In the spirit of issuing problematic Executive Orders by the bushel, our intrepid city councillors are expected to move The Bigger Cambridge Zoning forward this week en route to a swift ordination in mid-February. Hey, a 5 foot-wide backyard is plenty, right? Only a capitalist NIMBY could possibly want more. So feel free to shout “Urban Renewal!” from the rooftops, but you had better yell loudly so that they can hear you down at ground level. I also encountered this week a proponent of A Bigger Cambridge who publicly declared that only people with driveways should be allowed to own cars in Cambridge. You can’t make this stuff up.
There is also a Special City Council meeting at 4:00pm to discuss strategy in preparation for negotiations with the City Manager relative to his contract. Perhaps most importantly, there is an 11:00am Monday meeting of the “Special Committee of the Whole”, i.e. all 9 councillors, to take up some of the more problematic suggestions for Charter changes proposed by some of its more radical members. There are also rumors of a possible ballot question campaign from Cambridge’s most problematic clown-car (DSA or “Democratic Socialists of America” – Cambridge Chapter) to throw out Cambridge’s Council-Manager form of government in favor of a strongman (or strongwoman or strongsomething) form of local government. Should the ballot question materialize, there is little doubt that it would be paired with the City Council campaigns of one or more socialist candidates in search of a Big Issue. Perhaps someone named Stalin or Castro will throw his hat in the ring. Then again, perhaps a couple more incumbents will hop in the clown-car.
On the matter of the proposed Cambridge Charter, I noticed that the current draft lacks at least two notable provisions that have been a part of the Plan E Charter since it was adopted in 1940: (1) the provision for citizen-initiated referendums and initiative petitions, and (b) the felony prohibition of councillors from going past the City Manager to pressure City department heads and other employees. These are Very Large Omissions.
Meanwhile, the Regular 5:30pm Meeting of the Ringwraiths has these notable agenda items:
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of members to the Transit Advisory Committee. [The official report notes 14 new appointees, but there are actually 16, in addition to the 8 reappointments.]
pulled by Nolan who states that women underrepresented in these appointments; Simmons concurs; Yi-An Huang notes limitations of the applicant pool; Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO24#154, regarding the City’s Sanctuary/Trust Act City status, the protections provided by the 2020 Welcoming Community Ordinance, and the importance of ensuring non-citizens are treated with dignity and respect. (CM25#14) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Carolina Almonte (Comm. on Immigrant Rights & Citizenship), Simmons, McGovern, Toner (asks what may be coming), Yi-An Huang, Megan Bayer (Law Department), Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan (notes possibility of loss of federal funding), Simmons, McGovern (on what City cannot do), Wilson; Placed on File 9-0
When the Feds descend on Cambridge (and they will), this will likely be The Big Story.
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on negotiations with Harvard University regarding PILOT payments.
