7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-33, regarding a report on supporting a goal of using 100% renewable energy by 2035.
Placed on File, Referred to Health & Environment Committee - Zondervan

June 25, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-33, regarding a report on supporting a goal of using 100% renewable energy by 2035, received from Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq and Public Works Commissioner Owen O'Riordan.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner Department of Public Works
Date: June 19, 2018
Re: Awaiting Reports 17-33, regarding supporting a goal of using 100% renewable energy in Cambridge by 2035

Massachusetts House and Senate bills have been proposed for consideration which would require Massachusetts to obtain 100% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2035 and further require that all fossil fuels for heating, transportation and other sectors be replaced by renewable energy by 2050. This latter goal reflects the greater challenge of phasing out the use of natural gas, oil and gasoline compared with converting electricity generation from fossil fuels to renewable energy, including solar and wind.

Current Renewable Energy Goals and Consumption
As a member of the Metro Mayors Climate Task Force, the City has set a goal to reach carbon neutrality citywide by 2050 for all sectors including buildings and transportation, which would necessitate conversion to a 100% renewable energy supply. A separate, community-wide goal has not yet been set for a specific year when all electricity consumed in Cambridge would come from renewable sources, but the Climate Protection Action Committee has set an interim goal that 20% of community-wide electricity be supplied by renewable sources by 2020. As of 2018, 13% of grid-supplied electricity comes from renewable sources and an estimated 0.5% is generated by local solar PV systems. This percentage, however, is lower than the actual supply of renewable electricity as it does not include renewable electricity purchased by private entities from third-party suppliers. Currently, we only have anecdotal evidence of this activity and no ability to quantify actual consumption.

Net Zero Action Plan
Recent greenhouse gas inventories show that Cambridge’s building-related emissions constitute the majority of emissions in both the municipal inventory (82%) and citywide (69%). Replacing fossil fuels used to heat, cool and light buildings and power equipment with 100% renewable energy will require significant investment in making buildings more energy efficient, as well as in installation of solar energy systems in Cambridge and renewable energy generation facilities outside the city (given limitations on rooftops and other locations where solar panels could be installed in Cambridge).

The Cambridge Net Zero Action Plan includes an action to develop a low carbon energy supply strategy for Cambridge. The initial study to analyze options for transitioning to a carbon-neutral energy supply in Cambridge by mid-century was recently completed. The study was supported by an international consultant team with deep experience in low carbon energy systems at the building as well as district scale and guided by staff, along with an advisory committee comprising Eversource, Veolia, a local developer, Harvard, MIT, and representatives from the Climate Protection Advisory Committee, state agencies and the cities of Boston and Somerville. The study analyzed approaches for how to convert buildings to renewable energy, as well as options for how district energy systems could improve energy efficiency and resiliency while lowering costs. The study, including an Executive Summary and proposed next steps, is available here: http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/climateandenergy/climatechangeplanning/lowcarbonenergysupplystrategy

Community Electric Vehicle Strategy
The FY19 operating budget for the Community Development Department (CDD) includes funding to further develop and refine an EV Strategy. The EV Strategy is expected to include recommendations on options for expanding the network of publicly available EVSE, technology most appropriate for different use cases, and public ownership models and funding sources. The EV Strategy recommendations will prioritize equitable access to EV opportunities and EV charging for all Cambridge residents. The FY19 budget also includes $100,000 in capital funds for EVSE installation on municipal property, and we are currently working on a grant application through the Eversource “Make Ready” program to expand the number of EVSE installations.

The City continues to pursue opportunities for EV and EVSE outreach, to supplement the information provided on the City’s webpage and resources featured at general outreach events. Last year CDD hosted two Ride and Drive events during National Drive Electric Week, and additional events will be organized this year to engage the community and advance EVs as a mainstream option.

Public Transportation
Transit is a critical element of city efforts to provide mobility options to residents, employees and visitors in order to reduce environmental impacts, and improve safety in Cambridge. A range of activities to support transit is ongoing, including participating in the MBTA service planning process to ensure that all areas of Cambridge are well-served; providing excellent amenities at transit stops including benches, shelters and real-time information; introducing bus-only lanes and signal priority on key bus route segments; and planning for improved transit service in the future to the Alewife area and along the Grand Junction corridor in particular.

Municipal Renewable Energy Goal
The City has set a goal to source 100% of municipal electricity from renewable energy sources through a combination of on-site solar generation on municipal facilities and purchase of renewable energy from renewable energy projects outside Cambridge. Staff are developing a request for services to identify financially feasible projects that would satisfy our demand for electricity in the near term, within 3-5 years.

Community Choice Aggregation
In July 2017 Cambridge Community Electricity, an electricity aggregation for all basic service electricity customers in Cambridge, was launched to increase the amount of renewable energy in the city’s electricity supply. Over 35,000 residential and about 4,800 small business accounts are enrolled in the aggregation. The program offers a Standard Green option - which includes 25% more solar energy than required by the state, derived from local renewable energy sources – and a 100% Green option, which provides 100% renewable energy generated from projects throughout New England. The program’s Standard Green option has saved residents and businesses money compared to Eversource Basic Service rates since the program’s launch, and approximate 640 Cambridge residents and businesses are currently enrolled in the 100% Green Option.

Municipal Onsite Solar Generation
In 2015 the City set a goal of generating 5% of municipal electricity use from onsite renewable systems by 2020. Through new solar installations, energy efficiency projects and a cleaner regional electricity grid, the City expects to achieve the goal by 2019, one year ahead of schedule. Beyond 2020, the City plans to continue the practice of installing rooftop PV arrays when installing new roofs at schools and at smaller buildings, when feasible. Since 2015, the City has installed 5 photo-voltaic (PV) systems, has 3 in design, and is planning a new roof and PV system at the Graham and Parks School. A list of municipal PV systems can be found at http://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/energyefficiency/renewableenergy

To date the City has chosen to retain the Solar Renewable Energy Credits from its onsite installations rather than selling them. The electricity procurement study described above will include recommendations for providing a funding stream for long-term renewables procurement.

