Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

March 8, 2021

Getting to know your job (or not) – Preview of the March 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:08 pm

Getting to know your job (or not) – Preview of the March 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting

When you have watched the Cambridge City Council for over three decades (as I have) you develop certain expectations. For example, when there are no City Council orders calling for the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi, you start to worry if everyone is feeling OK or if they are in need of some intervention. You also come to expect a fair number of poorly-researched "drive-by orders" asking the City Manager and staff to dedicate many hours to explore some barely-formed notion that someone heard about in Santa Monica or elsewhere. I’m reasonably OK with the latter (mainly because I don’t have to follow up on the requests for information), but I have always found the former (foreign intervention) to be just a bit out of the range of the role of the City Council. This week we’ll hear about farmers in India.City Hall

Another common situation is the failure of some city councillors to understand what they can and cannot do under our Plan E Charter. In recent months we have seen efforts to micromanage City departments – most notably the License Commission and the Police Department (CPD), but also the Public Health Department. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, in particular, has repeatedly expressed his frustration when five councillors expressing a point of view fails to result in all hands on deck carrying it out. In other words, his notion of a city manager is to not actually be a manager but rather a messenger incapable of making managerial decisions regarding logistics, financing, approving contracts, labor negotiation or much of anything else – as if doing so is somehow a breakdown in “democracy”.

One case in point this week is seen in the responses from the City Solicitor regarding whether the Cambridge City Council can forbid the use of tear gas by CPD (which it hasn’t actually used for nearly half a century). It’s now essentially a moot point thanks to recent state legislation and CPD policies restricting its use, but the Solicitor does take the councillors to school regarding the limits of Council authority in matters such as this. I generally find the expressed dichotomies of some councillors to be willfully ignorant. They may see this as a choice between peaceful negotiation and tear gas, but the significant choice really only comes up in a full-scale riot or insurrection when it’s a choice between lethal and non-lethal force – and it’s good to have non-lethal options in that case.

Some councillors a few weeks ago expressed frustration regarding the role of the License Commission in managing potential conflicts regarding live entertainment and enforcement of the Noise Ordinance in allowing acoustic music without a license. It’s great that the City Council wants to recommend some changes, but they also have the luxury of never having to adjudicate the conflicts. That said, the License Commission seems to have understood the desired goals and they are now proposing ways to realize those goals while still being able to adjudicate conflicts – something that is definitely not the job of a city councillor.

It is entirely proper for a city councillor to second-guess the decisions of the City Manager and his staff. It would also be proper for a councillor or even a majority of councillors to tell the Manager that they think one of his departments is dysfunctional. If the Manager remains unresponsive, a simple majority of the City Council can even exercise its nuclear option and send the Manager packing. On the other hand, if a city councillor chooses to bypass the Manager and directly browbeat a department head or other employee, that might actually cross the line into felony territory. Councillors need to know their limitations. That goes for their aides as well.

Here are the visible highlights this week:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on the COVID-19 vaccination rollout.
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting COVID-19 Update Questions.
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, communicating information from the School Committee.
Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. Mobile Vaccines Policy Order.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #2. Waiving Business Fees.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #3. Honoring the Cambridge Lives Lost to COVID-19.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

The City’s many responses to the pandemic continue. Vaccinations are increasing and there is light at the end of the tunnel, but the 7-day averages of new cases are no longer decreasing – and this is a cause for some concern. It may be the presence of virus variants, and I’m sure the count will soon be decreasing again. In the meantime, we remain vigilant – and hopeful.

And soon there will be baseball.

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Green Roofs Ordinance (Oliver, et al.) Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

The Planning Board recommends against adoption of this petition in its present form. While the intentions of the petitioners are to be respected, the petition is highly deficient in terms of definitions, practical considerations regarding maintenance and cost, and how the proposed requirements would interact with code requirements related to safety, accessibility, and building mechanical systems. It’s also unclear how this proposal dovetails with existing zoning regulations and other proposals now under consideration.

