Cambridge City Council meeting - March 8, 2021

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

2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the Annual Surveillance Report concerning City Departments’ use of Surveillance Technology or Surveillance Data.
Referred to Public Safety Committee 9-0

3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Surveillance Technology Impact Report which describes landline location technology for the Emergency Communications Department.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a response to a Policy Order that was adopted on Dec 14, 2020 as part of the Public Safety Committee Report from Oct 7, 2020, regarding data on ShotSpotter, OMEGA Dashbord and COPLINK.
Referred to Public Safety Committee 9-0

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a summary report of all requests for approval of Surveillance Technology Impact Reports (STIRs) received by the City Council in the prior year.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

6. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a grant received from the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) through the City of Boston’s Office of Emergency Management, in the amount of $25,000 to the Grant Fund Fire Department Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used to purchase a security gate for the East Cambridge Fire Station parking lot.
Order Adopted 9-0

7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a grant received from the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) through the City of Boston’s Office of Emergency Management, in the amount of $75,000 to the Grant Fund Fire Department Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used to replace the existing 800MHz interoperability channel.
Order Adopted 9-0

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Green Roofs Ordinance (Oliver, et al.) Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Mar 8, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a Planning Board recommendation not adopt the Green Roofs Ordinance (Oliver, et al.) Zoning Petition.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

Date: Mar 2, 2021
Subject: Green Roofs Ordinance (Oliver, et al.) Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On Feb 10, 2021, the Planning Board (the “Board”) held a public hearing to discuss the Green Roofs Ordinance (Oliver, et al.) Zoning Petition (the “Petition”). Representatives of Mothers Out Front, a climate advocacy group, presented the Petition at the hearing. Staff from the City’s Community Development Department and Department of Public Works also attended the hearing and answered questions from the Board.

The proposed revisions to Section 20.30 of the Zoning Ordinance would require new construction and “significant rehabs” of buildings with 20,000 square feet or more to install green roof systems. These systems could be vegetative or a combination of vegetative and solar energy systems, referred to as “BioSolar.” The petition stipulates that the green roof system must cover 100% of the roof, with exceptions for “appropriate vegetated free zones and roof gravel,” parking, and some mechanical equipment. If this standard cannot be met, the petition proposes that a payment must be made to a city-controlled “Green Roofs fund” that would be used to provide grants to property owners for the creation of green roofs on existing buildings. The petition proposes adding definitions for “Green Roof,” “Functional Green Roof,” and “BioSolar Roof” to Article 2.000 Definitions.

Following a presentation by the Petitioners, Board members posed a number of questions to the Petitioners and City staff and discussed the merits of the Petition. The following is a summary of comments made by Board members:

• All members of the Board expressed support for encouraging the construction of green roofs in Cambridge and believe that the climate crisis demands urgent action; several members also remarked on the importance of Mothers Out Front’s work and commended the group for their organization and advocacy on this issue.

• Board members raised many concerns regarding the clarity of the proposed language, noting that it is not clear how the zoning would apply under different circumstances nor does it provide appropriate guidance to a property owner or designer to understand how to comply with the requirement. Some terms are not clearly defined and it is not clear how some provisions would interact with current provisions in the Zoning Ordinance, such as provisions related to Functional Green Roof Area and Gross Floor Area. The Board noted that there are several general statements about the benefits of green roofs that are confusing in the context of zoning requirements. The “payment-in-lieu” provisions are also unclear. In its current state, the text could require significant changes that may legally require refiling and new public hearings prior to adoption.

• Several Board members raised concerns about the practicality of green roofs in all circumstances, including buildings with sloped roofs and the rehabilitation of existing structures. Board members also raised concerns about how the proposed requirements would interact with code requirements related to safety, accessibility, and building mechanical systems.

• Board members raised concerns that there did not appear to be much input from entities that would be most directly affected by the proposed zoning, such as property owners, developers, designers, and engineers. They expressed interest in hearing more from those who would be responsible for complying with the requirements if they were adopted.

• Board members recognized the ongoing work of the City’s Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force (“Task Force”) that was appointed to make recommendations on zoning changes related to climate change resilience and adaptation. Board members noted that the City is trying to accomplish multiple environmental objectives and that the Task Force is the appropriate venue for stakeholders to have conversations about benefits and trade-offs. Board members see green roofs as one of many strategies to manage the climate crisis and appreciate the comprehensive approach that the Task Force is taking.

• Some Board members were generally comfortable with a prescriptive approach to requiring green roofs; however, many others expressed preference for an approach that provided property owners and developers with different choices for meeting the City’s environmental objectives, rather than mandating only one approach. Some Board members gave the “Cool Factor” approach being contemplated by the Task Force as an example of the type of flexible requirement that they would prefer.

• Board members questioned whether 20,000 square feet was an appropriate threshold given that the threshold for Green Building Review and other special development standards is set at 25,000 square feet or more.

• Board members raised concerns about the impact on affordable housing developments, given the unique financial circumstances of such developments, and questioned whether such projects should have an exemption from these requirements.

Following deliberation, the Board voted to recommend that City Council not adopt this Petition, with eight members voting in favor and one opposed. All nine Board members voted in favor of forwarding this summary of Board members’ comments to the City Council.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
Catherine Preston Connolly, Chair

9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Calendar Item Number 2 dated Nov 2, 2020, which requested draft ordinance language to prohibit the use of tear gas in Cambridge.
Placed on File 9-0

March 8, 2021

Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager
City of Cambridge
795 Massachusetts Avenue, City Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Re: Response to Calendar Item No.2 of November 2, 2020 requesting that the City Manager work with the City Solicitor to Draft Ordinance Language to Prohibit the use of Tear Gas in Cambridge

Dear Mr. DePasquale:

This letter is in response to Calendar Item No. 2 of November 2, 2020 (the "Calendar Item") which requests that the City Manager work with the City Solicitor to draft ordinance language to prohibit the use of tear gas in Cambridge. We believe that based on State law, such an ordinance (the "Ordinance") would likely be held by a court to be invalid as presenting a sharp conflict with the laws of the Commonwealth in that G.L. c.41, §98 and the Plan E Charter empower the Police Commissioner and the City Manager to whom he reports to determine what weapons the police may carry. This opinion is consistent with the attached legal opinion of January 6, 2021 (the "Legal Opinion") which was submitted to the Public Safety Committee in response to a request for a legal opinion as to whether the City Council has the legal authority to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the use of certain weapons by Cambridge Police Officers.

