CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $850,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures account, for a 30-Year Post Closure Evaluation and Report of Danehy Park.
Order Adopted 9-0

Nov 16, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am herby requesting an appropriation of $850,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures account, for a 30 -Year Post Closure Evaluation and Report of Danehy Park.

Danehy Park was opened in 1990 and is a 50-acre open space that provides sports fields, walking paths, a dog park, and other open space amenities for the community. Prior to its use as a city park, the area was predominately clay, and between 1847-1952, the clay was extracted to manufacture bricks by the New England Brick Company. The result was a deep clay pit that the City used as its landfill between 1952 and 1971. With the capping of the landfill and the creation of the Park in 1990, the city reclaimed what was a waste site and turned it into a significant community resource.

Permitting of the site is managed through the MassDEP, Division of Solid Waste in order to ensure that the site is managed in a safe manner and that landfill gases are properly managed and allowed to safely vent. The City contracts with CDM Smith to conduct quarterly monitoring, inspect the methane trench (which is the stone-filled trench around the perimeter of the park) quarterly, and develop an annual environmental monitoring report that is submitted to MassDEP.

When the landfill was closed, MassDEP Solid Waste Management Regulations required the owner of a closed landfill to maintain, care for, and monitor the site during the post-closure period of a minimum of 30 years. Funds will be used to develop a 30-year Post Closure Report which will require, additional testing; an assessment as to the integrity of the existing cap, stormwater features, and landfill gas controls; an update to the environmental monitoring and maintenance plan; as well as an evaluation of the condition and functionality of the existing vent trench, and analysis of the cumulative effect of siltation on the vent trench system.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request for acceptance of G.L. Chapter 39, Section 23D to allow members of adjudicatory boards and commissions to vote on a matter before the adjudicatory body of which they are a member if the board member has missed one of the sessions regarding the matter at issue.
Charter Right - Zondervan

Nov 16, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am writing to ask for your approval to allow members of adjudicatory boards and commissions such as the Planning Board, the Board of Zoning Appeal, the Historical Commission, the Conservation Commission and the License Commission, among other adjudicatory bodies, to vote on a matter before the adjudicatory body of which they are a member if the board member has missed one of the sessions regarding the matter at issue.

Chapter 39, Section 23D of the Massachusetts General Laws, known as the “Mullin Rule” (see attached statutory language), provides that members of municipal boards or commissions who are absent from no more than one session of an adjudicatory hearing may still act on the matter at a future session, provided that the municipality accepts this section of the law and that the absent member reviews a transcript or video or audio recording of the hearing and certifies that they have done so. This statute is known as the Mullin Rule because it overturns in part a court case which had provided that only members present at all sessions of an adjudicatory hearing on a particular matter are eligible to vote on that matter. Mullin v. Planning Board of Brewster, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 139 (1983).

On a number of past occasions, hearing sessions have needed to be postponed on short notice due to a member’s unanticipated absence for illness or other reasons, causing inconvenience to members of the public and applicants. Acceptance of the Mullin Rule for adjudicatory boards and commissions in Cambridge would help to forestall some of these issues in the future. Therefore, I am hereby requesting that the City Council accept the provisions of G.L. c.39, §23D.

I look forward to discussing this matter with you and answering any questions you may have.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

---

MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS
TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 39. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Section 23D: Adjudicatory hearings; attendance by municipal board, committee and commission members; voting disqualification

Section 23D. (a) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, upon municipal acceptance of this section for 1 or more types of adjudicatory hearings, a member of any municipal board, committee or commission when holding an adjudicatory hearing shall not be disqualified from voting in the matter solely due to that member's absence from no more than a single session of the hearing at which testimony or other evidence is received. Before any such vote, the member shall certify in writing that he has examined all evidence received at the missed session, which evidence shall include an audio or video recording of the missed session or a transcript thereof. The written certification shall be part of the record of the hearing. Nothing in this section shall change, replace, negate or otherwise supersede applicable quorum requirements.

(b) By ordinance or by-law, a city or town may adopt minimum additional requirements for attendance at scheduled board, committee, and commission hearings under this section.

Agenda Item Number 4     Nov 16, 2020
ORDERED: That the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 39, Section 23D, which provide that a member of a board, committee, or commission holding an adjudicatory hearing shall not be disqualified from voting in the matter solely due to the member’s absence from one session of such hearing, provided that certain conditions as established by said statute are met, are accepted for all boards, committees, or commissions that hold an adjudicatory hearing.

6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-10, regarding renaming the Agassiz neighborhood.
Placed on File 9-0

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Date: Nov 10, 2020
Re: Awaiting Report # 20-10 dated Feb 10, 2020 regarding renaming the Agassiz neighborhood

With regard to the above-mentioned policy order, we report the following.

At their January 14, 2020 meeting, the Agassiz Neighborhood Council discussed a neighborhood name change proposal that would remove scientist Louis Agassiz’s name and possibly rename the neighborhood after Maria L. Baldwin.

Those present voted to change the neighborhood name and seek support from the City Council in creating a process that appropriately engages the larger community. A letter was sent to the City Council that included the following affirmation of the Agassiz Neighborhood Council vote:

"There is a strong consensus in the neighborhood council in support of a name change, to be discussed in forums over the coming months with an opportunity to educate neighbors about the relevant issues, with the objective to come up with a recommended name from the neighborhood.”

The Neighborhood Council’s meetings were on hiatus for several months due to the COVID-19 pandemic and re-started in August in virtual format. Community Development Department staff have been in conversation with representatives of the Agassiz Neighborhood Council and neighborhood advocates starting late summer to provide support in framing and executing a community process related to the renaming of the neighborhood.

At their upcoming November and December meetings, the neighborhood group is slated to discuss the process to appropriately involve neighborhood residents in this conversation. The process is likely to include some educational information, resident statements, outreach via the neighborhood’s email newsletter, flyers, and a neighborhood survey. The process is working toward the goal of reaching a decision about the future name of the neighborhood this winter and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council thereafter.

7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $310,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used for consultant services to conduct a study that will evaluate resident experiences in affordable housing in Cambridge.
Order Adopted 9-0

Nov 16, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby requesting an appropriation of $310,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account. Funds will be used for consultant services to conduct a study that will evaluate resident experiences in affordable housing in Cambridge.

The purpose of the study is to identify and assess issues faced by residents living in inclusionary affordable housing units, and to compare their experience to residents living in market-rate units in the same buildings, and to that of residents living in non-inclusionary affordable housing. The analysis will focus on identifying any biases which may exist towards tenants and homeowners living in affordable housing from landlords, property managers, owners, neighbors, or tenant or homeowner associations; how prevalent such experiences are; and whether residents in market rate units in the same buildings and non-inclusionary affordable units in other buildings have similar experiences.

The process will include a survey of tenants and homeowners living in affordable and market-rate units in buildings with inclusionary housing units, as well as other affordable buildings. There will also be focus groups conducted and data walk discussions to solicit input from and review findings with residents and stakeholders. A final report is anticipated to include recommendations on ways to improve experiences in inclusionary housing.

The study process is anticipated to begin within the next several weeks and be completed late next year.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request that the City Council extend its prior authorization for the City Manager or his designee to grant street obstruction approvals, along with any other necessary approvals for temporary street obstructions, from this date until sixty (60) days past the end of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State of Emergency.
Order Adopted 9-0

Nov 16, 2020
To the Honorable, the City Council:

On June 8, 2020, I updated you on the City’s efforts to respond to the restaurant community’s need to expand outdoor dining services and I requested and received the City Council’s authorization to grant street obstruction approvals, which are required for restaurants to operate outdoor dining on the sidewalk or street, from that date until Nov 30, 2020. I am now requesting that the City Council extend its prior authorization for me or my designee to grant such approvals, along with any other necessary approvals for temporary street obstructions, from this date until sixty (60) days past the end of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State of Emergency.

On June 1, 2020, Governor Baker issued an Order Clarifying the Progression of the Commonwealth’s Phased Workplace Re-Opening Plan and Authorizing Certain Re-Opening Preparations at Phase II Workplaces (the “Order”). The Order temporarily waives some of the time-consuming procedural requirements for restaurants that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption that are applying to operate outdoor dining services and waives the requirement that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission approve such requests.

The Order also waives zoning requirements that may prohibit outdoor dining services. Any approval for outdoor dining services issued pursuant to the Order was in effect only until Nov 30, 2020. However, on Sept 10, 2020, Governor Baker issued an Order Making Certain Phase III Adjustments, which included extending any approval for restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages to operate outdoor dining services until sixty (60) days past the end of the state of emergency or such earlier date that a city or town establishes.

Pursuant to Governor Baker’s extension of the outdoor dining approvals, the City has likewise extended approvals for outdoor dining until sixty (60) days past the end of the state of emergency. The Board of License Commissioners voted to automatically extend all currently issued Temporary Extensions of Licensed Premises, and for outdoor dining on City streets and sidewalks, the City has extended all Sidewalk Business Use Permits for outdoor dining and is amending the term of its License Agreement for restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages with outdoor dining until sixty (60) days past the end of the state of emergency.

To allow the City to continue to respond to the restaurant community’s need for outdoor dining in an expeditious manner, I am hereby requesting that the City Council extend its prior authorization for me or my designee to grant street obstruction approvals, along with any other necessary approvals for temporary obstructions, from Nov 30, 2020 until sixty (60) days past the end of the state of emergency.

I look forward to discussing this matter with you and answering any questions you may have.

Very truly yours,
Louis A. DePasquale
City Manager

---

Agenda Item Number 8     Nov 16, 2020
ORDERED: That from Nov 30, 2020 to sixty (60) days past the end of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State of Emergency, due to the significant adverse impacts the COVID-19 pandemic has had upon local businesses including restaurants and consistent with Governor Baker’s June 1, 2020 Order Clarifying the Progression of the Commonwealth’s Phased Workplace Re-Opening Plan and Authorizing Certain Re-Opening Preparations at Phase II Workplaces and Sept 10, 2020 Order Making Certain Phase III Adjustments, which temporarily waive some of the time-consuming procedural requirements for restaurants that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption that are applying to operate outdoor dining services, the requirement that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission approve such requests, and zoning requirements that may prohibit outdoor dining services, all applications for temporary street obstructions will hereby be referred to the City Manager, instead of to the City Council, with authorization to act.

9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Green Energy Analysis Zoning Petition Substitute Zoning Text received from the Community Development Department and the Law Department.
Petition removed from Table, Amended with substitute language, and Placed on Table 9-0 (shouldn't it then be on Unfinished Business?)

Green Energy Analysis Zoning Petition – Substitute Zoning Text

Shown as Amendment to Current Section 22.25.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, Paragraph (c)

Cambridge Community Development Department – Nov 12, 2020

22.25.1 Before applying for any special permit from the Planning Board or any development review procedure under Article 19.000 of the Zoning Ordinance, the documentation listed below shall be submitted to CDD for review. Within thirty (30) days after receiving a complete set of documentation, CDD shall provide written notice that the documentation sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the requirements of Section 22.24, or shall provide a written explanation of deficiencies to be corrected in a revised submission.

