolved.

Mr. Shannon explained that the old equipment needs to be replaced. Councillor Zondervan asked if the new equipment models will contain this noise. Mr. Shannon responded that the fans will be in the new equipment, but that everything possible is being done to make them as quiet as possible.

Councillor Zondervan asked staff about the possible impact on City policies to extend the City-owned fiber network. Mr. Lenkauskas stated that the City has required substantial digs the network and the conduit for the City. He stated that a trench is required for any new buildings, but it is a major difficulty to extend it in existing networks. Councillor Zondervan inquired does this enhance public access to WIFI. Mr. Lenkauskas responded yes it would help in some paths.

John David Bowers stated that if you wanted to bridge the digital divide a better way would be to lay more conduit and the City could leverage the use of more effective fiber.

Councillor Carlone stated that the City Council has asked any construction project to include conduit for access for the future. Harvard University put up hot spots for the campus. He asked is small cell different from this. Mr. Bowers responded in the affirmative. Councillor Carlone asked how much does an installation cost range for a small cell. Mr. Lenkauskas stated that the Pole and Conduit Commission does not see an estimate of the cost. What does this cost do for public housing? This is critical he stated. The picture of the small cell on Memorial Drive is ugly and not good design. He wanted something done with Community Development Department and Historical Commission. He wanted to get away from the utility installation. He agrees with an aesthetic solution, but access and transparency are key. He stated that none of the neighbors knew about the Hammond Street installation beforehand. It was noisy, and it was a large box. He asked can new equipment be required. He would love to see aesthetic solutions to this. There should also be consistent aesthetic solutions throughout the City.

Councillor Kelley spoke about an FCC fact sheet from September 2018 he was viewing on his computer and asked is this what I should be looking at. Is this the same thing as the declaratory ruling, he asked? City Solicitor Glowa stated that she has not reviewed the two together. Mr. Bowers stated that the FCC issued a draft ruling on Sept 5, 2018 which encapsulates the FCC order. The City cannot say no to the deployment of 5G because it is the wave of the future, but there are local regulations. The City needs to figure out the local regulations. He wanted to understand the City’s authority; it would be beneficial. Mr. Bowers stated that there is still room for municipal regulation over the FCC ruling. He spoke about local ordinances. He spoke about how other municipalities have navigated this. He spoke about aesthetics and functionality. He stated that there is an appeal process so that municipalities can negotiate higher fees. The FCC does want a consistent telecommunication framework on 5G.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked can Cambridge talk to Boston if they are considered a leader. Ms. Murati Ferrer stated that she has attended other Pole and Conduit meetings. Boston is a leader because they rolled out a comprehensive policy of what they would allow but it was done before the FCC ruling. This will require amendments by Boston. Cambridge can discuss this with Boston.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that City owned poles are the only option. Regarding notices to neighbors she asked does the Pole and Conduit send hearings notices. Ms. Murati Ferrer responded that any Pole and Conduit petition the petitioners must notify abutters. She read the notice requirement. Hearings are posted per open meeting law. The petitioner notice to abutters must be sent certified mail and the Pole and Conduit Commission must be provided proof of the certified mail. When a new installation, resident petitions are heard first before the Pole and Conduit Commission. If there is resident’s opposition the Commission has not granted the license. If installed, the FCC does not allow denying an upgrade. There have not requests for larger installations.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the noise - could there be a restriction on the City’s part that the pole could not be outside a bedroom. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this needs to be worked out and analyzed. She stated that mobile communications are regulated by zoning, but these are not small cell; this is equipment on buildings. Aesthetics is regulation by Special Permits issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). She spoke about the legal requirement for the BZA hearing and the notes are transcribed by a stenographer and this presents challenges. City Solicitor Glowa explained that the poles are exempt from the zoning.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the City does not control poles on Memorial Drive. How does DCR regulate and how would the City standards impact them. Mr. Lenkauskas stated that he is unaware of their process. Vice Mayor Devereux asked how many vendors want to deploy in North Cambridge. Mr. Lenkauskas stated that there are two vendors responding to poor coverage. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that one installation showed box on sidewalk. Mr. Lenkauskas explained that that is a Boston location. Cambridge installations are only on wood utility pole; that is the only place allowed.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about a letter from Somerville delegation in opposition to the FCC regulations. She spoke of the income offset rule would decrease funding to CCTV. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she is in the process of reviewing this.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the four possible solutions in Mr. Bowers memo. What are the size wise needs for antennas. On the wooden pole is this round or rectangle. You can get full view. He asked each provider what their standards are to come up with a solution. A fixture on a traffic light is better than a box. He spoke about the antenna. He spoke about expanding traffic lights to make them more intelligent and could this be done.

Councillor Zondervan asked does this present an opportunity to get rid of ugliness and additions to poles and instead put utilities underground. Mr. Lenkauskas stated that this is expensive and there is not enough room in the streets already and putting this infrastructure underground on a narrow street is difficult. Councillor Zondervan asked what the next steps are.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked is there a work plan; what is the City’s approach. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this answer is unknown. This may not be an ordinance. It may instead be a Pole and Conduit regulation and zoning. She suggested a Policy Order to ask her office to review the regulations.

Vice Mayor Devereux made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to review the FCC Regulations on Small Cell Technology and report back to the City Council by early January.

The motion carried on a voice vote of four members.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked what is the down side. City Solicitor Glowa responded that there are municipalities that have challenged this. There could be an injunction. It is best to work to provide a framework to the City Council. She stated that she needed more time to look at the various options.

Mr. Bowers stated that not acting within the shot clock could be considered denying an application. Vice Mayor Devereux asked whether the shot clock regulation is new.

Councillor Carlone stated that Boston must have been a prototype before Sept 14. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the affirmative.

Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance. She stated that she hopes this raises the City Council’s and the public’s awareness.

The hearing adjourned at 3:49pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair