4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-41, regarding a report on closing Mass Ave from Prospect Street to Sydney Street on Friday and Saturday evenings.
Charter Right - McGovern

June 28, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report 21-41, which requesting that the City Manager work with all relevant City departments, the Central Square BID, and the MBTA to close Massachusetts Avenue from Prospect Street to Sydney Street on Friday and Saturday evenings from 7:00pm to 1:00am through September 2021, please be advised of the following:

Representatives from multiple departments met to discuss this potential closure, including the City Manager’s Office, the Fire Department, the Police Department, the City Solicitor’s Office, the Traffic, Parking, + Transportation Department, the Community Development Department, the Department of Public Works, and the License Commission. Representatives from the public safety departments (Fire and Police) expressed significant concerns about a full closure of this segment of Massachusetts Avenue, including the following specific issues:

• This segment of Massachusetts Avenue is a major response route for the Fire Department in calls for assistance for both fire and emergency medical services. Closing off this section of roadway would present tremendous tactical challenges for the Fire Department to adequately protect the city and respond to calls from the community and is not acceptable from a fire safety perspective.

• The Engine Six firehouse on River Street is currently closed for repairs. While the Fire Department has adjusted their response plans to properly cover Cambridgeport during this closure, any closure of Massachusetts Avenue could delay the response of units and present an added risk to the community.

• The rerouting of various trucks and commercial vehicles onto smaller side streets could also place the residents, pedestrians, and bicycles on those streets at additional risk due to the multiple right-angle turns required for that rerouting. It is also important to note that Massachusetts Avenue between Sydney Street and Pleasant Street is part of the hazardous materials truck route that must be used in place of the Prudential tunnel on the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90), so any closure would move those trucks onto smaller streets and require additional turning movements through the early morning hours.

• The Police Department expressed significant concerns regarding the recurring staffing required to support such a closure, given the traffic and crowd control that would be required to maintain a safe and organized closure (potentially including the need to deploy blocking trucks or hard barriers).

Based on these concerns from public safety agencies, the City Solicitor also expressed concerns regarding any such closure.

Staff also consulted with service planning staff from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), to understand their perspective on this idea. The MBTA is not supportive of this recurring closure, particularly given the number of different bus routes, the volume of customers that travel in this area, and the transfer connections available to the Red Line. Specific concerns include confusion for customers, the staffing and other resources required to plan and implement significant detours on multiple routes, bus stop relocation challenges, and the increased walking distance for transferring customers, particularly those with disabilities.

Based on all these concerns, I am not comfortable moving forward with a plan that involves a full closure of Massachusetts Avenue between Sydney Street and Prospect Street on Friday and Saturday evenings, as suggested in the original Policy Order. However, the City remains supportive of implementing more limited street closures, as we have done in other locations around the City in response to COVID-19 and to address other key needs, particularly where these closures help directly support the vitality of local businesses and local neighborhoods.

Within Central Square, we would be open to working with the Central Square Business Improvement District (BID) and individual businesses to create additional spaces on side streets for outdoor dining, retail sales, or other supportive uses. In creating these spaces, we also need to be sensitive to the specific needs of these groups and nearby residents and ensure that any changes recognize and respond both to the businesses’ operations as well as the residents’ concerns. Implementation of any street closures would also need to be done in a manner that increases the attractiveness of the area, which typically requires programming and activation.

We are currently engaged with the Central Square BID and appropriate City staff to discuss additional opportunities for side street closures that will help support the local businesses, residents and the Cultural District as a whole.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to recommendation from the Planning Board and communication from Community Development Department and Law Department staff related to the Cannabis Delivery Zoning Petition. [Law Dept. memo] [recommended amended text of petition]
Placed on File 9-0

June 28, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please see attached a recommendation from the Planning Board and communication from Community Development Department and Law Department staff related to the Cannabis Delivery Zoning Petition. Staff recommends that the City Council amend the petition by substituting the attached zoning text prior to voting on adoption.

Staff will be available to discuss and answer any questions.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

---

Date: June 9, 2021
Subject: Cannabis Delivery Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends ADOPTION.

To the Honorable, the City Council,
The Planning Board (the “Board”) held a public hearing on May 11, 2021, continued to May 18, 2021, on a Zoning Petition (the “Petition”) by City Council (the “Petitioner”) to Amend Articles 2.000, 4.000 and 11.000 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge to create new land use definitions and associated regulations for home delivery of cannabis products.

This Petition is similar to another petition considered by the Planning Board in October 2020. At that time, there was a desire by both the Planning Board and City Council to expand the districts where cannabis delivery uses would be permitted, and generally make the Ordinance more permissive. CDD Staff, in collaboration with the Law Department, submitted this revised Petition in early 2021.

The revised Petition would establish two new land uses, “Cannabis Courier Establishment” and “Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishment”. A Cannabis Courier establishment would function like a delivery dispatch office and would facilitate delivery from an existing retailer to a home consumer. The Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishment would function more like a warehouse, and would be able to purchase cannabis products wholesale and sell and deliver directly to consumers, but would not be permitted to have a storefront at the warehousing location.

The Cannabis Courier Establishment would be permitted by-right in all business, office and industrial districts, whereas the Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishment would be permitted in all business, office, and industrial districts by Planning Board Special Permit. A Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishment would be further limited in size to not exceed 10,000 square feet of gross floor area and would be required to have a minimum buffer of 300’ from schools and parks/recreation areas. Both uses would be required to submit a transportation logistics plan, subject to review and approval by the Traffic, Parking & Transportation (TP&T) and Police Department. Existing definitions for Cannabis Microbusiness would be amended to enable delivery of cannabis products directly to consumers if so licensed by the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC).

At the May 18th hearing, the Planning Board discussed the Petition. Board Members generally felt that if these delivery uses would be permitted in surrounding communities, then they should also be permitted in Cambridge; particularly if there are no limitations for Cambridge residents to order delivery from surrounding communities. Board Members also agreed that the CCC’s adopted delivery regulations appear extensive and therefore Cambridge’s ordinance should be as clear and simple as possible to not provide additional barriers to these types of uses from locating within Cambridge. While some Board members were concerned that having these types of uses in vacant storefronts in commercial and mixed-use districts might detract from the City’s broader goal of supporting a more vibrant and active public realm, other Board Members believed that Cambridge’s comparatively higher rents and land values would make this outcome less likely. Board Members also noted a few areas where the zoning language could be clarified, and suggested that staff examine them further.

At the conclusion of Board discussion, the Board voted unanimously to transmit a favorable recommendation on the Petition.

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

---

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor
Date: June 28, 2021
Re: Cannabis Delivery Zoning Petition: Requests to Staff

The Cannabis Delivery Zoning Petition (the “Petition”), which was drafted by CDD and Law Department staff, was heard by the Planning Board on May 18, 2021 and by the Ordinance Committee on May 12, 2021. Both voted to transmit positive recommendations to the full City Council, with comments and questions to be addressed by CDD and the Law Department. This memo provides responses to some of the substantive questions that were raised. Attached is an amended markup of the Petition text, for consideration and possible substitution by the City Council.

Comments by the Planning Board, as indicated in the Board’s recommendation, were limited to clarifications regarding repackaging of cannabis products, the definition of “Cannabis Establishment,” and parking requirements for delivery vehicles. The attached text includes proposed changes to the Petition text intended to provide greater clarity on these points as necessary.

The Ordinance Committee raised questions that were transmitted to staff as Policy Orders (summarized below), some of which relate to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance, which is separate from the Petition’s proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to Cannabis Delivery. Staff’s responses concerning the Petition are provided on the following pages. The Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance remains with the Ordinance Committee and the Law Department will provide a response to the Policy Orders relating to that ordinance for an upcoming Council meeting, as the Law Department continues to analyze those issues.

• 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.

• 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.

Will eliminating or removing the buffer zone for Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishments alter the fundamental character of the petition?

It was mistakenly reported at the Ordinance Committee hearing that the Petition would require a 300-foot buffer from schools and youth recreation facilities for Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishments. Staff respectfully requests to correct the record to note that the refiled Petition does not propose requiring buffers for either Cannabis Courier Establishments or Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishments.

Can staff provide suggestions and implications for how to regulate Cannabis Courier Establishments and Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishments occupying retail storefront space?

Recall that as currently proposed, Cannabis Courier Establishments (which do not store cannabis products on-site) are permitted as-of-right whereas Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishments (which do store cannabis products on-site) require a Planning Board special permit.

For Cannabis Delivery Operators, the Planning Board relies on the Special Permit Criteria set forth in 11.805 when granting a special permit. The current criteria include consideration of the impacts of “blank walls” on the retail character of the area, and the Planning Board can require mitigation of those impacts in their review. The attached text revisions are intended to further clarify that Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishments are also subject to these criteria, and that establishments that do not allow customer foot traffic could be a concern in retail areas.

For Cannabis Courier Establishments, the solutions are more complicated because they would be permitted as-of-right and therefore not subject to site-specific review. The location standards set forth in Section 11.803 could be further modified to include restrictions on the location and/or design of Cannabis Courier Establishments, but that might restrict the potential sites available for such a business or require them to seek zoning relief. The likely locations for a Cannabis Courier Establishment would be existing commercial buildings with off-street parking, which are atypical in Cambridge’s core retail areas. It may be difficult for a proposed establishment to meet additional requirements if their options are already limited and if they do not have the ability to make significant alterations to existing buildings or sites. The Planning Board discussed this issue and Board members opined that additional requirements were probably unnecessary because transportation businesses are unlikely to want to pay high rents for prime retail locations.

If additional requirements were included, potential options could include:

• In Business zoning districts, limit ground-story street frontage to 25 feet or less, or some other number, similar to limitations placed on financial institutions in the Central Square Overlay District and Harvard Square Overlay District. This could be modified by special permit.

• Restrict ground-story street frontage only along main retail corridors, such as Massachusetts Avenue, Main Street, Cambridge Street, and possibly others. This could also be modified by special permit.

Neither of these changes has been added to the attached markup text, but if the Council decides to pursue a specific option, staff can provide the necessary language to be considered prior to adoption.

CHARTER RIGHT
1. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $65,019,211, received from the U.S. Department of Treasury through the new Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CLFRF) established by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), to the Grant Fund Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will be used to. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN IN COUNCIL JUNE 21, 2021]
Sobrinho-Wheeler Motion to Table Fails 2-7 (JSW,QZ - YES); Order Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9

June 21, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting the appropriation of $65,019,211, received from the U.S. Department of Treasury through the new Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CLFRF) established by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), to the Grant Fund Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account.

Funds are intended to:

• Support urgent COVID-19 response efforts to continue to decrease spread of the virus and bring the pandemic under control.

• Replace lost public sector revenue to strengthen support for vital public services and help retain jobs.

• Support immediate economic stabilization for households and businesses.

• Address systematic public health and economic challenges that have contributed to the inequal impact of the pandemic on certain populations.

Fiscal staff are currently reviewing the “Interim Final Rule” regulations regarding the funds. Over the next several weeks, this will include working closely with key departments to refine funding priorities and ensure eligibility of projects, as well as reaching out to the State legislative delegation to verify that proposed expenditures through this funding will be approved.

It is important to note the CLFRF is a federal grant and the provisions of G.L. c. 44, section 53A apply. Additionally, it is subject to the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2CRF 200) (the Uniform Guidance). It is the City’s responsibility as the primary recipient to ensure eligible programs respond to the negative impact of COVID-19 and that all expenditures are justified and documented for reporting purposes.

It is important to note, that if the City expends funds for a specific project or initiative that is later deemed ineligible for funding through the federal reporting process, the City will be required to fund the entire cost(s) from Free Cash. Therefore, a thorough review of project eligibility is critical before any expenditures through this program are made.

Potential eligible projects that will be explored include (but are not limited to):

• Public health spending. This includes COVID-19 mitigation efforts, medical expenses, behavioral health, and certain public health and safety staff.

o Upgrade neighborhood park and playground adjacent to the Kennedy Longfellow School that is intensely used by children associated with the adjacent schools, Human Services programs, and area non-profits.

o Time-limited free public transportation access option to improve access to public transportation including subway and bus to address systemic public health and economic challenges through reducing transportation costs and encouraging active transportation.

• Economic impacts of the public health emergency. These include efforts to mitigate economic harm to workers, households, small businesses, affected industries, and the public sector.

o Provide support for job training and other employment services for individuals who need such services to be able to access employment that leads to a living wage and career pathway.

o Direct business grants.

o Grants for hotel/tourism businesses.

o Outdoor dining infrastructure support and grants.

o Add to storefront, accessibility for outdoor dining/patios in parking spaces.

o Public patios in commercial districts and corridors.

o Ecommerce grants - capacity building, tech assistance and implementation of a quick build website.

o Grants for energy efficient equipment e.g. refrigerators, induction stoves, other cooking equipment, machines and other appliances, batteries to increase energy resilience, ideally paired with on-site solar.

o Grants for business associations events (i.e. October Fest/Inman Eats/Central Flea, etc.).

o Grants to expand pop up retail programs.

o Grants to Cambridge non-profit organizations to provide enhanced and continued services to residents impacted by the pandemic.

o Grants to Cambridge non-profit organizations for operating costs for limited duration (3 or 6 months) to offset pandemic related losses.

o Support for the Restaurant Homeless Shelter Meals Program.

o Expansion of food delivery to residents of Cambridge housing developments, for healthy food for Cambridge food pantry network, and for expansion of school markets.

o Funding to expand Pre-K programs as part of development of Universal Pre-K program.

o Provide laptops and other appropriate devices for low income students accessing Community Learning Center classes, for first generation college going students and for low- and moderate-income seniors.

o Provide scholarship support to low- and moderate-income students attending out of school time programs.

o Provide funding for housing navigation and stabilization services to support permanent supported housing for individuals currently unhoused in Cambridge.

o Rent/mortgage support to residents economically impacted by the pandemic beyond the 6-month limit allowed by CDBG, if permissible.

o Recapitalize HIP program which supports renovation by low income homeowners - expand focus to weatherization, energy efficiency upgrades (net zero package) and de-leading.

o Neighborhood Resilience Hubs in two locations (Alewife/the Port/Riverside) to build and support social resilience.

o Cooling sites, ideally coupled with resilience hubs, in Alewife/Port/Riverside.

• Water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure. Recipients may invest to improve access to clean drinking water, support wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, and expand access to broadband internet.

o The Port Infrastructure project which is a significant utility project to reduce flooding, replace water mains and lead services, and reconstruct streets and sidewalks in the Port neighborhood. Project includes a sewer tank and a stormwater tank to reduce flooding in the dense residential neighborhood that is one of the most flood prone neighborhoods in the City.

o Wireless Broadband Internet Pilot Program at select Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) properties as part of the City’s digital equity efforts.

o Improving Public WIFI in public squares and adding wifi coverage to city parks.

o Upgrading city public facilities (such as libraries and youth centers) with improved HVAC systems and broadband infrastructure.

o Municipal and Digital Equity Connectivity projects that will be identified in the 21st Century Broadband RFP.

As requested in Policy Order #10 of June 14, 2021, I will work with the Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee to schedule a meeting to further discuss with the City Council, specific projects that are anticipated to be funded through this program.

