Cambridge City Council meeting - June 7, 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

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to new appointments and reappointment of members of the Harvard Square Advisory Committee.
Placed on File 9-0

June 7, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting for your notification the appointment of the persons below as members of the Harvard Square Advisory Committee. In recruiting members for this committee, the City sought applicants with a diversity of experiences and perspectives, and a desire to positively shape the future of Harvard Square. These 11 people represent the diversity of Cambridge in a number of ways, including race and ethnicity, age, gender, family status, occupation, neighborhood, and homeowner/renter status.

Harvard Square Advisory Committee Background

The Harvard Square Advisory Committee reviews and comments on land use and development proposals in the Harvard Square Overlay District per the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. The committee conducts Large Project Review consultations and comments on applications for variances and special permits from the Planning Board and Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA), as well as other proposals. The Committee meets approximately monthly or on an as-needed basis.

As amended by the City Council in 2020, the Harvard Square Advisory Committee membership must include:

(1) At least two members having recognized qualification as an architect, attorney who specializes in zoning, urban planner, architectural historian, or landscape architect.

(2) One member who operates a non-formula business within the Harvard Square Overlay District.

(3) One member owning commercial property within the Harvard Square Overlay District.

(4) Four residents living within a half mile of the Harvard Square Overlay.

(5) One member representing the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association or Neighborhood group representing Harvard Square.

(6) One member representing an institution owning institutional property in the Harvard Square Overlay District.

(7) One member representing the Cambridge Historical Commission.

Members serve terms of three years each, but are staggered initially such that four members shall have terms of one year, five members shall have terms of two years, and four members shall have terms of three years each.

The following people are recommended to be appointed to the Harvard Square Advisory Committee:

Allison Crosbie (reappointment) is a representative of the Cambridge Historical Commission; architectural historian and landscape architect; and resident who lives within a half mile of the Harvard Square Overlay District in the Mid-Cambridge neighborhood. Allison is a staff member to the Cambridge Historical Commission with extensive knowledge of historic preservation, landscape architecture, and community planning. Term Length: 3 years.

Lauren Curry (reappointment) is a resident who lives within a half mile of the Harvard Square Overlay District in the Neighborhood Nine neighborhood. Lauren is a Project Manager with JustA-Start who provides professional expertise as an affordable housing builder and an important perspective as a longtime area resident. Term Length: 1 year.

Jemel Derbali (new member) is a resident who lives within a half mile of the Harvard Square Overlay District in the Riverside neighborhood. He a business owner and the COO of Wise Systems. Jemel is a longtime Cambridge resident and graduate of Cambridge public schools, grew up and still lives near Harvard Square, and has experience with the area as a Harvard University student. He cares deeply about local businesses and public spaces in Harvard Square, and helps to reflect the diversity of the Cambridge population as a person of color and parent of a young child. Term Length: 2 years.

John DiGiovanni (reappointment) is an owner of commercial property within the Harvard Square Overlay District. John is the President of Trinity Property Management who is active in many issues in Harvard Square. He participated in the Harvard Square Conservation District Study Committee and his tenure on the Committee provides important institutional knowledge. Term Length: 1 year.

Frank Kramer (reappointment) is a resident who lives within a half mile of the Harvard Square Overlay District in the Neighborhood Nine neighborhood. He is a former local business owner, and a longtime small business advocate and resident. Term Length: 1 year.

Kari Kuelzer (reappointment) is an owner of commercial property within the Harvard Square Overlay District and an operator of a non-formula business within the Harvard Square Overlay District. Kari provides an important perspective as the owner of a local, family-run business, Grendel’s Den, and she understands role of the Committee as a facilitator of community dialogue. Term Length: 1 year.

Sara Li (new member) is an urban planner and a resident who lives within a half mile of the Harvard Square Overlay District in the Mid-Cambridge neighborhood. She has lived in Cambridge on and off for eight years, including time as an undergraduate at Harvard University and a graduate student at MIT. She works in the real estate development industry as a Senior Development Associate with The HYM Investment Group and is well-versed in the development review process. Sara understands importance of providing balanced and informed opinions, has actively sought to serve on the Committee for over a year, and helps to reflect the diversity of the Cambridge population as a young woman and as a person of color. Term Length: 2 years.

Steven Ng (new member) is an architect and Senior Design Project Manager with Related Beal who lives in Cambridge near Harvard Square. He has extensive volunteer experience with land use boards; deep knowledge of the development review process; and professional experience with planning, architecture, and real estate development. Steven has a strong interest in civic engagement, and helps to reflect the diversity of the Cambridge population as a new resident and as a person of color. Term Length: 2 years.

Alexandra Offiong (reappointment) is a representative of an institution owning institutional property in the Harvard Square Overlay District and an urban planner. She is the Director of Planning Services for Harvard University and is active in various planning initiatives in Harvard Square, including the Harvard Square Conservation District Study Committee. Term Length: 3 years.

Matt Simitis (reappointment) is an architect and a resident who lives within a half mile of the Harvard Square Overlay District in the West Cambridge neighborhood. He is a Partner in the Curl Simitis Architecture and Design firm. Matt has insightful knowledge of the development review process and urban design principles, and consistently provides thoughtful and respectful feedback in Committee discussions. Term Length: 2 years.

Nicola Williams (new member) is a representative of the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association, an operator of a non-formula business within the Harvard Square Overlay District, and a resident who lives within a half mile of the Harvard Square Overlay District in the West Cambridge neighborhood. She is a longtime resident and President of The Williams Agency, with significant volunteer and group facilitation experience and a deep knowledge of Harvard Square. Nicola understands the economic issues facing Harvard Square and seeks to make the area more engaging, inviting, and inclusive. She believes in the importance of focusing on equity and helps to reflect the diversity of the Cambridge population as a woman of color. Nicola’s appointment was recommended by the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association. Term Length: 3 years.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Missing Middle Housing (Fuller, et al.) Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Date: June 1, 2021
Subject: Missing Middle Housing (Fuller, et al.) Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board does NOT RECOMMEND adoption.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On March 30, 2021, the Planning Board (the “Board”) held a public hearing to discuss the Missing Middle Housing (Fuller, et al.) Zoning Petition (the “Petition”). Representatives of A Better Cambridge, a housing advocacy group, presented the Petition at the hearing. Staff from the City’s Community Development Department (CDD) also attended the hearing and answered questions from the Board. 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. At the conclusion of the March 30, 2021 hearing, the Board did not vote to make a recommendation, but requested that CDD staff draft a report summarizing the comments made by Board members, to be reviewed by the Board at a future meeting prior to taking a vote.

On May 11, 2021, the Board held a continued public hearing at which they reviewed a draft report of Planning Board comments, prepared by CDD staff, and a brief summary of suggestions that were raised by the Ordinance Committee at its hearing on April 8, 2021. In addition, representatives of A Better Cambridge provided and spoke about potential amendments to the Petition. The Board also heard public comment.

Following deliberation, the Board voted to recommend that the City Council not adopt the Petition, with five members voting in favor and three opposed. Members voting not to recommend adoption expressed general support for the goal of promoting housing affordability, but did not believe that this specific Petition was the appropriate vehicle to achieve that goal.

Members voting against this recommendation argued that while the Petition may not be ideal, it still represents an improvement over the status quo, which restricts multifamily housing development in many parts of the City and is tied to a history of exclusion. Some Board members suggested that further study may lead to a better proposal, while some urged for more immediate action. Members also raised concerns that it may not be possible to amend the Petition in the ways the Petitioners suggest without filing a new petition.

Petition Overview

The Petition seeks to allow multifamily housing in all zoning districts in Cambridge and to reduce barriers in the Zoning Ordinance to increasing the number of dwelling units that can be constructed on a parcel. To accomplish this, the Petition proposes consolidating the Residence A-1, Residence A-2, Residence B, Residence C, and Residence C-1 Districts into a new zoning district, Residence N, which would allow the same range of uses as Residence C and C-1, including single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and multifamily dwellings. The Petition also proposes revised dimensional standards for Residence N that would be more permissive than for any of the current districts that it would encapsulate.

In addition to changes specific to the proposed Residence N District, the Petition would eliminate the minimum lot size and lot width requirements in all residential districts, and eliminate the minimum requirements for off-street parking accessory to any non-transient residential use in all zoning districts.

Board Member Comments

The Board had a broad and diverse discussion at its two hearing sessions and Board members expressed varying views. The following is a summary of the main comments made by Board members:

• All Board members recognized the importance of encouraging a diversity of housing typologies in Cambridge, including those that reflect the existing development patterns in the city.

• Many, but not all, members of the Board expressed support for allowing multifamily residential uses in all zoning districts with the appropriate dimensional controls. Some Board members expressed enthusiastic support for change, noting the history of zoning as promoting race and class exclusion, and questioned why the City should continue to make multifamily housing illegal in many areas given this legacy of discrimination. Some Board members were more comfortable allowing up to three-family residential uses citywide but were concerned about larger buildings.

• Some Board members questioned how well the Petition aligns with the City’s policy and planning objectives. They noted that attention should be paid to studying what we actually need and how to get it. They noted that the scale of change proposed by the Petition requires careful measuring. Other members noted that studies are not always conclusive and can delay action, and that action is needed now given the lack of available housing in Cambridge.

• Some Board members were concerned that the outcome of implementing the amendments identified in the Petition would not meet the goals of the Petition. In particular, they did not believe that the Petition would result in greater housing affordability, but that it would only serve higher-income households by promoting larger buildings with a higher density of market-rate units. Some Board members believed that an increase in allowed density should include affordability requirements. Other Board Members expressed support that the Petition would reduce the amount of nonconforming buildings and uses and promote development patterns that are more consistent with existing development in many parts of Cambridge.

• Some Board members raised concerns about whether the proposed dimensional requirements were appropriate. In particular, some Board members noted that the Petition could result in tree loss and rear yard infill development that impacts adjacent residents, since it would reduce the open space and setback requirements in many zoning districts. Board members also raised concerns about the impacts of buildings with a significantly higher unit density in neighborhoods where parking is limited. However, other Board members expressed the view that dense, walkable neighborhoods with the availability of transportation and street life were desirable and supportive of Cambridge’s planning goals.

• Some Board members were enthusiastic about eliminating minimum parking requirements, while others were comfortable with the concept, but requested further analysis. Other Board members were concerned that such an action would negatively impact parking availability in the city.

• Some Board members also raised concerns about the impact of the Petition on the effectiveness of the recently adopted Affordable Housing Overlay, as noted in the CDD memo to the Planning Board dated March 25, 2021.

• Several Board members suggested that a targeted, time-limited analysis to study the impacts and effects of allowing multifamily housing citywide might lead to a better result. However, other Board members noted that if the status quo of not allowing multifamily housing citywide is not desirable, then delaying action is a conscious decision to accept that status quo. Some Board members suggested interim actions that could be taken while a study is underway. One suggestion was to allow multifamily residential uses by special permit citywide, though other Board members believed that this would create additional regulatory hurdles that could make it ineffective. Other Board members suggested applying the use and dimensional regulations for Residence C1 to the Residence A-1, A-2, B, and C districts as an interim measure, since the Residence C-1 standards have been in place for many years throughout much of the City.

Regarding the amendments presented by the Petitioners at the second hearing session, the Board noted some additional issues:

• Several Board members expressed concern that the suggested changes were not within the scope of the original Petition as advertised, because they would affect articles of the Zoning Ordinance that were not originally proposed to be amended and would impose new restrictions that were not part of the original Petition. Some Board members suggested that the City Council may want to ask the Law Department to advise the City Council as to whether the suggested changes would alter the fundamental character of the Petition and whether that would require re-filing and re-advertising the Petition for new hearings.

• Some Board members said that the suggested amendments helped to clarify the goals of the Petition and addressed some of the concerns that were previously raised, such as by limiting the size of buildings that are allowable under the proposed standards and by increasing open space requirements. However, Board members noted that in some ways the changes might not support the City’s goals. For example, the proposed limits on building size in combination with higher unit densities might discourage the creation of units that are large enough for families with children, which the Board has encouraged.

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

7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-20, regarding a report on coordinating efforts to formally recognize and promote National Black Business Month in August and Women's Small Business Month in October.
Placed on File 9-0

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-2, regarding the possibility of implementing a Sheltered Market Program, and Awaiting Report Item Number 21-4, regarding conducting a Spending Disparity Study on City Purchasing.
Placed on File 9-0

From: Office of the City Solicitor; 795 Massachusetts Avenue; Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts A venue, Cambridge, MA 02139
Date: June 7, 2021
Re: Response to Awaiting Report No. 21-2: Re: Report on Providing a Report on the Possible Implementation of a Sheltered Market Program, and Response to Awaiting Report No. 21-4: Re: 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

Dear Mr. DePasquale:

INTRODUCTION

This memorandum includes a response to Awaiting Report No. 21-2, which requests "(t]hat the City Manager, City Solicitor, and Purchasing Department confer to provide a report on the possible implementation of a sheltered market program here in Cambridge." Additionally, this memorandum includes a response to Awaiting Report No. 21-4, which requests "[t]hat the City Manager ... confer with the Purchasing Department, the Supplier Diversity Office, and other relevant City departments to conduct a spending disparity study on City purchasing with businesses owned by minorities, women, veterans, disabled persons, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other historically disadvantaged groups." ¹ In preparing this response, staff from the Law Department conferred with staff from the Finance, Budget, Purchasing and Community Development Departments and the Office of Equity and Inclusion.

1 This memorandum was prepared with assistance from the Purchasing Department, the Office of Equity and Inclusion and the Community Development Department.