Virtual Net Metering Contracts
Virtual net metering (VNM) is a bill crediting system to support solar production. The City receives credits on our electric bills when we purchase VNMs from non-city solar installations. The City has signed five contracts for Virtual Net Metering projects, two in Boston, one in Dedham, and two planned at MBTA parking garages (Alewife and in Westwood). When complete, these projects will add close to 7 MW of solar energy in the region. While Cambridge cannot claim these systems in its GHG inventory reductions, the contracts provide approximately $300,000 in annual savings on electricity bills. Savings from virtual net metering contracts, along with utility rebates and financing strategies recommended through the 100% renewable supply study will provide seed funding for renewable installations.

Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan (MFIP)
The goal of the MFIP is to provide and maintain high-performing facilities for staff, occupants, the public, and the broader environment. Since FY15 the City has invested $24 million and has committed to an annual allocation of $5 million over the next five years. Phase 1 evaluated and prioritized more than 42 buildings for capital improvements. While initial improvement projects have focused on deferred maintenance and access, projects that include building envelope and HVAC systems are also being implemented to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. In accordance with the MFIP, larger-scale renovation projects that include HVAC upgrades consider electrification to the extent feasible. For example, Taylor Square and East Cambridge Fire Stations are being designed as all-electric buildings, with ground or air source heat pumps and variable refrigerant systems (VRF). The Moses Youth Center childcare center, located in the basement of a larger building, will also be upgraded with a dedicated VRF system, which will allow for full electrification when the main HVAC system is scheduled for replacement at a future date.

Net Zero Construction
Major renovations and construction of new city buildings is required to be “Net Zero ready” and fully Net Zero starting in 2020. The City is well ahead of this goal with both the King Open Complex, and the newly completed 859 Massachusetts Avenue family shelter built as fossil fuel free facilities.

Clean Fleet Program
The City has been working with the USDOT Volpe Research Center to develop strategies to increase fuel efficiency and decrease the GHG emissions of the City’s fleet. Volpe inventoried the City’s fleet and emissions, identified available and emerging technologies and has developed overall greenhouse gas reduction scenarios; Volpe has also been meeting with stakeholder departments to review operational needs and constraints that might affect adoption of recommended vehicle systems. In the coming months, we expect to identify the optimal strategies and plan for implementation as we pilot various technologies. While passenger plugin electric vehicles have become widely available, technology for commercial vehicle use is still emerging. By 2030, depending on various scenarios, the City could reduce fleet GHG emissions by 30-50%.

Reporting on Goals and Progress
Progress toward the city’s carbon neutrality and renewable energy generation goals is described in the annual progress reports on the Net Zero Action Plan and the Goals and Objectives developed by the Climate Protection Action Committee (both adopted by City Council). The online Sustainability Dashboard (http://sustainabilitydashboard.cambridgema.gov/ ) tracks the City’s progress towards sustainability goals across disciplines, and summarizes the information in an accessible format. In the future, as part of a set of indicators and targets being developed through the Envision planning process, additional metrics will become available.

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-42, regarding Autonomous Vehicles testing.
Placed on File

June 25, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-42, regarding Autonomous Vehicles testing, received from Traffic, Parking & Transportation Director Joseph Barr and Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

MEMORANDUM
To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Joseph E. Barr, Director of Traffic, Parking, and Transportation; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Date: June 19, 2018
Re: Awaiting Report 18-42 – Report on Autonomous Vehicle Testing in Cambridge

This memo is in response to Order 12 from the Apr 2, 2018 City Council Meeting (Awaiting Report 18-42), which requests a report on the testing of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) in Cambridge and requests that specific conditions be included in any testing that occurs.

Staff from the Community Development and Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Departments have been working in coordination with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC), and other municipal governments on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) related to the testing of AVs in Massachusetts. This MOU, along with a related “Application to Test Autonomous Vehicles on Public Ways in Massachusetts” will provide a broader and more standardized structure for AV testing to occur across multiple municipalities. Under this MOU, which will be ceremonially signed on Thurs, June 21, companies wishing to test AVs in Massachusetts will be able to complete and submit a single application and testing plan to MassDOT that would allow them to test in any municipality that has signed the MOU, assuming that the application and testing plan are approved.

Prior to this structure, companies interested in testing AVs were required to develop separate agreements with each municipality where they wanted to test, as well an agreement with MassDOT. The AV industry indicated that this structure is overly complex and has been inhibiting additional testing from occurring in Massachusetts, and therefore requested that the Commonwealth develop a somewhat more streamlined approach. This agreement is the result of this streamlining attempt, and is expected to be signed by over a dozen municipalities (including Boston and Somerville), along with MassDOT and the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

By signing this document, the City is making three key commitments:

• Work collaboratively with MassDOT and the other signatories to develop a single “Application to Test Autonomous Vehicles on Public Ways in Massachusetts” by Dec 31, 2018.

• Identify approved testing locations within Cambridge, which will be listed in the Testing Phase Schedule in the Application.

• Work with MassDOT and the other signatories to review the technological advancements, federal policy progress, and developments in the AV industry at least every six months and make appropriate changes to the testing application and/or testing phase schedule.

Importantly, the structure of the testing application gives each municipality the right to opt out of testing with a specific company that is applying, which gives us the flexibility to be able to avoid working with a company or technology that we feel is not appropriate in Cambridge. Given the recent fatality associated with AV testing in Arizona, we feel that this opt out clause provides Cambridge and other municipalities with a level of comfort that we can control our own destiny, while still giving companies that wish to test AVs a more standardized and predictable structure.

As we have started to work with MassDOT, MAPC, and the other signatories to this MOU on the testing application and the testing phase schedule, we have passed along the conditions requested in this Policy Order and have continued to argue for inclusion of these requirements in the testing documents. Although several additional discussions are needed to finalize these documents, the initial response we have received has been positive and we expect that these conditions will be included in the final requirements.

Based on initial feedback on AVs and experience with testing in other communities, we believe that one of the most critical next steps between now and finalizing the testing application and the testing phase schedule, is to engage with the local Cambridge community on this topic. This outreach will be intended to help local residents and stakeholders understand the potential benefits and pitfalls of AV testing, the process that will be used to vet and approve companies for testing, and the feedback mechanisms that will be available if/when testing occurs in Cambridge. By helping to increase the understanding of AVs and the manner in which testing will occur in Massachusetts, our hope is that this outreach will help residents feel comfortable with AV testing, provide an opportunity to explain the steps we are taking to make sure AV testing is as safe as possible, and allow us to proactively identify any issues that are of particular concern. We expect to begin this outreach soon after Labor Day, so that there is sufficient time for a dialogue with the community before we finalize the testing application by the end of the calendar year. In addition to this feedback, the City will also launching a Future of Mobility Study later this year, which will address longer-term issues related to the commercial deployment of AVs.

As staff move forward with developing the testing documents and preparing for the outreach process described above, we will continue to keep the City Council up to date on the progress that is occurring. In particular, as the testing application and testing phase schedule are being further refined, we will make sure that the Council is aware of if and how the conditions requested in the original Policy Order are being included, along with any other significant issues that may arise during these negotiations.

9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-48, regarding a request for yield to Pedestrians signage in bike lanes.
Placed on File

MEMORANDUM
TO: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
FROM: Joseph E. Barr, Director
DATE: June 20, 2018
RE: Awaiting Report 18-48: Request for Yield to Pedestrians Signage in Bike Lanes

This memo is in response to Order #2 from the Apr 30, 2018 City Council Meeting (Awaiting Report 18-48) regarding a request for placement of new signs or pavement markings reminding people on bikes to yield at crosswalks to people crossing the roadway.

Per Massachusetts General Law, cyclists are required to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks except for locations where the crosswalk is controlled by a signal that provides a separate pedestrian phase. Our department has heard concerns from pedestrians that cyclists do not always yield at unsignalized crosswalks, and further that pedestrian/bike conflicts may be unexpected by some users at locations with separated bike lanes. As we move forward with additional bicycle facilities, we are striving to minimize active conflicts between different users, and particularly between pedestrians and cyclists.

Based on these concerns, we are working to develop a standard pavement marking to be placed in separated bike lanes in advance of unsignalized crosswalks to remind cyclists to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. The markings will be placed primarily in separated bike lanes due to the potential for unexpected conflicts and the lateral separation between the bicycle lanes and the vehicles lanes. We do not recommend installing post mounted signs, as they will add additional sign clutter to the roadside environment and are less conspicuous to cyclists as compared to a marking on the pavement.

The proposed marking will be similar to what was recently installed by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) on the Memorial Drive bike path, as shown below in Figure 1 (right). We are working with the company that manufactures these types of pre-formed thermoplastic overlays, to finalize a modified design that we believe will be effective for on-street applications.

12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to proposed amendments to the two following ordinances: Chapter 2.76 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the "Human Rights Ordinance) and proposed amendments to Chapter 14.04 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the "Fair Housing Ordinance).
Referred to Unfinished Business; 12A Passed to 2nd Reading - Human Rights; 12B Passed to 2nd Reading - Fair Housing; 12C No Action - Referred to Unfinished Business - Fair Housing Home Rule

June 25, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting for your consideration at the request of the Executive Director of the Cambridge Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) the following proposed amendments to two ordinances under the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The first matter concerns proposed amendments to Chapter 2.76 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the “Human Rights Ordinance”) to: update definitions related to gender identity and disability to reflect current usage; update references to City departments, offices and commissions to reflect name changes; correct references to the process for hiring staff and other procedures for consistency with the Plan E Charter and the Commission’s practices; revise the complaint investigation procedure to reflect current practice; revise and strengthen the remedies section, and; correct typographical and other minor errors. A redlined draft showing the proposed amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance is attached for the City Council’s consideration and referral to the Ordinance Committee.

The second matter concerns proposed amendments to Chapter 14.04 of the Cambridge Municipal Code (the “Fair Housing Ordinance”) in order to: update definitions related to gender identity and disability to reflect current usage, and; correct typographical and other minor errors, together with a proposed petition to the Legislature to amend Chapter 413 of the Acts of 1991, the Special Act that authorized the City Council to enact the Fair Housing Ordinance.

As part of the Commission’s grant funding from HUD for its enforcement efforts, changes to the Fair Housing Ordinance must be reviewed by HUD and found to be “substantially equivalent” to the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) before HUD will approve the proposed changes. The proposed amendments to the Fair Housing Ordinance have been reviewed and approved by HUD and found to be substantially equivalent to the Federal Fair Housing Act.

The proposed amendments to the Fair Housing Ordinance also require legislative approval and therefore in addition to the red-lined draft showing the proposed amendments, a proposed Home Rule Petition is being submitted to the City Council for the City Council’s consideration and referral to the Ordinance Committee.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

13. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a revised draft of the proposed Surveillance Technology Ordinance.
Referred to Ordinance Committee

June 25, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am pleased to submit to you a revised draft of the proposed Surveillance Technology Ordinance (“the Ordinance”), which I have attached in both clean and redlined version together with an explanatory memorandum from City Solicitor Nancy Glowa describing the lengthy and detailed process that went into drafting the proposed changes following multiple meetings and teleconferences held by City staff with Kade Crockford from the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (the “ACLU”). As you may recall, previous versions of the Ordinance were submitted to the Council, including an earlier iteration of the Ordinance that was discussed at a Public Safety Committee hearing on Oct 18, 2017, and one which was discussed at the Apr 17, 2018 Public Safety Committee Hearing. If the enclosed Ordinance is passed, Cambridge will be among the first municipalities in Massachusetts to adopt an ordinance governing the acquisition and use of surveillance technology by City departments.

At the Apr 17, 2018 Public Safety Committee Hearing, the feedback on the Ordinance was very positive. The ACLU submitted written comments, largely in support of the Ordinance and suggesting revisions in nine areas. City Staff have significantly revised the Ordinance in order to address several of the suggestions submitted by the ACLU during the Committee Meetings and during other meetings and conference calls. We have worked hard with the ACLU to understand, discuss, and address their concerns. While we are in agreement on most elements of the Ordinance, there are a few remaining disagreements, which are summarized in the attached memorandum from the City Solicitor to me.

The most significant areas of disagreement are discussed in 1) Section (C) (2) at page 5 of the City Solicitor’s memorandum, which relates to the ACLU’s suggestion that the City Council have the ultimate authority to approve or disapprove the acquisition and use of certain surveillance technologies notwithstanding the position of the Police Commissioner and/or the City Manager that such surveillance technologies are needed for the investigatory and prosecutorial functions of the Police Department. As explained in her memorandum, the City Solicitor advises that this could run afoul of the City’s Plan E Charter, as these issues appear to relate more to operational issues and the City Manager’s discretion to make such decisions than to the broad policy making role of the City Council; and 2) Section (E) at pages 7-9 of the City Solicitor’s memorandum entitled “Enforcement”, which discusses the ACLU’s request for the Ordinance to provide a private cause of action so that individuals could sue not only the City but both elected and appointed City officials for violations of the Ordinance, including the award of attorneys’ fees, and would provide for whistleblower protections. As discussed in the City Solicitor’s memorandum, she believes that there are already sufficient remedies available to members of the public who may feel injured by a violation of the Ordinance, and the remedies suggested by the ACLU present potential conflicts with laws governing liability of public employers and employees.

I look forward to further discussion with the City Council as we work to ensure the safety and security of the public while protecting privacy, civil liberties and civil rights.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM OTHER CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Kelley, transmitting memorandum regarding "Cannabis Use Equity".
Placed on File

MEMORANDUM
To: Cambridge City Council
From: Craig A. Kelley, City Councillor
Date: June 25, 2018
Subject: Cannabis Use Equity

Dear Colleagues:

As our summer schedule slows down, I wanted to let you know of my efforts to address equity issues revolving around cannabis use in Cambridge. Recreational public consumption, while legal, is generally prohibited in Cambridge and throughout the state. This means that public parks, sidewalks, streets and DCR property are not places where people can consume marijuana even though, for the most part, they are available for smoking tobacco and/or using waterpipes or vaping with tobacco products. While smoked (combustible) marijuana consumption such as ‘blunts’ and marijuana cigarettes tends to generate the most concern, the prohibition on public cannabis use includes ingestion of any kind, including vaping, “juuling,” edibles and so forth, uses that have little, if any, noticeable odor or secondhand effects.

Because recreational marijuana consumption is legal as an action, people who control their own property, such as homeowners, have broader ability to legally consume marijuana than those residents who do not own their own property. Renters and even homeowners who share property with other owners, such as in a condominium association, may find themselves with no allowable place to ingest recreational marijuana and a host of regulations impact the ability of restaurants or bars to allow marijuana use. Medical marijuana use is a somewhat different issue with greater access for consumption and it is virtually impossible to enforce any regulatory limitations around edible ingestion, balms or oils, whether recreational or medicinal.

The result of this limited access to places to legally ingest marijuana is that lower-income and racial and ethnic minority residents of Cambridge who consume marijuana are disproportionately affected and when consuming marijuana products have virtually no alternative other than to do so in illegal places. The fallback location for marijuana consumption is often our local parks or on the public way outside of residences and, especially with combustible marijuana, this activity can cause friction with other park users and neighbors. Not surprisingly, then, the Cambridge Police Department has found itself in the unenviable role of enforcing anti-smoking laws against residents who are smoking marijuana in our parks or outside their homes.

This uneven access to legal use of marijuana is inherently unfair and I plan to explore the Cannabis Control Commission’s thoughts on allowing consumption of non-combustible marijuana products in public places. Based on their feedback, I plan to explore options to allow some legal use in public areas in Cambridge and I will let you know what I learn.

If you have any questions about this issue or my efforts, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Sincerely,
Craig

2. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Vice Mayor Devereux , transmitting a memorandum regarding Policy Order #72 dated Mar 19, 2018 that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Election Commission regarding the possibility of instituting early voting in the 2019 municipal election and what actions would be required by the City Council to do so.
Placed on File

June 21, 2018
Dear Colleagues:

I am sharing a communication that the Government Operations/Rules and Claims Committee received this week, in regards Policy Order 2018 #72 dated March 19, 2018. This Order asked "that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Election Commission regarding the possibility of instituting early voting in the 2019 municipal election and what actions would be required by the City Council to do so ... [and] that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on this matter to the Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee ... "

I would like to share this response publicly with my colleagues and make clear my intent to schedule a Committee Hearing this summer to further discuss this issue. I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Thank you,
Jan Devereux
Vice Mayor

---

Office of the City Solicitor
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

June 25,2018

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

Re: Policy Order Resolution O-3 of 3/19/18 Re: the possibility of instituting early voting in the 2019 municipal election and what actions would be required by the City Council to do so, with report back in June to the Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee.

Dear Mr. DePasquale:

This is in response to the above-referenced City Council Policy Order regarding the possibility of instituting early voting in the 2019 City election. I have conferred with the Executive Director of the Election Commission about this response. In my opinion, based on the relevant statutory language, early voting for a stand-alone City election is not allowed by law. If the City Council wants to seek authority to institute early voting for stand-alone City elections, special legislation from the State Legislature would be required to create an exception for Cambridge from the existing law.

G.L.c.54, §25B, effective November 2, 2015, allowed early voting in elections. The relevant statutory language, at §25B (a), provides:

The election officers and registrars of every city or town shall allow any qualified voter, as defined in section 1 of chapter 51, to cast a ballot for any biennial state election during the early voting period as set forth in this section including, but not limited to, any city or town election held at the same time.

This language allows early voting only for a city election held at the same time as a biennial state election. So it is only city elections that are not held at the same time as a biennial state election that would need special legislation for early voting to be allowed.

G.L.c.54, §25B carves out an exception from other general voting requirements to allow for early voting, so in my opinion the carve-out parameters may not be expanded to include additional local elections without further statutory authorization, which may be obtained by way of special act.

Therefore, for these reasons, in my opinion, if the City Council wants to seek authority to institute early voting for stand-alone City elections, special legislation from the State Legislature would be required to create an exception for Cambridge from G.L.c.54, §25B.

Truly yours,
Nancy Glowa

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     June 25, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: Flat roofs and associated central drains on residential three-story homes can lead to more storm water entering Cambridge’s sanitary sewer; and
WHEREAS: These flat roofs may be on homes that have been insulated or otherwise improved for energy efficiency with the result that snow and/or ice during the winter may build up amounts unanticipated by the original building designers; and
WHEREAS: Climate change appears to be bringing more episodes of heavy snow and rainfall during winter months, as experienced during the winter of 2014-2015 and again in 2017-2018, and with clogged drains this results in more buildup of snow, ice, and water on flat roofs than may be safe, especially with an energy-efficient building which helps keep rooftop ice and snow from melting away; and
WHEREAS: Retrofitting flat roofs to allow angled drainage to the side of residential three-story houses would alleviate snow, ice, and water buildup safety concerns and would decrease the amount of storm water going into Cambridge’s sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS: The expensive alteration of putting a pitched roof on a flat roof could be offset by the added value of increasing interior space in the existing home and possible improving other options for room use; and
WHEREAS: The extra height and living space created as a result of installing a pitched roof may negatively impact neighbors; and
WHEREAS: The Special Permit process used for other challenging zoning situations may be appropriate in this case; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council refer to the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board, for hearing and report, the following attachment with changes to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 5.000.

Proposal for converting flat concave roofs to a kind of greenhouse/glass porch
Z.O. 5.55

In an effort to enhance the City’s commitment to mitigating environmental impacts of certain older types of residential buildings, namely so-called “triple-deckers”, while improving the City’s storm-water management, modifications to the applicable dimensional requirements of this Article 5.000, in particular regarding FAR and height limitations, may be authorized under the following circumstances:

Residential buildings with a flat (concave) roof which may have poor upper-level thermal insulation and/or contribute to important heat island effects, or may suffer from the secondary effects of overinsulation, and on which a drain pipe collects water from the roof and combines it with household waste-water, discharging into a single outflow pipe to the municipal sewer line

Provided that the resulting construction will:

• significantly increase the thermal efficiency of the building
• entirely eliminate rain water entry from the concerned roof into the sewer system, and that said rain water is harvested on the property at the rate of 1/8 gallon per square foot of roof area, with the remainder dispersed at the ground to follow its natural path without direct encumbrance onto abutting properties,
• the construction of a partial structure relieved from the applicable FAR and height limit may be permitted within the following limits:
  • Additional height not to exceed 10 ft. above the existing roof line of the building
  • Footprint to be no closer than 3 feet from either long edge or rear side of the building, no less than 6 feet from front/street-side of building, and
  • Additional FAR not to exceed 20% of the existing FAR of the building.

Furthermore, in enhancing alternative energy sources (Article 22), additional positive consideration will be given to projects that improve the:

• installation of solar panels (impractical on residential flat roofs)
• use of passive solar heating, convective cooling, seasonal shading with natural plants,
• using rainwater at the roof level or floors below,
• planting flowering bushes and vegetation attractive to pollinating insects at the roof level, and
• harmonization of the new roof profile with the neighborhood architecture.

O-3     June 25, 2018  Amended
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: As part of the City’s continued efforts to increase the bicycle lane infrastructure throughout Cambridge, the City shall be erecting new bicycle lanes in the South Massachusetts Avenue area in the near future; and
WHEREAS: While these new bicycle lanes are unquestionably necessary to improve the overall safety of our streets, it has come to the City Council’s attention that insufficient notice has gone out to the neighborhoods where these new bicycle lanes shall be established, and there has troublingly been a lack of serious engagement with the senior residents that live in this area; and
WHEREAS: The City has repeatedly stated that the new bicycle lane infrastructure must be established as quickly as possible, but this must be done with as much public engagement as possible, and as of this date, the public engagement necessary to ensure that this process moves forward as responsibly as possible has been woefully short of what is needed; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department, the Community Development Department, and any other relevant departments to conduct two meetings by the end of July 2018, specifically for seniors, regarding the plan for South Massachusetts Avenue which includes a much more thorough process of community engagement and outreach – particularly in regards to the senior community – prior to the establishment of any new bicycle lanes in the area of South Massachusetts Avenue, and to report back to the City Council on what this engagement has consisted of.