I am requesting the appropriation at this time to provide a mechanism to accept the revenue in order to make timely and necessary expenditures from these funds.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to determine the feasibility of establishing a pilot reparations program that would take a to-be-determined percentage of revenue from local cannabis sales and distribute these monies to local Black-owned businesses and to economic empowerment applicants. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN IN COUNCIL JUNE 21, 2021]
Tabled 9-0 (Simmons)

O-1     June 21, 2021  Charter Right - Zondervan
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
WHEREAS: For generations, cities across the country have grappled with how to adequately redress the historic injustices carried out against people of color throughout our country’s history, and the negative impacts that continue to ripple across our society due to the harmful, shameful institution of slavery; and
WHEREAS: Our country’s original sin was set in motion in 1619 when the first individuals were forcibly taken from Africa and forced into slave labor in Point Comfort, Virginia, and this unconscionable practice would be allowed to fester and grow for more than two centuries before President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 (and even then, slavery was not fully abolished across the country until the Civil War formally ended in 1865); and
WHEREAS: As noted by the Evanston, IL City Council in 2002, “…uncompensated slave labor was the primary [labor] source throughout the colonies…for clearing and cultivating land, planting and harvesting crops, and providing artisanal products” and that “…35 million African Americans currently in the United States are direct descendants of slaves brought to the New World beginning 400 years ago;” and
WHEREAS: In 2019, the Evanston City Council laid the groundwork for a first-of-its-kind initiative designed to provide reparations to the descendants of those who were enslaved in this country, utilizing tax revenues from the burgeoning marijuana industry in Illinois to fund payments of $25,000 to 16 eligible Black residents to be put towards homeownership and generational equity-building; and
WHEREAS: As the national debate over the concept of reparations continues to be held, pilot programs like the one being piloted in Evanston, IL may point the way toward a viable means of beginning to address the unconscionable wrongs perpetrated by this country centuries ago, and which continue to negatively impact millions of people today; and
WHEREAS: As the Evanston Model is not the only model worthy of consideration, the City of Cambridge could emulate that program’s spirit with an initiative that takes some of the revenues from local cannabis sales and distributes these funds among, and to lift up, economic empowerment applicants and non-cannabis Black-owned businesses, with the hope that this could be expanded if found to be successful; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to determine the feasibility of establishing a pilot reparations program that would take a to-be-determined percentage of revenue from local cannabis sales and distribute these monies to local Black-owned businesses and to economic empowerment applicants, with a targeted launch date of July 2022; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is also requested to direct the appropriate City staff to determine the feasibility of establishing reparations programs with funding from other appropriate sources for possible future implementation to redress policies, including those enforced in Cambridge, that prohibited descendants of enslaved people from acquiring wealth, thereby contributing to the unconscionable median net worth of $8 for Boston area American born Blacks compared to $247,000 for white families; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on any progress made toward this endeavor by October 4, 2021.

3. That the City Council go on record in favor of filing of the attached Home Rule Petition entitled: AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO INCLUDE A BALLOT QUESTION ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2021 MUNICIPAL BALLOT RELATIVE TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR TOOMEY IN COUNCIL JUNE 21, 2021]
Late Amendments unseen by the public Approved 8-1 (Toomey - NO); Order Approved as Amended 8-1 (Toomey - NO); Reconsideration Fails 0-9
Apparently, there will be one track that asks Attorney General to opine on legality, then straight to municipal ballot; other track is Home Rule petition to state legislature.

O-2     June 21, 2021  Charter Right - Toomey
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge, which adopted the Plan E Charter in 1940, has not once held a formal review process to consider revisions, making it one of the only municipalities in Massachusetts to go 80 years without reviewing its most important legal document; and
WHEREAS: On July 27th, 2020, the City Council unanimously passed a Policy Order asking the Mayor to call a Special Meeting for the Collins Center for Public Management to present to the Council on the process and benefits of charter review; and
WHEREAS: The Special Meeting on September 23, 2020, discussed charter review and options for charter change, which was followed by a policy order requesting an appropriation, which led to two memos produced by the Collins Center outlining the processes for charter review and reform, including specific discussion of reviewing the appointment process for multiple member boards, instituting an annual review of the City Manager and instituting a regularly scheduled charter review; and
WHEREAS: Memos outlining possible changes to the charter based on the Collins Center review project, which included interviewing all Councillors, were on the City Council meeting agenda on March 22, 2021, on the meeting agenda on May 3, 2021, and were the sole topic of the Special Meeting on June 2, 2021, whose purpose was the charter review and possible change; and
WHEREAS: Several ideas for possible charter changes were discussed at the Special Meeting, with the public and the City Council able to express opinions on the possible paths laid out by the Collins Center memo; and
WHEREAS: In many cities and towns in Massachusetts, the charter is reviewed and updated at regular intervals; and
WHEREAS: In many cities and towns in Massachusetts, including Watertown, Somerville, Newton, Chelsea, Framingham, Amherst, and Northampton, the City or Town Council has a role in appointing and/or approving department heads and/or multiple-member boards; and
WHEREAS: The City has the authority to submit a home rule petition to adopt or revise its charter or to amend its existing charter by special act; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council hereby proposes the three attached charter amendments, as provided in Section 4 of the Home Rule Amendment and Sections 10(a) and 18 of Chapter 43B of the General Laws be sent to the Attorney General and the State Department of Housing and Community Development, further be it
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record favoring the filing of the attached Home Rule Petition entitled: AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO INCLUDE A BALLOT QUESTION ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2021 MUNICIPAL BALLOT RELATIVE TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER.

SECTION 1. The Charter of the City of Cambridge is hereby amended by special act to add the following to the City’s existing Plan E Charter at General Laws Chapter 43, which was adopted pursuant to its acceptance of the provisions of General Laws Chapter 43, Sections 93-116, Section 105 on Appointments:

The City Manager shall refer to the City Council and simultaneously file with the Clerk the name of each person the City Manager desires to appoint or reappoint as a member of a board or commission. Appointment of a member of a board or commission made by the City Manager will be effective upon a majority vote of the city council, which vote shall occur within 30 days after the date on which notice of the proposed appointment was filed with the City Clerk. The appointment may be approved or rejected by a majority of the full City Council before 30 days.

SECTION 2. The Charter of the City of Cambridge is hereby amended by a special act adding a new Subsection 116 (a) to the City’s existing Plan E Charter, which was adopted pursuant to its acceptance of the provisions of General Laws Chapter 43, Sections 93-116 on City Manager Review:

Annually the City Council shall prepare and deliver to the City Manager a written review of the City Manager's performance in a manner provided by ordinance.

SECTION 3. The Charter of the City of Cambridge is hereby amended by a special act by a special act by adding the following new Subsection 116 (b) to the City’s existing Plan E Charter, which was adopted pursuant to its acceptance of the provisions of General Laws Chapter 43, Sections 93-116 on Charter Review:

Not later than July 1, in each year ending in a 2, the City Council shall provide for a review to be made of the city charter by a special committee to be established by ordinance. All members of the special committee shall be voters of the city not holding elective office. The special committee shall file a report with the City Council within 1 year of its appointment recommending any changes to the city charter which it deems necessary or desirable, unless an extension is authorized by vote of the City Council. Action on any proposed charter changes shall be as authorized by the Massachusetts constitution or general laws.

SECTION 4. This act shall be submitted to the voters of the City of Cambridge at the upcoming municipal elections on November 2, 2021 in the form of the following questions which shall be placed upon the official ballot to be used at said election. If the changes are approved by a majority of valid ballots voting yes, they would go into effect as of January 1, 2022.

Should amendments to the City’s Plan E Charter, Section 105 of Chapter 43, be made, by special act providing for the City Council to confirm appointments of the City Manager to the City’s boards and commissions which confirmation is not currently required? YES___ NO ___

Should amendments to the City’s Plan E Charter be made by special act providing for the City Council to establish a process for an annual review of the City Manager’s performance? YES___ NO __

Should amendments to the City’s Plan E Charter be made by special act providing for the City Council to establish a process for review every 10 years to be made of the City’s Plan E Charter by an appointed committee of voters per City Council Ordinance? YES___ NO __

Below said question shall appear a brief summary of the act prepared by the city solicitor.

If the voters at the municipal election approve the question, then this act shall be applicable to the city as of January 1, 2022, but not otherwise.

SECTION 5. This act shall be effective upon its passage.

4. That the City Manager is hereby requested to work with the appropriate departments and building contractors to reconsider the current plan which eliminates many trees including large old growth trees that are not part of the new building footprint and specifically do everything possible to save the three Oak trees on the west side of the property and any other large trees on the site. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR SIMMONS IN COUNCIL JUNE 21, 2021]
Amendment Approved 5-4 (DC,AM,PN,JSW,SS - YES; MM,DS,TT,QZ - NO)
Order Adopted as Amended 6-3 (DC,AM,PN,JSW,QZ, SS - YES; MM,DS,TT - NO)

O-3     June 21, 2021  Charter Right - Simmons
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: A recently released report on the Tobin Montessori and Vassal Lane Upper School plan detailed the removal of 94 of the existing 129 trees on the site; and
WHEREAS: Under the list of proposed removals include three, old growth Oak trees, that are well outside the footprint of the building plans on the west side of the property; and are not included on the city’s list of trees to be removed due to decline; and
WHEREAS: While the plans include the appropriate replacement trees as required by city ordinance, and there will be no reduction in total tree diameter, under the current plan the canopy on the site would decrease by 79%; and
WHEREAS: The three Oak trees on the west side of the property are three of the largest on the property, and make up nearly 25% of the total canopy loss; and
WHEREAS: Additionally, saving those three Oak trees would prevent the City from needing to plant 23 replacement trees to fulfill the diameter requirements; and
WHEREAS: The City should lead by example and do everything possible to save existing trees, especially those that are outside of the planned building footprint; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with the appropriate departments and building contractors to report on the feasibility of reconsidering the current plan which eliminates many trees including large old growth trees that are not part of the new building footprint and specifically do everything possible to save the three Oak trees on the west side of the property and any other large trees on the site.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to proposed amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance. [PASS TO A SECOND READING ON JUNE 14, 2021; TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER JUNE 28, 2021]
Amended 8-0-0-1 (Toomey - PRESENT)
Ordained as Amended 7-1-0-1 (Toomey - NO; Simmons - PRESENT)

Ordered: That section 8.66 of the Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge be amended as follows:

Amend the definition of “DBH” in section 8.66.030 to read as follows:

DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The diameter of a tree trunk measured in inches at a height of four and one-half (4.5) feet above the ground.

Insert the following definitions in section 8.66.030:

Exceptional Tree. Any Significant Tree thirty (30) inches DBH or larger which is on a Lot.

Mitigation Payment. A payment to be paid to the Tree Replacement Fund associated with the removal of Significant Trees that have not been replaced with Replacement Trees in accordance with the mitigation requirements established in this Chapter.

Structure. A combination of materials assembled at a fixed location to give support or shelter, such as a building, bridge, tower, retaining wall, tank, tunnel, stadium, or the like.

Amend the Definition of “Mitigation Plan” in section 8.66.030 to read as follows:

Mitigation Plan. A document to be provided where any Significant Trees are proposed to be removed from a Lot, stating (i) why any Significant Trees are proposed to be removed from a Lot, (ii) a description of the Replacement Trees proposed to replace the Significant Trees to be removed, and (iii) the Mitigation Payment, if required.

Amend the Definition of “Replacement Trees” in section 8.66.030 to read as follows:

Replacement Trees. A tree or trees to be planted to replace any Significant Trees to be removed from the Lot. For large projects, as identified in Section 8.66.050, Replacement Trees can be planted on the same Lot or any other Lot within the same neighborhood or adjoining neighborhood, as defined by the Cambridge Neighborhood Study 1953.The approval of the City Arborist will be required if Replacement Trees are to be placed on other Lots.

Amend the Definition of “Significant Tree” in section 8.66.030 to read as follows:

Significant Tree. Any tree six (6) inches DBH or larger which is on a Lot.

Amend the Definition of “Tree Protection Plan” in section 8.66.030 to read as follows:

Tree Protection Plan. This plan shall include the following information:

a) Drawings of tree protection measures and:

(i) the location on the Lot of all Significant Trees and an indication of which Significant Trees would remain on the Lot, and

(ii) in the event that any Significant Trees are proposed to be removed, the location of those Significant Trees, and the location, height and DBH of Replacement Trees which are proposed to be planted, and

(iii) in the event that an inadequate number of Replacement Trees are proposed to be planted, the Mitigation Payment, as identified in the Mitigation Plan to be submitted with the Tree Study and

b) A schedule for planting the proposed Replacement Trees; and c) Such other conditions as specified by the City Arborist pursuant to applicable regulations.

Amend the Definition of “Tree Save Area” in section 8.66.030 to read as follows:

Tree Save Area. The area surrounding a tree which must remain as undisturbed as possible so as to prevent damage to the tree. Disturbance within the Tree Save Area may only be for limited and exceptional reasons.

Amend the Definition of “Tree Survey” in section 8.66.030 to read as follows:

Tree Survey. A plan showing the location, type, height and DBH of all trees on a Lot and those trees that have been removed from a Lot within one year prior to the submission of a Tree Study.

Amend section 8.66.040 to read as follows:

8.66.040 - Applicability

This Chapter shall apply to all trees located on Lots specified in the following section §8.66.050 and §8.66.060. This Chapter shall not apply to any project of the Affordable Housing Trust or otherwise for the construction of low and moderate-income housing meeting the standards established pursuant to any City, State or Federal housing program designed to assist low and moderate-income households. Developers of 100% affordable housing projects not otherwise subject to the provisions of this ordinance, shall be eligible to apply for funding from the Tree Replacement Fund to increase canopy protection and canopy expansion within the scope and limitations of such projects.

Amend section 8.66.050 to read as follows:

8.66.50 - Procedures for all Significant Tree Removals.

a. For any Significant Tree removal, a permit will be required from the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractor(s), and the name and address of the property owner.

b. A Mitigation Payment will be required for all Significant Trees removed where an insufficient quantity of Replacement Trees is provided. A Mitigation Payment will not be required if Significant Trees have been removed because of emergency circumstances, significant utility infrastructure projects undertaken pursuant to State or Federal regulations or programs, for City park projects, or where a tree poses significant negative impact to an adjacent Structure as defined in 8.66.030, or for dead or dangerous trees, or a Lot is of such density with existing trees that the removal of certain Significant Trees is considered beneficial to the health of the tree canopy on the Lot.

c. Protection of Replacement Trees.

(i) Replacement Trees will continue to be identified as Replacement Trees for a period of ten (10) years after they are planted.

(ii) No Replacement Tree shall be removed without a permit issued by the City Arborist. In all cases, the City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of any Replacement Tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the Replacement Tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractor(s), and the name and address of the property owner.

(iii) A Mitigation Payment will be required for all Replacement Trees removed. The Mitigation Payment shall be assessed on a DBH basis, in accordance with the City of Cambridge’s most recent tree planting and maintenance contract inclusive of purchasing, planting, watering, and maintaining Replacement Trees for a period of not less than five years. No reduction of the amount of Mitigation Payment otherwise available under this Ordinance will be allowed in connection with the removal of Replacement Trees.

Delete Section 8.66.055.

Amend section 8.66.060 to read as follows:

8.66.060 - Procedure for Large Projects

a. In any project which requires a special permit under §§ 4.26.l - 4.26.3, §19.20, §11.12.1, §11.12.2, or §11.12.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the application for the special permit shall include a Tree Study, which shall first have been submitted to the City Arborist not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the submission of the application for a special permit. The Tree Study shall be reviewed by the City Arborist, who shall certify that it has been reviewed, indicating whether it is complete and complies with the applicable provisions of this Chapter and regulations promulgated thereunder. The City Arborist shall refer the Tree Study with the City Arborists certification and recommendations to the Planning Board, to assist the Planning Board in establishing any conditions that may be required as a result of the findings of the Tree Study in connection with the issuance of a special permit.

b. Regarding any project which includes a building of 25,000 square feet or more and which is subject to the provisions of § 19.50 of the Zoning Ordinance, the materials submitted to the Inspectional Services Department with the application for a building permit shall include a Tree Study, together with a certification from the City Arborist that the applicant has submitted the Tree Study for review to the City Arborist not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the submission of the application for a building permit, and that the Tree Study is complete and complies with the applicable provisions of this Chapter and regulations promulgated thereunder. The City Arborist shall refer the Tree Study with the City Arborists certification and recommendations to the Planning Board, to assist the Planning Board in establishing any conditions that may be required as a result of the findings of the Tree Study in connection with the issuance of a special permit. The Owner of the Lot shall be required to commit to comply with all provisions of the Tree Study and the applicable provisions of this Chapter and regulations promulgated hereunder in the application for a building permit.

c. For any project which requires a special permit under §§ 4.26.l - 4.26.3, §19.20, §11.12.1, §11.12.2, or §11.12.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, or for any project which includes a building of 25,000 square feet or more and which is subject to the provisions of § 19.50 of the Zoning Ordinance the total DBH of Replacement Trees, or Mitigation Payment of equivalent value, as applicable, shall be equal to or exceed the total DBH of the Significant Trees to be removed from the Lot and 1.5 times the total DBH of Exceptional Trees to be removed from the lot.

d. In addition, the Owner of the Lot shall, prior to the issuance of a building permit, post and file a bond with the City Clerk in the amount of the total costs set forth in the Mitigation Plan, but in no event less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), with one or more sureties conditioned to the faithful observance of the conditions and specifications of the Tree Protection Plan and, if applicable, the Mitigation Plan. The bond shall remain effective for not less than five years following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and may be released thereafter upon the issuance of certification by the City Arborist certifying that the above conditions and specifications of the Tree Protection Plan have been met. Prior to the issuance of such certification, the Owner shall grant access to the Lot to permit the City Arborist to verify that the conditions and specifications of the Tree Protection Plan have been met.

Amend section 8.66.070 to read as follows:

8.66.070 - Procedure for Other Significant Tree Removals.

Mitigation Payment will be required for all Significant Trees removed where an insufficient quantity of Replacement Trees is provided. Where no Replacement Trees are proposed the Mitigation Payment of equivalent value shall be based on the total DBH of the Significant Trees to be removed and 1.5 times the total DBH of Exceptional Trees to be removed from the Lot. When Replacement Trees are planted on a lot, the Mitigation Payment will be based on one-half of the DBH difference between each Significant Tree removed and each Replacement Tree planted to replace it on a one-for-one basis. This calculation will start with the smallest Significant Tree to be removed and then proceed in ascending order based on the sizes of the additional Significant Trees to be removed. This calculation will also value Exceptional Trees at 1.5 times their total DBH. When the number of Replacement Trees planted exceeds the number of Significant Trees removed, each additional Replacement Tree will be credited based on its DBH.

Amend section 8.66.080 to read as follows:

8.66.080 – Mitigation Requirements

Except as provided in 8.66.065, the following Mitigation Requirements shall apply when Significant Trees are removed from a Lot:

The Mitigation Payment for Significant Trees shall be estimated, on a DBH basis, in accordance with the City of Cambridge’s most recent tree planting and maintenance contract inclusive of purchasing, planting, watering and maintaining Replacement Trees for a period of not less than five(5) years.

The Mitigation Payment associated with Exceptional Trees shall be estimated on a DBH basis at 1.5 times the value provided in the City of Cambridge’s most recent tree planting and maintenance contract inclusive of purchasing, planting, watering and maintaining Replacement Trees for a period of not less than five(5) years.

A 10% Mitigation Payment shall apply for Owners who qualify for the City of Cambridge residential real estate property tax exemption.

No Mitigation Payment shall apply to property owners that receive established forms of financial assistance.

Amend section 8.66.090 to read as follows:

8.66.090 - Tree Replacement Fund

There is hereby established a Tree Replacement Fund which shall be held by the City Treasurer in an account and administered in accordance with applicable provisions of the General Laws. Any payments into the Tree Replacement Fund required by 8.66.060 or 8.66.070 shall be deposited in said Fund and shall be used solely for the purpose of supporting tree planting and maintenance throughout the entire City.

Amend section 8.66.100 to read as follows:

8.66.100 - Duty of Care

Upon issuance of any City of Cambridge permit by the Inspectional Services Department, Department of Public Works, Water Department, Electrical Department or Traffic, Parking and/or Transportation Department the permit holder is required to take reasonable precautions to ensure that all Significant Trees on the Lot are adequately protected and maintained free from harm from work associated with the permit issued. Failure to adequately protect and maintain Significant Trees free from harm may result in a fine in accordance with 8.66.090, and failure to adequately protect Significant Trees that results in a Significant Tree being removed within two (2) years of the failure to protect being noted may result in a fine in accordance with 8.66.090 and a Mitigation Payment that reflects the value of the Significant Trees removed in accordance with 8.66.080.

Amend section 8.66.110 to read as follows:

8.66.110 - Regulations

The Commissioner of Public Works shall have the authority to promulgate regulations to accomplish any of the provisions of this Chapter.

Insert a new section of “8.66.120 - Enforcement” to read as follows:

8.66.120 - Enforcement

(a) Notice of Violations. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be notified by the City Arborist of the specific violation by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by hand delivery. The notice shall set forth the nature of the violation and a reasonable time period within which compliance must be had.

(b) Stop Work Order

(1) Upon notice from the City Arborist that work on any Lot on which a Significant Tree is located is being performed contrary to any applicable Mitigation Plan or Tree Protection Plan or any provision of this Chapter, such work shall be immediately stopped by the Commissioner of Inspectional Services or a designee of the Commissioner of Inspectional Services. The stop work order shall be in writing, and shall be given to the owner of the Lot involved, or to the owner's agent, or to the person doing the work, and shall state the conditions under which work will be permitted to resume.

(2) Any person who shall continue any work in or about said lot after having been served with a stop work order, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be liable to a fine of not more than $300.00. Each day during which a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense.

(c) Injunctive Relief. Whenever there exists reasonable cause to believe that a person is violating any applicable Mitigation Plan or Tree Protection Plan or any provision of this Chapter, the City may institute a civil action for a mandatory or prohibiting injunction in a court of competent jurisdiction ordering the defendant to correct the unlawful condition upon or cease the unlawful use of the property.

(d) Failure to apply for and receive a permit or failure to replace a Significant Tree or make a payment into the Tree Replacement Fund or to post and maintain a bond in accordance with §8.66.060 shall constitute a separate violation of this Chapter for which there shall be a fine of not more than $300.00. Each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.

(e) Alternative Penalty. As an alternative to any fine stated in this §8.66.090, citations may be issued pursuant to G.L. c. 40, §21D, assessing a fine of not more than $300.00 for each day the violation is committed or permitted to continue. The Commissioner of Public Works or the Commissioners designee, the City Arborist, and employees of the Department of Public Works shall be the authorized enforcement personnel.

Insert a new section of “8.66.130 - Severability ” to read as follows:

8.66.100 - Severability

The provisions of this Chapter are severable. If any section, provision, or portion of this Chapter is determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Chapter shall continue to be valid.

Insert a new section of “8.66.140 - Effective Date ” to read as follows:

8.66.140 - Effective Date

These amendments to the ordinance shall take effect upon ordination.

Insert a new section of “8.66.150 - Permit Fee” to read as follows:

8.66.150 - Permit Fee

The fee for a Tree Removal permit shall be determined by the Commissioner of Public Works.

2. A communication was received from Anthony Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting information regarding the Early Voting Home Rule Legislation.
Modified Home Rule Petition Re-Filed 9-0; Report Placed on File 9-0

June 28, 2021
Dear City Council,

This communication is to inform you that “A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-108, regarding a report on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee Elections” will no longer appear on the City Council’s meeting agenda.

This item is a home rule petition that was adopted by the Council and sent to the General Court on November 5, 2018. At the behest of the Council, the item was placed on the Calendar under “Unfinished Business”. The City has been informed by representatives of the Office of Representative Marjorie C. Decker that the item was not filed during this session and cannot be acted upon. The City Council would need to vote on this Home Rule petition again in order for the language to be refiled.

I have taken the liberty of drafting the petition again, with a change in dates to reflect refiling this year. The council could, if it is so inclined, move to adopt the modified home rule petition and send it to the state legislature.

Anthony Ivan Wilson, Esq.
City Clerk
City of Cambridge
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

---

ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward the attached home rule petition entitled “AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO OFFER EARLY VOTING IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS” to the Massachusetts Legislative delegation.

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO OFFER EARLY VOTING IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1.
Beginning in the year 2021, notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the City of Cambridge may offer early voting for municipal elections.

The City of Cambridge may elect to allow any qualified voter, as defined in section 1 of chapter 51 of the General Laws, to cast a ballot for any biennial municipal election during the early voting period.

The City of Cambridge’s Election Commission may promulgate regulations to implement this act not inconsistent with section 25B of chapter 54 of the General Laws and with other election laws applicable in the City of Cambridge, including those governing proportional representation voting. Such regulations may include, but are not limited to, a process for establishing early voting locations, dates, staffing, and a process for applying for, receiving, separating, compiling, recording, and securing early voter ballots. Each early voting site shall be accessible to persons with disabilities.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE
This act shall take full effect upon its acceptance and appropriation by majority vote of the City Council of said City, but not otherwise.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     June 28, 2021  Adopted as Amended
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR MALLON
WHEREAS: Cambridge is home to over 5,000 licensed dogs and makes a great effort to provide a safe and healthy environment for animals; and
WHEREAS: Many pets, dogs and cats especially, often require surgery to address medical issues, including, but not limited to orthopedic issues; and
WHEREAS: Due to the often complex, post-surgery recovery, many pet owners find it difficult to provide the consistent, and often, around the clock care, needed to insure a safe and healthy recovery; and
WHEREAS: Many pet owners turn to others to provide this care for their pets; and
WHEREAS: On April 26, 2021, an application was submitted to the BZA for a variance to allow a resident the right to provide post-operative care to a dog that she did not own, and this request was denied by the BZA because there was no definition in the Table of Uses to allow this service; and
WHEREAS: This service can mean the difference between life and death of an animal because the lack of post-operative care can have devastating impacts; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge be amended to insert a new row in section 4.31 “Residential Uses” to read as follows:

Open Space

Res A 1&2

Res B

Res C, C1, C1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 3, 3A, 3B

Off 1, 2A, 2, 3, 3A

Bus A-1, A-2, A-31

Bus A, A4

Bus B, B1, B-2

Bus C, C1

Ind A-1, A-2

Ind A

Ind B1, B-2

Ind B

Ind C

k. single animal hospice

No

Yes29

Yes29

Yes29

SP

SP

SP

SP10

SP

SP

SP

No51

SP

No

1. Veterinary establishment, kennel, pet shop or similar establishment. 29. Provided that, in Residential and Neighborhood Business Districts, no noise or odors are perceptible from adjoining lots. In Residential districts the use is restricted to one animal unless specifically increased by the special permit granting authority.

O-2     June 28, 2021
VICE MAYOR MALLON
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: Public transportation is a lifeline for our residents, especially lower-income residents and communities of color who are more likely to lack access to cars; and
WHEREAS: As our community shifts to the new normal, and as more residents work, learn, shop, and socialize outside of their homes, the burdensome cost of public transit could prevent many residents, especially vulnerable residents, from accessing this critical service; and
WHEREAS: State Representative Christine Barber and State Senator Patricia Jehlen recently introduced two companion bills in their respective chambers, HD.3403 and SD.2340, An Act Relative to Fare Free Buses; and
WHEREAS: If passed, these bills would establish a year-long MBTA Fare Free Bus Pilot for at least twenty bus routes experiencing high ridership, providing much-needed economic relief for community members across the Greater Boston Area after more than a year of severe financial devastation; and
WHEREAS: By providing an incentive for residents to opt for public transit over driving, especially after many community members became accustomed to utilizing private transportation during the pandemic, a Fare Free Bus Pilot could prove to be a powerful tool in cutting carbon emissions; and
WHEREAS: The City Council previously adopted a policy order calling for a similar municipal pilot, and as Fare Free Bus Pilot would advance our environmental, mobility, equity, and accessibility goals, the City should express its wholehearted support of these bills; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in strong support of HD.3403 and SD.2340, An Act Relative to Fare Free Buses; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to the entire Cambridge state delegation on behalf of the City Council.

O-3     June 28, 2021
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: Massachusetts Avenue is currently the home of the #47 Bus terminal and start stop, but the existing Central Square route must be moved due to the reconfiguration of Carl Barron Plaza; and
WHEREAS: The MBTA has proposed moving the these stops to Green Street, a decision that would inconvenience many riders, as well as present pedestrian traffic and safety concerns; and
WHEREAS: On an average weekday, 40%-50% of riders boarding the #47 Bus at the Mass Ave./Pearl St. stop in Central Square are transferring from the Red Line, the #1 Bus, or the #70 Bus, while 40%-50% of riders getting off at this stop transfer to the Red Line or #1 Bus, and therefore moving this stop to Green Street will take a significant portion of riders further from their transfers; and
WHEREAS: Riders would be forced to cross Massachusetts Avenue, which has notoriously busy and dangerous intersections as well as crowded sidewalks, to access the northbound Red Line station and #1 Bus towards Harvard if the stop was moved to Green Street, which would especially put vulnerable passengers, such as seniors or persons with disabilities, at risk; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Transit Advisory Committee (CTAC) has instead suggested piloting a change where the inbound #47 Bus would continue down Brookline Ave. to Mass. Ave., make a left and then stopping at the current Route 1 stop near Prospect St. (right next to the Red Line access) as its last stop, before turning around to return for outbound service at the main Central Square stop; and
WHEREAS: Curb space could be designated on Magazine Street for the #47 Bus’ layover, keeping these buses out of the busier areas on Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street, and within sight of the Carl Barron Plaza supervisor; and
WHEREAS: CTAC’s suggestion would enhance bus service for transferring passengers, while improving current MBTA layover and supervision practices at an insignificant additional deadhead routing cost; and
WHEREAS: As more residents return to working in person, ensuring that the #47 Bus route runs smoothly, conveniently, and safely is a matter of transit justice; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in support of the Cambridge Transit Advisory Committee’s suggested configuration for the #47 Bus; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to the MBTA on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-4     June 28, 2021  Charter Right - Nolan
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: Over the course of the past 16 months, residents living in the Agassiz Neighborhood have been in discussions with one another to determine whether there is a desire to change the neighborhood’s name; and
WHEREAS: This process was initially brought to the City Council’s attention in February 2020, at which time the City Council voted in favor of endorsing the neighborhood residents’ discussions around this potential name change, and in asking the City to assist with furthering these discussions; and
WHEREAS: This process was most recently detailed in a communication the City Council received on June 21, 2021 from the Agassiz Neighborhood Council; and
WHEREAS: The members of the Agassiz Neighborhood Council reported that, while there were some dissenting opinions, the clear majority of the neighborhood’s residents do wish for their neighborhood to be renamed and referred to from this point forward as the Baldwin Neighborhood; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record endorsing the Agassiz Neighborhood name being changed to the Baldwin Neighborhood in honor of Maria L. Baldwin.