Regarding Awaiting Report No. 21-2, as will be discussed below, we recommend that the City, in determining whether a sheltered market program under G.L. c. 30B, § 18 can be implemented in Cambridge, conduct a disparity study to review and analyze whether there are present effects of past discrimination within the markets of business enterprises from whom the City procures services and supplies. The reason we are recommending the undertaking of a disparity study is that without an evidentiary basis establishing that the sheltered market program would remedy present effects of past discrimination (whether racial or gender based) within the aforementioned markets, such a sheltered market program could be subject to, and potentially invalidated by, an equal protection challenge brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution. If it is determined that a basis exists for the City to implement a sheltered market program following a disparity study, the next step to implement such a program would be for the City to authorize its chief procurement officer (hereinafter, "Purchasing Agent") to establish such a program by: (1) a vote of a majority of the City Council; and (2) the approval of the City Manager.

As to Awaiting Report No. 21-4, this memorandum sets forth recommendations regarding the release of a request for proposals ("RFP") for potential consultant teams to conduct a disparity study. Additionally, this Council Order Response includes information provided from the Community Development Department regarding several actions the City has recently taken and continues to take to assist disadvantaged business entities in Cambridge.

DISCUSSION

A. Conducting a Disparity Study as the First Step in Determining Whether a Sheltered Market Program can be Implemented in Cambridge.²

G.L. c. 30B, § 18(a) defines a "sheltered market program" as "a program under which certain contracts are designated by the chief procurement officer for procurement from one or more classes of disadvantaged vendors." The term "disadvantaged vendor" means a ·"minority business," "women-owned business" or "veteran-owned business" as defined by G.L. c. 7, § 40N. G.L. c. 30B, § 18(a). The term "minority" in the phrase "minority business" refers to "a person with a permanent residence in the United States who is American Indian, Black, Cape Verdean, Western Hemisphere Hispanic, Aleut, Eskimo, or Asian." Also, despite the language of G.L. c. 30B, § 18(a), the term "veteran-owned business" is not defined in G.L. c. 7, § 40N.³

As to the establishment of a sheltered market program, G.L. c. 30B, § 18(b) provides:

When authorized by majority vote, a chief procurement officer may establish a sheltered market program in conformity with the requirements of this section. Such authorization may apply to a single contract or to any number or types of contracts, shall specify the class or classes of disadvantaged vendors to be included in the sheltered market program, and shall to the extent constitutionally required be based on findings that such program is a remedy for the present effects of past discrimination.

2 We have not found any guidance (e.g., a court decision or secondary source) discussing or analyzing what requirements, if any, must be followed in order to establish a sheltered market program under G.L. c. 30B, § 18. Additionally, we understand from the Office of the Inspector General of the Commonwealth that no municipality in Massachusetts, to date, has established a sheltered market program under the statute.

3 G .L. c. 7, § 40N was repealed in 2012 . Despite this, its successor statute, G .L. c. 7C, § 6, contains the same definitions for " minority business" and "women-owned business." Additionally, like G.L. c. 7, § 40N, G.L. c. 7C, § 6 does not define the term "veteran-owned business." Thus, G.L. c. 30B, § 18(a) has not yet been amended to reflect the replacement of G .L. c. 7, § 40N with G .L. c. 7C, § 6.

The statute's only reference to actions to be taken before a "majority vote" may be taken to authorize a chief procurement officer to establish a sheltered market program is that said authorization "shall to the extent constitutionally required be based on findings that such program is a remedy for the present effects of past discrimination." G.L. c. 30B, § 18(b) does not define the phrase, and thus, the statute does not specify what actions need to be taken in order to establish such "findings." However, as G.L. c. 30B, § 18(b) allows a municipality to limit competition for government contracts based on different classes of businesses (through the establishment of a sheltered market program), the phrase "to the extent constitutionally required" in the statute likely means that the authorization of a sheltered market program must be based on findings which would support a conclusion that said program would not violate the equal protection requirements of the United States Constitution and Massachusetts Constitution.

Courts in other jurisdictions have considered equal protection challenges to government programs that set aside contracts for disadvantaged minority business enterprises (often referred to as "set-aside programs" or "set-aside measures"). See, e.g., Eng'g Contractors Ass'n of S. Fla v. Metro. Dade Cty. ("Eng'g Contractors"), 122 F.3d 895, 901 , 906 (11th Cir. 1997). A sheltered market program established by the City would, in effect, be a set-aside program. Accordingly, if a sheltered market program established by the City was subject to an equal protection challenge, a court would likely rely on caselaw analyzing equal protection challenges to set-aside measures in reviewing a challenge to the City's program.

i. Standards Governing Race-Conscious Set-Aside Programs.

Race is a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City of Denver ("Concrete"), 321 F.3d 950, 957 (10th Cir. 2003). In light of this, federal courts subject race-conscious set-aside programs to strict judicial scrutiny. Id. Race is also a suspect class under the equal protection provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. Finch v. Comm. Health Ins. Conn. Auth., 459 Mass. 655, 662-63 (2011). Therefore, a Massachusetts court reviewing an equal protection challenge to a race-conscious sheltered market program established pursuant to G.L. c. 30B, § 18 would likely subject said program to strict judicial scrutiny. Brackett v. Civil Service Comm'n, 447 Mass. 233, 243 (2006).

For a race-conscious set-aside program to satisfy strict judicial scrutiny, an enacting government entity must show that: (1) a compelling government interest exists to support the establishment of such a program; and (2) said program is "narrowly tailored" to achieve the compelling interest. Concrete, 321 F.3d at 957; Eng'g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 906.

Although remedying the effects of general societal discrimination is not a compelling government interest in the context of race-conscious set-aside measures, a race-conscious set-aside program may satisfy the compelling government interest requirement if the measure remedies the effects of past or present racial discrimination. H.B. Rowe Co. v. Tippett ("Rowe"), 615 F.3d 233, 241 (4th Cir. 2010); Concrete, 321 F.3d 958; Eng'g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 906. To establish that a compelling government interest exists to support the enactment of a race-conscious set-aside measure, the enacting government entity must: (1) identify that discrimination, public or private, with some specificity; and (2) have a strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that remedial action is necessary. Rowe, 615 F.3d at 241; Concrete, 321 F.3d at 958; Eng'g Contractors , 122 F.3d at 906.

To satisfy these requirements, a government entity may present evidence of its own direct participation in racial discrimination or "passive participation" in a system of racial exclusion practiced by elements of a local private market. Concrete, 321 F.3d at 958; Eng'g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 907; Contractors Ass'n of E. Pennsylvania, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia ("Contractors Ass'n"), 6 F.3d 990, 1001-02 (3d Cir. 1993); Builders Ass'n of Greater Chicago v. City of Chicago ("Builders Ass'n"), 298 F. Supp. 2d 725, 728 (N.D. Ill. 2003). A government entity can demonstrate that it is a "passive participant" in a system of racial exclusion practiced by elements of a local private market by compiling evidence of marketplace discrimination and then linking the government entity's spending practices to the private discrimination. Concrete, 321 F.3d at 976.⁴

Additionally, federal courts have recognized that a government entity does not need to conclusively prove the existence of past or present racial discrimination but may satisfy the compelling government interest requirement for a challenged race-conscious set-aside measure through a combination of statistical evidence (e.g., a disparity study) and anecdotal evidence of private and public discrimination. Concrete, 321 F.3d at 958; Eng'g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 907.⁵ The Supreme Court has also noted:

Where there is a significant statistical disparity between the number of qualified minority contractors willing and able to perform a particular service and the number of such contractors actually engaged by the locality or the locality's prime contractors, an inference of discriminatory exclusion could arise.

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. ("Croson"), 488 U.S. at 509. Federal courts have declined to adopt a "categorical rule" that every case challenging a race-conscious set-aside program "must rise or fall entirely on the sufficiency of the numbers," and have noted that "anecdotal evidence might make the pivotal difference in some cases; indeed, in an exceptional case, we do not rule out the possibility that evidence not reinforced by statistical evidence, as such, will be enough." Eng'g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 926.

4 As an example, the Tenth Circuit, in a case concerning a federal program designed to award highway subcontracts to disadvantaged business enterprises, stated:

It is reasonable to conclude that allocating more than 95% of all federal contracts to enterprises owned by non-minority persons, or more than 90% of federal transportation contracts to enterprises owned by non-minority males, is in and of itself a form of passive participation in discrimination that Congress is entitled to seek to avoid.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater ("Adarand"), 228 F.3d 1147, 1181 (10th Cir. 2000).

5 Courts have also recognized that "strong evidence" of discrimination "is that 'approaching a prima facie case of a constitutional or statutory violation,' not irrefutable or definitive proof of discrimination." Concrete, 321 F.3d at 971 (quoting Croson, 488 U.S. at 500).

In designing the parameters of a disparity study to: (1) identify racial discrimination with some specificity within the markets of business enterprises from whom the City procures services and supplies; and (2) determine whether a strong basis in evidence exists for supporting the conclusion that remedial action is necessary, several factors should be considered in light of federal cases that have analyzed race-conscious set-aside programs:

1. Availability. A government entity enacting a race-conscious set-aside program is not limited to using considerations such as the actual number of businesses that bid on projects or how many businesses are registered or prequalified under state law. Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois, 473 F.3d 715, 723 (7th Cir. 2007); Concrete, 321 F.3d at 983. Rather, the enacting government entity may use measures that cast a broad net to accurately identify the number of available qualified minority businesses. Northern Contracting, Inc., 473 F.3d at 723; Concrete, 321 F.3d at 983.

2. Geographic Market for Set-Aside Program. The local market for a race-conscious set-aside program is not necessarily limited to the geographic boarders of the enacting government entity. See, e.g., Concrete, 321 F.3d at 966, 994; Contractors Ass' n, 6 F.3d at 1006-09.

3. Study Period. The minimum time period of study used by a disparity study needs to be long enough in duration to provide a sufficiently large sample for statistical analysis. See, e.g., Rowe, 615 F.3d at 243-46, 254. However, if the data used by a disparity study dates back too far, a court may find such data outdated. See, e.g., Associated Gen. Contractors of Ohio, Inc .v. Drabik, 214 F.3d 730, 738-39 (6th Cir. 2000); Builders Ass'n, 298 F. Supp. 2d at 732-42.

4. Adoption of Disparity Study by Government Entity. In order for a court to conclude that a disparity study is established in evidence, a government entity enacting a race-conscious set-aside program should formally adopt the findings of said disparity study. Otherwise, a court may not give weight to the findings of the disparity study. W.H. Scott Const. Co. v. City of Jackson, 199 F.3d 206,218-19 (5th Cir. 1999).

In the event that the City desires to conduct a disparity study, the Purchasing Department will work with CDD, the Finance Department, the Office of Equity and Inclusion and the Law Department to develop an RFP for a potential consultant team to conduct a study that includes parameters which consider the above factors.

As to the narrowly tailored element, the Supreme Court has identified several factors that courts are to consider in evaluating whether a race-conscious set-side program is narrowly tailored. Croson, 488 U.S. at 507-08. Those factors, in light of Croson and other subsequent federal caselaw, are discussed below:

1. Consideration of Race-Neutral Means to Increase Participation of Minority Business Enterprises. In the context of race-conscious set-aside measures, “ ‘[n]arrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative,’ but it does require ‘serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.’ “ Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minn. Dep't of Transp., 345 F.3d 964, 972 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 339 (2003)).

2. Flexibility. The Supreme Court has questioned whether a race-conscious set-aside program that uses fixed quotas would be constitutional. Croson, 488 U.S. at 507-08; see also Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334. The Supreme Court, however, has suggested that race-conscious set-aside measures that allow for waivers that treat business enterprises individually “are less problematic from an equal protection standpoint.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 508. Further, in federal cases subsequent to Croson where race-conscious set-aside measures were held to be narrowly tailored, the fact that those measures allowed for waivers was a factor in those conclusions. See, e.g., Midwest Fence Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 840 F.3d 932, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2016); Sherbrooke Turf, Inc., 345 F.3d at 972; Adarand, 228 F.2d at 1180-81.

3. Duration. The Supreme Court has questioned whether a race-conscious set-aside program that has an unlimited duration would be constitutional. Croson, 488 U.S. at 497-98. Subsequent federal cases have considered whether race-conscious set-aside measures are limited in duration as a factor in the narrowly tailored analysis. Midwest Fence Corp. 840 F.3d at 942; Sherbrooke Turf, Inc., 345 F.3d at 971; Adarand, 228 F.3d at 1179. Other courts have explicitly stated that the narrowly tailored element requires race-conscious set-aside measures to include "adequate" durational limits. W. States Paving Co. v. Wash. State Dep't of Transp., 407 F.3d 983 , 994 (9th Cir. 2005).

4. The Relationship of Numerical Goals to the Relevant Market. Another factor courts consider in determining whether a race-conscious set-aside measure is narrowly tailored is the relationship between the numerical goal for participation by minority business enterprises in the relevant market through the measure and the percentage of minority businesses enterprises in said market. Rowe, 615 F ,3d at 252, 253.

5. The Impact on the Rights of Third Parties. In determining whether a race-conscious set-aside measure is narrowly tailored, courts also consider the impact that said measure will have on the rights of third parties. Eng'g Contractors, 122 F.3d at 927. Courts, however, have recognized that innocent parties will share the burden of a remedial race-conscious set-aside program, and that this fact alone is insufficient to warrant a conclusion that a program is not narrowly tailored. W. States Paving Co., 407 F.3d at 995; Adarand, 228 F.3d at 1183.

6. Over-Inclusiveness and Under-Inclusiveness of Race-Conscious Set-Aside Program. Another factor courts consider in determining whether a race-conscious set-aside measure is narrowly tailored is whether the measure is under-or over-inclusive. Adarand, 228 F.3d at 1177.

Accordingly, if it is determined that a basis exists for the City to implement a race-conscious sheltered market program following a disparity study, the Law Department will so advise the City Manager and the City Council and will work with the Purchasing Department, CDD and the Office of Equity and Inclusion to develop the parameters of such a program in light of the above factors.

ii. Standards Governing Gender-Conscious Set-Aside Programs.

Federal courts have applied a lesser standard, intermediate scrutiny, to gender-conscious set-aside programs that are challenged under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rowe, 615 F.3d at 242; Concrete, 321 F.3d at 959. Gender, however, is a suspect class under the equal protection provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. Finch, 459 Mass. at 665-66; Brackett, 447 Mass. at 246-47 (2006).

As the equal protection provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution impose a more demanding standard than that the Fourteenth Amendment for gender-conscious classifications, an equal protection challenge to a gender-conscious sheltered market program established by a Massachusetts municipality would likely be brought pursuant to the Massachusetts Constitution.

Additionally, although we have not found any Massachusetts cases analyzing an equal protection challenge to a gender-conscious set-aside program, we believe Massachusetts courts, in such a circumstance, would apply the same factors and principles described in Section A.i, above, recognized by federal courts for the review of equal protection challenges to race-conscious set-aside measures.

iii. Standards Governing Veteran-Conscious Set-Aside Programs.

Veteran status is not a suspect class under the Fourteenth Amendment, Starr v. QuikTrip Corp., No. 14-CV-621-GKF-TLW, 2017 W 431804, * 3 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 1, 2017); Branch v. Du Bois, 418 F. Supp. 1128, 1130 (N.D. Ill. 1976), or the equal protection provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. See Finch, 459 Mass. at 662-67 (identifying suspect classes). Additionally, programs providing preference to veterans over non-veterans have been upheld under the minimal rational basis review standard. Russell v. Hodges, 470 F.2d 212,218 (2d Cir. 1972); Peterson v. City of New York, No. 97 CIV 4505(LMM), 1998 WL 247530, *3-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 1998); Branch, 418 F. Supp. at 1130.

Under a rational basis review, a classification will withstand an equal protection challenge as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest and is neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor irrational. D'Angelo v. N.H. Sup. Ct., 740 F.3d 802, 806 (1st Cir. 2014). Additionally, under this standard, the government need not actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting the classification. Almon v. Reno, 192 F.3d 28, 31 (1st Cir. 1999). Rather, a classification must be upheld against an equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification regardless of whether the basis has a foundation in the legislative record. Id. Further, affording preference to veterans is a legitimate state interest. Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 550-51 (1983); Peterson, 1998 WL 247530 at *6.

iv. Recommended Next Immediate Steps.

In light of the above, we believe the most prudent way to satisfy the "findings" requirement of G.L. c. 30B, § 18(b) for the establishment of a sheltered market program would be for the City to conduct a disparity study to review and analyze whether there are present effects of past discrimination which a sheltered market program would be intended to address. Notably, although a disparity study is not explicitly required by G.L. c. 30B, § 18, such a study would likely provide information that would be helpful in determining whether a sheltered market program, in the context of one intended for "minority businesses" or "women-owned businesses," would serve a compelling government interest. Without an evidentiary basis establishing that a sheltered market program would remedy the present effects of past discrimination (whether racial or gender based) within the markets of business enterprises from whom the City procures services and supplies, which may be established by a disparity study, such a program could be subject to, and potentially invalidated by, an equal protection challenge brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Massachusetts Constitution.

B. If it is Determined that a Basis Exists for the City to Implement a Sheltered Market Program Following a Disparity Study, the Next Step Would be for the City to Authorize the Purchasing Agent to Establish such a Program through Approval by the City Manager and an Authorizing Vote by a Majority of the City Council.

As noted above, G.L. c. 30B, § 18(b) provides, in pertinent part: "When authorized by majority vote, a chief procurement officer may establish a sheltered market program in conformity with the requirements of this section." (Emphasis added.) G.L. c. 30B incorporates the definition of "majority vote" contained in G.L. c. 44, § 1 to define that term. G.L. c. 30B, § 2. G.L. c. 44, § 1 defines "majority vote," in the context of a city, as "the vote taken by yeas and nays of a majority ... of all the members of each branch of the city government where there are two branches, or of all the members where there is a single branch of the city government."

Municipalities in Massachusetts have two "basic" branches, legislative and executive. See, e.g., Boston City Council v. Menino, No. CIV.A. 0-1267, 2000 WL 744356, *4 n. 5 (Mass. Super. Ct. May 9, 2000). The head of the "executive branch" of a municipal government is the "chief executive officer." See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 429 Mass. 1201 , 1207 ( 1999). The "chief executive officer" of a municipal government with a Plan E charter is the city manager. See, e.g., Quinlan v. City of Cambridge, 320 Mass. 124, 126 (1946). Thus, the City's government, under its Plan E charter, has two branches; the legislative branch (which consists of the City Council) and the executive branch (which is headed by the City Manager).

Accordingly, assuming that a disparity study could serve as a basis for the "findings" required under G.L. c. 30B, § 18(b) for the reasons stated in the previous section of this memorandum, the next step in implementing a sheltered market program would be for the City to "authorize" the Purchasing Agent to establish the program by both: (1) a vote of a majority of the City Council; and (2) the approval of the City Manager.

C. Recommendations for the Release of an RFP for Potential Consultant Teams to Conduct a Disparity Study.

Due to the size and nature of conducting a disparity study, City staff recommend hiring a consultant team to design and execute a disparity study that would examine three (3) to four (4) years of the City's contracting data. Reviewing data beyond that timeframe risks the possibility of data corruption in light of businesses that closed more than three (3) or four (4) years ago. Additionally, since over 8,500 purchase orders are issued by the Purchasing Department each fiscal year, this data should provide sufficient evidence for the basis of the disparity study. Additionally, City staff recommend releasing an RFP for a consultant team to conduct the disparity study during the fall of fiscal year 2022 (i.e., the fall of 2021) in order to provide the City a reasonable amount of time to develop both an RFP and to develop a list of potential consultant team applicants to contact in connection with the RFP.

City staff looked into the question of whether forming a collective disparity study with other potential municipal partners was a viable option. The benefit of partnering with other jurisdictions on the study is the creation of a more regional approach to the findings of the study. Since municipal contracts cannot designate a city-specific vendor, a regional approach could be more desirous and impactful in helping disadvantaged vendors. An additional benefit would be spreading the cost of the study out over more than one municipality. A drawback of this approach is that the other municipalities' timing may cause this project to be delayed until Spring 2022 or later. Based on this drawback, and the City Council's expressed desire to develop and complete the disparity study to support a sheltered market program as soon as possible, City staff recommend releasing the RFP for a disparity study to be conducted for Cambridge alone as early as the Fall of 2021.

Also, as noted in Section A, above, G.L. c. 30B, § 18 specifically defines the classes of "disadvantaged vendors" on behalf of which sheltered market programs can be established as "minority businesses," "women-owned businesses" and "veteran-owned businesses." The applicable statute defines the term "minority" in "minority owned business" as to "a person with a permanent residence in the United States who is American Indian, Black, Cape Verdean, Western Hemisphere Hispanic, Aleut, Eskimo, or Asian." In light of the current definitions applicable to G.L. c. 30B, § 18, the City likely would not be able to establish a sheltered market program to support disadvantaged businesses that do not fit within those definitions (e.g. businesses owned by disabled or LGBTQ+ individuals). We therefore do not believe a disparity study should focus on disadvantaged business entities that do not fit within the definitions applicable to G.L. c. 30B, § 18. If the City wishes to explore the possibility of providing support for disadvantaged business entities that do not fit within the definitions applicable to G.L. c. 30B, § 18, the Law Department, in conjunction with Purchasing, CDD and the Office of Equity and Inclusion, can research potential measures to aid such disadvantaged business entities.

Performing such additional research, however, would likely delay the City in conducting a disparity study and ultimately establishing a sheltered market program (if a basis exists to implement such a program). Similarly, we also do not recommend including within the scope of an RFP for a potential consultant team to research possible measures to aid disadvantaged business entities that do not fall within the definitions applicable to G.L. c. 30B, § 18, because including such a task in the scope would likely delay the findings of a disparity study and ultimate establishment of a sheltered market program (again, if a basis exists to implement such a program).

D. Actions the City has Recently Taken and Continues to take to Assist Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Cambridge.

A sheltered market program is only one tool for assisting disadvantaged (underutilized) businesses in Cambridge. While undertaking the RFP process and working with the chosen consultant team on a disparity study, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq reports that City staff have taken and continue to take the following actions to assist disadvantaged business enterprises in Cambridge, including:

• The development of potential sheltered program processes.

• The creation of the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color ("BIPOC") Business Advisory Committee. This BIPOC Committee will be looking at a variety of issues facing small businesses, including procurement, access to capital, and networking opportunities.

• Hosting the following workshops:

o How to Become a Vendor - a workshop to learn how to become a vendor with the City and how to find current bids available to vendors; and

o How to Respond to a City Quote or Bid - a workshop to learn how to look for, find and respond to solicitation of quotes or invitation for bids with the City.

• Working with the Information Technology Department to increase internal data collection capacity for future purchasing to identify which goods and services, as well as construction projects are being fulfilled by disadvantaged vendors.

• Expanding the City's vendor registry through the City's Business Certificate Form.

• Marketing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts's Supplier Diversity Office certification workshops and training.

• Increasing advertising directed at publications and organizations serving disadvantaged vendor pools.

• Encouraging City employees to do proactive marketing and outreach to diverse vendors.

• Promoting the City's recently updated Diversity Directory (20% increase in entries), which is intended to celebrate and highlight diverse independent and locally owned small businesses, entities, and sole proprietors whose places of business are in Cambridge.

• City staff continue to promote the City' s grant programs, which includes outreach to underserved populations. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, City staff have instituted enhanced outreach to ensure that women and minority owned business enterprises (WMBEs) in Cambridge are being reached. To continue supporting Cambridge's businesses, especially our small, local businesses, the City, working with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, awarded $4.8 million in COVID-19 grants and loans to support small businesses facing multiple challenges. Funds were distributed via four (4) different programs involving $900,000 from the Mayor's Disaster Relief Fund, $1.5 Million from the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority's zero-interest loan program and $200,000 from grants from the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, and a combined $2.2 million from Community Development block grant funds and Federal CARES Act funds administered through the City's Relief, Recovery and Winter COVID-19 Grant Programs. The grant criteria prioritized businesses that have been more severely affected by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and ones that are women and/or minority-owned. In total, the City received over 790 applications for these programs and provided over 560 grants and loans to assist Cambridge businesses, which included:

o businesses on average receiving $10,000 in aid (over all rounds of grants and loan programs);

o women and/or minority owned businesses on average receiving over $ 1,800 more in aid; and

o women, minority, or women and minority owned businesses made up more than 70% of the recipients of all such grant/loan programs.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above with respect to Awaiting Report No. 21-2, we recommend that the City, in order to determine whether a sheltered market program under G.L. c. 30B, § 18 can be implemented in Cambridge, first conduct a disparity study to review and analyze whether there are present effects of past discrimination for which such a program would be intended to address. If it is determined that a basis exists for the City to implement a sheltered market program following a disparity study, the next step to implement such a program would be for the City to authorize the Purchasing Agent to establish such a program by: (1) a vote of a majority of the City Council; and (2) the approval of the City Manager. As to Awaiting Report No. 21-4, City staff recommend that the City release an RFP for a consultant to conduct a disparity study as early as the fall of 2021. Additionally, while undertaking the RFP process and working with a selected consultant, City staff will continue engaging in various actions to assist disadvantaged business enterprises in Cambridge.

Very truly yours,
Nancy E. Glowa
City Solicitor

9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request for support for the City of Cambridge to join in the formation of a Boston Cambridge Tourism Destination Marketing District.
Placed on File; Order Adopted 7-0-0-2 (JSW,QZ - PRESENT)

Cambridge Office of Tourism

June 7, 2021

City Manager Louis DePasquale
Cambridge City Hall, 1st Floor
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Mr. City Manager,

I am writing on behalf of the Cambridge Office for Tourism and the Cambridge Tourism Board seeking your support for the City of Cambridge to join with the City of Boston in the formation of a Tourism Destination Marketing District (TDMD).

As you are keenly aware, the world has been upended in an unthinkable manner in the past year and beyond. Tourism and hospitality have possibly been the most economically devastated industries of all. In normal times, these industries employ one out of every ten Massachusetts residents, and tourism is the third largest industry in the Commonwealth.

Massachusetts has historically been disproportionately funded for tourism marketing and promotion at the State level compared to our market competitors. Tourism marketing funds from the Commonwealth have decreased consistently over the past several years, and funding for the Greater Boston Convention and Visitors Bureau (GBCVB)-the State-funded Regional Tourist Council in which Cambridge is located—is at a critically low level. Promoting the Boston/ Cambridge destinations to visitors and meeting planners is more challenging now due to the economic crisis that faces our industry nationwide. A full economic recovery will take years, and competition will be fierce.