O-4     June 25, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: Recognizing the need to maximize opportunities for increasing residential units in Cambridge, the Cambridge City Council recently changed its zoning to allow easier creation of accessory dwelling units; and
WHEREAS: The creation of these new units is still not completely allowed in many cases per the City’s existing zoning laws and may still require zoning relief to allow construction; now be it therefore
ORDERED: That the attached zoning amendment to section 4.22 of the zoning code, with strikeouts and highlighting to identify proposed changes for discussion, be forwarded to the Planning Board and the Ordinance Committee for their review as a zoning solution to the challenges posed by current zoning constraints regarding accessory dwelling units.

4.22.1 In all districts the Board of Zoning Appeal may grant a special permit for alteration or new construction of a single family, or two-family, detached dwelling or accessory structure to provide one accessory apartment if the following conditions are met:

1. Only one accessory dwelling unit is allowed on any lot

1. The dwelling has not been substantially enlarged since built. The addition in the aggregate of two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or more of gross floor area shall be considered a substantial enlargement.

2. Prior to alteration or new construction the principal dwelling contains at least one thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet of gross floor area.

3. The lot on which such accessory apartment is located contains at least five thousand (5,000) square feet of lot.

4. Such accessory apartment shall not occupy more than nine hundred (900) square feet or thirty-five (35) percent of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less,. and shall not be located in a garage.

5. The owner(s) of the residence in which the accessory dwelling unit is created must continue to occupy at least one of the dwelling units as their primary residence. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner(s) must submit a notarized letter stating that the owner will occupy one of the dwelling units on the premises as the owner’s primary residence. Subsequent changes in ownership does not remove the requirement for the owner(s) of the accessory dwelling unit to live in one of the dwelling units as their primary unit.

6. Any existing two-family home may be converted to a single family home with accessory unit by right, without need for a Special Permit.

In granting a special permit the Board may impose such conditions, including requirements for off street parking and limitations on other accessory uses of the premises, as it may deem appropriate to avoid detriment to the neighborhood or to nearby persons or property. The Board of Zoning Appeal shall evaluate each special permit application which involves exterior changes with the appearance of and character of the neighborhood and may require that there be no change or minimal change to any face of a building oriented toward a public way or visible from a public way.

4.22.12 Accessory Structure Apartment. An accessory apartment in an accessory structure on the same lot may be allowed by Special Permit if the following criteria are met:

1. The gross floor area of the apartment does not exceed 1,000 square feet.

2. The Special Permit Granting Authority determines that the exterior appearance of the accessory structure is compatible with the principal dwelling on the same lot and with dwellings and accessory structures on adjoining lots.

O-6     June 25, 2018
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The City Council recently passed a policy order asking that the Cambridge Police Department develop an aggressive new strategy aimed at addressing and reducing the amount of gun violence that has been taking place in the Port neighborhood; and
WHEREAS: As part of the City’s efforts to make the Port safer, greater police presence is unquestionably required – but what is also needed is a greater sense of investment in the people who live here, and a more robust strategy designed to provide Port residents with opportunities to better their stations in life; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Deputy City Manager for the Department of Human Service Programs and the Director of the Office of Workforce Development to establish and implement a dynamic new initiative that will seek to place Port residents (ages 18 and over) on paths to jobs with family-sustaining wages, and to report back to the City Council on this effort in a timely manner.

O-10     June 25, 2018
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR MALLON
WHEREAS: By state law, the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) is required to ensure that people from communities that have been disproportionately harmed by marijuana law enforcement are included in the new legal marijuana industry, and to that end has created two programs, Economic Empowerment Priority Review and the Social Equity Program; and
WHEREAS: Many cities around the country have instituted programs to ensure this new industry enters communities in a sustainable, fair way, and it is important that Cambridge reflects the best and most innovative equity practices and creates an environment where a new industry can flourish that has both small and large participants, and ensures full participation by those people who have been disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition and enforcement; and
WHEREAS: As the Economic and University Relations Committee discussed at a hearing on June 20, 2018, the City can take steps such as creating a city criteria for granting equity status to a business in Cambridge, advising the Planning Board on particular equity criteria during the special permit process, including equity provisions in Host Community Agreements, allowing multiple establishments within a buffer zone if they meet equity criteria, including community benefits such as providing technical assistance to equity partners, and requiring a majority of employees be residents of Cambridge, for example; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to ensure the new zoning regulations and table of land use, licensing and permitting process, Host Community Agreements, and Economic Development Department programming reflect best equity practices and ensure Cambridge residents benefit from this industry; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

O-11     June 25, 2018
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The Envision Cambridge Economic Working Group has set goals that include providing opportunities for Cambridge residents of all educational backgrounds and skill levels to access jobs that pay a living wage in Cambridge and the surrounding region, and expanding capacity and funding to provide additional “earn and learn” opportunities with local employers for Cambridge residents, training to help current employees advance to the next level of employment, and partnerships for employers to hire graduates of City-supported workforce development programs; and
WHEREAS: The City of Somerville conducted a study on workforce development and the potential for a job linkage fee in 2013, and the report, which included data about Cambridge, concluded that “a jobs linkage fee would be warranted if specialized employment and training services are needed to allow Somerville residents to gain access to these new employment opportunities so that they share in the benefits of new development”; and
WHEREAS: In 2016, then Mayor Simmons and Vice Mayor McGovern sponsored a Policy Order asking the City Manager to examine the “the legality of tying the Living Wage Ordinance to the Linkage Ordinance,” but it does not appear that the order was ever placed on the City Manager’s Awaiting Report List, and a response was never generated; and
WHEREAS: The Community Development Department will be sending out a new project scope for the upcoming Incentive Zoning Nexus Study; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to include a Job Linkage fee to the list of topics being evaluated in the upcoming Incentive Zoning Nexus Study; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Ordinance Committee, comprised of the entire membership of the City Council, held a public hearing on Thurs, June 7, 2018 at 2:06pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to discuss proposed amendments to the Street Performers Ordinance in section 12.16.170 in the Municipal Code (ATTACHMENT A).
[June 26, 2017 message from City Manager] [Proposed Amendments - cleaned up version] [Proposed Amendments with Kelley revisions - cleaned up]

