5. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $500,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Library Extraordinary Expenditures account to fund a comprehensive Library Building Program Study and Feasibility Study for the Central Square Branch Library.
Order Adopted 9-0

June 14, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $500,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Library Extraordinary Expenditures account to fund a comprehensive Library Building Program Study and Feasibility Study for the Central Square Branch Library.

The Library Building Program study will be used to identify the Central Square Branch’s future programmatic and space needs related to fulfilling the Library’s Strategic Priorities and mission. The study process will include (but is not limited to): community input; a review of relevant library and city documents as well as interviews with library administration, staff, trustees and other stakeholders; consideration of neighborhood demographics and projected growth and future needs; and an analysis of the size of the current building and how it would need to be organized functionally to meet community needs.

The Feasibility study will be informed by the results of the Building Program study and explore conceptual designs that would meet the needs determined by the Building Program. Other considerations will include accessibility guidelines; building envelope; available floor area; and HVAC systems and energy efficiency.

The Program and Feasibility Studies are estimated to take 12 to 24 months to complete.

This work will supplement previously funded projects that are both completed and currently underway at the Central Square Branch Library including:

• New furniture including seating and tables in the Children’s Room, Lewis Room, and Literacy Center.

• New shelving and storage in the Literacy Center.

• New computers and computer tables in the Children’s Room, Literacy Center, and Tech Center Room.

• A lighting Study.

• A new water bubbler.

• Painting and minor drywall repairs.

• New carpet, replacement of storage units, and refinishing the kitchenette in the Lewis Room.

• Replacement of exterior signage and new wayfinding and collection signage

• Refreshing the outdoor public display case.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-18, regarding a report on the City's annual stationery expenditures and percentage spent at local retailers.
Placed on File 9-0

June 14, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-18, regarding a report on the City's annual stationery expenditures and percentage spent at local retailers, Purchasing Agent Elizabeth Unger reports the following:

The City executed a contract procured through an Invitation for Bids pursuant to M.G. L. c. 30B, § 5 for the delivery of recycled paper for all City and School Departments. The current contract expires in September 2022. The estimated value of the contract for FY21 is $371,280. The current contract holder is WB Mason.

In FY21 the City issued $42,252.30 in purchase orders under the recycled paper contract of which $25,134.09 was paid as of May 11, 2021.

Additionally, the City executed a contract procured using the Commonwealth’s OSD Contract OFF47, as permitted by Chapter 30B, § 1(c) for office supplies for all City and School Departments. The current contract expires in September 2021. The estimated value of the contract is $360,000. The current contract holder is WB Mason.

In FY21 the City issued $332,999.08 in purchase orders under the OSD office supply contract of which $242,403.68 was paid as of May 11, 2021.

Paper and other stationery products fall within the definition of supplies under M.G.L. c. 30B. Chapter 30B governs the procurement of supplies and services by a governmental body. A geographic restriction is not permissible under Chapter 30B. Such a restriction goes against the principles of open and fair competition because it limits the vendor pool. As such the city cannot limit its spending on contracts subject to Chapter 30B to local vendors or give any vendor an advantage on city contracts.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to first Progress Report due under the Cycling Safety Ordinance (Chapter 12.22 of the Cambridge Municipal Code), which is required to detail “…progress towards meeting the requirements set forth in Subsections C, D, E, F, G, and H. Such report shall include details on the Separated Bicycle Facilities planned for the coming twelve months.”
Referred to Transportation and Public Utilities Committee 9-0

June 14, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting the first Progress Report due under the Cycling Safety Ordinance (Chapter 12.22 of the Cambridge Municipal Code), which is required to detail “…progress towards meeting the requirements set forth in Subsections C, D, E, F, G, and H. Such report shall include details on the Separated Bicycle Facilities planned for the coming twelve months.”

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     June 14, 2021  Amended
VICE MAYOR MALLON
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: During the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee hearing held on June 2nd, 2021, committee members discussed the possibility of the City buying properties for sale in the Alewife area, and develop these properties to address City goals; and
WHEREAS: The Envision Alewife plan lays out several goals for the neighborhood, including “[leveraging] development to create open space and public amenities such as a library, community center, or recreation center to foster a sense of community in residential portions of Alewife” that could be accomplished or moved forward by purchasing and redeveloping space; and
WHEREAS: Purchasing properties in Alewife could also address City-wide Envision goals, especially those surrounding open space and early childhood education, as well as the need for a new fire station, potentially a new elementary school based on enrollment projections, and an adequate amount of land to address the increased risk of flooding in this area due to climate change; and
WHEREAS: One of Envision’s expanded, ongoing capital improvement recommendations is to “carry out public realm improvements to support placemaking in Cambridge’s commercial districts and corridors”; and
WHEREAS: Leveraging the City’s strong financial position to invest in public spaces is a crucial way the City can remain responsive and proactive in addressing the neighborhood-specific needs of Alewife, while ensuring that the City is not dependent on allowing property owners to develop beyond base zoning in exchange for providing these public benefits; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department, the Assessing Department, the Finance Department, and other relevant City departments to explore the feasibility of purchasing properties for sale in the Alewife area to address City goals; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-2     June 14, 2021
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR MALLON
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: It has come to the City Council’s attention that the City of Cambridge stands to receive a significant amount of funding from the American Rescue Plan, which is required to be spent over the next three to five years to “cover increased expenditures, replenish lost revenue and mitigate economic harm” related to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS: It would be prudent for the City Council to hold a meeting to discuss how these funds may best be utilized in our community; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Mayor be and hereby is requested to schedule a Roundtable meeting to discuss how the American Rescue Plan funds may best be utilized in Cambridge.