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Calendar Item Number 2 dated Nov 2, 2020, which requested draft ordinance language to prohibit the use of tear gas in Cambridge.
Placed on File 9-0

“I am of the opinion that the authority to dictate what weapons are used by Cambridge police officers when carrying out their official duties, under the City’s Plan E Charter and its Home Rule powers, rests with the City Manager and not the City Council; that future changes in weapons and equipment already in use by the Police Department would likely be subject to collective bargaining as to the impact of such changes; and that an ordinance restricting police officers from carrying assault weapons would thus be invalid as inconsistent with or frustrating the purposes of State law.” — That sums it up pretty well. Both responses from the City Solicitor are worth reading.

Charter Right #2. Task Force Transparency. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR SIMMONS IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021 (Order #2 of Mar 1, 2021)]
Adopted as Amended by Simmons Substitution 9-0
[after QZ amendment to have joint meeting w/Public Safety Committee failed 3-6 (DC,JSW,QZ – YES)]

Regarding the Task Force, I’ll repeat what I said last week: “Apparently Councillor Zondervan and I have the same wish but likely for diametrically opposite reasons. I have been asking to get access to these meetings (or at least the recordings) of the new Task Force on the Future of Public Safety, and apparently now so is he. My concern is that I don’t want to see problematic people dominating the conversation, and I suspect Councillor Zondervan may desire to ensure the exact opposite. Public Safety, in my view, translates into an improved police force sharing specific responsibilities with others as appropriate. Others openly express a desire to abolish police entirely. That’s a non-starter for me and not a plausible outcome of this process, but I would like to at least sample the dialogue.”

Charter Right #3. Shelter Wages. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021 (Order #4 of Mar 1, 2021)]
Adopted as Amended 9-0

Again, repeating what I said last week: “I have no idea what constitutes an appropriate wage for people who work at the 240 Albany Street wet shelter, but it’s not a City-owned facility and it serves the region and not just Cambridge residents. My understanding is that the City’s Living Wage Ordinance applies to people working for the City and to companies bidding on City contracts. Does this describe how the Bay Cove (formerly CASPAR) shelter operates? This is not the only facility they operate. [“Each year, Bay Cove provides services to more than 25,000 individuals and families who face the challenges of developmental and intellectual disabilities, mental illness, substance use disorder, homelessness and/or aging, at more than 170 program sites in Metro Boston and southeastern Massachusetts.”] There are waiver provisions in the ordinance. I’m curious to see how this plays out. After all, there are other shelter facilities in Cambridge that are not funded via City contracts. Would they all then be obliged to raise wages even if their funding sources cannot support it?”

On the Table #7. The Health & Environment Committee met on Oct 13, 2020 to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force. [TABLED IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021 BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN]

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee met on Nov 10, 2020 to continue discussing amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Tabled 9-0 (Zondervan)

Once again, I hope that this City Council will somehow see the wisdom in not overly restricting reasonable choices of homeowners or burdening them with unreasonable costs.

Unfinished Business #9. The City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City of Cambridge Law Department to review the above changes to the language of the Domestic Partnerships Ordinance and report back to the Council. [PASSED TO A SECOND READING IN COUNCIL JULY 27, 2020. TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER SEPT 14, 2020]
Ordained as Amended 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey – PRESENT)

Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Jan 20, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on amendments to the Domestic Partnership Ordinance.
Placed on File 9-0; Ordained as Amended 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey – PRESENT)

It looks like this may be ordained after many months of discussion. I’ll withhold my opinion regarding the need for such detailed revision.

Order #4. That the Cambridge City Council goes on record in support of the farmer protests in India.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

See my remarks above.

Order #5. That the City Manager consult relevant staff to implement universal Pre-K in Cambridge.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

This has been in the works for some time, and I look forward to seeing what the detailed implementation of this goal will actually looks like as we eventually emerge from this Covid nightmare. I suspect there will be plenty of nuance – in part informed by having a pre-K Montessori School on one side of me and a Rock & Roll Daycare on the other side of me and an elementary school building across the street. Any comprehensive plan will have to integrate new options with existing options in a way that parents and taxpayers can afford. – Robert Winters

March 2, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 493-494: March 2, 2021

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,campaign finance,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:59 pm

Episode 493 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 2, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Mar 2, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Tree protection and reasonable latitude; Mayor Joe Curtatone of Somerville won’t seek reelection; campaign finance limits at the Ordinance Committee; legal issues with early/no-excuse absentee voting; roughing up the Voting Rights Act. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 494 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 2, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Mar 2, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Alterations to single-family zoning up for discussion; Cambridge as a sandbox for national organizations and movements; factual vs. fictional history of Cambridge zoning; questioning support/guidelines for “neighborhood groups”; distinguishing neighborhood groups vs. advocacy groups vs. political groups; community schools program and neighborhood councils; Covid-19 update; Alewife zoning and a brief mention of the “land bank” proposal from 1990. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

February 28, 2021

March Madness – March 1, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:17 pm

March Madness – March 1, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here we go on the road to Spring and hopefully something at least a little closer to normalcy.City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on the COVID-19 vaccination rollout.
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting questions for the COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 9-0

Though the overall trends are good, I am a little concerned that the 15-day moving average of new infections seems to have stopped its decline. Whether via vaccination or vigilance, those numbers have to be driven down.

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to additional information and revised Financial Analysis for the Alewife Zoning Petition.
Referred to Committee Report #3

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee met on Dec 16, 2020 to conduct a public hearing on the Alewife Quadrangle Northwest Overlay petition.
Referred to Report #2

Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Feb 10, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on the Alewife zoning petition.
Referred to Report #3

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee met on Feb 16, 2020 to conduct a public hearing to continue discussion on the Alewife zoning petition.
Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended by Substitution 6-3 (DC,MM,PN,DS,JSW,SS – YES; AM,TT,QZ – NO)

The committee reports seem to suggest some continuing reluctance to approve this petition for reasons that vary all over the map. This may be the best shot at getting the bridge over the tracks that everyone seems to want, and if it does happen I hope it can at least support small shuttle buses rather than just bicycles and pedestrians. Linking the Alewife Quadrangle and Triangle in a meaningful way is a very worthwhile goal. It would be even better if there could be multiple crossings and a new commuter rail stop.

One person at the Dec 16 hearing said, "A single bridge really does not address the needs of the majority of the current workers and residents in the area. Three bridges would be optimal. Two bridges creating a loop for a shuttle with both directly benefit the residents at large but also provide linkage to potential customer servicing businesses." Though that might push things into deal-breaker territory, I agree with the general sentiment. I’ll add that if DCR can build an additional simple pedestrian bridge over the Little River north of this area that would make for a perfect combination.

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge retaining its AAA rating from the nation’s three major credit rating agencies. [Moody’s] [Standard & Poor’s] [Fitch]
Placed on File 9-0

Even with the financial pressures from the pandemic we still managed to again pull off a triple triple. As usual, I’m sure there will be some people who will find a way to spin this as a bad thing.

Charter Right #1. The Health & Environment Committee met on Oct 13, 2020 to conduct a public hearing to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN IN COUNCIL FEB 22, 2021]
Tabled 9-0 (Zondervan)

I suppose we’ll have to wait a little longer to resolve this, but I continue to hope that this City Council will somehow see the wisdom in not overly restricting reasonable choices of homeowners or burdening them with unreasonable costs.

On the Table #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-64, requesting Home Rule language to allow for acoustic live entertainment performances in small businesses under certain conditions without a license. [TABLED IN COUNCIL FEB 22, 2021] [Related: Late Order #4 of Feb 22 meeting]

I’m not sure how this will ultimately play out, but at the very least I hope this City Council can appreciate that there may be differences in what should be permitted in a central business district like Central Square or Harvard Square or the Porter Square Shopping Center vs. some of the smaller neighborhood mixed use zones where there can be conflicts between entertainment uses and residential uses. I hope they can also consider the fact that uses by time of day are not really found in the zoning code and that it’s really the License Commission that helps to smooth out the potential conflicts.

