Cambridge City Council meeting - February 22, 2021

CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on COVID-19 vaccination rollout.
Placed on File 9-0

3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the reappointment of the following members of the Affordable Housing Trust for a term of three years, effective Feb 9, 2021: Peter Daly, Florrie Darwin, Gwendolyn Noyes, Susan Schlesinger, James Stockard, William Tibbs, Elaine Thorne.
Placed on File 9-0

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-64, requesting Home Rule language to allow for acoustic live entertainment performances in small businesses under certain conditions without a license.
Tabled 9-0; Late Order Adopted 8-0-0-1 (TT - PRESENT) asking City Solicitor to draft Home Rule Petition and a zoning amendment to allow this as-of-right
Note: The City Council's failure to consider unintended consequences here is a spectacular failure. Perhaps that will be discussed at a future meeting.

Feb 22, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

As a further response to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-22, which was responded to by City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa at the Council Meeting of Nov 16, 2020, and in response to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-64, requesting Home Rule language to allow for acoustic live entertainment performances in small businesses under certain conditions without a license, please find attached a communication received from Nicole Murati Ferrer, Chair of the Board of License Commissioners. The Cambridge Board of License Commissioners is the local licensing authority with exclusive authority to grant entertainment licenses issued under G. L. c. 140, §183A. As indicated in Chair Murati Ferrer’s communication, the Board of License Commissioners does not recommend submission of a Home Rule Petition in this matter.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

MEMORANDUM

TO: Louis E. DePasquale, City Manager; Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Samuel Aylesworth, First Assistant City Solicitor; and Keplin Allwaters, Assistant City Solicitor
FROM: Nicole Murati Ferrer, Esq., Chair of Board of License Commissioners
DATE: Feb 12, 2021
RE: Home Rule Petition to Eliminate Certain Licensing Requirements of G. L. c. 140, § 183A

At the request of the City Solicitor, during a public meeting on Feb 10, 2021, the Board of License Commissioners (the “Board”) discussed the possibility of a home rule petition seeking special legislation to allow acoustic music performances of five or fewer performers with no amplification except for one microphone at licensed establishments in the City of Cambridge, without the establishment being required to first obtain a license as required by G. L. c. 140, § 183A (the “Home Rule Petition”) as requested by the City Council in Council Order No. O-9 of 11/16/20, and to discuss whether the Board had any concerns. I write this as the Board’s designee and inform you that our consensus is we have many concerns adopting or implementing the Home Rule Petition as proposed.

Specifically, the Board discussed that even though the City of Boston engaged in this type of non-licensing through a pilot program, this type of program or Home Rule Petition would not work in the City of Cambridge. Since 2016, the Board has done a comprehensive review of what was being licensed under G. L. c. 140. The Board eliminated a lot of the “superfluous” categories that were being licensed, eliminated the requirement to license categories which were not required to be licensed and which did not affect the factors that the Board needs to consider per state law when issuing such licenses. The Board focused on the categories listed in the state law, those that create noise, that may affect the public safety, that may increase traffic, and all other considerations pursuant to state law. The Board gave careful consideration not only to state law but also the City of Cambridge’s Noise Ordinance and the nature of our City. Hence, the Board believes that the current licensing requirement for live music is necessary and appropriate.

The Board discussed their concerns about the zoning issues that are implicated by the proposed Home Rule Petition and which are not addressed or being discussed front and center. The way the City is zoned would impede this type of entertainment in many, if not most, of the places that are not currently licensed. It would be misleading and create unnecessary roadblocks for the businesses to adopt such a Home Rule Petition when there would be zoning impediments or need for a variance. There is also the issue that if this is allowed on any area of the licensed premises, those that have outdoor areas and add this amenity to it, can end up adversely affecting street performers.

In addition, the City of Cambridge is very dense, commercial, and residential areas are often mixed and intertwined, and our residents expect a peaceful and quiet City. The Board could not recall a time when noise was not an issue one way or another in its last meetings. For example, in the meeting where this was discussed the two disciplinary items on the agenda both related to noise complaints/violations. Often, when a new establishment applies for a license, noise is a consideration and one that is raised as a possible problem. Noise variances are often part of the matters considered by the Board. Since the Board, License Commission and Police enforce the Noise Ordinance, the Board understands that adopting such a Home Rule Petition would create a flurry of new and additional noise complaints and raise a serious enforcement issue. Noise of this nature is actionable under the Ordinance only if plainly audible from a distance of fifty (50) feet. This means that many times it is not actionable because the complainant is closer than fifty (50) feet. In addition, even if it is actionable, unless it is heard by the responding investigator or police officer, it is very hard to take action against the business, which ends up frustrating the residents/complainants. We have people staying home more and using home as an office. Prior and even during COVID-19, the noise complaints we receive are not limited to late night, they include daytime and early evening. Allowing this without any licensing or consideration to the residents surrounding the businesses would create an incredible problem.

The Board also raised safety concerns. Live music, even if limited to 5 people with instruments and one microphone, take up a lot of space. Even ignoring the current space limitations we have with COVID-19, you still need a dedicated space for these musicians and their equipment to ensure that they (or their instruments) are not blocking the ingress/egresses, pathways or affect the minimal ADA space requirements. There are a lot of small venues in Cambridge where adding this type of amenity without review could end up creating safety issues for the employees and patrons.

The Board concluded that currently there is a way to apply to the License Commission for this type of event/amenity either on an annual or daily basis. It is not a difficult process, and it is a process that ensures that zoning approval is obtained, that if a variance is required one is obtained, or that if it is not allowed because of zoning, that a license is not improperly issued. It is a process that allows the public to express their concerns before the license is approved, and it is a process that allows the Board and other regulating departments to dedicate staff to monitor to ensure common good and public safety. It is not a cost prohibitive process and it is one that is necessary for this type of entertainment in the City of Cambridge. Allowing such a Home Rule Petition would create an insurmountable number of noise complaints, would result in places engaging in the practice against zoning and other legal requirements, and would result in an unmanageable system for issues such as safety and enforcement of laws and Ordinances.

Please let us know if you would like to discuss further. Thank you.

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-144, regarding the feasibility of creating a Fire Cadet Program.
Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0

Feb 22, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-144, regarding the feasibility of creating a Fire Cadet Program, please find attached a Home Rule Petition for a Special Law regarding a Fire Cadet Program for the City of Cambridge Fire Department as well as an Order favoring the filing of the Home Rule Petition, for your consideration.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

Proposed Order Feb 22, 2021

ORDERED: That the City Council go on record favoring the filing of the attached Home Rule Petition entitled: PETITION FOR A SPECIAL LAW REGARDING A FIRE CADET PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

PETITION FOR A SPECIAL LAW RE: FIRE CADET PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE FIRE DEPARTMENT

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. The appointing authority in the City of Cambridge authorized to appoint firefighters for the City of Cambridge may appoint as a fire cadet, for a period of full-time “on the job” training, any citizen resident of Cambridge who is not less than eighteen nor more than twenty-three years of age who meets the physical qualifications required of applicants for appointment as a firefighter in Cambridge, and who is determined by the appointing authority to be of good moral character. Such appointment shall not be subject to the civil service laws or rules; nor shall a fire cadet be entitled to any benefits of such civil service laws or rules. Such appointment may be terminated with or without cause by the appointing authority at any time, and shall be terminated whenever a cadet fails to maintain a passing grade in any course of study the appointing authority determines they should undertake, or when he or she reaches the age of twenty-five. A fire cadet shall receive such compensation and such leave with pay as the appointing authority shall determine. No person shall be too old for appointment as a cadet if they were of qualifying age at the time of qualification to the cadet program. An appointment to the cadet program shall not be terminated for age unless the cadet has completed two years of service.

SECTION 2. A fire cadet shall participate in classroom training and cooperative education and training designed to educate and prepare the cadet to become a permanent firefighter. Cadets will not replace, substitute or interfere with collectively bargained duties currently being performed by Cambridge firefighters, but may assist Cambridge firefighters in the performance of any of their administrative or other duties They shall be considered an employee of the City of Cambridge for the purposes of workers’ compensation and shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter forty-one, section 111F of the General Laws. No fire cadet shall be entitled to the benefits of the City’s then existing collective bargaining agreement that covers permanent firefighters in the City.

SECTION 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter thirty-one of the General Laws, any person who has completed not less than two years of service as a fire cadet under this act may, subject to a program established by the City’s appointing authority and approved by the personnel administrator of the human resources division within the Commonwealth’s executive office for administration and finance (“Personnel Administrator”), be appointed by the City’s appointing authority to fill a vacancy in a position in the lowest grade in the fire force of the City of Cambridge without certification from an eligible list prepared under the provisions of chapter thirty-one of the General Laws; provided, however, that such person either is on a fire entrance eligible list prepared under said chapter thirty-one or passes a qualifying examination to be given by the Personnel Administrator.

SECTION 4. If any federal or state law, administrative or court order requires the listing of candidates in separate groups, each group to be listed according to the law of the Commonwealth, then this act shall be subject to such listing.

SECTION 5. Not more than 33 1/3 percent of the total number of appointments to the regular fire force of the City of Cambridge in any calendar year shall be made pursuant to this Act. The appointing authority of the City of Cambridge shall report in writing forthwith to the Personnel Administrator in said division of personnel administration any appointment made under the provisions of this act.

SECTION 6. This act shall take effect upon its passage and after affirmative majority vote of the Cambridge City Council.

Filed on: __________________

7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a further response to Calendar Item Number 2, regarding a report on reviewing the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project, which was previously answered as Awaiting Report Item Number 20-63 on Feb 1, 2021.
Tabled 9-0 (after Councillor Nolan exercised her Charter Right initially even though this was obviously not new business).
A Late Order was also filed inquiring about (a) whether it could be required to notify abutters and tenants everywhere that a permit extension was being sought, and (b) if there is any limit on the number of extensions that can be sought and approved.

Feb 22, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

As a further response to Calendar Item Number 2, regarding a report on reviewing the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project, which was previously answered as Awaiting Report Item Number 20-63 on Feb 1, 2021, please find attached a report from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa.

Also attached is the original response to Awaiting Report 20-63 from Feb 1, 2021 as well as the additional questions City Solicitor Glowa received from Councillor Nolan.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

Office of the City Solicitor
795 Massachusetts A venue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

February 22, 2021

Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager
City Hall
Cambridge, MA 02139

Re: SUPPLEMENTAL Response to Awaiting Report No. 20-63 Re: Report on reviewing the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project.

Dear Mr. De Pasquale:

At the City Council meeting on February 1, 2021, Councilor Patricia Nolan exercised her charter right with respect to the response submitted by you to the City Council to Awaiting Report No. 20-63 (the "Response"), and by e-mail on February 5, 2021 , Councilor Nolan followed-up with her reasons for her exercise of her charter right and the additional information she is seeking. Below is my response to the points raised in Councilor Nolan's February 5, 2021 e-mail, which is attached hereto.

1. Was the main question in Awaiting Report No. 20-63 answered?

Awaiting Report 20-63 states:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project which appears counter to the City's zoning code and confer with the relevant departments on how many projects that had a permit prior to these changes could request an extension ... .

The first question in the above-order was whether the extension of the special permit for the project at 605 Concord Avenue was counter to the City's zoning code. That question was answered in the Response. The answer is "no", as the grant of an extension for this project was not counter to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance"). A copy of the Response is attached for your reference.

As set forth in the Response, Inclusionary Housing Projects that received a special permit between December 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017, shall devote fifteen percent (15%) of the Dwelling Unit Net Floor Area to affordable dwelling units (see Section 11.203.2 of the Zoning Ordinance), and the special permit for the project at 605 Concord Avenue requires that. Also as set forth in the Response, G.L. c.40A, §9 and Article 10, Section 10.46 of the Zoning Ordinance allow for extensions of special permits upon a finding of good cause, and the Planning Board on three separate occasions has made such a finding and has extended the special permit for 605 Concord Avenue. Accordingly, the original special permit granted on December 21, 2016, which requires 15% of the Dwelling Unit Net Floor Area for affordable dwelling units, remains in effect. As extensions of special permits are permitted pursuant to state law and the Zoning Ordinance, it was not counter to the Zoning Ordinance to extend the special permit for the project at 605 Concord Avenue.

The second question in Awaiting Report 20-63 asked how many projects that had been granted a special permit prior to these changes could request an extension. That question was also answered in the Response. The answer, as set forth in the Response, is "none", as there are no other projects that could request an extension of their special permit. No other residential projects that were granted special permits after December 1, 2016 but before June 30, 2017, have not yet obtained building permits. Once a project receives its building permit it has "exercised" its special permit and does not have to extend its special permit, so there are no other residential projects from that time period that will need to extend their special permit.

2. How can the City legally require that a project with a special permit adhere to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in place at the time the project requests an extension of the special permit?

Councilor Nolan expanded on this question and asked: "[s]houldn' t all developments and requests for special permits be required to follow all zoning at the time of the extension? ... how can we ask for adherence to existing zoning?"

As set forth above and in the Response, the answer is "no", special permits are not subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in place at the time an extension is requested, and the City cannot legally require that a development requesting an extension of its special permit conform to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in place at the time of the request for an extension.

Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time the special permit for 605 Concord Avenue was issued, the number of affordable dwelling units was correctly calculated, and that special permit remains in effect for two years pursuant to Section 10.46 of the Zoning Ordinance, and for any further time pursuant to extensions granted by the Planning Board. It is only if the special permit lapses and is not extended that the developer would have to seek a new special permit, in which case the new special permit would be subject to the current version of the Zoning Ordinance.

3. What is the basis of granting multiple extensions of a special permit?

Councilor Nolan expanded on this question and further asked: "[t]here is also the question of whether granting three separate one year extensions is legal. ... wouldn't it make sense that multiple extensions are counter to the intent of our special permit ordinance guidelines which require construction to start within two years? Could you point to the requirements for granting an extension?"

This question was answered in the Response. As set forth in the Response, it is legal for the Special Permit Granting Authority to grant extensions of special permits pursuant to G.L. c.40A, §9 and Section 10.46 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, neither state law nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibit a Special Permit Granting Authority from granting multiple extensions, and therefore, multiple extensions are legal as long as the Planning Board finds "good cause."

General Laws c.40A, §9 states:
[z]oning ordinances or by-laws shall provide that a special permit granted under this section shall lapse within a period of time, not more than 3 years, which shall no include such time required to pursue or await the determination of appeal referred to in section seventeen, from the grant thereof, if a substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause or, in the case of permit for construction, if construction has not begun by such date except for good cause.
(emphasis added.)

Zoning Ordinance Article 10, Section 10.46 states:
[a] special permit granted under this section shall lapse within two years, not including such time required to pursue or await the determination of an appeal to the Superior Court or to the Land Court as provided in Section 10.22 from the grant thereof, if a substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause or, in the case of a permit for construction, if construction was not begun by such date except for good cause.
(emphasis added.)

Accordingly, extensions of a special permit may be granted for good cause. Good cause is not defined in the statute or in the Zoning Ordinance; and therefore, a determination of good cause is left to the discretion of the Special Permit Granting Authority, which in this case is the Planning Board. Case law in Massachusetts provides that a finding of good cause to extend a special permit may include "diligent pursuit of additional permits." See Ware Real Estate, LLC v. Town of Ware, 81 Mass. App.Ct. 1120 (Rule 1:28 decision 2012); lappini v. Dakota Partners, LLC, 87 Mass.App.Ct. 1103 (2015) (Rule 1:28 Decision).

A finding of whether or not good cause exists is in the discretion of the Planning Board. The Planning Board is an independent body that acts pursuant to state law and the Zoning Ordinance and can lawfully exercise its discretion to determine whether or not there is good cause for an extension of a special permit. That decision stands unless timely appealed and overturned by a court.

Additionally, as of April 3, 2020, Governor Baker signed into law Chapter 53 of the Acts of 2020, an Act to Address Challenges Faced by Municipalities and State Authorities Resulting from COVID-19. The Act, as amended by Chapter 201 of the Acts of 2020, among other things, tolls or suspends statutory timelines related to permits including special permits. During the state of emergency, a special pern1it that existed as of March 10, 2020 does not lapse or expire within the normal time frame but is given until the state of emergency ends. Additionally, after the automatic extension, the Act entitles the special permit holder to a reasonable further extension for good cause at the discretion of the Special Permit Granting Authority or its chair. The Planning Board's most recent grant of an extension for 605 Concord Avenue in October 2020 referenced the Act and recognized the difficulties for the developer of proceeding under COVID-19 restrictions.

I will be available to discuss this further with the City Council.

Very truly yours,
Nancy E. Glowa
City Solicitor

[Original Response (Feb 1, 2021), Charter Right #1 of Feb 8, 2021]

From: Nolan, Patricia
Sent: Fri, Feb 5, 2021 10:59 AM
To: Glowa, Nancy
Cc: DePasquale, Louie; Siddiqui, Sumbul
Subject: follow up on charter right

Nancy (copy to Louie):

I am writing to follow up on my charter right related to 605 Concord Avenue, since I didn’t fully articulate why. I appreciate the reply to the PO requesting an opinion. Below is the PO and why I believe the main question was not addressed:

In Response to PO #265 (2020)

ORDERED: That the Council go on record as stating that all projects seeking a permit extension should be reminded of the need to follow all regulations in place at the time of the request for an extension; and be it further

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project which appears counter to the City’s zoning code and confer with the relevant departments on how many projects that had a permit prior to these changes could request an extension; and be it further

City Manager Agenda item #14, which stated that the 7 affordable units in the proposal (15% affordable) stem from Article 11, section 11.203 of the ordinance, does not directly answer the question from PO #265; namely, shouldn’t all developments and requests for special permits be required to follow all zoning at the time of the extension? The order states that projects seeking extensions should be required to follow standards - inclusionary, environmental, and any others - in place at the time of the extension. In the response it is asserted that it is legal to NOT ask for additional affordable units. The question the council asked is different: how can we ask for adherence to existing zoning? I would have expected an answer to how we can require adherence – otherwise the permit is set in 2016 terms, which is more than 4 years ago, and much has changed, including the fact that subsequent development in the area likely affects all studies done of the impact.

There is also the question of whether granting three separate one year extensions is legal. The zoning code states that permits expire except if construction doesn't start for good cause, how is it possible that extensions are granted? And if granted for longer than the initial two years of any permit, wouldn’t it make sense that multiple extensions are counter to the intent of the our special permit ordinance guidelines which require construction to start within two years?

Could you point to the requirements for granting an extension? The citation to Cambridge zoning, as you noted, Article 10 on special permits (10.46) makes no mention of “extensions”, which may well mean that they should not be allowed at all. In addition, the other citation you include is to MGL Ch. 40A Section 9 which is completely silent on the matter of extensions. Chapter 9 references that special permits may be granted and explicitly limits them to three years, although it does mention “good cause”. Good cause is not defined. And does the state code require granting extension for good cause, and it certainly doesn’t seem that an extension would have to be granted under obsolete zoning regulations. The concept of an “extension” as such doesn’t exist anywhere in state law; it is assumed that all permits are to be acted upon as expeditiously as possible.

It would be good to have both these questions answered. How can we legally require adherence to existing zoning as of the time of the request? And what is the basis of granting multiple extensions?

Thanks,
Patty

ON THE TABLE
1. Resolution on the death of William Leeds. [TABLED - SIMMONS JAN 11, 2021; CHARTER RIGHT - SIMMONS JAN 4, 2021]

2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-63, which requested a review of the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project. [CHARTER RIGHT - NOLAN FEB 3, 2021; TABLED FEB 8, 2021] See Mgr #7

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-108, regarding a report on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee Elections. [PENDING RESPONSE FROM LEGISLATURE]

5. The City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City of Cambridge Law Department to review the above changes to the language of the Domestic Partnerships Ordinance and report back to the Council. [PASSED TO SECOND READING JULY 27, 2020; TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER SEPT 14, 2020]

COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from Lee Farris, regarding supporting Green Roofs.

2. A communication was received from Hanna Carr, regarding support for Charter Right 3 – Hostile Architecture.

3. A communication was received from Neil Miller, regarding ending exclusionary zoning and parking minimums.

4. A communication was received from Allan Sadun, regarding statement from organizers of the Missing Middle Housing zoning petition.

5. A communication was received from Sara Sigel, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

6. A communication was received from Nancy Phillips, 36A Rice Street, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

7. A communication was received from Charles Dietrick, 33 Magazine Street, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

8. A communication was received from Sonali Duggal, 79 Norfolk Street, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

9. A communication was received from Jeff Byrnes, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

10. A communication was received from Maia Gokhale, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

11. A communication was received from Karen O'Connell, regarding Missing Middle Housing petition.

12. A communication was received from Matt Goldstein, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

13. A communication was received from John Grady, 34 Creighton Street, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

14. A communication was received from Molly O'Brien, 103 Pleasant Street, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

15. A communication was received from Ivy Maiorino, 10 Harding Street, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

16. A communication was received from Aaron Homer, 90 Grozier Road, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

17. A communication was received from Kevin Grinberg, 21B Lee Street, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

18. A communication was received from Adrian Shaw, 373 Cardinal Medeiros Avenue, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

19. A communication was received from Michael Hoff, 80 Fawcett Street, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

20. A communication was received from Zachary Barryte, 17 Bishop Allen Drive, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

21. A communication was received from Rebecca Lester, 7 William Street, regarding housing in Cambridge and the Missing Middle Housing petition.

