Cambridge City Council meeting - Dec 15, 2014 - AGENDA

CITY MANAGER’S AGENDA
1. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Board of Zoning Appeal, effective Dec 15, 2014:
Reappointments:
Thomas Scott, Full Member - 5 year term
Douglas Myers, Associate Member - 2 year term
Slater W. Anderson, Associate Member - 2 year term
Andrea A. Hickey, Associate Member - 2 year term
New Appointments:
George Best, Associate Member - 2 year term
Jim Monteverde, Associate Member - 2 year term
Alison Hammer, Associate Member - 2 year term

George Best, Associate Member - 2-year term:
George S. Best lives in the Mid Cambridge neighborhood and brings the perspective of a lifelong resident of the City. Mr. Best is employed in the Human Resources field and has also served in leadership positions on a number of boards and committees. He is familiar with architectural plans and also has a solid understanding of the role of zoning and the Board of Zoning Appeal in the city.

Jim Monteverde, Associate Member - 2 year term:
James Monteverde has been a Cambridge resident for over 2 decades and currently lives in the Inman Square area. He has a background in architecture and extensive employment experience as a project manager in the construction industry. He is familiar with the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeals and has attended and testified at several meetings as a resident. He has experience working collaboratively on a number of Cambridge boards and committees.

Alison Hammer, Associate Member - 2 year term:
Alison Hammer is a resident of the Riverside neighborhood that has lived in Cambridge for the last 12 years. Ms. Hammer's educational background includes a Masters of Architecture from MIT. Her work experience includes planning, architecture, real estate development, construction project management and code and zoning review. She also brings a high level of knowledge and understanding of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance

2. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Teague, et al Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition

Date: Nov 18, 2014
Subject: Teague, et al. Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends adoption of Part 1, but does not recommend adoption of Parts 2 or 3.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

The Teague, et al. Petition proposes three changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Taken as a whole, these proposals reflect public discussion that has occurred over the course of this year related to the procedures of the Planning Board and other permitting agencies.

The Planning Board has expressed a desire to explore ways to improve those procedures through changes to its own rules. One particular goal is to strengthen neighborhood participation. The Community Development Department (CDD) is currently in the process of gathering ideas and feedback from a range of community stakeholders, which will be followed by a discussion of recommendations to improve Planning Board rules and procedures. Also, the Planning Board will participate in roundtable discussions with the City Council in December and January, at which these topics can be discussed.

The Board has the following comments about the specifics of this zoning proposal:

Part 1: The slight difference between the Zoning Ordinance and state law regarding the time period for consideration of zoning amendments has been a cause of confusion, and the Board believes that this change will help provide greater clarity. The City Solicitor and CDD staff have also expressed support for this change.

Part 2: The Board acknowledges that special permit decisions are discretionary actions, but that they must be based on rational findings. The City Solicitor has explained that the current text of the Zoning Ordinance, establishing that special permits are normally granted when the general and specific criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance are met, is supported by a large body of case law in which courts have held that permit granting authorities do not have unlimited discretion to deny special permits without sound reasoning. The Board’s view is that the appropriate exercise of discretion is to interpret and apply the established criteria to a particular case, and that if the granting authority determines that the criteria are satisfied, the reasonable conclusion is to grant the special permit. Furthermore, changing the text in Section 10.43 from “will normally” to “may” seems to weaken the significance of the general criteria enumerated in that section. Therefore the Board does not support this change.

Part 3: The Board agrees with the notion that planning studies should be incorporated into the special permit review process, as is currently the case, and understands that the City is about to undertake a comprehensive citywide planning process. However, it is not certain precisely what will be the title and form of the document (or documents) that will result from the planning process. Furthermore, it may be precipitous to require that building permits and variances must conform to a master plan, because those permits are also governed by building codes and other state regulations and it is not known how a future master plan would align with those regulations. Therefore the Board believes it would be premature to include such a reference at this time.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
Hugh Russell, Chair

3. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Flaherty, et al Zoning Petition (Medical Marijuana Dispensary on Mooney Street).
Referred to Petition

4. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the results of the bi-annual City of Cambridge Citizen Telephone Survey for 2014.
Referred to Gov't. Ops. & Claims Committee - Toomey

Dec 15, 2014
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am transmitting the results of the bi-annual City of Cambridge Citizen Telephone Survey for 2014. The survey was conducted over a two week period in September 2014. The statistically valid random telephone survey of residents has been conducted every two years since 2000 by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, a national public opinion research firm, based in Waltham MA. This is the first year that we have included cell phone responses.

While each survey provides a snapshot of public sentiment towards various issues in our city and insight into public services, the City focuses on both individual survey outcomes and long term trends. I am also enclosing a separate compilation of results that aggregates the percentage of responses of "Good or Excellent", and provides corresponding results for each survey since 2000.

Statewide research by Opinion Dynamics has shown a rise in pessimism in Massachusetts since our 2012 Citizen Survey, which included all-time highs for positive ratings. This year's survey shows that the City continues to enjoy ratings that are above the norm for most municipal governments; however, our individual positive ratings in some categories are lower than they were two years ago. While we expect ebbs and flows in survey responses, the administration will be carefully examining this year's results and paying particular attention to any trends.

Affordable housing/housing was reported as the "single most important issue facing the City of Cambridge today" by 18% of respondents in this year's survey. This is up from 8% in 2012 and replaces education (10%) as the most important issue identified. Traffic/bikes, a new issue this year, was also identified as the "most important issue" by 10% of survey respondents. Other new issues raised in the 2014 survey include development/overdevelopment (3%), construction (2%), climate change (2%), and parking (1%). Following trends of previous surveys, the percentage of citizens responding that taxes is the most important issue continued to drop and is now at 1%. Table 1 shows the full results of this open ended question and how current year responses compare to previous surveys.

Table 1: What do you think is the single most important issue facing the City of Cambridge today-the one that affects you and your family the most?

Compiled in Table 2 are the survey questions with "Excellent or Good" responses that exhibited the largest changes from the 2012 results, as well as the variance of "Excellent or Good" responses from the average of the previous 7 surveys.

Table 2: Largest Change in Excellent/Good responses

The City continues striving to meet the highest standards in level of service for residents and working to foster the sense of community that makes Cambridge a unique and special place to live, work, play and learn.

If the Council would like to discuss the survey results in detail, I recommend that the report be referred to the Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee for a public meeting, at which time I will ask representatives from Opinion Dynamics Corporation to attend as well.

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

5. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 14-131, regarding repairs to the Galaxy: Earth Sphere. [Attachment from DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riorden on Galaxy: Earth Sphere condition and restoration]

6. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 14-109, regarding a report on sewer separation projects and effects on parking.

7. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 14-134, regarding a report on deploying truck side guards on all city-owned and city-leased.

8. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 14-126, regarding a report on the feasibility of hosting a program similar to the "Exchanging Places" program in London.

9. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $25,000 in excess Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department revenue to the General Fund Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance account to enter into a contract with the Volpe Transportation Center to assist the City in evaluating truck safety features specific to City of Cambridge trucks to enhance cyclist and pedestrian safety.

10. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the revised ordinance titled "Checkout Bag Ordinance", the related regulations and application for exemption. [Attachments]
Referred to Unf. Bus. #10 & Ordinance Committee for additional hearing - Benzan

Dec 15, 2014
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached the revised ordinance titled "Checkout Bag Ordinance" which was previously submitted to the City Council on Oct 27, 2014.

Additionally, I am transmitting the related regulations that will be issued by the Public Works Commissioner which include details associated with the various bag types and the charge associated with the provision of various bags by retail establishments along with the ASTM Designations D6400 Standard Specification for Compostability (reference in the Regulations). Also attached is the Application for Exemption from the "Checkout Bag Ordinance."

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

11. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $300,000 from Free Cash as follows: $160,000 to the General Fund Library Other Ordinary Maintenance account and $140,000 to the Public Investment Fund Extraordinary Expenditures account which will fund expenses incurred to repair and mitigate damages as a result of multiple leaks in the sewer forced main system located in the lower levels of the Main Library as well as to implement a long term solution to prevent any future leaks in this system and in a similarly constructed storm water forced main system in the same area of the Main Library.

12. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Report for the C.F. Hathaway & Sons Bakery at 15-33 Richdale Avenue, received from Executive Director of the Historical Commission Charles Sullivan.

Agenda Item No. 12A     Dec 15, 2014
ORDERED: That the C.F. Hathaway & Sons Bakery, 15-33 Richdale Avenue, Cambridge, be designated as a protected landmark pursuant to Chapter 2.78, Article III, Section 2.78.180 of the Code of the City of Cambridge, as recommended by vote of the Cambridge Historical Commission on Dec 4, 2014. The premises so designated is the land defined as parcels Parcel 122 of assessor's map 178 and the building thereon and the premises described in a deed recorded in book 61730, page 177 of the South Middlesex Registry of Deeds.

This designation is justified by the important architectural and historical associations the property embodies as a intact early 20th century industrial complex associated with a once-prominent regional bakery, C.F. Hathaway & Sons, and for its important associations with the architect and engineer Benjamin Fox.

The effect of this designation shall be that review by the Cambridge Historical Commission and the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, Hardship or Non-Applicability shall be required before any construction activity can take place within the designated premises or any action can be taken affecting the appearance of the premises, that would in either case be visible from a public way, that was not previously approved by a Certificate of Appropriateness issued on Mar 27, 2014. In making determinations, the Commission shall be guided by the terms of the Final Landmark Designation Report, dated Dec 10, 2014, with respect to the designated premises, by Section VII, Standards and Criteria of said report, and by the applicable sections of Chapter 2.78, Article III, of the Cambridge Municipal Code.

13. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a request for the City Council to vote to move to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation in the case of Soto vs. City of Cambridge.

14. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the proposed amendments to the Tobacco Ordinance, Chapter 8.28, Regulations on Youth Access and Sale of Tobacco Products and on Smoking in Workplaces and Public Places.
Referred to Committee Report #1, Option B passed to 2nd Reading

15. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $55,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Community Development Extraordinary Expenditure account which will pay for additional costs based on evaluation of conditions for water proofing work to be undertaken as part of Haggerty School/playground renovations.

16. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $100,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Finance Extraordinary Expenditures account which will fund the upgrade of all City Hall phones from the Winn key system to the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) system which is supported by IT.

17. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an update on the Foundry Building process, including the City's plans to collaborate with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (the "CRA") to redevelop the Foundry building in a way that meets the vision and objectives expressed by the City Council and the community.
Referred to Unfinished Business

Dec 15, 2014
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am pleased to provide you with an update on the Foundry Building process, including the City's plans to collaborate with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (the "CRA") to redevelop the Foundry building in a way that meets the vision and objectives expressed by the City Council and the community.

This is consistent with a City Council Policy Order adopted on Mar 17, 2014 which authorized the City Manager to allocate up to $6 million to facilitate necessary capital improvements to the Foundry as well as to determine the legal and regulatory processes necessary to collaborate with the CRA.

Collaborating with the CRA presents a number of unique advantages relative to the development and operation of the Foundry. The CRA can conduct a redevelopment process with an outcome specifically designed to achieve broad City objectives, including a developer review and negotiation process to select a redevelopment partner; assist in crafting a financially feasible development program for both the capital improvements and long-term operation of the Foundry; possibly take on a long-term management role of the Foundry; potentially leverage some of its own capital reserves for financing and leveraging third party funding sources such as historic tax credits, MassDevelopment investment, and public/private partnerships; and limit the City's financial risk while still achieving several desired outcomes sought by both the City Council and the greater community. Also, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 121B, the City would not be limited in the length of time for any lease agreement with the CRA for the use of the Foundry.

Background
The Foundry building, a currently vacant, former industrial and office building, was acquired by the City of Cambridge (the "City") in 2012 from Alexandria Properties in connection with a zoning amendment sought by Alexandria.

Since the Foundry was acquired by the City, there have been a number of public forums and community meetings to gather input from the community regarding the future function, programming and uses within the building. The extensive community process has also helped to define a vision for the Foundry as well as key goals and objectives for its redevelopment and operation.

Process
It is anticipated that the City would enter into a lease agreement with the CRA, which would then issue an RFQ/RFP for a developer to complete the building fit-out and redevelop the Foundry according to the mission and objectives developed by the City, and within the overall framework requested by the City Council and the community.

This approach requires several regulatory steps, documents, and review and/or approvals from the Planning Board, the CRA Board, and the City Council.

Demonstration Plan
One of the initial steps in this process is the creation and adoption of a Demonstration Project Plan (the "Demonstration Plan"). The purpose of the Demonstration Plan is to serve as a guide for the redevelopment of the Foundry as a demonstration project of the CRA, developed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 121B of the Massachusetts General Laws. Section 46(f) of Chapter 121B provides the CRA with the authority to adopt and develop "demonstration projects." That section reads, in part: "An urban renewal agency shall have all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes of relevant provisions of the General Laws, and shall have the following powers in addition to those specifically granted in section eleven or elsewhere in this chapter:... (f) to develop, test and report methods and techniques and carry out demonstrations for the prevention and elimination of slums and urban blight".

In practice, this approach has been used minimally in Massachusetts, however, based on analysis of both the condition and financial feasibility of the redevelopment of the Foundry, the CRA believes that the redevelopment of the Foundry as a demonstration project would be appropriate for three primary reasons: (1) it will prevent the creation of urban blight in the area of the Property; (2) the Project will allow the CRA to leverage the success of redevelopment in Kendall Square to diffuse opportunity broadly throughout the community to achieve specific community-based objectives; and (3) the Project may serve as a model of an innovative approach to community development for the City and the Commonwealth.

The Demonstration Plan must be reviewed and approved by both the CRA Board and the City Council. It is important to note that approval of the Demonstration Plan alone does not constitute a transfer of a leasehold interest of the Foundry. An approved Demonstration Plan, however, will allow the CRA to work with the City in redeveloping the Foundry. The actual transfer of a leasehold interest in the Foundry to the CRA will be accomplished through a lease which will be the fundamental document setting forth the relationship between the City and the CRA. A lease will be entered into between the City and the CRA after a vote of the City Council authorizing the City Manager to do so.

The Demonstration Plan is scheduled to be discussed by the CRA Board at its meeting on Wed, Dec 17th, 2014.

Disposition Report and Diminution of Process
Because this approach involves the City leasing the Foundry to the CRA, which will then issue an RFP to redevelop the building, it is subject to Cambridge Municipal Ordinance Chapter 2.110.010-Disposition of City Property ("the Disposition Ordinance").

Ordinarily any disposition of a real property interest owned by the City, whether by lease or a transfer of title in fee, is subject to M.G.L. Chapter 30B, the Uniform Procurement Act as well as the Disposition Ordinance. However, if the City partners with the CRA in the re-use of the Foundry, the City could convey or lease the Foundry to the CRA without the transfer being subject to M.G.L. Chapter 30B because agreements between agencies, boards, commissions, authorities, departments or public instrumentalities of one city or town are exempt from its provisions.

The CRA's sublease of the Foundry in turn to a developer would also be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 30B because Section 1(25) of Chapter 30B excludes "a contract to sell lease or acquire residential, institutional, industrial or commercial real property by a public or quasi-public economic development agency or urban renewal agency engaged in the development and disposition of said real property in accordance with a plan approved by the appropriate authorizing authority." However, the lease between the City and the CRA will require that the CRA conduct a robust, public, and competitive process for selecting a developer for the Foundry, a process designed to leverage the CRA's resources and to accomplish the City's objectives consistent with the public outreach process that is ongoing.

Pursuant to the City's Disposition Ordinance, as defined above, the City Manager is required to prepare a comprehensive report (the "Disposition Report") addressing the potential uses of the property or property interest to be disposed of, including but not limited to, the financial impact of each use, zoning status, development potential of the property or property interest, and any proposed development plans for the property or property interest.

It is anticipated that as part of the disposition process the City Manager will request that the City Council approve a diminution of the full disposition process. If the City Council agrees with the recommendation to authorize a lease of the Foundry to the CRA, the City Council may vote to authorize a diminution of the full disposition process permitted by Section 2.110.010(G) of the Disposition Ordinance, which provides for disposition of city-owned property where the full process of the ordinance would be unduly burdensome, including, but not limited to, the property valuation through appraisals and traffic impact studies. Limiting the scope of review for the requested disposition of a leasehold interest by the City to the CRA would be consistent with the expressed objective of the procedure required by the Disposition Ordinance: to render "a fair analysis of how the greatest public benefit can be obtained from the City property in question."

Once completed, the Disposition Report will be submitted to the City Council, Planning Board and City Clerk. The Planning Board is required to hold a public hearing, after which, it will submit a recommendation to the City Manager for his submission to the City Council. The City Council will then hold a public hearing on the disposition of the leasehold interest in the Foundry and the diminution of process, which each require a 2/3 vote for approval.

Based on required timeframes for the public hearings at the Planning Board and the City Council, it is anticipated that the City Council could hold its public hearing on the Demonstration Plan, the diminution of process and the disposition in March 2015.

Lease with CRA
If the Demonstration Plan and disposition process are approved by the City Council, the City Manager will then negotiate a lease with the CRA. The CRA Board must vote to approve the lease.

The terms of the lease will be guided by both the Demonstration Plan and the Disposition Report. The lease will lay out what should be included in the RFP that the CRA will subsequently issue, as well as the vision and objectives created by the City and the community.

Advisory group
Insuring that the vision and objectives continue to be met throughout the redevelopment, operation and governance of the Foundry is a priority for the City.

The governance model for the Foundry will be formalized in the lease agreement and/or other agreements by and between the City and the CRA. As part of this process, the City Manager will establish a Foundry Advisory Committee (the "Committee").

The Committee, in consultation with the staff of the CRA, will make recommendations to the City Manager during the redevelopment of the Foundry and throughout its operation including refining the types of uses to be fostered in the space and reviewing the long-term capital changes to the Foundry.

The Committee will make its recommendations based on community needs as identified by the City Council, the City Manager, and as a result of community planning and outreach activities. The Committee will continuously re-evaluate proposed programs through the term of the lease and make recommendations consistent with community needs as they may evolve over time, and will also review any significant capital changes to the Foundry as they affect the redevelopment and use objectives.

It is anticipated that the Committee will also provide annual updates to the CRA Board at a regular public meeting to provide the public with information regarding its activities as well as to solicit input from the public about the programs associated with the Foundry.

Foundry redevelopment regulatory steps:
1) Public meeting to discuss issues and community concerns (Oct 29, 2014)
2) Demonstration Plan submitted to the CRA and to City Council
3) CRA Board vote on Demonstration Plan
4) Disposition Report submitted to City Council, Planning Board, and City Clerk
5) Planning Board public hearing on disposition and recommendation to City Manager
6) City Council public hearing on disposition
7) City Council vote on disposition, diminution of process, and Demonstration Plan
8) If approved, City Manager negotiate lease with CRA
9) CRA Board vote on Lease
10) Creation of the Advisory Committee
11) CRA issue RFQ/RFP to redevelop the Foundry

Very truly yours, Richard C. Rossi, City Manager

CHARTER RIGHT
1. An application was received from Sherman 149 LLC requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises numbered 149 Sherman Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. No response has been received from the neighborhood association. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Kelley on Applications and Petitions Number One of Dec 8, 2014.]
Adopted

ON THE TABLE
2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Cambridge Arts Council to determine the types of spaces that are most needed within the local arts community with the view of using the Foundry to fill those needs and to allocate appropriate funds to make appropriate upgrades for the purpose of creating a community arts center. (Order Amended by Substitution.) [Order Number Ten of Jan 27, 2014 Placed on Table on motion of Mayor Maher on Jan 27, 2014.]

3. An application was received from Ting-hsu Chen requesting permission to widen the existing curb cut at the premises numbered 14 Soden Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. No response has been received from the neighborhood association. [Applications and Petitions Number Six of Feb 24, 2014 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Simmons on Feb 24, 2014.]

4. That the City Council go on the record in opposition to any type of casino project in the Greater Boston area whether constructed and managed by Mohegan Sun or Wynn Resorts. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Simmons on Order Number Five of June 16, 2014. Placed on the Table on the motion of Councillor Cheung on June 30, 2014.]

5. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing held on June 18, 2014 to discuss revisions to the Cambridge Municipal Code Section 9.04.050 (A) Defacing public property of Chapter 9.04 entitled "Offenses Against Property". [Committee Report Number Five of June 30, 2014 Placed on Table on motion of Vice Mayor Benzan on June 30, 2014.]

6. That as we undertake the Cambridge Conversations and the Master Planning Process, the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to study emerging business types in Cambridge and how they are affected by the use regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, and to recommend changes to the Zoning Ordinance that will help classify such businesses in a clear, rational way that supports the long-term interests of the community and instruct the Community Development Department to evaluate appropriate ways to facilitate home-based businesses above and beyond what is currently allowed. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor McGovern on Order Number Five of Sept 22, 2014. Placed on the Table on the motion of Councillor McGovern on Sept 29, 2014.]

7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department and the Planning Board to begin testing strategies to enhance such engagement at the earliest opportunity by methods such as requiring developers to hold a public meeting in the neighborhood and provide a report along with the permit application describing public input and changes to the project as a result of such input and to suggest changes to the Planning Board rules, which could be adopted by the Planning Board and/or Zoning Ordinance, which could be enacted by the City Council to codify successful community engagement strategies. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor McGovern on Order Number Six of Sept 22, 2014. Placed on the Table on the motion of Councillor McGovern on Sept 29, 2014.]

8. Congratulations to Marvin Gilmore on the release of his biography Crusader for Freedom. [Charter Right exercised by Mayor Maher on Resolution Number Twenty-seven of Oct 20, 2014. Placed on the Table on the motion of Mayor Maher on Oct 27, 2014.]

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing held on Nov 22, 2013 to conduct a public hearing on an amendment to the Municipal Code by adding a new Chapter 8.68 entitled "Concussion Prevention and Management in Youth Activities at City Facilities." The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Dec 23, 2013.

10. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing held on Dec 19, 2013 to conduct a public hearing on an amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.67 entitled relating to Plastic Bag Reduction. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Feb 24, 2014.

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. An application was received from CareWell Urgent Care requesting permission for a sandwich board sign in front of the premises numbered 1400 Cambridge Street.

2. An application was received from Arlington Street 22 Trust, Peter, Miller, Trustee, requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises numbered 22 Arlington Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. No response has been received from the neighborhood association.

COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from Joseph E. Connarton, Executive Director, PERAC regarding Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2016.

2. A communication was received from Nihal, Bhujle, Jennifer Bhujle and Devin Bhujle, 63 Prince Street, transmitting opposition to bringing the Summer Olympics to the Boston metropolitan area.

3. A communication was received from H. Susan Freireich, 59 Chestnut Street, transmitting support for the Policy Order opposing the Boston Olympic bid.

4. A communication was received from Shola Friedensohn, 543 Putnam Avenue, transmitting support for the Policy Order opposing the Boston Olympic bid.

5. A communication was received from Jacquelyn Smith, 7 Ashburton Place, regarding the need for a Master Plan.

6. A communication was received from Michael Brandon, 27 Seven Pines Avenue, Clerk, North Cambridge Stabilization Committee, regarding Applications and Petitions Agenda Item #1 - 149 Sherman Street curb cut.

7. A communication was received from Fenton Hollander, 21 Sherman Street, Taylor Square Neighborhood Association, transmitting approval of the curb cut at 149 Sherman Street curb cut subject to the considerations regarding the two street trees.

8. A communication was received from Diane Tabor, 132 Magazine Street, transmitting thanks for the resolution acknowledging her birthday and career as an educator and teacher.

9. A communication was received from Emily Wieja, 11 Franklin Street, Charlestown, in opposition to the smoking ban in public parks and seating areas adjacent to restaurants.

10. A communication was received from Charles Teague, 23 Edmunds Street, urging the City Council to move the Teague petition to a second reading.

11. A communication was received from Hadassah Fleishon, 100 Landsdowne Street, in opposition to the smoking ban.

12. A communication was received from Mark Gottlieb, Executive Director, Public Health Advocacy Institute, 11 Montgomery Street, supporting the smoking ordinance and opposing exempting e-cigarettes from the ordinance.

13. A communication was received from Noel Lapierre, in support of passage of the plastic bag ban.

14. A communication was received from Charlotte Moore, in support of the landmark designation for the Hathaway Bakery.

15. A communication was received from Donald J. Wilson, Director, Municipal Tobacco Control Technical Assistance Program, transmitting information of local policies banning flavored other tobacco products.

16. A communication was received from Oliver Radford, 24 Cambridge Terrace, in support of the historical landmark designation of the Hathaway Bakery on 33 Richdale Avenue.

17. A communication was received from Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street, regarding banning smoking in public parks.

18. A communication was received from Hasson J. Rashid, 820 Massachusetts Avenue, supported the Foundry being used as a multi-purpose chronic homeless center.

RESOLUTIONS
1. Congratulating Michelle Su and Conor Pewarski on the birth of their baby boy, Blaise Francis Pewarski.   Councillor Cheung

2. The Cambridge City Council go on record commending the STEAM Working Group, the STEAM Summit Steering Committee, and the STEAM Summit presenters and thanking all of the attendees for supporting the Economic Development & University Relations and the Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations committees' initiative to take actionable steps toward creating a better, more prosperous future for learners of all ages.   Vice Mayor Benzan and Councillor Mazen

3. That this City Council go on record wishing all Cambridge residents a joyful holiday season and a happy new year full of good cheer.   Vice Mayor Benzan

4. Congratulating Jackie Garrick on receiving The Lincoln Award for public service.   Councillor Cheung

5. Congratulating Michael Chen and Belleds Technologies on the recent launch of their new smart LED lighting system, which was showcased at the MIT China Innovation and Entrepreneurship Forum.   Councillor Cheung

6. Congratulating Massamiliano Versace and Neurala Tachnologies on securing funds to develop their "brains for robots" software.   Councillor Cheung

7. Congratulating Lauren O'Connell on receiving the 2014 L'Oréal USA For Women in Science Fellowship.   Councillor Cheung

8. Resolution on the death of Margaret E. (Bowler) Cusack.   Councillor Toomey, Mayor Maher

9. Congratulations to Rob Barber on being appointed as United States Ambassador to Iceland.   Councillor Cheung

10. Congratulations to the Cambridge Rindge and Latin Visual and Performing Arts Department on their performance of the musical "The Addams Family."   Councillor McGovern, Councillor Kelley

11. Recognition of the work of the Harvard University community in their efforts to raise money to fight Ebola through the Harvard-Yale Ebola Challenge.   Mayor Maher

12. Resolution on the death of Lorraine "Rainy" Brick.   Vice Mayor Benzan

13. Congratulations to ThinkingPhones on its recent success and wishing them continued prosperity in all future endeavors.   Councillor Cheung

14. Resolution on the death of Antonette Williams.   Councillor Cheung, Mayor Maher

15. Congratulations to John Hammond on being named to the 2014 gubernatorial transition team.   Councillor Cheung

16. Congratulations to Roland Fryer on being named to the 2014 gubernatorial transition team.   Councillor Cheung

17. Congratulations to Eileen Rudden on being named to the 2014 gubernatorial transition team.   Councillor Cheung

18. Congratulations to Paul Toner on being named to the 2014 gubernatorial transition team.   Councillor Cheung

19. Congratulations to Larry Bailis on being named to the 2014 gubernatorial transition team.   Councillor Cheung

20. Congratulations to Greg Russ on being named to the 2014 gubernatorial transition team.   Councillor Cheung

21. Congratulations to Gerald Certavian on being named to the 2014 gubernatorial transition team.   Councillor Cheung

22. Congratulations to Tim Rowe on being named to the 2014 gubernatorial transition team.   Councillor Cheung

23. Best wishes to Governor Deval Patrick in his future endeavors.   Councillor Simmons

ORDERS
1. That the City Manager is requested to initiate a program to deploy body cameras for police.   Councillor Cheung
WITHDRAWN

2. That the Civic Unity Committee schedule a meeting to discuss the local impact and ramifications of these recent events upon Cambridge and the City Manager is requested to ensure that the appropriate City personnel are available to participate in this meeting, and to ensure that proper notice goes out to the community to ensure that those who wish to attend and take part in this conversation can do so.   Councillor Simmons

3. That the City Manager is requested to reach out to Avalon Bay Communities to urge them to honor the preexisting agreement regarding high standards of labor.   Councillor McGovern and Councillor Simmons

4. That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request from Councillor Toomey for a street bench dedication in honor of Carl E. Clarke.   Councillor Toomey

5. That the City Manager work with the City's Purchasing Agent and install a Veteran Owned Business classification and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Toomey

6. That the City Manager confer with the Acting Director of the Traffic and Parking Department on piloting pay-by-plate smart parking meters.   Councillor Cheung

7. That the City Manager confer with the appropriate City Departments to gather data on the number of minority- and veteran-owned small businesses in our City, including but not limited to retail shops, restaurants, bars, and barbershops, and report back to the Council in a timely manner.   Vice Mayor Benzan and Councillor Cheung

8. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide a model of how to structure zoning ordinance changes with a view towards guiding the Planning Board in terms of content and format.   Councillor Mazen

9. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Law Department to clarify the discretion of the Planning Board as it relates to special permits and whether the use of the word "may" in the special permit provision is legally non-viable.   Councillor Mazen

10. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to prepare amendment language for the proposed Municipal Code amendment in Chapter 8.28 entitled "Regulations on Youth Access and Sale of Tobacco Products and on Smoking in Workplaces and Public Places" for an exemption for hookahs and to ban e-cigarettes in the workplace.   Councillor McGovern

11. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to prepare a list of the amendments for the proposed amendment to the revised ordinance entitled "Checkout Bag Ordinance" for the Ordinance Committee hearing scheduled to discuss this matter; said amendment to include the attached amendment submitted by Councillor Simmons.   Councillor Carlone

Amendment 1
Section 8.68.030, item 6, shall be stricken and replaced with the following text:
6. "Retail Establishment" means any commercial enterprise, defined as the following, whether for or not-for profit, including, but not limited to restaurants, pharmacies, convenience and grocery stores, liquor stores, seasonal and temporary businesses, jewelry stores, and household goods stores, however this does not include bazaars operated by non-profit organizations or religious institutions, and farmers markets.

COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Oct 30, 2014 to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.28 entitled "Restrictions on Youth Access and Sale of Tobacco Products and Smoking in Workplaces and Public Places.
Option B Passed to 2nd Reading; Order Adopted

2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Nov 12, 2014 to discuss the zoning petition filed by Charles D. Teague, et al. to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to clarify the existing ordinance so that said ordinance can be enforced: to (1) align the zoning amendment expiration date in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to be the same as state law; (2) align the Special Permit criteria with adjudicated state law; and (3) require that the master plan be followed whereas following the master plan is optional under state law.
Two Orders Adopted; Part 1 Passed to 2nd Reading; Parts 2 and 3 Remain in Committee;
Mazen Filed Reconsideration on the matter of Part 2 remaining in Committee.

3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Nov 25, 2014 to discuss the zoning petition filed by Timothy R. Flaherty, et al. II requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge to expand the Medical Marijuana Overlay District, MMD-1 to encompass 61 Mooney Street.
Referred to Petition

4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Nov 12, 2014 to discuss proposed amendments to Chapter 6.04 of the Municipal Code entitled "Animal Control Regulations" to establish fines for failure to remove dog waste, failing to license a dog, violations to dogs off leash, changing the required time a dog can be kept in a kennel to be consistent with state law and that park rangers be given authority to enforce animal regulations at Fresh Pond Reservoir.
Referred to Petition

5. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Nov 5, 2014 to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Article V by adding a new Chapter 5.50 entitled "Civilian Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Checks for Certain Licenses."
Referred to Petition

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone regarding the Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance.
Referred to Unfinished Business #10

HEARING SCHEDULE
Mon, Dec 15
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Henrietta S. Attles Meeting Room, 459 Broadway)

Tues, Dec 16
5:30pm   The Public Safety Committee will conduct a public hearing to review the City's Emergency Response/Preparations when dignitaries visit the city or when there is a major event occurring in Cambridge.  (Ackermann Room)

Wed, Dec 17
4:00pm   The Housing Committee will conduct a public hearing to receive an update from the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) on programs, projects and policy changes CHA is implementing or planning to implement in the coming year.  (831 Mass. Ave., Basement Conference Room)

Thurs, Dec 18
5:30pm   The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on a zoning petition by the City Council that the areas bounded by Garden and Walden Streets and the park straddling Sherman Street currently zoned Business A be rezoned to Residence C-1 to be consistent with the surrounding area. The effects of the proposed change would include but not be limited to the following: The minimum lot area per dwelling unit would increase from 600 square feet to 1,500 square feet, the yard requirements would increase, the height limit would be reduced from 45 feet to 35 feet, and only residential uses would be allowed. This hearing to be televised.  (Henrietta S. Attles Meeting Room, 459 Broadway)

Mon, Jan 5
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Henrietta S. Attles Meeting Room, 459 Broadway)

Wed, Jan 7
4:00pm   The Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss discretionary budgeting and the feasibility of introducing Home Rule Petitions regarding an increase to the residential exemption, a tax credit for benevolent landlords and a property transfer tax for those coming to Cambridge to speculate on land.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, Jan 8
5:30pm   The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on a zoning petition filed by Whitehead Institute to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Sections 14.32.1 and 14.32.2 to provide for an increment of 60,000 square feet of GFA to be allowed by special permit in a portion of the MXD District, in Section 14.70 by retitling "Special Provisions Applicable Within the Ames Street District" and by adding a new Section 14.72 "Special Provisions Applicable Outside the Ames Street District. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Jan 12
5:30pm   Roundtable/Working Meeting to discuss city-wide planning, including discussions with the Planning Board. No public comment. No votes will be taken. Meeting will not be televised.  (Henrietta S. Attles Meeting Room, 459 Broadway)

Tues, Jan 13
5:00pm   The Housing Committee will conduct a public hearing to receive an update on the incentive zoning study to the Housing Committee from the Community Development Department.  (831 Mass. Ave., Basement Conference Room)

Wed, Jan 14
4:00pm   The Human Services and Veterans Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the City's Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, Jan 15
3:00pm   Health and Environment Committee  (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, Jan 22
5:30pm   The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on the Normandy/Twining zoning petition to amend Article 20.000 of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge by adding a new Section 20.800 entitled Mass and Main Residential Mixed Income Subdistrict within the Central Square Overlay District. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Jan 26
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Henrietta S. Attles Meeting Room, 459 Broadway)

Tues, Jan 27
5:30pm   Civic Unity Committee  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Feb 2
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Feb 9
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Feb 23
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Mar 2
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Mar 9
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Mar 16
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Mar 23
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Mar 30
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 6
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 13
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 27
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 4
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 11
4:00pm   2015 Scholarship Award Ceremony  (Sullivan Chamber)
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 18
5:30pm   City Council Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Dec 15, 2014
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to initiate a program to deploy body cameras for police.

O-2     Dec 15, 2014
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Over the past several months, in the aftermath of the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, and the choking death of Eric Garner on Staten Island, NY - both at the hands of white police officers - tensions surrounding the intersection of race and justice, and the interactions of police officers and people of color, have been running high across the country; and
WHEREAS: People in cities across the country have taken to the streets to protest the decisions by two grand juries not to bring those responsible for these deaths to trial, and to protest the way in which the criminal justice system, on a national scale, has not been effective or honest in examining and addressing its own possible failings; and
WHEREAS: The people of Cambridge have joined in these national protests to support the many like-minded people across this country, and in recognition of the fact that Cambridge has an important role to play in leading these difficult, yet imperative, conversations about race and justice; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Civic Unity Committee schedule a meeting to discuss the local impact and ramifications of these recent events upon Cambridge; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to ensure that the appropriate City personnel are available to participate in this meeting, and to ensure that proper notice goes out to the community to ensure that those who wish to attend and take part in this conversation can do so.

O-3     Dec 15, 2014
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. has purchased a parcel at North Point from Archstone Smith; and
WHEREAS: Archstone Smith had an agreement with the City of Cambridge and organized labor to abide by the high community standards regarding labor including but not limited to prevailing wage, minority hiring, and apprenticeship standards; and
WHEREAS: Avalon Bay has a history of development in the city that does not comply with these high community standards; and
WHEREAS: Avalon Bay has a history of lack of communication and unresponsiveness with labor representatives and the City of Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Avalon Bay has not responded to the attempts to contact them regarding this development; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to reach out to Avalon Bay Communities to urge them to honor the preexisting agreement regarding high standards of labor.

O-4     Dec 15, 2014
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request from Councillor Toomey for a street bench dedication in honor of Carl E. Clarke; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and herby is requested to forward this order to the Dedication Committee for their review and approval.

O-5     Dec 15, 2014
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: The City of Boston will be allowing the classification of Veteran Owned Business to carry the same weight as Women and Minority Owned Business when awarding city contracts; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the City's Purchasing Agent and install a similar policy in the City of Cambridge and report back to the City Council.

O-6     Dec 15, 2014
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: The City Council has previously requested, and the City Manager has reported, that the city is investigating the logistics, cost, and potential advantages of shifting to smart parking meters' that accept credit cards; and
WHEREAS: The technology enabling smart-meters has advanced and become more cost competitive since the city manager last reported to the Council on the potential expansion of the city's credit-card enabled parking meters; and
WHEREAS: The City of Pittsburg has reported an increase in revenue with a simultaneous decrease in parking citations through the use of smart meters that also utilize a pay-by-plate system; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Acting Director of the Traffic and Parking Department on piloting pay-by-plate smart parking meters.

O-7     Dec 15, 2014
VICE MAYOR BENZAN
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the appropriate City Departments to gather data on the number of minority- and veteran-owned small businesses in our City, including but not limited to retail shops, restaurants, bars, and barbershops, and report back to the Council in a timely manner.

O-8     Dec 15, 2014
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide a model of how to structure zoning ordinance changes with a view towards guiding the Planning Board in terms of content and format.

O-9     Dec 15, 2014
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to clarify the discretion of the Planning Board as it relates to special permits and whether the use of the word "may" in the special permit provision is legally non-viable.

O-10     Dec 15, 2014
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to prepare amendment language for the proposed Municipal Code amendment in Chapter 8.28 entitled "Regulations on Youth Access and Sale of Tobacco Products and on Smoking in Workplaces and Public Places" for an exemption for hookahs and to ban e-cigarettes in the workplace.

O-11     Dec 15, 2014
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to prepare a list of the amendments for the proposed amendment to the revised ordinance entitled "Checkout Bag Ordinance" for the Ordinance Committee hearing scheduled to discuss this matter; said amendment to include the attached amendment submitted by Councillor Simmons.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Oct 30, 2014 beginning at 5:09pm in the Attles Meeting Room, 459 Broadway.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.28 entitled "Restrictions on Youth Access and Sale of Tobacco Products and Smoking in Workplaces and Public Places (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that the meeting is being recorded both audio and visual devices.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked for a moment of silence in memory of former Mayor Menino on this passing.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Richard Rossi, City Manager; Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, Cambridge Health Alliance; Claude-Alix Jacob, Chief Public Health Officer, Cambridge Public Health Department; Paul Ryder, Director of Recreation; Robert Haas, Police Commissioner; Andrea S. Jackson, License Commissioner; John Nardone, Assistant Commissioner of Operations, Public Works Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Sura Hassan, 808 Memorial Drive; Alexander Pierrie, 1 Walden Square Road; Liz Tanefis, 95 Berkeley Street, Boston; D. J. Wilson, Mass. Municipal Association; Soraya Elie, 62 Jackson Circle; Bonny Carroll, Tobacco Initiative; Jenn Robertson, Mass. Association of Health Boards; Mitzi Fennel, 37 Creighton Street; Mark Paskowsky, 12 Saint Paul Street; Gwen Stewart Kibbe, 319 Concord Avenue; David Ajemian, 1716 Cambridge Street; Emily Wieja, 11 Franklin Street, Charlestown; Mitchell Feinberg, 10 Chauncy Street; Gerard McLaughlin, 237 Franklin Street; Ralph Yoder, 364 Rindge Avenue; Bill Cunningham, 6 Newtowne Court; Ann Worden, 411 Franklin Street; Michael O'Brien, 3 Crawford Street; Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zoeli, 1221 Cambridge Street; Katherine Rafferty, Community Relations, Mt. Auburn Hospital; Stephen Helfer, 3 Crawford Street; Paul Neff, 18 Ware Street; Cheryl Sbarra, Mass. Association of Health Boards; Anna Landan, 371 Harvard Street; Rezbul, 1105 Mass. Avenue; Solmon, 450 Mass. Avenue; Elie Yarden, 143 Pleasant Street; Mark Gottlieb, 11 Montgomery Street; P. F. Soto, 243 Broadway; Laura Montgomery, Cambridgeport; Dan Fishman, Worcester; Jen Borucki, 89 Milton Street; and Nike Radomile, 186 Prospect Street.

Vice Mayor Benzan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting will begin with Mr. Jacob, Chief Public Health Officer and then hear from Mr. Lipson, Director of Environmental Health. Public comment will be next and then a discussion by the City Council.

Mr. Jacob stated that he oversees the operations of the Health Department. He stated the smoking ordinance was amended in 2003. Cambridge was a small number of cities that led the way in this matter in Massachusetts. The Clean Works Campaign was to reduce the impact on both smokers and non-smokers. From this point one could go to a restaurant or a bar or club and you would reek of stale tobacco smoke. You could also work in an indoor workplace that was not going to cause poor health. The next generation is to address smoking policies. It is time for Cambridge to revisit the ordinance. He stated with the strong support of the City Manager and the contributions from the Tobacco Advisory Committee the staff has put together the packet of amendments that address E-cigarettes sales to smoking in playgrounds, restaurants and patios to stricter rules for flavored tobacco products meant to entice young smokers. The Cambridge Prevention Coalition has become part of the Health Department it has created a strong collaboration with the Department of Human Service Programs. He stated that he looks forward to smoking prevention efforts alongside youth groups like Project 84 at CRLS. The tobacco industry efforts to target teens have reached a new low with social media campaigns that highlight E-cigarettes and flavored cigars. The reduction rate is one of the great public health accomplishments in the last century. Since the Surgeon General's Report on Smoking in 1964 the United States has seen a steep decline in smoking. The work is not done, in particular with teens being burdened with a life-long habit who are not smokers themselves and wish to be free of exposure to smoke in open spaces.

Mr. Lipson provided an outline of the current ordinance and the proposed package of amendments and why the amendments are important based on experience in the last fifteen years. The current ordinance was enacted in 2003. This process brought in restaurants, business owners and residents to craft what the ordinance is. In the last ten years, smoking policies on the local level have moved quickly. The current Cambridge workplace smoking prohibitions and purchasing restriction were enacted beginning in 2003 at the local health department levels and then the Commonwealth followed suit with state regulations prohibiting smoking in the workplace and many public places. The objective of this movement was to protect workers in their work plan and customers from second hand smoke at levels that could have caused lifetime risk. Chapter 8.28 entitled Restrictions on Youth Access and Sale of Tobacco Products and on Smoking in Workplaces and Public Places is three sets of policies in one. The first portion of the ordinance addresses youth access and the sale of tobacco products. This establishes the requirement to prevent minors, under the age of eighteen (as originally provided in the 2003 Ordinance), from purchasing tobacco products as well as requiring a permit for vendors that would choose to sell tobacco products. This gave the City leverage if there were violations that went beyond a fineable offense. The second section addresses smoking in the workplace. This policy initially targeted bars and restaurants before 2003 and it was then extended to all indoor workplaces and all enclosed areas that year. The third section of the ordinance addresses smoking in public places. In the 2003 ordinance, this is limited to indoor or enclosed areas of public places. He explained that the controls on tobacco vending machines are allowed under the current ordinance, but there are restrictions on when and how much supervision is required. If a vending machine or the sale of tobacco is permitted then proper signage is required as detailed in the ordinance and a permit is required. There can be no free distribution of tobacco products, no post manufacturing of packaging or packages of twenty cigarettes or less at a time can be sold, no self-service displays, unless in an area where minors are excluded. Vending machines are only allowed within visual sight lines of proprietor(s) and access to minors is prohibited.

The second part of the current ordinance looks at smoking in the workplace. It prohibits all indoor workplace, including private clubs. Private clubs were included in Cambridge; most cities did not go this far. This restriction was challenged at the state supreme court and it was upheld. Athol and Cambridge were cities that had a provision to include private clubs. This provision against smoking in the workplace covers any area that is defined as an "enclosed structure". This definition is spelled out in Chapter 8.28 (the Cambridge tobacco ordinance).

The last portion is smoking in public places. The 2003 ordinance limits this to all indoor locations where the public is invited and includes public transportation. This includes both public and private property that provides public access. He then read the exceptions: private residences, nursing homes, inns, hotels, motels, bed and breakfast lodgings, smoke shops, performers on stage, religious ceremonies and houses of correction, detention or incarceration. Smoking is prohibited in all indoor areas of restaurants. Smoking is allowed in patios if all windows and doors are kept closed. In the 2003 Ordinance smoking in parks and municipal open space is part of the public places prohibition, but the specific scope of this restriction was confusing.

Mr. Lipson outlined the additions to the proposed ordinance.

1. He stated that the first of the noteworthy amendments is the establishment of prohibition of smoking in parks and municipal open space. He stated that the existing 2003 ordinance has language that was intended to prohibit smoking in parks but it was not organized in a way that it was clear how enforcement was to occur or what areas were affected. This language was reviewed to make it clearer. we are offering two possible approaches for restricting smoking in parks and open space. The original proposal (Option A) affected all parks and municipal open space. We have also outlined a second alternative, Option B, with the understanding that concerns were recorded by the Health Department and the City Council about a smoking prohibition policy that is universal and without full consideration to the consequences of a ban in all parks and municipal open space. Option B, the more tailored restrictions targeting areas where children are likely to be using public open space or places were parks are so small and where the proximity to other houses is so restrictive that someone would be immediately adjacent to the park. These are commonly referred to as "pocket parks". Language for Option A and Option B will be available to the Council when they vote on these amendments.

2. Regarding the prohibition of smoking in all rooms at inns, hotels, motels and bed and breakfast establishments, he stated that to the best of his knowledge, after inquiries were made, there are no smoking rooms available in Cambridge at this time.

3. The prohibition on smoking in all outdoor seating areas adjacent to bars and restaurants where food is served matches Boston and other communities in the Boston area and Commonwealth. Smoking is prohibited because this is a food service area.

4. He stated that the non-combustible tobacco (Nicotine Delivery Products) fall into a major loophole. In 2003, E-cigarettes were not on the radar. Because they are available and prevalent at this point this is seen as a huge gap in attempting to restrict youth access to tobacco. Many e-cigarettes and vaporizers are targeted at youth. This provision is intended to remove this gap in the current Ordinance.

5. Prohibition on tobacco or nicotine delivery product (NDPs) sales in healthcare institutions, pharmacies, drug stores, clinics or health centers.

6. Prohibition on sale of tobacco or NDPs to anyone under the age of 21.

7. Restriction on pricing and packaging for cigars addresses enticement around tobacco companies to make an inexpensive product available to youth. These are favored product.

8. There is a full ban on blunt wraps.

9. No commercial roll your own cigarettes machines.

10. No sale of flavored tobacco outside of a retail tobacco store. Unless you were a tobacconist would you be able to sell flavored tobacco.

He stated that there have recently been two other changes to the ordinance to be considered by the City Council if referred favorably from the Committee. They are:
A. Prohibition of all cigarette vending machines. This requires repeal of Chapter 8.29. Currently there are no cigarette vending machines in Cambridge.
B. Updates permit suspension rules to match other Massachusetts communities and updates penalties for allowing smoking in prohibited areas. These are not written into the current version. He stated that this language would be provided in the final version as a marked-up amendment.

Councillor McGovern questioned if this would affect push carts at the mall. Mr. Lipson responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Carlone questioned is there a limit from a tot lot. Mr. Lipson stated that the language is still being put together. There is a 20-25 foot buffer zone. Ms. Peterson stated that there may be a problem with the buffer zone because some of the tot lots abut sidewalks and the intent is not to ban smoking from sidewalk areas.

Councillor Mazen asked about enforcement. Mr. Lipson stated that rules are enforced but are complaint driven. Enforcement is complaint driven. Councillor Mazen stated that the transition period is important to a whole host of people. Mr. Rossi spoke about the educational transition period of nine months to one year. Councillor Mazen asked about incidents of the ban in Boston. Mr. Lipson stated that there was a violent interaction in Boston recently between smokers and police.

Vice Mayor Benzan commented on prohibition three on the prohibition on smoking in all outdoor seating areas adjacent to bars and restaurants where food is served. There are establishments where there is smoking on a patio, in particular where hookahs are smoked. How would this impact those establishments? Mr. Lipson stated that all tobacco smoking or combustion would be prohibited from establishments where food is served. It would not exempt hookah bars or water pipes. Vice Mayor Benzan asked what it would take to exempt these establishments. Mr. Lipson stated that if there is a suggestion that the Health Department review the possibility of an exemption for outdoor seating for places that allow the use of water pipes research could be done to determine if this is a reasonable basis to exempt water pipes. Vice Mayor Benzan asked what blunt wrap is. Mr. Lipson stated that these products are used for preformed large containers that can be smoked. This has been a widely adopted provision in other states; Cambridge is behind in some provisions. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that paper is removed from cigars and used as a blunt wrap. Mr. Lipson stated that cigars are banned. Mr. Lipson stated that he could get a better definition of a blunt wraps.

Councillor Carlone asked what does this leave for people who want to smoke outside their house. Mr. Lipson stated that it does not include plazas, public spaces such as sidewalks and outside spaces that are not part of sidewalks and larger parks.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened the meeting to public comment at 5:39pm.

Sura Hassan and Alexandra Pierre students at CRLS stated that there have been involved in Project 84 movements at CRLS. This is awareness to have large tobacco companies to stop targeting students. Ms. Pierre stated that a student was smoking a hookah in class while they were taking an exam. Research shows that 95% of smokers started before they were 18 years old.

Liz Tanefis, 95 Berkeley Street, Boston stated that the amendments are targeting young people. She commented on the price, and that they are sweet. She displayed an

E-cigarette. Price is the most important fact to young people. You can purchase a single cigar. She purchased a cigar for $.79.

D.J. Wilson, Massachusetts Municipal Association's Tobacco Control Technical Assistance Program explained what a blunt wrap is. This is a tobacco product and is used to roll joints. He spoke on the flavor ban. Providence, RI had a flavor ban, sued and the court upheld the ban. He stated that the ordinance process takes time. He showed juices for E-cigarettes. Newton and Providence included the juices in their ordinance. Section H regulates the price of cheap cigars. Boston stated l cigar is $2.50 and all multi packages must be sold for $5.00. He had a memo that explained definitions and products (ATTACHMENT B).

Soraya Elie, 62 Jackson Circle, stated that she is a CNA who works with cancer patients. She felt the smoking age should be changed. She expressed her concern about second hand smoke in parks.

Bonny Carol, Director of the Tobacco Initiative, a 6 city collaborative of which Cambridge is one. This is a significant issue because young people are being targeted by the tobacco industry.

Mitzy Fennel, Chief Health Officer, organizer and a parent of a CRLS student. She wanted the City Council to use approach. Tobacco and nicotine delivery product (NDP) should follow the same rules as alcohol. She thought the field should be leveled for all these products. She told of a situation where she and her husband walked by a park and because of the second hand smoke caused an asthma attack. She cared about second hand smoking.

Mark Paskowsky, 12 Saint Paul Street, Massachusetts Department of Public Health Tobacco Programs. He supported the regulations submitted today. Reducing use of cigarette is partly because of the increase in taxes. He wanted all the regulations passed.

Gwen Steward Kibbe, a parent of 2 children, works for Massachusetts Department of Public Health. She is the height of a middle-schooler. The tobacco products are at eye level and they are being targeted to children. She is excited about the regulations. She wants all the flavored products out of the stores. She supported no smoking in the parks. It is important to keep parks smoke free.

David Ajemian, 1716 Cambridge Street, stated that he is not a smoker, but respects the desire of smokers to smoke. They have been demonized. He does not find the evidence to ban smoking in public places. Political correctness and personal freedom is at stake. People have the right to smoke where they want to outside.

Emily Wieja, 11 Franklin Street, Charlestown, spoke about the right of adults to smoke. She opposed banning smoking in parks and public places. This is shaming to adults. She told of incidents of violence because of smoking when told not to smoke. She stressed tolerance for smokers.

Mitchell Feinberg, 10 Chauncy Street, stated his opposition to the regulations. The public in Cambridge includes smokers as well as non-smokers. This is a violation of people's rights. This is a small group passing an ordinance to impose this on others. He does not smoke, but would not petition the City Council to take away the rights of others for him. He favored there being areas for smoking rooms. Parks are for all citizens. Hotels could offer smoking rooms as long as there is a sign.

Gerard McLaughlin, 237 Franklin Street, stated that he is a lifelong smoke. He is opposed to the proposal. It is too sweeping. He started smoking in his 20's.

Ralph Yoder, 364 Rindge Avenue, stated that the proposal is unfair and against smokers. He smokes cigars. He is unable to smoke outside and to have open space not available to people is unfair. He stated that E-tobacco products dissipate quickly. The proposal goes too far. He wants to smoke outside.

Stephen Helfer, 3 Crawford Street, stated that opposition does not derive compensation for their stance. He enjoys smoking - he is taxed, stigmatized and penalized. He has rights and he hopes the City Council respects his rights, especially in parks. Smoking in parks has no measureable effect. He stated that the evidence of the danger of second hand smoke is flimsy. A large number of smokers are low income. This is to prevent smoking for children. Teenagers are not smoking and if this population is being targeted the tobacco industry is doing a poor job. He stated that there is a need for balance.

Paul Neff, 18 Ware Street, stated that he observed that at hearings such as this the feeling is to stop smoking altogether. Smokers have made adjustment for their standards. They cannot smoke in their own home. If there is a danger for smoking and there is a 90 year old veteran who smoked how can this be. He stated that smokers are being portrayed as toxic, bad employees and tenants. It is about no tolerance and closing loopholes. The goal is to denormalize smoking and to have no one smoking. The habitat where smoking occurs is being eliminated. Many people think like he thinks about this ban.

Cheryl Sbarra, Massachusetts Association of Health Boards, made 2 points. This year's Surgeon General's report is the 50th anniversary. In this report, it states that cigarettes are an dangerous product. They are called a defective product and no other defective product would still be on the market. Youth cigarette use has gone done, but youth use of other tobacco products has increased, including flavored inexpensive single cigar products. The tobacco products are sold as a highlighter in their back pack

Anna Landau, 371 Harvard Street, spoke about amendments to the tobacco products. She has a husband who has asthma who had a recent attack at a restaurant. It is not helpful to sit next to a smoker. At a park she can walk away from a smoker. There should be support for smokers who want to quit smoking. She suggested funding or a program for smokers.

Eli Yarden, 143 Pleasant Street. Who submitted an article from the Boston Globe about the town of Westminster, MA that is about to ban sales of all tobacco within town limits (ATTACHMENT C). Dangerous commodities should be prohibited. Just do it. He spoke about selective enforcement. He stated that private outdoor spaces are subject more to the danger of tobacco smoke. He spoke about the harm of nicotine. He stated that the motivations of taking up smoking are many. He survived the military by smoking. He stopped smoking at 62. The second communication was entitled "Herbert J. Gans. The Uses of Poverty: the Poor Pay" (ATTACHMENT D).

Mark Gottlieb, 11 Montgomery Street, Tobacco Control Researcher and co-author of the Surgeon General's Report. He commended the ordinance and the flavor ban. He favored the minimum age of 21 for the purchase of tobacco products. He stated that it is important to keep smoking away from parks to protect non-smokers and youth. The right to health is a human right and it is a legal right of the City to prohibit to sale of such products. He hoped that the City Council moved this to a second reading. He left suggested language changes (ATTACHMENT E).

P. F. Soto, 243 Broadway, stated that she is a non-smoker and would not want her children not to smoke and not to support the tobacco industry. She would not want them to be bullies. She did not want time taking up on this issue. There are more important issues. There is a socio-economic group being attacked. She stated that food is more dangerous and causes obesity. How many people in Cambridge does this effect. This is another stressor. This is a waste of time because there are larger issues.

Laura Montgomery, Cambridgeport, spoke for tenants in public housing and handicapped residents. This is very threatening and the fear of tenants losing their homes and being put into the street. People have been smoking for a long time.

Dan Fishman, Worcester, a member of the Libertarian party, stated that this implementation is very broad. Hotel addresses property rights and smoking in public addresses people rights. What is happening in a park is different than what is done in a restaurant. He spoke about tolerance and he felt that he does not think he has the right to impose this. He stated that there are carcinogens in shampoos and perfume. He stated that the amendments must be considered on their own. He spoke of intolerance in the past and how it is acceptable now.

Jen Borucki, 89 Milton Street, Arlington, stated that Arlington is one of the cities of the tobacco collaborative. She would never be a smoker unless her government made her. She smoked for twenty-seven years. She has not smoked for two years with the help of E-cigarettes. She stated that E-cigarettes should not be banned when we do not know that much about them. She stated that passing hostile laws against E-cigarettes will push smokers back to cigarettes. E-cigarettes will never be classified as NDP and cannot be exempt from the law. They should be treated as a consumer product. She supported E-cigarettes. She stated that the tobacco tax is not used for tobacco control or used to do compliance checks. She asked if she is allowed to use an E-cigarette product in the park.

Nico Radomile, 186 Prospect Street, Waltham stated there should be concern about a cheeseburger from McDonald because they are 70% filler. The concern about kids smoking and when you raise the age to 21 you will create more crime. Kids will always find a way to get cigarettes. He felt this should be treated as a medical issue. The lower class is the population who smokes. The ban is preposterous. He has a right to smoke where he wants.

Bill Cunningham, 6 Newtowne Court, stated that he does not smoke. He spoke about CHA banning smoking in public housing. He stated that the definition of second hand smoking was never clarified. The science of drifting smoke could not be clarified. How harmful are the molecules. Scientific questions are dealt with all the time. He stated that asthma has blossomed in this country. He does not think there are a smoker's right and the right to regulate. All have the right to live life and the pursuit of happiness and it is the pursuit of happiness that is the issue

Ann Worden, 411 Franklin Street, opposed the smoking ban. Health has become a weapon used against us. Opposition to smoking promotes a complainer mentality.

Michael O'Brien, 3 Crawford Street, spoke about personal liberties in the USA. He related an antidote. He stated there was no tartar sauce in Cambridge for his fish cakes at Bartle's Burger. Tartar sauce is banned in Cambridge because of trans fat. It is the parent's jobs to take care of the kids, not the government. Repeal the ban on tartar sauce.

Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli, 1221 Cambridge Street, spoke about CHA and that E-cigarettes are not banned. If E-cigarettes are banned it will impact CHA.

On a motion from Councillor McGovern public comment was closed at 7:05pm.

Councillor Mazen asked City staff about E-cigarettes and if they have water vapor emission and why are they included. Mr. Lipson stated that there is no language to ban E-cigarette use outdoors in any case.

Councillor Carlone asked what is available for smokers. Mr. Jacob responded that smoke cessation services are offered and can be made available to the CHA. It is offered to residents. Councillor Carlone asked if there is evidence that second-hand smoke is dangerous. Mr. Lipson stated that studies were reviewed, but there is little published about the dangers of second hand smoke. It deals with the number of people who are smoking. There is no precise work done on this. It is the close proximity and the number of people who are smoking. Councillor Carlone stated that flavored juices should be added to the ordinance under consideration. Mr. Lipson explained that flavored products are included and is limited to tobacconists.

Councillor McGovern asked City Manager Rossi to clarify is there a ban on tartar sauce in Cambridge. Mr. Rossi responded in the negative as long as it is trans-fat free. Councillor McGovern stated that he wanted to make it clear that Cambridge does not ban E-cigarettes in public and private housing or in plazas. Differences of opinions are respectful in their advocacy.

Councillor McGovern spoke about raising age to 21 to purchase tobacco products. He stated that eighteen year olds are purchasing cigarettes for fourteen year olds. There are age restrictions on many things. It is clear that if you keep children non-smoking until the age of 21 they are far less likely to smoke. Brain development of teenagers is different than adults because they do not see the future development of their actions. Marketing to kids is a multimillion dollar business. A younger age group is marketed to by the tobacco industry. This is a serious concern for young people. It is more accessible to the young. This is not about demonizing smokers. When he eats at McDonald's it is a personal choice. When you smoke in the vicinity of my children you are affecting my rights. The rights of the non-smokers are just as important. When a right affects another it is a public health issue. This is a question about the public parks. Once the proposal leaves the Ordinance Committee it goes to the full City Council for further discussion and further revisions. He questions the impact of smoking in common and not impacting anyone. Other than this he supports this. He recommended that this be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation for further discussion.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that the aim is to protect minors. He stated that the studies are not conclusive about the effect of second hand smoke. Mr. Lipson spoke about second hand smoke outdoors; there was not a lot of information about this. There is a Surgeon General report about indoor second hand smoke. Mr. Lipson stated that there is no prohibition to smoking in outdoor seating areas adjacent to restaurants, but must have a separate barrier. Smoking is not allowed in indoor patios. A Stanford study stated that indoor exposure can be created outdoors with how many are smoking in a small environment. He further stated that E-cigarettes are only addressed with youth access.

Hookahs would be prohibited from the ordinance.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he is not comfortable with amendment one and two to Chapter 8.28. If this was passed and someone went to a hotel and smoking is banned in hotel and in parks. We are limiting the right of visitors to our city, but this needs to be balanced with kids and families. It is not fair to the kids who want to use the parks. It is not clear how to prohibit smoking in all parks and municipal open space. He wanted clarity on this. He stated that in regard to prohibition on smoking in all outdoor seating areas adjacent to bars and restaurants where food is served if a Hookah is legally permitted he does not want to ban their right and impact their business. He wanted businesses exempted who are permitted to allow Hookah smoking. He is not prepared to vote on this amendment. He supported the other amendments. He supported referring all amendments, except one and three to the full City Council.

Councillor McGovern stated that he wanted further discussion on the parks and wanted to hear an alternative. He moved to forward to the full City Council and to come back with more information on amendment one and three. Ms. Peterson stated that there could be an alternative for open space. She suggested small parks with residential area around them.

Councillor Carlone stated that he is allergic to smoke. People cannot be precluded from using larger parks. All hotels are non-smoking. He wanted a buffer area for parks.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he is not opposed to smoking in hotels or inns. This proposed ordinance will impact the life of people. This must be clear. He is opposed to amendment number one and wanted clarification on this. How would this work at the golf course. Mr. Rossi commented that these are tough situations. This will become a complaint driven ordinance. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that there has to be an educational component by the police and for the smokers. Mr. Rossi explained that taking time and doing education was stated by the Commissioner of Police. Training will be done correctly.

Councillor McGovern moved that another option and clarity for amendment one be forwarded to the City Council and Vice Mayor Benzan moved to refer the matter to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. The motion carried on a voice vote.

An e-mail was received from Eve Sullivan, 144 Pemberton Street, supporting the ban on smoking in outdoor seating areas in restaurants, in parks with lot lots and at public events, sale of tobacco products to anyone under twenty-one years of age and banning

E-cigarettes (ATTACHMENT F).

Vice Mayor Benzan made the motion that:
That the Policy Order for Calendar Item Number Three of Sept 29, 2014 attached as ATTACHMENT G regarding the feasibility of installing "no smoking marijuana" signs in City parks and that signs further provide that persons found to be doing so could be fined in accordance to Massachusetts General laws Chapter 94C, Section 32L which was referred to the Ordinance Committee hearing on the discussion to ban tobacco products remain in committee and that the Ordinance Committee hold a separate hearing on this matter.

The motion - Carried.

Vice Mayor Benzan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:55pm.

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

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Nov 12, 2014 beginning at 5:36pm in the Attles Meeting Room, 459 Broadway.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the zoning petition filed by Charles D. Teague, et al. to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to clarify the existing ordinance so that said ordinance can be enforced: to (1) align the zoning amendment expiration date in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to be the same as state law; (2) align the Special Permit criteria with adjudicated state law; and (3) require that the master plan be followed whereas following the master plan is optional under state law.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD; Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Charles Teague, 23 Edmunds Street; Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue; John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; Kenneth Taylor, 23 Berkeley Street; Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street; Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street; and Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street.

Vice Mayor Benzan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being recorded with audio and visual devices. The format will be that the petitioner will make a presentation followed by comments from City staff, the City Council and then public comment.

Mr. Teague gave a power point presentation (ATTACHMENT A). He stated that the petition is trying to eliminate confusion and that there are three timely parts to the petition as follows (1) to align the zoning amendment expiration date in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to be the same as state law; (2) to align the Special Permit criteria with adjudicated state law; and, (3) to require that the master plan be followed whereas following the master plan is optional under state law.

Expiration date: Mr. Teague stated that the municipal law should comply with state law with respect to the expiration date on a petition for a zoning amendment. He stated that the public should understand the law. State law provides that a petition for a zoning amendment expires 90 days after the City Council hearing on the petition; however, the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance provides that a petition for a zoning amendment expires 90 days after the Planning Board hearing. He distributed an opinion from the City Solicitor regarding the expiration date (ATTACHMENT B).

Special Permits: Mr. Teague stated that the language in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance states that special permits "will normally" be granted. He stated that in Section 9 of Chapter 40A the word used is "may." He noted that according to Councillor Carlone, the Planning Board is never obligated to grant a special permit because a check list has been satisfied. Mr. Teague stated that he has an independent legal opinion and neither is right (ATTACHMENT C). Using the word "obligated" makes it appear that the Planning Board has more discretion than it has. He stated that special permits should be granted when the criteria is met. He stated that this should be well understood and suggested that the City Council could seek an independent legal opinion. The Planning Board has broad discretion to grant or deny a special permit. The zoning ordinance language is too broad. The recommendation from the independent legal opinion is that more work is needed on the zoning ordinance. This should be a high priority. It looks like the municipal law is giving an additional advantage to the proponent. The standard should be changed. The policy should be clear because the City Council controls the zoning.

Master Plan: Mr. Teague stated that all permits, including, but not limited to, Building Permits, Special Permits, and Variances should comply with the Master Plan for the City of Cambridge as specified in Chapter 41, Section 81D. He stated that in Massachusetts development does not have to comply with a master plan. You are required by state law to have a master plan but are not required to follow it. It is common sense to follow a master plan. The state law is silent on compliance. The City has an opportunity to do something. Zoning analysis is deferred to Community Development for signs, affordable housing and green buildings. The master plan would be added. The unattended consequence is that a variance can always be sought. He stated that the Concord Alewife Plan (CAP) started in 2004 with a twenty year building out. We are half way there. In Alewife 125% of the area has been built out in 1/2 the time. He stated that it is time to look at the goals and the infrastructure. He stated that in 2014 planning is not being taken seriously. The Concord Alewife Plan (CAP) is going on now and the infrastructure is not in the zoning. He asked how can you have a plan and not protect the land? He stated that the developers have failed the public. He had a clip of the Oct 28th Planning Board hearing about process.

Vice Mayor Benzan invited City staff to be heard. Mr. Roberts distributed a draft commentary on the petition (ATTACHMENT D). He summarized the key points.

Expiration date: He did not see changing the expiration date as a problem. It would end the confusion and would be helpful to the public.

Special Permits: From a practical standpoint changing the text in the general special permit criteria area may not seem like a very significant change, but the special permit is a tool that the City has. There is some discretion, but it is not limitless discretion. The Zoning Ordinance establishes what can be granted by a special permit and the reason for granting a special permit. Special permits have to be decided within a specified time period. If not acted upon with the time frame special permits may be constructively granted. The permit granting authority must provide a written decision granting or denying the Special Permit. Clarity is very important for special permits in the zoning ordinance. Changing the text from "will normally be granted" to "may be granted" may not provide any more clarity. He stated that if the City Council wanted to create a clearer set of guidelines for the permit granting authority in granting special permits there are ways that it could be clearer.

Master Plan: The Master Plan is a guidance document. In Cambridge it is composed of a set of documents including the growth policy document, city wide rezoning completed in 2001, ECAP and Concord Alewife studies as well as various other studies conducted for a particular area or topic formed for zoning changes or guidelines for development. These documents are referenced in the ordinance for special permits that are reviewed pursuant to section 19.30. All special permits are reviewed pursuant to 19.30, the City urban design objectives and guidelines, created in 2001. Any special permit is reviewed under the urban design objectives. The Master plan would be incorporated either implicitly or referenced explicitly in the review of special permits. This would be incorporated when completed. Building permits are not a discretionary review; they are an administrative review. It would be difficult if reviewing a building permit to verify that it meets all the zoning requirements it would then be a challenge to say that a discretionary finding would have to be made on whether it is in compliance with the Master Plan. Variances operate under a different set of standards from special permits. Variances are for exceptional things and a case needs to be made that the normal rules should be waived. The Board Zoning Appeals grants variances. It may not be appropriate to require the BZA to consider whether planning objectives are being met in reviewing a variance or imposing a condition on a variance. It may not be appropriate to require that every variance has to conform to a larger plan.

Councillor McGovern stated that the expiration date amendment is clear. This should be done and he has no issue with this amendment. He feels differently about the Master Plan. He stated that he cannot vote on the Master Plan when he has not even seen the recommendations. He does not support the amendment regarding the Master Plan. He stated that he is confused by the proposed special permit amendment. He stated that there is a lot of confusion about what the legal responsibility is. He asked what the legal opinion of the City is when it comes to granting special permits? If the criterion is met is there an obligation or is there more discretion? City Solicitor Nancy Glowa stated that the City Solicitor's Office has provided advice in the past that changing the expiration date in the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with state law would be a good idea. Attorney Glowa clarified that the City of Cambridge's Planning Board was established pursuant to Chapter 41 Sections 70-72, not pursuant to Chapter 41 Section 81. There have been discussions at various meetings about whether the City is required to have a Master Plan. She stated that the City is not required to have a Master Plan. The Planning Board is required to look at and review various issues with regard to planning in the City. It has been the opinion of the City Solicitor's Office that the various studies referenced by Mr. Roberts comply with the statutory requirement. Building permits are governed by state law. Changing requirements with respect to variances could be problematic. She could provide advice to the City Council if this were their wish. Attorney Glowa stated that with respect to special permits there is some confusion about how the law operates. In her opinion the change proposed would add further confusion and not be of assistance because the language in Chapter 40A Section 9 which governs what municipalities are allowed to do, such as in our zoning ordinance, is clear that the word "only" is significant in that the statute suggests that special permits may "only" be granted if X, Y, and Z criteria are met. There is a fairly significant body of case law that has developed that confirms that if there are clear criteria set forth in the ordinance and a board that is authorized to consider and act upon a special permit had a flimsy or insufficient reason for denying a special permit or was arbitrary or capricious, the courts have overturned those decisions. There is not broad discretion to deny a special permit if the applicant has shown that the applicant meets the criteria. She agrees that there is some language that is broad and possibly not completely articulated such as how one would meet the criteria regarding the effect on a neighborhood. She stated that with respect to the specific criteria in the ordinance where an applicant demonstrates that it has met the criteria and the Planning Board denies the special permit, courts have generally overturned such denials. She noted that rarely have courts overturned grants of special permits that comply with the special permit criteria.

Councillor McGovern spoke about the perceived direction being given to Planning Board. As currently worded this sends a message the special permits will always be approved. The word "may" adds balance. How would this change impact the Planning Board? Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board hearing is Nov 18th. Councillor McGovern stated that he would be interested to hear from the Planning Board the impact this would have on their work. He asked if the items could be separated. Vice Mayor Benzan noted that this came in as one petition.

Councillor Carlone stated that there are many good things in the petition. He stated that all who have spoken agree on the expiration date being consistent with the state law. On the special permits he appreciates the goal amending the Special Permit. Some of the new development construction seems out of place. This section does have merit. The City Council needs to establish clear guidelines and work with the Community Development on this. Conformance with the Master Plan he agrees with as an urban designer in principle. The comprehensive plan could be incorporated explicitly into decision making; does this include special permit criteria?

Mr. Roberts stated that any new plan would be referenced in the zoning ordinance. The issue here is that there is an implication that there is a document entitled Master Plan and it may be produced at the end of the process, but it does not make specific reference to any document currently published. Councillor Carlone stated that not every study was read by the City Council. Zoning comes from Community Development and it is upon the recommendation from Community Development that these studies are referenced in the zoning. Mr. Roberts stated that a planning study is created when there is a zoning proposal and they are cross referenced and that the plan and the zoning are consistent. Councillor Carlone stated that a comprehensive plan could follow a similar path. Mr. Roberts agreed. Councillor Carlone stated that his goal would be that a comprehensive plan be incorporated into the zoning. He stated that it is the City Council responsible to update Section 19.30, the urban design criteria, if the City Council is unhappy with the results. He disagrees with variances not complying with a plan. Legal variances will be rare. Variances are not a dominant thing. This would give more clarity where a variance makes sense. It would be crazy to do a comprehensive plan if it is not incorporated. The spirit of the plan should be followed or there is no reason for planning.

Councillor Mazen explained that he is trying to understand how well intentioned people arrive at a poor building. How can the Planning Board say no to a bad building when the zoning code is silent? Mr. Roberts asked what is defined as a bad building. If clearer standards could be established it would make it easier to define what is the right building for Cambridge. Standards are met with the design guidelines and whether they should be changed will be discussed in the city wide planning process. Attorney Glowa stated that the idea of what a "bad building" is supposed to be generated by the City Council, and it is within the purview of the City Council to make amendments to the zoning ordinance so that the criteria is clearly set forth as to the height of the building or other dimensional requirements. The design guidelines that Mr. Roberts referred to are also there to advise applicants as to those kinds of criteria. If part of the objection is that development has occurred faster than anticipated, these are the types of situations where the City Council can ratchet these provisions back and change the standards that will be applied. Councillor Mazen stated that hearing that the City Council has to rein things in at this point is a non-solution for the City Council. He spoke about bad buildings in that infrastructure will be precluded because of development is what is being heard as a bad building. He spoke about empowering the Planning Board to protect the vision of the City. How do we empower the Planning Board to have the vision and be empowered under the zoning ordinance to make smaller moves? Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board, as special permit granting authority, has the ability to grant or deny special permits and to impose conditions on special permits. There was an overall strategy in CAP in which the infrastructure should be developed and that rights of ways should be protected in coordination with development. This has guided the Planning Board for review of projects. Significant efforts have been made to protect the key rights of way that have been identified in the CAP. This has been the case. The area has been protected for the pedestrian-bike bridge and the pedestrian-bike routes have been established. There is always room for improvement. If the special permits are denied, we cannot expect the rights of ways to be protected and to have the other benefits that are anticipated in the plan. There is always a balance to be achieved with the zoning and the public benefits. Clearer guidance is needed.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide a model of how to structure zoning ordinance changes with a view towards guiding the Planning Board in terms of content and format.

Councillor Mazen made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to clarify the discretion of the Planning Board as it relates to special permits and whether the use of the word "may" in the special permit provision is legally non-viable.