Competitiveness is an important factor to consider. Within our competitive set of cities, destinations such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Diego, and San Francisco already have TDMDs, while New York and Washington, D.C. are each in the process of forming one. There are nearly 180 TDMDs across the United States that report an annual rate of investment (ROI) ranging from 3:1 to 20:1 (hotel revenue per dollar invested).

Early this year, Section 56 of the Economic Development Bill HB5250, An Act Enabling Partnerships for Growth, was passed in Massachusetts, providing for the formation of Tourism Destination Marketing Districts in the Commonwealth. This is excellent news for the recovery of the hotels and the tourism industry!

Tourism Destination Marketing Districts (TDMDs) are fast becoming popular across the U.S. as a means to collect funding from hotels through assessments that can be passed through to the customer. TDMDs essentially permit hotels in a defined area - which in our case is comprised of Boston and Cambridge only- to implement an assessment (not a tax) that is collected by the State Collector and then directly reinvested back into destination marketing, buoying all businesses, big and small, that depend on the health of the travel and hospitality economy to survive. The funds are then disbursed quarterly to the Regional Tourism Council in the defined district-in this case, the Greater Boston Convention and Visitors Bureau (GBCVB), in whose region Cambridge falls.

The TDMD and its funds are transparently managed by a governing board, and every five years stakeholders are empowered to discontinue the TDMD should they choose to. Hotel support is a prerequisite for TDMD ratification. Once created, however, the TDMD benefits all and becomes an engine for job growth and sustainability.

As a longtime Board member of the GBCVB, the Cambridge Office for Tourism has been an integral part of guiding this effort from the onset, serving on the Advocacy Committee, the Legislation Committee, and the Steering Committee as we have carefully strategized on this effort with our consultants and lobbyists. From the beginning, it has been my goal to ensure that a portion of the funding that is generated by the Cambridge hotel assessments be directed to the Cambridge Office for Tourism. Those funds will be managed by a Cambridge Governance Committee comprised of the participating assessed hotels that will manage how the monies will be used for the marketing of the Cambridge hotels. Any projects stemming from the Committee's decisions will be implemented by the Cambridge Office for Tourism in compliance with the state legislation guidelines. To be clear, these funds will be solely for the approved use of the Cambridge hotels for marketing, destination branding, and promotion.

The formation of the Boston Cambridge TDMD requires: 1) approval by at least 62% of hotels with fifty rooms and over in a participating city, and 2) approval of the governing body of each participating city. Both of these requirements must be met in order to move forward with the TDMD formation. Please see the attached letter of support that has been signed by 78.9% of the Cambridge hotels who would be participating in the TDMD.

We are requesting that you support this effort by asking the City Council to adopt an Order that supports the City of Cambridge's participation in the formation of a Tourism Destination Marketing District.

Respectfully,
Robyn Culbertson
Executive Director
Cambridge Office for Tourism

June 7, 2021

Cambridge City Council,

As hotel owners and operators in Cambridge, we are collectively requesting your support and assistance in approving the formation of a Tourism Destination Marketing District, which will be named the Boston-Cambridge Tourism Destination Marketing District (BCTDMD). The proposed BCTDMD will assess all lodging businesses with fifty (50) or more rooms located within the boundaries of the cities of Boston and Cambridge. The BCTDMD will enable our Boston and Cambridge area lodging business community to create a self-help recovery mechanism, help rebuild our workforce, and assist participating businesses with tourism promotion services.

Importance of Tourism to Our Community

There is a direct correlation between the amount of funds spent on destination-based marketing to boost promotion and an increase in the general economic vitality of the traveler economy. The travel and tourism sector is essential to Cambridge’s economy and its residents. As a state, Massachusetts’ travel impact generates billions in state spending. Investment in the tourism economy yields positive outcomes that transcend travel and tourism, providing benefits to all corners of the local economy.

COVID Challenges

In 2020, the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic rocked the international economy. The pandemic has shown our local lodging community that even the strongest tourism economies can be upended by unforeseeable circumstances, and the Boston/Cambridge area is no exception. Hotels and small businesses in the region are struggling to make ends meet and ultimately risk closure due to the lack of revenue from a severely impacted tourism season. According to the Pinnacle Perspective Report, hotel occupancy fell by 60% in Cambridge and 58% in Boston from 2019 to 2020, resulting in an Average Daily Rate (ADR) decline of 39% and 42% respectively. COVID-19 has presented not only the challenge of a severe downturn in visitor revenue, but also in keeping the Boston/Cambridge area competitive with other destinations.

Our region is facing severe challenges in remaining competitive with other tourism destinations as we move out of this pandemic. Competition will remain a considerable challenge, and with every city in the nation vying for tourism and convention business it is imperative that we work together to develop innovative marketing techniques to promote our region.

To revitalize our economy, we must bring visitors back to the Boston/Cambridge area. Our guests support our local restaurants, attractions, retail outlets, and more. Our industry creates jobs, pays local taxes, and creates a hospitable environment that produces a positive sense of place that people want to visit again and again as tourists, move their family to, or build their business. The formation of the BCTDMD is an innovative way to create a funding stream to build back better and bring these visitors to our hotels.

Conclusion

This initiative will provide a way for participating hotels to pass along an assessment to their guests as a line item on their bill. BCTDMD funds are generated through an assessment, which must be used to directly benefit hotels measurable by-way of room revenue or overnight rooms sold. BCTDMD revenue may not be diverted for other purposes, ensuring a consistent revenue stream.

We believe these funds will have a significant impact upon future visitor spending in our destination and allow our partnership to bring new business to our market. Moreover, it will allow for a faster recovery from the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic while simultaneously establishing a mechanism to ensure resiliency from future economic downturns.

It is our vision to have a strong collaboration with our cities, communities, and business partners to generate a steady increase in visitor spending. We ask for your support of this important initiative and will look to form the BCTDMD this year, beginning assessment collection and implementing programs to make a positive impact for our businesses immediately thereafter.

Let’s work together to revitalize our industry and prepare for future growth, while also insulating against economic challenges.

Respectfully,

HOTEL SIGNATURES:

1. Joe Dadiego
Le Meridien Cambridge

2. Geraldine (Gerry) Reppucci
Hampton Inn by Hilton, Cambridge

3. Joe Capalbo, General Manager
Kimpton Marlowe Hotel

4. Michael Guleserian
Sheraton Commander Hotel

5. Eduardo Fernandez
Royal Sonesta Boston

6. Alex Attia
The Charles Hotel

7. John Wilmoth
Residence Inn Boston Cambridge

8. Brian Martens
Holiday Inn Express Cambridge

9. Melissa Green
Hyatt Regency Boston/Cambridge

10. Patrick Barrett
907 Main

11. Curtis Butcher
Porter Square Hotel

12. Curtis Butcher
Hotel 1868

13. Mohamed Hashesh
Courtyard By Marriott Boston- Cambridge

14. Dan Kakabeeke
Marriott Cambridge

15. Kathleen Flanary
Freepoint

Agenda Item Number 8 June 7, 2021

ORDERED: That the City Council consent to the formation of the Boston Cambridge Tourism Destination Marketing District pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. c.40X, §3(b).

10. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a response regarding the City Council having its own budget for outside legal research.
Placed on File 9-0

June 7, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Policy Order Number 4 of Apr 12, 2021, regarding the City Council having its own budget for outside legal research, received from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

From: Office of the City Solicitor; 795 Massachusetts Avenue; Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, 795 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139
Date: June 7, 2021
Re: Response to Policy Order O-4 of April 12, 2021 regarding the City Council having its own budget for outside legal research

Dear Mr. DePasquale:

This is in response to the above-referenced Policy Order which was adopted by the City Council at its May 3, 2021 meeting. The Policy Order requests:

"That the City Manager … . include in the FY22 City Council budget a line item for outside legal research that shall be utilized at the discretion of the City Council when designated by a majority of members of the Council in pursuance of the City Council's authority to exercise the legislative powers of the City in drafting ordinances via an order that is voted upon in public at a scheduled City Council meeting;" and

"That the City Manager … work with the City Council to determine the precise amount of the budget line item ... ahead of the City Council's vote on the FY22 budget."

As you know, I submitted a detailed legal opinion dated April 26, 2021 to the City Council regarding this issue, which detailed the serious concerns I have with the City Council's assertion that it is legally entitled to have its own attorney separate from the City Solicitor, based upon the City's Plan E Charter and other legal concerns.

Municipalities in Massachusetts have two "basic" branches: legislative and executive. See, e.g., Boston City Council v. Menino, No. CIV.A. 0-1267,2000 WL 744356, *4 n. 5 (Mass. Super. Ct. May 9, 2000) citing King v. Mayor of Quincy, 270 Mass. 185, 188 (1930) and Daly v. Mayor of Medford, 241 Mass. 336,338 (1922). The head of the "executive branch" of a municipal government is the "chief executive officer." See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 429 Mass. 1201 , 1207 (1999). The "chief executive officer" of a municipal government with a Plan E charter is the city manager. See, e.g., Quinlan v. City of Cambridge, 320 Mass. 124, 126 (1946). Thus, the City's government, under its Plan E charter, has two branches; the legislative branch (which in Cambridge consists of the City Council) and the executive branch (which in Cambridge is headed by the City Manager).

Pursuant to G. L. c. 43, § 29, "all contracts made by any department, board or commission where the amount involved is five thousand dollars or more shall be in writing, and no such contract shall be deemed to have been made or executed until the approval … of the city manager under Plan D or E, and also of the officer or the head of the department or of the chairman of the board, as the case may be, making the contract is affixed thereto." G. L. c. 43, § 29. Thus, as a matter of law, the City Manager and the City Solicitor as the head of the Law Department would be required to sign any agreement for outside counsel services where the amount of the contract exceeds $5,000. Furthermore, under the Statute of Frauds, G. L. c. 259, § 1, a contract must be in writing in order for it to be legally enforceable unless performance of the agreement is to be completed within one year of the making of the contract. Thus, any contract for legal services for less than $5,000 must be in writing in order to be legally enforceable unless all of the requirements in the agreement may be performed within one year from the making of the contract. In addition, the City Manager, as the "chief executive officer" of the City and City Solicitor, who is required to draft all legal instruments for the City, must approve all City contracts. Therefore, any agreement for outside counsel services must be in writing and must be approved and signed by both the City Manager and the City Solicitor, and indeed, the City Council does not have the legal authority under the City's Charter to enter into contracts for outside legal services without the approval of the City Manager and City Solicitor.

In addition to the requirements in G. L. c. 43, § 29, where the City Solicitor is the attorney for all City departments, boards, commissioners, and officers, including the City Council, the City Solicitor would be required to sign any agreement for outside counsel services to be provided to any department of the City in order for the agreement to be valid, and furthermore, any outside counsel performing legal services for the City Council would report to the City Solicitor.

The contents of my April 26 legal opinion raised similar points to a letter submitted by the Mayor of the City of Newton to the Newton City Council on May 17, 2019 in that city on the very same topic. In addition, a similar issue has been raised both in the City of Somerville and the City of Waltham, and the Law Departments in those cities opined that the authority to hire outside counsel rests with the executives of those Cities, i.e., the Mayors, and not the City Councils.

Additionally, at the April 26, 2021 meeting, Councilors referenced three other municipalities as examples where city councils have retained outside counsel services. One such municipality was Methuen. However, we have been informed that Methuen' s City Council has not hired outside legal counsel to provide separate legal representation for the City Council. Rather, pursuant to the City of Methuen Charter, the City Solicitor is hired by the City Council, and not by the executive branch of that city, and the Methuen City Council decided to hire outside counsel to work on some complex matters that the city is dealing with, not to work exclusively on City Council matters, which in any event is a decision that the Methuen City Council is authorized to make pursuant to the Methuen charter. Another municipality that was discussed at the April 26 Council meeting is Newburyport, a city where the City Solicitor is appointed by the Mayor. The current Mayor of Newburyport, as authorized by the Newburyport charter, has appointed a law firm to serve as counsel to the city rather than having an in-house city solicitor position. We have been informed with respect to that city that in the last few years, the question of whether the Newburyport City Council could pass an ordinance that requires the City Council to approve of the City Solicitor appointment arose and the Newburyport City Solicitor was quoted in the news media stating that such an ordinance would raise issues with respect to the Charter.

Finally, as discussed at some length in my April 26 Opinion, the issue of separate legal counsel for the legislative branch of municipal government has come up in the City of Boston and resulted in protracted litigation between the Mayor and the City Council that made its way to the Appeals Court; the Appeals Court held that:

"The duties proposed for legal counsel to the council, as described, would overlap significantly and thereby interfere materially with those that are presently reserved exclusively to corporation counsel. Counsel to the council would be responsible, among other things, for providing legal advice on matters relating to council business, reviewing and furnishing opinions on draft legislation, and representing the council in legal proceedings. These responsibilities would duplicate those already assigned to corporation counsel under CBC § 5-8.1 , insofar as that section calls upon corporation counsel to advise the divisions of the city on legal matters and to represent them in disputes. Based upon the language of the council's order purporting to establish the new position, we conclude that, as matter of law, the addition of the challenged position of "counsel for the city council" would constitute a reorganization of the office of corporation counsel. Such a reorganization can only occur with the joint approval of the mayor and the council, and the mayor accordingly enjoys veto power over the creation of such a position.

City Council of Boston v. Mayor of Boston, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 542, 545 (2003.)

The Appeals Court thus affirmed the Superior Court's decision holding that the Boston City Council did not have the authority under that City's charter to retain legal counsel absent the Mayor's (who is the executive in the City of Boston) approval to hire such a person. Similarly, and as noted in my April 26 Opinion, in the City of Cambridge, the City Manager, as the executive under the City's Charter, would have to approve the hiring of outside counsel and as noted above, the City Solicitor would also have to review and approve any contract for outside legal services, and any outside counsel would have to report to the City Solicitor who is the attorney for all City departments.