[…]

(c) Net Zero Narrative: A written description of how the Green Building Project is being designed in response to the City's Net Zero Action Plan, which seeks to neutralize greenhouse gas emissions resulting from buildings by reducing their energy use intensity and promoting renewable sources of energy. This information is provided for advisory review by CDD staff, and CDD may provide a questionnaire template to the developer for completing this narrative. At a minimum, this narrative shall include the following information:

(1) anticipated building envelope performance, including roof, foundation, walls and window assemblies, and window-to-wall ratio;

(2) anticipated energy loads, baseline energy simulation tool assumptions, and proposed energy targets, expressed in terms of site energy use intensity ("EUI"), source EUI, and total greenhouse gas emissions;

(3) a description of ways in which building energy performance has been integrated into aspects of the Green Building Project's planning, design, and engineering, including building use(s), orientation, massing, envelope systems, building mechanical systems, onsite and off-site renewable energy systems, and district- wide energy systems;

(4) a description of the technical framework by which the Green Building Project can be transitioned to net zero emissions in the future (acknowledging that such a transition might not be economically feasible at first), including future net zero emissions options for building envelope, HVAC systems, domestic hot water, interior lighting, and on- and off-site renewable energy sources;

(5) a description of programs provided by local utility companies, government agencies, and other organizations that provide technical assistance, rebates, grants, and incentives that can assist in achieving higher levels of building performance, summarizing which entities have been contacted and which programs could be utilized in the Green Building Project; and

(6) an assessment of the technical and financial feasibility to meet the projected HVAC and domestic hot water demands of the building (as set forth in Paragraph (2) above) using energy systems that do not consume carbon-based fuels on-site (to include solar photovoltaics and hot water, ground source, water source or air source heat pumps, district energy, geothermal systems, and/or similar systems) compared to code-compliant energy systems that consume carbon-based fuels on-site (including, where applicable, the construction or expansion of energy plants controlled by the developer that may be necessary to produce energy for that specific building), which shall include the cost of installation, maintenance and upkeep of the energy system and its components (incorporating programs and incentives as set forth in Paragraph (5) above).

O-2     Nov 16, 2020
VICE MAYOR MALLON
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
WHEREAS: On March 26th, 2018, the City Council adopted a policy order asking the City Manager to work with relevant City Departments to conduct, compile, and publish an inventory of all City-owned vacant properties with the City’s plans for them, if any; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has not yet received a report back on that policy order, and there still is no complete inventory of the City’s vacant properties and plans for them; and
WHEREAS: Some City-owned properties lay vacant for many years without having planned future uses, when these properties could instead be developed into affordable housing, open green space, economic empowerment opportunities, or other uses that benefit our community; and
WHEREAS: As residents’ need for community resources only grows as the COVID-19 pandemic wears on, the City must address these vacant properties in a timely manner to ensure need gaps are filled in; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to confer with relevant City Departments to prepare a report on any steps it has taken to work towards conducting, compiling, and publishing an inventory of all City-owned vacant properties with the City’s plans for them, if any; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter by the November 30th regular meeting.

O-3     Nov 16, 2020  Amended
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: On Nov 15, 2020, the union contract for 700 Harvard University janitors was due to expire, jeopardizing the livelihoods of these 700 essential workers in the midst of a global pandemic; and
WHEREAS: These 700 workers, represented by SEIU 32BJ, have been working to keep Harvard University safe and clean throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, even as janitorial and security workers have been among those hardest hit by the Covid-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS: During the ongoing contract extension discussions, the janitors and the 300 security workers who are also represented by 32BJ have been seeking the following assurances from Harvard University:

• Job security that recognizes that, as Harvard looks ahead to the Spring semester, it is imperative that no workers (whether employed directly by the University or indirectly through a third party contractor) should be laid off, as such layoffs would jeopardize the safety and cleanliness of the campus and would place hundreds of families at great risk of slipping into poverty, homelessness, and food insecurity in the midst of a global pandemic;

• An economic improvement for 2021 that recognizes the contribution of Harvard’s janitors and security workers as essential workers, and that provides a one year agreement to allow time for a more stable environment to be realized; and

WHEREAS: It is imperative that Harvard University support all its workers, from the world-class professors that teach in its classrooms to the janitors that clean those same classrooms, as this community seeks to pull together in weathering the worst of this public health and intertwined economic crisis; and
WHEREAS: As one of the pillars of the Cambridge community, Harvard University helps set the tone for how all workers in this city can and should be treated, Harvard has the resources to ensure that all of its workers are treated with fairness and are paid family-sustaining wages, and this has never been more critical than during the public health and related economic crisis presented by Covid-19; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council formally goes on record in standing firmly in support of the Harvard University janitors and custodians represented by SEIU 32BJ who are seeking a contract extension, and that the City Council formally goes on record in urging that Harvard University commit to extending the contracts for all 700 janitors to guarantee job security and economic improvements for these essential workers heading into the coming year; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward this resolution to Lawrence Bacow, President of Harvard University, and to representatives of SEIU 32BJ, on behalf of the entire City Council.

O-4     Nov 16, 2020
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge experienced record-breaking voter turnout during the State Primary and General Elections, with over 33,261 ballots cast in the State Primary Election and 35,000 ballots cast in the General Election, including over 11,000 in person ballots cast at early voting locations; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge is a diverse city with residents speaking many languages, including Spanish, Amharic, Bengali, Haitian Creole, Chinese, Portuguese, and American Sign Language; and
WHEREAS: Language can sometimes create a barrier to civic engagement, so Everett, Massachusetts and cities throughout New York and Pennsylvania provided interpreters at polling locations to assist voters who speak another language; and
WHEREAS: Polling site interpreters are only available to assist a voter with understanding the ballot and for no other reason; and
WHEREAS: It is critical to find ways to increase access to voting and ways for residents who speak another language to participate in our local, state and national government, and language access is one of those ways; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager confer with the Law Department and Election Commission on providing interpreters for the above languages at future elections and report back on this matter to the City Council by Jan 25, 2021.

O-5     Nov 16, 2020
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
WHEREAS: The City Council and the Department of Public Works are working on lasting amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the detailed findings of the Urban Master Plan Task Force; and
WHEREAS: The discussion has been advanced out of the Health & Environment Committee into the Ordinance Committee, but the next hearing cannot be scheduled until draft ordinance language is available, and ordination is unlikely before the current language’s expiration date of Dec 31, 2020; and
WHEREAS: Despite significant delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential that there is no gap between the expiration of the current regulations and the commencing of the new ones; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge’s tree canopy has declined by nearly 20% over the course of the last decade, with the most severe impacts felt in the most vulnerable neighborhoods; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the following amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance be adopted to extend the temporary prohibition on tree cutting permits until Feb 28, 2021.

