Regular City Council Meeting

A quorum of the City Council being present, I want to call tonight's June 1st regular meeting of the Cambridge City Council to order. The first order of business is a roll call of members present.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Present. Vice Mayor Azeem? Present. Flaherty? Present. Present. Councilor McGovern? Absent. Councilor Nolan? Present. Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and one recorded as absent.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance and pause for a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. For 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've set up zoom teleconference for public comment you can also view the meeting via the city's open meeting portal or on the city's cable channel 22 to speak during public comment

You must sign up at www.cambridgema.gov You can also email written comments for the record to the City Clerk. We welcome your participation and you can sign up until 6 p.m. Please note that the City of Cambridge audio and video records this meeting and makes it available to the public for future viewing. In addition third parties may also be audio and video recording this meeting. We will go to public comment. Public comment may be made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 20G, and City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once you finish speaking, the next speaker will be called. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers. I ask that you state your name and address for the record and the item on the agenda that you're speaking on. We have 44 speakers who have signed up. Each speaker will have two minutes. We can go to public comment now.

Our first speaker will be Brennan Waters followed by David Halperin and Suzanne Blier. Brennan has not joined. We will go to David Halperin. David, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. David, if you can just pause for a minute. We're having an issue with our sound. Give me one minute. David Halperin, if you can try again, please.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

David Halperin, 14 Valentine Street, Unit 3, calling to oppose policy order number four. It's great for the city to try to preserve and increase the tree canopy as much as possible. but we have to weigh policy trade-offs. Housing has been the number one priority for residents of the city year after year. We already have a very strong tree protection ordinance It's clear many of the provisions proposed tonight, such as special permit requirements, are intended to make tree removal so constraining as to stop all development under the multifamily housing zoning, particularly in West Cambridge. More renters and more people living in affordable housing such as in IZ units should have access to Leafy Green West Cambridge. That was a significant part of the intent behind the ending exclusionary zoning in Cambridge, which was, you know, when initiated the multifamily zoning process. It's simply impossible to achieve that.

in practice, while also freezing neighborhoods in the Amber, such as making it so prohibitive to cut down any trees at all, regardless of replacement or compensation. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Suzanne Blie, followed by Paul Reculia, then Wenxin Du. Suzanne, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. Suzanne Blillier, Five Fleur Place. I want to speak on two things this afternoon. And thank you, Mayor and City Council, for all you're doing. The first is to ask you to... reconsider your decision on labs on Cambridge. And the reason I bring this up is that much like banks and cannabis stores, If owners are going to be holding out for labs, they're going to be holding out for the top dollar leases, and that's going to make it very difficult for local businesses. It's going to make it much harder for residents of this neighborhood to be able to find stores locally and meeting places. And labs generally also have non-transparent windows. So it doesn't make them really interesting and live places to walk by. So I hope you will reconsider that.

I also want to speak to the tree ordinance and to the fact that we are facing enormous global warming. and many of our neighborhoods are actually built on land that we have taken. lands that were recuperated from flood zones and what trees do in addition to providing oxygen and shade to lower heat island impacts, particularly in our denser neighborhoods. They also address the water from rain and snow as it is coming down and moving into the soil and beyond. Also, there's studies at Columbia University which point to how critical trees and green spaces bushes are for young children just for development and health. and whether it's shade and the importance of that or heat island impacts or just our basic survival in this era of climate change.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Paul Reculia. Paul, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Paul, if you can unmute yourself.

Sorry. Hi. My name is Paul Rakulia, 9-5 Bellas Circle. I'm here today to speak against Policy Order 4. In short, the policy order does very little to achieve its stated goals and a lot to harm our goal of improving housing affordability. The only practical consequence of this policy order is to add bureaucracy to the homebuilding process. If we want to seriously focus on protecting and encouraging Cambridge trees, a goal I applaud, we should reject this policy order and write one that actually works to achieve that goal. We should fund a refresh of our existing, successful urban forestry plan and trust our professional staff's guidance. Cambridge has seen meaningful growth in tree cover in recent years, despite the misleading claims in the policy order. and staff are more than capable of designing the most effective way to modernize it. We should strive not merely to preserve our existing tree cover, but to grow it.

Let me suggest one area for improvement, replacing poorly utilized hard surface with green space and trees. A typical parking spot generates 100 gallons of stormwater runoff per 1-inch rainfall, the threshold that triggers stormwater overflows. I estimate, based on the cost of the tank, Tobin and Vassell, that our storm water management plan is providing an $1,800 subsidy if we want to grow our tree cover let's focus on converting poorly utilized hard surface to green space with trees adding unnecessary bureaucracy for the sole purpose of making it harder to build homes should be beneath us if we want to protect our health and our trees I welcome serious policy proposals this policy order is not that thank you

Thank you. Our next speaker is Wenxin Du followed by Alejandro Paz, then James Zoll. Wenxin, you have two minutes.

Good evening, city councilors and Cambridge residents. My name is Wenxin Du, and I live at 25 Grosier Road. I want to express my strong support for the policy order strengthening tree protection in Cambridge I want to tell you why this is personal to me. When my husband and I were searching for a home in Cambridge, we fell in love with ours the moment we saw a magnificent Norway maple in the backyard. My husband, who is sitting here, his Chinese name is Ya Feng, and Feng means maple. So when we saw this namesake tree, we felt the house was meant to be. Our maple is 65 feet tall, 30 inches in diameter, and its canopy spans the backyard of four adjacent lots. It is certified by a licensed arborist as an exceptional tree under Cambridge's local tree ordinance. That tree is now at serious risk.

The proposed construction at 90 Lexington Avenue, the lot directly abutting ours, would excavate directly into its critical root zone, as close as two feet from the trunk base. The certified aberist concludes that this is likely, very likely, to have a significant negative impact on the tree. A Norway maple of this size depends on the shallow root system for its structural support. Cutting through these roots doesn't just harm the tree. It can destabilize a 65-foot giant tree. standing near four residences and their occupants. The consequences of failure during a storm would be catastrophic. This isn't just about tree. This isn't just about housing. It is a matter of significant public safety. Our situation illustrates exactly the gap this policy order addresses.

Under current rules, developers are not adequately held accountable for the health and stability of significant and exceptional trees on abutting properties. Thank you. This order would close the gap. We urge the council to pass it tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Alejandro Paz, followed by James Zald and Max Kaplan. Alejandro, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Alejandro Paz and I live in Cambridgeport. I am commenting on policy order number four. I wanted to say that I oppose this attempt to update the tree protection ordinance, which I believe is currently working well. So according to the 2025 tree canopy assessment, there was a 5% absolute increase in the city's tree canopy from 2018 to 24. And so with this trend in mind, I think it would be premature to currently revisit this ordinance, especially in light of how The proposed potential amendments could slow down the city's current efforts to make it easier to build housing. So in light of that, I urge the city council to vote no on this policy order. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is James Zoll. James, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. This is James Zoll, 203 Pemberton Street. Cambridge's Tree Protection Ordinance is already showing results in growing our tree canopy. This effort has taken years and it'll probably take even longer. Our housing shortage is another long-term issue, one that and many more. Thank you. But the changes suggested in this policy order seem directly targeted at badly needed additional housing, as if there were no better way to protect trees than to block residences for people who would share in their benefits. The idea of requiring approval of building plans before getting a tree removal permit means that even if the tree permit is approved, the changed building plans will then need to go through approval again. In addition, the sponsors have chosen to import zoning concepts like setbacks and special permits

which have been instrumental in preventing housing construction for decades. Special permit hearings along with community meetings and planning board design reviews have become venues for fierce power fights as people who have stable housing try to delay or block housing for people who need it. Fair access to housing has been the law in the United States since 1968. Although some laws and principles are now being cast aside lately, I hope that Cambridge will not go down that path with respect to housing in our city. Please do not pass this policy order. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Max Kaplan, followed by Neil Miller, then Noni Valentine. Max, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Max Kaplan, 45 Yerxa Road, Unit 305. I'm calling in to oppose Policy Order 4. This policy order seems really harmless at first. Who doesn't love trees? But like so many things, there's a hidden trade-off here. and anyone who knows the history of affordable housing in Cambridge can see that what looks like a tree ordinance is actually an attempt to block housing. We have an existing tree ordinance that's totally sufficient, as many before me have already spoken about. and this policy order adds nothing but an extra pathway for wealthy residents to block needed multifamily housing. If we truly wanted to protect and add trees, there are tons of policies that we could adopt, and I would support many of them. Paul Reculia spoke before me about a few of them that I would support. But this policy order ain't it, and I urge the council not to pass it. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Neil Miller. Neil has not joined us. We're going to go to Noni Valentine. Noni, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Noni Valentine, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor.

Sorry. Hold on one second here. OK. There we go. Noni Valentine, Washington Ave. I turned the corner to my street and saw that the thriving street tree was dead. There had been gator bags. What happened? It was a reminder that street trees are vulnerable. It takes 35 years for one, if it does survive, to store the carbon of one mature tree. But a tree can be taken down in minutes. There goes carbon storage. There goes transpiration that cools us. There goes habitat for tiny and bigger life. There goes structure of soil. that holds water. There goes chemical signaling that pests are nearby. There goes regulation of climate and water cycles. There goes beauty. We take these offerings utterly for granted.

If we're not struggling these days over taking down a tree, it's a bit like teasing nature whose balancing act is under strain as if to say, how far can you go? We're inviting water runoff, exhausting heat, and a drought and flood cycle. We're disinviting birds and pollinating insects as if they also don't keep us going. With increasing our development, we need to be smart about building in tree protection at every turn to get through this century intact. were in a new reality that we haven't caught up with yet, which requires living system-centered building. Trees are living systems. We can't assume we'll replace them while maximizing floor space but need to put existing trees close to the heart of the blueprints. We're not going to be able to plant our way out of this.

Young trees have a shakier start and need optimal conditions of soil volume, space, water, and light. Ask My Thriving Dead Tree. Please increase tree protection.

Thanks. Thank you. Our next speaker is Alexander Lessman, followed by Hetty Sibel, then Sasha Joyce Lauterbach. Alexander, please go ahead you have the floor.

My name is Alex Lesman. I live at 378 Washington Street, and I'm speaking on the topic of the tree protection ordinance. Just yesterday, the barrier organization, Peninsula for Everyone, published an article. The title? Atherton spent $145K to delay Caltrain electrification. The rest of us paid $400 million and waited three extra years. In February 2015, just as the Caltrain Electrification Project cleared its environmental review, Catherton filed a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act, citing, among other things, tree removal. Atherton ultimately lost the lawsuit. The trees came down and the trains got built. But the lawsuit caused delays which cascaded into years. The delays led to hundreds and millions in cost overruns. And so now there is less money and political will left for future infrastructure products. projects. Sonaway Atherton did win and they created a multi-year delay in the development of real green infrastructure in the name of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The proposal to expand the tree protection ordinance may not quite be apples to apples with the California Environmental Quality Act. The cartoonishly wealthy Atherton villains of the Caltrain story aren't quite the same as the homeowners of Cambridge. But the policy order states many trees on private and public property are now being cut down as an unintended consequence of the multifamily ordinance. Perhaps. But surely logic would suggest that for the same amount of housing, multifamily construction would preserve more room for trees and not less. The policy order also fails to note that the Cambridge canopy has increased 5% from 2018 to 2024. So the alluded to problem of tree loss doesn't seem well established. And so this policy order seems like a solution in search of a problem. Unless, of course, the problem that this is a solution for is not tree canopy, but is the development of multifamily housing itself. And so, in the immortal words of David Modica of Marblehead, Massachusetts, are we being pranked?

Thank you. Our next speaker is Hedy Siebel, followed by Sasha Joyce Lauterbach. Hedy, two minutes.

Hi, Council. Good evening. My name is Hedy Siebel. I live at 41 Stern Street. I urge the Council to vote for Policy 4. How important are trees? Ecologist Susan Simard says, when a forest breathes out, we breathe in. We are literally interdependent. Trees don't take, they give. Shade, air, habitat, food, community and joy. Tonight, I hope you can give for them. I see too many healthy trees coming down in Cambridge. It's heartbreaking and it's illogical. Should we be losing trees when the Cambridge urban forest is planning To increase the canopy from 30% to 35% coverage, we need to review the permitting process for removal. Large trees capture more carbon than sapling replacements.

It would benefit our city to preserve our significant and exceptional trees and to give these trees greater weight When deciding on permits for construction and renovation designs we must encourage builders to avoid the removal of significant and exceptional trees. Public street trees also need our protection. They mitigate heat and their presence creates a sense of community and well-being. Summershade from a well-placed tree blocks 70 to 90 percent of solar radiation and reduces air conditioning needs by 20 to 35 percent. That we have larger older trees on our streets is a miracle, for these trees are planted as isolated species in heat-producing concrete and subjected to road salt. Trees work to improve our lives and health regardless of income or political affiliation.

If there is a single baseline action toward climate equity, it is to preserve and plant trees in all neighborhoods. Please amend and strengthen this ordinance.

Your time is expired. For those whose time expires, you are welcome to please email your remainder of your comment to citycouncil at cambridgema.gov. We will move on to speaker number 13, Sasha Joyce Lauterbach, followed by Young Kim, then Elizabeth Keating.

Sasha, please go ahead, two minutes. Before we begin, I'm not Sasha. There somehow is, that's my wife. I was the one who signed up. She's the one who owns the property so maybe that's where the confusion is. May I continue? Mayor Siddiqui and members of the council, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify against policy order number four.

Sir, if you can please state your name for the record.

My name is Peter Sturgis. and I live at 98 Lexington Avenue. My wife and I have lived in our two-family house for over 50 years, now with three generations of our family. We have been very supportive of multifamily housing in Cambridge. In fact, just a couple of years ago, working with other neighbors, we saved a three-family on Lexington Avenue from being torn down and added to an existing single family. This evening I'm here to testify as an abutter about a very specific concern in connection with the proposed development at 90 Lexington Avenue, the possible destruction of a number of large significant trees on our property. We have been advised, like our neighbor, that the critical root zone of these trees extends into the construction footprint of the proposed development, which includes the excavation of the entire backyard to create a basement apartment. This excavation will clearly endanger these trees, likely killing them and causing them to fall, possibly injuring people or damaging neighboring property.

As you can imagine, and as was just alluded to, trees of these sizes are irreplaceable. at least during my and my children's lifetime. The policy order before you this evening is designed to give the council and the city the opportunity to review and consider amendments to the tree protection ordinance. It is not amending the ordinance at this time. With the right protections in place, housing development and urban canopy preservation need not be in conflict. Cambridge's trees, are an asset worth protecting for all residents including those in neighborhoods most affected by the increased urban density. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Young Kim, followed by Elizabeth Keating, then Liz Loya. Young, you have two minutes.

The way the budget appropriation authorization is in calendar items 3 through 14 are being presented tonight is exactly the type of issues City Council rules to reform in calendar item 2 should be addressing, but it's not. The larger and longer lived in and initiative becomes the more important it is that the public be able to trace its complete financial history. Good governance requires not only authorization of spending, but traceability of spending across the entire lifecycle of an initiative. You adopted a policy order on March 2nd directing that the City Manager's Reconciliation Report be made available to the Financial Committee for review and discussion before additional capital appropriation are voted.

Yet tonight, you are being asked to vote on those appropriations, and the public record does not clearly show that that review connects to the actions before you. The City Council should set a standard by ensuring that Council direction, committee review, staff work, public input, and final action can be easily traced together When they cannot, the process itself needs fixing. The same principle applies beyond capital appropriation. We are hearing discussions about MFH, Thank you very much.

Those efforts will have limited value if residents are not given a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns while those concerns can still affect the outcome. Thank you, Young.

Your time has expired. If you can, please email the remainder. Our next speaker is Elizabeth Keating, followed by Liz Loya, then Karen Burchette.

Hi, this is Elizabeth Keating. I live at 18 Lexington Avenue, and I'm here to speak in favor of policy order number 4. Strengthening the Tree Protection. What we have is a current situation where two really important priorities for the city, one is more housing, the second is addressing the impacts of climate change or inclusion. In this particular case, I'd like to press the City Council to please spend more time looking at what happens when there is construction. There are two types of effects that are negative. One is the damage to the roots as the construction is occurring. The second is the long term effect of having permanent structures placed over the root structure, starving the trees of water. This is not a hypothetical situation. This is not a reason. This is not being done to delay construction. This is a matter of public safety. I want to refer you to actually the scenario when Hurricane Sandy struck the city.