In addition to the information outlined in the attached Legal Opinion, please note that subsequent to the Calendar Item, Governor Baker signed into law on December 31, 2020 St. 2020, c. 253 ("An Act Relative to Justice, Equity and Accountability in Law Enforcement in the Commonwealth") (the "Act"), which regulates the use of tear gas or other chemical weapons and rubber bullets by municipal police officers in the Commonwealth. Specifically, St. 2020, c. 253, §30 amends the General Laws of the Commonwealth by prohibiting the "discharge or order[ing] the discharge of tear gas or any other chemical weapon, [or the] discharge or order[ing] the discharge of rubber pellets from a propulsion device ... unless: (i) de-escalation tactics have been attempted and failed or are not feasible based on the totality of the circumstances; and (ii) the measures used are necessary to prevent imminent harm and the foreseeable harm inflicted by the tear gas or other chemical weapon, rubber pellets ... is proportionate to the threat of imminent harm . .. . " St. 2020, c 253, §30. The Act also requires that "[i]f a law enforcement officer utilizes or orders the use of tear gas or any other chemical weapon, rubber pellets ... against a crowd, the law enforcement officer's appointing agency shall file a report with the [Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission] ("commission") detailing all measures that were taken in advance of the event to reduce the probability of disorder and all deescalation tactics and other measures that were taken at the time of the event to de-escalate tensions and avoid the necessity of using the tear gas or other chemical weapon, rubber pellets .. . . " Id. Still further, the Act requires that "the commission [established pursuant to the Act] shall review the report and may make any additional investigation" relating to the use of tear gas or other chemical weapons or rubber bullets at the time of the event in question. Id.

Therefore, because it is our opinion that promulgation of such an ordinance would exceed the City Council's legal authority, we have not prepared a draft Ordinance. However, we understand that you and Commissioner Bard have discussed this issue and that he has proposed to issue a departmental policy restricting the use of tear gas and chemical weapons by Cambridge Police Officers. You have indicated that you are in full support of such a recommendation. I understand that the Commissioner will therefore proceed with issuing this policy.

Very truly yours,
Nancy Glowa
City Solicitor

January 6, 2021

Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager
City of Cambridge
795 Massachusetts Avenue, City Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Re: Whether the City Council Has the Authority to Adopt an Ordinance that Prohibits the Cambridge Police Department from Using Certain Weapons

Dear Mr. DePasquale:

I. INTRODUCTION

This legal opinion is written in response to the question whether the City Council of the City of Cambridge (the "City") has the legal authority to adopt an ordinance that prohibits officers of the Cambridge Police Department (the "Police Department" or the "Department") from using certain weapons. As outlined in detail below, I am of the opinion that such an ordinance would violate the City's Plan E Municipal Charter, and in addition, would likely be held to be invalid if challenged in court as presenting a sharp conflict with the general laws of this Commonwealth.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. The City's Plan E Charter

An ordinance dictating that officers of the Police Department may not carry specified weapons would likely be held to be invalid by a court as a violation of the City's Plan E Charter, since as the chief administrative officer of the City, it is within the City Manager's purview to determine how to equip officers of the Department. Under the City's Plan E Charter, specifically, G.L. c.43, §104 ("Section 104"), " ... except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, it shall be the duty of the city manager to act as chief conservator of the peace within the city; to supervise the administration of the affairs of the city; to see that within the city the laws of the commonwealth and the ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the city council are faithfully executed; and to make such recommendations to the city council concerning the affairs of the city as may to him seem desirable; to make reports to the city council from time to time upon the affairs of the city; and to keep the city council fully advised of the city's financial condition and its future needs .... " G.L. c.43, §104. Section 104 further provides that" ... the city manager shall have and possess, and shall exercise, all the powers, rights and duties, other than legislative, had, possessed or exercised, immediately prior to the adoption of this plan, by the mayor, board of aldermen, common council and all other boards, commissions and committees of the city and their members, severally or collectively, except such as are by this chapter conferred upon the school committee or are otherwise provided for thereby . .. . " Id. Moreover, under G.L. c.43, §103: " ... the city council shall appoint a city manager ... who shall be the chief administrative officer of the city and shall be responsible for the administration of all departments, commissions, boards and officers of the city, whether established before its adoption of this plan or thereafter .... " G.L. c.43, §103.

In Chief of Police of Medford v. City Manager of Medford, the Appeals Court reviewed the powers and authorities of Medford's city manager and police chief under a Plan E Charter. Chief of Police of Medford, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 415 (1981). The Court noted that under a Plan E Charter, the city manager has "broad powers as chief administrative officer of the city" and that the city manager has "broad authority ... to set general policy to be carried out by the chief [of police] and to supervise and control his actions." Id. at 420-421 citing Allen v. Cambridge, 316 Mass. 351, 353 (1944).

B. The Home Rule Amendment and the Home Rule Procedures Act

An ordinance regulating the type of weaponry used by the Police Department would likely also be held to be invalid under the Home Rule Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth (Art. 89, the Home Rule Amendment, II, §6) (the "Home Rule Amendment") based on a conflict with G.L. c.41 , §98 ("Section 98"). The Home Rule Amendment provides at Section 6 "Governmental Powers of Cities and Towns" thereof that "any city or town may, by the adoption, amendment, or repeal of local ordinances or by-laws, exercise any power or function which the general court has power to confer upon it, which is not inconsistent with the constitution or laws enacted by the general court in conformity with the powers reserved to the general court by section 8 ... " See Art. 89, §6 of the amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution; see also Bloom v. Worcester, 363 Mass. 136, 145 (1973).