8.66.055 - Procedure for Other Significant Tree Removals.
For any significant tree removal not subject to Section 8.66.050, a permit will be required from the City Arborist. In all cases, the City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractor(s) involved, and the name and address of the property owner. No such permits will be issued until February 28, 2021 December 31, 2020 or sooner by further amendment to this section, except for emergency circumstances, significant utility infrastructure projects undertaken pursuant to State or Federal regulations or programs, for City park projects, or where a tree poses significant negative impact to an adjacent existing structure, or for dead or dangerous trees, or where a lot is of such density with existing trees that the removal of certain significant trees is considered beneficial to the health of the tree canopy. Any tree removed in violation of this section, prior to February 28, 2021 December 31, 2020, shall require a payment into the tree replacement fund as per Section 8.66.070 according to a schedule as follows: Ten percent (10%) of the replacement value for property owners who qualify for the City of Cambridge residential real property tax exemption, no fee for property owners that receive established forms of financial assistance, and the full replacement cost in all other circumstances. The value to be paid into the tree replacement fund shall be equivalent to the cost of purchasing, planting, watering and maintaining said Replacement Trees for a period of not less than five years.

O-6     Nov 16, 2020  Amended
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
COUNCILLOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
WHEREAS: The City Council passed new inclusionary zoning regulations in 2017, increasing the number of inclusionary units in all developments to 20%; and
WHEREAS: The City established updated guidelines for construction in flood prone areas, based on the most recent scientific data; and
WHEREAS: The City seeks to ensure that current regulations apply to all projects, and any project not currently permitted should be treated the same as a new project for the purposes of inclusionary zoning and climate mitigation regulations; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Zoning Code is clear that all extensions of a building or special permit need to follow current zoning: “8.25 Construction or operation under a building or special permit shall conform to any subsequent amendment of this Ordinance unless the use or construction is commenced within a period of six months after the issuance of the permit and in cases involving construction, unless such construction is continued through to completion as continuously and expeditiously as is reasonable.”; and
WHEREAS: A recent project, 605 Concord Avenue, which started in 2016, should now be subject to inclusionary zoning, requiring 10, not 7, affordable housing units, and required to follow updated flood maps in all constructions to ensure the building is built to last; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Council go on record as stating that all projects seeking a permit extension should be reminded of the need to follow all regulations in place at the time of the request for an extension; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project which appears counter to the City’s zoning code and confer with the relevant departments on how many projects that had a permit prior to these changes could request an extension; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-7     Nov 16, 2020
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
VICE MAYOR MALLON
WHEREAS: Electrification of buses and public transit should be an environmental justice imperative because it both reduces diesel emissions in low-income communities of color and provides an opportunity for transit to be powered by cleaner energy; and
WHEREAS: At its Fiscal Control Management Board (FMCB) meeting on November 9, the MBTA declined to set a target year for 100% electrification of its bus fleet, as other cities such as Chicago, Minneapolis and New York have done; and
WHEREAS: Instead of planning to implement all-electric, battery powered buses in communities like Chelsea and Dorchester that have been historically under-invested in and have higher rates of air-pollution, the MBTA is planning to implement “enhanced electric hybrid” buses that would be exclusively powered by diesel engines; and
WHEREAS: Initial deliveries of all-electric, battery powered buses will go only towards replacing buses that are already zero-emissions and have been used effectively for many years, such as the 71 and 77 buses in Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: The FMCB has acknowledged there have been problems with their initial pilots of these battery powered vehicles but is still proposing to use them to replace existing zero-emissions buses that have functioned well in communities such as Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: While cities including Seattle and Vancouver have expanded their electric trolley-bus networks to improve service for riders and reduce carbon emissions, the MBTA is proposing to reduce its network in Cambridge in favor of a battery-powered technology that has still has issues that could cause service disruptions for Cambridge residents; and
WHEREAS: The MBTA should instead purchase in-motion charging buses that take advantage of the existing infrastructure and increase the reliability; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record in opposition to the Fiscal Control Management Board plans to replace existing zero-emissions electric bus routes in Cambridge; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record requesting that the MBTA prioritize environmental justice communities such as Chelsea and Dorchester for electrification efforts that would improve service and reduce emissions; and be it further
RESOLVED: That a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution be sent to MBTA leadership and the Fiscal Control Management Board.

O-8     Nov 16, 2020  Amended, then Charter Right - Zondervan
COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER
COUNCILLOR NOLAN
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
WHEREAS: The COVID-19 pandemic has reduced opportunities for residents to get fresh air and spend time outdoors while safely socially distancing; and
WHEREAS: This can be even more challenging for the many Cambridge residents, including lower-income residents, who do not have access to yards or private outdoor space; and
WHEREAS: Spending time outdoors has been proven to improve mental and physical health and has been deemed a lower-risk activity during the pandemic; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge City Council passed a policy order in April that led to Riverbend Park being opened on Memorial Drive on both Saturdays and Sundays, which has provided an opportunity for residents to spend time outside while safely social distancing; and
WHEREAS: Riverbend Park, which is owned and operated by Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is currently scheduled to be open on Memorial Drive through Sun, Nov 29, 2020; and
WHEREAS: Keeping Riverbend Park open beyond November 29 would provide a much-needed opportunity for residents to spend safe, socially distant time outdoors as the colder weather begins to make some other activities more challenging; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation to explore the feasibility of keeping Riverbend Park open beyond November 29; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City confer with DCR and advocate for extending Riverbend Park the length of Memorial Drive; and further be it
ORDERED: That the City or DCR collect data on residents’ usage of Riverbend Park to better inform future decisions regarding its status; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council by Nov 23, 2020.

O-9     Nov 16, 2020
VICE MAYOR MALLON
ORDERED: That the City Manager work with the City Solicitor to draft appropriate Home Rule language which would allow for acoustic live entertainment performances in small businesses under certain conditions without a license, and report back to the City Council with Home Rule language by the December 14th regular City Council meeting.

O-10     Nov 16, 2020  Charter Right - Toomey
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
WHEREAS: Citywide, Cambridge businesses, the Cambridge Public Health Department and Cambridge Public Schools have implemented several protective measures and strategies to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 throughout the community; and
WHEREAS: Though these protective measures have kept Cambridge COVID-19 positivity rates lower than neighboring cities, Cambridge’s positive cases do continue to increase daily; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Public Health Department reported 44 new cases in Cambridge today, the highest number of new cases since the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS: Epidemiologists recommend closing bars, casinos and gyms, and other non-essential business activities to stop the spread of COVID-19 as a way to keep schools open; and
WHEREAS: Research suggests a strong correlation between indoor activities and the rise of COVID-19 community spread; and
WHEREAS: Indoor activities are contributing to the rise in cases in Cambridge, getting our metrics dangerously close to closing schools and resuming remote only learning again; and
WHEREAS: We must take action to restrict the activities of non-essential businesses and gatherings in order to keep our schools open; and
WHEREAS: We must prioritize our scholars and their education as we navigate through the next phase of the public health crisis; and
WHEREAS: Our efforts must be part of a regional response in order to not unfairly penalize Cambridge restaurants and small businesses; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager confer with the Metro Mayor’s Association to close indoor dining, gyms, casinos and other non-essential indoor activities as soon as possible; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager, Community Development Department, the Economic Development Division, the Assessing Department and other relevant City Departments organize a small business and restaurant relief program that will assist during this second shutdown and our efforts to stop community spread of COVID-19 and keep schools open.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber on the reappointment of Christopher Bator to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority for a term of five years and to discuss the Envision Cambridge citywide plan, and review how to set priorities and goals.

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

Present via Zoom were Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Mallon; Councillor Zondervan; Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler; Mayor Siddiqui; Lisa Peterson, Assistant City Manager; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Chris Cotter, Housing Director; Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development; Melissa Peters, Director of Community Planning, Community Development Department (CDD); Anthony Wilson, City Clerk; Tom Evans, Executive Director; Kathleen Born, Chairperson, Board Member; Christopher Bator, Board Member, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA); Catherine Zusy; Cynthia Hibbard; Doug Brown; Elaine DeRosa; Eric Grunebaum; Heather Hoffman; Henry Vandermark; James Zall; John Hawkinson; Lee Farris; Marilee Meyer; Marlene Lundberg; Nancy Ryan; Richard Krushnic; and Suzanne Blier.

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

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
PRESENT: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, and Councillor Zondervan -3
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Mallon and Councillor McGovern -2
and a quorum was present.

Councillor Nolan opened the hearing to Public Comment.

Lee Farris, Cambridge Residents Alliance, read from a prepared written statement (ATTACHMENT A) noting that the Envision plan goals are good overall, but some of them conflict with each other. She asked that the City discuss creating a process on how to resolve conflicting goals.

Suzanne Blier stated that she attended as many meetings as she could, but she emphasized that this is not a city plan. She said that the citizens asked for one and the City hired Utile and then decided that instead of an actual plan we would settle for goals, many of which are contradictory. She said that there is no zoning code or designation of places. She said that there are key areas of the city with no plans that have been updated in many years. This has opened the City to spot zoning. She asked the City Council to look at the contradictory elements of the plan.

Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that she is one of the few members of the public that attend the CRA meetings. She said that the CRA could teach every other board, commission, and City Council about how to treat the public and to encourage the public to take part in their deliberations. She said that she cannot think of a member of the current CRA board that she would be happy to see replaced. She said that she would like to see Mr. Bator reappointed. She said that as it relates to Envision, it is a monumental disappointment. She said that it is not a disappointment that the people that the City hired did a lousy job, it is a disappointment because the City administration required them to do a lousy job. She said that when talking about stability, the fact is that everything the city does undermines stability. She noted that the City Council has become interested in seeing how one particular thing that the city government can do affects rent, how about rampant commercial development with no creation of long-term housing.

Councillor Nolan made a motion to close Public Comment.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, and Councillor Zondervan -4
ABSENT: Councillor McGovern -1
and Public Comment was closed at 2:13pm.

Councillor Nolan invited Mr. Evans to briefly provide introduction to the CRA Board process.

Mr. Evans noted that the CRA has guided the city through a dynamic period. He said that Mr. Bator grew up in Cambridge and has a long career in government service. He stated that Mr. Bator has been highly attentive to the Board’s fiduciary position and has worked hard to ensure that resources that they have are extended to facilitate projects throughout the City of Cambridge. He stated that Mr. Bator has encouraged thoughtful investment in purchases and other strategic partnerships.

Kathy Born added that the last eight years have been a terrific exercise in small democracy in the City of Cambridge through the CRA. They have been careful in setting goals and measuring accomplishments against those goals. She said that Mr. Bator has been a most conscientious Treasurer. She said that as it relates to financial matters, Mr. Bator has been at the helm when the CRA was taken over. She said that every member of the CRA are contributing members. She said that she is happy to continue to work with Mr. Bator.

Christopher Bator stated that he is happy to answer any questions that people may have. He has been deeply honored to serve on the CRA since 2012. He said he is proud of the work that has been done which involved rebuilding the CRA from Ground Zero. He asserted that the CRA has a very talented and professional staff. He said that the CRA Board works wonderfully together. He noted that he cares most about trying to move the wealth that exists in Kendall Square and spread it to important needs across Cambridge.

Councillor Carlone stated that the CRA has unique capabilities and that is one of the reasons he wants them to get involved in purchase of affordable housing. He said that he is impressed with Mr. Bator. He said that the more the City Council includes the CRA in implementing projects, the better. He thanked the CRA Board for its important work.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he has been impressed by the work of the CRA and the number of times that they have been rescuers in difficult situations. Councillor Zondervan asked how we can do more to develop the city in a way that is just and benefits all residents. Mr. Bator stated that he would defer to Mr. Evans for a more substantive answer. Mr. Bator said that in his view, they are deeply committed to use the resources and talents of the CRA to assist the City, not just in the core responsibilities in Kendall Square. He said that they are looking for opportunities to do work where there is need. He said that they have had a very significant grassroots strategic planning effort in order to ensure that where they choose to use the resources, it is among the most important things in the purview of the CRA. He said that the CRA seeks guidance from all important entities in the City. Mr. Evans added that the last time that the CRA met with the City Council in February, the CRA was discussing a revisit of their strategic plan. He noted that he looks forward to a broader discussion and engage the City Council in this process.

Vice Mayor Mallon thanked Mr. Bator for his continued service. She said that she is appreciative of the work of the entire CRA. She said that the City Council will be drawing on the CRA in the future to get the City through the Covid situation to see all the different ways to partner together to help those in the community that are struggling.

Councillor Nolan said that she is thrilled that Mr. Bator will continue his work. She said that transparency has been a hallmark of the CRA, recently, after a time of trouble and operations that were not transparent and exhibited poor practices. She expressed gratitude that the current CRA board corrected those past deficiencies and now is a great example to the rest of the city. And noted that the Foundry project is a excellent example not yet mentioned of the CRA’s good work Councillor Nolan made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation to the full City Council on the reappointment of Christopher Bator to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority for a term of five years.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan -4
NAYS: -0
ABSENT: Councillor McGovern -1
and the motion passed.

Councillor Nolan moved to the Envision Cambridge citywide plan. She stated that the background for the meeting is that there have been many hours spent on Envision with a robust City process that sought to develop a comprehensive planning document for the City. She said that the last meeting of the City Council on this issue was in December of 2019. She stated that today’s meeting is the first step in moving forward and getting the City back on track. She said that one of hundreds of ideas was the Affordable Housing Overlay which became a central focus.

She said that there are planning goals, focus areas, 300 action items with 44 priorities. She said that the publication of the final plan brought together many of the elements into the City from a range of areas. She said that we must take a step back and review where Envision landed the City, what has happened since that process. She said that the interim document was put out in 2017 with a final document in 2019. She said that her hope is that the committee reviews how Envision is being used and how it is shaping the work of the City. She stated that it is important for the City Council to weigh in.

Ms. Farooq stated that she is appreciative of being present when the committee is voting on the reappointment of Mr. Bator. She said that the CRA is a partner agency to the City and there have been many initiatives and endeavors in which they have worked in partnership. She noted that she is pleased to see positive feedback and to see him reappointed.

As it relates to the impact of Covid 19 on Envision, Ms. Farooq said that as CDD has looked at, it is a long-term plan that has not been changed significantly by Covid. She said that it does shine a stronger light on some of the elements, particularly in the last 6-7 months such as community health, social equity, and racial equity. She said that CDD has been focused over the last several months on the response to the pandemic such as supporting residents and businesses.

She said it was interesting for CDD to pivot back to the long-term planning mode in preparation for this hearing. She noted that CDD did not ask partner departments to be present for the hearing but their feedback is incorporated into the materials that CDD sent out earlier this week that includes updates on each of the topic areas in terms action status. She said that in terms of the prioritization process with Envision Cambridge and each of the topic areas, it is more of a framework for how to move forward in each endeavor. In looking at all the action items and working with the community and the working groups, they went through a process of prioritization to determine higher priority items and particularly which were short term versus long term. She said that at today’s meeting they are focusing on the high priority, short-term actions. Within that ,they have tried to keep maximum flexibility. She said that in terms of the work that is taken up by CDD each year is what the particular needs of the moment are. In terms of what would be most useful to staff from today’s discussion, Ms. Farooq noted that being able to understand what is important to the City Council and the community is very helpful as they move toward the budgeting process. Ms. Farooq introduced Community Development staff and invited Melissa Peters to give a summary of the materials that were sent to the Committee (ATTACHMENT B).

Ms. Peters gave an overview which stated that Envision Cambridge is a roadmap to the year 2030, setting out a course of action to promote inclusive and sustainable growth. She noted that the plan recommends 37 Goals, 42 strategies, and 176 new actions across six planning topics: climate and environment, community wellbeing, economy, housing, mobility and urban form.

Councillor Carlone stated that he appreciates the update. He reminded everyone that he co-wrote the Policy Order and it was a struggle to get it approved. He said that it was planning and urban design yet when he looked at the urban form section, there were guidelines but there were no urban design massing studies, height studies or open space studies. He does not know how you do zoning without an urban design analysis. He said that this baffles him. Ms. Farooq addressed in the Urban Form section many of the priority areas and action items that will get to the specific urban design recommendations that Councillor Carlone is speaking of. For example, one of the recommendations is taking a closer look at the Inman Square area and what development patterns there might look like, particularly as impacted by the Green Line extension. She said that as we delve into that level of plan, that will be more granular and would incorporate more detailed urban design input that Councillor Carlone is referring to. Councillor Carlone said that all the commercial districts need to be studied. He said that it is not on the list and if you are going to do that, add it. He said that urban design will study conflicts. Councillor Carlone said that a confusing thing to him is that Envision they mandated an urban design study of Alewife.

A site plan was done. He asked if that is the Alewife plan? Ms. Peters responded that when they refer to the Alewife District Plan, it is the plan that came out of the Envision process that Utile helped with. She said that if it is in reference to current zoning, the existing Concord Alewife of 2010 is still the plan on the book. She said that as they have spoken with developers in the community, they have been pushing the goals and community aspirations from the new Alewife plan into the conversation. Councillor Carlone said that is priority one given the we are getting development proposals.

Councillor Carlone said that starting a study could be three meetings. He noted that he would like a schedule of when things will be done. He said that it would be great to say, “These 3 should be done in 6 months.” He said that we are well past starting. He stated that starting is a good thing but literally it does not really say anything. Ms. Farooq explained that the one reason they referenced everything to starting rather than concluding is because a large percentage of the actions are ongoing actions. She said that some actions will never be complete. She said that there are things that will have a start and end such as open space planning updates. She said that a larger set of actions are ongoing items that will not be completed so that is why they linked everything to starting the work. Councillor Carlone said that there is no idea how far along the work is. He said that words are not a plan, words are not a strategy. He said it would be great to receive updates every 3-6 months, specifically on what is being currently worked on and what is being accomplished.

Councillor Zondervan thanked the staff for the update and added his voice to the call for more regular updates and the addition of dashboards. He stated that the Committee heard about conflicts between different roles and one way to address the issue is do holistic planning. He said what is great about Envision Cambridge is that the first step in holistic planning has been accomplished. He said that the next step is to evaluate our actions against all the goals. He stated that a lot of actions are driven by developers who buy property and then come to the City Council. He said that if we were having a more robust discussion in the context of Envision, we would take those proposals and air them to Envision. He said that the public should not feel so left out and powerless. He said that there needs to be more effort into evaluating plans and decision going forward against these goals. He said that we do not seem to be going through any kind of guided exercise that says how to adjust the zoning to move forward in a way to accomplish goals. He said that there are constantly individual issues that ensue an argument when we should evaluate all issues against zoning and goals and then see how zoning can be more aligned with goals. He asked how we create a real planning process based on goals developed through Envision that produces a plan through zoning that lays out what we are going to do where in the city. Ms. Farooq said that as it relates to a dashboard, they are working on putting together a direct dashboard and are now in conversation with IT Department to figure out how to do the technical work and get it on CDD’s website. She said that it will take several months, and the hope is to have it available sometime next year. In terms of zoning and evaluation actions, Ms. Farooq said that there are actions that are identified, and it is easy to proceed one by one through these. She said it is more challenging when it is a development or rezoning proposal. At the staff level they built in that thinking into it, but they do not specifically do holistic planning. She said that they could utilize that method. She asked Jeff Robert to add to this. She said that there are two ways to think about how to take the conceptual citywide plan and translate that into zoning and it is not a small exercise. She said that the alternative is to take every proposal before CDD (whether coming from staff, the City Council, residents or developers) and then sieve it through the sift of Envision and see what the picture looks like. She said that we must pick one path or the other. She said that she would appreciate guidance. Mr. Roberts said that in terms of overall strategy, it is important to establish planning goals and then evaluate the policies, including the Zoning Ordinance, to understand how that aligns with goals.

He said that much of that work has been done in the Envision Cambridge plan. There are 30 specific actions that related to zoning. He said that one approach to tackling those is to prioritize and to work through them in some order. He said that the alternative approach is to say, “Put everything else on hold so we can do a fully comprehensive reconsideration of the whole Zoning Ordinance which can have benefit, but it will take a lot of time.” He said that approach of focusing efforts on things that we want accomplished the most is a good strategy but if we want to take a different tact, we could but it would come with a lot of tradeoffs.

Councillor Zondervan stated that he is conflicted because he understands the challenge and yet at the same time, he thinks how can we not do both things. He said that he struggles to reconcile these two approaches. Ms. Farooq said that when thinking about capacity and that as a constraining factor, it is not just if CDD has enough staff in the zoning division, it is also if there is enough staff in other department who are analyzing each of the components. She said it is a mushroom as well as capacity at Planning Board, Ordinance Committee, etc. She said that making changes incrementally has served us quite well.

Vice Mayor Mallon stated that as it relates to staff capacity, she would love to see a dashboard of the Envision goals and actions and where we are on each one of them. She said that she wonders about staff capacity to do something like that. She asked if we should entertain the idea of hiring someone outside to put together a dashboard. She said that she would like to think about how to make that come to fruition without adding burden onto CDD. As it relates to regular progress reports, she stated that she has some questions. She wondered if they could be updated. She asked if there is a way to update progress reports via color-coding with a small blurb of what is happening. Something that would indicate where we are in the absence of a dashboard would be helpful. Vice Mayor Mallon asked if there is there a way to use the committees to move work forward. She asked how the City Council committee chairs can have more of a partner with action items and move them forward in that way. Ms. Farooq said that it is a great idea. She said it is a key way to build two-way communication around specific topics and actions. She said that the committees grapple with the same kind of restraint in doing multiple things at the same time. She welcomes that partnership. Vice Mayor Mallon asked if there is a way that progress reports could be updated to show a visual representation of where the work stands. Ms. Farooq said that they will do the updates. Ms. Farooq asked Ms. Peters to provide a sense of how long this will take. She stated that we must keep in mind that more detailed updates involve more departments than CDD. She said that they will work on it and maybe take the approach of sending them forward as they are done. Ms. Peters added that they can color code the actions to correspond to the pie chart but if more detail is added they will have to reach out to staff and department heads which would take more time. She said that CDD can send color coding first and then as they go through each planning topic, they will forward to the City Council.

Councillor Nolan said that we have talked about dashboards and she believed that they are in the process. Ms. Farooq said that it is in the process and she does not believe additional resources are necessary. Ms. Peters said that there is a fulltime senior planner that is charged in the Envision implementation and moving to forward. He is getting the data organized to track the indicators to ultimately go onto a dashboard. The next step is the web design and development phase. In the interim, progress reports will fill the gaps. Councillor Nolan said that the data is already partly there but it is not tied to the actual item so that has been challenging. She stated that other data would not have to be gathered. She said that we could use the sustainability platform and use for other categories. Melissa Peters stated that the intention is to use the City’s web infrastructure for Envision so they have more control over updates. Councillor Nolan stated that she would like a timeline prospectively for actions to the completion or next steps of action items. Ms. Farooq responded that they aim to create the pool of priority items but retain the flexibility to be responsive to the needs of each item. She said that it is hard to ascribe timelines that go beyond the fiscal year unless it is to an item that is an ongoing item or an item that they have started. She said that for the items that have begun, they could try to layout a timeline guideline, but it will be challenging and difficult to say that for all the other items that have not begun, when they would begin. Councillor Nolan said that actions are related to strategies which are tied to a goal and the goals are long-term. She said that there are some goals that are longer term.

Councillor Nolan stated that the Envision document should be all of the City Council and City staff guiding document to keep the focus on all of the goals that are encompassed. She said that as it relates to the various working groups and department heads, is there anything that the City Council should be thinking about moving forward. Ms. Farooq said that the key conversation that has been had with department heads have been around action items and ensuring that they are attaching updates. In terms of what would be most useful, Ms. Farooq said that the most useful feedback is to have clear priorities of the City Council as a body. In terms of the working groups, she said that they were informed about this discussion. Ms. Peters said that they were notified of the hearing today and some members indicated that they would be listening in. She noted that since December 2018, CDD has not regrouped with the working groups.

Councillor Nolan said that this is a good start for her. She said it is a document that could be more specific. She noted that there has been some frustration about the range of actions. She said that it would make sense for the Committee to recommend to the full City Council that the work continue in the committees that are set up around these areas.

Councillor Nolan made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee recommend to the full City Council that a response to each of the six areas of the Envision plan to include holding committee meetings on each of the planning topics as they are updated and ready to be discussed, be referred to respective committees related to the goals and plans as follows:

Climate and Environment to the Health and Environment Committee

Community Wellbeing to the Civic Unity Committee

Economy to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee

Housing to the Housing Committee

Mobility to the Transportation & Public Utilities Committee

Urban Form to the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee

Councillor Carlone stated that he agrees with the Councillor Nolan’s motion. He said that this was tried before the final report came out when it was in draft form, but it was not completely successful. He said that this is the right next step. He said that CDD has both a long-term planning and instantaneous response responsibility that the City Council asks for things and the City Council expects it yesterday. He said that this department is the most unique in that way. He said that it makes sense and it might be a way to help staff understand the point of view of the City Council.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the City Council can set a goal as a City Council to have a process to change City Councils to reflect the Envision goals. He said that there is a discrepancy between the current City Council goals and the Envision goals and maybe that is the place to start as a body to do this work.

Councillor Nolan asked Councillor Zondervan if he was proposing adding language to the motion or would that be a separate meeting. Councillor Zondervan responded that the Committee can recommend to the full City Council to initiate a process to look at the current City Council goals and look at the Envision goals and decide on City Council goals going forward rather than perpetuating the current discrepancies.

Councillor Nolan stated that the words “that it work on establishing long-term goals” could be added to the motion in the first paragraph. Councillor Zondervan stated that this works but he suggested changing the word “establish” to the word “updating.”

Vice Mayor Mallon asked the Chair to re-read the amended wording for the motion.

Councillor Nolan read the following motion:
ORDERED: That the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee recommend to the full City Council that it update its goals and that a response to each of the six areas of the Envision plan to include holding committee meetings on each of the planning topics as they are updated and ready to be discussed, be referred to respective committees related to the goals and plans as follows:

Climate and Environment to the Health and Environment Committee

Community Wellbeing to the Civic Unity Committee

Economy to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee

Housing to the Housing Committee

Mobility to the Transportation & Public Utilities Committee

Urban Form to the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee

Vice Mayor Mallon suggested that a motion be made to extend the meeting by 10 minutes.

Councillor Nolan made a motion to extend the hearing for 10 minutes.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan -4
NAYS: -0
ABSENT: Councillor McGovern -1
and the motion passed on the affirmative vote of four members.

Vice Mayor Mallon said that she is uncomfortable to speak about the City Council goals in this setting. She said that she is comfortable moving forward with the motion by Councillor Nolan. She stated that if we want to City Council goals, she believes that it should happen in a different committee and she believes that Mayor Siddiqui had spoken about a treat at some point to talk about goals. She said she is not comfortable combining those two things. She said that the Committee should focus on moving progress to the committees as originally suggested.

Councillor Zondervan responded that the Committee is not suggesting to the City Council what to do other than to initiate a process to evaluate its updated goals. Councillor Carlone said that we are only talking about planning goals, not the City Council’s twelve goals that will probably be refined in the next few months. He said that we are talking as it relates to Envision and it is a Policy Order that will be discussed by the full City Council. He said that this is a good discussion.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the City Council should update its goals but exactly how we want to go about that is a topic for another discussion. He said that he is just saying that we should look at the goals.

Councillor Nolan stated her agreement with Vice Mayor Mallon that these should be two separate motions. She stated that she would like to vote on her originally proposed motion which reads as follows:
ORDERED: That the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee recommend to the full City Council that a response to each of the six areas of the Envision plan to include holding committee meetings on each of the planning topics as they are updated and ready to be discussed, be referred to respective committees related to the goals and plans as follows:

Climate and Environment to the Health and Environment Committee

Community Wellbeing to the Civic Unity Committee

Economy to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee

Housing to the Housing Committee

Mobility to the Transportation & Public Utilities Committee

Urban Form to the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan -4
NAYS: -0
ABSENT: Councillor McGovern -1
and the motion passed on the affirmative vote of four members.

Councillor Nolan asked Councillor Zondervan if he would like to submit another motion.

Councillor Zondervan responded in the negative.

Councillor Nolan thanked all those present for their attendance.

Councillor Nolan made a motion for adjournment.

The roll was called and resulted as follows:
YEAS: Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan -4
NAYS: -0
ABSENT: Councillor McGovern -1
and the motion passed on the affirmative vote of four members.

The meeting adjourned at 4:08pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Patricia Nolan, Chair

Proposed Order     Nov 16, 2020
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
ORDERED: That the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee recommend to the full City Council that a response to each of the six areas of the Envision plan to include holding committee meetings on each of the planning topics as they are updated and ready to be discussed, be referred to respective committees related to the goals and plans as follows:

Climate and Environment to the Health and Environment Committee

Community Wellbeing to the Civic Unity Committee

Economy to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee

Housing to the Housing Committee

Mobility to the Transportation & Public Utilities Committee

Urban Form to the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee