2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Board of Election Commissioners for the City Council to vote to authorize in-person early voting for the Nov 2, 2021 Municipal Election, in accordance with Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020, as amended by Chapter 5 of the Acts of 2021 and Chapter 29 of the Acts of 2021.
Report Accepted, Placed on File; Order Adopted 9-0

Sept 13, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a recommendation from the Board of Election Commissioners for the City Council to vote to authorize in-person early voting for the November 2, 2021 Municipal Election, in accordance with Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020, as amended by Chapter 5 of the Acts of 2021 and Chapter 29 of the Acts of 2021.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

---

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Board of Election Commissioners
Date: Sept 2, 2021
Re: RECOMMENDATION FOR IN-PERSON EARLY VOTING

In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020, as amended by Chapter 5 of the Acts of 2021 and Chapter 29 of the Acts of 2021, upon the request and recommendation of the Board of Election Commissioners the City Council must vote whether to authorize early voting in-person for any municipal election held on or before December 15, 2021. The section reads:

“Notwithstanding section 25B of chapter 54 of the General Laws or any other general or special law or municipal ordinance to the contrary, upon a recorded and public vote by the select board, board of selectmen, town council or city council authorizing early in-person voting, any eligible voter of such municipality may vote early in-person for any regular or special municipal or state preliminary, primary or general election held on or before December 15, 2021.

Such vote may only be taken after a request from the city or town clerk or authorized local election official recommending in-person early voting and provided that such vote occurs not less than 5 business days prior to the proposed beginning of early voting and that such early in-person voting complies with the following:

(i) A city or town, as part of the vote to allow early voting in-person, may set the early voting period to begin no sooner than 10 days before the election and end no later than the business day preceding the business day before the election.

(ii) Early voting shall be conducted during the usual business hours of the city or town clerk unless different hours are set as part of the vote, including any weekend hours.

(iii) The city or town clerk shall establish an early voting site that is centrally located, suitable and in a convenient public building. Notice of the early voting location, dates and hours must be posted at least 48 weekday hours before the early voting period begins.

(iv) A qualified voter voting early in person shall be provided with a ballot and an envelope where the ballot is placed after voting which contains an affidavit of compliance to be filled out by the voter. A qualified voter voting early in person shall complete an affidavit under the regulations promulgated by the state secretary for the administration of early voting and appearing at 950 CMR 47.00, as applicable, which shall include a notice of penalties under” section 26 of chapter 56 of the General Laws.”

In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020, as amended, the board recommends early in-person voting begin on Saturday October 23, 2021 and end on Friday, October 29, 2021 during the hours and at the locations as indicated below.

RECOMMENDED EARLY VOTING LOCATIONS, HOURS AND DAYS

Cambridge Water Department - 250 Fresh Pond Parkway, Cambridge
Main Library – 449 Broadway, Cambridge
Valente Library – 826 Cambridge Street, Side Entrance on Berkshire Street, Cambridge

Saturday	Sunday	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday
October 23	October 24	October 25	October 26	October 27	October 28	October 29
10am – 3pm	CLOSED	11am – 7pm	10am – 5pm	11am – 7pm	10am - 5pm	10am -5pm

At a meeting held on Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 5:30pm the Board of Election Commissioners voted 3 in favor, 0 against, and 1 absent to submit this request recommending that the City Council vote to authorize early in-person voting and the early voting locations, dates, and hours for the November 2, 2021, Municipal Election. If authorized by the Council, the Board and the Executive Director will comply with the provisions of Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020, as amended. The City of Cambridge Board of Election Commissioners respectfully submits this report to the City Council for review and determination.

---

Agenda Item Number 2     Sept 13, 2021

WHEREAS: At a meeting held on Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 5:30 pm, the Board of Election Commissioners voted 3 in favor, 0 against, and 1 absent to submit a recommendation to the City Council requesting the City Council vote to authorize early in-person voting and the early voting locations, dates, and hours for the November 2, 2021 Municipal Election; and

WHEREAS: In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020, as amended, the Board recommends early in-person voting begin on Saturday, October 23, 2021 and end on Friday, October 29, 2021 during the hours and at the locations indicated below:

Locations
Cambridge Water Department - 250 Fresh Pond Parkway
Cambridge Main Library – 449 Broadway
Cambridge Valente Library – 826 Cambridge Street, Side Entrance on Berkshire Street

Hours
Saturday, October 23, 2021 from 10am to 3pm
Sunday, October 24, 2021 – CLOSED
Monday, October 25, 2021 from 11am to 7pm
Tuesday, October 26, 2021 from 10am to 5pm
Wednesday, October 27, 2021 from 11am to 7pm
Thursday, October 28, 2021 from 10am to 5pm
Friday, October 29, 2021 from 10am to 5pm

Now, therefore be it

ORDERED: That in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020, as amended by Chapter 5 of the Acts of 2021 and Chapter 29 of the Acts of 2021, upon request of the Board of Election Commissioners, the City Council hereby authorizes early voting in-person for the November 2, 2021 Municipal Election for the hours and locations outlined above.

3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request from the Board of Election Commissioners recommending the relocation of polling sites for the Nov 2, 2021 Municipal Election.
Report Accepted, Placed on File; Order Adopted 9-0

Sept 13, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In accordance with Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020, as amended by Chapter 5 of the Acts of 2021 and Chapter 29 of the Acts of 2021, please find attached a request from the Board of Election Commissioners recommending the relocation of polling sites for the November 2, 2021 Municipal Election.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

---

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Board of Election Commissioners
Date: Sept 9, 2021
Re: RECOMMENDATION TO RELOCATE CERTAIN POLLING SITES FOR THE 2021 MUNCIPAL ELECTION

In accordance with Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020, as amended by Chapter 5 of the Acts of 2021 and Chapter 29 of the Acts of 2021, there are procedures required when moving precincts or polling locations which affects any polling place changes. The section states:

“Notwithstanding section 24 of chapter 54 of the General Laws or any other general or special law to the contrary, the select board, board of selectmen, town council or city council may, by recorded and public vote, change any polling place to be used at the election not less than 20 days prior to the date of the election if it is determined that the public convenience or public health would be better served.

If the select board, board of selectmen or town council determines that the public convenience or public health would be better served, they may house all polling places in a single building within the municipality, if such building is suitably equipped; provided, however, that alcoholic beverages shall not be served or consumed in that portion of a building used as a polling place, during voting hours or while ballots are being counted therein.

In cities, the city council may designate polling places in non-adjacent precincts if they determine the public convenience or public health would be better served.

In making a decision to change a polling place, the select board, board of selectmen, town council or city council shall evaluate and report on whether such change would have a disparate adverse impact on access to the polls on the basis of race, national origin, disability, income or age, and not later than 3 days prior to changing a polling place, shall make publicly available on its website and at the office of the town or city clerk a report on its evaluation.

When the polling places have been designated pursuant to this section, the board of registrars shall post on the municipal website and at other such places as it may determine, a description of the polling places and shall notify voters by using an electronic means, to the extent available, such as via email or reverse 911 call.”

The City’s primary responsibility for the 2021 election is to conduct a fair election in a manner that facilitates maximum voter participation while minimizing voter confusion and risk during COVID-19. Accordingly, “the select board, board of selectmen, town council or city council may, by recorded and public vote, change any polling place to be used at the election not less than 20 days prior to the date of the election if it is determined that the public convenience or public health would be better served...”

Due to everchanging status of the coronavirus and lack of available and suitable locations to serve as polling places it has been determined by the City of Cambridge Board of Election Commissioners (“Board”) that public health and convenience would be better served if some polling sites were relocated for the upcoming Municipal Election, November 2, 2021.

The City of Cambridge has 34 precincts and 25 polling sites. Of those 34 precincts, the Board recommends that five (5) of these precincts in four (4) polling sites be relocated. The Board has located suitable locations to serve as polling sites that would meet state regulations and be in the same ward and precinct or in close proximity to the current polling places with hopes of providing voter convenience and to minimize voter confusion.

Each of the proposed polling locations were evaluated and the Board determined that these sites will not have a “disparate adverse impact on access to the polls on the basis of race, national origin, disability, income or age...” The proposed locations are accessible for all voters, near previously used polling locations, and provide enough space to accommodate the necessary voting equipment and supplies and social distancing of poll workers, and voters.

In accordance with 950 CMR 51:00 “Polling place accessibility for elderly and handicapped voters” a Polling Place Accessibility Survey was completed for each of the proposed relocation sites to enable the Board to determine that they are fully accessible for all voters and suitable as polling locations. In addition, the Board will adhere to public health guidelines and ensure election workers receive training on properly sanitizing equipment, PPE and social distancing to mitigate public health risks.

The following is a list of polling places used during the 2021 Municipal Election and the recommended relocation sites:

Precinct	Current Location & Reason for Relocation	Polling Locations for 2021 Elections
1-1	Kennedy-Longfellow School 158 Spring Street, Cafeteria Unable to be used while school is in session	Community Charter School of Cambridge, 245 Bent Street
1-2	Kennedy-Longfellow School 158 Spring Street, Cafeteria Unable to be used while school is in session	Community Charter School of Cambridge, 245 Bent Street
9-2	National Guard Armory 450 Concord Avenue Mandatory restrictions on military buildings (ex. mandatory face covering)	Cambridge Water Department, 250 Fresh Pond Parkway
9-3	Haggerty School Not available for voting	Russell Youth Center, 680 Huron Avenue, Second Floor
11-3	St. John the Evangelist Church – returning to previous polling place	Burns Apartments, 50 Churchill Avenue, Community Room

At a meeting held on Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:30am the Board voted 4 in favor, 0 against, to submit this request recommending the relocation of certain polling sites for the 2021 Municipal Election to the City Council for review and determination as per Chapter 255 of the Acts of 2020.

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to authorization to grant street obstruction approvals.
Report Accepted, Placed on File; Order Adopted 9-0

Sept 13, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In June 2020 and again in November 2020, I requested and received the City Council’s authorization to grant street obstruction approvals, which are required for restaurants to operate outdoor dining on the sidewalk or street, until sixty (60) days past the end of the state of emergency declared by the Governor of Massachusetts due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. I sought this authorization in order to respond to the restaurant community’s need to expand outdoor dining services in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, and consistent with Governor Baker’s COVID-19 Orders which authorized restaurants to expand outdoor dining through an expedited process until sixty (60) days past the end of the state of emergency. On May 28, 2021, Governor Baker issued COVID-19 Order No. 69 which among other things ordered that the statewide Declaration of a State of Emergency terminated as of June 15, 2021. Accordingly, my authority to grant street obstruction approvals would expire August 14, 2021, except that because the City Council has granted the City Manager ongoing authority during the summer months when the Council does not meet regularly, my authority would expire on September 13, 2021.

On June 16, 2021, Governor Baker signed into law an Act Relative to Extending Certain COVID-19 Measures Adopted During the State of Emergency, and that Act extends the ability to approve an expansion of premises for outdoor dining through April 1, 2022, without having to undergo the full licensing process and notice requirements, and such outdoor dining does not have to comply with the zoning act, G.L. c.40A. In light of the Act’s extension of the expedited outdoor dining process the City has extended its temporary street and sidewalk patio license agreements until January 1, 2022. City staff has also been reviewing the City’s normal outdoor dining process to find ways to improve the process to assist restaurants when the City’s normal outdoor dining season resumes on March 1, 2022. Therefore, because the Act allows for the expedited outdoor dining process through April 1, 2022, and to allow the City to continue to respond to the restaurant community’s need for outdoor dining in an expeditious manner, including in the spring as restaurants resume outdoor dining pursuant to the City’s normal outdoor dining process, I am hereby requesting that the City Council extend its prior authorization for me or my designee to grant all approvals for street temporary obstructions, until June 30, 2022.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

---

Agenda Item Number 6     Sept 13, 2021

ORDERED: That from September 13, 2021 to June 30, 2022, due to the significant adverse impacts the COVID-19 Pandemic has had upon local businesses including restaurants and lower risk of transmission associated with outside activities, and consistent with Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, an Act Relative to Extending Certain COVID-19 Measures Adopted During the State of Emergency, which temporarily waives some of the time-consuming procedural requirements for restaurants that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption that are applying to operate outdoor dining services, temporarily waives the requirement that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission approve such requests, and temporarily waives zoning requirements that may prohibit outdoor dining services, and to allow the City to continue to respond to the restaurant community’s need for outdoor dining in an expeditious manner, including in the spring as restaurants resume outdoor dining pursuant to the City’s normal outdoor dining process, all approvals for temporary street obstructions will hereby be referred to the City Manager with authorization to act.

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-56, regarding improvements to Jerry's Pond and along Rindge Avenue.
Tabled 9-0 - Siddiqui

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Katherine Watkins, Assistant Commissioner / City Engineer, DPW; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Joe Barr, Director, Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department
Date: Sept 8, 2021
Re: Awaiting Report Policy Order 2021 #167 regarding improvements around Jerry’s Pond and along Rindge Avenue

In response to the above-mentioned policy order, the Department of Public Works (DPW), Community Development Department (CDD), and Traffic, Parking and Transportation (TP&T) report the following:

The North Cambridge site containing Jerry’s Pond and its surrounding environs is owned by IQHQ. Much of the 26-acre site is enclosed by fencing, including Jerry’s Pond (also known as Jerry’s Pit). Jerry’s Pond is an artificial pond that was created about 1870 from a disused clay pit. The clay pit was subsequently filled with water and an icehouse was built around 1907. Though the property was privately owned, Jerry’s Pit was well known as a neighborhood swimming hole until the Francis J. McCrehan Pool opened in 1961. The property has housed other uses throughout its history, including manufacturing.

IQHQ has been working with the community and city staff, as they create their development plans for the site, including improvements for the area around Jerry’s Pond. The IQHQ team has indicated that they share the goals of improving access to Jerry’s Pond, improving connections to nearby open spaces, and enhancing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, while responsibly managing the environmental conditions on the site.

Key elements of the plan include:

Boardwalks along Rindge Avenue and the eastern side of Jerry’s Pond to provide opportunities for people to walk along the pond.

Picnic Areas for community use, with over 100 seats on benches and at picnic tables.

Scenic Overlook – a 35’ x 70’ accessible waterfront boardwalk plaza with protected mature trees in the decking.

Ecological Center – a roofed, open-air pavilion to support an education program run by Mass Audubon for school children and the community.

Communal Garden – providing a new communal garden and working with Green Cambridge to design and manage the garden.

MBTA Plaza Improvements – planting trees in raised beds in the MBTA paved plaza.

Alewife Brook Parkway – widening the existing sidewalk and adding a second interior path along the Parkway.

Interpretive Signage – including history of the area.

Rindge Ave – IQHQ has committed to making improvements for people walking and biking along Rindge Avenue, as well as crossing Rindge Avenue.

• 400’ long boardwalk for pedestrian access along the pond.