Similar to the Home Rule Amendment, Section 13 G.L. c.43B (the "Home Rule Procedures Act") ("Section 13") provides that " ... nothing in this section shall be construed to permit any city or town, by ordinance or by-law, to exercise any power or function which is inconsistent with any general law enacted by the general court before November eighth, nineteen hundred and sixty-six which applies alike to all cities, or to all towns, or to all cities and towns, or to a class of not fewer than two .... " Bloom, 363 Mass. at 145 citing G.L. c.43B, §13. The Supreme Judicial Court has stated that " ... we interpret that language in Section 13 as stating, in a backhanded way, that the exercise of municipal legislative authority under Section 13 of the Home Rule Procedures Act may not properly involve the exercise of any power or function which is inconsistent with any pre-Home Rule Amendment general law." Id. at 151.

"Legislation which deals with a subject comprehensively, describing (perhaps among other things) what municipalities can and cannot do, may reasonably be inferred as intended to preclude the exercise of any local power or function on the same subject because otherwise the legislative purpose of that statute would be frustrated." Id. at 155. "A conclusion that the Legislature intended to preempt a subject may also be inferred if the Legislature has explicitly limited the manner in which cities and towns may act on that subject." Id. at 156.

G.L. c.41, §98 provides, in relevant part, that:

The chief and other police officers of all cities and towns shall have all the powers and duties of constables except serving and executing civil process. They shall suppress and prevent all disturbances and disorder. They may carry within the commonwealth such weapons as the chief of police or the board or officer having control of the police in a city or town shall determine ....

An ordinance dictating what weaponry Cambridge police officers may carry would conflict with the provisions of Section 98, which confers upon the chief of police and all other police officers of the City the same powers and duties as constables, except serving and executing warrants. In addition, because the City Manager, as the chief administrative officer of the City and the appointing authority of the police commissioner, is the "officer having control of the police" in the City, an ordinance dictating weaponry would conflict with Section 98 which states that "they may carry . . . such weapons as the chief of police or the board or officer having control of the police ... shall determine." Finally, such an ordinance would also frustrate the legislative purpose of Section 98 which provides that police officers shall "suppress and prevent all disturbances and disorder." Therefore, an ordinance prescribing the type of weapons that Cambridge police officers use would likely be held to be invalid as both a violation of the City's Plan E Charter, and further, void as presenting a sharp conflict with and frustrating the purpose of, a general law of the Commonwealth.

C. Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban

G.L. c.140, §§121-131y is a comprehensive State legislation which outlines the manner in which licenses to carry firearms may be issued, the term of such licenses, and conditions which must be placed on such licenses. State law prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of assault weapons, as defined in G.L. c.140, §121, under G.L. c.140, §§128 and 131M, however, the Legislature exempted police officers from the assault weapons restrictions in G.L. c.140, §§121 et seq., and, in doing so signaled its intention not to include police officers as a category of individuals prohibited from possessing assault weapons in this Commonwealth. As a result, an ordinance, the effect of which is to prohibit possession of such weapons by police officers would thwart the legislative intent in enacting G.L. c.140, §121 et seq. and would likely also be held to be invalid as inconsistent or presenting a sharp conflict with the State's gun control laws.

D. Collective Bargaining Requirements

An ordinance dictating the type of weaponry that is currently in use by officers of the Police Department could be found to be a matter that is subject to mandatory collective bargaining under G.L. c.150E, §§6 and 10(a)(5). G.L. c.150E, §6 provides, in part, that "the employer and the exclusive representative shall meet at reasonable times, including meetings in advance of the employer's budget-making process and shall negotiate in good faith with respect to wages, hours, standards or productivity and performance, and any other terms and conditions of employment, including without limitation, in the case of teaching personnel employed by a school committee, class size and workload, but such obligation shall not compel either party to agree to a proposal or make a concession." G.L. c.150E, §6. G.L. c.150E, §10(a) provides that: "it shall be a prohibited practice for a public employer or its designated representative to . .. (5) refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with the exclusive representative as required in section six .... " G.L. c.150E, §10(a)(5).

In City of Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc., the Supreme Judicial Court noted that " . . .if a managerial decision has impact upon or affects a mandatory topic of bargaining, negotiation over the impact is required .... " Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc., 403 Mass. 680, 685 (1989) citing School Committee of Newton v. Labor Relations Commission, 388 Mass. 557, 564-567, (1983). "In instances where a negotiation requirement would unduly impinge on a public employer's freedom to perform its public functions, G.L. c.150E, §6 does not mandate bargaining over a decision directly affecting the employment relationship." Town of Dracut v. Dracut Firefighters Union, IAF Local 2586, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 374, 378-379 (2020) citing Local 346, International Brotherhood of Police Officers v. Labor Relations Commission, 391 Mass. 429, 437 (1984). "The inquiry has been directed towards defining the boundary between subjects that by statute, by tradition, or by common sense must be reserved to the sole discretion of the public employer so as to preserve the intended role of the governmental agency and its accountability in the political process." Id. at 379 citing Lynn v. Labor Relations Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 172, 178-179 (1997). "The crucial factor in determining whether a given issue is a mandatory subject of bargaining [i.e., nondelegable], is whether resolution of the issue at the bargaining table is deemed to conflict with perceived requirements of public policy." Id. citing Greenbaum, The Scope of Mandatory Bargaining Under Massachusetts Public Sector Labor Relations Law, 72 Mass. L. Rev. 102, 103 (1987).

The principle of non-delegability extends only so far as is necessary to preserve the public employer's discretion to carry out its statutory mandates and the public policy favoring collective bargaining. Id. at 379-380. "The scope of a governmental employer's non-delegable authority depends on 'the explicitness of the statutory authorization under which [that] employer acts.' " Id. at 380 citing Board of Higher Education v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, 483 Mass. 310, 319 (2019). "Where ... the employer acts 'under the authority of a statute or law authorizing the employer to perform a specific, narrow function or, alternatively, acts with reference to a statute specific in purpose that would be undermined if the employer's freedom of action were compromised by the collective bargaining process,' we will not enforce a conflicting provision in a collective bargaining agreement." Id.

Therefore, an ordinance which restricts the use of equipment already in use by the Police Department without bargaining as to the impact of such a restriction, might run afoul of and be held to be invalid as conflicting with and frustrating the purposes of G.L. c.150E.

III. CONCLUSION.

For the reasons set forth above, I am of the opinion that the authority to dictate what weapons are used by Cambridge police officers when carrying out their official duties, under the City's Plan E Charter and its Home Rule powers, rests with the City Manager and not the City Council; that future changes in weapons and equipment already in use by the Police Department would likely be subject to collective bargaining as to the impact of such changes; and that an ordinance restricting police officers from carrying assault weapons would thus be invalid as inconsistent with or frustrating the purposes of State law.

Very truly yours,
Nancy Glowa
City Solicitor

CHARTER RIGHT
1. An application was received from TD Bank, requesting permission for 4 (four) awnings at the premises numbered 617 Massachusetts Avenue. Approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and abutters. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021]
Tabled 5-4 (MM,PN,DS,JSW,TT - YES; DC,AM,QZ,SS - NO) - Nolan

ON THE TABLE
4. Resolution on the death of William Leeds. [TABLED BY COUNCILLOR SIMMONS IN COUNCIL JAN 11, 2021; CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR SIMMONS IN COUNCIL JAN 4, 2021]

6. 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 IN COUNCIL FEB 22, 2021]

7. The Health & Environment Committee met on Oct 13, 2020 to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force. [TABLED IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021 BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN]

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. 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]

9. 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 A SECOND READING IN COUNCIL JULY 27, 2020. TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER SEPT 14, 2020]
Ordained as Amended 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey - PRESENT)

10. A Zoning Petition has been received from Arvind Srinivasan regarding zoning language relative to the Alewife Quadrangle Northwest overlay. [PASSED TO A SECOND READING IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021; TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER MAR 15, 2021]

COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from John Paul, regarding the MBTA and Keolis claims referenced.

2. A communication was received from State Representative, Mike Connolly, regarding MBTA Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Noise Pollution.

3. A communication was received from Tisya Mavuram, regarding support for Charter Right #3 - Shelter Wages

4. A communication was received from Shirley Irvine, regarding Policy Order #2 Taskforce Meetings MUST be public.

5. A communication was received from Saul Tannenbaum, regarding "I was tear gassed by the Cambridge Police".

6. A communication was received from Louise Parker, regarding Transparency, Tear Gas Ban, and Shelter Worker Pay.

7. A communication was received from Kit Haines, regarding on the importance of pay transparency and tools.

8. A communication was received from Judy Stitt, regarding 2020 ELECTION FRAUD EVIDENCE.

9. A communication was received from Judy Stitt, regarding (Further Clarified) Notice served.

10. A communication was received from Carolyn Magid, regarding PO 2021 #36: Task Force Transparency PO 2021#38: Shelter Wages.

11. A communication was received from Ben Caine, regarding living wages for shelter workers.

ORDERS
1. Mobile Vaccines Policy Order. Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0

2. Waiving Business Fees. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0

3. Honoring the Cambridge Lives Lost to COVID-19. Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

4. That the Cambridge City Council goes on record in support of the farmer protests in India. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

5. That the City Manager consult relevant staff to implement universal Pre-K in Cambridge. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. The Health and Environment Committee met on Nov 10, 2020 to continue discussing amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Tabled 9-0 (Zondervan)

2. The Ordinance Committee met on Jan 20, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on amendments to the Domestic Partnership Ordinance.
Placed on File 9-0; Ordained as Amended 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey - PRESENT)

A. A communication was received from Ordinance Committee favorably recommending amendments to the Domestic Partnership Ordinance. Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon
Amended

COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, communicating information from the School Committee.
Placed on File 9-0

To: Cambridge City Council
From: Sumbul Siddiqui, Mayor
Date: Mar 4th, 2021
Subject: Communicating information from the School Committee

To the Honorable, the City Council:
Governor Baker has announced that beginning March 11th, Pre-K-12 educators and staff will be eligible to receive COVID-19 vaccines at any of Massachusetts’s 170 vaccination sites. The state’s Command Center will also identify specific days designated for educators and school staff. Governor Baker has emphasized that appointment availability will be dependent on the federally-provided supply of vaccines, which are currently limited.

President Biden also announced that all states must prioritize all educators, school staff, and childcare workers to receive their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of March. To help states with this effort, a federal pharmacy program will prioritize the vaccination of all school staff and childcare workers during the month of March.

CPS will work closely with the Cambridge Public Health Department (CPHD, Cambridge Education Association (CEA), and other unions serving CPS employees to provide staff with information about vaccine distribution and appointments.

On Mon, March 1st, the job posting for the Interim Superintendent position of the Cambridge Public Schools went live. I will keep everyone updated on the progress of our search.

Also on March 1st, we began our expansion of in-person learning. My School Committee colleagues and I have been welcoming cohorts in the mornings outside school buildings as families returned. On March 1st, Superintendent Salim and I greeted King Open and CSUS families and on March 4th, we said hello to the families outside the Cambridgeport and Amigos schools. It has been such a joy to see the smiles on the faces of our scholars, who are so excited to be back.

A few of our schools currently have waitlists for in-person learning:

Amigos: 6 students at grade 4 and 3 students at grade 8
Baldwin: 7 students at grade 2
King Open: 2 students at grades 4 and 5
Haggerty: 1 student at K

Based on actual in-person enrollment in the first week, additional students may be accommodated. In addition, the hardship request process has been opened to families.

As you all know, we are offering free COVID testing to all in-person students, teachers, and staff. We kicked off our student surveillance testing with hundreds of students participating and have launched an initial pilot of the state’s pooled COVID testing program for elementary school students. Please visit this page for more information on our testing plan.

On Tues, March 2nd, the School Committee had a Regular Meeting where Superintendent Salim presented this update and our Student Members Anaïs Killian and Nuriel Vera-DeGraff each presented their own motions that passed successfully. Please see agenda items #21-65 (to close the gap of student access to free menstrual products) and #21-66 (to implement the use of a district-wide text messaging tool to provide important updates to students). Thank you to Member Killian and Member Vera-DeGraff for their hard work and advocacy.

CPS has announced updated quarantine protocols for when cases of COVID-19 are found in schools. Given the varying dynamics at different grade bands, the CPHD and CPS will implement the following quarantine protocols if a staff or student in a classroom tests positive for the virus:

Grades PK-5: the entire classroom will be closed for 10 days and the staff and students will be directed to quarantine
Grades 6-8 and 9-12: CPHD will work with CPS to examine the individual situation in more detail to determine what level of quarantining will be required

My Office has launched a creative art contest in honor of Women’s History Month for students in grades 6-8. We will be choosing a winner in our three categories:

Visual Art (painting, drawing, photography, etc.
Poetry and Spoken Word
Short Stories

Each winner will receive a $50 Visa gift card and a Zoom invitation to meet with me for a show-and tell. We will be accepting submissions through March 25th and all files/photos/videos can be emailed to Adelina Atamer, our Community Engagement Manager, at maatamer@cambridgema.gov.

Our upcoming meetings are as follows:

Tues, Mar 16th, 2021
- Regular Meeting | 6:00 PM
Thurs, Mar 18th, 2021
- Special Meeting | 6:00 PM
  - To review the Superintendent’s FY22 Proposed Budget
Tues, Mar 23rd, 2021
- Budget Workshop | 6:00 PM
  - To review the Superintendent’s FY22 Proposed Budget
Tues, Mar 25th, 2021
- Public Hearing | 6:00 PM
  - To have a public hearing on the Superintendent’s FY22 Proposed Budget

Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions, suggestions, or concerns.

Respectfully,
Sumbul Siddiqui

2. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting COVID-19 Update Questions.
Placed on File 9-0

TO: LOUIS A. DEPASQUALE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: SUMBUL SIDDIQUI, MAYOR
SUBJECT: COVID-19 UPDATE: QUESTIONS
DATE: 3.4.2021
CC: CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

A communication from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting questions from City Councillors regarding the COVID-19 Public Health Update for Mar 8, 2021.

COVID-19 UPDATE QUESTIONS

VICE MAYOR MALLON:
1. Based on the Governor's announcement this week moving school-based staff into eligibility, what is our local plan to vaccinate our school-based staff here in Cambridge? The State vaccination website is impossible to navigate, and CVS is fully booked each day. CPSD welcomed 4-12th graders back into the classroom this week, and it's important to get this done quickly and in a coordinated fashion to both provide a level of safety for our staff, as well as instill confidence for families that school is safe to return to.

COUNCILLOR NOLAN:
1. Do we have a sense of how the increased capacity for businesses and movement to Phase 3 step 2 has gone? And in line with that question, what has our capacity been to monitor for compliance with mask mandates and provide support for entities that need help opening, re-opening, or expanding while following all the continued regulations about safe operations?

2. With increased vaccine eligibility and ever-changing availability of supply, there has been a lot of concern from residents about accessing an appointment for vaccination. What has been done, and what can the city do to communicate in a timely manner how and when residents can sign up for vaccines? Do we know which of the methods of communication the city uses are the most effective, and are there other methods other cities are using that we might emulate?

MAYOR SIDDIQUI:
1. Can CPH share any more updated race/ethnicity data of who has been vaccinated?

COUNCILLOR SIMMONS:
1. When the Senior Center re-opens to the public for in-person activities, will people need to show a "vaccine passport" or some proof of having been vaccinated in order to enter and partake of the in-person activities?

COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER:
1. Now that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been authorized, when can we expect to start seeing doses in Massachusetts? What do residents need to know about which of the vaccines they’re getting?

2. New daily COVID cases in Cambridge have come down from the numbers we were seeing in December, but they are still 3-4 times higher than they were from June-October. What do we know about how Cambridge residents are currently contracting the virus? For what percentage of the cases are we able to identify a likely point of transmission?

COUNCILLOR TOOMEY:
1. A lifelong Cambridge resident and senior citizen contacted me to express her concerns about the difficulty of getting the COVID-19 vaccine. The City of Quincy has a dedicated local vaccination site at their senior center; does Cambridge plan to set up a similar central site?

COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN:
1. Currently our 7-day average of new cases of COVID seems to have stabilized at about 4 times what it was in late March 2020 when we declared a public health emergency and shut down the entire city to prevent the spread of COVID. Several more infectious variants of COVID are circulating worldwide, including here in Massachusetts, raising the risk of a 4th surge driven by these new variants. Vaccine distribution in the city has been spotty and concerns of racial and economic inequities in terms of access to the vaccine have not been sufficiently addressed. Black and Brown community members in Cambridge are contracting COVID at rates at least 3 times higher than whites and are dying at rates 1.5 times higher than whites. I’m hearing from concerned members of the community about their relatives dying and the city’s failure to protect them. What is the scientific basis for reopening the city now to the degree that we are, including the complete lifting of indoor dining capacity limits and soon the opening of large venues, when our new case counts are stabilizing at such dangerously high levels, the risk of a 4th surge driven by variants is so great, and our Black and Brown community members remain disproportionately exposed?

2. More than 1 year into this devastating pandemic, the city has repeatedly refused to adopt a housing for all approach, despite the availability of federal funding to reimburse 100% of the costs of providing non-congregate shelter. What is the justification for this inhumane approach that leaves unhoused people vulnerable to the winter weather, COVID exposure, and the enormous stresses and mental health challenges of living on the streets?

3. Outdoor dining was a lifeline for many of our small businesses in 2020, can we get an update on when it will come back and in what form? How will we ensure that there is even better outreach to minority and women-owned businesses during the 2021 season? In particular, how can we bring the successes of Inman Square’s approach (which included partial lane closures) to other neighborhoods that would benefit from such a dramatic intervention?

4. Additional open space created through Memorial Drive closures and the Shared Streets program was a lifeline for many residents in 2020. When will Memorial Drive closures begin in 2021, and is the city supportive of expanding them beyond the weekend? How can we learn from the successes and challenges of the Shared Streets program to ensure all residents have access to legitimate recreation space, including and especially residents of the Port, Wellington-Harrington, and East Cambridge?

HEARING SCHEDULE (via Zoom and TV)
Mon, Mar 8
5:30pm City Council Meeting (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Mar 10
5:00pm The Ordinance Committee will meet to continue discussion on the Real Estate Transfer Fee Home Rule Petition (of July 27, 2020). (Sullivan Chamber)

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Health and Environment Committee met to continue discussing amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Date: Tues, Nov 10, 2020, 10:00am, Sullivan Chamber

Present: Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Absent: Carlone, McGovern
Mayor Siddiqui was also present.

Councillor Zondervan called the meeting to order.

Owen O'Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works, made a presentation which is attached to these minutes. He reminded committee members that the proposed amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance include many ideas that were generated through the urban forestry master planning efforts and through discussions with the 18-member Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force. He said these suggestions are being made with the goals of addressing the reduction in size of the tree canopy, as well as improving both tree health and awareness of these issues with respect to climate change. He reviewed the origins of the tree protection ordinance. The amendment will encourage additional planting across the city, but at the same time discourage the removal of trees. The amendments will redefine a significant tree as one with a diameter (DBH) of 6-inches or greater at 4.5 feet (industry standard). Going from 8-inches to 6 will qualify about 50% more trees for protection. The staff is examining the legality of having the city arborist sign off on certificates of occupancy prior to those being issued. If a living significant tree is removed, then an applicant will pay into a mitigation fund at the cost of about $1,000 an inch. This cost would be eliminated for low-income homeowners, and would be reduced by 90% for homeowners with a residential exemption on their property taxes and potentially by another 50% if a new tree is planted. The amendments will introduce the concept of exceptional trees, which are 30-inch or greater diameter trees. They constitute about 3% of the trees in the city and are worthy of additional protection. And we know they obviously have a significant ecological benefit in the community. He said one option the council has to consider is to value those trees at 1.5 times the DBH.

He said the requirement for a tree survey would be removed from the definition section and redefined as something that applies only to large projects. He said that for large projects, the tree plan would require the location, type, heights, and DBH of all trees and those trees that have been removed from the lot within one year prior to the submission of the study. He said that the council should consider expanding the look back period to be two years instead of one. He said that anything beyond two years would be challenging for the city to manage. Commissioner O’Riordan said that the definition of a replacement tree would be changed to reflect the concept of replacement trees applying to other removal scenarios, as well as large project removals. He said that replacement trees can be planted on the same lot or on another lot within the same neighborhood or an adjoining neighborhood.

Councillor Zondervan opened the floor to the committee.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan, Mr. O'Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works stated that the Task Force placed an emphasis on encouraging the replanting of trees on private property. He explained that the taskforce received considerable input from the Conservation Law Foundation. They reviewed similar ordinances in Atlanta and Providence.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler confirmed that a replacement of an exceptional tree would be calculated at 1.5 times the DBH of the tree removed. Mr. O’Riordan confirmed and stated that the staff estimates that about 3% of the trees in the city are exceptional trees. He added that the staff are considering forming a committee to oversee the tree replacement fund and using it to facilitate tree replacement and maintenance on private property.

Roy Russell, 40 Cottage Street, is opposed to the existing and proposed tree ordinance; it is punitive and will not result in significant improvement in the tree canopy. He stated that someone with plenty of resources can easily afford the cost of an arborist or an engineer or both. But someone who is a retired homeowner living on a fixed income may be quite challenged to come up with funds needed to manage the trees. He encouraged the conversion of private driveways to green space by implementing parking space maximums rather than the existing parking space minimums.

Councillor Zondervan moved to close public comment.

Yea: Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Absent: Carlone, McGovern

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan about the look back provisions of the potential amendments, Mr. O'Riordan stated that fs a developer proposes a large development, and clear cuts significant trees on that large developments, six months ago, and the council eliminates the look back period, then the developer would be afforded the same mitigation as a small residential property owner, rather than the more stringent mitigation requirement that presently exists for large projects.

In response to a question about the legality of regulating the cutting of trees on private property by Councillor Nolan, Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor, stated the law department does not believe that regulating the removal of trees on a person’s property would constitute a taking of property.

Councillor Patricia Nolan stated that she would feel more comfortable getting a formal legal opinion prior to passing any amendments. She did not support a blanket exemption for affordable housing projects.

With regard to potential amendments to section 8.66.055, Councillor Nolan stated that she supported the following language:
“For any significant tree removal not subject to 8.66.050: the total DBH of Replacement Trees required or the Mitigation Payment of equivalent value shall be estimated as half the actual DBH of significant Trees to be removed, If the total number of Replacement Trees is equal to the total number of Significant Trees to be removed from a lot.”

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler supported valuing exceptional trees at 1.5 times their diameter. He did not support a blanket exemption for affordable housing projects.

Councillor Zondervan suggested having the city pay the mitigation costs for affordable housing projects.

Councillor Zondervan and Councillor Nolan discussed extending the tree protection ordinance moratorium at the full council while these changes are being finalized by staff.

Councillor Nolan moved to adjourn.

Yea: Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Absent: Carlone, McGovern

Documents received:
1. A communication was received from Owen O'Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works, regarding the Tree Protection Ordinance.

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee met to conduct a public hearing on amendments to the Domestic Partnership Ordinance.
Date: Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 5:30pm, Sullivan Chamber

Present: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Simmons (late), Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Zondervan
Absent: Nolan

Councillor McGovern called the meeting to order.

John Gintell, Cambridge LGBTQ+ Commission Co-Chair, stated that individuals in domestic partnerships should not have to wait very long if they would like to file a new domestic partnership.

Kimberly Rhoten, PhD student at Boston University, explained that about 20% of all Americans, in the course of their lifetime, are known to participate in some form of consensual non monogamous relationship.

Alexander Chen, founding Director of the Harvard Law School LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic and Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law schools, explained that, historically, domestic partnership ordinances have requirements, over and above the requirements for marriage, due to homophobia. Domestic partnerships historically have provided fewer benefits than marriage, but also had more onerous requirements. There is no legal barrier to removing certain requirements. He stated that some of these requirements can be intimidating to would-be applicants. He did not believe there were any legal issues with multiple individuals having multiple domestic partners. He stated that there are good reasons to not have that partnership dissolve upon the death of a partner, because the other partners may need benefits that are only available through the partnership.

Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor, agreed that domestic partnerships are a creatures of local law. There is not a state law that specifically applies.

Mayor Siddiqui explained that the removal of termination upon death of an individual in the partnership is a policy decision. She did not support having the partnership dissolved upon the death of one partner in a multi-partner domestic partnership.

Councillor Zondervan expressed interest in learning about the positives and negatives of having a multi-partner domestic partnership survive the death of one of the partners.

Mr. Chen shared redline edits that he made to the proposed ordinance with the committee.

Motion to adopt amendment from Law Department memo by Vice Mayor Mallon
Yea: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Nay: -
Present: Toomey
Absent: Nolan, Simmons

In response to a question from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Kimberly Rhoten stated that the language about the proof of the existence of the relationship should be clarified because consensually, non-monogamous relationships are highly stigmatized. Data from psychologists shows that these relationships are often looked down upon in terms of stability and morality. Kimberly Rhoten cautioned against evidence of outward signed of polyamorous relationships because there is so much stigma.

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Mallon about how to add people to an existing domestic partnership, Mr. Chen stated that he will provide proposed language to the committee to resolve this issue.

In response to a question from Mayor Mallon, Mr. Goldberg state the evidence of proof of the relationship is one or more, not all of the items listed.

Vice Mayor Mallon supported making the evidence requirement optional.

Mr. Chen expressed support for Vice Mayor Mallon’s position.

Kimberly Rhoten drew the distinction between a person voluntarily disclosing their non-monogamous relationship to the city versus having that information being involuntarily disclosed in other contexts.

Councillor McGovern opened the floor to public comment. No one was available to speak.

Motion to close public comment by Councillor McGovern
Yea: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Zondervan
Absent: Nolan

At the request of Councillor McGovern explained the potential amendments that he submitted to the committee.

Mr. Gintell expressed concerns about the 6-month waiting period between when a person ends one domestic partnership and when they can enter another one.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern, Anthony Wilson, City Clerk, explained that a minimum there is a 90 day wait between when judgment of divorce enters for a person and when that person can apply for a new marriage.

Councillor Zondervan stated that a waiting period for domestic partnership does not make sense because the ordinance will allow a person to be in multiple domestic partnerships at the same time.

Councillor McGovern moved to amend Section 2.119.030 to read as follows:

2.119.030 - Registration and withdrawal.

A. Persons who meet the criteria set out in subsection D of Section 2.119.020 may make an official record of their domestic partnership by filing a domestic partnership registration form with the City Clerk. The domestic partnership registration shall include the name and date of birth of each of the domestic partners, and the name and dates of birth of any dependents of the domestic partnership, and shall be signed, under the pains and penalties of perjury, by all domestic partners.

B. Domestic partners may amend the domestic partnership registration to add or delete domestic partners, dependents, or change the household address. Amendments to the domestic partnership registration shall be signed, under the pains and penalties of perjury, by all domestic partners.

C. Any person in a domestic partnership may voluntarily withdraw from the domestic partnership by filing a withdrawal statement. The death of a domestic partner functions as an automatic withdrawal from the domestic partnership as to that partner.

1. Any person in a domestic partnership may voluntarily withdraw from the domestic partnership by filing with the City Clerk, by hand or by certified mail, withdrawal statement. The person filing the withdrawal statement must declare under pains and penalties of perjury that they are withdrawing from the domestic partnership and that a copy of the withdrawal statement has been mailed by certified mail to the other domestic partners at their last known addresses. The person filing the withdrawal statement must include on such statement the addresses to which the copy was mailed. The fee for a domestic partnership termination shall be $5.00.

2. The death of a domestic partner functions as an automatic withdrawal from the domestic partnership as to that partner.

D. If there are only two persons in the domestic partnership, withdrawal of one person terminates the domestic partnership. If there are more than two persons in the domestic partnership, withdrawal of one partner does not terminate the domestic partnership as to the remaining persons in the domestic partnership. The voluntary withdrawal from a domestic partnership by a partner shall be effective seven days after the receipt of a withdrawal statement by the City Clerk. Prior to becoming effective, the person who filed the withdrawal statement may retract the withdrawal statement in person at the office of the City Clerk. If the withdrawal statement is retracted, the domestic partner shall give notice of the withdrawal, by certified mail, to the other domestic partners. The withdrawal of a deceased person from a domestic partnership shall be effective immediately upon the death of that domestic partner.

E. If a domestic partnership is terminated by the death of a domestic partner, there shall be no required waiting period prior to filing another domestic partnership. If a person voluntarily withdraws from a domestic partnership, that person may not file another domestic partnership until six months have elapsed from withdrawal.

Yea: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Present: Toomey
Absent: Nolan, Simmons

Councillor McGovern moved to insert "or more" in 2.119.020 D.
Yea: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Present: Toomey
Absent: Nolan, Simmons

Councillor McGovern moved to delete section 2.119.020E.
Yea: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Present: Toomey
Absent: Nolan, Simmons

Mayor Siddiqui moved to refer the Ordinance as amended to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Yea: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Present: Toomey
Absent: Nolan, Simmons

Councillor Carlone moved to adjourn.
Yea: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Zondervan
Absent: Nolan, Simmons

1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a response to Policy Order No. O-8 of July 27, 2020, regarding a review of the proposed amendments to Chapter 2.119 of the Municipal Code - the Domestic Partnership Ordinance.

2. A communication was received from Alexander Chen, Founding Director, Harvard Law School LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic regarding amendments to the Domestic Partnership Ordinance.

3. A communication was received from Alexander Chen, Founding Director, Harvard Law School LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic regarding amendments to the Domestic Partnership Ordinance.

4. A communication was received from Alexander Chen, Founding Director, Harvard Law School LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic regarding amendments to the Domestic Partnership Ordinance.

5. That the Domestic Partnership Ordinance of the City of Cambridge be amended according to recommendations from the Ordinance Committee.