On the Table #5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-63, which requested a review of the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCIL NOLAN IN COUNCIL FEB 3, 2021; TABLED IN COUNCIL FEB 8, 2021]
Placed on File 9-0

On the Table #6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a further response to Calendar Item Number 2, regarding a report on reviewing the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project, which was previously answered as Awaiting Report Item Number 20-63 on Feb 1, 2021. [TABLED IN COUNCIL FEB 22, 2021] [Related: Late Order #5 of Feb 22 meeting]
Placed on File 9-0

Both of these communications are still just as clear as an unmuddied lake or an azure sky of deepest summer – and laying on the table won’t make them any clearer. You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game.

Applications & Petitions #3. A Zoning Petition has been received from Beals Associates Inc. regarding Broad Canal Subdistrict Zoning Petition as submitted with strike outs.
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

Highlights: Up to 582,000 additional square feet in the form of an infill building between the two existing buildings; expanded retail space; activation of the ground floor and the public realm along Main Street and the Broad Canal; proposed floating restaurant in the Broad Canal; Broad Canal restoration and maintenance; upgrades to Poor Man’s Landing in the Charles River; restoration of the DCR Boathouse (old MDC Boathouse) near the Museum of Science.

Order #1. Lowell Street Property.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

This takes me back about 30 years to 1990-1991 when then City Councillor Ed Cyr proposed that the City identify various City-owned properties as possible housing sites – a "Land Bank". The list included about a dozen locations, including such places as the dead-end of Norfolk St. near DPW, the park house at the Corporal Burns Playground, and (you guessed it) 25 Lowell Street. I don’t have a strong opinion on this specific Order either way, but I do find it bizarre that there is now such a frenzy to densely develop every possible square inch of Cambridge land – especially if that land has an 02138 zip code.

We used to think in terms of prioritizing "transit-oriented development" or "smart growth". Now it’s just "development" and "growth" and the desire to build everywhere at maximum density regardless of any and all other factors. I guess this is how some people define "a better Cambridge" – not me. Several weeks ago some councillors expressed a desire to build on a newly-acquired softball field. Soon they’ll be taking up a proposal to more than double the allowable density across much of the city. It’s like they put amphetamines in the Cambridge Kool-Aid.

Order #2. Task Force Transparency.   Councillor Zondervan
Charter Right – Simmons

Apparently Councillor Zondervan and I have the same wish but likely for diametrically opposite reasons. I have been asking to get access to these meetings (or at least the recordings) of the new Task Force on the Future of Public Safety, and apparently now so is he. My concern is that I don’t want to see problematic people dominating the conversation, and I suspect Councillor Zondervan may desire to ensure the exact opposite. Public Safety, in my view, translates into an improved police force sharing specific responsibilities with others as appropriate. Others openly express a desire to abolish police entirely. That’s a non-starter for me and not a plausible outcome of this process, but I would like to at least sample the dialogue.

Order #3. Budget Reallocation Update.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

This appears to be primarily a prompt by the sponsors to accelerate their desire to "Defund the Police".

Order #4. Shelter Wages.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Charter Right – Zondervan (with Mallon amendments pending)

I have no idea what constitutes an appropriate wage for people who work at the 240 Albany Street wet shelter, but it’s not a City-owned facility and it serves the region and not just Cambridge residents. My understanding is that the City’s Living Wage Ordinance applies to people working for the City and to companies bidding on City contracts. Does this describe how the Bay Cove (formerly CASPAR) shelter operates? This is not the only facility they operate. [“Each year, Bay Cove provides services to more than 25,000 individuals and families who face the challenges of developmental and intellectual disabilities, mental illness, substance use disorder, homelessness and/or aging, at more than 170 program sites in Metro Boston and southeastern Massachusetts.”] There are waiver provisions in the ordinance. I’m curious to see how this plays out. After all, there are other shelter facilities in Cambridge that are not funded via City contracts. Would they all then be obliged to raise wages even if their funding sources cannot support it?

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, communicating information from the School Committee.
Placed on File 9-0

Though informative, this communication also reports the unbearable tragedy of the suicide of a 10th grader in the Cambridge Public Schools. The process of finding an interim and "permanent" Superintendent of Schools continues, and expanded in-person learning begins this week on Monday. – Robert Winters

February 22, 2021

Featured Items on the Feb 22, 2021 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:12 pm

Featured Items on the Feb 22, 2021 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Here’s my Broadway view of this week’s Civics in Cambridge:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on COVID-19 vaccination rollout.
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting questions for the COVID-19 Update.
Placed on File 9-0

The numbers continue to look better and vaccination opportunities are slowly opening up. I suppose I should go seek a jab or two one of these days.

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Report for the St. Augustine’s African Orthodox Church at 137 Allston Street.
Adopted 9-0

This building clearly needs landmark status as the report recommends, but I’ll say once again that I always love reading reports like this from the Cambridge Historical Commission. I went on a tour of this church and other Cambridgeport churches a couple of years ago and I got to explore just about every corner of this building right down to the plumbing. I even received a blessing in the basement. This church is the real deal.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a proposed amendment to Section 8.66 of the Municipal Ordinance relating to Tree Protection and related Order.
Rules Suspended 7-2 (DS, TT – NO) to allow ordination in a single session;
Ordained 7-2 (DS, TT – NO)

Committee Report #1. The Health & Environment Committee met on Oct 13, 2020 to conduct a public hearing to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Charter Right – Zondervan

The City Council will officially kick the can down the road another 60 days to April 29. I sincerely hope that when they do finally come around to finalizing an ordinance that it will have sufficient flexibility for homeowners to make reasonable decisions without incurring unreasonable costs or having to face unnecessarily burdensome procedures.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-64, requesting Home Rule language to allow for acoustic live entertainment performances in small businesses under certain conditions without a license.
Tabled 9-0

Late Order #4. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to draft a home rule petition and a zoning amendment to allow acoustic music performances without a license.   Vice Mayor Mallon
Adopted 8-0-0-1 (Toomey – PRESENT)[Note: The City Council’s failure to consider unintended consequences here is a spectacular failure. Perhaps that will be discussed at a future meeting.]

In short, the License Commission recognizes that it has an important role to play in ensuring that Cambridge businesses and residents can peacefully coexist. Anyone who lives in a mixed-use area of the city (like I do) understands this. Only one of the current city councillors lives in such an area.

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-144, regarding the feasibility of creating a Fire Cadet Program.
Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0

Good plan, but it’s remarkable that a Home Rule Petition is even necessary to do something like this. Civil service laws may have been created with the best intentions, but they should never thwart good initiatives like this. It must be pointed out, however, that there are many laws passed with the best intentions that can have serious negative consequences.

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a further response to Calendar Item Number 2, regarding a report on reviewing the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project, which was previously answered as Awaiting Report Item Number 20-63 on Feb 1, 2021.
Tabled 9-0 (after Councillor Nolan exercised her Charter Right initially even though this was obviously not new business).

Late Order #5. That the City Solicitor report back to the City Council on whether or not the City can require written notice be sent to all abutters, both property owners as well as tenants, regarding the scheduling of a hearing regarding the extension of a building permit request to the Planning Board.
Adopted 9-0

The previous communication on this was as clear as an unmuddied lake or an azure sky of deepest summer. One of the oldest and most important rules is that you don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. If a development proposal secures financing based on a certain set of requirements, retroactively changing those requirements jeopardizes the financing and viability of the project. In this case it’s the Planning Board’s authority to grant extensions "for good cause" and they voted to do so. It’s not the place of the Cambridge City Council to second-guess those decisions.

Order #1. Policy Order re: Services for the Unhoused.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toomey, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Adopted as Amended 9-0

In short, it’s been a while since the City did a comprehensive review of how such matters are addressed and it’s overdue, especially in light of some of the extraordinary pressures caused by the pandemic. The City has done a very good job in devising short-term solutions in an emergency setting, but it would be helpful to take a step back and look at these matters more holistically – and not just as a shallow political response to phone-in democracy.