22. A communication was received from Esther Hanig, 136 Pine Street, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

23. A communication was received from Kiefer Hicks, 27 Beech Street, regarding the Missing Middle Housing petition.

24. A communication was received from Valerie Bonds, regarding I could not sleep because of the toxic mold in my apartment.

25. A communication was received from Susan Ringler, regarding Police task force must be public.

26. A communication was received from Steve Wineman, regarding Policy Order on tear gas and rubber bullets.

27. A communication was received from Marilee Meyer, regarding African Church Landmark.

28. A communication was received from Manaj Gill, regarding PO restricting the use of chemical crowd control.

30. A communication was received from Carolyn Magid, regarding Vaccinate educators and other CPS staff.

31. A communication was received from Robert J. La Tremouille, regarding a private interstate off ramp to MIT.

2. Congratulations on the Opening of Black Sheep Market. Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons

5. Congratulations to Harvard Law Review's first Muslim president, Hassaan Shahawy. Mayor Siddiqui
Amended

12. Congratulating Prospect Hill Academy & Community Charter School of Cambridge. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons

13. Resolution in Support of Rep. Katherine Clark's Letter to Governor. Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Adopted as Amended 9-0

14. Congratulations to Mary Ting Hyatt and Wilbur Hyatt on the birth of their new child, Dean Hamilton Hyatt, on February 15, 2021. Councillor McGovern

ORDERS
1. Policy Order re: Services for the Unhoused. Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toomey, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Adopted as Amended 9-0

2. That the City Manager and appropriate staff are requested to work with the local organizers of the Floral Heart Project-Cambridge, to place a Floral Heart Shaped wreath at an appropriation location on the lawn on City Hall on Mar 1, 2021, in honor and memory of those lost to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mayor Siddiqui
Adopted 9-0

3. Policy Order for Dedication in Memory of Sabbatino Gagliardi. Councillor Simmons
Adopted 9-0

4. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to draft a home rule petition and a zoning amendment to allow acoustic music performances without a license. Vice Mayor Mallon
Adopted 8-0-0-1 (Toomey - PRESENT)

5. That the City Solicitor report back to the City Council on whether or not the City can require written notice be sent to all abutters, both property owners as well as tenants, regarding the scheduling of a hearing regarding the extension of a building permit request to the Planning Board. Councillor McGovern
Adopted 9-0

COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. The Health & Environment Committee met on Oct 13, 2020 to conduct a public hearing to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Charter Right - Zondervan

2. The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Nov 18, 2020 to discuss the Municipal Broadband Feasibility Study RFP.
Placed on File 9-0

COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Mayor, Sumbul Siddiqui, communicating information from the School Committee.

HEARING SCHEDULE (via Zoom and TV)
Mon, Feb 22
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Feb 24
5:00pm The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on the following ordinance amendments: (Sullivan Chamber)
1. That the City Council adopt a municipal ordinance to reduce or limit campaign donations from donors seeking to enter into a contract, seeking approval for a special permit or upzoning, seeking to acquire real estate from the city, or seeking financial assistance from the city. Calendar Item # 1 (POR 2020 #240) of Nov 2, 2020. Note: originally on 10/26/20 agenda, charter right exercised by Councillor Simmons).
2. REFERRED TO ORDINANCE COMMITTEE. The Cambridge City Council direct the City Manager to work with the City Solicitor’s Office to draft a Home Rule Petition that would cap campaign contributions to any City Council candidate to $200 per person, per year, per candidate and limit candidate loans to $3,000 per election cycle. POR 2020 #253 of Nov 2, 2020.

Thurs, Mar 4
5:00pm The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss with neighborhood groups their successes and challenges and how the city can better support them, as well as ideas related to the Envision plan. (Zoom only)

Wed, Mar 10
5:00pm The Ordinance Committee will meet to continue discussion on REFERRED TO ORDINANCE COMMITTEE. That the Cambridge City Council pass the Real Estate Transfer Fee Home Rule Petition. POR 2020 #174 of July 27, 2020. (Sullivan Chamber)

O-2 Feb 22, 2021
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
ORDERED: That the City Manager and appropriate staff are requested to work with the local organizers of The Floral Heart Project – Cambridge to place a Floral Heart Shaped wreath at an appropriation location on the lawn on City Hall on Mar 1, 2021, in honor and memory of those lost to the COVID-19 pandemic.

O-3 Feb 22, 2021
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
ORDERED: That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request from Ellen Gagliardi for a street corner dedication in honor of her late father, Sabbatino “Sam” Gagliardi, in the vicinity of Walden Street and Concord Avenue; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward this order to the Dedication Committee for their review and approval.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
Date: Tues, Oct 13, 2020 3:00pm, Sullivan Chamber
The Health & Environment Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.

Call to Order
Present: Dennis J. Carlone; Marc C. McGovern; Patricia Nolan; Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler; Quinton Zondervan (Chair)

Councillor Zondervan called the meeting to order.

Councillor Zondervan opened the floor to public comment.

Lee Ferris, 269 Norfolk Street, spoke in support of updating the tree protection ordinance. She wanted to examine ways to increase the city’s tree canopy.

Mike Nakagawa, 51 Madison Ave, spoke about factors affecting the city’s ability to increase the tree canopy. He stated that some developers severely prune trees, then ask for a permit to cut it down later after it dies or becomes sick.

Louisa McCall, 117 Lakeview Avenue stated that the city arborist should have the final say on cutting down trees.

Melissa Ludtke, 30 Buena Vista Park, stated that the tee canopy is an important protection against heat impacts of global warming. She encouraged the city to plant more trees.

Diane Martin, 34 Madison Avenue, stated that trees in Cambridge are inadequately cared for causing added stress.

Councillor McGovern motion to close public comment.
Approved 5-0

Owen O'Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works, explained the history and provisions of the tree protection ordinance. He explained that the report of the Urban Forestry Task Force will ultimately lead to some proposed amendments to the ordinance.

Catherine Woodbury, Project Manager at the Department of Public Works, gave a presentation to the committee which is attached to these minutes. She explained that in order to stem the loss of the tree canopy, at the current rate, the city would have to plant 1000 more trees annually than are currently being planted. The overall goal from the technical report is to get all neighborhoods to at least have a 25% canopy coverage. Stemming loss requires more than just planting new trees, it is a balance of planting and limiting loss. Across all categories, residential, institution, commercial, etc., the greatest loss was on residential properties.

Owen O'Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works added that 87% of the loss in the city, over the last 10- year period has been on private property and 72% of the loss has been on residential private property.

Ms. Woodbury explained that the greatest opportunity for replanting is within residential properties. She explained that the loss of one mature tree is more broadly felt than the loss of younger and smaller trees.