pulled by Toner; updates by Yi-An Huang (50 year agreement in 2004, City option to terminate at end of 20 years, 1 year extension in Sept 2023, expired at end of 2024), Harvard now negotiating in good faith, many changes over 20 years, expectation of increased commitment from Harvard, proposals have been exchanged but still being negotiated, issue of how to value in-kind contributions, seek agreement by July 2025, existing agreement was $4.7 million PILOT in 2024); comments/questions by Toner (asks if we need to terminate the existing agreement); Huang notes one extension already, acknowledges risk of losing current PILOT funding, notes that it is interest of both Harvard and the City to come to an agreement; Sobrinho-Wheeler wants increased PILOT w/o counting in in-kind contributions, prefers shorter (20-year) term; Wilson asks who is involved in the negotiations, what happens if no agreement by July, status of MIT PILOT agreement (50-year agreement with no opt-out provision); Siddiqui emphasizes priorities for PILOT $ (does she want to earmark?); Azeem suggests City has leverage via zoning, I-90 project (is he suggesting quid-pro-quo?), wants more graduate student housing; Nolan says in-kind should not be valued in PILOT but also calls it critically important, also suggests that PILOT $ have earmarks for Council priorities; Zusy emphasizes graduate student housing; McGovern concerns about withholding in-kind contributions, esp. w.r.t. schools, notes that you cannot force graduate students to live on campus and rent levels in graduate student housing needs to be attractive, old Vellucci story of taking Harvard Yard by eminent domain and turning it into parking; Owen O’Riordan notes that a major sewer line goes under Widener Library; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an updated drought regulation ordinance. (CM25#16) [text of report]
pulled by Toner; Nolan comments; Mark Gallagher (Managing Director, Water Dept.) comments; Zusy comments, notes email from Nicolai Cauchy re: water levels; Simmons concerned about gender-neutral language; comments by Megan Bayer re: proposed fine schedule; Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-54, regarding a review of Curb Cut Policies. (CM25#18) [text of report]
pulled by Toner w/hope that Council can be removed from process entirely and completely a staff decision; Megan Bayer notes that there is no legal requirement for abutter feedback; Kathy Watson (DPW) notes proposed process and proposal role of City Council only an case of an appeal; Azeem agrees that there should be no City Council role, no appeal mechanism; Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler concur; Megan Bayer explains that the delegation of power should be done via ordinance, suggest referral to Gov’t Operations because language not yet drafted; Toner Referral to Gov’t Operations Adopted 9-0
The bottom line is that the City Council can delegate this to City departments if it wishes – similar to how the License Commission handles some matters that once were under City Council authority.
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-31 regarding an update to the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan (MFIP) including revised cost estimates to help inform the FY26 and ongoing capital budget priorities. (CM25#19) [text of report]
pulled by Zusy w/questions about $23.5 million for Windsor Street and status of Kennedy-Longfellow building; Owen O’Riordan that there will be no students at K-Lo next year, expect $50 million on schools over next 5 years including $10-12 million toward K-Lo building, to be part of this year’s budget hearings; First Street project (parking garage) expected; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-60 regarding federal grant funding. (CM25#20) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui for comments; Zusy comments re: difficulties of contractors doing Cambridge projects (lay-down areas, parking challenges); comments by Chris Cotter re: off-site construction, role of MAPC; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to potential amendments to required setbacks for additions and alterations to existing buildings in the Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions. (CM25#21) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; Committee Report #3 also taken up (9-0); Committee Report #3 Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; McGovern lays out proposed amendments and votes; on Petition #1 setback amendments for existing buildings, comments by Siddiqui, Azeem, Toner, Jeff Roberts (CDD), Amendment Adopted 9-0; on amendment re: procedures and abutter feedback for projects not requiring a special permit, comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler (wants to limit legal recourse for abutters), Megan Bayer, JSW wants to table this and replace “abutters” to “abutting homeowners and renters”, Megan Bayer explains, McGovern suggests JSW exercise his Charter Right; Nolan notes that any building permit can be challenged, notes that this only requires people to listen to feedback; Toner concurs re: right to challenge and Bayer agrees but notes new restrictions in state law to baseless challenges; Toner notes that there is no majority vote here to allow legal challenge, cautions against extending right to challenge to anyone who feels aggrieved; Charter Right by JSW on this amendment; on amendment decreasing heights from 4 to 3 stories and 6 for inclusionary projects; Wilson aligns with JSW re: DSA “3+3” proposal without any minimum land area, notes her history growing up in public housing, advocates more public housing, calls support for “3+3” “overwhelming” (which is ridiculous); JSW concurs re: “3+3” proposal, claims it would yield more market rate and subsidized housing, notes his opposition to lot size limitations, objects to suggestion to delay this, claims that of all new housing other that AHO projects only 1% is “affordable”, says these changes would provide affordable units in 60% of projects; Nolan supports “3+3” amendment even without the proposed lot size limitations, will vote to ordain this proposal; Azeem will not support “3+3” proposal “in spirit of compromise”; Toner will not support “3+3” proposal, notes that developers suggest this would only yield 3-deckers being torn down and replaced by single-family homes, notes public objection to 6-stories on all residential lots; Zusy feels MFH proposal is problematic and will not make housing more affordable, will create havoc in neighborhoods, make homeowners feel vulnerable, notes failure of similar changes in other cities, willing to support “3+3” proposal rather than “4+2” suggesting less backlash; Siddiqui comments on CDD projections, says whatever we pass is better than the status quo, housing developers OK w/“4+2”; Simmons says “4+2” language represents compromise, says CDD estimates 3500 new homes over next 15 years including 660 income-restricted homes; McGovern on “affordable housing piece”, notes rationale of doing AHO first (which sounds like a restatement of the stated ABC strategy), extols virtue of increasing inclusionary percentage to 20%, suggests that proposal primarily about middle-income housing, dismisses suggestion that 6-story buildings would appear on a tiny lot but then suggests it would happen w/o the restriction on lot size, says the “3+3” proposal would add in 15 years produce 550 more housing units and 260 more inclusionary units, says we can make up those numbers by going very tall in Squares and Corridors and even taller with AHO projects, will oppose “3+3” amendment; Zusy says some developers believe 5000 sq ft minimum requirement might not be necessary, suggests this might be rescinded when a 6-story building appears on a street with 2½ stories; Melissa Peters suggests that either option will be impactful in terms of number of units produced “in a positive direction”; Wilson comments suggesting that “the community” supports 3+3; AW,JSW “3+3” amendment Fails 4-5 (PN,JSW,AW,CZ-Yes; BA,MM,SS,PT,DS-No); Nolan comments on Squares and Corridors, etc., bemoans lack of Planning Board advice on petitions; Petition #1 Passed to 2nd Reading 8-1 (Zusy-No); Petition #2 Passed to 2nd Reading 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration of #1 and #2 Fails 0-9; Placed on File 9-0.
114 Communications – mostly taking sides on The Bigger Cambridge Zoning.
Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning Committee held a public hearing on best practices for urban planning Wed, Jan 8, 2025. The meeting will feature MIT’s Chris Zegras Department Head of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning and Professor of Mobility and Urban Planning and Jeff Levine, Associate Professor of the Practice of Economic Development & Planning and Harvard’s Maurice Cox, the Emma Bloomberg Professor in Residence of Urban Planning and Design at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. [text of report]
Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Jan 8, 2025 to continue the discussion on two Multifamily Zoning petitions. [text of report] [communications]
Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee met on Thurs, Jan 16, 2025, at 3:00pm to continue the discussion on Multifamily Zoning Petition Part One and Multifamily Zoning Petition Part Two. [text of report] [communications]
The Council is expected to pass these to a 2nd Reading with ordination likely a couple of weeks later. Personally, I see no reason why such a substantial change is being zipped through the ordination process, but we are in one of those Progress At Any Cost moments in history – kind of like when the West End of Boston was leveled in the name of urban renewal or when Robert Moses ran roughshod over everything that Jane Jacobs defended. I guess it all comes down to your definition of “progress”, but you can count me among those who still prefers human-scale buildings and consistent scale in established neighborhoods. On the issue of the “housing crisis”, I would just remind everyone that Cambridge is not the problem – and we should not necessarily be sacrificing what is good in our city so that other cities and towns can continue to do little or nothing.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with a update on the status and timeline for the completion of the Grand Junction Multi-use Path and how implementation between Gore Street and Little Binney could coincide with Phase 2 of the CSO implementation on Cambridge Street. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; add all councillors as sponsors; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Order #3. City Council opposition to Congressional Voter-Suppression SAVE Bill. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0
I agree with this Order – mainly because of the burden it would place on our Election Commission and election workers. I will add that if I now had to register to vote for the first time I might run into a problem because I never got a passport and finding my birth certificate might take a Herculean effort. I do think, however, therefore I am.