O-5     June 28, 2021
VICE MAYOR MALLON
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
WHEREAS: On March 17, 2020, the City instituted a Temporary Work Policy for non-essential City employees to help protect our community from the threat of COVID; and
WHEREAS: As vaccines have become readily available, more City employees have returned to work in-person, and the City plans to have all employees working in-person by the end of July, with extensions to September for those with COVID-related health or childcare concerns; and
WHEREAS: Now that we are beginning to move towards a new normal, we must acknowledge that the City’s temporary remote work policy provided our employees with much-needed flexibility, and that many employees would benefit from a permanent, non-COVID-related remote work policy without narrow eligibility parameters; and
WHEREAS: A Committee to Examine the Feasibility of a Future Telework Policy was recently announced, but the Committee’s recommendations would likely not be implemented before January 2022; and
WHEREAS: There has been a complete shift in the way people work in the past sixteen months, and many employers are currently offering greater flexibility and a permanent remote work option, which are quickly proving to be an attractive benefit for many job candidates weighing different offers, and is becoming the norm in many industries; and
WHEREAS: The City prides itself in employing highly-qualified and dedicated personnel to serve our residents, but if we want to remain a competitive employer, and ensure we recruit and retain the best candidates possible, we must follow other employers and quickly implement a permanent remote work policy for City employees; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Personnel Department, and other relevant City departments to examine and implement a flexible, permanent remote work policy for City employees who can perform their tasks remotely; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant City departments to conduct a survey to gauge employee interest in a permanent remote work option; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council by the Aug 2, 2021 regular summer meeting.

O-6     June 28, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that lifelong Cambridge resident and CRLS alum Luca Gibson has tragically passed away at the young age of 23; and
WHEREAS: Luca was a cherished member of the Cambridge community and a good friend to all who knew them; and
WHEREAS: Luca was a gifted artist who as a CRLS student won a National Scholastic Award in Photography for their photograph titled A Class Act, one of just 25 student artworks from around the country to earn a National Gold Key and be featured for an entire year in the President’s Committee of the Arts and the Humanities office in Washington, DC; and
WHEREAS: Luca was a passionate advocate for environmental justice who would often testify before the City Council in support of protecting and expanding Cambridge’s tree canopy; and
WHEREAS: Luca’s passing will leave a void in the lives of all their surviving family, parents Bob Gibson and Lolly Lincoln, sister Hannah, brother Elias, and countless friends and neighbors; and
WHEREAS: Luca’s light will be sorely missed by all they touched and loved; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record extending its deepest condolences to the family of Luca Gibson for their tremendous loss; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the DPW and the family to install a suitable memorial in a meaningful location, including a new tree planting, to honor the life of Luca Gibson and the many contributions they made to the City of Cambridge; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the family of Luca Gibson on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-7     June 28, 2021
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: Many properties in Cambridge are owned, operated and maintained by condominium boards consisting of individual owners whose interest may be in conflict with each other; and
WHEREAS: Condominium bylaws generally require a majority vote of condominium owners to approve construction and maintenance; and
WHEREAS: A significant structural problem exists at 86 Kirkland Street as well as other locations throughout the city due to previous renovation work that did not meet the safety and structural standards of the Massachusetts Building Code, a general lack of maintenance, and/or an improperly installed and unprotected roofing membrane resulting in ongoing water leaks that together threaten the stability of any building; and
WHEREAS: In the 86 Kirkland Street example - three out of five voting members - will not approve repairs to the building; and
WHEREAS: The owner of the ground floor storefront unit wishes to renovate and resume renting the space and in doing so hired contractors who confirmed the lack of structural integrity and significant water damage is a serious danger for all of the building occupants; and
WHEREAS: Two separate structural engineers (see attached reports) stated that the building should not be occupied without the necessary structural and roof repairs; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge Inspectional Services has sent a Safety/Structural Violation Notice to the condominium association to no avail; and
WHEREAS: The City's Inspectional Services Department can neither grant a construction permit nor require all condominium owners pay their fair share to restore any building’s structural integrity and/or replace the roof membrane without a majority of condominium owners approving the necessary construction; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to prepare an ordinance which allows individual condominium owners the ability to obtain a City construction permit to repair known structural and other safety violations even without a majority of the building’s condominium owners’ vote of approval.

O-8     June 28, 2021
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
VICE MAYOR MALLON
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge’s multi-member bodies, such as its Boards and Commissions, form an important part of local government and have significant input and decision-making power in areas including elections, land-use, policing, historical designations, and beyond; and
WHEREAS: Participating as a member of these bodies is a significant time commitment, with many meetings happening during the evening, and members who are not already salaried City employees have not traditionally received compensation from the City; and
WHEREAS: Equity in decision-making on City bodies has long been a goal of the City Council and efforts have been made following the April 12, 2021 Policy Order to schedule a meeting to discuss recommendations to diversify participation and representation; and
WHEREAS: City staff have noted at Council meetings that attracting a large and varied applicant pool for vacant positions, and being able to reflect the diversity of Cambridge in the selection process, is often challenging because the positions are all-volunteer and a large time commitment; and
WHEREAS: Other cities in Massachusetts including Somerville, Medford, and Leominster offer stipends for some Board and Commission members in recognition of the time and effort the positions entail; and
WHEREAS: Adding stipends for Cambridge’s multi-member bodies, especially those that are most time intensive, is one important way the City could attract and retain members who reflect the diversity of Cambridge but who could not otherwise afford to make a significant additional time commitment to serve as a volunteer; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with members of the Finance and Personnel Departments to review other cities’ stipend models as well as the average time commitment for Cambridge’s various member multi-member bodies, including the City’s Boards and Commissions, and report back to the City Council on what role stipends could play in attracting and retaining members who reflect the diversity and talent of Cambridge.

O-9     June 28, 2021
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: Ware Street is a short but busy street in Mid-Cambridge that contains a significant residential and commercial presence and also serves as a through street between Harvard and Broadway Streets; and
WHEREAS: The intersection of Ware Street and Harvard Street is frequently used by vehicles and pedestrians, with vehicles turning both directions onto Harvard Street from Ware Street; and
WHEREAS: The intersection’s current configuration and signage create limited visibility and make it at times dangerous both for pedestrians attempting to cross Ware Street and drivers trying to make the turn off of Ware Street into oncoming traffic on Harvard Street; and
WHEREAS: At least one pedestrian injury that necessitated emergency services has resulted from a crash with a driver at the intersection recently; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department to examine the intersection of Ware Street and Harvard Street to see if a safer design is possible; and further be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council.

O-10     June 28, 2021
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: Massachusetts law allows towns and cities to adopt, by a 2/3rd vote of their local legislative bodies, local ordinances or bylaws regulating condominium conversion that are stronger than, or which otherwise differ from, the statewide law; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge formerly had local condominium conversion laws that were based on special rent control authority, but those laws were removed after rent control was phased out in 1994-1996; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has not yet adopted a local condominium ordinance under the authority of the statewide condominium law; and
WHEREAS: The Massachusetts Condominium Conversion Statute, Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983, provides that (1) tenants have one year before they must leave or two years if they are handicapped, elderly or low or moderate income; (2) there is a limit on rent increases (up to 10%); (3) tenants have a 90 day purchase period and (4) tenants receive a relocation payment of $750 or $1,000 if “protected tenant”; and
WHEREAS: In 1999, Boston revised its condominium Conversion Ordinance to increase its notice requirements to an automatic five years for low-income or elderly residents, limiting rent increases per year, increasing relocation costs, among many more protections and supports; and
WHEREAS: In December 2019, Mayor Siddiqui and Councilor McGovern submitted the Mayor’s Task Force on Tenant Displacement with a set of preliminary recommendations for a citywide condominium conversion ordinance, including: additional protections for elderly, disabled and low to moderate income tenants; written notice of intent to convert, including that the City should receive a copy of any condo conversion notice provided by a property owner; the City develop an extensive educational outreach effort that would reach tenants occupying any and all units subject to the ordinance on a periodic basis; the City should contract with one or more local mediators and refer disputes to a mediator (with the tenant’s cost covered by the City); and
WHEREAS: In our efforts to reduce and prevent displacement of tenants, it is critical that Cambridge consider a condominium conversion ordinance that provides stronger protections for Cambridge tenants; now therefore be it
ORDERED: This Policy Order be referred to the Housing Committee for further discussion; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Law Department, Cambridge Development Department, and the City Manager’s Housing Liaison to discuss and advise on a condominium conversion ordinance that includes and is as follows:

(a) The recommendations listed in the Tenant Displacement Task Force Report;

(b) Automatic five-year notice requirements for low-to-moderate income, elderly and/or handicapped residents;

(c) A resident’s right to purchase time frame of no less than 180 days;

(d) Regulations in the event the tenant chooses not to buy, that the landlord to not sell converted condo at a lower price for 180 days; and

(e) Relocation costs for residents to move is at least $10,000.

AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING PROTECTION FOR TENANTS FACING DISPLACEMENT BY CONDOMINIUM COOPERATIVE CONVERSION PURSUANT TO CITY'S AUTHORITY UNDER ST. 1983, C. 527

WHEREAS, in 1983, the State Legislature adopted Chapters 527 of the Acts of 1983, in which the General Court found and declared that a serious emergency exists within the Commonwealth with respect to the housing of a substantial number of the citizens of the Commonwealth. This rental housing emergency created by prolonged increases in housing costs at a rate substantially exceeding increases in personal income, by housing abandonment, and by increased costs of new housing construction and finance has been greatly exacerbated by the effect of conversion of rental housing into condominiums or cooperatives. Currently the combination of a booming housing market with extraordinarily high rental prices and an extremely low vacancy rate makes it extremely difficult for many tenants, including elders, low and moderate income tenants, and tenants with disabilities, to relocate. In order to adequately protect these tenants facing displacement as a result of condominium conversion, they must receive further protection from the consequence of such conversion than the law now affords. The current housing crisis and the threat of displacement as a result of condominium conversion poses a serious threat to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the: citizens of the Commonwealth, particularly the elderly, the handicapped, and persons and families of low and moderate income. It is therefore necessary-that such emergency be dealt with immediately; and

WHEREAS, Section 2 of Chapter 527 of the Acts of l93 provides that any city or town may, by ordinance or by-law, impose provisions or requirements to regulate for the protection of tenants with respect to the conversion of housing accommodations, as defined therein, to the condominium or cooperative forms of ownership and evictions related thereto which differ from those set forth in Chapter 527, upon a two-thirds vote of the City Council with the approval of the Mayor, and

WHEREAS, Section 2 of Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983 also provides that local legislative action to impose provisions or requirements to regulate for the protection of tenants with respect to the conversion of housing accommodations to the condominium or cooperative forms of ownership and evictions related thereto which differ from those set forth in Chapter 527 must be accompanied by a declaration, in the form of findings, that local conditions constitute an acute rental housing emergency requiring local action, on account of the aggravating impact of the facts set forth in Section 1 of Chapter 527; and

WHEREAS, prior and subsequent to Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983, following declarations of emergency by the City Council and the State legislature; the City of Cambridge adopted ordinances for the protection of tenants with respect to the conversion of housing accommodations to the condominium or cooperative forms of ownership and evictions related thereto pursuant to the authority granted to it under its rent and eviction control enabling laws, including Chapter 36 of the Acts of 1976, extending such protections to rent-controlled accommodations; and -

WHEREAS, during the 1970's over one thousand nine hundred units of rental housing in the City of Cambridge were removed from the rental market due to conversion to the condominium or cooperative form of ownership; and

WHEREAS, in August 1979 the City of Cambridge enacted Section 8.44 of the Cambridge Municipal Code which regulated eviction due to condominium conversion; and

WHEREAS, as a result of the City's regulation of condominium or cooperative conversion, tenant displacement by reason of condominium or cooperative conversation eviction substantially abated; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 282 of the Acts of 1994 provided that rent and eviction protections should continue in effect for certain low-income tenants in rent-controlled units until December 31, 1996; and

WHEREAS, Section 3 of Chapter 282 of the Acts of 1994 provides that cities or towns in which rent control authority ended retain their rights under Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983, to enact local ordinances to provide tenant protections regarding condominium or cooperative conversions and evictions resulting therefrom which may be different from the protections found in Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983; and

WHEREAS; with the adoption of Chapter 282 of the Acts of 1994 and M.G.L. e. 40P eviction protections ended under rent control enabling laws; and

WHEREAS, there continues to be a high rate of conversion of rental unite to the condominium form of ownership and a sharp escalation in the cost of both rental housing and housing for purchase in the City of Cambridge; and

WHEREAS, many of the state and federal housing programs that serve low and moderate income tenants, and elderly and handicapped tenants, are reduced, leaving many households with fewer affordable alternative if they are displaced; and

WHEREAS. the City of Cambridge wishes to adopt legislation which would protect tenants who are in occupancy of units at the time that such units are first converted or individually sold as condominium or cooperative units from displacement due to condominium or cooperative conversion, and provide protections for those tenants while they pursue other housing alternatives; and

WHEREAS, the City of Cambridge wishes to insure that future condominium or cooperative conversions comply with all condominium and cooperative conversion laws, that tenants are not constructively evicted from their units because of such conversion, and that where displacement occurs tenants are given proper notice of their rights and options. including the right to purchase their dwelling unit,

Now, therefore, the City Council declares, in accordance with Section 2, Paragraph: 4 of Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983, that current conditions in the City of Cambridge constitute an acute rental housing emergency requiring action by the City, on account of the aggravating impact of those factors enumerated in Section l of Chapter 527 of the: Acts of 1983, and because of prolonged increases in housing costs at a rate substantially exceeding increases in personal income, by reductions in state and federal affordable housing programs, and by the effect of conversion of rental housing into condominiums or cooperatives, thus reducing the remaining stock of rental housing and resulting in threats of displacement to existing tenants, particularly those of low- and moderate-income and those who are elderly or who are people with disabilities, and an inability of those tenants to secure comparable replacement housing;

The City Council further declares that pursuant to its powers under Section 2 of Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983, the City of Cambridge hereby establishes certain additional protections for tenants living in housing accommodations which are, or which may in the future be, converted to the condominium or cooperatives form of ownership, so as to minimize involuntary displacement as a result of condominium or cooperative conversion and evictions related thereto particularly for those who are elderly, who are people with disabilities and/or who are of low and moderate income, and the City of Cambridge hereby establishes a regulatory scheme to ensure that future conversion of housing accommodations to the condominium or cooperative form of ownership is carried out in compliance with this ordinance, in a manner that avoids constructive or direct tenant displacement except as otherwise authorized by law, and in a manner that gives tenants and designated housing agencies an opportunity to exercise rights to purchase units so as to minimize displacement and to maximize the ability of tenants facing displacement to relocate into suitable replacement housing, that Chapter 8.44 of the Cambridge Municipal Code shall be stricken, and this ordinance shall be adopted in its stead.