Andrew Putnam, Superintendent of Urban Forestry and Landscape, explained that there are six categories that a person could request to remove a tree. The first category, dead or dangerous has received the vast majority of applications at 73%. A total of 402 emergency circumstances or instances after a storm or there's significant damage to a tree so that it needs to be removed somewhat immediately and poses a risk. 3% of all removals or 14 total significant utility infrastructure projects. One or two percent of trees filed under category six which is that the tree poses a significant impact on an adjacent existing structure.

Ms. Woodbury explained that the city will propose amending the ordinance to include all private properties and redefine what qualifies as a significant tree. She explained different scenarios where the city encourages people to plant trees rather than paying into a mitigation fund. The city will propose an amendment require a sign off by the city arborist certifying the tree plan as approved for large projects.

Councillor Carlone moved to reopen public comment.
Approved 5-0

No members of the public were available to comment.

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone about tree planting, Mr. O'Riordan, stated that through the hiring of additional staff the Department of Public Works could perhaps plant about between 1250 and 1500 trees. At the moment, private property owners’ plant between 250 and 300 trees a year. That still leaves a significant difference between what is needed to reach 30% canopy coverage.

Mr. O'Riordan stated that the city is having discussions with MIT about tree planting on their campus and athletic fields.

Councillor Zondervan gave the floor to Christopher Schmidt to provide public comment.

Christopher Schmidt , 17 Laurel Street, asked for more information about the maintenance of trees. He stated that planting trees could be a significant investment for some homeowners.

Councillor McGovern motion to close public comment.
Approved 5-0

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan about preventing the loss of trees, Mr. O’Riordan stated that the vast majority of trees that have been removed are dead. A lot of the trees are dying due to age. The canopy goes through cycles of decay and regrowth. He explained that there is an environmental impact associated with removing soil and land filling soil. A better option is amending the existing soils.

Ms. Woodbury added that in addition to better soil management and planting practices, there are pruning strategies that the city will be embarking upon in terms of getting trees earlier on in a pruning rotation.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan about invasive/non-native trees, Mr. Putnam stated that non-native trees already make up quite a large percentage of the canopy. The city has a goal of no more than 5% of the canopy being from any one species, and no more than 10% from any one genus, in order to have a resilient canopy.

In response to a question by Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about mitigation costs, Mr. O’Riordan stated that on a per inch basis, trees cost property owners $850 an inch to cut down, based on the city’s current tree planting contracts.

In response to a question by Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about invasive trees, Mr. O’Riordan stated that invasive trees make up 20% of the canopy. Removing Invasive trees would have a significant impact on the canopy.

Mr. Putnam added that the general harm of invasive species is that they displace native species, but it does not pose a threat as long as the species that would displace natives are not allowed to move outward or cause any issues.

In response to a question by Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about having an arborist diagnose dead trees, Mr. O’Riordan stated that there was a lot of discussion about the cost associated with bringing an arborist on site to review whether a tree is dead or not. Residents have indicated that this is an onerous requirement. The city believes that it is important that an arborist certify that the tree is dead.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the replacement strategy would be an area of challenge because residential property owners, in particular, will have a space issue.

In response to a question by Councillor Carlone about reviewing site plans to ensure ample trees are being planted, Mr. O’Riordan stated that in terms of special permit review the city does get a tree plan from the development entity.

Councillor Carlone moved to adjourn.
Approved 5-0

1. A communication was received from Owen O'Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works, transmitting Presentation to the Health and Environment Committee.

Committee Report #2
Date: Wed, Nov 18, 2020 2:00pm, Sullivan Chamber
The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee will conduct a public hearing on to discuss the Municipal Broadband Feasibility Study RFP.

Call to Order
Present: Patricia Nolan (Chair); ~~Dennis J. Carlone~~; Alanna Mallon (Zoom); Marc C. McGovern (Zoom); Quinton Zondervan (Zoom)
Absent: Carlone, Mallon
Also Present: Councillor Simmons

Present at the hearing were Councillor Nolan, Chair of the Committee; Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Present via Zoom were Councillor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor Simmons; Louis DePasquale, City Manager; Patrick McCormick, Chief Information Officer; and Joanne Hovis and David Talbot, ctc technology & energy.

Councillor Nolan convened the hearing and read the Call of the Meeting and the Governor’s Executive Order regarding remote participation. She asked for a Roll Call to indicate a quorum for the hearing.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, and Councillor Zondervan -3
ABSENT: Councillor Carlone and Vice Mayor Mallon -2
and a quorum was present.

Councillor Nolan stated that this meeting is supposed to be the culmination of a long process that began in 2014 when a Broadband Task Force was set up acknowledging that the city needed to consider having access to the internet and broadband across the entire city. The task force worked for a couple of years through 2016 wherein a final report was issued. She said that one of the recommendations of the report was to conduct a feasibility study on having municipal broadband across the city. She said that the report was never acted upon although the City Council made five or six requests for that to happen over the intervening years. In May of this year the City Council was clear that the body wanted to move forward because it is critical for the city in the 21st century. She said that as a result, in June, the City Manager issued a memo stating that he would be doing the feasibility study. She stated that she and her colleagues expected that over the summer they would see the scope of work. Councillor Nolan stated that she and the Vice Mayor met with city staff in August and the RFP had not been finalized. She said that it was delayed again and in October the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a meeting to discuss the RFP. She said that to the committee’s consternation and disappointment, there was no RFP to review. She stated that the committee laid out some concerns and talked about the issues that needed to be included and the city agreed that a follow-up meeting would be conducted in a couple of weeks to review the RFP. After almost another month, she is once again frustrated, concerned, and disappointed that the committee does not have a complete RFP to review even though that was the intent and promise, and expectation of the committee. She said that this is either a priority or not. She noted that in 2017, there was a full RFP drafted and in January the city was prepared to move it forward as it was very close to final draft. She stated her hope that the committee start with that RFP. She said that instead the committee will hear about the Digital Equity Study which was a sideline to the broader conversation about municipal broadband. She said that in order to have digital equity we need to address the digital divide and to fund it in a municipal broadband study you need to have the entire city so that the burden of the cost doesn’t only rely on the city to provide it just to a small segment but the opportunity for people across the city to use broadband in order to fund the broadband available for low-income residents. She does not understand that something was promised and is still not before the committee.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he shares Councillor Nolan’s frustration and he would like more clarity on the RFP very soon.

Councillor McGovern stated that he looks forward to the presentation.

Councillor Nolan opened the meeting to Public Comment.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, Cambridge Residents Alliance, read from a prepared written statement regarding her dismay that the city has not produced a municipal broadband RFP (ATTACHMENT A).

Roy Russell, 40 Cottage Street, Upgrade Cambridge, read from a prepared written statement in support of a municipal broadband feasibility study (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Nolan stated that Public Comment would remain open at this time.

Councillor Nolan introduced Lee Giannetti. Mr. Gianetti said that he is pleased to have two consultants from ctc technology & energy to provide the committee with an update and additional context around the Digital Equity Study. He said that he is hopeful to engage in a meaningful discussion. He acknowledged the Chair’s and committee members frustration, but he wants to ensure that the goals of what is being sought are aligned.

He introduced Joanne Hovis and David Talbot.