• Multi-use path along Rindge Avenue to accommodate 2-way bicycle traffic and pedestrians.

• Additional trees on both sides of Rindge Avenue.

• Crossings of Rindge Ave – The plan identifies improvements to the signalized crossing at the parking area, but the details of the improvements have not been finalized. City staff will continue to work with IQHQ and the community on this important issue as the design progresses to ensure the plan enhances the experience and safety for pedestrians and cyclists crossing Rindge Ave.

Path Connections for Pedestrians and Cyclists – providing additional paths and enhancing existing paths to improve the connectivity between Linear Path, the MBTA headhouse and Minuteman Path.

In addition to the physical improvements, IQHQ has committed to the long-term operations and maintenance of the improvements and funding scholarships for low income residents ($500,000), and the Just-A-Start Biomedical Career Program for low income residents ($500,000).

The plan continues to evolve and improve based on extensive collaboration with the community, environmental professionals, a wildlife ecologist, city staff and continuing evaluation of tree impacts. The IQHQ plan appears to address the key goals of improving access around Jerry’s Pond, improving connections for people biking and walking through the area, enhancing Rindge Avenue, and protecting habitat areas, without requiring city funding. City staff will continue working with IQHQ as the plan is further developed and submitted to the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission for their review and approval.

9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as new Associate Members of the Planning Board for a term of five-years, effective Sept 1, 2021: Alan Price and Ashley Tan.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Sept 13, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting the notification of the appointments of the following new Associate Members of the Planning Board for a term of five years, effective Sept 1, 2021:

Alan Price
Alan Price currently serves as the Director of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, and has prior experience as an administrator with the Peace Corps and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service as well as experience as a consultant focusing on leadership development and organizational effectiveness. Alan previously served on the Cambridge Police Review and Advisory Board and the Cambridge School Committee.

Ashley Tan
Ashley Tan has an educational background in Urban Design and Architectural Studies and currently works as an attorney specializing in real estate law, with past experience serving as a Legal Fellow with the Massachusetts Land Court. Ashley was born and raised in Cambridge and has a strong personal interest in urban history and development.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

10. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a reappointment and appointment of new members of the Central Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years, effective July 1, 2021 - Reappointments: Esther Hanig, Robert Winters, Michael Monestime, Joel Alstein, Tahir Kapoor; New Appointments: Saffana Anwar and Christopher Fort
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Sept 13, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of a reappointment and appointment of new members of the Central Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years, effective July 1, 2021.

Reappointment

Esther Hanig
Ms. Hanig has been an invaluable resource for the Central Square Advisory Committee. She is a long-time resident of The Port and her professional experience running Main Street programs brings a multifaceted perspective to the committee. She has a deep knowledge of the history of the area and an acute understanding of the current state of Central Square, as well as a thoughtful perspective on its future, advocating for a more inclusive and engaging urban environment.

Robert Winters
Robert has served on the Central Square Advisory Committee since 2001 and is actively involved in matters relating to Central Square. Prior to that he served on the Central Square Committee (1994-1998) and the Board of the Central Square Neighborhood Coalition (1993-1997) and has been an appointed member of numerous City advisory committee over the years. He has been a Mid-Cambridge resident since 1978.

Michael Monestime
Michael is the Executive Director of the Central Square BID, and in this position, he has demonstrated exceptional leadership, innovation and enthusiasm. His presence in Central Square and on the Central Square Advisory Committee has been critical to the vitality and health of Central Square throughout the pandemic and prior, and he brings an exceptionally informed perspective to the committee.

Joel Alstein
Joel is a long serving member of the committee. His knowledge of development and finance, as well as the institutional knowledge of the evolution of Central Square from years on the committee, brings a real-world perspective about real estate combined with an affection for the character and vitality of the square. Joel consistently translates his knowledge into thoughtful opinions and dialogue.

Tahir Kapoor
Tahir is a relatively new member to the committee, but in his short time he has shown great enthusiasm and interest in public space and public life in the square. His interest in the public realm and improvements to our mobility infrastructure bring a people first approach that is representative of the committee.

New Appointments

Saffana Anwar
Ms. Anwar is a young Cambridge resident and a woman of color who has lived near Central Square for many years. She is also a former student in the area and a current City employee. In this respect, she brings perspectives and lived experiences to the Committee that add to its understanding of how different people experience Central Square. Ms. Anwar has been involved with Central Square placemaking projects and believes in the vitality of its small business community as well as the diversity of people that call Central Square home.

Christopher Fort
Mr. Fort has lived in Cambridge for nine years and actively follows conversations in his Cambridgeport community. He is a parent of young children and hopes to "grow roots" in the neighborhood. Christopher has run businesses in Central Square and is currently a graduate student at MIT. He is interested in issues of affordable housing and closely follows development in Central Square. He will bring a collaborative approach and a commitment to consensus to the Committee.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

11. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report with no positive or negative recommendation on Article 22.000 Emissions Accounting Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Sept 13, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting for your consideration, a Planning Board report with no positive or negative recommendation on Article 22.000 Emissions Accounting Zoning Petition.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

---

Date: July 27, 2021 (CORRECTED)
Subject: Article 22.000 Emissions Accounting Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board makes the following report with no positive or negative recommendation.

To the Honorable, the City Council,
On June 29, 2021, the Planning Board (the “Board”) held a public hearing to discuss the City Council Zoning Petition to amend Article 22.000 of the Zoning Ordinance to create requirements related to Emissions Accounting (the “Petition”). City Councillors Dennis Carlone and Quinton Zondervan, with other community representatives, presented the proposal. Staff from the City’s Community Development Department (CDD) also attended the hearing and answered questions from the Board.

The Petition would require most Green Building Projects, with the exception of residential projects that include affordable units, to provide an accounting of the emissions generated by construction to CDD as a condition of receiving an occupancy permit. The submission would include information about expected embodied carbon, annual emissions, lifetime expected emissions, and total emissions. The Petition identifies specific types of emissions that shall and shall not be included in each of these calculations. The amendments would also require applicants to present a payment schedule for how to zero out the total emissions of the building, using a social cost of carbon formula approved by CDD, with the outstanding balance acting as a lien on the property in case it is sold, and a specified list of acceptable offsets.

Following presentation, public comment, and discussion among Board members, the Planning Board voted to transmit a report with comments to the City Council but no recommendation. Board members expressed general support for the goals of the Petition, but raised a number of concerns related to the administration and enforcement of the Petition that could make it impractical. Board members were not convinced that the goals of the Petition would be achieved and suggested that further discussion was needed to create a more effective proposal.

The Planning Board voted to transmit a summary of its discussion, provided below.

Scope of Petition

Some Board members questioned whether the Petition attempted to address too many different issues and encompass too many different concepts that perhaps should be studied more carefully and advanced as separate initiatives. Some Board members expressed confusion about whether the purpose of the Petition was to incentivize reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or to raise funding for job programs, since it is not clear how much funding would be raised compared to what the funding needs would be, and the funding would be more limited if buildings reduce their emissions. Other Board members expressed the view that building a workforce to address the issues of climate change is something that will need to be addressed at a regional level.

Board members also noted that the procedures laid out in the Petition are completely different from the procedures in the current Green Building Requirements, and some concepts in the Petition may not be within the scope of zoning at all. Some Board members commented that zoning standards ought to be applied earlier in the design process of a building (as with the current Green Building Requirements) rather than just before or after a project receives an occupancy permit. Other aspects of the Petition, such as funding for job programs, may need to be addressed through separate ordinances or other policy tools. Board members suggested that the City Council consult with the City’s Law Department to determine which policies can be pursued through zoning and which policies require other approaches.

Board members also pointed out that some aspects of the Petition affect topics that are addressed in the City’s Net Zero Action Plan. Although the Petition identifies some topics that have not been contemplated until recently (including embodied energy, discussed below), some Board members expressed concerns about circumventing the process laid out in that plan.

Clarity of Petition

Board members found the language of the Petition difficult to understand, pointing out that while it refers to “Emissions Accounting” and a “payment schedule,” it does not explicitly state that the developer has to make a specific payment or how the payment is made. The method of calculating the payment is also not clearly explained, with many of the substantive details delegated to CDD staff. Given the complexity of the analysis, Board members questioned whether so many aspects of the requirement can be delegated to CDD staff rather than being spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance. If any new requirements are adopted, Board members emphasized the need for clarity about exactly what will be required and how the requirements will be enforced.

Embodied Energy

Several Board members were supportive of the idea of considering “embodied energy” or “embodied carbon emissions” – referring to the energy consumed and greenhouse gases emitted as a result of the production and transport of building materials – as part of the environmental performance of buildings. Board members cited increasing awareness in recent years of the environmental impacts of embodied energy, particularly in the production of steel, concrete, aluminum, and glass. Some Board members asked that more detailed information about the embodied energy of various types of materials be provided to fully understand the impacts before new requirements are imposed, including materials that might have other environmental benefits such as solar panels and insulation. Some Board members believed that this was a topic area that could be advanced more quickly with more focused study.

Applicability

Several Board members questioned why additional Green Building Requirements should not apply to most residential buildings, since they are also subject to the same development review standards and given the City’s plans to accommodate more housing construction in the future. Board members also noted that in meeting the City’s greenhouse gas emissions goals, the existing housing stock will need to be addressed, and it would be helpful to know more about cumulative citywide greenhouse gas emissions resulting from both new buildings (which are subject to more stringent standards) and existing buildings.

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

12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report on the Post-Operative Animal Care zoning petition, which recommends the adoption of an alternative zoning amendment to effect the proposed change.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Sept 13, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting for your consideration, a Planning Board report on the Post-Operative Animal Care zoning petition, which recommends the adoption of an alternative zoning amendment to effect the proposed change.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

---

Date: Aug 30, 2021
Subject: Post-Operative Animal Care Zoning Petition
Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends adoption of an alternative zoning amendment to effect the proposed change.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

On August 17, 2021, the Planning Board (the “Board”) held a public hearing to discuss the City Council Zoning Petition to amend Section 4.30 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge, Table of Use Regulations, to permit a “Veterinary establishment, kennel, pet shop or similar establishment” as an allowed use in all Residence zoning districts, provided that “no noise or odors are perceptible from adjoining lots” and “the use is restricted to one animal unless specifically increased by the special permit granting authority” (the “Petition”). The Board heard a presentation from City Councillor Marc McGovern and from Katlyn Coveney, who has sought approval to provide care at her home to dogs who are recovering from surgical procedures. The Board also received comments from Community Development Department (CDD) staff.

Board members were generally supportive of enabling the type of at-home services described by Katlyn Coveney. However, Board members expressed several concerns about the specifics of the Petition. Board members did not think it would be appropriate to insert “Veterinary establishment, kennel, pet shop or similar establishment” as a Residential Use within Section 4.31 of the Table of Use Regulations because it would conflict with the “Animal Services Facility” use listed as a Retail or Consumer Service Establishment in Section 4.35 (as recently amended by the City Council). The Council could amend Section 4.35 of the Table of Use Regulations to make an Animal Services Facility an allowed use in Residence Districts; however, Board members noted possible concerns about such a change leading to commercial, non-home-based businesses locating in residential neighborhoods without appropriate controls.

Board members expressed a preference for the approach suggested by CDD staff of allowing home-based animal care as an accessory Home Occupation, which would ensure that it could only take place within the home of the person who is providing the service and that it would not be allowed if it creates objectionable effects that would be incompatible with a residential area. Board members suggested the additional limitation that no more than one animal at a time per day would be cared for on the premises, which is consistent with the type of service being proposed and would prevent a more commercial type of service that would involve multiple animals being brought to a residential location for services throughout the course of a day.

At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt an alternative zoning amendment to amend Paragraph d. of Section 4.21 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit home-based animal care as an accessory Home Occupation provided that no more than one animal per day is cared for on the premises.

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

---

City of Cambridge Community Development Department
Suggested Alternative Zoning Amendment for Home-Based Animal Care

The following text is offered in response to the Planning Board’s recommendation on the Post-Operative Animal Care Zoning Petition.

Amend Section 4.21 of the Zoning Ordinance, Paragraph d., to read as follows:

d. The following Home Occupations and other Home Occupations, provided that they are accessory and incidental to the principal residential use, shall be considered accessory uses, provided also that only residential occupants of the dwelling unit are practicing or employed on the premises at any one time unless otherwise specified below, that all activities take place entirely within a building, and that no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust or other particulate matter, heat, humidity, glare, or other objectionable effects are produced:

(1) The office of a resident physician, dentist, attorney-at-law, architect, landscape architect, engineer, or member of another profession, in which case up to three persons may practice or be employed on the premises at any one time including persons who are not residential occupants but are employed to assist a primary practitioner residing on the premises;

(2) The salon of a properly licensed massage therapist;

(3) The studio of an artist, performing artist, craftsperson, graphic designer, photographer, or similar creative professional; and

(4) A Retail Residential Kitchen permitted to produce Cottage Food Products, as regulated by 105 CMR 590.001(C), as it may be amended; and

(5) The care of a household pet that does not permanently reside at that residence, provided that only one such animal per day is kept on the premises.

13. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of members to the newly formed BIPOC Business Advisory Committee for a term of one-year, effective Sept 1, 2021.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Sept 13, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting for your notification, the appointment of the persons below as members of the BIPOC Business Advisory Committee for a term of one-year, effective Sept 1, 2021.

BIPOC Business Advisory Committee Background

This newly formed Committee will be a sounding board for ideas on strengthening the city’s outreach efforts, information-sharing, business programs and policies, and overall relationship with local BIPOC-owned businesses. It is anticipated that the Committee will meet approximately once a month for 8-12 months, though it may convene more often at critical junctures of the process and is likely to meet an estimated eight to ten times throughout the year.

Erinn Pearson-Breedy (Riverside)
Erinn is a Cambridge resident and owner of Simply Erinn’s Unisex Hair Salon since 2002. She sits on the board of Cambridge Community Center.

Jason Doo (Harvard Square)
Jason is a Mid-Cambridge resident and chef. Jason has helped his own family open and establish restaurants in the region, and most recently volunteered with Project Restore Us helping small and BIPOC restaurants restructure, revitalize, or close during the COVID-19 pandemic. He is in the process of opening his first restaurant, Wusong Road, in Harvard Square.

Samuel Gebru (Riverside)
Samuel is a Cambridge resident and serves as the Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the Black Economic Council of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth’s leading organization advancing the economic interests of Black businesses, organizations, and people. He also serves as the Managing Director of Black Lion Strategies, a boutique social impact consulting firm.

Vicki Gray (Cambridgeport)
Vicki is a Cambridgeport resident and owner of New Chapter Home Improvement, a painting and property maintenance services company since 2013. She also serves on the board of the Center for Women and Enterprise, an organization that provides services to entrepreneurs and business owners in the Greater Boston and New England region.