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to install “Bicycles Must Yield” signs along the Linear Park Parkway, Russell Field, Cambridge Commons, and any other shared use pathway determined appropriate by the City Manager and staff. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; Toner, Nolan, Zusy, Sobrinho-Wheeler comments; Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yeah, I’m sure those signs will be scrupulously obeyed.
Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to develop zoning recommendations, pursuant to M.G.L. c.40A §9B, for regulations to encourage the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access for Registered Solar Energy Systems that have been in existence for one year, per Ordinance Ch. 22.60, specifically on structures over 4 stories. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Azeem; Nolan explains how this Order came about, add Wilson, Zusy as sponsors 9-0; Azeem asks for examples, Melissa Peters (CDD) responds; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Charter Right #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,500,000, from Free Cash, to the Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,500,000), and to the Finance Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,000,000), to support the continued operation and needed capital and equipment improvements to Neville Center, a 5-star skilled nursing facility with 112 beds, which is part of Neville Communities Inc. [Charter Right – Nolan, Jan 6, 2025]
McGovern says “charter-written”, Nolan says “charter-wrote” (Sheesh, do they understand the English language?); Nolan goes on about financial details, concerns about high interest rate and profit by Rockland Trust, etc., wants to bifurcate vote into $1.5 million and $1 million votes; Toner asks what would happen if Council did not support this, Chair of Neville Board notes that this would make things difficult; Zusy wonders why Neville didn’t get any ARPA funds, etc.; Solicitor says it’s OK to bifurcate vote; $1.5 million appropriation from Free Cash (for debt service) Adopted 8-1 (Nolan-No); $1 million appropriation from General Fund (for capital improvements) Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9.
Resolution #4. Thanks to Iram Farooq for her 25 years of commitment, service, and leadership at the City of Cambridge Community Development Department and best wishes as she joins Harvard University. Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson
pulled early by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Azeem, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toner, Zusy, Wilson, McGovern, Simmons, Yi-An Huang, Iram Farooq; all councillors added as sponsors; Adopted as Amended 9-0
Resolution #5. Condolences on the death of Robert V. Travers. Councillor Toner, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; add all councillors as sponsors; Resolution Adopted 9-0 as Amended
Resolution #6. Condolences on the death of Henry Edward (Ted) Tierney. Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern
Resolution #7. Condolences to the family of Janet Rose. Mayor Simmons
pulled by Simmons; Charter Right – Simmons (to add more details)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Barring divine intervention, the ordination of The Bigger Cambridge Zoning is expected to happen next week (Feb 10) after being passed to a 2nd Reading at last week’s meeting. Having experienced a building fire this past Thursday just 10 feet from my house on Broadway, I have never felt the need for space between buildings more than I do right now. Urban planning in Cambridge is being steadily eclipsed by the urge to pack everything closer and stack everything higher. On the bright side, I suspect more than a few residents who rarely vote in local elections may have a change of heart this year now that new building heights and densities may soon be doubling or tripling in their neighborhoods.
I was the only person who gave public comment at the previous meeting in December. Presumably there will be others this time, but the unfortunate truth is that even though this is perhaps the single most significant matter now before this City Council, it has been flying almost completely under the radar.
There is a theme that has run through recent years in Cambridge City government, namely the belief that public input is a problem and that legislation and even proposed changes to the City Charter should reflect this point of view. Any disagreement is dismissed as NIMBYism. Public involvement in matters such as development proposals or roadway reconfigurations is inherently contrary to what the elite in City government see as the public good. We saw this in the various iterations of the Affordable Housing Overlay where not only is public feedback unwelcome, but even the Planning Board’s role has been reduced to that of spectators. It’s also baked into the latest “multi-family zoning” proposals where concerns about radical changes to existing neighborhoods have been either dismissed or at best marginally tolerated. I found it quite telling that in the current discussion about changes to the City Charter, all votes to consider ideas such as “resident assemblies” or “citizen initiative petitions” or “group petitions” were voted down either unanimously or nearly unanimously. The prevailing point of view seems to be that, once elected, our city councillors become all-knowing and all-seeing arbiters of the public good. Democracy is for suckers.