David Talbot gave an overview of the PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT C) titled “Digital Equity: Data Collection & Strategy Development in Cambridge.” He explained that the slides describe the Digital Equity Study and a sense of data that is being developed. Mr. Talbot said that he and Ms. Hovis recently coauthored a paper on public/private partnership models. He said that a draft report will be delivered next month, and they will have a lot of time before and after the holidays to help refine the strategic recommendations.

Councillor Nolan stated that she would not like to have questions on this and get to the RFP discussion for citywide broadband. She said that is helpful to understand how this work affects the RFP. She said that it is frustrating that the money was allocated for the study in November of 2018 and it was anticipated to be a 12-month study. She said that this should have been done before February of 2020 before Covid hit. She said that some of the work didn’t begin until July of 2020. She stated the need for urgency with this work.

Councillor McGovern said that his understanding is that the report is not an easy thing to get. He said that it is his understanding that there are certain obstacles and criteria that could impede a person from getting Internet Essentials. He asked Mr. Talbot to include this information in the report. Mr. Talbot David stated that they will address this issue in the draft report.

Councillor Nolan stated that one additional speaker has signed up for Public Comment.

Saul Tannenbaum, 16 Cottage Street, stated that he has a question about the digital equity work. Mr. Tannenbaum experienced audio difficulties in giving his remarks.

Councillor Nolan asked Mr. Gianetti if there is a presentation on the topic of citywide municipal broadband to address the city’s internet needs.

Mr. Gianetti invited Joanne Hovis to speak about broadband. He stated that the current discussion is related to RFP process because the information that the committee is hearing is part of what will inform how the ultimate RFP looks. He added that while money was appropriated in November 2018 for the study, that was to allow our RFP to go out in order to procure services for it. He explained that the city did not sign a contract and finish the evaluation process to bring a consultant on until June 2019 and the work started in July following the signing of the contract. That is the gap between when the money was appropriated and when the work began.

Joanne Hovis stated that she would like to give an overview and thoughts about how the work of the Digital Equity Study will be a critical part of informing the broadband planning going forward, including planning with regard to municipal broadband. She noted that she has worked on the municipal side of the broadband market since the mid-1990’s. She said that municipalities have been an incredibly consequential leader on the public sector side with regard to broadband, way ahead of both the federal and state governments in understanding the importance of broadband and that there would need to be public effort to enable the expansion of broadband that all members of the community benefit from this utterly critical platform for economic and democratic activity. She said that the reason that the Digital Equity Study is a critical part of preparing for further broadband exploration is because we know that the academics that work in this area know that meaningful and impactful use of the internet for the things that we think of as critical, are a function of multiple things. One of those things is the availability of broadband internet services. Another is the affordability of broadband internet services. She said that we also have the critical elements of meaningful access to devices that make it possible to use the internet at all. Absent a device, service is inconsequential. She said that digital skills is a complex area that has to do with the fact that many people will struggle with certain kinds of things that for many feel very natural. She said that for immigrant populations, there is frequently concern about the internet as a tool for surveillance and lack of privacy. She said that when we put these factors together, particularly among low-income communities, lack of access is to the internet is not just a matter of availability, it is also a piece of the complex puzzle of digital literacy. She said that this means the ability to use the internet in ways that do not create their own complications or fears associated with it. That mix of factors is important part of understanding how to move forward. She said that building a new network and making it available does not solve the remaining three elements. Ms. Hovis stated that public ownership of a network does not necessarily mean that the network will be more affordable and it certainly does not necessarily mean that members of the community who otherwise struggle to afford or access a device will have that or that the digital skills gap will be bridged for seniors, members of the community who have not had internet experience in the past or for immigrant communities or those who speak English as a second language. Ms. Hovis explained that the broader, more holistic look at this is a critical piece of understanding it. She noted that the data that her team has been collecting will help to articulate and identify the gaps in Cambridge. She noted that every city and every community is different. They are trying to understand where the gaps exist, hence the need for qualitative and quantitative data collection mechanisms. She said that the data will allow them to define in the study where is there an availability challenge, where is there an affordability challenge, where there is a device related and skill related challenge. She stated that none of these challenges stand alone as the singular challenge, all four of them are at play. Some solutions are programmatic, funding, and also infrastructure solutions. This is what the study will allow for. She stated that you will also know where city resources can be most impactful. Ms. Hovis said that we should think about tying this study to the city’s municipal broadband.

Councillor Nolan stated that she is trying to understand how Ms. Hovis can help the city talk about success stories and ways that this does work. She said that she is confused by the presentation of Ms. Hovis as it does not strike her as helping the city move forward in defining the goal to get the RFP done.

Ms. Hovis said that she does not mean to tell the committee not to do the study. She stated her hope was to clarify why the data developed as part of the Digital Equity Study as well as a framework for parameters for the city’s goals and considerations should inform doing the municipal broadband study to make it effective and it is aligned with what the city is trying to accomplish. Councillor Nolan said that it would be helpful to hear about successful municipal broadband networks. Ms. Hovis said that she is happy to share thoughts on that issue. She said that she may not look to Chattanooga as an analog to Cambridge because it is a municipal electric utility which gives it all kinds of experience capabilities and assets that allow it to do what it has done. She said that it also was the recipient of a substantial Department of Energy grant when it was building this network that paid for a lot of the capital costs in order to support its smart grid needs as an electric utility. She said that it is a phenomenal success story with a tremendous team of people executing there. She stated that it has been transformative for the economy for a city that was struggling. She said that the Massachusetts examples in many cases are better analogs for Cambridge because although they are not as urban and complex as Cambridge, so their cost is going to be lower in the sense of any complex urban environment is high cost to build on a per mile basis. She said that many Massachusetts networks have been quite successful without the benefit of a municipal electric facility as the framework and groundwork for that network. She said that they see considerable success among municipalities that are active in this area, there are a few different factors. The level of competition in the market is a critical factor because inevitably this network will function within the context of a competitive market in a place like Cambridge. She said that there are many networks that have been developed in cities where there was no existing competition and, in many cases, they will get to 60% or 70% take rate quickly because there is nobody else providing the service. She said another factor that is consequential to success is strong localism, local customer service, the branding of the city, the deep investment of the local community in the city’s network and knowing the employees of the city’s network when they are friends and family. She said that localism is a significant differentiator, particularly with customer service. Finally, Ms. Hovis said that a critical success metric relates to the element of the city’s branding. She said that the pride of the members of the community in Chattanooga cannot be overstated.

Councillor Nolan stated that she will distribute the Worcester Study from July of 2020. Councillor Nolan noted that Vice Mayor Mallon has joined the hearing.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he appreciates the connection with the Digital Equity Study. He said that it is important to have the study in place to inform the broadband feasibility study. He said that it is important to have those pieces fall into place. He said that it raises questions for him. He said that one question is that the city already operates a fibric network in our streets so when talking about costs and tradeoffs, he gets confused quickly. He said that he requested in a Policy Order to look into connecting the Manning Building to the city’s existing broadband structure which runs right past the building. Nothing has come of that. He would that he would like to see how many opportunities like that exist where there can be a fairly low-cost solution because the infrastructure is already in place. Ms. Hovis responded that without having studied the specifics of the cost to build in Cambridge, she shared that they have faced this particular situation in many other cities. She said that the benefits are substantial in terms of the total cost of the network. She said that city fiber that has been deployed for internal city purposes does not have sufficient fiber count to serve as a platform for an entire citywide deployment. She said that the savings is approximately 5% and while meaningful, it is not 30% or 40%.