When used in this ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

a. Chapter 527: The terms "Chapter 527" and "Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983" shall refer to Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983, as amended from time to time.

b. Comparable housing: Housing of similar size, with similar amenities would not require a change in school enrollment for minor school age children.

c. Convert. The submission of a housing accommodation to the condominium form of ownership by executing and/or recording a master deed or assignment of lease pursuant to chapter 183A of the General Laws; or the act of submitting a housing accommodation to the cooperative form of ownership under articles of organization creating a housing cooperative in pursuant to chapter l56B, 157, l57B or any other provisions of the General Laws.

d. Condominium or Cooperative Conversion Eviction. An eviction of a tenant for the purpose of removing such tenant from a housing accommodation in order to facilitate the initial bona fide sale and transfer of legal title to that housing accommodation as a condominium or cooperative unit to a prospective purchaser; or an eviction of a tenant by any other person who has purchased a housing accommodation as a condominium or cooperative unit where the tenant whose eviction is sought was a resident of the housing accommodation at the time the notice of intent to convert is given or should have been given as provided in Section 4 below. For purposes of this ordinance, the word "eviction" shall include, without limitation, any action by an owner of a housing accommodation which causes substantial deprivation of a tenant's beneficial use of such housing accommodation, materially impairs such tenant's beneficial enjoyment of such housing accommodation; or is intended to compel such tenant to vacate or to be constructively evicted from such housing accommodation.

e. Condominium or Cooperative Unit: A unit in a housing condominium as that term is defined in chapter 183A of the General laws; or a unit in a housing cooperative which has been organized under the provisions of chapter l56B, 157, or 157B of the General Laws, or any other provision of the General Laws.

f. Department: the Department of Community Development of the City of Cambridge.

g. Conversion Permit: A document issued by the Department, pursuant to this ordinance, which authorizes conversion of housing accommodations to the condominium or cooperative born of ownership.

h. Elderly Tenant: A tenant or tenant household in which at least one member is at least sixty years of age as of the date of receipt of any Notice of Intent to Convert required by Section 4, or, if no such notice is delivered, the date the tenant exercises any right under this ordinance.

i. Tenant with Disabilities: A tenant or tenant household in which at least one member is physically handicapped as defined by Section 13A of Chapter 22 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or physically, emotionally or mentally handicapped as defined by 29 U.S.C. Section 706(7)(b), as of the date of receipt of any Notice of Intent to Convert required by Section 4, or, if no such notice is delivered, the date the tenant exercises any right under this ordinance.

j. Housing Accommodation: Any building; structure or part thereof or land appurtenant thereto of any other real or personal property rented or offered for rent for living or dwelling purposes, within the City, including without limitation, houses, apartments, condominium units, cooperative units, looming or boarding house units, and other properties used for living or dwelling purposes, together with all services connected with the use or occupancy of such property; but not including:

i. Housing accommodations which the United States or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any authority created under the laws thereof either owns or operates;

ii. Housing accommodations in any hospital, convent, monastery, asylum, public institution, of college or school dormitory operated exclusively for charitable or educational purposes, or in any nursing or rest home for the aged;

iii. Buildings or structures containing fewer than three residential units, except that housing accommodations which together consist of two or more adjacent, adjoining or contiguous buildings under common legal or beneficial ownership which are used in whole or in part for residential purposes, and which contain three or more units shall constitute a single structure for the purposes of this ordinance; or

iv. Housing accommodations in hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes, and rooming and boarding houses which are occupied by transient guests staying for a period of fewer than fourteen consecutive calendar days.

Provided further, that the following housing accommodations shall remain within the meaning of the term "housing accommodation", as defined by Chapter 527 of the Acts of 1983, shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 527, and shall not be subject to the additional provisions or requirements of this ordinance:

i. Housing accommodations constructed, or created by conversion from a non-housing to a housing use, on or after November 30, 1983,

ii. housing accommodations which were constructed oz substantially rehabilitated pursuant to any federal mortgage insurance program, without any interest subsidy or tenant subsidy attached thereto; and

iii. housing accommodations financed through the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, with an interest subsidy attached thereto, so long as such properties remain subject to such financing.

k. Housing Services: Services and facilities provided by an owner or required by law or by the terms of a rental housing agreement to be provided by an owner to a tenant in connection with the use and occupancy of any housing accommodation, including without limitation, services, furniture, furnishings, and equipment; repairs, decorating, and maintenance; provisions of light, heat, hot water, cold water, telephone and elevator service; kitchen, bath, and laundry facilities and privileges; use of halls, corridors, stairs, common rooms, yards and other common areas; maid service, linen service, janitorial service, removal of refuse, parking facilities, and any other benefit, privilege, or facility connected with the use or occupancy of any housing accommodation. Housing services to a housing accommodation shall include a proportionate share of the services provided to common facilities of the building in which the housing accommodation is located.

l. Intent to Convert: The intent to make the initial sale and transfer of title to a housing accommodation as one or more condominium or cooperative units pursuant to an individual unit deed or deeds, or, in the case of a cooperative, a proprietary lease. Factors which shall be considered in determining whether an owner has the intent to convert shall include, but not be limited to the following:

i. the owner has applied for a conversion permit pursuant to Section 4;

ii. a master deed or articles of organization has been prepared or recorded;

iii. the owner has prepared, or is preparing a purchase and sale agreement for the sale of any unit in a housing accommodation as a condominium or cooperative unit;

iv. the owner has advertised for sale any unit in the housing accommodation as a condominium or cooperative unit;

v. the owner has shown to any prospective purchaser any unit in the housing accommodation for sale as a condominium or cooperative unit;

vi. the owner has made any communication, written or oral, to any person residing in the housing accommodation, or to any other person, expressly indicating an intent to sell any unit as a condominium or cooperative unit;

vii. the owner has had any unit in the housing accommodation measured or inspected to facilitate the sale of the unit as a condominium or cooperative unit;

viii. the owner has had the land surveyed, an engineering study performed or architectural plans prepared for the purpose of converting such housing accommodation into one or mole condominium or cooperative units;

ix. the owner has sought rent increases, or proposed rent increases, for the housing accommodation, in excess of ten percent for the twelve-month period prior to the termination or the tenancy or the commencement of the eviction;

x. an excessive number of evictions, terminations of tenancies, or other deprivations of use by tenants in the twelve-month period prior to the termination of the tenancy or the eviction; and

xi. the owner is holding units vacant in the housing accommodation with the intent of facilitating the sale of said units as condominium or cooperative units; provided, however, that vacancies due to tenant turn-over, or to permit repairs in the ordinary course of business shall not by themselves be considered as a factor in determining whether an owner has the intent to convert.

m. Owner: The individual who holds title to any housing accommodation in any manner, including without limitation a partnership, limited partnership, corporation ox trust. For purposes of this ordinance, the rights and duties of the owner hereunder shall also be the obligation of anyone who manages, controls, or customarily accepts rent on behalf of the owner.

n. Low Income Tenant. A tenant or group of tenants, all of whom occupy the same dwelling unit, whose total income for the twelve months immediately preceding the date of any notice or the exercising of any rights, whichever may occur later; is not more than fifty percent of the adjusted median income for the area as determined by regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and calculated pursuant to said regulations.

o. Moderate Income Tenant. A tenant or group of tenants, all of whom occupy the same dwelling unit, whose total income for the twelve months immediately preceding the date of any notice or the exercising of any rights, whichever may occur later, is not more titan eighty percent of the adjusted median income for the area as determined by regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and calculated pursuant to said regulations.

p. Rent: The consideration, including without limitation, all bonuses, benefits, gratuities, or charges contingent or otherwise, demanded or received for, or in connection with, the use or occupancy of a housing accommodation, for housing services, or for the transfer of a lease of a housing accommodation.

q. Rental Housing Agreement. An agreement. oral, written, or implied, between an owner and a tenant for the use and occupancy of a housing accommodation and for housing services.

r. Review Board. The City of Cambridge Condominium Review Board described in this ordinance hereunder.

s. Tenant: A tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee, or other person lawfully occupying the housing accommodation.

Section 3.- Conversion Permits.

a. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall be in effect until such time as the Department determines that the vacancy rate for housing accommodations in the City of Cambridge exceeds five percent per annum.

b. Conversion Permit Required. It shall be unlawful for any owner or other person to convert any housing accommodation to the condominium or cooperative form of ownership, and no such conversion shall be effective, unless the Department has granted a conversion permit. In the event that a unit which the owner seeks to convert is not occupied at the time the permit is sought, the permit process shall follow Section 5. (b) (“Vacant Units”) as described in this ordinance. . The Department may promulgate such regulations as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this section and prescribe, consistent with this section, the procedure for applications, notice, and the grant and review of conversion permits. Issuance of a conversion permit does not relieve any person of compliance with this ordinance or other laws.

c. Application for and Issuance of Conversion Permits. Upon submission of an application that meets the criteria of this section, including a determination that the landlord did not engage in condominium or cooperative conversion eviction in violation of this Ordinance, the Department shall issue a conversion permit for each housing accommodation. The application and a copy of the conversion permit shall be kept on file at the Department and certified copies shall be available upon payment of a reasonable fee. Such copies shall be made available without fee to low- and moderate-income individuals.

d. Criteria for Approval of inversion Permits. An application shall be approved if:

i. The application contains a complete description of the housing accommodations and the land on which the housing accommodations are located, including:

1. A description of each building, stating the address, the number of stories, and the number of units;

2. The unit designation of each unit; and a statement of its location, approximate area, number of rooms and immediate common area to which it has access. and any other information necessary for its proper identification;

3. A description of the common areas and facilities, and the proportionate interest of each unit therein;

4. A set of floor plans of the building or buildings, showing the layout, location, unit numbers and dimensions of the units;

5. A statement of the purposes for which the building and each of the units are intended and the restrictions, if any, as to their use; and

6. The name, address and telephone number of the owner or lessor, and the came address and telephone number of any corporation, trust, association or other entity which will manage the condominium or cooperative upon conversion;

ii. The application contains a list of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the tenants in residence in the housing accommodation at the time of the application;

iii. The owner has not, during the twelve-month period prior to the date of the application for a conversion permit, engaged in condominium or cooperative conversion evictions; and

iv. The owner certifies that he has complied or will comply with the notice, eviction, rent increase, relocation, right to purchase and other provisions of this Ordinance. Such certification shall include copies of all notices required to be delivered to tenants of housing accommodations pursuant to this ordinance.

e. Information from Tenants. The Department shall request additional information from the tenants residing in the housing accommodation subject to an application sufficient to determine that the owner has complied with the criteria for approval of a conversion permit, as provided in this section.

f. Notice of Application for a Conversion Permit: The owner shall notify each tenant of a housing accommodation subject to an application that the owner has applied for a conversion permit, and that the application may be viewed at the offices of the Department during regular business hours.

g. Issuance of Conversion Permit; Notice to Tenants. Upon issuance of a conversion permit to an owner by the Department, the owner s1ia11 deliver to each tenant of all housing accommodations subject to the permit a notice of issuance of the permit, on a form provided by the Department, The notice shall state in clear and conspicuous language:

i. that a conversion permit has been granted;

ii. that any tenant residing in the housing accommodation on the date the permit is issued shall have a period of time which shall be stated in the Notice of Intent to Seek Possession as provided in Section 5 before which the tenant can be evicted in order to facilitate sale or occupancy of the unit;

iii. that any tenant residing in the housing accommodation on the date the permit is issued shall have a right to purchase the accommodation, as provided in Section 4 of this ordinance; and

iv. a statement of the rights and obligations specified in Sections 5 and 6 of this ordinance.

Section 4: Notice of Intent to Convert; Right to Purchase.

a. Notice of Intent to Convert. In addition to any other notice required by this ordinance: an owner of a housing accommodation must provide a tenant with a Notice of Intent to Convert prior to the offering of such a unit for sale as a condominium or cooperative unit. Such written notice must be translated into the tenant’s primary language if a need for such translation has been identified or is otherwise apparent to a reasonable person. Such notice shall state in clear and conspicuous language:

i. that the owner has converted or is seeking to convert the accommodation to a condominium or cooperative form of ownership;

ii. that any tenant residing in the housing accommodation shall have a right to purchase the accommodation, as provided in this section; and

iii. that the tenant shall have a right to purchase the housing accommodation on terms and conditions described in the notice. Said terms and conditions shall be substantially the same as or more favorable than those which the owner extends to the public generally for the ninety days following the expiration of the tenant's right to purchase. This notice may be served simultaneously with the notice of permit issuance required in 3(g) above.

iv. that there is a permit review process involving (1) a preliminary hearing after service of this notice and (2) a final hearing for a Conversion Permit at the end of the Notice Period or upon vacancy of the tenant, in addition to hearings as necessary that may be initiated by the tenants, owner or the City. These hearings shall be before the City and the tenant and owner shall be notified of the date and time at least two weeks prior to the hearing date. The tenant and owner shall have a right to attend any such hearings and to present evidence as to whether the owner has or has not met the requirements of this Condominium Conversion Ordinance.

b. Vacant Units - If an owner has an intent to convert an unoccupied housing accommodation to the condominium or cooperative form of ownership, the owner shall give one year advance notice to the City on a prescribed form. This one year waiting period requirement shall not apply under the following circumstances:

(i) Where the unit had been previously owner occupied for the 12 months immediately preceding the unit becoming vacant; or

(ii) Where the City or Designee purchases the vacant unit for the purpose of deed-restricting it for affordability; or

(iii) Where the owner is selling the unit to a family member

c. Right to Purchase.

i. Initial right to purchase. An owner shall extend to a tenant who is entitled to receive notice of intent to convert an exclusive right to purchase such tenant’s unit from the owner prior to the expiration of 180 days after the date of receipt of the Notice of Intent to Convert. The tenant's initial right to purchase shall expire at the end of said 180 days. Once the owner sets these terms of sale, the owner may not sell the unit under more favorable terms for 90 days from the expiration of the tenant’s right to purchase. The tenant may exercise the right to purchase the tenant’s unit by executing such purchase and sale agreement within the applicable period, whereupon the owner shall promptly countersign the agreement.

ii. Second right of purchase. For any housing accommodation where a tenant does not exercise the initial right to purchase, the owner shall give written notice to the tenant of a bona fide offer from a third party to purchase the accommodation which the owner accepts or is willing to accept. Said notice shall include a proposed purchase and sale agreement stating the terms and conditions of said offer, and shall notify the tenant of the right to purchase the accommodation, provided that any purchase by the tenant shall meet or exceed the terms and conditions of the third party offer. Failure of the tenant to execute the purchase and sale agreement with the owner within fourteen days of receipt of said notice shall terminate all rights of purchase by the tenant. At the request of the owner, the Department, or on the tenant’s own initiative, the tenant may voluntarily waive in writing the second right of purchase provided herein, at any time prior to the expiration of the fourteen days. The owner need not comply with the terms of this Section if the price accepted by the owner exceeds the price offered to the tenant under the initial right to purchase.