In addition to the cities referenced above which have reached the same conclusion that the authority to hire outside counsel rests with the executives of those cities, we have had another attorney who practices municipal law review this issue and provide an opinion. This opinion was provided by Attorney Mark R. Reich from the firm KP Law, P.C., which represents many municipalities in the state. Attorney Reich's opinion is attached and opines that "consistent with the prior opinions of the City Solicitor, in my opinion, the City Council does not have authority under the Charter or Code to appoint or pay for separate counsel without the recommendation of the City Solicitor and the approval of the City Manager."

Notwithstanding my legal opinion that the City Council does not have the legal authority to hire its own legal counsel, to appropriate funds with which to do so, or to enter into a contract with outside legal counsel, I did propose in the legal opinion a staffing solution within the Law Department to address the City Council's concerns with obtaining faster updates about work in progress and establishing timelines for receiving responses. However, as the Policy Order requests "outside legal research" when voted by a majority of the Council, while I continue to have concerns about this approach to the City's legal work, the outline of such an arrangement could be as follows. The City Council could vote by majority vote at a public meeting on a specific detailed request asking the City Manager to request that the City Solicitor retain outside legal counsel for research on a particular issue or for assistance with drafting a specific piece of legislation. An outside private attorney could then be retained by contract through the City Solicitor (as all outside counsels doing work for the City are) to perform the legal research or legislative drafting requested by the City Council's vote. Any outside counsel's work product on completion would be submitted to the City Solicitor's office, and through the City Solicitor to the City Council.

Very truly yours,
Nancy E. Glowa
City Solicitor

KP | LAW
The Leader in Public Sector Law
T: 617.556.0007 F: 617.654.1735
101 Arch Street, 12th Floor, Boston, MA 02110

To: Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor (By Electronic Mail Only)
From: Mark R. Reich, Esq.
Re: Appointment of Legal Counsel
Date: May 19, 2021

Question

You have requested an opinion as to whether the City of Cambridge's Plan E Charter allows the City Council to hire its own legal counsel.

Short Answer

For the reasons set forth below, and consistent with opinions provided by your office, in my opinion the City Council lacks authority to retain independent legal counsel without express prior approval of the City.

Detailed Analysis

As I understand the circumstances, the City is governed pursuant to a Plan E Charter. The Charter, which follows the provisions of G.L. c. 43, addresses the specific authorities of the City's branches of government. Of particular note are the following Charter sections, quoted in pertinent part:

• Section 97. The city council shall have and exercise all the legislative powers of the city, except as such powers are reserved by this chapter to the school committee and to the qualified voters of the city.

• Section 103. The city council shall appoint a city manager who shall be sworn to the faithful performance of his duties and 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, except that of the city clerk, city auditor, any official appointed by the governor or anybody elected by the voters of the city.

• Section 104. [The City Manager] shall make all appointments and removals in the departments, commissions, boards and offices of the city for whose administration he is responsible, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

• Section 105. Such officers and employees as the city council, with the advice of the city manager, shall determine are necessary for the proper administration of the departments, commissions, boards and offices of the city for whose administration the city manager is responsible shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the city manager.

• Section 107. Neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible.

These provisions, when reviewed together, make clear that the City Manager is charged with administrative oversight of the City, including the appointment of City officers other than the City Clerk or City Auditor. The provisions of Section 107 of the Charter are pertinent with respect to appointments as this section of the Charter prohibits the City Council from taking part in the appointment of officers or employees for whom the City Manager is responsible.

With respect to the appointment of legal counsel for the City, the provisions of Section 2.26.101 provide for the appointment of a City Solicitor by the City Manager, consistent with the authority vested in the City Manager pursuant to Sections 103 and 104 of the Charter. The City Solicitor represents the City as a whole in legal proceedings and provides legal opinions to the City Manager, the Mayor, the City Council, the School Committee, or heads of City departments pursuant to Section 2.26.030 of the City Code. Thus, the City Solicitor is responsible for representing and advising the City Council.

Public bodies and members thereof have authority to make binding contracts on behalf of the City only to the extent conferred upon them by the controlling statute. D’Agostino v. Commissioner of Correction, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 456, 458 (200 I). Thus, " [i]n the absence of legislative authority, it is settled that a department of a city or town has no authority to employ counsel." O'Reilly v. Town of Scituate, 328 Mass. 154 (1951). Likewise, boards and officers of a municipality do not have the authority to bring or defend suits for the Town without specific authorization from the Town or agents authorized to do so on its behalf. Board of Public Works of Wellesley v. Select Board of Wellesley, 377 Mass. 62 1, 624 (1979).

The Wellesley case is distinguishable from the Cambridge situation in that the Town had a specific by-law requiring approval of the Board of Selectmen or Town Meeting before separate counsel could be retained. The City Charter, however, has given sole authority to the City Manager to make administrative appointment of a city solicitor. The City Solicitor, as opposed to the City Council, may request assistant counsel pursuant to Section 2.26.060 of the City Code. The City Council is specifically prohibited from making appointments of officers for whom the City Manager is responsible, which in my opinion would include counsel to the City or any of its bodies.

For all these reasons and consistent with the prior opinions of the City Solicitor, in my opinion, the City Council does not have the authority under the Charter or Code to appoint or pay for separate counsel without the recommendation of the City Solicitor and the approval of the City Manager.

11. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-23, regarding a report on permanently extending remote participation in City Council and board and commission meetings.
Placed on File 9-0

June 7, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-23, regarding a report on permanently extending remote participation in City Council and board and commission meetings, received from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa.

Note that because the State of Emergency will be lifted on June 15th, the focus was to work on a response to this Awaiting Report. A response to Awaiting Report 21-24, regarding making remote participation easier for the public, will be provided at the June 14, 2021 Council Meeting.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

From: Office of the City Solicitor; 795 Massachusetts Avenue; Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139
Date: June 7, 2021
Re: Response to City Council Awaiting Report No. 21-23, report on the concept of permanently extending the ability for members of the public to remotely participate in meetings of the City Council and meetings of the City's boards and commissions.

Dear Mr. DePasquale,

We have prepared this legal opinion in response to Awaiting Report No. 21-23 of 4/12/21, which requests that the City Manager direct the City Solicitor to draft the necessary language to petition the Commonwealth for permission to make remote participation for members of the public a permanent option in the City Council meetings, and in board and commission meetings, to make remote participation by a quorum of the members of a public body a permanent option, to determine whether the City may wish to partner with other local municipalities in asking for this rule change in the State Legislature, and to report back to the City Council in a timely manner. Awaiting Report No. 21-23 arose out of the April 7, 2021 meeting of the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee which was held in response to Council Order No. O-3 of 3/22/21, which had ordered that the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee hold a hearing to consider amending the City Council rules to allow for a permanent remote participation option at all public City meetings and had ordered that the City Manager explore options for including a permanent remote participation option at all public meetings in the City. Accordingly, this legal opinion is also in response to Council Order No. O-3 of 3/22/21.

As is discussed further below, the City Council may amend its Rules to allow remote public participation at its meetings even after Governor Baker's Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c.30A, §20, is no longer in effect. The City Council does not need special legislation to do so. Additionally, other City boards and commissions may also allow remote public participation after Governor Baker's Order is no longer in effect if the City Manager determines it is advisable and feasible for other boards and commissions to do so. Below we discuss some of the important careful considerations that must go into such decisions. Additionally, legislation has already been filed that seeks to amend the Open Meeting Law to allow remote participation by a quorum of the members of a public body as a permanent option.

We are also writing to provide an update concerning the applicability of the provisions of the Open Meeting Law in light of Governor Baker's COVID-19 Order No. 69, issued on May 28, 2021, which orders that effective 12:01am on June 15, 2021, the State of Emergency in the Commonwealth will terminate, and therefore, at that time, Governor Baker's COVID-19 Order No. 1, an Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c.30A, §2 ("COVID-19 Order No. 1"), expires. As explained further below, the City Council should be prepared to resume in-person meetings where a quorum of the Council is present and the meeting is physically open and accessible to the public as of June 15th, but the Legislature is considering temporary legislation that would extend the suspension of certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law until September 1, 2021. The legislation filed by Governor Baker would only be temporary, but it is in addition to the already pending legislation that seeks to amend the Open Meeting Law permanently.

I. Background

The Open Meeting Law governs meetings of public bodies and requires that meeting of public bodies be open to the public for purposes of ensuring transparency. G.L. c.30A, §20. The Open Meeting Law ("OML") governs remote participation by members of a public body and the Attorney General's Regulations, 940 CMR 29.10, further regulate remote participation by specifying the requirements for remote participation and the permissible reasons for remote participation. The Regulations require that a quorum of the public body, including the chair, he physically present, and that remote participation only be permitted when physical attendance would be unreasonably difficult.

On March 12,2020, in response the COVID-19 Pandemic, Governor Baker issued COVID-19 Order No. 1 suspending provisions of the OML. COVID-19 Order No. 1 suspends the requirement that meetings be held in a public place that is physically accessible to the public, provided that the public body provide access to the public through adequate, alternative means (e.g. technology such as Zoom). COVID-19 Order No. 1 also allows all members of a public body to participate remotely. COVID-19 Order No. 1 further provides that if a public body holds it meetings in a place that is not physically accessible to the public and with all of its members remote, it shall allow any party that is entitled to or required to appear before the public body the ability to participate through remote means. COVID-19 Order No. 1 is in effect until rescinded or until the State of Emergency is terminated, which is ordered to occur on June 15, 2021.

On May 28, 2021, Governor Baker issued COVID-19 Order No. 69, which orders that effective 12:01am on June 15, 2021, the state of emergency in the state will terminate. Therefore, at that time, Governor Baker's COVID-19 Order No. 1 expires. However, on May 25, 2021, Governor Baker filed legislation known as Senate No. 2452, which among other things, seeks to extend the suspension of certain provisions of the OML as set out in COVID-19 Order No. 1 until September 1, 2021. This Bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means and written testimony on this Bill was being accepted until the end of the day on June 1, 2021.

Additionally, there are several bills pending before the Legislature seeking to make permanent amendments to the OML. Senate Rill S.2104 and House Bill H.3213 would allow a quorum of a public body to participate remotely and would allow a meeting to be accessible to the public through adequate, alternative means. A virtual hearing was scheduled for these bills for June 2, 2021.

II. Legal Analysis

When COVID-19 Order No. 1 suspending provisions of the OML, and any legislative temporary extension of its provisions, is no longer in effect, the issues are (1) will the public be able to continue to participate through remote means, and (2) will members of a public body be able to participate through remote means?

As a starting point, the OML requires that meetings of a public body be open to the public, but the OML does not require or regulate public comment. The Attorney General's Division of Open Government, which is the agency with the authority to enforce the OML, has opined that there may be other applicable laws, regulations and rules that address public comment at the meeting of a public body, but the OML itself does not govern public comment. Accordingly, it does not violate the OML to allow remote public comment to continue even after a meeting is physically open and accessible to the public again.

For the City Council, public comment is required pursuant to City Council Rule 24C, and the Charter, G.L. c.43, §98. General Laws c.43, §98 states that ''the rules of the city council shall provide that citizens and employees of the city shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at any such meeting in regard to any matter considered there" and City Council Rule 24C provides that "individuals and employees of the city shall have reasonable opportunity to be heard at any meeting of the City Council in regard to any matter considered thereat." The Charter and the City Council Rules do not specify the means for providing public comment, and only require that the City Council provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment.

For adjudicatory boards and commissions, which are boards and commissions that apply certain standards to particular individuals or property, such as the Planning Board, Board of Zoning Appeal, and Board of License Commissioners, the opportunity for interested parties to be heard is often required by specific statues or regulations, or the board's rules. Additionally, for adjudicatory board and commissions, an interested party's Constitutional due process rights may afford an interested party a right to be heard.

For the members of the City Council and other City boards and commissions, when COVID-19 Order No. 1 suspending provisions of the OML, and any legislative temporary extension of its provisions, is no longer in effect, a quorum of the public body will be required to physically attend meetings, and any members participating remotely will have to follow the procedures set forth in the Attorney General's Regulations, 940 CMR 29.10. Meetings will also have to be physically open and accessible to the public.

III. Recommended Next Steps

If the City Council wishes to allow remote public comment to continue even after a meeting is physically open and accessible to the public again, the City Council should amend its Rules to allow remote public participation, in addition to continuing to allow in-person public participation as is currently provided in the Rules. We recommend that a rule address how the Council will handle hearing from public commentors in person as well as remotely, in order to ensure that public comment be handled in a manner that is fair and equitable to all. For example, will the Council take in-person and remote comments on an alternating basis, or hear from all remote or all in-person commentors first. Will the Council require all public commentors, both in-person and remote to sign up in advance. Will the Council allow remote public comment all meetings, including meetings of the Council's committees. We recommend that a rule be adopted in advance of conducting a meeting that permits in-person and remote public comment so that it is done in a consistent and equitable manner.

We have conferred with the Information Technology Department (“IT”), and IT would be able to accommodate a “hybrid public comment” arrangement where commentors are both in-person and remote. IT would need to work with other relevant City Departments, like City Council staff and the City Clerk's Office, to work out the logistics after the City Council amends its Rules to provide for this option, if the Council chooses to do so.