Committee Report #2. The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Nov 18, 2020 to discuss the Municipal Broadband Feasibility Study RFP.
Placed on File 9-0

My prediction is that by the time the City decides on a course of action and invests mightily in such infrastructure, the technology will be rendered obsolete by space lasers. – Robert Winters

February 16, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 491-492: February 16, 2021

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:57 pm

Episode 491 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 16, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Feb 16, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Impeachment and acquittal; redefinition of major parties; Red Sox; Covid update; observations on density and the “missing middle” petition; loosening of single-family zoning. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 492 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 16, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Feb 16, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: In search of a Superintendent of Schools and the mythical visionary; eduspeak; young socialist robots invade public comment; democracy by the pound; SROs – an idea whose time may have come again; organically grown local politics. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

A few observations on density

Filed under: Cambridge,planning — Tags: , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:44 pm

A few observations on density

Feb 16, 2021 (w/Feb 17 addition of S. Normandy Ave.) – Several years ago I was thinking about the past, present, and future of Central Square and decided to simply take a walk through the Square with a camera with as objective an eye as I could manage. The result of that walk was something I called "Completing the Square" – a little math joke tied to the main observation that regardless of any opinions about how tall or dense Central Square may be or should be, there were lots of missing teeth and locations which could be improved by the presence of some new or enhanced buildings. That was before the new Mass & Main complex (now Market Central) was built.

In a similar vein, a couple of days ago I had the notion to do something of a virtual walk (in my head) along some streets with which I am quite familiar just to imagine how they might change under the proposed "Missing Middle Housing" zoning proposal. In my opinion, most of these streets function pretty well as they are and many of them (in particular those now zoned as Res C-1) would be considered pretty dense by any reasonable standard. I downloaded the City’s Assessors Database (thank you Open Data Portal!) and painstakingly reassembled all the living area information from the many condominiums in order to recreate the total living area to go with the total land area for each respective lot. (This was like reassembling puzzle pieces in some cases.) I then calculated the FAR (floor-area-ratio) for all lots on 28 representative streets (somewhat alphabetically biased as I went through them).

Prior to calculating some statistics on each of these streets I decided to exclude a few anomalies such as parks (no housing will be going there under any zoning revisions), municipal parking lots, City buildings (like City Hall, the Annex, DPW, etc.) as well as some lots that are in zoning districts unaffected by the proposed "Missing Middle Housing" zoning proposal, e.g. the Central Square BB district.
[You can view the data for each of these streets here.]

The summary sheet is below. Since there are already some nonconforming lots with FAR even greater than what is proposed in the petition, the increases noted below actually understate the increases under full build-out. On the other hand, it’s not likely that anything close to full build-out would happen any time soon (if the petition were to prevail), so this should be viewed more as a measure of what could eventually happen as opposed to what will happen in the near future.

Note that even a relatively dense C-1 street like Cherry Street in The Port could see a 66% increase in density. Chalk Street (Res C) could see a 72% increase. Cornelius Way could have a 175% increase (that’s 2.75 times the current density). Near me, Antrim Street could go up 47%, Maple Ave. could go up 84%, and Lee Street could go up 50%. In the leafy western "suburbs", a Res B street like Appleton St. could go up 137% (2.37 times the current density) and Lakeview Ave. (a mix of Res A-1 and Res B) would nearly triple in density. In contrast, Berkshire St. in Wellington-Harrington might only rise 2%, so I suppose this is the ideal street by the "Missing Middle" standard.

It’s also worth noting that there’s really nothing in the petition that would in any way ensure that the chief beneficiaries would be middle class residents. The petition is primarily a vehicle for increasing densities and this could just as easily translate into larger homes for those who can afford them or the freedom to add on significant additions to existing homes. In other words, the "middle" part of the "missing middle" petition is missing.- RW