d. Notice to the Condominium Review Board. The owner of the housing accommodation shall provide a copy of all notices required by this section to the Department at the time said notices are delivered to the tenant of the housing accommodation. In the event that the tenant does not exercise the initial right to purchase the accommodation, the Department, the Cambridge Housing Authority ("Authority") and any not-for-profit designee of the Department or the Authority, shall have an additional thirty days to purchase the accommodation on the same terms and conditions stated in the Notice of Intent to Convert. In the event that the tenant waives the second right to purchase, as provided herein. The Department may exercise the tenant’s second right to purchase and shall have the right to purchase the accommodation on terms and conditions that meet or exceed the third party offer. The provisions in this Section are designed to better enable tenants in residency of a housing accommodation at the time the owner serves or should have served the tenants with a notice of intent to convert to remain in their units through the encouragement of non-profit ownership.

e. Notice to Subsequent Tenants. If a tenant who is entitled to receive a Notice of Intent to Convert pursuant to this section vacates the housing accommodation before the initial offer of such accommodation for sale, then the owner shall give each prospective tenant of the accommodation written notice, prior to the inception of the tenancy, which informs the prospective tenant. that the accommodation is a condominium or cooperative unit, and, if applicable, that the unit is currently being offered for sale or will be offered for sale within ninety days of the inception of the tenancy.

f. The owner shall not commence any condominium or cooperative conversion eviction prior to the expiration of the tenant’s initial right to purchase.

g. Renting Units During Conversion

(i) If an owner intends to sell or offer for sale fewer than all of the units in a housing accommodation, within the applicable notice period or a reasonable time thereafter, the owner shall give to each tenant in a unit not for sale a notice which (a) informs such tenant of the date when the owner reasonably expects to offer the tenant’s unit for sale and (b) states that, on or about such date, the owner will give to the tenant the notice required by this ordinance hereunder; and thereafter, at such time as the owner is ready to offer the unit for sale, the owner shall give the tenant then occupying such unit the notice required by this ordinance hereunder. The notice required herein must be translated into the tenant’s primary language if a need for such translation has been identified or is otherwise apparent to a reasonable person.

(ii) If a tenant who is entitled to receive the notice of intent to convert vacates such tenant’s unit either before the initial sale and transfer of title to the residential unit as a condominium unit has occurred, and/or after the owner has otherwise already obtained a conversion permit for a unit which has not expired pursuant to this ordinance, then the owner shall give each prospective tenant of the unit written notice, prior to the inception of the tenancy, which informs such prospective tenant that the unit is being or will be offered for sale as a condominium or proprietary lease as a cooperative, but such prospective tenants shall not be entitled to the protections of this ordinance, except that they shall be entitled to the benefits of any remaining notice period for which the original tenant was entitled to, not to exceed one year. If such notice is not provided to the prospective tenant prior to the inception of the tenancy, the prospective tenant will then be afforded full tenant rights pursuant to this ordinance and the applicable notice period will restart in accordance with the status of the new tenant.

SECTION 5 - Condominium Conversion Review Board.

a. There is hereby established a Condominium Conversion Review Board to consist of five members, all of whom shall be City of Cambridge residents. The failure of a Review Board member to reside in Cambridge shall result in automatic termination of membership. Review Board members shall serve staggered terms of three years each. The Review Board shall include two homeowners, two tenants, and one elderly, disabled, or low- or moderate-income person, who may be either a homeowner or a tenant.

b. Review Board members shall be appointed by the City Manager, subject to confirmation by the City Council. For good cause shown, a Review Board member may be removed by majority vote of the City Council prior to the expiration of such member’s term of office. Members of the Review Board shall receive such annual compensation as the City Manager shall propose and the City Council shall approve, to be not less than the equivalent hourly wage per hour served mandated by the Cambridge Living Wage Ordinance.

c. The Review Board shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this ordinance and shall be responsible for promulgating such rules, policies and procedures, as it may deem advisable in furtherance of its purposes. In consultation with City staff, the Review Board may adopt such rules, policies and procedures by majority vote. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Review Board, in conjunction with City staff, shall be responsible for developing administrative forms, conducting hearings, and granting or denying Conversion Permits.

Section 5 - Notice of Termination of Tenancy for the Purpose of sale as a Condominium or Cooperative unit; Terms and Tenants of occupancy; Relocation.

a. Notice of Termination of Tenancy. Prior to the commencement of a condominium or cooperative conversion eviction, the owner shall provide the tenant with a Notice of Termination of Tenancy for sale as a condominium or cooperative unit pursuant to Cambridge Municipal Code (this Ordinance as codified). This notice must inform the tenant of his or her rights under this Section and shall be served simultaneously with pr after the service of any Notice of Intent to Convert required by Section 4 above.

b. Period of Notice. The period of this notice shall not be less than the expiration of any written agreement between the owner and the tenant, or two years, whichever is greater; provided however, that for any housing accommodation occupied by a tenant with disabilities, an elderly tenant, or a low- or moderate-income tenant, the period of notice shall not be less than five years.

c. Term of tenancy. During the period of notice required by this section, the existing terms of the tenancy between the owner and the tenant shall remain in effect and shall not be modified except by voluntary written agreement of the parties; provided, that during the period of notice an owner may seek a rental increase in an amount that shall not exceed ten percent per year; provided further that nothing in this section shall limit the right of an owner to any amounts which may be due under a valid tax escalation clause.

d. Relocation payment. Any tenant who is entitled to reserve notice pursuant to this section, who does not purchase the housing accommodation in which the tenant lives shall, within ten days of vacating said unit, so long as it is within the period of notice specified in this section, be paid by the owner a relocation expense allowance of $10,000; provided, however if the tenant is a tenant with disabilities, an elderly tenant or a low or moderate income tenant such relocation expense allowance shall be $15,000.

e. Housing search assistance. Where an elderly tenant, a tenant with disabilities, or a low or moderate income tenant is entitled to receive notice pursuant to this section, the owner shall assist the tenant to locate comparable rental housing within the City of Cambridge for a rent which is equal to or less than the rent which such tenant had been paying for the housing accommodation at the time of receipt of the notice, and with a term of occupancy that is no less than the period of notice. remaining at the time the tenant receives the offer to rent the comparable rental housing. The refusal of the tenant to accept a reasonable, bona fide offer to rent comparable rental housing shall terminate the owner’s obligation to provide housing search assistance under this Section.

Section 6: Condominium and Cooperative Conversion Evictions.

a. General Provisions. No person shall seek or conduct a condominium or cooperative conversion eviction until the expiration of the periods of time for notice required by section 5(b) of this ordinance.

b. Termination of Tenancy and Eviction for Cause During the two-to-four-year notice period. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) above, any owner, landlord or other party in interest may terminate the tenancy of a tenant and may otherwise seek to evict a tenant of any dwelling subject to the provisions of this ordinance during the time period set forth in Sections 5(b) and 6(a) above for:

i. non-payment of such rent as may be lawfully imposed pursuant to section 5;

ii. serious or repeated violations of material terms and conditions of any rental agreement between the owner and the tenant; and

iii. substantial violation of any law that imposes obligations on the tenant in connection with the occupancy.

c. Notice of Termination of Tenancy for Cause. No tenancy may be terminated under the provisions of Section 6(b) above except by such written notice as is otherwise required by law, or by the terms of a written rental housing agreement between the owner and the tenant. The notice shall state the grounds for termination of the tenancy with sufficient specificity to enable the tenant to prepare a defense. Any notice of termination shall be delivered to the Department at the time it is delivered to the tenant.

i. Failure to give any notice required by this ordinance, and any other substantial violation of this Ordinance shall be a defense to an action for summary process.

ii. Any action to recover possession of a housing accommodation of a tenant in occupancy at the time of conversion of the properly to the condominium or cooperative form of ownership, or at the time of initial bona fide sale of the unit as an individual condominium or cooperative unit, shall be presumed to be a condominium or cooperative eviction where one or more or the following has occurred:

a. Any dwelling unit in any building or structure in which the housing accommodation is located has been sold as a condominium or cooperative unit;

b. A master deed or articles of organization for the building or structure in which the housing accommodation is located has been duly recorded pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 156B, 157, 157B, or 183A of the General Laws;

c. A master deed or articles of organization for the building or structure in which the housing accommodation is located has been duly recorded pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 156B, 157, l57B, or 183A of the General Laws, or the landlord gives notice or conversion or planned conversion pursuant to this Ordinance within twelve months after an action is brought to recover possession or action is taken to increase the tenant’s sent; or

d. In any unit converted to a condominium or cooperative, the landlord has increased or is seeking to increase the tenant’s rent beyond the increases authorized by this section unless the landlord establishes his intent is not to facilitate the sale or transfer of the housing accommodation to a prospective buyer.

iii. Additionally, an eviction shall be presumed to be a condominium or cooperative conversion eviction if the owner has the intent to convert as defined herein.

iv. Where a presumption of a condominium or cooperative conversion eviction exists, such presumption may be rebutted by the owner only through clear and convincing evidence that the eviction was not a condominium or cooperative conversion eviction and that the owner had sufficient independent justification for seeking possession or taking other action and would have in fact taken such action, in the same manner and at the same time whether or not the owner intended to sell the unit as a condominium or cooperative. Where the owner is unable to rebut the presumption provided for in this Section, the owner cannot regain possession of the housing accommodation.

d. Tenant’s Petition for a Determination. Any tenant of a housing accommodation may seek a written determination from the Department that an owner has the intent to convert and seeks to dispossess the tenant in order to facilitate the sale of the unit as a condominium or cooperative. Upon issuance of a determination favorable to the tenant, the owner shall comply with the provisions of this Ordinance. In addition, any rent increases in excess of ten percent paid by the tenant during the six-month period prior to the tenant's request for a determination shall be returned to the tenant by the owner.

f. Intervention by the Condominium Review Board At the request of a tenant of a housing accommodation, or on its own, the Department may intervene in a summary process action brought by the owner to recover possession of a housing accommodation. Reasons for such intervention could include, but not be limited to, a request for dismissal of the landlord’s claim for possession based on findings made by the Department, or a request to stay the summary process proceedings to allow the Department to initiate or conclude administrative procedures which would establish the relative rights and responsibilities of the parties under this Ordinance.

Section 7. Data Collection

a. The Community Development Department shall gather data related to the Condominium Conversion Ordinance to be presented annually in a report to the City Council. This report shall also be made available to the public online. Such data will include at minimum:

i. The number of condominium conversion applications received, denied, and granted.

ii. The breakdown in the number of applications by zip code or neighborhood.

iii. The number of times that tenants or other entities exercised their right to purchase under the ordinance.

iv. The average offer per unit type made under the right to purchase requirements as described by this ordinance.

Section 8. Enforcement.

a. The Department shall have the authority to promulgate regulations as needed to effectuate this Ordinance.

b. Any owner who willfully violates any provision of this ordinance shall be punished to the maximum extent allowable under St. 1983, c. 527, §5. Each violation of this ordinance shall constitute a separate offense.

c. Any violation of this ordinance by an owner shall not affect the validity of a conveyance of a condominium unit or interest in a cooperative to a purchaser for value who has no knowledge of such violation.

d. the District and Superior Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction over an action arising from any violation of this ordinance, and shall have jurisdiction in equity to restrain any such violation.

Section 9. Effective Date; Applicability.

a. Except as provided herein, this ordinance stiall.be effective upon enactment.

b. Any condominium conversion notices properly issued in accordance with the requirements of St. 1983, c. 527, Section 4 after the expiration of Chapter 3G of the Acts of 1976 and prior to the enactment of this Ordinance shall remain in effect and shall not be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance.

c. Where a housing accommodation was first converted to the condominium or cooperative form of ownership prior to the lapse of rent control enabling authority, and as of the effective date of this Ordinance there are elderly, handicapped or low or moderate income tenants remaining occupancy who resided there at the time of conversion or initial bona fide sale of the housing accommodation as an individual condominium or cooperative unit, such tenants shall be entitled to the benefits of this Ordinance except those set forth in Section 3.

d. The requirements of section 3 shall not be applicable to any housing accommodation converted to the condominium or cooperative forms of ownership on or before the enactment of this ordinance.

Section 10. Severability.

If any provision of this ordinance or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, and the applicability of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

O-11     June 28, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: On September 23, 2019, the Cambridge City Council ordained the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance which states: “The City deems it to be in the public interest to give initial permitting preferences for Cannabis Businesses to Priority Applicants, as defined herein”; and
WHEREAS: The ordinance provides that for the first two years after its Effective Date, the City shall issue a Cannabis Business Permit to operate a Cannabis Retail Store only to state-certified Economic Empowerment Applicants; and
WHEREAS: The COVID-19 pandemic largely overlapped with this 2-year preferential period, which expires on September 23, 2021, causing significant delay for Economic Empowerment Applicants; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Chairs of the Ordinance Committee convene a hearing to discuss the possibility of amending the ordinance to extend the preference period, such a hearing to take place no later than Aug 15, 2021.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee and the Housing Committee will conduct a joint hearing to discuss the elimination of single and two-family only zoning and restrictions on the type of housing that can be built city-wide.

Date: Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 2:00pm, Sullivan Chamber
Present: Nolan, Carlone, Mallon, McGovern, Zondervan, Sobrinho-Wheeler
Absent: Simmons

The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee and the Housing Committee held a joint public hearing on Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 2:00pm to discuss the elimination of single and two-family only zoning and restrictions on the type of housing that can be built city-wide.

Present at the hearing via Zoom were Councillor Nolan; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor McGovern; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler; Mayor Siddiqui; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development; Melissa Peters, Director of Community Planning; Daniel Messplay, Senior Zoning Manager; Drew Kane, Land Use Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner, Inspectional Service Department; Arthur Goldberg, Deputy City Solicitor; Michael Scarlett, Aide to Councillor Nolan; Neal Alpert, Aide to Councillor Simmons; Shane Woolley, Aide to Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler; Dan Totten, Aide to Councillor Zondervan; Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present via Zoom were Suzanne Blier, Adam Siegel, Bernice Buresh, Elaine DeRosa, James Zall, John Hawkinson, Jonathan Behrens, Lee Farris, Henry H. Wortis, Christopher Schmidt, Heather Hoffman, Mary Flynn, Allan Sadun, Michael Brandon, Marilee Meyer, Richard Harding, Robert Winters and Stas Maltsev.

Councillor Nolan read the Governor’s Executive Order regarding remote participation and requested that the Deputy City Clerk call the roll to indicate a quorum for the hearing.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler -6
ABSENT: Councillor Simmons -1
A quorum was present.

Councillor Nolan convened the hearing and read from prepared Opening Remarks (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler then read from prepared Opening Remarks (ATTACHMENT B).

Councillor Nolan opened the hearing to Public Comment.