On that day, two very large trees went down on Larch Road where I lived at the time. It went down between two houses, the first tree, damaging the roof and upper floors. The second tree went down on my next-door neighbor's property directly Thank God he wasn't home. I really would like the city council to please Consider this as a serious thing. It has an impact on people's personal safety and on property. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Liz Loya followed by Karen Burchette, then Andrew Zhu. Liz, you have two minutes.

Hi, thank you so much for your time. Can you hear me?

We can. Oh, we lost you. If you can try unmuting again. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Thank you. Sorry about that. I'm speaking in strong support of protecting our mature tree canopy. I live at 21 Fields Street. Not all trees are equal. Mature trees provide exponentially greater benefits than young plantings. and once they're removed, those benefits are lost for decades. Once a mature tree is gone, it is not replaced in our lifetime. Our lifetime. A single mature tree can absorb roughly 40 to 50 pounds of carbon dioxide each year, helping to mitigate climate change at a meaningful scale. It can also intercept and absorb hundreds to thousands of gallons of stormwater annually, often estimated between 700 and 4000 gallons. Reducing runoff and helping prevent flooding in our increasingly vulnerable urban environment. While living at 37 Homer Avenue, one of the families in our four unit building wanted to cut down a hundred plus year old tree. After discussing how much water it retains and how our building was in a flood zone, they changed their mind.

They are now grateful the tree remains because they had not considered the impact of flooding. And in a dense city like Cambridge, these functions are critical. While mature trees are removed, When mature trees are removed, we lose immediate cooling, flood protection and air quality benefits that simply cannot be replaced by planting saplings. It's mature trees. Protecting mature trees is one of the most cost-effective and impactful climate actions we can take. I urge the Council to strengthen protections specifically for trees. Once a mature tree is gone, it's not replaced in our lifetime. That is incredible. Please act to preserve what we already have and for the incredible species that can't speak for themselves. Thank you so much for your time. and I do appreciate everyone's conversation and points that they've brought up both for and against the policy order and it is a hard conversation but it's something where we have to protect our trees.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Karen Frechette, followed by Andrew Xu, then Jiajing Li. Karen, two minutes.

Hi, I'm Karen Brushett from 51 Cushing Street in Strawberry Hill, and I'm here in support of the policy order for the tree protection ordinance. Mature trees are vital infrastructure for our city that significantly reduce stormwater runoff. They lower peak volumes during severe weather events, and they mitigate localized flooding throughout the city. While valuable alternatives like green roofs and permeable pavers cannot replicate the massive, maintenance-free stormwater capacity of mature trees. A single tree, as Liz just said, can intercept thousands of gallons of water annually. That water is captured like a sponge and it evaporates, it never hits the ground, allowing the ground to absorb more stormwater and also the roots of the tree are drawing up hundreds of gallons of soil daily at times if it's a large mature tree.

So it's an incredible asset to our storm water management system. Below grade established roots They also filter out urban pollutants before it reaches the Alewife Brook and before it reaches the Charles River, while also reducing the volume of runoff that would trigger combined sewer overflow events. and cause toxic waste to enter residential areas nearby. So I want to note that I am pro-density. I think there is room for more housing in Cambridge, but I don't think it's at all cost. And I think we need to protect our trees. So with an already strained city stormwater infrastructure, Rising water tables and increasing storm intensities. Strengthening the tree protection ordinance is critical now more than ever to protect these indispensable stormwater management systems. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrew Zhu. Andrew, two minutes.

Good afternoon. I'm Andrew Tso, and I live at 292 Prospect Street. I speak today in strong opposition to Policy Order 4. Speaking as a public transit advocate, I've had to watch time and time again as conservatives, reactionaries, and most importantly, wealthy homeowners use and abuse our environmental regulations to destroy sound environmental policy. And this is no different. Let's go for the facts. People want to work and study here in Cambridge. A lot of people do. That is an undeniable fact, and that's not going to change anytime soon. And secondly, if those people who want to work and study here cannot afford to live here, they're going to go live somewhere else. and I can assure you as someone who used to live in suburbia for majority of my life, they are far less kind to trees out there than they are here. Or to put it in other terms, for every floor, Every story, every unit of housing, we give up on building here because God forbid we cut down one tree. It is acres of forest, wetland, and natural habitat destroyed out there. 1740 Mass Ave is going to put 71 units on one and a half acres.

In Linfield, 36 acres just got flattened for 66 units. One councilor wants to block housing to protect trees. Let's talk about 22 acres of forest gone in Hopkinton. Another councilor wants to prevent market rate housing because it's not affordable enough. I hear another 13 acres of wetland paved for McMansions in Marlborough. In a state and country where the greatest source of permanent deforestation is low density or suburban sprawl, building taller and denser is an environmental imperative. and I am highly disappointed in the sponsors of this policy order's attempts to cry out for the environment while smothering in the crib the housing policies our city has created that could help the environment. Supporting Policy Order 4 is not good environmental policy. It is environmental irresponsibility and complete hypocrisy from councillors and citizens seemingly so concerned about it. So do the right thing and end this charade right now by voting against Policy Order 4. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jiajing Li followed by Jana Odette, then Zion Sheeran. We're at speaker number 20. Please go ahead. Good evening.

Jiajing Li, 22nd Street. I'm speaking in reference to CMA 2026.170 on the Zero Waste Master Plan Amendments Policy Order No. 4 on Tree Protection and the FY27 Budget Amendments. I'm a Cambridge resident. Medical Scientist, System Strategist, and volunteer with the city's composting and recycling programs at the Cambridge Public Schools. Cambridge has made meaningful commitments to climate resilience, zero waste, and public health. That is commendable. But policy-level commitments must flow consistently through every department and every capital decision. When they don't, we have an implementation gap. The pending Ahern Field Report under Article 202630 is one current example. I previously submitted a detailed technical brief to the City on this project.

The updated DPW plans posted on May 27 without public review proposed replacing 53,000 square feet of natural green space with synthetic material. directly contradicting our zero waste and climate goals. End-of-life turf recycling infrastructure remains largely unavailable in the U.S., and long-term public health implications for children are still being studied. To date, nearly 2,000 residents have signed a petition. Transparent governance means engagement happens before decisions are made, not after. I look forward to the City Manager's report as a demonstration that Cambridge's values apply consistently across all departments, all projects and all commitments. Thank you.

Thank you. We are going to go back for a minute to Brennan Waters, who we skipped earlier. Brennan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you very much. My name is Brennan Waters. I live at 14 Remington Street. I'm calling in today to voice my opposition against the policy orders to add new requirements to the 2021 Tree Protection Ordinance. As worded, it will harm our city's ability to house its residents. Our city's residents, when surveyed, always list the cost of living as their top priority and their top priority for the council. They've also voted to this effect in previous elections, culminating in the multi-zoning family rehaul last year. Thank you, councillors. These policy orders make it harder to build housing in Cambridge and harder to house our residents. Moreover, dense housing is great environmental policy. Every time a small house for one family or a large multi-mansion is turned into an apartment building. More residents can live in Cambridge, which means they don't live far away.

They don't drive into the city. They can give up their cars if they wish, etc., These have massive positive benefits for the environment. Please ensure these new proposals are sound environmental policy and actually meet our climate goals. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jana Odette, followed by Zion Sheeran, then Owen Power. Jana, two minutes.

Hi, my name is Jana Odette. I live at 176 Large Road. Hi, councillors. Thank you very much for... Thank you for having us speak tonight. I'm speaking in strong support for policy order number four, which is to increase the tree canopy... and I think that the basic issue here which was articulated before I got here by previous speakers was that we are both trying to preserve and existing and very, very important stormwater runoff, for example, habitat, shade giving mature trees versus increasing the density of our city. and clearly those are, they don't have to be in conflict but they seem to be in conflict right now.

What I wanted to say was that I think that Not only is the stormwater runoff extremely important, and I mean extremely, but my understanding is that most of the saplings that are planted Don't survive. So while in front of our house, and I live on Larch Road where Liz Keating talked about Hurricane Sandy and the fact that What she didn't say was that the the fact that the water sewer separation project had just gone through and so they had I think that the deal is that we really have to look at what the impact we're having on Thank you, and I'm

Someday I will actually write these out before. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Zion Sheeran, followed by Owen Power, then Jessica Grimsby. Zion?

Zion, Sharon, Washington Street. I'm here to support policy order number four. I'm here to support policy order number four. Personally, I was thinking about what I wanted to say today and I decided when I walked in My grandfather used to always say that we want to make sure that we make the next generation better than the prior one. He wanted his generation to be able to have more accessibility to access than his father did and he wanted to see his son and his grandson and so on have that. Right now, looking at it, housing market, yeah, it's not as good. It's not as easy for us to buy homes. It's also not as easy for us to pay for college. There's a lot of things that we don't have that other generations did. Do we really want to add the environment onto that? Thank you for watching!

So I think that it's really important that when we're just making these decisions about trees that have been around a lot longer than a lot of us and will be here a lot longer if we allow them to, that we allow nature to do what it does best and thrive. And if we're going and cutting all the trees down, I think that's going to be something that we look back and regret, not just for me, but for my children and my grandchildren. Thank you.

Thanks. We will move to speaker number 23, Owen Power, followed by Jessica Grimsby, then Tian Feng. Owen, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. You have the floor.

Hi, this is Ian Power. I live at 67, good lord, pardon me, Ellery Street. I'm dialing in today to, I guess, voice my concerns about the tree stuff and express my hope that the council does not move the policy order forward. I think sort of my concerns are at two levels. One, the macro point that many people have already voiced. I don't think I'm being unfair in summarizing this policy order as saying that many trees are now being cut down because of the multifamily zoning ordinance. Therefore, we need to add additional restrictions to the ordinance to protect the trees. And I I don't think that's an acceptable trade-off. We need to prioritize housing for people over the small number of trees that may get cut down by building that housing.

The second piece is, I guess, more of a question than a comment, which may be the first time anybody has ever uttered that combination. But I I'm not an arborist but as best I can tell it seems like there are already really elaborate rules on the books that govern tree removal and require mitigation efforts and these rules apply to Thank you for joining us. Policy Ordered, Bestows, and it seems like considering there's limited resources to study things, so why spend those resources studying more tree protection when there's already a really robust set of protections on the books? I guess I... I don't get it.

Thank you our next speaker is Jessica Grimsby. Jessica has not joined. We're going to move on to Tian Feng, followed by Valerie Bonds, then Liza Oliver.

Hi. Sorry. My name is Tian Feng from Harvard Street, and I'm here to support item number three, the ordinance changes under the Zero Waste Master Plan 2.0. I have volunteered in recycling, composting, waste diversion for about 15 years, bulk of my time in Cambridge, in educational, public, corporate, as well as municipal settings, most recently with DPW. I've also worked on circularity professionally, including authoring a white paper on behavioral enablers for recycling and waste reduction. Across numerous public engagement events that I've personally attended, most residents I meet are already enthusiastic supporters of our waste diversion program as well as the recycling programs that we offer here in Cambridge. But I've also spoken with dozens of residents who want to participate but can't because their landlord does not offer composting or recycling at their building. and a lot of times these residents are from public housing or lower income housing as well.

So we don't have equitable access to a lot of the waste diversion and zero waste programs that we already offer in Cambridge. In my professional role, we find that convenient access to services is one of the biggest drivers in uptake. You can't expect people to take their compost several blocks down the street to put it in one of the five municipal drop-off locations. The proposed ordinance change requiring zero waste plants and food waste diversion compliance from larger multi-unit and commercial buildings is absolutely critical to moving Cambridge closer to its zero waste goals. Cambridge is already a vanguard in waste reduction. Thousands of households now divert food waste and recyclables without any issue whatsoever. The next step is to pass the new ordinance changes under the Zero Waste Master Plan to ensure broader access for all residents of Cambridge. Thank you.

Thank you. The next person that's signed up, Valerie Bonds, has not joined us. We will move on to Liza Oliver, followed by Natalia Janisvi. Liza, you have the floor. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. Hello, my name is Liza Oliver, and I live at 4 Wyman Road. I am calling in to urge City Council to support Policy 4. I think it's reasonable and sensible to give permission to cut down a tree only after it's certain that the plan that requires it to be torn down is approved and permitted so we know it's going to go forward. Affordable housing advocates are treating tree protection as mutually exclusive to the MFHO. are they really so entrenched in their own position that they can only see malicious intent in not taking down trees until it's known for certain that the project's going to go forward? Thank you for watching.

Many have noted that we already have strong tree protections namely the fines for taking them down but those fines while they may be a hindrance for individual homeowners are a pittance for the wealthy developers who can afford to pay tens and tens of thousands of dollars in fees because of the millions and millions of dollars they're going to be making from developing these sites. Further, the increase in canopy that others have noted is an increase that occurred before the MFHO went into effect. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of tree canopy in this city comes from private property, not public. And with significant amounts of private property recently up zoned, we need tree protection ordinance to keep up with that change. Current tree protections in the form of fines are not sufficient in light of how easy it is for multimillionaire developers buying these properties to pay them. All this policy order does is ensure that a tree won't be cut down if it doesn't have to be. And that's if the project is permitted to move forward.

Please support Ordinance 4, Policy Order 4.

Thank you. We are going to go back to Valerie Bonds, who's now joined us, followed by Natalia Genespe. So first we'll hear from Valerie Bonds.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Siena Johnson. We're going to get to you in one second.

So sorry.

Valerie, you have the floor. Please go ahead. Two minutes.

Thank you. I apologize. I was so enraptured with the tree discussion, I forgot to check in. As a good evening, Mayor and Councilors, this is Valerie Barnes from 812 Memorial Drive. As we recognize June as Elder Abuse Awareness Month, I ask you to consider a form of harm that is often overlooked, policies that create financial hardship, stress, isolation, and barriers to independence for older adults. Many seniors in Cambridge lived on fixed incomes. While some may appear financially secure, many are managing rising housing costs, food costs, medical expenses, procurement costs, transportation challenges. For older adults, a vehicle is often not a luxury. It is a lifetime.

Valerie, I'm sorry. This is not on the agenda. The senior parking fee exemption because we disposed of the policy order on that so because it's not on the agenda per the rules you can't speak to it unless there's a Thank you.

Thank you.

on order to let Ms. Bond speak. I may have misinformed her by letting her think it was on the agenda.

Councillor Simmons has moved to allow her, Valerie, to speak. We'll do a roll call.

Al-Zubi, yes. Vice Mayor Azeem, yes. Councilor Flaherty, yes. Councilor McGovern, yes. Councilor Nolan, yes. Councilor Simmons,

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes. Mayor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Valerie, you can finish up. Thanks.

Thank you. The proposed elimination of senior parking fee exemptions and the increase in parking costs may seem small in the context of the city budget, but for many seniors, every additional fee matters. These added costs can force difficult choices between transportation, medication, food and other necessities. During Elder Abuse Awareness Month, we should be strengthening protections that help seniors age with dignity, independence and security. Not creating additional financial burdens that increase vulnerability and isolation. The senior parking exemption fee was established to recognize the lifetime contributions seniors have made to Cambridge through property taxes, sales taxes, excise tax, volunteer service, civic engagement, and community leadership. I respectfully urge the council to preserve the senior biography exemption for all seniors and seek alternative revenue solutions and do not disproportionately

Impact older adults. A community is judged by how it treats its elders. Let us demonstrate that Cambridge values, respects, and supports its senior citizens. Thank you very much. Appreciate.

Thank you. And thank you, Natalia. You now have the floor. You have two minutes, followed by Tomas Checo, then Jalen Bernard. Natalia, two minutes.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Nitaia Chansipsi. I am a server and bartender at the Hyatt Regency, Cambridge. So when I got hired at the hotel last year, I was so excited. I had always heard that the hotel job is a good job with a good benefit, but very quickly I learned that Hyatt Cambridge isn't like the other hotel. We got paid far less for doing the same work. I have to pay a lot of money for health insurance plan that doesn't protect me and my husband if anything happen to us. This is why I joined my coworker in March to ask my company for a fair process to organize They ignored us for two months. Eleven days ago, my coworker and I made a difficult decision. We called for the boycott of our hotel. So many of us came to support us in front of the hotel.

I asked my supervisor to step out for a quick minute just to check my coworker out and then He said yes. When I came out into the terrace, I was so moved. It made me so happy that I waved hi to my co-worker and all of them downstairs. Six days after I waved hi to everyone on the picket line from the terrace, I was ridden up by the company I had never been ridden up before. I cannot believe that in the year of 2026 in the city of Cambridge, a hotel worker can still be punished like this in exercising her right. I am asking for your support to send the message to Hyatt that this is not okay. Is this not okay to ignore your employee when they ask for a fair process? Is this not okay?

to silent woman worker to speak up for themselves. Please, all I'm asking you is stand with us in this boycott until Hyatt, Regency, Cambridge do the right thing. Thank you.