Lastly, as referenced above, Governor Baker's COVID-19 Order No. 1 expires as of June 15, 2021, and as of June 15th in order to comply with the OML, public meetings shall be open and accessible to the public, and a quorum of the public body shall be physically present. Accordingly, for the City Council's meetings, and meetings of the Council's committees, scheduled for June 15,2021, and after, the Council should plan to hold the meetings in person. However, if the emergency legislation filed by Governor Baker passes, public bodies will be able to conduct public meetings through remote means, rather than in-person, until September 1, 2021. The pending emergency legislation would give the Legislature time to possibly adopt permanent amendments to the Open Meeting Law to amend the requirement that a quorum of members be physically present and possibly to amend the requirement that meetings be open and accessible to the public. The extension until September 1st would also give the Council time to amend its Rules to provide for remote public participation, along with in-person public participation before holding in-person meetings, if it wishes to do so.

In sum, we recommend that:

1. Starting June 15, 2021, the City Council conduct all meetings of the Council and its committees pursuant to the OML which require that a quorum of the members be physically present, and remote member participation only be allowed pursuant to the Attorney General's Regulations, 940 CMR 29.10;

2. The City Council amend its Rules to allow for in-person public comment to continue, and to add remote public comment as an option, and to determine a process for this hybrid public comment, if the Council wishes to do so; and

3. Reach out to the City's legislative delegation to request that the Legislature pass Governor Baker's bill to temporarily extend the suspension of OML provisions through September 1, 2021, and to request that the Legislature pass the pending Bills that will permanently amend the OML to allow members of a public body to participate remotely and conduct meetings through alternative means rather than physically open to the public.

For other City boards and commissions, we understand that the City Manager and City staff are evaluating next steps. Allowing continued remote public comment at adjudicatory boards and commissions even after in-person meetings resume is a more complex issue given the rights of interested parties that appear before those boards and commissions. Additionally, the City Manager will have to determine how to handle in-person and remote public participation from a technological perspective, and how to allocate City resources for this purpose.

I will be available to answer questions and can assist the Council in any next steps that it wishes to take. If the Council wishes, we can draft a proposed rule providing for hybrid public comment for the Council's consideration, with options the Council can select.

Very truly yours,
Nancy E. Glowa
City Solicitor

ON THE TABLE
2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-13, regarding next steps on implementation of Universal Pre-K. [Placed on the Table In Council May 17, 2021]

3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to further proposed amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance and draft regulations. [Tabled In Council May 17, 2021]

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

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks. [Passed to a Second Reading In Council May 10, 2021; to be Adopted on or after May 24, 2021]
Order Adopted 9-0

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $10,000,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan. Funds will support improvements at the Department of Public Works Complex, Moses Youth Center HVAC Design, fire notification system installation at 11 buildings, Coffon building bathroom rehab and upgrades and MFIP study. Also, included is funding to support fire station improvements including: Lafayette Square fire station improvements (floor slab, kitchen and gym flooring replacement), Taylor Square fire station improvements (decontamination showers, installation and parapet improvement), East Cambridge fire station improvements (sanitary storm system replacement and generator installation) and Lexington Ave. fire station driveway construction. [Passed to a Second Reading In Council May 10, 2021; to be Adopted on or after May 24, 2021]
Order Adopted 9-0

7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,800,000 to provide funds for various Schools for projects that include: asbestos abatement in various schools, replace the front plaza and failing masonry wing walls and recaulking the building at the Haggerty School, replace emergency generator and extend exhaust at Cambridgeport, recaulking precast panels at CRLS Field House, unit vents engineering at the Fletcher Maynard Academy and Longfellow building and replace the gym floor at the Amigos School. [Passed to a Second Reading In Council May 10, 2021; to be Adopted on or after May 24, 2021]
Order Adopted 9-0

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $28,500,000 to provide funds for the construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within River Street and Harvard Square areas as well as the Sewer Capital Repairs Program and climate change preparedness efforts. [Passed to a Second Reading In Council May 10, 2021; to be Adopted on or after May 24, 2021]
Order Adopted 9-0

APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS
1. An application was received from Carol Egidio, requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises numbered 448 Cambridge Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. No response has been received from the neighborhood association.
Order Adopted 9-0

2. An application was received from Heather Dudko representing Bank of America, requesting permission for 3 projecting signs at the premises numbered 1414 Massachusetts Avenue. approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and abutter forms are included.
Order Adopted 9-0

3. An application was received from Adam Knauer representing Love Pop, requesting permission for a one projecting sign and one wall sign at the premises numbered 18 JFK Street. approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and abutter.
Order Adopted 9-0

COMMUNICATIONS
1. A communication was received from Robert J. La Tremouille, regarding tree destruction associated with Memorial Drive overpass.

2. A communication was received from Western Avenue Baptist Church, regarding Policy Order #109.

3. A communication was received from Tisya Mavuram, regarding Policy Orders #109 and #114.

4. A communication was received from Steve Wineman, regarding support for Policy Orders #114 and #109

5. A communication was received from Mike Goodman, regarding please vote YES on Policy Order's #109 and #114.

6. A communication was received from Mary Jirmanus Saba, regarding proposal #109 and #114 Statement.

7. A communication was received from Kit Haines, regarding please Support Policy Order #109 and #114.

10. A communication was received from Joyce Klein, regarding oppose 109 and BDS movement Whats next

11. A communication was received from Josh McLinden, regarding Vote YES on Policy Orders 109 and 114 tonight.

12. A communication was received from Jodi Ekelchik, regarding Opposition to BDS Cambridge City Council motions.

13. A communication was received from Jeanne Koopman, regarding PO 114 BS PO 109.

14. A communication was received from Jean-Luc Pierite, regarding Policy Order #109 North American Indian Center of Boston.

15. A communication was received from Ilan Levy, regarding Comments regarding policy order 109 and 114.

16. A communication was received from Hubert Murray, regarding Policy Order 109.

17. A communication was received from Hasson Rashid, regarding News Item for Publication in News Letter Etc.

18. A communication was received from Hasson Rashid, regarding convert 882 Main Street into Supportive Housing Space for the Homeless!

19. A communication was received from Doug Brown, regarding comments on Ordinance Application #2021-12 a petition that proposes changes to Neighborhood Conservation Districts.

20. A communication was received from Carolyn Magid, regarding Policy Orders 114 and 109 (on tonight's agenda)

22. A communication was received from Arthur, regarding Vote No ABC Zoning Proposal.

23. A communication was received from Annabel Rabiyah, regarding support for PO 104 114.

24. A communication was received from Ann Fleck-Henderson, regarding policy order #109.

25. A communication was received from Adam Haber, regarding pass Policy Orders #109 and #114.

26. Sundry communications were received, regarding Policy Order #114 Heart Program.

29. A communication was received from Danforth Nicholas, regarding please support the MMH petition.

30. A communication was received from Debra Wise, regarding concern proposed budget.

31. A communication was received from Evan Kodra, regarding support of affordable housing.

32. A communication was received from Jean Entine, regarding Council Budget Vote.

34. A communication was received from Joyce Singer, regarding Council Letter Traffic calming in Riverside.

35. A communication was received from Juliet Kepes.Stone, regarding Budget hanging in the balance.

36. A communication was received from Kitty Gormley, regarding opposition to MMH citywide luxury housing up-zoing petition.

37. A communication was received from Lee Farris, regarding Residents Alliance Asks Council to Reject the City Budget.

38. A communication was received from Luis Mejias, regarding Problems persist on Cardinal Medeiros.

40. A communication was received from Ori Porat, regarding Needlessly divisive statements in local government (2021 POR 109).

41. A communication was received from Robert Camacho, regarding City Budget 6/7/21.

RESOLUTIONS
1. That the Cambridge City Council go on record wishing Adalyn Madelle Vasquez happy birthday, and congratulating Mario Vasquez and Shelby Haynes on a successful first year as parents. Councillor McGovern

2. Resolution on the death of Lucille Kelley. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Mayor Siddiqui
Amended

10. Resolution on the death of Leslie E. Mili. Councillor Toomey, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
Amended

12. Immigrant Heritage Month. Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan

14. Resolution on the death of Thomas Cahill. Councillor Toomey, Vice Mayor Mallon

15. Congratulations to Phil Johnson on being named the new Board Chair of the Cambridge Community Foundation. Councillor McGovern

16. Congratulations to Rosemarie Torres Johnson on being named the new Board ViceChair of the Cambridge Community Foundation. Councillor McGovern

17. The Cambridge City Council would like to thank Rick Harriman for his 11 years of service on the board of the Cambridge Community Foundation, including his years as Board Chair. Councillor McGovern

18. In Support of H. 2434, “An Act relative to fire safety education in schools and colleges”. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon

19. Resolution on the death of Barbara Rothstein. Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern

20. Resolution on the death of Betty Taymor. Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons

ORDERS
1. That the City Manager direct the Traffic and Parking Department to conduct a traffic study in the Riverside neighborhood to determine any actions or changes, including, but not limited to new signage, speed bumps or enforcement measures that may be helpful in creating a more safe environment. Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

2. That the City Manager work with the City Solicitor and the Animal Commission to take all necessary steps to waive the dog license fee for all senior citizens in Cambridge. Councillor McGovern
Charter Right - Sobrinho-Wheeler

3. Caribbean-American Heritage Month. Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

4. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to consult with the Department of Public Health on this issue and work with relevant City departments to determine what the safest and most effective mosquito management program for Cambridge. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

5. Live Acoustic Entertainment Ordinance. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Carlone
Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

6. That City Manager be and is hereby requested work with the Law Department to provide an analysis of what impact the recently enacted state Housing Choices law has on the Missing Middle Housing Zoning petition. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0

7. That the City Manager and staff be requested to examine car storage policies and discuss potential updates with the City Council at a meeting of the Transportation Committee. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 9-0

8. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with the Director of the Public Libraries with input from the Library staff and Library Union to fully open the Main Library as well as the Branch libraries on or before June 15th to ensure that residents have access to the materials provided within, as well as providing cooling centers to vulnerable residents during heat emergencies. Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0

9. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Law Department to advise the City Council as to whether the suggested changes to the Missing Middle Housing petition would alter the fundamental character of the Petition and whether that would require re-filing and re-advertising the Petition for new hearings for the June 10th Ordinance Committee on this topic. Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0

COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone Chair of the Finance Committee, for public hearings held on May 11, 2021 commencing at 9:00am and May 18, 2021 commencing at 10:00am and on May 19, 2021 commencing at 6:00pm to discuss Fiscal Year 2022 budget.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; Orders Adopted
General Fund Budget Adopted 7-0-0-2 (JSW,QZ - NO)
Water Fund Budget Adopted 9-0
Public Investment Fund Budget Adopted 9-0

2. Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee – Committee Meeting - May 26, 2021 at 10:00am.
Report Accepted, Placed on File, Order Adopted 9-0

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

HEARING SCHEDULE
Mon, June 7
5:30pm City Council Meeting - Budget Adoption (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, June 8
11:00am The Economic Development and University Relations Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss strategies and opportunities to alleviate permit and license fees for small businesses, through possible consolidation or elimination. (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, June 9
11:00am The Health and Environment Committee will meet to discuss the city's progress on our Zero Waste Plan, and relevant items referred to committee, including eliminating single use plastics. (Sullivan Chamber)
5:00pm The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee will hold a public hearing to follow-up from the initial neighborhood group hearing and further discuss how the City can work with groups. (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, June 10
5:30pm The Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on the Cambridge Missing Middle Housing Zoning Petition (Ordinance #2021-2). (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, June 15
11:00am The Government Operations committee will meet to discuss the hiring of the next City Manager. (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, June 23
5:00pm The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee will meet to conduct a public hearing on a communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the first Cycling Safety Ordinance report which analyzes the block-by-block impacts of installing quick-build separated bike lanes on four specific segments of Massachusetts Avenue, as identified in Section 12.22.040 (E) of the ordinance. (Sullivan Chamber)

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1 June 7, 2021
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Residents of the Riverside neighborhood, particularly around Franklin St., Green St., Bay St., Hancock St., and Kinnaird St., have raised concerns regarding drivers speeding and not obeying traffic laws; and
WHEREAS: There are many children, as well as the MLK/PAUS and various community centers in the neighborhood; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager direct the Traffic and Parking Department to conduct a traffic study in the Riverside neighborhood to determine any actions or changes, including, but not limited to new signage, speed bumps or enforcement measures that may be helpful in creating a more safe environment.

O-2 June 7, 2021 Charter Right - Sobrinho-Wheeler
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Dogs are required to be licensed in Cambridge, which requires a fee; and
WHEREAS: Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140; Section 139, paragraph C allows municipalities to waive this fee for senior citizens; and
WHEREAS: Many senior citizens are on fixed incomes and struggle to meet basic needs; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Animal Commission currently waives this fee only if requested; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Animal Commission supports waiving this fee for all senior citizens; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager work with the City Solicitor and the Animal Commission to take all necessary steps to waive the dog license fee for all senior citizens in Cambridge.

O-3 June 7, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
WHEREAS: June is national Caribbean-American Heritage Month, a time to recognize the significance of Caribbean people and their descendants in the history and culture of the United States; and
WHEREAS: This special month features events that celebrate the rich culture, traditions, and history of Caribbean people in the United States; and
WHEREAS: The combination of red, green, and gold symbolizes resistance, independence, strength, and Black empowerment throughout the Caribbean; and
WHEREAS: There is a long history of Caribbean-American people living and working in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: June 2019 was the first official celebration of Caribbean-American Heritage Month in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: It is especially important to safely celebrate and uplift the community however we can during this period of transition to our new normal; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council declare the month of June 2021 to be Caribbean-American Heritage Month in the City of Cambridge; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Council will work to suitably celebrate Caribbean-American Heritage Month, subject to any limitations imposed by the pandemic, including (but not limited to) lighting up city hall in red, green, and gold (yellow); and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to Cambridge Carnival International, Authentic Caribbean Foundation, and the Institute of Caribbean Studies on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-4 June 7, 2021
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Every summer, the State of Massachusetts sprays pesticides over millions of acres to control the mosquito population and reduce the spread of Eastern Equine Encephalitis; and
WHEREAS: The state’s current pesticide of choice, Anvil 10+10, is highly toxic and continues to be used despite the availability of minimum risk and organic certified alternatives; and
WHEREAS: A long list of Massachusetts environmental organizations, including Conservation Law Foundation, Mass Audubon, Massachusetts Sierra Club, and Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, are advocating for “an effective, affordable, transparent, ecologically responsible, and scientifically-based mosquito disease management in Massachusetts” that does not include Anvil 10+10; and
WHEREAS: A Boston Globe article from last year noted that an increasing number of municipalities in Massachusetts have detected elevated levels of PFAS in their drinking water which may be from the aerial and ground-based spraying of Anvil; Cambridge water supply PFAS levels are lower than the state threshold but higher than MWRA water; and
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to consult with the Department of Public Health on this issue and work with relevant City departments to determine what the safest and most effective mosquito management program for Cambridge is; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to report back to the Council as soon as possible with the current policy and if any changes to the mosquito management program will be made.

O-8 June 7, 2021
VICE MAYOR MALLON
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with the Director of the Public Libraries with input from the Library staff and Library Union to fully open the Main Library as well as the Branch libraries on or before June 15th to ensure that residents have access to the materials provided within, as well as providing cooling centers to vulnerable residents during heat emergencies.

O-9 June 7, 2021
VICE MAYOR MALLON
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Law Department to advise the City Council as to whether the suggested changes to the Missing Middle Housing petition would alter the fundamental character of the Petition and whether that would require re-filing and re-advertising the Petition for new hearings for the June 10th Ordinance Committee on this topic.

Committee Report #2
Date: Wed, May 26, 2021, 10:00am, Sullivan Chamber

I. The Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee will conduct a public hearing on the reappointment of Conrad Crawford to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board and to discuss the pilot of street closures in Harvard Square.

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

II. Discussion

A communication was received from Blier, regarding a presentation for the May 26, 2021, Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee hearing.

A communication was received from Councillor Nolan, transmitting opening remarks.

The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:00am on the reappointment of Conrad Crawford to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board and to discuss the pilot of street closures in Harvard Square.

Present at the hearing via Zoom were Councillor Nolan, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler; Iram Farooq, Asst. City Manager; Khalil Mogassabi, Deputy Director of Community Planning and Chief Planner; Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environment and Transportation Planning; Melissa Peters, Director of Community Planning; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director; Daniel Wolf, Neighborhood Planner; Sarah Scott, Associate Zoning Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Joseph Barr, Director; Brooke McKenna, Assistant Director for Street Management, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner; Kathy Watkins, Senior Engineer, Department of Public Works (DPW); Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Michael Scarlett, Aide to Councillor Nolan; Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present via Zoom were Tom Evans, Executive Director, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA); Conrad Crawford; Suzanne Blier; Brad Bellows; Nicola Williams; Laura Donahue; Marilee Meyer, Harvard Square Neighborhood Association (HSNA); Denise Jillson, Executive Director, Harvard Square Business Association (HSBA); Alexandra Offiong, Director of Planning Services; Thomas Lucey, Director of Community Relations, Harvard University; Janie Katz-Cristy; Kari Kuelzer; Michael Gajda; Michael Brandon; and Jason Alves, Executive Director, East Cambridge Business Association (ESBA).

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

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, and Councillor Zondervan -5
ABSENT: -0
and a quorum was present, and the hearing was clearly audible to all participants.

Councillor Nolan read prepared written Opening Remarks (ATTACHMENT A).

Joseph Barr stated that it has been a significant effort encompassing many City departments, including public safety. He said that this effort includes a variety of different perspectives including traffic, operations, planning, design, and esthetics to make this design work and serve all of the different user groups. He said that the City has worked during the pandemic to accommodate a lot of different user space with the most recent being the pilot closure of Brattle Street between Elliot and Church Streets. He said that they are continuing to make significant capital investments within Harvard Square. He said that the shorter term, more quick build changes are important, but it is important to also remember the positive changes due to capital improvements.

Iram Farooq stated that Mr. Barr has done a nice job of setting the stage for many of the considerations and range of items that are underway in Harvard Square. She invited Lisa Hemmerle and Melissa Peters to provide insight to the considerations related to balancing the needs of business. She said that we have started to see what the promise of closing streets can mean. She said that the squares are a place of commerce and there really is a confluence of the community planning functions around placemaking and the economic functions.

Lisa Hemmerle stated that she is pleased with a lot of the outcomes as there has been great street activation, patio extensions, and cool uses over the months. She said that there is always sensitivity about how this work will impact small businesses. She said that they must think through every iteration of the planning to ensure that the outcome will make sense for the small businesses. She said that the City engages small businesses in direct conversations to think through issues including parking. Iram Farooq noted that as it relates to parking, the City also continues to think about the sustainable modes of transportation.

Melissa Peters stated the Community Planning continues to work on placemaking initiatives. She said that they are excited to launch the Public Space Lab which is a program to cultivate inclusive and participatory public spaces that support community life. She said that it is community led and they are experimenting through technical improvement. She said the as it relates to Palmer Street, they held community meetings in February and April. She noted that the City Council recently appropriated the funding to make the improvements to Palmer Street. She said that they are starting to procure furnishings and do contracting. There will be a community meeting in the upcoming month. She said that ideas include lighting, outdoor reading room, plantings, public piano, and overhead canopy.

Owen O’Riordan stated that DPW has been involved in projects in Harvard Square since the early 2000’s. He said that there have been multiple construction projects, both utility and surface infrastructure projects. He said that these include pedestrianization of Winthrop Street, the original work on Palmer Street and work that was done to improve pedestrian access in Harvard Square. He said that it has been challenging over the last year that small businesses continue to sustain, and he gave credit to the HSBA and city departments to come up with practical solutions for restaurants throughout the square.

Kathy Watkins gave an update on construction. She said that the kiosk is starting construction which will be a significant disruption in the square. She said that they are working proactively to support small businesses throughout that process. She said that there will be a second contract later this year for the plaza itself which is the work around the kiosk and will include the reconstruction of the super crosswalk area and improving a number of transportation issues at that location. The other large capital improvement in Harvard Square is Elliott Street which is the continuation from Curious George down to JFK Street and the Bennett Street area. She explained that that is funded in the City’s Capital Plan in 2024.

Suzanne Blier, President of the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association, said that this is a great opportunity and an important time as we are thinking about moving past Covid. She thanked the HSBA for the work that they have done. Ms. Blier, Brad Bellows and Nicola Williams gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT B) regarding the future of Harvard Square and its possibilities.

Ms. Williams said that she would like to recognize and acknowledge Ms. Jillson for shepherding Harvard Square and its businesses throughout Covid. She said that this is an opportunity to think strategically around closing streets and it is an opportunity to do different things with the goal of Harvard Square businesses thriving and having a square that is engaging for Cambridge residents and visitors. She talked about Moody Street in Waltham and the strategic ways that streets were closed. She said that Moody Street had a fire lane and cyclists were able to travel with no problems. She said that she hears the challenges of CDD but they can contact their counterparts in Waltham. She said that as it relates to the businesses that were not restaurants, the City gave them more promotion so she knew exactly where to go because of the clear signage. She said that there is not enough equity and diversity in our squares. She said that this is a moment to look at streets that the City owns to find a way to support businesses that don’t have access to Harvard Square. Ms. Williams said that neighbors and friends say that Harvard Square is a ghost town and is not a place to hang out anymore. She said that she would like to hear different narratives. She said that closing streets will activate the square.

Denise Jillson stated her thanks to the City. She said that from the very beginning in March, the City and staff went into high gear. She said that she is proud and thankful to the City. She thanked Councillor Nolan for the work that was done regarding the 15% cap fee. She said that while it has only been in effect for about 18 weeks, the tremendous amount of money that has been saved by restaurants cannot be underestimated. Ms. Jillson said that there are 270 businesses in operation in Harvard Square at this time and 76% are locally owned and independent. She said that the good news is that they are in operation, but they are nowhere near their pre-Covid numbers. In terms of Palmer Street, Ms. Jillson said that she has worked closely with Melissa Peters and Dan Wolf from CDD to take a look at that street. She said that there are many interventions that are already in play. She said that a player piano will be in place in approximately 10 days. She said that furniture has been ordered. She said that the Brattle Street closure between Elliott and Church Streets has taken place for two weekends and they have gotten great feedback. She said that this program could potentially be expanded. She said that the vibe last weekend was wonderful. She said that the HSBA has proposed the possibility of extending the Elliott Triangle on the east side of the triangle. She said that the difficulty there was the turning radius for an 18-wheeler was a challenge so that intervention is not recommended. Ms. Jillson said that the HSBA is excited to see other closures to make Harvard Square more vibrant. She said that in a typical year there are between 8 and 10 million visitors to Harvard Square. She noted that last year there were hundreds. She said that it was extraordinarily empty. She said that this is not the best news, but Harvard students will begin coming back at the end of August. In the meantime, they are counting on local visitors to explore the area, but they are not expecting large numbers this year. She said that come 2022, they are hoping that they see the numbers back to 8-10 million.

Laura Donahue thanked the City for its financial assistance. She said that the City’s grants were the first money available to any business. She said that this paid some vendors. She said that the businesses have been pivoting for 15 months. She said that handicap access is very important, and she would like to ensure that there is reasonable access to people who are mobility challenged. She said that there are massive construction projects going on in the next 4-5 years and big trucks will still need to travel through Harvard Square to ensure that there is not a pedestrian area right next to a project. She said that Harvard Square has been a regional draw and she has people coming from the North Shore and she is concerned about how people will come into the square and where they will go. She said that she would love to work through details in this regard. She said that the food pick-up people want to go in front of a restaurant to pick up and she would like to see how this would work. She noted that emergency access must also be a factor and she would like these issues shown on a map. Councillor Nolan said that this is a brainstorming session to think about things such as those that Ms. Donahue has laid out.

Councillor Nolan stated that the parking lot on Church Street has a community refrigerator and a shower for unhoused people that was donated to the City in order to provide some critically needed services and she thanked all for stepping in and working with the HSBA and Harvard University to make that happen.

Alexandra Offiong stated that it has been a tough year in Harvard Square. She thanked everyone for their hard work to keep everything afloat. She said that Harvard University is targeting August 2, 2021 as a soft opening where we will begin to see some staff and faculty come back. She said that Harvard is excited about any opportunity to undertake to activate and enliven Harvard Square. She said that they are working with CDD on Palmer Street. She stated that she likes the idea of managing deliveries and leveraging the underutilized area. She said that Harvard is interested to look into any creative ideas and is part of a larger team to support Harvard Square.

Tom Lucey added his thanks to the City for all the work that has been done. He said that Harvard is not collecting rent and some businesses still cannot make it. He said that these efforts are very important and appreciated. He said that the curbside pickup was a critical element to keep restaurants open. He stated that Harvard University is supportive of anything that they can do to help Harvard Square.

Janie Katz-Christy, Cambridge Bike Safety, stated that they have been learning a lot about the possibilities and she thanked the City for its incredible work. She said that her organization has been meeting with business associations and neighborhood associations because it is critical to have a thriving local economy and enlivened street. She said that they have brainstormed on ideas to work together. She said that there is a desire to work together with the potential to come up with creative solutions. She said that she is curious about pedicabs and other ways to enliven streets. She said that this would be a fun draw to Harvard Square.

Councillor Carlone stated that there are two groups of people who are missing from this meeting: an urban designer and The Coop. He said that when you enter a “people place” the asphalt should change to signify that this is a different place. He said that a policy order was passed regarding planted areas and he has heard nothing. He said that we have to make Harvard Square different than a regular road going through a bricked, paved retail area that needs help. He talked about the differences between DeWolfe Street and Palmer Street. He said that we have to get the abutting users to be active participants. He said that Palmer Street should be lit up and be able to be “pedestrian” in the evening hours. He added that when he first came to the City in the late 60’s, Harvard Square was fun. He said that this is a holistic problem, it is how you weave it together.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that she has teenagers who live in Harvard Square and love it. She said that her teens are in the square often and frequent a lot of businesses. She said that there are some people who are missing from the conversation. She said that she would like to hear from the restaurants. She stated that we do have an urban planner and designer on this call in Ms. Farooq who does have this professional experience. She said that Starlight Square has turned Central Square into a place to be on the weekends. She said that she wants to think outside of the box. She stated that she was on a recent bike ride through Harvard Square on Sunday and it was a different experience when you feel safe moving through Harvard Square on your bike. She would like to think about how to get people in and out of the square safely. She stated she agrees with Councillor Carlone about Palmer Street. She said that Ms. Blier talked about concerns with violence and a cannabis retailer that will open at the top of Palmer Street. Ms. Blier said that there is currently violence that has to do with the unhoused. She said that one concern is that they want Harvard Square, particularly for minority businesses, not to be just about cannabis. She said that they want Harvard Square to be about many things. There will be a cannabis retailer but that is the reason to anticipate enlivening Palmer Street so that it is part of the larger set of engagements. Vice Mayor Mallon encouraged all from perpetuating the myth that is harmful. She said that in the spirit of collegiality and brainstorming we should think about how we are using our words.

Councillor McGovern thanked Vice Mayor Mallon for her comments and said that we should not associate cannabis stores with violence. He stated that Harvard Square is unique as everyone thinks of Harvard Square as “their square.” He said that the character of Harvard Square has changed. He said that the Harvard Square that he hung out in the 80’s is not the same Harvard Square as his mother hung out in. He said that his sons did not have the same experiences in Harvard Square that he did. He said that this summer will be unique opportunity to get businesses back in play and make money. He said that summer is here, and he hopes that we don’t get stuck in a pattern of waiting until everything is perfect. He said that street performers in Harvard Square are the kinds of things that we must get back. He said that we must move quickly.

Councillor Zondervan stated that we have spent many years talking about Harvard Square. He said that he just wants to see Harvard Square done and he said that he is willing help wherever needed.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler stated that he recently chaired a meeting in the Transportation Committee about having the street design in Harvard Square be more people-centered and less car-centered. He said that a big focus is on the safety of residents and visitors. He said that two residents who were killed in one year within 100 feet of each other in Harvard Square by vehicles. He said that closing streets to vehicles makes it safer for residents, but it also helps local businesses. He said that we have devoted a huge amount of space in Harvard Square to cars. He is happy to see the kiosk improvements moving forward. He said that he is pleased to see Palmer Street changes being discussed. He said that this is low-hanging fruit. He noted that businesses still need space for deliveries so we must keep that in mind. He said that Harvard Square is maybe the most public transit friendly spot in all of Cambridge and if more people are encouraged to take the T instead of driving, maybe in the future we will not need all of the parking lots and garages. He said that should be a big focus of planning. He said Harvard Square was not originally designed for cars and that is why the streets are challenging and dangerous. He said that he believes that we can go further with street closures.

Councillor McGovern said that we must also think about streamlining the process of acoustic music. He noted that we must ensure that we are making it easier for people to get permits and licenses to make this happen. He said that this must be part of the conversation. Kari Kuelzer stated her agreement with Councillor McGovern. She added that Harvard is an important partner to the retailers in the square. She said that with Harvard being closed this year, so many more Harvard students are finding retailers in Harvard Square.

Ms. Farooq said that the licensing barriers still remain, and they are not always 100% in the City’s control. Regarding the zoning barriers, they are trying to solve with the current City Council.

Susanne Rasmussen stated that Harvard Square is a major hub for public transportation and serves some of the highest rider routes in the entire MBTA system. She said that they sustained ridership because they tend to serve essential worker destinations which include the businesses in Harvard Square and the hospital. She said that workers need the services at night and on weekends. She encouraged that the conversation be centered around the importance of transit service.

Councillor Carlone said that we have to prioritize mass transit on certain roads and pedestrian zones. He said that it becomes a slow zone. He said that as much as everyone is exuberant about positive changes, it will be slow so that is why we must be serious with a master plan. He stated that he fears that is what has been missing in Harvard Square.

Denise Jillson stated that regarding Councillor Carlone’s comments about asphalt and surfaces, when a vehicle goes down Winthrop or Palmer Streets, it automatically slows down because they sense that there is something different about this space. She said that there has not been one incident where it has been unsafe for pedestrian or vehicles. She said that a Policy Order in October of 2017 was unanimously approved by the City Council to reduce the speed limit in Harvard Square to 15 MPH. She said that slowing traffic to 15 MPH requires state legislative action. She said that had this be done, four years later that would have been done. She said that in Europe there are electronic bollards that prevent traffic from going into the pedestrian friendly street. Emergency vehicles and City buses have transponders so as they approach the bollard, the bollard goes down and allows the vehicle to go through and then goes back up to prevent other traffic from using it. She said that buses, UPS, etc. could use these transponders to allow us to do what we want to do. She stated that Mr. DiGiovanni is looking a plan for the garage on Dunster Street that is more pedestrianized. She urged the Committee to look at Harvard Square’s Facebook page to see the activity that is taking place in the square.

Brad Bellows said that it is important to engage abutting property owners of Palmer Street. He said that there is a lot of opportunity with the abutting retailers.

Joseph Barr said that he recently had dinner in Harvard Square, and it was quite busy. He said that there are a lot of ideas that cannot all happen at the same time, but he will take what he has heard and further discuss it internally to determine appropriate next steps. He added that when thinking about traffic control issues, it is easier to think about partial street closures or blocking off parking while leaving the street open for emergency access. He said that we need to think about doing things in ways that are impactful but do not change the access in a way that requires a lot of other things to be changed along the way.

Councillor Nolan stated that she is hearing about long-term thinking and short-term efforts to try new things. She stated that there is a myriad of things to consider such a transit, pop-up opportunities, etc. She said that we must make sure that it is working with the businesses, neighborhood, and the rest of the city. She said that the City has worked hard on licensing and zoning to make it as easily as possible for acoustic music. She said that that the City Council stands ready to help in any way to move forward with pilots. She said that Harvard Square is less than it could be, but it is vibrant at times.

Councillor Nolan then moved to the reappointment of Conrad Crawford to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board.

Tom Evans said that the CRA Board is made up of 5 members, 4 of which are appointed by the City Manager and confirmed by the City Council. The fifth member is appointed by the Governor’s Office. He noted that Mr. Crawford was first appointed by City Manager Robert W. Healy. He stated that Mr. Crawford brings to the Board a breath of knowledge across a multitude of urban planning and development topics which include open space, transportation, infrastructure and sustainability, housing, and finance. He has worked in non-profit advocacy and in the private sector in the technology industry. He has served on many City committees. He said that Mr. Crawford has served as Treasurer and is currently the Vice Chair of the CRA Board. He said that as a father of three and longtime resident of East Cambridge, Mr. Crawford brings to CRA meetings and planning work the vital perspective as a parent. Mr. Evans wholeheartedly recommended Mr. Crawford be reappointed to the CRA Board.

Vice Mayor Mallon made a motion to extend the hearing by ten minutes.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, and Councillor Zondervan -5
NAYS: -0
and the motion passed.

Mr. Crawford stated that he appreciates the ability to apply his wide-ranging interests to the work that the CRA does. He added that as it relates to equity outreach and engagement of the larger community, as a black male who has lived in Greater Boston for five decades, he can bring that perspective as to how he experiences the community as an individual. He said that he navigates the built environment with three small people who enjoy the playgrounds and open spaces along with the importance of safe streets. He said that the CRA has reinvigorated the mission of the organization with the implementation of a five-year plan. He said that he is proud of the work that has been done by the CRA. He said that he looks forward to continuing to contribute his thoughts and interests and sharing those thoughts with people offline as well.

Councillor Zondervan thanked Mr. Crawford for his service to the CRA Board. He said that Mr. Crawford cares so deeply about the community and stated that he supports his reappointment to the CRA Board.

Councillor McGovern stated his full support for Mr. Crawford. He thanked him for his commitment to the Cambridge community. He thanked the CRA for their expanded view, including helping to save nonprofit organizations at 99 Bishop Allen Drive.

Councillor Carlone stated he is constantly impressed by the CRA and the can-do attitude that has been very helpful. He asked Mr. Crawford how the CRA Board works. Mr. Crawford stated that they work with staff and do everything from site visits, phone check-ups, and subcommittee meetings. He said that there is a meeting prior to the CRA Board meetings to take a look at the proposed agenda and keep the Board abreast of work being done. He said that they respect staff and their skills and are partners in what goes on at the CRA. Councillor Carlone stated that he fully endorses the reappointment of Mr. Crawford.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated her enthusiastic support on the reappointment of Mr. Crawford.

Councillor Nolan made a motion to forward the re-appointment of Conrad Crawford to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, and Councillor Zondervan -5
NAYS: -0
and the motion passed.

Councillor Nolan thanked all those present for their participation.

Councillor McGovern made a motion to adjourn the hearing.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, and Councillor Zondervan -5
NAYS: -0
and the hearing was adjourned at 12:11pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Patricia Nolan, Chair

Proposed Order June 7, 2021
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
ORDERED: That the City Council confirm the reappointment of Conrad Crawford to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA).

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

19-62. 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

20-27. 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

20-53. 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

20-59. 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

20-65. 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

20-69. 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

21-2. Report on providing a report on the possible implementation of a sheltered market program. See Mgr #8
Vice Mayor Mallon (O-5) from 1/4/2021

21-4. Report on conducting a spending disparity study on City purchasing with businesses owned by minorities, women, veterans, disabled persons, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other historically disadvantaged groups. See Mgr #8
Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Nolan (O-1) from 2/3/2021

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

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

21-8. 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

21-9. 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

21-10. 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

21-14. Report on presenting options to the Council to ensure that the staff at Albany Street are properly compensated for their work, and that guests are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (Calendar Item #3) from 3/8/2021

21-15. Report on directing the Task Force Co-Chairs to issue monthly updates to the City Council (as part of the “Communications from Other City Officers”) and to the public about the work of this task force.
Councillor Zondervan (Calendar Item #2) from 3/8/2021

21-17. Report on initiating a process to begin chronicling the rich and vibrant history of people of color in Cambridge, similar to other City-commissioned books such as “We Are the Port: Stories of Place, Perseverance, and Pride in the Port/Area 4 Cambridge, Massachusetts 1845-2005” and “All in the Same Boat” and “Crossroads: Stories of Central Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1912-2000”.
Councillor Simmons (O-2) from 3/15/2021

21-18. Report on providing a detailing of the City’s annual stationary expenditures, what percentage of that budget is spent at local retailers, and whether this percentage can be increased during the Covid-19 crisis.
Councillor Simmons (O-3) from 3/15/2021

21-19. Report on providing an update on progress made towards including information from the Cambridge Minority Business Enterprise Program in the Open Data Portal.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons (O-4) from 3/22/2021

21-20. Report on coordinating efforts to formally recognize and promote National Black Business Month in August and Women’s Small Business Month in October. See Mgr #7
(O-1) from 3/29/2021

21-21. Report implementing traffic-calming solutions, such as speed bumps to be implemented in this area.
Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (O-3) from 4/5/2021

21-22. Report on making sure all information on the City's list of neighborhood organizations are updated and that a specific staffer be tasked with ensuring that the information is updated on an annual basis.
Councillor Simmons (O-5) from 4/5/2021

21-23. Report on the concept of permanently extending the ability for members of the public to remotely participate in meetings of the City Council and meetings of the City’s boards and commissions. See Mgr #11
Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan (O-1) from 4/12/2021

21-24. Report on determining ways of making remote participation to the City’s public meetings more accessible and exploring other ways and technologies that can make it easier for members of the public to participate in City Council, board and commission meetings.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern (O-2) from 4/12/2021

21-28. Report on ensuring that no investment of City funds shall be made with banks, money managers, or investment portfolios that have any exposure to fossil fuels or private prisons.
Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-1) from 4/26/2021

21-29. Report on updating the Parental Leave Policy for employees.
Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons (O-7) from 4/26/2021

21-30. Report on increasing the affordable homeownership stock over the next 10 years by financing the construction of affordable homeownership units through a bond issue of no less than $500 million.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #1) from 5/3/2021

21-32. Report on exploring and implement strategies to enhance safety at the intersection of Memorial Drive and DeWolfe Street.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan (O-2) from 5/3/2021

21-33. Report on including an EV requirement in the review of development projects, including that a minimum of 25% of all parking spaces shall be EVSE-Installed, meaning a parking space equipped with functioning Level 2 Chargers, or the equivalent thereof must be provided, and that all parking spaces be EV-ready, meaning raceway to every parking space, adequate space in the electrical panel, and space for additional transformer capacity; the City approved EV Requirement Equivalent Calculator must be used if chargers other than Level 2 Chargers are installed.
Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (O-3) from 5/3/2021

21-34. Report on finding a parking solution, such as the feasibility of implementing resident parking in the area near the intersection of Concord Avenue and Smith Place.
Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (O-4) from 5/3/2021

21-35. Report on providing options to update the HomeBridge and Affordable Home Ownership Programs to better align with the City’s values, and promote racial equity and socioeconomic justice.
Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui (O-6) from 5/3/2021

21-36. Report on developing a holistic plan for managing the traffic and congestion in the Alewife area.
Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon (O-2) from 5/17/2021

21-37. Report on consulting with relevant Department heads and the non-profit community on "Digital Equity" and provide an implementation plan, schedule, and request for appropriation.
Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan (O-4) from 5/17/2021

21-38. Report on consulting with relevant Department heads on other broadband benefits programs offered by the Federal government, and the City’s plans to leverage these funds in pursuit of Digital Equity.
Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan (O-5) from 5/17/2021

21-39. Report on the status of the Gold Star Mothers Pool opening plans for the June through September summer season of 2021. See Mgr #2
Councillor Toomey, Mayor Siddiqui (O-7) from 5/17/2021

21-40. Report on implementing a heavy truck traffic ban on Roberts Road from Kirkland Street to Cambridge Street.
Councillor Toomey, Mayor Siddiqui (O-8) from 5/17/2021

21-41. Report on closing Mass Ave. from Prospect Street to Sydney Street on Friday and Saturday evenings from 7pm to 1am through September 2021.
Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #1) from 5/17/2021

21-42. Report on reviewing Cambridge’s corporate contracts and purchases to identify any vendors or manufacturers whose products are used to perpetuate violations of International Human Rights Laws and Cambridge’s policy on discrimination.
Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #2) from 5/25/2021