Present at the hearing were Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Mallon; Mayor McGovern; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Zondervan; Jason Weeks, Executive Director, Arts Council; Julie Barry, Director of Community Arts, Arts Council; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Catherine Flaherty, 62 Fayette Street; and Felice Ling, 62 Fayette Street.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and stated the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio recorded privately.

Councillor Carlone stated that 45 years ago Harvard and Central Squares were active. It was a carnival event. He stated that hopefully this look at the Street Performers Ordinance will invite people to the squares.

Jason Weeks, Executive Director, Arts Council, stated that Cambridge has the history consistent with what Councillor Carlone stated. He stated that in the 1990’s this City wanted to work with the artists and busters to see how this could work better. The City decided to take the municipal sidewalk use and expand this to enliven the squares and open spaces. He stated that legally the street performers and buskers had the right to be on the sidewalks. In 1990 the ordinance was developed (Ordinance #1176). He stated that local retail district and businesses, artists and buskers have been collaborating and the ordinance language was reviewed and has been streamlined. He stated that gold leaf was repaired on the Street Performers Memorial. The ordinance language before the City Council takes into consideration all the voices of all.

Councillor Zondervan requested explanation of the purpose of charging for a permit fee and how much is collected. Mr. Weeks stated that there is a $40 permit fee for the calendar year and a $15 replacement fee. He spoke about group performers and the cost not being an impediment and this fee is $160 for a group. There are 250 permits issued and 3 street performer monitors were hired with this funding. Mr. Kale stated that the total collected is under $10,000.

Councillor Mallon asked does Boston or Somerville have this program for their buskers. Mr. Weeks responded in the negative. It is a catcher-as-catch-can approach. He stated that Cambridge provided this information to Boston. Councillor Mallon stated that the permit is free for homeless and indigent, but requires a street address. She asked what will be done for them. Ms. Barry stated that the City will reach out to the homeless community and will issue a permit without a street address. Councillor Mallon asked should this language be included in the ordinance. Ms. Barry stated that this language could be added. She stated that they hand out homeless resources to the homeless.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the process of who performs in the busier areas of the City. Mr. Weeks responded that the ordinance language does state first-come-first-serve because it is a public space but we try to organize the street performers and buskers. The street monitors are trained and are out in the field proactively connecting with the performers and determining how they can be of service to them. There are weekly reports that Ms. Barry reviews and provides this information to the performers when they come in for the permit.

Mayor McGovern stated that there should not be a fee at all. Ms. Barry explained that the group permit fee is for the group. Mayor McGovern asked why does the group not pay more. Ms. Barry stated that the group pays for four and then there is a discounted fee. She stated that people tend to take things seriously if there is a fee attached. Mayor McGovern stated that the Multi-Service Center allows homeless citizens to use the center’s address. He spoke about Cambridge not being as hospitable to buskers as other communities. He stated that the City needs to be intentional to let them know they are wanted and welcomed here. Ms. Barry stated that the Arts Council agrees and the new ordinance language will make Cambridge more inviting and hospitable. She stated that the larger performers feel that they do not have space in Cambridge to perform and she is hopeful that the language in the ordinance will help this.

Councillor Siddiqui asked if there is a reason that the City has to have a replacement fee. Mr. Weeks stated that this is about the administrative piece. This is an opportunity to look at this issue. He stated that less than a dozen replacement fees have been charged.

Councillor Carlone spoke about the difficulty of finding performance places for larger groups; he stated that one could perform on the Cambridge Common. Mr. Weeks stated that the permit allows performances on streets, ways, parks and plazas. He stated that when space was redesigned in Harvard Square it was designed with the performers in mind. He stated that in 2000-2003 these performers went to Faneuil Hall and Quincy Marketplace where it is private space and tightly controlled. Councillor Carlone spoke about the Arts Council being included in designing new spaces and he asked if the Arts Council is comfortable with this. The response was affirmative. Councillor Carlone stated that he hopes that this is included in the Envision process. He asked would you like to have more space. Mr. Weeks responded that the sidewalk use and street performer are in the capital program and there is a percentage for the arts and that the Arts Council is involved in all the City events. There is a regular presence for the participants in the Open Space Committee; art is at the table and has an active role. He spoke about utilizing spaces like University Park for performances. Councillor Carlone stated that most public spaces in the squares are noisy. He suggested singers in Palmer Street may bring this place to life. He spoke about using spaces that are not generally used for arts; is this allowed in this ordinance. Mr. Weeks responded in the affirmative. There was a grand vision articulated by artists. He stated that the arts commission worked with the private property owners to create an opportunity for a street theatre or street space and this will be continuing. Councillor Carlone asked how much does a busker make. Mr. Weeks stated that it varies widely for a variety of reasons. Ms. Barry stated that this is one reason why Cambridge Common does not provide popular spaces for performers because there is less foot traffic in the Common.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that in the vein of inviting people to participate is there an online map of where people could perform. Ms. Barry spoke about a story map that will be undertaken to do this year. Vice Mayor Devereux suggested using parking day for the story map. She spoke about cutting the fees in half. If a student pays a fee in September-October can this permit be on a rolling basis. Mr. Weeks commented that the fee has been done on a calendar basis; this would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Kale stated that the $40 fee has been the same fee and has not been increased for years. The performers pay for the permit. He spoke about the City charging for many services and must be fair across the board. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that if the City is trying to encourage new performers to try their luck in Cambridge, the replacement fee is grasping.

Councillor Mallon commented that if the City has increased fees and the buskers are not taking opportunity for performing there is no need for the fee or the replacement fee.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he does not see the value of this; remove the fee and see if it is used more; then revisit to add the fee back in. He stated that without the experiment we cannot evaluate. He stated that he is in favor of removing it.

Councillor Kelley asked City Solicitor Glowa if there is a legal requirement for a fee. City Solicitor Glowa responded in the negative.

Councillor Kelley suggested bifurcating the conversation; one on the ordinance and the other on the fee. He stated that anyone doing anything needs a permit. He stated that he wanted to allow performers to do their activities. Ms. Barry suggested that audio be added to the ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she wanted to review this amendment for first amendment right. Councillor Kelley asked if the City cares if a performer preforms within fifty feet of another performer as in paragraph 5 if one or both are quiet. Ms. Barry explained that when performers are less than 50 feet they encroach on each other and there is sound interference. She stated that for the protection of the musicians they are 50 feet away. Councillor Kelley spoke about the sidewalks. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there are complaints and turf wars and when there are no rules it is more difficult to enforce the ordinance.

Councillor Kelley asked how enforcement is done by the police. In some places it states Cambridge police and other police. He asked if the Harvard police could enforce the ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa stated that Police Officer in the Ordinance refers to Cambridge Police Officers.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is about fees, safety, sidewalk obstruction and noise. Mr. Weeks stated that the noise ordinance is enforced by the License Commission and the monitors are trained with the noise equipment. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the Cambridge police have authority to enforce the noise ordinance. Councillor Kelley stated that he does not think that they have the noise meters needed to do the job.

Councillor Kelley stated that this is about the use of the space. Ms. Barry stated that this is being addressed. There is no pitch idea. There is language that allows the Arts Council to institute schedules or pitches. She stated that she wanted the flexibility to schedule the performances. Mr. Weeks spoke about if there are other city resources and tools to achieve the goal and that the Arts Council can pull a sidewalk obstruction permit to work with the artists.

Councillor Zondervan noted that the noise meters can be downloaded on phones and unless performers agree and it does not violate the ordinance the 50 feet does not apply.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 3:07pm.

Catherine Flaherty 62 Fayette Street, thanked the City Council for moving forward on this process. She is in favor of reduction or elimination of the fee. She stated her supports for the Arts Council having the flexibility for performances and scheduling circle acts. A walk by performer needs time not space; circles need more space and less time. She stated that the foot traffic is not great in Cambridge and giving the Arts Council flexibility to regulate this is good. She went to Boston permit meetings that went nowhere. She stated that Boston’s street environment is chaotic and street performers fight amongst themselves. She stated that having a permit here makes the street performers more diverse. We go where there is space and where we can make money. There is not the foot traffic in Cambridge as there used to be.

James Low, 125 Harvard Street, stated that he has three children that perform in Harvard Square. He stated his support for the fee being reduced for students. He stated that home school children are not mentioned in the ordinance and they cannot get an ID. His concern is that if the fee is eliminated how will the monitors enforce the permit. The permit is important and he wanted his children protected and to have the ability to perform.

Felice Ling, 62 Fayette Street, stated that the permit needs to be renewed upon issuance.

At 3:16pm Councillor Kelley closed public comment.

Councillor Zondervan asked Ms. Flaherty where she goes instead of Cambridge. Ms. Flaherty responded to Faneuil Hall and Downtown Crossing.

Councillor Kelley asked where does the regulation give flexibility on where to perform and how. Ms. Barry responded that the language is in section J; this gives the Arts Council the flexibility to implement and augment the space. City Solicitor Glowa stated that generally the complaints received is if there is language to regulate this.

Councillor Kelley stated that in section 9 it should be spelled out that the Arts Council may change the rules and add “unless otherwise outlined by the Arts Council” to be granted the flexibility to create the scheduling desired in more popular areas.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he wanted to know the regulation changes.

City Solicitor Glowa stated that the performance spaces are on a first come, first served unless provided by regulations by the Arts Council. Such regulations will be kept on file at the Arts council. Councillor Zondervan suggested “or a list of performance sites.”

Councillor Kelley stated that this needs to be specifically spelled out in the ordinance. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the ordinance needs to state that staff has the authority to designate certain spaces. She stated that the regulations cannot contradict the ordinance and this must be specific in the ordinance. She said that the Law Department would provide appropriate language for a suitable change to the ordinance that would accomplish this.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the ordinance is ordained when would the fees be effective. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the ordinance is effective upon passage. Ms. Barry noted that this may cause complication during the current year.

Councillor Zondervan suggested that any adjustment to the fee that the new fee takes effect January 2019.

Councillor Kelley submitted a draft of the ordinance with his suggested changes (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Zondervan made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the proposed fee in the draft amendment to section 12.16.170 entitled Street Performers Ordinance be removed from the ordinance.

The motion carried on a voice vote of six members.

Councillor Kelley moved the proposed amendment to the Street Performers Ordinance to the full City Council, including the draft of changes, to the full City Council without a recommendation.

The motion carried on a voice vote.

Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 3:36pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair
Councillor Craig Kelley, Co-Chair