Trumping History – February 3, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting
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.
Last week the second meeting of the “Special Committee of the Whole” looked at some of the more fringy proposals from some of the more fringy councillors. They dropped the proposal to double City Council terms from 2 years to 4 years when they heard some of the negative aspects that they should have understood all along had they been actually paying attention. The proposal to expand City Council authority in the City Budget process was soundly bashed by City staff, but its chief advocate (Sobrinho-Wheeler, DSA-Cambridge) chose to strategically withdraw it for possible revision rather than see it go down in flames. The proposal to have Department Head appointments be subject to City Council approval was mercifully put to sleep, but there will be another meeting on Feb 13 to continue discussion of some of the other problematic proposals. What they do after that is anyone’s guess, but I hope they will at least take a second look at the mechanisms for citizen redress as well as what appears to be a drastically watered down version of the Plan E prohibition of city councillors going around the city manager to direct or pressure City staff.
As for this week’s meeting, here are some things of possible interest:
Manager’s Agenda #1, #2, #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Surveillance Technology Impact Report (STIR). [#1 – Automated License Plate Recognition; #2 – Locked Cellular Device Access Software; #3 – Remotely Piloted Aerial Vehicle] (CM25#9)
pulled by Toner noting that these have already been through Public Safety Committee; Police Commissioner Christine Elow, Dept. Supt. John Boyle explain; Toner notes how drones may have been helpful in Faisal case, asks about circumstances when information gathered might be shared outside CPD; Boyle explains; Toner highlights unsolved murders and hesitancy of some people to come forward with information, trust in CPD; Zusy concurs with Toner, asks about use of surveillance in LA and in NYC, concerns about federal overreach; Elow explains how we have been at a deficit w/o these technologies, need to ask community with cameras, agrees that timing couldn’t be worse with new administration; City Solicitor Megan Bayer notes how policy is to protect residents in line with Welcoming City Ordinance; Yi-An Huang notes when it is appropriate to work with federal agencies in criminal investigations; Zusy asks about use of technologies to monitor protests; Boyle emphasizes that these would not be used to restrict speech but to monitor effects on traffic; Azeem comments, especially re: sharing of information; Megan Bayer explains about license plate recording and redaction of information; Azeem asks about “Proud Boys” illustration (suggesting that he would be OK with sharing info on some organizations but not others) and about joint investigation of extremist groups; Elow notes need for probable cause; Huang objects to these hypotheticals; McGovern notes that as a privileged white male he would not be subject to surveillance; Sobrinho-Wheeler says that only concept of surveillance was discussed at Public Safety Committee, wants to refer all 3 reports to Public Safety for further discussion; Huang notes uncertain times but says drone footage not high priority, real priority in keeping community safe; Wilson notes loss of friends to gun violence and how some technology might have been helpful in solving these crimes; Wilson motion to accept reports on license plate identification and cell phone data access; Siddiqui objects to Wilson motions, suggests that technology use overly broad, objects to use of drones; Nolan has concerns about drones, wants ACLU in conversation; Elow offers example of how technology would be used; Simmons offers additional explanation; Huang notes use of license plate readers to capture places in and out of the city; Nolan questions re: access to phones; Simmons notes Charlene Moore, Anthony Clay, Xavier Louis-Jacques murders and difficulty in bringing murder charges, reality that cameras and other technologies are already all around us, disproportionate effect of violence on Black and Brown communities and need to bring those most affected into conversation; Motion to approve license plate readers, cell phones access and to refer use of drones to Public Safety Committee Adopted 6-3 (BA,MM,PT,AW,CZ,DS – Yes; PN,SS,JSW – No)
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-69 regarding asbestos concerns with the MBTA’s Alewife construction. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, DPW Commissioner Kathy Watkins, Zusy, Sam Lipson (Senior Director of Environmental Health); Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $65,000 to be allocated to the Grant Fund Public Celebrations Other Ordinary Maintenance Account. This grant will support activities focused on the themes of revolution and independence, celebrating the significant historical milestones that have taken place in Cambridge.
Order Adopted 9-0
“This grant will support activities focused on the themes of revolution and independence, celebrating the significant historical milestones that have taken place in Cambridge.” … “Events will take place from April through June 2025, with a marketing campaign beginning in February.”
