3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on the drought conditions.
Placed on File

Nov 21, 2016
To the Honorable, the City Council:

As an update on the drought conditions, I report the following:

We starting using MWRA water on Oct 11, 2016 and with the appropriation of $3.6M to fund 3 months of MWRA water use ($1.2M/month) we have spent $913,000 vs. $1.44M or $527,000 less than our projection. The 6 inches of rain we received in October has allowed us to run the plant more frequently thus reducing the use of MWRA water.

With about 6 inches of precipitation in October, about twice the average, and with November precipitation at ~1.3 inches so far, things are looking slightly more positive. Hobbs Brook Reservoir is continuing to gain storage capacity at a very slow rate and is up over a foot from the low point in mid-October. We continue to manage our Reservoirs on a daily basis to take advantage of any precipitation received, to reduce our MWRA water purchases, while maintaining our target reservoir levels.

The US Seasonal Drought Outlook (NOAA/NWS) from October 20th through January 31st has not changed, with a “drought persists” prediction. The US Drought Monitor for Massachusetts has reduced our region from “extreme” drought to “severe” drought. The long range predictions are also slightly better with above average precipitation predicted for the April-May-June 2017 and for the period September 2017 thru January 2018 time periods. We will continue to monitor the drought predictions along with actual precipitation and inform of any prediction changes.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

O-3     Nov 21, 2016
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: On June 24, 2013, City Manager Robert W. Healy submitted Agenda Item #9 recommending to the City Council that all Awaiting Reports be placed on file effective July 1, 2013 to coincide with the effective date when Richard C. Rossi would become the City Manager for the City of Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge has a new City Manager, Louis A. DePasquale, whose appointment became effective Nov 14, 2016; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That all Awaiting Report items on the Awaiting Report List on Nov 7, 2016 be placed on file; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to remove these items from the Awaiting Report List.

O-4     Nov 21, 2016  Amended
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: The President-elect has previously stated that he would cut federal funding to Sanctuary Cities; and
WHEREAS: The City is aided by federal funding to support various projects and programs; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is about to start the budget process for the 2017-2018 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS: The City needs to be prepared in the event that certain streams of federal funding are shut off in the next administration; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager is requested to commit to funding any and all programs that may be in jeopardy should the federal funds to work with all relevant City departments to develop a report on which City programs and projects, including School Department, Cambridge Housing Authority and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, rely on the support of federal funds and how changes in federal funds could affect the viability of these programs.

O-5     Nov 21, 2016  Amended
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: Cambridge was one of the first cities in the United States to declare itself a Sanctuary City on April 8, 1985 and reaffirmed that commitment in 2006; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge is a city proud of its diversity, immigrant population and being a welcoming city to people from around the world; and
WHEREAS: Non-Citizen residents of Cambridge are valuable members of our community, working, paying taxes, sending their children to public schools and being law abiding neighbors; and
WHEREAS: According to the 2014 American Communities Survey conducted by the US Census, Cambridge has over 30,000 foreign-born residents, with more than half being noncitizens; and
WHEREAS: Many non-citizens have come under attack, both physically and emotionally, due to the rhetoric in the 2016 Presidential election promulgated by President-Elect Donald Trump; and
WHEREAS: Following the election of President-Elect Trump, stories have circulated, including here in Cambridge, of verbal and physical assault of people of color; and
WHEREAS: While running for President, then candidate Trump indicated that if he were elected he would stop all Federal funding for Sanctuary Cities, also known as Trust Act Cities; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge has a strong and deep commitment to diversity and is proud of being a city that welcomes people from all around the world and is dedicated to ensuring that anyone living in Cambridge, legal resident or not, can live in peace, safety and be afforded protection from physical or emotional abuse, intimidation or discrimination; therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Cambridge City Council requests that the City Manager commit to funding any and all programs that may be in jeopardy should the Federal Government stop funding Sanctuary Cities; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to forward a letter to all Cambridge organizations working with immigrant populations, as well as all City Departments, reminding them of our Sanctuary/Trust Act City status and what that means for working with non-citizens and what resources are available to anyone experiencing physical or emotional abuse or discrimination; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record encouraging all residents of Cambridge and around the United States to treat each other with kindness and peace and to value our differences as the most diverse country on earth.

O-7     Nov 21, 2016  Amended
MAYOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR MAZEN
WHEREAS: The City Council believes it is essential to have an informed public debate as early as possible about decisions related to surveillance technology; and
WHEREAS: No decisions relating to surveillance technology in Cambridge should occur without strong consideration being given to the impact such technologies may have on civil rights and civil liberties, including those rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS: Many people are concerned that surveillance technology could threaten the privacy of citizens, as surveillance efforts have historically been used to intimidate and oppress certain communities and groups more than others, and the groups that often are threatened by such technology are typically defined by a common race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, income level, sexual orientation, or political perspective; and
WHEREAS: Legally enforceable safeguards, including robust transparency, oversight, and accountability measures, must be in place to protect civil rights and civil liberties before any surveillance technology is deployed, and this body has come down in opposition to enacting such technology as recently as 2009; and
WHEREAS: If a surveillance technology were to be approved for the City of Cambridge, data reporting measures would need to be adopted in order to empower the City Council and the public to verify that civil rights and civil liberties safeguards have been strictly adhered to; and
WHEREAS: The City Council finds that the full cost of a surveillance technology should be considered and made publically available to analyze whether its financial benefits outweigh its costs and whether an expenditure on such a technology is in the best interest of the City; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to forward the attached language to the City Solicitor in order for this language to be vetted and transcribed in such a way that will allow it to be ultimately referred to the Ordinance Committee for consideration at a future hearing.

An Act To Promote Transparency and Protect Civil Rights and Civil Liberties With Respect to Surveillance Technology

Section 1: For the purposes of this Act:

(A) “Discriminatory” shall mean (1) disparate treatment of any individual(s) because of any real or perceived traits, characteristics, or status as to which discrimination is prohibited under the Constitution or any law of the United States, the constitution or any law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or the Charter or [A1]any law of the City of Cambridge[A2], or because of their association with such individual(s), or (2) disparate impact on any such individual(s) having traits, characteristics, or status as described in subsection (1).

(B) “Disparate impact” shall mean an adverse effect that is disproportionately experienced by individual(s) having any traits, characteristics, or status as to which discrimination is prohibited under the Constitution or any law of the United States, the constitution or any law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts[A3], or the Charter or any law of the City of Cambridge[A4] than by similarly situated individual(s) not having such traits, characteristics, or status.

(C) “Municipal entity” shall mean any municipal government, agency, department, bureau, division, or unit of this City.

(D) “Surveillance data” shall mean any electronic data collected, captured, recorded, retained, processed, intercepted, analyzed, or shared by surveillance technology.

(E) “Surveillance technology” shall mean any electronic surveillance device, hardware, or software that is capable of collecting, capturing, recording, retaining, processing, intercepting, analyzing, monitoring, or sharing audio, visual, digital, location, thermal, biometric, or similar information or communications specifically associated with, or capable of being associated with, any specific individual or group; or any system, device, or vehicle that is equipped with an electronic surveillance device, hardware, or software.

(1) “Surveillance technology” includes, but is not limited to: (a) international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) catchers and other cell site simulators; (b) automatic license plate readers; (c) electronic toll readers; (d) closed-circuit television cameras; (e) biometric surveillance technology, including facial, voice, iris, and gait-recognition software and databases; (f) mobile DNA capture technology; (g) gunshot detection and location hardware and services; (h) x-ray vans; (i) video and audio monitoring and/or recording technology, such as surveillance cameras and wearable body cameras; (j) surveillance enabled or capable lightbulbs or light fixtures; (k) tools, including software and hardware, used to gain unauthorized access to a computer, computer service, or computer network; (l) social media monitoring software; (m) through-the-wall radar or similar imaging technology, (n) passive scanners of radio networks, (o) long-range Bluetooth and other wireless-scanning devices, (p) radio-frequency I.D. (RFID) scanners, and (q) software designed to integrate or analyze data from Surveillance Technology, including surveillance target tracking and predictive policing software. The enumeration of surveillance technology examples in this subsection shall not be interpreted as an endorsement or approval of their use by any municipal entity.

(2) “Surveillance technology” does not include the following devices or hardware, unless they have been equipped with, or are modified to become or include, a surveillance technology as defined in Section 1(E): (a) routine office hardware, such as televisions, computers, and printers, that is in widespread public use and will not be used for any surveillance or surveillance-related functions; (b) Parking Ticket Devices (PTDs); (c) manually-operated, non-wearable, handheld digital cameras, audio recorders, and video recorders that are not designed to be used surreptitiously and whose functionality is limited to manually capturing and manually downloading video and/or audio recordings; (d) surveillance devices that cannot record or transmit audio or video or be remotely accessed, such as image stabilizing binoculars or night vision goggles; (e) municipal agency databases that do not and will not contain any data or other information collected, captured, recorded, retained, processed, intercepted, or analyzed by surveillance technology; and (f) manually-operated technological devices that are used primarily for internal municipal entity communications and are not designed to surreptitiously collect surveillance data, such as radios and email systems.

(F) “Viewpoint-based” shall mean targeted at any community or group or its members because of their exercise of rights protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Section 2.

(A) A municipal entity must obtain City Council approval, subsequent to a mandatory, properly noticed, germane, public City Council hearing at which the public is afforded a fair and adequate opportunity to provide online, written and oral testimony, prior to engaging in any of the following:

(1) Seeking funds for new surveillance technology, including but not limited to applying for a grant, or soliciting or accepting state or federal funds or in-kind or other donations;

(2) Acquiring or borrowing new surveillance technology, whether or not that acquisition is made through the exchange of monies or other consideration;

(3) Using new or existing surveillance technology for a purpose or in a manner not previously approved by the City Council in accordance with this Act; or

(4) Soliciting proposals for or entering into an agreement with any other person or entity to acquire, share or otherwise use surveillance technology or surveillance data.

(B) As a part of the process of seeking City Council approval, pursuant to Section 2(A), to fund, acquire, or use surveillance technology or to enter into an agreement concerning such funding, acquisition, or use, a municipal entity shall submit to the City Council a Surveillance Impact Report and Surveillance Use Policy concerning the technology at issue.

(1) Upon submitting a Surveillance Impact Report and Surveillance Use Policy to the City Council pursuant to Section 2(B), the municipal agency shall make both documents available to the public on its public website.

(2) Within ten (10) days of receiving a surveillance technology approval request pursuant to Section 2(A), the City Council shall make the related Surveillance Impact Report and Surveillance Use Policy publicly available, in print and on its public website.

(3) Within twenty-one (21) days of submitting a Surveillance Impact Report and Surveillance Use Policy pursuant to Section 2(B), the municipal agency shall hold one or more well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meetings at which the general public is invited to discuss and ask questions regarding the surveillance technology approval request the municipal entity submitted to the City Council.

(4) The public City Council hearing required pursuant to Section 2(A) may not be held until forty-five (45) days after the Surveillance Impact Report and Surveillance Use Policy are submitted pursuant to Section 2(B).

(5) The City Council, or its appointed designee, shall continue to make the Surveillance Impact Report and Surveillance Use Policy, and updated versions thereof, available to the public online as long as the municipal entity continues to utilize the surveillance technology in accordance with a surveillance technology approval request submitted pursuant to Section 2(A).

(C) No use of surveillance technology by a municipal entity pursuant to Section 2(A) shall be permitted without the City Council’s express approval of the related Surveillance Impact Report and Surveillance Use Policy submitted by the municipal entity pursuant to Section 2(B).

(D)Prior to approving or rejecting a Surveillance Impact Report or Surveillance Use Policy, the City Council may request revisions be made by the submitting municipal entity. Revisions should be requested where any inadequacies are perceived to exist within a Surveillance Use Policy or Surveillance Impact Report, especially with respect to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties and the avoidance of discriminatory and viewpoint-based uses, deployments, and impacts.

(1) Any requested revisions to a Surveillance Impact Report or Surveillance Use Policy made by a member, employee, or committee of the City Council, and the responses thereto, shall be publicly released by the City Council, in print and on its public website, at least thirty (30) days prior to any City Council vote to approve or reject a request made by a municipal entity pursuant to Section 2(A).

(2) In the event revisions are made to the originally submitted Surveillance Impact Report or Surveillance Use Policy, prior to voting to approve or reject the revised Surveillance Impact Report or Surveillance Use Policy, the City Council shall hold another properly noticed, germane, public City Council hearing at which the public is afforded a fair and adequate opportunity to provide written and oral testimony on the revised Surveillance Impact Report and/or Surveillance Use Policy. A copy of the revised Surveillance Impact Report and/or Surveillance Use Policy shall be publicly released by the City Council, in print and on its public website, at least thirty (30) days prior to such a public hearing.

(E) A Surveillance Impact Report submitted pursuant to Section 2(B) shall be a publicly released, legally enforceable written report that includes, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Information describing the surveillance technology and how it works, including product descriptions from manufacturers;

(2) Information on the proposed purpose(s) for the surveillance technology;

(3) If the surveillance technology will not be uniformly deployed or targeted throughout the city:

(a) What factors will be used to determine where the technology is deployed or targeted; and

(b) Based upon those factors enumerated pursuant to Section 2(E)(3)(a), what geographical location(s) are anticipated to receive a disproportionally high level of deployment or targeting;

(4) The fiscal impact of the surveillance technology, including but not limited to:

(a) Initial acquisition costs;

(b) Ongoing operational costs such as personnel, legal compliance, use auditing, data retention and security costs;

(c) Any cost savings that would be achieved through the use of the technology; and

(d) Any current or potential sources of funding; and

(5) An assessment identifying with specificity:

(a) Any potential impacts the surveillance technology, if deployed, might have on civil liberties and civil rights, including but not limited to:

(i) Potential disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups if the surveillance technology was used or deployed, intentionally or inadvertently, in a discriminatory manner;

(ii) Potential disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups if the surveillance technology was used or deployed, intentionally or inadvertently, in a viewpoint-based manner;

(iii)Potential disparate or adverse impacts on any communities or groups if the surveillance technology is operated using intentionally or inadvertently biased algorithms;

(iv)Potential adverse impacts on privacy and anonymity rights;

(v) Other potential adverse impacts on the civil rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;[A5] and

(b) What specific, affirmative measures will be implemented to safeguard the public from each of the potential disparate and adverse impacts identified pursuant to Section 2(E)(5)(a).

(6) A disclaimer that the Surveillance Impact Report shall be considered a draft proposal until such time as it is approved, with or without modifications, pursuant to a vote of the City Council.

(F) A Surveillance Use Policy submitted pursuant to Section 2(B) shall be a publicly-released, legally enforceable written policy governing the municipal entity’s use of the surveillance technology that, at a minimum, includes and addresses the following:

(1) Purpose: What specific purpose(s) that the surveillance technology is intended to advance.

(2) Authorized Use: What specific surveillance technology use(s) is authorization being sought for, and:

(a) Whether the surveillance technology will be operated continuously or used only under specific circumstances;

(b) Whether the surveillance technology will be installed permanently or temporarily;

(c) Whether the surveillance technology will be uniformly deployed or targeted throughout the city, and, if not, what factors will be used to determine where the technology is deployed or targeted;

(d) What rules will govern, and what processes will be required prior to each use of the surveillance technology, including but not limited to:

(i) For each authorized use enumerated pursuant to Section 2(F)(2):

a. What existing legal standard must be met before the technology is used, or, where such a standard does not currently exist, what is the proposed standard to be followed;

b. Whether a judicial warrant is required; and

c. What information must be included in any warrant or court authorization granting permission to use the device;

(e) What potential capabilities and uses of the surveillance technology will be prohibited, such as the warrantless surveillance of public events and gatherings;

(f) The extent to which, and how the surveillance technology will be used to monitor persons in real time, as data is being captured;

(g) Whether the surveillance technology will be used to investigate (i) violent crimes,

(ii) non-violent crimes, (iii) felonies, (iv) misdemeanors, and (v) other legal or code violations, infractions not classified as felonies or misdemeanors, unlawful activity, activities or patterns considered to be indicators of potential future involvement in criminal activity, or perceived or actual gang or other group affiliations; and

(h) The extent to which, how, and under what circumstances retained surveillance data that was collected, captured, recorded, or intercepted by the surveillance technology will be analyzed or reviewed.

(3) Data Collection:

(a) What types of surveillance data are capable of being collected, captured, recorded, intercepted, or retained by the surveillance technology.

(b) What surveillance data may be inadvertently collected during the authorized uses of the surveillance technology, and what measures will be taken to minimize the inadvertent collection of data; and

(c) How, consistent with Section 2(F)(7)(f), inadvertently collected data identified in Section 2(F)(3)(b) will be expeditiously identified and deleted.

(4) Database Reliance: Where applicable, what databases the technology will rely upon to make subject identifications.

(5) Data Access:

(a) Under what circumstances an individual will be allowed to request access to surveillance data, who will be responsible for authorizing access to the surveillance data, what rules and processes must be followed prior to accessing or interacting with the surveillance data, and what the acceptable grounds are for requesting access to the surveillance data;

(b) What type of viewer’s log or other comparable method will be used to track viewings of any surveillance data and what information it will track;

(c) A description of what categories of personnel will have the authority to obtain copies of the surveillance data; and

(d) What procedures will be put in place to prevent the unauthorized distribution of the copied surveillance data.

(6) Data Protection: What safeguards will be used to protect surveillance data from unauthorized access, including encryption and access control mechanisms.

(7) Data Retention: What rules and procedures will govern the retention of surveillance data, including those governing:

(a) For what time period, if any, surveillance data will be retained. Such information shall include a statement as to why the designated retention period is appropriate in light of the purpose(s) enumerated in the Surveillance Use Policy;

(b) What specific conditions must be met to retain surveillance data beyond the retention period stated in Section 2(F)(7)(a);

(c) By what process surveillance data will be regularly deleted after the retention period stated in Section 2(F)(7)(a) elapses and what auditing procedures will be implemented to ensure data is not improperly retained beyond the retention period;

(d) What methods will be used to store surveillance data, including how will the surveillance data is to be labeled or indexed;

(e) What methods will be used to identify surveillance data that has been improperly collected and/or retained, and how that data, including any copies thereof, will be expeditiously destroyed once it is identified;

(f) What process will be put into place so individuals who claim surveillance data pertaining to them has been improperly collected and/or retained can petition to have their claims reviewed and how improperly collected or retained surveillance data, including any copies thereof, will be expeditiously destroyed once it is identified;

(g) What technological system will be used to store the surveillance data, and who will maintain custody and control over the system and its surveillance data; and

(h) What unit or individuals will be responsible for ensuring compliance with Section 2(F)(7), and when and how compliance audits will be conducted.

(8) Public Access: How surveillance data will be accessible to members of the public, how the municipal entity interprets the applicability of, and intends to comply with all local applicable public records laws with respect to surveillance data, and what steps will be taken to protect individual privacy.

(9) Target/Defendant Access: How, to what extent, and when surveillance data, in accordance with applicable law, will be accessible to targets of criminal or civil investigations, criminal or civil defendants, and their attorneys.

(10) Surveillance Data Sharing: If a municipal entity intends to share access to surveillance technology or surveillance data with any other governmental agencies, departments, bureaus, divisions, or units, it shall detail:

(a) How it will require that the collection, retention, and storage of surveillance data be conducted in compliance with the principles set forth in 28 C.F.R. Part 23, including by not limited to 28 C.F.R. Part 23.20(a), which states that a government entity operating a surveillance program “shall collect and maintain criminal intelligence information concerning an individual only if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal conduct or activity and the information is relevant to that criminal conduct or activity.”

(b) Which governmental agencies, departments, bureaus, divisions, or units will be approved for (i) surveillance technology sharing, and for (ii) surveillance data sharing;

(c) How such sharing is required for the stated purpose and use of the surveillance technology;

(d) How it will ensure any entity sharing access to the surveillance technology or surveillance data complies with the applicable Surveillance Use Policy and does not further disclose the surveillance data to unauthorized persons and entities; and

(e) What processes will be used to seek approval of future surveillance technology or surveillance data sharing agreements from the municipal entity and City Council.

(11) Demands for Access to Surveillance Data: What legal standard must be met by government entities or third parties seeking or demanding access to surveillance data.

(12) Training: What training, including training materials, will be required for any individual authorized to use the surveillance technology or to access surveillance data.

(13) Maintenance: How the security and integrity of the surveillance technology will be maintained and how the municipal entity or lead agent will present any substantive changes in the surveillance technology’s functionality to the City Council for approval.

(14) Auditing and Oversight: What mechanisms will be implemented to ensure the Surveillance Use Policy is followed, including what internal personnel will be assigned to ensure compliance with the policy, what independent persons or entities will be given oversight authority, and what legally enforceable sanctions will be put in place for violations of the policy.

(15) Complaints: What procedures will be put in place by which members of the public can register complaints or concerns, or submit questions about the deployment or use of a specific surveillance technology, and what internal personnel will be assigned to receive, register, track, and respond to such communications.

(16) The Surveillance Use Policy shall include a disclaimer that the Surveillance Use Policy shall be considered a draft proposal until such time as it is approved, with or without modifications, pursuant to a vote of the City Council.

Section 3. No later than one hundred twenty (120) days following the effective date of this Act, any municipal entity seeking to continue the use of any surveillance technology that was in use prior to the effective date of this Act must commence a City Council approval process in accordance with Section 2(A)(3). If the City Council has not approved the continuing use of the surveillance technology, including the Surveillance Impact Report and Surveillance Use Policy re submitted pursuant to Section 2(B), within one hundred eighty (180) days of their submission to the City Council, the municipal entity shall cease its use of the surveillance technology until such time as City Council approval is obtained in accordance with this Act.

Section 4. If more than one municipal entity will have access to the surveillance technology or surveillance data, a lead municipal entity shall be identified. The lead municipal entity shall be responsible for maintaining the surveillance technology and ensuring compliance with all related laws, regulations and protocols. If the lead municipal entity intends to delegate any related responsibilities to other governmental agencies, departments, bureaus, divisions, units, or personnel, these responsibilities and associated entities and/or personnel shall be clearly identified.

Section 5. The City Council shall only approve a request to fund, acquire, or use a surveillance technology if it determines the benefits of the surveillance technology outweigh its costs, that the proposal will safeguard civil liberties and civil rights, and that the uses and deployments of the surveillance technology will not be based upon discriminatory or viewpoint-based factors or have a disparate impact on any community or group. To assist the public in participating in such an analysis, all approved Surveillance Impacts Reports and Surveillance Use Policies shall be made available to the public, at a designated page on the relevant municipal entity’s public website, for as long as the related surveillance technology remains in use. An approval for the funding, acquisition and/or use of a surveillance technology by the City Council, where the risk of potential adverse impacts on civil rights or civil liberties has been identified in the Surveillance Impact Report pursuant to Section 2(D)(5)(a), shall not be interpreted as an acquiescence to such impacts, but rather as an acknowledgement that a risk of such impacts exists and must be proactively avoided.

Section 6.

(A)A municipal entity that obtains approval for the use of surveillance technology must submit to the City Council, and make available on its public website, an Annual Surveillance Report for each specific surveillance technology used by the municipal entity within twelve (12) months of City Council approval, and annually thereafter on or before March 15. The Annual Surveillance Report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the previous calendar year:

(1) A summary of how the surveillance technology was used;

(2) Whether and how often collected surveillance data was shared with any external persons or entities, the name(s) of any recipient person or entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, under what legal standard(s) the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure(s);

(3) Where applicable, a breakdown of where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically, by individual census tract as defined in the relevant year by the United States Census Bureau. For each census tract, the municipal entity shall report how many individual days the surveillance technology was deployed and what percentage of those daily-reported deployments were subject to (A) a warrant, and (B) a non-warrant form of court authorization;

(4) Where applicable, a breakdown of how many times the surveillance technology was used to investigate potential or actual (A) violent crimes, (B) non-violent crimes, (C) felonies, (D) misdemeanors, and (E) other legal or code violations, infractions not classified as felonies or misdemeanors, unlawful activity, activities or patterns considered to be indicators of potential future involvement in criminal activity, or perceived or actual gang or other group affiliations;

(5) Where applicable, and with the greatest precision that is reasonably practicable, the amount of time the surveillance technology was used to monitor Internet activity, including but not limited to social media accounts, the number of people affected, and what percentage of the reported monitoring was subject to (A) a warrant, and (B) a nonwarrant form of court authorization;

(6) Where applicable, a breakdown of what the surveillance technology was installed upon, including but not limited to on what vehicles or structures it was placed;

(7) Where applicable, a breakdown of what hardware surveillance technology software was installed upon;

(8) Where applicable, a breakdown of what databases the surveillance technology was applied to, including the frequency thereof;

(9) A summary of complaints or concerns that were received about the surveillance technology;

(10) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response;

(11) An analysis of any discriminatory, disparate, and other adverse impacts the use of the technology may have had on the public’s civil rights and civil liberties, including but not limited to those guaranteed by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;[A6]

(12) Statistics and information about public records act requests, including response rates; and

(13) Total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source of funding will fund the technology in the coming year.

(B) Within thirty (30) days of submitting an Annual Surveillance Report pursuant to Section 6(B), the municipal agency shall hold one or more well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meetings at which the general public is invited to discuss and ask questions regarding the Annual Surveillance Report and the municipal agency’s use of surveillance technologies.

(C) Based upon information provided in the Annual Surveillance Report, the City Council shall determine whether the benefits of the surveillance technology outweigh its costs and whether the public’s civil liberties and civil rights have been adequately protected and safeguarded. If the benefits do not outweigh the costs or civil rights and civil liberties have not been adequately protected and safeguarded, the City Council shall direct the use of the surveillance technology cease or shall require modifications to the Surveillance Use Policy that will resolve the observed failures.

Section 7. Not later than April 15 of each year, the City Council or its appointed designee shall release a public report, in print and on its public website, containing the following information for the proceeding calendar year:

(A)The number of requests for approval submitted to the City Council under this Act for the funding, acquisition, or new use of surveillance technology;

(B) The number of times the City Council approved requests submitted under this Act for the funding, acquisition, or new use of surveillance technology;

(C) The number of times the City Council rejected requests submitted under this Act for the funding, acquisition, or new use of surveillance technology;

(D)The number of times the City Council requested modifications be made to Surveillance Impact Reports and Surveillance Use Policies before approving the funding, acquisition, or new use of surveillance technology; and

(E) All Annual Surveillance Reports submitted pursuant to Section 6. Printed copies of the public report may contain pinpoint references to online locations where the Annual Surveillance Reports are located, in lieu of reprinting the full reports.

Section 8.

(A)Any violation of this Act, including but not limited to funding, acquiring, or utilizing surveillance technology that has not been approved pursuant to this Act or utilizing surveillance technology in a manner or for a purpose that has not been approved pursuant to this Act, constitutes an injury and any person may institute proceedings for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, writ of mandate, or evidence suppression in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this Act.

(B) A court shall award costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff who is the prevailing party in an action brought to enforce this Act.

(C) Municipal employees or agents, except in response to a declared municipal, state, or federal state of emergency, shall not use any surveillance technology except in a manner consistent with policies approved pursuant to the terms of this Act, and may in no circumstances utilize surveillance technology in a manner which is discriminatory, viewpoint-based, or violates the City Charter[A7], State Constitution, or United States Constitution. Any municipal employee who violates the provisions of this Act, or any implementing rule or regulation, may be subject to disciplinary proceedings and punishment. For municipal employees who are represented under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, this Act prevails except where it conflicts with the collective bargaining agreement, any memorandum of agreement or understanding signed pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, or any recognized and established practice relative to the members of the bargaining unit.

(D)Whistleblower protections.

(1) No municipal entity or anyone acting on behalf of a municipal entity may take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment, including but not limited to discriminating with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, access to information, restrictions on due process rights, privileges of employment, or civil or criminal liability, because:

(a) The employee or applicant was perceived to, about to, or assisted in any lawful disclosure of information concerning the funding, acquisition, or use of a surveillance technology or surveillance data to any relevant municipal agency, municipal law enforcement, prosecutorial, or investigatory office, or City Council Member, based upon a good faith belief that the disclosure evidenced a violation of this Act; or

(b) The employee or applicant was perceived to, about to, or assisted or participated in any proceeding or action to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(2) It shall be grounds for disciplinary action for a municipal employee or anyone else acting on behalf of a municipal entity to retaliate against an individual who makes a good-faith complaint that there has been a failure to comply with any part of this Act.

(3) Any employee or applicant who is injured by a violation of Section 8(D)(1) may institute a proceeding for monetary damages and injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(E) In addition, any person who:

(1) Knowingly violates this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500 per violation, imprisonment of not more than six months, or both.

(2) Recklessly violates this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000 per violation.

Section 9. It shall be unlawful for the city or any municipal entity to enter into any contract or other agreement that conflicts with the provisions of this Act, and any conflicting provisions in such contracts or agreements, including but not limited to non-disclosure agreements, shall be deemed void and legally unenforceable. Conflicting provisions in contracts or agreements signed prior to the enactment of this Act shall be deemed void and legally unenforceable to the extent permitted by law. This section shall not apply to collective bargaining agreements and related memorandums of agreement or understanding that pre-date this Act.

Section 10. It shall be unlawful for the city or any municipal entity to enter into any contract or other agreement that facilitates the receipt of surveillance data from, or provision of surveillance data to any non-governmental entity in exchange for any monetary or any other form of consideration from any source, including the assessment of any additional fees, interest, or surcharges on unpaid fines or debts. Any contracts or agreements signed prior to the enactment of this Act that violate this section shall be terminated as soon as is legally permissible.

Section 11. The provisions in this Act are severable. If any part of provision of this Act, or the application of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, including the application of such part or provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such holding and shall continue to have force and effect.

Section 12. This Act shall take effect on [DATE].

O-8     Nov 21, 2016
MAYOR SIMMONS
VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN
ORDERED: That the Roundtable/Working Meeting scheduled for Nov 28, 2016, which was to have focused on Universal Pre-K Education be changed to a discussion on the City of Cambridge’s reaffirmation that it will remain a Sanctuary City; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to notify the City Manager to ensure that the appropriate staff are available to attend this meeting.

O-10     Nov 21, 2016
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: There has been a lot of discussion in the community and in the City Council about changes being made to Harvard Square; and
WHEREAS: Many residents have expressed concern over what might happen to the Harvard Square kiosk; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Mayor be and hereby is requested to change one of the remaining regular City Council meetings this year to a Roundtable/Working Meeting discussion on the Harvard Square development and kiosk.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Wed, Nov 9, 2016 beginning at 5:04pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss a zoning petition by the City Council to delete the existing Section 20.700 – Medical Marijuana Overlay Districts; create a new section 11.800 – Medical Marijuana; and list Registered Marijuana Dispensary within Section 4.35 of the Table of Use Regulations, allowed only by Planning Board Special permit within Business A, Business B, Business B-1, Business B-2, Business C, Industry A-1, Industry B-1 and Industry B-2 districts.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Cheung and Councillor Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Kelley; Vice Mayor McGovern; Councillor Mazen; Mayor Simmons; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, Community Development Department; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were John Hawkinson, 2 Clinton Street and Rebecca Rutenberg.

Councillor Cheung convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the hearing is being televised, audio, and video recorded and if there are written comments please leave them to be included in the report. He outlined the format of the meeting. He stated that this petition was submitted by Councillors Cheung, Carlone and Vice Mayor McGovern in response to a number of applications received by the City Council for zoning of medical marijuana. There was a desire by the City Council to have broader look at this City-wide versus on a one-by-one basis. He stated that a lot has changed since then especially with the election and passage of Ballot Question # 4. There exists a lot of uncertainties about the medical marijuana as to how it may tie into recreational marijuana zoning.

Mr. Roberts stated that the zoning petition was filed by the City Council. The medical marijuana has been the subject of conversation and there has been proposals for specific districts. He stated that the Planning Board in reviewing some of the prior proposals communicated in their recommendation that it may be worthwhile to proceed with a broader look at zoning for medical marijuana throughout the City.

A copy of the memo is attached (ATTACHMENT A). Some analysis was done on things to be considered. In this case a large number of districts were analyzed and moving from an overlay district system that allows specific boundaries for the areas where a medical marijuana facility would be either allowed or disallowed and to switch from a base zoning. There are base districts throughout the city where medical marijuana dispensaries could be located. Mr. Roberts stated that there are other districts which are outside of these districts but make reference back to the use requirements in the base districts. He stated that the map show that it includes a large number of districts that are beyond the base zoning districts. He stated that one question is to consider whether this is the intent. He stated that by putting the base requirements in the table of use regulations is it the intent to have the regulations carry over into the districts that may refer back to the use table. The districts themselves were reviewed for the criteria originally established for finding appropriate locations for medical marijuana dispensaries. The range of allowed uses, transportation availability, accessibility for emergency vehicles, the urban character of the neighborhood, and the security requirements of a RMD were all reviewed. He stated schools and other locations where children congregate were reviewed. He summarized that the conclusion is there are certain districts including areas around Central Square, Porter Square and Kendall Square that meet the criteria stronger regarding transportation and a wide range of commercial uses where it would be easier to accommodate a medical marijuana dispensary in a location that would not interfere with the urban character. He stated that the Sage Cannabis and the Healthy Farm proposals were shown that there are ways that it could be screened above or below grade and behind another retail use. There are some districts that are beyond normal transportation routes such as areas in Business A, Memorial Drive and Kirkland Street and then there are areas that make reference back to the base zoning requirements such as MXR overlay zoning district. He stated that Industry A-1 which allows a variety of commercial uses but are not in the most central location. Some of these location have a strong residential character where there may be a concern to have a registered marijuana dispensary located due to the fact that the character is such as housing above retail could be a concern for a medical marijuana facility. The state administrative level of registering for medical marijuana dispensaries has shifted to provide a greater role for municipalities to state their support or opposition to a particular dispensary application outside of zoning where the City could assess how many dispensaries are located in the City. Land use, transportation and the fit in the district are criteria that the Planning Board would review for a special permit. The City Solicitor's opinion regarding if the recreational ballot initiative was adopted is attached.

There is language in the initiative that in areas where medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed the allowance would need to carry over for recreational. There is still uncertainty how recreational marijuana will proceed. He stated that decisions made regarding the zoning of medical marijuana dispensaries may have implications in the future.

Councillor Carlone stated that the current medical marijuana applicant would need a special permit approval from the Planning Board and if the City Council could set this as a standard for a recreation marijuana to need this also. Mr. Roberts stated that he would have to defer to Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg. He added that the requirements for a special permit would set out the criteria for the recreational marijuana facility. Mr. Roberts stated that the zoning only pertained to medical marijuana purposes under the state law and regulations pertaining to medical marijuana. The ballot initiative may say something different. The Planning Board would specify what is being allowed when granting a special permit for a particular use.

Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that the ballot initiative does allow for zoning, which does not exist currently, for recreational marijuana uses. The City Council could consider this in the future.

Councillor Devereux questioned if an area were zoned to allow a medical marijuana dispensary if the City would not be allowed to prevent a recreational marijuana retail store in the same district. She stated that the dispensaries could co-locate. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that if a medical marijuana dispensary is allowed the state law would not allow the City to refuse a recreational marijuana facility at the same location. The ballot initiative reads that where a registered medical marijuana facility is actually located the City could not deny a recreational marijuana use. He added that just because a medical marijuana dispensary is allowed by zoning does not mean that a recreational facility has to be allowed in the same place. Councillor Devereux stated that it would have to be an existing dispensary operating for the zone to be activated. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that this is the way it is worded at this time and that the state will be passing regulations for the recreational marijuana to be implemented and it is possible that the state Legislature may tweak some of the language from the ballot initiative.

Councillor Devereux noted that the Planning Board should think about the possibility of a retail recreational marijuana store opening in a medical marijuana district.

Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board opened its hearing on this petition and continued it because they were concerned about the implication of the recreational marijuana ballot initiative. The Planning Board hearing was continued until January to understand better how this will play out. He stated that in terms of a Special Permit the decision is based on the criteria set forth in the zoning. In medical marijuana zoning, what criteria would the City want to apply to a recreational or to any marijuana facility operation in general? Councillor Devereux stated that regarding the dispensaries the City does not what a strong street presence but may want that for a recreational retail facility. She questioned the C-1 MXR overlay district near the STAR Market. Mr. Roberts stated that the reason is there is mixed used residential overlay district which is a special overlay district over Residence C-1A. This means that uses allowed in Industry A-1 districts may be allowed by special permit. He stated that there are MXR districts which refer back to the Industry A-1with some limitation.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that on the map the grey indicates the 500 foot buffer zone from a playground or a school; the colored areas would allow a medical marijuana dispensary. Mr. Roberts responded that the grey area indicates the area within 500 feet of a school or other facility where children congregate. An area within the grey section and seek a special permit from the Planning Board for a registered medical marijuana dispensary it could not be granted or demonstrate to the Planning Board that even though it is within the distance there is other mitigating factors that provides enough of a buffer to justify the use. Vice Mayor McGovern commented that the City Council has spoken about how many medical marijuana dispensaries the City wants. He stated that without the special permit process nothing can be sited in the grey area. He asked about the stripped areas on the map. Mr. Roberts explained that any dispensary would need a special permit. If the dispensary were outside of the grey buffer areas it would be required to meet the criteria of being 500 feet away. He stated that the red or purple areas on the map are either base zoning in districts which are listed in the petition as district that would allow medical marijuana dispensaries by special permit or a different overlay or special district that the use regulations points back to the base regulation for the other districts. He spoke about whether the intention of the petition was to allow medical marijuana dispensaries only in those base districts or was the intent to allow them in the base districts and the other districts that refer back to the zoning of the base districts.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the election result from Question # 4 now is more complicated. He stated that if the process at the state level for medical marijuana mirrors what will happen for recreational marijuana it will take years for the regulations to be established. It will be years before a recreational retail marijuana store can open. He did not want the City Council not to move forward on medical marijuana dispensaries because of recreational marijuana. He does not know what the climate at the state level is about the recreational marijuana.

Councillor Kelley stated that Boston does not want a concentration of recreational marijuana stores. If this is passed we need to be clear that there may be different connotations that may go into these facilities. He stated that recreational marijuana is the same as medical marijuana even if it is a year away.

Councillor Carlone stated that the number of dispensaries needed is granted by the Health Department. We need to know what the number is in order to work on the zoning. He spoke about key locations near public transportation would limit the areas for the dispensaries. He spoke about the requirements needed by patients to receive the medical marijuana medicine and access to the facility. The recreational and medical marijuana dispensaries are different operations and zoning needs to take this into consideration. The size of the facility in Harvard Square is small. He stated that there are bigger issues. He felt that this would be regulated by having separate entrances for the recreational marijuana and the medical marijuana facilities. This cannot be a shared facility; it could be in the same building. The facility on Massachusetts Avenue could be both, but needs a separate entrance for both Councillor Devereux spoke about the intent in the overlay district that allows the same use in the base zoning. She did not want to include the stripped areas. She stated that the City Council order was in response to the string of Ordinance Committee hearings to expand the existing medical marijuana districts. Do we still want the Planning Board to issue a special permit or review the petitions as received and decide if the medical marijuana dispensaries are in the appropriate locations, she asked? She stated that it may be faster to act on the individual zoning petitions for the medical marijuana facilities than to wait for the state to establish guidelines for recreational marijuana. She stated that she was cautious about how the two locations would work.

Councillor Carlone stated that the initial proposal was to see where the districts made the most sense. He stated that the East Cambridge residents would be concerned if a recreational marijuana facility would be located in East Cambridge. He noted that if you look at the matrix and transportation it appears that the key locations are the squares and Alewife. Should there be 2 in any of these key locations for the fear of there being 8 in the future and changing the character of a place. Mr. Roberts stated that in 2013 when law was reviewed there were supposed to be no more than 35 medical marijuana facilities in the first year in the state. This would be that one facility would serve 200,000 people in the state. The estimate at the time was for medical marijuana the patient population would be about 1.5-2% of the population across the state. Cambridge would not need more than 1 dispensary to serve the population. He state that administrative changes have occurred this year. Previously the state took an approach of receiving applications and then undertaken a competitive process and when the financial and background standards were applied, the proposals were eliminated and about one dozen made it through the selection process and of those only 6-7 have actually opened. The state moved away from the competitive selection process. Now when an application is received there are two phases of review to ensure that the meet the requirements under the law. The state is also looking for an approval letter of support or do not oppose the location in the community. The applications are taken on a rolling basis. The state is not actively involved to determine how many medical marijuana facilities are needed to service an area. It is left to the community to determine how many facilities they need or would like in the community. Councillor Carlone stated that he has no issue with medical marijuana dispensaries. The big question is what the impacts on recreational marijuana are. This issue is complicated.

Councillor Devereux stated that the zoning would potentially allow a recreational marijuana retail store and the referendum does not allow city to limit the number of recreational stores to less than 20% of the number of alcohol package stores without a vote of residents. We could end up with more recreational marijuana retail stores. She did not know how many package stores the City has and the City Council needs this information.

Vice Mayor McGovern noted that making decision through zoning the City Council does not limit the amount of other types of businesses. He stated that if this is an approved business where is the role of government to single out this type of a business and limit the number of businesses allowed in the City.

Councillor Cheung it is true that the City Council needs to consider that anything zoned for a medical marijuana dispensary we will also be zoning for recreational marijuana. He stated that the base zoning may need to be cleaned up. He stated that he is fine to zone recreational marijuana where medical marijuana is being zoned. There should be access to recreational marijuana to make sure that it is legalized, regulated, taxed and controlled. He wanted recreational marijuana available to the residents. He stated he was unsure if the state is going to drag its feet; medical marijuana should not be limited but will impact recreational marijuana. He spoke about limiting fast food establishments and the problem with the definition. He stated that we may want to limit the amount of recreational marijuana dispensary and want to maintain the retail mix that is good for the neighborhood and is what is wanted. He did not want a red light district for the recreational marijuana shops. This could happen for medical marijuana before the state promulgates regulations for recreational marijuana. He wanted this to blend in with the character of the neighborhood. He wanted no advertising on this. He expressed his concern that the Planning Board being overwhelmed with special permit applications. It is becoming difficult to get on the Planning Board's schedule and he is hesitant to push this to the Planning Board.

Councillor Kelley stated that there are 26 liquor package stores so the City could have 5 recreational marijuana retail stores. Deputy City Solicitor Goldberg stated that he does not know the number of package stores in Cambridge. He stated that the referendum language would include more than beer and wine. Mr. Roberts stated that he would get the number allowed for recreational marijuana retail stores based on the package stores. Councillor Kelley wanted this information.

Councillor Devereux stated that the City had CAPs and previously tried to limit the number of liquor stores. We are not legally allowed to have a quota. She noted that the petition requires the Planning Board to issue a special permit.

Councillor Cheung stated that he is interested in moving this forward. How does this impact potential recreational marijuana stores. How do we move forward medical marijuana dispensaries without impacting recreational marijuana retail stores is the issue?

Councillor Carlone stated that a maximum of four medical marijuana facilities is more than enough for Cambridge. Maybe there should only be l in the 4-5 districts being looked at. This could be a location criteria in zoning and if recreational marijuana is allowed to be near medical marijuana dispensaries it is being spread out. A special permit would allow more overview. The criteria set for medical marijuana could be set for recreational marijuana. We can move forward if there is a way that we can isolate the two.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that in the proposed ordinance there is a 1500 feet buffer between dispensaries and this will impact the locations. Mr. Roberts stated that if there is a favored approach to select a set of districts and allow up to one medical marijuana dispensary in each of the districts it is a clear proposal that zoning could be written for consideration by the City Council. The intent of a Planning Board special permit was because it was a new use and it was for the Planning Board to look at more closely because of the greater potential of the unknown outcomes. He stated that once more is known this may be able to be handled by another body or by a set of regulations that would need discretionary review. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that the 1500 foot buffer was in the draft proposal submitted by the City Council. He stated that the 500 foot buffer from schools and then add the 1500 foot buffer in the proposal this only applies to a certain amount of locations that can open in the City. He stated that he would like to see these locations on a map.

Councillor Devereux stated that she is not worried about the medical marijuana locations. She does not mind continuing this petition and letting the other petitions go through the process.

Councillor Cheung stated that the clarification are needed such as what other zones that refer to the base zones this applies to. There were questions about limiting the number of dispensaries. He questioned whether the City Council could hold off recreational marijuana until there is clear guidance from the state. Can the City Council stated that anything done for recreational would have to comply with guideline when set as done on medical marijuana zoning? He stated that the City Council needs advice from Law Department on this. He suggested that the License Commission and/or the Health Department review the applications instead of the Planning Board.

Councillor Devereux stated that the petition should remain in committee. Councillor Kelley agreed.

Councillor Cheung opened the meeting to public comment at 6:15pm. No one appeared and public comment was closed.

Councillor Carlone could request a more firm number about the allowed recreational marijuana and have the Health Department and the License Commission look at this and come back with more tangible information would help the City Council on the medical marijuana dispensaries. He stated that there may be a delay for the recreational marijuana facilities until state regulations are established. The actual zoning will be simple when we get the additional information from the other departments.

Vice Mayor McGovern asked if the proposed draft ordinance is appropriate. He wanted to hear back from the City on this. Councillor Devereux noted that there are other proposals in process. There could be 3 permitted medical marijuana dispensaries in the City. Vice Mayor McGovern stated that it is his intent not to hold up the medical marijuana petitions before the City Council. He would not want to stop the petitions before the City Council.

Councillor Cheung moved that the matter remain in committee. He submitted the following motion:

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department, Community Development Department, License Commission and the Health Department to report back to the City Council with the following information:
- Update zoning as it relates to the base zoning regulations for medical  marijuana facilities;
- The impact of recreational marijuana facilities on medical marijuana  dispensaries;
- Number of facilities allowed in the given areas;
- Number of alcohol package stores licensed in the City; and
- Number of recreational marijuana retail stores that would be  allowed based on the language in the referendum question passed.

The motion - Carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Cheung stated that a follow up hearing will be held when the information comes back to the City Council.

Numerous petitions in support of the petition were received on:
Oct 27, 2016,
Oct 28, 2016,
Oct 31, 2016,
Nov 3, 2016
Nov 5, 2016
Nov 8, 2016 and can be viewed at the City Clerk’s Office.

Councillor Carlone Cheung thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 6:26pm on motion of Vice Mayor McGovern.

For the Committee,
Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chair

Committee Report #2
The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Oct 6, 2016 beginning at 6:06pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the redevelopment of the Foundry Building.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair; Councillor Dennis Carlone; Councillor Jan Devereux; Councillor David Maher; Councillor Craig Kelley; Mayor E. Denise Simmons; Lisa Peterson, Acting City Manager; Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Taha Jennings, Assistant to the City Manager; Robert P. Reardon, Director of Assessing; Jason Weeks, Executive Director, Cambridge Arts Council; Dan Schwartz; and Deputy City Clerk Paula M. Crane.

Also present were Tom Evans, Executive Director; Kathryn Madden, Strategic Planner, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA); Brian Dacey, Cambridge Innovation Center (CIC); Jesse Baerkahn, President and Founder, Graffito SP; Michael Shia; James McClinton; Bill Zimma; Suzanne Blier; Manny Lusardi; Xun Zhang; Wailing Tam; YiLing Rolon; Mical Eglinton-Woods; Kristel Heinemann; Rozann Kraus; Jookun Lim; Jeanne Koopman; Deborah Ruhe; Jessi Flynn; Olivia D’Ambrosio; Hichem Hadjeres; Torgun Austin; Carol E. Bellow; Alfred D’Isidoro; Ilan Levy; Justin McIntosh; Steven Showalter; Phyllis Bretholtz; Hasson Rashid; Lee Farris; Ebi Poweigha; Heather Hoffman; Monica Raymond; Olivia Denbrosio; and Eryn Johnson.

Councillor Mazen convened the hearing and read the call of the hearing. He gave an overview of the Revised Agenda (Attachment A). He stated that the Foundry Building is a special building in terms of what it is capable of. He stated that it is a 50,000 square foot building on Rogers Street that the City inherited through a developer deal where they needed to offset some of their requests and the City received this important piece of real estate in the most innovative and commercially-bustling part of the city. He stated he believes that for a long time this property has been seen as an albatross around the City Council and City administration’s neck because you have to put so much money into the building to get something out of it. He stated that in 2013 the City Council became very interested in appropriating it for community use. He stated that the City allocated over $6 million dollars for its renovation and discussed that fully programming and fully actualizing the building could take as much as $20 million dollars. He said that to everyone’s surprise, the City Council said why not go for the $20 million dollars. He stated that the City Council heard a message at that time that it was not aligned around the building's use and would have to agree on its use together, in order to really be of use, from a policy perspective. He stated that the City Council was in agreement that they wanted arts studio and performance space, a rich nonprofit ecosystem taking advantage of below market rents for dedicated space, and STEAM (Science Technology Edison Arts Math programming) which is in effecr hands-on, passion-based and entrepreneurial learning, with some kind of job skills or training outlook. He stated that all three uses have great overlap in the city and are under-resourced and under-leveraged. He stated that what happened next was that the City was told by a consultant that a $6 million-dollar appropriation would be enough to make the building compliant and up to code and would be enough for any bidder to still achieve a clear majority of community space even with that difficult starting place. He stated that the CRA could then maybe even double or add-on to that amount as grant making to defray the huge cost to the developer.

Councillor Mazen reemphasized that this was the promise made to the community and to the council in the chamber, and again to certain policy makers behind closed doors. He stated that the City went through the process of the RFQ and RFP and an advisory group that the City Manager appointed. He stated that he is appreciative for the advisory group and does not want this group to take his call of urgency as an affront to their work. He stated that he wants the advisory group’s work and stamp of approval on the outcome to be honored while not saying that we cannot do more. He stated that the City received 4 or so applicants while many dropped out and did not apply and complained to him and other City Councillors that it was due to the unreasonable financial constraints of the bid. He said that receiving one applicant is a hallmark that the process has too many constraints or not enough outreach and it does not speak to lack of vision or competition of the one applicant. He stated that the proposal is interesting, but not complete nor sufficient for selection. He stated that the constraints were a challenge. Lastly, Councillor Mazen stated that the City Council and the East Cambridge community was not taken along for the ride as promised by the CRA. He said that the City Council was extremely nervous that this would not be enough resources and would not achieve the council's agreed upon goals, such as real arts and community space and permeability with the community. He said that this is tough stuff to accomplish even when properly funded, let alone when hamstrung from the outset. He stated that members of the City Council were worried that if more resources were not put behind it, the difficult work might not get done thoroughly or be planned well in advance. He said that this is a difficult type of challenge to surmount after nine months or more.

Public comment opened at 6:15pm.

Michael Shia, 19 Prince Street, stated the he is a representative of the Artists Asylum in Somerville. He said that he likes the fact that we are talking about community, arts and STEAM. He stated that the Artists Asylum is looking for a new place to move. He would love to have this place moved to his home town. He stated that they are looking for a new place to live and maybe they can fit into the plans of the Foundry. He stated that one of the things that Artists Asylum found in their space that made it unique is that 50% of members are artists which bring a whole new level of creativity and excitement.

Ilan Levy stated that a couple of years ago Mr. DePasquale made a presentation in which he said a $20 million dollar bond to renovate the Foundry would go unnoticed to the taxpayer. He stated that the community pushed quite hard to have a community building and it has been five years since the building has been in the hands of the city. He said that it is amazing that in a city with available resources such as Cambridge that it takes five years to go from an empty building to something that resembles something. He stated that currently it does not resemble anything. He stated that the fact that there was only one RFP proposal is surprising and telling. He stated that the committee was called the Kendall Square Committee when it is clearly an East Cambridge building. He stated that we must achieve the goals set forward to have a building of arts, STEAM and a place to explore education.

Councillor Mazen noted that early public comment is for those that cannot stay for duration of meeting.

Phyllis Bretholtz, 65 Antrim Street, stated that she is excited about what a community space can offer. She stated that visual and performance artists and community groups are very important to her. She stated that finding affordable space for artists is very difficult. She stated that in order for artists to find a place to show and display their art, they have to open their homes. She said that this is ridiculous in a city such as Cambridge. She noted that there is very little space in the city for community meetings and community groups to meet. She stated that a group has to pay to have access to a meeting space that a larger group of people can attend. She said that she appreciates the opportunity to take the Foundry building and really grab a hold of the richness that it offers and think of it as creatively and openly as possible.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated that the fact that there is only one application is indicative of a problem and the constraints are probably too severe. She stated that it may also be due to all of the desires of the space along with the money issue. She stated that she does not think it is realistic to think about the building being able to have commercial uses completely fund the building the way that they want it to be. She stated that something has to give. She stated that her guess is that is money. She stated that it is hard to get grants at this stage. She stated that we do have co-working spaces in Kendall Square as well as some coming on-line. She said that co-working spaces will not get us where we want to go with the community, arts and education space. She stated that this proposal before us is not at all getting us where we want to go.

Hasson Rashid, 820 Massachusetts Avenue, read from a prepared written statement. (Attachment B).

Public comment closed at 6:29pm.

Councillor Mazen asked Acting City Manager Lisa Peterson for her remarks. Ms. Peterson stated that we all share the desire of the Foundry building being an important community facility. She noted that this is the goal for all. She provided background and context regarding the City’s efforts to redevelop the Foundry building. She explained that Mr. Tom Evans, Executive Director of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority will provide an update on where we are in the process and next steps. She explained that we will then hear from CIC/Graffito, the development team who has been tentatively selected to redevelop the Foundry building.

Ms. Peterson stated that a City Council policy order was adopted in March 2014 which called for $6 million from the City funds for building improvements at the Foundry, engaging stakeholders in a community process to develop objectives, programming options, management strategies, governance and financial strategies, establishing a process for collaboration with the CRA, a cost effective strategy to redevelop the building and maintaining a high degree of flexibility and control for the city.

Ms. Peterson stated that the extensive community process that followed helped to define the vison, building objectives and acceptable uses for the Foundry. She noted that key objectives were:

Foster a center of creativity and innovation through the shared use of space populated with complementary uses;

Create mentorship, internship, apprenticeship, workforce training, and educational programs for Cambridge residents that can directly benefit and engage the surrounding community;

Include significant training opportunities in the areas of STEAM fields that can effectively introduce and prepare Cambridge residents for the existing and growing professional fields that have emerged in the Kendall Square area over the past several years; and

Capitalize on the commercial success of Kendall Square’s redevelopment to create a unique collaborative environment as a citywide resource, with a diverse mix of cultural, educational, and commercial uses emphasizing youth and senior engagement, with a particular focus on under-represented, lower income households.

Ms. Peterson said that the redevelopment strategy involves the city entering a long-term lease agreement with the CRA, and the CRA then issuing an RFP for, and entering into a sublease with, a development entity to redevelop and operate the building according to the vision and objectives created by the community. She explained that a Foundry Advisory Committee was formed to review potential uses, programs, and activities taking place within the building throughout the lease and to make recommendations to the City Manager and Executive Director of the CRA. She thanked the Foundry Advisory Committee for their extensive time and effort to date.

Ms. Peterson explained that CIC/Graffito was selected through the RFP process to enter into negotiations on a sublease with the CRA to develop and operate the Foundry building. She stated that it should be made very clear that throughout the process thus far, the City has tentatively selected a development partner, not necessarily a finalized project. She stated that the City expects that issues will be addressed, negotiated, and written as part of the sublease process with the CRA. She stated that this team was tentatively selected based on criteria that was very carefully created, and clearly laid out during the RFP process. She stated that the City believes that they have the capacity and experience to be able to successfully execute the project in a way that meets the vision and objectives that have been laid out. Ms. Peterson stated that the City will continue to work closely with the CRA to ensure that the vision is met.

Mr. Tom Evans thanked the committee for the opportunity to discuss where the process is currently. He stated that there has been a lot said but he added a few elements of key points in the selection and community process. He noted that the demonstration plan was set by a two-stage procurement process. He noted that first there was an RFQ to seek ideas and interest from the development community. He stated that they received 6 applicants and he noted that 5 of these were qualified and 1 dropped out because that marriage of developer and property manager fell apart. He said that in the RFQ process they looked at the responses from the proposals and re-emphasized goals and objectives that were stated in the demonstration plan. He said that they began with a vision that had a lot of focus on an innovation center of creativity and a shared use of space and making sure that it feels like a community resource and was also financially self-sufficient. He stated that when they got the RFQ results back, they realized that they needed to re-emphasize the process so when they crafted the RFP they designed the selection process and evaluation criteria around the key criteria. He stated that they received one submission from the Foundry Development Partners which includes CIC/Graffito after an extensive process with an extended timeline to ensure participation. He stated that over the summer they went through the process of evaluating the proposal and continued to evaluate the proposal by the same criteria that they had set out as if they had competing proposals. He stated that at this point in the process where they starting meeting at a high frequency with the Foundry Advisory Committee. He stated that they entered into the process when they were writing the RFP to ensure that the CRA was continuing to reflect the touchpoints with which they were assigned to be guardians of through the process. They also reviewed the RFQ submittals. He stated that when it came to evaluating the proposals, they provided a lot of helpful feedback to the CRA. He stated that one of the key things that the Advisory Committee spoke to is the idea that they need to proactively plan for how space, programming and plans for the community have very consistent report backs on how the space is used.

Mr. Evans stated that in August the CRA board tentatively designated the Foundry Development Partners subject to the approval of the City Manager and subject to negotiation to make sure that the outcome will be a project that the City wants. He said that it is key that they have tentatively designated a partnership. This is a team that the CRA believes can work to deliver a development project and program while working collaboratively with the City, the City Council, with community partners and with the Foundry Advisory Committee. He stated that there are many points that are still open to discussion. He stated that that they do not take lightly the idea that this building must operate with transparency and openness to the community as much as possible.

Mr. Evans stated that before passing the presentation onto CIC/Graffito, he stated that before the Demonstration Project, the CRA’s first community process involved a community workshop in June of 2014. He stated that they participated in an activity charrette to explore what the right balances of uses would be for the project. He stated that many people were present to talk about the various ideas about what to do with the building. He said that one of the things right from the beginning is that people broke the rules of the activity that was set out. He stated that they started taking the uses and piling them on top of each other. He said that they ended up with 3-D Lego sculptures overlapping education, office, workforce development, arts and peoples’ ideas of how the project should unfold. He stated that they took that message as one of the take-homes of that process. He said that they wanted to look at mixed uses that overlap with each other in space within the building. They carried that through in writing the Demonstration Project and the RFQ and RFP processes.

Brian Dacey, CIC/Graffito, stated that they are excited about what they have proposed. He stated that the concept relies on shared space and the idea is that there will be all sorts of uses in a variety of spaces at multiple times of the day. They recognize the debate about how much can be dedicated to certain uses. They have the experience. He stated that they build communities within spaces and they can do this well at the Foundry building. He stated that they tried to put together the best proposal with the parameters that were given. He stated that they will focus on the shared space because there are a lot of questions about how that works.

Jesse Baerkahn, CIC/Graffito, stated that they have viewed this project by trying to figure out the best use of the building. He stated that they care about the City of Cambridge how to develop this site with true community access. He said that to do this requires a level of conversation with the City Council, the CRA and the community. He noted that CIC/Graffito feels fortunate that they approached the process with clear criteria while also maintaining a level of creativity to satisfy many goals that the City and the community has. He said that over the last 16 months, they have focused on how to put forth a proposal that they believe in and meets criteria. He said that this means an extensive amount of community dialogue. He said that when they underwent the RPF process, it was their goal to be selected because they believe in the project. He stated that in order to create the physical canvas, the focus has been on the first two floors of the building. He explained that the ground floor would be a very shared space. Mr. Baerkahn gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment C). He talked about the model for the ground floor space. He stated that this use will have an impact in the community. He stated that it has the ability of housing shared resources that make makerspaces possible. He stated that the assembly hall is in the basement which will can create a place that can host events and performances. He stated that because they heard about concerns regarding display of art, and meeting, education, and training space, they created a canvas where there are a lot of spaces that can be used in different ways. He stated that the needs vary so they tried to create a canvas in order to have the ability to use the building for a host of uses in various ways. He stated that a restaurant is an important component. He noted that there will be space will be space for restaurant and food. He stated that when they combine 20,000 square feet of space on the ground floor and 12,000 square feet in the basement which is sharable space, this is part of how they satisfy the goals of the community.

Brian Dacey stated that they envision a wide variety of uses in the building. He said that there is a way to create a dynamic environment and it can be done as they have created that in prior projects in which they have been involved. He said that they envision this building to be in use 18 hours per day. He stated that CIC/Graffito became interested in the project because of the mix of uses. He stated that this building should be a vibrant place for people to engage in the programs. He stated that given the parameters of the RFP, they can create a successful and vibrant building. He added that there is a lot of work and refining that must take place but said that it is early in the process.

Councillor Kelley asked CIC/Graffito if the PowerPoint is the only graphic being used for the hearing.

Mr. Baerkahn responded that they do have other imagery if questions arise. He said that he felt that this was the appropriate time for overview of their approach of the building. He explained that there was a robust presentation over the summer but are happy to come back with a far more detailed presentation. Mr. Baerkahn gave an overview of their plans for the other floors of the Foundry building. He explained that there is a variety of different sized spaces. Mr. Dacey said that Assembly Hall is two stories that can be used for theater, musical performance or mezzanine space. Mr. Baerkahn stated that the requirements for a dance company as opposed to musical art space is different in terms of needs.

Mayor Simmons asked about the commercial kitchen. Mr. Baerkahn stated that they will have to work on particular issues with the Department of Public Health but explained that this kitchen would not just service a restaurant. He stressed the importance of working with partners on this issue and added that there will be some component open to the public. He stated that these are things that culturally unite people.

Councillor Mazen asked what amount of return were investors promised. Mr. Dacey responded 9 or 10% on the equity. Councillor Kelley stated that if investors do not get a return on their equity, they will not invest. Mr. Dacey agreed. Councillor Kelley stated that this is the heart of the whole discussion. He emphasized that if moving the numbers around allows us to change the use to make it a better public use, that is what he would like to see happen.

Councillor Devereux asked about the length of the leases. Ms. Peterson responded 50 years. Mr. Evans added that it was designed to be a 50-year lease.

Public Comment began at 7:11pm.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that the entire building is supposed to be a resource for the community. She stated that Mr. Levy was not nearly vociferous enough in his comments. She stated that the number of 10,000 square feet should be banished from the group's thoughts. She stated that she would not like to talk about 10,000 square feet as a minimum as many in the conversation had done. She reminded the group that the zoning requires one hundred percent community space. She said that she is pleased to see uses of space for multi-purpose. She stated that she did not see rehearsal space and it would be nice to have somewhere to build sets and store props. She stated that this will be considered and she stated her hope that the city will come up with money so that it can be more of what was shown in the beginning and much less of things shown at the end.

Monica Raymond, 59 Brookline Street, stated that they should create project that the developers retire from and let the community leaders make the decisions regarding programming and manifest the diversity that Cambridge is about. She stated her concern about a project that can be manipulated far into the future.

Justin McIntosh stated that he has been a working artist. He stated that it is difficult to find studio space in Cambridge. He said it seems that most of the people that he knows as artists are leaving the city to interact with the arts on a public level. He stated that he does not want to be pitted against community organizations or affordable housing. He said that as an artist he does not want to fight for space, it should be something that should be together. He asked if affordable housing will be in this plan. He stated that there is a standard on how to create vibrant communities and arts and there is a clear consensus that you have to have anchors and places in the city where people intermingle. He stated that there does not seem to be any permanence in the plan.

Manny Lusardi stated that he hopes that down the road there will special consideration for people living in public housing and who are on public assistance.

Rozann Kraus, 91 Chilton Street, thanked everyone who has worked so hard. She said that she has a lack of patience and although many issues must be addressed, there is a building that is sitting vacant in East Cambridge and she suggested getting the building safe, usable and secure and get it going while plans are being worked on. She stated the need for pathways in East Cambridge. She stated that regarding anchors and people who can be present as mentors, that too will happen. She stated that this facility has the opportunity to serve functions during the morning, day and evening so that the fluidity goes through time and the diversity of economics.

Ju Kon Kim stated that when he travels on the West Coast there are a lot of communities that have buildings with energy that the Foundry building has. He stated that a restaurant is restricting the use of the public space. He stated that in Portland he can take cooking classes. He stated that it is important to identify things that need space. He stated that he does not know how to energize this project but this is not much of an improvement. He said that we need to engage the people that will use the space.

Debra Ruhe, 16 Seven Pines Avenue, Executive Director, Just-A-Start, stated that she is pleased with the turnout tonight. She stated that the July meeting had few in attendance. She stated that seeing the numbers points out the challenges of a project like this. She stated that she is excited about the project. She noted that if the project does not go forward in the proposed way. The fallback is the possibility of another 5-year process as well as the city having to put in $36 million to make it viable.

Jessie Flynn, 2 Clinton Street, stated that she lives next to the Foundry and is a landscape artist. She stated that she loves the way that the public and private interests are coming together. She stated that there is a lot of interest for public space but all of the desires will not fit into the Foundry building. She stated that the important part is the pre-design process, public engagement and what needs come out of that public engagement. She stated that as someone who is a designer, it is important to decide how much time is being spent on an RFP. She stated that she is excited to see where the project goes and how it applies to future public/private partnerships.

Erin Johnson, Community Arts Center, stated that she feels thankful to have many experts around the table as well as people who have done a lot of development projects. Graffito brings that experience to the table. She stated that the diversity in the advisory committee is there. She said that she did not see diversity in the leadership and who will be managing the space. She stated that this person must be an expert in reaching people who are excluded from the innovation community. She stated that Cambridge has more non-profits than many other cities. She said that we must not reinvent the wheel and many uses outlined in the building are being offered by non-profits. She stated that the building should be creating partnerships with non-profits and give them space that is long-term and permanent. She stated that they want space that they can rely on and space that is affordable. They bring the expertise in working with communities that are hard to reach. She stated that she worries about the focus on things that are temporary. She stated that it is important to be anchored to something that is longstanding.

Olivia Denbrosio, 270 Third Street, stated that she is a full-time professional theater maker. She stated that she is an Artistic Director and teaches in the Department of Theater Arts at MIT and she is a professional actor and director. She stated that she has some questions that pertain to the flexible black box. She asked if there is an elevated stage, is there costume shop space to build, launder and store costumes. She said that it is a rule of the Professional Stage Actors Union that garments must be laundered that night for the next day’s performance. She stated that a washer and dryer is essential. She asked if there is a grid to support lighting instruments. She asked if there is a sound system, a stage management booth, private dressing rooms with showers for men/women and children. She stated that this is also a rule of the Professional Stage Actors Union that actors must be able to shower after a performance. She asked if there is box office space. She asked if anyone from the theater community was consulted in discussing the black box. She said that if you think you need restaurant to make the space viable for 18-24 hours a day, you do not. She stated that artists will rent the space every minute of the day. She stated that by making a space flexible for everyone, you are making it practical for no one.

Carol Bellew stated that they have been working on this project for long time. She stated that the reality is that the concept was for the neighborhood to have the basement and first floor so that CIC has the third and fourth floors. She said that this needs to be moved forward in a quick way.

Risa Mednick, 20 Maple Avenue, Director of Transition House, stated that she is speaking as a citizen who has watched the process over a number of years. She noted that this has been an interesting meeting with true energy and a tremendous amount of thought from stakeholders. She stated that creating and sustaining the city that we want and need depends on a different kind of thinking. She emphasized others' points that the project must not be so bottom-line driven. She stated that diversity of use and coworking does not translate into our diverse community actually using that space. She suggested that the ROI is space that truly serves this community, which requires more community input.

Sam Seidel, 43 Harris Street, stated that we must try to use the announced negotiations to work through all of the issues. He said that this has been many years of process. He stated that he hopes that negotiation can work through a lot of issues. He said that at the end of the day, a lot of this will come down to the management of the space itself.

Public comment closed at 7:42pm.

Councillor Kelley reiterated that whatever space works best to give us the community space that we want works. He said that he is not bound by a particular number. He said that he does not want it to be the money part holding this project back from its best.

Councillor Devereux stated that she was not involved in the initial visioning. She stated that we need meeting rooms for community groups as well as non-profits. She stated that she agrees that we may not need a restaurant but we may need a market. She stated that we could use a test kitchen for entrepreneurs as well as maker space and classrooms. She stated that with the physical additions, we are looking at over 80,000 square feet. She noted that at some point, choices will need to be made. She stated that she realizes that this originally was gifted to the city as a result of development that had huge impact on East Cambridge but it is hard to say to someone “you are an artist but not an East Cambridge artist.” She noted that space management will be key but she does not see this space being managed by the community. She stated that we need professionals to do this. She stated that it would be rash to find someone else to do the work when there is so much confusion. She noted that she agrees with Councillor Kelley that if it is about money, maybe the City relieves the burden of $14 million. She stated that she wants this to be a place that is a magnet that welcomes people from different communities. She stated that Cambridge has become space-starved which is unfortunate.

Councillor Mazen stated that he has great respect for the team, the CRA and the City. He stated that in losing applicants along the way, some things were missed. He stated that he thought he had the right amount of meetings to achieve something much closer to what the audience wants. He stated that by listening to the community we will find that consensus is almost there and the burden is a fiscal one. He stated that we made it impossible to satisfy the needs of the community because of the fiscal starting place. He stated that he does not want to gloss over the work of anyone involved. He stated that another benefit is that we have gotten to a beautiful high-end building but there are things missing. He stated that 20% dedicated space for community is the wrong percentage and that "you can't get there from here." He stated that the fact that commercial space might help the bottom line is a fantastic side effect but it is not the main factor in this building. He stated that they yearn for synergy between arts, non-profit sector, and job training is not being imagined by this project. He stated that we must spend time reaching low socioeconomic families as a cute feature of the design and governance that we set for ourselves. He asked how two floors of co-working space can anchor the outreach for artistic and community use. He said that Central Square is great for startups because you can get what you need to continue performing in a short time span. He stated that that you cannot have this with this model. He stated that if you harness energy, you arrive at the correct layout. He stated that the proposed building is a great one but it is not correct for the building that is being asked for. He stated that in CRA's own presentation in July that one of the inspirations is District Hall which is a little high end and inaccessible to inspire Cambridge. He stated that there was also Denver’s The Source. This has 15+ community merchants working to get their businesses off the ground. He said that he does not see that inspiration reflected in the Foundry project in quite that way. He stated that he does not see it in the time/space continuum. He stated that the 30% of space that is supposed to be used at as “at-large” space is more like a lobby for expensive co working building than it is a community benefit. He stated that it is safe to say that the stakeholders do not feel that this is the best and because of where we started in the process, we weren’t even able to hear the stakeholders. He stated that we did not conduct a full assessment process. He stated that he believes it will be the CRA’s job in the next ten years to arbitrate conflict between parties in difficult development projects and the City Council will want to go to the CRA over and over for that very special resource. He stated that he hopes that this misstep is something we look back on pride. He stated that the CRA worked hard and everyone worked in earnest. He said that if we want to go forward, there will always be City Council stakeholders, city administration stakeholders, CRA stakeholders, and vast community stakeholders and if we don’t get a little closer together, then we won’t have a solid completion. He stated that this is a significant size of space. He said we are not putting in a significant amount of money as a city and we are not giving credence to out of school time and community opportunity. He stated that it is fair to appropriate money to do this process to the nines. He stated that people are trying to figure out how to engage others and square needs with others. He said that there is now a disconnect and people are dropping out because they are giving up. He stated that he does not think that if the process is re-done with more money, it will turn out the same. He stated that this comes at the cost of Graffito. He said that he is standing up for a strong majority yearning for more negotiation, starting with more, getting more, reaching out more and then having tough conversations.

Brian Dacey stated that the last point is an issue for the city. He said that he can speak to what they proposed. He said that in running of the Foundry building, there is an element of trust and they think that they are trustworthy in the situation. He said that in terms of not for profits and community activity, CIC is extremely dedicated to community and non-profit activity. He stated that they donate a considerable amount of space for meeting activities and community organizations. He stated that they do this at all their centers. He stated that they do this because they are committed and are about building community. He said that people are not used to people in a profit-making role having this kind of mission but they do. He stated that this is a big challenge and they are interested in pursuing this project. He added that much of what they heard are things that they can respond to. He stated that things can be designed in the theater space. He stated that they have certain constraints and they respect the constraints but they are up to the task.

Jessie Baerkahn added that what came out of the public comment is what they know to be true based on their prior work and the shared vision with the community for the Foundry. He stated that partnerships are absolutely critical. He stated that they believe that they can be exploited by the City and the community to maintain, develop, design and create a platform for the community to use the building. He stated that individual operators are the experts. He stated that while they are not experts in all subjects, they are good at listening and finding great partners. He stated that they were charged through the process to come up with a program and presenting to the community something that works on day one which is challenging. He said that they have focused on lowering the barriers of entry for diverse groups and uses and making sure the space is not just an afterthought and is a great space. He stated that what is exciting tonight is that CIC/Graffito viewed getting through the RFP as the moment to start the conversations and community process. He stated that they put intellectual rigor into figuring out how to reconstruct the building, make it able to be occupied, make it useable, and to solve the construction and design challenges and they have done their best to address these issues.

Councillor Mazen stated that Vice Mayor McGovern was unable to attend the hearing and asked Councillor Mazen to share his comments with the committee. His comments stated that he wants to ensure that the project is done right. He said that he wants to create a true community anchor for the city as a whole. He stated that as the conversation progressed, it became clear that there was a need for some type of funding mechanism to help support the community benefits. He stated that he believes that the majority of the City Council was clear in stating that they did not want the need for outside funding to get in the way of being creative with this space. He stated that the Foundry is a rare opportunity and we should use our financial stability to the benefit of the community. He stated that he will be disappointed if the Foundry building ends up being more of an innovation space for companies rather than a true community space.

Councillor Mazen stated that Councillor Devereux has a balanced approach and he stated that he is hearing that from her that she would like to move forward. Councillor Mazen stated that he does not want to see this project move forward. He stated that he does not believe that the audience wants to see it go forward. He stated that a difference of opinion is valid. He said that he does not see how if we went forward we wouldn’t have a more activist-type response. He stated that he seeks help in how money is appropriated and how we now go about doing this properly.

Ms. Peterson stated that this has been an important conversation and she wants to assure the Committee that everyone is listening. She stated that everyone is very committed to the vision and objectives in making this facility something that is an important community resource. She stated that CIC/Graffito and the CRA has the willingness to explore. She stated that she feels that it is premature to say that it absolutely does not meet the original objectives. She stated that it is the CRA’s responsibility to negotiate the sublease. She said to let them go in earnest to address issues that have been raised and if it is not a facility that is able to meet objectives, we will talk again about whether or not there is a recommendation for the city allocating more money. She said that her opinion is that it is too premature and additional conversations are needed to flesh out exactly how much we can negotiate and enable to achieve with this experienced team.

Tom Evans stated that he needs to follow-through with the protocol and process. He stated that he cannot make decisions about process or anyone else’s funding. He stated that they can work to ensure that the process moving forward continues to be something that everyone is aware of. He stated that the CRA Board meets on the third Wednesday of most months at 5:30 p.m. at the Cambridge Police Station. He stated that it is likely that through discussions, they will have a Foundry discussion meeting on October 19th. He stated that the CRA Board are the brokers and decision-makers for the CRA organization. He said that they will continue to have conversations with partners in the community and they will continue to talk with the City and CIC to see where they can take this project. He added that the process if fully available on the CRA website. He said that the CRA Board continues to be open to the process and discussion.

Councillor Mazen stated that he remembers when he was told the same thing at the beginning of the process: listen, work with us, it will work on $6 million dollars and we will make it happen. He stated that the consultants were telling the City it was a sure thing. He said that it is not a sure thing. He stated that the City Council will come back and appropriate the money but the City Council did not have overlapping free period and stakeholders were not fully engaged in the process. He stated that this process did not succeed across many dimensions. He said that it did not succeed in coming back to the City Council to appropriate the money. He asked that the process be started over with more money. He asked the CRA directly to do that. He said that if there was a vote by the City Council today, the majority that is telling you to do this properly. He stated that the City Council was not listened to and it is egregious to pretend that this outcome is what was promised so clearly at the outset of the process.

Councillor Mazen said this is clearly not so.

Councillor Mazen thanked all those present for their participation.

The hearing adjourned at 8:19pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Nadeem Mazen, Chair

Committee Report #3
The Public Safety and the Housing Committees held a joint public hearing on Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 5:32pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss legislative approaches to regulating short-term rentals in the City, including provisions submitted as a draft proposal on Sept 26, 2016 attached to Policy Order #5 (ATTACHMENT A).

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Public Safety Committee; and Vice Mayor McGovern, Co-Chair, Housing Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Devereux; Councillor Mazen; Louis DePasquale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Chris Cotter, Director of Housing, Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning and Development, CDD; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Vali Buland, First Assistant City Solicitor; Dave Byrne, Senior Inspector, Inspectional Services Department; and Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk.

Also present were Robert Green, 99 Thorndike Street; Chris McClendon, 205 Richdale Avenue; Elizabeth Bohlen, 111 Chestnut Street; Dave Slaney, 237 Norfolk Street; Marie Kemmler, Boston; Ronald Benjamin, 172 Cushing Street; Tania Wu, 764 Cambridge Street; Jon Steinman, 13 Fairmont Avenue; Jennifer McConnell, 94 Thorndike Street; Alan Fincke, 93 Belmont Street; Sherry Madden, 70 Griswold Street; Catherine Melina, 173 Pleasant Street; Tamar Haber-Schaim, 7 Garden Court; Marielle Remillard, 1558 Massachusetts Avenue; Barbara Taggart, 2 Cottage Court; Eric Huenneke, 112 Prospect Street; Shelley Rieman, 201 Franklin Street; and Attorney Peter McLaughlin.

Councillor Kelley and Vice Mayor McGovern convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He stated that the hearing was being privately audio recorded. He distributed an Agenda for the hearing (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 5:34pm.

Robert Green, 99 Thorndike Street, stated that he has stayed in B & B and it is a great thing. He stated that the hotel prices are high and that B & B are less expensive. This will increase tourism and bring more goods and services to the city. He stated that professional people come to Cambridge. The proposed ordinance is to regulate this and he asked if there will be taxes or fees.

Chris McClendon, 205 Richdale Avenue, stated that this new policy is unfair to condo owners. He stated that Airbnb are not making condos less expensive. Most condo association rules do not allow renting out condos for less than 30 days. He stated that his condo has a 5 star reviews. The regulation is trying to restrict the use of Airbnbs. He wanted to keep his house private and not announce that he is using his house as an Airbnb. He submitted his comments (ATTACHMENT C).

Elizabeth Bohlen, 111 Chestnut Street, stated that she has had a negative experience with Airbnbs. She has no problem with home owners renting out as an Airbnb. She lives next to a commercial Airbnb and there have been all types of behavior. She spoke about renting condos and if the space is rented for short term there is no way of knowing if there is someone strange hanging around the neighborhood. She stated that these spaces have been rented to commercial entities which have loud parties. There is no noise regulation. She wanted the regulation to protect her. She spoke about cleanliness of the Airbnb. Who is responsible if something goes wrong in the Airbnb and the owner is nowhere to be found. She wanted long-term residents and wanted to know who is responsible for their behavior.

Dave Slaney, 237 Norfolk Street, stated that this has been an Airbnb host for three years and it supplements his social security income. He supported the proposed ordinance. He favored short term rentals being taxed. He stated that Airbnb is a greedy corporation. It operates without regard to regulations and uses its revenue to bully official to not regulate Airbnb. He stated that their policies turns neighborhoods into transient homes and lowers the housing units in Cambridge. Cambridge is a community; not a site for short-term rentals. He wanted to be regulated, taxed and rental units to stay on the market.

Marie Kemmler, owner of the Bed and Breakfast Associates Bay Colony and representing Cambridge residents. She explained the way the properties are managed by her association. She spoke about the standards and the high quality of the units. She stated that agencies such as hers bring the standards to the neighborhood. She understands the need for regulations. She stated that there are some provisions in the ordinance she like and others she does not. Just because a property is not owner occupied does not mean it is unsafe or not kept up. She spoke about the health standards that are followed by these units.

Limiting the amount of short term rental is necessary but it is not to limit the non-owner occupied property owners who use their property to supplement their income. She stated that the small owners need the income. She spoke about the live in home owner who is operating a B&B. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT D).

Tania Wu, full-time realtor in Cambridge noted that Airbnb is being blamed for Cambridge not being affordable. High income workers can afford high priced condos. She stated that very few investors do not want to buy condos for short-term rentals; investors are happy to purchase property for long term rentals. She suggested that the City build more affordable units.

John Steinman, 13 Fairmont Avenue, spoke about figuring out a way that all come out in a positive way. He stated that the current rule is too restrictive. The proposal is restrictive to the owner. He stated that students, parents and patients cannot afford hotels. He requested that an impact study be done on what the impact would be on affordable housing and tourism. This is looking at the lens to protect property owners, renters and should include the users of B&B. He commented on Airbnb. He stated that it is the exact opposition of a cruel corporation. They are out to solve the problem and create value for all.

Jennifer McConnell, 94 Thorndike Street, stated that she is a High School Spanish teacher. She stated that after her husband passed away she used her house for an Airbnb and has met interesting people and it helps her pay her bills. She is a super-host and has 5 star rating and this brings local revenue to the East Cambridge area. She sends her guests to the local East Cambridge restaurants. She stated that Airbnb has been awesome and they have supported her.

Alan Fincke, 93 Belmont Street, stated that he has an owner occupied 3 family. He has been a host for three years and rents his first floor bedrooms. He hoped that a distinction is being made between short term rentals of one month. He spoke about owner and non-owner occupied Airbnbs. He spoke about the service provided to the guests by the hosts who are owner occupied. He stated that Airbnb has lost their way. Airbnb needs to be more responsible for the hosts. After a certain amount of bad reviews the host are eliminated.

Catherine Melina, 173 Pleasant Street, stated that Cambridge is expensive. When her daughter grew up and moved away she had a spare bedroom. She explained that Airbnb has given her the opportunity to be a host. She is a super host. Her information is in Chinese because of her clientele. Her guests are quiet, sophisticated and are in Cambridge for the experience. She sends her guests to the local businesses in the City. She stated the experience to interact with guest from around the world is wonderful. She loves this experience and she enjoys her guests and wants them to feel comfortable in America.

Tamar Haber-Schaim, 7 Garden Court, spoke about her experience with Airbnb. She stated that the guests for the last 2.5 years have invaded her space. There is no responsibility for the guests. She stated that the owner has been hostile. She stated Inspectional Services has issued a warning. It is difficult for her to work in her home. She urged the City to establish strict rules. She submitted her comments (ATTACHMENT E).

Marielle Remillard, 1558 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that the ordinance is well thought out. She urged the City to pass it and that Airbnb maintain its status.

Barbara Taggert, 2 Cottage Court, stated that she has been a host. She stated that Airbnb has grown too quickly and has been unresponsive. She rents a room in her house. She stated that Airbnb needs to do more checking and needs to slow down. She stated that there are problems in France and Spain with Airbnbs. She stated that those who are owner occupied and rent space should be grandfathered in.

At 6:17pm Councillor Kelley suspended public comment to hear from City staff. He explained that there is no move to eliminate Airbnbs.

Vice Mayor McGovern stated that Airbnb is not the problem with affordable housing. He noted that taking rental properties off the market is part of the problem. This was never about banning Airbnb. Cambridge is trying to catch up with the innovation economy and to get a handle of where Airbnb fit in the City. The majority of the Airbnb are in violation of the law and could be subject to a $300 per day fine. This is to provide structure around Airbnb. If a host gives a guest an apple you need a food handler’s license and most hosts do not know this. This is to provide structure.

Councillor Carlone told of his experiences when in an Airbnb. When there is a host the experience is good and when no owner present the room was a mess. There was an all-night party and there was no one to call to complain. He spoke about inappropriate activities in an Airbnb and how neighbors frowned on the host. Councillor Carlone asked how many Airbnb rooms are there in Cambridge. Councillor Kelley responded 1800 rooms. It is not clear when they are available. Councillor Carlone noted that this is a great service. But the responsibility of the owner makes all the difference in the world.

Councillor Devereux spoke about violations to the zoning laws which would restrict this activity in certain areas. This is to discuss allowing this on a city-wide basis. This is only about short-term rentals for a period of less than a month. The nightly and weekly rentals seem to be the problem. She stated that we have never heard from the Office of Tourism; which would see an increase in tourism. She wanted this information. She stated that there is no enforcement for condo owners when this is prohibited in the condo association documents.

Councillor Mazen stated that he has used Airbnb and he could not afford to live in Cambridge without Airbnb. He was a good ambassador and host for out of town travelers. He has used Airbnb as a traveler. He has had the experience of gracious hosts who provide a great service. This is an important initiative. Clarity is needed on the regulations. He stated that renting one room yearly is the same as renting four rooms quarterly. The math is the same and it does not bolster the owner occupied status. He spoke about the affordable housing issue. If someone can afford to stay in Cambridge by renting out rooms the benefits outweigh the costs. Neighbors need to be protected. He has had bad experiences with Airbnb and it was hard to get them to acknowledge the experience.

Councillor Kelley stated that the agenda has a list of 20 questions that we are hoping to get to so that the ordinance is the best and will protect the public. He stated that from this hearing he will go to specific city staff to focus on issues in the ordinance.

City Solicitor Nancy Glowa provided an update on the ordinance. She stated that departments have been working to tackle this issue. She stated that the License, Inspectional Services and Law departments have met and are here tonight. Short term rentals raise complex issues. She stated that Community Development Department has issues on long term rental, zoning and license issues. In zoning in certain districts the owner can have up to three rooms rented and is only allowed by special permit. There is no licensing regulation. That is within the City purview that governs the Cambridge License Commission. She stated that other communities have obtain special legislation. Permits stated that handicapped, sprinkler requirements could be affected. There are rental protection and eviction proceeding that need to be followed. There are other department that may have regulatory issues. She stated that the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department affects the use of visitor parking. The City Clerk Department requires that if person is doing business under another name other than their own they need to file a business certificate. She stated that home ownership repercussions are private issues and should be addressed with their own legal representative. She further stated that there are requirements pertaining to food handling. She stated that under state law relating to a fee versus a tax a municipality can charge fee and if a fee is charge it must be a reasonable fee for the service provided. Municipalities have no authority to charge taxes. The auxiliary use in the zoning ordinance is complex and needs to be reviewed carefully. There is a definition of a family in the zoning ordinance which is a family of four. This will take significant time and commitment by several department for the staff to give recommendations.

Dave Byrnes, Senior Building Inspector, stated that the he enforces the state, housing and sanitation laws. If the use is allowed in the residential code there are four uses. If there is no change in the use, things could be grandfathered. But if there are changes many issues could be raised. It is a red flag if there is a change in use. A food handler license would be needed. There is a handicapped requirement access issue. Councillor Kelley spoke about the complication of the issue. Mr. Byrnes stated that Inspectional Services Department does not go out looking for violators. It is complaint driven system.

Jeff Roberts, Senior Manager for Zoning land Use and Planning stated that from this perspective it is being reviewed by Community Development Department. Renting rooms, bed and all types of things are being done. It important to get more precise about what activities should or should not be allowed and how it fits with zoning, state and licensing law. The other complication is the impact on housing. There are impacts that need to be carefully considered.

Chris Cotter, Housing Director, stated that this has been looked at and more needs to be done to understand this. He stated that given the full range of rental - we need to know how many units are offered for rental. We need to understand the data. There may be a distinction between short and longer term rents. We need to do more data analysis. It is unknown want the impact is on the housing market. He stated that there are a certain amount of units that are being taken off the market; there is a lot of demand to be in the City. Housing is a hot topic in the City, he stated. He noted that that bringing forward the inclusionary housing ordinance is the top priority.

Councillor Devereux stated that once layers are peeled back it is more complicated. She wanted the exploited use of Airbnb housing curtailed. She spoke of individuals having two condos and then one is rented on long term basis or it is sold. Having an Airbnb provides the opportunity to have a second place and have the flexibility to rent the condo on a short term basis. She did not know how the staff time was prioritized. She asked how the city enforces the laws that the City has now. How do we get a handle on the enforcement while waiting for the law change?

Mr. Byrnes stated that the violations are complaint driven. A citation would be given and then go to court. It is hard to prove who is living how. The burden is placed on the owner of the building.

Councillor Kelley question how many inspections are handled. Mr. Byrne explained that when a complaint is received an inspector is sent out. The complaint usually starts in zoning. Councillor Kelley asked how many complaints there are. Mr. Byrnes responded it is unknown.

Vice Mayor McGovern spoke about Airbnb as a company. They have been open and discussed regulations and fees. At this time Vice Mayor McGovern submitted amendments to the proposed ordinance (ATTACHMENT F).

Councillor Devereux asked if the limited lobbying is a new category. Vice Mayor McGovern responded in the affirmative.

Councillor Kelley stated that he had hoped that this would be moved faster; but we need to get this right. This is an interesting way to regulate the innovation technology.

Mr. DePasquale spoke about the importance of this as a priority and it will be moved fast and as accurate as possible.

Councillor Mazen stated that the real issue is the solid work, the amendments and have this for the next meeting. He likes the core work done. He hopes that the City is a proactive part in the process.

Councillor Kelley reopened public comment.

Shelly Riemann, 201 Franklin Street, stated that this is a double edge situation. She has had great guests. This has grown big; Airbnb is a $30 billion company. She applauded the City Council for their work on this. She mentioned the constant turnover of units. She spoke about the spirit of a B&B with the extra room that increases her income.

Sherry Madden, 70 Griswold Street, stated that she occupies the space she rents. She is a single parent and Airbnb has changed her life. There is a level of protection that you are considering which she is thankful for. She spoke about her vulnerability as a renter. She appreciates the city analyzing the impact Peter McLaughlin, Attorney, representing the owners of 343 Western Avenue, stated that he appreciated the thorough analysis. This should be regulated, taxed and resolved first and then work on the complicated issues. The condo documents regulate the condo. He spoke about the affordable housing. Some units are taken off the market. He spoke about operational issues that can be cleaned up and urged that this be done in two phases.

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 7:18pm.

Councilor Kelley stated that he would be submitting a Policy Order to have a complaint category on the Commonwealth Connect for Airbnb. This will help to monitor the data.

Councillor Kelley and thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 7:19pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair, Public Safety Committee

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