Street zoning on street total
land area		 total
living area		 gross
FAR		 median
FAR		 max
FAR		 min
FAR		 MM
factor		 MM
increase
Amory St. C-1 166187 146798 0.88 0.89 2.25 0.00 1.40 40%
Andrew St. C-1 39671 36841 0.93 0.94 1.46 0.44 1.33 33%
Antrim St. C-1 215140 182351 0.85 0.85 1.59 0.45 1.47 47%
Appleton St. B 362349 167623 0.46 0.53 1.11 0.00 2.37 137%
Arlington St. A-2,B,C-2 162551 82694 0.51 0.51 0.94 0.31 2.45 145%
Avon Hill St. A-2,B 159726 86824 0.54 0.64 1.04 0.25 1.95 95%
Bellis Circle B,C-1A 134257 86705 0.65 0.69 1.24 0.36 1.80 80%
Berkeley St. & Pl. A-2 335663 147702 0.44 0.44 1.08 0.18 2.87 187%
Berkshire St. & Pl. C-1 142900 162073 1.13 1.22 2.42 0.00 1.02 2%
Bigelow St. C-1 98544 99178 1.68 0.99 2.48 0.55 1.27 27%
Bristol St. C-1 105743 98448 0.93 0.89 2.09 0.34 1.40 40%
Brookline St. B,C,BA-1,C-1,BB,SD9 462788 420848 0.91 0.88 2.59 0.00 1.41 41%
Buena Vista Pk. C-1 58147 42787 0.74 0.75 1.05 0.46 1.67 67%
Centre St. C-1 112030 118881 1.06 0.86 1.81 0.58 1.46 46%
Chalk St. C-1 59707 40178 0.67 0.73 1.35 0.30 1.72 72%
Chatham St. C-1 45415 43055 0.95 0.87 1.73 0.61 1.44 44%
Cherry St. C-1 140624 83033 0.59 0.75 1.26 0.00 1.66 66%
Columbia St. C1,BA,BB-CSQ 419529 435148 1.04 1.01 3.33 0.00 1.24 24%
Coolidge Hill Rd. A-2,A-1 155629 65633 0.42 0.55 1.85 0.00 2.26 126%
Cornelius Way C-1 67640 31196 0.46 0.45 0.83 0.30 2.75 175%
Dudley St. B 162444 135259 0.83 0.83 1.48 0.24 1.51 51%
Hurley St. C-1 185549 196004 1.06 1.09 2.45 0.42 1.15 15%
Inman St. C-1 386571 347610 0.90 0.88 2.36 0.34 1.41 41%
Lakeview Ave. A-1,B 717287 299854 0.42 0.42 1.07 0.15 2.99 199%
Lee St. C-1 184726 167663 0.91 0.83 2.17 0.48 1.50 50%
Maple Ave. B,C-1 198500 132455 0.67 0.68 1.57 0.36 1.84 84%
Norfolk St. C-1,B,BA 445240 445634 1.00 0.88 3.31 0.00 1.41 41%
Pleasant St. C,C-1,BA-3 387351 425992 1.10 0.93 2.27 0.36 1.34 34%
S. Normandy Ave. B 69538 24909 0.36 0.38 0.51 0.19 3.26 226%
all sample streets   6181446 4753376 0.77          

gross FAR = total living area divided by total land area
median FAR = median FAR of all lots on the street
max FAR = largest FAR for all lots on the street
min FAR = smallest FAR for all lots on the street (note that there may be vacant lots with FAR of 0)
MM factor = ratio of proposed "Missing Middle" FAR of 1.25 to current median FAR for street
MM increase = percent increase in FAR from current median FAR under full build-out

FAR-MMcalculations

February 8, 2021

February 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting featured attractions

Filed under: Cambridge,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 3:47 pm

February 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting featured attractions

First of all, congratulations to Tom Brady, the greatest quarterback of all time, and to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on their Super Bowl victory. As for those who took the opportunity to disparage Brady for his political inclinations, I just want to remind you that this was just a football game.City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on Covid-19 vaccination rollout.
Placed on File 9-0

The Covid-19 numbers have been trending in a good direction lately. That’s cause for guarded optimism. Also, even though the start of spring training and the 2021 baseball season will be delayed, a 154 game schedule has been proposed, and hopefully the vaccinated fans will at some point outnumber the cardboard cutouts in the stands.

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,000,000 from the Community Benefits Stabilization Fund to the Grant Fund Human Services Other Ordinary Maintenance for the purpose of entering into grant agreements with nonprofit organizations to provide services to vulnerable residents during the COVID-19 emergency and recovery.
Order Adopted 9-0

Money well spent. It will be interesting to see in a few months what cumulative impact this dreadful pandemic will have on City finances (and taxes). The numbers I have heard for commercial and residential vacancies have been stunning.

Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-63, which requested a review of the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project. [Charter Right Feb 3 – Nolan]
Tabled 9-0 (Nolan)

Charter Right #2. Policy Order re Renaming Fairmont Avenue. [Charter Right Feb 3 – Simmons]
Withrawn (Rescinded) 9-0

Perhaps this item was delayed when other residents of Fairmont Ave. found out that their address might be changing.

Charter Right #3. Eliminating Hostile Architecture. [Charter Right Feb 3 – Nolan]
Order Adopted 7-0-0-2 as Amended (DS,TT – PRESENT)

I expect we’ll have another parade of clueless Harvard Young Democratic Socialists reading from their script. By the way, none of the examples of "hostile architecture" attached to the Order is particularly hostile. There is such a thing as hostile architecture, but this ain’t it.

PUBLIC COMMENT TEMPLATE

Hi, my name is _____. I live on______. [ State your relationship to Cambridge. E.g. I have lived here for 7 years, I was unhoused, I attend X university, I work in Cambridge, I grew up in Cambridge ].

I’m here today to urge the City of Cambridge to support Charter Right 3 and councilor Zondervan’s amendment to that policy order. Our unhoused community already suffers from lack of non-congregate shelter and resources every single day, and taking away one of the few sheltered places they can safely rest does nothing more than reinforce that harm. 

We hear the argument often that the hostile architecture installed is actually installed for the benefit of disabled and senior citizens. Unhoused people frequently fall into both of those categories. So I don’t think the council should accept Vice Mayor Mallon and Councillor Nolan’s amendments. Vice Mayor Mallon’s amendment removes the ask to create design guidelines for future projects, the ask to remove existing hostile architecture in the city, and the specific reference to Carl Barron Plaza which will soon be redesigned. Councillor Nolan’s amendment shifts the balance of the order uncomfortably towards housed people. These amendments hide behind legitimate concerns for the elderly and disabled communities in order to act against the interest of the most vulnerable unhoused seniors and disabled people. Members of the unhoused community have supported the specific asks in this policy order, and they should remain.

I am glad that the city has provided some services to the unhoused community already in the face of the pandemic. We have never said that the city has done NOTHING for the homeless community. We understand that the city spent $10 million on supporting non-profits who address homelessness, but the city has spent $0 dollars on non-congregate shelter, and that is what we want to highlight. Instead of spending Cambridge taxpayer funds to support unsafe shelter, the city should have used federal FEMA funding over the past year to support safe non-congregate shelter. Unlike what was said in last week’s meeting, Spaulding is a congregate shelter, and not a non-congregate one. What homeless community members have explicitly asked for are private spaces, and Spaulding definitionally does not meet this demand. Thank you for your time.

I have never been a fan of robots.

Order #1. Retail Table of Land Use Update PO.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

This is important…. and complicated.

Order #4. Redesigning Cambridge Voting Stickers.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

Apparently having a sticker that says simply "I Voted" is insufficiently woke.

Order #5. That the City Manager instruct his staff to develop a ten-year infrastructure plan for the City Council that outlines all future needs and plans for infrastructure, public safety and public services.   Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I agree with this Order completely. Waiting for utility companies such as Eversource to plan in any comprehensive way is a hopeless quest. Perhaps we should should energize the City’s Pole and Conduit Commission. – Robert Winters

February 3, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 489-490: February 2, 2021

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:19 am

Episode 489 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 2, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Feb 2, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Covid-19 status and vaccination roll-out; challenges of non-congregate housing; Kendall Square Urban Redevelopment Plan; Alewife Quadrangle/Triangle planning and transportation for real; Jerry’s Pond optimism; significant retirements. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 490 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 2, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Feb 2, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Early days of Cambridge Recycling; Retirements of Lisa Peterson, Susan Fleischman, and Liza Paden; false advertising and the “Missing Middle Housing” zoning petition; how dense is dense enough?; hostile architecture – or not?; Cambridge City Council on hallucinogens. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress