2. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a grant received from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Accelerating Climate Resiliency (ACR) Grant Program, in the amount of $52,250 to the Grant Fund Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance Account which will be used for technical assistance for 1) planning and permitting the expansion of the floating wetland pilot in the Charles; 2) outlining and disseminating a permitting road map and lessons learned that can enable similar capital, resiliency projects; and 3) engagement with the wider community to support understanding of water quality and to inform the expansion process.
Order Adopted 9-0

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

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of a grant received from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Accelerating Climate Resiliency (ACR) Grant Program, in the amount of $52,250 to the Grant Fund Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance Account.

In Summer 2020, in partnership with the state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the City of Cambridge, and Northeastern University, the Charles River Conservancy (CRC) installed a 700 square foot floating wetland in the Charles River. This singular floating wetland is a pilot project, and will enable research on the effect of habitat restoration on improving water quality, specifically controlling toxic algal blooms.

Funds will be used for technical assistance for 1) planning and permitting the expansion of the floating wetland pilot in the Charles; 2) outlining and disseminating a permitting road map and lessons learned that can enable similar capital, resiliency projects; and 3) engagement with the wider community to support understanding of water quality and to inform the expansion process.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2021 and ending Mar 31, 2022. [City Manager letter]
Order Adopted 9-0

Agenda Item Number 4     Mar 22, 2021
ORDERED: That the following block rate for water consumption and sewer use in the City of Cambridge be in effect for the period beginning April 1, 2021 and ending March 31, 2022:

	Annual Consumption*	FY21 Water Rate	FY22 Proposed Water Rate	FY21 Sewer Rate	FY22 Proposed Sewer Rate
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF	$3.02	$3.05	$12.51	$13.51
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF	$3.24	$3.27	$13.22	$14.28
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF	$3.44	$3.47	$14.20	$15.34
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF	$3.65	$3.69	$15.30	$16.52
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF	$3.96	$4.00	$16.26	$17.56

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons; and be it further

ORDERED: That the Senior Citizens Discount Program gives either a 15 percent or 30 percent discount on water/sewer bills, depending upon certain qualifications. Any resident who owns and occupies his/her own home and who is 65 or older on July 1 qualifies for the 15 percent discount. This discount may not exceed $90 for the fiscal year. To qualify for the 30 percent discount, a homeowner must be 65 years of age or older and must have been granted the Clause 41C Elderly Real Estate Exemption, which is based on the demonstrated financial need. This discount may not exceed $180 for the fiscal year.

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to suggested zoning text amendments as well as amendments to Chapter 5.50 of the Municipal Code regarding cannabis delivery businesses. [Law Department memo] [Zoning text] [Municipal Code]
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

Please find attached suggested zoning text amendments as well as suggested amendments to Chapter 5.50 of the Municipal Code regarding cannabis delivery businesses.

It is recommended that the suggested zoning text amendments be referred to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee for a hearing and report and the suggested amendments to the Municipal Code be referred to the Ordinance Committee.

6. Standing in Solidarity with Asian Community and Condemning White Supremacy.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey
Adopted as Amended 9-0

R-6     Mar 22, 2021  Amended
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY

WHEREAS: The City Council was saddened to learn about the brutal attack and murders of eight individuals, including 6 women of Asian descent, near Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday night; and

WHEREAS: There has been sharp increase in hate crimes in the United States, where we have seen innocent lives taken in schools, workplaces, and centers of worship; and

WHEREAS: The racist and xenophobic attacks against the Asian community continues to rise to an increased and disproportionate level of race-based hate crimes since the beginning of the pandemic, with a backdrop of generations of racism woven into our country’s fabric; and

WHEREAS: Too often, women of color become the faceless, nameless victims of those who perpetuate racial and gender-targeted violence; and

WHEREAS: Stop AAPI Hate’s National Report for 2020-2021 stated that AAPI women report hate crimes 2.3 more times than AAPI men, and that 35.4% of discrimination happens at work and 25.3% in public spaces; and

WHEREAS: According to the Pew Research Center, 3 in 10 Asian Americans (31%) report having experienced racial slurs or racist jokes since the beginning of the pandemic; and

RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record acknowledging that these violent attacks constitute a hate crime, and were carried out to fatally attack women and women of Asian descent; and be further

RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record condemning white supremacy and the violent attacks that occurred Tuesday night and standing in solidarity with our Asian American community in Cambridge and beyond.

COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui and Vice Mayor Mallon transmitting information about a Commercial Composting Pilot Program in Cambridge. [Cambridge Table to Farm Commercial Composting Report] [Cambridge Table to Farm Composting Fact Sheet]
Placed on File 9-0

To: Cambridge City Council
From: Sumbul Siddiqui, Mayor and Alanna Mallon, Vice Mayor
Date: Mar 18, 2021
Subject: Communicating Information About a Commercial Composting Pilot Program in Cambridge

To the Honorable, the City Council:
We were pleased to see unanimous support for Policy Order 2021 #45, to explore the feasibility of creating a Commercial Composting Pilot Program to serve at least 100 small businesses with fewer than fifty employees. We are attaching a two-page fact sheet and report titled, “Proposal for a Commercial Composting Pilot Program in Cambridge” published by Cambridge Table to Farm. The report provides detailed information about the environmental and financial considerations for implementing this program.

Please reach out to us if you have any questions.

Respectfully,
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui
Vice-Mayor Alanna Mallon

2. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting an update on the Charter Assessment Review. [Siddiqui memo] [Collins Center memo] [Appendices]
Placed on File 9-0

TO: CITY OF CAMBRIDGE
FROM: SUMBUL SIDDIQUI, MAYOR
SUBJECT: CHARTER ASSESSMENT: REVIEW + REFORM
DATE: 3.18.2021
CC: CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

A communication from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting an update on the Charter Assessment Review.

CHARTER REVIEW AND REFORM
Pursuant to the unanimously adopted policy order of July 27, 2020, the City Council has begun the formal review process of the city’s Plan E. charter. On Sept 23, 2020, the Council held a special meeting to discuss the proposed review with a presentation by The Collins Center for Public Management, who outlined the process for a formal charter review.

On January 29, 2021, the City executed a professional services agreement with The Collins Center, with deliverables including 2 memoranda presenting the major options of Forms of Government available to Cambridge, the key differences between these options, and a second memo summarizing the Council’s feedback regarding the current Charter and Form of Government, providing options for pathways the Council might consider moving forward, respectively.

As of March 11, 2021, the Collins Center delivered the draft first memo, which includes background on forms of government in Massachusetts, history of Cambridge’s Charter and potential options for change. During the week of March 15, 2021, the Collins Center team met with each Councillor individually (individual meetings to conclude on 3/19/2021) to discuss the draft first memo, and to hear Councillors’ perspectives and feedback regarding the proposed options.

The next steps for the project will be to draft the second memo, based on the information drawn from the individual discussions and any recommendations that resulted from these conversations. The two drafts will then be provided to the Mayor and City Manager for review. All feedback from the Mayor and City Manager will then be complied into the final versions of the memoranda. The Collins Center (at the request of the City Manager or Council) will present the final memoranda, as well as answer any questions at a regular meeting of the City Council.

3. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, transmitting communicating information from the School Committee.
Placed on File 9-0

To: Cambridge City Council
From: Sumbul Siddiqui, Mayor
Date: Mar 18th, 2021
Subject: Communicating information from the School Committee

To the Honorable, the City Council:
Next month, CPS will transition to full-time, in-person learning for students at the elementary and upper school levels due to new state requirements. All families still have the option for their children to participate in fully remote learning. Elementary and upper school families with remote learners received an enrollment form that was due on Wed, March 17th.

• Elementary schools and Amigos start Monday, April 5th
  • No action was needed for current in-person learners: students will automatically be included in the full-day, five-days-a-week schedule
  • Families of current remote learners were required to complete the enrollment form to select in-person or remote learning. No response indicates continuation of remote learning
• Upper schools start Wednesday, April 28th
  • All families were required to complete the enrollment form to select in-person or remote learning for their student. No response indicates continuation of the current instruction mode
• High school details have not yet been announced by the state
  • I will share more information when it becomes available

Schools are currently working on developing schedules that accommodate family interests, staff accommodations, and support both in-person and remote learners. CPS asks that families keep the following in mind:

• Physical setup: the state requires that classrooms allow for at least 3 feet physical distancing and at least 6 feet physical distancing during mealtimes
• Classroom assignments: shifting to in-person may mean that students change teachers or classrooms. Families cannot request a specific teacher or classroom and might not find out classroom and teacher configurations until schedules are finalized
• Possibility of live streaming: Depending on staffing and space considerations, “in-person” learning may include being taught by an in-person teacher or learning through a CPS device with instruction being provided by a teacher who is still remote
• “COVID-19 Hardship Process” on Hold: Due to these changes, CPS is pausing this process that allows families to request changes to their instructional mode until further notice

Robin Harris, CPS’s Director of Family Engagement, and I have organized a series of Q&A conversations with the Cambridge Public Health Department for parents and caregivers (particularly of students in remote learning) to ensure that all of our families are fully informed about the health and safety protocols we have implemented in our schools. The first COVID Conversation will be held via Zoom on March 24th at 6:00pm for parents and caregivers at FMA, Cambridgeport, Kennedy-Longfellow, and CSUS. Please share this registration link with anyone you know who may be interested.

Superintendent Salim has appointed Manuel Fernandez, current Head of the Cambridge Street Upper School, as the Interim Chief Equity Officer for the upcoming 2021-22 school year. Manuel will begin his tenure as Interim Chief Equity Officer on July 1st, 2021. His responsibility in this role will be to help build and oversee the Office of Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging, coach school and district leaders, and serve as a member of the Superintendent’s Cabinet leadership team.

At the Special Meeting at 6:00pm on Thurs, March 18th, the Superintendent is presenting his proposed FY22 budget to the School Committee, which he says, “builds on the investments we’ve made in recent years and focuses on key actions needed to support all students to recover and thrive next school year and beyond.”

Please check out CPS’s full mask guidance that explains the three factors that should be considered when choosing the right mask—fit, filtration, and wearability.

The Ad-Hoc Superintendent Search Subcommittee, which I chair, convened in Executive Session with Chief Talent Officer Lisa Richardson for a preliminary screening of applicants on Fri, March 12th,

Wed, March 17th, and will meet again at 9:00am on Sat, March 20th.

Our upcoming meetings are as follows:

• Thursday, March 18th, 2021
  • Special Meeting | 6:00pm
    • To review the Superintendent’s FY22 Proposed Budget
• Saturday, March 20th
  • Executive Session | 9:00am
    • To conduct a preliminary screening of applicants for the Interim Superintendent position
• Monday, March 22nd
  • School Climate Subcommittee Meeting | 6:00pm
    • To discuss mental health and social emotional learning plans for SY 21-22
• Tuesday, March 23rd, 2021
  • Budget Workshop | 6:00pm
    • To review the Superintendent’s FY22 Proposed Budget
• Wednesday, March 24th, 2021
  • Special Education and Student Supports Subcommittee | 3:30pm
    • To discuss information regarding spring MCAS implementation and accommodations, building empathy, and summer services for scholars with IEPs/504s
• Thursday, March 25th, 2021
  • Public Hearing | 6:00pm
    • 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

4. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, transmitting questions for the City Manager's COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 9-0

TO: LOUIS A. DEPASQUALE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: SUMBUL SIDDIQUI, MAYOR
SUBJECT: COVID-19 UPDATE: QUESTIONS
DATE: 3.18.2021
CC: CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

COVID-19 UPDATE QUESTIONS

COUNCILLOR MALLON:
1. Parents are wondering what the DHSP plans are for a "Spring on the Fields" program as well as plans for IN PERSON summer camps and programming. Will DHSP be offering an outdoor afterschool activity program like they did in the Fall and if/when will they be announcing in-person summer programming plans.

2. Can you please provide an update on when the Cambridge public libraries will be open for browsing. The libraries have been closed for over a year for in-person browsing, and bookstores have remained open safely with state mandated capacity limits. This has created an inequity in who in our community can access new reading materials. As we continue to move toward an opening of other departments to the public, a plan with an opening date needs to be announced for this critical resource for our residents, especially our youngest readers.

COUNCILLOR NOLAN
1. What is the current thinking on extending outdoor places in our streets and how will we include the community in discussions of whether the current parking spots and sidewalks being used will continue throughout the pandemic and beyond.

2. What do we know about a schedule for summer programs for all city sponsored programs, for adults and youth and children?

MAYOR SIDDIQUI:
1. The federal government recently announced that they released vaccine equity funding to increase trust, vaccine acceptance and administration for the 20 equity municipalities – how is CPHD referencing these strategies for our continued local efforts for vaccine equity (even if we aren’t among those 20 municipalities)?

2. After Cambridge Court Apartments, what is the next building to receive on-site vaccination? 808-812 Memorial Drive, 402 Rindge have a number of CHA voucher households with elderly residents.

COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
1. Now that the Metro North Regional Vaccine Partnership sites have been announced in Somerville, what is the City doing to publicize the launch dates to Cambridge residents and ensure that residents can access the appointments?

COUNCILLOR TOOMEY:
1. Have Cambridge residents outwardly expressed specific concerns or hesitations around any of the available COVID-19 vaccines?

COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
1. Many scholars living in the Port, including in public housing buildings like Washington Elms and Newtowne Court, have relied on the 68 bus to get to CRLS each morning. The MBTA recently cut the 68 route as part of its “Forging Ahead” service cuts. How has the city worked with the MBTA to ensure impacted scholars can still get to school on time? Has there been any direct communication between the city and the impacted scholars? While the MBTA has made some accommodations in the afternoon, has the city asked them to run a single route of the 68 bus in the morning so that those scholars can easily make it to CRLS?

2. 120 residents currently relying on the CASCAP Representative Payee program to obtain their social security benefits each month will lose access to their money when the program ends at the end of April 2021. Just 20 of those residents will be able to access the same services through BayCove. The $800-$900 that folks have been collecting each month from Social Security has been a lifeline during this historic pandemic, so it is important that we prevent a coverage gap. However, it can take up to six weeks to change somebody’s Representative Payee, and that’s assuming an alternative provider is even available. Time is running out. What is the city’s plan to ensure homeless residents in Cambridge do not lose access to their Social Security benefits when they are already strained by the COVID-19 pandemic?

3. On March 18, 2021, Governor Baker announced that Massachusetts will reopen to Phase IV, Step 1. This means, among other things, that large capacity sports and entertainment venues will be permitted to operate at 12% capacity, gathering limits for event venues and in public settings will increase to 100 people indoors and 150 people outdoors, and that dance floors will be permitted at weddings and other events. This level of re-opening conflicts directly with the advice from national experts, as well as our own Expert Advisory Panel, and puts our community at grave risk of a COVID resurgence given the presence of new rapidly spreading variants, reduced testing capacity, and the nascent stage of the vaccine rollout. Will Cambridge re-open to Phase IV, Step 1 on Monday, and if so, what venues would be allowed to open in Cambridge that aren’t currently operating, and at what capacity? How will we protect our most vulnerable residents who continue to bear the brunt of this pandemic, including our low-income and Black and Brown communities?

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Mar 22, 2021  Amended
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is committed to ensuring and safeguarding the health, safety, and environment of the residents of our community; and
WHEREAS: Wood-burning biomass are known to release pollutants including fine particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide; and
WHEREAS: The Commonwealth adopted science-driven Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) regulations in 2012 recognizing that wood-burning power plants emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel power plants per unit of energy generated; and
WHEREAS: Due to the 2012 RPS regulations, the only wood-burning biomass plants eligible for Massachusetts renewable energy incentives have been small, efficient combined-heat-and-power biomass plants; and
WHEREAS: If the weakened RPS regulations proposed in December 2020 by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) go into effect, Massachusetts incentives would be available for inefficient large-scale biomass power plants; and
WHEREAS: The proposed RPS regulations would wrongly incentivize the construction of a largescale wood-burning biomass plant proposed by Palmer Renewable Energy in Springfield, an Environmental Justice community already heavily burdened by industrial air pollution and by record-setting rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses; and
WHEREAS: The Council has ......................
WHEREAS: Cambridge stands in solidarity with the residents of the City of Springfield, and the Springfield City Council, which passed a resolution on Dec 21, 2020, opposing Massachusetts state incentives for wood-burning biomass plants; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the Council opposes any state incentives for inefficient commercial wood-burning biomass plants in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Council calls upon the Massachusetts DOER to revise the proposed RPS regulations by returning the woody biomass provisions to their previous, science-based language; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Council calls upon the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy of the Massachusetts Legislature to hold an accessible public hearing on said proposed RPS regulations; and be it further
ORDERED: That a copy of this resolution is sent to Governor Charlie Baker and the entire state delegation from Cambridge.

O-2     Mar 22, 2021
VICE MAYOR MALLON
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: Public transportation is a lifeline for our residents, especially lower-income residents and communities of color who are more likely to lack access to cars; and
WHEREAS: The cost of public transportation is often burdensome, and can create a barrier to civic participation, especially for low-income or BIPOC communities who face a disproportionately high number of hurdles to the voting box, and typically vote at lower rates than white or higher-income residents; and
WHEREAS: The recently introduced HD.2474 and SD.1557, the FARE Act, would make public transit free on the days of all statewide primary and general elections; and
WHEREAS: By making bus, subway, and trolley service from the MBTA and the state’s 15 other regional transit authorities free on Election Day, the FARE Act will allow vulnerable residents to make their voices heard, and help ensure our political leadership accurately reflects our community’s values; and
WHEREAS: San Diego, CA; Dallas, TX; Kansas City, MO; and dozens more municipalities have made public transit fare-free on Election Days, and Los Angeles County’s decision to make public transit free on Election Day resulted in a 5% increase in bus and rail ridership, demonstrating a link between price and access; and
WHEREAS: While the City is working on a Fare-Free Bus Pilot Program, eliminating public transit fees on Election Days statewide is an important step to take to expand equitable access to civic participation as we move towards making this critical service free year-round; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record supporting HD.2474 and SD.1557, the FARE Act; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to the entire Cambridge state delegation on behalf of the City Council.

