Another Monday – Oct 21, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights
As Election Day draws near, the business of the City continues. Here are a few items of interest:
The City Manager’s Agenda features 10 responses to the 34 items on "Awaiting Report". I’m sure the city councillors will do their best to grow the list back again with what are often questionable requests that could be more easily answered in person.
Manager’s Agenda #18. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-34, regarding appointing a task force to further examine the Connolly Petition.
It’s been entertaining to watch the spin associated with this whole matter. The bottom line is that few people disagree with the concept of encouraging highly energy efficient building construction, and the response from the City Manager reflects this. However, the Connolly Petition was, in fact, a zoning petition that would have mandated that any new development over a modest size not only meet energy efficiency standards (which many new buildings already do), but also that any energy needs that cannot be met on-site instead be purchased from a restricted list of suppliers and/or supplemented by the purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs). The petition also specifically mandated that this should apply to every tenant in the new buildings. [Note – I have repeatedly suggested that this goes well beyond what can be legally mandated via zoning.]
On the substance of the Connolly Petition, the majority of the City Council disagreed with the petition as drafted. This has been made clear in responses in candidate forums and in statements in the Cambridge Chronicle. Most challengers in this year’s election have also made clear that they could not support the petition as drafted. The Mayor and City Manager convened a forum of experts a few weeks ago at the Cambridge Public Library and these experts generally disagreed with the substance of the Connolly Petition. The establishment of this task force can only be viewed as a way to craft an alternative that could actually be supported – and not in any way as what Mr. Connolly is now calling "a huge win for the hundreds of residents who signed on to our online petition." This is delusional at best.
My sense is that this task force will likely focus not only on new construction (which, let’s face it, is what many of the petitioners wanted to block), but on developing policies and programs applicable to all Cambridge buildings. If this can "re-energize" some of the initial efforts of the Cambridge Energy Alliance and tap into grant money to help homeowners and other property owners to make their buildings more energy efficient, then this will be an outcome we can all support. The Connolly Petition was a lemon, but the City administration will make some lemonade.
Applications & Petitions #1. A zoning petition has been filed by Christopher H. Lutz, et al. requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Map of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by rezoning an area on the northern border of Richdale Avenue from Upland Road to Walden Street from its C1-A designation to residential C-1.
Applications & Petitions #2. A zoning petition has been filed by John Chun, et al. requesting the City Council amend the Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge in the entire district currently zoned Residence B located in the Cambridge Highlands neighborhood, situated north of Concord Avenue, south of and adjacent to the Blair Pond Reservation, and east of and adjacent to the municipal boundary with the Town of Belmont by deleting the designation Residence B and substituting therefore a designation of Residence A-2.
Order #5. That the City Council go on record re-filing a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance in Section 17.20 to increase the setback requirement abutting Linear Park and to clarify form and density language with the residential neighborhood. Councillor Maher
That’s three more zoning petitions in the queue.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the appropriate City personnel, City partners, and the Governor’s Office to develop a contingency plan to ensure that Cambridge residents who see part or all of their rent subsidized by federal funding will not see their housing jeopardized in the event of a future shutdown of the federal government. Vice Mayor Simmons
Even though the shutdown of the federal government is over for the moment, this Order illustrates the dilemma that state and local officials face if and when we go through this again. Cambridge has long been supportive of public housing options within Cambridge, but much of this housing is funded by sources outside of Cambridge. If the flow of money is restricted, it cannot be easily replaced by local revenue sources. Vice Mayor Simmons’ order is specifically about the Section 8 program (rental vouchers), but the hard reality is that federal policies and Congressional dysfunction can quickly disrupt local housing options. The Order calls for a contingency plan, but the local options for response are limited.
Committee Report #3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Kenneth E. Reeves, Chair of the University Relations Committee, for a public meeting held on Dec 7, 2012 to tour Harvard University.
Committee Report #4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Kenneth E. Reeves, Chair of the University Relations Committee, for a public meeting held on Mar 5, 2013 to tour Lesley University.
Committee Report #5. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Kenneth E. Reeves, Chair of the University Relations Committee, for a public meeting held on Apr 5, 2013 toured the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
I note these more for amusement than anything else. For a long time now I have noted on the City Council Committees page regarding the University Relations Committee: "No reports have been filed by this committee. Until such time as reports are filed, it will be assumed that this committee has not actually met." The committee has apparently met 8 times dating back 18 months (Apr 2012), but these are the first reports being filed. Perhaps we’ll see the other five reports on the eve of Election Day. – Robert Winters
I would be much more likely to sit and listen to the Net Zero folks if the people signing the petition weren’t the same exact ones formerly calling for Central Square downzoning, against the Forest City plan, trying to force MIT to build nothing but student housing, threatening a 1-year moratorium on all development in the city, etc etc.
Each time one of their measures fail, they find a new angle to spread their message: transportation, density, students, now the environment. It’s the anti-development “flavor of the week”. Aging hippy progressives against progress.
I’ll be there tonight, but I’ve already seen this movie….
