City Council - Regular Meeting

There it is.

Does that work?

Oh, Becky.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I just want to make a statement.

I will.

How are you?

Good, how are you?

Thank you so much for coming.

Yes, I do.

I was thinking of another tool.

Let's take you over.

I have two best tools.

I have a squishy.

I have another squishy.

I have a separate machine.

I can do that.

I can do that.

I can do that.

Give that back.

We've been wanting to fix

Thank you.

Let's go. No, that's, no, look, my neck.

Thank you.

My grandma's here to do something about bikes.

Do you want to sit down here?

That portrait. That's too big.

I can't get the right thing.

Hi, Mary Ellen.

Same thing is going to happen tomorrow. It's sticking to my hands.

Thank you.

Are you on number six? You're on number five. She's number three. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Thank you.

So where were you born?

Check one, two. One, two.

Check, check, check.

They're not with me. Not with me.

Thank you.

Okay, please, of course. Okay.

I think I know what you're talking about. Yes.

Yeah. Yeah, so what do you want to know? Is there anything made on the site set up? Or is this an ask me again in a week?

For what are you, like, .

A quorum being present, I call tonight's June 9th, 2024 regular meeting of the Cambridge City Council to order. The first order of business is a roll call of members present. Clerk Crane, would you please call the roll?

Counselor Azeem. Present. Present. Vice Mayor McGovern. Present. Absent. Councillor Nolan? Present. Present. Councillor Siddiqui? Present. Present. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Absent. Councillor Toner? Present. Present. Councillor Wilson? Present. Councillor Wilson?

Present. Present.

Present. Councillor Zusy? Absent. Mayor Simmons?

Present.

Present. And you have six members recorded as present and three Vice Mayor McGovern is present. So you have seven members recorded as present and two recorded as absent.

So the meeting has been called to order on the affirmative vote of seven members, two being recorded as absent. Madam Clerk, please let the record show that Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler has said that he will be delayed, but he will be here. Thank you. So stand if you can and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance and pause for a moment of silence. We do want to remember the family of... Thank you so much. We do want to acknowledge the family of Aaron Darden. Aaron Darden recently died. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, individual, with liberty and justice for all. Pursuant to chapter Okay, thank you. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, adopted by the Massachusetts General Court and approved by the governor, the city is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge City Council. In addition to having members of the council participate remotely, we have also set up Zoom teleconference for public comment. You can also view the meeting via the Cambridge City Open Meeting Portal or on City Cable Channel 22. To speak during public comment, you must sign up at www.cambridgema.gov backslash public comment. You can also email written comments for the record to the city clerk at cityclerk.com. at cambridgema.gov. We welcome your participation and you can sign up until 6 p.m. Please note that the City of Cambridge audio and video records our meetings and makes it available to the public for future viewing. In addition, third parties may also be audio and video recording these meetings. Our next item on the agenda is public comment. Public comment may be made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws 30A, Section 20G, and City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once you have finished speaking, the next speaker will be called. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers. When speaking, please state your name, address, and the item that you're speaking to. Given that there are 66 speakers, each person speaking this evening will have up to two minutes. I will now turn public comment over to Ms. Naomi Steffen. Ms. Steffen, the floor is yours.

Our first speaker is Julia Schlossman followed by Alex Marthews, then Mary Ellen Kent. Julia, two minutes, please go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Julia Schlossman, and I live at 41 Walker Street. I am back again speaking in support of Charter Right No. 1, last week's Policy Order No. 2, beginning the process of amending and strengthening our welcoming community ordinance. As you may recall, our welcoming community ordinance, which mostly bars local police cooperation with ICE, contains a loophole allowing CPD to provide certain types of support services such as traffic barriers and police escort during a federal operation. recent events in worcester and more recently los angeles have shown how broad and potentially harmful this loophole is and underscore the urgency of closing it i testified to you last week that the council has an opportunity to tell immigrants our public safety officers and the community at large that is not cpd's practice to coordinate with ice or assist in or facilitate immigration enforcement Public safety officers and immigrants alike deserve clarity about CPD's role and about what actions are and are not permissible. A lot has happened in the past few days, but we shouldn't lose sight of the importance of inclusion and public trust, fundamental commitments I hope we all share. As this process moves forward, I hope that the council, the city manager, and the city solicitor will incorporate feedback from stakeholders, not just police, but subject matter experts and affected communities. For immigrants especially, the stakes of getting this ordinance right are high at both personal and constitutional levels. But I'm excited for Cambridge to have the strongest ordinance of its kind in the Commonwealth and to make progress toward becoming the truly welcoming community we claim and aspire to be. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Alex Marthews, followed by Mary Ellen Kent. Alex, two minutes.

Hi.

Members of the City Council, Mayor Simmons. That will probably work better, thank you. You're welcome. Members of the City Council, Mayor Simmons, thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. My name is Alex Matthews. I'm the co-chair of Digital Fourth. I'm an immigrant. I've lived in the area for 20 years. I represent Digital Fourth as a volunteer. We're a group of local people who oppose unreasonable searches and seizures of people and their data. We have worked a lot with the city around issues of privacy and police surveillance technology. We are here to support Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler in his request for city staff to consider language that would get purported ICE agents to identify themselves. Across the country, vigilantes have begun to take advantage of the fact that ICE agents aren't identifying themselves, to abduct people while dressed as ICE agents. including women who have been abducted and raped in that situation. This has to stop. It is not safe for Cambridge PD or the public to have unidentified folks in ice vests that you can buy on eBay running around the city claiming the power to arrest people. So what can we do? We have developed language in consultation with a law professor that we have shared with Counselor Sobrinho-Wheeler that would give ICE agents a strong interest in identifying themselves without violating federal or state law. Briefly, Cambridge PD can't require purported ICE agents to identify themselves, but you can require Cambridge PD to ask them to identify themselves to Cambridge PD. Then, if the stranger in an ICE vest won't identify themselves, you can require Cambridge PD to treat that stranger as a regular member of the public, not as a federal immigration officer. We stand ready to help the city as it figures out how to address this problem. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Ellen Kent, followed by Mark Boswell, then Carrie Nelson. Mary Ellen, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Mary Ellen Kent from 8 Wesley Avenue. I'm speaking in regards to access to Linear Park from Wesley Avenue. I'm reaching out to all of you again to add my concerns about the project, to add more access, especially any design changes that would include opening the fence at the end of Wesley Avenue. This issue's been under discussion for four years. The residents of Wesley Avenue attended many meetings to discuss this proposal. As recently as this winter, we met with developers and were led to believe construction would begin soon and there would not be an opening on the street. My family's lived on Wesley Avenue for over 100 years and I can remember over 50 years ago the fence that was in place because of railroad tracks and freight trains that went by several times a day. This was before linear park, it was before the red line extension. This is a small dead end street with only six houses. Children in the neighborhood use it for a playground. When the city put up a chain link fence, it wasn't long before youngsters were able to make an opening that they could squeeze through. This resulted in pedestrian traffic, dog walkers and bicycles coming down our street. We also experienced crime and vandalism, litter, dog feces on the street and in our yards. Then in 1985, when Linear Park was built, the city put up an iron fence. Currently, there is much more traffic on the path, more bicyclists and many motorized vehicles speeding by with no respect for pedestrians or strollers. Safety issues have always been a concern for the residents and neighbors. At times, there's parking problems. There's much traffic on Harvey Street. Keep in mind the main access to the bike path is only around the block on Cedar Street. Snow plowing is a concern as snow is usually plowed to the fence. Even though we're a small street, this is of great concern to the residents and we hope you will take our concerns into consideration as you deliberate this issue. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Madam Mayor, if you could give us one moment. I believe we may have lost sound in the chamber. Yep, we're back. Our next speaker is Mark Boswell, followed by Carrie Nelson, then Eve Carr. Mark, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, councillors. My name is Mark Boswell. I live at 105 Walden Street, Cambridge, neighborhood nine. Speaking on Charter Right 2, please vote in support of opening to Alewife Linear Park at Wesley Ave. This would truly improve the usefulness of the path, especially for children who could continue riding or walking down Reed Street. Riding on Cedar Ave and then right onto Harvey to get to Reed Street or other points in the neighborhood is not a good alternative because Cedar has high volume car traffic and zero space for people who are not in cars, and Harvey Street is very narrow. I recently met a parent who welcomed the idea of this opening because his family lives just north of the park and would appreciate a more direct crossing in order to bike with his children to school near Benjaf. This fence divides the neighborhood. Is there really a plan to remove trees here? We don't need a gate wide enough to drive a truck through, only wide enough for two people to pass, just like the opening at Tyler Court, which is almost directly across from Wesley Ave. I'd like to share what Jane Jacobs wrote in her classic book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, specifically about parks. First, accessibility. She emphasized the importance of accessible neighborhood parks and transport facilities to encourage walking activity and promote urban vitality. And then security, which is gained through quote eyes on the street. lively diverse neighborhoods and active streets with a variety of people and activities contribute to a sense of safety and security. This means the presence of people, rather than solely relying on gates or physical barriers is crucial fostering a sense of security within a park and I must say I agree, please let this opening happen.

Our next speaker is Kerry Nelson, followed by Eve Carr, then Jason Sakos. Kerry, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Kerry Nelson, and I'm a resident on Wesley Avenue, 9 Wesley Ave. I would like to voice my opposition to the possible opening to Wesley Ave from the Linea Park bike path. The reasons for my opposition are plentiful. The key issues are security and safety of the residents, especially since our houses on Wesley Ave are located very close to the street. Over the years, I've observed several security incidents of single and groups of people occurring on the bike path near my house. These occur during the day and at night time, since the bike path is effectively open 24 hours a day. These incidents have made me very grateful for the safety that the existing security fence provides to us residents. The new updates of the bike path will only exacerbate such issues. Residents of Cambridge, as we all are, should feel safe in our own homes. Importantly, the large, well-designed and well-lit public entrance onto the bike path is very, very close on Mass Ave. It is literally a one-minute walk from Westleigh for those seeking convenient access. It is reasonable and fair to residents who reside here 24 hours a day and call it home to maintain the current placement of the security fence. Finally, due to the design and the narrow width of Wesley Ave, it is evident that this very narrow one-way street was never intended for use as a thoroughfare. Thank you for hearing my concerns.

Our next speaker is Eve Carr, followed by Jason Sakos and Clara Rura.

Just a moment, Ms. Stephan. We just want to acknowledge... Councillor Zusy. Present. Present. Thank you. Please take the floor.

Ms. Carr, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and city councilors. I live at 128 Reed Street and I heard about the proposal to make a new opening from Linear Park into Wesley Ave. So I thought I would check it out and I strolled through the beginning of Linear Park and so surprised that Wesley Avenue was right close to the opening of the park. And also another opening called Tyler Court. People can come and go as they please. So I was curious, what was the need for another opening? And now, as far as the second point I want to make is the traffic situation. The city of Cambridge did a wonderful job in outlining bicycle paths and, excuse me, I lost my train of thought here. But it is very orderly transition from people coming out of the park to cross Mass Avenue because they took a lot of time. It's a safe travel. Coming into Wesley Avenue, you have to deal with Harvey Street with a lot of traffic. And there's no stop light there, no nothing. So it's not really safe. It's going to be like a free for all. People trying to get into Harvey or Reed Street. It's not going to be easy with everybody piling up on Wesley Ave. So my point is that I don't really think it's necessary, and it's not planned out traffic wise. So thank you for listening. Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Jason Sokos, followed by Clara Rura, then Erin Rura. Jason, two minutes.

Thank you, good evening. My name is Jason Sekos and I live at 61 Harvey Street on the corner of Wesley Avenue. I'm a Wesley Ababutter and I ask you to please vote no to opening the access to Linear Park from Wesley Avenue. My family and I bike and ride bicycles in North Cambridge daily. And we believe the safety concerns of the abutters far outweigh The occasional convenience that myself or others might experience if we opened the access to linear path at Wesley. And there is an opening, as others have noted, right around the corner, about 500 feet away, two minute walk, one minute bike ride. And it's also a opening on Cedar Street that is conducive to both two way traffic for bicyclists. It's well lit, it's designed for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The fence was installed years ago to mitigate vandalism and crime, and I'd like that to continue. The crime that we're worried about are things like police actions that take place on the path. The fence at Wesley provides a barrier for this activity and allows police officers to better apprehend suspects at the already existing exits at each end of the path. Theft also occurs in our neighborhood. I'm sure we've all had things stolen off of our property. The fence at Wesley Avenue deters further theft and vandalism in our neighborhood. Bicycle rider and pedestrian safety should also be a concern for the group. Right now, when you exit from Cedar Street, it's a safe exit. When you exit at the other end of Harvey, it's a safe exit. If you were to open Wesley Exit at Wesley, you'd have to cross Harvey Street. And if you're not familiar, the street has turned into a highway recently with the restriction of traffic on Mass Ave. And it would be dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross Harvey Street. And I know this because I live on that corner. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Clara Rura, followed by Aaron Rura, then Nicole Rura.

Ms. Steffen, while we're waiting for that person to come along, if you're sitting by an empty seat, because you see people standing, raise your hand to that person so the people that are standing can sit down if they'd like. Thank you so much.

Clara, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi. Can you hear us okay?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead. There's one more seat needed.

One second, please. Can I?

Okay, just one second. Okay, we're all done. Yep, please go ahead. Hi, my name is Clara, and I'm 10 years old, and I'm a Cambridge Public School student. I think the end of my street should not be opened up to the bike path. One reason it shouldn't become an extra entryway is because then if the bike path was opened, all of the happenings on the bike path would spill onto our street. There have been problems that have happened there that could be dangerous to the people on Wesley Ave. For example, one summer afternoon, when me, my brother, and some other kids from our neighborhood were playing on the street, the police had to come because there was a man threatening people with a knife. If that fence hadn't been there, all of us would have been in danger. Another time, my dad saw the police chasing some. Also, it's possible people could steal from us easily if the fence was open. And all of the noise that people make would become louder if they were on our street, and it's already very noisy. Sometimes I'm reluctant to open my window because of the music people are blaring on the bike path. Also, why can't people just go through the other entry a couple blocks away? You're already going to exercise, so why not just a little bit more? It makes no sense to me. Finally, if so many people are using our street, I don't think my mom would let me play outside. And my brother is very active. And if he can't run around anymore, I don't think that would be very fun. So please don't open up the end of my street. Thanks for listening, Clara.

Thank you, Clara. We will go to Aaron Rura followed by Nicole Rura. Aaron, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Just a second, Aaron's coming over. Do you have your, what do you wanna say? This is mine. Hold on just a second. Okay, here, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Aaron, I'm eight years old and I live in Mostly Health. Also, I'm a Cambridge Public School student. and I'm against opening the bike path to our street. I don't think you should open the bike path entrance onto our street because things that were on the bike path, like bikes and scooters and dogs who are on their leashes, could spill into our street, and I wouldn't feel safe on our street anymore. And that sounds like who cares to you, but to me, it's like I can't get my energy out. What am I supposed to do? I like riding my bike, and I learned how to ride my bike on our street because it's quiet and there aren't cars driving up and down it. Other kids from around the neighborhood have learned on our street too. If the bike path was open, we wouldn't have a safe, quiet place to play or practice new skills like roller skating or riding a bike. Thank you for listening and I really hope you don't open the bike path into our street.

Thank you, Erin. We will go to Nicole Rura, followed by Emily Morshed, then Chris Madsen. Nicole?

Hi, I'm Nicole and the very proud mother of both Claire and Erin, and we live directly next to the bike path. And we've lived here for about 15 years. I'm also an avid biker, and I bike to work through Cambridge most days. That said, I am strongly against opening the bike path onto our street, an opening that would be about 10 feet from our front door. And I would not force that situation on anyone else or their family. I would also like to point out that only Paul Turner has visited our street and seen how an opening would affect our community. Although we've been fighting this for several years, not one of the other counselors have talked to the people who would be most affected by this decision. If the bike path stays closed, it's an inconvenience of a matter of minutes and a couple of blocks per day, maximum, for anyone using the path. For the residents of Wesley Avenue, the inconvenience and loss of our safety of our property will be 24-7, 365 days a year. The bike paths users aren't just early morning runners and mid-afternoon baby strollers. There have been numerous times I've felt reassured by having a fence between us, including our kids, and intoxicated people. People experiencing mental health crises, including the knife-wielding person Clara mentioned, although that has not been the only one. Fighting and out-of-control dogs and yelling and abusive people. I've also been yelled at through the fence while gardening in my front yard in broad daylight. We have our windows open during the summer when it's not too hot, and it's not unusual to be woken up by people yelling or fighting in the bike path, or for us to call the Cambridge police in the middle of the night. I'd also point out that any 88 accessible entrance from the bike path onto Wesley Ave will involve the loss of precious parking spaces. As it is, most of the cars that park in our street are not Wesley Avenue residents, so this will increase parking difficulties for everyone in the neighborhood. We already have issues with high volumes of speeding cars going down Harvey Avenue, so Harvey Street, so anyone crossing the street there will have a very difficult time. As the councilors vote on the opening, I request- Ms.

Rora, Ms. Rora, your time has elapsed, but please email the balance of your testimony to us. Next speaker, please.

Thank you. For those waiting, we are at speaker number 11, Emily Morsad, followed by Chris Madsen, then Shimon Rora. Emily?

Hello, my name is Emily more shed I live at five Wesley avenue and I am also here to speak about policy order 82 regarding the opening to Wesley avenue. For three years residents city planners designers have dedicated numerous hours to a collaborative thoughtful design process for the linear park. the community engaged in good faith, providing input, attending meetings, and believing that their voices mattered. This policy order completely disregards that extensive community informed process and the settled decisions that emerged from it. As my neighbors have mentioned, Wesley is a narrow dead end street. I won't go into those points now. I think they've covered it very well. But I want to be clear about the supposed benefits. i'm a frequent user of the linear park multiple times a day my husband and i are on that path on foot on bike the proposed access point offers minimal actual benefit most both for the distance to actually access it but also because on a bike the streets exiting wesley avenue are one way there are only certain ways that you can get in and out For cyclists, the restrictive one-way configurations make it a very useless entry point. What truly compounds my frustration is that the policy order was submitted without any contact whatsoever with the abutters on Wesley Avenue. We are the ones that will be living the reality of whatever happens. You're proposing to fundamentally alter our neighborhood without even the basic courtesy of a conversation. This is not how good policy is made and is certainly not how public trust is earned. I urge you to reject this policy order, respect the input of the full community, not just a narrow interest group. Wesley Avenue residents deserve to be heard and not overwritten. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Chris Madsen followed by Shimon Rura. Chris, you have two minutes. Chris has not joined us. We will go to Shimon followed by Regis Shields, then Eric Grunenbaum. Shimon, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you. Shimon Roura, 10 Wesley Avenue. I'm here as well to speak against the opening of a new access point to Lanier Park on Wesley Avenue, which I write to. I am a cyclist. I routinely commute by bike to my work in Boston, and I bike frequently with my family in the neighborhood. However, I do not support the additional opening at Wesley Ave or any access point that is both strongly opposed by the people it will affect most and of minimal value to bicyclists and commuters. You've heard the reasons for the opposition, which is universal among the residents of Wesley Avenue. For us, the fence is a really important difference between a drunk guy yelling on an adjacent bike path or a drunk guy yelling in our front yard. It's quite significant. And weighing that against the potential benefit You've heard, and if you look at a map, you can see that existing entrances are really quite close within 500 feet of this proposed additional entry point. And this is why in prior discussions, the numerous discussions that have been had with the transportation team that has been designing this linear park redesign, this opening was decided against being part of that design. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THE IMPACT ON ANY RESIDENT OF CAMBRIDGE WHEN MAKING SUCH TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS AND REALLY WEIGH IT AGAINST THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT, WHICH HERE IS JUST NOT ENOUGH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE REGIS SHIELDS FOLLOWED BY ERIC GRUNENBAUM, THEN NEILS SEEDLER-KHAN. REGIS, TWO MINUTES.

Hi, my name is Regis Shields and I reside at 173 Hancock Street and I'm here to address item number one on the agenda under policy orders which references the curb cut at 177 Hancock Street. I represent a number of the neighbors whose disapproval votes for the curb cut were either withheld by the developer intentionally or with gross negligence masking the level of neighborhood disapproval. While this policy order comes via a curb cut, the issues it raises go far beyond Hancock Street. Voting against this policy order sets a bad precedent. It incentivizes applicants to shirk city processes for their own gain, understanding that once they have approval from city council for their petition, this petition cannot be overturned regardless of their actions during the approval process. In this case, it means a valuable public good street parking is transferred to private hands for significant financial gain. Voting against this policy erodes voters' trust in the system. Voting to allow the city manager to determine whether city council can revoke an already approved curb cut application due to applicant failure is a vote for good public policy. It safeguards city processes. It ensures that petitioners will diligently follow processes that safeguard city values and plans. It ensures residents voices are taken into consideration as intended and facilitators voters trust in the system. I've testified before the Operations Committee about changes to the curb cut process, and I believe that in the future, this process will be more accountable to both the city and the neighborhoods. But this future action and change should not influence your vote to investigate this issue, especially when the issue at hand is much larger than the curb cut in question. It goes to the integrity of city council actions. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Eric Grunenbaum, followed by Neil Seidler-Khan, then Will Hausman. Eric, two minutes.

Good evening. I'm Eric Grunenbaum and I'm speaking about the policy order number three about alewife sewage. I live on Montgomery Street about a quarter mile from the sewage pipe on MBTA land where about two-thirds of the excrement flows from Cambridge toilets into Alewife Brook. On May 22nd, there was a six-hour overflow and on Saturday, a 40-minute overflow and it gets worse with climate change. Why such frank words? On Saturday I went by the pipe for a run and it stunk. The term CSO makes us forget just how gross this is. Recently in the Globe, Kathy Abbott of Boston Harbor Now conjured the 1980s, quote, it was horrific. Imagine several million toilets worth of excrement bubbling up into the harbor, unquote. The harbor is now mostly clean, but they left sewage in Alewife Brook, a backup surface sewer in a concrete channel that overflows into public paths and into basements. But we have a perfectly situated piece of public land next to the worst sewage. However, the RFP mostly avoids the topic. What will happen here? Will it be 10 acres of parking for suburbanites, bus stops, and housing? Will we have people living above who flush their toilets upstairs and see the results as they walk by the T? Instead, we imagine both a big tank and a major new wetland, like the four-acre Alewife Wetland built for West Cambridge's stormwater. A wetland here also reconnects fractured green spaces, the Alewife Wetlands, Yates Pond, where the garage now looms, and Jerry's Pond. It's a unique opportunity, but I've followed both authorities, the T and the MWRA, and collaboration is an afterthought. Instead, it should have been baked into the RFP to begin with. Who has authority over the authorities? Through our council, respectfully, we are asking you, Governor Healey, and the MBTA and MWRA to improve this important location and use that land wisely. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Niels Seidler-Kahn, followed by Will Hausman. Then we have some students, Will, Ella, Heidi, and Niels. Niels, you have two minutes.