O-3     June 14, 2021
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Cambridge’s senior centers, located at 806 Massachusetts Avenue and 266B Rindge Avenue, serve as invaluable resources for our elder neighbors; and
WHEREAS: As the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the health and financial concerns of many of our seniors, especially disabled, low-income, and other vulnerable seniors, and exposed resource gaps, we must ensure that the senior centers are directly responsive to the needs of this community; and
WHEREAS: Expanding services offered at the senior centers by, for example, hiring a nurse to spearhead public health efforts for seniors, such as blood pressure clinics, would make a meaningful difference in closing these resources gaps; and
WHEREAS: Many of our seniors, especially those who just barely exceed income or wealth requirements to access services elsewhere but who still need financial support, would also benefit from having access to a licensed social worker at the senior centers, who could help seniors apply for rental assistance, food benefits, and other critical resources; and
WHEREAS: The senior centers haven’t been accessible to many of our elder neighbors for over a year, and as we begin our long journey towards economic recovery, expanding the services at our senior centers is needed now more than ever to ensure vulnerable members of our community are well-supported; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Department for Human Service Programs, the Council on Aging, the Public Health Department and other relevant City departments to explore the feasibility or expanding services at the senior centers, especially by adding clinical staff; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-4     June 14, 2021
VICE MAYOR MALLON
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The Commonwealth’s housing sanitary code requires that temperatures from September 15th to June 15th each year not fall below 68°F (20° C) during the day and 64°F (17° C) at night; and
WHEREAS: Eastern Massachusetts has been experiencing a harsh heat wave, with temperatures often creeping into the high 90s, yet this requirement has prevented affordable housing buildings from turning on the air conditioning; and
WHEREAS: Affordable housing buildings’ HVAC systems often cannot provide heat and air conditioning simultaneously, and there are concerns that a building would not be in compliance with the sanitary code, should the temperature drop below 64°F before June 15th, especially since the process of switching between heat and air conditioning takes a few days; and
WHEREAS: While some local affordable housing buildings have made the switch to air conditioning despite these concerns, State Representatives Marjorie Decker and Jay Livingstone have begun advocating for remedies at the state level that would allow more flexibility and discretion in the timing for switchovers during the shoulder seasons, such as a waiver to this rule; and
WHEREAS: As we expect temperatures to rise and the weather to become increasingly unpredictable in the coming years due to climate change, and as many affordable housing buildings serve especially vulnerable communities, such as seniors or residents with disabilities, we must support this effort to ensure all residents can feel safe and comfortable in their homes; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Public Health Department, the Inspectional Services Department, the Cambridge Housing Authority, and other relevant City departments to determine if the City has the discretion to waive this rule, and the circumstances in which the City could administer this waiver, and report back to the City Council; and
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record urging the Commonwealth to adopt a sanitary code amendment that would allow greater flexibility and discretion on temperature control during the shoulder seasons; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Cambridge legislative delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-5     June 14, 2021  Amended
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The City’s Department of Human Service Programs recently announced that its afterschool programs, including Community Schools and Youth Centers, will be in-person this fall; and
WHEREAS: These afterschool programs are an invaluable resource for our community, offering students enriching academic and social experiences while providing childcare for working caregivers; and
WHEREAS: Amid physical distancing requirements and staffing limitations, Cambridge Public Schools (CPS) caregivers have raised concerns that there may be programmatic and enrollment reductions, which would prevent many students from accessing this opportunity, concerns that have not yet been addressed; and
WHEREAS: A petition has been circulating among some CPS caregivers calling for enhanced communication, and a commitment to maintaining Fall 2019 afterschool program capacity; and
WHEREAS: As we approach mass-vaccination and the new normal after more than a year of anxiety, fear, and isolation, CPS caregivers would benefit immensely from knowing what to plan for in the fall, and from the security of knowing their student(s) will have a slot in afterschool programs; and
WHEREAS: Convening a Human Services & Veterans Committee meeting on afterschool programs would be an accessible way to communicate the City’s planning for the fall, while aligning with the City’s goals on transparency and responsiveness; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Chair of the Human Services & Veterans Committee schedule a hearing on fall afterschool programs as soon as possible.

O-6     June 14, 2021  Amended
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: During the June 7, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council was updated about the ability to extend remote public participation; and
WHEREAS: The Council was advised that we may extend our remote public participation rules even after Governor Baker’s Order for suspending certain Open Meeting Law provisions is no longer in effect; and
WHEREAS: This Council is committed to ensuring residents have equal access and opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns to the Council during these weekly meetings; and
WHEREAS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve seen a significant surge in remote participation from residents throughout Cambridge, some participating in public comment for the first time; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That Rule 24C (1)(b) of the Rules of the City Council be amended to add the following sentence: “Individuals will be heard in the order that they signed up whether they are participating in-person or remotely the meeting is held in-person, remotely, or both.”