Councillor Zondervan said that it clearly is a nexus of a question that Ms. Hovis posed. He asked, what is more important – getting equity to people or getting it citywide which presumably is necessary to have any chance at a financially self-sufficient network. He said that having it be financially self-sufficient is the least important consideration is his opinion. He said that there are pockets of concentrated digital in-access and there is existing infrastructure in the roadways. He said that connecting up existing infrastructure to the communities that lack access should be relatively possible.

Councillor McGovern stated that he finds it helpful to hear both what has and has not worked. He said that he appreciates that if the city moves in the direction of a municipal broadband network, it will take a long time. There are current needs. He said that for a lot of people, they hate Comcast and the fact that it is the only option. He said that some people say that it is about bringing cost down or a faster network. He said that we need to know the problem that we are trying to solve and how do we get there. He said that as it relates to the cost piece and who can afford what, five years ago he chaired a committee on income and insecurity. He said that there are a lot of families in Cambridge that are income insecure. He stated that he would like to think more broadly than just the people in public housing. He said that Palo Alto has some similarities with Cambridge. He asked if there is a way to leverage larger companies in Kendall Square to buy into the system. Ms. Hovis said Palo Alto explored it. They do have a network that was built by the city’s electric utility for its own purposes, but they have a lot of excess fiber capacity in that network. The excess fiber is leased to commercial entities such as tech companies and it brings in quite a bit of revenue. She said that is how they have engaged the market thus far. In terms of the RFP, Councillor McGovern said that he likes it when we get reports back that have different options rather than a yes and no. He stated that there may be multiple ways to get the City where it wants to go. He said he would like options to debate to determine the best solution for Councillor Nolan said that at one point the city talked about making sure that we produce the conditions by which we may be able to eventually include in our future planning a possible buildout of a network. She said that she knows that 90% of the cost of laying the conduit is opening up the street and 10% of the cost is laying it. She asked Mr. Gianetti if the city has a policy in place where in if a street is being dug up, can we lay conduit. Mr. Gianetti said that this has been discussed many times. He said that he is not the right person to answer that question but is happy to speak with Kathy Watkins, the City Engineer. Councillor Nolan said that as someone who lives on a street that has been torn up, it would have been great to have it laid at 1/10 of the cost. She echoed Councillor McGovern’s comment regarding including a whole number of people to be included in the group of people who may need a subsidy. She asked about cities that are similar to Cambridge in size and density and what can we learn from them. Ms. Hovis said that both Longmont and Lafayette have successful municipal networks. She said that in both cases, they are municipal electric utilities. In both cases, their square mileage is larger than Cambridge with less density. Both are regarded as successful. As it relates to other considerations, she shared that they had very committed and energetic champions at the elected official level and within the electric utilities. She said that it is safe to say that both cities have faced substantial and costly opposition from incumbent providers. Lafayette faced multiple experiences with litigation. Longmont has also faced considerable opposition more in the form of public relations campaigns. Ms. Hovis suggested that there are other cities that are not municipal electric networks that may be good examples for Cambridge.

Mr. Gianetti said that David Talbot can speak more specific to Massachusetts. Mr. Talbot said that he can send a memo to Mr. Gianetti. He said that the ones in Western Massachusetts were rural towns that got very large subsidies from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and previously only had a slow DSL service. That is a separate category. The others that are up and running are all municipal electric utilities. He said that there are many communities that are looking into this and do studies.

Councillor Nolan asked if it makes sense for Cambridge to consider doing it in conjunction with a nearby city to bring the cost down. Mr. Talbot said not necessarily. He said that his opinion is that it would be two 2 different jurisdictions and two different leaderships to work with. He deferred to Ms. Hovis. Ms. Hovis said that it is possible to do but it does not make things simpler or change the cost because the custom analysis on a per city basis is still necessary.

Councillor Zondervan said that municipal broadband system tends to be more successful in communities that have a municipal electric utility. He asked why that is and whether or not that Cambridge has its own water utility, if that could provide similar advantages and how that could inform a feasibility study. He said that it would helpful to see in the feasibility study different models that could be pursued in the RFP. Ms. Hovis said that the benefit of having an electric utility is that an electric utility uses the same infrastructure as broadband would. This is not the case with water or another utility. A water utility itself could benefit from communications infrastructure throughout the city. Mr. Talbot said that an electric utility has rate payers that support operations. He said that money can be allocated to paying back to rate payers.

Councillor Zondervan said that water mains in the city are failing in many places and are actively being repaired. He said that this is an opportunity to lay conduit at a lower cost. He stated that the city often partners with existing utilities, so it seems like there are lots of opportunities to leverage infrastructure in the ground. He said that he would like to see different models and options in the feasibility study.

Councillor Nolan said that we have unbelievable pride in the city with already owning our own water and we have a municipal aggregation program. She said that she is hopeful that we move forward as it has been a long time coming with a lot of examples to look at. She expects that we will see RFP very soon.

Mr. Gianetti stated that the discussion has been helpful. Mr. Gianetti said that the city will continue to work on the RFP to address the concerns and issues.

Councillor Nolan stated that she stands ready to review the RFP.

Councillor Nolan thanked all those present for their attendance.

Councillor Nolan made a motion to adjourn the hearing.
The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan -3
NAYS:
ABSENT: Councillor Carlone and Councillor McGovern -2

For the Committee,
Councillor Patricia Nolan, Chair

2. A communication was received from Director of Communications & Community Relations, Lee Gianetti, transmitting Digital Equity: Data Collections and Strategy Development in Cambridge.

AWAITING REPORT LIST
16-101. Report on the potential of building below market rental housing on City-owned parking lots along Bishop Allen Drive. On a communication from Councillor McGovern requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons (O-4) from 12/12/2016

18-38. Report on inventory of all City-owned vacant buildings and lots and the City's plans for them, if any.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor Siddiqui (O-2) from 3/26/2018

18-60. Report on a small business parking pilot that would allow temporary on-street employee parking during typical daytime operating hours.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #1) from 5/14/2018

18-73. Report on establishing and implementing a dynamic new initiative that will seek to place Port residents (ages 18 and over) on paths to jobs with family-sustaining wages.
Councillor Simmons (O-6) from 6/25/2018

18-119. Report on evaluating the existing capacity of fire stations in the Kendall Square area and whether a new fire station is needed, and if so, determining the feasibility of locating a plot of land for this use.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-2) from 11/5/2018

19-3. Report on establishing a Central Square Improvement Fund and allocate no less than 25% of funds generated to the arts.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern (O-6) from 1/7/2019

19-49. Report on recommending restrictions on signage specific to retail establishments that sell e-cigarettes and other vaping devices.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-15) from 4/8/2019

19-58. Report on working with the Recycling Advisory Committee and other stakeholders to draft an ordinance banning single-use plastic items in Cambridge.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (O-6) from 5/13/2019

19-62. Report on drafting a formal Anti-bias /Cultural Competency Strategic Plan for eventual adoption and implementation.
Councillor Simmons (O-2) from 5/20/2019

19-66. Report on whether it is possible to reduce or eliminate Building Permit Fees for 100% affordable housing development projects, through an exemption or other means and investigate what types of real estate tax abatements are possible for 100% affordable housing moving forward.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern (O-3) from 6/3/2019

19-100. Report on the feasibility of implementing an additional regulatory requirement for listing a registration/license number for Short-Term Rentals.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons (O-19) from 7/30/2019

19-130. Report on requesting to allocate more funds in the FY21 budget for the small business improvement grants and to confer with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office on whether other cities in Massachusetts have been facing similar issues with ADA compliance and what can be done to protect the small businesses.
Councillor Toomey (O-14) from 10/7/2019

19-144. Report on determining the feasibility of instituting and funding a Fire Cadet Program. See Mgr #6
Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Toomey, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons (O-4) from 10/21/2019

19-145. Report on reviewing all the City’s policies and procedures related to the procurement, installation and disposal of artificial turf.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Zondervan (O-7) from 10/21/2019

19-146. Report on reviewing the existing internal mechanisms for City staffers in all departments to report grievances, to determine if this system is functioning as it should or whether changes should be considered.
Councillor Simmons (O-3) from 10/28/2019

19-147. Report on installing hearing loop technology inside the Sullivan Chamber as part of the upcoming renovations to City Hall, and in other critical City meeting venues wherever possible and other accessibility improvements.
Councillor Zondervan (O-4) from 10/28/2019

20-6. Report on the acquisition and implementation of interpretation services for City Council meetings and other public City meetings.
Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern (O-8) from 1/27/2020

20-23. Report on implementing Simple Recycling' s curbside textile recycling program and report back to the Council on this matter in a timely manner.
Councillor Toomey (O-1) from 5/11/2020

20-27. Report on the advantages and disadvantages of continuing with Civil Service, and the process by which Cambridge could exit Civil Service.
Councillor Nolan (O-5) from 6/22/2020

20-30. Report on establishing a plan designed to provide a thorough, system-wide review of the entire municipal government to identify and remove any vestiges of systemic racism and/or racial bias in any and all City departments, to establish clear, transparent metrics that will help further this critical endeavor.
Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toomey (O-3) from 6/29/2020

20-31. Report on determining how to best protect and preserve our commercial spaces that support our small business operators and maintain continuity in our commercial districts.
Councillor Toomey, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui (O-5) from 6/29/2020

20-36. Report on generating a report detailing the Sole Assessment Process, the Civil Service HRD process, the reason for choosing the Sole Assessment Process over the Civil Service HRD process, and the projected costs associated with both processes.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (O-5) from 7/27/2020

20-37. Report on considering formally renaming the Central Square Library in honor of Maria Baldwin and Rep. John Lewis, with the building being known as “The Maria Baldwin and Rep. John Lewis Library and Center for African American/Black History and Culture” going forward, or to otherwise find another suitable location for this dedication.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (O-6) from 7/27/2020

20-48. Report on the feasibility of creating an antibody testing program.
Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern (O-3) from 9/21/2020

20-53. Report on how Cambridge might participate in PACE Massachusetts pursuant to the PACE Act including exploring all options for incentivizing participation.
Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone (O-2) from 10/19/2020

20-58. Report on creating a comprehensive digital, postal, and traditional media outreach campaign educating residents on the Cambridge eviction moratorium, tenants’ rights, and resources available to at-risk tenants.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui (O-3) from 11/2/2020

20-59. Report on the feasibility of posting all applications for building permits online as soon as available.
Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern (O-6) from 11/2/2020

20-60. Report on analyzing eviction data from 2018 through 2021 and come back with a plan on how to use this data to inform our next action steps.
Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho- Wheeler (O-8) from 11/2/2020

20-61. Report on an update on City-Owned Vacant Properties Inventory.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Toomey (O-2) from 11/16/2020

20-64. Report on drafting appropriate Home Rule language which would allow for acoustic live entertainment performances in small businesses under certain conditions without a license. See Mgr #5
Vice Mayor Mallon (O-9) from 11/16/2020

20-65. Report on exploring the feasibility of hiring a consultant to perform an Equity Audit on the Cambridge Arts Council.
(O-1) from 11/23/2020

20-66. Report on establishing a Black and Brown-Owned Business Taskforce, to be focused upon strengthening the City’s outreach efforts, information-sharing, assistance mechanisms, and overall relationship with local Black and Brown-owned businesses, and to establish a rolling set of recommendations designed to ensure the City spares no effort in assisting these businesses.
(O-3) from 11/23/2020

20-70. Report on implementing comprehensive contact tracing in Cambridge including the ability to conduct backwards contact tracing facilitated with technology such as the use of QR codes.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (O-5) from 11/30/2020

20-71. Report on the feasibility of launching mobile COVID-19 testing vans in December.
Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (O-6) from 11/30/2020

20-69. Report on formulating an RFP for a public arts project that will acknowledge the unfinished work of the 19th Amendment, the importance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and how the two pieces of legislation ultimately complemented one another in helping to shape a more perfect union.
Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan (Calendar Item #2) from 11/30/2020

20-72. Report on the condition of 105 Windsor Street and cost estimates of any repairs needed and provide recommendations on how to develop any other underused properties based on an inclusive public process centered in the Port neighborhood.
Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #1) from 12/14/2020

20-73. 20-73 Report on establishing a waiver for low-income individuals utilizing the Covid-19 vaccine if the vaccine would otherwise cost money to access.
Councillor Simmons (O-3) from 12/21/2020

21-1. 21-1 Report on what efforts are being made to ensure that only those vaccines with the highest effectiveness will be utilized throughout the City of Cambridge.
Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon (Calendar Item #1) from 1/4/2021

21-2. 21-2 Report on providing a report on the possible implementation of a sheltered market program.
Vice Mayor Mallon (O-5) from 1/4/2021

21-3. Report on parameters on eligible expenses from free cash.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons (O-4) from 1/11/2021

21-4. Report on conducting a spending disparity study on City purchasing with businesses owned by minorities, women, veterans, disabled persons, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other historically disadvantaged groups.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Nolan (O-1) from 2/3/2021

21-5. Report on working with the local affordable housing organizations to develop a vaccination plan to reach out to the City’s senior population, as well as to the City’s minority communities and other underrepresented communities, that will establish a framework for the orderly onsite vaccination of these groups.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern (O-2) from 2/3/2021

21-6. Report on obtaining written documentation from the Cambridge Housing Authority, Homeowners Rehab, Inc., Just a Start, and the Community Development Department updating the City Council on the locations, unit sizes, number of units, overall costs, populations served, and expected dates of completion for each of the projects they reported on during the Housing Committee hearing held on Jan 12, 2021.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan (O-3) from 2/3/2021

21-7. Report on coordinating with the Public Health Department and the Inspectional Services Department to establish random check-ins and assessments of public and private affordable housing sites currently undergoing renovations to ensure proper compliance with Covid-19 safety protocols.
Councillor Simmons (O-4) from 2/3/2021

21-8. (AR-21-10; AR 2020-8) - Eliminating Hostile Architecture.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui (Calendar Item #3) from 2/8/2021