Comment by Slugs Aiello — October 21, 2013 @ 12:54 pm
I wouldn’t necessarily say that all of the Net Zero proponents coincide with the “block everything” crowd, but the intersection is quite large. I see this as a classic case of advocates (or shall we call them inhibitors) opportunistically taking advantage of another issue for their own purposes. People who never prioritized environmental issues suddenly “got religion” when it was politically convenient.
Comment by Robert Winters — October 21, 2013 @ 1:04 pm
Kick the can, make everyone wait. This strategy is horrible. Mike pulls the petition, this committee gets the green light, any project submitted between now and April is subject to the same “what if…” cluster “F” that C2 caused with Forest City’s project (even though they filed before C2 or Red Ribbon), Mike and crew resubmit … probably in May … and we’ve got a nice year-ish long moratorium in place. I’m just baffled.
Comment by patrick barrett — October 21, 2013 @ 3:55 pm
Patrick – Mr. Connolly cannot “pull the petition” any more than Susan Yanow could a year ago with their “Permanent Parking Petition”. Once it was submitted, it was no longer his petition, though he could always suggest amendments. He is also just one signatory to the petition and he cannot speak for all of the others who signed. My assumption is that the City Council will let the petition expire. I’m sure we’ll see another petition down the road.
The task force won’t have any effect on any party who wants to propose a new building. It has no force of law. Some will yell if anything is proposed while the task force is meeting, but so what.
Comment by Robert Winters — October 21, 2013 @ 4:04 pm
I like your “so what” stance…these committees just give me the willies. Thanks for clearing that up.
Comment by patrick barrett — October 21, 2013 @ 6:02 pm
I was actually pretty stunned listening to Councillor vanBeuzekom speak about the proposed task force (Manager’s Agenda #18). She made it sound as though the Connolly Petition had been voted and passed and that the primary purpose of this task force was to implement the provisions of the petition. Does she understand the process at all?
I’m starting to think that Councillor vanBeuzekom’s concept of public process is that when she wishes something, it simply becomes reality – no need for deliberation or voting.
Comment by Robert Winters — October 21, 2013 @ 10:00 pm
The night is young Dr. Winters and November is around the corner. Fortunately for the sane, the process exists, the Connolly petition has not been voted on, and this task force can go about its mission. I like minks, but I cannot vote for her this go round.
Comment by patrick barrett — October 21, 2013 @ 10:20 pm
The last planning board meeting on net-zero was actually kind of sad. At least two of the supporters weren’t even subtle about not wanting “those” people living in Central Sq. Those people being biotech workers, apparently. Many other seems to support mostly because it would make Cambridge “on the forefront”. It didn’t seem (my impression of course) to matter whether the plan would help combat climate change or not, rather the important thing was that “we” could feel really really good about ourselves.
Comment by Greg Heidelberger — October 21, 2013 @ 11:15 pm
I understand the process better and better as time goes on. The Connolly petition, per the discussions at Mayor’s Round Table last week will be allowed to gracefully expire. The entire goal of the Task Force per the City Manager’s write-up is to “advanc(ing) the goal of putting Cambridge on the trajectory towards becoming a “net zero community”, with focus on carbon emissions from building operations. ” I’m definitely not making this up: the goal of the Task Force is to determine HOW the concepts can be realized.
Comment by minka vanBeuzekom — October 21, 2013 @ 11:50 pm
The City Council wants votes from responsible members of the public.
They do this by lying that they are pro environment.
Reality is the ongoing destruction of Alewife, at 3 acres and will rapidly proceed.
Reality is the hundreds of trees slated for destruction on the Charles River and the multiple outrages at Magazine Beach.
Reality is the bizarre impacts of two proposed highways on the Charles.
Reality is imminent destruction of 22 trees on the Common, most because they block the view.
Reality is most definitely not illegally trying to convert the zoning ordinance to a building code, and that is blatantly illegal.
But the city council wants responsible votes, and the Cambridge Machine, with its very terrible record, just keeps on lying about which side it is on, and telling folks that nine environmental destroyers are responsible folks.
Comment by Robert J. La Trémouille — October 22, 2013 @ 6:26 am
To Mr. LaTrémouille:
We’ve seen this tired rant before from you – on your own Goose blog and in the endless stream of semi-coherent pamphlets that you hand out at candidate forums and elsewhere. I do hope that you understand that very few people take you seriously.
I would also like to note that virtually nothing in your comment relates to the subject of this post, i.e. the Oct 21 City Council meeting agenda. This is not a forum for you to simply reiterate the same irrelevant stuff you post elsewhere. What you are doing borders on Spam, and that’s not welcome. The one sentence in your screed that minimally relates to an item on the agenda is: “Reality is most definitely not illegally trying to convert the zoning ordinance to a building code, and that is blatantly illegal.” If you had focused on that, whether correct or incorrect, you might at least have been relevant.
By the way, you are not the arbiter of who is an “environmental destroyer”. Any rational person who has paid attention to Cambridge City government over the last 25 years knows that the City of Cambridge has a stunningly good record on environmental matters and I would be hard-pressed to identify even a single elected official who has not been supportive of these efforts. When you insist on calling the elected officials “environmental destroyers” you risk losing whatever small shred of credibility you might still possess.
On second thought, you lost that long ago.
Comment by Robert Winters — October 22, 2013 @ 8:53 am