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of members of the Broadway Street Safety Improvement Project Working Group.
pulled by Zusy – notes timing of these appointments after most conclusions already made, imbalance of appointments tilted toward cycling advocates; Jeff Parenti (TPT) says Cycling Safety Ordinance dictates most except for finer details, esp. use of side streets to make up for loss of parking (which is beyond ridiculous from point of view of resident parking); Parenti deflects concerns about representativeness of the committee; Zusy suggests there should have been a commercial representative on the committee, lot of concern from residents about loss of parking, asks about use of parking lots (which is essentially irrelevant for Broadway); Owen O’Riordan notes recent amendments to TPDM ordinance; Wilson asks how many applications were received (over 30), also has concerns about representativeness of the appointments; Parenti says you don’t want too few or too many people on the committee; Wilson wants to hear from all people; Toner suggests mailing to all property owners w/parking lots (which is a deflection and fails to not potential exorbitant cost); Nolan notes limitations on what the committee can affect (the implication being that there will be no changes to the CSO); Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0
First, it’s just “Broadway”, not “Broadway Street”. We’ll see how this advisory process goes, but what many residents of Mid-Cambridge really want is to simply remove Broadway from the list of streets to be reconfigured in this manner, and that tide is rising.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare a report on the use of M.G.L. Ch. 40U to determine which local statutes can be enforced by the local-option procedure in order to better collect fines in violation of Cambridge ordinances and provide a recommendation to the City Council for implementation of Ch. 40U procedures. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zusy
Order Adopted 9-0
Charter Right #1. 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. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Jan 27, 2025]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler w/concerns about staff capacity and who would be putting up/removing (A-frame) signs; Jeff Parenti would prefer to not deal with these and to use only fixed metal signs (Share the Path; Keep Right); Toner, Nolan, Zusy, Wilson supportive of improved signage; Azeem asks what exactly would change; Owen O’Riordan explains; Order Adopted 8-1 (JSW-No)
Charter Right #2. Condolences to the family of Janet Rose. [Charter Right – Simmons, Jan 27, 2025]
Resolution Adopted as Amended by Substitution 9-0
Charter Right #3. That the City Council Amend Petition One, Section 5.40, Footnote (2) to add paragraph (c) to read: (c) If the building does not require a Planning Board Advisory Consultation per Section 19.40 of this Zoning Ordinance and does not require any special permit from the Planning Board, then before applying for a building permit, the applicant shall schedule an in-person or virtual meeting to answer questions and gather feedback from abutters and shall prepare a notification including, at a minimum, a general description of the project, the date, time, location, and other information necessary for people to attend the meeting, and contact information (telephone and e-mail, at minimum) for the developer and shall provide that notification by mail to abutters, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the lot, and to others whom the applicant may choose to contact, and shall include with the building permit application a copy of the notification and mailing list, a summary of the meeting, who attended, and what questions and feedback were received. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Jan 27, 2025] [amended text]
taken up with Unfinished Business #4; McGovern comments, motion to amend by substitution; Nolan also proposes amendment; comments by Jeff Roberts (CDD); Zusy suggests that is neighborhood associations can do hybrid meetings then developers should also be able to do so; Simmons, Toner, Wilson comments – keep it simple; Nolan amendment Adopted 9-0; Megan Bayer clarifies language; Simmons comments; Sobrinho-Wheeler amendment to allow online notifications Adopted 9-0; Megan Bayer notes that this amendment is a new footnote to proposed ordinance; City Clerk LeBlanc clarifies votes; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0; Additional Amendment to add footnote #37 and to strike previous amendment 9-0; Zusy asks about proposal change 75′ height to 74′ height in Res. C-1 districts (due to AHO concerns) and to have 40% open space requirement (up from 30%), at least half permeable, for buildings over 75,000 sq ft; Toner seeks examples of where these apply; Jeff Roberts, Melissa Peters explain; JSW concerned about how this might affect unit count; Simmons withdraws this for now.
Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Ordinance 2025 #1 Multifamily Zoning Petition-Part 1. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025] (ORD25#1) [amended text]
taken up with Charter Right #3; Amended 9-0
The general trend with recent City Councils is to limit most neighborhood and abutter feedback on development proposals and, in the case of the AHO to eliminate or greatly limit the roles of the Planning Board and BZA. They see the book “Neighborhood Defenders” as the last word and that all feedback is inherently NIMBYism. My sense is that if Sobrinho-Wheeler and several others could have their way, the only permissible objections would be from renters.
205 Communications: 73 pro-upzoning, 106 opposed, 15 for the “3+3” alternative (Councillor Wilson commented last week that “the community” supports the “3+3” proposal – based on what exactly?), and 11 others on various topics.
Resolution #4. Congratulations to Robyn Culbertson on the occasion of her retirement as Executive Director of the Office for Tourism. Mayor Simmons
Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee and Housing Committee held a joint public hearing on July 10, 2024 to review and discuss the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and to discuss the City’s relationship with the Trust, consider funding priorities, and ways to fund affordable housing development in Cambridge. [text of report]
Comments by Nolan – meeting recessed, now closed, possible future meetings on topic; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
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.
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.
It seems like Deja Vu all over again. As I was grabbing links to past Sanctuary City resolutions, I stumbled upon my notes from the