Hi, everyone. I ask to refrain from clapping because of decorum rules and so forth, but thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Tomas Checo, followed by Jalen Bernard, then J.P. Shipley. Tomas, two minutes.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the City of Cambridge Council. My name is Tomas Checo, and I'm stepping in in a very short notice to read the speech from my coworker, Patti Avola. Hi. My name is Paddy Avola. I am a server at the Hyatt Regency Cambridge. I've worked my whole life in the hospitality industry in many places in the city, and I raised my four sons as a single mom, all while owning and running a small restaurant in Medford. Never in all my years, in all the places I've worked, have I ever been treated like I have been treated these four years at the Hyatt. A Hyatt manager once told me, that I couldn't wait on a private party, serve on a private party because my coworker would do a better job, and I quote, standing there and looking pretty. Another manager joked to my face that I must have been working at the hotel for 50 years.

and when customers become verbally abusive, I feel zero assurance that our managers will be there to defend and protect us. I just feel like the Hyatt wants to use a woman like me and push us out. Just like they did when the Hyatt fired 100 housekeepers and replaced those women with temp workers making half the pay. Last year, they dropped my full-time status. Thank you very much. Five days after I waved hi to everyone on the picket line from the terrace while wearing my union button, I was also written up. The city of Cambridge did sell better. Please do not patronize this hotel until they agree to a fair process. Please do not spend your hard-earned money on a place that degrades and disrespects employees.

If we stand together on this boycott we have faith that with time the Hyatt will learn its lesson and we can make the Hyatt a more welcoming place to work and to stay. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Again, just as a reminder to folks in the audience, there isn't to be any clapping, snapping, or et cetera. Our next speaker is Jaylen Bernard, followed by JP Shipley, then William Sawyer. Jalen, if you can unmute yourself.

Hey, how are you doing? Thank you, Madam Mayor Siddiqui and the City of Castle for having me today. I appreciate it. I just wanted to Call in in opposition to agenda item three. There's just a couple of things that are concerning to me. In a year where taxpayers Well, taxes have increased in the city of Cambridge. It seems like it's a little concerning to me that we're going to be doing an over 66% reduction in trash. also Mandate and Compost to me citywide to me it seems like it's a good idea but that program seems very expensive and my thing is like if we focused on If we focused on getting this word out to different people and like surveying and asking people what they think, Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much for joining us. Heavy Reduction of Trash. I think that we really need to evaluate this and get more residents involved with this decision before we just pass this. Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is J.P. Shipley. I do not see J.P. Shipley on the Zoom. We're going to go to William Sawyer, followed by Nahit Trivedi. William?

Think that was bad?

I think you explained it clear.

Excuse me. Good evening. Thank you, Councilors, for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is William Sawyer. I live at 39 Walker Street. I've been living there for 17 years. I'm also a union leader with the Local 26 at Harvard University Dining Services. I'm here today to say the Hyatt Hotel workers We have your back. Local 26 has your back. Cambridge residents like me have your back. You deserve to be heard. You need to be heard to be said. You have a fair shake about being You deserve a fair process to join a union just like everyone else. History has proven that board cards are not easy, but change never comes easy. It takes work and it takes sacrifice. I commend the hired workers for taking this step.

I thank the counselors for allowing these workers to share their story tonight before voting on whether to endorse this boycott. And also I want to say that I know how you folks are because in 2016, You help us when we strike back with Harbin University. And I got an award from you folks because I know that's how you folks think. So thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Nahid Trivedi, followed by Sarah Nelson, then Dana Bollister. Nahid, you have the floor, two minutes.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, thank you. I just want to speak in opposition to policy order number four. as many other folks have today. I think the city has done a great job on two fronts. One, over the last several years, working to increase the canopy cover as we've seen since 2018 to 2024, a 5% increase in the canopy cover. That's about 25% overall, five percentage points and secondly, in working to increase the housing stock in the city through the multifamily housing ordinance. And I don't believe these things should be in opposition. I think we absolutely need and so forth. Trees are very important. And once again, we've done a great job here over the last several years of increasing the cover

And at the same time, this ordinance that we have in place here for policy order number four, what it could do is significantly slow down the development of housing, which is what we need. and add additional burdens to a process that historically has been quite burdensome. and expensive given the cost of labor, given the cost of materials, given the cost of land. So I support the city's efforts to continue to increase housing, and make other efforts to support tree canopy but adding this particular process into the development of housing is not the right place for it. There are plenty of other opportunities for us to consider Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Sarah Nelson, followed by Dana Bollister, then Ethan Frank. Sarah, you have the floor. You have two minutes.

Hi, my name is Sarah Nelson. I live at 17 Rockwell Street. I'm speaking in support of Policy 4. I live in Cambridgeport. In the summer when my kids were small, we'd walk one side of River Street in the morning, the other in the afternoon. staying cool on our way to and from preschool. Due to street construction, all of the mature trees on one side of River Street were removed two years ago. We don't just lose our natural air conditioning when we lose trees, We lose an important part of our health infrastructure. Large studies show neighborhoods with 30 percent tree cover have roughly a third fewer new cases of diabetes, lower rates of hypertension and nearly 40 percent fewer heat related deaths. Greener streets are linked to lower anxiety and depression. The American Heart Association now formally recommends urban reforestation to prevent cardiovascular disease. and the health economics are extraordinary.

In Portland, a study demonstrated that a single tree that requires $100 of maintenance annually generated over $100,000 in annual health benefits. Our current ordinance does not value trees highly enough. Philadelphia set a 30% canopy target and found it would prevent 400 premature deaths per year, mostly in lower income neighborhoods. Some of the most healthy cities in the world have stronger policies than we do. For example, Singapore mandates that new buildings replace every square foot of canopy loss to the construction, measured not by ground coverage, but by actual leaf area visible from the sky. when our citizens work together we can come up with solutions two blocks away from me a mature pin oak that has protected my neighborhood for generations is at risk of being cut down so that two new housing units can have sewer and water

Hundreds of neighbors were at risk of losing that tree for housing for possibly as few as two people. Thankfully, because of the tree hearing, neighbors were able to offer alternate solutions including the use of their own yards for the connections. Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah. Please email the remainder. Our next speaker is Dana Bullister. Dana, you have two minutes. For those waiting, we're at speaker number 36. Dana, please go ahead.

Hi there, my name is Dana Bollister and I live at 21 Brookline Street, number 105. I'm speaking on policy order number four related to supposed tree protection. As an environmentalist, I realize that in a time of crisis, it is all too easy to fixate on trying to mop up every solitary puddle rather than to address a root cause of the issue, which is to fix the leak in the roof. This is what I think about every single time I meet an exhausted super commuter who is forced to spew exhaust into our air wear and tear rubber against miles and miles of concrete, contributing to one of the largest sources of microplastic pollution in the world, which streams into our storm drains, rivers, and oceans Not to mention, require entire forests to be paved over in concrete. These commuters don't want to hurt the environment or harm human health, but they do. Every single day of their entire working lives.

They have to because we are in a crisis and all too often they simply cannot afford to live anywhere within miles of where they worked. forcing them to destroy the environment in invisible but insidious ways that in fact create and exacerbate asthma, heart problems, and more. If they cannot afford to live in a place where they could if they choose, take a short tea ride or even walk. Do not place gratuitous and unnecessary barriers to allowing people to live here where they work. Do not preserve a tree at the expense of literal forests. Do what is best for the environment and what is best for our people. Please oppose policy order number four. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ethan Frank, followed by Patrick Barrett. Patrick Barrett is not going to join us, so we're going to go to Ethan Frank, followed by Amy Walsh. Ethan, you have the floor. Please go ahead. Two minutes.

Hello.

Yes, Ethan, we can hear you.

Oh, sorry, I didn't see my name on the screen, so I got very confused. My name is Ethan. I live at 632 Mass Ave. I'm sure you've heard this stat before, but a fully mature tree absorbs 50 pounds of carbon dioxide every year. Meanwhile, one car emits on average 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year. And this doesn't even take into account all of the volatile organic compounds which cause asthma. So allowing a bunch more people to live in a house built in a walkable city like Cambridge instead of commuting in from the suburbs is, in my mind, 100% worth it. cutting down a tree or two and these trees would be replanted under our existing tree ordinance which is working very well and we shouldn't rush in updates to it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Amy Waltz. Amy has not joined us. We are going to move on to James Williamson. James is not on the Zoom. We will go to Nora Grodzins. Nora, you have the floor. Please go ahead. Two minutes.

Hello, my name is Nora Gradsens. I live at 12 Parker Street. I am speaking on the City Manager's amendments to the FY27 Submitted General Fund budget. I am a proud parent of a Cambridge Public Schools alum and a paraprofessional at Graham and Park School. Let me get personal. I want to make The need for a living wage for ESPs, paras, subs, and clerks crystal clear. With a master's degree and four years of experience at CPS, my take-home pay for two weeks is $1,237. That comes out to $17.68 an hour. When I add together my housing, car expenses, phone, and utilities, Total is $3,402.

The deficit is $926.36. Before I even begin to account for food, health care, clothing, etc., I have a deficit close to $1,000. I am fortunate enough to have other resources to make up this difference, but many ESPs do not. and I shouldn't have to tap into my savings to do a job I love for the City of Cambridge. Being a paraprofessional or other ESP is intense, demanding, critically important work I cannot imagine having the energy for an additional job or two after the school day ends, but many ESPs do. We protect and support the physical, mental and emotional safety of the children in our schools. We present lessons, run small groups, scaffold carefully,

and if God forbid a dangerous intruder walks into the building, we lock the doors of the classroom, gather the students in a corner and prepare ourselves to throw our bodies over the kids.

Thank you for your public comment. Sorry, your time's run out.

Okay.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Sarah Rosenberg, followed by Josia de Chiara. Sarah, you have two minutes.

Good evening. My name is Sarah Rosenberg. I live at 167 Putnam Ave. And I'm speaking on agenda item CMA 2026-166, the amendments for the general fund budget. I was born and raised in Cambridge. I went to Cambridge public schools. I have spent my entire career in this city with these children. The zero waste plans and the climate investments matter deeply to me, but they are not the only items on tonight's agenda that speak to what kind of city we want to be. Our CEA bargaining team, the Cambridge Education Association, has been working since last spring to put together a careful, thoughtful bunch of proposals for our education support professionals. Like Nora mentioned, that's the clerks, the substitutes, and the paraprofessionals. We've spent over 40 hours at the bargaining table in good faith. And this evening we were supposed to have a session, but it was canceled because the Cambridge School Committee could not show up with a money proposal. There was no offer at all.

That is unconscionable. The paraprofessionals, clerks, and substitutes that we represent show up every single day for our Cambridge kids. They're being paid poverty wages in one of the most expensive cities in the country. The MIT living wage calculator tells us that it will cost over $70,000 just to live here. A starting para earns less than half of that. Less, in fact, than what a school committee member makes. These are hardworking people being priced out of the city they serve. The city's budget needs to provide for our people. According to the city's own budget data, the money is there. The question has never been about whether it can afford living wages for our education professionals. The question is whether Cambridge is willing to prioritize them. This is a values issue, Cambridge. come to the table with some money our team will be there. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Josiah de Quiara, followed by Ed Henley, then Molly Brooks. Josiah, you have the floor. Please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Hi, my name is Josia de Quiera. I live at 38 Boylston Street in Boston. I am also speaking on the fiscal year 2027 general budget. I am a classroom teacher in the Cambridge Public Schools as well, and I'm here to also advocate for increasing the budget in order to allow for living wages for clerks, paras, and substitutes in our public schools. These education support professionals who are in my classroom and many other classrooms around the city are on the front lines of raising the next generation of children day in and day out. sacrifice their meals, their bathroom breaks, they're holding their bladders for many hours in order to provide the best education possible for the young people in our city. It is frankly shameful that I work in a city and many of you live in a city that is not able to provide a living wage for the people who are doing this tireless work.

Cambridge is a city that has so much biotech, so much academia, and it's absurd that we cannot pay educators enough that they are able to reliably put food on the table. Pay their rent, pay their medical bills, and many folks are working second and third jobs, which means they are working seven days a week, often 10 to 12 or more hours a day, just in order to make ends meet. We give tons of tax breaks to institutions like Harvard and other corporations and biotech. And I think that Similarly to what Sarah said, this is a values question. Are we putting our values in raising children who are well-educated and going to go out into the world to be caring individuals? or are we prioritizing the bottom lines of corporations and institutions in our city?

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ed Henley, followed by Molly Brooks, then Libby Shaw.

Hello, my name is Ed Henley. I live at 237 Franklin Street. I am speaking on policy order number four. As a 50-year resident and blue collar worker with the Cambridge Housing Authority, I had the opportunity to work in the Housing Authority's emergency night crew for half a dozen years. In that role, I was able to see all the property that the Housing Authority owned. Fifty years ago, there were precious few trees on the CHA property, aside from the previous Elm trees on the spine of Washington Elms. This lack of trees with their ability to clean the air and reduce our stress levels allowed crazy high temperatures that did not abate in the evening. The Housing Authority has done much to increase the amount of quality housing, which included intelligently adding trees to the neighborhoods of the Housing Authority. The difference in temperatures has been amazing.

The opportunity for outside activities morphed from beer drinking, not that there's anything wrong with a cold beer, but not for the reasons of cooling off, to much more family-friendly outdoor activities. Please make sure you pass ordinances that keep true to maintaining a good tree cover in our neighborhood. Let's not go back to the heat sinks of 50 years ago. Let's increase our housing supply in a well-thought-out and appropriate fashion as befits the great and thinking community of Cambridge.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Molly Brooks, followed by Libby Shaw. And our final speaker will be Heather Hoffman. Molly, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, everybody. My name is Molly Brooks. I live on 70 Matanon Road. I am a resident of Cambridge. I have been for five years now. I love this city. I love the community. I love being able to live where I work, know my neighbors. And at the same time, this city has failed myself and so many other of my fellow educators. I'm a ninth grade history teacher and something that I always want my students to know is that their voice matters and when they work together with others they can see civic progress. That's something we really highlight in this district in its time that our representatives show that through our budget as well. Personally, myself, I'm still relatively new-ish to teaching. It's year six for me, which seems like a long time, but many people are in this for the long haul, right? In these past five years of working in Cambridge public schools, some things that I have had to do is work two or three jobs to be able to pay my bills.

I have had to borrow money from friends because I would not have enough money to either pay an automobile or make rent. by the end of the pay cycle between paychecks and that's unacceptable. I should not have to get a low balance notification from my bank to my phone. Minutes before I have to go to teach and keep that stress in the back of my mind. And that goes with saying I am a classroom teacher. So I make more money than our educational support professionals. So our paraprofessionals. Our clerks, our subs, they deserve so much more. I am so upset knowing that my friends and fellow educators even have to make decisions like choosing when to turn their heat on in the winter because their profession, their livelihood is not valued enough. We need an increased budget specifically to support our lowest paid educators in this district. and just make the livelihood better for everybody. It's doable. This city has the money. We should be modeling to other places.

This is what high quality education looks like and we value our educators. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to go back to Amy Waltz, Neil Miller, then we'll have Libby Shaw and Heather Hoffman. Amy, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi. There is great urgency to reduce our climate and environmental impacts as we have already begun mass extinctions, not only affecting individual species, but entire ecosystems. which also affects human survival. Recent science indicates we have already exceeded the coral reef climate tipping point and one quarter of sea life relies on them. Recent science also indicates we are perilously close to multiple irreversible climate tipping points. Why does this matter? Why does Cambridge trash matter? Because most of it is food waste. And Cambridge, along with regional dense population wastes and incorrectly disposes tons of food, Reducing the food waste and plant-rich diets are the most impactful solutions for addressing climate, according to Project Drawdown, two of the most.

This along with reducing fossil fuels, of course. It helps put the emergency brakes on human-related methane production. Easy curbside food collection is a key solution. The kitchen food waste bin can typically save consumers about one-third in grocery costs. as a side benefit when it is also used to reduce food waste. When people assess their food waste by seeing what goes in there, They can adjust purchasing and food storage habits and reduce their food waste. Additionally, it offers huge reductions in city trash disposal expenses. Reducing food waste and separating food waste from the trash has large dual impact in reducing methane from agriculture which is the largest methane as well as

I'm speaking in favor of passing the zero-waste food The zero waste plan as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Amy. Our next speaker is Neil Miller. Neil, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Neil Miller, 425 Mass Ave. I wanted to comment about policy order number four. I think it's really natural after passing big pieces of legislation like the family housing last year to review how things are playing out start looking at the data and people solicit people's experiences but I have Some really serious concerns about the changes that are being proposed right now. I think reinstating special permit requirements increasing the waiting time that people building homes need to wait before they can move forward and will make housing more expensive, it will take longer to build, and it will incentivize homes that are less affordable.

and it seems premature to take on these changes right now before pretty much anything is actually getting built I think it's important to bring together the data and I appreciate that some of the counselors have gone out and talked to city departments to see what permits are moving forward and what inquiries they're getting. And I would love to, if this process continued with Thank you so much for joining us. increasing fines for tree removals isn't going to bring down the price of homes for people I think we should be really focused on making sure that people have a place where they feel stable in Cambridge Thank you. Take care.

Thank you. We're going to hear from James Williamson next. James, you have the floor. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

We can.

You can hear me?

We can hear you. Please go ahead.

Okay. I mean, this is kind of a nightmare here. Thank you. So James Williamson, 55-year resident of Cambridge, I am speaking to the two items, two of the items that have to do with authorizing loans. One is for $10 million. I think the other says it's for $8 million for street repairs. Many of us could use digital navigators to figure out how to get to the part of the city budget that explains what this is. It's not obvious from the As it appears on tonight's agenda, what these things are for, I was able to find out that the first, the $10 million, that only says from NASA,

From Bigelow, maybe, is it, to Sydney, misspelled as Cindy, is in fact for separated bike lanes along, right through the middle of Central Square. That portion could have been included in the way it's described in the agenda. But it seems to have been removed. I suspect to hide the fact that this is what this $10 million is mainly for, although buses are mentioned. I wonder how many people who live in Central Square even know that this is are gonna be happening and what their views about it may be. I'm not certain that everybody agrees. But I think there should be a really robust discussion and I would like the city council to consider putting $10 million for bike lanes right through the middle of Central Square on hold until people have a real robust discussion.

debate and deliberation on it and get a chance to express their views, including bus riders like me.

Thank you. Thanks, James. Please email the remainder. Our next speaker is Libby Shaw followed by Heather Hoffman. Libby, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Libby Shaw. I'm actually a resident of Watertown, also a very urban town next door to Cambridge. We've been paying a lot of attention over the years to The ways that Cambridge has been Seriously addressing the issue of canopy loss. We saw Cambridge invest lots and lots of money, possibly as much as a million a few years ago into Cambridge Urban Forestry Projects. Glenn, and it's very concerning to see Cambridge apparently giving up on protecting existing shade trees in the face of This apparent zero-sum fallacy that if you protect your existing shade trees, you'll somehow lose shade. your opportunities to build affordable housing.

We face exactly the same kind of issue in Watertown and we're trying to do both and we really believe it is possible to do both. existing trees are we need we need of course lots more trees planting new trees is terrific I think perhaps a five percent increase in canopy in Cambridge is probably due mostly to a lot of little trees being planted you have to remember that those trees if you want a 40 year old tree and the exponentially greater benefits you get from a 40 year old tree you have to wait you have to wait 40 years we need our existing trees wherever they are they do so much for us and I'm really hoping that the Cambridge City Council is going to be paying close attention to what you lose when you lose existing shade trees and we'll work hard to try to protect the existing shade trees. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next speaker, our final speaker, is Heather Hoffman. Heather, please go ahead. You have the floor. Two minutes.

Hello. Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. Standard comment about litigation. I wish that you cared a little bit more about the lawsuits against the city of Cambridge which alleged serious violations of the law rather than the feel-good stuff against The orange guy. With respect to zero waste, I wonder if you think about all of the things that constitute waste, like all of the construction waste. that people are so desperate to have so that they can build more expensive and bigger things and make no room for trees. With respect to the city council rules, I'd love to see more democracy in them. You got rid of it as much as you could in the charter, so how about you at least pretend in the rules?

I am glad to see efforts to feed people. That's really important. And then with respect to preserving trees. Someone right at the beginning of all of these public comments saying that trees are evil and they're just A proxy for stopping development said that we should listen to our professionals. Well, I was one of the two members of the public at the meeting on the Urban Forest Master Plan, the five-year report. and the things listed in this policy order are exactly what the professionals who work for the city said they would like to see. So there, please do listen to the professionals. It is very disappointing to me that the multifamily upzoning said...

We want to reduce yards. That was one of the stated goals and here you are doing it. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. That is all that we're signed up to speak.

That concludes public comment. Thank you everyone for their public comment. on a motion by Vice Mayor Azeem to close public comment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Public comment is now closed. There's no submission of the record. There are no reconsiderations. We are going to go to the city manager's agenda.

Madam Mayor?

Yes, Councilor McGovern?

I think this will be relatively quick to dispose of, and there's a lot of people here, so I'd like to move suspension of the rules to bring forward policy order number one.

Councillor McGovern has moved that we go into suspension to take policy order one out of order. All those in favor say aye. I'm in the middle of the vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. We are in suspension, so we are going to go to policy order number one, that the Cambridge City Council go on record expressing support for Unite Here Local 26. Simmons, and Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Councilor McGovern, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will be brief. Thank you to All the folks from Unite Here, Local 26 who came out. I went out before they had their most recent or the large picket a couple weeks ago. I went out and met with Some of the workers there and the management staff came down and I said to the manager, I said, you know, I really hope this doesn't, that there isn't retribution. Thank you very much. Well, since that time, they have stood in the way. And as we heard in public comment, a couple workers who on their break came out.

to waive to their coworkers who were picketing were later written up for doing that. But not, they didn't say for doing that, for other reasons, right? So, you know... I really was hoping that this could be done quietly and done the right way, and it appears The Hyatt is not going in that direction. So these are local people, local workers. We stand by workers in Cambridge. This is not a local business as it's the Hyatt, which is a I hope that we would. support this because we expect any business operating in Cambridge to treat their workers with the respect that they deserve. And right now that's not happening. So Madam Mayor, I will yield.

Thank you, Councilmember McGovern. I have Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I want to echo what Councilor McGovern said and just ask if I could be added as a co-sponsor.

Sure, we'll get to that. And there may be others who would like to be added, so I'm going to go around. Vice Mayor Azeem. Anyone else would like to comment? Yeah, Councilor Nolan.

Same thing to be added, but just to reiterate what Councilor McGovern said, businesses in Cambridge need to follow fair practices, the right to unionize. and the fight to unionize is the only way this entire country built up a middle class. So I'm happy this is before us. I'm very unhappy to hear about what happened with the workers and also that Glad that some of my colleagues were able to be there, but would like to be added. It has to be a strong show of support to say we expect better.

Absolutely. We'll go to Councilor Flaherty and then Councilor Zusy.

And through you, Madam Chair, I hope the members of Local 26 understand. Thank you very much. and we're a city council in a city that stands by unions. So best of luck to you. Unionize.

Councilor Zusy. I would like to be added as a co-sponsor too.

I think we've heard from everyone, but my colleagues did a great job of saying Thank you so much. Thank you for joining us. All those against say no. The ayes have it. The policy order has been adopted. So we'll now go back after we've adopted that policy order. Number one, we'll go back. to the City Manager Agenda. City Manager Agenda, I'll go to Councillor Nolan. Number two and number three. Councillor Nolan polls number two and number three.

Pleasure of the City Council. Councilor Zusy. Number five, please. Councilor Zusy pulls number five. We will go ahead and do a roll call on the balance of 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons? Absent. Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

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

The balance is adopted. Nolan. We'll go to number two, a communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, city manager, relative to amendments to the FY27 submitted general fund budget. I understand that there is a supplemental agenda item. Nolan will move to suspend the rules to bring forward supplemental city manager agenda item CMA 2026-170 along with The Policy Order 2026.110. So we can go ahead on all those. That's number three. And all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Those items are brought before us. Councilor Nolan.

So this is about the budget adoption, correct?

Yes. We have a supplemental agenda item.

We have a supplemental, right. I also want to move suspension of the rules. Did we bring forward committee reports number one, two, and three, and unfinished business items three for 14, which are the 12 loan orders?

So on that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those against? So you know the ayes have it. Committee reports number 1, 2, 3 are brought forward along with unfinished business items 3 to 14, 12 of which are loan orders. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. So just so for anyone who hasn't been through this process before, we will be doing a number of roll calls. We don't join them together specific for the record. We ensure that every single one of the loan orders will be a separate roll call. Adopting the budget will be a separate roll call, so bear with us and understand this is a momentous day and it is a key part of our role as councilor and the city staff has been working literally towards this for many months. So the first one is CMA item number two, the amendment to the general fund budget, which proposes an increase in the FY27 budget of $250,000. that would support housing initiatives of 200,000 and immigrant legal services of 50,000. So for any of you, when you review the agenda before I move to adopt the recommendations, place it on file. and refer to the committee reports 3 and 3A on the general fund budget.

I don't know if there's any questions or if everyone has had a chance to... review this and also whether the city manager and his top-notch finance team wants to weigh in on this.

I have Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Through you, I just want to say briefly, really excited about this amendment, which includes some funding for the Social Housing Task Force work that is ongoing. We're going to have the first meeting scheduled for that by the end of the month. and funding for the Cambridge Community Land Trust which is getting off the ground and there's a lot of excitement and work about that happening so I just want to say excited to see this coming forward and looking forward to the next steps on both of those.

And I'll just briefly comment you know I think Thank you. I think it's really important that we did increase the funding for that position, which was part-time and now making it full-time because of the need. And so I want to appreciate that. and along with the work, the extra funding towards all the housing work that the city continues to do. Anything from city manager?

Sure, through you, Mayor Siddiqui. Appreciate just the work of the city council and the finance co-chairs to go through this process. Really felt like we... have continued to create more collaboration and alignment across the Looking at more economic challenges, I think we're both searching for efficiencies, doing that transparently together. And I think it'll be even more important as we move forward into FY28 and FY29 that we're able to both find ways to make greater investments in our priorities. and also find ways to create resources because we're going to be in this economic environment for a little bit of time to come.

I just want to appreciate all of the work that went into this process and particularly department heads and finance and administration staff, all of the teams across the city that put together the plan for FY27. and for the budget and finance team that really guided us throughout this. We really have moved into essentially a 12-month budget process, and I think it shows in terms of this document and the way that we've been able to to process decisions and have more back and forth, both with the council. And I'm excited about finding ways to engage our community more in this process as well. So appreciate what it took to get here and very excited about this budget. Thank you.

So then I move to adopt the recommendation, place the communication on file, and refer Committee Reports 3 and 3A on the general fund budget.

And on that motion, we'll do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Councilor McGovern.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sibbins. Absent. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

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

Nolan.

Yes, and the next motion I'd like to make is to accept committee reports one, two, and three. Actually, I think we've already put three on file and placed them on file. Those are from the finance committee.

We'll go ahead and do a roll call on accepting committee reports number one, two, and three and pasting them on file.

Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Councilor McGovern?

Yes.

Nolan.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons. Absent. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusi. Yes. Yes. Mayor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. And you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. And now to my colleagues and to the city and the community. This motion is adoption of the general fund budget as amended, which is in the amount of $1 billion. $18,105,440. Pleasure of the City Council.

Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I just want to acknowledge that I've really appreciated diving into this work with the finance team. I want to just comment on this because I will be a yes vote for the water fund and the public investment fund. but don't think I can support the general fund budget because I just don't think it's doing enough for low and middle income people, especially when we're hearing from residents on supporting our ESPs and getting a living wage. But I want to recognize that I am voting present because I do recognize that the city manager and the finance staff have agreed to a real priorities process for the upcoming budget cycle. So I want to recognize that nuance if it's meaningful to anybody, especially since I view A budget as a moral document. So hoping to see more commitments to the dignity of working people and someone who holds my values really close and us having a financial hardship and

Expecting that potentially could go for many years. Really paying attention to that piece. I'll yield.

Pleasure of the City Council on any other comments. Councilor Nolan.

I appreciate my colleagues' comments and I also want to say this is a phenomenal budget. I have to say every day I pick up the paper or I read a news scroll and every town around us is cutting staff or passing an override or having to do it. So I think it's It's a real testament to our council priorities, our city's values, and the fact that we made it through here without needing to cut things. Even though this increase is far less than prior increases, it is still an increase, which is phenomenal. So I want to appreciate all of the colleagues in this room, the community itself, Not just the city staff sitting here, but really city staff throughout this entire community because they have worked really hard to ensure that we are continuing our services. We're, in fact, expanding some of them, and we're doing it in a fiscally responsible way.

We will go to Vice Mayor Azeem and then Councilor McGovern.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. As I'm sure the city manager knows, I think that the budget has been one of the areas where I've given the most feedback in terms of the process could be a lot better. and I really do think that this year the process has been a lot better than in past years. I think that there's been explicit calls for input, a lot more bringing us along, a lot more details throughout the whole process. and I just wanted to commend staff and the city manager for that in that I think it's been far better than in past years and I'm very happy with the results as well. Thank you.

Council Member Govan. Thank you Madam Mayor. Through you, I also want to offer my thanks to the team. Like any budget, there's always things that I'd like to see a little more of and want to move around. But overall, as Councilor Nolan said... As Councilor Nolan said, you know, when you look at the financial picture that's out there and you look at what other communities are going through, and I'm not talking about poorer communities. I'm talking about wealthy communities and what they're doing, and you look at our budget. It is really remarkable. And I think people sometimes don't always... Because we have had so... Thank you very much. You look at the money we're putting into affordable housing.

You look at the money we're putting into homelessness. You look at the money we're putting into free preschool. I mean, the money that we're backfilling all the federal cuts so that people don't lose their housing. and I just wanted to address because we did hear during because some of us who were on school committee years ago because we did hear this just want to make sure that the callers know and people in the audience know The city council does not have any line item authority over the school department budget. So we cannot increase this budget. If we said let's give $3 million more to the school department because we want to go to Paris, They're under no obligation to do that. And so we don't have any control over that. That has to come from the school committee, and we either vote the school committee budget up or down. So that's the school committee's work.

and they're in contract negotiations and I really hope that they do come to an agreement that can increase pay for paras and if that comes up and they can't manage that within their own budget then that's another discussion. We don't have the legal authority to do that. And so I think that's important for people to know because this is often what happens. People come to us and we have to say, well, we're not the ones that can do it. but overall I think this is again I think this is a very good budget it's easy to pass budgets when you have a lot of money and you can just do anything it's much harder when you have to figure out how you're going to move things around and this is the first time in a long time Thank you very much.

is willing to invest in things like infrastructure and schools and public safety and housing. And that's something I think we should be proud of. Thank you.

Councilor Flaherty.

Will you, Madam Mayor? I'd like to join in the Council's thanks to staff for two reasons. For the exceptional work you've done on the budget. It really is an amazing document. There's an awful lot of information in there. And as a first-time counselor, I'd also like to thank you all individually for taking the time to explain the process how our money is spent how it's appropriated what the future holds what the shift may look like in the future and I've enjoyed it very much. And I think to Councilman McGovern's point, we don't have any light on Fido's power with respect to the budget. Thank you very much.

provide the residents in the city of Cambridge with the gold standard of services we do. And hopefully we will be able to do that as the economic... Thank you very much. Zusy.

Thank you, Chair Siddiqui. I just want to thank you all as well. The budget discussion is getting to meet city staff who speak with such passion and experience and knowledge. and it's wonderful hearing about our programs and it's a great opportunity to ask questions to learn more about them. So it's really been A privileged, it's a great, if one of you went to the city, you read the budget book and you attend the budget hearing. So I thank you for all of your work. As you know, I don't like debt. We have a lot of it. I trust you, and I know you're very thoughtful, and I know you even have worked to reduce our, well, the debt's growing, but Anyway, I appreciate your forethought, your planning for the future. I realize we need to continue to invest in infrastructure.

and I applaud you for that having that long view but anyway let's and if you ever need to cut 10 to 20 million I can tell you some places I think we can do that but Let's see where things go. Anyway, in the meantime, thank you. Thank you for all of your work. I yield.

Councilman Sobrinho-Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. We had a lot of great discussion about this at the Finance Committee meetings, and I was just going to call the question.

So, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler has called the question, which is a non-debatable motion, and so we have to go directly to that vote. So, that vote would be to calling the question. It's a yes or no vote.

Al-Zubi, Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Simmons, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

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

So we now go directly to calling the question it's going to be to voting and it's a roll call vote on adoption of the general fund budget as amended.

Al-Zubi, present, Vice Mayor Azeem, yes, Councilor Flaherty, yes, Councilor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Simmons, yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy.

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, and you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as present.

Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. Now the next item up is adoption of the Water Fund budget in the amount of $15,104,062.

Discussion? Hearing none, we'll do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons? Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes.

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

Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. Next up is the adoption of the public investment fund budget in the amount of $45,173,083. Discussion?

We'll go to a roll call on adoption of the public investment fund budget.

Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The public investment fund and the water budget and the general fund as amended have been adopted. We are on to the loan orders. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. We have before us 12 total loan orders, which are on the calendar, items 3 through 14. I don't believe we can vote these all in a group, so we will be doing an individual roll call. I am seeing nodding from... So bear with us. It's actually exciting because these are all projects we... I will note that we are appropriating the money. There may be changes along the way to the various ways some of these are are deployed or implemented so just to be clear we're only voting on the dollar amounts not necessarily any changes I'm seeing agreement there and We know there's some of these that we may be discussing in the future. So the first one was calendar item number three, CMA 202695, which is a loan order for design and construction of Massachusetts Avenue in the amount of $10 million.

Discussion on this loan order. Hearing none, we'll go ahead to a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

A loan order for $10 million has been adopted. We'll go to calendar item number four. Nolan.

Yes, I move the adoption of CMA 2026-95, this loan order for various streets and sidewalks in the amount of $13 million.

Discussion?

Hearing none, we'll do a roll call. Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy.

Yes.

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

Loan order for various streets and sidewalks has been adopted. We'll go to calendar item number five. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. This is CMA 202698. It's a loan order for an enterprise resource system in the amount of $12 million. There may be discussion. Any discussion?

Yes, Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, just want to re-acknowledge that I mentioned this when it came up on the City Council agenda. I'll be a no vote on this just because I think tech is moving really fast right now, and this is a lot of money. to be investing in when we don't know within a year if there's going to be an update that's far cheaper or more efficient. So I just wanted to note that I'll yield. Anyone else?

Hearing none, we'll go ahead and do a roll call on the loan order for $12 million for the enterprise resource system.

Councilor Al-Zubi? No. No. Vice Mayor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Simmons.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes, and you have eight members recording the affirmative and one recorded as negative.

Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. This is CMA 2026, number 99. It's a loan order for the remediation and improvements at Gold Star Mothers Park in the amount of $14 million. I move adoption. Any discussion on this?

Hearing none, we'll go ahead and do a roll call.

Councilor Al Zubi? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes.

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

The loan order for the remediation improvements at Gold Star Mothers Park has been adopted. We'll go to calendar item number seven. Councilor Nolan?

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. This is CMA 2026-100, which is a loan order for Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan on the amount of $28,500,000. Any discussion?

Hearing none, we'll go ahead and do a roll call on adopting that loan order.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

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

That loan order for the municipal facilities improvement plan has been adopted. We'll go to calendar item number eight. This is a loan order for school building upgrades.

Siddiqui, I move adoption of CMA 2026, number 101, a loan order for school building upgrades in the amount of $12,795,000. Any discussion?

Hearing none, we'll do a roll call. Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Councilor McGovern?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes. Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes.

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

Loan order for the school building upgrades has been adopted. We'll go to calendar item number nine. Councilor Nolan?

Mayor Siddiqui, this is to adopt CMA 2026, number 102, which is a loan order for infrastructure improvements in the Baldwin neighborhood in the amount of $8,375,000. Any discussion?

Hearing none, we'll do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Councilor McGovern.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes.

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

Those infrastructure improvements in the Baldwin neighborhood, that loan order has been adopted. We'll go to calendar item number 10. Councilor Nolan.

Mayor Siddiqui, I move adoption of CMA 2026 number 103, which is a loan order for protection against flooding and extreme heat in the amount of $500,000. Any discussion?

Hearing none, we'll do a roll call on calendar item number 10.

Councilor Al-Zubi. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan. Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

That loan order for flooding and extreme heat has been adopted. We'll go to calendar item number 10, 11, excuse me. Councilor Nolan.

Mayor Siddiqui, I move adoption of CMA 2026 number 104, which is a loan order for a combined sewer overflow control program in the amount of $7,500,000.

Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and do a roll call on that loan order.

Al-Zubi, yes, yes, Vice Mayor Azeem, yes, yes, Councilor Flaherty, yes, Councilor McGovern, yes, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, yes, Councilor Simmons, yes. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy.

Yes.

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

That loan order for a combined sewer overflow control program has been adopted. We'll go to calendar item number 12. Councilor Nolan.

Mayor Siddiqui, I move adoption of CMA 2026, number 105, which is a loan order for Harvard Square Sewer Separation and Stormwater Management Program in the amount of $1 million.

Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and do a roll call.

Al-Zubi, yes, yes, Vice Mayor Azeem, yes, yes, Councilor Flaherty, yes, Councilor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes. Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

for Harvard Square has been adopted. We'll go to calendar item number 13. Councilor Nolan.

Mayor Siddiqui, I move adoption of CMA 2026 number 106, which is a loan order for the replacement of ozone generators at the water department in the amount of $310,000. Any discussion?

Hearing none, we'll go ahead and do a roll call.

Al-Zubi, Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Simmons, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy.

Yes.

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

That loan order for the replacement of ozone generators has been adopted. We'll go to calendar item number 14. Councillor Nolan.

Mayor Siddiqui, I move adoption of CMA 2026, number 107, which is a loan order for Waterworks Construction Projects at the Water Department in the amount of $2 million.

Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll go to...

and head and do a roll call. Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Councilor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

A loan order for Water Works construction projects at the Water Department has been adopted. Councilor Nolan?

Yes, thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I'd like to move suspension of the rules in order to move reconsideration on every vote taken related to the budget and loan orders, hoping that the same will not prevail.

On that motion to remove suspension of the rules, we'll do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Councilor Nolan? Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We are in suspension. Councilor Nolan?

I move reconsideration.

So we'll go ahead and do a vote on reconsideration.

Councilor Al-Zubi? No. No. Vice Mayor Azeem? No. No. Council of Flaherty? McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the in-negative.

Okay, so we're wrapped up with the agenda. I think we've disposed of all of the City Manager Agenda Item 3 City Manager relative to the reappointment of Conrad Crawford to the Board of Directors of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority for a term of five years. Councilor Nolan, you pulled this.

Thank you. Yes, I'm... Very excited about Mr. Conrad being willing to serve in the CRA, and our rules require that this nomination be brought forth before a committee before it comes to the full council, so I don't know if that was done.

City Manager?

Through you, Mayor Siddiqui, I think the rules which are actually we have Thank you. We would bring forward a nomination for the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority or the Cambridge Housing Authority. Those were, in the council rules, meant to be referred to a committee and then come back. In the past, we have suspended the rules to pass them forward. I'm not actually sure historically the discussions that happened in committee that... were useful toward a decision but pretty happy to answer any questions the council may have tonight and also happy if there were We have suspended the rules and not done that in the past.

which is also the amendment in the new rules that is actually up for discussion tonight as well

Yeah, I'm happy. I just think we need to be very clear. The existing rules right now require this, and it hasn't been done. So I'm happy if we suspend the rules, but I do think we should make sure. If the rules change, fine. But it's really important we be following our own rules. We've had some cases where we don't necessarily always do that. And again, this is not at all about I love the work of the CRA. It's doing phenomenal work. and I know Conroy Crawford is amazing. I just want to make sure we're following our own rules. So if we need to move suspension, which I believe we probably do in order to even accept this appointment, to move suspension, I'm happy to do that. and then we can have discussion here as the city manager said often particularly for the housing authority and the only two exceptions are the Cambridge Housing Authority and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, both of which also are in state law about how appointments are made, which I understand. It says the mayor or the city manager makes a recommendation that council will need to approve four of the five. But if we need to move suspension, that's fine.

So, Councilor Nolan has moved to suspension. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. So we can, I'll go back to you, Councilor Nolan.

I believe since we're in suspension, however the motion has to be made, that we will suspend the rule that requires referral to committee before coming to the City Council.

Yes, that was the suspended rule. So we've allowed that. Executive Director Evans?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So just before you tonight is the reappointment of Conrad Crawford, who's been on the CRA board since it was reformed in 2012. We've experienced a Some recent turnovers, we've had three new board members join recently. Conrad is currently the chair of the board and we're expecting a turnover of another board member next year. So he's kind of become our sage and our stability in our board governance as we undertake, as you mentioned before, lots of new projects. We think that having some stability on the board is very important. So if there's any specific questions about our work or the work of Conrad, happy to take them on, but we're very supportive of his leadership in the board.

Any other thoughts on this reappointment? Hearing none, we will go ahead and do a roll call on the reappointment.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Council of Flaherty? Yes. McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We have reappointed Conrad Crawford. Conrad Crawford will go ahead to city manager agenda item number five. This is a communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative of the transfer of $500,000 from the General Fund Employee Benefits, Salaries and Wages account to the General Fund Fire Department Travel and Training account. Councilor Zusy, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I just wondered if this was for recent injuries. Is this something that's done regularly? And then on the item before... were appropriating an additional $200,000 for various things. Wouldn't those costs have been anticipated, and why weren't they part of your regular budget? Through you, Mayor Siddiqui.

Thank you, through you, Mayor Siddiqui. Yeah, we've experienced a spike in injuries this year. We haven't had to come before the council for the past five plus years. It's something that's difficult to predict year by year. We have a number of people that are out on injury leave that are Zuzi. So is this, um,

So this was unanticipated, right? You never know when you have injuries, so that wouldn't be part of your regular budget? Are we always going to pay for funds for injuries as an additional line item?

Director Jennings. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So this is typical of our practice, as has been. We typically make transfers, as Assistant Chief mentioned. It can be very difficult to predict when a medical claim will come in. There are small amounts budgeted within certain departments for workers' comp medical claims, but usually the claims, they can come in, they can vary in terms of the amount of money that comes in. I will say that moving forward, we're looking at centralizing the administration of workers comp medical claims for public service related departments. using a third-party vendor. So that will add some efficiency to that process, hopefully.

That sounds great. Thank you. I yield.

Any other questions on this? Yes, Councilor Flaherty.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'd just like to recognize that today was the funeral of Robert Kilduff, who was the Boston firefighter who died fighting a blaze, and he was a remarkable human being. I did not attend the funeral. I didn't know him personally, but I know some people that he worked with. and it's a dangerous job being a firefighter and we are a significantly dense urban area and it's a treacherous position so I just want to recognize that. I want to thank the Cambridge Fire Department for its service, for its courage, and for keeping all of us safe in our homes. So thank you. I yield.

I do not see anyone else who would like to speak, so hearing none, on a motion by Councilor Zusy, we can go ahead and place this motion. On file, I adopt the order. We'll do a roll call. Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Zien? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern?

Yes.

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

So we can go ahead to the supplemental city manager agenda. This was a communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, city manager, relative to proposed changes. the city's zero waste master plan. Councilor Nolan had also moved suspension to allow policy order number three which was on the zero waste master plan ordinance changes, which was filed by her, Councilor Al-Zubi, Councilor McGovern, and Councilor Zusy. And I'll go to Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I can talk now about the Zero Waste Master Plan. Is that correct? So before us is a supplemental agenda item from the city manager on proposed changes to the city's Zero Waste Master Plan. All these were reviewed. In the Health and Environment Committee meeting recently. So I want to set the context and the city may want to add to it as well. Before us is the ordinances related to the Zero Waste Master Plan 2.0. So everyone remembers the Zero Waste Master Plan 2.0 came out of a multi-year public process that started in 2023. Is that right? I'm looking at my notes. Yes, in October of 2023 and has gone on for the last literally two and a half years. Many Health and Environment Committee meetings, dozens of public meetings, events, community outreach initiatives.

I know that Mr. Oren, we heard in public comment, there's been a number of, and several members of the Recycling Advisory Committee, the RAC, came to the Health and Environment This update is the result of numerous rounds of Council input, along with years of staff research and operational work that informed the recommendations In the document, this city council voted to formally adopt that report last June. And the ordinances before us today are the updates on the first part of the action plans called for in the Zero Waste Master Plan 2.0. That plan was actually completed in March of 2025. The council then deliberated again, had a couple meetings, had some input, and then passed the Thank you very much. was in that plan.

It's just the ordinance language that goes with that plan. So it's not that we're saying anything new here. It puts what we already discussed and every single change which were all, by the way, in the short-term plan is what we went over. So everyone were openly discussed and communicated and got feedback on. To just make a few points, the state is already planning to require food waste diversion and compost by 2030 for residences, so the fact that Cambridge is trying to do this is laudable. and half of Cambridge's trash is divertable right now. Half of it belongs in either recycling or food waste by weight. That's what all our audits show. and one reason to do this is trash is the most expensive for the city to dispose of. The actual amount we have to pay per ton for trash Thank you.

The more we can get residents to reduce trash, actually the better off we are financially. Also, the average household already has reduced the trash quite significantly, and it's down to, I think, 23 pounds of trash per person, which is only half Thank you for joining us. The timing is that DPW staff will be working to implement these ordinances over time and will primarily focus on education. The Skip the Stuff begins six months after passage so that staff can do additional outreach and restaurants have time to adjust. The Refuse and Litter updates will begin until six months after passage and same thing with the Bring Your Own Bag updates.

The ordinance also has exemption language in it, so the commissioner can exempt businesses from the requirements to go up to an additional year if there are specific requirements would cause undue hardship. So on the outreach, because we've heard some concern of where did this come from, I want to remind us all and document the fact that the Zero Waste Master Plan webpage has a 26-page document that actually outlines the stakeholder engagement processes that have been going on for the last two years. DPW reached out explicitly to each of the business associations, the Chamber, the Central Square Bid, HSBA, Kendall Square Association, East Cambridge. in 2024 starting in 2024 to go over the proposed changes in the zero waste master plan 2.0 and also had separate discussions with large property owners and managers about the changes including Harvard, Matimco, Boston Properties, DivCoWest, and others. The Health and Environment Committee meeting, also I, in my role as chair,

before each of our meetings for the health and environment separately reached out to business associations in early 2025 with invites to the health and environment committee meeting and all the draft materials were included in that. So I hope that we can pass these ordinance changes to a second reading tonight. Again, this has been discussed and worked on for several years and not a single change in the ordinance. is not something that was explicitly talked about and committed to by this council a year ago in June of 2025 based on the publication of the report in March of 2025. Simmons, and then Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'm just No, it's policy order number three. Thank you, Councilor. And what are we doing with policy order number three? I'm just a bit confused.

Yes, so both are before us. The policy order has the ordinance changes, and so... basically the supplemental agenda reflects these updated ordinance changes. And so the vote would be to pass the policy order. If that is the will of the body. And so we're just having discussion about that.

Well, I wanted to... Yes, Councilor Simmons? Thank you, and share through you, to you. I wanted to... Simmons exercises her charter right on policy order number three.

So we will get to that policy order number three. and later at our next meeting. As far as the supplemental agenda item, I think it will just go ahead under unfinished business.

or place on file?

It's not placed on file.

It's unfinished business? Yeah. Very good.

Because we still have, those are the changes that we potentially adopt in the future. Okay? So that's the point of order.

Thank you.

Clerk? I don't think we need, we don't need an...

Which I just wanted to confirm. Supplemental city manager agenda item will be placed on the table.

It's not placed. So the policy order, we, Councilor Simmons exercised her charter, right?

Right.

This city manager agenda item, supplemental, that was the ordinance changes, and so my understanding is it would just go under the unfinished business calendar, but... Megan, if we need to vote to put it on the table, we can. Is that?

I think you'd vote to put it on the table.

The motion there was to pass to a second reading but we're not passing it to a second reading because the policy order was... We can place it on the table, but we need a vote to do that. So that's five votes. So we'll go ahead and do a roll call on that.

Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes, Councilor Flaherty. Yes, Councilor McGovern. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes, Councilor Simmons. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

That's supplement agenda item number... is placed on file. Madam Mayor? It's placed on the table. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

I'd like to make a motion to suspend to pull the city council rules off of the calendar and bring that before us in the hopes that we can move forward with that tonight after a couple weeks of council discussion.

So, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler would like to move suspension to take an item off the table. We'll do a roll call on that. And then we'll have to do a vote to take it off on the table itself. So on the suspension vote, all those in favor say aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. We're in suspension. Now to take the communication from City Councilors Jeeve and Sobrinho-Wheeler transmitting the proposed 2027 Rules of the Cambridge City Council. Off the table, we'll go ahead and do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Absent. Councilor Nolan? Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have eight members recorded in the affirmative. Councilor McGovern, you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We will take that tabled item number two off the table. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks Madam Mayor. Through you, these city council rules were tabled at our last city council meeting, which was two weeks ago, so I... checked in with the city clerk's office and the law department to double check where we were at with the discussion when the rules were tabled. I was informed by the clerk's office that we got through all the amendments that were submitted at the last meeting. Those include adjusting the public comment numbers and confirming that public comment is required at committee meetings. Those men also included adjusting the end time for Monday night city council meetings to be 10 p.m. instead of 9 p.m. There is one additional amendment before us that was suggested by the law department and written by the city solicitor, Megan Bayer. Solicitor Bayer is here to explain that amendment. We should all have that amendment before us. And it was sent to the city clerk and Ms. Stefan, and believe it can be pulled up on the screen. So we just ask that Solicitor-Mayor could explain that amendment.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, there was some discussion at the last meeting and offline about whether to have the rules provide that the meeting goes until 10 o'clock on Monday and then if the agenda is not complete by 10 o'clock to continue the meeting on Tuesdays thereafter. and having the clerk's office always post a Monday night meeting and a continued Tuesday meeting. The suggestion here was working with the Mayor and Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler to have more flexibility and recognize that there might be a potential where the council does not always need to continue the meeting to Tuesday and that the council

many times does get through the meeting before 10 o'clock so we could make the Tuesday more of a situation that comes up in You know, sometimes unusual circumstances of having a particularly long agenda or particularly hot topics that will generate a lot of public comment and a lot of discussion. So this language was to remove the... Tuesday from being the norm and instead Give the mayor as chair of the body discretion when the regular agenda is posted on Thursday to look at the agenda and see if it looks likely that the meeting would need to extend past 10 o'clock.

and if so work with the clerk's office by noon on Friday to post a Tuesday meeting or alternatively if the mayor does not do that but then on a Monday evening The meeting is going long and it is 10 o'clock and the body wants to... adjourn and continue the meeting. A meeting will be posted the following day for 48 hours later, which would be Thursday. So this language gives the council and the mayor the authority to do that. and sets the expectation for the public that this won't be the norm, but this could happen, and this is what it would look like if it did happen.

Councilor Zbigniew Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Yeah, just to add on what Solicitor Beyer is saying, I think this amendment helps clarify that the goal for city council meetings is to be done on Monday nights by 10 p.m., that it's not to have Tuesday meetings every single week, and that Tuesday meetings would be a rare occurrence. It also lays out in the uncommon event that it seems like a council meeting will go much later than 10 p.m. based on the agenda, the procedure for doing that on Tuesdays or Thursdays and giving some flexibility there. And of course, as we talked about last week, If it seems like the council meeting is just gonna go a little bit beyond 10 p.m., we can always suspend the rules like we do for committee meetings and go for another 15 minutes or 20 minutes. This is just in the case where we'd have a A meeting that goes much longer than 10pm and lays out the procedure for that, but also says clearly in that last sentence, you know, the goal is to be done on Monday nights. So I think this makes a lot of sense.

And just to really double down on the amendment, previously what we voted on last week was that the City Council meeting will resume the following Tuesday at 1 p.m. and shall continue until the conclusion of all... Business on the Agenda, or until 5 p.m., whichever occurs sooner. And so given some of the discussion, and we wanted to provide, and based on some of the recommendation from the solicitor, to add that flexibility. So really, it's up to the body. We can vote this up or down, but we'll have further discussion. I have Councilor Nolan and Councilor Zusy, Councilor McGovern.

Thank you. Through you, Mayor Siddiqui. I can support 10 o'clock. I don't mind having it be 11 or 12. But what I do want to make sure is part of what Councilor, which I would prefer than extending the meeting, but what Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler said, which is we can always, if it's Thank you very much. I think this is really tricky. We don't want to rush ourselves because I believe we do do important work and I want to hear from my colleagues and I want to make sure we're not rushing conversation or deliberation. and yet we also recognize that starting probably around 10 o'clock at night, We may not make always the best decisions, but I do want to raise that question of is it as simple as a suspension of the rules to say we think we're going to go another half hour, which we often do in committee meetings.

City Solicitor.

Through you, Madam Mayor, I would recommend that you don't add it into the rules and you just suspend the rules. Like Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler said, that's what you currently do, or maybe you said it, Councilor Nolan, but one of you said it, what you currently do for committee meetings. And I think if you put it into the rules and you start saying, Stop time is 10, unless we go a little bit further, and then it's 10.15. But then if we want to go a little bit further, it's 10.30. So just put in a stop time and then suspend the rules if you want to go longer.

Nolan-Niels, we'll go to Councilor Zusy, Councilor McGovern, Councilor Flaherty.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. So I understand the city solicitor wanting to give us more flexibility. That's a good thing, but I just know it's so hard to schedule committee meetings. So if we have this flexibility, then all of a sudden you can't schedule meetings for Tuesday afternoon or maybe Thursday afternoon, so you lose two time slots. So I, don't you? Okay, you're shaking your head. But you know, because you're planning committee meetings ahead, right? So that's my worry. And as much as I don't want to meet till midnight or 1 a.m. either, and I think we make better decisions when we're fresh, I wonder... If it wouldn't be better just to move it to Tuesday at 1 so we don't have two slots taken and not one potentially. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

City Solicitor?

Thank you through you, Madam Mayor. My thoughts are that this gives the mayor the discretion, and so if there already is a Thank you. I guess the Wednesday morning scenario isn't explicitly in the rules but I think there would be discretion for the mayor to find a time that works. And then with the Thursday, the reason we did that is if It's a decision that's made on a Monday night. We still need the 48 hours notice. So that's why it would have to be Thursday to pick up if it's not already planned.

Great. I understand now. Well, let's give it a try and see how it goes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. So let's say we're Monday night, things go longer than we expect. We can do this now, right? We can just adjourn the meeting and then call another meeting for Thursday. It doesn't have to... We have that ability, right?

I think it's through you, Madam Mayor. Yes, and... This is not setting out anything new. This is authority that's already within the council. The thought by putting this in the rule is just to set expectations so that the public knows that this could be a possibility, so the council knows that. But I agree, it is already within the council's authority.

Councilor Montgomery. Through you, Madam Mayor. So I think I said this last week. I kind of feel like this isn't Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. But I do appreciate, I mean, I know how hard Councilor Sobrino-Wheeler and the mayor, too, have been working on all these rules, and I do want to just Sincerely send my appreciation.

There's a ton of rules. It's a ton of things. A lot of people throwing their stuff at you and you have been working on this for a long time and we do owe you. I think, not only the gratitude, but to get this done. So I'm not going to play with it. I just don't think I'm going to support this. Thank you.

And I just want to, I'll go to Councilor Flaherty and then Councilor Al-Zubi and then Councilor Simmons, but What did pass last week was if the meeting is recessed on Monday at 10 p.m., the city council meeting will resume the following Tuesday at 1 p.m. and shall continue until the conclusion. So this is an attempt for some flexibility. Flaherty. And so I just wanted to be clear on that.

Okay? Thank you for that.

Councilor Flaherty.

Well, through you, Madam Chair, you know, obviously, and I know that the city's solicitor understands this, when you're a lawyer and you draft Thank you very much. So where this language creates some flexibility, what it doesn't do is describe it as a special circumstance, which then requires the mayor in making a preemptive decision to continue the meeting from a Monday to a Tuesday to poll the members and determine if there's a majority. of the members who are able to be present on a Tuesday.

So to Council McGovern's point, whenever we create an exception to the rule, we're incentivizing the use of an exception. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. of having the possibility of a block scheduling on Tuesday afternoon after already making a block schedule for Monday evenings.

which also drifts into obviously the full day Monday is, you know, it's a difficult situation for scheduling. I appreciate the flexibility of this, and I think maybe if the language included only in special circumstances and the mayor... would have the discretion after polling the members to make a preemptive I suppose that's the type of exception Thank you very much.

I think is to make certain that we're all mindful of one another's time, that we get to the business before us, that we don't pontificate and ask questions that maybe are not Thank you very much. For all those reasons, with some change in the language, maybe we can do something with this. So I yield.

I have Councilor Al-Zubi, Councilor Simmons, and then I'll go to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Through you, Madam Mayor, just a question for the city solicitor. Would it be helpful at all to have language that says at least if we don't finish a council meeting that we are under a requirement to have that follow-up meeting within a specific Timeline, like within the week or before the next council meeting?

She makes me crazy.

Well, but at the end of the day, from how I understand it, it leaves discretion, right, for whether Thursday or not happens?

City Solicitor?

Through you, Madam Mayor. If only a Monday meeting is scheduled... and the business isn't concluded and the mayor then has the option of scheduling a Thursday meeting, but if that doesn't happen... Then... Those... items don't automatically become part of the next Monday's agenda, so I think at some point there would need to be a continued meeting scheduled, even if it didn't, for extenuating circumstances, fit into that week.

There would need to be some meeting scheduled or the original items would need to be posted on the next Monday's agenda in order to be taken up and resolved.

Gotcha. And would that be left at the discretion of the mayor, like whether or not they can move those items that weren't addressed to the next council meeting?

Under the open meeting law, the agenda is under the purview of the chair of a body, and so here the mayor. So I think, yes, the mayor could, if That Thursday meeting never happened and it looked like there wasn't going to be a meeting within the week to continue those items. Could on the agenda for the next Monday meeting include the unfinished items?

Zubi.

Gotcha. That's helpful. I mean, I don't know if it makes sense to add that language or not just at the end of the day, recognizing that that might put some pressure on the mayor in terms of execution. So just want to recognize that it might be helpful for us to just set expectations. I know we kind of left the Tuesday afternoon but didn't put like maybe a Thursday afternoon. That could be helpful, but just some thoughts I had. I yield.

I mean, I think ideally we want to be done by these meetings as efficiently as possible. because it's not just the council, right? Just reminders. We don't want to go till midnight. We don't want to go till 11. It's 8.15. I would love to be wrapped up. Mindful of people need to be heard, but the goal is to really finish our business. Because that's our role. And that is up to each of us and how clear and concise that we can be. I'll go to Councilor Simmons and then back to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thank you. Through the chair to my colleagues. Just a couple of things that come to mind. As we talk about this, because this is a major departure, this particular section that we're talking about, are we going to do, and this is I guess through you, Madam Chair, to the Chair of Government Ops, do you anticipate doing some sort of training? Well, let me take a step back. Mr. Price, Somehow we should convey this more than just once because people are not going to know, particularly bifurcating. That's number one. Number two, I have not heard, and I don't want to put the clerk's office on the spot, But functionally, I would like to know how this is going to work for them, particularly if it goes on to a Thursday. How does that impact setting the agenda?

Because now you're sitting in a meeting, you're not setting the agenda, and I don't know how that works. I'm not saying let's not do something. I'm just concerned about the operations part of it. My colleague says, well, let's try and see how it works. Let's work out the kinks if we can and then see how it works, but that's just how I'm thinking. I'm also concerned, and this is something that my colleague had said, and there are other Some of us that may work a part-time job, a full-time job, go to school, do something other or in addition. So I worry about the quorum. What happens if you come back on a Tuesday and there's no quorum? There's no meeting. So that's something I think we should think through. Again, the impact on the clerk's office, and that is the most important thing. On the one hand, I appreciate us being thoughtful about the staff, particularly the clerk's office, who work.

full-time, all the time, overtime, every time to make sure that this council can do its work. I think for any rule change to really work we as a body, and I know we're supposed to be having some Robert's Rules training sometime soon, is to exercise restraint. Everything you think about, you don't have to say or you don't have to say it on the floor. You can work it off the floor. How do we use our time better? Public comment goes very, very long. I don't want to do away with it. We've had long conversations about public comment. Will we, one, make it five minutes? A former solicitor said,

Thank you very much. If public comment runs long, and I don't know how to answer that. You can't have any earlier, at least I don't think you can. So I put that out there, so something for us to think about. And then the impact, just recently... We changed the relationship that the mayor has on the school committee, and the school committee exercised that rule change by not electing the mayor to chair, but it doesn't mean that the mayor does not have to go to those meetings. And so if you have a meeting that's gone on Tuesday and it bleeds into the school committee meeting on the first and third Tuesday, I think that's something for us to think about.

The council could use a little practice, everyone included. I include myself on how do we be succinct in our own deliberations and debates How is public comment going to affect all of this? I know the meeting is recessed. Public comment does not carry forward. But I would really like, and I don't know if we want to lay this Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Chair, the School Committee, and how does having a meeting at Tuesday that's rolling into 5, 6 o'clock affect the School Committee? So I will yield the floor. I would really like those questions answered. So yes, thank you for your work. It's kind of simmering, but it ain't baked yet for me. I'd like to have some more discussion about it, so I will yield the floor.

We'll go to Councilor Sieniewicz.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'll note that we have some new language from the solicitor that was just sent over that I think we can put up on the screen. just to try to address the discussion. I think the solicitor tried to do some work on that and put some new ones up that was sent over. So I think we can put that up, which addresses it. Just a couple of points Councilor Simmons raised in terms of impact on the clerk's office. I want to be really clear that the clerk's office was involved in this They looked over all the suggested rules and language here. They were at the meeting, not just the city clerk here today, but other staff from the clerk's office. that the language we put forward was language that they are supportive of. The clerk staff are here for our meetings on Monday nights. And if our meetings end at 1 AM, then the clerk's office Some of them don't live in Cambridge, right? And then have to go home another hour. I mean, I'd be home until 2 a.m. So this language that's put forward is deeply consulted of the clerk's office, and they're supportive of it. Thank you. Thank you.

I think the suggestion about making sure this is publicized and doing outreach around that is a good one. I'm happy to take the lead on this and make sure folks know, again, should not be a major change. Endeavor to get meetings done by 10 p.m. This is an encouragement to for us to do that and the off chance that there are meetings that go on to a Tuesday we can publicize that. And also just want to be clear in terms of what's before us. The only thing that's before us right now is this amendment. So if we don't pass this amendment, we'll just be assuming that every Tuesday there's a council meeting. We'll notice that. That'll go out there. Maybe it won't be the case, but we can either assume there's going to be a council meeting every Tuesday or we can pass this and have some flexibility. Those are the only amendments before us tonight. We can do additional tweaks. County Council rules are not set in stone. There was Councilor Flaherty had suggested maybe doing small additional tweaks. We could even do that at the next meeting. I do think it's a responsibility of us to pass the council rules.

This is the third council meeting that this has been on the rules. was on the city council agenda. It was charter-rated, came back at our last meeting two weeks ago. It was tabled. I do think we have to pass the council rules at some point and just try them out. We can make additional tweaks, including at the next meeting if Councilor Flaherty wants to bring something. No other Councillors brought amendments forward to this meeting. This is the only amendment before us, so I hope we can I'm very much down to work with any councillors who want to do tweaks at an additional meeting, but I think this is the discussion. It's been really good. We have this amendment from the clerk's office to provide a little bit more flexibility and then that incorporates everything. And I'm going to call the question on this amendment.

So Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler has called the question. So we have to, that's a non-debatable motion. So we have to vote on that. And then we have to, the vote would be to adopt these amendments. So we can go ahead and you can see what was presented as highlighted language to consider. So we need to do a roll call on calling the question.

Al-Zubi? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? No. No. Councilor Flaherty? Calling the question.

It's not to adopt. You just have to vote yes or no.

No. Councilor McGovern? Nolan? No. No. Councilor Simmons? No. No. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Zusy?

No.

No. Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. And you have three members recorded in the affirmative and six recorded in the negative.

So calling the question fails. We're going to continue to have discussion. Pleasure of the City Council. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I appreciate this additional flexibility. I'm happy with whether we have the regularly scheduled time be Tuesday or Thursday. I know it can be difficult on the other hand. We're really just trading off. Either we end the meetings around 10. which we will do most of the time. I think it would have been good to know how many times that didn't happen. On the other hand, on those times it does happen, it's good to proactively say when is it that we will continue. and I recognize this then means for folks who have other schedules, then you clear that part of your schedule. It's just a few more hours and we get paid $100,000 a year. Thank you very much.

We have Councilor Zusy and then Councilor McGovern.

Yeah, I guess the more, at first I liked this idea of our finishing early and continuing the next day, but now I just feel like they're, like, I don't know about you, but I'm scheduled almost every minute this week. And I would hate to have to completely reorganize my schedule. Thank you very much. at FIRM about it, or maybe the clerk's office would do that. But if we actually cut people off, because some people speak for 15 minutes, 20 minutes, And if we're all incentivized to finish our business on Monday night, we will. So I just think it would be easier. And I'm also thinking about the Monday meeting that we'll have this summer.

and I know that's usually a very long meeting and at least for me I've actually I'll be on vacation then I'll be setting a I've set aside time to have a good internet connection that day Thank you. Thank you. I yield.

