I may provide more details in the coming days, but here are the featured agenda items that jumped out at me:
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments to the Cambridge Commission on the Status of Women. [text of report]
Appointments Confirmed 8-0-1 (Nolan – Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appropriations to the Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Management Advisory Committee (CSO Advisory Committee) for a term of five years, effective June 8, 2026. [text of report]
Appointments Confirmed 8-0-1 (Nolan – Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a five-year progress review of the Affordable Housing Overlay. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern about “housing crisis”, Chris Cotter (Housing) touting the AHO, Zusy says report “impressive” and intent of MFH amendments not to thwart this, Simmons stating how much “hard work” done by councillors and staff, Siddiqui touting AHO; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Nolan – Absent)
The one sure thing about self-reporting and self-evaluation is that you never have to worry about a bad review, or about any negatives whatsoever. Trophies for everyone!
Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to AR26-30 regarding a report on how the decision to install artificial turf was made. [text of report]
pulled by Al-Zubi; comments by Al-Zubi, Deputy City Manager Kathy Watkins on greater cost of maintaining a grass field, claims about micro-plastics, discontinuation of use of crumb rubber; Al-Zubi suggesting that artificial turf raises environmental concerns and risk of injury concerns; Zusy on pros and cons, says putting in a “plastic field” is “so weird”, claims insufficient community process (so what else is new?), says that in ten years we won’t want a turf field, notes East Cambridge Planning Team letter, asks if turf fields are sterilized; Kathy Watkins says fields are tested for “bounce” periodically; Flaherty on joys of baseball, insufficient outreach, cooling; Watkins on scheduling, cooling, outreach; Sobrinho-Wheeler on process, original budget request that he wanted reduced, suggests that City staff conspired to create community advocacy to support the City plans, objects to City Manager having ultimate authority hinting at preference to have a popularly elected strong mayor form of government; Yi-An Huang acknowledges need for improvement in community engagement, notes similar discussion of trade-offs in other cities and towns, notes fact that natural grass cannot sustain the kinds of activities in demand; McGovern says this has been difficult conversation, asks “Is this a done deal?”; Watkins states that decision was made long ago; Huang notes that the trade-offs are real and that if given the choice between grass and turn, people will always choose grass, but the issue is the ability to maintain the fields so that they be used to meet the actual demand and utilization, need to stay the course; Azeem with questions about relative overall costs, sports vs. picnics, says there is strong public interest in maintaining Ahern as a grass field, suggests that City should change their position; Adam Corbeil (Recreation) comments, says conversation will continue; McGovern expresses frustration (curiously concerned about public outcry in this case – even though he is generally dismissive of public outcry on other issues), wants to know what options the Council has, when is this moving forward; Watkins says the design team is actively working on designs for turf field – imminent process; McGovern suggest bringing Office of Sustainability into discussion, Watkins says they have regularly been consulted; Zusy suggests putting turf field at Gold Star Mother’s Park, put a field on top of First Street Garage under a bubble; Watkins debunks these suggestions; Kevin Beutel (DPW) explains why Zusy suggestions infeasible; Zusy says Ahern Field more like a “common” than just a playing field, suggests delaying this for another week; Watkins says that all the alternatives have been explored; Zusy suggests using Volpe site temporarily – debunked by Watkins; Siddiqui suggests that this matter could be Tabled, notes concerns about community process; Al-Zubi moves to Table; Tabled 5-3-1 (AAZ,MM,JSW,CZ,SS – Yes; BA,TF,DS – No; PN – Absent)
At the risk of creating enemies among the free-range crowd, the greater issue is not whether Ahern Field specifically should have artificial turf, but whether that part of Cambridge (and really all parts of Cambridge) has ready access to actual green space where kids can play and cows can graze (well, maybe not that so much). To this point, the report states:
Open Space Context in East Cambridge
Ahern Field is part of a broader network of open spaces in East Cambridge, which contains a variety of nearby open spaces that support recreation, gathering, lawn use, and neighborhood access to green space. Recent additions and improvements including Toomey Park, Triangle Park, Little Binney Street, and publicly accessible open space at the Moderna campus provide a range of passive and active recreation opportunities within walking distance.
Note: A strategically placed shortcut across the infrequently used Grand Junction RR tracks could go a long way toward providing greater access to nearby Donnelly Field from East Cambridge.
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Cambridge Historical Commission, the Law Department, the Department of Public Works, Inspectional Services, the Cambridge Public Health Department, Community Preservation Act staff, the Harvard Square Business Association, and the owners of properties abutting the Old Stone Wall, for the purpose of developing a practical plan to stabilize, preserve, and restore this historic resource. Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Flaherty
Order Adopted 7-0-2 (Azeem, Nolan – Absent)
Old Stone Wall, May 8, 2020
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Police Department, the Community Safety Department, the Emergency Communications Department, the Department of Human Service Programs, the Department of Public Works, the Law Department, and any other relevant City departments and community partners to develop a Neighborhood Safety Additions Plan for the areas of the City previously served by ShotSpotter technology. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Flaherty
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons, Flaherty; Al-Zubi proposes amendments (w/Sobrinho-Wheeler), claims to support public safety (?); Sobrinho-Wheeler also claims to support public safety; Azeem says he doesn’t really care about ShotSpotter, not sure what purpose of amendments are; Al-Zubi continues to question effectiveness of ShotSpotter; Zusy says she supports Al-Zubi amendments, says we should work smarter rather than add resources; McGovern proposes amendment to Al-Zubi amendment (OK by voice vote); Simmons expresses Al-Zubi efforts; Charter Right – Simmons
“The discontinuation of any public safety tool should be accompanied by a serious review of what additional resources, strategies, staffing, partnerships, or investments may be needed to ensure that the City is not merely removing an existing tool, but actively and concurrently strengthening its broader approach to neighborhood safety…”
Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to use the Federal Stabilization Fund to provide one-time stabilization payments to Cambridge-based and Cambridge-serving organizations impacted by FY27 MOVA cuts, report back to the City Council with a proposed funding plan, and work with the Mayor’s Office and other relevant City staff to engage with the broader Cambridge nonprofit community to assess the full scope of federal and state funding reductions and their impact on the City’s safety net services. Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Flaherty
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Al-Zubi (on $1 million for vouchers for those who were in Transitional Wellness Center); McGovern says those funds have been allocated; Siddiqui offers some details; Yi-An Huang says it’s in FY26 Budget for one, other out of federal stabilization fund ($3.7 million remaining in fund); Azeem asks what would happen if federal funds canceled, Huang says we would partially “backfill” the funding; McGovern comments about federal government and current funding needs; Flaherty asks if we can do the additional $1.6 million, Huang says discussion is about keeping things whole rather than simply backfilling all funding; Flaherty added as sponsor; Charter Right – Al-Zubi
Order #4. That the City Council shall complete the required review and determinations prescribed by Section 2.128.060(c) before taking any future vote regarding the continued use of ShotSpotter or any other surveillance technology. Councillor Flaherty, Councillor Simmons
pulled by Flaherty; comments by Flaherty – “rules matter”, says that in this instance the Surveillance Technology Ordinance requires that certain determinations are required prior to discontinuing any given technology – and this was not done, says this policy order specifically addresses the procedure – “we need to follow the rule of law” – suggests that the prior vote was invalid – cut off by Siddiqui’s clock; JSW/McGovern motion to extend meeting for one hour passes 7-1-1 (DS – No; PN – Absent); JSW says this Order of out-of-order, suggests this is just being a sore loser; JSW calls the question (passes 7-1-1); Order Fails of Adoption 2-6-1 (TF,DS – Yes; Nolan – Absent)
Last week’s action to disallow any discussion or possible amendments to the related Order was deplorable and unprecedented. This new Order appears to be an effort to introduce some of the concerns that might have been expressed last week were it not for the actions of the Fascist Five to shut down all discussion. My guess is that one of them exercises their Charter Right on this Order or again makes a peremptory motion to defeat it without any discussion. Prove me wrong.
Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department, and other relevant City departments, to examine and report back to the City Council with a feasibility analysis with findings, options, and recommendations regarding the following proposed amendments to the multifamily zoning ordinance. Councillor Flaherty, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Flaherty; comments by Flaherty regarding consequences of the Multi-Family Housing Ordinance, tremendous market upheaval, and how middle-class families are being forced out of the city in favor of young professionals and empty-nesters; Azeem moves to suspend rules to bring forward Brown Petition (Appl. & Petitions #1), says there is space for amendments and there is a committee meeting coming up on this matter, suggests referring this Order to the committee meeting, suggests that this Order and Brown Petition will put a range of projects on hold; Siddiqui notes that only option here is to refer the Petition; Zusy complains about not being recognized (as a co-sponsor of this Order), says purpose of this Order is not to rescind to MFH zoning but to make it better, provide greater flexibility, says height is a real issue – OK with height but only on major thoroughfares, wants green space to be actual green space at ground level [Note: many of these suggestions reflect what Tim Love stated at a prior NLTP Committee meeting]; Zusy also notes need to greater regulate AirBnB’s and for universities to produce more graduate student housing; Sobrinho-Wheeler defends minimal setbacks as a good thing, noting that he can reach out his window and touch the next building, notes that one sponsor (Flaherty) accepts thousands of dollars from real estate developers, says that last election was primarily a referendum on the Multi-Family Housing ordinance (not true), brings up capitalism, says there should be even more height; McGovern says he is open to amendments to ordinance as long as they don’t stall housing development, questions where the numbers quoted are coming from, suggests that these amendments will make housing less affordable, disagrees with having any parking, suggests that allowing six-stories is how we get inclusionary units in the neighborhoods (except that it’s not actually working out that way), acknowledges that a lot of people are upset – but that’s because the ordinance is working; McGovern suggests that the ordinance is producing multi-family housing in neighborhoods where there are none (but this is false – it’s really about much larger buildings typically next to existing smaller multi-family buildings); Al-Zubi comments that she wants an “authentic dialogue”, we should be “centering housing as a human right” and “something we should build so that we are not dependent on market forces” (i.e. government housing); Siddiqui comments; Azeem says that no inclusionary housing has been built that is not more than four stories; Zusy suggests referral to joint meeting of Housing Committee and NLTP Committee; Flaherty notes that 9 Wyman St. is an example of why this ordinance does not work – 56 units, but only one 3-BR unit and the rest very small units, notes that this is a regional problem; Referred to Housing, NLTP 8-0-1 (PN-Absent)
I’m sure the message will go out from the ABC brass to again urge their sheep-like adherents to oppose any and all amendments or new proposals that might in any way modify last year’s Multi-Family Housing Zoning Ordinance because, as they seem to believe, the City Council is infallible and every action their dutiful majority takes is pure perfection with absolutely zero unintended consequences.
Charter Right #1. Zero Waste Master Plan Ordinance changes. [Charter Right – Simmons, June 1, 2026]
Taken up by Siddiqui after Manager’s Agenda; Tabled 8-0-1 (Nolan – Absent)
On The Table #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to proposed changes to the City’s Zero Waste Master Plan. [Tabled June 1, 2026] [text of report]
Besides renaming the Recycling Advisory Committee (on which I served for 22 years) as the more updated Waste Reduction Committee (as opposed to Waist Reduction Committee), it seems (to me at least) that the primary changes here are that (a) all larger residential properties and all commercial properties (including restaurants) will now be required to participate in food waste diversion and recycling with appropriate containers, (b) retailers will no longer be able to offer reusable bags and may only offer paper bags or compostable plastic bags, and (c) food-service retailers will be required to allow customers to opt-in to single-use products (e.g. straws, condiments, napkins, etc.) rather than opting out, and to require recycling collection for front-of-house operations.
Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition has been received from Doug Brown to amend the current Article(s) and/or section(s) numbered and entitled Articles 2, 5, 6, 11 and 19 height, setback, parking, open space and design review requirements. [text of petition]
taken up w/Order #5 (see above); Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 8-0-1 (Nolan – Absent)
Most or all of the proposed changes seem completely sensible, so my guess is that the petition will effectively be Dead On Arrival as it violates the ABC orthodoxy. I will be delighted if it proves otherwise.
77 Communications
Resolution #1. City Council thanks and warmest congratulations to S&S owners Gary Mitchell, Aimee Baum, and the entire Mitchell-Wheeler family on 107 extraordinary years of service to Cambridge and the Inman Square community, and in expressing its profound admiration for their dedication to preserving a beloved neighborhood institution across six generations. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Flaherty, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui
Adopted
8-0-1 (Nolan – Absent)
We had a great meal at the S&S this past Thursday. It has been a neighborhood institution for more than a century, and the loss of a real delicatessen is an especially great loss. I really hope that whatever follows in that space (or in a portion of that space) also becomes a neighborhood institution. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that I was once upon a time a frequent patron at the old Inman Square Men’s Bar (Ladies Invited!) that also occupied a space in that block. There was once an article in the old Cambridge TAB that referred to Inman Square at that time as “Real Square”. It used to have the delightful feel of a place that was at least a bit lost in time – in a good way.
Committee Report #1. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Apr 8, 2026 to review and discuss the final research report on Rise Up Cambridge. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Nolan – Absent)
Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Apr 9, 2026 to continue the discussion from Feb 25, 2026, on establishing future Budget Priorities. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Nolan – Absent)