O-7     June 14, 2021  Amended
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge and numerous public-minded non-profits advocate for open space, green space, parks, playing fields, community gardens, trails, and urban wilds throughout Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Green spaces mitigate climate change by capturing carbon and precipitation, lowering temperatures, encouraging biodiversity, and providing public health and community benefits in densely populated cities like Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge’s publicly owned land is held in trust for all Cantabrigians, including those who will come after us; and
WHEREAS: Only seven (7) percent of our City-owned land is used for parks and recreation – well below the national median of fifteen (15) percent; and
WHEREAS: During the Covid-19 pandemic, people have increasingly looked to parks for their physical and mental health and this heightened appreciation for open space will continue after the current public health crisis recedes; and
WHEREAS: Some of the City’s most densely populated neighborhoods including The Port, and Wellington-Harrington, and East Cambridge, where affordable housing is concentrated, have the least open space (and fewest trees), creating intense “heat islands”; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to adopt the following requests:

1. Update the City’s Open Space Plan (current plan expired in 2016) so that Cambridge has full access to Federal and State funding for open space

2. Update zoning guidelines for each part of the city, so that developers’ proposals are also evaluated in relation to a neighborhood’s schools, parks and playgrounds, libraries, health centers, roads, and traffic patterns

3. Adopt zoning standards that promote consistency, including clearer guidelines and post-construction review of privately owned, yet publicly accessible, open spaces (POPS)

4. Invest, maintain, and improve the DCR-owned Cambridge parks, the parklands along the Charles and along Fresh Pond and Alewife Brook parkways

5. Expand the City’s open space inventory through acquisition and negotiation with developers with a particular focus on underserved areas

6. Add green to the streetscapes of Cambridge, which should be recognized as open spaces and visual connections to parks

7. Add a line item in the City’s capital budget for open space design and construction

8. Increase funding in the City’s operating budget for planning and urban design

ORDERED: That the approved policy order be sent to the City Manager and the Health and Environment Committee for their review and action.

O-8     June 14, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that there have been several crashes over the last few weeks as well as daily near misses at the intersection of Cardinal Medeiros Avenue, Binney Street, and Bristol Street; and
WHEREAS: The intersection in question has long been dangerous, particularly because Bristol Street is often used as a cut-through by drivers, and this section of Cardinal Medeiros is straight and induces speeding by drivers, often lacking intimate knowledge of the particular hazards of this intersection; and
WHEREAS: Most of the recent crashes at the intersection have involved cars turning from Bristol Street onto Cardinal Medeiros Ave. or attempting to cross Cardinal Medeiros Ave. to go straight on Binney St.; and
WHEREAS: Bristol Street was identified to become a shared street during a proposed expansion, and the city has expressed a willingness to explore a revised shared street design on small side streets like Bristol Street this summer; and
WHEREAS: Limiting cut-through traffic on Bristol Street would improve traffic safety at the intersection while creating additional opportunities for recreation, pedestrian and bicycle access, and safe outdoor dining at Vincent’s; and
WHEREAS: Other ways to improve safety at the intersection include installing on Cardinal Medeiros Ave. a push button crosswalk with flashing lights to slow down speeding drivers, or sensor triggered flashing lights to alert drivers to cross traffic, and/or an automated speed detection sign alerting drivers to excess speed and asking them to slow down, or full-intersection traffic controls (lights or 4-way stop) to regulate traffic flow and reduce speeding; now therefore be it
WHEREAS: Immediate options for stemming the tide of collisions include traffic safety details until more permanent improvements can be installed; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Traffic & Parking Department to make these immediate improvements to the safety of this intersection and to all intersections in the city that are similarly malfunctioning, and to implement longer term changes as soon as possible; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Traffic & Parking Department to implement a shared street on Bristol Street; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the council on these matters as soon as possible.

O-9     June 14, 2021
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has a goal of supporting small and local businesses, which are an important part of the City’s economy; and
WHEREAS: As part of this effort, the City has sought to examine the role that reducing license and permits fees and waiving some entirely can have in supporting local businesses; and
WHEREAS: The pandemic has had an outsize impact on small businesses in Cambridge, which are now seeking ways to recover in the coming months; and
WHEREAS: Better understanding which license and permits, and associated fees, are set under state law, which are set by ordinance by the City Council, and which are determined administratively by City staff would be helpful in determining what power the City has to assist in this regard; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with City staff to provide an update on the cost of each license and permit required by businesses in Cambridge, which business license and permit fees are set under state law, which are set by Cambridge ordinances, and which are determined administratively, as well as which licenses and permits the City has the discretion to waive entirely; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to report back as soon as possible and before the City Council’s summer recess.

O-10     June 14, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: Cambridge will receive $65,019,211.00 from the US Treasury as part of the American Rescue Plan signed into law by President Biden on March 11, 2021; and
WHEREAS: American Rescue Plan funding does not expire until December 31, 2024, and half of the money will not be disbursed until at least May 2022; and
WHEREAS: The American Rescue Plan’s local funding is allocated to Metropolitan Cities as defined by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and
WHEREAS: Federal money from the American Rescue Plan creates a unique opportunity to advance spending priorities of the council that have previously been blocked by the Anti-Aid Amendment, including the potential to give direct financial assistance to individuals, families, and small businesses; and
WHEREAS: The American Rescue Plan gives recipients broad flexibility to determine how to best use the funding to meet community needs during the public health emergency and pandemic recovery; and
WHEREAS: Given the disproportionate impact that the pandemic has and will continue to have on people of color and the working class, it is essential that there is a robust community process to determine how this money will be spent in a way that advances racial, economic, and environmental justice in our community; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee schedule a hearing to discuss the $65 million Cambridge is eligible to receive from the American Rescue Plan, and to begin the discussion on how the money can best be spent to advance racial, economic, and environmental justice in our community.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee met on the Tree Protection Ordinance amendments.
Date: Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 5:30pm, Sullivan Chamber
Present: Carlone, McGovern, Mallon, Nolan, Siddiqui, Simmons (late), Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey (late), Zondervan

Councillor McGovern called the meeting to order. He opened the floor to City staff.

Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works, gave a PowerPoint presentation which is included with these minutes. He explained that the amendments are the outcome of the Urban Forestry Master Plan. He stated the emphasis is placed on tree planting, care, and protection. He explained that these amendments streamline the current process. This amendment will allow the tree fund to be used more flexibly. The amendment will expand the definition of significant trees and add a definition for exceptional trees. He explained various options that the council could adopt for tree replacement.

In response to a questions from Councillor Zondervan, Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the replacement would apply to the smallest tree first. He added that the City does not get increasing benefit in planting more replacement trees, but it will benefit the person in terms of mitigation payments.

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone about moving trees, Mr. O’Riordan explained that the cost of relocating a tree is not that different from the cost of mitigation. He stated that when trees are relocated, they are generally relocated to parks. He stated that developers may have trouble finding an appropriate place to relocate the tree.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan about the type of tree to be replaced, He stated that the type of tree is not specified in the ordinance. He believes that tree type should be included in the regulations or guidance documents.

In response to a question from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about ensuring replacement tree will survive to maturity, Mr. O’Riordan stated that developers of large projects must obtain a bond for several years and the City can call on that bond if the tree fails. He added that for smaller residential properties the is no similar provision.

Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor, added that it was not permissible to withhold a certificate of occupancy if all the provisions of the building permit are met.

In response to a question from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about scaling the mitigation payment based on the value of the property, Mr. O’Riordan stated that had been discussed but was not incorporated in these amendments.

Councillor McGovern stated that the value of a person’s home may not be indicative of their wealth.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern, Mr. O’Riordan stated that there is no appeals process incorporated into the ordinance.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about the space a property owner would need to plant replacement trees, Andrew Putnam, Superintendent of Urban Forestry and Landscape, stated that trees planted closer together tend to grow better than trees plants further apart.

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Mallon how this ordinance encourages the planting of more trees, Mr. O’Riordan explained that if a person cuts down a large tree, they can plan several small tree to reduce their mitigation payment.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan about having the City provide replacement trees, Mr. O’Riordan stated that he had mixed feelings about that idea. He stated that the City is trying to strike a balance between encourage people to take care of existing trees and planting new trees.

Councillor McGovern opened the floor to public comment.

Kenny Likis, 9 Saville Street, described the costs and regulation that he had to deal with when removing a tree from his property. He suggested that a report from an arborist explaining the reasons for the removal should be sufficient.

Peter Cohen, 11 Donnell Street, he stated that the recommendations are complex, confusing, and vague. He stated the recommendations do not advance the goal of increasing the number of trees. He stated that the recommendation will make it harder to install solar power generation. He advocated an exemption for residential homeowners.

Mike Nakagawa, 51 Madison Avenue, suggested limiting the residential allowance of cutting a single tree. He suggested having an arborist periodically check trees and recommend maintenance to homeowners.

James Williamson, 1000 Jackson Place, stated that he felt like the City was not granting the people in affordable housing the same rights as others. He described how tree protection requirements do not apply equally to affordable housing.

Sarah Gallop, Co-Director, Government and Community Relations at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke in support of the proposed amendments. She stated that the hard work of the urban forest task force, City staff and the City Council has resulted in a proactive, innovative, and rigorous ordinance.

Motion to close public comment.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan, Mr. O’Riordan stated that the law does not permit City Arborist to enter private property.

Councillor Nolan expressed concerns about big developers choosing to remove trees and paying into the mitigation fund.

Mr. O’Riordan stated that the mitigation payments option is not available to large projects.

Councillor Nolan moved to delete all gendered pro nouns with none gendered pronouns.
Approved 9-0

Councillor Zondervan stated that the current exemption for affordable housing is a form of environmental injustice. He suggested that the City should provide funding to ensure that affordable housing residents have the same protection and access to the tree canopy as all residents.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler spoke in support of removing the exemption for affordable housing.

Councillor Carlone stated that everyone is worth having access to nature. He stated that he supported removing the exemption for affordable housing.

Councillor McGovern stated that the margin for affordable housing projects are so small that any increase in cost will lead to the reduction in units. He stated that he would not support the removal of the exemption. He will prioritize affordable units for people in need.

Mayor Siddiqui stated that she agreed with Councillor McGovern. She stated that the affordable housing developers are willing to come to the table and work on this issue.

Councillor Toomey stated that he agreed with Councillor McGovern and Mayor Siddiqui. He will not support removing the exemption.

Councillor Simmons stated that trees are important, but they should not be an impediment to affordable housing. She stated that she would not support removing the exemption.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that affordable housing developments are already very expensive, and the City should not be adding an expense to those developers. She will not support removing the exemption.

Councillor Zondervan moved to amend section 8.66.040 to read as follows "This Chapter shall apply to all trees located on Lots specified in the following section §8.66.060 and §8.66.065."
YEA: Carlone, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
NAY: Mallon, Simmons, Toomey, Siddiqui, McGovern
Motion Failed 4-5

Councillor McGovern moved to suspend the rules to extend the meeting to 8:00pm.
YEA: Carlone, Mallon, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Zondervan, Siddiqui, McGovern
Motion Passed 9-0

Councillor Zondervan moved to amend section “8.66.065 - Procedure for Other Significant Tree Removals” to read as follows:
“A Mitigation Payment will be required for all Significant Trees removed where an insufficient quantity of Replacement Trees is provided. If the total number of Replacement Trees is equivalent to the total number of Significant Trees removed from a Lot, the Mitigation Payment will be 50% the equivalent value of the total DBH removed from the Lot. If the total number of Significant Trees removed from a Lot is greater than the total number of Replacement Trees, then the Mitigation Payment will be 50% of equivalent value of the total DBH of a number associated with Replacement Trees plus 100% of the equivalent value of those Significant Trees not replaced. The Mitigation Payment of equivalent value shall be based on the total DBH of the removed Significant Trees that have not been replaced and 1.5 times the total DBH of Exceptional Trees to be removed from the Lot.”
YEA: Carlone, Mallon, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Zondervan, Siddiqui, McGovern
Motion Passed 9-0

In response to a question from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about the review of tree removal permits, Mr. O’Riordan stated that as with any profession, the City expects people to act with integrity. His described situations where professional would have different opinions.

