2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-32, regarding the feasibility of identifying one evening or day per week that the Fresh Pond Golf Course can be open to the public for general use.
Placed on File 9-0

Oct 19, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

The City Council has requested that the City explore the feasibility of opening the Golf Course for general recreational use for one day or one evening during the week. During the golf season, the golf course is heavily used by both adults and young people for playing golf. With the restrictions for COVID19 health and safety, there has been a significant limitation on the number of golfers each day and closing down for a day or evening would further limit play. During the golf season, allowing users besides golfers on the course would cause several problems. First, it would further reduce the time that golfer would be able to play. Second, because it is possible to access the golf course not just through the main path from the clubhouse, walkers, runners and dog walkers may be entering the golf course while play is happening putting themselves at risk because they are not certain which day or evening the course is open to them. There have been times when families or individuals have wandered onto the course because of the attraction as they walk around fresh pond. Third, the course is certified as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary using environmental practices that support water conservation, quality and wildlife habitat management. This requires that the golf course staff remain particularly vigilant during the playing season to maintain the course.

In West Cambridge, there are other alternatives for walkers and runners because of the proximity of Danehy Park. Once the Golf Course closes for the season which will happen depending on the weather sometime in December, walkers, runners and cross country skiers are all welcome on the course. While that use can cause minor damage to the course, the staff are able to manage and maintain the course and close off limited areas only when the greens or bunkers are getting damaged.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

3. Transmitting communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $175,000, from Free Cash to the Public Investment Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account to launch a COVID-19 sewer testing program.
Order Adopted 9-0

Oct 19, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am herby requesting an appropriation of $175,000, from Free Cash, to the Public Investment Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures account, to launch a COVID-19 sewer testing program.

The COVID-19 sewer testing effort has been discussed and supported by the City’s COVID-19 Expert Advisory Panel. The program will use a sampling and data analysis platform derived from direct samples taken from the sewer at specific locations within the Cambridge sewer system that represent defined catchment areas.

This sampling program work will allow the City to obtain Cambridge-specific data in order to disambiguate from the regional sample and assisting the City and School Department in making data-driven decisions that are supported by well-understood metrics indicating “real-time” viral prevalence in all users of the sewer system in our City.

This appropriation also responds to Policy Order #9 of Sept 14, 2020.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

5. Transmitting communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $50,000 received from the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) Innovate Energy Efficiency Grant Program, to the Grant Fund Community Development Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will be used to support the Cambridge Multifamily Energy Retrofit Program, which aims to increase the energy efficiency of multifamily buildings with 5-49 units by offering technical, solar, and financing support.
Order Adopted 9-0

Oct 19, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting an appropriation of $50,000 received from the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) Innovate Energy Efficiency Grant Program, to the Grant Fund Community Development Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account.

Funds will be used to support the Cambridge Multifamily Energy Retrofit Program, which aims to increase the energy efficiency of multifamily buildings with 5-49 units by offering technical, solar, and financing support.

The program provides:

• Mass Save energy assessment and incentives;

• A comprehensive Retrofit Advisor service to help building owners make decisions about their retrofit options;

• A solar assessment and follow-up guidance that includes getting quotes from installers and answering questions related to net metering, financing, and ownership;

• Assistance identifying financing options;

Over the past two years, the program has served approximately 45 buildings totaling 1,400 units. The grant will allow an expanded number of buildings to be served.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-21, regarding a report on developing a Vacant Storefront Registry.
Referred to Economic Development & Universitee Relations Committee 8-0-1 (Simmons ABSENT)

Oct 19, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-21, regarding a report on developing a Vacant Storefront Registry, received from Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Date: Oct 19, 2020
Re: Awaiting Report 20-21 dated Mar 2, 2020 regarding developing a Vacant Storefront Registry and involving Cambridge’s small business community throughout the process.

In response to the above-mentioned policy order, we report the following.

The City’s Retail Strategic Plan was completed in June 2017, and most of its recommendations to help Cambridge’s small businesses were implemented in Fiscal Years 2018, 2019 and 2020. One such recommendation was to document storefront vacancies best practices which was done in the Storefront Vacancy Best Practices report, completed in 2018. This report was presented at the Sept 12, 2018 Economic Development & University Relations Committee meeting and describes a variety of reasons for Cambridge’s ground floor storefront vacancies. Since then, the Community Development Department (CDD) staff have developed a variety of programs related to ground floor vacant storefronts including:

o Created a Vacant Storefront Initiative webpage that includes:

o Storefront Activation Resources including links to popup/activation/placemaking specialists like No Longer Empty, CultureHouse, Spaceus, and the Cambridge Arts Council.

o Vacant Storefront Database, a data set updated quarterly beginning in July 2018. Information includes owner or leasing company, former tenant (if known), square footage, length of vacancy (if known), and ownership structure.

o Vacant Storefront Creative Design Contest, launched in January 2019 to provide property owners with original artwork to display in their vacant storefront.

o Undertook a variety of connected projects and provided access to information concerning the projects on the CDD webpage under the Economic Development Division:

o Prepared District Assessments Reports, which highlight opportunities in the City’s commercial areas. The District Assessment for Central Square was completed in 2018, for Inman Square in 2019, and for Porter Square-Lower Massachusetts Ave. in February 2020. The next business and customer intercept surveys will be completed for East Cambridge in 2021.

o Provided a range of resources on CDD’s Small Businesses Resources web page, including links to the Greater Boston Legal Services and Harvard Transactional Law Clinics, which may be available to provide assistance to small business owners.

o On Sept 30, 2020, the Community Development Department presented to the Economic Development & University Relations Committee its final recommendations on updating the commercial land use classification system within the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and received a favorable recommendation from the Committee.

In 2020, CDD also completed a study identifying action steps to streamline permitting and licensing processes for new businesses and create journey maps of ISD and Licensing processes to make them more transparent to small businesses.

Due to the COVID pandemic, CDD staff developed a variety of new programs and workshops to assist small businesses through the crisis to prevent or mitigate additional vacancies. This includes:

o Awarding $3.6 million in grants and loans to support small businesses through a partnership between the City of Cambridge and Cambridge Redevelopment Authority.

o Developing additional workshops for COVID-impacted small businesses.

o Managing the City Manager’s Small Business Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is providing expert advice and has developed best practices, recommendations, and guidance on how to safely reopen businesses. These recommendations have included the Pick It Up Local Campaign and the Project Neighbor Campaign, both instituted in the summer of 2020.

o The City also recently developed and issued a survey to small businesses to determine their needs to support fall/winter operations during the pandemic.

All of this is in addition, to outreach CDD staff performed in the summer of 2019. This outreach included reaching out to property and businesses owners, as well as business association leadership to gather feedback on potential vacant storefront policies. This included outreach to East Cambridge Business Association, Harvard Square Business Association, Cambridge Local First, All-Business Associations Meeting, as well as including a feature on vacant storefronts in the August 2019 Economic Development E-Newsletter, and meeting with several private property owners.

The overall findings were a general agreement that something should be done about ground floor vacant storefronts, that business owners are concerned about safety, sanitation, and general upkeep of properties, and that there are concerns from both property and business owners over possible fees and fines that could be implemented if a vacant storefront registry was established. The pandemic has exacerbated concerns over vacancies and necessitates the continuation of programs currently in place.

Due to these concerns, and a wide variety of reasons for vacancies, as described in the Vacant Storefront Best Practices report, staff recommends creation of a Vacant Storefront City Policy supported by the City Manager that would apply to ground floor vacant storefronts within the City of Cambridge. This would apply to both ground floor storefronts that do not have a current lease with a tenant for at least thirty (30) consecutive days and ground floor storefronts that have been leased but are under construction, or otherwise unoccupied.

Staff additionally recommends the policy contain best practices that a property owner should follow. For ground floor vacant storefronts without a lease, or that have otherwise been vacant, the property owner shall:

• Put up paper for purposes of covering storefront window(s) that face a public way so that entire window(s) is covered, and post leasing contact information in the storefront window(s) that is visible to a prospective tenant; and/or

• Put up art work for purposes of covering storefront window(s) that face a public way so that the entire window(s) is covered and post leasing contact information in the storefront window(s) that is visible to a prospective tenant

For ground floor storefronts with a lease, but undergoing renovations, the property owner shall:

• Place a “coming soon” sign with information about the new tenant in accordance with the City’s Sign Ordinance, Article 7.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.

In addition, all ground floor vacant storefronts, regardless of lease status need to comply with additional regulatory requirements per the Cambridge Municipal Code, the Building Code and all other applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations (e.g. snow removal, trash, etc.). This includes:

1. Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 12.16. Section 12.16.110 – Sidewalks – Requires snow and ice removal;

2. Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 8.24, Section 8.24.040 – Private property owners and occupants – Requires keeping premises and adjacent areas free of litter;

3. General Laws c.143, §§6-12 – Requires that structures be kept safe and secure;

4. Massachusetts Building Code, which incorporates the International Building Code – Requires that vacant structures must be secured against unauthorized entry; and

5. Massachusetts Comprehensive Fire Safety Code, which incorporates the International Fire Code, Section 110 – Requires that vacant structures must be secured against unauthorized entry.

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE
VACANT STOREFRONT POLICY
[proposed policy w/images, examples included]

I. Overview

The City of Cambridge’s (“City”) is fortunate to have a robust local economy that extends to its retail, personal services, and restaurant sectors. However, even temporary storefront vacancies through normal turnover can have a negative impact on the perception of a commercial corridor’s vitality and quality of the consumer shopping experience. The purpose of this Vacant Storefront Policy (“Policy”) is to preserve street level activity, protect property values, maintain neighborhood integrity and accessibility, safeguard against economic property blight, and ensure the safe and sanitary maintenance of ground floor vacant properties.

II. Scope

This Policy applies to ground floor vacant storefronts within the City where the property owner has not had a lease with a tenant for at least thirty (30) consecutive days, or the ground floor storefronts have otherwise been vacant for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days. This Policy also applies to ground floor storefronts that have been vacant for at least thirty (30) consecutive days where the property owner has executed a lease with a tenant but the property is undergoing renovations to accommodate the tenant’s use of the property.\

III. Requirements

After thirty (30) consecutive days of vacancy, the property owner shall do the following:

A. If the space is not leased and remains vacant, or is otherwise vacant but not undergoing renovations, the property owner must do one or both of the following:

1. Put up paper for purposes of covering storefront window(s) that face a public way so that the entire window(s) is covered, and post leasing contact information in the storefront window(s) so that it is visible to a prospective tenant;

2. Put up art work for purposes of covering storefront window(s) that face a public way so that no less than ten percent (10%) of the storefront window(s) is covered, and post leasing contact information in the storefront window(s) so that it is visible to a prospective tenant.

B. If the ground floor space is leased, but undergoing renovations, the property owner shall:

1. Place a “coming soon” sign with information about the new tenant. The tenant and the owner must make sure that this sign complies with the Cambridge Sign Ordinance, Article 7.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance¹

Please see Appendix A for pictorial examples of complying with the above requirements.

IV. Safe and Sanitary Maintenance

All commercial property owners must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. For vacant storefronts, the applicable laws, rules and regulations include:

A. Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 12.16. Section 12.16.110 – Sidewalks – Requires now and ice removal

B. Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 8.24, Section 8.24.040 – Private property owners and occupants – Requires keeping premises and adjacent areas free of litter

C. General Laws c.143, §§6-12 – Requires that structures be kept safe and secure

D. Massachusetts Building Code, which incorporates the International Building Code – Requires that vacant structures must be secured against unauthorized entry

E. Massachusetts Comprehensive Fire Safety Code, which incorporates the International Fire Code, Section 110 – Requires that vacant structures must be secured against unauthorized entry

Approved By:_________
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

Date:_________

¹ For more information on sign permits and the sign regulations, visit: https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/Signs

8. Transmitting communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $50,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Executive Department Extraordinary Expenditures Account for the City's third annual contribution to the MBTA Green Line Extension project.
Order Adopted 9-0

I am hereby requesting an appropriation of $5,000,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Executive Department Extraordinary Expenditures account, for the City’s third annual contribution to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Green Line Extension (GLX) project. This payment will bring the City’s total contribution to this critical project to $15 million of the total of $25 million that we agreed to contribute, half of which will be provided through our partnership with DivcoWest relative to the Cambridge Crossing development. Two additional $5 million contributions will be due in the fall of 2021 and the fall of 2022, at which point we will have satisfied our funding commitment to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

As documented in the previous appropriation letters from January 2018 and October 2019, the GLX project has significant benefits to the City of Cambridge:

• Construction of a new Lechmere Station to replace the recently demolished facility, which was obsolete, in poor condition, and not fully accessible for those with disabilities.
• Creation of frequent and reliable service from sections of Somerville and Medford that are currently not easily accessible by public transportation. The GLX will serve trips from these locations into the key employment centers located in eastern Cambridge, as well as trips to Boston that pass through Cambridge. This will help to reduce the number of cars driving to and through Cambridge, helping us meet our transportation and environmental objectives.
• Assisting in meeting the City’s and the region’s mobility, sustainability, and economic development goals.

According to the GLX program management team, the project is advancing on schedule and on budget and is on track to be completed within the overall project budget of $2.3 billion. The project recently passed the 50% completion milestone and service to the general public is currently slated to begin by the end of 2021. COVID-19 has exacerbated the already tight construction schedule, and the GLX team is particularly focused on determining the impacts of critical supply chain challenges and developing mitigation strategies where possible.

As documented in the photos attached, the GLX project has made significant progress on construction:

• The project is well along in construction of the new Lechmere Station and the replacement of the viaduct adjacent to Cambridge Crossing/North Point. The existing viaduct-including the connection across Monsignor O’Brien Highway-was demolished earlier this year and placement of steel beams for the new viaduct is largely complete, as shown in Photograph 1. As part of this work, a “bus bridge” is in place to move riders between Lechmere and North Station, including dedicated bus lanes on Monsignor O’Brien Highway to minimize the delays for passengers using the buses.
• Construction is also well underway at the other six new Green Line stations in Somerville and Medford.
• The extension of the viaduct to connect to the two branches in Somerville and Medford is also making significant progress, as shown in Photograph 2.
• The Community Path connection from Somerville into Cambridge Crossing/North Point is being built as part of the GLX project, including the bridge that brings the Community Path across the GLX alignment near the Cambridge/Somerville border, as shown in Photograph 3.
• 23 of the 24 new Type 9 Green Line trains have been delivered. These additional train sets are necessary to extend rail service along the GLX.
• Construction is progressing on the Vehicle Maintenance Building where trains will be stored and serviced, as shown in Photograph 4.

Of the project’s overall $2.3 billion budget, approximately $1.3 billion has been expended, and the project is employing the equivalent of 800 people across Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford.

City staff continue to be heavily involved in reviewing and commenting on the design of the improvements within Cambridge, as well as the impacts on City streets and utilities. The project has hosted 32 consecutive monthly Community Working Group meetings since late 2017, which are attended by representatives from Cambridge, as well as from Somerville and Medford. In addition, staff continue to review designs and construction documents, assess utility impacts, coordinate with nearby construction projects, and assist in publicizing upcoming construction work and the resulting impacts.

Based on the progress to date, the project continues to meet the requirements laid out in the Project Participation Agreement (PPA) between the City of Cambridge, the MBTA, and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. As a result, I remain confident that the funds being contributed to the GLX project are being spent responsibly and for the purposes laid out in the PPA, and I am pleased to request this appropriation to continue our partnership with the state and the MBTA.

9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-49, regarding a report on the feasibility of closing several blocks of streets in Harvard Square to vehicular traffic, with the exception of deliveries.
Referred to NLTP Committee & Transportation & Public Utilities Committee 8-0-1 (Simmonsa ABSENT)

Oct 19, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-49, regarding a report on the feasibility of closing several blocks of streets in Harvard Square to vehicular traffic, with the exception of deliveries, Traffic, Parking & Transportation Director Joseph Barr reports the following:

Overall, the City is supportive of implementing street closures on weekends and possibly weeknights when they help support the vitality of local businesses and the Harvard Square neighborhood. In any such effort, we need to be sensitive to the specific needs of these groups and ensure that any changes recognize and respond to their operations. Implementation of any street closures would need to be done in a manner that increases the attractiveness of the area. This typically requires programming and activation to attract positive activity and prevent the area from looking empty or inactive.

It is worth keeping in mind that activation that encourages people to congregate would have to be undertaken with caution while we are dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. Active stewardship of such spaces is important at all times, but particularly during the pandemic, to support and safely manage such activation. This is key to ensuring that changes help support the overall safety of the Harvard Square area, from the perspective of traffic safety, public health, and overall public safety. Locations where abutting restaurants or other businesses are interested in utilizing the space for outdoor dining and/or other permitted activities would be the optimal locations to be considered for closure.

The Harvard Square Business Association (HSBA) is generally supportive of street closures that are limited in terms of times of the day and days of the week, and that help contribute to the vitality and liveliness of Harvard Square, particularly in areas where businesses are seeking additional outdoor space to enhance their operations. The City has successfully partnered with a number of restaurants in Harvard Square to provide additional space for outdoor dining, most prominently on Bow Street between DeWolfe Street and Plympton Street. Leaders from HSBA want to ensure that any street closures help to further activate space within Harvard Square, and do not result in the area seeming less busy or less vital. Furthermore, HSBA emphasizes that any consideration of street closures should take into account the needs and constraints of the businesses on those streets.

Feedback from local business owners indicates that many small businesses are not supportive of closing the streets in and around Harvard Square beyond the current closures for outdoor dining. Construction activity in Harvard Square has resulted in reduced availability of on street parking. During the pandemic, when patrons are driving to the Square including to “Pick It Up Local” as encouraged by the City, businesses have expressed the concern that closing additional streets and further limiting parking could negatively impact their attractiveness, which even more than usual, depend on attracting both local and regional visitors.

Based on a letter sent by the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association (HSNA), they are supportive of street closures, as long as those closures are given “careful consideration” and continue to take into account access to key locations that need to be accessible to motor vehicles. Their letter also acknowledges the need to accommodate deliveries to local businesses, which is a critical need.

Public safety experts from the Fire Department and the Police Department have expressed concerns about the impact on emergency response that would result from the closure of major streets such as JFK Street, Mount Auburn Street, and portions of Brattle Street and/or Church Street (since those two streets provide overlapping access to certain locations within the Square).

It is also important to consider that the closure of more significant streets in Harvard Square would likely result in vehicles detouring to other streets, resulting in larger volumes of through vehicular traffic on streets not designed to carry such volumes. Such diversions would also result in multiple additional movements across bikes lanes and unsignalized crosswalks, potentially leading to safety issues at those locations. Currently, such detours do take place during special events such as Octoberfest and Mayfair, but these events are accompanied by a significant police presence to manage traffic at a level that would not be sustainable for the types of daily or weekly closures proposed in this Policy Order. As with other changes that have been discussed in Harvard Square, it would be important to ensure that closure do not divert commercial traffic onto local residential streets, particularly given the limited alternative routes around Harvard Square.

A number of the streets in Harvard Square carry Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) bus service, along with other bus services from the Longwood Medical Area, Harvard University, and other institutions, and we would want to ensure that any changes do not negatively impact those services. Although it would be possible to allow buses to travel through streets that are closed to general traffic, this would have to be done very carefully to ensure that all street users are safe and that unauthorized vehicles do not follow the buses through the closed area. In addition, keeping a portion of the street open for buses could compromise the overall intent and functionality of a street closure.

Harvard Square is currently experiencing a significant amount of disruption due to street and building construction. As noted above, limited parking and loading zones have been a concern for businesses even prior to COVID-19. Additional closures could also further disrupt deliveries and customer parking options. These construction projects also constrain the locations where we can implement street closures that are beneficial to the local area (e.g., Linden Street is already closed due to Adams House construction). Representatives from a range of City departments meet monthly with representatives from HSBA, HSNA, and small businesses to coordinate Harvard Square construction projects and mitigation strategies to reduce their impacts on the district.

Next Steps

At this time when many of our local businesses are struggling with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important that we move forward deliberately and in consultation with nearby businesses, and ensure that any street closures are both beneficial to Harvard Square and take into account the public health risks associated with COVID-19.

The Harvard Square Advisory Committee is charged with stewardship of Harvard Square and members include representatives of the Harvard Square Business Association, the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association, Harvard University, residents from adjoining neighborhoods, local businesses and property owners, among others. While the principal role of the advisory committee is to review development proposals in the Square, we recommend expanding their scope to incorporate consideration and consultation on potential roadway modifications as part of a pilot proposal.

Staff from the Community Development Department, the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department, and the Department of Public Works would work with the Harvard Square Advisory Committee and solicit additional public input to evaluate a pilot intervention. For initial consideration, we recommend the following possibilities:

• Maintain the existing full and partial street closures that are currently in place in Harvard Square, specifically Winthrop Street from JFK Street to Eliot Street and the segment of Bow Street from DeWolfe Street to Plympton Street. These closures help support outdoor dining for adjacent restaurants and provide additional pedestrian space for people traveling to and through the Square.

• Palmer Street is currently an underutilized public space in Harvard Square. At the same time, it fulfils an important delivery function supporting adjacent businesses and office uses while removing those deliveries from nearby public streets. Implementation of relatively low-cost tactical visual enhancements and activation interventions could improve the quality of the public experience, emphasize the pedestrian-oriented nature of the street, and draw new activity, while still accommodating the delivery function.

• Brattle Street, between Eliot Street and Church Street, adjacent to Deguglielmo Plaza, is the location most often mentioned for a recurring closure. This space could function as a natural extension of nearby public open spaces, while supporting the business located on this segment of Brattle Street. Church Street functions as a natural alternative route to access the remainder of Brattle Street west of Church Street, so the impact on business access could be relatively limited.

As noted earlier, we propose working with the Harvard Square Advisory Committee to review and develop an activation strategy for Harvard Square. If a successful approach can be developed, it could point the way towards additional street modifications in other locations around the Square. In addition to the advisory committee, we will continue to meet with the local community, including businesses, residents, and institutions to identify additional needs and potential solutions.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a response to Policy Order O-13 of Oct 5, 2020, regarding a draft Truck Safety Ordinance.
Passed to 2nd Reading 6-1-0-2 (Mallon NO; Simmons, Toomey - PRESENT)

Oct 19, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

This is in response to Policy Order Number O-13, of Oct 5, 2020, which requests that the City Manager work with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and the City Solicitor with regard to a draft Truck Safety Ordinance which “would provide requirements for safety improvements made to trucks owned by companies which have contracts with the City.”

After consultation with the Law Department and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, as well as the Department of Public Works, the Police Department, the Purchasing Department and the Community Development Department, I am forwarding a Truck Safety Ordinance that contains the measures that could be taken to improve the safety of large trucks utilized by City vendors, particularly in relation to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Similar to the ordinance in Boston, the attached ordinance requires side guards and other safety measures with respect to trucks operated by vendors contracting with the City.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

CHAPTER X.XXX
TRUCK SAFETY ORDINANCE

X-X - Short Title.

This Chapter may be cited as the “Truck Safety Ordinance” of the City of Cambridge.

X-X.1 Declaration of findings and policy – Scope.

The City Council hereby finds that the provisions of this Chapter are intended to promote the public purpose of effectively protecting Vulnerable Road Users, as defined in Section 2 below, against the risks associated with sharing the road with Large Vehicles, as defined in Section 2 below. This Chapter seeks to minimize the potential for injury to Vulnerable Road Users, specifically relating to falling under the sides of or being caught under the wheels of Large Vehicles.

X-X.2 Definitions.

The following words shall for the purposes of this Chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings:

A. “City” shall mean the City of Cambridge.

B. “City Solicitor” shall mean the city solicitor for the City of Cambridge.

C. “City Vendor” shall mean any individual, firm, business, consultant, contractor, or supplier of goods and/or services to the City of Cambridge, or any subcontractors, employees or agents thereof.

D. “Contract” shall mean any contract executed between the City and a City Vendor for $10,000 or more for goods, services, design or construction.

E. “DPW Commissioner” shall mean the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works or his or her designee.

F. “Large Vehicle” shall mean any Class 3 or above motor vehicle, trailer, semi-trailer or semi-trailer unit, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) exceeding 10,000 pounds, and are able to travel at speeds more than 15 miles per hour. G. “Purchasing Agent” shall mean the purchasing agent for the City of Cambridge.

H. “TPT Director” shall mean the Director of the Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department or his or her designee.

I. “Vulnerable Road User” shall mean (a) a pedestrian, including but not limited to those persons actually engaged in work upon a way, or in work upon utility facilities along a way, or engaged in the provision of emergency services within the way, or (b) a person operating a bicycle, handcycle, tricycle, skateboard, roller skates, in-line skates, moped, other non-motorized or electric personal mobility or recreational device other than an automobile or motorcycle, wheelchair, personal assistive mobility device, horse-drawn carriage, motorized bicycle, motorized scooter, farm tractor, agricultural trailer, or similar vehicle designed primarily for farm use, or other motorized vehicle which has a maximum speed of less than 20 miles per hour, or (c) a person riding an animal.

X-X.3 Applicability.

A. This Chapter shall apply to every Large Vehicle used by a City Vendor while under a City Contract, except as provided in Section C below.

B. The City, through its Purchasing Department, shall require that all City Contracts with City Vendors for supplies, services, design and/or construction in the amount of $10,000 a year or more shall include a provision requiring compliance with this Chapter and all associated rules and regulations promulgated hereunder. Any violation of any provision of this Chapter by a City Vendor shall constitute a breach of any contract the City Vendor has with the City and will be considered a default under any such contract, and shall subject the City Vendor to any and all penalties contained therein. Any violations of this Chapter shall be reported to the Purchasing Agent and the City Solicitor.

C. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to:

i. A motor vehicle which has a maximum speed not exceeding fifteen (15) mph;

ii. A fire apparatus;

iii. An emergency medical vehicle;

iv. A vehicle which is being driven or towed to a place whereby previous arrangement has been scheduled to install any safety requirements for large vehicles such that it complies with this Chapter;

v. Vehicles used by City Vendors solely for the purpose of snow clearance or removal;

vi. Vehicles used by City Vendors solely for the purpose of street sweeping.

vii. Vehicles used by City Vendors solely for the purpose of street paving.

X-X.4 Requirements for Large Vehicles.

A. All Large Vehicles subject to the provisions of this Chapter shall be equipped with convex mirrors, cross-over mirrors, decals, and side under-ride guards affixed to the sides of Large Vehicles in a manner consistent with this Chapter.

B. The DPW Commissioner and the TPT Director shall have the authority to promulgate regulations to accomplish any of the provisions of this Chapter, including but not limited to required specifications for convex mirrors, cross-over mirrors, decals, and side underride guards affixed to the sides of Large Vehicles.

C. As future technical innovations to improve safety for Vulnerable Road Users become available, the DPW Commissioner and the TPT Director may research and test such technical innovations, and update any rules and regulations promulgated hereunder consistent with such research and tests.

X-X.5 Enforcement.

Any violation of any provision of this Chapter by a City Vendor shall constitute a breach of the subject contract the City Vendor has with the City and will be considered a default under such contract with the City, and shall subject the City Vendor to any and all penalties contained in such contract. Any violations of this Chapter shall be reported to the Purchasing Agent and the City Solicitor.

X-X.6 Waiver.

A. If the Purchasing Agent believes that extenuating circumstances exist which would prevent any City Vendor(s) from complying with the provisions of this Chapter, the Purchasing Agent, upon the recommendation of both the DPW Commissioner and the TPT Director, may approve a waiver of some or all of the requirements of this Chapter prior to issuing an invitation for bids for any procurement contract.

B. If the DPW Commissioner and the TPT Director believe that extenuating circumstances exist which would prevent a City Vendor from complying with the provisions of this Chapter for a specific delivery or operation, the DPW Commissioner and TPT Director may approve a limited waiver of the requirements of this Chapter for the specific delivery or operation not to exceed one month.

C. Waivers will be issued in a form and manner consistent with the provisions of this Chapter and the rules and regulations promulgated hereunder.

X-X.7 Conformity with Existing State and Federal Law and Severability

This Chapter shall be implemented in conformity with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local laws, and the provisions of this Chapter are severable; if any provision, or portion thereof, should be held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect.

X-X.8 Effective Date

The effective date of this Chapter shall be six months from enactment.

13. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-50, regarding a report on publicizing and enforcing and publicizing the eviction moratorium.
Placed on File 9-0

Oct 19, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-50, regarding a report on publicizing and enforcing and publicizing the eviction moratorium, received from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

Oct 19, 2020
Re: Policy Order-Resolution No. 0-5 of 10/5/20 Re: report on-(1) amending Cambridge's Moratorium on Eviction Enforcement to make clear that it remains in full force and effect after October 17 and until at least the end of the state emergency is declared; (2) widely publicizing to residents, property owners and community groups that Cambridge's Moratorium on Eviction Enforcement remains in effect; and (3) how its provisions overlap and differ with the protections that have been provided by the Massachusetts Eviction Moratorium, which is expiring on October 17.

Dear Mr. De Pasquale:

This will respond to the City Council's requests in the above-referenced Council Order that the City Manager: (1) work with the Public Health Department and the Law Department to amend Cambridge's Moratorium on Eviction Enforcement to make clear that it remains in full force and effect after October 17 and until at least the end of the state emergency is declared; (2) widely publicize to residents, property owners and community groups that Cambridge's Moratorium on Eviction Enforcement remains in effect; and (3) how its provisions overlap and differ with the protections that have been provided by the Massachusetts Eviction Moratorium, which is expiring on October 17.

I. Cambridge's Eviction Enforcement Moratorium Has No Expiration Date

The City of Cambridge enacted an emergency order on April 3, 2020 entitled "Temporary Emergency Order by the Commissioner of Public Health and The City Manager Establishing a Moratorium on Eviction Enforcement and Non-Essential entry by Property Owners and Their Agents into Occupied Dwelling Units" ("Cambridge Eviction Enforcement Moratorium"). On July 23, 2020 the second part of the Order pertaining to non-essential entry was amended. The Cambridge Eviction Enforcement Moratorium prohibits property owners from acting on executions for possession obtained in a court eviction case. This means that tenants may not be forcibly evicted. The Order does not specify an expiration date. Paragraph 5 of the Order states: "[t]his Emergency Order shall remain in effect until further notice." Because the Order has no specified expiration date, we do not recommend amending it to state that it will remain in effect at least until the end of the State emergency is declared. The amended Order is attached hereto for reference.

II. Publicizing Cambridge's Eviction Enforcement Moratorium

On Oct 14, 2020, an email was sent to more than 230 Housing Professionals that included: property managers, owners, realtors, attorneys and partners to inform them of both the 2020 Tenants' Rights and Resources Notification Ordinance and, the status of Local, State and Federal moratoria. Included in the email was the joint letter from you and Mayor Siddiqui that clearly stated the Cambridge Eviction Enforcement Moratorium remains in effect until further notice. This letter along with materials and documents regarding the Tenants' Rights and Resources Notification Ordinance has also been posted on the City's website.

In addition, a news story for the City's website regarding the Tenants' Rights and Resources Notification Ordinance is being written and will be posted. This will include the Cambridge Eviction Enforcement Moratorium Order.

Finally, a postcard regarding relevant tenant protection information including the Tenants' Rights and Resources Notification Ordinance and the Cambridge Eviction Enforcement Moratorium is being prepared and will be sent to all households.

III. How the Provisions of the Cambridge Eviction Enforcement Moratorium Overlap and Differ with the Protections Provided by the Massachusetts Eviction Moratorium

On Oct 5, 2020, you provided the City Council with a letter regarding Eviction Moratoria Applicability. This letter analyzes the protections offered by each of the three eviction moratoria and is attached hereto for reference. In the letter it is explained that, the State Eviction Moratorium prevents a notice to quit from being served and a summary process action from being filed. The Cambridge Eviction Enforcement Moratorium does not address that but requires that if a landlord has gone through the process of serving a notice to quit and a summary process action, and has obtained an execution for possession from the Court, the landlord cannot cause a Constable or Sherriff to levy on that execution. This means that a landlord cannot cause a tenant to vacate the premises while the Cambridge Eviction Enforcement Moratorium is in effect. If the State Eviction Moratorium expires on Oct 17, 2020 as anticipated, it is possible that some landlords will serve tenants with notices to quit, initiate summary process eviction cases, and obtain executions for possession. Because the Cambridge Eviction Enforcement Moratorium remains in effect, landlords will be prevented from levying on executions for possession. The October 5th letter also explains that the Order issued by the Center for Disease Control ("CDC") on Sept 2, 2020 establishing a national eviction moratorium will provide protection to Cambridge tenants who qualify for its protections if or when the State Eviction Moratorium expires.

Additionally, since the October 5th letter, on Oct 12, 2020 the Governor announced a comprehensive eviction diversion initiative with increased funding and expanded programs in order to keep people safely housed during the Pandemic. Although this initiative does not impose a moratorium on evictions, it does commit $112 million of new funding to support expanded housing stability programs during the remainder of the fiscal year. These programs range from providing relief to renters and landlords, to also rehousing those at risk for homelessness. Additionally, this initiative includes funding for legal assistance for qualifying tenants during the eviction process, and funding for landlord tenant mediation. Tenants can qualify for these state programs even if they already received rental assistance from the Cambridge Mayor's Disaster Relief Fund or the Cambridge Housing Stabilization Program.

I am available to discuss this with the City Council if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,
Nancy E. Glowa
City Solicitor

JULY 23, 2020 EMERGENCY ORDER

OCT 5, 2020 CITY SOLICITOR LETTER

14. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Zoning Recommendations for Retail Uses and Home Occupations.
Referred to Planning Board & Ordinance Committee 9-0

Oct 19, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached for your consideration, Zoning Recommendations for Retail Uses and Home Occupations, received from Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Date: Oct 15, 2020
Re: Zoning Recommendations for Retail Uses and Home Occupations

Following from the Sept 30, 2020 meeting of the Economic Development and University Relations Committee, CDD staff in consultation with the Law Department have prepared the following materials for consideration if the City Council chooses to refer this language in the form of zoning petitions for hearing and report by the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee:

• Clean text versions of the potential zoning changes presented and discussed on Sept 30, 2020.

• A set of additional amendments to other sections of the Zoning Ordinance that are intended to resolve potential conflicts or ambiguity that might be created if the retail use changes discussed on Sept 30, 2020 are referred. These changes are presented in “clean” and “markup” versions and could be included in a zoning petition at the Council’s discretion.

If the Council chooses to refer these changes as zoning petitions, it recommended that they be referred as separate petitions for Home Occupations and Retail Uses.

RETAIL ZONING

HOME OCCUPATIONS

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1    Oct 19, 2020
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
WHEREAS: On September 22, Donald Trump issued the “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” from the White House, which seeks to tamp down on cultural and diversity sensitivity trainings in workplaces across the country as a part of his efforts to drive wedges between people and shore up support among his base; and
WHEREAS: Workplace diversity trainings are designed to foster better understanding and stronger relationships between people of differing backgrounds and experiences, yet this Executive Order falsely promotes the idea that such trainings are divisive and full of “un-American propaganda”; and
WHEREAS: The fallout from this Executive Order has had a chilling effect, as the New York Times reports, for example, that at the University of Iowa, “…fearing a loss of federal research grants, paused programs across the university, including training for university employees on race or sex stereotyping and scapegoating,” and it remains to be seen what impact this order may have on Cambridge and in what ways our community can work around this order; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the City Solicitor’s Office and other relevant departments to determine what impact the Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping may have on the City of Cambridge and its community partners, what options the City may have to work around this order, and to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner.

O-3     Oct 19, 2020
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The Purchasing department is responsible for putting out bids and securing contracts for Cambridge, buying millions of dollars of goods and services each year with taxpayer dollars; and
WHEREAS: The Purchasing Department ensures that “...all purchases of goods and services are made in accordance with State law and City Ordinance and are open, fair, competitive, and obtained at the lowest possible cost”; and
WHEREAS: The Purchasing Department already has specific requirements or suggestions, such as encouraging participation of and outreach to minority, local and women-owned businesses, and a living wage requirement for all labor, in an effort to use taxpayer dollars in an equitable manner; and
WHEREAS: The City’s commitment to fighting for sustainability and ensuring all employees a living wage should be borne out in the dollars we spend; and
WHEREAS: Every taxpayer should be confident that all money spent by the city supports fair and equitable labor practices, wages, safety standards and health standards and complies with our country’s and state’s environmental standards, rules, laws and regulations; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City Solicitor on an ordinance requiring the city to only purchase goods that are made in full compliance with USA environmental and labor standards; and further be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the Council before the end of the year.

O-6     Oct 19, 2020
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
WHEREAS: Eversource has recently contacted Cambridge residents and commercial abutters about upgrades to a substation on Wheeler Street and to a facility owned by the energy company on New Street; and
WHEREAS: Eversource should seek to answer questions including what steps are being taken to address flood risk in the Alewife area, how fencing around the sites will be improved and maintained, the anticipated timelines for construction at the two sites, and any potential impacts to the easement near the substation; and
WHEREAS: Recent plans by Eversource for a substation in East Cambridge were complicated by frustration on the part of residents and the City Council due in part to communication issues; and
WHEREAS: A presentation and discussion by Eversource with neighborhood stakeholders and City staff to address these questions would allow residents and staff a time to ask questions and consider how the upgrades will affect City plans for the area; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with staff and Eversource representatives to set up a public meeting with residents on how the City’s understanding of present and future citywide energy needs and local flood risk, as well as plans for the surrounding neighborhood, are addressed by Eversource.

O-7     Oct 19, 2020  Amended by Substition - see below
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: From 1919 to 1923, the Ottoman Government and Republic of Turkey slaughtered, raped and marched 1.5 million Armenians to their deaths in an effort to eliminate the Armenian Nation in the first modern genocide in history; and
WHEREAS: The premeditated and systematic cleansing of the Armenian Nation included the removal and seizing of historical artifacts, permanent damage to historical buildings and monuments, and the seizing of thousands of churches; and
WHEREAS: To this day, the Republic of Turkey has vehemently denied the occurrence of the genocide targeting Armenians, despite an overwhelming amount of proof of the existence of such intent; and
WHEREAS: From Switzerland to Argentina, the international community overwhelmingly recognizes the Armenian genocide; and
WHEREAS: The history of the genocide plays a critical role in the recent attacks in the Republic of Artsakh; and
WHEREAS: On Sept 26, 2020, Azerbaijan's military forces launched a deadly and unprovoked attack against the Republic of Artsakh, including that country's capital city, Stepanakert, and that attack has already taken innocent civilian lives; and
WHEREAS: The region of Artsakh has been the eastern portion of the Armenian homeland for over two millennia, and during the formation of the Soviet Union, the Armenian regions of Artsakh and Nakhichevan were attached to Azerbaijan to placate Turkey and maintain ethnic tensions in the region that remain to this day; and
WHEREAS: The United Nations has called for a ceasefire around the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but Azerbaijan has renewed its warfare, violating its ceasefire agreement with Armenia, causing death, terror and destruction; and
WHEREAS: Turkey has extended its financial and military support to Azerbaijan's invasion and has threatened Armenia, with the inference that the Azeri invasion carries the echoes of generations of pan-Turkish nationalist commitment to erasing the Armenian population and culture from the world; and
WHEREAS: For two weeks in a row, Azerbaijan continues to violate the ceasefire and show aggression against civilians, and the United States has yet to comment on Azerbaijan’s responsibility in provoking and continuing attacks during a pandemic; and
WHEREAS: The United States has a moral obligation to work with our ally Turkey, to ensure peace and stability in this region; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge stands in solidarity with the Armenian people in Cambridge, throughout the Commonwealth and world, and the Republic of Artsakh.

Substitute Order
O-7     Oct 19, 2020
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: On October 29, 2019 the United States Senate formally adopted a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide, condemning the killing of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923; and
WHEREAS: The history of the genocide plays a critical role in the recent attacks in the Republic of Artsakh; and
WHEREAS: On September 26, 2020, Azerbaijan's military forces launched an attack against the Republic of Artsakh, including that country's capital city, Stepanakert, and that attack has already taken innocent civilian lives; and
WHEREAS: The United Nations has called for a ceasefire around the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but Azerbaijan has renewed its warfare, violating its ceasefire agreement with Armenia, causing death, terror and destruction; and
WHEREAS: Since the September attack, Armenia has declared martial law, ordering civilians to shelter, and civilian lives continue to be in danger, with the bombing of civilian settlements, missile, and drone attacks; and
WHEREAS: In addition to the century of conflict and loss of life in this region, the current eruption of violence has resulted in the reported loss of more than 700 lives, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, which left unaddressed, could spark wider regional conflict with international repercussions, extending beyond the region and its allies; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge stands in solidarity with the people of Armenia by urging the immediate re-establishment of a ceasefire, adherence to a humanitarian truce, and reconvening of diplomatic negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge urges the Trump Administration to utilize all diplomatic, economic and political means to compel Azerbaijan to engage meaningfully in the peace process to achieve a sustainable, lasting peace to ensure territorial integrity and sovereignty.

O-9     Oct 19, 2020
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: Cambridge has a long and proud history of welcoming immigrants of all backgrounds into our community; and
WHEREAS: Over the course of centuries, immigrants in the United States have contributed to the very fabric of the country through their work across various sectors; and
WHEREAS: Research and studies have confirmed that our diversity makes us stronger, and thus the diverse and immigrant communities that make up the United States are an asset; and
WHEREAS: The United States has had a long and proud history of welcoming immigrants, and providing asylum to those fleeing violence or persecution in their countries of origin; and
WHEREAS: The United States has historically served as an international leader in protecting refugees and advocating for human rights; and
WHEREAS: The treatment of immigrants and the separation of children from their parents at the border and in the interior of the country is inhumane, unconstitutional, and goes against the United States’ long-standing ideal of upholding and advocating for human rights; and
WHEREAS: There are more than 2,000 immigrants detained in the state who cannot afford a lawyer, and as immigration arrests rise across the state, guaranteeing due process and access to legal representation has become even more urgent; and
WHEREAS: Immigrant families and their children are detained in unacceptable conditions, in many cases without adequate food, water, or access to necessary hygiene and sanitary products; and
WHEREAS: The unsanitary conditions and lack of access to adequate health care is causing migrant men, women, and children in these detention centers to get sick and seven children have died after being in Border Patrol custody; and
WHEREAS: The US has held nearly 70,000 immigrant children in detention in 2019, and minors detained without their parents in these detention centers often receive inadequate education, mental health services, and other care; and over 1,000 children per year have been sexually assaulted; and
WHEREAS: The detention of immigrants and their children during the COVID-19 pandemic has and will cause irreversible damage to the health, well-being and very lives of immigrants and their families, especially since there are no separated quarantine quarters or isolated areas for COVID-19 positive individuals; and
WHEREAS: The Department of Homeland Security’s response to COVID-19 has been inadequate – in addition to ignoring the health crisis within facilities, they are also putting the public health of all communities at risk by transferring people across the country and overseas, including moving people from pandemic hot spots to detention centers with fewer documented cases of COVID-19 - it’s vital that they immediately release people from detention to protect their lives, and to flatten the curve; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge condemns the inhumane treatment of immigrants at our borders and in the interior of the country especially during the COVID-19 pandemic which creates a breeding ground for disease in detention centers and places immigrants at significant risk; and be it further
RESOLVED: We affirm that as history and law have dictated, all men, women, and children who come to our borders have a right to due process and to the full and fair opportunity to seek protection in the United States; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City of Cambridge call upon Senator Warren and Senator Markey to call for an end to immigration detention in the United States, the immediate reunification of immigrant families and the release of migrant children and parents from detention, and also to afford these families due process by allowing them the full and fair opportunity to seek protection from the United States.

O-10     Oct 19, 2020
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge recently enacted the 2020 Tenants’ Rights and Resources Notification Ordinance, which went into effect on Oct 14, 2020; and
WHEREAS: The Ordinance was enacted to inform Cambridge residents of their housing rights and the resources available to them at both the start of tenancies and when tenancies are terminated in order to maintain housing and community stability for the City’s tenants, owners, and neighborhoods; and
RESOLVED: While the State’s Eviction Moratorium is set to expire on Oct 17, 2020, the City of Cambridge’s Eviction Moratorium, issued on April 3, 2020, will continue to protect tenants from forcible evictions but not from filing eviction actions; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge could strengthen its Moratorium to protect tenants from the pending eviction wave; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge’s Eviction Moratorium does not include enforcement language, which is critical to ensure residents are not wrongfully removed from their residences; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager confer with the Legal Department on the feasibility of making Cambridge’s Eviction Moratorium stronger to protect our tenants from displacement.

O-11     Oct 19, 2020
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge recently invested time and financial resources to restore the Harvard Square Kiosk and surrounding plaza, which form the heart of Harvard Square; and
WHEREAS: During that same time period two people were tragically victims of fatal traffic accidents in Harvard Square; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge announced a new “quick-build separated bike lane” due in part to these accidents, but these efforts primarily entail painted lanes on asphalt and do not fully address the concerns around cyclist and pedestrian safety in Harvard Square; and
WHEREAS: A six-inch raised curbed and planters appropriately spaced will more safely separate bicycles from cars, slow down traffic, and strongly discourage pedestrians from crossing mid-block; and
WHEREAS: Additional and functional planting areas in place of the painted asphalt areas will more significantly beautify the Square and be more consistent with the City’s investment in the Kiosk and Plaza restoration efforts; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager is hereby requested to instruct the Commissioner of Public Works to utilize continuous planting strips along bike lanes and at all reduced roadway areas in Harvard Square rather than painted buffer zones in Harvard Square to fully address bike and pedestrian safety in Harvard Square.

O-12     Oct 19, 2020
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge prides itself on its history of socially conscious and progressive values, and is known as a leader on issues such as racial equity, LGBTQ protections, environmental issues and social services; and
WHEREAS: One of the City’s goals is to assist people of all backgrounds through allocation of financial resources and educational opportunities; and
WHEREAS: Black people and people of color in Cambridge experience gaps in wealth, health, educational achievement, business ownership and more, compared to white residents; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge invests significant resources to address racial and economic equity, however, the amount of programming and allocation of financial resources is not readily apparent; and
WHEREAS: City agencies such as the Department of Public Works, Inspectional Services, Traffic and Parking and other public resources are often allocated based on public demand, which may not distribute resources in an equitable manner; and
WHEREAS: The perception of uneven distribution of resources and under-representation in community decision making processes from diverse and low-income stakeholders requires the City Council to ensure equitable distribution of resources; and
WHEREAS: The 2022 budgeting process will begin this month of October; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager is hereby requested to instruct the Finance Department to provide a dollar amount and percentage of money used by every department to address racial and economic equity in the 2022 Fiscal Year Budget; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager is hereby requested to instruct the Budget Department to highlight in the 2022 Fiscal Year Budget what programs the city offers to address racial and economic inequity; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager is hereby requested to instruct the Budget Department to highlight additional areas being considered to address racial and economic inequity in the 2022 Fiscal Year Budget; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager and his team appear before the Committee on Finance to discuss implementation of the above orders in the 2022 Fiscal Year Budget; and be it further
ORDERED: That this policy order be referred to the Finance Committee for deliberation and discussion.

O-13     Oct 19, 2020  Amended
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR MALLON
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: It has come to the attention of the Cambridge City Council that Judge Roanne Sragow, who has served exceptionally as First Justice of the Cambridge District Court for 22 years, has been relieved of her position; and
WHEREAS: As First Justice, Judge Sragow has served the Cambridge community firmly but with compassion, vision, and leadership which has earned her the trust and respect of not only those who serve the law, but those who come before her court; and
WHEREAS: Judge Sragow has led the Homeless Court at First Parish Church in Cambridge, gaining national attention, and more importantly, changing the lives of hundreds of the most vulnerable members of the community; and
WHEREAS: Judge Sragow's mental health sessions for defendants has provided those struggling with mental health issues the support and caring they need, resulting in positive outcomes for both the individual and the community; and
WHEREAS: During this time of the Covid-19 pandemic, which only further increases the life and death struggle for those who are unhoused in our community, as well as those who are struggling with mental health and substance use issues, removing Justice Sragow at this time is particularly cruel and dangerous; and
WHEREAS: Removing Judge Sragow further hurts the Cambridge community, which is still struggling with the illegal removal of the Cambridge District Court from our city; and
WHEREAS: Justice Sragow has consistently advocated for the return of the Cambridge District Court to Cambridge, at times putting her at odds with her superiors, which further clouds her removal and suggests retaliation; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council go on record in opposition to the removal of Judge Roanne Sragow, First Justice of the Cambridge District Court; and further be it
RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council call for Judge Sragow to be reinstated to her position and remain in Cambridge where she has served exceptionally for the past 22 years and has become an integral member of the community and where she has worked closely with city departments, local clergy and non-profits, to care for our most vulnerable; and further be it
ORDERED: That the City Clerk send a suitably engrossed copy of this order to Governor Charlie Baker, Lt. Governor Karen Polito, who Chairs the Governor's Council, and to Chief Justice Dawley and Chief Justice Carey on behalf of the entire Cambridge City Council.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Sept 30, 2020 at 2:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber for the purpose of receiving final recommendations from the Community Development Department on updating the commercial land use classification system within the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Mallon, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Toomey; Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Present for the hearing via Zoom were Councillor Nolan; Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Carlone; Mayor Siddiqui; Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development; Pardis Saffari, Senior Economic Development Manager, Community Development Department (CDD); Anthony Wilson, City Clerk; Ranjit Singanayagam, Commissioner; Sisia Daglian, Assistant Commissioner, Inspectional Services Department (ISD); Alex Rubin; Andree Entezari; Corinne Espinoza; Jason Alves, Executive Director, East Cambridge Business Association; John Hawkinson; and Robert P. Reardon.

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

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

Vice Mayor Mallon turned the floor over to Ms. Farooq and Mr. Roberts for a presentation. Ms. Farooq stated that two parts to the materials that were submitted to the Committee (ATTACHMENT A). The first is zoning CDD has been talking to with the Economic Development and University Relations Committee about for some time and in which there has been a lot of interest from the retail small business community as well as the business associations. She said that it has come up as a priority during their work with the Small Business Advisory Committee that was set up during Covid and it and responds to the changing need of retail and small businesses and making sure that the City’s zoning is up to date to accommodate retail in today’s world. She said that they have formulated zoning recommendations after the last discussion on the conceptual pieces with the committee. She said that the second piece is some zoning text amendments related to home-based occupations, particularly focusing on residential kitchens and cottage food production. She said that CDD has had initial discussions and it was noted while this is something that they have heard of, from the staff perspective, they would caution stepping carefully into this as this is looking at activities in people’s homes and it can have an impact on abutters and this is something that the Inspectional Services Department hears about from time to time. She asked the Committee to keep this in mind. She stated her hope that Mr. Singanayagam will speak about enforcement challenges that are encountered.

Jeff Roberts gave an overview of the PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He stated that this is a brief presentation and it is a continuation of the discussion from the prior Economic Development and University Relations meeting. He said that since that time, CDD has spent extensive effort working both within CDD, ISD, the City Solicitor’s Office, and the Department of Public Health to complete a set of suggested zoning text amendments. He said that the hope is to talk through it and then have an opportunity to answer questions and receive feedback.

Vice Mayor Mallon welcomed Ranjit Singanayagam and Sisia Daglian from ISD to answer questions specifically around the cottage food business and home-based occupation issue that is before the Committee today. She stated that ISD has some concerns related to this change and will be happy to answer questions.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that no one had signed up for Public Comment.

Councillor Toomey made a motion to close Public Comment. The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan -4
ABSENT: Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler -1
and Public Comment was closed.

Councillor Zondervan thanked Mr. Roberts for the presentation which addresses many of the issues that were asked about. He said that he would like to talk about the parking proposal. He stated that he does not understand the reduction. He said that this contains a lot of qualifiers. Jeff Roberts stated that he switched the slide to show the zoning text. There is an existing section of the zoning that says as an exemption to parking requirement, any non-residential use that would require 4 or fewer spaces and there are other qualifications about being in a building with over 10,000 square feet or less, then the parking requirements are waived. This is adding another piece to that exemption. He said that it is similar to the provision that exists in Harvard and Central Squares which effectively says that if you have an existing building that is in place and a use moved out of the building and a new use moves into the building, that use is not required to build new parking spaces as a result of moving into that building. He said that this is the issue that many businesses face right now; they move into an existing building, if it is a restaurant that is moving into a building that used to be an office and it might trigger an additional parking requirement and the choice is to either building parking spaces on site or go to the BZA to get relief.

Councillor Zondervan said that all that is being added is the provision that the other provisions are preexisting and will continue. Councillor Zondervan said that he fully supports this amendment. He said that supports more analysis as it relates to parking requirements.

Councillor Nolan thanked Vice Mayor Mallon and City staff for their hard work. She said that while she is in support of adding categories, do we really need 31 categories. She asked if it can it be made simpler in the interest of being more streamlined. Mr. Robert said that this is the crux of a lot of discussion. He said that there are always different ways to structure a use definition if one was starting from scratch. He noted that they are working with a system of use regulations that has been in place and has resulted in what we have presently. The more changes that are made, the more the potential for unintended consequences. He said that they were trying to amend the use definitions to be as close to what is in place currently while at the same time addressing specific concerns that have been raised. By cleaning up the definitions, the City Council can decide how it wants to regulate particular uses. This allow future City Councils to have the same discretion. Nancy Glowa added that legally, it is important to describe and define each use that the City Council wants to be a permitted use. She said that under zoning law, any use that is not specifically categorized as an allowed use is not allowed. She said that the Zoning Ordinance does not have the kind of flexibility that Councillor Nolan is suggesting. Councillor Nolan stated that she is hoping that we could consolidate the list of uses by grouping those that are similar. She asked if it is normal for a city to have 31 uses. Ms. Farooq said that staff attempted to look at where things could be consolidated but were cautious about where there were distinctions. She said that there is a series of requirements that may relate to a provision of food in a particular location that are distinct from other services. She said that it is helpful to have those separate. She said that part is regulation and part is impact. Councillor Nolan said that it is complex to look at. She said that there is a distinction on homebased businesses related to the number of people allowed. She said that she is curious as to why businesses are treated differently. Mr. Roberts responded that as it relates to the home-based occupations, they were taking most of the lead from current zoning. He said that current zoning only calls out offices and massage therapists. Again, it has to do with the nature of that type of a home-based use. They did want to effectively change the current zoning to have offices have some ancillary employees on site. They were trying to start with existing zoning and add on parts that are meant to be added. He said that they had to decide what were the general limitations. Councillor Nolan said that she is not sure that makes sense as it is odd not to treat all professionals the same.

Nancy Glowa added that the idea of an accessory use comes out of the longstanding practice of what would be a customary home-based use. If you have a law practice or other professional office, historically that has meant an assistant as opposed to several attorneys.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that procedurally, the committee could move the potential zoning text amendments out of the Economic Development and University Relations Committee to the full City Council for referral to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board for a full process. She noted that she would like to see more community engagement at the Ordinance Committee level as this is an important conversation and the public has not been heard from.

Councillor Carlone said that this is well thought out proposal that makes sense. He said that one benefit of all retail type of uses listed is that developers or agents can see immediately what is allowed. He asked if the same kind of work will continue in other use areas. He asked about capacity. Ms. Farooq said that CDD currently has other priority items from the City Council so those are ahead of anything else in the workplan. She said these are foundational aspects of the zoning ordinance so there is a lot of work that goes into developing and modifications. She said that if the City Council wants CDD to tackle other aspects, they would be ready to take on such aspects ahead of other items. Councillor Carlone said that he believed that we were looking over all of the uses. He said that he is talking about disconnecting two uses in the same category.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler asked about the changes in the parking requirements for clarity. Mr. Roberts said that the suggested change is an addition to an existing section which provides an exemption for small scale non-residential uses. In addition to the current exemption, it would exempt new parking requirements for any non-residential use in an existing building.

Vice Mayor Mallon thanked CDD and the City Solicitor’s Office for their work. She stated that these amendments line up perfectly with what was discussed at the prior meeting. She said that she looks forward to forwarding this to the full City Council and the Ordinance Committee for a deeper conversation. As it relates to the parking requirements, she said that parking requirement that we are changing in Section 6.32.1 was the number one thing that was discussed as an impediment to opening quickly by businesses. Mr. Roberts said that during the process of reviewing what were the most typical regulatory burdens for small businesses, one of the things most likely to land a new business in front of the BZA for some type of relief, parking relief was at the top. He said that when a small business needs to get relief from the BZA is a relief from parking requirements. Iram Farooq asked Pardis Saffari to speak to this because she has spent a lot of time with businesses and the challenges that they encounter.

Pardis Saffari stated that it is one of the top issues of concern. She said that a lot of it has to do with the fact that a lot of new businesses want to be hybrid and having to go to the BZA for parking relief is an impediment. She said that the expansion of recommendations as well as the new hybrid uses will help with that. Vice Mayor Mallon said that the parking burden and requirement is one of things that businesses talk about the most as it relates to getting through the process. She said that this type of change has been very thoughtful. She stated that there are sad stories about retail that would be exciting that would enliven retail corridors but they decide to move elsewhere where regulatory requirements are not as stringent.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that she would like to talk about the home-based cottage food industry and the change in home-based businesses. Ms. Farooq stated that the key issue with regard to the home-based businesses is that they are in urban settings which means that they are fairly close to next door neighbors.

She explained that ISD will be the entity most conversant to the challenges in this regard. Ranjit Singanayagam stated that a home-based cottage food business would have to get a Food Handlers Permit and an inspection of the property from ISD. He said that if they are going to provide a kitchen with a stove, the Fire Department will be involved. Vice Mayor Mallon said that she is curious about permitting process, inspections, etc. She asked what ISD is thinking about in terms of permitting and oversight. Mr. Singanayagam said that they will inspect a home-based food business as they do any other food establishment. He noted that if there are no complaints, they are inspected yearly.

Councillor Nolan asked what lessons can be learned from other cities and towns and their experiences with unintended consequences. Mr. Singanayagam said that he has spoken with staff in Arlington who said that they inspect the property and issue Food Handlers licenses. Councillor Nolan said that she is supportive of this endeavor.

Councillor Carlone said that he assumes that the ISD and the Fire Department are primarily fire suppression and perhaps the series of stoves beyond one residential stove. He said that if you are selling to the public, you are not generally working with one stove, is that correct? Ranjit Singanayagam said that if they will install another stove, that will involve plumbing inspectors. These things must be considered as well.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that it seems that Arlington has this part of their zoning, but she imagines that there are other cities and towns that ISD can continue reach out to as it relates to best practices. She looks forward to the continuation of this conversation.

Councillor Toomey asked Ms. Glowa that if a business is in a residential building, would the homeowner and abutters be notified that a tenant has applied for a permit for a home-based food business. Ms. Glowa stated that the owner would be notified if they were installing an additional stove. Nancy Glowa added that a lot of these issues involve legal issues. She explained that anytime there is an application for zoning relief, the owner of the property is required to sign off on the application itself. With respect to something that is allowed as of right, it would typically need owner consent. As it relates to condominiums, it relies on condominium documents.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that she is hearing from the Committee is that it would like to forward both zoning amendments to the full City Council for referral to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board. She said that they should be sent separately because it sounds like the Home Occupations proposed zoning amendments may be trickier and need more meetings than the Retail or Consumer Services Establishments proposed amendments.

Councillor Zondervan made a motion to send both proposed zoning amendments to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, and Councillor Zondervan -5
NAYS: -0
and the motion passed.

One written communication was received from Andree Entezari (ATTACHMENT C).

Vice Mayor Mallon thanked all those present for their attendance.

On a motion from Councillor Toomey to adjourn the hearing, the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, and Councillor Zondervan -5
ABSENT: -0
and the hearing adjourned at 3:26pm.

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

For the Committee,
Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, Chair
Economic Development & University Relations Committee

Proposed Order     Oct 19, 2020
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The Economic Development and University relations Committee met on Sept 30, 2020.
WHEREAS: The committee received proposed amendments for Retail Users and Home Occupations to the City’s Zoning Ordinance from the Community Development Department
WHEREAS: The committee voted to forward those proposed amendments to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation.
ORDERED: That the proposed zoning amendments for Retail Users and Home Occupations which are attached to this order be adopted.

COMMITTEE REPORT #2
The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, July 30, 2020 at 10:00am in the Sullivan Chamber to receive an update on the Retail Land Use Initiative and Retail Table of Land Use Update.

Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor Toomey; Naomie Stephen; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Present via Zoom were Councillor Nolan; Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler; Councillor Zondervan; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; Jeff Roberts, Zoning and Development Director; and Pardis Saffari, Senior Economic Development Manager.

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

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

Vice Mayor Mallon read from a prepared written statement. She said that updated the Table of Land Uses has taken an incredibly long time and that the delay in implementing changes since these changes were first proposed in 2015 has cost the small business community considerably. The Table of Land Uses must reflect the changing face of retail, and during COVID-19, we must ensure maximum flexibility for small businesses, and eliminate or reduce hurdles within the City. She said hammering out the final details and delivering a new Table of Land Uses will help allow retail districts thrive and ensure a healthy economic recovery.

Vice Mayor Mallon introduced Assistant City Manager Farooq. Assistant City Manager Farooq said that updating the Table of Land Uses was more complex than they anticipated. Subsequent to the 2015 assessment of the Table of Land Uses, they created a Retail Strategic Plan which led the City to prioritize the retail components of the Use Table and work to ensure it aligns with the changing face of retail.

Assistant City Manager Farooq introduced Jeff Roberts, Pardis Saffari, and Solicitor Glowa. Assistant City Manager Farooq explained they have been working closely with the Inspectional Services Department, as they have helped develop, and will eventually help enforce, the updated Table of Land Uses.

Pardis Saffari and Jeff Roberts gave a summary of the PowerPoint presentation (Attachment A).

Vice Mayor Mallon said that the presentation was comprehensive and summed up a lot of the work that has been over a number of years. She said that she is pleased to have the discussion. She recognized that Councillor Carlone and Mayor Siddiqui were present via Zoom. Vice Mayor Mallon invited the City Councillors to ask questions.

Councillor Zondervan stated that it was an excellent presentation. There is a lot of detail in the definitions and he wonders why we need all these regulations for zoning. What is the driving force to maintain this very complex, inflexible Table of Uses? He said that he understands that there are licensing requirements around food and alcohol, and noise restrictions, but there are many regulations that help govern how businesses operate. Why do we need to restrict where a restaurant can be located? How did this detailed level of location regulation evolve? Jeff Roberts acknowledged that there is a Zoning Ordinance and it is necessary to state affirmatively in the code what kinds of uses are allowed in what places. We must have zoning of some sort, and the question from a policy perspective is what that zoning should be, how permissive, how restrictive, and in what areas. Retail, because of its history in Cambridge, has more restrictive zoning than if it were being zoned totally new today. It does lay out a set of rules which have shaped the kind of retail environment that we currently have and that a lot of businesses, property owners, and residents rely on to create some predictability in what is and what is not permitted. There is a question on adjusting regulations to treat retail uses more permissively. There has to be something in zoning that says, “this is what we mean by retail use” and “this is how we categorize them.” He said that anything done in zoning must be appropriate within the statue. There are broader state limitations on how far one can go with different zoning approaches. We need zoning as a part of practice, and the City Council can decide what it should look like from a policy perspective, within legal bounds.

Assistant City Manager Farooq said that zoning is a dance between providing flexibility and providing predictability. Predictability is important for those who might want to open a business and even more so for abutters. She said that zoning consistently responds to the needs of that particular time, protecting the property owners and tenants, as well as inhabitants of the area. She said that greater permissibility within the more core business districts and more predictability near residential districts would perhaps serve the interest of everyone. That is one of the themes in the formulation of this proposal. She said that many of the granular complaints before the Inspectional Services Department is the impact of the abutting use of a business on next door neighbors, particularly residences.

Councillor Zondervan said that the impact is what is important, and the zoning is a complicated way to get it. Impact seems to be a simpler way to address concerns, and that this does not need to necessarily be tied to zoning. His preference is being maximally flexible, especially as COVID has increased need for small businesses. Why do we need any parking requirements going forward? Why not say that there is no parking requirement and if the business cannot work without parking, it will not be located there.

Assistant City Manager Farooq said that she does not have a response, as these are issues for the City Council to consider. Businesses may also have thoughts on this subject as well. She said that this is one of the issues that comes up again and again as a challenge for retailors. Jeff Roberts added that they are trying to incorporate strategies. They are looking at small retail in existing business area type conditions rather than new retail where parking requirements come into play more. There are parts of the City where we have adopted zoning where minimum parking requirements for commercial use after working closely with traffic planners. He said that he would want information from transportation planners before eliminating baseline parking requirements everywhere.

Councillor Zondervan said that his preference is to move in that direction. He said that these conversations take place to work toward eliminating all the minimum parking requirements and lowering maximum parking allowed to align with City goals for moving away from being car oriented. If people are arriving in private vehicles, they should park in public garages, rather than business-specific parking.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler stated that he is glad to see that proposed changes are about simplifying uses. He asked the Solicitor, re: abutting uses, if there another reason for it? Why have all these distinctions and zoning districts? Can we favor local businesses with zoning over chains and corporate establishments? Solicitor Glowa responded that it is not legally permissible although she would like to do more research. She said that generally you cannot regulate who owns property, but you can regulate the uses permitted. The case law is clear that is not permissible to prohibit large chains. We should focus more on the uses that we want allowed or permitted. She said that the general starting principle with zoning is that things are not allowed unless stated, and that people must seek a special permit or a variance to go outside those parameters. Having zoning that allows people to do whatever they want would deprive others of the ability to regulate things they do not want. The principle of zoning is to balance uniformity and consistency so that people can rely on, so that when a district is designated as primarily residential or primarily commercial, they know what uses to expect.

Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said that it seems a couple of uses, such as Fast Order Food, are not working as intended. It would be easier to say we do not want corporate chains, rather than trying to define fast order food.

Re: abutting use, can Assistant City Manager Farooq provide examples of people not wanting certain types of businesses? Assistant City Manager Farooq said that Solicitor Glowa may have more examples. Complaints tend to be not at the inception of something. She said that over time, the neighbors tend to complain about too much noise from a business or odors. One example was on Prospect Street where there used to be a retail bakery/café. There was a desire to put in a coffee roastery and people were concerned about the odors. She said that we need to look at what will happen if a use is allowed and if it makes sense at a particular site. She said that in other areas, if it is more on a corridor, such a business would be fine. She said that this may be a reason to have some level of stratification to allow to think through the impacts in certain areas. Zoning allows the regulation of performance. Solicitor Glowa said that over the years the City has seen everything from noise, odors, general activity. At times there may be complaints about accessory uses in a residence for a home business. There could be more traffic coming and going. Airbnb is a good example of this. Drop offs at all hours of the night. Little things start bothering people. She said that a lot of it comes down to quality of life issues in residential areas. What impact the activity has on the community.

Jeff Roberts said that it is true that there are often complaints that come about when a new business is established. The cannabis stores story relates to community perception and the relationship between the city permitting cannabis and then from specific neighborhoods is not unusual. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said that he feels the same as Councillor Zondervan about parking requirements. He said that it will be interesting to hear the perspective of business owners.

Councillor Nolan said that as a new member she is thrilled that this is before the committee. She said that she hopes that these can be pushed forward as soon as possible. She said that she is committed to moving this forward as soon as possible. Seems clear to her. She said that re: timing and cost estimates, she believes that they underestimate the true time and the true cost. She said that the real question is to limit the impact on neighborhoods is traffic, odors, etc. Why is there any use delineation? If we are trying to limit impact, can there not be a simplified chart? She would vote for a radically simplified zoning. She asked if we can consolidate all uses into one chart with no distinctions whatsoever, or consolidate categories.

Vice Mayor Mallon said CDD walked through why zoning is important. She understands desire for maximum flexibility, especially to support small businesses as COVID changes things dramatically. She asked Assistant City Manager Farooq and Jeff Roberts if they have additional thoughts. Assistant City Manager Farooq said that they will take that response back to staff as we move to the next level.

Councillor Nolan said that she wonders if there are other cities that are doing Land Use reform. Berkeley was mentioned during the presentation, but are there any others? Jeff Roberts said that many cities are looking broadly at their entire zoning, not their retail code. He said that Berkeley is the one example mostly aligned with what could be done in the City of Cambridge. Other municipalities have sometimes expanded their use categories.

Councillor Nolan is glad to see discussion related to consolidating categories.

Councillor Carlone saluted CDD staff for the excellent presentation. He said that the approach is right on target. Without zoning you will not maintain integrity and value of districts. He said that zoning reinforces what is unique about Cambridge and then tries to enhance it. Implementing an urban design plan cannot be done without zoning. On Slide 48 this is an excellent way to simplify and be more realistic about retail needs. What do specific neighborhoods need, what do they ask for in district zoning? He said that he remembers when Dunkin Donuts wanted to come between Harvard and Porter Square when there were eleven other locations within two miles, and the neighborhood fought against it. Want to make things simpler but what gives a neighborhood character are unique shops. You can say you can limit zoning to small shops. There are ways to focus on what you want and what you don’t want on individual strips. He said that re: schedule, assuming feedback is given, it will go to Ordinance Committee. As Chair of the Ordinance Committee, the schedule has been delayed given unknown ordinance committee meetings upcoming. What are the hopes for delivering a package to the City Council? Assistant City Manager Farooq stated that they are focused on this topic and would like to advance it soon. Hope is that if they get the City Council general blessing on the proposed zoning direction, they will go to the next step in creating zoning language. She said that once they have the zoning language and forward it to the City Council, there will be the entire rezoning process which could take approximately 6 months, at least 4 months. Jeff Roberts echoed Assistant City Manager Farooq’s timeline. He noted that the nature of this work makes it hard to put to an exact timeframe. The internal review and testing process with ISP is going to be key. They will move forward in earnest to get it done but the timeframe by Assistant City Manager Farooq is good, but it may take longer to ensure that what is being delivered will work. Councillor Carlone said that he knows that this will take time because zoning is complicated, and he gives enormous credit for the presentation.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that what is being done with this zoning update is complicated in its’ trying to simplify. She moved to public comment.

Jason Alves at 11:36am.
Stated that he appreciates the advancement and that it has come up a lot at the Small Business Task Force. Great to hear that everyone wants maximum leniency. Any trip to the Board of Zoning Appeals is delayed and expenses get held up because of this. He said that when a use is deleted, what happens if this particular type of business is in existence in the City? Would not want to see them have difficulties if they wanted to expand their businesses. Re: accessory uses, it is an odd thing. He said that it seems that there are other ways to regulate problems that will arise with accessory uses. Re: Hampshire Street, it is not in a business zone and there are a lot of small, commercial spaces with a lower cost of entry. He does not know how these businesses will be protected in these zoning changes. Encouraged by the notion of removing parking requirements.

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

Vice Mayor Mallon asked Assistant City Manager Farooq and Jeff Roberts about how implementing a zoning model similar to Berkley’s, where restaurant uses have just three categories: carryout food store, quick service restaurant, and full service restaurant, could work in Cambridge and if that example that could be implemented? Jeff Roberts said that if you go to the detail, it seems complicated, but it would mean taking restaurants, fast order food, and other food services uses, and making it one item in the Table of Uses. It would all fall into the same use category in the zoning ordinance. That means that how it is regulated around the City would have more consistency. Could look at other kinds of limitations, like size, so long as they can be easily understood by businesses and easily applied by zoning. Vice Mayor Mallon asked if this would replace or consolidate Zoning Ordinance Section 4.35 subsections E, F, and O or just subsections E and F? Jeff Roberts said that what Berkeley did was separate more sit-down restaurants and bars from fast order food establishments and combined those together. In our case, it would combine O with E and F.

Councillor Zondervan said that he did not hear a convincing argument for why we are approaching this zoning the way we are other than historical legacy. He is reminded of last term when there were issues with wood-fired restaurants generating a lot of smoke, and that ultimately was not a zoning issue. How do we formally explore this alternative of regulating based on impact? What is an alternative regulatory regime based on impact requirements a business must meet to be able to exist there? Would like to formally request a draft or proposal we could consider as an alternative. Assistant City Manager Farooq said that they hear the committee’s feedback on the desire for simplifying further with greater flexibility around retail uses. She said that in terms of a completely different alternative approach, when they try to create something that is a significant change, it is usually not a quick and simple endeavor, especially with something as complicated as zoning. We could be setting ourselves on a much longer path if we are to consider a completely different alternative approach. It could be done, but it cannot be done in a matter of weeks or months. Her recommendation would be that they take the committee’s feedback and modify conceptual proposal, as opposed to completely re-thinking the ordinance in the interest of advancing the changes further. If an alternative path is preferred, they will take lead from the City Council.

Vice Mayor Mallon said a complete reimaging would be time-consuming and small businesses simply do not have that time. CDD is understanding that the committee wants to allow for maximum flexibility and that their revisions will speak to that. This initial proposal came five years ago. There is a time sensitivity in making sure this gets done. This is a necessary need in moving through COVID, and into and past the recovery phase. Vice Mayor Mallon suggests that CDD take the committee’s recommendations and come back with something that the committee will be happy with, to advance to the full City Council. She said that CDD has heard from business associations across the City that they are in favor of moving forward with this approach. If Councillor Zondervan is making a formal motion for an alternative proposal, there would need a vote. But that would not be the direction that she votes moving forward.

Councillor Zondervan said that he agrees with Vice Mayor Mallon and Assistant City Manager Farooq, and he is not suggesting that they start over. He is looking beyond what is being done and he appreciates the proposal before the committee. Appreciates that CDD is hearing that the committee wants more flexibility. He is not making formal motion but asking that we move in that direction going forward.

Councillor Nolan supports Vice Mayor Mallon’s statements and moving forward as quickly as possible. She said that as CDD comes back, the committee is hoping for another kind of revamping, and that should be kept in mind, so these revisions do not impede further revamping in that direction.

Vice Mayor Mallon thanked CDD for the presentation and proposal. She said that CDD has the committee’s blessing to move forward in this direction. She said that the committee wants CDD to move as quickly as possible with maximum flexibility in terms of parking requirements, new uses, definitions, and how we are delineating our food uses.

Regarding home-based businesses, Vice Mayor Mallon said that residents would like to see this addressed. She said that CDD including some language on this would be very helpful and would ensure equity. She said it will be helpful to get some feedback from Denise Jillson, Michael Monestime and Jason Alves around parking, consolidation of food establishments, and anything else. This should be a larger discussion, and future conversations at the Small Business Advisory Committee Meeting will be helpful.

Vice Mayor Mallon asked Solicitor Glowa to answer Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler’s questions around restricting certain ownership. Solicitor Glowa opined that she would need to provide a thorough response. She would like this information received by the committee.

Vice Mayor Mallon thanked all those present for their attendance.

On a motion from Councillor Zondervan to adjourn the hearing, the roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, and Councillor Zondervan -5
ABSENT: -0
The hearing adjourned at 11:58am.

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