Angela Hofmann (North. Mass Ave.)
Angela is a Cambridge resident and owner of Nussli 118, a small local vegan food company on Mass. Ave. in North Cambridge. She is also a board member and Treasurer of Cambridge Local First.

Marcus Johnson-Smith (Cambridge Highlands)
Marcus is a Cambridge resident and owner of Fresh Pond Teas and co-owner of KG Collectives Holdings, which is currently in the process of opening a recreational cannabis store in Cambridge. He is a Board Member of the Massachusetts Cannabis Business Association and a former board member of the Cambridge Art Association.

Jaswinder Kaur (Central Square)
Jaswinder is the Business Operations Analyst & Manager for her family’s restaurant India Pavilion, established in 1979 in Central Square.

Dr. Kimberly Massenburg (The Port)
Dr. Massenburg is the Executive Director of the Margaret Fuller House and has over 15 years of non-profit experience in serving diverse communities and program management, development, and evaluation.

Nephataliem McCrary (Central Square)
Nephatliem is owner of Great Eastern Trading Company in Central Square and is a resident of the Wellington-Harrington neighborhood. He is also a twenty year veteran of the Greater Boston music scene.

Allentza Michel (Central Square)
Allentza is founder of Powerful Pathways, an urban planning and policy agency located in a coworking space in Central Square. She is also a social practice artist and most recently taught at the Cambridge Community Art Center.

LaTonya Smith-Winston (Cambridge Highlands)
Tonya is a resident and the CEO/Founder of B.Royal Boutique, an e-commerce brand that also participates in regional pop up market and store opportunities. Her background also includes experience in the banking industry.

Jennie Song (Mid-Cambridge)
Jennie is the owner of Dado Tea, located in Mid-Cambridge since 2002.

Zina Thompson (East Cambridge)
Zina is the owner of Zina’s Hair Salon in East Cambridge since 1998.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

17. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the reappointments of the following members of the Cambridge Health Alliance Board of Trustees, effective July 1, 2021:
3-year terms - Yvette Verdieu, James Henderson, Marian Darlington-Hope, Barbara Guthrie, Katherine Kosinski.
1-year term: Joshua Posner, Alexander White.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Sept 13, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting notification of the reappointments of the following members of the Cambridge Health Alliance Board of Trustees, effective July 1, 2021:

3-year term:

Yvette Verdieu (Somerville) - Yvette Verdieu is a Somerville resident who has served on many boards and committees, including the City of Somerville Human Rights Commission Executive Board, the Somerville Community Corporation Executive Board, and the East Somerville Neighborhood For Change. She is an advocate for new immigrants and ensuring that their voices and concerns are heard. She was named the Community Unsung Heroine by the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women in 2008.

James Henderson (Everett) - Mr. Henderson is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College and a cum laude graduate of Boston College Law School. Jim is principal in an Everett-based sole proprietorship which provides business law advice to select clients and non-legal consulting advice in general and previously served on the Everett Planning Board and the School Building Commission and as Human Resources Director for three Everett mayor’s, including current Mayor Carlo DeMaria.

Marian Darlington-Hope (Cambridge) - Marian Darlington-Hope, a resident of Cambridge, MA, is a Principal at Global Learning Partners, a consulting firm which focuses on the transformative power of learning through dialogue. Ms. Darlington Hope draws upon her over 25 years of experience as a university professor and administrator to help create learning environments and design curriculums which meet her clients' unique needs. Her specific expertise is in teaching adult learners and addressing issues of equity and diversity.

Barbara Guthrie (Cambridge) - Barbara Guthrie, PhD, FAAN, RN, is the Independence Foundation Professor of Nursing at Northeastern University and for seven years, she was the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Yale University School of Nursing (YSN). Prior to accepting the position at Yale University School of Nursing, Dr. Guthrie held a dual appointment at the University of Michigan as an associate professor in the Division of Health Promotion and Risk Reduction and Women Studies.

Katharine Kosinski, MD (Cambridge) - Katharine Kosinski, MD, is a Cambridge, MA, resident who worked at CHA for more than 25 years, most recently as Chief of Pathology. Under her leadership, the CHA laboratory grew from one location to a three-site laboratory with timely and high quality services, successfully passing 13 College of American Pathologist inspections with full accreditation.

1-year term:

Joshua Posner, Chair (Cambridge) - Joshua Posner has developed affordable housing over 25 years in a wide variety of settings in New England and other parts of the United States. Mr. Posner founded Rising Tide Development LLC in 2001 to focus on the creation of new small-scale, mixed-income residential communities in Massachusetts. Prior to Rising Tide Development, Mr. Posner played a number of senior roles over 12 years at The Community Builders, a leading regional and national nonprofit developer of affordable housing. He has served as the Board Chair for the Cambridge Health Alliance for the past three years. He is being recommended to be reappointed as Board Chair for July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. This will be his last year as Board Chair as he reaches a term limit on June 30, 2022

Alexander White, MD, (Medical Staff) - Alex White, MD is the Chief of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep, and has been with CHA since 2015. Prior to joining CHA in August 2015, Dr. White was the Chief Quality Officer (CQO) at New England Sinai Hospital and, subsequently Chief Medical Officer (Vice President for Medical Affairs) at Steward Carney Hospital.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

CHARTER RIGHT
1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments on how the City can change practices such that all projects will treat trees as essential infrastructure. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Toomey in Council Aug 2, 2021]
Order Adopted 7-1-1 (Toomey - NO; Simmons - ABSENT)

O-6     Aug 2, 2021  Charter Right - Toomey
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: Tree canopy is an essential part of urban infrastructure because of its positive impact on heat islands, air quality and psychological well-being cannot be overlooked; and
WHEREAS: The lack of tree canopy is especially acute in low- and moderate-income communities, and neighborhoods where many Black and Brown people, immigrants and other underserved community members reside, including in Cambridge, constituting an environmental injustice; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge is continuing to lose a large number of trees in a range of projects, including municipal and private developments, affordable housing projects, and individual residences; and
WHEREAS: After years of planning, a report was recently released on the Tobin Montessori and Vassal Lane Upper School regarding the removal of 94 of the existing 129 trees on the site; and
WHEREAS: The report included the planned removal of three oak trees that are well outside the footprint of the building plans on the west side of the property, which are not included on the city’s list of trees to be removed due to decline, despite the fact that those three trees alone account for 25% of the total canopy loss; and
WHEREAS: The City Council recently ordained the Tree Protection Ordinance with a specific goal to not destroy significant trees; and
WHEREAS: If Cambridge is going to be in a position to fight the impending climate crisis, we must do everything we can to preserve our tree canopy, and the City must lead by example and treat trees as essential infrastructure on all City property; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with all relevant City departments on how the City can change practices such that all projects will treat trees as essential infrastructure and will go out of its way to prevent the removal of significant trees on City property and all property whose development the city can influence; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council with any recommendations or proposals for City staff in a timely manner.

11. Congratulations to Christine Elow on being named Acting Commissioner for the Cambridge Police Department.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan
Adopted as Amended 9-0

R-11     Sept 13, 2021  Amended
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN

WHEREAS: Christine Elow has officially been named as Acting Commissioner of the Cambridge Police Department, effective August 21, 2021, making history as the first woman to ever serve in this capacity in the City of Cambridge; and

WHEREAS: Acting Commissioner Elow first joined the Cambridge Police Department in 1995, after having served in the U.S. Navy for four years, and over the course of her career she has overseen the Professional Standards Unit – where she was responsible for receiving, processing, and investigating complaints made against members of the Department – and later she served as Deputy Superintendent for Day Patrol and Community Services; and

WHEREAS: Acting Commissioner Elow is a strong proponent of community-driven policing, juvenile justice issues, procedural justice, police training and innovative hiring practices, she holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice Administration from Curry College, and a Master’s Degree from the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security Program; and

WHEREAS: Throughout her years of service, Acting Commissioner Elow has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to keeping the people of Cambridge safe while treating all before her with compassion, respect, and fairness, and the City of Cambridge is truly well-served as she assumes this new role; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record congratulating Christine Elow for being named Acting Commissioner of the Cambridge Police Department; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to Acting Commissioner Christine Elow on behalf of the entire City Council.

COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from City Clerk, Anthony I. Wilson, transmitting communications from Tanya Ford, Executive Director of the Cambridge Election Commission regarding support and in opposition of the proposed charter amendments to be included in a mailing to voters prior to the Nov 2, 2021 Municipal Election.
Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toomey - PRESENT)

Sept 13, 2021
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In accordance with Chapter 630 of the Acts of 1989, please find attached requests from the Board of Election Commissioners for arguments in support and in opposition of the proposed charter amendments to be included in a mailing to voters prior to the November 2, 2021 Municipal Election, received from Tanya Ford, Executive Director of the Cambridge Election Commission.

SUMMARY OF BALLOT QUESTIONS PREPARED BY NANCY E. GLOWA, CITY SOLICITOR

The City Council has proposed making three changes to the City’s Plan E Charter, which is the law that prescribes the structure of the Cambridge government. The Charter sets forth the powers of the City Council and the City Manager.

The City Council voted on June 28, 2021 that three charter amendments shall be submitted to the voters at the election on November 2, 2021 in the following form:

1. Should amendments to the City’s Plan E Charter, Section 105 of Chapter 43, be made 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 ___

Summary of proposal: The City Council’s first proposed change would limit the City Manager’s existing Charter power to make appointments to the City’s many boards and commissions by adding a requirement to the Charter that each appointment and re-appointment by the City Manager to boards and commissions be subject to approval by a majority vote of the City Council. Just a few examples of the boards and commissions that this change would affect are: the Planning Board, the Board of Zoning Appeal, the Historical Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Conservation Commission.

The City Manager’s proposed appointments and re-appointments would take effect without City Council approval if the City Council fails to act by either approving or rejecting a proposed appointment or reappointment within 60 days.

2. Should amendments to the City’s Plan E Charter be made providing for the City Council to establish a process for an annual review of the City Manager’s performance? YES ___ NO ___

Summary of proposal: The City Council’s second proposed change to the City Charter would require that the City Council enact an ordinance that would require an annual written review of the City Manager’s performance. Pursuant to the existing Charter, the City Council is the hiring and firing authority of the City Manager, but is not required to prepare an annual written performance review of the City Manager. If this Charter change is adopted, the City Council would be required to establish a process by ordinance that would prescribe the manner by which the City Council would be required to perform an annual written performance review of the City Manager.

3. Should amendments to the City’s Plan E Charter be made 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 ___

Summary of proposal: The City Council’s third proposed change to the City Charter would require that the City Council enact an ordinance that provides for a review of the Charter by a committee of City voters, none of whom hold elective office, every ten years, beginning in 2022. The committee appointed would file a report with the City Council within one year of its appointment, unless the City Council extends the one-year period, recommending any changes to the Charter which the committee deems necessary or desirable. The committee would not have the authority to actually make the Charter changes it might propose. Action on any proposed Charter changes would only be taken subject to Massachusetts law governing how Charter changes may be enacted.

2. A communication was received from City Clerk, Anthony I. Wilson, transmitting a memorandum regarding the current three-year term as City Clerk expiring on May 31, 2022.
Placed on File 8-1 (Carlone - NO)

Sept 2, 2021

Dear City Council,

My current three-year term as City Clerk will expire on May 31, 2022 and I will not be seeking another term. As City Clerk I am proud to have helped citizens and legislators with such varied tasks as starting a business, acquiring vital records, and enacting local legislation. I have spent a combined six years in the role of City Clerk for the 3rd and 4th largest cities in Massachusetts and I believe it is time to return to the practice of law.

It has been a pleasure to work with the staff in my office, the City Manager’s Office, and other City departments. They have always proven to be hardworking, collaborative, and thoughtful. I have enjoyed my time with the Council as well. I have been able to work with each Councillor as you have worked passionately for your constituents and the betterment of the City as a whole.

With your help and that of many others, the City Clerk’s office remained open and operational throughout the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. We have improved office functions through the use of customer kiosks, digital applications and simplified record keeping. There remain several projects in progress, like digitizing historical records and new agenda software. I believe that we can make substantial progress on these projects during the remainder of my term.

I hope that by giving you this information now, you will have sufficient time to find the next City Clerk to serve this wonderful City.

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

3. A communication was received from Councillor Zondervan, transmitting an explanation of the proposed amendments to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance.
Placed on File 9-0

To the members of the City Council:

As discussed at the September 9, 2021 Ordinance Committee hearing, on tonight’s agenda you will find amendments to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance as well as an emergency declaration allowing us to adopt them at the September 13, 2021 regular meeting. The emergency declaration is a necessary step to extend the existing preference period for Economic Empowerment applicants before the current expiration date of September 23, 2021. This language was drafted based on consensus reached in the Ordinance Committee and with assistance from the Law Department.

Here is a quick summary of the proposed amendments:

1. Updates the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance to encompass delivery and courier businesses. You will recall that council passed zoning for delivery/courier operations last spring, but those businesses will not be able to obtain a Cannabis Business Permit until this Ordinance is also updated to include them.

2. Adds an additional preference period for delivery/courier businesses. The state has already implemented a 3-year preference period for those businesses and these amendments would add an additional year on top of that in Cambridge.

3. Extends Cambridge's existing local preference period for Economic Empowerment applicants opening retail stores. The current proposal extends the period by one additional year as was the sense of the Ordinance Committee at the September 9, 2021 hearing.

4. Creates a new one year preference period for all other group A applicants, including Social Equity (SE) applicants for the first time. As you know, the existing preference period only applies to Economic Empowerment (EE) applicants. We have heard important feedback that it is time to include SE applicants as part of this extension, including at the Ordinance Committee hearing, and many EE applicants currently in the pipeline who benefitted from the original preference period are supportive of allowing SE applicants to enter the market.

Sincerely,
Quinton Y. Zondervan
Cambridge City Councillor

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

To: Cambridge City Council
From: Sumbul Siddiqui, Mayor
Date: Sept 9th, 2021
Subject: Communicating information from the School Committee

To the Honorable, the City Council:

Today we welcomed students, families, teachers, and staff back to school for the first day of the year!

Two School Committee meetings were held in August. The first was a Regular Meeting held on August 3rd and the second was a Special Meeting held on August 31st.

On August 3rd, the School Committee approved the key updates to the CPS COVID-19 Safety and Facilities Manual, including the following:

• Masks are required indoors for all staff and students for the first semester. We will revisit this policy no later than January.

• COVID-19 vaccinations are not required for students. Proof of full vaccination are required for those participating in CPS-related travel, interns, student teachers, volunteers, and chaperones.

• 3 feet of physical distancing is required only when masks are off or for higher respiration activities.

• Large community gatherings may take place outdoors and with food.

• Walking field trips and field trips requiring a bus ride of 1 hour or less are permitted.

• Meals must take place outdoors (weather permitting) or indoors with 3 feet distance between students facing in one direction. In the case of inclement, schools using indoor spaces for meals will follow the CPS protocols: maintain at least 3 feet of distance, students face in the same direction, and ventilation maximized using air filters and open windows.

On August 31st, the School Committee approved a Recommendation for the School Committee and the CPS Administration to enter into impact bargaining with all CPS collective bargaining units to implement mandatory COVID-19 vaccine requirements for all staff who are members of an organized bargaining unit. Based on recent surveys, most CPS staff are already vaccinated.

Tomorrow, Sept 10th at 1pm, a Special Meeting of the School Committee will be held for the purpose of discussing roles and responsibilities, developing agreements for communication and engagement between the School Committee and Superintendent, and developing a timeline for mutually acceptable goals and objectives, including measurable outcomes for the 2021-2022 school year.

Our next regular meeting will be held on Sept 21st at 6pm.

Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions, suggestions, or concerns.

Respectfully,
Mayor Siddiqui

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Sept 13, 2021
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request from Jennifer Dever Wood for a street corner dedication at the corner of 159 Lakeview Avenue at Huron Avenue in honor of John and Carol Donaghy; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward this order to the Dedication Committee for their review and approval.

O-2     Sept 13, 2021
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The process for dedicating street corners, benches, and other City landmarks in honor of notable individuals currently requires that members of the public ask a City Councillor to formally sponsor a dedication request at a City Council meeting, which, if approved by the City Council, is then forwarded to the Dedication Committee for further review and ultimate approval or rejection; and
WHEREAS: The criteria used by the Dedication Committee to determine whether or not to approve a dedication request is not shared with those making the request until after the policy order has been approved and forwarded to the Dedication Committee; and
WHEREAS: That fact has occasionally led to confusing situations where those making the dedication requests have mistakenly believed that, since their request was favorably voted upon by the City Council, the request has therefore been approved, when in fact there are additional steps in this process and final approval is not a foregone conclusion; and
WHEREAS: For the sake of greater clarity and transparency in this process, it would be helpful to devote a section of the City Council website to clearly outline the various steps of the dedication request process, and to post the criteria by which these requests are determined by the Dedication Committee; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to create a new section on the City Council’s webpage devoted to clearly outlining the various steps of the dedication request process, to post the criteria by which these requests are determined by the Dedication Committee, and to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner.

O-3     Sept 13, 2021
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: It has recently come to the City Council’s attention of at least one instance in which an individual has obtained residential parking permits for perhaps ten vehicles, all of which are parked on the residential streets near this individual’s home and all of which are primarily utilized not for this individual’s personal use, but instead for the purpose of being rented out (in a concept similar to the peer-to-peer car share model) as a business enterprise; and
WHEREAS: Under existing City parking guidelines, this is an allowable use of the residential parking permit program, as there are currently no limits placed upon the number of vehicles a Cambridge resident can obtain a residential parking permit for, nor are there any rules prohibiting residential parking permits from being issued to vehicles that are solely or primarily utilized for commercial purposes; and
WHEREAS: While commercial ventures such as this may technically adhere to the rules governing our residential parking program, they nonetheless violate the spirit of a program that is intended to provide an opportunity for residents who own vehicles for their personal use to secure a residential parking space reasonably close to where they reside; and
WHEREAS: Due to the continual scarcity of residential parking in Cambridge, it would be appropriate for the City to review the policies governing our residential parking permit program to determine whether, and how, the language for this program might be modified to limit the issuance of residential parking permits to vehicles that are primarily utilized for personal, non-commercial use, with reasonable exceptions being made for specific situations in which the permit holder utilizes their vehicle for business purposes (such as for individuals who are employed as food delivery drivers, or who drive for companies such as Uber or Lyft); now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Director of the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department and the City Solicitor to review the City’s residential parking permit program to determine whether the criteria for this program can be modified to speak to the above-referenced concerns, to develop recommendations that speak to these modifications, and to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner.

O-4     Sept 13, 2021  Amended
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: A number of Cambridge residents have recently voiced strong concerns about the City’s ongoing rat, rodent, and pest mitigation efforts, charging that the City’s strategies have been ineffective due to the lack of sufficient incentives for individuals to comply with City guidelines, and due to the lack of sufficient penalties for those who do not comply with City guidelines, which are all part of the necessary collective effort to tame the ongoing rodent conundrum; and
WHEREAS: The City’s website, which has a page devoted to rodent control, lists a variety of things that residents can do to make their property less inviting to rodents, such as urging people to “bring trash and compost barrels to the curb as close to pick-up time as possible” and to “Make sure you have enough trash barrels with tight lids to hold trash between pickups …[and]…if you have tenants, insist that they use the trash barrels”; and
WHEREAS: On that same page, it is written that “Rats are a community problem, but the solution is found on each property,” and that people should “talk with your neighbors [and]…share what you learned about rat control and ask everyone around you to help,” yet there is no mention made as to whether the City might impose any penalties to those who flagrantly disregard their portion of this effort; and
WHEREAS: The City cannot solely be responsible for deploying resources to each individual property where a rodent infestation has been reported, yet it must be recognized that the municipal government does play a role in allowing for the kinds of conditions that allow for rodent activity to proliferate, such as the greenlighting of numerous large construction projects across the community (as construction projects tend to increase the likelihood of rodent activity); and
WHEREAS: While the local government has worked to tackle this issue in recent years, it is clear that the City must review whether the efforts already made have achieved the desired results, and the City must ultimately make a more aggressive, concerted effort in working with residents across the community to collaboratively resolve this issue; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Department of Public Works, the Department of Public Health, and other appropriate departments to designate one individual to serve as the point of contact for rat and rodent complaints and information, and to serve as the general liaison on this matter to both the public and to the City Council; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City departments to draft a report on the City’s rodent and pest control efforts since February 2020, to outline what metrics are being used to determine the effectiveness of these efforts, and to issue recommendations as to whether increasing the budget for these efforts, as well as creating new incentives and penalties to ensure community compliance with regulations around rodent control, would lead to a greater level of success in resolving this issue; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner.

O-5     Sept 13, 2021
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Cambridge dog parks are heavily used; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge dog parks close at “dusk,” which varies depending on the time of year; and
WHEREAS: In the Fall and Winter, dusk can be as early as 4:00 p.m., meaning that dog owners cannot use dog parks after returning home from work; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the appropriate city departments on the feasibility of installing lights at all Cambridge dog parks and report back to the City Council.

O-6     Sept 13, 2021
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Residents of Inman Street have raised concerns regarding cars speeding; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge has Vision Zero initiative to make our streets safe; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department regarding the feasibility of installing speed bumps on Inman Street.

O-7     Sept 13, 2021
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
ORDERED: That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request for a suitable dedication for William “Bill” Sage; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward this order to the Dedication Committee for their review and approval.

O-8     Sept 13, 2021
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: In August 2021, the Biden Administration ended the longest war in American history by pulling American troops out of Afghanistan; and
WHEREAS: This decision has resulted in thousands of Afghan residents fleeing Afghanistan for their safety; and
WHEREAS: Governor Baker has indicated that Massachusetts is willing to accept Afghan refugees; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge has prided itself on being a welcoming community to people from around the World; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record as being willing to work with the Governor’s Office and any non-profits in helping to settle Afghan refugees in Cambridge should it be needed.

O-9     Sept 13, 2021
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: As of February 2021, 10.75% of Cambridge households enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is an 18.28% increase from 2019; and
WHEREAS: Since 2016, approximately 45% of Cambridge Public Schools students register for the free or reduced lunch programs each year, showing that food insecurity is a significant issue in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: To address food insecurity in Boston, the City developed the “Raised Beds Program,” which partnered with local farms and gardeners to provide residents and community organizations with raised garden beds to grow their own food, while simultaneously addressing access to affordable, sustainable, and healthy food; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge City Growers has done work to address food insecurity through their community fridge, seeds and seedlings distribution, peer mentor support, and raised beds across the City, and Green Cambridge has helped build communal gardens and urban farms; and
WHEREAS: Since many Cambridge families and children are experiencing food insecurity at higher levels due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Cambridge has an obligation to further alleviate food insecurity, promote quality and sustainable food sources, host educational workshops, and provide additional green space for communities in need; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Cambridge Community Development Department, Cambridge Department of Human Service Programs, Department of Public Works, local non-profit organizations, Cambridge businesses dedicated to locally sourced produce, farmers, and resident gardeners to study the feasibility of spending Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to address food insecurity by installing raised garden beds throughout Cambridge and providing free, fresh, locally-grown food for residents in need; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-10     Sept 13, 2021
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: National Recovery Month is a national observance held every September to raise awareness on how substance use treatment and mental health services can enable those with substance use disorders to live healthy and rewarding lives; and
WHEREAS: National Recovery Month celebrates the gains made by those in recovery, just as we celebrate improvements made by those who are managing other health conditions; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge and the Cambridge Public Health Department are in full support of National Recovery Month and believe in the importance of mental health and recovery programs for those struggling from addiction; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge continues to raise awareness about mental health and physical health while also providing solutions that sustain long-term recoveries; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record recognizing September, 2021 as Recovery Awareness Month in the City of Cambridge; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to light up City Hall purple for the week of September 20, 2021, in honor of National Recovery Month.

O-11     Sept 13, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
WHEREAS: The history of the United States, starting with settler colonialism and genocide against the Native people, continuing with chattel slavery of African people, and continuing past the Civil War with Jim Crow, housing discrimination, mass incarceration and the war on drugs, is animated by a white supremacist ideology and anti-Black racism that continues to manifest in our society as disparate outcomes by race in almost any statistic measured, including health and wealth, and continues to be perpetuated through our laws, governments, economy and educational systems, including here in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: Our deepening housing unaffordability crisis which is continuing to cause gentrification (influx of high-income, mostly white residents) and displacement (outflux of low-income, including many Black and Brown, residents) has its roots in the active discrimination against African people in the housing market in the 20th century, including the so-called practice of “red lining”; and, leading to multigenerational poverty and a wealth disparity documented in a 2015 study with an average net worth of $8 for Blacks and $247,000 for whites in the city of Boston; and
WHEREAS: While financial reparations for slavery will primarily have to come from the federal government, Cambridge has the opportunity to advance the conversation locally and begin implementing forms of reparations and restitution that can point the way forward for our nation; and
WHEREAS: Other communities are beginning to explore these topics by forming departments, commissions and committees, including the Racial Equity and Social Justice Committee in Montgomery County, Maryland, the Boston Public Health Commission, City of Oakland, CA’s Department of Race and Equity, Amherst, MA’s fund for reparations, and Evanston, IL ’s effort; and
WHEREAS: No existing department or commission is currently tasked with examining these issues, including conducting research, engaging the community, and providing policy guidance, leading to a lack of progress and lack of action from City Government on issues of racial equity and justice; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with all relevant City departments, the City Council, the Black community, and the general public in Cambridge to implement the attached proposal to establish a Commission of Racial Justice and Equity.

Cambridge Racial Justice and Equity Commission

Executive Summary

The Commission will examine all aspects of government, society, economy and environment in light of historic, systemic, and ongoing racial injustice and inequity in our city. Within the first year the commission will report on at least the following:

1. Implementation of policy order 2021 #141 calling for a percentage of revenue from local cannabis sales, as well as applying funding from other sources, towards reparations for slavery, and implementation of policy order 2021 #166 calling for a percentage of revenue from local cannabis sales to be applied towards restitution for the war on drugs, and redress for other racially unjust policies.

2. Proposals for immediate changes to any aspects of city government that would likely lead to improved racial justice and equity outcomes, based on research and data, including but not limited to housing, education, economic opportunity, healthcare, mental health, crisis response, and environmental justice.

3. Identify future areas of work, including but not limited to: additional sources of revenues for reparations for slavery and land theft, additional acknowledgments of harm and apologies for past and ongoing transgression, names (of buildings, streets, neighborhoods, schools), climate change impacts and any other aspects of life that can and should be addresses from a racial justice and equity lens.

The Commission will also track and respond to state and federal efforts, such as H.R. 40, which was recently moved out of the House Judiciary Committee in Congress.

Structure

The commission shall at its inception have not less than one full-time staff person hired by the city. The commission shall further have appointed commissioners who represent different areas of knowledge, including but not limited to:

• Economic Opportunity

• Housing

• Education

• Public Safety/Policing

• Mental Health

• Public Health

• Medicine

• Urban Agriculture

• Recreation

• Finance

• Environmental Justice

• Climate Change Impacts

• Transit Equity

The commission shall pay a stipend of $100/hour for regular meeting attendance to all Commissioners. Any work done in addition to meeting attendance shall be compensated through a contract with the city.

Commissioners will serve for 1-year terms, with no more than 2 consecutive terms served.

A majority of the Commissioners shall be women or non-male identifying, and a majority of the Commissioners shall be people who identify as Black, with the remainder having a balance of representatives of other marginalized communities, including Asian, Native American, Hispanic.

The majority of Commissioners shall be current or former Cambridge residents. Relevant city departments will select representatives to coordinate with the commission, but city staff shall not be commissioners.

Timeline and Implementation

The commission shall be seated in the fall of 2021 and begin regular meetings. Staff will be hired as soon as possible, and the first order of business shall be taken up regarding cannabis revenues and a comprehensive audit of racism embedded in our laws, policies, departments and structures of government and the economy.

History and Motivation

Racial injustice in the U.S. goes back not just to the founding of the United States but to the very beginnings of colonization of the American landmass by European people, beginning with the subjugation and displacement of Indigenous People, and continuing with the abduction of African People as slaves, and the mistreatment of Asian immigrants and others denied access to full participation in American society.

While modern American society has abolished chatel slavery and outlawed some forms of overt racism, people of African, Indigenous and non-European descent continue to be harmed by racist policies and ideas that perpetuate and amplify both historical and new inequities.

By establishing this commission and fully acknowledging the magnitude of harm that is being done, we create opportunities to systemically and radically eradicate racist policies and ideas from our lives and from our future.

Education and Awareness

Because racism is active literally everywhere in our society, it can seem daunting and overwhelming and even intractable. However, the only true limit to what we can accomplish is the depth of our commitment to accomplishing it. While we cannot eradicate racism and inequality everywhere all at once, we can identify specific aspects of racism and inequality to attack and continue to collect and focus resources on different areas of our society and government, improving the lives of people who have for too long been ignored, marginalized and oppressed.

To that end the commission will seek to educate the government and the people of Cambridge on these issues of racial justice and equity, empowering more and more people to take right action in order to reduce harm, using both formal and informal means of education.

Resources and Growth

The commission is neither the beginning nor the end of our reckoning with racism and inequality. There are many ongoing efforts in our city that the commission can strengthen and drive resources towards, and there are many areas of effort that will require their own organizational structures, funding and staffing to succeed. The commission's purpose is to identify these areas and steer resources towards them, not to solve every problem it sees by itself. The intent is to put the full power and resources of the government behind these efforts to maximize success and produce ongoing positive outcomes.

As these efforts succeed, they will empower more and more people and organizations to make change, until anti-racism and equity work become as routine and thorough as food production or electricity generation: a normal part of what we do every day to nurture and sustain our civilization.

O-12     Sept 13, 2021  Amended
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: Pursuant to Chapter 630 of the Acts of 1989, the Election Commission invited the City Council to submit a consolidated argument in support of the proposed charter amendments to be included in a mailing to voters prior to the November 2, 2021, Municipal Election; now therefore be it
ORDERED: In response to the Election Commission request for a summary argument, that the City Council authorize Mayor Siddiqui, and Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon, and Councillor Zondervan to submit language to the Election Commission before the deadline on September 20, 2021.

O-13     Sept 13, 2021  Amended (check language)
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The existing preference period for Economic Empowerment applicants established in the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance expires on September 23, 2021; and
ORDERED: That the City Council hereby declares that there is an emergency involving the health and safety of the people of Cambridge or their property, pursuant to G.L. c.43, §20 that necessitates the passage through all stages of ordination on this day; and be it further
WHEREAS: That the City Council finds that the adoption of the amendment to Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 5.50 entitled Cannabis Business Permitting to extend and amend the provisions relating to the permitting preference period in Section 5.50.040 and to add Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishments and Cannabis Courtier Establishment throughout Chapter 5.50 is an emergency involving the health and safety of the people of Cambridge or their property, pursuant to G.L. c.43, §20; and
ORDERED: The City Council in recognition of the emergency waives the advertising provisions of Section 1.12.030 (b) of the Ordinances of the City of Cambridge; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the ordinances of the City of Cambridge be amended as follows:

5.50.010 Purpose

This ordinance is intended to create a separate local permitting requirement for Cannabis Retail Store, Cannabis Cultivator, Cannabis Product Manufacturer, Cannabis Microbusiness, Cannabis Courier Establishment, Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishment, or any other Cannabis Business as defined herein and/or Cannabis Transporter (collectively "Cannabis Business") applicants to certify compliance with certain conditions in the public interest prior to being permitted to operate a Cannabis Business in the City. The City deems it to be in the public interest to give initial permitting preferences for Cannabis Businesses to Priority Applicants, as defined herein.

5.50.020. Definitions

“Cannabis Business.” A Cannabis Retail Store, Cannabis Cultivator, Cannabis Product Manufacturer, Cannabis Microbusiness, Cannabis Courier Establishment, Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishment, and/or Cannabis Transporter or any other entity licensed by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission to produce, transport or sell marijuana in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

“Cannabis Cultivator.” An entity licensed by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission as a Marijuana Cultivator to cultivate, process and package cannabis or marijuana, and to transfer cannabis or marijuana to other cannabis or marijuana establishments, but not to consumers. A craft marijuana cooperative as defined by state regulation is a type of Cannabis Cultivatoris a type if Marijuana Cultivator, pursuant to 935 CMR 500.000.

“Cannabis Product Manufacturer.” An entity licensed by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission as a Marijuana Product Manufacturer to obtain, manufacture, process and package cannabis or marijuana products and to transfer these products to other cannabis or marijuana establishments, but not to consumers.

“Cannabis Retail Store.” An establishment authorized to sell or otherwise transfer cannabis or marijuana products to consumers for use off the premises, but not to cultivate, manufacture, process, or package cannabis or marijuana products, in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations. A Cannabis Retail Store may be licensed to operate as a Cannabis or Marijuana Retailer or registered as a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center, also known as a Registered Marijuana Dispensary (hereafter "RMD"), or both, in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations.

“Cannabis Courier Establishment.” An establishment licensed as a Marijuana Courier by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission that is authorized to operate pursuant to that license, including to deliver cannabis or marijuana products, accessories and branded goods from a Cannabis Retail Store to consumers, in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations, but not authorized to sell cannabis or marijuana products directly to consumers.

“Cannabis Transporter.” An entity, not otherwise licensed by the Cannabis Control Commission, that is licensed to purchase, obtain, and possess cannabis or marijuana, or cannabis or marijuana products, solely for the purpose of transporting, temporarily storing, selling and distributing them to cannabis establishments, not for selling to consumers. Local Sales Taxes. Taxes imposed by the City upon the sale or transfer of marijuana or marijuana products by a Cannabis Retail Store pursuant to Section 3 of M.G.L. Chapter 64N."

“Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishment.” An establishment licensed as a Marijuana Delivery Operator by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission and authorized to purchase at wholesale and warehouse on the site cannabis or marijuana products acquired from a Cannabis Cultivator, Cannabis Product Manufacturer, Cannabis Microbusiness or Craft Marijuana Cooperative, and to sell and deliver cannabis or marijuana products, accessories and branded goods directly to consumers in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations, but not authorized to repackage cannabis or marijuana products or to sell cannabis or marijuana products to consumers on-site.

“Cannabis Microbusiness.” A co‐located Cannabis or Marijuana Establishment that can be either a Tier 1 Marijuana Cultivator or a Product Manufacturer or both, pursuant to 935 CMR 500.00, in compliance with the operating procedures for each license and, if in receipt of a Delivery Endorsement issued by the Cannabis Control Commission, may deliver Cannabis or Cannabis Products produced at the licensed location directly to Consumers in compliance with established regulatory requirements for retail sale as it relates to delivery. A Microbusiness that is a Cannabis Marijuana Product Manufacturer may purchase no more than 2,000 pounds of marijuana per year from other Cannabis or Marijuana Establishments, pursuant to 935 CMR 500.000.

“Priority Applicant.” A person, corporation, or other legal entity applying for a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter to operate in the City who is:

A. Group A Priority Applicant. An Economic Empowerment Applicant certified as such by the Commonwealth's Cannabis Control Commission; or a Social Equity Program Applicant certified as such by the Commonwealth's Cannabis Control Commission who is also a Cambridge resident and has been for at least the previous three years; or Women or Minority Owned business as certified by the Commonwealth and /or by the City; or a Cambridge resident for at least the three previous years prior to application earning less than fifty percent (50%) of Area Median Income (AMI) in the three previous tax years prior to application --to be known as Group A Priority Applicants.

B. Group B Priority Applicant. An RMD within the City that was licensed or registered by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health not later than July 1, 2017 to sell cannabis products in a Cannabis Retail Store pursuant to the Commonwealth's medical use of marijuana laws, which seeks to operate as a licensed marijuana retailer pursuant to the Commonwealth's adult use of marijuana laws - to be known as Group B Priority Applicants. Those who qualify as Group B Priority Applicants cannot also qualify as a Group A Priority Applicant.

5.50.030 Applicability

This Chapter shall apply to any proposed Cannabis Business Cultivator, Cannabis Product Manufacturer, Cannabis Retail Store, Cannabis Courier Establishment, Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishment or Cannabis Transporter that is seeking licensure from the Cannabis Control Commission on or after the effective date of this Chapter. This Chapter shall not apply to RMDs that have already been permitted in the City and are not seeking licensure as a Cannabis Retail Store for retail cannabis sales prior to the effective date of this Chapter ("Existing RMD").

5.50.040 Permitting Preferences for Priority Applicants

The City shall issue a Cannabis Business Permit pursuant to this Chapter only to Priority Applicants. For the first two three years after the Effective Date of this Chapter as stated in section 5.50.100 below. The City shall issue a Cannabis Business Permit to operate a Cannabis Retail Store only to Group A Priority Applicants who are Economic Empowerment Applicants certified as such by the Commonwealth's Cannabis Control Commission. The effect of this provision is to extend the preference period for Economic Empowerment Applicants from two years to three years, and to provide a one year preference period for all other Group A Priority Applicants to run concurrently with the third year of the preference period for Economic Empowerment Applicants.

For the first year after the expiration of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission’s exclusivity period for Marijuana Courier Licenses and Marijuana Delivery Operator Licenses, as set forth in 935 CMR 500.050(10) and (11), the City shall issue a Cannabis Business Permit for a Cannabis Courier Establishment or Cannabis Delivery Operator Establishment only to Group A Priority Applicants.

The Council shall review this provision of the ordinance no later than September 1, 2022.

5.50.050 Permitting Requirements

A. In order to obtain a Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter, an applicant must certify that:

1. It will comply with employee pay standards set out in the City's Living Wage Ordinance;

2. It will hire at least 51% of minority, women and/or veterans as employees;

3. If applicant has a Board of Directors, the board makeup will be at least 51% minority, women and/or veterans;

4. It consents to unannounced, periodic compliance inspections by City officials of its Cannabis Business, including any Cannabis Business activities it conducts off-site;

5. It will comply with all State and local laws and regulations regarding its Cannabis Business operations; 6. No person under the minimum legal sales age shall be permitted to enter the Cannabis Business site unless such person possesses a state-issued registration card demonstrating that the person is a registered qualifying medical marijuana (cannabis) patient and the Cannabis Business site is, or is co-located with, an RMD;

7. It will work with the Cambridge Public Health Department to create and distribute educational materials to its customers as directed by the Cambridge Public Health Department;

8. It will sell only cannabis and cannabis accessories, and not other products, including tobacco products or alcoholic beverages of any kind;

9. It will comply with directives of the Police Commissioner and of the Director of Traffic Parking and Transportation, or their designees, regarding traffic measures to be taken at and near the Cannabis Business site;

10. It has received a special permit from the Planning Board for its Cannabis Business and has entered into a Host Community Agreement with the City through the City Manager's Office; and

11. It is a business in good standing with no outstanding federal, state or local investigations or judgments pending against it.

B. No discretionary permit conditions may be imposed by the permit issuing authority pursuant to this Chapter.

C. A Cannabis Business permit shall be valid only for the applicant to which the Cannabis Business permit was issued, and only for the use and for the site approved in the permit. A proposed change of controlling ownership change of use, or change of site shall require a new Cannabis Business permit. As part of the Cannabis Business permit application process, the City shall require the applicant to disclose all individuals and legal entities who have a beneficial interest in the applicant’s business.

D. A Cannabis Business that is licensed to conduct cannabis delivery shall submit an Operations and Logistics Plan for approval by the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and Cambridge Police Department annually prior to issuance and renewal pursuant to Section 5.50.070 below.

5.50.060 Permitting Procedure

This Chapter shall be administered by the City’s Inspectional Services Department, except that Priority Applicant status shall be certified by the Director of the Economic Development Division of the Community Development Department. Applications for Cannabis Business permits shall be obtained from and submitted to the Inspectional Services Department. If permit applications are properly completed and certified, and the conditions of this Chapter are met, the Commissioner of Inspectional Services (the "Commissioner") shall issue a Cannabis Business permit to the applicant. No public hearing process on individual applications shall be conducted. A Host Community Agreement shall be negotiated with the City Manager.

5.50.070 Permit Expiration and Renewal

The Cannabis Business permit issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be subject to renewal annually. If the applicant fails to timely renew or fails to meet the requirements of this Chapter at the time of each renewal, including the Permitting Requirements in section 5.50.050 above, the Cannabis Business permit issued hereunder shall expire. A Cannabis Business permit will not be renewed if the permit holder has failed to pay all fines issued pursuant to this Chapter.

5.50.080 Enforcement

A. Failure to comply with this Chapter, including a failure to maintain the status of a Priority Applicant, failure to obtain or to comply with the provisions of a Planning Board special permit or State license to operate a Cannabis Business, or failure to comply with any applicable laws, may result in revocation by the City, through the Commissioner, of the Cannabis Business permit granted pursuant to this Chapter.

Failure to meet the annual Cannabis Business permit renewal requirements will result in the expiration of the Cannabis Business permit. If a permit holder's State license is revoked, then the Cannabis Business permit issued by the City shall be revoked. A Cannabis Business permit may be revoked or not renewed if the permit holder has sold a cannabis product to a person under the minimum legal sales age three times or more, or if the permit holder has failed to pay to the City all outstanding fines issued pursuant to this Chapter.

B. An applicant must cease to operate if it does not hold and maintain a valid Cannabis Business permit pursuant to this Chapter. Prior to revoking a Cannabis Business permit issued hereunder, the Commissioner will notify the Cannabis Business permit holder in writing and allow the Cannabis Business permit holder at least fourteen (14) days to submit written information to the Commissioner establishing that the Cannabis Business permit holder is in compliance with the terms of this Chapter. The Commissioner shall make a final determination on the Cannabis Business permit expiration or revocation thereafter. If a permit holder requests, the Commissioner in his discretion may hold a hearing before deciding whether to revoke a Cannabis Business permit.

C. Any violation of this Chapter by a permit holder shall be subject to a fine of up to $300 for each violation. Each day a violation exists shall constitute a separate violation.

D. Fines pursuant to this Chapter may be issued pursuant to the non-criminal ticketing procedure in G.L.c.40, §21D. The Commissioner of Inspectional Services, the Police Commissioner, and the Commissioner of Public Health, or their designees shall be the enforcement officials for this Chapter.

5.50.090 Regulations

The Commissioner of Inspectional Services, as well as the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, with the approval of the City Manager, are authorized to promulgate regulations and to create the necessary application and permit forms, to implement this Chapter with respect to their respective responsibilities pursuant to this Chapter. Regulatory requirements implementing this ordinance may differ for Priority Applicants and non-Priority applicants, such that the regulatory burden for Priority Applicants is less burdensome.

5.50.100 Effective Date

This Chapter shall take effect on September 23, 2019.

5.50.110 Severability

The provisions of this Chapter are severable, and if any part of this Chapter should be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remainder of the Chapter, and the remainder of the Chapter shall remain in full force and effect.

O-14     Sept 13, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the City Council that the Sennott Park Renovation Project will begin in September 2021 and is expected to last for at least one year; and
WHEREAS: Two public meetings were held in February 2020 and a community survey was conducted to seek input on the renovations which will include significant tree plantings, improvements to the field surface, a new fitness station, new playground elements, increased shading around the water play features, new adjustable basketball hoops, and much more; and
WHEREAS: The city has announced that there will be no park access throughout the renovations including the playground, the splash pad, the basketball court, and the field; and
WHEREAS: Many residents have raised concerns about the timing of this renovation project as the pandemic has created an urgent need for safe outdoor recreation space; and
WHEREAS: Children under 12 are not yet eligible for any COVID vaccine, have experienced an unreasonable amount of social isolation due to the pandemic, and have limited outdoor recreation and after school options available to them even under the best of circumstances; and
WHEREAS: Sennott Park is an important space for children who attend the Moses Youth Center; and
WHEREAS: The improvements proposed as part of the Sennott Park Renovation Project will greatly improve the quality of the park but the city needs to balance these improvements with a need to retain public access to this cherished community space as much as possible during the renovation, even if it means the project will take a little longer to complete; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the relevant city departments, the contractor, and the community to take another look at ways in which construction could be contained or compartmentalized in such a way that would allow for various sections or elements of the park to remain safely accessible during the construction period while they are not actively being worked on; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council by October 1, 2021 on any adjustments made as a result of these additional conversations that will better balance the important renovation project with the critical need to retain access to as much of Sennott Park as possible over the course of the next year.