In response to a question from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about retroactive applications for permits, Mr. O’Riordan stated that the City has to provide for circumstances where there is an emergency.

In response to a question from Vice Mayor Mallon about further refinements, Mr. O’Riordan explained that the Department of Public Works will promulgate regulations about how to implement the ordinance.

Councillor Carlone encouraged the City to plant trees in the areas of the city that are suffering from the worst heat island effects.

Councillor Nolan stated that she wanted additional information about the ability of arborists to enter private property.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan about auditing the decisions remove trees, Mr. O’Riordan stated that the department responds immediately when it receives complaints from the public.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about the process of granting a permit, Mr. Putnam explained that how the department verifies an applicant’s claims about a particular tree.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about providing a list of approved arborists, Mr. O’Riordan explained that arborists are certified professionals. He stated that sometime the City will ask for an opinion from a professional engineer.

Mr. O’Riordan stated that the City will remove a public tree if it is interfering with the foundation of a private structure.

Councillor Zondervan moved to forward the amendments to the tree protection ordinance to the full City council with a favorable recommendation.
YEA: Carlone, Mallon, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan, Siddiqui, McGovern
NAY: Toomey
Motion Passed 8-1

Councillor Nolan moved to adjourn at 7:57pm.
YEA: Carlone, Mallon, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Zondervan, Siddiqui, McGovern
Motion Passed 9-0

1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to proposed amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance. [REFERRED TO THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE IN COUNCIL MAR 22, 2021]

2. Health & Environment Committee - Committee Meeting - Oct 13, 2020, 3:00pm

3. Health & Environment Committee - Committee Meeting - Nov 10, 2020, 10:00am

4. A communication was received from Owen O'Riordan, Commissioner of Public Works, transmitting a communication from the Committee for Public Planting.

Committee Report #1B
The Health & Environment Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Date: Tues, Oct 13, 2020, 3:00pm, Sullivan Chamber
Present: Carlone, McGovern, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan

Councillor Zondervan called the meeting to order.

Councillor Zondervan opened the floor to public comment.

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

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

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

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

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

Councillor McGovern motion to close public comment.
YEA: Carlone, McGovern, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Motion passed 5-0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councillor Carlone moved to reopen public comment.
YEA: Carlone, McGovern, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Motion passed 5-0

No members of the public were available to comment.

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

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

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

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

Councillor McGovern motion to close public comment.
YEA: Carlone, McGovern, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Motion passed 5-0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councillor Carlone moved to adjourn.
YEA: Carlone, McGovern, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Motion passed 5-0

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

Committee Report #1C
The Health and Environment Committee met to continue discussing amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Date: Tues, Nov 10, 2020, 10:00am, Sullivan Chamber
Present: Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Absent: Carlone, McGovern

Councillor Zondervan called the meeting to order.

Mayor Siddiqui was also present.

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

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

Councillor Zondervan opened the floor to the committee.

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

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

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

Councillor Zondervan moved to close public comment.
YEA: Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
ABSENT: Carlone, McGovern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councillor Nolan moved to adjourn.
YEA: Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
ABSENT: Carlone, McGovern

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

Committee Report #2
The Ordinance Committee met to conduct a hearing on the Cannabis Delivery Zoning Amendments and Municipal Code Amendments.
Date: Wed, May 12, 2021, 5:30pm, Sullivan Chamber
Present: Carlone, McGovern, Mallon, Nolan, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Absent: Toomey

Councillor McGovern called the meeting to order. He opened the floor to City staff.

Daniel Messplay, senior zoning manager for zoning and development, gave a PowerPoint presentation which is attached to these minutes. He stated that this zoning petition follows the terms used in the cannabis control Commission's language in reference to permitted home delivery uses. There are two new classifications: the cannabis delivery operator establishment and the cannabis courier establishment. The cannabis delivery operator establishment is almost like a warehouse or distribution center. It can purchase wholesale products; it can store and repackage and re label products on site and deliver directly to consumers, but it cannot operate a storefront on site. the cannabis courier establishment is a dispatch office for home delivery. The physical point of sale is at an existing adult use retailer and the cannabis courier facilitates the delivery from that point of sale to consumers. It cannot sell directly. Community development proposes that the cannabis courier establishments be permitted by right in all office business and industrial districts. For the delivery operator establishments, these would be permitted only by Planning Board special permit and all office business and industrial districts. In this zoning petition we do not recommend including buffer requirements for cannabis career establishments because there is no product actually being stored on site for cannabis delivery operator establishments because there is product storage repackaging and relabeling on site. Community Development proposed a buffer that is 300 feet from schools, parks, and recreational areas. The minimum parking would be waived for establishments up to 4800 gross square feet, or up to 8000 square feet in higher density districts which are close to transit. The size of the uses for the cannabis delivery operator’s establishment is limited to 10,000 square feet.

In response to a question from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about buffer zones, Mr. Messplay stated that the idea was to be consistent with the buffers that are already for cannabis production facilities and adult use facilities.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about how close one of these establishments can be to an existing cannabis business, Mr. Messplay stated that there are no buffer requirements for these types of delivery uses from one another.