Niels, if you can speak into the mic directly. precious opportunity to return this land to marshes, which will filter the water flowing into the Alewife Brook, providing a safe habitat for native organisms and a healthier environment for us all. Whatever happens in this area, combined sewer overflows or CSOs should not be a part of this plan.

Thank you for your testimony. Is that one person at a time or are they sharing the same two minutes?

the four signed up together. So please go ahead next and say your name.

My name is Ella. My name is Ella Rajakumari, Secret Engineer. I live at 19 Westmoreland Avenue, Arlington, Massachusetts. Our watershed is important to us in so many ways, and not just us. Humans aren't the only things that live here. Lots of plants and animals live here too. If the rivers are polluted and dirty, which they are, this will kill off the animals and plants. People right now are getting sick from sewage in their drinking water. Wetlands filter out the polluted and dirty water and also prevent flooding. But office buildings and parking lots are impermeable, which means that they create runoff, which is what happens when chemicals that would usually be sucked into the ground with water are flushed into rivers. So please consider creating more green space because it helps filter out our drinking water and is way better for the environment.

Thank you. Our next is Will, I think.

Hi, my name is Will Houseman.

Will, would you hold on for a moment? So I know they signed up together, but they're four individuals.

They're signed up together and separately. So we can reset the time for Will.

So reset the time so the young man can have his two minutes if that's what he wants.

Our next speaker is Will Houseman.

Thank you.

Will? My name is Will Houseman. I live in 11 Sharp Road, Belmont, Mass. I want to be able to bike and walk on the airwife path without getting sewage splashed on my legs. If we put the wetland in, it will prevent sewage. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please.

Our next speaker is Philippa Lahar. Philippa, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor, two minutes. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Philippa Lahar. I live at the junction of Harvey and Wesley Ave and I'm here to speak on agenda item number regarding the opening of the fence at Wesley Ave. I am also here asking the council to please vote no on opening the fence at Wesley Ave. This comes down to me to a comparison of potential harms. I'd ask you to consider is it more harmful to have through traffic opened up on an entirely residential street where history has already proven impacts of vandalism, theft, noise, police activity, and littering, not to mention the Potential added variable of high speed e-bikes coming into the neighborhood, which is filled with young kids. Or is it more harmful to ask cyclists and pedestrians to continue to travel an extra 525 feet to a well lit public paved and traffic managed access point on Cedar and Mass Ave. We're asking for sensible levels of access here and believe this is a solution in search of a problem because the existing stretch of path is only six blocks long and has perfectly usable convenient and safe exits on both ends already. Residents appear to have been encouraged to submit requests for even more convenient access, but they don't live on the street. And I think as some of my neighbors have mentioned 24-7, we're going to be the ones dealing with the consequences that this will predictably cause. So I humbly ask you to please vote no on opening the fence at Wesley Ave. Thank you.

Thank you, our next speaker, speaker number 21, Jonathan Slate, followed by Julian Sharbrey-Lichter, then Mackie Buck. Jonathan, two minutes, please go ahead.

My name is Jonathan Slate, and I live at 6 Wesley Avenue. I'm here to talk about the proposed opening of Wesley Avenue at Linea Park, and to ask each city councilor to vote no. I've lived on Wesley for almost 20 years, though my family's lived in Cambridge for almost 100 years. Since the time of the railroad until now, the city of Cambridge has always determined it necessary to have a fence at the end of the street for the safety of those living on Wesley, as well as the abutters on Harvey and Reed streets. During the only time there was access when somebody put a hole in the chain link fence a few years back, During that period, the residents experienced theft, vandalism, things broken, items stolen out of yards, and bikes stolen. Litter was thrown everywhere, including beer bottles, pizza boxes, plastic bags, cigarette butts, and even hypodermic needles. Residents would open their doors to find strangers on their doorstep. People would hang out in the street morning, day, and night. Residents were constantly woken up in the middle of the night. People made crimes in the park and used Wesley as a getaway or steal packages from Wesley homes and escape onto Linea Park. The problems were so bad that the city of Cambridge decided that the hole in the fence had to be closed off and did so. Immediately, all the problems stopped. The Cedar Street entrance is one block away, a one minute walk and a 10 second bike ride. In all, there are four openings between Mass Ave and Russell Field on the south side of Linear, just like the ones, the private property on the north side. Unlike any other opening, access to Wesley would go right into an extremely narrow residential street with yards so small our doors nearly open onto the street. I went to three meetings that the city had involving Wesley. Only five people supported putting an opening there, just three of whom were from North Cambridge. A city council once said that they make decisions based on what is for the greater good. This is a case of safety versus convenience. When the city of Cambridge protects the safety of its residents, that is the greatest good of all. I ask each of you on the city council to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Madam Clerk, would you please recognize counsel? Counselor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Present. Present.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Julian Shabrie-Lichter, followed by Mackie Buck, then Michael Rome.

Okay, so each speaker will have two minutes. You don't have to use a whole two minutes. So two minutes at a time. Don't go over, but you can go through the whole two minutes. So just speak one at a time, two minutes each.

Okay.

You can draw lots, however you want to get there, just two minutes apiece. Thank you.

Hello, I am Julian Shabrie-Lichter. I live on Harvey Street in North Cambridge, and I'm here to talk about policy order number three, ending alewife sewage.

Are they trying to do this together? Yeah, okay.

We are eighth graders at the Ridge Avenue Upper School. We did a project for civics class where we had to find an issue that mattered to us and take action on it. We finished that project, but we want to continue trying to make change in our hometown.

We are here to talk about CSO sewage pollution in the Elwhaif Brook. Tens of millions of gallons of stormwater mixed with untreated human excrement are dumped into the Brook through combined sewer flows every single year. This can cause odors and disease for the thousands of people living in the Brook's floodplain and for people walking on the paths near it, such as us.

The book is named for the ill-wifed fish that called it home for tens of thousands of years. Now they are all but gone. As children, our Cambridge was handed to us by the generations before us. And it is ridiculous to see that even in the year 2025, we still see disgusting abuses of our environment such as this. This small river has been turned into an open sewer, but this can be fixed.

The MBTA garage at the Alewife station will be torn down in the near future. And when this happens, we want to be there. No, sorry. We want there to be both green and gray infrastructure built on the vacant land, with green infrastructure being a top priority. Why green infrastructure? Well, it provides many more important benefits than gray infrastructure, such as having trees and greenery to cool the city and reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and improving the air and creating habitat, and also serving as a recreational area.

The airwave stormwater wetland, which is also green infrastructure, takes up 3.4 acres of land, which can be doubled by the MBTA working with the MWRA and Cambridge, as the garage and the MBTA land around it takes up a total of 10 to 13 acres of land, and they can always just make it taller or further underground. We urge you to pass policy order number three, which will help achieve these goals.

Councillors of the City of Cambridge, we urge you to take action on this pressing issue and work with the MWRA and MBTA to turn the solution into reality. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mackie Buck, followed by Michael Rome, then Anne McDonald. And for those waiting, we are at speaker number 23. Mackie, you have two minutes.

Well, OK. So my name is Mackie Buck. I live in North Cambridge on Gold Star Road. And I have to thank these children who are really impressive. And I also have to say, well, I'm here to speak about the CSO myself. Each of us, each generation has to fix the thing that's broken for us. And here's these little kids that are here giving up their dinner time, their play time, their friend time. And I hope that we can really think seriously about solving the CSO problem. Now we'll get to what I was actually gonna say. Yeah, so I live in North Cambridge. I am one of the people who, when it's a rainy day like we had the other day, my sewage is poured untreated into the river nearby. And that's just deplorable. And I suspect every single one of you is in agreement about that. So I'm strongly supporting the effort to get the state to resubmit the RFP for the work of removing and replacing the garage that sits in the remnants of the Great Swamp. I believe this work should include a three acre constructed stormwater wetland, similar to the one that's close by, in addition to underwater storage tanks. as well as affordable housing and parking for suburban residents that are coming into Cambridge and Boston to work. Areas of natural beauty are often not around the places where we build affordable housing. To combine both of these in one spot is a gift to everyone who will ever live in that housing. And I say this as somebody who actually has lived in affordable housing that was not in a beautiful spot. So I encourage you all to help the state and its varied authorities to do all that is necessary to see this vision come to fruition. Thank you very much. And thank you, you children. Thank you for your testimony. Next speaker, please.

Our next speaker is Michael Rome, followed by Anne McDonald, then Anne Tennis. Michael, you have two minutes.

Michael Rome from 18 Gold Star Road, also speaking about item number three. I've come here to offer support for the recommendations from the Save the Ill Wife Brook Group. In the 21st century, it's hard to believe that raw sewage is still a problem in our area, but it is. So for the safety of our neighbors, this problem must be solved. Save the Alewife has set forth many ideas that will help mitigate the CSO. Part of the solution, and one I care deeply about, is that an additional constructed wetland be built to help remedy the problem. I visit the constructed wetland on a weekly basis, and it is a treasure in our part of Cambridge. It offers us lots of green, interesting plantings, waterfowl, and a variety of bird life. It is a walking destination for many of us North Cantabrigians, and the paths are well trod. Furthermore, we have an excellent opportunity to mitigate not only the CSO, but possibly offer homes to the homeless who set up encampments in this area. Let us try to do the most good we can to clean up this area and offer our citizens a place in the city to enjoy nature and, hopefully, a place to live. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Anne McDonald, followed by Anne Tennis, then Matthew Glidden. Anne, two minutes.

Hi, I'm Anne McDonald, and I live on Columbus Ave in the Whittemore Triangle area of North Cambridge, just across from the Alewife Brook. So I'm here to speak about policy order number three. I'm active with Save the Alewife Brook and Cambridge Sewer Overflow Working Group. I'm here to support ending alewife sewage. I've lived through our neighborhood's sewage separation and years of sewage orders at Mass Ave and Alewife Brook. If anyone's walked to the CVS, you'll know that. And I live near several active CSOs. 001 and Somerville 001. But thanks to Cambridge's vision in addressing a court order in the past, I get to walk almost daily through the Alewife Reservation stormland wetland, stormwater wetland. But just past the worst offending CSO Cam 401A near the Alewife Garage, same walk. where raw sewage releases now occur almost after every heavy rainfall, turning our small brook into an open sewer. A future world-class alewife complex, a transit hub with affordable housing, can't exist at the site of the most significant local untreated sewage discharges. Doesn't make any sense. This is an environmental justice issue. We can't keep pushing this problem onto neighbors further downstream or look for solutions that are 50 years out. Please find ways to collectively put a sewage-free Alewife Brook and the river's health, the community's health, and the creature's health at the center rather than at the edge, lost between jurisdictions and agencies. The MBTA, MWRA, DCR, DPH, Cambridge and Somerville DPW need you as our representatives to pressure the state and the MBTA leadership to amend the contract processes and ensure that community vision and priorities for underground storage as well as green stormwater infrastructure are incorporated before developers are signed. We need short-term solutions that eliminate sewage on the MBTA garage site. Thank you. Ms. McDonald, your time's over.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ann Tennis, followed by Matthew Glidden, then Gwendolyn Spieth. Ann Tennis, please go ahead.

Yes, Ann Tennis, 71 Griswold Street. Sometimes a lot of things come together unexpectedly, like the Healey administration recognizing the city of Cambridge as a climate leader. Like the Community Development Department pushing for a residential tower as part of the redevelopment for the public land where the AYT station is located. Like Cambridge and Somerville saying that they're working on a CSO control plan. But stopping the use of Alewife Brook as a sewage canal is far in the future. Like the latest CSO discharge into Alewife Brook on Saturday afternoon. Like tonight's policy order. In a rush to develop, CDD, DPW, and the property owners throughout Alewife are overlooking two facts. Properties near water command a premium, and Cambridge has Alewife Brook. It's time to be the stewards for Alewife Brook. Ask the real estate community to figure out the annual dues that will finance a water management and biodiversity plan to make Alewife Brook a safe, clean recreational area in Greenway. THE AIRWIDE FREE ZONING WORKING GROUP ORGANIZED BY CDD AND STILL IN EXISTENCE HAS DEVELOPERS, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES. LET THAT BE THE MODEL. THIS POLICY ORDER TELLS THE ALPHABET OF STATE AGENCIES that Cambridge intends to be a better neighbor to Arlington, Somerville, Medford, and beyond. It's time to prove it. Start tonight. Be the climate leader for the Elwhite Brook and the Charles River. Sometimes things come together. I also would like to add, listening to these young people tonight, I want to compliment these young students for taking up this project. You really did your homework. Please keep up the good work. We need you for the future. Thank you.

Thank you, our next speaker is Matthew Glidden, followed by Gwendolyn Spieth, then Dylan Fox. Matthew? Matthew, you have the floor, please go ahead, two minutes.

Thank you, please confirm you can hear me okay?

We can hear you, please go ahead.

Wonderful. Matthew Glidden at 34 Harvey Street, a short half a block from my neighbors talking about Order 82 with access to Linear Park from Wesley Avenue. I'd like to, I feel moved by everyone I've heard so far, and I'd like to add a bit more context for Harvey. I've been here 20 years, and this is a dynamic street with two major projects at either end of it right now, bookending what is other, a fairly nominal square-shaped neighborhood with a lot of history. And those two large developments, those alone are going to change our neighborhood in meaningful ways that I think deserve... study and no additional changes to further stress the number of people going back and forth on Harvey, the number of people going back on the bike path, back and forth on the bike path. And these other city programs that help support stronger neighborhoods, including our block party support, the local history studies, these are all meaningful to people who are in our neighborhoods who are able to join together hang out socially, see each other face to face without having as much traffic moving quickly from one place to another where the neighborhood is not the priority. So I urge those voting tonight to think about the strength of the programs looking forward that you've already approved to make a community, neighbors, and each block within an area feel like its own special connection and its own special reason for living in Cambridge and staying to live in Cambridge. I WOULD, I KNOW I WOULD MISS THE IDEA, THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS NOT BOUND TOGETHER, WAS NOT FORWARD LOOKING AND THINKING ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO NEED OURSELVES AS WATER BECOMES MORE OF AN ISSUE, AS CLIMATE BECOMES MORE OF AN ISSUE. SO PLEASE THINK OF THAT LIKE I HAVE BEEN INSPIRED TONIGHT WHEN YOU VOTE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GWENDOLYN SPEETH, FOLLOWED BY DYLAN FOX, THEN KRISTEN ANDERSON. Gwendolyn, if you can unmute yourself, you have two minutes.

Yes. Can you hear me?

We can. Please go ahead.

My name is Gwen Spieth. I live at 16 Churchill Ave in North Cambridge near the Elk Wife Brook. Thank you all for taking up the issue of raw human sewage being dumped in my beloved Elwhife Reservation State Park, where the fireflies are now back on warm evenings. I'm excited that you're taking up Policy Order 3 because the redevelopment of the Elwhife T Station could be a win, win, win, win, win. for Cambridge and for the Commonwealth. It will be crazy for the state and the city not to take advantage of this once in a generation opportunity to build a climate resilient subway station in the middle of a beautiful wetland park. The LFT station is in what used to be known as the Great Swamp and underground hydrologically the area still is a swamp. which means that any building, but especially a subway with underground trains needs to account for the existing water in the area, as well as the growing threat from increased sewage overflows and flooding as climate change brings heavier rains. The research study referenced in policy order three shows that communities like ours living near untreated CSOs experience increased emergency from visits for intestinal disorders following sewage discharges. I personally hate worrying that lingering to watch birds when I walk through my state park could be making me sick. This is a no-brainer. We can either let the sewage contamination continue to flood through our park, or we can use the Elwhife Station rebuild to store combined sewage during rainstorms so it can go to the treatment plant instead of being dumped in the brook. We can create a modern, world-class, climate-resilient tea complex combining well-thought-out, people-friendly buildings infused with as much natural beauty as possible in the form of trees, rain gardens, and other life-enhancing elements to catch and store rainwater and provide a healthy environment for all of the species who live here. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Dylan Fox, followed by Kristen Anderson, then Michael Behizadeh. Dylan?

Hello, I'm Dylan Fox. I'm one of the eighth graders that spoke earlier. I just made this thought, so in case the three of us didn't have enough time, so skip me, please.

Thank you, Dylan. Our next speaker is Kristen Anderson.

Thank you. My name is Kristen Anderson. I live at 12 Upland Road West in Arlington, and I'm one of the founding members of Save the Elwife Brook. I used to live in Cambridge in a rent-controlled house with four art students on Magazine Street near the Charles River, and I really loved living in Cambridge. But I'm here tonight as an Arlington resident because Elwife Brook flooded into my home multiple times. Raw, untreated sewage, flood water came into my house and into my neighbor's homes right through the back door. My neighbors and I had no idea there was sewage in that water. We waded through the sewage flood water trying to save our stuff and we got sick. I'm talking gross, painful, stomach illness, horrible cramps, and bloody diarrhea. And this is why I'm so grateful that you are taking up this policy order tonight. I'd like to thank the entire City Council for considering this policy order, especially Councillor Patty Nolan for her many years of unending support. There is a hard deadline on December 31st of this year for Cambridge to submit its updated long-term sewage control plan for Elwife Brook. If the MBTA collaborates with the city and the MWRA at this location, crucial sewer infrastructure improvements can be made. I urge you to please vote yes on policy order number 3, ending Elwhaif sewage. Thank you. Also, thank you to everybody who has come out to speak in support, especially the kids. It was really heartwarming. Thank you all.

Our next speaker, speaker number 31, Michael Behizadeh, followed by Tim Garvey, then John Tortelli. Michael?

Hi, Michael Behizadeh. I'm also an Arlington resident. I live on Sawin Street in what they call Hedgesonville, just a few score feet away from the open sewer that is Al Life Brook. This is a leftover from the Boston Harbor cleanup, which has been a great success, except for here. And it's ridiculous that I live in Massachusetts and I'm living next to an open sewer. I appreciate that Cambridge is trying to take some action at least with this policy order and I hope you pass this. This is Massachusetts, we take care of each other. We do what's good to make our communities healthy and safe. We can show people that we do this for everybody. It's way overdue and we have this golden opportunity with this rebuilding of the L-Life MBTA parking garage. that we can really expand the green space, solve this problem, and take other advantages. It seems like a no-brainer. I appreciate that I have this opportunity to ask you to pass this. Please do it. We need all the help we can get. We have open sewage in our neighborhood. I didn't know about this when I bought my house five years ago. And I, I probably ran through open sewage because I go on that greenway every day. And now I finally know to avoid when it's, when it's flooded like that, we didn't even, we weren't even being notified of this until everybody started, you know, I, I found the say what saved the L life book community, uh, organization and started learning about this. It's gotta stop. We need all the help we can get. Please help us and pass this policy order. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Tim Garvey, followed by John Tortelli, then Elaine Light. Tim, you have two minutes.

Good evening. My name is Tim Garvey, 203 Lakeview Ave, Cambridge, speaking on POR E2. I own 7 Wesley Ave for decades. I now rent it. My tenants are opposed to this proposal, as I am. I am 72 years old. Last week, one evening, I think it was Thursday, 88 degrees, I walked from the fence at Wesley Ave to the grand opening at the junction of Mass Ave and Seal Street. It took me 40 seconds. I have no doubt a biker could do it in 10 seconds. This is a crazy idea, destroying the quality of life for the decent people at Wesley Ave. They deserve a bit of decency and respect in their life, further live in peace and tranquility. I urge you all to reject this crazy motion and save Wesley Ave, victory for Wesley Ave.

Thank you. Our next speaker is John Tortelli, followed by Elaine Light. John? John has not joined us. We will go to Elaine Light, followed by David White. Elaine has not joined us. We will go to David White, followed by Mark Foster, then Lita Juggins. David, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is David White. I lived in Arlington for many years. Before that, I lived near Inman Square on the Cambridge-Somerville border. I'm also a member of the Airline Conservation Commission and organizer of the Water Bodies Working Group. Wellington has a number of streams and ponds. However, Hillwife Brook, the only one where untreated sewage gets dumped. Hillwife often floods at the same time as there's CSO discharge. and contaminated water on the public Alewife Brook Greenway. Cambridge has made many improvements over the last two decades, but it's now time to finish the job and clean up Alewife Brook. I urge you to vote yes on policy order number three.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mark White, followed by Lita Jugghans. Mark Foster has not joined. We will go to Lita. Lita Jickens, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Lita, if you can unmute yourself, you do have the floor. Seems Lita is unable to unmute. We will go to Russell Bartash followed by Karen Grossman. Russell, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, City Council. Thank you for taking up policy number three. As you heard in the comments already, this is very harmful to the environment, wildlife and people in the area. This illegal dumping needs to stop and hopefully Cambridge can continue to be a leader in environmental issues and improve this policy. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Karen Grossman. Karen is not on Zoom. We will go to Noni Valentine followed by Brendan Hickey. Noni, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Noni Valentine, Washington Ave, on PO3. I'm thrilled that you're on this, turning alewife redevelopment into a hybrid solution to our cumulative sewage problem there. First, thank you residents who have worked for years to show the rest of us how bad it is. some having sewage seeping at times into your basement. Sorry also to neighboring towns whose sewage problem largely comes from us in Cambridge, which is why it's also a good idea to install good composting toilets here at the source. The image of a baby stroller headed toward raw sewage on the alewife path will turn your stomach. knowing the foul smell and the health risks this poses. You'll hear more about that and the eye-popping amount of sewage that goes straight into Alewife Brook. Since we humans have thrown off the natural water cycle, it means more drought, more heavy rains, which are already overwhelming the sewer system. It'll only get worse. A stormwater tank is the gray infrastructure we need, but it's the green infrastructure that's really interesting, like the existing alewife wetland. It's brilliant. It's beautiful, especially in bloom. Crucially, it retains stormwater. It also cleans water and air, it cools, it repairs habitat, it delights people and birds. We're going to have to get smart anyway about using nature-based solutions as climate gets worse, because these are the solutions that last. So it's time to become the city known for designing from nature. Imagine we do the hard thing and turn the sewage crisis and stigma, frankly, into an innovation by regenerating those three acres of land into wetlands as beautiful and essential over time as the existing one. And not stop there. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Brendan Hickey, followed by Eppa Rixey. We are at speaker number 42.

Hi, Brendan Hickey, 54 Concord Ave. I'm speaking on city manager's agenda six, seven, and eight concerning historical commission appointments. These appointments are largely defective. Number six appoints CHC commissioners to randomly determine terms, while state law requires that they be appointed for three years. So the three new commissioners should be seated for full three-year terms. There are three commissioners who serve as representatives of professional organizations. They cannot be reappointed without nomination of two candidates by their respective organizations. Seven and eight are similarly defective. These appoint NCD commissioners. NCD commissioners are limited to two three-year terms. Most commissioners have exceeded their term limits in violation of the ordinance and are ineligible to serve. One member has served continuously for 23 years. Since none of the NCDs are lawfully constituted, they lack the authority to take any legally valid actions. The appointment should be rejected at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we go to Eppa Ricksy, we're going to go back to Elaine Light, who is joining by telephone. Elaine, if you're able to unmute yourself, you have the floor. I believe you need to dial star six to unmute. Elaine is not able to unmute at this time. Hello? There you go. We can hear you. Please go ahead.

Good. Thank you so much. This will be very short. Last Friday, after not, you know, a particularly heavy rainfall, I biked from Stop and Shop on Broadway to my home in East Arlington along Alewife Brook. And I'm just so distressed that The smell, the danger. I've traveled other places in the world, and I've never been in a developed country where that exists, in my experience. It's actually shameful. So please, fix it. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Epa Rixey, followed by Michael Loneto, then Jimmy Johnson. Epa, two minutes.

Hi, my name is Epper Rixey and I live at 126 Harvey Street. I'm speaking in support of policy order 86 on CSOs and the MBTA. Huge thanks to the children who already have given valuable comments on this important environmental issue. The MBTA has been reluctant in the past and today to be an environmental steward of their land in the Alewife. Community groups have opened up communication and the MBTA has responded, but their firm commitments have been lacking. The garage rebuild is a key opportunity for CSO mitigation and green infrastructure in this urban heat island, and it will not happen if left to the MBTA. It should not only be their financial responsibility, but their land is key to solving this decades-long problem. There's an urgent need for cross-agency and municipal collaboration and a public engagement process. As has been described, green infrastructure offers important co-benefits, and the existing wetland nearby is a model to build on. This order is an important step, and I thank Eric and others for their work on it. I also wanted to speak on charter right number two, policy order 82. I live in the middle of the southern side of the linear park. During an emergency, I had to trespass across land to get home faster due to no southern entrances on this path. I walked the area on the way to this meeting, and this entrance would save about three to five minutes of walking time. That's not huge, but it would increase north-south connectivity appreciably. There's also a blind corner at Harvey and Cedar with a high fence and narrow sidewalks where school buses pick up students, making it difficult to traverse. Concerns about protecting existing trees and safety for abutters can and should be addressed in the design and execution of this project. Build the entrance with a gate so it can be closed if there are problems in the future. But those problems are likely to be different than when it was an illegal entrance. And it seems a shame to not build in the option when the park is being redone. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Michael Loneto, followed by Jimmy Johnson, then Laura Saylor. Michael, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Michael Lineto. I live in Somerville, and I'm speaking on ending the alewife sewage policy, item number three. I live in Somerville, about 400 yards from the alewife brook, so I use the alewife greenway often. In the 13 years I have lived here, the condition of the creek or brook and thus the greenway have clearly degraded, and climate change is making it worse. Last year was horrific. The wet spring, followed by drought, led to an entire summer of stench and possibly toxic, or actually likely toxic, dust, leading me to attend MWRI meetings on the combined sewer overflows in January and April after finding the Mystic River watershed and save the alewife groups. What I found at those meetings appalls me. The problem of untreated sewage dumped into the alewife goes back over 30 years. And there is no plan to do anything in my lifetime. I am 68 years old and don't expect to live long enough for the MWRA to do anything. They're talking about a multi-billion dollar project with a timeline in the 30 to 50 year range. For me, that is never. A key limitation as stated was the lack of available land. I see this chance to use the MBTA's existing state land for sewage and stormwater management, say once in a lifetime opportunity. I hope the council is willing to treat this long-term problem with the urgency and the urgency it deserves and to push the state to start making progress. And Cambridge is not alone in this. I hope to push some ability with the sewage as well. but that's a longer road at this point. So thank you for your attention.

Our next speaker is Jimmy Johnson, who has not joined. We will go to Laura Saylor, followed by David White. Can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead.

My name is Laura Saylor and I live less than 500 feet from Alewife Brook at 120 Thorndike Street in Arlington. I am currently investigating environmental causes for a cancer cluster in my neighborhood. Every time the City of Cambridge releases sewage into our Brook during storms, there's a risk this water will flood my neighborhood and expose all of us to dangerous toxins. There's an incredibly high rate of breast cancer around us already. Additionally, my children have never been able to play in the brook, swim or fish there in the 11 years we've lived here because it is simply too polluted. In summer, we cannot even go for a walk in our neighborhood. The stench is overpowering. And my son and daughter would also like to share their thoughts.

Hello, my name is Isaac Saylor. I live on 120 Thorndike. I want to go fishing at the Alewife Brook. The name alewife should be changed to sewage wife because all of the cute alewife fish have died and I want to see that cute fish again. Kids my age Could during the time of Tom Sawyer, everyone wants kids to play outside these days, but how can we play if it smells like running sewage? Please take this action to clean up our beautiful Rook. This is not the Middle Ages.

My name is Ellie Sela. I live on 120 Thorndike Street. I am seven. I love wildlife. I would like it to be able to grow in a brook nearby. I would also like it to be able to be able to walk, play near a beautiful brook without a stinky stench and a disgusting dirt. Thank you.

Thank you, our next speaker is David White, followed by Sam Ribnick, then Kashif Hoda. David, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

What can we do for in support of Article 3?

So, yes, special order, policy order number three, yes.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Sam Ribnick, followed by Kashif Hoda, then Louis Weitzman. Sam, if you can unmute yourself. You have two minutes. Sam, you're unmuted.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Sam Rivnick. I live on Filtherson Street and I'm interested in speaking about the East Cambridge Special District overlay regarding the Biomed project at 320 Charles Street. It's been really helpful to be able to follow along with some of the developments there. And I've seen that there's a plan for Biomed Realty to make a contribution to community benefit in the area as part of the project. But from what I understand and the information that I've seen, it looks like the community benefit is really not as substantial as some other projects have been. It looks to me like Biomed is getting permission to build a pretty significant structure right next to a playground. And overall, I'm supportive of this, but would like to see them make a more significant contribution as a community benefit in line with other projects that have been done nearby, more similar to the Moderna building. And in particular, I know there's been a lot of discussions that the project could support East and House. The proposal that I think has sort of got the most merit is the idea that they could make a larger contribution and support the development of a site for East End House at the Fulkerson Taxi Garage, which is really just like right now a broken down building that from my understanding, the city will soon have ownership of at the site of 135 Fulkerson. So I'm really looking for city councilors to hopefully speak up and take action tonight to commit to exploring that possibility. I understand the decision won't be made tonight, but I hope that someone will set that process in motion so that we can at least explore the possibility of a larger contribution and getting the wonderful East End House onto that site where the taxi garage is. Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Kashif Hoda. Kashif, you have two minutes.

Hello, my name is Kashi Fada, resident of 440 Cambridge Street. I was here last week and I'm here again tonight in support of updating the welcoming city ordinance. To add words that will tell us residents that the city will use all resources at its disposal to protect its residents from federal overreach. This will give a strong message to the local police that the mission and mandate is to serve and protect Canterburyians. This will also send a message to the rest of the country that there are ways to protect residents and make sure their legal rights are honored so that we don't end up in a situation like what's currently happening in Los Angeles, where people are forced to take matters into their own hands. So I urge all of you to please support this policy order and pass it without delay. Thank you.

Thank you. We will go to Louis Weitzman followed by Jacob Brown. We are at speaker number 50.

OK. Hi, my name's Lewis Weitzman. I live on Montgomery Street. I'm happy to see counselors who I've worked with in the past. And I feel it's a place that people do actually care. It's not we're not always able to do what we'd like to do. I'm fine when I come down here, but I always feel that there is good support. This is a time we really got to jump in. I walked through the wife station yesterday. For those of you who haven't been there recently, the place is a wreck. It's horrendous. And it's kind of like we're being extorted by the MBTA. They've left it so terrible that we would accept anything. Anything would be better. I walked through there. There were two people shooting drugs openly on the plaza. It's disgusting. It's an absolute disgrace. And here comes an RFP saying, OK, we haven't managed the site well at all. And guess what? Now we want to redevelop it. And we'd like you to trust us. This is a really important site. There should be no trust given to the MBTA for this process. And you've got to look through this RFP. I urge you, counselors, look closely. It really offers very little oversight. It does, quote, coordination with stakeholders and the city. Basically, they're going to be choosing the developer, they're going to be choosing a proposal, and then they're going to throw it back to us and say, you know, the place is such a wreck, we've got a developer now, here's what they can do. Out of such a process, and with an authority that really can't be trusted, and it's an express process, it says... We're going to move this quickly, and we're going to make sure there's profits for the authority. That's really what this is about. I urge you to look closely and make sure not only are CSOs added, but there is teeth in there that you and us as a city have a say in what's going to go on. Because right now, if you look at the RFP, you will find we are not going to have a good say, and they're going to throw something down that's quick, cheap, and not for the public benefit. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jacob Brown, followed by Susan LaPierre, then Beth Melofchik. Jacob, two minutes.

Hey, my name is Jacob Brown, and I live on Magazine Street here in Cambridge. I'm here because I'm horrified by the actions of ICE and Homeland Security in targeting community members across the country and doing things like taking people from their jobs and from their children's high school graduations. So many people that are close to me have immigrated to this country, whether it's friends, family members, or coworkers, but their ability to do so is helped by the existence of processes that were put in place to help them achieve residency and citizenship so they could keep being proud members of their neighborhoods, their cities, and their country. However, the actions of ICE threaten to permanently disrupt these systems and any possible trust in them. Many things about their conduct obviously have disturbed me, but their abusive scheduled hearings in immigration court lays bare that they seek to act lawlessly, to break trust in doing things the right way, to target the people who have the tenacity and the determination to go through all the proper channels despite a deck that's stacked against them, all of this just to terrorize immigration and immigrant communities and fulfill their quotas. They've made it their explicit mission to target people acting lawfully and to rendition them thousands of miles from home in cramped jail cells and inhumane conditions. So as a city, why should Cambridge employees participate to help ICE in splitting our community apart? Cambridge proudly welcomes immigrants and it's made me so happy seeing the city declare itself a sanctuary city. Like I said earlier, these are my friends, neighbors, and family that we're talking about, and all of the most important parts of my daily life in the city. It's this very fabric that's why the Trump administration wants to target cities like us. The ability to learn from each other is a truly powerful force in driving out the hate that they wish to spread. Cambridge needs to protect its biggest strength, and one of the things that defines us, and affirm that it will not assist or facilitate federal immigration enforcement. I would also like to support policy on order number 87 while I'm up here. Police should in no way be allowed to engage in sexual conduct with someone under their control. Yeah, thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Susan LaPierre, followed by Beth Malachick, then Cynthia Hibbard. Susan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

Okay. Good evening. I'm Susan LaPierre, chair of the East End House Board of Directors. I'm here speaking on the Biomed Realty and the East End Cambridge Overlay. For over 30 years, I've witnessed firsthand the transformative power of East End House to be a force for good in the city, lifting up families and individuals and helping to build a more equitable Cambridge in strong partnership with the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. On behalf of everyone at East End House and the thousands of residents that we serve each year, I extend our deepest and most heartfelt thanks to the City Council, to the broader Cambridge community, and to our extraordinary partners at Biomed Realty. Your support of the 320 Charles Street petition and the community benefits that it unlocks will forever shape the future of East End House. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It not only sets us up on a clear path to success, a modern expanded facility. It ensures that East End House remains a vital anchor of opportunity, resilience, and community for the next 150 years. The commitment letter from Biomed includes clear benchmarks and thoughtful guardrails, which we are fully committed to meeting. This partnership shows what's possible when public, private, and non-profit sectors unite to address urgent needs and make smart strategic investments in vital community infrastructure. Thanks to your support and Biomed's trust, we've already made tangible progress, We've stabilized our aging building to buy time, launched a quiet phase of a comprehensive capital campaign, explored over a dozen potential new sites, partnered with developers and architects on exciting development plans for our current and future home. We're collaborating widely and partnering deeply because this isn't just about a building, it's about building community. Thank you for believing in East End Housing and the power of this moment. We're ready for what's next. We are deeply grateful to walk this path forward with you. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Beth Melovchik, followed by Cynthia Hibbard, then Jessica VanMeer. Beth, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Beth, I live at Russell street in Arlington. Thank you for this opportunity. I am here to speak about ending a wife sewage in support of policy order. Number 3. I respectfully ask the Cambridge city council to use your power and your leadership position to. enable, to persuade, to force MWRA and the MBTA to do what should have been done decades ago and the release of raw sewage into Alewife Brook, which has the highest concentration of raw sewage in floatables, tampon applicators, you name it, it's in there. It's revolting. It's incomprehensible to me as a resident of Arlington that my fellow residents in East Arlington in a residential neighborhood live near this, that they have an open sewer in their residential neighborhood. So I respectfully ask the Cambridge City Council to set an example for Somerville, who just wants to tell us why they can't fix it. The technocrats at MWRA have been maintaining the status quo. We are no longer able to tolerate this, the residents of Arlington. We are exploited. Our neighborhood in East Arlington is used as an open sewer for your benefit, for the benefit of the residents of Cambridge and Somerville. There should be no more new sewer hookups for new residences for the MBTA plan, for instance, until this is fixed. Please support policy order number three. I respectfully entreat you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Cynthia Hibbard, followed by Jessica Van Meer, then Brian McCormick. Cynthia. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and City Councillors. My name is Cynthia Hibbard. I live at 23 Ellsworth Avenue, number two. I am president of the Board of Directors for Green Cambridge. I'm speaking on behalf of Green Cambridge in support of policy order number three, urging Governor Healey, the MBTA, Board of Directors, General Manager Philip Eng to amend the MBTA Alewife Station complex redevelopment request for proposal to include as a priority eliminating untreated combined sewer overflows. Green Cambridge's property directly abuts the Alewife T Station. Over the past year, we have been convening stakeholders across the Alewife District to find shared goals for the station redevelopment as part of our work with the National Park Service and the Alewife District Action Plan. Green Cambridge strongly supports this policy order. We are looking forward to actively talking more with the MBTA to refine the RFP for this transformative, and as many people have said tonight, this potential for a win-win-win project. We appreciate the city's involvement and look forward to partnering with the city and advocacy groups to facilitate this process. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jessica Van Meer, followed by Brian McCormick, then Susanna Schell.

Hello, my name is Jessica Van Meer. I'm speaking in favor of policy order 87 and policy order 80. I'm a PhD candidate in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. And I'm also here to represent the Boston Sex Workers and Allies Collective, which was born here in Cambridge to advocate for the health and safety of sex workers. This policy order 87 would express support for state bill H2634, an act relative to sexual assault by an officer. which would make sure that police here in Cambridge and across our state cannot engage in sexual conduct with anyone who is under their investigation or being detained and would close a loophole in our current laws which prevent sexual misconduct from an officer only when someone is under their arrest. The motivation for this bill is a Department of Justice report that found that Worcester police were systematically engaging in sexual assault of sex workers in Worcester, including having sex with them while they were undercover and then arresting them afterwards, as well as threatening them with arrest if they did not provide them sexual services, which needless to say is unacceptable. I want to thank Vice Mayor McGovern and Councillor Wilson for bringing forward this policy order. However, I also want to emphasize that this is not enough to protect sex workers in our community. We're also asking for the Cambridge City Council to adopt a policy to deprioritize prostitution arrests, as Somerville did in 2019, and to support the other three bills which have been brought forward at the state level to protect sex workers' safety, including H-1980, H-2467, and H-1747. the latter of which would enable sex workers to report a crime without fear of arrest. Finally, in support of policy order 80, my father is an immigrant, many of my friends at Harvard are immigrants, and ISIS terrorizing our community, we shouldn't allow it to happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian McCormick, followed by Susanna Schell, then George Leight. We are at speaker number 57. Brian?

Good evening. My name is Brian McCormack. I'm a resident at 70 Montgomery Street in North Cambridge. I've been a resident for 23 years in the neighborhood. I'm here to speak about policy order number 82 concerning the reopening of access to linear park at Wesley Ave. While I fully support the proposed improvements to linear park, I do want to express my opposition to reopening this entrance. This dead end street, along with numerous other dead ends, alleys, and private ways are a unique and beneficial feature of our neighborhood. I'm talking about Olive Place, Francis Place, Reed Terrace, George Street, Harrington Street, Dudley Court, and some others. These streets provide safe and enclosed spaces for young children. to get together and play under the eye of their parents and neighbors. As a parent of two boys who often play with their friends on Wesley and also nearby Dudley Court, I have come to appreciate their immense value. This was especially the case during the pandemic, when, as we well remember, nearby playgrounds and play spaces were closed. Also, given the rapid disappearance of backyards in our neighborhood due to the changes in zoning rules, everything should be done to preserve these safe spaces and keep them free of unnecessary pedestrians and cyclists. Thank you.

Thank you, our next speaker is Susanna Schell, followed by George Leight, then Marina Atlas. Susanna?

Can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

My name is Susanna Schell, and I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of policy order number three, ending alewife sewage. I live at 195 Harvey Street in North Cambridge, and I can see the alewife tea station and parking garage from my bedroom window. I want to thank the Green Cambridge and Friends of Alewife Brook for their continued advocacy and our young people who have spoken so eloquently tonight. The proposed demolition of the Alewife MBTA station, parking garage, and redevelopment of this site presents us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to correct a 100-plus year wrong, the rerouting and channelizing of the Alewife Brook into an open sewer as part of the antiquated 1896 Alewife Branch Sewer. The expansion of the Red Line in 1984 continued to allow the Brook to function as a sewer. Now that the T is planning a total redevelopment of the site, we can fix this. I join with the residents who live along the Brook in calling for the elimination of sewage pollution. This site abuts the entrance of the beautiful reconstructed stormwater wetlands that has become a haven for residents and wildlife alike. Let's add to this and clean up the Alewife Brook. We must revise the RFP to allow an upgrading of any existing infrastructure and the creation of a new green stormwater infrastructure with at least three acres of additional stormwater wetlands. Previous generations allowed the Great Swamp to be drained and the Alewife Brook to be used as a sewer. It's time to correct these wrongs for generations to come. Please approve policy order number three to end Alewife sewage. Thank you.

Our next speaker is George Leight. George has not joined us. We will go to speaker number 60, Marina Atlas. Marina, if you can unmute yourself.

Hi there, are you able to hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

Thank you. So dear Cambridge City Council members, I'm Marina Atlas of 37 Pleasant Street in Cambridge. I also live closer to Alewife and Belmont. I'm speaking in strong support of policy order number three about CSO sewage pollution from Alewife. So living between alewife and the flood plains of the older and the older neighborhoods that will inevitably face environmental justice equity from any flooding if the overflow and raw untreated sewage and under capacity of the sewage line and sewage hookups It's clear that not only have we not made good on our promise of the last 50 years to separate the CSO lines, but it's been going on for far too long since it's already been rediscovered. I've been following this since I first studied the Elk Wife Brook doing water quality testing in 2007. I should clarify, I'm an environmental health scientist and MPA. MPH candidate at Northeastern University. I found elevated fecal coliform in the alewife brook and water stratification, trapping bacterial and sewage pollution as an AP student all the way back at that time in Ringe. Recently, I've had the privilege of discussing this with Robert France, the original author of the Alewife Master Plan, following up on this. and also with local fellow former environmental scientists and regulators to engage and recognize the need to address this issue and take preventative action to support critical infrastructure and support the livability and health of all residents with regard to urban public health. I urge implementing his study recommendations as well as recommendations by members of Save the Alewife Brook. As a scientist, ally, and advocate, I urge any design and planning for graywater capacity improvements with bioswales limiting impermeable surfaces as part of the mandatory planning process for new development and building additions, and require at least 35% permeability, including mandating any coverage material being plants, permeable pavers, and provide a plant list to support native plantings in these bioswales. This will manage seepage, runoff, and most importantly, bacteria. It is also really essential to require water quality monitoring that supports the M4 permitting process as part of EPA's Clean Water Act permitting standards. This will require local dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform testing regularly, mandate study of and benchmarking of new sewerage capacity buildings and hookups as part of the...

Your time has expired. Unfortunately, the clock was frozen. Please email the remainder of your comments to citycouncil at cambridgema.gov. We will go to Mary Carroll, followed by Tim Russell, then Rebecca Gotti. Mary Carroll, you have two minutes.

Thank you very much. My name is Mary Carol. I'm a Boston resident and I'm the co-chair of the Boston Sex Workers and Allies Collective, also known as BSWOC. I want to echo my colleague Jessica's comments thanking Vice Mayor McGovern and Councilor Wilson for advancing this policy order 87. in support of House Bill 2634, an act relative to police violence. This is a beginning step to protect sex workers in Boston and Cambridge areas. It does come out of a real need. It's not just filling in a loophole, but unfortunately sex workers have known since the beginning of the movement for our rights and well-being that unfortunately too often the police are a source of danger for us. So we are grateful to have the hopefully the City Council's support to advance this bill through the legislature this session. so that at the very least people who are coming in contact with the police have that additional protection against sexual assault in coercive situations outside of the context of arrest. I hope that the necessity for this bill will also stay with the council members and so that you will also consider some of our other bills, in particular House Bill 1747, an act relative to safe reporting. That bill also comes out of an immediate need for sex worker safety. The policy order 87 supports a bill that protects us from police violence itself. But our act relative to safe reporting would actually enable us to access the protection of law enforcement. So I hope you'll consider that in the future too. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Tim Russell, followed by Rebecca Gotti, then Kevin C. Tim, you have two minutes. Please unmute yourself. You have the floor.

Hello, my name is... Yes, can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

My name is Tim Russell. I live at 69 Harvey Street. I'm two houses down from Wesley Street. Like many of my fellow North Cambridge residents who I hope you remember hearing from last week before the charter right of this policy order, I seek to open the fence at Wesley Avenue. We heard from the passionate residents of Wesley Avenue. I understand why they'd argue not to open the fence. They've enjoyed a private cul-de-sac for over 30 years. However, I believe a few residents should not be able to derail the positive benefit that would be be for the whole neighborhood. All along this path, every connecting public street is used as an entrance. It's not just in Cambridge, but all the way through Somerville. When a public street hits the path, it's used as an entrance to the path. Wesley's the only street not used this way. I don't understand why that's the case. We have precedent for this. The Linden Park Neighborhood Association tried to block openings to the Grand Junction path. They're just a similar distance from Cambridge Street. The city decided that the connectivity to the path was valuable, and they added two openings there. We've heard concerns that removing the fence is going to cause traffic problems. Pedestrians and bikers aren't going to cause huge issues. There's a crosswalk at the end of Wesley Avenue that connects to Reed Street. There would be no need for a stoplight. I strongly disagree the community process is being averted by this. Community feedback was curtailed and shut down before this process was completed. This policy order is not really going around the process, but it's opening it back up. It's so that North Cambridge residents, not just those on Wesley Avenue, but all of us can be heard. Make the decision for the greater good. Think about improving the park and connecting the whole of the North Cambridge neighborhood, not keeping it divided. Thank you very much.

I think our next speaker is Rebecca Gotti, followed by Kevin C, then Amy Waltz. Rebecca, you have two minutes.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

This is Rebecca Gotti of 3 Osborne Road in Arlington, and I'm joined here by my four kids. And we wanted to speak in support of Alewife Brook and the efforts to clean it up. I believe it's called policy order number three. Yeah, so we live on the brook and my children, one of their absolute favorite activities is splashing in brooks, like playing, wading, catching like bugs, like looking at the wildlife. And unfortunately, because of the level of sewage that is going into the brook, we can't do any of these things. I can't even let my children touch the water. There's like signs up saying not to go near anything. And it's a really huge loss for my kids. And they also wanted to speak on behalf of cleaning up the brook.

Hello, I'm Bethany, and I would like to play in the brook, but I can't do that since it's polluted with... Hi, I'm Autumn.

There's a popular trail near the brook that me and my friends like to run on, and one day we came and it was flooded, so we decided not to run on it, but if we did, we might have gotten sick because the flood actually contained a lot of sewage, which we didn't know about.

I really like to play in the brook and it's a very fun place but I can't because it is polluted.

Yeah, so thanks so much for listening to us. We really, really absolutely love walking along the brook. It's a beautiful place. There's just hooded mergansers, mallard ducks. It's like teeming with the wildlife, and it's so great to think that Cambridge might be taking steps to make it a safe place for my kids. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kevin See, followed by Amy Waltz. Kevin, if you can unmute yourself, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, thank you. My name is Kevin. I live on Broadway and I'm speaking to the issue of the Broadway parking coalition, which I know spoke last week and we're going to have a big rally next week. I don't know if we'll be able to make this meeting at that time next week. So just in advance of this.

Excuse me. I'm sorry. The item that you're speaking to is not on the agenda. Is there something that you'd like to speak to that is on the agenda? We would reset your time. Otherwise, we'd ask you to yield the floor.

It says on the meeting agenda that it's being discussed tonight. There's a list of petitioners.

I don't believe so. Madam Clerk, do you see the item? We do not see the item, so I'm going to have to ask you not to speak on whatever it is you were speaking on. You can review the agenda and turn back on.

Madam Mayor, I think where the confusion is that there's something under communications. But you are not allowed to speak to communications during public comment. I think that's where the confusion is.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. If the item is under communications, items that are on the communication list cannot be spoken to as a part of public comment. It's one of two things that cannot be spoken to, communications and awaiting reports.

Well, I would request at least that the city council or all involved maybe reduce the agenda from 798 pages to something a little more digestible per week so that residents don't have to do it.

Duly noted. And thank you for your time. Next speaker, please.

Our next speaker is Amy Waltz, followed by John Tortelli, then Charles Teague. We have about seven speakers left. For those who are waiting, we are at speaker number 65. Amy, please go ahead.

Hi. I'm here to speak about a zero waste master plan. It has a lot of good things in there, but it's inadequate. Just to give you an idea, our trash for two people is about this much per week. This is zero waste trash for... This is less... less than the zero waste trash for two people. So you can have more than this trash and it's still zero waste. So it's not really cutting it down that much. While our city continues to allow easily avoidable waste, many species are dying from our warming oceans and planet. humans included. 55% of current Cambridge household trash could be diverted to current waste reduction programs instead of the trash already. This would translate to a 70% to 80% reduction from the 2008 base rate. How is it possible we are only aiming for a 50% reduction of household waste in five years, while 36% of this 50% has already been achieved? Waste is a significant producer of climate-warming methane. The Cambridge goal of an 80% reduction of waste by 2050 is decades too late for the planet. Cambridge should aim to achieve this by 2030 for household waste. That's much closer to the Boston goals. Thank you for prioritizing food waste diversion. Ensuring that all remaining Cambridge residents have access to curbside food waste diversion programs within a year will be particularly crucial to meeting our waste reduction on climate change. Enforcement of food waste diversion should occur as curbside programs are available, not three years later, however. There must be incentive for a significant reduction of commercial and industrial waste. This cannot wait another five years, as it is the majority of our city's waste. Actual reductions, rather than only planning and reporting, is essential for this sector.

Ms. Waltz, thank you so much for your time. It's expired. You can send your comments, all or in part, to the clerk's office. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is John Tortelli, followed by Charles Teague, then Jennifer Regret. John Tortelli? John has not joined us. We will go to Charles Teague. Charles, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

This is Charles Teague, 90 Jackson Street, asking you to not add a 14th entrance to Linear Park at Wesley, because there's a lot of disinformation about my neighborhood. People from other neighborhoods are telling the council we don't have crime. We had, over the winter, two gunfights in two months, resulting in one dead body on Clifton Street, which has an entrance to Russell Field and the path. I lived across from the Tyler Court gate. I have seen the needles and the nips at that entrance, almost directly across from Wesley. People are not telling the council the correct number of entrances. will be 13 after the reconstruction, and it's only 1,500 feet long. People are saying there are no south entrances. We have the Harvey Street entrance, which is due south to public property, and four more south to private property, and all five north entrances are to private property, including Tyler Court. So at Wesley, the berm will need to be cut away to flatten for an ADA-compliant path. With the widening of the main path, the roots on the two sides of the existing mature tree will be cut away and it's going to die. No number of saplings can replace this mature tree in our lifetime. Some tell the council that stone dust and permeable pavement are somehow special. In reality, they are just other forms of pavement. and all pavement reduces the space to plant trees. Trees mitigate climate change. Pavement increases it. We do not need a 14th entrance. We do not need more pavement. We do need more space for more trees. Keep Wesley closed. I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jennifer Regret, followed by James Williamson, then Heather Hoffman. Jennifer? Jennifer has not joined us. We will go to James Williamson. James, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor two minutes.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

Thank you. Um, so I, uh, want to speak about mainly the, uh, Wesley, uh, street, uh, issue. Um, first of all, obviously a very impressive, the turnout of people from the neighborhood, And very eloquent arguments about preserving something that is obviously you kind of have a cul-de-sac there with, you know, a protected neighborhood. And that's something that we should value. And what's striking to me, I went back and reread the policy order a couple of times. And I find the wording of it quite interesting. I wonder where did this actually come from? Who is it who's been advocating this? I think we are entitled to know who is it who brought this forward and to whom are the four counselors who brought it forward? Who are they responding to? And why didn't they listen to or actually consult the people in the neighborhood, immediate neighborhood, the people who live on that street who spoke so eloquently? It's kind of curious. It reminds me of the fact that I think the whole linear park project is flawed, was flawed in its development and its impending execution by people who really don't care what the people who live in this area care about. It's conceived as kind of a bicycle centric a transportation project, not a park project. And the people who would like to use it as a park aren't able to because of how fast the bicyclists are allowed to continue going through there. That needs attention. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Heather Hoffman, followed by Jessica Kinner. Heather, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. I thank everybody who talked about the CSO before me, so I don't have to listen to them, please. And I really want to thank James for talking about linear parks. We have been flat out lied to in so many ways, and especially about how many trees are going to have to die And that brings me to my thoughts about the zero waste plan. I think zero waste is a fabulous thing. And I was pleased to see that there was at least some thought about construction waste, given how many buildings we desperately want to tear down because God forbid, we should keep any naturally occurring affordable housing when we can build giant luxury housing and you know with a perhaps a couple of affordable so-called units but trees we cut down trees all the time and we turn them into carbon essentially we turn them into mulch and sawdust We ought to think about that and how wasteful and terrible for the environment that is. And then city records. As most people know, I am a title examiner. I work with public records and I work with city records. We need to have our city records be accessible to people. And I would also counsel you not to get rid of paper records. We will still be able to read paper in the future, but how many types of electronic records have become unreadable except with old software? Do it right.

Thank you, Ms. Hoffman. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jessica Kinner. Jessica, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, yes, my name is Jessica Kenner. I live on Endicott Ave in Somerville, and I was just dialing in to support the, I believe it's number three, the discontinuation of the combined sewer overflow CSOs near where I live, because as everyone has very eloquently stated, horrific odors and the contamination of natural areas and contamination of the environment here in our in our area of this city. And so replacing or upgrading the system would improve our quality of life and protect our community and reflect our overall Massachusetts' commitment to sustainable infrastructure and protecting the environment. So thank you for letting me speak. I hope you vote in support of discontinuing this very old infrastructure and resolving it. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Mayor, that is all that we're signed up for public comment.

Thank you, Ms. Steffen. Pleasure, the City Council.

Move to close public comment.

On a motion by the Vice Mayor to close public comment. We have one member that's online, two members online, so we'll have a roll call. Roll call, please.

Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Yes.

And public comment is now closed on the affirmative vote of nine members. We'll move now to the city manager's agenda. Pleasure of the city council on number one, I'm going to, I will be pulling that, but we will not be taking it up until the end of the city manager's agenda. So what is the pleasure of the city council on the balance? Madam Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor. 12 and 14, please. 12 and 14?

Yes, please.

Madam Mayor. Just a moment, please. Yes.

Poll number six.

Number six.

Nursements.

Just a moment, please.

Number four, five. Just a minute, please.

Okay, I'm ready. Four, five, did you say, Council? Yep, seven and eight. Four, five, seven, 8. Pleasure of the City Council. Council Zusy.

We're pulling all of them. 10, please.

Pleasure of the City Council. Is that, there's nothing else to be pulled. Let me just go over what I, number two, Council Wilson? Is that what you're saying? Okay, the mayor pulls number one. Council Wilson pulled number two. Council Nolan pulled number four and five. Council Sobrinho-Wheeler pulled number six. Council Nolan pulled number seven and eight. Council Zusy pulled number 10. The vice mayor pulls number 12 and 14. I think I, is that correct? All right, so what we have left on the consent agenda, it looks like number three. Number nine, 11, and 13. Madam Clerk, is that correct? That's correct. We'll take a roll call on all of them. Number three is an appropriation. Number nine is appropriation. 11 is placed on file. On the lost and found, that would be great, because I have some stuff that I have in the lost and found I can give to you. And number 13. So on those items, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. The consent agenda of the city manager has been adopted and or placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. We'll now go back to the non-consent agenda. We'll start with number two. This is pulled by Council Wilson. Reads as follows. Transmitting communication from Yanwang City Manager relative to an order authorizing the City Manager to transfer necessary funds needed to maintain appropriation control as part of the fiscal end of year closeout process. Council Wilson, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you, I just had a quick question in regards to, I know that this is procedural, that we do this every year. Can you speak to the dollar amount and kind of what this ultimately looks like and just for the community to actually understand this process as well? Thank you.

Mr. Jennings, are you going to take the floor?

Yes, thank you. The floor is yours. Through you, Madam Mayor. So this is, as you mentioned, this is typical practice each year so that departments don't end with negative balances in their salary and wages accounts. So we do transfers between. The amount we're anticipating transferring by the end of this year is about $1.4 million. And over 95% of that is due to the Teamsters contract, which was settled. We don't budget that within individual departments. We budget that centrally because there's a lot of unknowns at that time before it's actually settled. So this will allow us to transfer the funds back into the department for cover salary costs associated with that contract.

Council Wilson. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you. Just to follow up to that, thank you, Director Jennings, on that response and recognizing anytime that we close and strike an agreement with the union that there could be some back dues and all that stuff. When was that settlement done? When was that agreement made? Director Jennings, the floor is yours.

Through you, Madam Mayor, I don't remember exactly when it was settled.

And how many members are in that unit?

I don't know off the top of my head how many. It is our largest bargaining unit on the city side. I'll turn it over to Deputy City Manager to go into more details.

Deputy City Manager O'Reilly, the floor is yours. Through you, Mayor Simmons. Councillor, I don't have an exact number in terms of the numbers, but there are hundreds of people in that union, and I believe that that contract was settled in February of this year. And again, the backdating would be for a year and a half in terms of the accumulated value that people should collect as a result of that, because obviously negotiations were ongoing for a while.

Council Wilson? Thank you. That's all the questions I have. I appreciate just understanding all that. Thank you. I yield.

Council Wilson, you'll support further discussion on this item. Hearing none, roll call on the appropriation and placing this item on file. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Vice-Mayor McGovern is absent. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner? Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have eight members recorded in the affirmative with one recorded as absent.

City Manager's agenda item number two is approved by the affirmative vote of eight members, one recorded as absent. We'll move now to number four. This is pulled by Councilor Nolan, reads as follows. A communication transmitted from me on Long City Manager relative awaiting report item 2524 regarding a critical drought status report. Councilman Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I pulled this because, sadly, this is a report that is much needed, that as we've seen over the years, we are, as in many other areas of the city, end up having drought and water, as we saw on Saturday, way more than we expected, and at other times, weeks on end is when we don't. So it's a great report highlighting the public outreach, interdepartmental coordination, regulatory measures, drought and rainfall measures, and water supply management and conservation efforts. It was also good to see the ordinance changes we discussed a few months ago are going well. Water department staff are already responding to residents and businesses with water limitation questions. On the public outreach, it was good to see specific mention of direct outreach to large water users, including universities, large property owners, and communication through business and neighborhood associations. I'll have a question just about how it is that we're going to ensure those continue. the push on social media and online city communications, thanks to city staff not only in the water department, but I think this was also the communication staff through the city that helped with that, which meant I followed it a little bit, and I know there were many more people who saw it than in our previous efforts, so I think that was much appreciated. WE SAW THAT ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL IN MAY GOT OUR RESERVOIR LEVELS CLOSE TO, BUT NOT QUITE THERE, THE 15-YEAR MEDIAN. WE'LL STILL BE ENTERING THE WARMER MONTHS OF THE SUMMER WITH THE RESERVOIR AS A SLIGHT DEFICIT, BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT A WORRY NOW. WE HAD PREPARED TO SWITCH TO MWRA WATER SUPPLY LAST FALL, WHICH LUCKILY WE DID NOT HAVE TO DO. The chart on page nine, which was figure eight, highlighting the possible impact of the outreach is really critical and very much appreciated. Because it noted that water production levels were lower relative to FY24, and it was probably as a result of that. So I think the only question I have for staff is, assuming this is going to continue, we'll see this back and forth again. We have seen more droughts in the last ten years than we had expected in the last 30 years prior. Are we then, is this already set so that the next time something happens like this, we'll be able to roll it out and have it be ready for dissemination across the city so that we can see these same results and not have to resort to MWRI water. And of course, keep in mind as we move forward, continued communication with the public that even if our reservoir is pretty full, we still need to continue to hold water conservation in mind.

Is the city manager, Mr. O'Veary?

Mayor Simmons, the managing director for the water department is online. If he would like to respond to this, I would say that in terms of water conservation, I think residents of the city of Cambridge are remarkable in terms of the extent to which they conserve water in comparison to any other community. So they do an extraordinarily good job in that regard. But let me pass you on to Mark, who can provide more details in terms of your question. Mark's last name?

Managing Director Mark Gallagher. Gallagher? Yes. Mr. Gallagher, can you hear us? Maybe he went out for coffee. Do you want to continue? We'll see if he comes online shortly.

Through you, Mayor Simmons. In fact, I spoke with Mark literally about 15, 20 minutes ago, and he was waiting for this topic to come up this evening.

He was just on the Zoom. I think he had to exit, so we'll wait for him to log back in. He may just be having difficulty.

One second. Let's give him a moment. Do you see him coming back on? Not yet.

No?

Okay.

He hasn't returned to the Zoom yet. If you want to keep talking, I will let you know when he's back.

Do you have any other questions?

No, my real question was, are we ready and prepared for the next? And again, I wanted to really thank the staff, because this is going to be more important in the future. And we can move on if we want. I don't mean to hold up the meeting if we-

To you, Mayor Simmons. I would say that the Water Director and the Water Department are really conscious of this issue. And I think it's an issue that has kept the Water Director up at night, given the severity of the drought over the fall. And so there's a real consciousness there that we need to continue to make efforts to conserve water and to continue to send the message out, most particularly to the larger users. And I think... They have been very responsive to us thus far, and so I think we're satisfied that we have an engaged community around this issue, and we'll continue to communicate with them moving forward as well. Again, the communications department has been working really well with the water department in getting the message out.

Thank you. Through you, Mayor Simmons, thank you, and I yield.

Councilor Nolan yields the floor. Councilor Zusy, the floor is yours.

Yeah, thank you so much, through you, Madam Mayor. I just also wanted to say what an excellent report. I learned, again, so much about our water system and fabulous, fabulous outreach. I wish we had the same sort of outreach about the flexible parking corridor because we got results. People started using less water as the result of a multi-pronged approach to reaching out to the community. THAT WAS INSPIRED BY COUNSELOR NOLAN'S POLICY ORDER. I WAS REALLY IMPRESSED THAT THERE ARE 16,000 READERS OF THE DAILY UPDATE OR THAT, YEAH, SUBSCRIBERS OF THE DAILY UPDATE AND 60% OF THEM OPEN IT. THAT'S REALLY A GREAT COMMUNICATION MECHANISM FOR THE CITY. And then I just thought it was so interesting to find out where our water came from, from the Hobbs Brook, the Stony Brook and Fresh Pond reservoirs and that we use 12 to 13 million gallons of water daily. So again, I commend the Water Department on their report and the City Communications Department for working with them to really get the word out about the drought.

Thank you. I yield. Council Zusy yields the floor. Mr. Gallagher, have you joined us?

Mr. Gallagher has not rejoined, unfortunately.

It was that 20-minute conversation you had with him, and now he's gone. He's done his job. So is there any further question from the council? Hearing none, then we will entertain a motion by Councillor Nolan to place item number four, unfiled roll call.

Councillor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councillor Azusi? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the city manager's report on the drought status report is placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. We'll move now to number five. This is pulled by Councilman Nolan, reads as follows. A communication transmit from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to the submission of the zero waste master plan. Councilman Nolan, floor is yours.

Thank you, through you, to the city and to the staff. It's been a long process. It's really great from, I think, the whole city point of view that the staff is presenting the Zero Waste Master Plan 2.0 update to the council. If we adopt it tonight, then it becomes, in essence, official city policy. As the cover memo indicates, a lot of work has gone into getting this to this point. City staff has worked closely with us as a council, with the community through a lot of outreach. I, as chair, met a number of times about updating the Zero Waste Master Plan, which was originally in 2019. We had three different Health and Environment Committee meetings. We've met with staff. Also, it's important to note input from stakeholders, including residents, advocates, business leaders, and neighboring communities as well. This final draft represents a big step forward. I also want to note and thank the Recycling Advisory Committee, named the RAC, worked also to build in community input and advise. The Climate Committee had input in the process, and that feedback and engagement really strengthened the plan. there's a lot of great top lines in this plan i'm proud of i also want to say that it represents a lot of compromise with city staff the staff sitting here before us as well as um john nardone and john fitzgerald and i i will say tussled quite a bit and tugged back and forth and had some times when we didn't always agree on what the next steps would be i i will say while the the intent was always there i think was a healthy back and forth If it was my plan, it would be more aggressive. It would be a shorter timeline. It would include many more elements. I also, however, fully support it because I do understand it represents a compromise and a collaboration. And it also represents some really bold moves moving forward. And I think that's really what the best of our work together should be. I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL READ IT IN FULL OR MAYBE NOT BUT YOU WILL BECAUSE WHAT WILL HAPPEN INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT PLAN ARE SEVERAL IMPORTANT RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT WILL HAVE TO COME FORWARD I THINK OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL. ALL OF THE ORDINANCE CHANGES ARE ONES THAT OTHER NEIGHBORING OR OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE ALREADY DOING SO IT PUTS US IN SOMETHING OF A LEADERSHIP BUT NOT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT SO BOLD OR SO UNUSUAL THAT HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD. I think one of the most important things is it really for the first time sets goals for us to identify commercial waste. It turns out when you look at it, we have a lot of charts about how much we've reduced waste. And then you say, okay, so how much is residential waste in the city? Oh, it's probably a total of 20% and we have nothing at all on the 80%. So this, it makes sense because residents is who we work with and live with. And yet this doesn't say we have goals for that, but we will be for the first time requiring some kind of And we know that our largest players, the institutions, the universities, and the large companies already have their own waste plans. We've just never participated in them or really had the benefit of being able to advise them on it. So I know a lot of work still needs to be done. I do want to say that my intern, Lisa Nigas, who worked on this, is very proud and wanted to make sure she couldn't be here tonight because I think she's celebrating maybe her graduation. But she did want to make sure that I mentioned that she is very proud of the fact that, as working with us, she had chosen on her own after reviewing this plan to focus on plastic waste reduction in particular did take up the charge and worked with the Central Square Business Improvement District and Mr. Monestine on a plan to eventually deal with NIPS and the NIPS problem. We know this plan does not do that but it does state as a goal that we will be looking at that and exploring it and doing it in the future. So I wanted to make sure I give credit where credit is due because she pushed me on that issue too and I know she pushed the staff. And again, there's a lot of good in this. We don't have to go over all those updates, but I wanted to thank the staff. And I don't know if you wanted to add anything else about what the next steps are, because I think it's important for us to recognize there will be ordinances changes coming as well as some change within the community.

Councilman Nolan-Joseph Fleur, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. I don't know if you wanted to answer that last part, but just a question, and thank you to Councilor Nolan and your intern for all the work you've done on this, and I'm not as quite up to speed as it, as my colleague, but I did want to just ask, because we did get this email that asked about the goals and says the Zero Waste Massachusetts envisions a statewide policy and implementation infrastructure that achieves 70% diversion by 2030 We're at 50% by 2030, 80% by 2040, we're at 80% by 2050, and then zero waste at least 90% by 2050 at the state level. So our goals are a little bit off from what those state conversations are happening. So I know Councilor Nolan mentioned that there was compromise and stuff, but can you just kind of fill us in on why we're not doing the more aggressive goals?

Commissioner? Mayor Simmons. I'll just answer the first part and then Michael Orr, who's our recycling director, I think is better able to answer that question. One is, as Councillor Nolan stated, I think the plan is a really good plan and really appreciate everyone's participation in it. One of the things we really laid out was really focusing on short-term, medium-term, and long-term strategies because we want to make sure we're really prioritizing what's the most effective strategies to really move waste out of the waste stream and then really focus on three or four things that we can do well at a time. So that is, like, as you look through the plan, I just think it's an important part of the overall strategy was to really focus on, you know, what are three or four things we're going to do really well in the next couple years and then move on to the next phase. And so as you go through the plan, I just wanted to point that out. And then, Michael, if you can answer the question.

Sure. Through you, Madam Mayor. So our goals don't always align necessarily with the state's. And I think one of the main reasons for that is that we have different baselines. So they're starting from a baseline that might not be as forward thinking as ours has been. So, you know, we have a very robust recycling program. We've had curbside food waste or compost collection for almost a decade now. In many communities in Massachusetts, they don't have any food waste collection. So the baseline for the whole state is a much different piece than where we are. The other small components of that is the state often sets pretty aggressive goals. The goals that we set for 30% and 80% by 2050 was set back in 2009 when the state had set that goal, and the state has not actually reached those goals. And so they've shifted, and their next 10-year plan, they've made new goals, but the first initial goals were not met. So this is not meant to be a dig at the state by any means. They're doing great stuff. However, it is a really difficult thing to nail down to really get big reductions. And when we look at what we're trying to do in terms of 50% reduction by 2030 is rather aggressive considering where we are right now and how many people participate in our programs and how much more we have to get participation.

And through you Madam Mayor, thank you. And I would assume obviously that if we are at 50% before 2030, it's not like we're gonna stop, right? We're gonna keep pushing and hopefully go exceed these goals, right?

Yeah, through you, Madam Mayor. We're happy to meet that goal in 2028, 2029, sure, anytime. And to be honest, I mean, we haven't really let our foot off the gas since we've been developing this program. You know, we recently piloted the Move Out Waste Reduction Program just last week. You know, we're already taking steps to implement this plan before it's even adopted. because we're so ready to kind of keep that ball rolling. So absolutely, we're happy to meet these goals anytime we can. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Vice Mayor yields the floor, Councilor Zusy, and then Council Wilson, did you ever hand up? Councilor Zusy?

Yeah, thank you, again, through you, Madam Mayor. Again, I just want to commend you for the report and your work. I think you've done extraordinary work. And I wouldn't be surprised if you don't exceed your goals by 2030, because as your short-term strategy in the next one to three years, you've got require annual zero waste plans for residential buildings. 13 plus units in commercial buildings, 25,000 plus square foot buildings, right? And I was fascinated and disturbed to learn that, again, well, our residences produce 20,000 tons of trash, I guess, a year that are commercial buildings. entities produce 120,000 tons. So I think that will make all the difference in the world. And also, as you know, I love your move in, move out program. Thank you for that. And the focus on reuse within the community. So great, great work. Thank you.

Council Susie yields the floor. Council Wilson, floor is yours.

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. And through you, I want to also echo my appreciation and thanks. I just want to touch on a little bit more around the education, like how we're educating our community, how we're working with our schools and talking with young people, but also even thinking about the various labs that we have across our city. And so from a commercial standpoint, but then also what could we be doing a little more within our schools as well as educating our residents? So if you could just speak to those three.

communities or yeah through you madam mayor so in terms of you know educating the students within the city mostly you know talking to K to K through 12 students we have a program manager that's often in the schools educating students around lunchtime on how to dispose of waste. We like to encourage teachers to have our program manager come for a presentation to learn a little bit more. We even occasionally hire magicians and things like that for fun little assemblies for the kids that's about recycling and and the environment in terms of labs we have two members on a recycling advisory committee that work in labs that are actively working on trying to reduce lab waste and so we're always trying to figure out like how we can help them move the needle in terms of that and they're actually kind of coming to us a little bit more so saying how can the city do more to help us move things forward so we're trying to work on that a little bit more and then just education of the overall population um we have a lot to do to kind of continue the education part of that you know one of the things we've been trying to do is work with the um with with members from communities that are not often the ones we reach and so you know we've been working really closely with wrench towers on mattress recycling recently um we like to go to the fresh pond apartments uh summer event in july to like educate on recycling and there's a tremendous opportunity at the wrench towers for increasing recycling with a lot of tenants there and um and the new building there as well so um we're always kind of keeping our ear to the ground in terms of like where can we go where there are going to be people from the community that we can talk to them about their waste services and so whether that's hoops and health or whether that's fresh pond day you know we want to be there and educate council wilson

Thank you, I appreciate that, and I've seen you all out there, so that's awesome, and knowing that you all are in the community, and I appreciate the efforts of the goals that we have set, and recognize that we'll probably get to them, right, and possibly even exceed them, but also just thinking about magically what if we don't right and kind of what are the steps might we how are we um assessing not only just what we do what we do when we meet a goal but considering kind of what are the extra steps that how how can we expand in the areas where might be a little more harder and challenging for us so really thinking about those areas that yes we may exceed we may hit a goal overall but if there are certain elements like whether it is residents maybe it's in the schools or the commercial if we're not hitting those goals what is the work and the efforts that we may put into play commissioner watkins

Through Mayor Simmons, the one thing and I think we, you know, the first zero waste master plan was in 2019 and this is zero waste master plan 2.0 and we've laid out, you know, a number of strategies that we think are really important that will lead to those waste reductions. We've also been really clear in this plan that, you know, we need to continue to monitor and measure those waste reductions and see what progress we're making. And we would anticipate doing another zero waste master plan in 2030. So this isn't a plan that sits on the shelf until 2080 and we magically meet that goal, right? It's, You know, we're continuing to monitor and measure the effectiveness of programs and adjust programs, you know, on an annual basis, but also would anticipate another zero waste master plan in 2030 to really say these are the strategies, have they worked, and what are the next big moves that we need to make? Because we do think it is, to your point, you know, it's sort of a continuing and changing approach. Council Wilson?

Yes, thank you. And also just habit building, right? Like just making sure that we have a habit and a rhythm and a culture that's built in around zero waste. Thank you. I yield.

Thanks. Council Wilson yields the floor. Councilor Toner, Councilor Azeem, do you want to be heard on this?

No, thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you.

Anyone else? Hearing no one, I just wanted a couple of things. I did look over your zero waste master plan to Councilman Nolan, I did read it. One of the things I thought was interesting was moving day focus. I want to say in September, we had a really big conversation, or I had a conversation with the city manager, and I wore Owen out over mattress removal. And so I see the moving day focus. Could you just talk us through that a little bit more? Because It's something we want to do, but it's also problematic. And I don't know if it's the person that's moving in doesn't know or the person that's renting the space doesn't know, but it's a huge problem. And more in September, I find, than in May, but it's still a big problem in either way. So if you could talk to us what that means. It says that 20% of our residents move each year. You don't know who it's going to be, so how do you do adequate... outreach to these folks. I will say the landlords is something that we require that they put in their leases or something because it's horrible that people think, oh, I'm going to put it on the sidewalk and it's going to magically disappear.

Sure. One of the things that we thought about in terms of this plan is like how do each of the strategies kind of work together? And so strategy number one is property manager zero waste plan. So we want to be able to stay in contact with all property managers of residential and commercial buildings that are of the larger size so that we can start working with them directly and how to manage move out waste. Because often what we find is, yeah, this stuff just ends up at the curb and we're out there having to collect it. And we want to be able to help control that a little bit better by working with the property managers about giving resources to the tenants a week, two weeks prior to them moving out. That I think would be a major piece of this. And then hopefully... These other strategies like strategy number three around move out waste, you know, trying to figure out new programs to help gather that material before it hits the curb or how to exchange that between residents. Similar to the free store that we had on June 1st at the community center, just trying to like figure out how to move these different resources and how to how to manage the stuff as as much as possible before it hits the curb. so that we're not having to see curbs filled with stuff. But inevitably, it's very difficult with the move-out season. It's the largest time of year where you see so much turnover on September 1st.

It's great if you like to be sort of pick up stuff off the street, but it's not so great if it's sitting there. In my community, in the port, there's two buildings. I'm not going to call them out. I'm not trying to embarrass them, but they're smaller buildings. It's not a large building. It's not managed by a property manager. It's a smaller building, probably owned by an individual and is not managed. So it's how do we get to those folks? Because these mattresses, it was a mattress for four days and then a desk and a chair. I literally watched the guy sit it and put it on the sidewalk. And I went over there and said, you can't put it there. He said, oh, sure I can because the trash man will take it out. So how do we... get to the smaller property owner, which I would think in some ways should be easier because the property information's within our grasp. So Mr. Orr, if you could speak to that a little bit, that'd be helpful. Either of you, but I just want to know what's the plan so I don't have to wear out, well, he's not going to be here. I have to call him at his home and say, what are you doing about this? I don't care if you don't work for us anymore.

No, that's a great point. And to be honest, yeah, it's not just the large properties. It's small property managers. You know, one of the things that I'm hopeful for is that when we start doing this in the larger buildings, that'll start trickling down and that the culture of leaving stuff at the curb starts to wear away, melt away. You know, that's one of the hopes of this. The other hopes is... Just continue to do outreach that we do. We have compliance officers that go out every day. They're talking to people about why it's important to do X, Y, and Z and how to keep our community beautiful. You know, I don't want to say that we have found the silver bullet because it's not very obvious, but it's something that we just have to keep working on each year and each September 1st.

So Mr. Ora, I'm going to assume, although I'm not certain that a lot of these individuals that are moving in may be students. And if they are, do we send out something to the, housing office of some of our larger universities, again, I'm not gonna call them out, to say, please pass this on to your students that are coming to live here that when they move in, they find a mattress or something, debris in the unit, that they don't put it on the sidewalk. When they move out, they don't put the debris on the sidewalk.

So a quick comment, and Mike may have others. So one is that we do an annual mailing. And I think one of the things, as we get additional programs and think about additional strategies and additional focus on move in, move out. We can continue to work on that language that goes out across the city. Typically when you're seeing the large amount of material, it's really move out. And so again, you're catching people after they've lived here for a year. So I think to Michael's point, like as we can continue the education, continue to advertise additional programs, making people aware that there are different strategies and different avenues to get rid of materials that can then be reused and not just go on the curb. So, again, I think to Mike's point, you know, it's sort of a combination of these strategies. There's not going to be like this is the perfect solution. But, again, continuing on the outreach, we send out a mailer every year to folks that, you know, really highlight the programs and continue to. And, again, one of the strategies we identified in here that we need to continue to increase our efforts on are around that sort of move in, move out phase.

And so that you, Commissioner, I do know you do a mailer. I received the mailer. My only question about the mailer had like six things on it. And when the last one was, don't put it on the sidewalk. So for me personally, who's annoyed by it, can you put that in big letters in the front? Don't put it on the sidewalk. And I only say that to say, because it's so much information. It's very detailed. It's text rich. It has a lot of information. It's good information. I just wonder if people get to that last paragraph or to that little bit of information. And for me, and maybe my colleagues feel the same, it's such an issue, particularly in some neighborhoods, that I don't know, is it another mailing? Is it move it to the top? Do you put a picture with a big X? Helping people understand that you're saying not on the curb, that's what I would like you to consider because I think that Mailer, again, very informative, but the whole thing about don't put it on the curb was the last thing that you would see. So if you didn't read, you wouldn't have gotten to it.

We can continue to look at it. I don't have the perfect answer right now, but certainly as we look at... Speak to the kids. They'll design it for you. Yes, exactly. No, and we've talked about, like, one of the things in here is making, you know, the information as accessible to folks as possible. And so we have continued with their document, you know, or for their publications to try to, you know, have less words and more images. And I think that sort of speaks to that issue in terms of making the material accessible and not overly dense and not try to have too much information. So it's like, you know, trying to prioritize the information is a really good point.

Thank you. And then lastly, the pay as you throw consideration, it says the city will study charging residents based on how much trash they produce to encourage more recycling and composting. Two things, one, if we're not talking to people about this regardless of where they live, their income levels, if we're not talking to people about recycling all the time, recycling behavior or zero waste behavior, it may come to them as a shock if you try to apply a pay as you throw consideration. And it says charging residents based on how much trash they produce. So if we know how much trash they're producing, is there a way to forewarn them that this is coming? Because if people are accustomed to Getting rid of debris at no cost and all of a sudden now, because we're trying to encourage a certain behavior, we're going to charge you for it. That's one, culture shock. And two, if you're already financially burdened, this is not going to bring joy to your heart, even if it's for a good reason. So could you talk to us a little bit about that?

I'm sure through Mayor Simmons. One of the things you'll see is that the evaluation of the pay as you throw was in that medium term strategy. So it's not in the short term. It's in that second tier. And we did that really intentionally because there have been locations that have done it and it's been effective at reducing trash. We also know that there are a lot of challenges, particularly in a city like Cambridge, one in terms of unintended impacts, in terms of how you're impacting folks, and then also just in terms of, you know, if I don't want to pay for my trash, do I put it in front of my next-door neighbor instead of my house? And so our strategies really are to focus on, let's focus on their existing programs, focus on, you know, increasing composting, increasing recycling and really continuing to pull as much material out of the waste stream as we can. And so we really want to focus on those strategies first before we go down that path to say, is this the next logical step or are we making really good progress without going there. And so I think we do have identified like it can be really effective, but it does have some significant challenges. And so that was one of the reasons that we really put that into that second tier. Let's go through these first tier strategies, see what kind of progress we're making. And then, you know, to Councilor Wilson's point about what's the next lever we need to pull, but let's see what kind of progress we're making, you know, shifting into our existing programs before we really get into the details of looking at that.

And Madam Commissioner, I really appreciate that. But I want to go back to say if we never get there, great. But the possibility of getting there, you want to bring people along. People are going to say, I didn't know. I didn't know. And see this as a burden. And I'm just concerned, particularly in certain communities, that where people may be already income burdened and now this is passed on to them by the landlord or directly to them you want to be able to bring them along slowly engage them we do so many park activities you know how do we make zero waste fun I mean I know it's fun to some people you know it doesn't make or put a right in my stocking but it it you want to be able to bring other folks along and see the value by Making education fun. I guess that's the best way I can say it so that we don't have pushback when we actually try to implement that. So I'm going to yield the floor. Does anyone else want to be heard? Council Siddiqui.

Thank you. Through you. And I agree with a lot of what's been said. I was glad to hear from Director Orr about the You know conversations with wrench towers there is an outstanding PO from October of last year I know you all have been working if there is any update kind of talking about that I think the order maybe had said it maybe didn't say directly to come back to the council, but I knew any update on that would be great in writing so I appreciate the work that's been done and my colleagues' comments, but I wanted to continue to harp on something around that. Thank you.

Councilor Siddiqui yields the floor. Any more conversation around this? I THINK EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD AT LEAST ONCE ON THIS.

IT WILL BE VERY BRIEF. I NEGLECTED TO MENTION IT'S IN A WAY A LITTLE THING, BUT I THINK NAMING OUR COMPOST PROGRAM, FOOD WASTE DIVERSION, WHICH BOSTON DOES TOO, IT ACTUALLY HELPS IN COMMUNICATION BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE, IS THIS COMPOSTABLE? IS IT NOT? IT'S A FOOD WASTE DIVERSION PROGRAM. I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF BECAUSE THAT WAS SOMETHING MANY RESIDENTS CAME TO US AND ASKED FOR. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE STAFF DID LISTEN.

Thank you for saying that, Councilman Nolan, because it reminds me of something that we worked on a couple of decades ago where it was actually fun. How do you make zero waste fun? You put your mattress out there at a certain day, you get a Target card or something. How do you engage people? Once you got them hooked, they're hooked, but it's getting them hooked. So just something to put it out there. So thank you for everyone's comments on that. Councilman Wilson?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just thought about one more thing, I think, when you were speaking in regards to, I think, this level of cultural competency around how we engage communities, how we're talking about trash, what does that all look like, and also being mindful that trash being in homes is only going to produce more like rodents and things like that so just really like there's there's a lot of work that needs to go into what this all looks like because i don't know about you and your families but i know it things are going to be thrown out and they have they have to go just so that we can reduce the amount of you know, activity that may be in a building, in a home, in a community. So I think there's really, there's a little bit more crawling before we can walk and sprint, but really there's quite a few things that we need to get some ducks in a row so that we can actually make sure everything is moving smoothly. So I just want to be mindful of that and name it because as we're trying to reduce trash and we understand that there's And we're actually reducing road inactivity, so I do want to name that too. However, it's still present and very real, especially in certain neighborhoods, more so than even others. And so we got to be mindful of what the cultural competency is around how we approach the conversation. Thank you.

Council Wilson used the floor. If there's no further discussion on a motion by Council Wilson to place on file, please call the roll. Councillor Zinn?

Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Councillor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And city manager's agenda item number five is placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. Excuse me. We now move to number six. This is pulled by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler reads as follows. A communication transmitted from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to the appointment of Flory Darwin, Scott Kyle, Michael Rogrove, and the reappointment of Chandra Harrington, Joseph Ferreira, Elizabeth Lister, Yu-Ting Wong, Gavin Klebskis, Paula Parris, and Kyle Sheffield. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, the floor is yours.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I had some questions about this and merited a further discussion, so I just wanted to exercise my charter right tonight.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler exercises his charter right on this item. When the charter right is exercised, it stops debate, puts it on the agenda for next week. Charles, it's very good to see you. Sorry that you don't get to talk, because he's exercised his charter right. That closes off conversation. We'll move to move number seven, which is pulled by Councilor Nolan, reads as follows. A communication transmitted from Yanwang City Manager relative to the appointment of Sarah Holt. Emily Oldshoe, and Ruth Webb, and the reappointment of Marie-Pierre Dellensinger, Donna Marcantonio, and Peter Schur to the Half Crown Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. Councilman Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I had a question about this which I had forwarded to the city manager and to the city solicitor since we got an email suggesting that these appointments were legally invalid due to our ordinances around term limits. We haven't gotten a response, so I think I'll exercise my charter right on this one and the next one so that we can get those answers in time for next week.

Councilor Nolan has exercised her charter right.

Madam Mayor, you also had Councilor Azeem with their hand raised.

I'm sorry, please.

Councilor Azeem had his hand raised.

Councilor Nolan exercised a charter right, closes off debate. So if he wanted to speak to this, he can't. We move now to number eight, that was pulled by Councilor Nolan. It reads as follows. The communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang City Manager relative to the appointment of Nandita Matroya and the reappointments of Constantine Van Wensel, McKeldin Smith, Teresa Homacher, and Freweni Grebenwet, and I apologize if I really did a job on the names, to the Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. This is Polkite Councilor Nolan. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, the same question was raised about the legal implication of term limits in our ordinances. So I will exercise my charter right with the hope that we can get those answers in time to decide how to adjudicate this particular one next week.

Councilor Nolan has moved her charter right, which closes debate. We'll have to move on to number ten. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. It's good to see you this evening. This is number 10 of the city manager's agenda, pulled by Councilor Zusy, reads as follows. A communication transmitted from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to a communication transmitted from Yan Wang, city manager. Relative to a request for the approval to seek authorization from the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General, the IG, for the city to use the Construction Manager at Risk, CMAR, procurement and construction method in connection with, and it goes off the page so I don't have the connection with part. This is pulled by Councilor Zusy. Councilor Zusy, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor, through you. I just had questions about, so who has done pre-construction design services in the past if we're using another traditional method of procurement? And what inspired you to want to use this for Kennedy Longfellow?

All right, so Mr. City Manager, we'll go to you first, and then you can yield the floor to, and please say your name for the record. I apologize for not knowing you.

Yes, no worries. I'm Brendan Roy. I'm the Director of the Capital Building Project. Brendan Roy, thank you.

Good to see you, Brendan. Thank you for being here. City Manager, do you want to start off, or do you want to go right to Mr. Roy?

Through you, Mayor Simmons, happy to yield the floor to Mr. Roy.

Mr. Roy, the floor is yours. Yes, so through you, Madam Mayor, the construction manager at risk process is one that we've used successfully on a lot of our larger projects, the threshold being $5 million for anticipated construction costs. And so where this fits the bill, where it is something that we're seeking, our past projects using CM at risk include the three newest schools, the Tobin, the King Open, and the MLK, the firehouse as well. And we believe it's in the. The most advantageous way for us to produce a project, especially one that has some ambiguity behind it. It allows us to include the construction manager right from the start as part of the design, and that allows us to get a better handle on construction methods and things like that that we can get a better product and get a better handle on the estimates as well. The traditional method of design, bid, build. We've used that on the high school project, a few other smaller projects. There's a lot of ambiguity in the bidding market right now. And so when you put a bid package out, you really don't know what you're going to get. By having the CM on board as part of your team, we found that it's a really leg up for us to prepare for financials going forward.

Councilor Zusy. Sounds great. I see that one of the advantages is they're helping you to come up with the estimate. Something I just wonder with, I know with DCR projects too, like at Magazine Beach, we always had a sense that we knew a project might cost 1.2 million and then the bids would come in and they would be for 1.2 million. So when you're coming up with your initial estimate for the cost of doing anything like North Mass Ave or Central Square, so where would you get that initial number if you weren't going to use this method of procurement? Okay.

um for you madam mayor so typically um a design bid build method we would have the architects hire an outside consultant for estimating and we will still have that process as well even with the cm at risk by having the cm though on board it just becomes an extra check set and they actually have their ears to the ground they actually are meeting and discussing with other trade bidders for different aspects whatever it may be so they're getting very accurate information as well as because they're construction manager they're doing other projects around they're seeing the real numbers as well on other projects they're doing so we're not totally reliant on just the architects estimators council susie i i think um deputy uh deputy city manager mr reader yeah

through you, Mayor Simmons, to Councillor Susie. I think one thing just to clarify, what Brendan is speaking about is vertical construction, in other words, building construction. you have referred to a couple of projects that are more associated with horizontal construction, North Mass Avenue and so on. And so what we do in those instances, we typically rely on contract prices that we've gotten from recent projects in the city so as to be able to develop a project price for new projects. But you also need to recognize in those instances that we go through a bid process. And so there are vagaries associated with that. to the extent that some contractors are busy, they're not available, and so you may have fewer contractors that may bid on certain projects. And so you may get an increased price as a result of that, and it very much depends on the climate at a particular moment in time. And so there are more significant vagaries associated with those types of projects, as distinct to the way that Brenton works in the vertical construction world with CMR at risk.

Committee Manager? Through you Mayor Simmons, I think also maybe helpful Mr. Roy to speak a little bit about the guaranteed maximum price and essentially the fixed fee. And so there's also like an incentive alignment that comes with this method compared to the more traditional design bid build where as things change or as the project evolves, you could see price escalation and significant changes in scope are a lot harder to negotiate. But I think that might be helpful in terms of just the comparison of the different methods.

Mr. Roy?

Yes, so I'm through you expanding upon that. By having the CM on board, we do start setting aside allowances and contingencies that allow us to plan for some of the unforeseen conditions that we might encounter. The guaranteed maximum price is for everything that we know about on that day. And so by having them onboard as early as possible, all the way up until we actually go out to bid, any of these unknowns they can kind of plan for, whereas the more traditional design bid build, once our drawings are set, we go out, If we uncover something else we weren't really aware of, we don't have those contingencies in place. We don't have those allowances in place. And so that's where change orders start adding up and you can start seeing some projects kind of get out of hand. We've been very successful, I think, with all of our cement earth projects where we've kept our budgets within the allotted guaranteed maximum price. Some change orders that we create ourselves, we can't just build a school and then add it a whole wing and say it's part of the graduate maximum price. But within the knowns that we have at the time, we can control all those costs.

Council Zusy. Yeah, thank you. It sounds, I can see why you prefer this for larger construction projects. And I know many, many other communities use this procurement method. And it also sounds like with it, you don't have to take the lowest bidder. You can hire the person that's most qualified to actually do the job.

That is correct. When it comes to the construction manager, we have a process to go through it. We're not forced to just use the lowest bidder. We can use the one that's most responsible for the city standards.

Council Zusy.

Sounds great. Thank you. Seems like a good idea. And I yield.

Council Zusy yields the floor for further discussion. Councilman Nolan.

Thank you, I appreciate it. I do hope this helps us save cost in the long term. I don't know if this matters, but the narrative description suggests that this is a school, that this will be modernizing the Calo School. The school committee has closed that school, so it will end up being a different school. It also says that it was built in 1972, serving 200 students. It actually served 400 students just not that long ago. And it may well be that the school committee and department will decide to use it as its own school and not necessarily a feeder into a Cambridge upper school. Does this narrative matter in terms of if the determination of the school committee is something different than what's written here? Plus, we wouldn't want to tell the state it's a school for 200 students, and it's actually a facility for at least 400 students, and that's the expectation that in the future it will once again serve a number of students. That's an area of the city with a very high population of students, and we would want them to be able to go to schools close to home.

Mr. Roy?

Yeah, so through you, we're still working with the school department to determine what its final use will be. This project is specifically the modernization of a lot of the mechanical systems. So whether it's three students or 300, we want to make sure that the HVAC is working appropriately, safety measures are done, all of that is addressed, as well as some field work. So that's a process that we're working with the school system to determine the final housing usage of students. But right now, we're just focused on making sure the building functions the way it should. No leaks, HVAC, heat, all the fun stuff.

And if I just might add, Counselor, the school committee really hasn't made a firm decision on what's going to be the utilization of the Kennedy Longfellow. So we all assume that it's going to be student-focused, but there's not been any permanent decision. The conversation's very much in fluid, I guess is a good way to say it. Are you yielding the floor, Councilor?

Do you have another question? No, I'm not yet, but I appreciate that, and that's why I asked the question, because it didn't seem like it was determined what it should be more open-ended than it says here. It's modernization of existing school, which we don't know what it'll end up being in the future. The other question is, is any of this, obviously this, the... City and the school have goals. Is there anything here that would modernize it to the point that our fossil fuel free ordinance will be able to still be in place and that any work done will advance along those goals? Mr. Roy?

Yes, we are going to look at that as part of the feasibility study, how far we should take it, what the life of the existing systems are, if there's a way to go fully electric within the framework of the building itself without breaking the budget we've established. So all of that will be part of the feasibility study.

Councilor Nolan.

Great. I think it's really critically important we include that, that that's part of it, and not invest in something that is outmoded, outdated, antiquated, and counter to all of our goals. Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I yield.

Councilor Nolan yields the floor. Is there any further discussion on this item? Hearing none, I'm adopting the order and placing on file a motion by Councilor Zusy. Roll call.

Councilor Zinn?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the matter is placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. We're going to move now to number 12. This is pulled by the Vice Mayor. It reads as follows. Communication transmitted from Yan Wang. City Manager, relative to the amendment to the Fresh Pond Golf Pro Shop Fund Ordinance to enable the funds to be used to cover the purchase of office supplies for the shop and the purchase of supplies and services for the care, maintenance, and improvement of the golf course, shop, and parking lot. Vice Mayor, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I am, through you, Madam Mayor, I am so glad that The city solicitors are here for our executive session because I have no questions about this, but as has been our practice, I pulled this because we have to vote to send it to a second readings. I don't know if anybody else has a question about it. It's pretty straightforward, but that's why I pulled it.

Councilor Toner, Councilor Azeem, do you want to speak to number 12?

No, thank you. No, thank you.

Members on the floor? Hearing none, the Vice Mayor moves that number 12 is passed to a second reading. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councillor Azeem. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner.

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And number 12, the city manager's agenda has been passed to a second reading by the affirmative vote of nine members. The last item on the city manager's non-consent agenda is number 14. This was pulled by the vice mayor. Reads as follows. A communication transmitted from Yanwang City Manager relative to a revised draft of the Eastern Cambridge Community Enhancement Zoning Petition. Vice Mayor, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a few procedural things first. I'd like to move to suspend the rules to bring forward committee report number two with the ordinance committee's favorable recommendations.

On suspension, is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes, Councillor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the meeting is, the rules have been suspended on bringing community committee reports, excuse me, number two forward for discussion, roll call.

Councillor Azeem? Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councillor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councillor Toner? Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you. Committee report number two with the ordinance committee's favorable recommendation is now before us. Vice Mayor, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I don't know if anybody wants to, I have other procedural things to move this forward to second reading, but I don't know if people want to discuss anything or have any questions.

Let me just see if there's any discussion. Councilor Siddiqui, Wilson. Councilor Zazim, Matona, do you have anything you want to ask? No, thank you. Councilor Zazim? No, thank you. On this side of the room? All right. Councilor Nolan has a question. Just super quick.

This is just the covering memo just explains what it is, that it cleans up some language, makes clear non-residential uses. That's the summary of all the changes. Correct.

And we're moving this, we'll be moving this to a second reading, so it's not finalized tonight.

Thank you.

I yield. Councilor Nolan yields. Vice Mayor? Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I'd like to make a motion to refer item 14 to the petition, amend the petition by substitution with the attached language, and place city manager agenda item on unfinished business.

So on, referring to the petition, I didn't get all of it.

Amend by substitution. Amend by substitution. Place CMA on unfinished.

And place CMA on file. On unfinished business. On unfinished business. Any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councillor Zinn. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councillor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the item is referred to the petition amended by substitution and placed on unfinished business.

Two more, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor, floor is yours. I'd like to make a motion regarding committee report number two. I'd like to make a motion to accept the report and place on file.

on accepting, the Vice Mayor makes a motion to accept the report and place on file. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councillor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the item has been placed on file. Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to pass ECCE overlay district with proposed amendments from Biomed dated April 18th, 2025 to a second reading.

Is there any discussion? Hearing none, on place, on whatever, could you read back what he said? On?

Placing ECCE overlay. District with the amendments from the Biomed.

Dated April 18th, 2025. For 1825. To the second reading.

Yep, to a second reading. To a second reading. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call. Councillor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Vice-Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the item is adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. Vice Mayor, is there anything else? I yield, Madam Mayor. The Vice Mayor yields the floor. So we're going to go now to the City Manager's Agenda Number 1, which I pulled. And I'm going to suggest to follow the city manager agenda item one, which is a request by the city manager that the city council move to executive session in order to discuss strategy with respect to litigation known as Saeed S. Abouzara, trustee of Equity Trust et al versus Cambridge Mass. Middlesex Superior Court docket number 2017-CV-2459. Executive session being necessary as a discussion of this matter in open session may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the city. And requested by the city managers that the city council move to executive session in order to discuss strategy with respect to litigation known as Lubavitch of Cambridge Incorporated. versus Jim Monteverdi as member of the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeals et al., land court docket number 24 miscellaneous 00622, John W. Trapopoulos, trustee of the Trapopoulos VLT Trust et al., versus Lubavitch of Cambridge Incorporated et al., Ann Lubavitch of Cambridge Incorporated versus Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal and City of Cambridge U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, docket number 1.24-CV-12403. Executive session being necessary as discussion of these matters, an open session may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the city. The city council shall return to open session at the conclusion of the executive session. I'd like to entertain a motion to go into executive session. On a motion by Ayesha Wilson to go into executive session. Roll call, please. Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes.

Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The city council will now go into executive session. We turn back to open session at the conclusion of the executive session. Okay, thank you. The time for the executive session having expired, we're back in general session. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councillor Azeem. Present. Present. Vice-Mayor McGovern. Absent. Councillor Nolan. Present. Present. Councillor Siddiqui. Present. Present. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Present. Present. Councillor Toner. Present. Present. Councillor Wilson. Present. Councilor Zusy? Present. Present. Mayor Simmons?

Present.

Present. Vice Mayor McGovern? Present. And you have nine members recorded as present.

Quorum having been established, we are back in general session. We have one more item on the city manager's non-consent agenda to take up and is placing the manager's agenda item number one on file. Discussion having been had, roll call.

COUNCILOR Azeem. YES. YES. VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN. YES. YES. COUNCILOR NOLAN. YES. YES. COUNCILOR SIDDIKI. YES. YES. COUNCILOR SABRINO-WHEELER. YES. Yes. Yes. Counselor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Counselor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The city manager's agenda item number one is placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to policy orders and resolutions. We have four. What is the pleasure? Adopt all four.

Mayor.

No. No?

Oh, are we on policy orders?

We're on policy orders. What's the pleasure of the body?

Mayor Simmons? Mm-hmm. Number three.

Pleasure of the city council? Council Zusy?

Number one and two.

Council Turner, did I hear you? No, she pulled it. Okay, Councilor Azeem?

None for me, thank you.

On number four, which is city council support of House 2634, an act relative to sexual assault by an officer. No discussion having been had.

Roll call. Councillor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes, Councillor Nolan.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Counselor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. Counselor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Counselor Toner? Yes. Yes. Counselor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Counselor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We'll move back to the non-consent policy order list. Number one was pulled by Counselor Toner. I put Counselor Toner, am I correct? Counselor Zusy. Zusy. Very similar. reads as follows, that the city manager is requested to work with relevant city departments to determine whether the city council can revoke any already approved curb cap applications if said application was incomplete due to applicant failure. This is polled by Council Zusy. Council Zusy, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted, I'm proud to co-sponsor this with Councilor Nolan. I feel as though in the case of this curb cut we were misinformed by the developer who didn't submit all the negative postcards from abutters who weren't happy about the curb cut. So documentation was withheld. So I do think that in this case it seems appropriate to rescind the curb cut. So I will be voting for this. Thank you. Very good.

Councilor Zusy yields the floor. Further discussion from my colleagues may ask my colleagues that are online. Councilor Azeem. Councilor Toner.

Thank you. I appreciate that Councilor Nolan and Councilor Zusy feel there was an injustice in this case. And without going back and re- reviewing all the materials and questioning whoever submitted what. I feel like this policy order is not necessary right now because the whole issue of curb cuts is before the ordinance committee where we're coming up with potentially a new way of doing curb cuts. And I would just suggest that we have this as part of the ordinance discussion. I yield.

Councilor Tony yields the floor. Pleasure of the city council. Vice mayor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I am going to support this. I know that we're having this ongoing discussion about curb cuts moving forward, but if there was really – I mean, it sounds like we were kind of duped. and that they were opposing letter. I don't know how much that would have made a difference. I don't know. I mean, I tend to vote in favor of curb cuts if they get approval and they go through the channels. But it is sort of concerning that in this case that it appears, and this is why we have to have legal look into it, it appears that we were not given all of the information in making that decision. So I think because of that, I think this case is a little different. So I will support it. But I do think, obviously, we're going to have this ongoing conversation about how we're going to move forward with curb cuts. And so maybe this won't be a problem if we change some of the ways we do this down the road. But it was a problem in this case. So I will support it.

Vice Mayor yields the floor. I'm going to see if our solicitor will come forward. Councilor Azeem, you have a question?

I was just going to make the comment that I will support this tonight, but just wanted to say only because it's requesting information rather than like actually on repealing the curb cut, which I'm not sure how I feel about at this moment. Thank you.

Councilor Zing, you have the floor. Before I ask the solicitor to just give us a brief overview of her opinion on this, does anyone else want to be heard? Councilor Nolum, briefly, because I do want to hear from the solicitor. So please.

Thank you. Very briefly, this is, as Councilor Zusy said and Councilor McGovern, this is asking the city solicitor for an opinion saying if this happens, what are our options in the future? And I think it's important for us to know that, so...

So I understand what you're saying. You're asking, because that's not how I read it. Are you asking about future action or are you asking to undo what has happened?

It is about this one in particular. And I'm not even sure at this point if we get the legal opinion.

It was a yes or no. Are you asking to undo it or are you asking for an opinion going forward?

We're asking if we can, how it may be undone. That's what I thought.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Are you yielding the floor? Solicitor Bear, could you opine on this?

Yes, thank you. To you, Madam Mayor. I actually had heard from Councilor Nolan about this particular curb cut. over the last few weeks and the concerns that there was some information that may have not been provided to the council. We did reach out and talk with ISD to make sure that everything that was provided as part of this application had been presented to the council, and it was. So at least everything that the city had been given was then before the council. What I explained to Councillor Nolan was that we don't know, I haven't had an opportunity in the law department to research whether if there was some type of fraudulent action by a curb cut applicant whether that would give the council authority to revoke the permission it had previously granted. But so I said, if that's something that Councillor Nolan wanted us to explore, would recommend that there be a policy order to ask us to do that research. But my initial take is that we'd have to do the research, but just knowing we are past the reconsideration period and there wasn't a motion for reconsideration, and a curb cut approval is a form of a property right that the council has granted to an applicant. I do think at a minimum there would have to be an opportunity for the applicant to be heard, so notice and an opportunity for them to come before the council before we could undo the right that has been given to them. And so if the council wishes and passes this policy order, we'll do further research into whether there would be an ability to revoke the approval if there was some type of intentional omission of fraud with the application.

Questions from the council? Hearing none, then we should go to the vote. I will be voting on present. I feel like it's been done. We did our due diligence. So I think that it's done. So I'm not going to vote to have a very long conversation about something that I think will not change. So having said that, no discussion. I will honor vote by Council Wilson to approve this policy order.

Roll call. Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern.

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner? No. No. Councillor Wilson? Present. Present. Councillor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Present. Present. And you have six members recorded in the affirmative, one recorded in the negative, and two recorded as present.

And the policy order passes on the affirmative vote of six members, one voting in the negative, two voting present. Next item was pulled by Councilor Zusy, reads as follows. The City Manager is requested to work with the City Clerk, the Information Technology Department, the Law Department, and any other relevant department to draft an ordinance establishing the City of Cambridge electronic records archiving policy. I am the main sponsor. Council Susie pulled this. The floor is yours.

Yeah. Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I had wanted to be a co-sponsor of this. I had emailed you. And I also just wanted to repeat something that one of our... one of our public commenters had shared, which was we do want to hold on to the paper. It's really important to digitize things, but it's always good to hold on to the paper. And again, I'm really looking forward to a time when residents, scholars, and people following up on public record requests will have access to those digital records. It's great. Thank you. I yield.

Council Zusy yields the floor for further discussion. Councillor Zinn, Councillor Turner. No, thank you. Councillor Turner. Madam Mayor.

I'm good.

Vice Mayor.

Just real quick. I mean, I just think it's an opportunity to give a shout out to the clerk's office and all the folks who are doing this work. That was a great tour. And to see all those old records and all the work that's being done to keep those records alive and available to people. So just an opportunity to give them a shout out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. So this policy order basically came from, as you said, from the clerk's office, having talked to the former clerk. But even before then, many of you may remember Donald Lopez. In fact, we named one of the little rooms, the vaults and some people say you need the vault over someone. Donna was quite excited and I was excited for her because we are an old city. We have a tremendous amount of history and in terms of archiving and digitizing public records, we have really started to move the needle on that and that's really important. In fact, we're looking at something very similar on the school side because right now Anything over 50 years old on the school side, they destroy. And that's unfortunate because that's really important information that gets away from us. The idea of digitizing says that we have access to these documents. No, we would not throw them away. We have the young lady. What's the young lady's name in your department? Her name is Barbara Carrera. Barbara Carrera has done a fantastic job. And I don't have to repeat it because I think we've all went on the tour of starting to just preserve these documents. So here you'll have these documents on the ready without having to manipulate them with your hands. But you'll be able to, I hope, search by name. I'm quite excited about this. And so I want to thank my co-sponsors for for signing on and acknowledge Councilor Zusy for wanting to sign on to this because I think it's an important thing to be done. So 100 years from now when we're all feeding trees, someone can look back and see some of the work that we've done. So if there's no further discussion, I will entertain a motion by Councilor Zusy to amend by adding her as a co-sponsor. Roll call. Councilor Zinn.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner?

Yes.

Yes. Counselor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Counselor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the policy order is amended by the affirmative vote of nine members on the policy order as amended roll call.

Counselor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Counselor Nolan? Yes. Counselor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Counselor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Counselor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the policy order is adopted as amended. We move now to number three. This is pulled by Councillor Nolan Reeds as follows. Policy order urging Governor Healey, the MBTA Board of Directors, and General Manager Phillip Ng to amend the MBTA Owl Wife Station Complex Redevelopment RFP to include a priority eliminating untreated combined sewer overflow sewage in our neighborhood or the neighborhoods by incorporating green and gray infrastructure as central components of the project. The order further calls for the MBTA to collaborate with the MWRA, DCR, DPH, the City of Cambridge, and the community to address this public health threat. This was pulled by Councilor Nolan. Councilor Susi is the main sponsor. Councilor Nolan, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I, like others in our city, very much support dealing with the sewer overflows. It has been an ongoing problem. It has been a remarkable problem throughout the city. We heard very eloquently in public testimony from people who have gotten sick how frankly just unacceptable it is to have this kind of raw sewage. flooding our streets and overflowing and i certainly have i've had i think a couple different meetings on it this body passed two different policy orders related to the alewife garage development we did it a year ago in august 2024 that uh many of us were on asking for the um the process to start with the MBTA, with the redevelopment of Alewife Garage. There was a subsequent one in September 23rd of 2024 that was passed, which recognized Alewife as a potential site for significant additional housing. And to ask the city to work with the MBTA to include all of the goals of the city as the MBTA worked with the development of the site. So I certainly 100% support the thrust of the intent of this policy order to move forward and to work and coordinate and push for everything we can. However, having reached out to the staff about whether this would help us in the ongoing work moving forward. I was concerned that there was some specificity in this, the current policy order that could prove problematic. To have a 10 to 13 acre site and have a particular, very set specific number of acreage for of green stormwater infrastructure without understanding what is in the rest of those acreage just seems problematic. And it also seems that it is something our city, which at our direction is already working in collaboration with a whole range of state agencies, So with that in mind, I would love for us to hear from Commissioner Watkins about whether she believes that the solutions presented, the three acres of green storm water infrastructure as well as the major underground storage tank, if this is the right solution to that problem. And in the spirit of trying to move us forward and definitely continue the conversation to go on record saying that we want this combined sewer overflow to move forward. I did present an amendment to the policy order by substitution that is on people's desks, which I think has much of the work and again, the intent of the policy order and More directive in some ways because it really asks the city to move forward in an expeditious manner to deal with the CSOs. We're in the process of doing a plan that is due by the end of 2025. So there is urgency here. I completely understand it. I just don't want us to pass something that may not have the impact that we want on the state and may possibly be sending mixed messages to the state agencies we're working with. So I don't know if this was an appropriate time to hear from Commissioner Watkins, but I-

Counsel, just so I know, you're asking her to give an opinion on the base policy, not your substitution.

Yes, on whether the solutions presented in that, and if she could, if she has seen it, whether the substitute policy order addresses those concerns, but would also move us forward with urgency addressing the CSOs.

So, Council Nolan puts forward the amendment by substitution, and so that is now before us, but she wants to hear from you, Commissioner, your feelings or your opinion on the base motion, not the substitute. So, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Sure. Through you, Mayor Simmons. I would say, you know, Councilor Nolan identified, you know, a couple different issues. So one is, so people, and we've talked about with this body several times about the combined sewer overflow plan process. So the city is actively engaged in a process that's been identified by DEP and state DEP. So federal EPA and then state DEP. a process to work collaboratively with MWRA, Somerville, and the city of Cambridge to develop a CSO control plan for both the Alewife Brook, Mystic River, as well as the Charles River. And so that is a process that is underway. The draft plan is due at the end of this year, with the final plan being due in January 2027. And one of the things I want to really caution folks is that you know this is a complicated process and it's a complicated set of issues with complicated solutions and so we do have some significant concerns about sort of coming out with very specific you know do three acres of green space here without sort of having that be part of this larger process both on the CSO pro side as well as on the MBTA process on the MBTA development side So people sort of back up and think about 30 years ago and what we've accomplished over the last 30 years. And there's been a significant improvement in terms of our overall sewage and drainage system in terms of reducing flooding in our neighborhoods, reducing backups in people's homes, reducing backups in streets, and significant reduction in combined sewer overflows. So over that time, we've seen a 98% reduction in the Charles River and an 85% reduction in Alewife. And I say that not to say, oh, we've done great work and we're done, but just to understand the level of work that was associated with those improvements. both in terms of time and cost and impact to the community. Folks that have been around and lived in the neighborhood that sort of went through the West Cambridge sewer separation project was a major sewer project, major infrastructure project, very disruptive in terms of the community, in terms of construction, also quite expensive in terms of implementing, and also quite successful. It has led to significant reduction in sewer overflows in the Alewife Brook As well as significant benefits, both in terms of, you know, the West Cambridge sewer separation, but also when we talk about the Alewife wetland, when we did the Alewife wetland, you can say like, oh, there's this great wetland project. It was about, you know, $13.8 million construction project, again, over 10 years ago at this point. But that wetland was really part of the larger plan, so it wasn't a standalone project. So in order, that really supported the sewer separation in West Cambridge. So you had the sewer separation, you had to have the project that we did on Alewife Brook even before that in order to get that stormwater from the West Cambridge neighborhood out to the wetland. So I say all that to say these are very complex projects with very complex trade-offs. The CSO plan, one of the things that, you know, the next community meeting in September, so we've already had three or four community meetings because we're also really wanting to engage with the community on what are the right solutions, what are the right trade-offs, what's really cost effective and really effective in a broader sense. What projects are going to reduce the volume of CSOs? What is the cost of those projects? How constructible are they? How feasible are they? So we have significant, there's a significant process that we've laid out with MWA and Somerville and Cambridge to really go through those details and really develop a plan that is gonna be effective, implementable, and constructible, and that we're clear on there's pieces that the city is doing, there's pieces the MWA is gonna do, and there's pieces that Somerville is gonna do. So it's a bit of a rambling answer to your question, Councilor Nolan, but I do think sort of having this very prescriptive council order that says do these two things on this site, really underestimates and really does not value the level of complexity and the work and planning that needs to go into these types of improvements and long-term strategies.

Thank you. Just a follow-up question on that. My understanding is that an example might be that, look, I love that wetlands. It was one of the first times I ever met at the time, I think, Commissioner O'Riordan, and I still love it. And I want this to happen. I think we all want green infrastructure. But, for instance, by doing it there, my understanding is on the Bella Circle site, we're actually hoping that this will be an actually important part of it, but that's nowhere near Alewife, so that wouldn't even be part of this. And yet, my understanding is if instead we could spend the money on that, developing that, what would be the positive impact on that raw sewage flowing over, if we can understand that? Which is the kind of flexibility that would be really important for us to understand.

Absolutely. Three, Mayor Simmons. So, you know, the council order talks about that that location is the location where there's the greatest volume of CSO into the Elwife Brook. But what you have to look at is what are the specifics of those overflows. And so the highest volume comes at what we call CAM 401A. So the CAM means it's a Cambridge overflow. But that control structure of where you sort of decide can the volume of water stay in the system or does it need to go out to the overflow is actually at Sherman Street right adjacent to the parcel that the city purchased at, we used to call it Bella Circle, we've moved it to Sherman Street. So that intersection of Sherman and Bellis. And so one of the projects that's also being evaluated is doing a storage tank at that Sherman Street parcel, which would directly reduce those volumes from 401 . So you really want the infrastructure to be where that regulator structure is. So we think that is, again, we're going through the process now, but it's likely to be a really significant part of reducing CSOs, addressing that CAM 401 . And then there is still the MWA003, which is MWA, so it's owned by MWA, that is at the location. And so we do think that the parcel, and we've been working with the T, and Melissa can speak to that if folks are interested in terms of really the collaboration with the MBTA to work on sort of all of the priorities that the city has identified, ranging from housing to CSO, control and so we really want to work through those processes to prioritize and develop the right strategies.

Councilor Nolan. Thank you. I don't want to take up too much time but at some point if it makes sense, Mayor, to get the sense of the staff on whether this amendment by substitution would retain the urgency but allow us to move forward again with urgency to address it and yet not not bind us or put us in a position. Again, you could say, well, we're just telling the governor what to do, but what we want to do is make sure whatever we're telling them is actually in the context of a, so at whatever point if that makes sense.

So what I would like to do, Councillor, if you yield the floor, is let Councillor Susi defend as the lead sponsor, defend the policy order. I see that Councillor Toner wants to be heard, so why don't we just go to that level. So Councillor Susi.

Okay. You're on. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to start out by saying I'm really grateful to Eric Grunbaum and North Cambridge Street neighbors for working on this policy order. And I also want to be very grateful to Kathy Watkins and Owen Erriarden for meeting with me and Luchika about our CSO control plan. And they gave me an incredible presentation. It was May 9th, so it was a month ago. So for a month, we've been working on sort of making this policy order, we thought, effective, but also we tried to incorporate some concerns of the city with the policy order. But I'm so aware of, I mean, you have expertise in this area. The city's been doing work since the 1980s. And something that you made very clear to me was that we're not going to fix the whole problem at the MBTA alewife area. But it does seem like it is an opportunity to address the issue, to help to ameliorate the conditions at the site. It seems like I didn't come up, so things that we altered this order so that it made clear that this would be contributing to improving the solution but wouldn't be the solution. and I'm sorry, but the real concern is that this is, oh, a debate I had with Eric was about, well, do we really wanna say three acres of green infrastructure? Do we wanna be that specific? He was saying this is a political document, so we're advocating for green infrastructure. He thought it was important to say three acres rather than several acres to just make the point that we want to see some green infrastructure at the site. Eric just sent me that apparently the MBTA has just asked, apparently, where is this? In COMMBUYS, it said the revised timeline for the MBTA proposals is July 2nd is the last day for the MBTA to update the RFP for the July 16th deadline for proposals. Anyway, so this is actually a timely policy order because what we're trying to do is get the governor, and this shouldn't affect our relationship with the MBTA. This is really... asking the governor, who represents the Commonwealth, to look at the site and say, it shouldn't just be solving transportation issues, it shouldn't just be resolving housing issues, it should also be resolving um sewage issues and currently the m the the rfp for the site it only says that the city requests for on-site storage be evaluated it's not listed as a core requirement of the proposal and we're not saying that uh the mbta should be responsible for paying for the um ameliorating the sewage flows at the site. But we do think it's important that somebody look at the site in its value, the larger value to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to say, there is an opportunity at this site to improve the sewage outflow problem. Maybe that should actually even proceed the development at the site. It might make it more attractive to private partners. if the sewage issue was resolved before they started working at the site. Though I realize that we had talked about how the tank, there will be an underwater tank that might be under the parking lot or it could be a different place on the site. We talked about how the 13 acres, it sounds like so many acres, but it's not actually really that many acres because some of that acreage is along the commuter rail corridor. So I realize it's not as big a site as it seems, but I still feel as though this is an issue. We don't want to pass a policy order that just commends the city for its great work, though you do do great work, we do great work. But what we really wanted to do with this policy order is to encourage the governor to look at this land, which isn't MBTA land, it's Commonwealth land, and to include in the RFP that some attention to the sewer outflow and improving that situation must be part of what happens at the site. That's why the policy order as we presented it was presented as is and it wouldn't be, I don't see how this would be insulting to the MBTA. I know that is a concern because in this case it would be the people of Cambridge, it would be the city council saying there are conditions at the site currently that are deplorable. Again, we recognize that the MWRA, the city, and Somerville are all working collaboratively to improve the situation, but we really see this site as a place where with a cistern with green infrastructure, we could make great improvements to the sewage issues at the site. So that's the goal of the original policy order, which I had a few little tweaks to. And so I would prefer to stick with an amendment to the original policy order than to adopt the substitution because I think it takes away all, it doesn't move it, it doesn't move, this RFP will still not include a requirement to address the sewage issues at the site, which is what we really want it to address. We want to see and we realize that it's part of something larger. But to me, it was a gross oversight that improving the sewage situation with the two outflows at the site wasn't part of the original RFP for the transportation development. Anyway, for that reason, I wouldn't support the alternative policy order, I would support our original policy order, which again, we're still collaborative players, but the council, the people, all those little people that were in the audience and disgusted by the sewage at Alewife are just saying, we've got to fix this problem. Some of that fixing should happen at this site and should be included in the RFP and and one idea was to Send this to committee and to discuss this later But there really is a timeliness issue if if we can only amend the RFP until July 2nd and the MBTA is going to be the last date for for responses to the RFP is July 16th, we really don't have the time to wait. Thank you, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor Susie yields. Mayor Simmons. Let me help you with this. Councilor has a very well written policy order that she's amended and my colleague has a substitution and I'm gonna move my charter right and have you guys work it out. So, here we go. Moving on. We now move to unfinished business. The first item on the unfinished business is Charter Right. Reads as follows, that the exception language in Chapter 2.129.040, Section J of the Cambridge Municipal Code be revised with language clarified that the Cambridge City employees shall not participate and federal immigration enforcement operations, and that the sole role of the Cambridge City employees during any action by ICE is only to protect public safety and not to assist or facilitate the work of ICE. The Charter Act was exercised by Councilor Toner. Councilor Toner, you have the floor. He's not here?

No, he's there, but we can't.

Councilor Turner, you're muted. Sorry, sorry about that.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you, I just wanted to call upon the city manager, the solicitor and the commissioner, just to try to answer a couple of questions. As you know, I tried to write it because the Cambridge Patrol Officers Association asked me to, because they had some concerns and they wanted an opportunity to meet with the city manager and the commissioner and folks to talk about their concerns. You know, mainly you know the part that's most concerning was the part about monitoring ice and asking for badges and identification from ice and it felt like was putting them in sort of a confrontational situation, I mean the Cambridge police have been living. under the rules of our sanctuary city and welcoming community ordinance. They've been living up to those values, but they did have some concerns, especially in light of the situations we've seen across the country and want to avoid having something escalated between them and federal agents. So I just wanted to ask if the city manager, the solicitor, the commissioner had any ideas about how, if this passes, it might be implemented to reduce the possibility of any negative interactions with federal agents? And what are the rules about asking federal agents for identification? Are we able to do that?

So he's asked to hear from the commissioner, the solicitor, and the city manager. Is the commissioner online?

Through you, Madam Mayor, she was at least on the Zoom earlier. I'm not sure if she still is at this hour, but I'm happy to take that. We'll start with you.

Very good.

Commissioner Elo is no longer on the Zoom. I'm sorry? She's no longer on the Zoom.

Okay, she's no longer on the Zoom. The commissioner is no longer with us, so if you would take up the discussion for us, please. The floor is yours.

Yes, through you, Madam Mayor. So today, the Commissioner, Jamie Matthews, our Director of Labor Relations for the city, Manisha Tibberall, the Finance and Personnel Director for the Police Department, and myself met with the union representatives to hear some of their concerns, which were along the lines of what Councillor Toner just shared. We don't have... We listened to those concerns. We are going to continue to engage with them if this policy order passes tonight and have more discussions, work with what the policy order requests, do some research, work with the police department leadership and the union to try to come to consensus and see if we can come back to the council with something that we can recommend and hopefully feels workable to everyone. And then on the specific question about requiring ICE agents to identify themselves, we did do some legal research into that. And there are federal regulations that address when an ICE agent is conducting immigration enforcement activities what they have to provide if asked and so they are not legally obligated to provide their name or any type of badge number or identification number they are legally obligated when it is safe and practical to practicable to do so to say they are a an ICE agent or a federal immigration enforcement agent conducting federal immigration enforcement operations. So they have to say generally who they are and what they're doing, but they don't have to say specifically their name or number.

The solicitor yields the floor. City Manager, the floor is yours.

I would just note, thank you to you, Mayor Simmons. We really recognize that.

Mike sounds really strange.

This mic is.

Really strange. Do you want to try someone else's?

How's that? Much better. That's better. Through you, Mayor Simmons, I think I just wanted to express that we recognize the deep concern behind where the policy order is coming from, particularly as we're seeing what's happening on the West Coast. I think one thing that has come out that has been clear is that Certainly, as local police interact with federal agents that may be operating in our city, there would be interactions and conversations to assure that they're there legitimately and to identify them as federal agents. I think to Solicitor Beyer's note, the question may be clarification in terms of how concretely the ordinance is requiring things that are beyond what may be required by federal law and so certainly the level of collaboration where you would see federal law enforcement identify themselves and you know we're seeing some variances practices but for the most part we are seeing federal agencies inform municipal law enforcement of their presence and so there is some level of communication WHEN THERE'S AN OPERATION WITHIN A CITY, BUT I THINK AS WE PROBABLY REVIEW THE LANGUAGE THAT IS PASSED, THE QUESTION WILL BE HOW WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WELCOMING CITY ORDINANCE AND THE GUIDANCE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE IMPORTANCE FOR THEM NOT TO BE INVOLVED IN civil immigration activities, but also the importance for us not to put them in a position where our local ordinances are in conflict with either federal regulations or their broader obligations. So I think those are some of the tensions that we'll work through and very happy for the council to pass this and we can work together on appropriate language.

Councilor Tona.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. That's all I really wanted to hear. You know, I was just concerned that we were putting our officers in a catch 22, you know, obey this ordinance that says one thing, but then also be putting in a very challenging, difficult position. So it sounds like you've had good conversations. So I'm happy to support it with the understanding that you're still going to work out the details and, and figure out uh the best way to move forward in terms of procedures and trainings for the the officers is that correct uh three mayor simmons that's correct thank you i yield council tony is the floor vice mayor pleasures

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to be added to this policy order. And I thank the sponsors. I'm not going to say much. I'm still just, you know, I'm sick over what we're seeing in LA and what's happening and where things are going. It's really disgusting that this administration is doing this. So I won't belabor it, but I would like to be added as a co-sponsor, Madam Mayor.

The Vice Mayor is asking to amend this policy order by adding him as a sponsor. Is there any discussion? Council, this is on the amendment, which is adding the Vice Mayor. I'm sorry?

I have something else to say after we bring Mark in. Okay, then we'll come back.

Is this about adding the Vice Mayor, Councilor?

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to be added to the order as well. Okay.

Thank you. So we can add both. Is there any discussion about adding the Vice Mayor and Councilor Wilson? Hearing none, vote call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes.

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes, Councillor Nolan. Yes, Councillor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councillor Toner.

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Wilson. Yes. Yes, Councillor Zusy.

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you. So we have the amended policy order in front of us for the discussion. Councillor Zusy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, Mike, the thing I wondered was about whether we should say including their badge numbers, because I thought that could be difficult to get the badge number. But I hope you all saw there was a great article in the Boston Globe this morning called Witnessing an ICE Arrest, Here Are Your Rights. And my big takeaways were, if you see someone being arrested, ask them for their email. Ask them for their phone number. And video, watch, film their being absconded. And then send that video, or you can ask the person for the name of their family or a contact person to contact. Because otherwise, the people won't know where their person went, right? So definitely look at the article in the Globe this morning, because I wouldn't have thought of those things unless I'd read that article this morning. Anyway, thank you. Scary things are happening, and I support this.

So, Council Susie, if you have access, as opposed to asking us to read it, you may want to forward it to the clerk, and she can forward it to the council.

Oh, I will. Thank you. That's a great idea. Thank you.

Are you yielding the floor? Further discussion? Council Sabina Wheeler.

Thanks. To some of the points Councillor Toner raised, I think these updates to the ordinance actually clarify the role of city police and the other city employees. I think in the cases that we've seen, especially the Worcester raid, Worcester police were called to the scene during the ICE raid and there was a lot of confusion from residents during the raid itself and after the fact about What should our police be doing in this situation? What do we expect from them? What does the law say? This actually makes really clear what we expect of our police. It's not to do traffic enforcement or crowd control. It's only to protect public safety. I think this actually removes some of that gray area and makes it more clear what we expect. And then to this question about identifying ICE officers. This last week... Ayanna Pressley did an event with some of the family members of men who've been abducted in the past few weeks that I went to. One of the things she said at that event struck me is that we keep talking about ICE doing these abductions when in reality, we have no idea who is doing a lot of these abductions. We don't know it was ICE. We don't know if it was a different federal department. We don't know if it were federal contractors. But that is really the least we can expect and ask our city employees to help identify that. these folks, if they are actually ICE agents, and document that info of who are doing these abductions because they have faces covered, they have no identification, they're not identifying to some folks, and especially if they're required to do that under federal law, we have every right to ask our city employees to do that and to train them to do that. if it's not possible to require them to identify a badge number i understand this isn't final ordinance language that included that because it came up a lot in some of the know your rights trainings out there um but if if that isn't required under federal law we can can have that to be different but i think our city employees our police absolutely should be requiring folks during a raid to say who are you are you uh from Homeland Security? Are you an ICE agent? Are you a federal private contractor? Are you from another city department? Who are you? And let's document that and get as much info as we can for our residents, in addition to only ensuring that this is public safety, which would be the other update in this ordinance. So looking forward to moving forward with this tonight and getting back the updated ordinance language. I yield back.

Council Sabina, we'll use the floor for the discussion. So just, Councilor Nolan, I just want to be corrected on who's being added. Councilor Zusy and the Vice Mayor? Or is Councilor Wilson and the Vice Mayor?

Right.

Got it.

Didn't Councilor Zusy make an amendment, you said?

And what was, did you make an amendment as well? Because I don't believe you did, but I want to be sure the clerk.

No, I just shared an excellent article. Okay, so great.

Thank you. Okay, we got it. So it's Council Susie and so that's the amendment. Council Sabina really yields the floor. Any discussion? Further discussion, Council Siddiqui?

Thank you, I just wanted to add through you, I appreciate the city manager and city solicitor and their conversations around this with us. I think we know ICE is going to continue to do harm, but I think it's really important that we are on record being clear about what we would like to see. AND BE INTENTIONAL ABOUT THAT. SO TRYING TO STRENGTHEN THAT ORDINANCE IS THE GOAL HERE. AND HAVING THAT TRANSPARENCY AND CLARITY FOR EVERYONE IS IMPORTANT. SO JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT. THANK YOU.

COUNCILOR SUDIKI YIELDS THE FLOOR FOR THE DISCUSSION. COUNCILOR NOLAN.

Just very quickly, I think we're all aware of the import of this moment, and we are trying to provide everything we can possibly do. I think we also have to communicate to our community that we cannot do some things when people are abducted off the streets. And as has been said, As I understand from the police, if someone comes up, we can't even legally ask for a warrant because they're in the public way, and it is really scary. What this does is at least try to do everything we possibly can to ensure that we're documenting and that our officers are there to provide safety for our residents, which in this day and age, it's- I mean, we're all standing here. I know we're kind of shaking. We talk about a lot of other issues on this floor, but this is really something that goes to the core of people's feeling safe in the city. So I really hope we can move forward. If there's anything else that the commissioner, police commissioner, others in the city feel like we can do, I know this council would like to do that.

Any other discussion? Let me give you my thoughts on this. I strongly support the intent behind this policy order. Cambridge must indeed be vocal and forceful in pushing back against federal immigration enforcement. Those actions that threaten our residents' safety and well-being and the recent ICE activities in our region are deeply concerning, and we have a moral obligation to stand with our immigrant neighbors. However, I do have some concern about the specific mechanisms in the policy order, particularly the directive that the police officers to document ICE agents' bad numbers and actions. And I say that because I've seen some of the aggressive behavior in other cities and towns, and I see that the federal government is now deploying the military to participate in control of people that are voicing their concerns about what ICE is doing or people acting on behalf of ICE. And so I just worry about setting not only our citizens but our police officers in harm's way. And my primary concern is really about escalation. Instructing our officers to actively document federal agents during enforcement operations, risk transforming what might be a contained situation into confrontational ones. Now, I have talked to the commissioner and she's spoken to the interfaith community and she has expressed her desire to gather as much information as possible. That being said, I still worry about tensions being already high that this might be extremely So more importantly, this approach may actually limit our resident's legal options. Immigration law is complex and individual cases often turn on specific circumstances, confrontational interactions that escalate situations. could complicate further court challenges where immigrants and their attorneys might otherwise find success challenging ICE's actions on procedural or constitutional grounds. I believe our most effective tool remains in the court. Rather than risking confrontation in the field, we should focus our resources on connecting residents with legal representation and supporting organizations that can mount effective legal challenges to ICE. So I really want us to be strategic as well as being principled. And our residents do deserve those protections that actually work and that not necessarily put them in harm's way. So I'm going to be voting present because I'm just concerned about, even though this is well intended, what the outcome might be. So if there's no other discussion, I will then call the roll.

Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner?

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Present. Present. You have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as present.

So policy orders, well, there's two things. Do we vote the amendment by adding the, we also just amended it by adding the two co-sponsors? We already did that. Okay, so. The policy order passes as amended on the affirmative vote of eight members, one voting present. We move now to charter right number two, that the city managers requested to work with relevant city departments to ensure that there's a full open access for all users to Linear Park from Wesley Avenue as an additional community access point. The charter right was exercised by Council Tona. Council Tona, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I don't want to speak too much to this. I think the residents of Wesley Ave and some of the other neighbors on Harvey and Reed Street and the area spoke very well about why they felt that the fence should remain up. I just wanna point out that on this council, we often talk about the people most proximate to the decisions we make, and there's nobody more proximate than the residents of Wesleyan. And I appreciate the comments some people have made about, well, we opened up the, It would make it easier for some people to walk their dog on the path or save 100 yards on their bicycle to get to the PB school. But there's also a lot of emails coming in from not even in the area, not even in the city, arguing to open up the fence. And the people who live there, and believe me, I've lived along linear path all my life. I grew up in that neighborhood, and I think I've shown a couple of you my great-grandfather's pictures hanging on the post there. He was killed there back in 1912 when he was working for the railroad. But, you know, the distance between Wesley Ave and the grand opening at Mass Ave and Cedar Street is 30 seconds away and even less if you're on a bicycle. And it might be helpful for some people who occasionally might use it, but the people who are going to have to live with the day today are the people on Wesley Ave. And it's been portrayed by some that I had a secret meeting with the former assistant city manager. There was no secret about it. People in Wesley Ave wrote to us and expressed their concern that they were going to open up the fence. And Assistant City Manager Farouk was kind enough to come and actually walk the site with me. She hadn't been down there, or at least not a long time. And when she saw the situation after discussion, she agreed that it really didn't make too much sense to be opening up the fence and upsetting the people that it's going to most harm or most impact. And for a year and a half, these folks went to meetings and participated in the community outreach. and were told that they weren't going to take the fence down. And then at the very last minute, this policy order comes in requesting that the fence be taken down. So I'm going to be voting against it. I hope you'll join me in voting against it. For the little bit of convenience it provides some people who don't live on Wesley Ave, I just don't see the rationale in us opening up. So I yield, Madam Mayor. Thank you.

Councilor Toney yields the floor. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Simmons. I appreciate all the work folks have done. This is, in a way, a small little thing, and yet, in a way, it's a very big thing. It's about community. It's about equity. It's about providing access. It's about drawing pieces of our city together. I do have a couple questions for city staff if they're still here. Is that...

Deputy City Manager is still here. I hope he... Okay. City Manager. If he counts. Well, the City Manager is here, too. Okay.

Well, maybe they can answer. I just think there's a couple questions, and then I wanted to address one of the things... They're excited about the opportunity. And then I wanted to address one of the things that Councillor Toner mentioned. So first, I'll start with the questions. Okay. So the question is, I understand that we have city constituted committees, a couple of whom have weighed in on this, the pedestrian committee and the bike committees. I understand both weighed in on this issue. So if you could just summarize what their position was on this specific issue of opening up Wesley. And if you could just summarize, there was a survey feedback with, I think, 400 or 500 people. And I know there was a final design meeting at St. James. And I know I was present at that, and I understand that there was a number of people who raised the issue of Wesley Avenue. So if you could just summarize for us related to this, what those committees were, and also what the survey and other results were.

Through you, Mayor Simmons. Please. Councillor Nolan, I can speak about the letters from both the Pedestrian Committee and the Bicycle Committee. Both letters were in favour of opening the path to Wesley Avenue. We have the Commissioner of Transportation online as well, and Brooke may be better positioned to be able to respond to the various surveys and attendances at meetings and what people said. And so maybe I'll pass you on to Brooke if she's online so she can respond to the second part of your question.

I'm here. Through you, Madam Mayor. I can talk a little bit. I think that since the beginning of the project, we have heard from people on both sides of the issue. I would say that overall, you know, both kind of at the beginning of the project and that when the access at Wesley was first proposed and then, you know, a decision was made to take it out of the design, Kind of consistently, we've gotten feedback on both sides of the issue, but primarily leaning a lot of people supporting having the access on Wesley Ave. I think we heard a lot about people just feeling like there needed to be another access on the south side, that the connections were very good to the neighborhood to the north of the path, but there were no connections within the neighborhood leading to the south. We also heard a lot about connections for kids, biking, which was important, and just a general feeling like the neighborhood kind of south of the path was cut off from the path, and that the entrance at Wesley was really making that connection to Reed Street that was really desirable for folks. So again, while we did hear from on both sides of the issue kind of consistently along, I would say that the primarily people were in favor of having the Wesley connection. Thank you. Council.

Yeah, thank you, and just following up on that, given that we've certainly heard also from residents in the last few weeks and months. Recently, in the last couple weeks, we've gotten about 100 emails, 70 have been in favor of it, 30 opposed. And that is, those are both from around the city, although there's a lot of people in the area who are opposed, and there's a lot of people in the area who are in favor. Is there any concerns that the staff would have about this entrance being open?

Through you, Madam Mayor. No, staff is supportive of having the Wesley Ave connection made. I think that we've heard about there being issues in the past, but I think in recent years, there have not been those types of kind of public safety issues at the other exits or the other connections. So we don't anticipate that being a problem at Wesley Ave now. So the staff is in support of having the Wesley Ave connection. Councilor?