James Zall, 203 Pemberton Street, stated that he is glad that this issue is being taken up. He said that the longstanding rules have limited the housing supply so effectively with prices and rents rising to such heights that century old workers’ cottages and triple decker apartments are becoming high-end luxury housing out of reach of a majority of Cambridge households. He said that addressing rising housing costs has been a top demand of residents and the City Council. He stated that maintaining restrictions that limit the housing supply and push up prices and rent is incompatible with that goal. He said that this discussion needs to be followed by long-overdue action to reform our outdated zoning regime.

Alan Sadun, 17 Pleasant Place, stated that he is thrilled that the committee is looking into ending exclusionary zoning. He said that single family only zoning is fundamentally about exclusion. He said that the City has an affordable home ownership program, HomeBridge, but if you are a family making 80% of AMI, HomeBridge can only help you buy homes costing less than $550,000.00. He said that there are no two-bedroom homes in Cambridge costing less than $550,000.00 because we have made it illegal to build multi-family housing. He pointed out that the districts that do not allow multi-family housing are almost exactly the districts in Cambridge that have the fewest people of color.

Christopher Schmidt, 17 Laurel Street, stated that the time is long past for us to reexamine how Cambridge has locked the majority of our residential districts off from moderate income households for generations. He said that single-family homes are not affordable to the vast majority of the residents in Cambridge. He said that the median single-family home price is $1.6 million dollars. He said that in order to purchase a home at that price, you must have an annual income of $402,000.00. He said that we continue to see the results of what our current zoning dictates. 80% of new construction permits since 2018 are for single-family or two-family homes. These outcomes no longer match the reality of the city that we live in today. He said that he would like to reexamine key issues to help correct the current problems.

Jonathan Behrens, 115 Hampshire Street, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT C) in support of the elimination of exclusionary zoning.

Henry Wortis, Berkshire Street, spoke on behalf of Our Revolution Cambridge. He stated that the problem with getting rid of single-family zoning is that it does not speak to the conditions of the market. He noted that Cambridge is one of the most densely populated cities in the country. We are the 26th most dense city in the country. He said that getting rid of single-family zoning allows units to be purchased at market rate, therefore, the pretense that middle and low-income people are able to compete with developers for these properties once they are downzoned is salacious. He said that market forces are what will determine the price of the units. He said that if we want to increase affordable housing, we should figure out how to do that and then exact zoning regulations that will fit with that plan.

Suzanne Blier, 5 Fuller Place, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT D) urging the committee to request a study of the potential financial and other impacts of a decision to end zoning for single-family homes, and to consider key changes that would mitigate potential harm by requiring affordability when key changes are made.

Camilla Elvis, 28 Linnaean Street, stated that she is excited to see that the City Council is looking into ending single and two-family housing only. She said that it is important that this be a change that is not in name only. She said that the dimensional requirements should be changed as well as ending parking minimums. She stated that while the desire for a redesign is understandable, she said that she does not want to see the perfect being the enemy of the good. She said that there is a housing crisis. She noted that this is not a complete solution, but it is a signification solution.

Richard Harding, 189 Windsor Street, asked that the Committee to consider one example of when luxury housing has been good for people of color ever. He said that he has never seen this. He said that this is a bait and switch and the most vulnerable neighborhoods are sure to be exploited. He said that in 2021 he would never fathom a situation where there is almost zero affordable housing being considered. He said that as we talk about racial justice in Cambridge, the only way to achieve this is to have people of color at the table. He said don’t let the bad be the enemy of the good.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that she realizes how someone can say that most of the building permits are for single-family homes because it only takes one building permit to build a 500-unit apartment building. She said that these count for practically nothing in the calculus. She said that an example on Ames Street has zero lot area per dwelling unit and no FAR ceiling and the cheapest place in there is more than $2,000 per month for a studio apartment. She said that the fact is that if you want affordable housing, you build affordable housing. She said that we must figure out how we can get more affordable housing and how to make it so that neighbors can stay in their neighborhood and kids can continue to live here in decent conditions.

Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, stated that he does not think this is a great forum to have this discussion. He said that it is more democracy by group who organizes rather than by individuals who have something good to say. He noted that he has supported greater flexibility for homeowners and how they operate their properties, including single-family homeowners if they want to operate their property as a multi-family. He said that there he does not want to see anything that comes out of this discussion end up incentivizing the elimination of all single-family homes. He said that choice is good. He mentioned that no one seriously is going to walk in, drop money and pick up a single-family home in any part of Cambridge. He said that they may possibly take inherited money or money from the sales of their previous homes. He said that greater flexibility for homeowners is needed.

Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street, stated that the idea of elimination single-family zoning comes out of a social justice view, but she has concerns about simply eliminating it. She said that it is clear that the market is the main thing that drives housing and it does not work to solve housing availability. She stated that ended single-family zoning would not benefit people of color and moderate-income people. She said that it is far from illegal now, as was claimed, to build multifamily housing in Cambridge. She said that allowing market multi-family units in the areas where it is currently not allowed will sharply the value of property. That increase will lead to more teardowns of one- and two-family buildings than is already occurring. She said that she is surprised that no one has mentioned the Affordable Housing Overlay. For a chance for the Affordable Housing Overlay to succeed, the land costs need to not increase above their current level. She said that instead of this, there are other housing efforts that will be more beneficial for the City Council to work on. She said that the City could pass zoning that stops the reduction in existing units, or we could pass zoning that requires a specific percent of any development of a certain size to be for homeownership.

Vice Mayor Mallon made a motion to close Public Comment.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler -6
NAYS: -0
ABSENT: Councillor Simmons -1
and Public Comment was closed.

Councillor Nolan stated that the outcome of this meeting is two-fold: to hear in large view the issues that the City Council should consider; and for the City to hear from the City Council the kind of things that they would like to have further discussions about.

Iram Farooq stated that the Co-Chairs did a great job in setting the stage for the range of things that should be discussed in contemplating a significant change to the housing formats that are permitted in the City per zoning. She said that it is important to keep in mind that the zoning only states the maximum allowable amount of density but if zoning were to be changed, unless the zoning explicitly prohibited single-family homes, one would be able to develop something that is lower than what is being allowed in the zoning. There would not be a straightforward mechanism to completely bar single or two-family housing from developing or from remaining in place in the city. She said that in stepping back to planning thinking, in their planning work through the years that she has been involved in planning in Cambridge, there has always been a focus in looking at neighborhoods as areas that are valuable, build community, and that people want to see preserved in similar formats to the way that they exist now. She said that the people who have been more likely to participate in the conversations are people from the remainder of the residential neighborhoods. She said that this has borne out during the conversations around Envision Cambridge. Ms. Farooq then introduced CDD staff who are present in the meeting.

Jeff Roberts talked about the history of zoning and touched on some historical points that are relevant to the discussion of single and two-family zoning in Cambridge. He said that in 1924 the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance was adopted. He said that it was a building and zoning code that talked about a lot of things including construction types. He said in 1943 the City passed a new Zoning Ordinance which is the ordinance that we are most familiar with today. He explained that this includes residential, business and industry districts, and office districts. He said that in Res A, B and C-1 districts, there is a height limit of 35 feet with taller height limits in other areas. He noted that at that time there were no density limits. He explained that in a lot of ways, those elements of zoning have remained intact since 1943 but there have been changes. He said that in 1961, there was a major zoning amendment that switched some of the controls in zoning from the height-based limitations to density controls. The 35-foot height limit remained in lower density residential districts but in many districts the height limits were removed altogether. Over time, through a series of rezonings, height limits were reimposed throughout the City, but density and formula setback controls and parking requirements stayed in place. In 1976 there was the creation of a Townhouse Ordinance that was intended to incentivize the development of attached row housing as an alternative to apartment-style flats. It did result in some townhouse development but in 1979 there were some amendments put in place and over time there were additional restrictions which made it less favorable to do townhouse developments. Following an era of townhouse development, there is not much development under the Townhouse Ordinance today. In 1981, one of the changes was the accessory apartments provision which was an attempt to create more flexibility in Res A zoning districts. He noted that in recent years those provisions were broadened. He said that it is a fairly low number of units. Another era of change was in the 1990’s when it was the growth policy/management era of planning. This was the establishment of the Citywide Growth Policy which established planning principles, including encouraging new housing growth and to retain lower density residential neighborhoods at the prevailing scale and character. He explained that there was a series of zoning amendments throughout the 90’s leading to a major citywide rezoning in 2001. The result of that was many formerly commercial areas throughout the City were adjusted to encourage new multi-family housing, inclusionary housing was adopted in the late 90’s but there were some reductions during that time. A notable exception to all of that that was adopted zoning as part of the 2001 amendment to encourage conversion of non-residential structures to residential use. This is relevant because it is one of the few ways within the zoning where multi-family housing can be created under a Special Permit process in Res A and B Districts. This led to a small wave of conversion projects. In 2011 there was an amendment to that zoning which introduced new limitations and over time the number of conversion projects has fallen off. Mr. Roberts explained that over the decades there have been a number of smaller rezoning amendments that have added up and result in the Zoning Map today.

Iram Farooq added that as the City Council contemplates eliminating 1 or 2-family zoning, the important question is what is that replaced with. For CDD staff it would be important to have guidance on what is the vision. She said that this will feed into how the zoning is framed and what the implications are.

Chris Cotter said that it is important for CDD to understand the vision. He said that there is a range of things that the City Council can consider when you look at changing the zoning from single or two-family zoning. He said it is a big universe of parcels but in a small area. He said that there are about 7,200 parcels that have 1 or 2 units on them. It is roughly two-thirds of the parcels in the city. He said that questions that come to mind regarding implications are both the additional supply of housing that you might see come to be over time and what are some of the goals that the City Council has in trying to unlock that supply, particularly with regards to affordability. He said that there is supply and affordability and, in some ways, they are related but, in some ways, they may be complicated relationships in areas that are smaller. He said that the most challenging question is to figure out how the market will look at the opportunity to create new housing, how quickly that housing may be created and the price impacts of that. When you think of Cambridge as a smaller area, adding units may or may not have a significant impact on the market immediately unless you were to unlock a lot of change more quickly. He said changes in zoning will have different impacts, both parcel by parcel and in the market. Mr. Cotter said that regarding the Affordable Housing Overlay, one of the components of the overlay was to give affordable housing builders advantages in the lower density areas. He said that if there are more opportunities in those areas for market developers to create housing it will impact the overlay to some extent, but it is a question of what the balance of the goals are. He said that adding housing supply and increasing affordability are both important but finding the balance is tricky.

Melissa Peters stated that Envision Cambridge came up with 15 new actions for housing with a range of high-level housing goals. She said that they spent a lot of time on three core strategies: increasing market supply, increasing affordable housing supply, and expanding resources. She explained that one of the main housing actions that was identified was to change zoning to enable more housing in areas that are being rezoned near transit. Those ideas included increasing base zoning generally. She said that there was also a discussing about allowing multi-family housing citywide and allowing density bonuses for developments that provided more affordable housing than under the inclusionary zoning. She said that there is an interplay between many of these actions and how they compete with one another. She said that none are “silver bullets” and together they can help us move toward our ultimate goal of housing affordability and equity and diversity. She noted that another balancing act is the desire for the community to maintain an urban form that is historic and has a transitional density as we move from lower to moderate and high-density zones.

Iram Farooq said that regarding sustainability, there is a big picture view that places like Cambridge that are well-served by transit are optimum places where you want to have people live and work. She said that when you concentrate people and they tend to live in smaller floor plate areas than they would if they were in more suburban locations, there is efficiency to that in terms of per capita resource use as well as emissions. She said that at the same time, it is worth considering some of the big things that are being discussed in the City around resilience goals should be factored in when thinking about big change to the amount of development that is permitted, what format that takes and what standards it is housed to. She added that worth noting is that from the transportation perspective, people’s behavior is elastic and can change based on what is put in place. She said that there were no off-site parking requirements when much of the Cambridge fabric was built and so people park on the streets. As new developments come up, there is more competition for parking spaces which sometimes cause tension. She explained that these are thoughts for the Committee’s consideration.

Councillor Nolan clarified that the Committee is not talking about eliminating single and two-family housing, we are talking about eliminating singe and two-family only zones.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that regarding the conversion of non-residential to residential use in Res A and B where multifamily can be created but in 2011 new limitations were introduced which quelled that a bit. She asked Mr. Roberts to go into more detail. Mr. Roberts said that the zoning was part of the Citywide Rezoning in 2001 which was part of the overall theme to create more housing opportunities. He said that the change in zoning coincided with a number of things: commercial uses were no longer viable, turnover in religious property, which created a situation where there were large buildings in residential neighborhoods that were not zoned to accommodate the reuse of that building. This provision allowed the conversion by Special Permit from the Planning Board. He said that in some ways it was a subtle zoning change, but it created a path that could be followed if an owner wanted to make an economic reuse of those properties. He said that those cases were almost always controversial given the reaction to people in the neighborhoods in having a large number of units created in a building that is larger than is typical. He said that there were reactions regarding parking and privacy of abutters. In 2011 there was a proposal that attracted attention along with the discussion of that particular proposal, there was a discussion about changes to the zoning that ultimately resulted in putting additional limitations on the density that was allowed to be built in a conversion project and other limitations on community space in the building. He said that it is hard to say that that was the one thing that led to fewer of those projects in the future. He explained that it was a creative idea of a way to introduce housing in neighborhoods throughout the city but not necessarily an easy road for the proposals of zoning in general. Vice Mayor Mallon stated that this conversation has captured national attention given the number of cities that are looking at exclusionary zoning and the role of zoning in keeping people out of certain neighborhoods. She said that she shares concerns about how this interplays with the Affordable Housing Overlay. Said that she would like CDD to put together some kind of preliminary report on how elimination single and two-family zoning would impact the Affordable Housing Overlay so that the City Council can fully understand what they are contemplating.

Councillor McGovern stated that he concurs with Vice Mayor Mallon regarding wanting to look at the impact that this could have on the Affordable Housing Overlay. He said that although there has been a lot of zoning changes throughout the years, it is based on a foundation in the early 1900s that was rooted in racism and classism in certain areas. He said that in the Res-A 1940 census, 0.49% of the people in those neighborhoods were black. He said that in 2017, that number rose to just over 2%. Those decisions in the 1920s are clearly having an impact today on who has access to certain parts of the city. He said that due diligence must be done to avoid unintended consequences. He said that there are certain neighborhoods in the city that are essentially “gated neighborhoods” because of the zoning. He said that this is the opportunity to dismantle that history. He said he is glad that the City is moving in this direction as multifamily housing should be allowed in every neighborhood in the city. He said that he would like CDD to know that if there is anything that the City Council is not asking for that would be helpful, please let us know.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said that it is hard for him to imagine an alternative that wasn’t at least three-deckers throughout the city. He said that he when he was looking at housing a couple of times in the City, there was no place that he could afford that wasn’t at least a triple decker. He said that fixing that part is a big piece. He said that as it relates to parking tying into this, any effort should include ending parking minimums as we should not be requiring parking as a part. He said that we should focus on better transit. He asked about the inclusionary zoning ordinance. He asked for more context as it relates to how and when the affordability requirement would kick in when talking about six-plexes or eight-plexes. He asked for more detail in this regard. Mr. Cotter said that when they conducted the last inclusionary study, they looked at development patterns and at that point they did not see a lot of new development that was in the range of 5-10 units. He said that the consultant recommended that the threshold be kept at 10 because there was not a huge gain to be had. He said that if there is a desire to look at that further, it can be looked at. Ms. Farooq added that the inclusionary study was done in the context of existing zoning, so the patterns of development are based on that existing zoning and what it allows. If the baseline zoning were to shift, we might see different patterns of development. She said that question of what the number ought to be that triggers inclusionary might want to be different. She said that as you broaden the number of buildings that have inclusionary units, it will have an impact on what is required to run the program in terms of staff capacity, etc. which would be a challenge. She added that if there were to be a change in the baseline, we should reconsider what the trigger number is and whether it should be lower.

Councillor Zondervan said that we do have to be careful about not creating new injustices and exacerbate the harm that we are trying to undo. He said that the discussion around inclusionary zoning is pertinent to that. He said that he supports the goal to end single and two-family zoning in the few neighborhoods that it remains, but if we do a blanket citywide up zoning without some mechanism for generating more affordable housing, we will damage some of the more vulnerable neighborhoods. He said that we are still in the middle of a pandemic and an eviction crisis. He said that as a condition of taking advantage of the additional density, we could require an inclusionary unit. Operational challenges can be mitigated by incentivizing homeownership. He said that as part of the policy discussion should be taking up the strengthening of the condo conversion ordinance. He said that we must also grapple with the impacts of the Affordable Housing Overlay. He concurred with Vice Mayor Mallon asking for an impact study on what it will mean on the Affordable Housing Overlay which, in effect, has eliminated single-family zoning but only for 100% affordable housing projects. He said that we must think about to take more advantage of that zoning that has already been done. He said we have to be careful that we are not reproducing racial and socioeconomic black oppression when we make these changes. He said that equity requires that those that are privileged reach out and listen to those who are less privileged.

Councillor Carlone said that he agrees with his fellow Councillors. He said that the presentation was very good. He said that when there are issues in the Ordinance Committee, having neighborhood planning or Housing Committee pre-meeting about the subject in general could be very beneficial. He said that he agrees with Councillor Zondervan about the concern of affordable housing. He said that he would be for this if one-third of the units were affordable housing which means financing from the city. He said that there is no middle-income housing without subsidies. He said that when talking about scale, it is market rate. He said that in his neighborhood between Harvard and Porter Square, half of the buildings are one-story or parking lots. He said that this could dramatically affect neighborhoods with poorer people. He said that we have to realize that most of the existing structures are going to have to be used. He said that we can work with the right kind of additions, but the 1.5 median income residential properties have small yards by and large. He added that the Governor has proposed that any town or city that wants financial assistance has to up zone to multi-family near all MBTA stations. He said that he does not know if it is a proposal or something that the Governor can control but it changes everything. He said that if we want housing, the city zoning should favor housing – not commercial development. He said that when he moved to the City 50 years ago, you could buy a house for $40,000. He said that he bought a condo for under that amount. He said that it has changed is because there was little commercial development in those days. He said that a public commenter suggested that CDD do a market analysis on these changes. He said that he would add a legal perspective on these changes because there will be pushback. He said that he believes that it can work but there has to be a benefit of affordable housing.

Councillor Nolan noted that we have to bear in mind the issues of affordable housing. She asked if there is some way to ensure that any additional upzoning or any units created would also get us further along to our climate resiliency goals. She asked if CDD has any thoughts on how to ensure that any new development under such a zoning change would have to meet net zero requirements or passive house, or fossil fuel infrastructure. She asked if this could be incorporated. Ms. Farooq responded that any of those are possibilities that could be included if the City Council is providing additional density in this context. She said that if the City Council chooses to adopt something this year, it is really only year ahead of schedule and not that big of a change from what would be required come 2022. Councillor Nolan asked if we could do more. Councillor Nolan asked about the Housing Choice Law. She asked if there are any state zoning laws or regulations that we should incorporate and consider as we explore the question of doing a citywide elimination of single and two-family only zones. Mr. Goldberg responded that the Law Department can certainly look into this. Ms. Farooq said that if the City were to say that it wanted to allow multi-family of whatever size throughout the city, she would be surprised if that created a legal problem, but she leaves that issue to the Law Department.

Councillor Zondervan talked about resiliency and climate goals. He said that it is important to look at eliminating parking minimums and permeability requirements. He added that we should look at the overall zoning and try to simplify it.

Councillor Nolan asked if the City has ever looked at setting parking maximums and is it something that could be done. Ms. Farooq said that in certain districts there are parking maximums. She said that in those conditions they have retained a small parking minimum for residential. Mr. Roberts said that there are areas in the zoning where they have imposed maximum parking limitations, mostly in planned development areas. He said that throughout the Zoning Ordinance there are maximum parking limitations on most non-residential uses.

Melissa Peters added that Envision Cambridge also recommended to eliminate minimum parking requirements into lower maximum parking requirements citywide with the exception of residential in some areas to maintain a minimum.

Councillor Nolan said that this is the start of the conversation and she looks forward to future conversations.

Councillor Nolan and Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler thanked all those present for their attendance.

Vice Mayor Mallon made a motion to adjourn the hearing.
The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler -5
NAYS: -0
ABSENT: Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons -2
and the hearing adjourned at 4:00pm.

The City Clerk’s Office received six written communications (ATTACHMENTS E-J).

For the Committee,
Councillor Patricia Nolan, Chair, Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee

Communications were received regarding the Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee hearing held on Feb 17, 2021.

Committee Report #2
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee will conduct a public hearing on the small business grant and loan programs managed by the Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Date: Tues, June 1, 2021 3:00pm, Sullivan Chamber
Present: Mallon, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toomey, Zondervan
Also Attending: Siddiqui, Simmons, McGovern

The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Tues, June 1, 2021 at 3:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the small business grant and loan programs managed by the Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Present at the hearing were Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council, and Anthony Wilson, City Clerk.

Present via Zoom were Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor Nolan; Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Lisa Hemmerle, Director of Economic Development; Pardis Saffari, Senior Economic Development Manager; Christina DiLisio, Economic Development Specialist; Bonnie-May Shantz, Economic Development Specialist; Matthew Nelson, Assistant to the City Manager, Community Relations; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; David Kale, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs; Nicole Murati Ferrer, Chair of License Commission; Robert Reardon, former Director of Assessment; and Jason Alves, Executive Director of the East Cambridge Business Association.

Vice Mayor Mallon convened the hearing and welcomed all present. She read the Governor’s Order regarding remote participation and the Call of the Meeting. She requested a Roll Call to indicate a quorum for the hearing.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, and Councillor Zondervan -5
ABSENT: -0
and a quorum was present.

Vice Mayor Mallon read from a prepared written statement. She said that, as we all know, on March 16th of last year the City announced a shutdown of businesses, and the State quickly followed. What we thought would be several weeks or months turned into sixteen months of full and partial closures, occupancy limits, distancing restrictions, mask mandates and more. Universities emptied in a weekend, and have not yet returned to full capacity. Our businesses and restaurants were hard hit, and some beloved local favorites did not survive. She wants to acknowledge that it has been an incredibly challenging time to own a small business.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that our small, but mighty, Economic Development Division (EDD) has been working to support our small businesses throughout it all, being creative with funding for grants, and support resources. EDD announced the first grant on March 26th, less than 2 weeks after the shutdown, at a small business virtual town hall meeting she held with Congresswoman Katherine Clark and the Small Business Administration about available relief funding. For many small businesses who were not lucky, or connected enough to receive the first PPP, this $6,000 grant was the first funding they received, the first cash infusion to their struggling business came from the City.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that, as we know from the City’s Small Business Grant dashboard, the City has granted $4.3M to 406 businesses with an average total grant amount of $10,000. 73% of assisted businesses are woman and/or minority-owned, and most went to support restaurant and retail. The biggest needs for these funds were for rent, and a distant second was for utilities. She welcomed EDD and asked Assistant City Manager Farooq to introduce her team.

Assistant City Manager Farooq introduced Lisa Hemmerle, Pardis Saffari, Christina DiLisio, and BonnieMay Shantz from EDD. Staff from other departments involved in supporting small businesses that attended the meeting include Matthew Nelson, Assistant City Manager Kale, Chair Murati-Ferrer, and City Solicitor Glowa.

Christina DeLisio gave a summary of her PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT A).

Vice Mayor Mallon thanked her for the presentation. She said that the long-term loan program she helped develop with Mayor Siddiqui, the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA), and City staff offers 0% interest loans over five years, and the first payment is not until July 1st, 2021, when the loans were disbursed a year ago. She invited Robert Reardon to comment on this program.

Robert Reardon said that the loan program was very successful in helping several small businesses. He said that if a small business makes all their payments over four years, the last payment will be waived, giving them a discount. Cambridge Savings Bank provided the mechanism to disburse the loans and collect payments, and EDD was crucial in screening applications.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that Mayor Siddiqui had joined the meeting. She opened the floor for questions from City Councillors.

Councillor Toomey thanked Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, City staff, and CRA for their leadership and for coming together to provide much-needed financial assistance to keep small businesses afloat.

Councillor Nolan said the presentation was clear, and it was wonderful to see the range of help offered to small businesses. She wonders, looking forward, what level of financial struggle that small businesses are continuing to see. While we are coming out of this public health emergency, small businesses have been devastated, and patterns, like ordering online instead of shopping in person, may stick and hurt them. If there is an ongoing need for funding, should we continue these programs?

Assistant City Manager Farooq answered that there is a lot of work still to be done. EDD is staying in close contact with the Small Business Advisory Committee to ensure we continue to support small businesses. She encouraged members of the public to frequent small businesses, saying that they need all the help they can get.

Lisa Hemmerle responded that business surveys show that rent will continue to be an issue going forward. They are encouraging small businesses to think through their business models, and to consider ecommerce.

Pardis Saffari reiterated that rent will be an issue, as well as staffing. Shop small as much as you can. Re: e-commerce, Councillor Nolan mentioned another of the City Council’s interests, expanding internet access. She asked City staff to elaborate on efforts to help small businesses become more tech-savvy. The new normal will be completely different, and will likely include a far greater emphasis on the ability to pivot to e-commerce.

Lisa Hemmerle responded that, even pre-pandemic, EDD has offered a variety of workshops that are funded through Community Development Block Grants, which offer topics on social media, search engine optimization, and more. Now there is more understanding that e-commerce and having multiple streams of revenue is a critical foundation for small businesses.

Pardis Saffari added that some COVID grants went to e-commerce improvements. Their Small Business Enhancement Program also consistently gives grants and allows small business owners to update their websites for e-commerce with it.

Councillor Nolan thanked City staff for their response. She encouraged residents to shop local, and to order and pick up directly from small businesses to avoid third-party delivery fees.

Mayor Siddiqui thanked those who helped her fundraise for the Mayor’s Disaster Relief Fund, which required a lot of outreach and meetings, as well as those who donated. When we think about what recovery looks like, there will be a lot of ongoing need, and she is grateful for all the work being done to support small businesses.

Vice Mayor Mallon welcomed Councillor Simmons to the meeting, and noted that Councillor McGovern had previously joined, but had since left.

Councillor Simmons asked if there is an ethnic breakdown for the data on grants awarded to minority-owned businesses. She also said that she worked with two women of color who struggled to get into the grant pipeline, and EDD’s efforts helped them extraordinarily Certain businesses, like personal services, do not easily translate into e-commerce, and she wonders how we can encourage those folks to update their technology.

Pardis Saffari answered that they are always looking for new ways to conduct outreach. The Small Business Coaching Program offers one-on-one assistance on the business owner’s side. They also offer online marketing assistance, and can look at more ways to offer that assistance. She encouraged business owners to contact them if they need help, and EDD can connect small businesses to regional resources.

Councillor Simmons stated that the silver lining of the pandemic was more people learning about the work EDD does, and the City having greater access to these community members. She hopes we can sustain those relationships. She would love to see grant data on minority-owned businesses disaggregated.

Vice Mayor Mallon said having an ethnic breakdown of the data would be helpful. She moved to public comment.

Jason Alves, Executive Director of the East Cambridge Business Association, 544 Cambridge Street, 3:52pm. He expressed gratitude for EDD’s work and for the City stepping up to offer these programs. It was personal for a lot of folks, and these programs saved small business owners, their families, and their livelihoods. He also said that the 0% interest CRA loans would be great to carry over post-COVID. City construction projects impact small businesses, and these loans would help them get through it.

Councillor Nolan made a motion to close Public Comment. The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan -5
NAYS: -0
ABSENT: -0
and Public Comment was closed.

Vice Mayor Mallon welcomed additional questions from City Councillors.

Councillor Nolan said that they had received a report on waiving license and permit fees for small businesses as a way to offer financial support. She said it would be helpful to combine that report with the information in the presentation so they can understand the full range of support offered. We should consider expanding these reductions in fees.

Vice Mayor Mallon noted that the Economic Development and University Relations Committee is holding a hearing on license and permit fees on Tuesday, June 8th. This meeting will be a chance to discuss what has been done, and efforts that have recently been announced by the License Commission. We are entering a recovery phase, and we must remain cognizant of what our small businesses need.

Vice Mayor Mallon said she has seen the emotional toll that EDD has taken being the lifeline for small businesses, who have expressed their fears and anxieties to staff. Small businesses were scared of losing their livelihoods and their homes, during a pandemic, and she is grateful for EDD’s work to support small businesses as they move through this challenging time. When we think about how small businesses were supported throughout the pandemic, she heard one business owner say that it was nice that Harvard University was not offering students a full meal plan because students instead went to and connected with local restaurants. Were there any additional incentives to meal programs that allowed students to go to local restaurants?

Assistant City Manager Farooq said she does not have any specific information on that, but will find out.

Vice Mayor Mallon said the business squares that are usually teeming with students have been empty this past year, and it is interesting that small restaurants saw more students this year, even when there were fewer students in the area. It is worth a conversation with local universities to see if this was a byproduct, or if this could be leveraged moving forward. Ghost restaurants are proliferating across the region to help restaurants attract business through new menus, even though it is the same restaurants putting together the packages. Is this something we are seeing in Cambridge, and are they asking for funding through grants?

Lisa Hemmerle responded that this is a newer phenomenon among savvy businesses that are learning to leverage this to fill more orders and increase their revenue. She has not heard requests for funding for these types of restaurants, but is beginning to research it.

Vice Mayor Mallon wondered if this is another area where small businesses need technological assistance. It seems like only bigger restaurants are able to do this and could crowd out smaller restaurants.

Vice Mayor Mallon reminded Committee Members and the public about the Economic Development and University Relations Committee meeting being held on June 8th. She thanked EDD for their presentation, which is a true testament to the City’s hard work to ensure our small businesses have been taken care of. There is endless need, but every little bit helps. It will be a long road towards getting small businesses back on their feet, and she encouraged everyone to shop small.

On a motion from Councillor Nolan to adjourn the hearing, the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, and Councillor Zondervan -5
NAYS: -0
ABSENT: -0
The hearing adjourned at 4:02pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Alanna M. Mallon, Chair, Economic Development and University Relations Committee

A communication was received from Lisa Hemmerle, Director of Economic Development Cambridge Community Development Department, transmitting a presentation regarding COVID-19 Small Businesses Grants and Loans Impact report.