Councillor Carlone informed the committee that in San Francisco they approved only a certain amount of development each year with strict guideline and strong design review. The end results were the best projects got approved. It raised the quality of what got built.

Councillor Kelley stated that his interpretation is that the form selected for the Planning Board under state law does not require more in terms of a Master Plan legally than what Cambridge currently has. Attorney Glowa stated this is correct. She stated that Section 2.68.010 of Chapter 2.68 of the municipal code states that the Planning Board of the City is established under the provisions of the MGL Chapter 41 Sections 70-72. She further stated that under Chapter 41 Sections 70-72 the only requirement for planning functions is that the Planning Board shall make careful studies of the resources, possibilities and needs of the town in particular with respect to conditions injurious to the public health or otherwise in or about rented dwellings and make plans for the development of the municipality with special reference to proper housing for the inhabitants. She stated that there is a requirement for an annual report that the Planning Board must provide to the City Council giving information about the condition of the town, plans or proposals for its development and relevant estimates of the cost thereof. Section 72 provides that cities and towns may have ordinances and by-laws for carrying out the purposes of these sections. It is more bare bones than the Master Planning requirements set forth in Chapter 41 Section 81 and thereafter.

Councillor Kelley stated that he did not have a problem with the word "may"; he does not think it will make any difference. He supported changing the expiration date. He stated that telling ourselves now that we will be bound to a Master Plan that we have not seen yet is problematic. He stated that zoning petitions are submitted to fit some unknown thing. It is difficult to figure out what the future will be and stick to the path. When we have a Master Plan it will be a guiding document and the zoning ordinance is a guiding document. The special permit criteria could be solved by the City Council. The Planning Board makes projects smaller before they get approved. He stated that thinking that the zoning problems of the City Council are going to be solved by the Planning Board is not a reasonable expectation.

Councillor Carlone stated that the state requires a Master Plan in general. Attorney Glowa stated that there are two different types of Planning Boards in Massachusetts under state law. One of them is that type that the City of Cambridge adopted a long time ago. This section of the statute was subsequently expanded, so that municipalities that had not adopted that type of Planning Board before the 1920's could no long adopt that type of Planning Board. Thereafter municipalities would form a Planning Board under a subsequent section of that statute. Many municipalities have Planning Boards under the subsequent section of the statute. Both are provided for under state law. Cambridge adopted the earlier law. Councillor Carlone asked if the City Council could change this. Attorney Glowa responded in the affirmative. Councillor Carlone stated that a comprehensive plan changes over time; it evolves. He felt that up zoning is spot zoning and this practices needs to stop. The City Council does not show a full building and does not understand the implication of the zoning. This needs to be changed. The general public does not understand zoning and this sets up distrust and shock. He wanted to know what the zoning change would mean in the future will prevent problems.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that the zoning needs to be reviewed and changed. He stated that a better job needs to be done to create 3D models to show the change. There is a lot of work to be done. He stated that a lot the dissatisfaction expressed by the residents is due to the fact that the development was not thought thru over that last 10-15 years and now we are seeing the effects. He commented that there is agreement on the expiration date change and the special permit provision. He does not see the difference between "will normally" or "may". He stated that Chapter 41 Section 81D is what the petition is trying to amend but we should be talking about Chapter 41 Sections 70-72. Attorney Glowa stated that Chapter 41 Section 81D is not binding on Cambridge because the Planning Board is established pursuant to Chapter 41, section 71-72. She stated that she is not saying that the City cannot have a Master Plan or that it could not be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance but that Chapter 41, Section 81 D is not binding on the City. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that referring to a Master Plan when there is no Master Plan before us is difficult. He stated that he is not prepared to vote on the Master Plan. This may need to be revisited. He did agree in general that any special permits or variances should be consistent with the overall vision for the city. This is the part that is causing so many problems.

Councillor McGovern stated that whether Part Three, the Master Plan, is required or not, it was voted on to have a Master plan and when finalized the City Council will review and debate it and put it into the zoning what the final document will be. He made a comparison with the C2 plan that took eighteen months. He stated that if before that plan was finished we moved the recommendations before we saw them supporters of Part Three would be upset because they did not like what C2 recommended. He stated that it is not good government to accept something sight unseen. Eventually the City Council will vote to accept the Master plan in some way but to vote without seeing a Master plan makes no sense. The Planning Board has a role on commenting on the look of a building and the materials used and they need to take this on because they are the experts. Councillor McGovern asked what could be done procedurally on this petition because there are three different recommendations.

Vice Mayor Benzan opened the meeting to public comment at 6:51pm.

Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue, stated that the she lived in Concord Alewife area and was involved with the 2004 and now reengaging with the community ten years later she understands the shock. She stated that the special permit criteria should reflect the planning. She stated that this is the essence of the problem. People feel that they were sold a bill of goods. The Planning Board may be in a rock and hard place because they do not have the criteria they need to make decisions that will be upheld. The plans need to be reflected in the special permit criteria is crucial. There will be many changes in the next few years and special permits will be granted and huge structures will be built. What happens between now and then with the Master plan? The special permit criteria should be in the planning document now or as soon as possible. She supported the petition submitted. The planning process cannot be divorced from the rules of the game.

Kenneth Taylor, 23 Berkeley Street, stated that as an architect and an urban planner his level of discovery is high. He stated that his conclusions from this meeting are that the City has a Master plan and documents by the state are defined as a Master plan, but none are referenced in the zoning ordinances. By the definition that has been offered by the City Council none of the current Master plan has any standing as it relates to the Planning Board reviewing special permits. He noted that the Chapter 41, Sections 72-73 is the provision under which the Planning Board is operating. He asked if the Planning Board is doing what the state law states including planning. He asked should the City Council, given the disparities showed, be looking at the current Master plan documents which have no standing and incorporate them into the zoning ordinance now rather than waiting. There is a high level of skepticism amount the community about a protracted Master plan study which may not have any enforceability. If the Planning Board can only approve special permits based on the special permit criteria how can the Planning Board comment on design. He stated that there is nothing in the special permit criteria about design. He stated that if the City Council wanted the Planning Board to comment on design in the special permits then the ordinance should be changed to be clear on this. He stated that he is not sure that the Planning Board is the body to make these judgments. If the City Council is right the Planning Board cannot deny special permits if the criterion is met.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that her neighbors gave months to the ECAP process, and then the developers wanted changes to benefit themselves. Everyone gave up something, but one group gets to come back and change their minds. This is why people think that the process is corrupt. The sign ordinance is another example. Mr. Hugh Russell, Chair of the Planning Board, gave a history of the sign ordinance and what it is all about and this is not borne out in variance proceedings. She stated that Part 3 is problematic but comes from citizen's frustration. The City Council needs to address how people feel when they participate and help to make compromises that it is not all given away. She stated that her suggestion is that at the very least that any Planning Board or Board of Zoning Appeal decision needs to take the Master plan into account explicitly. A Master plan does not deviate from the spirit of the zoning. She asked what Cambridge is for. Cambridge should be a place to create a community and a place to make people want to participate in meetings and their governance and makes it possible to do this.

Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, stated that it is important that Part Two be considered because these are the reason for the Planning Board decisions. He stated "may" is clearer for the Planning Board for considering the public interest. He stated that the public interest was not considered for the court house. It is time for the City Council to take on this responsibility. He stated that the Carlone petition was an opportunity for the City Council to take on this responsibility. As for Part 3 there are diverse master plans for neighborhoods that are not taken into consideration. He stated that the Volpe site will kill East Cambridge because this is a huge area of land with a massive amount of development. In order to minimize the impact of this the City Council needs to do something and the Teague petition is an interim step between now and the Master plan.

Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street, stated that the amendments in the Teague petition are necessary and crucial to ensure that the City of Cambridge operates in a democratic manner and that the quality of life of Cambridge residents is not further destroyed. They give the taxpayers and residents a tool to ensure that the City is not turned into a downtown Manhattan. She stated that there seems to be a problem with the Master plan. It is jarring to her to see some of the buildings that have been approved. She commented that the European cities are relaxing and this is because Europeans have standards to keep their buildings charming and ascetic and they enforce the standards. Standards could equate a Master plan. Cambridge has no standards and we need a Master plan but it will not be enforceable. Standards are needed that are enforced. She urged approval of the petition and it ensures that residents are listened to. If the changes are incorporated into the zoning ordinance maybe the Planning Board will not continue its current practice of approving all special permits.

Public comment was closed at 7:13pm.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked Mr. Roberts to address Mr. Taylor's comments. Mr. Roberts stated that plans that the City has established, both City-wide and for areas are referenced in the zoning ordinance. They are referenced in many cases explicitly and in some instances implicitly by making general reference to City plans established for an area. The plans are referenced generally in the City-wide urban design objectives which apply to all special permits and specifically to unique special permits that apply to specific areas. The Planning Board does engage in planning with Community Development Department. He stated that the special permit granting authority has eclipsed the time spent on this work and planning activities. He stated that the design guidelines are included in the special permit criteria.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked what the pleasure of the City Council is.

Councillor McGovern stated that he wanted clarity about the procedure. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that there could be three recommendations or keep any matters in committee. Councillor McGovern moved that Part I, the expiration date, be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation, Part Three, the Master plan be referred with a negative recommendation and Part Two, the special permit amendment be held until the information is received. Councillor Mazen requested to amend the motion to refer Part Two with no recommendation.

Councillor Carlone stated that one way to move on Part Three is to say that once approved by the City Council the comprehensive plan would be incorporated. The City Council would have to officially incorporate the comprehensive plan as part of zoning. Councillor McGovern asked if there is a way to bring forward through a Policy Order to work out the wording of the Master Plan. He stated that he intends to vote for the Master Plan, but it needs more work.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked the City Solicitor to explain whether the petition is requesting an amendment to Chapter 41 Section 81D which is not followed in Cambridge. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that a part of the petition is being referred to which is not followed. Attorney Glowa stated that the petition is asking for a new section that all permits, including but not limited to special permits, building permits and variances shall comply with the Master plan for the City of Cambridge as specified in Chapter 41, Section 81D. This does not state that Cambridge is bound by Chapter 41, Section 81D. She stated that there are still questions about building permits and variances. Cambridge is not currently subject to Chapter 41, Section 81D. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that the petition does not contain any reference to Chapter 41, Sections 70-72; why is this not referenced, Attorney Glowa stated that the Cambridge created a Planning Board pursuant to Chapter 41, Sections 70-72 therefore the provisions of Chapter 41, Section 81D are not binding upon the City. She is not sure whether the City could not voluntarily adopt a provision in our zoning ordinance that states that all these various permits will comply with the Master plan as set forth in Chapter 41 Section 81D. She explained that she had to look at this more closely but does not see that the City is bound by Section 81D. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that there would have to be an amendment to the zoning ordinances to accept this language and then incorporate the petitioners language. Attorney Glowa stated that she would be happy to provide clarification to this issue. She is unsure whether the City would need to change the type of Planning Board as established. It may be possible that the City will enact this provision if the City Council wanted to do this to have the Master plan consistent with the provisions of Chapter 41, Section 81D that would be incorporated into the zoning ordinance.

Councillor Kelley commented that the zoning is changed frequently. Sometimes the changes are liked other times they are not. This is surprisingly flexible; disappointingly flexible.

Councillor McGovern stated that the Ordinance Committee is a committee of the whole which usually only has four or five members that attend hearings. These are important decisions and discussions that need to be made with the full City Council and if the way to have these discussions is to move this forward to the full City Council to have the discussions he is for forwarding to the full City Council.

Vice Mayor Benzan cited his concern on whether City staff would be able to provide the information requested by the next City Council meeting. Councillor McGovern stated that the City Council could await the information and then take up the matter. Vice Mayor Benzan asked what the rush is. This should remain in committee. Another hearing could be held. He stated that he is not in favor of referring a matter to the full City Council without all the information. More information is need on Part Two and much more information is needed on Part Three.

Councillor Mazen explained why he did not support keeping the petition in committee. He wanted to keep the momentum moving forward with more information in front of the full City Council.

Councillor Carlone commented that the Planning Board has not held their hearing on this petition yet. Their review may shed some light on the issues. He commented that the Part Two amendment reads that special permits may be granted. It provides clarity.

Vice Mayor Benzan now moved the motions offered as follows:

Councillor Mazen made the following motions:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide a model of how to structure zoning ordinance changes with a view towards guiding the Planning Board in terms of content and format.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to clarify the discretion of the Planning Board as it relates to special permits and whether the use of the word "may" in the special permit provision is legally non-viable.

The motion carried on a voice vote of five members.

Vice Mayor Benzan moved that that Part One of the Teague petition, the expiration date, be referred to the City Council with a favorable recommendation.

On this matter the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillors Carlone, Kelley, Mazen and McGovern -5
NAYS: None - 0
ABSENT: Councillors Cheung, Simmons and Toomey and Mayor Maher -4
and the motion - Carried.

Vice Mayor Benzan now moved that Part Two of the Teague petition, the special permit amendment, be referred to the full City Council without a recommendation.

On this question the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillors Carlone, Kelley, Mazen and McGovern - 4
NAYS: Vice Mayor Benzan - 1
ABSENT: Councillors Cheung, Simmons and Toomey and Mayor Maher - 4
and the motion - Carried.

Vice Mayor Benzan moved that Part Three of the Teague petition, the Master plan, be referred to the full City Council with a negative recommendation.

On this question the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillors Kelley, Mazen and McGovern - 4
NAYS: Councillor Carlone - 1
ABSENT: Councillor Cheung, Simmons and Toomey and Mayor Maher - 4
and the motion - Carried.

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

The hearing adjourned on motion of Councillor Mazen at 7:38pm.

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

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Nov 25, 2014 beginning at 5:45pm in the Attles Meeting Room, 459 Broadway.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the zoning petition filed by Timothy R. Flaherty, et al. II requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge to expand the Medical Marijuana Overlay District, MMD-1 to encompass 61 Mooney Street.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Jeff Roberts, Zoning and Land Use Planner, CDD; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the meeting is being recorded both audio and visual. The format of the meeting is generally to hear from the petitioner first. The petitioner was not in attendance.

Councillor McGovern stated that the information from petitioner is that their appeal to the state was denied. They do not have a license to operate. They intend to go back to the state in January to reapply. He stated that he is not prepared to amend the zoning based on the petitioners licensing ability.

He moved to leave the matter in committee. The motion carried on a voice vote of three members.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

An e-mail was received from Melissa Renn and Rob Zeiller, Loomis Street, in opposition to both the petition and the sale of marijuana in their neighborhood (ATTACHMENT A ).

The hearing adjourned at 5:49pm.

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

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Nov 12, 2014 beginning at 3:04pm in the basement conference room at 831 Mass. Ave.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss proposed amendments to Chapter 6.04 of the Municipal Code entitled "Animal Control Regulations" to establish fines for failure to remove dog waste, failing to license a dog, violations to dogs off leash, changing the required time a dog can be kept in a kennel to be consistent with state law and that park rangers be given authority to enforce animal regulations at Fresh Pond Reservoir.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Councillor Marc C. McGovern; Mark McCabe, Animal Director; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Sam Corda, Managing Director, Water Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Kim Courtney, Ware Street; Ron Peden, 25 Aberdeen Avenue; and Paul Norman, 32 Locke Street.

Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. This meeting is being recorded both audio and visual devices. He outlined the format to be followed as the petitioner would be heard first, then the Water and Law Departments, the City Council and public comment.

Mark McCabe stated that there is a draft ordinance; all changes are underlined (ATTACHMENT A). He spoke about failure to pick up dog waste and that existing graduated fines are not a deterrent. In other communities the fines are higher. He distributed a citation comparison chart (ATTACHMENT B). It is hard to catch a deterrent because the violator takes any opportunity to pick up waste. The owner is supposed to have a means to pick up dog waste.

The fine for the failure to license is being proposed to be in compliance with the state law. Pursuant to Chapter 140, §141 the fine is not less than $50. The fine in Cambridge is $25. Regarding License fees Mr. McCabe also distributed a cost comparative by communities (ATTACHMENT C). He stated that the revenue received for fines and license fees are not sufficient to run the Animal Commission. The off leash fines are graduated and it is hard to implement in the field. It is one-time fee of $25.00. If the fine is contested it is settled at Magistrates office. Holding a dog has been changed by state law from three days to seven days. The proposal also contains language to grant authority to park rangers to have enforcement powers at Fresh Pond. Fresh Pond is heavily used by dog-owners with their dogs. Currently Park Rangers have no enforcement powers to enforce animal control regulations.

Mr. Corda stated that it is important to grant authority to park rangers to be allowed to give a ticket for a violation for not having a dog license. This makes good sense and keeps the Fresh Pond Reservation in good order. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the Law Department does not advocate any ordinance changes, the Law Department merely assisted with the draft language change.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked about the Animal Commission staff. Mr. McCabe responded that the staff includes two employees plus him. Vice Mayor Benzan question how often is a violation contested in Court. There were four violations contested recently. This is done quarterly.

Once a Clerk Magistrate's letter is received the fine is paid and it is dismissed at the court. If they do not show up to the court hearing a complaint is issued. Mr. McCabe explained some of the ticket violations. He stated that dog owners take the risk of having a dog off leash because the fine is so small at $10. He stated that a $25 fine is more effective.

Councillor Kelley stated that the fines are being increased and the City Council has been waiting for a dog park report. He asked how many dog owners think that the City Council does not support them. Mr. McCabe informed the committee that he is a member of the dog park working group. Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted to know how many fines were given. He questioned that in 6.04.120 entitled Violation - Penalty all of the sections have a specific fine amount, but in 6.04.060 the fine is listed as being not more than one hundred dollars. He found this confusing.

He asked if the Police Department does enforcement. Mr. McCabe responded in the affirmative. Attorney Goldberg said the question whether 6.04.110 entitled Violation - Complaint disposition in section B applies only to Police officers needs to be studied. There is state law allowing police officers to ask for identification and failure to do so is subject to arrest. Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted this to be examined in the municipal code. If this is not useful take it out or expand to all who issue tickets. He commented that an increase in fees is good to help with expenses. He stated his support for the inclusion of park rangers and the increased time that a dog can be kept in a kennel.

Councillor McGovern commented that the dog park report is important. He went to Raymond Park where dogs are allowed off leash. Most owners follow the law and they would appreciate changing the behavior of bad dog owners. At Fresh Pond there are certain areas that are off leash for Cambridge residents with a current license. He questioned how this is enforced. He favored education and outreach. He asked what the signage is. Mr. McCabe stated that at most park signs are at the entrances. At Lorentz Park the sign was put in the middle of the park. In designated dogs park it is more difficult. Councillor McGovern asked if there would be outreach to residents to notify them of the change.

Mr. McCabe responded that mailings are done in April and will contain license applications and an update of the ordinance. Councillor McGovern expressed his concern for dogs off leash that are darting out. His concern is for safety. If this goes forward more information will come back to City Council.

Councillor Mazen questioned the rate of adoption versus being euthanized. Mr. McCabe stated that most dogs are picked up. Three dogs were put down because they were aggressive. He stated that 1% of dogs are put down. Councillor Mazen questioned waiving prosecution in 6.04.030 (D). He submitted the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review the period of waiving prosecution to better suit prosecution in 6.04.030 (D).

No action was taken on this motion.

Mr. McCabe explained that if it is a criminal complaint and they do not show up for the hearing it could result in court fines. Councillor Mazen expressed concern that people may have an arrest warrant and not know of it. Mr. McCabe stated that when violation notices are given out the animal control officer does not have the violator's identifying information. Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted "hands" eliminated from the ordinance as a means of disposal of animal waste and a better definition of means of disposal. This is a public health issue. Mr. McCabe informed the committee that the City has placed disposal bags for animal at the parks.

Councillor Carlone asked if the city knew who the repeat offenders are. Mr. McCabe explained that if asked for identification violators do not have to produce an id. Councillor Carlone stated that he wanted an update on the dog park report made part of this report.** Councillor Kelley suggested that nothing be done on this matter until dog park report is received.

Mr. McCabe explained that the dog park committee has been meeting, and he would let City Council know of future meetings. He stated that dogs must be under control in an off leash park. Raymond Park there are openings and the dogs can get out of the park. He stated that at the Gore Street Park dogs can be off leash from 6-9am but Gore Street also has openings and the dogs can get out.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he is a dog owner. He had a terrible experience in 1997. He owned an American Terrier bulldog. His dog was off leash and he was arrested. This was a tough experience for him. He went before a judge and had two violations. One for the dog off leash and because he had no identification on him he was also accused of disorderly conduct. These regulations go too far and he has concerns with expanding powers of officers. He agrees with certain aspects of the ordinance. He agrees with the increase in fees, and a flat fine for dogs unleashed or not picking up waste. He favored a flat fee. Increasing fines will deter dogs in parks not in control. He stated that he wanted space for dog owners so that they are not placed under arrest.

Councillor McGovern suggested offering dog owners other alternatives. He asked if the dog park report will get submitted faster if this is left in committee.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked if the proposed ordinance changes waited until February is that enough time for Mr. McCabe to do his mailing. Mr. McCabe responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Kelley stated that from a discussion standpoint, all discussions would go better if the dog park report was received. He suggested keeping this in committee and when the dog park report is received have another hearing. This is an important discussion; completing the report for the dog park is a regulatory step before changing the ordinance.

Councillor Mazen stated that fines should be raised because it is the right thing to do, but in this case fines are being increased because they are not working. He wanted to create value now and if fines needed to be reviewed because there is a need to increase them. He stated that every time fines increased we need a capital project.

Councillor McGovern stated that situations are different. People are concerned about their dogs. In this case he does not want to give the impression that it is being imposed by not paying attention to the dog park report.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that he is not in favor of moving this forward in pieces. How can the City Council help Mr. McCabe to do his job with uncontrollable dogs? He favored the fee increase with proper notice and posting.

Councillor Carlone asked when someone gets a ticket are city rules mailed, which would be an educational opportunity. Mr. McCabe stated that the offender is told why they received the ticket.

At 4:02pm public comment was opened.

Kim Courtney, Ware Street, stated that she ran a non-profit rescue group in NY. She stated that 604.040 (6) b mentions dogs in heat. This could become a behavioral issue. She stated that dogs should be limited who are not spayed or neutered under 6 months old. At Fresh Pond there can be issues with dogs on and off leash. This can cause physiological problems. Mr. Corda stated that there are areas for dogs off leash; these areas will be defined. There are areas for dogs on leash too. The perimeter path is off leash. There should be designated on and off leash areas. Ms. Courtney stated that she is concerned with this. Dogs should be on leash or off leash. In designated off leash areas no dog should be on leash to the extent possible.

Ron Peden, 25 Aberdeen Avenue, questioned how many City Councillors were dog owners. There was one dog owner and four without dogs. He stated that it is important to know the City Council perspective. He stated that increasing fines and penalties is not a revenue generating measure so how will this be a deterrent. This does not make sense to him. He stated that there is too much emphasis on leashes; there should be more emphasis on training. He stated that picking up dog waste with their hands is an isolated case. He does not think a written regulation is necessary for this measure. He stated that in lieu of picking up waste he would like to see more bags for waste. He is opposed to increasing authority of the park ranger at Fresh Pond. This tends to be abused. He did not understand the fines for spayed and neutering. It makes no difference in fines. The difference is in the license fee to encourage spaying or neutering.

Paul Norman, 32 Locke Street, stated that there are not enough dog parks and areas where dogs can run. Danehy Park is an example of people who do not know anything about dogs creating a park. Most bad actors bring their dogs there. Dogs need to run on grass. He stated that at Raymond Park most people pick up dog waste even if the waste is not from their dogs. He asked why there are no gates at Raymond Park. At Fresh Pond there have been problems with the ranger. She has been insufferable.

Councillor Carlone stated that he had no preference on whether this matter stayed in committee as proposed or with the stipulation for the dog park report.

Mr. McCabe stated that there are community meetings planned for December to discuss dog parks, the times and places to be announced. There will be recommendations for new areas.

Councillor McGovern stated he is not optimistic that the dog park report will be received.

Councillor Kelley stated that he wanted to see dog violations issued. He stated that he wanted as much information on fines as possible. He stated that off leash fine increase will receive opposition and this should be done with shared space. He also wanted more information on the fines being not more than $100. He recommended keeping in committee.

Councillor McGovern stated that he wanted clarity on what off leash means.

Vice Mayor Benzan moved to keep the matter in committee with the intent of getting an update on the dog park committee. The motion carried.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The following e-mails were received:
Kelly A. Dolan, 233 Upland Road, in support of more regulations for dogs at Fresh Pond and other public parks (ATTACHMENT D)
Gregory Berndt, 233 Upland Road, in support of stricter regulations of dogs at Fresh Pond and other public parks (ATTACHMENT E)

The hearing adjourned at 4:30pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair
**An update on the dog park review committee appeared on the City Manager's Agenda on Nov 24, 2014 as Agenda # 13.
[ATTACHMENTS]

Committee Report #5
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:10pm in the basement conference room at 831 Mass. Ave.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Article V by adding a new Chapter 5.50 entitled "Civilian Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Checks for Certain Licenses."

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Craig Kelley; Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen; Robert Haas, Police Commissioner; James Mulcahy, Special Assistant City Solicitor/Legal Police Department; Andrea S. Jackson, License Commissioner; Mike Connolly; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street; and Kim Courtney, Ware Street.

Vice Mayor Benzan and Councillor Carlone convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being recorded with audio and visual devices.

The Police Commissioner and License Commissioner presented the following information.

Commissioner Haas introduced Mr. Mulcahy. The proposed ordinance (ATTACHMENT A) is authorized by Chapter 256 of the Acts of 2010, enabling the Cambridge Police Department to conduct state and federal fingerprint based criminal history checks for individuals applying for certain licenses. The Cambridge Police drafted language for an ordinance for a range of licenses issued by the License Commission and some issued by the Police Department. He summarized the ordinance: Chapter 6, Section 172B ½ is the statute that allows local authorities to promulgate an ordinance. He stated fingerprints are important because they identify people and can check the CORI system. The purpose is to determine fitness of the licensee. Information is utilized by the licenser to see if the petitioner is fit to be issued the license, whether this poses a threat and to ensure that the public is not exposed to a potential unsafe situation. The Police would report back to the licensing authority and then the licensing authority would issue a license.

Mr. Mulcahy stated that there is a background check state law in the education system signed by governor last year. Each teacher and employee of school departments are fingerprinted by a private company and they are sent to state police, who send them to the FBI. When submitted both state and federal check it and it is sent to Criminal Justice System (CJS) to make sure that there is conformity.

Cambridge's process would be similar. Unless a person has a fingerprint on file they would go to the police department for fingerprinting and then the fingerprint is sent to the state. A fitness report will be sent to the License Commission. It is critical to understand why this is being done. This is to prevent problems becoming bigger and to prevent crimes. If a criminal background is known in advance, an accurate fitness determination can be made. Cambridge has a huge tourism, livery and taxi industry and the city needs to be concerned about who works in these industries. Mr. Mulcahy told of an incident where a woman was picked up at the Seaport District and sexually assaulted and robbed. The offender used her credit card and went on a shopping spree. If the offender's information were known beforehand a license would not have been issued.

Vice Mayor Benzan listed the steps after a license application is filed. The police fingerprint the licensee. The fingerprint is then sent to the state police who send it to federal agency. CIGIS is the state system. It matches for a CORI. He asked what type of misdemeanor prevents a livery license or taxi. It is up to the licensing authority. If there is sex offense the licensing authority may want this information.

Ms. Jackson stated that for a Livery or an Alcohol License the License Commission would look for alcohol related offenses. Mr. Mulcahy noted that there is a portion on the application to self-identify, people do not answer truthfully on this. But a fingerprint is a positive id. Commissioner Haas stated national fingerprint identification cannot be done.

Commissioner Haas stated that Cambridge issues Livery Licenses. If the livery is housed in Cambridge it must be licensed in Cambridge. Ms. Jackson explained that there is a current freeze on livery licenses. She noted that there is no regulation in place for a business such as UBER. Cambridge has not issued livery license. Vice Mayor Benzan noted that there is a gap in the regulations as it relates to Uber drivers.

Commissioner Haas stated that the City Solicitor asked to match up licenses with livery drivers and there was a disparity of licenses. Ms. Jackson stated that the Livery Regulations need updating.

Councillor Carlone stated that the list for licenses is interesting and he understands the concern of a threat. He asked if these are the licenses only serving the public. Ms. Jackson stated that this is everyone subjected to a CORI check. Commissioner Haas stated that CORI checks are done, but we are depending on the truthful information given by the applicant. Councillor Carlone stated that this is for the safety and public benefit. Does it have to do with City liability? Commissioner Haas stated that would be a legal opinion to be issued from the City Solicitor.

Councillor Kelley stated that he does not see door-to-door license. Commissioner Haas stated that this is a Peddlers License. Councillor Kelley stated that as it relates to an Inn holder License he thinks that we are losing what we want community policing to be. He stated that he does not see the risk with an ice cream driver. Commissioner Haas stated that if someone has committed a sexual assault a license should not be issued. The licensing agency determines the fitness of the applicant. He stated that applicants for home care, day care, teachers' aides, camp counsellors or anyone who deals with children are fingerprinted. Councillor Kelley stated this is not what he wants police doing. This could be scary thing for a license applicant. As it is he does not support this.

Commissioner Haas informed the committee that a police officer is not taking the fingerprints. Fingerprints are done for a whole issue of things by the Police Department. Only applicants for certain types of licenses are fingerprinted. If there was an offense in another state by an applicant and they come to Cambridge you would want to know this information. All applicants are subject to a criminal background check, but this is based on truthful information given by the applicant. Councillor Kelley stated that he thinks this is intrusive. Commissioner Haas stated that this is a list of things that the city licenses. The police are sending information to the licensing authority and they determine fitness for issuing the license.

Mr. Mulcahy outlined information of multi-jurisdictional for second hand or pawn shop license. Cambridge would want to know if someone had a criminal history. Commissioner Haas commented that this is a balancing act. Police want to make sure that the general public is protected from someone who is not suitable for a license. Commissioner Haas stated that his advice would be not to throw out the whole ordinance. The ordinance allows the City to issue licenses to persons who are suitable. This is not a new tool. Councillor Kelley spoke about the ability of the data bases to manipulate the data that is new.

Vice Mayor Benzan stated that is an additional task done by the police. A private company is used for the educational system. Councillor Kelley stated that this takes policing to a security vein. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that this is a proactive step that prevents crime. He thinks it is critical to identify identity. Vice Mayor Benzan suggested taking a closer look at the list of licenses. Commissioner Haas suggested that the License Commission give a nexus for these licenses and then the City Council can disqualify.

Vice Mayor Benzan suggested leaving the matter in committee to look at the nexus. If is a chilling effect for these professions if someone has a record of a felony and this is a physiological piece that may prevent an applicant for going to police department to be fingerprinted. Commissioner Haas stated that the police are doing a partial check now. He stated that the two issues for him are identifying identity and if there is a record in another state.

Vice Mayor Benzan asked about food licenses. Mr. Mulcahy stated that anyone that is a sexual offender could be licensed. The out of state information is showing that there are sexual offenses in another state and this information is not shared with Massachusetts.

Councillor Carlone assumed the chair as Vice Mayor Benzan left the meeting.

Councillor Mazen stated that he has trepidations about this ordinance. He stated that a robber will not act inappropriately because they have applied for a license. He does not believe someone who wants to rob a house will not apply for a Peddlers License. Commissioner Haas stated that the city is offering an assurance that the applicant is fit to conduct business. Seasonal help have criminal background. Residents will not call the police because someone licensed by the City.

Councillor Mazen commented what is the chance of someone going door to door is doing something wrong. Commissioner Haas responded that there is a sub group that will break into houses that is operating on a license issued by the city. Councillor Mazen stated that the tradeoff is a public safety approach and what is left out doing this is the inconvenience to people. Commissioner Haas stated that if anyone is victimized it is one too many. Councillor Mazen stated that he wanted to know numbers. Commissioner Haas stated that no one is compelling people to get a license; it is a request from the applicant.

Councillor Mazen commented on the $100 fee of which $30 goes to state for administration of the state system. This is not a justified income stream to him. He asked what fitness determination are done now. Commissioner Haas stated that an alcohol beverage license looks for a record of alcohol abuse. The City made sure the applicant is not a risk. Ms. Jackson informed the committee that an applicant can self-disclose OUI and the License Commission wanted an explanation of this. Councillor Mazen questioned how many times Cambridge has been wrong. Mr. Mulcahy stated that this is unknown because we do not have the background information. Councillor Mazen asked does the City look back. Commissioner Haas stated that the City does not know how many licenses were issued with false identity. Councillor Mazen noted that this is an important data point for him in trying to change the system. Commissioner Haas stated that he views this as added protection to the law for the licenses credibility.

Mr. Mulcahy stated that two applicants going door to door gave false information. Commissioner Haas stated that police issue peddlers licenses and police could have checked further and found out that false information was given. Councillor Mazen asked how many crimes would be prevented in enacting this ordinance. Commissioner Haas stated that this would not be the whole global population of the licenses. For Hackney Licenses the number of licenses rejected is known. Councillor Mazen asked is it more important to fingerprint the Innkeeper owner or the Innkeeper worker. Commissioner Haas stated that jitney drivers are all employees and they are fingerprinted. Employees are not licensed and they would not be fingerprinted. Councillor Mazen stated that in Section 5.50.040(3) spoke about correcting an error in the Criminal History Check. Is this an easy customer process? Mr. Mulcahy responded that the information can be corrected at court or at the board of probation.

Councillor Mazen asked what license can be denied because of the use of a controlled substance. Mr. Mulcahy said what is outlined by the law. Councillor Mazen questioned the decriminalization of marijuana how would this be handled. Mr. Mulcahy stated that this would be done by the change in the law. Councillor Mazen asked if there was any chance of out of state ICE being used as a detainer. Commissioner Haas responded in the negative. Councillor Mazen commented that the language in Section 5.50.050B (4) is too broad and could apply to any type of crime. Type and recency of the crime is what is reviewed explained Mr. Mulcahy. He further stated that it is the police and licensing agent how the ordinance is being administered. Councillor Mazen stated that he agreed with Councillor Kelley about the concern with creeping and surveillance with the ordinance. Commissioner Haas explained that digital images are what are sent to the FBI. He explained that the FBI does not maintain copies; the state police maintain copies. Councillor Mazen stated that digital information is cheap; unless there is a specific requirement that the information be deleted, it is kept. He felt that the data is kept. Mr. Mulcahy commented that the state police stated that the FBI does not keep the information. Councillor Mazen explained that he is worried about the network of data sharing and what is kept and shared. He feels that the City should be worried about this and that the data even exists.

Councillor Carlone stated that when you come back have an overview of what professions are not covered. Verify identity should be included in the ordinance and listing criteria for all jobs. The issue that kept coming back to him is the impact on immigrants. If an immigrant is not here legally he should not feel he cannot get a job. Commissioner Haas stated that the identity inquiry is sent to state. He stated that a lot of taxi drivers are immigrants. Councillor Carlone suggested a trial period for information gathering.

Councillor Carlone opened the meeting to public comment at 5:40pm.

John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street, stated that he had concerns with the ordinance. This does not cover one-day licenses; this should be clear in the policy. He was concerned with false information given such as date of birth to get a license. He stated that he is concerned that the federal government retains the data and to have the committee get this in writing. The City Council should require this. He questioned the fee and other fees.

Kim Courtney, Ware Street, stated that she runs a small food business with 400 members. Her concern is the fee issue. Is this an addition to the fee of $100 or does this replace the $100 CORI fee. Will this apply to all licenses or to existing licenses? A Manager of Alcoholic Beverages she thinks this is a good category. An entertainment licensee who has not been Cori checked and who wants to install a television do they need to be fingerprinted. She felt that the category for pawn dealers and palm readers was too broad.

No one else appeared and public comment was closed by Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Carlone made the motion that this matter be keep in committee with the License Commission and the Police Commissioner responding to questions in greater detail.

On a voice vote the motion - Carried.

Councillor Carlone thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 5:45pm.

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

AWAITING REPORT LIST
14-29. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on what options exist for dedicated office space for members of the City Council.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Cheung & Councillor Carlone 04/28/14 (O-5)

14-51. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the potential for creating a program to enable bilingual high school students to learn language interpretation skills and to practice those skills at community meetings and events throughout the City.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Mazen, Councillor McGovern & Councillor Cheung 06/02/14 (O-5)

14-57. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on drafting an ordinance that would limit the sale of single-serving PET bottles of 1 liter or less and develop a task force to provide clear guidelines for this ordinance.
Councillor Cheung, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mazen & Vice Mayor Benzan 06/09/14 (O-3)

14-63. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on rodent control operations and the possibility of providing rodent-proof trash barrels to residents.
Councillor Toomey 06/30/14 (O-1)

14-68. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on designing and implementing a system of public bulletin boards on major streets and intersections throughout the City.
Councillor Mazen 06/30/14 (O-11)

14-69. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on forming a pilot street team of engaged youth and residents as an experimental model for more consistent departmental outreach, community engagement, youth engagement and civic engagement.
Councillor Mazen 06/30/14 (O-13)

14-73. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on resuming negotiations to purchase and preserve the Whittemore Avenue Community garden site.
Councillor Carlone 07/28/14 (O-2)

14-74. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on publicizing and convening a community meeting within 72 hours of any catastrophic event that could impact public safety. Referred back by Councillor Simmons on 12/8/14 for additional information.
Councillor Simmons 07/28/14 (O-3)

14-76. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on police patrols in Area IV and post information on website of what measures are being taken with regard to safety in the neighborhood.
Councillor Simmons 07/28/14 (O-5)

14-78. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of launching a homeless donation meter program.
Councillor Simmons 07/28/14 (O-10)

14-79. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of implementing a Neighborhood Captain Program.
Councillor Simmons & Vice Mayor Benzan 07/28/14 (O-11)

14-81. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on how to ensure that the apprentice program provision remains part of the Cambridge Employment Plan.
Councillor McGovern & Councillor Simmons 07/28/14 (O-14)

14-89. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the outsourcing of City jobs and how outside vendors are chosen.
Councillor Simmons & Councillor McGovern 09/08/14 (O-2)

14-90. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the City's hiring process and on what kind of professional development and career advancement programs are offered to existing employees.
Councillor Simmons & Councillor McGovern 09/08/14 (O-3)

14-91. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on a summary of previous recommendations for the Volpe Center site included planning studies such as but not limited to, ECAPS, Neighborhood Planning Studies, K2, and efforts by the East Cambridge Planning Team and that the report summarize zoning and zoning overlays, and outline the development potential and limitation of this area.
Councillor Toomey 09/08/14 (O-4)

14-97. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on whether the ML King School construction project is in compliance with the Cambridge Employment Plan ordinance.
Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Benzan & Councillor Simmons 09/15/14 (O-9)

14-98. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on travel route taken by circus animals and provide copies of proposals to ban exotic animals from Somerville and Plymouth to members of the Ordinance Committee.
Vice Mayor Benzan 09/15/14 (O-13)

14-103. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on making the Foundry building available for a major installation of the 2015 Fab Lab Conference.
Councillor Mazen, Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillor Toomey & Councillor Cheung 09/22/14 (O-13)

14-106. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the best way to implement a plan to solicit and receive payment in addition to real estate taxes from willing participants and used to support city services.
Councillor Toomey 10/20/14 (O-2)

14-108. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on revisiting the possibility of providing a reduced-rate Hubway membership for low-income Cambridge residents.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Cheung & Councillor Mazen 10/20/14 (O-10)

14-109. Report from the City Manager:  See Mgr #6
RE: report on how many parking spots are being lost in the Riverside and West Cambridge Neighborhoods, accommodations being made for residents during snow emergencies, and plans for negotiating these conflicts with residents.
Councillor McGovern & Councillor Mazen 10/20/14 (O-12)

14-110. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the status of the housing development on the site of the Tokyo Restaurant.
Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Benzan & Mayor Maher 10/20/14 (O-13)

14-111. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of hosting a Cambridge Challenge Competition for Transportation that offers a prize to the resident or group of residents that come up with the best viable solution to solve our greatest traffic issues.
Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern & Councillor Mazen 10/20/14 (O-16)

14-113. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of reducing the minimum income requirement under the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance for single person households made up of a senior and/or disabled resident and provide any challenges associated with the proposed reduction.
Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons & Councillor Carlone 10/20/14 (O-19)

14-116. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on commissioning a study of Cambridge Youth Centers with a focus on use rates and underutilized space.
Councillor Mazen 10/27/14 (O-1)

14-118. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on negative impacts of street-narrowing initiatives.
Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillor Kelley & Councillor McGovern 10/27/14 (O-4)

14-119. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on review of drone use in Cambridge for developing a City regulation or Ordinance on such use.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Cheung & Councillor Mazen 10/27/14 (O-5)

14-121. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on traffic flow issues, number of collisions, traffic enforcement efforts and possible safety improvements in the area of Rindge Avenue from Cedar to Clifton Streets.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillor Cheung & Councillor Mazen 10/27/14 (O-8)

14-122. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on organizing a series of meetings with residents to discuss the future of North Mass. Ave..
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillor Cheung & Councillor Mazen 10/27/14 (O-9)

14-123. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the future of Hubway in and around Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillor Cheung & Councillor McGovern 10/27/14 (O-10)

14-124. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of hosting an open air STEAM festival in coordination with the Cambridge Science Festival.
Vice Mayor Benzan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern & Councillor Mazen 10/27/14 (O-12)

14-125. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on changing the name of "North Point Boulevard Extension" to "Education Circle."
Councillor Toomey 10/27/14 (O-13)

14-126. Report from the City Manager:  See Mgr #8
RE: report on the feasibility of hosting a program similar to the Exchanging Places program in London.
Councillor Mazen 10/27/14 (O-14)

14-127. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on best way to implement PaperHealth in Massachusetts Area Hospitals.
Councillor Mazen 10/27/14 (O-15)

14-128. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on safety issues of crosswalk at and outside area of Cadbury Commons on Sherman Street.
Councillor Cheung 10/27/14 (O-16)

14-129. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the status of the Masse Hardware sites at 243 and 253 Walden Street for affordable housing.
Vice Mayor Benzan & Councillor McGovern 10/27/14 (O-17)

14-130. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on whether preference points can legally be allotted to all city employees for affordable housing units.
Councillor Cheung & Vice Mayor Benzan 11/03/14 (O-1)

14-131. Report from the City Manager:  See Mgr #5
RE: report on the possibility of repairs to the Galaxy: Earth Sphere sculpture and fountain.
Councillor Mazen 11/03/14 (O-2)

14-133. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on how private citizens can best protect their property and claim redress for alleged damages from private contractors during City-funded construction projects.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Mazen & Vice Mayor Benzan 11/10/14 (O-1)

14-134. Report from the City Manager:  See Mgr #7
RE: possibility of deploying truck side guards on all city-owned and city-leased trucks.
Councillor Carlone 11/10/14 (O-5)

14-135. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the legal limitation of the City to regulate all manner of vehicular traffic within Cambridge borders, including loading and unloading zones, truck and bus timing regulations.
Councillor Kelley 11/10/14 (O-6)

14-136. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on whether resident parking during snow emergencies will still be allowed at the parking garage adjacent to the Kendall Square Movie Theatre and part of the One Kendall Square complex.
Councillor Toomey 11/24/14 (O-1)

14-137. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of posting speed limit signs of 20-25 miles per hour on city streets.
Councillor Carlone 11/24/14 (O-2)

14-138. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on feasibility of implementing a pay-by-phone parking meter program.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Cheung & Councillor Kelley 11/24/14 (O-3)

14-139. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on a feasibility study and subsequent action plan, instituting suffrage for immigrants in Cambridge.
Councillor Mazen 11/24/14 (O-5)

14-140. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the feasibility of establishing a Garden of Peace.
Vice Mayor Benzan 11/24/14 (O-7)

14-141. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on when improvements will be made to the sidewalks along the streets abutting Newtowne Court and Washington Elms and Harvard Street between Columbia and Norfolk Streets.
Vice Mayor Benzan & Councillor Simmons 11/24/14 (O-8)

14-142. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on the City divesting from all manner of engagement with Dow Chemical Company, including Retirement Board investments.
Councillor Mazen 11/24/14 (O-12)

14-144. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on drafting a framework for a Community Benefits and Mitigation Plan.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Cheung, Vice Mayor Benzan & Councillor McGovern 12/08/14 (O-8)

14-145. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on possible changes to the "Super Crosswalk" including the bike crossing at Church Street.
Councillor Kelley 12/08/14 (O-12)

14-146. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on how the citywide planning efforts will impact staff workload and any capacity considerations the City Council should take into account when contemplating these or other initiatives.
Councillor Cheung 12/08/14 (O-13)

14-147. Report from the City Manager:
RE: report on ways to streamline both the City's process and the City's technology for replying to Massachusetts Public Records Law requests and to examine how major cities' open data and FOIA requests are handled, including options for a full time data management team including representatives of the City Clerk's office, the City Solicitor's office, and IT.
Councillor Mazen 11/24/14 (O-13)