I will just say we're going around in circles, so let's please wrap this up soon. We can just vote this up or down and then go from there. Councilor McGovern and then Councilor Simmons.

Thank you to you, Madam Mayor. My colleague, Councilor Zusy, I think the problem is, because this is what I thought too, was if we don't do this, then what passed last week stands. You amend it.

Or someone, to Councilor Zabrino's point, someone can. These rules, anyone can amend these rules.

I think the only... I think what I would be open to here maybe is... I think what gets me a little... Weirded out, for lack of a better term, is that this whole thing about the mayor's going to look at the agenda, try to decide whether or not it's going to go long, and if so, is going to do this thing for two days. I'd almost rather say, if the meeting is going past 10 o'clock on Monday, we do a meeting on Thursday. There's too many variables in this for me. I mean, it's like... If this person's discretion, then this happens. I don't know. It kind of feels all over the place to me. Again, I would have preferred we stuck with the way it is. But what are your thoughts? Could that work? And I guess I would ask that of the...

I will say just the Thursday piece now conferring with the city clerk is going to be hard. Savino-Wheeler.

We did a ton of meetings and talked about every potential option. Could this be Tuesday morning, could this be Thursday, when does things need to be noticed, like all of the potential pieces came up in these discussions with the clerk's office and they're all real logistical scheduling challenges. Just say to any counselor who wants to bring an amendment, you're welcome to do that. This is the third meeting we've had. We got amendments from Councilor Nolan, from Councilor Al-Zubi. We incorporated those. Anybody who wants to bring amendments, either Now we're at the next meeting. I hope we can just adopt. But again, the council rules are not like an ordinance that we have to do a whole other thing. We can adopt the rules tonight. If there's an additional tweak, next week. that you want to fiddle with the language, we can do that even next week. You just bring forward an amendment to the council rules. I just hope we can pass this or reject this amendment, but then adopt the rules tonight just so we can, we're in May now, right? These are the council rules for the term. 25% of the way done with the term. I hope we can adopt the rules.

I'm going to go to Councilor McGovern.

Yeah, I'll finish up. Yeah, I mean, again, I agree we can change. It just seems a little... Simmons, and then Vice Mayor Zee.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you to my colleagues. A couple of things. There's the council that we want to be and there's the council that we are. So right now we're talking about the council we want to be. The council that we want to be doesn't, no one holds the floor more than three to five minutes. The council that we want to be. Move through the meeting like the chair tries, sometimes not so successfully, because we're hard to corral. And that's what we live with. So right now I think we're talking about the council we want to be and not who we are. That being said... and I hate to put the clerk's office or the clerk on the spot but Thursday's new to me and I think it is going to be a huge problem and so I don't like the Thursday part at all and so I would like to hear from If she is so inclined, our head clerk to speak about this, because I think it's a problem to even try to think, well, let's try it out, is a recipe for disaster. Discipline is not our strong suit, so... I'm just really concerned.

And then just one other thing, and I don't think my colleague is trying to be cute with this. Yes, this is a position that does pay, but just bear in mind if there was a man or a woman, single parent, had five children, $100,000 is not a lot to live on. They'd have to do something else. It's not about the pay. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us. So right now, I would say pull 17A out and go back to what it was until we can work out these quirks, although I appreciate the work of my colleague.

Thank you very much. Let's Just Adopt, something that worries me. So let's just stick to it. We have to stay here till midnight right now. Our rules say we have to stay here till midnight. We can do that to get through this or we can go back to the original Rule 17 for the time being or to how it is now without the Thursday in it. So I will leave it with that, but I do want to hear from the clerk about this Thursday piece because I think it's a problem and I don't think it should be in or for consideration when it's brand new. It's brand new to me anyway.

So we did attend a couple of the meetings with the smaller committee. The city clerk's office has said that we will absolutely work with whatever the city council decides. We did talk about concerns about committee meetings, but it seems like that's resolved that we could schedule them and the mayor could choose another time. Thursdays would be difficult for us just because we are preparing the agenda for the following Monday.

Dr. Simmons, and then please, we have to, it's almost nine.

I'm doing my best. I don't talk that often, so I'm going to look for a little grace here. There's what comes out on paper and what happens in reality. And the clerk, she is the staff to the counsel. So I feel for her being put in a place to tell the truth operationally to her bosses. I think Thursday's a bad idea. I would say take it off the table for now. Go back to original Rule 17 or not take any vote. and have a special meeting of the government ops to work this out. We don't have to do it today on the floor. That's the beauty of committees. Put it back into committee. Go back to having the rules... Work with the rules provisionally. I'd rather do it well than do it quick.

I yield the floor.

Thank you. I'll keep it simple, which is I'll vote for the amendment because I think it's better than what we have. I can work with this schedule just fine, but I think a bunch of my colleagues have concerns about it. And so after we vote on this amendment, if someone did want to strip it back to what it was before, I think at this point Like even though this would work better for myself and I'm an early to bed-deaf a person, I understand it would present some difficulties to others. And so if someone wanted to distribute back to what it was at this point, I would vote for that. But this is fine for me, so I'll vote for it until a different motion is made. Thank you.

I'm going to go to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler and then City Manager Wong would like to respond.

Thanks. To Councilor Simmons' suggestion about Thursdays being bad, I'm going to make a motion to strike. After the comma on Monday, the mayor can schedule a continued meeting for the following Thursday. We take out any reference to Thursday in the policy order to Councilor Simmons. So we're going to take out any reference to Thursday is what I'm putting forward. I hope we can put that up on the screen. Strike that out. Any reference to Thursday. So the only thing we're talking about is Monday or Tuesday. No reference whatsoever to Thursday. We'll remove that out completely. Simmons, and the clerk's office. And then I hope we can adopt. And again, this amendment is coming from me, so I don't even think we need a vote on that. This is my amendment. We can just delete that right now.

Yeah, we just delete it.

Just delete it right now. All right. There's no reference whatsoever to Thursday. We're only talking about Mondays and Tuesdays. We've addressed that concern. And I hope we can move forward with this amendment. And just to be really clear about why. I think the way we currently do business is extremely disrespectful to city staff. We say we're going to be here as long as we go. The nine of us at the council, we're just going to talk as long as we want. City staff, you all have to sit here. and whenever we're done, we can drive home. If you live an hour away, tough business, good luck getting home at 2 a.m. I think that is extremely disrespectful to city staff. I think we should adjourn. at 10 p.m., 10.15, 10.20 if we need a little longer. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the way we currently do business, which is forcing city staff to go home 1 a.m., 2 a.m. sometimes when they live an hour away. I want to make that really clear as a moral imperative. I think this is important. This is not about comfort. This is not about trying things out. This is deeply disrespectful to city staff, the way we currently do business. I hope we can try this out, ending Mondays at 10 p.m.

If there's an additional tweak we need to do next week or the week after, happy to do it, but I am deeply uncomfortable with the status quo that a couple of counselors have suggested of let's just Keep it as we currently do and do Monday night meetings as long as they want. I think that is deeply respectful to city staff and so I hope we can accept this amendment and move forward with the council rules tonight.

Through you, Madam Mayor, I'll be quick. Just since we've scratched that out, I'll be supporting the amendment. I just want to acknowledge that if we do this post-unfinished agenda items to the next regular council meeting, we might put ourselves in this circular dilemma where Any unfinished items go on to Monday and then we don't have a scheduled meeting so they kind of just get punted. But I just want to acknowledge that I'll be supporting the amendment and know that we can just reevaluate when needed. I'll yield.

City Manager, and then I think we've heard from everyone many times, and it's my discretion. I don't want to hear from anyone else. Anymore.

Yes, City Manager. Through you, Mayor Siddiqui. I think just appreciate the discussion. Thank you, Councilor Sbrino-Wheeler for a lot of the work on this. I think maybe just to echo City Solicitor Bayer. Nothing in the amended version of 17A is anything more than what you already have the power to do in terms of recessing a meeting and then calling a different meeting. To the extent that there is still discussion needed and debate about how to set norms around what to do if we are hitting a 10pm timeline, you could actually just strike the rest of the amended language, leave that open for further discussion. And instead of providing guidance that at this point maybe the council doesn't fully agree on in terms of where to put the additional items, Whether that's on a Tuesday, a Thursday, a Friday, a Saturday, or just the following meeting, we could figure that out later.

And since this, I think to Councilor Spino-Wheeler's point, this really is the only amendment left on the rules. If we just said in Rule 17a we will target ending the meeting on Mondays at 10 p.m., we can figure out the rest later.

So...

So a motion to do what that man just said.

So, okay, so we had these amendments before us, and city manager, you're not the city councilor, so you cannot... All right, so... Sorry. So I need a counselor to strike everything, and then we vote on that.

I'm moving an amendment that we do. We go from 17... On Rule 17A, we stop at... I can't... I can't see with my glasses on or off. All regular meetings shall be held on Monday. Straight until 10 o'clock and start over. How it is now.

Correct. So we will strike this language. The rule will be all regular meetings of the city council shall be held starting on Monday. at 5.30 p.m. and shall continue until either the conclusion of all business on the agenda or until the meeting recesses at 10, whichever occurs sooner. So we're going to have a vote on that discussion. Councilor Nolan, very briefly.

Yeah, just very briefly, again, the same questions before. We could suspend this if we needed to go to 1015 or 1030, correct?

Yes. We can always suspend these rules. They're not ordinances. On this motion to strike all that language, we will do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor McGovern.

Yes.

Nolan, Councilor Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Motion to adopt the rules.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler has a motion to adopt the rules. Discussion? Anyone?

Don't tempt the hand of me.

We'll do a roll call on adopting.

On the rules as amended. Yeah.

Al-Zubi, Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem, Yes, Councilor Flaherty, Yes, Councilor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recording the affirmative.

We've adopted the rules as amended. We now move on to policy orders. We are at 8.40 p.m., just so folks know. We've disposed of policy order number one. and we have the exercise, someone exercises harder right on a policy or number three. So pleasure of the city council. Yes, Councilor Al-Zubi. I would like to pull number eight. Councilor Al-Zubi pulls number eight. McGovern, Councilor McGovern, polls number four. Pleasure of the city council. We've pulled four and we've pulled eight. Hearing no one else, we'll go ahead and do a roll call on the balance of the policy orders 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11.

Al-Zubi, Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem, Yes, Councilor Flaherty, Yes, Councilor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Simmons, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes.

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

The roll call of the balance of the policy order is adopted. We'll go to policy order number four. That the city manager, in collaboration with the Urban Forestry Division, DPW, CDD, and Inspectual Services, is requested to develop recommendations for updates to the tree protection ordinance that will provide further protection to the city's significant public and private trees for the greater good of the city. This was filed by Councilor Zusy, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Al-Zubi. I know Councilor McGovern pulled it, but I will go to Councilor Zusy as the lead sponsor. Councilor Zusy?

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. So I wanted to swap in a revised version of this with just a few tweaks that I wanted to explain. The tweaks just make the policy order more accurate. Thank you.

If you look at the fourth whereas... What we'll do, Councilor Zusy, is you are moving to substitute the original policy order with some newer language.

I am.

Okay, so Councilor Zusy has moved to do that. Any discussion on that? Hearing none, we'll do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Councilor Simmons. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The motion to substitute pollster number four has been adopted. Councilor Zusy, you can walk us through what you did.

Okay. Thank you so much. We made it more accurate. So in the fourth whereas... We struck both public and because the tree protection ordinance protects private trees, not public trees. and then significant or exceptional was redundant because the tree protection ordinance requires permits to remove trees of six inches diameter and greater So it doesn't matter if they're significant or exceptional. And then we struck significant from the whereas at the bottom of the page and put in exceptional. because we only want to require extra process for exceptional trees which are trees that are 30 inches in diameter or greater.

So can I talk about the order at this point as well? Yes. Okay. What inspired this policy order is, like you, I have received many, many communications from residents around the city that are mourning the loss of major trees usually on property lines. So, you know, on 307 through 9 Columbia Street. 1580 Mass Ave, 48 Garden Street, 174 Hamilton Street, near 90 Lexington and near 90 Jackson Street. There will be, in almost all cases, abutters trees will be impacted by the multifamily housing ordinance. And because of excavations within five feet of the lot line,

mature and sometimes significant or exceptional trees will be killed. And they may not be killed immediately, but what often happens is that Thank you very much. So I will tell you that I've learned a lot about trees. Thank you so much for being here. or else they're trees on the lot lines and they're there because they are often volunteers they weren't planted but they were allowed to grow because they were out of the way of yards and whatever people were doing in their yards

So because of our new zoning, a lot of these trees all over the city are at risk of being killed sort of inadvertently. And I will also tell you partly what inspired this was there was a great outcry of many residents about the street tree that was impacted by development at 101 Pleasant Street. and then a street tree that is before what will become the Harvard's Native American Center. So I think, I know we've been doing great work on our tree canopy and we spent like a million dollars to hire Reed Hildebrand to Thank you so much for joining us.

for our 30% tree canopy on private trees, but all of a sudden, We're about to lose a lot of those private trees. So this policy was inspired to initiate an initial discussion on the council floor about making amendments to strengthen our existing tree protection ordinance that we will discuss further at a June 22nd Health and Environment Committee meeting that Councilor Nolan will lead. So DPW actually said that it would be very useful if today counselors would sort of share which sort of amendments they might consider relating to additional tree protections.

And I feel confident that we can protect our trees and build housing as well. I don't think it's an either or. We need to do both to have a Thank you for joining us. They absorb, they filter the air, they filter toxins in the soil, they advance public health, they absorb... carbon they do so many things that are extraordinary so we just want to make sure that we have a thoughtful conversation to ensure that we have a healthy, continue to have a healthy tree canopy because actually Reed Hildebrand is also concerned that unless we enforce

Unless we enforce and continue to strengthen our existing tree protection ordinance that we will actually lose the canopy that we've been working so hard to grow. So some of the items that we're proposing are things like enforcing existing enforcing property owners to apply for special permits to cut down exceptional trees again those are 30 inches in diameter or wider they're really big trees that have been around for Thank you very much. developers are cutting trees before their plans are even approved. And maybe they wouldn't have needed to cut down the trees.

So it seems like the Building Plan should be approved before trees are cut down.

Councilor Zusy, I'm enforcing the rules we adopted.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I, too, am bringing in an amendment with

The Vice Mayor and Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. I'll just say in general, you know, again, I also don't like these either or conversations. I think people can support housing and support trees. But sometimes there are difficult choices that have to be made. I'll just say out of the gate on this, I'm not crazy about the – we can discuss it later – Thank you very much. Another thing that I would suggest, it's not on this list and I won't, it's not part of the amendment, but to think about, I was at Hamilton Street looking at that property. It's on a corner.

and the front of the building, the new development is going to be on Hamilton Street which has beautiful street trees in front of it but under the multifamily housing ordinance there has to be a required 10-foot setback that CDD said Thank you very much. because they're required to only have a five foot set back there. I would love to see a little more flexibility. If they can flip that and put the five feet in the front and put the 10 feet in the back, Those trees could potentially be saved. So, you know, there's other ways to do this than what's here. So I'm fine with having that conversation. But I do think this is really about and I know this meeting is coming up and I assume that that's why the petitioners did it this way.

But this is really about multifamily housing and this is why this is coming up. So I think this conversation should be taken in context of the larger picture with the multifamily housing report that's coming back. So my amendment... You guys got it, right? It's coming up right now. They got it. This is an amendment. Would be to add an additional ordered... that the city manager is directed to send this policy order to the Community Development Department for consideration in their annual multifamily housing report and only put forward recommendations that do not negatively impact housing development.

So Councilor McGovern has placed this amendment before us. Discussion? I have Councilor Nolan, I have the Vice Mayor Azeem, and then Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

I do... I have a... This is on the amendment only or on the larger...

It's everything.

So... As long as this doesn't replace the order, just because the Health Environment Committee meeting is set up, and the whole idea is it was already set up months ago on the Urban Forest Master Plan, and we had talked about the Tree Protection Ordinance, which is part of that plan. Thanks for watching! It's an addition. Then I think it makes sense. And I think just like I want to reiterate what Councilor McGovern said, which is, for me, I'm sure for some people, it's not like, oh, we can stop all development if we pass this. That's not what this was. That's not what it says. It doesn't say anything like that. McGovern. Are there ways that we can both still incentivize and have housing and development but be more flexible about how that it helps the trees. Because we do view trees as We keep saying it's infrastructure. We keep saying we care about it.