Councillor Nolan stated that she would be in favor of no buffer zones.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan about parking requirements, Jeffrey Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, stated bicycle parking minimum is a separate requirement in zoning. In terms of the approach to the parking requirements, there is a lot of flexibility already built into the zoning to allow the Council to waive the parking requirement. if it were a large enough facility to start to trigger the requirement for, there would be some requirement of having some off-street parking.

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan about whether bicycle only delivery for cannabis would require a parking spot for a car, Mr. Roberts explained that in many of the retail cannabis stores that have come to the planning board, they include bicycle parking for employees, but they do not include any auto parking. He noted under state law cannabis must be delivered in a secure locked vehicle.

Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor , added that under the state cannabis control regulations, bicycle delivery is not permitted. She stated that the petition was advertised with a 300-foot buffer from schools and parks, a modification to reduce or remove the buffer might alter the fundamental character of this petition and trigger readvertisement.

Councillor Nolan stated that she was in favor of moving the petition forward.

Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board can approve a reduction or waiver of that buffer by special permit.

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone what these store fronts will look like, Mr. Messplay stated these establishments would function essentially like a dispatch office because no product can actually be stored on site. The cannabis courier establishments are able to co-locate with an existing approved retailer.

Councillor Carlone expressed concern about having blank storefronts in retail districts for this type of use.

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

In response to a question from Councillor Nolan, Megan Bayer, assistant City Solicitor, explained that the cannabis control Commission's regulations stated that for both the courier and the operator delivery license, there is a 36 month preference period for Economic Empowerment applicants and social equity applicants, and that 36 months will start from the date that they first issue the license.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan about the City creating its own exclusivity period, Attorney Bayer stated that is a policy decision for the Council and the law department will have to research the issue to ensure there is no conflict with state law.

Councillor Zondervan expressed support for the City imposing its own exclusivity period.

In response to a question from Councillor Zondervan about adding a definition to anticipate other types of businesses in the future, Attorney Bayer stated that amendment would address the issue that you would want it to have, making the cannabis business permitting ordinance apply to any future types of cannabis businesses that that cannabis Control Commission may develop in the future. She stated the law department would need time to review the ordinance to see if there are any other places for this amendment.

Councillor McGovern explained that there are two ordinance before the body. The zoning ordinance and the municipal ordinance. He stated that the zoning ordinance has a deadline pursuant to state law.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he was in favor of the zoning petition, but he would like to fix the buffer issue.

Councillor Zondervan moved:
“That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the law department to provide a legal opinion to the City Council about whether eliminating or reducing the buffer zone would alter the fundamental character of the Cannabis Delivery Zoning Amendment.”
YEA: Carlone, McGovern, Mallon, Nolan, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
ABSENT: Toomey

Councillor Zondervan moved to suspend the rules to open public comment.
YEA: Carlone, McGovern, Mallon, Nolan, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
ABSENT: Toomey

Mr. Spencer, public commentor, stated that he is hoping to open a cannabis deliver establishment in Cambridge. He is concerned about the economic empowerment applicants that are in the queue. He stated that social equity program, seems to have vastly white participants, although they use the term social equity. the intention was for black and brown entrepreneurs to get a foothold in the industry.

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

Councillor Carlone suggested proposing economic development guidelines or criteria for these establishments in retail districts.

Mr. Roberts explained that there are criteria for cannabis businesses. The Planning Board has been reviewing issues like activating frontage.

Councillor Zondervan asked how the ordinance could prevent a delivery business from occupying a storefront.

Mr. Roberts explained that this was a discussion that that occurred at the planning board. There is a feeling that a cannabis courier establishment, given that it does not have cannabis products on site, it is not subject to the same restrictions on visual access. Typically, an office use in a business district would not be subject to additional requirements or a special permit or anything.

Councillor Carlone expressed concern about allowing this use in a retail district.

Mr. Roberts stated that the City can consider additional requirements or regulations that would prevent or discourage cannabis courier establishments and cannabis delivery operator establishments form occupying retail storefront space, but it will shrink the universe of potential spaces that that could be used.

Councillors McGovern, Carlone and Zondervan discussed drafting a policy order to send to the City Manager for more information on this topic.

Councillor Nolan stated that she will be voting against the policy order because she was worried this will delay the ordinance and that delay may be detrimental to equity applicants.

Councillor Zondervan moved:
“that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the community development department to provide suggestions and implications for how to regulate cannabis courier and cannabis delivery businesses occupying retail storefront space”
YEA: Carlone, McGovern, Mallon, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
NAY: Nolan
ABSENT: Toomey

Councillor Zondervan moved:
“That City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the law department to provide a legal opinion about whether an exclusivity period for only economic empowerment applicants would conflict with state law.”
YEA: Carlone, McGovern, Mallon, Nolan, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
ABSENT: Toomey

Councillor Carlone moved to adjourn at 7:04pm.
YEA: Carlone, McGovern, Mallon, Nolan, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
ABSENT: Toomey

A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to suggested zoning text amendments as well as amendments to Chapter 5.50 of the Municipal Code regarding cannabis delivery businesses.

A communication was received from Daniel Messplay, AICP Senior Zoning + Development Manager Cambridge Community Development Department, transmitting materials for the Cannabis Delivery Zoning Petition hearing to held on May 12, 2021.

Proposed Order     June 14, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The Ordinance Committee met on May 12, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on the Cannabis Delivery Zoning Amendment.
WHEREAS: The Committee voted to forward the following policy order to the full City Council. Now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the law department to provide a legal opinion to the City Council about whether eliminating or reducing the buffer zone would alter the fundamental character of the Cannabis Delivery Zoning Amendment.

Proposed Order     June 14, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The Ordinance Committee met on May 12, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on the Cannabis Delivery Zoning Amendments and Municipal Code Amendments.
WHEREAS: The Committee voted to forward the following order to the full City Council. Now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Community Development Department to provide suggestions and implications for how to regulate cannabis courier and cannabis delivery businesses occupying retail storefront space.

Proposed Order     June 14, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The Ordinance Committee met on May 12, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on the Cannabis Delivery Zoning Amendments and Municipal Code Amendments
WHEREAS: The Committee voted to forward the following policy order to the full City Council.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to provide a legal opinion about whether an exclusivity period for only economic empowerment applicants would conflict with state law.

Committee Report #3
The Public Safety Committee met to conduct a public hearing on the Cambridge Police Department inventory list.
Date: Wed, Jan 6, 2021, 5:00pm, Sullivan Chamber
Present: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Attending: Simmons, Nolan, Siddiqui (not voting members of the committee)

Councillor Zondervan called the meeting to order. Councillor Zondervan opened the floor to Alex Vitale, Sociology Professor at Brooklyn College

Professor Vitale stated that the public is told that these weapons and defensive systems are necessary as part of an overall strategy of public safety. The public is typically told that there are a series of potential worst-case scenarios that require access to these kinds of tools. He explained that the supposed benefits of these tools are exaggerated. He stated that most mass shooting incidents are finished well before this equipment is deployed. He explained how the militarization of police has led to more aggressive interactions with civilians. He explained how the war on drugs has contributed to the militarization of police.

Matthew Kennedy, a member of The Black Response, conducted a study on police shootings. He explained that police officers have a relatively safe job. For example, logging workers, fishers, aircraft, pilots, roofers are all far more likely to die on the job than police officers. Based on his study it is reasonable to conclude that the presence of armed police officers is part of why someone was shot. He stated that a response to property damage should not mean someone loses their life. He stated that in other countries, police are able to stop people from harming others without shooting the person to death. Mr. Kennedy provided examples of non-police individuals deescalating violent situations without guns.

Queen-Cheyenne Wade, a member of The Black Response, expressed concern about the military grade weapons that were put on display for many folks, on Sun, July 10, 2016 during a public vigil in memory of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. She explained that several local and national initiatives have led to the militarization of police. She stated that there are long standing and continuing cycles of marginalization and violence towards black and brown communities. She demanded an end to patrolling in black communities which makes up over 50% of the Cambridge police budget. She wants social workers and community workers to be hired in their place. She demanded the dismantling of safety net collaboratives and other youth based programs that are under the control of the police and to instead create training and mentorship programs for youth outside of the police department and in collaboration with existing youth centers and programs and to create robust programs for youth in Cambridge. She demanded that the Cambridge City government stop the practice of having police officers assigned to detailing road services and instead train civilians to do this job with a specific emphasis on supplementing unemployed Cambridge residents. She demanded a total divestment from the military grade weapons as well as resigning from being a member of the Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC) as a part of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Santos Carrasquillo spoke in support of disarming the Cambridge Police Department of their weaponry and reallocation to community led initiatives around safety and care.

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner, made a presentation which is included within these minutes. Commissioner Bard stated that he supported reform but that the remedy is not to limit the ability of government to protect its citizens. The remedy is to limit government's ability to abuse its citizens. He explained how several mass shootings at the end of the 1990’s shaped policing today. He stated that officers no longer wait for SWAT to arrive in an active shooter situation. He explained how an armored Lenco Bearcat vehicle is used to punch holes in walls to allow civilians to escape from an active shooter. He stated that Cambridge is a target due to its international reputation for art and culture. Commissioner Bard stated that the Department spends less than 1/10th of 1% of its budget on this weaponry. He stated that the department created a de-escalation award and gave it the same prestige as our highest awards for valor and bravery.

Councillor Zondervan opened the floor to members of the City Council.

In response to a question from Vice-Mayor Mallon about efforts to minimize the footprint of the Police Department, Louie DePasquale, City Manager, explained that the City has formed an 18 person committee, to look at how the City can provide services that are currently being done by the police department.

Vice-Mayor Mallon thanked the Manager for his response and explained that she may be interested in an ordinance that covered the purchasing of weapons.

In response to a question from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about whether the Council could regulate weapons purchases, Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor, stated that weapons sit at an intersection of both terms and conditions of employment which are clearly within the purview of the executive branch as opposed to the legislative branch and have to do with carrying of weapons which has been the subject specifically of state legislation. She stated that taking away guns and having unarmed police officers, would be a change in terms or conditions of employment, that the police unions would have the right to challenge.

In response to a question from Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler about how the Boston City Council passed a ban on tear gas, Solicitor Glowa stated that there are differences between certain types of equipment and guns. There are specific rights that police chiefs have under Massachusetts law with respect to the arming of police officers. Whether that extends to other types of equipment that police officers use is something that the law department will be researching.

In response to a question from Councillor Carlone about changes that the Commissioner has implemented, Commissioner Bard explained that the department helped with the development of the surveillance ordinance and Welcoming Cities ordinance. He was also bringing a new records management system to the department, which will help track police citizen interactions.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about a lack of annual inventory reports, Commissioner Bard stated that he did not know why these reports were not being produced but that the department would create them moving forward.

In response to a question from Councillor McGovern about how certain equipment keeps the community safe but also how to get rid of the potentially problematic weapons, Commissioner Bard stated that more than a decade ago, the department made the decision to make sure that all of the officers assigned to a special response team are assigned an individual weapon. That ensures that the weapon is calibrated to that individual.

Motion to suspend the rules to extend the meeting until the end of public comment. Those are the members of the public who have signed up for public comment by the time which is 5:30pm.

Andrew King, a Cambridge resident, strongly opposes militarization of domestic police forces. He attended a peaceful Black Lives Matter rally in 2016 where he saw an armored police vehicle down the street. The federal government has transferred over $7 billion in military equipment including rifles, tanks, and helicopters to 8,000 local police departments. The movement for Black Lives has shined a spotlight on this increased militarization of policing that disproportionately impacts low income communities of color.

Itamar Turner-Trauring, 139 Oxford Street, gave several examples of police unions and individual officers reacting negatively to recent reforms. He did not believe police should have military weaponry.

Carolyn Magid, 71 Reed Street, stated that the Cambridge police department should divest itself of both its military grade weapons and armored vehicle.

Loren Crowe, 8 Museum Way, stated that military grade weapons potentially completely distorts the job of policing and distorts the community's view of what this police force is here to do.

Ivy Maiorino,10 Harding Street, reiterated the points of prior speakers. She spoke against the use of military grade weapons by police.

Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, stated that the charter in Cambridge is contradictory to any efforts that the people want to make at reforming this system and making it accountable.

Kit Haines, 10 Hazel Street, expressed concern about having a police officer with a gun respond to a mental health emergency.

Chloé Cunha, 8 Sacramento Street, supported demilitarizing the police.

Huma Gupta, 950 Massachusetts Avenue, stated that the city does not need to have military weapons in the Cambridge police department. It is an overreaction. It is the product of fear mongering.

Jessica Schmidt, 17 Laurel Street, a US Army veteran, and a Cambridge resident for over 10 years, encouraged the city's police to divest themselves of inappropriate weaponry.

Isabel Campbell-Gross, 15 Ericsson Street, stated she did not feel safer with militarized weapons and at the hands of the police force.

Derek Etkin, 109 Clay Street, stated that the city should eliminate the use of military weapons by police.

Valerie Bonds, 808 Memorial Drive, stated that the police department is proactive. She agreed that the militarization of the police department is unfortunate. She stated that the police should have the tools to protect the citizens.

Tom Johnson, 16 Vandine Street, urged the City to demilitarize the Cambridge police department.

Betsey Chace, 152 Pleasant Street, stated that she is strongly opposed to Cambridge police having military weapons.

Kevin Donaher, 225 Chestnut Street, supported the disarmament of Cambridge Police Department military gear and racialized surveillance databases.

Javier Rizo, 494 Massachusetts Avenue, spoke against military weapons for the Cambridge police and requested that the Police Department produce an annual inventory report as required by ordinance.

Ben Roberts, 10 Magnolia Street, supported the demilitarization of the police.

Benjamin Gammage, 331 Harvard Street, spoke in opposition to the police arms race. He supports the demilitarization of Cambridge police.

Dave Twombly, 86 Harvey Street, spoke against the militarization of the Cambridge police department.

Keri Wolfe, 52 Garden Street, stated that the current practices in Cambridge Police Department arsenal do not result in safety for the city.

Sebastian Stockman, 99 Reed Street, stated that the items in the Cambridge police department inventory are a soldier's tools and that sets police up as an occupying force.

Catherine Hoffman, 67 Pleasant Street, stated that she was the director of the Cambridge peace commission for about 21 years. She spoke in favor of reversing the tide of police militarization. She encouraged the City to put its efforts into trying to confront and transform racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination in the community.

Zach Goldhammer, 167 Pemberton Street, would like to see a reallocation of funding away from military grade weapons, and towards things like food resources, affordable housing, and mental health care.

Judy Johnson, 55 Antrim Street, expressed concerns about Commissioner Bard’s description of the types of weapons in the possession of the police department.

Robbie Harwood, 10 Hazel Street, stated that the goal should be de-escalation, not an arms race or urban warfare.

Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street, spoke in favor of demilitarizing the police in Cambridge.

Naima Saini, 63 Chilton Street, asked that funding for military grade weaponry be reallocated to community led initiatives.

Piper Winkler, 101 Dunster Street, stated that the City Council should place limits on the types of weapons that Cambridge police are allowed to use.

Gisele Aoun, 93 Sheridan Street, encouraged the City to disarm Cambridge police of all military grade weaponry and relocate these funds to community led initiatives and programs.

Ruy Martinez, 56 Linnaean Street, from the Harvard College young democratic socialists of America. Ruy spoke in support of demilitarizing the police.

Jessica Sheehan, 48 Fairmont Street, opposes Cambridge police having access to military weaponry.

Michael Daniliuk, 30 Griswold Street, Cambridge police officer for 24 year. He stated that not once, in that time, has deadly force been used against a white, black, or brown citizen of this community. He explained that seven short years ago, two people from Cambridge set off bombs in Boston and then the chase that got them captured started in Cambridge. The department purchased the armored vehicle after that incident.

Timothy Bilodeau, 39 Perry Street, spoke against the accumulation of military grade weapons.

Motion to adjourn.
YEA: Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan

1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-34, regarding a report on an itemized statement of all materials, tools, and property owned by the Cambridge Police Department.
Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-34, regarding a report on an itemized statement of all materials, tools, and property owned by the Cambridge Police Department, received from Police Commissioner Branville Bard.

2. A communication was received from Police Commissioner, Dr. Branville G. Bard, Jr., transmitting a presentation for the Public Safety Committee meeting held on Jan 6, 2021.