Great, thank you so much for that. So for me, having heard from this, the pedestrian committee indicated it was important that bicycle committee survey data. We've heard from many residents, including ones directly there. While it is true that five people right on Wesley, but there were two people lived right on the corner of Wesley who wrote to us and said, please open it up, and many people who live right near there. I DO WANT TO ADDRESS WHAT COUNCILOR TONA NOTED ABOUT THE COMMUNITY PROCESS. WE HAVE ALL TALKED ABOUT COMMUNITY PROCESS. WE KNOW FROM STAFF THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLIC INPUT. THERE WAS MANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS, SURVEY DATA, WHICH INDICATED STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT. I HAVE BEEN TO WESLEY AVE, CONTRARY TO REPORTS THAT ONLY ONE COUNCILOR WENT THERE. I understand that some residents thought a promise was made, but we should be, I think, transparent about it. The initial plan was to open Wesley. Then a group of residents, as Councillor Toner said, invited the city staff to come there. While it wasn't a secret meeting, it wasn't an open meeting. It did not invite all the residents from across just that neighborhood. It was not broadly advertised for the wider community. AND THEN IT WAS STATED BY THE CITY AFTER THAT THAT WESLEY WAS NOT BEING CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME. HOWEVER, I WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD THAT THE CITY CLEARLY AT THAT TIME AND PUBLICLY INCLUDING IN WRITING AND INCLUDING IN SPEAKING IN THIS CHAMBER IN THE COUNCIL AT A COMMITTEE MEETING STATED CLEARLY AFTER THAT DECISION WAS MADE THAT IT WAS A temporary decision that while Wesley I was not being considered at that time plans were not final and were subject to review and adjustment so I don't know how people got the idea that we already adjudicated this we were promised it would never get changed so it was clearly and again it's it's in writing in a council meeting here that these plans are subject to review and adjustment so promises I want to make sure people don't think we're abrogating a promise because that was not made After that meeting, that closed meeting, additional public comment was received asking for an opening at Wellesley. And at the final public gathering, community input was still being sought. And city staff confirmed that at that final meeting at St. James, we got that data from Commissioner McKenna earlier today that many people in the immediate community had asked for an opening at Wellesley. So I hope that the precedent is that we listen to the entire community. We ensure that those most affected are front and center. And transparency is important. And if we approve this policy order, we will be supporting connections, community, and residents, and honoring the community process and feedback. And more importantly, we'll be connecting public ways and knitting our community together a little bit more. The idea that something is just a couple blocks away, it's about five minutes away, but that would be like saying, well, we didn't need the Yerxa Road underpass. Sherman Street is right there. We don't need two entrances to public parks. There's one on Norris Street and one just around the corner. I mean, it just, we should always want connections and we should not ever want to keep fences up if by taking them down it would improve community. So I really do hope this, the council supports the policy order because I think it truly would be best for community in the city.

Councilor, are you yielding the floor? Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler?

Thanks. Through you, Madam Mayor, to the city's commissioner, I was going to ask if she could talk about how connectivity fits into the city's equity goals overall and how we think about community access points, both within your park, but I think this is something that's also come up with Grand Junction Path and some of the other places, just in terms of how we're thinking about those access points and how it relates to connectivity throughout the city and demographics across the city.

Mr.

Mr. To Commissioner McKenna if she's still on. Commissioner, are you there?

I am.

The floor is yours.

Through you, Madam Mayor. Thanks for that question. I think it's a really good one. I mean, I think that part of the real kind of powerful nature of something like linear path that acts as both a recreational area and kind of part of our transportation network is that it does make those neighborhood connections in a way that really can kind of rejoin the kind of fabric uh you know when you have something like uh like a railroad that goes right through a neighborhood that's very divisive and it splits the neighborhood in two and something like a path like this with a lot of good neighborhood connections can really kind of reform that connectivity between neighborhoods so i think you know there while there are other you know there are the major entrances you know, at the start and the end of the path, by having enough kind of neighborhood connections, it really does that kind of re-knitting of communities together and really makes the path more of a part of the neighborhood and gives equal access to folks both to get to access the path without having to go onto major roadways and then also just to access other parts of the neighborhood. So I think it's a really great Kind of community building aspect and also creates that kind of protected way to get from one part of the neighborhood to the other, which is especially important for kids and folks who are less comfortable on the major roads. Council Spaniela?

Thanks. That's super helpful. And then, yeah, just to say for myself, I think that the connectivity is really important. I was thinking of just other examples. I live on Brookline Street in Cambridgeport. It's one of the busiest through streets in the neighborhood. And if it were a cul-de-sac, instead, there would be benefits to myself and my neighbors. But there are a lot of benefits to having it as a through street, right, to get through the city. It would be could say, you know, actually, it just takes 10 seconds as a driver to go down to Magazine Street and we don't need Pearl Street and Brookline Street and Magazine Street. They're all parallel, but there are benefits to having more connections. And there's a lot of benefits of having it open to a greater variety of people and not just having it be a cul-de-sac. for myself and my neighbors, although there would be a benefit there, and some of the arguments about, you know, it's going to let in different kinds of people, and, you know, I just don't get, and there are all sorts of people that go down lots of streets in Cambridge, and we welcome that, and it's that connection The other big piece for me in terms of support is the safety issue. I think right now that other opening is Cedar Ave and Mass Ave, and having been at that intersection so many times, cars just go so fast through that going around. It is not nearly as safe as an intersection this would be, and thinking about the bike bus in particular and students coming on a linear path through there, coming out at Wesley Ave to get down to Peabody School is just so much safer to go through these neighborhood streets to come on Wesley and Harvey and Clay and Reed. rather than having to go out through mass ave and cedar street where there are just so many cars coming at that that busy intersection um this would be be much safer for students trying to get to the school and their their families um so looking forward to supporting this tonight i yield back council sabrina will yields the floor council susie floors yours and then vice mayor

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I walked the site last Friday night and was impressed. I mean, it takes less than a minute to get from the entrance to Westerly Ave. And on a bike, you'd be there in 10 seconds. So I don't see the need for opening up the gate there. My husband and I also walked, it was like nine o'clock on a Friday night. We walked all around the neighborhood on Harvey, Westerly, all the different streets there. And it was so quiet. I mean, it was really like this beautiful, it's like mostly smaller houses. It was just lovely to have the quiet and I could see why the neighbors might want the quiet. They also have, there's a public alley You're like within five feet of neighbor's doors on your right and your left that you can walk through within just a block of Harvey Street. When neighbors talked about having bad experiences with noise and needles and trash and people on their back stoops, I could imagine them on that public alley. where you're almost in people's houses if you had that path open. Another argument that I found resonating was I feel like so much of Linear Park, which was such a magical, well, it still is a magical place, but I worry it won't be as magical as the curves are removed and Trees die as paths are expanded, but they're adding a lot more pavement, and so it would require a path to the gate. So it would mean more paving on this beautiful park. It won four awards. and it's been turned into a transport, I think it will become more of a transportation corridor than a park. It'll be more a path than a park with a renovation. So I feel as if trees might be hurt by a path to westerly if you're adding more hardscape, making it less of a natural wondrous place. That's what's so wonderful about that park is you're in the backyards of the city. You feel like you're in Europe. You're in a very different place. Anyway, I feel like I want less hardscape at Linear Park. and I want less trees impacted, and I want to protect the neighbors, and we heard from so many of them. I also, again, having walked the path, I'm just so aware it's not going to make a huge difference for cyclists. Again, it's less than a minute walk. I think maybe it's 40 seconds from the entrance westerly. so i don't think i think it'll i feel like we've opened a hornet's nest with this that had sort of been resolved and i i think i think it's better just to leave it as as it is i feel like linear park is already made a lot of people unhappy and uh or the renovations there and I feel like if we can keep the neighbors on Harvey Street on Westerly in that area if we if we can help them to preserve their neighborhood um let's do it so I will be voting against this thank you I yield

Councilor Zusy, you have the floor. Vice Mayor, the floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. I appreciate the conversation and the public comments. I know there's a lot of strong feelings around this, and I appreciate that. I'm not going to sort of get into the public process piece and all that. I mean, we've certainly, this council has changed course or asked the city to change course on a number of things. Two months ago, we voted to change Garden Street back to two-way, and how many community meetings were held. We even did the construction to make it one way, and we reversed course. So, you know, things can change. And I know that that can be frustrating. But I am, you know, I do want to be, I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns that the folks in the neighborhood have raised. And so, you know, I do want to try to figure out a way that maybe we can, you know, figure out a way to kind of do both things, you know, to open the connection, but also really make sure that we're listening to and being considerate of the concerns that people have about, you know, the impact that it's gonna have, you know, on their community. So I did put forward an amendment, would be an additional ordered, where are we?

Mr. Fenn, do you have the amendment put up on the screen?

Thank you. I sent it to you, right? Mm-hm. There it is. So this would be the second ordered, I guess. Let me go in the middle. That the city manager direct the relative city departments, including CDD and the police department, to work with the Wesley Ave community on ways to improve neighborhood safety, including but not limited to possibly adding improved lighting and a gate that can be locked by the city at night and unlocked in the morning. There are timed gates. Councilor Siddiqui had that great suggestion when we were talking. There are, is there a way to Is there a way to kind of address some of those concerns and keep the connection open? I mean, look, I live with it every day. I understand. I live in the middle of Central Square. I know what it's like to have folks on your doorstep. And I know it can be unsettling. So I'm not unsympathetic to it. I live it every day. So I'm not trying to minimize that. But I think there might be a way that we can address some of those safety concerns and keep the gate open. So that is my attempt at trying to resolve some of this.

So Mr. Vice Mayor, it would be the first ordered or the last ordered?

I think, no, it would be the second. So it would be ordered, the first ordered, and then it would come before the- That the city manager hereby is requested to report back.

That's kind of the last. Vice Mayor is making a motion to amend the policy order by adding an order that would be inserted between the first and last order. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Floor is open. Council Siddiqui. Well, Council Wilson was in queue, but now we're talking about the amendment. Do you still want the floor? Council Siddiqui.

Thank you. Through you, I'll just say I think there are some, I think what's been presented, there's compelling reasons from those who are on Westerly and I understand that the city planning process and kind of the reasons for why we want that connectivity and how do we kind of weigh both of that. I hear the neighbors on the past and what's happened in the past and the various issues. this amendment can potentially mitigate some of that. I also wouldn't be opposed to having, you know, some kind of way if, you know, indeed we are seeing an uptick in an activity in something to monitor that and, you know, I think consider, you know, consider evaluating that piece. Because right now, it's been this way for many, many years. And so you just don't know. So I appreciate what Council Member Govern has said. But I was thinking about... that part of it, which people have written about, which people have spoken about. So I don't have specific language, but I think, you know, I know the time gates would be pretty hard to do, but what are some things the city, I mean, I don't know what kind of solutions we can come up with, Yeah, this is a difficult one in that I hear the voices that felt like, wait, we already covered this. So anyway, I'll yield, but this is, I'm a little torn on this myself, so I'll yield.

Councilor Siddiqui, you have the floor. Councilor Azeem.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I wanted to say I think that this amendment is a reasonable middle ground. I would also just say to cool the temperature in that, like, if we end up opening the gate and then it ends up being a bad idea, like, we can always close it again. And so I think that, you know, we can be willing to just try something here and see how it goes. I think it'll be Fairly okay either way. But definitely hear a lot of concern on both sides. And so I think this seems like a very reasonable middle ground to land on for now. Thank you.

Councilor Azeem yields the floor. Councilor Wilson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I had to get myself together. Yeah, I just want to appreciate the people who spoke, the neighbors, residents in nearby areas, and those who utilize Linnian Park. I just, you know, I struggle with this council, with this body and the decision making that we often have before us. I struggle with the lack of, I guess, consistency in terms of we can't have it both ways or all ways. And you can't be like all in for the neighbors and the abutters on one situation and then really want to just disregard their heavy, heavy concerns and needs. And while I appreciate levels of being empathetic with members of the community, the direct abutters on Wesley, Harvey, Reed, Etc like we just have to figure out our level of consistency with how we approach Various issues that are and that definitely impact our community. So a couple of questions that I have one is Maybe through you madam mayor to maybe assistant city manager just in regards to just a little bit of history around this gate and so How long has this gate actually been closed? And I also want to name that I'm loving the love for North Cambridge right now because we have two things happening that's getting a lot of love for North Cambridge today on the agenda. But I'm curious about how long this gate has been closed.

Through you, Mayor Simmons. Councilor Wilson, my belief is that it's been closed approximately 30 years.

30 years. Excuse me, did you say it's been closed for 30 years?

Approximately 30 years.

Go ahead, Councilor.

Thank you. And thank you for that. And Assistant City Manager, through you, Madam Mayor, to Assistant City Manager, if you could just speak to the reason for why this gate was actually closed at that time.

I mean, I wasn't here at that time, but from some of the communication that we've heard, there seems to have been some antisocial behavior happening in and around that space at that point in time.

Council Wilson. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And while we recognize that obviously the safety, the issues that were concerning clearly died down as soon as that gate was closed. What makes us think that things won't rev up when that gate reopens again?

Through you, Mayor Simmons. Councillor Wilson, the only thing I would say about that is that there are three openings on the north side, and obviously there are openings at both ends as well of linear path, and there is not any evidence that there is antisocial behaviour happening at those other entrances. And so, given the passage of time, it's not unreasonable to suppose that there won't be antisocial behaviour here at this point in time.

Council Wilson?

Thank you, through you, Madam Mayor. Are any of those other openings on a small cul-de-sac street like this one?

Mr. Riordan?

I may ask Brooke to help me in terms of this. This is my geography. We can ask Ms.

Crane. She used to live there, but Commissioner McKenna, are you there? I am. What was the question?

Are there some smaller streets on the north side similar to Wesley Avenue on the south side?

The other question?

for you madam mayor i am not i don't know offhand exactly kind of a comparison between um kind of the type of street but i believe on the north side most of i mean most of the connection points are also at smaller streets one that comes to mind is no that's not true no

Cottage.

I would defer to the folks who are in the neighborhood.

Madam Mayor, thank you. Let me answer the question. So the answer is no. None of these other openings actually go on to a neighborhood street. They go into parking lots or they go into Russell Fields or they go to Cedar and Mass Ave. So we really need to be mindful of how the disruption of opening up a space like this, what that will cause, the havoc that it will cause on communities. And I'm not saying with intention that, you know, things will happen that's going to be harmful, but the reason why it was closed was because of, right? And so the possibilities, and I hate for us to be in a sense of, well, let's just try it out. You don't live there. We're hearing from the neighbors that actually live on the street saying, please, please don't do this to us. We're hearing from the little children who live on this neighborhood that are saying, please don't do this to us. So respectfully, colleagues, please don't do this to our neighbors. Thank you. I yield.

I'm Council Wilson-Nielsen.

Floor, Council Donor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. What Council Wilson just said, it opens up into a parking lot. It does open up onto Cottage Park Street, but it then feeds into a parking lot. And then the other one is that the old W.R. Grace property, it's a little sliver of a path out onto the W.R. Grace parking lot to Madison Ave. And then Russell Field.

Okay.

The other openings are into private property, but only people that live there have access to it. So Wesley Ave is the only small neighborhood street that'll be opening up into. Thank you, I yield.

Councilor Toney yields the floor. I'm just gonna be a time check for people that may not have a watch. The meeting does expire at midnight and we can certainly vote to extend it. I will not. So I just want to make us aware of that. Is there anyone who has not been heard on this item? And what we're talking about is the amendment, the lines have been a bit blurred, but we're really talking about the amendment was on the screen from the vice mayor as to do we want to amend the base policy order to add this whereas between the first and third order. So there's no more discussion on that, Amendment, I would like to vote for the amendment. So hearing no more discussion on the amendment, roll call.

Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Counselor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. Counselor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Counselor Toner?

Yes.

Yes. Counselor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Counselor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

So what is before us now is the amended policy order. Let me just speak briefly. There have been very good arguments on both sides. I will not be voting for this because if we won... There are more than one ways to get to where people wanna go. It's been closed for 30 years and was closed for a reason. If it passes, I guess we've ameliorated it a little bit because we have a gay who's going to operate that is beyond me. That's a whole nother conversation. But I do struggle, although I understand, I believe I understand the intent. I really struggle with others voting about a change to a street they don't live on. That's probably the hardest part of this. And I'm very sympathetic to the people on Wesley Avenue. So if there's no other discussion on the order as amended, I will call for a vote. Are you moving the motion as amended? Councilor Nolan, go ahead.

Thank you. I do want to just say I am listening to neighbors. I'm listening to people who live right there. There are people living right there who are begging us to open it. This is not an easy thing. There are also people saying keep it closed. But this is not that there's... all 10 people who live closest wanted to be closed. It's like, how are we taking a public street leading to a public park that we're spending millions of dollars updating and not doing everything we possibly can to increase connections, to increase community, and to listen to our community instead of holding on to a decision that was made 30 years ago. I also want to remind people, this council has never, ever voted on it. This is not a change in our vote. We didn't vote to do this Six months ago, two years ago, even five years ago, we have never once voted on this. That was through the community process. This is the first time it is before us. The city did make a temporary decision, made it clear that it was temporary, said it was only temporary and subject to change. And that is the decision that if this policy order passes, we are saying we believe that the original decision, which is to open up Wesley Ave, makes sense for the community, for our goals of community access. So that's why I will be voting in favor of it. I think it's something we should be doing. We shouldn't keep a decision from 30 years ago. And if it doesn't work and there's major issues, we can come back. There's also on Grand Junction, other parts throughout the city, we are trying to create more connections. So I really hope that I'm addressing some of the concerns that have been addressed.

And I'm asking you to be brief. It is 11.20. The meeting expires at midnight. And everyone has had ample time to discuss. So I'm just in the, to be so that we can get to the rest of our agenda. And I'm trying to be kind here.

I haven't had more time than others, Mayor. Yes, you have.

Madam Mayor?

I don't even know who said Madam Mayor. Councilor Sabino.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'll be brief. No, I just wanted to gently push back on some of the other pieces and looking at some of the other access points. I mean, one of the one on Cottage Park opens onto multifamily housing. And I think that is just a big part of this conversation here. We're constantly talking about more connection points to multifamily housing. We were trying to get a bridge over the tracks over at Alewife to connect the apartments there to... the Alewife MBTA station, we're gonna have a new bridge over by the ridge towers and developments there to Danahy Park. We're always talking about more connections there and it just feels different when we're talking about Wesley Ave which is mostly single family homes that we can't have more connections or that it's a different topic. One of the other connections on Linear Park to Cottage Park is multifamily housing there, and it goes right there. You can see it on Google Maps. I've been there a bunch of times myself, and we create those connections, and it goes right up to those housing, and it just does feel a different way when we're talking about this, and I get why folks are protective of this if you live on the street, but I'm just trying to make sure we're not setting up different standards here for some of the multifamily housing areas where we're always trying to provide more connection and do have it right now, including on Linear Park versus this street, which... It's more single-family homes, and I think that's consistent with some of the other work the council has been in trying to, you know, be consistent across neighborhoods and across equity. But, you know, glad to support the amendment and hope we can move forward with this. I'll be back.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler yields the floor for the discussion. Hearing none, on the motion as amended, roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner? No. No. Councillor Wilson? No. No. Councillor Zusy?

No.

No. Mayor Simmons? No. No. And you have five members recorded in the affirmative with four recorded in the negative.

And the policy order passes as amended on the affirmative vote of five members, four voting in the negative. We will move now to unfinished business.

Madam Mayor.

The Vice Mayor.

Five and six. Close yours.

The Vice Mayor would like to bring unfinished business item number five and... Unfinished business number six. We'll take number five first. An ordinance has been received from city clerk relative to chapter 5.50. Cannabis business permitting referred to the ordinance committee and council March 17, 2025. Passed a second reading in council May 19, 2025. Eligible to be ordained June 9, 2025.

Vice Mayor Felicius. Move to ordain. Is there any discussion?

On a motion to ordain roll call. Councillor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councillor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner?

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the item is ordained on the affirmative vote of nine members. We go now to unfinished business item number six. An ordinance has been received from City Clerk Diane LeBlanc relative to zoning petition to remove the repackaging prohibition as the City Council zoning petition passed to a second reading in Council May 19th. ELIGIBLE TO BE ORDAINED JUNE 9, 2025. VICE MAYOR, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

MOVE TO ORDAIN. DISCUSSION?

HEARING NONE, ON MOTION BY THE VICE MAYOR TO ORDAIN UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 6, FULL CALL. COUNSELOR Azeem.

YES. YES. VICE MAYOR MCGOVERN. YES. YES. COUNSELOR NOLAN. YES. COUNSELOR SIDDIKI.

YES.

YES. COUNSELOR Sobrinho-Wheeler. YES. YES. COUNSELOR TONER.

YES.

Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

An unfinished business item number six has been ordained by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to applications and petitions. There is one. Pleasure of the City Council. On a motion by the Vice Mayor to adopt the application number one, discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councillor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We have a late application. I'd like to move suspension. I'd like to have a motion to suspend the rules to bring late application and petition forward. Is there a motion? On a motion by Councillor Nolan to suspend the rules, roll call. Councillor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

I'm bringing the late agenda item relative to the Central Square Business Improvement District. Roll call. Bring it forward.

Councilor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Toner? Yes. Yes. Councilor Wilson? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The application is before us and it reads as follows. The application was received by Mike Monestine, representing Central Square Business Improvement District, requesting permission for 30 temporary banners along Massachusetts Avenue from Hancock Street to Sydney Street announcing pride from June 5th, 2025 through October 31st, 2025. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, on a motion by the Vice Mayor to adopt the order, roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Toner. Yes. Yes, Councilor Wilson. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes, and the order is adopted on the affirmative vote of nine in favor.

And the late application is adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move the communications to 240. What is the pleasure of the City Council? On 248?

240.

On a motion by Council Zusy to take the 240 communications and place them on file discussion. Hearing none, roll call.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councillor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councillor Toner? Yes. Yes, Councillor Wilson? Yes. Yes, Councillor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Simmons? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And the 240 communications are placed on file by the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to consent resolutions. There are three. What is the pleasure of the City Council? On a motion by Councillor Nolan to adopt the best... No, I want it to be added to number one. You want to be added to number one, so you want to pull that. On the balance, discussion on a motion by the Vice Mayor to adopt two and three, making them unanimous upon adoption. Roll call.

Councilor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Councillor Nolan. Yes. Councillor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councillor Toner. Yes. Yes. Councillor Wilson. Yes. Councillor Zusy.

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Simmons. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

And resolutions two and three are adopted and made unanimous upon adoption on the affirmative vote of nine members. We move now to resolution number one. This was pulled by Councillor Nolan. Congratulations to Jane Forte on her retirement from the Cambridge Public Schools. Councilor Nolan would like to be added as a co-sponsor. Any discussion? Hearing none on the amendment, roll call. Take your time. We have to 12 o'clock.

Councilor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor McGovern. Yes. Counselor Nolan. Yes. Counselor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes. Counselor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Yes.