Proposed Order Mar 8, 2021
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
VICE MAYOR MALLON

WHEREAS: The Ordinance Committee met on Jan 20, 2021 to conduct a hearing on amendments to Chapter 2.119 of the Domestic Partnership Ordinance; and

WHEREAS: The Ordinance Committee voted to forward the following amendments to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation; now therefore be it

ORDERED: That section 2.119.020(D) of the Ordinances of the City of Cambridge be amended to read as follows:

D. "Domestic partnership" means the entity formed by two or more persons who meet the following criteria and jointly file a registration statement proclaiming that:

1. They are in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship; and

~~2. They reside together; and~~

~~3 2. They are not married to anyone outside the partnership; and~~ [deleted - QZ]

4 3 2. They are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and

5 4 3. ~~They are each other's sole domestic partner~~ They are not in a domestic partnership with others outside this partnership; and

6 5 4. They are competent to contract; and

7 6 5. They consider themselves to be a family.

ORDERED: That section 2.119.020(E) of the Ordinances of the City of Cambridge be deleted in its entirety:

~~E. Subsequent to the filing of a registration form, the existence of a "family" relationship may be shown by evidence relevant to the following factors:~~

~~1. The manner in which the people live their daily lives;~~

~~2. How they hold their relationship out to the world;~~

~~3. Their emotional and financial commitment;~~

~~4. Their reliance on each other for daily family services;~~

~~5. The longevity of their relationship; and~~

~~6. Any other factors which may be relevant.~~

ORDERED: That section 2.119.030 of the Ordinances of the City of Cambridge be amended to read as follows:

2.119.030 - Registration and withdrawal ~~termination~~.

A. Persons who meet the criteria set out in subsection D of Section 2.119.020 may make an official record of their domestic partnership by filing a domestic partnership registration form with the City Clerk. The domestic partnership registration shall include the name and date of birth of each of the domestic partners, ~~the address of their common household~~, and the name and dates of birth of any dependents of the domestic partnership, and shall be signed, under the pains and penalties of perjury, by all ~~both~~ domestic partners.

B. Domestic partners may amend the domestic partnership registration to add or delete domestic partners, dependents, ~~or change the household address~~. Amendments to the domestic partnership registration shall be signed, under the pains and penalties of perjury, by all ~~both~~ domestic partners.

C. If any member of the domestic partnership is married or in another domestic partnership, notice of the registration of this domestic partnership and/or of the addition of new partner(s) to this domestic partnership must be given by certified mail to any marital or domestic partnersoutside of this domestic partnership. [QZ addition]

D. C. ~~A domestic partnership is terminated by the death of a domestic partner or by the filing of a termination statement by a domestic partner~~. Any person in a domestic partnership may voluntarily withdraw from the domestic partnership by filing a withdrawal statement.

1. ~~The death of a domestic partner automatically terminates a domestic partnership.2.~~ Any person in a domestic partnership may voluntarily withdraw from the domestic partnership by filing ~~A domestic partnership may be terminated by a domestic partner who files~~ with the City Clerk, by hand or by certified mail, a ~~termination~~ withdrawal statement. The person filing the withdrawal ~~termination~~ statement must declare under pains and penalties of perjury that they are withdrawing from the domestic partnership ~~is terminated~~ and that a copy of the ~~termination~~ withdrawal statement has been mailed by certified mail to the other domestic partners at ~~his or her~~ their last known addresses. The person filing the ~~termination~~ withdrawal statement must include on such statement the addresses to which the copy was mailed. The fee for a domestic partnership withdrawal ~~termination~~ shall be $5.00.

2. The death of a domestic partner functions as an automatic withdrawal from the domestic partnership as to that partner.

E. D. If there are only two persons in the domestic partnership, withdrawal of one person terminates the domestic partnership. If there are more than two persons in the domestic partnership, withdrawal of one partner does not terminate the domestic partnership as to the remaining persons in the domestic partnership. ~~The termination of a domestic partnership shall be effective immediately upon the death of a domestic partner.~~ The voluntary withdrawal ~~termination of~~ from a domestic partnership by a partner shall be effective seven days after the receipt of a withdrawal ~~termination~~n statement by the City Clerk. Prior to becoming effective, the person who filed the withdrawal ~~termination~~ statement may retract ~~withdraw~~ the withdrawal ~~termination~~ statement in person or by certified mail at the office of the City Clerk. If the withdrawal ~~termination~~ statement is retracted ~~withdrawn~~, the domestic partner shall give notice of the retraction, by certified mail, to the other domestic partners. The withdrawal of a deceased person from a domestic partnership shall be effective immediately upon the death of that domestic partner.

F. E. If a domestic partnership is terminated by the death of a domestic partner, there shall be no required waiting period prior to filing another domestic partnership. If a person voluntarily withdraws from a domestic partnership, ~~is terminated by one or both domestic partners, neither~~ that person may not ~~domestic partner may~~ file another domestic partnership until ~~six months~~ ninety days have elapsed from withdrawal ~~termination~~.

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

19-145. 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

20-63. Report on a review of 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.
Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (O-6) 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

20-68. Report on a request by the Council for the City Manager to confer with the Metro Mayor’s Association to close indoor dining, gyms, casinos and other non-essential indoor activities as soon as possible and organize a small business and restaurant relief program that will assist during this second shutdown and efforts to stop community spread of COVID-19 and keep schools open.
(Calendar Item #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

21-1. 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

21-3. 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

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

21-5. Report on parameters on eligible expenses from free cash.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons (O-4) from 1/11/2021

21-6. 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

21-7. 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

21-8. 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

21-9. 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

21-10. Report on removing hostile architecture whenever public spaces are designed or redesigned and to create design guidelines that ensure our public spaces are truly welcoming to the entire community and determine how existing bench fixtures can be addressed to support all residents who use them.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui (Calendar Item #3) from 2/8/2021

21-11. Report on providing an overview of various programs and services that are designed to assist the City’s chronically unhoused population and those in danger of becoming unhoused, along with the metrics by which the City determines the effectiveness of these programs.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toomey, Vice Mayor Mallon (O-1) from 2/22/2021

21-12. Report 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.
(O-5) from 2/22/2021

21-13. Report on providing an update of the June 2020 budget agreement, including which of the positions listed in the agreement have been filled and if savings from leaving some police department positions vacant were used to fund the new positions.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan (O-3) from 3/1/2021