And as Councilor Zusy also pointed out, part of the issue is, yes, we have increased our tree canopy, but that is slowing down and stopping with this. Development across the city. So I'm I think this is a both and I think we can be more flexible and and move forward with development. Remember, this doesn't require anything specific. It says here's some concerns and issues we've heard. Let's make sure we discuss it. It says the potential recommendations. So just to let people know, I signed on to this not because I want to adopt every single one of those, but I want them to be on the table to say, how can we do this? The fact is if I build right up to my property line and I kill my neighbor's tree in a few years, I do think I should pay for it. I mean, that's the kind of thing we're talking about. Vice-Mayor Zeeb

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I wanted to just give two stories of why it's actually very important to be careful here and that there is a positive-sum solution, which is everyone remembers 2072 Mass Ave., right? It's a project with one-story retail and a mostly empty parking lot right near the Porter Square T-stop. So when people say like, hey, Berhan, like a special permit, if it's popular or if it's the right thing to do, like obviously you can just go through the process and get a special permit. 2072 Mass Ave has been getting a permit for eight years. There was a time when it was before the planning board and the BZA and the majority, the super majority of city councilors wrote a letter to say, hey, can you please approve this project? We think it is the right thing to do. And it got rejected. That was an AHO project that was killed by a special permit.

And so when I see things like this, which, you know, we've already made changes to go from a six-inch tree to a 30-inch tree, and we talk about adding a special permit, not just to market-rate housing, but to all housing, including HO projects, That is a very big deal. Eight years to permit affordable housing in Cambridge. And on the second hand, I saw a lot of the penalties. I'm very sympathetic. If your trees are impacted because of something that your neighbor is doing, yes, there should be compensation. Some of those recommendations were quite reasonable. and there are positive some solutions. Me and another colleague of mine who cared very much about trees, Quinton Zondervan, when we were talking about back in the day about Jefferson Park, There was a time when it was like, oh, the building can only go to six stories, but we wanted to save more of the open space, save more of the trees. If only there was a way to do so that could both get the housing units we needed and have that open space.

Zondervan, and I worked together and we introduced an amendment to the HO that said, hey, if you're saving trees or saving open space, you could take those units and you won't lose them. You can just add them on top, right? and so that was something that was like both pro-housing move and required a willingness on his part to be able to say like yes those units can go on top of the existing structure But on his part, got trees and open space saved. And so there's not only negative some solutions, there's positive some solutions that can help both cases. And I saw this policy order and I only saw penalties, no creative solutions of where we can get both the housing we need and that. You know, I think in the spirit of collaboration and not just, you know, saying like these things are bad, I think that, you know, we didn't add any additional suggestions that I think could be really good. But, you know, this order said that, you know, let's continue in a spirit of positivity while keeping the intent of the policy order very much the same. And so hopefully we can get this passed. Thank you.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor, through you.

I'm happy to support the amendment. And then if that passes to support the underlying policy order, I go back to thinking about the original tree protection ordinance, which I think passed the city council unanimously. I think everybody voted for it. Everybody agreed this was something that was important. Thank you. Thank you. want to be clear that it's not coming at the expense of housing and more affordable housing. And just to explain that a little bit, I think it should be super clear to everybody by now that I'm against any policies that I think about a meeting I just had the other day where someone was talking about new buildings including ones that are going to have inclusionary units and saying, asking me if we could do a shadow study for all of them. And that's something that sounds good on paper, right? Let's do a shadow study for every new tall building and see what the impacts are.

The reason I would not be in support of a shadow study for every new building is that it slowed down the amount of affordable housing. And that is the dire crisis we're facing in Cambridge. Every time we put out a survey, two-thirds of residents say, affordable housing is the biggest issue and so we need to be careful about anything that is going to impact that I think this policy order is just asking CDD to take a look at the tree protection ordinance and come back with recommendations. And I think there are ways that could strengthen it. One that I think of is we have cases where a triple-decker gets torn down and it gets replaced by a giant single-family home and that cuts some trees down. Tear down three units of housing and replace it with only one massive McMansion? You should make it really hard for you to cut down trees, because that's a bad idea. If, however, you are making more affordable housing, we need some more flexibility there. So it's not a one size all fit solution. I think we can have more tree protections in some instances and not do it at the expense of adding more housing.

This order makes that clear, so I hope we can add this amendment and then down to move forward with the policy order. Thank you.

Councilor Flaherty.

Through you, Madam Chair, I've got a story about why this is important. And the story that I'm referring to is the story of the Lorax. I don't know if any of you know the story of the Lorax. It's a book that I read to my child almost every night. The onesler who was interested in biggering and biggering and biggering Chop down a truffles tree. And he made a thneed. And he sold the thneed. And then he started Biggering and biggering and created more machines and chopped down all of the truffles trees and all of the animals in the habitat left. And at the end, after the Lorax, who spoke for the trees, ended up leaving, the Onceler was found by a young boy. And the Onceler said...

Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not. And he gave the little boy a seed, the last seed of the truffler trees, because they were all gone. So that's an important story about why we should protect the tree ordinance here in Cambridge and why it's separate and apart. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Do our very best to pass this, and I've got no problem with the amendment.

There's no specific recommendations here from this policy ordinance, but there should be discussions about how we protect our tree canopy in the city of Cambridge. because like the ones learned after chopping down all the truffler trees in the Lorax, when they're gone, they're gone. So I yield.

I love the Lorax.

Maybe as much as I do.

So we have heard from everyone, I think, who wanted to be heard on that amendment. So what I suggest is Yes, Councilor Zusy is on the amendment. Yes, go ahead, Councilor Zusy.

So I like Councilor McGovern's creative solution for 174 Hamilton Street, which is just down the street from me. I think that's a good idea. So the reason that I introduced this policy order was because I was told that tree protection wouldn't be done as part of the multifamily housing ordinance. It would need to be done separately through the tree protection ordinance. I think there are ways that we can be protecting trees without negatively impacting housing development, but in some cases And I agree what CDD really needs to be thinking about are setbacks, because if the setbacks are flexible and bigger, then the building doesn't have to cut down the tree roots in the critical

So I guess I will not be voting for this amendment, though I do think it's a good idea for CDD to be considering it as they reconsider. consider amendments for the multifamily housing ordinance because I think in some cases the luxury houses that mostly are what's being built that are being built on the sites will need to be a little bit smaller. So I do think it will, if you have larger setbacks, you're going to have those luxury units are going to be a little bit smaller. So it may impact housing. But we'll end up with better housing and a better environment for the good of Cambridge. Thank you.

Anyone else? So we have this amendment before us. I suggest that we do a roll call on the amendment.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes, Councilor Simmons. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy.

No.

No, Mayor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, and you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded in the negative.

That amendment passes. We have an amended substituted policy order before us. Any discussion before we go ahead and vote to adopt? Yes, Councilor Flaherty.

Move to be added as a co-sponsor, please.

Adding Councilor Flaherty. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Councilor Flaherty is added. We can now go ahead and adopt the policy order as amended and do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern. Nolan, Yes, Councilor Simmons, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Councilor Zusy, Yes, Mayor Siddiqui, Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Policy number four, as amended, is adopted. We'll go to policy number eight, that the City Council disapprove further use of sound thinking's acoustic... Gunshot Detection Technology, a.k.a. Spot Shotter, by the City, pursuant to the Surveillance Technology Ordinance 2.128. .060. This was filed by Councilor Al-Zubi, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor McGovern, and Councilor Nolan. I have Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, as I've understood after some discussion with staff, the past PAO left some discretion with the city manager So I've put this on the floor with colleagues who also co-sponsored the past PO to make it clear that it's the council's decision, that the council has the authority, not the city manager, based on our ordinance. This language came after discussion with the city solicitor and because we've already debated this topic and passed it, I will go ahead and move to call the question.

So, Councilor Al-Zubi has called the question, and so that is a non-debatable motion, and so we have to go first to vote on that, and then we have to go directly to adopting this policy order. So I'm calling the question.

Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? No. No. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons? No. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy.

Present.

Present. Mayor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes, and you have six members recorded in the affirmative, two recorded in the negative, and one recorded as present.

Calling the question passed, so we go directly to adopting the policy order.

I'll get an amendment.

It's a non-debatable motion, so we have to go directly to the vote.

I can't move to submit my amendment that's consistent with the ordinance.

Per the rules, Megan, you can, per the motions that are not debatable, we can't debate this motion and the amendment is not before us. Is that?

That's correct.

That's correct.

Move to suspend the rules. We have to dispose of the motion, and if it fails, we can come back to your amendment that you'd like to put on the floor. So we have to go directly to adopting the policy order.

Al-Zubi, Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem, Present, Councilor Flaherty, No, Councilor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Simmons, No, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Yes, Councilor Zusy. Present. Present. Mayor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes, and you have five members recorded in the affirmative, two recorded in the negative, and two recorded as present.

Madam Mayor.

Councilor Al-Zubi.

I would like to move suspension of the rules in order to move reconsideration, hoping the same will not prevail.

Councilor Al-Zubi has moved suspension. We have to vote on that and you can vote no and then you can state your point of order because I'm in the middle of the vote. So this is just to be in suspension.

Al-Zubi, yes, yes, Vice Mayor Azeem, yes, Councilor Flaherty, no, no, Councilor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Simmons, no, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, Yes. Councilor Zusy?

No.

No. Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. And you have six members recorded in the affirmative and three recorded in the negative.

What's your point of order, Councilor Flaherty?

My point of order, there's an unlawful policy order before the board which doesn't follow the strict language of the ordinance. Is the correct process or what is the correct process to insert an amendment to follow the ordinance which outlines the steps of the process to get to where the policy order asks us to be?

So because we're in the middle, we have to go to a reconsideration. If that... We have to vote on that first. If it fails, I can go to City Solicitor on future... We can't reconsider this exact vote if reconsideration fails. That's my understanding. So we have to do the reconsideration vote first. So I would say if that fails, then I'll go back to you, City Solicitor, to confirm how this has worked in the past. The whole point of a reconsideration vote is in this, whatever we've passed tonight, cannot, the way it's written, can't be reconsidered.

So, sir, you can speak before...

Thank you. Just to you, Madam Mayor, I'm going to add, if reconsideration passes, then Councilor Flaherty could... have an opportunity, then it would be back before the council for amendments or questions. But if reconsideration doesn't pass, then this vote stands.

So per the clerk... So we can go ahead.

Can I have another point of information? Yes. Let's say we have a different president and we feel more comfortable with surveillance. So how soon could we support bringing Shot Spouter back? So if it's voted and we finalize it so there's no reconsideration of the vote in three years, I mean, can we vote to change this, right? What's the period under which we must follow this policy order?

Thank you. Through you. I think if there's a change of circumstances, the staff can come forward on the manager's agenda in the future with a surveillance technology impact report asking for approval of a gunshot detection system. And if it's different circumstances than the disapproval of the current use of the surveillance technology, then the council could consider it in the future.

Other questions before we move to the vote? Yes, Councilor Flaherty.

So under the surveillance technology ordinance, 2.12.060 subsection C. There are certain conditions precedent to taking a vote. The first condition precedent is that the city council shall conduct an examination of the annual surveillance report, which to my knowledge hasn't been done. pursuant to the same section, subsection C. The second condition, President, is that the city, in making this determination, shall make a determination whether reasonable safeguards exist. to address any reasonable concerns regarding privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties for the continued use and non-continued use.

And then finally, again as a condition precedent, Under the same ordinance in subsection C, the City Council must make a determination. Thank you very much. votes that the City Council can take, recommend modifications, request a report back from the City Manager, or disapprove further use of surveillance technology. All of those conditions precedent to a vote must be taken according to the ordinance before a vote can be entertained by the City Council. So my point of order is, what's the process?

So, Councilor Flaherty, as I said earlier, it's my understanding the best course of action would be if this reconciliation doesn't pass. Then you would have the option to bring in any amendments that you'd like. It's my understanding that this policy order was put in place because it was recommended, as Councillor Zalzubi said, from the law department. to put this exact language. Thank you very much.

I don't think even if this reconsideration vote, I mean, you're supposed to vote no, but even if people voted yes, Because Councilor Flaherty was not on the prevailing side, he would not be able to file for reconsideration. So regardless, he will not be able to file for reconsideration. Is that correct?

That's correct. So someone else would have to do that. But again, it would be the only option to actually have someone Do something. Yes, Councilor Al-Zubi.

Through you, Madam Mayor, and just to, again, be clear, the policy order was written with the municipal code in mind, so the exact same language that you're offering here was placed into that policy order. Again, this comes from confirmation and speaking with the law department. on what steps need to be taken, again, to reaffirm the fact that the council has the decision and not the city manager. I'll yield.

Right. Councilor Flaherty. In response to that, the City Council does have the authority after the City Council performs the functions that are laid out by 2.12.060 Subsection C. There must be a finding on each step of the process. There has been no finding by the City Council.

So we have a reconsideration motion before us that we have to vote on. So I would go and proceed to the vote.

Councilor Al-Zubi.

No.

No. Vice Mayor Azeem. No. No. Councilor Flaherty.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor McGovern. No. Councilor Nolan. No. No. Councilor Simmons. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. No. No. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Mayor Siddiqui.

No.

No. And you have six members recorded in the negative, three recorded in the affirmative.

Reconciliation fails. So we are done with the policy orders. So move on to the calendar. We've disposed of the items that were tabled. We now move on to applications and petitions. Pleasure of the City Council on a motion by Councillor Nolan to adopt these applications and petitions. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Those two applications and petitions are adopted. We'll move on to communications. We have communications from the June 1st meeting. Pleasure of the City Council.

Place on file.

On Councilor Simmons' motion to place these on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Those are placed on file. We'll move on to resolutions. There are six resolutions. Move the adoption.

Four. Four, please.

Councilor Zusy, polls number four. Denise, Simmons, did you want to pull anything or are you set?

I'm going to try to write the resolutions.

You're going to charter write resolutions? Yep. All of them? All of them. So Councilor Simmons exercises her charter right on the six resolutions. Yes. We move on to committee reports. We've disposed of most of them. Yes.

Councilor Zusy had already pulled number four before the charter right. Does that apply or no?

If Councilor, so Councilor Simmons' exercise or generate, these will be back before us next week. I'm going to move on. So committee reports, we've disposed of one through three on the balance of the committee reports. All those in favor say aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Those have been adopted. We have no roundtable minutes. We do have four communications from other city officers on adopting these four communications. Yes, Councilor Nolan, I'd like to pull number four. Number four has been pulled on the balance. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. One, two, and three have been adopted. We'll go to communications. From other city officers, number four, from the finance co-chairs, Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I had pulled this, Councilor Al-Zubi and I worked on an updated memo on the process for identifying future budget priorities that I think it's important for the council to Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We now are defining a working process to move forward that is outlaid in this memo. There's three main areas that we will be moving forward on that the city staff is already working on, which is social housing, supportive housing, and child care expansion. Many of those are already in place, but I did want to point out and make sure that in this memo, which we also reviewed the city staff, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

as a status update so that you can all build on that. But we're happy to hear from you for the next steps, and we look forward to the next steps. They're all moving forward, but there's some... Some things that particularly on the supportive housing that it's a little bit unclear what the next steps are. The others are more in place. So I just wanted to point that out to my colleagues and ensure that Any other person on this?

Hearing none, on adopting communication and reports of other city officers, all those... on placing them on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. That communication from other city officers is placed on file.

Any announcements, Councilor Zusy? Tomorrow at 3 o'clock we have a Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee meeting about Cambridge Street to talk about setbacks, stepbacks, open space, and wet labs, among other things. and then later at 6 p.m. the MWRA, Cambridge and Somerville are hosting a meeting about our CSO, the big CSO plan. It'll be by Zoom. And then on Thursday, the 4th, we have Sierra Alessa's graduation at 4 p.m. So those are the big things going up. Oh, Biodiversity Day is Saturday, June 6th. at Danahy Park from 11 to 2. And there's a steel band performing at the Cambridge Public Library at the main branch from 1 to 2.30 on Saturday as well.

And we also have the high school extension graduation on June 3rd at 5. So I wanted to mention that. Councilor Nolan.

And also this Saturday is one of the best events in the city, although there's a lot of competition, the Dance for World Community, which is a festival that happens on Saturday, June 6th. It's produced by Jose Mateo Ballet Theater. It's free and has an incredible range of dance performances. So from 12 to 6 p.m., the entire street will be flooded with several stages of more dance diversity than I think anywhere else.

On a motion to adjourn by Councilor Al-Zubi, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. We are adjourned.