O-15     Sept 13, 2021
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Rent in Cambridge is at an all-time high and is a significant barrier to many individuals and families who want to live in this city; and
WHEREAS: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a huge amount of economic uncertainty to many Cambridge residents, pushing financial stability even further out of reach; and
WHEREAS: According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households, over 25% percent of Americans were one $400 financial setback away from being unable to pay their bills; and
WHEREAS: Security deposits are required by most landlords and are usually equal to one month’s rent, which can serve as a barrier to housing for many renters; and
WHEREAS: Nationwide, over $45 billion is currently locked up in cash security deposits, unable to be accessed by either renters and landlords; and
WHEREAS: Certain insurance programs allow renters to forgo an upfront security deposit while still protecting property owners from excessive damages with a payment of as little as $5 per month for an apartment that rents for $1,000 per month; and
WHEREAS: Millions of Americans already use rental insurance to avoid an upfront security deposit, but only in instances where the property owner offers a choice; and
WHEREAS: Legislation requiring property owners to give renters a choice would provide far more financial flexibility to the over 60% of Cambridge residents who currently rent; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to review the proposed ordinance and provide feedback on implementation; and be it further
ORDERED: That the ordinance language below be referred to the Ordinance Committee for deliberation and discussion:

(a) Upon a tenant’s request, all landlords who own and/or control more than ten rental units and require a security deposit more than sixty percent (60%) of the monthly rental rate charged for the subject rental unit shall offer to accept one of the two following options in lieu of the required security deposit:

(1) Rental security insurance that satisfies the following criteria:

(i) The insurance provider is an approved carrier licensed by, and in good standing with, the Division of Insurance of the State of Massachusetts;

(ii) The insurance provider, policy, and coverage amount must be submitted to and approved by the landlord as an acceptable option in lieu of the required security deposit;

(iii) The coverage is effective upon the payment of the first premium and remains effective for the entire lease term;

(iv) The insurance must permit the payment of premiums on a monthly basis unless the tenant selects or agrees to a different payment schedule;

(v) The coverage provided per claim is no less than the amount the landlord requires for security deposits; and

(vi) A tenant who chooses this option in lieu of security deposit shall not be required to provide additional security or insurance coverage per claim in an amount greater than the amount required for security deposits.

(2) Payment of the security deposit over a series of no less than three (3) equal monthly installment payments, which installments shall be due on the same day as the monthly rent payment and which may be paid together with the monthly rent payment in a single transaction, absent separate agreement by the landlord and tenant; or

(b) Prior to entering into a rental agreement which requires a security deposit more than sixty percent (60%) of the monthly rental rate charged for the subject rental unit, a landlord shall provide the tenant written notice of the available alternatives.

(c) The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to a deposit placed with a landlord to secure the availability of a rental unit more than sixty days prior to the commencement of the rental period.

(d) The provisions of this paragraph shall not limit a landlord’s ability to require standard credit, income or other qualifications upon application for a new rental agreement.

O-16     Sept 13, 2021
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
ORDERED: That the City Council hereby declares that there is an emergency involving the health and safety of the people of Cambridge or their property, pursuant to G.L. c.43, §20that necessitates the passages through all stages of ordination on this day.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
MISSING [The Ordinance Committee met on Jan 27, 2021 to conduct a public hearing regarding the KSURP financial Analysis.]

Committee Report #2
The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:30pm to discuss the plans for reopening of after school programs and summer camp opportunities through the City of Cambridge.

Date: Wed, Apr 7, 2021 5:30pm, Sullivan Chamber
Present: McGovern, Mallon, Nolan (via Zoom), Toomey
Absent: Simmons
Also Present: Zondervan, Siddiqui

Present via Zoom were Councillor McGovern, Chair of the Committee; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor Nolan; Councillor Toomey; Councillor Zondervan; Mayor Siddiqui; Ellen Semonoff, Assistant City Manager; Michelle Farnum, Assistant Director of Children, Youth and Families; Melissa Castillo, Division Head, Youth Programs; Janice Alger, Assistant Director for Administration; Adam Corbeil, Recreation and Aquatics Director; Susan Richards, Khari Milner, Co-Directors for the Agenda for Children; Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present via Zoom were Christine Rogers, Kate Skubecz, Lynn Li, Alisa Khan, Amanda Beatty, Deirdre Logan, Kathy Eccles, Maggie Schulz, Melanie Cohn-Hopwood, Rachel Henke, Erin Yang, Mercedes Soto, Sarah Silkowitz, Emie Michaud, Kaitlyn Kelley, Ena Valenzuela, Shawn Proctor and Sujen Lai.

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

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
Present: Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Toomey -3
Absent: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons -2

A quorum was present.

Councillor McGovern thanked all those who were present for this hearing. He said that he is coming at this topic as a City Councillor as well as a parent. He introduced Lynn Li who is part of the Cambridge Coalition for Public Education. Councillor McGovern introduced Ms. Semonoff.

Ms. Semonoff stated that she is happy to talk about the plans for out of school time programs. She noted that DHSP recognizes how incredibly challenging the pandemic has been for Cambridge’s children and families. She said that an added burden has been the limited opportunities for out of school time programs. She said that DHSP has been working with partners in the community programs to support children and youth. She introduced her colleagues. She said that beginning in March of 2020 when the world changed, her department shifted many of her staff and programs to provide direct support to residents. Staff was engaged in designing the process for the Mayors Disaster Relief funding and more than 50 staff was engaged full-time in assisting residents in accessing rental assistance and household needs payments. She explained that simultaneously, DHSP programs were pivoting to deliver virtual programming to participants in DHSP preschools and out of school time programs. She said that staff across all of the programs were engaged with residents in helping them to access financial resources, food assistance, unemployment benefits as well as other services. Shortly after the closing of the schools, staff adapted to begin connecting with youth and families in the only method available at the time which was using different virtual platforms. She stated that during the summer, the department adopted a hybrid approach where they would be combining the virtual and field-based programming. She stated that staff joined together to offer quality and age-specific programming, both virtually and on the field, to approximately 400 junior kindergarten through 8th graders. Based on family feedback, in the fall they moved to provide daily activities for about 600 young people. During the winter, they moved to DHSP online which was virtual after-school programming enrichment activities for youth for grades K-8. They had family support team who assisted young people and families in virtual learning and other needs. Ms. Semonoff said that the only programs that they were able to open in the schools this year were the preschools which opened in August and are now providing five-day per week programming. She said that for programming for children and youth from kindergarten to 8th grade, they are expecting and hoping to be back in the schools and the youth centers this summer. She said that not being able to provide indoor out of school time programs has been a hardship for families. She said that the pandemic put in starker relief for the disparities that already existed in Cambridge based on race and income. As the services and programs were rolled out, DHSP is continuing to shift programs to enhance equity. She said that in the past summer, the Mayors Summer Youth Employment Program only had 700 jobs rather than 1,000 jobs. She said that they shifted to prioritize those programs for low income youth. She said that preschools are continuing to shift so that close to 50% of the children served in preschools are low-income and receiving significant subsidy to be able to participate. She explained that as the in-person out of school time programming resumes, they will be shifting more program slots to ensure that low-income children and youth, along with those who are identified by the schools as needing more support in out of school time hours, can be prioritized. DHSP will continue to provide services to children and youth across the income spectrum but they will be prioritizing more programming for low-income children. She introduced Adam Corbeil.

Adam Corbeil stated that Spring in the Sun will look a lot like Fall in the Fields. He said that Fall in the Fields served about 600+ kids in five sites. He said that they look to mimic a lot of that work in the spring. He said that they learned that there are still barriers for people for participation. He noted that cost was not a barrier as this will be a free program that will be run 5 days per week beginning on April 26th. He said that they have four field sites that are close to larger public housing units to make this program as accessible as possible. Mr. Corbeil stated that the sites are Donnelly Field, Hoyt Field, Rindge Field and Russell Field. He said that additionally, they are looking to do pop-up programming in smaller parks. He said that the hope is to run this program until June 18th so that they can reset before pivoting into the summer. He explained that some activities will be arts and crafts, enrichment, and sports leagues which are popular with older children. He said that for the younger children under 9 years old, a parent must be present. For those that need childcare, they are in development of an enrolled program which operate under the Community School model. He said that the Family Support Group will work to develop that enrolled program. Mr. Corbeil explained that in addition, DHSP is trying to beef up content as much as possible to get as many children as possible to come out to the fields. He added that DHSP is working closely with the Department of Public Health to keep the Covid transmission rate at zero.

Councillor McGovern asked Mr. Corbeil if there is any sense of what will be offered in the summer at this point. Mr. Corbeil stated that Michelle Farnum will be reporting on that issue.

Michelle Farnum stated that this summer they are building on a model that they piloted with the School Department in 2019 where they are selecting four sites with the Cambridge Public Schools to offer an afternoon component for children enrolled in school-based, academic recovery-style learning. They did this with a project in partnership with the public schools and MIT in 2019 and the model was successful in ensuring that kids and families that needed full day programs could take advantage of the morning programs offered by the schools. This year, in order to ensure that families have a full-day option, they are combining programs at four sites so that children that are identified by the schools who need the support of an academic program in the morning, will not have to change locations. Staff will work together to create a comprehensive experience for children from 8:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. They are also working to offer in-person, standalone camp programs through Community Schools as they have done in the past. They will be at 5 different sites and they will be the traditional program that has always been offered. She explained that those will be the typical programs that are offered each year. In 2020, DHSP began thinking about what changes need to be made to programs in order to serve more low-income children than they had in the past. She explained that they were prepared to roll out the new universal registration system which will be in place this summer. She said that they will be using the online registration system and they will be reserving slots in the standalone programs for low-income children in ways that have not been done in the past. Ms. Farnum said that there will be a new sliding scale fee for camp tuition across all of DHSP programs. She said that for families that qualify, they will not have to apply for a scholarship. She said that they will have a robust summer food program that will be attached to all of the programs and park sites.

Melissa Castillo stated that the DHSP Teen Programs ground themselves in the belief in young people’s inherent brilliance, social justice, and growth and transformation. She noted that the purpose is to provide Cambridge young people with a just, joyful and caring community where they forge healthy relationships, discover who they are, and develop new skills for now and the future. She said that during the pandemic, they have continued offering paid internships. They have offered internships every season beginning in the summer and they have continued throughout the school year. She explained the Neighborhood Design Project is a project for Cambridge teens to think about how to design something to help their community. She said that Virtual Voices is an empowerment program through the arts and spoken word which embarks on a journey of self-exploration and creativity while developing writing skills. Ms. Castillo said that DHSP also offers Community Leaders, a new program during Covid to assist young people in developing their own leadership skills and how they can contribute to their community. She said that the Boys II Men program that has been existence for many years. This program looks at leadership empowerment, focusing on fitness and nutrition, financial literacy, identity development, workshops and weekly cultural dialogues. She said that in the summer they had four of those programs for full-days. They continued in the fall with those four programs and added Community Leaders. For the winter and spring there was a demand, and they took one internship and doubled cohorts so they could serve more young people. She said that virtual programs are thriving for teens. She said that they had 16 internships serving 300 teen this school year. She noted that the attendance rate for teens in virtual programs is approximately 90%. She said that in-person events in the field have had about a 50% attendance rate.

Susan Richards stated that the Agenda for Children is 20 years old this year. She said that the Agenda for Children’s mission is to convene, catalyze, and support the youth-serving community for the shared purpose of increasing equity, access, and innovation and sustaining the highest quality opportunities and experiences for all children, youth, and families. She said that equity and access is a critical part of the Agenda for Children’s mission. She said that as the Agenda for Children has grown, they are known well historically for providing all of the professional development for the out of school time workers. They have added the middle school and elementary network who are working closely with the school district to ensure that all children and families who need programming are connected to programming in the city. They are the conveners of the OSC Coalition. She said that the Agenda for Children is focused on the needs of low-income and black and brown families. Ms. Richards said the Agenda for Children has a website with a lot of data which is beneficial.

Khari Milner stated that he is anchored in the School Department. He said that the focus is serving and supporting the highest need and priority families to ensure equitable access for learning opportunities, enrichment, positive relationships, sports, arts, and pathway programs. He said that Cambridge is fortunate to have a diverse range of providers. He said that the Agenda for Children always tries to understand what the City’s landscape is. He said that during Covid they brought providers together a number of times to get an understanding of what it will be like to run programs remotely while connecting in school and out of school educators. He said that what came out of this work was that they developed a Community Partners portal which allows providers to list the young people enrolled in programs so there can be a good sense on who is participating in what programs and who is not connected to a program. He said that they are always looking at the horizon. He said that we have to innovate and push and disrupt the things that are not working well. He stated that there needs to be a commitment to anti-racism and have the mindset that we are centering the needs of young people.

Councillor McGovern opened the hearing to Public Comment.

Alisa Khan, 303 Third Street, asked for expansion of after-school opportunities. She said that she is a parent of a junior kindergartner and first grader. She said that she is grateful for the work that has been done and she is pleased to hear of upcoming plans in terms of increasing equity and access and afterschool opportunities. She advocated that these opportunities be opened more broadly. She said that she would like to see more on-site after school programs.

Kate Skubecz, 158 Thorndike Street, stated that she has a 3rd grader who would normally be in community school and she has used camps in the summer in the past. She thanked all for their hard work. She said that the gaps that she is hearing is not having an afterschool option that goes from the school day to afterschool. She said that it is hard to find childcare for just afterschool so this is a big problem. She said that there is a scarcity of options which will make demands for spots in summer camps.

Emie Michaud Weinstock stated that Cambridge is an incredible city. She said that during a means based assessment focus group, lack of knowledge and unaffordability regarding out of school resources are two themes that come up. She said that though it can be a problematic model, community schools provide some relief to families. It is a model where it is accessible because it is at a school site, yet inaccessible because oftentimes if you don’t know, you don’t know that you didn’t know. She said that her family had no idea how to access these programs. She said that we should think about recognizing the disparities in which families are opting in to return in person or not and making sure that staff, resources, and opportunities are targeted to black families that have chosen to remain remote. She said that leveraging, engaging, and consulting the Agenda for Children out of school time and the elementary and middle school networks are great resources that should be focused on.

Amanda Beatty, 604 Franklin Street, stated that she is the mother of a 5 and 2 year old. She asked when the City is going to step up for in-person childcare for the youngest learners. She said that parents of small children are in great need of reliable, supervised programming that is reliable rain or shine. She said that it seems that there are plans for summer camp, but the families need to know the information immediately. She said that private camp options are approximately $600.00 per week. She asked DHSP to let people know what they plan on offering, duration, what is involved, cost and when people can sign up. She said that she hopes that the committee will talk in future meetings about monies from the American Rescue Plan for summer and fall programming. She said that she would like to know how these funds will be used for the community.

Vice Mayor Mallon made a Motion to close Public Comment.
The roll was called and resulted as follows:
Yea: Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey -4
Nay: Councillor Simmons -1
and Public Comment was closed.

Councillor McGovern said that the Superintendent and the schools have been talking about some kind of summer school option. He asked Mayor Siddiqui about this issue. Mayor Siddiqui responded that there is a series of summer programs starting from CPS remote summer enrichment program for current JK through Grade 5 that would provide targeted ESL math and ELA help with students recommended by school teams. There will be upper school math ELA support for rising 6-8 students. There will be summer preview ELA and Math. She said that there is a host of summer academic programming. There will be CPS summer program in partnership with DHSP for rising K through Grade 5. The criteria and plans are under development. The goal is to serve approximately 240 students. Many details are still being worked out.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that it sounds like in the Community Schools there will be 5 sites for summer camp wherein in a typical year there would be 12 sites. She asked how many people we are hoping to serve this summer in those 5 sites. Michelle Farnum stated that the expectation is to serve 300 students, combined with the 240-300 students in the combination programs, the aim is to serve close to 600 students JK-5. Vice Mayor Mallon asked how many are served in a regular year in those programs? Ms. Farnum responded that two years ago, they served just over 800. Vice Mayor Mallon asked when the information will be online and when will enrollment begin? Ms. Farnum said that they are working with the schools as space is the issue. She said that they are trying to determine where each program and camp can be located. She said that they are trying to figure out how to rearrange school buildings to allow for operation during Covid times. She said that it is the hope to announce the sites before April vacation. Ms. Farnum said that there will be an online registration system for standalone programs.

Ms. Semonoff said that DHSP does understand that this is incredibly hard for parents. She said that they have been working hard with the schools to try to navigate this and figure out how they can accommodate the community programs who need school space and the DHSP programs that need school space.

Councillor Nolan said that this has been very challenging. As it relates to the summer program, Councillor Nolan asked if combined program is building off of the program in 2019 called Camp Summit. Ms. Farnum said that the model was build off of Summit. She said that this is not a specific reading recovery program. Councillor Nolan asked who will be running that program. Ms. Farnum responded that that the school can answer what their hopes are for the academic portion. She stated that what was successful at Summit was for families to have a full day of care and for students to meet a criterion and then be offered this opportunity. Councillor Nolan said that she hopes that we are intentional and focused this summer. She stated her hope that this message is critically important. Councillor Nolan asked if the city is working with other partners who have traditionally provided summer programs to ensure that they have space within our schools and supporting them as they shift their own models in a Covid era of in-person summer learning. Ms. Semonoff said that the schools are working diligently to accommodate the community programs that have typically accessed the schools to allow them to continue to operate their programs within the schools. Susan Richards added that she was recently on a call with several non-profit leaders, and many are waiting in the wings to get back into school buildings. She said that people have become very capable of providing virtual programming, and will continue to do that, until they can get access to a building location.

Councillor Toomey stated that parents are very anxious, and he is confident in the hard work that DHSP is undertaking. He said that he has confidence that the City will have very successful spring and summer programs. He thanked the staff for the work that is being done.

Councillor Zondervan thanked all for their hard work. He asked about safety protocols. He stated that he is supportive of opening up programs as soon as possible but wants that to be done safely. Ms. Semonoff stated that the School Department is revising their current safety manual and practices for the summer to ensure that all programs are safe. They are looking at testing protocols. From the perspective of the on field programs, DHSP works closely with the Department of Public Health and get approval of plans and safety protocols.

Ms. Li asked if it is possible to have afterschool in the spring like the seamless transition that some of the parents have advocated for. She said that if that is not a possibility, what about the fall? Ms. Semonoff said that there is not a possibility to be in the schools between now and the end of the school year. They are expecting to be in the schools this summer.

Ms. Li asked about the barriers to accessing the school buildings. Michele Farnum said that space is the biggest issue. She explained that with the model, size and location is not possible currently. The extra space is not currently available. She said that it would require the DHSP to expand spaces more than double in order to operate in the way that the licensing requires. Councillor McGovern stated that some children are back to school in person. He asked if there is a way to keep the kids in their respective schools/pods and then enable staff to switch out. Ms. Richards stated that the partnership between the out of school time programs and the school district is not easy. It sounds simple but doing it in reality is a difficult challenge. She stated that Mr. Milner is trying to push on the partnership questions and what can be done differently in the future. Mr. Milner stated that regarding spacing and schools and accommodating other programs, it is his opinion that the urgency has been increased to figure out how to best support community partners and DHSP. He said that the idea of a community partners portal was just an idea and what it could lead to is very exciting. He said that a bigger focus on partnering moving forward is thinking about how we are engaging and reaching out to families. He said that partnering takes time to build connections, trust, and relationships. He said that we must understand that it is time to let go of things that are not working.

Councillor McGovern asked about mental health support. He said that this has been a very challenging time and he asked if there will be anything extra being done to provide support. Ms. Semonoff said that it is a matter of deep concern for DHSP and recognizing the social/emotional years of young people has been a strength of many of DHSP programs. She said that in the teen programs, that has been a particular strength. Ms. Castillo stated that in the teen program they have integrated thinking about self-care practices as part of the program while also combining that with mental health information. She said that they have brought in partners and integrated them into their programs. She said that staff is also connected to the resources so that they can offer support to families.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that our teens are in crisis. She said that it is incumbent on us because many young people have not seen another adult in a year. Many teens have not been into a school building in a year. She said that if they are entering a youth center for the first time and encountering an adult, what kind of mental health screeners are we using? She asked how we are identifying kids and ensuring that we do have those resources for support. She said that as a mother she had a difficult time accessing mental health care for her teens over the past year. She said that it is going to be difficult for employees and workers if they do identify a mental health crisis. She said that all of this needs to thoughtfully prepared. She said that we are heading toward a cliff with our teens, and we need to be ready. She challenged DHSP to come up with a screener, a plan and list of resources. Councillor McGovern asked Ms. Semonoff about a contract that was set up with The Guidance Center a few years ago where slots were held for Cambridge Public School students. He asked Ms. Semonoff if the City still has that resource. Ms. Semonoff responded that the City does offer that, but it is at the preschool age. It is the place where there are strong supports working with the The Guidance Center preschool team. She explained that there is also a subcontract through them with the Cambridge Health Alliance which has gotten development assessment for children that are nearly impossible to get. Ms. Semonoff noted that as it relates to accessing services for young people, families that had MassHealth had the best opportunity for accessing mental health services. She agreed that there is a critical need for availability of clinical services that are needed. Vice Mayor Mallon said she would like to pull together the Department of Public Health and the Cambridge Health Alliance to figure out what supports are available before the youth centers open so there is a plan for young people.

As it relates to the Mayor’s Summer Youth Employment Program, Vice Mayor Mallon asked if we are expanding the slots that are available this year. Ms. Semonoff stated that they are expecting smaller numbers than prior years but this summer they are hoping to have both in-person and virtual slots. It will likely be in the 700-750 range rather than the 1,000 range in prior years. They will serve as many participants as possible. She said that they are encouraging as many in-person programs as possible so that young people have the opportunity to be in the community together, both in-person or online.

Councillor Nolan asked if the City is providing supports for parents and families as well. She stated that providing resources in different languages is very important. Ms. Semonoff stated that the place that the City is most likely to be supporting families in the manner being described is through the Center for Families. She said that at the youngest age, they do have the linguistic capacity. She noted that there are challenges. She said that other than one-offs, she would not say that the City has robustly been able to support families to find mental health services for their children. She said that this area is not a place where DHSP has played a strongly significant role. She said that staff would work with the family around that but more generally, DHSP’s ability to support families is more limited.

Councillor McGovern stated that the Healthy Children Task Force is planning a forum on how to talk to your children about what is going on in the world. They will have a panel and training about how to talk to your kids about the stressors that they are experiencing. He stated that they hope to offer sessions in late May or early June.

Susan Richards stated that with the out of school time staff, they try to provide a lot of spaces for people to process how they are taking care of themselves and being prepared to continue to serve young people. She said that the layers of stress for educators are real and the City’s investment in the Agenda for Children over the years has given us the resources to create ongoing professional development.

Councillor Nolan said she fully supports looking at the possibility of increasing slots and making room for more children. Councillor McGovern asked if upping the number in the outdoor fields is a possibility. Ms. Semonoff stated that the selection of the sites is based on having sites adjacent to places where staff can access bathrooms. She stated that a second issue is that with spring sports, the limitations on where there can be robust sites is an issue. She said that it is challenging to do a full site in any of these places. She said that staffing is something of an issue, but she feels that staff is sufficient for current sites for the summer. Councillor McGovern asked if these sites will loosen up more in the summer when less activities such as soccer, baseball, etc. will not be taking place. Mr. Corbeil responded that they are planning on hosting many of the summer programs on the fields. He said that they reserve fields that are adjacent to summer sites. He said that as it relates to bathrooms, he noted that DPW recently put out to bid the port-a-potty contract with 2 cleanings a day, 6 days per week. He said that there will be a tapering of field usage for sports during the summer. He said that normally they operate programs in the playgrounds, and he believes that some of those may happen on the fields so there will be more activity which also is a mental health intervention.

Regarding the American Rescue Plan, Ms. Li asked when Cambridge will receive that money and how this money will be spent. She asked about the possibility of expanding the program by hiring staff and using the funds that we have been allocated federally for this. She said that she is pleased that the City is prioritizing low and middle-income families. She asked about special needs participants. She said that she does not know why there cannot be afterschool activities in the playgrounds that are attached to many of the elementary schools. Ms. Semonoff said that the City does not have the ability to access the schools to do afterschool programs. That is not a possibility currently. She said that they will be serving more than 600 children because they will also be running summer camps which will serve 4-5 graders in the youth centers as well. She said that she is unsure of the resources that the City will receive from federal funding. She said that she does not feel that funding is the issue. She said that right now, if there is a place to put a summer camp, she does not imagine that the City Manager will say that can’t be done due to funding. She said that this is not the limiting factor currently.

Councillor McGovern made a Motion to extend the meeting by ten minutes.
The roll was called and resulted as follows:
Yea: Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey -4
Nay: Councillor Simmons -1
and the hearing was extended by ten minutes.

As it relates to children with special needs, Ms. Semonoff responded that in the past the City has served many children with special needs and they anticipate the same this summer. There will be inclusion support to programs, and it is a priority. The standalone program for young people with intense special needs, Camp Rainbow, will be operating this summer.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that she would like to see more caregiver groups represented at this hearing. She said that there is one caregiver that was invited to be part of the panel and others were not. She said that the Family of Color Coalition, among others, would like to participate in future meetings.

The Deputy City Clerk received two written communications to be made part of the record of the hearing (ATTACHMENTS A & B).

Councillor McGovern thanked all those present for their attendance at the hearing.

Vice Mayor Mallon made a Motion to adjourn the hearing.
Yea: Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey -4
Nay: Councillor Simmons -1
And the hearing was adjourned at 7:33pm

For the Committee,
Councillor Marc McGovern, Chair

A communication was received from Kate Skubecz and Rachel Mosher Henke, regarding the Human Services & Veterans Committee meeting.

Committee Report #3
The Civic Unity Committee held a public hearing on May 27, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. via Zoom to discuss the recently released Social Equity Legislation in Cannabis: A National Study of State and Local Approaches by the Initiative organization.

Date: Thurs, May 27, 2021, 5:00pm, Sullivan Chamber
Present: Simmons, Mallon, Nolan, Toomey
Absent: Carlone
Also Present: Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan

Present for the hearing via Zoom were Councillor Simmons; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler; Councillor Nolan; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Toomey; Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk; Anthony Wilson, City Clerk; Jennifer Matthews, City Manager’s Office; Christina DiLisio; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Lisa Hemmerle, Community Development Department; Arthur Goldberg, City Solicitor’s Department; Neal Alpert, Aide to Councillor Simmons; and Dan Totten, Aide to Councillor Zondervan.

Also present were Amy Margolis of the Initiative, Kenyatta Smith of the Majority-Minority Group, Grant Ellis, Shaleen Title, Damond Hughes, Richard Harding, Tabasuri Moses, Malaika Moses, Richard Ng.

Councillor Simmons 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 Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey -4
Absent: Councillor Carlone -1
A quorum was present.

Councillor Simmons read the Call of the Hearing and read prepared Opening Remarks (ATTACHMENT A).

Councillor Simmons introduced Amy Margolis, founder of The Initiative, who was invited by the Civic Unity Committee to present findings from the report entitled: Social Equity Legislation in Cannabis: A National Study of State and Local Programming (ATTACHMENT B). Also present to speak alongside Ms. Margolis was Kareem Kenyatta, co-founder of the Majority-Minority Group in Illinois, an organization whose mission is to build up diversity, create more generational wealth, and assist communities to grow wealth organically in cannabis as well as other industries.

Amy Margolis thanked Councillor Simmons for inviting her to speak. She shared her background in the criminal justice system, as an attorney, and in the cannabis industry. She said that she’s been working in the entrepreneurial side of the cannabis industry since 2011. She said in 2018, she founded the Initiative to create gender equity in the cannabis industry, which up to that time had been primarily dominated by white males. She discussed the Initiative’s 15 business accelerators for women-owned companies, and that the Initiative also works to fund studies and reports such as the one being discussed at this hearing. Ms. Margolis said that her organization also throws large events for women to come from all over the country to learn about the business, learn how to succeed in the cannabis industry, and to network. She then turned her attention to walking the committee through a PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT C). During this presentation, Ms. Margolis shared a database of cannabis legislation and social equity information from across the country, which can be found at the Initiative’s website (https://intheinitiative.com/social-equity) under the section titled “Appendix.”

Ms. Margolis shared that when startup operators were asked what the biggest barrier to entry into the cannabis industry is, one hundred percent of respondents answered that funding is the biggest barrier. When these operators were asked if state and local governments were doing enough to assist them in establishing their businesses, one hundred percent of the respondents said no. She said what the Initiative heard was that comprehensive supports are needed, and that wrap around services (such as access to funding and no-strings startup capital), and business services (such as accounting, legal services, and licensing and application support) would be incredibly helpful for Economic Equity applicants.

Kareem Kenyatta introduced himself and discussed his approach to this work. He said in his experiences working in Illinois, and in working with social equity partners, he realized that the lack of information in this industry is a challenge. He said that people always say they want to do what they can to help Social Equity Applicants, but the lack of information inhibits this. He thought it is important to recognize that everyone’s experience is different. He said that for many people, cannabis is becoming more mainstream, but many were negatively impacted by cannabis not that long ago. He said funding is one of the most important things, and that those wishing to enter this industry that lack funding find the whole process to be problematic. He also noted that people also need support when it comes to filling out the very technical applications, and that means having access to attorneys, accountants, other people knowledgeable about running a business becomes critical. Mr. Kenyatta said that starting a cannabis business presents its own set of challenges, since it is legal in many states but remains illegal at the federal level. He said that the existing operators who work on the medical cannabis side have the key experience that’s needed to create the marketplace, and also to teach others to prosper in the marketplace. He noted that in Illinois, they have put in place mentorship programs, grant programs, and so forth, and that once Social Equity applicants are licensed, they’ll be entering a billion dollar a year enterprise. He also said that education is important, and that in many ways, “social equity” is still a new concept, and that we can learn together. Regulators have at time made mistakes, companies will make mistakes, and we are all learning collaboratively about what we need to do to make this industry work. He said that giving equity applicants real estate, or the “first bite of the apple,” could be important.

Councillor Simmons thanked Mr. Kenyatta. She said that Cambridge wishes to be proactive on this work. She said she continues to work with the Vice Mayor on exploring how Covid-19 has impacted our local businesses, and particular those owned by Black and Brown individuals, and that she has been working with Councillor Nolan on a policy order concerning reparations. She said that she got very excited when she learned of the Initiative and of this report, as she felt this could serve as an excellent framing mechanism for these discussions. She said that in Cambridge, getting Equity Empowerment applicants up and running has been next to impossible, and we should be thinking about how we can be doing this better. She said that in speaking with local would-be cannabis operators, she keeps hearing that access to capital at the beginning is a critical need. Councillor Simmons also stated that she is upset about “bait and switch” situations, in which an Equity Empowerment applicant is merely a figurehead for a larger business entity seeking to gain a foothold in the community.

Councillor Nolan said the report is very interesting and the PowerPoint was powerful. She said that as she read through the report, she recognized that the City isn’t providing the funding and the space that some of the other communities have done. She said that this report demonstrated that there are many other ways that we actually can be helping our Equity Empowerment applicants establish themselves. She asked about model programs, how we might best learn from Oakland or Illinois, is there a priority list we can learn from? Or should we reach out to our community of entrepreneurs to find out directly from them what they most need? Ms. Margolis responded by saying that her team has put together a one page model program package, what the Initiative thinks would be the most helpful model. She said that when they talk to people, the concept of creating time and space – the “first bite of the apple” concept – was a crucial first piece. She said that there’s an acknowledgement that once that happens, though, it’s not really enough. She said that communities like Cambridge should be thinking that it’s good that the time portion of the equation has been given to Equity Empowerment applicants, but the question then becomes: how does the City then provide for the necessary wrap-around services? And how do you then create your partner program to get your industry going, realizing that there are dispensaries operating in neighboring communities? She mentioned the Prosper Portland organization as one type of model for resolving these issues, which is successful because of a robust tax base. Mr. Kenyatta stated that in IL, they have a “Renew” program that operates similarly, and that there has been more than $25 million in investment into Social Equity applicants. He said that Councillor Nolan was correct in suggesting that the people in the community should be asked for input and feedback on what they might find helpful.

Vice Mayor Mallon said she had some questions about the ways the tax revenue from adult use cannabis sales could be utilized. She said that the City Council had a number of conversations around this a couple of years prior when the Council was discussing the possibility of establishing a moratorium. She asked if the City could use the tax revenue from adult use sales to fund a grant program for Social Equity applicants, and for Black and Brown business owners to get up and running? Arthur Goldberg from the Solicitor’s Office said that the City would need to look into whatever program is proposed and would work with the Council to find creative ways to get more money into this industry, but he could not state at this time precisely what could or could not be done. Vice Mayor Mallon said that she would like us to begin thinking about how we can and cannot use this revenue. She asked Ms. Margolis about the database that suggested there was $10 million for Social Equity applicants in Massachusetts in 2021. Ms. Margolis referred to the PowerPoint presentation and focused on the new proposed legislation that requires the Commonwealth transfer $10 million from the Marijuana Regulation Fund to the Cannabis Community Empowerment Fund no later than October 1, 2021. Vice Mayor Mallon asked how this money would be distributed, and Ms. Margolis stated that there is a grant program model being used in California that could perhaps be an appropriate model for Cambridge.

Councillor Simmons opened public comment at 6:15pm.

Grant Ellis of Center Street, Cambridge, thanked the committee for holding this hearing. He said that he is a disabled medical cannabis patient, and the reason he found this discussion so edifying is that it showed us the data we have and the data that we don’t have. He is interested in learning which applicants in Cambridge were able to receive funding because of the moratorium, and how much funding they were able to receive once it was passed, versus before it was in place. He said that the central issue to this discussion is determining whether or not the moratorium is going to continue. He thinks it should continue. He said that he finds his frustrating that some cannabis companies pay lip service to equity, but they change their behavior if they feel there’s nothing in it for them. He also said that he thinks shelt agreements are predatory and create strawman situations.

Shaleen Title, 33 Bowers Avenue, said she previously served as a Cannabis Control Commissioner and for the past six months she has worked on reports and resources like the one being discussed this evening with the Ohio State University Law School and as one of the founders of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition. She said that she wants to zero in on the “capital, property, and local approval” trio of barriers that so many people have cited and that she wants resolutions to these items to be incorporated into any extension of the moratorium. She said that Ohio is the gold standard for supporting Equity Empowerment applicants. She said that it was unusual to see that this report did not mention the moratorium in Cambridge, and this was unexpected since Cambridge is considered the gold standard for working to help Equity Empowerment applicants get established. She said that when she reviewed the report, she did not know that Revolutionary Clinics had any involvement with financing the report. She also noted that while Illinois was at one time considered innovative in creating a grant program in reinvesting in the community, there are currently no Social Equity dispensaries operating there.

Damond Hughes stated that he is a state certified Equity Empowerment applicant based in Cambridge, and he felt that the moratorium gave him the crucial time needed to get up and running. He said that pandemic did slow things down and that the moratorium should therefore be extended. He said that he would hate for Revolutionary Clinics to benefit from the ending of the moratorium. He said that Cambridge has done an excellent job with enacting this moratorium, the whole world is watching to see how this plays out, and he hopes that Cambridge does the right thing.

Malaika Moses thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak. She said she was born and raised in Cambridge, and that she is part of a team of Equity Empowerment applicants. She said that there has long been a caste system in Cambridge that works to harm people of color, and all policies that are being considered should be done with thoughts of whether or not these would strengthen or weaken this caste system. She said that the moratorium has weakened the caste system and therefore it should be extended, and along with this extended window of opportunity the City should consider what additional supports it can offer to Equity Empowerment applicants.

Richard Ng said that he’s based in CA and he currently works with Cookies LLC. He supports the community, and that this conversation suggests that the moratorium needs to be extended and that additional support services must be put into place during this time. He said that this would help build generational wealth for those who were most harmed by the war on drugs.

Richard Harding stated that he appreciated the presentation. He said that he was just in Oakland, and that Cambridge is looked at as a model for what local governments can do to aide Equity Empowerment applicants. He said that the pandemic chilled all momentum during the moratorium and therefore it must be extended. He said that it takes at least $1.5 million dollars for a local cannabis business to get up and running. He charged that certain cannabis companies speak out of one side of their mouths by suggesting we need to promote equity, but then they go and sue the City when they don’t get their way. He said that he thinks this shows us who they really are.

Tabasuri Moses said he found it interesting that there was no full disclosure as to what involvement Revolutionary Clinics may have had with the Initiative and their report. He said he felt like they had an ulterior motive. He said that he’s been in Oakland with Mr. Harding and people thank them for the work they’re doing in Cambridge. He said that he is in strong support of extending the moratorium.

Councillor Simmons closed Public Comment at 6:41pm.
The roll was called and resulted as follows:
Yea: Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Toomey -3
Absent: Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan -2
and Public Comment was closed.

Vice Mayor Mallon asked what the next steps are. Councillor Simmons thanked Ms. Margolis and Mr. Kenyatta for appearing and presenting their report. Ms. Margolis thanked the committee for their time and she said that she encouraged people to read the report for themselves and make up their own minds about what they read, and she would be happy for people to reach out to her for further discussions on this. Mr. Kenyatta also thanked the committee and said that he would be happy to continue to serve as a resource.

Councillor Simmons thanked everyone for their attendance and participation in this meeting. She said that one of the big takeaways for her from this meeting is that having access to startup capital without strings attached is of paramount concern for Equity Empowerment applicants. She said that just as important is the need for training, mentorship, and general business support services, and the City needs to be thinking about how it can better support Equity Empowerment applicants. She said that we also need to look at the revenues generated by this new industry and ask ourselves how it can best be used to help lift up those who have historically been harmed by the war on drugs. She asked that people stay tuned for information on additional meetings on this topic.

Councillor Zondervan asked Ms. Margolis and Mr. Kenyatta if they had looked at the City’s moratorium and whether – and how – it facilitates access to capital. He said he didn’t see any analysis of this in the report, but his thinking is that the moratorium creates an opportunity for capital to flow to Equity Empowerment applicants. Ms. Margolis said that when the Initiative spoke with people across the country, they heard that people do need a head start – and whether it would be via a window of time, or through resources that are granted to applicants, it would be helpful. She said that this is clearly a heated issue in Cambridge, and while the Initiative did not analyze Cambridge’s moratorium, she commends the Council for having enacted it. She said that ultimately, the Initiative was asking that, with this moratorium in place, how can this contained head start be used to provide resources so that the head start is meaningful. Mr. Kenyatta added that it is important to find ways for currently operating dispensaries to give back to the community and help other Equity Empowerment applicants get themselves firmly established. He noted that it is not realistic to expect the average applicant to have access to millions of dollars to get up and running.

Ms. Margolis said that, having been on the west coast, where this industry has been running for a longer period of time, it’s been her experience that this industry is symbiotic, there are deals to be had and made in this space. She said that in a perfect world, you’d see larger operators working to help smaller companies, and that “shelf space” deals are not inherently a bad thing, for example. She concluded by again stressing that if you create a window of time to give people a head start, you want to be sure it’s used well and you’re looking at how you bring in the necessary resources to the applicants to get established, because otherwise it doesn’t seem helpful.

Councillor Simmons thanked everyone for their discussion and thoughtfulness. She noted that the Civic Unity Committee received two emailed communications and asked that these be made part of the record (ATTACHMENT D). She said that she may invite the Initiative to come back for future discussions. She said that if there are cannabis adult use retailers that are successful, it would be helpful for us to learn how they’ve done it and what lessons we might be able to learn from them. She also stated that she is particularly interested in learning more about how the City can best use this revenue from this industry to help Black and Brown people and businesses. Vice Mayor Mallon then moved to adjourn the meeting.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
Yea: Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Toomey -3
Absent: Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan -2
and the hearing was adjourned.

For the Committee,
Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair

A communication was received from Councillor Simmons, transmitting opening remarks for the Civic Unity Committee.

A communication was received from The Initiative, regarding The Initiative report.

A communication was received from Samura Sieh and Karen Turley, regarding the Civic Unity Committee meeting on May 27, 2021.

Committee Report #4
The Ordinance Committee met to conduct a public hearing on the petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance by inserting a new row in section 4.31 "Residential Uses" regarding the service of postoperative care for a dog.

Date: Wed, Sept 1, 2021, 5:30pm, Remote Meeting
Present: Carlone, McGovern, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan
Absent: Mallon, Nolan, Toomey

Councillor Carlone called the meeting to order.

Councillor McGovern stated that he presented the petition to the Planning Board. we had a good conversation about it. He explained that he drafted the petition because Caitlyn Coveney wanted to provide care for a dog that was not her own, that needed around the clock, post-operative care. He stated that the zoning ordinance does not currently allow for that activity. He stated that the Planning Board recommended changes to the original petition that he did not oppose.

Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor, stated that the proposed changes from the Planning Board would not alter the fundamental character of the petition. She recommended amend Planning Board’s recommendation to insert the words “at a residence in a residential district,” in subsection 4.21(d)(5).

Councillor McGovern did not oppose the change.

Jeff Roberts, Director of zoning and development, explained that the Planning Board supported the proposal but did express concerns about the structure of the petition.

In response to statements from Councillor Zondervan, Solicitor Glowa confirmed that the proposal would not all individual to provide post-operative care to pet if they lived in a non-residential district. She explained that amended the petition to allow for the use in non-residential districts would require a new petition.

Councillor McGovern stated that he would not be opposed to letting this petition expire so that he can present another one that covered all these issues.

Ms. Coveney stated that she lives in a residential district and would like to be able to provide this service in the near future.

Councillor Carlone suggested that the council adopt this petition and file another petition to expand the use to non-residential district immediately thereafter.

Councillor McGovern moved to amend section 4.21(d)(5) from the Planning Board’s recommendation to read as follows: “At a residence in a residential district, the care of a household pet that does not permanently reside at that residence, provided that only one such animal per day is kept on the premises.”
Yea: McGovern, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan, Carlone
Absent: Mallon, Nolan, Toomey

Councillor McGovern moved to amend the petition to reflect the amended recommendation from the Planning Board.
Yea: McGovern, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan, Carlone
Absent: Mallon, Nolan, Toomey

Councillor McGovern moved to send the amended language to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Yea: McGovern, Siddiqui, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan, Carlone
Absent: Mallon, Nolan, Toomey

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

That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge be amended to insert a new row in section 4.31 “Residential Uses” regarding the service of post-operative care for a dog.

A communication was received from Assistant City Manager, Community Development Iram Farooq, transmitting a memorandum regarding Post-Operative Animal Care Zoning Petition

Amend Section 4.21 of the Zoning Ordinance, Paragraph d., to read as follows:

d. The following Home Occupations and other Home Occupations, provided that they are accessory and incidental to the principal residential use, shall be considered accessory uses, provided also that only residential occupants of the dwelling unit are practicing or employed on the premises at any one time unless otherwise specified below, that all activities take place entirely within a building, and that no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust or other particulate matter, heat, humidity, glare, or other objectionable effects are produced:

(1) The office of a resident physician, dentist, attorney-at-law, architect, landscape architect, engineer, or member of another profession, in which case up to three persons may practice or be employed on the premises at any one time including persons who are not residential occupants but are employed to assist a primary practitioner residing on the premises;

(2) The salon of a properly licensed massage therapist;

(3) The studio of an artist, performing artist, craftsperson, graphic designer, photographer, or similar creative professional;

(4) A Retail Residential Kitchen permitted to produce Cottage Food Products, as regulated by 105 CMR 590.001(C), as it may be amended; and

(5) At a residence in a residential district, the care of a household pet that does not permanently reside at that residence, provided that only one such animal per day is kept on the premises.