6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation to adopt the Beekeeping Zoning Petition with proposed amendments to the petition.
Referred to Petition

Date: - November 28, 2017
Subject: Beekeeping Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends ADOPTION with proposed amendments to the petition (attached).

To the Honorable, the City Council,
The Board held a public hearing to discuss this petition on October 3, 2017. At that hearing, Community Development Department (CDD) staff and a representative from the Cambridge Public Health Department (CPHD) presented an overview of the city's urban agriculture initiatives as well as the specific zoning provisions proposed to allow beekeeping in Cambridge, and one member of the public spoke about the proposal. The Board continued the public hearing on November 14, 2017, in order to review draft regulations by the CPHD prior to making a recommendation.

The Board supports the proposal to allow beekeeping as an accessory use throughout the city, subject to permitting by the CPHD. The Board's view is that the zoning requirements for beekeeping should be limited, because most aspects of beekeeping are more appropriately regulated by the CPHD.

After review of the draft CPHD regulations, the Board recommends the attached amended version of the zoning petition, which removes requirements that are otherwise addressed through the CPHD regulations and permitting process.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
H. Theodore Cohen, Chair

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-118, regarding a report on an update on the City's plan to expand the curbside composting program citywide.
Placed on File

Dec 4, 2017
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-118, regarding an update on the City’s plan to expand the curbside composting program citywide, please be advised that the City has committed to expanding the curbside composting program effective April 2018.

The total new costs of this roll out to 1-12 unit buildings include: 1-time cost of $1 million which was appropriated in June, 2017 for the purchase of the bins, a new packer and associated outreach; and four new positions starting in FY18 (budgeted at $408,884). There are other costs for disposal and vehicle maintenance/ fuel. During year one, the cost for disposal will be absorbed in the existing budget through savings from discontinuing use of the contracted services for the Monday route. The compost collection will now be done by DPW employees. Vehicle maintenance and fuel will also be absorbed into the DPW budget during year one. Disposal, vehicle maintenance and fuel costs are expected to increase over time.

Attached is additional information on how the program will be expanded.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

CURBSIDE COMPOST GOES CITYWIDE IN APRIL 2018

November 13, 2017

In 2009, the City set a goal to reduce residential trash disposal by 30% by 2020, and by 80% by 2050.

With that goal in mind, the City has committed to expanding the current curbside compost program to all residential buildings with 1 to 12 units beginning April 2018. This will increase the program from 5,200 households to 25,000 households (8,100 buildings).

Beginning in January 2018, the Department of Public Works will launch a sustained educational campaign to reach residents to inform them about the new curbside compost program, how to use their new bins, and share best practices to be successful with composting in the home.

In March and April of 2018, program equipment (including a kitchen compost bin, curbside bin, compostable bags, and instructions) will be delivered to all 1-12 unit residential buildings in the city.

On April 2, 2018, all 1-12 unit residential buildings with City trash service will begin receiving curbside compost collection on their regular trash/recycling pickup day.

The diversion of food scraps from the waste stream and into curbside organics collection programs is an important strategy in municipal solid waste management. Cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Portland (OR), Boulder, and Vancouver (Canada) currently collect residential food scraps and organics. San Francisco is among the leaders in this field, having diverted 80% of residential solid waste to recycling or composting. New York City recently began investing heavily in curbside organics collection. Few New England communities have committed to curbside organics programs at this time, and Cambridge hopes to be a leader in our region.

The goal of citywide curbside compost collection is to significantly reduce both trash volume and greenhouse gas emissions, and we encourage residents to check the Public Works website often for news and announcements related to the launch of curbside composting in April 2018.

RESOLUTIONS
1. Resolution on the death of Kathleen P. (Tracy) Carlisle.   Councillor Maher, Councillor Toomey

R-1     Dec 4, 2017
COUNCILLOR MAHER
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The City Council was deeply saddened at learning of the death of Kathleen P. (Tracy) Carlisle on Nov 21, 2017; and
WHEREAS: Kathleen was a life-long resident of Cambridge and a graduate of Suffolk University; and
WHEREAS: Kathleen was a gifted teacher and taught in the Cambridge School System for 42 years; and
WHEREAS: Kathleen was a very warm and giving person, always willing to help others without any hesitation, and she will be much remembered for her warmth, compassion, generosity, great patience and love, which she showed to all; and
WHEREAS: Kathleen was the devoted wife of John Carlisle for 49 years; and
WHEREAS: Kathleen’s passing will leave a void in the lives of all her surviving family: her son Jon and his wife, Silvia; her grandchildren Liandra Carlisle Bautista and Esteban Perez; her sister Elizabeth Tracy and her husband Bob Bartels; her nephews Robert Bartels and Max Vernaza, as well as her many dear cousins, including Jane Clark, Richard Hanson, John Hanson and Michael Hanson; and
WHEREAS: Kathleen will be sorely missed by all she touched and loved; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record extending its deepest sympathy to the family of Kathleen P. Carlisle at this time of such personal loss; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Carlisle family on behalf of the entire City Council.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Dec 4, 2017
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: In 2016, the City of Cambridge published “Street Code: Rules and Etiquette for Getting There Together,” available online and in booklet form; and
WHEREAS: This guide defines itself as “a resource for everyone and whether you walk, bike, drive, or use public transportation, you play an active role in the transportation system and in order for this system to function well, each person must follow the rules, pay attention, and be patient and courteous”; and
WHEREAS: The guide explains rules and best practices for people driving, walking, biking and taking public transportation; and
WHEREAS: The rules and best practices outlined in the guide include written information and diagrams for vehicles, bicycles, buses, and pedestrians regarding separated bike lanes, dooring, moving safely around buses, truck blind spots and turning dangers, intersection safety, shared paths, and bike box etiquette; and
WHEREAS: The “Street Code” booklet also has a resource page, with MBTA contact information, Cambridge emergency and non-emergency contact information, Commonwealth Connect reporting information, and links to state and local bicycle and traffic regulations; and
WHEREAS: With an emphasis on education, respect, predictability, and responsibility, this guide is an excellent resource for all road users, and should be more widely available beyond just online and in print form in City buildings; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to mail the “Street Code” Booklet to all households in Cambridge as an educational outreach measure for road safety.

O-3     Dec 4, 2017
COUNCILLOR MAHER
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
MAYOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge continually seeks to promote public safety as well as a healthy community and environment to advance Cambridge as a leader in public health and environmental sustainability; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is home to Veolia Energy’s Combined Heat and Power (CHP) operations at Kendall Cogeneration Station in Cambridge and a district energy system that supplies recycled steam heat from the station to customers in East Cambridge and MIT over acres of land; and
WHEREAS: Cogeneration energy supplied through district energy systems requires steam temperatures in excess of 200 degrees Fahrenheit; and
WHEREAS: A recent steam energy explosion in Baltimore Maryland that occurred underground in June of 2017, injuring five people near Camden Yards baseball stadium an hour before an Orioles’ game while showering a city block with debris, asphalt and contaminants, buckling the roadway, damaging cars and creating enough scorching heats that Baltimore firefighters were forced to hose water onto a nearby hotel to prevent the facade from melting; and
WHEREAS: There have been numerous incidents in the City of Boston over the past decade according to media reports, including a September 2007 explosion in the Financial District that injured four people and a 2010 explosion on Harrison Ave. caused by a malfunctioning steam system pipe; and
WHEREAS: There have been least two other large explosions associated with faulty district energy system networks over the past 18 months in New York and Philadelphia that caused significant injuries to innocent bystanders and energy system workers as well as substantial damage to buildings and infrastructure; and
WHEREAS: Numerous problems with the Boston-Cambridge steam network have been widely reported over the years by system operator Veolia Energy and predecessor Trigen, including incidents where people and pets were burned by overheated manhole covers and steam vapors that result from poorly maintained steam pipes; and
WHEREAS: There are currently no state regulations governing steam energy districts and systems in Massachusetts, including mandatory reporting of release of excess steam on roadways that can impair the visibility of motorists or studies regarding the potential public health implications associated with steam energy system explosions that occur when superheated steam interacts with another material, resulting in a rapid spraying at great force of boiling water or steam and other dangerous materials such as asbestos; and
WHEREAS: The late Mayor Thomas M. Menino secured assurances from the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities in 2007 that regulations would be forthcoming to assure safe operation of steam energy districts and systems in Massachusetts, including mandatory reporting of potential public health hazards; and
WHEREAS: Ongoing litigation in various state and federal courts have alleged that the Boston-Cambridge steam energy network, operated by Veolia Energy has been neglected and according to the lawsuits, has led to significant injuries, endangered public safety and harmed underground infrastructure with damages estimated in the millions of dollars; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby immediately request an investigation by the State Department of Public Utilities into the maintenance of the district energy system here in Cambridge, including the measurement of high-temperature manhole covers and other public infrastructure in excess of 130 degrees Fahrenheit, reporting of all known releases of excess steam onto Cambridge roadways; and potential public health implications associated with steam energy system explosions; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to immediately ask appropriate officials from the State Department of Public Utilities to appear before the City Council to report on the state of repair of the district energy system in Cambridge and to discuss why there are no state regulations governing steam energy systems in Massachusetts when it is widely known that these operations create potential serious public health hazards and risks; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to immediately forward a copy of this City Council Order to the State Department of Public Utilities, attention to Commissioners Angela M. O’Connor, Robert Hayden, and Cecile M. Fraser, as well as Matthew Campbell, Chief of Staff, and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record urging the DPU to initiate any a public safety review of district energy systems in Massachusetts to ensure public and environmental safety; and be it further
ORDERED That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to the Cambridge State legislative and Congressional Legislative Delegations.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public meeting on Tues, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:03pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss and receive feedback on bike safety related issues, and to plan for future bike safety measures in the City of Cambridge.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nadeem Mazen; Councillor David Maher; Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.; Vice Mayor Marc McGovern; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Mayor E. Denise Simmons; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Jan Devereux; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Joseph Barr, Director; Brooke McKenna, Assistant Director for Street Management, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager; Cara Seiderman, Transportation Planner, Environmental and Transportation Planning Division; Bill Deignan, Transportation Planner; Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environment and Transportation Planning, Community Development Department (CDD); Branville G. Bard, Jr., Police Commissioner; Jack Albert, Deputy Superintendent; Lieutenant Rick Riley, Traffic Enforcement Unit; Matt Nelson, Community and Strategic Partnerships Coordinator, Cambridge Police Department; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner; John Nardone, Assistant Commissioner; Jerry Friedman, Department of Public Works (DPW); Muna Kangsen, Mayor’s Office; Donna Lopez, City Clerk; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Ellen Watson, Joan Hill, Carmen Helley, Irving Allen, Henry Lelaurain, Ruth Allen, Gray Bittker, Peter Caulfield, Robert Skenderian, Jaquith Hutchinson, Carina Belvin, Yen-ting Chen, Rob Romanov, Laura McMurray, Melissa Highter, Elizabeth Conley, Denise Jillson, Maggie Allen, Nina McClellan, Myshique Cavanaugh, Jean Connor, Steve Darwin, Sara Mae Berman, Michael Davidson, Matt Carty, Linda Burton, Gary Mello, Sarah Blick, Persis McLennen, Beverly Mire, Gill Deford, Kelly Savarese, Steve Miller, Steve Bercu, Mark Roswell, Dan Hogan, Tony Flanders, Paul M. Bloom, Laura Donohue, Jim Bova, A. Pauny, T. B. Casey, Lynne Baer, Mary-Catherine Deibel, Cathie Zusy, Mark Levine, Barbara Anthony, David Hermann, Marc Richards, Ofer Levy, Jamie Rothfoder, Roger O’Sullivan, Beverly Thornton, Debby Galef, Rozann Kraus, Jason Alves, Dan Marquardt, Jacob Meunier, Tanya Cosway, Laura Simmons, William Simmons, Joseph Ricker, Isabel Vogt, Eric Larson, Ariadne Valsarus, Katherine Perls, Lennart Braberg, Claire and George Hinds, Charles Peterson, Andrea Williams, Dana Kaplan, Marc Rios, Clare MacDonald, James Williamson, Becca Wolfson, Michael Charvez, Navish Wadhwe, Aileen Salares, Dan Biles, Rebecca Nesson, Margaret McMahon, Batel Jean Divoukey, Sandy Starr, Alison Fleming, Rose Hart, Ken Carlson, Alex Anderson, Jonathan Poorvh, Susan Varga, Chris Cassen, Kyle Sheffield, and Fred Meyer.

Councillor Mazen stated that there 67 communications received by the Committee. An additional 31 communications were received after the meeting. (Attachments 1-98).

Councillor Kelley asked that his comments about bike lanes be included in this report. (Attachment 99).

Councillor Mazen gave an overview of the meeting agenda (Attachment 100).

Mayor Simmons suggested to Councillor Mazen that the Public Comment begin the meeting due to the amount of people present who are signed up to speak on this topic.

Councillor Mazen stated that he would first like to hear an update from City officials followed by fifteen minutes of public comment and then returning to public comment at the end of the meeting.

Councillor Mazen asked Joseph Barr for an update on bicycle lane implementation and outreach.

Mr. Barr stated that the most recent update was provided to the City Council at the Sept 25, 2017 City Council meeting. Mr. Barr gave an overview of this Memorandum dated Sept 20, 2017 (Attachment 101). Mr. Barr noted that his department is planning for the future and has made a commitment to look at separated bike lanes on Massachusetts Avenue from Lafayette Square to Memorial Drive. He noted that they are also looking at the idea of taking streets that are not wide enough or appropriate for fully separated bike lanes and turning them into bicycle boulevards to reduce speed based on making into a slower street. He said that as it relates to receiving feedback from the public, he is committed to a robust outreach going forward.

Cara Seiderman, CDD, provided the Committee with a map indicating existing facilities and those that have been confirmed for implementation, a DPW map indicating the 5-year planned construction for streets and sidewalks, and a Preliminary Separated Bike Lanes Evaluation (Attachments 102-104). She noted that a series of brochures regarding rules and etiquette for multiple modes of transportation, tips for sharing the road with bicyclists, and bicycling in Cambridge are also available to the public.

Councillor Mazen stated the 5-year plan has been instrumental to this discussion. He stated that they have been seeing more experimentation and outreach and significant more and safer ridership. He stated that for those who would like to explore the bike master plan, Ms. Seiderman can help.

Councillor Mazen introduced Nate Fillmore who read from a prepared written statement that he and Ruthann Rudel gave on behalf of Cambridge Bicycle Safety (Attachment 105).

Councillor Mazen opened the meeting to Public Comment at 4:24pm.

Gray Bittker, Cambridge resident, read from a prepared statement asking the City council to keep the bike lane on Cambridge Street for the good of the community and to create a better city and environment (Attachment 106).

Ezra Rudel, Max McGibbon and Tamara Campillo Lazcurain, CRLS Bicycle Advocacy Group, read from a prepared written statement thanking the City Council for the protected bike lane in front of CRLS on Cambridge Street. He noted that 86 students and staff signed this communication (Attachment 107).

Max McGibbon, CRLS Bike Club, stated that 2 years ago he had a job at a summer camp as a camp counselor. His commute took him through HS. A bus cut him off and he fell of his bike. He thinks that it would be good to have more bike lanes for security purposes.

Tamara Campillo Lazcurain stated that her sister was doored and since then her parents did not let her bike. She stated that Cambridge Street and a bike lane has changed her parents’ mind. She is thankful for the Cambridge Street bike lane, adding that the bicyclists are also part of the community.

Joan Hill, 18 Banks Street, stated that she is presenting a petition from Senior Citizens (Attachment 108). She noted that the seniors who signed the petition support making Cambridge more bike friendly but ask that seniors be included in the planning of future bicycle lanes to ensure that their needs are also being considered and factored into the planning.

Vivek Sikri, 64 Allston Street, read from a prepared statement regarding infrastructure for bikes (Attachment 109). He stated that the City needs protected bike lanes and added that the bike lane infrastructure needs to be complete. He stated that bicyclists should be safe for their commute. He stated that this must be a priority. He said that he has been impressed with the increased momentum over the last year. He said that less parking is something that we need to find our way around.

Carmen Helle stated that in November she was walking and a bicyclist came on the sidewalk and caught the sleeve of her coat and dragged her. She stated that it is important for everyone to be safe.

Itamar Turner-Trauring, 139 Oxford Street, stated that he has been biking for many years and the with the separated bike lanes, he has never felt safer. His daughter has a safe route to school. He stated that there must be compromise. He said that Beacon Street is nicer than Cambridge Street because it was planned from the beginning. He stated that cars have to worry less on Cambridge Street. He said that there are a lot of cars on Cambridge Street that have to worry less.

Irving Allen, Fenno Street, stated that it takes a lot of people to get the attention of the City council. He stated that this issue is dividing our city. He stated that bicyclists are trying to strong-arm the City Council. He said that people that live in the city are pushing for safe roads for everyone. He stated that emergency vehicles cannot get to an emergency on time. He stated that he recently got hit by a bicycle when he was using the crosswalk.

Councillor Mazen stated that if person feels that they have not been represented and things need to be designed better, it is the City’s job to improve. He said that successes will be because we find overlapping interest and common ground.

Henry Lelaurain stated that he is long-term resident and used to be a biker. He said that that this would cause the loss of at least 60 spots on Cambridge Street. He said that businesses are losing business. He stated that he is a pedestrian and he has more problems with bicylists than cars. He said that it is not all the motor vehicle’s fault. He stated that he supports well-designed bike lanes. He stated that businesses are afraid to speak against these lanes.

Susan Varga stated that she moved to Cambridge a few years ago. She stated that she uses a tricycle and many times and she needs a designated area that is safe. She stated that she goes out every day on the bike paths that take her back to nature. She stated that Cambridge’s bike path goes over wetlands and it is amazing.

Eric Colburn stated that he is Cambridge resident and is happy with the new pop-up bike lanes. He urged more rapid construction of more bike lanes. He stated that he is pleased with the bike lanes in Harvard Square and he urged faster construction of bike lanes.

Rebecca Nessen, 19 Corporal Burns Road, lifelong Cambridge resident, stated she walks, bikes and drives. She feels that there is an incredible risk to bike in the circumstances and she is grateful for situations that make it safer. She added that she is hopeful that more people will make the decision to ride their bikes. She thanked the City Council for its work.

John Ellersick, 48 Fairfield Street, read from a prepared written statement (Attachment 110) regarding the Brattle Street bike lane. He stated that improved infrastructure means that there are less cars on the road. He noted that his shopping has increased in Harvard Square because it is easy to get in and out of the square. He stated that he walks, takes the T and rides a bike. He noted that he has gotten rid of his car. He said that he would love to see the us vs. them conflict reduced.

Ruth Allen, Fenno Street, congratulated everyone on the planning on Huron Avenue. She stated that she plans on staying in Cambridge for a long time. She noted that she was the 4th person to sign up and Cambridge Bike Safety representatives got to speak before her. She stated that the elderly and disabled were not included in this conversation. She added that funeral homes were not included in the conversation. She asked why. She stressed the need for a mobility committee that includes kids, elderly, pedestrians, businesses, etc. She said that Cambridge does need more bike lanes but they need to be discussed and done in a different way. She said that Cambridge needs parking and questioned why bike lanes can’t be done in the same way as the bike lanes on Huron Avenue.

Robert Skendarian, Cambridge Street, read from a prepared written statement regarding the bicycle demonstration project on Cambridge Street (Attachment 111).

Jaquith Hutchinson, Nichols Place, stated that she is surprised that there are no rules for bikers.

Carinna Belvin, 90 Ellery Street, stated that between Central Square and Harvard Square there is a gaping hole with no bike lane. She stated that she was in a bike accident near Hancock Street. She said that she was wearing a helmet and did have her bike lights on. She would like to see a fully connected bike lane along major roads. She said that she is in favor of separated bike lanes.

Yeng-Ting Shun stated that the problem is that for every safe biker, there are many that simply don’t follow the rules. He stated that his pregnant wife has almost been hit by a bicyclist in Cambridge. He stated that it is difficult for seniors to cross the road every day. He said that he wants the roads safe for everyone.

Rob Romanov, 1010 Memorial Drive, stated that he feels that bikers are the most selfish people in the city because they think they own the road. He said that there has not been one biker that has spoken that cares about the business community or the elderly. He stated that bikes are being forced-fed to the residents. He said that he watched people park their car and get out on the driver’s side in front of Skendarian and they were taking their own lives and the lives of the passing cars in their hands. He stated that there will be a lot of death in the community and it will not be the fault of the drivers because they are doing their best in dealing with bicyclists running red lights.

Laura McMurray, 334 Harvard Street, stated that she is in favor of separated bike lanes. She stated that change is not easy. She stated that it is a hazard riding a bike without a bike lane. She stated that it is disappointing to see that so many parking spots have to be lost. She stated that as a senior, she is pleased that there are bike lanes. She added that lights on bicycles should be enforced per state law.

Elizabeth Connelly stated that she is in support of bike safety. She stated that protected bike lanes are unwieldy. She said that she has read some letters that feel intimidating to her. She stated that she does try to work on her discomfort as she wants bicyclists to be safe. She stated that she is willing to operate differently but her experience with separated bike lanes is that small businesses in Cambridge have so much stacked against them without adding parking issues and when customers cannot park, it is very distressing to her. She said that a friend of hers that went to a bike safety class in Boston does not think that separated bike lanes are the way to go.

Catherine Rogers, 15 Shepard Street, stated that she and her family like biking and she would bike more if there were more protected bike lanes. She said that her family is in favor of protected bike lanes. She said that her son said that the separated bike lanes are good because cars can’t bump into bikes.

Laurel Valchez stated that protected bike lanes do make a difference and explained that her employees deliver food via bike. She noted that she appreciates these bike lanes.

Denise Jillson, Harvard Square Business Association, stated that she is proudly wearing a Safe Streets Now sticker because there is not a person in the room that does not want safe streets. She stated that this issue has become very decisive and is a mess. She said that businesses were not notified and parking has been taken away. She stated that the city needs a uniform look throughout the city. She stated that businesses must be taken into consideration. She stated that this community is divided and she asked the City Councillors to do their job.

Maggie Allen, Fenno Street, read from a prepared written statement. (Attachment 112). She stated that she is CRLS student. She stated that this topic is bringing up issues that need to be addressed. She said that she is in support of different modes of transportation, but it must be done properly.

Nina McLellan, active biker, stated that she does not feel safer in the Cambridge Street bike lane. She stated that parents are having a difficult time dropping off students to school.

Mistie Cavanaugh stated that bike lanes make her very nervous and the area around CRLS is unsafe.

Jean Connor, Sherman Street, stated that after the last City Council meeting where they spoke on this issue, it was the Mayor who talked about bike regulations. She stated that they were written in 2007 but first in 1966. She stated that she looks at the Bike Safety Group that spoke first at this meeting and she does not see anything about bike safety in the rules and regulations. She stated that the City needs to have rules and regulations in place. She said that the City Council has divided the city. She stated that she has recently been incapacitated with a fractured ankle and she fears the bikes. She asked about a bike speed limit in the city.

Stephen Darwin, 111 Inman Street, business owner, stated that he has mixed feelings about speaking. He stated that he cycles over 200 miles per week but has been affected by the bike lanes on Cambridge Street. He stated that he loves the Western Avenue bike lane although he does not feel any safer in the Cambridge Street bike lane. He said that recently on Massachusetts Avenue, he was cut off by a truck making a delivery who came into the cycling lane. He stated that the delivery men are delivering their product through the bicycle lane. He said that he feels that the bicycle lanes by the parked cars are dangerous because they encourage people to get doored. He noted that there must be a door zone and a bike riding zone.

Sara Mae Berman, 23 Fayette Street, stated that she is concerned that doing away with parking spots will be damaging to small businesses on Cambridge Street. She said that there must be a better way for bike safety. She stated that she is a cyclist and cycles for short errands. She stated that in the winter time, the City does a moderately good job on clearing snow in the streets, but does not do a good job at the corners of the streets. She would like there to be bike lanes but there has to be more work done on them.

Michael Davidson, 14 Notre Dame, spoke about bikes versus pedestrian conflict. He stated that he is a biker and a walker. He said that the data shows that cars hit pedestrians at a greater rate than bikes hit pedestrians. He said that our streets are not safe for bikes or pedestrians. He stated that bike lanes reduce speed which makes it safe for everyone. He said that safe lanes can help create a better culture for law abiding bicyclists.

Matt Carty stated that deaths are on the rise for cyclists and pedestrians. He said that distracted driving is on the rise as well. He stated that we must look at comparable cities that have protected bike lanes.

Public comment ended at 5:30pm.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that cars, bike and pedestrians are not going anywhere for the foreseeable future. He said that the roads were not built for all of the modalities that we have. He said that many drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists break the rules. He said that he does not ride a bike. He said that the finger-pointing needs to stop. He said that there are realities that must be dealt with. He would like the City Council to think about the roads as a shared space. He said that everyone has to sacrifice something in this situation. He noted that we must do a better job on education and enforcement as it relates to rule breaking. He said that he is concerned about what this issue is doing the community. He stated that his biggest concern about Cambridge Street is the emergency vehicle issue. He asked Mr. Barr if he has heard from the Cambridge Fire Department about issues that they are encountering during rush hour where they cannot get through. Mr. Barr responded that they have been in regular communication with emergency response departments and to date they have not heard of any issues. He explained that, if necessary, a private vehicle can drive over the bike posts. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he did not know that you could drive over these posts. Vice Mayor McGovern talked about armadillo bumps and asked Mr. Barr to take a look at those. He added that he supports bike lanes but they must be done right.

Councillor Devereux stated that the #1 complaint that she has heard is too much speeding and cut through traffic. She said that there is a lot of education that must be done. She said that a lot of the anger is misplaced because there is a lot of road rage generally. She said that this morning she watched a tour bus and 2 cars run red lights. She has also watched a pedestrian walk in front of a car. She attended a public hearing and heard the chair say that he was late because he inadvertently doored someone. She acknowledged that we have a long way to go to get everyone on the same page. She said that she appreciates the suggestion of encouraging more bike delivery programs. She said that she appreciated the comment from the senior who rides a tricycle and it is much more stable. She stated that she would like to find a way to accommodate the needs of the Skendarian/Cambridge Hospital area. Councillor Devereux asked about the plan for snow removal because that seems to be a concern of many.

Owen O’Riordan stated that DPW does not guarantee anything in terms of snow removal. He explained that the first priority is emergency access. He said that DPW has procured more equipment. He stated that the City’s legal obligation is the clearing of sidewalks that are in front of City properties and unfortunately, the City is not able to currently meet that obligation. He said that crew will get to City facilities as best they can as soon as they can. He stated that DPW is not in a position to guarantee that this bicycle infrastructure will survive.

Councillor Toomey asked Mr. O’Riordan about emergency access. For example, when it is rubbish and recycling day and the rubbish truck is collecting on Cambridge Street, is the Fire Department notified of any potential back up due to this collecting? Mr. O’Riordan responded that rubbish trucks will move in order to make available emergency access for emergency vehicles. Councillor Toomey asked what happens in the case that there are ten cars behind the rubbish truck. He asked how these vehicles get out of the way for the emergency vehicle. He asked if anyone is watching when the DPW trucks are picking up trash. John Nardone stated that the drivers have been working that route for a while. He explained that most drivers know that they need to move ahead or go around corners when emergency vehicles are involved. He stated that there is a learning curve, but the drivers have adapted to conditions and will continue to adapt. Councillor Toomey stated that the design on Cambridge Street is not workable in his opinion.

Louis DePasquale stated that he has spoken to the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, and Pro Ambulance and they will take another look to determine impact, if any. He stated that he has been told that under the current structure they feel that they can meet their needs. He said that Cambridge Street is one size and when you put a bike lane on Cambridge Street, you cannot have it all. He said that it is impossible to have the same amount of parking spaces when you install a bike lane. He said that this is not a perfect situation where everyone can have everything. He said that the city has laid 1.5 miles of bike lane in a one-year period. He said that the priority was to make it safer for bicyclists. He said that the City will continue to work with all stakeholders. He stated that it is important to say that if there is more public process, the pace will certainly be slower. He stated that there have been some bumps in the road and the City will do its best to address issues.

Councillor Carlone said that as a student of history of cities, he knows that just about every sidewalk in Cambridge was wider at another time and that the introduction of the car made these sidewalks to be cut back. He stated that this is the first step and now it is time to refine. The goal is to improve for all modes of transportation. He said that there are other ways of looking at this such as a Dutch intersection. He said that everyone agrees that retail is vital to every neighborhood. He said that the city is moving forward and we must include all stakeholders.

Councillor Kelley said that he has been living this discussion for 20 years. He said that he appreciates working forward on this issue. He added that we must be willing to change with a lot of ongoing discussion.

Mayor Simmons stated that this is a very important topic. She said that everyone will not be happy but we must be committed to being courteous and having a conversation. She said that we must always lead with the attitude that everyone has the right to be heard. She said that we may have to take this “show on the road.” She said that we must think about the idea “same roads, same rules.” She said that this conversation needs to include more than Cambridge. She said that information should be forthcoming in a timely fashion with updated regulations. She stated that one place for all information would be beneficial. She stated that a regional conversation about transportation is important. She said that the interfaith community often feels left out of conversations. She stated that City Council must work with their constituencies to share information.

Councillor Maher stated that he appreciated the City Manager’s tone and tenor. He stated that a demonstration project by title means that there will be a fair evaluation. He stated that we are hearing that the public is not pleased with everything. He stated that he hopes that there will be changes and accommodations made. He stated that there is no doubt that people feel left out. He stated that this is the #1 issue this election year. He said that there is no doubt that there needs to be more conversation and transparency. From a small business standpoint, he said that the City should be doing everything possible to lend a helping hand to the small businesses. He said that the City must figure out how to bring small businesses to the table or we will have a lot of vacant storefronts.

Louis DePasquale stated that the City will look at where we are and how we are going to get better. He stated that it has been a team effort. His said that his goal is to make it a win/win for everyone. He said that the City will work with everyone. He said that the City will review and if things can be made better, it will be done.

Mr. Barr stated that the City is listening to concerns from the community and the local businesses. He said that making changes has unavoidable consequences and the City is trying to do its best. He added that a fair evaluation will take place and adjustments may be made.

Councillor Mazen stated that the City got to this point because people lost their lives. He said that in that time, the community of people looking at safety went from 5 people to hundreds to thousands in the course of a couple of months. He said that it was not perfect in its implementation and now is the time to reconcile decisions. He said that we have gone past the point of saying that bikers do not live in the city, this is not true. He said that some bikers felt shortchanged in safety with the Huron Avenue situation. He stated that the bike community chose to pull back but they did not bother the community with planning again in consideration of the massive amount of work that was dealt with from the neighborhood. He said that a basic bike network should not take 15 years. He stated that need to set goals and talk about enforcement that will make for better neighbors on the roadway.

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation.

Seven additional comments were received from attendees were not able to speak due to time constraints (Attachments 113-119).

The hearing adjourned at 6:21pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:35pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a Zoning Petition by Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., to create a new Section 13.59.11 Floor Area Ratio and Gross Floor Area Exemption for Up to 10,000 square feet of Innovation Office Space that would apply to the PUD-3A and PUD-4C Districts only.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Toomey; Mayor Simmons; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Department; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; and Donna P. Lopez City Clerk.

Also present were Joseph Maguire, Senior Vice President, Real Estate Development and Asset Services, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., 400 Technology Square; Attorney James Rafferty, 675 Massachusetts Avenue; and Mr. Charles Hinds, 207½ Charles Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being audio and video recorded. He outlined the format of the hearing: Petitioners highlighting the petition, City staff, public comment and Ordinance Committee will discuss the petition and ask questions. At the conclusion, the committee will make a recommendation.

Mr. Joseph Maguire, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., 400 Technology Square stated that this is an opportunity that the entity was unaware of when Alexandria went through the zoning and special permit process. He introduced Attorney James Rafferty and Michelle Lauer, Planning and Design Work.

Attorney Rafferty, 675 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that is a modest zoning amendment and relates to the PUD district created in 2009. He stated that in 2009 Alexandria engaged in extensive effort around rezoning this large section of Binney Street that was approved by the Council. This rezoning lead to the City receiving the 2.2 acre Rogers Street park, the Foundry building and other green open space. He stated that the Planning Board’s Special Permit was issued in June 2010 and contained within the Special Permit the layout (ATTACHMENT A). The PUD Special Permit authorized the construction of 1.53 million square feet of non-residential GFA, which eight years later is built out along the Binney Street Corridor. He stated that in addition to the commercial GFA authorized in the Special Permit there is a requirement for 220,00 square feet of residential housing space to be developed.

When Alexandria unveiled their plans in 2009 housing was not a priority for Alexandria. He stated that the Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee impressed upon Alexandria that this was a necessary component for any rezoning. This housing includes the first requirements associated with moderate housing and affordable housing. He stated that the first phase has been built at 270 Third Street and the balance was scheduled to be built at 161 First Street. He noted that on page four of the handout shows the building. He stated that with the commercial GFA almost complete it turns out that Alexandria is about 28,000 square feet shy of what they were authorized to build. He stated that the existing 161 First Street structure contains approximately 35,000 square feet. He stated that an evaluation began about whether the 161 First Street building should have an addition placed on it. He stated that in the zoning there is a requirement that this building not be demolished. This is one of three buildings identified in the zoning as historic and worthy of preservation. He noted that this restriction does not apply to an annex to this building. He stated that the annex was originally scheduled to come down and a large addition was to be added to the 161 First Street building (image on page two). He stated that with the balance of the commercial GFA remaining Alexandria has explored the opportunity to concentrate the housing in a single building at 50 Rogers Street and use the available commercial GFA at 161 First Street.

Mr. Rafferty commented that the as-of-right opportunity for Alexandria would require the removal of a floor of the building and utilize the commercial GFA remaining under the PUD Special Permit. He stated that another option was for Alexandria to amend the zoning to allow for a modification for an additional 10,000 square feet to allow the entire161 First Street to be used as a commercial building. He stated that the two most recent PUDs were examined; the PUD 5 district by MIT along Main Street and CRA ‘s rezoning that was done in the MXD district. He stated that at both locations at the City Council’s suggestion the petitioners were encouraged to introduce innovation space. He stated that this type of use there is a demand for. The innovation language in this petition has been taken from those two existing petitions. The additional 10,000 square feet asked for be devoted to innovation space.

Mr. Rafferty stated that within the zoning ordinance and the other two PUD districts innovation space is defined and has certain characteristics in terms of size, the length, size and flexibility of tenancy. This is designed to accommodate a different type of tenant that is starting up. He stated that on pages 6-7 the interior of the building depicts a handsome, largely open building. This is a good space for innovation space. He stated that rather than remove a floor or renovate the building Alexandria is asking for modification for the additional square footage, limited to innovation space, which would allow for a separate, free-standing residential building. He noted that the same commitment and units of housing remain.

This approach creates consistency with abutting zoning districts around innovation space. He stated that the demand in the market place for this type of space and physical characteristics of the building lend itself to this type of use. He stated that the petition was heard before the Planning Board, which forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council (ATTACHMENT B). A memo was prepared by the Community Development Department staff. He stated that the petitioner is asking that consideration be given to replicate these innovation space districts in a portion of this district. This is an extra 10,000 square feet in the context of 1.53 and is a modest change to the overall build-out of the space. He stated that all the other commitments contained in the PUD Special Permit around open space, funding for the green space, $9.5 million for the design for the park and contributions to the open space fund. He stated that some of the leading technology and life science companies are now located here. He informed the City Council that a new lease has been signed with Facebook for 50,000 square feet of space.

Mr. Maguire stated that the Special Permit granted has surpassed expectation. This is of great value to the community. He explained that Alexandria is now focusing on leasing the first floor retail space. He stated that he is talking with retail tenants for 50 Binney Street. He stated a small building at 41 Linsky Way Alexandria will be developed next. There are a few things that need to be completed and will be executed in 2018.

Councillor Carlone asked the City staff to come forward. Ms. Farooq requested Mr. Roberts to present the Community Development memo (ATTACHMENT C).

Mr. Roberts stated that this is a marriage of two different planning ideas; one being the Alexandria development plan. He stated that the provision that includes additional housing for low and moderate-income units and the provision from the K2 study which followed the Alexandria plan relating to the desire for innovation space to preserve some space for smaller companies, startups and entrepreneurs within the Kendall Square eco-system. In the Planning Board recommendation, the board’s assessment that this proposal is a win-win because it creates the housing, preserves historic buildings. The petitioner is seeking a separation between the two which was originally viewed as a combined unit of housing and in exchange for this there will be an addition of innovation space within Kendall Square. The Planning Board has been supportive of innovation space in Kendall Square.

Councillor Carlone opened public comment at 3:55pm.

Charles Hinds, 207 1/2 Charles, President, East Cambridge Planning Team read a written statement (ATTACHMENT D). He stated that the ECPT is in favor of this amendment.

Public comment remanding open for 20 minutes.

Councillor Carlone asked the City Council for their comments.

Councillor Cheung stated that he was glad to see the innovation space for Kendall Square. He spoke about the need for below market rent innovation space and asked Alexandria to think about below market rents. He asked if there were preliminary thoughts of how the 25% set aside for below market rents would work. Mr. Maguire stated that he would work with Community Development Department to discuss how to go about this. He stated the Alexandria is active in the startup world. He seeks to find the right tenants for transforming technology of different types. He stated that Alexandria is underwriting what it believes to be successful in science as well as their ability to further receive funding. He stated that what makes Alexandria different as a landlord is that they operate a “C-fund” program. He stated Alexandria supports and funds a number of start-ups each year.

Councillor Kelley stated that the 161 is an existing building and has three floors and the proposal is to take third floor for innovation space without exceeding the GFA. He stated that all the housing would be put into a new building to be constructed on the parking lot at 50 Rogers Street, behind the existing historic building. Mr. Maguire explained that it is actually a four-story building with two stories of office and two stories of lab in the building. He stated that the lab will not be in the building because of the proximity to the residential. He stated that Alexandria is seeking to have the four floors for office space. Councillor Kelley stated that if this proposal does not get passed Alexandria maxes it’s FAR with the first two floors and then there are two floors for housing which Alexandria does not want to use for housing and cannot be used for anything else. Attorney Rafferty stated that it is close to 9,000 square feet. He stated that building is 34,000 - 35,000 square feet and could only use 25,000 square feet of the building without this zoning amendment. Councillor Kelley stated that he is done with innovation space and the focus on innovation space. He suggested a more public benefit use of space such as a dance studio or something that is creative in a different way.

Councillor Devereux spoke about how innovation and co-working space differ. She stated that she did not know the market economics on this. There is a benefit to use the existing space, benefits the city and not remove a floor, which would result in more expensive office space. She wanted to know if the innovation space concept is what is needed or would it be better for 10,000 square feet to be used for housing. She asked how many units of housing would this be. Mr. Maguire responded that the Special Permit is done by square footage, not by units. He stated that there are 131-136 units of housing that would go into the new building. He stated that in the zoning out of the 220 thousand square feet of housing, 33,000 square feet is for affordable and 44,000 square feet is for moderate income. He stated that there is no other development in the City that has this high level of affordability.

Councillor Devereux stated that when 273 Third Street came on line it was the first building that included middle income inclusionary units and asked if this petition would also include this component. Mr. Maguire stated that the total square footage of the building is 135,000 square feet. Attorney Rafferty stated that on page eight of the handout there is a breakdown of what has been built and what is remaining to be built. Councillor Devereux stated that she was neutral on this petition.

Mayor Simmons stated that on page nine, 161 First Street, will this be the innovation space and the new construction that is behind will be the housing. She asked if innovation space and shared space are they different. Attorney Rafferty stated that the ordinance definition contains characteristics. He stated that the space duration of lease is less than one month, no single business may occupy more than 2,000 square feet. The average size of contracted suites may not exceed 200 square feet and innovation space shall include shared resources, co-working conference, office, supplies and kitchen is available to all tenants and must occupy at least 50% of the innovation space. Entities occupy space may include small businesses, small research office space, investors and entrepreneurs, facilities for teaching basic and applied research. He stated that there are limitations that are not in shared space. Mayor Simmons stated that she is pleased with the moderate-income housing units. What comes first the innovation space or the housing. Attorney Rafferty replied that the zoning requires the housing to commence this summer. He stated that if this is approved Alexandria would move forward with their architect for the housing building, which is the same firm that designed 273 Third Street. He explained that Alexandria has begun laying out the building. Alexandria would seek approval from the Planning Board to build housing.

Councillor Toomey commented that this is the simplest Ordinance Committee hearing that has been held in a long time. He supported this change. He spoke about how this area has evolved. He stated that East Cambridge residents have been selected to go into 273 Third Street residential building. He spoke about the open space and park that Alexandria gave to the City is taking place and the Foundry is on track which was a $60 million gift to the City from Alexandria. He noted that Alexandria has been a cooperative partner with the City. The housing and open space would not be if not for the partnership between City and Alexandria. He urged forwarding this to the City Council in an expedited fashion.

Councillor Carlone questioned if the below market rate is funded by the program that Alexandria has or would this be basement space. Mr. Maguire stated that his intent is to find people that have something successful to bring to market and Alexandria wants to find the new technology or development and may fund this or lease at a below market rent. Alexandria underwrites the biotech world and some in the tech world and want to get better at it. Councillor Carlone spoke about the interior of historic building being handsome. He noted that it will be upgraded but it works well the way it is. Mr. Maguire stated that his intent is to try to keep the historic nature of the building and open as possible. He spoke about the building code requirements and with a change of use the building must be brought up to the existing code. He noted that this would take away the brick walls that are visible in the building today. He wants to keep this the way it is; it is part of the history of Cambridge.

Councillor Carlone stated that the new building as represented in the submitted sketch is 6 stories. He stated that the ground floor looks like it is storefront or parking behind glass. Mr. Maguire stated that there will be two levels of parking below grade.

Councillor Devereux indicated the below market space in the petition does not say what before market rate is or should there be a %. She asked what determines below market in a commercial building. This is vague. Ms. Farooq responded that the zoning does not prescribe rents or what below market will be. This is charting new ground. She stated that as people operate innovation space the proponent might have a better sense of what it is, what is proposed and what is meant by below market. She stated that when the City came up with the K2 process a group was convened that ran innovation space to understand the needs and constraints. This was less about rent and more about structure. This group may need to be reconvened again to discuss how things have changed and what might be the greater need of today. She would not hold up the zoning for this and the proponent may have a better understanding of below market.

Attorney Rafferty stated that the zoning change would allow the petitioner to seek an amendment to the special permit. In the special permit process CDD will provide guidance. He stated that serving the intended market needs is the issue.

Councillor Carlone asked how does the City Council make sure that this is discussed in the special permit process. He stated that this may be stated in a commitment letter and not in the zoning. Ms. Farooq suggested putting something in the zoning that states that the specifics of what the below market component looks like, who it targets and how the rent works is something that would be determined at the time of the special permit. She stated that language that works for all could be proposed. Councillor Carlone stated that this message is being sent to the Planning Board and CDD to be put in zoning petition what the below market looks like.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is a small project. He stated does innovation always have to look like this.

Councillor Carlone made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the proponent of the Alexandria zoning petition file an amendment to the zoning petition that would address how the below market space would be determined through the special permit process.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Public comment closed at 4:30pm on a motion by Mayor Simmons.

Councillor Carlone moved that the petition be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

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

The hearing adjourned at 4:30pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Oct 18, 2017 beginning at 6: 32pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the City’s recommendation on a surveillance ordinance broadly, and to evaluate proposed surveillance ordinance first submitted in November 2016, as well as decisions passed in other cities since this time (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee; Councillor Maher; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Branville Bard, Police Commissioner; James Mulcahy, Legal Advisor, Police Department; Christina Giacoppe, Director, Emergency Communications; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Joe Barr, Director, Traffic, Parking and Transportation; Lee Gianetti, Director of Communication and Public Relations; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Kade Crockford, ACLU; Jonathan Zittrain, Co-founder and Director of Berkman Klein Center; Ben Green; Alex Marthews, Digital Fourth; Segun Idown, Boston NAACP; Susan Carter, 41 Holden Street; Kara Sprangler, 10 Montrose Street; Arthur Strang, 60 Fresh Pond Parkway; Alix Alway, 172 Ash Street; Richard Stallman, 303 Third Street; Ben Doernberg; Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street; Salem Vilgoat; Mohammad Forazmand; Tiffany Hugh; Barbara Santos, 10 Lancaster Street; Sandra Foster; Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place; and Barbara Guillette.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He read a prepared statement (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that the hearing was being privately recorded.

Councillor Kelley requested an update from the City.

City Manager DePasquale stated that now is time to move this forward. It is important that the City have a surveillance ordinance. He has already held a meeting on this and as all stakeholders are engaged an ordinance can be developed. He wanted to wait until a new Police Commissioner was hired before moving forward and now that Commissioner Bard is on board he is confident that this can be accomplished.

Deputy City Manager Peterson explained the City has been reviewing and discussing a surveillance ordinance. In April, an update was provided. She stated that the Administration waited to make final recommendations until the police commissioner was hired. All care about protection of public safety and civil liberties. New policies have been developed in other cities such as Somerville, Seattle and Santa Clara that help provide clarity. A surveillance policy, approval of the City Council and public deliberation are needed. Transparency and accountability are important, to include oversight by City Council. The purposes need to be outlined, the surveillance technology and the data collected. She stated that a data access policy is needed, rules and policies followed before accessing data and safety of data access and data sharing. Training and auditing and oversight are needed. The City is looking at this in a comprehensive way. She stated that Commissioner Bard is a partner now in developing the ordinance.

Commissioner Bard stated that he believes good policy includes public deliberation. He has no interest using surveillance without public deliberation. He stated that he believes in civil liberates. He is exciting about the possibilities because he has met with ACLU and civil liberties and all have the same belief of City Council approval and public deliberation.

Kade Crockford, ACLU, stated that Deputy City Manager Peterson laid out policies she would like to see on this. She spoke about enforcement being needed to have accountability. She wanted the ordinance future proof so that it does not have to be redrafted. She supported public reporting, such as an annual report. She noted that it does make sense to have exemptions for law enforcement emergencies. It is important to hear from the public on this issue and why an ordinance like this is important.

Segun Idown, Boston Camera Action Team, Boston, stated that Boston was pushed to adopt police body cameras but could not make that happen even as BPD got and used drones. He stated that he is not used to agreement with the police. He wanted to ensure that Cambridge moves forward with this ordinance and is a leader. Boston should follow Cambridge on this. He spoke about the delays that occurred in Boston. He noted that more militarized equipment is being used in Boston without public input.

Cambridge can be a leader on this issue. He stated that he hopes that Cambridge will adopt this ordinance. He would like to see changes in policies need to be debated by the City Council. In Boston, there is no mechanism to allow public input for changes.

Ben Green, Bergman Klein Center, spoke about how to make sure it is future proof for changes in technology and what technology counts as surveillance. The nature of surveillance has changed over the years and now includes algorithms and software. Seattle has the most privacy protected ordinance. He spoke about social media, surveillance equipment and software that can be used to scrape information from various sources. Seattle’s ordinance ran into trouble with SPD scraping social media in accordance with the law. He spoke about controls for technology and data are important to make sure they are not used for other purposes. Many police departments use body cameras but public oversight is not controlled and there are poor policies about data access, footage usage and so forth. He spoke about facial recognition and how this can be deployed with existing software. There is more to innovation than adopting new technology. He wanted to achieve our City’s policies in accordance with our civic values. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT C).

Alex Marthews, Digital Fourth, a digital advocate group, note he was happy with the level of good faith in this discussion.

Councillor Kelley stated that in 2013 a surveillance ordinance was discussed and was not well received. He wanted to have a more robust discussion on this issue this time.

Councillor Maher stated that with the tone and tenor of the conversation he suggested that the committee move to public comment.

At 7:02pm Councillor Kelley opened public comment.

Susan Carter, 41 Holden Street. She asked who in the City is making the decision that an expenditure is in the best interest of the City and what technology equipment is in the City.

Richard Stallman, 303 Third Street, expressed concern about surveillance because it puts human rights and democracy as a safety issue. He stated that not having privacy can hurt people. This issue should not be formulated to be safe. The danger of surveillance is identifying individuals and seeing where they go. This lead to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. It is not surveillance if people are not identified. He stated that cars can be surveilled using the license plate and not individuals but if no identifying information, such as license plate numbers, is collected it is not surveillance. Data can be used against people by organization collecting the data; rogue employees can use data against another employee; crackers break into data and the state can take the data and hurt people. The government can take data without a court order under the Patriot Act, to include phone data such as who called whom. It is the existence of the database that is the danger, that is something that cannot be made safe.

Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street, spoke about ShotSpotter, a microphone based gunfire surveillance system that Cambridge has used since 2014. He stated that the Police Department requested $50,000 to extend the technology and the City Council approved the expenditure without deliberation. He stated that ShotSpotter has not met its goals which have been consistently moved. He stated that with ShotSpotter there is no actual evidence that shots were fired and the police refused to release how many shots were fired for ‘ongoing investigation’ reasons. Shotspotter will not release information but perhaps 30-70% of notifications are false. He stated that it is unknown how effective this is; this is the reason why an oversight policy is needed. Surveillance technology, once used, becomes common and we need a circuit breaker to avoid that. He used other reasons where money could be better spent given that people are freezing in the street. He stated that a surveillance ordinance is needed. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT D).

Sandra Foster, 20 Ware Street, expressed concerned about the strength of monitoring the impact of the ordinance once ordained and the need to get post-ordination public input. You do not know that it is going to be like until after you have been surveilled. The ordinance could go either way and after the fact it should be monitored.

Nancy Ryan, 4 Ashburton Place, stated that in 36 years she never heard a police commissioner state that he is a civil libertarian. She is delighted that the process is bringing in all the stakeholders. She wanted this moved forward because of the militarization of the police. She spoke about a tank and SWAT team at a Black Lives Matter rally. It is important that the ordinance receive the attention it is getting and that there be public input. The public engagement with purchase and use of surveillance technology will enhance everyone’s safety. She was hopeful that the best there is of all the ordinances will be brought together here for this ordinance. There is deep public interest in this issue.

Barbara Guillette, Peabody, asked how did residents find out that the City had a drone. She spoke about the case of XRAY vans in NY as something the ACLU is working on. She asked if facial recognition is legal if a person is handcuffed. She likes body cameras but using them properly is difficult. Snowdon said that the NSA is profiling all of us, we are all targets. Bad divorces and so forth can break people financially. She spoke about leaving hand cameras on. Everyone will be affected by this. She stated that she is thrilled that Cambridge is bringing this forward.

Ben Normberg stated that it is easy to install cameras that are not used. This equipment is all expanding. He has never seen a police commissioner turn equipment off. He stated that some companies are viewing databases as a liability because of hackers.

Sa Dukhobni, 69 Chestnut Street, stated that when there is an emergency equipment could be borrowed from the government and then returned. She is not convinced that we need a broad emergency exception.

Councillor Maher closed public comment at 7:27pm.

Councillor Kelley spoke about militarization, the bearcat and data bases are all part of the discussion. There is a lot of stuff out there and the discussion of what is surveillance needs to be defined.

Ms. Crockford stated that the Seattle ordinance delineates what is surveillance and Cambridge could start with that definition and also define what an “emergency” would be that would allow the ordinance to be ignored. She gave an example of needing to access phone tracking to stop a bomb. The temporary borrowing or leasing of equipment needs to be defined. There is a need to have an exemption for emergencies and for that exemption to be specific. Councillor Kelley stated that this is about surveillance, not bearcats or militarization.

Mr. Marthews stated that it would be advisable to construct a broad definition of surveillance and to have examples of technology included in the ordinance. It is helpful to have a flexible definition and specificity of a list of the technology that will fall under the ordinance. A simple unequipped drone might not trigger the ordinance.

Mr. Green stated that this is not just about police and fire. It is important to understand that the technology and data are being used by other departments such as taxi cab data. This is about the information collected by databases and how it is used.

Councillor Kelley asked City Manager DePasquale how to move this forward. City Manager DePasquale stated that he will continue to work with this group and come up with something and get it back to the City Council. There is a commitment to get this done.

Deputy City Manager Peterson stated that the next step is to work collaboratively to identify a bulleted format on how to look at a surveillance ordinance and to have a policy laid out clearly. In December, there will be a meeting on Policy and then the City Solicitor will draft an ordinance. The Seattle ordinance text is helpful and has clear language.

Councillor Kelley asked who is this group. Ms. Peterson stated that this group will be defined. City Manager DePasquale stated that he will not submit something that has real concerns. He spoke about the more work in the early stages and he thinks we are closer than we think.

Councillor Kelley stated that updates will be provided. The Public Safety Committee as currently constituted will not exist in January and the next chair may not want to discuss this.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The following communication was received and made part of the report:
Communication from Ann Fleck-Henderson, 113 Richdale Avenue, in support of an ordinance that would require transparency and oversight of any police acquisition of surveillance equipment (ATTACHMENT E).

The hearing adjourned at 7:41pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #4
The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Oct 25, 2017 beginning at 2:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber for the purpose of reviewing the City Manager’s selection of Victoria Bergland as the tenant representative on the Cambridge Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners and will also begin reviewing the Comprehensive Housing Policy that was referred to this committee by the City Council at the Sept 18, 2017 meeting.

Present at the hearing were Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair; Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern, Co-Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Jan Devereux; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Councillor Craig Kelley; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Cassie Arnaud, Housing Project Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Nora Bent; Allison Daley; Fran Cronin; Wil Durbin; Neal Alpert, Chief of Staff to Mayor Simmons; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Mike Johnston, Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA); Victoria Bergland; Elaine DeRosa, Executive Director, CEOC; Natalie Ribeiro; Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli; D. Margaret Drury; and Sherri Tucker.

Mayor Simmons convened the hearing at 2:01pm and gave opening remarks. (ATTACHMENT A).

She introduced Mr. Johnston and asked him to give a summary of Ms. Bergland’s history and service to the CHA.

Mr. Johnston stated that he highly recommends Ms. Bergland as the Tenant Representative on the Board of Commissioners. He noted that she has been a member of the Board of Commissioners as the Tenant Representative for the last five years. He explained that he has known Ms. Bergland for a number of years and she is a very dedicated and intelligent woman. He stated that Ms. Bergland’s family has been part of the Cambridge community since before the 1900’s. Ms. Bergland has lived in public housing for 45 years. He stated that she has been a she has served on several committees. He stated that she is engaged behind the scenes and is learning the budgeting process of the CHA. He noted that she has been one of the few commissioners that attends every meeting and added that she has been a wonderful advocate for the residents of CHA. He stated his strong support for the appointment of Ms. Bergland.

Mayor Simmons asked Ms. Bergland if she would like to share her thoughts on the appointment. Ms. Bergland said that she enjoys being on the Board of Commissioners because it helped her understand what Cambridge is about. She said that she is a people person and this is her way of helping those in public housing understand that Cambridge has a fantastic culture. She stated that residents of the CHA are very cultured and come from all over the world. She stated that if residents have issues, she talks to them and calms them down. She said that she is able to discuss relevant issues and assists residents in understanding the culture of the city.

Councillor Kelley thanked Ms. Bergland for her service. He said that on a greater scale, we must talk about the need to connect Newtowne Court to the various companies in Kendall Square. He offered his assistance in this respect. He said that if there is a need for extra support or classes to help make these connections, he would like these matters brought before the City Council.

Councillor Carlone asked Ms. Bergland if she lived in Lincoln Way prior to construction. Ms. Bergland answered in the affirmative. She said that by staying on-site through the construction, she and the other residents got to know each other. She added that there was a lot of involvement in the process such as interviewing architects and contractors. Councillor Carlone stated that Lincoln Way appears to be very well-designed and the CHA has done a great job.

Councillor Devereux asked Ms. Bergland if she has observed anything over the last five years that the City Council should be aware of as it relates to tenant concerns. Councillor Devereux asked if residents come to her for assistance when other problems arise. Ms. Bergland stated that residents talk to her about a variety of issues. She stated that the residents have a general distaste for what is going on in the world. She added that she enjoys living in her diverse community.

Mayor Simmons opened the meeting to public comment at 2:19pm.

Sherri Tucker stated that she is the Co-Chair of the Alliance of Cambridge Tenants. She stated her support for Ms. Bergland. She said that the tenants also support this reappointment. She said that Ms. Bergland is very active with the Alliance of Cambridge Tenants and attends all the meetings. She said that Ms. Bergland brings the tenants’ views to the CHA board.

Public comment was closed at 2:21pm.

Vice Mayor McGovern read City Manager DePasquale’s communication dated Sept 25, 2017 recommending the reappointment of Victoria Bergland as a member of the Cambridge Housing Authority Board of Commissioners as the Tenant Representative for a term of five years. (ATTACHMENT B).

Vice Mayor McGovern made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the Housing Committee forward a favorable recommendation to the full City Council confirming the reappointment of Victoria Bergland as a member of the Cambridge Housing Authority Board of Commissioners as the Tenant Representative.

The motion passed on a voice vote of four members.

Mayor Simmons thanked Ms. Bergland for her willingness to serve and thanked her for her service.

Mayor Simmons explained that on Sept 18, 2017, Policy Order #4 was submitted to the City Council requesting that hearings take place on a proposed Comprehensive Housing Plan for review and consideration. (ATTACHMENT C). She gave an overview of the strategies that could address Cambridge’s housing needs and suggested that the School Committee be involved in these conversations.

Mayor Simmons noted that almost half of the Section 8 vouchers issued by the Cambridge Housing Authority are going out of the city and she said that once they leave the City of Cambridge, these tenants lose their residency status. She asked what can be done to plug this hole so that people have a window of time in which to return to the city.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the framework provided in the proposed Comprehensive Housing Plan for review and consideration is very comprehensive. He noted that he does not feel that the creation of an Office of Housing Sustainability is necessarily realistic. He stated that although the City has many programs, services and supports, it does not always do the best job getting this information out to the people. He stated that it would be beneficial to have an office where the people in the community could go for information.

As it relates to the conversation about gap vouchers, Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would like to think about how to prevent a person from leaving Cambridge in the first place. He stated that we must figure out how to help people fill the gap and be able to stay. He stated that he would like this added to the preference categories.

Councillor Devereux stated that as it relates to Inclusionary Zoning, she initially thought it could be applied to larger buildings that were being gut renovated. Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that for a building that was vacant for 2 years, the language was added to the ordinance. Councillor Devereux said that the Harvard Street building was not vacant for two years. Mayor Simmons said that she thought that in the event that a building was fully emptied out, it would trigger inclusionary zoning. Councillor Carlone stated that it was discussed and there were issues. He said that the thinking was that 10% could be viable for affordable housing but they learned the difficulty of that. He stated that he would still like to pursue that. He stated that a developer cannot keep a building empty for two years.

Chris Cotter stated that with changes made in the inclusionary housing provisions, the definition of an inclusionary housing project includes buildings that are fully vacant for 2 or more years. He said that there were concerns about substantial rehab in terms of how inclusionary zoning could be applied. Councillor Devereux stated that she realizes that there would be issues so it would probably have to be structured differently or a new type of program to work with the owner to get more units into the program. She stated that if we do succeed in having an ordinance that would tax on vacant or abandoned buildings, it would deter people from keeping a building vacant for 2 years.

Councillor Carlone stated that the Harvard Street building is the classic example. He noted that the previous tenants were paying lower rents than what the new tenants will be paying. He said that we are not stopping upgrading of buildings but we have to realize what is being lost. He said that the compensation of the 10% affordable is minimal for that right to upgrade and make a unit a market rent unit. He stated that we will see this wave for the next 40 years wherein every building privately owned will now be upgraded because of the rent structure in the city. He stated that we will probably get more units through rehab in the long run. He stated that the Harvard Street Building does not meet current zoning. He said that renovations should, at minimum, need a permit. He stated that Harvard Street is an excellent example to highlight. Councillor Carlone said that some of the items on the list of the Comprehensive Housing Plan for review are in the works but we seem to be in a more open-minded discussion at the administration level. He thanked the Mayor for doing this.

Councillor Carlone said that as it relates to the Citywide Affordable Housing Overlay, there must be an incentive for affordable housing, but the real incentive for housing given the economics has to be that affordable housing has a priority over commercial development. He stated that there will be some developments that will only do three-quarters of the density which will be commercial. He stated that there are creative ways of getting housing. He said that the scale and character of housing is much more intimate than an office building. He stated that it can be designed in a way that is more charming or intimate, even at a greater height, than an office building. He said that the City needs housing on many levels.

Councillor Carlone stated that the biggest issue is what happened on the housing next to the YWCA, where an existing landowner fought it. He stated that he hopes that we can talk about that during the meeting. He noted that he would love to hear thoughts about where the public agencies or developer is not being sued because it is a public benefit. He questioned how the City Council can help in this aspect.

Chris Cotter said that the project on Temple Place was developed by a CHA-affiliated non-profit. He noted that it is a project that took almost 10 years from inception to completion and said that a good number of those years were a result of an appeal of a zoning permit that allowed the CHA to build the building. At one point, there were several projects delayed for this reason. He explained that those appeals are very costly in terms of time and resources. He stated that the litigation lasted almost 3 years but in the end, the permit was upheld. He said that this took significant amount of time and added cost to the project. He stated that construction costs jumped considerably and due to cost, which forced a substantial redesign. He said that it is referenced in the Mayor’s plan in talking about the permitting process for affordable housing.

Councillor Carlone stated that an overlay district connotes a special permit. He questioned the possibility of having a different FAR as a base for affordable housing, similar to commercial. Ms. Farooq responded that it would be ideal to have an overlay that is not necessarily a district but a housing overlay that allows as of right capacity. That is the kind of refinement of detail that we need. She said that the other piece is how much is the distance between what is allowed currently versus having a housing overlay that is not creating outcomes that neighbors are unhappy with.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that there must be strategy to know ahead of time the kinds of concerns that are raised as it relates to neighborhood character. She said that we should get some academic to dig into this because it would help.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that a question that came up at the CEOC forum was about looking at the priorities for Inclusionary Zoning. He said that he spends a lot of time talking with the homeless population. He stated that many of these people do not have experience being homeless. He asked how we could look at the priorities. He said that he worries about those who are facing homeless yet do not qualify for the emergency criteria.

Mr. Cotter responded that CDD is looking at this in context of putting together regulations. He said that with the adoption of the ordinance, the City has the capacity to issue regulations. They have had discussions about ideas, questions, and issues that have been seen with applications and they are working to look at the current preference system and ideas for changes or recommendations that would be discussed when establishing regulations. He said that it is challenging, and unfortunately the current system requires that people provide documentation to prove homelessness. He said that they are looking for advice and input to make sure that those who need the advantage will get it. Vice Mayor McGovern said that the City does have a Housing First model, and the intention is to provide supportive and transitional housing to homeless individuals looking to transition into more stable, secure, long term housing. He stated that there is a process with DHSP around homelessness, but this has to fit into the overall housing framework conversation.

Councillor Kelley stated that the approach to expiring use buildings is crucial to maintaining affordable housing units. He asked when Jefferson Park will be finished. Mr. Johnston stated that Jefferson Park is slated to open in February. Vice Mayor McGovern asked if there is the opportunity for getting substantially more units. He asked if there is any way that the City can help with this. Mr. Johnston responded that creating affordable housing is extremely expensive in the city. He said that they could add maybe up to 400 units on sites that they have in the City of Cambridge, but explained that the CHA is a public agency and subject to state procurement laws. He said that in the State bond bill there is language allowing state public housing to use an alternative means of procurement, and they asked for the word “federal” to be added but it is not there. They could seek a home rule petition through the city. He said that as it progresses through departments in the City, things get added on and the cost impact of those, cumulatively, is not realized. He stated that affordable housing is different than market housing because of the people it serves. He said that we are also at a turning point. He explained that the CHA is at 102% utilization of its program. They have 2,700 units, half are gone through the RAD process and they are struggling with the other half for tax credits. He noted that the CHA is dedicated to fulfilling all of the renovations but it will be at a much slower place. Millers River is in the pipeline for next year and the year after. He said that they will possibly be starting construction one year from December 2017.

Mayor Simmons stated that Just A Start is in the process of a renovation and adding units as well as the addition of some units by HRI. She stated that the time to seize the opportunity is when projects are being built. She asked what is within the City’s purview that can move the needle. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would like to know what it would cost to build those 400 new units. He stated that the City needs to explore all options, including the option of the City putting up some money. As it relates to add-ons, the City Council would have to make tough decisions. He reiterated that the City needs units.

Mayor Simmons said she feels that a collaborative Roundtable meeting with the BZA, Planning Board, and residents may offer the opportunity for people to interact around housing needs in the city. She stated that in the next City Council term, an overall comprehensive conversation would be beneficial.

Councillor Kelley asked Mr. Cotter for an update on the efforts to preserve affordability at Fresh Pond Apartments. Mr. Cotter stated that the preservation of Fresh Pond Apartments is a top priority, given how important a housing resource it is and how expensive it would be to replace. He noted that discussions are actively underway with the owner of Fresh Pond Apartments on options to preserve and extend affordability of the 504 affordable units. He explained that approximately two-thirds of the units are currently subsidized through an existing Section 8 contract and would be able to be preserved through a transaction where the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) increases and extends Section 8 funding. CDD staff and the owner have discussed jointly approaching HUD with this request. Mr. Cotter said that the continuing discussion relates to preservation of the remaining one-third of the units which do not have this rental subsidy. While it will be expensive, staff have been working closely with the owner to model how preservation of these units will be achieved.

In response to a question, Mr. Cotter confirmed that the owner was not interested in selling the property and was very committed to keeping the buildings and preserving affordability to the maximum extent possible. He noted that the owner had recently been invited to a tenant association meeting where he answered questions and outlined the framework for preservation consistent with discussions had with CDD. As negotiations are continuing, staff could not disclose details on the capital subsidy that would be required for preservation, but it would be significant. Mr. Cotter confirmed that the City Manager and staff are aware of the importance of this and are prepared to look at both City and Trust funding if needed to meet the subsidy needs here.

Mr. Cotter also noted that the City has had a successful track record with preservation in recent years, having to-date seen successful preservation at nine of the ten properties identified as being at-risk by 2021. Fresh Pond Apartments is the tenth and last property on this list.

Councillor Devereux asked if housing mini-bonds could be applied to help preserve housing at Fresh Pond Apartments. Mr. Cotter stated that they have not looked at that but they are talking with the City Manager about what the resource needs are expected to be and that he is hopeful that this can be done with other City funds. He noted that they have been looking at bringing on a significant number of new units through affordable providers. He noted that production is a priority and there will be more affordable units moving forward as new developments come together in the next few years.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that as it relates to the Fresh Pond Apartments, Congressman Capuano met with tenants in August. She said that it was reassuring to hear from the owner that he wants the Section 8 contract. She stated that there is a $1,000 gap between these and market rents. She stated that people are paying different percentages for their rent but it feels much more positive the way the discussions have been progressing. She said that the owner wants this to be his legacy - that he preserved this housing. She said that she feels very positive.

Councilor Carlone stated that 166 units are in trouble at the Fresh Pond Apartments. He asked if there is there a sense of what the premium is to save these units? Mr. Cotter stated that it helps to understand what is reasonable. He said that he does not want to give a number but there have been an ongoing discussion with the owner for some time. He said that they are in a range that is significant but within the realm of what can be done, so they are confident. He explained that it is then a question of how to get the appropriate approvals in place.

Councillor Carlone asked what public investment is necessary to take a regular unit and make it affordable. Mr. Cotter said that the cost to produce a new unit is much more expensive than the cost to preserve a current unit. Councillor Carlone said that the City Council has talked about land parcels of non-profits or universities but did not discuss City parking lots. He asked if this is on the list of possible sites in the future. Ms. Farooq stated that the parking lots principally in Central Square are extremely complicated sites to think of as redevelopment sites. She noted that CDD has looked at the utilization of parking lots and as there is not excess parking available, the scenarios would have to accommodate for a significant amount of parking. Councillor Carlone stated that if we don’t start including parking lots, they will be more outrageous in the future. When they are below-grade, it should be priced accordingly to pay for the structure. He said that we build schools and parks, so we can build housing and parking lots.

Councillor Devereux asked if the City could consider an exemption for ground floor housing if a developer chose to build housing over commercial. She asked if there is a way to subject the Cambridge Armory site to housing. Ms. Farooq stated that once this property transitions, it would be subject to whatever zoning is on the site. She stated that from a planning perspective, ground floor retail is consistently a desire. She said that as an urban designer, she has always been a strong proponent of ground floor retail. She added that in her current role, she has learned a lot more about affordable housing and the challenges and complexity of financing affordable housing development and secondary uses. She stated that Mr. Daly has worked on a project that incorporated ground floor retail. She said that it is challenging because the funding sources for the housing cannot support the ground floor retail. Mr. Daly stated that affordable housing funders are terrified of the retail not performing well and hence dragging down their investment.

Councillor Devereux said that Envision Cambridge is supposed to be looking at planning from a holistic view.

As it relates to the Fresh Pond Apartments, Councillor Kelley asked Mr. Cotter if there would be some sort of contractual period for the affordable housing units as long as the funds were met by HUD. Mr. Cotter responded that the goal would be permanent affordability and the details of use restriction with HUD would have to get worked out. Councillor Kelley stated that there is a whole lot going on the fact that we are not planning on a purchase is the only absolute thing we can say. He reaffirmed that it will continue to be owned by the current owner with some sort of contract. Mr. Cotter responded in the affirmative.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that he would like some resolution or answer as it relates to parking lots.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli stated that housing is an existential presence. She asked what would have to change for this to happen.

Mike Johnston stated that the challenge for the city is what are you going to use to make the unit affordable. He said that affordable housing units are being added in South Boston but will be tied up there for years. He stated that one of the problems is that there is no upward mobility. He pointed out that they had some very dismal results when they did their marketing of people who had to move out. They got less than 10% interest because people do not want to give up their mobility.

Mayor Simmons stated that when we previously discussed gap vouchers, the conversation was about how to replenish the funds. She stated that it will be an interesting conversation but is one worth having.

Mayor Simmons thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 3:57pm by Councillor Kelley.

For the Committee,
Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair
Vice Mayor Marc McGovern, Co-Chair

Committee Report #5
The Transportation & Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Oct 10, 2017 at 10:06am in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss implementing a program that would provide instant notification via e-mail to individuals that their motor vehicle has been towed and the location of where the vehicle has been towed pursuant to Policy Order #20 as amended on Sept 11, 2017 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Toomey, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Kelley; Councillor Devereux; Mayor Simmons; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Joseph Barr, Director, Traffic, Parking and Transportation; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Branville Bard, Police Commissioner; Rick Riley, Police Lieutenant; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Philip Bard, 333 Western Avenue; and Mike Sorrentino, 50 Mooney Street.

Councillor Toomey convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being privately recorded. He stated that a communication was received from Michael Baskin and was made part of the record (ATTACHMENT B). In his communication Mr. Baskin stated that he was parked on Concord Avenue around Aug 17, 2017 and his car was towed. Councillor Toomey stated that while Mr. Baskin was out of town there was a tree trimming request and his car was towed. A police officer did go to his home, but he was not home. He noted that Mr. Baskin was not notified by the City that his car was towed. He asked if once a car is towed is there a mechanism to notify the owner of the motor vehicle. He asked if BB towing is still located in Cambridge.

Mr. Barr explained the three scenarios for towing. He stated that for construction there is a 24-hour notice and in an emergency situation the notice is shorter. The normal notification period is 48 hours and this information is disseminated with the parking permits. Councillor Toomey asked if there is a mechanism for an e-mail address to be given to the City when applying for a parking permit so that in this type of a situation the motorist can be noticed that their car has been towed.

Mr. Barr stated that with street cleaning the ticket is issued electronically. This could be added as an opt-in on the ticket. Emergency towing or a handwritten ticket an add on system needs to be used and in cooperation with emergency communications. A small percentage of cars towed are for this type of violation.

Councillor Toomey stated that regarding the 48-hour notice Mr. Baskin was out of town during the period of the tree trimming. He asked should this have been extended to 5 days and should the period be longer?

Mr. Barr responded that without the Department of Public Works present to discussion the time period for the operation of tree trimming and extending the time issues, he could not respond. He stated that there is a standard 48-hour notice. This may cause more confusing; this may not make life easier for residents. This would be a disservice to extend the notice period.

Councillor Toomey noted that if someone moves they should apply for a permit a week before hand. Mr. Barr spoke about last minute requests and that sometimes moving days sometimes change. This was changed from 4 calendar days to 7 days but customers pushed back on this. Councillor Toomey asked if there was data showing cars towed due to short notice. Mr. Barr stated that this data does exist and that true emergency situations are small.

Councillor Kelley stated that if the notice time is not being changed then there should be no expectation of vehicular stability. He stated that motorists get upset when their car is towed after a notice goes up. He spoke about the street sweeping program and is there a need to tow rather than to ticket. He spoke about the hassle of getting their car back. He wanted Mr. Barr to check with Boston on their pilot program that does not tow cars during street cleaning. He stated that Boston has an e-mail program. He requested Mr. Barr to see if this is working. He stated that Washington, DC does not tow for street cleaning. He stated that the street cleaning/towing should be a separate discussion and to check with Boston regarding their system. He wanted something on the parking permit that signifies the notice period.

Mr. Barr stated tickets are issued electronically for towed car and he would work with Boston on this. He wanted residents to opt-in to supply their e-mail. This is doable. He stated that the City can look into a text system also. More information on the time frame is in the brochures but he will look into social media. He agreed that street cleaning/towing should be a separate meeting. He further stated that Public Works should be involved in this discussion. If you just ticket the resident is charged a large sum of money and the streets are still dirty. Councillor Kelley stated that Boston has a text service and an alert is sent out in one hour. He spoke about notifying residents of a change in the NSTAR work schedule.

Mayor Simmons stated that it is disheartening to find the parking space without your car. She favored the streets being cleaned. Towing is a hardship but the streets need to be cleaned more in some neighborhoods than others. She spoke about notifying people of a change to street cleaning schedule and asked how does this help visitors. Mr. Barr commented that visitor parking permit are good for seven days. He added that the visitor permits are tracked. A visitor will be ticketed if parked in same area for two days. How are visitors reached electronically? Mr. Barr spoke about someone who does not have a car can opt-into the system; this will not just be limited to residents.

Councillor Toomey asked if Somerville ticketed and towed. Mr. Barr stated that the did for a short period of time; now they do not tow.

Mayor Simmons asked Commissioner Bard if this is the same process followed from where he came from. Commissioner Bard stated that it is similar and cars are towed to a private space. The Police contract the resident.

Councillor Toomey stated that he would not vote to change the street cleaning schedule. He favored the curbs being swept for the leaves, but this no longer done. He spoke about the noise from the street cleaning equipment.

Councillor Devereux commented that a visitor pass is registered to a resident and the resident could be notified via opt-in to let visitor know. Mr. Barr noted that there is no current field to enter the visitor parking permit and this would need to be considered. Councillor Devereux asked if automatic notices could be sent the night before about street cleaning. Mr. Barr responded that there is a system in place now. It is a text in each district. A representative from Phil’s Towing stated that he encourages customers to sign up for this. Mr. Barr spoke about ways to get this information out to residents about this, but the brochure for this year has been finalized. Councillor Devereux suggested a poster at be installed at Traffic, Parking and Transportation.

Councillor Kelley stated that there is nothing on the Public Works website to sign up for this. For towing there is a form. He stated that data is being collected somewhere. He suggested another hearing be held and invite the Public Works Department.

Councillor Toomey moved to keep this in committee.

City Manager DePasquale stated that he would have Mr. Gianetti work with Traffic, Parking and Transportation and Public Works Departments to get the information on the web and to get information out to the public.

Councillor Toomey opened public comment. No one appeared and public comment was closed.

Councillor Toomey stated that the next meeting will be to refine these issues and that Public Works will be invited.

Mr. Barr stated that street cleaning notification may conflict with Public Works, Police and the towing companies. The tow companies cannot release vehicles.

Councillor Toomey asked about the process that the police follow to put tickets on vehicles.

Commissioner Bard stated that two officers are assigned daily and the districts are separated and the police work with the towing companies. As soon as a motorist calls they can get the location where their car has been towed.

Councillor Kelley noted that Code Red has a form to cover towing.

Councillor Toomey thanked all attendees for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 10:50am.

For the Committee,
Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Chair