O-3     Mar 22, 2021  Amended
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: On Mar 12th, 2020, Governor Baker issued an executive order authorizing municipalities to conduct public meetings virtually, and allowing residents to give public comment remotely; and
WHEREAS: In the year since, the City Council, the Planning Board, and various other City entities have held productive remote meetings, and as we approach mass-vaccination and a new normal, it is clear that virtual participation should remain as an option for residents; and
WHEREAS: Remote participation enhances flexibility, enabling more residents, especially those who may typically find it difficult to attend an in-person public meeting, to weigh in on important community issues and participate in civic engagement, while balancing their other responsibilities, such as childcare; and
WHEREAS: While City Hall has accessibility features, residents with disabilities, such as mobility impairments, may find it easier to participate virtually, so expanding remote participation is a way to amplify the voices of people with disabilities; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has a vested interest in ensuring participation in public meetings is as convenient as possible, as doing so will encourage residents to lend their unique perspectives and better inform the City Council’s decision-making process; and
WHEREAS: Boston is currently considering making an option for remote participation permanent, and Cambridge should also ensure remote participation does not end with the pandemic; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee schedule a hearing to consider amending the City Council rules to allow for a permanent remote participation option at all public City meetings, and to ensure that the City commits to closing the digital divide that currently makes such remote participation significantly easier for those with technological access and savvy; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to explore options for including a permanant remote participation option at all public meetings in the city, including, but not limited to, the Planning Board and the BZA; and be it further
ORDERED: That the Committee report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-4     Mar 22, 2021
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: On Nov 19th, 2020, the Economic Development and University Relations Committee convened a hearing to discuss opportunities for the City to support small businesses owned by minorities, women, and other historically disadvantaged groups; and
WHEREAS: Committee members and City staff discussed the possibility of adding data from the Cambridge Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) Program to the City’s Open Data portal; and
WHEREAS: Under this program, general contractors must subcontract at least 10% of the total bid price of qualifying construction projects to MBEs, or purchase materials from MBEs, and as this program infuses a substantial amount of money into our local economy, transparency is key; and
WHEREAS: The Open Data Portal is a critical tool to ensure governmental transparency and accountability, and including data from this program will help ensure the City meets its goals in supporting local MBEs, especially during this critical time for our small business community as they continue to weather the financial impacts of this pandemic; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Department of Equity and Inclusion, the Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department, the Purchasing Department, the Information Technology Department, and other relevant City departments to provide an update on progress made towards including this information from the Cambridge Minority Business Enterprise Program in the Open Data Portal; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-5     Mar 22, 2021  Amended
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The City Council and the City of Cambridge have consistently advocated for a well-functioning public transit system as an essential part of an equitable city and a sustainable future, including advocating on Nov 9, 2020 with a unanimously sponsored resolution opposing service cuts, and yet the MBTA has cut service and proposed reductions which jeopardize the future of transit; and
WHEREAS: These cuts affect thousands of lower-income residents, who depend on public transit, including a disproportionate number of people of color, non-English speakers, and people with disabilities—precisely those most impacted by the pandemic and resulting recession, including Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian and Pacific Islander, and other communities of color; economically disadvantaged residents; and young adults who are most likely to use public transit; and
WHEREAS: The MBTA has cut service frequency temporarily for many bus and rail routes, citing low ridership during the pandemic; and suspended service on at least nine bus routes, leaving some underserved areas without good transit alternatives; and affected service in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Savings from MBTA service cuts made during the pandemic totaled about $21M yet Federal pandemic assistance for the MBTA is reportedly close to $2B, and most of MBTA federal pandemic-related funds have been allocated to capital budget or held for post-pandemic operating costs; and
WHEREAS: The Metropolitan Area Planning Council noted in its comments to the MBTA that these cuts have a direct impact on the Commonwealth’s need to produce more housing, and without more transit options new housing may increase sprawl; and
WHEREAS: Fighting climate change must include increasing access to reliable public transit yet concerns about reliability and crowding has led to congestion increasing on highways as the region slowly returns to work; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record as supportive of all efforts to fully fund the MBTA and roll back all cuts to service detailed in the “Forging Ahead” Plan; and further be it
ORDERED: That the City Clerk prepare a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution and transmit it to the Cambridge legislative delegation, Governor's Office, and the MBTA Board on behalf of the entire City Council.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Public Safety Committee met to discuss traffic enforcement and PO 2020 #178 (Order #14 of July 27, 2020).
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 10:00am, Sullivan Chamber

Present: Zondervan (Chair), Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, Mallon
Absent: Carlone
Also Present: Siddiqui

Councillor Zondervan called the meeting to order.

Councillor Zondervan opened the floor to public comment, there were no speakers present.

Councillor Zondervan explained that the meeting will focus on racial disparities in traffic stops, associated fourth amendment issues and automated enforcement. He stated that the meeting will not focus on unarmed civilian traffic enforcement.

Louie DePasquale, City Manager, explained that the staff was uncomfortable with the unarmed, civilian traffic enforcement proposal. The city is examining how to reduce the police footprint in its services. The city is setting up a committee to look into these issues.

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner, stated that Councillor Zondervan has drastically changed the topic of discussion. He stated that the change interferes with their ability to have a full discussion.

Joseph Barr, Director of Traffic, Parking & Transportation, added that the city has been having internal discussions about automated enforcement as part of the vision zero plan. He stated that having automated enforcement by itself does not solve racial disparity issues. There must be appropriate oversight.

Rahsaan Hall, Director of the American Civil Liberties Program Racial Justice Program, explained how racial profiling is used to stop motorists of color. He explained how hard it is for defendants to prove, in court, that a traffic stop is the result of racial profiling. He explained that black and Latinx drivers are pulled over twice as often as the national average. He stated that Cambridge has a large percentage of traffic stops for discretionary offenses. The city needs racial data about these stops to determine if there is evidence of disparate impact.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about whether the city can collect racial data related to traffic stops, Commissioner Bard explained that the city can collect this data and has purchased records management software to help with that process. The city is planning to collect racial data about the interactions that police have with residents, to better understand how policing is impacting communities of color. He stated that the goal is to be as transparent as possible by publicly posting statistical data in real-time.

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Mallon about the next steps for a public facing dashboard of racial profiling data, Commissioner Bard stated that the department will need free cash appropriation for the new records management system.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan about how to monitor individual interactions between police officers and drivers of color, Mr. Hall stated that non-white drivers generally are more likely to have hostile interactions with police officers, and that there is a greater likelihood that police will use or threaten use of force.

Vice Mayor Mallon moved to close public comment.
Yea: Mallon, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Absent: Carlone

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Mallon about creative responses to this issue, Mr. Hall stated the City is ahead of the game by having a Police Commissioner who is interested in and committed to collecting data. The data collected could ultimately provide justification and support for proposed legislative changes.

Vice Mayor Mallon expressed interest in learning more about traffic enforcement in Boston. Particularly, focused on the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.

In response to a question from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about privacy concerns related to automated traffic enforcement, Mr. Hall stated there are some trade-offs when considering automated traffic enforcement. He stated that the ACLU has not taken an official position on proposed legislation.

Councillor Zondervan stated that for certain violations like idling or blocking a bicycle lane, immediate enforcement may not be necessary. A civilian could simply inform the person of the violation and ask them to move on.

Mr. Hall added that technology can help reduce confrontation between police and members of the public while still tracking violations.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about the possibility of inherent bias in civilian traffic enforcement, Mr. Hall stated that one of the disparate impacts that civilian traffic enforcement can address is violent interactions between a member of the public and a police officer who has a gun.

In response to a concern from Councillor McGovern about how civilian traffic enforcement would work, Councillor Zondervan stated that the intention is to reduce the scenarios where a police officer would pull someone over.

Joseph Barr, Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation, explained that the city does have parking control supervisors who do a limited amount of traffic enforcement, specifically telling people not to block bike lanes or bus stops, or other or no stopping zones. He would not want to expand those duties without specific training.

Councillor Alanna Mallon expressed concern that discussion during the meeting was different from the call of the meeting. She stated that the staff can not properly prepare when the topic of the meeting changes at the last minute.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he did not believe that he changed the topic of discussion and explained that he reached out to the commissioner prior to the meeting.

Commissioner Bard stated that Councillor Zondervan sent an email asking whether he intended to have a presentation. Councillor Zondervan did not discuss the change of the topic of discussion with him.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about the legality of civilian traffic enforcement, Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor, stated that this may open the city to liability. There have been negligence cases brought against municipalities or the state where failure to act on the part of the city may have been viewed as contributing to the cause of an accident.

Commissioner Bard added that there are legal issues about whether an officer can issue citations based on third-party information.

Tracey Maclin, Professor of Law at Boston University, explained the legal authority that allows police officers to search vehicles. He further explained what constitutes reasonable cause or reasonable suspicion. He explained that the warrant requirement in the constitution does not apply to automobiles.

Professor Maclin gave a brief overview of how race and bias interact with motor vehicle stops from a constitutional perspective. He also noted that Cambridge could implement more restrictive laws, for example, requiring a search warrant to search a vehicle.

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

Documents to be discussed:
1. The City Manager look into transferring primary traffic enforcement responsibilities from the Cambridge Police Department to unarmed, trained enforcement personnel in the Traffic & Parking Department, Department of Public Works, Health & Human Services, or another suitable Department.

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee will meet to discuss the Real Estate Transfer Home Rule Petition.
Date: Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:30pm, Sullivan Chamber

Call to Order
Present: Carlone (Co-Chair), Mallon, McGovern (Co-Chair), Nolan (late), Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Absent: Toomey

Councillor McGovern called the meeting to order. He opened the floor to representatives of the city.

Andrew Johnson, Deputy Director of Assessing, presented information to the council which is attached to these minutes. He explained that if this had been in place of the last five years that Assessing Office estimates double the amount of revenue. He further explained that doubling the fee floor only reduces the amount of revenue by about 16%. He further explained that raising the fee floor reduced the number of small residential units affected. The commercial only option has a significant impact on revenue, the city would lose about a third of its revenue. He explained that there is a lot of variation in the commercial sales number.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan, Mr. Johnson explained that a one or two percent tax result in a 66% of the revenue would come from commercial and mixed use. The rest would be split between apartments and smaller residential.

In response to a question from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about whether transfers to affordable housing developers are exempt, Councillor Carlone stated that he was not sure but it could be added.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan about certain exemptions approved by the state, Gayle Willett, Director of Assessing, explained that some towns have first-time buyer exemptions, exemptions for vulnerable seniors, veterans, disabled or blind persons. The more exemptions, the more difficult it becomes to administer.

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

Chris Cotter, Housing Director, explained that there are a number of exemptions pending before the legislature. There will be challenge in administering a large number of exemptions.

David Kale, Assistant City Manager of Finance, stated that he spoke with Representative Decker about the likelihood of passing the petition. He stated that the legislature is focused on the budget.

Robert Reardon, Consultant, encouraged the council to work with other communities on a state wide bill. In response to a question from Vice Mayor Mallon about who collects the fees, Mrs. Willett stated it would be easiest for fees to be collected by the registry of deeds.

Mr. Reardon added that there will have to be some city involvement because the Registry of Deeds will not know the type of property from the deed.

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Mallon, Ms. Willett stated that other communities have similar home rule petitions pending before the legislature.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that she supported a $2 million floor.

Councillor Carlone stated that a $2 million will not impact many first-time home buyers. He stated that an exception for owner occupied exception should include a provision that the property be owned for a certain number of years.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about decreasing the fee based on the number of years a person has owned a property, Mr. Reardon stated that it was possible but could get complicated, especially with commercial property.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about varying the fee based on the sale price of the property, Mr. Reardon stated that it was legally permissible and was not as complicated as the previous question.

Councillor McGovern agreed that a $2 million floor was better than $1 million.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern, Mr. Reardon explained that if the state passed different transfer fee legislation the council would have to rescind its legislation and adopt the states version.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern, Mrs. Willett stated that if the fee is small then it probably would be baked into the sales price. If the fee is significant then it probably would give people pause.

Councillor Zondervan spoke in support of the transfer fee. He encouraged the council to adopt a system that is as simple as possible.

Councillor Marc McGovern 40:00
I have Councillor Nolan followed by Councillor Sabrina Wheeler, constantly. No.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan, Mrs. Willett stated that Truro and Providence town have exemptions for first time buyers who owner occupy for at least five years. Somerville has a provision for occupants who have resided in the property for at least two years or buyers who intend to be owner occupants for at least two years are exempt.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler supported keeping the floor at $1 million.

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Mallon, Mrs. Willett confirmed that her calculation was based on the whole dollar amount of the property’s sale price.

Councillor Nolan stated that whether the threshold is $1 million or $2 million dollars she supports the idea of only paying the fee on the portion of the transaction above the threshold.

Ms. Farooq explained that with regard to affordable housing neither the city nor the Affordable Housing Trust buy the land. The affordable housing builders are the ones who actually go out and procure the land.

Those purchases are financed by the Affordable Housing Trust. She spoke in support of an exemption for affordable housing developments.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler expressed concerns about the fee being transferred to renters in the form of higher rents.

Mayor Siddiqui spoke in support of having a transfer fee. She stated that the city should look closely at transfers between LLCs. She stated that the $1 million threshold could warrant further discussion Councillor McGovern and Councillor Carlone discussed allocating the money that could be generated by this fee to programs that provide housing for the homeless.

Councillor McGovern asked Ms. Willett to generate a report about the financial impact of having the fee increase as the value of the sale increases.

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

1. That the Cambridge City Council pass the attached Real Estate Transfer Fee Home Rule Petition.

2. A communication was received from Andrew Johnson, Deputy Director of Assessing, transmitting a memorandum for the Ordinance Committee meeting on Oct 28, 2020.

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee met to conduct a public hearing a petition to amend Article 8.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.
Date: Thurs, Feb 11, 2021, 5:30pm, Sullivan Chamber

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

Councillor McGovern called the meeting to order.

Councillor McGovern opened the floor to a presentation from the City.

Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor, explained that the purpose of the amendment is to align the city’s zoning ordinance with some recent developments in case law in Massachusetts. Article eight of the Cambridge zoning ordinance identifies a number of situations for preexisting non-conforming properties that wish to do some small changes and described whether the council has essentially pre-determined whether they would have a negative impact or not. Under the zoning ordinance there are certain changes that require a variance. In a recent case decided by the Supreme Judicial Court in October of 2018, which provided that certain changes represented fairly minor changes that should not have a significant impact on neighbors and should be permitted. The proposed changes would say that for certain of these relatively small improvements, like a dormer or enclosing an unenclosed porch, rather than requiring a variance, those changes could be allowed by special permit if the board of zoning appeal makes a finding under Section six of chapter 40A of Massachusetts General Law, that there is not any kind of negative impact that would detract from this change being permitted.

Jeffery Roberts, Zoning Project Planner, stated that the Planning Board has not met on the petition.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan about the impact of this change on neighbors, Solicitor Glowa stated this amendment would allow the Planning Board to determine if it would not allow such changes as a matter of right.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern, Solicitor Glowa stated that the City is recommending a change that is tailor made to Cambridge, which would allow the board of zoning appeals to make those determinations on a case by case basis.

Councillor McGovern stated that he has heard from constituents about how the variance process can be expensive and time consuming. He stated that he was in favor of streamlining the process where possible.

Councillor Nolan spoke about her experience going through the variance process 25 years ago. She spoke supportively of the proposed changes.

Councillor Nolan moved to refer the petition to city council with a favorable recommendation.
Yea: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Zondervan
Absent: Siddiqui, Simmons

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

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE:
1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Zoning Petition which amends Article 8.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.
RESULT: REFERRED TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMENDATION [7 TO 0]
YEAS: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Zondervan
ABSENT: Siddiqui, Simmons

---

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

I am writing to submit the attached Zoning Petition which amends Article 8.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. The Law Department, along with the Community Development Department and Inspectional Services Department, have prepared this Petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to comply with G.L. c.40A, §6.

A recent case from the Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) has interpreted G.L. c.40A, §6 to provide special protections to lawful preexisting nonconforming single and two-family dwellings. Bellalta v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Brookline, 481 Mass. 372 (2019).

Specifically, the SJC held that if an alteration or addition to a lawful preexisting nonconforming single and two-family dwelling increases an existing dimensional nonconformity, but does not create any new dimensional nonconformities, the property owner is only required to obtain a special permit for the alteration or addition, and not a variance. This holding is limited to lawful preexisting nonconforming single and two-family dwellings. This holding is also in conflict with Article 8.000 of the Zoning Ordinance because presently in certain instances the Zoning Ordinance requires that a property owner obtain a variance for alterations or additions to a lawful preexisting nonconforming single and two-family dwelling, even where no new nonconformities are created.

As an example, if a single or two-family dwelling is lawfully preexisting nonconforming because it exceeds the allowable Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) and the property owner has planned an addition that will further exceed the FAR but not create a new nonconformity, by law the Zoning Ordinance cannot require the property owner to obtain a variance to allow the addition. Rather, that addition requires the grant of a special permit and finding that the proposed additional will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing preexisting nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.

This Petition is necessary to bring the Zoning Ordinance into conformance with the SJC’s interpretation of G.L. c.40A, §6. The Law Department, Community Development Department and Inspectional Services Department will be available to discuss this Petition with you and with the Planning Board throughout the zoning amendment process.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

---

In Article 8.000 Nonconformity, add a Section 8.22.2(d) that reads as follows:

d. In all districts the Board of Zoning Appeal may grant a special permit for the alteration or enlargement of a preexisting dimensionally nonconforming detached single-family dwelling or two-family dwelling, not otherwise permitted in Section 8.22.1 above, but not the alteration or enlargement of a preexisting nonconforming use, provided that there is no change in use and that any enlargement or alteration of such preexisting nonconforming detached single-family dwelling or two-family dwelling may only increase a preexisting dimensional nonconformity but does not create a new dimensional nonconformity. In order to grant the special permit the Board of Zoning Appeal is required to find that the alteration or enlargement shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood, and that the alteration or enlargement satisfies the criteria in Section 10.43.